Effects of Waterpower and Dams on Fish Species and Ontario s Aquatic Biodiverity. Rob MacGregor and Lorne Greig

Transcription

1 Effects of Waterpower and Dams on Fish Species and Ontario s Aquatic Biodiverity. Rob MacGregor and Lorne Greig

2 Dams and Waterpower In Ontario the MNR officially recognizes that there are more than 2500 dams in the province, but the actual number is not known due to the large number of private dams: Some 1100 in Peterborough District alone Number probably much higher than 2500 Dams and hydroelectric facilities have long been recognized to have major effects on fish species and aquatic ecosystems

3 Locations of Dams with the American Eel Native Range

4 Fishways in Ontario

5 Dams and Waterpower There are almost 200 waterpower facilities in Ontario, many years old Currently there are 15 fish species designated as threatened or endangered in Ontario. Another 12 species are designated as Special Concern. 2 other native fish species have been entirely extirpated from the province. Together with overfishing, waterpower and dams have been identified as key factors in the serious declines or demise of several fish, particularly migratory species Waterpower and dams are also thought to jeopardize their continued survival and recovery

6 Fish Passage The lack of provision of adequate fish passage is a key impact of dams and waterpower: Access to substantial areas of important habitat has been denied Cumulative mortalities of migrants due to turbines Harmful alteration to habitat, particularly water quality Since 1867 provision of fish passage has been a component of Canada s Fisheries Act. Provision of passage fish passage and perpetuation of fish and wildlife have long been components of Ontario`s Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act

7 Fish Passage cont`d Despite the fact that fish passage has been recognized as an important requirement since the 1800s in Canada and elsewhere, it has rarely been required in Ontario on a sustained basis the legislation has been overly discretionary For instance, fishways have been installed at only 42 of more than 2500 dams in Ontario (several are not operating) Appears that only two waterpower facilities have provided long-term, permanent fishways in Ontario

8 Benefits of Dams and Waterpower Hydropower is a fueled by water, so it's a clean fuel source. Hydropower doesn't pollute the air like power plants that burn fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Hydropower is a domestic source of energy. Hydropower relies on the water cycle, which is driven by the sun, thus it's a renewable power source. Hydropower is generally available as needed; engineers can control the flow of water through the turbines to produce electricity on demand. Hydropower plants provide benefits in addition to clean electricity. Impoundment hydropower creates reservoirs that offer a variety of recreational opportunities, notably fishing, swimming, and boating. Other benefits may include water supply, pollution dilution and flood control.

9 Benefits of Dams and Waterpower A typical waterpower generating facility has a long life span of between 75 and 100 years; capital investments often paid back in about 7 years. The average energy payback ratio (energy required vs. energy produced) is by far the highest among all sources. Reduction in property loss by flood control Dams enable provision of water at the right times - cheap interim solution to pollution

10 Ontario Waterpower Agenda Green Energy and Economy Act passed in 2009 Enabled the Feed-in Tariff Program (FIT) By encouraging the development of renewable energy in Ontario, the FIT program will: Phase out coal-fired electricity generation by 2012 Boost economic activity and development of renewable energy technologies Create new green industries and jobs Over 1000 MW of renewable energy contracts could be offered Administered by Ontario Power Authority

11 Ontario Agenda: Supply Mix Directive Renewables: Waterpower, windpower, solar energy, bioenergy (biomass, biogas etc.) Supply Mix Directive: hydroelectric generation to account for 20-25% of the total electricity generation Other renewables to account for 10-15% of Ontario electricity generation by 2018 OPA shall develop the plan mindful of total impacts on bill and costs of electricity generation in general No mention in directive of collateral environmental impacts nor the need to mitigate them.

12 Collateral Ecological Damage People have been led to believe that dams and hydropower provide a clean source of energy with benign effects: No smoke, no ash, no radiation, some think it contributes to the climate change battle (wrong), and therefore no environmental side effects Some tend to view river water flowing freely to its destination as a waste of water unless its water and energy is captured and used first Many dams and particularly waterpower facilities can have significant on-going collateral ecological impact unless mitigated: these effects have often been ongoing for nearly 100 years

13 Some Potential Impacts of Dams and Waterpower Effects vary by site and species adequate monitoring is crucial Effects often most pronounced on diadromous species Overall they lead to major habitat fragmentation and loss; significant mortalities due to free fall and turbines etc. Effects of dams and waterpower are highly cumulative where a series of dams exist on a single watershed exist.

14 Effects of Dams and Waterpower in Ontario Some waterpower facilities and dams in Ontario have: made some ecosystems unsuitable for some native species (e.g. trout; several non-salmonid species in the Grand River etc) prevented access to spawning, nursery and growth habitat (e.g. Atlantic Salmon; American Eel), at times induced substantial mortalities (e.g. Eels; Sturgeon; Salmon)

15 Effects of Dams and Waterpower (cont d) Reduced habitat suitability by changing temperature, flow, water chemistry, water clarity, nutrient transport, elevated biological oxygen demand (BOD), unsuitable oxygen regimes etc. (eg. Dunnville Dam, Grand River) Reservoir draw-downs can have potentially significant effects on overwintering habitat (e.g. American Eels; turtle species)

16 Impacts of Dams & Waterpower (cont d) Sudden release of water can lead to severe erosion and habitat destruction (Adams Creek diversion; Nipigon R) Stranding/ entrainment mortalities of fish (eg. Sturgeon Adams Ck Diversion) Reduced food availability for juvenile fish (eg. Sturgeon on the Ottawa River) Dams, especially waterpower operations, can severely limit water levels and base flows in downstream reaches in summer

17 Impacts (cont d) Dams and waterpower identified as a significant contributing factor in local, regional or provincial extirpations or major declines (e.g. Atlantic Salmon; Lake Sturgeon; American Eel; American Shad, redhorse species in the Grand River etc) Dams and waterpower facilities can jeopardize the recovery of native fish species Loss of native species => major effects on provincial biodiversity

18 Cumulative Effects Impacts (Cont d) Foregoing effects are especially pronounced if there is a series of dams or waterpower facilities on one watershed Recent policies and court decisions indicate that cumulative effects must be considered when issuing instruments/approvals Many new waterpower facilities appear to be coming in Ontario potentially adding to the existing threats: 48 new FIT contracts offered and some 40 to 50 more are in various stages of review

19 SOME ONTARIO EXAMPLES

20 Grand River Dams: Southern and Middle Reaches Dunnville Dam Access to the largest watershed in SW Ontario blocked near mouth by Dunnville Dam Dam originally constructed in 1829 to provide water to Welland Canal (Feeder Canal), and later provided supporting infrastructure for the Grand River Navigation Co. Original purposes of dam disappeared almost 150 years ago. Not a flood control dam Map of dams in S. Grand

21 Grand River: Dunnville Dam Dunnville Dam has been identified as a major problem for fish passage for more than a century Sturgeon passage eliminated (threatened provincially, extirpated in the Grand River) Walleye passage eliminated (unique genotype depressed) Black Redhorse passage impacted (now a SAR) This dam also concentrates and retains pollution from upstream sources in the reservoir => periodic loss habitat (high P, high N, high bacterial counts, low oxygen) exacerbating poor water quality Fishway currently inoperable; when it did function did not work well for walleye. Same situation at Caledonia

22 A. S. Grand River Oxygen B. Figure 16.(A) Areas of the Grand River between Cayuga and Dunnville susceptible to low dissolved oxygen at depth. This extrapolated extent is based on a depth/oxygen relationship established during a 12 day period of bottom anoxia beginning June 27, 2005 (dissolved oxygen <4mg/L below 3m and <2mg/L below 4m depth) (B) A modeled volume below a 50m x 50m section of the water column at one location is used to illustrate characteristic differences between surface and bottom waters. Blue is too warm and Red contains too little oxygen for walleye (after MacDougall unpubl. manuscript)

23 Cumulative Effects: Lake Sturgeon)

24 Adam`s Ck Diversion Sturgeon entrainment

25 Upstream Eel Migration Impeded exclusively by Waterpower Facilities on the two major migratory routes into Ontario St. Lawrence R. Ottawa R.

26 Juvenile Eels Congregating and Attempting to Climb a Dam

27 Cumulative Mortalities of Downstream Migrating American Eel

28 Mississippi River Eel: Probability of Survival Probability of surviving six facilities to St. Lawrence River as low as 2.8% unless other passage is provided

29 Challenges due to Cumulative Effects on Eels in Ontario Note: because eels are panmictic, all effects are cumulative across the range on a single spawning population Significant cumulative mortalities and loss in habitat (>85%) Significant reductions in production and survival of Ontario s large females

30 Mitigation of Effects

31 Mitigation Mitigation = alleviation of effects; not always NO Passage is critical but has been rarely been required in Ontario, especially for waterpower and nonsalmonids. A strategic adaptive management approach is needed for implementation of mitigation Ontario and Canada have (had) legal tools, policy to require mitigation: just need to use effectively Some effective, recent partnerships among industry, aboriginals, government and interest groups developing (eg. OPG eel action plan, OFAH Atlantic Salmon Restoration Program, Adams Creek )

32 Mitigation: Fish Passage Options An array of techniques are available to mitigate significant issues: Trap and Transfer Numerous types of fish ladder and elevator designs to enhance upstream migration for a variety of species Diversions and by-passes Fixed ramping rates, minimum flows Interim stocking or translocations Numerous examples in the U.S. to learn from

33 Eel ladders

34 Sturgeon Passage: Vianney- Legendre Fishway; Richlieu River, P.Q

35 Mitigation: Stocking or Translocations Not all impacts can be mitigated quickly, especially when infrastructure modifications required As an interim measure, judicious use of stocking or translocations have potential to maintain the presence of a declining species (e.g. Atlantic Salmon) but should not be viewed as the final mitigation solution Disease and genetic considerations Effectiveness monitoring Ontario has demonstrated exceptional expertise and success in fish culture to reverse declining species (e.g. Lake Huron Lake Trout, Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon, Lake Simcoe whitefish etc) and recovery of SAR and other species of conservation concern this should become a priority in this program

36 Mandate Sound management of migratory fish species involves resolving current and new fish passage problems There has been good legislation to support requirements for fish passage in Canada since confederation (Fisheries Act) for > 100 years Policy and legislation further improved in the 1970s-2000s to support provincial implementation of fish passage (Biodiversity Stgy, SARA, ESA, LRIA, Fisheries Act, Fish Habitat Policy, EA, Statements of Environment Values).

37 Mandate cont d These improvements added balance to often uncontrolled or unmitigated development and pollution that had been ongoing for 100 years or more Nevertheless, mitigation of the effects of waterpower and dams has been rarely required in Ontario, especially fish passage

38

39 How did we get here (cont d)? No EA in Ontario prior to the 1970s; No Federal EA requirement prior to People just did not look at the environmental consequences of development prior to those periods. Unfortunately, there has often been a failure post-ea to significantly change behavior regarding mitigation of dams and waterpower

40 Potentially Conflicting Mandates Provincial priority to increase sources of renewable energy Province and the federal government have made protection of biodiversity and recovery of species at risk another priority It is clear that waterpower facilities have been having ongoing negative impacts on aquatic species for a century The two are not necessarily diametrically opposed if effective mitigation of waterpower is required and strategic approaches are adopted (where, when, how).

41 Proposed Changes to Environmental Legislation Implications of recent proposed changes to environmental legislation are troubling Appear to make overly discretionary legislation even more so: subject to whims Unclear if there will be much if any aboriginal or public consultation before these changes are made Streamlining approvals processes will be a good thing, weakening policy and legislation could unravel the balance that had been achieved. Effective mitigation of impacts is key to maintaining balance between development and conservation

42 Final Thoughts Cumulative effects of dams and waterpower on Ontario s migratory fish species have been substantial over the past century Ontario has incurred a significant ecological and biodiversity debt Mitigation of effects should be strategic but routine for migratory species Approvals of new facilities should include assessment of existing effects

43 Final Thoughts cont d Recovery goals should not be ensuring mere presence, it should also include restoration of some benefits Balance not simple trade-offs should be the norm Partnerships are key