Moses Crreek IPP Project

MOSES CREEK POWER INC.
MOSES CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Land File: 4405108
Water File: 4005985

APRIL 2013

AgendaItem#9f. AgendaItem#9f. AgendaItem#9f. AgendaItem#9f.
Front Counter BC - Moses Creek
Hydro Electric Project
Page 87 of 162 Page 87 of 162 Page 87 of 162 Page 87 of 162

Development Plan
For the Moses Creek Hydroelectric Project

Submitted in support of applications filed under
Land Act and Water Act

Applicant: Moses Creek Power Inc.
1870 Glacier Lane
P.O. Box 1919
Revelstoke, BC V0E 2S0

Date: April 2013

Moses Creek Hydroelectric Project Moses Creek Power Inc
Development Plan

Sigma Engineering Ltd. iii April 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF DRAWINGS .................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1
1. PROJECT DEFINITION ....................................................................................... 2
1.1 PROPONENT ........................................................................................................... 2
1.2 DECISION REQUESTED ............................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Water Act Application ............................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Land Act Application ................................................................................. 2
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF LAND REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 3
1.4 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF WORKS ....................................................................... 4
1.4.1 Moses Creek Weir and Intake .................................................................. 4
1.4.2 Penstock .................................................................................................. 6
1.4.3 Powerhouse ............................................................................................. 6
1.4.4 Beattie Creek Diversion Weir and Intake .................................................. 7
1.4.5 Diversion Conduit ..................................................................................... 8
1.4.6 Roadside Drainage Ditch ......................................................................... 9
1.4.7 Power Line ............................................................................................... 9
1.4.8 Access Roads .......................................................................................... 9
1.4.9 Staging and Borrowing Areas ................................................................. 10
1.5 GEOPHYSICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 10
1.6 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 11
1.7 PARAMETERS FOR OPERATION OF WORKS .............................................................. 11
1.8 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................. 12
1.9 WATER AVAILABILITY ............................................................................................. 13
1.10 MARKET FOR THE PRODUCT ................................................................................... 13
1.11 EFFECTS OF PROJECT ON RIGHTS OF OTHERS ........................................................ 14
1.12 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE ...................................................................... 14
2. IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 15
2.1 FISH AND FISH HABITAT ......................................................................................... 15
2.1.1 Fish Habitat ............................................................................................ 15
2.1.2 Fish Presence ........................................................................................ 19
2.1.3 Invertebrate Data .................................................................................... 20
2.1.4 Instream Flows ....................................................................................... 21
2.2 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT .......................................................................................... 21
2.2.1 Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation .......................................................... 22
2.2.2 Wildlife .................................................................................................... 24
2.3 RECREATION ........................................................................................................ 27
Development Plan

Sigma Engineering Ltd. iv April 2013
2.4 FLOOD CONTROL .................................................................................................. 27
2.5 WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 28
2.5.1 Physiochemical Parameters ................................................................... 29
2.5.2 Anions and Nutrients .............................................................................. 29
2.5.3 Potential Project Effects ......................................................................... 30
2.6 ROADS AND BRIDGES ............................................................................................ 30
2.7 CROWN OWNED RESOURCES ................................................................................. 30
2.8 EXISTING RIGHTS WATER AND LAND TENURES ..................................................... 31
2.9 FIRST NATIONS ..................................................................................................... 31
2.9.1 Sexqeltkemc (Lakes Division) of the Secwepemc Nation ....................... 31
2.9.2 Okanagan Nation Alliance ...................................................................... 32
2.10 ARCHAEOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 32
2.11 AESTHETIC VALUES ............................................................................................... 33
2.12 MINERAL CLAIMS................................................................................................... 34
2.13 NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT ................................................................... 34
2.14 HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC ......................................................................................... 34
2.15 HAZARD TO THE ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 35
2.15.1 Monitoring, Mitigation and Enhancement ............................................ 35
2.15.2 Accidents and Malfunctions ................................................................ 35
2.15.3 Climate Change .................................................................................. 36
2.16 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION .................................................................................. 37
2.16.1 Sexqeltkemc (Lakes Division) of the Secwepemc Nation and the
Okanagan Nation Alliance .................................................................................. 37
2.16.2 Revelstoke Snowmobile Club ............................................................. 37
2.16.3 Snowmobile Revelstoke Society ......................................................... 37
2.16.4 Revelstoke Rod and Gun Club ............................................................ 37
2.16.5 Revy Riders Dirt Bike Club .................................................................. 37
2.16.6 City of Revelstoke ............................................................................... 38
2.16.7 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts ............................................ 38
2.16.8 Transport Canada, Navigable Waters Protection Division .................. 38
2.16.9 BC Hydro ............................................................................................ 38
2.17 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS .................................................................................. 38
2.17.1 Economic Benefits .............................................................................. 38
2.17.2 Energy Plan Benefits ........................................................................... 39
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 40
4. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 41

Development Plan

Sigma Engineering Ltd. v April 2013

LIST OF DRAWINGS
Figure 1 Location Plan
Figure 2 Drainage Basin Boundaries
Figure 3 Project Layout
Figure 4 Moses Creek Power Intake Plan and Section
Figure 5 Penstock Plan and Profile
Figure 6 Penstock Plan and Section
Figure 7 Penstock Pipe Bridge Plan and Section
Figure 8.1 Powerhouse Site Plan
Figure 8.2 Powerhouse Site Elevation
Figure 9 Beattie Creek Diversion Intake Plan and Section
Figure 10 Diversion Conduit Plan and Profile
Figure 11 Diversion Conduit Plan and Section
Figure 12 Access Road
Figure 13 Transmission Line
Figure 14 Crown Land Application Area

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Construction Environmental
Management Plan
Sigma Engineering Ltd.
Appendix B Hydrology Report Sigma Engineering Ltd.
Appendix C Project Schedule Sigma Engineering Ltd.
Appendix D Fisheries Impact Assessment Naito Environmental
Appendix E Flow Measurement Report Bruce Granstrom
Appendix F Terrestrial Ecology and Wildlife Impact
Assessment
Robert G. DEon
Consulting Ltd.
Appendix G Correspondence with First Nations Bruce Granstrom
Appendix H Archaeological Preliminary Field
Assessment
Eagle Vision Geomatics &
Archaeology Ltd.
Appendix I Archaeological Overview Assessment
of Landscape Units R03, R07, R08,
R18 and R20, Columbia Forest District
Wayne Choquette
Appendix J Correspondence with Revelstoke
Snowmobile Club
Bruce Granstrom
Appendix K Correspondence with Snowmobile
Revelstoke Society
Bruce Granstrom
Appendix L Correspondence with Revelstoke Rod
and Gun Club
Bruce Granstrom
Appendix M Correspondence with Revy Riders Dirt
Bike Club
Bruce Granstrom
Appendix N Correspondence with City of
Revelstoke
Bruce Granstrom
Development Plan

Sigma Engineering Ltd. 1 April 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Moses Creek Power Inc. is proposing a 4.0 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Moses
Creek, which is located approximately 10 km north of the city of Revelstoke in the southern
interior of British Columbia. The Proponent has submitted a water licence application to
FrontCounter BC to withdraw up to 1.70 m
3
/s from Moses Creek for the purpose of Power
General. Components of the proposed project include: a diversion weir and intake structure on
Beattie Creek, a 900 m long, 0.3 m diameter diversion conduit, a weir and intake structure on
Moses Creek, a 2,195 m long, 0.9 m diameter penstock, a powerhouse containing one 4.0 MW
Pelton type turbine/generator unit and associated controls, a 320 m long 25 kV powerline, 3.43
km of upgraded existing gravel roads and 586 m of new access roads. The entire project area is
situated on Crown Land over which the Proponent has a Crown Land tenure (Investigative
Licence).
Moses Creek has a 14 m set of falls, followed by a bedrock chute directly downstream of these
falls, located approximately 150 m from its confluence with the Columbia River which constitutes
a complete barrier to upstream fish migration. Three years of fish sampling effort revealed no
resident fish populations in the creek upstream of the 14 m falls.
Beattie Creek has an approximately 30 m bedrock falls and a series of chutes located about
970 m upstream from its mouth that represent a complete barrier to upstream fish migration.
Two years of fish sampling efforts at two different sites revealed no resident fish populations in
the creek upstream of this barrier.
The nearest fish bearing reach in Moses and Beattie Creek is 1 km and 2.5 km downstream of
the diversion reach and intake, respectively.
The Proponent has endeavoured to contact and communicate with all identified stakeholder
groups with a potential interest in the proposed project including: land tenure holders and First
Nations groups, and will continue to consult with these groups as the project progresses. The
Proponent believes that the development of this low-impact renewable green source of power
generation will benefit all British Columbians and help the province of British Columbia meet the
goals outlined in its 2007 BC Energy Plan.
This report was prepared by Sigma Engineering Ltd., with material contributed by Moses Creek
Power Inc., Naito Environmental, Robert G. DEon Consulting Ltd., Eagle Vision Geomatics &
Archaeology Ltd., Lisa Larson and Wayne Choquette.

Development Plan

1. PROJECT DEFINITION
1.1 PROPONENT
The Proponent for the Moses Creek Hydroelectric Project (the Project) is:
Moses Creek Power Inc.
Incorporation #: BC 0891497
Contact: Bruce Granstrom
1125 Pineridge Crescent
Revelstoke, BC V0E 2S1
Ph: (250) 837-7081
Email: bruce.granstrom@telus.net

The agent for the Project is:
Sigma Engineering Ltd.
Contact: Sarah Wyness
400 1444 Alberni Street
Vancouver, BC V6G 2Z4
Ph: (604) 688-8271
Fax: (604) 688-1286
Email: swyness@synex.com
1.2 DECISION REQUESTED
1.2.1 Water Act Application
A water licence application was filed with a priority date of November 4, 2010 for the
diversion of water from Moses Creek for the purpose of Power General (File: 4005985).
The application has been made for 0.8 m
3
/s. On December 6, 2010, FrontCounter BC
concluded that sufficient information was submitted for the Proponent to proceed to Step 3
of the Guide for Waterpower Projects. The maximum diversion amount was revised to be
1.7 m
3
/s in July 2013.
1.2.2 Land Act Application
Tenure under the Land Act is required for the following components of the Moses Creek
Hydroelectric Project (Application for Crown Land, File: 4405108):
Beattie Creek diversion intake;
Diversion conduit;
Moses Creek intake;
Penstock;
Powerhouse;
Access roads;
Development Plan

Staging areas; and
Powerline.
The application for a Licence of Occupation was accepted by FrontCounter BC on
December 6, 2010.
Following a change to the Waterpower Crown Land Use Operational Policy in August
2011, an application for an Investigative Licence was submitted by the Proponent on April
22, 2012. The area and file number of the Investigative Licence application were the same
as for the original Licence of Occupation application.
The application for an Investigative Licence was accepted by FrontCounter BC on April
18, 2012 and offered on November 20, 2012.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF LAND REQUIREMENTS
The site of the Project proposed by Moses Creek Power Inc. is in the interior of British
Columbia, approximately 10 km north of Revelstoke. The Project location is shown in
Figure 1.
The Moses Creek intake will be located approximately 3.8 km upstream of Moses Creeks
confluence with the Columbia River. The Moses Creek intake elevation will be
approximately 830 m above mean sea level (AMSL). The Beattie Creek tributary diversion
intake will be located approximately 3.4 km upstream of Beattie Creeks confluence with
the Columbia River at an elevation of approximately 930 m AMSL.
The Project layout (Figure 3) shows the diversion conduit and penstock alignment. The
diversion conduit will be approximately 0.25 m in diameter and 900 m long; it will direct
water from the Beattie Creek diversion intake into Moses Creek immediately upstream of
the Moses Creek intake. The penstock will be approximately 0.9 m in diameter and 2,195
m long; it will direct water from the Moses Creek intake to the powerhouse. The
powerhouse will be located at approximately 532 m AMSL, as shown in Figure 3.
Access to the Project area will be from Revelstoke via Westside Road, Glacier Lane and
existing forest roads in the Moses Creek basin. The construction of two new permanent
gravel based roads will be required to access the Moses Creek intake and powerhouse
sites. An approximately 400 m long road will connect the powerhouse to Westside Road.
A second road of approximately 186 m in length will be constructed to access the Moses
Creek intake site from the existing forest road (Forest File ID: R07401). Additional
temporary roads/machine trails of approximately 580 m in total length will be required
during construction of the penstock (Figure 3).
Two aggregate extraction (borrow) areas, one adjacent to the proposed powerhouse site
will be used to supply the Project with gravel and/or rip rap. The quarry site near the
powerhouse is located entirely on Crown Land and is approximately 1 ha in size. A
second quarry will be located near the intake and will be approximately 0.5 ha in size
(Figure 3).
Development Plan

The general area of the Project has experienced a high degree of human disturbance in
the form of forest management (clear-cut logging and road construction) throughout the
majority of the Project footprint as well as gravel quarries, a 500 kV transmission line
corridor and cleared industrial land associated with the Revelstoke Dam construction and
operation at lower elevations of the Project area. There is an active Occupant Licence to
Cut (Forest File ID: L48334) that extends across the upper reaches of the Moses Creek
and Beattie Creek drainages, but does not overlap with any of the proposed Project
works.
A 25 kV powerline, approximately 320 m in length, will connect the powerhouse to the
existing BC Hydro 25 kV powerline that runs alongside Westside Road, subject to review
by BC Hydro.
The land tenure area applied for in the Land Application (File No. 4405108) for the Project
is 208.3 ha (Figure 14). Note that this area is far larger than that which is anticipated for
the final land requirement in order to accommodate further changes to the design.
Based on the preliminary design illustrated in the Drawings, the estimated land
requirements for specific Project components are as follows:
Beattie Creek diversion intake = 0.35 ha
Diversion conduit/road = 2.81 ha
Moses Creek intake = 0.43 ha
Penstock/road = 6.52
Powerhouse = 0.54 ha
Power line/road = 0.79 ha
Other access roads (including temporary penstock access) = 5.02 ha
Laydown areas = 1.53 ha
The total estimated land requirement for the Project is therefore approximately 17.99 ha,
which includes areas disturbed during construction. Final design will aim to minimize
unnecessary land disturbance, clearing will be kept to a minimum during construction, and
disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native species immediately following construction
completion.
1.4 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF WORKS
Figure 3 shows the Project layout. The preliminary design for the Project is described in
the sections below. The proposed designs will be reviewed and revised as required
following further surveying and detailed design.
1.4.1 Moses Creek Weir and Intake
Layout
The Moses Creek intake will be located approximately 3.8 km upstream of the creek
mouth at an elevation of approximately 830 m AMSL. The intake plan is shown in Figure
4.
Development Plan

The intake will consist of a weir and an intake structure. The weir will be approximately 1.5
m high and 20 m long; it will span the creek and create a small headpond to ensure
adequate intake submergence. The concrete intake will direct water from the headpond
into the penstock. The intake structure will include a bypass valve that will provide the
minimum instream flow release, a sluice gate, trashracks to block large debris and
stoplogs to isolate the intake structure for maintenance. The intake and weir will be
designed to pass the 200-year peak instantaneous flow.
Based on preliminary field measurements, the headpond created above the intake will
have an approximate area of 150 m
2
. It is anticipated that the maximum depth will not
exceed the seasonal high-water mark. The depth of the headpond will vary from 1.5 m
deep at the weir to the pre-Project depth at the upstream end of the impoundment. The
total headpond volume would therefore be approximately 113 m
3
. At the design flow (1.65
m
3
/s), this would create 1 minute of total storage.
Construction
The construction sequence will be left to the discretion of the contractor. The concrete
intake structure and weir will be constructed in the dry. Building in the dry will minimize the
input of sediment to Moses Creek.
Operation
The water level at the intake and in the creek upstream of the weir will be kept stable
during most flow conditions by controlling the rate of flow at the turbine. At flows less than
the design flow, a level control sensor at the intake will regulate turbine discharge in order
to maintain the operating water level approximately equal to the height of the weir. An
instream flow release valve will provide the minimum instream flow. When creek flow
exceeds the sum of the design flow and the minimum instream flow, any excess water will
pass over the weir.
The intake structure will include a sluice gate to release sediment (bedload) that
accumulates at the intake structure. Any large boulders transported during significant flow
events and deposited in the intake area and interfere with the operation of the intake will
be removed with a machine, and if feasible, returned to the creek below the weir.
It is expected that much of the larger debris (i.e. logs and other woody debris) will move
downstream during high flow events and will therefore pass over the weir. Smaller debris
that passes downstream during flows of less than the design flow plus minimum instream
flow will accumulate on the trashracks. This debris will be removed by plant personnel
during routine maintenance and returned to the creek downstream of the weir.
There will be stoplogs between the intake channel and sluice channel to allow
maintenance to the sluice channel to occur in the dry. There will be a slide gate at the inlet
to the penstock, which during normal operation would be left open. This gate would be
closed for maintenance to allow work to occur in the dry.
Development Plan

1.4.2 Penstock
Layout
The penstock alignment will be as shown in Figure 3. The penstock will be approximately
0.9 m in diameter and 2,195 m long; it will direct water from the Moses Creek intake to the
powerhouse. The majority (1,610 m) of the penstock will be buried under the intake
access road and existing forest roads. Typical road cross-sections showing the buried
penstock are shown in Figure 6. The remaining 585 m of penstock will be buried within an
excavated trench. An approximately 60 m long section of penstock where it travels down a
steep slope toward the powerhouse and crosses Moses Creek may require placement
above ground. Every effort will be made to bury the penstock wherever feasible. The
penstock crossing of Moses Creek will utilize a pipe bridge; a typical pipe bridge is shown
in Figure 7. The penstock profile is shown in Figure 5.
Pipe materials will be a combination of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and steel. The
HDPE pipe will be used in the low-pressure section of the penstock and the steel pipe in
the higher pressure section.
Construction
Approximately 585 m of the pipe alignment will require clearing. To minimize clearing, the
penstock alignment will follow the access road and existing forest roads where possible.
A pipe fusion machine will be used to join the HDPE pipe sections and the steel pipe
sections will be welded. The HDPE pipe can be pulled into its final alignment using mobile
equipment. Where the penstock route is accessible by truck, steel pipe sections will be
hauled by truck and placed with an excavator. In non-accessible sections such as the 60
m long section near the powerhouse where the penstock travels down a steep slope, the
steel pipe will be high-lined into place from uphill and placed manually.
The Moses Creek penstock crossing near the powerhouse site will be a clear span above
the 200-year flood level and creek flows will not be disturbed during construction. The
remainder of the penstock route does not cross any tributaries to Moses Creek. Best
management practices during construction will minimize erosion and sedimentation to the
creek. Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native species.
1.4.3 Powerhouse
Layout
The generation facilities will be located at approximately 532 m AMSL. The Project will
yield a gross head of 298 m. The powerhouse will be a metal clad steel frame building on
concrete foundation, measuring approximately 18 m by 8 m by 10 m high and will house a
single Pelton turbine/generator unit producing a total of 4.0 MW, controls and a
transformer. The control room will provide a complete interface as necessary for remote
operation, and all electrical control equipment. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 show the preliminary
layout of the powerhouse area.
Development Plan

The tailrace channel will be an open channel. It will transport discharged water back to
Moses Creek. The tailrace cross-section and slope will be designed to reduce the
potential scour from turbine discharge and rip-rap will be placed, as required, to provide
erosion protection.
Construction
Access to the powerhouse will be via the access road shown in Figure 3 and described
below. Best management practices during construction will minimize erosion and
sedimentation into Moses Creek.
Operation
Water from the penstock will pass through a pipe, turbine inlet valve, needle valve nozzle
jets, and turbine runner before discharging into the tailrace. A single Pelton turbine will be
used for the Project; this type of turbine does not require a minimum tailrace elevation be
maintained for submergence. Powerhouse operations will be monitored remotely from the
Proponents office. A local operator will visit the powerhouse as required to monitor
operation. The tailrace will be a rip-rap lined open channel conveying discharged water
back to Moses Creek during operations.
1.4.4 Beattie Creek Diversion Weir and Intake
Layout
The Beattie Creek diversion intake will be located on the northern-most tributary of Beattie
Creek, approximately 760 m upstream of the confluence with the first main tributary of
Beattie Creek at an elevation of approximately 930 m AMSL. The intake plan is shown in
Figure 9. The Beattie Creek intake is designed to transfer the proposed flow to Moses
Creek immediately upstream of the Moses Creek intake.
The diversion intake will consist of a weir and a lateral intake structure on the left bank of
the creek. The weir will be approximately 1.5 m at its highest point and 10 m long; it will
span the creek and create a small

headpond to ensure adequate intake submergence.
The concrete intake will direct water from the headpond into the diversion conduit. The
intake will be equipped with a bypass gate that will provide the minimum instream flow
release, a sluice gate, trashracks to block large debris and stoplogs to isolate the intake
structure for maintenance. The intake and weir will be designed to pass the 200-year peak
instantaneous flow.
Based on preliminary field measurements, the headpond created above the intake will
have an approximate area of 75 m
2
. It is anticipated that the maximum depth will not
exceed the seasonal high-water mark. The depth of the headpond will vary from 1.5 m
deep at the weir to the pre-Project depth at the upstream end of the impoundment. The
total headpond volume would therefore be approximately 56 m
3
. At the design flow (0.3
m
3
/s), this would create less than a minute of total storage.
Construction
Development Plan

The construction sequence will be left to the discretion of the contractor. The concrete
intake structure and weir will be constructed in the dry. Building in the dry will minimize the
input of sediment to Beattie Creek.
Operation
The water level at the intake and in the creek upstream of the weir will be kept stable
during most flow conditions. It will be designed to provide the minimum flow through an
instream flow valve under all flow conditions and the excess flow above that valve will be
diverted into the diversion pipe up to the limit of the capacity of the pipe. Any excess
water will pass over the weir. The diversion weir flows will not be controlled by the rate of
flow at the turbine.
The intake structure will include a sluice gate to release sediment (bedload) that
accumulates at the intake structure. Any large boulders transported during significant flow
events and deposited in the intake area that interfere with the operation of the intake will
be removed using machinery, and if feasible, returned to the creek below the weir.
It is expected that much of the larger debris (i.e. logs and other woody debris) will move
downstream during high flow events and will therefore pass over the weir. Smaller debris
that passes downstream during flows of less than the design flow plus minimum instream
flow will accumulate on the trashracks. This debris will be removed by plant personnel
during routine maintenance and returned to the creek downstream of the weir.
There will be stoplogs between the intake channel and sluice channel to allow
maintenance to the sluice channel to occur in the dry. There will be a slide gate at the inlet
to the penstock, which during normal operation would be left open. This gate would be
closed for maintenance to allow work to occur in the dry.
1.4.5 Diversion Conduit
Layout
The diversion conduit alignment will be as shown in Figure 3. The conduit will be
approximately 0.3 m in diameter and 900 m long; it will direct water from the Beattie Creek
diversion intake to the Moses Creek intake. The majority of the conduit will be buried
under the existing forest road. Typical road cross-sections showing the buried penstock
are shown in Figure 11. The remaining 130 m of conduit, which runs due north from the
forest road to the Moses Creek intake, will be incorporated into the upgrade of an existing
remnant drainage ditch (Refer to Section 1.4.6). The conduit will carry a design flow of
0.25 m
3
/s of water from the Beattie Creek tributary to Moses Creek.
The pipe material will be high-density polyethylene (HDPE).
Construction
Approximately 130 m of the pipe alignment will require clearing. To minimize clearing, the
conduit alignment will follow the existing forest road where possible.
A pipe fusion machine will be used to join the HDPE pipe sections. The HDPE pipe will be
pulled into its final alignment using mobile equipment.
Development Plan

The conduit route does not cross any tributaries to either Beattie Creek or Moses Creek.
Best management practices during construction will minimize erosion and sedimentation
to the creeks. Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native species.
1.4.6 Roadside Drainage Ditch
A remnant drainage ditch currently travels the approximate route proposed for the last 200
m of the diversion conduit and is thought to have been constructed in previous decades to
divert water away from the existing gravel quarry immediately down slope of this location.
The ditch drains runoff from an area of approximately 0.406 km
2
between Moses and
Beattie Creeks (Figure 2). Through a combination of upgraded ditching and perforated
pipe, the ditch runoff will be collected and incorporated into the diversion conduit. The
diversion conduit will be routed slightly above the existing ditch line in order to deliver the
water upstream of the Moses Creek intake.
1.4.7 Power Line
A 25 kV power line will connect the powerhouse to the existing BC Hydro 25 kV power line
that currently runs alongside the eastern side of Westside Road, subject to review by BC
Hydro. The total power line length will be approximately 320 m. The existing BC Hydro
power line at the point of interconnection is a three-phase line.
The power line route will include one crossing of an unnamed tributary to Moses Creek
(Figure 3). This is a small tributary that may have been previously diverted or represent
ditch drainage along the eastside of the existing road. Further site assessment will be
conducted to confirm. The crossing will be clear span above the 200-year flood level and
tributary flows will not be disturbed during construction. Best management practices and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Operational Statement for Overhead Line
Construction will be followed during construction to minimize impacts to riparian habitat
and to prevent erosion and sedimentation to the creek.
1.4.8 Access Roads
Layout
Access to the intake, powerhouse and majority of the penstock route will be from existing
forest roads in the vicinity of Moses Creek and two new gravel roads. The powerhouse
access road will originate approximately 10 km north along Westside Road from
Revelstoke and is approximately 400 m in length. The majority of the new powerhouse
access road will follow an abandoned road routing and therefore minimize the extent of
clearing required. The intake access road is approximately 180 m in length and will branch
off of an existing Frisby Forest Service Road (Forest File ID: R07401) that runs along the
southwestern side of the Moses Creek basin. Both the powerhouse and intake access
roads will be kept for operation and maintenance access following Project construction.
Temporary access roads/machine trails totalling approximately 360 m in length will also be
required during construction to access the portions of the penstock route that do not follow
existing/proposed roads. Following construction, these temporary access roads will be
Development Plan

deactivated (i.e. recontoured) and disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native
species.
Construction
New roads will be designed and constructed using best management practices to
minimize sedimentation and erosion. The roads will include ditching and draining for local
runoff. Roads will be designed and constructed in general accordance with the Forest
Road Engineering Guidebook.
1.4.9 Staging and Borrowing Areas
Three laydown areas are proposed for construction (Figure 3). Laydown areas will be
located at both intake sites and along the penstock route. The estimated size of each
laydown area is as follows:
Beattie Creek Diversion Intake: 10 m x 20 m = 200 m
2
(0.02 ha)
Moses Creek Intake: 15 m x 20 m = 300 m
2
(0.03 ha)
Penstock: 20 m x 30 m = 600 m
2
(0.06 ha)
The total estimated land required for laydown areas is therefore 1,100 m
2
(0.11 ha). All
three laydown areas are located on Crown Land.
Spoil area locations and size will be determined as the Project design advances and
reasonable estimates of the material volume become available.
The Project will endeavour to keep the quantity of borrowed materials to a minimum. A
small (~ 1 ha) quarry immediately adjacent to the powerhouse and ~0.5 ha quarry near
the intake are being proposed as part of the Project. The proposed location of the quarries
are within heavily disturbed sites which were previously logged and cleared. The quarry
area near the powerhouse was used as a laydown and temporary storage site during the
construction of the Revelstoke Dam. Two borrow pit areas are proposed for construction.
A borrow pit area will be located near the intake and near the powerhouse. The estimated
size of each borrow pit area is as follows:
Moses Creek Intake: 50 m x 100 m = 5000 m
2
(0.5 ha)
Powerhouse: 50 m x 200 m = 10000 m
2
(1 ha)
Any borrow areas will be stabilized and re-vegetated in accordance with the Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP; Appendix A) and in consultation with the
Environmental Monitor.
1.5 GEOPHYSICAL CONSIDERATIONS
No geotechnical or slope stability issues have been identified as being of potential
concern in a preliminary assessment made by the Proponents general engineering
consultant. Due diligence geotechnical assessments of the construction areas including
the two intake sites and the powerhouse site as well as the penstock and access road
Development Plan

routes will be conducted during detailed Project design. The goal of these assessments
will not be to determine the feasibility of the construction; rather they will be used by the
design engineers and contractors to fine tune the placement and dimensions of the
Project works. These assessments will include a statement of the terrain stability in the
Project area.
The Project is not expected to negatively alter the relationship between flow, sediment and
channel form with associated impacts to fish habitat. Although the proposed Project will
reduce flows in Beattie Creek and the diversion reach of Moses Creek, peak flows during
spring freshet are expected to continue to reach in excess of 200% mean annual flow (for
a minimum of 7 days; furthermore, an average of 70 days/ year will have flows greater
than 200% MAF), which is sufficient to maintain sediment and debris movement (Naito
2013). Large debris (boulders and LWD) and sediment that accumulate in the headpond
of the Project will be returned to the creek downstream of the weir.
The potential for adverse geochemical issues such as metal leaching and acid rock
drainage have not been identified in relation to the Project. These issues are typically
associated with projects that have a tunnel (as opposed to buried penstock) where
significant volumes of sub-surface rock is removed during tunnel boring and stored for
prolonged periods of time on the surface in the vicinity of the creek. The Project does not
use a tunnel for water conveyance and any sub-surface rock exposed during Project
construction will be used for back fill and/or road construction. Should any significant
quantities of excavated rock require storing during Project construction, the Proponent will
incorporate prevention and mitigation measures for acid rock drainage, metal leaching,
and sedimentation into the Construction Environmental Management Plan.
1.6 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Although the west coast of Canada is an area of significant earthquake activity, seismicity
in the Southern Cordillera BC interior and Rocky Mountain region south of 60N drops
off rapidly
1
.
Moses Creek is located in an area that the Geological Survey of Canada classifies as an
area of relatively low earthquake hazard. To minimize the potential effects associated with
seismic activity, the Project powerhouse, intake and spillway will be designed to withstand
seismic loading as defined in the BC Building Code.
1.7 PARAMETERS FOR OPERATION OF WORKS
The Project will use flow from Beattie Creek and Moses Creek. The electricity generated
will be supplied to BC Hydro under a long-term Electricity Purchase Agreement (EPA). It is
expected that the Project will qualify for an EPA under BC Hydros Standing Offer
Program (SOP).

1
Natural Resources Canada website. http://seismescanada.rncan.gc.ca/zones/westcan_e.php#Cascadia. Accessed
April 1, 2009.
Development Plan

The expected commercial operation date (COD) of the Project is March 2016, based on
timely permitting and procurement of long lead-time items such as the turbine.
Project operations will be based on the sum total flow from the Beattie Creek diversion
intake and Moses Creek intake. During periods of high flows, the Project will operate at full
capacity. During periods of low flows, when the available flow is less than the sum of the
minimum instream flows and the minimum turbine flow, the plant will be shut down. During
times of intermediate flow, the plant will operate at partial capacity. The Moses Creek
Hydroelectric Project Hydrology Report (Appendix B) provides more information about pre
and post-Project flows.
Details of operational parameters for the Project will be obtained during detailed design
and turbine procurement and become part of the operations manual for the Project.
These will be submitted to the Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
Resource Stewardship Division in a Parameters and Procedures Report (OPPR) prior to
diversion.
1.8 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
Moses Creek (Watershed Code: 300-757000) and Beattie Creek (Watershed Code: 300-
754800-55000) are located approximately 10 km north of the city of Revelstoke in the
Southern Interior of British Columbia. The main channel of Moses Creek is approximately
6 km long and flows in a south-southeast direction into the Columbia River, just
downstream of the BC Hydro Revelstoke dam. The main channel of Beattie Creek is
approximately 4.7 km long and flows in an east southeast direction into the Columbia
River, approximately 4 km upstream of the City of Revelstoke. Beattie Creek historically
flowed into the Jordan River but was diverted east to its current route, the Columbia River
about 3 km upstream from Revelstoke, some time ago. Further to Beattie Creeks history
of diversion, the northern most Beattie Creek tributary (from which flow diversion for the
Project is proposed) originally flowed into Moses Creek approximately 1,800 m upstream
of the Columbia River confluence. The flows from the Beattie Creek tributary were
diverted to the current stream route (into Beattie Creek) during construction of the
Revelstoke dam (Figure 2).
At the proposed intake locations, the Moses Creek and Beattie Creek watersheds are
approximately 6.9 km
2
and 1.29 km
2
, respectively. The additional drainage area between
the two watersheds and the flows from which will be captured by the roadside ditch is
approximately 0.406 km
2
. Elevations of the Moses Creek watershed range from a
maximum of 1,980 m AMSL atop the Frisby Ridge to approximately 460 m AMSL at the
confluence of Moses Creek with the Columbia River. The elevations of the proposed
Beattie Creek diversion intake, Moses Creek intake and powerhouse locations are 930 m,
830 m and 532 m AMSL, respectively.
The basins span two biogeoclimatic zones, the Interior Cedar Hemlock and Engelmann
Spruce Subalpine Fir, which are characterized by cool wet winters and long warm
summers that are kept moist by the presence of a slow-melting snowpack at higher
elevations.
Development Plan

Fish and fish habitat within the watershed are described in Section 2.1.
1.9 WATER AVAILABILITY
The Hydrology Study (Appendix B) reviews the regional hydrology, describes the available
flow data and daily flows used in the analysis, including monthly flows, peak and low flows
and flow duration curves.
The study utilized 33 years of flow data from the Water Survey of Canada (WSC) gauge:
Kirbyville Creek near the mouth (WSC 08ND019). Flows at the Moses Creek intake,
Beattie Creek diversion intake and within the roadside ditch were synthesized from the
Kirbyville WSC record by prorating flows based on drainage areas and then multiplying by
monthly adjustment factors to account for anticipated differences in annual unit runoff.
The mean annual flow (MAF) at the Moses Creek intake including the runoff from the
0.406 km
2
area between Moses and Beattie Creeks collected by the roadside ditch and
diverted upstream of the intake is 0.394 m
3
/s. An average of 0.055 m
3
/s (with a maximum
of 0.25 m
3
/s) will be diverted from Beattie Creek to Moses Creek through the diversion
conduit. The MAF at the Moses Creek intake is therefore expected to be 0.449 m
3
/s.
(Appendix B; Figure 5) shows the monthly flow variation. Mean monthly flows at the
Moses Creek intake range from 0.01 m
3
/s in February to 1.81 m
3
/s in June.
The installed capacity of the Project will be 4.0 MW based on a gross head of 298 m, a
design flow of 1.65 m
3
/s, and a turbine/generator efficiency of 87.36%. The annual
generation is expected to be 7.5 GWh. The minimum turbine flow will be 10% of the
design flow (0.165 m
3
/s).
The Proponent installed a water level gauge on Moses Creek in October 2010. Water
level and temperature data are recorded every 15 minutes. Specific details regarding the
gauge installation site, development of a stage-discharge curve (Appendix E) and
comparison of the 2010, 2011 and 2012 in situ flow record with the records of four WSC
gauges are presented in the Moses Creek Hydroelectric Project Hydrology Report
provided as Appendix B. In summary, the Moses Creek flows are similar to the average
annual unit flows of two active WSC gauge records and the non-active long term flow
record of the Kirbyville Creek gauge (Appendix B; Figure 4). Therefore, the 2011
measured Moses Creek flows are similar to the long term average at Kirbyville Creek and
by extension to the long term average at Moses Creek. Once a statistically significant
number of years (at least 3) of measured flows become available, the long term estimated
flows will be reviewed and adjusted using the in situ flow data. However, the Moses
Creek hydrograph is different from that of Kirbyville Creek, as the peak flows at Moses
occur in May June, whereas at Kirbyville Creek the peak flows are in June July.
1.10 MARKET FOR THE PRODUCT
The electricity generated by the Project will be supplied to BC Hydro under a long-term
EPA. It is anticipated that, once permitting is complete, the Project will qualify for an EPA
under the BC Hydro Standing Offer Program.
Development Plan

Electricity generated by the Project will be supplied to the BC Hydro grid through a 25 kV
power line that currently runs alongside Westside Road. The point of interconnection will
be approximately 320 m from the Projects powerhouse.
1.11 EFFECTS OF PROJECT ON RIGHTS OF OTHERS
The Project should not have any significant negative effects on the rights of other users.
Section 2 includes a detailed assessment of potential impacts to users resulting from the
proposed Project, including: other land tenures, recreation, mining and First Nations.
1.12 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
A project development schedule is attached as Appendix C.
Development Plan

2. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
2.1 FISH AND FISH HABITAT
Preliminary fish and fish habitat surveys of Moses Creek and Beattie Creek were
completed by Naito Environmental in September 2010. Further field studies were
conducted during September 2011 and August 2012 (Appendix D). The purpose of these
surveys was to identify the aquatic resources of Moses and Beattie Creek and to
determine the potential impact of the Project on these resources. A background literature
search found no existing fisheries information for Moses or Beattie Creek in the web-
based Fisheries Inventory Data Queries Tool (MOE 2012b) or EcoCat, the Ministry of
Environments ecological reports catalogue (MOE 2012a).
2.1.1 Fish Habitat
Moses Creek (Watershed Code: 300-757000) is a second order stream flowing generally
southeast into the Columbia River just downstream of the Revelstoke Dam. It is located
approximately 5 km north-northwest of Revelstoke in the Jordon Range of the Monashee
Mountains in the southern interior of British Columbia.
Moses Creek has a watershed area of 11.7 km
2
and a stream length of approximately 6
km. Its peak elevation is at approximately 1900 m at the top of Frisby Ridge. The average
gradient of Moses Creek is between 10-23%. Moses Creek represents a high energy
watershed.
Beattie Creek (Watershed Code 300-754800-55000) is the adjacent drainage south of
Moses Creek, and flows generally southeast for approximately 4.7 km. Historically,
Moses Creek flowed into the Jordan River but was diverted some time ago and now
enters the Columbia River approximately 4 km upstream. In addition, the northern-most
Beattie Creek tributary (from which flow diversion for the Project is proposed) originally
flowed into Moses Creek approximately 1.8 km upstream from the mouth of Moses Creek;
however, flows from this tributary were diverted from Moses to Beattie Creek during
construction of the Revelstoke dam.
Moses Creek has a 14 m set of falls (Moses Falls) followed by a bedrock chute directly
downstream located approximately 150 m from its confluence with the Columbia River
which constitutes a total barrier to upstream fish migration. Fish sampling efforts did not
detect any fish upstream of this barrier located in Reach 1. Numerous barriers exist
upstream of this first set of falls and include numerous steep sections, falls, and bedrock
chutes within the diversion reach of Moses Creek. Fish from the Columbia River can
access the first 150 m of the 370 m long Reach 1. Further upstream passage is blocked
by Moses Falls.
Beattie Creek has an approximately 30 m bedrock falls and chutes that are located about
970 m upstream from the mouth and represent a total barrier to upstream fish migration.
Two years of fish sampling efforts at two different sites did not detect any fish upstream of
this barrier located 80 m into Reach 3.
Development Plan

Stream habitat was characterised for eight reaches on Moses Creek and five reaches on
Beattie Creek.
Moses Creek Reaches
During the 2010 field program, eight reaches were delineated from the mouth of Moses
Creek to upstream of the proposed intake (Appendix D, Figure 5). With the exception of a
short reach with 6-8% gradient, the diversion section of Moses Creek had a gradient of
10-23%. The majority of the diversion section had an entrenched channel or canyon
dominated by bedrock. Reaches 1 and 2 are downstream of the Project. Reaches 3,4,5
and 6 comprise the diversion section of Moses Creek and reaches 7 and 8 are upstream
of the proposed Project intake. Some field sampling took place in reaches 7 and 8 during
2011 when an alternative intake option was being investigated.
Reach 1 extends from the Columbia River to about 100 m upstream of Westside Road.
About 20 years ago, BC Hydro undertook a tailrace excavation project to improve power
production at Revelstoke Dam, such a reduction in bed level of the Columbia River
resulted in the mouth of Moses Creek being perched several meters higher than the
Columbia River. Consequently, a channel was excavated to direct Moses Creek flows
upstream along the edge of the Columbia River at a reduced gradient suitable for fish
spawning. In effect, the forebay area of Moses Creek contains extensive gravel deposits
that extend approximately 50 m upstream at which point, the streambed becomes boulder
and the gradient increases to about 5%. Bed material in Reach 1 is dominated by cobble,
with boulder subdominant and boulder is the main cover type. Upstream of the first 50 m,
fish habitat quality in Reach 1 is low for spawning due to a lack of gravel, low for
overwintering due to limited low velocity areas with cover, and low for rearing due to a lack
of deep pools.
Reach 2 extends from about 100 m upstream of Westside Road to the large pond that is
designated at Reach 2.1. It is a 1 km long, low gradient (1-2%) section of stream that
flows out of the larger of two ponds that occur along the route of Moses Creek. The
dominant bed material is cobble with gravel subdominant and small woody debris
comprises the main cover type. Fish habitat quality was assessed as moderate to good,
with spawning capability limited by the high percentage of fines in the substrate. Rearing
and overwintering habitat was assessed as good due to the presence of pools with
abundant small and large woody debris cover and low velocity flows.
Reach 2.1 (Pond #1) is a 200 m long, 1 ha pond, which appears to be the result of
artificial impoundment and is bounded on the downstream side by a paved roadway.
Moses Creek exits the pond through a large diameter culvert under the roadway. The
perched culvert and steep, rocky outlet channel is an additional barrier to fish migration.
Reach 3 is 1.2 km long and extends between the upper and lower ponds on Moses Creek.
The proposed powerhouse and tailrace will be at the downstream end of this reach. With
the exception of a short section of lower gradient at the downstream end of this reach, the
reach has an average slope of between 14-20% and is entrenched with boulder and
bedrock the dominant and subdominant materials, respectively. Throughout the reach
there are a series of 1-2 m falls and chutes in addition to an approximately 4 m waterfall
Development Plan

about 200 m upstream from the upper reach boundary. Cover types are dominated by
boulder and large woody debris. Fish habitat quality was assessed as good for rearing
and holding due to the presence of deep pools formed by the cascade channel, but
habitat was only fair for spawning due to the limited gravel. Overwintering habitat was
assessed as low due to a lack of low velocity edge habitat.
Reach 3.1(Pond #2) represents the smaller of the two in-line ponds on Moses Creek. This
pond is 130 m long, 0.8 ha and appears to be at least partially the result of artificial
impoundment because it is bounded on the downstream side by an unpaved roadway.
Moses Creek exits the pond partially via a 900 mm diameter culvert under the roadway,
and at other points appears to flow right through the angular rock of the road base. An
approximate 10 m drop in elevation from the pond to the creek downstream would prohibit
upstream fish passage, if fish were present.
Reach 4 is a 230 m long, low gradient section (6-8%) that flows into Pond #2. Reach 4 is
highly variable, with cobble riffle at its downstream end as well as sections of bedrock and
boulder/cobble throughout. Cobble is the dominant bed material with boulder
subdominant and the main cover type. Canopy closure was low at less than 20%. Fish
habitat quality was assessed at low-moderate.
Reach 5 is 625 m long with a confined bedrock channel and steep gradient (up to 23%)
which includes numerous chutes, drops, and waterfalls. The channel morphology is step-
pool formed by rock and the dominant cover type is deep pool. Fish habitat quality was
assessed as good for holding and rearing due to the presence of deep pools, but
spawning habitat was only fair due to the limited gravel in pool tailouts. Overwintering
habitat was assessed as fair with some pool habitat but a lack of cover and/or low velocity.
Reach 6 is 150 m long and extends from the Reach 5 upstream to a main tributary
referred to as Tributary A. Tributary A enters Reach 6 from the right bank immediately
upstream of the proposed intake. Reach 6 has a gradient of 12-16% and a cascade-pool
channel morphology that is maintained by boulder and large woody debris. The dominant
bed material is cobble, with boulder subdominant and the dominant cover type. Cover
type included large woody debris and deep pool. Fish habitat quality was assessed as
good for rearing and holding due to deep pools and pockets, moderate for spawning with
occasional gravel patches, and moderate for overwintering pools.
Reach 7 extends 590 m upstream from the confluence with Tributary A to the confluence
with a major left bank tributary, Tributary C. Channel morphology is cascade-pool and the
stream gradient is 9-11% in this section. The dominant bed material is boulder, with
cobble subdominant. Boulder and overhanging vegetation comprised the dominant and
subdominant cover types, respectively. Fish habitat quality was assessed as low for
spawning in limited isolated pockets of gravel but moderate for rearing and overwintering
in pools with boulder and large woody debris cover.
Reach 8 extends upstream from the confluence with Tributary C. Reach 8 has a stream
gradient of 8-11% which creates cascade-pool channel morphology. The dominant bed
material is boulder, with cobble subdominant. Boulder is the dominant cover type. Fish
Development Plan

habitat quality was assessed as low for spawning and overwintering but high for rearing
due to the presence of pocket pools with boulder cover.
Beattie Creek
Of the five reaches delineated on Beattie Creek from the mouth up to the vicinity of the
proposed tributary intake, Reaches 1 and 2, and the lower 80 m of Reach 3 appear to be
accessible to fish from the Columbia River. Further upstream passage is blocked by an
impassable falls 1 km from the mouth of Beattie Creek.
Reach 1 is a 225 m long steep section where the diverted stream has cut a channel from
the riverside terrace down to river level, at the Columbia River, about 30 m below. The
Reach 1 stream gradient ranges from ~5-11%. The dominant bed material in Reach 1 is
boulder, with cobble subdominant. Boulder is the main cover type. Fish habitat quality in
Reach 1 was assessed as moderate, with patches of gravel for spawning, pockets behind
boulders for rearing, and boulder cover for overwintering, but fish production capability
may be limited by lack of flow. The lower portion of the Reach is a moderate gradient
(~5%) while the upper half is steep (10-11%) and represents a series of cascades (when
streamflow is present) which form a difficult section for upstream fish passage.
Reach 2 is a 270 m straight channelized section downstream of the Westside Road
culvert that continues upstream of the 60 m long culvert for an additional 360 m. The
dominant bed material is cobble, with gravel subdominant. Boulders are the main cover
type. Fish habitat quality was assessed as moderate with good spawning potential in
frequent patches of gravel but rearing and overwintering was limited due to the lack of
deep pools and low water velocity, respectively. However, rearing and overwintering
habitat quality was low in the channelized section downstream of Westside Road, where
there was minimal cover and the only deep pool was located at the culvert outlet. The 30
cm drop located at the outlet of the Westside Road culvert would only limit passage of
juvenile fish or smaller. The downstream half of the culvert has a gradient of about 1%
(suitable for fish passage) but the upper half of the culvert has a gradient of about 5%
which could represent a potential velocity barrier to fish.
Reach 3 is a confined, boulder and bedrock section with a 30 m high falls observed 80 m
upstream from the lower reach boundary that is a complete barrier to upstream fish
passage. It is a steep canyon reach that extends for 700 m and has a gradient of ~ 23%.
There are 1-2 m falls and chutes throughout Reach 3. Downstream end surveys indicate
the dominant bed material is boulder, with cobble subdominant; however, bedrock is likely
prevalent throughout the reach. The main cover type is boulder. Fish habitat quality was
assessed as moderate, with good rearing and holding habitat in deep pools formed in the
cascade-pool channel, but only fair spawning potential in pockets of gravel. Overwintering
habitat was limited due to the lack of low velocity refuges.
Reach 4 extends for about 500 m upstream to the confluence of a major tributary that
enters from the west. Reach 4 is lower gradient (5-6%) but still a confined reach located
above the canyon section of Beattie Creek. The dominant bed material is cobble, with
boulder subdominant. Boulder is the main cover type, with large woody debris
subdominant. Fish habitat quality was assessed as good, with frequent gravel patches
Development Plan

and good pocket pools and boulder cover but there was a lack of low velocity areas for
overwintering.
Reach 5 extends 1380 m up to and 3.7 km beyond the proposed Beattie Creek intake.
The reach gradient varies between 5-20%. The 109 m section surveyed downstream of
the intake has cobble as its dominant bed material, with gravel subdominant. Upstream of
the intake, bedrock and boulder are prominent. Overhanging vegetation is the main cover
type, with large woody debris subdominant. Fish habitat quality was relatively poor due to
isolated gravel patches, lack of pools, and shallow depth of the reach. Historic mapping
shows that Reach 5 of Beattie Creek formerly flowed into Moses Creek from a point near
the proposed intake, and evidence of this former flow pattern includes map contours that
show Beattie Creek flowing across the slope instead of down the slope. There appears to
be a low berm where the stream was diverted to its present course. The area where the
stream formerly flowed was used as a borrow area for construction of the Revelstoke
Dam.
Barriers
An approximately 14 m set of falls located about 150 m from the mouth of Moses Creek
followed by a bedrock chute directly downstream represent a total barrier to upstream fish
migration. In addition, numerous other fish barriers were identified upstream of the falls
which include a steep section immediately downstream of Pond #1 (Reach 2.1) and
numerous falls and bedrock chutes within the diversion reach of Moses Creek. Fish
access to Moses Creek is downstream of the diversion reach and limited to Reach 1.
Approximately 970 m upstream from the mouth of Beattie Creek is a set of bedrock falls
and chutes with an estimated height of 30 m. No fish were detected upstream of this
barrier. In August 2012, there was no flow in the first 150 m of Beattie Creek, forming a
total barrier to fish migration. Approximately 100 m upstream of Beattie Creeks
confluence with the Columbia River there is a very steep boulder section that, when
stream flow is present, forms a section with very difficult upstream fish passage.
However, a high abundance of rainbow trout fry were observed upstream of this boulder
section and suggests that rainbow trout have been successful in migrating to spawn
upstream of this challenging section.
2.1.2 Fish Presence
Fish sampling efforts in 2010, 2011, and 2012 did not detect any fish in Moses Creek
upstream of the proposed tailrace location where flows will be returned to Moses Creek. It
is concluded that there were no fish present in the diversion section of Moses Creek and
upstream of the proposed intake. The only fish bearing reach of Moses Creek was 1 km
downstream of the tailrace. The nearest fish bearing reach to the Beattie Creek intake
was 2.5 km downstream, at which point the effect of the proposed flow diversion is
mitigated by inflow from two major tributaries.
Fish sampling was conducted by minnow trapping and/or electrofishing at a total of 11
sites on Moses Creek and four sites on Beattie Creek during 2010-2012 sampling efforts.
Minnow traps were baited and set overnight for a period of between 18-48 hours.
Development Plan

Electrofishing was not conducted on Beattie Creek in the area downstream of the fish
barrier at the upstream end of Reach 3 due to the observation of salmonids.
Rainbow trout fry and juveniles or small resident adults were captured downstream of the
first barrier (30 m falls) on Beattie Creek at least 2.5 km downstream from the diversion
point and represent the only fish observed during the field sampling studies conducted
over the 2010, 2011, and 2012 sampling efforts. This may suggest that adult rainbow
trout from the Columbia River may be using the lower section of Beattie Creek to spawn.
No resident fish are known to be present in or within more than 1 km downstream of the
diversion reach. However, Kokanee, bull trout, and rainbow trout have been observed
utilizing the artificial channel at the mouth of Moses Creek (B. Gadbois, pers. Comm..),
and this stream section is likely used for spawning and limited stream-rearing by other
species such as sculpin and mountain whitefish present in Upper Arrow Lake and the
Columbia River.
Based on sampling in three years using two methods, no fish were present in the
diversion reach of Moses Creek. Fish were only identified near the mouth of Beattie
Creek where flow effects will be minimal.
2.1.3 Invertebrate Data
As described in Appendix D, a benthic invertebrate sampling program, which was
conducted based on Beatty et al., (2006) was initiated on Moses and Beattie Creek in
2010. A benthic sampling program was selected because it was felt that the benthic
invertebrate population as a whole rather than just the drift was a better indicator of
stream health in the non-fish bearing diversion reach of the Project. Invertebrate samples
were collected at four sites as shown in Figure 5 of Appendix D. Benthic invertebrates
were collected in triplicate downstream of the powerhouse location, near the downstream
end of the diversion reach, upstream of the proposed Moses Creek intake, and
downstream of the Beattie tributary intake. In 2011, a benthic invertebrate sample was
collected in triplicate approximately 650 m upstream of the proposed Moses Creek intake.
Benthic samples were collected using a standard Surber Sampler (0.3 m x 0.3 m frame)
with 243 mesh. Following collection, samples were analysed by Sandpiper Biological
Consulting Ltd (Victoria, BC) for identification and enumeration of invertebrates. Samples
were processed by size-sorting and damp dry weights were measured.
Results of the benthic invertebrate sampling were highly variable. However, benthic
invertebrate sampling showed a consistent number of Orders were present (12 at four
sites and 13 at the other). The sample site upstream of the proposed Moses Creek intake
was consistently the highest on all measures (total mass/ total organisms/ total EPT
organisms) except for total number of orders.
An additional year of benthic drift data will be collected in 2013 to establish a baseline
invertebrate record. Post-construction benthic drift monitoring will be carried out for
benthic drift twice annually for five years, as recommended by Lewis et al., 2012.
More details regarding the benthic drift sampling program are provided in Appendix D.
Development Plan

2.1.4 Instream Flows
The Moses Creek Streamflow Monitoring Report has developed a stage-discharge curve
for Moses Creek to determine flows at the intake and is provided as Appendix E. Depth
and velocity were collected at a total of ten and five representative channel cross-sections
within the diversion reach of Moses Creek and Beattie Creek, respectively. The channel
cross-section data were used to estimate the depth, velocity, and wetted perimeter that
result during average monthly flows and minimal flow releases (Appendix D; Appendix 5).
The pre and post-Project flows at the Moses Creek intake, assuming a 5% IFR, are
summarized in Figure 9 of Appendix B. Hydraulic calculations were carried out using
channel cross-sectional data to estimate changes in wetted perimeter that would result
from flow reduction in the diversion reach. Among 10 Moses Creek cross-sections, the
maximum predicted reductions in wetted perimeter ranged from 17% to 70%. Similar
percentage reductions in water depth and velocity are also predicted to occur in the
diversion reach. Among five Beattie Creek cross-sections, the maximum predicted
reductions in wetted perimeter ranged from 8% to 78%, with the change less than 8% in
the fish bearing reach. Full results of the hydraulic calculations are provided in Appendix
D (Appendix 5).
Given that the Projects diversion reach does not support fish, an instream flow release
(IFR) of 0.039 m
3
/s (10% of mean annual flow) at the Moses Creek diversion weir is
proposed with the potential for implementing a lower minimum flow release based on
provincial regulatory approval of an Adaptive Management Plan. A summary of monthly
flows in Moses Creek for the Moses Creek Hydro Project under the minimum flow release
of 5% MAD (0.020 m
3
/s) is provided in Appendix B, Figure 9.
A minimum flow release of 0.0070 m
3
/s (10% of mean annual flow) at the Beattie Creek
diversion weir is proposed with the potential for implementing a lower minimum flow
release based on provincial regulatory approval of an Adaptive Management Plan. The
instream flow release on Beattie Creek will be supplemented by local inflow from two main
tributaries that enter the Beattie Creek main stem approximately 760 m downstream of the
intake.
The rationale behind a 5% MAF IFR and how it will maintain fish habitat is discussed in
detail in Section 4 of Appendix D. Please note that at this time the Proponent is
proposing a 10% MAF IFR with the potential for reducing the IFR to 5% MAF as
previously specified.
2.2 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT
A Terrestrial Ecology and Wildlife Impact Assessment was prepared by Robert G. DEon
Consulting Ltd. of Nelson, BC. The main objectives of this report were to describe the
terrestrial ecological conditions within the proposed Project footprint, identify and assess
potential Project-related impacts on Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) and
terrestrial species at risk (particularly vascular plants), and provide recommendations and
direction on Project activities as well as feasible mitigation strategies.
Development Plan

The following VECs were chosen for assessment:
1. Old growth forest
2. Species at risk
3. Habitat loss
4. Ungulate winter range
5. Riparian Habitat
A summary of the reports findings is presented in this section and the full report is
attached as Appendix F.
2.2.1 Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation
The entire Project area, including all components, is located within the Wells Gray Wet
Cool Interior Cedar-Hemlock biogeoclimatic subzone variant, in the Interior Wet Belt of
British Columbia. Sites in and around the Project area can be generally characterized as
regenerating to young mixed coniferous forests, with scattered mature to old remnant
patches, typical of the post-harvest biogeoclimatic subzone variant. The area has been
heavily developed for commercial forest harvesting in past decades (~20-40 yrs ago), and
consequently represents a matrix of regenerating clear cuts accessible by a network of
existing gravel logging roads. Areas in and around the proposed powerhouse site have
also been heavily disturbed by construction activities related to the Revelstoke Dam,
which was completed in 1984. A summary of the general ecological conditions at select
locations within the proposed Project area can be found in Table 4 of Appendix F.
The proposed Project footprint does not overlap any provincially designated Old Growth
Management Areas (OGMA). The Project area is largely characterized as a post-harvest
regenerating area with an abundance of age-class 1 and 2 forest. Remnant patches of
older forest occur at two locations within the general Project area; 1) on the north side of
Moses Creek in the vicinity of the proposed Moses Creek intake site and 2) a strip of older
trees along Moses Creek in the vicinity of the penstock crossing. Access to the Moses
Creek intake site will be from the south side of the creek through an existing post-harvest
area, and therefore disruption to the stand of older trees on the north side of the creek will
be minimal (only what is required to install the weir). In the case of the penstock travelling
through the remnant strip of old trees near the penstock creek crossing, disturbance to the
stand will be minimized since only temporary access will be required for this section of the
penstock. The Proponent will endeavor to minimize disturbance and avoid tree clearing to
the greatest extent possible in this area. Overall Project effects on old growth forests
during construction and operation are expected to be not significant.
During field surveys, no obvious high-value site-specific habitat features (e.g. stick nests,
dens, licks, hibernacula) were observed within the Project footprint. No rare or
endangered plants were discovered during targeted rate-plant surveys.
Riparian and Wetland Habitat
There are no wetlands within the Project footprint.
Development Plan

The only area with potentially significant riparian habitat values is the area surrounding the
powerhouse site where Moses Creek intersects with a pond that appears to have formed
as a result of the damming effect of the paved road forming its southern perimeter.
However, there is no direct overlap between the Project footprint and the pond margin or
its intersection with Moses Creek. Additionally, a minimum setback of 30 m from the pond
margin, which is consistent with provincial riparian management guidelines, will be used
during detailed Project design and subsequent construction.
The Moses Creek intake and Beattie Creek diversion intake sites are largely within post-
harvest second-growth areas, which lack extensive stream-side riparian vegetation. The
penstock crossing of Moses Creek will involve minimal construction and consist of
concrete footings placed a minimum of 1 m from the high water perimeter of the creek.
Construction of the powerhouse site will occur using a minimum 5 m setback from the high
water perimeter of Moses Creek, and will therefore avoid moist soils and other sensitive
areas.
The Project will affect some riparian area by flooding at the headponds and construction of
the intakes, penstock crossing, and powerhouse. A very approximate area estimate is
1,700 m
2
, which will be refined when detailed design is complete (i.e. after permitting).
Field verification of the affected areas will be conducted following construction.
Compensation of the field-verified area will consist of riparian planting at a 2:1 ratio.
On this basis, the Projects potential impact on riparian and wetland habitat has been
assessed as low.
Species at Risk
A BC Conservation Data Centre database search identified three vascular plant species
with known occurrences within 10 km of the Project; Nahanni oak fern, slender spike rush
and western moonwort. An additional 34 vascular plant species at risk occurring within the
Interior Cedar Hemlock biogeoclimatic subzones within the Columbia Forest District were
assessed for their potential occurrence or concern within the Project area. A list of these
plants is included in Appendix 2 of Appendix F. Of these, 10 species were considered
possible to occur in the Project area: dainty moonwort, mountain moonwort, least
moonwort, tender sedge, Sutherlands larkspur, crested wood fern, small-fruited
willowherb, Treleases hybrid willowherb, Joe-pye weed, and lance-leaved figwort.
None of the thirteen species mentioned above with possible occurrences in the Project
area were observed during field work and none were discovered in a targeted rare plant
survey. Considering the inherent rarity of these species, especially in the types of habitats
identified within the footprint of the proposed Project, the overall risk of damage or loss as
a result of vegetation clearing for Project construction is low.
Ungulate Winter Range
The Project footprint does not overlap with any designated Ungulate Winter Range (UWR)
for either caribou or mule deer. Additionally, radiotelemetry data for caribou and moose
show no use of the Project areas. This data along with UWR mapping correspond with the
Development Plan

current habitat suitability of the Moses Creek and Beattie Creek study areas, which
represent a largely regenerating post-harvest area with little to no older forests. The
Project has consequently been assessed as having virtually no effect on UWR values.
2.2.2 Wildlife
In a broad assessment of all potential species at risk within the Columbia Forest District a
total of 25 terrestrial vertebrate species were assessed for their potential to occur in
proposed Project areas. A complete list of the 3 amphibian, 1 reptilian, 15 avian, and 6
mammalian species identified and details of their assessment is included in Appendix 1 of
Appendix F. Eight species were specifically singled out as likely or possibly occurring in or
near Project areas and thus being of potential concern to the Project: western toad, Coeur
dAlene salamander, great blue heron, common nighthawk, olive-sided flycatcher, barn
swallow, northern myotis and grizzly bear.
Western Toad
Western toads are generally considered widespread and relatively abundant throughout
British Columbia. They can be found in a variety of habitats; however, they require
shallow-water aquatic habitat in the spring for breeding and tadpole development. The
presence of Western toad in the Project area was confirmed by the observation of one
adult along Moses Creek approximately 230 m upstream of the proposed powerhouse
during surveys for Coeur dAlene salamander in 2011 (Appendix F). The majority of
Project-related construction activities will occur outside of moist habitats, which will limit
the disturbance to critical breeding areas. Potential effects on western toad will be further
minimized by limiting the size of the Project footprint, avoiding disruption of moist habitat
wherever possible and timing in-stream and riparian construction activities to occur
outside of the active breeding and tadpole development period (May 1 to July 31). With
the implementation of these mitigation measures, the overall Project effect on western
toad has been assessed as not significant.
Coeur dAlene Salamander
Coeur dAlene salamanders (PLID) are known to reside in wet microhabitats such as small
seeps in fissured bedrock and waterfall splash zones of creek systems such as those
found in and around the Project area. An inventory of the upper and lower reaches of
Moses and Beattie Creeks was performed by Lisa Larson in September and October 2011
to confirm the presence of this species in the watershed (Appendix F). No PLID were
found in any of the surveyed locations on Beattie Creek. Numerous PLID were found
within the lower reaches of Moses Creek, approximately 200 m upstream of the proposed
powerhouse location, within a steep fractured rock canyon reach. Although no PLID were
observed within upstream survey locations on Moses Creek (including the proposed
intake site), due to the confirmed presence of numerous PLID in the lower reaches, PLID
should be assumed to be present wherever suitable habitat exists within the Project
footprint associated with Moses Creek.
The majority of Project related construction activities will occur outside of moist habitats,
which will limit the direct effect of Project construction on PLID. Moreover, no PLID were
Development Plan

detected in the vicinity of the two intake sites during the field surveys. The concrete
footings for the penstock crossing of Moses Creek near the powerhouse will be placed 1
m upslope of the wetted perimeter, and will therefore minimize disturbance of any
potential wet soils or fractured bedrock (potential PLID habitat). Potential effects on PLID
will be further minimized by limiting the size of the Project footprint, avoiding disruption of
moist habitat wherever possible and timing in-stream and riparian construction activities to
occur outside of the active PLID season (April September).
The decreased instream flow may have the potential to decrease invertebrate production
within the diversion reach. As part of the long-term monitoring program for the Project,
benthic invertebrate sampling will be conducted in Years 1 and 2 following the start of
Project operation at the same locations upstream of the intakes, at the downstream end of
the Moses Creek diversion reach, and downstream of the powerhouse location. If
sampling results indicate that Project operation may be significantly affecting the benthic
invertebrate population, mitigation measures and further monitoring will be conducted.
Compensatory improvements to the suitability and availability of PLID habitat downstream
of the Projects tailrace will be undertaken in conjunction with riparian habitat
compensation and in consultation with local PLID experts, regulatory agencies and First
Nations.
Great Blue Heron
Great blue herons typically nest in large trees along the margins of lakes, slow-moving
rivers, wetlands and sloughs in areas with minimal human disturbance. One heron was
observed resting/foraging within the pond near the powerhouse during field surveys;
however, nesting by this species is highly unlikely within or near the Project area as there
is a high degree of human disturbance and activity. The pond itself does not provide high-
value foraging habitat as it has been assessed as fishless (Appendix D); furthermore the
setback of the Project works is such that the pond will remain undisturbed. Consequently,
the overall impact of the Project on great blue herons has been assessed as not
significant.
Common Nighthawk
Breeding habitat for common nighthawks varies widely but generally includes all open
habitats where the ground is devoid of tall vegetation. Consequently, it is possible that
common nighthawks inhabit the open habitat (i.e. previously logged areas) in around
much of the Project area. Habitat of this nature is very abundant in the local area and is
likely not limiting on a local scale. Any potential effects on nighthawks in areas
surrounding the Project will be reduced by the extensive use of existing roads and other
existing infrastructure as well as timing construction activities where and whenever
possible to occur outside breeding windows. Additionally, the creation of new open areas,
particularly along the penstock route, could potentially increase the available nighthawk
habitat in the area.
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Development Plan

The olive-sided flycatcher is most often associated with open areas within mixed
coniferous forests containing tall trees or snags, and is most abundant in early to mid-
successional stands derived from wildfire or logging activities. As human-created forest
openings may provide suitable habitat for this species, any potential clearing associated
with the construction of the Project works could enhance the overall habitat within the
Project area.
Barn Swallow
The barn swallow is typically associated with human development, and predominantly
nests in human-made structures. As the activities of the proposed Project will have no
effect on any human structures, it is anticipated that the impact of the Project on any
potentially occurring barn swallow populations is low. As with the nighthawk, the clearing
required for certain features of the Project may enhance barn swallow habitat by providing
additional open foraging areas.
Northern Myotis
This species is typically found east of BC and in boreal forests of northeast BC. A local
population was confirmed within Mt. Revelstoke National Park, and consequently
occurrences elsewhere within the Revelstoke area may be possible. In BC, the northern
myotis is highly associated with mature and old forests, particularly deciduous snags in
boreal forests. As a result of these habitat preferences, it is unlikely that the species is
present in the Project area. Additionally, the Project footprint is primarily comprised of
previously disturbed land and overlaps with only a very small area (1.06 ha estimated) of
older growth forest. On this basis, the overall impact of the Project on this species has
been assessed as not significant.
Caribou
Caribou (southern mountain population) in the Columbia Mountains are almost entirely
dependent on arboreal lichens particularly in late winter when snow covers other potential
sources of food. Arboreal lichens occur primarily in older forest stands. The Project does
not overlap ESSF (Englemann Spruce-Subalpine Fir) forests, with which caribou are often
associated during late winter, or contain old forests to any substantial degree. Additionally,
The Project does not overlap any designated ungulate winter-ranges for caribou or
radiotelemetry locations for caribou. Therefore, the likelihood of caribou occurrence within
the Project area, or the Project area representing important caribou habitat is very remote.
Grizzly Bear
Areas of the Moses Creek watershed in which the Project will be located have been
described as lacking the characteristics associated with critical grizzly bear habitat. Given
this observation as well as the proximity of the Project site to human activity and paved
roads, it is unlikely that the Project area represents important grizzly bear habitat. The
overall potential impact of the Project on grizzly bears has therefore been assessed as
low.
Development Plan

2.3 RECREATION
Request for Work Approvals under the Navigable Waters Protection Act will be submitted
to the Navigable Waters Protection Program (NWPP) of Transport Canada, concurrently
with the submission of this Development Plan, for the following Project works with the
potential to impact navigation:
1. Moses Creek intake
2. Beattie Creek diversion intake
3. Moses Creek penstock pipe bridge crossing
4. Moses Creek powerhouse tailrace
5. Power line crossing of the unnamed tributary to Moses Creek
To the best of the Proponents knowledge, neither creek experiences any canoe or kayak
traffic.
Four forest recreation tenures are in the vicinity of the Project:
1. Frisby Ridge (REC5120) is located along the upper watershed boundaries of
Moses and Beattie Creeks. Does not overlap with the proposed Project area.
2. Frisby Ridge Bike Trails (REC106440), a portion of which is located within the
Beattie Creek basin, does not overlap with the proposed Project area.
3. Westside Road Motorcycle Trail (REC142706) is for a number of dirt bike trails
located on the south side of the Moses Creek drainage between Moses and
Beattie Creeks. These trails are accessed via the existing forest road (Forest File
ID: R07401), but do not overlap with the footprint of any proposed Project works.
4. Frisby Ridge Snowmobile Trail (REC2465) overlaps the existing forest road
(Forest File ID: R07401) for the entire length under which the proposed diversion
conduit and penstock will be routed.
A summary of consultation with Ken Gibson, Recreation Officer in the Recreation Sites
and Trails Branch of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Arts is included in Section
2.16.7.
A current commercial recreation licence for the purpose of snowmobiling (File: 4403355)
coincides with REC2465 and the existing forest road (Forest File ID: R07401). The
Proponent owns Great Canadian Snowmobile Tours Inc., the holder of this licence.
Two additional commercial recreation licences for the purpose of heli-skiing (Files:
4496100 and 4404184) are located in the upper watershed of Moses and Beattie Creeks,
but do not overlap with the proposed Project footprint.
2.4 FLOOD CONTROL
Since the Project will only alter flows through the diversion reach, the Project will not affect
the flood risk downstream of the Project.
Development Plan

Flood flows should have minimal impact on the Project intake, as all works will be
designed to pass the 200-year flood.
2.5 WATER QUALITY
In 2010, water samples were taken in triplicate at four sites: downstream of the
powerhouse, the downstream end of the Moses diversion reach, upstream of the
proposed intake, and upstream of the Beattie tributary intake location. Water samples
were analysed by Maxaam Analytical Laboratories in Burnaby. Samples were also
measured for local gas pressure with an In-situ 300E tensionmeter; dissolved oxygen
(DO) and water temperature with an Oxyguard Handy Polaris DO meter; and, conductivity,
pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS) with an H198129 combo tester. In addition, water
temperature and conductivity were measured at all fish sampling sites over 2010, 2011,
and 2012.
Water temperature thermistors (Onset HOBO Water Temperature Pro V2) were installed
in Moses Creek in October 2010 at three locations: upstream of the intake, downstream of
the diversion reach, and downstream of the proposed tailrace. Two additional thermistors
were installed on Beattie Creek upstream of the intake in June 2012, and downstream of
the intake in November 2010. Thermistors were set to record data every 15 minutes.
Moses and Beattie Creek water quality was characterized by clear flow, relatively low
temperature (9.1-10.2
o
C), low conductivity (31-49 S/cm), pH between 7.6-8, and low total
dissolved solids (TDS) of 15-24 mg/L. Thermograph data show annual temperature
ranges of 0-18
o
C in Moses Creek and 0-16C in Beattie Creek.
Water quality assessments were measured in-situ concurrently with fish sampling trials
and collected for detailed laboratory analysis. Surface water quality was evaluated in
September of 2010. Surface water samples were collected and analyzed for the following:
1. physical parameters
pH
dissolved oxygen
total gas pressure
temperature
conductivity
total dissolved solids
2. nutrients
ammonia
nitrate
nitrite
ortho-phosphate
Development Plan

The results of surface water quality analyses are summarized in the following sub-
sections. In-situ water quality data is contained in Table 9 (laboratory analyses) and Table
10 (field measurements) of Appendix D. Laboratory analytical reports are contained in
Appendix 6a and field measurement reports are contained in Appendix 6b of Appendix D.
2.5.1 Physiochemical Parameters
pH values were similar among sampling dates and sites as well as field measured values
and laboratory results. The pH ranged from 7.6-8.0. All pH values were within the federal
and provincial range for the protection of freshwater aquatic life (6.5 to 9.0).
The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration measured across all sampling sites was 11.7-
12.5 mg/L and total gas pressure was 1.3-6.0 mmHg, equivalent to 100-101% (i.e., neutral
or very slightly saturated). The DO concentration is subject to diurnal and seasonal
fluctuations that are due, in part, to variations in temperature, photosynthetic activity and
stream discharge. Natural re-aeration of streams can take place in areas of waterfalls and
rapids, which are plentiful on Moses and Beattie Creek.
Values for water temperature on Moses Creek reached a maximum of approximately 18C
in July/August 2012, while Beattie Creek reached approximately 16C in the same period.
In the 2010-2012 late summer sampling periods, Moses Creek conductivity was relatively
low at 38-70 S/cm, water temperature was low-moderate at 7.6-11.5C, and the water
was clear. Pond temperatures were slightly higher at 11.5-14.7 C, while water
temperature downstream of the lower pond was relatively high at 15.2-18.3C.
In 2010, TDS levels were low, ranging from 15 to 24 mg/L across all sampling sites.
2.5.2 Anions and Nutrients
In September 2010 water samples for laboratory analysis were taken downstream of the
powerhouse, 200 m upstream of the powerhouse, upstream of the intake, and upstream of
the Beattie Creek intake. The laboratory results from water samples collected from Moses
and Beattie Creek indicated that nitrate and nitrite levels were highly variable. Nitrate
ranged between 0.002-0.120 mg/L and ortho-phosphate ranged between 0.001-0.002
mg/L. No ammonia was detected.
In September 2010, Moses Creek water samples showed values for dissolved inorganic
nitrogen (DIN) of 23-35 g/L near the downstream end of the diversion reach, 2 g/L near
the intake, and between 1-2 g/L for ortho-phosphorus at all three sample locations.
Based on these measurements, the nitrogen:phosphorus ratio ranged between 12:1 and
24:1 at the lower reaches of the Moses diversion reach and had a 1:1 ratio near the
intake. Consequently, phosphorus may be limiting in the lower reaches of the Moses
Creek watershed but nitrogen may become limiting nearer the headwaters. On Beattie
Creek samples collected upstream of the intake had an average DIN value of 66 g/L and
only 1g/L for orthophosphate, indicating substantial phosphorus limitation. DIN values of
50-100 g/L are commonly found in BC coastal and interior streams (Ashley and Slaney
1997).
Development Plan

2.5.3 Potential Project Effects
The greatest potential for impact on water quality would be during the construction phase
when heavy equipment will be operating, drilling and blasting will be taking place, and
work will be conducted near and in the confines of the creek. The Proponent will minimize
any potential effects on water quality by following the federal and provincial guidelines for
conducting work in or near waterways. Any sediment laden water from the work areas will
flow away from the creek for sediment retention before being released back to the creek.
The intake will be constructed in the dry. Increased sediment loads from cleared areas
would be the primary concern. An Environmental Monitor will oversee construction
activities, and applicable provincial and federal guidelines for working near waterways will
be followed. These measures will minimize any potential impacts on water quality.
There are not expected to be any significant impacts on water quality from Project
operation. Water quality concerns sometimes cited in relation to hydroelectric
development include an increase in total dissolved gas (TDG) levels and changes to the
streams temperature regime. According to Sullivan et al. (2004) high spill levels produce
high TDG levels primarily because spilled water entrains significant volumes of
atmospheric gases that are forced into solution by the increased pressure at depth in the
stilling basins. As the Project will not have this configuration (which is typical of large
dams), increases in TDG are not expected. Temperatures in the diversion reach of Moses
Creek and the Beattie Tributary could potentially be increased or decreased a small
amount due to the decrease in water quantity.
As temperature and TDG impacts should be minor, no mitigation is proposed. Moses
Creek water temperature monitoring will be included as part of the Projects Operations
Environmental Management Plan (OEMP).
2.6 ROADS AND BRIDGES
The Project will not adversely impact existing roads or bridges in the Project area during
construction or operation.
Access to the Project will be via existing public and forest roads as well as several meters
of new gravel roads. Local traffic is not anticipated to be affected during Project
construction or operation.
The Project does not include the construction of any new bridges, and Project work should
not adversely impact any existing bridges. During detailed design, the capacities of all
bridges crossed to access the Project will be verified to ensure they are capable of
supporting the proposed construction equipment and material loads.
2.7 CROWN OWNED RESOURCES
The Project will have a minimal effect on Crown owned resources due to its small
footprint. The Project has been designed in a manner that reduces land requirements.
One such measure is that the penstock follows access roads whenever possible.
Development Plan

The water withdrawn from Moses Creek at the intake will re-enter the creek at the
powerhouse. As the Project does not store water, the flow regime downstream of the
powerhouse will be unaffected.
2.8 EXISTING RIGHTS WATER AND LAND TENURES
No water licence has been issued for Moses Creek. The only water license application on
Moses Creek is the Proponents. There is an existing water licence on Beattie Creek
(C100020) for the purposes of Fire Prevention and Public Facilities. The point of diversion
is near the mouth of the creek and below where the two Beattie tributaries join the main
stem and as a result is less influenced by the diversion.
The entire proposed Project footprint is located on unsurveyed Crown Land. A commercial
recreation licence for the purpose of snowmobiling (File No. 4403355) overlaps with the
Project area along the existing forest road (Forest File ID: R07401), which will be used to
access both proposed intake sites (Beattie Creek diversion and Moses Creek).
Additionally, portions of the proposed diversion conduit as well as the penstock will be
routed underneath this road.
A second commercial recreation licence (File No. 4496100) for the purpose of heli-skiing
is located in the upper watershed of Moses and Beattie Creeks and borders the Projects
Investigative Licence application area along the north-west corner. None of the proposed
Project works are located within the area of this licence, and therefore the Project is not
expected to impact this tenure.
A Crown land tenure application for a Community Licence (File No. 4404928) has been
submitted by the Revelstoke Rod and Gun Club for an area approximately 500 m north-
west of the Projects application area. None of the Project works are located within the
area of this licence; however, the Proponent is aware of this groups interest in the
preservation of fish and game species. Consequently, the Proponent has endeavoured to
engage this group during the development of the Project and a summary of the
consultation that has occurred to date is included in Section 2.16.4.
2.9 FIRST NATIONS
The Moses Creek Hydroelectric Project lies within the traditional territories of a number of
First Nations.
The First Nation organizations with interest in the area appear to be as follows:
Sexqeltkemc (Lakes Division) of the Secwepemc Nation
Okanagan Nation Alliance

2.9.1 Sexqeltkemc (Lakes Division) of the Secwepemc Nation
The Proponent discussed the Project with the Ray Cormier (Title and Rights Director,
Splatsin) of the Lakes Division in meetings on May 6 and May 10, 2013. The Proponent
Development Plan

anticipates conducting a Traditional Use Study (TUS) over the Project area. However, the
Spatsin are very familiar with this area because of other recent land tenure applications
and may not need a TUS. A copy of the Development Plan will be provided to the Lakes
Division upon submission.
2.9.2 Okanagan Nation Alliance
The Proponent met with Jay Johnson (Chief Negotiator and Senior Policy Advisor) and
Meghan Fisher (Project Coordinator) of the Okanagan Nation Alliance (ONA) on August
10, 2012. At this meeting the Proponent provided the ONA with a copy of the Moses
Creek Preliminary Project Definition report and discussed the completed development and
environmental studies to date (Appendix G). Following discussions, the ONA indicated
they would like the Proponent to perform a small assessment study for cultural features,
place names, and archaeological features. A copy of the Development Plan will be
provided to the ONA upon submission.
2.10 ARCHAEOLOGY
A Preliminary Field Reconnaissance (PFR) to assess the archaeological sensitivity
within the proposed area of the Project was completed by Eagle Vision Geomatics &
Archaeology Ltd. in June 2011 (Appendix H). The final result of the PFR was that no
archaeological potential and/or significant archaeological deposits or features were
observed, recorded or otherwise suspected within the boundaries of the Project area. The
report concluded that no additional inspections, investigation or archaeological resource
management requirements were considered necessary for the proposed development.
An Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) of Landscape Units (LU) R03, R07, R08,
R18 and R20 in the Columbia Forest District was completed for Downie Street Sawmills
Limited by Wayne Choquette in March 2008 (Appendix I). A total of 194 areas (delineated
by landform-based polygons) within these 5 LUs were identified as having some likelihood
of containing significant precontact archaeological deposits and/or features. The AOA
suggests that these polygons can be used to identify areas where more detailed
investigations via preliminary archaeological field reconnaissance (PFR) or archaeological
impact assessments (AIAs) should be undertaken.
The Moses and Beattie Creek watersheds are located in the most southern section of LU
R08. The powerhouse access road and transmission line overlap with polygon R08-07,
which encloses an area between the Revelstoke Dam and Westside Road. However, this
area has been heavily disturbed as a result of previous forestry and construction activities
as well as the continued maintenance of the Revelstoke Dam, transmission lines and
resort development. This suggests that the archaeological potential of the Project footprint
and Project area in general is low, and that further archaeological work is likely not
merited.
No archaeological sites have been reported for the Moses Creek and Beattie Creek
valleys as well as the Project area.
Development Plan

2.11 AESTHETIC VALUES
The Project is located in the Moses Creek and Beattie Creek drainages, with the
powerhouse located approximately 10 km north from the City of Revelstoke along
Westside Road in an area with several other industrial and commercial buildings.
The powerhouse will be accessed via a new access road off of Westside Road. The two
intakes will be accessed via an existing forest road and a short (< 200 m) new spur road
to access the Moses Creek intake. The design of the intakes will consider both visual and
aesthetic issues such as location, size and shape. The majority of the intake structures
and weirs will be submerged and thus hidden from view.
Some tree clearing will be required to accommodate the Project; however this clearing will
be minimized to the extent possible. Clearing at both intake areas, along the Moses Creek
intake access road, powerhouse access road, and portions of the diversion conduit and
penstock not located within a road as well as the proposed laydown areas will be required.
Where possible, the penstock will follow the existing forest road and proposed Moses
Creek intake access road, to minimize clearing. Temporarily disturbed areas will be
replanted/reseeded following construction.
The Project will source construction soil materials and free-draining aggregate from two
quarry/borrow areas, one immediately adjacent to the powerhouse and proposed
powerhouse access road (1 ha) and the other located near the intake (0.5 ha). The
proposed location of the quarry is in an area that has experienced historical logging
activities and is adjacent to the cleared BC Hydro transmission line right-of way. The
quarry is approximately 200 m removed from Westside Road, which will mitigate any
impacts to visual quality and noise level. Following construction, all disturbed areas within
the quarry will be reclaimed, stabilized and re-vegetated in accordance with the CEMP
and in consultation with the Environmental Monitor.
The powerhouse, powerhouse access road and powerline will all be located in an area
that has been previously logged and/or cleared for transmission line
construction/maintenance. From Westside Road, the public will see a metal clad building
in the vicinity of other outbuildings and adjacent to the BC Hydro transmission line right-of-
way.
It is anticipated that the Project will not produce noise above ambient levels outside the
powerhouse boundary; any noise generated by Project operation would be overpowered
by noise from Moses Creek. As a result of the minimal audible noise level anticipated,
mitigation measures to reduce noise are not planned.
Heavy equipment operation and blasting during Project construction may result in
temporary increases to local noise levels; however, these impacts are anticipated to be
relatively short lived and will likely not extend outside Project boundaries.
Development Plan

2.12 MINERAL CLAIMS
According to the Mineral Titles Online database, there are not currently any mineral titles
in the Project area. Two mineral/placer reserves (Site No. ID 328785 and 366442)
associated with the Revelstoke Hydro Project and flood plain overlap with the Project
works in the lower Moses Creek watershed powerhouse, transmission line, and the
majority of the penstock.
The Proponent intends to submit an application for a Conditional Mineral Reserve over the
Project area to the Mineral Titles Branch of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum
Resources. This Conditional Mineral Reserve will ensure that any future mineral
developments do not interfere with the Project.
2.13 NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT
The Proponent is in the process of submitting site information to the NWPD with the
intention of obtaining a non-navigable classification for both intake sites, penstock pipe
bridge crossing of Moses Creek, the powerhouse tailrace on Moses Creek and the
transmission line crossing of an unnamed Moses Creek tributary. If the Proponent is
successful in obtaining this classification, the Project will not require an application under
the Navigable Waters Protection Act. However, should the NWPD designate these sites
as navigable, the Proponent will apply to the NWPD for the necessary approvals as
required.
2.14 HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC
The Moses Creek Hydroelectric Project does not pose any hazard to the public. There will
not be an increase in the flooding risk downstream of the Project. Any areas which could
potentially cause harm to the public will be clearly marked with signs and fenced.
Public access to Moses Creek in the bypass reach is relatively limited. Operational flow
ramping rates from the intake will minimize the potential for accidents to the public during
changes in Project flows.
As described in Sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.5, the majority of the penstock and diversion
conduit will be buried thereby offering protection from potential landslides. The risk of
penstock/conduit failure is therefore extremely limited. If a failure were to occur, controls at
the powerhouse would automatically shut down flows to the turbine and alert the operator.
The intake gate(s) would be closed by the operator thereby stopping flows to the
penstock/conduit and limiting potential environmental impact and hazard to the public.
The Project controls will be designed to minimize the potential for accidents or
malfunctions and an Operations Environmental Management Plan will be developed for
the Project prior to operation that will identify and mitigate any potential hazards to the
public during operation.
Development Plan

2.15 HAZARD TO THE ENVIRONMENT
The Proponent has undertaken a series of environmental studies to assess potential
impacts, and provide mitigation measures in order to reduce potential development,
construction and operational impacts from the Project.
The Project components will be designed and constructed to have small footprints with
limited clearing. Where possible, temporarily disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with
native species. Vegetation alteration will take place outside of the bird nesting period from
April 1
st
-July 31
st
, where possible. Should vegetation alteration or clearing be required
within the bird nesting period, all works will be in compliance with the Wildlife Act and a
bird nest survey will be conducted by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP).
All Project works will be located above the absolute fish migration barriers created by the
14 m bedrock falls and chutes located about 150 m upstream from the mouth of Moses
Creek and the 30 m set of falls on Beattie Creek located about 970 m upstream from the
mouth of Beattie Creek. Moses Creek and Beattie Creek are fishless above these barriers.
Since the Project headponds have minimal storage, flows will not be altered below the
Project tailrace.
Entrainment of fish is not an issue because water will be returned to the creek upstream of
the upper limit of fish migration.
Final engineering design of all Project works will incorporate features to pass and/or
protect the works from extreme flood events and ensuing debris flow.
The Proponent will apply to TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc (TerraChoice) for
EcoLogo certification to certify the Project as green energy. Studies and reporting to
TerraChoice will provide evidence that the Project meets the criteria for certification in
design, construction and operation. The report will describe potential impacts and
mitigation measures to reduce the overall environmental impact of the Project.
2.15.1 Monitoring, Mitigation and Enhancement
An Environmental Monitor will be engaged by the Proponent to ensure that environmental
impacts during construction are minimized. A Construction Environmental Management
Plan (CEMP; Appendix A) has been prepared. This plan describes the environmental
specifications to be followed during construction as well as the duties of the Environmental
Monitor.
Minimal environmental impacts are expected as a result of this Project. Potential impacts
to habitat will be mitigated through appropriate environmental design and construction
management as described throughout this report.
2.15.2 Accidents and Malfunctions
During Construction
As described in Section 2.15.1, all work will be performed in accordance with a CEMP
(Appendix A) thus minimizing the likelihood of potential accidents and malfunctions. Work
Development Plan

will be performed by qualified Contractors and to Workers Compensation Board (WCB)
regulations.
During Operation
The Project is designed so that the potential for accidents and malfunctions is either
minimized or mitigated. Valves at the intake and powerhouse will control flows in the event
of a malfunction. The powerhouse area is designed with oil containment features where
applicable, and a Spill Contingency Plan will be in place. There will be no significant fuel
or chemical storage at the site.
The only components of the Project that could cause a fire are the generator and
transformer. A fire alarm and fire suppression system will be in place as well as a
response system to alert the Project operator and local fire authorities. The design and
operation of the Project will adhere to the BC Fire Code.
2.15.3 Climate Change
Climate change is the change in the average weather (including temperature, precipitation
and wind) over time. Anthropogenic changes to the concentrations of greenhouse gasses
(particularly CO
2
) in the earths atmosphere are causing climate change to occur at an
accelerated rate.
Scientists and regulators generally agree that the best way to slow climate change is to
reduce the quantity of CO
2
emissions produced. The Western Climate Initiative, of which
British Columbia is a member, has established the regional goal of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions to 15% below the 2005 level by 2020. The British Columbia Government
has also committed to a 33% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (below the
business-as-usual scenario).
In December 2009, Canada participated in the United Nations Climate Change
Conference in Copenhagen. While the Copenhagen Accord does not set legally binding
emissions targets, the accord does aspire to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration in
the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system.
The Project is expected to produce 7.5 GWh of energy annually. If the equivalent amount
of energy were produced using fossil fuel generation approximately 6730 tonnes of CO
2

emissions would be produced
2
.
Climate change has the potential to impact the operation of run-of-river hydroelectric
projects as it affects streamflow regime. According to Whitfield (2001), between the
decades of 1976-1985 and 1986-1995 there was a significant decrease in precipitation
during the dry season and a significant increase in precipitation during the wet season.
The effect of future climate change on Moses Creek is difficult to quantify because climate

2
Calculated using the Year 2009 eGRID fossil fuel output emission rate per MWh of generated electricity (United
States average). The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) 2012 Version 1.0. US
Environmental Protection Agency.
Development Plan

change models are typically based on large areas and cannot reliably be scaled down to
individual basins.
2.16 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Sections 2.16.1 to 2.16.9 outline discussions that have occurred between the Proponent
and stakeholders.
2.16.1 Sexqeltkemc (Lakes Division) of the Secwepemc Nation and the Okanagan
Nation Alliance
The Proponent has been corresponding with the Sexqeltkemc and the Okanagan Nation
Alliance regarding the Project since August 2012. Section 2.9 provides a summary of the
communication that has occurred between these two groups and the Proponent to date,
and copies of correspondence are included in Appendix G.
2.16.2 Revelstoke Snowmobile Club
A letter, together with a map and general arrangement drawing introducing the Project,
was delivered to Greg Byman, President of the Revelstoke Snowmobile Club, by the
Proponent on September 29, 2012. Mr. Bymanss initial reaction was that he did not
anticipate that the proposed Project would have a great impact on the club. A Copy of the
letter is provided in Appendix J.
2.16.3 Snowmobile Revelstoke Society
was emailed to Angela Threatful, Executive Director of the Snowmobile Revelstoke
Society, by the Proponent on September 29, 2012. Ms. Threatfuls initial reaction was that
she did not anticipate that the proposed Project would have a great impact on the
activities of the societys members. A Copy of the letter is provided in Appendix K.
2.16.4 Revelstoke Rod and Gun Club
was sent to Brian Gadbois of the Revelstoke Rod and Gun Club, by the Proponent on
October 12, 2012. Mr. Gadboiss initial reaction was that he did not anticipate that the
proposed Project would have a great impact on the activities of the clubs members. A
copy of the letter is provided in Appendix L.
2.16.5 Revy Riders Dirt Bike Club
was sent to Chris Pawlitsky of the Revy Riders Dirt Bike Club, by the Proponent on
October 1, 2012. Mr. Pawlitskys initial reaction was that he did not anticipate that the
proposed Project would have a great impact on the activities of the clubs members. A
copy of the letter is provided in Appendix M.
Development Plan

2.16.6 City of Revelstoke
The Proponent contacted the City of Revelstoke regarding the development of the
proposed Project.
John Guenther (MCIP) director of planning, building, and bylaw for the city of Revelstoke
emailed the Proponent regarding the requirement for a development permit application
and review process for the Project on September 21, 2012.
The Proponent emailed John Guenther on November 7, 2012 to discuss the submission of
the Project Development Plan prior to submitting the development permit application.
The Proponent anticipates the submission of the development permit application following
the submission of this Development Plan. Related correspondence and a map the City of
Revelstokes official Community Plan is provided in Appendix N.
The Project will require re-zoning of the lower third of the Project area. The Proponent is
in the process of contacting the electoral representative for the Regional District to confirm
the re-zoning requirements over the Project area.
2.16.7 Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts
The Proponent contacted Ken Gibson of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts on
February 8, 2011 regarding the recreation interests in the Moses Creek and Beattie Creek
areas. Mr. Gibson advised the Proponent that the Ministry would not object to the Project
so long as safe snowmobile and mountain bike access remains in place during the
construction and operation phases of the Project.
2.16.8 Transport Canada, Navigable Waters Protection Division
The Proponent is in the process of submitting an information package to the NWPD with
the intention of obtaining a non-navigable classification for the diversion reach of Moses
Creek as well as the Beattie Creek tributary to be diverted as part of the Project.
2.16.9 BC Hydro
BC Hydro has an existing 25 kV powerline (25F62) that generally runs along Westside
Road and passes the proposed Project area approximately 320 m from the powerhouse
site. BC Hydro has conducted a preliminary interconnection review for the Project.
The Proponent anticipates that a preliminary interconnection study (Feasibility Study or
Screening Study) for the Project will be the next step. The results of this study will indicate
whether the proposed point of interconnection is feasible and/or will provide alternate
interconnection possibilities.
2.17 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS
2.17.1 Economic Benefits
The economic benefits of the Project include:
Development Plan

Approximately $1,000,000 of employment during the construction of the Project;
Revenue to local businesses from accommodation and meals for out of town
workers;
A permanent maintenance job following the construction of the Project;
Maintenance and repair contracts following the construction of the Project;
Water rent (approximately $13,000 annually); and
Provincial tax revenue.
2.17.2 Energy Plan Benefits
The Project will also help to meet many of the BC governments goals related to
greenhouse gas emissions and energy production.
The British Columbia provincial governments 2002 energy plan (Energy for Our Future: A
Plan for British Columbia) limited BC Hydros new generation ability. This change was
intended to allow more opportunities for independent power producers (IPPs).
Encouraging IPPs brings about new investments and employment opportunities.
The Project will help to achieve many of the goals laid out in the February 2007 BC
Energy Plan (The New BC Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership) and will
help to achieve the goals set out in this plan. The BC Energy Plan goals include:
Guaranteeing that all new generation projects will have zero net greenhouse gas
emissions;
Ensuring clean or renewable electricity generation continues to account for at least
90 percent of total generation; and
Achieving electricity self-sufficiency by 2016.
Development Plan

3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The Proponent is applying for a water license for the purpose of Power General on Moses
Creek (File: 4005985). This application includes a diversion of flow from an unnamed tributary to
Beattie Creek into Moses Creek above the proposed intake site. This tributary historically flowed
into Moses Creek within the proposed diversion reach; however, the flows from the tributary
were diverted to the current stream route into Beattie Creek during construction of the
Revelstoke dam. The purpose of this water license is for a hydroelectric project with a capacity
of 4.0 MW. Electricity generated by the Project will be sold to BC Hydro under a long-term EPA.
In support of the application, the Proponent has consulted with (and will continue consultations
with a number of potentially affected parties including First Nations, other land tenure holders
and recreation users in the area.
As well as generating green electricity, the Project will produce a number of economic benefits
for the Revelstoke area as well as the province of BC in general. The Project would be a new
source of tax revenue for the province. It would also create employment and contracting
opportunities for local individuals and businesses. There will also be indirect economic benefits
to businesses in the area from out of town workers staying in hotels, eating in restaurants and
purchasing supplies.
Development Plan

4. REFERENCES
Ashley, K.I., and Slaney P.A. (1997) Accelerating recovery of stream, river and pond
productivity by low-level nutrient replacement. Chapter 13 in P.A. Slaney and D. Zaldokas,
editors: Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures. Watershed Restoration Technical Circular
No. 9. Watershed Restoration Program, Vancouver, BC.
Beatty, J.M., McDonald L.M., Westcott F.M., Perrin C.J. 2006. Guidelines for Sampling Benthic
Invertebrates in British Columbia Streams. British Columbia Ministry of Environment.
Hatfield, T., Lewis, A., Babakaiff, S. 2007. Guidelines for the collection and analysis of fish and
fish habitat data for the purpose of assessing impacts from small hydropower projects in
British Columbia. Prepared by Solander Ecological Research, Victoria, BC, Ecofish
Research Ltd., Courtenay, BC, and BC Ministry of Environment. 21 p. + appendices.
Lewis A F J, Harwood A J, Zyla C, Ganshom K D, and Hatfield T (2012) Long-Term Aquatic
Monitoring Protocols for New and Upgraded Hydroelectric Projects. Prepared by Ecofish
Research Ltd., Courtenay BC for Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Sullivan, R.D., Weitkamp, D.E., Swant, T., DosSantos, J. 2004. Changing spill patterns to
control dissolved gas supersaturation. Hydro Review. August:106-112.
Whitfield, P. 2001. Linked Hydrologic and Climate Variations in British Columbia and Yukon.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (67). 217-238.
Land Act: Notifcation of Intention to Apply for a Disposition of Crown
Land
FrontCounter BC Cranbrook has accepted an application made by Moses Creek
Power Inc. of Revelstoke, BC, on behalf of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and
Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO), Kootenay Region, for Licenses
of Occupation for the purpose of Waterpower - General Area, Roadways and
Quarries situated on Provincial Crown land near Moses Creek and containing
204.1 ha (General Area), 685m long (Roadways) and 2.6 ha (totalling) more or less.
The MFLNRO File Numbers that have been established for these application
are 4405108 (Waterpower- General Area), 4405419 (Roadways) and 4405420
(Quarries). Written comments concerning this application should be directed
to FrontCounter BC, 1902 Theatre Road, CranbrookB.C., VIC 7Gl or email
to: AuthorizingAgency.Cranbrook@gov.bc.ca. Comments will be received by
FrontCounter BC until November 8, 2013. FrontCounter BC may not be able
to consider comments received after this date. Please refer to our website http://
www.arfd.gov.bc.ca/ ApplicationPosting/index.jsp Search Search by File
Number: insert Lands File Number for more information. These applications
will be available for viewing at FrontCounter BC in Revelstoke.
Be advised that any response to this advertisement will be considered part of
the public record. For information, contact the FOI Advisor at the Ministry of
Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations regional offce in Cranbrook.
Location Map
VANCOUVER
REVELSTOKE
PRINCE
GEORGE
Revelstoke
Lake
Revelstoke
Dam
Moses Creek
N
PROJECT LAYOUT
DRAWN
INSPECTED
CHECKED
DESIGNED
APPROVED
SIGMA ENGINEERING LTD.
KV
DRAWING NO.
SHEET OF
AS SHOWN
OCT 2010
1
DATE
FIGURE 3
PROJECT
SCALE
1
REV
2
E6284
MOSES CREEK POWER INC.
MOSES CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
PROJECT LAYOUT
BG
A
g
e
n
d
a
I
t
e
m
#
9
f
.
A
g
e
n
d
a
I
t
e
m
#
9
f
.
A
g
e
n
d
a
I
t
e
m
#
9
f
.
A
g
e
n
d
a
I
t
e
m
#
9
f
.
F
r
o
n
t

C
o
u
n
t
e
r

B
C

-

M
o
s
e
s

C
r
e
e
k

H
y
d
r
o

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
a
g
e

1
3
4

o
f

1
6
2
P
a
g
e

1
3
4

o
f

1
6
2
P
a
g
e

1
3
4

o
f

1
6
2
P
a
g
e

1
3
4

o
f

1
6
2
Moses Cr. Power Inc.
Moses Cr.- Overview Map
LICENCE' 4405108 CUTTING PERMIT'
MAP SHEET REF' 082M009 BLOCK'
REGION' S. INTERIOR DATE'
DISTRICT' COLUMBIA LOCATION'
SCALE' 1'5,000 UTM CZ111
LAT/LONG' 51 03'06"N 118.12'50"W
LTC GROSS AREA'
LTC NET AREA'
I
\
\
\
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I f
I I
I I
\ I
,_/
19.0 ha
5.6 ho
I
I
f
I
I I
I
\
\
\
I
I I
:(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AUG 08, 2013
Moses Cr
414917, 5656285
\
\
I
I
J I /
I I I
) I I
I / I
/
(
\
I
I
/
I
I / ' : I
I I I
I I ,"" I I /
t ; / I I I
', 1/ / 1
\ I I
..... _ I I
', I
\ I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I _... .......... --, I
I .,.-" ', .... /
I ,............. ..._ __ , __
'
',
'
I
I
I
I
I
)
I
( :'
(
J
I
J I
I I
J r'
I I
I // ( I
I
\
I
I
I
I
(
I
I
\_
I
)
I
I
/
I
I
I I I I
I I I
I I Ji /
I I \ I
/ II ! /
/ / i I
I I
/
1
I /, i/
I I
I / /1 I;
I I
I i
1
1
MOSES CREEK I
POWER INTAKE ,'
' ' / EL.820m 1 I
I
I
I
'
l)
((
\
I
J
I
I
I
\
I
I
/
I I
)
/
'0 /
\\ /
\\ )
\\
'0
(
I

--
I
(
I
\
/
I
\ \
\ \
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
\
I I
I
<;)o ',.J/ ',,< 413,908 E ,'
,,
0
5,65/( 8,050 N I
' INTAKE /-- /
ACCESS RD --/ )
7m RUNNIN /
I
I
'
'
'

/ \\
\\
I
II
II
', \
I J
/;
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
(
(
I
I
I
I
I
\
J
j
I
I
I
J
J /
I
I
I
)
/
I
I
I
I
J I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
\ )
)f
I
l r
I
I
]\
\
\
I
I
I
' I
I I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
)
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
)
I
\
I
I
\
\
I
\
LoO Boundal)l
Paved Road
Haul Road
Trail
Building
Penstock Alignment
Proposed 7m Road
Proposed Temporal)' Rd.
Right-of-Way (OL TC)
Creek
Subdivision Parcel Boundal)l
Proposed Quarry Site
0 100
METERS
200
SCALE 1:5,000
DRAWH BY' RF
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
(
'
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
/
\
I
I
I
\
J \
I I
\
\
I I /
; I I
I I r
\ I \
I \ \
1 1 \
I
\
I
\
I
I
=====
Cl
\
(
I
I
I
BEATTIE CR
DIVERSION INTAK
EL.930m
413,464 E
5,657,374 N
I
I
I
/
)
I
I
I
'
{
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
/
I
/;
I
I
I
\
"
I
I
I I
\ I
} I
I
I I I I
/1 I
' I I
J
I

:\\
II
\'--
I I I
/ I (
\\ \
\V
II
300
\
) '
I
DATE AUC OS, 201J I I
)
)
I/
/J
((
II
H
"'
I
l
' SURFACV I I
', / )
,.----:,_-----,-:--.::
PENSTOCK
I
J
I
I
I
I
EXI;STING BC YDRO -
RIGkH-OF-WAY (500kV)
' ' \
X
v
I
I
I
I
I
J
(
I
I
1>-
0
[]]
__J
<[
"-
u
z
:::J
::;;
i PENSTOCK 20
't ............- m 0/S RD
CIL
I
PENSTOCK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
Sec 16, Tp 24, Rge
/
I
'.
'. /
' ' \
' 2 \
' \
\ /
POWERHOUSE
ACCESS ROAD
7m RUNNING
SURFACE
QUARRY
<::> /'\.. SITE 1
X
-
---
EXISTING BC HYDRO
POWERLINE - 25kV 3
PH <LOCATIO
APPROXIMATE

\
' '
DL16987
DL17110
\
)
>-
0
[]]
__J
<[
"-
u
r
'
\
' \
\
'
\
'
-----\
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
\
D
:-,....._
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I \
I
' \
\
'

\
\
22. 'r-.p 24,
\
\
'
' \
\
I
I
/\
I
I
I
\
I
\ /
\ ,'
I
/
---
TRANSMISSION
LINE - 375m
-
-
\
'
-
I
I

Moses Crreek IPP Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Moses Crreek IPP Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moses Crreek IPP Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOSES CREEK POWER INC.

MOSES CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

You might also like