RIVERS WITHOUT BORDERS

Posted In: Letters & Submissions

Re: Forrest Kerr Hydroelectric Project: Notes on Meeting of Fisheries Technical Committee, November 1, 2002

Prepared by Adam Lewis, Fisheries Biologist/Principal Ecofish Research Ltd. November 7, 2002

Attention: David MacKinnon and Chris Zimmer

Dear Sir:

Further to the request of Chris Zimmer, I attended a meeting of the fisheries technical committee on November 1, 2002 and provide meeting notes and an interpretation of the next steps.

The agenda of the meeting was as follows:

1. Report on site tour by MWLAP;
2. Report on Dr. Richardson’s study;
3. DFO’s clarification of requirements to certify the project
4. CMHC clarifications of commitments on flow and adaptive management
5. Adaptive management
6. Mitigation/compensation
7. Next steps

1. Report on site tour by MWLAP;

Ron Ptolemy and Karen Diemert (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection) described the findings of their site tour.  They examined the river at low flows on October 31.  They found invertebrates (mayflies and stoneflies) under substrate downstream of the tailrace and upstream of the intake.  The Province maintains the stance that the canyon is fish habitat that supports both invertebrates and rearing fish.  These comments agreed with those made by Ecofish on your behalf.

2. Report on Dr. Richardson’s study;

A letter provided by Dr. Richardson was identified that supported the proponent’s position that the canyon was low productivity habitat, and that the proponent’s low flow was adequate.  This had been sent around earlier by the proponent for review.  Ron Ptolemy disputed Dr. Richardson’s findings, and stated that the he was still of the opinion that the low flow was not adequate.  It was noted that Dr. Richardson has not developed habitat suitability curves that are essential to assessments of the effects of instream flow.  Further, Dr. Richardson’s examples of invertebrate use on the Fraser River were not of canyon habitats and are not applicable to the Forrest Kerr projects.  I have reviewed Dr. Richardson’s report, and although I agree with many of his statements, his key finding that the flow proposed by the proponent would increase fish habitat is not supported by the information he presents, nor does he provide adequate certainty evidence to support this.  I agree with the Province’s perspective on Dr. Richardon’s comments.

3. DFO’s clarification of requirements to certify the project

DFO clarified that they required that the proponent meet a minimum flow requirement of 6% mean annual discharge (MAD), which in the Iskut River is equivalent to 16.5 cms.  The project would be allowed to proceed with compensation for losses caused by flow reductions.  Other impacts such as those caused by construction of the weir will also require compensation.  The impacts would be estimated with the available information, which is inadequate.  However, DFO would apply a multiplier to the estimate of compensation to ensure that the total habitat provided exceeded the maximum possible impact.  Although even this is uncertain, and not the best way to proceed, DFO and the Province are comfortable pursuing it because of precedents on other projects. 

4. CMHC clarifications of commitments on flow and adaptive management

The proponent (Neil Brazier) responded that he now understood that 6% MAD (16.5 cms) is the minimum flow, and that any further reductions would be dependent on the results of an adaptive management plan.  The proponent deferred comment on the acceptability of this at this time, however, they wish to continue discussing adaptive management.  This is puzzling, but probably means that the project is economic at 6% MAD. 

5. Adaptive management

An adaptive management plan was discussed.  Adaptive management is the manipulation of the impact variable (flow) and measurement of a performance measure (i.e. physical habitat, flow or other) to define quantitatively the effect of resource management on the environment and help define management actions that will minimize impacts.  This type of management is flexible in that it allows the fine-tuning of the project to minimize the impact on the environment. 

For this project DFO has stated that they will consider flows lower than 6% MAD, but only if an adaptive management study shows that habitat does not decrease at this lower flow.  The proponent may obtain additional flow, but only after 1) compensating for habitat losses expected as flow drops from 10% and 6% MAD, 2) undertaking a study to demonstrate that no additional habitat is lost as flows drop below 6% MAD.  In other words, but undertaking an adaptive management study, the proponent may be able to lower the minimum flow requirement to 6%.

An adaptive management plan must be prepared in advance that specifies in great detail the flow manipulations that will occur and the methods that will be used to measure the performance variables.  Furthermore, the specific range of values anticipated in the performance measures must be defined.

Experimental design and variables to be included in the adaptive management process:

Physical

• Turbidity, Flow, Velocity, Temperature, Depth, Width, Ice, and Substrate

Biological

• Invertebrates, Fish (bull trout), Periphyton

Experimental design

• Study approach – what is practical
• Duration of experiment
• Locations (wetted width, riffles and cascades, bolder fields)
• Seasonal (Sept to Apr)
• Cost
• Frequency of monitoring thresholds of effect determination
• Decision-making process
• Committee of fish agencies and stakeholders
• Criteria for decision-making

The proponent will develop this outline further with assistance from the regulatory agencies.  Existing adaptive management plans will be used to help guide this plan.  Adaptive management is being used in BC Hydro’s Water Use Plans as a way of resolving water resource impacts. 

I was asked if I could do some work on the adaptive management plan for this project, but replied that would be up the TBWA.  I have this expertise, but clearly the proponent must pay for this kind of work, not the TBWA.

6. Compensation

Potential compensation options were discussed.  The compensation must be feasible (have a high assurance it will work) and possible to do under the circumstance (access to the site).  Final engineered design is not required.  However, the proponent must investigate the available compensation habitat in sufficient detail to ensure that compensation is feasible.  The proponent would like to be able to have DFO authorize the habitat destruction prior to January 31, when a decision by EAO is required (this is an extension over an earlier date).  This creates a challenge because the proponent has not collected the required detailed information to demonstrate that the compensation is feasible.  The proponent is pushing to have the agencies accept the conceptual compensation plan and authorize the impact and has identified as compensation projects that would repair damage done by other proponents.  The agencies firmly stated that compensation of other property owned by others (i.e. taking on a mine clean-up) was not acceptable and strongly encouraged the proponent to work on sites nearby to the site of impact.  This would focus the company first on Forrest Kerr and tributaries as a first priority, and on tributaries to the Iskut. 

The proponent will prepare the draft compensation by November 22 for review.
 
7. Next Steps

The proposed project has potential environmental impacts.  However, these can be mitigated and compensated for with existing technology.  The release of a minimum flow is one proven way to mitigate impacts.  If the proponent is willing to mitigate by releasing 6% of the mean annual discharge and will compensate for potential habitat impacts, then the fisheries agencies will approve this project.  The key questions are 1) is the project economic at 6% MAD minimum flow release and 2) can the proponent identify reasonable compensation prior to the project deadline. That answer to the latter question will be apparent when the November 22 compensation plan is submitted.

Please call me to discuss if you have any questions.

Yours truly,

Ecofish Research Ltd.

Adam Lewis
Fisheries Biologist/Principal