COLUMBIA RIVER WATER USE PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF SOFT CONSTRAINT TARGETS SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT

Transcription

1 COLUMBIA RIVER WATER USE PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF SOFT CONSTRAINT TARGETS SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT September 22, 2014

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 COLUMBIA RIVER WATER USE PLAN BACKGROUND... 2 DISCUSSION THEMES & HIGHLIGHTS... 3 DETAILED DISCUSSION SUMMARY... 4 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON WATER USE PLANNING... 5 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON HYDRO OPERATIONS... 5 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON THE NON-TREATY STORAGE AGREEMENT (NTSA)... 6 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON SOFT CONSTRAINT TARGET PERFORMANCE... 7 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON EROSION... 7 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON FISH... 8 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON VEGETATION... 8 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE... 9 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON CULTURE AND HERITAGE... 9 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON RECREATION...10 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON DEBRIS REMOVAL...11 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON BOAT RAMPS...11 APPENDIX...14 FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE II

3 INTRODUCTION On April 2 and 3, 2014, BC Hydro invited First Nations, governments and interested stakeholders to discuss Arrow Lakes Reservoir operations during the first five years of Columbia River Water Use Plan (WUP) implementation (2008 to 2012) as recommended by the WUP. The review, held in Nakusp, was focused on hydro operations on Arrow Lakes Reservoir related to a suite of seven Soft Constraint Targets recommended by the Columbia River Water Use Plan (WUP) Consultative Committee (CC) to address interests in the reservoir. The Soft Constraint Targets were included as a non-licence recommendation in the 2007 Columbia River Project Water Use Plan approved by the provincial Comptroller of Water Rights. The purpose of the discussion was to: a. Report on operations and performance in meeting the Soft Constraint Targets associated with the specific interests. b. Report out on the 2012 Non-Treaty Storage Agreement (NTSA) and the additional operational flexibility gained from the NTSA. 1 c. Share progress and outcomes to-date of Columbia River Water Use Plan physical works and monitoring programs designed to better understand fish and wildlife use in the drawdown zone, and the status of vegetation in the drawdown zone. Implementation of the monitoring programs and physical works associated with most Soft Constraint Targets were still underway at the time of the 2014 review. When all the monitoring programs are complete, Soft Constraint Targets can be considered in the larger context of the Columbia River system operations. All the Water Use Plan results, including performance on the Soft Constraint Targets and monitoring programs will be reported out on and considered at the end of the Water Use Plan implementation Feedback from the review summarized in this document will be used by BC Hydro to better understand local interests and inform operating decisions. The purpose of this report is to provide a record of the issues and ideas raised by participants attending the review. The themes and comments do not necessarily represent a consensus opinion of participants, nor has the technical accuracy of comments been verified. More than 50 people representing First Nations, regional and municipal governments, local business and industry, area residents, federal agencies and BC Hydro staff attended the 1.5-day facilitated session. See Appendix for attendance list. Participant familiarity with Water Use Planning past and present varied, with only a handful of original Consultative Committee members in attendance. Input from participants often included both 1 The NTSA is an agreement between BC Hydro and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) that support the use of the 5 MAF of additional storage space in Kinbasket Reservoir FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 1

4 historical footprint and operational issues. Answers to information requests not available during the review are included in the Appendix. COLUMBIA RIVER WATER USE PLAN BACKGROUND BC Hydro s Arrow Lakes Reservoir operations are determined by weather and runoff conditions, as well as the requirements of the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) and other non-treaty agreements for flood control, power generation and other needs. The Water Use Planning process recognized that as a result of the expiry of the NTSA release provisions and the need to comply with Treaty requirements, BC Hydro had very little flexibility to make changes to the operations of Arrow Lakes Reservoir for the benefit of interests other than power generation and flood control. The process also recognized that some of the interests compete with one another (i.e. water levels for one interest may not be desirable for another interest). Recognizing this limited flexibility, and preserving the negotiating position of BC Hydro with respect to a new, improved NTSA, the Water Use Plan recommended a number of physical works projects for Arrow Lakes Reservoir to benefit specific interests instead of operational changes. Physical works include improvements to boat access, regular debris removal to improve recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat enhancement projects, planting native plants in the reservoir s drawdown zone and studies to identify archaeological sites. The Columbia River Water Use Plan Consultative Committee (CC) also developed a suite of Soft Constraint Targets to help guide Arrow Lakes Reservoir operations. Each target identifies the ideal or preferred reservoir operation (i.e. water level during the year) for a specific interest. The Committee recognized that some of these targets were in direct conflict with other targets. Columbia River Water Use Plan Soft Constraint Targets INTEREST Recreation TARGET Reservoir water levels between metres and metres (1435 feet and 1440 feet) from May 24 to September 30. Reservoir levels above 434 metres (1424 feet) are acceptable with boat ramps. Wildlife Fish Vegetation Ensure inundation of nesting bird habitat by rising reservoir levels and availability of fall migratory bird habitat is no worse than recent average ( ). Target a reservoir level of 434 metres (1424 feet) or lower from late April mid-july for spring nesting birds and metres (1438 feet) or lower from early August 7 to late October for fall migratory birds. Reservoir levels above 434 metres (1424 feet) to ensure tributary access during Kokanee spawning period from late August to early November. Maintain current (2004) level of vegetation in the drawdown zone by maintaining lower reservoir water levels during the growing season. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 2

5 Culture and Heritage Erosion Power Generation Reservoir levels at or below metres (1430 feet) for as long as possible to limit impacts to archaeological sites. Minimize duration of full pool events and avoid sudden drawdown once full pool has been reached to avoid shoreline slumping. Reservoir water level of metres (1440 feet) is ideal. Optimize power values. Depending on water conditions and system flexibility each year, BC Hydro makes trade-offs between these competing targets when making operating decisions and seeks to achieve a balance over the long-term. Moving forward, BC Hydro will continue to assess how, and if, it can make progress towards the Arrow Lakes Reservoir Soft Constraint Targets, given the incremental flexibility resulting from the 2012 bi-lateral Non-Treaty Storage Agreement (NTSA). DISCUSSION THEMES & HIGHLIGHTS The April 2014 review of Arrow Lakes Reservoir operations under the Columbia River Water Use Plan was primarily focused on providing information and updating participants on the implementation of the Water Use Plan as it relates to Soft Constraint Targets. As implementation of monitoring and physical works is not complete, it was premature to explore changes to the current Soft Constraint Targets or the Columbia River Water Use Plan. While several themes emerged during the session and are presented below, along with discussion highlights, they may not necessarily represent a consensus opinion of participants, nor has the technical accuracy of participants comments and opinions been verified. Participants were not polled during the discussion to determine their level of agreement with the ideas and concepts presented by BC Hydro or raised by other participants. However, this discussion summary attempts to reflect the general level of agreement amongst participants who provided feedback during discussion sessions following BC Hydro presentations by using terms such as some and many. Scope of Review is Too Narrow Some participants are disappointed there is no opportunity to change the Water Use Plan or Soft Constraint Targets at this time, and call for more adaptive management in the short-term where monitoring programs have consistent findings. WUP Implementation Should Reflect the CC s Intention Participants want the intention of the Consultative Committee s recommendations to be reflected in all aspects of Water Use Plan implementation. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 3

6 Current Soft Constraint Targets May Not Be Effective or Inclusive Many feel the current Soft Constraint Targets should be prioritized with an emphasis on fish and wildlife needs. Some feel they are ineffective and too narrow. Stabilize Water Levels on Arrow Lakes Reservoir Participants want a more stable operating level. Columbia River Treaty Influences Hydro Operations on Arrow Participants recognize that some changes to hydro operations would require changes to the Columbia River Treaty, which guides management of the Columbia River for flood control and power generation. Some feel that optimizing power generation negatively impacts other interests and puts those Soft Constraint Targets in conflict. Non-Treaty Storage Agreement May Not Benefit All Interests Some feel that hydro operations under the new NTSA could result in faster, deeper drawdowns and saturation of soils, which would exacerbate erosion. Some want any incremental flexibility accorded to BC Hydro under the NTSA to be used to achieve more stable water levels. Year-Round Access to Longer Boat Ramps is Desirable Many want year-round access to longer boat ramps: extending boat ramps could support lower water levels. Strengthen Internal and External Communications Participants want improved community-level information about changing water levels and hydro operations, and they want to strengthen internal communications about the intentions of the CC, etc. DETAILED DISCUSSION SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide a record of the issues and ideas raised by participants. The themes and comments do not necessarily represent a consensus opinion of participants, nor has the technical accuracy of comments been verified. No ranking is intended. Participant perspectives are presented in random order. This document is a summary of input and ideas from participants who raised concerns related to both historical footprint and operations. It is not a summary of the presentations during the session. Interest summaries and technical studies discussed at this session are available at mbia_river.html. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 4

7 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON WATER USE PLANNING Scope of Review is Too Narrow Some participants are disappointed there is no opportunity at this time to consider changes to the Water Use Plan, Soft Constraint Targets or discuss scheduled physical works in detail. Water Use Plan Needs Priorities and Hard Constraints Some feel: the intention of the CC is not fully reflected in the Water Use Plan; Soft Constraint Targets should be prioritized in order to address the conflicts that exist now; and hard constraints are needed in order to address other interests; otherwise power generation interests will dominate decision-making. Hydro Operations Result in Negative Impacts Many are concerned about negative impact of hydro operations socially, economically and environmentally, and note that hydro operations contribute to conflicts among other interests. Monitoring Should Occur Prior to Physical Works It was suggested that monitoring programs should be undertaken before proceeding with some physical works. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON HYDRO OPERATIONS Citizen Involvement in Hydro Operations is Important Participants underscored the importance of residents involvement to maintain the interest and scrutiny on operations, and the science being generated as a result of technical studies and monitoring programs. Some feel nobody owns the decisions that are made and citizens need to understand who is making decisions. Some feel Aboriginal rights and title have not been considered within this process. Strengthen Communications about Hydro Operations Participants want strengthened communications with residents who may be impacted by minimum or maximum level events and suggest the following: notify residents directly (possibly by phone) when levels are going towards a maximum or minimum so they can take time to prepare and mitigate / minimize negative impacts (floods/dry); and install a digital water level sign (current and projected) in the community to increase awareness of water levels. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 5

8 Arrow Lakes Reservoir is one part of the system. Libby Dam, Duncan Dam and Birchbank water flow information should be included in information sharing, in order to increase awareness of the entire system. Provide Consistent Long-term Baseline for Comparisons Baseline data should use consistent, longer-term timeframe, as was used in the original WUP. Current baseline information (i.e ) is too short. Plan Hydro Operations to Achieve Stable Water Levels Some participants want BC Hydro to explore options for lower and more stable levels overall: suggested stable elevation of between feet would address a range of social, economic and environmental interests. Higher levels of feet in the summer are desired by others; historical water elevations of 1440 feet for approximately three weeks per year since BC Hydro s Columbia River facilities have been operating is not adequate; some feel fish interests would be strengthened if there was a lower high-water and a higher low-water level; and Soft Constraint Targets are in conflict due to the fluctuations: therefore, some participants want BC Hydro to attempt to maintain a peak elevation of 1435 feet. Some feel that full pool elevation is not good for most interests. In 2001 (a dry / low-water year) BC Hydro was able to meet its Columbia River Treaty requirements regarding hydro generation and flood control, suggesting to some that a lower level could be achievable and would allow BC Hydro to meet its power generation and Columbia River Treaty obligations. Hydro Operations Impact Economic Activities Participants note the importance of water levels on log towing operations: below 1405 feet, the operation cannot tow. At and above 1415 feet, the lake log-towing business can operate. Reservoir operations and water levels impact employment opportunities and local communities. Participants want the impact on jobs and communities to be considered. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON THE NON-TREATY STORAGE AGREEMENT (NTSA) NTSA Operations Will Negatively Impact Other Interests Participants are concerned that: implementation of the NTSA is delivered through large fluctuations in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir levels, changes to hydro operations resulting from the NTSA could result in more rapid drawdown from July October and that could negatively impact Kokanee spawning (i.e. tributary access could be limited or unavailable); FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 6

9 the new NTSA will not help manage water levels to meet other soft constraint targets; and there is no opportunity for comparison between now and future operations. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON SOFT CONSTRAINT TARGET PERFORMANCE Pre-WUP Soft Constraint Target Performance Was Not presented Some participants were disappointed that BC Hydro did not present pre-wup soft constraint target performance from 2001 to 2007 during the meeting session presentations. BC Hydro provided this information later in the meeting session. Reconsider the Current Soft Constraint Targets Participants noted that cumulative impacts and a broader range of values are not reflected in the Soft Constraint Targets (i.e. fish target does not consider cumulative impacts, changes to productivity, abundance, etc.). Some question if the current Soft Constraint Targets are the right ones, noting one target for each value is too simplistic to manage a complex and dynamic environment. Performance of Soft Constraint Targets as presented as an average percentage of days within which operations are within the constraint target elevation is misleading, and some suggest this may not tell the full picture. Rank and Prioritize Soft Constraint Targets Participants feel that power generation is the number one consideration and the Soft Constraint Targets are a lower priority relative to optimizing power generation. It was suggested that Soft Constraint Target performance would be strengthened if the Soft Constraint Targets were prioritized / weighted in order to guide BC Hydro decisions regarding operations and a multi-stakeholder forum could help inform this work, if undertaken. Participants want the focus on fish and wildlife, and less on human needs and preferences (i.e. recreation targets should not be such a high priority). PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON EROSION Fluctuating Water Levels Increase Erosion Participants feel stable water levels that do not fluctuate dramatically or frequently would address many concerns about erosion and other impacts due to operations and changing water levels. There is concern among some that: soil structures become saturated at elevations above 1440 feet and are more likely to slump and erode; wave action contributes to erosion; and FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 7

10 erosion will increase if the NTSA increases water level fluctuation frequency and steepens the draft. Some feel erosion is already impacting anchor blocks at the Edgewood Boat Ramp and it is starting to fail. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON FISH Hydro Operations Impact Fish Some feel that since the Water Use Plan fish have been declining and cite this as evidence that the fish Soft Constraint Targets are not working. Participants feel that channel braiding, caused by operations, blocks tributary access and the build-up of siltation at the deltas (that is not washed away because of low water levels) that extend into the reservoir needs to be addressed. Participants cited several concerns related to water levels and kokanee: kokanee need the full spawning window up-to and including late September; and silt at tributary access sites should be dug out and water levels should be kept higher during kokanee spawning. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON VEGETATION Soft Constraint Target is Not Effective Some noted that vegetation is impacted by depth and duration of saturation and neither are considered in the Soft Constraint Targets. Many feel reservoir operations are a primary driver in vegetation changes. It was noted that the hydrograph has been the same over the last few years, so there have been no variances to monitor success of vegetation over a range of conditions. Hydro Operations Impact Existing Vegetation Existing data (i.e. an annotated bibliography referenced by a participant) was cited and outlines the various impacts of changing water levels on ecosystems. Reed Canary grass, which is monitored by BC Hydro but not planted by BC Hydro, can be toxic to certain species when it reaches 12 inches or more. Revegetation Should Focus on Riparian Area A participant suggested that BC Hydro focus on activities and re-vegetation that will bring back the riparian zone. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 8

11 PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON WILDLIFE Current Soft Constraint Target Is Not Effective Participants noted concerns related to wildlife: current target does not consider cumulative impacts; scope of wildlife monitoring is considered too narrow: studies focus on Revelstoke and there are few / no studies on the rest of the reservoir in the Nakusp area and beyond. Studies could include upper and lower Arrow Lakes Reservoir, since Revelstoke is different than other areas of the reservoir. Results would be different if the study included Nakusp; language in the current Soft Constraint Target (i.e....no worse than recent average ( )...) may not be an appropriate reference point for the Soft Constraint Target; and it was noted that the current Soft Constraint Target target elevation for wildlife results in inundation of three out of four wetlands in Revelstoke Reach. Scope of this review does not allow for a detailed discussion of physical works and this was of concern to a participant interested in scheduled physical work at Cartier Bay near Revelstoke, which he feels could put current, high-value wetland at risk. Some feel that the study conclusions that suggest there is no impact from reservoir operations appear to contradict observations from residents and others. Wildlife is Being Impacted Some cited the Edgewood 2013 bird count 2, which did not observe any water birds, as confirmation of a local perspective that water bird abundance is on the decline. Some cited the Utzig 3 report on footprint impacts as confirmation of bird impacts resulting from hydro operations. Participants suggest that food availability for fish and wildlife has declined. Declines in fish, insect and bird food in Revelstoke Reach were cited. Concern was expressed about the impact of operations on amphibians. A 2012 BC Hydro study on system-wide impacts of operations on amphibians was cited. Participants are concerned about rising water levels on Sandpiper (AKA Kill Deer) hatchlings at the end of June when water levels start to rise (i.e. can they fledge before nest is flooded?). PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON CULTURE AND HERITAGE Reconsider the Current Soft Constraint Targets and Monitoring 2 Also known as the Edewood Christmas Bird Count Newsletter.pdf 3 Utzig, G. and D. Schmidt, Dam footprint impact Summary BC Hydro Dams in the Columbia Basin. Prepared for the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program: Columbia Basin, Nelson, BC. Available at: FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 9

12 The heritage and culture Soft Constraint Targets do not consider elevations that make cultural sites vulnerable to pot hunting 4 and this is a concern to First Nations. Some feel that at a reservoir elevation of 1440 feet the escarpment 5 may be further eroded. This should be discussed by the technical working group (i.e. is erosion occurring within the current Soft Constraint Targets?). It was suggested that further studies would be needed to assess sites, and at that time it may be possible to prioritize the sites and then use that information to determine what elevation would work best for culture and heritage sites. It was suggested that monitoring could be done every other year (i.e. monitor twice every five years) rather than annually since there are only incremental changes. Monitor for changes in years where there is a significant event (i.e. high water as in 2012). It was noted that the entire valley is a heritage site and should be protected. Cultural Sites are Being Impacted Physical works, including, but not limited to, debris management, within the draw down zone could impact cultural sites. The current focus is on individual sites, but it was suggested that there are past and current sites, waterways, trails and routes that are of cultural significance and could be considered in the Soft Constraint Target. Sites are being exposed to erosion, being buried by sediments, and are in conflict with boat ramps. Some are concerned that the boat ramp built at Edgewood was built on a cultural site. Strengthen Communications to Reduce Potential Impacts Participants want strengthened communications between physical works (including, but not limited to, debris management) and archaeological teams to avoid debris activities that could negatively impact arch sites (i.e. heavy equipment and slash burning adjacent to arch sites). Participants explored the degree to which the original intent of the CC is reflected: Do contractors understand the intent of the CC and management questions to ensure the right questions are being asked, and that the methodology is appropriate? Include Sinixt Nation Some participants noted that Sinixt are not involved in this process and should be. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON RECREATION Re-consider the Scope of Current Soft Constraint Target 4 The personal collection of archaeological artifacts. 5 This refers to a specific landform situated at feet elevation in Arrow Lakes Reservoir that was believed during the Columbia River water use planning process to have particularly high archaeological value. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 10

13 Many feel the current Soft Constraint Target is too focused on boating and does not address other non-boating recreation such as land-based (e.g. walking, biking, etc. in the drawdown zone). Some suggest extending the boat ramps would eliminate the conflict between water levels during the fall kokanee spawning time and by extending the boat ramps an overall lower operating level could be achieved. Some noted that an overall lower operating level would help achieve all / more Soft Constraint Targets. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON DEBRIS REMOVAL Leave Some Debris for Ecological Function Some participants suggested that it is beneficial to leave behind some debris to contribute to overall ecological function and they suggest that the focus for debris removal should be on boat launches. Debris removal should be done in a way that minimizes impact on vegetation. Strengthen Communications to Avoid Unintended Impacts Participants call for strengthened communications re: debris removal (i.e. heavy equipment operators) to ensure protection of cultural sites. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON BOAT RAMPS Participants moved between information stations on boat ramps and were encouraged to provide input and ideas about each ramp to BC Hydro staff who hosted individual discussions. These discussions confirmed a local interest in year-round access to boat ramps and extending boat ramps to ensure access at low water. Input from these small-group discussions is organized by boat ramp below. ANDERSON POINT BOAT RAMP Consistent grade of driveable fine gravel below the concrete elevation. During higher water it s fine; will be good when done. Contractor didn t have the correct equipment to address the transition challenges. Should be building it down lower now. Safety concerns for residents across lake (access issue). Do whatever it takes to get it useable at low water. Anderson boat ramp across from Renata is used year-round by permanent residents. Currently in low water the rip rap makes access unsafe and is not suitable for launching a boat. This results in safety and access concerns for permanent residents in smaller communities along the west side of the reservoir. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 11

14 BURTON BOAT RAMP Why build it since the MacDonald and Fauquier ramps are both nearby? CENTENNIAL PARK BOAT RAMP North Columbia Environmental Society is not in favour of encouraging boat access from the Centennial Ramp. Would prefer to see funds spent improving the Shelter Bay and Lake Revelstoke Ramps. EDGEWOOD BOAT RAMP Request to move the southern breakwater north. Request to move the southern breakwater out completely. Boaters don t use south side. Concerns about self-appointed select members representing Edgewood community communication is a concern. Not everyone attended and/or didn t know about boat ramp consultation meetings. Erosion is already impacting anchor blocks and they are starting to fall. Breakwater too low / far away from the ramp to protect anything. Peninsula / spit is used by community regularly for events (e.g. weddings, recreation, funerals, etc.). Wind comes in from south so rarely that a breakwater is not needed on south side. FAUQUIER BOAT RAMP Access: ramp should be cleared of sediment and gravel in winter. There are conflicts between swimmers and boaters using the ramp and walkway in summer. MCDONALD BOAT RAMP No point in extending the ramp if the access road isn t maintained year-round. Access road to be maintained year-round (twice). Who does the maintenance? What does this cost? Why build to a lower elevation if the reservoir will never reach that lower elevation? McDonald Creek ramp should be accessible year-round, not just during the Soft Constraint Targets window (i.e. May 24 September 30). It should be extended to accommodate yearround use. NAKUSP BOAT RAMP Is a crane placing concrete panels in the water an option for extension? Lack of access at low water because the transition has big rocks. More communication with residents is needed. Design will work when done. Traction good; doesn t seem too steep. Hard to find ramps long enough in winter; many locals fish in winter months. Locals mostly use the ramp in winter. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 12

15 Debris management: use a light touch everywhere else in the reservoir. Obviously they need to clear in boat launch areas. Small animals live in debris piles. Too short. People like to swim here so there are conflicts between boaters and swimmers. Locals clear sand in winter that deposits when reservoir levels fluctuate. SHELTER BAY BOAT RAMP A floating walkway is needed. The breakwater is in poor condition. The turnaround area is eroding. Narrow, two-way access road is dangerous. Parking is very limited. SYRINGA BOAT RAMP The park area has high archaeological value. The wind is a problem when launching. A breakwater on the west side would help protect the ramp from wind and wave action. Recreational use could be extended into the shoulder season if the ramp and wharf were extended. When the ramp is dewatered, recreation boats need to beach to unload and they are tossed around by wind. There is a gap between the floating walkway and the ramp that makes launching. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 13

16 COLUMBIA RIVER WATER USE PLAN FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF SOFT CONSTRAINT TARGETS SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT: APPENDIX September 22, 2014 FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 14

17 Columbia River Water Use Plan Five-Year Review of Arrow Lakes Reservoir Soft Constraint Targets Summary of Written Comments Received via Feedback Forms and Submissions from Participants Power Generation 1. Did this session change your understanding of Arrow Lakes Reservoir operations, the Non- Treaty Storage Agreement and Soft Constraint Target performance? 1 No, I didn t learn much 4 Somewhat, I learned a little 5 Yes, I learned a lot Yes, I learned a lot... that the general public and stakeholders are being continuously betrayed and mislead by BC Hydro. The presentations showed research parameters and performance measures that do not give correct representation of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The soft constraint targets are wrong in that they are not appropriate to address each interest. Targets could be set that would not conflict and would work well except under the NTSA that should never have been accepted. I learned that this 5-year review is mandatory under BC Hydro's water license. The people who decided the orders that BC Hydro was to fulfill should be available to answer questions and hear feedback. I learned that this 5-year review is mandatory under BC Hydro's water license. Please provide any comments you may have on the following topics: Arrow Lakes Reservoir Operation Environmental concerns need to be balanced with power and flood control. It is the sudden and drastic change in water levels that are the most damaging. Having more consistent levels that change more gradually should be the requirement. I have some troubles understanding that there is little flexibility in operating the reservoir, given the flexibility shown in 2013 to adjust for the Mica construction. Peter s graph and subsequent discussion put low water in early spring (March May); yet low water for boat ramp construction (in Nakusp) is seen as early February. Huh? This year apparently low water was in January. Where s that on the graphs? I would like to know the percentage of water used in Arrow and Kinbasket for Treaty Water / Non-treaty Water / Power Production. For all operations presentations larger fonts and fewer words (on slides) would have helped. A discussion of the value of power (not necessarily $$) since BC Hydro doesn t export all its power. Delegates were told by BCH that Mica/Kinbasket has flexibility while the HKD/Arrow Lakes have only limited flexibility. This is the opposite of what the public has been told by Ministry of Energy and others who advise the public that the Arrow Reservoir has the greatest potential for change. I would like to see what the required water levels would be if there was no Columbia River Treaty in effect. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 15

18 Non-Treaty Storage Agreement Use the flexibility provided by the NTSA to meet non-power generation goals (i.e. maximizing ability to stabilize reservoir levels and reduce severity / suddenness of ramping. U.S. objectives are always very specific (e.g. help salmon smolt reach the ocean ) vs. BC Hydro s objectives are for power and non-power benefits. (Are we willing to sample their objectives but not our own? Do they have fewer?) Are we doing better over time? BC Hydro is in the business of making money, i.e. power generation. These meetings are a waste of time because recreation and environment are NOT considered. NTSA was supposed to be used for tweaking up but only $$ matters to BC Hydro. NTSA's have further (greatly) impacted ecosystems, erosion, and other interests of the Arrow Lakes and therefore NTSA's should be withdrawn/not continue to The two engagement sessions of 2010 were held in Revelstoke and Castlegar two regions not impacted by the NTSA. There should be wide public consultation on NTSA proposals. Why are NTSA s allowed at another cost to the environment and people. Performance Review: Soft Constraint Targets I think the soft constraints should be prioritized and the human-centric interests (e.g. recreation, power generation) should be given the lowest priority. Liked that Peter explained layout of graphs, but maybe didn t need quite as much repetition. If boat ramps reached lower elevations and spawning channels had some physical help. ALL soft constraints except power generation could be satisfied without conflict by keeping reservoir below 1424 feet at all times (except possible freshet inundation of minimum duration). We were shown that all the soft constraint targets generally conflict. The targets are nonrepresentative, are inappropriate, and do not address the issues. Appropriate targets, as suggested by attending delegates, would not conflict. If targets were set between around feet elevation, there would be no conflict, all interests would be met and at a stable elevation there would be an increase in power generation overall throughout the year. They are based on different points of view and not looking at the best interest for environmental concerns. Full pool for recreation is not my choice, high level for fish is not necessary either, they flourished at lower levels. Vegetation cannot survive under water for extended periods of time. For example, if you were asked to have your yard under water during June and July of each year; what would your yard look like after 30 years or 50? How many trees, bushes, small animals, insects, birds would you have? Environmental Interests 2. Did this session change your understanding of the Columbia River Water Use Plan Arrow Lakes Reservoir monitoring studies and physical works related to environmental interests? 0 No, I didn t learn much 4 Somewhat, I learned a little 6 Yes, I learned a lot Yes, I learned a lot that millions of dollars are being spent on inappropriate/invalid physical works programs and research studies and that the results/data do not represent what is occurring regarding environmental interests or mitigate issues. The performance measures/parameters/locations etc. for research studies are often not representative and the data lacks credibility. We need valid data. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 16

19 Please provide any comments you may have on the following topics: Fish I look forward to getting questions answered. I didn t know anything about Burbot, before the presentation. ABYSMALLY poor use of microphone. Missed most of it by being distracted. Bottom line: fish are in sharp decline. Information not current and did not explain that with lower and more stable reservoir levels in 2013, the Kokanee spawning in Arrow region tributaries was approximately double than the spawning escapement of The presentation did not address the sediment bed load in tributaries as a direct result of reservoir operations kept too high that do not allow natural incising of creek channels that then allow spawning fish to access creeks. Octopus, Eagle, Burton/Caribou creeks all suffer from this. The presentation did not advise that the higher reservoir levels during spawning season greatly reduces the available spawning area it pushes fish to spawn in higher and steeper reaches of tributaries where there are mostly boulders and no spawning sand and gravel substrate. From the FWCP data presented at Nakusp March 31, we understand that all fish stocks are in sharp decline, despite nutrient programs, spawning channels, etc. The reservoir operation is decimating fish stocks. Reservoirs need to be operated to achieve more stable and moderated elevations around 1425 feet. Higher levels of water are not necessarily needed for fish population. The fish were in the valley before the dam; the water levels were lower and they were thriving. The change in the water levels causes silt to form in their spawning channels. The environment needs moderate levels versus incredible 40 ft fluctuations. Vegetation Lack of previous annual Dust Control Program is causing loss of vegetation as un-vegetized areas become more mobile and more susceptible to wind and wave erosion. I look forward to getting questions answered. I live near Macdonald Creek. Up and down the lake it is pretty well moonscape. This presentation tried to put a positive on a bleak situation. Mid pool reservoir levels. The presenter denied that reservoir operations are the primary impact on vegetation. This is totally false information. In fact, the brochure even states that the higher reservoir levels of 2008 directly impacted vegetation. The fact sheet also states that there is only a 22 per cent success rate of meeting soft constraint targets. This is dismal and must be corrected. Success of all interests, except for power generation, are directly connected to a healthy riparian/vegetation region along the shoreline. A program does not require artificial planting of vegetation. Vegetation will naturally seed in the first season in areas that are not inundated...it is nature s plan that I have witnessed on my own property. The annual inundation of the draw down zone destroys vegetation. The reservoirs should be operated to keep levels moderated and relatively stable around 1425 feet elevation. A healthy riparian zone is essential. Vegetation will prevent the very serious erosion issues. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 17

20 Higher water levels at the optimal growing season means that whatever may start growing gets drowned halfway, ruining the whole season each year. This also causes stability issues because of the loss of vegetation. Wildlife Habitat enhancement and vegetation planting won t achieve the wildlife objectives without managing human activities of recreation access. Drawdown Zone Management Plan needs to be implemented and enforced. I look forward to getting questions answered. I d like to know if reptiles and amphibians are only being noticed, or if they re actually being studied. Amphibians are a very sensitive indicator of ecosystem health. Ian s presentation was limited to the Revelstoke area and to birds only. Wildlife title was a misnomer, wolves? Elk? This presentation was well done but it gave only a bird s eye view. Basically only birds were addressed (other than a garter snake) and birds that nest in trees versus on the ground and also in the Revelstoke Reach which is the least impacted region and does not represent the Arrow Lakes Reservoir region. Much money being wasted. This comes at a time when climate change is upon us and valid data is critical. Reservoir levels should be kept around 1425 feet elevation to address wildlife interests. Needs a balanced environment to thrive. Extremes cause stress. If a dying patient is receiving all the emergency medical attention that is available, but if the emergency personnel don t take the patients head out the water; of what use is it? Social Interests 3. Did this session change your understanding of the Columbia River Water Use Plan Arrow Lakes Reservoir monitoring studies and physical works related to social interests? 0 No, I didn t learn much 2 Somewhat, I learned a little 7 Yes, I learned a lot Yes, I learned a lot of frustration. Please provide any comments you may have on the following topics: Culture & Heritage NIH5 but note that these should be compatible with wildlife, vegetation and erosion constraints. Wow! What richness they are finding! The Sinixt question should not be ignored. I think there s a part that is being missed: educating the public. The false Sinixt extinction status was not addressed, yet it has been their traditional territory for tens of thousands of years. There are no boundaries to heritage sites, yet a line is drawn on the peninsula at Edgewood as to where other agencies declare the heritage site ends and where BC Hydro placed over 80 enormous cement blocks and log bundles to serve as a breakwater for a boat ramp. This has infuriated Edgewood residents and tourists alike. Yet the presenter stated that there are no direct conflicts with boat ramps and heritage sites. Another example was the construction FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 18

21 at the Nakusp boat ramp in 2013 had to be temporarily halted due to artifacts found. There is direct conflict. Soft constraint targets do not protect the cultural, aesthetic, and ecological context of important (there's a word open to interpretation!) cultural resources and spiritual sites. The attending First Nations are deeply dissatisfied as any of us would be under the same circumstances. Seventy-one heritage sites have been identified however, my comment is that the entire shoreline of the Arrow Lakes is a heritage site...no boundaries. There are changes annually in sediment burying artifacts and artifacts being exposed by water and wind erosion due to reservoir operations (and impossibility of vegetation establishment). Reservoir levels should be kept around 1425 feet elevation. Protection of cultural sites should not be enforced by drowning them at full pool. It should be preserved by knowledge and respect for native heritage. The Sinixt must be included, they are not extinct. Erosion Minimizing duration of full pool events and avoiding sudden drawdown must be done to reduce erosion. Should also be planting of willows or cottonwood along shorelines more than on existing vegetated lands. Erosion: environmental and social. Why wasn t there a presentation on this? Why was there no erosion presentation? Never! Bring water levels to 1446 feet! In fact, 1440 feet should be max. I don t buy the heavy rains in June excuse. There are not appropriate/adequate soft constraint targets for erosion. The presenter blamed erosion on wave action, wind, and scouring and not reservoir operations. Wave action is caused by wind that has significantly increased since the Arrow Lakes were inundated and the same goes for scouring...all due to reservoir operations. There will always be erosion unless the reservoir levels are moderated and relatively stabilized (around 1425 feet elevation). Erosion must be taken very seriously. The erosion issue did not address extreme mass erosion in areas such as the east shorelines opposite Burton and Arrow Park. Erosion occurs from reservoir operations that allow saturation of silt bench lands at high elevations, before dropping the reservoir levels. Large areas of land have been lost and the erosion continues constantly. Erosion is not just a social issue at all. Erosion is an environmental issue of the most serious nature. Erosion prevents vegetation which prevents bird and wildlife populations from succeeding and also impacts fish populations greatly. The main cause of erosion is not quick draw downs. But due to lengthy full pool saturation, thus killing vegetation creating unstable slopes. Recreation is not the best at high levels. Beaches, shores are excellent recreation. Full pool is not ideal or necessary. Recreation Between Revelstoke and Shelter Bay, the Recreation Soft Constraint is a low priority. Summary: surcharging is in conflict with soft constraints and should only occur as a last resort and only for preventing flooding. Economic benefits from surcharging should go into habitat mitigation compensation or enhancement. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 19

22 Communication is key. Boat Ramp: the Edgewood Boat Ramp came at long last in The preview at the Legion showed full pool which only lasts for a 6 to 8 weeks a year. The preview should have shown what it would look like 80 per cent of the time. The prep was not done on how to deal with the cement anchors for the southern breakwater. It is immensely ugly and dangerous. The poles that hold the boat ramp in place are rusted since last year. The once beautiful Edgewood beach and boat launch area is now marred. It is as if someone decided to put a cement anchor symbolizing that the Arrow and Edgewood would never again be without its annual flood. Open boat ramps and access roads for all year round. Clear road in winter to Macdonald Creek ramp and extend the boat ramp. Recreation is incorrectly based on boaters. Recreation must include shoreline activities and uses...the main one being beach use. The Arrow Lakes has world class sandy beaches which are annually flooded during the summer months. This is unacceptable and has a great impact on social and economic/tourism interests. Soft constraint targets must be lowered to around 1425 feet elevation. All interests could be satisfied with constraint targets being approximately 1425 feet elevation for the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Even power generation will increase overall throughout the year (Arrow Lakes Generating Station) if the reservoir were kept more stable and mid-pool elevation. 4. How could BC Hydro improve any future sessions regarding BC Hydro s operations and the Columbia River Water Use Plan? Not a good idea to start a session asking for input and then announce that there will be no changes. 1) Since reservoir operations have to meet so many different requirements for different legal and internal requirements (Columbia River Treaty, Water Use Plan, etc.), these things must start being consulted on in a more holistic way. Stop limiting the scoping so that these can be considered together. 2) Be more open to adaptive management (i.e. when things aren t working, be willing to change the project, constraint, etc. and update them more regularly). Send out presentations before meeting OR include more details in summaries. Take great care to avoid general info in the written material and presentations, especially increase, decrease, etc. Great job and many thanks for finding time/money for this. Consistent numbers (or units) used for sake of comparison between presentations. I would like to know the dollar value associated with each M.A.F. Larger font on presentations. Excellent presentations. Stabilize Arrow Lake Reservoir at midpoint elevation feet. Instead of soft constraints, we need hard rules and enforcement. 1) Use personal microphones for presenters; 2) arrange heat. 3) Ask for questions to BC Hydro before meeting and address the issues. We were advised that the results from this review, physical works and research results would not result in any changes of operations. This effort therefore appears to just be a formality for BC Hydro to keep the water license and has false intent. I find this unacceptable. Provide valid data from valid research. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 20

23 Allow more time for discussion by delegates. Provide future projections from data. BC Hydro's programs (physical works and monitoring studies) must be re-vamped to provide useful and credible data. Not only does it enrage the rate-payers to see how much money is being wasted but we cannot use the data. Engage the affected people in the Water Use Plan, NTSA, etc. We have the local experience. Provide handouts of all presentations A follow up summary to all those who attended of what took place, what was said, is essential. Please supply this to us. Bring the people responsible for signing agreements, so there is a chance for change in the environment. Sign me up! Add my address to the BC Hydro distribution list for: 5 Columbia River Water Use Plan Newsletters 5 Notification of upcoming Operations Update Conference Calls and Meetings 1 Weekly Columbia Reservoir Updates and bi-annual Columbia Operations Summary: 1 Upper (Kinbasket, Revelstoke and Arrow Lakes reservoirs) 1 Lower (Arrow Lakes, Kootenay Lake, and Duncan reservoirs) FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 21

24 FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 22

25 Attendance List Last Name First Name Position/Affiliation Organization City Arnouse Cliff Councillor Adams Lake Indian Band Chase Backman Danielle Ecologist Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Park Revelstoke Bassett Jean Chair Edgewood Community Internet Society Edgewood Bell Judith Columbia Basin Revitalization Member "Molly" Committee Nakusp Bekker Pieter Deputy Comptroller of Water Rights Environment Canada Victoria Berkey Marianne Manager, BC Hydro Environmental Risk Management Land BC Hydro Vancouver Program Boehringer Eva Natural Resource Specialist (Vegetation) BC Hydro Vancouver Bradshaw Philip Natural Resource Specialist (Recreation) BC Hydro Vancouver Briggs Alison Manager, Environmental Risk Management Water Program BC Hydro Vancouver Brooke Chruszcz Eva Brian Senior Environmental Coordinator (Archaeology) BC Hydro Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Park Vancouver Revelstoke Cormier Ray Acting Title & Rights Director Splatsin Enderby Dehaan Maureen Generation Resource Management BC Hydro Vancouver Dennis Margo Manager, Columbia River Water Licence BC Hydro Vancouver Requirements DeRosa Gordon Councillor City of Trail Trail Duchaine Guy Councillor Village of Nakusp Nakusp Eichenauer Cedra Manager Nakusp Chamber of Commerce Nakusp Frerichs Earl Beaton Arm Crossing Association Nakusp Gaspard Jim System Optimization BC Hydro Vancouver Gore Ari Renata Development Society Renata Green Bill Director Ktunaxa Nation Council Cranbrook Hamling Karen Mayor and Council Village of Nakusp Nakusp Kapell Nicole Cultural EA Coordinator Okanagan Nation Alliance Cranbrook Kew Dave Scaling Supervisor International Forest Products Nakusp Locicero Sabrina Stakeholder Engagement Advisor Lownds Jody Vice-President & Treasurer BC Hydro North Columbia Environmental Society Castlegar Revelstoke FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 23

26 Last Name First Name Position/Affiliation Organization City Lynn Mike Assistant Fibre Manager International Forest Products Castlegar Maltby Francis Columbia WUP Consultative Committee Revelstoke Member Martel Guy Natural Resource Specialist (Fish) BC Hydro Vancouver McCann Peter Columbia Operations Planner BC Hydro Vancouver McGinnis Ed Chair Columbia Basin Revitalization Committee Fauquier Michiels Ella Director Columbia Basin Revitalization Committee Edgewood Miller Mike Vegetation Ecologist Coldstream Mitchell Heather Manager Special Initiatives Columbia Basin Trust Golden Nagy Gene Secretary/Treasurer Beaton Arm Crossing Association Nakusp Neil Adam Operations Manager, Sr. Environmental Scientist, Splatsin Enderby Title & Rights Department Nowicki Natalie Asset Operations Manager Columbia Power Corporation Castlegar Pearce Cindy Executive Director CRT Local Govt. Committee Revelstoke Price Chris Arrow/Slocan Supervisor BC Parks Nelson Priest Randy Columbia WUP Consultative Committee Golden Member Robertson Ian Natural Resource Specialist (Wildlife) BC Hydro Vancouver Spicer Janet local farmer Nakusp Spicer Crystal Director Columbia Basin Revitalization Committee Edgewood Thome Edie Director, Environmental Risk Management BC Hydro Vancouver Van Dijk Grietje Aboriginal Relations and BC Hydro Vancouver Walker- Larsen Ward Jennifer Warren Negotiations Stakeholder Engagement Advisor Columbia WUP Consultative Committee Member BC Hydro Revelstoke Golden Watson Cathy Chairperson Inonoaklin Reading Centre Edgewood Watts Dean Biologist - Large Hydro Unit Fisheries and Oceans Kamloops Watts Krista Environmental Manager Columbia Power Corporation Castlegar Williams Marty Ktunaxa Nation Council Worley Linda Area 'B' Director Regional District of Kootenay Boundary Trail Zeleznik Tom Councillor Village of Nakusp Nakusp FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 24

27 Information Requested at Columbia River Water Use Plan Five-Year Review of Arrow Lakes Reservoir Soft Constraint Targets FISH AND WILDLIFE QUESTIONS 1. What, if any, correlation is there between snake RESPONSE We know that predation (mostly by snakes) affects 30.8% of all nests studied, but it is abundance and predation on birds? premature to state that greater snake abundance would lead to greater predation on nests. 2. Do operations favour snakes? While we cannot confirm that reservoir operations favour snakes, we do know that our study teams have found considerable snake numbers at specific locations in Arrow Reservoir. We are conducting further studies on snakes. 3. What is the correlation between birds and insects There is no evidence that food availability is having any effect on nesting success. It is (i.e. food availability) and nest failure? interesting that in studies of insects and birds that there clearly is a fauna distinctive to reservoirs for both insects and birds. 4. Express the impacts to broods (Canada Geese) as There has been no flooding of Canada Goose nests. They nest too early. As the water a per cent. level rises the broods move up to higher ground. 5. Provide a baseline for nesting success in the Upper Our studies have been largely restricted to the drawdown zone, in part because of its Arrow Lake and compare that data to the areas not distinctive bird fauna. The latter makes it difficult to do comparative studies. Future in the drawdown zone. reports might draw nesting success comparisons with other areas as reported in the literature. 6. Re: songbirds when water levels rise and fall, For songbirds, the effects are restricted to water levels rising. In the case of Arrow what per cent are impacted? Lakes the loss amounted to 10.4% of recorded nests from Roll out of physical works was expected Construction of the wildlife enhancement projects planned for the Revelstoke area to be faster. Why was the roll-out slower than require a long enough window of low reservoir water level and suitable ground anticipated? conditions to do the work. Spring conditions were not suitable for construction for a number of years due to a combination of snowmelt timing and unsuitable water levels. 8. Is there a monitoring program to assess the nesting No, the nesting study is being conducted in the Revelstoke Reach area of Arrow Lakes success of Killdeers in Nakusp drawdown zone? Reservoir where there is the highest number of nesting birds. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 25

28 FISH AND WILDLIFE QUESTIONS RESPONSE 9. Studies indicate about a 40 per cent success rate in nesting, what might be the success within a natural area for similar species. See answer to Question Provide information on nesting birds along the edge of Mica Reservoir (i.e. shore birds). The main nesting species around Mica Reservoir are Savannah Sparrow, Spotted Sandpiper, Killdeer, Lincoln s Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, Song Sparrow, and Mountain Bluebird. Numbers of birds are not very high. 11. Has any work been conducted for construction of islands around the Revelstoke airport? Are these not late? As part of the Arrow Lakes Wildlife Physical Works, BC Hydro had planned to install a floating island in Revelstoke Reach to provide additional habitat for birds and wildlife. We are currently assessing the feasibility of a floating island to withstand the physical conditions in this area as part of the second phase of the Physical Works project. 12. At what time during the early summer is the majority of bird nesting complete? The 50% level in nesting attempts takes place during the third week of June, and the 95% level occurs around August 1. Because of the nest failures there is a considerable amount of late (i.e. July) nest attempts. 13. How many fish spawn in lower reaches? The following is a list of known fish species in Arrow Lakes Reservoir that presumably spawn in the reservoir or its tributaries. Bull trout, Eastern Bull Trout, Burbot, Common Carp, Kokanee, Largescale Sucker, Longnose Sucker, Mountain Whitefish, Northern Pikeminnow, Peamouth Chub, Prickly Sculpin, Pygmy Whitefish, Rainbow Trout, Redside Shiner, Slimy Sculpin, Tench, Yellow Perch. White Sturgeon are found in Arrow Lakes Reservoir but are not believed to spawn in lower Arrow Lakes Reservoir. 14. I d like to know if reptiles and amphibians are only being noticed, or if they re actually being studied. Amphibians and reptiles are being actively studied right now. Future reports of the CLBMON-37 project will document these results. Amphibians are a very sensitive indicator of ecosystem health. FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 26

29 POWER GENERATION QUESTIONS 15. Show how much power (i.e. days-per-year that power generation is not optimized) is lost in order to meet Soft Constraint Targets. 16. I would like to know the percentage of water used in Arrow and Kinbasket for Treaty Water / Non-treaty Water / Power Production. RESPONSE BC Hydro operates its reservoirs to meet its regulatory obligations and flood control requirements while optimizing overall value for the residents of BC. Small power losses have been incurred periodically to improve the likelihood of meeting a specific Arrow Soft Constraint Target, in particular when a target has not been met for a lengthy period. However BC Hydro does not keep records of such power losses. The total live storage in Kinbasket Reservoir is 12 Million acre-feet (MAF) of water. Of this total, the operation of 7 MAF (58% of the total) is coordinated under the Columbia River Treaty (CRT). The remaining storage (5 MAF, or 42%) is coordinated under the Non-Treaty Storage Agreement (NTSA), with only about 3 MAF actively operated at most times. The total live storage in Arrow Reservoir is 7.1 MAF, and the operation of all (100%) of this storage is coordinated under the CRT. 17. I would like to see what the required water levels would be if there was no Columbia River Treaty in effect. Almost all of the water released from Mica and Revelstoke dams generate power, except for rare occasions when water is spilled. At Keenleyside Dam, spill releases occur more frequently. For example in 2013, approximately 38% of Arrow Reservoir releases generated power. The Columbia River Treaty will remain in effect until at least September During , a Provincial Government team led the Columbia River Treaty Review process, and this is documented at: During the review, various reservoir operating scenarios, including those under Treaty Terminated conditions, were modeled. Documentation of these scenarios can be found at: FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 27

30 POWER GENERATION QUESTIONS 18. I would like to know the dollar value associated with each M.A.F. 19. Provide valid data from valid research. no specific question here. 20. Provide future projections from data. no specific question here. RESPONSE The dollar value associated with each MAF of water depends completely on the location and timing of water storage and/or release, as well as many other factors including the value of energy at a specific time. For example, under the Columbia River Treaty, Canada operates 15.5 MAF of storage for Canadian and U.S. benefits. During , the U.S. energy payment to Canada under the CRT is estimated to be 4.4 million MWh, or 0.3 million MWh per 1 MAF of storage. At a typical market price of $30/MWh, the value of this energy is approx. $9 million. EROSION QUESTIONS 21. Erosion: environmental and social. Why wasn t there a presentation on this? RESPONSE Performance was reported for the Erosion soft constraint target. No general Arrow Lakes Reservoir erosion monitoring programs were recommended by the Water Use Plan beyond the erosion study for archaeological sites so there was no additional information to provide. The other erosion studies underway near Revelstoke are to understand the impact of additional generating units at Revelstoke dam, not Arrow Lakes Reservoir operations. INFORMATION REQUESTS RESPONSE 22. Presentations to be distributed to all participants. All presentations distributed to participants by April 16, Request to see average Arrow Lakes Reservoir The new slide on page 13 in 2 Operations Peter McCann.pdf includes average water level data and soft constraint performance Arrow Lakes Reservoir water levels from 1984 to In the 4 Constraints Peter over three timeframes: a) pre-wup ( ); b) McCann.pdf presentation, the new slide on page 39 now also includes soft Consultative Committee period ( ); and c) constraint target performance for that time period. post-wup ( ). FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 28

31 INFORMATION REQUESTS 24. BC Hydro to report on the soft constraint target performance each year from 2008 to Often when discussions at the Consultative Committee table refer to reservoir refill, rainfall plays a small role, annual snow pack being the main planning indicator. Soft constraints often referred to rainfall being a key impactor. Is this correct? 26. Develop a hydrograph that shows mean average and NTSA. 27. I would like to know the dollar value associated with each M.A.F. RESPONSE The new slide on page 33 in the 4 Constraints Peter McCann.pdf presentation includes this information. The annual snow pack that melts in the spring through the summer months is a primary factor for Columbia River operations basin wide and in particular for the Arrow Lakes Reservoir through the summer. However, precipitation in the summer, whether it is dry, average or wet, can impact Columbia River operations and the ability to meet soft constraint targets on Arrow Lakes Reservoir. With the majority of soft constraints occurring in the summer months, essentially both snow pack and rainfall can play important roles in achieving soft constraint targets. We assume the request is for average Arrow reservoir water levels both with and without the Non-Treaty Storage Agreement. A graph is provided below that compares the average reservoir levels for actual, with no Non-Treaty Storage (full), and with no supplemental CRT operating agreements in place (Seasonal/Non-Power uses and full Non Treaty Storage). Answered above in Operations section FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 29

32 FINAL SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANT INPUT PAGE 30