85 TH ICOLD ANNUAL MEETING

Transcription

1 85 TH ICOLD ANNUAL MEETING Submitted by: Johanne Bibeau, Eng. AECOM Consultants Inc. tel : , rue Sainte-Catherine West fax : Montreal (Quebec) Canada H2X 3P

2

3 Table of Contents GENERAL CONTEXT The Planning Process Alternatives to the Project Approach to Studying Variants Comparison of variants Comparison criteria Optimization of The Selected Variant Project Overview... 9 References List of Figures Figure 1 - Diagram of the Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion ProjectError! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2 - Rupert Diversion Steps in Variant Selection and Optimization... 2 List of Tables Tableau 1 - Comparison of the Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion Project and the Nottaway-Broadback-Rupert Project... 1 Tableau 2 - Comparison of the Three Main Diversion Variants... 5 Tableau 3 - Advantages and Drawbacks of Diversion Variants... 6 Tableau 4 - Hydroelectric, hydrological and technical characteristics of the Cramoisy variant (KP-314) vs. the Cramoisy 2001 variant (KP-314) of Jan. 31, i

4 GENERAL CONTEXT TECHNICAL ASPECT The Eastmain-1-A and Rupert Diversion Project is located in the southern part of the James Bay Territory, in northern Québec (Canada) (MAP 1) where major hydropower developments have been built in the last 30 years by Hydro-Québec and its subsidiaries Société d Énergie de la Baie James (SEBJ). The La Grande complex was built in this territory between the beginning of the 70 s and 1996, and the Eastmain-1 Project completed by 2006 while the Rupert Diversion was completed in This section briefly describes the hydropower developments in the James Bay including the Eastmain 1A Sarcelle Rupert Project (ESR). See the Figure 1 for a schematic view of the area. OPINACA RESERVOIR Figure 1 - Diagram of the Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion Project 1

5 Map 1 - Overall View of Eastmain-1 A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion Project 2

6 The La Grande Complex The Crees and the Inuit opposed the hydroelectric development in the 1970 s. The developers, the provincial and the federal governments negotiated with the Crees and the Inuit during some years. It is in 1975 that the Government of Canada, the Government of Québec, the James Bay Energy Corporation (SEBJ), James Bay Development Corporation, the Crees and the Inuit signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA). This agreement facilitated the hydroelectric development of the La Grande Complex which took place in two phases. Phase I of the La Grande Complex Project began in 1973 and was completed in In this phase, the Robert-Bourassa (La Grande-2), La Grande-3 and La Grande-4 generating stations were built, each with a reservoir. Reservoirs were also built on the Caniapiscau, Eastmain and Opinaca Rivers, which were diverted. Phase II of the La Grande Complex Project was launched in 1987 and completed in Five generating stations were added: La Grande-1, La Grande 2-A, Laforge-1, Laforge-2 and Brisay. The La Grande Complex had at that time an installed capacity of over 15,000 MW. ESR project The project Eastmain 1A Rupert calls for partial diversion of the Rupert River and the creation of the Rupert diversion bays (covering a total of more than 300 km²). It also includes construction of Eastmain-1-A powerhouse, with an installed capacity of 768 MW, and Sarcelle powerhouse with an installed capacity of 125 MW. The diverted waters of the Rupert River is routed north to La Grande Rivière to increase the generation of the Robert-Bourassa, La Grande-2A and La Grande-1 generating stations. The case study presented here after focuses on the multi-criteria step approach used to adopt the Eastmain 1A Rupert as the one to be developed. These studies took place before the signing of the agreements in POLITICAL CONTEXT As soon as 1997, preliminary studies of the partial diversion of the Rupert River were undertaken with the participation of the local Crees authorities and land users. These studies conducted to the project definition that would be acceptable to all stakeholders. Following a referendum of the Cree Nation held by the Cree leadership, 70% of the Crees were in favor of signing an agreement with the Government of Québec addressing, amongst other, issues related to hydro development, mining and forestry. On February 7, 2002, the Government of Québec, the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) (GCCEI) and the Cree Regional Authority (CRA) signed the Agreement concerning a new relationship between Gouvernement du Québec and the Crees of Québec; this agreement was also called the Paix des Braves. 3

7 The purpose of the Agreement is: The establishment of a new nation-to-nation relationship, based on the common will of the parties to continue the development of the James Bay Territory and to seek the flourishing of the Crees and the Cree Nation within a context of growing modernization. The Agreement states that: In consideration of this agreement, the Crees consent to the carrying out of the Eastmain 1A/Rupert Project. and that the Project will be subject to the applicable environmental legislation and to the environmental and social protection regime stipulated in Section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement according to the terms of that Section. The same day, Hydro-Québec/SEBJ, the GCCEI, the CRA, the Eastmain Band, the Nemaska Band, the Waskaganish Band and the Cree Nation of Mistissini signed the Boumhounan Agreement. This agreement includes the definition, the description, the draft design, as well as the participation of the Crees in many stages of the proposed completion of the ESR project. The agreement provides, amongst other, for funding administered by a joint Cree- Hydro- Québec/SEBJ corporation with of view of carrying out mitigating and enhancement measures, training, archeological research, pursuit of traditional activities, etc., for the benefit of the impacted Cree communities and land users. 4

8 1. The Planning Process 1.1 Alternatives to the Project Notwithstanding alternate sources of energy (such as wind power, energy savings, etc.), the considered hydro alternative to the Eastmain-1-A-Rupert project is the Nottaway-Broadback- Rupert project (NBR). The NBR project called for complete diversion of the Rupert and Nottaway rivers into the Broadback River, impoundment of several reservoirs to control the diverted flows and construction of two generating stations on the Rupert River, seven on the Broadback River and two at the outlet of the Evans and Quénonisca reservoirs. The project would have a total installed capacity of about 8,700 MW. A definitive draft design has never been developed for the NBR project, and the technical and environmental aspects of the project have never been assessed. As agreed in the Paix des Braves, the construction of the Eastmain-1-A-Rupert project was necessarily implying the abandonment of the NBR project. As a consequence, it is a major gain environmentally, due to mainly reduction of flooded areas and conservation of Broadback and Nottaway rivers in natural conditions (as summarized in the following table). And, it was one of the most critical factors that play in favor of the acceptance of the ESR project by the Crees. Tableau 1 - Comparison of the Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion Project and the Nottaway-Broadback-Rupert Project FEATURES Reservoirs Eastmain-1-A Powerhouse and Rupert Diversion Project Creation of two diversion bays Nottaway-Broadback- Rupert Project Creation of four large reservoirs and the forebays of 11 generating stations Total Area Flooded 346 km² 6,497 km² Number of Dams 4 About 20 Number of Dikes 72 More than Approach to Studying Variants In 1997 and 1998, Hydro-Québec conducted, in concert with cree land users, preliminary studies based on existing topographic, bathymetric, geological and hydrological data, which showed that it was feasible and probably cost-effective to divert part of the flow of the Rupert River into the Eastmain River in order to increase the output, not only of the Eastmain-1 facility, but also of Robert-Bourassa, La Grande-2-A and La Grande-1. Since a project can only be implemented if it is profitable under market conditions, environmentally acceptable and well received by local communities, Hydro-Québec set in motion a process to select, refine and optimize a diversion variant. It also undertook to inform the Crees about the proposed variants by participating, at the invitation of the Crees, in band council meetings, public meetings held in Cree communities, the annual general meetings held in some Cree communities, and meetings of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority (GCC(EI)/CRA). In total, Hydro-Québec participated in 20 meetings, most of which were held in the six communities of Chisasibi, Wemindji, Eastmain, Waskaganish, Nemaska and Mistissini. 1

9 In 1999, in answer to the Crees questions concerning the partial diversion of the Rupert River, an agreement was signed with the Cree Nation of Mistissini to carry out a field survey program, which included technical surveys. The survey findings confirmed the technical and economic feasibility of two possible diversion points on the Rupert River (KP 490 and KP 314) and three variants: Île-de-l Est (KP 490), Arques (KP 314) and Cramoisy (KP 314). The studies also helped to optimize the Cramoisy variant (KP 314), which became Cramoisy 2001 (KP 314). (KP is the kilometric point, i.e. distance from the mouth of the river). All three diversion variants were presented to the Crees at meetings before Hydro- Québec/SEBJ and (SEBJ signed the Boumhounan Agreement. The signature therefore confirmed the selection of the Cramoisy 2001 variant (KP 314) of January 31, 2002, and laid down specific design criteria and mitigation measures worked out in concert with the Crees. The steps in choosing and optimizing the diversion variant selected for environmental assessment are summarized in Figure 2 and described in the sections below. D in V S D Develop diversion variants Optimize Cramoisy variant Cramoisy Figure 2 - Rupert Diversion Steps in Variant Selection and Optimization 2

10 1.2.1 Comparison of variants Comparing variants was a major undertaking involving experts from all engineering and environmental disciplines, as well as the concerned Crees from Mistissini. The results of this effort are presented below Comparison criteria Comparison criteria are indicators for assessing the impacts of each variant. An exhaustive list of potential criteria was first drawn up based on sources of impact. Criteria were then selected to help make a judicious choice among the variants. Criteria already covered by another criterion were discarded. For instance, loss of land and shore wildlife habitat is quantified by the land area flooded, which also acts as an indicator quantifying the loss of area for trapping. A single criterion was thus selected so that the flooded land area was not counted more than once in comparing variants. Non-discriminative criteria were also discarded. For instance, the same work is involved to build Eastmain-1-A powerhouse or modify the Sarcelle control structure regardless of the variant. Those aspects are thus not discriminative. Other criteria were deemed irrelevant because the difference between the variants was very slight. This was the case for several criteria related to the physical and chemical characteristics of water downstream of Eastmain 1 reservoir, where changes are practically the same regardless of the variant. The criteria selected for comparing variants are those that helped assess how much each variant contributed toward the objectives below. Reduce the area flooded. This is an indicator for assessing impacts on the following components: Land wildlife (including ungulate) habitat; Bird habitat; Cree hunting, fishing and trapping grounds, and related equipment; Forest stands. Minimize the area of water bodies raised. This is an indicator for assessing impacts on the following components: Fish habitat; Waterfowl habitat; Riparian habitat for semi-aquatic wildlife; Cree hunting, fishing and trapping grounds, and related equipment. Reduce the distance over which rivers are affected by reduced flow and minimize impacts on rivers downstream of closure points. These are indicators for assessing impacts on the following components: Fish habitat; Waterfowl habitat; Fishing grounds; Navigation. 3

11 Minimize any increase in fish mercury. Minimize the area of Category II lands affected (Category II lands come under provincial jurisdiction, but the Crees participate in the management of hunting, fishing and trapping and the development of outfitting operations. They also have exclusive hunting, fishing and trapping rights on these lands). Minimize the number of traplines affected. Minimize the area of parks or wildlife reserves affected. Minimize the building or relocation of infrastructure (roads and lines). Provide maximum generating potential for the development effort required. The Table 2 resumes the main characteristics of the three variants as well as significant parameters values. 4

12 Tableau 2 - Comparison of the Three Main Diversion Variants CLOSURE AT KP 314 CLOSURE AT KP 490 CRAMOISY VARIANT ARQUES VARIANT ÎLE-DE-L'EST VARIANT Output 12.8 TWh/year 12.7 TWh/year 10.8 TWh/year Area of diversion bays (km 2 ) Diversion bay Eastmain Total Land area flooded Total area affected Diverted and restored flow (m 3 /s) Diverted flow/inflow 585/ / /525 Maximum diversion flow Restored flow Main rivers affected (km) * Rup. Lem. Nem. Total Rup. Lem. Nem. Total Rup. Nat. The. East. Total Length in diversion bays Length with reduced flow Length with increased flow Number of Main lakes affected Lower water level Structures and infrastructure 3 dams and 38 dikes 3 dams and 65 dikes 7 dams and 28 dikes Dams and dikes Canals (m) 10, Earthwork (m3) 11,600,000 14,250,000 3,350,000 Roads (km) Transmission Line to dismantle (km) km and 4 bridges Transmission Line to rebuild (km) * Rup.= Rupert ; Lem. = Lemare ; Nem. = Nemiscau ; Nat. = Natastan ; The. = Thereau ; East. = Eastmain. 5

13 These parameters were defined through a procedure involving experts from all engineering disciplines as well as the concerned Crees from Mistissini and later by all the Crees concerned by the ESR project. The main purpose was to select one of the three variants. Comparison criteria were developed to evaluate each of the variants based on the following objectives: Reduce the area flooded. Minimize the area of water bodies raised. Reduce the distance over which rivers are affected by reduced flow and minimize impacts on river reaches downstream of closure points. Minimize any increase in fish mercury. To achieve these objectives, the proponent assessed the impacts of each variant on such components as land wildlife habitats, forest stands and Cree hunting, fishing and trapping grounds and related equipment. For these reasons and according to the conclusions of the impact assessment, the proponent in concert with the Crees selected the initial Cramoisy variant, considering this variant would produce the minimum impact (see Table 3 for the advantages and drawbacks of the variants). The Cramoisy variant was optimized and later on presented to the Crees for final approval and ratified in the Boumhounan Agreement, before triggering the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process foresee in the JBNQA for the ESR project. Tableau 3 - Advantages and Drawbacks of Diversion Variants CRAMOISY VARIANT ARQUES VARIANT ÎLE-DE-L EST VARIANT Advantages Minimizes area flooded and associated effects on physical and biological environment. Raises smallest area of natural water bodies. Does not affect Mesgouez, Thereau or Woollett lakes. Does not impinge on wildlife reserves in the area. Drawbacks Floods 33 km² of Nemaska Category II lands. Requires dismantling 76.4 km and rebuilding km of 735 kv lines. Avoids flooding Category II lands. Floods the largest area (631 km²). Produces greatest rise in fish mercury levels. Impinges slightly on wildlife reserves. Does not affect existing 735 kv lines. Floods 431 km² of Mistissini Category II lands. Floods 186 km² along Eastmain River. Affects largest number of traplines. Impinges on wildlife reserves. Requires building longest roads. 6

14 1.3 Optimization of The Selected Variant More detailed technical and environmental studies were then carried out for this Cramoisy variant. The main purpose was to minimize the land area flooded and avoid flooding Nemaska Category II lands. A design review of structures for this variant resulted in an improved version: the Cramoisy 2001 variant (KP 314) of January 31, Table 4 compares this variant with Cramoisy (KP 314). During evaluation of the Cramoisy 2001 variant (KP 314) of January 31, 2002, the Crees and Hydro-Québec/SEBJ included commitments in the Boumhounan Agreement with regard to the instream flow in the Rupert River (at least 20% of the mean annual flow) and Nemiscau River (substantially maintain the mean annual flow and water level). 7

15 Tableau 4 - Hydroelectric, hydrological and technical characteristics of the Cramoisy variant (KP-314) vs. the Cramoisy 2001 variant (KP-314) of Jan. 31, 2002 CRAMOISY (KP-314) CRAMOISY 2001 (KP-314) JAN. 31, 2002 Output a 12.7 TWh/year 11.7 TWh/year b Area of diversion bays (km 2 ) Land area flooded Water area raised Total area affected Nemaska Category II land flooded 33 0 Instream flow (m 3 /s) Rupert River 10% At least 20% (max. 10 weirs) Lemare River 10% 10% Nemiscau River 10% 100% Main Lakes affected (Rupert Watershed) Teilhard Lake Lower level Level maintained Biggar Lake Lower level Level maintained Lac des Montagnes Lower level Level maintained Caumont Lake Lower level Level maintained Lake Nemiscau Lower level Level maintained Structures and infrastructure Dams and dikes 3 dams and 38 dikes 4 dams and 51 dikes Canals (m) 10,900 12,000 Earthwork (m3) 11,600,000 14,400,000 Roads (km) kV lines to dismantle (km) kV lines to rebuild (km) a) Includes output from Eastmain-1 powerhouse. b) Assuming an instream flow of 20% in the Rupert River. During the EIA and the draft-design stage ( ) which was carried out jointly with the Crees, the Cramoisy 2001 variant (KP-314) of January 31, 2002, underwent further optimization, which yielded the adopted project. 8

16 1.3.1 Project Overview The variant adopted comprises the following structures (see Figure 1): Four dams, the main one being located near KP 314 of the Rupert; One spillway on the Rupert River near the main dam; About 50 dikes; Two diversion bays covering a total area of some 395 km²; One control structure between the Rupert forebay and tailbay with a maximum capacity of 800 m³/s; A system of canals totaling about 12,000 m in length to improve flow in different parts of the diversion bays; Structures for releasing instream flow to the lower Rupert, Lemare and Nemiscau; Several 735-kV line sections to be relocated; Some 100 km of access roads to be built; One spur, six weirs and one rock blanket along the Rupert River downstreand the main dam and spillway. The diverted waters of the Rupert River then follow the path taken by the waters of Eastmain 1 reservoir (the Eastmain River, Opinaca reservoir, Boyd Lake, Sakami Lake, the Sakami River, Robert-Bourassa reservoir and La Grande Rivière) to the mouth of the La Grande Rivière, at Chisasibi. The design is such that reservoir water levels will respect existing authorized maximum water levels entrenched in already existed agreements between the Crees and Hydro-Québec/SEBJ for each of these bodies of water. The step of signed Agreements was the one that allowed to choose the Project but is not the last step. Other steps have been achieved during which all the stakeholders and especially the Crees participation continue in many aspects, as: The feasibility design of the project and environmental assessment report; Public hearings and authorization process; Final design and contract tendering. Hydro-Québec/SEBJ received the Certificate of Authorization (C.A.) to proceed with the ESR project in Ninety seven environmental conditions were attached to the Certificate. The construction started in 2007 and was completed in To comply with the conditions attached to the C.A. an environmental monitoring program was first defined in concert with the Crees and then carried out jointly through a joint Cree Hydro Québec/SEBJ committee called the Monitoring Committee. The monitoring program started in 2007 and is scheduled to be completed by We can easily conclude that this case study represents one project example for which the multi criteria planning process has been an extensive one taking into account a large planning overview and were the Indigenous People, in this case the Crees were involved meaningfully and every step of the way which allow for the social acceptability of the this project. 9

17 References 1. Report Eastmain-1-A and Rupert Diversion hydropower project, Provincial Review Committee COMEX, October 31st, Environmental Impact Assessment, Eastmain-1-A and Rupert Diversion hydropower project, December