Point of Diversion Evaluation - SCRD · 00\5.0_Tech_Exec\5.6_GeoSci\Report- ... Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview Integrated Sustainability has been retained by Sunshine Coast Regional

$Page 1: Point of Diversion Evaluation - SCRD · 00\5.0_Tech_Exec\5.6_GeoSci\Report- ... Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview Integrated Sustainability has been retained by Sunshine Coast Regional$
Point of Diversion Evaluation Chapman Creek

Prepared for

Sunshine Coast Regional District

Integrated Sustainability 05 September 2019

VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page i

Report Submission To: Remko Rosenboom

Legal Company Name: Sunshine Coast Regional District

Company Address: 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC, V0N 3A1

Contact Phone Number: +1 (604) 885-6810

Contact Email Address: [email protected]

Submitted By: AJ MacDonald

Legal Company Name: Integrated Sustainability

Company Address: 620, 1050 West Pender Street, Vancouver, BC, V6E 3S7

Contact Phone Number: +1 (778) 886-5714

Contact Fax Number: +1 (587) 331-7919

Contact Email Address: [email protected]

Document Number: VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-

Rev0.docx

Document Path: P:\SCR\VP19-SCR-01-

00\5.0_Tech_Exec\5.6_GeoSci\Report-

PODFieldSummary\VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-

ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0.docx

Document Revision Number: 0

VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page ii

Disclaimer

The information presented in this document was compiled and interpreted exclusively

for the purposes stated in Section 1 of the document. Integrated Sustainability

provided this document for Sunshine Coast Regional District solely for the purpose

noted above.

Integrated Sustainability has exercised reasonable skill, care, and diligence to assess

the information acquired during the preparation of this document, but makes no

guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this information. The

information contained in this document is based upon, and limited by, the

circumstances and conditions acknowledged herein, and upon information available

at the time of its preparation. The information provided by others is believed to be

accurate but cannot be guaranteed.

Integrated Sustainability does not accept any responsibility for the use of this

document for any purpose other than that stated in Section 1 and does not accept

responsibility to any third party for the use in whole or in part of the contents of this

document. Any alternative use, including that by a third party, or any reliance on, or

decisions based on this document, is the responsibility of the alternative user or third

party.

Any questions concerning the information or its interpretation should be directed to

AJ MacDonald.

Document Revision History

Rev

No.

Rev Description Author Reviewer Approver Rev Date

A Issued as Draft 09-Aug-2019

Jordan Fryers Ian Grant AJ MacDonald

0 Issued as Final 05-Sep-2019

Jordan Fryers Ian Grant AJ MacDonald

Ryan Burgess

Ian Grant

Ryan Burgess

Jordan Fryers

Ryan Burgess

AJ Macdonald

VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page iii

Table of Contents

DISCLAIMER ....................................................................................................................................II

1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 1

2 STUDY AREA ..............................................................................................................................2

3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................2

3.1 Creek Flow Conditions .......................................................................................... 2

3.2 Identifying Potential Sites ...................................................................................... 2

3.3 Multi-Criteria Analysis ............................................................................................. 3

3.4 Field Scouting .......................................................................................................... 3

3.5 Creek Flow Conditions River Flow Rates & Existing Allocations ..................... 4

4 POINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION.........................................................................................5

4.1 Field Scouting Results ............................................................................................. 5

4.1.1 Site 1: 320 m Elevation ......................................................................................... 6

4.1.2 Site 2: 300 m Elevation ......................................................................................... 7

4.1.3 Site 3: 260 m Elevation ......................................................................................... 8

4.1.4 Site 4: 240 m Elevation ....................................................................................... 10

5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................11

5.1 Next Steps .............................................................................................................. 13

6 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................................14

7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................15

Tables within Text

TABLE A. CHAPMAN CREEK POD SITES EVALUATED ..........................................................5

Tables

TABLE 1 FILED AND DESKTOP MCA EVALUATION OF CHAPMAN CREEK POINT OF

DIVERSION SITE EVALUATION

Figures

FIGURE 1 SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT POINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION

CHAPMAN CREEK SITE B OPTIONS

VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page iv

Appendices

APPENDIX 1 – SATELLITE IMAGERY OF SITES

APPENDIX 2 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

Integrated Sustainability has been retained by Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) to

identify and evaluate potential point of diversion (POD) sites (the Sites) on Chapman

Creek (the Creek) that can service SCRD’s municipal water demands.

Based on the current and projected water demands within the Chapman Water System,

which services communities along the Sunshine Coast region within southwestern BC, the

SCRD has identified the need for development of means to address the source water

supply deficit. The SCRD intends to develop these means such that there is sufficient year-

round water supply for communities’ dependant on the Chapman Water System under

both typical and emergency demand circumstances (SCRD 2018). Chapman Creek is

the primary water source for the Chapman Water System and conveys water from

Chapman Lake and Edwards Lake to the Chapman Creek Water Treatment Plant (WTP)

(Opus DaytonKnight 2013).

To service a growing demand for water, the SCRD would like to construct a storage

reservoir along the Creek to store water during periods of high flow.

1.2 Purpose

The objective of this project is to support SCRD in reviewing options to install an additional

water intake along Chapman Creek north of the proposed water storage pond currently

named “Site B” and located in the vicinity of B 77-J / 092 G 05 (Figure 1). While the existing

intake may be expanded to supply additional water, it would require a pump station to

deliver water to a reservoir located at Site B. There is also an option to add an additional

“run-of-river” style intake within the bedrock walled portion of Chapman Creek upstream

of the existing intake. This style of intake would gravity feed water to a storage reservoir

located in the lower reaches.

This report summarizes the findings of a review of potential POD intake locations within the

bedrock walled portion of the Creek. It is understood that any intake would require a

connecting pipeline to deliver water to the proposed storage reservoir; the routing of this

pipeline is not specifically considered as part of this evaluation.

Integrated Sustainability completed a desktop evaluation of POD Sites which was

summarized in an email on 10 July 2019 (pers. comm. Haley Massong, 10 July 2019). The

four Sites from this desktop evaluation were selected for field scouting to validate the

desktop findings. The field scouting was carried out by Integrated Sustainability on 21 July

2019. The purpose of this document is to summarize the findings from both the desktop

study and field assessments of potential Creek POD locations.


2 STUDY AREA

The Study Area included the area along Chapman Creek upstream of SCRD’s proposed

water storage pond near B 77-J / 092 G 05 and is defined as the reach of Chapman

Creek between the elevation of 320 m and 240 m (Figure 1). This comprises a 2.5 km reach

of the Creek.

SCRD’s preference is for POD Sites on the east side of the Creek because the proposed

water storage reservoir would be located on the east side of the Creek. SCRD currently

has a weir installed further downstream on the Creek at an elevation of approximately

185 m that is the source for “Site A” (B 67-J / 092 G 05).

For the purpose of the Site visit, access was gained by driving up Field Road to an

Unnamed Road, and parking at a locked gate on the Unnamed Road approximately 1

km north of Site B. From the locked gate, a walking path along a decommissioned forestry

road runs parallel to the Creek and previously crossed the creek at Site 2, continuing

parallel to the northwest side of Creek. POD locations Site 1, Site 3, and Site 4 are accessed

by walking down from the walking path or directly along the Creek where possible.

3 METHODOLOGY

Prior to the field investigation, Integrated Sustainability carried out a desktop evaluation

which included a review of:

▪ Creek flow conditions

▪ Identification of potential Sites from maps and aerial imagery

▪ Ranking of the Sites suitability for POD based on river properties using a multi-criteria

analysis (MCA).

▪ Field scouting of identified Sites

▪ Compilation of MCA Site review

3.1 Creek Flow Conditions

The Water Survey of Canada ([WSC] 2019) was queried to provide a summary of natural

flow rates on the Chapman Creek.

3.2 Identifying Potential Sites

Integrated Sustainability used the following desktop information sources to find potential

POD Sites:

▪ Topographic and road maps

▪ Satellite imagery and air photos

Based on a visual evaluation of the river images, topography and existing infrastructure,

one potential Site was selected for evaluation and in addition, three Sites identified by


SCRD during a previous field visit were included for a total of four Sites that were to be

evaluated.

3.3 Multi-Criteria Analysis

The potential Sites were evaluated and ranked using an MCA process which is based on

a qualitative rating system (e.g. scores from 1 to 5) under the four criteria categories:

1) River access and transportation

a) Slope of bank adjacent to the Creek

b) Cleared trails leading to or near the POD location

c) Distance from the proposed storage location

2) Land use and stakeholder issues

a) Land ownership

b) Watershed reserve and protection areas

3) River characteristics

a) River reach specifics (straight, inside or outside of existing bend)

b) Boulders and vegetation

c) Creek bed characteristics

4) Environmental sensitivity

a) Clearing needed to access site

b) Proximity to other tributaries

c) Proximity of BC wildlife management areas

The MCA process was completed assuming equal weighting for each of the criteria. An

average score was calculated for each of the Sites. Weighting can be adjusted based

on specific SCRD criteria.

3.4 Field Scouting

Based on the MCA evaluation, the four Sites were assessed by field scouting. The purpose

of the field visit was to gather the following Site information:

▪ Site specific characteristics including bank stability, vegetation, and substrate

▪ River depths measurements

▪ Site photographs

▪ Site access conditions and routes

The information gained from the field scouting has been used to validate and supplement

the information gathered in the desktop evaluation.


3.5 Creek Flow Conditions, River Flow Rates, & Existing Allocations

The Study Area is in the lower reaches of Chapman Creek. Chapman Creek is carved into

a bedrock valley with steep forested hillslopes that greatly limit access. There are no

bridges across Chapman Creek in the Study Area and only a few cleared access routes

to the Creek. Chapman Creek is narrow, shallow, and has many large boulders which

may be challenging for a water intake system. Below the study area, Chapman Creek

flows out of the Coast Mountains and into a shallower reach with alluvial sediment before

entering the Straight of Georgia.

Flow rates in Chapman Creek will be consistent across the Study Area with no major

tributaries joining the Chapman Creek between the upstream Site and the downstream

Site. Within the Study Area, Chapman Creek has a drainage area of approximately

62 km2 at Site 4 (the furthest downstream site) and 52 km2 at Site 1 (the furthest upstream

site) (Scalgo 2019). The mean annual discharge is 4.4 m3/s at the WSC station located

downstream of the existing intake with a drainage area of 64 km2 (Figure A). Average

daily flow rates follow the typical variable pattern for rivers in this region with consistent

flow between 0.2 m3/s and 12 m3/s, seeing the high flows typically in the winter and lower

flows typically in the summer. Mean summer flow rates for July and August are typically in

the range of 0.2 m3/s as they are controlled by SCRD. The annual peak flows typically

occur in mid-December and have a mean rate of 14.28 m3/s.

Figure A. Hydrograph of Daily Flow for Chapman Creek below existing intake

(1993-2003)


Downstream of the Study Area there is currently 7,508,435 m3/year of licenced surface

water allocations to SCRD accounting for 5.4% of the Chapman Creek’s mean annual

flow (Government of BC 2019). Considering an allocation limit of 15% of MAD, the

remaining potential volume for allocation is 13,372,551 m3/year. While SCRD’s expected

additional withdrawal volume is currently unknown; in terms of natural flow rates and

existing allocations, the Chapman Creek should have adequate flows to support

additional water diversion by SCRD.

4 POINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION

Four potential POD Sites were selected for desktop evaluation (Table A). The locations of

these Sites are shown on Figure 1. Satellite imagery for all four Sites is included in Appendix

1. Site photographs collected during the field scouting are included in Appendix 2.

Table A. Chapman Creek POD Sites Evaluated

Site Number Descriptor Name NTS Location

1 Site B Intake El. 320 m D 4-B / 092 G 12

2 Site B Intake El. 300 m B 4-B / 092 G 12

3 Site B Intake El. 260 m B 95-J / 092 G 05

4 Site B Intake El. 240 m B 95-J / 092 G 05

General comments for all Sites include:

▪ Chapman Creek is narrow, shallow, and filled with large boulders (up to 3 m diameter)

▪ The east side of Chapman Creek throughout the Study Area is largely undeveloped,

heavily forested, access to any of the Sites may cross or utilize privately owned land.

▪ Heavily forested with steep valley walls on both sides.

4.1 Field Scouting Results

Based on the initial MCA results, the four Sites were selected for field scouting to validate

the desktop findings. The field scouting found that three Sites (Sites 1-3) have suitable and

roughly equivalent creek characteristics. The fourth Site (Site 4) has bedrock on the left

downstream bank (LDB), which was notably different than the boulder and cobble creek

beds of Sites 1-3.

While the creek bed difference is most notable, each has its own specific physical

constraints that can be overcome through engineering and operational management.

However, all four Sites have their own unique land-use or stakeholder elements that will

require further attention.

The MCA table summarizing desktop and field scouting results is included in Table 1. The

site conditions and characteristics are summarized in the following sections under two

general categories – Access and River Characteristics.


4.1.1 Site 1: 320 m Elevation

River Access and Transportation

▪ Site 1 is located 4.4 km north of the proposed storage reservoir and features a

decommissioned forestry road on the west side of the Creek reaching approximately

100 m west of the POD.

▪ Site 1 is accessed by walking directly down the slope from the decommissioned

forestry road walking path on the northwest side of the Creek.

▪ Flat land to the east of the POD provides a good location for a pump staging area if

required, following the necessary clearing of trees and forest.

Relative ranking of 2 related to distance from proposed storage and potential clearing

required.

Land Use and Stakeholder Issues

▪ Crown Land ownership

▪ Within the Watershed Reserve Area

▪ Outside of the municipal Official Community Plan Watershed Protection area

Relative ranking of 4 related to crown land ownership.

River Characteristics

▪ Site 1 is located along a straight reach of the creek where the water velocities

increase around boulders and there are undulating water surfaces (small standing

waves).

▪ Water velocity at this POD was difficult to measure due to the high volume of boulders

in the area. Using a Rickly Stream Gauge instrument, field staff measured a flow of

0.57 m3/s at Site 1.

▪ The right downstream bank (RDB) is approximately 1 m high and has some large tree

debris from prior high flow events (Appendix 2, Photo #1).

▪ The LDB is approximately 1.5 m high with a large tree stump and small eroded pocket

approximately 6 m long and 3 m deep (Appendix 2, Photo #3).

▪ Downstream of the POD, the Creek breaks into two channels. One main channel

contains flow year-round, whereas the secondary channel only contains flow during

periods of high flow events.

▪ Maximum water depth was approximately 0.5 m.

▪ Creek bed slope is approximately 4.5˚

Relative ranking of 2 related to low banks and shallow creek bed slope.


Environmental Sensitivity

▪ Clearing of access route and new riparian disturbance would be required.

▪ Not within BC Wildlife Management Areas

▪ Located upgradient of all privately-owned logging land, therefore protected against

potential contamination from uncontrolled activities.

Ranking of 4 related to location upstream of logging area tributary.




decommissioned forestry road bridge that previously crossed the river at the POD.

▪ For the purpose of the Site visit, access was gained by driving up Field Road to an

Unnamed Road, and parking at a locked gate on the Unnamed Road approximately

1 km north of Site B. From the locked gate, foot reconnaissance was required,

following the walking path left from the decommissioned forestry road.

▪ The decommissioned forestry road may be used for access, but it requires some

necessary upgrades as it has become overgrown with vegetation now.

Relative ranking of 4 related to distance from proposed storage and crossing of

decommissioned road.


▪ Crown land ownership



Relative ranking of 4 related to Crown land ownership.


▪ Site 2 is situated along a straight reach of the Creek approximately 125 m long at an

old bridge that previously crossed the Creek for a decommissioned forestry trunk road.

▪ The LDB (east bank) is estimated to be 4 m high with a steeply cut face of wood

(decommissioned bridge foundation) and organic material (i.e. soil, clay). The top of

bank has vegetation and treed regrowth following the decommission of the bridge

and road.

▪ The RDB (west bank) is estimated to be 4 m high with a steeply cut face comprised of

boulders and alluvial material (i.e. sand, gravel, cobble) left from the

decommissioned bridge foundation.


▪ The Site has higher ground on either bank which might allow equipment to be

positioned closer to the river.

▪ The Site has boulders and cobbles as predominant creek substrate.



Relative ranking of 2 related to the shallow creek slope and creek substrate.




▪ Located upgradient of privately-owned logging land, therefore protected against


Ranking of 5 related to location upstream of logging area tributary and decommissioned

road and bridge crossing.




secondary channel to allow for potential overflow.

▪ The decommissioned forestry road runs within 90 m of the Creek, however a bridge

over a runoff culvert was removed in the decommissioning, therefore replacement

would be required. Additionally, there is a large clearing from previous forestry

activities to access the Creek. Grading and road construction might be required,

however there is better access compared to Sites 1 and 2 because less clearing is

required.

▪ Satellite imagery and field observation indicate that the Site was cleared for forestry

operations.

− Satellite imagery from 2017 and 2018 shows a major clearing of the forest

occurred between Sites 3 and 4.

− During the Site visit several burn pits were observed as well as piles of trees and

brush that were left and not burnt.

Relative ranking of 4 related to distance from proposed storage and existing clearing as

well as relatively close proximity to decommissioned road.


▪ Private Land ownership




Relative ranking of 3 related to private land ownership.


▪ Site 3 is situated at a bend in a pool feature between multiple pool drops

approximately 5 m to 20 m in length and approximately 30 cm drops.



▪ The LDB (east bank) has exposed roots showing evidence of erosive events and

potentially unstable banks, however there is mature tree growth and forest which may

provide some resistance.

▪ The LDB has steep valley walls at approximately 60 degree angle and approximately

100 m to 150 m high.

▪ The RDB has mature tree growth with some flood debris.

▪ Similar to Site 1, the creek has a secondary channel, but rather than downstream and

shallow, this one is deep and may provide an overflow option.

▪ The secondary channel has the following features

− Log debris from flood approximately 2 m high, resting on large boulder

approximately 1.5m diameter.

− The slope of the creek bed following the natural 2 m high weir is approximately

2.3 degrees.

− The creek bed is comprised of boulders, cobbles and gravel.

− The banks are vegetated with mature trees and shrubs which provide some

erosion resistance.

Relative ranking of 3 related to the steeper creek bed slope and secondary channel

allowing for potential overflow during high flow events and potential fish navigation.




▪ Located downgradient of all privately-owned logging land, therefore not protected

against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities.

Ranking of 3 related to location downstream of logging area tributary and proximity to

decommissioned road.




▪ Site 4 is located 2.2 km north of the proposed storage reservoir and features bedrock

on both banks.

▪ The decommissioned forestry road runs within 115 m of the Creek and along which

there is a large clearing from previous forestry activities to access the creek. Additional

grading and road construction might be required down to the Creek, however there

is better access compared to Sites 1 and 2 because less clearing is required.

▪ Satellite imagery and field observation indicate that the Site was cleared for forestry

operations.

− Satellite imagery from 2017 and 2018 shows a major clearing of the forest

occurred between Sites 3 and 4.

− During the Site visit several burn pits were observed as well as piles of trees and

brush that were left and not burnt.

Relative ranking of 4 related to distance from proposed storage and existing clearing as

well as relatively close proximity to decommissioned forestry road.


▪ Private land ownership



Relative ranking of 3 related to private land ownership.


▪ Flow was recorded for approximately 60% of the creek as approximately 40% was

unmeasurable due to lower levels in a boulder field. Taking this into consideration, flow

was recorded to be approximately 0.83 m3/s at Site 4.

▪ Site 4 is situated along a straight reach of the Creek approximately 200 m long in a

pool feature approximately 10 m long and 1m deep. The deeper part of the creek is

on the left side near the LDB (east bank) and the cascading pools should help ensure

a minimum water depth during low flows.

▪ Unlike any of the other Sites, Site 4 has bedrock on both banks, providing more stable

banks and constructability for a weir.

▪ The LDB is approximately 10-15 m high and the RDB is approximately 4 m high.


▪ Creek bed slope is approximately 11.3˚, which was the steepest creek bed slope of all

the Sites.


Relative ranking of 4 related to the steep creek bed slope and bedrock on both banks.




▪ Located downgradient of all privately-owned logging land, therefore not protected

against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities.

Ranking of 3 related to location downstream of logging area tributary and further

proximity (115 m) from decommissioned road.

5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Integrated Sustainability completed a desktop and field evaluation of four potential

intake Sites along Chapman Creek between 320 m elevation and 240 m elevation.

Chapman Creek flows through a deep valley along the west side of SCRD’s current and

proposed storage ponds. The following statements define Chapman Creek within the

Study Area for the purpose of the Intake evaluation:

▪ Flow rates in Chapman Creek will be consistent across the Study Area with no major

tributaries joining Chapman Creek between the 320 m elevation and the 240 m

elevation. Generally, Chapman Creek is narrow, shallow, and filled with large

boulders (up to 3 m diameter) which can be challenging for the design and operation

of an intake system.

− There is a small tributary between proposed Site 2 and Site 3 that receives water

from privately owned logging land and is therefore not protected against


▪ Chapman Creek has a drainage area of 62 km2 at Site 4 (furthest downstream site)

and 52 km2 at Site 1 (furthest upstream site).

▪ Chapman Creek has a mean annual flow of the of 4.4 m3/s (WSC 2019). Average daily

flow rates follow the typical variable pattern for rivers in this region with consistent flow

between 0.2 m3/s and 12 m3/s, seeing the high flows typically in the winter and lower

flows typically in the summer. Mean summer flow rates for July and August are typically

in the range of 0.2 m3/s as they are controlled by SCRD. The annual peak flows

typically occur in mid-December and have a mean rate of 14.28 m3/s.

▪ On Chapman Creek 5.4% of surface flow is allocated. There remains a significant

volume available for new diversions.

▪ Chapman Creek located within the Study Area is not located within BC Wildlife

Management Area.

▪ Four potential POD Sites within 4.4 km of the proposed storage reservoir, numbered 1

through 4, were identified on Chapman Creek within the Study Area. All the sites


demonstrated good characteristics from a desktop-level review and were selected

for field scouting.

▪ Sites 1 and Site 2 and located on Crown Land while Site 3 and Site 4 are located on

Private Land. Intakes located at Site 1 or Site 2 would require pipeline routing that

would likely have to pass through the Private Land located around Site 3 and Site 4.

Results of the field scouting conducted on 21 July 2019 are summarized as follows:

▪ The field scouting confirmed that none of the sites have an existing disturbed access

route. A now decommissioned forestry road runs parallel to Chapman Creek that

would likely support Site access. The decommissioned road is:

− Approximately 100 m west of Site 1

− Previously crossed Chapman Creek at Site 2. Some timber foundational

structures remain on the southeast side of the Creek (LDB) and boulder

foundation remain on the northwest side of the Creek (RDB).

− Approximately 90 m southeast of Site 3.

− Approximately 115 m southeast of Site 4.

▪ The Creek substrate includes angular gravel ranging up to very large boulders 3 m in

diameter.

▪ Exposed bedrock was only observed at Site 4; the lowest and most downstream Site.

▪ The Creek slope ranged between 2.9˚ (Site 2) and 11.3˚ (Site 4).

▪ Valley walls were the steepest at Site 3.

▪ The Creek is divided into two separate channels downstream of Site 1 and at Site 3.

While land use agreements and/or approvals will be important in site selection, each site

also has its own physical constraints to intake development. The ranking scheme used

here is based on equal weighting of all criteria and more detailed review may revise the

weighting scheme and therefor the overall site ranking. Based on the current rank scheme

and weighting distribution, the ranking of each site is as follows:

▪ Site 1 is the lowest ranked site. It is the highest and furthest from the proposed storage.

Bank conditions are not better.

▪ Site 2 is the highest ranked site. While this location is also high and farther from the

proposed storage that Site 3 and 4, this location was previously utilized as a bridge, so

is expected to have the more feasible access and clearing requirements.

▪ Site 3 is the third raked site. While this Site is closer to the proposed reservoir and has a

potential for natural overflow, this location has the steepest valley walls and may be

more challenging for intake design.

▪ Site 4 is the second ranked Site. This site is close to the proposed storage reservoir and

contains exposed bedrock that could be used to anchor intake infrastructure. This

location also has the steepest Creek slope.


5.1 Next Steps

Integrated Sustainability recommends the following next steps to evaluate, licence, and

develop a POD intake Site along Chapman Creek between the 320 m elevation and the

240 m elevation:

▪ Further inquire into the feasibility of securing land-use agreements regarding private

land use for intake infrastructure and pipeline routing from the POD to the proposed

storage reservoir.

▪ Review run-of-river intake construction options and expected costs for upstream

Chapman Creek bedrock intakes.

▪ Compare and evaluate water supply options between upstream bedrock water

supply intakes against increasing capacity of the current intake and pumping water

up to the proposed storage reservoir.

▪ A new intake would require a new Water Sustainability Act Term Licence application

and will require the following field level information about the POD Site:

− Detailed river survey to support hydraulic modelling that is necessary for the

design of intake screens, anchors, and flood setbacks.

− Aquatic habitat assessment.


6 CLOSURE

Integrated Sustainability Consultants Ltd. would like to thank the Sunshine Coast Regional

District for the opportunity to support their municipal water demands, through the

evaluation of potential water intake Sites on Chapman Creek. If you have any questions,

please contact the undersigned at any time.

Sincerely,

Integrated Sustainability Consultants Ltd.

Jordan Fryers, E.I.T., B.A.Sc.

Junior Water Resources Engineer

Ian Grant, MSc. P. Geo,

Senior Geoscientist

Ryan Burgess

Ian Grant

Ryan Burgess

Jordan Fryers


7 REFERENCES

Government of BC. 2019. BC Water Resources Atlas.

http://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/hm/wrbc/ (accessed 06 August 2019).

Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. (Opus DaytonKnight). 2013. Sunshine Coast Regional

District Comprehensive Regional Water Plan. D-02820.00. June 2013.

SCALGO. 2019. Scalable Algorithmics Terrain Data-Processing. http://scalgo.com/live

(accessed 06 August 2019).

Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD). 2018. Framework for the Development of a Water

Sourcing Policy. 2018.

Water Survey of Canada. 2019. Historical Hydrometric Data.

https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/search/historical_e.html (accessed 29 July 2019).

Figure

Sechelt

J/92-G-5

B/92-G-12

Site 1D 4-B /092 G 12

El. 320 m

Site 2B 4-B /092 G 12

El. 300 m

Site 3B 95-J /092 G 05

El. 260 m

Site 4B 95-J /092 G 05

El. 240 m

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity

PROJECT NO.

PREPARED BY:

CLIENT:

CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:

Doc

umen

t Pat

h: N

:\Pro

ject

s\S

CR

\VP

19-S

CR

-01-

00\M

XD

\VP1

9-S

CR

-01-

00P

ropo

sedS

tora

geR

eser

voirS

iteB

Fig1

-Rev

A-.m

xd,

NOTES: 9-AUG-19Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.POD Locations current as of July 2019.

REVISION:

APPROVED BY:

FIGURE NO.

1:45,000Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10NProjection: Transverse MercatorDatum: North American 1983

0 500 1,000

Meters

K.MATEUSH

1 A

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICTPOINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATIONCHAPMAN CREEK SITE B OPTIONS

J.FRYERS I.GRANT

VP19-SCR-01-00

Site B Proposed Storage Reservoir

Site B Location

Streams

Chapman Creek Watershed

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Table

Table 1: Field and Desktop MCA Evaluation Chapman Creek Point of Diversion Site EvaluationProject Number: VP19-SCR-01-00

Project Name: Raw Water Reservoir Feasibility Study - Phase 3

Client Name: Sunshine Coast Regional District Date:

Project Manager: AJ MacDonald Rev #: A

Project Engineer: Haley Massong

Site Descriptor Name Legal Location Setting

Comments Rating Comments Rating Comments Rating Comments Rating

1Site B IntakeEl. 320 m

D 4-B / 092 G 12

10U 451860E 5483983N

49.506561° -123.664936°

-East side of ChapmanCreek-Linear distance toproposed Site B = 4.4 km-Longest pipeline distanceto Site B

-No direct access to the river-Decomissioned forestry road on west side of theriver approximately 100 m from the POD-No cleared areas for equipment in proximity.-Moderately steep valley walls (max 51 % average 15 %)-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 4.4 km

2

-Crown land ownership. -Within Watershed Reserve Area.-Outside of OCP Watershed ProtectionArea.

4

- Site located along straight reach of river approximately 200 m upstream and slight bend downstream with secondary channel approximately 20 m downstream- Large boulder field upstream and at POD- Water depths measured across the creek were between 0.08 m and 0.48 m.- Creek approximately 30 m wide, with approximately 15 m wetted, max depthapproximately 50 cm- LDB approximately 1.5 m high, large tree stump approximately 1.5 m diameter,

wooded, deciduous, approximately 75 m high trees behind with lots of vegetationgrowth- RDB approximately 1.0 m high with coniferous and deciduous wooded dense forest and lots of vegetation growth- Creek bed slope approximately 4.5 degrees

2

-Access route clearing required -New riparian disturbance-Not located within BC Wildlife Management Areas-Located upgradient of all privately owned logging land, therefore protected against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities

4 3


B 4-B / 092 G 12

10U 451216E 5483419N

49.501442° -123.673758°

-East side of ChapmanCreek-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 3.6 km

-Near a location where an old, relatively flat logging road previously crossed Chapman Creek (now a slightly overgrown walking trail with a few washouts), which could be used foraccess with necessarily upgrades-Linear distance to clearing nearby = 500m-Moderately steep valley walls (max 51 % average 24 %)-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 3.6 km

4

-Crown land ownership.-Within Watershed Reserve Area-Outside of OCP Watershed ProtectionArea

4

-Site located along straight reach of the river approximately 125 m long-Bank appears relatively stable with armoured banks due to decommissioned forestry road bridge crossing creek- Multiple pools approximately 5 to 15 m long with approximately 20-30 cm drops- Creek approximately 15 m wide, approximately 10 m wetted, max depthapproximately 60 cm- LDB approximately 4m high, large trees (approximately 50cm diameter) making theold bridge foundation, deciduous and coniferous growth immediately at bank with dense vegetation, bank vertical at bridge foundation- RDB approximately 4m high, boulders, vegetation growing above, old road behind, more open than LDB, bank approximately 70 degrees to horizontal-Creek bed slope approximately 2.9 degrees

2

-Access route clearing required -New riparian disturbance-Decommissioned road and bridge may reduce new clearing/disturbance-Not located within BC Wildlife Management Areas-Located upgradient of all privately owned logging land, therefore protected against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities

5 3.75


B 95-J / 092 G 05

10U 450486E 5482636N

49.494334° -123.683742°

-East side of ChapmanCreek-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 2.5 km

-No direct access to the river.-Cleared logging area approximately 20maway-Decommissioned forestry road approximately90 m away-Steeper valley walls (max 69 % average 32 %)-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 2.5 km

4-Private Land-Within Watershed Reserve Area-Within OCP Watershed Protection Area

3

-Site located along outside bend of creek which might make it difficult for intakedepending on design-Bank shows some erosion in tree roots, however mature forest may provide someresistance-Creek approximately 31m wide, approximately 18m wetted, max depthapproximately 80 cm-Side channel on right side, provides option for overflow-Massive boulders on left half of creek and steep valley walls on LDB approximately 100-150m high-Pools approximately 5m-20m with approximately 30cm drops-LDB vegetation approximately 2m high, but valley wall approximately 100-150m high, massive boulders approximately 2m diameter erosion into tree roots-RDB approximately 3m high, deciduous and coniferous trees approximately 60m high, boulders and cobbles approximately 10cm-100cm diameter with old flood debris approximately 20m upstream-Creek bed slope approximately 7.6 degrees

3

-Access route clearing required -New riparian disturbance-Not located within BC Wildlife Management Areas-Located downstream of tributary from privately owned logging land, therefore not protected against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities

3 3.25


B 95-J / 092 G 05

10U 450259E 5482451N

49.492658° -123.686864°

-East side of ChapmanCreek-Linear distance toproposed Site B = 2.2 km- Shortest pipeline distanceto Site B

-No direct access to the river-Cleared logging area approximately 20maway-Decommissioned forestry road approximately115 m away-Moderately steep valley walls (max 49 % average 22 %)-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 2.2 km

4-Private Land-Within Watershed Reserve Area-Within OCP Watershed Protection Area

3

-Site located along straight reach of the river approximately 200 m long-Bank appears relatively stable with forest and vegetation-Cascading pools upstream (U/S), approximately 10m directly U/S of POD there is acascade pool approximately 1m deep-Bedrock approximately 10-15m high on LDB, massive boulders up to 3m diameter and tree debris approximately 25m U/S-LDB boulders and cobble on bedrock approximately 10-15m high, leafy vegetationand coniferous and deciduous trees approximately 10cm to 70cm diameter and approximately 60m high-RDB approximately 3m high, bedrock seen approximately 5m extended from bank, boulder approximately 3m diameter with tree growing above approximately 60m highapproximately 50cm diameter, dense forest (deciduous/coniferous) trees approximately 10-30 cm diameter and approximately 60m high, approximately 40cm pool drop approximately 5m U/S of bedrock-Creek bed slope approximately 11.3 degrees (steepest of all sites)

4

-Access route clearing required -New riparian disturbance-Not located within BC Wildlife Management Areas-Located downstream of tributary from privately owned logging land, therefore not protected against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities

3 3.5

Notes: A rating of 5 indicates higher suitability, rating of 1 indicates lower suitability.

August 9, 2019

Average Rating River Access and Transportation Land Use and Stakeholder Issues River Characteristics Environmental Sensitivity

VP19-SCR-01-00-TBL-WR-TAB1_Chapman_Creek_Intake_FieldandDesktop_MCA-RevA.xlsx 1 of 1

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Satellite Imagery of Sites

J.FRYERS J. FRYERS I. GRANT

NTS VP19-SCR-01-00 A

August 6, 2019

APPENDIX 1 - FIGURE 1FIGURE NO.

SCRDPOINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION

CHAPMAN CREEK Site 1: Profile and Aerial Imagery

PROJECT NO.

PREPARED BY

DRAWN BY DATECLIENT CHECKED BY APPROVED BY.

REVISIONSCALE



August 6, 2019




PROJECT NO.

PREPARED BY


REVISIONSCALE



August 6, 2019




PROJECT NO.

PREPARED BY


REVISIONSCALE



August 6, 2019




PROJECT NO.

PREPARED BY


REVISIONSCALE

Appendix 2 – Site Photographs

Site 1: 320 m Elevation

Site 1: 320 m Elevation along Chapman Creek at D 4-B / 092 G 12

Photo #1: Wetted width

measurement looking at right

downstream bank (RDB).

Photo #3: Looking at left

downstream bank (LDB) of

Creek

Photo #2: Looking upstream from center of the Creek.

Photo #4:Looking downstream from LDB of Creek


Site 2: 300 m Elevation along Chapman Creek at B 4-B / 092 G 12

Photo #1:Cross section

profilelooking at the

RDB.

Photo #3: Looking at LDB

bank. Foundation for

decommissioned bridge.

Photo #2: Looking at LDB substrate.

Photo #4: Looking downstream at the Creek bed slope from the LDB.


Site 3: 260 m Elevation along Chapman Creek at B 95-J / 092 G 05

Photo #1: Looking

downstream from LDB

Photo #3: Looking

downstream at secondary channel. Lots

of debris.

Photo #2: Looking upstream from LDB

Photo #4:Looking upstream at secondary channel and debris flow


Site 4: 240 m Elevation along Chapman Creek at B 95-J / 092 G 05

Photo #1: Looking

downstream from LDB

Photo #3: Valley wall above LDB

bedrock.

Photo #2:Viewing pool along LDB.

Photo #4: Looking at RDB. Exposed bedrock on bottom right.

Documents

Point of Diversion Evaluation - SCRD · 00\5.0_Tech_Exec\5.6_GeoSci\Report- ... Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview Integrated Sustainability has been retained by Sunshine Coast Regional