Ash River Project Water Use Plan

Transcription

1 Monitoring Program and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 Implementation Period: October 2011 to September 2012 ASHMON-1 Assessment of Adult Fish Passage at Dickson Falls during Pulse Flow Releases from Elsie Lake Dam ASHMON-2 Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Investigations For Water Licences FL and FL October 31, 2012

2 BC Hydro Ash River Project Water Use Plan 1 Introduction This document represents a summary of the status and the results of the Ash River Water Use Plan (WUP) monitoring programs to September 30, 2012 as per the Ash River Order under the Water Act, dated October 4, There are two monitoring programs: Assessment of Adult Fish Passage at Dickson Falls During Pulse Flow Releases from Elsie Lake Dam Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Investigations 2 Background The water use planning process for BC Hydro s Ash River project was initiated in September 2000 and completed in June The conditions proposed in the WUP for the operation of the project reflect the June 2003 recommendations of the Ash River WUP Consultative Committee. In June 2003, the Ash River WUP was submitted to the Comptroller of Water Rights (Comptroller). On October 4, 2004, BC Hydro was ordered to implement the conditions proposed in the Ash River WUP and prepare the monitoring programs Terms of Reference (TOR). On June 10, 2005, the Ash River monitoring programs TOR was submitted to the Comptroller for review and approval. On June 21, 2005, TOR for the monitoring program Assessment of Adult Fish Passage at Dickson Falls During Pulse Flow Releases from Elsie Lake Dam was accepted by the Comptroller. On January 26, 2006, TOR for the monitoring program Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Investigations was accepted by the Comptroller. On July 16, 2007, BC Hydro submitted to the Comptroller a Notification of Change to the TOR for the Assessment of Adult Fish Passage at Dickson Falls During Pulse Flow Release from Elsie Lake Dam identifying an increase in the cost of the monitoring program. As outlined in the Ash River WUP, five years after the implementation of this WUP BC Hydro is to review the results of the monitoring programs and assess the need to review the Ash River WUP. The interim review of the Ash River WUP occurred on May 31, 2011 in Port Alberni. Details of the review are provided in Section 6. 3 Status The following table outlines the status and schedule for the Ash River WUP monitoring programs. BC Hydro Page 2

3 Table 3-1: Status of Ash River WUP Monitoring Programs Implementation Monitoring Programs YR1 Fish YR2 Fish YR1 Arch YR3 Fish YR4 Fish YR5 Fish YR2 Arch YR3 Arch YR4 Arch YR5 Arch Interim Review Assessment of Adult Fish Passage at Dickson Falls During a Pulse Flow Releases from Elsie Lake Dam Elsie Reservoir Archaeological investigations a Final report completed in Sept Additional monitoring requested by MAC for A final report memo for the additional 2010 swims was prepared. Additional swims are being carried out again in 2011 at the request of the MAC swims have been carried out and reported on. Note fieldwork for the program in 2007 could not be completed due to reservoir elevations (i.e., the reservoir did not go below 318 m asl). = Program to be undertaken/initiated in identified year u/w = Project is underway = Program completed for the year An interim review of the Ash River WUP was conducted and completed on May 31, 2011 in Port Alberni. A summary of the outcome was provided in Section 6 and meeting notes were provided in Appendix B of the 2011 Annual Report. 4 Ash River WUP Monitoring Programs This section outlines the status of the Ash River WUP monitoring programs as per the Order under the Water Act, dated October 4, YR6 Fish 4.1 Assessment of Adult Fish Passage at Dickson Falls During Pulse Flow Releases from Elsie Lake Dam Management Questions The key management questions addressed by this monitoring program are: 1) Do the pulse flow releases during August and September improve steelhead passage at Dickson Falls, and thus increase the number of steelhead present upstream of the falls? 2) What is the appropriate magnitude and hourly flow release to maximize steelhead passage? Overview The objective of this monitoring program is to assess the benefits of the pulse flow release to steelhead passage at Dickson Falls. The study area will include sections of the middle and lower Ash River and focus on Dickson Falls. BC Hydro Page 3

4 The Consultative Committee (CC) for the Ash River WUP expressed concern that flow conditions at Dickson Falls in the lower Ash River during August and September may impede the upstream passage of adult summer-run steelhead trout and other salmon species. Monitoring Indicator a): Steelhead passage rates at Dickson Falls during pulse flow release and non-release periods. This monitoring program involves snorkel counts, radio telemetry of tagged fish, and observations of leap attempts Status This monitoring program was initiated in August 2005 and will be carried out over five years. All data required for Years 1 to 5 of this monitoring program was collected during August and September 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and A copy of the annual study reports for Years 1 to 4 as well as a 5-year Summary report were submitted with previous Annual report submissions. A memo report summarizing additional monitoring that was carried out in 2010 is included with this Annual report submission. Year 5 of this monitoring program was completed in In May 2010 the Monitoring Advisory Committee (MAC) recommended a revised pulse flow regime. The revised flow was identified and confirmed in July As a result a total of three pulse flows were carried out; two in August and one in September. Each pulse flow resulted in an initial peak flow of 7 cms, followed by a reduction to 5.7 cms and then a final ramp down to minimum flows. In addition, the MAC requested that fish response to the revised pulse regime be monitored. The results of the additional snorkel surveys to monitor the revised flows were documented in a memo style report. In May 2011, BC Hydro conducted an interim review of the WUP during the annual MAC meeting. The outcome of the interim review with respect to this study is summarized as: Three pulse flows adhering to the annual pulse flow water budget, are to be carried out for migrating salmonids in August and September annually. The configuration of the pulse is provided in Appendix A. Additional and final monitoring is recommended to be carried out under this Monitoring program in As per the interim review of the WUP in May 2011, additional and final monitoring was recommended for another year. The monitoring was carried out in 2011 and a memorandum summarizing the additional monitoring is included with this report Interpretation of Data The following summary is extracted from Section 4 of 5 Year Summary Report (2005 to 2009). Further detail is provided in the 5 Year Summary Report. BC Hydro Page 4

5 Analysis of snorkel survey data shows a statistically significant difference in the change in steelhead abundance upstream of Dickson Falls when comparing the 10 cms pulse to control (no pulse) conditions and when comparing the 10 cms pulse to the 20 cms pulse. There was no significant difference between the 20 cms pulse and the control (no pulse) period. The biological importance of this difference can be evaluated by the Ash WUP Monitoring Advisory Committee (MAC). The analysis also showed a seasonal effect on migration, with a decline in the rate of passage (#/day) above Dickson Falls from mid-august onwards. This rate became negative around mid-september. Analysis of leap attempt data showed a statistically significant (at the 94% confidence level) increase in leap attempts when comparing the number of observations during the 10 cms pulses with those during no pulse periods. There was also a statistically significant increase in leap attempts when comparing the number of observations during the 10 cms pulses with those during the 20 cms pulses. There was no significant difference in the number of leap attempts observed during 20 cms pulses compared to the number observed during no pulse periods; this is the same trend that was observed with the snorkel count data. It should be noted that there were more successful leaps observed during 20 cms pulse flow periods, which contradicts other data sets. However, it is difficult to be 100% certain when a leap is successful. Results from telemetry data indicate that steelhead can pass Dickson Falls at a range of flows between 3.7 and cms. Base flows do not appear to hinder passage at Dickson Falls. However, fish passage may be facilitated during flows that are higher than base flows and there may be a stimulus for passage at Dickson Falls that is associated with small increases in flow. The two key management questions addressed by the monitoring program are to be addressed by examining the 3 hypotheses in the Terms of Reference: Hypothesis 1: Flow conditions at Dickson Falls during August and September hinder adult steelhead migration : Fish are able to ascend Dickson Falls under a wide range of flows. Base flow conditions do not prevent migration. Telemetry data suggests that flows above cms decrease the rate of passage over Dickson Falls. Hypothesis 2: The pulse flow release improves the rate of adult steelhead migration past Dickson Falls : Telemetry data suggests that most fish pass the falls at low-medium flows and seem to pass after increases in flow. Snorkel survey data suggests that the rate of passage is higher during 10 cms pulse flow events when compared to 20 cms pulses and no-pulse periods. It is estimated that there would be 11 fewer fish in snorkeled sections upstream of Dickson Falls if the 10 cms pulse flows had not occurred. BC Hydro Page 5

6 Leap observation data suggests there is an increase in the tendency to leap during the 10 cms pulse when compared to 20 cms pulses and no-pulse periods. Hypothesis 3: The magnitude and duration of the pulse flow release affects steelhead passage at Dickson Falls : Based on snorkel and leap attempt data: a 10 cms pulse over 48 hours was more effective than a 20 cms pulse over 24 hours. The telemetry data set is small, but 2 steelhead passed Dickson Falls during the 10 cms pulses and only 1 passed during the 20 cms pulses. Telemetry data shows that tagged steelhead passed Dickson Falls at flows between 3.7 cms and cms. Medium flows appear to facilitate passage and fish tend to pass during ramp-downs, or immediately after flows have returned to base flow conditions. Late August pulse flows were more effective than late September pulse flows. Leap attempts were more prevalent in the afternoon than in the morning, and radio telemetry data indicates that fish tended to pass the falls in the afternoon or evening. With respect to Management Question #2 (Section 4.1.1), the 2010 monitoring, combined with the information collected during the previous five years, identified a strong weight of evidence to suggest that pulsing in August is more effective than in mid-september (Lewis et a. 2010). It was recommended in the interim review that pulses follow Schedule F (Appendix A) and that three pulses be conducted annually between mid-august and early September. The 2011 pulse flows appeared to be effective at facilitating passage at Dickson Falls with the highest rate of passage observed during the last pulse flow on September 6-9, However, the greatest percentage change in fish per day (relative to the number of steelhead observed in Dickson Falls pool) occurred during the first pulse flow in mid-late August due to the low number of steelhead present prior to the first pulse flow. The migration timing in 2011 appeared to be later than previous years, when migration peaked in the month of August. High fishing pressures (First Nations, commercial and recreational) in 2011 relating to the high sockeye abundance may have negatively affected steelhead abundance due to bycatch related mortality. However, this is speculative and the appropriate data is not available to adequately assess this issue. The lower water temperatures in 2011 may have also affected the timing of steelhead migration and distribution. Data collected since 2005 has demonstrated that steelhead passage can be facilitated through a wide range of pulse flow operations and that early pulses (late August early September) seem to have higher passage rate than late season pulses. BC Hydro Page 6

7 4.2 Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Investigations Background Pre-Order Baseline archaeological site inventory and impact assessments were carried out in August and October of 2001 during a deep drawdown of Elsie Reservoir for dam seismic upgrades. This assessment discovered and recorded 26 new archaeological sites in the drawdown zone of the reservoir; 11 lithic scatter areas and 15 culturally modified trees (CMTs). Site significance was evaluated using criteria outlined in the BC Archaeological Impact Assessment Guidelines. One site was determined to be of high significance, four to be of moderate significance and the rest to be of moderate low or low significance. The draft impact assessment report indicates that additional sites are likely in the permanently inundated portion of the reservoir. Additional sites may be discovered in the operational range of the reservoir. The draft report recommended that site DiSH 17, the site categorized as having high archaeological significance, be investigated for the possibility of mitigation of erosion impacts through protective capping. The report further recommended that a mitigative salvage be carried out at the site to recover artifacts and samples for carbon dating. Further reconnaissance work was recommended during future drawdown (at or below 318 masl) to identify potential new sites and to monitor rates of erosion and artifact exposure from known sites. It recommended that known and discovered CMT sites are to be sampled for age analysis (tree ring counts). In October of 2002, BC Hydro and Hupacasath First Nation agreed to move forward on investigation of erosion impacts and further characterization of site DiSH-17. An erosion monitoring system was established at the site in early October of Additional archaeological investigations of the site were carried out in mid-november of 2002 in order to delineate the extent of the site and assess the need for mitigative salvage work if erosion was substantial and other mitigation strategies were not feasible Management Objectives The key objectives addressed by this monitoring program are: 1) Measure and monitor site erosion at site DiSH-17 and the erosion monitoring stations located through the reservoir as a result of operations, and determine the magnitude as well as rate of impact this erosion may be having the archaeological resources at that site. 2) Develop protection options for DiSH-17 and prepare a list of alternatives for the protection archaeological resources at DiSH-17. 3) Conduct opportunistic monitoring of known archaeological sites in the operational drawdown zone of the reservoir. The objective of the opportunistic survey will be to monitor the rate of artifact exposure at known sites in the reservoir. This research also includes, collecting surface scattered artifacts and testing archaeological sites to assess the integrity of remaining archaeological deposits. BC Hydro Page 7

8 All of this work was conducted under a Heritage Conservation Act Permit ( ). This permit covers field research undertaken over a three year period between 2008 and Overview The objective of the Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Investigation monitoring program was to assess whether the current operating regime used for the Elsie Reservoir is having an impact on significant archaeological sites in the reservoir drawdown zone. The monitoring program was to include three main components: annual monitoring of a known significant site (DiSH-17), evaluation of options to protect this site, and opportunistic surface surveys of other known sites during periods of low reservoir levels Status 2005 In the fall of 2005, based on the monitoring data collected to date, combined with observations of other erosion factors, it was determined that the erosion forces on site DiSH-17 were very slow and that there was no need to continue to monitor the erosion rates. It was recommended that a portion of site DiSH-17 be excavated completely, and that the rest of the site DiSH-17 be covered with a geotextile blanket anchored with cobbles. The recommendation was supported by the Archaeological Branch and Hupacasath First Nation. In September 2005, it was observed that site DiSH-17 had been vandalized and additional damage from recreational vehicle tracks was apparent across the site. On 30 September through 3 October 2005, site DiSh-17 was partially excavated according to a systematic data recovery protocol under HCA Section 14 Heritage Investigation Permit , and then covered with geotextile fabric to mitigate further erosion and vandalism, under HCA Section 12 Site Alteration Permit The geotextile installation at site DiSH-17 is to be inspected twice per year, conditions allowing, monitoring the performance of the geotextile protection, collecting any artifacts that may be exposed on the surface and monitoring the general condition of the site. This monitoring was initiated in September 2006 and is to be carried out annually In 2006 the work was conducted under a two-year contract and HCA Section 14 Heritage Investigation Permit Due to higher reservoir elevations (greater than 318 masl) in 2007, fieldwork did not commence. As per the monitoring program terms of reference, opportunistic surface surveys of other known sites during periods of low reservoir levels was initiated September 2006 under the same two-year contract and HCA Section 14 Heritage Investigation BC Hydro Page 8

9 Permit as noted above. The objective of these opportunistic surveys is to monitor the rate of artifact exposure at known sites in the reservoir. The monitoring program is scheduled to proceed for at least five years followed by a review and opportunity for further work, based on the results of the initial five years of monitoring. A total of seven visits to Elsie Lake were undertaken during September and October of DiSh-17 was visited five times and eleven other sites were revisited during this period. The first program report was received 24 June A report was not provided for Year 2 as field work did not commence due to reservoir elevations As of 2007, there were a total of 29 archaeological sites recorded in the inundation zone of Elsie Reservoir. These sites consist of surface scattered lithics and/or cultural modified tree remnants. Archaeological site, DiSh-17, has a significant subsurface component, while other sites have had limited or no subsurface testing conducted. The work conducted in 2008 was under a three-year contract. The HCA Section 14 Heritage Investigation Permit number issued for this contract is The Hupacasath First Nation selected Duncan McLaren, PhD, of Cordillera Archaeology as a subcontractor to the Hupacasath First Nation for the remaining 3 years of the monitoring study. DiSh-17 was visited on 27 February 2008 and on 19 September A total of five visits to Elsie Lake were undertaken during 29 September to 3 October of Eight sites were revisited at this time. Erosion log stations were installed at these locations to monitor the rate of artifact exposure. A new site (DiSg-Dam1) located upstream of Elsie Lake Dam was discovered on 3 October An erosion log station was also installed at this site. Hupacasath First Nation recommended mitigation measures be provided for the new site in October or November of Field work was undertaken between 28 September and 2 October The following tasks were conducted. Erosion monitoring stations A, B, D, E, G, and H were revisited and remeasured. Two erosion monitoring stations (F and C) were still submerged at the time of our research. Three archaeological sites were inspected: DiSh-15, DiSh-17, and DiSg-31. Artifacts were collected from the surface of all three of these sites. Subsurface testing was undertaken at DiSh-15 and DiSh-17. Archaeological deposits were found and sampled at DiSh-17. Geotextile installations at DiSg-31 and DiSh-17 were inspected. The geotextile at DiSg-31 were found to be in good condition. The installation at DiSh-17 was found to need some repairs, which was undertaken during the scheduled 2009 field work. BC Hydro Page 9

10 2010 Field work in 2010 was undertaken between 5 October and 8 October. During this period, all eight erosion monitoring stations were revisited and remeasured. Surface scattered artifacts were collected from DiSh-17 and DiSg-31. The geotextile installations for erosion protection at these two sites were inspected and minor repairs were conducted to the installation at DiSh-17. Subsurface testing was resumed on the lower terrace at DiSh In March 2011, the 5 Year Summary report for this Monitoring program was submitted to BC Hydro. No additional data was collected in 2011 as this Monitoring program is now completed. Further archaeological work at Elsie Reservoir will be carried out under BC Hydro s Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Program (ERAP) which is currently in Year Interpretation of Data 2006 In 2006, no new sites were identified during the monitoring visits. Artifacts exposed on the surface of DiSh-17, DiSg-18 and DiSg-22 were collected. Those artifacts suggested ongoing erosive effects were taking place within the reservoir draw down zone, but the 2006 annual interim report did not quantify these effects. It was observed that the geotextile barrier that had been placed over DiSh-17 in the fall of 2005 failed along the seams, ostensibly as a result of the lifting of staples caused by wave action. Sandbag and boulder anchors were intact. Repositioning of the geotextile and the placement of additional boulder anchors along the seams was carried out during the initial monitoring visit to this site. Virtually no sediment had accumulated on top of the geotextile during the 2005/2006 winter inundation period. Other than the possibility of human interference with the geotextile mat, no evidence of recreational impacts to archaeological sites was observed during the monitoring visits. Rainfall appears to have accelerated the exposure of artifacts on that area of DiSh-17 which lies outside the zone protected by geotextile In March 2009, the yearly report for research activities undertaken in 2008 was submitted to BC Hydro, the Hupacasath First Nation, and the BC Archaeology Branch by Cordillera Archaeology. This report details the results of fieldwork undertaken in 2008 which resulted in the installation of eight new erosion monitoring stations (A through H), the discovery of four archaeological sites (DiSg-27, DiSg-28, DiSg-30, and DiSg-31), and the revisiting of ten previously recorded archaeological sites (DiSg-6, DiSg-8, DiSg-14, DiSg-15, DiSg-17, DiSg-16, DiSg-21, DiSg-22, DiSh-16, and DiSh-17). Evaluative testing was undertaken at the newly found site DiSg-31 where scientifically significant archaeological materials were found. The geotextile material was intact at DiSh-17. Significant subsurface components, intact deposits and bone pieces were discovered at DiSg-Dam1 on 3 October BC Hydro Page 10

11 An additional archaeological inventory project was also undertaken in the study area under BC Hydro's Reservoir Archaeology Program (permit ) In March 2010, the yearly report for research activities undertaken in 2009 was submitted to BC Hydro, the Hupacasath First Nation, and the BC Archaeology Branch by Cordillera Archaeology. This report details the results of fieldwork undertaken in 2009 which resulted in revisiting six of the eight erosion monitoring station installations established in 2008 (A, B, D, E, G, and H) and subsurface testing and surface collection at three archaeological sites DiSh-15, DiSh-17, and DiSg In March 2011, the yearly report for research activities undertaken in 2010 was submitted to BC Hydro, the Hupacasath First Nation, and the BC Archaeology Branch by Cordillera Archaeology. Further data summarization and interpretation was also provided in the Year 5 annual report. The report concluded that there is no optimal reservoir elevation that will protect all archaeological sites. The Year 5 report also provided the following recommendations based on the results and analysis of erosion pin data. They are aimed at protecting archaeological resources from the effects of erosion. Implementation of any of the recommendations below are to be made in conjunction with the Hupacasath First Nation and BC Hydro. However, each of the recommendations below offer protection to at least some archaeological sites: a) High reservoir elevations (if possible, higher than 330 m) protect all identified sites in the reservoir (except the upper terrace of DiSh-17) from the majority of erosive forces including rainfall runoff erosion, recreational activities and, to some degree, exposure to wind-generated waves. However, as-of-yet unidentified sites which may exist in the backshore area (above the shoreline fluctuation zone) may be impacted. b) If maintaining high elevations is not feasible, maintaining reservoir elevations lower than 318 m would limit wind-generated wave damage to most archaeological sites (except sites near stations C and F). However, in this scenario all stations are still exposed to rainfall run-off, freeze/thaw and recreational activities, all of which contribute to erosion. c) If reservoir levels cannot be maintained at a high or low level for most of the year, it is preferable that they fluctuate as little as possible to avoid the erosive effects of this fluctuation. Geotextile installations appear to reduce erosion to archaeological sites, and as such, geotextile installations should be used to protect sites from erosion where it is feasible to do so. Sites DiSh-17, DiSg-31 and DiSg-27 are the most appropriate candidates for this erosion protection method. The first two sites, DiSh-17 and DiSg-31, are already partially protected by geotextile covering and the geotextile BC Hydro Page 11

12 should be expanded to cover more of the area of these sites. Areas susceptible to erosion in the future (i.e., those areas of the site which will be affected by wind). The report concluded by stating that erosion impact to archaeological sites at Elsie Reservoir was reviewed and analyzed over a five-year period, including two years of data collection at eight erosion monitoring stations in the shoreline fluctuation zone. In 2005 and 2006, there was a focus on mitigating the impacts of erosion at DiSh-17 by protecting intact deposits under geotextile fabric and excavating the other at-risk deposits, as well as opportunistic surface survey of other sites in the reservoir. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, there was a focus on installation and monitoring of eight erosion stations, continued opportunistic surface and subsurface collection of artifacts at a number of sites, repair of geotextile fabric at DiSh-17 and installation and repair of geotextile fabric at DiSg-31. Results reveal that erosion is quite variable throughout Elsie Reservoir. Analysis of data suggests that changing reservoir levels, wind-generated waves, rainfall and changing temperatures are likely all contributing factors. Despite the lower rate of erosion at this reservoir compared to some other reservoirs (e.g., Stave Reservoir), significant impacts to two archaeological sites (DiSh-17 and DiSg-31) were documented during the study period. These impacts were documented using erosion monitoring stations located within and beside archaeological sites as well as by the identification and collection of surface artifacts which indicate eroding archaeological deposits. Without mitigation, these significant impacts are predicted to continue. Mitigative measures that may reduce erosion at these sites include, but are not limited to reducing the amount of time archaeological sites are exposed to wave action by maintaining constant reservoir levels and covering sites with a geotextile fabric. Further archaeological work at Elsie Reservoir will be carried out under BC Hydro s Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Program (ERAP) which is currently in Year 2. 5 Ash River WUP Monitoring Programs Costs Table 1 summarizes the Ash River WUP monitoring programs costs accepted by the Comptroller on 21 June 2005 and 26 January 2006, and actual costs to September 30, Interim Review 6.1 Overview An interim review of the Ash River WUP took place on 31 May 2011 in Port Alberni. MAC meeting attendees included Ministry of Natural Resources Operations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Hupacasath First Nations, and BC Hydro. In addition, Ecofish Research Ltd and Cordillera Archaeology attended the meeting to present study findings. Tseshaht First Nations, local and regional governments, and community interest groups did not participate in the interim review. As with all interim reviews, the scope was limited to a review of the WUP Ordered studies, their results and implications to operations. New issues or issues outside BC Hydro Page 12

13 those related to the studies were not considered during the interim review. Since both the fish passage and archaeological study were completed at the time of the interim review, both study findings were reviewed. 6.2 Status The interim review was completed in one day. The interim review for the Ash River WUP has therefore been completed. 6.3 Interpretation of Data Assessment of Adult Fish Passage at Dickson Falls During Pulse Flow Releases from Elsie Lake Dam The five years of data collection on this study confirmed fish movement occurs with the pulse flows. The 2010 monitoring, combined with the information collected during the previous five years, identified a strong weight of evidence to suggest that pulsing in August is more effective than in mid-september (Lewis et a. 2010). There are no outstanding issues related to this study Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Investigations The interim review of the Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Investigations did not identify any recommendations that where not already provided in the 5-year summary report (see Section above). Further archaeological work at Elsie Reservoir will be carried out under BC Hydro s Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Program (ERAP) which is currently in Year Recommendations Assessment of Adult Fish Passage at Dickson Falls During Pulse Flow Releases from Elsie Lake Dam It was recommended in the interim review that pulses follow Schedule F (Appendix A) and that three pulses be conducted annually between mid-august and early September. It was recommended that monitoring of the 2011 pulse flows be carried out to monitor fish response to the revised 2011 flow regime. Finally, the recommended pulse flow regime differs from the pulse flow regime proposed in the study Terms of Reference. However, the recommended pulse flow regime meets the requirements of the Ash Water Licence and Order (Section 2). Therefore, no changes to the Water Licence or Order are recommended as a result of the study or the interim review. BC Hydro Page 13

14 6.4.2 Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Investigations A number of recommendations concerning operations were proposed as a result of this study. However, no changes to the Water Licence or Order were proposed as a result of the interim review. Further archaeological work at Elsie Reservoir will be carried out under BC Hydro s Elsie Reservoir Archaeological Program (ERAP) which is currently in Year 2. 7 References Lewis, A., H. Wright, K. Healey, and K Ganshorn Ash River WUP Adult Fish Passage Monitoring Program Year 5 Summary. Consultant s report prepared for BC Hydro, Vancouver Island Generation, #10 John Hart Rd, Campbell River, BC V9H 1P1. BC Hydro Page 14

15 Table 1: Ash River WUP Monitoring Program Costs Monitoring Programs Activity Costs approved by CWR Total Forecast (Life to Date Actuals and Forecast) Variance Total to Approved Explanation Corrective Action Ash Annual Report ONR $5,827 $4,937 $890 ASHMON#1 ASSESSMENT OF ADULT FISH PASSAGE DURING PULSE FLOW RELEASES ONR $364,530 $361,603 $2,927 ASHMON#1 Direct Management 001 ONR $75,190 $71,378 $3,812 ASHMON#1 Implementation 002 ONR $289,340 $290,226 ($886) ASHMON#2 ELSIE RESERVOIR ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ONR $133,219 $129,620 $3,599 ASHMON#2 Direct Management 001 ONR $45,287 $37,550 $7,737 ASHMON#2 Implementation 002 ONR $87,932 $92,070 ($4,138) *Red values in parentheses denote overage. BC Hydro Page 15