EAO’s Assessment of an Application for Certificate Amendment Site C Clean Energy Project – Generating

Station and Spillway

Amendment #1

Requested by: British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

June 22, 2018 Pursuant to Section 19 of the Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 2002, c.43

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Act Environmental Assessment Act

Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

AB Alberta

Application Application to amend the Environmental Assessment Certificate

BC British Columbia

BC Hydro British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

Certificate Environmental Assessment Certificate

EAO Environmental Assessment Office

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

GSS Generating Station and Spillway

Indigenous Groups Blueberry River First Nations (BC); Dene Tha’ First Nation (AB); Doig River First Nation (BC); Duncan’s First Nation (AB); Fort Nelson First Nation (BC); Halfway River First Nation (BC); Horse Lake First Nation (AB); McLeod Lake Indian Band (BC); West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation (BC), represented by Nun wa dee Stewardship Society; and Saulteau First Nations (BC)

km Kilometre

m metres

m3/s metres cubed per second

Schedule A Certified Project Description of the Environmental Assessment Certificate

Schedule B Table of Conditions of the Environmental Assessment Certificate

Site C Site C Clean Energy Project

TDG Total Dissolved Gas

WG Advisory Working Group

1

1. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

On October 14, 2014, Environmental Assessment Certificate #E14-02 (Certificate) was issued to British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) for the Site C Clean Energy Project (Site C). Site C is located on the Peace River, approximately 14 kilometres (km) south-west of Fort St. John, British Columbia (Figure 1). The project components include: an earthfill dam 1,050 metres (m) long and 60 m high; an up to 1,100-megawatt generating station and associated structures; an 83 km long reservoir; realignment of four sections of Highway 29; and, two 77 km transmission lines along existing transmission line rights-of-way connecting Site C to BC Hydro’s Peace Canyon Generating Station. Construction of Site C began in summer of 2015 and is anticipated to be completed in 2024.

The provincial Certificate includes the Project Description (Schedule A) that outlines the project components, and the Table of Conditions (Schedule B) that contains the 77 legally binding conditions enforceable throughout the life of the Project. On October 14, 2014, the federal Minister of Environment issued a decision statement to BC Hydro, with over 80 legally binding conditions.

The provincial Certificate and federal decision statement were issued following an assessment by a Joint Review Panel of the Site C Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Joint Review Panel was established by the federal Minister of the Environment and the British Columbia Minister of Environment, and mandated to assess the environmental, economic, social, health, and heritage effects of Site C and their; significance; to examine proposals for the mitigation of adverse effects, and to record assertions of Project effects on the Aboriginal rights and treaty rights of affected First Nations and Métis peoples. The Joint Review Panel’s report contains their conclusions on the significance of the residual effects of Site C, and concluded that the project would result in significant adverse effects to fish and fish habitat, some wildlife species, rare plants and sensitive ecosystems, and the current use of land and resources for traditional purposes by Indigenous peoples.

In December 2017, BC Hydro informed the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) of their intent to submit an application in early 2018 to amend their Certificate under Section 19(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act (Act) related to the design of the generating station and spillway (GSS). The spillway is a structure used to provide the controlled release of flows from the dam in periods of high water volume, or when the reservoir gets too high.

BC Hydro provided a draft amendment application to Indigenous groups in January 2018 for preliminary feedback prior to formal submission to the EAO. BC Hydro indicated that the submission of the amendment application reflects several design improvements since the project was certified, which have continued as the project advances from concept to design stage.

2

Figure 1. Location of the Site C Clean Energy Project.

3

On March 9, 2018, BC Hydro submitted the GSS amendment application (Application) to the EAO that outlined the proposed design changes to the GSS and subsequent changes to Schedule A of the Certificate. On March 12, 2018, the EAO accepted the Application1 for review. Additional amendments to Schedule A regarding the drawdown elevation of the spillway were outlined in BC Hydro’s follow up letter to the EAO dated March 29, 2018.2 The Application and March 29 letter outline proposed changes to the GSS design that, if approved, would result in changes to sections 4.3.1, 4.3.1.4, 4.3.1.5, 4.3.2, and 4.5.1.3 of Schedule A (see Table A1, Appendix A). The changes and rationale, as characterized by BC Hydro, are as follows:

Change in the location of the transformers from downstream of the generators to upstream. This change is proposed to eliminate the risk of an oil spill in the tailrace in the event of a catastrophic failure of a transformer, and reduce noise pollution downstream of the facility.

Change to the spillway design from seven radial gates, three undersluices (for example, cover gates), and a free overflow auxiliary spillway to three radial gates, six low level outlets and a free overflow auxiliary spillway. These changes are proposed to optimize the capacity of the spillway and reduce undesirable hydraulic pressures by reducing the width of the spillway and lowering the elevation of the stilling basin. BC Hydro expects these changes will increase the safety and reliability of the spillway operation.

Change in the spillway discharge capacities and drawdown level, resulting from the design changes to the spillway noted above. Under the original design, the discharge capacity of the spillway at the full reservoir supply level of 461.8 m elevation would be 10,100 cubic metres per second (m3/s). The revised design would increase the discharge capacity to 11,000 m3/s. As a result, the spillway would be less likely to surcharge (increase) the reservoir elevation under extreme high flow scenarios. According to BC Hydro, the ability of the spillway to discharge more water at normal reservoir elevation would reduce the duration of extreme floods; this would, in turn, mitigate the extent and duration of any potential surcharging above 461.8 m elevation.

Additionally, in the original design, the spillway is described as having a discharge capacity of 17,300 m3/s at the maximum flood level of 466.3 m elevation. This is the maximum permissible reservoir level during the most severe flood that may be reasonably expected to occur. Because the revised spillway design would pass a greater volume of water at normal elevations, the maximum flood level of 466.3 m would be less likely, that is, less than 1 in 1000 years. Should this unlikely event occur, BC Hydro stated that the revised spillway design discharge capacity of 16,700 m3/s would safely convey the probable maximum flood volume and maintain a reservoir level below 466.3 m.

The proposed changes to Schedule A are summarized in Table A1 in Appendix A. These changes are also illustrated in Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix A.

In the Application, BC Hydro concludes that the proposed design changes are not expected to cause additional adverse effects on valued components beyond the effects that were identified in the original EIS.

1 https://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/api/document/5ad8d4d6d666d000248573be/fetch

2 https://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/api/document/5acbb196d90b7000247b774d/fetch

4

2. AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS

Based on the Application details, the EAO determined it was a “typical amendment”3 based on a material but limited change to the location of the transformers within the powerhouse and the changes to the spillway design. Following a preliminary review for completeness, the EAO accepted the Application on March 12, 2018, and issued a Fee Order under Section 6 of the EAO’s Fee Regulation.

The EAO reviewed the need for a public comment period on the Application. The EAO considered if the proposed changes were within the public interest, and determined that because the proposed design changes were within the approved project footprint, and because no additional adverse effects were predicted as a result of the proposed changes, a public comment period was not necessary.

The EAO convened an advisory working group (WG) to review the Application. The following Indigenous Groups in BC and Alberta (AB) were invited to participate on the WG:

Blueberry River First Nations (BC)

Dene Tha’ First Nation (AB)

Doig River First Nation (BC)

Duncan’s First Nation (AB)

Fort Nelson First Nation (BC)

Halfway River First Nation (BC)

Horse Lake First Nation (AB)

McLeod Lake Indian Band (BC)

West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation (BC), represented by Nun wa dee Stewardship Society (Nun wa dee)

Saulteau First Nations (BC)

The WG also included representatives from:

Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development

Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources

Ministry of Agriculture

Environment and Climate Change Canada

Transport Canada

Natural Resources Canada

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

City of Hudson’s Hope

City of Fort St. John

Peace River Regional District

The EAO held an introductory teleconference meeting on March 6, 2018, to provide an overview of the amendment process to the WG and for BC Hydro to provide an update on the project status and overview of the proposed amendment. The Application was provided to the WG on March 12, 2018, for a three-week review. BC Hydro provided additional details in its March 29, 2018 letter, which was provided to the WG for a two-week review.

A draft of this Amendment Assessment Report was provided to the Working Group on May 22, 2018, for

3 http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/files/EAO-Guidance-Certificate-Holder-Amendments.pdf

5

a three-week review period. No comments were received, and the Working Group members that the EAO reached out to indicated that they had no outstanding concerns.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) participated in the review of the Application, including participation in some consultation meetings with Indigenous Groups.

3. SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND EFFECTS

BC Hydro assessed potential environmental effects in the Application in accordance with the information requirements utilized for the EIS. Valued components assessed in the Application included: fish and fish habitat, vegetation and ecological communities, wildlife resources, current use of land and resources for traditional purposes, navigation, and heritage resources.

In the Application, BC Hydro concluded that the proposed changes to the GSS do not change the project footprint, nor would the proposed amendment result in changes to the normal reservoir operating levels authorized under Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development conditional water licences. BC Hydro also concluded that the proposed changes to the GSS would not change the conclusions in the EIS.

The EAO received 30 comments from the WG on the Application, with nine of those comments indicating no further comment or indicating support for the proposed design changes. Comments received from the WG on the Application were provided to BC Hydro for response, and the comments and responses were distributed to the WG on April 30, 2018. The EAO followed up with individuals who provided comments, and no outstanding concerns were identified, except those concerns discussed at a follow up meeting with Doig River First Nation (see summary in Section 4.0).

The key issues raised by the WG are outlined in the following subsections:

Total Dissolved Gas and Potential Impacts to Fish

In the Application, BC Hydro showed that the revised spillway design could result in a 1 percent to 2 percent increase in total dissolved gas (TDG) during reservoir filling from what was identified in the EIS. During project operations, BC Hydro showed that the revised design would result in similar TDG levels as the original design (TDG ranges of 115 percent to 122 percent), albeit at slightly lower discharge volumes passing through the spillway radial gates (that is, between 120 m3/s and 450 m3/s lower than the original design). BC Hydro confirmed that in either scenario the TDG levels would remain below the 125 percent saturation threshold that could pose a risk to fish. Further, BC Hydro concluded that spills of this magnitude are expected to be infrequent and in short duration. For example, BC Hydro anticipates that the spillway will be used roughly once every three years, and typically for periods of one to three days each time, depending on the volume of water which would necessitate the spill.

In response to concerns raised by representatives from Doig River First Nation, McLeod Lake Indian Band, and Dene Tha’ First Nation, BC Hydro confirmed that the levels of TDG under the revised spillway design would not increase risks to fish, as described above, and also confirmed that the depth and duration of TDG levels below the Site C dam would not vary from the original spillway design.

The Application also reviewed potential changes to entrainment risk to fish with the revised spillway

6

design, and concluded that there is no increased entrainment risk.

The EAO accepts BC Hydro’s determination that effects as outlined in the EIS to fish and fish habitat would not change under the revised design proposed in the Application. The EAO also considers that the Application would not change the conclusions in the Joint Review Panel’s report.

Spillway Performance

The Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development asked whether the reduction of six spillway gates to the three could substantially reduce discharge capacity if one of the three spillway gates failed in an extreme inflow event. BC Hydro clarified that the revised design consists of three radial gates and six low-level outlet gates, for a total of nine gates under the revised spillway design, as well as the free flow auxiliary spillway which remains unchanged from the original spillway design. BC Hydro concluded that the consequence of a failure of a gate during an extreme flood for the revised spillway design would be lower than or equal to the consequences under the original design, and that revised spillway design would increase the safety and reliability of the spillway operation.

The EAO accepts that the proposed changes do not increase risks of the project to the environment as assessed under the EIS. The EAO also considers that the Application would not change the conclusions in the Joint Review Panel’s report on Site C.

4. CONSULTATION WITH INDIGENOUS GROUPS

Site C is located within Treaty 8 territory, and all the Indigenous Groups consulted are signatories to Treaty 8. In reviewing the Application, the EAO sought to consult with those Treaty 8 nations identified in Schedule B of the Certificate as the Indigenous Groups in closest proximity to project activities and that may be affected by Site C, to identify potential impacts on Aboriginal Interests4. BC Hydro shared a draft of the Application with Indigenous Groups in January 2018 for review and comment, in advance of formally submitting the Application to the EAO. The EAO notified Indigenous Groups on February 14, 2018, that the EAO was expecting to receive the Application for the GSS amendment in March 2018, and invited representatives from each group to participate in the amendment review process.

The EAO met with McLeod Lake Indian Band, Doig River First Nation, Duncan’s First Nation, and Dene Tha’ First Nation in April 2018 to discuss the Application. The EAO held a follow up meeting with Doig River First Nation and BC Hydro on May 7, 2018, to address outstanding questions regarding the proposed design changes. A summary of key topics of discussion is provided below.

McLeod Lake Indian Band: during a meeting between McLeod Lake Indian Band, the EAO and the Agency on April 11, 2018, the EAO went through the Application and sought to understand if McLeod Lake Indian Band had any concerns related to the proposed design changes. BC Hydro representatives, including their fish biologist, phoned into part of the meeting and answered questions related to the modelling that was undertaken and any potential considerations related to fish. On April 12, 2018, McLeod Lake Indian Band indicated to the EAO that they had finished their review of the Application and had no further comments at that time.

4 Treaty rights or asserted or established Aboriginal rights and title

7

Doig River First Nation: the EAO and the Agency met with Doig River First Nation on April 11, 2018. Doig River First Nation expressed concerns about how the changes may affect the overall operation and the overall dynamic of the project and the Peace River system. The EAO captured Doig River First Nation’s questions in the WG tracking table, and BC Hydro provided responses to the WG on April 30, 2018. As many of Doig River First Nation’s questions were technical in nature, a follow up meeting was set up for May 7, 2018, between Doig River First Nation, the EAO, the Agency and BC Hydro representatives, including their engineer and fish biologist.

During the May 7, 2018 meeting, BC Hydro’s engineer and fish biologist presented details on the rationale for the proposed design changes, and an overview of the modelling and studies that were undertaken. Doig River First Nation expressed concern regarding the dynamics of the river system overall with respect to the existing dams (the WAC Bennett and Peace Canyon Dams) with the addition of Site C, how the revised design of the spillway would perform in flooding conditions, and how fish may be affected if they were to pass through the spillways of all three dams in an extreme flooding event. BC Hydro responded by providing details of the modelling that had been undertaken, and noting some longer-term studies on fish entrainment that were underway. On May 25, 2018, BC Hydro provided written responses to some of the questions raised during the meeting. In a follow up call from the EAO, Doig River First Nation indicated that they had no further questions at that time.

Duncan’s First Nation: the EAO met with representatives from Duncan’s First Nation on April 12, 2018, in Grande Prairie, AB. Specific concerns and comments regarding the Application were not identified; however, ongoing concerns were identified regarding downstream siltation of the Peace River from construction of Site C, methyl-mercury resulting from operation of Site C and how that affected fish and wildlife, fluctuation in the water level of the Peace River from operation of Site C, and operation of existing dams on the Peace River. The EAO committed to providing meeting notes, as well as providing a contact at BC Hydro to set up a site tour for Duncan’s First Nation representative(s). In a follow up call from the EAO, Duncan’s First Nation indicated that they had no further questions at that time.

Dene Tha’ First Nation: the EAO met with representatives from Dene Tha’ First Nation on April 12, 2018, in Grande Prairie, AB. Dene Tha’ First Nation had specific questions regarding the Application, primarily regarding TDG and the potential effects on fish. Dene Tha’ First Nation also expressed concerns about cumulative downstream effects of Site C and the other existing dams on the Peace River. The EAO captured Dene Tha’ First Nation’s questions in the WG tracking table, and BC Hydro provided responses to the WG on April 30, 2018. In a follow up call from the EAO, Dene Tha’ First Nation indicated that they had no further questions at that time.

West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation, through representation by Nun wa dee, indicated their desire to secure funding from BC Hydro to support participation in the amendment review process, and requested additional time in the amendment review process to do so. The EAO sought to meet with Nun wa dee on several occasions to understand their perspective on the Application and the draft referral materials. The EAO also provided three weeks of additional review time on the Application, but did not receive any comments from Nun wa dee.

Other Indigenous Groups did not indicate an interest in meeting with the EAO to discuss the Application and the proposed amendments.

The EAO accepts BC Hydro’s conclusion that the changes outlined in the Application would not change

8

the magnitude of the residual effects predicted in the EIS. The EAO also considers that the Application would not change the conclusions in the Joint Review Panel’s report. As such, the EAO is satisfied that there would be no increased impact to the Aboriginal Interests of Indigenous Groups should the Application be approved.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Based on:

Information contained in BC Hydro’s Application;

BC Hydro and the EAO’s consultation with members of the WG, including Indigenous Groups; and

Comments on the Application from the WG, including Indigenous Groups, and BC Hydro’s responses to those comments.

The EAO is satisfied that:

The assessment has adequately identified and assessed the potential changes to the adverse effects of the project resulting from the proposed amendment;

Consultation with the WG members, including Indigenous Groups, regarding the proposed amendment have been adequately carried out by BC Hydro and will, as necessary, be ongoing;

The clarifications requested by WG members, including Indigenous Groups, which were within the scope of the assessment of the proposed amendment, were adequately and reasonably addressed by BC Hydro;

The proposed amendment is unlikely to change the residual effects predicted in the original assessment;

The proposed amendment is unlikely to cause impact to the Aboriginal Interests of Indigenous Groups;

The provincial Crown has fulfilled its obligations for consultation and accommodation to Indigenous Groups relating to the issuance of an amendment to Certificate #E14-02;

No additions or amendments to existing Certificate conditions are necessary; and,

Schedule A be amended to reflect the design changes outlined in the Application.

The EAO recommends that the Executive Director of the Environmental Assessment Office, upon consideration of the conclusions in this report and any other relevant factors, issue an Amended Certificate under Section 19 of the Act to allow the requested amendment of the Environmental Assessment Certificate #E14-02 for the Site C Clean Energy project.

9

APPENDIX A

10

Table A1. Proposed modifications to Schedule A of the Certificate.

Component Statement Text from EAC Schedule A Project Description Proposed Modification to Schedule A Project Description

Generating Station

Section 4.3.1.4:

Each generator would be connected to a three-phase transformer located on the draft tube deck.

Each generator will be connected to a transformer located upstream of the units, on the transformer deck.

Spillway Section 4.3.1 (page 4-9, bullet 4):

From north to south, the main components of the dam, generating station, and spillways are: …A spillway with seven gates and a free overflow auxiliary spillway to discharge inflows that exceed the capacity of the generating station

From north to south, the main components of the dam, generating station and spillways are: A spillway with three radial gates and six low level outlets to discharge inflows that exceed the capacity of the generating station

Spillway Section 4.3.1.5 (page 4-18):

The spillways would have the following discharge capacities:

10,100 m3/s at the maximum normal reservoir level

17,300 m3/s at the maximum flood level

The spillways will have the following discharge capacities:

11,000 m3/s at the maximum normal reservoir level

16,700 m3/s at the maximum flood level

Reservoir Section 4.3.2, Table 4.3:

Key Reservoir Levels.

Drawdown Level = 442.0 m elevation.

The lowest level that the reservoir can be drawn down to and pass upstream flow of 1,600 m

3/s through the spillway

undersluices

Key Reservoir Levels.

Drawdown Level = 444.0 m elevation

The lowest level that the reservoir can be drawn down to and pass upstream flow of 1,600 m

3/s through the spillway low

level outlets

Spillway Operation

Section 4.5.1.3:

The spillway gates and undersluices would be capable of drawing the reservoir down to elevation 442 m. at which level the undersluices could pass upstream flows of 1,600 m

3/s.

…it would take approximately 15 days to lower the reservoir from the maximum normal reservoir level to elevation 442 m.

A drawdown to elevation 442 m for inspection, maintenance and repairs in the approach channel would likely be scheduled for the summer between the flood hazard season and high winter flows for generation.

Section 4.5.1.3:

The spillway gates and undersluices would be capable of drawing the reservoir down to elevation 444 m. at which level the undersluices could pass upstream flows of 1,600 m

3/s.

…it would take approximately 9 days to lower the reservoir from the maximum normal reservoir level to elevation 444 m.

A drawdown to elevation 444 m for inspection, maintenance and repairs in the approach channel would likely be scheduled for the summer between the flood hazard season and high winter flows for generation.

11

Figure A1. Rendering of the original spillway design

12

Figure A2. Proposed spillway design in the Application.