Water Use Planning in British Columbia Campbell River Case Study Flow 2008 Conference October, 2008...

Water Use Planning in British Columbia

Campbell River Case Study

Flow 2008 Conference

October, 2008

San Antonio, TX

Dan Ohlson, M.Sc., P.Eng., MCIP

The Water Use Planning Process

2

Step 4: Confirm specific water use objectives.

Step 5: Gather additional information about impacts

Step 6: Create operating alternatives

Step 7: Assess the tradeoffs in terms of objectives.

Step 8: Document areas of consensus & disagreement.

March 6, 2008 Compass Resource Management

Case StudyCampbell River Watershed

Hydropower Facilities on Vancouver Island with capacity of ~ 250 MW (52%)

World-famous Chinook salmon runs and endangered steelhead runs

Facilities within B.C.’s oldest Provincial Park – significant recreation use area

First Nations resource claims under negotiation; particular controversy over inter-basin water transfers.

3Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008

The Process

4

Planning Period 2000 – 2003 20 Consultative Committee meetings Dozens of Technical Committee meetings

Fish, Wildlife, Recreation, First Nations

Participants: BC Hydro (Crown Corporation) Federal Government (DFO) Provincial Government (MOE) Local Government First Nations Local Business, Residents

Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008

Campbell River Watershed

5

B.C.VancouverIsland


Campbell River Watershed


CEMA - SWWG Seminar 7

1,500 square kms

3 Main Dams & Reservoirs

3 River Diversions

Annual Inflows = 100 cms/days

HUGE Hydrologicvariability

Gold River

CampbellRiver

nextCompass Resource Management

October, 2008

8

Strathcona Dam (1958)

• High recreation use• Fish / wildlife use

• 500 metre-long dam• 6,700 hectare reservoir • 1 Million m3 storage

returnCompass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008

9

John Hart Dam (1947)

• Significant canyon / mainstem habitat • Community water supply


10

Heber Diversion

• Inter-basin diversion, First Nations rights

• Relatively low volume, yet high financial value

• Heber River steelhead under a recovery plan


From Issues to Objectives

Initial “Issues List” developed through: Public open houses Past technical planning efforts Initial Committee brainstorming

Translated into explicit planning Objectives by: Screening assessments and scope /process definition Use of influence diagrams


12

Influence Diagrams

FISHPOPULATIONS

M IG R A TIO N In O ut

S P A W N IN G H A B ITA T Functional Spaw ning

H abita t

D IR E C T IM P A C TS Stranding R isk D isplacem ent R isk

R IV E RC H A R A C TE R

W AT ERQ U ALIT Y

SU BST R AT E R IPAR IAN VEG

R E A R IN G H A B ITA T Functional R earing

H abita t

S TR A N D IN G

D IS P LA C E M E N T

P A S S A G E Flow R isk

OPERATIONS

FLOW RATES

RAMPING

SPILLS


13

Influence Diagrams

RESERVOIRLEVELS

FLO ATIN GD EBR IS

RECREATION

OPPORTUNITIES QUALITY

DEBRISMANAGEMENT

VISU ALQ U A LITY

BO A TIN G &SW IM M IN G C O N D IT IO N S SAFET Y

DIVERSIONFLOW S

TOURISMFLOW RATES

KA YAK & C A N O EIN GC O N D IT IO N S

AC C E SS TO : BEAC H BO AT LAU N C H SH O R ELIN E

STAN D IN GD EBR IS

SH O R E LIN EER O SIO N

N O N -C O N FO R M IN GPA R K U S E

N ATU R AL H ISTO R Y


14

Setting Objectives

Recreation Enhance and protect the quality of recreation; increase the

quantity of recreation and tourism opportunities

Flooding and Erosion Minimize adverse effects of flooding and high water levels on

private and public property and personal safety

Fish Maximize the abundance and diversity of indigenous fish

populations

Wildlife Protect and enhance the quantity and quality of wildlife habitat

Object

Direction of

preference


15

Setting Objectives

Water Quality and Supply Protect and maintain drinking water quality, and maximize the

availability of drinking water supply

Heritage and Culture Protect heritage values and enhance opportunities for cultural

activities

Power / Financial Maximize the value of power generation to BC Hydro, Vancouver

Island, the District of Campbell River and the Province


16

Developing Performance Measures

Performance measures are specific metrics for comparing the predicted consequences or impacts of the alternatives on the objectives.

Calculated in their “Natural Units”


17

Example 1: Effective Littoral Zone

Objective: Reservoir Fish Measure of overall fish productivity (abundance)

Units = hectares / year


18

Example 2 – Weighted User Days

Objective: Reservoir Recreation Measure of quality and opportunity for recreation

Units = weighted user days


19

Summary: Objectives & PMs

Objectives Performance MeasuresRecreation User Days (weighted by season & elevation)

Erosion Erosion Days (weighted by elevation)

Flooding Flood Days (weighted by flow level)

Fish % Available Habitat, Risk Indexes, Littoral Zone

Wildlife Habitat Suitability Rating

Water Supply Water Quality Impact Rating

F.N. Heritage Consistency Rating

Financial Annual Revenues M$ / Year


20

Modelling Overview

S ystemO perations

M odel(A M P L)

R esu lts R eporting

(C onsequenceTab les)

P roposedA lte rnatives(O pera ting

C onstra in ts)

InputsH istorica l In flows

Facility S pecifica tions

R eservo ir Leve lsR iver F lows / R e leases

Perform ance M easure M odels

InputsC hanne l and R eservo ir C ontours

Locations and S pecifica tions o f In terest

InputsW ith in -D ay P ower D istribu tion

M arket E nergy P rices

F ish & W ild lifeM ode ls

R ecreation M ode ls

F lood ing & E rosionM odels

E lectric ity G enera tionV alue o f E nergy

(V O E ) M ode l

G H G M odel


21

Summary Consequence Table

nextCompass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008

22

Highlighting Tradeoffs

AlternativesObjective Attribute E F G H I J

Upper Campbell / Buttle LakeErosion - Days / Year weighted days (220 and 221 m) 37 13 4 3 3 3Recreation - Days / Year weighted days (217.5, 218.5, 200m by season)43 40 106 158 158 158Effective Littoral Zone hectares 91 107 93 214 215 220

Lower Campbell / McIvor / FryErosion - Days / Year weighted days (177.4 and 178.3 m) 3 27 13 0 0 0Recreation - Days / Year weighted days (175.75 - 177.8 by season) 115 43 83 167 170 167Spawning Habitat - Cutthroat % Available Habitat 78 18 95 79 79 78Spawning Habitat - Rainbow % Available Habitat 26 3 49 49 47 50

Campbell RiverFlooding - Total Days weighted days (300, 453, 530 cms) 34 48 24 59 59 59Recreation - Days / Year weighted days (28 cms - 80 cms) 66 83 51 81 79 81Total Spill Days - All Species days (Q>340cms, Sept 22 - April 15) 118 214 102 176 177 176Spawning Habitat - All Species % successful redds (Chum as indicator) 55 89 78 59 59 59Rearing Habitat - All Species "Average" risk index (scale 0 - 1) 0.53 0.48 0.53 0.50 0.49 0.49

Salmon RiverCanoe Route - Days / Year days (Q<6cms, April 1 - Oct 22) 162 167 153 204 183 204All Habitat - All Species "Average" risk index (scale 0 - 1) 0.54 0.47 0.44 0.48 0.47 0.47

System-WidePower / Financial Annual Revenue M $ / Year 68.5 64.6 68.6 65.1 65.3 64.1


23

Making Trade-offs

Principles: Explicitly asked for people’s preferences

Required that people’s choices are based on an understanding of trade-offs

Explored and discussed risk and uncertainties in all results

Used structured methods designed to improve quality of individual judgments and quality of group dialogue


24

Making Trade-offs

“Rank the alternatives in order of preference”

Top Down (holistically)

Two basic ways to explore trade-offs and preferences:

“How important is a 15% gain in fish habitat relative to a loss of 25 quality recreation days?”

Bottom Up (analytically)


25

Method 1: Direct Ranking

INSTRUCTIONS

STEP 1

STEP 2

EXERCISE

Alternative Name RankPoints

(from 0 - 100)

E

F

G

H

I

J

Rank the Alternatives with 1 being your most preferred alternative. Ties are OK.

A. Assign 100 points to the #1 ranked alternative.

B. Then, assign points to the other Alternatives to reflect their importance relative to the #1 ranked alternative.

12

35

4

6

10080

7040

50

10


26

Method 2: Swing Weighting

INSTRUCTIONS

For each table:

Table 1

LocationPerformance Measure

Units Worst Case Best Case RankPoints

(0 to 100)Upper Campbell Lake Erosion - Days / Year weighted days (220 and 221 m) 37 3

Recreation - Days / Yearweighted days (217.5, 218.5, 200m by season)40 158

Effective Littoral Zone hectares 91 220

Table 3

LocationPerformance Measure

Units Worst Case Best Case RankPoints

(from 0 to Campbell River Flooding - Total Days weighted days (300, 453, 530 cms) 59 24

Recreation - Days / Yearweighted days (28 cms - 80 cms) 51 83

Spawning Habitat - All Species% successful redds (Chum as indicator) 55 89

Rearing Habitat - All Species"Average" risk index (scale 0 - 1) 0.53 0.48

A. Rank the measures in terms of their relative importance, with a rank = 1 being your most important measure. Ties are okay.

B. Assign 100 points to the #1 ranked measure.

C. Assign points to the other measures to reflect their importance relative to the #1 ranked measure.

Remember to assign points based on how important it is to swing the measure from its worst to its best. If the range from worst to best is very small or very large, that should affect the importance you give it.

112

4231

10010050

100507010


27

Uncovering Bias and Anchoring

CC Member Mike M

Comparison of Direct Ranking versus Ranking based on Swing Weights

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Rank by Swing Weights

Ran

k b

y D

irec

t

Alternatives

E

F

G

H

I

J

45 degree line

Alternatives located on the 45 degree line have the same rank using either method of evaluation.

Alternatives located off the 45 degree line have different ranks depending on the evaluation method used.


28

Informing the Negotiations

Selected Individual Swing Weights (square point ) Compared to the

Range of Swing Weights Across All CC Members ( up-down line )

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Erosion -Days / Year

Recreation -Days / Year

EffectiveLittoral Zone

Erosion -Days / Year


SpawningHabitat -Cutthroat

Flooding -Total Days


SpawningHabitat - All

Species

RearingHabitat - All

Species

CanoeRoute -

Days / Year

All Habitat -All Species

Upper Campbell / Buttle Lake Lower Campbell / McIvor/ Fry

Campbell River Salmon River

Objective / Location - Performance Measure

Mike M


29

Working Toward Consensus

Rank of Alternatives by Stakeholder and by MethodAlternatives

StakeholderWeighting/ Ranking

MethodE F G H I J

Direct 6 5 2 1 4 3Swing 6 5 4 3 2 1Direct 6 5 1 3 4 2Swing 6 5 4 3 2 1Direct 6 3 5 1 2 4Swing 6 5 2 4 1 3Direct 5 6 4 1 3 2Swing 5 6 4 1 3 2Direct 2 3 1 4 4 4Swing 5 6 4 2 3 1Direct 3 4 1 2 4 6Swing 5 6 1 2 3 4Direct 6 2 1 3 3 3Swing 6 5 4 3 2 1Direct 2 3 1 4 4 4Swing 6 5 4 3 2 1Direct 2 6 1 5 4 3Swing 5 6 1 3 2 4Direct 3 2 1 4 5 6Swing 6 5 1 3 2 4Direct 5 6 4 1 2 3Swing 5 6 4 1 3 2Direct 6 3 2 4 5 1Swing 6 5 4 3 2 1Direct 6 5 4 3 2 1Swing 6 5 4 2 3 1Direct 2 5 1 4 3 6Swing 2 6 1 4 3 5Direct 2 3 1 4 5 6Swing 5 6 4 1 3 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15


30

Working Toward Consensus

Next Steps Included

Refining the operating alternatives for the mainstem river and diversions

Designing “physical works” or non-operating projects

Designing and prioritizing monitoring programs


31

Building the Package

Monitoring

ProgramsPhysical

Works

Final

Operating

Alternatives


32

Final Outcome

Upper Campbell Reservoir

+ reduced shoreline erosion

+ improved recreation

+ improved fish productivity

Lower Campbell Reservoir

O no change in erosion

+ improved recreation


Campbell River + reduced flooding risk

- reduced recreation quality


System-wide + increased operating revenues

(offset by investments in monitoring and works)

+ decommissioning Heber diversion


33

Lessons Learned

A structured process can help participants focus their dialogue on interests rather than positions.

Success depends on the rigorous, defensible treatment of both facts and values

Collaborative development and exploration of alternatives enabled participants to make trade-offs

Commitment to monitoring programs and their link to future decisions was key to agreements

It is possible to engage multi-party committees in technically rigorous resource management decision processes.

Process facilitators required analytical skills


THANKS!

Water Use Planning in British Columbia Campbell River Case Study Flow 2008 Conference October, 2008...

Documents

Transcript of Water Use Planning in British Columbia Campbell River Case Study Flow 2008 Conference October, 2008...