[0:07] All right, welcome everyone. Um, we'll

[0:09] be getting started here in just a

[0:11] moment. Right at 7 o'clock, we'll kick

[0:14] things off. So yeah, just about a minute

[0:17] from start time.

[0:35] Okay, so yeah, it's 7 o'clock. Um, good

[0:37] evening and thanks for joining us for

[0:39] the community information meeting. Uh my

[0:41] name is Nathan Seammens and I'm in the

[0:43] communications department at the RDUK.

[0:45] Um before I hand it over to Director

[0:47] Clochuk, I'd like to just give a quick

[0:49] rundown on what to expect this evening.

[0:51] Uh first off, the meeting is being

[0:54] recorded, so got that out of the way

[0:56] right away. And we will be posted on the

[0:58] engage page at engage.rdek.bc.ca/debris.

[1:04] And we'll get that up within the next

[1:06] day, maybe two. Um once the recording

[1:10] recorded meeting is posted, we will send

[1:12] out an email with the link. Um and so if

[1:14] you're not signed up for the community

[1:16] emails, uh you can do that by visiting

[1:18] rdk.bc.ca

[1:21] and clicking the stay informed link at

[1:23] the top of your page. Um so after

[1:26] director clochuk's introductions and the

[1:28] staff presentations, we will be

[1:30] answering the questions from all the

[1:32] attendees.

[1:34] So, um, in the interest of time and

[1:36] clarity, we'll be using Zoom's Q&A tool

[1:39] to collect the questions. You can find

[1:40] that at the bottom of your screen. It's

[1:42] a little question mark and says Q&A. Um,

[1:46] so yeah, we'll be using the Q&A tool and

[1:48] we will also be going through the

[1:50] questions that were submitted on the

[1:51] project engage page at that time. Uh,

[1:54] we'll attempt to address all of the

[1:55] questions in the order that they are

[1:57] received. And if your question pertains

[2:00] to a specific slide during the

[2:01] presentation, please try to reference

[2:04] that slide number. Slide numbers are in

[2:06] the upper right of each slide. The

[2:08] reason we're asking this is just

[2:11] um so that we can the answerer of the

[2:13] question can be certain as to what

[2:16] they're answering. If you missed the

[2:19] slide number, that's no problem. Please

[2:20] still answer or ask your question. Um

[2:23] yeah, and now I'll pass it on to

[2:24] Director Clchuk.

[2:26] » Great. Thank you, Nathan, and thanks for

[2:28] all your work uh on tonight's meeting.

[2:32] Um you kind of keeping us going from a

[2:34] technology perspective. Um if you have

[2:37] any kind of technical questions, you can

[2:40] also throw them Nathan's way. Um tonight

[2:43] we're we're joined uh we have a lot of

[2:46] information to share as you can well

[2:48] imagine if you looked at the engage page

[2:49] and saw the reports. Um, we're start

[2:53] we're going to start with uh Christina

[2:54] Carbury who is our protective services

[2:57] manager and then uh Carara Xanberen our

[3:01] uh flood and mitigation and water

[3:03] project supervisor in our engineering

[3:04] department and Karen Mloud our planning

[3:08] manager from our planning and

[3:09] development uh department. And then

[3:11] during the Q&A, we're going to be um

[3:14] also supported by consultants who worked

[3:16] on the reports. Uh Beatrice Kalipadia um

[3:20] geological engineer for BGC engineering

[3:23] and Tamson Mills, a senior planner for

[3:25] Pina sustainability. Um I encourage you

[3:28] to put your questions in to the Q&A as

[3:32] we uh as we go through the presentation

[3:35] and um as you can see there is the

[3:37] agenda. So without any further ado,

[3:40] we'll get started with understanding

[3:42] hazard risk and uh Christina.

[3:49] » Uh great. Thank you, Director Club. Uh

[3:52] so good evening everyone. Uh my name is

[3:54] Christina Carbury. I'm the protective

[3:56] services manager for the regional

[3:57] district and I'm responsible for

[3:59] emergency management and rural fire

[4:01] services within the regional district.

[4:03] Uh so this evening we're going to spend

[4:05] some time talking about hazard and risk.

[4:07] And when we talk about hazard, what

[4:09] we're talking about is actually the

[4:10] natural processes themselves. So that

[4:13] would be things like steep creeks and

[4:15] heavy rainfall and the potential for

[4:16] debris to move downhill. When we're

[4:18] talking about risk, we're talking about

[4:20] who and what might possibly be in harm's

[4:22] way and how severe the impact could be.

[4:25] Um both are key in how we plan and how

[4:27] we respond. Next slide.

[4:34] So, uh, hazard is the event and risk is

[4:37] the impact. The hazard doesn't change.

[4:40] Fairmont Creek will always have the

[4:42] potential for debris flows, but our risk

[4:44] changes depending on where people live,

[4:46] how properties are designed, and what

[4:48] systems we have in place for warning and

[4:50] response.

[4:52] Risk impact to put it into perspective

[4:54] is the effect that a debris flow could

[4:56] have on you, your neighbors, your homes,

[4:59] properties, and businesses, which

[5:01] essentially means life safety,

[5:03] structural damages, and economic losses,

[5:05] uh, such as income.

[5:08] Risk can be a challenging thing to put

[5:09] into a relatable context. So, I'll give

[5:11] you a couple of examples here, but

[5:12] you're going to hear many examples

[5:14] throughout the evening. [sighs]

[5:16] So for a 1 in300

[5:18] uh debris flow would be similar to

[5:21] having a 0.3% chance of it happening

[5:23] each year. So what that means in an

[5:26] easier context would be over 25 years uh

[5:29] the time uh the time many people will

[5:31] come uh sorry the time many people live

[5:34] in a home that adds up to roughly an 8%

[5:36] chance. Uh that's roughly the same odds

[5:39] as your car needing a major repair at

[5:41] least once over 25 years. It's not a

[5:43] guarantee, but it is absolutely

[5:45] realistic.

[5:46] Now, looking at something like a 1 in

[5:49] 1,000-year debris flow, uh that would be

[5:52] similar to a 0.1% chance per year. So,

[5:55] over 25 years, that becomes roughly a

[5:57] 2.5% chance. And that would be

[5:59] comparable to the chance of your airline

[6:01] losing your luggage at least once in

[6:03] your lifetime. It's unlikely, but it

[6:05] does happen. Next slide.

[6:10] So when hazards become emergencies, uh

[6:13] when a known hazard turns into an active

[6:15] event, our job is to translate that risk

[6:17] information into action. Uh the

[6:19] protective services department leads

[6:21] evacuations, coordinates emergency

[6:23] response, manages debris removal in

[6:25] coordination with our flood response

[6:26] team, and navigates provincial funding

[6:28] programs to support recovery. When the

[6:31] hazard is known, the province expects

[6:33] local governments to plan for it through

[6:35] land use decisions, emergency plans, and

[6:37] risk reduction strategies. Understanding

[6:40] where the hazard exists and who is most

[6:42] at risk allows us to pre-plan routes,

[6:44] resources, and staging areas so we can

[6:46] respond quickly and safely when an event

[6:48] occurs. Next slide.

[6:54] So uh ensuring

[6:56] um ensuring we meet provincial

[6:58] expectations for managing known hazards

[7:00] includes implementing mitigation or risk

[7:02] reduction measures where feasible,

[7:05] maintaining emergency plans that address

[7:07] the identified hazard. So in this case,

[7:09] debris flows and demonstrating due

[7:11] diligence in land use decisions and

[7:13] public safety.

[7:14] Next slide.

[7:18] So building resilience in Fairmont. Our

[7:20] goal isn't to eliminate hazards. That is

[7:22] not possible, especially in a mountain

[7:24] environment. Uh but to reduce risk by

[7:27] understanding where those hazards are

[7:28] and planning accordingly. Uh every level

[7:32] of awareness and preparation makes a

[7:34] difference. And I will pass things over

[7:36] to Cara now.

[7:41] Thanks, Christina.

[7:43] So, as part of building resilience in

[7:46] the community of Fairmont, construction

[7:47] of the Cold Spring Creek debris flow

[7:51] mitigation structure was completed this

[7:52] year.

[7:54] A residual hazard map was completed

[7:56] after the construction, which

[7:57] incorporates the basin and barrier. This

[8:00] residual mapping shows how the

[8:01] structures mitigated risk in the

[8:02] community and where the risk is still

[8:04] slightly elevated. So, the structure

[8:06] will hold up to an estimated 84,000

[8:09] cubic meters of debris flow material.

[8:12] These frequency magnitude values on the

[8:14] slide

[8:15] um are the return periods and est these

[8:17] are the return periods and associated

[8:19] volumes. These were determinate

[8:21] determined in the 2020 hazard assessment

[8:23] and this was what we were these are the

[8:25] values and numbers that we were using

[8:27] when we were designing the structure.

[8:30] So at 84,000 cubes this will hold up to

[8:33] the 300 to 1,000 year event.

[8:37] Once we go past that, so in the thousand

[8:38] to 3,000 year event, there's still

[8:40] 12,000 cubic meters of material more

[8:42] than the structure can contain. So this

[8:45] excess volume at the estimated discharge

[8:47] rate

[8:49] would be this is the hazard that creates

[8:51] a residual risk. Next slide, please.

[9:01] Can we move to the next slide, please?

[9:03] Thanks.

[9:06] So for comparison purposes, this is a

[9:08] premitigation debris flow risk map. The

[9:10] very high and high-risisk zones are

[9:12] indicated by brown and red. And a large

[9:14] number of res residences were included

[9:17] in these zones when we started. Next

[9:19] slide, please.

[9:23] And this is our post mitigation risk

[9:25] map. The only very high zone remaining

[9:27] is upstream of the barrier. And there's

[9:30] a small strip of high and moderate risk

[9:32] zones immediately downstream of the

[9:33] barrier.

[9:34] There are no longer any residences or

[9:36] businesses located in the moderate high

[9:38] or very high risk zones.

[9:43] Next slide, please. And that is all we

[9:45] have for the Cold Spring Creek. Moving

[9:48] on, I'm sure everyone here is aware the

[9:50] other creek in the community with debris

[9:52] flow concerns is Fairmont Creek.

[9:54] Fairmont Creek experienced a significant

[9:56] debris flow event in 2012. As part of

[9:58] the reaction to this event, the RDK had

[10:01] a hazard and risk assessment completed

[10:02] for the creek. And this assess this

[10:04] assessment which was completed in 2013

[10:06] is what was used for the planning and

[10:08] design of the mitigation works that have

[10:09] been completed on the creek to date.

[10:13] This report is now 12 years old and

[10:15] since the creek has been very active and

[10:17] some mitigation has been constructed, it

[10:19] was prudent to update the report. So

[10:21] this updated report incorporates the

[10:23] mitigation on the creek. It includes

[10:25] data from the multiple debris flow

[10:26] events that have occurred since the last

[10:28] report and it uses updated modeling

[10:30] techniques and changes to how climate

[10:32] change and wildfire impacts are

[10:34] considered. This report was funded by

[10:37] the UBCM community preparedness fund and

[10:39] it was completed by BGC Engineering.

[10:42] Next slide please.

[10:47] So before we talk about the up outcomes

[10:49] of the updated mapping, I wanted to

[10:51] review some of the terminology that

[10:52] you'll see and one big one is the

[10:55] distinction between debris floods and

[10:56] debris flows. So we see both of these

[10:58] processes on both of the creeks in

[11:00] Fairmont and they are related but there

[11:02] are some important differences.

[11:05] So a debris flood occurs when we have

[11:07] large volumes of flow in the creek or

[11:09] river and gravel, cobbles and boulders

[11:12] are picked up and entrained in the flow.

[11:15] It behaves more like water and it can

[11:17] still move really large volumes of

[11:18] debris, but there's generally lower peak

[11:21] discharges than debris flows. So we're

[11:22] getting um so the impacts are not quite

[11:25] as quite as um powerful.

[11:29] With debris flows, we have higher

[11:31] sediment concentrations than in debris

[11:33] floods. It behaves more like a wet

[11:35] concrete and it's typically faster.

[11:37] They're typically faster than debris

[11:39] floods and they have higher peak

[11:40] discharges and impact forces. Typically,

[11:42] they are more dangerous.

[11:45] Next slide, please.

[11:50] So now we'll move into one of the key

[11:52] outputs of the report which is the

[11:54] frequency magnitude values. So frequency

[11:57] of course is how often the event is

[12:00] likely to occur and the uh the volume is

[12:04] obviously the estimated size. So on cold

[12:09] on Fairmont Creek

[12:12] similar to Cold Spring Creek up until

[12:13] about the 100year return period event

[12:16] the event is likely to be a debris

[12:17] flood.

[12:19] So in the 10 to 20 year return period we

[12:21] can expect a volume of about 9,000 cubes

[12:23] and 30 to 100 year about 28,000.

[12:27] So [cough and clears throat]

[12:29] from about the 100year period onwards

[12:31] the events likely to be debris flow with

[12:34] significantly higher volumes.

[12:38] And you can see with the some of the

[12:40] numbers here the peak discharges for the

[12:41] debris flood are significant

[12:43] significantly lower [clears throat] than

[12:44] they are for debris flows. same as they

[12:47] are with the volumes. So to show how

[12:50] some of um our like more recent events

[12:53] fit into this table in 2020 the volume

[12:56] of debris that was mobilized from above

[12:57] the weers in Fairmont Creek was about

[13:00] 20,000 cubic meters.

[13:03] So at that time the return period

[13:05] estimated by NHC who was our consultant

[13:07] that looked at looked at the creek right

[13:09] after the event they estimated the

[13:11] period was about 35 years. So, this

[13:13] doesn't fit exactly into the table, but

[13:15] pretty closely fits into our 30 to

[13:18] 100year return period for debris floods.

[13:22] The 2012 event had an estimated volume

[13:24] of about 65,000 cubic meters. So, this

[13:28] was estimated by Clark in 2013.

[13:32] Um, at the time they felt that that was

[13:35] a period of maybe roughly 475

[13:38] year return period. But after the 2020

[13:42] event occurred, NHC updated this return

[13:44] period to be an estimated 165 years. So

[13:48] this again it doesn't fit exactly into

[13:50] what we have here, but relatively

[13:52] closely into the 100 to to 300year

[13:55] return period event. And this change in

[13:57] the estimated return period is due to

[13:59] the additional information from the more

[14:01] recent event.

[14:03] Next slide, please.

[14:11] So the mapping that we're going to look

[14:13] at next shows hazard zones that are

[14:15] based on the hazard which is determined

[14:17] from topography data interpretation

[14:19] modeling and then the risk index which

[14:22] is calculated using um a risk equation.

[14:25] So risk again is the probability of the

[14:28] hazard occurring and then the

[14:29] consequences of it occurring.

[14:33] So just to give a bit of background on

[14:37] risk, the risk equation considers the

[14:40] hazard probability which is of course

[14:42] the annual probability that the event

[14:44] will occur and then it considers spatial

[14:46] probability which means so in if an

[14:49] event of a certain magnitude occurs

[14:51] what's the likelihood of a certain

[14:53] location being impacted by it. It

[14:57] considers the temporal probability. So

[15:01] that means what's the likelihood of a

[15:03] person being in that location when the

[15:05] event occurs.

[15:08] It considers exposure. So exposure is

[15:10] the number of people or the value of the

[15:12] elements at risk in that location. And

[15:15] then the vulnerability. So that is the

[15:17] likelihood of a fatality

[15:20] should that person be impacted at that

[15:22] location. So this equation gives us our

[15:25] individual risk and that is that that is

[15:28] the PDI that you see on the table and

[15:30] that stands for the probability of death

[15:32] of an individual.

[15:34] We also considered in the report the

[15:36] group risk. So that's the estimated

[15:38] number of fatalities should a certain

[15:40] hazard occur and we looked at economic

[15:42] risk.

[15:46] So the hazard zones shown in this table

[15:49] align with risk tolerance criteria that

[15:51] other municipalities are using um such

[15:53] as Canmore, North Vancouver, Squamish

[15:55] and this risk is generally considered to

[15:57] be unacceptable

[16:00] um in a community if the risk of death

[16:02] of an individual is greater than 1 to

[16:03] 10,000. So this corresponds to the high

[16:06] and very high zones.

[16:09] Next next page please.

[16:14] So,

[16:16] this is one of the uh one of the key

[16:18] outputs of the assessment and it's it's

[16:21] a really great visual. So, I'll just I

[16:24] thought I would have this one up while I

[16:26] talked about some of the hazard zones.

[16:29] So, when you're looking at this map, the

[16:31] yellow zone is the is a low hazard zone.

[16:36] So, in the yellow zone, we're look the

[16:38] risk index is less than 1 to 100,000.

[16:42] So that is roughly equivalent to your

[16:45] risk of drowning in a bathtub.

[16:47] The moderate zone, and this is the

[16:49] orange zone, is in the 1 to 10,000

[16:53] to 1 to 100,000 range. And that's

[16:57] comparable to your risk of um dying

[17:00] [clears throat] from gun violence in the

[17:01] US or from general anesthesia in an

[17:06] operation.

[17:08] Now the high zone, this is the red zone.

[17:12] Um that is the 1 to 10,000 to 1 to 1,000

[17:20] risk of risk of death and that is

[17:24] comparable to CO 19 in 2020 or a car

[17:27] accident.

[17:29] and then the very high zone and that is

[17:31] greater than 1 to 1,000

[17:34] that is comparable to dying the 40th

[17:38] year of life in the USA from any cause.

[17:43] So the shape this map is much more

[17:45] detailed than we've seen in the past

[17:47] from from our last our last assessment

[17:50] but the shape of it is not remarkably

[17:52] different.

[17:53] There are however a number of properties

[17:56] uh remaining that are still in the high

[17:57] and very high hazard zones.

[18:01] Next slide please.

[18:07] So the final part of this report was to

[18:09] identify some potential options to be

[18:11] considered for future debris flow

[18:12] mitigation and to estimate the costs. So

[18:16] several factors were considered in the

[18:18] development of the options and some of

[18:20] these included the degree of risk

[18:22] reduction that could be achieved um risk

[18:25] transfer. So that would be um

[18:30] you know assuming we can mitigate the

[18:32] risk at one location but the cost of

[18:34] that was that a downstream location

[18:38] would see higher risk. Um the location

[18:41] of a potential

[18:44] potential mitigation uh the land

[18:46] ownership at that location future

[18:48] maintenance costs capital costs public

[18:51] impacts and the possibility of phasing.

[18:55] So at this point we have five options

[18:58] identified. They're not all standalone

[19:01] options. They mitigate in different

[19:02] ways. So it may make sense to combine

[19:04] two or more of these options as we look

[19:06] further into it. So very briefly, option

[19:10] number one would be a large debris

[19:13] barrier and basin, not unlike what we

[19:15] have on Cold Spring. Um and I know my

[19:18] map is is a little small up here, but

[19:20] that would be the number one option and

[19:23] it's right at the very top of the map.

[19:26] So that could potentially contain on the

[19:30] order of 60,000 cubic meters. So it does

[19:33] come close to mitigating um a good

[19:36] portion of the risk.

[19:38] It does come at a very high cost. And

[19:40] these costs are order of magnitude. They

[19:42] are very very rough, but they do give us

[19:45] an idea of what we could um be looking

[19:48] at when we're just thinking of what way

[19:50] we might want to go when we're thinking

[19:52] about options.

[19:54] Option number two is down, excuse me, is

[19:58] down on the golf course and that is a

[20:01] parallel parallel Burman basin. Um, that

[20:05] would contain less. It also costs a lot

[20:08] less. Um,

[20:10] there are different challenges with it.

[20:13] Um,

[20:15] it's all in private land. Um, it's right

[20:17] in the middle of community. It's

[20:18] definitely none of these options are

[20:19] ideal, but that it it does remain a

[20:22] viable option that we'd like to, you

[20:24] know, look at a little bit more.

[20:27] Um,

[20:28] the third option is downstream. So, that

[20:32] is

[20:33] on the lower part of the map. That's the

[20:35] number three and that's where the creek

[20:37] flows through the community downstream

[20:39] of the golf course pond.

[20:42] Um

[20:44] we're cons we're at in this location

[20:48] channel improvements are being

[20:49] considered. Uh it is a very small creek

[20:52] channel at the time. Um this would

[20:54] include looking at the culverts and the

[20:58] various ways it flows through the

[21:00] community. Um could include BMS, it

[21:03] could include armoring. The cost

[21:05] estimate is very broad um because

[21:08] [clears throat] there are so many

[21:09] different ways we could go with this

[21:10] option.

[21:13] Option number four, this is a smaller,

[21:15] more localized

[21:17] um

[21:19] potential mitigation. So [clears throat]

[21:20] that is towards the upper part of the

[21:23] map or and that is the the road crossing

[21:28] just downstream of where our wheels are

[21:30] located um where the road goes into the

[21:32] campground.

[21:34] And

[21:36] armoring this would um greatly

[21:41] greatly reduce the chance of that road

[21:42] being washed out in a large event. And

[21:46] that's important for emergency access,

[21:48] for ingress, egress, etc. The final

[21:51] option, number five, it's right in the

[21:54] middle of our map. So that would be an

[21:56] armored burm, and that's right in front

[21:58] of the Marble Canyon town homes. Um,

[22:02] they're extremely vulnerable. Be as

[22:05] close as they are to the creek. uh

[22:07] building up a larger BM would not only

[22:09] protect those homes, but it would keep

[22:10] um it would keep the flow in the channel

[22:14] at that location and uh easier to

[22:16] control downstream.

[22:20] Next slide, please.

[22:25] So, this report was just a first step in

[22:28] moving towards a potential future

[22:31] project on Fairmont Creek if that ends

[22:34] up happening. Um the next step will be

[22:36] to complete a detailed options analysis

[22:38] for all of these options that we've

[22:41] discussed and considered. And this

[22:43] options analysis would include more

[22:46] detailed analysis of the costs,

[22:47] feasibility, risks, and community needs

[22:50] and wants. And a really critical

[22:53] component of this next step will be

[22:54] engagement with all stakeholders

[22:56] including community members, businesses,

[22:58] first nations, and other levels of

[23:00] government.

[23:02] We'll be seeking funding opportunities

[23:03] for this next step and moving beyond

[23:07] that next step, should that be the

[23:09] decision that we go with, um we'll be

[23:11] looking at additional funding

[23:12] opportunities for potential future

[23:14] construction projects that come out of

[23:16] this options analysis.

[23:19] Thank you. And moving on to Karen.

[23:27] Thank you, Cara. So I'm going to speak

[23:29] to a bit about the planning side of

[23:31] things and about the guidance report

[23:33] that we had done by BGC Engineering and

[23:36] Pina Sustainability.

[23:39] So right now um we have an official

[23:42] community plan for Fairmont Hot Springs

[23:44] and Colombia Lake area and that OCP was

[23:48] done around the time of the 2013 event.

[23:52] Um and right now the policies and the

[23:55] direction with respect to hazards are

[23:58] quite generic and they're not very

[24:00] specific. Um how we've been dealing

[24:03] largely um with um the debris risk or an

[24:08] assessments have been on a sightspecific

[24:10] basis through the building permit

[24:12] process. So at this point um based on

[24:15] the the previous mapping for both the

[24:17] creeks uh the building inspector has

[24:20] been doing an independent assessment at

[24:22] each building permit stage to determine

[24:25] what level of reporting or what type of

[24:28] qualified professional report might be

[24:31] required in order to consider if there

[24:34] should be sightsp specific engineering

[24:37] considerations um to ensure that

[24:40] whatever is being built would be a safe

[24:42] built.

[24:43] So what the guidance report was intended

[24:46] to do is to provide information and to

[24:49] be proactively thinking ahead in terms

[24:52] of how we can move away from our current

[24:54] model which is reliant on a specific

[24:57] section section 56 of the community

[25:00] charter uh to ensure that property

[25:02] owners are informed about the risks um

[25:05] relative to building on their property

[25:08] and ensure that this uh building that is

[25:11] being built is safe for the intended use

[25:14] of occupancy. Uh to be moving forward to

[25:17] having an official community plan that

[25:20] includes relevant current policies with

[25:23] respect to land use policies. Uh so

[25:26] that's going to be land use conservation

[25:28] or change if people are looking to

[25:30] change the use of planning.

[25:33] whether or not there should be changes

[25:34] to our zoning bylaw, whether there

[25:36] should be changes that are reflective of

[25:38] the outcomes of these two reports to our

[25:41] flood plane management bylaw. And most

[25:44] importantly, that there would be

[25:46] opportunities to proactively have

[25:48] information for property owners and the

[25:51] regional district so that everyone has

[25:53] an understanding of how these reports

[25:55] that have been prepared relate to um

[25:59] individual properties and how they can

[26:01] safely be used and built. So what the

[26:04] intent of the guidance report were were

[26:07] three-fold. It was to have a chance to

[26:09] review the hazard mapping for both

[26:11] creeks. um with that reporting that was

[26:14] just completed this fall and has just

[26:16] been presented by Carara. Um it has a

[26:20] framework analysis and this is options

[26:22] on how to consider the updated hazard

[26:24] mapping for both creeks. So um there

[26:28] report looks at different frameworks. Um

[26:31] Cara spoke to that um when she had the

[26:34] table that discussed the probabilities

[26:37] um and that's how the zones relate to um

[26:40] what the level of risk is and so the

[26:43] framework looks at the three options um

[26:46] that were available for the regional

[26:47] district to consider as we move forward

[26:49] and makes a recommendation.

[26:52] So there are four interimm policy

[26:54] recommendations that were made by BGC

[26:57] Engineering and Penis Sustainability and

[26:59] I'll just walk through each of those

[27:00] four at a very high level.

[27:09] The first is a recommendation that there

[27:12] needs to be official community plan

[27:13] amendments. So, as you can see in the

[27:16] little snip from schedule I of the

[27:19] current official community plan that

[27:21] I've included on this slide, when the

[27:23] mapping for the hazard um was done with

[27:26] this OCP, when it was originally done,

[27:29] it very generically just identified that

[27:32] there was a hazard. So, it's not

[27:34] specific in terms of whether it's a

[27:36] debris flood, it's a debris flow, um

[27:39] what type of hazard it is, and it isn't

[27:42] generally really reflective of the scope

[27:45] or scale that's reflected by the fact

[27:48] that there's different zones or

[27:49] intensity of risk related to the

[27:52] hazards. Um the way that the mapping is

[27:55] done is it basically just follows the

[27:58] general uh creek barriers or the creek

[28:02] dispersal areas. um or the broader river

[28:05] Columbia River flood plane. Uh so we

[28:08] would be looking at having new mapping

[28:10] that aligns with the new data that came

[28:12] out of both the reports for both Cold

[28:15] Spring Creek and for Fairmont Creek. We

[28:18] would also be looking to integrate

[28:20] amendments that would recognize the

[28:23] other recommendations that are being

[28:25] made um within this report. So that

[28:28] would reflect integrating the risk

[28:30] tolerance policy that would be

[28:32] considered the hazard zones and

[28:33] development approval policies.

[28:38] So that takes us to recommendation

[28:40] number two which is that the RDK should

[28:43] adopt a formal risk tolerance policy. Uh

[28:47] so this is as Cara discussed is a

[28:51] relatively standard procedure for many

[28:53] municipalities um in BC and Alberta. And

[28:57] so these are being done by communities

[28:59] that have experienced events similar to

[29:02] the regional district and it creates a

[29:05] baseline um that provides direction in

[29:08] terms of where new development should be

[29:11] supported um based on those ratings and

[29:14] where um renovation or changes to

[29:19] existing development um is acceptable

[29:22] levels of risk. Uh so the report

[29:26] identifies that it can either be a

[29:28] standalone policy or it can be OCP

[29:32] specific. So at this time um we would

[29:35] think that it would be something that we

[29:37] would look to have their RDK adopt on an

[29:40] RDK-wide basis. Um but we'll see how

[29:43] that works. So it would include a risk

[29:46] tolerance criteria or risk index. So

[29:49] that would be um reflective of the two

[29:52] tables that Cara showed um that have it

[29:54] ranked based on the hazard zones. So the

[29:58] recommendation that came out of this

[30:00] report was that a combined hazard risk

[30:02] framework be applied for the regional

[30:04] district and this echoes a decision of

[30:08] the board made earlier in the year where

[30:11] they considered some preliminary

[30:13] information and provided some direction

[30:15] to staff and the consultant in their

[30:17] preparation of the report.

[30:23] Recommendation number three is that

[30:26] development permit areas that recognize

[30:29] the debris flow hazard should be

[30:31] integrated into the official community

[30:33] plan. The official community plan

[30:36] currently does not have a hazard

[30:38] development permit area. What a hazard

[30:41] development permit area allows is the

[30:44] segmentation of the parcels um within

[30:48] the hazard zones to be identified to

[30:50] have different guidelines that are

[30:52] required. So again, this very much

[30:54] becomes a public education piece in

[30:57] terms of that people can understand

[31:00] based on their hazard zones and the

[31:03] corresponding guidelines within the

[31:05] development permit area. They can

[31:07] understand what they can or could not do

[31:11] based on having a qualified expert

[31:14] opinion if required that what they can

[31:17] do to ensure that the there is safe

[31:20] build on their property.

[31:24] Uh so one of the key things that the

[31:27] report did identify though is that

[31:30] structural mitigation at the community

[31:32] level which might be that much more

[31:35] expensive or higher level of mitigation

[31:37] that Cara identified shouldn't be

[31:39] considered to facilitate or enable

[31:41] higher level densities. So that means

[31:44] that um that should all be taken into

[31:47] consideration um when we're identifying

[31:50] the guidelines um that would go into the

[31:53] development permit areas um should a

[31:55] development permit uh process be

[31:58] implemented within the official

[31:59] community plan.

[32:02] The last recommendation of the report

[32:04] was that there should be specific

[32:07] development policies integrated into the

[32:09] official community plan. So this really

[32:12] relates to the fact that people need to

[32:14] understand what the different four

[32:16] hazard zones means and

[32:20] how that should apply on a parcel

[32:22] specific basis. So this would also

[32:26] include identification of when sight

[32:28] specific risk assessments would be

[32:30] required and it should be aligned with

[32:34] the adopted risk tolerance policy that

[32:37] would be this is an action that would

[32:39] have to be completed by the regional

[32:41] district and be adopted by the regional

[32:43] district board and it would provide

[32:46] clarity with respect to future land uses

[32:49] based on the identified hazard zone. Um

[32:52] so based on the risk and hazard the very

[32:55] high hazard um residual hazard zones for

[32:59] example are would not be generally

[33:02] anticipated to be supported for

[33:04] residential development or types of uses

[33:08] that would include structures. So they

[33:11] may be more suited to passive recreation

[33:13] or park use. Uh so those are the types

[33:16] of policies that we would anticipate

[33:19] would be integrated into official

[33:21] community plan and the guidance report

[33:24] provides um some very high level

[33:27] information um with respect to that and

[33:30] as the implementation

[33:33] of the guidance report and consideration

[33:37] of the two reports prepared for the

[33:39] engineering department unfold. um the

[33:42] the specifics of that would be something

[33:44] that would be looked at and that there

[33:46] would be community consultation.

[33:49] So more specifically

[33:51] the implementation of the interimm

[33:54] policy recommendations are going to

[33:56] require the dedication of RDK staff

[33:59] resources and we anticipate this would

[34:02] be across multiple departments. So,

[34:05] similar to how uh we have four

[34:08] departments represented here tonight, um

[34:11] we anticipate to see this through um

[34:13] we're going to be needing to work

[34:15] together uh to ensure that the various

[34:17] expertise, knowledge and all those

[34:20] pieces can come together um to ensure

[34:23] that we can be successful moving ahead.

[34:26] Um one of the key things that we want to

[34:29] move forward with first is board

[34:31] consideration of the risk tolerance

[34:33] policy. um because this is a keystone um

[34:36] for moving forward with what the other

[34:38] parts of the puzzle look like with

[34:41] respect to whether we have specific OCP

[34:45] policies, what framework we're working

[34:47] forward and all those different pieces.

[34:49] um we we feel like that's the one piece

[34:52] we need first

[34:56] and then most importantly uh one of the

[34:58] key things about implementation is going

[35:01] to be that there will be community

[35:03] consultation and engagement. Uh so

[35:05] similar to as Cara just spoke to, there

[35:08] are a range of stakeholders um that the

[35:11] regional district will need to and will

[35:13] want to engage as we move forward um in

[35:17] with respect to ensuring that um members

[35:20] of the community have the information

[35:22] that they need um in order to be able to

[35:27] contribute to the processes that we're

[35:29] going to be engaging.

[35:32] So just a quick summary of the next

[35:38] steps recognizing that we have three

[35:41] different reports um and we've had three

[35:43] different speakers um just I'll give a a

[35:47] really quick summary here and so the

[35:50] next steps for each of the different

[35:52] pieces uh for Cold Spring Creek um

[35:55] really the project has wrapped up with

[35:57] the construction um now being completed.

[36:00] So, one of the key items is discussion

[36:02] with the province on ongoing funding

[36:05] support for the debris removal for

[36:08] Fairmont Creek. As Cara identified, um

[36:11] there needs to be mitigation option

[36:13] analysis and stakeholder engagement

[36:17] and very importantly there needs to be

[36:19] investigation of funding sources for

[36:21] that both that options analysis and for

[36:24] potential future construction. um none

[36:27] of the proposals or for the potential

[36:32] mitigation options um were something

[36:34] that are um low dollar u value. And for

[36:39] the guidance report as I just mentioned

[36:41] um the first thing that we would like to

[36:44] embark on um is the development and

[36:46] adoption of an RDKwide risk tolerance

[36:49] policy as this will set the groundwork

[36:52] for us to be able to move forward with

[36:54] the other pieces and the other updates.

[36:58] So, we are all here and recognize that

[37:01] it's a lot of information and that um

[37:06] you may not have questions specifically

[37:09] um but we are here um to answer them um

[37:13] and we have kind of we have expertise

[37:15] for the three different areas and so

[37:18] that if you wanted to take advantage of

[37:21] um having us here today um you can input

[37:24] the question into the Q&A Okay.

[37:28] So, Nathan.

[37:30] » Yeah. Thanks, Karen. Um, I will start

[37:32] with reading the questions that we did

[37:34] receive on the engage page. Um, and then

[37:37] after we've gone through those, then

[37:38] we'll move on to the Q&A questions that

[37:41] have been asked during this meeting or

[37:43] this webinar here. Okay. Um, so sorry.

[37:45] Um, the first question on the engage

[37:48] page is on the Fair on the Fairmont

[37:52] Creek map, the high zone reaches the

[37:54] Columbia River. Has there been any

[37:57] modeling to determine the risks or

[37:59] potential impact up and or downstream?

[38:11] » Uh

[38:12] Beatus, could you answer that one?

[38:14] » Yeah, absolutely. Uh yeah, so we didn't

[38:18] specifically look at um the impacts to

[38:21] the Columbia River in this scope of

[38:23] work, but uh if we kind of look at the

[38:27] 2012 event, we know that sediment could

[38:29] reach the river similar to that event.

[38:32] uh and a separate study would need to be

[38:34] done to look at the capacity um for the

[38:38] Columbia River to take away the sediment

[38:40] um in 2012, which is kind of as Cara

[38:43] said, similar to what we'd expect in a

[38:45] 100 to 300year event. Uh it didn't block

[38:48] the river. Um and I believe the sediment

[38:52] was mostly carried away naturally. Um,

[38:55] so that's kind of gives you a scale uh

[38:58] an idea of what could happen in the

[39:01] future. But with a larger event, we

[39:03] would probably expect more sediment to

[39:05] reach the river, but we did not study it

[39:08] quantitatively. No.

[39:13] » Great. Um, I will move on to the next

[39:15] question from the engage page. Uh, how

[39:18] can the community members communicate to

[39:20] the RDK that we do not want to pay for

[39:22] any further exper

[39:28] mitigation?

[39:38] Um, I'll take that. there, as we've um

[39:43] as we've noted a couple times in this

[39:45] presentation, um there will definitely

[39:48] be opportunities for future engagement

[39:51] with the community and you'll have the

[39:54] opportunity opportunity to uh let us

[39:56] know how you feel at that time.

[40:03] Okay. Um and then the next question from

[40:05] the engage page. If the Fairmont

[40:08] guidance report is to guide future

[40:10] development, why are the developers not

[40:12] paying for these studies and flood

[40:14] mitigation projects?

[40:24] Uh I'll speak a little bit to the who

[40:26] paid for the project. Um the guidance

[40:29] report um was funded I think it was

[40:33] about 93% by UBCM which is the union of

[40:37] BC municipalities grant program um and

[40:41] the remaining 7% was paid for through

[40:43] the planning function which means it was

[40:46] not specific to the service area paying

[40:49] for that remaining funds that were

[40:51] required to be um inind type

[40:54] contributions. um they were p paid for

[40:57] actually through the entire planning

[40:59] function which is uh funded both through

[41:01] the municipalities and all of the

[41:04] taxpayers within the electoral areas. Um

[41:07] so that was for that report and then the

[41:10] um some of funding as well came through

[41:13] that UBCM funding program

[41:17] and then I'm not sure if Cara wanted to

[41:19] speak to the other piece.

[41:22] » Yeah, I can do that. Um I guess the the

[41:25] short answer really is that

[41:29] the reason

[41:31] the reason that we did any mitigation is

[41:34] for the existing community. Um

[41:37] if there wasn't a community there, if it

[41:40] was only if it was only for future

[41:42] development,

[41:45] the project would not have happened.

[41:50] Um, and I guess I'll I'll add a little

[41:52] bit to that. There are places in the

[41:54] province where barriers are being built

[41:57] um, much larger than this. And in those

[42:00] cases, they are being paid for by the

[42:02] developer.

[42:11] Okay. Um, so the next question is, will

[42:13] any future mitigation projects be voted

[42:16] on by the community?

[42:28] do I can take this one if if you want.

[42:32] Um I I think in this uh at this point as

[42:37] we move forward in through the process

[42:39] we're not at that stage. uh what's

[42:42] determined in the next steps. There will

[42:45] be public consultation

[42:47] and that would be certainly would be the

[42:50] intention to get the feedback from the

[42:51] community to discuss what the options

[42:54] are. Um and that that's how we'll that's

[42:57] how what our intention is to move

[42:58] forward.

[43:07] Okay. Um, sorry, juggling a couple

[43:10] screens here at the moment. Um, so the

[43:13] next comment from the engage page, um,

[43:16] thank you for your efforts to support

[43:18] hazard and risk mitigation on Cold

[43:20] Spring and Fairmont Creek. The Fairmont

[43:22] Creek footpath from the mountainside

[43:25] golf course to the Fairmont Hotring

[43:27] Lodge area has remained closed since the

[43:30] landslide in 2012. Despite the trail

[43:33] closure, many people still use the trail

[43:35] to access the waterfall. Along the foot

[43:37] path below the Fairmont Hot Springs

[43:39] pools, there is an exposed black pipe

[43:42] along the creek bed. There's also a

[43:44] broken white pipe. These pipes have been

[43:46] exposed since the landslide in 2012.

[43:49] Over the past year, there have been

[43:51] concerns from the community regarding

[43:53] the state of the potable water

[43:54] infrastructure.

[43:57] Please advise the purpose of these pipes

[43:59] and the status of the trail restoration

[44:01] efforts.

[44:05] Yeah, I can take that. Um, so these

[44:07] pipes

[44:09] are Fman Hot Springs infrastructure and

[44:13] they are for irrigation,

[44:15] not for potable water.

[44:18] As far as restoring the trail, that is

[44:22] all private land um owned by the resort.

[44:26] And it wouldn't be because it's not

[44:29] really a flood, it's not a flood

[44:30] mitigation type project. um that would

[44:32] fall on the resort to uh repair.

[44:39] » All right. Um if the debris flow were to

[44:41] cross and block the highway, would that

[44:44] not be a provincial or federal

[44:45] jurisdiction? Why then is our LSA the

[44:49] only ones paying for the dam?

[45:03] Uh the capital costs of the dam were 98

[45:07] 99% covered by provincial and federal

[45:10] funding.

[45:12] So they have uh contributed greatly to

[45:15] the cost of the structure and

[45:17] mitigation.

[45:21] Christina, could you speak to the role

[45:23] of the RDK as the local responsible

[45:27] local authority in cases of emergency

[45:30] management?

[45:32] » Yeah. Uh so I mean if a if we had a

[45:35] debris flow that impacted the community

[45:37] as well as the highway, there is a lot

[45:39] of coordinated efforts between uh

[45:42] various agencies, the RDK itself, um the

[45:44] Ministry of Transportation if the

[45:46] highway was impacted. uh and there is a

[45:48] concerted effort to you know clean

[45:50] things up as quickly as possible uh look

[45:53] through or activate funding through the

[45:55] province and whatnot. Um but yeah it

[45:59] it's

[46:01] it's a complicated and uh coordinated

[46:04] effort when we have a big event.

[46:12] » Okay. Um, so the next question, the RDEK

[46:15] was presented with a petition at the

[46:17] grand opening of the dam in October.

[46:20] Rather than address the serious and

[46:21] numerous concerns raised in it, a short

[46:24] response was provided advising to

[46:26] contact the ombbuds person. Why did the

[46:28] RDK choose to dismiss the concerns and

[46:31] pass the responsibility off on it?

[46:36] » Certainly, I can speak to that. I don't

[46:38] think the RDK chose to dismiss the

[46:41] concern. was actually quite the

[46:42] opposite. the the the

[46:46] uh petition as I understood it was

[46:49] asking that a complete review be done

[46:53] and that is the role of the umpids

[46:55] person's office is to complete those

[46:58] types of re reviews as a uh impartial

[47:02] and third party to make sure that any

[47:05] there was nothing done incorrectly or

[47:07] against policy or out of outside of the

[47:10] public interest. So it is the

[47:12] appropriate vehicle for uh for the the

[47:16] request that was in the petition.

[47:25] Okay. Um how was the guidance project

[47:28] and updated hazard and risk assessment

[47:30] been funded to date? How will the

[47:33] implementation of the recommendations be

[47:35] funded?

[47:42] So the guidance project as I mentioned

[47:44] was primarily funded through UBCM uh

[47:47] funding program and that was through a

[47:50] disaster um recovery and climate u

[47:54] mitigation stream. Um some of the

[47:58] preliminary work will be covered through

[48:01] the planning function

[48:03] and beyond that uh similar to Kara uh

[48:08] the regional district will be

[48:10] investigating additional uh grant

[48:13] funding streams um where it is

[48:16] identified that there is um expertise or

[48:19] guidance um that is required that is

[48:22] outside of the scope and capability or

[48:25] qualific ifications of RDK staff. Um so

[48:28] it's going to be a bit of a mix um with

[48:32] respect to it being paid through um

[48:35] existing um regional districtwide

[48:39] services um instead of just being born

[48:41] by the local service area and grant

[48:44] funding as the different um

[48:47] opportunities or requirements come

[48:50] about.

[48:55] Okay. Um, and will any of the costs of

[48:58] these reports, RDK staff hours,

[49:02] administration input, and subsequent

[49:04] meetings be borne by a new or the

[49:07] existing Fairmont Flood and Landslide

[49:09] Service Area Fund.

[49:22] I say generally speaking, um I'd say

[49:25] kind of what I just said for the

[49:27] previous response. Um the majority of

[49:30] the staff hours and administration is

[49:33] getting covered through um existing um

[49:36] regional districtwide service um

[49:39] taxation. Um the local service area is

[49:43] very specific with respect to uh what

[49:46] the funds generated from that local

[49:48] service area are eligible to cover. Um

[49:51] it is a small service area. It has

[49:53] limited taxation available. Um so where

[49:56] it is feasible um it is covered through

[49:59] those broader taxation

[50:02] um considerations and services.

[50:10] Okay. And this is the last question from

[50:13] the engage page and then we will move

[50:14] over to the Q&A section. Um, at several

[50:18] recent public meetings and forums hosted

[50:20] by the RDK, it has been noted that the

[50:23] time period for public input and

[50:24] questions was insufficient. Will this be

[50:27] addressed at this and future meetings

[50:29] going forward?

[50:36] Yes, that would be an area that we would

[50:39] look for direct feedback and potentially

[50:42] some guidance on. Um if there is a

[50:45] feeling from the community that you

[50:47] aren't being given enough time um then

[50:50] that should be articulated to the

[50:52] project managers um specific to the

[50:55] different pieces as we move forward and

[50:58] then where it is practicable

[51:01] um that those can be worked into the the

[51:03] work plan um and that can be considered

[51:06] moving forward.

[51:11] » Okay. Um, I'm going to move over to the

[51:14] Q&A. Uh, I believe that everyone can see

[51:17] these. Um, and I'm going to start from

[51:21] the top and work my way down um, in

[51:24] order that they came in. Okay, so first

[51:27] question is, what about not I guess it's

[51:29] more a statement. What about not

[51:31] spending tons of money and keeping our

[51:33] property taxes in a small community low?

[51:35] The risk is on the homeowners.

[51:39] » Uh, I can comment on that one. Uh so I

[51:42] mean as Cara mentioned earlier the the

[51:44] next step is to do a detailed mitigation

[51:47] uh options analysis and figure out what

[51:50] is actually recommended and what we need

[51:52] to look at. Uh as local government we do

[51:54] have an obligation when we are aware of

[51:56] a life safety hazard to do something

[51:58] about it. Um and then further to that uh

[52:01] the new emergency and disaster

[52:03] management act or EDMA uh has a section

[52:06] in it uh 26 uh 2B I believe uh that

[52:10] actually empowers the minister of

[52:12] emergency management to actually order a

[52:15] local authority to actually place

[52:17] mitigation works in place uh if there is

[52:20] a significant risk to a community and

[52:22] they aren't satisfied with the actions

[52:23] taken by the local government. So there

[52:25] is a chance that we may not have an

[52:27] option. Um and that would be with the

[52:30] province.

[52:33] » Okay. And then the next statement here,

[52:35] it says that there's 31 members of the

[52:37] FHS community at the Lion's Den. So

[52:40] yeah, that's wonderful to hear that um

[52:42] because it shows that we've got a much

[52:44] bigger turnout than the numbers on this

[52:47] Zoom indicate. So thank you for letting

[52:49] us know that.

[52:52] Um and then the next statement is stop

[52:56] spending our money without the complete

[52:58] determination of the community.

[53:03] Um and then the next question is

[53:06] consultation and engagement means

[53:09] exactly what

[53:19] I'll answer from um sort of the OCP

[53:23] change or the risk tolerance policy that

[53:25] may be forthcoming. Um and consultation

[53:28] and engagement is largely going to um

[53:32] include opportunities for public

[53:34] education um and to ensure that that the

[53:37] community understands um the different

[53:40] pieces that we're considering um and has

[53:44] an understanding of why the regional

[53:47] district is proposing um ultimately what

[53:50] we end up proposing. Um so there it it's

[53:54] going to vary um depending on the the

[53:57] different um parts of the project. Um

[54:00] but key thing is is that we want to make

[54:02] sure that the community is informed at

[54:04] each step as we move forward. Um, so

[54:08] recognizing that there's a whole

[54:10] continuum of what consultation

[54:13] engagement can mean and sometimes it

[54:15] does mean inform and sometimes it does

[54:19] mean we're looking for feedback that is

[54:22] directly going to impact what the end

[54:24] result is. Um, and depending on which of

[54:27] the projects um, we're consulting on,

[54:29] which ones we're engaging on, it

[54:32] potentially is going to um, run the

[54:34] gamut of that spectrum. Um, as Christina

[54:38] identified, um, at some point the

[54:41] regional district might get marching

[54:42] orders. Um, we do have these reports

[54:45] now. Um, there are actions that we do

[54:48] need to proceed with. Um, but we do want

[54:50] to make sure that the community is

[54:52] informed about um, what's happening in

[54:54] your community, why things are happening

[54:56] in your community. um and to make sure

[54:58] that you have the information um that

[55:00] you need to feel comfortable um with

[55:03] understanding why the regional district

[55:05] is going down the various paths that

[55:07] we're going to go down.

[55:10] » Okay. And

[55:12] » I'd like to add a bit to that.

[55:15] » Um I guess from my perspective, a lot of

[55:18] what Karen said applies to my projects

[55:20] also. Um when when when we're looking at

[55:23] things like future mitigation projects,

[55:26] um

[55:27] ultimately ultimately we want our

[55:29] experts to provide us with options that

[55:31] we can move forward with. But what we do

[55:34] want when we're choosing potential

[55:36] options should we have should we have

[55:38] them is we want to know what the

[55:40] community wants. um what's important to

[55:42] the community, like what the what their

[55:45] priorities are

[55:48] and

[55:49] um [clears throat] we'll do the best

[55:51] that we can

[55:53] to to meet those wants and needs. Um

[55:59] provided that, you know, we are

[56:02] continuing to um work towards a safe

[56:06] community.

[56:09] Thanks, Nathan. Is that perfect? Um,

[56:12] what is the delta between the old risk

[56:15] assessment and the new one?

[56:19] » Um, okay. [clears throat]

[56:21] I

[56:23] the numbers are the numbers are higher

[56:27] in the new one and it's quite a bit more

[56:30] detailed. So, we do have um we have

[56:33] numbers for for different um levels of

[56:36] an event. So, you know, we have our 10

[56:38] to 20 or 10 to 30, our 30 to 100,

[56:43] but the general

[56:45] um

[56:48] the general outcomes are not that

[56:50] different. Um I'm wondering I do have a

[56:54] map I do have the old map at the very

[56:56] end of this presentation. If we could

[56:58] skip forward just so I can show it

[57:00] quickly.

[57:03] Yes. So this is our 2013 mapping and

[57:08] if you compare it if you compare it to

[57:10] our new mapping the general shape is

[57:13] very very similar. Um

[57:17] the new one like I like I said is just

[57:19] more detailed.

[57:24] Okay. Um next one. What constitutes an

[57:27] event and what are the characteristics

[57:29] of an event and what can be done to

[57:32] mitigate the severity of the event?

[57:35] Example, annual inspection and removal

[57:38] of debris from the creek sides.

[57:42] So I can should I just quickly go over

[57:44] that again? What constitutes an event?

[57:47] What are the characteristics of an

[57:49] event? And what can be done to mitigate

[57:51] the severity of the event?

[57:56] Um, I can I can take this question. Um,

[57:58] I'm going to assume that the person

[58:01] who's asking this question is asking

[58:04] about uh debris flows and debris floods

[58:08] events. Um, so the kind of they

[58:10] constitute between floods to landslides

[58:13] is kind of what we're looking at on

[58:14] these two creeks. Uh, and when we say an

[58:19] event, uh, we're saying, um, some kind

[58:22] of flooding or or landslide or debris

[58:24] has come down the creek that's

[58:26] potentially larger than what the creek

[58:29] can handle. So, it often uh has impacts

[58:32] to um, like maybe the banks you see

[58:36] might see erosion down some of the paths

[58:38] or on Fairmont Creek, the golf course

[58:41] pond might fill with sediment. um or um

[58:44] the stream the creek a bit lower from

[58:46] the golf course pond might uh have too

[58:48] much water in it and it might flood onto

[58:51] roads or into people's uh homes or their

[58:54] backyards. So that's what kind of what

[58:56] we mean when we have say an event. And

[58:58] then there's different magnitudes. So,

[59:00] that's kind of what we're describing

[59:01] where we might have some fl um smaller

[59:03] floods that are at that 10-year return

[59:06] period and then we have the larger ones

[59:08] or moderate size that might be like the

[59:11] 2012 event on Fairmont Creek where you

[59:14] saw a lot of mud and rocks and trees

[59:16] come down. Um and I think um the last

[59:20] part of the question was something about

[59:21] how we can mitigate that or bring down

[59:23] the severity of the event. Uh and a lot

[59:27] of what would need um need to be done to

[59:30] bring down um make the event less severe

[59:32] might need to happen in the watershed if

[59:35] we think about it because the this is

[59:36] all coming from up in the watershed when

[59:38] it gets rained on or when we have

[59:40] landslides and generally we don't see

[59:43] that as being feasible uh in Canada.

[59:46] These wersheds are really large. We're

[59:48] not going to be able to secure every

[59:50] slope in the whole watershed. So that's

[59:53] why we start to look at mitigation uh

[59:56] right where it's needed most. So um on

[59:59] the fan where there's uh homes and

[1:00:02] people. Uh hopefully that answers the

[1:00:04] question and maybe Cara might have

[1:00:06] something to add.

[1:00:08] » Um no I think you've said a lot of it uh

[1:00:10] Beatus.

[1:00:12] Um,

[1:00:14] I think right now the best we can do to

[1:00:16] mitigate severity of events is to make

[1:00:18] sure that our existing structures are

[1:00:21] maintained and to have an awareness

[1:00:24] of weather systems that are coming

[1:00:26] towards us and be prepared for them.

[1:00:31] And we do our our all of our

[1:00:33] infrastructure is inspected several

[1:00:36] times a year. So we we do keep close eye

[1:00:40] on things.

[1:00:43] Okay. Um so next question in one of the

[1:00:46] first slides it states quote to ensure

[1:00:49] we met uh provincial expectations

[1:00:53] should not the province bear most of

[1:00:55] that cost?

[1:00:57] And then the second part of this

[1:00:58] question or I guess it's a statement to

[1:01:01] use numbers like 300 years and 1,000 and

[1:01:04] 3,000 years is not realistic.

[1:01:08] » Yeah, I can comment on the the first

[1:01:09] part of that um question there Nathan.

[1:01:12] Uh so just for awareness I am in

[1:01:15] conversations with uh emergency

[1:01:17] management climate readiness uh senior

[1:01:19] staff trying to advocate for our

[1:01:22] residents uh in coming up with some sort

[1:01:24] of sh cost sharing model when it comes

[1:01:27] to funding of uh mitigation and ongoing

[1:01:30] maintenance of mitigation and and

[1:01:32] response costs in general. Uh it is an

[1:01:34] ongoing conversation so there isn't a

[1:01:36] specific update I can share on that

[1:01:37] right now but um we are advocating and

[1:01:40] working really hard to try and get costs

[1:01:42] kept down.

[1:01:48] Um I guess to look at the second part of

[1:01:52] that using numbers like 300 years and

[1:01:54] 1,000 years

[1:01:56] not being realistic. Um,

[1:02:00] so a 300-year event

[1:02:04] has a 15% chance of occurring in a

[1:02:07] 50-year period.

[1:02:10] So a 50% chance of an event occurring

[1:02:14] in that part of someone's life

[1:02:18] is actually fairly significant.

[1:02:21] And even a thousand-year event is a 5%

[1:02:25] chance occurring. So these these

[1:02:27] actually these are

[1:02:29] these actually are

[1:02:33] these actually do warrant a they do

[1:02:34] warrant a response from us and they do

[1:02:38] need to be mitigated from and these

[1:02:41] these events are are life safety events

[1:02:44] that we can't just ignore.

[1:02:51] » Okay. Um, the next question, we were

[1:02:54] told the Cold Spring Creek project was

[1:02:57] for a 1 in300-year event. Now it is

[1:03:00] apparently for a 1 in 1,000-year event.

[1:03:03] Was the risk assessment wrong of or

[1:03:06] sorry, was the risk assessment wrong or

[1:03:09] was the dam built bigger than expected?

[1:03:17] » Could you address that, Petus? the

[1:03:19] changes between the diverse.

[1:03:22] » Sure. Um I don't have the specifics off

[1:03:26] hand um as I was I was involved in this

[1:03:29] a little bit more adjacently but I think

[1:03:31] maybe where the confusion is here um is

[1:03:36] that I I think the basin was built um a

[1:03:41] little bit larger than they had they had

[1:03:43] [clears throat] originally designed just

[1:03:45] based on the space that was available.

[1:03:47] um they were able it was the idea was

[1:03:50] that they went to the budget that was

[1:03:52] available um to to the design. So um so

[1:03:56] there's that part but um really I think

[1:03:59] what we're saying is it's that 300 to

[1:04:01] a,000year range. Um so we in geoscience

[1:04:05] we never put exact numbers on things.

[1:04:08] It's hard uh because we don't understand

[1:04:10] um or sorry um because there's like a

[1:04:13] lot of uncertainty in some of the work

[1:04:15] we do. Um, so that's where we have those

[1:04:17] ranges, that 300 to a thousand-year. Uh,

[1:04:19] and then we compare that to the volume.

[1:04:22] Um, I think that's what Cara did in this

[1:04:23] presentation. Um, compared that to the

[1:04:26] volume of the 1,00 to 3,000-year event,

[1:04:28] just showing how much um, residual

[1:04:31] hazard there still is and why there is

[1:04:34] um, a bit of risk still shown on that

[1:04:38] map. It's from that higher return period

[1:04:40] event. And some of these return periods

[1:04:42] that we study, they um might seem quite

[1:04:45] large like uh but as Cara was

[1:04:47] explaining, they do have the chance of

[1:04:50] happening during someone's lifetime. And

[1:04:51] they're actually um we're instructed to

[1:04:54] look at these large return periods by um

[1:04:57] some of the provincial authorities. Um

[1:05:00] so yeah, just give me a bit of context

[1:05:02] there. Um to add to that a little bit

[1:05:05] further, so we were targeting the 100 to

[1:05:08] 300

[1:05:10] year event as as a minimum for our

[1:05:12] mitigation. And

[1:05:15] that's the event that we looked at

[1:05:17] because it's it's the event that is the

[1:05:21] most likely to happen that is really

[1:05:22] severe if if that makes any sense.

[1:05:26] » Um

[1:05:28] and the project it was built as

[1:05:31] designed. um we didn't build it we

[1:05:33] didn't build it larger but we are

[1:05:35] looking at um

[1:05:39] we're looking at such a big area that it

[1:05:40] takes a very a very small change to make

[1:05:43] a big difference in volume. So,

[1:05:46] you know, we have an extra maybe half

[1:05:48] meter high on the dam than we might have

[1:05:52] needed to get to the 63, but that covers

[1:05:54] a it's such a large area up top that it

[1:05:56] makes a big volume difference.

[1:06:01] Okay. Um, next

[1:06:04] one is

[1:06:07] Okay. But there is one open pipe that is

[1:06:10] pouring water into creek or into the

[1:06:13] creek at the start of the bottom of the

[1:06:16] Marble Canyon Trail. So I'm maybe

[1:06:18] assuming this is in relation to that

[1:06:20] previous

[1:06:23] trail question.

[1:06:27] » I was not aware of that. Um it's not RDK

[1:06:30] infrastructure, but

[1:06:33] I'll let the resort know.

[1:06:35] » Thank you. Okay. Um,

[1:06:39] next one. There's a lot of modeling

[1:06:41] going on. So, is there modeling showing

[1:06:44] the financial and public safety effect a

[1:06:48] flood, debris flow, or landslide has on

[1:06:51] a transportation corridor?

[1:06:53] In our service area, the highway 9395 is

[1:06:56] used daily by business from Cranrook to

[1:06:59] Golden and beyond. The loss of business

[1:07:02] revenue would be substantial, not to

[1:07:03] mention the cost of highway cleanup

[1:07:05] and/or replacement.

[1:07:07] millions even our education system and

[1:07:09] emergency services would endure a long

[1:07:11] period of disruption.

[1:07:13] So the question in there was is there

[1:07:16] modeling showing the financial and

[1:07:17] public safety effect a flood, debris

[1:07:20] flow or landslide has on a

[1:07:21] transportation corridor

[1:07:24] specifically I guess highway 9395.

[1:07:28] » Uh yeah I think I I can take that to

[1:07:30] start with. Uh so as Cara mentioned in

[1:07:34] the presentation, we did do a

[1:07:37] preliminary economic risk assessment on

[1:07:40] Fairmont Creek. So that's taking into

[1:07:42] account um approximate costs of the

[1:07:46] damage that um these events would do. Uh

[1:07:50] but ours is uh the assessment that was

[1:07:53] done is is quite preliminary. We mostly

[1:07:55] just looked at damages to buildings and

[1:07:58] properties and then the cleanup costs

[1:08:00] that um RDK has has taken um in previous

[1:08:05] events such as like the the annual or

[1:08:07] every two-year uh filling of the we um

[1:08:11] so we didn't look at all of the business

[1:08:14] loss and and I think it's mentioned in

[1:08:16] there as a large limitation of our study

[1:08:18] that that obviously um was not accounted

[1:08:21] for. Uh and um that's

[1:08:25] Definitely. It it makes sense that that

[1:08:27] needs to or that that is a large loss

[1:08:30] though if if the highway was closed.

[1:08:45] Sorry, I was muted there. My apologies.

[1:08:47] RDK is creating the risk tolerance

[1:08:49] policy. Will that not drive which flood

[1:08:53] mitigation is recommended? Should the

[1:08:55] community not have input as the degree

[1:08:57] of risk that as the degree of risk be

[1:09:01] willing to tolerate?

[1:09:09] Maybe if I could get Tamson to speak to

[1:09:13] um the risk tolerance policy

[1:09:14] recommendation.

[1:09:16] » Sure. Um thanks Karen. Uh so certainly

[1:09:20] risk tolerance policy would be one of

[1:09:23] the inputs um one of the elements in

[1:09:25] making decisions about mitigation but

[1:09:27] along with many other ones and um I

[1:09:30] think I've heard Karen and Cara speaking

[1:09:34] to further engagement on the mitigation

[1:09:36] options. Um, if we think about the risk

[1:09:40] tolerance policy, um, it's there really

[1:09:43] to drive land use decisions. Um, and

[1:09:48] really applies to existing development,

[1:09:51] uh, as well as new development. And

[1:09:52] often there's different tolerances for

[1:09:55] that new development as well as the

[1:09:57] existing development. with existing

[1:09:59] development having a higher tolerance,

[1:10:02] the the priority is really to um prevent

[1:10:05] future exposure to to the the hazard.

[1:10:09] So, it doesn't necessarily point to the

[1:10:10] most expensive option for mitigation. Um

[1:10:14] certainly uh engagement would occur

[1:10:17] moving forward on the risk tolerance

[1:10:21] uh policy as Karen's mentioned as well.

[1:10:24] Um there is significant precedent in BC

[1:10:28] in terms of uh risk tolerance policy

[1:10:30] used in other communities

[1:10:33] uh for for this for a similar

[1:10:35] application.

[1:10:42] All right. Um, so the next one, remind

[1:10:45] us again why the annual cost to maintain

[1:10:48] mitigation works on these creeks in

[1:10:50] Fairmont should only be borne by a mere

[1:10:53] 1,000 Fairmont rate payers and not

[1:10:56] spread out through out the valley and

[1:10:58] the MOT. at

[1:11:17] I think I'll I'll start this and

[1:11:19] probably Christina you could uh weigh in

[1:11:22] a little bit on this too because in fact

[1:11:25] a lot of the maintenance some of the

[1:11:27] cleaning out of the wees the debris,

[1:11:29] ponds, that sort of thing. Some of those

[1:11:30] costs are recouped. It's my

[1:11:33] understanding from from emergency

[1:11:34] management. So, all the costs are not

[1:11:38] actually being to maintain the

[1:11:40] infrastructure uh and clear clear them

[1:11:42] out are not being maintained by the

[1:11:44] rate. But it there is a provincial

[1:11:47] expectation with these grants that we

[1:11:50] receive and again Carrie you may want to

[1:11:52] add to that but that that we that the

[1:11:54] grants the 98% that we received um for

[1:11:57] the funding of the of the capital work

[1:11:59] is that there was some responsibility on

[1:12:02] the on the uh property owners in this in

[1:12:05] the service area to maintain that which

[1:12:08] is protecting the properties.

[1:12:11] » I can jump in there. Sorry, I

[1:12:12] interpreted that question slightly

[1:12:13] differently than I think it was actually

[1:12:15] asked. So, um yeah, when it comes to uh

[1:12:18] debris building up in uh the we or in

[1:12:21] any of our debris basins, uh if it is of

[1:12:24] a sizable note, um then the province can

[1:12:28] step in with their response funding,

[1:12:30] emergency funding to help us clean those

[1:12:31] out so we can reduce the risk and get it

[1:12:33] back to a a tolerable standard so that

[1:12:35] everybody is safe. Um and from that

[1:12:38] perspective, we are um we do that with

[1:12:41] every single event that we have. Um the

[1:12:44] other comment sort of ties into what I

[1:12:45] was talking about earlier with the

[1:12:46] advocacy in terms of ongoing

[1:12:48] maintenance. So just looking at like the

[1:12:50] Cold Spring uh debris basin and trying

[1:12:53] to come up with a a cost sharing model

[1:12:54] from that perspective to um ensure that

[1:12:57] it's not just uh our our taxpayers that

[1:13:00] are paying for it, that there is some

[1:13:02] some tie into the province there as

[1:13:03] well. Cara, is there anything you want

[1:13:06] to add to that?

[1:13:09] » Um, not really. I think between you and

[1:13:10] Susan, do you think you you've answered

[1:13:12] the question?

[1:13:16] » Nathan.

[1:13:17] » Okay.

[1:13:18] Um, so next up, does the community

[1:13:21] really have any say when the province

[1:13:23] minister and RDK are creating their own

[1:13:26] guidance report?

[1:13:33] The guidance report is really seen as as

[1:13:36] the starting point. Um we knew we didn't

[1:13:39] have all the answers when it came to um

[1:13:42] what we needed to do in order to move

[1:13:45] forward proactively with um

[1:13:48] acknowledging the outcomes of these um

[1:13:50] technical engineering reports. Um so

[1:13:55] there will be a certain point um where

[1:13:57] the community will have opportunities to

[1:13:59] participate. Um but as it's been

[1:14:03] identified by various speakers um the

[1:14:05] regional district does have obligations

[1:14:07] and responsibilities under various acts

[1:14:11] um at the provincial level um to ensure

[1:14:15] that development is um occurring in a

[1:14:18] safe and responsible manner. Um so

[1:14:21] within those contexts um we will be

[1:14:24] looking at um making sure that um the

[1:14:28] actions that are um undertaken um are

[1:14:31] moving the RDK and the community towards

[1:14:33] those ends. Um and within those

[1:14:36] limitations um when there is

[1:14:38] opportunities for the community to help

[1:14:41] guide the direction um we absolutely

[1:14:43] will be looking to capitalize on those

[1:14:46] um and like working to ensure that the

[1:14:49] community is informed about why um when

[1:14:52] we can't um utilize sort of community um

[1:14:56] consent or community buyin um to an

[1:14:58] extent that you would prefer um why the

[1:15:01] regional district um is moving in that

[1:15:03] direction as

[1:15:05] And I can just add into the ministerial

[1:15:08] comment there. So under the new EDMA

[1:15:10] legislation, uh the minister is not

[1:15:12] currently um to my knowledge ever used

[1:15:15] that power. That's a relatively new one.

[1:15:18] Um, and so I think if we did end up in a

[1:15:21] place where they weren't happy with the

[1:15:23] direction that we were proposing, uh,

[1:15:25] whether that's, you know, a minimal

[1:15:28] mitigation effort or or nothing at all,

[1:15:30] whatever the case may be from what comes

[1:15:31] out of our analysis, um, there would

[1:15:34] likely be conversation between the local

[1:15:36] government uh, and the province and

[1:15:38] potentially the the community, depending

[1:15:40] on how it it all plays out, um, of what

[1:15:44] mitigative [snorts] work would be

[1:15:46] required or would be acceptable. by the

[1:15:48] province. So it may not be like a

[1:15:50] specific one that they they dictate. It

[1:15:51] could be a variety of things. So uh

[1:15:54] there'd be a lot of conversations around

[1:15:56] that if we did come down to that.

[1:16:00] » Okay. And sorry I um accidentally bumped

[1:16:04] over one here. The question is what

[1:16:06] about future use of the director

[1:16:08] consent?

[1:16:12] I'm guessing that one that one's coming

[1:16:15] uh is for me. Um so I'm I'm actually

[1:16:19] just going to provide a little

[1:16:20] background on on when director consent

[1:16:23] was used um for the cold spring work. Um

[1:16:29] when we first presented the hazard a

[1:16:32] similar uh session that we h we're

[1:16:34] having tonight regarding the uh cold

[1:16:36] spring hazard assessment report. Um it

[1:16:40] was the intention to move forward in

[1:16:43] with a uh you know with a lot of

[1:16:46] community engagement referendum if

[1:16:47] necessary before it was determined

[1:16:49] exactly what the mitigation work would

[1:16:51] would be done. Very quickly after that

[1:16:55] presentation, I think we did that

[1:16:57] presentation October, November. In

[1:16:59] December, there was an announcement made

[1:17:02] by the federal government and the

[1:17:03] provincial government of fund that we

[1:17:06] where we could get up to to up to $10

[1:17:08] million of funding from for and we had a

[1:17:12] very brief window uh opportunity to

[1:17:15] submit our application for that. So, we

[1:17:17] decided to do it because when we were

[1:17:19] speaking originally during the

[1:17:20] presentation, we had all envisioned a

[1:17:22] 25-year

[1:17:24] phased approach to building uh

[1:17:27] mitigation works on Cold Spring Creek.

[1:17:30] So, that fund uh that application came

[1:17:34] forward. Um we submitted the application

[1:17:37] in order through a number of questions

[1:17:40] and I think Carrick could probably uh

[1:17:42] add to this. Um it was determined um

[1:17:46] that the best way forward was to do

[1:17:48] director uh consent to whereas I asked

[1:17:53] the board to support the the work going

[1:17:57] forward that then was sent to the

[1:18:01] minister

[1:18:02] uh responsible for their approval. So it

[1:18:05] wasn't just a director uh making the

[1:18:08] decision. It was it was more about the

[1:18:12] process to move forward because the

[1:18:14] timing in order to for us to accept um

[1:18:18] and apply accept the funding that was

[1:18:21] being that was looking very optimistic

[1:18:23] within a very short time of being of

[1:18:26] applying for that grant um

[1:18:29] uh didn't allow for the the timing of a

[1:18:32] of a referendum. and the cost of a

[1:18:35] referendum would have been anywhere from

[1:18:38] $40 to $50,000. So there was a lot of

[1:18:40] factors involved. And so it wasn't just

[1:18:43] me as the director a directing staff to

[1:18:45] make to go forward. It was me asking the

[1:18:49] board to ask the minister. And so that's

[1:18:52] that's what happened there. the minister

[1:18:54] and and the ministerial staff reviewing

[1:18:57] the application both federally and

[1:18:59] proincially looked at the application,

[1:19:01] looked at the hazard assessment and

[1:19:02] determined it was the best uh way

[1:19:05] forward. And that's how we were able to

[1:19:07] get just over $9.7 million from that

[1:19:10] particular fund and subsequent funds

[1:19:13] bringing us to a 98% funding on that

[1:19:15] project. So that's why that decision was

[1:19:18] made. And so at this point, I don't see

[1:19:20] that I'd be shocked if we saw that kind

[1:19:23] of granting opportunity again. So it

[1:19:25] wouldn't be my intention to um to use

[1:19:29] that tool again. Um but that said, I

[1:19:33] don't think we can ever say definitely

[1:19:35] never, but uh certainly not the

[1:19:37] intention um at this stage because I

[1:19:39] don't see us with that same financial uh

[1:19:42] opportunity.

[1:19:50] Okay. Um, next question. At the 2025

[1:19:55] area F town hall meeting, the RDK

[1:19:57] responded yes when asked whether the

[1:20:00] residents of Fairmont would be given the

[1:20:02] opportunity to participate in a

[1:20:03] referendum regarding Fairmont Creek

[1:20:06] flood and landslide mitigation project

[1:20:08] works. Will the RDK continue to hold

[1:20:11] this position?

[1:20:15] Um, so I believe that was me that

[1:20:17] responded yes at that area F town hall.

[1:20:19] So I'll take this question.

[1:20:21] Um, I don't know if it'll be a

[1:20:23] referendum or exactly what the process

[1:20:25] would look like. Um,

[1:20:28] our intent is to engage the community as

[1:20:30] much as we can and still

[1:20:33] um, meet our obligations with protecting

[1:20:36] community. And like in my my ideal

[1:20:40] world, you know, we have plenty of time

[1:20:42] to go through all the engagement we want

[1:20:44] and to select a project

[1:20:47] and um you know, plan for plan for the

[1:20:52] future as much as we can and you know

[1:20:55] maybe in 2 years we have that great

[1:20:57] funding opportunity that came up that we

[1:20:59] were able to apply for for Cold Spring

[1:21:01] Creek.

[1:21:03] Um so yes my our intent is to engage

[1:21:07] community as much as we can and to

[1:21:10] listen to your wants and

[1:21:14] and also your what you don't want.

[1:21:21] » Okay. Um what level of risk is tolerable

[1:21:26] and who decides the residents or the

[1:21:29] developers? I am free to choose the risk

[1:21:31] to drive my car. Why do I not have the

[1:21:34] input in choosing the risk I will accept

[1:21:36] in a flood?

[1:21:39] » Yeah, I can take that one. Um, it's a

[1:21:40] good question. There's a number of

[1:21:42] factors involved in this one. So, uh,

[1:21:45] for starters, I guess just to look at

[1:21:46] your example, um, driving your car is an

[1:21:50] individual choice, whereas what we're

[1:21:52] looking at here is a communitywide

[1:21:54] impacts potentially to a large group of

[1:21:56] people, not just an individual. um when

[1:21:59] it comes to determining risk and from

[1:22:01] the provincial perspective, uh they look

[1:22:04] at the BC emergency response sort of

[1:22:07] goals or guidelines uh which is

[1:22:09] protecting lives, uh protecting public

[1:22:12] health, um reducing suffering,

[1:22:14] protecting property and infrastructure.

[1:22:16] Uh there's a whole list including

[1:22:18] economic and social losses. Uh there's a

[1:22:20] whole variety of things there. There's

[1:22:21] also a lot of precedents already set um

[1:22:24] both legally and just in um response to

[1:22:28] other emergencies and and mitigative

[1:22:30] works where where exist um disasters

[1:22:33] have existed. Uh so it there's all a lot

[1:22:36] there. Um we look at recommendations

[1:22:38] from qualified professionals as well. Um

[1:22:41] yeah, that kind of sums that one up I

[1:22:43] think.

[1:22:46] » Okay, thanks for that. Um, would it not

[1:22:49] be better to have mitigation upstream to

[1:22:52] avoid destruction in the flood fan?

[1:22:54] Example, annual inspection of the

[1:22:56] watershed done by a drone,

[1:22:59] identification of debris piles and

[1:23:00] removal to bring down costs.

[1:23:05] » Uh, I can take this question. Uh, this

[1:23:08] is a really interesting and uh, great

[1:23:11] question. Um, and the reason we

[1:23:14] generally don't look at mitigation in

[1:23:17] wersheds is due to the cost. So, the

[1:23:21] idea of flying a drone and taking a look

[1:23:23] at the wershed. Excellent. I love it. I

[1:23:25] like looking at what's happening up

[1:23:26] there and seeing what the sediment

[1:23:28] supply is like. Uh, it gives us an idea

[1:23:30] of what we can expect in the future. Uh,

[1:23:33] but the access to be able to clean that

[1:23:35] out if we do see debris building up is

[1:23:38] is really really challenging. uh you're

[1:23:40] not going to be able to get excavators

[1:23:42] up there or trucks and things like that.

[1:23:44] And so that's why we tend to look at

[1:23:46] mitigation options that are accessible.

[1:23:49] Uh so that brings the cost um down

[1:23:52] substantially.

[1:23:58] » Okay. Um our costs for the local service

[1:24:02] area have already increased 600% from

[1:24:06] 2020 to 2024. How much more can we be

[1:24:09] expected to bear with this new project

[1:24:11] on Fairmont Creek? We need a tax

[1:24:14] decrease, not increase.

[1:24:20] Um, at this point, we absolutely can't

[1:24:23] put a number on it at all. Um,

[1:24:28] and this possible project on Fairmont

[1:24:31] Creek could be many years into the

[1:24:34] future. At this point, it'll be

[1:24:35] dependent on funding and on what we look

[1:24:39] at doing on the creek.

[1:24:46] » Okay. Um at our last area F town hall

[1:24:49] meeting, um community members asked

[1:24:52] about costs and mitigation of Fairmont

[1:24:55] Creek. The response was that possibly

[1:24:58] very little will be needed to be done as

[1:25:01] work was completed in 2017 2018.

[1:25:05] Now we're looking at costs upwards to 20

[1:25:07] million for flood mitigation. What

[1:25:10] changed in the last 4 months?

[1:25:17] » Well, at the area F town hall, we did

[1:25:20] not have the results of the updated

[1:25:23] hazard assessment yet. So, we didn't

[1:25:25] know what the new what the outcome of it

[1:25:27] was going to be, what the new volumes

[1:25:28] were going to be, and what the map was

[1:25:29] going to look like. Um, so we do have

[1:25:32] some mitigation on the creek, which is

[1:25:36] um which has done a very good job of

[1:25:39] protecting community and the events that

[1:25:41] have happened in the last few years. Um

[1:25:45] but now that now that we have the

[1:25:48] results, we do know that we you know

[1:25:50] more work is likely warranted

[1:25:54] and um we'll move forward as best we can

[1:25:58] with community engagement and um working

[1:26:01] with our consultants.

[1:26:05] » Okay. Um what is the order of natural

[1:26:09] hazard risks to Fairmont? We are very

[1:26:12] focused on flood mitigation yet. Is not

[1:26:15] forest fire a much greater risk that

[1:26:17] might strike while we are looking at the

[1:26:19] creek hazards?

[1:26:21] » Yeah, that's a good question. Um, so we

[1:26:23] are actually currently undertaking our

[1:26:25] hazard risk and vulnerability analysis

[1:26:27] update. Uh, in the last one, I don't

[1:26:30] have the exact ranking for uh Fairmont

[1:26:32] in front of me, but our top three

[1:26:34] hazards across the entire East Coupney

[1:26:35] are wildfires, floods, and dangerous

[1:26:37] goods. each community's uh vulnerability

[1:26:40] to each of those is going to be a little

[1:26:41] bit different uh depending on where you

[1:26:43] are and what your hazards are uh in that

[1:26:46] immediate area. Um but that is uh what

[1:26:49] is being looked at right now. So um and

[1:26:52] on the wildfire comment, we have a very

[1:26:55] active and engaged fires smart program

[1:26:57] throughout the region that works with

[1:26:58] homeowners to reduce the risk of

[1:27:00] wildfire around your house. Um and so we

[1:27:03] have that going on. And then the

[1:27:04] province uh also has a wildfire risk

[1:27:06] reduction program that they actively

[1:27:08] work on as well.

[1:27:13] Okay. The pro this is the next question.

[1:27:15] The process as I understand it was a

[1:27:18] recommendation to the RDK board who

[1:27:20] unanimously approved the recommendation

[1:27:22] to the minister for approval. This

[1:27:24] resulted in 98% plus of total costs

[1:27:27] being ultimately covered in order to

[1:27:29] best protect us as rateayers. Thank you.

[1:27:33] So I guess that was just not a question

[1:27:35] that was a statement.

[1:27:39] Um

[1:27:43] Caris stated sorry this is the next

[1:27:46] question. Car stated there would be lots

[1:27:48] of engagement regarding future

[1:27:50] mitigation projects. There are over 31

[1:27:52] people sitting in a room in FHS

[1:27:56] sorry hot springs. Believe me we are

[1:27:58] engaged. You should be here in person.

[1:28:05] I I just would like to comment on that.

[1:28:08] I think that's great and we also have 30

[1:28:10] participants online. So, I think it's a

[1:28:13] great combination that this Zoom meeting

[1:28:15] has really enabled um participation by

[1:28:20] uh a large group of of community members

[1:28:23] and and whether they're here in Fairmont

[1:28:26] Hot Springs as I am or as um or in uh

[1:28:32] elsewhere in the country or even um in

[1:28:34] the world. So, I think I really

[1:28:37] appreciate that so many people are

[1:28:38] engaged. this is this uh just proves to

[1:28:41] me that this was a great way to have

[1:28:42] this initial this initial meeting

[1:28:44] because it provided access for um over

[1:28:48] 60 people. So, thank you.

[1:28:53] Okay, for uh the next one, for some

[1:28:56] community members, and um you're going

[1:28:58] to have to forgive me because I don't

[1:29:00] know what one of these what this means.

[1:29:02] For some community members, the increase

[1:29:04] in tax RT debris mitigation is $1,000 a

[1:29:08] year. Over a 20-year period, this

[1:29:11] amounts to 20,000. Add another dam to

[1:29:14] Fairmont Creek potential to 40,000 for

[1:29:16] one property owner. Is this fair?

[1:29:28] I I don't think we're at that stage of

[1:29:31] quantifying what the impact could be or

[1:29:35] will be at this point. So, I'm not even

[1:29:38] sure the best way to to respond um to

[1:29:43] your question. I guess is it depends on

[1:29:47] on um what the uh what mitigation work

[1:29:50] is determined to be done through through

[1:29:53] the process that we've explained we're

[1:29:55] going to be going through this evening

[1:29:57] and and uh you know what that protection

[1:30:00] of of property infrastructure and life

[1:30:03] is. So um yeah I guess we will determine

[1:30:07] as we move forward what's going to make

[1:30:09] the most sense for the community of

[1:30:11] Fairmont.

[1:30:15] Okay. Um, so this actually that was the

[1:30:17] last question, but now one more has come

[1:30:18] in and I'm I'm not trying to shut it

[1:30:20] down. I'm just sort of letting people

[1:30:22] know if they're sort of maybe last call

[1:30:24] if you will. Um, this next question is

[1:30:27] Oh, one more is coming apparently too.

[1:30:29] Okay, [laughter]

[1:30:30] next question. When do you plan to know

[1:30:33] what mitigation plan will be determined?

[1:30:39] Um that'll depend on what when we can

[1:30:42] get funding to do the options analysis.

[1:30:44] Um

[1:30:46] and then however quickly we move through

[1:30:49] that through that process and then

[1:30:50] beyond that we may choose an option.

[1:30:53] However um we will still need to to um

[1:30:59] apply for and be successful in getting

[1:31:01] funding for it. So it

[1:31:05] hard question to answer but it won't be

[1:31:07] in the next couple of months.

[1:31:10] It could be up to yours.

[1:31:13] » Okay. And yeah, I want to be clear. I

[1:31:15] wasn't I'm not trying to rush anyone. So

[1:31:17] we do know that there is one more

[1:31:18] question coming in. So we will gladly

[1:31:20] wait for that one and

[1:31:23] maybe more.

[1:31:25] So um yeah, don't worry. You don't have

[1:31:29] to you don't have to type too fast. You

[1:31:32] got time.

[1:31:49] So, I will just take this moment though

[1:31:51] to remind anyone that once this

[1:31:53] recording is done, we will get it up

[1:31:56] onto the engage page as quick as we can

[1:31:59] um and then send it out the link via the

[1:32:03] um the community emails. So, please make

[1:32:06] sure uh if you're not already signed up

[1:32:08] for it, sign up for that community

[1:32:09] email. You can do that at rdk.bc.ca.

[1:32:14] And at the top it says um what is the

[1:32:17] wording? Stay informed. And so there's a

[1:32:20] little stay informed button at the top

[1:32:21] of our main page on our website. Click

[1:32:24] that and you can sign up for the emails.

[1:32:26] And that way um especially on the on

[1:32:29] projects like this, you will be the

[1:32:31] first one to find out what's going on.

[1:32:34] That's our first way of getting the word

[1:32:35] out. Okay. Um the question has come in.

[1:32:40] Debris flows are created when debris

[1:32:42] piles when debris piles up along the

[1:32:45] creek bed and impair the natural flow of

[1:32:48] water. Under severe weather events, the

[1:32:50] water is impeded by the debris creating

[1:32:52] a dam effect. When this material and the

[1:32:55] dam breaks, it creates a debris flow

[1:32:58] into the fan. Why is everything you

[1:33:01] consider mitigation a local mega

[1:33:03] project?

[1:33:09] Um maybe I'll I'll start and and others

[1:33:12] can jump in if they have other um

[1:33:14] thoughts. So I um this is something that

[1:33:19] could occur um in the watersheds here,

[1:33:22] but that's not actually the only type of

[1:33:25] debris flow we get. Um, a lot of the

[1:33:28] time, um, when we have a large rainfall

[1:33:31] or an intense rainfall, so, uh, really

[1:33:34] high amounts of rain in a short period,

[1:33:36] it can mobilize sediment that's already

[1:33:38] in the channel. And as most of you when

[1:33:40] you look up at the mountains there, you

[1:33:42] know that there's like a lot of, um, big

[1:33:44] rock boulder fields up there. So, all of

[1:33:47] that starts to kind of mobilize. There's

[1:33:50] so much sediment up in these watersheds

[1:33:52] that's available for transport when

[1:33:54] there's enough rain. So that's kind of

[1:33:55] how we see debris flows start um or from

[1:33:58] landslides on the side of the creek

[1:34:01] entering the creek. Um so yeah, that's

[1:34:04] one uh those are a couple different ways

[1:34:06] that debris flows can uh start and I

[1:34:09] think the main question here is why does

[1:34:11] it have to be a large project? Um there

[1:34:13] are different options as Cara presented.

[1:34:16] So there's kind of different levels um

[1:34:18] that we've looked at um but we're aiming

[1:34:21] to improve the life safety risk on the

[1:34:24] fan. So that requires a little bit

[1:34:26] higher of a level of mitigation because

[1:34:29] we're trying to um reduce the risk of

[1:34:32] those larger events impacting people's

[1:34:35] homes. Um but there are like some small

[1:34:38] or like lesser um not as large projects

[1:34:41] and everything that can be done as well.

[1:34:43] Um it just might not have um the

[1:34:46] intended outcome. And I'll let Cara um

[1:34:48] or someone else add to that if they have

[1:34:50] anything else.

[1:34:56] Um, I don't really have anything else to

[1:34:58] add to that. P. I think you've you've

[1:35:00] answered it.

[1:35:03] Okay. Um, next question. Why would the

[1:35:06] annual cost of these mitigation projects

[1:35:09] not be shared throughout the valley

[1:35:10] communities given the potential impact

[1:35:12] to the transportation corridor?

[1:35:30] and um the follow-up question to that

[1:35:33] the next one is it just it's please be

[1:35:35] clear when answering why would the

[1:35:36] annual cost of these mitigation projects

[1:35:39] not be shared throughout the valleys or

[1:35:41] sorry throughout the valley communities.

[1:35:51] Yeah, I think I I'm I might follow up on

[1:35:55] this question maybe through the enga

[1:35:57] engage page because uh I just want to be

[1:36:00] clear this is to some degree this is a

[1:36:02] bit of probably a a decision that was

[1:36:05] made uh 2013 is what the the size of the

[1:36:09] service area and it was certainly before

[1:36:11] my time. Um but this is a uh the service

[1:36:14] area and and it's really depends on it's

[1:36:17] about how the regional districts um pay

[1:36:21] for services. We're not like a

[1:36:23] municipality where we uh have a budget.

[1:36:26] We collect taxes for that budget and

[1:36:30] then that money is spent per the budget.

[1:36:32] Each service area has to have a budget

[1:36:35] and to do any work uh in the regional

[1:36:38] district we have to have a service area

[1:36:40] and the service area for this work is uh

[1:36:45] was determined um um I think it goes

[1:36:47] back to 1989 actually if my memory

[1:36:50] serves um by the Fairmont Flood and

[1:36:53] Landslide Service Area. So that's that's

[1:36:57] where it's at right now and it it is the

[1:37:00] greatest number of impacted residents.

[1:37:03] Um there are opportunities for you know

[1:37:07] transportation to be uh or for for

[1:37:10] people to kind of egress the community

[1:37:13] on either side of Fairmont whether

[1:37:15] through through Cranbrook or through

[1:37:17] through Radium. And so I imagine that

[1:37:20] might have had something to do with that

[1:37:22] original um determination of what the

[1:37:24] service area looked like. So I I think

[1:37:27] we can certainly follow up with a more

[1:37:29] wholesome answer as to what that

[1:37:31] processes, but um this does date back um

[1:37:35] to to the late 80s and how the service

[1:37:38] area was structured and set up.

[1:37:44] » Okay. Um

[1:37:49] The next one,

[1:37:51] can you be more specific about exactly

[1:37:53] what input citizens will have in the

[1:37:56] risk development policy?

[1:38:00] So, I'm going to assume that this is

[1:38:02] with respect to the risk tolerance

[1:38:05] policy. Um so we do have a clear

[1:38:08] recommendation in the guidance report um

[1:38:12] that outlines a proposed framework.

[1:38:16] Um and so I think that um if it's

[1:38:19] largely going to be um at the inform

[1:38:23] level of engagement

[1:38:25] um but that would be determined um based

[1:38:28] on uh direction provided to staff um and

[1:38:32] at the discretion of the regional

[1:38:33] district board. Um I think a key thing

[1:38:37] um that has been touched on by a number

[1:38:39] of different speakers uh this evening

[1:38:42] has been that um these frameworks are

[1:38:45] something that are um have legal

[1:38:47] precedent. Uh they have precedent in

[1:38:49] other comparable communities um and that

[1:38:52] that that's what we're going to be

[1:38:54] drawing from on that. Um so really it's

[1:38:57] largely wanting to make sure that the

[1:38:59] community understands

[1:39:02] um the basis and the premise for um that

[1:39:05] um but that we are like we have a clear

[1:39:08] recommendation in the report um and we

[1:39:10] anticipate that that that's what will be

[1:39:12] brought forward. Um so it it likely will

[1:39:15] be um at the inform level of

[1:39:19] consultation.

[1:39:21] um but that we will um embark on that

[1:39:24] and that we will have that and if it is

[1:39:27] uh the decision is made by the board

[1:39:29] that it's original districtwide

[1:39:31] um policy um so it's not that it is

[1:39:34] something that is specific to Fairmont

[1:39:37] or specific to these debris floods um

[1:39:39] but is generally speaking that as um

[1:39:42] Christina's identified we recognize

[1:39:44] there's a range um of hazards and

[1:39:47] vulnerabilities across the regional

[1:39:49] district and that would um factor in to

[1:39:53] that as well um is that it won't just be

[1:39:56] the Fairmont community that we will need

[1:39:58] to have that uh discussion with to have

[1:40:01] that consultation with. Um it will be

[1:40:03] original district-wide discussion that

[1:40:05] we'll be having.

[1:40:12] Okay. Um there's a a two-part sort of

[1:40:15] question statement here. Have you driven

[1:40:17] through the Crows Nest Pass with respect

[1:40:20] to major rock slides?

[1:40:24] Um, I would say that yes, most of us

[1:40:26] have driven through Crow's Nest Pass and

[1:40:28] have seen that rock slide. Yes. I'm not

[1:40:32] sure what the uh statement or question

[1:40:35] is behind that one though.

[1:40:39] And then the next one, the majority of

[1:40:42] Fairmont Creek is on private resort

[1:40:44] land. Will that be taken into

[1:40:46] consideration when the mitigation is

[1:40:47] done on it?

[1:40:51] » Um

[1:40:53] that it's on private land is considered

[1:40:55] to a certain extent. Um the important

[1:40:57] thing really is that

[1:41:00] um the impacts of the debris flows that

[1:41:02] come down Fairmont Creek are not just on

[1:41:04] private resort land. They're they're in

[1:41:07] the wider community

[1:41:12] and water is

[1:41:15] water is considered crown. However,

[1:41:19] it's the impact that we have to think

[1:41:21] about

[1:41:23] and the impact again is in the

[1:41:24] community.

[1:41:35] Um and then a statement afterwards

[1:41:38] saying and water is federally

[1:41:40] controlled.

[1:41:47] I'd just say yes um that that is

[1:41:48] something that's recognized is um

[1:41:50] depending on the type of water. Uh

[1:41:53] generally speaking, the federal

[1:41:54] government is concerned when it's

[1:41:57] navigable waters or if it's with respect

[1:42:00] to um like department of fisheries and

[1:42:03] oceans and fish habitat. Um it's

[1:42:06] definitely something that um is

[1:42:08] recognized is that water um falls under

[1:42:12] multiple jurisdictions and that's why um

[1:42:16] when we proceed with this there's

[1:42:17] different levels of government involved

[1:42:19] in the different stages and processes.

[1:42:28] Okay, we are uh we have no more qu open

[1:42:30] questions right now. There is one that I

[1:42:32] did want to address that was sort of

[1:42:34] earlier uh questioned and I answered it

[1:42:37] um privately to the asker. Um and it was

[1:42:41] just about the water utility issues. Um,

[1:42:43] and the question was or the statement

[1:42:45] was the water utility issues are more

[1:42:47] immediate and should be looked at how

[1:42:49] the and and should be looked at how the

[1:42:51] RDK can support our failing system. And

[1:42:54] so the answer I I answered that

[1:42:56] individual with Fairmont Hot Springs

[1:42:58] Utility. The reason I'm bringing this up

[1:43:00] is I I do know it's big for a lot of the

[1:43:02] people is privately owned and operated

[1:43:05] and falling under the regulation of the

[1:43:07] controller of water rights, Interior

[1:43:09] Health and the province. Uh

[1:43:11] consequently, the RDK does not have any

[1:43:13] jurisdiction or authority and cannot

[1:43:14] intervene directly. However, um director

[1:43:17] Clochuk has been actively involved on

[1:43:20] behalf of the customers of FHSU. Uh

[1:43:23] she's been reaching out to the office of

[1:43:24] the water controller and FHSU staff, the

[1:43:27] MLA and the Ministry of Water, Lands,

[1:43:29] and Resource Stewardship to advocate for

[1:43:31] the community's concerns to be heard and

[1:43:34] for actions to be taken to address them.

[1:43:36] Um, the only reason I bring that up is I

[1:43:38] believe that that answer may have gotten

[1:43:42] lost to that individual. So, I'm sorry

[1:43:44] to that individual.

[1:43:49] Okay. Yeah. And that's it. We have no

[1:43:51] more open um questions any more. So, I'm

[1:43:56] going to mute and allow either Karen or

[1:44:00] Susan to finish us off. So yeah, I'll

[1:44:03] just um I had a a few things I just

[1:44:06] wanted to highlight on this final slide

[1:44:08] that you hopefully can see. Uh and then

[1:44:10] I'll pass it off to Susan to wrap up for

[1:44:12] the night. Um so again, just wanted to

[1:44:15] to draw your attention if you have not

[1:44:18] already been on the engage page. Um we

[1:44:20] do have all three reports available on

[1:44:24] uh the fair um debris mitigation page.

[1:44:28] Uh they will remain available in their

[1:44:30] entirety. Um so um we do recognize that

[1:44:34] um they're large reports. There are

[1:44:35] three reports uh that people might want

[1:44:39] to um you know peruse them at their

[1:44:42] leisure. Uh so we'll keep them

[1:44:44] available. Um and also to recognize that

[1:44:47] um staff contacts so for the RDK and if

[1:44:50] you don't already have the information

[1:44:52] director Clostchuck's contact

[1:44:54] information is also directly on those

[1:44:57] pages. Uh so if you have questions

[1:45:00] you can either send them directly to

[1:45:02] staff or you um we will set it up so

[1:45:06] similar to the advanced questions where

[1:45:09] you could send a response just kind of

[1:45:12] uh generically uh to the page um we'll

[1:45:15] set up something similar um and then um

[1:45:18] if you provide your contact information

[1:45:20] with that um we'll ensure it's set up

[1:45:22] that way um it will be able to be

[1:45:25] directed to the appropriate staff um and

[1:45:27] we will be able to respond to you. Is

[1:45:30] that director club? Chuck, did you have

[1:45:32] anything you'd like to finish on?

[1:45:34] » Yeah, I just I just would like to say

[1:45:36] thank you to everyone who's

[1:45:38] participated, those at the uh at the

[1:45:40] Lion's Den and and those from the

[1:45:42] comfort of your homes um here on Zoom

[1:45:45] tonight. Your questions were great and

[1:45:48] they're really important and we want you

[1:45:49] to keep them coming. Uh, I think what

[1:45:52] I'm going to do is I'm going to ask

[1:45:54] staff to um, you know, reflect on what

[1:45:58] we heard this evening and the questions

[1:46:00] that were asked and provide um, maybe in

[1:46:03] some cases some more wholesome responses

[1:46:06] uh, articulate those questions um, and

[1:46:08] make them available also on the engage

[1:46:11] site. Um, and I really want to thank,

[1:46:14] you know, uh, all the staff that joined

[1:46:17] us this evening, Karen and Cara, uh,

[1:46:20] Christina for your bringing your

[1:46:22] expertise and and Ryan, who I failed to

[1:46:25] introduce, uh, at the beginning, uh,

[1:46:27] who's providing some support there for,

[1:46:30] uh, for Nathan as the as supporting the

[1:46:32] the technology and making sure that we,

[1:46:34] we, uh, got everything done tonight that

[1:46:37] we needed to get done. And of course the

[1:46:38] consultants providing your expertise and

[1:46:40] knowledge and and hearing the concerns

[1:46:43] of the community um through the lens

[1:46:45] that you look at these issues on as well

[1:46:48] I think is is probably very valuable as

[1:46:50] we move forward on where these projects

[1:46:53] may end up. So again thank you so very

[1:46:57] much and um we will uh just keep your

[1:47:02] questions coming. that is the best way

[1:47:04] for us to do to do the work here and

[1:47:06] make sure that the community is is uh is

[1:47:10] safe and and that the community members

[1:47:13] uh feel heard and respected throughout

[1:47:16] this process. So, thanks again and enjoy

[1:47:18] the rest of your evening. And I know

[1:47:20] it's going to feel really cold when

[1:47:22] Nathan just turns off the Zoom. We're

[1:47:24] all just going to disappear into the uh

[1:47:27] into the ether and not it's not like

[1:47:29] wandering out of a room and having a

[1:47:30] chat in the hallway. So, it's it's going

[1:47:32] to feel really odd, but but thank you

[1:47:34] again for your uh participation. Please

[1:47:37] don't hesitate to get in contact if you

[1:47:40] uh need anything.

[1:47:43] » Okay. And um I'm not going to turn off

[1:47:45] quite yet, Director Kchuk. So, you can

[1:47:48] rest assured that we can just spend a

[1:47:50] few more moments together because there

[1:47:51] was one quick question um asked about

[1:47:54] making the maps more easily findable on

[1:47:57] the engage page. And yeah, we will

[1:47:59] definitely uh work on that. And the

[1:48:01] engage page is great cuz we are changing

[1:48:03] it and updating it as much as we can. So

[1:48:06] if you ever do see things on the engage

[1:48:08] page that you want um or have any sort

[1:48:13] of input to the engage page, please let

[1:48:15] us know and we will work on that um and

[1:48:17] keep changing it up to make it the best

[1:48:19] we can. So thank you and um I hope

[1:48:22] everyone has a great evening and thanks

[1:48:23] for all your input.

Fairmont and Cold Spring Creek Community Info Meeting - November 18, 2025

Transcript