Richmond-Steveston Dike Master Plan PDF

To:

From:

City of Richmond

Public Works and Transportation Committee

John Irving, P.Eng . MPA

Director, Engineering

Re: Dike Master Plan - Phase 1

Staff Recommendation

Report to Committee

:l'2 ¥1&'T -JiJ,lq IB:.?G12-

Date: June 27, 2012

File: 10-6060-01/2012-Vol

01

That the public and key external stakeholders be consulted to provide feedback on the Steveston

area and the West Dike flood protection concepts identified in the attached staff report from the

Director, Engineering.

John Irving, P.Eng. MP

Director, Engineering

(604-276-4140)

Art. 3

ROUTED To:

Real Estate Services Sustainability

Roads and Construction

Sewerage and Drainage

Parks Development Applications Policy Planning

Transportation

REVIEWED BY SMT

SUBCOMMITTEE

3553300

REPORT CONCURRENCE

CONCURRENCE CONCURRENCE OF GENERAL MANAGER

/

:: ' t'''y REVIEWED BY CAD INITIALS;

l\!X /'

CNCL - 371

June 27, 2012 - 2 -

Staff Report

Origin

The 2008 - 2031 Richmond Flood Protection Strategy identified the need to "Prepare and

implement a comprehensive dike improvement program". On June 13,2011 Council approved

that $200,000 of surplus from the 2010 operating budget be used to initiate a Dike Master Plan. This budget is being used to fund Phase 1 of the mastcr plan, which is primarily focused on

identifyi ng a long term flood protection improvement plan for the Steveston and southern West Dike area.

The purpose of this staff report is to present preliminary concepts for flood protection works "18t

will be required to address long-term sea levc\ rise and future flood risks.

Analysis

Richmond has grown into a large thriving City with considerable assets to protect. Directed by the 2008 - 2031 Richmond Flood Protection Strategy, the Drainage and Diking Utility was

created to fund the construct ion, operation and maintenance of City dikcs, drainage pump

stations and drainage conveyance systems that protect the City against floods. The Drainage, Dike and Sanitary System Bylaw No 7551 and Watercourse Protection and Crossing Bylaw No.

8441 regulate drainage activities to minimise the risk of flooding inside of the City's dike. The

Flood Plain Designation and Protection Bylaw No. 8204 prevents development from encroaching onto dikes and requires that allncw finished floor areas susceptible to flood damage be above the

flood plain construction level.

The Dike Master Plan is intended to be a comprehensive guide to upgrade flood protection

infrastructure to:

• Adequately protect Richmond from both ocean stonn surges and Fraser River freshet

events,

• Adapt to sea level rise,

• Meet appropriate seismic and other design standards,

• Follow the five strategic directions of the City's 2009 Waterfront Strategy, and

• Prioritize dike improvement phasing to effi ciently use resources.

Sea and river dikes form the backbone of Richmond's flood protection infrastructure. As a Local Diking Authority the City of Riclunond manages the integrity of 49 km of dike on Lulu and Sea

Islands. Tn the medium to long tenn, dike crest elevations will need to be raised to mitigate sea

level rise caused by climate change.

Richmond's dikes are located in City right-of-ways, City owned land, Federal/Provincial Land

and private land. Land ownership and land use issues create a number of challenges that the City must address as dike crest elevations are raised. Creating a long-term dike master plan for the

Steveston area has been identified as a priority. The Steveston dike impacts many things, for example, existing roads and buildings, heritage structures, harbour funct ionality and Steveston

Village's unique character. Development is also hindered without a long-term master plan.

Actual implementation of any approved master plan would occur over many decades as the identified sea level risk wi ll largely materialize beyond the 50-year timeline.

CNCL - 372

June 27, 20 12 - 3 -

The City has engaged DeicanJDI-IV as the lead consultant to complete Phase 1 of the Dike

Master Plan. Tasked with identifying traditional and creat ive flood protection solutions that have

minimal impact, Delean has identified two primary dike alignments between Garry Point Park

and London Farm: I) raising the dikes in their current or similar alignment, or 2) using Steveston

(Shady) Island to form a new dike stmcturc. These alignments are illustrated in Attacbment 1

and are explained below.

Primary Alignment 1: Raise dikes in their current alignment or a close parallel alignment on

Lulu Island

Raising dikes in their current location presents a number of challenges that include limited space,

uti lity conflict, development conflict and construction scheduling. Leaving dikes in their ex isting

alignment also excludes a number ofpropel1ies from current and future fl ood protection.

Attacbment I shows the dike di vided into a number of reach boundaries (sections). Within each

reach the dike' s current alignment as well as some proposed alternative alignment options arc

shown.

Attachment 2 presents a series of dike alignment options w ithin each reach boundary. Options

vary with location and seismic design cons iderations . For reasons relating mainly to land

ownership, land use and heritage preservation, dike alignment options are presented that exclude

some City, Provincial and Federal property from fl ood protection. Should these alternatives be

chosen and property is left outside of the Ci ty's main dike the property owners could use a

number of strategies to prevent local flood danlage that include changing property and building

usage, raising building elevations, raising ground elevations or constructing private flood wa ll s.

Moving the dike closer to the water's edge presents challenges and would significantly change

the look and feel of the existing harbour and potentially di srupt sensitive shoreline ecology. In

some areas sheet pile walls with backfilled dike material will likely be required to create a

seismically stable dike that is capable of meeting today's dike crest planning elevation (4.7 m

geodetic is used in this study) and those required further into the futlITe.

Primary Alignment 2: Raise a dike on Steveston Island and install gate structures to enclose the

harbour

This al ignment uses a simi lar layout to the Steveston Community Fishing Harbour Long Term

Development Plan that is proposed under the City'S Waterfront Strategy Implementation Plan.

However, while the Community Fishing Harbour Plan is envisaged to have two clear openings at

each end of the Harbour' s channel, this alternative would use gates or other structures that would

close the channel during combined high tides and storm surge events. Assuming that water

quality can be maintained, another option is to completely close the channel at its east end. The

implications of fu ll enclosure on dredging needs has not yet been anaJysed. Similarly, the

ecological impacts on ex isting wetlands located within and east o f the harbour and authorization

from Federal Agencies in relation to ecologica l, First Nations, and/or fisheries values have not

yet been evaluated.

Primary Alignment 2 (Attachment 3) shows that the proposed dike would begin somewhere

west of71h Avenue where a new structure would be built heading South into the Steveston

Harbour that would intersect the west end of Steveston Island. At this point, Stcveston Island

would be modified along its entire length to form a dike. Additional structures or embankments

would then be needed to enclose the Harbour approximately 250 m east of No.2 Road. At its CNCL - 373

June 27, 2012 - 4 -

west end, a gate structure would be built to close off the Harbour during periods of combined

storm surge and high tide. A pump station may also be required to ensure stable water elevations

during closure periods. Attachment 3 shows renderings that have previously been presented to

Council of the Steveston Community Fishing Harbour Long Term Development Concept. The

renderi ng has been modified to show the compatibil ity of the dike development concept with the

Integrated Flood Protection Strategy.

Option Comparison

In preparation for stakeholder discussions, Table J makes a preliminary comparison of the pros

and cons of Primary Alignment 1 versus Primary Alignment 2.

The two primary alignments are not exclusive of each other. E lements of each could be used

over time to provide a complete fl ood protection package.

Table 1. T he pros and cons of Primary Alignment 1 versus Primary Alignment 2

Primary Alie:nment I Lulu Isla nd Primary Ali rnment 2 Sieves ion Isla nd

Topic Pros I Cons Pros I Cons

Cost Neutra l - initial cost est imates are similar for both options

Property and City owns land and Ex isting structures Steveston Island is Government

Land Usc right o f ways for must be vacant o f jurisdiction issues

some options accommodated development with land use

Construction Can bu ild in pieces High community Low community Must be built as one

and use tem porary disruption disnlption project to be effect ive

infrastructure for

effective flood

protectio n

Adaptabilit)' to Will disturb the Relatively easy to

FutUre Raising com mu nity if raised raise in the future

in the fu ture

Environmental Needs further assessment

Geotechnical Ground Minimises ground

Implicatio ns improvement may improvement

impact existing impacts to ex isting

bui ld ings and bu ildings and

in frastruc ture infrastructure

Commu nity High impact on Minim ises the

impact existing village impact on village

character & heritage character and

assets heritage assets.

Aligns with the

Steveston Harbour

Authority Concept

0pcl'atioll and Design resemb les The replacement Ma intenance can be A harbour gate

Maintenance existing or cost of sheet pile achieved w ith lillIe requires new O&M

traditional sections is high. impact to the loca l procedures with

infrastructure for Maintenance may community additional short and

relatively simple impact the local long tenn costs

O&M com munity

Roadway Disrupt ion likely for No disruption

Disruptions some options

CNCL - 374

June 27, 2012 - 5 -

Sturgeon Bank. Roberts Bank and River Training Structures

The existing river training structures (rock groynes and timber pilings) at the Fraser River's

mouth and the extensive Sturgeon Bank mud fl ats protect Richmond's West Dike and the

Steveston arca from large waves that develop in the Georgia Strait. As sea levels rise water

washing over these areas will become deeper and the current level of wave protection will be

reduced.

Sediment deposition and erosion on Sturgeon Bank occurs due to a multitude of factors that

changed significantly through the 19th

Century. Tidal drift, river dredging and river training

structures all impact sedimentation in the Fraser River Delta. It is unclear how current

sedimentation patterns will effect Sturgeon Bank's ability to mitigate wave action, however, any

net erosion is anticipated to exacerbate the loss of wave protection caused by rising sea levels.

The maintenance and enhancement of river training structures is anticipated to help protect

Richmond from waves and wi ll also benefit shipping and local harbour activities. As is now

being practiced around the world, beach nourishment (the addition of sand and sediment to a

"beach") may be used to grow mud flat and sand banks to restore (e.g. New Orleans, Louisiana)

or enhance (e.g. ocean beaches, The Netherlands) wave protection. Although its effectiveness in

the Fraser River Delta is not yet understood, the careful planning of beach nourishments may

mitigate wave action from the Georgia Strait and benefit the natural envirolUnent (Steveston

Island is partially manmade which over the last 50 to 100 years has changed from a low lying

sand bank into its current make up of trees, plants and intertidal beaches that support an

abundance of wildlife). Sturgeon Banks arc currently designated as Provincially protected for

their high well and ecological value and migratory bird habitat.

Reach 8, Options B and C (Attachment 2) indicate how elevating Sturgeon Bank or creating a

chain of islands along it (similar to Steveston Island) could reduce current and future wave action

on the west dike that would minimise future dike crest elevation upgrades.

Next Steps

Staff plan to gain feedback from key stakeholders and the public. Key stakeholders include:

• Steveston Harbour Authority

• Small Craft Harbours

• Port Metro Vancouver

• Department of Fisheries and Oceans

• Be Inspector of Dikes

• Gulf of Georgia Cannery Society / Parks Canada

• Britannia Heritage Shipyard Socicty

• Heritage Advisory Committee

• Advisory Committee on the Environment CNCL - 375

June 27, 2012 - 6 -

The key stakeholder group will be engaged through ongoing meetings and communications.

Public consultation would include two public open houses held before the end of September.

Financial Impact

None.

Conclusion

Consistent with the City ' s 2008 - 203 1 Richmond Flood Protection Strategy, Phase I of a Dike

Master Plan is being prepared. Two primary dike al ignments in the Steveston arca as well as

wave mitigation strategies for the southern West Dike area have been prepared for key

stakeholder consultation. Staff plan to engage stakeholders so that they may provide input into

dClcmlining a preferred fu ture dike alignment in the Stevcston area.

Lloyd ie, P.Eng.

Mana er, Engineering Planning

(604-276-4075)

LB: lb

/(5pt Andy Bell, P.Eng., M.Eng.

Project Engineer, Engineering Planning

(604-247-4656)

CNCL - 376

I

1

\

; f

Attachment I

E

§

8

0

§ 0

I I I .

d I I

CNCL - 377

Future Design Stonn Surge & Waves

Current Design

•. 0 Stonn Surge & Waves

'" I" 4.0

z

'" 0.0

-2.0

, , 0 10

, 20 30

Future expandabillty

Attachment 2

I earth Dike

Denstry ground for .elsmlc stabtlfty

40 50

LEGEND Flood Protection CURRENT DIKE ALIGNMENT

PRIMARY ALIGNMENT 1 • LULU ISLAND ALIGNMENTS

PRIMARY ALI GNMENT 2 · STEVESTON ISLAND

REACH BOUNDARIES

FEDERAUPROVINCIAL OWNED LAND

CITY OWNED LAND

----I + + + + +1

Improvement Alternatives

Reach 1: London/Princess

Option A

EB3763 July 201 2 CNCL - 378

Current Oeslgn Storm Surge &

8.0 Waves

a 0.0

;;;

-2.0

.Iope facti for •• Ianle ."blilly. WllYe dissipation & to raise riparian wetland. In paee with sea level rise

, " '"

LEGEND:

CURRENT DIKE ALIGNMENT

PRIMARY ALIGNMENT 1 - LULU ISLAND ALIGNMENTS

PRIMARY ALIGNMENT 2 - STEVESTON ISLAND

REACH BOUNDARIES

FEDERAUPROVINCIAL OVv'NED LAND

CITY OVv'NED LAND

30

----I + + + + +1

t t t + +

Future expandability

'" Flood Protection


Reach 1: London/Princess

Option B

EB3763 July 2012 CNCL - 379

Future Design Storm Surge & Waves

Current Oaslgn Storm Surge &

waves Future expandability

Sheet Pile /

/ / Ll 1

.Je , -II i

__ 8.0

4.0

"' 0.0

__ '

g -40

al -8.0

++-__ Dent.tfy ground for .... mlc stabil ity

LEGEND:




REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OWNED LAND

---------I + + + + +1

+ t t t t

Flood Protection


Reach 2: Paramount

Option A

EB3763 July 2012

CNCL - 380

Current Future Design De&lgn Stonn Stonn Surge &

I:: .. 'd .. '_b_lli_t'J_l

il 0"0 "------,

"

" 0 .," .... -8.0

___ Density ground for

seismic stability

o

LEGEND:




REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OWNED LAND

-----------I + + + + +1 + * * t t

Flood Protection


Reach 2: Paramount

Option B

EB3763 July 2012 CNCL - 381

8.0

-4.0

Current Design Stonn Surge & Waves

Future Design Stonn Surge &

aves Future Standard expandabllIty Setback Earth I

! Dike r r _________ nh . /'

__ l(.. -·8.0

100 110 ,20 130 140 o 10 20 L,--J Existing Setback Dike In Port land

I New Dike ROW

LEGEND:




REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OWNED LAND

---------

Flood Protection


Reach 2: Paramount

Option C

EB3763 July 2012

CNCL - 382

Cu"ent Design

• ), 0000 !

Future Design :l Stonn Surge & Future expandabilily

Storm Surge & Waves

Waves

_ 80 \

4.0

10 0.0

z Ie< 0 -4.0

-8 .0 w

0 10 30 I

New Dike ROW

LEGEND:




REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OV\ft"lED LAND

100 11 0

---------t + + + + +1

+ ± + + * I

1 i' r ['---'I

J I [

II J - " .. .. ..

120 130 140

Flood Protection


Reach 2: Paramount

Option D

EB3763 July 2012

CNCL - 383


. "

LEGEND:

Raise or Floodproof Structures

Cumtnt Design Outside of Dike Storm Surge & \ Wave.

"




REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OVVNED LAND

" &0 >0

Raise Of'

Floodproof Structures Outside of Dike

'"

Future expandabllity

Earth Fill Dike Wide, Flat and Setback For Stability

I

Existing Dike ROW

----

Flood Protection


Reach 3: Britannia

Option A -----

EB3763 July 2012

CNCL - 384

RAISE BUILDINGS

Current D.slgn Storm Surge & Wavelli

LEGEND:

Rals. or Floodproof Future Design Structures Outside of

Storm Surge & Dike Waves




REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OVJNED LAND

o \:4000 ! " !

"oe' Pile

Future expand.bUlty

---------

Flood Protection


Reach 3: Britannia

Option B

EB3763 July 2012 CNCL - 385

• • ......

...... ...... ---.. ......

Earth Fill with densificatlon

Future Design Current

Storm Surge Design & Waves Storm

Surge &

Wave.

expandabUlty

! Future

LEGEND:

8.0

i 4 .0

_ 0 ,0

·'.0

-8.0

o


10

....... .1 . '.

20 '0 50

I New Dike ROW

PRIMARY ALIGNMENT 1 - LULU ISLAND ALIGNMENTS - - - -


REACH BOUNDARIES - - - - -

FEDERAUPRQVINCIAL OWNED LAND

CITY OWNED LAND

I + + + + +1 t + * * t

70 80 9Q

Flood Protection


Reach 4: Be Packers

EB3763 July 2012 CNCL - 386

iii • .. 4.0

A ••

5 o

LEGEND:

Future Deslg" Stonn Surge &

W ......

Cumnl De.llln Stonn Surge & Wav ••

CURRENT DIKE AliGNMENT

Signifi.::.n! wawolln Harbour



REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OVIfNED LAND

Railing. waterproofing, and/or ero.lon protection by property owne .... .t their rhlk

Future elqMnilon

----t ... ... ... ... "' I * t + t +

, III

Flood Protection


Reach 5: Steveston Village

Option A

EB3763 July 2012 CNCL - 387

1 i:: ••• , . -LO , oJ _a. Q

LEGEND:

FutUAI OHlg" Storm Surge

" W.V1tS

No Impl'Cl'Mme""to 1.land (Albion dike. Of S. Jetty)

•


I

SlgnlfiCllnl w.v •• ln Harbour

I

..... '"

N .. Dlk,ROW

Deonslfled fill " .... ;:hOl'1l

PRIMARY ALIGNMENT 1 • LULU ISLAND ALIGNMENTS ----PRIMARY ALIGNMENT 2 - STEVESTON ISLAND _____ _

REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OWNED LAND

t + + + + +1 ± * + + +

'"

' :4000 t. !

-----'"

Dike backed by ... aM, tlglll. seismically atllblllzed foundatlon l with r.dtIwlopmant

Flood Protection


Reach 5: Steveston Village

Option B

EB3763 July 2012 CNCL - 388

1:4000

Current Design F Future Design StormSurge& uture

.. • jW,.'.'." .. _ .......... , expandabUlly

u> 4.0 100 r-j[.-. ...... __ , --...-.

I

1 1

Il'; F: " In-"' 11 J " I " - .. -

z

i 4 0

Shoo< Pile W -6.0

o w I

New Dike ROW

LEGEND:


180 , 200 220 1 I

Existing Dike ROW

PRIMARY ALIGNMENT 1 - LULU ISLAND ALIGNMENTS - - - -


REACH BOUNDARIES - - - --


CITY OWNED LAND

''''' '60

Flood Protection


Reach 6: Gulf of Georgia

EB3763 July 2012

CNCL - 389

CUrrent Design Storm Surge &

Waves

8'

i 4.0

0 .0 z

-4.0

-8.0

LEGEND:

, 10


Future Design Storm Surge & Waves

JO

Setback Dike Leaves Park Space Vulnerabkt 10 Occasional Inundation in the Long

50 60

Earth Fill Dike Wide Flat and Setback Future

r---'" ... '"

80 60

PRIMARY ALIGNMENT 1 - LULU ISLAND ALIGNMENTS - - - _


Flood Protection


Reach 7: Garry Point REACH BOUNDARIES - - - - -


CITY OWNED LAND

I + '" '" '" "'I ± * * t t

I EB3763 July 2012

CNCL - 390

8.0

4.0

0.0

-4.0

-8.0

+ + + • •

.. .. .. + t .. .. ..

ftt.+ ••• fttttttt +tt .. ,. .. +

.++i-+++t •

" •• ++t .... +++++t++

ft+tft ...

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. + t .. .. .. .. .. .. +

t .. .. .. .. .. .. + t .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. + tt+t.+++ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Future Design Storm Surge &

Waves

Current

Design Storm Surge &

Waves

• • • .. .. .. + • • •

• • • • .. .. .. +

t .. .. .. + .. .. .. ... t .. .. +- + tt+.t.

t .... .......... + • • • tt fttt+.

• .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. t

• tt ++++++++

• • • .. .... .............. + .. + tt +t++ ....... +

to. ++++++++++ ++ ft ......... ++.

++ •• +t++.+.+. .... • t ... tt.+++. ..... + .. +t+ ......

+ +t++++".++t .. ++ +++++++++++

.. ftft.+ ... ++. ++ .ft+t+.+ ++

• • •

Toe Berm for

Wave Dissipation

Future expandablllty

/Wlde, Flat - / _ Earth Dike -----

• o.ntllIy ground for --- seismic stability

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60

LEGEND:




REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OWNED LAND

----I + + + + +1

t ± * * t

Flood Protection


Reach 8: West Dike

Option A

EB3763 July 2012 CNCL - 391

8.0

_ 4.0

I 0.0

-4.0 ;,

".0

LEGEND:

a

+ • +

.-+ .... . ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ++++++

+ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ++++++ •

• • + +

• .. .. .. oj- ..

• + + • • + +

• + •

+ • •

+ • •

+ • + + •

• +

.. .. .. .. .. +++++++

• • • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. +++++++

+ +

+ +

• • +

• + •

+ +

• • •

+ + + +

+ • + '

• • • • •

• •

•

+

+

+ + +

+++++ ++ ++++++++ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

++ .. ++++++++ .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .. ++++++++++++ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ++++++++++++ ++++++++++ +

• • •

.+ •• + •• + ••• • ....... + ...... ++++++++++

+++++++++++ ++++++++'t+

• • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

++++++++

• +

• + .............. ... .. t- .................. " ....

+++++++++ +++++ ++ ..

_--J-'--'- ••• • •


Natural or Enhanced Sedimentation & Rise In Sturgeon Banks Coinciding with SLR

Stonn Surge & Waves

Toe Berm for Wave Dissipation Future

expandability

/W1de,Flat _ / Earth Dike

-- -

10 20 30 40 50 60

Raise where compatible with redevelopment

70 80

CURRENT DIKE ALIGNMENT Flood Protection


Reach 8: West Dike

Option B


PRIMARY ALIGNMENT 2 • STEVESTON ISLAND

REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OWNED LAND

----I + + + + +1 1* * * * *

EB3763 July 2012

CNCL - 392

8,0

+++++++ .. '!:...-t ... .. •

... .... +

............ ",".IIi,.,- .. +

++++ ... +++ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. +

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. + .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. + .. .. .. .. .. .. . ++++++++

+++++ ..... -"-'---"-- .. ... ... Jt

BARRIER ISLANDS,

BREAKWATER

Future Design Current Storm Surge & Design

• • +++++++++

I··· .. ····· .. ++++++++++++++ 1+ .......................... + .. .. f .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. +

+++++++++++++++ .. .. ........ .. .. .. .. +

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. +

•·:'If .. ...... .. + ... tt.... J .... + .. .. .. .. .. _.tI" .. "f-

++++++ +++++++++++

++ ++++.++++++ ++ +++++++++++

.. ++++++++++++ ........................ + J __

.. +++++++++++! .. +++++++++++,

• • •

Waves Stonn Surge Future expandability &

in 4.0

'" til ;;t 0.0 f

/

Wlde,Flat Earth Dike

z 0

-4.0

" ·8.0

Breakwaters Density ground for ··-- oelamlc otabUIty

o 10 20 130 140 150 160 170

LEGEND:




REACH BOUNDARIES


CITY OVVNED LAND

---------I + + + + +1 * * * t t

Flood Protection


Reach 8: West Dike

Option C

EB3763 July 2012

180

CNCL - 393

CONSTRUCT A

FLOODGATE

Attachment 3

CONSTRUCT A

FORMAL DIKE

!if 4.0

;:: 6 0.0

i 4 .0

_ .a.0

Future Dellgn Storm Surge &Wav • •

o "

FloodGate Structure and Pump Station

within Dike

Full wndard Earth Dlk.

Clos. prior Improve and ral •• with

CONSTRUCT A

FLOODGATE

to Storm ra-development .urge and rl ____ ---'-1 ____ ---,

Current Design

Surge & Waves

r-f';hf .. ./ '.,"'. '. '.

" II II II II I

.... '. " '. " " ..... " . '.\ ... -

-Denlity founcUtJon

;,

City of Richmond Dike Master Plan

Primary Alignment 2 - Steveston Island

EB3763 June 2012

CNCL - 394

! , ! I • I

I I

j' I 1>0.

I j

i ! !

..

.,. - .' '- ' ;' ..

City of Richmond Dike Master Plan

Steveston Community Fishing Harbour Longterm

Development Concept with Integrated Flood Protection

EB3763 June 2012 I CNCL - 395

Documents

Richmond-Steveston Dike Master Plan PDF