Water Use Planning in British Columbia Campbell River Case Study

1. Water Use Planning in British ColumbiaCampbell River Case Study Flow 2008 Conference October, 2008 San Antonio, TX Dan Ohlson, M.Sc., P.Eng., MCIP

2. The Water Use Planning Process 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. Compass Resource Management

3. 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. Compass Resource Management

4. The Process • 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 Management

5. Campbell River Watershed B.C. Vancouver Island Compass Resource Management

6. Campbell River Watershed Compass Resource Management

7. 1,500 square kms 3 Main Dams & Reservoirs 3 River Diversions Annual Inflows = 100 cms/days HUGE Hydrologic variability Campbell River Gold River next CEMA - SWWG Seminar Compass Resource Management

8. Strathcona Dam (1958) • 500 metre-long dam • 6,700 hectare reservoir • 1 Million m3 storage • High recreation use • Fish / wildlife use return Compass Resource Management

9. John Hart Dam (1947) • Significant canyon / mainstem habitat • Community water supply return Compass Resource Management

10. Heber Diversion • Inter-basin diversion, • First Nations rights • Relatively low volume, • yet high financial value • Heber River steelhead • under a recovery plan Compass Resource Management return

11. 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 Compass Resource Management

12. Influence Diagrams Compass Resource Management

13. Influence Diagrams Compass Resource Management

14. Object Direction of preference 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 Compass Resource Management

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 Management

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 Management

17. Example 1: Effective Littoral Zone Objective: Reservoir Fish Measure of overall fish productivity (abundance) Units = hectares / year Compass Resource Management

18. Example 2 – Weighted User Days Objective: Reservoir Recreation Measure of quality and opportunity for recreation Units = weighted user days Compass Resource Management

19. Summary: Objectives & PMs Compass Resource Management

20. Modelling Overview Compass Resource Management

21. Summary Consequence Table next Compass Resource Management

22. Highlighting Tradeoffs Compass Resource Management

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 Management

24. “Rank the alternatives in order of preference” Top Down (holistically) “How important is a 15% gain in fish habitat relative to a loss of 25 quality recreation days?” Bottom Up (analytically) Making Trade-offs Two basic ways to explore trade-offs and preferences: Compass Resource Management

25. 4 50 80 2 100 1 3 70 5 40 6 10 Method 1: Direct Ranking Compass Resource Management

26. 1 100 100 1 2 50 1 100 3 50 2 70 4 10 Method 2: Swing Weighting Compass Resource Management

27. Uncovering Bias and Anchoring Compass Resource Management

28. Informing the Negotiations Compass Resource Management

29. Working Toward Consensus Compass Resource Management

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 Management

31. Building the Package Final Operating Alternatives Monitoring Programs Physical Works Compass Resource Management

32. Final Outcome Compass Resource Management

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 Management

34. THANKS!