upper toba hydro inc. - CiteSeerX

I of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

UPPER TOBA HYDRO INC. UPPER TOBA VALLEY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

APPLICATION

FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE (REF. NO. VA103-00162/01-14)

PREFACE The content and format of this Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate has been compiled by Knight Piesold Consulting Ltd., on behalf of Upper Toba Hydro Inc. (UTHI), based on the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project Terms of Reference (TOR) for an Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate. The TOR was in turn prepared according to “A Guide to Preparing Terms of Reference for an Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate”, distributed by the BC Environmental Assessment Office. The Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project is subject to review under the BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) pursuant to an Order issued under Section 10 of the Act. This Application Document was developed pursuant to the TOR following its acceptance by the BC Environmental Assessment Office, and complies with all relevant instructions provided in an Order issued under Section 11 of the BCEAA. A Table of Concordance is provided (Table S1), which cross references the information presented in this Application with the information requirements identified in the Terms of Reference. The Application identifies the federal and provincial government agencies, First Nations, and other parties involved in its development. The Application follows the report layout detailed in the Terms of Reference document, organized in two Volumes as follows: Volume I Application Volume II Appendices Volume I includes the main Application text, summaries and conclusions from various studies conducted, in addition to Tables, Figures and Photos referenced in the main Application text. Volume II contains various Appendices referenced in the main Application. These references range from various project related correspondence to results of detailed studies such as terrestrial wildlife and archaeology. A Table of Concordance is provided (Table S1), which cross references the information presented in this Application with the information requirements identified in the Terms of Reference.

II of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008


APPLICATION


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Plutonic Power Corporation will develop the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project, consisting of the Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek, and Upper Toba River facilities through its wholly owned subsidiary, Upper Toba Hydro Inc. (UTHI). The Plutonic Power Corporation (PPC) is a clean energy development company focused on run of river hydroelectric energy generation in British Columbia. The company was incorporated in 1999, became a TSX Venture Exchange listed company in July 2003, and graduated to the TSX Exchange in June 2007. The initial project concepts were investigated by UTHI in 2006, and followed with significant field studies. Following the submission of a project description to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO), on May 3, 2007, BCEAO has issued an order under Section 10(1)(c) of the BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) that an Environmental Assessment Certificate is required and that the proponent may not proceed with the Project without an assessment. The BCEAO has further issued an order under Section 11 of the BCEAA that the Project is reviewable, and that, pursuant to Section 6.1 of the Canada British Columbia Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation, the provincial and federal governments will work cooperatively to complete their respective reviews of the Project. Project Overview

The Project will help BC meet its growing demand for electricity and also help to reduce the frequency of relying on imported electricity. Development of run of river clean energy sources in BC offers BC Hydro’s customers a reliable clean energy source. The layout of the Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek and Upper Toba River facilities are such as to minimize impacts on the streams and surrounding environment, and leave a very small footprint on the land. The proposed Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project will generate clean power from three run of river hydroelectric generation facilities, located on Jimmie Creek, Dalgleish Creek, and the Upper Toba River. The total installed capacity of these three facilities will be approximately 130 MW. The Project will use the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project transmission line (currently under construction) to convey the produced energy to the BC Transmission Corporation (BCTC) grid.

III of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

Each hydroelectric facility will be run of river which does not require dams and large reservoirs. The intakes will consist of Coanda screens, weirs, and head ponds with sufficient depth so that they can transition flow to a pipe without entraining air. The water will be conveyed to the powerhouse via low pressure pipe (HDPE or steel) and a high pressure steel penstock or tunnel. Pelton turbines, rated to suit each individual facility, will be used to generate power. The Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project will fit well with the mandate of the Province to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The BC government has set an ambitious goal for reducing the province’s GHG emissions and committed to achieving that goal through action across all sectors of the economy. Key components of BC's provincial strategy on climate action are:

• aggressive but achievable targets for provincial emissions reduction for 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2050;

• legislated mandatory caps on major BC emitters, as part of a GHG trading system being developed in partnership with other jurisdictions; and

• a comprehensive set of sectoral actions to help achieve the provincial reduction targets. The Project will help BC meet its growing demand for electricity and also help to reduce the frequency of relying on imported electricity, while supporting the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Project Location

The Project is located within the Coast Range of southern British Columbia in the Toba River watershed approximately 100 km north of Powell River. Project Facilities/Components

The proposed Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project is compromised of the following major facilities and components:

• Dalgleish Creek 30 MW hydroelectric facility; • Upper Toba River 45 MW hydroelectric facility; • Jimmie Creek 55 MW hydroelectric facility; • Approximately 2.3 km of transmission line for interconnection to the 230 kV transmission

line serving the East Toba River and Montrose Creek River Hydroelectric Project; and • Approximately 20 km of facility access roads (6,800 m of new roads and 13,300 m of

refurbished forestry roads). Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility

The proposed Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility is a 30 MW run of river facility in the Dalgleish Creek drainage basin. The proposed facility will divert a portion of the water from a high elevation intake on Dalgleish Creek into a water conveyance system which leads to a surface powerhouse near the confluence of East Toba River and Toba River. The proposed Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility is located at the Dalgleish Creek fan at its confluence with

IV of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

the Toba River. Dalgleish Creek, with the Dalgleish Glacier in its headwaters, flows from a maximum elevation of approximately 2,920 m in the upper headwaters to discharge into the Toba River at an elevation of approximately 130 m. The proposed facility, with its intake located at an elevation of approximately 780 m, drains an area of approximately 31.8 km2. The intake and diversion structure will be located at an elevation of approximately 780 m, which is 4 km upstream of the creek’s mouth. The water conveyance system is composed of two sections; a low pressure conduit and a high pressure penstock, approximately 4,500 m in total length. At creek crossings the pipeline will be buried under the creek and encased in concrete, allowing the creek to flow uninterrupted. The powerhouse will be constructed on a raised bench near the confluence with Toba River. The Dalgleish Creek facility switch yard will be connected to the Upper Toba River facility transmission line on its route to East Toba River switchyard by a “T” connection. The facility will be accessed through upgrades to the existing inactive forestry road mainline that follows the Toba River valley from the head of Toba Inlet to Dalgleish Creek. Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Facility

The proposed Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Facility is a 45 MW run of river facility in the Upper Toba River drainage basin. The proposed Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Facility is located to the east of the Toba Inlet, approximately 45 km upstream of the Toba River mouth. Upper Toba River, with the Toba Glacier in its headwaters, flows from a maximum elevation of approximately 3000 m flows into the Toba River at the junction with Dalgleish Creek at an elevation of approximately 130 m. The proposed facility, with its intake located at an elevation of approximately 440 m, drains an area of approximately 78 km2. The main intake and diversion structure will be located 2.7 km upstream of the river’s junction with Dalgleish Creek. The water conveyance system will be composed of two sections; a low pressure conduit comprised of either HDPE or thin walled steel pipe and a high pressure penstock comprised of steel pipe will have a total length of approximately 2,250 m. The proposed powerhouse will be constructed on a raised bench at an approximate elevation of 150 m, approximately 500 m upstream from Upper Toba River’s confluence with Dalgleish Creek. Approximately 2.3 km of 230 kV transmission line will connect Upper Toba powerhouse to East Toba switchyard. The facility will be accessed through upgrades to the existing inactive forestry road mainline that follows the Toba River valley from the head of Toba Inlet to the East Toba River. Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility

The proposed Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility is a 55 MW run of river facility in the Jimmie Creek drainage basin. The proposed site for Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility is located to the east of the Toba Inlet, approximately 30 km upstream of the Toba River mouth. Jimmie Creek has its headwaters in the mountains of the Elaho Range (Pacific Ranges), and flows from a maximum elevation of approximately 2700 m to the Toba River at an elevation of approximately

V of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

50 m. The proposed facility, with its intake located at an elevation of approximately 515 m, drains an area of approximately 93.4 km2 (with the inclusion of a secondary intake on a neighbouring tributary). The main intake is 3.6 km upstream of the creek’s mouth. The water conveyance system will be composed of two sections; a low pressure conduit and a high pressure penstock, approximately 2800 metres in total length. The low pressure conduit, comprised of either HDPE or thin walled steel pipe, will run from the intake structure along the north side of Jimmie Creek, and the high pressure penstock, comprised of steel pipe, will continue to the powerhouse. At creek crossings the pipeline will be buried under the creek and encased in concrete, allowing the creek to flow uninterrupted. The proposed powerhouse will be constructed on a raised bench upstream of Jimmie Creek’s mouth. The facility will be connected to East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project transmission line by a 230 kV “T” connection. The facility will be accessed through upgrades to the existing inactive forestry road mainline that follows the Toba River valley from the head of Toba Inlet past Jimmie Creek. Interconnection

A 2.3 km 230 kV transmission line will be required from the Upper Toba switchyard to East Toba switchyard. A “T” connection will connect Dalgleish Creek powerhouse to the transmission line from Upper Toba powerhouse to East Toba switchyard. The Jimmie Creek hydroelectric facility will be connected to the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Transmission Line by a “T” connection. Energy will then travel through the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line to the BCTC grid at Saltery Bay. Access Roads

The Project facilities will be accessed through upgrades to the previously existing forestry road mainline that follows the Toba River valley. The lower portion of this road is currently being reconstructed in order to service the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project. New road construction will be required to access each of the three facility sites from the upgraded road. Capital Costs

Initial cost estimates suggest that the Project will require capital expenditures of approximately $330 million. Information Distribution

First Nations Klahoose First Nation will be potentially affected by the proposed Project. UTHI considers the involvement by First Nations in the development as being essential in maximizing the benefits that will flow from the Project to First Nations’ communities. Meetings with First Nations early in the process have provided the opportunity to identify important issues and develop plans to address and accommodate First Nations concerns and interests. Information concerning the

VI of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

Project has been shared with the Klahoose First Nation through regular and ongoing meetings and communications. Contact between Plutonic Power Corporation and the Klahoose First Nation started in 2004. An Impact Benefit Agreement (IBA) was signed on January 31, 2007 for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project. The IBA between Plutonic Power Corporation and the Klahoose First Nation for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project included a partial layout for future project consent agreement(s) as well as a framework for consulting on future projects, including the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project. Plutonic Power Corporation and the Klahoose First Nation have initiated IBA negotiations for the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project. Appendix L provides a letter from the Klahoose First Nation’s Chief Ken Brown (dated July 18, 2008) describing their full support for the project. Public The Project has been introduced to the public forum via the PPC website. Additionally, public newspaper articles have provided information regarding UTHI and its intentions for project development. A public open house was held in Powell River on October 30, 2007 where UTHI and its consultants answered questions regarding the Project and provided EAO “Comment Forms” to participants. More public consultation is planned during the Application review period. Other Land Uses The Proponent has been involved in ongoing consultation with the local Guide Outfitter, Mr. Alan Rebane (Pacific Mountain Outfitters) regarding the Project and its potential impacts on his business. Mr. Rebane’s primary interest to date has been focused on his access needs to the East Toba Montrose barge landing facility and the Toba Valley road. These discussions are ongoing and it is expected that a resolution to these issues will have similar applicability to the Upper Toba Valley project. Forest Licensees Hayes Forest Service Ltd. currently is the holder of TFL 10. There have been ongoing meetings concerning the Upper Toba Valley project areas between Hayes and UTHI. These discussions have been primarily focused on the infrastructure related to the East Toba Montrose project, including transmission line heights, timber removal on the road and transmission line rights-of-way and shared use of the Toba Valley road. Discussions are ongoing and a final resolution and outcome is expected to have similar applicability to the Upper Toba Valley project. Crown Corporations UTHI has been involved in ongoing consultation with BCTC and BC Hydro during 2007. The discussions with BCTC have focused on the potential transmission interconnection and include the completion of a BCTC feasibility study for interconnecting at the new Saltery Bay substation and utilizing the transmission line being built for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project. BCTC has concluded that such interconnection is feasible (Appendix B).

VII of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

Consultation with BC Hydro has focused on briefing BC Hydro on the scope of the project, and general discussions with BC Hydro on long-term planning and power acquisition Local Government and Community Organizations Ongoing consultation with local government and community organizations has been initiated, including:

• Powell River Rotary (November 21, 2007); • Powell River Regional District (November 22, 2007); • Powell River Committee of the Whole (December 18, 2007); • Young Leaders of Powell River (March 13, 2008), and • Powell River Chamber of Commerce (March 14, 2008).

Provincial and Federal Government Meeting with BCEAO in July 2007 to discuss initiation of the EA review process was the first step in the involvement of provincial and federal governments. The first working group meeting was held on October 2007 during which the proponent and its consultants introduced the Project. This was followed by a round table discussion where preliminary comments were provided by representatives from each of the attending government agencies, which were:

• BC Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO); • Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency); • Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO); • Transport Canada (TC); • Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN); • Environmental Stewardship Division, Ministry of Environment (MOE-ESD); • Ministry of Forests and Range (MoFR), and • Vancouver Coastal Health Authority

Consultation Results The feedback received through meetings and consultation with the regulators and various stakeholder groups above have largely formed the approach to studies and analyses undertaken in this Application. Consultation with all of the above regulators and stakeholders is scheduled to continue through Project development. Impact Assessment

Pre-application consultation with stakeholders, including federal, provincial, and municipal agencies, as well as First Nations and the public helped to shape the scope of the assessment of the Project, resulting in a list of identified issues to be examined in the impact assessment. The identified issues are:

• Fish and Fish Habitat; • Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat and Vegetation; • Vegetation; • Cultural and Heritage Resources; • First Nations Communities and Land Use; • Commercial Land and Resource Use;

VIII of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

• Public Health; • Navigable Waters, and • Recreational Land Use.

Fish and Fish Habitat The Project offers a sound layout from an environmental perspective with minimal disturbance to fish and aquatic habitat. All three proposed intake structures are located in non-fish bearing reaches. Short fish-bearing reaches exist in downstream reaches of diversion sections (below the impassable falls and upstream of the proposed tailrace structures). Construction- Best Management Practices will be adopted to avoid any potential impacts to fish and aquatic habitat. Some of the mitigation measures that will be adopted to minimize impacts to fish and aquatic habitat during the construction period include adoption of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and minimizing the duration and extent of disturbance to aquatic habitat. Adoption of an Acid Rock Drainage Management Plan (if required), working during fisheries work windows and revegetation of impacted areas will also ensure that any potential impact to fish and fish habitat is avoided during the construction period. The proposed powerhouse sites will be set back from adjacent watercourses to minimize riparian disturbance and potential sediment transport to adjacent watercourses during construction. Access roads and transmission corridors are located in previously disturbed areas, however, residual impacts identified as a result of construction of the access road and the tailrace structure will be addressed through a fish habitat compensation plan. Operations- Adoption of IFR requirements will insure that no loss of habitat occurs as a result of the Project’s operation and primary and secondary production is maintained in diversion sections. Ramping rates will be adopted for scheduled and unscheduled shut down of the facilities to avoid impact on aquatic life and habitat.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat and Vegetation Construction- Mitigation measures will be adopted to minimize/avoid impact to wildlife and wildlife habitat during construction of the project facilities and components. These mitigation measures include (but are not limited to) minimizing disturbance and clearing, measures to control invasive plant species, avoiding clearing and tree removal during the breeding bird season, proper waste management planning to avoid creating problem animals (bears), adoption of a human-bear conflict management plan, controlled public access to the project site and avoiding helicopter flights in proximity to Mountain Goat winter and natal range at the critical times of year. Operations- Transmission line maintenance (vegetation pruning) will be performed outside of the breeding bird season to avoid any residual impacts. Residual effects from some aspects of the Project on some rare plant species (lichens) are expected but overall impact (post-mitigation is rated as low). Ongoing radar monitoring of marbled murrelets in the Toba Valley indicates that the upper portion of the valley is used less than other areas. This updated information, coupled with the limited

IX of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

geographic extent of the Project’s transmission infrastructure, has led to the determination of the nature and significance of potential impacts on marbled murrelet (potential mortality from the transmission line collision) as negligible. This includes for consideration of effective mitigation including visual markers that be installed on transmission lines to prevent avian collisions. By controlling access to the project sites, any potential impacts to Grizzly bears and Mountain goats will be avoided, there for no residual impacts are expected. Cumulative Impacts Potential issues considered in this assessment include those producing residual effects ranked as moderate to high in the EIA or VECs that may be particularly sensitive to the cumulative effects of multiple development activities. Rare plants were the only VEC identified in the EIA with a moderate residual effect ranking. Since most of the rare plant species found in the project area were found in specialist microhabitats that are uncommon and spatially unpredictable in the project area, the effect of potential development activities on rare plants and the microhabitat features on which they depend can not be determined at this point. Grizzly bears were included in the CEA based on their large geographic ranges, their sensitivity to road access and human development, and the potential for spin off development based on the infrastructure created for the East Toba Rive and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric and Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Projects. Cumulative effects on grizzly bears include a decrease in the amount of effective habitat for both the construction and operation phases, and an increase in mortality risk. The significance of these impacts appears to be low for both operation and construction.

Cultural and Heritage Resources An archaeology baseline study has been conducted in the proposed Project impact area. No archaeological resources are expected to occur in the impact area. However, construction crew will be trained to stop work and report their findings if any archaeological findings are encountered. First Nations Communities and Land Use As a result of extensive, ongoing consultation efforts, no significant adverse impact to First Nation communities and their traditional land use in the Project area is expected. The proposed Project is expected to have positive impact on Klahoose First Nation by creating various employment opportunities during the construction, operations and maintenance of the project.

Commercial Land and Resource Use No significant adverse impact is expected on commercial land and resource use (guide outfitter, TFL holder and mineral tenure holders) as a result of the Project. UTHI will complete the construction as efficiently as possible, using Best Management Practices. This approach, coupled with the ongoing consultation with stakeholders, is expected to mitigate any significant adverse effects.

X of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

Public Health No impacts on public health as a result of the Project and its facilities and components are expected. The location of the proposed project is well away from any community or urban settlement.

Navigable Waters The proposed hydroelectric facilities are located on creeks and rivers that are considered non-navigable by Transport Canada. A clear span bridge on Upper Toba River (upstream of Dalgleish Creek confluence with Toba River) is proposed to provide access to the powerhouse location on Upper Toba River. Construction of this crossing will proceed in consultation with Transport Canada to avoid interference with navigability of the waterway.

Recreational Land Use Ongoing consultation has illuminated recreational use areas, and has induced Project design responses to reduce and avoid impacts. Consultation with the public and stakeholder groups will continue, and wherever possible, identified conflicts will be addressed through alteration of Project design. Impact Assessment Summary

The Project is not expected to have any overall significant impact on fisheries, wildlife and vegetation in the footprint area. Moderate residual impact is expected on rare plants (lichens). Minor impact on some components such as grizzly bears and mountain goats is expected and will be mitigated. Potential impact on Marbled Murrelet will be identified prior to construction and operation (collision with transmission line). Overall impact of the project on First Nations communities is expected to be positive. Conclusion

It is the opinion of Upper Toba Hydro Inc. and its consultants that, based on the results of the impact assessment, after implementation of appropriate impact management/mitigation measures (as identified in the Proponent’s “Table of Commitments,”), the Project is not likely to cause significant net adverse environmental, land-use, socio-economic, First Nations, or other effects.

XI of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

The list below represents the list of acronyms and abbreviations used in this Application. AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment API Aerial Photograph Interpretation ARD/ML Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching Application Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project Environmental Assessment Certificate

Application Document BACI Before After Control Impact BC British Columbia BCEAA British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act BCEAO British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office BCTC British Columbia Transmission Corporation BCWWA British Columbia Water and Waste Association BGC Biogeoclimatic BMP Best Management Practice BMU Bear Management Unit CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CEA Cumulative Effects Assessment CEE Cumulative Environmental Effects CIA Cumulative Impact Assessment CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CMTs Culturally Modified Trees COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA Environmental Assessment EIA Environment Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan EPA Energy Purchase Agreement FN First Nation FR Forest Road FSP Forest Stewardship Plan GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions GIF Ground Inspection Forms GIS Geographical Information System GWh gigawatt hour ha hectare HCL Hatfield Consultants Ltd. HEF Hydroelectric Facility HPP High Pressure Penstock ICS Incident Command System ICU Intensive Care Unit

XII of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

IFR Instream Flow Requirement ILMB Integrated Land Management Bureau (Formerly Land and Water BC) INAC Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Interfor International Forest Products Ltd. IPPBC Independent Power Producers of British Columbia IR Indian Reserve IWMS Identified Wildlife Management Strategy kV kilovolt km kilometre KPL Knight Piésold Ltd. LPC Low Pressure Conduit LRMP Land and Resource Management Plans LU Landscape Unit LWBC Land and Water BC (Now the Integrated Land Management Bureau) LWD Large Woody Debris m metre MAD Mean Annual Discharge masl metres above sea level MoE Ministry of Environment MoE-ESD Environmental Stewardship Division of Ministry of Environment MoF Ministry of Forests MoFR Ministry of Forests and Range MRI Mortality Risk Index MSRM Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management MTSA Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts MW megawatt MWLAP Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection NAPS National Air Pollution Services NRCAN Natural Resources Canada OEMP Operations Environmental Management Plan OGMA Old Growth Management Area PEP Provincial Emergency Plan PPC Plutonic Power Corporation Project Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project PRRD Powell River Regional District PRREDS Powell River Regional Economic Development Society PRV Pressure Reducing Valve RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police Qd Design Flow Q100 100 year return period river flood flow RAAD Remote Access to Archaeological Data RA Responsible Authority RIC Resources Inventory Committee (now RISC) RISC Resource Information Standards Committee ROW Right of Way

XIII of XIII VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

SARA Species at Risk Act TC Transport Canada TFL Tree Farm License TOR Terms of Reference Document for an Application for an Environmental

Assessment Certificate TRIM Terrain Resource Information Mapping UTHI Upper Toba Hydro Inc. WCB Workers Compensation Board WHMIS Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System WSC Water Survey of Canada WSI Wildlife Species Inventory VEC Valued Ecosystem Component VSC Valued Social Component

i of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008


APPLICATION


TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I

PAGE

PREFACE..........................................................................................................................................I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................II

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... i

SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1 1.1 PROPONENT IDENTIFICATION..................................................................................1

1.1.1 Proponent Background ....................................................................................1 1.1.2 Proponent Contact Information........................................................................2 1.1.3 Project Management........................................................................................2

1.2 GENERAL APPLICATION BACKGROUND .................................................................3 1.2.1 Planning and Review History ...........................................................................3 1.2.2 Application Structure........................................................................................4

1.3 PROJECT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................4 1.3.1 Project Purpose................................................................................................4 1.3.2 Project Benefits ................................................................................................5 1.3.3 Project Location ...............................................................................................6 1.3.4 Project Scope/Layout.......................................................................................7 1.3.5 Project Capital Cost Estimates ........................................................................7

1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................8 1.4.1 Federal and Provincial Policy and Legislative Requirements..........................8 1.4.2 Local/Regional Policy Requirements .............................................................10

SECTION 2.0 - INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION AND CONSULTATION.....................................11 2.1 CONSULTATION OVERVIEW ...................................................................................11 2.2 PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION ......................................................................11

2.2.1 First Nations ...................................................................................................11 2.2.2 Public .............................................................................................................12 2.2.3 Stakeholder Organizations.............................................................................12 2.2.4 Forestry Companies.......................................................................................13 2.2.5 Crown Corporations .......................................................................................13 2.2.6 Local Government and Community Organizations ........................................13

ii of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

2.2.7 Federal and Provincial Governments ............................................................14 2.3 CONSULTATION PLANNED DURING APPLICATION REVIEW ..............................15

2.3.1 First Nations ...................................................................................................15 2.3.2 Public .............................................................................................................15 2.3.3 Stakeholder Organizations.............................................................................15 2.3.4 Forestry Companies.......................................................................................16 2.3.5 Crown Corporations .......................................................................................16 2.3.6 Local Government..........................................................................................16 2.3.7 Federal and Provincial Governments ............................................................16

SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE..............................................................17 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE ..........................................................17 3.2 LOCATION OF PROJECT..........................................................................................18

3.2.1 Project Location .............................................................................................18 3.2.2 Designated Sensitive Areas...........................................................................18

3.3 PROJECT FACILITIES AND COMPONENTS ...........................................................19 3.3.1 Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility ...........................................................19 3.3.2 Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Facility ........................................................23 3.3.3 Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility...............................................................27 3.3.4 Interconnection...............................................................................................31 3.3.5 Access Road..................................................................................................31 3.3.6 Temporary Construction Camp......................................................................31

3.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASE..........................................................................................32 3.4.1 Permits ...........................................................................................................32 3.4.2 Instream Works..............................................................................................32 3.4.3 Hydroelectric Facilities ...................................................................................33 3.4.4 Transmission Line Interconnection ................................................................37 3.4.5 Access Roads ................................................................................................39 3.4.6 Construction Schedule...................................................................................41 3.4.7 Labour Requirements ....................................................................................42 3.4.8 Support Resources and Logistics ..................................................................44

3.5 OPERATION PHASE..................................................................................................45 3.5.1 Hydroelectric Facilities ...................................................................................45 3.5.2 Transmission Line Corridor............................................................................49 3.5.3 Access Control ...............................................................................................49 3.5.4 Access Road Corridor Maintenance ..............................................................49 3.5.5 Labour Requirements ....................................................................................50 3.5.6 Support Resources and Logistics ..................................................................51

3.6 DECOMMISSIONING .................................................................................................52 3.7 ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT.................................52

3.7.1 Alternate Means of Producing Energy ...........................................................52 3.7.2 Alternate Means of Producing Hydroelectricity..............................................53 3.7.3 Alternate Sites for Run of River Hydroelectric Projects .................................53 3.7.4 Alternate Points of Interconnection to the BCTC Grid ...................................53 3.7.5 Alternate Transmission Line Alignments .......................................................54

iii of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

3.7.6 Alternate Access Road Alignment .................................................................54 3.7.7 Alternate Construction Camp Locations ........................................................54

SECTION 4.0 - SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT AND STUDY AREAS...............................................55 4.1 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT........................................................................................55 4.2 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ....................................................................................56

4.2.1 Biological Resources .....................................................................................56 4.2.2 Socio-economic Resources ...........................................................................58

SECTION 5.0 - DALGLEISH CREEK SETTING AND CHARACTERISTICS ................................59 5.1 DALGLEISH CREEK FACILITY..................................................................................59 5.2 GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT...............................................................................59

5.2.1 Physiography and Topography......................................................................59 5.2.2 Soils and Geology..........................................................................................59 5.2.3 Hydrogeology and Groundwater ....................................................................61 5.2.4 Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching Potential........................................62 5.2.5 Natural Hazards .............................................................................................62

5.3 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT..............................................................................65 5.3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................65 5.3.2 Meteorology ...................................................................................................66 5.3.3 Temperature...................................................................................................66 5.3.4 Snow and Rain...............................................................................................66 5.3.5 Wind ...............................................................................................................67

5.4 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................67 5.4.1 Aquatic Habitat...............................................................................................67 5.4.2 Aquatic Fauna................................................................................................69

5.5 HYDROLOGY .............................................................................................................75 5.5.1 Stream Gauging.............................................................................................75 5.5.2 Regional Analysis ..........................................................................................76 5.5.3 Design Flood Flows .......................................................................................78 5.5.4 Water Quality .................................................................................................78

5.6 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT................................................................................80 5.6.1 Approach........................................................................................................80 5.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation.................................................................82

5.7 LAND USE CONTEXT..............................................................................................102 5.7.1 Land Use Regime ........................................................................................102 5.7.2 Current Land Status/Use .............................................................................102 5.7.3 Proposed Land Use .....................................................................................103 5.7.4 Land Acquisition...........................................................................................103

5.8 NAVIGABLE WATERS .............................................................................................104 5.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........................................................................104

SECTION 6.0 - UPPER TOBA RIVER SETTING AND CHARACTERISTICS.............................105 6.1 UPPER TOBA RIVER FACILITY..............................................................................105 6.2 GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................105

iv of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

6.2.1 Physiography and Topography....................................................................105 6.2.2 Soils and Geology........................................................................................105 6.2.3 Hydrogeology and Groundwater ..................................................................107 6.2.4 Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching Potential......................................108 6.2.5 Natural Hazards ...........................................................................................108

6.3 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT............................................................................109 6.4 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................109

6.4.1 Aquatic Habitat.............................................................................................109 6.4.2 Aquatic Fauna..............................................................................................110

6.5 HYDROLOGY ...........................................................................................................111 6.5.1 Stream Gauging...........................................................................................112 6.5.2 Regional Analysis ........................................................................................112 6.5.3 Design Flood Flows .....................................................................................115 6.5.4 Water Quality ...............................................................................................115

6.6 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT..............................................................................117 6.6.1 Biophysical Information................................................................................117 6.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation...............................................................117



SECTION 7.0 - JIMMIE CREEK SETTING AND CHARACTERISTICS ......................................120 7.1 JIMMIE CREEK FACILITY........................................................................................120 7.2 GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................120

7.2.1 Physiography and Topography....................................................................120 7.2.2 Soils and Geology........................................................................................121 7.2.3 Hydrogeology and Groundwater ..................................................................122 7.2.4 Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching Potential......................................123 7.2.5 Natural Hazards ...........................................................................................123

7.3 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT............................................................................124 7.4 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................124

7.4.1 Aquatic Habitat.............................................................................................124 7.4.2 Aquatic Fauna..............................................................................................125

7.5 HYDROLOGY ...........................................................................................................126 7.5.1 Stream Gauging...........................................................................................127 7.5.2 Regional Analysis ........................................................................................127 7.5.3 Design Flood Flows .....................................................................................130 7.5.4 Water Quality ...............................................................................................130

7.6 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT..............................................................................132 7.6.1 Biophysical Information................................................................................132 7.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation...............................................................132

v of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008



SECTION 8.0 - SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING...........................................................................139 8.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................139 8.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ......................................................................................139 8.3 LOCAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMY ......................................................................139 8.4 BUSINESSES ...........................................................................................................140

8.4.1 Forestry ........................................................................................................140 8.4.2 Aquaculture ..................................................................................................141 8.4.3 Construction.................................................................................................141 8.4.4 Tourism ........................................................................................................141 8.4.5 Retail ............................................................................................................141

8.5 LABOUR SUPPLY ....................................................................................................141 8.6 TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................................142 8.7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES .....................................................................142 8.8 HOUSING .................................................................................................................143 8.9 EMPLOYMENT.........................................................................................................143 8.10 HOUSEHOLD INCOME............................................................................................144 8.11 DWELLING VALUES ................................................................................................144 8.12 HEALTH PROFILE....................................................................................................144

8.12.1 Water Quality ...............................................................................................144 8.12.2 Air Quality.....................................................................................................144 8.12.3 Visual Quality ...............................................................................................145 8.12.4 Noise Level ..................................................................................................145 8.12.5 Waste Disposal ............................................................................................146 8.12.6 Health Services............................................................................................146

8.13 SOCIAL SUPPORT SERVICES ...............................................................................146 8.14 CRIME AND POLICING............................................................................................146

SECTION 9.0 - ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS .....................................................................................................148

9.1 GENERAL APROACH AND METHODS ..................................................................148 9.1.1 Rationale ......................................................................................................148 9.1.2 VECs and VSCs...........................................................................................148 9.1.3 Definitions ....................................................................................................149 9.1.4 Conceptual Model ........................................................................................149 9.1.5 Methodology.................................................................................................150

9.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS: VECS - PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................155

vi of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

9.2.1 Construction of Hydroelectric Facilities........................................................155 9.2.2 Construction of Transmission Line...............................................................166 9.2.3 Construction of Access Road.......................................................................170 Spread of Invasive Species: .....................................................................................173

9.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS: VECS - PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .......................................................177 9.3.1 Operation of Hydroelectric Facilities ............................................................177 9.3.2 Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat.....................................................................187 9.3.3 Operation of Interconnecting Transmission Line .........................................187 9.3.4 Operation of Access Road ...........................................................................189

9.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS: VSCS - PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................192 9.4.1 Construction of Hydroelectric Facilities........................................................192 9.4.2 Construction of Access Road.......................................................................196 9.4.3 Construction of Interconnecting Transmission Line.....................................201

9.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS: VSCS - PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .......................................................204 9.5.1 First Nation Communities and Land Use .....................................................204 9.5.2 Commercial Land and Resource Use..........................................................204 9.5.3 Public Health ................................................................................................205

9.6 CONCEPTUAL FISHERIES COMPENSATION PLAN.............................................206 9.6.1 Compensation Option 1 ...............................................................................206 9.6.2 Compensation Option 2 ...............................................................................207 9.6.3 Preliminary Design Considerations..............................................................209 9.6.4 Riparian Replanting .....................................................................................210 9.6.5 LWD Placement ...........................................................................................211

9.7 POTENTIAL ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS..................................................212 9.7.1 Construction Phase......................................................................................212 9.7.2 Operations Phase ........................................................................................212

9.8 IMPACTS ON NAVIGABLE WATERS......................................................................216 9.8.1 Project Facilities ...........................................................................................216 9.8.2 Access Road................................................................................................216 9.8.3 Transmission Line........................................................................................216

9.9 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT .......................................216 9.9.1 Climate Change ...........................................................................................216 9.9.2 Extreme Weather .........................................................................................217 9.9.3 Flooding .......................................................................................................218 9.9.4 Forest Fires ..................................................................................................218 9.9.5 Avalanches...................................................................................................218 9.9.6 Landslides ....................................................................................................219 9.9.7 Seismicity .....................................................................................................220

9.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT...................................................................221 9.10.1 Methodology.................................................................................................221 9.10.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries................................................................223 9.10.3 Activities or Projects within the Temporal and Spatial Boundaries..............223

vii of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

9.10.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment ..................................................................224 9.11 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES...................227

9.11.1 Fish and Fish Habitat ...................................................................................227 9.11.2 Wildlife and Vegetation ................................................................................227 9.11.3 Cultural and Heritage Resources.................................................................228 9.11.4 First Nations Community and Land Use ......................................................228 9.11.5 Commercial Land and Resource Use..........................................................229 9.11.6 Public Health ................................................................................................229 9.11.7 Navigable Waters.........................................................................................229 9.11.8 Recreational Land Use ................................................................................229

9.12 SUMMARY OF COMMITMENTS .............................................................................230

SECTION 10.0 - FIRST NATIONS CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................231 10.1 IDENTIFICATION OF FIRST NATIONS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE

PROPOSED PROJECT............................................................................................231 10.2 CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS ...............................................................232 10.3 FIRST NATIONS CONSIDERATIONS – STUDY AREA(S) .....................................233 10.4 TRADITIONAL USE AND ABORIGINAL RIGHTS/TITLE ISSUES ..........................233 10.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........................................................................234

10.5.1 Methods .......................................................................................................234 10.5.2 Results .........................................................................................................235

10.6 FIRST NATION’S SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ........................236 10.7 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS ON FIRST NATION INTERESTS .....................237

10.7.1 Construction Phase......................................................................................237 10.7.2 Operations and Maintenance.......................................................................238

10.8 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS RELATED TO FIRST NATIONS ISSUES .....................................................................................................................238 10.8.1 Archaeological Resources Monitoring .........................................................238 10.8.2 Traditional Use Monitoring Plan...................................................................239

10.9 COMMITMENTS TO FIRST NATIONS ....................................................................239

SECTION 11.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.............................................241 11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANNING.....................................................241 11.2 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.............................242

11.2.1 Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan......................................242 11.2.2 Concrete Batch Plant Operating Plan..........................................................242 11.2.3 Construction Waste Management Plan .......................................................242 11.2.4 Acid Rock Drainage Management Plan.......................................................243 11.2.5 Air Quality and Dust Control Plan ................................................................243 11.2.6 Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan................................................243 11.2.7 Contaminated Sites Management Plan .......................................................244 11.2.8 Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan..........................244 11.2.9 Accidents and Malfunctions Plan.................................................................245 11.2.10 Emergency Response Plan .........................................................................245 11.2.11 Fire Hazard Assessment and Abatement Plan............................................245

viii of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

11.2.12 Landscape Design and Restoration Plan ....................................................245 11.2.13 Wildlife and Vegetation Monitoring Plan ......................................................246 11.2.14 Bear Human Conflict Management Plan .....................................................246 11.2.15 Outdoor Recreation Use Management Plan................................................246 11.2.16 Archaeological Sites Management Plan ......................................................246 11.2.17 Fish Habitat Compensation Plan .................................................................247

11.3 OPERATIONS PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ..................................248 11.3.1 Parameters and Procedures of Operation ...................................................248 11.3.2 Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan......................................248 11.3.3 Waste Management Plan.............................................................................248 11.3.4 Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching Management Plan .............................248 11.3.5 Air Quality and Dust Control Plan ................................................................249 11.3.6 Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan................................................249 11.3.7 Fisheries and Aquatic Fauna Monitoring Plan .............................................249 11.3.8 Contaminated Sites Management Plan .......................................................250 11.3.9 Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan..........................250 11.3.10 Accidents and Malfunctions Plan.................................................................251 11.3.11 Emergency Response Plan .........................................................................251 11.3.12 Fire Hazard Assessment and Abatement Plan............................................251 11.3.13 Landscape and Restoration Monitoring Plan...............................................251 11.3.14 Wildlife/Vegetation Monitoring Plan .............................................................251 11.3.15 Human Bear Conflict Management Plan .....................................................252 11.3.16 Marbled Murrelet Monitoring Plan................................................................252 11.3.17 Outdoor Recreation Use Management Plan................................................252 11.3.18 Archaeological Sites Management Plan ......................................................252 11.3.19 Fish Habitat Compensation Monitoring Plan ...............................................253

SECTION 12.0 - CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................254

SECTION 13.0 - REFERENCES..................................................................................................255

SECTION 14.0 - CERTIFICATION...............................................................................................270 TABLES

Table S1 Rev 1 Table of Concordance Table 1.1 Rev 0 Summary of Permits, Licenses and Approvals Required for the Project Table 2.1 Rev 0 Summary of Published Newspaper Articles Table 5.1 Rev 0 Access Road Stream Crossings Table 5.2 Rev 0 Qualitative Risk Assessment - Terrain Hazards Table 5.3 Rev 0 Fisheries Observation Points (FISS Database) Table 5.4 Rev 0 List of Wildlife VECs Table 9.1 Rev 0 Breakdown of Activities during Construction Table 9.2 Rev 0 Impact Rating Criteria Table 9.3 Rev 1 Impact Matrix for VECs during the Construction of Hydroelectric Facilities Table 9.4 Rev 1 Impact Matrix for VECs for Construction Support and Logistics

ix of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

Table 9.5 Rev 1 Impact Matrix for VECs during the Construction of Transmission Line Table 9.6 Rev 1 Impact Matrix for VECs during the Construction of Access Road Table 9.7 Rev 1 Impact Matrix for VECs during the Operation and Maintenance of

Hydroelectric Facilities Table 9.8 Rev 0 Summary of Ramping Rates for the Upper Toba River, Dalgleish Creek

and Jimmie Creek Table 9.9 Rev 0 Proposed Ramping Rate Protocols for the Upper Toba River, Dalgleish

Creek and Jimmie Creek Table 9.10 Rev 0 Impact Matrix for VSCs during the Construction of Hydroelectric Facilities Table 9.11 Rev 0 Impact Matrix for VSCs during the Construction of the Access Road Table 9.12 Rev 0 Impact Matrix for VSCs during Construction of the Transmission Line Table 9.13 Rev 1 Impact Matrix for VSCs during Operation of the Project and its

Components Table 9.14 Rev 0 Summary of Project Impacts on VECs Table 9.15 Rev 0 Summary of Project Impacts on VSCs Table 9.16 Rev 1 Proponent’s Table of Commitments

FIGURES Figure 1.1 Rev 2 Project Location Map Figure 1.2 Rev 2 Interconnection General Arrangement Figure 3.1 Rev 1 Dalgleish Creek HEF Location Map Figure 3.2 Rev 5 Dalgleish Creek HEF General Arrangement Figure 3.3 Rev 2 Dalgleish Creek HEF Watershed Characteristics Figure 3.4 Rev 2 Dalgleish Creek HEF Intake Structure and Diversion Weir General

Arrangement - Overview Figure 3.5 Rev 3 Dalgleish Creek HEF Powerhouse and Switchyard General Arrangement-

Plan Overview Figure 3.6 Rev 1 Upper Toba River HEF Location Map Figure 3.7 Rev 4 Upper Toba River HEF General Arrangement Figure 3.8 Rev 1 Upper Toba River HEF Watershed Characteristics Figure 3.9 Rev 2 Upper Toba River HEF Intake Structure and Diversion Weir General

Arrangement - Overview Figure 3.10 Rev 2 Upper Toba River HEF Powerhouse and Switchyard General Arrangement-

Plan Overview Figure 3.11 Rev 1 Jimmie Creek HEF Location Map Figure 3.12 Rev 4 Jimmie Creek HEF General Arrangement Figure 3.13 Rev 2 Jimmie Creek HEF Watershed Characteristics Figure 3.14 Rev 2 Jimmie Creek HEF Intake Structure and Diversion Weir General

Arrangement - Overview Figure 3.15 Rev 3 Jimmie Creek HEF Powerhouse and Switchyard General Arrangement Plan

Overview Figure 4.1 Rev 1 Biological Resources Study Areas

x of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

Figure 5.1 Rev 1 Dalgleish Creek Satellite Imagery Figure 5.2 Rev 2 Facility Location Map and Terrain Unit Legend Figure 5.3 Rev 2 Dalgleish Creek HEF Surficial Geology and Terrain Hazards Figure 5.4 Rev 2 Dalgleish Creek HEF Qualitative Risk Assessment Figure 5.5 Rev 1 Dalgleish Creek Reach Break and 2007 Fish Sampling Sites Figure 6.1 Rev 2 Upper Toba River Surficial Geology and Terrain Hazards Figure 6.2 Rev 2 Upper Toba River HEF Qualitative Risk Assessment Figure 6.3 Rev 1 Upper Toba River Reach Break and 2007 Fish Sampling Sites Figure 6.4 Rev 1 Upper Toba River Satellite Imagery Figure 7.1 Rev 0 Jimmie Creek Satellite Imagery Figure 7.2 Rev 1 Jimmie Creek HEF Surficial Geology and Terrain Hazards Figure 7.3 Rev 2 Jimmie Creek HEF Qualitative Risk Assessment Figure 7.4 Rev 1 Jimmie Creek Reach Break and 2007 Fish Sampling Sites Figure 8.1 Rev 0 Age Distribution (both sexes) in Powell River Regional District Figure 8.2 Rev 0 Aboriginal Population (both sexes) in Powell River Regional District Figure 8.3 Rev 0 Mother Tongue (both sexes) in Powell River Regional District Figure 8.4 Rev 0 Occupied Private Dwelling Characteristics in Powell River Regional District Figure 9.1 Rev 1 Impact Assessment Conceptual Model Figure 9.2 Rev 0 Upper Toba River Fish Habitat Compensation Plan Option 1 Figure 9.3 Rev 0 Upper Toba River Fish Habitat Compensation Plan Option 2 Figure 10.1 Rev 0 Klahoose First Nation Traditional Territory

PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO 1 Dalgleish Creek Intake Location PHOTO 2 Dalgleish Creek Diversion Reach PHOTO 3 Dalgleish Creek Powerhouse Location PHOTO 4 Lake above the Upper Toba Intake Location PHOTO 5 Aerial View of the Upper Toba Diversion Reach PHOTO 6 Ground View of the Upper Toba Diversion Reach PHOTO 7 Upper Toba Powerhouse Location PHOTO 8 Aerial View of the Jimmie Creek Intake Location PHOTO 9 Ground View of the Jimmie Creek Intake Location PHOTO 10 Jimmie Creek Diversion Reach PHOTO 11 Aerial View of the Jimmie Creek Powerhouse Location PHOTO 12 Looking Upstream from the Jimmie Creek Powerhouse Location PHOTO 13 Colluvial Fan at the Proposed Dalgleish Creek Intake PHOTO 14 Dalgleish Creek Fan PHOTO 15 Snow Avalanche Paths Across the River from Dalgleish Creek Fan PHOTO 16 Proposed Upper Toba River Intake Location PHOTO 17 Snow Avalanche Paths Immediately Downstream of the Proposed Intake

Location for the Upper Toba River Facility PHOTO 18 Proposed Jimmie Creek Intake Location PHOTO 19 Proposed Jimmie Creek Powerhouse Location PHOTO 20 Old Rock Slide Upstream from the Proposed Intake Location for the Jimmie

Creek Facility

xi of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

PHOTO 21 Rock Cliff Along the Lower Portion of the Proposed Penstock Alignment for the Jimmie Creek Facility

VOLUME II

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Transmission Line Shared Use Agreement Letter

APPENDIX B BCTC Feasibility Study

APPENDIX C Road Reconnaissance Letter Report

APPENDIX D Construction Schedule

APPENDIX E Fisheries Reports

APPENDIX F Hydrology Reports

APPENDIX G Water Quality Tables and Figures

APPENDIX H Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation Studies

APPENDIX I TFL 10 Forest Services Plan

APPENDIX J Navigable Waters Letters

APPENDIX K Air Quality Tables

APPENDIX L Klahoose First Nation Letter

APPENDIX M Archaeology Studies

xii of xii VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This document has been compiled by Knight Piésold Consulting on behalf of Upper Toba Hydro Inc. with the assistance and contribution from the following consulting firms and individuals:

Company Service Address

Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd.

Wildlife and Vegetation Surveys and Studies

#112, 9547 152nd St. Surrey, BC V3R 5Y5

Strategic Forest Management Road Design and Layout 5G - 1705 Campbell Way Port McNeill, BC

FishFor Contracting Ltd. Fisheries and Habitat Surveys P.O. Box 646, Port McNeill, BC V0N 2R0

Peter Kiewit & Sons Co. Project Construction 3555 Farnam Street, Omaha, NE 68131

Arcas Consulting Archaeologists

Archaeological Studies and Impact Assessment

55A Fawcett Rd., Coquitlam, B.C V3K 6V2

1 of 270 VA103-00162/01-14 Revision 2 September 17, 2008


APPLICATION


SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROPONENT IDENTIFICATION

1.1.1 Proponent Background

The Plutonic Power Corporation (PPC) is a clean energy development company focused on run of river hydroelectric energy generation in British Columbia. PPC was incorporated in 1999, became a TSX Venture Exchange listed company in July 2003, and graduated to the TSX Exchange in June 2007. PPC will develop the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project through its wholly owned subsidiary, Upper Toba Hydro Inc. (UTHI). A précis of each of the PPC Board of Directors is provided below. Donald McInnes, Vice-Chairman and CEO - Mr. McInnes is the founder of PPC and has been involved in the identification of opportunities and the financing of early stage start up situations in natural resources for 15 years. Bruce Ripley, President and Chief Operating Officer - Dr. Ripley is the President and Chief Operating Officer for PPC with over 25 years of international engineering experience in the hydroelectric industry, including 16 years with BC Hydro. Paul Sweeney, Executive Vice President, and Business Development - Mr. Sweeney is the Executive Vice President of Business Development for PPC with extensive experience in project finance in the natural resources sector. Rupert Legge, Senior Vice President, Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretary - Mr. Legge has practiced securities and corporate finance law for more than 20 years at a major Vancouver law firm. He has a wide range of experience in advising public companies at all stages of development on a wide variety of matters, including regulatory compliance and corporate governance. Peter Wong, Chief Financial Officer - Mr. Wong is a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Canada and has held a number of progressive senior financial management positions with a number of mineral exploration stage, development stage and producing companies.


Walter Segsworth, Chairman of the Board - Mr. Segsworth is a long time executive officer and director of several mining companies with market capitalizations of several billion dollars. Grigor Cook, Director - Mr. Cook has over 30 years experience in the Canadian engineering and construction industry. He currently serves as President of the Toba Montrose General Partnership. R. Stuart Angus, Director - Mr. Angus is a natural resources and securities lawyer with 30 years experience in mergers and acquisitions and corporate structuring. Peter Flynn, Director - Dr. Flynn has over 30 years of experience in the Canadian energy and engineering industry. Bill Lindquist, Director - Dr. Lindquist is a geologist with over 30 years of project development experience with such companies as Goldfields Mining Corp., Newcrest Mining, and Homestake Mining Company. Dr. Lindquist is also currently a director of Gallant Minerals Ltd. Mike Volker, Director - Mr. Volker is a high technology entrepreneur involved in the development of technology based businesses. Since 1996, he has been the Director of Simon Fraser University’s Industry Liaison Office.

1.1.2 Proponent Contact Information

Name: Upper Toba Hydro Inc. Address: Suite 600 – 888 Dunsmuir Street Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 3K4 Phone: (604) 669-4999 Toll Free: (877) 669-4999 Fax: (604) 682-3727 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Web: www.plutonic.ca Stock Exchange Listing: PCC - TSX Company Representatives: Bruce Ripley, President and Chief Operating Officer Bill Irwin, Director, Land and Resource Management

1.1.3 Project Management

Upper Toba Hydro Inc. has engaged Knight Piésold Ltd. (KPL) to conduct project management and design. Contact information for Knight Piésold Ltd. is provided below.


Name: Knight Piésold Ltd. Address: 1400 – 750 W Pender Street Vancouver, BC, V6C 2T8, Canada Phone: (604) 685-0543 Fax: (604) 685-0417 Email: [email protected]

[email protected] Web: www.knightpiesold.com Company Representatives: Sam Mottram, P.Eng., Manager, Power Services Chris Brodie, R.P.Bio., Manager, Environmental

Services

1.2 GENERAL APPLICATION BACKGROUND

1.2.1 Planning and Review History

The initial project concepts were investigated by UTHI in 2006, and followed with significant field study, culminating with an internal review that found the project concepts to be technically viable and financially feasible. UTHI (under PPC cover) submitted a Project Description to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) on May 3, 2007. The British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) has issued an order under Section 10(1)(c) of the BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) that an Environmental Assessment Certificate is required and that PPC may not proceed with the Project without an assessment. The BCEAO has further issued an order under Section 11 of the BCEAA that the Project is reviewable, and that, pursuant to Section 6.1 of the Canada-British Columbia Agreement for Environmental Assessment Cooperation, the provincial and federal governments will work cooperatively to complete their respective reviews of the Project. The Project will utilize some of the basic infrastructure (e.g. main Toba Valley access road, transmission line and construction camp) of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project and will build on the relationships with the Klahoose First Nation and other stakeholders established during the consultation and permitting process. The proponent has been conducting extensive field studies in order to collect all the data required for the design and review of the project.


1.2.2 Application Structure

The Application has been structured in two volumes: • Volume I: Application • Volume II: Appendices

Volume I contains the application main text and supporting tables, figures and photos and Volume II includes supplemental and detailed information required by various agencies.

1.3 PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.3.1 Project Purpose

The demand for energy in British Columbia is increasing at a rate of approximately 1,000 GWh per year and new sources of energy are being called for by BC Hydro to meet this growth. Currently, BC imports up to 15% of its annual energy requirements from Alberta and the United States. The proposed Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project will generate green power from three run of river hydroelectric generation facilities. The total installed capacity of these three facilities will be approximately 130 MW. The produced energy will then be conveyed via the 230 kV transmission line for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project (now in construction), to the BC Transmission Corporation (BCTC) grid near Saltery Bay, BC. This Application is supported by a letter of agreement between Plutonic Power Corporation (Upper Toba Hydro Inc.) and the Toba Montrose General Partnership (Toba Montrose Hydro Inc), the proponent of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project, regarding the use of the transmission line to Saltery Bay. This letter of agreement will also address transferability of the agreement, should one or both of the parties transfer ownership. This Project fits perfectly into the recently released BC Energy Plan that looks to all forms of clean, alternative energy in meeting BC’s growing energy demands. The BC Energy Plan looks to all forms of clean, alternative energy in meeting BC’s growing energy demands. This BC Energy Plan shows great environmental leadership, including:

• Zero greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired electricity generation; • All new electricity generation projects will have zero net greenhouse gas

emissions for existing thermal generation power plants by 2016; • Ensure clean or renewable electricity generation continues to account for at least

90 per cent of total generation; • No nuclear power; • Best coalbed gas practices in North America; and • Eliminate all routine flaring at oil and gas producing wells and production facilities

by 2016 with an interim goal to reduce flaring by 50 per cent by 2011.


The Project will help BC meet its growing demand for electricity and also help to reduce the frequency of relying on imported electricity. The Project will make use of the infrastructure established by the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project such as its transmission line, access road, construction camp and other capacities built during the permitting and construction of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project.

1.3.2 Project Benefits

Development of run of river clean energy sources in BC offers BC Hydro’s customers a reliable clean energy source. With rising fuel costs, run of river hydro also offers a stable price to the consumer. Increased run of river development also helps the environment by offsetting green house gas emissions from thermal electric generators. Aside from the benefits to the energy consumer, various other benefits are derived directly from development of the Project. These benefits include:

• A source of clean renewable energy; • Construction employment of approximately 400 to 535 person years over the

course of 2 years of Project construction; • Construction training of local and First Nations people; • Permanent employment of 3 to 4 individuals over the course of the 40 year

estimated Project life span; • Ongoing maintenance and service contracts for the life span of the Project,

including linemen, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, foresters, road contractors, helicopter services, tugboat/barge operator, and others;

• Seasonal employment opportunities over the life of the Project to maintain the transmission line Right of Way (ROW);

• Water rental and land lease/purchase fees to the Province; • Payments to the regional tax base; and • Local investment.

The layout of the Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek and Upper Toba River facilities are such as to minimize their impacts on the streams and surrounding environment. They will be constructed as run of river facilities that will leave a very small footprint on the land. The proposed Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project will generate green power from three run of river hydroelectric generation facilities. The total installed capacity of these three facilities will be approximately 130 MW. This produced energy will then be conveyed via the 230 kV transmission line for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project (currently under construction), to the BCTC grid near Saltery Bay, BC. The Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project will fit well with the mandate of the province to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The BC government has set an ambitious goal for reducing the province’s GHG emissions and committed to achieving that goal


through action across all sectors of the economy. Key components of BC's provincial strategy on climate action are:

• aggressive but achievable targets for provincial emissions reduction for 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2050;

• legislated mandatory caps on major BC emitters, as part of a GHG trading system being developed in partnership with other jurisdictions; and

• a comprehensive set of sectoral actions to help achieve the provincial reduction targets.

The Project will help BC meet its growing demand for electricity and also help to reduce the frequency of relying on imported electricity, while supporting the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project is owned by the Toba Montrose General Partnership, of which Plutonic Power Corporation owns 51%. Agreements are in place for the Upper Toba Valley Project to make use of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project transmission line. Appendix A provides the transmission line arrangement from the partnership agreement between Toba Montrose General Partnership and Plutonic Power Corporation that grants Upper Toba Hydro Inc. (a 100% owned subsidiary of Plutonic Power Corporation) access and the rights to use capacity on the transmission line being constructed for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project, to transmit energy from the proposed Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project to the BCTC grid. The East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project renders the Project viable by bringing the transmission line in close proximity and will allow for the refurbishment of essential access roads.

1.3.3 Project Location

The Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project is located within the Coast Range of southern British Columbia in the Toba River watershed approximately 100 km north of Powell River. Access to the project site is by air from Powell River or by water through Toba Inlet. From the head of Toba Inlet, the Project facilities will be accessed through upgrades to the previously existing Toba forestry road mainline and East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project access roads (currently under construction). New road construction will be required to access each of the three facility sites from the upgraded road. The project is located in Toba Valley that has been heavily logged. Forestry Service Roads are still present in the valley and will be upgraded to provide access to the Project sites.


The project site also lies within Klahoose First Nation’s traditional territory. Extensive consultation has been initiated with the Klahoose during permitting of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project which will form a solid basis for the Project through close cooperation of the Proponent with the Klahoose First Nation. See Figure 1.1 for a location map of the Project and its components.

1.3.4 Project Scope/Layout

In project scoping, those components of the proposed development that should be considered in preparation of environmental assessment are defined. Proposed hydroelectric facilities will be run of river facilities using a Coanda screen and a head pond at the intake. The water will be conveyed to the powerhouse via low pressure HDPE pipe and high pressure steel penstock or tunnels. Pelton turbines, rated to suit each individual facility, will be used to generate power. The Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project activities include two main phases: Construction and Operations. The proposed Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project is compromised of the following major facilities and components:

• Dalgleish Creek 30 MW hydroelectric facility; • Upper Toba River 45 MW hydroelectric facility; • Jimmie Creek 55 MW hydroelectric facility; • Approximately 2.3 km of transmission line for interconnection to the 230 kV

transmission line serving the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project (Figure 1.2); and

• Facility access roads. Detailed descriptions for each facility and its components are presented in the following sections. General arrangements for these facilities are presented in Figures 3.2, 3.7, and 3.12. Scope of the environmental assessment for each facility, transmission corridor, and access road are also defined. An overview map for the entire Toba River valley is provided in Figure 1.1. A description of the Project location is provided in section 1.3.3.

1.3.5 Project Capital Cost Estimates

Initial cost estimates suggest that the Project will require capital expenditure of approximately $330 million. The following structure has been used to determine the capital cost estimate for the Project:

• Preliminary and General – includes mobilization, bonds, insurance, permits and demobilization;

• Facility Roads – includes clearing and grubbing, rehabilitation of existing roads, construction of new roads and the installation of culverts and bridges;


• Intakes/Diversions (for the Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek, and Upper Toba River facilities) - includes clearing intake sites, excavation, construction of temporary diversions and construction of the intake structures;

• Water Conveyance (for the Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek, and Upper Toba River facilities) - includes clearing and grubbing, trench excavation and blasting, and installation of the low pressure conduit and the high pressure penstock;

• Powerhouses and Ancillary Services (for the Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek, and Upper Toba River facilities) – includes clearing and grubbing, excavation, and construction of powerhouse and tailrace structures;

• Power Generation (for the Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek and Upper Toba River facilities) - includes the installation and commissioning of the turbines and generators and all related mechanical and electrical systems;

• Transmission (for the Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek and Upper Toba River facilities) - includes the clearing and grubbing of transmission line right of way, installation of wooden structures, and circuit breakers;

• Indirect Costs – includes contractor supervision and administration, surveying, room and board, transportation, interest during construction, owner costs, insurance, working capital and financing costs, etc.;

• Environmental Components; • Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management (EPCM) Costs are

also included; and • Contingencies and Provincial Sales Tax.

The detailed breakdown of the cost estimate for each of the above components has not been included with this Application document due to the competitive nature of the BC Hydro power acquisition process, as well as the competitive bid process that will be established for Contractors bidding on the various tenders that will be let for the Project.

1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

1.4.1 Federal and Provincial Policy and Legislative Requirements

Provincial Legislation

Provincial review and authorizations for the Project will or may fall within the mandate of the following acts:

• British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act; • Commercial Transport Act; • Electrical Safety Act; • Environmental Management Act; • Fire Services Act; • Fish Protection Act; • Forest Act; • Forest and Range Practices Act; • Health Act;


• Heritage Conservation Act; • Highways Act; • Land Act; • Integrated Pest Management Act; • Environmental Management Act; • Water Act • Wildfire Act and Regulations; and • Wildlife Act.

The Project is subject to review under the provincial BCEAA, which is administered by the BCEAO. The Project is considered to be a reviewable project pursuant to Part 4 of the Reviewable Projects Regulation (BC Reg. 370/2002) as the Project proposes to include a rated nameplate capacity in excess of 50 MW. As a Reviewable Project, the BCEAO issued an order pursuant to Section 10(1)(c) of the BCEAA on July 24, 2007, proclaiming that:

• An Environmental Assessment Certificate is required for the Project; and • The Proponent may not proceed with the Project without an assessment.

Concurrent to the EA review, other provincial approvals will be processed pursuant to the Concurrent Approval Regulation (BC Reg 371/2002). Under this process, provincial agencies may review applications for statutory authorizations prior to issuance of the Environmental Assessment Certificate; however, no authorizations may be issued until after the Certificate has been issued. Federal Legislation

Federal review and authorizations for the Project will or may fall within the mandate of the following acts:

• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; • Explosives Act; • Fisheries Act; • Indian Act; • Migratory Birds Convention Act; • Navigable Waters Protection Act; • Species at Risk Act; and • Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

Federal agencies have reviewed the proposed Project to decide if their particular mandate under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is triggered, thereby making them a Responsible Authority (RA). As federal agencies are expected to issue authorizations or permits, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) will be triggered, and a Screening Review will be undertaken. The RAs must ensure that an environmental assessment is conducted pursuant to the CEAA prior to the issuance of federal permits and authorizations.


On June 24, 2008, the Notice of Commencement of an environmental assessment was posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry which identified the scope of the review and that it would be undertaken by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada by virtue of these agencies having to provide permits or authorizations and by Natural Resources Canada by virtue of the UTHI application to the ecoENERGY for Renewable Power Program. Provincial – Federal Coordination

As the Project has been determined to be subject to both provincial and federal environmental assessment, the Canada – British Columbia Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (2004) will be invoked. By virtue of this agreement, one cooperative assessment will be completed that will meet the requirements of both levels of government. A list of permits, licenses and approvals required for the project are provided in Table 1.1.

1.4.2 Local/Regional Policy Requirements

Municipal review and authorizations for the Project will or may fall within the mandate of the Municipal Act and compliance with local bylaws and zoning designations. The Project falls entirely within the Powell River Regional District (PRRD). Each proposed hydroelectric facility is located on Crown Land, as are the proposed access roads and transmission alignment. The proposed Project does not fall within any current Regional Land Use Plan or Land and Resource Management Plan. The proposed Project is located within the Toba Landscape Unit of the Sunshine Coast Sustainable Resource Management Plan. This Landscape Unit does not yet have any approved Landscape Unit Plan. A list of permits, licenses and approvals required for the project are provided in Table 1.1.


SECTION 2.0 - INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION AND CONSULTATION

2.1 CONSULTATION OVERVIEW

Consultation activity has been undertaken with First Nations, the public, stakeholder organizations, forestry companies, Crown Corporations, Municipal Government, Federal Government, and Provincial Government as follows:

• The Klahoose First Nation (as the Project lies within their traditional territory); • The Public (through an open house in Powell River, newspaper articles, and website

information); • Hayes Forest Services • Guide Outfitter (Alan Rebane, Pacific Mountain Outfitters) • BC Transmission Corporation; • BC Hydro and Power Authority; • Powell River Regional District; • Powell River Regional Economic Development Society; • Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; • Fisheries and Oceans Canada; • Natural Resources Canada; • Transport Canada; • BC Environmental Assessment Office; • Integrated Land Management Bureau (Ministry of Agriculture and Lands); • Ministry of Environment (Environmental Stewardship Division; Water Stewardship

Division); • Ministry of Forests and Range; • Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; • Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts (Archaeology Branch); and • Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.

2.2 PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION

2.2.1 First Nations

UTHI (Plutonic Power Corporation) contacted the Klahoose First Nation regarding the potential to develop run of river hydro projects in their territory in July 2004. Through ongoing negotiations and consultation with the Klahoose, an Impact Benefit Agreement (IBA) was signed on January 31, 2007 with respect to the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project. That IBA included the layout of some components for a future project consent agreement and a framework for consulting on future projects with the Klahoose. On April 12, 2007, a letter was sent to the Klahoose advising of UTHI’s (Plutonic Power Corporation) application to the Integrated Land Management Bureau and the Ministry of Environment for three additional water licenses and corresponding land tenure in the


Toba Valley. The applications were made for Jimmy Creek, Dalgleish Creek, and Upper Toba River (collectively, the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project). On July 20, 2007, a letter was sent to the Klahoose advising that UTHI (Plutonic Power Corporation) had requested the Environmental Assessment Office proceed with a Section 10 order under the Environmental Act for the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project. At meetings on January 28 and February 28, 2008, UTHI advised the Klahoose of their willingness to start a more detailed discussion of an agreement on the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project. Conceptual frameworks for an agreement have been verbally presented and these discussions are currently ongoing. The Klahoose First Nation have provided a letter to the province acknowledging their satisfaction with the level of consultation that has and continues to occur with UTHI and confirming their support for UTHI’s Application under the Environmental Assessment Act for the Upper Toba Valley Project.

2.2.2 Public

The Project has been introduced to the public forum via the PPC website (www.plutonic.ca). Additionally, public newspaper articles have provided information regarding UTHI and its intentions for project development. A public open house was held in Powell River on October 30, 2007 where UTHI and its consultants answered questions regarding the Project and provided EAO “Comment Forms” to participants. Questions raised by the public generally focused on job opportunities. Other issues raised were addressed via responses to the EAO. On April 23, 2008 an update on the Project was provided to the Community Advisory Group to Stillwater Timberlands. An update on the Project was also provided at a general community update night the company held in Powell River in May of 2008. A summary of articles related to the Project that were published in various newspapers are listed in Table 2.1.

2.2.3 Stakeholder Organizations

Consultation has been ongoing with the Guide Outfitter (Alan Rebane), the province and the Klahoose First Nation and while there have been no specific issues raised with respect to the Upper Toba Valley Project, discussions have focussed on access to the barge landing site and the Toba Montrose road infrastructure constructed as part of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project.


2.2.4 Forestry Companies

Hayes Forest Service Ltd. currently is the holder of TFL 10, wherein lies the proposed Project. There have been ongoing discussions concerning the Upper Toba Valley Project between UTHI and Hayes. These discussions have primarily been focused on the infrastructure related to the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project, including transmission line heights, timber removal from the road and transmission line and shared use of the Toba Valley road. Discussions are ongoing and resolution of the outcome will have similar applicability to the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project.

2.2.5 Crown Corporations

Ongoing consultation regarding the Project occurred with both BCTC and BC Hydro during 2007. The discussions with BCTC have focused on the potential transmission interconnection and include the completion of a BCTC feasibility study for interconnecting at the new Saltery Bay substation and utilizing the transmission line being built for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project. BCTC has concluded that such interconnection is feasible (Appendix B). Consultation with BC Hydro has focused on briefing BC Hydro on the scope of the project, and general discussions with BC Hydro on long-term planning and power acquisition.

2.2.6 Local Government and Community Organizations

Consultation activities with Local Government and community organizations have been ongoing and include:

• Meeting with the Powell River Rotary on November 21, 2007 to provide an update on the Project;

• Meeting with the Powell River Regional District on November 22, 2007 to provide an update on the Project;

• Presentation to the Powell River Committee of the Whole on December 18, 2007 providing an update on the Project;

• Meeting with the Young Leaders of Powell River on March 13, 2008 to provide an update on the Project; and

• Meeting with the Powell River Chamber of Commerce on March 14, 2008 to provide an update on the Project.

UTHI and its consultants have presented and discussed the Project with authorities from the local government and have addressed any issues raised to date related to the Project and its activities.


2.2.7 Federal and Provincial Governments

UTHI first met with the BCEAO in July 2007 to discuss the approach to submitting the project into the environmental assessment review process and next steps. The first working group meeting held under the auspices of the BCEAO was on October 2, 2007. During the meeting, UTHI and its consultants introduced the proposed Project and provided an opportunity for questions and answers. This was followed by a round table discussion where preliminary comments were provided by representatives from each of the attending government agencies, which were:

• BC Environmental Assessment Office; • Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; • Fisheries and Oceans Canada; • Transport Canada; • Natural Resources Canada; • Environmental Stewardship Division, Ministry of Environment; • Ministry of Forests and Range; and • Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.

On November 1, 2007, representatives from BCEAO, Transport Canada, and the Environmental Stewardship Division of MOE were given a helicopter tour of the Project area in order to better understand the Project location and layout. A representative from Fisheries and Oceans Canada had previously undertaken a site visit and been provided the opportunity to view each component of the proposed Project. All other agencies declined the offer to undertake a site visit, citing lack of need and unnecessary expense. The Proponent met with DFO on March 14, 2008 to discuss the placement of the powerhouse for Dalgleish Creek. The Proponent met with MOE-WSD and BCEAO on April 16, 2008 to discuss the Cumulative Effects Assessment and the mapping standards for grizzly bear mapping to be included in the Application. The Proponent met with DFO, CEAA, BCEAO on April 29, 2008 to discuss the placement of the powerhouses for Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek and Upper Toba River. There was also discussion regarding the Cumulative Effects Assessment and regarding the HADD triggers. The Proponent met with BCEAO, CEAA, DFO on June 25, 2008 to discuss the Application, the placement of the powerhouse for Dalgleish, and Federal Scoping Additionally, open communication through telephone, fax, and email has occurred as required between UTHI, its consultants, and agencies as required.


2.3 CONSULTATION PLANNED DURING APPLICATION REVIEW

UTHI will continue to liaise with the above stakeholder groups as the Project enters into the Application Review period and through detailed design. Should any conflicts be identified, they will be discussed and resolved between UTHI, its consultants, and the conflicted party. The consultation undertaken during the Application Review will be coordinated to fall within the formal review period to be established by the BCEAO. At the culmination of the review period, a summary consultation report will be issued by UTHI that will detail the consultation undertaken, issues identified, and actions taken to address identified issues. 2.3.1 First Nations

Upper Toba Hydro Inc. is currently undertaking negotiations with the Klahoose First Nation to reach agreement on an Impact Benefit Agreement for the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project. Negotiations between UTHI and the Klahoose First Nation are expected to accelerate over the next several months as conceptual discussions are translated into an agreement.

2.3.2 Public

UTHI will continue to maintain and update the Project website (http://www.plutonic.ca/s/TobaII.asp?reportid=183159) for continued public access and review. Additionally, UTHI will hold a public open house at the Powell River Town Centre Hotel in the fall of 2008. The open house will provide an opportunity to discuss the Application content and findings of the impact assessment, and to identify any new issues that may arise. UTHI will also provide public announcements in the local newspaper, following instructions to be given by BCEAO regarding the availability of the Application for review, its review timeline, its depository locations, and the date and location of the public open house. UTHI will respond to all written Public comments directed to the company by BCEAO, which are received during the Public comment period.

2.3.3 Stakeholder Organizations

UTHI will meet face to face with the Powell River Regional District to discuss the Project during the Application Review period. Additionally, UTHI will continue to liaise with both the Powell River Regional District and the Powell River Regional Economic Development Society.


2.3.4 Forestry Companies

UTHI will continue joint discussions with the Hayes Forest Services (licensee of TFL 10) regarding detailed construction and operations planning. Meetings, telephone conversations, and emails will be used to proceed as appropriate.

2.3.5 Crown Corporations

UTHI will continue consultation with BC Hydro as part of BC Hydro’s 2008 Clean Call for Power. Consultation will continue with BCTC as part of the Clean Call process as well, and will include required BCTC interconnection studies.

2.3.6 Local Government

UTHI will meet face to face with the Mayor and City of Powell River to discuss the Project during the Application Review period.

2.3.7 Federal and Provincial Governments

UTHI and its consultants will seek further comments and resolution of any technical issues with federal and provincial agencies through continued involvement with the technical working group established for the Project review. Agency meetings will be scheduled by the BCEAO, and meetings with individual agencies will be conducted as required.


SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE

3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Most of British Columbia's power is derived from large hydroelectric facilities. However, BC currently imports some of its marginal electricity needs from the United States and Alberta. Imported electricity was used to cover approximately 15% of BC demand in 2006 and this number is expected to increase in 2007. Most electricity generated in Alberta is from coal and natural gas, while a large portion of electricity produced in Washington State is generated from natural gas and nuclear sources. Therefore, by developing green power projects within the province, British Columbia reduces its reliance on imported electricity generated from "brown" or non-renewable sources, thus offsetting the GHG emitted from these facilities. The Proponent (UTHI) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Plutonic Power Corporation (PPC) which is a clean energy development company focused on run of river hydroelectric energy generation in British Columbia. PPC was incorporated in 1999, became a TSX Venture Exchange listed company in July 2003, and graduated to the TSX Exchange in June 2007. The company's flagship project, the 196 MW East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project, is currently under construction, with operation to begin in 2010. PPC is committed to continuously working with First Nations, stakeholder groups and local communities in the development of its green energy projects. Plutonic Power Corporation takes its corporate governance responsibilities very seriously. Corporate governance best practices are consistently reviewed to ensure processes are in place to address compliance and disclosure matters, and to firmly uphold the principles of ethics, transparency, financial integrity and fair management compensation. The Project has been designed as a clean energy project. Sensitive habitats and forest development areas will be avoided during planning where possible and First Nations and land tenure holder interests will be incorporated into the final design where possible. The overall Project will be developed as five main components, including:

• Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility; • Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Facility; • Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility; • Connection to the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Transmission Line; and • Toba Valley Access Roads and Related Infrastructure.

The demand for energy in British Columbia is increasing at a rate of approximately 1000 GWh per year and new sources of energy are being called for by BC Hydro to meet this growth. Currently, BC imports up to 15% of its annual energy requirements from Alberta and the United States. The rationale of the project is to produce clean run of river energy to meet the growing electricity requirements of British Columbia. The Project will produce approximately 130 MW of clean energy and will be developed in accordance with BC Hydro’s Green Energy Guidelines.


Each facility will divert flows from a high elevation intake into a water conveyance system comprised of a low pressure conduit and a high pressure penstock, which will lead to a surface powerhouse at a lower elevation. The proposed Project will connect with the 230 kV East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project transmission line. The Upper Toba River facility will be connected to the East Toba switchyard by a 2.3 km 230 kV transmission line. A simple “T” connection will connect the Dalgleish Creek switchyard to the East Toba switchyard. The Jimmie Creek facility will tie into the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line with a “T” connection from its switchyard through a 230 kV interconnection.

3.2 LOCATION OF PROJECT

3.2.1 Project Location

The Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project is located within the Coast Range of south western British Columbia, approximately 100 km north of Powell River within the Toba River valley (Figure 1.1). The proposed 55 MW Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility is located approximately 30 km upstream of the Toba River mouth, the proposed 30 MW Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility is located approximately 43.5 km upstream of the Toba River mouth and the proposed 45 MW Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Facility is located approximately 45 km upstream of Toba River mouth. Each of these streams drain directly to the Toba River. The three facility sites will be accessed via the road that follows the Toba River valley, which is currently under construction as part of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project. In addition, approximately 6,800 m of new permanent access road and approximately 13,300 m of upgrades to existing logging roads will be required.

3.2.2 Designated Sensitive Areas

Sensitive ecosystems are defined as rare and fragile ecosystems in a given area. Sensitive ecosystems are often remnants of those ecosystems that once occupied a large area. Various development activities may impact certain types of ecosystems and as they become scarcer, they are identified as sensitive since the availability of these habitat types becomes the limiting factor for some of those species that are dependent on them. Sensitive ecosystems may include a variety of habitat types such as aquatic, terrestrial, riparian or wetland. Sensitive ecosystems may provide critical habitat for species at risk or provide corridors and linkages. The Project components are not located within or immediately adjacent to any national, provincial, or regional parks, ecological reserves, or other sensitive areas.


Ongoing consultation with First Nations, provincial and federal government agencies, stakeholder groups, and the general public will ensure that no sensitive areas are affected by the Project.

3.3 PROJECT FACILITIES AND COMPONENTS

3.3.1 Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility

The proposed Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility is a 30 MW run of river clean power generation facility in the Dalgleish Creek drainage basin. The proposed facility will divert a portion of the water from the river from a high elevation intake on Dalgleish Creek into a water conveyance system which leads to a surface powerhouse as detailed below. The proposed location of the Dalgleish Creek facility is shown in Figure 3.1. General arrangement for this facility is presented in Figure 3.2.

3.3.1.1 Site Characteristics

The proposed Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility is located to the east of the Toba Inlet, approximately 43.5 km upstream of the Toba River mouth, in south western British Columbia within the Powell River Regional District, Canada. Dalgleish Creek, with the Dalgleish Glacier in its headwaters, flows from a maximum elevation of approximately 2,920 m in the upper headwaters to discharge into the Toba River at an elevation of approximately 130 m. The proposed development, with its intake located at an elevation of approximately 780 m, drains an area of approximately 31.8 km2. Figure 3.3 illustrates the Dalgleish Creek watershed and drainage area. The facility will be accessed through upgrades to the existing inactive forestry road. Mainline Logging roads extend up the creek for most of the proposed alignment; these can be upgraded to provide access to the intake structure. During construction additional temporary access roads may be required. The facility will interconnect to the transmission line that connects the Upper Toba River facility to East Toba switchyard through a simple “T” connection. The East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line (currently under construction) then runs from the East Toba powerhouse site westward along the Toba River valley, and then southwards behind Powell Lake to an interconnection point near Saltery Bay on Jervis Inlet, as illustrated in Figure 1.2.

3.3.1.2 Intake

The intake and temporary diversion structure will be located at an elevation of approximately 780 m, which is approximately 4 km upstream of the creek’s mouth. The main intake will consist of the following:


• A free-overflow concrete weir with a Coanda Shear Effect Intake screen, concrete retaining walls and earth embankments;

• A free-overflow concrete weir to control flood events with concrete retaining walls and earth embankments;

• An intake structure with sediment trap, screens, isolating gate and scour gate that will transfer a portion of the creeks flow to the penstock; and

• All the structure will be approx. 60 m in length, approximate 4 m in height, head pond dimension during normal operation will be approx. 2,000 m2 area, and 5,000 m3 of volume.

The temporary diversion structure will consist of the following:

• Diversion channel and berm, the channel which will be excavated at the north side of the creek, will be constructed to allow 1:10 year flows to be diverted around the intake site during construction;

• Diversion channel will be approximately 185 m in length and 6 m in height; and

• Temporary berm will be constructed with structural fill and riprap protection to allow creek diversion through the excavated channel, approximately 55 m in length and 4 m high.

General design parameters for the intake are as follows:

• The intake spillway structure is sized to pass the 1:200 year instantaneous peak flood event;

• Sediment and bedload transported by the creek will be passed directly over the Coanda Screen. A scour gate will also be installed to allow the operator to flush the area directly in front of the intake screens;

• Floating debris (logs, etc) will be allowed to pass over the top of the concrete weir;

• The intake structure will be sized to transfer the design flow to the penstock; and

• In stream flow requirements will be handled by an IFR pipe through the weir. Photo 1 shows Dalgleish Creek main intake area. Figure 3.4 shows the intake structure general arrangement.

3.3.1.3 Water Conveyance System

The penstock for each project will comprise of a pipe consisting in part of a low pressure section, a surge facility (if required) and a high pressure sections. Each system will be sized to provide the optimum benefit / cost to each project. Carbon steel, HDPE (Weholite) and GRP pipe materials will be considered for pipe materials. The final selection of the pipe material will depend on technical suitability and costs. The penstock will be designed as either or a combination of the following:


• Buried welded steel pipe with bell and spigot joints and/or butt welds; • Buried HDPE pipe such as KWH’ Weholite pipe or similar; • Buried Fibreglass/GRP pipe; • Surface butt welded steel pipe with expansion joints, with anchor blocks and

saddles/ring girders; and • Surface butt welded steel pipe with no expansion joints, with anchor blocks and

saddles/ring girders.

A control head gate will be provided immediately downstream of the main intake to allow isolation of the penstock under routine or emergency shutdown conditions. The water conveyance system is composed of two sections; a low pressure conduit and a high pressure penstock with a total length of approximately 4,500 m. The low pressure conduit, comprised of either HDPE or thin walled steel pipe, runs from the intake along the south side of Dalgleish Creek. The high pressure penstock, starting where the low pressure conduit ends, will be connected to the powerhouse. Concrete anchor blocks constructed at major bends and access manholes are incorporated into a few of the anchor blocks to provide access for maintenance inspection.

At creek crossings the pipeline will be buried under the creek and encased in concrete, allowing the creek to flow uninterrupted over the top of the pipe. At road crossings a reinforced pipe is designed to allow for traffic loading. Photo 2 shows a section of Dalgleish Creek diversion reach.

3.3.1.4 Powerhouse and Generating Equipment

Each powerhouse will comprise a reinforced concrete substructure with structural steel superstructure and overhead bridge crane beam. The structural design of the superstructure will be provided by a pre-engineered building supplier retained by Kiewit, with cladding and roof details provided by the building supplier. KPL will provide specifications for the structural design. The powerhouses will enclose the turbine/generators, the associated turbine inlet valves and all other necessary mechanical and electrical balance of plant. It will also include a control room/office, a washroom, a laydown area and an overhead bridge crane for erection and maintenance of the major plant equipment. Each powerhouse will be provided with a laydown and maintenance area of sufficient size to allow work space for regular maintenance operations. Final dimensions of the powerhouse, with sufficient space to contain the turbine/generator plant, all mechanical and electrical building services, adequate space for access to items that require maintenance, such as filters, coils and drain


pans, and strainers, etc will be established together with the relevant equipment suppliers. The powerhouse will be constructed on a raised bench upstream of the confluence with Toba River. The powerhouse will consist of the following:

• Reinforced concrete foundations and sub-structure; • Reinforced concrete and steel framework superstructure with block walls and

steel roof; • Two vertical turbine generator sets including:

o 2 Pelton Units; and o 2 Direct Coupled Synchronous Generators.

• Switchyard with 13.8 kV to 230 kV step up transformer; and • Tailrace structure.

Photo 3 shows the general proposed area for Dalgleish Creek powerhouse. Figure 3.5 shows the general arrangement of the powerhouse and switch yard.

3.3.1.5 Interconnection

The Dalgleish Creek facility will connect to the proposed 230 kV East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line via the East Toba switchyard. A 230 kV transmission line, approximately 2.3 km in length, supported on H-frame wood poles, will be required from the Upper Toba Switchyard to the East Toba Switchyard. From the Upper Toba switchyard, the 230 kV transmission line will head east across the Upper Toba River. After crossing the Upper Toba River, the power line will head south, crossing Dalgleish Creek. A simple “T” connection will connect the Dalgleish Creek switchyard to the Upper Toba transmission line on its route to interconnect with the East Toba facility. The transmission line will continue south along the Toba River on the east part of the valley until reaching the East Toba switchyard. From this point the energy will travel through the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line. The East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line route is presented in Figure 1.2.

3.3.1.6 Access Road

The access road alignment proposed for the Dalgleish Creek facility is approximately 4 km and contours from the East Toba Intake to Dalgleish Creek and then follow the east side of Dalgleish Creek up to the intake structure site. Major crossings are proposed for the access road, including two crossings on the Toba River below the Dalgleish Creek fan, accessing the west side of the Toba River and sections of older existing road, and one crossing located on Dalgleish Creek fan.


All fish streams and large gullies will be fitted with clear span crossings and major bridges (>18 m) spanning the streams channels. Bridge crossings were estimated from preliminary field measurements and using Lidar 1 metre inventory. All stream culverts and clear span structures are shown on the preliminary road location maps in Appendix C. Table 5.1 summarizes details of stream crossings proposed for the access roads to all three facilities (based on preliminary road alignment maps).

Two potential road alignments have been proposed for Dalgleish Creek crossing, both of which cross the Dalgleish Creek fan higher up where the stream deposition zone is smaller. The result is fewer stream crossings (Appendix C). The Dalgleish branch road to the intake site will primarily reactivate existing road. An existing large rock section forces the proposed road alignment beneath it. From the road junction above the East Toba powerhouse 940 m of road reactivation is required before the new road construction starts. Along the portion of road to be reactivated there are two sections where slides have wiped out the old road.

3.3.2 Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Facility

The proposed Upper Toba River hydroelectric facility is a 45 MW run of river clean power generation facility in Upper Toba River drainage basin. The proposed facility will divert a portion of water from a high elevation intake structure into a water conveyance system which leads to a powerhouse located on the lower reaches of the Upper Toba River. Location of the facility is shown in Figure 3.6. General arrangement of the facility is presented in Figure 3.7. The Upper Toba River watershed and drainage area is shown in Figure 3.8.


The proposed Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Facility is located approximately 45 km upstream of the Toba River mouth, in south western British Columbia within the Powell River Regional District. The facility is located on the upper portion of the Toba River, named the Upper Toba River for the purposes of project development, but not gazetted as such.

Upper Toba River, with the Toba Glacier in its headwaters, flows from a maximum elevation of approximately 3000 m into the Toba River at the junction with Dalgleish Creek at an elevation of approximately 130 m. The proposed development, with its main intake located at an elevation of approximately 440 m, drains an area of approximately 78 km2. The facility will be accessed through upgrades to the existing inactive forestry road mainline. The upgraded access roads will need to be extended up the Upper Toba


River for the proposed alignment to provide access to the intake structure. During construction, additional temporary access roads may be required.

The facility will utilise the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line to connect to the BCTC grid. A 2.3 km 230 kV transmission line will be required from the Upper Toba River switchyard to East Toba switchyard.

3.3.2.2 Intake

The main intake and diversion structure will be located at an elevation of approximately 440 m, which is approximately 2.7 km upstream of the river’s junction with Dalgleish Creek. A small tributary diversion structure will be installed at an elevation of 945 m, which is approximately 1250 m east of the main intake. A tributary channel will discharge the conveyed water into a stream located upstream of the main intake. The main intake structure will consist of the following:

• A free-overflow concrete weir with a Coanda Shear Effect Intake screen, concrete retaining walls and earth embankment;



• Approximate 130 m in length, approximate 5 m in height, approximate head pond dimension of 8,500 m2 area, and 60,000 m3 of volume.

The temporary diversion structure will consist of the following:

• Diversion channel and berm, the channel which will be excavated at the west side of the creek, will be constructed to allow 1:10 year flows to be diverted around the intake site during construction;

• Diversion channel will be approximately 80 m in length and 10 m in height; • Temporary Berm will be constructed with structural fill and riprap protection

to allow creek diversion through the excavated channel, approximately 50 m in length and 4 m high.

General design parameters for the intake are as follows:

• The intake spillway structure will be sized to pass the 1:200 year instantaneous peak flood event.

• Sediment and bedload transported by the creek will be passed directly over the Coanda Screen. A scour gate will also be installed to allow the operator to flush the area directly in front of the intake screens.

• Floating debris (logs, etc) will be allowed to pass over the top of the concrete weir.

• The intake structure will be sized to transfer the design flow to the penstock. • In stream flow requirements will be handled by an IFR pipe through the weir.


Photo 4 shows the lake upstream of the proposed location for Upper Toba River Intake. The proposed general arrangement of the intake site is presented on Figure 3.9.


The penstock for each project will comprise of a pipe consisting in part of a low pressure section, a surge facility (if required) and a high pressure sections. Each system will be sized to provide the optimum benefit / cost to each project. Carbon steel, HDPE (Weholite) and GRP pipe materials will be considered for pipe materials. The final selection of the pipe material will depend on technical suitability and costs. The penstock will be designed as either or a combination of the following: • Buried welded steel pipe with bell and spigot joints and/or butt welds; • Buried HDPE pipe such as KWH’ Weholite pipe or similar; • Buried Fibreglass/GRP pipe; • Surface butt welded steel pipe with expansion joints, with anchor blocks and



A control head gate will be provided immediately downstream of the main intake to allow isolation of the penstock under routine or emergency shutdown conditions. The water conveyance system will be composed of two sections; a low pressure conduit comprised of either HDPE or thin walled steel pipe and a high pressure penstock comprised of a steel pipe that will have a total length of approximately 2,250 m. The low pressure conduit will run down the valley from the intake to a point where the penstock will begin. The high pressure penstock will continue from this point to the powerhouse. Concrete anchor blocks will be constructed at major bends and access manholes will be incorporated into a few of the anchor blocks to provide access for maintenance inspection. At creek crossings the pipeline will be buried under the creek and encased in concrete, allowing the creek to flow uninterrupted over the top of the pipe. At road crossings the pipe will be reinforced to allow for traffic loading. Photo 5 shows an aerial view of Upper Toba River diversion reach and Photo 6 shows a ground view of the diversion reach.



Each powerhouse will comprise a reinforced concrete substructure with structural steel superstructure and overhead bridge crane beam. The structural design of the superstructure will be provided by a pre-engineered building supplier retained by Kiewit, with cladding and roof details provided by the building supplier. KPL will provide specifications for the structural design. The powerhouses will enclose the turbine/generators, the associated turbine inlet valves and all other necessary mechanical and electrical balance of plant. It will also include a control room/office, a washroom, a laydown area and an overhead bridge crane for erection and maintenance of the major plant equipment. Each powerhouse will be provided with a laydown and maintenance area of sufficient size to allow work space for regular maintenance operations. Final dimensions of the powerhouse, with sufficient space to contain the turbine/generator plant, all mechanical and electrical building services, adequate space for access to items that require maintenance, such as filters, coils and drain pans, and strainers, etc will be established together with the relevant equipment suppliers. The powerhouse will be constructed on a raised bench at an approximate elevation of 150 m, approximately 500 m upstream from Upper Toba River’s confluence with Dalgleish Creek. The powerhouse will consist of the following:


steel roof; • Two turbine generator sets including:



Photo 7 shows the proposed location for Upper Toba River powerhouse. Figure 3.10 shows the general arrangement of the powerhouse.


The Upper Toba River facility will connect to the proposed 230 kV East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line via the East Toba switchyard. A 230 kV transmission line approximately 2.3 km in length, supported on H-frame wood poles, will be required from the Upper Toba Switchyard to the East Toba Switchyard. From the Upper Toba switchyard, the 230 kV transmission line will head east across the Upper Toba River. After crossing the Upper Toba River, the power line will head south, crossing Dalgleish Creek. The transmission line will continue south along the


Toba River on the east part of the valley until reaching the East Toba switchyard. From this point the energy will travel through the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line.

3.3.2.6 Access Road

The access road to the Upper Toba River powerhouse extends from the Dalgleish Creek facility, crosses the Upper Toba River and connects to the Upper Toba River powerhouse. A 5 km access road will follow the side of Toba River to the Upper Toba River intake site. Appendix C describes details of access road alignment.

3.3.3 Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility

The proposed Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility is a 55 MW run of river clean power generation facility in Jimmie Creek drainage basin. The proposed facility will divert a portion of water from the creek from a high elevation intake structure (on Jimmie Creek) into a water conveyance system which leads to a powerhouse located on the mouth of the creek. Location of the facility is shown in Figure 3.11. General arrangement of the facility is presented in Figure 3.12. Jimmie Creek watershed and drainage area is presented in Figure 3.13.


The proposed site for the Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility is located to the east of the Toba Inlet, approximately 30 km upstream of the Toba River mouth, in south western British Columbia within the Powell River Regional District (PRRD). Jimmie Creek has its headwaters in the mountains of the Elaho Range (Pacific Ranges), and flows from a maximum elevation of approximately 2700 m to discharge into the Toba River at an elevation of approximately 60 m. The proposed development, with its intake located at an elevation of approximately 515 masl, drains an area of approximately 93.4 km2. The facility will be accessed through upgrades to the existing inactive forestry road mainline. Logging roads extend up Jimmie Creek for most of the proposed alignment; these can be upgraded to provide access to the intake structure. During construction, additional temporary access roads may be required. The Project intends to utilise the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line that is under construction from the East Toba powerhouse site westward along the Toba River valley, and then southwards behind Powell Lake to an interconnection point near Saltery Bay on Jervis Inlet. The Jimmie Creek facility will tie into the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line with a “T” connection from its switchyard through a 230 kV interconnection.


3.3.3.2 Intake

The main intake, tributary diversion and temporary diversion structure will be located at an elevation of approximately 515 m, which is approximately 3.6 km upstream of the creek’s mouth. The main intake will consist of the following:

• A free-overflow concrete weir with a Coanda Shear Effect Intake screen, concrete retaining walls and earth embankments;



• All the structure will be approx. 100 m in length, approximate 4 m in height, head pond dimension during normal operation will be approx. 10,000 m2

area, and 31,000 m3 of volume.

The temporary diversion structure will consist of the following: • Temporary diversion channel and berm, consisting of earth and structural fill,

will be constructed to allow 1:10 year flows to be diverted around the intake site during construction;

• Temporary diversion channel will be approximately 190 m in length and 12 m in height; and

• Temporary berm will be approximately 60 m in length and 4 m high General design parameters for the intake are as follows:

• The intake spillway structure will be sized to pass the 1:200 year instantaneous peak flood event;

• Sediment and bedload transported by the creek will be passed directly over the Coanda screen. A scour gate will also be installed to allow the operator to flush the area directly in front of the intake screens;

• Floating debris (logs, etc) will be allowed to pass over the top of the concrete weir;

• The intake structure will be sized to transfer the design flow to the penstock; and

• In stream flow requirements will be handled through a scour outlet pipe. Photo 8 and Photo 9 show the location of the proposed intake for Jimmie Creek. The proposed general arrangement of the Jimmie Creek intake site is presented on Figure 3.14.


The penstock for each project will comprise of a pipe consisting in part of a low pressure section, a surge facility (if required) and a high pressure sections. Each


system will be sized to provide the optimum benefit / cost to each project. Carbon steel, HDPE (Weholite) and GRP pipe materials will be considered for pipe materials. The final selection of the pipe material will depend on technical suitability and costs. The penstock will be designed as either or a combination of the following: • Buried welded steel pipe with bell and spigot joints and/or butt welds; • Buried HDPE pipe such as KWH’ Weholite pipe or similar; • Buried Fibreglass/GRP pipe; • Surface butt welded steel pipe with expansion joints, with anchor blocks and



A control head gate will be provided immediately downstream of the main intake to allow isolation of the penstock under routine or emergency shutdown conditions. The water conveyance system will be composed of two sections; a low pressure conduit and a high pressure penstock. The total length of the conveyance system is approximately 2,800m. The low pressure conduit, comprised of either HDPE or thin walled steel pipe, will run from the intake structure along the north side of Jimmie Creek and will be connected to the high pressure penstock, comprised of steel pipe that will be connected to the powerhouse. Concrete anchor blocks will be constructed at major bends and access manholes will be incorporated into a few of the anchor blocks to provide access for maintenance inspection. At creek crossings the pipeline will be buried under the creek and encased in concrete, allowing the creek to flow uninterrupted over the top of the pipe. At road crossings the pipe will be reinforced to allow for traffic loading. Photo 10 shows a section of Jimmie Creek Diversion Reach.


Each powerhouse will comprise a reinforced concrete substructure with structural steel superstructure and overhead bridge crane beam. The structural design of the superstructure will be provided by a pre-engineered building supplier retained by Kiewit, with cladding and roof details provided by the building supplier. KPL will provide specifications for the structural design. The powerhouses will enclose the turbine/generators, the associated turbine inlet valves and all other necessary mechanical and electrical balance of plant. It will also include a control room/office, a washroom, a laydown area and an overhead bridge crane for erection and maintenance of the major plant equipment. Each powerhouse will be provided with a laydown and maintenance area of sufficient size to allow work space for regular maintenance operations.


Final dimensions of the powerhouse, with sufficient space to contain the turbine/generator plant, all mechanical and electrical building services, adequate space for access to items that require maintenance, such as filters, coils and drain pans, and strainers, etc will be established together with the relevant equipment suppliers. The powerhouse will be constructed on a raised bench upstream of Jimmie Creek’s mouth. The powerhouse will consist of the following:


steel roof; • Two turbine generator sets including:



Photo 11 shows an aerial view of the proposed location for Jimmie Creek powerhouse and Photo 12 shows the Jimmie Creek (looking upstream) just before its confluence with Toba River. Figure 3.15 shows the general arrangement of the powerhouse.


A “T” connection will connect the Jimmie Creek hydroelectric facility switchyard with the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Transmission Line, which passes over the mouth of Jimmie Creek en route to the East Toba switchyard. The interconnection will be tie in at 230 kV. From the “T” connection, the energy will travel through the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line to the Saltery Bay.

3.3.3.6 Access Road

The facility will be accessed through upgrades to the existing inactive forestry road mainline. Logging roads extend up Jimmie Creek for most of the proposed penstock alignment; these can be upgraded and extended to provide access to the intake structure. In addition to the permanent road, short sections of temporary road may be required to provide construction access. The proposed new access road alignment is presented in the Road Reconnaissance Report (Appendix C).


3.3.4 Interconnection

The project intends to utilise the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line. A 2.3 km 230 kV transmission line will be required from the Upper Toba River switchyard to the East Toba switchyard. Jimmie Creek hydroelectric facility will connect to East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line by a “T” connection. From this point the energy will travel through East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line to the BCTC grid at Saltery Bay.

3.3.5 Access Road

Site facilities will be accessed through upgrades to the existing inactive forestry road mainline. The existing access road will need to be extended to provide access to the powerhouse and intake structure. In total, approximately 1700 m of new access road will be required. In addition to the permanent road, short sections of temporary road may be required to provide construction access. The proposed new access road alignment is presented in Appendix C.

3.3.6 Temporary Construction Camp

The East Toba River and Montrose Creek Project construction camp is located approximately 30 km upstream of the Toba Inlet on the Toba River adjacent to an inactive logging camp. It is proposed that construction crews for the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project will utilize the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project construction camp. Facilities that may be required, but are not limited to, are:

• Sleeping quarters; • Dining/Food Services; • Offices; • Satellite and radio communications; • Generators; • Perimeter fencing where required; • First aid facilities; • Toilets and showers; • Portable fresh water treatment plant; • Portable waste water treatment plant; • Construction staging and lay down areas; • Workshop; • Concrete batching plant; • Solid waste disposal, transfer or incinerator site, and • Recyclable transfer site.


3.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

3.4.1 Permits

The proponent will obtain all the necessary permits and licences required to proceed with the construction of the Project. The type of permits and licenses vary according to the type of work during the construction period. The following is a brief description of some the permits, authorizations and licences required.

3.4.1.1 Licence to Cut

The proponent will apply for a Licence to Cut permit (MoFR) prior to commencement of the construction phase.

3.4.1.2 DFO Authorization

Detailed information will be provided to DFO with regards to any potential HADD (Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat) resulting from the Project. Although instream work will be conducted in least risk windows where practiciable, alteration of aquatic habitat is expected to be unavoidable as a result of construction of tailrace structures, reactivation of inactive forestry access roads, and construction of new access roads, bridges and stream crossings. Under the Fisheries Act, any potential harmful alteration, disturbance, or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat requires a Section 35(2) approval. The federal Navigable Waters Act also applies to the Project, as the proposed clear span bridge on the Upper Toba River is located on a navigable watercourse (Upper Toba River).

The proponent will apply for a DFO Authorization for any alteration of aquatic habitat resulting from construction activities. This process will be initiated as soon as detailed designs and construction schedule are available. A preliminary construction schedule is available in Appendix D. Where mitigation measures fail to prevent all of the potential HADD to fish habitat and residual impacts would occur, compensation measures may be used to achieve DFO’s “no net loss” policy. Conceptual compensation plans are discussed in Section 9.6. The extent of any potential impact on aquatic habitat will be determined once the detailed designs are finalized. Once the final designs are prepared and potential HADDs are identified, fisheries compensation plans will be prepared and submitted (for approval) in consultation with DFO and other stakeholders.

3.4.2 Instream Works

Clear span bridges, open bottom and corrugated metal pipe crossings will be used at stream crossings depending on a variety of factors including the existing habitat value of the stream, width and other design considerations.


Timing of any instream work will be based on the proposed provincial work windows. Timing details will also depend on various factors such as the permitting process and other details. However, if any deviation from the approved work windows is required, it will be discussed with DFO prior to any work. The proponent will propose a fisheries compensation plan to compensate for any potential loss of habitat as a result of various HADDs during the construction phase. The extent of any potential impact on aquatic habitat will be determined once the detailed designs are finalized. Once the final designs are prepared and potential HADDs are identified, fisheries compensation plans will be prepared and submitted (for approval) in consultation with DFO and other stakeholders. During construction of the Project, any associated facility or area (such as log sort area, borrow pits, staging areas and temporary access roads) will be sited outside of the fisheries sensitive zones. Riparian area vegetation will be restored where possible.

3.4.3 Hydroelectric Facilities

All the proposed intake structures are located on non-fish bearing reaches. However, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be applied during any work in and around streams to minimize any potential impact on the aquatic ecosystem. Some removal of riparian area vegetation will be required during construction of the facilities. Powerhouse structures are generally located near the fish bearing reaches, however, during the detailed design process, factors such as proximity to fish habitat and removal of riparian vegetation will also be considered.

3.4.3.1 Site Preparation

Site preparation includes the establishment of staging, borrow and spoil areas in addition to the clearing and grubbing of construction sites. Once the final design has been established, a contractor will clear the required areas for the intake and powerhouse structures, as well as the low pressure conduit and high pressure penstock alignments. Staging areas will be prepared in the project site at the intake construction site, along the penstock alignment and at the powerhouse construction site. Borrow areas will also be determined. Clearing of staging and borrow areas will be conducted according to BMPs. All merchantable timber collected during clearing of the work areas will be handled in accordance with the License to Cut issued by the Ministry of Forests and Range. The non-merchantable timber, logging slash and all woody debris resulting from


stripping and grubbing of the intake and powerhouse foundations and stream diversion area will be hauled to the designated spoil area and piled for burning. To prepare the intake site for construction, potentially floating woody debris will be removed but grubbing and removal of stumps will not be required. All resulting woody debris will be hauled to the designated spoil area and piled for burning. These piles will be burned to ashes in the late fall under Burning Permits obtained for that purpose from the Ministry of Forests and Range and the remaining organic debris and ashes buried as may be required by the MoFR. Removal of topsoil will be carried out to expose inorganic mineral soil to the limits of the required excavations and the topsoil hauled to a designated spoil area. The stripped ground surface will be surveyed to record this surface on the As Built Drawings.

3.4.3.2 Intake Construction

Diversion channels will allow stream flows to bypass the local area during construction of intakes at Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek and the Upper Toba River. As part of the construction of the intake access road, staging area(s) will be established for stockpiling equipment and materials. This work area will be cleared and shaped, and kept dry by the diversion channel. Once the temporary diversion channels are in place the construction of the intake structures and diversion weirs may commence. Scheduling of all instream work shall be such that minimum disturbances are made to downstream habitats. The diversion channels will remain once construction works are finished. A flow control devices, such as weirs or gates, will be installed at the head of every channel to avoid flow during normal operations.

The construction of the intake may involve, but is not limited to, the following major stages:

• Foundation excavation, formwork and concrete pouring (procedures to be determined upon final design and consultation with contractor);

• Formwork and concrete pouring for intake structure and diversion weir; • Installation of trash racks, screens and all gates and valves; • All riprap armouring sufficient to prevent scour and erosion within the vicinity

of the intake; and • Decommissioning of the temporary diversion channel.

The intake foundations will be excavated, steel frameworks will be installed and finally concrete will be poured. In the next step, trash racks, screens, gates and valves will be installed. To prevent scouring at the site during the operation, riprap armouring will be used. Once the construction of the intake structure is completed,


the diversion channel will be decommissioned and flow will be returned to the creek and begin to overflow the intake structure.

Adequate erosion prevention and sediment control measures will be put in place both during and after construction. Construction will be conducted using Best Management Practices to avoid adverse environmental impacts.


The water conveyance system includes the Low Pressure Conduit (LPC) and the High Pressure Penstock (HPP). The following major stages may be required for the construction of the water conveyance system:

• Trench excavation in which the pipeline will be placed and buried (detailed procedures to be determined upon final design and consultation with contractor);

• Placement of pipe bedding material, drain rock and drains; • Stream crossings and erosion protection; • Placement and connection of the pipe segments; • Backfill pipe segments; • Anchoring of the pipeline will be required at certain locations along its length

(to be determined during final design); • Connection of the LPC to the intake structure; and • Connection of the HPP to the powerhouse.

Once the final alignment is selected, the penstock route will be surveyed and marked as required. Earthworks machinery will be used for excavation of a pipeline trench. Where excavation is not possible, blasting will be used according to the available Best Management Practices to protect water quality and wildlife in the project area. At the stream crossings, the pipeline will be installed in such a way to minimise alteration of the streams natural alignment. Pipe bedding material will be placed in the trench to support the pipeline. Pipes will be lowered onto the bedding material and the trench will be backfilled sequentially. Anchoring of the pipe may be required, prior to backfilling. Water will flow from the intake to the powerhouse through two sections of penstock. The first segment will be a Low Pressure Conduit (LPC) which will be connected to the intake structure. The LPC will connect to the second segment or High Pressure Pipeline (HPP) which in turn will be connected to the powerhouse at the downstream end. Adequate erosion prevention and sediment control measures will be put in place both during and after construction. Construction will be conducted using Best Management Practices to avoid adverse environmental impacts. Details of work


windows, reclamation techniques and other environmental considerations will be detailed as part of the project Construction Environmental Management Plan.

3.4.3.4 Powerhouse and Switchyard

The construction of the powerhouse and switchyard may involve, but is not limited to the following major stages:

• Foundation excavation, formwork and concrete pouring (procedures to be determined upon final design and consultation with contractor);

• Construction of the powerhouse walls; • Installation of the turbines, generators and all other related mechanical and

electrical equipment; • Construction of the powerhouse roof; • Construction of the tailrace structure; • Construction of the switchyard foundation and installation of equipment and

fencing; and • Installation of step up transformers.

After the contractor clears the site, the foundation of the powerhouse will be excavated using earthworks machinery. As powerhouses are generally located within fluvial fans, blasting is not anticipated but may be required upon final geotechnical investigation. Upon completion of the powerhouse excavation, construction of the concrete foundation will occur according to final design. Construction of the powerhouse superstructure will be conducted before the installation of crane, turbines, generators and other mechanical and electrical equipment. Installation of major equipment will be by a mobile crane through the superstructure’s roof. The tailrace structure and powerhouse will be constructed in conjunction with each other. The tailrace structure will return water from the turbines to the creek. Construction of the tailrace will require clearing and excavation of a channel along the proposed alignment. The tailrace will be reinforced with structural fill and lined with riprap to mitigate scour and flood impacts. The switchyard will be constructed in the vicinity of the powerhouse, and will generally require clearing, excavation preparation of concrete foundation, and installation of electrical equipment. Step up transformers will also be installed as part of the switchyard electrical equipment. Adequate erosion prevention and sediment control measures will be implemented both during and after construction. Construction will be conducted using Best Management Practices to avoid adverse environmental impacts. Details of work windows, reclamation techniques and other environmental considerations will be detailed as part of the project Construction Environmental Management Plan.


3.4.3.5 Testing and Commissioning

Hydrostatic testing of water-bearing components will be conducted as part of a detailed commissioning program. Testing of all major electrical components will occur as part of manufacturing and will be commissioned in place as part of the project commissioning program. Final testing will require a 72 hour operational test of both hydraulic and electrical systems prior to regular operation in accordance with an anticipated Energy Purchase Agreement with BC Hydro. The 72 hour test will be performed on all three facilities, and the performance of the transmission line will be monitored during the testing period.

3.4.3.6 Reclamation

The staging, borrow and spoil areas used in the construction of the facilities will be reclaimed. Reclamation tasks may include, but are not limited to:

• Grading and levelling of spoil piles; • Scattering of wood and rock debris; and • Hydro seeding and planting to stabilize overburden soil.

Work sites will be reclaimed according to provincial Best Management Practices. Staging areas, borrow sites and spoil areas will be reclaimed by grading and levelling of stockpiles. Woody debris will be scattered, and planting and hydro seeding will also be used to re-vegetate disturbed areas. Hydro seeding will be an important for stabilisation of topsoil and control of erosion until regeneration of natural vegetation.

3.4.4 Transmission Line Interconnection


The Upper Toba transmission line includes 2.3 km of 230 kV line from the Upper Toba River powerhouse and through Dalgleish Creek powerhouse to the East Toba switchyard. Site preparation will include the survey and clearing of areas for the transmission line right of way. Merchantable timber will be yarded, decked and hauled to a predetermined log sort. The non-merchantable timber, logging slash and all woody debris resulting from stripping and grubbing of the transmission line right of way shall be piled for burning as permitted by Ministry of Forests and Range. The proposed transmission line alignment generally follows that of the access road to mitigate environmental impacts. The parallel alignments will help to minimise cleared and disturbed areas.


Clearing of trees will be performed outside of breeding bird season to minimise disturbance, else a bird nest survey will be conducted prior to clearing. Erosion control measures will be applied as necessary to mitigate soil erosion in cleared areas. Jimmie Creek might require a site specific transmission line as this facility will interconnect to the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line via a “T” connection. The Project will connect to the transmission line at the East Toba River hydroelectric facility; currently under construction. The East Toba Montrose transmission line connects the East Toba River and Montrose Creek hydroelectric facilities to the provincial grid at Saltery Bay on Jervis Inlet. As the East Toba Montrose transmission is being constructed with additional capacity, this approach will minimize environmental impacts and maximise use of the pending infrastructure.

3.4.4.2 Line Construction

The Project will utilise the East Toba River transmission line. Upper Toba powerhouse to the Dalgleish Creek facility will connect to the East Toba switchyard via a 2.3 km 230 kV transmission line. The Jimmie Creek facility will tie into the existing East Toba River transmission line with a “T” connection. Upon final site selection and completion of site preparation, transmission poles will be installed and secured per detailed design. Poles will generally be erected and placed in pre-drilled holes then backfilled. Additional support structures maybe required or surface mounting depending on results of final geotechnical investigation. Finally, electrical conductors and line fixtures will be installed at each pole according to design conditions (i.e. overhead clearance, etc).

3.4.4.3 Reclamation

Staging areas, borrow sites and spoil areas used in the construction of the transmission line will be reclaimed as per provincial Best Management Practices. The contractor will have an ongoing and continuous cleanup program throughout the construction phase. Restoration may include, but not limited to:

• Compaction and levelling of spoil piles; • Controlled burning of wood debris; and • Hydroseeding and planting to stabilize overburden soil.


Upon completion of pole erection and line construction, stockpiled soil will be graded and levelled to reflect the surrounding ground surface. Hydro seeding or revegetation of all exposed area will be used accordingly to control soil erosion. Work sites will be reclaimed according to provincial Best Management Practices. Staging areas, borrow sites and spoil areas will be reclaimed by grading and levelling of stockpiles. Woody debris will be scattered, and planting and hydro seeding will also be used to re-vegetate disturbed areas. Hydro seeding will be an important for stabilisation of topsoil and control of erosion until regeneration of natural vegetation.

3.4.5 Access Roads


The final alignment of the facility access roads will be determined as part of detailed design. A contractor will clear and survey the alignment and merchantable timber will be yarded, decked and hauled from site. Non-merchantable timber, logging slash and all woody debris resulting from stripping and grubbing of the road right of way shall be hauled to the designated spoil area and piled for burning under Burning Permits obtained for that purpose from the Ministry of Forests and Range. Staging areas for the equipment and machinery will be prepared. Borrow areas will also be prepared for construction of each section of the road. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be adopted according to BMPs in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation in water bodies thereby reducing water quality. Stripped top soil (if any) will be stockpiled to be used in reclamation of the site. Clearing will be minimized during site preparation and a buffer strip will be maintained to retain natural vegetative cover, especially near watercourses. Maintaining buffer zones will also be helpful in minimizing potential for erosion. Removal of trees will be conducted outside of breeding bird season where practicable to avoid any disturbance to bird nests. Areas to avoid during clearing will be flagged by the environmental monitor.

3.4.5.2 Road Construction

Road construction will include establishing an adequate sub-base for the construction of the road prism, drainage and erosion protection and the installation of new culverts and bridges. In general the project will use inactive logging roads that will be


refurbished to project standards, but new roads will also be constructed. The roads will be constructed by minimizing cuts and fills that are required. Final design and alignments of the new roads will be determined as part of detailed design, and will be developed in accordance with FRPA and its regulations. The following major steps may be performed during the construction of the new or refurbished roads:

• Cut and fill to reach the required sub-base elevation; • Grading of the sub-base material; • Compaction of the sub-base material; • Installation of environmental protection devices where required in the

EMP; • Installation of culverts at minor stream crossings; • Bridge construction and upgrades at major stream crossings; and • Landslide protection at locations that are at risk.

During construction activities, measures will be in place for erosion prevention in the work site according with BMP and carried out by the site supervisors. Refurbishing of the FSRs also involves repairs and/or replacement of the existing culverts and bridges along the alignment. Detailed design and methodology for the construction of the new road sections, refurbishment of the existing FSRs, culvert installation and bridge installation will meet or exceed all standards and codes established by relevant authorities. Diversion ditches will be installed during construction of road crossings on watercourses to minimize any potential impacts to the aquatic habitat or degrading downstream habitat quality. The majority of the Jimmie Creek branch road to the intake is existing road that will require reactivation. There is approximately 1 km of new road to be constructed. Existing roads on the north side of the creek will be used to access the intake during penstock construction. The Dalgleish branch road to the intake is predominantly existing road to be reactivated, with approximately 2,600 m of new road. A large rock section located along the proposed alignment forces the proposed road beneath it. In order to construct this section of road, rock cut will be required for approximately 30-40 lineal meters. From the road junction above the East Toba powerhouse, a section of road reactivation is required before the new road construction starts. Along the portion of road to be reactivated there are two sections where slides have destroyed the old road. The road will have to be rebuilt by excavating into the hill side and end hauling


material. New construction begins with a short segment of end haul above the Toba River through the old road fill.

The Upper Toba Valley road crosses two large gullies, both of which may require larger crossings and difficult construction. Further detailed field work at these locations may enable a road to contour through the gully and reduce the structure sizes. A clear span bridge will be also constructed on the lower sections of the Upper Toba River to provide access to the site.

3.4.5.3 Reclamation

The staging, borrow and spoil areas used in the construction and reactivation of access roads will be reclaimed. The contractor will have an ongoing and continuous cleanup program throughout the construction period. The land will be restored to its original condition by the contractor to the extent possible. Restoration may include, but is not limited to:

• Compaction and levelling of spoil piles; • Controlled burning of wood debris; • Hydroseeding to stabilize overburden soil; and • Planting of trees and foliage that reflect the surrounding and existing

environment.

Surplus soil will be carefully spread and levelled on the surface of the ground in the work site. Hydro seeding or revegetation will be used accordingly to prevent soil erosion and restoring the worksite.

Work sites will be reclaimed according to BMPs. Staging, borrow and spoil areas will be reclaimed by compaction and levelling of spoil piles. Woody debris will be burned on site. Planting and hydro seeding will also be used in work areas to reflect natural surroundings. An important advantage of hydro seeding is that it stabilizes the topsoil and prevents erosion. Revegetation will also be used in reclamation of the work areas where applicable. Details of reclamation requirements for each worksite will vary depending on the site and other parameters and will be determined on site by resident specialists.

3.4.6 Construction Schedule

The construction phase for the proposed Project facilities, transmission line, and all access roads and related infrastructure is expected to last approximately 2 years. The construction works are scheduled to commence in Spring 2009. The following major milestones have been incorporated into the detailed construction schedule, as shown in Appendix D.


The Jimmie Creek facility will be the first component of the Project to be constructed starting in early July 2009. The construction of the Jimmie Creek access road will be followed by the construction of the intake structure, penstock and powerhouse. The installation of mechanical and electrical components will be completed in April 2010 after which the plant will be commissioned. Upper Toba River facility construction is scheduled to start early July 2009. A commissioning date of October 2011 is scheduled for this facility. Construction of the Dalgleish Creek facility is scheduled to commence early September 2009 and to be completed in December 2011 after which the facility will be commissioned.

3.4.7 Labour Requirements

The overall labour pool requirement is estimated to be approximately 399 to 532 person years (3 to 4 person year per MW of electricity produced) of employment for construction of the Project. Seven major categories for labour pool requirements are:

• Design Engineers; • Civil Contractors; • Mechanical/Electrical Contractors; • Transmission Line Contractors; • Transportation Contractor ; • Camp facility Contractor; and • Environmental Monitors.

The labour requirements for each of the above categories are to serve as an overview of the types of labour that may be required.

3.4.7.1 Design Engineers

The design engineering team may consist of the following individuals: • Design Engineers, including Civil, Geotechnical, Mechanical, Electrical and

Structural; • Technologists and Draftsman; • Resident and Assistant Resident Engineers; and • Administration staff.

3.4.7.2 Civil Contractor

The civil contractor will have the largest supply of labour for the entire Project. They will be responsible for the construction of all the civil works required for hydroelectric facilities and construction of the rehabilitated access road. As different contractors will have different labour requirements, only the major labour types are listed below:


• Project Managers; • Superintendent; • Foremen; • First Aid Personnel; • Heavy Equipment Operators; • Surveyors; • General Labourers; • Welders; • Concrete formwork/placers/finishers; • Rebar placers; • Electricians; • Heavy Duty Mechanics; • Logging Contractor; • Roads Contractor; and • Bridge Building Contractor.

3.4.7.3 Mechanical/Electrical Contractor

The mechanical contractors will be solely responsible for the installation of the turbines, generators and all ancillary services in that regard. Their labour requirements may include, but are not limited to, the following persons:

• Project Manager; • Site Engineer/Supervisor; • General Labourers; • Welders; and • Electricians.

3.4.7.4 Transmission Line Contractor

The transmission line contractor will be responsible for the construction of the proposed transmission line and all other related equipment. Their labour requirements may include, but are not limited to, the following personnel:

• Project Manager; • Site Engineer/Supervisor; • General Labourers; • Welders; • Electricians; • Linemen; • Helicopter Pilot(s); and • Heavy Equipment Operators.


3.4.7.5 Transportation Contractor

There may be a need to contract out all transportation to one or several contractors during the construction of all related components of the proposed Project. In any event the following personnel may be required, but are not limited to:

• Foot Passenger Ferry Operators; • Tug Boat Operators; • Deck Hands; and • Heavy Duty Mechanics.

3.4.7.6 Camp Facility Contractor

The camp facility contractor will be responsible for maintaining the camp and all of the facilities and services related to it. The following personnel for camp operation may be required, but are not limited to:

• Camp Manager; • Cooking Staff; • Cleaning Staff; and • First Aid Personnel.

3.4.7.7 Environmental Monitoring Contractor

The environmental monitoring contractor will be an organization independent of all other contractors. They will ultimately be responsible for the environmental monitoring of the entire Project. For environmental monitoring, the following personnel may be required, but are not limited to:

• Supervisor; • Environmental Scientists; • Registered Professional Biologists; and • Environmental Technologists.

3.4.8 Support Resources and Logistics

The following major services for the construction camp and contractors may be required, but are not limited to:

• Food and Amenities; • Fuel supply for cooking, heating and electric generators and equipment; • Transportation; • Construction material supply; • Communication; • Solid waste and recyclable removal; and • Mail pickup/delivery.

The project intends to use the capacity built during construction of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project. The construction camp that was completed in


July 2008 for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project will be used to accommodate the workforce during construction of the Project. All required permitting for the operation of this camp will be extended/acquired from responsible authorities. The above mentioned permits will include (but not limited to) potable water supply, waste and sewage disposal, food services, etc. The proposed project, through the use of the infrastructure established for the construction of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project (e.g. construction camp, Toba Valley access road, transmission line, etc.) to minimize its potential environmental impacts while maximizing its benefits.

3.5 OPERATION PHASE

3.5.1 Hydroelectric Facilities

To the extent possible intakes will be operated from the powerhouse in order to control flows in the penstock. Behaviour of the turbine spear valves at the powerhouse in conjunction with water level sensors located inside the intake structure and head pond will govern inflow to the penstock while maintaining instream flow requirements.

3.5.1.1 Operation Modes

The head pond water level will be measured by a minimum of two water surface level sensors, and this information will be utilized in a number of distinct operation modes depending on the available flows. Three modes of operation are summarized below: • Normal Modes which covers routine daily operation arrangements, • Maintenance Modes which covers special operation arrangements when

maintenance work needs to be performed on specific intake elements, and • Flood Modes which cover operation arrangements for various flood levels.

Other modes of operation may be deemed necessary and added subsequently. Normal Modes

If the available diversion flow is below or equal to maximum facility design flow then the Coanda screen runs partially dry. The intake structure water level is relayed to the turbine machine control and the output adjusted to utilize the available water. The available resource is defined as flow in the river of creek minus the Instream flow requirement. Maintenance Modes


If maintenance work needs to be performed on the Coanda screens, the upstream sluice gate can be opened and the downstream one is opened only if a portion of the flow is not diverted into the penstock. Under these conditions the plant could be operated, but it is not a preferred operation mode. If maintenance work on the intake structure or penstock needs to be performed, then both sluice gates can be opened to divert water and the control head gate is closed. Stoplogs can be used for isolation of intake structure. Under these conditions the plant can not be operated. Flood Modes

During a minor flood event (up to a 1:10 year return period flood), the plant is in operation and excess flow not utilized for generation flows over the Coanda screen section and the weir wall. During larger flood events the plant may be shut down and the water flows over the Coanda screen section and the weir wall.

3.5.1.2 Start Up

Head Pond Filling

At start up, head ponds will be filled under the supervision of the plant operator, incorporating the following procedures:

• At the time of headpond filling, the sluice gate will be closed leaving the Instream Flow Requirement bypass fully open.

• The flow in the creek downstream will not be severed at any time during headpond filling.

• All gates, valves, screens and racking equipment will be tested during commissioning and after major maintenance to ensure they all operate in accordance with the specifications.

Filling the Conveyance System

The water conveyance system, including the low pressure conduit and steel penstock, will be filled slowly to allow all air to escape and to ensure adequate flows will be maintained downstream of the intake. The pipeline will be tested and inspected under full hydrostatic head prior to commencing operation of each power plant. Commissioning the Turbine Generator Sets

Each turbine generator will be run through a rigorous set of dry tests prior to wet testing and commissioning. During the wet tests, the flow through the turbines will be gradually ramped up by opening successive jets in the turbine until the desired design flow is achieved.


3.5.1.3 Intake Operation

Cleaning of Coanda Screen

Coanda Screen will be cleaned according to a maintenance schedule or after an important flood that might deposit debris or other materials or ice build up in front of the screen. During maintenance, the sluiceway channel will conduct the flow through the intake and could provide an alternate means of supplying flow to the penstock. A maintenance schedule will be included in a protocol for maintenance and operation of the facilities.

Sluice Gate – Sediment Removal

The sluice gate will be operated under the supervision of the plant manager. The primary purpose of the sluice gate is for removal of sediments and debris that accumulate in front of the intake trash racks. The sluice gate may also be used for the removal of ice build up in front of the screens or for dewatering and scouring of the headpond. An acceptable ramping protocol for the operation of the sluice gate will be put in place. Headgate

The headgate allows for flow control into the pipeline at the intake. Its primary purpose is to shut down the flow to the pipeline during emergency conditions. The secondary purpose of the headgate is to isolate the penstock to allow for dewatering for maintenance and inspection. Trash Racks

The trash racks will prevent debris from entering the pipeline for a size that would be deleterious to the mechanical systems. An automatic trash raking machine may be installed to clear the trash racks when they become clogged with debris. Regular inspection of the trash racks, raking machine and intake gates will be required on an ongoing basis. Electronic sensors for remote monitoring of the performance of the intake will also be installed.

3.5.1.4 Plant Operation

The plant is designed to be remotely operated through its supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. The control system will vary the unit output in order to keep the head pond set point level constant by means of opening/closing the turbine nozzles. All parameters such as head pond level, water flow, water conveyance system pressure and flow, unit temperature, etc are monitored and registered on the SCADA system.


Start up sequence

Assuming the water conveyance system is full, the control system will always start up the unit(s) by following the basic steps listed bellow:

• Open the Turbine Inlet Valve; • Open the nozzle(s) and bring the turbine to nominal speed; and • Synchronize the unit and close the generator breaker.

If the penstock and/or the head pond were emptied for maintenance purposes, they should be filled as explained above prior to unit start up. Plant Shut Down

There are two possible plant shut down scenarios as described bellow. Normal plant shutdown will occur when the unit is required to stop. The control system will slowly lower the power output until there is no power being delivered by the unit. Then the generator breaker will be opened and deflectors applied while the nozzles will be slowly closed to ramp down the flow at the desired rate (Section 9.3.1.1). Emergency plant shutdown will occur under unexpected conditions triggered to protect the system and its components (e.g. overvoltage caused by a lightning strike). The control system will shutdown the unit immediately by applying the nozzle deflectors and opening the generator breaker. Nozzle deflectors will divert the water from striking the runner and will let the unit stop. Deflectors will be applied while the nozzles will be slowly closed to ramp down the flow at the desired rate (Section 9.3.1.1).

Maintenance

Plant maintenance, including turbine/generator and balance of plant systems, will be carried out according to a preventive maintenance schedule. Preventive maintenance plans are developed based on the manufacturers recommendations enhanced with the best engineering practices of the hydropower industry. Most routine maintenance activities are checkouts and verification of the systems performance, oil levels, temperatures and other factors that do not require a plant shutdown. Other maintenance activities that require plant shut down such as turbine runner inspection or unscheduled maintenance might take place only once a year or when required. In this case the unit will be normally ramped down and shut. A maintenance schedule will be included in a protocol for maintenance and operation of the facilities.


3.5.2 Transmission Line Corridor

3.5.2.1 Routine Maintenance

Under Line Vegetation

It is anticipated that the under line vegetation height will be kept to an acceptable level in order to avoid their interaction with the transmission lines. This may include pruning and brush management and/or removal. No chemical defoliants and herbicides will be applied to control under line vegetation. All control activities will be conducted manually. The topping or removal of trees which have the potential to fall on the transmission lines from outside of the transmission line right of way will be assessed annually. Line and Pole Inspections

Inspection of the transmission line components will be carried out on an annual basis. An operating and maintenance manual for the transmission line and corridor will be prepared. A Certified Transmission Lineman will be employed for all line inspections. In any case where the structural integrity of the line is concerned, a registered professional engineer will oversee the operations.

3.5.2.2 Emergency Maintenance

In the event of an unscheduled outage, emergency maintenance of the transmission line will be required. Such events may include but are not limited to:

• Lightning strikes to the line or poles; • Snow or debris avalanches that can cause pole damage or failure; and • Line or pole failure due to extreme ice loading.

A Certified Transmission Lineman will be employed for all line repairs and maintenance.

3.5.3 Access Control

Since Project facilities will be accessed through East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project access road along Toba valley (currently under construction), UTHI will be subject to the access and safety management plans and control measures adopted for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Project.

3.5.4 Access Road Corridor Maintenance

3.5.4.1 Access Road Maintenance

The following maintenance requirements will be performed: • Annual clearing of right of way to prevent being overgrown;


• Periodic clearing of debris from bridge abutments, drainage ditches and culverts;

• Environmental monitoring of all maintenance work; • Periodic inspection of bridges and all other engineered structures; and • Grading of driving surface when required.

3.5.4.2 Decommissioned Access Road Maintenance

Decommissioning of the access road may include removal of drainage culverts and some bridge deck sections. Once the decommissioning has been complete the maintenance of the road will require periodic inspections to ensure the decommissioning is performing well.

3.5.5 Labour Requirements

The labour pool and the housing and services required to service it are anticipated to be drawn from availability in Powell River. Where needs cannot be met locally, the expertise will be brought in from farther afield.

3.5.5.1 Hydroelectric Facilities Labour Requirements

Regular inspection of all key and accessible plant components will be carried out by plant operations staff on a frequent basis. The regular inspection staff may include up to 3 or more persons. The labour requirement for maintenance will vary depending on maintenance cycles. It is currently projected that light maintenance will occur every one and two years by a team of up to 10 or more persons. Heavier periods of maintenance will occur every five years with a team of up to 15 or more persons. Emergency repairs may be completed from time to time. The nature of the repair will determine the crew size requirement. Regular inspections by an environmental monitor will be required to ensure compliance with the approved Operation Environmental Management Plan. It is also anticipated that a Registered Professional Biologist will be required to conduct annual inspections to ensure compliance with ECO Logo Certification.

3.5.5.2 Transmission Line Labour Requirements

The transmission line maintenance may be handled under contract with a transmission line contractor. The labour requirements may include, but are not limited to, the following personnel:

• Site Engineer/Supervisor; • General Labourers; • Welders; • Electricians; • Linemen;


• Helicopter Pilot(s); and • Heavy Equipment Operators.

3.5.5.3 Open Access Road Labour Requirements

For sections of the road that will be maintained as open access, it is likely that the maintenance will be handled under a contract with a road contractor. The following labour requirements may include but are not limited to:

• Supervisor; • Heavy Equipment Operators; • General Labourers; • Helicopter Pilot or Tub Boat/Barge Operators; • First Aid Attendant; • Transportation personnel; • Professional Engineers; and • Environmental Scientists.

3.5.5.4 Decommissioned Access Road Labour Requirements

For sections of the road that will remain decommissioned the labour requirements may include, but are not limited to:

• Environmental Scientists; • Professional Engineers; • Helicopter Pilots or Tug Boat/Barge Operators; and • Transportation personnel.

3.5.6 Support Resources and Logistics

Resource and logistical support during the operations phase will be provided through on call staff. The hydroelectric plant operator will be on call for any problems surrounding the operation of the facilities. The contractor in charge of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance for the transmission line will also be on call for any disturbance requiring immediate attention. It is anticipated that resources and logistical support required during the operation of the project will be provided through near by communities such as Powell River. Where the required support is not available in Powell River, other options will be considered. The following major services may be required, but are not limited to:

• Food and Amenities; • Accommodation; • Fuel supply for equipment; • Equipment rental or supply; • Construction material supply; • Transportation; and


• Communication. Contractors to conduct scheduled maintenance will be preferably from Powell River, however if this potential could not be provided from Powell River, other options will be considered. Scheduled maintenance activities include transmission line inspection and vegetation pruning, road maintenance and inspection and servicing the generation equipment. In order to address any emergencies, on call personnel will respond quickly by mobilizing to the site. On call maintenance personnel will be ideally residents of Powell River. This will enable us to quickly respond to any unscheduled emergencies or maintenance requirements that may occur. In any case, maintenance logistics (water supply, construction materials, etc.) will be transferred to the site for the duration of the maintenance work only. Equipment required for maintenance operations will be primarily supplied from Powell River. Communication for the maintenance crew will be provided through portable satellite phones as required. The work force required for maintenance activities will commute to the project location on a daily basis (by road or helicopter as appropriate), therefore no requirement is expected in regards to items as water supply, waste disposal, material requirements, energy supply

3.6 DECOMMISSIONING

The Project lifespan has been estimated at 40 years for financial forecasting purposes. However, existing hydroelectric plants have demonstrated production for over 100 years in many areas of the world. As the planning horizon for decommissioning and abandonment is distant, a detailed discussion is not warranted at this time. A decommissioning and abandonment plan will be developed in consultation with regulatory agencies in advance of decommissioning activities, once they are scheduled. 3.7 ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT

3.7.1 Alternate Means of Producing Energy

There are several alternatives to producing energy other than run of river. The main difference between each is the source of fuel that is used. The following is a list of the main alternative fuel sources or means to producing energy:

• Wind (Renewable); • Biomass (Renewable); • Geothermal (Renewable); • Tidal (Renewable); • Fossil Fuel (Non-Renewable); • Hydro – Water (Renewable); and


• Nuclear (Non-Renewable). UTHI has decided to pursue run of river clean energy projects as they offer the most cost effective, environmentally friendly source of energy to meet the requirements of British Columbia. The technology required for the development of these run of river hydroelectric facilities is well proven. The overall risks in development of these hydro resources are minimized due to these characteristics.

3.7.2 Alternate Means of Producing Hydroelectricity

Various alternative means of producing hydroelectricity have been explored. The major categories are as follows:

• Run of River; • Storage; and • Pumped Storage.

Run of river hydro projects are known to have the smallest impact on the environment and is more socially acceptable when compared with storage and pumped storage hydro schemes. A detailed assessment of these alternatives is not included in this application.

3.7.3 Alternate Sites for Run of River Hydroelectric Projects

There were several alternative sites, for developing run of river hydro, that were investigated prior to choosing Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek and the Upper Toba River sites. These potential sites include the following:

• East Toba River; • Montrose Creek; • Klite River; • Little Toba River; and • Filer Creek.

The East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project has received environmental certification and construction commenced in July 2007. Of the remaining alternative sites, the Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek, and Upper Toba River were found to have characteristics that were most favourable to run of river hydro development. The powerhouses could be sited directly below existing natural fish barriers, the diversion sections are non-fish bearing, and they are high flow high head catchments. Each of the other alternative sites was discarded, as they did not have as favourable characteristics.

3.7.4 Alternate Points of Interconnection to the BCTC Grid

No alternatives for interconnection to BCTC Grid have been considered, as the only economically viable route requires the utilization of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek transmission line. The produced energy by the proposed Project will be conveyed via the 230 kV transmission line for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek


Hydroelectric Project (now in construction), to the BCTC grid near Saltery Bay, BC. Appendix B includes the Feasibility Study conducted by BCTC.

3.7.5 Alternate Transmission Line Alignments

The alignment submitted with this application has been optimized using the following criteria:

• Avoiding sensitive areas including wildlife polygons and old growth management areas, identified by Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd, where possible;

• Following existing roads to minimize access issues; • Input from the Public, First Nations and Forestry Companies active in the area; • Avoiding potential terrain hazards such as snow avalanches, areas of

channelized debris flows and areas of local instability, where possible; • Minimize the number of stream crossings to protect the aquatic riparian habitat

as much as possible; and • Span the lines across rivers and streams near or at existing bridge crossings so

as to minimize the impacts on aquatic riparian habitat as much as possible.

3.7.6 Alternate Access Road Alignment

Field assessment for the proposed access road alignment was conducted in November 2007 by Strategic Forest Management Inc. (Appendix C). Alignment of the proposed access roads was predominantly matched with the existing forestry roads to minimize any potential environmental impacts and simplify construction. Therefore, proposed access roads to the facilities will mostly entail reactivation of the existing roads.

3.7.7 Alternate Construction Camp Locations

The existing construction camp that supports the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project will also serve the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project construction phase. No alternative analysis was performed for this purpose.


SECTION 4.0 - SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT AND STUDY AREAS

4.1 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

The scope of the assessment includes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Project, and provides a spatial boundary within which the assessment will be focused. The scope of the assessment focuses on effects for which a reasonably direct causal link can be demonstrated between some aspect of the Project and the resulting effect. Factors included in the scoping of the assessment were developed in accordance with both the BCEAA and the CEAA. According to CEAA (Natural Resources Canada 2008b), scope of the assessment is defined as:

“The scope of the assessment includes a determination of the environmental components likely to be affected by the project and focuses the assessment on relevant issues and concerns”.

Factors that need to be considered in scoping of the assessment include (Natural Resources Canada 2008b):

• Direct and indirect impacts of the project, including construction, operations and decommissioning, and their significance

• Impacts of malfunctions and accidents, and their significance, • Issues identified by the public and other stakeholders during consultation period, and • Any other relevant matter that may be considered important during the initial review

period. A list of various environmental and social issues and concerns has been compiled to be included in the assessment of the project impacts. This list has been compiled through preliminary studies by the Proponent and its consultants as well as pre-application consultation with stakeholders, including federal, provincial, and municipal agencies, First Nations, and the public. This process has helped to shape the scope of the assessment of the Project, resulting in a list of identified issues (VECs and VSCs) to be examined in the impact assessment. The identified issues are:

• Fish and Fish Habitat; • Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat; • Vegetation; • Cultural and Heritage Resources; • First Nations Communities and Land Use; • Commercial Land and Resource Use; • Public Health; • Navigable Waters; and • Recreational Land Use.


Impact(s) of various phases of the project (construction and operations) on each of the components (within the defined study area boundaries) has been studied according to the best available knowledge. For each potential impact of the project on identified VECs and VSCs, mitigation measure(s) has been proposed and any expected residual impacts after adoption of mitigation measures have been evaluated and rated. Expected residual impacts have been used to assess cumulative impacts of the project. Detailed methodology used for assessment of potential impacts and cumulative impacts of the project is described below. 4.2 STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES

4.2.1 Biological Resources

The spatial study areas for biological resources are shown in Figure 4.1 and are presented for each of the overall project components (Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility, Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility, Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Facility, transmission corridor, and access road corridor) as follows. At the Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Facility, a detailed study area was bounded by a 1 km corridor that generally followed either side the river centreline, from the confluence with the Toba River to the proposed intake site approximately 4 km upstream. At the Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility, a detailed study area was bounded by a 1 km corridor that generally followed the river centreline, from the confluence with the Toba River to the proposed intake site approximately 4 km upstream. Similarly, at the Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Facility, a detailed study area was bounded by a 1 km corridor that generally followed either side the river centreline, from the proposed powerhouse to the proposed intake approximately 2.7 km upstream. The detailed study area (facilities, transmission line and access roads) for the Dalgleish Creek and the Upper Toba River hydroelectric facilities were combined due to the overlapping boundaries and similarity in activities and design. The transmission interconnection study area was bounded by a 1 km corridor that generally followed either side the transmission line centreline. Likewise, the access road corridor study area was bounded by a 1 km corridor that generally followed either side the access road centreline. For wildlife studies, the regional study area included the entire Toba Landscape Unit (equivalent to the Toba Watershed). This area includes the potential zone of influence


for the Project and was used to assess sub-population issues for specific wildlife species. All surveys were within the regional study area and it forms the boundary for the cumulative effects assessment. Study area boundaries for wildlife studies are described below. The Jimmie Creek wildlife study area is located within the CWHds1 and CWHms1 biogeoclimatic (BGC) variants with small amounts of MHmm2 and AT along the periphery of the study area. The majority of the lower elevation forest in this study area has been previously harvested, leaving primarily young forest along the main drainage, however, small patches of old growth do occur. The higher elevation sub-zones are more removed from the proposed facility components. No proposed or approved OGMAs, Ungulate Winter Range or Wildlife Habitat Areas have been established within the study area. The local wildlife study area for the Dalgleish Creek and Upper Toba River hydroelectric facilities includes a 1 km corridor bounding these waterways. The corridor extends from the confluence of Dalgleish Creek with the Toba River to approximately 5 km up Dalgleish Creek and about 4 km up the Upper Toba River. The corridor encompasses the powerhouse, intake and penstock sites. Sections of the main access roads are also located in this study area, but impacts related to the access road will be considered as a component of the access road study area assessment. The wildlife study for these two facilities was considered as one in order to capitalize on mapping and study efficiencies, as they are adjacent, and form a de facto wildlife unit. Notwithstanding this grouping, separate discussions for each facility are provided. The Dalgleish/Upper Toba study area is situated primarily in the CWHms1 BGC variant with small amounts of MHmm2 and AT along the periphery. Old growth forests surround the lower reaches of both Dalgleish Creek and Upper Toba River. The upper reaches consist of stands of young to old forests fragmented by avalanche chutes. The south slopes of Dalgleish Creek have been previously harvested. The higher elevation sub-zones are more removed from the proposed facility components. No proposed or approved OGMAs or Wildlife Habitat Areas have been established within the study area. A proposed Goat Winter Range (GWR) is located on the northeast slopes above the confluence of Dalgleish Creek with the Toba River. This proposed GWR (TO-21) is within 0.5 km of the Upper Toba River powerhouse site.

The study area for fish and fish habitat studies included the entire length of the impact area (upstream of the proposed intake sites to confluence with the Toba River) on Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek and the Upper Toba River. All side channels and back channels occurring in the study area (in particular in lower sections) and around the confluence with the Toba River were also included in the study area as they provide critical habitat for spawning and larval rearing of resident fish species. For Dalgleish Creek facility the diversion section begins from the intake structure (on Dalgleish Creek) and extends to lower sections of Dalgleish Creek, its confluence with the Toba River and


a section of the Toba River that extends from the confluence with Dalgleish Creek downstream to the confluence with the East Toba River.

4.2.2 Socio-economic Resources

Socio-economic impact assessment focuses on the social and economic aspects of the project. In other words socio-economic assessment encompasses social, cultural and economic aspects of the Project’s impacts which may be rated from positive to adverse. Socio-economic impacts include direct and indirect impacts of the project on social and economic aspects of the Project on human societies. Direct impacts may include parameters such as employment rate or income, while indirect impacts may arise indirectly from any potential impacts of the project on the surrounding environment and hence human societies living within the boundaries of the impact area. Other values that may be covered in this assessment include aesthetic values of the environment to humans. First Nations have been included in socio-economic impact assessment because of their heritage, culture and direct and indirect dependence on land in addition to their legal rights within their traditional territories. The socio-economic study area for the Project has been determined based on the Project’s specifications and outcomes of extensive negotiations and consultations with local communities and First Nations. Within the project impact area, the study boundary for Cultural and Heritage Resources, Recreational Land Use, Navigable Waters, as well as Commercial Land and Resource Use is a 1 km corridor that generally follows the centreline of the overall Project footprint, providing a 2 km wide path. Consultation with undertaken during the pre-Application phase did not result in the alteration of the study boundaries for Socio-economic Resources. Based on consultation with the Klahoose First Nation, the Nations Communities and Land Use Study area encompasses their asserted traditional territory within the Toba Valley, with emphasis on those areas where Project infrastructure will be constructed.


SECTION 5.0 - DALGLEISH CREEK SETTING AND CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 DALGLEISH CREEK FACILITY

In this section, settings and characteristics of the area impacted by the proposed Dalgleish Creek facility (intake area, penstock alignment and powerhouse area) and related components (access road and interconnection) are described. Location of the Dalgleish Creek facility and its technical specifications is described in Section 3.3.1. 5.2 GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The geomorphology of the Dalgleish Creek catchment is generally typical of the BC Coastal Ranges. Valley walls are steepened by glaciation, producing characteristic U shaped cross section profiles. The over steepened slopes that remain following glacier recession result in frequent earth movements such as rockslides, rock falls, debris slides, and debris flows. The tributaries of Dalgleish Creek form on the steep hill slopes or in small hanging valleys, above the main channel. 5.2.1 Physiography and Topography

Dalgleish Creek meets the Toba River at an elevation of approximately 40 m. At this juncture, the Toba Valley is very flat and almost 500 m wide. Figure 5.1 shows the satellite imagery of the proposed facility location. The proposed development, with its intake located at an elevation of approximately 780 m, drains an area of approximately 31.8 km2. Dalgleish Creek is a small to intermediate sized mountain stream, characterized by moderate to steep channel gradients, coupled channel and hill slope processes, and supply limited sediment transport. Church (2002) describes these channels as upland channels. The average gradient of Dalgleish Creek within the diversion section is approximately 19%, although there are clear changes in morphology and channel gradient. The channel from the Toba River confluence to the Dalgleish Glacier was divided into six morphologic units, consisting of three morphologic classifications. The process based reach scale morphology classification of Montgomery and Buffington (1997) was used to map geomorphologic units, which provides an outline for macro and meso habitat mapping, and also provides insight into potential channel response to change in hydrology and/or sediment supply. Additional detail is available in Appendix E.

5.2.2 Soils and Geology

The Dalgleish Creek facility lies within the Pacific Range of the British Columbia Coast Mountains. The Pacific Range, consisting mainly of granitic rocks, extends north from


the Fraser River for about 500 km to the Bella Coola River. This range contains the highest peaks in the Coast Mountains, many of which are over 3000 m high. During the last glaciation, ice occupied the Dalgleish Creek valley. Glacial till and glaciofluvial sands and gravels were deposited beneath and adjacent to the glacier. Upon retreat by the glaciers, mass movements created colluvial deposits as the landscape readjusted to the departure of ice. Soils developed from these glacial and colluvial materials.

It is generally expected that on the hill slopes a veneer of colluvium overlies the weathered bedrock. It is anticipated that the colluvial soils are very thin or absent on the hillside spurs and generally become thicker towards the toes of hill slopes. The thickest areas of colluvium are likely to be the colluvial fans. It is anticipated that fluvial soils, predominantly comprising sands and gravels, will be encountered along the floors of the river valleys. Glacial till is expected to be locally important on the valley side slopes.

5.2.2.1 Surficial Geology

Anticipated ground conditions at the proposed intake site comprise a large colluvial fan on the north bank (Photo 13), colluvial/morainal deposits on the south bank and coarse alluvium in the river bed. Seismic refraction survey line data at the proposed intake site suggest that bedrock can be expected at depth between 4 and 12 m below ground surface. At the proposed Dalgleish powerhouse site, the anticipated surficial material is comprised of a glaciofluvial terrace (sand and gravel) over bedrock (Photo 14). Seismic refraction survey line data at the proposed powerhouse site suggest that bedrock can be expected at depth between 1.5 and 10 m below ground surface.

The anticipated ground conditions along the initial portion of the penstock alignment are of general colluvial/morainal deposits over bedrock, while the anticipated ground conditions along the downstream portion of the penstock alignment are steep quartz diorite bedrock slopes. The northernmost 500 m section of the transmission line route crosses the Dalgleish Creek alluvial fan at its confluence with the Toba River. The remainder of the transmission line is located on a glaciofluvial terrace.

The colluvial fans along the sides of the valleys are considered to be a possible source of aggregate for road construction. It is considered that borrow areas for rock aggregate will also need to be developed in the side slopes of the Toba River valley to ensure there is sufficient suitable hard wearing capping material to upgrade disused logging roads.


An overview site location and terrain unit legend map for the Dalgleish Creek facility is outlined in Figure 5.2. A detail map of the interpreted surficial geology is presented in Figure 5.3.

5.2.2.2 Bedrock Geology

The Dalgleish Creek facility is located within the Coast Plutonic Complex, which is dominantly composed of granitic rocks (80%) which were intruded and cooled deep within the crust as discrete bodies of magma between 170-45 million years ago. A subordinate amount (20%) of rocks includes pendants of folded and faulted volcanic and sedimentary metamorphosed rocks (GSC, 2008). Marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks from the Gambier Group and orthogneiss from an unnamed formation are shown in the northern slope of the Dalgleish Creek Valley on the published geology map (BCGS, 2005). Bedrock geology at the proposed intake and powerhouse sites is comprised of Late Cretaceous quartz dioritic rocks (BCGS, 2005). No geological faults are indicated in close proximity to the sites of the proposed powerhouse or intake structure on the published geology map. Anticipated bedrock geology along the access roads and transmission line to the Dalgleish Creek facility is Late Cretaceous quartz dioritic rock which was determined from the regional geology map from the British Columbia Geological Survey (BCGS, 2005).

5.2.3 Hydrogeology and Groundwater

The intake site is bordered by a large colluvial fan on the north bank, and colluvial or morainal deposits on the south bank. The river bed is predominantly coarse alluvium. Groundwater is anticipated in the top 5 m of overburden in the surrounding area. Seepage is anticipated to present some difficulty during construction of the intake facility. Significant planning may be required to control seepage, but groundwater quality is not anticipated to be adversely affected during construction. Water control along the penstock route is not considered to be a major problem. Small creeks crossing the penstock can typically be addressed with a riprap lined surface drain, but areas with a greater presence of groundwater may require additional consideration. The groundwater conditions along the penstock route will be examined with a field test pit investigation program prior to the recommendations for bulk excavation of the penstock alignment. Recommendations will consider all areas where groundwater is expected to be encountered, to minimize difficulties during construction, and to avoid alternations to the groundwater recharge rates and groundwater quality.


The powerhouse is located on the north eastern edge of the alluvial fan and is bordered by a series of cliffs to the north and east. The anticipated ground conditions are alluvial soils overlain by colluvium or talus deposits. Groundwater is anticipated to exist within the top 5 m of overburden, but has not been encountered in investigations to date. Difficult project access and limitations imposed by the investigative use permit for the project site have limited groundwater studies to surficial observations only. Further groundwater studies will be completed during detailed design of the project to evaluate groundwater levels, anticipated seepage rates, and to establish environmental baselines of groundwater quality. The groundwater studies will be combined with geotechnical investigations, the extent of which will be determined during detailed design of the project. These investigations may include installation of groundwater wells for hydraulic conductivity testing at the intake site, to evaluate the extent of seepage control for the facility and to provide information for the design of the diversion works. In addition, groundwater wells may be installed at the powerhouse site to determine the groundwater level, seepage rates, and baseline groundwater quality. Significant alterations of groundwater recharge rates and groundwater quality are not expected to occur as a result of the construction of the project facilities.

5.2.4 Acid Rock Drainage and Metal Leaching Potential

The nearest MINFILE entries are the LIL (Au, Ag, Zn, Pb, and Cu) and Angel (Cu) showings which are located approximately 20 km from the project sites and in watersheds that drain away from the project area. Nicholson (2005) produced an ARIS report for the drainage immediately south of Dalgleish Creek. The report notes low gold and base metal concentrations but indicates newly discovered sulphide mineralization and alteration suggestive of a volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) environment. The proximity of rocks belonging to the Gambier Group and a suspected VMS environment suggest moderate potential of generating ARD/ML due to construction activities. These preliminary findings will be confirmed by fieldwork mapping and observations for acid generation indicators throughout construction and if required, laboratory testing of rock and water samples shall be undertaken.

5.2.5 Natural Hazards

An assessment of the terrain hazards at the proposed sites has been made from the findings of a geotechnical desk study, aerial photograph interpretation (API), site reconnaissance and a preliminary site investigation.


5.2.5.1 Terrain Hazards

The terrain hazards review consisted of Aerial Photograph Interpretation and site reconnaissance, as per the terrain classification system for British Columbia described in Howes and Kenk (1997). Figure 5.2 presents the site location map and terrain unit legend. A terrain hazards map for Dalgleish Creek is presented in Figure 5.3. The proposed Dalgleish Creek intake site is located at the toe of a large active colluvial fan, which is the result of snow avalanches and channelized debris flows on the south facing hill slope (Photo 13). Terrain assessment also identified debris flows, snow avalanches, and rock slide hazards on the south facing hill slopes, upstream of the site of the proposed intake. One debris flow crosses the proposed penstock route on the north facing hill slope above Dalgleish Creek. A second debris flow initiates near the penstock proposed route on the west facing hill slope above the Toba River valley. Two to three levels of old logging road are located above the proposed penstock route. The condition of the road fill and deactivation drainage structures (pulled culverts, water bar, cross ditch etc) will be evaluated. The proposed powerhouse site was selected to avoid debris flow and snow avalanche paths (Photo 15). Its location on a glaciofluvial terrace above the Toba River also results in a low flooding and erosion potential. Figure 5.4 presents a qualitative risk assessment of the natural hazards on the Dalgleish Creek facility. The proposed intake and powerhouse locations were assigned a risk index based on (1) a review of the detailed topography derived from LiDAR imaging, (2) the hazards identified during aerial photograph interpretation and (3) fieldwork conducted to assess the site’s geotechnical conditions. Both proposed intake and powerhouse sites were assigned a moderate risk index due to the presence of recent landslide close to their locations. A snow avalanche path was also observed near the proposed powerhouse site. Based on a similar review of the available data, the penstock route was sub-divided to highlight the risk on each of its segments. Penstock section A was assigned general risk index of low but with local section of moderate risk due to presence of old logging road uphill and of high risk due to recent landslide crossing the alignment. Penstock section B was assigned general risk index of low, the penstock is located on moderately steep to steep bedrock hill slopes with no recent terrain hazards identified. Section C was assigned a risk index of moderate due to the moderately-steep to steep terrain the alignment is crossing. The risk index rating and acronyms used in Figure 5.4 are defined in Table 5.2. The proposed access road crosses three large debris flow and snow avalanche paths. Terrain hazard maps for the interconnection corridor are presented in Figure 5.3. The transmission line between the Upper Toba and the Dalgleish Creek powerhouses crosses the Toba River and Dalgleish Creek. This section of the route


is locally susceptible to flooding and channel avulsion. The section of the transmission line between the Dalgleish powerhouse and the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Transmission line (TLA) crosses four minor tributaries of the Toba River. Of those four minor tributaries, three show evidence of channelized debris flow in the aerial photographs consulted. Along this second section, one small debris avalanche originated from an old logging road upslope from the proposed transmission line alignment but stopped mid slope. Channelized debris flows are constrained to drainage channels until a break of slope; where the debris is deposited as a fan. Transmission towers will be sited between channels to avoid channelized debris flow hazards. Additional assessments are required where the alignment crosses potential debris flow deposition zones once tower sites have been determined.

5.2.5.2 Seismicity

The proposed project is situated in a region where historically the level of seismic activity has been low. However, there is the potential for large earthquakes within south western BC. The seismic hazard in this region results from three sources: large interplate earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone generated by the Juan de Fuca Plate subducting under the North American Plate, deep intraplate earthquakes within the subducting slab, and crustal earthquakes in the continental North American Plate. There has been many studies in recent years concerning the potential for a great interplate earthquake of magnitude 8 to 9+ along the Cascadia subduction zone, located west of Vancouver Island and extending as far south as northern California. Geological evidence indicates that these great Cascadia subduction earthquakes occur at intervals of approximately 300 to 800 years. The last great Cascadia earthquake occurred 308 years ago, in 1700. Such an event would likely be located over 150 km west of the project site, and therefore the amplitude of ground motions experienced at the site would be moderate due to attenuation over such a distance. However, the damage potential from this event can be high, due to the very long duration of ground motion associated with such a large magnitude earthquake. The intraplate (in slab) earthquakes that occur within the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate contribute significantly to the seismic hazard along the southwestern coast of BC, particularly along the Georgia Strait region. Despite their greater depth, these earthquakes occur much more frequently than the shallower crustal earthquakes. Also, ground shaking caused by these events is typically greater than that from a crustal earthquake of comparable magnitude and epicentral distance. There is potential for these intraplate earthquakes to reach magnitudes as high as about 7.0 to 7.5.


Large crustal earthquakes of magnitude 6.9 and 7.3 have occurred within central Vancouver Island in 1918 and 1946 respectively. The closest of these events was the magnitude 7.3 earthquake, located approximately 120 km west of the project site. To the south lies the Northern Cascades seismic region where a large earthquake with an estimated magnitude of 7.0 to 7.5 occurred in Washington State in 1872. For structural design using the National Building Code of Canada (2005), the parameters used to represent seismic hazard at the site are the 5% damped horizontal spectral acceleration values for periods (T) of 0.2, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 seconds and the horizontal peak ground acceleration value, that have a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (return period of about 2500 years). Appropriate spectral acceleration values used by the (2005) Building Code of Canada were also provided by the Pacific Geoscience Centre as part of the seismic hazard analysis. These are presented below. Site specific ground motion parameters have been determined for the project site based on information provided by the probabilistic seismic hazard database of Natural Resources Canada (2008a). The following design spectral acceleration values, Sa(T), have been determined for the project site:

• Sa(0.2) = 0.619g • Sa(0.5) = 0.461g • Sa(1.0) = 0.277g • Sa(2.0) = 0.154g

The corresponding peak ground acceleration for the 1/2500 event is 0.28g. The acceleration values correspond to a reference ground condition of Site Class C (defined by NBCC as very dense soils or soft rock).

5.3 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

5.3.1 Overview

The climate in the Toba Inlet region is classified as West Coast Marine, and is characterized by mild wet winters and cool, fairly dry summers. Onshore Pacific disturbances and coastline topography are the primary factors influencing the climate. No climate data specific to the project site are available. However, the Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC) branch of Environment Canada operates a number of climate stations in the region. Data was also obtained from the BC Ministry of Forests and Range, who operate a meteorological station at Toba Camp. This station has been operational since 1998, but is only serviced during non-winter months (March – September), so data from the winter period are sporadic.


5.3.2 Meteorology

The regional datasets most relevant to the project sites are those from Toba Inlet (MSC #1068201) and Toba Camp, which are located within reasonable proximity of the project area. These datasets, however, are of relatively short duration, so their values were adjusted for long-term patterns by comparison to concurrent and long-term values from the dataset for the MSC station at Malibu Jervis Inlet (MSC #1044840). This station is located nearby and similarly positioned near the head of fjord, but is approximately 20 km further inland. The following sections briefly summarize the meteorological parameters for the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project.

5.3.3 Temperature

The mean annual temperature for the Toba Camp station was found to be approximately 8.0°C (2.2°C cooler than the Malibu Jervis Inlet value of 10.2°C) and correspondingly the mean annual temperature for the project area, for elevations at or near sea level, was determined to be 8.0°C. During the summer, the average monthly temperature is approximately 1oC cooler in the Toba area than that of Malibu Jervis Inlet, with a maximum monthly average temperature estimated to be approximately 17.5°C (July). During the winter the temperatures are approximately 3°C cooler in the Toba area, and the minimum monthly average temperature was estimated to be approximately -0.9°C (December). Extreme maximum and minimum temperatures were estimated to be 36°C and -22°C, respectively.

5.3.4 Snow and Rain

Precipitation values for the project sites were derived in a similar manner to the temperature values, with the Malibu Jervis Inlet data providing the baseline information that was normalized according to comparisons of the concurrent short-term Toba area and Jervis Inlet data, and then adjusted to account for expected orographic effects. On an average monthly basis, Jervis Inlet had approximately 43 mm more precipitation than Toba Camp. These values equate to an annual difference of approximately 470 mm, which when subtracted from the 2481 mm mean annual precipitation value for Jervis Inlet, results in an estimated mean annual precipitation of approximately 2000 mm for the Toba project area. This value is for elevations at or near sea level. Annual precipitation at the project sites was then modelled assuming an orographic increase of 7% per 100 m gain in elevation. The maximum 24 hr precipitation and snowfall values observed at Jervis Inlet are 123 mm and 480 mm, respectively. These values are considered applicable to the Toba area. Orographic factors were applied to these values to derive corresponding estimates for the project sites. The proportion of precipitation falling as snow is correlated to both elevation and location. The colder winter temperatures in the Toba area result in proportionally greater snowfall than at Jervis Inlet. For the one complete year of concurrent record available, 1975, snowfall accounted for 8% of the total annual precipitation at Jervis Inlet and 17% at


Toba Inlet. Over the long-term, approximately 3.5% of the annual precipitation at Jervis Inlet fell as snow (water equivalent), which is approximately half of the 1975 value. Therefore, the snowfall for the Toba area was estimated as half of the 1975 value, or approximately 8%, which equates to 150 mm (rainfall equivalent). This value is for elevations at or near sea level. The percent snowfall would be expected to increase with elevation. In an effort to quantify this effect, percent snowfall values for stations at different elevations were reviewed. In the Squamish/Pemberton corridor, snowfall comprises approximately 20% of the mean annual precipitation at the Daisy Lake Dam (elevation 381 m), increases to 45% at Alta Lake (elevation 668 m), and then drops back down to 20% at the Pemberton Airport (elevation of 205 m). Although these sites are situated further inland than the project area, and likely experience lower winter temperatures at the same elevations, their climate values do provide some relative measure of the elevation effect. Based on this information, it is estimated that approximately 10% of annual precipitation falls as snow at all project powerhouse locations and 25% falls as snow at the Jimmie and Upper Toba intake locations, while 35% falls as snow at the Dalgleish Creek intake location.

5.3.5 Wind

Wind data from the Toba Camp meteorological station indicates that the mean wind speed is approximately 1.5 km/h; June is the windiest month with a mean wind speed of 2.6 km/h. The maximum 10 minute average wind speed observed is 23 km/h. Winds are predominantly from the southwest, due to the orientation of the Toba Valley.

5.4 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT

5.4.1 Aquatic Habitat

Historical fish presence/absence information for the Dalgleish Creek watershed is supported by the following sources:

• MOE online report generator and stocking data from the FISS Database; • DFO online Mapster Data Viewer; • MOE online Habitat Wizard; and • Overview 1:50,000 Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory of 5 Mainland Coast

Watersheds. Dalgleish Creek is a second order stream that flows from the east into the Toba River. The Dalgleish Creek catchment area is approximately 31.8 km2 and the mainstem has an average slope of 21.8%. The mainstem originates at 1835 masl and has a length of 7.8 km.

Most of the proposed road crossings are located on non-fish bearing streams (riparian class 5 and 6). Proposed crossings on Dalgleish Creek fan and one clear span bridge proposed on upper Toba River are located on fish bearing streams.


Open bottom culverts will be installed for the proposed crossings on Dalgleish Creek fan. A clear span bridge (40 m wide) is proposed for upper Toba River. Fisheries studies for Dalgleish Creek fan and Upper Toba River are presented in Sections 5.4 and 6.4 respectively.

During their 2001 study, Hatfield Consulting confirmed the presence of four barriers along the Dalgleish Creek mainstem. Two cascades, a 50 m falls and a 10 m falls within one of the cascades are all located near the mouth of Dalgleish Creek, restricting anadromous fish species distribution to below these obstructions. The lower reaches of Dalgleish Creek provide excellent spawning grounds for salmonid species present in the watershed, though historical information indicates only limited use of the creek by coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook (O. tschawynscha) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) (HCL, 2001). Additional fisheries information is provided in Appendix E. Based on mapping provided by DFO Mapster Version 2.2, (DFO, 2007) 15 reaches were identified on Dalgleish Creek (Figure 5.5) from its mouth to its headwaters at an unnamed lake:

• Reaches 1 and 2 (Section one) which extend upstream from the Toba River to mainstem km 0.3, has an average gradient of 8.1%. The proposed powerhouse site is located at mainstem km 0.1.

• Reach 3 (Section two) has an average gradient of 14.0% and comprises the creek from mainstem km 0.3 to mainstem km 0.6, and consists of two channels.

• Reaches 4 and 5 (Section three) has an average gradient of 28.8% and comprises the creek from mainstem km 0.6 upstream to mainstem km 1.8, where a first order tributary enters the creek from the north. There are cascades at mainstem km 1.0.

• Reaches 6 and 7 (Section four) has an average gradient of 12.3% and comprises the creek from mainstem km 1.8 to mainstem km 3.3. Two major tributaries enter Dalgleish Creek in this section; one from the north at mainstem km 2.7 and one from the south at mainstem km 3.3.

• Reaches 8 and 9 (Section five) has an average gradient of 5.1% and comprises the mainstem from km 3.3 to km 4.6. Six first order tributaries enter Dalgleish Creek from the north in this section, and the intake site is located at mainstem km 4.0.

• Reaches 10 and 11 (Section six) has an average gradient of 17.6% and comprises the mainstem from km 4.6 to km 6.0. In this section a number of first order tributaries enter Dalgleish Creek from both the north and the south.

• Reaches 12 to 16 (Section six) has an average gradient of 50.8% and comprises the mainstem from km 6.0 to km 7.5, where the Creek is fed by an unnamed lake at an elevation of 1820 masl. This section of Dalgleish Creek contains a number of slope breaks, with one section having an average gradient of 118.2%.


5.4.2 Aquatic Fauna

5.4.2.1 Fish

Existing Information

The existing fish and fish habitat information for the Toba River watershed presented in this document is supported by the following sources.

• Preliminary Salmonid Reconnaissance of the Toba River System, 1976 by Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service (Hrussoczy-Wirth et al., 1976) ;

• Reconnaissance (1:20,0000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory of the Little Toba River Watershed by Hatfield Consultants Ltd. (HCL, 1999);

• Overview (1:50,0000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory of the Toba River Watershed by Hatfield Consultants Ltd. (HCL, 2001); and

• Fisheries information contained in the FISS database, Habitat Wizard, and Mapster.

Seven species of salmonids including coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chinook (O. tshawytscha), chum (O. keta), pink (O. gorbuscha), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki), and Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) have been reported from the Toba River watershed. Coho, chinook, chum, and pink salmon are strictly anadromous fish species that undertake long distance ocean migrations, while coastal cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden char include resident and anadromous (sea run) forms. Both sea run coastal cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden char are thought to limit their migrations to the immediate region seaward of their natal rivers. Rainbow trout include stream resident and anadromous life history forms, with the latter undertaking long distance ocean migrations. Steelhead is the common name assigned to the anadromous life history form of rainbow trout. Non-anadromous species recorded in the Toba River watershed include threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), lamprey, and sculpin (Cottus spp.). Fish observation point records obtained from FISS Database for Toba River is presented in Table 5.3. 2007 Field Investigations

Fish sampling and physical habitat data collection was carried out by FishFor Contracting Ltd. adopting methods from the Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures (RIC, 2001) and Fish Collection Methods and Standards (RIC, 1997a). The primary objectives of the fish and fish habitat field investigations were:

• to further investigate fish species presence/absence, distribution, and habitat use in Dalgleish Creek; and


• to evaluate physical habitat quality and limiting factors to fish use in Dalgleish Creek.

A control site was established in known fish bearing reaches to fish access to examine electrofishing and Gee trap efficiency. The general strategy for fish sampling was to focus on intensively sampling habitats with the greatest potential to support fish. This was achieved by identifying potential habitats, from a helicopter, prior to sampling. Details of sampling methodology are presented in Appendix E. Figure 5.5 presents the sampling sites along Dalgleish Creek during the 2007 sampling event. 2008 Field Investigations

The primary objectives of the fish and fish habitat field investigations were: • to investigate fish presence absence u/s and d/s of potential barriers; • to investigate/document the existing habitat and fish utilization in fish bearing

reaches/channels/sections; and • to document any potential barriers (including “soft barriers”).

Fish Species Distribution, Periodicity, and Habitat Use

It is expected that resident and anadromous fish species historically reported from Toba River (Table 5.3) have access to lower sections of Dalgleish Creek (Dalgleish Creek fan and side channels) and potentially use any available habitat in these sections. During our studies, cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden and coho were observed in lower reaches of Dalgleish Creek. The only fish bearing section of Dalgleish Creek was found to be the sediment fan at its confluence with Toba River, down stream of the impassable barriers located immediately at the upstream end of the fan. Dolly Varden char, cutthroat trout and coho were caught at Dalgleish Creek fan and no fish were captured in upper reaches of the creek (above the barrier immediately upstream of the fan). There are multiple channels on the Dalgleish Creek fan at its confluence with Toba River. It was evident from the field observations that the channels running on the fan are of a dynamic nature and frequently change course as a result of various factors such as sediment mobilization and flow levels. A brief description of the most common fish species reported historically from Toba river watershed is provided below. A detailed fisheries and instream flow report is presented in Appendix E.


Dolly Varden char

Dolly Varden char are present throughout the Toba River mainstem and accessible reaches of its tributaries. Adult and juveniles of this species are found in a wide range of habitat types, although they tend to be more abundant in small, turbulent streams and lateral channel margins than in off channel habitats. Potential Dolly Varden char utilization of Dalgleish Creek is limited to the first reach of the Creek located immediately upstream of its confluence with Toba River. The use of Dalgleish Creek by Dolly Varden char is limited by the impassable barrier located at the upstream end of the first reach. The existing habitat in this section of Dalgleish Creek is suitable for spawning. However, the existing channels in this reach are not stable due to continuous transport of glacial till from upstream reaches of the creek. Dolly Varden char are a fall spawning species that typically reach sexual maturity at age 3 to 6 years. Both stream resident and anadromous forms are often present in coastal stream populations where there is direct access to the sea. Typically, Dolly Varden char spawn in October, with eggs incubating in the gravel for 4 to 5 months before hatching in March, followed by emergence at the end of May. The fry and juveniles of anadromous forms spend 3 to 4 years in fresh water, which is followed by a seaward migration in May to early June. Adults move only short distances from the mouth of their parent river, and conduct a return migration to their spawning grounds from mid to late summer. Cutthroat trout

Cutthroat trout have been reported throughout the Toba River watershed and accessible reaches of its tributaries. Adult and juveniles of this species are found in a wide range of habitat types, although they tend to be more abundant in small streams and lateral channel margins than in off channel habitats. Potential cutthroat trout utilization of Dalgleish Creek are limited to the first reach of the Creek located immediately upstream of its confluence with Toba River. The use of Dalgleish Creek by cutthroat trout is limited by the impassable barrier located at the upstream end of the first reach. The coastal cutthroat trout occur along the Pacific coast of North America from Humboldt Bay, California, to Prince William Sound, Alaska, in a zone that closely overlaps the coastal rain forest belt. This species exhibits anadromous, fluvial, adfluvial, and headwater stream resident life history forms. Anadromous fish spawn in small tributaries from late winter through spring, depending on the locality. Juveniles remain in streams for two or more years and congregate during their early months in habitats along stream edges. Later, they move to pools unless coho salmon are present, in which case they are driven to riffles. Coastal cutthroat trout are potentially iteroparous (repeat spawners).


Most anadromous coastal cutthroat trout juveniles smolt at age 2 if they migrate to sheltered saltwater areas or age 3 or 4 if they migrate to the open ocean. Seaward migration peaks in May, and the fish remain close inshore while in salt water. The fish seldom overwinter at sea but return to rivers in the fall or winter of the year they go to sea. In some instances, these are overwintering migrations only, because anadromous female cutthroat trout seldom spawn before age 4. Fluvial and adfluvial forms migrate to main stem rivers or to lakes; otherwise, their life history characteristics are much like those of the anadromous form. Headwater stream resident coastal cutthroat trout become sexually mature as early as age 2, but seldom live beyond age 4 or 5. These fish exhibit only limited in stream movements and generally live out their lives within 200 m of their birthplace. Coho salmon

Coho salmon have been reported throughout the Toba River watershed and accessible reaches of its tributaries. Adults generally prefer small streams with gravel for spawning in microhabitats where there is a good supply of well oxygenated sub-surface flow through the substrate. Juvenile coho prefer secondary channels, low velocity channel margins, and stable pool habitats in association with complex cover. Based on a review of existing information sources the annual coho escapement for the Toba River watershed over the last ten years is between 500 and 3000 adults. These numbers are expected to be significantly lower than historical Coho escapements due to cumulative factors, some of which include marine ecosystem and freshwater habitat degradation, overfishing, and climate change. Run timing of coho salmon has evolved to reflect the requirements of specific stocks, and is regulated in part by local flow conditions and water temperature at spawning grounds. Coho salmon begin to enter Toba River in late August, with peak migration in late September to early October. Spawning occurs from October to January in gravel substrates, with peak spawning activity in late October. The eggs develop during the winter, hatch in early spring, and the embryos remain in the gravel utilizing the egg yolk until they emerge as fry in April or May. The emergent coho fry occupy shallow stream margins, and, as they grow, establish territories, which they defend from other salmonids. They live in ponds, lakes, and pools in streams and rivers, usually among submerged woody debris in quiet areas free of current, from which they dart out to seize drifting insects. Juveniles spend one to three winters in streams and may spend up to five winters in lakes before migrating to the sea as smolts during spring. The time coho spend at sea is highly variable. Some males (called jacks) mature and return after only 6 months at sea at a length of about 30 cm, while most fish stay 18 months before returning as full size adults.


Pink salmon

Low numbers of pink salmon are distributed throughout the lower Toba River drainage; with higher relative abundance in the lower reaches of the Little Toba and Klite Rivers. Adults generally prefer the low gradient reaches of medium sized rivers with gravel and sand substrates for spawning in microhabitats where there is a good supply of well oxygenated sub-surface flow through the substrate. Historical escapement estimates for adult pink abundance are considered unreliable due to the physical characteristics of the valley (remoteness, difficult access, and limited in stream visibility), and the largely qualitative methods previously used to enumerate spawning populations. Based on a review of existing information sources, the annual pink escapement for the Toba River watershed over the last ten years averages less than 100 adults per year. Pink salmon begin to enter the Toba River in late August, with peak migration in September and October. Spawning occurs from October to November, with peak spawning activity in mid October. Fry emerge from the gravel from March to May, and migrating seaward from April to June. Chinook salmon

Chinook salmon are distributed throughout the Toba River mainstem and accessible reaches of its tributaries from its mouth to the impassable barrier falls on Upper Toba River. Adults generally prefer large rivers with gravel or cobble substrates for spawning in microhabitats where there is a good supply of well oxygenated sub-surface flow through the substrate. Juvenile chinook prefer riverine mainstem habitats and estuaries for rearing, and are rarely found in beaver ponds and off channel sloughs. Juvenile chinook abundance is generally higher along channel margins, although juveniles are capable of utilizing high current velocity mid channel areas. Historical escapement estimates for adult chinook abundance are considered unreliable due to the physical characteristics of the valley (remoteness, difficult access, and limited in stream visibility), and the largely qualitative methods previously used to enumerate spawning populations. Based on a review of exiting information sources the annual chinook escapement for the Toba River watershed over the last ten years is between 100 and 1000 adults. Rainbow trout

Rainbow trout are present throughout the Toba River mainstem and in accessible reaches of its tributaries. Adult and juveniles of this species are found in a wide range of habitat types, although they tend to be more abundant in small streams and lateral channel margins than in off channel habitats. Steelhead potentially occur throughout the Toba River drainage in low numbers.


Rainbow trout adults spawn during late spring in response to increasing water temperature/photoperiod and their fry emerge from the gravel in mid summer. Rainbow trout are potentially iteroparous (repeat spawners). Stream resident rainbow trout typically conduct short distance migrations to preferred spawning sites between mid April and late June, with the onset of migration coinciding with elevated water levels and a temperature threshold of 5°C. During the summer growing season, rainbow trout behaviour is characterized by the establishment of feeding stations in proximity to cover and abundant food supply. In the fall, rainbow trout respond to decreasing water temperature/photoperiod by moving to deep pools, off channel ponds, and/or cover elements such as coarse substrates where they remain relatively inactive until spring. Steelhead trout are an anadromous form of rainbow trout that are similar to some salmon species with respect to their life cycle and ecological requirements. They are born in fresh water streams, where they spend their first 1-3 years of life. They then out migrate to the ocean where most of their growth occurs. After spending between one to four growing seasons in the ocean, steelhead return to their native fresh water stream to spawn. Unlike most Pacific salmon, steelhead trout are potentially repeat spawners or iteroparous. Newly emerged steelhead fry move to shallow low current velocity protected areas of the stream usually along the stream channel margins, where they establish and defend feeding areas. Most juveniles can be found in riffles, although larger individuals will move to pools or deep runs.

5.4.2.2 Benthic Invertebrates

Benthic communities are useful indicators of stream health and are an important food source for fish. Natural benthic communities are relatively stable in structure and composition, adapting to the natural environmental conditions within the given biogeographic region. Salmonid growth and abundance has shown to be directly linked to the abundance of drifting invertebrate prey (Hatfield et al., 2007). Benthic drift sampling has been carried out (according to Hatfield et al (2007) methodology) to collect information on species composition, abundance, and distribution of macroinvertebrates in the proposed project area; however, the results were not available at the time of preparation of this report.

Sampling was conducted on Dalgleigh Creek, Jimmie Creek, and the Upper Toba River from March 29 to April 2, 2008, in conjunction with water quality and IFR field studies. Three sites were sampled on each stream including one upstream of the proposed intake location, and two within the diversion reach. At each site, five nets were set side-by-side to account for within site variability. When possible, sites were chosen within high-productivity riffle habitats with velocities between 20 and 40 cm/s, as these areas tend to have actively foraging fish (Hatfield et al. 2007). Details of sampling procedure are presented in Appendix E.


5.5 HYDROLOGY

To ensure that the design and operation of the hydroelectric facility is consistent with water availability, it is necessary to determine the long-term flow regime of the creek. Ideally this would be derived from many years of continuous flow monitoring data on Dalgleish Creek, but, as is commonly the case, long-term historical flow records are not available. Rather, short-term data recorded since December 2006 on Dalgleish Creek are used in conjunction with long-term regional flow records collected by Water Survey of Canada to develop estimates of the long-term mean annual discharge and the frequency distribution of daily discharge in Dalgleish Creek. This long-term synthetic flow series provides the basis for the hydrologic assessment of the facility, including energy generation potential and aquatic habitat analyses. Development of these data are presented in detail in Appendix F1 and summarised below. 5.5.1 Stream Gauging

Gauge Site Description A stream gauging station was first installed on Dalgleish Creek in December 2006. The gauge was installed at an approximate elevation of 750 masl, roughly 3.6 km upstream of the confluence with the Toba River. A pressure transducer was installed within an aluminium tube that was fastened to a large boulder at the side of a small pool in the creek to continuously record stage (water level) at 15-minute intervals. The hydraulic control at the gauging station is channel control provided by cobble bed conditions downstream of the gauge, which are believed to dictate the relation between stage and discharge for most flow situations. Water level fluctuations at the gauge are typically small because the gauge is located in a pool, and because the aluminium tube tends to dampen rapid changes in water level. Site selection, equipment installation, and data collection and analysis were conducted in general accordance with provincial guidelines (BC MoELP, 1998). Rating Curve Development

A total of 11 successful discharge measurements have been made at the Dalgleish Creek gauge since its installation. These measurements were made using the area-velocity technique with a Swoffer velocity meter when flow conditions allowed for safe wading in the creek, and using the dilution technique with rhodamine dye slug injection when conditions were unsafe to wade and/or too turbulent for velocity meter use. The measurements range from a low of 0.20 m3/s to a high of 11.1 m3/s, which, based on the estimated mean annual discharge (MAD) of 3.0 m3/s at the gauge site, equate to 7% of MAD to 370% of MAD. These 11 measurements were used as the basis for developing a stage-discharge rating curve for the gauge, which is shown on Figure 2.4 in Appendix F1.


5.5.2 Regional Analysis

Regional Gauging Stations

A regional analysis was conducted to assess regional stream flow patterns and provide a preliminary estimate of mean annual discharge for the study stream. This analysis supports the selection of appropriate gauges for regression analysis and provides a useful comparison for measured stream flows and identifies the spatial variability of climatic and hydrologic conditions in the Coast Mountains. The key factors governing this variability are elevation, glacier cover, distance from the coast, and location relative to the Coast Mountain drainage divide, which dictates maritime/continental and windward/leeward effects. This spatial variability, when combined with the temporal and spatial scarcity of data coverage, presents a significant challenge for estimating the hydrology for a specific location. Among the WSC stations assessed, Elaho River (08GA071) is assumed to be the most representative of the Dalgleish Creek watershed, as it is located relatively nearby, and has a similar location relative to the coast and mountain range. The annual hydrograph of the Elaho River is characterized by rising flows in the spring months due to snowmelt, maximum monthly flows in June and July due to glacier melt, and receding flows in the autumn and winter months, with minimum monthly flows occurring in December, January, and February. The mean annual unit runoff is 86 l/s/km2 Synthetic Daily Flow Series

In order to generate a long-term estimate of mean annual discharge (MAD) at the intake, as well as the frequency distribution of daily discharge, the short-term site stream flow record was compared to long-term records of the regional gauge described above. Ideally, the candidate gauge for comparison would have at least 20 complete years of record (including concurrent record with Dalgleish Creek), similar watershed characteristics to Dalgleish Creek, and be located in a similar position relative to the coast and mountain range. Based on the considerations described above, it was decided that the Elaho River record (08GA071) would be most appropriate for simulating a long-term flow series for Dalgleish Creek. Unfortunately, concurrent data were not available for October or November, so East Toba River data were used for this period. The frequency distribution of daily flows in Dalgleish Creek was compared to the concurrent distribution of flows in the Elaho River (or East Toba River) on a seasonal basis. This was achieved by regression analysis of ranked daily flows for the concurrent periods of record. When comparing sets of ranked daily flows for two or more gauging records, each flow value of equal rank has an equal probability of exceedence in the data set (because the data sets are of equal length). Therefore, a comparison of ranked daily flows amounts to a comparison of flow frequency distributions. The seasonal regression equations account for differences in drainage area and other physical characteristics that affect unit runoff, and it is assumed that these parameters are approximately constant within seasons over a period of several years. The comparison of flow distributions rather than simultaneous daily flows overcomes differences in the timing of rainstorm or


snowmelt events between watersheds, and ultimately provides a better model for synthetically generating a likely scenario of future flow patterns. It must be recognized that the ultimate objective of this exercise is not to reproduce the exact historical flow pattern in Dalgleish Creek so that one can predict what the flow was on any particular day, but rather to generate a dataset that provides a good representation of the expected future long-term mean annual discharge in the creek and the associated year to year, month to month and day to day variability of flows A synthetic flow series from January 1982 to December 2007 at the Dalgleish Creek gauging site was developed by regression with Elaho River or East Toba River. The long-term synthetic daily flow series for the Dalgleish Creek gauge site was scaled to the intake location by pro ration of drainage areas. There is little difference in the glaciated fraction of the watershed area at the intake and the gauge locations and the elevation distributions are similar. Based on these similarities, it is assumed that there is little difference in the mean annual unit runoff and the seasonal distribution of flows between the intake and gauge locations.

Mean Annual Discharge

Based on the regional regression analysis discussed above, the mean annual discharge of the synthetic intake flow series is 2.83 m³/s, which equates to an annual unit runoff of 88.9 l/s/km². This unit runoff value lies within the expected range of values for this region. The estimated mean monthly and annual flows at the intake site are summarized in Appendix F1, Table 3.4, and a corresponding annual hydrograph is shown on Appendix F1, Figure 3.12. Climate Trends

The synthetic flow series discussed above is derived from an analysis of historic flow data, however, to ensure that the design and operation of the hydroelectric project is consistent with water availability, it is necessary to assess whether this historic record is sufficiently representative of future conditions. Trends of changing annual average temperature, annual precipitation and annual average discharge are evident in the climate and flow records, although most are not statistically significant, and it is uncertain that they will continue in the near future given the inherent variability and cyclic nature of climate, although they are expected to persist over the long-term. Given our current inability to accurately predict and model future climate patterns, and the fact that the most relevant historical flow records indicate very little recent change in annual flow volumes or durations, it is reasonable to conclude that the current records provide an appropriate basis for simulating flow conditions that might be expected in Dalgleish Creek over the next 20 to 40 years. However, it must be understood that changes in the shape of the annual hydrograph appear to be trending towards a more even distribution of flows throughout the year, and if the current climate change trends persist or accelerate, the hydrological analysis may warrant reassessment some time in the future. Furthermore, it seems reasonable and prudent to incorporate a factor of safety into any peak flow analysis to account for possible future changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme


flow events. Details and justification of these conclusions are presented in Appendix F1, Section 5.0.

5.5.3 Design Flood Flows

Peak flows with return periods of 100 years and 200 years are commonly used for various aspects of design. Larger, less frequent flood events are difficult to predict from historical records and are beyond the scope of this analysis. A statistical analysis was undertaken to calculate peak instantaneous flow values on the basis of the long-term synthetic record for the Dalgleish Creek intake site. The results were compared to the values calculated using the regional analysis presented by Obedkoff (2003). The regional approach produces significantly higher peak flow results than does the statistical analysis of the long-term synthetic flow series. In this case, the regional results are considered more precise due to possible underestimation of peak flows at the Dalgleish Creek gauging station. Also, many of the values in the synthetic flow annual maximum series are glacial melt flows, but the largest flows observed are due to storm events in autumn. Because these glacial melt flows are consistently high, the annual maximum series has a low coefficient of variation, and thus peak flows for larger return periods are likely underestimated. As discussed in Section 5.5.2, climate change is resulting in larger and more frequent peak flow events. To account for the potential increase in both size and frequency of peak flows in Dalgleish Creek, a factor of safety of 15% has been added to the regional return period flows discussed above and presented in Appendix F1, Table 4.3. This 15% value was somewhat arbitrarily selected but it is consistent with general practices, as determined through attendance at various climate change symposiums and discussions with professional peers. The resulting recommended 100- and 200-year peak instantaneous flows are 114 m3/s and 137 m3/s, respectively. The design flows presented in this section pertain to meteorological/hydrologic events and do not include peak flows resulting from dam burst scenarios associated with moraine lakes or creek blockage by snow avalanches and/or landslides. The potential for such events and the related need to consider them for design purposes are addressed in other reports as part of terrain hazard assessment.

5.5.4 Water Quality

Knight Piésold Ltd. established 3 sites to collect baseline water quality data on Dalgleish Creek. These sites are as follows:

• Dalgleish-1: downstream of the proposed powerhouse; • Dalgleish-2: mid stream in diversion section; and • Dagleish-3: upstream of proposed intake structure.


Water quality studies were implemented following the general requirements of Guidelines for Designing and Implementing a Water Quality Monitoring Program in British Columbia (RISC, 1998a) and the sampling was conducted in accordance with the methods outlined in the Assessment Methods for Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Characteristics in Support of Applications to Dam, Divert, or Extract Water from Streams in British Columbia (Lewis et al., 2004). The water quality sampling program for Dalgleish Creek is ongoing and the samples collected to date were obtained on August 28, 2007 and December 6, 2007. Samples were collected in lab supplied pre-washed bottles, kept cool and forwarded to ALS Environmental for analysis within 48 hours, under standard chain of custody procedures. Sample analysis included physical tests, dissolved anions, nutrients and dissolved metals. The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix G. Sample analysis and interpretation followed the Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data (RISC, 1998b). The pH in Dalgleish Creek ranged from 6.33 to 7.87. The lower values, while below the provincial criteria of 6.5 for the protection of aquatic life, are typical of coastal BC streams which have values ranging between 5.5 and 6.5 (RIC, 1998). Conductivity, the measure of the ability of water to conduct an electric current, varied between 17.0 and 81.3 μS/cm, similar to BC coastal streams with values under 100 μS/cm. Total dissolved and suspended solid concentrations were less than the typical range of 100 mg/L and 75 mg/L, respectively, for streams on the coast of British Columbia (RISC, 1998b). The total hardness, a measure of calcium, magnesium and other metallic ions, ranged from 7.1 to 34.3 mg/L, with values below 60 mg/L considered to be soft water (RISC, 1998b). Alkalinity ranged from 5.3 to 29.3 mg/L, with the majority of the samples above the typical range of 0 to 10 mg/L for the coastal areas of British Columbia. Alkalinity in streams is influenced by the local geology and values between 10 to 20 mg/L indicate a moderate sensitivity to acidic inputs (RISC, 1998a). Dissolved anions, in the form of chloride and fluoride, were below their respective detection limits for the water quality samples. Sulphate concentrations ranged from 2.65 to 12.7 mg/L, which are far below the specified 100 mg/L limit for fresh water aquatic life (BC WQG, 2006). The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment declares the lowest acceptable concentrations of dissolved oxygen in cold water systems to be 9.5 mg/L for early aquatic life stages and 6.5 mg/L for other aquatic life stages (CCME, 1999). British Columbia Water Quality Guidelines set an instantaneous minimum concentration of 9 mg/L for buried embryo/alevin fish life stages and 5 mg/L for all other life stages (BCWQG, 2006). Reduced oxygen levels can have a lethal and sub-lethal effect on various organisms, including fish. The dissolved oxygen in Dalgleish Creek ranged from 12.26 mg/L to 12.45 mg/L during June 2007 and from 12.54 mg/L to 13.46 mg/L during August 2007, within acceptable limits for all life stages. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are affected by a number of factors including atmospheric and hydrostatic pressure, turbulence, temperature, salinity, currents, upwelling, ice cover, and biological processes. Anthropogenic affects related to the construction of hydropower projects (such as


deforestation) can lead to the addition of organic effluents within a system. These organic effluents can act as oxidizing agents, consuming the dissolved oxygen in the system (Wetzel, 1983); therefore, it will be important to monitor the dissolved oxygen in Dalgleish Creek throughout the project life to ensure that concentrations remain within the acceptable range. The Dalgleish Creek water quality samples were generally low in nutrients, indicating an oligotrophic system. Nitrogen based nutrients (ammonia and nitrites) were below their respective detection limits, with nitrate concentrations of 0.0102 to 0.124 mg/L, which are within the typical range of less than 0.3 mg/L for surface water (RISC, 1998b). Total dissolved phosphate and dissolved orthophosphate concentrations were below their respective detection limits, and total phosphorus ranged from 0.0025 to 0.0202 mg/L. An automated water temperature datalogger was installed in Dalgleish Creek, at sample location Dalgleish 2 for continuous monitoring of baseline and operational temperatures. The average annual water temperature for the drainage was 2.6°C, with temperatures ranging from a high of 3.4°C on January 13, 2008, to a low of 1.4°C on February 5, 2008, as shown in Appendix G. The datalogger was installed on December 6, 2007 and was last downloaded on March 7, 2008.

5.6 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

Terrestrial wildlife and vegetation surveys were conducted by Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. The following is a brief description of wildlife species in the area. Appendix H includes the complete Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation Studies report. The wildlife study for these two facilities was considered as one in order to capitalize on mapping and study efficiencies, as they are adjacent, and form a de facto wildlife unit. Notwithstanding this grouping, separate discussions for each facility are provided. 5.6.1 Approach

5.6.1.1 Wildlife Habitat Mapping

Wildlife habitat mapping (1:20,000) was completed for the Toba River drainage as a component of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project. The mapping was used to determine the potential adverse impacts of the Project on Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). Previously defined administrative boundaries (i.e. draft goat winter ranges) important for assessing potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife were also included. The locations of undefined sensitive and/or particularly important areas for wildlife and vegetation were also determined and mapped within the study area. To develop the wildlife habitat mapping, forest cover data for the TFL 10 portion of the Toba drainage were obtained from International Forest Products (Interfor). Other spatial input data included 1:250,000 scale Broad Ecosystem Inventory (BEI)


mapping, Terrain Resource Information Mapping (TRIM) features, and TRIM digital elevation model (DEM) derivatives such as slope, aspect, and relative slope position. All data sources (spatial data) were reviewed, reconciled and compiled into a resultant database. The quality of the input data was assessed using metadata provided with the files. Spatial accuracy of the forest cover was assessed by comparison with TRIM features. The DEM derivative datasets were produced using a combination of methods involving the use of Triangulated Irregular Networks (TIN) spatial analysis. The resulting overlay of all the spatial data provided a complex set of linework, which was the main source for defining polygons in the Toba drainage.

5.6.1.2 Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation

A preliminary list of VECs included provincially Red or Blue listed taxa, species identified by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, migratory birds, taxa listed under the Species at Risk Act, taxa listed under the provincial Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (IWMS), and species of regional importance (prioritized by government agencies, First Nations or public concern). This list was refined based on the historical range/distribution of the taxa and the presence of critical habitat in the regional Project area. A final assessment of all available information (including field studies) generated a final list of VECs that could potentially be affected by the Project. A list of wildlife VECs is presented in Table 5.4. The most recent design changes (June 2008) have been incorporated into the terrestrial wildlife and vegetation report (Appendix H). Design modifications (e.g. powerhouse location and penstock alignment of Dalgleish Creek hydroelectric facility) lie entirely within the previously defined detailed study area. The current powerhouse is located approximately 400 m upstream of the Dalgleish Creek confluence with the Toba River, 250 m northeast of the original powerhouse location. Therefore, no change in any overall potential environmental impacts of the proposed project results from the design modifications and the conclusions of the terrestrial and wildlife studies remain valid.

5.6.1.3 Biophysical Information

A 200,679 ha area was mapped in the Toba River valley. A total of 1184 ha occur within the Upper Toba Valley/Dalgleish Creek Hydroelectric Project Area. Riparian forests dominate the valley bottom and mesic to dry forests, interspersed with cliffs and avalanche chutes, are predominant on the side slopes. The detailed ecosystem composition of the Project area is summarised in Appendix H.


5.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation

5.6.2.1 Terrestrial Wildlife

The Upper Toba/Dalgleish study area is composed of 778 ha in the facilities study area, 1143 ha in the roads study area and 313 ha in the transmission line study area. The Upper Toba powerhouse is located within old, mesic forest, while the intake location is predominantly shrubby avalanche and river. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road for Upper Toba is mainly mesic forest, with young forest along the upper portion and old forest along the lower portion. The Dalgleish proposed powerhouse and intake are located on mature mesic, old forest and shrubby, mesic forest, respectively. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road for Dalgleish Creek is mainly shrubby mesic forest, with some areas of old forest. Both areas have steep side slopes interspersed with avalanche chutes and cliffs. The final list of VECs includes Northern Goshawk (laingi sub-species), Great Blue Heron (fannini sub-species), Coastal Tailed Frog, Marbled Murrelet, Western Toad, Green Heron, Roosevelt Elk, Painted Turtle, Townsend's Big-eared Bat, Peregrine Falcon (anatum sub-species), Bald Eagle, Barn Swallow, Harlequin Duck, Western Screech-Owl (kennicotii sub-species), Keen's Myotis, Mountain Goat, Band-tailed Pigeon, Red-legged Frog and grizzly bear (Table 5.4). Species that were included as species of regional concern based on consultation with government and First Nations include Roosevelt elk, Bald Eagle, Harlequin Duck and Mountain Goat. VECs that have not been confirmed to be present in the regional study area, despite survey efforts, include the Roosevelt elk, painted turtle, coastal tailed frog, Townsend's big eared bat, Keen's myotis, Green Heron, Peregrine Falcon, and Western Screech Owl. Habitat assessment to identify potential impacts was completed for all identified VECs, regardless of the fact that their presence could not be confirmed. Suitable habitat was identified using information available for VECs from similar areas. Wildlife habitat assessments for the seasonal life requisites for selected species were completed at ground inspection plots in the Project area. Thirty nine wildlife habitat assessments were completed in the field. The field ratings were used to adjust the wildlife habitat ratings and produce final suitability maps. Habitat suitability for mountain goats and Peregrine Falcons was visually assessed during aerial surveys and these observations were used to manually update the draft ratings for those species. A summary of the habitat requirements and the results of the habitat suitability mapping for each species is provided below.


Coastal Tailed Frog

The coastal tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) is a small frog that is strongly adapted to cool headwater streams in the coastal mountains (Corkran and Thoms, 1996). The coastal sub-species is provincially Blue listed, has been designated as a species of Special Concern by COSEWIC and is an Identified Wildlife species under the Forest and Range Practices Act (CDC, 2007). The tailed frog is a long lived species, reaching sexual maturity at eight to nine years of age (Daugherty and Sheldon, 1982b). The larval development period can last for up to 4 years, during which tadpoles cling to the underside of large boulders and cobbles (Mallory, 2004). Tadpoles require permanent perennial streams and are susceptible to increased sedimentation and changes in water temperature (Mallory, 2004). Tailed frogs inhabit small, fast flowing mountain streams with stable substrates (Cannings et al., 1999). Step pool morphologies with regularly spaced pools and well anchored cobble, boulder, or wood steps are preferred and low or excessively steep stream gradients are avoided (Mallory, 2004). Interstitial spaces provide egg laying and over wintering sites, as well as refuge from channel disturbance and predators (Bull and Carter, 1996a; Dupuis and Bunnell, 1997; Sutherland and Bunnell, 2001). Tailed frogs have been negatively associated with high amounts of fine sediment and they have a narrow range of temperature tolerance (Mallory, 2004). The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total study area contains no suitable (class 1-3) habitat for tailed frogs. The proposed powerhouse locations are rated low and the intake locations are rated very low to nil. There are no significant areas within the Upper Toba/Dalgleish total study area. Jimmie Creek, Dalgleish Creek and the Upper Toba River are glacial headwater streams with high sediment loads and steep gradients. These features are not suitable for tailed frogs. The tertiary creeks that feed into these tributaries have higher potential for tailed frogs and areas where Project alignments overlap suitable habitat have the highest potential for impacts. Tailed frogs have not been confirmed in the study area and few roads bisect suitable habitat, therefore the potential to impact tailed frogs is low. Red Legged Frog

The red legged frog (Rana aurora) is a medium sized frog that is found in the south western part of the province, including the Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands (Waye, 1999). This species is provincially Blue listed, has been designated as a species of Special Concern by COSEWIC and is an Identified Wildlife species under the Forest and Range Practices Act (CDC, 2007). The red legged frog spends up to 90% of its life in terrestrial habitats, using aquatic areas to breed (Maxcy, 2004). Information on terrestrial habitat features is limited,


but proximity to suitable breeding habitat appears to dictate their distribution. Typically, adults live along streams and in moist forested habitats (Ovaska and Sopuck, 2004). Red legged frogs are negatively associated with elevation (above 500m) and slope and positively associated with lower elevation riparian areas (Maxcy, 2004). In western Oregon, deciduous forests with abundant coarse woody debris had the greatest concentration of frogs (Maxcy, 2004). Stand age does not appear to be an important habitat feature. Red legged frogs use a variety of wetland habitats and waterbodies to breed. Low water flow and diverse microhabitat features appear to be important (Ovaska and Sopuck, 2004). Bogs and fens characterized by a humus substrate, the presence of herbaceous and emergent vegetation and submerged wood typically have the highest proportion of occurrence (Maxcy, 2004). Eggs are attached to thin stemmed emergent plants in water 30 to 500 cm deep (Maxcy, 2004). Tadpoles prefer warmer water and tend to congregate in sections of the water body with significant solar exposure (Ovaska and Sopuck, 2004). Adult frogs eat beetles, caterpillars, isopods and a variety of other small invertebrates and tadpoles consume filamentous green algae (Ovaska and Sopuck, 2004). Reproduction is the limiting life requisite for red legged frogs. Suitable breeding habitat includes wetlands less than 500 m in elevation. Lake margins and river back channels can also provide suitable habitat for breeding. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains no suitable (class 1-3) habitat for red legged frogs. All Project components are rated nil and no significant areas occur within the Upper Toba/Dalgleish total study area. Western Toad

The western toad (Bufo boreas) is widespread in British Columbia, occurring from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Coast (COSEWIC, 2002b). This toad is one of the few amphibians that can inhabit alpine habitats and it is absent only from the most arid areas. The western toad is provincially Yellow listed and is designated as a species of Special Concern by COSEWIC (CDC, 2007). The western toad is primarily terrestrial, occupying forested areas, wet shrub lands, avalanche slopes and sub-alpine meadows during the non-breeding season (COSEWIC, 2002b). Preferred habitats include moist areas with dense shrub cover, often in close proximity to wetlands. During dry periods, toads take shelter in loose soil, animal burrows, moist depressions, tree root tangles and in dense ground cover (Green and Campbell, 1984). Aquatic habitats vary significantly in the amount of canopy cover, coarse woody debris and emergent vegetation, but shallow water with a sandy bottom appears to be preferred (Green and Campbell, 1984). Eggs are laid in water less than 0.5 m deep and hatchlings and tadpoles congregate in warm, shallow margins (Corkran


and Thoms, 1996). Wind and Dupuis (2002) describe ideal breeding wetlands as relatively shallow water bodies that retain water for the breeding season (early spring until mid to late summer). Declines in western toad populations have been observed throughout their range, including some relatively 'pristine' areas (COSEWIC, 2002b). The reasons for these declines are not well understood. Reproduction is the limiting life requisite for western toads. Potential breeding habitat includes wetlands, river back channels and lake margins at all elevations. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains no suitable (class 1-3) habitat for western toads. All project components are rated as very low to nil. There are no significant areas within the Upper Toba/Dalgleish total study area. Painted Turtle

The painted turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii) is the most northerly occurring turtle in North America. British Columbia is at the northern limit of the known range and little suitable habitat is available for this species in the Toba area. Populations have been recorded as far north as the Sechelt Powell River area and on southeast Vancouver Island (Blood and Macartney 1998). The Pacific Coast population is provincially Red listed and is designated as endangered by COSEWIC (CDC, 2007). Female turtles lay eggs in dry, light textured soils on warm, unvegetated south facing sites within 150 m of the pond. Clutches are laid from early June to early July and eggs incubate for 70 to 80 days, hatching in late August to early September (Blood and Macartney, 1998). In BC most hatchlings do not leave the nest until the late May or June of the following year, which increases the chance of predation and death due to freezing (Blood and Macartney, 1998). Habitats for painted turtles include ponds, marshes, small lakes, ditches and slow moving streams with aquatic plants and a muddy bottom (Blood and Macartney, 1998). Alteration and destruction of habitat is probably the main threat to the painted turtle (Blood and Macartney, 1998). Road mortality and disturbance of nesting and basking sites may also pose significant threats. Suitable egg laying sites adjacent to aquatic habitat are the limiting habitat for this species. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains <1 ha of moderate to highly (class 2-3) suitable habitat for painted turtle, which is located in a small patch approximately 0.5 km east of the road between Dalgleish Creek and East Toba. The remainder of the Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area is rated nil. Harlequin Duck

The Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) is a small sub-arctic sea duck with two geographically distinct populations in Canada. The western population is found along the Pacific Coast from Alaska to Oregon (CDC, 2007). Harlequins spend the


winter at sea along rough, rocky shores, but move inland in the spring to breed on fast moving, turbulent creeks across the province (Bellrose, 1976; Campbell et al., 1990a). The Harlequin Duck is provincially Yellow listed and is a species of regional concern (CDC, 2007). Pairs arrive at breeding grounds in late April to mid May (CDC, 2007). Pairs appear to be very selective of their breeding habitat and frequently return to the same stream reach each year (Wallen and Groves, 1989 in Paton, 2000). Ducklings typically remain near the nesting site for the first few weeks then move downstream as the summer progresses (Cassirer and Groves, 1989). Broods have been recorded in BC between mid June and early September and prefer low gradient streams with abundant macroinvertebrate fauna (Campbell et al., 1990a; Bengtson and Ulfstrand, 1971). Studies show that harlequins are sensitive to human disturbance and critical nesting and brood rearing habitat is generally found in undisturbed areas far from human activity (Paton, 2000) Harlequin breeding streams are characterized as areas with: clean, fast flowing waters with riffle and rapid habitat; stream gradient of 1-7%; stream width of 2-10 m; presence of cobble and boulder substrate; high biomass of benthic macroinvertebrates; presence in stream loafing sites (woody debris, boulders, islands and gravel bars); and densely forested bank vegetation (Cassirer et al., 1996; Machmer, 2001; Paton 2000). Recent preliminary estimates of female recruitment in British Columbia suggest a declining population (Rodway et al., 2003). Declines have been attributed to loss of nesting sites due to the degradation of riparian habitat from logging, mining, road construction, and hydroelectric development, as well as nesting disturbance from development, recreation, and other human activities (e.g. Cassirer et al., 1993b). Overall, harlequin habitat suitability along Jimmie Creek, Dalgleish Creek and Upper Toba River (upstream of the proposed powerhouse) was low to very low. High and moderately high suitability habitat was observed along the upper sections of the Toba River from near the old logging camp to the Upper Toba proposed powerhouse. Marbled Murrelet

The Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) is a unique alcid that nests in coastal old growth forests along the entire coast of BC. This small seabird has wings adapted for underwater propulsion. These adaptations mean that murrelets fly rapidly, have low manoeuvrability and have difficulty landing and taking off (Burger, 2004). The Marbled Murrelet is provincially Red listed, has been designated as threatened by COSEWIC and is an Identified Wildlife species under the Forest and Range Practises Act (CDC, 2007). Marbled Murrelet breed between late April and early September. Females lay a single egg on a mossy branch or cliff ledge and both sexes incubate and feed the


chick (Burger, 2002). Food is mainly delivered to the nest during the dawn hours, but trips are also be made at dusk and occasionally during the day (Burger, 2004). Site fidelity is not well known, but murrelet have been documented returning to the same stand (Burger, 2002). Murrelets nest in old growth forests, within 30 km of the Pacific Coast and up to 1500 m in elevation (Hull et al., 2001 and Burger, 2004). Suitable nesting habitat includes old forests containing large trees (>40 m), with adequate nesting platforms (limbs or deformities >15 cm diameter) and epiphyte cover (Burger, 2004). Topographic and vertical complexity are also important to provide nest access and security cover (Burger, 2002). Loss of suitable nesting habitat is widely accepted as a major threat to juvenile Marbled Murrelet recruitment (Ralph et al., 1995; Nelson 1997; Hull 1999). It is also notable that murrelet do not appear to pack more densely into remaining habitat; therefore as nesting sites are removed, fewer murrelet will be nesting. Radar surveys in the Toba area completed in 2000 and 2001 counted a maximum mean of 1,192 birds at 6 stations located 0 to 50 km from the inlet mouth (Cullen, 2002). The maximum numbers of incoming murrelet counted before sunrise at the Toba Inlet estuary station in 2000 and 2001 were 435 and 216 birds, respectively (Cullen, 2002). The counts represent the minimum number of murrelet since radar counts tend to miss some birds entering the watershed. That study found that the highest numbers of murrelet in the Sunshine Coast Forest District were recorded in the Toba Inlet. Population density estimates from radar surveys ranged from 0.046 to 0.071 birds per hectare, based on 21 watersheds sampled along the south coast (Burger, 2004). A Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat suitability map was created for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project. Aerial surveys confirmed the presence of 15,683 hectares of suitable murrelet habitat (habitat class 1-4) in the Toba Landscape Unit (LU). Nest locations were obtained from the Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University and nine nests were located in the Toba LU. No nests were located in the Upper Toba Valley. This suitability map was be used to assess the impacts to Marbled Murrelet in the study areas. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains 156 ha of high to moderately (class 3) suitable habitat, including 116 ha occurring in the facilities study area, 154 ha occurring in the roads study area, and 57 ha occurring in the transmission line study area. The Upper Toba proposed powerhouse location is rated moderately and the Dalgleish proposed powerhouse location is rated moderately high. The intake locations are rated nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road for Upper Toba is rated moderate for the first 500 m, and nil in the upper valley. The habitat present along the upgraded road for


Dalgleish Creek is rated low to nil and the lower section of the penstock passes through patches of moderate and moderately high rated habitat. Green Heron

The Green Heron (Butorides virescens) is a small, compact wading bird found throughout the year in much of North America (Campbell et al., 1990a). This species is one of a few tool using birds and has been observed using bait to entice fish closer (Davis and Kushlan, 1994). The Green Heron is provincially Blue listed (CDC, 2007). Preferred habitats for the Green Heron include ponds, rivers, sloughs and lakes (Campbell et al., 1990a). However, this species is flexible in its habitat selection and has also been observed using beaches, golf courses, reservoirs, ditches and artificial ponds (Fraser and Ramsey, 1996). Important habitat features include adjacent tall shrubs and small trees for nesting and slow moving, shallow water for foraging (Campbell et al., 1990a; Fraser and Ramsey, 1996). They consume a variety of fish, crustaceans, amphibians, insects and spiders (Fraser et al., 1999). Loss of riparian habitat due to urban expansion is a primary risk to Green Heron, however this species appears to be reasonably tolerant to certain levels of human disturbance (Fraser et al., 1999). They are also sensitive to environmental contaminants and pollutants (Fraser and Ramsey, 1996). Reproduction is the limiting life requisite for the Green Heron. Suitable nesting habitat includes wetlands, lakes, rivers and shrubby riparian forests, less than 610 m in elevation. Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek local study areas were rated nil for Green Herons. No significant areas were identified for Green Heron. Great Blue Heron, Fannini Subspecies

The Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) is the largest wading bird in North America. Two sub-species are known to occur in the province: A. h. fannini breeds on the Pacific coast from Washington to Alaska; and A. h. herodias breeds in Florida and is found across most of North America (Vennesland, 2004). The fannini sub-species is provincially Blue listed, is designated as a species of special concern by COSEWIC and is an Identified Wildlife species under the Forest and Range Practises Act (CDC, 2007). Great Blue Herons are year round residents on the west coast (Campbell et al., 1990a; Gebauer and Moul, 2001). Breeding is initiated in late March and the first eggs are usually laid in early April (Campbell et al. 1990a; Butler 1992; Gebauer and Moul, 2001; Vennesland 2004). Eggs are incubated for 25 to 29 days and fledging can take up to two months (Harrison, 1978; Ehrlich et al. 1988; Butler, 1992). Nest colonies are located in mature coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests that are contiguous or fragmented (Butler, 1997; Gebauer and Moul, 2001). Preferred nesting trees include red alder and black cottonwood along the coast (Butler 1991;


Gebauer, 1995). Herons are prey generalists and stalk fish and small mammals in shallow water or in fields and vegetated areas (Vennesland, 2004). The primary threats to the Great Blue Heron in British Columbia include reduced breeding productivity and mortality resulting from predation and human disturbance (Vennesland, 2004). Limited food supply, contamination and weather also threaten heron populations (Vennesland, 2004). Reproduction habitat is the limiting life requisite for the Great Blue Herons, especially where it occurs in proximity to productive foraging areas. Suitable nesting habitat includes low elevation, mature to old, deciduous and mixed forests adjacent to water bodies. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains 21 ha of moderately (class 3) suitable habitat for Great Blue Heron, including 6 ha occurring in the facilities study area, 18 ha occurring in the roads study area, and 21 ha occurring in the transmission line study area. The Upper Toba proposed powerhouse location is rated as low suitability while the intake location is rated nil. The Dalgleish proposed powerhouse location and the intake location are rated nil. Habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road for Upper Toba and Dalgleish is rated nil to low. Some moderately suitable breeding habitat is located along the Toba River, in the southern section of the Project area, including one patch adjacent to the Dalgleish Creek fan, southwest of the proposed powerhouse. Western Screech Owl, Kennicottii Subspecies

The coastal sub-species of the Western Screech owl (Megascops kennicottii kennicottii) is one of two sub-species that occur in BC. The kennicottii sub-species is a year round resident of Vancouver Island and the south coast, west of the Coast Ranges (COSEWIC, 2002a). It is uncommon to fairly common on the south coast and Vancouver Island, and a rare resident of the north coast. The kennicottii sub-species is provincially Blue listed and has been designated as a species of Special Concern by COSEWIC (CDC, 2007). The Western Screech owl has not been linked to a particular forest type but is generally associated with low elevation (915 m) riparian areas (COSEWIC, 2002a). Coastal residents appear to prefer coniferous and mixed forests, while birds in the interior use deciduous forests. Cannings and Angell (2001) indicate that screech owls occur in mixed forests of big leaf maple, red alder, Douglas fir, western hemlock and western redcedar on the Pacific coast. The Western Screech owl nests in natural cavities or in nest boxes (COSEWIC, 2002a). Sites of confirmed or assumed breeding on Vancouver Island were described as "mature, structurally diverse Douglas fir and western hemlock forests, with large western redcedar, big leaf maple, Garry oak (Quercus garryana), or arbutus (Arbutus menziesii), and a patchy shrub understory; associated with a still or slow moving, permanent water body as small as 10 m2; and associated with a natural


or human made opening in the canopy greater than 40 m2 (L. Darling pers. comm. in Cannings and Angell 2001). Populations of Western Screech owls are believed to be declining on the coast (Cannings, 2004). These owls are believed to be threatened by the limited availability of nesting cavities, the expansion of Barred Owls in south western BC and overall habitat loss (COSEWIC 2002a; Cannings 2004). Reproduction habitat is the limiting life requisite for the Western Screech Owl. Suitable nesting habitat includes low elevation coniferous and mixed riparian forests in mature to old structural stages. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains no suitable (class 1-3) habitat for Western Screech owl and all Project components are rated very low to nil. There are no significant areas within the Upper Toba/Dalgleish total facility area. Logging between 1951 and 1988 significantly reduced the amount of low elevation, old growth riparian forest in the Toba River valley. Although small patches of older forest are present, the majority of the river valley is young regenerating forest that provides limited nesting opportunities. Queen Charlotte Goshawk

There are two sub-species of Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in the province; the interior and coastal sub-species. The Queen Charlotte goshawk (laingi sub-species) inhabits Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte Islands and other small coastal islands between Vancouver Island and the mainland. The distribution of this sub-species on the mainland of BC is unknown but it is expected to inhabit forests on the west side of the coastal mountains. Work on Vancouver Island indicates that laingi birds will cross the water to the mainland (McClaren, 2001). The coastal laingi sub-species is provincially Red listed, has been designated as threatened by COSEWIC and is an Identified Wildlife species under the Forest and Range Practices Act (CDC, 2007). Queen Charlotte goshawks do not appear to undergo large scale seasonal migrations, but occupy winter home ranges that may include portions of their breeding range (McClaren, 2004). Spring movements to breeding areas begin in late February and courtship takes place from February to early April (McClaren, 2004). Hatchlings emerge in late May to mid June and fledge after 38 to 42 days, but remain close to the nest for up to 60 days. Male goshawks appear to exhibit high site fidelity, while females move to new nest areas each year to mate with a different male (McClaren, 2004). Nest trees are often the largest in the stand and typical tree species on the coast include western hemlock, Douglas fir, Sitka spruce and red alder (McClaren, 2004). The Queen Charlotte goshawk is threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from forest harvesting and natural disturbance (McClaren 2004; CDC 2007). Human disturbance around nest sites can also cause nest abandonment (Boal and Mannan 1994; Squires and Reynolds 1997; Toyne 1997).


Reproduction is the limiting life requisite for the Queen Charlotte goshawk. Suitable nesting habitat includes low elevation, mature to old, coniferous and mixed forests. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains 441 ha of moderate to highly suitable habitat, including 362 ha occurring in the facilities study area, 421 ha occurring in the roads study area, and 116 ha occurring in the transmission line study area. The location of the Upper Toba and Dalgleish proposed powerhouse is rated as moderately suitable while the intake locations are rated mostly nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded roads for Upper Toba and Dalgleish was rated from high to nil suitability. Moderate to highly rated habitat is present along the Upper Toba road for about 1.5 km north of the proposed powerhouse. The Dalgleish Creek penstock and road are surrounded by patches of moderate to highly rated habitat about 0.2 and 1.8 km southwest of the intake. Peregrine Falcon

Three Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) sub-species are found in British Columbia; F. p. tundrius is a rare long distance migrant and the anatum and pealei sub-species breed in BC. The pealei sub-species is a resident of the west coast with the centre of its abundance in the Queen Charlotte Islands (Campbell et al., 1990b). The anatum sub-species is migratory and winters from Vancouver Island to southern California. Breeding populations were largely extirpated from the province due to pesticide poisoning and the current breeding populations are limited to the southwestern corner of the province (Fraser et al., 1999). The anatum sub-species is provincially Red listed and the pealei sub-species is Blue listed, and both sub-species are designated as Special Concern by COSEWIC (CDC, 2007). The anatum sub-species arrives in nesting territories in late April, laying eggs in early May (Cannings et al. 1987; Campbell et al. 1990b). Eggs hatch after a month of incubating, and nestlings take another 35-40 days to fledge (Beebe, 1974). Peregrines generally head south in late August and September (Campbell et al., 1990b). Peregrines appear to be limited by prey abundance and adequate nesting sites. The destruction and degradation of wetland foraging habitat is a significant threat posed by human developments, thus reducing the amount of suitable habitat for prey populations (Fraser et al., 1999). Reproduction habitat is the limiting life requisite for Peregrine Falcons, especially where it occurs in proximity to suitable foraging areas. Suitable nesting habitat includes steep cliffs with ledges to support nests and overhangs to provide protection. Proximity to foraging areas and a significant vertical drop are also important habitat features.


The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains no suitable (class 1-3) habitat for Peregrine Falcon, with habitat rated from low to nil. One cliff with low suitability was located in Upper Toba on the west side of the river.

Bald Eagle

Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) breed throughout North America and are absent only from the alpine and sub-alpine areas in British Columbia (Campbell et al. 1990b; Blood and Anweiler 1994). They breed and winter along the coast of Canada and seasonal migrations are generally associated with food availability (Buehler, 2000). The Bald Eagle is provincially Yellow listed and is designated as Not At Risk by COSEWIC. Regionally, this species is of special concern (CDC, 2007). Courtship activities begin in January or February, followed by egg laying in late February to early April (Campbell et al. 1990b; Jenkins and Jackman 2006). The clutch size is small (average of two eggs) and the incubation period is 33 to 40 days (Beebe 1974; Newton 1979). On average, young remain in the nest for 10-11 weeks (Gerrard et al. 1974 as cited in Blood and Anweiler 1994). Fledging typically occurs in late June or early July, and fledglings will remain in their natal territories for four to five weeks (Jenkins and Jackman, 2006). In areas with stable populations, sexually mature adults may not breed if suitable territories are unavailable (Bortolotti, 1984). Large, low gradient rivers, lakes, floodplains and large wetlands provide potential foraging habitat during the breeding season (Blood and Anweiler, 1994). The Bald Eagle is an opportunistic forager, but fish appears to be the preferred food (Buehler, 2000). In British Columbia, foraging habitat along the coast includes the intertidal zone, salmon spawning streams, herring staging/spawning sites, and areas with high concentrations of waterfowl such as agricultural areas and wetlands (Blood and Anweiler 1994; Peterson et al. 2001). Historically, three factors have contributed to declines in Bald Eagle populations in British Columbia, including shooting mortality, pesticide contamination and habitat loss (Blood and Anweiler, 1994). Reproduction is the limiting life requisite for Bald Eagles. Suitable nesting habitat includes low elevation, mature and old forests within 2 km of water. Therefore ratings are reduced to nil for areas greater than 2 km from large rivers, lakes, or the ocean.

The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains 229 ha of moderately (class 3) suitable habitat, including 208 ha occurring in the facilities study area, 220 ha occurring in the roads study area, and 74 ha occurring in the transmission line study area. The proposed powerhouse locations are rated as moderate, and the intake locations are predominantly rated nil. The habitat present in the Upper Toba River area is rated predominantly moderate, with patches of nil in the upper valley. The habitat present in the upgraded road for Dalgleish Creek area is rated low to nil, while the penstock is rated moderate for the first 1.2 km and low to nil in the upper valley.


Band Tailed Pigeon

The Band tailed Pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata) is the largest native pigeon in BC. Coastal populations are typically migratory, arriving in coastal areas in late March and returning to Southern California in late August. Band tails are gregarious, occurring in flocks that can be found congregating at mineral springs (Gibbs et al., 2001). The Band Tailed Pigeon is provincially Blue listed (CDC, 2007). In coastal British Columbia, populations of Band tailed Pigeons generally inhabit coniferous and mixed forests up to 300 metres in elevation (Keppie and Braun, 2000). They prefer stands of Sitka spruce, western red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas fir and red alder where stand structure and age class are well dispersed (Jeffrey, 1989). Nests documented in Oregon were found mostly in closed canopy coniferous forests in sapling and pole sapling trees with a diameter at breast height of 16-32 cm (Leonard, 1998). Nests have been found in over 44 tree species along the Pacific coast, with Douglas fir being among the species most frequently used (Keppie and Braun, 2000). Breeding Bird Survey data indicates that the range of this species may be expanding in BC, however the total number of birds has been decreasing since 1966 at an average annual rate of 2.8% across North America (CDC 2007; Keppie and Braun 2000). Loss and degradation of suitable breeding habitat is considered to be a significant threat to the Band tailed Pigeon (Braun, 1994). No suitable habitat for the Band Tailed Pigeon was present in the Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek local study areas. No significant areas were identified for Band-tailed Pigeons. Barn Swallow

The Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) is a migratory swallow that breeds throughout North America, Europe and Asia (Brown and Brown, 1999). Birds migrate from Central and South America, arriving in BC in late March to April and departing in late August to early September (Campbell et al., 1997). Barn Swallows are common throughout the province except in the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince where high mountains, open oceans and dense forests occur (Campbell et al., 1997). Barn Swallows are provincially Blue listed (CDC, 2007). Historically, Barn Swallows built nests in caves, and occasionally used rock crevices and tree cavities (Brown and Brown, 1999). But since the expansion of human habitation, Barn Swallows mainly nest in anthropogenic structures such as barns, bridges, culverts and outbuildings. In BC, only 1% of nests recorded were in natural sites (Campbell et al., 1997).


Reproduction is the limiting life requisite for Barn Swallows. Suitable habitat includes urban areas, other areas with anthropogenic structures, and cliffs. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains 35 ha of moderate (class 3) suitability habitat; including 31 ha occurring in the facilities and roads study area, and 9 ha occurring in the transmission line study area. The proposed powerhouse locations are rated nil, the intake locations are rated low to very low and the habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated from low to nil. Moderately suitable habitat is present along the cliffs to the east and west of the Upper Toba road and transmission line. Townsend’s Big Eared Bat

Townsend’s big eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) is found throughout southeastern British Columbia, including Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, and the mainland from Vancouver, east to Creston and north to Williams Lake (Nagorsen and Brigham, 1993). This species has a scattered distribution and is generally associated with the drier biogeoclimatic zones of the south coast (Firman, 2000). Townsend's big eared bat is provincially Blue listed (CDC, 2007). Townsend's big eared bat is strongly associated with caves and cave like structures (Cannings et al. 1999; Blood 1998), and local distribution of the species is dependent on the availability of suitable roost sites (Gruver and Keinath, 2006). Townsend's big eared bat feeds primary on small moths, but they also eat lacewings, dung beetles, flies and sawflies (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Blood 1998). Important foraging habitats include riparian zones, wetlands, forest edges and open woodlands (Blood, 1998). Townsend’s big eared bat is particularly vulnerable to human activities due to its sensitivity to disturbance (Cannings et al. 1999; Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). Specifically, disturbance of maternity colonies can affect breeding success and repeated disturbance to hibernacula can increase mortality (Nagorsen and Brigham, 1993). No shaft mines are known to be present in the Toba drainage. Visual aerial assessment of the local study areas was completed to determine the presence of caves and anthropogenic structures in the local study areas. No shaft mines are known to be present in the Toba drainage. Visual aerial assessment of the local study areas was completed to determine the presence of caves and anthropogenic structures in the local study areas. No significant areas were identified for Townsend's big eared bat.


Keen’s Myotis

Keen’s myotis (Myotis keenii) is restricted to the coastal forests of Canada and the United States. In British Columbia, this species is found along the coastal mainland from the Fraser Lowlands north to the Stikine River; on the Queen Charlotte Islands; and on Vancouver Island (Nagorsen and Brigham, 1993). The provincial and federal status of this species is unknown since scientific data on this species is insufficient to support status designation. The observed distribution of Keen's myotis suggests that the species is associated with cool, wet coastal forests up to 1100 m (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Chatwin 2004). Few studies have investigated habitat selection by this species, but the available information suggests that warm aspect rock faces and knolls are used by maternity colonies and tree cavities, loose tree bark and small caves provide natural roost sites (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Chatwin 2004). Keen's myotis is insectivorous and its diet likely consists of moths and other insects (Nagorsen and Brigham, 1993). The morphological and physical characteristics of this myotis suggest that it is a slow, manoeuvrable flier with the ability to forage in cluttered environments such as coastal old growth forests (COSEWIC, 2003). Removal of habitat associated with forest harvesting and mineral extraction is believed to be the main threat to Keen's myotis (Chatwin, 2004). Disturbance of caves used as hibernacula is also a potential threat (COSEWIC, 2003). The limited distribution and scarcity of this species increases its risk of extirpation and extinction. No moderate to highly (class 1-3) suitable habitat was mapped in the local study areas and no anthropogenic structures were observed during field surveys. No evidence of caves or deep rock fissures were observed during inspection of cliffs, and cliffs that may contain caves were much removed from the creek channels and are therefore unlikely to be affected by the Project. Anthropogenic structures are present within the regional study area at the old logging camp. Grizzly Bear

Historically, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) ranged throughout British Columbia (except of the coastal islands), but current populations are considered extirpated from much of south and south central BC (Gyug et al., 2004). They occur at all elevations from sea level to the alpine and are found in all biogeoclimatic zones except the Bunchgrass and Coastal Douglas fir (Gyug et al., 2004). The grizzly bear is provincially Blue listed and has been designated as a species of special concern by COSEWIC and is an Identified Wildlife species under the Forest and Range Practises Act (CDC, 2004). Grizzly bears are solitary except during the mating season and when females have cubs. Home range size depends on abundance, quality and distribution of food


resources. On the coast, the average home range was 137 km2 for males and 52 km2 for females (Gyug et al., 2004). Habitat selection is mainly determined by forage availability (Gyug et al., 2004). Security habitat generally includes areas outside the zone of influence of human activity, but females with cubs may also select habitats to avoid aggressive males (COSEWIC, 2002c). These sites include mature to old forests with diverse understories and isolated rugged habitats (Pearson, 1975). Thermal habitat includes day bedding sites located in closed forests adjacent to high quality feeding areas (Gyug et al., 2004). Habitat loss, fragmentation, alienation and human caused mortalities (hunting, poaching, traffic collisions, and control kills) are the primary factors limiting grizzly bear populations in BC (Gyug et al., 2004). The most significant form of habitat degradation and mortality for grizzlies is likely the development of roads and other linear features (Ross, 2002). Roads facilitate hunting and poaching of bears as well as resulting in vehicular collision, human bear conflicts and social disruption (Ross 2002; Gyug et al. 2004). The critical life requisites for grizzly bears include feeding habitat in the spring, summer and fall. Suitable habitats include:

• wetlands, estuaries and some low elevation wet forests for spring feeding; • avalanche chutes and riparian forests for summer feeding; and • avalanche chutes, salmon spawning areas and shrub dominated habitats for

fall feeding. This habitat suitability model identifies the condition of the Toba River valley, assuming no existing human activities, and represents the benchmark for this assessment. Since the development of roads and other linear features is believed to be the most significant form of habitat degradation for grizzlies (Ross, 2002), additional methods were employed to represent changes in habitat suitability due to construction of these features. No suitable spring habitat is found in the Upper Toba /Dalgleish total facility area. Suitable summer habitat in the Upper Toba/ Dalgleish total facility area is found along the northern slopes above the Dalgleish intake site, on the western slopes of the study area and at the Upper Toba intake site. The suitable summer habitat (natural state with no adjustments) available in the Upper Toba/ Dalgleish total facility area accounts for 1.2% of the suitable summer habitat available in the regional study area.

Suitable fall habitat in the Upper Toba/ Dalgleish total facility area is found at the powerhouse locations, at the intake locations and along much of the road alignment. The suitable fall habitat (natural state with no adjustments) available in the Upper Toba/ Dalgleish total facility area accounts for 2.9% of the suitable fall habitat available in the regional study area.


A multi-year population density and distribution study for grizzly bears is currently being conducted in the Southern Coast Ranges (Apps and Bateman 2005; Apps et al. 2006). This study will produce population density estimates, spatial predictions of grizzly bear occurrence and distribution, and spatial variation in population density. In year one, 90 non-invasive hair snagging stations were sampled, resulting in 98 detections of 58 different grizzly bears. Eighteen sample stations were located in the Toba River valley and side drainages (Klite River, Little Toba River, Filer River, Montrose Creek, Jimmie Creek, and East Toba River). Thirty-one individual grizzlies visited these stations 43 times between June and July. A female and a male grizzly were detected in late June and early July, respectively, at one station located within the Jimmie Creek local study area. At another station, located in the Upper Toba River/ Dalgleish Creek local study area, two female grizzlies were detected in late July. The 2008 component of this study includes high intensity sampling within the Toba and Bute drainages. The goal of this sampling is to detect the majority of individuals such that a actual population estimate for this area can be derived. The results of this study should be reviewed once the study is complete and any recommendations should be considered during the development of management strategies for this project. Mountain Goat

Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are found throughout British Columbia’s mountain ranges, on steep terrain at various elevations (Blood, 2000a). The mountain goat is provincially Yellow listed, but regionally is a species of special concern (CDC 2007; Reynolds 2002). Mating typically begins in early November and continues until late December. Females isolate themselves in rugged terrain to give birth in late May to early June (Shackleton, 1999). Nannies and kids typically form nursery groups in the spring and occasionally form larger aggregations at productive feeding grounds in the summer. Mountain goats generally prefer steep grassy slopes, ledges, bluffs, cliffs, and meadows within alpine or sub-alpine habitats (CDC, 2007). Horizontal ledge caves and overhangs are also important for shelter. Coastal goat populations prefer low elevation cliffs that rise directly above the beach, where snow is shallow or absent (Blood, 2000a). A radio telemetry study investigating habitat use of mountain goats near Bute and Toba Inlets found that goats remained below 900 m from November to May, travelling to alpine areas (>1300 m) in late May to early June (Taylor et al., 2004). Declines in mountain goat populations have been linked to increased hunting pressure, which is directly related to increased road access (Coastal Information Team). Disturbance of goats by development (e.g. construction related noise) and recreational activities is also a concern, especially during the kidding season or


during the winter when individuals are in their poorest condition (Blood, 2000a). Permanent road creation can allow increased access for hunters and recreational users. The critical life requisite for mountain goats is living in the winter. Suitable habitat includes cliffs with horizontal ledges and overhangs, with adjacent foraging habitat. These features are not represented in the habitat mapping so a habitat algorithm and extensive field truthing were used to identify high quality habitat for goats. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains 29 ha of moderate to moderately high (class 2-3) suitability habitat, including 26 ha occurring in the facilities study area, 27 ha occurring in the roads study area, and 7 ha occurring in the transmission line study area. All the Project facilities are rated very low to nil. Moderate and moderately high rated cliffs are present along the east and west slopes above Upper Toba. One patch is located less than 100 m west of the Upper Toba proposed powerhouse. Roosevelt Elk

The Roosevelt elk sub-species (Cervus canadensis roosevelti) is currently classified as Blue listed (vulnerable) provincially, primarily due to fragmentation and destruction of winter range habitat. Elk are not currently present in the study area, although the Province has considered transplantation of elk to the Toba Valley in the future. Elk inhabit a variety of forested and non-forested habitats, and are often found in association with edges and ecotones. Open deciduous forest and moist, alluvial sites including floodplains, wetlands, meadows and riparian forest are preferred foraging sites (Blood 2000b; Henigman et al. 2005). All ages of coniferous forests are used by elk (Brunt, 1990). Suitable security cover is composed of dense conifers in patches >100 m wide (Nyberg, 1990). Variation in topography ('benchiness') is preferred over areas with uniform slope, and gentle slopes (<50%) are preferred over steeper areas (Dolighan and Materi, 2002). Critical life requisites for elk include feeding and security/thermal cover during the winter. Elk numbers may be negatively affected by hunting and collisions with vehicles. Permanent road creation can allow increased hunter access to remote areas, as well as increase the likelihood of collisions with vehicles (Witmer and DeCalesta, 1985). Construction related noises, in close proximity to important feeding areas (e.g. winter ranges), can lead to decreased habitat effectiveness at certain times of the year. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains 4 ha of moderate (class 3) suitability winter feeding habitat, including 4 ha occurring in the facilities study area, 4 ha occurring in the roads study area, and 4 ha occurring in the transmission


line study area. The locations of the proposed powerhouses are rated low suitability, while the intake locations are mainly rated nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road for Upper Toba and Dalgleish is rated from low to nil. A small patch of moderately suitable habitat is located immediately south of the Dalgleish Creek fan. Significant areas include a small patch of habitat along the transmission line rated as moderate. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish Creek total facility area contains 332 ha of moderately (class 3) suitable winter security/thermal habitat, including 145 ha occurring in the facilities study area, 327 ha occurring in the roads study area, and 92 ha occurring in the transmission line study area. The Upper Toba proposed powerhouse location is- rated low, while the Dalgleish proposed powerhouse location is rated moderate. The intake locations are rated mainly nil. The habitat present along the penstocks and upgraded roads is rated from moderate to nil. Moderately suitable habitat is present along the Upper Toba Valley Road, about 650 m north of the proposed powerhouse and along the lower section of the Dalgleish Creek road and penstock. Field Studies

Wildlife surveys were completed between March and November of 2007 to complement the habitat suitability mapping. All surveys were completed following Resource Information Standards Committee (RISC) methodologies and data was collected on RISC standard forms and entered into a Wildlife Species Inventory (WSI) compatible Excel database. Species-specific field surveys were conducted for:

• Songbirds • Nesting Raptors (Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons) • Herons • Northern Goshawk • Western Screech Owl • Harlequin Duck • Waterfowl • Tailed frogs • Pond breeding amphibians, and • Grizzly bears

Additionally, extensive field truthing of the biophysical and habitat mapping was conducted. One hundred sixty six plots were completed, including 38 Ground Inspection Forms (GIFs), and 128 visual checks (MoELP and MoF, 1998). Plot data from 2005 studies were also reviewed, including 266 GIFs and 173 visual plots.

Aerial surveys to assess habitat suitability for Marbled Murrelets, Peregrine Falcons, Mountain Goats and Harlequin Ducks was also completed.


5.6.2.2 Vegetation Plant Communities

Due to its maritime climate, precipitation and humidity are high throughout the year in the Toba Valley. High annual snow accumulations also occur at upper elevations. Glaciers and ice fields line much of the margins of the Toba drainage, and melt water from snow and ice keeps the river levels and water tables high. Spring freshets and occasional summer melts lead to periodic flooding along the valley floor. Tidal influence extends a short distance up the river, and high tides inundate marshes at the mouth of the river, introducing ocean water chemistry into the soils.

Landscape features in the Toba Valley include alluvial floodplains, steep or cliffy slopes, avalanche tracks, freshwater wetlands, sand and gravel bars, rock outcrops, and estuarine marshes and mudflats. Each of these features has specific ecological conditions in terms of soil chemistry, soil moisture, and microclimate. The vegetation present on these landscapes responds to these ecological conditions, resulting in exclusion of sub-sets of the total drainage flora in favour of either specialist species having narrow ecological amplitudes, or a few generalists with wide ecological amplitudes. Additionally within this ecological matrix, above ground microclimate and nutrient flow combine at a geographical microscale to affect epiphytic lichen and bryophyte communities on the trunks and branches of trees and shrubs.

Habitats in the Toba Valley are mainly coastal forest, with small areas of wetland, cliff, sand or gravel bar, and rock outcrop. The lower elevation forests are dominated by coniferous trees (Picea sitchensis, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Thuja plicata, and Tsuga heterophylla), with secondary cover of deciduous trees (Alnus rubra and Populus trichocarpa). The higher elevation forests are dominated by Abies amabilis, Picea engelmannii, Picea sitchensis, and Tsuga mertensiana, with secondary cover of Thuja plicata, Tsuga heterophylla, and occasionally, Callitropsis nootkatensis or Pinus monticola.

The soils throughout the valley are acidic, being derived from the granitic rocks of the surrounding mountains. In a few sites, intrusive veins and seams between granite masses or material carried in side creeks, seeps and waterfall spray zones create very localized mineral enriched soils. The Toba River carries large loadings of glacial flour silt that accumulates as alluvium soils along the flood plain.

Rare and sensitive ecosystem mapping identifies areas with potential to support an ecologically rare plant community. Sensitivity and percent occurrence of habitats within the Toba River valley was also considered to identify critical areas. This mapping does not predict the occurrence of rare ecological communities but indicates the probability of occurrence. Areas with a ranking of 3 were rare, sensitive and had a low occurrence in the regional study area, and impacts to these areas should be avoided.


The regional study area contains 258 ha with a ranking of three, 2,602 ha ranked two and 84,826 ha ranked one. Habitat units that were ranked 3 include old, moist, wet and riparian forests and wetlands. The Upper Toba/Dalgleish total facility area contains no areas with a ranking of three, 139 ha with a rank of two and 3,898 ha with a ranking of one. The Project facilities, road and transmission line are predominantly ranked as 0 and 1. Ecosystems with a rank of two are located north of the Dalgleish Creek intake site, east and south of the Dalgleish Creek powerhouse and west and south of the Upper Toba powerhouse. The Upper Toba road also bisects some of these sites.

5.6.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

Twenty two rare plant and lichen taxa were predicted to occur in the Toba Valley based on their known occurrences in the forest district and sub-zones, known occurrences nearby, or through habitat based prediction of occurrences (Appendix H). The species list includes Red and Blue listed taxa classified by the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (2007) and other potentially rare, non-listed species. These include Agrostis pallens, Atriplex alaskensis, Botrychium ascendens, Botrychium crenulatum, Botrychium pedunculosum, Botrychium simplex, Callitriche heterophylla ssp. heterophylla, Ceratophyllum echinatum, Douglasia laevigata var. ciliolata, Eleocharis parvula, Epilobium glaberrimum ssp. fastigiatum, Erythronium montanum, Hippuris tetraphylla, Melica smithii, Nephroma occultum, Nothochelone nemorosa, Ophioglossum pusillum, Polystichum setigerum, Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis, Rubus nivalis, Sanguisorba menziesii, and Sidalcea hendersonii. Rare species that were not predicted to occur, but were encountered in the Project area and subsequently added to the VEC list include: Biatora polyspora ined., Juncus fluviatilis ined., Lecanora pseudorugulosa ined., Leptogium tacomae, Phaeocalicium sp. nov., Rinodina halophila ined., Scoliciosporum schadeanum, and Sticta sylvatica. Red and Blue listed taxa known from the forest district were excluded from the VEC list if they do not occur within the sub-zones present in the Toba Valley, or if their habitats are unlikely to occur in the Project area. Excluded taxa were: Allium amplectens, Anagalis minima, Carex feta, Carex scoparia, Convolvulus soldanella, Cuscuta pentagona, Heterocodon rariflorum, Hypericum scouleri ssp. nortoniae, Isoetes nuttallii, Jaumea carnosa, Lathyrus littoralis, Malaxis brachypoda, Sagina decumbens ssp. occidentalis, Senecio macounii, Toxicodendron diversilobum, Woodwardia fimbriata, and Yabea microcarpa. No habitat mapping was completed for rare plant species because the microhabitat characteristics that support rare species are poorly documented, cannot be captured at the mapping scale, and vary between species. Rare plants in the study area typically occur in small patches of specialized habitats which can only be identified through ground based assessments. Habitat assessments completed during field studies indicated that non-forested freshwater wetlands (bogs, fens, marshes and open water), estuarine


habitats (mudflats and marshes) and river shores (sand and gravel bars) were important habitats for rare plants. Callitriche heterophylla ssp. heterophylla (1 population) was recorded in an open-water pool in a fen and Juncus fluviatilis ined. (2 populations) was found on sandy river shores. Habitats where rare lichens were recorded during surveys include driftwood, bird perches and shrub thickets in the Toba estuary and the waterfall spray zone at the bottom of Jimmie Creek. Rare plant surveys were completed between June and August of 2007 to determine the presence, distribution, and abundance of rare plants in the study area. One or more voucher specimen was collected for each rare plant and lichen species found during surveys. These specimens were deposited at the University of British Columbia herbarium in December of 2007. No rare plants were found within the Upper Toba/Dalgleish total facility area.

5.7 LAND USE CONTEXT

5.7.1 Land Use Regime

Dalgleish Creek is located within the Toba Landscape Unit of the Sunshine Coast Sustainable Resource Management Plan within BC. This Plan is intended to facilitate resource management decisions that are environmentally and economically sustainable within the Sunshine Coast area and while several landscape unit plans have been developed to date, there is currently no approved landscape unit plan for the Toba Landscape Unit. Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) have not yet been approved for the Sunshine Coast area but are under consideration. No other designated federal, provincial, or local government land use designations are known to exist for the Dalgleish Creek catchment.

5.7.2 Current Land Status/Use

The land within the Dalgleish Creek watershed is Crown Land, and does not contain any private holdings. It is located within TFL 10, under licence to Hayes Forest Services Ltd. The watershed has been logged historically, and Hayes has recently submitted a Forest Stewardship Plan for an area that encompasses Dalgleish Creek. The watershed is difficult to access, and as a result recreational use is very low. The Dalgleish Creek watershed lies within a Recreation Management Unit of the Sunshine Coast Forest District, which was rated as having Low Significance for public recreation, Low Significance for Commercial Recreation, and Low Significance for Commercial Development Potential.


Land and Water BC (LWBC) also identified an active Commercial Recreation License for TLH Heliskiing Ltd that encompasses parts of the high elevation areas of the Dalgleish Creek watershed. No conflict between the project and heliski operators is expected. Pacific Mountain Outfitters Ltd. currently provides opportunities for wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting (e.g. black bears and mountain goats). Most of their activity is limited to the Toba River downstream of the Little Toba (for black bear). The company uses both jet boats and ATVs to access habitats along the river and remote mountain roads. In 2007, 7-8 black bears were taken. They have plans to develop greater access for hunting (using smaller boats for easier access up waterways), and have applied for a commercial recreation licence for the valley to conduct kayak/canoe guiding (Alan Rebane, personal communication). One registered trapline is also present in the area. However, the permit was valid to June 2008. UTHI will continue to liaise with the Province to understand if this permit has been or will be renewed, and to avoid conflicts with the permit holder if it is renewed. There are two mineral tenures in good standing in and around the Dalgleish Creek watershed:

• 527169;(UT and Dal) • 508013;(UT and Dal)

A mineral and placer Conditional Registration Reserve has been issued (BC Regulation 222/2008) by the Chief Gold Commissioner, BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources over the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project footprint. The Conditional Registration ensures that “A free miner must not obstruct, endanger or interfere with the construction, operation or maintenance of a transmission line, pipeline or other work, structure or activity in the reserve” in the site referred to as the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project (site #1002511), which includes the Dalgleish Creek Facility.

5.7.3 Proposed Land Use

Hayes Forest Service Limited is currently the forest tenure holder of TFL 10 situated within the Toba Watershed. TFL 10 Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) is presented in Appendix I. Forest harvest activities could resume pending FSP approval/implementation and adherence to all forest legislation requirements.

5.7.4 Land Acquisition

There are no private land holdings in the Dalgleish Creek watershed. UTHI has an accepted application pending with ILMB (ILMB File Number 2409239) for Crown Land tenure for the powerhouse, penstock, head pond, interconnecting transmission line and access roads.


5.8 NAVIGABLE WATERS

There is no known use of the Dalgleish Creek for navigation. The section of creek lying between the proposed intake and confluence with Toba River is characterised by steep, highly entrenched canyon cascades and is not navigable. A section of Toba River (confluence of Dalgleish Creek to the confluence of East Toba River) which is considered as a part of Dalgleish Creek facility diversion reach is considered navigable. The proposed access road will cross several class S5 and S6 streams that are not navigable. Transport Canada has been consulted with regards to navigability of Upper Toba River, Dalgleish Creek and Jimmie Creek which have been identified non-navigable (Appendix J). A detailed summary of each stream crossing is presented in Table 5.1. The design of the bridges on the access road is expected to maintain existing levels of navigability, and no impacts are anticipated. Transport Canada visited Dalgleish Creek in November 2007. In a letter issued November 5, 2007 (see Appendix J), Transport Canada stated “it is the opinion of Transport Canada officials that the waters of Dalgleish Creek at the site of the proposed run of the river Power Project are considered to be non-navigable, therefore an application is not required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the above noted work.” No further action regarding navigable waters issues is anticipated at Dalgleish Creek. 5.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

No significant Archaeological resources were encountered in the foot print of this facility. Details of the archaeological resources in the project area are summarized in Section 10.5.


SECTION 6.0 - UPPER TOBA RIVER SETTING AND CHARACTERISTICS

6.1 UPPER TOBA RIVER FACILITY

In this section, settings and characteristics of the area impacted by the proposed Upper Toba River facility (intake area, penstock alignment and powerhouse area) and related components (access road and interconnection) are described. Location of the Upper Toba facility and its technical specifications is described in Section 3.3.2. 6.2 GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The geomorphology of the Upper Toba River catchment is generally typical of the glaciated headwater of watersheds in the BC Coastal Ranges. Valley walls are steepened by glaciation, producing characteristic U shaped cross section profiles. The over steepened slopes that remain following glacier recession result in frequent earth movements such as rockslides, rock falls, snow avalanches, and debris flows. The tributaries of Upper Toba River form on the steep hill slopes or in small hanging valleys, above the main channel.

6.2.1 Physiography and Topography

Upper Toba River, with the Toba Glacier in its headwaters, flows from a maximum elevation of approximately 3000 m into the Toba River at the junction with Dalgleish Creek at an elevation of approximately 130 m. At the proposed intake location, the Upper Toba River valley is approximately 150-200 m wide with steep valley walls (Photo 16). A pro-glacial lake is located approximately 600 m upstream from the proposed intake location. The Upper Toba powerhouse site is on the west bank of the Toba River, at approximately 15 m above the Toba River. At the powerhouse site, the valley floor is relatively flat and about 500 m wide with steep side slopes. The proposed powerhouse site is situated on a glaciofluvial terrace from the Toba River. Additional information is provided in Appendix E. The proposed development drains an area of approximately 78 km2.


The Upper Toba hydroelectric facility lies within the Pacific Range of the British Columbia Coast Mountains. The Pacific Range, consisting mainly of granitic rocks, extends north from the Fraser River for about 500 km to the Bella Coola River. During the last glaciation, ice occupied the Upper Toba River valley. Glacial till and glaciofluvial sands and gravels were deposited beneath and adjacent to the glacier. Upon retreat by the glaciers, mass movements created colluvial deposits as the


landscape readjusted to the departure of ice. Soils developed from these glacial and colluvial materials. It is generally expected that on the hill slopes a veneer of colluvium overlies the weathered bedrock. It is anticipated that the colluvial soils are very thin or absent on the hillside spurs and generally become thicker towards the toes of hill slopes. The thickest areas of colluvium are likely to be the colluvial fans. It is anticipated that fluvial soils, predominantly comprising sands and gravels, will be encountered along the floors of the river valleys. Glacial till is expected to be locally important on the valley side slopes.


Surficial material anticipated at the proposed intake site is comprised of coarse alluvium/morainal deposits overlying bedrock. Seismic refraction survey lines data at the proposed intake site suggest that bedrock can be expected at depth between 1 and 10 m below ground surface. At the proposed powerhouse site, the bedrock is interpreted to be overlain by fluvio glacial deposits. Seismic refraction survey lines data at the proposed powerhouse site suggest that bedrock can be expected at depth between 1 and 12 m below ground surface. The surficial geology along the penstock alignment is anticipated to mainly comprise colluvium and morainal deposits over bedrock.

An overview site location and terrain unit legend map for the Upper Toba facility is outlined in Figure 5.2. A detailed map of the interpreted surficial geology is presented in Figure 6.1.


The Upper Toba River facility is located within the Coast Plutonic Complex which is dominantly composed of granitic rocks (80%) which were intruded and cooled deep within the crust as discrete bodies of magma between 170-45 million years ago. A subordinate amount (20%) of rocks includes pendants of folded and faulted volcanic and sedimentary metamorphosed rocks (GSC, 2008).

Bedrock geology at the Upper Toba River facility is comprised of competent Late Cretaceous quartz diorite. As indicated on the published geology map (BCGS, 2005), no geological faults are located in close proximity to the sites of the powerhouse or intake structure .

Anticipated bedrock geology along the access roads to Upper Toba River Facilities is Late Cretaceous quartz dioritic rock which was determined from the regional geology map from the British Columbia Geological Survey (BCGS, 2005).



The intake site is located on top of a large section of exposed competent bedrock that wraps around and up the right bank of the river. This bedrock will act as a natural seepage barrier. The proposed diversion channel is also sited entirely in crystalline bedrock from the right upstream bank of the river and around below the proposed intake structure. Groundwater is not expected to present difficulties or to be adversely affected during construction of these works. Water control along the penstock route is not considered to be a major problem. Small creeks crossing the penstock can be addressed with a riprap lined surface drain. The groundwater conditions along the penstock route will be examined with a field test pit investigation program prior to recommendations for bulk excavation of the penstock alignment. Recommendations will consider all areas were groundwater is expected to be encountered, to minimize difficulties during construction, and to avoid alterations to groundwater recharge rates and groundwater quality. The powerhouse site is located on a glaciofluvial terrace approximately 500 m upstream of the confluence of Dalgleish Creek and the Toba River. The anticipated ground conditions comprise glaciofluvial sands and gravels, and possibly glacial till over quartz diorite bedrock. Groundwater is anticipated to exist within the top 5 m of overburden, but has not been encountered in investigations to date. Difficult project access and limitations imposed by the investigative use permit for the project site have limited groundwater studies to non-invasive investigative techniques and surficial observations. Further groundwater studies will be completed during the detailed design of the project to evaluate groundwater level, anticipated seepage rates, and to establish environmental baselines of groundwater quality. The groundwater studies will be combined with geotechnical investigations, the extent of which will be determined during detailed design of the project. These investigations may include groundwater wells for hydraulic conductivity testing to the east of the intake structure to evaluate the need for seepage control outside of the structure footprint. In addition, groundwater wells may be installed at the powerhouse site to determine the groundwater level, seepage rates, and baseline groundwater quality. Significant alterations of groundwater recharge rates and groundwater quality are not expected to occur as a result of the construction of the project facilities. Groundwater conditions and anticipated seepage rates at the proposed powerhouse and intake sites will be investigated further as part of a geotechnical site investigations undertaken during detailed design, once the location of the proposed structures are finalized and heavy equipment access to the sites is possible.



Based on the mapped bedrock geology type at the site and in the absence of MINFILE or ARIS reports in the vicinity of the Upper Toba River facility, it can be inferred that the bedrock is likely to have a low ARD/ML potential. These preliminary findings shall be confirmed by fieldwork mapping and observations for ARD/ML indicators throughout construction and, if appropriate, laboratory testing of rock and water samples shall be undertaken.



A terrain hazards maps for the Upper Toba River HEF are presented in Figure 6.1. The proposed Upper Toba River intake is located between two large colluvial fans (upstream and downstream on the west facing slope). Debris flows and snow avalanches are active on both fans (Photo 17). The intake is located immediately downstream from a bedrock knob which protects it from the upstream colluvial fan and from an old, small avalanche path that appears to terminate upslope. Several debris flow, and snow avalanche paths have been identified upstream from the proposed intake location. The proposed penstock route crosses three major colluvial cones; with active debris flows and snow avalanches. The penstock may require additional cover when crossing these areas.

Figure 6.2 presents a qualitative risk assessment of the natural hazards on the Upper Toba River facility. The proposed intake and powerhouse locations were assigned a risk index based on a review of the detailed topography derived from LiDAR imaging that identified hazards from aerial photograph interpretation and fieldwork conducted to assess the site’s geotechnical conditions. Both proposed intake and powerhouse sites were assigned a low risk index. Based on a similar review of the available data, the penstock route was sub-divided to highlight the risk on each of its segments. Section A of the penstock was assigned a high risk index due to the presence of snow avalanche path, recent debris flow and hillside creep. Section B and D have low risk index as they traverse gently sloping ground. Section C of the penstock was assigned a risk index of very high because the alignment crosses a narrow gully that could require construction of a pipe bridge. Section D traverses moderately steep and steep ground and as such was assigned a risk index of moderate. Section E was assigned a risk index of moderate as the penstock crosses a moderately steep to steep hill slope. Section F was assigned a risk index of moderate as it is near to recent debris flow. The risk index rating and acronyms used in Figure 6.2 are defined Table 5.2.

6.2.5.2 Seismicity

Seismicity of the project area is summarized in Section 5.2.5.2.


6.3 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

Meteorological analysis of the Project area is previously outlined in Section 5.3.

6.4 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT


The Upper Toba River is a fourth order stream that is fed by the Toba Glacier. This section of the Toba River flows from the north and the Toba River itself eventually runs into Toba Inlet. The Upper Toba River catchment area is approximately 87 km2 and the mainstem has an average slope of 8.4%. For the purpose of this discussion, the Upper Toba River includes the 7.7 km section of the Toba River from its confluence with the Dalgleish Creek, upstream to the Toba Glacier at 780 masl.

A 100 m rock falls located approximately 4.0 km upstream of Upper Toba River’s confluence with the East Toba River and is thought to be impassible to all fish. Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Pink (O. gorbuscha) and Chinook (O. tschawynscha) salmon are believed to spawn up to this impassible cascade. Chum salmon have also been observed spawning as far upstream as km 39.3 of the Toba River mainstem, but are mostly confined to tributaries. Steelhead (O. mykiss) and coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki) have been observed in the lower reaches of the Toba River system, and rainbow trout (O. mykiss) and resident Dolly Varden are thought to be distributed throughout the entire system (Hatfield 2001). Based on mapping provided by DFO Mapster Version 2.2 (DFO, 2007) 11 reaches were identified on Upper Toba River (Figure 6.3) from its mouth to its headwaters at the Raleigh Glacier.

• Reaches 1 to 5 (Section one) of Upper Toba River, which extend upstream from the confluence of the East Toba River with Toba River a cascade at mainstem km 2.9, have an average gradient of 2.1%. Coho, Pink and Chinook salmon spawn in this section of the Toba River. Dalgleish Creek enters the Toba River at mainstem km 1.8. The powerhouse site for the Project is located within this section, at mainstem km 2.6, and a proposed bridge crossing site is located at mainstem km 2.7.

• Reaches 6 to 8 (Section two) of Upper Toba River have an average gradient of 21.7% and comprises the mainstem from km 2.9 to a 100 m rockfalls at km 4.0. Coho, Pink and Chinook salmon spawn in this section of the Toba River. There is a cascade from km 2.9 to km 3.1 in this section, and a proposed bridge crossing site located at mainstem km 3.4.

• Reach 9 (Section three) of Upper Toba River has an average gradient of 7.6% and comprises the river from mainstem km 4.0 upstream to mainstem km 4.4, where a third order tributary enters the Toba River. This tributary contains a proposed intake site. This section is above the 100 m falls that acts as a barrier to fish migration.


• Reaches 10 to 12 (Section four) of Upper Toba River have an average gradient of 12.4% and comprises the river from mainstem km 4.4 up to a slope break at mainstem km 6.6. The proposed main intake site is located within this section at mainstem km 5.0, and a third order tributary enters the river at mainstem km 5.5 from the east.

• Reaches 13 and 14 (Section five) of Upper Toba River have an average gradient of 7.2% and comprises the mainstem from km 6.6 up to a slope break at km 8.0. A third order tributary enters the river from the west at mainstem km 7.4. This section is entirely above the project general arrangement.

• Reach 15 (Section six) of the Upper Toba River has an average gradient of 20.8% and comprises the mainstem from km 8.0 upstream to mainstem km 8.4, where two channels of the Toba River meet.

• Reach 16 (Section seven) of the Upper Toba River has an average gradient of 1.2% and comprises the river from mainstem km 8.4 upstream to mainstem km 9.6 where it is fed by the Toba Glacier at 780 masl.

6.4.2 Aquatic Fauna

6.4.2.1 Fish


The existing fish and fish habitat information for Toba River watershed extracted from FISS database is presented in Table 5.3 and summarized in Section 5.4.2. Based on our field observations and existing information, it can be expected that all the species reported for Toba River watershed can be found in the lower accessible reaches of Upper Toba River as well. 2007 Field Investigations

Fish sampling in Upper Toba River was conducted in October 2007 using electrofishing and Gee traps as described in Section 5.4.2. Details of sampling methodology are presented in Appendix E. Figure 6.3 presents 2007 sampling sites along Upper Toba River. 2008 Field Investigations

Another round of fish sampling was conducted in May 2008 using electrofishing and Gee traps as described in Section 5.4.2. Details of sampling methodology are presented in Appendix E. Fish Species Distribution, Periodicity, and Habitat Use

During our field investigations, it was assumed that the lower reach of Upper Toba River begins just upstream of the confluence of Dalgleish Creek and extends upstream to the first impassable barrier on Toba River.


Coho salmon and cutthroat trout were captured in the fish bearing reach of Upper Toba River downstream of the 100 m falls. Sections of Upper Toba that lie upstream of the first barrier were not sampled due to difficulty in accessing the sites and showed very little habitat potential during the fly over inspections. It is expected that other resident and anadromous salmon species historically reported from Toba River (Table 5.3) potentially use the available habitat in Upper Toba River, and the extent and nature of their use of Upper Toba River will be captured in ongoing fisheries studies.


Benthic communities are useful indicators of stream health and are an important food source for fish. Natural benthic communities are relatively stable in structure and composition, adapting to the natural environmental conditions within the given biogeographic region. Salmonid growth and abundance has shown to be directly linked to the abundance of drifting invertebrate prey (Hatfield et al., 2007). Benthic drift sampling has been carried out (according to Hatfield et al (2007) methodology) to collect information on species composition, abundance, and distribution of macroinvertebrates in the proposed project area; however, the results were not available at the time of preparation of this report.

Sampling was conducted on Dalgleigh Creek, Jimmie Creek, and the Upper Toba River from March 29 to April 2, 2008, in conjunction with water quality and IFR field studies. Three sites were sampled on each stream including one upstream of the proposed intake location, and two within the diversion reach. At each site, five nets were set side-by-side to account for within site variability. When possible, sites were chosen within high-productivity riffle habitats with velocities between 20 and 40 cm/s, as these areas tend to have actively foraging fish (Hatfield et al. 2007). Details of sampling procedure are presented in Appendix E.

6.5 HYDROLOGY

To ensure that the design and operation of the hydroelectric facility is consistent with water availability, it is necessary to determine the long-term flow regime of the creek. Ideally this would be derived from many years of continuous flow monitoring data on Upper Toba River, but, as is commonly the case, long-term historical flow records are not available. Rather, short-term data recorded over since February 2007 on Upper Toba River are used in conjunction with long-term regional flow records collected by Water Survey of Canada to develop estimates of the long-term mean annual discharge and the frequency distribution of daily discharge in Upper Toba River. This long-term synthetic flow series provides the basis for the hydrologic assessment of the facility, including energy generation potential and aquatic habitat analyses. Development of these data are presented in detail in Appendix F2 and summarised below.


6.5.1 Stream Gauging

Gauge Site Description

A stream gauging station was installed on the Upper Toba River in February 2007. The gauge was installed at an approximate elevation of 150 masl, roughly 0.8 km upstream of the junction with the Toba River, and near the proposed powerhouse location. A pressure transducer was installed within an aluminum tube that was fastened to a large boulder at the side of a pool in the river to continuously record stage (water level) at 15-minute intervals. The hydraulic control at the gauging station is provided by the cobble bed at a break in bedslope downstream of the gauge, which is believed to dictate the relation between stage and discharge for most flow situations. During very high flows the control is believed to shift to the cobble bed downstream of the break in slope. Water level fluctuations at the gauge are typically small because of its location in a pool, and because the aluminum tube tends to dampen rapid changes in water level. Site selection, equipment installation, and data collection and analysis were conducted in general accordance with provincial guidelines (BC MoELP, 1998). It should be noted that a large root wad, which may influence the stage-discharge relation, is situated in the river near the primary control section. This wad appears to be fairly stable because it has been in place since gauge installation and has withstood many large flow events. However, if it should become dislodged, the rating curve would have to be revised accordingly. Rating Curve Development

A total of 11 discharge measurements have been made at the Upper Toba River gauge since its installation. These measurements were made using the area-velocity technique with a Swoffer velocity meter when flow conditions allowed for safe wading in the river, and using the dilution technique with rhodamine dye slug injection when conditions were unsafe to wade and/or too turbulent for current meter use. The measurements range from a low of 0.5 m3/s to a high of 16.5 m3/s, which, based on the estimated mean annual discharge (MAD) of 8.8 m3/s at the gauge site, equate to 7% of MAD and 201% of MAD, respectively. These 11 measurements were used as the basis for developing a stage-discharge rating curve for the gauge, which is shown in Appendix F2, Figure 2.4



A regional analysis was conducted to assess regional stream flow patterns and provide a preliminary estimate of mean annual discharge for the study stream. This analysis supports the selection of appropriate gauges for regression analysis and provides a useful comparison for measured stream flows and identifies the spatial variability of climatic and hydrologic conditions in the Coast Mountains. The key factors governing this variability are elevation, glacier cover, distance from the coast, and location relative to the Coast Mountain drainage divide, which dictates maritime/continental and


windward/leeward effects. This spatial variability, when combined with the temporal and spatial scarcity of data coverage, presents a significant challenge for estimating the hydrology for a specific location. Of the nearest three WSC stations, the Elaho River (08GA071) is assumed to have a flow dataset most representative of flow conditions in the Upper Toba River, as it is located in the same hydrologic zone and has a similar location relative to the coast and the mountain ranges. The annual hydrograph of the Elaho River is characterized by rising flows in the spring months due to snowmelt, maximum monthly flows in June and July due to glacier melt, and receding flows in the autumn and winter months, with minimum monthly flows occurring in December, January, and February. The mean annual unit runoff is 86 l/s/km2. However, the proportion of glacial coverage in the Upper Toba River watershed is significantly greater than in the Elaho River watershed, so it could be expected to have proportionally higher glacier fed flows.

Synthetic Daily Flow Series

In order to generate a long-term estimate of mean annual discharge (MAD) at the intake, as well as the frequency distribution of daily discharge, the short-term site streamflow record was compared to long-term records of the gauges described above. Ideally, the candidate gauge for comparison would have at least 20 complete years of record (including concurrent record with Upper Toba River), similar watershed characteristics to Upper Toba River, and be located in a similar position relative to the coast and mountain range. Based on the considerations described above, it was decided that the Elaho River record (08GA071) would be most appropriate for simulating a long-term flow series for Upper Toba River. Unfortunately, concurrent data were not available for October or November, so East Toba River data were used for this period. The frequency distribution of daily flows in the Upper Toba River was compared to the concurrent distribution of flows in the Elaho River (or East Toba River) on a seasonal basis. This was achieved by regression analysis of ranked daily flows for the concurrent periods of record. When comparing sets of ranked daily flows for two or more gauging records, each flow value of equal rank has an equal probability of exceedence in the data set (because the data sets are of equal length). Therefore, a comparison of ranked daily flows amounts to a comparison of flow frequency distributions. The seasonal regression equations account for differences in drainage area and other physical characteristics that affect unit runoff, and it is assumed that these parameters remain approximately constant within seasons over a period of several years. The comparison of flow distributions rather than simultaneous daily flows overcomes differences in the timing of rainstorm or snowmelt events between watersheds, and ultimately provides a better model for synthetically generating a likely scenario of future flow patterns. It must be recognized that the ultimate objective of this exercise is not to reproduce the exact historical flow pattern in the Upper Toba River so that one can predict what the flow was on any particular day, but rather to generate a dataset that provides a good representation of the


expected future long-term mean annual discharge in the creek and the associated year to year, month to month and day to day variability of flows. The long-term synthetic daily flow series for the Upper Toba River gauge site was scaled to the intake location using monthly scaling factors that account for the seasonal differences in runoff at the gauging site and the intake due to differences in elevation, and proportion of glaciation. These differences result in higher unit runoff during the summer months and lower unit runoff during the winter months, at the intake location, than would be predicted by a linear drainage area proration. These scaling factors were developed from modelling results for nearby Elliot Creek that were derived using the University of British Columbia Watershed Model (UBCWM) and a qualitative assessment of differences between Elliot Creek and Upper Toba River processes. Elliot Creek is a heavily glaciated, steep, mountainous watershed that is located approximately 50 km north-west of the Upper Toba River.


Based on the regional regression analysis discussed above, the mean annual discharge of the synthetic intake flow series is 8.2 m³/s, which equates to an annual unit runoff of 105.0 l/s/km². This unit runoff value lies within the expected range of values for this region. The estimated mean monthly and annual flows at the intake site are summarized in Appendix F2, Table 3.4, and a corresponding annual hydrograph is shown in Appendix F2, Figure 3.11. Climate Trends

The synthetic flow series discussed above is derived from an analysis of historic flow data, however, to ensure that the design and operation of the hydroelectric project is consistent with water availability, it is necessary to assess whether this historic record is sufficiently representative of future conditions. Trends of changing annual average temperature, annual precipitation and annual average discharge are evident in the climate and flow records, although most are not statistically significant, and it is uncertain that they will continue in the near future given the inherent variability and cyclic nature of climate, although they are expected to persist over the long-term. Given our current inability to accurately predict and model future climate patterns, and the fact that the most relevant historical flow records indicate very little recent change in annual flow volumes or durations, it is reasonable to conclude that the current records provide an appropriate basis for simulating flow conditions that might be expected in Upper Toba River over the next 20 to 40 years. However, it must be understood that changes in the shape of the annual hydrograph appear to be trending towards a more even distribution of flows throughout the year, and if the current climate change trends persist or accelerate, the hydrological analysis may warrant reassessment some time in the future. Furthermore, it seems reasonable and prudent to incorporate a factor of safety into any peak flow analysis to account for possible future changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme flow events. Details and justification of these conclusions are presented in Appendix F2, Section 5.0.



Peak flows with return periods of 100 years and 200 years are commonly used for various aspects of design. Larger, less frequent flood events are difficult to predict from historical records and are beyond the scope of this analysis. A statistical analysis was undertaken to calculate peak instantaneous flow values on the basis of the long-term synthetic record for the Upper Toba River intake site. The results were compared to the regional analysis presented by Obedkoff (2003). The regional approach produces significantly higher peak flow results than does the statistical analysis of the long-term synthetic flow series. In this case, the regional results are considered more accurate due to possible underestimation of peak flows at the Upper Toba River gauging station. Also, many of the values in the synthetic flow annual maximum series are glacial melt flows, but the largest flows observed are due to storm events in autumn. Because these glacial melt flows are consistently high, the annual maximum series has a low coefficient of variation, and thus peak flows for larger return periods are likely underestimated. As discussed in Section 6.5.2, climate change is resulting in larger and more frequent peak flow events. To account for the potential increase in both size and frequency of peak flows in the Upper Toba River, a factor of safety of 15% has been added to the regional return period flows discussed above and presented in Appendix F2, Table 4.3. This 15% value was somewhat arbitrarily selected but it is consistent with general practices, as determined through attendance at various climate change symposiums and discussions with professional peers. The resulting recommended 100- and 200-year peak instantaneous flows at the intake are 245 m3/s and 293 m3/s, respectively. The design flows presented in this section pertain to meteorological/hydrologic events and do not include peak flows resulting from dam burst scenarios associated with moraine lakes or creek blockage by snow avalanches and/or landslides. The potential for such events and the related need to consider them for design purposes are addressed in other reports as part of the terrain hazard assessment.

6.5.4 Water Quality

Knight Piésold Ltd. established 3 sites to collect baseline water quality data on Upper Toba River. These sites are as follows:

• Upper Toba -1: downstream of the proposed powerhouse • Upper Toba - 2: mid stream in diversion section, and • Upper Toba - 3: upstream of proposed intake structure.

Water quality studies were implemented following the general requirements of Guidelines for Designing and Implementing a Water Quality Monitoring Program in British Columbia (RISC, 1998a) and the sampling was conducted in accordance with the methods outlined


in the Assessment Methods for Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Characteristics in Support of Applications to Dam, Divert, or Extract Water from Streams in British Columbia (Lewis et al., 2004). The water quality sampling program for Upper Toba River is ongoing and the samples collected to date were obtained on August 28, 2007 and December 6, 2007. Samples were collected in lab supplied pre-washed bottles, kept cool and forwarded to ALS Environmental for analysis within 48 hours, under standard chain of custody procedures. Sample analysis included physical tests, dissolved anions, nutrients and dissolved metals. The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix G. Sample analysis and interpretation followed the Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data (RISC, 1998b). The pH in the Upper Toba River was fairly neutral, ranging from 6.44 to 7.57, and conductivity was low (10.8 to 44.0 μS/cm). Total dissolved and suspended solids concentrations less than the typical range of 100 mg/L and 75 mg/L, respectively, for streams on the coast of British Columbia (RISC, 1998b). The total hardness ranged from 4.11 to 14.9 mg/L, with values below 60 mg/L considered to be soft water (RISC, 1998b). Alkalinity ranged from 2.2 to 12.0 mg/L, with a few samples above the typical range of 0 to 10 mg/L for the coastal areas of British Columbia. Alkalinity in streams is influenced by the local geology and values between 10 to 20 mg/L indicate a moderate sensitivity to acidic inputs (RISC, 1998b). Dissolved anions, in the form of chloride and fluoride, were below their respective detection limits for the water quality samples. Sulphate concentrations were low, ranging from 1.26 to 5.03 mg/L, which are far below the specified 100 mg/L limit for fresh water aquatic life (BC WQG, 2006). Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Upper Toba River were determined to be acceptable according to CCME limits and BC WQG limits during both June 2007 and August 2007 sampling events. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 12.90 mg/L to 13.48 mg/L during June and from 13.82 mg/L to 15.03 mg/L during August. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the Upper Toba River should be monitored on a regular basis throughout the project life to ensure that anthropogenic inputs to the system do not bring concentrations below the acceptable CCME cold water limits of 9.5 mg/L for early aquatic life stages and 6.5 mg/L for other aquatic life stages (CCME, 1999), and below the acceptable BC WQG limits of 9 mg/L for buried embryo/alevin life stages and 5 mg/L for all other life stages (BC WQG, 2006). The Upper Toba River water quality samples were generally low in nutrients. Nitrogen based nutrients (ammonia and nitrites) were below their respective detection limits, with low nitrate concentrations of 0.0115 to 0.0875 mg/L, which are within the typical range of less than 0.3 mg/L for surface water (RISC, 1998b). Total dissolved phosphate was measured just over the detection limit of 0.0020 mg/L at 0.0022 to 0.0025 mg/L. Dissolved orthophosphate concentrations ranged from 0.0019 to 0.0051 mg/L, and total phosphorus ranged from 0.069 to 0.130 mg/L.


An automated water temperature datalogger was installed in the Upper Toba River mainstem, at sample location Upper Toba 2, to establish a temperature regime baseline database. The average water temperature for the drainage is 1.5°C, with temperatures ranging from a high of 3.2°C on February 28, 2008, to a low of 0.5°C on January 28, 2008, as shown in Appendix G. The datalogger was installed on December 6, 2006 and was last downloaded on March 7, 2008.


6.6.1 Biophysical Information

Biophysical information of the Upper Toba River area has been described with that of Dalgleish Creek. The study for these two facilities was considered as one in order to capitalize on mapping and study efficiencies, as they are adjacent, and form a de facto unit. Refer to Section 5.6.1.3 for a detailed description of the biophysical environment in Upper Toba River facility area. A detailed description of biophysical characteristics of the project area is presented in the Keystone Wildlife Research report, provided in Appendix H



A detailed inventory of the wildlife occurring in the Project area is presented in Section 5.6.2.1. The Upper Toba River and Dalgleish Creek facilities have been grouped for wildlife study because of their proximity. The grouping recognizes that certain wildlife do not likely respond to the projects and valleys independently considering their close proximity. Refer to Section 5.6.2.1 for a description of the existing wildlife and wildlife habitat in Upper Toba River study area.

6.6.2.2 Vegetation

For a description on plant communities in the study area, refer to Section 5.6.2.2.


For a description on rare plant communities in the study area, refer to Section 5.6.2.3.



The Upper Toba River is located within the Toba Landscape Unit of the Sunshine Coast Sustainable Resource Management Plan within BC. This Plan is intended to facilitate resource management decisions that are environmentally and economically sustainable


within the Sunshine Coast area and while several landscape unit plans have been developed to date, there is currently no approved plan for the Toba Landscape Unit. Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) have not yet been approved for the Sunshine Coast area but are under consideration. No other federal, provincial, or local government land use designations are known to exist for the Upper Toba River catchment.


The land within the Upper Toba Creek watershed is Crown Land, and does not contain any private holdings. It is located within TFL 10, under licence to Hayes Forest Services Ltd. Although the watershed has been logged historically in its lower elevations, no forest harvest activities have been conducted recently. Hayes Forest Services submitted a Forest Stewardship Plan for their TFL in February 2008, indicating that future harvesting may be undertaken. The watershed is difficult to access, and as a result recreational use is very low. The Upper Toba Creek watershed lies within a Recreation Management Unit of the Sunshine Coast Forest District, which was rated as having Low Significance for public recreation, Low Significance for Commercial Recreation, and Low Significance for Commercial Development Potential. ILMB identified an active Commercial Recreation License for TLH Heliskiing Ltd that encompasses parts of the high elevation areas of the Upper Toba Creek watershed. No conflict between the Project and heliski operators is expected. A guide outfitter (Alan Rebane) and one registered trapline were also identified in the area as explained in Section 5.7.2. There are two mineral tenures in good standing in and around the Upper Toba Creek watershed:

• 527169 • 508013

A mineral and placer Conditional Registration Reserve has been issued (BC Regulation 222/2008) by the Chief Gold Commissioner, BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources over the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project footprint. The Conditional Registration ensures that “A free miner must not obstruct, endanger or interfere with the construction, operation or maintenance of a transmission line, pipeline or other work, structure or activity in the reserve” in the site referred to as the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project (site #1002511), which includes the Upper Toba River facility.



Hayes Forest Service Limited is currently the forest tenure holder of TFL 10 situated within the Toba Watershed. TFL 10 Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) is presented in Appendix I. Forest harvest activities could resume pending FSP approval/implementation and all forest legislation requirements being met and adhered to.


There are no private land holdings in the Upper Toba River watershed. UTHI has an accepted application pending with ILMB (ILMB File Number 2409237) for Crown Land tenure for the powerhouse, penstock, head pond, interconnecting transmission line and access roads.


There is no known use of the Upper Toba River for navigation. The section of creek lying between the proposed intake and tailrace, in particular, is characterised by steep, highly entrenched canyon cascades and is not navigable. Upper Toba River was visited by Transport Canada in November 2007. In a letter issued November 5, 2007 (see Appendix J), Transport Canada stated “it is the opinion of Transport Canada officials that the waters of the Upper Toba River at the site of the Project are considered to be non-navigable, therefore an application is not required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the above noted work.” However, a clear span bridge is proposed to be installed on lower section of Upper Toba River to provide access to the proposed Upper Toba River facilities. The proposed location for this bridge is considered navigable. The proposed clear span bridge will not encroach on the stream channel in order to avoid any interference with navigability of the Upper Toba River. Bridge design and construction will also comply with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) operating statements for clear span bridges. Construction will be scheduled during the regional fisheries work window. Detailed designs of the proposed clear span bridge will be provided well in advance for review and permitting. 6.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES



SECTION 7.0 - JIMMIE CREEK SETTING AND CHARACTERISTICS

7.1 JIMMIE CREEK FACILITY

In this section, settings and characteristics of the area impacted by the proposed Jimmie Creek facility (intake area, penstock alignment and powerhouse area) and related components (access road and interconnection) are described. Location of the Jimmie Creek facility and its technical specifications is described in Section 3.3.3. 7.2 GEOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The geomorphology of the Jimmie Creek catchment is generally typical of the BC Coastal Ranges. Valley walls are steepened by glaciation, producing characteristic U shaped cross section profiles. The over steepened slopes that remain following glacier recession result in frequent earth movements such as rockslides, rock falls, debris slides, and debris flows. The tributaries of Jimmie Creek form on the steep hill slopes or in small hanging valleys, above the main channel. 7.2.1 Physiography and Topography

Jimmie Creek has its headwaters in the mountains of the Elaho Range, and flows from a maximum elevation of approximately 2700 m to discharge into the Toba River at an elevation of approximately 40 m. At this juncture, the Toba Valley is very flat and almost 500 m wide. The proposed powerhouse site is about 50 m south from the confluence of Jimmie Creek and Toba River. The land in the region was heavily loaded with glaciers during the Pleistocene and many areas adjacent to the coast were submerged below sea level. The high peaks have matterhorns (arêtes) and well developed cirques, while peaks and ridges below about elevation 2000 m are rounded and subdued by the effects of ice sheet movement. Valley walls were steepened by ice sheet movement, which typically resulted in U shaped slope profiles. The oversteepened slopes following glaciation have resulted in numerous types of earth movements such as rock slides, rock falls, debris slides, debris flows and channelized debris flows.

Figure 7.1 shows the satellite imagery of the proposed facility location. The proposed site with its intake located at an elevation of approximately 515 m, drains an area of approximately 82 km2.



The Jimmie Creek Hydroelectric Facility lies within the Elaho Range of the British Columbia Coast Mountains. The Elaho Range consists mainly of granitic rocks and orthogneiss. During the last glaciation, ice occupied the Jimmie Creek valley. Glacial till and glaciofluvial sands and gravels were deposited beneath and adjacent to the glacier. Upon retreat by the glaciers, mass movements created colluvial deposits as the landscape readjusted to the departure of ice. Soils developed from these glacial and colluvial materials. It is generally expected that on the hill slopes a veneer of colluvium overlies the weathered bedrock. It is anticipated that the colluvial soils are very thin or absent on the hillside spurs and generally become thicker towards the toes of hill slopes. The thickest areas of colluvium are likely to be the colluvial fans. It is anticipated that fluvial soils, predominantly comprising sands and gravels, will be encountered along the floors of the river valleys. Glacial till is expected to be locally important on the valley side slopes.


Surficial geology in Jimmie Creek site consists of recent river alluvium, colluvium and minor glaciofluvial and till deposits. Glaciofluvial and till deposits found in the project area form a mantle of variable thickness that overlies bedrock. Generally these deposits are dense, less than 3 m thick and consist of angular to sub-rounded sand and gravel with some silt and cobbles. The anticipated ground conditions at the proposed intake site are alluvial sand and gravel (Photo 18). Competent crystalline bedrock is exposed downstream from the intake site. Seismic refraction survey lines data at the proposed intake site suggest that bedrock can be expected at depth between 2 and 8 m below ground surface. The API and site reconnaissance indicated predominantly colluvium and morainal deposits on top of bedrock along the penstock alignment. The anticipated ground conditions at the powerhouse site comprise glaciofluvial sands and gravels overlying bedrock (Photo 19). Seismic refraction survey lines data at the proposed powerhouse site suggest that bedrock can be expected at depth between 5 and 15 m below ground surface. An overview site location and terrain unit legend map for the Jimmie Creek facility is outlined in Figure 5.2. A detail map of the interpreted surficial geology is presented in Figure 7.2.



The Jimmie Creek facility is located within the Coast Plutonic Complex, which is dominantly composed of granitic rocks (80%) which were intruded and cooled deep within the crust as discrete bodies of magma between 170-45 million years ago. A sub-ordinate amount (20%) of rocks includes pendants of folded and faulted volcanic and sedimentary metamorphosed rocks (GSC, 2008).

According to the regional geology map (BCGS, 2005) the bedrock at proposed intake and powerhouse sites is comprised of Early Triassic granodiorite, which is consistent with field observations. No geological faults are indicated in close proximity to the sites of the proposed powerhouse and intake structure on the published geology map (BCGS, 2005). According to the regional geology map (BCGS, 2005) the bedrock underlying the proposed penstock alignment is comprised of Early Triassic granodiorite, which is consistent with field observations. No geological faults are indicated in close proximity to the sites of the proposed penstock alignment on the published geology map (BCGS, 2005). Anticipated bedrock geology along the access roads to Jimmie Creek facility is Early Triassic granodioritic rock which was determined from the regional geology map from the British Columbia Geological Survey (BCGS, 2005). No geological faults are indicated in close proximity to the access roads in the published geology map.


The intake site is located upstream of a canyon deeply incised in rock. There is exposed bedrock on the right bank at the intake location. Closer to the creek and as far as the proposed diversion channel, the bedrock is anticipated to remain within 3 m of the ground surface. The bedrock is overlain by sand and gravel, which may be saturated close to bedrock depth. The groundwater in this area is not a significant contributor to flow in Jimmie Creek. The bedrock that is exposed on the right bank is anticipated to drop steeply across the creek to an estimated depth of 10 m below ground surface at the left bank. The bedrock is overlain by bouldery colluvium, in-filled with alluvial sand, at the surface along the left abutment. Seepage through the material overlying bedrock on the left side of the intake structure will require additional assessment during detailed design. This assessment will likely consist of the installation of a groundwater well to assess the permeability and seepage rates of the overburden. Seepage through this material is considered to be a minor contributor to flow in Jimmie Creek. There is a tributary channel entering Jimmie Creek from the left side immediately upstream from the proposed intake location. This channel is a significant contributor to


flow in Jimmie Creek. It is anticipated that surface and groundwater flow can be controlled and diverted during construction. Water control along the penstock route will require some additional consideration, but it is not considered to be a major problem. A number of small creeks were identified along the proposed alignment, most of which can be handled with proper drainage establishment. The remaining creeks can be controlled with engineered diversions, possibly including increase minimum cover and riprap protection, or concrete encasement. The powerhouse site is located on a triangle shaped terrace of alluvial sand and gravel. It is bordered to the northeast by Jimmie Creek, northwest by the Toba River, and by a rock cliff to the south. It is anticipated that the rock cliff adjacent to the project site drops steeply below ground, typical to the U-shaped Toba Valley. No surface flow or groundwater seepage is visible along the rock outcrop to the south of the site. Groundwater is anticipated in the top 5 m of overburden, but is not a large contributor to flow in either Jimmie Creek of the Toba River. Groundwater conditions are expected to be hydrostatic below the groundwater table to the anticipated depth of bedrock approximately 15 m below grade. It is not anticipated that excavation for the construction of the powerhouse will encountered the groundwater table. Groundwater conditions and anticipated seepage rates at the proposed powerhouse and intake sites will be investigated further as part of a geotechnical site investigations undertaken during detailed design, once the location of the proposed structures are finalized and heavy equipment access to the sites is possible.


Based on the bedrock geology map and the absence of MINFILE or ARIS reports for the Jimmie Creek area, the bedrock is interpreted to have a low ARD/ML potential. These preliminary findings shall be confirmed by fieldwork mapping and observations for ARD/ML indicators throughout construction and if appropriate laboratory testing of rock and water samples shall be undertaken.



A terrain hazards map for Jimmie Creek is presented in Figure 7.2. Two small colluvial cones were identified on the hillside to the north of the proposed intake location. The features appear to have been deposited by a combination of rockfall and debris flows. Snow avalanche hazard zones and an old rock slide (Photo 20) have been identified on both sides of the valley upstream from the proposed intake site.


In the lower section of the penstock route, a possible slumping mass of till material was recognised immediately down slope from the proposed alignment. The last section of the penstock route will go down a steep bedrock cliff (Photo 21). The proposed Jimmie Creek powerhouse is located on the alluvial fan of Jimmie Creek as it enters the Toba River. Consideration will need to be given to the possibility of a debris flood. Figure 7.3 presents a qualitative risk assessment of the natural hazards on the Jimmie Creek facility. The proposed intake and powerhouse locations were assigned a risk index based on a review of the detailed topography derived from LiDAR imaging that identified hazards from aerial photograph interpretation and fieldwork conducted to assess the site’s geotechnical conditions. Both intake and powerhouse sites were assigned a low risk index. Based on a similar review, the penstock route was sub-divided to highlight the risk on each of its segments. Section B has a general low risk index but locally it has been assigned a high risk rating due to the presence of old logging road uphill from the alignment that have cause landslide in the past. Section D, G, and I have been assigned a risk index of moderate due to the moderately-steep to steep terrain that the alignment crosses. Penstock section F has been assigned a risk index of moderate due to the presence of recent landslide close to the alignment. The risk index rating and acronyms used in Figure 7.3 are defined Table 5.2. The proposed access road on the northern side of Jimmie Creek crosses talus deposits that accumulated as a result of rock falls.

7.2.5.2 Seismicity

Seismicity of the Project area is previously summarized in Section 5.2.5.2. 7.3 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

Meteorological analysis of the Project area is outlined in Section 5.3. 7.4 AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT


Jimmie Creek is a second order stream that flows from the east into the Toba River. The Jimmie Creek catchment area is approximately 82 km2 and the mainstem has an average slope of 9.7%. The mainstem originates at 50 masl and has a length of 10.6 km. During their 2001 study, Hatfield Consulting confirmed the presence of four barriers along the Jimmie Creek mainstem near the mouth of Jimmie Creek, restricting anadromous fish species distribution to below these obstructions. The lower reaches of Jimmie Creek provide excellent spawning grounds for many salmon species present in the watershed. However, historical information indicates only limited use of the creek by coho


(Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook (O. tschawynscha) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) (Hatfield 2001).

Based on mapping provided by DFO Mapster Version 2.2 (DFO, 2007) 15 reaches were identified on Jimmie Creek from its mouth to its headwaters (Figure 7.4). Reach information may be altered once further assessment in the field is completed.

• Reach 1 (Section one of Jimmie Creek), which extend upstream from the Toba River to the proposed powerhouse site at mainstem km 0.3, has an average gradient of 12.0%. This section contains a number of cascades and falls which act as barriers to anadromous fish species;

• Reaches 2 and 3 (Section two) has an average gradient of 23.3% and comprises the mainstem from the powerhouse at km 0.3 to the point at which the stream widens at km 2.0. A first order tributary enters Jimmie Creek from the south at mainstem km 1.0. This section is thought to be inaccessible to fish;

• Reaches 4 through 8 (Section three) has an average gradient of 4.3% and comprises the creek from mainstem km 2.0 upstream to the point at which the stream narrows at mainstem km 4.8. A cascade is located at mainstem km 2.2, and a large island is located at mainstem km 3.6. A tributary containing a proposed intake site enters Jimmie Creek from the south at mainstem km 2.8 and the principal proposed intake site is located at mainstem km 4.0. This section is thought to be non-fish bearing;

• Reaches 9 to 11 (Section four of Jimmie Creek) has an average gradient of 3.6% and comprises the creek from mainstem km 4.8 to mainstem km 7.0. A rapid section is located between mainstem km 5.6 and 6.1, and two major tributaries enter Jimmie Creek from the south at mainstem km 5.6 and mainstem km 7.0. This section is non-fish bearing and is located entirely upstream of the Project general arrangement;

• Reaches 12 to 14 (Section five) has an average gradient of 4.9% and comprises the mainstem from km 7.0 to km 9.7. Two major tributaries enter Jimmie Creek in this section, one from the north at mainstem km 8.6 and another from the south at mainstem km 9.7. There are braided areas located within this section between mainstem km 7.7 and mainstem km 8.6. This section is thought to be non-fish bearing;

• Reach 15 (Section six) has an average gradient of 27.8% and comprises the mainstem from km 9.7 to km 10.6, where the Creek is fed by an unnamed lake at an elevation of 1080 masl. This section of Jimmie Creek is thought to be non-fish bearing.

7.4.2 Aquatic Fauna

7.4.2.1 Fish


The existing fish and fish habitat information for Toba River watershed extracted from FISS database is presented in Table 5.3. Fish species summaries are provided in


Section 5.4.2. Fish observation records show two records of Chinook salmon observed at the mouth of Jimmie Creek on April 1977 and January 1995 (FISS Database). Fish spawning has been reported as part of the January 1995 observation. 2007 Field Investigations

Fish sampling in Jimmie Creek was conducted in October 2007 using electrofishing and Gee traps as described in Section 5.4.2. Details of sampling methodology are explained in Appendix E. Figure 7.4 presents 2007 sampling sites along Jimmie Creek. 2008 Field Investigations

Fish sampling in Jimmie Creek was conducted in May 2008 using electrofishing and Gee traps as described in Section 5.4.2. Details of sampling methodology are explained in Appendix E. Fish Species Distribution, Periodicity, and Habitat Use

Fish sampling was conducted at six sites along Jimmie Creek on October 2007. A total of 28 fish were captured in section of the creek immediately before its confluence with Toba River. No fish were captured upstream of the first barrier along Jimmie Creek. Some sections of the creek upstream of the first barrier were not sampled due to inaccessibility. Coho salmon and sculpins were the only species captured in fish bearing sections of Jimmie Creek just before its confluence with Toba River. No fish were captured in the upper reaches of the creek above the first fish barrier. A general description of biology of fish species reported historically from Toba River basin is presented in Section 5.4.2.


Benthic drift sampling has been carried out as described in Section 5.4.2.2.

7.5 HYDROLOGY

To ensure that the design and operation of the hydroelectric facility is consistent with water availability, it is necessary to determine the long-term flow regime of the creek. Ideally this would be derived from many years of continuous flow monitoring data on Jimmie Creek, but, as is commonly the case, long-term historical flow records are not available. Rather, short-term data recorded since May 2006 on Jimmie Creek are used in conjunction with long-term regional flow records collected by Water Survey of Canada to develop estimates of the long-term mean annual discharge and the frequency distribution of daily discharge in Jimmie Creek. This long-term synthetic flow series provides the basis for the hydrologic assessment of the facility, including


energy generation potential and aquatic habitat analyses. Development of these data are presented in detail in Appendix F3 and summarised below.

7.5.1 Stream Gauging

Gauge Site Description

A stream gauging station was first installed on Jimmie Creek in May 2006. The gauge was installed at an approximate elevation of 500 masl, approximately 1.9 km downstream of the proposed intake. A pressure transducer was installed within an aluminium tube that was fastened at the side of a pool behind a bedrock wall on the left bank to continuously record stage (water level) at 15-minute intervals. The hydraulic control at the outlet of the pool is a cobble riffle, which is believed to dictate the relation between stage and discharge for water depths up to approximately 0.76 m, above which the creek will overflow its banks and the stage-discharge relation will change. Water level fluctuations at the gauge are typically small because of its location in a pool, and because the aluminium tube tends to dampen rapid changes in water level. Site selection, equipment installation, and data collection and analysis were conducted in general accordance with provincial guidelines (BC MoELP, 1998).

Rating Curve Development

A total of 10 successful discharge measurements have been made at the Jimmie Creek gauge since its installation. These measurements were made using the area-velocity technique with a current meter when flow conditions allowed for safe wading in the creek, and using the dilution technique with rhodamine dye slug injection when conditions were unsafe to wade and/or too turbulent for current meter use. The measurements range from a low of 0.38 m3/s to a high of 19.5 m3/s, which, based on the estimated mean annual discharge (MAD) of 7.1 m3/s at the gauge site, equate to 5% of MAD to 274% of MAD. These 10 measurements were used as the basis for developing a stage-discharge rating curve for the gauge, which is shown in Appendix F3, Figure 2.4. The curve is defined by two equations, with a split at a stage of 0.76 m, which was necessary since a single equation could not adequately describe the stage-discharge relation. A possible physical justification for this situation is that this depth appears to correspond to the bankfull depth, and that above this depth the wetted width increases at an accelerated rate with each increase in depth due to the presence of a shallow grade terrace on the right bank,



A regional analysis was conducted to assess regional streamflow patterns and provide a preliminary estimate of mean annual discharge for the study stream. This analysis supports the selection of appropriate gauges for regression analysis and provides a useful comparison for measured stream flows and identifies the spatial variability of climatic and hydrologic conditions in the Coast Mountains. The key factors governing this


variability are elevation, glacier cover, distance from the coast, and location relative to the Coast Mountain drainage divide, which dictates maritime/continental and windward/leeward effects. This spatial variability, when combined with the temporal and spatial scarcity of data coverage, presents a significant challenge for estimating the hydrology for a specific location. Of the nearest three WSC stations, the Elaho River (08GA071) is assumed to have a flow dataset most representative of flow conditions in Jimmie Creek, as it is located in the same hydrologic zone and has a similar location relative to the coast and the mountain ranges. The annual hydrograph of the Elaho River is characterized by rising flows in the spring months due to snowmelt, maximum monthly flows in June and July due to glacier melt, and receding flows in the autumn and winter months, with minimum monthly flows occurring in December, January, and February. The mean annual unit runoff is 86 l/s/km2. However, the proportion of glacial coverage in the Jimmie Creek watershed is significantly greater than in the Elaho River watershed, so it could be expected to have proportionally higher glacier fed flows.

Synthetic Daily Flow Series

In order to generate a long-term estimate of mean annual discharge (MAD) at the intake, as well as the frequency distribution of daily discharge, the short-term site stream flow record was compared to long-term records of the gauge described above. Ideally, the candidate gauge for comparison would have at least 20 complete years of record (including concurrent record with Jimmie Creek), similar watershed characteristics to Jimmie Creek, and be located in a similar position relative to the coast and mountain range. Based on the considerations described above, it was decided that the Elaho River record (08GA071) would be most appropriate for simulating a long-term flow series for Jimmie Creek. The frequency distribution of daily flows in Jimmie Creek was compared to the concurrent distribution of flows in the Elaho River on a seasonal basis. This was achieved by regression analysis of ranked daily flows for the concurrent period of record. When comparing sets of ranked daily flows for two or more gauging records, each flow value of equal rank has an equal probability of exceedence in the data set (since the data sets are of equal length). Therefore, a comparison of ranked daily flows amounts to a comparison of flow frequency distributions. The seasonal regression equations account for differences in drainage area and other physical characteristics that affect unit runoff, and it is assumed that these parameters remain approximately constant within seasons over a period of several years. The comparison of flow distributions rather than simultaneous daily flows overcomes differences in the timing of rainstorm or snowmelt events between watersheds, and ultimately provides a better model for synthetically generating a likely scenario of future flow patterns. It must be recognized that the ultimate objective of this exercise is not to reproduce the exact historical flow pattern in Jimmie Creek so that one can predict what the flow was on any particular day, but rather to generate a dataset that provides a good representation of the expected future long-term mean annual discharge


in the creek and the associated year to year, month to month and day to day variability of flows. The daily discharge record for the Elaho River was obtained from WSC for the period of January 1, 1982 to September 30, 2007. The 2007 data are currently unverified. The regression equations for each season were applied to the corresponding seasonal portions of the Elaho River record to develop a 25-year synthetic daily flow series for the Jimmie Creek gauging station. The long-term synthetic daily flow series for the Jimmie Creek gauge site was scaled to the intake location by pro ration of drainage areas. There is little difference in the glaciated fraction of the watershed area at the intake location, and the gauge location and the elevation distributions are similar. Based on these similarities, it is assumed that there is little difference in the mean annual unit runoff and the seasonal distribution of flows between the intake and gauge locations.


Based on the regional regression analysis discussed above, the mean annual discharge of the synthetic intake flow series is 7.0 m³/s, which equates to an annual unit runoff of 75 l/s/km². This unit runoff value lies within the expected range of values for this region. The estimated mean monthly and annual flows at the intake site are summarized in Appendix F3, Table 3.4, and a corresponding annual hydrograph is shown in Appendix F3, Figure 3.11. Climate Trends

The synthetic flow series discussed above is derived from an analysis of historic flow data, however, to ensure that the design and operation of the hydroelectric project is consistent with water availability, it is necessary to assess whether this historic record is sufficiently representative of future conditions. Trends of changing annual average temperature, annual precipitation and annual average discharge are evident in the climate and flow records, although most are not statistically significant, and it is uncertain that they will continue in the near future given the inherent variability and cyclic nature of climate, although they are expected to persist over the long-term. Given our current inability to accurately predict and model future climate patterns, and the fact that the most relevant historical flow records indicate very little recent change in annual flow volumes or durations, it is reasonable to conclude that the current records provide an appropriate basis for simulating flow conditions that might be expected in Jimmie Creek over the next 20 to 40 years. However, it must be understood that changes in the shape of the annual hydrograph appear to be trending towards a more even distribution of flows throughout the year, and if the current climate change trends persist or accelerate, the hydrological analysis may warrant reassessment some time in the future. Furthermore, it seems reasonable and prudent to incorporate a factor of safety into any peak flow analysis to account for possible future changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme flow events. Details and justification of these conclusions are presented in Appendix F3, Section 5.0.



Peak flows with return periods of 100 years and 200 years are commonly used for various aspects of design. Larger, less frequent flood events are difficult to predict from historical records and are beyond the scope of this analysis. A statistical analysis was undertaken to calculate peak instantaneous flow values on the basis of the long-term synthetic record for the Jimmie Creek intake site. The results were compared to the regional analysis presented by Obedkoff (2003). . A summary of the peak flows using both methods for various recurrence intervals is presented in Appendix F3, Table 4.3. The regional approach produces higher peak flow results compared to the statistical analysis of the long-term synthetic flow series. In this case, the regional results are considered more accurate due to the underestimation of peak flows at the Jimmie Creek gauging station, due to rating curve uncertainty. Climate change is resulting in larger and more frequent peak flow events, as discussed in Section 7.5.2. To account for the potential increases in both size and frequency of peak flows in Jimmie Creek, a factor of safety of 15% has been added to the regional return period flows presented above. This 15% value was somewhat arbitrarily selected but it is consistent with general practices, as determined through attendance at various climate change symposiums and discussions with professional peers. Application of this 15% factor to the regionally based flood estimates results in 100- and 200-year peak instantaneous flow estimates of 285 m3/s and 342 m3/s, respectively. The design flows presented in this section pertain to meteorologic/hydrologic events and do not include peak flows resulting from dam burst scenarios associated with morraine lakes or creek blockage by snow avalanches and/or landslides. The potential for such events and the related need to consider them for design purposes are addressed in other reports as part of the terrain hazard assessment.

7.5.4 Water Quality

Knight Piésold Ltd. established 3 sites to collect baseline water quality data on Jimmie Creek. These sites are as follows:

• Jimmie - 1: downstream of the proposed powerhouse • Jimmie - 2: mid stream in diversion section, and • Jimmie - 3: upstream of proposed intake structure.

Water quality studies were implemented following the general requirements of Guidelines for Designing and Implementing a Water Quality Monitoring Program in British Columbia (RISC, 1998a) and the sampling was conducted in accordance with the methods outlined in the Assessment Methods for Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Characteristics in Support of Applications to Dam, Divert, or Extract Water from Streams in British Columbia (Lewis et al., 2004).


The water quality sampling program for Jimmie Creek is ongoing and the samples collected to date were obtained on August 28, 2007 and December 6, 2007. Samples were collected in lab supplied pre-washed bottles, kept cool and forwarded to ALS Environmental for analysis within 48 hours, under standard chain of custody procedures. Sample analysis included physical tests, dissolved anions, nutrients and dissolved metals. The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix G. Sample analysis and interpretation followed the Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data (RISC, 1998b). The pH in Jimmie Creek was slightly acidic, ranging from 6.51 to 6.62, and conductivity was low (2.1 to 11.6 μS/cm). Total dissolved and suspended solids concentrations less than the typical range of 100 mg/L and 75 mg/L, respectively, for streams on the coast of British Columbia (RISC, 1998b). The total hardness ranged from 0.74 to 3.74 mg/L, with values below 60 mg/L considered to be soft water (RISC, 1998b). Alkalinity ranged from 2.4 to 3.7 mg/L, which is within the typical range of 0 to 10 mg/L for the coastal areas of British Columbia (RISC, 1988b). Dissolved anions, in the form of chloride, fluoride and sulphate, were below their respective detection limits for the water quality samples. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in Jimmie Creek ranged from 11.94 mg/L to 13.11 mg/L during June 2007 and from 12.18 mg/L to 13.13 mg/L during August 2007. These concentrations are acceptable based on CCME cold water guidelines of 9.5 mg/L or higher for early aquatic life stages and 6.5 mg/L or higher for other aquatic life stages (CCME, 1999), and also based on the BCWQG limits of 9 mg/L or higher for buried embryo/alevin life stages and 5 mg/L for all other life stages (BCWQG, 2006). Similar to Dalgleish Creek, dissolved oxygen concentrations in Jimmie Creek should continue to be monitored throughout the project life to ensure that concentrations are not reduced below acceptable levels. The Jimmie Creek water quality samples were generally low in nutrients. Nitrogen based nutrients (ammonia and nitrites) were below their respective detection limits, with low nitrate concentrations of 0.0592 to 0.0613 mg/L, which are within the typical range of less than 0.3 mg/L for surface water (RISC, 1998b). Total dissolved phosphate was measured just over the detection limit at 0.0021 mg/L for one sample at Jimmie 1. Dissolved orthophosphate concentrations ranged from 0.0010 to 0.0015 mg/L, and total phosphorus ranged from 0.0085 to 0.082 mg/L. An automated water temperature datalogger was installed in the Jimmie Creek mainstem, at sample location Jimmie Creek 2, to establish a temperature regime baseline database. The average annual water temperature for the drainage is 1.0°C, with temperatures ranging from a high of 2.7°C on December 6, 2007, to a low of 0.1°C on February 3, 2008, as shown in Appendix G. The datalogger was installed on December 6, 2007 and was last downloaded on March 7, 2008.



Terrestrial wildlife and vegetation studies were carried out by Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd (Appendix H). The following is a summary of the report. 7.6.1 Biophysical Information

Riparian forests dominate the valley bottom and mesic to dry forests, interspersed with cliffs and avalanche chutes, are predominant on the side slopes. Ecosystem units that are rare or absent in the facility study area are illustrated in the rare and sensitive ecosystem mapping section. The detailed ecosystem composition of the facility study area is summarised in Appendix H.

The Jimmie Creek facility study area is comprised of 360 ha in the facility’s study area and 440 ha in the road study area. The location of the powerhouse is primarily young mesic forest, while the intake location is shrub dominated moist forest and river. Mesic forest is predominant along the penstock and upgraded road, where the upper portion of the road was previously logged (shrub dominated) and the lower portion is primarily young forest. Mature to old forests occur on the upper slopes along the southern boundary of the facility study area and on the northwest side of Jimmie Creek. The forest in the southeast corner of the study area shows evidence of previous fires.



A detailed inventory of the terrestrial wildlife occurring in the study area is presented in Section 5.6.2.1. The Jimmie Creek study area is located within the CWHds1 and CWHms1 biogeoclimatic (BGC) variants with small amounts of MHmm2 and AT along the periphery of the study area. The majority of the lower elevation forest in this study area has been previously harvested, leaving primarily young forest along the main drainage. However, small patches of old growth do occur. The higher elevation sub-zones are much removed from the proposed facility components. No proposed or approved OGMAs, Ungulate Winter Range (UWR) or Wildlife Habitat Areas have been established within the study area. Coastal Tailed Frog

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 64 ha of moderate to moderately high (class 2-3) rated habitat, with 29 ha occurring in the facilities study area and 63 ha in the roads study area. No suitable habitat occurs within the Project facilities footprints. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated from nil to moderately high. The access road overlaps suitable habitat at its most southern point.


Red Legged Frog

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 6 ha of highly (class 1) suitable habitat, with 5 ha occurring in the facilities study area and 6 ha occurring in the roads study area. The proposed powerhouse and intake locations are rated as low to nil. Habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated nil. One wetland (class 1) is located near the proposed powerhouse site, on the west side of the Toba River. Western Toad

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 15 ha of moderate to highly (class 1 and 3) suitable habitat, with 10 ha occurring in the facilities study area and 14 ha occurring in the roads study area. The location of the proposed powerhouse is primarily rated nil suitability, while the habitat at the intake location is rated as very low and nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is primarily rated nil. One wetland (class 1) is located near the proposed powerhouse site, on the west side of the Toba River. Painted Turtle

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 9 ha of moderate to moderately high (class 2-3) suitable habitat; with 6 ha in the Project facilities study area and 9 ha in the roads study area. The location of the proposed powerhouse, intake and the habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated nil. Significant areas include a small lake about 25 m north of the proposed powerhouse site and a wetland near the proposed powerhouse site, on the west side of the Toba River. Harlequin Duck

Jimmie Creek was rated nil to moderate. The first 1.6 km, which consists of numerous waterfalls within a narrow canyon, was rated nil. The grade of the creek becomes slightly more gradual after the 1.6 km mark with low and moderate habitat suitability. From about 2 km to 5.5 km up Jimmie Creek, the habitat was rated as moderate. This section includes the intake site. Marbled Murrelet

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 87 ha of moderate to highly (class 1-3) suitable habitat; including 74 ha occurring in the facilities study area and 85 ha occurring in the roads study area. The location of the proposed powerhouse and intake are rated as nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated nil, except for one small patch along the road about 250 m south of the proposed powerhouse. Suitable habitat in the Jimmie Creek Project area is typically greater than 100 m from the Project components except for a patch of moderately rated habitat located about 50 m north of the proposed powerhouse.


Green Heron

The Jimmie Creek local study area was rated nil for Green Herons. No significant areas were identified for Green Heron. Great Blue Heron, Fannini Subspecies

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 14 ha of moderate to highly (class 1-3) suitable habitat including 5 ha occurring in the facilities study area, and 14 ha occurring in the roads study area. All Project components are rated nil. Some suitable breeding sites are located adjacent to the Toba River, about 150 m southeast of the proposed powerhouse. Western Screech Owl, Kennicottii Subspecies

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 12 ha of moderately high (class 2) suitable habitat; including 4 ha occurring in the facilities study area, and 12 ha occurring in the roads study area. All Project components are rated nil. Suitable nesting habitat is located adjacent to the Toba River, about 150 m southwest of the proposed powerhouse.

Queen Charlotte Goshawk

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 157 ha of moderate to highly suitable habitat; including 100 ha occurring in the facilities study area and 156 ha occurring in the roads study area. The location of the proposed powerhouse and intake are rated as nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated from high to nil. Moderate to highly suitable nesting habitat is located near the proposed powerhouse on the Jimmie Creek access road. Peregrine Falcon

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains no suitable (class 1-3) habitat for Peregrine Falcon, with habitat rated from very low to nil. Bald Eagle

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 165 ha of moderate to highly (class 1-3) suitable habitat; including 104 ha occurring in the facilities study area and 163 ha occurring in the roads study area. The location of the proposed powerhouse and intake are rated as nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is mostly rated nil with one patch of highly suitable habitat. Highly suitable habitat is present along the road about 280 m south of the proposed powerhouse and in a patch 30 m north of the proposed powerhouse. Moderately high suitability habitat is also present along the Toba River, 250 m south of the proposed powerhouse. Band Tailed Pigeon

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 134 ha of moderate to highly (class 1-3) suitable habitat; including 77 ha occurring in the facilities study area, and 130 ha


occurring in the roads study area. The location of the proposed powerhouse is rated as low and the intake location is rated nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated moderate to nil. Moderately suitable habitat is present along the road at the most southern point. Highly suitable habitat is present along the Toba River, about 150 m southwest of the proposed powerhouse. Barn Swallow

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 7 ha of moderate (class 3) suitability habitat; including 1 ha occurring in the facilities study area, and 7 ha occurring in the roads study area. The location of the proposed powerhouse and intake are rated nil, while the habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated from very low to nil. One cliff with moderate potential for nesting is located in the northeast corner of the study area, about 500 m north of the intake. Keen's Myotis

No suitable habitat for the Keen's myotis was present in the Jimmie Creek local study areas. No significant areas were identified for Keen's myotis. Grizzly Bear

Suitable spring habitat in the Jimmie Creek total facility areas is found along the Toba River, at the powerhouse location. The suitable spring habitat (natural state with no adjustments) available in the Jimmie Creek total facility area accounts for 0.9% of the suitable spring habitat available in the regional study area.

Suitable summer habitat in the Jimmie Creek total facility area is found at the intake site, along the Toba River to the north and south of the powerhouse, and along the road south of the intake site for about 1 km. The suitable summer habitat (natural state with no adjustments) available in the Jimmie Creek total facility area accounts for 0.3% of the suitable summer habitat available in the regional study area.

Suitable fall habitat in the Jimmie Creek total facility area is found at the intake and along the road south of the intake for 1.4 km. Suitable habitat is also found to the north and south of the Jimmie Creek powerhouse. The suitable fall habitat (natural state with no adjustments) available in the Jimmie Creek total facility area accounts for 1.3% of the suitable fall habitat available in the regional study area. Mountain Goat

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 11 ha of moderately (class 3) suitable habitat; including 2 ha occurring in the facilities study area and 11 ha occurring in the roads study area. The location of the proposed powerhouse and intake are rated as nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated from very low to nil. One moderately suitable cliff is present north of the intake.


Roosevelt Elk

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 25 ha of moderate to moderately high (class 2-3) suitability winter feeding habitat; including 16 ha occurring in the facilities study area and 21 ha occurring in the roads study area. The location of the proposed powerhouse is rated mainly low, while the intake location is rated as low to nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated from low to nil. Significant areas include an area of moderately high suitability habitat 150 m southwest of the proposed powerhouse and a patch of habitat adjacent to the proposed powerhouse on the north side. The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains 89 ha of moderately (class 3) suitable winter security/thermal habitat; including 69 ha occurring in the facilities study area and 88 ha occurring in the roads study area. The location of the proposed powerhouse is rated as low and the intake location is rated as low to nil. The habitat present along the penstock and upgraded road is rated from moderate to nil. Moderately suitable habitat is present along the upper section of the road on the north side of Jimmie Creek.

7.6.2.2 Vegetation and Plant Communities

For a description on plant communities in the study area, refer to Section 5.6.2.2. The location of the proposed powerhouse is primarily young mesic forest, while the intake location is shrub dominated moist forest and river. Mesic forest is predominant along the penstock and upgraded road, where the upper portion of the road was previously logged (shrub dominated) and the lower portion is primarily young forest. Mature to old forests occur on the upper slopes along the southern boundary of the Project area and on the northwest side of Jimmie Creek. The forest in the southeast corner of the Project area was previously burned.

The Jimmie Creek total facility area contains no areas with a rare and sensitive ecosystem ranking of three, 4 ha with a rank of two and 2,555 ha with a ranking of one. The Project facilities and road are ranked as 0 and 1. One area ranked two in the total facility area is located 650 m southwest of the powerhouse on the west side of the river.


The Jimmie Creek total facility area contained one species of rare lichen within the waterfall spray zone at the bottom of Jimmie Creek. For a description on the rare plants species in the study area refer to section 5.6.2.3.




Jimmie Creek is located within the Toba Landscape Unit of the Sunshine Coast Sustainable Resource Management Plan within BC. This Plan is intended to facilitate resource management decisions that are environmentally and economically sustainable within the Sunshine Coast area and while several landscape unit plans have been developed to date, there is currently no approved plan for the Toba Landscape Unit. Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) have not yet been approved for the Sunshine Coast area but are under consideration. No other federal, provincial, or local government land use designations are known to exist for the Jimmie Creek catchment.


The land within the Jimmie Creek watershed is Crown Land, and does not contain any private holdings. It is located within TFL 10, under licence to Hayes Forest Services Ltd. The watershed has historically been logged. Hayes Forest Services have submitted a Forest Development Plan, indicating that future harvesting in the area may occur. The watershed is difficult to access, and as a result recreational use is very low. The Jimmie Creek watershed lies within a Recreation Management Unit of the Sunshine Coast Forest District, which was rated as having Low Significance for public recreation, Low Significance for Commercial Recreation, and Low Significance for Commercial Development Potential. LWBC (now ILMB) identified an active Commercial Recreation License for TLH Heliskiing Ltd that encompasses parts of the high elevation areas of the Jimmie Creek watershed. No conflict between the project and heliski operators is expected. A guide outfitter (Alan Rebane) and one registered trapline were also identified in the area as explained in Section 5.7.2. A mineral and placer Conditional Registration Reserve has been issued (BC Regulation 222/2008) by the Chief Gold Commissioner, BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources over the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project footprint. The Conditional Registration ensures that “A free miner must not obstruct, endanger or interfere with the construction, operation or maintenance of a transmission line, pipeline or other work, structure or activity in the reserve” in the site referred to as the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project (site #1002511), which includes the Jimmie Creek facility.



Hayes Forest Service Limited is currently the forest tenure holder of TFL 10 situated within the Toba Watershed. TFL 10 Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) is presented in Appendix I. Forest harvest activities could resume pending FSP approval/implementation and all forest legislation requirements being met and adhered to.


There are no private land holdings in the Jimmie Creek watershed. UTHI has an accepted application pending with ILMB (ILMB File Number 2409238) for Crown Land tenure for the powerhouse, penstock, head pond, interconnecting transmission line and access roads.


There is no known use of Jimmie Creek for navigation. The section of creek lying between the proposed intake and tailrace, in particular, is characterised by steep, highly entrenched canyon cascades and is not navigable. Jimmie Creek was visited by Transport Canada in November 2007. In a letter issued November 5, 2007 (see Appendix J), Transport Canada stated “it is the opinion of Transport Canada officials that the waters of Jimmie Creek at the site of the proposed run of the river Power Project are considered to be non-navigable, therefore an application is not required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the above noted work.” No further action regarding navigable waters issues is anticipated at Jimmie Creek. 7.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES



SECTION 8.0 - SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The Project Area falls entirely within the Powell River Regional District (PRRD), traversing Electoral Area A. Powell River, the nearest urban centre to the Project, is discussed below as part of the PRRD, as statistics and data regarding Powell River are provided by the PRRD. The PRRD encompasses approximately 5100 km2 of land and supports a population of approximately 19,600. The populated centers in this district are concentrated along the southern coastline from Lund to Saltery Bay and on Texada and Lasqueti Island; the majority of the region is unpopulated. For the most part, the Project physical footprint does not encroach on any of the economic centres discussed in the following sections, however, it is expected that the economic footprint will. 8.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Based on the 2006 Census, Powell River Regional District has a population of 19,599 which shows a -0.8% change when compared to the 2001 Census (Statistics Canada, 2007). Projected population for 2007 is 20,820 which shows a slight increase compared to 2006 (BC Stats, 2007) The largest age class in the PRRD belongs to 50-54 years old class with a population of 1845 or 9.4% (Figure 8.1). About 94.3% of the surveyed population in 2006 had non-aboriginal identity and only 5.7% were aboriginal (Figure 8.2). About 86% of the resident population in PRRD have their mother tongue as English (Figure 8.3) (Statistics Canada, 2007). 8.3 LOCAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMY

The Powell River Regional Economic Development Society (PRREDS) released the Action Plan 2004 – Strategic Plan Update on January 29, 2004, from which much of the following information was obtained (PRREDS, 2004). According to the PRREDS the four main industries that support the regional economy are forestry, tourism, mining, and fishing. Statistics Canada identified the top four industries, by labour force, for the PRRD to be business services, retail trade, health care and social assistance, and manufacturing (Statistics Canada, 2007). Logging began in Powell River in the 1880’s and was responsible for opening up the area for settlement. In 1910, the community’s first pulp and paper mill, Powell River Company, was built, and Powell River grew as a single industry community. The forestry industry still has a large impact on the employment rate, although employment through the industry has experienced a continual decline since the mid 1980s.

Catalyst Paper Corporation, formerly Norske Canada Ltd., operates a pulp and paper mill in Powell River; they are the single largest employer in the region with over 700 employees.


Western Forest Products also has a significant role in providing employment in the community, as it is the second largest forestry related sector employer.

The Powell River Forest Industry Sector Labour Force Gap Survey presents results of a survey of small companies (one to sixty employees) in the Powell River forestry industry in 2005. The sources interviewed in this survey employ approximately 40% of their workers full time, and the remaining 60% either part time, casually, or on a contract basis. Just over half of these employers anticipated growth of their companies within the year. More than 60% of the respondents had positive opinions on the long-term outlook for forestry sector industries in the Powell River Area (Wegner, 2005). PRREDS anticipated growth of the forest sector, because of new jobs created by investment in the area and growth of the local companies (Walz, 2005a). The fishing industry has experienced a steady decline over the past years in the areas of commercial fishing and fish processing. The salmon fishing fleet is approximately half the size it was in the early 1990s. The fish processing industry has recently been partially revived through its support of the aquaculture sector. The aquaculture and fish processing sectors are considered key areas for potential future growth for the region. The tourism industry is one of the largest employers within the Vancouver Island/Coastal region, as well as being regarded as the industry with the greatest potential for growth. The mining industry is primarily focused on the commercial limestone deposit on Texada Island with three working quarries shipping out over 6 million tonnes of limestone annually (PRREDS, 2006). Communities in the PRRD are looking for solutions to improve upon the current economic state. Emphasis is placed on economic diversification in order to reduce the communities’ reliance upon the declining forestry and commercial fishing industries. Manufacturing, information, and cultural industries, educational services, and food and accommodation services are the industries that have been targeted for growth to aid in economic diversification (PRREDS, 2004). 8.4 BUSINESSES

Powell River is a resource-based community that was born after the establishment of a paper mill in early 20th century (ALC, 2008). The operation of the mill (Catalyst Paper) with approximately 2400 direct jobs and a steady supply of local taxes was the focal point of Powell River’s economy. However, due to various factors, mill workforce has been fallen from approximately 2000 in 1998, to 700 in 2001, which has slowed down Powell River economy and caused closure of some local businesses (ALC, 2008). A description of present status of various business sectors is provided below. 8.4.1 Forestry

This sector has been facing a steady decline due to various reasons such as inappropriate harvest technologies, rising production costs and poor market access.


8.4.2 Aquaculture

Shellfish and finfish aquaculture are both playing and increasingly growing role in Vancouver Island/Coast region. There seems to be a potential for new products which in turn generate demand for additional goods in the area.

8.4.3 Construction

The construction industry’s growth depends to some extent on growing local population needs. As population grows in the area, more construction will be required in response to growing demands.

8.4.4 Tourism

Tourism is believed to be a business sector with the highest potential for economic growth in the area (ALC, 2008). Tourism can be regarded as one of the leading industries in Powell River area. However, most of the employment in this sector is seasonal.

8.4.5 Retail

The retail sector is expected to follow a growing trend influenced by other factors such as population growth and increased tourism.

8.5 LABOUR SUPPLY

The 2001 Census Profile for the PRRD showed the regional labour force to be comprised of 9,170 individuals in the greater than 15 age category. The unemployment rate for the region is 6.4%, slightly higher than the provincial average of 6.0 (Statistics Canada, 2007). Of the population greater than 20 years old, 43.4% have post secondary qualifications, 8.8% with a university degree. Of those with post secondary education, the greatest area of study was on Engineering and Applied Science Technicians and Trades (BC Stats, 2006). The level of post secondary training in the district is lower than the provincial average by about 7%. The labour demand is primarily composed of Intermediate and Lesser Skilled Occupations, followed by Technical Trades (BC Stats, 2006). The average annual employment income is slightly lower than the provincial average, last calculated at $27,230 (BC Stats, 2006). There are reportedly high numbers of trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations in the PRRD, compared to other regional districts (PRREDS, 2004). The local branch of Malaspina University College offers trades and applied technology programs, which provides the potential for the community to meet the needs of local opportunities. In 2001, 43.4% of the total population 20 years old and over had post secondary qualifications. A total of 34.5% of 20+ years old population had post secondary certificate or diploma and 8.8% had university degree (PRREDS, 2006).


8.6 TRANSPORTATION

Powell River and the other smaller communities to the north and southeast can be accessed by air, water, or land. Highway 101 links the PRRD to Vancouver, utilizing two ferries, one between Horseshoe Bay and Langdale and the second between Earl’s Cove and Saltery Bay. The district is also directly linked to Vancouver Island with ferry access from Comox to Powell River. The Powell River Regional Transit System provides bus services within the Municipality of Powell River, with limited rural service. Pacific Coastal Airlines has daily flights between the South Terminal at the Vancouver International Airport and Powell River and Westjet Airlines has regular flights from Comox to many Canadian cities. Barge terminal facilities exist in Westview; there are five government operated harbours and docks for private and commercial vessels, as well as numerous private docking facilities along the coastline. Existing barging sites at Toba Inlet will be used to facilitate the transportation of personnel, equipment and supplies. Road access to the Project sites will be possible via the East Toba River and Montrose Creek road. 8.7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES

The PRRD has a total of eight schools including elementary, middle and secondary schools, and an alternative program (SD47, 2008). Malaspina University College has a satellite campus in Powel River, which offers university transfer courses, career and academic programs, and trades and applied technology programs.

The PRRD legal infrastructure consists of both provincial and supreme courts within the Powell River Court Services, and an RCMP detachment that employs approximately 23 fulltime officers and 6 auxiliary force members.

The municipal fire department consists of two municipal fire halls staffed by 12 fulltime firefighters and four fire halls for outside of the municipal boundaries, staffed entirely by 48 volunteer firefighters. There are two paramedic stations in the region, one in Powell River, and the other on Texada Island. Powell River General Hospital was rebuilt and upgraded in 1993 with current capacity for up to 75 bed extended care units and a 33 bed acute care unit with services that include surgery, endoscopy, ICU, obstetrics, in patient psychiatry, oncology, emergency, and diagnostic services. The Powell River Community Health Centre, funded by Vancouver Coastal Health, is located on the third floor of the hospital. Environmental Health, Public Health and Prevention, Home and Community Care, and Mental Health and Addictions are some of the services provided in the


community health centre. The centre is staffed by nutritionists, audiologists, home care nurses and case managers, addictions and disorders counselors, and provides outpatient and inpatients psychiatry services, prenatal classes, and a needle exchange. Powell River and the surrounding communities have a well-developed social and recreational infrastructure. There are many churches, daycares, grocery stores, pharmacies, shopping centers, liquor stores, pubs, cafes, fast food establishments, and restaurants in and around Powell River. Locals and tourists have year round access to outdoor recreation activities including golfing, mountain climbing, hiking, camping, and salt and freshwater activities. Powell River has a recreation complex that houses two full sized hockey rinks, pools, a gym, fitness classes, a theatre complex, and five meeting rooms. Furthermore, the Community Service Association manages numerous sports fields throughout the area and provides information on all of the local sports organizations. 8.8 HOUSING

Residential property values in the PRRD have increased by 24%, from $110,121 to $136,843, between 2005 and 2005 (PRRD, 2005a). Housing construction rates have declined substantially since 1981, with the most active construction period existing between 1946 and 1980. 76% of the housing in the region is owned, approximately 1% is band housing and the remaining 23% is rented (BC Stats, 2004). In the PRRD multi-family dwellings are primarily in the form of low rise apartments. The majority of the population occupy single-family detached units (Figure 8.4). Based on 2006 census (Statistics Canada, 2007), 80% of occupied private dwellings in PRRD are single detached houses and 10% is apartment buildings with fewer than five storey. Between the early 1990s and 2003, the rental vacancy rates in Powell River have increased from 3.3% to 26.9%. The area’s aging population raises concerns over the need for suitable senior housing developments; three new developments have been proposed to address these needs (CDPR, 2004). Housing availability is expected to be adequate for the workforce during the Project development, construction and operation phases of the Project, as there is ample rental housing, residential construction land, or purchasable housing in the region. 8.9 EMPLOYMENT

Results of the 2006 Census showed an employment rate of 48.4% and unemployment of 14.1% in Powell River Regional District (Statistics Canada, 2007). A total of 3.5% of the workforce aged 19 to 64 were on employment income assistance (BC Stats, 2006). In 2001, 41.3% of the workforce had full time/full year employment and 15.2% of the workforce was self employed (BC Stats, 2006). A breakdown of employment in resource-based sectors in PRRD is as follows (BC Stats, 2008):

Agriculture, food and beverage 2.8% Fishing and fish processing 2.1%


Logging and forest products 16.2% Mining and mineral products 2.5%

8.10 HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Based on 2006 census results (Statistics Canada, 2007), average earning in PRRD was $36,347. 8.11 DWELLING VALUES

Residential property values in the PRRD have increased by 24%, from $110,121 to $136,843, between 2004 and 2005 (PRRD, 2005). Housing construction rates have declined substantially since 1981, with the most active construction period existing between 1946 and 1980. The majority (78.5%) of the housing in the region is owned, approximately 1.1% is band housing, and the remaining 20.4% is rented (BC Stats, 2006). 8.12 HEALTH PROFILE

The PRRD is situated in a beautiful scenic coastal setting with extensive access to outdoor physical activities. Air quality in the Powell River area is rated among the best in the province, as reported by the BC Lung Association (Walz, 2005b). For the period of 2002-06, average life expectancy at birth for PRRD was 79.3 which is slightly lower than that of BC (BC Stats, 2006). Average infant mortality rate (per 1000 live births) for the period of 2001-05 was 6.6 which was slightly higher than the provincial rate (BC Stats, 2006). In the same time period, potential years of life lost (per 1000 population) in the PRRD area was 10.2 while that of BC was 8.6 years.

8.12.1 Water Quality

The water supply for the Corporation of the District of Powell River is primarily taken from Haslam Lake, providing 100% of the water used by the Townsite, Cranberry and Westview. According to the CCME “Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality”, the water from Haslam Lake is consistently very good, and to ensure its quality the water is treated with gaseous chlorine prior to distribution (EC, 2004). Rural areas depend primarily upon groundwater for their freshwater supply. Groundwater quality in the southern portion of the PRRD has shown incidences of arsenic presence (BCWWA, 2001).

8.12.2 Air Quality

The National Air Pollution Services (NAPS) network was established in 1969 as a joint program of the federal, provincial, and municipal governments to monitor and assess the quality of ambient air in Canadian urban centers. Air quality in the Powell River area is rated among the best in the province, as reported by the BC Lung Association (Walz, 2005a). The BC Lung Association’s 2005 and 2006


State of the Air Reports showed that mean annual concentrations of nitrogen oxide and PM2.5 were among the lowest in the province and well below ambient air quality objectives (BCLA, 2008).

Currently, air quality is monitored in the Powell River region at several continuous monitoring stations. Two of these stations are operated by The National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) Network, a cooperative program of the federal, provincial and municipal governments, to monitor and assess ambient air quality in Canadian urban centers. Air quality recording and monitoring stations in Powell River region include Wildlife Sanctuary (Station # 102301) and Wildwood Motors (Station # 102302). Recorded parameters include Nitric Oxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, PM-10-Continous Monitor, Sulphur Oxide and PM-2.5-Continous Monitor (EC, 2003).

Real-time air quality data for Powell River is published online by the Ministry of Environment for three continuous monitoring stations operated by Norske Canada. An Air Quality Rating (good, fair, poor, very poor), generated at defined intervals for each site, provides a qualitative assessment of existing air quality. Existing air quality within Powell River is classified as ‘good’ according to this rating scheme (MOE 2007a).

Air quality information for the general Project area was derived from MOE’s web-based 2000 Air Emissions Inventory (MOE, 2007b) and is provided in Appendix K. The 2000 Air Emissions Inventory Report provides an accounting of all sources of air pollution within the map-defined area including industrial, mobile and natural sources. The report indicates the majority of emissions in the Project area are generated from vehicles and vehicle-related road dust.

8.12.3 Visual Quality

Visual quality refers to the condition, character or quality of a visual resource or landscape and how it is valued or perceived. MoE’s Recreational Visual Landscape Inventory is a web-based mapping application that identifies and delineates areas of visual sensitivity near communities and along travel corridors and includes information about visual condition, characteristics and sensitivity to alteration. The Upper Toba River, Dalgleish Creek and Jimmie Creek are not yet classified with respect to visual quality under the Visual Landscape Inventory (MoE, 2007c).

8.12.4 Noise Level

Currently, there is a lack of relevant information pertaining to existing noise levels within the Project area and PRRD. Health-based guidelines have been developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and can serve as a framework for management of community noise. Community noise includes noise emitted from all sources except the industrial workplace with the main sources being traffic, industry, construction and neighbourhood noise (WHO, 1999).


WHO defines the potential health effects associated with noise to include hearing impairment, speech intelligibility, sleep disturbance, physiological impairment, mental illness, performance effects and social and behavioural effects. WHO-defined health effects associated with noise in large outdoor areas includes disruption of tranquility, which can be managed by maintaining a low ratio of intruding noise to natural background sound.

8.12.5 Waste Disposal

Liquid waste disposal and treatment in the rural portions of the PRRD, outside of municipal boundaries of Powell River, is primarily handled by septic tanks and ground disposal systems. The regional district operates a small wastewater treatment plant in the Lund area, which discharges into the Lund Harbour. Biological solids from the Lund facility and the septage from the rural septic systems are treated and disposed of, along with the municipal sewage, in the Wildwood lagoon (Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2004). Future changes and options for the disposal and treatment of liquid waste in the region are under investigation by Dayton & Knight Ltd. Powell River Regional District’s solid waste is disposed into the Cache Creek Landfill. The waste is collected at the Augusta Recyclers facility in Powell River where it is loaded onto B train trailers and shipped by Wastech on barges to Richmond, where the waste is then hauled to Cache Creek (PRRD, 2005).

8.12.6 Health Services

The Powell River General Hospital is a fully functional facility with a 75 bed extended care unit and a 65 bed acute care unit (SD 47, 2008).

8.13 SOCIAL SUPPORT SERVICES

Powell River offers a wide range of community and social support services. These services range from career and employment support services to family services, social skill development assistance, various counselling services including addiction, children and youth, death and bereavement and mental health. Volunteer organizations, St. John Ambulance (Brigade # 992) and Salvation Army are also among the non-governmental and non-profit organizations that provide community and social services in Powell River area. 8.14 CRIME AND POLICING

Average rate (offences per 1000 population) of total serious crime in 2003-05 period in PRRD (BC Stats, 2006) was 14.9 (the average for BC in the same period was 15.4). Number of serious crimes per police officer in the same period was 12.5 (compared to the BC average of 11.3). Average rate of total serious crimes in 2003-05 period shows a 26.3% drop compared to 2000-02


period (BC Stats, 2006). In Powell River, the RCMP has a 23 person detachment in addition to an auxiliary force of 6 (SD 47, 2008).


SECTION 9.0 - ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT IMPACTS, MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS

9.1 GENERAL APROACH AND METHODS

9.1.1 Rationale

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can be defined as a scientific approach to study the impacts of human activities (projects) on perceptions and values of society. In impact assessment, the most important task of scientists is to describe, quantify and/or analyze the relationship between project activities and social and environmental values (Beanland and Duinker, 1983). However, despite the fact that scientists are involved in this process, EIA is viewed as a “socio-political phenomenon”. Therefore, decisions that result from impact assessment studies may rely equally on both subjective judgements (personal values, feelings, beliefs, etc.) and scientific studies (Beanland and Duinker, 1983). An impact matrix methodology in combination with identification of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) and Valued Social Components (VSCs) is used to evaluate various environmental and socio-economic impacts of the proposed project. Impact assessment involves the following general steps:

• Various activities within the scope of the project are identified; • Existing environmental conditions are evaluated to predict/evaluate likely

environmental implications of carrying out the proposed project; • Mitigation measures are proposed for each potential impact; • Potential residual impacts after adopting the mitigative measures are identified,

evaluated and rated; and • Each likely environmental impact is ranked based on various criteria.

In evaluating potential impacts of the proposed project, the following questions will be answered:

• What is the magnitude of the impact? • What is the geographic extent of the impact? • What is the duration and frequency of the impact? • What is the degree to which the effects are reversible or irreversible? • What is the ecological context of the impact? • Are there any environmental standards, guidelines or objectives for assessing

the impact? 9.1.2 VECs and VSCs

According to Natural Resources Canada (2003), VEC is defined as:

“Any part of the environment that is considered important by the proponent, members of the public, scientists, and government involved in the assessment process. Importance may be determined on the basis of cultural values or scientific concerns.”


VECs reflect societal values regarding ecosystems and should be protected while implementing development projects. VSCs are those social components that are identified as valued by various stakeholder groups during the project consultation period. Some authors have also included cultural, economic and aesthetic values in the definition of VSCs (E7NEGE, 1997), and this assessment follows that model.

9.1.3 Definitions

The following are definitions of some common terms used in impact assessment of the Project. An “activity” is considered an action that may have potential impact on the environment. Each phase of the project is comprised of various activities. “Environment” is defined as the surroundings of a project that may be impacted by project activities. Environment may either be bio-physical or socio-economical. VECs are defined in the bio-physical environmental context and VSCs are defined in socio-economical environment context. “Impact” may be defined as any change in the environment resulting directly or indirectly from a project activity. The nature of the potential impact may either be positive or adverse. A positive impact may cause improvement in an environmental variable or quality, while an adverse impact may cause deterioration of an environmental variable or quality.

9.1.4 Conceptual Model

A conceptual model for the methodology used to assess potential impacts of the proposed Project is presented in Figure 9.1. The following is a short description of the process applied in this assessment. The first step in impact assessment is conducting baseline studies that cover both bio-physical and socio-economic environment. Results of baseline studies are used for scoping of impact assessment, delineation of impact boundaries and identification of VECs and VSCs for detailed impact analysis. In the next step, using the knowledge acquired during baseline studies and analysis of proposed project activities for construction and operational phases, impact assessment is conducted. For each potential impact of the Project, mitigation measures are proposed and adopted to minimize any potential effects according to the type of activity. Any potential residual impact that may be sustained subsequent to implementation of mitigation measure(s) is analyzed and evaluated.


If residual impacts expected after implementation of mitigation measures, are within acceptable limits, the project can proceed. In this case, the project will be implemented, while monitoring various aspects of the project ensures (residual) impacts are acceptable. Results of monitoring programs may be used to modify mitigation measures to increase their efficiency, thereby reducing any potential residual impacts. Monitoring programs will be designed to monitor potential impact(s) of the project on certain VECs and VSCs. Results of monitoring programs may be used to modify/improve mitigation measures and/or project activities in order to lower, minimize or prevent any potential deviation from the expected impacts. Selection of an appropriate methodology for impact assessment is an important step. Appropriate methodology is selected based on available data, type of the proposed development and the nature of potential impacts. The following is a step by step description of the impact assessment methodology adopted for the Project.

9.1.5 Methodology

9.1.5.1 Step 1-Scoping and Selection of VECs and VSCs

Scope of the impact assessment covers those impacts of the Project on surrounding biophysical and socio-economic environments for which a reasonably direct causal link can be demonstrated between the Project’s activities and the resulting impact. In consultation with the public, First Nations, businesses, other stakeholders and federal and provincial government agencies, the following components were short listed for further impact analysis:

VECs: • Fish and Fish Habitat • Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • Vegetation VSCs: • Cultural and Heritage Resources • First Nations Communities and Land Use • Commercial Land and Resource Use • Public Health • Navigable Waters • Recreational Land Use


Biophysical Environment

Biophysical Environment was further sub-divided into two components; fish and fish habitat and wildlife and terrestrial habitat. Each component also includes physical and chemical sub-components critical for their overall integrity. Socio-Economical Environment

Socio-economic environment covers the social and economic valued components that are important to First Nations and the public - broadly including, economics, public health, navigable waters and land use.

9.1.5.2 Step 2-Defining (Impact) Boundaries

Spatial Boundaries:

Bio-Physical Environment

Figure 4.1 presents bio-physical impact boundaries (study area) for assessment of potential impacts of the Project on bio-physical environment. Socio-Economic Environment

The socio-economic study area includes the First Nation community and their corresponding territory in addition to other communities in the vicinity of the Project location. These communities will be impacted (for the most part in a positive manner) by the Project and its activities.

9.1.5.3 Step 3-Defining Project Phases/Activities

The Project’s activities fall into two major phases; construction phase and operation phase. Our current understanding is that the majority of the potential impacts of the Project may occur during the construction phase. In order to study impacts of Project implementation on environmental components, the activities have been delineated in more detail. Table 9.1 presents a breakdown of activities in the construction phase.

9.1.5.4 Step 4-Identification of Potential Impacts

Potential impacts of various Project activities on measurable environmental or social parameters/variables defined for each sub-component are identified. Selected indicators may either be quantitative (measurable) or qualitative (descriptive). The likelihood of occurrence (defined below) of every potential impact is evaluated, once the potential impact is identified.


9.1.5.5 Step 5-Selection of Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures are proposed and adopted to counteract/prevent potential impacts, where the impacts are adverse (undesirable). Mitigative measures may completely or partially mitigate or prevent potential adverse impacts of the Project. When the mitigative measures are fully capable of preventing the adverse environmental impact, no residual impact will be expected. However, if any adverse environmental impact is expected after adoption and implementation of the mitigative measure, residual impact(s) are expected.

9.1.5.6 Step 6-Determination of Residual Impacts

Mitigative measures may or may not completely prevent or mitigate adverse environmental impacts, depending on the nature of the impact and efficiency of the mitigation measure. Professional judgement is used to evaluate the anticipated effectiveness of these mitigative measures and determine whether any residual impacts are expected after these measures are adopted.

9.1.5.7 Step 7-Evaluation (Rating) of Residual Impacts

Potential residual impact is rated based on the following criteria. 9.1.5.8 Rating Criteria

Rating criteria have been defined and used to evaluate potential impacts of the Project on VECs and VSCs (Table 9.2). Both a descriptive and a numeric value have been assigned to each criterion as stated below. Numerical values assigned to each rating are shown in brackets. Likelihood of Occurrence

“Likelihood of occurrence” of an impact is based on professional judgment and is rated as low (1), moderate (2) or high (3). Geographical Extent (Scale)

“Geographic Extent or Scale” of an impact refers to the (surface) area affected by the impact. A localized impact may not be significant, while a more widespread impact may have cause significant environmental effects. Geographic extent of the impact is defined as:

Sub-local <1 km2 (1) Local 1-100 km2 (2) Sub-regional 101-1000 km2 (3) Regional >1000 km2 (4)


Magnitude

“Magnitude” of an impact is defined as the severity of impacts as defined below: Negligible No impact (1) Minor Result in <5% change in the base level (2) Moderate Result in 5-20% change in the base level (3) Major Result in 20% or more change in base level (4)

Duration

“Duration” of an impact is defined as the period of time that the potential impact might last and is defined as:

Transient <24 hours (1) Short-term 1 day to 12 months (2) Moderate 13-36 months (3) Long-term >36 months (4)

Reversibility

“Reversibility” of an impact is defined as the ability of the impacted component to return to its pre-impact status and rated as:

Reversible (1) Irreversible (2)

Confidence (Certainty)

“Confidence (certainty)” reflects the certainty of the assessment applied to the impact in question and is based on the existing confidence in the available information and scientific judgement applied to draw conclusions. Confidence is rated as:

Low (3) Moderate (2) High (1)

Overall Impact

The overall impact score was calculated by multiplying the above scores. The overall impact score ranges from zero (negligible) to 1152 (high or major impact). Where the potential impact is expected to be positive or no residual impact is expected, overall impact score was not calculated. The following is a description of various ratings used for the overall impact. A “Positive” impact causes an improvement of an environmental or social quality. A “Negligible” impact affects a specific group of individuals or an environmental parameter briefly and the affected variable will return to its pre-impact level as soon as the causing factor is eliminated. An impact is considered Negligible when the overall score is less than 50.


A “Minor Impact” affects a specific group of individuals (one generation or less) or environmental parameter within a short time period. This kind of impact does not affect an entire population, its trophic level or alter any environmental variable for a long period of time. An impact is considered Minor when the overall score is is between 50 and 300. A “Moderate Impact” affects a portion of a population and may impact their abundance and/or distribution over one or more generations, or alter an environmental variable over a relatively long (but limited) time period. An impact is considered Moderate when the overall score is between 301 and 600. A “Major Impact” causes a major change to abundance and/or distribution beyond their natural capacity to return to the pre-impact status. A major impact can also alter one or more environmental variables permanently. A major impact may also affect users (subsistence, commercial or recreational) of the resource over a long period of time. An impact is considered Major when the overall score is greater than 600.


9.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS: VECS - PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

Assessment of potential impacts of the project construction is analyzed in this section. Although the proposed Project consists of various facilities and components, most of the construction related procedures and techniques will be identical throughout the project and across its facilities/components. Therefore, in evaluating potential impacts of various phases of the project, identical aspects have been grouped together for the ease of study. However, where significant differences in Project facilities and components were observed, they were dealt with separately. Potential impacts of each phase of the Project are summarized in impact matrix tables compiled for VECs and VSCs for construction and operation phases of the project. For a description of the terminology applied in this section, refer to Section 9.1.3 Due to the proximity of the proposed sites for the construction of hydroelectric facilities, potential impacts on VECs are discussed together unless otherwise stated. A breakdown of various construction phase activities is presented in Table 9.1. 9.2.1 Construction of Hydroelectric Facilities

Table 9.3 presents the impact matrix for VECs during construction of hydroelectric facilities proposed in the Project. The following is a description of various potential impacts summarized in Table 9.3. The proposed alignment for penstocks at all three proposed facilities crosses non-fish bearing streams on their paths. Impassable barriers located at lower reaches of all three proposed facilities have been identified during baseline studies. Fisheries field investigations have also shown the non-fish bearing status of upper catchments. Nevertheless, implementing BMPs during work at these crossings will ensure that water quality downstream will not be affected by construction of penstock stream crossings. Construction of the powerhouse tailrace will impact the existing aquatic habitat along the banks of all three facilities which will be replaced by a concrete channel and riprap. Since each tailrace is located in a fish bearing reach of the streams, impacts to the existing aquatic habitat are expected. Habitat compensation plans will be proposed to replace the impacted habitat and to replace the existing productive capacity, thereby achieving no net loss in the productive capacity of the systems. Some riparian habitat will also be lost during construction of the tailrace, which will be replanted once construction is completed. During the construction of tailrace structures, BMPs will be implemented to minimize the area of impact, erosion and sediment transport.


Potential impacts of logistics, labour force presence in the area and support resources on terrestrial wildlife and habitat are also included in this section, as discussed below and presented in Table 9.4.

9.2.1.1 Fish and Aquatic Habitat

Erosion and Sedimentation:

Potential Impact

Soil disturbances associated with construction of Project facilities have the potential to increase erosion and sediment transport into adjacent watercourses. The introduction of fine sediment to fish habitat can impair water quality and negatively affect substrates used by fish and benthic invertebrates.

Mitigation

The Construction Environmental Management Plan will include requirements for erosion and sediment control during project construction. These measures are designed to minimize erosion and sediment transport as the result of construction activities. These measures will be detailed in the Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan and Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan.

Residual Impact

Minor residual impacts are expected even after the implementation of BMPs; however, construction sediment control measures and monitoring will minimize the amount of construction induced sediment that enters adjacent watercourses. Therefore, no extensive environmental impacts are expected to occur as the result of construction induced sediment introduction. The overall residual impact is rated as negligible. Alteration of Aquatic Habitat:

Potential Impact

The construction of the facility intake will replace a section of non-fish bearing aquatic habitat with a concrete weir and riprap. Benthic invertebrates that utilize the river substrate within the footprint of the intake facility will be displaced; thus, there is a potential for the facility intake to temporarily reduce benthic invertebrate production. The construction of the tailrace will replace fish habitat along the banks with a concrete channel and riprap. Fish and benthic invertebrates that utilize the river margin within the footprint of the tailrace will be displaced; thus, there is a potential for the tailrace to negatively impact fish and benthic invertebrate production. The impact on benthic communities may be temporary. Once the substrate disturbance is terminated, benthic communities gradually establish on the new substrate and production resumes to its normal level.


Mitigation

The construction of intake structures and powerhouse tailraces will incorporate measures outlined in Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (MWLAP, 2004). These measures are designed to minimize erosion and sediment transport potentially resulting from construction in and around watercourses. The proposed locations of all three intake structures are on non-fish bearing reaches of the streams, thus, intake facility construction is not expected to cause any direct harmful impacts to fish. However, some negative impacts may result from temporary alteration of aquatic habitat and thereby temporary and localized interference with production of benthic organisms at these locations for the period of intake construction. In addition to following the Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (MWLAP, 2004), this impact will be mitigated by minimizing the duration and extent of disturbance and restoring the streams where possible. For construction of tailrace structures that are located in fish bearing reaches, potential impacts will be mitigated by minimizing the duration and extent of disturbance and restoring the streams where possible in addition to following the Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (MWLAP, 2004). Benthic communities will re-establish on the riprap placed at the outlet of the tailrace channel. Once completed, the tailrace structure, will also accommodate rearing by juvenile fish. Fish and benthic communities are also likely to colonize the tailrace channel. Timing, methodology, impact area and other details of construction will be finalized in consultation with DFO. Residual Impact

With mitigation measures in place, minor residual impacts to aquatic habitat are expected as a result of construction of intake structure since these structures are located in non-fish bearing reaches. Some direct loss or alteration of fish habitat is anticipated through the construction of the powerhouse tailrace at the creeks. Fish and benthic invertebrates that utilize the river margins within the footprint of the tailraces will be displaced; thus, there is a potential for the tailraces to negatively affect fish and benthic invertebrate production. Minor residual impacts may be expected after the adoption of mitigative measures but, these impacts are sub-local and reversible, therefore, rated as negligible. HADD is expected to occur as a result of tailrace construction, the extent of which will be determined in the detailed engineering design phase. A conceptual framework for a habitat compensation plan is described in Section 9.6 is proposed to replace lost productive capacity.


Hydraulic Regime:

Potential Impact

During the construction of intake facilities, water diversion will be necessary for construction activities to be carried out in the streambed. Temporary diversion of water will ensure a dry working environment and minimize disturbance to downstream habitat quality through sediment mobilization. However, this diversion might adversely affect the natural aquatic habitat in the diversion section.

Mitigation

Potential impacts to the hydraulic regime of the creeks will be mitigated by minimizing the duration, extent, and disturbance of the impacted sections (mainly intake structures).

Residual Impact

Although some residual impacts are expected after mitigative measures are in place to minimize the disturbance to the hydraulic regime, these potential residual impacts are rated as sub-local, transient and minor, therefore, the overall residual impact is rated as negligible. Water Quality (Spills and Leaks):

Potential Impact

Machinery will be working around waterways during construction of intake and tailrace structures. Any potential leak of fluids from the machinery may cause adverse impacts on the aquatic habitat or biota and cause pollution and other impacts. In addition, fuel spills, leaking fuel tanks, and refueling facilities may cause introduction of various contaminants to the aquatic environment and thereby adversely affect water quality.

Mitigation

Machinery working in and around the streams will be regularly inspected for any possible leaks of various fluids (hydraulic fluids, grease, etc.). Refueling sites will be located well away from streams and fuel spill kits will be kept on site and in vehicles and machinery working in and around the streams.

Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected once the mitigative measures are in place.


Acid Rock Drainage:

Potential Impact

The exposure of some mineral types to air, particularly those containing sulphides, can result in Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching (ARD/ML), the product formed by the atmospheric oxidation of common iron sulphur minerals. ARD/ML contains sulphuric acid and may result in the solution of heavy metals. Both ARD/ML generation and heavy metal leaching are potentially harmful to aquatic ecosystems. Geological studies of the Project sites showed that in Jimmie Creek and Upper Toba facilities the potential for ARD/ML is low. However, in Dalgleish Creek the potential for ARD/ML has been evaluated as moderate. ARD/ML may lower the pH of water in the project area and adversely affect water quality and hence aquatic habitat in the vicinity of the construction area.

Mitigation

In the event that potentially acid generating bedrock is encountered, samples will be collected for further analysis. If acid generation is expected from these samples, an Acid Rock Drainage Management Plan will address any required mitigation. Residual Impact

With mitigation measures in place negligible residual impacts to adjacent fish habitat are anticipated as the result of acid rock drainage and metals leaching. Water Quality (Blasting):

Potential Impact

Blasting may be required during construction. In such cases, the affected rock material will contain residues of explosives and dust following blasting. Seepage water from blasted rock material has the potential to transport nitrogen compounds and sediment to aquatic ecosystems, which can potentially result in negative effects to the aquatic environment. Mitigation

The Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan and Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan will include measures to minimize the introduction of blasting residues to water. If necessary, contaminated runoff will be collected to prevent the direct introduction of ammonia and other nitrogen compounds to the aquatic environment.

Residual Impact

With mitigation measures in place negligible residual impacts to adjacent fish habitat are anticipated as the result of blasting.


Turbidity and Sedimentation:

Potential Impact

Potential introduction of suspended sediments as a result of earthworks around the creeks may cause an increase in water turbidity and therefore, impair feeding of visual feeder species and benthic organisms. An increase in suspended solids may also cause abrasion of fish gill lamellae, reducing overall fish fitness.

Mitigation

The Construction Environmental Management Plan will include requirements for erosion and sediment control during project construction. These measures are designed to minimize erosion and sediment transport as the result of construction activities. These measures will be detailed in the Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan and Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan. Residual Impact

Some minor residual impact is anticipated after the mitigative measures are in place. However, any potential residual impact is rated as sub-local, transient or reversible, therefore, the overall impact is rated as negligible. Direct Fish Mortality:

Potential Impact

All three intake structures are located in non-fish bearing reaches therefore, potential or accidental mortalities are not expected during the construction of intake structures. However, direct fish mortality may occur during construction of tailrace structures, since these structures are located in fish bearing sections.

Mitigation

Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (MWLAP, 2004) will be followed to avoid any potential fish mortalities. Instream work in fish bearing habitat (tailrace construction) will be carried out during the specified least risk windows where possible. Prior to commencement of any work near or in the stream, the worksite will be isolated and a fish salvage will be conducted to avoid any possible fish mortality.

Residual Impact

With mitigation measures in place negligible residual impacts to fish are anticipated.


Riparian Vegetation:

Potential Impact

The construction of intake structures for hydroelectric facilities will alter and/or replace riparian vegetation adjacent to a section of non-fish bearing aquatic habitat in all three proposed locations. Riparian vegetation will be removed to construct the intakes, road access to the intakes, the uppermost section of the low pressure conduits, and temporary diversion channels. Flood protection riprap placed upstream and downstream of the intake facility may also require the removal of riparian vegetation. The construction of tailrace structures will also cause removal of riparian vegetation on the banks, adjacent to fish habitat, and replacement with a concrete and riprap lined channel. Riparian vegetation contributes to river ecosystem function; thus, its removal or alteration can adversely impact fish and fish habitat.

Mitigation

Project facilities, laydown areas, and staging areas will be located away from riparian zones which will minimize the amount of riparian vegetation removal. Where riparian vegetation removal is unavoidable, it will be replaced to the extent possible in those areas where long-term access to Project facilities is not required. If required, riparian planting could occur elsewhere in the drainage to offset any riparian habitat losses. The details of riparian vegetation replacement will be elaborated on in the Landscape Design and Restoration Plan. Residual Impact

The overall residual impact of construction activities on riparian vegetation is rated as sub-local, short-term and reversible, therefore, the overall impact of riparian vegetation removal is rated as negligible.

9.2.1.2 Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat

The potential effects of the Project on wildlife, vegetation, and rare ecological communities can be divided into direct effects (e.g. mortality, habitat loss) and indirect effects (e.g. disturbance and displacement from construction noise and noxious weed dispersal). Interactions between the Project and terrestrial wildlife and vegetation species/sub-species, are likely to fall under three main categories of potential effects:

• habitat alteration through destruction, degradation, fragmentation, and/or obstruction;

• disturbance/ displacement/ disruption; and • direct and indirect mortality.


In general, the effect of the Project on individual populations and communities depends on the amount of suitable habitat available, at both the local and regional scale, and on the biological characteristics and population status of each species or ecosystem. Taxa with highly specialized habitat requirements, limited dispersal capabilities, low mobility, low population birth rates, and/or other spatially limiting or population limiting factors are more susceptible to environmental effects than species that are not limited by these constraints. Similarly, species with limited habitat availability, either locally or regionally, are more sensitive to habitat loss or alteration. Therefore, the magnitude of an impact (habitat alteration, disturbance and mortality associated) will be greater for constrained species. In addition to potential impacts (on wildlife and terrestrial habitat) that may result from the construction of hydroelectric facilities, some potential impacts may also result from logistics and support activities. Table 9.4 presents the detailed impacts of logistics, labour force and support resources on various local wildlife species. Terrestrial Habitat Loss/Degradation:

Potential Impact

Terrestrial habitat loss/degradation may occur due to clearing, topsoil and woody debris removal, and facilities construction. Construction of permanent facilities will result in permanent loss of vegetated habitat, while disturbance of staging, borrow and spoil areas will cause temporary loss of vegetated habitat.

Mitigation

Construction vehicles should remain within development footprints or on existing roads at all times to minimize unnecessary damage to vegetation. Any rare ecosystems or populations of rare plants close to construction areas should be flagged and fenced off with temporary fencing to ensure that they are not damaged. Vegetation clearing should be limited to the footprints only, and wildlife trees should be retained when possible. Vegetation clearing should take place outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31) to prevent disturbance of bird nests, as per requirements under Section 34 of the BC Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. To minimize the impact of habitat loss for priority species, disturbed areas (i.e. staging areas) should be re-planted as soon as possible with native species, and coarse woody debris from clearing activities should be redistributed on disturbed areas. Potential palatable plant species should not be planted in areas with adjacent frequent vehicular traffic as this may increase the likelihood of a collision.


Temporary roads should be deactivated and replanted when no longer needed, and blocked with large pieces of woody debris. Topsoil should be salvaged from the footprints of permanent facilities and distributed on areas to be reclaimed and re-vegetated. A noxious weed monitoring program, as part of the Wildlife and Vegetation Monitoring Plan should be established and any observations of invasive plant germination should be dealt with immediately by hand pulling to prevent further distribution of any invasive plant species.

Snags could be created in some areas where mature forest has been cleared by topping some large diameter conifer trees (preferably Douglas fir) in suitable spots along the road. In addition, where live or dead large trees must be removed on footprint edges, consideration will be given to creating stubs by leaving 3-5 m tall stumps, as long as this can be done safely under current WCB regulations. When possible, existing vegetation along the road edges should be maintained to provide some security for wildlife, especially in areas where clearing may result in unobstructed views of open areas (i.e. wetlands).

Residual Impact

Residual impacts are expected as a result of habitat loss during the construction of hydroelectric facilities, but the expected residual impact is estimated to be negligible. Spread of Invasive Species:

Potential Impact

Disturbance to the area within the hydroelectric facility footprints (especially mineral soil exposure) may provide opportunities for establishment of invasive plant species. Weed seeds carried in mud on improperly cleaned construction vehicles may be dispersed throughout the area.

Mitigation

Implement measures to control the possible spread of invasive species including thoroughly washing construction vehicles prior to arrival in project area, paying special attention to wheel wells, tire treads and tracks where mud and seeds could be lodged; develop a noxious weed monitoring program; any observations of noxious weeds should be removed by hand pulling.

Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected.


Raptors and Breeding Birds - Loss of Nesting Habitat:

Potential Impact

Nesting habitat loss may occur as a result of vegetation clearing (large trees and snags).

Mitigation

Limit clearing to footprints; retain wildlife trees where possible; replant temporary disturbed areas as soon as possible with native vegetation and add coarse woody debris; where live or dead large trees must be removed on footprint edges, consideration will be given to creating stubs by leaving 3-5 m tall stumps, as long as this can be done safely under current WCB regulations.

Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected. Raptors and Breeding Birds - Loss of Active Nests:

Potential Impact

Active bird nest destruction may occur during vegetation clearing. If clearing is done in the nesting season, active nests may be destroyed.

Mitigation

Avoid clearing and tree removal during the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31) or complete a nest survey prior to clearing in the breeding bird season; conduct a raptor nest survey prior to clearing at any time of year

Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected. Degradation of Amphibian (Aquatic) Habitat:

Potential Impact

Degradation of aquatic habitat may impact the existing habitat for amphibians as a result of clearing of the riparian vegetation and increase in water turbidity.

Mitigation

Limit clearing to footprints; avoid clearing and construction in known amphibian breeding areas until toadlets/juvenile amphibians have dispersed; maintain existing riparian vegetation where possible.


Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected. Loss/Degradation of Grizzly Bear Habitat:

Potential Impact

Loss/degradation of the existing grizzly bear habitat may impact their population in the area.

Mitigation

Limit riparian vegetation clearing to footprints; replant exposed disturbed areas with native vegetation (avoiding highly palatable forage species) and add coarse woody debris.

Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected. Noise Disturbance:

Potential Impact

Disturbance resulting in wildlife disruption and displacement during construction (machinery, excavation, blasting, helicopter). Loud construction noises may cause flight reactions in wildlife, and affect habitat use and behaviour.

Mitigation

To minimize impacts due to disturbance from construction related noises, the minimum necessary amount of explosives should be employed and protective mats should be used during blasting to reduce noise. When possible, loud construction related noises, such as blasting, should be avoided during the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31), particularly in areas where nesting is known to occur. Nests and roosts of priority bird species and active nests of all other bird species, found in close proximity to construction areas should be reported to the environmental monitor, and appropriate set back buffers for disturbance, using provincial Best Management Practices should be applied. When possible, construction activities within 50 m of the stream margin should be avoided between April 1 and July 31 to minimize impacts on Harlequin Ducks. Alternatively, a Harlequin Duck breeding season survey may be completed in the study area prior to construction to determine whether the species is nesting within or immediately adjacent to the construction areas. Confining blasting activities to the period between July 1 and October 31 will minimize impacts on goats using the adjacent draft Goat Winter Range areas for both


winter and natal range. Loud construction noises can commence as early as May 31 if a helicopter survey of any Goat Winter Range within 500 m of the construction area is completed prior to the onset of blasting, and nannies with kids are not observed using the area. To minimize disturbance to Peregrine Falcons, any active nest site should be reported to the environmental monitor and helicopter pilots should be instructed to avoid flying in the area. Pilots should not be permitted to fly within 500 m of any Goat Winter Range from October 31 to May 1 (Reynolds 2002), unless it is unsafe not to do so, and to avoid approaching any goats sighted at all times of the year.

Residual Impact

Once mitigation measures are adopted, the residual impact of various construction related activities in disturbing the wildlife inhabiting the area may be rated as negligible.

9.2.2 Construction of Transmission Line

Table 9.5 presents the impact matrix for VECs during construction of the transmission line proposed for the Project. The Project will interconnect to the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric project (under construction) transmission line therefore no major transmission line is proposed for the project. The interconnection proposed for the Project consists of a 2.3 km line from Upper Toba facility switchyard to East Toba switchyard. Dalgleish Creek facility and Jimmie Creek facility will be interconnected to the Upper Toba and East Toba lines by a “T” connection, respectively. The following is a description of various potential impacts summarized in Table 9.5.



Potential Impact

Removal of some riparian vegetation may become necessary at the stream crossings during construction of the transmission line. Riparian vegetation contributes to stream ecosystem integrity; thus its removal or alteration can adversely impact fish and fish habitat. Mitigation

Siting of laydown and staging areas away from riparian zones will minimize the amount of riparian vegetation removal. Where riparian vegetation removal is unavoidable it will be replaced to the extent possible.


Residual Impact

Some minor impacts are expected during construction. However, after implementation of mitigative measures the overall residual impact of construction of the transmission line corridor on riparian vegetation is rated as sub-local, short-term and reversible; therefore, it is rated as negligible.


Spread of Invasive Species:

Potential Impact

Disturbance to the area within the transmission line ROW (especially mineral soil exposure) may provide opportunities for establishment of invasive plant species. Weed seeds carried in mud on improperly cleaned maintenance vehicles may be dispersed throughout the area.

Mitigation


Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected. Raptors and Breeding Birds - Loss of Nesting Habitat:

Potential Impact

Clearing of forested habitat for the transmission line within the study area will not result in permanent loss of vegetation, but will result in the loss of habitat structure (i.e. large trees) important to some species of wildlife. Clearing of trees will result in decreased habitat suitability for some species of wildlife, and increased suitability for others. Maintenance of younger structural stages may improve foraging habitat suitability for grizzly bears, as herb and shrub structural stages tend to have more dense coverage of bear forage plants, and the increased sunlight will improve berry production.

Mitigation

Construction vehicles should remain within development footprints or on existing roads at all times to minimize unnecessary damage to vegetation. Any rare ecosystems or populations of rare plants close to construction areas should be flagged and fenced off with temporary fencing to ensure that they are not damaged.


Vegetation clearing should be limited to the footprints only, and wildlife trees should be retained when possible. Vegetation clearing should take place outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31) to prevent disturbance of bird nests, as per requirements under Section 34 of the BC Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. To minimize the impact of habitat loss for priority species, disturbed areas (i.e. staging areas) should be replanted as soon as possible with native species, and coarse woody debris from clearing activities should be redistributed on disturbed areas. Potential palatable plant species should not be planted in areas with adjacent frequent vehicular traffic as this may increase the likelihood of a collision. Temporary roads should be deactivated and replanted when no longer needed, and blocked with large pieces of woody debris. Topsoil should be salvaged from the footprints of permanent facilities, and distributed on areas to be reclaimed and re-vegetated. A noxious weed monitoring program, as part of the Wildlife and Vegetation Monitoring Plan should be established and any observations of invasive plant germination should be dealt with immediately by hand pulling. Snags could be created in some areas where mature forest has been cleared by topping some large diameter conifer trees (preferably Douglas fir) in suitable spots along the road. In addition, where live or dead large trees must be removed on footprint edges, consideration will be given to creating stubs by leaving 3-5 m tall stumps, as long as this can be done safely under current WCB regulations. When possible, existing vegetation along the road edges should be maintained to provide some security for wildlife, especially in areas where clearing may result in unobstructed views of open areas (i.e. wetlands). Removal of trees and clearing of vegetation should occur outside of the breeding bird season (April 1st to July 31st) to prevent disturbance of bird nests, as per requirements under Section 34 of the BC Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Residual Impact

Residual impacts on resident bird nesting habitat in the Project area is expected to be negligible. Raptors and Breeding Birds - Loss of Active Nests:

Potential Impact

Active bird nest destruction during vegetation clearing. If clearing is done in the nesting season, active nests of a variety of bird species may be destroyed.


Mitigation

Avoid clearing and tree removal during the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31) or complete a nest survey prior to clearing in the breeding bird season; conduct a raptor nest survey prior to clearing at any time of year.

Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected. Noise Disturbance:

Potential Impact

Disturbance may occur during construction (blasting, excavation, machinery and traffic noise). Loud noises may cause flight reactions, avoidance of habitat close to the disturbance and/or increased stress in wildlife.

Mitigation

To minimize impacts due to disturbance from construction related noises, the minimum necessary amount of explosives should be employed and protective mats should be used during blasting to reduce noise. When possible, loud construction related noises, such as blasting, should be avoided during the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31), particularly in areas where nesting is known to occur. Nests and roosts of priority bird species and active nests of all other bird species, found in close proximity to construction areas should be reported to the environmental monitor, and appropriate set back buffers for disturbance, using provincial Best Management Practices (BMPs), should be applied. When possible, construction activities within 50 m of the stream margin should be avoided between April 1 and July 31 to minimize impacts on Harlequin Ducks. Alternatively, a Harlequin Duck breeding season survey may be completed in the study area prior to construction to determine whether the species is nesting within or immediately adjacent to the construction areas. Confining blasting activities to the period between July 1 and October 31 will minimize impacts on goats using the adjacent draft Goat Winter Range areas for both winter and natal range. Loud construction noises can commence as early as May 31st if a helicopter survey of any Goat Winter Range within 500 m of the construction area is completed prior to the onset of blasting, and nannies with kids are not observed using the area.

Residual Impact

No residual impact on avian population is expected and a negligible residual impact is expected for the grizzly bear population.


9.2.3 Construction of Access Road

Table 9.6 presents the impact matrix for VECs during construction of access road proposed in the Project. The project will use the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project access road which extends to Jimmie Creek area. Access roads proposed for the project extend from Jimmie Creek towards Dalgleish Creek and Upper Toba River and are not expected to have major environmental impacts. On the other hand, the existing forestry roads will be rehabilitated to the extent possible in order to minimize any potential impacts due to construction of new access roads. During upgrades to existing roads, any existing or ongoing HADD will be identified and mitigated to eliminate any potential HADD resulting form the existing road on the aquatic environment. The following is a description of various potential impacts summarized in Table 9.6.


Water Quality:

Potential Impact

Soil disturbance associated with construction of road crossings (culverts and/or bridges) has the potential to increase erosion and sediment transport into adjacent watercourses. The introduction of fine sediment to any nearby potential fish habitat may impair water quality and negatively impact on fish, fish habitat and benthic invertebrates.

Mitigation

The Construction Environmental Management Plan will include requirements for erosion and sediment control during project construction. These measures are designed to minimize erosion and sediment transport as the result of construction of road crossings. These measures will be detailed in the Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan and Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan. Standards and Best Practices for Instream Works (MWLAP, 2004) will also be followed to avoid any potential impact on water quality. Instream work in fish bearing waters will be carried out during the specified work windows where practicable. Prior to commencement of any work near or in the stream, the worksite will be isolated. Residual Impact

Mitigative measures and monitoring will minimize the amount of construction induced sediment that enters adjacent watercourses. Therefore, negligible residual environmental impacts are expected to occur as the result of construction induced sediment introduction.



Potential Impact

Removal of some riparian vegetation may become necessary at the stream crossings during construction of the access road. Riparian vegetation contributes to stream ecosystem integrity; thus its removal or alteration can adversely impact fish and fish habitat.

Mitigation

Laydown and staging areas will be sited away from riparian zones to minimize the amount of riparian vegetation removal. Where riparian vegetation removal is unavoidable it will be replaced to the extent possible. Residual Impact

The overall residual impact of construction of the access road on riparian vegetation is rated as sub-local, short-term and reversible; therefore, it is rated as negligible. Turbidity and Sedimentation:

Potential Impact

Potential introduction of suspended sediments as a result of earthworks around the stream crossings during construction of the access roads may cause an increase in water turbidity and therefore impair feeding of visual feeder species and benthic organisms.

Mitigation

The Construction Environmental Management Plan will include requirements for erosion and sediment control during project construction. These measures are designed to minimize erosion and sediment transport as the result of construction activities. These measures will be detailed in the Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan and Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan. Residual Impact

The overall residual impact is rated as sub-local, transient and reversible; therefore, it is rated as negligible.


Terrestrial Habitat Loss/Degradation:


Potential Impact

Clearing and road construction may cause terrestrial habitat loss/degradation of habitat. Construction of permanent roads will result in permanent loss of vegetated habitat and plant communities.

Mitigation

Construction vehicles should remain within development footprints or on existing roads at all times to minimize unnecessary damage to vegetation. Any rare ecosystems or populations of rare plants close to construction areas should be flagged and fenced off with temporary fencing to ensure that they are not damaged. Vegetation clearing should be limited to the road footprint only, and wildlife trees should be retained when possible. Vegetation clearing should take place outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31) to prevent disturbance of bird nests, as per requirements under Section 34 of the BC Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. To minimize the impact of habitat loss for priority species, disturbed areas (i.e. staging areas) should be replanted as soon as possible with native species, and coarse woody debris from clearing activities should be redistributed on disturbed areas. Potentially palatable plant species should not be planted in areas with adjacent frequent vehicular traffic as this may increase the likelihood of a collision. Temporary roads should be deactivated and replanted when no longer needed, and blocked with large pieces of woody debris. Topsoil should be salvaged from the footprints of permanent facilities, and distributed on areas to be reclaimed and revegetated. A noxious weed monitoring program, as part of the Wildlife and Vegetation Monitoring Plan should be established and any observations of invasive plant germination should be dealt with immediately by hand pulling. Snags could be created in some areas where mature forest has been cleared by topping some large diameter conifer trees (preferably Douglas fir) in suitable spots along the road. In addition, where live or dead large trees must be removed on footprint edges, consideration will be given to creating stubs by leaving 3-5 m tall stumps, as long as this can be done safely under current WCB regulations. When possible, existing vegetation along the road edges should be maintained to provide some security for wildlife, especially in areas where clearing may result in unobstructed views of open areas (i.e. wetlands).

Residual Impact

Residual impacts are expected to be negligible.


Spread of Invasive Species:

Potential Impact

Disturbance to the area within the road ROW (especially mineral soil exposure) may provide opportunities for establishment of invasive plant species. Weed seeds carried in mud on improperly cleaned maintenance vehicles may be dispersed throughout the area.

Mitigation


Residual Impact


Raptors and Breeding Birds - Loss of Nesting Habitat:

Potential Impact

Clearing of forested habitat for the access road will result in the loss of habitat structure (i.e. large trees) important to some species. Clearing of trees will result in decreased habitat suitability for raptors and bird nesting.

Mitigation

Construction vehicles should remain within development footprints or on existing roads at all times to minimize unnecessary damage to vegetation.

Vegetation clearing should be limited to the footprints only, and wildlife trees should be retained when possible. Vegetation clearing should take place outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31) to prevent disturbance of bird nests, as per requirements under Section 34 of the BC Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. To minimize the impact of habitat loss for priority species disturbed areas (i.e. staging areas) should be replanted as soon as possible with native species and coarse woody debris from clearing activities should be redistributed on disturbed areas. Temporary roads should be deactivated and replanted when no longer needed, and blocked with large pieces of woody debris. Topsoil should be salvaged from the footprints of permanent facilities, and distributed on areas to be reclaimed and re-vegetated. A noxious weed monitoring program, as part of the Wildlife and


Vegetation Monitoring Plan should be established and any observations of invasive plant germination should be dealt with immediately by hand pulling. Snags could be created in some areas where mature forest has been cleared by topping some large diameter conifer trees (preferably Douglas fir) in suitable spots along the road. In addition, where live or dead large trees must be removed on footprint edges, consideration will be given to creating stubs by leaving 3-5 m tall stumps, as long as this can be done safely under current WCB regulations. When possible, existing vegetation along the road edges should be maintained to provide some security for wildlife, especially in areas where clearing may result in unobstructed views of open areas (i.e. wetlands).

Removal of trees and clearing of vegetation should occur outside of the breeding bird season (April 1st to July 31st) to prevent disturbance of bird nests, as per requirements under Section 34 of the BC Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Residual Impact

Residual impacts on resident bird habitat in the Project area are expected to be negligible. Raptors and Breeding Birds - Loss of Active Nests:

Potential Impact

Active bird nest destruction during vegetation clearing. If clearing is done in the nesting season, active nests of a variety of bird species may be destroyed.

Mitigation

Avoid clearing and tree removal during the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31) or complete a nest survey prior to clearing in the breeding bird season; conduct a raptor nest survey prior to clearing at any time of year

Residual Impact


Loss/Degradation of Terrestrial Habitat (Grizzly Bear):

Potential Impact

Loss/degradation of the existing grizzly bear habitat may impact their population in the area.


Mitigation

Limit riparian vegetation clearing to footprints; replant exposed disturbed areas with native vegetation (avoiding highly palatable forage species) and add coarse woody debris.

Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected. Loss/Degradation of Amphibian (aquatic) Habitat:

Potential Impact

Loss/degradation of the existing aquatic habitat for amphibians during the clearing of ROW for the access road.

Mitigation

Apply provincial Best Management Practices for works in and about streams to minimize the extent of sediment release.

Residual Impact


Noise Disturbance:

Potential Impact

Disturbance during construction (blasting, excavation, machinery and traffic noise). Loud noises may cause flight reactions, avoidance of habitat close to the disturbance and/or increased stress in wildlife.

Mitigation

Since The Project will utilize the main access road (under construction) for East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project, only short sections of new sections of rehabilitated forestry roads will be required for the Project. Necessary mechanisms have been proposed for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project through its Construction Environmental Management Plan to minimize any noise disturbance. Highlights of these mechanisms are explained below. To minimize impacts due to disturbance from construction related noises, the minimum necessary amount of explosives should be employed and protective mats should be used during blasting to reduce noise. When possible, loud construction related noises, such as blasting, should be avoided during the breeding bird season (April 1 to July 31), particularly in areas where nesting is known to occur. Nests and


roosts of priority bird species and active nests of all other bird species, found in close proximity to construction areas should be reported to the environmental monitor, and appropriate set back buffers for disturbance, using provincial Best Management Practices should be applied. When possible, construction activities within 50 m of the stream margin should be avoided between April 1 and July 31 to minimize impacts on Harlequin Ducks. Alternatively, a Harlequin Duck breeding season survey may be completed in the study area prior to construction to determine whether the species is nesting within or immediately adjacent to the construction areas. Confining blasting activities to the period between July 1 and October 31 will minimize impacts on goats using the adjacent draft Goat Winter Range areas for both winter and natal range. Loud construction noises can commence as early as May 31st if a helicopter survey of any Goat Winter Range within 500 m of the construction area is completed prior to the onset of blasting, and nannies with kids are not observed using the area.

Dense roadside vegetation should be maintained where possible to provide security cover, which may be an important requirement for grizzly bears to successfully cross low traffic roads and to provide security from road related disturbances (Gibeau and Stevens, 2005). The contractor should also be encouraged to use as few vehicles as possible, with multiple people per vehicle. The amount of expected disturbance due to road traffic will vary depending on the season and the amount of construction traffic. Residual Impact

No residual impact is expected once mitigation measures are in place.


9.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS: VECS - PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

9.3.1 Operation of Hydroelectric Facilities

Table 9.7 presents the impact matrix for VECs during operation and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities proposed in the Project. The following is a description of various potential impacts summarized in Table 9.7.


Hydraulic Regime (In stream Flow Reduction):

Potential Impact

Reduced instream flows in the diversion section can potentially decrease the amount of aquatic habitat available for fish and aquatic invertebrates through reductions in wetted area and alterations to stream depth and current velocities. Altered habitat may become less favourable than baseline conditions, and, in fish bearing reaches, negatively impact existing rearing, over wintering, or spawning habitat. Similarly, flow reductions may reduce invertebrate production, thereby adversely impacting available food sources.

Mitigation

Upper Toba River - Hatfield et al (2003) have developed methodology for identifying maximum diversion rates and annual minimum flow thresholds for fishless and fish bearing streams in British Columbia. Based on this methodology, the maximum diversion rate at the Upper Toba River intake location, defined as the 80th percentile of mean daily flows over the period of record, is 20.8 m3/s. The design flow for the project will equal the maximum diversion rate defined above as 20.8 m3/s, or approximately 194% of Mean Annual Discharge (MAD). The methodology defines the annual minimum flow threshold for fishless streams as the lowest value obtained by calculating the median of mean daily flows during each calendar month over the period of record. As a fishless stream for nearly the entire diversion reach, the corresponding value at the Upper Toba River is 1.01 m3/s. The year round Instream Flow Requirement (IFR) will therefore accommodate this provincial guideline recommendation, equal to the annual minimum flow threshold defined above as 1.01 m3/s, or approximately 9.5% of MAD. The IFR will be augmented through spill at the intake, during high flow periods when inflow to the weir exceeds the design flow. The facility will cease operations when inflow to the intake falls below the minimum turbine flow plus the IFR. Dalgleish Creek - Based on Hatfield et al (2003) methodology, the maximum diversion rate at Dalgleish Creek intake location, defined as the 80th percentile of


mean daily flows over the period of record, is 5.7 m3/s. The design flow for the project will equal the maximum diversion rate defined above as 5.7 m3/s, or approximately 193% of MAD. The methodology defines the annual minimum flow threshold for fishless streams as the lowest value obtained by calculating the median of mean daily flows during each calendar month over the period of record. As a fishless stream for nearly the entire diversion reach, the corresponding value at Dalgleish Creek is 0.18 m3/s. The year round IFR will therefore accommodate this provincial guideline recommendation, equal to the annual minimum flow threshold defined above as 0.18 m3/s, or approximately 6.2% of MAD. The IFR will be augmented through spill at the intake, during high flow periods when inflow to the weir exceeds the design flow. The facility will cease operations when inflow to the intake falls below the minimum turbine flow plus the IFR. Jimmie Creek - Based on Hatfield et al (2003) methodology, the maximum diversion rate at Jimmie Creek intake location, defined as the 80th percentile of mean daily flows over the period of record, is 16.4 m3/s. The design flow for the project will equal the maximum diversion rate defined above as 16.4 m3/s, or approximately 204% of MAD. The methodology defines the annual minimum flow threshold for fishless streams as the lowest value obtained by calculating the median of mean daily flows during each calendar month over the period of record. As a fishless stream for nearly the entire diversion reach, the corresponding value at Jimmie Creek is 0.64 m3/s. The year round IFR will therefore accommodate this provincial guideline recommendation, equal to the annual minimum flow threshold defined above as 0.64 m3/s, or approximately 7.9% of MAD. The IFR will be augmented through spill at the intake, during high flow periods when inflow to the weir exceeds the design flow. The facility will cease operations when inflow to the intake falls below the minimum turbine flow plus the IFR. Residual Impact

The non-fish bearing status and confined channel of the diversion section on each watercourse, along with adoption of IFR flow rates, will mitigate the potential impacts of instream flow reductions on fish and fish habitat. This residual impact has been rated local and minor but reversible. The overall residual impact of flow reduction has been rated as minor.


Water Temperature:

Potential Impact

Reduced flows in the main channel during project operations may alter the annual temperature regime of the creeks’ diversion section between the intake facility and powerhouse tailrace, through diversion of stream flows into the water conveyance system. Fish tolerance to temperature changes is species specific, but generally, large temperature fluctuations, or temperature below or in excess of tolerance levels, are detrimental to fish survival and production.

Mitigation

No mitigative measures are proposed for this potential impact as significant water temperature alterations are not anticipated due to the cold, glacial conditions of the project area. Stream temperature monitoring will be incorporated to the Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan. Residual Impact

Residual impacts are rated as sub-local, minor, short-term and reversible. The overall residual impact is considered negligible.

Flow Ramping:

Potential Impact

Effects of flow ramping will be minimized (to the extent feasible) by achieving gradual incremental changes in flow. Ramping occurs due to changes in the demand for flow passing through one or more hydraulic turbines, usually as a result of turbine start up or shut down, or in response to changes in electrical load (i.e. the demand from the electrical grid to which a hydroelectric project is connected). The magnitude of the ultimate change in flow due to ramping is dependent on the ramping rate and the lag time. Lag time is the time required for a “parcel” of water to travel from the intake to the powerhouse, either through the natural stream channel, or through the water conveyance system (pipe/tunnel). Mitigation

Effects of flow ramping will be minimized by ramping flows to the extent feasible to achieve incremental changes in flow. The proponent has completed a Ramping Rate Analysis and provided recommendations and a supporting rationale concerning ramping rates during operations. Ramping occurs due to changes in the demand for flow passing through one or more hydraulic turbines, usually as a result of turbine start-up or shut-down, or in response


to changes in electrical load (i.e. the demand from the electrical grid to which a hydroelectric project is connected). The magnitude of the ultimate change in flow due to ramping is dependent on the ramping rate and the lag time. Flow ramping is defined as a progressive change of discharge in a stream channel. Correspondingly, a ramping rate is defined as the rate of change of discharge, measured as flow per unit time (i.e. m3/s/s). Lag time is the time required for a parcel of water to travel from the intake to the powerhouse, either through the natural stream channel, or through the water conveyance system (pipe/tunnel). The primary types of turbine operations causing flow ramping are start-up, shutdown, or response to changes in electrical load. Start-up may either require filling of the water conveyance system, or not, if the system is already filled. Shutdown can either be planned (i.e. for schedule maintenance) or unplanned (in the case of equipment malfunction). Response to load changes involves either increasing or decreasing the amount of flow through the turbine(s). Flow ramping has the potential to initiate rapid flow increases and decreases downstream of the intake facility and/or powerhouse tailrace. Rapid flow increases may affect channel processes, cause scouring of the streambed, and accelerate erosion of stream banks. Rapid flow decreases may potentially result in fish stranding along channel margins and/or in off-channel habitats. Ramping rates will be developed in consideration of the DFO ramping rate guidelines and the relationship between natural ramping rates, travel time, downstream channel morphology, and downstream seasonal fish usage. The potential impact from ramping is dependent on the rate of change relative to the amount of flow in the stream prior to initiation of the ramping sequence. Potential impacts will be mitigated in the design. The following provides a ramping rate protocol for the proposed Project. Rate of change of stage (or flow) is site specific and depends on the instream flow before the change is initiated, since the stage versus flow relationship is non-linear. Proposed ramping rates were determined in consideration of natural ramping rates for each of the Project streams (hourly stage data was used to calculate natural ramping rates and to design site specific ramping rate schedules.). Proposed ramping rates are designed to prevent stranding and/or disorienting fish, and to prevent dewatering of eggs during winter incubation.

During the detailed design of the Project, when turbine design is finalized, further ramping rate analysis will be conducted. Ramping rates are proposed to ensure that Project induced ramping rates will not cause any severe sudden changes in the availability of downstream aquatic habitat.


Operating Contingencies - The Project is designed to generate electricity continuously as long as there is water available for power generation and the BC Hydro grid will accept power. Offline periods are defined as times when the project is not generating electricity but is diverting flow through the penstock. Non-operating periods are defined as times when there is no diverted flow through the penstock. The turbine will cease the production of electricity under four scenarios:

• scheduled outage to facilitate maintenance of the facility; • when there is insufficient inflow to the intake to both operate the project and

maintain the seasonal IFR; • the project may go offline or enter a non-operating period when there is an

unplanned outage resulting from mechanical difficulties in the plant or problems with the transmission and interconnection system; and

• emergency shutdown resulting from extreme events such as a fire in the powerhouse.

Scheduled maintenance will be planned during periods of low flow in the stream when the potential for lost energy production would be minimized. Insufficient flow would result in a non-operating condition when all the inflow to the intake is allocated to the seasonal IFR. Unplanned outages can be divided into two causes. The first can be attributed to technical problems in the facility that will result in plant shutdown until the problem is resolved. The second cause would be attributed to a loss of transmission services; typically as a result of damage to a transmission line or a network-wide failure. In either case, an emergency shutdown is initiated. Under these scenarios the Turbine Inlet Valve would be closed as quickly as possible to facilitate immediate shutdown. The Project will be designed to minimize the potential for any failure that would necessitate an emergency shutdown procedure, and therefore, the likelihood of such an occurrence is negligible. In general, project start-ups and shutdowns and their resulting impacts on ramping rates will be infrequent events.

Causes of Flow Ramping - Flow ramping for the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project is required to minimize the rate of change of flows below the intake and the powerhouse, at times when diverted flow is introduced to the penstock during project start-ups or when penstock flow is reduced to zero during project shutdowns. During planned start up or shutdown events, the flow can be incrementally increased or reduced to the required state with the use of the needle valves in the Pelton turbine nozzles. The result is a gradual increase or decrease of flow hitting the turbine runner which results in a gradual increase or decrease in the energy produced by the plant. Both these processes can occur over relatively long time frames since the energy of the water exiting the penstock is absorbed by the turbine and generator, allowing a gradual change in flow below the intake and powerhouse.


During an unplanned outage, power production in the powerhouse must cease immediately. Unplanned outages could be caused by mechanical failure of the plant or an electrical fault, both of which would require power production in the powerhouse to cease. A mechanical failure would require production to cease in order to prevent any further damage to the plant. During a load rejection caused by electrical fault, production should be ceased instantly. Therefore, it is not possible to gradually reduce flow to the runner by using the needle valves and the flow would instead be diverted from the runner by the use of deflector shields in front of the jets. Then the needle valves would be slowly closed as would normally happen in a planned outage. When the deflectors are fully deployed, all of the energy in the water would be absorbed by the deflectors and surrounding turbine housing rather than being converted to electricity. For this reason there are limits to the time period the deflectors can be maintained in this position, since the amount of power being absorbed by the deflectors and surrounding turbine results in significant wear and tear on the machinery and should be avoided where possible.

During plant start up, the following sequence is anticipated:

• a gradual increase of diverted flow to the penstock, resulting in decreased flow below the intake; and

• a short term increase in flow below the powerhouse, followed by a short term decrease.

During plant shutdown, the following sequence is anticipated:

• A gradual reduction of flow through the turbine, resulting in increased flow below the intake; and

• A potential temporary decrease in flow below the powerhouse. DFO Guide to Ramping Rates - The following ramping rate guideline, provided by DFO, is suggested for start up and shut down of flow diversions into the penstock. This generic guideline was determined partially based on studies in Washington State, USA. The guideline provides some good direction, such as tailoring ramping rates to the life cycles of fish. However, because rates of change of flow and stage are highly site specific, the generic guidelines suggested by DFO are limited in their applicability to the Upper Toba Valley hydropower developments.

For the period of April 1 to July 31 (Fry emergence period) the DFO recommended ramping rate (water surface drawdown) for day time is 0 to 2.5 cm/hr and 2.5-5 cm/hr for night time. For the period of July 31 to October 31 (rearing period until the temperature falls below 5 ○C) the DFO recommended ramping rate for day time is 0 to 2.5 cm/hr and 5-10 cm/hr for night time.


For the period of November 1 to April 1(overwintering and egg incubation period) the DFO recommended ramping rate is zero for day time and less than 5 cm/hr for night time. The fry emergence period is extended to include steelhead. Field studies suggest that small steelhead can be stranded both during the day and night. The rates could even be slower during the rearing period to accommodate small steelhead and trout fry. During winter, ramping during the day must be avoided. Night ramping rates should be slow. The beginning of this interval should be when the water temperature falls below 5oC.

Natural Ramping Rates for Upper Toba, Dalgleish, and Jimmie Creeks - Natural ramping rates were determined for Upper Toba, Dalgleish, and Jimmie Creeks (Table 9.8) based on 2007 stream gauge measurements. Ramping rates were measured in flow (m3/s/s), to be consistent with operational procedures. Ramping rates for stage (cm/hr) were also calculated for comparison with DFO guidelines (although flow is a better measure of ramping rates). Ramping rates were determined seasonally to reflect salmonid life history, as suggested by the DFO guidelines. The seasons adopted in this ramping rate analysis are: April 1 to July 31 (fry emergence), August 1 to October 31 (rearing), and November 1 to April 1 (over wintering and egg incubation). Maximum and average ramping rates were calculated for “up” ramping and “down” ramping. Hourly analysis of natural ramping rates account for diurnal variability. Recommendations - Preliminary analysis suggests that:

• For scheduled facility shutdown or start-up, ramping rates should be within 20% of the average seasonal natural ramping rates (Table 9.9). The ramping rate protocol proposed for scheduled facility shut-down and start-up is generally more conservative than the guidelines suggested by DFO, ensuring the fisheries resources in these creeks are protected; and

• For emergency facility shutdowns, the maximum natural ramping rate is not

to be exceeded (Table 9.9). In the event of an emergency facility shut-down, the ramping rate suggested for Jimmie and Dalgleish Creeks is generally within DFO’s suggested guidelines during the summer, but exceeds the guideline through the fall and winter. The ramping rate protocol suggested for Upper Toba Creek exceeds DFO’s suggested guidelines in each season. The maximum natural upramp observed in these seasons is greater than DFO’s approach. However, in light of the observed natural variability, these systems appear to be capable of withstanding to these changes in flow rate.

To confirm these conclusions, further ramping rate analysis should be conducted following final design of the power generation facilities, with additional years of flow data from each creek. An environmental monitor will be recommended to be on-site during scheduled shutdowns for the first five years to monitor ramping rates.


Furthermore, consideration will be given to potential impacts and mitigation where numerous adjacent hydroelectric facilities may be required to shut down simultaneously in response to a power line failure. Residual Impact

Proposed ramping rates will minimize the duration and magnitude of the rate of change in flows during the transition between operating and non-operating periods (incremental flow changes). Any potential residual impacts are rated as sub-local, minor and transient, therefore the overall residual impact of flow ramping has been rated as negligible. Available Fish Habitat:

Potential Impact

As a result of water diversion, the amount of available fish habitat in the diversion reach may be reduced. However, impassable barriers are located at the mouths of the creeks in the proposed Project sites, resulting in only a small section of the creeks being fish bearing.

Mitigation

Appendix E includes details of fish habitat and instream flow analysis for all three project sites. Instream flow rates will be carefully calculated to avoid any potential reduction in available aquatic habitat. A life cycle limiting factor analysis has been conducted to ensure that project will not impose any further limitation in the productive capacity of fish populations in the area. Residual Impact

Residual impacts are rated as sub-local, minor, long-term and reversible. The overall residual impact is considered minor. Ice Formation:

Potential Impact

Rates of frazil ice formation can potentially increase in stream reaches affected by flow diversions. If anchor ice forms, sudden flow increases could cause it to dislodge and be transported downstream, potentially causing streambed scouring, and this could impair water quality and negatively impact substrates used by fish and benthic invertebrates.


Mitigation

The potential for ice transport is minimized naturally by winter low flow conditions, so any incremental increases in frazil ice formation in the diversion section are unlikely to result in increased ice transport. The formation of frazil ice during cold conditions occurs as a natural condition in the project area. During extreme low flow events, when ice formation is exacerbated under natural conditions, the facilities will cease operations. Residual Impact

Negligible residual effects from facility induced ice formation are anticipated. Substrate and LWD Recruitment:

Potential Impact

Substrate and Large Woody Debris (LWD) transportation is initiated at a threshold discharge during high water conditions such as spring freshets or large storm flows. Flow reductions in the diversion section and the works associated with the intake weir have the potential to affect substrate and LWD recruitment to downstream areas. Substrate maintenance and LWD presence are important attributes of structural habitat for fish. Mitigation

Intake structures are located above the tree line; therefore no LWD is expected to be introduced to the creeks above the intakes. In addition, Coanda screen will be used in the intake design, which introduces minimum resistance to the transport and recruitment of LWD downstream. Residual Impact

Redistribution of substrate and LWD in downstream reaches are expected to continue to occur independently of Project operations. This prediction is based on the assumption that peak flow periods are the primary determinant in the redistribution of bed load in streams. Negligible residual impact is expected. Benthic Invertebrate Production:

Potential Impact

Headpond flushing may have a significant localized effect on the aquatic biota that occur immediately downstream of the intake. Within the headpond, heavy sedimentation is likely to occur on the stream substrate, making the conditions unsuitable for some benthic invertebrate species.


Mitigation

The potential effects to benthic invertebrates will be primarily mitigated by incorporation of the IFR to facilities’ intake. The designated IFR will be set using standardized provincial methodology design to incorporate the maintenance of benthic productivity. A monitoring program will be designed to ensure that benthic invertebrate production is not impacted by the Project. Residual Impact

Any potential reduction in benthic productivity will be mitigated by adopting IFR flow rates to the diversion section. Potential impact of the Project operation and maintenance on the production of benthic drift that are considered a food source for fish populations downstream has been rated as sub-local, minor and reversible. The overall residual impact has been rated as negligible.


9.3.2 Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat

Habitat Alteration Due to Changes to Stream Flow:

Potential Impact

Reduction of instream flow may affect tailed frogs, Harlequin Ducks and lichen communities in the waterfall spray zones.

Mitigation

IFRs will be carefully calculated to ensure that the available habitat will not be impacted. Minimum instream flow requirements will be maintained and potential effects of any change on spray zone on rare lichens will be monitored. Residual Impact

Moderate residual impacts on rare lichens are only expected at Jimmie Creek proposed powerhouse location.

9.3.3 Operation of Interconnecting Transmission Line


Vegetation Management:

Potential Impact

Vegetation management on the transmission line corridor has the potential to affect water quality through the reduction of canopy closure at the stream crossings, which can impact water temperature, or reduce available cover. Mitigation

Clearing of riparian vegetation will be avoided. All vegetation below two meters in height will be maintained along the transmission corridor. Residual Impact

Residual impacts from vegetation management are rated as sub-local, minor, short-term and reversible. The overall residual impact is considered negligible. Water Quality:

Potential Impact

Toxic chemicals used as herbicides in vegetation management on the transmission ROW may enter the adjacent watercourses and cause degradation of water quality


Mitigation

No herbicides will be used in maintaining the transmission line. All vegetation management will be completed manually or mechanically. Residual Impact

No residual impact is anticipated. 9.3.3.2 Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat

Terrestrial Wildlife - Loss/Degradation of Habitat Due to Pruning:

Potential Impact

Habitat loss may occur as a result of routine pruning of vegetation in the transmission line ROW. Additionally, presence of workers, vehicles and helicopters may disturb and displace wildlife, especially during the bird breeding season.

Mitigation

Pruning along the transmission line corridor will be done outside of the breeding bird season (April 1st through July 31st) where possible; if clearing is required during the bird breeding season, then nest surveys will be conducted to ensure active nests will not be removed; the Proponent will not use pesticides, herbicides or defoliants, and will clear the transmission right of way manually or mechanically. To minimize disturbance to Peregrine Falcons, any active nest site should be reported to the environmental monitor and helicopter pilots should be instructed to avoid flying in the area. Pilots should not be permitted to fly within 500 m of any Goat Winter Range from October 31 to May 1 (Reynolds 2002), unless it is unsafe not to do so, and to avoid approaching any goats sighted at all times of the year. Pruning along the transmission line corridor will be done outside of the breeding bird season (April 1st through July 31st) where possible; if clearing is required during the bird breeding season then nest surveys will be conducted to ensure active nests will not be removed; the Proponent will not use pesticides, herbicides or defoliants, and will clear the transmission right of way manually or mechanically. Residual Impact

No residual impacts are expected. Marbled Murrelet - Transmission Line Collisions:

Potential Impact

Marbled Murrelet collisions with transmission lines may result in injuries and mortality.


Mitigation

The project will be connected to the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project’s transmission line to benefit from an already existing transmission line and avoid any additional environmental impacts. A Draft Marbled Murrelet Monitoring Plan has been developed for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project to identify potential areas where collisions could occur (KWR, 2008). This monitoring plan has been extended to include the new transmission line for the Upper Toba Valley Project. The monitoring program will use studies now in progress, including radar and audio-visual surveys to identify high Murrelet activity areas along the proposed transmission line. Mitigation measure will be implemented in high risk areas to reduce the risk of collisions and post-construction monitoring will occur for 5 years to validate the effectiveness of the measures. Potential mitigation measures include the installation of visual markers on the transmission line in high risk areas; maintenance of dense forest on either side of the transmission line to provide a ‘natural shield’; and removal of potential nesting trees from the edge of the transmission line to discourage use.

Residual Impact

Ongoing radar monitoring of Marbled Murrelets in the Toba Valley indicates that the upper portion of the valley is used less than other areas. This updated information, coupled with the limited geographic extent of the Project’s transmission infrastructure, has led to the determination of the nature and significance of potential impacts on marbled murrelet (potential mortality from the transmission line collision) as negligible. This includes for consideration of effective mitigation including visual markers to be installed on transmission lines to prevent avian collisions. .

9.3.4 Operation of Access Road


Sedimentation:

Potential Impact

Sediments may enter aquatic environment as a result of routine road maintenance (culvert maintenance, grading, repair, etc.). Introduction of sediments to the aquatic environment will cause degradation of water and habitat quality for the aquatic fauna.

Mitigation


To minimize siltation release within creeks and rivers in the study area, provincial Best Management Practices (BMPs) for instream works should be followed during construction to minimize the extent of sediment release. Existing riparian vegetation should be maintained wherever possible. These measures will help to ensure that stream habitat integrity is maintained during construction. Residual Impact

No residual impact is expected.


Vehicular Mortality:

Potential Impact

Wildlife may collide with maintenance vehicles, which could potentially result in injury or mortality.

Mitigation

The contractor will be encouraged to use as few vehicles as necessary, with multiple people per vehicle. Road kill and other possible attractants should be removed from the roads and food scraps should be collected for proper disposal. A logbook should be kept to record locations of wildlife so the Environmental Monitor can note any areas of high use, especially frequently used wildlife crossings. Construction crews should adhere to a safe speed limit in order to reduce the risk of wildlife mortality, and travel in groups of vehicles whenever possible.

Residual Impact

No residual impact is expected. Hunting Mortality:

Potential Impact

Road maintenance crews may encounter bears during maintenance activities, and defence of life bear mortalities are possible. The presence of maintained roads offers access to hunters and poachers, as well as recreational users. Deliberate shooting of bears as well as defence of life bear mortalities may result.

Mitigation

The contractor will be encouraged to use as few vehicles as necessary, with multiple people per vehicle. Road kill and other possible attractants should be removed from the roads and food scraps should be collected for proper disposal and palatable species should not be planted adjacent to active roadways. A logbook should be kept to record locations of wildlife so the Environmental Monitor can note any areas


of high use, especially frequently used wildlife crossings. Construction crews should adhere to a safe speed limit in order to reduce the risk of wildlife mortality, and travel in groups of vehicles whenever possible. The main access route to the Project site is through the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project access road. As a condition of operation of this road, motorized vehicle use of the road in the Toba River valley will be restricted to minimize public access impacts on wildlife, as outlined in the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project Access and Safety Management Plan. This will be achieved by: installing and maintaining gates at strategic locations (e.g. bridges); gate users will keep gates closed at times of reduced construction traffic and work, such as during extended periods of non-working days/nights throughout the life of the Project; and gate use will be monitored and reported during operations. Access control measures adopted for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project will also be effective in controlling access to the Project as well. Residual Impact

Residual impacts are rated as negligible.


9.4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS: VSCS - PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

9.4.1 Construction of Hydroelectric Facilities

Table 9.10 presents the impact matrix for VSCs during the construction of hydroelectric facilities.

9.4.1.1 Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cultural and heritage resources refer to physical artefacts and archaeological material, as well as locations that have traditional or spiritual significance to a First Nation, any other stakeholder or group. Archaeological Sites:

Potential Impact

Various activities during Project construction, including excavation, grading, or blasting activities have the potential to alter or destroy cultural or heritage resources if there are such resources at the work site.

Mitigation

The proponent has conducted a transparent development process, involving detailed discussions with First Nations, public groups, and local and provincial government. This program of consultation and transparency will continue as the Project advances, in order to be able to respond to any newly identified issues. The Project will avoid disturbances where cultural or heritage resources have been or become identified. If, after all other options have been exhausted, impacts cannot be avoided through alteration of Project design; studies will be conducted in consultation with First Nation or other stakeholders to produce mitigation plans directed at retrieving the resource values prior to any impact. An archaeological impact assessment has been conducted in consultation with Klahoose First Nation in order to catalogue all existing resources that require a Project response.

Residual Impact

No residual impact is expected. With appropriate consultation and study, the Project will be able to avoid impacts to cultural and heritage resources.


9.4.1.2 First Nations Communities and Land Use

Employment Rate:

Potential Impact

During the construction phase of the Project, local First Nations will be provided with training and employment opportunities, creating a positive economic impact to their communities. Mitigation

No mitigation is required.

Residual Impact

No residual impact is expected. Land Use:

Potential Impact

As a result of various construction activities in the Project area, traditional land use may be temporarily impacted.

Mitigation

Alternative arrangements will be made through ongoing consultation with local First Nations in order to mitigate any interruption to the traditional land use during the construction of various Project facilities and components.

Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected 9.4.1.3 Commercial Land and Resource Use

Timber Harvest:

Potential Impact

The Toba watershed was historically logged, however no forest harvesting is currently being conducted. No logging has occurred in the valley since the late 1980s. The road network and some camp infrastructure dating from the previous forestry operations has not been deactivated or maintained. There is the possibility of removal of merchantable timber during the construction of the hydropower facilities (intake structure, penstock, powerhouse and tailrace), new


access roads and transmission line. Removal of merchantable timber is not expected to exceed more than 5% of the existing Annual Allowable Cut. Mitigation

This potential issue will be addressed through ongoing consultation with Klahoose First Nation, the TFL holder and the Province. It is noted that the majority of the access to the project is provided by the Toba Valley road under construction as part of the East Toba River Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project and shared use is provided for under the terms of the Provincially approved “Access and Safety Management Plan”. Residual Impact

No residual impact is expected. 9.4.1.4 Public Health

Public Health as used in this impact assessment refers to the well being of workers associated with the construction of the Project, as well as the general public. Impacts to public health could occur as a result of construction accidents, natural disasters (where workers were placed in hazardous areas), or contamination of drinking water sources. Impacts to the public may occur as accidents that befall them if they enter construction zones. Accidents:

Potential Impact

Accidents may occur during the construction period that might potentially endanger the well-being of the workers on site.

Mitigation

By following WorkSafeBC regulations and procedures in addition to WCB regulations, potential accidents may be avoided. Powerhouses and switchyards will have security fencing around their perimeters. These security measures are intended to prevent accidental harm to trespassers. First aid attendants will be available at all work sites, and emergency evacuation vehicles (trucks or helicopters) will be stationed within close proximity to construction sites.

Residual Impact



Natural Disasters:

Potential Impact

Working in naturally high risk areas such as avalanche prone work sites might expose workers to elevated levels of risk.

Mitigation

By following the WorkSafeBC regulations and procedures in addition to WCB regulations, potential accidents may be avoided. First aid attendants will be available at all work sites, and emergency evacuation vehicles (trucks or helicopters) will be stationed within close proximity.

Residual Impact

No residual impact is expected. Contamination of Drinking Water:

Potential Impact

Contamination of drinking water sources at the construction camp might affect the health of the camp residents.

Mitigation

Sanitation and control of hazardous material, garbage, and sewage will ensure that no environmental contamination occurs in the vicinity of construction camps, thereby preventing the contamination of community water sources. Operation of the camp, used to support Project construction will adhere to the Health Act and Waste Management Act.

No part of the Project is situated within a Community Watershed, so there will be no impacts to drinking water supply for the general public. Residual Impact

No residual impact is expected. Public Exposure:

Potential Impact

The public might be exposed to unsafe conditions at the construction site.

Mitigation

Construction site is located in a remote area, however, areas of potential danger to the public will be fenced, and appropriate signage will be posted to warn of dangers.


Residual Impact


9.4.1.5 Recreational Land Use

Recreational Use:

Potential Impact

Access to the construction site will be limited; therefore, potential recreational use of the area will not be possible.

Mitigation

No mitigation measure is available.

Residual Impact

Residual impacts are negligible

9.4.2 Construction of Access Road

Table 9.11 presents the impact matrix for VSCs during the construction of access roads.


Archaeological Sites:

Potential Impact


Mitigation

The proponent has conducted a transparent development process, involving detailed discussions with First Nations, public groups, and local and provincial government. This program of consultation and transparency will continue as the Project advances, in order to be able to respond to any newly identified issues. The Project will avoid disturbances where cultural or heritage resources have been or become identified. If, after all other options have been exhausted, impacts cannot be avoided through alteration of Project design; studies will be conducted in consultation with First Nation or other stakeholders to produce mitigation plans directed at retrieving the resource values prior to any impact.


Residual Impact



Employment Rate:

Potential Impact

During the construction phase of the Project, local First Nation will be provided with training and employment opportunities, creating a positive economic impact to their communities. Increased employment opportunities are considered a positive impact. Mitigation


Residual Impact

A positive residual impact is expected. Land Use:

Potential Impact

As a result of various construction activities in the Project area, traditional land use may be temporarily impacted..

Mitigation

Alternative arrangements will be made through ongoing consultation with local First Nation in order to mitigate any interruption to the traditional land use during the construction of various Project facilities and components.

Residual Impact

Residual impacts are expected to be negligible. 9.4.2.3 Commercial Land and Resource Use

Timber Harvest:

Potential Impact

The Toba watershed was historically logged, however no forest harvesting is currently being conducted. No logging has occurred in the valley since the late 1980s. The road network dating from the previous forestry operations has not been deactivated or maintained.


There is the possibility of removal of merchantable timber during the construction of the hydropower facilities (intake structure, penstock, powerhouse and tailrace), new access roads and transmission line. Removal of merchantable timber is not expected to exceed more than 5% of the existing Annual Allowable Cut for the Tree Farm License.

Mitigation

This potential issue will be addressed through ongoing consultation with Klahoose First Nation, the TFL holder and the Province. It is noted that the majority of the access to the project is provided by the Toba Valley road under construction as part of the East Toba River Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project and shared use is provided for under the terms of the Provincially approved “Access and Safety Management Plan”.

Residual Impact


Road Use Conflict:

Potential Impact

Road use conflict may arise during the construction and rehabilitation of the access road.

Mitigation

This potential issue will be addressed through ongoing consultation with Klahoose First Nation, the TFL holder and the Province. It is noted that the majority of the access to the project is provided by the Toba Valley road under construction as part of the East Toba River Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project and shared use is provided for under the terms of the provincially approved “Access and Safety Management Plan”.

Residual Impact

Residual impacts are expected to be negligible. 9.4.2.4 Public Health

Accidents:

Potential Impact



Mitigation

By following the WorkSafeBC regulations and procedures in addition to WCB regulations, potential accidents will be avoided. Powerhouses and switchyards will have security fencing around their perimeters. These security measures are intended to prevent accidental harm to trespassers. First aid attendants will be available at all work sites, and emergency evacuation vehicles (trucks or helicopters) will be stationed within close proximity of construction activities.

Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected. Natural Disasters:

Potential Impact

Working in naturally high risk areas such as avalanche prone work sites might expose the workers to elevated risks.

Mitigation

By following the WorkSafeBC regulations and procedures in addition to WCB regulations, potential accidents will be avoided. First aid attendants will be available at all work sites, and emergency evacuation vehicles (trucks or helicopters) will be stationed within close proximity.

Residual Impact


Potential Impact

Contamination of drinking water sources at the construction camp might impact the health of the camp residents.

Mitigation

Sanitation and control of hazardous material, garbage, and sewage will ensure that no environmental contamination occurs in the vicinity of construction camps, thereby preventing the contamination of community water sources. Operation of the camp used to support Project construction will adhere to the Health Act and Waste Management Act.


No part of the Project is situated within a Community Watershed, so there will be no impacts to drinking water supply for the general public.

Residual Impact


Potential Impact


Mitigation


Residual Impact


9.4.2.5 Recreational Land Use

Recreational Use:

Residual Impact

Access to the construction site will be limited. Therefore, any potential recreational use of the area will not be possible.

Mitigation

No mitigation measure is available.

Potential Impact

Residual impacts are expected to be negligible


9.4.3 Construction of Interconnecting Transmission Line

Table 9.12 presents the impact matrix for VSCs during construction of the transmission line.


Archaeological Sites:

Potential Impact


Mitigation

The proponent has conducted a transparent development process, involving detailed discussions with the First Nation, public groups, and local and provincial government. This program of consultation and transparency will continue as the Project advances, in order to be able to respond to any newly identified issues. The Project will avoid disturbances where cultural or heritage resources have been or become identified. If, after all other options have been exhausted, impacts cannot be avoided through alteration of Project design; studies will be conducted in consultation with the First Nation or other stakeholders to produce mitigation plans directed at retrieving the resource values prior to any impact. Residual Impact



Employment Rate:

Potential Impact

During the construction phase of the Project, local First Nations will be provided with training and employment opportunities, creating a positive economic impact to their communities. Increased employment opportunities are considered a positive impact. Mitigation


Residual Impact

A positive residual impact is expected.


9.4.3.3 Public Health

Accidents:

Potential Impact


Mitigation

By following the WorkSafeBC regulations and procedures in addition to WCB regulations, potential accidents will be avoided. Powerhouse and switchyards will have security fencing around its perimeters. These security measures are intended to prevent accidental harm to trespassers. First aid attendants will be available at all work sites, and emergency evacuation vehicles (trucks or helicopters) will be stationed within close proximity.

Residual Impact

No residual impact is expected. Natural Disasters:

Potential Impact

Working in naturally high risk areas such as avalanche prone work sites might expose the workers to elevated risk levels.

Mitigation

By following the WorkSafeBC regulations and procedures in addition to WCB regulations, potential accidents will be avoided. First aid attendants will be available at all work sites, and emergency evacuation vehicles (trucks or helicopters) will be stationed within close proximity.

Residual Impact


Potential Impact

Contamination of drinking water sources at the construction camp might affect the health of the camp residents.


Mitigation

Sanitation and control of hazardous material, garbage, and sewage will ensure that no environmental contamination occurs in the vicinity of construction camps, thereby preventing the contamination of community water sources. Operation of the camp used to support the Project construction will adhere to the Health Act and Waste Management Act. No part of the Project is situated within a Community Watershed, so there will be no impacts to drinking water supply for the general public. Residual Impact


Potential Impact


Mitigation


Residual Impact



9.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL IMPACTS: VSCS - PROJECT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Potential impacts of the operation of the project and its components on VSCs are listed in Table 9.13. The following is a brief description of those potential impacts. 9.5.1 First Nation Communities and Land Use

Employment Rate:

Potential Impact

During the operation of the project facilities, casual employment opportunities will be available for the Klahoose First Nation. This is considered to be a positive impact.

Mitigation


Residual Impact

A positive residual impact is expected. Access Enhancement:

Potential Impact

Enhancement of access to the area may interfere with the traditional land use by the Klahoose First Nation and interfere with the pristine nature of their land.

Mitigation

Any potentially adverse impact identified by the First Nation will be addressed through ongoing consultation with the local band.

Residual Impact

Residual impacts are rated as low. 9.5.2 Commercial Land and Resource Use

Guide Outfitters:

Potential Impact

Access to the area may be enhanced in accessible sections of the valley (non-gated areas). This can be a potentially positive impact for the local guide outfitter.


Mitigation

This potential issue will be addressed through ongoing consultation with the Guide Outfitter and the Province. The majority of the access to the project is provided by the Toba Valley road under construction as part of the East Toba River Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project and shared use is provided for under the terms of the Provincially approved “Access and Safety Management Plan”.

Residual Impact

No residual impact is anticipated.

Timber Harvest: Potential Impact

Merchantable timber harvest will not be possible in the project foot print area for the life of the project. Mitigation

This issue will be addressed through ongoing consultation with the TFL holder, the Klahoose First Nation, and the Province. The footprint of the project area will be kept to a minimum to avoid any loss of merchantable timber harvest potential. Residual Impact

Negligible residual impacts are expected. 9.5.3 Public Health

Public Exposure:

Potential Impact

During operation, the public may be exposed to danger by accidentally approaching the powerhouse, switchyard, or other Project facilities.

Mitigation

Project facilities are located in remote areas. However, areas of potential danger to the public will be fenced and appropriate signage will be posted to warn of dangers

Residual Impact



9.6 CONCEPTUAL FISHERIES COMPENSATION PLAN

A fisheries compensation plan has been proposed to offset any potential direct or indirect habitat loss resulting from construction and operation of the Project. Considering site specific compensation options are not practical on each HADD site, the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project fisheries compensation options are recommended as “like for like” habitat replacement option. Furthermore, site specific works at individual HADD locations, such as pool excavations, are typically considered restorative in nature and are not recognized as compensatory. In this section, two compensation options have been provided. Final selection of the preferred compensation option will be based on various factors and parameters such as field work, ground truthing, water quality requirements, and negotiations with the regulatory agencies and other stakeholders, etc. Development of an Upper Toba River compensation channel is proposed as the primary candidate to develop a fish and fish habitat compensation option, as it occurs within the Project effects area and meets DFO’s hierarchy of preferences through the replacement of “like for like” habitat (i.e., the productive capacity of the compensation habitat is similar to, or greater than, that of removed or altered habitat). The conceptual compensation designs (Option 1 and Option 2) are illustrated in Figure 9.2 and Figure 9.3, respectively. From the compensation channel overview, a general arrangement design will be generated for the construction of the compensation channel. Then, the general arrangement will be further broken down into the detailed design of the compensation feature, including a longitudinal channel profile. The Upper Toba River compensation channel is located on the north valley floodplain, immediately upstream of the Upper Toba River and Dalgleish Creek confluence. The Upper Toba River option would create groundwater-fed, perennial off channel rearing, spawning, and overwintering habitat adjacent to The Upper Toba River for anadromous coho salmon as well as resident Dolly Varden and coastal cutthroat trout populations. The Upper Toba River compensation site is generally situated on a fluvial deposit floodplain exhibiting several remnant channels. However, intermittent flows, lack of spawning reaches, and the absence of deep pool overwintering habitat limit the productive capacity of this area. 9.6.1 Compensation Option 1

The proposed compensation works for Option 1 would include approximately 1.03 km of off channel habitat, encompassing the floodplain of the Toba River and Upper Toba River confluence. The groundwater channel will also be complexed to maximize the productive capacity for this new habitat including the following major features:

• Two groundwater habitat channels and associated complexing works; • Extensive off channel pool installations with refuge root wads and boulders;


• Stream riffle/run sections partially lined with spawning gravel; • Lining the stream channel with deflection logs and rock weirs; • Riparian replanting with indigenous trees, shrubs and grasses; and • An access road from the powerhouse road.

The habitat channel would have an average channel width of 4 m and a gradient between approximately 2% and 4%. Spawning gravels will be situated in gradients of 3% to ensure adequate water velocities to remove metabolic waste and supply dissolved oxygen (DO) to developing embryos. The compensation works are designed to provide 4,100 m2 of instream habitat, 1,175 m2 of overwintering deep pool complexes, 380 m2 of spawning gravel, and 4,320 m2 of riparian habitat. The instream works would also include undercut banks (natural), riprap armouring, deflection logs for backwater areas and velocity refuge, and rock weirs for DO infusion and scour pool generation.

9.6.2 Compensation Option 2

The proposed compensation works for Option 2 would include approximately 0.56 km of off channel habitat, encompassing the floodplain of the Dalgleish Creek and Upper Toba River confluence. The habitat channel would have an average channel width of 4 m and a gradient between approximately 2% and 4%. Spawning gravels will be situated in gradients of 3% to ensure adequate water velocities to remove metabolic waste and supply DO to developing embryos. The compensation works are designed to provide 2,244 m2 of instream habitat, 1,000 m2 of overwintering deep pool complexes, 200 m2 of spawning gravel, and 2,324 m2 of riparian habitat. The instream works would also include undercut banks (natural), riprap armouring, deflection logs for backwater areas and velocity refuge, and rock weirs for DO infusion and scour pool generation. Groundwater channels essentially operate by intercepting the existing water table adjacent to and underneath the Upper Toba River (hyporheic zone). Excavation below this water table, during low flow events, ensures a positive hydraulic gradient and creates a perennial water supply of relatively constant temperature and quality. Both habitat channels are designed to incorporate the remnant ephemeral stream channel as part of the compensation design. Further excavation and complexing of this remnant channel, including existing pools, side channels, and surface inflows are recommended to be incorporated as part of the compensation plan. These on-site enhancements will be designed as an opportunistic field fit, under the supervision of a fisheries biologist. Successful salmon spawning reaches are characterized by relatively wide, low gradient, sinuous channels with high connectivity to a floodplain and a high abundance of side channel habitat (Asbury, 2003). Based on these criteria, the Upper Toba River compensation channel was designed to provide spawning and rearing areas that are geomorphically complex and have a high degree of hyporheic exchange.


Certain characteristics of the hyporheic zone, including vertical head gradient, permeability, and nutrient input, provide cues for salmon in the selection of spawning sites. Thus, spawning habitat is directly influenced by the extent of interstitial flow between surface water and groundwater (Asbury, 2003). Groundwater influx through the hyporheic zone, in areas with high substrate permeability, is referred to as an upwelling area and typically represents more successful spawning habitat.

As water levels in the watershed vary from freshet conditions, during spring snowmelt or fall rain on snow events, to winter freeze up conditions, the main water input to the compensation channel system may vary from hyporheic (groundwater fed) to surface runoff interception, or a combination of both. A tailrace intake structure is also incorporated into the compensation channel design, with a flow control weir to act as a flushing system during the Project life.

Although designed as a groundwater-fed channel, this adaptability to accept groundwater and surface water sources helps to ensure a perennial source of dissolved oxygen and nutrients to the channel ecosystem, which is essential for salmonid spawning and rearing. This ability to maintain some inflow to the habitat channel also ensures the following:

• Sustained spawning base flow for dissolved oxygen and metabolic waste removal;

• Moderation of extreme water level fluctuations (stranding); • Biomass production; • Constant recharge of oxygenated water (overwintering survival); • Moderated temperature regimes (thermal regulation); and • Supply and retention of organic nutrients and inorganic ions.

The groundwater channel is designed be excavated to a depth of 0.5 m below the late fall/winter water table to ensure minimum flow requirements and fish productivity levels during low flow conditions and winter ice over. Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed in the Upper Toba River floodplain to ensure the channel excavations are of adequate depth to prevent stranding. Pools are also designed to be excavated 3.0 m below the minimum groundwater level to maintain overwintering habitat and prevent winterkill.

Instream complexing, with deflection logs and riprap placement, are designed to simulate undercut bank refuge habitat as well as increasing backwater areas. Rock weirs are also proposed in straight reaches to promote a riffle/run stepped channel profile between pool sections. Selected pool tail-out sections of the channel are proposed to be lined with 10 mm to 50 mm mixed gravel for coho or rainbow spawning redds. Spawning gravels are to be rounded, sorted to size (screened), and washed prior to introduction into the channel. These gravels may be stockpiled during channel excavations; however, it may be necessary to borrow adequate material from a dry gravel bar of the Upper Toba River. This gravel removal will require a Section 9 approval under


the BC Water Act and will occur within the appropriate fish window under the discretion of a qualified professional biologist. Angular shot rock or crush is not acceptable as spawning gravel.

The pool complexing incorporates LWD and boulders to provide refuge and overwintering habitat. It is recommended that root wad complexes be cabled together and rock bolted to the large boulders for stabilisation during high flows. It is generally accepted, that as the groundwater fed channels mature, the input of nutrients and organic matter will increase the productive capacity and biodiversity of the off channel ecosystem.

Root wads, boulders, spawning gravel, and riparian vegetation could all be sorted and stockpiled during access road construction and compensation channel excavation phase in preparation for habitat complexing. Excavated channel and road construction spoil material may also be utilized in the flood control berm (if required) along the Upper Toba River. In order to reduce erosion potential, riprap placement is required along the outside channel margin around high velocity switchbacks as well as banks directly facing the intake structures. A containment berm will also be required between The Upper Toba River and the adjacent groundwater channel to protect the compensation works from flooding during freshet events.

9.6.3 Preliminary Design Considerations

Preliminary design considerations are as follows: • Excavate groundwater test pits (hand drilled) to perform recharge tests and take

preliminary water quality samples for analysis as well as on-site readings (DO and temperature). The holes are to be dug approximately 2 m below the existing water table during winter low flow periods.

• Establish pressure transducer stations in the existing remnant channels to provide surface flow levels and correlation data for groundwater level recordings.

• The channel alignment will be cleared and channel complexing material (root wads, gravels) stockpiled.

• Additional groundwater test pits will be excavated along the channel alignment (following clearing and road access) to examine the depth of overburden and quality of gravel layers. The excavation of these test pits will also provide an opportunity to collect groundwater quality samples for full spectrum analysis (metals, benthic, organic carbon, etc.) with ALS Laboratory Group, and to periodically record seasonal groundwater levels, DO, and temperature data.


The Upper Toba River compensation design and site selection were generated under the following hierarchy of design considerations:

a. Determine a location within the project area where the compensation works will meet DFO’s hierarchy of preferences through the replacement of “like for like” habitat, while still providing a compensation option that is constructible.

b. Determine the limiting factor within the Project area, to establish which compensation works will be the most effective for the targeted fish species.

c. Provide an overview plan for an internal review to determine any potential “show stoppers”, such as: potential stranding, water quality issues, fish utilization, adverse gradients, or economic considerations.

d. Produce a detailed design of the compensation channel to submit to the contractor to determine whether the compensation works are practical and achievable.

e. Introduce compensation works (LWD, rock weirs, spawning channel designs, etc.) that are considered likely to achieve success by DFO.

f. Prepare a compensation report that will provide adequate detail for the contractor to construct the works with limited misinterpretation, while still providing an opportunistic ability for a professional biologist to enhance any aspect of the compensation works on-site, as a field fit. The generation of this report inferred some basic assumptions, including:

i. The contractor has reviewed and accepted the compensation works; ii. A professional monitor or biologist is available and will be on-site; iii. The on-site monitor is acceptable to DFO; and iv. All required construction materials (riprap, LWD, gravel) are readily

available. g. The on-site supervisor will mark, stake, or ribbon the construction works

(including depths of cut, channel dimensions, channel gradient, etc.) prior to construction to ensure the designs are clear to the contractor and operators.

h. As-built drawings will be completed following the completion of works, to ensure all HADD summary compensation goals have been achieved and the works are constructed as specified.

9.6.4 Riparian Replanting

The Upper Toba River of both compensation floodplains exhibit several large conifers spaced throughout the compensation area. All possible efforts to excavate around these trees are recommended to help preserve the overstorey canopy and biodiversity of the floodplain. The riparian zone, along both banks of the compensation channel, is proposed to be replanted with willows, red osier dogwood, or indigenous conifer species following channel construction. Natural shrub and grass replanting is also proposed along the stream banks to help establish understory cover beneath the deciduous or conifer overstorey to provide thermo regulation, refuge, and leaf litter (nitrogen cycle) along the stream margins. All exposed soils and spoil sites are to be hand, or hydro seeded.


Geo-textile is recommended to be on-site to stabilize extremely silty or clay cut banks of the compensation channel.

9.6.5 LWD Placement

LWD and boulders are recommended to be cabled together to represent an aquatic rootwad complex or logjam, much the same as the outlet channel of PC2. The boulders were recommended to 1.0 m in diameter to ensure the LWD does not float away. The source, size, type, and nature of the tress are completely dependent on availability. If the only available LWD is small stems, then several pieces will be required to form an adequate jam, as well as an adequate number of boulders to ensure they remain in place. However, if large rootwads with 10 m stems are available (preferred), then only a few pieces may be required, dependent on the pool area. A table integrating pool area, LWD stem size, and number of stems required is included in Figures 9.2 and 9.3. The pool complexing is assumed to be under the supervision of a professional biologist.


9.7 POTENTIAL ACCIDENTS AND MALFUNCTIONS

9.7.1 Construction Phase

9.7.1.1 Fire

There is some risk of fire as the result of clearing and construction activities. The potential for fires is considerably higher during dry summer weather. Fire prevention and fire fighting measures will be outlined in the Construction Environmental Management Plans, specifically in Fire Hazard Assessment and Abatement Plan and the Emergency Response Plan. These measures will ensure that the risk of fire is minimized and that measures are in place to contain fire if they start.

9.7.1.2 Fuel or Petroleum Spill

Fuel and petroleum spills may result from vehicles, equipment and heavy machinery, and temporary fuel and lubricant storage. Spill prevention, detection, and response measures will be outlined in the Construction Environmental Management Plan, specifically in the Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan. On site fuel and petroleum storage is expected to be minimal and only required to satisfy the requirements of the equipment and heavy machinery required for construction. The probability is very low that fuel and petroleum spills will spread beyond the immediate area of occurrence or to nearby streams.

9.7.1.3 Failure of Sediment Control Measures

The sediment control measures for the project will be inspected by the designated environmental monitor to ensure they are installed correctly. Monitoring will also occur concurrently with construction. If any of the control measures is not operating efficiently, the environmental monitor will issue a stop work order and repairs will be affected immediately. The procedures outlined in the Construction Environmental Management Plan, specifically in the Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan will be designed to minimize sediment transport to nearby streams.

9.7.2 Operations Phase

9.7.2.1 Fire

There is some risk of fire as the result of various factors. The potential for fires is considerably higher during dry summer weather. Fire prevention and fire fighting measures will be outlined in the Operational Environmental Management Plans, specifically in Fire Hazard Assessment and Abatement Plan and the Emergency Response Plan. These measures will ensure that the risk of fire is minimized and that measures are in place to contain fire if they start.


9.7.2.2 Fuel or Petroleum Spill

Fuel and petroleum spills may result from vehicles, equipment and heavy machinery. Spill prevention, detection, and response measures will be outlined in the Operational Environmental Management Plan, specifically in the Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan. On site fuel and petroleum storage is expected to be minimal. The probability is very low that fuel and petroleum spills will spread beyond the immediate area of occurrence or to nearby streams. A surface water quality and sediment control plan will provide related guidelines and instructions related to any accidental fuel spill.

9.7.2.3 Failure of Sediment Control Measures

Erosion control measures will be inspected routinely to ensure that significant erosion problems do not develop as a result of operation of the project. Appropriate restoration will be carried out immediately if erosion problems are detected. Further detail will be provided in a Surface Water and Sediment Control Plan.

9.7.2.4 Third Party Damage

Third party damage to water conveyance structures or electrical transmission equipment could result in leaks, ruptures, or electrical hazard. All applicable rights of way will be identified to ensure that others using the project area, such as logging companies, will be able to prevent accidental damage. The intakes, powerhouses and switchyards will be fenced to prevent unauthorized access by trespassers. Generally, potential third party damage to Project facilities has low consequences to the environment, but may be potentially harmful to the affected party, in terms of personal safety. Related instructions and guidelines related to third party damage to the structures are also addressed in Accident and Malfunction Plan as well as Emergency Response Plan.

9.7.2.5 Systems Failure

The likelihood of materials failure or control system malfunction that could result in serious damage to the penstock, headpond, or turbines is considered to be extremely low. The project facilities will be designed in accordance with all applicable codes and standards to meet all foreseeable internal and external loading conditions. Instructions and guidelines provided in Accidents and Malfunction Plan, Hazardous Waste Management, Spill Response Plan and Emergency Response Plan provide directions on various conditions that may arise as a result of system failure.


Material

All materials will meet or exceed appropriate requirements for manufacture and installation. Automatic Shutdown of Facilities

The most likely result of system malfunction is the automatic shut down of the facility. Failure of the penstock or headpond would result in the release of water downstream. Should this occur, the volume of the headpond would be too small to cause flood damage in excess of natural flood levels. Penstock Failure

Failure of the penstock could result in significant soil erosion and sediment transport, although the intake would have an automatic shut off valve to minimize the volume of water released in the event of a breakage. Interconnection Line Failure

Sound engineering practice will be followed to ensure satisfactory operation and avoid adverse impacts on the safety and security of the transmission system and BC Hydro’s / BCTC interconnected system. The design of the transmission line will be in compliance with the latest version of Canadian Electrical Code. Studies will investigate local weather information, climatic loading, soil conditions, operation of existing lines, local regulations, environmental requirements and evaluate all known pertinent factors in arriving at design recommendations. Design should result in high continuity of service, long life of physical equipment, low maintenance cost, safe operation and acceptability from an environmental stand point. In the event of an unscheduled outage, emergency maintenance of the transmission line will be required. Such events may include but are not limited to:

• lightning strikes to the line or poles; • snow or debris avalanches that can cause pole damage or failure; and • line or pole failure due to extreme ice loading.

Any failure of the transmission line will trigger safety mechanisms at the powerhouses to cease the production of electricity and ramp down flows (See Section 9.3.1). It is important to note that the Project will share transmission infrastructure with the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Project, and therefore it is conceivable that five individual facilities may suffer a load rejection if the common portion of the transmission line is damaged. In such an event each stream will initiate down ramping activities, specified in their approved Ramping Protocols. Ramping rate analysis in Section 9.3.1.1 provides details of the recommended ramping rate in unscheduled shut downs of each stream of the Project. .


9.7.2.6 Natural Causes

Route selection, hydraulic and geotechnical analyses, and engineering design greatly reduce the potential for damage to project facilities as the result of floods, landslides, earthquakes, or avalanches. During operations, regular rights of way patrols will monitor transmission, access road, and penstock integrity and assess potential maintenance requirements for culverts and erosion control measures. Instructions and guidelines provided in Surface Water and Sediment Control Plan, Waste Management Plan, Accidents and Malfunction Plan and Emergency Response Plan provide directions on how to manage various complications as a result of as a result of system failure due to natural causes.


9.8 IMPACTS ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

9.8.1 Project Facilities

Transport Canada has determined that Dalgleish Creek, Jimmie Creek and Upper Toba River are all non-navigable at the location of the proposed facilities (Appendix J). Therefore no navigability related impacts are expected on these systems resulting from the construction and/or operation of the proposed Project facilities. However, the proposed clear span bridge on the Upper Toba River (as a part of the access road), is located on a navigable waterway. Necessary mitigation measures will be adopted and implemented (in coordination with Transport Canada) to avoid or minimize any potential impacts on Navigable Waters.

9.8.2 Access Road

The proposed access roads will cross the Toba River at a location that is considered navigable. Of the fourteen access road stream crossings planned, all but the main Toba crossing will utilize existing bridge locations. The Toba River crossing will be clear span, and will incorporate a minimum clearance under the bridge deck to the Q100 water level of 1.5 m. This will maintain existing levels of navigability, and therefore no impacts are anticipated.

9.8.3 Transmission Line

No impacts are expected on navigable waters as a result of construction of the transmission line.

9.9 EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT

There are many potential effects on the Project from the environment. The resulting potential effects to the Project from the following will be discussed in detail below:

• Climate change • Extreme weather (wind, snow, ice) • Flooding • Forest fires • Avalanches • Landslides • Seismicity

9.9.1 Climate Change

Given that glaciers in coastal areas of British Columbia are generally receding, and that there is concern about the effects of global climate change on temperature and precipitation patterns, there is some question as to whether or not flow records from the past 20 to 30 years reasonably represent conditions that might be expected over the next


20 years. The following list summarizes some effects of climate change on the Project and potential mitigation that may be implemented:

• Climate change may lead to increased flows in the Project watercourses. All Project facilities will be designed to handle the 100 year flood event. During the design stage additional safety factors may be incorporated to account for such events.

• Potential flooding of the road may result from warming trends. Areas that may have a potential hazard associated with flooding will be identified at the time of design and adequate control structures may be incorporated into the road design. Control structures may include; the installation of culverts, dyking, raising the road bed elevation above estimated flood levels, armouring sections of the road against potential erosion due to high flows, etc.

9.9.2 Extreme Weather

The following types of extreme weather may have an effect on the Project: • Wind • Snow • Ice

These categories are summarized below with the potential mitigation that may be implemented: Wind

Higher than normal wind velocities could blow trees down, causing damage to transmission lines, powerhouses, intakes and all other related infrastructure. Wind could also potentially blow down transmission towers or blow transmission lines causing excess tension. In all events extreme wind loads will be designed for and where possible, trees will be removed or trimmed to avoid falling onto the Project components. Snow

Extreme snow events could lead to increased snow loading on all structures. This may lead to the collapse of roofs, increased tension on transmission lines, etc. Snow loading in these cases will be accounted for in the final design where an appropriate factor of safety will be assigned to each Project component. Ice

Extreme ice conditions could lead to increased loading on structures. Ice accumulation on transmission lines can increase tension to unacceptable levels and could cause them to break. Ice accumulation on transmission towers and rooftops may also lead to structural failure. Extreme ice loading will be accounted for in the final design of all structures where an appropriate factor of safety will be assigned to each Project component.


Ice formation in the Project watercourses upstream of the intakes could cause ice jams to form and clog the intakes. The sluice channel will be used to flush any loose ice away from the intake.

9.9.3 Flooding

Flooding will occur in all valleys, intake and penstock locations. Design criteria for flooding are based on a return period of 200 years. As a private power facility, the project components are not obliged to operate after a catastrophic event.

9.9.4 Forest Fires

Forest fires have the potential to cause severe damage to the wooden transmission towers as well as the conductor. The right of way however will be kept in such a state that tall trees that have the potential to fall onto the transmission lines and towers will be trimmed or removed as appropriate.

9.9.5 Avalanches

Snow avalanches have the potential to affect several of the project components, in particular, the Dalgleish Intake, the initial portion of the Upper Toba penstock and the road and transmission line portions crossing the Dalgleish fan. The snow avalanche hazard is generally anticipated to be greatest where there is a large upslope catchment area devoid of trees and the slope profile is relatively smooth. Adjustments were made to the locations of the proposed structures and the alignments of the proposed transmission corridor and access roads in order to reduce the risk posed to the scheme from snow avalanches. The sites of the proposed powerhouses and bridges are clear of the mapped snow avalanche run out zones. Buried sections of penstock will not generally be at risk from snow avalanche hazards. For the facilities at risk, design values for snow avalanche velocity and thickness will be analysed in a dynamic model, as recommended by Mears (1989). The assessments will incorporate a snow avalanche with a 50 year return period and a critical size of ‘>2’, as described in the “Guidelines for Snow Avalanche Risk Determination and Mapping in Canada”, published by the Canadian Avalanche Association (McClung et al., 2002). Appropriate passive measures are likely to include hazard warning signs, limiting human exposure to risk and the implementation of an avalanche debris clearance plan, which would facilitate the access road being cleared in a timely manner following a snow avalanche. Possible active mitigation measures include rigid deflection barriers and the use of sled reinforced transmission tower. Any mitigation works found to be necessary would be constructed as close as possible to the structure at risk. Environmental issues


would be of primary importance in assessing possible mitigation options. A pipe bridge is proposed midway along the Upper Toba penstock alignment, which will be designed for impact by avalanches. There are no plans to remove significant areas of vegetation on hill slopes above the proposed construction sites and it is considered that the susceptibility of the terrain to snow avalanches will not be adversely affected by the proposed works.

9.9.6 Landslides

Landslides have the potential to affect several of the Project components. The main landslide hazard identified at the site comprises channelized debris flows. Rock slide, rock avalanche and rock fall hazards have also been identified. There is no evidence, either from aerial photograph interpretation or the field reconnaissance undertaken, of large scale, deep seated hill slope instability that could affect the viability of the scheme. The sites of the proposed structures, interconnection lines, access roads and pipeline alignments were selected so as to reduce the risk posed from landslides. The residual risk along the transmission line corridor will be further reduced at the design stage by carefully selecting the tower locations. There is no evidence of significant landslide hazards at the sites of the proposed powerhouses. There is a very small possibility of a large sized debris flow reaching the intake structures and affecting their normal operation. In the unlikely event of a landslide affecting one of the structures, the debris could be flushed from behind it through the scour gate. In the event the debris could not be removed by this method, it may be necessary to employ heavy machinery to do so. The velocity and thickness of debris flows will be analysed with a dynamic model software package. The input parameters will be assessed by back analysing recent debris flows with the source volume and run out distance being modelled to fit the site observations. The output data from these analyses will aid the design of any necessary mitigation works. Detailed terrain stability maps will be developed for the study area. Appropriate passive measures are likely to include hazard warning signs, limiting human exposure at times when the risk is the highest, and the implementation of a landslide debris clearance plan, which would facilitate the access road being cleared in a timely manner following a landslide. Possible active mitigation measures include deflection barriers and flexible fence systems immediately upslope from the sites of proposed structures, check dams along drainage courses and check dam basins at the toe of the hillside slopes. Any mitigation works found to be necessary would be constructed as


close as possible to the structure at risk. Environmental issues will be of primary importance in assessing possible mitigation options.

9.9.7 Seismicity

Seismic events may have adverse effects on all of the project components. The final design will take into account seismic events and will include appropriate factors of safety. The following is a list of some effects that seismic events may have on the project and potential design considerations:

• Rupture of pipeline due to ground movements may be mitigated by not routing pipeline over potential fault lines and anchoring it at intervals;

• Rupture will also be managed through a penstock rupture detection system; • Damage to mechanical systems in powerhouse due to ground movements and

shaking will be mitigated through effective seismic design of the powerhouse structure; and

• Failure of transmission towers and structures may be mitigated through effective seismic design of these structures. Seismic events may also trigger avalanches and landslides.


9.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

9.10.1 Methodology

The methodologies outlined in the Cumulative Effects Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al., 1999) were used for this assessment. The Cumulative Environmental Effects (CEE) Assessment consists of three main steps:

1. determine whether the Project will have an effect on the identified VECs. 2. if an incremental effect is likely, assess the potential for Project effects to act

cumulatively with effects resulting from other actions (current or future). 3. determine if the Project effects, in combination with other effects, are likely to

influence a VEC after mitigation measures have been implemented. This CEE assessment identifies the residual effects of the Project with the potential to accumulate and/or interact with residual effects of other projects or activities within the spatial and temporal boundaries. This assessment will focus on VECs for the Project for which potential residual effects were identified in the EIA and/or VECs that are particularly sensitive to development. Potential issues considered in this CEE assessment include those producing residual effects ranked as moderate to high in the EIA or VECs that may be particularly sensitive to the cumulative effects of multiple development activities. Rare plants were the only VEC identified in the EIA with a moderate residual effect ranking. Impacts for the Project were identified through extensive field surveys at the proposed project component locations to spatially locate rare plant populations in the local study areas. The Cumulative Effects Practitioners Guide (Hegmann et al., 1999) states that:

"Reasonably foreseeable actions should be considered if they may affect those VECs and there is enough information about them to asses their effects".

Since there is insufficient information available to assess the effects of additional projects on rare plants a cumulative effect assessment cannot be completed for this VEC. Information required to complete a meaningful and defensible cumulative effects assessment for rare plants would include the development of a method to predict the occurrence of rare plants in the regional study area.

Since the presence of rare plant species in the study area depends on particular microhabitat characteristics that are poorly documented, cannot be captured at the mapping scale, and vary between species, the occurrence of rare plant taxa cannot be reliably predicted. Rare plants typically occur in small patches of specialized habitats which can only be identified through ground based assessments.


As future activities are conceptual with no formalized development plans, the location of the activity and the potential effects of additional development cannot be determined. Since most of the rare plant species found in the project area were found in specialist habitats that are uncommon and spatially unpredictable in the project area, the effect of potential development activities on rare plants and the microhabitat features on which they depend cannot be determined. Grizzly bears were included in the CEA based on their large geographic ranges, their sensitivity to road access and human development, and the potential for spin off development based on the infrastructure created for the East Toba Rive and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric and Upper Toba Valley hydroelectric Projects. The key issues of concern for grizzly bears include loss of habitat effectiveness and risk of mortality due to increased human activity.

9.10.1.1 Grizzly Bear CEA Methods

The cumulative effects assessment for grizzly bears is based on the assumption that changes to habitat suitability or to a bear's ability to use or survive in a habitat will result in a change to the bear population and its long-term regional persistence (Apps 2003). This CEA includes the determination of habitat effectiveness and mortality risk based on models of habitat suitability, displacement, and mortality (Apps 2003; USDA 1990). Habitat suitability is the ability of a habitat, in its current condition, to provide the life requisites of a species. The effects of human activities on habitat use are not considered when determining suitability. Habitat effectiveness is the degree to which a suitable habitat will be used by the species when the effects of human activities are considered. Mortality risk is the risk that human activities will contribute to the mortality of grizzly bears. Habitat suitability and displacement were combined to produce a habitat effectiveness value and a mortality model was used to produce a mortality risk index. Proportional comparisons between baseline conditions and different development scenarios were assessed to determine the cumulative effects of the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project. The 7606 km2

Toba-Bute GBPU is currently closed to grizzly hunting and is considered to have a ‘viable’ population of an estimated 75 grizzlies with a capable population of 99 (Hamilton et al., 2004). Current habitat effectiveness (as a percentage of habitat capability) is estimated to be 87% in the Toba-Bute GBPU (Hamilton et al., 2004). The GBPU has an estimated unreported mortality rate of 0.6% and the Provincial government has set an annual allowable known human caused mortality rate of 0% for the GBPU (Austin et al., 2004).


9.10.2 Temporal and Spatial Boundaries

The proposed spatial boundary for the cumulative effects assessment is the Toba LU, which corresponds to the Toba watershed. This geographic boundary is expected to contain a subset of economic activities (TFL 10) and wildlife sub-populations based on the isolation and limited connectivity to surrounding areas.

Impacts will be considered within the local and regional study areas. The regional study is the Toba watershed and the local study areas include the Jimmie Creek total facilities area and the Upper Toba / Dalgleish total facilities area. The proposed temporal boundaries are the expected life of the Project, which is currently 40 years.

9.10.3 Activities or Projects within the Temporal and Spatial Boundaries

Reasonably foreseeable projects include activities that have been identified, but for which there is some uncertainty about whether or not the project will proceed (Hegmann et al., 1999). The amount of information available about these projects and activities can vary significantly, and the inclusion of these activities in the CEA process depends on the amount and quality of the information available. The main difficulty with a cumulative impact assessment is identifying reasonably foreseeable projects for which there is data that is suitable for use in the assessment. Foreseeable future actions were identified for this assessment by consulting with stakeholders. Consultation with potential recreational and industrial users of the Toba watershed was completed for the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric project (KWR, 2006). Follow up consultation is ongoing. Current and future activities occurring in the Toba River Valley include:

• Pacific Mountain Outfitters Ltd. currently provides opportunities for wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting (e.g. black bears and mountain goats). Most of their activity is limited to the Toba River downstream of the Little Toba (for black bear). The company uses both jet boats and ATVs to access habitats along the river and remote mountain roads. In 2007, 7-8 black bears were taken. They have plans to develop greater access for hunting (using smaller boats for easier access up waterways), and have applied for a commercial recreation licence for the valley to conduct kayak/canoe guiding (Alan Rebane, personal communication).

• One registered trap line is present in the area. The permit is valid to June 2008, and may be renewed.

• TLH Heliskiing is active in the Montrose and East Toba areas, between December 31 and April 30 (C. Umpleby, personal communication).

• Recreational boaters were observed in jet boats on three separate occasions during fieldwork in 2005. In all three instances, the jet boats originated from


larger recreational boats moored at the mouth of the river. A log jam just east of the confluence of the Little Toba prevents most jet boats from travelling further upstream, although smaller boats apparently can pass through the narrow opening still present (Alan Rebane, personal communication).

• The Toba drainage is currently rated as “Low” in terms of commercial recreation development potential (Clover Point Cartographics et al., 2003).

• A few log cabins are present on the Toba River near the confluence of Little Toba. These cabins are used by the owners and other recreational users (fishermen) at times, but the frequency of use, while not documented, is expected to be low.

• Hayes Lumber has obtained TFL 10 from Interfor and a Forest Stewardship Plan was submitted in 2007. The TFL holder is seeking various provincial and federal approvals that would allow the commencement of timber harvesting operations in the area.

• Currently, 14 additional water licences are held by Plutonic Power Inc. and Hawkeye Energy Corporation in the Toba watershed. Potential projects include Chusan Creek, Tahumming River, Raccoon Creek, Sirenia Mountain, Zoltan Creek, East Toba River, Klite River, Little Toba River, Filer River and some unnamed tributaries. The location of facilities associated with these licences and the potential for these projects to be constructed is unknown.

9.10.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment

9.10.4.1 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Adoption of mitigation measures for the proposed Project will minimizes the overall impacts on terrestrial wildlife habitat, thereby reducing the cumulative impacts to the Toba Valley. For this project, mitigation to restrict road access resulted in a 0-1% loss of effective grizzly bear habitat (minimum impact scenario). If no mitigation measures are applied (maximum impact scenario) 4 to 15% of effective terrestrial habitat could be lost as a result of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project and Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project, and additional developments (ie. logging) in the Toba Valley. In our maximum impact scenario, changes in habitat effectiveness within the local study areas are 0.1-0.2% for Jimmie Creek facility and 0.7-0.9% for Upper Toba/Dalgleish facility. The biggest overall impact to grizzly habitat effectiveness in the study area resulted from previous industrial developments in the area; specifically upgrading/building of roads resulted in a decrease in grizzly habitat effectiveness and an increase in mortality risk. Results of mortality risk assessment studies for grizzly bear in the study area indicate that the mortality risk index (MRI) may increase by 0.1 to 6.5% as a result of the


operation of both East Toba River and Montrose Creek and Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Projects in Toba Valley (minimum impact scenario) if mitigation measures are applied. Successful implementation of mitigation measures is the key factor in maintaining a low level of impact on grizzly bear population in Toba Valley. Although MRIs estimated for potential impacts of the proposed project are uniformly low compared to other assessments, the proportional change for some scenarios may be quite high if mitigation measures are not applied successfully. The MRI for grizzly bear in spring was generally higher than that of summer and fall, because of the limited amount of available spring habitat and its proximity to the proposed development sites (lower valley). Based on habitat effectiveness analysis, spring habitat use is the most likely to be affected by development. Maximum impact scenario may result in 35% reduction in effective habitat in spring. In addition, the availability of spring habitat can vary significantly between years depending on the severity of winter and the resulting snow pack. Apps (2003) suggests that meaningful thresholds of impacts on a given grizzly bear population are unknown and that relative change is the only valid method of assessment of development impacts on these populations. Assessment of impacts of the proposed Jumbo Glacier resort development on grizzly bear populations in the central Parcell Mountains (BC) showed that wholesale access restrictions were not practical and monitoring in addition to mitigation in specific areas were sufficient to maintain a viable grizzly population in the area. The results of Jumbo Glacier assessment are comparable to this study. In Jumbo Glacier assessment, restricting access was the main mitigation measure but it could not be implemented. The results of this assessment clearly highlight the importance of developing and implementing an effective access management program as it plays the key role in mitigation for the impacts of the Project on grizzly bear population in the study area.

9.10.4.2 First Nations Community and Land Use

Impacts of the Project on Klahoose First Nation are rated as positive impacts as a result of providing training and employment. Training opportunities offered as part of the Project lead to new work opportunities outside of the Project. Similarly, employment and investment may allow for First Nation individuals and businesses to increase their equipment, vehicle, and resource holdings. This in turn may allow for the successful bidding on new or additional contracts for similar work. Subsequent to this, the economy of the First Nation in general may increase, allowing for the generation of new business opportunities.


9.10.4.3 Commercial Land and Resource Use

Currently there is limited forestry use of the Toba Valley despite a long history of extensive extraction. Other limited commercial uses of the Toba Valley include guide outfitting and eco tourism. Construction activities may cause temporary and localized alienation of wildlife, which may detract from the guide outfitter business. This direct impact is not expected to combine with other projects or activities in excess of the baseline to produce a cumulative effect. In order to construct the hydroelectric facilities, parts of the access road, and parts of the interconnecting transmission line, some clearing of forest land will be required. Within the cleared areas, some merchantable timber will be extracted and made available to the TFL tenure holder. There will be a loss of future timber production on these areas. Based on the relative small footprint of the project area, this will represent a relatively low impact to the overall timber harvest.


9.11 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Project related impacts were discussed earlier in this report. Potential impacts of the project were classified into construction and operations related impacts. Potential impacts for each phase of the project (i.e. construction and operations) were reviewed for each project facility (intake structure, water conveyance, powerhouse and tailrace) and component (access roads and transmission line) separately. Potential impacts of construction of the project facilities were presented as one because of the similarities of these structures and their potential impacts on various VECs and VSCs. However, where a specific issue existed in relation to any particular powerhouse, it was discussed separately. In this section, potential impacts of the project are summarized. In the following section all non-negligible overall impacts are summarized and discussed including positive impacts (e.g. employment rate). A summary of any potential impact of the proposed project on VECs and VSCs is presented in Tables 9.14 and 9.15 respectively. 9.11.1 Fish and Fish Habitat

The Project offers a sound layout from an environmental perspective with minimal disturbance to fish and aquatic habitat. All intake structures are located in non-fish bearing reaches. Powerhouse and tailrace structures will be located at the upper limit of fish accessible sections and are expected to provide minimal impact on fish and aquatic habitat. The powerhouse sites will be set back from adjacent watercourses to minimize riparian disturbance and potential sediment transport to adjacent watercourses during construction. The access roads and transmission corridors affect what are largely previously disturbed areas. Instream Flow Requirements at the intake locations are recommended to maintain primary and secondary production in the diversion sections. Residual impacts identified on the access road alignment and at the powerhouse tailrace facilities are addressable through fish habitat compensation, such that no net residual impacts are anticipated. No significant net residual impacts to fish and fish habitat are anticipated with appropriate mitigation for instream flows and Best Management Practices concerning sediment control during construction. Ramping rate considerations will be taken into account in scheduled and unscheduled shut down of the facilities in order to minimize any potential impacts to fish populations.

9.11.2 Wildlife and Vegetation

A summary of potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat, mitigation measures and pre- and post-mitigation impact rating are summarized in Table 9.14. Moderate residual effects associated with the operation and construction of the Jimmie creek powerhouse


are expected for rare plant species (lichens). The magnitude of all other residual effects is rated as ‘Low’. Residual effects from some aspects of the Project are present for Marbled Murrelet and grizzly bear. Cumulative effects on grizzly bears include a decrease in the amount of effective habitat for both the construction and operation phases, and an increase in mortality risk. The significance of these impacts appears to be low for both operation and construction.

9.11.3 Cultural and Heritage Resources

During the archaeological survey conducted in the proposed Project area, no significant archaeologically significant sites were encountered, therefore no potential impact to cultural and heritage resources are expected as a result of the Project. Additional archaeological studies in the project impact area will be necessary as a result of design modifications of the Project facilities. Nevertheless, the proponent has initiated a continuous consultation program in early stages of the Project development that will be beneficial in protecting cultural and heritage resources of the Klahoose First Nation. Although no impacts on archaeological resources are expected, an archaeological impact assessment has been conducted in consultation with Klahoose First Nation to catalogue all existing resources that require a Project response. All identified archaeological resources will be conserved in compliance with the Heritage Conservation Act.

9.11.4 First Nations Community and Land Use

A summary of potential impacts to the First Nation community and land use, mitigation measures, pre- and post-mitigation significance and residual effects are summarized in Table 9.15. Consultation between UTHI and Klahoose First Nation has been ongoing throughout the Project development process, and will continue as the Project progresses. The consultation has been aimed at, among other things, the identification of both positive and negative impacts to First Nation and land use. Generally there is agreement that the Proponent will offer good opportunities for training and employment in association with Project development, representing a positive economic impact. The Project is being developed as clean power, and a detailed study and assessment of wildlife, fisheries, and other land uses have been conducted in order to minimize and avoid impacts to those resources that are important to the First Nation. No net negative residual impacts were identified to the First Nation Community and land use.


9.11.5 Commercial Land and Resource Use

A summary of potential impacts to commercial land and resource use, mitigation measures, pre- and post-mitigation significance and residual effects are summarized in Table 9.15. No significant impact is expected on commercial land and resource use as a result of the Project. The Proponent will complete the construction as efficiently as possible, using Best Management Practices. This approach, coupled with the ongoing consultation with stakeholders, is expected to mitigate any significant adverse effects.

9.11.6 Public Health

Potential impacts to public health from the Project include risks to construction and operation crews as well as the general public in the Project area. Through adherence to worker safety protocols and waste handling procedures, crews will not be subjected to accidents or suffer from contaminated water sources. Similarly, security fencing and signage will prevent the untrained public from entering hazardous areas. No significant adverse residual effect was identified to Public Health.

9.11.7 Navigable Waters

All three proposed streams have been determined to be non-navigable by Transport Canada and therefore no impacts to navigation will occur at those locations. Construction of the proposed clear span bridge on Upper Toba River will proceed in consultation with Transport Canada to avoid interference with navigability of this waterway. Any potential navigable waters along the access road and transmission line will remain navigable by applying specific design modifications to river crossings in order to avoid obstructions to navigation. No residual effects to navigation were identified.

9.11.8 Recreational Land Use

Ongoing consultation has illuminated recreational use areas, and has induced Project design responses to reduce and avoid impacts. Consultation with the public and stakeholder groups will continue, and wherever possible, identified conflicts will be addressed through alteration of Project design. No adverse residual effects were identified to Recreational land use.


9.12 SUMMARY OF COMMITMENTS

The proponent has endeavoured to effect sufficient design criteria and mitigation measures to ensure that the Project can be constructed and operated without any significant adverse affects. The very basis of the project is the production of clean power, which will help to fulfil the rising demand for electricity in British Columbia without resorting to production methods known to have significant environmental impacts. A summary of Proponent’s commitments is provided in Table 9.16.


SECTION 10.0 - FIRST NATIONS CONSIDERATIONS

10.1 IDENTIFICATION OF FIRST NATIONS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT

In general, potentially affected First Nations include those where any component of the proposed Project will be located within their identified traditional territory. After consultation with local residents, BCEAO, and INAC, The Klahoose First Nation was identified as the only First Nation potentially affected by the proposed Project The proposed Project falls into Klahoose First Nation (Klahoose) traditional territory (Figure 10.1). Klahoose traditional territory encompasses Desolation Sound and islands in the northern Strait of Georgia (KFN, 2008). Klahoose territory covers an area of approximately 430,500 hectares (4305 km2) including Toba Inlet and adjacent watersheds (KFN, 2008). Klahoose is a northern Coast Salish tribe with seasonal and permanent villages in Toba Inlet and Cortes Island. Klahoose is closely related to the Sliammon First Nation (living near Powell River) and Homalco First Nation (living in Campbell River). The Klahoose language belongs to Salish Language family (FirstVoices, 2008). Prior to Contact with European explorers, the Klahoose occupied Toba Inlet, its tributary rivers, and the waters of Desolation Sound, including Pryce Channel and Homfrey Channel, as well as Northern Gulf Islands like East and West Redonda, Read, Raza, and part of Cortes Island. This community speaks the Mainland Comox dialect of Comox (collectively referring to each other as éy7á7juuthem, or ‘talk the language’), one of the languages in the Northern Coast Salish linguistic family (Arcas, 2007). A total of 10 reserves belong to Klahoose First Nation, the largest of which are Klahoose IR No. 1 at the mouth of Toba Inlet and Klahoose IR No. 7 with its main village site located on Cortes Island in Squirrel Cove (KFN, 2008). Traditional Coast Salish society was characterized by a semi sedentary lifestyle dependent upon fishing, gathering, and hunting for subsistence. The society was slightly stratified and three classes of people were usually present; a large upper class, a smaller lower class, and a very small class of slaves. The primary socio-economic unit of Coast Salish society was the house group, each consisting of one or more extended families occupying a single plank house. Residence was usually with the man's family (“patrilocal”) while descent was reckoned bilaterally. Each house group owned its house, rights to resource procurement sites, and ritual property including ancestral names, legends, songs and dances. Rights to these properties were acquired through inheritance and were normally held by the most important members of the household. Coast Salish villages were usually comprised of one or more houses. Leadership was provided by the most respected heads of households and kin groups in the village. The prestige of these people was based on inherited social position and demonstrated good manners and ancestry, spiritual power, and wealth. Each village was linked through ties of marriage and kinship with other villages to form a social network without distinct boundaries. Marriages arranged between


socially equal families in different villages helped to establish a cooperative system for resource procurement, including shared access to specific resource locations and shared labour. Aboriginal population and settlement were contingent upon the availability and distribution of seasonal resources. These resources would have included:

• runs of anadromous salmon and eulachon in the Toba River, as well as their many tributary streams and the numerous smaller and unnamed streams that emptied directly into marine waters;

• resident trout in the large freshwater lakes between Desolation Sound and Jervis Inlet; • intertidal marine invertebrates such as clams, mussels, cockles, barnacles, and sea

urchins; • inshore marine fishes such as flatfish, smelt, and herring; • offshore marine fishes such as lingcod and rockfish; • sea mammals such as seals, sea lions, and porpoises; • game animals such as elk, deer, mountain goats, and bears; • fur bearing mammals such as otters, mink, beavers, and marmots; • waterfowl, including ducks, geese, and swans; and • plant resources, including red and yellow cedar trees for timber and bark, and other tree

species for firewood and medicinal purposes, chokecherries, huckleberries, blueberries, and deer berries, among others, aquatic plants such as cranberries, which were used for food, and cat tails, used for mat weaving, and medicinal and edible root plants in forested and wetland environments. Turner (1975, 1979) provides detailed descriptions of the traditional uses of plants by First Nations’ people in this region.

10.2 CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS

Consultation with various stakeholders including Klahoose First Nations has been initiated in early stages of the project development by the proponent. The proponent acknowledges the existence of Aboriginal Rights and Title of First Nations in British Columbia as recognized by the Federal Courts of Canada. The company conducts activities in such a manner as to not interfere with ongoing First Nations treaty negotiations with Government. UTHI recognizes the Federal Courts determination that the Province has obligations to First Nations relative to crown land and seeks to support all parties in determining meaningful solutions to those obligations. The proponent considers the early involvement by First Nations in the development proposal as being essential in maximizing the benefits that will flow from the Project to First Nations’ communities. Meetings with First Nations early in the process provide opportunities to identify important issues and develop plans to address and accommodate First Nations concerns and ideas. Information gained from engineering and environmental assessment studies will be shared with Klahoose First Nation. UTHI (Plutonic Power Corporation) contacted the Klahoose First Nation regarding the potential to develop run of river hydro projects in their territory in July 2004. Through ongoing negotiations and consultation with the Klahoose, an Impact Benefit Agreement (IBA) was signed on January 31, 2007 with respect to the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project. That


IBA included the layout of some components for a future project consent agreement and a framework for consulting on future projects with the Klahoose. On April 12, 2007, a letter was sent to the Klahoose advising of UTHI’s (Plutonic Power Corporation) application to the Integrated Land Management Bureau and the Ministry of Environment for three additional water licenses and corresponding land tenure in the Toba Valley. The applications were made for Jimmy Creek, Dalgleish Creek, and Upper Toba River (collectively, the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project). On July 20, 2007, a letter was sent to the Klahoose advising that UTHI (Plutonic Power Corporation) had requested the Environmental Assessment Office proceed with a Section 10 order under the Environmental Act for the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project. At meetings on January 28 and February 28, 2008, UTHI advised the Klahoose of their willingness to start a more detailed discussion of an agreement on the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project. Conceptual frameworks for an agreement have been verbally presented and these discussions are currently ongoing. 10.3 FIRST NATIONS CONSIDERATIONS – STUDY AREA(S)

Based on consultation with BCEAO and INAC and the footprint of the project, the First Nations potentially affected by the Project was identified as the Klahoose First Nation and therefore First Nations consideration study area will encompass Klahoose traditional territory as described by the Klahoose. 10.4 TRADITIONAL USE AND ABORIGINAL RIGHTS/TITLE ISSUES

All parts of the proposed Project fall within the asserted traditional territory of the Klahoose First Nation. UTHI acknowledges the existence of Aboriginal Rights and Title of First Nations in British Columbia as recognized by the Federal Courts of Canada. The company conducts activities in such a manner as to not interfere with ongoing First Nations treaty negotiations with the Government. UTHI is not involved in treaty negotiations, and carries out their work, proposals, and permitting without prejudice to those negotiations, to Aboriginal Rights, or to Aboriginal Title. The Klahoose First Nation maintains knowledge of traditional (and current) use of the Project area. Traditional uses include (but are not limited to) hunting sites, berry picking locations, cedar bark harvesting, camp locations, as well as sites attributed with spiritual significance. Through previous consultation with the Klahoose First Nation, UTHI is of the understanding that the development of the Project will not impact to an unacceptable degree any traditional use area. Notwithstanding this current understanding, UTHI will continue to liaise with the Klahoose First Nation about the Project design and initiate more comprehensive discussions with respect to the shared benefits the project can bring both parties.


Klahoose First Nation strongly supports the project. The latest letter indicative of Klahoose First Nation strong support for the Project is presented in Appendix L. Previously, the Toba River and nearby area were rich in salmon, eulachon, and other marine life. Upland areas yielded roots and bark for basketry and clothing, building materials such as wood planks and poles, and many plants including berries as food and herbs and other plants for medicine and cultural activities. The area was rich in wildlife including mountain goat, after which the Klahoose name is derived, and black bear and grizzly bear. The most prevalent activity in the Toba River watershed in modern times was industrial forestry in TFL 10 issued by the Province in 1951. After three decades of logging, clear cut forestry extensively altered the landscape and abundant salmon runs declined precipitously. Commercial big game hunting has placed additional pressure on wildlife in the area in recent decades. 10.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

10.5.1 Methods

Archaeological studies in the project footprint were conducted by Arcas Consulting Archaeologists in August 2007 (Appendix M). The fieldwork examined the proposed facilities in the Upper Toba, Jimmie, and Dalgleish areas; including the intakes and powerhouses for all three facilities; as well as the proposed connecting roads and power lines. All three powerhouses and some of the proposed roads and power lines were examined on the ground, while other road sections, power lines, and intakes were looked at from the air.

The research for the archaeological impact assessment consisted of:

• a review of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical documents for the Toba Valley and its tributaries;

• a search of the British Columbia Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) online database;

• a review of mapped biophysical data for the development locations; • communication with the Klahoose First Nation community whose asserted

traditional territory includes the development area; • a field survey to identify and record protected archaeological sites and non-

protected cultural heritage resources, and assess potential project effects on those sites; and

• preparation of a report describing the outcome of the research. The online RAAD application was used to query the Provincial Heritage Register database for information about the distribution and kinds of archaeological resources that could be present in the development locations. A field reconnaissance was carried out by Rob Field and Ian Cameron (Arcas), with Mark Harry (Klahoose). The reconnaissance took the form of a helicopter over flight of the


entire development for a visual inspection of the landscape, to observe locations exhibiting different classes of archaeological resource potential. Terrain features observed on the development plans and orthophotos were identified from the air, and their potential influence on archaeological site distribution was assessed.

Field survey procedures consisted of systematic visual inspection of the ground surface at selected development locations considered to exhibit moderate or high archaeological resource potential. The land surface was inspected for surface features such as cultural depressions and Culturally Modified Trees (CMTs), artifacts, faunal remains (that is, fish, bird, and mammal bones), fire altered rocks, and historic remains. Individual development locations were examined using both judgmental and systematic survey traverses, with crewmembers spaced at roughly constant intervals (usually between 5 and 20 m), contingent upon terrain and visibility within forested settings. To ensure comprehensive survey coverage, traverses concentrated on landscape features that positively influence the distribution of archaeological sites, such as river/stream banks, wetland margins, and terrace edges.

Subsurface testing was used to search for buried archaeological remains. The methodology used for sub-surface testing consisted of shovel testing and bucket auger testing. Sediments excavated were screened through 6 mm mesh. Surveyed locations were plotted on development plans. Georeferenced coordinates were acquired for various points on the landscape, using a hand held GPS receiver. Lastly, photographs of survey proceedings and contextual scenes of surveyed landscapes were taken using a digital camera.

An archaeological Sites Management Plan (section 11.2.16) has been established as a mechanism to avoid or mitigate damage to identified sites, or to sites that become known during project development.

10.5.2 Results

Many archaeological sites in the northern Strait of Georgia region have been well known to citizens with antiquarian interests, as well as archaeologists, since the late 19th century. However, the first sites formally recorded in this region were identified by archaeologists employed by the provincial government’s Archaeological Sites Advisory Board in the 1970s. An extensive inventory of shoreline archaeological sites was carried out in the Sunshine Coast area from Sechelt to Lund (Acheson and Riley 1976a, 1976b, 1977), and more recently Millennia Research (1998) conducted a site survey of the lower part of Desolation Sound, while Golder Associates (1999) carried out site inventory surveys in Vancouver, Theodosia, Brem, and Homathko River watersheds in the Sunshine Coast Forest District. Additional archaeological sites have been recorded during the course of impact assessments carried out on behalf of forest industry proponents (e.g., Golder Associates 1999, 2002; Millennia 2002).


Previous fieldwork related to the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project discovered one previously unrecorded archaeological site. However, this site was not, documented near the Project footprint area. Regardless, a total of five sites are identified from settings within a few kilometers of some of the Project facilities. A total of 15 sub-surface tests were conducted at 4 locations within the project development areas. All of the sub-surface tests were excavated in relatively level terrain, in settings with good surface exposure. Details of the archaeological surveys can be found in Appendix M.

No cultural materials were encountered in any of the sub-surface tests. The study concluded that no further heritage and archaeological studies are required for the proposed development. However, in the event of any potential archaeological finding during the project’s construction period, necessary steps will be taken to ensure the findings are protected and preserved according to the Heritage Conservation Act, following the procedures defined in the Archaeological Sites and Cultural Heritage Management Plan of the CEMP.

10.6 FIRST NATION’S SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The development of East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project and the proposed Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric project is creating infrastructure never before available to the Klahoose people. The proposed Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project, through utilizing the infrastructure established by the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project in the most efficient manner, will minimize any impacts on Klahoose First Nations in their traditional territory. The proposed Project will help improve many aspects of First Nation social and economical well being through building and rehabilitation of new roads to access the proposed project sites, enhance access to the areas that were inaccessible previously and providing Klahoose members with jobs and employment opportunities.


10.7 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS ON FIRST NATION INTERESTS

The consultation with Klahoose First Nation has been aimed at, among other things, the identification of potential positive and negative impacts of the project to First Nation interests. Generally there is agreement that the proponent will offer opportunities for training and employment in association with Project development, representing a positive economic impact. Other positive impacts may accrue where UTHI can facilitate the expansion of ecotourism or infrastructure development. This activity, in combination with the economic opportunities during construction, may offset any negative effects to existing ecotourism activities, should they occur. The Project is being developed as a clean power project, and a detailed study and assessment of wildlife, fisheries, and other land uses have been conducted in order to minimize and avoid impacts to those resources that are important to Klahoose First Nation. No net negative residual impacts were identified to the Klahoose Community and land use. However, continued consultation with the potentially affected First Nation will continue in order to add confidence to the conclusion that the Project can be developed without residual negative effects to the Klahoose First Nation. 10.7.1 Construction Phase

Archaeological Sites: Various activities during Project construction including excavation, grading, or blasting activities have the potential to alter or destroy cultural or heritage resources if there are such resources at the work site. The proponent has conducted a transparent development process, involving detailed discussions with First Nations, public groups, and local and provincial government. This program of consultation and transparency will continue as the Project advances, in order to be able to respond to any newly identified issues. The Project will avoid disturbances where cultural or heritage resources have been or become identified. If, after all other options have been exhausted, impacts cannot be avoided through alteration of Project design; studies will be conducted in consultation with First Nation or other stakeholders to produce mitigation plans directed at retrieving the resource values prior to any impact. An archaeological impact assessment has been conducted in consultation with Klahoose First Nation in order to catalogue all existing resources that require a Project response.



First Nations Employment Rate:

During the construction phase of the Project, local First Nations will be provided with training and employment opportunities, creating a positive economic impact to their communities. Increased employment opportunities are considered a positive impact. Traditional Land Use: Traditional land use may be impacted temporarily because of various construction activities in the Project area. However, alternative arrangements will be made through ongoing consultation with local First Nations in order to mitigate any interruption to the traditional land use during the construction of various Project facilities and components. Only negligible residual impacts are expected

10.7.2 Operations and Maintenance

Employment Rate: During the operation of the project facilities, casual employment opportunities will be available for the Klahoose First Nation. This is considered to be a positive impact. Access Enhancement: Enhancement of access to the area may interfere with the traditional land use by the Klahoose First Nation and interfere with the pristine nature of their land. Any potentially adverse impact because of access enhancement identified by the First Nation will be addressed through ongoing consultation with the local band.

10.8 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS RELATED TO FIRST NATIONS ISSUES

Construction and Operational Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) will be developed to minimize disturbances to the natural environment, and the Klahoose First Nation. However, of particular relevance, the Proponent commits to the production of an Archaeological Resources Monitoring Plan and a Traditional Use Monitoring Plan. Each of these EMPs will be developed in consultation with the Klahoose First Nation. 10.8.1 Archaeological Resources Monitoring

An archaeological site management plan will be in place during construction (see section 11.2.16). This Plan will provide a detailed outline of the preventative measures that will be implemented in order to protect identified archaeological resources, and any resources that become known through the course of Project development. Project final design will incorporate alterations to development plans in order to avoid impacts to known resources. If, after all other options have been exhausted, impacts cannot be


avoided; studies will be conducted in consultation with the Klahoose First Nation to produce mitigation plans directed at retrieving the resource values prior to any impact. Additionally, the form and magnitude of compensation for unavoidable resource loss will be discussed and determined as appropriate. In accordance with the British Columbia Archaeological Resource Management Handbook (MTSA 2008), where mitigative studies are required, some form of systematic data recovery, analysis and interpretation of specific archaeological resources will be involved. UTHI and its archaeological consultant will submit a detailed research proposal to the Klahoose First Nation prior to initiating these studies. The Plan will include a monitoring component, designed to accommodate the implementation of emergency management measures should archaeological resources be unexpectedly uncovered during the course of development.

10.8.2 Traditional Use Monitoring Plan

As the Project undergoes final design, continued consultation with Klahoose First Nation will be conducted to ensure that traditional use areas do not become unacceptably impacted. The Plan will rely on the existing knowledge of the Klahoose First Nation to identify traditional use areas, and will allow for directed studies to be completed as warranted. If the traditional use value is determined by the Klahoose First Nation and UTHI to diminish as a result of Project development, the Project final design will incorporate alterations to development plans in order to avoid impacts. If, after all other options have been exhausted, impacts cannot be avoided; studies will be conducted in consultation with the Klahoose First Nation to produce mitigation plans directed at minimizing impacts to the traditional use values prior to any impact.

10.9 COMMITMENTS TO FIRST NATIONS

Upper Toba Hydro Inc. (UTHI) has developed the following commitment to the Klahoose First Nation in regards to consultation and Project benefits:

• UTHI acknowledges the existence of Aboriginal Rights and Title of First Nations in British Columbia as recognized by the Federal Courts of Canada.

• UTHI considers the early involvement by First Nations in the Project as being essential in maximizing the benefits that will flow from the Project to First Nations communities.

• The ability to have mutually beneficial Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) in place is considered by UTHI to be essential to developing equitable participation by First Nations in the project, relative to the impact in the traditional territory.

• Key components of IBAs are determined jointly with First Nations and typically include protection of important environmental, cultural, economic and social considerations; revenue sharing; employment and job training programs; business opportunities; and potential equity participation.


• UTHI recognizes the varying degrees of capacity and expertise within First Nations groups to undertake the due diligence required by their development proposals. UTHI is prepared to assist First Nations Communities financially to undertake due diligence requirements where funding from Government Sources is not adequate to build that capacity.

• The Company utilizes First Nation members wherever possible in the work of field crews capturing archaeological data, hydrological data, wildlife information and land data. This practice helps keep the First Nations communities informed as to what is happening with the Project and creates further understanding of the nature of the Project.

• UTHI commits to uphold promises and obligations to First Nations offered during the Project development and to continued dialogue as warranted between First Nations and UTHI throughout the life of the Project.

The Company has developed and published a Statement on Working Relationships with First Nations and adopted the MEM-ACE guidelines (Jepsen et al., 2005) as the basis for working with First Nations on the Project. The Statement reads as follows:

“Successful partnerships require dedication, commitment, hard work, understanding, trust and mutual respect. They also involve recognizing each other’s values and aspirations, and identifying and communicating common goals. The proponent shares the goals of First Nations in regards to the respect of land and resources and insuring long-term sustainability. The Company’s activities shall always be conducted in an economically, socially and environmentally responsible manner.”

The following ten principles guide the proponent’s position on all activities and issues related to First Nations:

1. Recognize the traditional territories and areas of cultural or heritage interest of First

Nations, 2. Recognize that First Nations have overlapping or shared territories, 3. Respect the diversity of interests and cultures among First Nations, 4. Respect the internal affairs of First Nations, 5. Have a common commitment to sustainability and respect for the land and its

resources, 6. Recognize that each First Nation may have interests and objectives that are unique

in their business relationships and cooperative ventures, 7. Acknowledge there’s a shortage of capital to involve First Nations in cooperative

ventures and assist them wherever possible in obtaining financing from both the private and public sectors,

8. Assist First Nations’ ability to develop training, employment, and business opportunities in connection with the Project,

9. Support First Nations’ aspirations in securing long-term economic development, and 10. Set objectives and maintain operations that are in the best business interests of the

company’s shareholders and First Nations”.


SECTION 11.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) will be developed for the construction and operation/maintenance phases of the Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project. The purpose of the EMPs are to ensure that proper measures and controls are in place in order to decrease the potential for environmental degradation during all phases of the Project development, and to provide clearly defined action plans and emergency response procedures to ensure that human and environmental health and safety is accounted for. Furthermore, analysis of the data obtained as a result of enacting the EMPs can be used to confirm any Project specific assumptions and make corrective plans wherever necessary. Several Acts, Regulations, industry standards, documents, and legislative guides will be used in the development of the EMPs, some of which are listed below:

• Canadian Environmental Protection Act (RSC 1998) • Fisheries Act (RS 1985) • Navigable Waters Protection Act (RS 1985) • Federal Species at Risk Act (SC 2002) • Migratory Birds Conventions Act (RSC 1970) • BC Environmental Management Act (SBC 2003) • Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Environmental

Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life • Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data (RIC, 1998) • Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act (RSBC 1996) • Forest and Range Practices Act (introduced in 2004) • BC Heritage Conservation Act (RSBC 1996) • BC Archaeological Resource Management Handbook, Ministry of Sustainable Resources

(MSRM, 1998a) • BC Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines, Ministry of Sustainable Resources

(MSRM, 1998b) • Canadian Standards Association • Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (1992) • Workers Compensation Act • WHMIS • HAZMAT • Wildfire Act

The EMP components outlined in the following section are typical of any large scale construction project, to ensure minimal environmental impacts and to comply with any and all applicable legislation, regulations, permits and licenses. Note that the Traditional Use Monitoring Plan is discussed above in Section 10.8.2.


11.2 CONSTRUCTION PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Prior to the commencement of Project construction a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be developed, submitted and reviewed. The CEMP will serve to provide guidance on specific actions and activities that will be implemented in order to decrease the potential for environmental degradation during construction, and to clearly define the proponent’s ongoing environmental commitment. The following sub-sections describe the components that will be addressed in the individual plans, which when compiled will form the CEMP. 11.2.1 Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan

This Plan will provide a detailed outline of the preventative measures that will be implemented in order to protect the water quality and reduce the potential for increased sedimentation in any of the watersheds within the Project footprint during construction activities. In order to prevent the deposit of deleterious substances and debris to the river systems or any environment in which aquatic life is supported, materials handling procedures and protective measures will be presented in this Plan. Details pertaining to sediment control measures will be provided, including erosion control methods such as silt fences, cross ditches, diversion berms, slope breakers and revegetation aids. Furthermore, all measures will be taken to reduce impacts to marshlands, mudflats and riparian zones, with strict adherence to the site specific permit requirements when and where such impacts are unavoidable.

11.2.2 Concrete Batch Plant Operating Plan

A temporary concrete batch plant/s will be erected for use on the project and amongst other minor things; they will serve the concrete needs of the project facilities, including the intake works, penstock installation and powerhouse construction. The objectives for this plan are to identify the project requirements for the operation of the concrete batch plant, to identify the necessary permits and approvals which may be required for the installation and operation of the concrete batch plant, and to ensure that works are planned, carried out and maintained to prevent water quality and fisheries related impacts to the site and surrounding areas.

11.2.3 Construction Waste Management Plan

The Construction Waste Management Plan will provide a detailed guide to the handling of all non-hazardous wastes associated with the construction phase of Project development. The Plan will address soil and rock waste, providing instructions on the proper disposal methods, if and when reuse is not an option. Details regarding the disposal of camp related wastes, and all other wastes will also be addressed. Camp related sewage disposal waste management plans will adhere to the permitting requirements and the guidelines, which are outlined in the following BC Acts and


Regulations: Environmental Management Act, Municipal Sewage Regulation Conditional Exemption Regulation Health Act, and Sewage Disposal Regulation. Plans regarding the open burning of camp waste will adhere to the Waste Management Act, and the Open Burning Smoke Control Regulation. The appropriate handling and disposal procedures for all putrescible and non-putrescible camp refuse will also be addressed in this plan. In the event that the camp will have greater than 100 people, Permits and Approvals under the Waste Management Act will be obtained in order to incinerate wastes. The Construction Waste Management Plan and the Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan will provide guidance on the management of special wastes, including oils, waste oils and solvents adhering the following Acts, Regulations and guides: the Waste Management Act, Hazardous Waste Regulation, the Special Waste Legislation Guide, and the Return of Used Lubricating Oil Regulation.

11.2.4 Acid Rock Drainage Management Plan

The ARD/ML Management Plan will provide details pertaining to the management of waste rock in the event that any of the exposed bedrock is found to be acid generating. Waste rock monitoring plans will be enacted and will include the field identification of rock units, with sulphide and carbonate content estimated. The plan will outline the handling methods that will be employed if ARD waste rock is discovered including methods of separating and segregating the waste rock and controlling leachate.

11.2.5 Air Quality and Dust Control Plan

The Air Quality and Dust Control Plan outlines the methods and controls that will be employed throughout all aspects of the Project development in order to protect air quality and control dust. These controls will extend to vehicle and equipment operations, soil and waste rock stockpiles and general construction activities. Examples of these measures include Best Management Practices such as the enforcement of lower vehicle speeds to keep dust to a minimum and ensuring the proper maintenance of vehicles resulting in optimal operating conditions and reduced emissions.

11.2.6 Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan

The Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan will provide detailed procedures regarding the collection and analysis of water and sediment samples and water quantity data. The plan will describe the permitting requirements and will rely upon the CCME – Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life and the Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data for the data analysis (RIC, 1998). Details in the plan will include the locations of the water quality monitoring stations, the frequency at which they are to be sampled and the parameters to be analysed. New water quality data will be compared to baseline data in a timely and efficient manner so that any potential water quality issues can be dealt with as soon as possible. The water


quality monitoring is key to determining the effectiveness of the Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan. This plan will implement and/or add onto the flow monitoring program, which was put into effect during the investigation and permitting stage. The primary focus will be measuring flows in the area of the proposed weirs and tailraces. The information gathered will build on the existing database of flow conditions/volumes and provide necessary information regarding flow continuance and the maintenance of downstream flows during the construction phase of Project development.

11.2.7 Contaminated Sites Management Plan

The Plan will specify any necessary protocols regarding the use of external sources of fill material during the construction process, to ensure that contaminated soils are not being brought into the Project footprint. Furthermore, the Plan will provide guidance regarding the procedures that must be followed in the event that contaminated lands are discovered during the course of construction.

11.2.8 Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan

The Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan will address all of the regulatory requirements regarding the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes, as well as providing clearly defined waste specific spill response procedures. The Plan will provide guidance on the maintenance of a Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), outlining the protocols for labelling and documenting these hazardous materials. Recommendations regarding worker education programs, addressing the handling of hazardous materials, will also be provided. The Plan will provide guidance for the transportation and handling of dangerous goods, using the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Summary of Environmental Standards and Guidelines for Fuel Handling, Transportation, and Storage as a basis for the development of protocols. Fuel storage will also be addressed in the Plan adhering to the following Acts and documents: the Provincial Fire Services Act, Summary of Environmental Standards & Guidelines for Fuel Handling, Transportation and Storage, and the Waste Management Act. Both the BC Ministry of Environment “Guidelines for Industry Emergency Response Contingency Plans” and “Emergency Planning for Industry” will be used to develop the full range of emergency contingency plans that will be addressed in the Plan. Spill reporting requirements will adhere to the Spill Reporting Regulation with specific reference to the immediate notification of the Provincial Emergency Program (PEP) and Environment Canada Emergencies in the event of a fuel or hazardous materials spill.


The Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan and the Construction Waste Management Plan will provide guidance on the management of special wastes, including oils, waste oils and solvents, adhering the following Acts, Regulations and guides: the Waste Management Act, Special Waste Regulation, the Special Waste Legislation Guide, and the Return of Used Lubricating Oil Regulation.

11.2.9 Accidents and Malfunctions Plan

This Accidents and Malfunctions Plan will be developed in order to protect personnel, equipment and the environment in the event of an emergency; this Plan will also define the mitigation measures that should be enacted to prevent these incidents from occurring. The Plan will be developed using the results of a full risk assessment of all relevant construction activities. Examples of some potential incidents include lightening, forest fires, vehicle accidents, personal injury, and machinery/equipment malfunctions. The Plan will define mitigation and response contingencies for any and all foreseeable accident or malfunction situations, as well as outlining procedures for monitoring the overall compliance with these protocols.

11.2.10 Emergency Response Plan

The Emergency Response Plan will be prepared to ensure that any environmental emergency will be dealt with in a rapid, safe and effective manner. The Plan will clearly define an Incident Command System (ICS), which will categorise emergencies and provide a very precise list of roles, responsibilities and essential emergency organisations that will need to be notified immediately. The Plan will provide detailed procedures and mitigation methods for every possible foreseeable emergency situation.

11.2.11 Fire Hazard Assessment and Abatement Plan

In accordance to Section 5 of the Wildfire Regulation, “sufficient fire tools” are required “at all times while there is a risk of a fire starting and spreading” for a person who carries out an industrial activity. A Fire Hazard Assessment and Abatement Plan will ensure that the possibility of initiation of any wildfire because of the construction is minimized.

11.2.12 Landscape Design and Restoration Plan

The Landscape Design and Restoration Plan will provide guidance and instructions to ensure that all disturbed lands are either restored to their original condition or landscaped in such a manner that is both visually appealing and environmentally sound. All of the potentially disturbed areas will be identified and proposals and plans for their rehabilitation will be provided. Soil stabilisation and revegetation are key to this Plan and are closely linked to the Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan and to the Outdoor Recreation Use Management Plan.


11.2.13 Wildlife and Vegetation Monitoring Plan

The Wildlife and Vegetation Monitoring Plan will provide guidance regarding the regular and precise logging of wildlife sightings and encounters during the course of construction. Vegetation monitoring, with respect to this Plan, will focus primarily upon vegetation as a habitat source for wildlife. Wildlife habitat monitoring protocols will be outlined along with mitigation measures, which will ensure the protection of any habitat that was not already identified and avoided during the Project design phase. The following Acts will provide some direction regarding the development of this Plan: the Federal Species at Risk Act, and the Migratory Birds Conventions Act.

11.2.14 Bear Human Conflict Management Plan

The Bear Human Conflict Management Plan will define the preventative measures to be put in place for construction crew to limit bear disturbance and mortality. The plan will also serve to reduce risks to the crew from bears. All crew will be provided with a Bear Aware training program, and will be instructed to refrain from feeding bears. Food scraps and garbage from work sites will be removed, with the waste transported back to an appropriate area for proper disposal. Work crews will be prohibited from hunting and cleaning game in the Project area. Nuisance bears will be reported to a Conservation Officer and firearm possession will be limited to one person per construction area, for emergency defence only.

11.2.15 Outdoor Recreation Use Management Plan

The Outdoor Recreation Use Management Plan will be designed and implemented with the understanding that much, if not all, of the area within the Project footprint may be accessed by outdoor enthusiasts. The Plan will outline the measures that will be enacted to reduce the potential for conflicts resulting from overlapping or nearby commercial recreational tenure or with established recreational use areas. Furthermore, the Plan will provide detailed protocols regarding the management of blasting zones and other potentially hazardous construction activities, through proper notification and effective signage.

11.2.16 Archaeological Sites Management Plan

The Archaeological Sites Management Plan will provide guidance and describe the permitting requirements, under the Heritage Conservation Act, regarding the known heritage sites identified during the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) as well as for the unknown sites, which may be discovered during the course of construction. Monitoring procedures to be enacted during the construction phase will follow those provided in the BC Archaeological Resource Management Handbook (MSRM, 1998a) and in the BC Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (MSRM, 1998b). Protocols will be implemented into the Plan, which will provide guidance regarding the alteration of transmissions routes so that the archaeological sites will be protected.


11.2.17 Fish Habitat Compensation Plan

11.2.17.1 Introduction

Upon DFO’s acceptance of unavoidability of HADDs as a result of implementation of the Project and its components, fish habitat enhancement/compensation plans will be proposed to address any potential loss of aquatic habitat associated with the access road rehabilitation and construction of other project facilities and components. In order to construct culverts, bridges, and discrete sections of the access road that infringe on aquatic habitat, an authorization under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act for the Harmful Alteration, Disruption, or Destruction (HADD) of fish habitat from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) will likely be required. The amount of HADD resulting from the aforementioned works is addressable through compensation, and these compensation measures will be designed, constructed, and monitored to satisfy the no net-loss guiding principle of DFO. The proponent recognizes that a process of consultation with stakeholders, including First Nations, DFO, Provincial Fisheries Agencies, and the public, must precede the acceptance of a fish habitat compensation plan. The following process is proposed with the objective of developing a fish habitat compensation plan acceptable to First Nations, government agencies, and public stakeholders:

• Preliminary feedback from government agencies and stakeholders concerning fish habitat compensation based on the content of the Application Report;

• Initial response from the proponent concerning the preliminary feedback on the Application;

• Consultation with the First Nation and other stakeholders concerning the acceptability, technical feasibility, and economic feasibility of fish habitat enhancement options;

• Finalization of the fish habitat compensation plan including approvals from the appropriate agencies for the plans and the construction of physical works;

• Implementation of the fish habitat compensation plan including the construction of any works or the undertaking of any activities; and

• Ongoing maintenance and monitoring as specified in the fish habitat compensation plan.

The rationale for the amount of fish habitat compensation will be based on the identified residual impacts from the tailrace facilities and encroachments by the road on fish habitat. Any additional fish habitat enhancement activities that are not required for fish habitat compensation will be clearly identified.


11.3 OPERATIONS PHASE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

An Operations Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) will be developed, submitted and reviewed prior to the commissioning of the Project. The OEMP will serve to provide guidance on specific actions and activities that will be implemented to decrease the potential for environmental degradation during operation, and to clearly define the proponent’s ongoing environmental commitment. The following sub-sections describe the components that will be addressed in the individual Plans, which when compiled will form the OEMP. Note that the Traditional Use Monitoring Plan is discussed above in Section 10.8.2. 11.3.1 Parameters and Procedures of Operation

The Parameters and Procedures of the Project operation will be compiled and provide a description of the physical aspects of the Project, the hydrologic conditions of the stream, and values considered in the operation of the facility. It will provide a summary of the final design and operating parameters of the Project.

11.3.2 Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan

The Surface Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan will provide a detailed outline of the preventative measures that will be implemented in order to protect the water quality and reduce the potential for increased sedimentation in any of the watersheds during Project operations. Materials handling and protective measures will be presented in this Plan in order to prevent the deposit of deleterious substances and debris into the river systems or any environment in which aquatic life is supported.

11.3.3 Waste Management Plan

The Waste Management Plan will provide a detailed guide to the handling of all non-hazardous wastes associated with the Project operation. The Plan will provide guidance on the management of special wastes, including oils, waste oils and solvents adhering the Environmental Management Act.

11.3.4 Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching Management Plan

The primary ARD/ML risk management strategy is to avoid excavating any rock with potential for ARD/ML. The ARD/ML risk at the site is predominantly focused in the areas where the bedrock comprises the Gambier Formation. In the event that it becomes necessary to develop borrow areas and/or form significant new rock excavations in this material, then an Acid Base Accounting testing program would be necessary in order to test if the bedrock has ARD/ML potential, and investigate the need for mitigation measures. The objectives for this plan would be: to identify any potential ARD/ML risk areas, to avoid, wherever possible, interacting with any material with ARD/ML potential and to identify a process of testing to be followed if problematic material is encountered and a mitigation strategy to be developed should the material to be confirmed to have ARD/ML potential.


11.3.5 Air Quality and Dust Control Plan

The Air Quality and Dust Control Plan outlines the methods and controls that will be employed throughout all aspects of the Project development in order to protect air quality and control dust. Examples of these measures include Best Management Practices such as the enforcement of lower vehicle speeds to keep dust to a minimum and ensuring the proper maintenance of vehicles resulting in optimal operating conditions and reduced emissions.

11.3.6 Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan

The Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring Plan will provide detailed procedures regarding the collection and analysis of water and sediment samples and water quantity data. The Plan will describe the permitting requirements and will rely upon the CCME – Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life and the Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data for the data analysis (RIC, 1998). Details in the Plan will include the locations of the water quality monitoring stations, the frequency at which they are to be sampled and the parameters to be analysed. New water quality data will be compared to baseline data in a timely and efficient manner so that any potential water quality issues can be dealt with as soon as possible. Water quality monitoring is key to determining the effectiveness of the Water Quality and Sediment Control Plan. This Plan will implement and/or add onto the flow monitoring program which was put into effect during the investigation and construction stages. The primary focus will be measuring flows in the area of the proposed weirs and tailraces. The information gathered will build on the existing database of flow conditions/volumes and provide necessary information regarding flow continuance and the maintenance of downstream flows, as well as providing ramping confirmations with respect to flow volumes.

11.3.7 Fisheries and Aquatic Fauna Monitoring Plan

The Fisheries and Aquatic Fauna Monitoring Plan will provide detailed procedures regarding the collection and analysis of aquatic fauna samples. The primary objective of this program would be to gather sufficient fisheries and aquatic fauna data to compare to the baseline data and to confirm the impact assessment predictions. Fish and aquatic fauna monitoring procedures will be developed based on the Freshwater Biological Sampling Manual (RIC, 1997b) and the Fish Collection Methods and Standards (RIC, 1997a).


11.3.8 Contaminated Sites Management Plan

The primary risk management strategy for contaminated sites is to avoid creating new sites of contamination and to ensure the disturbance of exiting sites does not adversely impact the surround environment. Objectives of the contaminated site management plan are to identify existing contamination within the construction area and identify necessary control measures or procedures to follow when working with contaminated sites. In the unlikely event contamination should occur, provide planning procedures to ensure adequate mitigation measures are implemented to avoid adverse impacts on the surrounding environment or project components.

11.3.9 Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan

The Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan will address all of the regulatory requirements regarding the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes, as well as providing clearly defined waste specific spill response procedures. The Plan will provide guidance on the maintenance of a Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), outlining the protocols for labelling and documenting these hazardous materials. Recommendations regarding worker education programs, addressing the handling of hazardous materials, will also be provided. The Plan will provide guidance for the transportation and handling of dangerous goods, using the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Summary of Environmental Standards and Guidelines for Fuel Handling, Transportation, and Storage as a basis for the development of protocols. Fuel storage will also be addressed in the Plan adhering to the following Acts and documents: the Provincial Fire Services Act, Summary of Environmental Standards & Guidelines for Fuel Handling, Transportation and Storage, and the Waste Management Act. Both the BC Ministry of Environment “Guidelines for Industry Emergency Response Contingency Plans” and “Emergency Planning for Industry” will be used to develop the full range of emergency contingency plans that will be addressed in the Plan. Spill reporting requirements are outlined in the Spill Reporting Regulation with specific reference to the immediate notification of the Provincial Emergency Program (PEP) and Environment Canada Emergencies in the event of a fuel or hazardous materials spill. The Hazardous Waste Management and Spill Response Plan and the Waste Management Plan will provide guidance on the management of special wastes, including oils, waste oils and solvents, adhering to the Environmental Management Act.


11.3.10 Accidents and Malfunctions Plan

This Accidents and Malfunctions Plan will be developed in order to protect personnel, equipment and the environment in the event of an emergency; this Plan will also define the mitigation measures that should be enacted to prevent these incidents from occurring. The Plan will be developed using the results of a full risk assessment of all activities relevant to Project operations. Examples of some potential incidents include lightening, forest fires, penstock rupture, weir bursts, personal injury, and machinery/equipment malfunctions. The Plan will define mitigation and response contingencies for any and all foreseeable accident or malfunction situations, as well as outlining procedures for monitoring for overall compliance with these protocols.

11.3.11 Emergency Response Plan

The Emergency Response Plan will be prepared to ensure that any environmental emergency will be dealt with in a rapid, safe and effective manner. The Plan will clearly define an Incident Command System (ICS), which will categorise emergencies and provide a very precise list of roles, responsibilities and essential emergency organisations that will need to be notified immediately. The Plan will provide detailed procedures and mitigation methods for every possible foreseeable emergency situation.

11.3.12 Fire Hazard Assessment and Abatement Plan

In accordance to Section 5 of the Wildfire Regulation, “sufficient fire tools” are required “at all times while there is a risk of a fire starting and spreading” for a person who carries out an industrial activity. A Fire Hazard Assessment and Abatement Plan will ensure that the possibility of initiation of any wildfire because of the operation is minimized.

11.3.13 Landscape and Restoration Monitoring Plan

During construction of the Project, areas of disturbance are created which require restoration. Some of these areas pose temporary risks throughout the construction of the Project, while other areas require consideration from a long-term landscape design perspective. Hence, it will be necessary to restore these disturbed areas to a state which does not cause them to conflict with the surroundings. The objectives of this plan are to minimise adverse landscape conflict impacts where practicable and; to detail regimes of restoration and rehabilitation of disturbed areas created as a result of the Project works.

11.3.14 Wildlife/Vegetation Monitoring Plan

Wildlife and vegetation monitoring plan documents the terrestrial fauna species and vegetation communities which are regionally important within the Project area. It aims to identify, list and plan for the implementation of the necessary measures to be put in place to mitigate potential impacts associated with the construction phase of the Project.


11.3.15 Human Bear Conflict Management Plan

The Human Bear Conflict Management Plan will define the preventative measures to be put in place for on site operations crew to limit bear disturbance and mortality. The plan will also serve to reduce risks to the crew from bears. All crew will be provided with a Bear Aware training program, and will be instructed to refrain from feeding bears. Food scraps and garbage from work sites will be removed, with the waste transported back to an appropriate area for proper disposal. Work crews will be prohibited from hunting and cleaning game in the Project area. Nuisance bears will be reported to a Conservation Officer and firearm possession will be limited to one person per construction area, for emergency defence only.

11.3.16 Marbled Murrelet Monitoring Plan

The Marbled Murrelet Monitoring Plan will detail all post-construction monitoring to be conducted in order to quantify impacts from the Project, especially transmission line collisions, to Marbled Murrelets. The plan will also further address appropriate mitigation measures, beyond those discussed in previous sections, if required. A dialogue with representatives of the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Team, and perhaps representatives of certain government agencies, will be established to determine the best way to monitor, and identify areas of greatest concern where mitigation and monitoring should be done.

11.3.17 Outdoor Recreation Use Management Plan

The Outdoor Recreation Use Management Plan will be designed and implemented with the understanding that much, if not all, of the area within the Project footprint may be accessed by outdoor enthusiasts. The Plan will outline the measures that will be enacted to reduce the potential for conflicts resulting from overlapping or nearby commercial recreational tenure or with established recreational use areas. Furthermore, the Plan will provide detailed protocols regarding the management of transmissions lines and the powerhouses through proper notification, use of fencing and effective signage.

11.3.18 Archaeological Sites Management Plan

The Archaeological Sites Management Plan will provide guidance and describe the permitting requirements, under the Heritage Conservation Act, regarding the known heritage sites identified during the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) as well as for the unknown sites, which may be discovered during the operation. Monitoring procedures to be enacted during the operation phase will follow those provided in the BC Archaeological Resource Management Handbook (MSRM, 1998a) and in the BC Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines (MSRM, 1998b).


11.3.19 Fish Habitat Compensation Monitoring Plan

Monitoring of the works or activities associated with the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan will be initiated to confirm that the Plan meets its stated objectives and achieves no net loss of fish habitat to the satisfaction of DFO.


SECTION 12.0 - CONCLUSIONS

For the consideration of the Responsible Authorities, it is the opinion of Upper Toba Hydro Inc. and its consultants that, based on the results of the impact assessment, after implementation of appropriate impact management/mitigation measures (as identified in the Application’s “Table of Proposed Commitments,”), the Project is not likely to cause significant net adverse environmental, land-use, socio-economic, First Nations, or other effects.


SECTION 13.0 - REFERENCES

Acheson, S. and S. Riley. 1976a. Gulf of Georgia Archaeological Survey: Powell River and Sechelt Districts. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, Victoria. In: Arcas (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd.) 2007. Jimmie Creek Dalglish Creek, and Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Projects: Archaeological Impact assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corporation.

Acheson, S. and S. Riley.1976b. Report to the Lands Branch: Archaeological Survey of the

Malspina Peninsula Study Area: September 1, 1976. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, Victoria. In: Arcas (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd.) 2007. Jimmie Creek Dalglish Creek, and Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Projects: Archaeological Impact assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corporation.

Acheson, S. and S. Riley. 1977. An Archaeological Resource Inventory of the Northeast Gulf of

Georgia Region. Report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, Victoria. In: Arcas (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd.) 2007. Jimmie Creek Dalglish Creek, and Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Projects: Archaeological Impact assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corporation.

ALC (Agricultural Land Commission) 2008. The City of Powell River’s Application to Remove

Lands from the Agricultural Land Reserve in order to Foster Economic Diversification. http://www.landcommission.gov.bc.ca/application_status/Powell_River/Community_Need_Business_Case.pdf

Apps, C.D. 2003. A cartographic model based cumulative effects assessment of the proposed

Jumbo Glacier resort development on grizzly bears in the central Purcell Mountains, British Columbia. Prepared for ENKON Environmental Limited and Pheidias Project Management.

Apps, C. and B. Bateman. 2005. Grizzly bear population density and distribution in the southern

Coast Ranges: Year 1 progress and data summary. Aspen Wildlife Research and Ministry of Environment, Victoria, British Columbia.

Apps, C., D. Paetkau, and B. Bateman. 2006. Grizzly bear population density and distribution in

the southern Coast Ranges: Year 2 progress and data summary. Aspen Wildlife Research and Ministry of Environment, Victoria, British Columbia.

Arcas (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd.) 2007. Jimmie Creek Dalglish Creek, and Upper

Toba River Hydroelectric Projects: Archaeological Impact assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corporation.

Austin, M.S., D.C. Heard, and A.N. Hamilton. 2004. Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Harvest

Management in British Columbia. Report prepared for BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. 9pp.


BCGS, 2005. British Columbia Geological Survey MapPlace. http://webmap.em.gov.bc.ca/mapplace/minpot/bcgs.cfm

BCLA (BC Lung Association). 2008. http://www.bc.lung.ca/airquality/stateoftheair-report.html BC Stats 2006. Regional District 27- Powell River Statistical Profile 2006.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/sep/rd/Rd_27.pdf BC Stats 2007. Municipal Population Estimates.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/DATA/pop/pop/mun/Mun2007txt.pdf. Accessed Jan. 24, 2008

BC Stats 2008. Community Facts. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/dd/facsheet/CF270.pdf

Accessed January 25, 2008 BC WQG (British Columbia Water Quality Guidelines for aquatic life in fresh water (August 2006).

Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/approv_wq_guide/approved.html#intro

BCWWA (British Columbia Water and Waste Association). 2001. Arsenic in the Water?

Watermark Magazine, Spring 2001. Available at: http://www.bcwwa.org/magazine/2000-2002/spring2001/feature3.php.

Beanland, G.E. and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact

Assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies Dalhousie University and federal Environmental review Office.

Beebe, F.L. 1974. Field Studies of the Falconiformes of British Columbia. BC Prov. Mus.,

Victoria, BC Occas. Pap. No. 17. Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,

PA. Bengtson, S. A., and S. Ulfstrand. 1971. Food resources and breeding frequency of the Harlequin

Duck Histrionicus histrionicus in Iceland. Oikos 22:235-239. Blood, D.A. and G.G. Anweiler. 1994. Status of the Bald Eagle in British Columbia. Wildlife

Branch of Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria BC Blood, D.A., and M. Macartney. 1998. Painted Turtle. BC Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks,

Wildl. Branch. 6pp. Blood, D.A. 1998. Townsend's Big eared Bat. BC Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl.

Branch. 6pp.


Blood, D.A. 2000a. Mountain Goat in British Columbia. BC Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. 6pp.

Blood, D. 2000b. Elk in British Columbia. BC Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch.

6pp. Boal, C.W., and R.W. Mannan. 1994. Queen Charlotte Goshawk diets in ponderosa pine forests

on the Kaibab Plateau. Stud. In Avian Biol. 16: 97-102. Bortolotti, G.R. 1984. Sexual size dimorphism and age related size variation in Bald Eagles.

Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 72-81. Braun, C. E. 1994. Band tailed Pigeon. Chapter 5, Pp. 61-74 IN T. C. Tacha and C. E. Braun,

eds. Migratory shore and upland game bird management in North America. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS.

Brown, C. R., and M. B. Brown. 1999. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica). In The Birds of North America, No. 452 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Brunt, K. 1990. Ecology of Roosevelt elk. Ch. 3 In Nyberg, J.B. and D. W. Janz (tech. eds.).

1990. Deer and elk habitats in coastal forests of southern British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests and BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC

Buehler, David A.. 2000 . Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The Birds of North America

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506.

Butler, R.W. 1992. Great Blue Heron. In A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds

of North America, No. 25. The Acad. Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, The Amer. Ornithol. Union, Washington, DC.

Bull, E.L. and B.E. Carter. 1996a. Tailed frogs: distribution, ecology, and association with timber

harvest in northeastern Oregon. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-RP-497. 12 p.

Burger, A. 2004. Marbled Murrelet in Accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife.

British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Burger, A. E. 2002. Conservation assessment of Marbled Murrelets in British Columbia: a review

of the biology, populations, habitat associations, and conservation Technical Report Series No. 387. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, British Columbia. Issued under the Authority of the Minister of Environment Canadian Wildlife Service.


Butler, R.W. 1991. A review of the biology and conservation of the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) in British Columbia. Tech. Rep. No. 154, Can. Wildl. Serv., Pacific and Yukon Reg., Delta, BC. 16pp.

Butler, R.W. 1997. The Great Blue Heron. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver ,

BC Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McT. Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G. Kaiser, and M.C.E. McNall. 1990a.

The Birds of British Columbia, Vol. 1. Nonpasserines: Introduction, Loons through Waterfowl. Royal BC Mus. in association with Environ. Can., Can. Wildl. Serv. 514pp.

Campbell, R.W., A.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J. Cooper, G. Kaiser and M.C. McNall. 1990b.

Birds of British Columbia: Volume 2, Nonpasserines; Diurnal Birds of Prey through Woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum.

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall and

M.G. Smith. 1997. Birds of British Columbia: Volume 3, Passerines; Flycatchers through Vireos. Royal British Columbia Museum.

Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanagan Valley, British

Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum. Cannings, S.G., L.R. Ramsay, D.F. Fraser, and M.A. Fraker. 1999. Rare amphibians, reptiles,

and mammals of British Columbia. Wildl. Branch and Resour. Inv. Branch, BC Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 198 pp.

Cannings, R. J., and T. Angell. 2001. Western Screech Owl (Otus kennicottii). In The Birds of

North America, No. 597 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Cannings, R.J. 2004. Interior Western Screech-Owl in Accounts and measures for managing

identified wildlife. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.

Cassirer, E.F., A. Breault, P. Clarkson, D.L. Genter, R.I. Goudie, B. Hunt, S.C. Latte, G.H.

Mittlehauser, M. McCullough, G. Shirato and R.L. Wallen. 1993b. Status of Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) in North America. Report of the Harlequin Duck Working Group, March 1993.

Cassirer, E.F. and C.R. Groves. 1989. Breeding ecology of Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus

histrionicus) of the Kaniksu National Forest, Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.

Cassirer, E. F., J. D. Reichel, R. L. Wallen and E. C. Atkinson. 1996. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus

histrionicus) United States Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management habitat conservation assessment and conservation strategy for the U.S. Rocky Mountains. Idaho


Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, ID, Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT, Grand Teton National Park, Moose, WY, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association, Kempton, PA. 54pp.

Cathcart, J. 2005. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Flow Ramping Study: Study of flow ramping

rates for hydropower developments. Knight Piesold, Ltd. (Ref. No. VA103-79/2-1) CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999. Canadian water quality

guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Dissolved oxygen (freshwater). In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines, 1999, Canadian Coucnil of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

CDPR (Corporation of the District of Powell River). 2004. 2004 Official community Plan Update:

Technical Background Report (Working Document), 18 Oct. 2004. CDC (BC Conservation Data Center). 2004. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cdc/ CDC (BC Conservation Data Center). 2007. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cdc/ Chatwin, T.A. 2004. Keen's long eared myotis in Accounts and measures for managing

identified wildlife. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.

Church, M. 2002. Geomorphic thresholds in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology, 47, 541-

557. Corkran, C., and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. A

Field Identification Guide. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, BC COSEWIC. 2002a. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Western Screech owl

Otus kennicottii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 31 pp.

COSEWIC. 2002b. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the western toad Bufo

boreas in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 31 pp.

COSEWIC. 2002c. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the grizzly bear Ursus

arctos in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 91 pp.

COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Keen's long eared bat

Myotis keenii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 35 pp.


Cullen, S. A. 2002. Using radar to monitor populations and assess habitat associations of Marbled Murrelets within the Sunshine Coast Forest District. Unpublished report to BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Surrey, BC.

Daugherty, C.H. and A.L. Sheldon. 1982b. Age determination, growth, and life history of a

Montana population of the tailed frog (Ascaphus truei). Herpetologica. 38(4):461-468. Dayton & Knight Ltd., 2004. Powell River Regional District – Septage Facility Pre-Design Study

(Draft No.4), Dayton and Knight Consulting Engineers, December 2004. Available at: http://www.powellriverrd.bc.ca/misc/septiclagoonstudy20041.pdf

Davis, W. E., Jr., and J. A. Kushlan. 1994. Green Heron (Butorides virescens). In The Birds of

North America, No. 129 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007. Mapster Version 2.2: OGC Data Viewer and Metadata Search. Available at: http://www.canbcdw.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ows/imf.jsp?site=mapster Dolighan, R., and J. Materi. 2002. South Island Forest District Arrowsmith TSA Ungulate Winter

Range Assessment. Rept. prep. for the South Island Forest District, BC Ministry of Forests.

Dupuis, L.A. and F.L. Bunnell. 1997. Status and distribution of the tailed frog in British Columbia.

Forest Renewal BC Final Report. 21 p. E7NEGE (E7 Network of Expertise for the Global Environment). 1997. Environmental Impact

Assessment- An Electric Utility Overview- The E7 Network of Expertise for the Global Environment. 1010 St. Catherine Street West, 6th Floor, P.O. Box 6162. Montréal, Québec, CANADA, H3C 4S7. http://www.e8.org/upload/File/E7_EIA_Manual_EN.pdf

EC (Environment Canada). 2003. NAPS Network Website. http://www.etc-

cte.ec.gc.ca/napsstations/main.aspx EC (Environment Canada). 2004. Cast Study – Powell River, British Columbia. Government of

Canada. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/en/manage/qual/case/context Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook: a field guide to the

natural history of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster Inc., Toronto, ON. 875pp. Firman, M.C. 2000. Townsend's Big Eared Bat (Plecotus townsendii) in the East Kootenays. P.

435 in L.M. Darling, ed. 2000. Proc. Conf. on the Biology and Manage. Species and Habitats at Risk, Kamloops, BC, 15-19 Feb., 1999. Vol. 1; BC Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC, and Univ. College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, BC. 490pp.


First Voices. 2008. http://www.firstvoices.com/scripts/WebObjects.exe/FirstVoices.woa/3/wa/enterLanguageArchive?archive=20fa36fb5a79a1e1&wosid=cFKfS1i5v8bEOGFxVwzt00 Accessed January 24, 2008.

Fraser, D. F., and L. Ramsey. 1996. Status of the Green Heron in British Columbia. Wildlife

Working Report WR-78. Wildlife Branch, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Fraser, D.F., W.L. Harper, S.G. Cannings, and J.M. Cooper. 1999. Rare birds of British Columbia.

Wildl. Branch and Resour. Inv. Branch, BC Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, BC. 244pp.

Gebauer, M.B. 1995. Status and productivity of Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) colonies in

the lower Fraser River Valley in 1992, 1993 and 1994. BC Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Surrey, BC 105 pp.

Gebauer, M.B., and I.E. Moul. 2001. Status of the Great Blue Heron in British Columbia. BC

Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch, Victoria, BC. 66pp. Geological Survey of Canada, 2008. http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/cordgeo/coast_e.php Gerrard, P., J.M. Gerrard, D.W.A. Whitfield, and W.J. Maher. l974. Post-fledging movements of

juvenile bald eagles. Blue Jay 32:218-226. Gibbs, D., E. Barnes, J. Cox. 2001. Pigeons and Doves: A guide to pigeons and doves of the

world. Yale Univ. Press. 615 pp. Gibeau, M.L. 1998. Grizzly bear habitat effectiveness model for Banff, Yoho and Kootenay

National Parks, Canada. Ursus 10:235-241. Gibeau, M. & Stevens, S. 2005. Grizzly bear response to human use. Pages 181-192_ in

Herrero, S. (ed) 2005. Biology, demography, ecology and management of grizzly bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: The final report of the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (ESGBP). Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. http://www.canadianrockies.net/Grizzly/final_report.html.Accessed: October 11, 2005.

Golder Associates.1999 Archaeological Inventory within MacMillan Bloedel Ltd's TFL 39

(Stillwater Division) Goat Narrows, Powell Lake, BC Consultants’ report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, Victoria. In: Arcas (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd.) 2007. Jimmie Creek Dalglish Creek, and Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Projects: Archaeological Impact assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corporation.

Golder Associates. 2002. Archaeological Impact Assessments of Proposed Telecommunications

Cable Crossings, North Island Ring Project. Consultants’ report on file, Archaeology


Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, Victoria. In: Arcas (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd.) 2007. Jimmie Creek Dalglish Creek, and Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Projects: Archaeological Impact assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corporation.

Green, D.M. and R.W. Campbell. 1984. Amphibians of British Columbia. Royal BC Museum

Handbook. Victoria. Gruver, J., and D. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): A

Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project.

Gyug, L., Hamilton, T. and M. Austin 2004. Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified

Wildlife. Version 2004. Biodiversity Branch, Identified Wildlife Management Strategy, Victoria, BC British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Hamilton, A.N., D.C. Heard, and M.A. Austin. 2004. British Columbia Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos)

Population Estimate. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. 7pp. Harrison, C. 1978. A field guide to the nests, eggs, and nestlings of North American birds.

Collins, Glasgow. 416pp. Hatfield, T., A. Lewis, M. Bradford and D. Ohlson. 2003. Development of instream flow thresholds

as guidelines for reviewing proposed water uses. British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, and British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.

Hatfield, T., A. Lewis, S. Babakaiff, 2007. Guidelines for the Collection and Analysis of Fish andFish Habitat Data for the Purpose of Assessing Impacts from Small Hydropower Projectsin British Columbia. March 2007.

HCL (Hatfield Consultants Ltd.). 1999. Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish Habitat

Inventory of Little Toba River Watershed WSC: 900-349300-24400.

HCL (Hatfield Consultants Ltd.). 2001. Overview 1:50,000 Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory Of 5 Mainland Coast Watersheds: Toba RiverWatershed WSC: 900-349300; Brem RiverWatershed WSC: 900-357900; Quatam River Watershed WSC: 900-368900;

Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A. Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling and D. Stalker. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and the CEA Working Group for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec.

Hrussoczy-Wirth, V.C., R.W. Armstrong, and A.W. Argue. 1976. Preliminary Salmonid Reconnaissance of the Toba River System, 1976 by Environment Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service.


Southgate River Watershed WSC: 900-404100; Homathko River Watershed WSC: 900-406900.

Henigman, J., J. Turner and K. Swift. 2005. Coast Forest Region – Roosevelt elk Wildlife Habitat Decision Aid. BC J. Ecosystems and Management 6(1):51-53.

Howes, D.E., and Kenk, E., 1997. Terrain Classification System for British Columbia (version 2). British Columbia Ministry of Environment Manual 10.

Hull, C.L. 1999. COSEWIC status report update on Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus (Gmelin). Report to Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Simon Fraser Univ., Cent. Wildl. Ecol., Burnaby, BC In BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004a. Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) In Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife – Accounts V. 2004. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC Available: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/identified/accounts.html (accessed: December 7, 2006).

Hull, C. L., G. W. Kaiser, C. Lougheed, L. Lougheed, S. Boyd, and F. Cooke. 2001. Intraspecific variation in commuting distance of Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus): ecological and energetic consequences of nesting further inland. Auk 118:1036-1046. In BC Conservation Data Centre. 2006. Species Summary: Brachyramphus marmoratus. BC Minist. of Environment. Available: http://srmapps.gov.bc.ca/apps/eswp/ (accessed Dec 7, 2006).

Jeffrey, R. G. 1989. The Band-Tailed Pigeon: distribution, effects of harvest, regulations, mortality rates, and habits, 1968-1979. Final report. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Jepsen, D., B. Joseph and B. McIntosh. 2005. Mineral Exploration, Mining and Aboriginal Community Engagement: A Guide Book. Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia (AME BC).

Jenkins, M.J. and R.E. Jackman. 2006. Lifetime reproductive success of Bald Eagles in northern California. The Condor 108: 730-735.

Keppie, D. M., and C. E. Braun. 2000. Band tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata). In The Birds of North America, No. 530 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Keystone Wildlife Research Ltd. (KWR). 2006. East Toba River and Montrose Creek Water

Power Project: Wildlife and Habitat Impact Assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corp.

KFN (Klahoose First Nation) 2008. http://klahoose.org/klahoose_Community.html. Accessed

January 23, 2008.


Leonard, J. P. 1998. Nesting and foraging ecology of Band tailed Pigeons in western Oregon. Ph.D. diss., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. In Keppie, D. M., and C. E. Braun. 2000. Band tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata). In The Birds of North America, No. 530 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Lewis, A., T. Hatfield, B. Chilibeck and C. Roberts 2004. Assessment Method for Aquatic Habitat and Instream Flow Characteristics in Support of Applications to Dam, Divert, or Extract Water from Streams in British Columbia. Report prepared for Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection and Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Available at: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/assessment_methods_instreamflow_in_bc.pdf

Machmer, M.M. 2001. Salmo River Harlequin Duck Inventory, Monitoring and Brood Habitat Assessment. Report prepared for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program by Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. and the Salmo Watershed Streamkeepers Society. 54pp.

Mallory, A. 2004. Coastal Tailed Frog in Accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.

Maxcy, K.A. 2004. Red legged Frog in Accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.

McClaren, E.L. 2001. Factors influencing Northern Goshawk detectability and reproduction on

Vancouver Island, British Columbia. M.S. Thesis, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO.

McClaren, E. 2004. Queen Charlotte Goshawk in Accounts and measures for managing identified

wildlife. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.

McClung, D.M., Mears, A.I. and Schaerer, P. 1989. Extreme Avalanche Run-out: Data From Four Mountain Ranges. Annals of Glaciology 13, 1989

McClung, D.M., Stethan, C.J., Schaerer, P.A., and Jamieson, J.B. 2002. Guidelines For Snow Avalanche Risk Determination and Mapping in Canada. Canadian Avalanche Association.

Mears, A . 1989. Avalanche Runout Distances and Dynamics: Current Methods and Limitations. The Avalanche Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, January, 1989.

Millennia Research 1998. Desolation Sound and Copeland Islands Provincial Marine Parks: Archaeological Inventory and Impact Assessment. Consultants’ report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, Victoria. In: Arcas (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd.) 2007. Jimmie Creek Dalglish Creek, and Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Projects: Archaeological Impact assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corporation.


Millennia Research 2002 Sunshine Coast Small Business Forestry Operations, TSL A55516,

Tahumming River, Toba Inlet. Consultants’ report on file, Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, Victoria. In: Arcas (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd.) 2007. Jimmie Creek Dalglish Creek, and Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Projects: Archaeological Impact assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corporation.

MoE, 2007a. Air Quality Online http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/aqiis/air.summary MoE, 2007b. Air Emissions Inventory on iMapBC http://maps.gov.bc.ca\ MoE, 2007c. Recreation Resources Inventory Online http://aardvark.gov.bc.ca/apps/rec/ MoELP (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks). 1998. Manual of Standard Operating

Procedures for Hydrometric Surveys in British Columbia, Version 1.1, Prepared for: Aquatic Inventory Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee.

MoELP and MoF (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests). 1998. Field

Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems. Land Management Handbook #25. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Lmh/Lmh25/06-Taw.pdf

Montgomery, D. R. and J. M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage

basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol 109(5) 596-611. MSRM (Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management) 1998a. BC Archaeological Resource

Management Handbook. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Archaeology and Forests Branch. Revised February 1998.

MSRM (Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management) 1998b. BC Archaeological Impact

Assessment Guidelines. Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Archaeology and Forests Branch. Revised October 1998.

MTSA (Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts). 2008. British Columbia Archaeological Resource Management Handbook. http://www.tsa.gov.bc.ca/archaeology/docs/resource_management_handbook/index.htm

MWLAP (Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection). 2004. Standards and Best Practices for

Instream Works. (now Ministry of Environment) http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/iswstdsbpsmarch2004.pdf

Nagorsen D.W. and R.M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia

Museum Handbook. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 164pp. Natural Resources Canada. 2003. Glossary. Accessed on February 22 2008.

http://www.rescer.gc.ca/programs/index.asp?CaId=190&PgId=1166


Natural Resources Canada.2008a. http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/hazard/index_e.php Natural Resources Canada.2008b

http://www.rescer.gc.ca/programs/index.asp?CaId=190&PgId=1158 Nelson, S.K. 1997. Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus. In The birds of North America,

No. 276. A. Poole and F. Gill (editors). Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Penn., and Am. Ornithol. Union, Washington, D.C. In BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004a. Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife – Accounts V. 2004. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC Available at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/identified/accounts.html (accessed: December 7, 2006).

Newton, I. 1979. Population ecology of raptors. Buteo Books, Vermillion, S.D. 399pp Nicholson, G., 2005. Rock Geochemical Report on BA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Mineral Claims. Vancouver

and Lillooet Mining Divisions. Geological Survey Branch Assessment Report 27 632. Nyberg, J. B. 1990. Interactions of timber management with deer and elk. Ch. 4 In Nyberg, J.B.

and D. W. Janz (tech. eds.). 1990. Deer and elk habitats in coastal forests of southern British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests and BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC

Obedkoff, W. 2003. Streamflow in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. BC Ministry of

Sustainable Resource Management. Ovaska, K. and L. Sopuck. 2004. Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Red legged Frog Rana

aurora in Canada. Unpublished revised report prepared for COSEWIC. 63 pp. Paton, D. 2000. Harlequin Duck surveys of the Oldman River Basin in 2000. Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 20. Edmonton, Alberta.

Pearson, A.M. 1975. The northern interior grizzly bear Ursus arctos L. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. No 34, Ottawa, ON. 86 pp.

Peterson, C.A., Lee, S.L. and J.E. Elliott. 2001. Scavenging of waterfowl carcasses by birds in agricultural fields of British Columbia. Journal of Field Ornithology 72: 150-159.

PRRD (Powell River Regional District). 2005. Report on 2004 – 2005 Assessment Changes –

BCAA Completed Assessment Roll. Available at: http://www.powellriverrd.bc.ca/financial/2005assessmentreport.pdf

PRREDS (Powell River Regional Economic Development Society). 2004. Action Plan 2004 –

Strategic Plan Update, January 29, 2004. Available at:


http://www.prreds.com/Strategic%20Plan%202004.pdf PRREDS (Powell River Regional Economic Development Society). 2005. Powell River Regional

Economic Development Society Official Website http://www.prreds.com PRREDS (Powell River Regional Economic Development Society). 2006. Powell River

Community Profile. http://www.prreds.com/PR%20Community%20Profile%202006%20Lo%20Res.pdf Accessed January 25, 2008.

Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (editors). 1995. Ecology and conservation

of the Marbled Murrelet in North America. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Pac. SW Res. Stn., Albany, Calif., Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. In BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 2004a. Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) In Accounts and Measures for Managing Identified Wildlife – Accounts V. 2004. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC

Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC) (1998a). Guidelines for Designing and

Implementing a Water Quality Monitoring Program in British Columbia. Available at: http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/aquatic/design/index.htm

Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC) (1998b). Guidelines for Interpreting Water

Quality Data. Prepared by the Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, LandData BC, Geographic Data BC for the Land Use Task Force Resources Inventory Committee. Version 1.0 1998. Available at: http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/aquatic/interp/index.htm

Reynolds, D. M., December 2002. Sunshine Coast Timber Supply Area Mountain Goat Winter

Range Plan: Submission for Designation and Establishment of Mountain Goat (Oreamnos americanus) Winter Ranges, within the Sunshine Coast Timber Supply Area. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

RIC (Resources Inventory Committee). 1997a. Fish Collection Methods and Standards, January,

1997, Version 4.

RIC (Resources Inventory Committee). 1997b. Freshwater Biological Sampling Manual. BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch.

RIC (Resources Inventory Committee). 1998. Guidelines for Interpreting Water Quality Data. Prepared by the Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks, LandData BC, Geographic Data BC for the Land Use Task Force Resources Inventory Committee. Version 1.0 1998

RIC (Resources Inventory Committee). 2001. Reconnaissance (1:20 000) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory Standards and Procedures, April 2001, Version 2.0.


Rodway, M. S., H. M. Regehr, and F. Cooke. 2003. Sex and age differences in distribution, abundance, and habitat preferences of wintering Harlequin Ducks: Implications for Conservation and Estimating Recruitment Rates. Can. J. Zool. 81:492-503.

Ross, P.I. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the grizzly bear Ursus arctos in Canada. In:

COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-91 pp.

SD 47 (School District 47). 2008. http://www.sd47.bc.ca/about.html Shackleton, D.M. 1999. Hoofed mammals of British Columbia. Vol. 3: Mammals of British

Columbia. Royal BC Mus., Victoria, and Univ. BC Press, Vancouver, BC. Squires, J.R., and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In: A.

Poole and F. Gill (eds.). The Birds of North America. No. 298. The Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, PA, and The Am. Ornithol. Union, Washington, DC. 32pp.

Statistics Canada 2007. Statistics Canada. 2007. Powell River, British Columbia (table). 2006

Community Profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Ottawa. Released March 13, 2007. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E (Accessed January 24, 2008).

Sutherland, G.D. and F.L. Bunnell. 2001. Cross scale classification trees for assessing risks of

forest practices to headwater stream amphibians. In: D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.). Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press.

Taylor, S. D., W. Wall and Y. Kulis. 2004. A GPS-telemetry study of mountain goat habitat use in

south coastal BC Interfor, Campbell River, BC and Forest Investment Account, British Columbia.

Toyne, E.P. 1997. Nesting chronology of Queen Charlotte Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) in Wales:

implications for forest management. Forestry: 121-126. Turner, N.J.1975. Food Plants of British Columbia Indians: Part I – Coastal Peoples. British

Columbia Provincial Museum, Handbook No.34. Victoria. In: Arcas (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd.) 2007. Jimmie Creek Dalgleish Creek, and Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Projects: Archaeological Impact assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corporation.

Turner, N.J. 1979 Plants in British Columbia Indian Technology. British Columbia Provincial

Museum, Handbook No.38. Victoria. In: Arcas (Arcas Consulting Archaeologists Ltd.) 2007. Jimmie Creek Dalgleish Creek, and Upper Toba River Hydroelectric Projects: Archaeological Impact assessment. Prepared for Plutonic Power Corporation.


USDA Forest Service. 1990. CEM - model for assessing effects on grizzly bears. USDA Forest

Service, Missoula, Montana. Vennesland, R.G. 2004. Great Blue Heron in Accounts and measures for managing identified

wildlife. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC. Wallen, R.L., and C.R. Groves. 1989. Distribution, breeding biology, and nesting habitat of

Harlequin Ducks in northern Idaho. Unpublished Report, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho, USA.

Walz, L. 2005a. Powell River Residents Breathe Easier – The Powell River Peak. September 7,

2005. Walz, L. 2005b. Study shows growing forestry sector – The Powell River Peak. August 10, 2005. Waye, H. 1999. COSEWIC status report on the red-legged frog Rana aurora in Canada. In:

COSEWIC assessment and status report on the red-legged frog Rana aurora in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-22 pp.

Wegner, L. 2005. Powell River Forest Industry Sector Labour Force Gap Survey Submitted to the

Powell River Economic Development Society. July 12, 2005. Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology. 2d ed. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia. WHO, 1999. http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html Wind, E. and L.A. Dupuis. 2002. COSEWIC status report on the western toad Bufo boreas in

Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and status report on the western toad Bufo boreas in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-31 pp.

Wise, M, Moore, G. and VanDine, D. 2004. Landslide Risk Case Studies in Forest Development

Planning and Operations. Land Management Handbook. British Columbia Ministry of Forests.

Witmer, G.W. and D.S. deCalesta. 1985. Effect of Forest Roads on Habitat Use by Roosevelt Elk. Northwest Science 59(2): 122-125.

upper toba hydro inc. - CiteSeerX

Documents