Point of Diversion Evaluation Chapman Creek
Prepared for
Sunshine Coast Regional District
Integrated Sustainability 05 September 2019
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page i
Report Submission To: Remko Rosenboom
Legal Company Name: Sunshine Coast Regional District
Company Address: 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC, V0N 3A1
Contact Phone Number: +1 (604) 885-6810
Contact Email Address: [email protected]
Submitted By: AJ MacDonald
Legal Company Name: Integrated Sustainability
Company Address: 620, 1050 West Pender Street, Vancouver, BC, V6E 3S7
Contact Phone Number: +1 (778) 886-5714
Contact Fax Number: +1 (587) 331-7919
Contact Email Address: [email protected]
Document Number: VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-
Rev0.docx
Document Path: P:\SCR\VP19-SCR-01-
00\5.0_Tech_Exec\5.6_GeoSci\Report-
PODFieldSummary\VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-
ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0.docx
Document Revision Number: 0
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page ii
Disclaimer
The information presented in this document was compiled and interpreted exclusively
for the purposes stated in Section 1 of the document. Integrated Sustainability
provided this document for Sunshine Coast Regional District solely for the purpose
noted above.
Integrated Sustainability has exercised reasonable skill, care, and diligence to assess
the information acquired during the preparation of this document, but makes no
guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this information. The
information contained in this document is based upon, and limited by, the
circumstances and conditions acknowledged herein, and upon information available
at the time of its preparation. The information provided by others is believed to be
accurate but cannot be guaranteed.
Integrated Sustainability does not accept any responsibility for the use of this
document for any purpose other than that stated in Section 1 and does not accept
responsibility to any third party for the use in whole or in part of the contents of this
document. Any alternative use, including that by a third party, or any reliance on, or
decisions based on this document, is the responsibility of the alternative user or third
party.
Any questions concerning the information or its interpretation should be directed to
AJ MacDonald.
Document Revision History
Rev
No.
Rev Description Author Reviewer Approver Rev Date
A Issued as Draft 09-Aug-2019
Jordan Fryers Ian Grant AJ MacDonald
0 Issued as Final 05-Sep-2019
Jordan Fryers Ian Grant AJ MacDonald
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page iii
Table of Contents
DISCLAIMER ....................................................................................................................................II
1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 STUDY AREA ..............................................................................................................................2
3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................2
3.1 Creek Flow Conditions .......................................................................................... 2
3.2 Identifying Potential Sites ...................................................................................... 2
3.3 Multi-Criteria Analysis ............................................................................................. 3
3.4 Field Scouting .......................................................................................................... 3
3.5 Creek Flow Conditions River Flow Rates & Existing Allocations ..................... 4
4 POINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION.........................................................................................5
4.1 Field Scouting Results ............................................................................................. 5
4.1.1 Site 1: 320 m Elevation ......................................................................................... 6
4.1.2 Site 2: 300 m Elevation ......................................................................................... 7
4.1.3 Site 3: 260 m Elevation ......................................................................................... 8
4.1.4 Site 4: 240 m Elevation ....................................................................................... 10
5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................11
5.1 Next Steps .............................................................................................................. 13
6 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................................14
7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................15
Tables within Text
TABLE A. CHAPMAN CREEK POD SITES EVALUATED ..........................................................5
Tables
TABLE 1 FILED AND DESKTOP MCA EVALUATION OF CHAPMAN CREEK POINT OF
DIVERSION SITE EVALUATION
Figures
FIGURE 1 SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT POINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION
CHAPMAN CREEK SITE B OPTIONS
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page iv
Appendices
APPENDIX 1 – SATELLITE IMAGERY OF SITES
APPENDIX 2 – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
Integrated Sustainability has been retained by Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) to
identify and evaluate potential point of diversion (POD) sites (the Sites) on Chapman
Creek (the Creek) that can service SCRD’s municipal water demands.
Based on the current and projected water demands within the Chapman Water System,
which services communities along the Sunshine Coast region within southwestern BC, the
SCRD has identified the need for development of means to address the source water
supply deficit. The SCRD intends to develop these means such that there is sufficient year-
round water supply for communities’ dependant on the Chapman Water System under
both typical and emergency demand circumstances (SCRD 2018). Chapman Creek is
the primary water source for the Chapman Water System and conveys water from
Chapman Lake and Edwards Lake to the Chapman Creek Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
(Opus DaytonKnight 2013).
To service a growing demand for water, the SCRD would like to construct a storage
reservoir along the Creek to store water during periods of high flow.
1.2 Purpose
The objective of this project is to support SCRD in reviewing options to install an additional
water intake along Chapman Creek north of the proposed water storage pond currently
named “Site B” and located in the vicinity of B 77-J / 092 G 05 (Figure 1). While the existing
intake may be expanded to supply additional water, it would require a pump station to
deliver water to a reservoir located at Site B. There is also an option to add an additional
“run-of-river” style intake within the bedrock walled portion of Chapman Creek upstream
of the existing intake. This style of intake would gravity feed water to a storage reservoir
located in the lower reaches.
This report summarizes the findings of a review of potential POD intake locations within the
bedrock walled portion of the Creek. It is understood that any intake would require a
connecting pipeline to deliver water to the proposed storage reservoir; the routing of this
pipeline is not specifically considered as part of this evaluation.
Integrated Sustainability completed a desktop evaluation of POD Sites which was
summarized in an email on 10 July 2019 (pers. comm. Haley Massong, 10 July 2019). The
four Sites from this desktop evaluation were selected for field scouting to validate the
desktop findings. The field scouting was carried out by Integrated Sustainability on 21 July
2019. The purpose of this document is to summarize the findings from both the desktop
study and field assessments of potential Creek POD locations.
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 2
2 STUDY AREA
The Study Area included the area along Chapman Creek upstream of SCRD’s proposed
water storage pond near B 77-J / 092 G 05 and is defined as the reach of Chapman
Creek between the elevation of 320 m and 240 m (Figure 1). This comprises a 2.5 km reach
of the Creek.
SCRD’s preference is for POD Sites on the east side of the Creek because the proposed
water storage reservoir would be located on the east side of the Creek. SCRD currently
has a weir installed further downstream on the Creek at an elevation of approximately
185 m that is the source for “Site A” (B 67-J / 092 G 05).
For the purpose of the Site visit, access was gained by driving up Field Road to an
Unnamed Road, and parking at a locked gate on the Unnamed Road approximately 1
km north of Site B. From the locked gate, a walking path along a decommissioned forestry
road runs parallel to the Creek and previously crossed the creek at Site 2, continuing
parallel to the northwest side of Creek. POD locations Site 1, Site 3, and Site 4 are accessed
by walking down from the walking path or directly along the Creek where possible.
3 METHODOLOGY
Prior to the field investigation, Integrated Sustainability carried out a desktop evaluation
which included a review of:
▪ Creek flow conditions
▪ Identification of potential Sites from maps and aerial imagery
▪ Ranking of the Sites suitability for POD based on river properties using a multi-criteria
analysis (MCA).
▪ Field scouting of identified Sites
▪ Compilation of MCA Site review
3.1 Creek Flow Conditions
The Water Survey of Canada ([WSC] 2019) was queried to provide a summary of natural
flow rates on the Chapman Creek.
3.2 Identifying Potential Sites
Integrated Sustainability used the following desktop information sources to find potential
POD Sites:
▪ Topographic and road maps
▪ Satellite imagery and air photos
Based on a visual evaluation of the river images, topography and existing infrastructure,
one potential Site was selected for evaluation and in addition, three Sites identified by
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 3
SCRD during a previous field visit were included for a total of four Sites that were to be
evaluated.
3.3 Multi-Criteria Analysis
The potential Sites were evaluated and ranked using an MCA process which is based on
a qualitative rating system (e.g. scores from 1 to 5) under the four criteria categories:
1) River access and transportation
a) Slope of bank adjacent to the Creek
b) Cleared trails leading to or near the POD location
c) Distance from the proposed storage location
2) Land use and stakeholder issues
a) Land ownership
b) Watershed reserve and protection areas
3) River characteristics
a) River reach specifics (straight, inside or outside of existing bend)
b) Boulders and vegetation
c) Creek bed characteristics
4) Environmental sensitivity
a) Clearing needed to access site
b) Proximity to other tributaries
c) Proximity of BC wildlife management areas
The MCA process was completed assuming equal weighting for each of the criteria. An
average score was calculated for each of the Sites. Weighting can be adjusted based
on specific SCRD criteria.
3.4 Field Scouting
Based on the MCA evaluation, the four Sites were assessed by field scouting. The purpose
of the field visit was to gather the following Site information:
▪ Site specific characteristics including bank stability, vegetation, and substrate
▪ River depths measurements
▪ Site photographs
▪ Site access conditions and routes
The information gained from the field scouting has been used to validate and supplement
the information gathered in the desktop evaluation.
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 4
3.5 Creek Flow Conditions, River Flow Rates, & Existing Allocations
The Study Area is in the lower reaches of Chapman Creek. Chapman Creek is carved into
a bedrock valley with steep forested hillslopes that greatly limit access. There are no
bridges across Chapman Creek in the Study Area and only a few cleared access routes
to the Creek. Chapman Creek is narrow, shallow, and has many large boulders which
may be challenging for a water intake system. Below the study area, Chapman Creek
flows out of the Coast Mountains and into a shallower reach with alluvial sediment before
entering the Straight of Georgia.
Flow rates in Chapman Creek will be consistent across the Study Area with no major
tributaries joining the Chapman Creek between the upstream Site and the downstream
Site. Within the Study Area, Chapman Creek has a drainage area of approximately
62 km2 at Site 4 (the furthest downstream site) and 52 km2 at Site 1 (the furthest upstream
site) (Scalgo 2019). The mean annual discharge is 4.4 m3/s at the WSC station located
downstream of the existing intake with a drainage area of 64 km2 (Figure A). Average
daily flow rates follow the typical variable pattern for rivers in this region with consistent
flow between 0.2 m3/s and 12 m3/s, seeing the high flows typically in the winter and lower
flows typically in the summer. Mean summer flow rates for July and August are typically in
the range of 0.2 m3/s as they are controlled by SCRD. The annual peak flows typically
occur in mid-December and have a mean rate of 14.28 m3/s.
Figure A. Hydrograph of Daily Flow for Chapman Creek below existing intake
(1993-2003)
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 5
Downstream of the Study Area there is currently 7,508,435 m3/year of licenced surface
water allocations to SCRD accounting for 5.4% of the Chapman Creek’s mean annual
flow (Government of BC 2019). Considering an allocation limit of 15% of MAD, the
remaining potential volume for allocation is 13,372,551 m3/year. While SCRD’s expected
additional withdrawal volume is currently unknown; in terms of natural flow rates and
existing allocations, the Chapman Creek should have adequate flows to support
additional water diversion by SCRD.
4 POINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION
Four potential POD Sites were selected for desktop evaluation (Table A). The locations of
these Sites are shown on Figure 1. Satellite imagery for all four Sites is included in Appendix
1. Site photographs collected during the field scouting are included in Appendix 2.
Table A. Chapman Creek POD Sites Evaluated
Site Number Descriptor Name NTS Location
1 Site B Intake El. 320 m D 4-B / 092 G 12
2 Site B Intake El. 300 m B 4-B / 092 G 12
3 Site B Intake El. 260 m B 95-J / 092 G 05
4 Site B Intake El. 240 m B 95-J / 092 G 05
General comments for all Sites include:
▪ Chapman Creek is narrow, shallow, and filled with large boulders (up to 3 m diameter)
▪ The east side of Chapman Creek throughout the Study Area is largely undeveloped,
heavily forested, access to any of the Sites may cross or utilize privately owned land.
▪ Heavily forested with steep valley walls on both sides.
4.1 Field Scouting Results
Based on the initial MCA results, the four Sites were selected for field scouting to validate
the desktop findings. The field scouting found that three Sites (Sites 1-3) have suitable and
roughly equivalent creek characteristics. The fourth Site (Site 4) has bedrock on the left
downstream bank (LDB), which was notably different than the boulder and cobble creek
beds of Sites 1-3.
While the creek bed difference is most notable, each has its own specific physical
constraints that can be overcome through engineering and operational management.
However, all four Sites have their own unique land-use or stakeholder elements that will
require further attention.
The MCA table summarizing desktop and field scouting results is included in Table 1. The
site conditions and characteristics are summarized in the following sections under two
general categories – Access and River Characteristics.
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 6
4.1.1 Site 1: 320 m Elevation
River Access and Transportation
▪ Site 1 is located 4.4 km north of the proposed storage reservoir and features a
decommissioned forestry road on the west side of the Creek reaching approximately
100 m west of the POD.
▪ Site 1 is accessed by walking directly down the slope from the decommissioned
forestry road walking path on the northwest side of the Creek.
▪ Flat land to the east of the POD provides a good location for a pump staging area if
required, following the necessary clearing of trees and forest.
Relative ranking of 2 related to distance from proposed storage and potential clearing
required.
Land Use and Stakeholder Issues
▪ Crown Land ownership
▪ Within the Watershed Reserve Area
▪ Outside of the municipal Official Community Plan Watershed Protection area
Relative ranking of 4 related to crown land ownership.
River Characteristics
▪ Site 1 is located along a straight reach of the creek where the water velocities
increase around boulders and there are undulating water surfaces (small standing
waves).
▪ Water velocity at this POD was difficult to measure due to the high volume of boulders
in the area. Using a Rickly Stream Gauge instrument, field staff measured a flow of
0.57 m3/s at Site 1.
▪ The right downstream bank (RDB) is approximately 1 m high and has some large tree
debris from prior high flow events (Appendix 2, Photo #1).
▪ The LDB is approximately 1.5 m high with a large tree stump and small eroded pocket
approximately 6 m long and 3 m deep (Appendix 2, Photo #3).
▪ Downstream of the POD, the Creek breaks into two channels. One main channel
contains flow year-round, whereas the secondary channel only contains flow during
periods of high flow events.
▪ Maximum water depth was approximately 0.5 m.
▪ Creek bed slope is approximately 4.5˚
Relative ranking of 2 related to low banks and shallow creek bed slope.
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 7
Environmental Sensitivity
▪ Clearing of access route and new riparian disturbance would be required.
▪ Not within BC Wildlife Management Areas
▪ Located upgradient of all privately-owned logging land, therefore protected against
potential contamination from uncontrolled activities.
Ranking of 4 related to location upstream of logging area tributary.
4.1.2 Site 2: 300 m Elevation
River Access and Transportation
▪ Site 2 is located 3.6 km north of the proposed storage reservoir and features a
decommissioned forestry road bridge that previously crossed the river at the POD.
▪ For the purpose of the Site visit, access was gained by driving up Field Road to an
Unnamed Road, and parking at a locked gate on the Unnamed Road approximately
1 km north of Site B. From the locked gate, foot reconnaissance was required,
following the walking path left from the decommissioned forestry road.
▪ The decommissioned forestry road may be used for access, but it requires some
necessary upgrades as it has become overgrown with vegetation now.
Relative ranking of 4 related to distance from proposed storage and crossing of
decommissioned road.
Land Use and Stakeholder Issues
▪ Crown land ownership
▪ Within the Watershed Reserve Area
▪ Outside of the municipal Official Community Plan Watershed Protection area
Relative ranking of 4 related to Crown land ownership.
River Characteristics
▪ Site 2 is situated along a straight reach of the Creek approximately 125 m long at an
old bridge that previously crossed the Creek for a decommissioned forestry trunk road.
▪ The LDB (east bank) is estimated to be 4 m high with a steeply cut face of wood
(decommissioned bridge foundation) and organic material (i.e. soil, clay). The top of
bank has vegetation and treed regrowth following the decommission of the bridge
and road.
▪ The RDB (west bank) is estimated to be 4 m high with a steeply cut face comprised of
boulders and alluvial material (i.e. sand, gravel, cobble) left from the
decommissioned bridge foundation.
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 8
▪ The Site has higher ground on either bank which might allow equipment to be
positioned closer to the river.
▪ The Site has boulders and cobbles as predominant creek substrate.
▪ Maximum water depth was approximately 0.6 m.
▪ Creek bed slope is approximately 2.9˚
Relative ranking of 2 related to the shallow creek slope and creek substrate.
Environmental Sensitivity
▪ Clearing of access route and new riparian disturbance would be required.
▪ Not within BC Wildlife Management Areas
▪ Located upgradient of privately-owned logging land, therefore protected against
potential contamination from uncontrolled activities.
Ranking of 5 related to location upstream of logging area tributary and decommissioned
road and bridge crossing.
4.1.3 Site 3: 260 m Elevation
River Access and Transportation
▪ Site 3 is located 2.5 km north of the proposed storage reservoir and features a
secondary channel to allow for potential overflow.
▪ The decommissioned forestry road runs within 90 m of the Creek, however a bridge
over a runoff culvert was removed in the decommissioning, therefore replacement
would be required. Additionally, there is a large clearing from previous forestry
activities to access the Creek. Grading and road construction might be required,
however there is better access compared to Sites 1 and 2 because less clearing is
required.
▪ Satellite imagery and field observation indicate that the Site was cleared for forestry
operations.
− Satellite imagery from 2017 and 2018 shows a major clearing of the forest
occurred between Sites 3 and 4.
− During the Site visit several burn pits were observed as well as piles of trees and
brush that were left and not burnt.
Relative ranking of 4 related to distance from proposed storage and existing clearing as
well as relatively close proximity to decommissioned road.
Land Use and Stakeholder Issues
▪ Private Land ownership
▪ Within the Watershed Reserve Area
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 9
▪ Outside of the municipal Official Community Plan Watershed Protection area
Relative ranking of 3 related to private land ownership.
River Characteristics
▪ Site 3 is situated at a bend in a pool feature between multiple pool drops
approximately 5 m to 20 m in length and approximately 30 cm drops.
▪ Maximum water depth was approximately 0.8 m.
▪ Creek bed slope is approximately 7.6˚
▪ The LDB (east bank) has exposed roots showing evidence of erosive events and
potentially unstable banks, however there is mature tree growth and forest which may
provide some resistance.
▪ The LDB has steep valley walls at approximately 60 degree angle and approximately
100 m to 150 m high.
▪ The RDB has mature tree growth with some flood debris.
▪ Similar to Site 1, the creek has a secondary channel, but rather than downstream and
shallow, this one is deep and may provide an overflow option.
▪ The secondary channel has the following features
− Log debris from flood approximately 2 m high, resting on large boulder
approximately 1.5m diameter.
− The slope of the creek bed following the natural 2 m high weir is approximately
2.3 degrees.
− The creek bed is comprised of boulders, cobbles and gravel.
− The banks are vegetated with mature trees and shrubs which provide some
erosion resistance.
Relative ranking of 3 related to the steeper creek bed slope and secondary channel
allowing for potential overflow during high flow events and potential fish navigation.
Environmental Sensitivity
▪ Clearing of access route and new riparian disturbance would be required.
▪ Not within BC Wildlife Management Areas
▪ Located downgradient of all privately-owned logging land, therefore not protected
against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities.
Ranking of 3 related to location downstream of logging area tributary and proximity to
decommissioned road.
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 10
4.1.4 Site 4: 240 m Elevation
River Access and Transportation
▪ Site 4 is located 2.2 km north of the proposed storage reservoir and features bedrock
on both banks.
▪ The decommissioned forestry road runs within 115 m of the Creek and along which
there is a large clearing from previous forestry activities to access the creek. Additional
grading and road construction might be required down to the Creek, however there
is better access compared to Sites 1 and 2 because less clearing is required.
▪ Satellite imagery and field observation indicate that the Site was cleared for forestry
operations.
− Satellite imagery from 2017 and 2018 shows a major clearing of the forest
occurred between Sites 3 and 4.
− During the Site visit several burn pits were observed as well as piles of trees and
brush that were left and not burnt.
Relative ranking of 4 related to distance from proposed storage and existing clearing as
well as relatively close proximity to decommissioned forestry road.
Land Use and Stakeholder Issues
▪ Private land ownership
▪ Within the Watershed Reserve Area
▪ Outside of the municipal Official Community Plan Watershed Protection area
Relative ranking of 3 related to private land ownership.
River Characteristics
▪ Flow was recorded for approximately 60% of the creek as approximately 40% was
unmeasurable due to lower levels in a boulder field. Taking this into consideration, flow
was recorded to be approximately 0.83 m3/s at Site 4.
▪ Site 4 is situated along a straight reach of the Creek approximately 200 m long in a
pool feature approximately 10 m long and 1m deep. The deeper part of the creek is
on the left side near the LDB (east bank) and the cascading pools should help ensure
a minimum water depth during low flows.
▪ Unlike any of the other Sites, Site 4 has bedrock on both banks, providing more stable
banks and constructability for a weir.
▪ The LDB is approximately 10-15 m high and the RDB is approximately 4 m high.
▪ Maximum water depth was approximately 0.6 m.
▪ Creek bed slope is approximately 11.3˚, which was the steepest creek bed slope of all
the Sites.
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 11
Relative ranking of 4 related to the steep creek bed slope and bedrock on both banks.
Environmental Sensitivity
▪ Clearing of access route and new riparian disturbance would be required.
▪ Not within BC Wildlife Management Areas
▪ Located downgradient of all privately-owned logging land, therefore not protected
against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities.
Ranking of 3 related to location downstream of logging area tributary and further
proximity (115 m) from decommissioned road.
5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Integrated Sustainability completed a desktop and field evaluation of four potential
intake Sites along Chapman Creek between 320 m elevation and 240 m elevation.
Chapman Creek flows through a deep valley along the west side of SCRD’s current and
proposed storage ponds. The following statements define Chapman Creek within the
Study Area for the purpose of the Intake evaluation:
▪ Flow rates in Chapman Creek will be consistent across the Study Area with no major
tributaries joining Chapman Creek between the 320 m elevation and the 240 m
elevation. Generally, Chapman Creek is narrow, shallow, and filled with large
boulders (up to 3 m diameter) which can be challenging for the design and operation
of an intake system.
− There is a small tributary between proposed Site 2 and Site 3 that receives water
from privately owned logging land and is therefore not protected against
potential contamination from uncontrolled activities.
▪ Chapman Creek has a drainage area of 62 km2 at Site 4 (furthest downstream site)
and 52 km2 at Site 1 (furthest upstream site).
▪ Chapman Creek has a mean annual flow of the of 4.4 m3/s (WSC 2019). Average daily
flow rates follow the typical variable pattern for rivers in this region with consistent flow
between 0.2 m3/s and 12 m3/s, seeing the high flows typically in the winter and lower
flows typically in the summer. Mean summer flow rates for July and August are typically
in the range of 0.2 m3/s as they are controlled by SCRD. The annual peak flows
typically occur in mid-December and have a mean rate of 14.28 m3/s.
▪ On Chapman Creek 5.4% of surface flow is allocated. There remains a significant
volume available for new diversions.
▪ Chapman Creek located within the Study Area is not located within BC Wildlife
Management Area.
▪ Four potential POD Sites within 4.4 km of the proposed storage reservoir, numbered 1
through 4, were identified on Chapman Creek within the Study Area. All the sites
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 12
demonstrated good characteristics from a desktop-level review and were selected
for field scouting.
▪ Sites 1 and Site 2 and located on Crown Land while Site 3 and Site 4 are located on
Private Land. Intakes located at Site 1 or Site 2 would require pipeline routing that
would likely have to pass through the Private Land located around Site 3 and Site 4.
Results of the field scouting conducted on 21 July 2019 are summarized as follows:
▪ The field scouting confirmed that none of the sites have an existing disturbed access
route. A now decommissioned forestry road runs parallel to Chapman Creek that
would likely support Site access. The decommissioned road is:
− Approximately 100 m west of Site 1
− Previously crossed Chapman Creek at Site 2. Some timber foundational
structures remain on the southeast side of the Creek (LDB) and boulder
foundation remain on the northwest side of the Creek (RDB).
− Approximately 90 m southeast of Site 3.
− Approximately 115 m southeast of Site 4.
▪ The Creek substrate includes angular gravel ranging up to very large boulders 3 m in
diameter.
▪ Exposed bedrock was only observed at Site 4; the lowest and most downstream Site.
▪ The Creek slope ranged between 2.9˚ (Site 2) and 11.3˚ (Site 4).
▪ Valley walls were the steepest at Site 3.
▪ The Creek is divided into two separate channels downstream of Site 1 and at Site 3.
While land use agreements and/or approvals will be important in site selection, each site
also has its own physical constraints to intake development. The ranking scheme used
here is based on equal weighting of all criteria and more detailed review may revise the
weighting scheme and therefor the overall site ranking. Based on the current rank scheme
and weighting distribution, the ranking of each site is as follows:
▪ Site 1 is the lowest ranked site. It is the highest and furthest from the proposed storage.
Bank conditions are not better.
▪ Site 2 is the highest ranked site. While this location is also high and farther from the
proposed storage that Site 3 and 4, this location was previously utilized as a bridge, so
is expected to have the more feasible access and clearing requirements.
▪ Site 3 is the third raked site. While this Site is closer to the proposed reservoir and has a
potential for natural overflow, this location has the steepest valley walls and may be
more challenging for intake design.
▪ Site 4 is the second ranked Site. This site is close to the proposed storage reservoir and
contains exposed bedrock that could be used to anchor intake infrastructure. This
location also has the steepest Creek slope.
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 13
5.1 Next Steps
Integrated Sustainability recommends the following next steps to evaluate, licence, and
develop a POD intake Site along Chapman Creek between the 320 m elevation and the
240 m elevation:
▪ Further inquire into the feasibility of securing land-use agreements regarding private
land use for intake infrastructure and pipeline routing from the POD to the proposed
storage reservoir.
▪ Review run-of-river intake construction options and expected costs for upstream
Chapman Creek bedrock intakes.
▪ Compare and evaluate water supply options between upstream bedrock water
supply intakes against increasing capacity of the current intake and pumping water
up to the proposed storage reservoir.
▪ A new intake would require a new Water Sustainability Act Term Licence application
and will require the following field level information about the POD Site:
− Detailed river survey to support hydraulic modelling that is necessary for the
design of intake screens, anchors, and flood setbacks.
− Aquatic habitat assessment.
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 14
6 CLOSURE
Integrated Sustainability Consultants Ltd. would like to thank the Sunshine Coast Regional
District for the opportunity to support their municipal water demands, through the
evaluation of potential water intake Sites on Chapman Creek. If you have any questions,
please contact the undersigned at any time.
Sincerely,
Integrated Sustainability Consultants Ltd.
Jordan Fryers, E.I.T., B.A.Sc.
Junior Water Resources Engineer
Ian Grant, MSc. P. Geo,
Senior Geoscientist
VP19-SCR-01-00-RPT-WR-ChapmanCreek_Intake_Eval-Rev0 5 September 2019 | Page 15
7 REFERENCES
Government of BC. 2019. BC Water Resources Atlas.
http://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/hm/wrbc/ (accessed 06 August 2019).
Opus DaytonKnight Consultants Ltd. (Opus DaytonKnight). 2013. Sunshine Coast Regional
District Comprehensive Regional Water Plan. D-02820.00. June 2013.
SCALGO. 2019. Scalable Algorithmics Terrain Data-Processing. http://scalgo.com/live
(accessed 06 August 2019).
Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD). 2018. Framework for the Development of a Water
Sourcing Policy. 2018.
Water Survey of Canada. 2019. Historical Hydrometric Data.
https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/search/historical_e.html (accessed 29 July 2019).
Figure
Sechelt
J/92-G-5
B/92-G-12
Site 1D 4-B /092 G 12
El. 320 m
Site 2B 4-B /092 G 12
El. 300 m
Site 3B 95-J /092 G 05
El. 260 m
Site 4B 95-J /092 G 05
El. 240 m
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity
PROJECT NO.
PREPARED BY:
CLIENT:
CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:
Doc
umen
t Pat
h: N
:\Pro
ject
s\S
CR
\VP
19-S
CR
-01-
00\M
XD
\VP1
9-S
CR
-01-
00P
ropo
sedS
tora
geR
eser
voirS
iteB
Fig1
-Rev
A-.m
xd,
NOTES: 9-AUG-19Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community.POD Locations current as of July 2019.
REVISION:
APPROVED BY:
FIGURE NO.
1:45,000Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10NProjection: Transverse MercatorDatum: North American 1983
0 500 1,000
Meters
K.MATEUSH
1 A
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICTPOINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATIONCHAPMAN CREEK SITE B OPTIONS
J.FRYERS I.GRANT
VP19-SCR-01-00
Site B Proposed Storage Reservoir
Site B Location
Streams
Chapman Creek Watershed
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Table
Table 1: Field and Desktop MCA Evaluation Chapman Creek Point of Diversion Site EvaluationProject Number: VP19-SCR-01-00
Project Name: Raw Water Reservoir Feasibility Study - Phase 3
Client Name: Sunshine Coast Regional District Date:
Project Manager: AJ MacDonald Rev #: A
Project Engineer: Haley Massong
Site Descriptor Name Legal Location Setting
Comments Rating Comments Rating Comments Rating Comments Rating
1Site B IntakeEl. 320 m
D 4-B / 092 G 12
10U 451860E 5483983N
49.506561° -123.664936°
-East side of ChapmanCreek-Linear distance toproposed Site B = 4.4 km-Longest pipeline distanceto Site B
-No direct access to the river-Decomissioned forestry road on west side of theriver approximately 100 m from the POD-No cleared areas for equipment in proximity.-Moderately steep valley walls (max 51 % average 15 %)-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 4.4 km
2
-Crown land ownership. -Within Watershed Reserve Area.-Outside of OCP Watershed ProtectionArea.
4
- Site located along straight reach of river approximately 200 m upstream and slight bend downstream with secondary channel approximately 20 m downstream- Large boulder field upstream and at POD- Water depths measured across the creek were between 0.08 m and 0.48 m.- Creek approximately 30 m wide, with approximately 15 m wetted, max depthapproximately 50 cm- LDB approximately 1.5 m high, large tree stump approximately 1.5 m diameter,
wooded, deciduous, approximately 75 m high trees behind with lots of vegetationgrowth- RDB approximately 1.0 m high with coniferous and deciduous wooded dense forest and lots of vegetation growth- Creek bed slope approximately 4.5 degrees
2
-Access route clearing required -New riparian disturbance-Not located within BC Wildlife Management Areas-Located upgradient of all privately owned logging land, therefore protected against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities
4 3
2Site B IntakeEl. 300 m
B 4-B / 092 G 12
10U 451216E 5483419N
49.501442° -123.673758°
-East side of ChapmanCreek-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 3.6 km
-Near a location where an old, relatively flat logging road previously crossed Chapman Creek (now a slightly overgrown walking trail with a few washouts), which could be used foraccess with necessarily upgrades-Linear distance to clearing nearby = 500m-Moderately steep valley walls (max 51 % average 24 %)-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 3.6 km
4
-Crown land ownership.-Within Watershed Reserve Area-Outside of OCP Watershed ProtectionArea
4
-Site located along straight reach of the river approximately 125 m long-Bank appears relatively stable with armoured banks due to decommissioned forestry road bridge crossing creek- Multiple pools approximately 5 to 15 m long with approximately 20-30 cm drops- Creek approximately 15 m wide, approximately 10 m wetted, max depthapproximately 60 cm- LDB approximately 4m high, large trees (approximately 50cm diameter) making theold bridge foundation, deciduous and coniferous growth immediately at bank with dense vegetation, bank vertical at bridge foundation- RDB approximately 4m high, boulders, vegetation growing above, old road behind, more open than LDB, bank approximately 70 degrees to horizontal-Creek bed slope approximately 2.9 degrees
2
-Access route clearing required -New riparian disturbance-Decommissioned road and bridge may reduce new clearing/disturbance-Not located within BC Wildlife Management Areas-Located upgradient of all privately owned logging land, therefore protected against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities
5 3.75
3Site B IntakeEl. 260 m
B 95-J / 092 G 05
10U 450486E 5482636N
49.494334° -123.683742°
-East side of ChapmanCreek-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 2.5 km
-No direct access to the river.-Cleared logging area approximately 20maway-Decommissioned forestry road approximately90 m away-Steeper valley walls (max 69 % average 32 %)-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 2.5 km
4-Private Land-Within Watershed Reserve Area-Within OCP Watershed Protection Area
3
-Site located along outside bend of creek which might make it difficult for intakedepending on design-Bank shows some erosion in tree roots, however mature forest may provide someresistance-Creek approximately 31m wide, approximately 18m wetted, max depthapproximately 80 cm-Side channel on right side, provides option for overflow-Massive boulders on left half of creek and steep valley walls on LDB approximately 100-150m high-Pools approximately 5m-20m with approximately 30cm drops-LDB vegetation approximately 2m high, but valley wall approximately 100-150m high, massive boulders approximately 2m diameter erosion into tree roots-RDB approximately 3m high, deciduous and coniferous trees approximately 60m high, boulders and cobbles approximately 10cm-100cm diameter with old flood debris approximately 20m upstream-Creek bed slope approximately 7.6 degrees
3
-Access route clearing required -New riparian disturbance-Not located within BC Wildlife Management Areas-Located downstream of tributary from privately owned logging land, therefore not protected against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities
3 3.25
4Site B IntakeEl. 240 m
B 95-J / 092 G 05
10U 450259E 5482451N
49.492658° -123.686864°
-East side of ChapmanCreek-Linear distance toproposed Site B = 2.2 km- Shortest pipeline distanceto Site B
-No direct access to the river-Cleared logging area approximately 20maway-Decommissioned forestry road approximately115 m away-Moderately steep valley walls (max 49 % average 22 %)-Linear distance to proposed Site B = 2.2 km
4-Private Land-Within Watershed Reserve Area-Within OCP Watershed Protection Area
3
-Site located along straight reach of the river approximately 200 m long-Bank appears relatively stable with forest and vegetation-Cascading pools upstream (U/S), approximately 10m directly U/S of POD there is acascade pool approximately 1m deep-Bedrock approximately 10-15m high on LDB, massive boulders up to 3m diameter and tree debris approximately 25m U/S-LDB boulders and cobble on bedrock approximately 10-15m high, leafy vegetationand coniferous and deciduous trees approximately 10cm to 70cm diameter and approximately 60m high-RDB approximately 3m high, bedrock seen approximately 5m extended from bank, boulder approximately 3m diameter with tree growing above approximately 60m highapproximately 50cm diameter, dense forest (deciduous/coniferous) trees approximately 10-30 cm diameter and approximately 60m high, approximately 40cm pool drop approximately 5m U/S of bedrock-Creek bed slope approximately 11.3 degrees (steepest of all sites)
4
-Access route clearing required -New riparian disturbance-Not located within BC Wildlife Management Areas-Located downstream of tributary from privately owned logging land, therefore not protected against potential contamination from uncontrolled activities
3 3.5
Notes: A rating of 5 indicates higher suitability, rating of 1 indicates lower suitability.
August 9, 2019
Average Rating River Access and Transportation Land Use and Stakeholder Issues River Characteristics Environmental Sensitivity
VP19-SCR-01-00-TBL-WR-TAB1_Chapman_Creek_Intake_FieldandDesktop_MCA-RevA.xlsx 1 of 1
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Satellite Imagery of Sites
J.FRYERS J. FRYERS I. GRANT
NTS VP19-SCR-01-00 A
August 6, 2019
APPENDIX 1 - FIGURE 1FIGURE NO.
SCRDPOINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION
CHAPMAN CREEK Site 1: Profile and Aerial Imagery
PROJECT NO.
PREPARED BY
DRAWN BY DATECLIENT CHECKED BY APPROVED BY.
REVISIONSCALE
J.FRYERS J. FRYERS I. GRANT
NTS VP19-SCR-01-00 A
August 6, 2019
APPENDIX 1 - FIGURE 2FIGURE NO.
SCRDPOINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION
CHAPMAN CREEK Site 2: Profile and Aerial Imagery
PROJECT NO.
PREPARED BY
DRAWN BY DATECLIENT CHECKED BY APPROVED BY.
REVISIONSCALE
J.FRYERS J. FRYERS I. GRANT
NTS VP19-SCR-01-00 A
August 6, 2019
APPENDIX 1 - FIGURE 3FIGURE NO.
SCRDPOINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION
CHAPMAN CREEK Site 3: Profile and Aerial Imagery
PROJECT NO.
PREPARED BY
DRAWN BY DATECLIENT CHECKED BY APPROVED BY.
REVISIONSCALE
J.FRYERS J. FRYERS I. GRANT
NTS VP19-SCR-01-00 A
August 6, 2019
APPENDIX 1 - FIGURE 4FIGURE NO.
SCRDPOINT OF DIVERSION EVALUATION
CHAPMAN CREEK Site 4: Profile and Aerial Imagery
PROJECT NO.
PREPARED BY
DRAWN BY DATECLIENT CHECKED BY APPROVED BY.
REVISIONSCALE
Appendix 2 – Site Photographs
Site 1: 320 m Elevation
Site 1: 320 m Elevation along Chapman Creek at D 4-B / 092 G 12
Photo #1: Wetted width
measurement looking at right
downstream bank (RDB).
Photo #3: Looking at left
downstream bank (LDB) of
Creek
Photo #2: Looking upstream from center of the Creek.
Photo #4:Looking downstream from LDB of Creek
Site 2: 300 m Elevation
Site 2: 300 m Elevation along Chapman Creek at B 4-B / 092 G 12
Photo #1:Cross section
profilelooking at the
RDB.
Photo #3: Looking at LDB
bank. Foundation for
decommissioned bridge.
Photo #2: Looking at LDB substrate.
Photo #4: Looking downstream at the Creek bed slope from the LDB.
Site 3: 260 m Elevation
Site 3: 260 m Elevation along Chapman Creek at B 95-J / 092 G 05
Photo #1: Looking
downstream from LDB
Photo #3: Looking
downstream at secondary channel. Lots
of debris.
Photo #2: Looking upstream from LDB
Photo #4:Looking upstream at secondary channel and debris flow
Site 4: 240 m Elevation
Site 4: 240 m Elevation along Chapman Creek at B 95-J / 092 G 05
Photo #1: Looking
downstream from LDB
Photo #3: Valley wall above LDB
bedrock.
Photo #2:Viewing pool along LDB.
Photo #4: Looking at RDB. Exposed bedrock on bottom right.