Moses Crreek IPP Project

7/27/2019 Moses Crreek IPP Project

1/50

MOSES CREEK POWER INC.

MOSES CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Land File: 4405108

Water File: 4005985

APRIL 2013

AgendaItem#9f.AgendaItem#9f.AgendaItem#9f.AgendaItem#9f.

Front Counter BC-

Moses CreekHydro Electric Project Page 87 of 162Page 87 of 162Page 87 of 162Page 87 of 162


2/50

Development Plan

For the Moses Creek Hydroelectric Project

Submitted in support of applications filed under

Land Act and Water Act

Applicant: Moses Creek Power Inc.

1870 Glacier Lane

P.O. Box 1919

Revelstoke, BC V0E 2S0

Date: April 2013


Front Counter BC - Moses Creek

Hydro Electric Project Page 88 of 162Page 88 of 162Page 88 of 162Page 88 of 162


3/50

Moses Creek Hydroelectric Project Moses Creek Power IncDevelopment Plan

Sigma Engineering Ltd. iii April 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF DRAWINGS .................................................................................................................. v

LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1

1. PROJECT DEFINITION ....................................................................................... 2

1.1 PROPONENT ........................................................................................................... 2

1.2 DECISION REQUESTED ............................................................................................ 2

1.2.1 Water Act Application ............................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Land Act Application ................................................................................. 2

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF LAND REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 3

1.4 GENERALARRANGEMENT OF WORKS ....................................................................... 4

1.4.1 Moses Creek Weir and Intake .................................................................. 41.4.2 Penstock .................................................................................................. 6

1.4.3 Powerhouse ............................................................................................. 6

1.4.4 Beattie Creek Diversion Weir and Intake ........... ........... ........... ........... ...... 7

1.4.5 Diversion Conduit ..................................................................................... 8

1.4.6 Roadside Drainage Ditch ......................................................................... 9

1.4.7 Power Line ............................................................................................... 9

1.4.8 Access Roads ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... .. 9

1.4.9 Staging and Borrowing Areas ................................................................. 10

1.5 GEOPHYSICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 10

1.6 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................... 11

1.7 PARAMETERS FOR OPERATION OF WORKS .............................................................. 111.8 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS............................................................................. 12

1.9 WATERAVAILABILITY............................................................................................. 13

1.10 MARKET FOR THE PRODUCT................................................................................... 13

1.11 EFFECTS OF PROJECT ON RIGHTS OF OTHERS ........................................................ 14

1.12 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE ...................................................................... 14

2. IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 15

2.1 FISH AND FISH HABITAT ......................................................................................... 15

2.1.1 Fish Habitat ............................................................................................ 15

2.1.2 Fish Presence ........................................................................................ 19

2.1.3 Invertebrate Data .................................................................................... 20

2.1.4 Instream Flows ....................................................................................... 21

2.2 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT.......................................................................................... 21

2.2.1 Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation .......................................................... 22

2.2.2 Wildlife .................................................................................................... 24

2.3 RECREATION ........................................................................................................ 27





4/50


Sigma Engineering Ltd. iv April 2013

2.4 FLOOD CONTROL .................................................................................................. 27

2.5 WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 28

2.5.1 Physiochemical Parameters ................................................................... 292.5.2 Anions and Nutrients .......... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... .. 29

2.5.3 Potential Project Effects ......................................................................... 30

2.6 ROADS AND BRIDGES ............................................................................................ 30

2.7 CROWN OWNED RESOURCES................................................................................. 30

2.8 EXISTING RIGHTSWATER AND LAND TENURES ..................................................... 31

2.9 FIRST NATIONS ..................................................................................................... 31

2.9.1 Sexqeltkemc (Lakes Division) of the Secwepemc Nation .......... ........... .. 31

2.9.2 Okanagan Nation Alliance ...................................................................... 32

2.10 ARCHAEOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 32

2.11 AESTHETIC VALUES............................................................................................... 33

2.12 MINERAL CLAIMS................................................................................................... 342.13 NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTIONACT................................................................... 34

2.14 HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC......................................................................................... 34

2.15 HAZARD TO THE ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 35

2.15.1 Monitoring, Mitigation and Enhancement ............................................ 35

2.15.2 Accidents and Malfunctions .................. ........... ........... ........... ........... .. 35

2.15.3 Climate Change .................................................................................. 36

2.16 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION .................................................................................. 37

2.16.1 Sexqeltkemc (Lakes Division) of the Secwepemc Nation and the

Okanagan Nation Alliance .................................................................................. 37

2.16.2 Revelstoke Snowmobile Club ............................................................. 37

2.16.3 Snowmobile Revelstoke Society ......................................................... 37

2.16.4 Revelstoke Rod and Gun Club ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ..... 37

2.16.5 Revy Riders Dirt Bike Club ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 37

2.16.6 City of Revelstoke ............................................................................... 38

2.16.7 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts ............................................ 38

2.16.8 Transport Canada, Navigable Waters Protection Division ................ .. 38

2.16.9 BC Hydro ............................................................................................ 38

2.17 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS.................................................................................. 38

2.17.1 Economic Benefits .............................................................................. 38

2.17.2 Energy Plan Benefits ........................................................................... 39

3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 40

4. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 41





5/50


Sigma Engineering Ltd. v April 2013

LIST OF DRAWINGS

Figure 1 Location PlanFigure 2 Drainage Basin BoundariesFigure 3 Project LayoutFigure 4 Moses Creek Power Intake Plan and SectionFigure 5 Penstock Plan and ProfileFigure 6 Penstock Plan and SectionFigure 7 Penstock Pipe Bridge Plan and SectionFigure 8.1 Powerhouse Site PlanFigure 8.2 Powerhouse Site ElevationFigure 9 Beattie Creek Diversion Intake Plan and SectionFigure 10 Diversion Conduit Plan and ProfileFigure 11 Diversion Conduit Plan and SectionFigure 12 Access Road

Figure 13 Transmission LineFigure 14 Crown Land Application Area

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Construction EnvironmentalManagement Plan

Sigma Engineering Ltd.

Appendix B Hydrology Report Sigma Engineering Ltd.Appendix C Project Schedule Sigma Engineering Ltd.Appendix D Fisheries Impact Assessment Naito EnvironmentalAppendix E Flow Measurement Report Bruce Granstrom

Appendix F Terrestrial Ecology and Wildlife ImpactAssessment Robert G. DEonConsulting Ltd.Appendix G Correspondence with First Nations Bruce GranstromAppendix H Archaeological Preliminary Field

AssessmentEagle Vision Geomatics &Archaeology Ltd.

Appendix I Archaeological Overview Assessmentof Landscape Units R03, R07, R08,R18 and R20, Columbia Forest District

Wayne Choquette

Appendix J Correspondence with RevelstokeSnowmobile Club

Bruce Granstrom

Appendix K Correspondence with SnowmobileRevelstoke Society

Bruce Granstrom

Appendix L Correspondence with Revelstoke Rod

and Gun Club

Bruce Granstrom

Appendix M Correspondence with Revy Riders DirtBike Club

Bruce Granstrom

Appendix N Correspondence with City ofRevelstoke

Bruce Granstrom





6/50


Sigma Engineering Ltd. 1 April 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Moses Creek Power Inc. is proposing a 4.0 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Moses

Creek, which is located approximately 10 km north of the city of Revelstoke in the southern

interior of British Columbia. The Proponent has submitted a water licence application to

FrontCounter BC to withdraw up to 1.70 m3/s from Moses Creek for the purpose of Power

General. Components of the proposed project include: a diversion weir and intake structure on

Beattie Creek, a 900 m long, 0.3 m diameter diversion conduit, a weir and intake structure on

Moses Creek, a 2,195 m long, 0.9 m diameter penstock, a powerhouse containing one 4.0 MW

Pelton type turbine/generator unit and associated controls, a 320 m long 25 kV powerline, 3.43

km of upgraded existing gravel roads and 586 m of new access roads. The entire project area is

situated on Crown Land over which the Proponent has a Crown Land tenure (Investigative

Licence).

Moses Creek has a 14 m set of falls, followed by a bedrock chute directly downstream of thesefalls, located approximately 150 m from its confluence with the Columbia River which constitutes

a complete barrier to upstream fish migration. Three years of fish sampling effort revealed no

resident fish populations in the creek upstream of the 14 m falls.

Beattie Creek has an approximately 30 m bedrock falls and a series of chutes located about

970 m upstream from its mouth that represent a complete barrier to upstream fish migration.

Two years of fish sampling efforts at two different sites revealed no resident fish populations in

the creek upstream of this barrier.

The nearest fish bearing reach in Moses and Beattie Creek is 1 km and 2.5 km downstream of

the diversion reach and intake, respectively.

The Proponent has endeavoured to contact and communicate with all identified stakeholder

groups with a potential interest in the proposed project including: land tenure holders and First

Nations groups, and will continue to consult with these groups as the project progresses. The

Proponent believes that the development of this low-impact renewable green source of power

generation will benefit all British Columbians and help the province of British Columbia meet the

goals outlined in its 2007 BC Energy Plan.

This report was prepared by Sigma Engineering Ltd., with material contributed by Moses Creek

Power Inc., Naito Environmental, Robert G. DEon Consulting Ltd., Eagle Vision Geomatics &

Archaeology Ltd., Lisa Larson and Wayne Choquette.





7/50



1. PROJECT DEFINITION

1.1 PROPONENT

The Proponent for the Moses Creek Hydroelectric Project (the Project) is:

Moses Creek Power Inc.

Incorporation #: BC 0891497

Contact: Bruce Granstrom

1125 Pineridge Crescent

Revelstoke, BC V0E 2S1

Ph: (250) 837-7081

Email: [email protected]

The agent for the Project is:Sigma Engineering Ltd.

Contact: Sarah Wyness

400 1444 Alberni Street

Vancouver, BC V6G 2Z4

Ph: (604) 688-8271

Fax: (604) 688-1286

Email: [email protected]

1.2 DECISION REQUESTED

1.2.1 Water Act Application

A water licence application was filed with a priority date of November 4, 2010 for thediversion of water from Moses Creek for the purpose of Power General (File: 4005985).

The application has been made for 0.8 m3/s. On December 6, 2010, FrontCounter BC

concluded that sufficient information was submitted for the Proponent to proceed to Step 3

of the Guide for Waterpower Projects. The maximum diversion amount was revised to be

1.7 m3/s in July 2013.

1.2.2 Land Act Application

Tenure under the Land Actis required for the following components of the Moses Creek

Hydroelectric Project (Application for Crown Land, File: 4405108):

Beattie Creek diversion intake;

Diversion conduit; Moses Creek intake;

Penstock;

Powerhouse;

Access roads;





8/50



Staging areas; and

Powerline.

The application for a Licence of Occupation was accepted by FrontCounter BC on

December 6, 2010.

Following a change to the Waterpower Crown Land Use Operational Policy in August

2011, an application for an Investigative Licence was submitted by the Proponent on April

22, 2012. The area and file number of the Investigative Licence application were the same

as for the original Licence of Occupation application.

The application for an Investigative Licence was accepted by FrontCounter BC on April

18, 2012 and offered on November 20, 2012.

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF LAND REQUIREMENTS

The site of the Project proposed by Moses Creek Power Inc. is in the interior of British

Columbia, approximately 10 km north of Revelstoke. The Project location is shown in

Figure 1.

The Moses Creek intake will be located approximately 3.8 km upstream of Moses Creeks

confluence with the Columbia River. The Moses Creek intake elevation will be

approximately 830 m above mean sea level (AMSL). The Beattie Creek tributary diversion

intake will be located approximately 3.4 km upstream of Beattie Creeks confluence with

the Columbia River at an elevation of approximately 930 m AMSL.

The Project layout (Figure 3) shows the diversion conduit and penstock alignment. The

diversion conduit will be approximately 0.25 m in diameter and 900 m long; it will direct

water from the Beattie Creek diversion intake into Moses Creek immediately upstream of

the Moses Creek intake. The penstock will be approximately 0.9 m in diameter and 2,195

m long; it will direct water from the Moses Creek intake to the powerhouse. Thepowerhouse will be located at approximately 532 m AMSL, as shown in Figure 3.

Access to the Project area will be from Revelstoke via Westside Road, Glacier Lane and

existing forest roads in the Moses Creek basin. The construction of two new permanent

gravel based roads will be required to access the Moses Creek intake and powerhouse

sites. An approximately 400 m long road will connect the powerhouse to Westside Road.

A second road of approximately 186 m in length will be constructed to access the Moses

Creek intake site from the existing forest road (Forest File ID: R07401). Additional

temporary roads/machine trails of approximately 580 m in total length will be required

during construction of the penstock (Figure 3).

Two aggregate extraction (borrow) areas, one adjacent to the proposed powerhouse site

will be used to supply the Project with gravel and/or rip rap. The quarry site near the

powerhouse is located entirely on Crown Land and is approximately 1 ha in size. Asecond quarry will be located near the intake and will be approximately 0.5 ha in size

(Figure 3).





9/50



The general area of the Project has experienced a high degree of human disturbance in

the form of forest management (clear-cut logging and road construction) throughout the

majority of the Project footprint as well as gravel quarries, a 500 kV transmission linecorridor and cleared industrial land associated with the Revelstoke Dam construction and

operation at lower elevations of the Project area. There is an active Occupant Licence to

Cut (Forest File ID: L48334) that extends across the upper reaches of the Moses Creek

and Beattie Creek drainages, but does not overlap with any of the proposed Project

works.

A 25 kV powerline, approximately 320 m in length, will connect the powerhouse to the

existing BC Hydro 25 kV powerline that runs alongside Westside Road, subject to review

by BC Hydro.

The land tenure area applied for in the Land Application (File No. 4405108) for the Project

is 208.3 ha (Figure 14). Note that this area is far larger than that which is anticipated for

the final land requirement in order to accommodate further changes to the design.

Based on the preliminary design illustrated in the Drawings, the estimated land

requirements for specific Project components are as follows:

Beattie Creek diversion intake = 0.35 ha

Diversion conduit/road = 2.81 ha

Moses Creek intake = 0.43 ha

Penstock/road = 6.52

Powerhouse = 0.54 ha

Power line/road = 0.79 ha

Other access roads (including temporary penstock access) = 5.02 ha

Laydown areas = 1.53 ha

The total estimated land requirement for the Project is therefore approximately 17.99 ha,which includes areas disturbed during construction. Final design will aim to minimize

unnecessary land disturbance, clearing will be kept to a minimum during construction, and

disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native species immediately following construction

completion.

1.4 GENERALARRANGEMENT OF WORKS

Figure 3 shows the Project layout. The preliminary design for the Project is described in

the sections below. The proposed designs will be reviewed and revised as required

following further surveying and detailed design.

1.4.1 Moses Creek Weir and Intake

Layout

The Moses Creek intake will be located approximately 3.8 km upstream of the creek

mouth at an elevation of approximately 830 m AMSL. The intake plan is shown in Figure

4.





10/50



The intake will consist of a weir and an intake structure. The weir will be approximately 1.5

m high and 20 m long; it will span the creek and create a small headpond to ensure

adequate intake submergence. The concrete intake will direct water from the headpondinto the penstock. The intake structure will include a bypass valve that will provide the

minimum instream flow release, a sluice gate, trashracks to block large debris and

stoplogs to isolate the intake structure for maintenance. The intake and weir will be

designed to pass the 200-year peak instantaneous flow.

Basedon preliminary field measurements, the headpond created above the intake will

have an approximate area of 150 m2. It is anticipated that the maximum depth will not

exceed the seasonal high-water mark. The depth of the headpond will vary from 1.5 m

deep at the weir to the pre-Project depth at the upstream end of the impoundment. The

total headpond volume would therefore be approximately 113 m3. At the design flow (1.65

m3/s), this would create 1 minute of total storage.

Construction

The construction sequence will be left to the discretion of the contractor. The concrete

intake structure and weir will be constructed in the dry. Building in the dry will minimize the

input of sediment to Moses Creek.

Operation

The water level at the intake and in the creek upstream of the weir will be kept stable

during most flow conditions by controlling the rate of flow at the turbine. At flows less than

the design flow, a level control sensor at the intake will regulate turbine discharge in order

to maintain the operating water level approximately equal to the height of the weir. An

instream flow release valve will provide the minimum instream flow. When creek flow

exceeds the sum of the design flow and the minimum instream flow, any excess water will

pass over the weir.

The intake structure will include a sluice gate to release sediment (bedload) that

accumulates at the intake structure. Any large boulders transported during significant flow

events and deposited in the intake area and interfere with the operation of the intake will

be removed with a machine, and if feasible, returned to the creek below the weir.

It is expected that much of the larger debris (i.e. logs and other woody debris) will move

downstream during high flow events and will therefore pass over the weir. Smaller debris

that passes downstream during flows of less than the design flow plus minimum instream

flow will accumulate on the trashracks. This debris will be removed by plant personnel

during routine maintenance and returned to the creek downstream of the weir.

There will be stoplogs between the intake channel and sluice channel to allow

maintenance to the sluice channel to occur in the dry. There will be a slide gate at the inlet

to the penstock, which during normal operation would be left open. This gate would beclosed for maintenance to allow work to occur in the dry.





11/50



1.4.2 Penstock

LayoutThe penstock alignment will be as shown in Figure 3. The penstock will be approximately

0.9 m in diameter and 2,195 m long; it will direct water from the Moses Creek intake to the

powerhouse. The majority (1,610 m) of the penstock will be buried under the intake

access road and existing forest roads. Typical road cross-sections showing the buried

penstock are shown in Figure 6. The remaining 585 m of penstock will be buried within an

excavated trench. An approximately 60 m long section of penstock where it travels down a

steep slope toward the powerhouse and crosses Moses Creek may require placement

above ground. Every effort will be made to bury the penstock wherever feasible. The

penstock crossing of Moses Creek will utilize a pipe bridge; a typical pipe bridge is shown

in Figure7. The penstock profile is shown in Figure 5.

Pipe materials will be a combination of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and steel. The

HDPE pipe will be used in the low-pressure section of the penstock and the steel pipe inthe higher pressure section.

Construction

Approximately 585 m of the pipe alignment will require clearing. To minimize clearing, the

penstock alignment will follow the access road and existing forest roads where possible.

A pipe fusion machine will be used to join the HDPE pipe sections and the steel pipe

sections will be welded. The HDPE pipe can be pulled into its final alignment using mobile

equipment. Where the penstock route is accessible by truck, steel pipe sections will be

hauled by truck and placed with an excavator. In non-accessible sections such as the 60

m long section near the powerhouse where the penstock travels down a steep slope, the

steel pipe will be high-lined into place from uphill and placed manually.

The Moses Creek penstock crossing near the powerhouse site will be a clear span above

the 200-year flood level and creek flows will not be disturbed during construction. The

remainder of the penstock route does not cross any tributaries to Moses Creek. Best

management practices during construction will minimize erosion and sedimentation to the

creek. Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native species.

1.4.3 Powerhouse

Layout

The generation facilities will be located at approximately 532 m AMSL. The Project will

yield a gross head of 298 m. The powerhouse will be a metal clad steel frame building on

concrete foundation, measuring approximately 18 m by 8 m by 10 m high and will house a

single Pelton turbine/generator unit producing a total of 4.0 MW, controls and atransformer. The control room will provide a complete interface as necessary for remote

operation, and all electrical control equipment. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 show the preliminary

layout of the powerhouse area.





12/50



The tailrace channel will be an open channel. It will transport discharged water back to

Moses Creek. The tailrace cross-section and slope will be designed to reduce the

potential scour from turbine discharge and rip-rap will be placed, as required, to provideerosion protection.

Construction

Access to the powerhouse will be via the access road shown in Figure 3 and described

below. Best management practices during construction will minimize erosion and

sedimentation into Moses Creek.

Operation

Water from the penstock will pass through a pipe, turbine inlet valve, needle valve nozzle

jets, and turbine runner before discharging into the tailrace. A single Pelton turbine will be

used for the Project; this type of turbine does not require a minimum tailrace elevation be

maintained for submergence. Powerhouse operations will be monitored remotely from the

Proponents office. A local operator will visit the powerhouse as required to monitoroperation. The tailrace will be a rip-rap lined open channel conveying discharged water

back to Moses Creek during operations.

1.4.4 Beattie Creek Diversion Weir and Intake

Layout

The Beattie Creek diversion intake will be located on the northern-most tributary of Beattie

Creek, approximately 760 m upstream of the confluence with the first main tributary of

Beattie Creek at an elevation of approximately 930 m AMSL. The intake plan is shown in

Figure 9. The Beattie Creek intake is designed to transfer the proposed flow to Moses

Creek immediately upstream of the Moses Creek intake.

The diversion intake will consist of a weir and a lateral intake structure on the left bank ofthe creek. The weir will be approximately 1.5 m at its highest point and 10 m long; it will

span the creek and create a smallheadpond to ensure adequate intake submergence.

The concrete intake will direct water from the headpond into the diversion conduit. The

intake will be equipped with a bypass gate that will provide the minimum instream flow

release, a sluice gate, trashracks to block large debris and stoplogs to isolate the intake

structure for maintenance. The intake and weir will be designed to pass the 200-year peak

instantaneous flow.

Basedon preliminary field measurements, the headpond created above the intake will

have an approximate area of 75 m2. It is anticipated that the maximum depth will not

exceed the seasonal high-water mark. The depth of the headpond will vary from 1.5 m

deep at the weir to the pre-Project depth at the upstream end of the impoundment. The

total headpond volume would therefore be approximately 56 m3. At the design flow (0.3m3/s), this would create less than a minute of total storage.

Construction





13/50



The construction sequence will be left to the discretion of the contractor. The concrete

intake structure and weir will be constructed in the dry. Building in the dry will minimize the

input of sediment to Beattie Creek.Operation

The water level at the intake and in the creek upstream of the weir will be kept stable

during most flow conditions. It will be designed to provide the minimum flow through an

instream flow valve under all flow conditions and the excess flow above that valve will be

diverted into the diversion pipe up to the limit of the capacity of the pipe. Any excess

water will pass over the weir. The diversion weir flows will not be controlled by the rate of

flow at the turbine.

The intake structure will include a sluice gate to release sediment (bedload) that

accumulates at the intake structure. Any large boulders transported during significant flow

events and deposited in the intake area that interfere with the operation of the intake will

be removed using machinery, and if feasible, returned to the creek below the weir.It is expected that much of the larger debris (i.e. logs and other woody debris) will move

downstream during high flow events and will therefore pass over the weir. Smaller debris

that passes downstream during flows of less than the design flow plus minimum instream

flow will accumulate on the trashracks. This debris will be removed by plant personnel

during routine maintenance and returned to the creek downstream of the weir.

There will be stoplogs between the intake channel and sluice channel to allow

maintenance to the sluice channel to occur in the dry. There will be a slide gate at the inlet

to the penstock, which during normal operation would be left open. This gate would be

closed for maintenance to allow work to occur in the dry.

1.4.5 Diversion Conduit

Layout

The diversion conduit alignment will be as shown in Figure 3. The conduit will be

approximately 0.3 m in diameter and 900 m long; it will direct water from the Beattie Creek

diversion intake to the Moses Creek intake. The majority of the conduit will be buried

under the existing forest road. Typical road cross-sections showing the buried penstock

are shown in Figure 11. The remaining 130 m of conduit, which runs due north from the

forest road to the Moses Creek intake, will be incorporated into the upgrade of an existing

remnant drainage ditch (Refer to Section 1.4.6). The conduit will carry a design flow of

0.25 m3/s of water from the Beattie Creek tributary to Moses Creek.

The pipe material will be high-density polyethylene (HDPE).

Construction

Approximately 130 m of the pipe alignment will require clearing. To minimize clearing, the

conduit alignment will follow the existing forest road where possible.

A pipe fusion machine will be used to join the HDPE pipe sections. The HDPE pipe will be

pulled into its final alignment using mobile equipment.





14/50



The conduit route does not cross any tributaries to either Beattie Creek or Moses Creek.

Best management practices during construction will minimize erosion and sedimentation

to the creeks. Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native species.

1.4.6 Roadside Drainage Ditch

A remnant drainage ditch currently travels the approximate route proposed for the last 200

m of the diversion conduit and is thought to have been constructed in previous decades to

divert water away from the existing gravel quarry immediately down slope of this location.

The ditch drains runoff from an area of approximately 0.406 km2 between Moses and

Beattie Creeks (Figure 2). Through a combination of upgraded ditching and perforated

pipe, the ditch runoff will be collected and incorporated into the diversion conduit. The

diversion conduit will be routed slightly above the existing ditch line in order to deliver the

water upstream of the Moses Creek intake.

1.4.7 Power Line

A 25 kV power line will connect the powerhouse to the existing BC Hydro 25 kV power line

that currently runs alongside the eastern side of Westside Road, subject to review by BC

Hydro. The total power line length will be approximately 320m. The existing BC Hydro

power line at the point of interconnection is a three-phase line.

The power line route will include one crossing of an unnamed tributary to Moses Creek

(Figure 3). This is a small tributary that may have been previously diverted or represent

ditch drainage along the eastside of the existing road. Further site assessment will be

conducted to confirm. The crossing will be clear span above the 200-year flood level and

tributary flows will not be disturbed during construction. Best management practices and

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Operational Statement for Overhead Line

Construction will be followed during construction to minimize impacts to riparian habitat

and to prevent erosion and sedimentation to the creek.

1.4.8 Access Roads

Layout

Access to the intake, powerhouse and majority of the penstock route will be from existing

forest roads in the vicinity of Moses Creek and two new gravel roads. The powerhouse

access road will originate approximately 10 km north along Westside Road from

Revelstoke and is approximately 400 m in length. The majority of the new powerhouse

access road will follow an abandoned road routing and therefore minimize the extent of

clearing required. The intake access road is approximately 180 m in length and will branch

off of an existing Frisby Forest Service Road (Forest File ID: R07401) that runs along the

southwestern side of the Moses Creek basin. Both the powerhouse and intake accessroads will be kept for operation and maintenance access following Project construction.

Temporary access roads/machine trails totalling approximately 360 m in length will also be

required during construction to access the portions of the penstock route that do not follow

existing/proposed roads. Following construction, these temporary access roads will be





15/50



deactivated (i.e. recontoured) and disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native

species.

Construction

New roads will be designed and constructed using best management practices to

minimize sedimentation and erosion. The roads will include ditching and draining for local

runoff. Roads will be designed and constructed in general accordance with the Forest

Road Engineering Guidebook.

1.4.9 Staging and Borrowing Areas

Three laydown areas are proposed for construction (Figure 3). Laydown areas will be

located at both intake sites and along the penstock route. The estimated size of each

laydown area is as follows:

Beattie Creek Diversion Intake: 10 m x 20 m = 200 m2 (0.02 ha)

Moses Creek Intake: 15 m x 20 m = 300 m2 (0.03 ha)

Penstock: 20 m x 30 m = 600 m2 (0.06 ha)

The total estimated land required for laydown areas is therefore 1,100 m 2 (0.11 ha). All

three laydown areas are located on Crown Land.

Spoil area locations and size will be determined as the Project design advances and

reasonable estimates of the material volume become available.

The Project will endeavour to keep the quantity of borrowed materials to a minimum. A

small (~ 1 ha) quarry immediately adjacent to the powerhouse and ~0.5 ha quarry near

the intake are being proposed as part of the Project. The proposed location of the quarries

are within heavily disturbed sites which were previously logged and cleared. The quarry

area near the powerhouse was used as a laydown and temporary storage site during theconstruction of the Revelstoke Dam. Two borrow pit areas are proposed for construction.

A borrow pit area will be located near the intake and near the powerhouse. The estimated

size of each borrow pit area is as follows:

Moses Creek Intake: 50 m x 100 m = 5000 m2 (0.5 ha)

Powerhouse: 50 m x 200 m = 10000 m2 (1 ha)

Any borrow areas will be stabilized and re-vegetated in accordance with the Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP; Appendix A) and in consultation with the

Environmental Monitor.

1.5 GEOPHYSICAL CONSIDERATIONS

No geotechnical or slope stability issues have been identified as being of potential

concern in a preliminary assessment made by the Proponents general engineering

consultant. Due diligence geotechnical assessments of the construction areas including

the two intake sites and the powerhouse site as well as the penstock and access road





16/50



routes will be conducted during detailed Project design. The goal of these assessments

will not be to determine the feasibility of the construction; rather they will be used by the

design engineers and contractors to fine tune the placement and dimensions of theProject works. These assessments will include a statement of the terrain stability in the

Project area.

The Project is not expected to negatively alter the relationship between flow, sediment and

channel form with associated impacts to fish habitat. Although the proposed Project will

reduce flows in Beattie Creek and the diversion reach of Moses Creek, peak flows during

spring freshet are expected to continue to reach in excess of 200% mean annual flow (for

a minimum of 7 days; furthermore, an average of 70 days/ year will have flows greater

than 200% MAF), which is sufficient to maintain sediment and debris movement (Naito

2013). Large debris (boulders and LWD) and sediment that accumulate in the headpond

of the Project will be returned to the creek downstream of the weir.

The potential for adverse geochemical issues such as metal leaching and acid rock

drainage have not been identified in relation to the Project. These issues are typically

associated with projects that have a tunnel (as opposed to buried penstock) where

significant volumes of sub-surface rock is removed during tunnel boring and stored for

prolonged periods of time on the surface in the vicinity of the creek. The Project does not

use a tunnel for water conveyance and any sub-surface rock exposed during Project

construction will be used for back fill and/or road construction. Should any significant

quantities of excavated rock require storing during Project construction, the Proponent will

incorporate prevention and mitigation measures for acid rock drainage, metal leaching,

and sedimentation into the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

1.6 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Although the west coast of Canada is an area of significant earthquake activity, seismicity

in the Southern Cordillera BC interior and Rocky Mountain region south of 60N drops

off rapidly1.

Moses Creek is located in an area that the Geological Survey of Canada classifies as an

area of relatively low earthquake hazard. To minimize the potential effects associated with

seismic activity, the Project powerhouse, intake and spillway will be designed to withstand

seismic loading as defined in the BC Building Code.

1.7 PARAMETERS FOR OPERATION OF WORKS

The Project will use flow from Beattie Creek and Moses Creek. The electricity generated

will be supplied to BC Hydro under a long-term Electricity Purchase Agreement (EPA). It is

expected that the Project will qualify for an EPA under BC Hydros Standing Offer

Program (SOP).

1Natural Resources Canada website. http://seismescanada.rncan.gc.ca/zones/westcan_e.php#Cascadia. Accessed

April 1, 2009.





17/50



The expected commercial operation date (COD) of the Project is March 2016, based on

timely permitting and procurement of long lead-time items such as the turbine.

Project operations will be based on the sum total flow from the Beattie Creek diversionintake and Moses Creek intake. During periods of high flows, the Project will operate at full

capacity. During periods of low flows, when the available flow is less than the sum of the

minimum instream flows and the minimum turbine flow, the plant will be shut down. During

times of intermediate flow, the plant will operate at partial capacity. The Moses Creek

Hydroelectric Project Hydrology Report (Appendix B) provides more information about pre

and post-Project flows.

Details of operational parameters for the Project will be obtained during detailed design

and turbine procurement and become part of the operations manual for the Project.

These will be submitted to the Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Resource Stewardship Division in a Parameters and Procedures Report (OPPR) prior to

diversion.

1.8 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Moses Creek (Watershed Code: 300-757000) and Beattie Creek (Watershed Code: 300-

754800-55000) are located approximately 10 km north of the city of Revelstoke in the

Southern Interior of British Columbia. The main channel of Moses Creek is approximately

6 km long and flows in a south-southeast direction into the Columbia River, just

downstream of the BC Hydro Revelstoke dam. The main channel of Beattie Creek is

approximately 4.7 km long and flows in an east southeast direction into the Columbia

River, approximately 4 km upstream of the City of Revelstoke. Beattie Creek historically

flowed into the Jordan River but was diverted east to its current route, the Columbia River

about 3 km upstream from Revelstoke, some time ago. Further to Beattie Creeks history

of diversion, the northern most Beattie Creek tributary (from which flow diversion for the

Project is proposed) originally flowed into Moses Creek approximately 1,800 m upstream

of the Columbia River confluence. The flows from the Beattie Creek tributary were

diverted to the current stream route (into Beattie Creek) during construction of the

Revelstoke dam (Figure 2).

At the proposed intake locations, the Moses Creek and Beattie Creek watersheds are

approximately 6.9 km2 and 1.29 km2, respectively. The additional drainage area between

the two watersheds and the flows from which will be captured by the roadside ditch is

approximately 0.406 km2. Elevations of the Moses Creek watershed range from a

maximum of 1,980 m AMSL atop the Frisby Ridge to approximately 460 m AMSL at the

confluence of Moses Creek with the Columbia River. The elevations of the proposed

Beattie Creek diversion intake, Moses Creek intake and powerhouse locations are 930 m,

830 m and 532 m AMSL, respectively.

The basins span two biogeoclimatic zones, the Interior Cedar Hemlock and Engelmann

Spruce Subalpine Fir, which are characterized by cool wet winters and long warm

summers that are kept moist by the presence of a slow-melting snowpack at higher

elevations.





18/50



Fish and fish habitat within the watershed are described in Section 2.1.

1.9 WATER

AVAILABILITY

The Hydrology Study (Appendix B) reviews the regional hydrology, describes the available

flow data and daily flows used in the analysis, including monthly flows, peak and low flows

and flow duration curves.

The study utilized 33 years of flow data from the Water Survey of Canada (WSC) gauge:

Kirbyville Creek near the mouth (WSC 08ND019). Flows at the Moses Creek intake,

Beattie Creek diversion intake and within the roadside ditch were synthesized from the

Kirbyville WSC record by prorating flows based on drainage areas and then multiplying by

monthly adjustment factors to account for anticipated differences in annual unit runoff.

The mean annual flow (MAF) at the Moses Creek intake including the runoff from the

0.406 km2 area between Moses and Beattie Creeks collected by the roadside ditch and

diverted upstream of the intake is 0.394 m3

/s. An average of 0.055 m3

/s (with a maximumof 0.25 m3/s) will be diverted from Beattie Creek to Moses Creek through the diversion

conduit. The MAF at the Moses Creek intake is therefore expected to be 0.449 m3/s.

(Appendix B; Figure 5) shows the monthly flow variation. Mean monthly flows at the

Moses Creek intake range from 0.01 m3/s in February to 1.81 m3/s in June.

The installed capacity of the Project will be 4.0 MW based on a gross head of 298 m, a

design flow of 1.65 m3/s, and a turbine/generator efficiency of 87.36%. The annual

generation is expected to be 7.5 GWh. The minimum turbine flow will be 10% of the

design flow (0.165 m3/s).

The Proponent installed a water level gauge on Moses Creek in October 2010. Water

level and temperature data are recorded every 15 minutes. Specific details regarding the

gauge installation site, development of a stage-discharge curve (Appendix E) and

comparison of the 2010, 2011 and 2012 in situ flow record with the records of four WSCgauges are presented in the Moses Creek Hydroelectric Project Hydrology Report

provided as Appendix B. In summary, the Moses Creek flows are similar to the average

annual unit flows of two active WSC gauge records and the non-active long term flow

record of the Kirbyville Creek gauge (Appendix B; Figure 4). Therefore, the 2011

measured Moses Creek flows are similar to the long term average at Kirbyville Creek and

by extension to the long term average at Moses Creek. Once a statistically significant

number of years (at least 3) of measured flows become available, the long term estimated

flows will be reviewed and adjusted using the in situ flow data. However, the Moses

Creek hydrograph is different from that of Kirbyville Creek, as the peak flows at Moses

occur in May June, whereas at Kirbyville Creek the peak flows are in June July.

1.10 MARKET FOR THE PRODUCTThe electricity generated by the Project will be supplied to BC Hydro under a long-term

EPA. It is anticipated that, once permitting is complete, the Project will qualify for an EPA

under the BC Hydro Standing Offer Program.





19/50



Electricity generated by the Project will be supplied to the BC Hydro grid through a 25 kV

power line that currently runs alongside Westside Road. The point of interconnection will

be approximately 320 m from the Projects powerhouse.

1.11 EFFECTS OF PROJECT ON RIGHTS OF OTHERS

The Project should not have any significant negative effects on the rights of other users.

Section 2 includes a detailed assessment of potential impacts to users resulting from the

proposed Project, including: other land tenures, recreation, mining and First Nations.

1.12 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

A project development schedule is attached as Appendix C.





20/50



2. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.1 FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Preliminary fish and fish habitat surveys of Moses Creek and Beattie Creek were

completed by Naito Environmental in September 2010. Further field studies were

conducted during September 2011 and August 2012 (Appendix D). The purpose of these

surveys was to identify the aquatic resources of Moses and Beattie Creek and to

determine the potential impact of the Project on these resources. A background literature

search found no existing fisheries information for Moses or Beattie Creek in the web-

based Fisheries Inventory Data Queries Tool (MOE 2012b) or EcoCat, the Ministry of

Environments ecological reports catalogue (MOE 2012a).

2.1.1 Fish Habitat

Moses Creek (Watershed Code: 300-757000) is a second order stream flowing generallysoutheast into the Columbia River just downstream of the Revelstoke Dam. It is located

approximately 5 km north-northwest of Revelstoke in the Jordon Range of the Monashee

Mountains in the southern interior of British Columbia.

Moses Creek has a watershed area of 11.7 km2 and a stream length of approximately 6

km. Its peak elevation is at approximately 1900 m at the top of Frisby Ridge. The average

gradient of Moses Creek is between 10-23%. Moses Creek represents a high energy

watershed.

Beattie Creek (Watershed Code 300-754800-55000) is the adjacent drainage south of

Moses Creek, and flows generally southeast for approximately 4.7 km. Historically,

Moses Creek flowed into the Jordan River but was diverted some time ago and now

enters the Columbia River approximately 4 km upstream. In addition, the northern-most

Beattie Creek tributary (from which flow diversion for the Project is proposed) originallyflowed into Moses Creek approximately 1.8 km upstream from the mouth of Moses Creek;

however, flows from this tributary were diverted from Moses to Beattie Creek during

construction of the Revelstoke dam.

Moses Creek has a 14 m set of falls (Moses Falls) followed by a bedrock chute directly

downstream located approximately 150 m from its confluence with the Columbia River

which constitutes a total barrier to upstream fish migration. Fish sampling efforts did not

detect any fish upstream of this barrier located in Reach 1. Numerous barriers exist

upstream of this first set of falls and include numerous steep sections, falls, and bedrock

chutes within the diversion reach of Moses Creek. Fish from the Columbia River can

access the first 150 m of the 370 m long Reach 1. Further upstream passage is blocked

by Moses Falls.

Beattie Creek has an approximately 30 m bedrock falls and chutes that are located about

970 m upstream from the mouth and represent a total barrier to upstream fish migration.

Two years of fish sampling efforts at two different sites did not detect any fish upstream of

this barrier located 80 m into Reach 3.





21/50



Stream habitat was characterised for eight reaches on Moses Creek and five reaches on

Beattie Creek.

Moses Creek Reaches

During the 2010 field program, eight reaches were delineated from the mouth of Moses

Creek to upstream of the proposed intake (Appendix D, Figure 5). With the exception of a

short reach with 6-8% gradient, the diversion section of Moses Creek had a gradient of

10-23%. The majority of the diversion section had an entrenched channel or canyon

dominated by bedrock. Reaches 1 and 2 are downstream of the Project. Reaches 3,4,5

and 6 comprise the diversion section of Moses Creek and reaches 7 and 8 are upstream

of the proposed Project intake. Some field sampling took place in reaches 7 and 8 during

2011 when an alternative intake option was being investigated.

Reach 1 extends from the Columbia River to about 100 m upstream of Westside Road.

About 20 years ago, BC Hydro undertook a tailrace excavation project to improve power

production at Revelstoke Dam, such a reduction in bed level of the Columbia Riverresulted in the mouth of Moses Creek being perched several meters higher than the

Columbia River. Consequently, a channel was excavated to direct Moses Creek flows

upstream along the edge of the Columbia River at a reduced gradient suitable for fish

spawning. In effect, the forebay area of Moses Creek contains extensive gravel deposits

that extend approximately 50 m upstream at which point, the streambed becomes boulder

and the gradient increases to about 5%. Bed material in Reach 1 is dominated by cobble,

with boulder subdominant and boulder is the main cover type. Upstream of the first 50 m,

fish habitat quality in Reach 1 is low for spawning due to a lack of gravel, low for

overwintering due to limited low velocity areas with cover, and low for rearing due to a lack

of deep pools.

Reach 2 extends from about 100 m upstream of Westside Road to the large pond that is

designated at Reach 2.1. It is a 1 km long, low gradient (1-2%) section of stream thatflows out of the larger of two ponds that occur along the route of Moses Creek. The

dominant bed material is cobble with gravel subdominant and small woody debris

comprises the main cover type. Fish habitat quality was assessed as moderate to good,

with spawning capability limited by the high percentage of fines in the substrate. Rearing

and overwintering habitat was assessed as good due to the presence of pools with

abundant small and large woody debris cover and low velocity flows.

Reach 2.1 (Pond #1) is a 200 m long, 1 ha pond, which appears to be the result of

artificial impoundment and is bounded on the downstream side by a paved roadway.

Moses Creek exits the pond through a large diameter culvert under the roadway. The

perched culvert and steep, rocky outlet channel is an additional barrier to fish migration.

Reach 3 is 1.2 km long and extends between the upper and lower ponds on Moses Creek.

The proposed powerhouse and tailrace will be at the downstream end of this reach. Withthe exception of a short section of lower gradient at the downstream end of this reach, the

reach has an average slope of between 14-20% and is entrenched with boulder and

bedrock the dominant and subdominant materials, respectively. Throughout the reach

there are a series of 1-2 m falls and chutes in addition to an approximately 4 m waterfall





22/50



about 200 m upstream from the upper reach boundary. Cover types are dominated by

boulder and large woody debris. Fish habitat quality was assessed as good for rearing

and holding due to the presence of deep pools formed by the cascade channel, buthabitat was only fair for spawning due to the limited gravel. Overwintering habitat was

assessed as low due to a lack of low velocity edge habitat.

Reach 3.1(Pond #2) represents the smaller of the two in-line ponds on Moses Creek. This

pond is 130 m long, 0.8 ha and appears to be at least partially the result of artificial

impoundment because it is bounded on the downstream side by an unpaved roadway.

Moses Creek exits the pond partially via a 900 mm diameter culvert under the roadway,

and at other points appears to flow right through the angular rock of the road base. An

approximate 10 m drop in elevation from the pond to the creek downstream would prohibit

upstream fish passage, if fish were present.

Reach 4 is a 230 m long, low gradient section (6-8%) that flows into Pond #2. Reach 4 is

highly variable, with cobble riffle at its downstream end as well as sections of bedrock and

boulder/cobble throughout. Cobble is the dominant bed material with boulder

subdominant and the main cover type. Canopy closure was low at less than 20%. Fish

habitat quality was assessed at low-moderate.

Reach 5 is 625 m long with a confined bedrock channel and steep gradient (up to 23%)

which includes numerous chutes, drops, and waterfalls. The channel morphology is step-

pool formed by rock and the dominant cover type is deep pool. Fish habitat quality was

assessed as good for holding and rearing due to the presence of deep pools, but

spawning habitat was only fair due to the limited gravel in pool tailouts. Overwintering

habitat was assessed as fair with some pool habitat but a lack of cover and/or low velocity.

Reach 6 is 150 m long and extends from the Reach 5 upstream to a main tributary

referred to as Tributary A. Tributary A enters Reach 6 from the right bank immediately

upstream of the proposed intake. Reach 6 has a gradient of 12-16% and a cascade-poolchannel morphology that is maintained by boulder and large woody debris. The dominant

bed material is cobble, with boulder subdominant and the dominant cover type. Cover

type included large woody debris and deep pool. Fish habitat quality was assessed as

good for rearing and holding due to deep pools and pockets, moderate for spawning with

occasional gravel patches, and moderate for overwintering pools.

Reach 7 extends 590 m upstream from the confluence with Tributary A to the confluence

with a major left bank tributary, Tributary C. Channel morphology is cascade-pool and the

stream gradient is 9-11% in this section. The dominant bed material is boulder, with

cobble subdominant. Boulder and overhanging vegetation comprised the dominant and

subdominant cover types, respectively. Fish habitat quality was assessed as low for

spawning in limited isolated pockets of gravel but moderate for rearing and overwintering

in pools with boulder and large woody debris cover.Reach 8 extends upstream from the confluence with Tributary C. Reach 8 has a stream

gradient of 8-11% which creates cascade-pool channel morphology. The dominant bed

material is boulder, with cobble subdominant. Boulder is the dominant cover type. Fish





23/50



habitat quality was assessed as low for spawning and overwintering but high for rearing

due to the presence of pocket pools with boulder cover.

Beattie Creek

Of the five reaches delineated on Beattie Creek from the mouth up to the vicinity of the

proposed tributary intake, Reaches 1 and 2, and the lower 80 m of Reach 3 appear to be

accessible to fish from the Columbia River. Further upstream passage is blocked by an

impassable falls 1 km from the mouth of Beattie Creek.

Reach 1 is a 225 m long steep section where the diverted stream has cut a channel from

the riverside terrace down to river level, at the Columbia River, about 30 m below. The

Reach 1 stream gradient ranges from ~5-11%. The dominant bed material in Reach 1 is

boulder, with cobble subdominant. Boulder is the main cover type. Fish habitat quality in

Reach 1 was assessed as moderate, with patches of gravel for spawning, pockets behind

boulders for rearing, and boulder cover for overwintering, but fish production capability

may be limited by lack of flow. The lower portion of the Reach is a moderate gradient(~5%) while the upper half is steep (10-11%) and represents a series of cascades (when

streamflow is present) which form a difficult section for upstream fish passage.

Reach 2 is a 270 m straight channelized section downstream of the Westside Road

culvert that continues upstream of the 60 m long culvert for an additional 360 m. The

dominant bed material is cobble, with gravel subdominant. Boulders are the main cover

type. Fish habitat quality was assessed as moderate with good spawning potential in

frequent patches of gravel but rearing and overwintering was limited due to the lack of

deep pools and low water velocity, respectively. However, rearing and overwintering

habitat quality was low in the channelized section downstream of Westside Road, where

there was minimal cover and the only deep pool was located at the culvert outlet. The 30

cm drop located at the outlet of the Westside Road culvert would only limit passage of

juvenile fish or smaller. The downstream half of the culvert has a gradient of about 1%(suitable for fish passage) but the upper half of the culvert has a gradient of about 5%

which could represent a potential velocity barrier to fish.

Reach 3 is a confined, boulder and bedrock section with a 30 m high falls observed 80 m

upstream from the lower reach boundary that is a complete barrier to upstream fish

passage. It is a steep canyon reach that extends for 700 m and has a gradient of ~ 23%.

There are 1-2 m falls and chutes throughout Reach 3. Downstream end surveys indicate

the dominant bed material is boulder, with cobble subdominant; however, bedrock is likely

prevalent throughout the reach. The main cover type is boulder. Fish habitat quality was

assessed as moderate, with good rearing and holding habitat in deep pools formed in the

cascade-pool channel, but only fair spawning potential in pockets of gravel. Overwintering

habitat was limited due to the lack of low velocity refuges.

Reach 4 extends for about 500 m upstream to the confluence of a major tributary thatenters from the west. Reach 4 is lower gradient (5-6%) but still a confined reach located

above the canyon section of Beattie Creek. The dominant bed material is cobble, with

boulder subdominant. Boulder is the main cover type, with large woody debris

subdominant. Fish habitat quality was assessed as good, with frequent gravel patches





24/50



and good pocket pools and boulder cover but there was a lack of low velocity areas for

overwintering.

Reach 5 extends 1380 m up to and 3.7 km beyond the proposed Beattie Creek intake.The reach gradient varies between 5-20%. The 109 m section surveyed downstream of

the intake has cobble as its dominant bed material, with gravel subdominant. Upstream of

the intake, bedrock and boulder are prominent. Overhanging vegetation is the main cover

type, with large woody debris subdominant. Fish habitat quality was relatively poor due to

isolated gravel patches, lack of pools, and shallow depth of the reach. Historic mapping

shows that Reach 5 of Beattie Creek formerly flowed into Moses Creek from a point near

the proposed intake, and evidence of this former flow pattern includes map contours that

show Beattie Creek flowing across the slope instead of down the slope. There appears to

be a low berm where the stream was diverted to its present course. The area where the

stream formerly flowed was used as a borrow area for construction of the Revelstoke

Dam.

Barriers

An approximately 14 m set of falls located about 150 m from the mouth of Moses Creek

followed by a bedrock chute directly downstream represent a total barrier to upstream fish

migration. In addition, numerous other fish barriers were identified upstream of the falls

which include a steep section immediately downstream of Pond #1 (Reach 2.1) and

numerous falls and bedrock chutes within the diversion reach of Moses Creek. Fish

access to Moses Creek is downstream of the diversion reach and limited to Reach 1.

Approximately 970 m upstream from the mouth of Beattie Creek is a set of bedrock falls

and chutes with an estimated height of 30 m. No fish were detected upstream of this

barrier. In August 2012, there was no flow in the first 150 m of Beattie Creek, forming a

total barrier to fish migration. Approximately 100 m upstream of Beattie Creeks

confluence with the Columbia River there is a very steep boulder section that, whenstream flow is present, forms a section with very difficult upstream fish passage.

However, a high abundance of rainbow trout fry were observed upstream of this boulder

section and suggests that rainbow trout have been successful in migrating to spawn

upstream of this challenging section.

2.1.2 Fish Presence

Fish sampling efforts in 2010, 2011, and 2012 did not detect any fish in Moses Creek

upstream of the proposed tailrace location where flows will be returned to Moses Creek. It

is concluded that there were no fish present in the diversion section of Moses Creek and

upstream of the proposed intake. The only fish bearing reach of Moses Creek was 1 km

downstream of the tailrace. The nearest fish bearing reach to the Beattie Creek intake

was 2.5 km downstream, at which point the effect of the proposed flow diversion ismitigated by inflow from two major tributaries.

Fish sampling was conducted by minnow trapping and/or electrofishing at a total of 11

sites on Moses Creek and four sites on Beattie Creek during 2010-2012 sampling efforts.

Minnow traps were baited and set overnight for a period of between 18-48 hours.





25/50



Electrofishing was not conducted on Beattie Creek in the area downstream of the fish

barrier at the upstream end of Reach 3 due to the observation of salmonids.

Rainbow trout fry and juveniles or small resident adults were captured downstream of thefirst barrier (30 m falls) on Beattie Creek at least 2.5 km downstream from the diversion

point and represent the only fish observed during the field sampling studies conducted

over the 2010, 2011, and 2012 sampling efforts. This may suggest that adult rainbow

trout from the Columbia River may be using the lower section of Beattie Creek to spawn.

No resident fish are known to be present in or within more than 1 km downstream of the

diversion reach. However, Kokanee, bull trout, and rainbow trout have been observed

utilizing the artificial channel at the mouth of Moses Creek (B. Gadbois, pers. Comm..),

and this stream section is likely used for spawning and limited stream-rearing by other

species such as sculpin and mountain whitefish present in Upper Arrow Lake and the

Columbia River.

Based on sampling in three years using two methods, no fish were present in thediversion reach of Moses Creek. Fish were only identified near the mouth of Beattie

Creek where flow effects will be minimal.

2.1.3 Invertebrate Data

As described in Appendix D, a benthic invertebrate sampling program, which was

conducted based on Beatty et al., (2006) was initiated on Moses and Beattie Creek in

2010. A benthic sampling program was selected because it was felt that the benthic

invertebrate population as a whole rather than just the drift was a better indicator of

stream health in the non-fish bearing diversion reach of the Project. Invertebrate samples

were collected at four sites as shown in Figure 5 of Appendix D. Benthic invertebrates

were collected in triplicate downstream of the powerhouse location, near the downstream

end of the diversion reach, upstream of the proposed Moses Creek intake, anddownstream of the Beattie tributary intake. In 2011, a benthic invertebrate sample was

collected in triplicate approximately 650 m upstream of the proposed Moses Creek intake.

Benthic samples were collected using a standard Surber Sampler (0.3 m x 0.3 m frame)

with 243 mesh. Following collection, samples were analysed by Sandpiper Biological

Consulting Ltd (Victoria, BC) for identification and enumeration of invertebrates. Samples

were processed by size-sorting and damp dry weights were measured.

Results of the benthic invertebrate sampling were highly variable. However, benthic

invertebrate sampling showed a consistent number of Orders were present (12 at four

sites and 13 at the other). The sample site upstream of the proposed Moses Creek intake

was consistently the highest on all measures (total mass/ total organisms/ total EPT

organisms) except for total number of orders.

An additional year of benthic drift data will be collected in 2013 to establish a baseline

invertebrate record. Post-construction benthic drift monitoring will be carried out for

benthic drift twice annually for five years, as recommended by Lewis et al., 2012.

More details regarding the benthic drift sampling program are provided in Appendix D.





26/50



2.1.4 Instream Flows

The Moses Creek Streamflow Monitoring Report has developed a stage-discharge curvefor Moses Creek to determine flows at the intake and is provided as Appendix E. Depth

and velocity were collected at a total of ten and five representative channel cross-sections

within the diversion reach of Moses Creek and Beattie Creek, respectively. The channel

cross-section data were used to estimate the depth, velocity, and wetted perimeter that

result during average monthly flows and minimal flow releases (Appendix D; Appendix 5).

The pre and post-Project flows at the Moses Creek intake, assuming a 5% IFR, are

summarized in Figure 9 of Appendix B. Hydraulic calculations were carried out using

channel cross-sectional data to estimate changes in wetted perimeter that would result

from flow reduction in the diversion reach. Among 10 Moses Creek cross-sections, the

maximum predicted reductions in wetted perimeter ranged from 17% to 70%. Similar

percentage reductions in water depth and velocity are also predicted to occur in the

diversion reach. Among five Beattie Creek cross-sections, the maximum predictedreductions in wetted perimeter ranged from 8% to 78%, with the change less than 8% in

the fish bearing reach. Full results of the hydraulic calculations are provided in Appendix

D (Appendix 5).

Given that the Projects diversion reach does not support fish, an instream flow release

(IFR) of 0.039 m3/s (10% of mean annual flow) at the Moses Creek diversion weir is

proposed with the potential for implementing a lower minimum flow release based on

provincial regulatory approval of an Adaptive Management Plan. A summary of monthly

flows in Moses Creek for the Moses Creek Hydro Project under the minimum flow release

of 5% MAD (0.020 m3/s) is provided in Appendix B, Figure 9.

A minimum flow release of 0.0070 m3/s (10% of mean annual flow) at the Beattie Creek

diversion weir is proposed with the potential for implementing a lower minimum flow

release based on provincial regulatory approval of an Adaptive Management Plan. Theinstream flow release on Beattie Creek will be supplemented by local inflow from two main

tributaries that enter the Beattie Creek main stem approximately 760 m downstream of the

intake.

The rationale behind a 5% MAF IFR and how it will maintain fish habitat is discussed in

detail in Section 4 of Appendix D. Please note that at this time the Proponent is

proposing a 10% MAF IFR with the potential for reducing the IFR to 5% MAF as

previously specified.

2.2 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

A Terrestrial Ecology and Wildlife Impact Assessment was prepared by Robert G. DEon

Consulting Ltd. of Nelson, BC. The main objectives of this report were to describe theterrestrial ecological conditions within the proposed Project footprint, identify and assess

potential Project-related impacts on Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) and

terrestrial species at risk (particularly vascular plants), and provide recommendations and

direction on Project activities as well as feasible mitigation strategies.





27/50



The following VECs were chosen for assessment:

1. Old growth forest

2. Species at risk

3. Habitat loss

4. Ungulate winter range

5. Riparian Habitat

A summary of the reports findings is presented in this section and the full report is

attached as Appendix F.

2.2.1 Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation

The entire Project area, including all components, is located within the Wells Gray Wet

Cool Interior Cedar-Hemlock biogeoclimatic subzone variant, in the Interior Wet Belt of

British Columbia. Sites in and around the Project area can be generally characterized as

regenerating to young mixed coniferous forests, with scattered mature to old remnant

patches, typical of the post-harvest biogeoclimatic subzone variant. The area has been

heavily developed for commercial forest harvesting in past decades (~20-40 yrs ago), and

consequently represents a matrix of regenerating clear cuts accessible by a network of

existing gravel logging roads. Areas in and around the proposed powerhouse site have

also been heavily disturbed by construction activities related to the Revelstoke Dam,

which was completed in 1984. A summary of the general ecological conditions at select

locations within the proposed Project area can be found in Table 4 of Appendix F.

The proposed Project footprint does not overlap any provincially designated Old Growth

Management Areas (OGMA). The Project area is largely characterized as a post-harvest

regenerating area with an abundance of age-class 1 and 2 forest. Remnant patches of

older forest occur at two locations within the general Project area; 1) on the north side of

Moses Creek in the vicinity of the proposed Moses Creek intake site and 2) a strip of older

trees along Moses Creek in the vicinity of the penstock crossing. Access to the Moses

Creek intake site will be from the south side of the creek through an existing post-harvest

area, and therefore disruption to the stand of older trees on the north side of the creek will

be minimal (only what is required to install the weir). In the case of the penstock travelling

through the remnant strip of old trees near the penstock creek crossing, disturbance to the

stand will be minimized since only temporary access will be required for this section of the

penstock. The Proponent will endeavor to minimize disturbance and avoid tree clearing to

the greatest extent possible in this area. Overall Project effects on old growth forests

during construction and operation are expected to be not significant.

During field surveys, no obvious high-value site-specific habitat features (e.g. stick nests,

dens, licks, hibernacula) were observed within the Project footprint. No rare or

endangered plants were discovered during targeted rate-plant surveys.

Riparian and Wetland Habitat

There are no wetlands within the Project footprint.





28/50



The only area with potentially significant riparian habitat values is the area surrounding the

powerhouse site where Moses Creek intersects with a pond that appears to have formed

as a result of the damming effect of the paved road forming its southern perimeter.However, there is no direct overlap between the Project footprint and the pond margin or

its intersection with Moses Creek. Additionally, a minimum setback of 30 m from the pond

margin, which is consistent with provincial riparian management guidelines, will be used

during detailed Project design and subsequent construction.

The Moses Creek intake and Beattie Creek diversion intake sites are largely within post-

harvest second-growth areas, which lack extensive stream-side riparian vegetation. The

penstock crossing of Moses Creek will involve minimal construction and consist of

concrete footings placed a minimum of 1 m from the high water perimeter of the creek.

Construction of the powerhouse site will occur using a minimum 5 m setback from the high

water perimeter of Moses Creek, and will therefore avoid moist soils and other sensitive

areas.

The Project will affect some riparian area by flooding at the headponds and construction of

the intakes, penstock crossing, and powerhouse. A very approximate area estimate is

1,700 m2, which will be refined when detailed design is complete (i.e. after permitting).

Field verification of the affected areas will be conducted following construction.

Compensation of the field-verified area will consist of riparian planting at a 2:1 ratio.

On this basis, the Projects potential impact on riparian and wetland habitat has been

assessed as low.

Species at Risk

A BC Conservation Data Centre database search identified three vascular plant species

with known occurrences within 10 km of the Project; Nahanni oak fern, slender spike rush

and western moonwort. An additional 34 vascular plant species at risk occurring within theInterior Cedar Hemlock biogeoclimatic subzones within the Columbia Forest District were

assessed for their potential occurrence or concern within the Project area. A list of these

plants is included in Appendix 2 of Appendix F. Of these, 10 species were considered

possible to occur in the Project area: dainty moonwort, mountain moonwort, least

moonwort, tender sedge, Sutherlands larkspur, crested wood fern, small-fruited

willowherb, Treleases hybrid willowherb, Joe-pye weed, and lance-leaved figwort.

None of the thirteen species mentioned above with possible occurrences in the Project

area were observed during field work and none were discovered in a targeted rare plant

survey. Considering the inherent rarity of these species, especially in the types of habitats

identified within the footprint of the proposed Project, the overall risk of damage or loss as

a result of vegetation clearing for Project construction is low.

Ungulate Winter Range

The Project footprint does not overlap with any designated Ungulate Winter Range (UWR)

for either caribou or mule deer. Additionally, radiotelemetry data for caribou and moose

show no use of the Project areas. This data along with UWR mapping correspond with the





29/50



current habitat suitability of the Moses Creek and Beattie Creek study areas, which

represent a largely regenerating post-harvest area with little to no older forests. The

Project has consequently been assessed as having virtually no effect on UWR values.

2.2.2 Wildlife

In a broad assessment of all potential species at risk within the Columbia Forest District a

total of 25 terrestrial vertebrate species were assessed for their potential to occur in

propo

Documents

Moses Crreek IPP Project