PINGSTON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Transcription

PINGSTON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Application for a Project Approval Certificate
Prepared by
Canadian Hydro Developers (B.C.) Inc.
Klohn Crippen Consultants Ltd.
UMA Engineering Ltd.
April, 1998
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement and Authentication
Executive Summary
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Drawings
List of Appendices
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Project Purpose and Justification
1.3 Project Overview
●
●
1.3.1 Project Location and Access
1.3.2 Project Components
1.4 Project Timing
1.5 Proponent Identification
1.6 Land Tenure and Water Rights
●
●
1.6.1 Land Tenure
1.6.2 Water Rights
1.7 Regulatory Framework
●
●
●
1.7.1 B.C. Environmental Assessment Act
1.7.2 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
1.7.3 Permits
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Physiography, Geology and Natural Hazards
●
●
●
2.1.1 Physiography
2.1.2 Geology
2.1.3 Natural Hazards
2.2 Meteorology
●
●
2.2.1 Precipitation, Temperature
2.2.2 Air
2.3 Hydrology
●
●
2.3.1 Regional Analysis
2.3.2 Pingston Creek Hydrology Monitoring
2.4 Groundwater
2.5 Surface Water Quality
2.6 Aquatic Environment
●
●
2.6.1 Regional Overview
2.6.2 Field Surveys
2.7 Terrestrial Environment
●
●
2.7.2 Field Surveys
3.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING
3.1 Location and Access
3.2 Community Profiles
●
●
3.2.1 Revelstoke and Area
3.2.2 Nakusp and Area
3.3 Regional Economy
●
●
3.3.1 Economic Base
3.3.2 Economic Sectors
3.4 Labour Market
3.5 Land and Water Use
●
●
●
3.5.1 Forestry
3.5.2 Land Reserves/Protected Areas
3.5.3 Tourism and Recreation
3.6 First Nations
4.0 CULTURAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES
4.1 Regional Overview
4.2 Field Surveys
5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
5.2 Energy Production and Economics
5.3 Project Parameters
5.4 On-Site and Off-Site Facility Design
●
●
●
●
5.4.1 Headworks
5.4.2 Tunnel and Penstock
5.4.3 Powerhouse and Tailrace
5.4.4 Transmission Line
5.5 Construction
●
●
●
●
●
●
5.5.1 Overview
5.5.2 Schedule
5.5.3 Headworks
5.6 Operations and Maintenance
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
5.6.1 General
5.6.2 Plant Control Systems
5.6.3 Forced and Planned Outages
5.6.4 Headworks
5.6.6. Powerhouse and Tailrace
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS
6.1 Area of Influence
6.2 Categories of Impacts
6.3 Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
●
●
●
6.3.1 Design
6.3.2 Construction
6.3.3 Operations and Maintenance
6.4 Summary of Environmental Impacts
6.5 Assessment of Socio-Economic Effects
6.6 Assessment of Cultural and Heritage Effects
7.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 Completed Programs
●
●
7.1.1 Open House Meetings
7.1.2 First Nations Information and Consultation
7.2 Proposed Programs
8.0 GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION
8.1 General
8.2 Provincial Agencies
8.3 Federal Agencies
8.4 Municipal Agencies
9.1 REFERENCES
List of Drawings
Drawing 1000 - Head Pond Site Plan and Storage Curve
NOTE: This drawing is currently unavailable. Please see Satellite Repositories to view this item.
List of Tables
Table 1.1 - Permit Approvals and Agreements
Table 2.1 - Revelstoke Area Climatic Stations
Table 2.2 - Daily Mean Temperature (·C)
Table 2.3 - Extreme Temperature and Precipitation Data
Table 2.4 - Ambient Air Temperatures
Table 2.5 - Revelstoke Regional Stream Flow Stations
Table 2.6 - Variation in Annual Runoff (% MAR)
Table 2.7 - Monthly Variation in Mean Annual Runoff (% MAR)
Table 2.8 - Regional Monthly and Annual Runoff
Table 2.9 - Mean Dry Season Runoff Volume (Dec through Mar) - dam3
Table 2.10 - Variation in Dry Season Runoff (% Mean)
Table 2.11 - Mean Minimum Daily Mean Discharge
Table 2.12 - Variation in Minimum Daily Discharge (% Mean)
Table 2.13 - Regional Flood Flow Values - m3/s
Table 2.14 - Pingston Creek at the Intake
Table 2.15 - Pingston Creek Minimum Daily Discharge
Table 2.16 - Pingston Creek Flood Flows
Table 2.17 - Hydrologic Data Summary
Table 2.18 - Estimated Total Sediment Load
Table 3.1 - Revelstoke City Population
Table 3.2 - Revelstoke Labour Force
Table 3.3 - Arrow Forest District
Table 3.4 - Land and Water Use (Summary)
Table 5.1 - Energy Calculation, Pingston Hydro Plant
NOTE: This table is currently unavailable. Please see Satellite Repositories to view these items.
Table 5.2 - Comparison of Transmission Line Route Alternatives
Table 5.3 - Project Design and Construction Milestones
Table 6.1 - Design Phase Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Table 6.2 - Estimation of Mean Winter Flows Downstream of the Diversion Works
Table 6.3 - Burst Swimming Speeds of Rainbow Trout (adapted from DFO and MELP, 1995; and Slaney and Zaldokas, 1997)
Table 6.4 - Construction Phase - Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Table 6.5 - Operations and Maintenance Phase - Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Table 6.6 - Summary of Provincial Benefits (millions $)
Table 6.7 - Pingston Hydroelectric Project Employment Benefits
List of Figures
NOTE: The figures are currently unavailable. Please see Satellite Repositories to view these items.
Figure 1.1 - Vicinity Plan
Figure 1.2 - Location Plan
Figure 1.3 - AEE Approvals Schedule
Figure 2.1 - Hydrology Monitoring Stations
Figure 2.2 - Pingston Creek Profile
Figure 2.3 - Fish Survey Results
Figure 3.1 - Columbia Shuswap Regional District Boundary
Figure 3.2 - Forest Development Plan
Figure 3.3 - Traditional Territories of British Columbia First Nation
Figure 5.1 - Station 0+000 -4+647.06 - Plan and Profile
Figure 5.2 - Intake Structure and Diversion Works, General Arrangement Plan and Sections
Figure 5.3 - Intake Structure and Diversion Works, General Arrangement Detail and Sections
Figure 5.4 - Powerhouse, General Arrangement Site Plan
Figure 5.5 - Project Design and Construction Schedule
Figure 6.1 - Pingston Creek, Mean Winter Creek Flows Downstream of Headpond
Figure 6.2 - Headpond Water Levels and Velocities at the Intake during Summer and Winter Months
Appendices
I. - Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., Annual Report 1996
II. - Water License Application
NOTE: This appendix is currently unavailable. Please see Satellite Repositories to view this item.
III. - EAA Section 7
IV. - Hydrology Monitoring
V. - Common and Scientific Names
VI. - Fisheries Surveys
VII. - Wildlife Survey - Winter Track Survey
VIII. - Wildlife Survey - Browse and Pellet Group Surveys
IX. - Wildlife Survey
X. - Archaeology
XI. - Public Consultation
XII. - Government Consultation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND AUTHENTICATION
Acknowledgement
This Application document was prepared under the direction of Mr Ross Keating, P.Eng. of Canadian Hydro Developers (B.C.) Inc. for purposes of submission to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment
Office in Victoria, British Columbia. Information contained in this report consists of existing regional information supplemented by reconnaissance level and specialist surveys of the various components of the Pingston
Hydroelectric Project. We would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the study team and authors Messrs. Bill Johnson, R.P.Bio. and Paul Kemp, P.Eng.
We would also like to thank Mr. Derek Griffin, Project Assessment Director at the Environmental Assessment Office and the various representatives of the Project Review Committee for their guidance during the
preparation of this Application.
Authentication
This Application was prepared under the direction of Mr. Ross Keating of Canadian Hydro Developers (B.C.) Inc. Mr. Keating was responsible for project management, project description, and public consultation
aspects. The technical components of the Application were provided by Klohn-Crippen Consultants Ltd., UMA Engineering Ltd., Via-Sat Data Systems Inc., and GAIA Consultants Ltd. as indicated below.
The main participants responsible for completing engineering and environmental aspects of the Application were:
Name
Position
Responsibilities
Canadian Hydro Developers (B.C.) Inc.
Sr. Vice President
Project Management, General Engineering and Electrical Transmission
John Keating, C.A.
President, CFO
Economic and Financial Aspects
Klohn-Crippen Consultants Ltd.
Senior Environmental Scientist, Project Manager
Application Coordination & Compilation
Ross Keating, P.Eng.
Bill Johnson, R.P.Bio.
UMA Engineering Ltd.
Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment & Mitigation
Sr. Hydrotechnical Engineer
Project Engineering, Hydrology, Energy Estimates
Project Engineer
Hydrology Monitoring
Principal, Biologist
Terrestrial Wildlife Assessment/Mitigation
Wildlife Ecologist
Terrestrial Wildlife Assessment/Mitigation
Paul G. Kemp, P.Eng.
Via-Sat Data Systems Inc.
Dennis Morgan, P.Eng.
GAIA Consultants Ltd.
Robyn Usher, P. Biol.
Howard Troughton
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Canadian Hydro submitted a proposal to B.C. Hydro in March, 1995 for the development of the Pingston Hydroelectric Project (Pingston or Project) located 60 km south of the City of Revelstoke. Although not
successful in this bid process, Canadian Hydro has continued preliminary design, environmental studies, and a public information program with the intent of obtaining a Project Approval Certificate for development of
Pingston.
B.C. Hydro has installed capacity of approximately 10,000 MW and produces nearly 50,000 GWh/yr. Their Integrated Electricity Plan projects new capacity will be required in 1999 with 25,000 GWh/yr required by
the year 2014. B.C. Hydro expects to meet the projected energy load through demand management, community energy planning, and by addition of new generation.
In December, 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, Canada committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by the year 2008-2012. To meet this binding target Canada must reduce emissions by 16%.
The Project is expected to be in production late in the year 2000 and will provide 25 MW capacity and 140 GWh/yr energy. Although small, the Project will assist in supplying the provincial load growth without
contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
The Project is comprised of four main components including the headworks, tunnel, penstock, powerhouse, and transmission line. All components are accessible by existing forestry roads with the exception of the
powerhouse which will require 600 m of new road. The headworks are located at EL. 1035 m in the Pingston Creek watershed and will consist of an intake, weir, and 8.2 ha headpond (required for daily winter
shaping). The intake will be designed to withdraw 5.4 m3/s from the creek at peak plant output. A tunnel will be constructed through a low ridge (EL 1829 m) separating the Pingston Creek watershed from Upper
Arrow Lake (a reservoir formed by Keenleyside Dam). A penstock will convey water from the intake (EL 1035 m), through the tunnel and continue down the mountainside to the powerhouse located adjacent to the
west shore of Upper Arrow Lake at EL 445 m. Pingston Creek is a tributary to Upper Arrow Lake so the Project does not involve the transfer of water from one watershed to another. The powerhouse will contain two
pelton turbines, generators, controls, and switchgear equipment. The tailrace will discharge water from the powerhouse into a 3 m wide channel for a short distance to the Upper Arrow Lake shoreline. Generated
electrical power at 13.8 kV will be converted to 69 kV for transmission using a step-up transformer located adjacent to the powerhouse. A new 13 km transmission line will follow the road access from the powerhouse
to Shelter Bay. From Shelter Bay, the existing line will be upgraded to 69 kV to the interconnection point at the B.C. Hydro Walter Hardman Plant 25 km to the north. The sale of power will be to B.C. Hydro, the City
of Revelstoke, or another purchaser.
The overall footprint of the project is relatively small and will involve minimal activity during the operations. Canadian Hydro will follow the same successful approach to operating the Pingston Project as their
Akolkolex Plant by utilizing one staff person for daily operations. A fully automatic control system and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system will be utilized for communicating between the plant
controls and the operators office in Revelstoke. This has the advantage of 24 hour communications with the plant and minimizes the need for the operator to make daily trips to the plant and/or headworks.
Fisheries resources in Pingston Creek have not been studied extensively by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP). Pingston Lake was stocked with approximately 55,000 rainbow trout between
1973 and 1987. Since then rainbow trout have become distributed through Pingston Creek and are the only sport fish species in the watershed.
The potential environmental effects associated with the Project relate primarily to fisheries resources including entrainment at the intake, instream flow needs downstream of the headworks, alteration of fish habitat,
sedimentation, and blockage of fish passage. Canadian Hydro expects to minimize these effects of the Project through facility design modifications, operational changes, and monitoring programs as required. Other
concerns typical of large hydroelectric projects such as alteration of temperature in the creek, generation of methyl mercury in reservoirs, greenhouse gas flux in reservoirs, and total gas pressure have been examined in
light of the Project’s size and operational scenarios. Canadian Hydro expects these potential effects to be a minor concern.
There were no rare or threatened plant or wildlife species found at any of the Project component sites. The effects of the Project on wildlife habitat and populations is expected to be minimal with careful alignment of
the new transmission line from the powerhouse to Shelter Bay, with minimized disturbance during site preparation and construction activities, and with reclamation of disturbed sites.
Canadian Hydro expects that the Project will have beneficial effects for the community, support services, and employment opportunities.
The public information and consultation program consisted of discussions with local government agency representatives such as the B.C. Ministry of Forests (MoF), MELP, B.C. Hydro, the Mayor and City of
Revelstoke Council, and Public Open Houses held in Revelstoke and Nakusp.
Canadian Hydro has begun a consultation process with the Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission (CCRIFC). CCRIFC represents twelve First Nations communities which have territories within
the Columbia River basin in Canada. Canadian Hydro has also notified the Okanagan Nations Alliance, the Shuswap First Nations and the Spallumcheen Band of the Project and has initiated the process of setting up
meetings with these First Nations groups to discuss the Project in detail.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In March, 1995, Canadian Hydro Developers (B.C.) Inc. (Canadian Hydro) submitted a proposal to B.C. Hydro to develop the Pingston Hydroelectric Project (Pingston or Project) situated 60km south of Revelstoke,
British Columbia (B.C.) (see Figure 1.1). The proposal contained a Social Evaluation Report (SER) which included a project overview description, social impact review, and an environmental assessment of the Project.
Some of the social impact and environmental information contained in the March, 1995 SER was updated in October, 1995 in response to a request from B.C. Hydro. At that time most of the environmental information
was comprised of regional information taken from Canadian Hydro’s Akolkolex Hydroelectric Project reports plus limited information available for the Pingston site.
Since October, 1995, Canadian Hydro has initiated feasibility studies (hydrology monitoring, preliminary design etc.), a review of existing available information, and baseline monitoring programs. Few environmental
studies have been completed by B.C. Ministries for the Pingston Creek watershed. The information presented in this report is primarily based on regional information, discussions with government representatives and
knowledgeable individuals in the area, observations made during frequent (monthly) reconnaissance to the site over the past two years and fisheries and wildlife field surveys of the Project components.
1.2 Project Purpose and Justification
B.C. Hydro has installed capacity of approximately 10,000 MW and produces nearly 50,000 GWh/year. Their 1995 Integrated Electricity Plan projects new capacity will be required in 1999 with new energy required
this year (1998). The probable peak demand is anticipated to increase by 4,100 MW by the year 2014/15 requiring an additional 3,700 MW of capacity by 2015. Energy requirement will increase by 25,000 GWh/year
by 2014/15.
B.C. Hydro expects to meet the projected load growth by demand-side management, community energy planning, as well as adding significant amounts of generation. Generation additions include purchases, thermal
sources, and hydroelectric additions which include 1,650 MW over the next 20 years.
The Project is expected to begin production by late 2000. It will provide 25 MW capacity and 140 GWh/yr. energy. By this date, B.C. Hydro predicts the province will require 650 MW capacity and 5000 GWh/yr. of
energy.
In December, 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, Canada committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to six percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Since 1990, Canada’s emissions levels have increased by some 10%.
Therefore, in order to meet the binding target levels set at the Conference on Global Climate Change, Canada must reduce emissions by a total of 16%! Although small, development of the Pingston project will help the
B.C. government achieve these difficult emissions targets.
Dr. Mark Jaccard’s report “Reforming British Columbia’s Electricity Market: A Way Forward” has proposed a phased approach to electricity competition in B.C. such that by the projected Pingston start-up date, all
present and future industrial customers will be able to purchase all their power needs from any source; with the provision that the BCUC can extend open access to large commercial customers. In addition, B.C.
Hydro’s (and WKP’s) transmission system will be a publicly controlled entity available for electricity exchange between private parties. Two additional recommendations of particular interest to development of the
Pingston project include:
●
●
A “portfolio standard” will require all sellers of electricity (i.e. currently B.C. Hydro or WKP) to contract with a minimum threshold of green power producers. Five percent of total sales between 1998 and 2004
(increasing thereafter) must be from green power sources.
B.C. Hydro and WKP will offer a “green power” tariff for any customer (industrial, commercial, or residential) to pay a premium to support environmentally desirable technologies.
Energy produced at Pingston will be sold either directly to B.C. Hydro, or through the B.C. Hydro/WKP transmission system to any one of a number of industrial or commercial customers.
1.3.1 Project Location and Access
The Project lies outside of B.C. Hydro’s Shuswap/Okanagan and Selkirk system transmission regions approximately 60 km to the southeast of Revelstoke and 13 km south of Shelter Bay (Figure 1.1). One
consideration in selecting the Project site was its ease of access along existing roadways. Access to the project facilities is south from Revelstoke along Highway 23 to Shelter Bay and continuing approximately 13 km
south along the Shelter Bay South forestry road to the powerhouse. Access to the upper and middle Pingston Creek watershed and Pingston Lake are provided along the Dry Creek, Kileen, and Pingston forestry
resource roads. The lower Pingston Creek watershed is accessed via the Shelter Bay South, Limekiln, and Odin forestry roads.
1.3.2 Project Components
●
●
●
●
●
●
The Project is comprised of five main components briefly described in this section. Detailed descriptions are provided in Section 4.0 of this Application. Figure 1.2 shows the location of the various project
components.
Canadian Hydro proposes to construct and operate the Project facilities consisting of:
an intake and headpond located near the mid-point of the Pingston Creek watershed at the 1035 m elevation;
a tunnel from the intake through an unnamed ridge to the east (elevation 1829 m) to a buried steel penstock down the east face of the ridge;
a 25 MW plant (power house, substation and tailrace) located at the 445 m elevation on the west shore of the Upper Arrow Lake; and
a 13 km 69 kV overhead transmission line to Shelter Bay, a 22 km upgrade of the existing line to the Walter Hardman site, and 25 km of an existing line to the Illecillewaet substation in Revelstoke.
1.4 Project Timing
The Pingston Hydroelectric Project was first conceived by Canadian Hydro in late 1994 in response to B.C. Hydro’s request for proposal for new energy projects. Since this time, Canadian Hydro has continued to
undertake environmental, hydrological and engineering activities for the project and now has assembled considerable information for inclusion in this Environmental Assessment Act Application.
The project timing is envisaged as follows:
ACTIVITIES
PERIOD
YEAR NO.
EAA Approvals Process
Feb. 1998 to Sept. 1998
1
Engineering and Major Equipment Procurement
Oct. 1998 to Sept. 1999
Site Preparation and Tunnel Construction
May 1999 to Dec. 1999
2
Headworks, Penstock, Powerhouse and Transmission Line Construction
May 2000 to Oct. 2000
3
Commercial Operation
Nov. 2000
A period of slightly less than three years is envisaged from submission of the EAA application to the commercial operation of the hydroelectric plant. The envisaged schedule for EAA approvals is shown in Figure 1.3.
Canadian Hydro anticipates that during the Project approval process, a suitable power purchaser will be secured. If not, construction will not commence until such a time as plant output can be sold.
1.5 Proponent Identification
Canadian Hydro is a non-utility private developer of hydroelectric power generating facilities with operations in the Provinces of Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. Appendix I contains the company’s 1997
Annual Report.. Canadian Hydro currently operates three hydroelectric generating plants totalling 8.1 MW of capacity in southern Alberta, a 10.0 MW hydroelectric plant in the British Columbia, 25 km south of
Revelstoke, and two hydroelectric plants totalling 8 MW of capacity near Sudbury in Northeastern Ontario.
Canadian Hydro identified, investigated, financed, designed, and constructed five of the six corporately-owned facilities. The 6.6 MW Ragged Chute plant in Ontario was purchased early last year, and represents the
company’s first acquisition of an existing plant. The 10 MW Akolkolex Plant was designed, permitted, financed and constructed by Canadian Hydro maximizing local contractors and labour. A full 60% of the on-site
work was supplied locally.
Environmental sensitivity has been a top priority for Canadian Hydro since the company commissioned its first hydroelectric plant in 1991. All existing facilities operate as “run-of-river” plants without the associated
negative environmental impacts of a large storage reservoir. Pingston will provide daily winter shaping by utilizing a small headpond.
Canadian Hydro was incorporated on July 21, 1987 under the name Oilco Resources Ltd. which acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of Canadian Hydro Developers, Inc., a private Alberta corporation, in
June, 1989. Effective December 31, 1990 the two corporations amalgamated to form Canadian Hydro Developers, Inc. On January 1, 1998, Canadian Hydro amalgamated with its two active subsidiary companies,
Akolkolex Power Company Ltd. and Cobalt Power Company Inc.
Canadian Hydro’s principal and registered office is located at 200, 622 - 5th Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 0M6. Canadian Hydro currently has a total of seven employees, three of whom work at the hydro plant.
In addition, the Company utilizes the services of seven persons on a contract or consulting basis, five of whom work in the field.
The Company has three inactive subsidiaries: Canadian Hydro Developers (Ontario) Inc., Canadian Hydro Developers (B.C.) Inc., and Canadian Hydro Marketing Inc.
Canadian Hydro’s Common Shares are listed for trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol “KHD”.
Company Name and Address Canadian Hydro Developers, Inc.
·
200, 622 - 5th Ave. SW
·
Calgary, AB T2P 0M6
·
·
Incorporated:
July 21, 1987 in Alberta
·
·
Primary Contact:
Ross Keating, Senior Vice President
·
Phone: (403) 298-0250
·
Fax: (403) 262 8786
·
·
Secondary Contact:
John Keating, President
·
Phone: (403) 298-0251
·
Fax: (403) 262 8786
1.6 Land Tenure and Water Rights
1.6.1 Land Tenure
The project area includes Timber Lot (TL) 3880P and District Lots 7593 and 860. The title search for these lots revealed the following state of registry.
(1) Timber Lot (TL) 3880P (Crown Land)
The proposed intake , headpond and west tunnel are situated in the central portion of TL 3880P. This area was logged years ago by Riverside Forest Products Ltd., active Timber License No. 451. Pope and Talbot have
a Tree Farm Licence immediately to the south of Riverside’s TL 3880P.
(2) District Lot 7593
This is an unsurveyed lot, returned to Crown. The tunnel and the tunnel portion of the penstock will be located in this lot.
(3) District Lot 860
The tunnel outlet portal, buried portion of the penstock and the powerhouse, will be located in this lot. This lot is owned by Pope and Talbot with the exception of the forestry road which is owned by the Crown. B.C.
Hydro have a right-of-way (ROW) along the Upper Arrow Lake shoreline.
The subsurface rights for the entire project area belong to the Crown.
The March 1995 West Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan identifies the Pingston Creek watershed and west Upper Arrow Lake shoreline as an Enhanced Resource Development Zone, primarily for timber harvesting
purposes (Ken Baker, Land Use Coordination Office, Victoria pers. comm. September, 1995). Alpine areas in the Pingston Creek basin are identified as Special Resource Management Zones. The east shoreline of the
Reservoir is identified as an Integrated Resource Management Zone.
The Pingston Creek drainage basin and the Project facilities lie outside any protected areas and there are no ecological reserves in proximity of the Project. Along its route to Shelter Bay, the new transmission line
parallels the main forestry road owned by the Crown. The transmission line crosses District Lot 860 and Tree Farm Lot 23.
1.6.2 Water Rights
Canadian Hydro submitted an application on August 12, 1997 for the storage and diversion of up to 5.4 m3/s for the purpose of generating hydroelectric power. The application is presented in Appendix II. There are no
other water licenses held in the Pingston Creek watershed at the time of this Application.
1.7 Regulatory Framework
Approval to develop the Project, a small hydroelectric facility, will be reviewed under the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) process. Depending upon the nature of the project and the potential
environmental effects, the Project might be reviewable under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) as well. Under an agreement of harmonization between the federal and provincial governments, the
Project will be reviewed under either the BCEAA or the CEAA with input from several federal, provincial, and municipal agencies. The BCEAA, the CEAA, and permits required are briefly discussed in the following
sections.
1.7.1 B.C. Environmental Assessment Act
●
●
●
●
●
●
The BCEAA applies to reviewable projects defined as any project or activity included within a category and exceeding a specified size threshold set out in the Reviewable Projects Regulation, or specifically
designated by the Minster of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP). The Project will be designed to generate 25 MW of electrical power which exceeds the size threshold of 20 MW under the Reviewable
Projects Regulation. This means the Project will be reviewed under the BCEAA. The primary purposes of the BCEAA are to:
promote sustainability by protecting the environment and fostering a sound economy and social well-being;
provide for the thorough, timely, and integrated assessment of the environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage, and health effects of reviewable projects;
prevent or mitigate adverse effects throughout the lifecycle (design, construction, operation, modification, closure) of reviewable projects;
provide an open, accountable, and neutrally administered process for the assessment of reviewable projects and activities; and,
provide for participation in assessments under the BCEAA by the proponents, the public, First Nations, municipalities, and regional districts, federal, and provincial governments and their agencies, and B.C.’s
neighbouring jurisdictions.
The BCEAA is administered by the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO), a neutral agency which oversees all activities related to project reviews under the BCEAA. The EAO coordinates and administers the
review process which includes the Project Registry (public review), the Project Committees (government and First Nations), and the Public Advisory Committee. In the case of the Pingston Creek Project, the EAO has
formed a Project Committee which has been consulted on several occasions prior to the submission of this application. Appendix III contains a listing of the topics that must be covered under Section 7 of the BCEAA
with the corresponding sections of this Application.
1.7.2 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
The CEAA establishes a process to assess the environmental effects of projects requiring federal action or decisions. Projects receive an appropriate degree of assessment depending on the scale and complexity
of the likely effects of the project. Consequently, there are four types of environmental assessment: screening, comprehensive study, mediation, and panel review. A project is usually referred to the Minister of
the Environment panel for review whenever it may cause significant adverse environmental effects or public concerns warrant it.
The Act consists of six (6) regulations including:
Law List Regulations - Legal Text;
Inclusion List Regulations - Legal Text;
Comprehensive Study List Regulations - Legal Text;
Exclusion List Regulations - Legal Text;
Projects Outside Canada Environmental Assessment Regulations - Legal Text; and,
Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Agency) has been charged with the responsibility of putting the Act into practice. The Agency is the national organization dedicated solely to administering and
promoting environmental assessment policies and practices of the federal government. The Agency has four key roles:
●
●
●
administering the environmental assessment process;
providing advice to the Minister of the Environment on the Minister’s responsibilities under the Act;
providing opportunities for public participation in the federal environmental assessment process; and, promoting sound environmental assessment practices.
1.7.3 Permits
It will be necessary to obtain several permits to construct and operate the Project. A complete listing of the required permits is presented in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Permit Approvals and Agreements
Permit/Approval
Water Licence
MOELP Approval
DFO Approval
Approval
●
Licences of Occupation of Crown Land
●
●
Provincial
Environmental Management Act
Provincial
Fisheries Act
Federal
Navigable Waters Protection Act
Federal
Navigable Waters Protection Act
Federal
Environmental Management Act
Provincial
Land Act
Provincial
Forest Act
Provincial
Access Road
Powerhouse
Transmission Line
Licence or Permit
●
Water Act
Transmission Line
Bridge Crossing Approval
●
Jurisdiction
Diversion & Intake Structures
Approval
●
Act
site clearing
Certificates
Health Act
Provincial
Heritage Conservation Act
Provincial
BCEAA
Provincial
Land Title or Easement
N/A
Pope and Talbot
Right-of-Way Agreement
N/A
B.C. Hydro
●
●
water supply
sanitary facilities
Permit
●
sewage disposal
Approval
Project Approval Certificate
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Physiography, Geology and Natural Hazards
2.1.1 Physiography
The area surrounding the proposed location of the Project, including the powerhouse, penstock and intake is characterized by steep rugged terrain in the Columbia Mountains physiographic region (Holland, 1976).
Pingston Creek occupies a north-south trending basin in the Gold Ranges of the Monashee Mountains. There are several peaks in the Pingston Creek basin over EL. 2700 m, including Mount Niflheim, Mount Thor, and
Kelly Peak, the highest being Mount Odin (EL. 2972 m).
The area surrounding the proposed location of the Project, including the powerhouse, penstock and intake is characterized by steep rugged terrain in the Columbia Mountains physiographic region (Holland, 1976).
Pingston Creek occupies a north-south trending basin in the Gold Ranges of the Monashee Mountains. There are several peaks in the Pingston Creek basin over EL. 2700 m, including Mount Niflheim, Mount Thor, and
Kelly Peak, the highest being Mount Odin (EL. 2972 m).
Peaks above EL. 2400 m projected above Pleistocene ice cover and were subject to extensive cirque glaciation which produced matterhorn-like peaks. Numerous cirque glaciers remain in the Gold Ranges as remnants
of the extensive Pleistocene ice cover. During glaciation, major ice-streams flowed southwards along the Upper Arrow Lakes valley and were fed by tributary glaciers such as Pingston Creek which flowed from
accumulation zones on the higher parts of the local mountains. Morainal materials in the form of glacial till and rubbly deposits associated with cirque glaciation were deposited along the these tributary valleys. Glacial
till in the Pingston Creek area are expected to be of a medium texture reflecting the Shuswap terrain gneiss, mica, schist, quartz, slate, marble, and phyllite which make up the geology of the area.
The Pingston Creek drainage headwaters is comprised of several high alpine cirque lakes on the west side of the basin which feed Thor, Odin, Zeke, and Ledge creeks, the main tributaries. Numerous smaller unnamed
tributaries feed Pingston Creek from both sides of the basin but most exhibit ephemeral or intermittent flows in response to precipitation events. Pingston Creek is not expected to respond quickly to precipitation events
due to the storage available in the headwaters lakes although runoff from the middle to lower elevations may be accelerated due to the extensive logging activity in the watershed. Pingston Creek is expected to have a
diurnal peak in the late afternoon or early evening due to glacial melt.
The water intake for the hydro project will be located 15 km upstream from the mouth of Pingston Creek at EL. 1035 utilizing 180 km2 of the total basin area of 300 km2. The basin’s median elevation is approximately
EL. 1370 m. Approximately 42% of the watershed is above tree line and about 9% of the watershed is covered by glacier or icefields.
Between the powerhouse and Shelter Bay the new section of transmission line follows the existing Shelter Bay South forestry road to the connection point at Shelter Bay. This section of the transmission line is located
immediately to the east of the Monashee Mountains on the east side of a low ridge separating the Upper Arrow Lake valley from the Pingston Creek Valley. The line will parallel the existing forestry road which winds
along the mountainside between 0.5 and 1 km distance from the lake shoreline. The forestry road and proposed line crosses numerous small, intermittent drainages, many of which have steep gradients in excess of 20%.
The only major drainage that will be crossed by the line is Bannock Creek located midway between the BC Ferry terminal and the Pope and Talbot log dump operation in Shelter Bay.
2.1.2 Geology
Pingston Creek follows a fault line which passes near the proposed location of the intake and headpond GSC Geology of the Vernon Map, sheet 1059A. Limited information is available on the geology of the Project
area, although the area is known to be comprised predominantly of granitic materials. The Monashee Mountains are underlain by sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the Shuswap terrain, by Palaeozoic and
Mesozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks, and by batholiths and stocks of the Lower Cretaceous age. At this point no exploratory drilling has been conducted with respect to collecting detailed information on the
geology and geochemistry of the tunnel and penstock route. However, based on our experience at the Akolkolex River Project where similar geology occurs, we expect that the rock will not be acid generating.
2.1.3 Natural Hazards
Available seismic information indicates that the Upper Arrow Lake area is located within a Zone 1 area for both acceleration and velocity (National Building Code, 1990). Evaluation of seismic hazards is site and
project specific. The strength of a potential earthquake event is determined on the basis of a statistical review of past events and on the probability of the design event occurring. The selection of seismic design
parameters also includes an evaluation of the potential for loss of life or major property damage as a result of the design event. Site specific information has yet to be determined.
B.C. Hydro’s Guidelines for Selecting and Applying Seismic Criteria for Dams, Report H-1841, rev. March 1988, presents two design levels. The Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) results from statistical analyses. The
second, much more stringent design level, the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE), is used where the potential for loss of life or major property damage is high.
Based on a review of air photos and site reconnaissance no avalanche paths have been identified which might cause damming, flooding or temporarily reduce the amount of available water in Pingston Creek although
the main tributary valleys to Pingston Creek have evidence of snow avalanche paths. The heli-skiing operator in the drainage has never observed avalanches which have run as far as the Pingston Creek in the area of the
intake structure, only higher up in some of the tributaries of the basin (pers. comm. Ken Frances, Kootenay Heli-Ski, May 14, 1996). The proposed powerhouse facilities are not located within historical avalanche
paths, land slides or other areas subject to mass wasting.
The transmission line is not located within historical avalanche paths or land slide prone terrain, although mud slides occasionally reach Hwy 23 between Revelstoke and Shelter Bay.
2.2 Meteorology
2.2.1 Precipitation, Temperature
Precipitation information from a number of stations in the vicinity of the project is published by the Atmospheric Environment Service (AES) of Environment Canada. The relevant stations and the mean annual
precipitation values are provided in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Revelstoke Area Climatic Stations
STATION
Years OF
Station
RECORD
Elevation
Mean Annual Precipitation (mm)
(m)
Rain
Snow
Total
1.
Sidmouth+
10
430
559
460
1,171
2.
Revelstoke+
65
456
646
422
1,064
3.
Revelstoke A*
21
443
612
445
950
4.
Glacier Avalanche RS+
7
1,177
626
1,091
1,725
5.
Glacier NP Rogers Pass*
25
1,323
616
996
1,612
6.
Glacier NP Mt. Fidelity*
21
1,875
641
1,518
2,159
7.
Nakusp*
78
457
641.6
215.5
858.8
8.
Fauquier*
77
472
506.1
169.0
675.5
9.
Salmon Arm 2**
36
396
371.5
159.4
530.9
10.
Shuswap Falls+
20
427
383.4
138.0
521.8
* Data to 1990 ** Data to 1986 + Data to 1980
· At Revelstoke, the coldest months of the year are December and January. The annual average number of degree days below 0·C is 480, with 320 degree days during the two coldest months. The daily mean
temperatures at the ten regional climatic stations are provided in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Daily Mean Temperature (·C)
Station
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year
Sidmouth
-7.4
-3.0
0.2
5.5
11.0
14.3
16.7
16.0
11.1
5.3
-0.2
-4.5
5.4
Revelstoke
-6.1
-1.3
1.7
7.1
12.5
16.3
19.0
18.2
13.2
6.4
0.2
-4.1
6.9
Revelstoke A
-5.6
-2.7
1.6
7.0
12.4
16.0
18.2
17.7
12.4
6.5
0.7
-4.0
6.7
Glacier Aval.
-10.5
-6.4
-3.2
2.4
7.0
11.1
14.5
13.5
9.0
3.0
-4.4
-8.2
2.3
Glacier Rpass
-10.3
-6.7
-2.6
1.6
5.4
9.9
12.9
12.7
7.6
1.8
-4.9
-9.5
1.5
Glacier Mfid
-9.8
-7.4
-4.8
-0.7
3.7
7.3
10.8
11.0
6.0
0.4
-6.2
-9.5
0.1
Nakusp
-3.2
-1.3
2.1
6.9
11.9
15.8
18.3
17.8
12.7
6.8
1.9
-2.1
7.3
Fauquier
-3.3
-0.9
2.6
7.4
12.0
15.9
18.4
18.1
12.9
7.0
1.9
-2.1
7.5
Salmon Arm 2
-4.6
-1.0
3.0
8.1
12.9
17.0
19.9
19.1
13.6
7.6
1.4
-3.1
7.8
Shuswap Falls
-6.0
-2.8
1.2
6.7
11.4
14.3
18.0
17.4
12.4
5.9
-0.1
-3.6
6.2
The extreme values for rainfall, snowfall and temperature during the period of record are shown in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Extreme Temperature and Precipitation Data
STATION
Extreme Temperature (·C)
Minimum
24-hour Precipitation
Maximum
Rain (mm)
Snow (cm)
Sidmouth
-41.1
(Jan)
36.1
(Jun)
46.5
(Apr)
101.6
(Dec)
Revelstoke
-34.4
(Jan)
40.6
(Jul)
78.0
(Oct)
96.0
(Jan)
Revelstoke A
-29.4
(Jan)
36.7
(Jul)
43.6
(Sep)
60.2
(Dec)
Glacier Avail.
-35.6
(Dec)
35.0
(Jul)
42.4
(Apr)
66.0
(Jan)
Glacier RPass
-38.9
(Dec)
32.8
(Aug)
82.0
(Jul)
74.0
(Feb)
Glacier MFid
-33.5
(Dec)
27.8
(Aug)
93.5
(Jul)
71.9
(Jan)
Nakusp
-27.8
(Dec)
36.7
(Aug)
75.0
(Aug)
61.0
(Dec)
Fauquier
-31.7
(Jan)
38.9
(Jul)
48.5
(Jun)
43.0
(Jun)
Salmon Arm 2
-36.7
(Jan)
40.0
(Jul)
40.9
(Nov)
39.4
(Dec)
Shuswap Falls
-37.2
(Dec)
38.3
(Aug)
41.1
(May)
48.3
(Dec)
At the intake site, snowpack reached 1.5 m depth, but no tests were done regarding water equivalent for the snow pack for December to May.
2.2.2 Air
●
●
Very limited air quality data is available for the Revelstoke and Upper Arrow Lakes area. The City of Revelstoke is currently collecting particulate data (PM-10) at one site within the City (pers. comm. Mr. Gary
Bell, B.C. MELP). The monitoring was started in 1992. The next closest air quality monitoring station is located in Castlegar where measurements of SO4, PM-10, metals and H2S are collected.
Ambient air temperatures at the intake site were collected hourly using automatic recording instrumentation. A summary of temperature variation on a monthly basis is presented in Table 2.4 below.
Table 2.4 Ambient Air Temperatures
Month
Min. (·C)
Max.(·C)
December/1995
-29.8
1.8
January/1996
-38.9
2.2
February/1996
-35.9
5.4
March/1996
-19.3
12.4
April/1996
-10.1
12.1
May/1996
-2.3
20.2
June/1996
-0.5
24.2
July/1996
1.2
31.6
August/1996
-0.37
33.4
September/1996
-5.2
21.9
October/1996
-12.9
12.9
November/1996
-17.9
3.9
December/1996
-30.8
2.8
January/1997*
-16.2
2.5
February/1997
N.B.
N.B.
March/1997
N.B.
N.B.
April/1997
N.B.
N.B.
May/1997
N.B.
N.B.
June/1997
N.B.
N.B.
July/1997
N.B.
N.B.
August/1997
1.3
32.7
September/1997
-1.4
23.7
October/1997
-5.8
10.5
* based on January 1-18 data
N.B. Sensor not operating properly Feb-July 1997 - no data.
This data is useful in determining ice cover periods, ice thicknesses, and design parameters for the intake and reservoir works needed for the design of the hydro facilities.
2.3 Hydrology
2.3.1 Regional Analysis
Canadian Hydro retained UMA Engineering Ltd. (UMA) to study the regional hydrology with application to the Pingston Creek basin. A regional analysis was undertaken to determine the hydrological regime of the
creek for the Project in preparation for the submission of a proposal to provide hydroelectric power to B.C. Hydro in March, 1995.
The water intake for the hydro plant will be located 15 km upstream of the mouth of the creek at an elevation of 1035 m which utilizes 180 km2 or 60% of the Pingston Creek watershed basin. The upper watershed
commanded by the proposed plant rises from EL. 1035 m to EL. 3020 m at Mount Niflheim. Mountain peaks above EL. 2700 m are common in the upper basin. Approximately 42% of the watershed is above tree line
and about 9% is covered by glacier or icefield.
Stream flow data has not been published for Pingston Creek by Water Survey of Canada (WSC). However, there are 12 WSC regional stations which have topography and climates similar to Pingston Creek. The
periods of record range from 7 years to 44 years. These stations are all located within an area that generally extends 150 kilometres north from the Pingston Project site and 50 kilometres south. The mean annual runoff
recorded for these streams is shown in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Revelstoke Regional Stream flow Stations
WSC Station
Description
Drainage Area
Mean Annual Runoff
km2
m3/s
Years of Record
Unit Runoff
(l/s/km2)
1. 08LC018
Shuswap River at Outlet of Sugar Lake Reservoir
1130
38.4
37
34
2. 08ND001
Akolkolex River near Revelstoke
394
19.9
8
51
3. 08ND009
Downie Creek near Revelstoke
655
30.3
29
46
4. 08ND012
Goldstream River below Old Camp Creek
938
38.7
30
41
5. 08ND013
Illecillewaet River at Greeley
1170
52.8
31
45
6. 08ND014
Jordan River above Kirkup Creek
272
17.3
26
64
7. 08ND018
Stitt Creek at the Mouth
139
6.92
21
50
8. 08ND019
Kirbyville Creek near the Mouth
112
5.92
21
53
9. 08NE001
Incomappleux River near Beaton
1020
55.8
44
55
10. 08NE008
Beaton Creek near Beaton
99.5
2.75
42
28
11. 08NE117
Kuskanax Creek at 1040 m con-tour
113
5.37
21
48
12. 08NE123
Cranberry Creek above BCH Intake
99.6
4.84
7
49
Average
47
2.3.1.1 Annual Runoff
Flow frequency analyses were carried out on the annual runoff data from 10 of the 12 gauged streams to determine the runoff variations during wet and dry years. The two streams with short periods of record were not
included. A Generalized Extreme Value Distribution was used as it provided the best fit to the data. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Variation in Annual Runoff (% MAR)
Stream
Dry Return
Wet Return
Period
Period
MAR
1:20
1:5
1:5
1:10
1:20
1. Goldstream
83
88
100
110
123
133
2. Jordan
76
86
100
113
122
129
3. Illecillewaet
83
92
100
109
113
117
4. Incomappleux
84
93
100
107
111
114
5. Beaton
71
82
100
114
125
132
6. Kuskanax1040
80
89
100
111
119
124
7. Stitt
70
86
100
116
123
129
8. Kirbyville
77
88
100
112
117
120
9. Downie
80
90
100
110
117
123
10. Shuswap River
64
81
100
119
129
136
75
86
100
113
122
129
Average
2.3.1.2 Monthly Variation in Annual Runoff
The percentage of annual runoff that occurs during each month is provided in Table 2.7. The mean monthly and annual discharge data for 9 of the 12 regional streams are shown on Table 2.8. Three of the 12 gauged
streams have lake storage and were excluded because of the regulation of flow the storage may provide.
Table 2.7 Monthly Variation in Mean Annual Runoff (% MAR)
Stream
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1. Akolkolex
1.7
1.2
1.7
4.0
15.7
27.0
22.8
11.1
5.7
5.1
3.4
2.3
2. Downie
1.5
1.2
1.4
3.7
14.8
24.6
21.8
12.9
7.5
5.0
3.3
2.2
3. Goldstream
1.5
1.2
1.5
3.8
15.4
26.3
21.9
12.6
7.0
4.5
3.0
2.0
4. Illecillewaet
1.4
1.2
1.5
4.2
15.4
25.1
21.7
13.5
7.1
4.2
3.0
1.9
5. Jordan
1.2
1.0
1.3
4.9
20.6
27.9
19.1
9.3
5.5
4.4
3.1
1.7
6. Stitt
1.2
0.8
1.0
2.9
12.6
24.1
24.3
16.1
8.4
4.5
2.6
1.6
7. Kirbyville
1.4
1.1
1.4
3.3
13.6
23.9
22.7
12.4
8.7
6.4
3.5
1.8
8. Incomappleux
1.5
1.3
1.6
4.7
15.4
23.3
21.3
13.9
7.3
4.6
3.2
2.0
9. Kuskanax
1.3
0.9
1.1
5.3
25.3
32.3
16.8
5.2
3.8
3.4
2.9
1.7
1.4
1.1
1.4
4.1
16.5
26.0
21.4
11.9
6.8
4.7
3.1
1.9
Average
Table 2.8 Regional Monthly and Annual Runoff
Goldstream
Jordan River
Illecillewaet
River
Incomappleux River
Kuskanax Creek
River
at 1040 m
Month
m3/s
%
m3/s
%
m3/s
%
m3/s
%
m3/s
%
Jan
6.79
1.5
2.50
1.2
8.88
1.4
10.0
1.5
0.81
1.3
Feb
6.25
1.2
2.15
1.0
7.95
1.2
9.22
1.3
0.65
0.9
Mar
6.68
1.5
2.72
1.3
9.20
1.5
10.7
1.6
0.72
1.1
Apr
17.9
3.8
10.4
4.9
26.7
4.2
31.7
4.7
3.44
5.3
May
70.1
15.4
42.0
20.6
95.9
15.4
101
15.4
16.0
25.3
Jun
124
26.3
58.7
27.9
161
25.1
158
23.3
21.1
32.3
Jul
100
21.9
38.9
19.1
135
21.7
140
21.3
10.6
16.8
Aug
57.3
12.6
18.9
9.3
84.0
13.5
91.1
13.9
3.29
5.2
Sep
33.1
7.0
11.5
5.5
45.3
7.1
49.7
7.3
2.51
3.8
Oct
20.5
4.5
9.01
4.4
26.3
4.2
30.4
4.6
2.15
3.4
Nov
14.2
3.0
6.43
3.1
19.0
3.0
21.5
3.2
1.91
2.9
Dec
8.93
2.0
3.40
1.7
11.6
1.9
13.2
2.0
1.08
1.7
Mean
38.7
17.3
Stitt Creek
52.8
Kirbyville Creek
55.8
Downie Creek
5.37
Akolkolex River
Regional Average
Month
m3/s
%
m3/s
%
m3/s
%
m3/s
%
%
Jan
0.96
1.2
6.96
1.4
5.50
1.5
4.09
1.7
1.4
Feb
0.76
0.8
0.85
1.1
4.81
1.2
3.10
1.2
1.1
Mar
0.85
1.0
0.95
1.4
5.03
1.4
3.93
1.7
1.4
Apr
2.4
2.9
2.4
3.3
13.8
3.7
9.71
4.0
4.1
May
10.3
12.6
9.49
13.6
52.9
14.8
36.7
15.7
16.5
Jun
20.3
24.1
17.2
23.9
90.8
24.6
65.3
27.0
26.0
Jul
19.8
24.3
15.8
22.7
77.7
21.8
53.4
22.8
21.4
Aug
13.1
16.1
8.62
12.4
46.2
12.9
21.0
11.1
11.9
Sep
7.10
8.4
6.24
8.7
27.8
7.5
13.7
5.7
6.8
Oct
3.69
4.5
4.49
6.4
17.9
5.0
12.0
5.1
4.7
Nov
2.22
2.6
2.54
3.5
12.3
3.3
8.14
3.4
3.1
Dec
1.31
1.6
1.25
1.8
7.95
2.2
5.36
2.3
1.9
Mean
6.92
5.92
30.3
19.6
2.3.1.3 Seasonal Minimum Flows
Stream flow during the period of December through March was analyzed to assess the variation in base flow throughout the region. The dry season flows available during an average year based on 9 of the 12 regional
stations are provided in Table 2.9. Three stations were excluded because their winter flows are regulated by lake storage.
Table 2.9 Mean Dry Season Runoff Volume (Dec through Mar) ¾ dam3
Stream
D-J-F-M
Drainage Area
Unit Runoff
Station Elev
dam3
km2
dam3/km2
m
1. Goldstream
71,600
938
76
600
2. Jordan
28,100
272
103
530
3. Illecillewaet
96,800
1,170
83
500
4. Incomappleux
111,000
1,020
109
450
28. 5. Kuskanax 1040
8,600
113
76
1,040
6. Stitt
10,300
139
74
790
7. Kirbyville
10,300
112
92
700
8. Downie
60,300
655
92
540
9. Akolkolex
42,900
394
109
550
Volume
A frequency analysis using a Generalized Extreme Value Distribution was carried out on the dry season flow volumes for the December through March period. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 2.10. It
should be noted that there is a greater variation in the dry season flows than there is in the annual flows. This is a result of the variability in precipitation and temperature in the late fall which changes the base flow
storage.
Table 2.10 Variation in Dry Season Runoff (% Mean)
STREAM
Dry Return Period
Wet Return Period
1:20
1:5
Mean
1:5
1:10
1:20
1. Goldstream
79
86
100
111
118
125
2. Jordan
53
79
100
120
134
146
3. Illecillewaet
78
86
100
114
122
130
4. Incomappleux
77
86
100
112
121
128
5. Kuskanax 1040
67
79
100
121
136
152
6. Stitt
60
75
100
120
138
153
7. Kirbyville
65
75
100
120
145
170
8. Downie
70
78
100
117
139
161
9. Akolkolex
71
82
100
112
118
123
70
81
100
116
130
143
Overall Average
2.3.1.4 Minimum Daily Flows
The average minimum daily flow at 8 of the 12 regional gauging stations and the unit minimum flow expressed in litres per second per square kilometre of drainage area are shown in Table 2.11. The minimum daily
discharges seem to be related more to basin characteristics than to temperature extremes. Four gauged streams in the study set were excluded for having lake storage or too short of a record.
Table 2.11 Mean Minimum Daily Mean Discharge
Stream
Drainage Area
Mean Min. Daily Discharge
Unit Discharge
Mean Annual Runoff
Ratio
km2
m3/s
l/s/km2
m3/s
QMIN/QMAR
272
1.6
5.9
17.3
0.09
2. Illecillewaet
1,170
5.8
5.0
52.8
0.11
3. Incomappleux
1,020
7.3
7.1
55.8
0.13
4. Kuskanax 1040
113
0.53
4.7
5.4
0.10
5. Stitt
139
0.58
4.2
6.92
0.08
6. Kirbyville
112
0.59
5.3
5.92
0.10
7. Downie
655
3.6
5.5
30.3
0.12
8. Goldstream
938
4.6
4.9
38.7
0.12
1. Jordan
Average
5.3
0.11
The results of flow frequency analyses on minimum daily discharge data for the regional streams are presented in Table 2.12. A Wiebal Distribution was used to fit the stream flow data for the dry period frequency
analysis and the Generalized Extreme Value Distribution was used for the wet period frequency analysis.
Table 2.12 Variation in Minimum Daily Discharge (% Mean)
STREAM
Dry Return Period
Wet Return Period
1:20
1:5
Mean
1:5
1:10
1:20
1. Jordan
60
81
100
121
137
153
2. Illecillewaet
65
84
100
118
131
144
3. Incomappleux
74
85
100
114
126
137
4. Kuskanax 1040
71
81
100
120
136
150
5. Stitt
68
81
100
120
135
149
6. Kirbyville
60
77
100
124
143
161
7. Downie
63
82
100
119
134
148
8. Goldstream
74
88
100
113
123
133
67
82
100
119
133
147
Average
The annual minimum daily discharge for the regional streams occurs between mid December and early April.
2.3.1.5 Flood Flows
Annual peak flood flows are the result of snowmelt or rain on snow and commonly occur during the period of May through to mid-July. The flood of record at most of the regional stations occurred in mid-July, 1983.
The results of frequency analyses on recorded maximum daily (Qd) and maximum instantaneous (Qi) discharge values for 8 of the 12 stations are shown in Table 2.13. The Log Pearson Type III Distribution was
chosen as the best fit for the data. Again, four gauged streams were not included because they either have lake storage, which will attenuate a flood, or have too short of a record for extrapolation of a 200 year event.
Table 2.13 Regional Flood Flow Values - m3/s
Stream
Drainage Area
Ratio
km2
QMAFd
Q200d
Q200d/QMAFd
Q200i
QMAFi
272
110
341
3.10
443
139
2. Illecillewaet
1,170
270
573
2.12
825
310
3. Incomappleux
1,020
294
628
2.13
997
357
1. Jordan
4. Kuskanax 1040
113
43
72
1.68
95
51
5. Stitt
139
38
83
2.18
170
53
6. Kirbyville
112
31
79
2.52
143
39
7. Downie
655
158
474
3.01
535
194
8. Goldstream
938
213
453
2.13
489
227
Average
2.36
2.3.1.6 Monthly and Annual Runoff Variation
The following Table 2.14 shows the estimated mean monthly and mean annual flows at the intake site for various dry year and wet year return periods.
Table 2.14 Pingston Creek at the Intake
Mean Monthly and Mean Annual Discharge ¾ m3/s
Dry Return Period
Wet Return Period
1:20
1:5
Mean
1:5
1:10
1:20
Jan
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Feb
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.7
Mar
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Apr
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.7
5.0
5.3
May
12.6
14.4
16.4
18.3
19.6
20.6
Jun
20.5
23.4
26.6
29.8
32.0
33.5
Jul
16.3
18.7
21.2
23.8
25.4
26.7
Aug
9.1
10.4
11.8
13.2
14.2
14.9
Sep
5.4
6.1
7.0
7.8
8.4
8.8
Oct
3.6
4.1
4.7
5.2
5.6
5.9
Nov
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
3.8
4.0
Dec
1.3
1.5
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.7
Annual
6.5
7.4
8.4
9.4
10.1
10.6
2.3.1.7 Minimum Daily Flows
The estimated minimum daily discharge for Pingston Creek at the intake site is shown in Table 2.15.
Table 2.15 Pingston Creek Minimum Daily Discharge
Return Period
Discharge
(m3/s)
1:20 years dry
0.6
1:5 years dry
0.8
Mean
1.0
1:5 years wet
1.1
1:20 years wet
1.4
2.3.1.8 Flood Flows
The estimated flood flows at the intake site are shown in Table 2.16. A factor of 1.4 has been applied to the maximum daily discharge values to arrive at the maximum instantaneous peak discharge estimates.
Table 2.16 Pingston Creek Flood Flows
Maximum Daily
Instantaneous
Discharge
Peak Discharge
m3/s
m3/s
Mean Annual Flood
55
80
1:10 years
75
110
1:50 years
100
140
Return Period
1:200 years
130
180
2.3.1.9 Summary
The hydrologic data for the Pingston Hydro Plant is summarized in Table 2.17.
Table 2.17 Hydrologic Data Summary
Site Characteristics
Pingston Hydro Plant
Drainage Area - km2
180
Intake elevation - m
1020
Mean Annual Discharge - m3/s
8.4
Peaking Factor (Qi/Qd)
1.4
Mean Annual Flood - m3/s
55
Flood Flow - Q200i - m3/s
180
MAR - l/s/km2
47
MONTHLY RUNOFF
% MAR
mean
1:5-year Drought
m3/s
m3/s
January
1.4%
1.4
1.1
February
1.1%
1.2
1.0
March
1.4%
1.4
1.1
April
4.1%
4.2
3.7
May
16.5%
16.4
14.4
June
26.0%
26.6
23.4
July
21.4%
21.2
18.7
August
11.9%
11.8
10.4
September
6.8%
7.0
6.1
October
4.7%
4.7
4.1
November
3.1%
3.2
2.8
December
1.9%
1.9%
1.5
Mean
100%
8.4
7.4
EXTREMES
% MAR
m3/s
Drought -% MAR - 1:20 Year
77%
6.5
Drought - % MAR - 1:5 Year
88%
7.4
Mean Annual Runoff - MAR - 1:2 Year
100%
8.4
Wet Year - % MAR - 1:5 Year
112%
9.4
120%
10.1
126%
10.6
2.3.2 Pingston Creek Hydrology Monitoring
In November 1995 a hydrology monitoring program was initiated with the installation of pressure transducers and continuous recording data logging instrumentation at the proposed intake site (Pingston 2) and at a
bridge crossing of Pingston Creek (Pingston 1) 100 m downstream of the confluence with Ledge Creek (Figure 2.1). Via-Sat Data Systems Inc. was commissioned by Canadian Hydro to install these remote stations in
November, 1995, to retrieve data on a monthly basis, obtain flows for calibrating each station, and develop stage-discharge rating curves. The Via-Sat report, containing a complete description of each station,
benchmarks, flow calibration data, pressure transducer data, and the rating curve is presented in Appendix IV. Data has been collected and analysed for the period from November 29, 1995 to October 9, 1997 (~22
months) at the intake and from November 29, 1995 to August 1, 1997 (~20 months) from the bridge crossing downstream of Ledge Creek. Stream flow measurements were taken monthly and occasionally during ice
cover conditions when feasible from November 1995 to October 1996 for purposes of station calibration.
This period of site data is valuable, in that it gives preliminary indication of the flows during the low flow period which can be compared to that derived from the regional hydrological analysis. It should be noted that
the manual stream flow readings at various flows are required to properly develop reliable rating curves for each station.
Base flows at the intake on Pingston Creek were estimated to be 1.5 - 2.0 m3/s during the winter low flow months of January and February. Flows at the Pingston Creek bridge crossing immediately below the
confluence with Ledge Creek are approximately 40% higher than at the intake reflecting the sizeable contribution from the Ledge Creek watershed.
2.4 Groundwater
There are no groundwater records for the intake, penstock, or powerhouse sites. Groundwater discharge was not observed during reconnaissance surveys of the intake. Although the intake and headpond site collect
drainage from the hillside during spring runoff, the site becomes dry by late summer and does not show signs of groundwater discharge. As the penstock descends the mountainside, it parallels small drainages and
crosses a couple of small depressional areas which collect runoff during spring snowmelt and precipitation events. Canadian Hydro expects to conduct drilling and hydrogeologic surveys at the headworks, along the
penstock route, and at the powerhouse this season.
2.5 Surface Water Quality
Neither the MELP nor the MOF have any water quality records for the Pingston Creek watershed. Forestry activity has exposed the watershed to increased soil erosion into Pingston Creek as a result of clear cut
logging. However, field observations made during the hydrology monitoring program and fisheries surveys indicated that Pingston Creek ran remarkably clear even during spring runoff events, although total suspended
solids (TSS) and sediment transport in the creek have not been quantified. Baseline sampling to determine water quality conditions and variability over time will be initiated in Pingston Creek this winter.
Flows from upstream tributaries contribute sediment in varying amounts to the study reach at the proposed intake location on Pingston Creek. In order to understand the sedimentation process, the contribution from
each of these sources must be quantified. This section of the report is comprised of excerpts from a report entitled "Upper Arrow Lake Sediment Stabilization, Feasibility Study of Water Retention Structures for Dust
Control", by Klohn-Crippen Consultants Ltd., for B.C. Hydro, Report No. KC83, November, 1990.
The total sediment load of a stream can be separated into two components, namely, the suspended load and the bedload. The suspended load consists of sediments carried in suspension by the flowing water across the
stream, although for smaller streams, dip samples collected near the surface may be adequate. The bedload consists of sediments that move by siltation, rolling and/or sliding on or near the stream bottom. As yet no
entirely satisfactory method of sampling the bedload has been developed or widely accepted, however, numerous formulae have been proposed to predict the bedload based on stream and sediment characteristics.
In 1977, the Water Survey of Canada discontinued its suspended sediment sampling program at the gauge "Columbia River above Steamboat Rapids". As a result no systematic monitoring of sediment load in the
Columbia River or its tributaries near the plant site has been carried out since the completion of the Revelstoke Dam. In conjunction with the study to characterize dust source sites, B.C. Hydro collected one depthintegrated suspended sediment sample across the Columbia River at Revelstoke in May, 1985 which showed solids concentrations ranging from 7 to 34 mg/L at a flow of about 1,500 m3/s.
Previous studies have identified the Illecillewaet River as a significant contributor of materials prone to wind erosion. Extensive suspended sediment sampling was carried out by B.C. Hydro during 1985, 1986 and
1987 on the river near Greeley and near Revelstoke. The accumulated 95 depth-integrated samples showed solids concentrations ranging from 1,600 mg/L at a flow of 340 m3/s to 3 mg/L at a flow of 15 m3/s.
Between 1985 and 1986, B.C. Hydro conducted two programs to determine the rate and amounts of sediment deposition at selected locations in Upper Arrow Lake.
One program consisted of deployment of sediment cup samplers at 30 locations between July and October, 1985, and at 53 locations between August and October, 1986. The retrieved samplers showed deposition rates
ranging from 8 mg/day to 1,200 mg/day with the majority of samples in the 100 to 200 mg/day range. The highest deposition rates were located near the airport just downstream of the Illecillewaet River. The overall
average deposition rates measured during the 1985 and 1986 deployment were similar at 180 mg/day and 170 mg/day, respectively.
The second program consisted of placing 49, 1 m long metal bars into the exposed floodplain of Upper Arrow Lake in May, 1985. The bars were examined one year later in June, 1986, and aggradation/degradation was
noted. As can be expected, conditions at individual bars varied widely ranging from complete burial to erosion of up to 12 cm.
Review of the historical flow and sediment data indicates that the Columbia and Illecillewaet Rivers are major contributors of sediment. The Illecillewaet River is the nearest tributary studied by B.C. Hydro. Its
headwaters include a large area of icefields which is a likely source of the high sediment load during the annual freshet. The discharge from Revelstoke Dam, on the other hand, is relatively low in sediment
concentration; however, due to the large volume of flow, even low concentrations can result in significant sediment being transported.
A suspended sediment sampling program was carried out by B.C. Hydro in August, 1990, to supplement the historical data base for the Columbia River and its tributaries. During the 1990 field program, five samples
were collected from the Columbia River at the Revelstoke Bridge and two samples were collected from the Illecillewaet River at the WSC cableway at Greeley. Concurrent flow measurements were also taken by
standard velocity measurement techniques.
The samples showed concentration of between 2 and 3 mg/L for the Columbia River at a flow of 1,611 m3/s. The Illecillewaet River samples showed concentrations of between 48 and 51 mg/L at a flow of 109 m3/s.
The daily suspended load can be determined based on the following equation if the suspended solids concentration and flow are known.
SL = 0.0864 x C x Q
where: SL = Suspended Load (tonnes/day)
C = Suspended Solids Concentration (mg/L)
Q = Daily Flow (m3/s)
In creeks and rivers, suspended sediment concentration generally varies exponentially with flow. With sufficient data collected over a range of flows, a suspended sediment-rating curve can be developed to estimate the
load during periods when no suspended sediment measurements are available.
In a regulated river, such as downstream of the Revelstoke Dam, the relationship between sediment concentration and flow is less certain. It may be argued that because of the impounded reservoir, the sediment
concentration of the outflow would not vary significantly with discharge.
A suspended sediment-rating curve was developed by B.C. Hydro for the Illecillewaet River using data collected between 1985 and 1990. Considering the variability of the sediment transport process, the Illecillewaet
River data showed general consistency and is considered representative of the average suspended sediment transport rates of the river.
The suspended sediment-rating curve when applied to daily flow records at the WSC gauge "Illecillewaet River at Greeley" between 1964 and 1988 and pro-rated to the mouth resulted in annual loads ranging from
112,000 T in 1977 to 380,000 T in 1972. The average annual load for this period was 210,000 T.
The rate of movement of bed-material is dependent on the forces exerted on the channel bed by the flowing water. It should, therefore, be possible to predict the bedload based on the bed-material and hydraulic
conditions of the flow. Numerous formulae have been proposed to predict this component of the total sediment load. Unfortunately, results usually vary widely between formulae.
For the B.C. Hydro study, the Meyer-Peter and Parker formulae were selected due to their suitability for gravel stream beds. Hydraulic data, such as cross-section, water surface profiles and bed-material, were extracted
from a sedimentation study carried out by CBA Engineering for B.C. Hydro in 1969.
The water surface profile measured at a flow of 303 m3/s was used to compute the bedload for the Illecillewaet River. This flow is relatively high as compared to the average annual flood of 275 m3/s for the period
1964 to 1988. The survey data showed typical sections of about 2.2 m deep and 60 m wide above the highway bridge with an average energy slope of 0.00025.
Bed material as sampled by the tape grid method indicated median grain sizes ranging from about 25 mm near the mouth to as high as 200 mm downstream of the old Illecillewaet powerhouse. While measured median
grain sizes above the highway bridge range between 70 and 100 mm, the actual median bed material size is likely to be much smaller due to the armouring effect. Typically, tape grid samples can result in an over
estimate of the median sub-pavement grain size by a factor of two or three. A conservative sub-pavement median bed material size of 25 mm was assumed which should result in probable upperbound estimates of the
bedload.
The total sediment load consists of the sum of the suspended load and bedload for the Pingston Creek and its tributaries. The sediment loads from the Columbia and Illecillewaet River, as previously discussed, can aid
in approximating the sediment load in Pingston Creek. The sediment load from the other tributaries of Upper Arrow Lake is largely unquantified, however, based on the limited dip samples collected, the sediment yield
expressed as a percentage of the yield of the Illecillewaet River is estimated to range from 60% for the Akolkolex River to 20% for the Jordan River and the remaining tributaries. Based on our observations at the
mouth, Pingston Creek is estimated to produce a yield in the range of 40%. Table 2.18 presents the total estimated sediment load for various tributaries at the upper end of Upper Arrow Lake as estimated by KlohnCrippen Consultants Ltd. for B.C. Hydro and our corresponding estimate for Pingston Creek.
Table 2.18 Estimated Total Sediment Load
River/Creek
Sediment Load
Drainage Area
Yield
(t/year)
(km²)
(t/year/km²)
Columbia River
77,000
26,700
2.9
Illecillewaet River
256,000
1,230
208
Akolkolex River
49,000
394
125
Jordan River and Others
41,000
976
42
Pingston Creek
15,000
180
83
Total
438,000
29,480
-
Application of the formulae resulted in bedload transport rates ranging from 12% to 32% of the suspended sediment load for the Parker and Meyer-Peter formula, respectively. Assuming an average bedload equal to
22% of suspended load, the average bedload for the Pingston Creek would be approximately 3,300 t per year. Using an approximate specific gravity of 3.3 t/m3, this is a volume of 1,500 m3 per year. This large volume
precludes the practical use of sedimentation ponds and, therefore, the design approach for the diversion works and intake focuses on allowing the bedload to pass by the diversion works during high flow events. Design
velocities at the diversion weir, intake and conveyance system will be such that suspended sediments do not readily deposit within the system. Flushing systems and trash rack cleaning facilities will be provided to aid
in the removal of these materials frequently.
2.6 Aquatic Environment
Pingston Creek is a tributary stream to the Columbia River which is regulated by a series of dams for purposes of hydroelectric power generation. The Columbia River contains an important sport fishery with 24 species
found in the Upper Arrow Lakes. Species represented in the Revelstoke Forest District (see Appendix V for common and scientific names) include kokanee, rainbow trout, westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, eastern
brook trout, mountain whitefish, and slimy sculpin (Bob Lindsay, MELP, pers comm.).
Fisheries resources in Pingston Creek have not been studied extensively by MELP and there was relatively little documented information available. In conversations with MELP it was determined that Pingston Lake
was stocked with approximately 55 000 rainbow trout between 1973 and 1987 (Mr. Bob Lindsay, MELP, pers. comm.). The trout stocking program was discontinued in 1988 and the system now supports a self
sustaining fish population. A reconnaissance fisheries survey of the Pingston Creek watershed was performed in September 1995 by Wild Stone Resources Ltd. for MELP. The survey was conducted at the proposed
intake and headpond area and at one additional site immediately upstream of Thor Creek. Fish capture included rainbow trout, fry and juvenile age classes, and sculpins (Cottus spp.). No other sport fish such as
cutthroat or Bull trout were observed or captured during the survey. The fisheries survey also included some basic stream and fish habitat descriptions.
The powerhouse is situated on the west shore of the Upper Arrow Lake. The shoreline is composed of bedrock ledges which extend into the lake. Based on discussions with MELP officials, no fisheries spawning takes
place within the drawdown zone in Upper Arrow Lake (Bob Lindsay, MELP, pers. comm., September, 1995). Burbot have been recorded in the lake but very little is known with respect to numbers and distribution
(Grant Thorpe, MELP, pers. comm., May 10, 1996).
The new section of the overhead transmission line between the powerhouse and Shelter Bay crosses several small, intermittent drainages, many of which had gradients in excess of 20% and were not considered capable
of supporting a fishery. The only major stream to be crossed by the line will be Bannock Creek which drains a large wetland complex and enters Upper Arrow Lake at a gradient of approximately 10%. Bannock Creek
supports lake run rainbow trout, kokanee, and resident cutthroat trout in the upper reaches of the drainage (Bob Brade, MELP, pers. comm., 1998). The forestry road crossing at Bannock Creek consists of a large open
bottom culvert that was recently installed to improve kokanee and rainbow trout access to the creek for spawning. Beyond Shelter Bay, the transmission line will utilise an existing corridor to Revelstoke.
2.6.2 Field Surveys
Canadian Hydro retained Klohn-Crippen to conduct a preliminary fisheries survey of Pingston Creek which was completed in August, 1996. A summary of that survey is presented here and the complete report is
presented in Appendix VI. Figure 2.2 illustrates a long profile of Pingston Creek along with the reach breaks, gradients, and major tributaries. Figure 2.3 illustrates a basin plan of the Pingston Creek watershed with
reach breaks along with fish and fish habitat survey results.
Other than surface observations, there have been no field surveys of the lake shoreline at the proposed powerhouse or stream crossings along the proposed power transmission line to Shelter Bay. The Upper Arrow
Lake shoreline at the powerhouse site consists of exposed bedrock shelves with water depths ranging from 15 m at FSL to 3 m at minimum water level. Fish habitat along this shoreline is considered marginal due to
lack of cover and fluctuating water levels.
2.6.2.1 Reach Breaks
Reaches were identified at the macro level on the basis of stream gradient and channel morphology. Overall, Pingston Creek had an average gradient of 2.6%. Reach 1 was represented by the section of Pingston Creek
between the minimum water level (420.0 m elevation) of the Upper Arrow Lake to the base of the falls or full supply level (441.0 m elevation) at the mouth of the creek. Reach 2 consisted of the falls at the mouth of the
creek and represents a fish migration barrier into the creek from the Upper Arrow Lake averaging 17.2%. Reach 3 extended from the top of the falls to approximately 1 km upstream through a series of cascading rapids
and deep pools with a gradient of 7.6% to the Shelter Bay South road bridge crossing. Immediately upstream of the bridge, Reach 4 entered a deep, steep sided bedrock canyon, low gradient (4.3%) section, with large
boulders (D90= 1m) and turbulent, cascading flows. Reach 4 extended mid-way between the bridge crossing and the confluence with Sunshine Creek. Reach 5 had an average gradient of 2.7% to the confluence with
Ledge Creek. Reach 6 had an average gradient of 5.8% and extended from Ledge Creek to the proposed weir and intake structure. Upstream of the intake, Reach 7 had a lower gradient approximately 1%. In Reach 7,
where the valley opens up with low alluvial terraces on each side, the channel widened, and the substrate changed to smaller boulders (D90=0.5 m), cobbles, gravel, and sand size ranges. A mid-stream gravel bar at the
intake suggested that the stream was aggrading at this point in the reach. Reach 7 extended to a section just upstream of Thor Creek where the gradient changed to 4.9% at the beginning of Reach 8. Reach 8 was
characterized by boulder rapids and a series of bedrock controlled rapids, cascades, and falls. In Reach 9 the gradient changed to 1.0% through a series of beaver ponds and wetland areas. Reach 10 included the section
of river between Reach 9 and the mouth of Pingston Lake (Reach 11). Pingston Creek extends beyond Pingston Lake (Reach 12) to a headwall and unnamed lake (Reach 13) at the base of a glacier.
2.6.2.2 Habitat
Barriers to migration occur at the mouth of Pingston Creek due to the 10.0 m high falls and in Reach 8 due to chutes and falls observed during field surveys. Reach 6 was not accessible during field surveys for most of
its length and could not be fully assessed. However, fish migration through Reach 6 was assessed to be limited or restricted due to velocity chutes, large rapids, and possibly falls of sufficient height to be impassable.
Reach 7 and 9 contained the most diverse habitat such as pools, riffles, and runs, Large Woody Debris (LWD), cover, and substrate to support all life phases of salmonids. Habitat at the intake and headpond were
characterised as riffle/pool, generally large substrate (boulders 70%, gravels 20%, and fines 10%), instream cover comprised of boulders, minimal overbank cover, crown closure <10%, and no LWD present. The
average bankfull channel width through the headpond and at the intake is approximately 35 m and the wetted width was 32 m. The banks were not undercut and were stable, showing no sign of erosion or failure. The
availability of spawning habitat in this section of Reach 7 was limited due to a lack of suitable substrate.
Upstream of the headpond near the confluence of Odin, Oleson, and Thor creeks the potential for finding spawning habitat improved due to the availability of suitable substrate, and improved instream and bank cover.
The presents of functional LWD also improved upstream in Reach 7. The main and some smaller tributaries entering Reach 7 offered good quality habitat for spawning and rearing as well.
2.6.2.3 Fisheries Surveys
Fisheries surveys were completed in Pingston Creek in August, 1996. Sampling was confined to Reach 7, the upper section of Reach 6, and in Reaches 9 and 10 at the mouth of Pingston Lake using a combination of
reconnaissance level electrofishing, gee type minnow traps, and angling. In Reach 7, fisheries sampling was conducted at the intake/headpond, immediately downstream of the confluence with Odin Creek, and near the
confluence of Thor Creek. Only rainbow trout were captured but no other sport fish or course fish were captured or observe during the August, 1996 survey.
In Reach 6, a large pool located immediately downstream of the chute and rapids section at the upstream limits of the reach was sampled using angling techniques over a period of two hours but with no success.
In Reach 7 sampling was conducted using electrofishing techniques (982 seconds over 100 m) at the intake and headpond site resulting in the capture of three rainbow trout (fork lengths of 95, 100, and 105 mm) and
the observation of three more that could not be captured. Upstream of the proposed intake at the old bridge crossing of Pingston Creek, immediately downstream of the confluence with Odin Creek, one (1) rainbow
trout (fork length = 120 mm) was captured using angling techniques. Angling was also attempted upstream of the Kileen Road bridge crossing (near Thor Creek) resulting in the observation of three rainbow trout but
no captures. In a 30 m section of back channel near the same location, electrofishing (483 seconds) was used to capture four (4) rainbow trout (fork lengths of 54, 97, 117, and 124 mm). Minnow traps were baited with
cat food and set overnight at three locations in Reach 7, one at the Kileen Road bridge crossing, one at the mouth of the back channel, and a third at the proposed intake, none of which were successful.
A total of five rainbow trout captured were aged by analysis of lateral scale samples (see Appendix IV). Fish from juvenile to less than 100 mm were given a 1+ age class and those larger than 100 mm were 2+.
The initial indications were that the Pingston Creek main channel and several main tributaries such as Ledge, Odin, and Thor creeks provided good trout rearing and over wintering habitat. However, the availability of
spawning habitat was sparse throughout the Pingston Creek system. Fish captured were smaller in size than would be expected in a system with good quality habitat. This might be explained by either a restricted
sampling method (the use of gill nets was not permitted as a sampling technique) or possibly a lack of nutrients to support an adequate food supply. Fishing pressure was not likely the reason for the small size classes
since Pingston Lake and mainstem was not considered by locals to be a prime area.
2.7 Terrestrial Environment
This section includes a regional overview of data taken from existing sources and the results of field surveys conducted in 1997. Appendices VII, VIII, IX describe the methodology and results of the field surveys.
Appendix V contains a list of common and scientific names for all vegetation and wildlife species mentioned in this Application.
On the basis of discussions with regulatory agencies, very little biophysical research has been done in the Pingston Creek watershed. Specifically, wildlife studies have not been conducted, although the MELP
biologists and conservation officers are aware of wildlife use and hunting pressure near the Project facilities and adjacent areas. The limited available existing information for the Project has been collected from soils
mapping, forest cover mapping, Canada Land Inventory capability maps, regional literature, Conservation Data Centre (CDC) tracking lists and rare element occurrences, and discussions with representatives from
MELP and B.C. Ministry of Forests (MoF).
2.7.1.1 Soils
Soils have been mapped by Wittnben (1980) for the Lardeau map sheet (NTS 82K) at 1:100,000 scale which covers the tunnel, penstock, power house, and transmission corridor from the powerhouse to 16 km north of
Shelter Bay, but have not been mapped for the intake and headpond in the Pingston Creek valley.
The east tunnel portal and upper penstock corridor correspond to the Stobart (EL 1219 m to 1370 m) and Comaplix (EL.915 m to 1219 m) soil associations, described by Wittnben (1980) as a well drained Orthic HumoFerric Podzol on moderately course basal till.
The lower penstock route and the powerhouse location correspond to the Buhl Creek soil association (lake shore to EL.1219 m), consisting of rapidly to well drained Orthic and Lithic Dystric Brunisols over moderate
to course textured colluvium and granitic (acidic) bedrock.
The proposed weir spans the width of the valley bottom and the intake is proposed to be in the floodplain on the east side of Pingston Creek. The soils mapping completed by Wittnben (1980) covered a small section of
Pingston Creek within 1 km of the proposed intake and headpond site. Extrapolating the soil units to the intake and headpond would likely put the west side of the channel into the Cooper/Buhl Creek soils association.
The east or intake side of the channel would be in the Stobart soil association. The Cooper soil unit is an Orthic Dystric Brunisol, well to imperfectly drained, and developed on course textured colluvium. Organic soils
are likely present in wet, poorly drained sites on creek terraces.
The transmission line between the powerhouse and Shelter Bay crosses the Kaslo, Buhl, Cataract, and Slocan soil associations mapped by Wittnben (1980). Kaslo and Slocan soils are rapidly drained Orthic Dystric
Brunisols which have developed over moderately course textured glaciofluvial ice contact deposits and course textured basal till respectively. These soils are shallow and have low moisture holding capability. Cataract
soils are well to rapidly drained Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzols developed over course textured colluvium.
These soil units were described as typically supporting a dense forest cover primarily of Interior Western Hemlock and Western Redcedar on poorly drained sites, and Engelmann Spruce at higher elevations. All of the
soil associations described above have moderate to high forest growth but low agricultural capability and will likely require special seed mixtures with amendments for purposes of reclamation and erosion control,
particularly along the penstock corridor.
2.7.1.2 Vegetation
All of the Project facilities including the transmission line to within 1 km south of Shelter Bay are located in the Interior Cedar - Western Hemlock (ICH) Biogeoclimatic Zone, Columbia-Shuswap moist warm variant
(ICHmw2 ) (Braumandl and Curran, 1992). The transmission line from Shelter Bay north is located in the ICH Thompson moist warm variant (ICHmw3). Forest cover found in these ICH zones are consistent with
forests produced on the soil associations described above by Wittnben (1980). Seral trees found in these ICH zones include Douglas Fir, Trembling Aspen, Black Cottonwood, Paper Birch, Western Larch, Lodgepole
Pine, Western White Pine, hybrid White Spruce, and Subalpine Fir at higher elevations within the zone. Higher elevations (1650 m to 1950 m), such as the ridge top separating the Pingston Creek watershed from the
Upper Arrow Lake valley, are in the Engelmann Spruce/Subalpine Fir (ESSF) Zone, Selkirk wet cold variant (ESSFwc4). None of the Project components will occupy the ESSF zone.
The CDC did not identify any occurrences of rare plant species in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project facility sites.
2.7.1.3 Wildlife
The Project and all of its components are located in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 4-32 which is administered from the MELP office in Nelson, B.C. The 1995 CDC Tracking List identified eight “red or blue
listed” mammals known to occur in the region encompassing the Project area. The listed species are Northern Long-eared Myotis, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Grizzly Bear, Wolverine, Fisher, Badger, Woodland
Caribou (southern population) and California Bighorn Sheep. However, the CDC Tracking List did not identify any red, blue or regionally significant wildlife species in the immediate vicinity of any of the Project
components.
Mule Deer, White-tailed Deer, Elk and Moose are expected to be the most numerous ungulate species occurring near the intake and headpond, and penstock and powerhouse areas. Elk winter on the east side of Upper
Arrow Lake and summer on the west side of the lake in the Pingston Creek area (Mr. Paul McPhie, MELP Conservation Officer, pers. comm. May 10, 1996). Moose winter at low elevations near the lake shoreline, but
like Elk, spend the summer in the middle to higher elevations in the Pingston Creek watershed. Although Mountain Goats occur in the higher elevation subalpine and alpine habitats in the Pingston Creek area, they are
unlikely to descend to the valley floor and, consequently should not be affected by the proposed development.
Deer and Moose and their tracks were regularly seen along the Shelter Bay South road over the winter months during reconnaissance trips to the intake site. Moose were also observed repeatedly during winter months
along the forestry roads accessing the Project penstock and powerhouse facilities and along the proposed transmission line. However, ungulate tracks were not observed in the vicinity of the intake throughout the winter
season, likely due to excessive snow depths.
Large carnivore species expected to occur in the Pingston Creek basin included Grizzly Bear, Black Bear, Wolf, Wolverine, Cougar, Lynx, and Bobcat. Furbearers and small mammals were not expected to be numerous
due to extensive forestry clearing in the project area (Brian Gadbois, B.C. Hydro pers. comm.). Species present might also include Snowshoe Hare, Fisher, Marten, Mink, Ermine, River Otter, Beaver, Red Squirrel,
Northern Flying Squirrel and numerous species of bats, voles, shrews and mice (Bamfield 1981).
Waterfowl, shorebirds, upland game birds, Osprey, hawks, owls, woodpeckers and several passerine species are expected to occur throughout the region. Approximately thirteen bird species listed on the 1995 CDC
Tracking List may occur in the region. Observations of non-breeding Peregrine Falcon (subspecies anatum) have been recorded from the vicinity of the Northeast Arm of the Upper Arrow Lake (Campbell et al. 1990).
Other species which may occur, and which are likely to be associated with the forest or riparian habitats in the region, include Osprey, Cooper’s Hawk, Great Grey Owl, Lewis’ Woodpecker, and possibly Vaux’s Swift.
Four other potentially occurring species are associated with riverine, lakeshore, or forest and riverine habitats: Caspian Tern, American Avocet, Bald Eagle and Great Blue Heron. A Bald Eagle nest was reported 5 km
north of Shelter Bay in a clear-cut block near the shoreline of Upper Arrow Lake (CDC rare element occurrence).
A pair of Harlequin Ducks were observed at the Kileen road bridge crossing of Pingston Creek upstream of the Odin Creek confluence in May, 1996. Two Osprey were observed near Shelter Bay in May, 1996.
Amphibians and reptiles noted in the region include Painted Turtle, Rubber Boa, and Western Rattlesnake (CDC 1995). Tailed Frog sightings have also been recorded in the Upper Arrow Lake area (Nussbaum et al.
1983).
2.7.2 Field Surveys
GAIA Consultants Inc. was retained by Canadian Hydro to conduct rare plant, winter track count, spring browse and pellet group, migratory and nesting birds, and amphibian surveys. The areas surveyed were the
intake and head pond site, the penstock and powerhouse site, and the alternative power transmission line corridor parallel to Highway 23 on the east side of the Upper Arrow Lake to Nakusp. A brief summary of the
survey results is given below. Appendices VII, VIII, IX contains the reports with complete field survey methodology and results.
Note that the proposed power transmission line north to Shelter Bay was not included in these surveys since this route had not been identified at the time of the field surveys (see Appendix IX for a preliminary summary
of wildlife issues along the power transmission line). Additional field surveys may be conducted in 1998 along this portion of the project.
2.7.2.1 Soils
Soil sampling and characterization for purposes of erosion control and reclamation have not been completed at any of the Project facilities but will be implemented at the final design stage.
2.7.2.2 Rare Plants
A rare plant survey was conducted in July, 1997 at the intake and headpond, and penstock and powerhouse sites. No rare plants were found at either site. Species with restricted distribution such as the Round-leafed
Bog Orchid were found in the area, however, the survey indicated a low potential for rare plants at either site.
2.7.2.1 Vegetation and Habitats
The intake and headpond site lies on a terrace of Pingston Creek. Except for a narrow buffer strip along the west bank of the creek, this area has been logged. The buffer strip is less than 40 metres wide and consists of
mature Western Hemlock, Western Redcedar and Engelmann Spruce with an understory of Sitka Alder and Tall Huckleberry. The vegetation in the logged areas consists of grass and shrub species. The site is fairly wet
with small drainages on both sides of the creek. The site has numerous standing pools and ponds that were formed in the ruts left behind by logging activity.
The upper portion of the penstock route has been previously logged and has regenerated to a Paper Birch, Trembling Aspen and Western White Pine of uniform height, roughly four metres.
The middle portion of the penstock route passes through a mature (141+ year old) closed Western Hemlock-Douglas Fir forest. A portion of this forest roughly 150 metres north of the penstock route has been logged.
Western Redcedar and Western White Pine are the other dominant tree species with Paper Birch, willow and Douglas Maple occurring in the forest openings. The shrub understory consists of Western Yew, rose,
huckleberry and False Box. The penstock route crosses a few seepage sites and small meandering drainage channels. The understory is quite dense around the seepage sites. Otherwise the understory is fairly open.
Large, old stumps litter the forest floor as expected in an old-growth forest.
The lower portion of the penstock route and the powerhouse site are located in a more open and younger (101-120 years old) Western Hemlock-Douglas Fir forest. This area is similar in species composition to the more
mature forest but is drier and generally rocky with a less well developed soil layer.
The proposed transmission line route has not been surveyed but based on forest cover maps the habitats potentially traversed consist primarily of conifer dominant woodlands ranging in age from 21+ years to 141+
years and up to 37.4 metres in height. The major tree species are Western Hemlock, Douglas Fir, Western Redcedar and Western White Pine. Western Larch, Paper Birch and Trembling Aspen also occur as minor
components in some stands.
Although much of this area is subject to logging activity, the most sensitive forest stands in the area are those over 120 years old. There are five such stands: one occurs just to the west of the powerhouse site and is
traversed by the proposed penstock route. The other four occur close together about halfway between the powerhouse and Shelter Bay.
2.7.2.4 Winter Track Count Survey
A winter track survey was conducted in January, 1997 to assess relative winter habitat use in the vicinity of the intake and headpond, and penstock and powerhouse sites.
In summary, the survey found that there was fairly heavy use by furbearers (Marten, Mink, Ermine, Snowshoe Hare and Red Squirrel) and virtually no use by ungulates during winter periods at the intake and head pond
site. Furbearer activity was low (Marten and Red Squirrel) at the penstock and powerhouse site, while ungulate use (deer and Moose) was restricted to, and fairly heavy at, the lower elevations near the shore of the lake.
2.7.2.5 Spring Browse and Pellet Group Survey
A spring browse and pellet group survey was conducted in May, 1997 to determine ungulate winter use.
At the intake and head pond site, tracks of Moose, Coyote, Grizzly Bear and deer were found. Only three deer pellet groups were found in the wet graminoid/shrubland near the creek channel. The lower penstock and
powerhouse were more heavily used with a total of 16 deer pellet groups found, all near the shore of the lake.
2.7.2.6 Migratory and Nesting Birds
A migratory and nesting bird survey was conducted in May, 1997 at the intake and headpond, penstock and powerhouse, and along the alternative transmission line corridor on the east side of the lake along Highway
23 to Nakusp.
Twenty-seven bird species were identified at the intake and head pond site, of which 16 were confirmed breeding and seven were possible breeders. At the penstock and powerhouse site 33 species were recorded, of
which 22 were confirmed breeding and 8 possible breeders. The boat survey along the alternative transmission line yielded four active and one inactive Osprey nests. In addition, two adult Bald Eagles were observed at
the mouth of Halfway Creek.
The Bald Eagles mentioned above were the only species on the CDC Tracking List that was noted in the project area. Bird species composition at the surveyed sites reflected the expected regional composition,
suggesting that the proposed project area is not unique in a regional context.
2.7.2.7 Amphibians
Amphibian surveys were conducted in late May and late July, 1997 at the intake and headpond, and penstock and powerhouse sites.
At the intake and head pond site, tadpoles of the Boreal Toad were found on the west side of the creek channel, and Spotted Frog tadpoles were found on both sides of the channel. Long-toed Salamander may occur in
the area, but none were found. Although not unique within the regional context, the abundance of tadpoles found at this site suggest that this area is important breeding habitat for these common amphibian species.
At the penstock and powerhouse site adult Boreal Toads, Pacific Tree Frogs, and Spotted Frogs were noted, but no larvae or juveniles were found. Despite the presence of adults, this site provides only marginal habitat
quality for amphibians.
3.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING
3.1 Location and Access
The Project is situated approximately 650 km east of Vancouver, B.C., 200 km north of Nelson, and 450 km west of Calgary, Alberta. Access to the area is via the Trans Canada Highway (Hwy 1) from the east or west
and Highway 23 from the south. The City of Revelstoke (Revelstoke) is approximately 60 km north of the Pingston Project at the confluence of the Columbia and Illecillewaet rivers and the north end of Upper Arrow
Lake. The Village of Nakusp (Nakusp) is approximately 32 km due south of the Pingston Project on the opposite side of the Upper Arrow Lake from the Project location.
The Project straddles the boundary between the Columbia Shuswap and Central Kootenay Regional Districts of the Kootenay Region (Figure 3.1). However, the Project is entirely within the boundaries of the
Revelstoke Forest District, Timber Supply Area (TSA).
3.2 Community Profiles
Information available on the community structure, services, population demographics, and economy, employment, and labour market were compiled by the Revelstoke Economic Development Commission (REDC) in
1995 using 1991 Canada Census data and local information. Other sources of information include the Revelstoke Forest District TSA Socio-economic Assessment (ARA Consulting Group, 1994), the Arrow TSA Socioeconomic Assessment (Resource Systems Management International, 1994) and the Revelstoke and Area Land Use Planning, Draft Recommendations - Multiple Account Analysis (Revelstoke Minister’s Advisory
Committee, 1997).
3.2.1 Revelstoke and Area
The Revelstoke area generally includes the Rogers Pass and Glacier National Park to the east, Mica Creek and Kinbasket Lake to the north, Three Valley Gap to the west, and the northern part of Upper Arrow Lakes
including the Beaton-Trout Lake areas to the south (REDC, 1995).
The City of Revelstoke was incorporated in 1899 and is located within the Columbia River-Revelstoke Electoral Area. The City is governed by a Mayor and six Counsellors, elected for three year terms. It is covered by
an approved Official Community Plan which is implemented by Zoning and Subdivision By-Laws.
Historically, Revelstoke’s population has experienced fluctuations generally due to mega-project construction in the area particularly in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Since the late 1980’s the population in the area has
stabilized. The 1991 census data reported that the population of Revelstoke was 7,729. The population of the Revelstoke area is estimated at 8,780 based on Canada Census, 1993 taxation data. Table 3.1 presents the
age-sex distribution of the population in 1991 (REDC, 1995). From Table 3.1 it can be observed that Revelstoke had a young population with a median age of 29.7 and 55% of the population was less than 35 years of
age. The male population outnumbers the female population to age 65 (REDC, 1995).
Table 3.1 Revelstoke City Population
Age-Sex Composition - 1991
AGE
MALE
FEMALE
TOTAL
PERCENT OF TOTAL
0-4
285
300
585
8.2
5-9
345
305
650
8.0
10-14
310
290
600
8.0
15-19
300
270
570
8.1
20-24
255
220
475
8.2
25-34
685
660
1345
19.6
35-44
695
670
1365
15.3
45-54
425
380
805
10.1
55-64
360
305
665
7.7
65-74
195
205
400
4.1
75+
115
170
285
3.4
3,955
3,770
7,725
100.0%
TOTAL
Source: 1991 Census
The City provides a full range of community services including police, fire protection, medical, educational, community care, recreational, postal, courier, cable TV, and library functions. Utilities are services by:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Electrical - B.C. Hydro and Power Authority;
Telephone - B.C. Telephone Company;
Water - Municipal;
Sewer - Municipal collection and treatment;
Garbage - Sanitary Landfill, Contract collection;
Gas - B.C. Gas, piped propane system;
Transportation - BC Transit bus service.
Medical services in Revelstoke are provided by the Queen Victoria Hospital, the Selkirk Medical Group (8 physicians and laboratory facilities), four physiotherapists, four dentists, one chiropractor, and four massage
therapists (REDC, 1995). The Queen Victoria Hospital consists of 28 acute care beds, 11 intermediate care beds, 15 extended care beds, surgery, emergency, X-Ray, pediatrics, laboratory, physiotherapy, solarium and
care for the elderly.
Revelstoke has a full service airport with a 1,460 m runway, terminal building, fueling facilities, hangers, and float plane base. The airport does not have instrument landing capability nor any scheduled commercial
airline service. However, charter aircraft and helicopter services are available.
3.2.2 Nakusp and Area
Nakusp is located on the east shores of the Upper Arrow Lake at the junction of Highways #6 and # 23 and falls within the Central Kootenay Regional District. Other communities in the area include Slocan, New
Denver, Silverton, and scattered rural populations. The total Slocan Valley population was 4, 965 in 1991 (MOF, 1994) Nakusp is the largest of the communities in the area with a population of 1,375 in 1991 and 2046
in 1997. The population of Nakusp decreased from 2.6% from 1981 to 1991 due to downsizing in the mining and forestry sectors. In recent times, the population has been increasing due to an emerging trend of retirees,
semi-retirees, and other urban professionals moving into the area seeking lifestyle changes and improved quality of life.
Nakusp provides a full range of community services including police, fire protection, medical, educational, community care, recreational, postal, courier, newspaper, radio and TV, and library functions. Utilities are
serviced by:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Electrical - B.C. Hydro and Power Authority;
Telephone - B.C. Telephone Company;
Water - Municipal from the Kuskanax River;
Sewer - Municipal collection and treatment;
Garbage - Sanitary Landfill, weekly pick-up; and,
Gas - B.C. Gas.
Community health services in Nakusp are provided by the Saddle Mountain Medical Clinic (3 General Practitioners), the Upper Arrow Lakes Medical Clinic (1 General Practitioner), and a Public Health Unit. Medical
services are provided by the Upper Arrow Lakes Hospital which contains of 16 acute care beds and 4 extended care beds, 24-hour emergency, surgery, and X-Ray facilities. The hospital is run by 40 full time staff.
Intermediate care is provided by the Halcyon Intermediate Care Centre with 26 units.
3.3 Regional Economy
3.3.1 Economic Base
The Revelstoke area was opened in the 1880’s as a transportation and supply centre for the mining industry and the trans-continental railway, both of which prompted early establishment of the timber industry in the
area. From 1900 to the early 1960’s, the area grew steadily. However, the construction of the Trans Canada Highway through Rogers Pass in 1962 brought about increased tourism. The Mica, Revelstoke, and
Keenleyside dam projects added to the local economy but resulted in the flooding of prime agricultural land and timber resources. When these projects were completed in 1985, the economy of the area took a downturn.
This downturn was overcome by the development and implementation of the community economic development strategy which included a downtown revitalization project, diversification of small businesses,
encouragement of tourism and strengthening of the timber industry and government services.
Today, the economy of the Revelstoke area is tied directly to its geographic location and the natural resources of the region. The main employers in the area are Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks, Ministry
of Transportation and Highways, Ministry of Forests, various other federal and provincial government ministries, local educational, health, and municipal services.
Similar to Revelstoke, Nakusp’s economy was built by the mining industry and has evolved into a complex community dominated recently by the forest industry. The growth industries in Nakusp also include small,
home-based businesses particularly tourism, arts and crafts, retail, construction, agroforestry, and the service sector (MOF, 1994).
3.3.2 Economic Sectors
3.3.2.1 Transportation
Highway and rail transportation have continued to link Revelstoke with other major centres and supports approximately one quarter of the economic base (REDC, 1995). The most stable source of employment in the
area has been CP Rail with an estimated staff of 400. However, in 1997 CP Rail relocated all of their management staff to Calgary, substantially reducing their presence in Revelstoke. The B.C. Ministry of Highways
through its road maintenance contractors also contributes substantially to local employment. Although the airport does not support large numbers of operational staff, the helicopter charter and heli-skiing operators offer
employment to pilots and maintenance staff.
3.3.2.2 Forestry
The Project is situated entirely in the Revelstoke Forest District, Timber Supply Area (TSA). In the Revelstoke area, the timber industry including logging, hauling, processing, and silviculture also supports one quarter
of the local economy. Three sawmills, one cedar shake and shingle, one pole yard, and several value added wood manufacturing plants are located in the Revelstoke area. There were approximately 600 persons
employed by the timber industry in the Revelstoke area in 1995 representing a 33% increase since the 1980’s (REDC, 1995). The forest industry is faced with a new Forest Practices Code Act which requires improved
forest management practices. The increased demand for silviculture and related forest management services has increased employment opportunities.
The Arrow Forest District, TSA (Resource Systems Management International, 1994) has provided a substantial economic base in the community providing approximately 1700 full time jobs involved in wood
harvesting, processing, silviculture, and within the MOF. The forestry sector has also provided another 560 indirect jobs in support services.
3.3.2.1 Water Resources
Water resources of the Revelstoke area have provided employment through the construction and maintenance of hydroelectric dams (Mica and Revelstoke dams), transportation, recreation, and tourism. B.C. Hydro
employed about 85 people in the operation of the Mica and Revelstoke dams (REDC, 1995). B.C. Hydro also operates the Walter Hardman plant, a small hydro facility located approximately 30 km south of
Revelstoke. Canadian Hydro operates a 10 MW hydro generating facility on the Akolkolex River. The bottled water industry came to the Revelstoke area in 1990. Selkirk Natural Spring Water began operations in 1990
with an initial production based on employing 12 persons. The plant has the capacity to employ up to 50 persons.
The water resources sector has not been an economic base for the Nakusp area except through tourism and recreational use of the Upper Arrow Lake
3.3.2.4 Tourism
The tourism industry has grown steadily over the past 25 years, and contributes approximately one quarter to the local economy. Revelstoke’s geographic location, easy access, and both summer and winter recreational
potential provide further opportunity for the development of tourism in the area.
The Upper Arrow Lakes offers a wide base of outdoor recreational opportunities. These lakes and Nakusp are off the main routes, so tourism has historically played a lesser role in the local economy. However, tourism
has been growing recently due to an increase in outdoor recreation, adventure travel, and the desire for backcountry travel and wilderness experiences.
3.3.2.5 Mining
The Selkirk and Monashee mountains are highly mineralized which has lead to active exploration and the development of the Goldstream Mine, a copper-zinc mine located 100 km north of Revelstoke.
In the Nakusp area, mining has also been one of the prime economic sectors, particularly in the Slocan Valley. However, mining does not account for the same level of economic activity that it once did.
3.4 Labour Market
Revelstoke’s labour market draws upon a diverse economic base and has a highly skilled work force resulting from the high level of employment in the transportation, forestry and construction industries. Growth in the
tourism industry since 1986 has resulted in an increasing number of employment opportunities, particularly for women. The labour force in Revelstoke grew at a rate of 1% per year from 1990 to 1994, partly due to the
participation of women in the work force.
Table 3.2 Revelstoke Labour Force
Employment by Industry - 1991
Industry
Number
Percent
Agriculture
15
0%
Logging, Forestry, Mining
390
10%
Manufacturing
300
7%
Construction
355
9%
Transportation
850
20%
Communications
80
2%
Wholesale Trade
50
1%
Retail Trade
515
13%
Finance & Insurance & Real Estate
80
2%
Business Service
95
2%
Government Service
190
4%
Education Service
220
5%
Health & Social Service
255
6%
Accommodation, Food & Beverage
620
15%
Other Service
180
4%
4,200
100%
TOTAL
Source: 1991 Census - City of Revelstoke
Historically the labour force in the Nakusp area was driven by the two primary resource sectors of forestry and mining. Recently there has been a shift to lower income jobs or self-employment in the service sector
(MoF, 1994). The result of this is that when job losses occur in either of the main resource sectors, alternative employment does not wholly compensate income loss which means individuals take on more than one job
to meet income needs and the tax base required to support infrastructure and services decreases. Table 3.3 presents a breakdown of the labour force in the Arrow Forest District by industry. On the basis of the 1991
census, unemployment in the Arrow Forest District dropped from 16% in 1986 to 13% in 1991. The recent trends indicate the number of active unemployment insurance claims averaged 8.1% of the total population
between ages 15 to 64 in 1993 (MoF, 1994). An additional 6.2% were employable social assistance recipients resulting in a 14.3% employable working age population in 1993. This rate was up from 11.4% in 1991 and
from 12.8% in 1992 indicating an increasing rate of unemployment in the area.
Table 3.3 Arrow Forest District
Labour Force by Industry
Employment Sector
1986
1991
Agriculture
190
260
Fishing and Trapping
10
25
Logging and Forestry
870
795
Mining
505
845
4 385
4 295
Construction
930
1 035
Transportation and Storage
575
670
Communication and Utilities
610
670
Wholesale Trade
245
450
2 365
2 410
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
625
705
Business Services
420
565
Government Services
780
965
Educational Services
1 405
1 480
Health and Social Services
1 610
1 875
Accommodation, Food and Beverage Services
1 470
1 420
Other Service Industries
1 085
1 355
TOTAL
18 080
19 820
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
Source: Statistics Canada
3.5 Land and Water Use
The March 1995 West Kootenay - Boundary Land Use Plan identified the Pingston Creek watershed and west side of the Upper Arrow Lake valley as an Enhanced Resource Development Zone, primarily for timber
harvesting purposes (Ken Baker, Land Use Coordination Office, Victoria, pers. comm. September, 1995). Alpine areas in the Pingston Creek basin were identified as Special Resource Management Zones. The east
shoreline of the lake was identified as an Integrated Resource Management Zone.
A summary of existing and potential land use water resource conflicts with the Project is presented in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Land and Water Use (Summary)
Potential Conflict
Land
Water
Industry
None Identified
None Identified
Agriculture
None Identified
None Identified
Forestry
Yes
None Identified
Fishing
Low Pressure
Yes
Trapping
Yes
Yes
Hunting
Low to Moderate Use
N/A
Mining
No Claims
None Identified
None Identified
None Identified
Low to Moderate Use
Low Use
Ecological Reserves
None Identified
None Identified
Parks
None Identified
None Identified
Tourism
None Identified
Low Use
Municipalities
Recreation
3.5.1 Forestry
The Pingston Creek watershed and the mountainside above the west shore of Upper Arrow Lake has been extensively logged and possesses an extensive network of forestry access roads and skid trails. Figure 3.2
illustrates the Forest Development Plan for the Project area including the transmission line north to Shelter Bay. The forestry operators in the Project area have historically been Riverside Forest Products Limited
(Riverside), based in Armstrong, B.C. and Pope and Talbot Ltd. (Pope and Talbot), based in Nakusp, B.C. The proposed intake, headpond and west tunnel adit are situated in the southern portion of Timber License
(TL) T0451 which was logged by Riverside Forest Products Ltd. several years ago and is in a seral stage of regeneration. Several small cutblocks are identified in Riverside’s Forest Development Plan (1995-1999) to
be logged between 1997 and 1999 in the vicinity of the intake works. The east tunnel portal, penstock, and power house are located in Pope and Talbot’s private property (DL 860).
3.5.2 Land Reserves/Protected Areas
The Project plant and transmission facilities are not located within any designated Agricultural Land Reserves (ALR) nor are there currently any mining claims on any of the facility sites. The Pingston Creek drainage
basin and the Project facilities lie outside any protected areas and there are no ecological reserves in proximity to the Project.
3.5.3 Tourism and Recreation
Recreational activities in the area of the intake facilities are of low to moderate use and include fishing, hiking, back country and helicopter skiing, and snowmobiling. Kootenay Heli-Skiing has the helicopter skiing
operations license in the Pingston Creek area.
3.6 First Nations
The Project borders on three (3) traditional territories as follows:
●
●
●
●
Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council, Cranbrook
Okanagan Tribal Council, Vernon
Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and
Spallumcheen Band, Enderby (being the closest band to Pingston Creek)
Figure 3.3 illustrate First Nations traditional territories in B.C.
Canadian Hydro has informed each of these First Nations groups of the Project by contacting key individuals in each group and sending out information packages for review. Meetings are being arranged with these
groups to discuss the project in greater detail and to obtain input.
4.0 CULTURAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES
4.1 Regional Overview
Canadian Hydro retained the services of Diana French, Ph.D. Archaeologist at the Okanagan University College to examine maps and air photos covering the Project area, conduct a review of archaeological reports,
ethnographic, and historic literature, and to enquire into the B.C. Archaeology Site File at Archaeology Branch in Victoria, B.C. The ensuing research revealed that the majority of known sites in the Project area were
destroyed by the creation of the Upper Arrow Lake. Based on the known distribution of archaeological sites, and post-contact traditional use, the archaeological potential of the proposed Project components was
assessed by D. French (see Appendix X) as follows.
Proposed intake and headpond. The archaeological potential of this locality is assessed as low. Elevation above valley bottom, steepness of terrain, ground cover, limited seasonal accessibility and distance from
known travel routes are the primary factors in affecting the archaeological potential.
Tunnel and penstock. The proposed route for these developments is evaluated as having low archaeological potential for reasons similar to those for the intake and headpond area. The nature of terrain features is the
primary factor, minimizing the probability of discovering an archaeological site.
Powerhouse, substation and tailrace. The general locality of the powerhouse site has medium archaeological potential for the location of an archaeological site. Relative flatness of terrain, lower elevation in closer
proximity to the main valley bottom, and accessibility to locations known to have been utilized by aboriginal people are determining factors. On the basis of information available, the powerhouse facilities do not
appear to be in association with an extant or non-extant drainage, or with a glacial lakeshore, reducing the potential from high to medium.
Powerhouse road access. Although no specific route for the final 500 m of the access road has been provided, there is some low to medium archaeological potential for this elevation depending on the specific route,
and its relationship to previous logging activities.
Transmission facilities. The alternate route from the powerhouse to the lakeshore crossing has low to medium potential, while the crossing locations have been impacted by the fluctuating reservoir levels, and have no
potential. The transmission route from the east side of the Arrow Lake crossing to Nakusp has generally low potential, with the exception of creek crossings. These may have some medium to high potential depending
on the extent of past land altering activities associated with highway construction and management.
The proposed transmission line from the powerhouse north to the interconnection at Shelter Bay was not assessed but is expected to have a low to medium potential, similar to the powerhouse and road access.
4.2 Field Surveys
Canadian Hydro has not initiated any archaeological field surveys at the Project. Canadian Hydro is, however, committed to conducting an archaeological assessment of all Project components as soon as field
conditions allow in 1998. A Heritage Inspection Permit will be obtained by D. French prior to doing any field work.
5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The hydro plant is designed as a run-of-river plant producing power from the available creek flow on a daily basis. Creek flows during the winter are not sufficient to provide a minimum eight hours daily production during
the winter low flow period. Based on an analysis of hydrology, economics, water quality, and fisheries impacts, an on-stream headpond with an estimated capacity of 150,000 m3 is required to permit daily shaping.
A portion of the water flowing down the existing creek will be diverted into a concrete intake structure for diversion into a low pressure penstock within a 2000 m tunnel running eastward through a ridge. At the tunnel exit
portal, the buried penstock will convey flows downslope towards the powerhouse generating station on the west shore of Upper Arrow Lake. Generated electric power will be transmitted north via Shelter Bay to interconnect
at B.C. Hydro’s existing Walter Hardman Hydro Plant. From there the power will be transmitted to the Illecillewaet Substation in Revelstoke on the existing transmission line.
5.2 Energy Production and Economics
Energy production is based on the regional hydrological analysis augmented by site streamflow monitoring information discussed in Section 2.3. The site characteristics and plant operation are discussed in Section 5.6. Table
5.1 shows the energy estimate including the average monthly flows and power production for the plant. Annual power production is estimated at 140,000 MWh with a corresponding 64% capacity factor.
The capital cost of the facility is estimated to be $35 million. Based on the economic analysis and assumptions, the return on revenue is appropriate under current economic conditions.
5.3 Project Parameters
The design parameters for the Pingston Project are:
General
Project Name
Pingston Hydro Project
Name of River
Pingston Creek
Power Connection and Sales B.C. Hydro Revelstoke Illecillewaet Substation via Walter Hardman Plant interconnection
Technical
Facility Capacity
25 MW
Water Supply
Pingston Creek
Design Flow Rate
5.4 m;/s
Gross Head
590 m
Generator Type
Synchronous
Turbine Type
Pelton
Tunnel
Arch Type 2.5 m W x 3.2 m H x 2000 mL
Penstock (from intake to PH) Buried steel, 1.5 m and 1.25 m diameter for 2000 m long
Inlet Structure
Reinforced concrete with trashrack, stoplog slots, and gates
Powerhouse
Concrete foundation, block walls, and steel roof
Interconnection Voltage 69 kV
Transmission Line New
13 km Powerhouse to Shelter Bay
3-phase Upgrade 22 km Shelter Bay to Walter Hardman Hydro Plant
Existing
25 km Walter Hardman Hydro Plant to Revelstoke
The site plan and profile for the project is shown in Figure 5.1. This maps shows the location of the proposed intake, penstock and powerhouse relative to the topography, and other major features in the immediate Project
area.
5.4 On-Site and Off-Site Facility Design
5.4.1 Headworks
5.4.1.1 Rationale
The location of the intake and headpond was chosen to provide the best combination of flow and head for the project. The preferred site is immediately upstream of a narrow rock chute and immediately downstream of a
wide flat area in the valley which readily accommodates the headpond. This site achieves the maximum head while maximizing the largest drainage area. Locations further downstream significantly diminish the available
head while locations further upstream reduce the available flow for the plant. As well, existing forestry road access is already established on both sides of the valley, providing good access to the entire headworks site.
5.4.1.2 Design Concept
The headworks consist of the intake structure, weir and dyke, and the headpond located at EL. 1035 m in the Pingston Creek watershed. Drawing 1000 (in envelope) shows the layout for the headworks. The headworks have
been designed to accommodate the 1:200 year flood at dyke crest and to maintain appropriate flows downstream of the intake, including minimum instream flows during low flow periods in the winter.
At high flow, the portion of flow required for power generation will be withdrawn with the majority of the flow continuing over the weir and down the creek. Bed load and suspended sediment will be washed through the
weir via five pipes fitted with gate valves, allowing this material to continue with the natural flow. The intake configuration will impose minimal interference to the natural flow with moderate backwater effects in the river
and will allow the majority of the headworks construction to occur outside the creek’s flow regime.
Water will be backed up behind the weir forming a small headpond of approximately 8.2 ha. The water withdrawal rate will be regulated by the hydro plant control system. A programmable logic controller (PLC) will be
utilized together with a regulated bypass system to ensure proper flow is maintained in the creek at all times.
A portion of the water flowing down the existing creek will be diverted into a concrete intake structure for diversion into a low pressure penstock within a tunnel. An intake gate will enable dewatering of the intake and
penstock for maintenance and inspection. Figures 5.2 and 5.3 show the general arrangement and sections for the headpond, diversion weir and intake. The intake will be oriented perpendicular to the natural flow to deflect
fish and debris away from the intake works. The intake gate structures will be sized to minimize flow velocities into the intake. Trash racks will be placed at the gates to prevent debris from the intake.
Materials required for the construction of the dyke, weir, and related structures is expected to use materials from the excavation of the penstock tunnel and surface excavations of the tunnel portals and at the headworks.
5.4.2.1 Rationale
From the intake, several routes were considered within a 20º radial projection towards Upper Arrow Lake. Two major factors governed the selection of the proposed route, a suitable powerhouse location near Upper Arrow
Lake and access along the penstock route and to the downstream tunnel portal. The selected route meets both these criteria, is the most direct and shortest route, and has several natural attributes (near constant slope, few
gullies or large drainage courses, and adequate soil depth). A portion of the penstock route follows along a previous clearcut area easily accessible from the forestry roads and skid trails already established. The existing
forestry roads also provide good access to the tunnel portal locations at both ends, and provide suitable staging areas during construction.
It is proposed to construct a steel low pressure 1.5 m diameter penstock conduit within an arch-type tunnel running 2000 m through a ridge in an easterly direction. Upon exiting the tunnel, the pipe will be reduced to a 1.25
m diameter buried steel penstock running east for an additional 2000 m towards the powerhouse. In the detailed design phase, surveys will be conducted to finalize route selection and identify all drainage courses,
geotechnical features and specific environmental issues. Based on this information, a final route design and mitigation plan will be developed.
5.4.3.1 Rationale
The preliminary site for the powerhouse was selected based on the location of the tunnel and penstock route. The site is on a low flat rock outcrop area within 600 m of the main forestry road on the west shore of Upper
Arrow Lake at an elevation of 445 m. At this elevation the Project develops 590 m of gross head.
Final site selection of the powerhouse will depend upon the final location of the tunnel and penstock route based on geotechnical investigations, environmental and archaeological studies, and transmission line surveys.
The powerhouse will consist of a concrete substructure and a concrete block building superstructure. It will house the turbines, generators, and control and switchgear equipment. Figure 5.4 shows the powerhouse site plan.
A total of 25 MW of turbine capacity will be installed and will consist of two pelton machines sized to maximize plant efficiency under all seasonal flow conditions.
The powerhouse will have a small footprint (0.5 ha) and will be built as a slab-on-grade design. As a result of the type of turbine selected, minimal excavation and blasting will be required. The tailrace channel will be
approximately 3 m wide and will be designed to meander from the powerhouse to the reservoir, enabling a buffer of trees to hide the powerhouse from view. The tailrace will resemble a small stream as it enters the
reservoir. It will be designed so as not to allow fish passage into the tailrace from Upper Arrow Lake.
At the powerhouse site approximately 2.5 ha will be cleared to accommodate the plant building, vehicle access and turn around, and a small maintenance shack.
Generated electrical power at 13.8 kV will be converted to 69 kV for transmission using a step-up transformer located adjacent to the powerhouse. From this point, generated power can be sold to B.C. Hydro or through the
B.C. Hydro transmission system to a customer anywhere in the province.
5.4.4.1 Alternatives
The two interconnection options were evaluated by considerations of cost, length of new ROW, and social and visual impact.
5.4.4.1.1 Alternative 1 - Nakusp Option
This route would consist of running a 69 kV three-phase line from the powerhouse across the lake utilizing a submarine cable, then south along Highway 23 to interconnect to the B.C. Hydro system at their substation in
Nakusp. In discussions with B.C. Hydro (Mr. Gino Valli, May 10, 1996), the 3 km, 69 kV submarine cable (one cable for each phase) can be installed across the Upper Arrow Lake in a similar manner to the cable
installation done by B.C. Hydro from Shelter Bay to Galena Bay in 1995.
On the east side of the Upper Arrow Lake, the line would run on traditional overhead wood poles for transmission parallel and adjacent to Highway 23 for a distance of approximately 32 km to the village of Nakusp. In
Nakusp, the line would utilize existing B.C. Hydro poles which cross the Kuskanax River and continue through Nakusp. The line would connect into circuit 60L210 at the Nakusp substation.
5.4.4.1.2 Alternative 2 - Revelstoke Option
This route would consist of a 69 kV three-phase line that runs from the powerhouse north via Shelter Bay to interconnect at B.C. Hydro’s existing Walter Hardman Hydro Plant. From there the power will be transmitted to
the city of Revelstoke. Approximately 13 km of new ROW would be required from the plant to Shelter Bay along the existing forest service road.
The section between Shelter Bay and the Walter Hardman Plant would need to be upgraded to accommodate the three-phase Pingston line, with the single phase Shelter Bay-Trout Lake line under-hung below, on the same
poles. No additional ROW clearing is anticipated. Interconnection at the Walter Hardman Plant would be made possible by up-rating the existing facilities from 46 kV to 69 kV. This requires replacement of two existing
transformers: one at the Hardman Plant, and one at the Illecillewaet substation in Revelstoke. The line was originally constructed to 69 kV standards, so little or no work will be required along this 25 km section.
5.4.4.1.3 Evaluation of Alternatives
B.C. Hydro has suggested they would prefer the Nakusp route option (Jim Clouston, B.C. Hydro, pers. comm.) due to the added system support and security of supply available from the Pingston generation. To add to this
benefit, B.C. Hydro has requested the Pingston Project include designs for black start capabilities and load frequency control. Although not considered significant, costs have not been included for these items.
Cost for the Nakusp option was estimated in consultation with B.C. Hydro at $5.36 million. This figure includes $3.0 million for the submarine cable crossing.
The Nakusp route option will add value to the lands adjacent to Highway 23 from Halcyon Hot Springs to Nakusp. A power line running along this corridor potentially opens the area to development by providing access to
electricity. The line is, however, a transmission facility not designed for distribution of power. Distribution facilities could be provided by construction of a substation at any point along the line, consisting of transformation
from 69 kV to 25 kV, along with voltage regulation equipment. Distribution could then be provided by line strung on the same poles under the 69 kV line. The new owners of Halcyon Hot Springs have indicated an interest
in purchasing power from such a facility, as this would likely represent their most economical source of power.
The benefit to the local community in running the power line north to Revelstoke is that it provides the option of supplying the City with a stable and low cost electricity supply in an anticipated deregulated environment.
Preliminary discussions in this regard have been held with the Mayor (Geoff Battersby, Mayor, City of Revelstoke, pers. comm., January, 1998). A formal presentation was made by Canadian Hydro to the Mayor and
Revelstoke City Council on January 26, 1998. The project was given a high degree of acceptance and the concept of power substations to the City appeared reasonable.
Cost for the Revelstoke option has been estimated in consultation with B.C. Hydro at $3.93 million.
Although a comprehensive evaluation of the visual and environmental impacts of these alternatives was not conducted, it is assumed that the Nakusp alternative will have a greater visual impact and face stronger objections
from local residents because of the visual intrusiveness of a transmission line along a well travelled highway. In contrast, the new line required for the Revelstoke alternative is along a forestry access road which experiences
a much lower level of traffic and is less visible from the Upper Arrow Lake.
From an environmental stand point the two alternatives may be comparable. The Nakusp alternative requires a large portion of new ROW, through Class 1 ungulate winter range, whereas the Revelstoke alternative option
will increase habitat fragmentation and disturb portions of old-growth forest.
Table 5.2 provides a comparison of the two route alternatives.
Table 5.2 Comparison of Transmission Line Route Alternatives
alternative 1
alternative 2
Nakusp
Revelstoke
Cost ($ million)
$5.36
$3.93
Cost Risk
Higher
Lower
New ROW
32 km
13 km
B.C. Hydro Benefit
Higher
Lower
Social Implications
Opens Hwy. 23 corridor to development
Potential stable and low cost supply of power to Revelstoke
Higher
Lower
Visual Impact
The Revelstoke alternative has been chosen as the preferred route for the following reasons:
●
●
●
Lower costs and a higher degree of reliability in the estimates due to the elimination of the lake crossing.
Shorter length of new line required - 13 km versus 32 km. The Revelstoke route takes advantage of existing line, with the assumed reduction in visual impact.
The Highway 23 corridor from Halcyon to Nakusp will not develop as quickly without the availability of electricity. The Revelstoke alternative will postpone any negative environmental effects that development
would cause in this area.
5.5 Construction
5.5.1 Overview
Two major project considerations for the scheduling of construction are the significant snow during winter and the instream work periods for Pingston Creek. Having constructed the nearby Akolkolex Hydro Plant in 1994,
Canadian Hydro has gained experience with respect to undertaking construction in this mountainous terrain. Consequently, it is believed that construction should take place during the summer period to ensure adequate
contingency for weather and associated impacts.
5.5.2 Schedule
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
The project schedule has been developed to accomplish a number of project objectives as follows:
Engineering field investigations and detailed surveys prior to winter 1998/1999.
Preliminary engineering in late 1998.
Detailed engineering in first half of 1999.
Procurement and manufacture of long delivery (>10 months) major equipment in 1999.
Site Preparation and tunnel construction in 1999.
Tendering of remaining major construction packages, fall 1999.
Headworks, penstock, powerhouse and transmission line construction in 2000.
Instream work in Pingston Creek, July to September 2000.
Commissioning and commercial operation of hydroelectric plant, October/November 2000.
The approach allows sufficient float to accommodate weather and other external factors and avoids significant construction in winter. Table 5.3 is a summary of the main milestones.
Table 5.3 Project Design and Construction Milestones
Item
Duration
Period
EAP Approvals
8 months
January - October 1998
Engineering Design & Major Equipment Design
10 months
November 1998 - June 1999
Tunnel
9 months
March - November 1999
Headworks
7 months
April - October 2000
Penstock
9 months
September 1999 - May 2000
Powerhouse
13 months
August 1999 - September 2000
Transmission Line
12 months
October 1999 - September 2000
Startup Operations
-
November 2000
The preliminary project schedule for engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning is shown in Figure 5.5.
Construction packages will vary depending on the scheduling and design issues, contractor availability, site specific conditions and weather factors. The major construction packages envisaged at this time are:
a) Site Preparation (clearing and constructing and upgrading access roads and trails);
b) Tunnel Excavation and Portals;
c) Construction of Headworks;
d) Tunnel and Buried Penstock;
e) Powerhouse and Switchyard (civil and structural);
f) Powerhouse and Switchyard (mechanical and electrical); and,
g) Transmission Line.
Other miscellaneous contracts will be required for small components of the work. The critical items for construction are the turbine/generator manufacturing period (12 months), tunnel construction period (nine months,
from March to November), and the instream work period in Pingston Creek (three months, July to September). Due to the harsh winter climate and the severely restricted access, the work has been scheduled to avoid the
December to February period for any major construction activities.
5.5.3 Headworks
Two access road routes exist from Shelter Bay at the Highway 23 turnoff to the headworks. It is expected that minimal access road improvements will be required and will be restricted to road surfacing. Base course work
will not be required. Consideration may also be given to constructing a temporary bridge across Pingston Creek at the headworks to accommodate construction. This temporary bridge structure will be removed at the
completion of construction.
Site preparation at the headworks will consist of removing the standing timber and shrubs but leaving the grasses and ground cover in place. Tree stumps will also be left in place. The objective will be to retain the integrity
of the ground cover to help stabilize soils, and perimeter of the headpond. Removal of trees and shrubs will prevent damage and operational difficulties at the intake, weir and dyke structures.
Construction of the tunnel and penstock will require blasting and mining of about 16,000 m3 of rock. It is intended that excavated rock will be used to construct the weir and dyke, for riprap protection around the base of the
headpond, and possibly road improvements. Should additional fill materials be required, they will be sourced near the intake site, preferably from within the new headpond area. Borrow sites will be located outside the active
creek floodplain, and follow appropriate methods for excavation in order to avoid erosion and danger to humans and wildlife. Any application to establish a borrow site will include location, operational procedures and
reclamation plans.
The 2 km long tunnel required to convey water out of the Pingston Creek valley will be either lined or unlined depending on rock quality. Canadian Hydro expects the rock quality will not be adequate, without significant
additional expenditure to operate the tunnel as an unlined conduit. It is proposed to excavate a minimum size tunnel using conventional drill/blast/muck methods, and employing stabilization as necessary (i.e. rock bolting,
concrete, shotcrete). Subsequently, a steel penstock with a 1.5 m diameter will be installed inside the tunnel on steel or concrete saddles. This will allow frequent and thorough inspection and maintenance of the penstock. It
will also permit easy and direct operator access to the intake from the downstream portal. The penstock will be of low pressure design with a bell-and-spigot “O”-ring joint. Wall thickness will be 9 mm or less.
On emerging from the tunnel, the penstock will be installed underground with a minimum cover of 0.5 m. It will increase in wall thickness and decrease in diameter (to a minimum of 1.25 m) as it descends toward the
powerhouse. Concrete anchor blocks will be installed at significant vertical and horizontal bends and at the powerhouse.
It is expected that the trench depth will be less than 2 m and that the required construction ROW will be approximately 15 m. Current access roads provide several access points to the penstock route and the downstream
tunnel portal. Some short access trails from the existing roads and skid trails will be required but these are expected to fall within 50 m of the existing cut block limits.
The Project has a gross head of 590 m and is well suited to a pelton turbine (an impulse machine whose runner cannot be submerged). This allows the unit to be built above the high water level which will not require deep
excavations adjacent to the lake. The specific layout of the machine differs among manufacturers, however, the preferred configuration is a horizontal axis machine which allows a small powerhouse footprint and concrete
slab-on-grade type construction with a small concrete discharge chamber to the tailrace channel. The powerhouse location is a flat area with apparent good rock conditions which will be ideal for siting the powerhouse back
from the lake shoreline. This should provide good foundation conditions and require only a small tailrace channel excavated in the rock to lead to Upper Arrow Lake.
An existing forestry road, approximately 13 km south from Shelter Bay, will be used to access the powerhouse. A new 600 m long access road will need to be constructed from the main forestry road to the powerhouse.
Approximately half of this distance will be along the south edge of an existing cut block, the remainder through mature and old-growth forest.
No new access roads are required for the construction of the transmission line, however, along the 13 km of existing forestry road, the ROW will have to be expanded to allow for the necessary powerline clearances. The
section of line between Shelter Bay and the Walter Hardman Plant was constructed by B.C. Hydro to service the community of Trout Lake, and will require upgrading to 3-phase, 69 kV standards but no additional clearing.
All new line will be constructed using single wood pole structures of traditional cross-arm construction. The poles will be treated with the preferred preservative chromate copper arsenate (CCA). Although the standard
ROW clearing width for this style of pole and 69 kV line is 20 m, it is expected that the ROW clearing width will vary depending upon the terrain, creek crossing setbacks, and private land requirements. During construction
of the transmission line, selective logging, timber salvage, and vegetation clearing will be performed according to the new B.C. Forest Practices Code Act. In this regard, planning of the alignment and construction and
operation of the line will be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner.
5.6 Operations and Maintenance
5.6.1 General
Canadian Hydro has a comprehensive understanding of the operating conditions in the Upper Arrow Lake region as a result of the operation of its 10 MW Akolkolex Hydroelectric Plant located 30 km to the north of the
proposed Project.
The Pingston Hydro Plant will be operated in a similar manner to all of Canadian Hydro plants and in particular similar to the Akolkolex Hydro Plant. The plant will be designed with a fully automatic control system and
supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. This will enable it to be operated without personnel on-site full time. An operator will, however, conduct routine maintenance and inspections. Access to site will
be by existing access roads by truck in the summer and by snowmobile in winter if road access is not suitable for truck traffic. Access to the headworks can be gained by either access road or through the tunnel from the
hydro plant side. The plant is continuously monitored by the control system and reports to the operator located in town via a radio data link and telephone lines.
Manual surveillance will be accomplished on a daily basis through routine operations. Electronic surveillance in the form of an alarm and shutdown system will monitor:
- Plant intrusion (unauthorized entry)
- Penstock failure/uncontrolled water flow
- High sump level
- Fire
Plant shutdown as a result of:
●
●
●
●
electrical faults
hydraulic power unit low oil level, high temperature, low pressure
intake gate failure
generator/turbine bearing low oil level, high temperature.
Alarm status will be monitored remotely, 24 hours per day, via a secure radio link and telephone lines. An alarm event would trigger an appropriate control action. For example, penstock failure would shut the plant down,
close the intake gate, and alert the operator. If not acknowledged, an alternate phone number would be dialled. Phoning would continue until the alarm was properly acknowledged. The alarm would cause the plant to "lockout", prohibiting an automatic re-start until an operator corrected the problem and manually re-set the alarm.
In the summer (April to October), the headpond level will be maintained near the weir crest level of 1035 m, whereas in the winter (November to March), the headpond level will fluctuate on a daily basis. The extent of daily
headpond fluctuations will vary throughout the winter to a maximum of 4 m.
A minimum instream flow of 0.3 m3/s will be maintained in Pingston Creek immediately downstream of the headworks during winter operations. In spring, summer and fall seasons, flows will overtop the weir such that
downstream flows will range from 21.5 m3/s in June to 1.9 m3/s in September.
5.6.2 Plant Control Systems
The plant will be operated in an automatic mode by Canadian Hydro personnel resident in Revelstoke. A head water level transducer will continuously monitor the intake water level and provide the prime control input to:
●
●
●
maintain optimal flow in Pingston Creek;
control the amount of water flowing through the turbines so that output is maximized within the intake water level and stream flow constraints; and,
control turbine operation to ensure maximum energy generation.
A remote alarm system will be provided to ensure operations are adequately monitored for the safety and protection of the environment, personnel and the plant.
Power will be generated at 13.8 kV and stepped up to 69 kV through a power transformer located adjacent to the powerhouse. Interconnection to B.C. Hydro will be made via a 69 kV circuit breaker and transmission line to
the point of delivery at the Walter Hardman Plant. Canadian Hydro will provide a comprehensive utility grade generator switchboard and protection package. Station service will be taken off the 13.8 kV bus and stepped
down through a station service transformer. All critical control functions will be backed up by a 125 V DC battery system.
The plant will incorporate an automatic control system which will adjust turbine valves providing fine flow control to maintain the water level at the intake. Power outages or interruptions on the utility side of the main
power transformer will cause the plant to shut down and, when the conditions clear, to automatically re-start and come on line. Critical shutdown functions will cause a lock-out and require an operator to visit the site to
correct the problem and restart the machine.
Full time operations and maintenance personnel will be hired to operate the Pingston Hydroelectric Facility in conjunction with Canadian Hydro Developers Akolkolex Hydro Plant located 25 km south of Revelstoke.
5.6.3 Forced and Planned Outages
A forced outage means an occurrence of a component failure or other condition which requires the generating unit be removed from service immediately. A planned outage means the removal of a generating unit from
service for inspection or general repair. This work is usually scheduled well in advance.
Canadian Hydro has been operating its hydro plants for over seven years. Statistics are kept for each plant on the amount of time in any given month that the plant is operating. This time also includes periods when the utility
was unable to accept power. Since operation began at Canadian Hydro’s four western plants, the average monthly outage rate has been 2.5%.
We estimate performance of the Pingston hydro facility to be no less than our current experience. Total estimated outages are as follows:
●
Utility not able to accept power (2 days per year)
0.5%
●
Forced outage (4 days per year)
1.0%
●
Planned outage (4 days per year)
1.0%
●
Total Outage
2.5%
The conservative figure of 3.0% has been used for the economic analysis.
5.6.4 Headworks
At high flow the portion of flow required for power generation can be withdrawn but the majority of the flow will flow through or over the weir and continue down the creek.
Water withdrawal rate will be regulated by the hydro plant control system. A programmable logic controller (PLC) will be utilized together with a regulated bypass system to ensure proper flow is maintained in the creek at
all times.
An intake gate will enable dewatering of the intake and penstock for maintenance and inspection.
Vehicle access to the headworks will be by existing forestry roads. Winter access to the headworks will be by snowmobile.
The tunnel design will allow frequent inspection and maintenance of the penstock within the tunnel. It will also permit easy and direct operator access to the intake from the downstream portal.
Access to the powerhouse will be by the existing forestry roads approximately 13 km south from Shelter Bay.
Access to the line for purposes of maintenance will be controlled and vegetation management will be by mechanical means only, avoiding the use of herbicides.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS
The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed project are addressed in the following sections including an assessment of environmental impact significance, proposed mitigation and a summary of
residual impacts.
6.1 Area of Influence
The Project could potentially have an influence on the environment at local and regional levels. At the local level, Project components will each have a distinct footprint of disturbance. Local or site level influences might
include air, land, water, and biological constituents permanently lost, temporarily disrupted and later replaced, negligibly affected, or possibly with a positive effect. Regional influences relate primarily to spatial and
temporal effects.
Overall, the Project has a very small footprint. The headworks together will cover an area of 8.7 ha at Maximum Operating Level (MOL). The tunnel has a small footprint at each portal entrance totalling 0.5 ha. The
penstock will be buried, but will have a temporary footprint during construction of 15 ha over the full length of the cleared corridor. The powerhouse and tailrace have a permanent footprint of 1 ha during plant operation.
The transmission line will have a temporary footprint of disturbance related to the corridor clearing and support pole placement followed by minimal maintenance disturbance.
The Project is situated between the two communities of Revelstoke and Nakusp, and on the boundaries of two Regional Districts and two Forest Districts. The effect of the Project on these communities is influenced by the
general state of the local economy, the influence the Project will have on the local labour force and employment and community services (transportation, housing, medical, education, etc.).
The project straddles three First Nations traditional territories of the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council, the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and the Okanagan Tribal Council.
6.2 Categories of Impacts
Small hydro developments, which are normally run-of-river hydro schemes, have advantages over large scale hydro developments. The latter consists of large dams and extensive reservoirs. Small hydro developments,
however, such as the Project may exhibit some of the following environmental and social-economic effects:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
effects on fish populations including fish entrainment, migration, and bioaccumulation of methyl mercury in fish using the headpond;
effects on fish habitat including instream flow needs downstream of the intake and alteration of fish habitat at the headpond;
sedimentation and nutrient trapping in the headpond, sediment transport past the weir, metals loading and acid rock generation from waste rock taken from the tunnel construction, and total gas pressure at the tailrace;
effects on wildlife habitat including alteration, loss, and fragmentation;
effects on wildlife populations including disturbance, disruption of established patterns, and direct mortality;
air quality issues related to noise, dust, and greenhouse gas flux associated with the creation of the headpond;
socio-economic effects related to labour, employment, and economy in the area; and
cultural and heritage effects.
6.3 Assessment of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
The magnitude of the Project’s effect on the environment depends upon the proponent’s ability to avoid sensitive areas by examining alternatives and implementing environmentally sensitive designs, construction
techniques, and operational plans. In the following sections Canadian Hydro will demonstrate how many of these issues can be mitigated through facility design, construction and operation.
The proposed Project has evolved to a preliminary design level in consideration of alternatives from both engineering and environmental perspectives. Each of the Project components has been planned with environmental
management and contingencies built into the design, construction, and operation of the various project components including the headworks, tunnel and penstock, powerhouse and tailrace, and transmission line.
The assessment of impacts is based on; 1) magnitude of an effect; 2) direction of an effect; 3) duration of an effect; and 4) spatial extent. Each of these is described in more detail below.
1. Magnitude is based on the relative degree by which an environmental component (e.g., vegetation, fish habitat, wildlife habitat, air, etc.) could be altered including both the amount and quality of change in
the component. A high magnitude impact carries a high potential for environmental damage or public concern whereas a low magnitude impact carries a limited potential. A moderate impact occurs between
the two. An impact of none indicates a negligible or non-existent impact. Impacts of concern are those which cause changes extending beyond the natural limits or existing carrying capacity of an ecological
system.
2. The direction of an effect is measured by changes in the quality or quantity of an environmental component. Negative impacts are those that reduce the quality or quantity of the environmental component.
Conversely positive impacts increase the quality or quantity of the environmental component. Neutral impacts do not change an environmental component.
3. The duration of an effect is the period of time required for an environmental component to recover from an impact resulting from project activities. Duration is either short-term or long-term. Short-term
effects have been arbitrarily set at five years or less and long-term as greater than five years.
4. The spatial extent of an impact is based on the area of occurrence. Local impacts are defined as those which occur at project component sites and in the immediate vicinity. Regional impacts are those which
occur between the two communities of Revelstoke and Nakusp.
It is acknowledged that definitions of magnitude, direction, duration and spatial extent of an impact are subjective and that application of these definitions is dependent on the particular environmental component, issue and
impact under consideration.
6.3.1 Design
Table 6.1 summarizes the anticipated environmental effects of the Project, impact significance, mitigation measures, and residual impacts for the design phase.
6.3.1.1 Headworks
The primary environmental concern related to the design of the headworks is the proper allocation of flows downstream of the headworks. Maintaining the minimum instream flow (MIF) reduces the impact of alteration of
downstream fish habitat, deterioration of the benthic invertebrate communities, and fragmentation of riverine habitat for aquatic mammals.
Table 6.1 Design Phase: Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Project Component
Headworks
Impact Category
Fish populations
Potential Impacts
Significance Prior to
Mitigationa
Mitigation Measuresb
Residual Impacts After
Mitigationc
Entrainment at the intake
Moderate, negative, long-term, Perpendicular placement of intake headgate to
local
flow; Reduction of intake flow velocities;
Selection of suitable behavioural barriers
None
Blockage of fish passage at the weir
Low, negative, long-term, local Design accommodates fish passage if required
None
Disruption of spawning upstream and
downstream
Low, negative, short-term,
local
Observe timing windows
None
Reduction of flow downstream of weir
High, negative, long-term,
local
Provision of minimum flow requirements
Low, negative, long-term,
local
Habitat alteration from pool/riffle to pool/glide
Moderate, neutral, long-term,
local
Low operating level design of 2.5 m above
channel bed; Retention of riparian vegetation
Moderate, positive, long-term,
local
Alteration of downstream benthic invertebrate
community
Moderate, negative, long-term, Provision of minimum flow requirements
local
local
Alteration of upstream benthic invertebrate
community
Moderate, negative, long-term, Low operating level design of 2.5 m above
local
channel bed; Retention of riparian vegetation
Low, positive, long-term,
local
Accumulation of sediment at the headpond
Moderate, negative, long-term, Bypass pipes and gate valve in the weir
local
local
Acid rock drainage and
metals loading
Changes in water chemistry
Low, negative, long-term, local Test excavated materials prior to use in
construction
None
Wildlife habitat
Loss of amphibian breeding pools
local
None
Fish habitat
Establish berm to prevent flooding of the small
drainage channel to the west of Pingston Creek
Alteration of benthic invertebrate community
Low, negative, long-term, local Provision of minimum flow requirements,
Improved conditions upstream
Low, positive, long-term,
local
Loss of riparian buffer strip and fragmentation
of movement corridors
Low, negative, long-term, local Preserve upslope forest edge to provide
alternative habitat and corridor
local
Loss of riparian grassland/shrubland
Low, negative, long-term, local Preserve upslope grassland/shrubland habitat
local
Loss of potential denning habitat
Low, negative, long-term, local Presence of dens needs to be determined
local
Loss of American Dipper habitat
Low, negative, long-term, local Maintain summer instream flows; Preserve
small drainage channel to the west of Pingston
Creek
None
Loss of small rodent habitat
Low, negative, long-term, local None anticipated
local
Flooding of nests, eggs and young during
normal fill and drawdown
Moderate, negative, short-term, Retain maximum water levels from mid-April None
local
to late June; Remove vegetation between
minimum and maximum water levels to prevent
nesting
Mortality of hibernating amphibians and small
mammals
local
Retain maximum water levels from midSeptember to late October
None
Fish populations
No anticipated impacts
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fish habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildlife habitat
Fragmentation of old-growth forest
regional
Narrow linear alignment; Avoid removal of
large trees
Moderate, negative, longterm, regional
Loss of site-specific habitat features
Moderate, negative, long-term, Route selection to minimize removal; Narrow
local
linear alignment
local
N/A
N/A
Fish passage through turbines
Low, negative, long-term, local Design of headgate at intake; Block fish
passage up tailrace
None
Disturbance from blasting
local
Construction to occur during low water levels
in Upper Arrow Lake
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildlife populations
Tunnel and Penstock
Powerhouse and Tailrace Fish populations
Fish habitat
N/A
Wildlife habitat
Transmission Line
Loss and fragmentation of old-growth forest
Moderate, negative, long-term, Route selection to minimize disturbance;
regional
Narrow linear alignment
Moderate, negative, longterm, regional
Habitat loss
Moderate, negative, long-term, Narrow footprint
local
local
Moderate, negative, long-term, Narrow linear alignment; Avoid site-specific
local
features
local
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fish populations
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fish habitat
Disruption of spawning at stream crossings
Moderate, negative, short-term, Observe timing windows as required
local
local
Wildlife habitat
Loss of old-growth forest
regional
regional
Habitat loss
Moderate, negative, long-term, Narrow right-of-way width
regional
local
Moderate, negative, long-term, Narrow linear alignment
local
local
Mortality from electrocution
Low, negative, long-term, local Use power pole design approved by MELP
None
Mortality from entanglement in transmission
lines
Low, negative, long-term, local None anticipated
local
Footnotes:
a: Assessment of impact significance is based on the following considerations:
Magnitude:
High
Has a high potential for environmental damage or public concern
Moderate Has a moderate potential for environmental damage or public concern
Direction:
Low
Has a limited potential for environmental damage or public concern
None
Has negligible or no expected environmental damage or public concern
Negative
Reduces the quality or quantity of an environmental component
Positive
Increases the quality or quantity of an environmental component
Neutral
Does not change the quantity of an environmental component
Select route to avoid larger sections of oldgrowth forest
Duration:
Short-term Five years of less
Long-term Greater than five years
Spatial Extent: Local
Regional
Occur at project component sites and in the immediate vicinity
Occur between the two communities of Revelstoke and Nakusp
b. Mitigation measures are methods that will be used to reduce the significance of an impact.
c. Residual impacts are effects that will remain after mitigation measures are in place.
Based on an analysis of the stream hydrology, including actual stream flow monitoring for the past 28 months, Canadian Hydro has determined the appropriate MIF immediately downstream of the headworks should be 0.3
m3/s. This MIF represents 16% of the mean winter flow at this location.
Ledge Creek enters Pingston Creek approximately 7 km downstream of the headworks and provides approximately 30% of the total basin flow from this point to the mouth of Pingston Creek. This section from the
headworks to Ledge Creek, will be affected by a reduction in flows, primarily during winter months. However, along this reach several drainages enter Pingston Creek. Based on the base flow analysis for the region, the
contribution of these drainages has been estimated to arrive at total winter flows in Pingston Creek for this reach. Using the 0.3 m3/s MIF release at the headworks of the hydro plant (16% of mean winter flow) the flow rate
at the midpoint of the reach (Reach 6) is 0.38 m3/s (20% mean winter flow) and at the downstream end of the reach at the confluence of Ledge Creek, it is 0.52 m3/s (26% mean winter flow). Once Ledge Creek joins
Pingston, the flow rate increases to 1.27 m3/s (46% mean winter flow) for the winter period. Table 6.2 presents downstream flow calculations during winter operations. Figure 6.1 illustrates the increase in base flow from the
headworks to Ledge Creek during winter operations.
Table 6.2 Estimation of Mean Winter Flows Downstream of the Diversion Works
Drainage Area
Downstream Distance
Natural mean winter creek flow
Post-construction mean winter creek flow
Percent of natural mean winter flow
(km2)
(km)
(m3/s)
(m3/s)
(m3/s)
180.0
0.0
1.82
0.30
16%
Creek #1
7.5
1.1
1.90
0.38
20%
Creek #2
14.3
5.1
2.04
0.52
26%
Ledge Creek
74.3
5.8
2.79
1.27
46%
Diversion Works
Figure 6.1 Pingston Creek, Mean Winter Creek Flows Downstream of Headpond
Fish entrainment at the intake is another important issue. The Project components have been laid out in such a fashion to minimize the potential for entrainment and provide suitable velocity regimes for fish at the intake.
The intake will be oriented perpendicular to the main channel, forcing the flow stream lines to bend sharply before entering the intake. This imposes a natural deflection of fish and debris away from the intake works. The
intake dimensions allow for velocities through the inlet in the 0.1 to 0.3 m/s range, depending on headpond level and plant flow. Figure 6.2 illustrates the flow velocities expected through the inlet (Sections 1, 2 and 3) at the
intake during both summer (April to October) and winter (November to March) operations. These dimensions were chosen to provide a reasonable opportunity for fish to escape (see Table 6.3), as well as to avoid deposition
of materials in front of the intake.
Figure 6.2 Headpond Water Levels and Velocities at the Intake during Summer and Winter Months
Table 6.3 Burst Swimming Speeds of Rainbow Trout (adapted from DFO and MELP, 1995; and Slaney and Zaldokas, 1997))
Life Stage
Swim Speed (m/s)
Sustained Prolonged Burst
Young of the Year (50 mm)
0.9
0.3 - 0.45 0.4
Juvenile (125 mm)
0.4
0.75 - 1.13 1.1
Adult
0.9
1.8 - 4.3
4.3
Canadian Hydro and their consultants have also examined the possibility of using fish behavioural deterrents (i.e. strobes, bubble curtains, sound) at the intake to deter fish as an alternative to using fish screens. Canadian
Hydro’s experience at the Akolkolex Hydro Plant suggests although fish screens might be effective in keeping fish from being drawn into the intake, they also tend to collect suspended and floating debris to the point of
seriously affecting the efficiency of the intake and plant. This aspect of the Project design will be examined further during the detailed design phase.
Preliminary fisheries survey completed by Klohn-Crippen (1997) suggest that fish migration upstream through the chute, located 100 m downstream of the weir, will be unlikely given high flow velocities and small fish size
in the creek. Although fish migration structures have not been designed as part of the headworks, Canadian Hydro is cognisant of the requirement not to block fish migration. The headpond dyke has been designed to
accommodate the installation of a fish passage structure at a later date should it be necessary.
Fish habitat and benthic invertebrate communities will also be affected by the deposition of sediment at the headpond. Based on research conducted by B.C. Hydro on streams flowing into Upper Arrow Lake, the amount of
sediment transported by Pingston Creek has been estimated at 1,500 m3/year. Prorating this by drainage area, the sediment load at the headworks has been estimated at 600 m3 annually. The headworks have been designed
to allow this material to pass downstream. From an operations and environmental perspective, it is best to not trap sediments with the diversion structures. For this reason, several large bypass pipes have been included
through the diversion weir, as well as a main bypass gate adjacent to the intake. During high sediment transport periods (i.e. high flow periods), these bypass systems will be opened to allow the sediments to pass by the
headworks. In medium flow periods, some manipulation of the bypass systems will be required to facilitate the movement of sediment while sustaining plant operation. During winter months, the minimum instream flow
will be provided by a bypass pipe located at the bottom of the intake to allow any sediment and nutrients in the lower strata to continue downstream.
Habitat in the main channel at the headpond will change from the present pool/riffle type to a pool/run type for most of the year. Although the instream habitat being flooded represents marginal fisheries rearing and adult
holding habitat, and poor spawning and overwintering habitat, the headpond could provide positive fish habitat gains. For example, if the headpond is maintained at MOL from April to October, the headpond could
potentially improve rearing habitat in the shrub/grass covered shallows and adult holding conditions in the deeper sections. Sediment deposition takes place over many years and may eventually provide a suitable sized
substrate for spawning near the upper section of the headpond. During winter months (November to March) the minimum operating level design of 2.5 m above the channel bed would potentially improve overwintering
conditions.
Habitat for benthic invertebrate communities should also improve with the altered conditions at the headpond providing positive food resource benefits for fish, birds and mammals dependent on aquatic invertebrates and
fish.
Canadian Hydro expects to generate approximately 16 000 m3 of waste rock during the construction of the tunnel and portal entrances. The waste rock will be used as construction material in various locations such as the
weir structure, rip-rap protection around the base of the headpond, and road improvements. The generation of acid rock drainage and metals loading to the creek from this waste rock has been raised as a potential issue. The
geology of the Pingston Creek watershed is similar to that of the Akolkolex River watershed which is non-acid generating. For this reason, the waste rock is not expected to contribute substantially to metals loading into
Pingston Creek or to a reduced pH resulting from acid rock drainage (ARD). Any waste rock used for construction will be tested prior to use.
The flooding of the headpond will cover the riparian buffer strip on the west bank of Pingston Creek and the adjacent grassland/shrubland community. Both provide breeding and feeding habitat for amphibians, birds and
probably small mammals. The buffer strip may also serve as a movement corridor, especially for birds. Although locally the magnitude of the habitat loss is expected to be moderate to high and the duration long-term, the
habitat lost covers a relatively small area and similar habitat exists in other portions of the Pingston Creek basin. Currently there is similar habitat just upslope of the headpond. Construction activities should be concentrated
in the area that will eventually be flooded to minimize disturbance to the upslope habitat.
Flooding the headpond will also remove streambank habitat that could potentially provide denning sites for mammals, including Mink, River Otter, Ermine and small rodents. No mitigation is anticipated since surveys in
1997 found evidence of Mink and Ermine at the headpond site but no evidence to suggest that denning occurs here. River Otters may also occur in the Pingston Creek basin, but none were found at the site.
A number of ponds and pools in the riparian grassland community to be flooded were found to provide excellent breeding habitat for the common amphibians in the area (Boreal Toad, Spotted Frog and Pacific Tree Frog).
The most important amphibian breeding sites lie along the small drainage channel to the west of Pingston Creek. This potential loss of habitat could be removed from the headpond by cutting it off from the headpond and
retaining it in its natural state. This drainage may also provide be important American Dipper feeding habitat since a pair was found here during wildlife surveys in 1997. This species likely nests nearby, possibly in the
rapids and chute 100 m downstream of the weir, however, the location of the nest was not found. Maintaining current summer instream flows should not affect the potential downstream nesting conditions and protection of
the drainage channel should preserve the food source for this species.
Direct mortality resulting from the normal operating regime at the headpond is not expected due to consistently high water levels in the headpond during breeding activity and nest and hibernation site selection. Amphibians
and hibernating mammals spend the winter underground below the frost line. If hibernation sites are chosen during periods of low water levels but below the maximum fill line, subsequent filling of the headpond could
lower the frost line and kill the hibernators. By retaining maximum water levels during these critical life stages, roughly mid-April to late June and mid-September to late October the problem can be mitigated. In addition,
the habitat between the minimum operating level and maximum fill could be made unattractive for breeding and hibernation.
6.3.1.2 Tunnel and Penstock
A portion of the penstock route traverses old-growth forest. Fragmentation and loss of this habitat type is a regional concern. Although surveys conducted in 1997 did not find evidence of rare or endangered species or
species sensitive to fragmentation (such as some species of owls, wolverine or fisher) in this area, the continuity of this habitat should be maintained. The penstock route has a narrow linear alignment and the removal of
large trees can be minimized to preserve habitat continuity at the forest canopy level. Construction staging areas will not be located within old-growth forest. Rather, existing forestry roads and sorting areas will be used.
The expected construction corridor width is 15 m for the penstock. This clearing may potentially affect wildlife habitat by removing site-specific habitat features that are critical for some species (such as fallen logs and large
standing trees with cavities). The route can be selected to avoid sensitive areas with a high density of these features, and removal of these can be minimized during construction. Also, large trees that cannot be avoided can
be left behind to decompose naturally, providing habitat for a wide range of species.
6.3.1.3 Powerhouse and Tailrace
Habitat along the west shoreline of Upper Arrow Lake at the tailrace consists of exposed bedrock with water depths ranging from 15 m at FSL to 3 m at the minimum lake level. Fish habitat is considered marginal and the
tailrace is not expected to adversely affect fish habitat.
Fish mortality will occur at the powerhouse if fish pass through the turbines. In addition to the design of the intake headgate which reduces fish entrainment, the tailrace channel will be blocked to prevent upstream passage
from Upper Arrow Lake to the turbines.
The powerhouse has been designed to have a small footprint and will require clearing an area of 0.5 ha. The construction staging area will be kept small and site-specific habitat features will be avoided. The access road to
the powerhouse will be sited to minimize disturbance to old-growth forest and site-specific habitat features.
6.3.1.4 Transmission Line
The transmission line route crosses a number of small streams that provide fish spawning and rearing habitat. To ensure minimal impact the appropriate timing windows will be observed.
The portion of the route from the powerhouse to Shelter Bay will require approximately 13 km of new cleared ROW adjacent to the existing forest service road. According to forest cover maps, portions of the route will
traverse old-growth forest. Mitigation measures to minimize impact are route selection to avoid large, contiguous blocks of old-growth forest and site-specific habitat features. Since the existing forest service road is close to
the shore of Upper Arrow Lake, the habitat units between the road and the lake will generally be smaller and more fragmented than those on the opposite side of the road. Consequently, route selection should favour the side
between the road and the lake except where rare habitat types (including old-growth forest) are traversed.
Once in place, the transmission line and power poles may result in direct mortality of birds from electrocution and entanglement. Alternative power pole designs are available to minimize the impacts of electrocution.
Entanglement in the transmission line is expected to be minimal and not mitigable. In addition, the transmission line will be routed adjacent to the existing forestry road at between 0.5 to 1.0 km back from the lake shoreline
and is not expected to lie in the path of birds crossing the line between nesting areas and lake feeding sites.
6.3.2 Construction
Table 6.4 summarizes the anticipated effects of the Project on the environment during the construction phase.
6.3.2.1 General
Canadian Hydro will ensure good construction practices are followed by subcontractors at all times. The construction program will be designed to minimize the impact on the environment. Construction procedures will be
undertaken and implemented to address the environmental concerns and constraints as outlined in this Application. An environmental surveillance program will be in place during construction to enforce these restrictions.
Table 6.4 Construction Phase - Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Project Component
Headworks
Tunnel and Penstock
Impact Category
Potential Impacts
Significance Prior to Mitigationa
Residual Impacts After Mitigationc
Fish populations
Fish mortality during construction
High, negative, short-term, local
Removal of trapped fish
None
Fish habitat
Reduced water quality due to erosion and
sedimentation
Moderate, negative, short-term, local
Monitor suspended sediment during
construction
Low; negative; short-term, local
Wildlife habitat
Alteration of benthic invertebrate
community
Low, negative, long-term, local
Minimize sedimentation during
construction
None
Wildlife populations Disturbance from construction activities
Maintain construction activities within
designated corridor
Low, negative, short-term, local
Fish populations
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fish habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildlife habitat
Fragmentation of old-growth forest
High, negative, long-term, regional
Maintain narrow construction corridor;
Moderate, negative, long-term,
Avoid removal of large trees; Place staging regional
areas outside old-growth
Moderate, negative, long-term, local
Avoid removal of site-specific features
designated corridor
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fish habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildlife habitat
Habitat loss
Avoid removal of large trees
designated corridor
Fish populations
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fish habitat
Reduced water quality due to sedimentation
at stream crossings
Avoid instream construction; Span creeks
and leave undisturbed setbacks
None
Wildlife habitat
Habitat loss
Moderate, negative, long-term, regional Maintain construction staging areas along
roads and in ditches
Transmission Line
Footnotes:
Magnitude:
High
Direction:
Duration:
Low
None
Negative
Positive
Neutral
Maintain construction staging areas along
roads and in ditches
Regional
a. Mitigation measures are methods that will be used to reduce the significance of an impact.
b. Residual impacts are effects that will remain after mitigation measures are in place.
6.3.2.1.1 Drainage
A master drainage plan will be developed for each component of the work and integrated into the various project components. Field implementation will be regularly reviewed and engineering personnel will coordinate all
drainage construction work with the environmental monitor to ensure the best overall drainage system is constructed for the works.
6.3.2.1.2 Dust
Dust generated during the construction phase and exhaust from vehicles are expected to have a minor, short term effect on local air quality. Dust control will be implemented along roads and in heavy traffic areas during
construction.
6.3.2.1.3 Borrow and Waste
Rock and waste materials will be disposed of in acceptable locations using approved reclamation methods. Borrow sites, if needed, will be located in areas isolated from public view and chosen only with the consent of
regulating agencies. They will remain open for limited times and managed so that excavated materials do not permanently smother adjacent vegetation. Borrow sites will be located outside of the active floodplain, and
follow appropriate excavation methods in order to avoid erosion and danger to humans and wildlife. Any application to establish a borrow site will include location, operational procedures and reclamation plans.
During operations, waste materials will be limited to lube oil and hydraulic fluids. Precise quantities, types and frequency of replacement are a function of the equipment selected, however, it is anticipated approximately 40
litres of lube oil, per year, will be required for bearings, and approximately 200 litres of hydraulic oil changed once every three years. The main power transformer contains mineral oil (free of PCB's), contained within a
closed system not requiring changing.
Burning of waste material during construction of the Project will be minimal and comply with permitting requirements.
6.3.2.1.4 Noise
Noise will occur from the construction equipment used on site. Four separate work areas will exist; at the headworks, along the penstock route, at the powerhouse, and along the new transmission line route. These sites are
somewhat separate and the workforce at any one site will likely include no more than 20 workers and around five pieces of construction equipment (bulldozer, hoes, etc.). Blasting will be required for construction of the
tunnel and in a few isolated locations (i.e. powerhouse) which will create some short-term, significant noise in the valley. It is anticipated that once the tunnel has progressed underground, blasting noise will be muffled.
6.3.2.1.5 Camps
The Pingston hydro site is located within a 45-minute drive from Revelstoke, therefore, a construction camp will not be required.
6.3.2.1.6 Reclamation
Reclamation activities will be undertaken throughout construction according to an approved Reclamation Plan to control erosion, minimize stream siltation, and re-establish vegetative cover on disturbed areas. Reclamation
will include re-shaping disturbed areas, placement of stockpiled topsoil and grubbed vegetation, and planting of appropriate seed mixes and tree seedlings. Reclamation areas will be monitored and maintained during
construction.
6.3.2.2 Environmental Monitoring
Canadian Hydro will retain the services of an independent, qualified monitor for the construction phase. The person will maintain close contact with the regulatory agencies such as MELP, DFO, MOF, and the Regional
Districts.
Sensitive terrestrial and aquatic habitat will be identified prior to construction. During in-stream construction, a biologist will be on-site to monitor construction activities. A biologist also will be on-site during clearing of the
penstock route and power line ROW to ensure all mitigation measures are followed. Poor work practices or unexpected impacts on the creek will result in shutdown of construction activities.
6.3.2.3 Headworks
The water intake will be constructed out of stream. Upon completion of the intake, the diversion weir will be constructed to divert water into the intake structure. Construction of this weir will take place during the
appropriate environmental window to minimize in-stream effects. Based on previous experience in the area, it is expected that the best instream work window is from mid July to late September. During weir construction,
Pingston Creek will be diverted using a small cofferdam and a 30 m long diversion channel.
During water diversion, fish may become isolated in pools cut-off from the creek channel. These pools will be checked and any fish found will be removed and released back into the creek.
Suspended sediments will be monitored downstream of the diversion weir site to ensure water quality and benthic invertebrate communities are not adversely affected.
Disturbance to wildlife will occur at construction sites and is unmitigable. However, construction activity will be maintained within designated corridors to restrict the scope of the disturbance.
Construction staging areas will not be placed within old-growth forest. The construction corridor through old-growth forest will be kept as narrow as possible and the removal of large trees will be minimized. Removal of
site-specific habitat features will be minimized during construction.
The powerhouse has been designed to have a small footprint and should not require extensive habitat clearing. The construction staging area will be kept small and site-specific habitat features will be avoided. Construction
of the access road to the powerhouse will minimize disturbance to old-growth forest and site-specific habitat features.
To reduce the impact of sedimentation and alteration of fish habitat at stream crossings, instream construction will be avoided, streams will be spanned and setbacks left undisturbed.
Disturbance to wildlife will occur during the construction phase. Mitigation measures include locating construction activities on the road, in the ditch or along existing disturbance wherever possible.
6.3.3 Operations and Maintenance
Table 6.5 summarizes the anticipated effects of the Project on the environment during the operations phase.
Table 6.5 Operations and Maintenance Phase - Summary of Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation
Project Component
Headworks
Impact Category
Fish populations
Fish habitat
Potential Impacts
Significance Prior to Mitigationa
Residual Impacts After
Mitigationc
Entrainment at the intake
Monitor; Implement behavioural
barriers
None
Bioaccumulation of methyl mercury
Low, negative, long-term, regional
Fish monitoring
None
Blockage of fish passage at the weir
Monitor fish migration; Fish passage
constructed if required
None
Sediment deposition and transport
Maintenance of bypass pipes and gate
valve in the weir
Slope failure
High, negative, long-term, local
Monitor and stabilize if required
None
Air pollution
Greenhouse gas flux at the headpond
Monitor
None
Wildlife habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
Retain maximum water levels from
mid-April to late June
None
Mortality of hibernating amphibians and small
mammals
Retain maximum water levels from
mid-September to late October
None
Disturbance from increased vehicle traffic and
human presence
None anticipated
Fish populations
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fish habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildlife habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
Screen forest openings along roads
None
Fish passage through turbines
Monitor mortality; Modify design if
required
None
Total gas pressure
Monitor
None
Fish habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildlife habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildlife populations Disturbance from increased vehicle traffic and
human presence
None anticipated
Fish populations
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fish habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wildlife habitat
Habitat loss due to mowing
regional
Schedule mowing in early spring
regional
Schedule mowing after September 1
Wildlife populations Flooding of nests, eggs and young during normal
fill and drawdown
Tunnel and Penstock
Wildlife populations Increased hunting pressure from improved access
Transmission Line
Wildlife populations Mortality due to right-of-way mowing
Footnotes:
Magnitude:
High
Direction:
Duration:
Low
None
Negative
Positive
Neutral
Regional
a. Mitigation measures are methods that will be used to reduce the significance of an impact.
b. Residual impacts are effects that will remain after mitigation measures are in place.
6.3.3.1 General
Canadian Hydro recognizes that operation and maintenance practices are highly dependent upon the degree of operator training. Operator training will include all aspects of hydro plant operation, including start-up and
shutdown procedures, contingency plans, good housekeeping practices, waste disposal and maintenance.
6.3.3.1.1 Environmental Contamination
The Project is a run-of-river facility and will not detrimentally affect air or water quality. Noise levels above normal ambient levels due to machine operation, cooling air movement, etc., are negligible for hydro facilities.
Further, small scale hydroelectric facilities such as this do not have an influence on local climate.
Environmental contamination sources at the proposed plant are transformer oil, hydraulic power unit fluid, and bearing lubrication. Although the possibility is remote, small quantities of oil from the above sources may spill
or leak during normal operation. Facility design will include methods of containing potential contamination sources.
6.3.3.1.2 Reclamation
On-going reclamation work according to the approved Reclamation Plan will be the responsibility of operations staff to ensure that long term successful proliferation of vegetation and proper drainage and erosion control is
established. This includes vegetation success monitoring and replanting to establish a self-sustaining ground and forest cover as required.
6.3.3.2 Headworks
During operations a number of design features will be monitored to verify their success and corrected as required. These include fish entrainment at the intake and the implementation of behavioural barriers; fish migration
downstream and construction of fish passage if required; and slope failure, especially on the east bank, with stabilization as required.
The bypass pipes and gate valve installed at the weir will be regularly maintained to prevent sediment deposition and its flow rate will be monitored regularly.
Methyl mercury (MeHg) bioaccumulation by fish and the consequent consumption of fish by humans is a concern with the creation of new reservoirs. The elevation of MeHg in fish is related to the degree of flooding of
terrestrial areas. The greater the proportion of land flooded to final surface area, the higher MeHg in fish (Rosenberg et al., 1997). The process of decomposing flooded vegetation (Kelly et al., 1997) converts inorganic
mercury to methyl mercury. Flooded boreal forest wetlands consequently become sources of MeHg as flooded vegetation decomposes.
Given the relatively small size of the headpond and amount of organic matter being flooded, the generation of MeHg at the Project headpond is expected to be a minor concern. The consumption of fish contaminated with
MeHg is not anticipated to be an issue given negligible fishing pressure on Pingston Creek. A monitoring program can be implemented to determine whether bioaccumulation of MeHg in fish is taking place in Pingston
Creek.
The generation of greenhouse gases resulting from large-scale hydroelectric developments is a recently discovered issue related to the formation of reservoirs. The concern over greenhouse gases relates to the release of
carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), both greenhouse gases, from the reservoir to the atmosphere. These gases are the end products of microbial decomposition of flooded organic material. Greenhouse gas emissions
from larger reservoirs, with a high ratio of surface area to energy, can approximate or significantly exceed emissions from power plants using fossil fuels (Rosenberg et al., 1997). The following factors are involved in
greenhouse gas flux:
●
●
●
●
●
the amount of terrestrial area being flooded;
the amount of plant biomass (organics) and soil carbon flooded (flooding of thick peat deposits is of special concern because peat contain large quantities of carbon);
the percentage of total area flooded that was wetland prior to flooding;
the temperature (temperate versus tropical); and,
the age of the reservoir.
Operations of the headpond from April through October will involve maintaining water in the headpond at or close to MOL. This will maintain a water cover over the main channel and riparian area. Winter operations
(November to March) of the headpond will involve daily fluctuations in water level to varying degrees. As a consequence, the riparian area will experience daily wet and dry periods. Overall, the headpond will not be a
stagnant water body due to its relatively small size and complete exchange of water on a daily basis during winter operations and approximately every four hours during summer operations. Operations of the headpond are
expected to generate small quantities of CO2 and negligible quantities of CH4. Canadian Hydro is prepared to conduct pre-flood gas flux measurements at the headpond site prior to construction and follow up with postflood monitoring, as required.
To reduce the chances of direct mortality to amphibians and hibernating mammals as a result of the normal fill/drawdown regime at the headpond, maximum water levels will be retained during critical life stages, roughly
mid-April to late June and mid-September to late October.
Disturbance to wildlife from increased traffic and human presence is expected to be negligible during regular operation.
Clearing the penstock route may impact wildlife populations because of disturbance from increased visitor presence and a possible increase in hunting pressure. Openings should be screened from the access roads to deter
foot and vehicle access to reduce this impact during operations.
The Shelter Bay South forestry road will provide access to the powerhouse. Canadian Hydro expects the operator of the powerhouse will make one trip per day. This is not expected to add significantly to traffic levels or
dust generation along the 13 km section of road from Shelter Bay to the plant.
Disturbance to wildlife is not expected since animals are known to adapt well to the presence of buildings, especially ones that are relatively small and do not have regular human traffic.
Fish mortality will be monitored at the powerhouse to ensure that fish are not passing through the turbines. If required design of the intake headgate and the tailrace channel will be modified.
Power generating turbines can cause gas supersaturation and subsequent gas bubble disease in fish at the tailrace under certain conditions. Gas supersaturation results when air is mixed with water as it passes through
turbines or when water passes over a spillway and the entrained air is carried to considerable depth in the plunge pool. Under these conditions, unusually high concentrations of atmospheric gases, particularly nitrogen, are
forced into solution. Gas bubble disease in fish is the result of these gases coming out of solution, causing injury or death.
The Project turbines and tailrace are not expected to develop supersaturated gas conditions due to the low volumes of water involved even at the design flow rate of 5.4 m3/s. Due to the differential between the low volume
of water entering Upper Arrow Lake and the volume of water contained in the lake, it is unlikely that gas bubble disease will develop in fish in the lake. Canadian Hydro will, however, monitor for total gas pressure (TGP)
during operations.
Maintenance of the transmission line ROW will require regular mechanical mowing. It is expected that birds and mammals will breed along the ROW, mowing should avoid the normal breeding period to avoid mortality of
young animals. Mowing after September 1st is recommended. Mowing should also be conducted in early spring to allow the vegetation to become re-established for breeding purposes.
6.4 Summary of Environmental Impacts
Hydroelectric projects inevitably alter the fish and aquatic habitats. Alteration of instream flows and the deposition of sediment at the headpond will have adverse impacts on these habitats. Minimum instream flow
requirements have been incorporated into the design of this project to reduce impacts on downstream fish habitat and deterioration of the benthic invertebrate communities.
The project design allows sediment to flow downstream via several large bypass pipes and a main bypass gate integrated into the intake. During high sediment transport periods (i.e. high flow periods) these bypass systems
will be opened to allow the sediments to pass by the headworks. In medium flow periods some manipulation of the bypass systems will be required to facilitate the movement of sediment while sustaining plant operation.
During winter months, the minimum instream flow will be provided by a bypass pipe located at the bottom of the intake to allow any sediment and nutrients in the lower strata to continue downstream.
The installation of a weir impeding the normal flow of water will also affect fish migration and movement of aquatic mammals along the creek. Preliminary fisheries survey suggests that fish migration upstream through a
narrow chute 100 m downstream of the weir will be unlikely given high flow velocities and small fish size in the creek. Although fish migration structures have not been designed as part of the headworks, Canadian Hydro is
cognisant of the requirement not to block fish migration. The headpond dyke has been designed to accommodate the installation a fish passage structure at a later date should it be necessary.
The movement of aquatic mammals, such as Mink and River Otter, might be impeded by the headworks. Evidence of Mink was found at the headpond site during 1997 wildlife surveys. Mink are only partially aquatic and it
is expected that this species could navigate overland around the dyke and weir. The presence of River Otter has been occasionally noted in the Pingston Creek valley (Brian Gadbois, pers. comm., January 27, 1998). With
respect to River Otter, the headworks are not expected to present an obstacle and the headpond might provide open water access to the main creek channel.
The impacts on fish spawning will be addressed by ensuring that appropriate timing windows are observed. The instream habitat being flooded represents marginal fisheries rearing and adult holding habitat, and poor
spawning and overwintering habitat. In fact, the headpond might provide positive fish habitat gains in the headpond. There could be improvements in the rearing habitat in the shrub/grass covered shallows and adult holding
conditions in the deeper sections. During winter months (November to March) the minimum operating level design of 2.5 m above the channel bed will improve overwintering conditions.
Habitat for benthic invertebrate communities should also improve with the altered conditions at the headpond providing positive food resource benefits for fish, birds and mammals dependent on aquatic invertebrates and
fish (River Otter, Mink, American Dipper, Harlequin Duck and Belted Kingfisher).
Another major issue with hydroelectric projects is the possibility of fish entrainment. The project components have been laid out in such a fashion to minimize the potential for entrainment and provide suitable velocity
regimes for fish at the intake. The intake head will be oriented perpendicular to the main channel, forcing the flow stream lines to bend sharply before entering the intake, imposing a natural deflection of fish away from the
intake works. Intake flow velocities have been reduced to provide a reasonable opportunity for fish to escape. Behavioural deterrents could also be implemented to deter fish from approaching the intake.
The flooding of a riparian area upstream from the weir also has impacts on terrestrial wildlife. The main issues are the loss of amphibian breeding pools and potential loss of mammal denning sites with the initial flooding.
During normal operations at the headpond, the normal fill and drawdown regime is not expected to result in mortality of breeding and hibernating animals.
A number of ponds and pools in the riparian grassland community to be flooded were found to provide excellent breeding habitat for the common amphibians in the area (Boreal Toad, Spotted Frog and Pacific Tree Frog).
The most important amphibian breeding sites lie along the small drainage channel to the west of Pingston Creek. This site could be protected with a berm without significant loss to the holding capacity of the headpond.
Flooding the headpond will also remove streambank habitat that could potentially provide denning sites for mammals, including Mink, River Otter, Ermine and small rodents. No mitigation is anticipated since surveys in
1997 found evidence of Mink and Ermine at the headpond site but there was no evidence to suggest that denning occurs here. River Otters may also occur in the Pingston Creek basin, but none were found at the site.
Denning would need to be confirmed before the appropriate mitigation is determined.
The other components of the project are mainly narrow linear disturbances that have impacts on wildlife habitat. The fragmentation of old-growth forest and the loss of site-specific habitat features are the main issues in
these areas.
A portion of the penstock route traverses old-growth forest. Fragmentation and loss of this habitat type is a regional concern. Continuity of this habitat should be maintained, at least at the canopy level. Where the project
components cannot avoid old-growth forest the removal of large trees will be minimized to preserve habitat continuity at the forest canopy level. Existing forestry roads and sorting areas will be used for construction staging.
Construction staging areas will be not be placed within old-growth forest.
Site-specific habitat features are habitat elements that are critical for breeding, protection or feeding of a species. Examples are fallen logs and large standing trees with cavities. Where route selection cannot avoid these,
removal will be minimized during construction. Also, large trees that cannot be avoided can be left behind to decompose naturally, providing habitat for a wide range of species.
6.5 Assessment of Socio-Economic Effects
Area of Influence
The effects of the Project will have local, regional, and provincial consequences which will occur primarily during the construction and operational phases. The Project is located in a relatively remote area and will not
encroach directly on any nearby communities. Due to the relatively small size of the Project, the local communities and support systems should not be stressed, nor will there be a major influx of people and all the problems
that go with larger projects. Total capital cost for the Project is estimated at $35,000,000, a major portion of which would be spent in the local area and would result in increased business opportunities for services. Locally,
the Project will provide employment opportunities for skilled and unskilled labour which will likely come from Revelstoke or possibly Nakusp. Excluding equipment manufacturing, the Project’s total construction
employment potential is approximately 127 worker years. The energy produced will add to the provincial infrastructure with minimal environmental effects. Table 6.6 presents a breakdown of the benefits at the provincial
scale.
Construction Phase
Canadian Hydro expects the Project will offer a total of 127 worker-years during the construction phase, although it is not expected that the wage rate would increase. Since there will not be a camp at either the
headworks/west tunnel portal site or the penstock and powerhouse sites, construction workers will stay in Revelstoke (similar to forestry workers that commute from Revelstoke into the Pingston Creek valley on a daily
basis). This translates into increased revenue for the hotels, restaurants, and merchants in the City. During construction it is also assumed that building materials would be purchased locally. The Project would require
equipment, timber, sub-contract construction, and transportation of materials to and from the site. Canadian Hydro anticipates that these services can be provided by the local economy.
Table 6.7 is a calculation of the employment benefits due to Project construction based on the statistics gathered during the construction of the Akolkolex Project built in 1994.
Operations Phase
The operational phase will be dependent upon support services from Revelstoke in the form of transportation, communications, and mechanical and electrical trades. Similar to the Akolkolex Plant, the operations of the
Pingston plant will require one (1) full time operator plus a relief operator on an occasional basis. This scenario will not place undue stress on the housing, schools, municipal services, or medical services in Revelstoke.
Canadian Hydro would contribute to the local economy through direct purchases of local goods and services during the operations of the Project. It is estimated that an additional 3.5 permanent jobs will be created during
operations and maintenance activities.
Table 6.6 Summary of Provincial Benefits (millions $)
Annual inflation , say 3.0%
Year
Discount rate, say 8.0%
Water
Property
Corporate
Constr.
Provincial
Total
Total
Rental
Taxes
Capital Tax
Sales Tax
Income Tax
Income Tax
1
0.35
0.45
0.10
0.90
2
0.36
0.46
0.10
0.93
3
0.37
0.48
0.11
0.95
4
0.38
0.49
0.11
0.98
5
0.39
0.51
0.11
1.01
6
0.41
0.52
0.12
1.04
7
0.42
0.54
0.12
1.07
8
0.43
0.55
0.12
1.11
9
0.44
0.57
0.13
1.14
10
0.46
0.59
0.13
1.17
1.80
11
0.47
0.60
0.13
1.21
12
0.48
0.62
0.14
1.25
13
0.50
0.64
0.14
1.28
14
0.51
0.66
0.15
0.10
0.31
1.73
15
0.53
0.68
0.15
0.20
0.62
2.18
16
0.55
0.70
0.16
0.28
0.86
2.54
17
0.56
0.72
0.16
0.35
1.06
2.85
18
0.58
0.74
0.17
0.40
1.24
3.13
19
0.60
0.77
0.17
0.46
1.40
3.39
20
0.61
0.79
0.18
0.52
1.59
3.69
21
0.63
0.81
0.18
0.52
1.59
3.73
22
0.65
0.84
0.19
0.53
1.64
3.85
23
0.67
0.86
0.19
0.55
1.69
3.96
24
0.69
0.89
0.20
0.57
1.74
4.08
25
0.71
0.91
0.20
0.58
1.79
4.20
26
0.73
0.94
0.21
0.60
1.84
4.33
27
0.75
0.97
0.22
0.62
1.90
4.46
28
0.78
1.00
0.22
0.64
1.96
4.59
29
0.80
1.03
0.23
0.66
2.01
4.73
30
0.82
1.06
0.24
0.68
2.07
4.87
31
0.85
1.09
0.24
0.70
2.14
5.02
32
0.88
1.13
0.25
0.72
2.20
5.17
33
0.90
1.16
0.26
0.74
2.27
5.32
34
0.93
1.19
0.27
0.76
2.33
5.48
35
0.96
1.23
0.27
0.78
2.41
5.65
36
0.98
1.27
0.28
0.81
2.48
5.82
37
1.01
1.30
0.29
0.83
2.55
5.99
38
1.04
1.34
0.30
0.86
2.63
6.17
39
1.08
1.38
0.31
0.88
2.71
6.36
40
1.11
1.43
0.32
0.91
2.79
6.55
41
1.14
1.47
0.33
0.93
2.87
6.74
42
1.18
1.51
0.34
0.96
2.96
6.94
43
1.21
1.56
0.35
0.99
3.05
7.15
44
1.25
1.60
0.36
1.02
3.14
7.37
45
1.29
1.65
0.37
1.05
3.23
7.59
46
1.32
1.70
0.38
1.08
3.33
7.82
47
1.36
1.75
0.39
1.12
3.43
8.05
48
1.40
1.81
0.40
1.15
3.53
8.29
49
1.45
1.86
0.41
1.18
3.64
8.54
50
1.49
1.92
0.43
1.22
3.75
8.80
Total - 20 years
9.40
12.09
2.69
0.90
2.30
27.39
NPV 8.0%
4.29
5.51
1.23
0.83
1.61
13.46
Total - 50 years
39.48
50.76
11.28
0.90
26.93
129.34
NPV 8.0%
6.35
8.16
1.81
0.83
6.19
23.34
6.6 Assessment of Cultural and Heritage Effects
On the basis of known distribution of archaeological sites, and post-contact traditional use activities documented to date, there are no known archaeological sites in conflict with the Project (French, 1997). There is, however,
low to medium potential for archaeology at each of the Project components. Depending upon the results of detailed surveys of each of the Project components, mitigation of archaeological impact can be addressed in the
following ways:
●
●
●
the site may be avoided, if possible, through re-alignment or shift in location;
recovery of sufficient information under a Heritage Inspection Permit to satisfy the requirements of the Archaeology Branch or possible issuance of a Heritage Investigation Permit;
archaeological monitoring of the development under the authority of an Alteration Permit issued to Canadian Hydro to recover archaeological materials during construction where the potential exists for the presence
of archaeological deposits which could not otherwise be accessed during the previously conducted studies.
Table 6.7 Pingston Hydroelectric Project Employment Benefits
7.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION
7.1 Completed Programs
The City of Revelstoke (1995 population 8,400) and the Village of Nakusp (1991 population 1,642) are the nearest population centres to the proposed Project area. Primary economic resources and employers of the area
include forestry, Canadian Pacific Rail, tourism/recreation (heli-skiing, fishing, boating, and snowmobiling), and government. Copies of the newspaper articles, the sign-in sheet and hand-out material for the open house, and
correspondence with key stakeholders are provided in Appendix XI.
7.1.1 Open House Meetings
Local interest groups were identified and the general public was invited to participate in an initial meeting held March 7, 1995, in Revelstoke. Subsequent meetings were held in Revelstoke (September 10, 1997) and Nakusp
(September 11, 1997). Those representatives and citizens who attended were given a presentation describing the project and were then asked to present their concerns to Canadian Hydro. This informal format was useful in
gaining a better understanding of local concerns from the approximately 25 people who attended each open house. In addition to advertising the open house to the general public in the Revelstoke Times Review, the paper
also published an article on Canadian Hydro’s plans for Pingston Creek.
The meeting was held to determine the feasibility of developing hydro facilities in the Pingston Creek area. General comments are listed below.
In general, the small hydro project was viewed as favourable.
DFO would be the initiating agency of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Screening and public hearings if it is deemed necessary.
There was a concern over adequate protection of anadromous fish in the creek. Further study of fisheries abundance was thought to be necessary (March 7/95 meeting).
Local employment opportunities were considered important.
Wherever possible, the issues and concerns raised at these meetings have been incorporated into this Project proposal, in particular, in the mitigation procedures for construction and operation practices.
Further public consultation procedures will be undertaken upon approval of this proposal. This would involve a town hall meeting or open house to discuss the final proposal with the residents of Revelstoke, Nakusp, and
other interested parties.
7.1.2 First Nations Information and Consultation
On October 5, 1995 Canadian Hydro officials, Ross Keating and John Keating, met with aboriginal representatives in Cranbrook, B.C. to review and seek comments on the Project. In attendance were:
Mr. William (Bill) Green
Director, Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribe
·
Fisheries Commission (“CCRIFC”)
·
ph. (604) 489-2646, and
·
·
Mr. Hugh Taylor
Director, Land and Resources - Ktunaxa/Kinbasket
·
Tribal Council ph. (604) 489-2464
·
·
The CCRIFC, which covers the Columbia River basin in Canada, formally represents twelve First Nations communities which have territories within the Columbia River basin in Canada. The objectives of CCRIFC include
the restoration and/or mitigation of fisheries and ecosystems within the Columbia River basin. When restoration is not possible, their objectives include compensation for First Nations losses of fisheries and aquatic
resources. Mr. Green indicated that in addition to fisheries concerns, and on an informal consensus basis, CCRIFC also facilitates coordination of other activities within the Columbia River basin that may impact the
participating First Nations people.
Mr. Green has agreed to assist Canadian Hydro in communicating with affected Tribal Councils during the review process and attempt to obtain consensus approval in order for the project to proceed. It is, however, up to
each of the several bands comprising three (3) Tribal Councils to individually agree to support the project.
Messrs. Green and Taylor identified four issues relating to aboriginal and treaty rights:
●
●
●
●
The Treaty negotiation process is continuing. Mr. Taylor stated that an optimistic timeframe for a final agreement is 3 or 4 years away. It was noted that the Shuswap Nation has not yet agreed to participate in the
Treaty process;
There may be archaeological impacts;
There may be fisheries and wildlife resources and habitat impacts;
There may be traditional and cultural use sites in the project area.
Bill Green suggested that, in addition to the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council, we contact and meet directly with:
Shuswap Tribal Council, Kamloops
Mr. Rob Hutton - Inter-Governmental Affairs
Mr. Dave Moore - Executive Director of Shuswap Nations Fisheries
Commission ph. (604) 828-9837
Okanagan Tribal Council, Vernon
Mr. Byron Louis - key fisheries spokesperson ph. (604) 542-5427
Both Mr. Green and Mr. Taylor suggested that Canadian Hydro approach aboriginal involvement through:
●
construction employment opportunities and associated training; and
●
construction contracting opportunities
Mr. Wayne St. Denis, who is the Employment Development Officer with the Ktunaxa/ Kinbasket Tribal Council, maintains a database of skilled personnel and can assist Canadian Hydro in designing a program suitable for
the Pingston Creek Hydroelectric Project.
7.2 Proposed Programs
Canadian Hydro plans to continue its public program through maintaining contact with regulatory and First Nations contacts and the public in general, through newspaper articles and Open House Presentations as necessary.
Pending the review of this Application, Canadian Hydro will embark on the next level of public information programs to relay any new developments throughout the Project approval process. Once approvals have been
granted, Canadian Hydro will continue to keep the public abreast of the progress being made and any potential employment opportunities that become available.
8.0 Government Consultation
8.1 General
Canadian Hydro initiated contact with federal, provincial, and municipal government representatives immediately following the submission of the original proposal to B.C. Hydro in March 1995 to develop a hydroelectric
facility on Pingston Creek. Those initial contacts were made as part of the preliminary engineering design and environmental background information collection process. On May 26, 1996 Canadian Hydro submitted an
update of information to B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Ministry of Employment and Investment (MEI), Project Review Panel during the project selection process. At that time, the Project was one of 10 finalists under
consideration. This review process involved meetings and discussions with provincial and federal agency representatives assigned the task of examining the Project. In late 1996 the B.C. Government announced that B.C.
Hydro had been instructed to negotiate a power purchase contract with a large co-generation project on Vancouver Island. The rationale for the final selection did not indicate any extraordinary environmental or socioeconomic effects that would prevent permitting the Project. Rather, it appeared that electrical power generation needs were being focused on Vancouver Island as opposed to the interior of the Province.
8.2 Provincial Agencies
Canadian Hydro made the decision to continue pursuing the development of the Project and initiated further environmental and public information programs with intention of obtaining Project approval through the BCEAA.
On June 24, 1997 Canadian Hydro met with representatives from the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office and MEI to discuss the approval process under the BCEAA. A meeting was arranged for Nelson on September 4,
1997. Canadian Hydro prepared a brief summary of the Project for distribution to a list of potential attendees prior to the meeting in Nelson. The meeting was attended by a cross section of provincial, federal, and municipal
representatives. Appendix XII contains the minutes of the September 4, 1997 meeting. Canadian Hydro was encouraged to apply for the Water License during this meeting which has subsequently been submitted. At the end
of the meeting, Canadian Hydro extended an invitation to the responsible agencies to attend a field trip to the Project component sites. This was conducted on October 2, 1997. The agenda for this site visit is contained in
Appendix XII. However, minutes of the site visit were not recorded due to the disjointed nature of conducting these types of gatherings.
8.3 Federal Agencies
On November 14, 1997 Canadian Hydro and Klohn-Crippen met with DFO (MELP was also invited but could not attend due to conflicts with other projects) in Vancouver to discuss in greater detail the potential effects of
the Project on aquatic resources in Pingston Creek and Upper Arrow Lake. Minutes of this meeting are contained in Appendix XII.
8.4 Municipal Agencies
Aside from Open Houses, contacts with Municipal agency representatives have been primarily with the Columbia Shuswap Regional District and the City of Revelstoke to compile relevant information for this Application.
9.0 REFERENCES
ARA Consulting Group, 1994. Revelstoke Forest District, Timber Supply Area, Socio-Economic Assessment.
Braumundl, T.F., and M.P. Curran, 1992. A Field Guide for Site Identification and Interpretation for the Nelson Forest Region, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Nelson.
British Columbia, Conservation Data Center - Victoria, August 1995 Tracking List.
Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall, 1990. The Birds of British Columbia, Volumes I, II and III. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Services.
Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 1995. Impacts of Small Hydro Developments on Fish and Fish Habitat.
Canada Land Inventory (CLI), 1968. Land Capability for Wildlife - Ungulates (Vernon mapsheet - 82L). Department of the Environment.
Canada Land Inventory (CLI), 1971. Land Capability for Agriculture. Revelstoke, British Columbia.
Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., 1995. Proposal for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Non-Utility Generation.
Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., 1995. Pingston Additional Information for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, Power Acquisition.
Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., 1996. B.C. Hydro and Power Authority R.F.P. Update Information.
Canadian Hydrographic Service, Chart #3057 - Columbia River, Burton to Arrowhead.
Gadbois, Brian, Personal Communications. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, Revelstoke, February 1996.
Gadbois, Brian, Personal Communications. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, Revelstoke, January 1998.
Holland S.S., 1976. Landforms of British Columbia. A Physiographic Outline, B.C. Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Bulletin 48.
Kelly, C.A., Rudd, J.W., Bodaly, R.A., Roulet, N.P., St. Louis, V.L., Heyes, A., Moore, T.R., Schiff, S., Aravena, R., Scott, K.J., Dyck, B., Harris, R., Warner, B., and Edwards, G., 1997. Increases in Fluxes of Greenhouse
Gases and Methyl Mercury Following Flooding of an Experimental Reservoir.
Klohn-Crippen Consultants Ltd., 1997. Preliminary Fisheries Resource Assessment, Pingston Creek Hydroelectric Project.
Lindsay, Bob, Personal Communications. British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, Nelson, September 1995.
McPhie, Paul, Conservation Officer, MELP, Nakusp, May 10, 1996.
National Research Council, 1990. National Building Code of Canada.
Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr., and R.M. Storm, 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, Idaho, 322p.
Resource Systems Management International, 1994. Arrow Forest District Timber Supply Area, Socio-Economic Assessment.
Revelstoke Minister’s Advisory Committee, 1994. Revelstoke and Area Land Use Planning, Draft Recommendation - Multiple Account Analysis.
Revelstoke Economic Development Commission, 1995. Community Profile, Revelstoke.
Rosenberg, D.M., Berkes, F., Bodaly, R.A., Hecky, R.E., Kelly, C.A., and Rudd, J.W.M., 1997. Large-scale Impacts of Hydroelectric Development.
Slaney, P.A. and Zaldokas, D, 1997. Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular #8. Prepared by the Watershed Restoration Program.
Thorpe, Grant, Fisheries Technician, MELP, Nakusp, May 10, 1996.
Wittnben, U., Soil Resources of the Lardeau Map Area (82K). British Columbia Soil Survey Report No. 27, 1980.
APPENDIX I
Canadian Hydro Developers Inc.
Annual Report, 1996
A copy of Appendix I, Canadian Hydro Developers Inc.,Annual Report, 1996, can be obtained from their website, www.canhydro.com .
APPENDIX III
EAA Section 7
(1) The proponent of a reviewable project may apply for a project approval certificate by applying in writing to the executive director and paying the prescribed fee.
(2) An application for a project approval certificate must state the name, address and title of the proponent and of the individual having responsibility for answering questions relating to the application and must include or be
accompanied by a preliminary overview of the reviewable project, including but not limited to a description of:
Canadian Hydro Application
Section #
(a) the purpose and major components of the project;
1,2, 1.3
(b) existing information pertaining to environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and health characteristics and conditions in the vicinity of the project;
2.0, 3.0
(c) on- and off-site facilities of or associated with the project;
4.4
(d) the construction plan for the project and a timetable for the completion of the construction;
4.5
(e) any new or expanded public works or undertakings that will be required because of the project;
4.4.4
(f) the potential effects of the project;
5.0
(g) the measures that the proponent proposes in order to prevent or mitigate adverse effects;
5.0
(h) any relevant plans pertaining to land use and to related resource issues in the area of the project that are authorized under an enactment;
3.5
(ix) public information distribution activities and consultation activities undertaken by the proponent and a summary of the public response and of the issues identified;
6.0
(j) any program of public information distribution or consultation proposed by the proponent during the next stages of project planning and review;
6.0
(k) information distribution activities and consultation activities undertaken by the proponent with a first nation and a summary of the first nation’s response and of the issues
identified;
6.0
(l) any program of information distribution or consultation proposed by the proponent with a first nation during the next stages of project planning and review;
6.0
(m) any discussions undertaken by the proponent about the effects of the project, with ministries or agencies of the government of British Columbia, with departments or agencies
of the government of Canada, with municipalities or regional districts or with British Columbia’s neighbouring jurisdictions;
7.0
(n) the issues identified in the discussions referred to in paragraph (m) and,
7.0
(o) any other prescribed information.
N/A
APPENDIX IV
Hydrology Monitoring
A copy of Appendix IV, Hydrology Monitoring, can be obtained by contacting Mr. Bill Johnson, Klohn-Crippen, by facsimile at (403) 274-5349.
APPENDIX V
Common Scientific Names
Common Name
Scientific Name
Plants
Black Cottonwood
Populus balsamifera trichocarpa
Douglas Fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Douglas Maple
Acer glabrum
Engelmann Spruce
Picea engelmannii
False Box
Pachistima mysinites
huckleberry
Vaccinium sp.
hybrid White Spruce
Picea engelmannii x Picea glauca
Lodgepole Pine
Pinus contorta
Paper Birch
Betula papyrifera
rose
Rosa sp.
Round-leafed Bog Orchid
Platanthera (Habenaria) orbiculata
Sitka Alder
Alnus sitchensis
Subalpine Fir
Abies lasiocarpa
Tall Huckleberry
Vaccinium ovalifolium
Trembling Aspen
Populus tremuloides
Western hemlock
Tsuga heterophylla
Western Larch
Larix occidentalis
Western redcedar
Thuja plicata
Western White Pine
Pinus monticola
Western Yew
Taxus brevifolia
willow
Salix sp.
Mammals
Badger
Taxidea taxus
Beaver
Castor canadensis
Black Bear
Ursus americanus
Bobcat
Lynx rufus
California Bighorn Sheep
Ovis canadensis californiana
Cougar
Felis concolor
Coyote
Canis latrans
Elk
Cervus elephus
Ermine
Mustela erminea
Fisher
Martes pennanti
Grizzly Bear
Ursus arctos
Lynx
Lynx lynx
Marten
Martes americana
Mink
Mustela vison
Moose
Alces alces
Mountain Goat
Oreamnos americanus
Mule Deer
Odocoileus hemionus
Northern Flying Squirrel
Glaucomys sabrinus
Northern Long-eared Myotis
Myotis septentrionalis
Red Squirrel
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
River Otter
Lutra canadensis
Snowshoe Hare
Lepus americanus
Townsend’s Big-eared Bat
Plecotus townsendii
White-tailed Deer
Odocoileus virginianus
Wolf
Canis lupus
Wolverine
Gulo gulo
Woodland Caribou (southern population)
Rangifer tarandus
Birds
American Avocet
Recurvirostra americana
American Dipper
Cinclus mexicanus
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Belted Kingfisher
Ceryle alcyon
Brown Creeper
Certhia americana
Caspian Tern
Sterna caspia
Cooper’s Hawk
Accipiter cooperii
Great Blue Heron
Ardea herodias
Great Grey Owl
Strix nebulosa
Harlequin Duck
Histrionicus histrionicus
Lewis’ Woodpecker
Melanerpes lewis
Osprey
Pandion haliaetus
Peregrine Falcon (subspecies anatum)
Falco peregrinus anatum
Vaux’s Swift
Chaetura vauxi
Reptiles and Amphibians
Boreal Toad
Bufo boreas
Long-toed Salamander
Ambystoma macrodactylum
Pacific Tree Frog
Hyla regilla
Painted Turtle
Chrysemys picta
Rubber Boa
Charina bottae
Spotted Frog
Rana pretiosa
Tailed Frog
Ascaphus truei
Western Rattlesnake
Crotalus viridis
Fish
Bull Trout
Salvelinus confluentus
Burbot
Lota lota
Kokanee Trout
Oncorhynchus nerka
Rainbow Trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rocky Mountain Whitefish
Prosopium williamsoni
Cutthroat Trout
Oncorhynchus clarki
APPENDIX VI
Fisheries Surveys
A copy of Appendix VI, Fisheries Surveys, can be obtained by contacting Mr. Bill Johnson, Klohn-Crippen, by facsimile at (403) 274-5349.
APPENDIX VII
Wildlife Survey - Winter Track Survey
A copy of Appendix VII, Wildlife Survey - Winter Track Survey, can be obtained by contacting Mr. Bill Johnson, Klohn-Crippen, by facsimile at (403) 274-5349.
APPENDIX VIII
Wildlife Survey - Bird, Amphibian and Rare Plant Surveys and Ungulate Distribution and Habitat Use
A copy of Appendix VIII, Wildlife Survey - Bird, Amphibian and Rare Plant Surveys and Ungulate Distribution and Habitat Use, can be obtained by contacting Mr. Bill Johnson, Klohn-Crippen, by facsimile at (403) 2745349.

PINGSTON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Transcription

Similar documents

verde creek ranch kerr county, tx - 287 ac +

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

publication

Conceptual Map - West Creek Business Park

SHINDICO PRE-CON BUILDERS

Patio Party - DuPage Pads

A4 Poster Mar15.indd

U.S.A. - Raisin-South Nation Source Protection

2013 smart meetings

Innisfil Hydro