water use planning in british columbia campbell river case study flow 2008 conference october, 2008...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
Campbell River Watershed
6Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
returnCompass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
10
Heber Diversion
• Inter-basin diversion, First Nations rights
• Relatively low volume, yet high financial value
• Heber River steelhead under a recovery plan
returnCompass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
11Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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”
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
17
Example 1: Effective Littoral Zone
Objective: Reservoir Fish Measure of overall fish productivity (abundance)
Units = hectares / year
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
18
Example 2 – Weighted User Days
Objective: Reservoir Recreation Measure of quality and opportunity for recreation
Units = weighted user days
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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)
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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.
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Recreation -Days / Year
SpawningHabitat -Cutthroat
Flooding -Total Days
Recreation -Days / Year
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
31
Building the Package
Monitoring
ProgramsPhysical
Works
Final
Operating
Alternatives
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
32
Final Outcome
Upper Campbell Reservoir
+ reduced shoreline erosion
+ improved recreation
+ improved fish productivity
Lower Campbell Reservoir
O no change in erosion
+ improved recreation
+ improved fish productivity
Campbell River + reduced flooding risk
- reduced recreation quality
+ improved fish productivity
System-wide + increased operating revenues
(offset by investments in monitoring and works)
+ decommissioning Heber diversion
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
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
Compass Resource ManagementOctober, 2008
THANKS!