SECOND INTERIM REPORT

TO THE NECHAKO ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT

FUND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

APRIL 8, 2000

  TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0  INTRODUCTION

Two years of intensive effort and development work culminated on June 29, 1998 when nineteen organizations representing people with diverse backgrounds and interests formalized their membership in the Nechako Watershed Council (NWC).  The Council’s purpose is to:

“Enhance the long-term health and viability of the Nechako Watershed with consideration for all interests, and to provide a forum to address water management and related issues in the Watershed and to work toward cooperative resolution of these issues.”

This is the Council’s second interim report to the Nechako Environmental Enhancement Fund (NEEF) Management Committee.  The first interim report, which was tabled with the Nechako Environmental Enhancement Fund at its first community workshop on October 16 – 17, 1999 introduced the structure, history, achievements and potential of the Council.

The report also made the following recommendation with respect to the focus of the NEEF Management Committee:

“Based on the process and analysis the NWC has undertaken to date, the NWC believes that spending NEEF monies on a water release facility of some kind at the Kenney Dam may provide the best opportunity to enhance the downstream environment of the Nechako Watershed area.

The NWC believes that the NEEF Management Committee should focus the majority of its upcoming efforts on thoroughly investigating certain aspects of a water release facility at Kenney Dam.”

Since that time, membership in the Council has increased to twenty-three organizations, as listed in Appendix A.  The Council has continued to focus on developing its capacity to provide informed, consistent and consensus-based advice to the Nechako Environmental Enhancement Fund Management Committee.  This Second Interim Report presents the result of those efforts to date.

A more-detailed review of the development of the Council and its Terms of Reference is contained in the Council’s First Interim Report to the NEEF Management Committee.

2.0  OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NECHAKO WATERSHED COUNCIL

Since the October 1999 NEEF Workshop, the Nechako Watershed Council has met on three occasions: November 26 – 27, 1999 in Terrace, January 21 – 23, 2000 at Grassy Plains, and March 3 – 5, 2000 in Smithers.  In addition, the Coordinating Committee and other subcommittees have continued to meet regularly in the interim.  These sessions have focused on two primary objectives:

·        Completing the process of becoming informed on interests and identified issues in the watershed; and

·        Investigating water release facility options to attempt to resolve problems and reconcile interests.

The November 1999 meeting reviewed the October 1999 NEEF Workshop proceedings and addressed issue management mechanisms, as discussed under section 3.0, below.

The January 2000 meeting was held in Grassy Plains at the invitation of the Cheslatta Carrier Nation, and was attended by representatives of the Nee Tahi Buhn and Skin Tyee First Nations.  Participants in this session received presentations from ranching and recreation interests in the areas adjoining the Cheslatta River and the Nechako Reservoir.  As well, participants received a comprehensive technical refresher on the objectives and concepts for a Water Release Facility (WRF) and engaged in an interactive exercise where participants’ interests were translated into certain “common threads” and in turn into key elements for a water release facility.

Following this meeting, the Council wrote to Fisheries and Oceans Canada requesting their level of participation in the Council increase to include policy-level as well as technical-level personnel.  Although the Council understands the Department is considering this request, there has been no formal response to date.

The March meeting focused on preparation for the April 2000 NEEF Workshop and the presentation of further information on topics such as the Cheslatta Carrier Nation’s Cheslatta Redevelopment Plan, natural inflows in the Murray-Cheslatta system, and the Cheslatta Fan.

In keeping with the Council’s Terms of Reference regarding openness, transparency and inclusiveness, significant effort has been directed to communicating the Council’s efforts to the widest possible audience.  In particular:

·        each Council meeting has been followed by circulation of a detailed press release summarizing the proceedings and highlights;

·        Council has responded to increasing numbers of public inquiries and concerns;

·        a University of Northern British Columbia undergraduate student’s research project is examining the perceptions and potentials of the Council; and

·        a subcommittee struck at the January 2000 meeting is finalizing a comprehensive Public Awareness Project which is intended to raise public awareness, reinforce the Council’s commitment to openness, transparency and inclusiveness and garner support for favorable NEEF recommendations.  

A “Members Information Package” has also been developed to assist in orientation of new members.

During the 2000/2001 fiscal year, the Nechako Watershed Council has identified the following priority steps:

Step 1:             Converting Interests into Options

·        Continue identifying and acquiring information required;

·        Select a Water Release Facility option or alternative; and

·        Imaging the flows required to meet common objectives.

Step 2:             Converting Options into Reality

·        Recommendations to NEEF, with short- and long-term support of the NEEF process;

·        Public relations and awareness;

·        Relations with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada); and

·        Strengthen Nechako Watershed Council participation.

In the longer term, priorities will include supporting and assisting implementation of appropriate NEEF decisions and defining the future role of Nechako Watershed Council.

3.0  ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR A WATER RELEASE FACILITY

Following participation in the June 1998 Cold Water Release Facility workshop, an ongoing process was implemented to examine these options in detail.

3.1  Cold Water Release Facility Subcommittee

At its September 12-13, 1998 meeting in Kemano, members of the Council examined how building a water release facility at Kenney Dam might resolve outstanding issues in the Nechako Watershed.

Twenty-three issues were identified as significant both to persons and groups involved in the NWC process, and to persons and groups who had chosen not to participate in the NWC at that time.  Issues were accepted as presented.  All issues were considered equally important and given equal weight in discussions.  Of the ten alternative designs for a Water Release Facility known to the Council at that time, four were found to hold the greatest promise of resolving all or a significant portion of the seven issues most frequently identified by the attending members.

A Subcommittee was struck to see how these four WRF alternatives would address all twenty-three identified issues.  The Subcommittee rated the effectiveness of each of the four alternatives in addressing the issues that had been identified at that time.  The process refined the statements of issues, identified information gaps and confirmed that a Water Release Facility would provide increased flexibility to manage environmental and water flow issues in the watershed.

The Subcommittee made two recommendations to the council:

·        The Council devote time at upcoming meetings to clearly define and/or state the issues; and

·        The Council obtain technical assistance for defining various issues and for evaluating various options for their resolution.

3.2  The issues that were identified at the Kemano meeting have been added to and refined over time.  The current list of these issues is attached as Appendix B.  

3.2  Information Gathering

Following the recommendations of the Subcommittee, as a preliminary step in reaching a common understanding of the issues, the Council organized a thorough series of presentations to examine each one in detail.  Council members have also gained an “on the ground” understanding of the watershed through a variety of field trips.

A full list of presentations and site visits up to the date of the first NEEF Workshop is set out in the Council’s First Interim Report to the NEEF Management Committee.  Information presentations to Council since that time were as follows:

November 26-27, 1999, Terrace:

·        Wally Eamer, BC Environment re: Water Licensing Quarterly Report.

January 21-23, 2000, Grassy Plains/Burns Lake:

·        Kathy Hoesing, Tweedsmuir Recreation Commission re: local issues;

·        Clyde Mitchell, Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. and Chris Wilson, Klohn-Crippen re: Aspects of a Water Release Facility at Kenney Dam;

·        Nathan Nicholas, Southside Farmers Institute re: local issues; and

·        Eric Sykes, Nechako Environmental Enhancement Fund Management Committee re: status.

March 3-5, 2000, Smithers:

·        Mike Robertson, Cheslatta Carrier Nation, re: Cheslatta Redevelopment Project;

·        Glen Davidson, BC Environment re: Murray/Cheslatta Historic Flows;

·        Glen Davidson, BC Environment, Jason Hwang, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Clyde Mitchell, Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. re: Cheslatta Fan;

·        Gwyndolyn Nicholas, Southside Economic Development Association re: local issues;

·        Rick Krehbiel, Lheidli T’enneh re: First Nation issues; and

·        Don Timlick, Alcan and Clyde Mitchell, Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. re: Skins Lake Spillway Maintenance Program.

Two tools are also being developed to manage information on the full range of identified issues and options.  These tools are:

·        Issue Records, which are maintained for each of the identified issues; and

·        An Issues and Optional Solutions Scoping Matrix, which is being designed to summarize the issues and key considerations affecting them, as well as to rate the interrelationships between issues and potential options.

3.3 Aspects of a Water Release Facility at Kenney Dam

The Council continues to increase its level of knowledge with respect to the issues that have been brought to its attention.  However, given the level of knowledge the Council has gained, it took the opportunity to host a Water Release Facility “Refresher” and to explore converting participants’ interests into enhancement options at its meeting in Grassy Plains on January 22, 2000.

This process involved a thorough review of the individual interests, goals and aspirations of each Council member.  From these interests, goals and aspirations, the following common requirements or objectives for a Water Release Facility at Kenney Dam were identified:

·        Restoration of the Murray/Cheslatta watershed;

·        Continuation of flows to the Cheslatta River;

·        Year round flow from Kenney Dam (potential for power generation at Kenney Dam);

·        Ability to reduce high summer flows;

·        Ability to redistribute flows;

·        Protection of fish resources;

·        Need to maintain flood management capability; and

·        Need to meet legal agreements.  

Council then identified the basic components of a Water Release Facility which would be needed to meet each of the common objectives.  These components are summarized as follows:

Based on this analysis, the Council’s discussions focused on five Cases as presented at the January 2000 meeting.  To attempt to narrow this range of options and to establish the extent to which these facilities would satisfy the interests identified at the meeting, a number of questions were identified.  These are discussed in section 4.0 below. 

A copy of the final report on the January 22, 2000 meeting, entitled Presentation and Discussion of a Water Release Facility at Kenney Dam is attached as Appendix C” to this report.

4.0  OUTSTANDING ISSUES

In order to meet the common objectives and implement the needed components of a Water Release Facility as identified above, the following questions were identified as needing to be addressed at this time:

·        How much water should be released from the Skins Lake Spillway to achieve the goals set forth by local residents and the Cheslatta Carrier, Nee Tahi Buhn and Skin Tyee First Nations?

·        With the release of this water, will there be a sufficiently large base flow from Kenney Dam to make construction of a power generation plant economically feasible, or even justify the construction of a low-level outlet?

·        If a power generation plant is not economically feasible, what would be the rationale for constructing a low-level outlet at the dam that would allow the release of water to the Nechako Canyon year round?

·        Will a surface release facility save sufficient cooling water to allow for re-distribution of the saved water to other times of the year, while maintaining the protection for migrating salmon?  (Note: The Council understands that work is presently underway to answer this question at the request of the NEEF Management Committee.)

·        Will such a design meet the desires of the residents of the Nechako Valley to limit or reduce the fluctuations in summer flows while providing the same, or better, management of water temperatures in the Nechako River at the Stuart River confluence?

·        Will a flip bucket spillway provide the control of total dissolved gas pressure to ensure that gas supersaturation levels at Cheslatta Falls are no worse than present?

·        Are there ways of reducing the cost of the conveyance structure at Cheslatta Fan, while still meeting legal requirements?

The Council believes that the answers to these questions will allow an informed discussion to take place with respect to the type of Water Release Facility that will best satisfy the various interests that have been identified

5.0  CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Nechako Watershed Council makes the following recommendations:

First, that the Nechako Environmental Enhancement Fund Management Committee focus its activities toward answering the specific questions identified in Section 4.0, above, and summarized as follows:

·        Volume and timing of water releases from the Skins Lake Spillway needed to achieve Murray/Cheslatta redevelopment and local needs;

·        Technical and economic feasibility of power generation at Kenney Dam;

·        Whether a low-level outlet or surface release facility is necessary to meet requirements for migrating salmon while allowing for sufficient re-distribution of saved water and limitation or reduction of fluctuations in summer flows;

·        Control of total dissolved gas pressure levels at Cheslatta Falls; and

·        Conveyance of water through the Cheslatta Fan.

Second, the Nechako Watershed Council supports the use of independent reviews of specific topics and/or questions, rather than broad, encompassing reviews of all data and information.  It believes that a focused review process would be the most effective use of funds and time.  The Council supports consideration of all interests – environmental, social and economic – using the best information available, including scientific data and local knowledge.

Based on the process and analysis the NWC has undertaken to date, the NWC believes that spending NEEF monies on a water release facility of some kind at the Kenney Dam may provide the best opportunity to enhance the downstream environment of the Nechako Watershed area.

The NWC believes that the NEEF Management Committee should focus the majority of its upcoming efforts on thoroughly investigating certain aspects of a Water Release Facility at Kenny Dam.

The Nechako Watershed Council is committed to support the Nechako Environmental Enhancement Fund Management Committee in achieving these objectives.

APPENDIX A

NECHAKO WATERSHED COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP

(Alphabetically, as of March, 2000)

1.                  Alcan British Columbia

2.                  BC Trappers Association

3.                  City of Prince George

4.                  City of Terrace

5.                  Community Futures Development Corporation of Stuart-Nechako

6.                  District of Fort St. James

7.                  District of Kitimat

8.                  District of Vanderhoof

9.                  Kemano Community Association

10.              Kitimat Chamber of Commerce

11.              Lheidli T’enneh

12.              Nechako Valley Regional Cattlemen’s Association

13.              Northwest Communities Coalition

14.              Province of British Columbia

15.              Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, Area “D”

16.              Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, Area “E”

17.              Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, Area “F”

18.              Southside Economic Development Association

19.              Terrace and District Chamber of Commerce

20.              Tweedsmuir Recreation Commission

21.              University of Northern British Columbia

22.              Vanderhoof and District Chamber of Commerce

23.              Vanderhoof Fish and Game

APPENDIX “B”

List of Identified Issues

1.      Downstream licensing

2.      Non-licensed use – canoeing

3.      Float plane operations

4.      Recreational user safety

5.      Cattle wandering

6.      Flooding

7.      Aesthetic considerations

8.      Municipal sewage treatment

9.      Aquatic weeds

10.  Natural and human-induced sedimentation

11.  Water quality for recreation

12.  Changes to the nature of the river: erosion, sedimentation, gravel quality and aquatic vegetation

13.  Damage to the Murray-Cheslatta system

14.  Water temperature for migrating salmon

15.  Chinook salmon: water volumes for spawning, numbers returning

16.  Diversity and numbers of resident fish

17.  Resident fish in the Murray-Cheslatta system

18.  Fish in the Nechako Reservoir

19.  Economic development

20.  Hydro-electricity generation at Kemano

21.  Hydro-electricity generation at Kenney Dam

22.  Other concerns regarding the Nechako Reservoir

23.  Semi-aquatic furbearers along the Nechako River

APPENDIX “C”

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF

ASPECTS OF A WATER RELEASE FACILITY AT KENNEY DAM

March 22, 2000

Available upon request.  Please use feedback button at the bottom of the page and give the title you are requesting.