UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Revelstoke Dam : a case study of the selection, licensing and implementation of a large scale hydroelectric… Missler, Heidi Erika 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 M57.pdf [ 10.34MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097743.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097743-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097743-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097743-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097743-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097743-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097743-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097743-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097743.ris

Full Text

THE REVELSTOKE DAM: A CASE STUDY OF THE S E L E C T I O N , L I C E N S I N G AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A LARGE SCALE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN B R I T I S H COLUMBIA By HEIDI B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y  A T H E S I S SUBMITTED  ERIKA M I S S L E R of British  Columbia,  IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF  THE REQUIREMENT MASTER  FOR THE DEGREE  OF  OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f Geography)  We a c c e p t to  this  thesis  the required  as  September Erika  conforming  standard  THE U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H  QHeidi  1984  COLUMBIA  1988  Missler,  1988  In  presenting  degree freely  this  at the  thesis  in partial  University  of British  available for reference and  copying  of this  department publication  or  thesis by  of this  his or  her  The University of British 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6G/81)  study. I further agree that  Columbia  purposes  may  representatives.  thesis for financial  Department  requirements for an  Columbia, I agree that  for scholarly  permission.  Date  fulfilment of the  gain  shall  be  the Library shall permission  granted  by  It is understood not be  advanced  allowed  for  the head that  without  make it extensive of  my  copying  or  my  written  ABSTRACT Procedures energy  f o r the s e l e c t i o n ,  l i c e n s i n g and  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of l a r g e  p r o j e c t s must e v o l v e w i t h t h e e s c a l a t i n g c o m p l e x i t y o f s u c h  and. t h e c h a n g i n g  p u b l i c value system.  rapidly  c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e 1960s and  changing  Government appeared 1970s.  unresponsive  Columbia  T h i s l e d , i n 1980,  i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new  P r o j e c t Review P r o c e s s  u n d e r t h e B.C.  Utilities  Energy  The addressed  licence.  Revelstoke Project  and  by B.C.  The  procedure  only  and  under a c o n d i t i o n a l  water  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework, e s t a b l i s h e d under the failed  to provide  was  lacking.  and  of compliance w i t h environmental g u i d e l i n e s , a set of n o n s p e c i f i c  accepted and  enforcement  faire  l i c e n s e e ' s m o n i t o r i n g of c o n s t r u c t i o n p r a c t i c e s  c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s , were inadequate. were rendered  attitude.  The  case  study concluded w i t h a  environmental a n a l y s i s , which Environmental percent.  Impact Statement  Governmental  u n s a t i s f a c t o r y by s t a f f  determined  licence  effective  A s t r o n g commitment t o t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l The  and  methodological  i m p a c t s , but not s e l e c t i o n  H y d r o , l a c k e d i n t e g r a t i o n and  management.  and  analysis.  P r o j e c t implementation proceeded two-part  (EPRP)—  case s t u d y r e v e a l e d t h a t the Water Act  p r o j e c t d e s i g n , s a f e t y , and  The  licensing  of the R e v e l s t o k e e x p e r i e n c e .  i s t h a t of a post-development  justification.  the  under the Water Act  a s s e s s e s t o w h a t e x t e n t t h e c u r r e n t EPRP s e l e c t i o n and  used  to  evaluates the s e l e c t i o n , l i c e n s i n g  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e R e v e l s t o k e H y d r o e l e c t r i c Dam  approach  a p p r o v a l of  Commission A c t .  T h i s s t u d y d o c u m e n t s and  overcame the shortcomings  to  under the Water  A c t became i n c r e a s i n g l y more c o n t e n t i o u s . procedures—the  projects  Consequently,  major h y d r o e l e c t r i c development p r o j e c t s i n B r i t i s h  scale  quality  i n general commonly  surveillance  s h o r t a g e s and  a  laissez  post-development  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  i n p r e d i c t i n g impacts  the  t o be o n l y t w e n t y - f i v e  Evaluation demonstrated applied  o f t h e EPRP a n d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n that  proposal  i t i s a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement over i t s p r e d e c e s s o r .  efficiently  structure  i n t h e S i t e C Dam  and i n i t s e n t i r e t y , i t w o u l d p r o v i d e an adequate  and p r o c e d u r a l sequence f o r p r o j e c t  s e l e c t i o n and l i c e n s i n g .  H o w e v e r , some o f t h e i n a d e q u a c i e s n o t e d  i n t h e Revelstoke case  the l a c k  and government p a r t i c i p a t i o n , an  of provisions  adequate data base, analysis, thesis  f o rearly  public  an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  structure,  have not been o r o n l y p a r t i a l l y  process.  study,  such  and a p o s t - d e v e l o p m e n t  corrected.  o f f e r s some r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o f u r t h e r  evolving  If  To c o n c l u d e ,  improve t h i s  this  continually  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iv  L I S T OF TABLES  v i  L I S T OF FIGURES  v i i  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  viii  GLOSSARY CHAPTER 1.  ix THE  SELECTION  AND  LICENSING  OF LARGE SCALE ENERGY PROJECTS  1.1 H y d r o e l e c t r i c D e v e l o p m e n t i n B.C. 1.1.1 B.C. H y d r o ' s R o l e and O p e r a t i o n s 1.1.2 The R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t 1.2 O b j e c t i v e s and M e t h o d o l o g y o f t h e S t u d y 1.3 O u t l i n e o f t h e S t u d y CHAPTER 2.  SELECTION  AND  LICENSING  OF THE  REVELSTOKE PROJECT  2.1 P r e v a i l i n g P o l i c i e s a n d P r o c e d u r e s 2.2 P r o j e c t J u s t i f i c a t i o n a n d S e l e c t i o n 2.3 The W a t e r L i c e n c e A p p l i c a t i o n 2.3.1 C r i t i c i s m s of t h e Water L i c e n c e A p p l i c a t i o n Process 2.3.1.1 The H e a r i n g P r o c e s s 2.3.1.2 M a n d a t e and E x p e r t i s e o f t h e W a t e r Management B r a n c h 2.3.1.3 P r o j e c t J u s t i f i c a t i o n 2.4 The W a t e r L i c e n c e 2.4.1 The W a t e r L i c e n c e A p p e a l 2.4.2 The Amended W a t e r L i c e n c e CHAPTER 3.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK  3.1 The U n o f f i c i a l P r o g r a m 3.1.1 The C o m p o n e n t s o f t h e P r o g r a m 3.1.2 The O p e r a t i o n o f t h e P r o g r a m 3.1.3 I n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e Components 3.2 The O f f i c i a l P r o g r a m 3.2.1 The C o m p o n e n t s o f t h e P r o g r a m 3.2.2 The O p e r a t i o n o f t h e P r o g r a m 3.2.2.1 The Community I m p a c t C o m m i t t e e 3.2.2.2 The R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t C o o r d i n a t i n g C o m m i t t e e 3.2.2.3 The C l a i m s O f f i c e r 3.2.2.4 The S i t e B i o l o g i s t s 3.2.3 I n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e Components 3.3 The R e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e Two P r o g r a m s 3.4 M a j o r S h o r t c o m i n g s o f the. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Framework  1 4 4 8 11 12 17 17 21 23 27 27 29 30 31 36 38 42 43 44 47 50 51 51 58 59 67 78 80 83 83 87  V  CHAPTER 4. 4.1 4.2  THE ENVIRONMENT - GUIDELINES AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS  Contractual Requirements and Environmental Guidelines 4.1.1 Compliance Monitoring of Requirements and Guidelines Construction A c t i v i t i e s and Environmental Impacts  CHAPTER 5. 5.1  5.2 5.3 5.4  ENVIRONMENTAL PREDICTIONS AND OUTCOMES  7.1  7.2 7.3  122 122 125 127 128 130 132 134 134 135 143 144  THE CURRENT ENERGY PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA..148  The Energy Project Review Process The Site C Experience 6.2.1 The Hearing Process 6.2.2 Mandate and Expertise o f the BCUC Review Panel 6.2.3 Project Selection 6.2.3 Project J u s t i f i c a t i o n 6.2.5 The Proposed Monitoring Program  CHAPTER 7.  95 100 102 121  The Aquatic Environment and Fish Resource 5.1.1 Physical Limnological System 5.1.1.1 Reservoir 5.1.1.2 Downstream o f the Dam 5.1.2 Chemical and B i o l o g i c a l Systems 5.1.2.1 Reservoir 5.1.2.2 Downstream of the Dam The T e r r e s t r i a l Environment and W i l d l i f e Resource 5.2.1 The Land Surface 5.2.2 The W i l d l i f e Resource The Atmospheric Environment Conclusion  CHAPTER 6. 6.1 6.2  94  ;  THE REVELSTOKE EXPERIENCE AND THE CURRENT ENERGY PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA  150 157 158 160 161 162 164 168  Review o f the Revelstoke Experience... 168 7.1.1 Pre-Application .168 7.1.2 Application 169 7.1.3 Licence 170 7.1.4 Environmental Guidelines 174 7.1.5 Compliance Monitoring 175 7.1.6 Post-Development Environmental Analysis 176 Assessment of the Energy Project Review Process i n Light o f the Revelstoke Exper ience 177 Further Development of the Energy Project Review Process 184  BIBLIOGRAPHY  188  APPENDIX  199  vi L I S T OF TABLES 1.1  O p e r a t i n g S c h e d u l e o f t h e R e v e l s t o k e Dam  2.1  B.C. L e g i s l a t i o n , A g e n c i e s a n d P r o c e d u r e s i n R e l a t i o n s h i p Licensing of Selected Hydroelectric Projects  2.2  Studies  f o r Project  2.3  Intervenors  2.4  Summary o f C o n t e n t o f S e l e c t e d  3.1  Water L i c e n c e  3.2  Sussex Study - Assessment of Outstanding Issues  3.3  B.C. H y d r o F u n d i n g o f Some o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Revelstoke Project  10  22  at the Revelstoke Public Hearing C l a u s e s i n Water L i c e n c e  Clauses Administered  55 64 Framework o f t h e  C o n s t r u c t i o n A c t i v i t i e s M o n i t o r e d and E n v i r o n m e n t a l Reported by S i t e B i o l o g i s t s  5.2  5.3  33  b y t h e RPCC  4.2  5.1  Contract  26  Summary o f S e l e c t e d  Construction i n 1978  19  Selection  4.1  4.3  to the  88  Requirements and G u i d e l i n e s  97  Impacts ..104  A c t i v i t i e s M o n i t o r e d by S i t e F i s h e r i e s B i o l o g i s t 106  C o m p a r i s o n o f P r e d i c t e d and A c t u a l Environment and F i s h Resource  Impacts on t h e A q u a t i c  Comparison of P r e d i c t e d Resource  Impacts on t h e W i l d l i f e  and A c t u a l  •  Post-Development Environmental A n a l y s i s R e s u l t s  ..123  ....137 146  vii L I S T OF FIGURES 1.1  T h e C o l u m b i a R i v e r T r e a t y Dams a n d O t h e r Dams o f t h e A r e a  2.1  B.C. H y d r o ' s P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e P r o c e d u r e a n d S c h e d u l e f o r  5  Project Licensing  24  3.1  The U n o f f i c i a l  45  3.2 3.3  The O f f i c i a l P r o g r a m The R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f Columbia-Shuswap A f f e c t e d by t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t  3.4  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Framework f o r t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t : R e l a t i o n s h i p t o P u b l i c , I n d u s t r i a l and Governmental S e c t o r s . .  6.1  6.2  6.3  6.4  Program  T h e B.C. E n e r g y P r o j e c t R e v i e w C e r t i f i c a t i o n Procedures  52 - Local  Communities  61  .....85  Process: 151  The E n e r g y P r o j e c t Review P r o c e s s : P r e - A p p l i c a t i o n and A p p l i c a t i o n Phases The E n e r g y P r o j e c t C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee Three Working Committees..  152 and i t s  G e n e r a l Framework f o r Managing E n v i r o n m e n t a l and Socio-Economic Impacts  154  156  viii  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS V e r y s p e c i a l t h a n k s g o t o my s u p e r v i s o r , D r . J . D. Chapman, f o r h i s guidance a n d e n t h u s i a s t i c s u p p o r t , a n d t o M r s . M. E . N o r t h f o r h e r c o n s t r u c t i v e a d v i c e and review o f t h i s s t u d y . I w o u l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s ray a p p r e c i a t i o n t o t h e many p e o p l e a t t h e v a r i o u s Branches o f t h e M i n i s t r y o f Environment i n V i c t o r i a and N e l s o n , i n p a r t i c u l a r t o D r . J . O ' R i o r d a n , M r . G. F . C o x , M r . R. R o u n d , M r . J . H. W a l k e r , D r . R. N o r d i n , a n d M r . G. Woods. F o r t h e i r k i n d h e l p I t h a n k a l s o D r . R. B r a d l e y , M r . H. S m i t h , M r . R. R o d d i c k , a n d many o t h e r e m p l o y e e s o f B.C. H y d r o a n d P o w e r Authority.  this  Finally, thesis.  t h a n k s t o my f a m i l y who n e v e r l o s t  faith  i n my a b i l i t y  to finish  ix GLOSSARY a d j u n c t committees - p a r t of the u n o f f i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework f o r the R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t - a s e t of f i v e committees concerned w i t h problems a r i s i n g from the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the P r o j e c t . BCUC - B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a u t i l i t i e s i n B.C. CIC  Utilities  Commission  -  regulatory  - R e v e l s t o k e Community Impact Committee a d m i n i s t r a t i v e program f o r the R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t .  part  body  of  for  the  public  official  C l a i m s O f f i c e r - p a r t of the o f f i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e program f o r the R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t - r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e r e s o l u t i o n of c l a i m s <$10,000 a r i s i n g from the R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t . EARP - E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t and R e v i e w P r o c e s s assessment of f e d e r a l development p r o j e c t s .  -  responsible  for  the  e f f e c t s m o n i t o r i n g - t h e r e p e a t e d measurement o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s t o d e t e r m i n e what e n v i r o n m e n t a l change has r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n o f a d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t . EIA  - e n v i r o n m e n t a l impact assessment - process t h a t attempts t o p r e d i c t and a s s e s s t h e p o t e n t i a l i m p a c t s o f p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t and t o recommend m i t i g a t i v e m e a s u r e s f o r a d v e r s e i m p a c t s .  EIS  - environmental impact statement - r e p o r t that d e s c r i b e s the p r e development state o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t and t h e p o t e n t i a l impacts ( e n v i r o n m e n t a l , s o c i a l , and e c o n o m i c ) o f a d e v e l o p m e n t o n t h a t e n v i r o n m e n t .  ELUC - E n v i r o n m e n t and L a n d Use C o m m i t t e e - a B.C. Cabinet e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a n d L a n d Use A c t ( 1 9 7 1 ) .  identify, projects,  committee  EPCC - E n e r g y P r o j e c t C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee - c o o r d i n a t e s the r e v i e w o f r e g u l a t e d p r o j e c t s and a d v i s e s t h e M i n i s t e r o f E n e r g y , M i n e s , and P e t r o l e u m R e s o u r c e s and t h e M i n i s t e r o f E n v i r o n m e n t a t v a r i o u s s t a g e s i n t h e E n e r g y P r o j e c t R e v i e w P r o c e s s . Members a r e : D i r e c t o r o f P r o j e c t A n a l y s i s B r a n c h , M i n i s t r y o f E n e r g y , M i n e s , and P e t r o l e u m R e s o u r c e s , D i r e c t o r o f A s s e s s m e n t B r a n c h , M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t and a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e B.C. U t i l i t i e s Commission s t a f f . EPRP - E n e r g y Project Review Process - process f o r the review c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f e n e r g y p r o j e c t s o f 20 MW o r m o r e , e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r B.C. U t i l i t i e s A c t ( 1 9 8 0 ) . FEARO - F e d e r a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t and R e v i e w O f f i c e - r e s p o n s i b l e t h e M i n i s t e r o f t h e E n v i r o n m e n t f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f EARP. FWB  - F i s h and W i l d l i f e B r a n c h - an agency o f E n v i r o n m e n t , whose mandate i s t h e management resources.  and the  to  t h e B.C. Ministry of o f f i s h and w i l d l i f e  X  Impact M o n i t o r - p a r t o f t h e u n o f f i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o g r a m o f t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t - r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m o n i t o r i n g s o c i a l and economic i m p a c t s on t h e C i t y o f R e v e l s t o k e a n d n e i g h b o r i n g c o m m u n i t i e s . IMC  - Impact M o n i t o r i n g Committee - s e t up by R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t Shuswap t o s u p e r v i s e a n d g i v e s u p p o r t t o t h e I m p a c t M o n i t o r .  of Colurabia-  L o c a l Impact Committee - p a r t o f t h e u n o f f i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e frameworkresponsible f o r processing claims at the l o c a l level i n Revelstoke. M i n i s t e r o f EMPR - M i n i s t e r o f E n e r g y ,  Mines,  and P e t r o l e u m  Resources.  M i n i s t r y o f EMPR - M i n i s t r y o f E n e r g y ,  Mines,  and P e t r o l e u m  Resources.  o f f i c i a l program - t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework f o r t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t s e t up u n d e r t h e w a t e r licence. I t c o n s i s t e d o f t h e Community Impact Committee, t h e R e v e l s t o k e C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee, t h e C l a i m s O f f i c e r , and two s i t e b i o l o g i s t s , a l l u n d e r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e C o m p t r o l l e r o f Water R i g h t s . RPCC - R e v e l s t o k e program.  Project  C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee  -  part  of the  official  s t u d y a r e a - t h e a r e a t h a t was m o n i t o r e d f o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s a r i s i n g from the Revelstoke P r o j e c t . I t i s t h e Columbia R i v e r drainage b a s i n b e t w e e n M i c a Dam a n d t h e C i t y o f R e v e l s t o k e ( 5 4 0 0 km^, s e e F i g u r e 1 . 1 . ) . u n o f f i c i a l program - t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework f o r t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t s e t up b y B.C. H y d r o . I t c o n s i s t e d o f t h e L o c a l Impact Committee, t h e Impact M o n i t o r and t h e A d j u n c t Committees.  1 CHAPTER 1 THE  SELECTION AND  LICENSING  OF  LARGE SCALE ENERGY PROJECTS The  selection  development  and  projects  contentious.  has  cost-benefit  of  r e s o u r c e development in  ( a p p r o v a l ) of  become  increasingly  I n Canada, the l a t e  of  and  licensing  the  analysis  early  as  1950s and  a major  projects  1970s,  concerns  introduction  of  environmental impact  thereafter,  to  social  reflected  the  increased  impact pace  societal  v a l u e s and,  i n turn,  body  legislation  and  of  provincial  levels  of  Nevertheless, procedures public's rapid  change  i n the  1970s  public's  (Heberlein,  serious  Concerns  questioning  the  policy  Later  led  and,  l e d to  without  their  about  public  policies  had  grown  attitude  1976).  The  The  and  the  largely  Project  review  social of  impact  project  and  the  changing growing  federal  and  r e v i e w and  out  of  phase  the  environment  e n v i r o n m e n t i t s e l f was the s t a b i l i t y  environmental d i s t u r b a n c e were  conflicts.  h a v i n g been j u s t i f i e d  particular, within  a p p r o v a l procedures were  assessment  justification  of  the s p e c i f i c  being  outside  and  the  projects  to  proposed  narrow  a  natural  p e r c e i v e d as  accompanied  the broad  limited  single, the  with  a  n e c e s s a r y f o r human  However, l e g i s l a t i v e  In  approval  e n v i r o n m e n t a l movement c a u s e d  toward  of the growth e t h i c .  numerous  need  to  quickly  expressed i n a the  1960s  innovations  and  c h a n g e s w e r e s l o w t o d e v e l o p and t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f l a r g e s c a l e projects  selection  In the  procedural  both  and  introduction  resource developments,  requirements, at  n a t u r a l resource, fundamental i n maintaining survival.  consuming,  procedures  These  public  changing value system.  i n the  resource sectors  1962).  based  government.  f o r r e s o u r c e development  quickly  of  evolving  regulatory  1960s saw  assessment  scale  time  environmental impact  assessment.  and  resource  t o t h e e v a l u a t i o n and  et a l . ,  about  scale  complex,  early  approach  (Sewell  large  development approved  context.  environmental project,  mandate  of  the  procedural  were  policy  by  the  and  issue  the approving  2 agency.  The n e e d  groups—the of  developer,  accommodating  public  to identify  into  exercise with  little  Large  scale  rather  differences  resource  development  these  projects  were  and  conflicts  arose  implicitly  A stronger  better  (Burch,  environmental  impact  m u s t be i m p r o v e d tool  of  Larkin, could  1984).  not help the  demand  of l a r g e  1976; G r i m a , assessment  1985).  I n the face but respond  tradition  interactions policy resource were  with  sciences  already  perfunctory  by  1985).  government,  change  i n the  t o a more p a r t i c i p a t o r y  scale  development  would  of  those  (Beanlands  fairer  t o government a c c o u n t a b i l i t y be  i n the public's  interest  A d d i t i o n a l l y , the experience  and  to  shown t h a t  Duinker,  with  i t , too,  assessment  1 9 8 3 ; Henshaw,  1984;  o f t h e s e p e r s i s t e n t demands f o r c h a n g e , g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e 1 9 8 0 s saw t h e e v o l u t i o n o f p u b l i c of  the d i s c i p l i n e .  new  selection,  This  b y g e o g r a p h e r s who  (O'Riordan, J . , 1981). techniques  policies  approval,  and  projects.  d e v e l o p m e n t h a s g r o w n up w i t h i n t h e  i n the environmental,  w r i t i n g about  projects  an e f f e c t i v e and i n t e g r a t i v e  introduction  and t e s t e d  management  direct  made ( G r i m a ,  for a  ( E I A ) t o date had c l e a r l y  t o become  projects  accompanying  that  geographer's i n t e r e s t i n resource  man-land  a  ways  a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n l e v e l was p e r c e i v e d  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n procedures f o r l a r g e s c a l e development The  to find  forum.  the public's  decisions  i n order  development  participant  a n d more m e a n i n g f u l p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n a t t h e p o l i c y -  informed  1976; L u c a s ,  only  sanctioned  from a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  t h e s e l e c t i o n and a p p r o v a l  to  major  Furthermore,  generally  more c r e d i b l e ( C a s e e t a l . , 1 9 8 3 ) b y l e a d i n g  and  and  was  approved w i t h i n the p u b l i c  making, program o r p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l , render  not addressed.  development  decision-making process i t s e l f : democracy.  was  o r no e f f e c t o n t h e a c t u a l d e c i s i o n s  than e x p l i c i t l y  From  of the three  t h e government, and s o c i e t y a t l a r g e — a n d  their  input  the objectives  growth  has  behavioral,  been  enriched  management,  by and  a r e p r o f e s s i o n a l l y engaged i n  I n t h e 1960s C a n a d i a n  of project  assessment  geographers  (Sewell  et a l . ,  3 1962)  and  the  international works  river  basins  on r e s o u r c e a n d  Kates, of  institutional  1965;  that  White,  decade  required  (Chapman, 1 9 6 3 ) .  By  O'Riordan,  emphasis  on  T.,  the  1971;  general  for  early  approach,  as  the  1971,  role  of  and  reflecting  perceptions  and  and  general  by  way  the to  of  the  i n r e s o u r c e management  the  first  writings  by  management  decisions  (Draper,  1975),  a  ever since  (Owen, 1985; G r i m a ,  1985).  A l s o i n the mid-1970s geographers  t o f o c u s upon e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t y of  environmental impact  and T u r k h e i m ,  in  the mid-1970s  the e a r l y and  now  1980s  administrative (Mitchell,  ( O ' R i o r d a n , T.  has  constitutes  Sewell,  another established  1974) and  by  some  evolved  1976;  began and  Mitchell  a major  on t h e  r e s o u r c e management  area  policy,  also  started  1977), matured  1981b; M i t c h e l l  and  of  rapidly  the character  Writing  Mitchell,  was  i n resource  developed i n t o  1985).  J a c k s o n , 1976;  and  has  techniques ( M i t c h e l l ,  aspects of  1975;  which  (Berry et a l . ,  assessment  followed  participation  sub-theme  e n q u i r y ( M a c l a r e n and W h i t n e y ,  and  quickly  public  1 9 7 7 ) , a n o t h e r sub-theme w h i c h  of g e o g r a p h i c a l institutional  on  more  behavioral  (Sewell  geographers  end  resources.  documented  role  T h i s was  of  ( B u r t o n and  and  giving  influence  attitudes  B u r t o n , 1971).  1970s m a j o r  M a c N e i l , 1971) theme was  the  development  been p u b l i s h e d  f o c u s s e d l i n e s of e n q u i r y o f t e n i n the c o n t e x t of w a t e r As  the  the e a r l y  e n v i r o n m e n t a l management h a d  1971;  the  arrangements  Sewell,  sub-theme f o r g e o g r a p h e r s  in  1981)  i n t h e more  g e n e r a l c o n t e x t o f r e s o u r c e management. In  this  thesis  several  i n a s t u d y o f one  major  and  of  construction  hindsight (1971), (1986)  and S e w e l l  upon  which  benefits  the from  t h e sub-themes n o t e d above have been  project,  t h e R e v e l s t o k e Dam,  extended  or post-development  draws and  of  over  thirteen  type of a n a l y s i s  methodology  more  (1983).  years  reflects  recently  the c o n c e p t u a l framework  ( 1 9 8 1 a ) and S a d l e r  the planning,  combined  licensing,  (1971-1983). the work  developed  by  d e v e l o p e d by  of  Munro  This  Mitchell et a l .  O'Riordan,  T,  4  1.1  HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT IN B.C. Hydroelectric  when  two s m a l l  Island  (1898)  Development  development  generating  i n B.C. s t a r t e d  plants  and Vancouver  were  built  at the turn  t o serve  on t h e M a i n l a n d (1903)  proceeded s l o w l y  and on a s m a l l  when t h e p r o v i n c i a l government  embarked  scale  Rivers.  Also  Hydro the  and Power A u t h o r i t y  B.C. E l e c t r i c  a n d t h e B.C. P o w e r  1.1.1  mandate  market  corporate  1963-1987).  the early  1960s,  on t h e Columbia and Peace  i n 1962, t h e Government  by amalgamating  a private  f o r m e d B.C.  two p u b l i c  utility  utilities,  expropriated  i n  1961)  Commission.  o f B.C. H y d r o  energy  a s needed  economic  while  supplying  1975,  p.  goal  power  16) a l s o  priorities and  (formerly  (B.C. Hydro,  B.C. HYDRO'S ROLE AND OPERATION The  and  policy  (B.C. Hydro)  Company  on Vancouver  on a p o l i c y o f h y d r o - i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n  1987), w h i c h l e d t o t h e megaprojects b u i l t of this  Victoria  up u n t i l  (Sewell,  i n the light  of the century,  i s typical  and s u b j e c t  " t o achieve t o consumers  governs  f o r a public  utility:  t o government  financial  stability  a t lowest  possible  B.C. H y d r o ' s  t o produce  policies.  But the  and s e l f s u f f i c i e n c y costs"  operation.  The  (B.C. Hydro, Corporation's  t h e n a r e t o meet a l l e x p e c t e d e n e r g y demands a s t h e y f o r e c a s t  to establish  independent  a healthy  corporation.  credit  rating  i n order  t o remain  C o n s e q u e n t l y , and f a c i l i t a t e d  hydro-industrialization  policy,  the Public  a  them  financially  by t h e government's  Utility  has  consistently  overplanned s i n c e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e 1970's. B.C. watershed River  Hydro  the f i r s t  i n southeastern  Treaty,  finished  built  signed  B.C. ( F i g u r e  by Canada  i n 1967, t h e K e e n l e y s i d e  Dam, o p e r a t i o n a l  three  megaprojects  i n the Columbia  1.1) a s c a l l e d  a n d t h e U.S.A.  f o r by t h e Columbia  i n 1964.1  The D u n c a n  Dam, c o m p l e t e d a y e a r l a t e r ,  i n 1973, p r o v i d e d f l o o d  control storage.  River  Dam,  and t h e M i c a  The l a t t e r was a l s o  5 Figure  1.1  The C o l u m b i a R i v e r T r e a t y Dams and O t h e r Dams o f t h e A r e a (B.C. H y d r o , u n d a t e d )  6 a power  dam w i t h  The  1736 m e g a w a t t (MW)  hydroelectric  d e v e l o p e d b y B.C. 1980  potential  of  and  i n 1980  the Revelstoke  Project  Even embarked  energy generation  prior  reaching  i t s ultimate  s t u d i e s were Site  by  came  into  the S i t e  other major r i v e r  basins,  (1410  underway  i n the i n t e r i o r  been  connecting  of  ( p o s s i b l e i n 1984 Dam  (210  MW)  system,  B.C.  Hydro  had  The G.M.  Shrum  operational  in  1968,  2416  i n 1979,  the  Peace  MW  700  MW.  In  and the  mid-1970s,  s t a t i o n on t h e Peace R i v e r ,  sought  for this  project  i n 1980  the but  developments planned f o r the  plant  ( 7 5 0 MW)  and  the  diversion  in  the L i a r d the  River  southern  ( 8 2 0 0 MW)  Coast  of  B.C.  During this overall  and  and  Columbia  and  and t h e S k e e n a  a t t h e B.C./Yukon  border,  Mountains,  various  (B.C. Hydro,  thermal-electric  southern  ( 3 0 2 5 MW)2  ( 3 8 0 0 MW)  f o r a major  strengthened Peace  Hydro had a l s o e v a l u a t e d t h e p o t e n t i a l o f  s u c h as t h e S t i k i n e - I s k u t  MW)  ( 1 8 0 0 MW).  the  diversion  became  with  E generating  i n n o r t h w e s t e r n B.C.,  coal deposits had  One)  Additional  two d e c a d e s , B.C.  d e v e l o p m e n t s on t h e F r a s e r  MW)  the  were  River.  Over t h e l a s t  plans were  Columbia  i n 1981  i n 1983.  Studies  C r e e k ( 3 0 0 MW),  i n n o r t h e a s t e r n B.C.  capacity  A p p r o v a l was  t h e government  Homathko  i n 1984.  1963-1987).  the  (Site  service  ( 9 0 0 MW).  of the McGregor  ( 1 0 8 0 MW)  plant  generating  Peace R i v e r b a s i n were  the  of  further  Seven M i l e i n  of the Keenleyside  commenced f o r a n o t h e r g e n e r a t i n g  C project  refused  (B.C. Hydro,  the development  generating  facility  ( 1 8 0 0 MW)  the use  on a p r o g r a m on t h e Peace R i v e r  hydroelectric  Canyon  to  ( 5 9 2 . 7 MW),  the Columbia R i v e r at Canal F l a t s  under t h e C o l u m b i a R i v e r T r e a t y ) and  1976.  C o l u m b i a w a t e r s h e d was  f o r t h e development o f Murphy  of the Kootenay R i v e r i n t o  for electric  the  c a p a c i t y by  H y d r o w i t h K o o t e n a y C a n a l i n 1976  ( 6 0 7 . 5 MW)  initiated  of i n s t a l l e d  1975).  project  the p o s s i b l e  a t Hat  use  River  by  the  generating  Furthermore, Creek  of East  time the transmission l i n e especially  and  addition  systems, a  (5000  Kootenay  grid of line  a to  line the  7 Alberta  b o r d e r , and  Vancouver  Island  the  governing  and  and  and  lagged  from  o p e r a t i o n have in  1962.  impacts  of  the Mainland  public  B.C.  concerns,  changed  Public  projects  changes  i n project  over the l a s t  long—approaching M o r e t i m e was  had  t e n y e a r s " (B.C. Hydro,  needed f o r t h e assessment  S e v e n M i l e Dam (EIS)  i n t h e m i d - 1 9 7 0 s , B.C.  was  t h e f i r s t dam  been p r e p a r e d .  assessment  of  works,  well  as  1975,  called  more  was  i t "distressingly  of impacts of proposed  and  of  a matter  by t h e t i m e o f  arising  analysis  had  The  statement  the EIS i n c l u d e d  impacts  extensive cost-benefit  letter).  projects.  f o r w h i c h an e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t  impacts  B.C.  assessment,  p. 6 of i n t r o d u c t o r y  For the Revelstoke P r o j e c t  socio-economic a  Hydro  escalated  twenty-five years.  time f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a megaproject  Revelstoke Project  about  T h o u g h r e s p o n s e by  a few y e a r s f o r t h e C o l u m b i a R i v e r T r e a t y Dams i n t h e 1 9 6 0 s ,  the  to  considerably  concerns  Hydro's  became b e t t e r o r g a n i z e d .  a p p r o v a l p r o c e d u r e s have been s i g n i f i c a n t Whereas t h e l e a d  of  Hydro's  socio-economic  government  power  1963-1987).  formation  opposing i n t e r e s t groups  Hydro  transmit electric  B.C.  Corporation's  environmental and  to  (B.C. Hydro,  Conditions since  another  an  from  ancillary  been  conducted  (O'Riordan, J . , 1981). Also  the  establishment under  the  strict  B.C.  procedure  regulatory  Utilities and  Act  became  b o d y , t h e B.C.  in  1980,  introduced the  t h a n a y e a r and  c o n s t r u c t i o n was C Dam  was  more  Energy  time  Utilities  p l a c e d B.C.  a p p r o v a l f o r the Revelstoke P r o j e c t  considered, the S i t e under  approval  o f a new  regulation  Whereas less  project  Commission  Hydro's  Project under  consuming.  Review  i n 1983  Process  the Water Act  following  (BCUC),  operation  a l l o w e d t o p r o c e e d w h i l e an  rejected  The  under  (EPRP).  (1960) appeal  a three year  took was  review  t h e EPRP. The  reduced  government's electric  rejection  energy  growth  of  the  Site  C  p r o j e c t was  demands r e s u l t i n g  from  an  based economic  on  the  much  recession.  8 The  decision also  future, the be  signified  i f w a r r a n t e d by  proposed built.  load  generating The  Hydro g r i d  government  longer  a t Murphy  planned  Mines  that  and  term surplus  Resources,  d e p e n d e d on a c c e s s t o t h e U.S. Bonneville  Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  The Higher  economic  interest  arising  from  Emphasis  on  electric However,  recession  rates  the  greatly  was  f o r m e r was  demand e x c e e d e d  that  by  B.C.  Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  were  Hydro  S i t e C would  predicted  2004  Project  1.1.2  that  (Vancouver  Sun,  reopened  1987,  Based  no also  the  U.S.A. the  From  of  the  and  Hat  the  postponed  Hydro  planning  1986 and  (B.C.  on,  policies. large  megaprojects.  Creek  Hydro,  actual  negotiations  debt  thermal1963-1987).  electric with  energy  Bonneville  C o n s e q u e n t l y , i n mid-1988  needed  by  However,  t h e y e a r 2001 as  of  and K e e n l e y s i d e  1988, in  B.C.  the R e v e l s t o k e  B.C.  REVELSTOKE PROJECT on t h e e x t r e m e l y h i g h  1960s ( a v e r a g e > 1 4 % ) , B.C. late  the  Energy,  r e s t r i c t e d by  built  remains the l a s t h y d r o e l e c t r i c megaproject b u i l t  THE  to  recently  reduced  1988).  Hydro's  servicing  i n 1987. be  exports  to  small  power b u t  ( M i n i s t r y of  T h i s was  B.C.  the  indefinitely  forecast  of  as  mid-1980s.  e x p e n d i t u r e s of  short-lived.  energy  lines.  affected  was  were  areas outside  term s u r p l u s  However,  increased  construction  development the  i n the also  capital  project  In  e n e r g y e x p o r t p o l i c y was  short  transmission  construction  i n remote  electric  1983b).  K e e n l e y s i d e Dam, the  Furthermore, the e l e c t r i c  of f i r m , long  Petroleum  and  encourage  l i m i t e d to the s a l e of i n t e r r u p t i b l e ,  included  by  to  Creek  f o r i n d u s t r i a l development  system.  policy.  g r o w t h f o r e c a s t s , medium s i z e d p r o j e c t s , s u c h  plants  p r i v a t e p r o j e c t s needed B.C.  a change i n h y d r o e l e c t r i c development  i n t h e 1960s a n d  Hydro  annual e l e c t r i c perceived  by m i d - 1 9 7 0 s t a t e d  p r o j e c t f a r enough advanced  e n e r g y demand i n c r e a s e  t h e need that  i n i t s planning  f o r another major  t h e R e v e l s t o k e Dam  s t a g e t o meet t h e i r  was  i n the project  the  energy  only  demand  9 forecast have  a  (B.C.  Hydro,  capacity  Hydro's  total  of  1976a,  2700  electric  capacity  and  c o n s t r u c t i o n phases of to  with  a  the  1982).  projected  c o s t s w e r e t o be The 1.1).  MW  each.  valley the  billion dam  site to  i s 5 km  also  come  and  a  of  a  half  300  MW  of  B.C.  more  than  Both the  September  of  the  planning each  September  1982.  C i t y of  concrete  dam,  an  1976,  Total  project  Revelstoke  (Figure  earthfill  six electric  s t r e t c h 130 a r e a of the  s o u g h t by  to  1976b).  to hold  from  f o r the  M i c a Dam.  km  north  Dam  dam  i n a narrow,  and  and  power g e n e r a t o r s  11,534 h e c t a r e s .  Mica  the  Two  a of  forested thirds  other  transmission  line  r e l o c a t i o n o f H i g h w a y 23  Auxiliary  b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l , work areas,  workers  and  planned  third  of  from  Dam.  provided  and  being  of  north  a surface  would  was  than  Peace R i v e r . ^  ( V a n c o u v e r Sun,  r e s e r v o i r would  south of M i c a  Project  the  more  5080 MW,  P r o j e c t was  consist  with  of  Project  P r o j e c t were a n t i c i p a t e d to take s i x years  a power h o u s e d e s i g n e d The  on  i n - s e r v i c e date  $1.2  t h e R e v e l s t o k e Dam for  capacity  Shrum p l a n t the  Revelstoke constitute  earliest  r e s e r v o i r water  The  would  f o r the  t o t h e M i c a Dam  tributaries  which  The  Approval  P r o j e c t was  spillway with 405  G.M.  Revelstoke The  MW  generating  the  (1971  of  1976b).  to  a  developments i n c l u d e d  construction  the  North  substation  camp f o r up  to  i n Revelstoke  between  borrow 3000 (B.C.  pits  single Hydro,  1976b). The Water  proposed operating  release  M i c a Dam River  and  Treaty.  independently  criteria storage In the of  the  were  s c h e d u l e of dependent  use  of  the  i s o u t l i n e d i n Table  obligations  for  other  two  s p i l l w a y w o u l d be  The  i t would  P r o j e c t was only  be  to  used  be  a  By  the  fall  of  1988  be  run  predominantly  for flood control  Thus r e s e r v o i r peak w a t e r l e v e l  rare.  from  Columbia  term,, h o w e v e r , t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t c o u l d dams.  1.1.  discharge  short  extreme f l o o d danger.  the  on  Project  requirements i n the Arrow Lakes under the  r u n - o f - t h e - r i v e r p l a n t , i n s o f a r as times of  the  four  (573  m)  t u r b i n e s had  in  and been  10 Table  1.1  Operating Schedule  f o r the Revelstoke  Dam  RELEASE C R I T E R I A  B e c a u s e t h e R e v e l s t o k e Dam i s l o c a t e d b e t w e e n two C o l u m b i a R i v e r T r e a t y Dams, i t s o v e r a l l o p e r a t i o n must r e f l e c t T r e a t y o b l i g a t i o n s f o r r e l e a s e s f r o m M i c a Dam and any s t o r a g e t r a n s f e r s b e t w e e n K i n b a s k e t L a k e and t h e Arrow Lakes. H o w e v e r , i n t h e s h o r t t e r m t h e R e v e l s t o k e Dam may be o p e r a t e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h e o t h e r two dams, p r o v i d e d s u f f i c i e n t i n f l o w and s t o r a g e a r e a v a i l a b l e .  OPERATING SCHEDULE  f u l l supply l e v e l Drawdown: - option regulation - w i n t e r peak l o a d c o n d i t i o n s - system emergency c o n d i t i o n s - surcharge t o t a l flooded area t o t a l volume o f impoundment S p i l l w a y and O u t l e t G a t e s : - combined d i s c h a r g e volume a t e l e v a t i o n 574.6 m a t e l e v a t i o n 573 m - d i s c h a r g e o f _>6503 m-Vs - e l e v a t i o n at which operation possible spillway o u t l e t gates  573 m e l e v a t i o n  a.s.l.  I. 5 m < 4.6 m t o E l . 568.4 m 15.2 m maximum up t o 1.5 m I I , 534 h a 5.3 x 109 m3  7108 m3/ 6503 m /s extremely rare s  3  event  556.3-574.6 m 518.2-574.6 m  Turbine Discharge: - 4 t u r b i n e s combined a b o u t 1700 m^/s - when r e q u i r e d r e l e a s e f r o m P r o j e c t e x c e e d s t h a t volume o r t h e r e i s l a c k o f l o a d , t h e e x c e s s w a t e r w i l l be r e l e a s e d t h r o u g h t h e o u t l e t gates or s p i l l w a y  Source:  B.C.  H y d r o , 1976b,  1983  11 installed with  1.2  a capacity  o f 1800 MW.  OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY The  objectives of this  study are t h r e e f o l d .  First,  the study i s t o serve  a s a d o c u m e n t e d c a s e h i s t o r y o f t h e R e v e l s t o k e H y d r o e l e c t r i c Dam r e q u i r i n g t h e compilation aim  o f a v a i l a b l e d a t a f r o m a number o f d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s .  i s to evaluate  administrative and goal  of the approval  framework, t h ee n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s ,  environmental  impact  i s t o assess  procedures  the effectiveness  predictions  the extent  f o r large  scale  procedure, the  compliance monitoring  of the Revelstoke Project.  t o which  energy  The second  current  projects  selection  overcome  The t h i r d  and l i c e n s i n g  t h e shortcomings  of  the  Revelstoke experience. The  main  analysis.  body  of the thesis  i s i n t h e form  The t e r m i s used h e r e a s a c o l l e c t i v e  analysis  o f any p a r t s  conducted  a t some t i m e  after  a s most  project  f o r meeting  the stated  t h e many m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s analyses,  suitable  h a s been  despite  impact  especially  assessment  value  o f such  studies  (Bissett,  for  that  1980,  1985).  of a  project  completed.  This  o b j e c t i v e s and  have  undergone  1984; Hecky  1984;  p . 180) sees  o f t h e shortcomings  and i n the c o n s t r u c t i v e  early  et a l . ,  M i t c h e l l (1977,  i n theidentification  programs o r procedures b e i n g s t u d i e d  any type o f  n o t e d t o be common t o p o s t -  f o r projects  PADC, 1 9 8 3 ; M u n r o e t a l . , 1 9 8 6 ; S a d l e r , the  one; i t s i g n i f i e s  construction  was chosen  environmental  post-development  ( s e l e c t i o n , l i c e n s i n g , implementation)  format  development  of a  of  the  recommendations  their resolution. Despite  development guide.  the d i f f i c u l t i e s analyses, that  Five  pertaining  steps were  to project  i n d e v e l o p i n g an accepted methodology  proposed followed  approval  by Munro f o r this  i n general  e t a l . (1986) thesis.  proved  f o r posta  useful  First,  the literature  and s p e c i f i c a l l y  environmental  12 impacts  i n relation  to hydroelectric  reviewed.  Second,  development  analysis  interviews at  B.C.  an  identified  A  of  the f e a s i b i l i t y  of the Revelstoke  established  Hydro.  assessment  dams a n d p o s t - d e v e l o p m e n t  Project  was  of  the environmental  the environmental  Impact  predictions  of conducting  carried out.  l i a i s o n and d a t a a v a i l a b i l i t y  review  analysis a  was post-  Preliminary  a t government o f f i c e s and impact  statement  and p r o p o s e d  (EIS)  administrative  framework f o r t h e P r o j e c t . Third,  data  assessment. Water  were  Branch  of Environment,  interviews  identified  on  the basis  held  been w o r k i n g  with  and and  staff  on t h e p r o j e c t  the F i s h B.C.  Hydro,  of these site  and  and w i t h  data  and  concerns  methodology  were  of  t h e main  participants.  the analysis  and  study were  then  applied  s e l e c t i o n and l i c e n s i n g p r o c e d u r e s  sources: (FWB)  the  of the  proponent.  In-depth  o t h e r p e r s o n s , who h a d the w r i t e r  and an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e  The  two  interpretation  of the r e s u l t s of the post-development case  feasibility  In Revelstoke, provided  a general f e e l i n g f o r the Revelstoke Project  Revelstoke  the  Branch  the project  agencies  or lived  Wildlife  with  reporting  of  Data were then o b t a i n e d from t h r e e main i n f o r m a t i o n  Management  Ministry  needs  of  analysis.  t o a review  final  steps  i n the  the data,  and t h e  The r e s u l t s o f t h e  of the evolution  f o r l a r g e s c a l e energy  development  of the projects  i n B.C. i n o r d e r t o a s s e s s t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e more r e c e n t l e g i s l a t i o n a n d the implementation of these  procedures.  1.3 OUTLINE OF THE STUDY The the  study  assessment  s c a l e energy study  consists  of the current  i n four  sections:  (2) the administrative  the Revelstoke Project  selection  developments i n the l i g h t  i s presented  Project;  o f two p a r t s :  and  case  l i c e n s i n g procedures  s t u d y and f o r large  of the Revelstoke experience.  The  case  ( 1 ) t h e s e l e c t i o n and l i c e n s i n g o f t h e  framework f o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l impact  management;  13 (3)  the  environmental  guidelines  e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e d i c t i o n s and Chapter Project.  2  It  B.C.  brief The  the  a  time of  two  selection  and  of  the  licensing policies  l i c e n s i n g of  the  the  Revelstoke  s e l e c t i o n of  Project  This  Project  the  evaluated, water  of  the water  The  chapter  licence  necessary  and  basis  the  for  licence.  These  concludes  with  the  steps  an  r e s u l t i n g amended  the  analysis  of  the  the  furnishes  took  (4)  Revelstoke for  the  in  Project  by  by  assessment  B.C.  with  a public hearing  of  The  administrative  and  the  and  critically  appeal  latter  a  Hydro.  It started  described  licence.  context  Then f o l l o w s  Water A c t .  are  the  place.  Revelstoke  proceeded under  of  and. p r o c e d u r e s  Hydro's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a water l i c e n c e , f o l l o w e d issuance  and  energy developments p r e v a i l i n g  the R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t . the  impacts;  outcomes.  discussion  phases of  d e s c r i p t i o n of  B.C.  the  construction  l i c e n s i n g of l a r g e s c a l e e l e c t r i c  at the  which these  with  opens w i t h  s e l e c t i o n and in  deals  their  and  to  the  provides  the  framework i n the  next  chapter. In  Chapter 3 the  administrative  is  and  Project  framework Hydro  described consisted  and  overview  the of  of  the  and  the  the  administrative  discussed  i n Chapter  B.C.  examination  Hydro of  for  and  under  final  framework are  contributes  The  program the  to  the  the  part  of  Revelstoke  administrative set  water  interaction within  a d i s c u s s i o n of the  f o r the  evaluated.  "unofficial"  called  In  administrative structure  the  operation  programs.  up  by  B.C.  licence. each  of  An these  r e l a t i o n s between the  examined.  chapter the The  understanding  major  evaluation of  the  the  of  issues  4.  C h a p t e r 4 f o c u s e s on licence  program  Then f o l l o w s  official  shortcomings of  parts:  components,  programs i s p r o v i d e d . unofficial  i t s effectiveness  two  "official"  framework e s t a b l i s h e d  environmental issues.  developed  their  format  environmental and  content  As  a requirement of  guidelines  i s followed  by  for an  the  the  water  Project.  assessment  of  An the  14 manner  i n which  they  were  administered.  from c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s Environmental  impact  environmental  impact  occurred. aquatic  environmental  a r e t h e n d o c u m e n t e d and  i s s u e s are  environmental  The  further  predictions statement  and (EIS)  are  The  resource,  and  and  fish  resource,  compared  atmospheric  terrestrial  environment.  e v a l u a t i o n of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  The  of the EIS  5, w h i c h  impacts with  They a r e g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p a r t s o f  environment  arising  reviewed.  examined i n Chapter outcomes.  impacts  deals w i t h  p r e d i c t e d by  the  impacts  the ecosystem  environment  chapter  of  that  affected:  and  wildlife  concludes  i n the p r e d i c t i o n  the  with  an  environmental  impacts. In  Chapter  6 the f o c u s changes from  P r o j e c t R e v i e w P r o c e s s , w h i c h was the  procedures  This  chapter  procedures proposed  The  both  and  the  licensing  process  for dealing with  applied  addressed  are:  panel, project  The  selection  and an  and  of  significantly  energy  energy  project  Energy changed  projects  i t s application.  T h e n f o l l o w s a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e manner i n w h i c h  p r o c e s s was  program.  case  options  i n t r o d u c e d i n 1980  to the  in  B.C.  First,  the  application  and  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework f o r the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of such a p r o j e c t  topics  review  the  describes  and  reviewed. review  for  the Revelstoke P r o j e c t  i n the  study  and  and the  s e l e c t i o n and  final Site  Project  Review  process  i t replaced.  Project  are  application,  Process  summarized licence,  post-development  of  the  Site  C  Hydroelectric  t h e h e a r i n g p r o c e s s , m a n d a t e and  These a r e c r i t i c a l l y seventh  case  the energy  justification,  evaluated i n the next  chapter  undertakes  C experience is For  an  purpose  the  environmental  over the  following  environmental  a  Project. the  monitoring  chapter.  t o what  the  the  extent  selection  shortcomings  of  headings:  guidelines,  analysis.  the proposed  are  project  e x p e r t i s e of  s y n t h e s i s of  to determine  improvement  this  under  and  a  compliance  In the l i g h t  and the  Revelstoke the  Energy  licensing Revelstoke  pre-appiication, monitoring,  of the shortcomings  and of  15 the  Revelstoke  experience  the  evaluation  processing  reviewed.  This  leads  to  modification  of the Energy P r o j e c t Review  of  some  the  Site  C  Dam  recommendations  Process.  application i s f o r the  further  16 Notes  The C o l u m b i a R i v e r T r e a t y p r o v i d e d f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l s t o r a g e a n d e l e c t r i c power g e n e r a t i o n i n b o t h c o u n t r i e s . B.C. r e c e i v e d a t o t a l o f $341.8 m i l l i o n ( C a n a d i a n ) f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l and t h e s a l e o f I t s s h a r e ( 5 0 % ) o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l power g e n e r a t e d i n t h e U.S.A. f o r t h e f i r s t 30 y e a r s o f t h e 6 0 - y e a r T r e a t y ( S e w e l l , 1964). 1  2 T h e s e f i g u r e s a r e t h e a n t i c i p a t e d g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y a s q u o t e d b y B.C. H y d r o i n a 1975 T a s k F o r c e R e p o r t w h i c h e v a l u a t e d s e v e r a l alternative development p l a n s (B.C. Hydro, 1975). I n 1974 t h e e l e c t r i c power c o n s u m p t i o n i n B.C. w a s 1 8 % o f t h e t o t a l e n e r g y used i n t h e P r o v i n c e . B.C. H y d r o , t h e m a j o r p u b l i c u t i l i t y , s u p p l i e d 6 6 % , 7 8 % of w h i c h was h y d r o e l e c t r i c and 22% was t h e r m a l - e l e c t r i c power. The C o r p o r a t i o n ' s t o t a l g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y was 5080 m e g a w a t t s (MW). The i n t e g r a t e d g r i d s y s t e m a c c o u n t e d f o r 9 7 % ( 4 9 1 6 MW). Of t h i s n e a r l y 5 0 % came f r o m t h e l a r g e G.M Shrum p l a n t o n t h e P e a c e R i v e r a n d 3 1 % ( 1 5 3 1 MW) f r o m 21 s m a l l e r h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t s , t h e r e s t b e i n g t h e r m a l - e l e c t r i c power. O n l y 3% ( 1 5 5 . 4 MW) w e r e g e n e r a t e d b y t h e i s o l a t e d p l a n t s . 3  17 CHAPTER 2 SELECTION AND L I C E N S I N G OF THE REVELSTOKE PROJECT The and  s e l e c t i o n and l i c e n s i n g o f t h e R e v e l s t o k e  a half  with  years  B.C. H y d r o  early  to complete. conducting  t i m e , d e s i g n and p l a n s  B.C.  Hydro  Project fall of  feasibility  1976 h a d b e e n e x t e n d e d  this  applied  to cover  studies  four  of a water  that  y e a r , whereupon  on  licence.  construction  about  started  Branch  i n 1971 by  However, by  had been f i n a l i z e d and  f o r the approval  of the  a public  i n the  Following issued  seven  two p r o p o s a l s , w h i c h  additional proposals.  Management  o f 1 9 7 6 , t h e W a t e r Management B r a n c h  took  s e l e c t i o n phase  f o r the Revelstoke Project  t o t h e Water  i n the form  The p r o j e c t  Project  the water  o f t h e dam was  hearing  l i c e n c e I n December  started  immediately i n  J a n u a r y 1977. Initial  p r o j e c t l i c e n s i n g b y t h e W a t e r Management B r a n c h  year.  However, t h e p r o c e s s was e x t e n d e d  water  licence.  (September  appointed  1977, June  consolidated 1978,  The  water  l i c e n c e was i s s u e d  objective  of  this  chapter  phases of t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t .  i n B.C. a t t h a t  1960s w e r e  history  emergence of  of  two  recommendations  the l i c e n c e  b y t h e W a t e r Management B r a n c h  and a  i n August  i s to describe  and e v a l u a t e  A discussion of the p o l i c i e s scale  these  and p r o c e d u r e s  h y d r o e l e c t r i c energy  time p r o v i d e s t h e c o n t e x t u a l  two  projects  setting.  PREVAILING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES The  its  made  the conditions  t h e s e l e c t i o n and l i c e n s i n g o f l a r g e  prevailing  2.1  tribunal  t o revoke the  thus c o m p l e t i n g t h e l i c e n s i n g phase o f t h e P r o j e c t . The  for  by an a p p e a l t o C a b i n e t  appeal  1 9 7 8 ) t o amend  took l e s s than a  such  (Duncan,  i n B.C. f o r t h e l a r g e s t  Keenleyside,  of strong p u b l i c  large  selection.  notable  concern  Peace about  River both  1  dam-building and Mica)  the environmental  program i n  and  f o r the  consequences  r e s o u r c e development p r o p o s a l s and d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e i r  These and o t h e r p u b l i c c o n c e r n s  l e d , i n t h e 1970s, t o a change o f  18 government intended  for  was  proposal took  and  the  1973) The  an  " o l d " piece  legislation  was  i n place (Table  Water  Act  (1960),  procedure  was  concerned  site-specific the  t h e w a t e r t o be did  not  preparation  of  Water R i g h t s relevant.  discretion  of  the  outlined could  review  the  Act  to  in  the  include  necessary  to  exempt  provision. licence  the  Water  groups  could  under the Water A c t .  Act,  two  Water  The  decades  Act,  1971;  1960)  B.C.  Energy  and  the and  of  with  of  but  the  objections hearings 1981).  matter as  of  stipulated the  licence  appeal was  The  Act  or  the  he  development  be  held such  before  at  the  a public him  that  Comptroller  he  considered  project.  w i t h the  Of  note,  Comptroller's  (1964)) the C o r p o r a t i o n  the  statute issuance  accepted,  as  the  that  the  of  considered  w i t h i n h i s mandate  development  of  land,  to  At  brought  being  a  to  only  Comptroller  file  provincial  appeal  approval  project  i n f o r m a t i o n as  Hydro Act  to  the  gave  always complied  right  I f the  Regulation  other  any  had  s a f e t y i s s u e s , and  d e s c r i p t i o n s of  Thompson,  any  the  project specification.  water  t h e B.C.  the  the  operation  Hydro had  Branch,  Under t h i s Act and  public  Upon a p p r o v a l  comply  p u b l i c had  the  p r o j e c t , as w e l l  implementation  The  (the  considered.  adjudicate  the  to  1960s.  such  for  conditions with  having  development.  W a t e r Management  statement  (Bankes  Act.  ( S e c t i o n 53A  the  justification  impact  any  law  from  of  could  h o w e v e r , i s t h a t t h o u g h B.C. o r d e r s , by  were  provided  proposed  by  p u r p o s e and  Comptroller  the  L a n d Use  engineering  a u t h o r i t y to request  the  and  i n f o r m a t i o n as  environmental  Comptroller  related  with  such  I n d i v i d u a l s or and  was  an  the  proposals  hearing  a  legislation  i n the  matters  d i v e r t e d , the  require  resource  legislation  2.1).  mainly  applicant furnish  of  administered  environmental  over  major  t r a n s i t i o n between these  (Environment  b e e n u s e d t o l i c e n c e t h e dams b u i l t  that  i n t r o d u c t i o n of  shape d u r i n g the  l i c e n c e d under  e v e n t h o u g h new Act,  years  t o e s t a b l i s h more g o v e r n m e n t c o n t r o l  Revelstoke and  several  or of  Cabinet  was  statutory the would  water pass  19  T a b l e 2.1  B.C.  B.C. L e g i s l a t i o n , A g e n c i e s a n d P r o c e d u r e s i n R e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e Licensing o f Selected H y d r o e l e c t r i c P r o j e c t s  LEGISLATION,  AGENCIES,  B.C.  PROCEDURES  WATER A C T  HYDRO DAMS  I960 1961  B.C.  HYDRO  1962 1963  COLUMBIA  RIVER TREATY  B.C.  HYDRO ACT  196A LICENSING  1965  POLLUTION  FOREST ACT  1966  CONTROL ACT  1967  CONSTRUCTION  [ DUNCAN COMPLETED ]  1968 REGULATION ACT  1969  LAND A C T  1970  ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE ACT  1971  COAL  ELUC  MINES  ELUC SECRETARIAT  1  COMMITTEE  -  I KEENLEYSIDE  -  [ PEACE  COMPLETED :  RIVER I  £  FEASIBILITY  STUDIES  1972  B.C.  B.C.  ENERGY A C T  ENERGY  COMMISSION  1973  OPERATION  197*1  Preliminary  EIS  1975 D E P T . OF ENERGY, TRANSPORT A T I O N AND COMMUNICATION .GUIDELINES GUIDELINES 'GUIDELINES  FOR  COAL  DEVELOPMENT  FOR B E N E F I T - C O S T FOR  I  1976  LINEAR  ANALYSIS  MINISTRY  OF E N E R G Y ,  PETROLEUM  MINES,  RESOURCES  1 May:  WATER  7  *  PUBLIC  J  6  1977  DEVELOPMENT  2 Feb:  9  Sept:  Dec:  1 i  Jan:  9 2  Feb:  LICENCE  EIS;  WATER  ANALYSIS  HEARINGS  LICENCE  ISSUED  S T A R T OF CONSTRUCTION  CABINET  APPEAL  Sept:  AMENDED WATER  + ENERGY  PROJECT  CERTIFICATE  + SITE  COMMISSION  7 2  1973  APPLICATION  BENEFIT-COST  COMMITTEE  LICENCE  1979 ^ENVIRON,  t  SOCIAL  'MITIGATION BCUC A C T ENERGY  2  IMPACT COMPENSATION/  GUIDELINES -  ^  BCUC COMMISSION  PROJECT  PROCESS  1980  DISBANDED  REVIEW  3  ENVIRONMENTAL  ^  1981  MANAGEMENT ACT  DISBANDED  1982 WASTE  +  MANAGEMENT ACT  I  T  HEARINGS  + COMMISSION'S J  \S8k  CABINET  + S  PUBLIC  t  1983  C  APPLICATION  E  REPORT  REJECTS  TO C A B I N E T  SITE  C  C APPLICATION  +  +++++++ £ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ J  OPERATION  1985  1. Env i r o n m e n t £ L a n d Use . 2. B . C .  Utilities  Act.  3. Some Mines U.  functions and  Replaced  to  B.C.  Petroleum Pollution  Utilities  Commission  Resources. Control  Act  (1967).  and  to M i n i s t r y  of  Energy,  20 the  final  the  B.C.  d e c i s i o n f o r u p h o l d i n g , amending o r r e v o k i n g t h e l i c e n c e . government  Environment  i n t r o d u c e d the Environment  and  Land  Use  Committee  representatives  of r e s o u r c e m i n i s t r i e s )  The  mandate  Committee's  1971  and L a n d Use A c t u n d e r w h i c h  (ELUC,  and  In  a  consisting  secretariat  of  where  an  senior  established.  was:  "to ensure that . . . the . . . preservation and maintenance of the n a t u r a l environment are fully c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f l a n d u s e and r e s o u r c e development . . . [ f o r ] . . . a maximum b e n e f i c i a l l a n d use, and [ t o ] m i n i m i s e and prevent waste of such r e s o u r c e s , and d e s p o l i a t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t o c c a s i o n e d t h e r e b y . " ( M a r r , 1976, p . 4 1 ) F u r t h e r m o r e , a n o r d e r by C a b i n e t u n d e r override  any  framework  needed  developments  other  f o r the  and  the Committee  1977  by  1980,  in  the  Province.  approval procedure  guidelines  1976  those  power  published  for Linear  for writing  Developments  1 9 7 3 , t h e B.C.  and  Impact  E n e r g y A c t was  and  t h e B.C.  regulatory:  Energy (1)  to advise  pertaining  to  discovery,  conservation,  regulate respect  of  to  the  latter,  of  public  tariffs  major  extend  such m a t t e r s as  A c t was  and and  revenues  the scale  statements.  In  followed  Analysis  and  t o be a d m i n i s t e r e d by a  as w e l l  on  energy  to  the  (3) to regulate  Commission  major  could  in in  Mitigation.  and  was  necessity,  growth  with  the  forecasts,  the  energy  to With  issuance  regulation  the Commission's  (2)  utilities.  as w i t h t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e  producer of e l e c t r i c  advisory  government;  energy  concerned  new  r e s o u r c e management  s u p p l y , demand, l o a d  I t i s remarkable that  Hydro—the  large  whose r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were b o t h  convenience  and s e c u r i t i e s  facilities.  t o B.C.  the  and  Act devise  types of  f o r Benefit-Cost  Compensation  The  energy  export,  certain  to  f o r C o a l Development,  the government  the petroleum industry;  certificates rates,  Commission,  of  undertook  Use  passed w i t h the I n t e n t i o n that i t should  be u s e d t o r e g u l a t e e n e r g y u t i l i t i e s . agency,  ELUC  and L a n d  environmental impact  the Guidelines  f o r E n v i r o n m e n t a l and S o c i a l In  the Environment  of  of  energy  construction  mandate d i d n o t i n the  Province.  21 In  1 9 7 6 , B.C. H y d r o  public u t i l i t i e s , electricity Service  2.2  supplied  so t h a t  industry  Commission,  93.6% o f t h e t o t a l  the exclusion  t o be r e g u l a t e d 1979).  energy  o f B.C. H y d r o l e f t  (B.C. Energy  very  Commission,  produced  by  little  of the  1976b;  Public  1  PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND SELECTION In  November  1973, t h e newly  created  B.C.  Energy  to p r e p a r e an annual r e v i e w o f energy r e s o u r c e s w h i c h was  published  i n 1974 ( B . C . E n e r g y  B.C.  Hydro  role  i n the preparation  attention itself of  electric  (and i t s forerunner,  t o t h e demand  i n this  total  B.C.  C o m m i s s i o n was  and r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e f i r s t o f  Commission,  Electric  1974).  Company)  of p r o v i n c i a l energy for electricity.  demand  The  Prior to  had  played  forecasts,  Corporation  the  requirements,  B.C. H y d r o p r o d u c e d  including  a three-scenario  electricity.  electricity  continued  Consequently  load  this, lead  limiting i t s  r o l e even a f t e r t h e Energy Commission prepared annual  energy  directed  t o see forecasts i n 1975,  forecast which b u i l t  on  those t h a t had been prepared p r e v i o u s l y  (B.C. Hydro, 1975).  B.C. H y d r o ' s 1975  forecast  identified  curves  and 10.2% a n n u a l  increase  to the year  forecast  of only  its  f o r a large  need  three  load  growth  1990, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  5.5% a n n u a l  increase  increment  o f 7%,  8.6%,  I n s p i t e of the Energy from  i n system  1974-1982,  capacity  on  B.C.  Commission's  Hydro  the basis  justified  o f i t s own  forecast. Hydro had been c o n v i n c e d a p p e a r e d t o be f a v o u r i n g for six  the Revelstoke  R e v e l s t o k e was a u t h o r i z e d other  potential  p r o p o s a l ) were engineering, potential  projects  completed  financial  dangers  of t h i s  since  site  (including  three  1 9 7 6 ; ELUC,  environmental  o f t h e Downie  Slide  area)  the l a t e  (Table  i n 1974 e v e n b e f o r e  (Reid, and  need  2.2).  1 9 6 0 s a n d , by 1971 Preliminary  cost-benefit variants  1977).  By  of late  (predominantly factors  design  comparisons of the  Revelstoke  1975 a n d a f t e r concerned  had been weighed,  with B.C.  T a b l e 2.2  Studies for Project  Selection  STUDIES  CONTENT  Feasibi1ity Studies 1971 - J a n u a r y 1973  Two (1) (2)  Downie S 1 i d e  Panel of e x p e r t s examined s a f e t y concern o v e r Oownie S l i d e - m a s s i v e b e d r o c k s l i d e , 1 0 , 0 0 0 y e a r s ago, 65 km n o r t h o f R e v e l s t o k e  July  1973  P r e 1imi n a r y Jan.  1973  Preliminary J u n e 197^» Cost-Benefit 1976  Study  E1S  j  197A  P r e l i m i n a r y EIS on a l t e r n a t i v e s c o n d u c t e d by p r i v a t e c o n s u l t a n t  Project - early  Design 1976  B.C. H y d r o c h o s e a l t e r n a t i v e ( I ) and proceeded with Its p r e l i m i n a r y design  Analysis  - May  Six (1) Dam (5) (6) Preview  1976  I'. E l e v a t i o n f i g u r e s s i g n i f y t h e 2. B.C. H y d r o , 1976b 3. A n t h o n y , 1979  ( I ) and firm  a l t e r n a t i v e s assessed: and (2) as a b o v e , (3) low R e v e l s t o k e a t 51 *• m, CO Downie C r e e k Dam a t 51 Peace-McGregor h y d r o e l e c t r i c project Hat C r e e k t h e r m a 1 - e l e c t r i c project  B.C. Hydro issued a v e r y s h o r t on a l t e r n a t i v e (1)  A l t e r n a t i v e (1) more e c o n o m i c a l : lower c a p i t a l c o s t s higher Installed capacity higher e l e c t r i c production  m  " Oct.  E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact February 1976 Final EIS Aug. 1975  197^  " April  a l t e r n a t i v e s examined: h i g h R e v e l s t o k e dam a t 573 c o m b i n a t i o n o f two dams: R e v e l s t o k e Dam a t 51 *• m Downie C r e e k Dam a t 573 m  RESULTS  (2)  m,  r e s e r v o i r water o p e r a t i n g  (2)  E s s e n t i a l l y no d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s on f i s h , w i l d l i f e , r e c r e a t i o n , a g r i c u l t u r e 6 m i n e r a l r e s o u r c e s f o r t h e two a l t e r n a t i v e s  On b a s i s o f p r o v i n c i a l i n c o m e , t h e e n v i r o n m e n t and e f f e c t on r e g i o n , a l t e r n a t i v e (1) m o s t c o s t - e f f e c t i v e b u t some u n d e t e r m i n e d m i t i g a t i o n e x p e n d i t u r e s n o t included  preview  B.C. H y d r o r e w r o t e 2 r e p o r t s by p r i v a t e consultant firms, combining environmental s o c i a l and e c o n o m i c i m p a c t s i n one EIS^ full  S l i d e d o e s n o t impose any l i m i t a t i o n s on e i t h e r o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s (1) and  l e v e l above sea  P r i v a t e consultants' view: B.C. Hydro EIS not Incorrect, but t h e y w o u l d have d e s c r i b e d the s i t u a t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y ^  level.  K>  ;>  23 H y d r o was c o m m i t t e d t o b u i l d i n g t h e R e v e l s t o k e The the  determination  selection  participation Energy  o f t h e need f o r a l a r g e a d d i t i o n t o s y s t e m c a p a c i t y and  of the Revelstoke and i n t h e f a c e  Commission.  Project  had been  of growing  criticism  B.C. H y d r o  had d e t e r m i n e d  a l t e r n a t i v e s and chosen t h e R e v e l s t o k e  2.3  Project.  made w i t h o u t o f t h e need  Branch  f r o m t h e B.C.  and e v a l u a t e d  the  possible  Project.  a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e w a t e r l i c e n c e was f i l e d w i t h i n February  available  1976.  at that  time.  An  environmental  Though  t h e Water  impact  terras  of reference. Hydro  However,  These  (B.C.Hydro,  i n February  an E n v i r o n m e n t a l  Simultaneously,  with  to the public  Hydro intended " . . .  result  Reference  t o run a pre-planned  rather  Impact  information  of meetings,  (B.C. Hydro  public  1976b, p. V ) .  wrote i n the EIS that " l o c a l soon as p o s s i b l e t o f u l l y  presentations  This  B.C.  in-house  i n t o one E I S by i n May 1 9 7 6 .  Preview  Report (B.C.  B.C. H y d r o i n i t i a t e d  an ad h o c r e s p o n s e t o p u b l i c e n q u i r y  i n a series  dictates"  public  an EIS,  to the public  i n Figure  was n o t  t o meet t h e i r  t h e n combined  1 9 7 6 b ) a n d made a v a i l a b l e  H y d r o , 1 9 7 6 a ) was p u b l i s h e d . the public.  (EIS)  Act d i d not require  two d o c u m e n t s w e r e  1976 o n l y  t h e W a t e r Management  statement  H y d r o h a d c o m m i s s i o n e d two e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s t u d i e s  was  public  THE WATER LICENCE APPLICATION The  B.C.  any  discussions  2.1 s u g g e s t s program.  that  B.C.  In fact, i t  a n d i n t e r e s t w h i c h may and d i s c u s s i o n s  as need  i s s u r p r i s i n g as t h e proponent  p e o p l e w a n t a s much i n f o r m a t i o n  understand the i m p l i c a t i o n s t o t h i s  also  on t h e p r o j e c t as community" ( B . C .  H y d r o , 1976b, p. 1 5 - 2 9 ) . B.C.  Hydro  stated  makers and t h e g e n e r a l the  W a t e r Management  agencies  that  t h e purpose  p u b l i c (B.C. Branch  or the public  o f t h e E I S was  Hydro, 1976b).  saw t h e n e e d  i n the i n i t i a l  to inform  But n e i t h e r  f o r consulting with  stages  of the approval  decision  B.C. H y d r o n o r t h e government process.  The  2k  F i g u r e 2.1  B.C. H y d r o ' s P e r c e p t i o n o f P r o c e d u r e a n d S c h e d u l e for Project Licensing ( B . C . H y d r o , 1976b)  GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR P R O J E C T  APPROVAL  Engineering Design Environmental, Social and Economic S t u d i e s APPROXIMATE  Environmental Review  Water L i c e n c e ApplicatIon  Impact  B.C. H y d r o P u b l i c Information Program and D i a l o g u e w i t h the Community  Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)  SCHEDULE  Preview Report Issued t o t h e P u b l i c , F e b r u a r y 1976 Water L i c e n c e A p p l i c a t i o n P o s t e d F e b r u a r y 1976  Discuss ions F e b r u a r y - May 1976  Made A v a i l a b l e t o Government A g e n c i e s a n d P u b l i c , May 1976  R e v i e w by G o v e r n m e n t Agencies and P u b l i c  Water  Licence  L a t e J u n e 1976  Hearing  B.C. H y d r o R e c e i p t o f Water L i c e n c e ( i f issued)  [rescheduled  B.C. H y d r o R e c e i p t o f Other Necessary Approvals  B.C. H y d r o D e c i s i o n t o C o n s t r u c t P r o j e c t and Commencement o f M a j o r Work  f o r Sept.  13]  [water 1 i c e n c e i ssued Dec. 1 ]  S e p t e m b e r 1976 [ s t a r t e d J a n . 1977]  25 opportunity arose  f o r meaningful  public participation  at the public hearing  i n the approval  hold  date  a public hearing.  requested  about  t h e date  September intervenors available  scheduled  to start  However,  and i n t h e f a c e  of a p u b l i c outcry  Even  t o be  only  I t was  t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r  b y B.C. H y d r o .  13th.  this  longer  insufficient  i n May  s p a n was  thorough  1976) and o t h e r  i t was still  Comptroller  Revelstoke  over  of Water  postponed  perceived  evaluation  conducted  except  I t was a q u a s i - j u d i c i a l  hearing  of the advisors t o the Comptroller.  The 2.3.  P r o v i n c i a l Parks compensation objections objectors  objected  main  impacts; devise  lack  and p r e s e n t e d  B.C. H y d r o .  as the P r o j e c t would nine  issues  i n  Most s e s s i o n s were t o accommodate  i n an "unimposing  briefs are classified about  i n Table  the Project.  were  Two  require a very  individuals.  of environmental  adverse  many  interest  data  of  also  force.  resulting  and p r o j e c t j u s t i f i c a t i o n  had  The  social  of  intervened.  and  economic  i n the i n a b i l i t y  ( W a t e r Management B r a n c h ,  no  Of t h e 41  the concerns  groups which  environmental,  baseline  groups  large labour  However,  by t h e v a r i o u s  r a i s e d were  labour  m i t i g a t i o n and compensation measures; p u b l i c s a f e t y w i t h  Downie S l i d e ;  hearing  A B.C. H y d r o c o m m e n t a t o r f e l t t h e  to o r r a i s e d concerns  with  i n d i v i d u a l s were represented The  not a l l  B r a n c h d i d n o t o b j e c t b e c a u s e i t w a s n e g o t i a t i n g a $1 m i l l i o n  settlement  only  (made  1979, p. 5 5 ) .  44 i n t e r v e n o r s who f i l e d  A l l but three  many  allowing f o r cross-examination  h e a r i n g d i d n o t i n t i m i d a t e p a r t i c i p a n t s as i t was c o n d u c t e d r e l a x e d manner" ( W a i t e ,  by  1976-1988).  the public  13 t o O c t o b e r 8, 1 9 7 6 .  until  of the EIS  h e l d d u r i n g t h e d a y t i m e ; however a few p r o c e e d e d i n t h e e v e n i n g intervenors.  consulted  t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t s w h i c h were  Rights  21 d a y s , S e p t e m b e r  decided  2 1 , 1976, t h e  t h e p u b l i c had n o t been  time  for a  on June  r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e f r o m B.C. H y d r o ( W a t e r Management B r a n c h , The  only  stage.  On t h e b a s i s o f t h e many o b j e c t o r s ' b r i e f s , to  process  regard  to  to the  1976-1988).  table  2.3  Intervenors at the Revelstoke Public Hearing  INTERVENOR  TOTAL  Conservationist  11  11  8  8  Commercial groups  9  9  P r o v i n c i a l government agencies  4  3l  Labour groups  2  0  Local  1  1  9  9  44  41  Municipal  groups  press  Individuals  Total  Provincial Source:  groups  OBJECTORS  Parks Branch d i d not object.  W a t e r Management B r a n c h , 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 8  27 B.C.  Hydro presented  description; economic impacts Hydro  (2) the  impacts on  the  Downie S l i d e ;  on  the  forest  lasted  13  days.  consultants  to  the  possibly  t o o k up  1988).  The  2.3.1  Of  major t o p i c s :  the  thirds of  THE  of  B.C.  by  determined  without  allotted public  less  d e c i s i o n by September The  the  and  economic  cross-examination  witnesses,  22  public  a l l the  were  of  h e a r i n g were  evidence  published  B.C.  specialist  ( W a t e r Management B r a n c h ,  presented  i n 28  1976-  volumes  WATER L I C E N C E A P P L I C A T I O N PROCESS licence  and  a p p l i c a t i o n process  itself,  c e n t r e d around  t h e m a n d a t e and  e x p e r t i s e of  three the  project justification.  (1979).  The  of the Revelstoke time  time  schedule.  and  format  According  over  two  months  for  the  public  the  hearing  In g e n e r a l the  t o F i g u r e 2.1,  m o n t h s f o r t h e g o v e r n m e n t and  just  p u b l i c h e a r i n g have been  of  intervenors.  B.C.  Hydro  to prepare  public  hearing  start  was  proponent  public  the Water C o m p t r o l l e r , b e f o r e the planned  had  f o r the and  the  of c o n s t r u c t i o n I n  1976. Water C o m p t r o l l e r  r e q u i r e d a l l r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l t o be  the p a r t i c i p a n t s p r i o r to the h e a r i n g . their  and  socio-  the h e a r i n g  c o n f e r r i n g w i t h the  t h a n two  hearing  region,  (4)  Process  Anthony  seemed t o c o n t r o l  and  technical  of  Some a s p e c t s o f t h e p r o c e d u r e s criticised  the  and  Hydro  impacts;  the  Questioning  the h e a r i n g process  Hearing  and  Testimony  32  the  the water  W a t e r Management B r a n c h  2.3.1.1 The  Revelstoke  (1)  1976b).  C R I T I C I S M S OF of  of  proponent.  proceedings  Criticisms  City  i n four sections:  (3) environmental  resources.  t o two  (Water C o m p t r o l l e r ,  i t s testimony  submissions,  disadvantage  B.C.  Hydro  c o m p a r e d t o B.C.  did  not.  While  submitted  a l l objectors complied  Furthermore,  by  i n t e r v e n o r s were  Hydro, because they l a c k e d f u n d i n g f o r  by  filing at  a  efficient  28 participation. participate The  counsel  i n obtaining  most  function  The  serious  turned  or questioning  criticism  out  t o be  assessment of i n f o r m a t i o n data  prior  1976b). hardly  as  many,  shortcoming  that  B.C.  necessary  From  arose  from  i n order  of f i n e  Report  (B.C. Hydro,  decisions  to avoid  tuning"  (Anthony,  1976a) l e f t  awarded  data were  than the  (B.C. Hydro,  blatant  which  i n August  was  of the  had a l r e a d y both  that  energy so " t h a t  process w i l l  at the beginning  construction  contracts  of the water l i c e n c e . view  been  of  the role  "program"  made.  shortages  the public  Project  was r e a l l y  The E n v i r o n m e n t a l  the Revelstoke that  " . . .  determine  was  by 1982, and t h a t t h e  the public hearing  that  of the  I n the eyes of  the Revelstoke  1979, p. 6 1 ) .  no d o u b t  (B.C. Hydro,  n o t be d e t e r m i n e d a n d h a d  information  a l t e r n a t i v e , and t h e E I S s t a t e d  the development" declared  b y B.C. H y d r o  the public's  electric  . through the p u b l i c hearing  Hydro  i t s primary  rather  been commissioned  public  had e s t a b l i s h e d  matter  of  that  The m a j o r s o u r c e o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l  losses, could  B.C. H y d r o ' s  t h e major  Hydro  possible  was  of information  under t h e c o n d i t i o n s  P r o j e c t had been a d e q u a t e l y a s s e s s e d  only  hearing  the EIS prepared  and w i l d l i f e  and d e a l t w i t h  hearing.  perceived  actively  Thus e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n and m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s , as w e l l  t o be d e f e r r e d  public  1979).  t h e E I S had o n l y  compensation f o r f i s h  Another  the gathering  was  d i d not  evidence at the hearing.  i n the available baseline  surprising since year.  Comptroller  of the public  (Anthony,  to the hearing  Deficiencies  previous  t o t h e Water  Preview  P r o j e c t was t h e  d e c i s i o n makers  the f i n a l  a  form and  . .  extent  1976b, p . V ) .  I f t h i s w e r e n o t e n o u g h , B.C.  of the public  hearing  f o r t h e dam,  subject  that  i t had  already  t o the approval  of the  Project. In hearing  the l i g h t as a  participation.  of these  futile  issues  exercise  that  B.C. H y d r o w a s s e e n  i t i s no w o n d e r discouraged  that  rather  t o be f i r m l y  the public  than  saw t h e  encouraged  their  i n c o n t r o l of the course of  29 events had of  and  the Water C o m p t r o l l e r ' s  b e e n made l o n g B.C.  Hydro's  before  the  hearing.  i n f l u e n c e over  the  integrity  of the f o r t h c o m i n g  procedure  u n d e r t h e W a t e r A c t was  2.3.1.2  M a n d a t e and  A  fundamental  whether assess  the  The  Comptroller  of  such  Water  Act  also  process  public's perception  raise  doubts  the appropriateness  about  of the  the  approval  questioned.  which  arose  Water  Rights  complexity  authorized  at  the  had  public hearing  the  (Anthony,  mandate  1979;  and  Waite,  the  Water  Comptroller  of w a t e r from the P r o v i n c e ' s w a t e r b o d i e s . some e n v i r o n m e n t a l  hearing.  O'Riordan, J .  matters  pertaining  alternatives.  centred  on  expertise  to  1979;  Bank.es  discussions  could.  Anthony  determination p r o v i d e d by  to  energy  of  of  these  d i d not  was  they  and  the  issues  to  take  social  impacts  were not  challenge  the water  justification  and  the  impacts  Whereas  the  Water  project  justification,  were  Comptroller  r u l e on e n v i r o n m e n t a l  though and  he  as  the  could  and  neither  of  broad  examined  allowed  social issues.  proceed.  decide  to  as  he  schemes  Comptroller's passed  d i s c u s s i o n of  project  possibly and  the  mandate  o n l y r e a s o n why  Hence  this  on  Comptroller  as the  matters  i t seems  environmental  nor  and  the p u b l i c  mandate i n t h e s e  to  Water  the  Comptroller's  b e l i e v e d that the  the  or  use  determine  cannot  much  management  w i t h i n the  assessment  he  T h u s he  hearing,  place  wildlife  licence  outside  on  policies  Water C o m p t r o l l e r ' s  the  rule  Comptroller  Revelstoke  that  In fact,  the  resource  states  needed  socio-economic  that  (1979)  the Water A c t .  proponent  at  to  c o n d i t i o n s f o r a p r o j e c t at  (1981) w r i t e s  Nevertheless,  allowed  project  only d i d the  approval  a p p r o v a l , but  question  e n g i n e e r i n g and  that  Not  stamp the d e c i s i o n t h a t  1981).  withdrawal the  to rubber  E x p e r t i s e o f t h e W a t e r Management B r a n c h  a p r o j e c t of  Thompson,  r o l e was  that  matters  and  jurisdiction. any  decision  matter,  he  on did  30 The areas and  C o m p t r o l l e r ' s e x p e r t i s e and t h a t o f h i s s t a f f were q u e s t i o n e d  as t h e s o c i a l  and broad  the implementation  project  approval. who  matters.^  Although  who  lacked  inadequate  Management  Branch  impacts licence  staff  t o assess  of the Project conditions  consisted mainly  social  and  t h e Water  provision.  The  Comptroller  advisors  during  the h e a r i n g ,  d i d n o t a s k many  from the f l o o r .  by t h e p u b l i c because  Furthermore,  they were employees  i t was  questions  i n this  P r o j e c t - and w o u l d  following project approval.  (Anthony,  2.3.1.3  so  that  Their advice  intervenors  continue  to the Comptroller  could  have  and were  o f government a g e n c i e s .  respect  to the Revelstoke  an  they were p e r c e i v e d as  - probably  public,  of  environmental  t h i s c a p a c i t y t h e y h a d d e a l t w i t h B.C. H y d r o i n t h e p a s t  made  upon  d e f i c i e n c y w a s t o h a v e b e e n r e m e d i e d b y a number o f  inaccessible to questions biased  of the water  the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  this  advised  of environmental  of t h e terms  The W a t e r  engineers,  experts  range  i n such  questioned  In  even w i t h  relationship  should  have  been  or challenged i t  1979).  Project  Justification  P r o j e c t j u s t i f i c a t i o n was however n o t a l l o w e d t o r e s t j u s t b e c a u s e i t was o u t s i d e t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r ' s mandate. of major concern  I t w a s a most c o n t e n t i o u s m a t t e r a n d  t o n u m e r o u s i n t e r v e n o r s who r a i s e d  i t time  and t i m e  again at  the p u b l i c h e a r i n g . An related  essential  justification  to the provincial  intervenors isolation. generating  disapproved They  called  context. of  export  B.C. each  f o r a demonstration  sources  policy,  The  assessing  capacity i n the wider,  growth, a l t e r n a t i v e schedules,  i s s u e was t h a t t h e R e v e l s t o k e  overall  of e l e c t r i c and p r e s e n t  P r o j e c t was n o t  Energy  Commission  o f B.C.  Hydro's  o f t h e need  provincial  and  projects i n  f o r the increased  context  of t o t a l  energy, conservation of energy, and f u t u r e h y d r o -  other  energy price  and t h e r m a l - e l e c t r i c  31 developments. Most  c o n t r o v e r s i a l was t h e a s s e s s m e n t  forecasts.  Some d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s  fact  that  B.C.  Hydro  growth that  d i d take place  t h e B.C. E n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n c l a i m e d conceded  rate  at the hearing  o f 8.6%, i t w a s s t i l l  o f t h e B.C. E n e r g y  differences B.C.  of various  i n growth  Commission  r a t e were  energy  at the hearing  above  their  medium  their  low p r e d i c t i o n  (5.5%).  The  possible, but that  latter this  Although  forecast  annual (7%)  commented  one w a s  Hydro gave t h e f o l l o w i n g as t h e main reasons f o r t h e l a r g e  energy  demand  despite the  i t was t h e i r mandate.3  to using well  electric  and  that  remarkable.4 divergence i n  forecasts: "the assumptions regarding f u t u r e growth of the p r o v i n c i a l p o p u l a t i o n a n d economy, t h e m e t h o d o l o g y o f t h e p r o j e c t i o n s t h e m s e l v e s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y I n t h e assumed s h a r e o f t o t a l e n e r g y c o n s u m p t i o n t o be p r o v i d e d i n the form of e l e c t r i c i t y . " (B.C. H y d r o , 1976b, p p . 2-10)  In  short,  not only  methodology. The  intervenors  matters  P r o j e c t , was n e i t h e r  implicitly  assumptions  electric  importance analyzed  different,  the forecasts  but also the  conflicted.  energy growth f o r e c a s t s , t o the i n the approval  comprehensively  process  of the  nor resolved  at the  N e i t h e r was i t p o s s i b l e f o r t h e a p p r o v i n g agency t o g r a n t t h e  demands  were  established  of the c o n f l i c t i n g  of quintessential  public hearing. objectors'  the underlying  Thus i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t  question  Revelstoke  were  f o r an e x a m i n a t i o n  beyond  t h e Water  of the project  Comptroller's  justification.  mandate.  B.C.  Both  Hydro had  t h e need f o r t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t , t h e p r o v i n c i a l government had approved  i t , and t h e Water  Comptroller  dutifully  issued  the water  l i c e n c e o n D e c e m b e r 1, 1 9 7 6 .  2.4 THE HATER LICENCE The operation  Water l i c e n c e allowed of the Revelstoke  B.C. H y d r o t o p r o c e e d w i t h Project  under  twenty  t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and  three  conditions  (see  32 Appendix). water  The  form of twelve  licenses i n general,  Project. dated  The  latter  December  (m),  and  (o);  mitigation  (2)  of  the  covered  1976):  of  (1)  the  other  site  on  serious the  examination  shortcomings.  local  responsibility  provisions and  f o r the  agencies  responsibility environmental  of  beyond  Conservation only  public  and had  agencies  was  c l o s e d to the  out  the  no  liaise  other  with  of  (s).  the  (k), (1), (r); (4)  was  Rights, input of  there from  nine  (t)  and  his  agencies  agencies  Furthermore,  the  (m,  (1)  o,  no  eleven  was  the  required  knowledge,  staff.  However,  p,  r)  called  of R e c r e a t i o n clause  under c l a u s e  the  than  for  were  (u))  clause  course  ministries  of  and  a l l but  several  of  (v) a l s o socio-economic  P r o j e c t , other  (3)  claims  reveals  clauses  approval  regulatory  (clauses  and  ( s ) ; and  f o r the  Comptroller  government  clause  and  (r).  B.C.  ( q ) and  local  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework the  settlement  of  claims,  public.  ( t ) were directives  programs.  mitigation  Water  the  Water  these,  ( s ) and  2.4  clauses  clauses  clauses  Of  Revelstoke  c o n s i d e r a t i o n seems t o h a v e b e e n g i v e n t o t h e manner i n w h i c h ( p ) ,  ( s ) , and  contained  the  of  few  or  the  (q),  t o c o n s u l t w i t h t h e D e p u t y M i n i s t e r (DM)  implementation  Little  direction  clauses  of  clause  l a c k of e x p e r t i s e , o n l y f o u r c l a u s e s  under  the  and  settlement  also with to  tasks  Comptroller.  that  this  for  (r),  the  the C o m p t r o l l e r  Hydro  claim  e x p e r t i s e and  notwithstanding for  The  (p),  common t o  (v).  enforcement of  to  facilities,  community,  Comptroller  was  shown i n T a b l e  project-specific  the  d e l e g a t i o n of  (except  well  the  concerned.  conditions  both  of  t o p i c s as  ( t ) , ( u ) , and  these  Whereas  specific  protection, clauses  the  of  were  p r e p a r a t i o n and  a r i s i n g from the P r o j e c t , c l a u s e s Close  eleven  f o u r broad  environmental  impacts  c o n d i t i o n s ( a t o j , n, w)  of  the  to as  have  been  t o who  was  Additionally, impacts  on  one  implemented.  Clauses  responsible for designing  clause  (s)  seemed  to  refer  (p)  and  and  carrying  only  community, presumably R e v e l s t o k e ,  (s)  and  to not  the to  T a b l e l.k  Summary o f C o n t e n t o f S e l e c t e d  TOPIC  WATER L I C E N C E CLAUSE - DATE  Clauses  i n Water  B.C. HYDRO REQUIREMENTS  ROLE OF COMPTROLLER WATER RIGHTS (CWR)  clear  direct  extent  l i m i t level o f water b e h i n d dam u n t i l r e m e d i a l work complete  direct  level  Licence  OF  CONSULTATION AND LIAISON  PERSONNEL AND COMMITTEES RESPONSIBILITIES MEMBERS  S I T E P R E P A R A T I O N AND FACILITIES - land  clearance  (k) D e c .  1976  reservoir  area  and manner  - remedial work Downie S I i d e  (1) D e c . 1976  - release  (m) D e c .  1976  r e l e a s e water a t times 6 in q u a n t i t i e s s p e c i f i e d  dlrect  CWR w i t h H y d r o £ DM o f R e c r e a t i o n and Conservation  (o) D e c .  1976  construct f a c i l i t i e s i n vicinity of reservoir  d i rect  CWR w i t h H y d r o 6 DM o f R e c r e a t i o n and Conservation  as  di r e c t  water  r e c r e a t i onaI Fac i ) i t l e s  (o) log  transfer  ENVIRONMENTAL  S e p t . 1977  above  provide 6 operate (or a s s i s t wi t h ) f a c i I i t i e s f o r l o g t r a n s f e r a r o u n d dam  direct  ( p ) D e c . 1976  not s p e c i f i e d i n water I icence'  d i rect  (p) S e p t . 1977  c a r r y o u t programs and s t u d i e s  d i rect  (z) J u n e  1978  o f water  PROTECTION  - programs 6 s t u d i e s t o p r o t e c t , enhance and mitigate loss of fish £ w l l d l i fe habi t a t  CWR w i t h H y d r o 6 DM o f R e c r e a t i o n and Conservation  f ish and w i 1 d I i f e aspects of Project  (q) D e c .  1976  employ a f i s h e r i e s £ a wildlife biologist (site biologists)  determine period f o r information gathering  b i o l o g i s t s w i t h Hydro staff, contractors 6 government agencies as r e q u i r e d  monltor 6 gather informatIon during £ a f t e r construct ion  envi ronmentai gu i d e 1 i n e s  (q)  Dec.  1976  as  as  as  assist 1 n drafting g u i d e l i n e s  (r) Dec.  1976  prepare g u i d e l i n e s f o r construction related activi ties  approve  as above and a d h e r e to g u i d e l i n e s  d i rect  ( r ) Sept.1977  above  above  above  CWR w i t h DM o f R e c r e a tion 6 Conservation, Director of Pollution Control £ other regulatory agencies  T a b l e l.h  Continued  TOPIC  WATER L I C E N C E CLAUSE - DATE  B.C.  HYDRO REQUIREMENTS  ROLE OF COMPTROLLER OF WATER RIGHTS (CWR)  CONSULTATION AND LIAISON  prepare budgets f o r mi t i g a t i o n  approve  H y d r o wi t h l o c a l publIc agencies  c a r r y o u t programs of m i t i g a t i o n i n accordance with approved budgets  d i rect  as  PERSONNEL AND COMMITTEES RESPONSIBILITIES MEMBERS  MITIGATION -  impacts on commun i t y  local  (s) Dec.  1976  ( s ) S e p t . 1977  above  CLAIMS - a r i s i n g from con( t ) D e c . 1976 s t r u c t i o n , maintenance, use o r o p e r a t i o n o f L i censee's works  fund e n g i n e e r O f f i c e r (CO)  as  Claims  (t) June  1978  pay a n y c l a i m s £ $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 a c c e p t e d by CO a n d f u n d CO  (u) Dec.  I976  pay a n y sum d e t e r m i n e d by CO  (u)  1978  pay c l a i m s o v e r $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 determined i n court, submit t o a r b i t r a t i o n upon c l a i m a n t ' s c h o i c e  June  (v) D e c .  1976  a p p o i n t CO, s u b m i t c l a i m s * $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 t o CO, e s t a b l i s h procedures f o r making and hearing claims  specify conditions of a r b l t r a t ion  p r o v i d e s e c u r i t y t o meet costs o f complying with c l a u s e s o, p, s , u  direct  amounts £ terms  COMMITTEES - Revelstoke Project Coordinating C o m m i t t e e (RPCC)  (x) S e p t . 1977  pay f o r RPCC's e x p e n s e s a t t e n d on i n v i t a t i o n , r e p o r t and c o n s u l t w i t h RPCC  a p p o i n t members S c h a i r m a n , give public notice o f RPCC's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 6 o f CWR's o r d e r s £ a p p r o v a l s  Hydro £ s i te b i o l o g i s t s w i t h RPCC r e matters o f clauses 1, n , o , p , r , s , v  recommend t o CWR re o r d e r s £ approvals for clauses 1 , n, o, p, r , s, v  representatives of Ministries £ Agencies concerned  Community Impact Committee (CIC)  (y) S e p t . 1 9 7 7  pay f o r C I C ' s e x p e n s e s , a t t e n d on i n v i t a t i o n , r e p o r t and c o n s u l t w i t h CIC  a p p o i n t members £ c h a i r m a n , give public notice o f CIC's recommendations £ o f CWR's o r d e r s £ a p p r o v a l s  Hydro w i t h CIC r e matters of clause s  monitor consul t a t ions i n c l a u s e s, a s s i s t Hydro on m a t t e r s a r i s i n g , recommend t o CWR r e o r d e r s 6 a p provals for clause s  representatives of Ministries £ Agencies concerned  I.  E x p l a n a t o r y n o t e s (CWR, 1 9 7 6 e ) a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e w a t e r l i c e n c e c a l l f o r t h e F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e B r a n c h (FWB) t o p r e p a r e a n d c o s t p r o g r a m s f o r s t u d i e s a n d w o r k s , a n d t o i m p l e m e n t t h e m w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f t h e B.C. H y d r o s i t e b i o l o g i s t s ( c l a u s e q ) i f a v a i l a b l e . T h e p a y m e n t f o r t h e p r o g r a m s was t o b e a p p r o v e d by B.C. H y d r o , f o l l o w i n g t h e p r o g r a m s a p p r o v a l / a m e n d m e n t b y t h e CWR.  35 several  other  close  by  communities.  There  were  s u r v e i l l a n c e of compliance w i t h the environmental for in  the monitoring  of impacts  i n general.  one o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l  impacts making  and i n c l a u s e and s e t t l i n g  amount a n d t e r m s o f t h e s e c u r i t i e s not  specified.  Though  2.4),  most  of these  from  matters  ( p , q, r ) f o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l  effects.  The p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e  the Project  1976e) w i t h  remained  i l l  provided  some  ( t ) ) and t h e  explanatory  the licence (see footnote defined  and a l l ,  of c l a i m s , were dependent on t h e d i r e c t i v e s o r a p p r o v a l Of i n t e r e s t  (clause  t o be g i v e n b y B.C. H y d r o ( c l a u s e ( v ) ) w e r e  the Comptroller  ( C o m p t r o l l e r o f Water R i g h t s ,  f o r the  The l a t t e r c o u l d h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d  ( s ) f o r socio-economic arising  provisions  guidelines (clause ( r ) ) , nor  protection clauses  of claims  no  i s t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r ' s  except  1,  notes Table  the s e t t l i n g  of the Comptroller.  r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the issuance of  the w a t e r l i c e n c e ( C o m p t r o l l e r o f Water R i g h t s ,  1976d).  He s t a t e d t h a t  there  were t h r e e main concerns a t the p u b l i c h e a r i n g : "(1)  The s a f e t y o f t h e p r o j e c t p a r t i c u l a r l y i n v i e w o f the very l a r g e s l i d e area on t h e v a l l e y s l o p e s i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f Downie C r e e k .  (2)  The p o s s i b i l i t y o f a d v e r s e e f f e c t s on f i s h and w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t and p r o d u c t i v i t y and on t h e environment i n g e n e r a l .  (3)  The p o s s i b i l i t y o f a d v e r s e e f f e c t s on t h e c o m m u n i t y a n d t h e economy i n t h e a r e a i n b o t h t h e s h o r t and l o n g t e r m s . " ( C o m p t r o l l e r o f Water R i g h t s ,  The  Comptroller  was s a t i s f i e d  by r e m e d i a l w o r k and t h e r a i s i n g With respect  to the other  any c o n c l u s i o n s under  licence  conditions The major  t h e Downie  of the e a r t h f i l l  two c o n c e r n s ,  and d e f e r r e d clauses  that  1976d)  these  Slide  could  stabilized  dam b y 1.5 m ( c l a u s e ( 1 ) ) .  t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r  to the implementation  (m), ( p ) , ( q ) , and  be  d i d n o t come t o  stage  of the Project \  ( r ) f o r the second  concern,  and  ( s ) , ( t ) , and ( u ) f o r t h e t h i r d one.  Comptroller  concerns.  d i d not include  He o n l y  commented  project  that  justification  i n the l i s t  h i s d e c i s i o n d i d n o t depend  of  o n B.C.  36 Hydro's load water  growth f o r e c a s t ,  licence  licence other  did  than  not  in  bind  the  Comptroller Project  well  advance  the  THE  economically  (SPEC),  the  the  B.C.  (conservationist  "the  were  on  and  The  was  nor  that and  that  the  three  logs  while too  1990  the  the  The  implementation, ( i ) ) .  that  and  obtain  construction.  (clause  convincing Hydro  should  project  of Water R i g h t s ,  q, other  their r))  Of  The  the  Water  Revelstoke  Province  with  the  1976d).  objections.  i t was  no  r i g h t s of  in  B.C.  Whereas  appeal.  Company  not  i n t e r e s t of  was be  (1960)  Society  Outdoorsmen  (CANCEL). except  rendered  the  CANCEL'S  unnavigable The  West  that  public.  floated downriver.  The  the  established the  by  by  the  conditions  adequately cover these s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t s . groups  raised  objections  major concern were the e n v i r o n m e n t and  Hydro  the  Kootenay  A l l appellants,  the  longer  West  H y d r o had  River  Water Act  Environmental Control  Cellulose  Canadian  s e c u r e f i n a n c i n g by  gave  under the  the  government a g e n c i e s ,  little.  appealed  b e c a u s e B.C.  could  the  m a t t e r s , t h e r e w e r e no for  B.C.  of  for  the  conservationist  p r o t e c t i o n of  p r o g r a m s and p,  is  P o l l u t i o n and  Columbia  environmental matters.  (n,  December  start  Federation,  several  the w a t e r l i c e n c e d i d not  the  31  proponent  schedule  evidence  Scientific  groups),  needed  R e v e l s t o k e Dam  for  a  l i c e n c e was  Wildlife  based  was  objection  of  to  (Comptroller  Kootenay Outdoorsmen, o b j e c t e d project  of  intended  attractive for  c o n d i t i o n a l water  intervenors:  appeals  the  the  WATER L I C E N C E A P P E A L  The four  date  that  proposed i n - s e r v i c e date"  2.4.1  of  proponent  in-service  concluded  is  because i d e a l l y  Water  provisions  too like  lack  of  B.C.  Hydro.  much  control  the  F i s h and  The over  adequate  the  compensation  Branch  jurisdiction  of  provisions  environmental  Wildlife  retained  handling  water l i c e n c e  for n o t i f y i n g objectors to  the  f o r f i r m m i t i g a t i o n and  Comptroller  SPEC o b j e c t e d  to  (clauses issues,  (FWB), over  had  these  of h i s d e c i s i o n s  proposed Claims O f f i c e r being  and an  37 e n g i n e e r ( c l a u s e ( t ) ) r a t h e r t h a n a p r o f e s s i o n a l w i t h e n v i r o n m e n t a l and s o c i o economic t r a i n i n g .  T h e B.C. W i l d l i f e  F e d e r a t i o n thought  be b e y o n d t h e m a n d a t e o f t h e C o m p t r o l l e r . demand  f o r at least  The e s s e n c e  a d e l a y i n and p r e f e r a b l y  the Claims O f f i c e r to o f t h e a p p e a l s was t h e  the c a n c e l l a t i o n  of the water  licence. A  five  government Cabinet. water  member  i n February  Appeal  1977 t o h e a r  entirely  In t h e i r  or i n part,  concluded aspects  of  concerns  Slide  the conditions Whereas  and  requirements,  starting  specific  a l l appeals  and c a n c e l t h e  accordingly (Cabinet  t h a t t h e r e w e r e no a p p e a l s  a t t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g , namely socio-economic  licence  must  concurred  However, in-service  labour  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l , Cabinet  to  a n d ( 3 ) t o a l l o w some  licence  outside their  impacts.  They  covered  these  have  that  terms  the Project  was  o f r e f e r e n c e and t h e  the report  date would  t o make  requirements social  and  the f i n a l  and i n - s e r v i c e d a t e s o f t h e P r o j e c t ,  Committee's The  asked  recommendations  stated  that  some  allow f o r additional  i m p l i c a t i o n s and t h e consequences o f t h e b o r r o w i n g  the Revelstoke  projects,  Committee  a later  provincial  t h e y d i d n o t d e t e r m i n e when b e c a u s e o f two  not at a l l complete.  time t o study the f i n a n c i a l  future  adverse  t h e Committee  t h e d e c i s i o n was " p e r h a p s "  C o m m i t t e e members t h o u g h t  the  the l a t t e r .  raised  of the water  n e e d e d a t some t i m e i n t h e f u t u r e ,  was  a n d make  (1) t o accept  The C o m m i t t e e c h o s e  t h e Downie  adequately.  evidence  s e t up b y  r e p o r t t o C a b i n e t t h e Committee noted  that  reasons:  the appeal  a n d amend t h e w a t e r  on t h e b a s i s o f t w o o f t h e m a j o r safety  was  ( 2 ) t o deny a l l a p p e a l s and c o n f i r m i t ;  Appeal Committee, 1977).  the  Committee^  They had t h r e e o p t i o n s :  licence;  appeals  Cabinet  i n relation economic  decision  with  but i n so doing  t o those  concerns. respect  of The  to the  to consider the  report.  Appeal  C o m m i t t e e came t o t h r e e c o n c l u s i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o i s s u e s n o t  to the Revelstoke Project.  First,  t h e Committee  concluded  that the  38 Water C o m p t r o l l e r was r e q u i r e d t o d e c i d e t h e Water A c t when a p p r o v i n g organization  not connected  such  on m a t t e r s w e l l o u t s i d e t h e sphere o f  p r o j e c t s a s B.C. H y d r o ' s .  w i t h t h e proponent should  I n p a r t i c u l a r , an  forecast the e l e c t r i c i t y  demand g r o w t h r a t e i n f u t u r e . Second,  t h e Committee  recognized  regard t o environmental,  social,  only  available  a  limited  staff  enforcement of water crucial large of  when  licence  dealing with  beyond  and economic a s p e c t s . i n t h e Water  conditions.  Consequently,  a n d member M i n i s t r i e s  t h e Water  Act to provide  o f t h e Water Furthermore,  Management  Acti n  t h e r e was  Branch  for  the  The l a t t e r was s e e n a s p a r t i c u l a r l y  t h e l o n g - t e r r a commitments  s c a l e developments.  Environment  the deficiencies  and v a r i e d  aspects  of  i t w a s recommended t h a t t h e M i n i s t e r  o f ELUC  should  the necessary  develop  framework  new  legislation  f o r licensing  such  p r o j e c t s as Revelstoke. The with  third  t h e Water  perception that  c o n c l u s i o n w a s t h a t B.C. H y d r o ' s  that  t h e Water  A c t should B.C. H y d r o Comptroller  be r e v o k e d . 6 was l a r g e l y might  have  This  beyond been  right  n o t t o have  exemption  corroborated the  t h e government's  unable  t o comply  to enforce  c o n t r o l and  the orders  he  i s s u e d t o B.C. H y d r o .  2.4.2  THE AMENDED WATER L I C E N C E Not  withstanding  been a l l o w e d that  year  possibility  to start  when  the appeal, i n January  Cabinet  construction of the Revelstoke 1977.  decided  t h a t had been f a v o u r e d  not to delay  (Table  changed l i c e n c e In June  2.4, A p p e n d i x ) .  clauses  1978, t h e appeal  swing  by September o f  or cancel  b y some members o f t h e A p p e a l  On t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e A p p e a l licence twice  I t was i n f u l l  Committee, Cabinet  The f i r s t  P r o j e c t had  the P r o j e c t — a Committee.  amended t h e w a t e r  amendment, i n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 7 ,  ( o ) , ( p ) , ( r ) , and ( s ) and added c l a u s e s ( x ) and ( y ) . b y CANCEL was s e t t l e d  by c h a n g e s  to conditions ( t )  39 and  ( u ) and  the a d d i t i o n of c l a u s e ( z ) .  T h e s e amendments a n s w e r e d some o f t h e o b j e c t i o n s r a i s e d i n t h e a p p e a l in  this  study  provide and  an  (y)  ( S e c t i o n 2.4.1).  Coordinating  for  two  two  ( R P C C ) and  the  also  Committees  of  the  should  needed  provided  to  for  of  the  public  compensation of  Committees J  n o t i c e of  the  This  p r o v i s i o n allowed the  realm  (v)  of  The  and  c o n s u l t a t i o n between  the  T h i s not  and  o n l y made up  ( p ) , ( o ) , and  socio-economic for  programs  as  was  for his  giving  licence  orders  and  ( k , m,  q,  to  For  g u i d e l i n e s t o be  developed  (p)  directives  give  the  and  (s)  and  f o r B.C. to  adhere  under c l a u s e ( r ) . But  reasonable  six  to  these. clauses  Comptroller  (clause  (m)).  procedure  (clause ( z ) ) .  directives Hydro  for  claims  l o g s a r o u n d t h e dam  i t called  to  (1), (n), (o),  z ) , the  f o r the  extended  respect  approvals  t , u,  g a v e some more e x p l i c i t  In particular,  clause  the  recommendations  for clauses  public input.  of  amended w a t e r  under  ( r ) , but  expertise  However, d e c i s i o n s w i t h  recommendations  f o r the t r a n s f e r of  (s).  f o r the  determining  required  ( t ) , ( u ) ) and  ( r ) , and  Project  procedure.  Comptroller  Committees  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were the  (clauses  (x)  and  r e q u i r e d t o c o n s u l t w i t h a g o v e r n m e n t m i n i s t r y o n l y f o r one  Added  to  (CIC),  b a s e d on t h e  well  two  Committee  r , s , v ) w e r e now  f o r some l i m i t e d  the  Clauses  Revelstoke  Impact  p r o t e c t i o n and  clauses.  The  as  attempt  f u n c t i o n o f t h e W a t e r C o m p t r o l l e r was  Committees"  ( r ) , ( s ) , and  (p),  the  impacts.  ( 1 , o, p,  (p),  was  environmental  approval  clauses  two  outside  the  a l l project-specific  of these  liaison  agencies.  environmental  d i r e c t i o n and  embrace  half  provided  ensuring  m i t i g a t i o n and  Community  the  provisions for consultation i n clauses  have  for  The  c h a n g e was  ( u ) p r o v i d e d a much i m p r o v e d c l a i m s  a p p r o p r i a t e p r o v i n c i a l m i n i s t r i e s and deletion  important  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e committees,  Committee  ( t ) and  The  very  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework f o r p r o j e c t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .  called  clauses  A  and  to the  for  clauses  c a r r y out  the  environmental  t h e amendments f e l l  short i n  40 respect the  t o two m a t t e r s :  programs  objection over (p)).  f o r clauses  raised  (clause  chapter.  (p)  matters,  and that  writing  o f some o f  anyone  ( s ) and, B.C.  the Corporation's  the  these  to the task  rather  Hydro  Hydro a l s o remained r e s p o n s i b l e  ( q ) ) and  implications  d i d not assign  i n the appeal  environmental B.C.  they  was  amendments w i l l  designing  addressing  the  given  excessive  control  c o n t r o l was  increased  (clause  f o r employing  environmental  than  of  guidelines be  the s i t e (clause  evaluated  biologists (r)).  The  i n the f o l l o w i n g  41 NOTES  P u b l i c u t i l i t y systems w i t h i n m u n i c i p a l t h e mandate of t h e E n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n . 1  boundaries were a l s o  excluded  from  2 Sewell (1971) s t a t e s that p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g i n c l i n e s p r o f e s s i o n a l s to narrow i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of complex i s s u e s . An e x a m p l e i s an e n g i n e e r being f a c e d w i t h p r o b l e m s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t y management. See a l s o Netboy ( 1 9 8 6 ) f o r a s i m i l a r o p i n i o n i n r e f e r e n c e t o dams. 3 The B.C. E n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n a n n o u n c e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d h o l d a h e a r i n g I n t h i s r e g a r d , b u t i t h a d n o t y e t t a k e n p l a c e i n 1979 when t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the dam h a d b e e n u n d e r w a y f o r n e a r l y two y e a r s ( A n t h o n y , 1 9 7 9 ) . ^ The B.C. E n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n i n 1975 recommended t h a t B.C. H y d r o u s e a 7% a n n u a l g r o w t h r a t e f o r t h e 20 y e a r p l a n n i n g p e r i o d . The ELUC S e c r e t a r i a t , h o w e v e r , had the Department of Economic Development e v a l u a t e the two c o n f l i c t i n g f o r e c a s t s o f t h e B.C. E n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n and B.C. Hydro. They c o n c l u d e d t h a t a 7% r a t e was t h e most l i k e l y demand i n c r e a s e f o r t h e p e r i o d 1 9 7 4 / 7 5 - 1 9 8 5 / 8 6 , b u t t h a t f o r p l a n n i n g p u r p o s e s i t m i g h t be n e c e s s a r y t o a l l o w f o r t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n f o r e c a s t i n g and c o s t s o f o v e r - o r u n d e r p l a n n i n g (B.C. Hydro, 1976b). -> The members o f t h e C a b i n e t A p p e a l C o m m i t t e e w e r e t h e f o l l o w i n g M i n i s t e r s : A. V. F r a s e r , H i g h w a y s and P u b l i c W o r k s ; K. H. M a i r , C o n s u m e r and Corporate A f f a i r s ; H. M c C l e l l a n d , H e a l t h ; E . M. W o l f e , F i n a n c e and t h e c h a i r m a n ; L . A. Williams, Labour. C a b i n e t d i d n o t a c t on t h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . The H y d r o and P o w e r A u t h o r i t y A c t 1979, RSBC, c 188, s 5 2 ( 1 ) r e a d s " N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s i n any A c t t o t h e c o n t r a r y e x c e p t as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by o r u n d e r t h i s A c t , t h e a u t h o r i t y i s n o t b o u n d by any s t a t u t e or s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n of the Province." The A c t i s s t i l l i n e f f e c t , t h u s t o d a t e B.C. H y d r o h a s r e t a i n e d t h e same p o w e r . ^ A l s o c l a u s e ( n ) , but specific clause.  i t i s not  included  here  because  i t i s not  a  project-  42 CHAPTER 3 THE ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK Large  scale  engineering,  resource  financial,  projects  legal,  consist  environmental) the character  w h i c h change as each s t a g e o f t h e p r o j e c t major p a r t i c i p a n t s :  t h e p r o p o n e n t w h i c h may be a p r i v a t e  (3)  the public  In many  skilled  consortia of  to carry  and p l a n n i n g  individuals  as  and  administrative  out a large  within  each,  groups  there  framework  which  need  the  the  approach  As a r e s u l t ,  implemented  construction  represented versions structure  be  of the water and o p e r a t i o n s  broader  the r o l e  The  task-specific  clear  of the m u l t i p l i c i t y  of the project  inform  the  d i d not appear t o recognize  the  of  making.  an  administrative t o here as  The f o r m e r was s e t up - a n d  the water  licence  official  program  chapter  of  of agencies  and t o b o t h  o f arrangements emerged, r e f e r r e d  This  lines  and  major p a r t i c i p a t o r y groups  hearing emerged  i n t h e December 1976, September  licence.  construction  organizational  to establish  of the three  programs".  - before  by c o n d i t i o n s  a  Project  t h e s p e c i a l segments  to these  to the establishment  two s e t s  period.  and  and i n t h e w i d e r  teams,  f o ri t s participation i n decision  " u n o f f i c i a l " and " o f f i c i a l  partially  also  a r c h i t e c t s of the Revelstoke Project  f o r an h o l i s t i c  program.  to deal with  i s designed  a l l aspects  p u b l i c as w e l l as p r o v i d e The  must  to coordinate  i n design  In addition  the a c t i v i t i e s  to monitor  organization,  such as t h e R e v e l s t o k e  t o be a s s e m b l e d  i t progresses.  the s p e c i a l i s t s ,  sector  of the project  undertaking  work groups i n order  authority, to integrate and  three  or country.  i n d i v i d u a l s have  the project  They a l s o i n v o l v e  or public  both i n the immediate v i c i n i t y  of the province  order  i s reached.  and i m p o r t a n c e o f  ( 1 ) t h e government i n i t s r o l e as l i c e n s o r and r e g u l a t o r ;  (2)  constituency  o f many s p e c i a l i z e d s e g m e n t s ( e . g .  will  already  and c o n t i n u e d i n three  phases  1 9 7 7 , a n d J u n e 1978  describe  and a s s e s s t h e  o f e a c h program and t h e r e l a t i o n s between them.  e n v i r o n m e n t a l management u n d e r t a k e n b y t h e o f f i c i a l  into  The  program i s d e a l t w i t h i n  43 greater  detail  than other  concludes t h i s  3.1  o f t h e two p r o g r a m s .  An o v e r v i e w  assessment  chapter.  THE UNOFFICIAL PROGRAM Internally  permitted  B.C.  had d e v e l o p e d  design,  being  electric  an  licence,  M i c a and Peace R i v e r  an e f f e c t i v e  Despite  Hydro  i t to plan,  Keenleyside, as  facets  utility  organizational  build,  and  operate  expert  with  a Crown C o r p o r a t i o n ,  agency  reputation,  a comprehensive  i t also  and  before  developed  range  of  reputation  capabilities.  the reputation  development.  (Chapter  2)  itself  of  with  this  project  construction  However, t h e R e v e l s t o k e  Project  a t a t i m e when g o v e r n m e n t r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c ' s  concern  environmental  licence hearing.  l e t some  being  as t h e l e a d  In keeping  and even  which  Duncan,  P r o j e c t , B.C. H y d r o p r e c e d e d a p a c e w i t h  selection  the water  was t a k i n g p l a c e for  electricity  on t h e R e v e l s t o k e  justification contracts  of  the  dams a n d i n s o - d o i n g e s t a b l i s h a  r e m a r k a b l y independent o f government and appeared t o r e g a r d and  structure  Impact  and  f o r information  about  the  project  and  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e l i c e n s i n g p r o c e s s was i n c r e a s i n g and b e c o m i n g  formalized.  B.C.  the  Hydro  licence  recognized  hearing  these  changed  commenced, s t a r t e d  circumstances t o put together  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o g r a m t o a d d r e s s t h e s e new Apparently various  levels  starting  and, before an  organizational  i n J a n u a r y 1 9 7 6 , B.C. H y d r o h e l d m e e t i n g s " . . .  o f government  t o address  several  committees  compensation Furthermore, pledged  ".  measures  on t h e b a s i s  .  .  to  and r e s o l v e  develop  f o r project o f some  a wide  monitoring  office  and a p r o j e c t  appropriate  impacts"  (Waite,  EIS recommendations  t o implement a t t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g s ,  and  conditions.  range  of  i m p a c t s " ( W a i t e , 1979, p. 5 3 ) . An outcome o f t h e s e m e e t i n g s was t h e of  water  that  the Corporation  impact committee (B.C. Hydro,  with  project formation  mitigation  and  1979, p. 5 3 ) . B.C.  Hydro  had  s e t up a n i m p a c t 1976b).1  44 3.1.1  THE COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM The  before  total  and a f t e r  F i g u r e 3.1. "Local  i n t e r n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o g r a m t h a t B.C. H y d r o d e v e l o p e d , the licence  The v a r i o u s p a r t s w e r e :  Impact  Committee"  Committees, which #19  hearing,  were  the City  Committee  elements  The R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t  f o r s h o r t , t h e Impact M o n i t o r of Revelstoke  N e g o t i a t i n g Team, t h e R e v e l s t o k e  Forestry  c o n s i s t e d of three  Social  and t h e Technical  Impact  Committee,  the School  Services Council,  Planning  shown i n  and t h e f i v e  Committee,  Committee  both  Adjunct District  the Revelstoke of the Regional  District. The  Impact M o n i t o r was a p p o i n t e d  i n August  1977 b y t h e R e g i o n a l  o f C o l u m b i a - S h u s w a p i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h B.C. H y d r o . the Monitor  and h i s t r a v e l l i n g  expenses,  The l a t t e r  b u t p r o v i d e d no s u p p o r t  also  the Project  impacts  communities.  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was n o t o n l y t o p r o v i d e a r e c o r d o f t h e i m p a c t s  b u t was a l s o  to  the Project.  the basis  of Revelstoke  The  and t h e n e i g h b o u r i n g  be  on t h e C i t y  funded  staff.  M o n i t o r was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e m o n i t o r i n g o f t h e s o c i a l - and economic of  District  f o r the settling  of  claims  arising  from  Additionally  i f t i m e p e r m i t t e d , he was t o r e s e a r c h c l a i m s f o r t h e L o c a l Impact  Committee.  Terms  the  Regional  these  o f r e f e r e n c e were  District  t o whom  developed  the Monitor  terras o f r e f e r e n c e ( n o t a v a i l a b l e  b y B.C. H y d r o a n d a p p r o v e d  was r e s p o n s i b l e .  to author)  Whereas i n a c o n s u l t a n t ' s r e p o r t t o t h e o f f i c i a l as  "very  Group,  detailed,  1986),  specifying  the Monitor  i n s t r u c t i o n s " from which The which  the indicators  called  them  i s somewhat  and methods  "an i m p r e c i s e ,  C o m m i t t e e was c a l l e d  c a u t i o n e d t h a t t h e C o m m i t t e e s h o u l d be w e l l and charges  of tokenism  planned  controversial.  t o be u s e d " rambling  (DPA  s e t of  1988).  f o r i n the EIS,  ". . . i f p o t e n t i a l  a r e t o be a v o i d e d  e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e c o m m i t t e e i s t o be r e a c h e d "  of  program, they were d e s c r i b e d  h e c o u l d b e s t i n f e r w h a t t o do ( K o p a s ,  f o r m a t i o n o f t h e L o c a l Impact  misunderstandings  The n a t u r e  by  a n d t h e maximum  (B.C. H y d r o , 1976b, p . 19-  Figure 3-1  fund i ng various levelsof i n t e r a c t i o n  The U n o f f i c i a l  fundi ng/member LOCAL IMPACT COMMITTEE  Program  v a n ous -levels of interaction  ADJUNCT COMMITTEES REGIONAL DISTRICT TECHNICAL PLANNING COMMITTEE CITY OF REVELSTOKE COMMITTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT #19 NEGOTIATING TEAM REVELSTOKE SOCIAL SERVICES COUNCIL REVELSTOKE COMMITTEE  'IMPACT MONITORING COMMITTEE  O <  >  DECISION MAKER  I  FORESTRY  I COMPONENT OF UNOFFICIAL  PROGRAM  ^  46 53),  however,  Impact of  a  C o m m i t t e e was  of  C o m m i t t e e and  implementation  in  1976,  was  the  were  phase  to  the  City  five  of  Adjunct  Regional  not  The  District  be  B.C.  Local  and  Hydro  the  funded  e s t a b l i s h e d when  Committees w h i c h  local  in  to  Its  the  School  the  EIS  (B.C.  reimburse  representatives  Hydro,  acted  of as  the  the  the  to  Thompson,  the to  of  #19  1980, and  responsible  for  the  objective during  of  the  Service  City the  and  the  compensate  the  1976-1988).  Team a r o s e not  of  be  from  a  established the  school  p r o v i n c i a l a v e r a g e , by  having  costs  for  early  including  and  I t could  of  compensation  Forest  Negotiating  the  City  1981),  members  mitigate  pre-project  the  their  personnel,  B.C.  1976b).  I t was  Province  time  ( W a t e r Management B r a n c h ,  Hydro,  the  that  Hydro  was  these,  during  C o m m i t t e e , w e r e s e t up  consisted  of  existed  of  mitigation  B.C.  District  Committee.  arising  keeping  from  the  influx  of  1978a). Social  public  Services  Council,  agencies,  such  Hydro.  and  liaising  Two  senior  composed  as  a forum f o r s o l v i n g s o c i a l  improvements, B.C.  and  objective  of  and  Committee  forest industry3  this  Revelstoke  to  representatives  same p r o p o r t i o n  (B.C.  (Banks  Administrator,  Two  2  Whereas a t  changed  Revelstoke  industry.  the  problems i t  M a n a g e r , and  i n the  and  I t could  public hearing.  C i t y of  belonged  community  help.  stated.  1976-1988).  Forestry  recommendation  Council,  Branch,  Revelstoke  formation  The  the  the  forest  families  Hydro,  C o m m i t t e e and  Construction  itself  i t s secretarial  not  a s t e e r i n g committee c o n s i s t i n g  Project.  the  Hydro  B.C.  by  Revelstoke  Council,  B.C.  of  1977  was  the  The  taxes  early i n  each  implementation  The  accomplished  ( W a t e r Management  identification  i m p a c t s on  be  of  impacts.  local  up  from  there  prior  project  to  resolved.  Altogether  Revelstoke  was  set  Revelstoke  C o m m i t t e e was  who  this  representative  City the  how  the  Public  local Health  citizens and  and  Justice  problems, d e v i s i n g a program f o r  between  B.C.  of  agencies,  Hydro s t a f f  as  well  as  members p r o v i d e d  between support  47 to  the C o u n c i l f o r r e s o l v i n g problems of s o c i a l  Project  (B.C.  The task  Technical  of  Hydro  Hydro,  Planning  represented  THE  OPERATION OF  The  unofficial  monitoring, Project.  by  His  s t u d i e s were  help  the  CIC  predictions of  the  doing In  of  surprising The  of  1977. Local  Monitor  t h a t B.C.  Regional as  the  Impact the  affairs  intended  to  of  to  local  be  Manager (B.C.  or  the  assessment,  the  Hydro,  project  a  impacts  fulfilled  and  the  of  by  1978a).  completion  and  the  the  Impact  the  and  serve  of  the as  projects  magnitude  Impact  Committee  could  responsibility  Monitor  administrative structure  Comptroller address of  any  learn-by-  task,  agency;  the  Impact  fall  of  as  the  interests that  the  Committee  i n the  the  not  Impact  p r o b l e m s as w e l l as b e i n g  b e t w e e n t h e L o c a l I m p a c t C o m m i t t e e and  1976-1988).  i t is  staff.  duplication  and  1980).  questioning  represent  the  wind-down  a  between  little  and  c o u l d p r o v i d e c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n on l o c a l  "most v a l u a b l e l i a i s o n "  were  test  (Kopas,  the  appointed  anticipated  government  impacts,  t h e Community Impact  l a t t e r was  problems  Monitor.  measures, for  the  Revelstoke  socio-economic  information  s c a l e development  p r o g r a m , when t h e Water  on-site  structure for of  compensation  provide  usefulness  District in  B.C.  the  Hydro d i d not p r o v i d e the M o n i t o r ' w i t h s u p p o r t  the  on  took  requirements.  provide  communities  m i t i g a t i o n and  following  official  Management B r a n c h ,  District  housing  Construction  O f f i c e t h e L o c a l I m p a c t C o m m i t t e e and  However,  directly  the  potential  duplication  Monitor's  was  f u n c t i o n was  impact  Regional  apparent  the  for future large  the  such  compensation  inform  economy  experience  view  (CIC)  the  the  PROGRAM  and  design  the  socio-economic  program  to  to  of  local  and  monitoring  of  impacts,  either  THE  mitigation,  The  Committee  project  manager f o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l  3.1.2  from  1978a).  dealing with  was  s e r v i c e needs a r i s i n g  the  CIC  a  (Water  48 In the  effect,  the  Board,  Monitoring who  were  but  to  the  (Kopas,  explicit  problem very  Monitor the  was  of  1988;  content  ad  both  his  position  (Vancouver Express,  working  relationship  1980,  B.C.  for  this  are  the  kind  of  not  B.C.  to  information that  Impact M o n i t o r  i n the  long  useful  to  Project, Rights  the but  employed  thought  W h e r e a s B.C.  Regional  the  Office  Hydro i n t e n d e d  and  i s no  terra.  The City  District, the  philosophy  led  to  Thompson,  1980,  the  the a  lack  crucial  1981).  successive  While  the  The Impact  first  Impact  P r o j e c t C o n s t r u c t i o n Manager H y d r o was  experienced  or  guidance, and  a half  over  emasculating  the  though e n j o y i n g a good difficulties  with  the  y e a r s , f r o m A u g u s t 1977  position  doubt  altogether.  that a d e f i n i t e  c o u l d have been g e n e r a t e d  the L o c a l Impact Committee, the  little  his  Committee.  terminate  There  1979).  socio-economic  and  two  the  members,  had  This  t h a t B.C.  Hydro,  r u n f o r o n l y two  clear.  1986).  the  of  Impact  Express,  of  directives  resignations.^ the  the  three Board  monitoring  by  part  responsible to  i r r e g u l a r l y and  and  Office  of  1979), the second M o n i t o r ,  with  Hydro decided  was  (Vancouver  Group,  Banks  claimed  s u p e r i o r s , the Impact M o n i t o r i n g After having  the  ineffective  subcommittee,  underlying  their  and  a  Monitor  (DPA  conflicts with  reports  up  t h e y met  the  an  consisting  to  1984; of  was  Monitor  necessary  and  Davidson,  about  as  basis  reference  because of of  the  the  hoc  interpretations  brought left  an  the  set  relevant  Without  on  Monitor  F i g u r e 3.1)  support  issues  1988).  (Kopas,  Monitors  the  terms  different  Board  complicated matters  in  work undertaken  see  and  Impact  Initially,  the  (IMC,  supervise  background  impacts  later  Committee  H o w e v e r , t h e IMC  of  of  administrative structure.  Regional  no  Office  who  Monitor.  data of as  The  need the  April  reasons  existed for  Office  of  c o u l d have been u s e f u l t o the  Revelstoke  and  a w h o l e was  Furthermore,  v a l u a b l e , though  by  to  i t was  the  B.C. little  Hydro,  CIC,  but  least  a f f e c t e d by  Comptroller  outside  the  his  of  the  Water  jurisdiction.  to run the O f f i c e f o r only t h r e e years  and  then  on  49 a  retainer basis,  impression  the C i t y  that i t would extend i n t o  T h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n terms  of reference,  staff. the  1986)  The Impact with  settling  done  of claims  Impact  unresolved  Committee  Comptroller.  t h e wind-down phase o f t h e P r o j e c t .  under  by  forwarded  them  at this  shortages  rendered  help  Monitor's  could  also  work  this  they  were  public  was  Group,  by t h e L o c a l  i t and,  passed  program,  of  claims  unable  together If  t o t h e Community  who  prevented  procedure  to evaluate  advised  claims  expenses.  t h e Water  offer  little  the Local  impacts  might  argue  p r o c e d u r e was f r u s t r a t i n g  their  virtually  case  i n front  excluded  from  help.  terms have  C o m m i t t e e h a d no a u t h o r i t a t i v e p o w e r , i t w a s o n l y  as i t paid  experienced  F i n a n c i a l and undertaking  of reference. been  useful  Impact  f o r the  because  Committee  importantly  advisory  The  f o r the s e t t l i n g of  f o r the claimants  Most  and  1980, t h e Committee  Committee from  of the Local  the CIC.  effectively  However, he  direct  Impact  inadequate  B.C. H y d r o o n l y  Until  person.  f o r i n i t s second  socio-economic  both  and u n d e r s t a f f i n g .  as a r e s o u r c e  could  as c a l l e d  The c l a i m s  only  two  f o r settlement.  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f i s s u e s i n t h e community and c o n s e q u e n t l y claims.  support  1 9 8 5 ; DPA  before  t o B.C. H y d r o  level,  and t r a v e l l i n g  and thus  limitations  monitoring  clear  commissioned  (Sussex,  brought  the o f f i c i a l  depended on t h e Impact M o n i t o r  the  licence  firms  the claims  The C o m m i t t e e w a s  i t s secretarial  staff  with  o u t b y B.C. H y d r o ^ a n d , i n  f r o m t h e P r o j e c t was h a n d l e d  was s e v e r e l y hampered by u n d e r f u n d i n g  same  t o be r e d e s i g n e d  the water  consultant  arising  (CIC) of  factors  frustrating.  the  the  He i n t u r n c o u l d i m p o s e a b i n d i n g d e c i s i o n .  Several  for  under  a c c o u n t a b i l i t y s t r u c t u r e and adequate  I t evaluated  i t s recommendations, remained  were  3.2.2.1).  Committee.  claims  the Monitor  t h e O f f i c e needed  Comptroller  t o be  (see Section  and  some o f t h e w o r k w a s c a r r i e d  end, t h e Water i n 1984  that  a different  Subsequently  studies  of Revelstoke  they  as t h e  though, the  t o b o t h B.C. H y d r o  50 and t h e C I C . The  Local  Impact  Committee  was  r e s o l u t i o n of claims.  Claimants with  government  agencies,  could  approaching  t h e management  (Banks some  and  of  Thompson,  the  Committee Not  Adjunct  much  could  the  of  be  found  the Adjunct  identification  provided  and,  Local  Hydro,  in  only  about  Committees.  Committee  thus g e t t i n g  fast  also  the  be  by  remedial settled  the  operation  and,  the  prevention  of  3 . 2 . 2 . 1 ) a p p e a r t o be t h e k i n d o f c o n c e r n s t h a t  Committees  could  Impact Committee  addressed and,  i f they  r e s o l v e , and r e f e r r e d them t o t h e L o c a l  data  various hoc  parts  of t h i s  and  Impact  and t h e C I C d e a l t w i t h  d i d , must  have  (see  the Adjunct  been  unable  to  Committee.  COMPONENTS  a v a i l a b l e on  Hydro had not p r e s c r i b e d  the  o f m i t i g a t i o n and c o m p e n s a t i o n m e a s u r e s .  Section  limited  Forestry  impacts  T a b l e 3.2,  The  through  t h e y w e r e a means  that  INTERACTION OF THE  action  hence,  Many o f t h e i s s u e s  3.1.3  or  directly  Revelstoke  I t appears that  i f possible,  a forum f o r the n e g o t i a t i o n  have  f o r the  the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y  Impact  particular  avenue  Committee.  out  the L o c a l  the  C o n f l i c t s could  and t h e C i t y o f R e v e l s t o k e  effectiveness for  the  1981).  Committees,  not  more c l o u t , l i k e  bypass  o f B.C.  1980,  however  any  the u n o f f i c i a l  lines  structure.  program  revealed  of communication or r e p o r t i n g Any  that  B.C.  between  the  i n t e r a c t i o n seems t o h a v e b e e n o n a n ad  basis. A l t h o u g h the Water  Impact  Monitor  Because  the  t o be  Monitor  C o m p t r o l l e r h a d e n v i s a g e d one o f t h e f u n c t i o n s  that  of  worked  t h e "most  valuable  liaison",  this  under  Regional  District,  he  the  was was  of the not  so.  a  rather  detached part  of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  s t r u c t u r e and a p p e a r e d n o t t o h a v e  become  the  resource  he  Impact  valuable  Committee  (DPA G r o u p ,  person 1986).  that  might  have  been  to  the  Local  51 In conclusion, program,  appears  t o have g i v e n  clear directives, each  part  of  i t c a n be s a i d t h a t B.C. H y d r o ,  and enforcement  the program  f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e program  3.2  little  consideration  t o the adequate  staffing,  powers needed  f o rthe e f f e c t i v e operation of  the l i a i s o n  required  and  f o r the  integrated  as a w h o l e .  official  program  was  established  i n three  proceeded under t h e o r i g i n a l w a t e r l i c e n c e , i s s u e d the  basis  licence  of the p u b l i c h e a r i n g .  made  little  consultation appointment  provision  with  of a  of the Revelstoke  hoc committee,  t h a t was c h a i r e d  staff. order  the  I t brought  together  development  mitigation  meetings were h e l d , the o f f i c i a l  measures.  ushered  From  the water l i c e n c e , stage three  provided  (1) (y);  water  Hence t h e by an ad  Comptroller's  licence clauses,  i n June  Hydro  such as  e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s and  January  t o August  i n b y t h e amended w a t e r Later  As  and t h e  2.4).  and one i n R e v e l s t o k e .  two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m m i t t e e s .  3.2.1.  Hydro  a g e n c i e s c o n c e r n e d a n d B.C.  of the various  s i xi n Victoria  program  than the  member o f t h e W a t e r  of r e s e r v o i r c l e a r i n g standards,  and compensation  a n d B.C.  and T a b l e  on  other  P r o j e c t was i n i t i a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d  t h e government  stage  concerns, t h i s  structure  bodies  (see Appendix  by a s e n i o r  t o address the issues  The f i r s t  t h e d e f e r r a l of major  governmental  officer  stages.  by t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r  f o r an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  specified claims  Despite  implementation  of  the u n o f f i c i a l  THE OFFICIAL PROGRAM The  in  i n devising  1977, seven  The s e c o n d  licence,  stage  established  1 9 7 8 , u p o n a s e c o n d amendment t o  a much i m p r o v e d c l a i m s  procedure.  THE COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM shown i n F i g u r e  t h e Community  Impact  3.2, t h e o f f i c i a l Committee  (2) the Revelstoke Project  program  consisted  (CIC) established  Coordinating  Committee  of the following:  by w a t e r  licence  ( R P C C ) s e t up b y  clause  F i g u r e 3-2  The O f f i c i a l  Program  SUBCOMMITTEES  -Revelstoke Project C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee  0 Components o f O f f i c i a l  Program  1  Decision  Maker  \ Non-Decision  Maker  53 licence  clause  claims  procedure  biologist (q).  ( x ) ; (3) the Claims  (site  of  clause  biologists)  As t h e need  arose,  Officer  ( u ) ; and  provided  ( 4 ) one  t o be e m p l o y e d  and  by  B.C.  Hydro.  In the f a l l  the chairman  consisting  of representatives  concerned  about  years,  a n d members  the impacts  membership  invitation.  varied  CIC  of  of  impacts  on t h e l o c a l  CIC  to a s s i s t  those  (water  government  depending  on  clause  service ministries.  meetings  were  p u b l i c agencies community  the Licensee  open  Comptroller  licence  clause ( y ) ) who  communities.  dealt  with,  the  Impact  Over  but  B.C. H y d r o a t t e n d e d  to  were  many  meetings  Monitor  and  Committee. the consultations held  with respect  (water  between  t o the m i t i g a t i o n of adverse  licence clause  and t h e l o c a l  c o n s u l t a t i o n s and making  Comptroller  ministries,  the Issues  I t was t h e o b j e c t i v e o f t h e CIC t o m o n i t o r B.C. H y d r o a n d l o c a l  wildlife  r e q u i r e d by  1977, t h e Water  t h e CIC  of provincial  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e L o c a l Impact  from  one  issues.  o f t h e P r o j e c t on t h e n e a r b y  members came f r o m t h e s o c i a l  was  and  ( t ) ; the  t h e two a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m m i t t e e s w e r e empowered t o  appointed  by  clause  w h o l e s t r u c t u r e was under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e Water  funded  the  fisheries  b y B.C. H y d r o ,  s e t up s m a l l s u b c o m m i t t e e s t o a d d r e s s s p e c i f i c The  f o r by  (s)).  agencies  recommendations  Furthermore, the  i n any m a t t e r s  f o r approvals  arising  and  t o be i s s u e d b y t h e W a t e r C o m p t r o l l e r  under water  licence clause  water l i c e n c e n e i t h e r defined "impact"  nor " l o c a l "  i t i s assumed, on t h e b a s i s  of  the a v a i l a b l e data,  environmental, Revelstoke  social,  and  that and  clause  economic,  neighbouring  and  that  communities,  such  Sicamous, a l l w i t h i n the Regional The (water the  Water C o m p t r o l l e r  licence clause  Water  ( s ) covered  a l s o appointed  Branch  local  kinds meant  as Malakwa,  of  As t h e  impacts—  the City Armstrong,  of and  District.  ( x ) ) , the l a t t e r  Management  a l l three  (s).  orders  who  t h e members a n d c h a i r m a n o f t h e RPCC  being  had  t h e same s e n i o r s t a f f member o f  chaired  t h e ad  hoc  committee,  the  54 forerunner service most  o f t h e RPCC.  m i n i s t r i e s and agencies  involved  Recreation, attend  were  The  Forests.  of  l i c e n c e , which served  in  and a p p r o v a l s  clauses  Environment,  B.C.  Hydro  t h e RPCC w e r e  t o be g i v e n  (k), (1),  by h i m w i t h  ( n ) ,( o ) ,  of Water R i g h t s ,  1977).  a n d t h e C I C , b u t by m u t u a l to the l a t t e r .  secure  remaining  financing  of  conditions,  Clause  clause  (x) of  In  to environmental  and c l a u s e  the light  respect  Clause  of  " i n respect  t o those  between  ( o ) , ( p ) , ( s ) , and  of  conditions, structure interrelated  and  matters.  of  licence  3.1, t h e t a s k s o f t o both  t h e two, i t was  (u).  However, c l a u s e  Of  and  the  facilities were  five and  related  (k) reservoir clearing,  adherence  to  and w i l d l i f e environmental  t o the environment.  t h e terms that  of  reference  t h e Water  the Committee  and  the structure  t h e RPCC's d u t i e s w e r e t w o f o l d .  the s o l v i n g of problems advising  of the  matters s e tout  recreational facilities  t h e RPCC's p u r p o s e w a s " c o n s i d e r i n g  i s basically  the water  ( s ) had been a s s i g n e d  agreement  ( r ) the p r e p a r a t i o n  C o m m i t t e e , one c a n c o n c l u d e that  had t o  The RPCC w a s t o  ( n ) , the l o c a t i o n of a u x i l i a r y  guidelines pertained d i r e c t l y  which  i n clause  ( p ) t h e p r o t e c t i o n , enhancement and c o m p e n s a t i o n ^ o f f i s h  habitat,  Outdoor  ( 1 ) c o n c e r n e d t h e dam's s a f e t y a n d c l a u s e ( v )  clauses  ( o ) , the construction  indirectly  and  biologists  As o u t l i n e d i n T a b l e  RPCC  stated  Parks  ( p ) , ( r ) , ( s ) , and ( v ) " o f t h e w a t e r  the  delegated  and s o c i a l  The m i n i s t r i e s  as t h e Committee's terms o f r e f e r e n c e .  RPCC w e r e v a r i e d a n d f a r - r e a c h i n g .  clause  Lands,  and t h e s i t e  outlined  the  clause  the Project.6  a n d make r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o t h e W a t e r C o m p t r o l l e r  (Comptroller  the  by  the resource  b y t h e RPCC.  objectives  consider  affected  the following:  Highways,  as requested  orders  The RPCC members r e p r e s e n t e d  with  and making  of the  Clause  recommendations",  p e r t a i n i n g t o the various  Comptroller  i t snumerous  accordingly. members  (x)  and  concerns l e d t o i t s second f u n c t i o n — t h a t of l i a i s o n .  licence But the  their  often  Table  3.1  Clause  Water L i c e n c e C l a u s e s  Administered  by t h e RPCC  Purpose  Water C o m p t r o l l e r ' s Direction Approval  k  reservoir  clearing  1  level of water in r e s e r v o i r n o t t o e x c e e d 563-9 m u n t i l r e m e d i a l work t o Downie S l i d e i s c o m p l e t e d  n  l o c a t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n camps, work a r e a s s i t e o f f i c e s , b o r r o w p i t s and s i m i l a r w o r k s  o  construction of recreational in v i c i n i t y o f r e s e r v o i r  p  p r o g r a m s f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n and enhancement o f f i s h and w i 1 d 1 i f e h a b i t a t and f o r t h e mitigation of losses of habitat, s t u d i e s t h e r e t o t o be c a r r i e d o u t by L i c e n s e e  X X  facilities  r  p r e p a r a t i o n by L i c e n s e e o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l guidelines f o ra l l construction-related act i v i t ies a d h e r e n c e by L i c e n s e e t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l gu i d e l i nes  s»  L i c e n s e e t o c a r r y o u t programs f o r t h e m i t i g a t i o n o f a d v e r s e i m p a c t s on t h e l o c a l community in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h annual budgets prepared in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e l o c a l public agencies  v  Licensee t o give s e c u r i t y t o ensure complia n c e w i t h c l a u s e (o) , (p) , (s) , (u)  X X  -'•the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e CIC by an i n t e r c o m m i t t e e a g r e e m e n t  Source:  C o m p t r o l l e r o f W a t e r R i g h t s , 1978  56 The  part  initial Claims and  of  claims  the  official  procedure,  Officer  pursuant  claimant  under S e c t i o n  detailed Officer  and  claims  to  the  18  be  an  to  appointed for  Clause  $10,000 w e r e c o v e r e d either  to  the  s p e c i f i e d by  his  sue  B.C.  the  poorly  engineer  sum"  defined  t o be  f o r B.C.  was  appointed  H y d r o t o pay  t h a t he  Water A c t "  water  the  as  (clause  (u))  the  his salary  d e t e r m i n e d " t o be  B.C.  claims  limited  clause  Hydro  Arbitration  Comptroller  or Act  from time  In  Water and  to  owing  (Comptroller  hearings,  be  final  .  his .  to time"  except  Claims  could to  claims  for may  (Comptroller  not  Claims  a claimant  as  to  submit  binding.  claim  more  a l s o was  and  and  were the  who  Officer  I t allowed  submit  1978  particular,  Claims  (u).  ".  June  Comptroller,  the  d e c i s i o n was by  l i c e n c e of  framework. the  now  exceeding  pursuant  and  the  by  (t)  $10,000,  to  the  making  exceeding  action  of  improved  procedure  himself.  "any  most  1977b).  amendments  provided  was  determine  the  f o r an  t o t h e W a t e r A c t , and  of Water R i g h t s , 1976c, However,  t h a t was  which called  e x p e n s e s ( c l a u s e ( t ) ) as w e l l as  t o any  of  program  a  choice  arbitration be  otherwise  of Water  Rights,  1978). The  last  component  biologists.  This  the  hearing  public  differences or  the  be  little  of  (B.C. on  Wildlife  more  the  p r o v i s i o n was  opinion  F i s h and  of  than  official b a s e d on  Hydro, who  apologists  for  that  experienced  p r o f e s s i o n a l s would  ( C o m p t r o l l e r of Water R i g h t s , Under c l a u s e and  a wildlife  (q) of  consisted  c o m m i t m e n t B.C.  employ  (FWB).  r e s p o n s i b l e t o t h e Crown C o r p o r a t i o n .  a  1977a).  should  Branch  program  There the  had  site  Hydro's  the  two  H y d r o had been  their  made  at  considerable  thought  actions  i f  they  would  they  were  However, the Water C o m p t r o l l e r uphold  site  b i o l o g i s t s — B . C . Hydro  Environmentalists B.C.  of  integrity  and  believed  credibility  1976b).  t h e w a t e r l i c e n c e , B.C.  b i o l o g i s t w i t h i n three  months of  H y d r o was the  to h i r e a  issuance  of  the  fisheries licence,  57 for  the  length  Comptroller help  the  thought  fish  and  construction period  necessary.  i n w r i t i n g the  monitor as  of  environmental  wildlife  needed d u r i n g  Their  and  thereafter for  duties  were  o u t l i n e d as  aspects  of  the  P r o j e c t , to  to maintain  clause  ( q ) , and  respectively. the  at  first  However,  the  Construction  head  In  August  help  1977  of  because  two  d u t i e s had the  as  to  rather  the  His  terms of placed in  the  staff  required  than  to  written  up  wildlife site  reference  under the  Revelstoke,  were  first  reference  dam  It  biologist  so  still  only  could  by  broadly  of  to  about  appears  to  not  rather  be  be  the  B.C.  ( r ) and  (p),  implemented  as  Environmental  under  b o u n d by  problems w i t h  the  devised  that  of  a non-strike  the union  terms  of  reference.  1988).  environmental  Both by  and  p o s s i b l e " , 8 <jid  needed  doing  and  get  not i t  terms  of  reference  (Water  Management  that  terms  of  reference  were  eventually  a  year own  filled stated  site  their  what  as  paramount  the  his  left,  efficiently  determine  f o r about  had  f o l l o w i n g approval  manager  B.C.  outlined in  s u p e r v i s i o n of the but  as  q u i c k l y and  b i o l o g i s t , who  biologist (Mason,  as  worry  in effect  fisheries  of  (Comptroller  duplicated i n clauses  Vancouver,  a p p r o a c h was  1977-1985). and  to  a d d i t i o n a l data  b e e n w r i t t e n up  tasks were  seemed t o be  office  there  Branch,  and,  follows:  1988).  "to build  matters.  done,  the  the  a t t i t u d e of the C o n s t r u c t i o n Manager, undoubtedly r e f l e c t i n g h i s  objective  The  list  these  D i v i s i o n at  agreement ( B r a d l e y ,  site  a  s i t e b i o l o g i s t s were not  Division  The  and  biologists  the  as  1978).  reference  Hydro head o f f i c e  collect  liaison with  H y d r o o r i t s c o n t r a c t o r s and w i t h g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s  Terms of  long  guidelines for construction activities,  c o n s t r u c t i o n , and  of Water R i g h t s , 1976a,  as  and  terms the  of  after which  reference  there  biologists  were  no  time  (Bonar,  p o s i t i o n f r o m 1979  that  superiors  a half,  to  1987).9  1983  formal  d e t e r m i n e d w h a t was  affairs),  after  terms  of  important  ( C o n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e r and  socio-economic  the  implemented  on-site their  58 programs.  3.2.2  THE The  the  OPERATION OF official  twenty-six  eight  of  o f and  the  THE  PROGRAM  p r o g r a m was  water  eleven  responsible  licence  conditions.  This  judgment i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l ,  necessary t e c h n i c a l expertise both  clauses,  of  Water  which  were  Management  accustomed such  as  to  retained  and  to  a s p e c t s of  task  social,  technical  matters  water  Project.  beyond  projects,  right  of  the  were  Thus n e i t h e r  the  from the The  two  p r o b l e m s and decisive  members and represented. to the  two  of  water  the  the  resource and  project  staff of  the  of  the  engineers management,  inspection  of  two  senior  experts  on  the  engineering  nor  the  consultants  in-house social,  on  as w e l l as  only  licensing  also  administrative  administrative maintaining  leadership;  the  Comptroller  staff  and  consultants,  e c o n o m i c m a t t e r s and  p r o g r a m was  seriously  the  handicapped  beginning.  the  understanding However,  official  of  and  Comptroller,  realm  consisted  plans,  of  f o r a s u b s t a n t i a l knowledge  the  staff  engineering  supply  the  the  economic m a t t e r s  the  of  advising  eleven  to m o n i t o r a l a r g e , complex c o n s t r u c t i o n  were competent t o address e n v i r o n m e n t a l , capability  and  However,  with  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of  called  Branch.  advise  the  for  completely  approval  hydroelectric  and  almost  dealing  the  f o r the  of two  B.C. The  the  but  committees' liaison  the  issues  Committees  had  timely to  rely  especially  site biologists  (clause  faced  depended  negotiations on  the  H y d r o , w h i c h w e r e g u i d e d by Water C o m p t r o l l e r  functions—the  solving  of  between i t s numerous m e m b e r s — r e q u i r e d  first  and  main  the  the  ( q ) ) and  advice  and and  on  a  decision judgment  i n t e r e s t s of  the  the  thorough making. of  bodies  same l a c k o f e x p e r t i s e  a  in  their they regard  Claims O f f i c e r (clause ( t ) ) .  59 3.2.2.1  The C o m m u n i t y I m p a c t  The  CIC g o t o f f t o a  Committee slow  start,  meeting  infrequently  a v e r a g e o f f o u r t i m e s p e r y e a r up t o 1 9 8 5 , a n d o n c e i n e a c h The  Committee  was  disbanded  agencies  ignored  directly  or through  B.C. H y d r o The  They  preferred  the Adjunct Committees.  to resolve  causes  might  the issues have  been  most  meetings  i n Victoria  representatives of the Local Communication  was  only  which Impact  with  was  to deal  with  local  B.C.  t h e CIC approached  Hydro  limited  f o r public  Impact  of  seemed  when  liaison and h e l d  both  o f t h e Impact  Committee  u n r e s o l v e d m a t t e r s t o t h e C I C , t h e number o f w h i c h  a  input,  the attendance  Committee and t h a t  with  (Cox 1988a).  t h e CIC d i d not have  procedure  the Local  Initially,  O n l y when t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s  that  p e r s o n i n R e v e l s t o k e , h a d no p r e s c r i b e d  1979, an  o f 1985 a n d 1 9 8 6 .  t h e C o m p t r o l l e r i n 1988.  t h e Committee.  failed  underlying  by  until  the  Monitor.  i t referred  to increase  as t h e  t h e development  o f an  Project progressed. One  major  alternate  issue  water  that  supply  the CIC  system  addressed  was  f o r t h e B i g Eddy  unincorporated  community j u s t  e x i s t i n g water  s u p p l y s y s t e m w a s f e d by D o l a n C r e e k .  water  would  be  transmission substation Comptroller  unsafe  line  from  outside  once  B.C.  Hydro  the Revelstoke  south of Revelstoke.  t o fund  District,  of Revelstoke.  started  to l o g the area  Reservoir  to the  of the f o r the  Illecillewaet  o f the CIC, t h e Water  an a l t e r n a t e  water  supply  those of t h e Dolan Creek system.  Eddy a p p e a l e d t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r ' s o r d e r under  t h e community  an a d d i t i o n a l  H y d r o w a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1.1 m i l l i o n  Big  t h e Water A c t (1979) and t h e  c l a i m was s e t t l e d by a r b i t r a t i o n by t h e p r o v i n c i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l A p p e a l awarded  system  T h e r e w a s , h o w e v e r , some q u e s t i o n a s t o who w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r  t h e o p e r a t i n g c o s t s , w h i c h much e x c e e d e d  which  an  B i g Eddy's  But the q u a l i t y  On t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n  h a d o r d e r e d B.C. H y d r o  f o r B i g Eddy.  of the City  Water  $12,000.  The t o t a l  (see also Section 4.2).  cost  Board, t o B.C.  60 Other matters handled court  services  School  No.  19,  Revelstoke, compensation by  t h e B.C.  Sicamous w a t e r In  1984  Environment  the two  CIC  1985).  The  the  Water  of  i n B.C.  DPA  study  This  study and  1980).  examined. was  an  (DPA  Group,  January  area;  of  on  the  to  EIS  were  local  by  mobile  and  and  the R e v e l s t o k e home  to road  demands  on  Through  park  in  closures  t o expand  commissioned  f o r two  to  (DPA  reasons  the  Ministry  of  assess  the  Group,  1986;  (1) to enable  the  mitigation  and  outstanding  o f an i m p o r t a n t l e a r n - b y - d o i n g  the  both  the  communities  resolve  1986)  first  large  environmental  covered  f r o m May  primary  scale and  development  socio-economic  the P r o j e c t ' s wind-down  t o December 1984, 1985.  interest  F i g u r e 3.3  was  the  and  the f i r s t  shows  City  of  phase— year  the e x t e n t  Revelstoke  of and  E. evaluated, compensation Four  First,  issues  local  determined  amongst measures identified  residents  to  be  to residents with  the  e x p e c t a t i o n s of  not caused  firms  t o December  preferred high  a  step.  (2) to take advantage  f o r which  study  E l e c t o r a l Area  (1977,  consultation  months o f c o n s t r u c t i o n  mitigation  by  for police  been p r e p a r e d .  DPA  The  incurred  Association,  t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t was  o p e r a t i o n from  the  need  t i m e and w a g e s due  important  Comptroller  as  i m p a c t s had  charged  s t u d i e s were undertaken  opportunity,  last  an  the R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t  I s s u e s ; and  the  Logging  took  compensation  The  rates  the i n c r e a s e d  expenses  payments f o r l o s t  private  Sussex,  project  CIC w e r e  system.  of  and  high  Interior  effects  CIC  the  i n Revelstoke, additional  District  claimed  by  true  local  things,  u s i n g the as  d i d not as  fewer  other  more  the  guidelines  effectiveness developed  important to l o c a l get  a  fair  skilled  job s k i l l s .  by  ELUC  communities  were  of  Project  non-resident workers  Second,  businesses, which  by t h e P r o j e c t b u t w e r e s e l f - i n d u c e d .  share  the  remained  of  study  jobs. were  found  that  unfulfilled,  were  T h i r d , whereas t h e community  Fraser Fort  George  Primary Study Area Communities c l o s e s t t o P r o j e c t Secondary Study Area Columbia-Shuswap Regional A  Census  Subdivision  J  L_ J  I  km  East  Salmon  Kootenay  Arm  Kootenay F i g u r e 3.3  The R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a - S h u s w a p - L o c a l C o m m u n i t i e s A f f e c t e d by t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t (DPA G r o u p , 1986)  r  NORTH  20 Thompsoh-N i c o l a  District  62 of  Sicamous  study The  felt  revealed  that  perceived  City  of  that net  Revelstoke,  p r o b l e m was  effective  was  undertake  Further  findings  adverse impacts, l a c k of  It  (CIC,  that  s u c h as  was  water  study  licence  inadequate. unsuccessful (not  part  lacked  ad  of  full  hoc  monitoring interests  The and  official  studies efforts"  organized  study or  and  the  basis  of  of  1986,  the  should  have  were  DPA  fear  no  the  p.  that  address  system  and  and  the  a  latter  by  that  matters  Local  had  on  CIC  the  been  made  only  Water  on-going  the  attended  the  CIC  . . . were based  the whole would have been the  the  adequate m o n i t o r i n g not  was  Committee  comprehensive  communities, have  to  the been  program  Impact  the d e c i s i o n s  With  the dam  concluded  recommendations  153).  other  possible  the  monitoring  and  not  phase.  residents.  compensation  CIC's  B.C.  several  a u t h o r i t a t i v e p o w e r s , and  would  study  Hydro's  wind-down  of  of  previous  disadvantaged groups,  the  that  for  organized  B.C.  mitigated  Hydro  and  local  d e c i s i o n s on the  project  lobbying,  a r t i c u l a t e ,  mitigation/compensation On  Group,  a l l sectors  the  s t a t e d t h a t "most o f  political  DPA  during  on  the  cause  the  proposed  Impact M o n i t o r  to  to  study  mitigation  As  real  the  this,  monitoring  The  the  with  s a f e t y to l o c a l  raised  significant.  residents  B.C.  p r o g r a m ) had  support.  t h e DPA  of  for  ineffective.  the  that  the  negotiations  related  s e r v i c e s , and  a b o u t dam  criticisms  local  Comptroller, on  provisions  Hydro,  community, l a c k e d  price inflation  the  initial  commented t h a t  Sicamous'  Hydro  dental  assessed  the  Finally,  of  recommended  also  of  CIC  program  of  and  B.C.  generous compensation g i v e n  unincorporated  B.C.  that  The  mitigate  consultation were  part  1986).  To  d i s t r i b u t i n g more i n f o r m a t i o n The  been  S i c a m o u s , an  adequate medical  failure.  had  efforts.  by  s o c i o - e c o n o m i c impacts were not  dissatisfaction  a  compensated  r e s u l t e d from the  which  that  the  been f a i r l y  public hearing.  community r e l a t i o n s Hydro  had  representation  concern  not  negative  unfairness  compensation at the the  i t had  the  better to  and  fairer.  following  three  63 recommendations:  (1)  counter-productive; Regional  District  incorporation; significant, projects  the  advise  the  remaining  (3) p r o v i n c i a l  study  Although  based  rural  the  concerns  more  finances.  on  the  specific  ELUC  the  Regional  c o m m i t m e n t s and  three  indicated  study's  finding  of  of  Impacts  District are  Revelstoke.  on  of  and  this  was  and  the  to  consider  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of approval  the  Sussex  of  future  Shuswap.  i n Table  were  also  The  volumes.  they  second  were volume  to Revelstoke's  in  assess  compensation Shuswap  for  final  the  impacts,  The  first  impacts.  adapted  to  covers  the  the  water, City  of  Sicamous  volume.  A  brief  briefly  present  the  to give a general  view  to  impacts. summarized  compensation  from  a l l r e j e c t e d as  The  Sussex  unfairly  study  local  roads,  and  of  on  f o r the  the  H y d r o , and  are  population  The  Project  study  in  Table  the  had  for  the  filed  two  the  DPA  corroborated  t r e a t e d i n comparison to the  increase  concluded  i n that  3.2  Regional  unfounded  Sicamous Waterworks D i s t r i c t  rejected.  relative  same as t h a t I n R e v e l s t o k e .  The  Columbia  They were  3.2  Ministry  f o r a s s e s s i n g the  c o m p e n s a t i o n and  study  t h a t Sicamous f e l t The  three  the  follows. to  claims  for  1980),  the  detailed  r e p o r t was  outstanding  Columbia  which  (1977,  p a y m e n t s made so f a r by B.C.  results  claims,  c o n s i s t s of  criteria.  t h a t m i g h t be u s e d f o r c o m p a r i n g t h e  reasons  to the  Revelstoke  study w i t h respect  (Sicamous)  the  the  guidelines  s a n i t a r y sewer.  o b j e c t i v e of  of  prior  mitigation criteria  compensation  component o f  the  It  the f i n d i n g s of t h i s volume  District  Sicamous,  undertaken  of  summary o f  were  as  Municipal Affairs  were to c o n s i d e r  1985),  District  There  of in  settlements  Waterworks  The  c o n s u l t a t i o n program  Ministry  impacts  c o m p e n s a t i o n and  s e w e r and  The  a  agencies  (Sussex,  evaluated  the  Revelstoke,  institute  1986))  describes  storm  to  s e r v i c e s and  engineering  to  unincorporated  Environment,  include  of  second  government  (2)  and  (CIC,  The  not  c o m m u n i t y was  t h a t i f t h e r e were a  City the  problem  Table  3-2  Sussex Study - Assessment o f O u t s t a n d i n g  - S h o r t Term  Issues  1.  C i t y o f Revelstoke  Impacts  A.  Accepted  1.  G o l f c o u r s e r i v e r bank e r o s i o n ^ - a b o u t 1000 m o f C o l u m b i a R i v e r bank a r e e r o d i n g - n o t c e r t a i n i f impact a t t r i b u t a b l e t o R e v e l s t o k e R e s e r v o i r o r Arrow Lakes R e s e r v o i r - r e q u i r e s a c t i o n - determine rate o f e r o s i o n through monitoring CIC: t a k e no f u r t h e r a c t i o n  2.  V i c t o r i a Road damage: - i n c r e a s e d heavy l o a d t r u c k t r a v e l due t o R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t - impact d i f f i c u l t t o a s s e s s , e s t i m a t e d c o s t $32,000 (1985 d o l l a r s ) - up t o p r o v i n c i a l government t o d e c i d e i f v a l i d c l a i m , and i f i t w i l l c o m p e n s a t e . B.C. Hydro p a i d t a x e s f o r t r u c k i n g s e r v i c e i n g e n e r a l CIC: no f u r t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n t o be p a i d f o r 'use' o f V i c t o r i a Road  3.  Water- s y s t e m : - w a t e r s u p p l y improvements needed t o s e r v e t h e i n f l u x o f p e o p l e due t o t h e P r o j e c t , c o s t o f $2,006 m i l l i o n - c o m p e n s a t i o n a d e q u a t e , B.C. Hydro p a i d $3-311 m i l l i o n f o r improvements CIC: no f u r t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n w i l l be p a i d  h.  Fire protection: - i n c r e a s e d c o s t s f o r f i r e p r o t e c t i o n d u r i n g and f o l l o w i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n and i n c r e a s e d t r a i n i n g c o s t s o f f i r e f i g h t e r s - 1976-1985 c o s t s $29,000; B.C. Hydro p a i d $132,000 f o r f i r e t r u c k - compensation i s adequate CIC: no a c t i o n r e q u i r e d  5.  Recreation crowding: - e x t r a c r o w d i n g o f community f a c i l i t i e s - cost v i r t u a l l y impossible to quantify - B.C. Hydro p a i d $1,417,000 f o r new community c e n t e r and $157,000 f o r various smaller recreation projects CIC: no a c t i o n r e q u i r e d  6.  Relative operating costs: - a n n u a l o p e r a t i n g e x p e n s e s by C i t y t h a t m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y be a t t r i b u t e d - costs d i f f i c u l t t o determine: general c o s t s , b u i l d i n g i n s p e c t i o n , road t r a n s p o r t : $432,000 l e s s ; f i r e p r o t e c t i o n , g a r b a g e , r e c r e a t i o n : $127,000 more - more t h a n o f f s e t by g a i n s f r o m r e l a t i v e p r o p e r t y t a x e s and B.C. Hydro grants in 1ieu CIC: no f u r t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n w i l l be p a i d  7.  Relative Property taxes: - e f f e c t on p r o p e r t y va1ues a f f e c t m u n i c i p a l t a x base - no a c t i o n n e c e s s a r y CIC: o u t s i d e t h e terms o f r e f e r e n c e o f t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r , r e f e r t o M i n i s t r i e s o f F i n a n c e and M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s t o r e s o l v e i s s u e o f m u n i c i p a l t a x a t i o n o f B.C. H y d r o f a c i l i t i e s  Claims  65 T a b l e 3.2 B.  Unclear  Continued Claim  1. 111eci11ewaet ground w a t e r : - B.C. Hydro removed 1 1 1 e c i 1 1 e w a e t Dam based on commitment a t p u b l i c hearing. T h i s c a u s e d w i n t e r basement f l o o d i n g and some g r o u n d w a t e r contaminat ion - c o s t o f removal $416,000, c o s t o f downstream d y k i n g and c h a n n e l i n g work $578,000 p a i d by B.C. Hydro - t h e i s s u e i s not c l e a r , i t i s c u r r e n t l y b e i n g r e v i e w e d CtC: a d v i s e R i v e r s S e c t i o n o f t h e M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t t o l o o k i n t o t h i s C.  Rejected  1.  New community c o s t s a v i n g s : - B.C. Hydro was s a v e d c o s t o f b u i l d i n g a new community b e c a u s e R e v e l s t o k e was n e a r b y - e c o n o m i c e f f i c i e n c y g r o u n d s and e q u i t y g r o u n d s : no r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f income, t h e r e f o r e r e j e c t c l a i m CIC: o u t s i d e t e r m s o f r e f e r e n c e o f C o m p t r o l l e r o f Water R i g h t s , r e f e r t o M i n i s t r i e s o f F i n a n c e and M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s t o d e t e r m i n e i f B.C. Hydro's f a c i l i t i e s have t o pay m u n i c i p a l t a x e s  2.  S k i h i 11 c l i m a t e : - changed m i c r o c l i m a t e i n Mt. M c K e n z i e s k i h i l l , warmer t e m p e r a t u r e s and r e d u c e d snow f a l l , s k i l i f t f a c i l i t i e s had t o be moved u p h i l l - l i t t l e e v i d e n c e , need y e a r s o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n not a m u n i c i p a l e n t e r p r i s e , e q u i t y g r o u n d s : o f f s e t by l o w e r h e a t i n g c o s t s , snow removal c o s t s , e t c . , no d o u b l e c o u n t i n g CIC: no s i g n i f i c a n t e v i d e n c e o f c l i m a t i c change p r e s e n t e d - c l o s e i s s u e  3.  Sewer s y s t e m s : - C i t y ' s sewage p l a n t a t t i m e u n a b l e t o cope w i t h sewage f l o w s , needs s e p a r a t i o n o f s t o r m and s a n i t a r y sewers - B.C. H y d r o p a i d $171,000 c o m p e n s a t i o n - no s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n by the R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t on e x i s t i n g p r o b l e m CIC: no f u r t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n w i l l be p a i d  4.  Garbage c o l l e c t i o n : - r e d u c e d c a p a c i t y due t o B.C. H y d r o ' s use o f t h e dump n e c e s s i t a t e s fac i 1 i ty ear 1 i e r - dump i s owned by t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t - not a c o s t t o t h e C i t y CIC: no a c t i o n r e q u i r e d  5.  Claims  new  General a d m i n i s t r a t i o n : - c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e dam's c o n s t r u c t i o n - h a r d t o q u a n t i f y due t o C i t y ' s a c c o u n t i n g s y s t e m ( p e r h a p s $100,000) - c o s t s a r e f o r a f u n c t i o n t h a t i s e x p e c t e d o f a l o c a l government p a y i n g c o s t s f o r m a k i n g c l a i m s may l e a d t o c o n t i n u o u s , u n w a r r a n t e d c l a ims C i t y has had l o w e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s s i n c e 1976 - s u g g e s t s e x t r a c o s t s more t h a n o f f s e t by s a v i n g s . V i r t u a l l y impossible to i d e n t i f y net c o s t i n c r e a s e s , but must be q u i t e s m a l l CIC: no f u r t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n w i l l be p a i d  66 T a b l e 3-2 II.  Continued  Impacts on R e g i o n a l  District  C o l u m b i a Shuswap  A.  Rejected  1.  Garbage d i s p o s a l : - p r e s e n t g a r b a g e dump's l i f e s h o r t e n e d by B.C. H y d r o ' s use d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e dam - impact i s n o t c l e a r , b u t p r o b a b l y r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l - no c o m p e n s a t i o n b e c a u s e C i t y o f R e v e l s t o k e w i l l pay S0% o f c o s t o f new f a c i l i t y , c o s t t o D i s t r i c t i f o f f s e t by b e n e f i t s t o D i s t r i c t , B.C. H y d r o p a i d $82,000 g r a n t f o r s e r v i c e s r e c e i v e d and no t a x e s p a i d CIC: no a c t i o n r e q u i r e d  2.  Sicamous D i s t r i c t R e c r e a t i o n Centre: - B.C. Hydro p l a y e d a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n t h e b u i l d i n g , b u t n o t t h e financing of the recreation centre - t h e c l a i m i s r e j e c t e d - c a u s a l l i n k i s not c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d CIC: no a c t i o n r e q u i r e d  3.  Loss o f t a x b a s e : - due t o t h e f l o o d i n g o f t h e r e s e r v o i r a r e a - t h i s i s a r e s o u r c e c o s t t o t h e owner n o t t o t h e t a x i n g a u t h o r i t y t h e D i s t r i c t can s h i f t t h e t a x r a t e on r e m a i n i n g p r o p e r t i e s a c c o r d i n g l y CIC: no a c t i o n r e q u i r e d  III.  Claims  Impacts on Sicamous W a t e r w o r k s  District  A.  Rejected  Claims  1.  Water s y s t e m i m p r o v e m e n t s : - t h e need f o r improvements was a d v a n c e d by p o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h s due t o t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t - t h e p r o b l e m was e s s e n t i a l l y n o t changed by p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e new r e s i d e n t s p a i d u s e r f e e s CIC: no a c t i o n r e q u i r e d  2.  F i re p r o t e c t i o n : - a new f i r e h a l l was b u i l t i n 1978, a new f i r e t r u c k a c q u i r e d i n 1984 B.C. Hydro s h o u l d c o m p e n s a t e b e c a u s e o f p o p u l a t i o n increase - t a x payments by new r e s i d e n t s o f f s e t f i r e p r o t e c t i o n c o s t s a new f i r e h a l l was most l i k e l y needed i r r e s p e c t i v e o f p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e CIC: no a c t i o n r e q u i r e d  The f i r s t s t a t e m e n t d e s c r i b e s t h e c l a i m , t h e second one u s u a l l y d e s c r i b e s m a g n i t u d e o f t h e c l a i m and c o m p e n s a t i o n a l r e a d y p a i d , and t h e t h i r d statement gives the reason e i t h e r f o r acceptance o r r e j e c t i o n o f a c l a i m by S u s s e x C o n s u l t a n t s . F o r some o f t h e c l a i m s t h e second s t a t e m e n t is missing. The f i n a l s t a t e m e n t i s t h e CIC's recommendation t o t h e Water Compt r o l 1 e r Source:  S u s s e x , 1985; C I C , 1986  67 of  equity  distribution,  then  the  provincial  government  could  choose  to  alleviate i t . The  City  of  were accepted the  seven  as v a l i d ,  valid  than o f f s e t be  by  monitored  rather  Revelstoke one  claims  and  of  issued  Revelstoke an  order  The  i n regard  f o r them t o  t h e f u t u r e , i f n e e d b e , was properly The  City  (1979).  the  City  of The  was  adequately  the g o l f  (five (two held  under  costs,  system.  The  the  clause  compensated were: such  The  the  as  appeal  needed  to  government  long  o f B.C.  term,  the  H y d r o and  the Water  the  Comptroller addressed  o r d e r under  S e c t i o n 38  the  ( s ) of  golf  in been  Victoria  h e a r i n g was  the  Water  Hydro's compensation  the water  course  of  licence.  e r o s i o n , the  Impacts  climatic  R o a d damage, t h e w a t e r t o have been h e a r d  to not  change,  system  i n July  B o a r d , h o w e v e r , t h e C i t y o f R e v e l s t o k e and  and  1988  B.C.  by  Hydro  1988b).  R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee  RPCC h e l d m e e t i n g s  times  per  i n 1984), in  more  c o u r s e e r o s i o n ; a l l o t h e r c l a i m s had  appealed  n e g o t i a t e d a $35,000 s e t t l e m e n t ( C o x  The  one  o n l y i s s u e t o be  g r o u n d s f o r t h e a p p e a l w e r e t h a t B.C.  the Environmental Appeal  3.2.2.2  was  i s s u e s i s shown i n T a b l e  recommendations, The  one  Of  Project.  o b t a i n e d the views  effect.  the  seven  invalid.  provincial  that over  of the t h i r t e e n  these  take  Revelstoke  inadequate  community  sewerage  to  t o be  action,  the  these,  settled.  Act  the  of  from the Revelstoke  having  Of  compensated,  further  concluded  t o each  after  adequately  r e q u i r e d no  study  issues.  f i v e were found  responsibility  benefitted  1987,  been  one the  o f t h e CIC  I n December  City  had  was  Hydro's.  response  unresolved  a s u n c l e a r , and  three  another  C i t y of R e v e l s t o k e has  3.2.  thirteen  other benefits,  t h a n B.C.  The  had  year) the  Revelstoke  last to  and  as  the  need  arose,  decreasing at  meeting tour  the  was  early  Project  the  being  end  of  i n 1985. and  more  frequent  at  first  the  construction period  One  meting  per  input  from  facilitate  year  was  members  68 involved and  locally  with  Vancouver.  well  this  did  thesis  clauses  to  The  the  of  defined  in  of  and  a  concerns of  construction  this  The to  attend  by  answered  i t s mandate? with  responsibility  took  place  invitation  in  Victoria  only,  i t  was  meetings were c l o s e d to the p u b l i c .  be  question  the  Revelstoke  of  i s :  respect  the of  How  adequately  I t i s beyond to  RPCC.  the  the  a l l the  water  However, the  1 0  and  confines  manner i n w h i c h  plan  that  individual  of  the  of  Project  to  be  addressed  i n the water l i c e n c e c l a u s e s . identified  P r o j e c t was  individual  and  of  licence  available  environmental  not  by  the  priority  r e l a t e d them t o t h e  developed  a l m o s t ad h o c  participants with  RPCC w e r e  A more d e t a i l e d d e f i n i t i o n  e s t a b l i s h e d the  p a r t i c i p a n t s and  c h o s e t o d e a l w i t h m a t t e r s i n an interests  could  meetings  handled.  aspects  form  needs  most  a d e t a i l e d examination  only broadly the  Hydro  RPCC f u l f i l l  answer  allowed  management was  that  the  that were  material  B.C.  at a l l meetings.  question  efficiently  P r o j e c t , but  Although  represented The  the  by  the  RPCC.  of  issues  phases of The  the  Committee  m a n n e r , d i c t a t e d l a r g e l y by  respect  to  the  conditions  the  of  the  water l i c e n c e . As  f a r as  Fish  and  the  very  environmental  Wildlife  Branch  start.  supervision  and  terms (q).  m e e t i n g b e t w e e n B.C. the  r o o t of  and  wildlife  of  and in  H y d r o and  resources  it  mandate  the  January  1977,  the  conflict  for  the  statutory  contentious  biologists  to  c h a i r m a n o f t h e ad h o c  a f f e c t e d by  settlement  was  a  to r e s o l v e the  manage t h e  the u l t i m a t e f i n a n c i a l  of  major a c t o r s ,  set  t h e FWP  i m p l e m e n t and  two  Hydro,  reference When t h e  the  B.C.  t h e c o n t e n t i o n w e n t much d e e p e r :  mandate t o d e s i g n , fish  (FWB)  Initially  Hydro under c l a u s e  that  matters were concerned  the  f o r the the  FWB  arose  be  hired  over  the  by  B.C. a  i s s u e , i t became o b v i o u s the s t r u g g l e f o r  programs under c l a u s e P r o j e c t , and  to  from  committee conducted  i t was  l o s s e s of  scene  the  the  these  manage  the  (p)  for  determination  resources. fish  and  the the of  Whereas wildlife  69 resources the  of  the  Province,  public hearing  B.C.  i n regard  Hydro  to  the  had  made t h e  f o l l o w i n g commitments  m i t i g a t i o n and  compensation f o r  at  wildlife  losses: "Costs of e x p l o r i n g and assessing alternative compensatory measures, l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n , works design and c o n s t r u c t i o n , as w e l l as m a i n t e n a n c e and management s h o u l d be t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f B.C. H y d r o . " ( B . C . H y d r o , 1 9 7 7 b , p. 4-33) B.C.  H y d r o was With  licensee  respect shall  condition  to  of  biologists,  clause  the  biologists,  but  the  However  implementation  of  first  in  Comptroller  the  H y d r o was The  Rights, of  not  amended  The  this.  basis  for determining  The  valley  But soon  by  fish  of  i n d e c i s i o n by  with the  who  and  the  dam  to FWB  carry the  the  implementation.  out  in the  licence,  the  costing,  Hydro s i t e  1977  and  biologists, i f  T h u s i t seems  wildlife  as  were  to  deer, be  b e a r ) and  was  that  the j o i n t  voiced  (p).  By  i t s strong  the  by  B.C.  Water task  Water  them.  t h a t were  B.C. to  be  measures.  waterfowl)  and  the  H y d r o , and  the  system downstream  responsibility  March  by  compensation  aquatic  c o m p e n s a t o r y , and  clause  studies  of  Hydro the  to design  beaver,  studied the  t o B.C.  directed  l o s s e s and  bear,  (Comptroller  assigned  no m e n t i o n o f who  (black  shall  preparation, B.C.  that  d e c i s i v e statement  accompanying  studies  Moose w e r e t o be  RPCC, t h e  to  September  and  (caribou, grizzly  respect  i s no  states  role.  12  differences i n biological,  arose  clearly  agreement t o d i v i d e the  species  upriver  t h e FWB.  the  It specifically  came t o an  wildlife  of  t h e r e was  the  t h e dam  In  programs  the  mountain species  FWB  licence  H y d r o and  system  the  to play a d e c i s i v e  ComptrollerHowever,  aquatic  to  notes  t h e p r o g r a m s t o t h e FWB.  the  FWB  explanatory  as  the  water  out  there  licence  mandate.  (q)  assign  1977b) changed  carrying  water  appeared  a v a i l a b l e , were to a s s i s t B.C.  t h e FWB  the  employ  (p)  programs. Water  undoubtedly i n c o n f l i c t w i t h  of  the  of  two.  administrative  concepts  1978,  year  concerns  after to the  a  of  Comptroller  70 because  B.C.  programs  Hydro  under  only excluded available  d i d not d i s c l o s e  condition (p).  t h e FWB f r o m  their  expenditures  In effect,  this  the decision-making  f o r compensation,  thus  for  practice  environmental  o f B.C. H y d r o n o t  p r o c e s s , b u t a l s o u s e d up  jeopardizing the scale  of  the  funds final  compensation settlement. In the  FWB  Hydro any  t h e s p r i n g o f 1 9 7 9 , w h e n t h e i s s u e was no c l o s e r again  disclose  their  t o pay o n l y  agency  C o m p t r o l l e r , r e q u e s t i n g t h a t he make B.C.  expenditures.  H i s answer was t h a t he had n o t r e c e i v e d  under  had any a b s o l u t e  compensation Hydro  then  ministries.  would y i e l d matter  control  present  over  i t s own  and w i l d l i f e  May  issue.  a l s o requested so  that  a maximum r e t u r n f o r t h e i r which  1 9 7 9 , t h e RPCC d e c i d e d  The  mitigation  and  would  costs.  t o form  subcommittee  biologist.  requested.  The o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e s u b c o m m i t t e e  p r o t a g o n i s t s , B.C.  a n d B.C.  Hydro  mandate  a subcommittee  The  t h e FWB  irrespective  of  B.C. other  t o manage t h e t h e programs  they d i d .  chairman.  by  and t h a t  be m e t , a n d t h a t  a park  two  final  He a d v i s e d t h e FWB t o r a i s e t h e  compensation  and a  The  B.C. H y d r o t o a d v i s e t h e FWB  t h e FWB  economists,  proposed  planner,  expenditures  matter  B.C.  government  expenditures.  much a p o l i t i c a l  resources  a t t h e n e x t RPCC m e e t i n g ,  In  w h e r e a s he c o u l d r e q u e s t  B.C. H y d r o ' s  be v e r y  of i t se x p e n d i t u r e s fish  Furthermore,  c o n d i t i o n ( p ) , n e i t h e r he n o r any o t h e r  But the Comptroller  advance  provincial  t h e RPCC.  settlement would  could  resolved,  t h e Water  recommendations from  Hydro  in  approached  to being  I t was  Hydro  and  were  to f u l f i l l  to look  into the  c o n s i s t e d o f two  chaired t h e FWB,  t o review  by  t h e RPCC  attended  as  t h e programs  c o n d i t i o n ( p ) , a n d t o make  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o t h e RPCC. Altogether January still  the subcommittee  1980, w i t h o u t not d i s c l o s e d  resolving t o t h e FWB  met o n l y  three  the c o n f l i c t .  times,  between  June  1979 t o  B.C. H y d r o ' s e x p e n d i t u r e s  and t h e q u a n t i f i c a t i o n  of f i s h  were  and w i l d l i f e  71 i m p a c t s was FWB An  then  j u s t as  decided  contentious  to  bypass  the  1982,  the  after five  agreement  for  FWB  wanted  y e a r s of  the  fish  b e e n $6.4 The First,  and  habitat and  of  this  studies,  be  and  essential  l o s s e s of  the  management program  in  identified  second,  B.C.  that  resource  by  lost  The on  the  valley  the  resources was  of  opportunity  were  to  with  one  be of  management The  on  the  the  and  and  be  the  and  basis Is  the  the  at  Finally  million  the  the  impasse in  in  April  compensation  Ironically,  the  public hearing  had  through the  at  compensation  and  an  i n perpetuity.  the  an  the  the  and  same p o t e n t i a l c a r r y i n g  of  resources this  capacity,  for  under  the  present  management They  placed  on  present  the value  analysis. should  21,000 about  i t s tributaries  Therefore,  paid  principle.  habitat  total  wildlife  be  Hence the  Some  1 2  losses.  value  a cost-benefit  and  biological  intensive  former  time.  like".  and  on  sustained  under  estimated  River  fish  as  to  threefold.  inventory  disagreed  compensation of with  ongoing  f o r q u a n t i f y i n g the  reflected  a s s e s s e d by that  FWB  resources  levels  "like  f r u s t r a t i o n were  advocated  public  Columbia of  FWB  and  negotiations.  come t o an  a $6.2  and  Hydro  Hydro  opinion  habitat  to  concluded.  the  detail  wildlife  the  replace  returns  foregone  was:  B.C.  could  bottom w i l d l i f e habitat  by  in  very  management  politicians  only  Hydro  direct  whole matter.  maximum p o t e n t i a l v a l u e  present  p r i n c i p l e to  fish  The  FWB  question  perpetuity?  reasoned  the  for  start  was  procrastination  existing fish  or  losses  B.C.  1976a).  compensatory p r i n c i p l e s , the The  and  1980 the  requested  causes  to  of  review  wildlife  ( V a n c o u v e r Sun,  had  fall  earlier.  f r u s t r a t i n g bargaining,  million  losses  years  subcommittee  to  c o m p e n s a t i o n payment i n i t i a l l y  of  three  a g r e e m e n t seemed a t h a n d i n t h e  December, when  of  as  be  hectares 2843  of  hectares  were  to  from  this  be  h a b i t a t m u s t be  notwithstanding  based  lost. habitat  replaced  the  present  level.  Agency p r o c r a s t i n a t e d  because they intended  to e s t a b l i s h a  precedent  72 for  the settling  of compensation  the Revelstoke settlement would like".  However,  understood  by  t h e FWB's  f o r anticipated  have  t o be b a s e d  position  t h e RPCC.  future  appeared  on t h e p r i n c i p l e  solidly  I n t h e e n d t h e FWB  developments.  "like-for-  entrenched  failed  Thus  and  to accomplish  little their  objective. The  third  compensation  reason i s the lack  subcommittee.  revised water licence a most d i f f i c u l t out  manage t h e f i s h  I t i s true  was i n d i r e c t  and w i l d l i f e  not c l a r i f i e d  surely  could  with  have  incomprehensible of j u n i o r - l e v e l not  that  with  s i t u a t i o n imposed  (p) of the  1977b) p l a c e d  t h e RPCC i n  f o r B.C. H y d r o  taken  initially  When t h e RPCC  Also  t o have  of their  The  RPCC  and t h a t had  been  found  b y t h e C a b i n e t d e c i s i o n , why w a s more  decisive  B.C. H y d r o  programs.  steps  disclose the  Furthermore, i t i s  s u c h an i m p o r t a n t i s s u e was r e l e g a t e d staff,  to carry  t h e FWB's s t a t u t o r y m a n d a t e t o  Comptroller?  on t h e v a l i d i t y  agency  retained.  clause  resources of the Province.  t h e Water  been  e x p e n d i t u r e s , and r u l e  conflict  b y t h e RPCC a n d t h e  t h e changed  T h i s c o n d i t i o n , by c a l l i n g  t h e m s e l v e s i n an unworkable this  that  displayed  ( C o m p t r o l l e r o f Water R i g h t s ,  position.  t h e programs,  of leadership  to a  subcommittee  independent environmental experts were unable  t o change  the climate  of  c o n f r o n t a t i o n t o a more m e a n i n g f u l p r o c e s s o f n e g o t i a t i o n . Whereas  t h e Water  m a j o r way t o s e t t l e unwieldy  Comptroller  the compensation  and i n d e c i s i v e .  I n view  concluded  that  agreement,  t h e RPCC h a d h e l p e d  t h e FWB  saw t h e c o m m i t t e e  of the preceding description,  r e l e a s e from t h e M i n i s t r y of Environment  i s very  i n a  ironic:  ". . . i n c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h B.C. H y d r o , we h a v e i m p r o v e d and r e f i n e d [ e m p h a s i s added] t h e p r o c e d u r e by w h i c h s u c h c o m p e n s a t i o n p r o g r a m s c a n be c o n c e i v e d a n d i m p l e m e n t e d i n the f u t u r e . . . d u r i n g t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s on t h e agreement, t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n between M i n i s t r y s t a f f and local public interest groups i n the K o o t e n a y s r e g a r d i n g t h e t y p e s o f c o m p e n s a t i o n p r o g r a m s t h a t w o u l d be appropriate . . . a l l those involved i n t h i s agreement, i n c l u d i n g l o c a l r e s i d e n t s , may t a k e p r i d e i n a c o m p l e x j o b w e l l done." ( M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , 6 A p r i l 1982)  as  the press  73 This notice had  quote  i s interesting  o f t h e Water  been  outside  also  Comptroller's  reached.  Because  t h e RPCC, t h e d a t e  f o r another  approval  reason.  of clause  the compensation  I t i s the public  (p) after  agreement  had  been  f o r s i g n i n g i t had been s e t w i t h o u t  making a recommendation t o t h e C o m p t r o l l e r .  e a r l i e r b y t h e FWB o f a n i m p e n d i n g s e t t l e m e n t .  notice,  was  thus  faced  with  s i g n i n g o f t h e agreement i n o r d e r by  the water  commence.  licence,  A f t e r having  and  the City  the  i n t e n t of the water  former  understand Revelstoke  of e i t h e r  to give reasonable  satisfied  of Revelstoke  alternative.  the predicament  or to sanction  negotiated  t h e Committee  However, he had been n o t i f i e d  month and a h a l f he  the decision  the signing  On v e r y  so  that  programs  could  public interest  groups  i n this  l i c e n c e c o n d i t i o n ( x ) h a d b e e n m e t , he o p t e d  the compensatory Project i n general  equity  and  of R e v e l s t o k e  relevance  the  p u b l i c n o t i c e as r e q u i r e d  h i m s e l f , t h a t indeed  the City  short  postponing  had been aware o f t h e i s s u e s and t h a t  In reality,  a  of  f o rthe  d i d not at  t h e programs  way  a l l  to the  and t o t h e C i t y ' s r e s i d e n t s i n p a r t i c u l a r ,  and  asked the M i n i s t e r of t h e Environment f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n . The  a g r e e m e n t , h o w e v e r , was n o t b i n d i n g y e t .  direction  of  t h e Water  satisfied  with  this  Comptroller  agreement.  The  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e RPCC, w a s g i v e n The  view  of  the Comptroller  avoided w i t h b e t t e r Another  issue  was  that  Comptroller's almost this  three whole  that  f o r the w r i t t e n  Clause  approval,  ( p ) had based  months a f t e r problem  could  been  on t h e  the signing. have  been  handled  the  questioned  the  communication. resulted  compensation question.  from  t h e manner  i n which  t h e RPCC  A t a RPCC m e e t i n g i n May 1 9 7 9 , t h e FWB  f u n c t i o n t h a t t h e RPCC w a s f u l f i l l i n g : or  affirming  I t called  t o s o l v e problems also?  Was t h e C o m m i t t e e o n l y t o h e a r  The c h a i r m a n ' s  r e s p o n s e was g i v e n  reports  i n the meeting  notes: ". . . t h e c o m m i t t e e ' s p r o b l e m s o l v i n g r o l e . . . w a s r e c o g n i z e d , b u t t h a t t h e exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n was v e r y  74 important, particularly as i t f a c i l i t a t e d the coordination of a c t i v i t i e s before t h e y gave r i s e t o c o n f l i c t s . " ( W a t e r Management B r a n c h , 1 9 7 7 - 1 9 8 5 ) The  FWB's p e r c e p t i o n ,  time-consuming their  attendance  Late  from  t h e RPCC w a s l a r g e l y a c l e a r i n g - h o u s e  of reports  with  a t t h e RPCC m e e t i n g s  i n 1 9 8 1 , B.C. H y d r o  insufficient (p)  exchange  that  input  lodged  a  little  from  early  complaint  and g u i d a n c e f o r t h e f i s h  the b i o l o g i s t s o f  t h e FWB.  action,  led to a  hiatus  with  t h e RPCC  RPCC  that  there  s t u d i e s under  concluded  that  a t t e n d a n c e a t t h e i r m e e t i n g s was i m p o r t a n t as t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r such  guidance  t o enable  h i m t o make  proper  and t i m e l y  t e r m s o f t h e l i c e n c e " ( W a t e r Management B r a n c h , 1982,  the Comptroller  meetings of  from  t h e RPCC.  not  have  requested  that  Although  a senior  then  on.  Even  i n 1988 t h e q u e s t i o n  the authority  t h e FWB  staff  member  remains w i t h  FWB on  under t h e  I n the spring of o f t h e FWB  t h e FWB:  t h e Committee  clause  "relies  directions  1977-1985).  was  the  complied, i t d i d not a l t e r  t o a c t , o r was  in  1981 t o t h e summer o f 1 9 8 2 .  and w i l d l i f e  The  f o r the  attend  i t s view  D i d t h e RPCC  unable  t o come t o  decisions? It  i s o f i n t e r e s t t o examine  w a s a d d r e s s e d b y t h e RPCC. for  a l l construction  This  related  activities  by t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r ,  licensee  as d i r e c t e d  by  help  and t h e adherence  by t h e C o m p t r o l l e r .  b y B.C.  staff  b i o l o g i s t s before  the s i t e  government a g e n c i e s i n v o l v e d  t h e Water  Comptroller  approved  guidelines Hydro f o r  that  by t h e  the s i t e  t h i s was  b i o l o g i s t s were  done  employed.  and amending t h e g u i d e l i n e s  them  they would undergo "a c o n t i n u i n g  licence  to the guidelines  In reality,  o f e x p e r i e n c e on t h e p r o j e c t " ( C o m p t r o l l e r As  prepared  i n the d r a f t i n g of the g u i d e l i n e s .  understanding that light  t o be  (q) required  consulting with  accordingly,  ( r ) of the c o n d i t i o n a l  Clause  t h e B.C. H y d r o  After  clause  condition c a l l e d f o renvironmental  approval  biologist  how  i n June  1977, w i t h  the  r e v i e w and u p d a t i n g i n t h e  o f Water R i g h t s ,  t h e g u i d e l i n e s were i n t h e form of p r o v i s i o n s  1977a).  t o be i n c l u d e d  b y B.C.  75 Hydro  i n various  chief  e n g i n e e r , i t d i d n o t seem p o s s i b l e  contracts  construction  had been  awarded.  referred  t o any  chairmen  o f t h e RPCC s t a t e d  contracts,  Indeed,  t o change  neither  updating, nor could that  t o be a d m i n i s t e r e d b y B.C. o r update  the meeting  the s i t e  them  notes  biologists  once t h e  o f t h e RPCC  recall  updating occurred informally  Hydro's  any.  The  as a m a t t e r o f  g o o d c o n s t r u c t i o n management. From  t h e RPCC  meeting  notes  Comptroller exercised h i s right  i t i s not  to give directives  the  adherence  to the environmental g u i d e l i n e s .  was  discussed  by  garbage  and t h e r e s u l t i n g  environmental surveillance  line  repaired  this  issue.  t o B.C. H y d r o i n r e g a r d t o One  was  persistent  problem  the improper  t h e Water  disposal  and  b y B.C. H y d r o .  f o r several  The r e s u l t i n g  clearing  years, although  t h e Water  of  by  f o r the  (see Section  developed f o r that damage  that  covered i n the  Comptroller followed  the logging  specifically  t h e Water  a r e a were  to the watershed Management  Branch  was had  f o r prompt r e m e d i a l a c t i o n .  Land  reclamation  condition  covered  under  of the Project  ( r ) of  by P r o j e c t  that Ministry  the water  permits from  exempted  t o ensure  referred  the matter  of  the input  elements  was  licence.  because  from  t o t h e RPCC.  also  dealt  Although of Energy,  they thought  the M i n i s t r y  c r i t i q u e o f a B.C. H y d r o d r a f t  essential  site  the M i n i s t r y  B.C. H y d r o ,  the authority  However,  their  from  by  often  T h i s was s p e c i f i c a l l y  order  i s furnished  how  r i g h t - o f - w a y through t h e Dolan Creek watershed  implemented  called  out  An  problem.  The e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s  never  under  bear  guidelines.  example  transmission 4.2).  but not solved,  s h o u l d have s o l v e d  Another  not  t h e RPCC,  clear  of  Lands,  a l l concerned I n February  site  with  by  reclamation  Mines  was  and R e s o u r c e s ,  i t s h o u l d be Parks,  ministries,  and  carried Housing.  the  1982 t h e M i n i s t r y  r e s t o r a t i o n program  t h e RPCC  latter  forwarded  and an o u t l i n e o f t h e  t o be c o n t a i n e d i n a r e c l a m a t i o n p r o g r a m  t o t h e RPCC.  In  76 October  of  the  same  year,  Committee r e q u e s t i n g requirements  the  (B.C.  and  The  matter  time  B.C.  comprehensive involved.  A  formed  a  Parks,  and  Land of  p l a n were  an  procrastination results  were  in less  than  The the  site  specific  on  1984,  the  and  that  authority  4.06  of  the  over  the  by  to  supply  the to  a  program  to  the  the  to  member  ensure  of  use  of  that  the  the  the  and  i t was  requirements  for a  The  The  promised  the  program  had  still  not  received,  ultimatum  of  four  with  the  weeks  and  furnished a  the site  a  and  Lands,  of to  as  also  Crown review  well  as  requirements the  concerned  land  reclamation  June  1983.  the  rebuked  c o n d i t i o n s of  Hydro  p l a n by  of  of  RPCC  adequate  needs  at  ministries  M i n i s t r y of  comprehensive  been  copies  meet t h e  of  temporary  p o t e n t i a l use  l a n d and  agencies.  instant—B.C.  the  Guidelines  a l l  f o l l o w e a r l y i n 1983.  regulatory  i n complying  gave  guidelines  Committee  distribution  staff  to  licence,  (r)  Environmental  H y d r o , who  almost  the  clause  t o B.C.  a  to e s t a b l i s h  a t a n RPCC m e e t i n g i n November 1982,  for  a n t i c i p a t e d end  as  the  P r o j e c t ; to r e s o l v e a l l o c a t i o n c o n f l i c t s ;  provincial  passed  .Hydro  4.05  plan  chaired  reclamation  well  approached  r e c l a m a t i o n i n the water  I t s o b j e c t i v e s were to assess  w i t h the  February  agencies  requested  reclamation  the R e v e l s t o k e  as  concerned m i n i s t r i e s  l i c e n c e claimed  discussed  H y d r o was  various  accord,  f o r the r e c l a m a t i o n of borrow areas  first  Housing.  ministries  B.C.  was  i t s own  to s i t e  d i s c u s s i o n t h e r e o f was  Hydro's  the  the  Section  subcommittee  compatible  in  to  Hydro, 1977a) p r o v i d e d  which  of  reference  notes  Also  the  on  program.  government  studies.  roads.  B.C.  specific  explanatory  Comptroller future  no  Hydro,  a meeting w i t h  of a r e c l a m a t i o n  T h e r e was but  B.C.  chairman  them  water  When  for  gave their  licence.  reclamation  The  program  three weeks.  example of  land  reclamation  r e c l a m a t i o n p l a n was  not  illustrates  initiated  l i c e n c e c o n d i t i o n , i t should  have  by  the  been  four  points.  RPCC.  (1) A c t i o n  T h o u g h i t was  a n t i c i p a t e d as  a  not  on a  necessary  77 activity.  (2)  activity. various  The l i a i s o n  It fulfilled  the important  j o b of coordinating  m i n i s t r i e s and thus a v o i d e d c o n f l i c t s  respond  to the d e c i s i v e  d e c i s i v e a c t i o n should To  f u n c t i o n o f t h e RPCC w a s p e r c e i v e d  action  of  of land use.  the administrative  h a v e come much  t h e needs  of the  ( 3 ) B.C. H y d r o d i d  body.  ( 4 ) The  RPCC's  c o n c l u d e , one more e x a m p l e o f t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e RPCC h a n d l e d t h e  the w a t e r q u a l i t y t e s t i n g program i l l u s t r a t e s  at  necessary  sooner.  e n v i r o n m e n t a l management o f t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t  the  as a  identification the start  three  i s presented.  The c a s e o f  shortcomings:  the lack of  and o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e p r i o r i t y  of p r o j e c t  implementation,  of environmental  the lack  of independent  concerns advice  in  e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a t t e r s , a n d t h e l a c k o f d e c i s i v e a c t i o n b y t h e RPCC. Although  there  pre-impoundment following  was  period,  reservoir  a water  q u a l i t y t e s t i n g program  there  filling.  were Indeed,  w a t e r q u a l i t y , was n o t i d e n t i f i e d the  until  no  provisions  t h e need  i n operation  f o r i t s continuation  f o r the continued  the f a l l  i n the  of 1980.  A staff  study  of  member o f  E n v i r o n m e n t a l D i v i s i o n o f t h e W a t e r Management B r a n c h a n d a n o t h e r f r o m t h e  W a s t e Management B r a n c h j o i n t l y the  RPCC, who i n t u r n s o l i c i t e d  directly data  be  fisheries.  the opinion  potentially useful  As  t h e FWB  wildlife  losses with  on  Hydro  B.C.  when  advocated value  this  shortcoming w i t h o f t h e FWB.  opposing t h e program, d i d not support  could  later,  raised  then  would  jeopardize  the compensation  t h e same  negotiating  view.  that  resolution.  agreement  already  stated  at a  RPCC  as d i d t h e Water  But  two  i n effect,  meeting  Comptroller  for fish  and  y e t a n o t h e r demand  i t s successful was  this  o f t h e post-impoundment  that  the w a t e r q u a l i t y t e s t i n g except f o r gas  r e a d i l y agreed,  j u d g m e n t b y t h e FWB.  They  the f a c t that  the compensation  B.C. H y d r o , t h e B r a n c h p e r c e i v e d  i n continuing  B.C. H y d r o  was  The l a t t e r , w h i l e n o t  i t , despite  i n t h e management  the chairman of  there  years  the was  FWB no  supersaturation.  on t h e b a s i s  of the  78 That  water  adequate  quality  monitoring  post-impoundment w a t e r  accredited  to the tenacious  was  quality  continued, p r o g r a m was  and  that  i n the end  implemented,  e f f o r t s o f t h e above mentioned  an  can only  be  two i n d i v i d u a l s .  One o f them h a d d e s i g n e d t h e p r o g r a m e a r l y i n 1 9 8 3 , b u t b o t h h a d i n i t i a t e d t h e action  and had i n s i s t e d  comprehensiveness nick  B.C.  Hydro  or i n duration.  o f t i m e when r e s e r v o i r  Hydro perceives the  that  The  filling  were  p r o g r a m was  started  i t as an i n v a l u a b l e  not t o reduce  implemented  i n the f a l l  learning  management o f t h e R e v e l s t o k e R e s e r v o i r ,  i t , either  of 1983.  experience of benefit but also  to future  just  i n  i n the  Today  B.C.  not only to  hydro-electric  projects. The  foregoing  handicaps  analysis  in fulfilling  environmental  shown  that  t h e RPCC  its responsibilities:  expertise  prerequisite  inadequate  provision  consequence  of the former,  the  has  of  some  of  leadership  the decision  f o r such  the water was m o s t l y  had f a c e d  a  maker's  complex  licence  two  serious lack  task,  and t h e  conditions.  indecisive  As  and dependent  j u d g m e n t o f i t s members, who w e r e g u i d e d b y t h e g o a l s o f t h e a g e n c i e s  represented.  The C o m m i t t e e  responded w i t h water  seemingly  licence  administration contentious framework  not  The solved  unchecked  only  scene  caused  i t s e t between  established  a n ad h o c a p p r o a c h  procrastination.  o f some o f t h e c l a u s e s  P r o j e c t was n e i t h e r  3.2.2.3  followed  t h e RPCC but f u r t h e r  two m a i n  to administer  great  t o w h i c h B.C.  a on  they Hydro  The s h o r t c o m i n g s  of the  difficulties  i n the  complicated t h i s task  participants.  the environmental  On  by t h e  the whole, the  management  of the  adequate nor e f f e c t i v e .  The C l a i m s O f f i c e r a n d t h e C l a i m s  Procedure  C o m p t r o l l e r o f Water R i g h t s expected t h e m a j o r i t y d i r e c t l y b y B.C.  unresolved l o c a l  of  claims  Hydro.  The  Claims  O f f i c e r was  of the claims to s e t t l e  r e s u l t i n g from the environmental, s o c i a l ,  only  t o be the  and economic  79 impacts  of  conflicts  the were  concerning  the l o c a l  (Water  anticipated  community  d i s p u t e s were  also  Management  and  to  occur  services,  in  foreseen.  Branch,  W a t e r C o m p t r o l l e r g a v e two first  be  reasons  local  half  Officer  a  1977, year  The but  Cabinet  the  later  Appeal  office  the  of  Claims  of  the  chairman  appoint a Claims O f f i c e r Government  the  Agent  no  ( W a t e r Management B r a n c h , The  that  clearly  w e r e t o be h a n d l e d :  the former  or a r b i t r a t i o n . 1 3  claims  directly  According  with  t o Banks  and  rjid  B.C.  to  importance, will  tend  p. 4 6 7 ) .  the  Local  "major  licence  by  this  Hydro  Thompson  Of  Impact  interests  to approach  the  (Water  g r a n t i n g of  t o the water need  for  a  (u)  vacant.  Water  unsettled  as  The  licence a  Claims 1977-  i n September  Almost  half  C o m p t r o l l e r not claims,  and  that  a to the  local  representative  instead  1978  i n t r o d u c e d a new  claims  minor  claims  i n June  between  procedure as  (1980,  1981)  as  by not  major  even  Comptroller  entirely.  forest  i f their  companies  or  (Bankes  r o u t e o p e n t o c l a i m a n t s was  by  legal  the s e t t l e m e n t of  They  in  claim  was  that  normally of  a government and  1977?  state  C o n s t r u c t i o n Manager were  H y d r o management d i r e c t l y "  course a s i m i l a r  the  and  the l a t t e r  then e l i m i n a t e  envisaged  Committee, such  t h e way  t h e C l a i m s O f f i c e r and  although claimants a p p l y i n g to the P r o j e c t referred  ongoing  level  the  as  1976-1988).  distinguished  action  act  after  urgent  remained  advised  should  amendments t o t h e w a t e r  procedure  Officer  a d v i s o r on  c l a u s e ( t ) and  b e c a u s e t h e r e w e r e no  i n Revelstoke  year  to act  ( W a t e r Management B r a n c h ,  upheld  RPCC  their  others  not y e t been a p p o i n t e d .  t h e r e was  Committee  most  socio-economic  O f f i c e r was  the appeal  O f f i c e r as c o n f l i c t s were r e s o l v i n g t h e m s e l v e s 1985).  and  at the V i c t o r i a  had  for this:  a d j u d i c a t e d , and,  be  problems  While  logging industry,  the Claims  the CIC,  However,  a Claims  1976-1988) .  negotiations,  Furthermore,  1977-1985). licence,  Branch,  the  property  settle unresolved local  i n i t i a l water  should  Management  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e RPCC and  developments  the  Project  major agency  Thompson,  through  some o f  1981, the  80 Adjunct  Committees,  however, clause not  the  unofficial  ( t ) of  appoint  seemed  the  never  to  local  claims  program  water  a Claims  p r o c e d u r e was more  e s p e c i a l l y the  not  been  and  Also  used  instituted  contact  offered  l i c e n c e was  Officer.  have  Forestry the  never  only  the  settling  (Cox,  1988a).  appeared  the  one  to  For  initial  minor  claims,  recourse  because  implemented—the  i s unfortunate,  also  r e s o l u t i o n than  Committee.  o f m a j o r c l a i m s by That  because  offer  actually  Comptroller  a  the  more  used—and  clause  official  i t would  no  (u)  claims  have  adequate at  did  provided  method  cost  for  to  the  government.  3.2.2.4  The  The  Biologists  Revelstoke  working FWB.  Site  on  the  B.C.  1977).  a first  construction site  were  f o r B.C.  Hydro because  employees  of  the  Hydro employed b o t h s i t e b i o l o g i s t s w i t h i n the  Although  Manager  P r o j e c t was  who  they  had  largely  an  immediate  determined  their  supervisor, work  under  the  company  biologists  and  not  r e q u i r e d time  i t was clause  the  the  (March  Construction  (q)  of  the  water  licence. Of fulfill need  the the  for  four  requirements  first—to  the  help  of  clause  (q)  the  d r a f t environmental  g u i d e l i n e s , the  B.C.  Hydro  biologists  guidelines.  head  office  were  Due  unable  to the  biologists  had  to  urgent already  w r i t t e n them when t h e b i o l o g i s t s w e r e e m p l o y e d . On that  the  basis  the  site  t h e i r work d i d adhere  collect  the  to  biologists' the  a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n as  f i s h and w i l d l i f e as  of  phrasing  aspects of  second  water  and  third  licence  was  a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n was  certainly  ambiguity  of  i t  to  tasks  one  of  H o w e v e r , t h i s was  collecting  whether  reports  can  clause  r e q u i r e d d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , and  of the P r o j e c t .  the  monthly  allocate  to  so  indefinite.  (q)  or  (q): to  to  monitor  only true insofar  done, a l t h o u g h  clause  conclude  The  task  t h e r e was  (p).  of some  Additional  81 information  required  "programs f o r the be  "the  that  studies  Project,  construction  p r o t e c t i o n , or  related  the L i c e n s e e With  during  was  respect  thereof"  the  i t seems t h a t  this  discontinued.  The  of  his  though  job  trying  biologists (Mason, that  were  i t was  persevere  rather  not  his  job  (Bonar,  reported  testing,  but  as  though  of only  f o u r t h requirement of  liaison  with  a g e n c i e s as biologists  the  Project, T h e r e was leave the  B.C.  required. and  those  open exchange of  the  this.  ideas  Revelstoke. nature  of  Construction  freely by  the  and  direct  Also  w o r k and  Manager, w i t h  or  specified  or  the  head  the  copies  being  Hydro.  l a t e r on  the  i t  was  construction two  main  duties  that  the  do  site  this  i t  type who  of  site work  was  biologists'  activity  told  monthly  monitoring  stopped.  construction  was  The  only  activities,  3.2.2.2). the  b i o l o g i s t s were to and  with  keep  government  communication between the  the  Though  the  e n v i r o n m e n t a l w o r k on  the  site found  line  both  site  viewed  prescribed  because the  B.C.  the  stated  office.  e s s e n t i a l to  of  successor,  contractors  the  aspects  biologist,  to  a l l correspondence only  habitat"  his  to  that  T e l e p h o n e c o m m u n i c a t i o n was the  in  However,  to  the  related  ( q ) was  p r e v e n t e d by  of  construction  also Section  Vancouver  contact  needed  only  monitored one  a l l reference  staff  advice  (p)  biologists,  wildlife  A m a j o r p r o b l e m was in  the  i t as  the  1987).  clause  wildlife  i n t e r p r e t e d by  encouraged  indirectly  Hydro  i n p r a c t i c e i t was a l m o s t no  by  1982  a l s o be  wildlife  monitoring,  Initially  the water q u a l i t y program (see The  to  to  and  1977-1985).  than  confirmed  mentioned  up  discouraged  and  biologist  the  was  briefly  was  Branch, with  fish  Condition  fish  considered  This  bear w i t n e s s  of  fisheries and  could  work.  c a r r i e d out  Management  to  1988).  reports  first  a regular basis (Water  the  (q))  (p)).  r e q u i r e m e n t was  t h i s w o r k was  on  (clause  monitoring  Whereas i n i t i a l l y  activities  enhancement of  t o c a r r y out  to  (clause  of  communication.  b i o l o g i s t s were unable t o be  unsatisfactory  came t h r o u g h  passed to the  the site  office  to due of  biologists  82 (Bonar, 1987).  A n n u a l r e p o r t s w r i t t e n b y t h e s i t e b i o l o g i s t s w e r e h e l d up f o r  months i n t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n Manager's o f f i c e . by  the Vancouver  discussions of  biologists,  were  o r changes i n programs.  Project  biologists'  also  very  duties.  As  compliance  monitoring  contracts,  and l i t t l e  general,  site  Service  the site  cooperated biologists' cooperation the  each  monthly enjoyed  Construction  1977-1985).  saw  other  were  Manager  stopped,  t h e Committee  (x)).  requested  served  been  respect  construction  construction  w a s much  government  t h e Water  Management  facets  T h e FWB  activities,  of the  the s i t e after  of their  (Water  implementation  The  t h e FWB a n d  Management  Branch,  to attend their  site  t h e good  their  attendance  The C o n s t r u c t i o n  Manager,  load.  and e f f i c i e n t  responsibilities:  on  biologists  Indeed,  a year  to the conclusion, that adequate  Branch  work.  biologists  about  agencies:  a t t h e P r o j e c t and  t o t h e FWB.  o f t h e RPCC  wanted  to the following  o r any  two c o m m u n i c a t i o n w a s  frequently  i t be c o n t i n u e d .  less  site  activities i n  three  t o comply due t o t h e b i o l o g i s t s ' work  above e v a l u a t i o n l e a d s  with  other  When  the  and c l a u s e s  the f i r s t  forwarded  a t meetings  regularly (clause  biologists  of  b y t h e two p a r t i e s was commented o n b y b o t h  meetings  The  with  With  i n the various  reports  1988).  interaction.  clearing,  each  review  i n the implementation  t h e FWB i t w a s more r e g u l a r .  A s t o t h e RPCC, t h e y  however, r e f u s e d  result  guidelines  liaison  and w i l d l i f e .  biologists  with  for their  on f o r e s t  meaningful  and t h e c o n t r a c t o r s o f t h e  direct  of monitoring  maintained  a n d t h e FWB o n f i s h  a  d i d n o t engage  I n t h e way  an ad h o c b a s i s , b u t w i t h  and  was  of the environmental  biologists  B.C. F o r e s t  water  they  to  t h e r e w a s no i n - d e p t h  biologists  This  t h e r e was n o t much c a l l  The the  limited.  to lead  received  some w o r k l e s s u s e f u l ( B r a d l e y ,  communication between t h e s i t e was  too late  Undoubtedly  t h ework p o s s i b l e , which rendered The  on  they  When t h e y w e r e f i n a l l y  the function the s i t e than  i t should  the monitoring  o f environmental  have of  g u i d e l i n e s and  83 keeping  up l i a i s o n  c a n be a t t r i b u t e d  with  the staff  o f B.C. H y d r o  and i t s c o n t r a c t o r s .  t o t h e vague d i r e c t i v e s o f t h e w a t e r l i c e n c e c l a u s e s and t h e  f r e e h a n d a l l o w e d B.C. H y d r o i n i n t e r p r e t i n g a n d i m p l e m e n t i n g  3.2.3.  C I C a n d t h e RPCC made  orders  and a p p r o v a l s  seven water  licence  however, l i m i t e d CIC  and  dealing  and  by h i m i n r e g a r d  because t h e  essentially  with  issues.  different  the socio-economic Initially,  f o r clause  t o the transfer  request  decided some  was r e f u s e d  clause  at i t s meetings.  i n i t i a l l y , b u t t h e RPCC's r e q u e s t  interaction  travelling Other  than  of the  Committee  (q), i t could The b i o l o g i s t s  for their  by t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n Manager on t h e grounds  d i d not allow  with  on t h e  of the undertakings  to administer  to Victoria determining  t h e C o m p t r o l l e r h a d no d e a l i n g s w i t h t h e s i t e  o r Vancouver,  their  continued that  their  where t h e  l e n g t h o f employment,  biologists.  THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO PROGRAMS The  as  t h e RPCC  ( s ) and l a t e r  informed  of the s i t e b i o l o g i s t s  Committee g e n e r a l l y met.  3.3  and t h e l a t t e r  (Cox, 1988b).  n o t t h e RPCC's t a s k  some m e e t i n g s  attendance workload  i t was  former  o f some i s s u e s f r o m o n e C o m m i t t e e t o t h e  meetings r e g u l a r l y  the attendance  attended  matters,  the  t h e c h a i r m a n o f e a c h w a s a l s o a member o f t h e o t h e r  attended  Although  responsibilities,  t h e C I C and  However, each Committee kept w e l l  as such  t o t h e one and t h e  i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two C o m m i t t e e s t h e m s e l v e s had  t h a t they  of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  because  t o the Water C o m p t r o l l e r f o r  There was,  occurred w i t h regard other.  t o be p a s s e d  clauses  predominantly  delegation  recommendations  administered, respectively.  t h e RPCC  environmental  other,  them.  INTERACTION OF COMPONENTS  The the  This  r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e u n o f f i c i a l  and t h e o f f i c i a l  program, as w e l l  t h a t o f t h e combined a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework t o t h e l a r g e r  context  of the  84 Project been  i s depicted  interfaced,  bodies,  B.C.  little  each  Hydro,  respectively. that  i n Figure having  and  Whereas  by  the  dichotomy  the  the  at  to  them  had  of  been  hard  to  and  Rights,  set  that  programs  up  and  Cabinet,  and  structure  coordinate  i t  the  clear This  that  and  execute  appears  one  duplications  bodies  not  different  program w i t h  were  had  by  first,  established.  administrative  Project  two  times  Water  various  not  the  various  There  the  of  p r o g r a m was  licence.  whole  of  up  Comptroller  assigned  between  administration  design  b e e n made t o i n t e g r a t e  communication in  set  unofficial  water  responsibilities  The  been  the the  a t t e m p t had  provided  3.4.  later  in  the  lines  introduced  of a  rendered  the  r i g h t from  the  start. Though considerable official matters  overlap  as  the  under  the  structure  dealt with  the  relevant  clauses  the  official  e x t e n t of the program  program  was  appeared  of  the  the  responsibilities,  water  communities i n the  more  licence.  But  the  t e c h n i c a l ones  and  Project  per  se.  the  In  local,  vicinity  economic  the  delimited. be  and  The  except  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of  not to  of  same I s s u e s  e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a t t e r s of  the  spheres  of  the  the  Apart from  groups  contrast,  that  including Project  established  the  i n the  of  the  City  of  District  Columbia-Shuswap. Both  program  programs  the  Claims  licence and  various  technical, environmental, s o c i a l ,  in  R e v e l s t o k e and  had  b e t w e e n t h e m as w e l l as w i t h i n e a c h p r o g r a m e x i s t e d .  geographical  unofficial  the  programs  outlined  management o f  CIC,  of  two  program addressed  unofficial the  the  claims officer  had  provisions  p r o c e d u r e was to  s p e c i f i e d that  settle  for not  any  minor claims  resolving initially  claims. were  major ones ( e x c e e d i n g $10,000, c l a u s e  to  claims.  the  s p e c i f i e d , beyond  Later be  Under  in  June  s e t t l e d by  ( u ) ) , by  the  1978,  official  calling the  Claims  a r b i t r a t i o n or  legal  for  water Officer  Figure  3.k  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Framework f o r t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t t o P u b l i c , I n d u s t r i a l and G o v e r n m e n t a l S e c t o r s  Re 1 a t i o n s h i p  —  r  I  ADJUNCT  —  COMMITTEES  Regional District Technical Planning Commi t t e e C i t y o f Revel Commi t t e e  stoke  S c h o o l D i s t r i c t #19 N e g o t i a t i ng Team Revelstoke Social Services Council Revelstoke  Forestry  |j C o m m i t t e e  Public  |j  Interests  Clause Claims Legal  (u)  >$10,000 Proceedings or  B.C.  Arbi tration Act  Subcommi t t e e s  CIC  -  Community  IMC  -  Impact  RPCC -  Impact  Monitoring  Revelstoke  Committee Committee  Project Coordinating  Committee  •••••  Official  —  Unofficial  —  Program Program  \ / X — ^  Decision Not  Maker  Instituted  Communication  H -  Hierarchy  0  Order  -  R -  Recommendation  86 proceedings. out  resolution  with  t o have  B.C.  Water  a prescribed  program  Comptroller  used.  fulfilled  and  In effect,  of  administrative  t h e CIC n e i t h e r  local  Committee's  true grassroots  The  input,  w o r k a more s o l i d Group, 1986). h a v i n g no the  two  the  Water  Also  the Claims  t o do  CIC  by  in  the  the  Local  line  d i d not  exist.  altogether  suggests that could  issue  have g i v e n  and r e c o g n i t i o n  clause  1979,  claims  the  the  CIC  that  the  Committee  between  (DPA G r o u p ,  Revelstoke  1986)  Impact  states  Furthermore, the of  those  identification, the Local  complicated  (Water  on  with  RPCC.  Local of  based  Impact  Committees  and  on  a  Committee's  input.  The  communication  Branch,  t h e Committees  There  the  (DPA CIC  between  Committee w h i c h brought  Management  of communication w i t h  the Adjunct  two  Committee  1976-1988).  o f p r o p e r c h a n n e l s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n was  the  the  i n the decision-making process  basis  between  n o r was  of  representative  Hence t h e M o n i t o r d e a l t  ever  Hydro,  nor always responded promptly to problems  program d i d not e x i s t . hardly  by b o t h t h e  Impact  relation  l e d t o a c o m p l a i n t by t h e L o c a l  the l a c k  A direct  interaction  as  the unresolved  and  person i n Revelstoke also  to  negotiations  B.C.  Officer,  the view of the L o c a l  so  not  possibly  Comptroller  and  with  T h u s i t seems t h a t b o t h C o m m i t t e e s l a c k e d l o c a l  and, i n d e e d ,  Monitor.  negotiations  consultants' study  issues,  study  backing  liaison  affected  DPA  views were  population.  the  always, shared  a p r o p e r mechanism  carried  to i t .  problems  The  seriousness of r e f e r r e d  Impact  direct  both i n addressing  other  programs.  p r o c e e d e d by ad hoc  the i n i t i a l slow s t a r t ,  between  several  p r o g r a m was  because claims were s e t t l e d  t o implement  referred  interaction  illustrates  because  p r o c e d u r e and  following  the f u n c t i o n  The  not  the u n o f f i c i a l  and t h e A d j u n c t C o m m i t t e e s , n e i t h e r o f w h i c h  claimants'  chose  L o c a l Impact Committee  that  by  H y d r o . However i n p r a c t i c e ,  unofficial  the  of claims  by t h e L o c a l Impact Committee  appeared  (u)  The  the Impact  of the  official  o n l y w i t h t h e C I C o n a n ad h o c seemed  to  the o f f i c i a l  be  no  need  program  for  and f o r  87 the  biologists Two  important  program  advisory  advisory  existed  between  t h e programs.  and a u t h o r i t a t i v e , w i t h  who h a d n o power  licence  t o t h e Water  of forming  unofficial  of enforcement.  program,  The o f f i c i a l  the exception  T h e RPCC  o ft h e  and t h e CIC were  staff  and a u t h o r i t a t i v e because  they  h a d t h e power  however, was m e r e l y a d v i s o r y  t h o u g h B.C. H y d r o  support  Comptroller,  t h e recommendations  Monitor and the L o c a l and  program.  i n s o f a r a s t h e y made r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s  process  even  differences  was b o t h  biologists,  water  and t h e u n o f f i c i a l  funded the whole  Impact Committee  (Table  3.3).  (Figure  administrative  these  i n  to act.  the  The  3.4). Furthermore,  s t r u c t u r e , t h e Impact  s u f f e r e d from a serious  Combined,  of the  lack of funding  two f a c t o r s  rendered t h e  t h e almost side-by-side  existence of  u n o f f i c i a l program i n a d e q u a t e and i n e f f i c i e n t . In the  conclusion  two programs  i t c a n be s a i d  that  was one o f t h e s e r i o u s  shortcomings o f the administrative  structure.  3.4 MAJOR SHORTCOMINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK This  chapter  Revelstoke  h a s shown  that  the administrative  P r o j e c t was f a r f r o m adequate and e f f e c t i v e .  reasons f o r t h i s were:  ( 1 ) t h e framework  of  thought o u t , n o r had they  w h i c h had been w e l l  other;  framework  (2) both  administration  structures  o f such  lacked  a complex  consisted  the expertise development  problems encountered by t h e o f f i c i a l  been  integrated  required  neither  with  each  f o r the efficient  a n d ( 3 ) some  inherent  the  underlying  o f two programs,  project,  program were  The main  f o r  of  the  i n the clauses of  the water l i c e n c e . The planning efforts  fact that  the administrative  approach, but rather  framework was n o t b a s e d o n one h o l i s t i c  on t h e separate  o f t h e l i c e n s e e and t h e r e g u l a t o r s ,  both the u n o f f i c i a l  and t h e o f f i c i a l  programs.  a n d somewhat a d h o c s u c c e s s i v e r e s u l t e d i n major shortcomings i n Duplication of  88 T a b l e 3.3  B.C. H y d r o F u n d i n g o f Some o f t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e F r a m e w o r k R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t (DPA G r o u p , 1 9 8 6 )  To M a r c h 1984  Estimate to 30 N o v . 1984  •  Unofficial  % of Total B.C. H y d r o Mitigation/ Compensation Expenditures to 30 N o v . 1984 ($46.65 m i l l i o n )  Program  L o c a l Impact Committee Regional Official  of the  District**  15,000  15,000*  196,000  381,0001  0.8  313,000  360,000  0.8  0.03  Program  RPCC a n d C I C  * Based on P r e v i o u s b u d g e t s s u b m i t t e d by t h e Committee ** A s o f 30 A p r i l 1980 t h e R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t no l o n g e r d i r e c t s  t h e program  *An I n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e DPA G r o u p ( 1 9 8 8 ) c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h w h a t t h e i n c r e a s e o f $185,000 o v e r p r e v i o u s e x p e n d i t u r e s w a s . The I m p a c t M o n i t o r ' s O f f i c e w a s t e r m i n a t e d i n 1 9 8 0 . H o w e v e r , t h e c o s t o f t h e two s t u d i e s c o m m i s s i o n e d b y t h e C o m m u n i t y I m p a c t C o m m i t t e e (DPA G r o u p , 1 9 8 6 ; S u s s e x , 1 9 8 5 ) came t o t h i s total.  89 responsibilities programs. procedure  existed  As  a  not only  consequence  of the o f f i c i a l  within  each  of the l a t t e r  p r o g r a m was  program,  but  the potentially  not i n s t i t u t e d  RPCC  between the  the dealings  the s i t e  official  held  i n Victoria  between  the Local  biologists  major  Also  power.  Both  the operation  the s i t e  preservation directives Regional  measures.  of the Office which  Impact  as  itself that  f o r at Revelstoke.  very  indirect  especially  and  the CIC,  the water licence  limited  was  vested  and adequate  power was  of  to enforce  environmental  Monitors  responsibilities,  a d d r e s s e d by  the u n o f f i c i a l was  provisions  f a r from  virtually  v i a t h e L o c a l Impact Committee.  clear to the  entirely t o the  years.  such  an  not at  administrative  a l l adequately  p r o g r a m was open sufficient  excluded  to the  because  that  to the o f f i c i a l  the public  from the  a c c e s s t o t h e RPCC a n d o n l y  communication w i t h However,  to  but also  With respect  T h e p u b l i c h a d no d i r e c t  one t o t h e C I C ; t h e main  of  and h i s a c c o u n t a b i l i t y  the public—was  level  staff  ineffective.  the absence  l e d successive  be  support  largely  a f t e r o n l y two a n d a h a l f  should  i n t h e two  Comptroller having only the  shortfall  to their  Whereas  at this  decision-making process. a  There  t h e Impact M o n i t o r and  Committee  the necessary  not only  participation  participation  t h e Water  p r o g r a m was o n l y a d v i s o r y and n o t a u t h o r i t a t i v e . program,  This  Committee  authority  o f t h e Impact M o n i t o r  interpretations  framework—the  public,  lacked  Yet another  responsibility  provided  Impact  of authority  of the Local  termination of the Office A  that  program w i t h the lack  biologists  District,  different  shortcoming.  and V a n c o u v e r .  a n d t h e RPCC a n d b e t w e e n  s h o r t c o m i n g was  Committees o f t h e o f f i c i a l  rendered  official  program.  Another  ultimate  the  claims  o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two p r o g r a m s a n d most  and CIC m e e t i n g s were  complicated  between  useful  and t h u s  p r o g r a m h a d no l i a i s o n p e r s o n i n R e v e l s t o k e — a s i g n i f i c a n t w e r e no p r e s c r i b e d l i n e s  also  the l a t t e r  f o r the eight water  was  licence  90 clauses  administered  by  the  two  committees, the Water  Comptroller:  " p r i o r t o t h e g i v i n g of a p p r o v a l s or the i s s u a n c e of o r d e r s . . . [ s h a l l ] g i v e r e a s o n a b l e p u b l i c n o t i c e of the r e c e i p t by h i m o f r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f r o m t h e C o m m i t t e e , and s h a l l give reasonable p u b l i c n o t i c e o f any a p p r o v a l or order a r i s i n g therefrom." ( C o m p t r o l l e r of Water R i g h t s , 1978) This  p r o v i s i o n was  administer Branch,  the  Project  1976-1988).  seen in  In  a  as  e s s e n t i a l by  visible  reality  and  public  p u b l i c n o t i c e " by  the Water C o m p t r o l l e r  decision-making  process  p a r t i c i p a t i o n as was  at  the  d e c i s i o n s had  was  second  administrative resulted the  underlying  reason  s t r u c t u r e was  mainly  from  administration  the  of  the  thus  to  "reasonable  I t entered any  before  to  Management  the  precluding  been reached l o n g  the  for  lack  licensing  of  Project  Management B r a n c h , w h o s e s t a f f  the  of  the  the  meaningful  public notice  became  lacked  The  operation  RPCC and  the  established  CIC the  a c t i o n the  was  the  of  the  should  of  the  the  and  fish  led  and  Committee.  Their  the  wildlife  On  could  to  the  the  to  the slow  (DPA  hand, the  of  plan be  of  action  that  addressed. ad  in  Thus  the  Water and  Initially,  the  identified  and  based  such a  approach.  A  t o l e r a t e d B.C.  r e s o l u t i o n of  CIC  Without  hoc  RPCC w h i c h  Group, 1986).  position  which  social,  affected.  issues, the  or  plan  result Hydro's  as  in  settlement  the  outside  i t s d e c i s i o n s on  ad  hoc  Furthermore, the work of  the  have b e n e f i t t e d from c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h  isolated  the  task.  t o f o l l o w an  of  of  expertise  responsibility  compensation agreement,  other  lobbying  a  issues  very  requisite  C o m m i t t e e s was  prepared  indecisive leadership  biologists  f i e l d .  official  have  priority  s t u d i e s or p o l i t i c a l site  both  the  operation  the e s s e n t i a l environmental,  Committees were f o r c e d  procrastination case  of  inefficient  P r o j e c t under the Water A c t .  economic e x p e r t i s e f o r such a m u l t i - f a c e t e d  of  response  order  given. The  of  in  in  (Water  a t most r e a c t i v e .  end,  i n fact  government  c r e d i t a b l e way  input  very  the  Revelstoke  experts  prevented  in  their  meaningful  91 communication w i t h  B.C. H y d r o  members o f t h e RPCC. unofficial for  program.  head  office  biologists  Lack of e x p e r t i s e a l s o handicapped B.C. H y d r o h a d n o t p r o v i d e d  t h e L o c a l Impact Committee and t h e Impact Finally,  some s h o r t f a l l s  from  the inadequate  RPCC  experienced  and  the operation of the  the necessary  of the operation  of the o f f i c i a l  of a f i s h  was t h e cause o f t h e c o n t e n t i o u s  staff  program  arose  licence conditions.  i n the administration of clause  c l a u s e w a s t o be t h e b a s i s  support  Monitor.  p r o v i s i o n s o f some o f t h e w a t e r  problems  the knowledgeable  (p).  While  The this  and w i l d l i f e compensation agreement, i t  stance  taken  b y t h e two m a i n p a r t i e s t o t h i s  settlement. Additionally, very  similar.  the  fulfillment  broadly  some o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  of these  clauses,  especially  so because  o u t l i n e d the work of the s i t e b i o l o g i s t s ,  Committee.  the  length of the b i o l o g i s t s '  In fact,  f r e e hand i n a l l o t h e r some  of  monitoring This framework  ( p ) and ( q ) were  The RPCC h a d p r o b l e m s i n a s s i g n i n g t h e s i t e b i o l o g i s t s ' w o r k t o  the  Thus  under c l a u s e  the work  the only  employment;  matters that  directive  clause  was n o t a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  t o be g i v e n  f o r that  have  been  carried  should  efficient deficiencies  has demonstrated have  management  provided of  programs d i d not a l l o w  this  that,  as  the essential  the Revelstoke  of each separate  was  a whole,  as t h e  addressed.  the administrative  components  Project.  a  biologists.  o u t , such  o f c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s , was n o t a t a l l p r o p e r l y chapter  clause  of  i n p r a c t i c e B.C. H y d r o was g i v e n  p e r t a i n i n g t o the work o f the s i t e should  (q) which  f o r the proper  However,  the  and  design  component a n d t h e l a c k o f I n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e two  potential  t o be  realized.  92 NOTES  B.C. H y d r o , E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t S t a t e m e n t , ( V a n c o u v e r : B.C. H y d r o a n d P o w e r A u t h o r i t y , 1 9 7 ^ V o l . 1 1 ^ C h a p t e r 1 9 , R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 1, 13 a n d 15 a s recommended b y B.C. H y d r o ' s s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c o n s u l t a n t s , C a n a d i a n R e s o u r c e c o n . See a l s o P u b l i c H e a r i n g , E x h i b i t N o . 1 3 6 : Review o f Hydro's P o s i t i o n r e M i t i g a t i o n and Compensation - C h a p t e r 19, t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact S t a t e m e n t , September 23, 1976. 1  W a i t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) m e n t i o n s t w o more c o m m i t t e e s , h o w e v e r , i t seems t h a t t h e y d i d n o t much e x t e n d , i f a t a l l , i n t o t h e p r o j e c t implementation phase. They w e r e : ( 1 ) t h e R e v e l s t o k e Highway Committee, w h i c h was t o r e v i e w p r o p o s a l s f o r r e l o c a t i n g H i g h w a y 23 N o r t h a l o n g t h e r e s e r v o i r a n d t o a d d r e s s i m p a c t s o n r o a d s i n t h e r e g i o n and i n t h e C i t y o f R e v e l s t o k e ; and ( 2 ) t h e R e v e l s t o k e E n v i r o n m e n t a l Committee w h i c h was t o c o n s i d e r compensation o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f i s h l o s s e s a r i s i n g from the P r o j e c t . 2  3 The f o r e s t i n d u s t r y w a s s e r i o u s l y a major employer i n t h e a r e a .  i m p a c t e d by t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t ;  i t i s  ^ See B a n k s a n d Thompson ( 1 9 8 0 ) f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n . B.C. Review  H y d r o c a r r i e d o u t s e m i - a n n u a l l a b o u r f o r c e s u r v e y s ; s e e a l s o B.C. H y d r o o f R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t I m p a c t s o n S o c i a l a n d Community S e r v i c e s , 1 9 8 1 .  ^ L i s t o f m i n i s t r i e s a n d a g e n c i e s o f t h e RPCC: Ministry of Environment— agencies: W a t e r Management B r a n c h , A q u a t i c S t u d i e s B r a n c h , K o o t e n a y R e g i o n , H a b i t a t P r o t e c t i o n , F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch; M i n i s t r y of the Attorney G e n e r a l ; M i n i s t r y o f I n d u s t r y and S m a l l B u s i n e s s Development; L a n d s , P a r k s and Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n ; ' M i n i s t r y o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s ; M i n i s t r y o f Highways; M i n i s t r y o f F o r e s t s ; M i n i s t r y o f Human R e s o u r c e s . Some o f t h e M i n i s t r i e s ' names c h a n g e d o v e r t h e y e a r s . ^ The w a t e r l i c e n c e w o r d i n g i s " m i t i g a t i o n o f l o s s e s o f h a b i t a t " . T h e ELUC Secretariat defines m i t i g a t i o n as t h e "measures taken i n t h e p l a n n i n g , c o n s t r u c t i o n , or o p e r a t i o n of a project with the specific objective of avoiding o r reducing adverse environmental or s o c i a l Impacts". Compensation i s d e f i n e d b y ELUC a s t h e " p a y m e n t s ( i n c a s h o r i n k i n d ) w h i c h a r e made b y t h e developer ( o r party responsible f o r t h e impacts) w i t h t h e o b j e c t i v e o f r e d r e s s i n g o r o f f s e t t i n g t h e l o s s e s w h i c h occur despite or i n l i e u of mitigation efforts . . . Very simply, m i t i g a t i o n t r i e s to prevent; c o m p e n s a t i o n a t t e m p t s t o r e d r e s s " (ELUC, 1 9 8 0 ) . The terms " m i t i g a t i o n " and " c o m p e n s a t i o n " a r e u s e d a s d e f i n e d b y ELUC t h r o u g h o u t t h i s t h e s i s . 8 T h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e r h a s been a f f i r m e d by a l l p e r s o n s i n t e r v i e w e d . 9 Both s e t s o f terms o f r e f e r e n c e were n o t a v a i l a b l e t o t h e a u t h o r .  93 The RPCC m e e t i n g n o t e s make few r e f e r e n c e s t o c l a u s e ( n ) a n d c l a u s e ( v ) , thus they were not e v a l u a t e d . C l a u s e ( 1 ) p r e s e n t e d no d i f f i c u l t i e s in implementation. The r e l o c a t i o n o f H i g h w a y 2 3 , r e s e r v o i r c l e a r i n g c l a u s e ( k ) and the c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e c r e a t i o n a l facilities c l a u s e (o) covered e x t e n s i v e l y by p r o g r e s s r e p o r t s gave l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r problems were encountered. The f o r m e r two a r e t o u c h e d u p o n i n S e c t i o n 4.2. N.B.: T h i s s e c t i o n i s not r e f e r e n c e d i n d i v i d u a l l y to f a c i l i t a t e the r e a d i n g of i t . I t i s b a s e d o n t h e m e e t i n g n o t e s o f t h e RPCC a n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e f i l e s a t t h e W a t e r Management B r a n c h , V i c t o r i a , B.C., a s w e l l a s some p e r s o n a l communications t o the author. Many o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e e s a r e s t i l l w o r k i n g i n the m i n i s t r i e s a n d p r e f e r r e d n o t t o be q u o t e d d i r e c t l y . A l l i n f o r m a t i o n i s on f i l e w i t h the author. i U  H Of n o t e i s t h a t t h e C a b i n e t A p p e a l C o m m i t t e e i n t h e i r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s h a d n o t s p e c i f i e d w h o s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y c l a u s e ( p ) was t o b e . They o n l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e w o r k was t o be c a r r i e d o u t a s d i r e c t e d b y t h e C o m p t r o l l e r o f W a t e r Rights. I t was t h e r e f o r e C a b i n e t ' s d e c i s i o n t o a s s i g n t h e t a s k t o B.C. Hydro. 12 ELUC g u i d e l i n e s on c o m p e n s a t i o n and m i t i g a t i o n f o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d s o c i a l i m p a c t s (1980) see t h e argument o f " l i k e f o r l i k e " as i n v a l i d f r o m t h e s t a n d p o i n t o f t h e d e v e l o p e r and g o v e r n m e n t . I f e x c e s s i v e and inefficient e x p e n d i t u r e s o f f u n d s a r e t o be a v o i d e d t h e n " c o m p e n s a t i o n i n k i n d o r f u l l r e p l a c e m e n t s h o u l d o n l y be u n d e r t a k e n w h e n t h e v a l u e o f w h a t i s p r o d u c e d exceeds the c o s t s of producing i t . " ( E L U C , 1980, p . 9 ) . T h u s c o m p e n s a t i o n i s t o be b a s e d on a c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s . B a n k s a n d Thompson ( 1 9 8 0 ) w r i t e t h a t " H y d r o o f f i c i a l s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e C l a i m s O f f i c e r was n e v e r i n t e n d e d t o d e a l w i t h t h e r u n o f t h e m i l l c l a i m ... [but] f o r s o l v i n g d i s p u t e s o v e r s u c h m a t t e r s as r o a d c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t s . " B u t t h e y c o r r e c t l y o b s e r v e t h a t " t h e $10,000 l i m i t seems i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h such a r o l e . " The c o n f u s i o n p e r h a p s a r i s e s f r o m t h e c h a n g e i n w a t e r l i c e n c e c l a u s e s ( t ) and ( u ) . 1 3  94 CHAPTER 4 THE  ENVIRONMENT - G U I D E L I N E S AND  CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS  " I t s h o u l d be n o t e d a t t h e o u t s e t , h o w e v e r , t h a t the Revelstoke E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact Statement i s the first s t u d y o f t h i s t y p e t o be u n d e r t a k e n by B.C. Hydro. The m e t h o d o l o g y and a n a l y t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s t h a t h a v e b e e n u s e d are, therefore, comparatively new t o b o t h t h e a g e n c y and the p r o v i n c i a l s i t u a t i o n i n g e n e r a l . T h i s has r e s u l t e d i n some d i f f i c u l t y i n a d o p t i n g t h e f u l l s c o p e and p u r p o s e o f t h e E I S as d e f i n e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t o t h e s p e c i f i c n e e d s o f B.C. H y d r o ' s p l a n n i n g p r o c e d u r e s . S u f f i c e to say, that the future holds a challenge f o r B.C. Hydro i n the development and a p p l i c a t i o n of new and better environmental impact assessment techniques given the experience gained w i t h the R e v e l s t o k e Project." (B.C. H y d r o , 1976b, pp. v - v i ) The  passage  Environmental context  with  Revelstoke  above,  Impact Statement which  Project.  the To  services  of  and  i n .1975  (Environment  provincial recovery  Fish  and  this  program i n order  new  Branch  1976, was  In  faced  1973  Impact  (FWB)  B.C.  in  the  (H.  and  to  underlines  situation  Associates  socio-economic  Wildlife  introduction  i n May  consultants  Research  and  the  Corporation  with  environmental  environmental  from  published  Crown  deal  the  prepare  taken  changing  corporation and  Canadian  In  engaged  Associates) to  addition  the  tagging  and  Columbia River  fish  a on  the  Resourcecon)  studies.  t o g e n e r a t e more i n f o r m a t i o n  the  developing  Paish  undertook  Hydro's  fish  resources. Between  September  1975  and  May  1976  E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t S t a t e m e n t w h i c h was information  source  for  the  public  licence hearing"  (Waite,  ( D e c e m b e r , 1976)  r e q u i r e d B.C.  a.  1979,  p.  as  "... well  52).  Hydro  B.C.  The  as  Hydro  intended a  first  key  prepared  to serve  document  v e r s i o n of  and  the  major  for  the  water  the w a t e r l i c e n c e  to:  wildlife  biologist  (clause  own  as  c a r r y o u t p r o g r a m m e s t o p r o t e c t , e n h a n c e , and m i t i g a t e l o s s o f f i s h and w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t ( c l a u s e ( p ) )  b. employ a f i s h e r i e s  i t s  (q))  c. prepare e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s ( c l a u s e ( r ) ) ( C o m p t r o l l e r of Water R i g h t s , 1976c)  95 I n r e s p o n s e t o t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s B.C. H y d r o p r e p a r e d t h e " R e v e l s t o k e E n v i r o n m e n t a l G u i d e l i n e s " w h i c h was p u b l i s h e d This  chapter w i l l  contextual  guidelines  the  i nwhich  manner  available  review  i n A p r i l 1977.  therelevant  contractual  and, so f a r as a v a i l a b l e they were  information  construction activities  4.1  first  administered.  permits,  Project:  requirements and  information  Secondly,  t h e environmental  permits,  and a g a i n  Impacts  so f a r as  resulting  CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES  Water  Comptroller.  (forerunner  "subject  I n June  o f RPCC)  Comptroller  accepted  main  their (1)  1977, f o l l o w i n g  review  and t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n  theguidelines with  to a continuing  project" (Comptroller The  the  review  of requested  theunderstanding that  and u p d a t i n g  o f Water R i g h t s ,  activities  of the construction  impact on t h e environment. the contractual clauses  i n the light  changes, t h e t h e y w o u l d be  o f experience on  1976-1988).  of theProject  i n order  t o minimize  consisting  of the various  o f B.C. H y d r o ' s R e v e l s t o k e  environmental  construction  and  ( 2 ) t h e a c t u a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s , w h i c h were t o c l a r i f y  and  administration  contractual contract  of the contractual  requirements  clauses  the actual  (B.C. Hydro, contract  clauses  contracts, t h e purpose  1977a).  The  of the f i r s t  ( D i v e r s i o n T u n n e l ) a w a r d e d f o r t h e P r o j e c t a n d w e r e t o be i n c l u d e d i n  theconstruction  brief  were  and c o n t r o l  The g u i d e l i n e s w e r e w r i t t e n u p i n two p a r t s :  requirements,  typical  to the  by an ad hoc committee  o b j e c t i v e o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s was t o i d e n t i f y  protection  all  from  are reviewed.  E a r l y i n 1 9 7 7 , B.C. H y d r o s u b m i t t e d d r a f t e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s  the  assess  explanatory Selected  environmental  contracts.1  The s e c o n d p a r t  o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s added  some  details.  requirements guidelines  of contracts  a r e summarized  and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g  i n Table  4.1 u n d e r  contextual  the following  96 categories: and  site  compliance  restoration;  with for  laws,  the  preservation, pollution,  last  category,  t h e r e w e r e o n l y e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s and contractual  requirements  contractors  to  some  of  were  the  of  a  and  wildlife  disposal, protection,  no c o n t r a c t u a l r e q u i r e m e n t s .  very  provincial  fish  waste  general  Acts  and  nature.  They  r e g u l a t i o n s and  The  referred  described  common c o n s t r u c t i o n p r a c t i c e s . B.C.  Hydro  detailed (e.g.  7.14,  them  ensured  the  then  one  v e g e t a t i o n and landscape.  For  g u i d e l i n e s by l i m i t i n g the  latter,  prevented  no by  recreational The the With  guidelines  and  the  contractors  guidelines,  to  thus  requirements.  to  nor  adhere  experience  obtain  they  A  i n this  of  environment.  this  would  contract matter  former,  f o r no  have  clause  would  have  Illegal  shooting  clause  guidelines:  4.54  the  areas  the  use  destruction  disfigurement  of  the the  ( 4 . 0 2 ) , however, f o r  h u n t i n g and  at  intent  i s somewhat d e f i n e d i n  the d e s t r u c t i o n t o s p e c i f i e d i s offered.  Hydro's  "unnecessary"  "unnecessary"  "unnecessary"  B.C.  Contract  the environmental  clause c a l l s  of  4.01),  c o n t r a c t o r s had  p r e s e r v a t i o n , I t was  p r e v e n t i o n of  the  (#1,  implication.  biological  The  Acts  site  fishing  and  the  are  to  control  be of  fishing.  concerns  respect  which  the  the  these  legal  prohibition  contractual  main  of  Crown C o r p o r a t i o n ' s p r e v i o u s  u n d e r (#2)  definition the  of  list  ultimate responsibility  terms. for  to  than  the shortcomings  of vague, undefined  natural  awareness  natural of  standards  include i t i n  H y d r o f r o m any  the  complete  position  the requirements  preserve  a  However, the  c o n t r a c t o r the  illustrates  of  supply  better  latter's  p r o t e c t e d B.C.  to  a  and  the  With  7.15).  in  information  giving  not  a l l r e g u l a t i o n s and  #4,  placed  did  are  clauses the  to compliance  (4.07) c a l l  covering pollution  prevention w i t h the  of  water  Pollution  f o r waste water  (#3)  are  pollution Control Act,  also and the  rather dust  vague,  control.  environmental  d i s c h a r g e s t o be a s f r e e a s  "practical"  T a b l e 4.1  Summary o f S e l e c t e d C o n t r a c t R e q u i r e m e n t s  REQUIREMENT  1. CompIf a n c e w i t h Iaws  2.  CONTRACT  *4.27 ~ C o n s t r u c t i o n s h a l l  P r e s e r v a t i o n It.5b  7.11  3.  Pollution  comply w i t h a l l a p p l i c a b l e  d i s t u r b a n c e of natural  GUIOLELINES  laws  wlth Pollution  Control  ^.02 - c l e a r i n g o n l y In s p e c i f i e d a r e a s £ s h e l t e r b e l t s l e f t 6.05/6.01 - p r o h i b i t i o n o f s h o o t i n g a t s i t e / c o n t r o l r e c r e a t i o n a l 'I.O'I/'I.OS - s t o c k p i l e removed s o l i , use f o r s i t e r e s t o r a t i o n  landscape  Branch  - prevent s o l i d matter, contaminants £ other object i o n a b l e p o l l u t a n t s from e n t e r i n g s u r f a c e £ ground water - c o n s t r u c t means t o k e e p e r o d e d m a t e r i a l o u t o f w a t e r c o u r s e s - use t u r b i d i t y c o n t r o l methods b e f o r e d i s c h a r g i n g waste waters Into watercourses ( h ) p r e v e n t d u s t p o l l u t i o n f r o m b e c o m i n g a n u i s a n c e In work a r e a s - do n o t u s e o i l w h e r e I t c a n r e a c h w a t e r c o u r s e s h.  Waste Di s p o s a l  7.1't - p r o h i b i t e d t o d i s c h a r g e raw sewage o r p o l l u t e d w a t e r i n t o w a t e r c o u r s e s o r n e a r camp, w o r k a r e a s , b u i l d i n g s - d r a i n a g e £ sewage I n s t a l l a t i o n s t o c o n f o r m w i t h p r o v i n c i a l health £ other standards 715  - c o l l e c t r e f u s e i n m e t a l , c o v e r e d , f l y - p r o o f cans £ d i s p o s e t w i c e p e r week by i n c i n e r a t o r o r i n p i t £ c o v e r as s p e c i f i e d - p e r i o d i c a l l y b a c k f i l l p i t s to m a i n t a i n s a n i t a t i o n £ minimize a t t r a c t i n g w i l d l i f e - r e f u s e d i s p o s a l must be a c c e p t a b l e t o p r o v i n c i a l £ municipal requirements  3  't.OI - s p e c i f i c a l l y I d e n t i f i e s some p r o v i n c i a l a c t s w h i c h m u s t be c o m p l l e d wi t h - c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s are s u b j e c t to approval £ d i r e c t i o n of C o n s t r u c t i o n M a n a g e r , who e n s u r e s t h a t c o n t r a c t u a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r e s e r v a t i o n a r e met  - smooth £ grade d i s t u r b e d s u r f a c e s t o c o n f o r m t o the n a t u r a l l a n d s c a p e - s p o i l £ r o c k f l l l p i l e s not to I n t e r f e r e w i t h natural drainage  7-07(g)comply  Guidelines  2  - No u n n e c e s s a r y d e s t r u c t i o n o f v e g e t a t i o n - p r e v e n t i l l e g a l h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g - prevent unnecessary disfigurement of c o u n t r y s i d e  7.07(f)mlnlmlze  and  ^*.03  fishing  U.0U  - shape s u r f a c e a r e a s t o c o n t r o l r u n o f f £ p r e v e n t e r o s i o n , restore £ plant native vegetation - s t o c k p i l e removed s o i l , use f o r s i t e r e s t o r a t i o n  b.\2  - l o c a t e so that  ^.07  - k e e p w a s t e w a t e r d i s c h a r g e s i n t o w a t e r c o u r s e s as f r e e as p r a c t i c a b l e from p o l l u t a n t s , b i o l o g i s t s t o monitor c o n s t a n t l y t o e n s u r e p r o v i n c i a l s t a n d a r d s a r e met ( A c t s : Pollution Control, Mines, F i s h e r i e s , Health, etc.)  4.U  t h e y do n o t  Interfere with natural  c o n s t r u c t dewaterlng & drainage systems t o prevent d i s c h a r g e s of p o l l u t a n t s i n t o w a t e r c o u r s e s & i f any e r o s i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d wiLhln acceptable limits  '(.06 - k e e p d u s t p o l l u t i o n o n  roads  t o minimum w i t h w a t e r  - use o f o i l £ c a l c i u m c h l o r i d e w i t h b i o l o g i s t s ' 't.08  .09  drainage  sprinkling  consent  - sewage £ w a s t e w a t e r d i s p o s a l t o c o n f o r m w i t h p r o v i n c i a l h e a l t h £ o t h e r government r e q u i r e m e n t s - sewage t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s £ s e p t i c t a n k s f o r camps £ w o r k a r e a s t o meet P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t r e q u i r e m e n t s , d i s p o s a l o f w a s t e f r o m p o r t a b l e t o i l e t s t o meet D e p t . o f H e a l t h r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s - d i s p o s e g a r b a g e by s a n i t a r y f i l l g a r b a g e p i t £ pay a t t e n t i o n t o d r a i n a g e In £ o u t o f p i t - Implement r e f u s e i n c i n e r a t i o n - Hydro to fund n u i s a n c e animal  If w i l d l i f e i s a t t r a c t e d r e m o v a l when r e q u e s t e d by  FWB  -^1  T a b l e k.1  Continued CONTRACT  Site Restoration  7.07 7-10  GUIDELINES  - s e e a b o v e u n d e r #2 - s t a b i l i z e borrow area slopes S reshape to conform to natural landscape - l e v e l waste p i l e s ( r o c k f l l l ) s shape to conform to natural landscape 6 prevent ponding & runoff  7.11  .03/11.01) <t.05  s e e a b o v e u n d e r #2 s e e a b o v e u n d e r #2, u s e n a t i v e v e g e t a t i o n t o r e p l a n t r e s t o r e temporary roads to near n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n use d e s i g n a t e d s p o i l a r e a s & b l e n d w i t h n a t u r a l l a n d s c a p e grade to m i n i m i z e e r o s i o n , r e c l a i m w i t h t o p s o i I S v e g e t a t ton landscape a r c h i t e c t to develop landscaping program d u r i n g program p r e p a r a t i o n b i o l o g i s t s to ensure present 6 future p r e s e r v a t i o n of environment  I|.06 V12  5.00  GUIDELINES  6.  6.00  F i s h and w i l d l i f e p r o t e c t Ion  s i t e b i o l o g i s t s to monitor e f f e c t i v e n e s s 6 Implementation of g u i d e l i n e s p r o p e r p r o t e c t i o n o f f i s h and w i l d l i f e In P r o j e c t a r e a H y d r o t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t s by FWB  6.01  preservation of watercourses - k e e p c o n s t r u c t i o n n e a r w a t e r c o u r s e s t o minimum - do n o t " w a l k " c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t t h r o u g h s t r e a m s - remove t e m p o r a r y l o g c r o s s i n g s and c u l v e r t s t o r e s t o r e  6.02  * c o n s i d e r a t i o n of spawning c y c l e s - when p o s s i b l e s c h e d u l e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f spawning c y c l e s  6.0^  6.06  6.07  6.08  * p r o t e c t i o n from hazardous areas - upon s i t e w i l d l i f e b i o l o g i s t ' s r e q u e s t wiIdlife out  No  contract  Wildlife  Branch  by  clauses  f o r these  l o g booms t o  In B.C. H y d r o , 1977a. I n B.C. H y d r o , 1977a.  guidelines.  of  areas  facilitate  be  ensure  systems fish  construction  fence hazardous c o n t r u c t i o n  * provision for w i l d l i f e crossings - a t r e q u e s t o f s i t e o r FWB b i o l o g i s t s p r o v i d e w i l d l i f e c r o s s i n g s In r e s e r v o i r a r e a  4.  corresponding  cut  * continuing environmental concern - s i t e b i o l o g i s t s t o c a r r y o u t f i s h and w i l d l i f e f i e l d s t u d i e s - a s s i s t In e s t a b l i s h i n g b a s i s f o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l management p r o g r a m ? t o I m p l e m e n t e d a t d i s c r e t i o n o f FWB f o l l o w i n g p r o j e c t c o m p l e t i o n  S i m p l i f i e d f r o m B.C. H y d r o , 1977a. Numbers r e f e r t o c o n t r a c t u a l r e q u i r e m e n t s p a g e s 2-15 Numbers r e f e r t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s p a g e s 15-23 F i s h and  drainage  In s t r e a m s o u t s i d e  * preservation of w i l d l i f e t r a i l s - upon s i t e w i l d l i f e b i o l o g i s t ' s r e q u e s t w i l d l i f e t r a i l s r e s t o r e d t o m a i n t a i n t r a d i t i o n a l movement p a t t e r n s  1. 2. 3. FWB:  structures  natural  to  to  activities  keep  to  be  99 from  pollutants  and  to  be  constantly  b i o l o g i s t s ? ) t o meet " p r o v i n c i a l The  requirements  refuse,  were  attraction  of  borrow  to  wildlife,  and  stability, natural  and  spoil  to develop  interest is  and  wildlife  protection all,  a  contracts. the  6.07  in  the  Manager  with  and  the  contractual  cooperate with  the are  the  such  as  sewage  watercourses  i n c i n e r a t i o n was  rockfill  waste  the  4.01) any  restoration  of  areas.  blending  of  guideline  and  and  to  the  replace  sites,  Concerns  disturbed  5.00  calls  program, however,  environmental not  included  studies)  such  were  areas for  as  slope  into  a  i t does not  guidelines in  any  implementation and  none  biologists. plan  of of  "reasonable"  The  the  landscape  specify  filling  guidelines  included  b i o l o g i s t s are only  contractual  ones  b i o l o g i s t s were  site-specific  also by  protection  clauses.  been  responsibility  6.00  the  contractual  guidelines,  site  the  requests  site  the  a p p r o v a l s and  Requirement  construction  the  the  have  the  for  contract  than  should  6.00,  requirements were  environmental  nonspecific  that  somewhat more s p e c i f i c  c o v e r r e s e r v o i r c l e a r i n g and The  (site  the  applied.  sections,  Most of  (#1,.  biologists  (#4),  p o l l u t i o n of  the  Though under r e q u i r e m e n t  consultation  wastes  mentioned  and  (biologists'  guideline  authority.  and  that (#6)  effectiveness  thirteen  specified  landscaping  be  measures are  except  of  the  Environmental  area to which i t w i l l  fish  prevent  erosion,  landscape.  Of  the  standards".  disposal  clauses  drainage,  architect  by  i f animals were a t t r a c t e d .  contract  areas  the  intended  disposal i n pits Several  for  monitored  the  states FWB.  that  the B.C.  These ones  and  in  the  monitor  three  of  the  call  for  the  assigned  no  decisions of  to  of  called for Construction Hydro  The  guidelines  set  of  would  did  not  activities. appear  practices  to  lacking  r e q u i r e m e n t s , w h i c h w o u l d have e s t a b l i s h e d  be any  a solid  a  rather  detailed, basis  f o r the  common  site-specific conservation  100 and  p r o t e c t i o n of the environment during  4.1.1  period.  COMPLIANCE MONITORING OF REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES The  to  the construction  water licence,  though c a l l i n g  f o r B.C. H y d r o t o p r e p a r e a n d t o a d h e r e  t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s , g a v e no d i r e c t i v e  the  compliance monitoring.  had  reviewed  the  site  the draft  Some o f t h e members o f t h e a d h o c c o m m i t t e e ,  guidelines, requested  biologists.  However,  approved  only  f o r the b i o l o g i s t s  affecting  the environment  called  a s t o who w a s t o c a r r y o u t  .  this  the guidelines  . . and  .  .  t o be t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f that  t h e Water  to "participate . contribute  .  . and  . . .  guidelines 1977a,  as  that  the Comptroller  Instead  Section  Manager.  contractors  Chief  4.01  t o ensure  environmental  and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  o f Water  Rights"  of the guidelines  E n g i n e e r , whose  site  practice,  B.C.  compliance monitoring were  mainly  required  to deal  construction site  Hydro  with  with  no  t h e many  Information  administrators  biologists  assigned  of construction  engineers  shown i n T a b l e 4 . 1 .  impact of the  (B.C. Hydro, assigned  this was  a l l c o n t r a c t s and  requirements f o r the preservation  observed  contract  contracts.  training varied  administrators  Although  i n environmental  aspects  work,  the p r i n c i p l e  the contracts.  importance  Environmental  and t h e r e f o r e  treated  matters  protection  B u t one o f  concern of the administrators  were  superficially.  were  c a r r i e d o u t by t h e  was n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r an e v a l u a t i o n . that  they  of environmental  from compliance monitoring  to the  the administrators  seemed t o h a v e b e e n t h e c o n t r a c t o r s ' a d h e r e n c e t o t h e t e c h n i c a l of  that  representative  Thus t h e l a t t e r was t o a d m i n i s t e r  met t h e c o n t r a c t u a l  decisions  t h e environment (B.C. Hydro, 1977a, p. 1 6 ) . In  the  t o by  the effectiveness  t o B.C. H y d r o ' s  Construction  ensure of  agreed  p p . 16, 2 1 ) .  responsibility the  to monitor  Comptroller  in a l l  much  c o n s t r u c t i o n p r a c t i c e s a r e f o l l o w e d which cause the l e a s t .  who  perceived  specification  t o be  The o b j e c t i v e w a s  of  minor  to build  101 the  dam e c o n o m i c a l l y Initially  two to  construction monitoring  site biologists. seven  times  biologist, Section  They i n s p e c t e d  a month.  i t became  3.2.2.4).  monitoring (Mason, the  and on t i m e ( B o n a r ,  However,  clear  that  I t seems  1987). i n general  t h e ongoing c o n s t r u c t i o n work about early  i n 1979 w i t h  B.C. H y d r o  that  from  monthly  Indeed,  reports  the very  of the s i t e  brief  then  on  of the s i t e  biologists  and  biologists  (Mason, 1988).  to the relevant  t h e amount  i n fisheries practice (see  of  construction  attitude or "tenacity"  was d i s c o n t i n u e d  summed  aspects  agency.  The  a s o f 1980 f o r  (B.C. Hydro  up h i s a c t i v i t i e s  I n c i d e n t s were r e p o r t e d  government  this  four  mention of c o n s t r u c t i o n monitoring i n  w i l d l i f e m a t t e r s a n d a s o f 1982 f o r f i s h e r i e s One  a change  discouraged  u n d e r t a k e n depended on t h e s i t e b i o l o g i s t s '  1988).  informer  was a l s o u n d e r t a k e n by t h e  as  1977-1984). that  to the Construction  biologist  h a d no  of  an  Manager  enforcement  power, he t r i e d t o m i t i g a t e w h e r e v e r p o s s i b l e , b u t he was h a m s t r u n g by t h e l o w priority  assigned  Langford  (1985,  twelve  t o the environment  p. 778) i n an e v a l u a t i o n  development  management  at the Revelstoke  projects  of the environmental  I n B.C., c o n f i r m  d i d not delegate  site.  authority  that  Phillip  and  management o f  at the Revelstoke  t o t h e environmental  Project  supervisors  (biologists). Enforcement  was  government a g e n c i e s . in  particular  should  have  1988).  unsuccessful monitoring (Lindsay,  The b i o l o g i s t  felt  FWB's  p o s i t i o n however  attempt t o g a i n  1988).  and t h e r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r f i s h and w i l d l i f e of environmental  was,  s u p e r v i s i o n over  that  once a p p r o v a l  resources,  impacts  following  the  the s i t e b i o l o g i s t s ,  h a n d s a n d became t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  Furthermore,  monitoring  Manager  t h a t t h e M i n i s t r y o f Environment, and  on adequate m o n i t o r i n g  was o u t o f t h e i r  environmental  to the Construction  t h e FWB w h i c h w a s r e s p o n s i b l e  insisted  The  up  agency's compliance  o f B.C. H y d r o  f o r a p r o j e c t had been  and m i t i g a t i o n a r e o f a v e r y  (Mason,  granted,  low p r i o r i t y , no m a t t e r  102 who — a  does t h e m o n i t o r i n g . fact  well  (Lindsay,  Environmental  illustrated  b y t h e Deadman  amount  guidelines point.  of compliance  undertaken  The next  monitoring  b y B.C. H y d r o ' s section will  purpose  environmental  ( s e e S e c t i o n 4.2)  of c o n t r a c t u a l requirements  and t h e  c o n t r a c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s remains and e v a l u a t e  by t h e s i t e  of the analysis  impacts  of compliance  available extensive  data  a moot  the results  of the  biologists.  precludes  was  not undertaken,  relatively  smoothly—major  data  was  impacts  (B.C.  Teleki,  1979; Mason,  Mason, 1988).  carried  used  Hydro,  the w i l d l i f e later  a c c i d e n t s , which  f o rthis  1977-1984),  latter  study  were  their  Project.  have  The  a r e several:  effect  on t h e  records  of the  construction  could  1982) and p e r s o n a l  Although  1979.  the site  annual  caused  proceeded long  biologists'  reports  (Bonar,  interviews with  term  them  from t h e f i l e s  monthly  1978,  1979;  (Bonar, 1987;  and s t a f f  o f B.C.  t h e W a s t e Management B r a n c h a n d f r o m B.C.  t h e r e w a s somewhat more d a t a  e c o s y s t e m , few r e f e r e n c e s  than  and t h e i r  a r e no d e t a i l e d  Some i n f o r m a t i o n w a s o b t a i n e d  Conservation Officers.  flushing  there  their  a n d t o g a i n some  The c a u s e s  o u t and o v e r a l l ,  H y d r o , t h e W a t e r Management B r a n c h ,  activities  study.  and  did not occur.  sources  reports  activities  f o r the Revelstoke  of construction a c t i v i t i e s  that  The  as a whole  an in-depth  monitoring  environmental  of construction  i s t o document and e v a l u a t e t h e i m p a c t s  monitoring  monitoring  environment  high  erosion  was " a j o k e "  CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The  than  Creek  describe  c o n s t r u c t i o n monitoring undertaken  idea  at Revelstoke  1988).  The  4.2  monitoring  for either  for the aquatic  pertain to monitoring  I n g e n e r a l , t h e l a r g e a r e a o f t h e P r o j e c t and t h e  rate of watercourses  rendered  l e d t o t h e s u b j e c t i v e assessment  monitoring  o f most  a difficult  impacts  task.  on t h e q u a l i t y  The of  103 water u n t i l The  1981, when w a t e r q u a l i t y  impacts  construction  on  the  activities  which all  environment  monitored  m i t i g a t i o n and compensation  t e s t i n g was  by  that  the s i t e  improved. resulted biologists  construction activities pressure) which  (Deadman C r e e k watershed)  diversion)  from  December  construction  activities  The  statement  initial  bracketed  statement  b i o l o g i s t s ' monthly The were:  major  production Deadman garbage  1977 t o December  the whole c o n s t r u c t i o n (clearing  1980  Table  t o December  that  gives  1983.  the s i t e  from  Teleki  fisheries  (1979)  additional  (B.C. Hydro,  from  sediment  reservoir  at the batch  plant,  and  period,  I n Dolan  4.3  disposal,  (3) a t t r a c t i o n  pressure  on  fishing  roads,  culled  borrow  o f Highway  pollution  of w i l d l i f e by  the  i n 1978.  i s followed  information  #12  Creek  details  biologist  i n the Columbia  access  relocation  (2) chemical water  1979 f o r  by  from  a  the  1977-1984).  loads  logging,  over  ( d i s c h a r g e o f sewage e f f l u e n t ) a n d  over  by  of the  The p e r i o d  f o r 1978 t o 1984 a n d #13  i s taken  suspended  Creek;  increased  extended  monitored  reports  #7, #8  some  environmental concerns a r i s i n g from the c o n s t r u c t i o n  (1) high  tributaries  except  the various  and  m e a s u r e s a r e shown i n T a b l e 4.2.  t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s w e r e m o n i t o r e d w a s f r o m May  #10 ( f i s h i n g  from  from  and  River  and i t s  areas,  concrete  23 a n d t h e w a s h o u t  fuel  by i l l e g a l  poaching,  activities  spills  garbage  (5) f i s h  and  illegal  disposal;  blockage  of  (4)  by t h e  diversion tunnel (Table 4.2). As that  the project  caused  by  logging  roads  and borrow  (#5).  Also different  Deadman  Creek  progressed  pits  so d i d t h e s e v e r i t y  i n the reservoir located  near  The  (activity  watercourses  areas of ecosystem  erosion.  area  o f some i m p a c t s , n o t a b l y  plant  s t r e s s d e v e l o p e d , as f o r example t h e  reason  However, one c a n n o t  the access  ( # 3 ) , and t h e b a t c h  f o r this  are:  construction a c t i v i t i e s w i t h the progression of the Project impacts per s e .  #1), by  the e s c a l a t i o n  of  and d i f f e r e n c e s i n  e x c l u d e o t h e r p o s s i b l e c a u s e s , such as  Table  k.2  Construction A c t i v i t i e s  ACTIVITY  IMPACT ON  1. R e s e r v o i r  2. B u r n i n g i n  logging  reservoir  M o n i t o r e d and  Environmental  Impacts  ENVIRONMENT  Reported  by  Site  Biologists  MITIGATION/COMPENSATION MEASURES AND  RESULTS  - i n c r e a s e d r u n o f f , i n i t i a l l y i n c r e a s e d suspended sediments -during 1979 h i g h s u s p e n d e d s e d i m e n t s i n t r i b u t a r i e s - c o n s i d e r a b l e i n c r e a s e i n s t r e a m bank e r o s i o n - s p a w n i n g a r e a s d i s r u p t e d by m a c h i n e r y -some u p s t r e a m f i s h m i g r a t i o n b l o c k e d -wiId1i fe d i splaced  - d e b r i s removal i n streams - c l e a r i n g c o n t r a c t s i n c l u d e d g u i d e l i n e s t o keep d e b r i s m a c h i n e r y out o f s t r e a m s - but not e n f o r c e d - s t e e p r e s e r v o i r a r e a s s e e d e d i n 1979-80 - s o l v e d some p r o b l e m s  -minor impact from i n c r e a s e d n u t r i e n t minimal increases are b e n e f i c i a l  -keep  levels,  logging d e b r i s out of  river  3. A c c e s s r o a d s 6 b o r r o w p i t s near watercourses  - i n i t i a l l y l i t t l e sediment i n t r o d u c t i o n in watercourses & m i n i m a l i n t e r r u p t i o n o f f i s h movement - d u r i n g 1979 i n c r e a s e d s e d i m e n t i n t r o d u c t i o n & f i s h movement i n h i b i t e d i n some c a s e s  -borrow  1*. v e h i c l e m a i n t e n a n c e n e a r y a r d & camp  - m i n o r s p i l l s s c r a p e d up 6 b u r i e d - s m a l l d i e s e l f u e l s p i l l s went i n t o C o l u m b i a -most s p i l l s w e l l away f r o m r i v e r  - o i l & petrochemicals from yard r e c y c l e d -most p e t r o c h e m i c a l s b u r n e d o r b u r i e d  5-  batch plant f o r d i v e r s i o n tunnel  - i n i t i a l l y ml n o r s e e p a g e f r o m sma11 s e t 1 1 i ng pond I n t o C o l umb l a RI v e r - d u r i n g 1979 h i g h s u s p e n d e d s e d i m e n t l o a d s f r o m b a t c h p l a n t e f f l u e n t into Columbia River  - s e t t l i n g ponds were c o n s t r u c t e d , but d i d not r e t a i n p a r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r , t o meet' s t a n d a r d s i n 1981  6.  diversion  - v e l o c i t y b a r r i e r to f i s h : downstream m i g r a t i o n p o s s i b l e , u p s t r e a m n o t - l o s s of upstream f i s h population -some D o l l y V a r d e n spawn i n n o n e - n a t a l s t r e a m s b e l o w d i v e r s i o n t u n n e l  -kokanee compensation a t Hi1 I/MacKenzie a b o u t 500000 i n 1981 - p o s s i b i l i t y f o r compensation f o r D o l l y 151000 e g g s c o l l e c t e d i n 1980 -15000 r a i n b o w t r o u t e g g s c o l l e c t e d  - a u x i l l l a r y a e r a t i o n o f sewage t r e a t m e n t p l a n t - s l u d g e waste removal t o r e g i o n a l s a n i t a t i o n f i l l  tunnel  River  7.  sewage e f l l u e n t f r o m man camp 6 o f f i c e s  - p e r m i t t e d d i s c h a r g e volumes o f t e n exceeded & f e c a l c o l i f o r m f r e q u e n t l y e x c e e d e d recommended s t a n d a r d s -no a p p a r e n t n u t r i e n t i n c r e a s e s d o w n s t r e a m o f P r o j e c t - m a l o d o u r s a t man camp  8.  sewaye e f f l u e n t fromCity of Revelstoke  - p e r i o d i c d i s c h a r g e s o f raw sewage i n t o C o l u m b i a  9.  garbage  10. Human  disposal  ingress  -bears a t t r a c t e d - i n c r e a s e d b i o l o g i c a l oxygen -aesthetic degradation  demand  p i t s w e r e k e p t away f r o m w a t e r c o u r s e s  spawning Varden  channel investigated  River  in t r i b u t a r i e s  - i n c r e a s e d f i s h i n g p r e s s u r e a s new l o c a t i o n s open i n r e s e r v o i r a r e a - f i s h a c c u m u l a t i n g downstream o f d i v e r s i o n tunneI eas i I y poached  - W a s t e Management B r a n c h i n f o r m e d - p e r m i t s r e q u i r e d t o dump g a r b a g e  -angling closure tunnel o u t l e t  signs  p o s t e d downsteam o f  diversion  O  Table  k.2  Cont i nued  ACTIVITY  II.  IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENT  R e l o c a t i o n o f Highway 23 N o r t h  13. C l e a r i n g o f t r a n s m i s s i o n I i ne r i g h t of-way i n Dolan Creek watershed  Teleki  sediments  into  tributaries  -I4 m i l l i o n c u b i c y a r d s o f a l l u v i a l g r a v e l a n d s a n d d e p o s i t e d i n Columbia R i v e r - s h o r t term impacts: i n c r e a s e d suspended s o l i d s , d e p o s i t i o n o f f i n e s on n e a r s h o r e r i v e r b o t t o m s l i g h t f i l l i n g i n o f r i v e r p o o l s u t i l i z e d by f i s h -undetermined i n c r e a s e i n kokanee m o r t a l i t y r a t e k o k a n e e p o p u l a t i o n p r o b a b l y n o t t o be d a n g e r o u s l y  12. Di v e r s i o n o f Deadman C r e e k  Sources:  •high c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f suspended  MITIGATION/COMPENSATION  (1982,  1988); Bonar  RESULTS  - c o n t r a c t o r s informed o f danger t o f i s h i n t r i b u t a r i e s - s i t e w i l d l i f e b i o l o g i s t suggested m i t i g a t i v e design  deposits  -relocation  and d e s i g n changes  of diversion  t o 10 km d o w n r i v e r e f f e c t on t o t a l high  - c o n s t r i c t i o n o f D o l a n C r e e k c a u s e d by d i r t £ d e b r i s a c c u m u l a t i o n at i l l e g a l Creek c r o s s i n g - i n c r e a s e d r u n o f f from a c c e s s road, l o g l a n d i n g s i t e s -blockage o f i n t e r m i t t e n t streams  (1978, 1 9 7 9 ) ; Mason  MEASURES AND  (1978, 1 9 7 9 , 1 9 8 7 ) ; B.C. H y d r o  -guidelines s p e c i f i c a l l y developed f o r c l e a r i n g i n t h i s a r e a - n o t implemented -prompt r e m e d i a l work ( r e v e g e t a t i o n , r o a d d r a i n a g e , b l o c k a g e £ d e b r i s r e m o v a l ) r e q u e s t e d b y W a t e r Management B r a n c h - t o o k 2.5 y e a r s t o c o m p l e t e  (1977"!98*0 ; G o r s l i n e  (1987); Gabrowski  (1988)  O  106  T a b l e k.3  Construction in 1978  Activities  Monitored  by  Site  Fisheries Biologist  DATE  ACTIVITY  Feb.  Batch  Feb.  Diversion  March  Deadman C r e e k e r o s i o n .  (About  March  Diversion  road  April  Location  May  Aggregate plant  May  P l a c e m e n t and management o f A c r o w b r i d g e . c o n n e c t i n g W e s t s i d e A c c e s s Road t o H i g h w a y  May  D u s t c o n t r o l by s a l t i n g . ( L i q u e f i e d c a l c i u m c h l o r i d e was u s e d o n W e s t s i d e A c c e s s Road f o r d u s t c o n t r o l w h e r e r u n o f f was n o t d i r e c t l y i n t o C o l u m b i a R i v e r . Map o f new s a l t z o n e s prepared. S p e c i f i c a t i o n s were a d h e r e d t o . S a l t i n g was l i m i t e d t o 300 l b s p e r r o a d m i l e i n N o v e m b e r 1978.)  June  Concrete curing water. (Discharged from concrete placement d i r e c t l y into Columbia R i v e r . Also w a s t e c o n c r e t e d i s c h a r g e d d i r e c t l y a t b a t c h p l a n t and h i g h l y t u r b i d w a t e r drained d i r e c t l y into Columbia R i v e r . In f u t u r e t o be d o n e a t a r o c k p i l i n g s i t e . A l s o washing out of concrete trucks d i r e c t l y o n t o r o a d t o be d i s c o n t i n u e d a s i t c o u l d c a u s e damage i f d o n e c l o s e r t o t h e r i v e r . )  June  Fuel  July  W a s t e d i s p o s a l by P i t t s - A t l a s . f i l l area. C o n t r a c t o r d i d not  August  Paving preparation. (Road o i l - t a r heavy p r e c i p i t a t i o n . )  Sept.  Sediment from r e s e r v o i r c l e a r i n g . (Noted many p l a c e s , h i g h s e d i m e n t l o a d i n r u n o f f Forest Service.)  Sept.  T r e e s and the r i v e r stringent  Sept.  Loram t r u c k f u e l s p i l l s p i l l e d , d y k e d o f f and  October  Downie Creek highway p r o p o s a l . ( I I . ' i km a d d i t i o n a l r o a d w a y . Impacts, such as s a l t r u n o f f , increased f i n e s in Creek and l o n g - t e r m s i t e d i s r u p t i o n as w e l l as m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s t o prevent road r u n o f f were d i s c u s s e d . )  plant  wash pond  tunnel  tunnel and  spill  effluent.  intake  start  from  l o c a t i o n and  up  of  material  truck  (No  cubic  into  plant. details  i n the  (Plans were  from d i v e r s i o n tunnel  't m i l l i o n  asphalt  operation.  tanker  (Pumped  1  configuration.  (No  (No  details  into  the  washed  details  2  Columbia  into  River.)  Columbia  River.)  available.)  available.)  available.) (Pontoon bridge 23 N o r t h . )  river.  (No  details  ( M a c h i n e s h o p and comply immediately seal  back  yards material  river.  reviewed.)  coat  across  the  Columbia  River  available.)  g a r a g e w a s t e s dumped i n Deadman C r e e k when o r d e r e d t o c l e a n up.)  washed  into  Columbia  River  in October - a great deal of to Columbia River. Stricter  and  Moses Creek  spoil  during  unnecessary s c a r r i n g i n s p e c t i o n by B.C.  in  brush i n water from r e s e r v o i r c l e a r i n g . ( A l a r m i n g l y h i g h number o f t r e e s f e l l e d into 7 t o 9 km u p s t r e a m o f p o n t o o n b r i d g e . More p r e c i s e c l e a r i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s , more i n s p e c t i o n s a n d s t r i c t e r e n f o r c e m e n t by B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e o f c o n t r a c t o r s recommended.) on s i t e . 'fired',  (October 1978 - m o r e t h a n 1000 gallons diesel-gasoline no f u e l r e a c h e d t h e C o l u m b i a R i v e r . )  AH 1978  of  1. 2.  U n b r a c k e t e d s t a t e m e n t f r o m T e l e k i (1979) Bracketed statements from s i t e b i o l o g i s t ' s  Downie S l i d e b e n t o n i t e  clay  in river.  (No  details  monthly  available.)  reports  (B.C.  Hydro,  1977-198 )) 1  mixture  107 differences  in  biologists,  monitoring  in  enforcement of clauses  by  increased and  clearing  the  Causes  bank e r o s i o n ,  was  clearing  tested,  guidelines  and  included  B.C.  Forest  and  were  but  been  and  b i o l o g i s t w i t h B.C.  and  Forest  by  measure  critical  wildlife  adjacent  areas. of  identified caribou  Service  river  one  area  was  to and  Altogether  areas. crossing  period  on  1980  two that  contract  habitat  not  reserves  the  cleared  long  as  in  May  the  very  The  site  The  deferred areas  of  intent  of  i t would  generate  on  approximately  wetland. ranges,  (Water  early  The  was  604  EIS  three  biologist.  another  site wildlife  The  and  added  the w i l d l i f e  successful  the  wildlife  of  to a communication problem. reported.  The  removal  were  and  (k))  the  encompassed  1978  reservoir  (clause  habitat  possible  some  Water  c l e a r i n g program.  by  pressure  sites  River  surfaces,  blocked.  waterfowl.  moose w i n t e r i n g Other  in  (Mason, 1982).  These were  including  cleared  were  Columbia  s p e c i a l c o n c e r n was  b e a v e r , and as  resulted  Although  enforced  reserves.  recommendation of  inadvertently  i n c i d e n t s was  were  first  Comptroller  reviewed  Of  reserves  sites.  the  Water  increased  land,  Three  the  were  defer  the  riparian  c l e a r e d h a l f a y e a r l a t e r due these  and  machinery i n streams.  interpreted.  staff.  the  at  from  for administering  habitat  was  habitat  flat  six  construction  site  surveillance  construction  (1)  runoff  they were not  standards  twelve w i l d l i f e  mitigation  hectares  of  t r e e s and  not  p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t a n c e t o moose, c a r i b o u , this  in  upstream f i s h m i g r a t i o n  approved  responsible  schedules  area  increased  r e s u l t s were  had  S e r v i c e was  of  and  fisheries  suspended sediments i n the  debris, felled  i n clearing contracts,  Clearing  clearing  successive  environment  reservoir  i n high  Some s p a w n i n g a r e a s w e r e d i s r u p t e d quality  the  the  g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s and  of  t h e n , i n 1979,  i t s tributaries.  increased  for  by  Hydro. and  and  reporting  consideration  r e g u l a t i o n s by  B.C.  Logging  and  had were  in  the  However, partially  s i g n i f i c a n c e of  biologist Management  noted  in  Branch,  108 1977-1985).  Moose c r o s s e d l a r g e a r e a s o f c l e a r e d  preferred winter year  prior  r a n g e . The  to reservoir  filling.  t h i s gradual adjustment for  the  wildlife.  inevitable. the  Hydro,  b u r n i n g of  minor n u t r i e n t mitigation  1978;  Fish  maintenance  (#4)  promptly  were r e c y c l e d  with  have  cleared  this  value  material  measure  mitigation  seems  keeping  from  sediment movement  that  stressful  delayed  measure  the  proposed  (Bonar,  1987;  in B.C.  1977-1985).  i n the  reservoir  area  (#2)  logging  debris  out  of  the  only  caused  beneficial.  stream  and  in was  borrow  pits  located  (Teleki,  streams  initially,  somewhat  interrupted.  near watercourses but  cleared  up.  (Teleki,  O i l and  1979;  resulted—but  1979  Impacts  p e t r o c h e m i c a l s from  Mason, 1982).  did not—from  Pollution  vehicle  t h e W a s t e Management B r a n c h was  fuel  o i l or  natural  batch plant  (#5)  and  p e r day a g g r e g a t e wash w a t e r solids.  silty  vehicle  3  yard  grease  could  discharged to per day)  discharge of  Permit exhaust  problems  were  B.C.  the PA gas  Hydro  encountered  1988). plant  p e r day  ( P e r m i t PE 5 8 6 8 ) .  Unexpected  No  had  that d i d occur  generating station.  gas.  the aggregate  Management B r a n c h f o r t h e u s e o f 4550 m3  this  from  o f o i l and  m  (#3)  the maintenance  wash w a t e r  f o r the  operation of the d i e s e l  p e r m i t ( W a s t e Management B r a n c h ,  suspended  by  seems t o h a v e b e e n m i n i m a l a s t h e m i n o r s p i l l s  allowed to burn this  one  hoped  be l e s s only  debatable  ( W a s t e Management B r a n c h P e r m i t PE 5 5 4 4 , f o r 9.3  The  was  c o n d i t i o n s would  that  about  environmental staff  reserve habitat  I t s ultimate  from the i n t e r m i t t e n t was  the  from access roads  increased.  4490  commented  i n 1982,  1982).  little  ground  Hydro  cleared  i n c r e a s e s i n the Columbia R i v e r , w h i c h were seen as  introduced  also  FWB  m e a s u r e was  Mason, Runoff  were  B.C.  1 9 7 7 - 1 9 8 4 ; W a t e r Management B r a n c h ,  The  A  The  heeded.  r e s e r v e s were  to changing habitat  In general,  E I S was  habitat  land t o reach these areas of  clay  had  permits from  the  Waste  c o o l i n g w a t e r and f o r 9550 The  m  3  main e n v i r o n m e n t a l concern  seams  i n the  aggregate  borrow  109 pits  resulted  settling  In  an  unusually  properties  of  observed h i g h suspended Columbia R i v e r .  water. the  permit  There  these  solids  solids  was  (Mason, (PE  no  f r e e b o a r d of  retention  permits  5681)  direct  1000  plant  Water  sampling  estimated flushing The the  into  that  was  pond  (Waste  to  long  term  the  tunnel  fish  of  118%  Examination definite  of  aeration effluent  and  compensation  plant tank, was  1978  was  were  the  rather  typical  the  close  carried  fish  adequacy  1988).  of  Monthly ponds  and  f o r these  t o D e c e m b e r , 1984  and  d i s c h a r g e d underground  system  of  the  Columbia  River.  However,  i t was  because  of  the  high  could  River  caused  losses  by f i s h e n h a n c e m e n t p r o g r a m s u n d e r  the  i s  1982).  a  Into  Gas  in  supersaturation  105-107%, but r e a c h e d  considered  Varden  B.C.  downstream,  to not  (Mason,  travel  major  but  (115% Dolly  the  out.  t u n n e l g e n e r a l l y measured  tank,  wash  1982).  Columbia  agreement  1981  gravel  the  cooling  probably minimal  (Mason,  as  hundred  settling  day  there into  not  1980  harmful  and  1981  to  a  fish).  revealed  no  1982). Hydro operated a secondary  ( S . T . P . ) f o r i t s camp w a s t e s a  per  from  from  f o r the  population  several  pond was  Management B r a n c h ,  spilled  impact  (#6)  August,  m^  s i g n s of gas b u b b l e d i s e a s e (Mason,  From June, treatment  in  discharge into  t h e W a s t e Management B r a n c h  T h e s e w e r e t o be c o m p e n s a t e d wildlife  (1982)  1988).  pond  effects  downstream of the d i v e r s i o n high  by  ammonia  settling  assess  diversion  upstream  and  the  effluent  The  Mason  of the f r e e b o a r d of the s e t t l i n g  conducted  of  poor.  the s e t t l i n g  f o r 4000  r a t e of the Columbia R i v e r  upstream. fish  gallons  extremely  d i s c h a r g e ; t h e m a i n c o n c e r n was  the s e t t l i n g  time, were  batch  were  i n the wash w a t e r .  1988).  ( W a s t e Management B r a n c h ,  About  content  i n the batch plant  i n s p e c t i o n s , m a i n l y o f the adequacy the  solids  F u r t h e r m o r e , he n o t e d t h a t  to the Columbia R i v e r Another  high  (#7).  I t consisted  chlorination  tank  the Columbia  River.  from The  of a  sewage sewage  which  the  permit  was  110 for  a  discharge  consistently highest  in  m e a s u r e d due The  However  times data  peak  was  total  they  were  This  per  3  and  1983  day.  Data  employment  tested  well  within  was  reduced  available  a  effluent,  this  45  p e r i o d , but  type  MPN/100 ml  parameter  waste  due  to  mg/1 and  i n S e p t e m b e r 1982  completely  outflow  pipe,  tanks  closed i n . adequate  t h e dam  remedial  installation  of  an  auxiliary  s l u d g e w a s t e r e m o v a l of sanitation problem.  landfill. Sludge  waste  1600 This  were  and  in  November) were  a  oxygen  not  demand  concerns.  dilution  specified  ratio.  for  respectively,  each  during reservoir f i l l i n g .  No  p r e v i o u s l y had much r e d u c e d  mention f e c a l  the  Branch's  never  at  this  coliform  of  objective for  maximum r e a d i n g  To  p l a n t was  of  1.3  x  prevent  troublesome.  a reoccurrence  many e q u i p m e n t m a l f u n c t i o n s  of  the  started  compressed g a l l o n s per  sewage  tank  in  As  April  a i r supply day  by  was  was  106  discontinued  1981. for  and  a  plant plugged  persistent  the  They sewage  truck to  only in  a  the  The  the p l a n t ' s c a p a c i t y  tanker  m i t i g a t i o n however  removal  with  Hydro, v a r i o u s d a t e s ) .  Besides  measures  i n 1984  the  n o t i c e a b l y m a l o d o r o u s p r o b l e m t o t h e n e a r b y camp. exceeded,  the  available,  high  parameters  I t reached  froze over.  aeration  November),  for  O v e r a l l t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e sewage t r e a t m e n t f i r s t winter a l l three  the  mg/1,  f r e q u e n t l y exceeded  (B.C.  was  principal  limit  60  both  the  t h e camp p o p u l a t i o n was  discharge.  limit  Biochemical  were  100  to  through  W h e r e a s t h e W a s t e Management B r a n c h d o e s n o t  municipal  was  through  year.  minimal  d i s c h a r g e f rom  standards, besides  This  Hydro, v a r i o u s d a t e s ) .  (TSS)  the  lowered  for this  (April  times  be  (April  day.  f o r 1978-1980 w e r e n o t  solids to  per  Flows were w i t h i n l i m i t s  season  four  expected  level  o f z e r o and  time.  m  suspended  stayed  exceeded these  the  the  impacts  are  705  1982  effluent  t o a b r o k e n f l o w gauge (B.C.  and  parameter.  domestic  3  the P r o j e c t .  effluent  (B.O.D.)  m  during  d i s c h a r g e was  flows  Indeed  360  exceeded  the wind-down of 1981  of  was  were  the  tank  and  the r e g i o n a l  partially  December  and  solved  1983  with  the a  Ill  reduction The  i n the workforce.  remaining  w h e n i t was Grikis,  s l u d g e was used  as  1988).  Revelstoke  The  C o l u m b i a R i v e r due  The  EIS  from site  B.C. of  the  camp  Project. of  wildlife  site  the  because  of  destruction always Officer  the of  been  a  and  as  problem  bears at  the  1988).  grizzly  because of (Gabrowski,  Under into  1988).  responsible of  the  The for  been a  d i s p o s a l of The  the  left  i n July  the (B.C.  and  by  site  sewage  outside  1978  of  and  Hydro,  garbage  of  the  (6.4  10  T h i s was  a  could  lead  But  f o r the  s p o i l e d at Bear km  the  Management  from the  waste  They f e l t  bears were  the  hazard  unnecessary bears  the  due  Service  camp by  feeding  hand  nuisance  quantify  provincial  to  had  Conservation  bears were  to  disposal,  i t was  The  black  dump) w e r e d e s t r o y e d  possible  Branch,  gates.  potential  to  the  insufficient  black  Plan  W h i l e some b l a c k  Management  disposal from  Nuisance  the  that  wildlife  sludge  to  time.  biologist.  locked  1977-1984).  dump.  Regional  the  t h a t up  food.  camp  monitoring  operator.  monitored  the  camp and  c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d were  P r o j e c t , i t i s not Waste  p r o b l e m most of  garbage from the  f o r m e r was  being  Revelstoke  City  system.  have  bears were r e l o c a t e d .  the Revelstoke  noncompliance  the  the  dates;  the  a r e g u l a r source  nuisance  in  the Region's s a n i t a r y l a n d f i l l  reported  various  l e d t o p e r i o d i c sewage b y - p a s s e s i n t o  a concern of the f i s h e r i e s  refuse  of  problem  (1988) r e p o r t e d  construction waste  proximity  bears t h a t wandered  agency  some  Hydro,  the  to  area.  a  1984.  the f o l l o w i n g s p r i n g ,  (B.C.  of  i n November  that during  s t a t e s t h a t bears were a l s o being  (Gabrowski,  nuisance  the  t o use  biologist  landfill  somewhat  Concerns d u r i n g  garbage  settle until  seeding  of the  appears  l a t t e r was  refuse,  coverage  flows  issues:  Hydro d e c i d e d  Revelstoke  using  (#9)  service  the  decommissioned  and  site  also  to overloading  equipment  was  W a s t e Management B r a n c h  disposal  biologist,  for  was  increased  r e f e r s t o two  the  plant  to aerate  fertilizer  construction period  Garbage  left  Sewage  (#8).  The  was the  and  destroyed the  impact  government  aware amount o f  of  the refuse  112 being  disposed  recycling and  o f , as w e l l  of garbage.  types  Of  concern  contractors. concrete,  to the time  They admit  of material  Management B r a n c h ,  as  allowed  would  tighter have  to  the fisheries  alleviated  the s i t u a t i o n  (Waste  biologist  was  the disposal  of waste  into water  courses  by  chemicals,  posed a p o t e n t i a l hazard  ecosystem.  (1988) noted  that  dam s i t e , w h e n i t s h o u l d  g a r b a g e was  have been  illegally  trucked  out.  dumped  o f 1979 a n d a g a i n 1977-1985).  a year  later  (B.C. Hydro,  The a g e n c y was h o p e f u l  that  upvalley  from the  The W a s t e Management  was aware t h a t s e v e r a l c o n t r a c t o r s w e r e u s i n g u n a u t h o r i z e d  Branch,  to the  c o n t r o l of hours of operation  I n f i l t r a t i o n and r u n o f f o f p o l l u t a n t s , such as f u e l s ,  to the aquatic  fall  devoted  1988).  and garbage i n g e n e r a l ,  Mason  that  the operator  Branch  refuse sites  i nthe  1 9 7 7 - 1 9 8 4 ; W a t e r Management i t s site  i n s p e c t i o n s i n 1981  would end t h i s p r a c t i c e . One c o n t r a c t o r of  the Project  cleaned  up  disposed  office.  of garbage  The f i r s t  i n t h e Deadman C r e e k  infraction  following notification.  was  i n June  north  1977, and  machine  shop and  garage wastes  ( i n c l u d i n g o i l ) w e r e dumped i n t h e same a r e a .  Verbal  requests  by  staff  with earth.  pressure  t o remove t h e m a t e r i a l o n l y  The c o n t r a c t o r f i n a l l y  Another  impact  on  complied  the fishery  previously*. mitigation  opened  up  Poaching measure  many  areas  below  was  when a f o r m a l  the diversion of  possible  as t h e o f f i c e  the  Conservation  Officer  was  understaffed  responsible  tunnel  covered  o r d e r was i s s u e d .  been  increased  i n the P r o j e c t .  which  signs  e n f o r c e m e n t o f r e g u l a t i o n s by t h e p r o v i n c i a l not  has  Involved  to fishing  the posting  r e s u l t e d i n i t being  resource  ( # 1 0 ) due t o t h e l a r g e w o r k f o r c e  construction  a year  area  later  B.C. H y d r o  However,  noticed  fill  had been  fishing Reservoir  inaccessible  was  easy.  The  (Mason,  1982).  Effective  Conservation  Officer  and u n d e r f u n d e d .  f o r the area  was  not  Service  only  was  Additionally, stationed  i n  113 Revelstoke but further  s o u t h i n Nakusp  (Krause,  on p o a c h e r s w e r e no d e t e r r e n t ( G a b r o w s k i , Another The  matter  wildlife  destruction on  and w i l d l i f e  concentrations  of  recommended conflicts  mitigation  (Bonar,  the mitigation  of suspended  1978),  measures  sediments  were  not  d i v e r s i o n o f Deadman C r e e k  been  west the  included  i n the EIS.  of the Columbia proposed  existing  earthfill  dry creek  discharge  River.  into  Deadman C r e e k  i t was  the reservoir  measures  north  habitat  b u t t h e r e i s no i n f o r m a t i o n nor their  results.  i n tributaries  (Mason,  lower  channel,  (#11).  to avoid  reach  and t h e  t h a t had  mountain  valley  crossed the s i t e  and t h e n lined  High  1982).  d r a i n s a narrow  t o be dammed  bed and an e x c a v a t e d  ($5.00)  23 N o r t h  ( # 1 2 ) was a c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y  As t h e c r e e k ' s  dam,  o f Highway  observed  c o n t r a c t o r s w e r e made a w a r e o f t h e i m p a c t s o n f i s h The  F i n e s imposed  1988).  o f c o n c e r n was t h e r e l o c a t i o n  biologist  the specifics  1988).  diverted  with  of the e a r t h f i l l  rock  dam.  of  into  an  riprap,  to  However, t h e  original  p l a n s were changed t o a l l o w t h e use o f a borrow a r e a f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n  material  f o r the e a r t h f i l l  rerouted  t o l e a d i n t o an e x i s t i n g  dam.  The l o w e r p a r t o f t h e d i v e r s i o n  swamp a n d f r o m t h e r e w i t h o u t a c r e e k b e d ( 6 7  m) t o i t s c o n f l u e n c e w i t h t h e C o l u m b i a w i t h r i p r a p t o w i t h i n 300 m e t e r s In runoff  March  (exact  l e d t o a massive  unprotected of  1978  eroded  remainder,  date  fine material  not given)  very  rapid  snowmelt  entered  (<78 m i c r o n s ) , w a s s u s p e n d e d  a rock-lined  lined  channel  high  deposits alongside the  About f o u r m i l l i o n  sands)  and  cubic yards  t h e Columbia  2-3 km s o u t h o f t h e c o n f l u e n c e o f Deadman C r e e k .  River The  i n t h e Columbia  R i v e r as  b e l o w t h e d i v e r s i o n dam w a s  diverted  Lake.  F o l l o w i n g t h e e r o s i o n , Deadman C r e e k through  a  channel.  and c o a r s e  f a r downstream as t h e Upper Arrow  first  The d i v e r s i o n c h a n n e l was  erosion of unstable a l l u v i a l  (85% gravel  and w a s d e p o s i t e d a b o u t  River.  o f t h e swamp.  section of the d i v e r s i o n  material  c h a n n e l was  and t h e n  through  culverts  t o t h e proposed  114 reservoir. washout  More  i n July  r e m e d i a l work  1983  was  cut these plans short  and g r a v e l i n t h e C o l u m b i a R i v e r . the  top  of  the  diversion  c r e e k below  this  dam  was  necessary  to  scheduled  dam  again  1983,  deposited  but  another  a large  Emergency measures c o n t r o l l e d  and  (Teleki,  and  for  prevented  1978).  revise  even  further  I n view of t h i s  the  plans  large  f a n of rock  the flow  erosion  from  along  the  second severe washout i t  f o r the  diversion  dam  and  the  erosion  on  the  undertaken  by  the  permanent d i v e r s i o n c h a n n e l . A  study  biological fisheries not  m o n i t o r i n g the  aquatic  system  site biologist  clear  how  soon  of  not  p o o l s and  after  an  the aquatic  the  from March  of  based  the  massive  River  23 t o J u n e  was  1 1 , 1978  (Teleki,  i m p a c t m o n i t o r i n g was  on w a t e r q u a l i t y  examination of h i s t o r i c a l  s y s t e m had  first  Columbia  the washout  a n a l y s i s o f t h e i m p a c t s was river  effects  1978).  It is  initiated.2 inspection  of  records to e s t a b l i s h whether  or  experienced similar  data, visual  The  conditions  i n the  past.  The  r e s u l t s o f t h e s a m p l i n g o f s h o r e l i n e b o t t o m d w e l l e r s c o u l d n o t be u s e d a s t h e y were  "very  water  levels.  (1978), that  poor  upon  the  and  Fish  unreliable" s a m p l i n g was  evaluating  conditions  due  synergistic  u n s u c c e s s f u l a s no  historical  for fish  to  stream  caused  by  and  this  effects  total mg/1  federal  Department  suspended in  (sometime  1972),  solids but  of  usually  the  b e f o r e March  Environment  fish-related event  peaked  Deadman 23)  and  Creek with  (from  i n late  1966  were  washout  not  data,  mid-1973)  o r e a r l y May  occurred e a r l i e r  somewhat  higher  total  (1)  physical  Teleki  concluded  unusual  i n mid-1973.  to  April  fluctuating  f i s h were caught.  C o l u m b i a R i v e r p r i o r t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e M i c a Dam the  of  to  the  Data  from  showed  that  (maximum i n the  suspended  295 year  solids  (320 mg/1). In  summary,  temporary  increase  materials  on  the  Teleki  (1978)  i n total near-shore  reported  suspended river  that  solids,  bottom,  impacts were  a s h o r t - t e r m d e p o s i t i o n of  and  a  slight  filling-in  of  a  fine river  115 pools  (utilized  based  on  dwellers  seasonal rate  behavioral  downstream  suspended  . . .  no  suffered  due t o a c h a n g e f r o m n o r m a l  suspended  solids;  Teleki  population  i s unknown b u t p r o b a b l y  but  salraonids  ( 4 ) young  conditions  that  Creek;  (2)  t o o low t o  cause  migrating  insects  an undetermined  river  concluded  were  of aquatic  ill-effects;  downriver  o f Deadman  solids  to adult  (3) the populations  showed  migration  10 km  total  responses  a t the time";  bottom  f o r about  the l i t e r a t u r e ,  "abnormal river  by f i s h )  and  o f low f l o w  the impact  "on  not dangerously high"  i t could  hearing.3  and low  the t o t a l  (Teleki,  total  kokanee  1978). The f i r s t i s  n o t b e s c r u t i n i z e d by t h e p u b l i c , n o r a s s e s s e d  The s e c o n d  not evaluated  biologists  were  concern  i s that  not consulted.  The  Water  responsible weather ask,  Comptroller  f o r having  conditions  scheduled  evaluated  adequately  conditions. potential mitigative "very  f o r such  problem  that  at that  and h y d r o l o g i c a l  an event  measures  This  October  could  the have  could  engineering opinion  B.C.  time  design  Hydro's  engineers  to coincide with  of year.  conditions  Indeed  already  misjudgment  a report  evident  and ended  . . .  by  detailing  channel  by c a l l i n g  adverse  to site that the  o f 1977, t h a t the matter  . . . B.C. H y d r o "  presented  the hazard  were  one has t o  adapted  i n the f a l l  by t h e s i t e w i l d l i f e  the diversion  been  o f t h e l o c a t i o n had been  had been p r o p e r l y  have been t a k e n ,  i s confirmed  1977, t h a t  and w r o t e  was  site  o n t h e p a r t o f B.C. H y d r o .  the work improperly  and i f p r o j e c t  that  A c o n c e r n e d c i t i z e n i n a s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e RPCC^ c l a i m e d  serious  1978).  I t appears  t h e two w a s h o u t s  stated  t o be e x p e c t e d  i f the geological  impacts.  Third,  (1978)  at the public  the rerouting of the d i v e r s i o n channel  f o r i t s environmental  prevented w i t h better i n i t i a l planning  in  their  n e e d f o r t h e d i v e r s i o n o f Deadman C r e e k was n o t e v e n m e n t i o n e d i n t h e E I S .  Thus  was  on  i n mortality  T h r e e m a j o r c o n c e r n s a r i s e f r o m t h e Deadman C r e e k e r o s i o n . the  near-shore  kokanee,  increase  i n the  a  (Caywood,  b i o l o g i s t , who w a r n e d a  (B.C. Hydro  potential  erosion  1977-1984).  The  116 financial  costs  of this  engineering  Another problem w i t h transmission  line  Substation  about  south  the Revelstoke  of Revelstoke  (B.C. Hydro,  that  s p e c i a l care  Project  (#13).  be t a k e n  to the  According  and r e q u i r e d  1976b, C h a p t e r s  Dolan Creek, the water supply  emphasized  significant.  r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e 230 kV  l i n e w a s t o be 10.5 km l o n g  168 m w i d e  to cross  connecting  just  transmission  erosion  m i s t a k e must h a v e b e e n  Illecillewaet  to the EIS the  a cleared  right-of-way  1 8 , 1 9 ) . A s t h e power l i n e w a s  f o r t h e community o f B i g Eddy, t h e E I S during  construction  and m a i n t e n a n c e t o  prevent s i l t a t i o n of the creek. Initially District from  i n 1976, s t r o n g  ( B i g Eddy) and t h e M i n i s t r y o f H e a l t h .  entering  t h e Dolan Creek watershed  safe water supply. and  installed  insisted  An e n g i n e e r i n g  the alternate water  Dolan  line.  Environmental  until  consultant system  that environmental guidelines  transmission the  concerns were voiced  The l a t t e r  barred  B i g Eddy c o u l d firm  ordered  be f o l l o w e d  g u i d e l i n e s were  Creek w a t e r s h e d work and approved  by t h e B i g Eddy W a t e r w o r k s B.C. H y d r o  be a s s u r e d  t o B i g E d d y , who by t h e Water  of a  designed  Comptroller,5  f o rthe construction of the developed  by t h e Water  specifically for  Comptroller  i nthe  summer o f 1 9 8 0 . Logging A field the  f o r the transmission  Ministry  of Forests  contravened  erosion,  and, i n turn,  transmission February  crossings  line  and B i g Eddy  s t a r t e d i n December 1 9 8 0 .  slope  revealed  the environmental guidelines the s i l t a t i o n  c l e a r i n g was  1981, confirmed that  south  close  right-of-way  i n s p e c t i o n b y a member o f e a c h o f t h e N e l s o n W a t e r Management  practices  the  line  of Dolan  complete  that  and t h a t  of Dolan another  several  construction  the p o t e n t i a l f o r  Creek, field  Branch,  existed.  inspection  When on  25  s i l t a t i o n problems a r o s e from t h e a c c e s s road on  Creek.  Erosion  resulted  from  inadequate  o f a number o f i n t e r m i t t e n t s t r e a m s a n d l o g h a n d l i n g  t o i n t e r m i t t e n t streams and D o l a n  Creek.  road  f a c i l i t i e s too  117 Although  a  c o n t r a c t o r had the  creek.  form  a  bridge  constructed  This  caused  In  order  to  provisions  for  areas,  removal  bridge  and  proper of  the  debris.  not  creek  the  road  decision  determining  the  p a r t i e s and  funded  ($50,000)  the  transmission  could  not  supply  be  int erest  i s that  the  environmental  guidelines  The  timber  licence  sales  right-of-way  d i d not  construction  aware of  creek  logging side  of  banks  to  p o t e n t i a l from  Regional  prompt  the  by  of  work,  such  remedial of  slopes  streams  later.  By  B.C.  by  and  and  the  In August B.C.  the  to  t o be  Creek  the  Big  H y d r o was access,  started using  been  the  (see  by  the  determine  year,  completed had  appeal  expedited  that  out,  Eddy  the watershed were to December o f  as  disturbed  Dolan  1983,  Hydro  w o r k was  public  Eddy  Manager  w o r k seems t o h a v e b e e n c a r r i e d  remedial  barring  the  of  north  the  Dolan  Creek,  of  Forest  f o r the  authorizing  Dolan  p r o v i s i o n s and  side  B.C.  mention the  Environmental Guidelines  to  erosion  revegetation  damage.  e s t a b l i s h e d when B i g  the  the  for  intermittent  directed  line,  disturbed  p o t e n t i a l the  annual i n s p e c t i o n s of  and  the  The  compensation  or  the  remedial  and  a  fence  erected.  Dolan  Creek  It water  again.  Of  line  from  called  of  final  planned,  to g a i n access to the n o r t h  a h a l f years  environmental disturbance  across  erosion  drainage,  and  been  severe.  3.2.2.1) recommended t h a t t h e  responsible  work  not  blockage  not  channel.  i n Nelson  y e t d o n e two  had  debris  W h e r e a s some r e m e d i a l  much was  Section  and  s l o p e was  Branch  Creek  a t e m p o r a r y one  the  reduce  W a t e r Management  Dolan  dirt  c o n s t r i c t i o n of  c l e a r i n g of the n o r t h  any  across  that  seem t o be  Dolan Creek watershed the  logging  Creek watershed.  r e g u l a t i o n s of  (B.C.  d i d not  of  the  H y d r o , 1977)  a bridge  to was  be  Neither  the  Water A c t ,  and  t h a t the  set  by  therefore  was as  the  line  transmission contractor  required  transmission  needed.  of  1987).  transmission  h e l i c o p t e r to not  aware  (Gorsline,  environmental g u i d e l i n e s f o r the  D o l a n C r e e k was  and  Service  in  tower  prevent Although  the on  damage there  118 seems t o h a v e b e e n a d e f i n i t e p r o b l e m o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r adhering to water l i c e n c e clause The  foregoing  clearly  monitor least,  was  the licence  the  role that  w h i c h was  impacts  should  arising  have  from  given  this  the s i t e  t o have  (clause  (r)).  administered  clause  ( r ) , appears  no  program  to  was  At the  to  Instead,  prepared  b i o l o g i s t s might have p l a y e d .  that  activities.  t o who  Construction  I t has  licence:  or f o r a  construction  guidelines  t o B.C. H y d r o ' s  conclusions.  program  d i r e c t i v e s as  the environmental task  major  of the water  monitoring  the environmental guidelines  approved  assigned  to several  one o f t h e s h o r t c o m i n g s  environmental  Comptroller  leads  made f o r a c o m p l i a n c e  compliance w i t h  which  documentation  demonstrated  provision  ( r ) was B.C. H y d r o ' s .  monitor  t h e Water  by t h e p r o p o n e n t ,  Manager, thus  ignoring  Furthermore,  t h e RPCC,  t o have n e i t h e r  monitored  B.C. H y d r o ' s a d h e r e n c e t o t h e g u i d e l i n e s n o r u p d a t e d them a s s t i p u l a t e d by t h e Water  Comptroller.  I t i s questionable  been, because o f t h e r i g i d i t i e s of a c o n s t r u c t i o n  that  This  are  f o r a s many  as n o n s p e c i f i c  and c a l l  ones.  Notwithstanding  s i t e b i o l o g i s t s would  be c o n s u l t e d  them s h o u l d  be c a r r i e d o u t by  i s e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t when t h e g u i d e l i n e s environmental  the assertion  decisions  would  was  not done.  also  have  The  i n environmental decisions,  employment  l e d to a  more  of such  responsive  as d i d t h e  i n the guidelines  professionals approach  that  the  I n the case of  Deadman C r e e k d i v e r s i o n a n d t h e l o c a t i n g o f t h e b a t c h p l a n t  this  have  the implementation of environmental  of compliance w i t h  environmental professionals.  the  could  contract.  and t h e m o n i t o r i n g  Revelstoke  e f f e c t i v e the l a t t e r  i m p o s e d by h a v i n g t o w o r k w i t h i n t h e s p e c i f i c s  One c a n a l s o draw t h e c o n c l u s i o n guidelines  how  settling  i n this  t o both  pond  capacity  environmental  emergency and non-emergency s i t u a t i o n s . That line  adherence  clearance  t o the environmental  guidelines  was  and t h e r e s e r v o i r  not s t r i c t l y  enforced  and  transmission  i s illustrated  by t h e  119 illegal Dolan  disposal  Creek  importance  watershed, o f B.C.  statutory  analysis  government  a g e n c i e s was  and  approval  mitigation the  by  spill  settling impact  pond  a  project  of  example a l s o  varied  underlines the  relevant provincial  surveillance  project  Branch  and  Acts  and  enforcement  by  of a shortage  as R e v e l s t o k e  between was  of funds  and  a n d t h e somewhat l a x  agencies.  given,  performance  was  The  FWB  environmental  One o f t h e s i t e  t h e W a s t e Management of  fuel  had  or  chemical  occurred.  summary  less  that,  monitoring  biologists  than  noted  and  thought,  satisfactory  that  (Mason,  with  were inadequate,  Branch, or a  They  who  massive  concluded relative  appeared failure  that  said,  the environmental Project  that  more a m a t t e r  the batch  the o v e r a l l  the provisions  guidelines  provided  a s was e n f o r c e m e n t  That  of  because  no  plant  environmental  t o the P r o j e c t ' s magnitude  (Waste  no m a j o r  f o r the monitoring  of  and o f c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s  f o r by t h e w a t e r  licence  by g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c i e s .  of e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t y d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n appears role.  relieved  1988).  i t c a n be  the Revelstoke  a minor  and  O p i n i o n s about t h e adequacy o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l  o f t h e P r o j e c t was m i n i m a l  compliance for  list  that  on a low p r i o r i t y .  Management B r a n c h , In  a  i n the reservoir  The c o o p e r a t i o n o f B.C. H y d r o a n d o t h e r p e r m i t h o l d e r s was a s s e s s e d a s  sufficient major  a large  enforcement  f o r such  took  The l a t t e r  not adequate as a r e s u l t  such  W a s t e Management  1982).  indicated  shown b y some a g e n c i e s .  surveillance once  developing  of clearing  f o r contractors.  has  to deal w i t h  attitude  respectively.  Hydro  requirements  The  staff  o f garbage and t h e i m p a c t s  a n d B.C.  Hydro  The p r e s e r v a t i o n  t o have been r e l e g a t e d t o  a c c i d e n t o r l o n g terra e f f e c t s  o f good f o r t u n e t h a n e f f e c t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l  had o c c u r r e d  management.  was  120 NOTES  A c h e c k o f t h e c o n t r a c t f o r t h e e a r t h f i l l dam, a w a r d e d i n November 1 9 7 8 , r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e s w e r e t h e same a s t h o s e i n the e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s 1  A l a r g e s l i d e a t t h e i n t a k e o f t h e d i v e r s i o n t u n n e l had o c c u r r e d on March 1 0 , 1978 a n d o n e c a n n o t h e l p b u t w o n d e r i f t h e Deadman C r e e k e r o s i o n t o o k p l a c e a t t h e same t i m e . 2  An a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e d i v e r s i o n had been f i l e d w i t h t h e Water R i g h t s Branch shortly before the hearing. However, i t was n o t a c t e d upon; t h e w o r k was i n c l u d e d i n t h e p l a n s f o r t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t w h i c h w e r e a p p r o v e d by t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r subsequent t o t h e Issuance o f t h e w a t e r l i c e n c e . 3  ^ The RPCC m e e t i n g s w e r e c l o s e d t o t h e p u b l i c . The E n v i r o n m e n t a l G u i d e l i n e s (B.C. H y d r o , 1977a, p. 8) exempted B.C. H y d r o from b u i l d i n g mitigative m e a s u r e s " t o p r e v e n t muddy w a t e r s a n d e r o d e d m a t e r i a l s f r o m e n t e r i n g r i v e r s , streams o r w a t e r c o u r s e s o r damaging permanent i n s t a l l a t i o n s " d u r i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e Deadman C r e e k d i v e r s i o n . ^ B i g E d d y ' s D o l a n C r e e k w a t e r s y s t e m was t o o s m a l l t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e f i r e p r o t e c t i o n t o t h e c o m m u n i t y a n d t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e e x p e c t e d i n f l u x o f B.C. Hydro w o r k e r s . B.C. H y d r o p r o v i d e d a c h l o r i n a t o r f o r t h e D o l a n C r e e k w a t e r s u p p l y a s w e l l a s a n a l t e r n a t e w a t e r s y s t e m c o n s i s t i n g o f two w e l l s a n d a reservoir. The c o s t t o B.C. H y d r o w a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y $1.1 m i l l i o n .  121  CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL PREDICTIONS AND OUTCOMES The  complexity  system's  reaction  actions.  t o change  Increasing  environmental the  of e c o l o g i c a l  impacts  introduction  statement  Since  whether  concern  of large  of an  (EIS).  predicting  public  systems  impact  components  of  impacts  followed  EIS  has  to provide  ecological response the  to stress  prediction  throughout during  of  project  impacts,  environmental  project  a  human  far-reaching  impact  impact  of  d i d not follow  on k e y v a r i a b l e s . of at that  latter  when  impacts.  everything,  and dynamics  of  and  a  of the  system's  should  the key  not only but a l s o B.C.  planned  parameters on  impacts  Hydro  to  environmental  the  the catalogue  monitoring  monitoring  the  improve  undertook  Project,  the  (post-  establishes serves  with  continue  effect  and a c t u a l  A d d i t i o n a l l y , impact  Post-development time.  measuring  assessment  the Revelstoke  a well  described a l l  a l l possible  the project's  impacts,  I n the mid-1970s,  and t h e  Though t h e E I S s t o p s  monitoring  The  projects  are observed  of predicted  analysis).  prevailed.  unheard  or  a  and programs l e d t o  They  than  determined.  The  comparison  t o EIS s t i l l  practically  rather  documents  assessment  construction  of  system.  the structure  environmental  impact  concentrated  that  of the EIS i n p r e d i c t i n g EISs.  often  development  approach.  key parameters  implementation  environmental  of future  events  environmental  and p r e d i c t e d  of  implementation.  development  approach  system  and i t s t h r e s h o l d s  and a l l o w s  that  "catalogue"  p. 35) s t a t e s  environment  effectiveness  a  Certain  project  tool—the  ecological  an understanding  system.  and  development p r o j e c t s  of proposed  the "pre-project"  However, R o l l i n g (1978,  natural  unexpected  assessment  s t a t e of t h e changed " p o s t - p r o j e c t " EISs  by  our knowledge  t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e 1970s, t h e E I S has been used f o r  the potential  Early  induced  over  scale  has l i m i t e d  during  program  that  analyses  were  122 It  i s t h e purpose  Revelstoke  Project.  of this  chapter t o undertake such an a n a l y s i s  The f o c u s i s f i r s t  resource then on the t e r r e s t r i a l  on t h e a q u a t i c  environment  environment  and w i l d l i f e  forthe and f i s h  r e s o u r c e and f i n a l l y  on t h e a t m o s p h e r i c e n v i r o n m e n t .  5.1  THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT AND FISH RESOURCE The  conversion  effects  a s impoundment  development have  of a river  destroys  o f a new, l a k e - l i k e  controlled  inflows  the  environment  reservoir  decades, this  goes  an aging  paradigm"  sequence  Hydro  E I S (1976b)  downstream analysis  limnological The  lakes,  thedeveloping  introduce  marked  changes  The n e w l y  created  environment o f  also  process, often  extending over  stage.  site-specific  and t h e a c t u a l  i n Table  system and p a r t  impacts a r ef u r t h e r  several  T h e common c h a n g e s o f  factors  into  a "reservoir  must n o t be i g n o r e d  A  b y t h e B.C.  on t h e R e v e l s t o k e R e s e r v o i r and  of the results  5.1, p a r t  shows  of this  the impacts  post-development on t h e p h y s i c a l  B those on t h e c h e m i c a l and b i o l o g i c a l  subdivided  i n the  development.!  impacts  A summary  reservoirs  affect  presents a comparison of t h e impacts p r e d i c t e d  environment.  i s shown  Unlike  have been documented and combined  i n p r e d i c t i n g impacts f o r a s p e c i f i c section  and i n i t i a t e s t h e  not only  reaches a mature  ( R z o s k a , 1966), however,  This  ecosystem  ecosystem.  but i n turn  before t h e ecosystem  development  aquatic  d o w n s t r e a m o f t h e dam. through  has far-reaching environmental  the riverine  and o u t f l o w s w h i c h  ecosystem i n t h er e s e r v o i r , riverine  to a reservoir  as t o t h e i r  systems.  occurrence i nthe r e s e r v o i r o r  d o w n s t r e a m o f t h e dam.  5.1.1. The lakes.  P H Y S I C A L LIMNOLOGICAL SYSTEM physical  limnology of reservoirs  R e s e r v o i r s have been c a l l e d " h a l f  i s distinct l a k e s " because  from their  that  of natural  longitudinal  5.1  Table  Comparison  PARAMETER A.  o f P r e d i c t e d and A c t u a l  PREDICTED  P H Y S I C A L LIMNOLOGICAL  IMPACT  Impacts on t h e A q u a t i c E n v i r o n m e n t  and F i s h  Resource  ACTUAL IMPACT/VERIFICATION  COMMENT  some e r o s i o n / p a r t i a l l y  m o n i t o r e d , but r e c o r d s not examined; s h o u l d be m i n i m a l due t o p a u c i t y o f erodable material  SYSTEM  RESERVOIR: e r o s i o n F, s l o u g h i ng  wave a c t i o n and f l u c t u a t i n g w a t e r to c a u s e e r o s i o n o f s i l t y , s a n d y m a t e r i a l d u r i n g f i r s t few y e a r s  2  potential evaporat ion  I n c r e a s e by f a c t o r o f 3.6  3  density  U  flow  d i f f e r e n c e s I n d e n s i t y may dens I t y c u r r e n t s  DOWNSTREAM OF  level  not monitored/not  Induce  correct  verifiable  c o n s i d e r e d n e g l i g i b l e In r e l a t i o n a n n u a l f l o w a t t h e dam  t o mean  not m o n i t o r e d / p r o b a b l y c o r r e c t  l i k e l y o c c u r r i n g as i n f l o w from K l n b a s k e t Lake Is p r o b a b l y i n t e r f l o w below e p i l i m n i o n  mean v e l o c i t i e s a r e l i k e l y t o be e x t r e m e l y s m a l l , n o r m a l maximum f l o o d conditions I n c r e a s e d by f a c t o r o f approx. 5 times; r e s e r v o i r f l u s h i n g rate 5 times per year  not monitored/not  correct  f l u s h i n g rate appears 12 t i m e s p e r y e a r  t o be a b o u t  DAM:  5  erosion  I n c r e a s e d due t o h i g h e r s e d i m e n t c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y o f w a t e r r e l e a s e d f r o m dam  not m o n i t o r e d / n o t  verifiable  6  water  i n c r e a s e d p h o t o s y n t h e t i c a c t i v l t y due to d e c r e a s e d t u r b i d i t y  not m o n i t o r e d / n o t  verifiable  7a  water  p o s s i b l e d e c r e a s e i n summer and I n c r e a s e i n w l n t e r a s power d i s c h a r g e s a r e a imos t c e r t a i n I y h y p o l i m n e t l c  m i x i n g o f h y p o l i m n e t l c and e p i l i m n e t l c water o c c u r s / n o t c o r r e c t  t a i l w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e I n c r e a s e by s p i l l w a y r e l e a s e s i n summer  surface r e s e r v o i r water d i s c h a r g e d m a r k e d l y warmer In s u m m e r / c o r r e c t  magnitude o f impact depends on magnitude & frequency of s p i l l w a y releases  neglible  /not  ' n e g l i g i b l e ' not d e f i n e d ; a l s o time p e r i o d s o f flow not s p e c i f i e d - d i u r n a l 6 seasonal v a r i a t i o n s may d i f f e r m a r k e d l y f r o m n a t u r a l r i v e r f l o w r e g i m e  likely during  d u r i n g 17 d a y s no w a t e r f r o m dam/not c o r r e c t  turbidity  temperature  7b  8  flow  regime  9  i n f l o w t o Upper Arrow Lake  B.  CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL  t o be a f f e c t e d o v e r 3 months reservoir filling  verifiable  released  photosynthetIc a c t i v i t y on a v a i l a b l e n u t r i e n t s  is also  dependent  much s h o r t e r t h a n p r e d i c t e d , l o n g i n t e r r u p t i o n w o u l d have been t o o d e t r i m e n t a l t o downstream e c o s y s t e m  SYSTEMS  RESERVOIR: 10  dissolved  oxygen  e x p e c t e d t o be h i g h due t o s h o r t r e t e n t i o n time 6 l i t t l e o r g a n i c matter  levels at or close correct  s l l q h t u p s u r g e f o r 2.5 y e a r s /partlally correct  11  nutrients  upsurge  12  trophic  oligotrophic  level  first  few y e a r s  to s a t u r a t i o n /  ultra-oligotronhlc/needs term v e r i fI c a t Ion  long  r e t e n t i o n time o f w a t e r i n r e s e r v o i r i s s h o r t e r than p r e d i c t e d ; r e s e r v o i r was c l e a r e d o f o r g a n i c m a t e r i a l l i t t l e o r q a n i c m a t e r i a l l e f t , n u t r i e n t s leached from s o i l ; no c o r r e s p o n d i n g u p s u r g e i n a c t i v i t y o c c u r r e d ho  Table  5.1  Cont inued  PARAMETER  13a  fish  PREDICTED  habitat  13b  IMPACT  ACTUAL  f i sh d I s t r I b u t Ion  lltb  15a  fish  composition  r i v e r h a b i t a t changed t o l a k e - l i k e habltat/correct h a b i t a t l o s s u n d e r e s t i m a t e d by 5 $ / not c o r r e c t  p r e d i c t i o n Included compensatory h a b i t a t d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h was n o t u n d e r t a k e n  r e s i d e n t f i s h i n Columbia R i v e r E t r i b u t a r i e s b e l o w 573 m lost c o n s i d e r a b l e numbers o f f r y R f i n g e r l i n g s l o s t between r i v e r d i v e r s i o n S reservoi r fi11ing  not monitored/not  fished  16a 16b  expected  to support  same s p e c i e s  decrease i n D o l l y Varden ( r a i n b o w trout c o u l d lead to increase i n Columbia sguawfish  15b  fish  production  DOWNSTREAM OF  I n c r e a s e d u r i n g f i r s t 5-10 y e a r s s u s t a i n e d y i e l d w i l l drop to lower l e v e l s ; f i s h e r y w i l l be q u a l i t a tively different  no d e f i n i t e d a t a correct  verifiable available/  / c o r r e c t l o d a t e but needs l o n g term ver i f I c a t I o n increase r e l a t i v e to decrease i n mountain w h I t e f i s h / n e e d s long term ver i f i c a t i o n  by d i v e r s i o n  In r e s e r v o i r  t u n n e l a n d dam  mountain w h i t e f i s h decreased of t o t a l f i s h p o p u l a t i o n  f r o m 963; t o 81$  In n u t r i e n t s d i d not take  place  n i t r o g e n s u p e r s a t u r a t I on due t o s p i l l way d i s c h a r g e c o u l d l e a d t o s i g n i f i cant f i s h l o s s e s  minimal  c a n n o t be v e r i f i e d b e c a u s e p r e d i c t i o n was b a s e d s p e c i f i c s p i l l w a y d e s i g n w h i c h was c h a n g e d  may be a f f e c t e d w i t h t e m p e r a t u r e c h a n g e s o f w a t e r d i s c h a r g e d f r o m dam  not m o n i t o r e d / p r e d i c t i o n t o o vague, excluded from study  a p p e a r s most u n l i k e l y saturation level blocked  QAM:  18  dissolved  19  fish  habitat  Columbia R i v e r S I t s t r i b u t a r i e s l o s t t o m i g r a t i n g f i s h from Arrow L a k e s ; no r e c r u l t e m e n t f r o m upstream p o p u l a t i o n s  /correct  20  fish  composition  to remain unchanged, u p s t r e a m l o s s e s of m i g r a t i n g f i s h ( D o l l y Varden, kok a n e e , r a i n b o w t r o u t ) c o u l d r e s u l t In increase of other f i s h species  /needs  21a  fish  production  - e s t i m a t e d l o s s e s : 20-30$ k o k a n e e , |l|l(0 Dol l y V a r d e n - s i g n i f i c a n t l o s s e s o f Arrow Lake D o l l y Varden, kokanee, rainbow t r o u t ; quality of fishery (particularly rainbow t r o u t ) p r o b a b l y endangered  / c a n n o t be v e r i f i e d of d a t a  oxygen  Fleming,  blockage  t o have s t a y e d  upsurge  nitrogen  Sources:  appeared  did not take p l a c e / n o t c o r r e c t /needs long term v e r i f i c a t i o n  17  21b  COMMENT  Columbia R i v e r (7000 a c r e s ) l o s t t o river fish .lower r e a c h e s o f t r i b u t a r i e s l o s t (2 ) a c r e s ) 1  |l)a  IMPACT/VERIFICATION  1 9 8 8 ; B.C. H y d r o , 1 9 7 6 b ;  Smith,  /needs  fish  losses/not v e r i f i a b l e  long term  l o n g term  1986, 1987, 1988; Watson,  I985  as r e s e r v o i r water  on  i s at  by dam  verification  due t o l a c k  verification  no e s t i m a t e s p o s s i b l e bow t r o u t ( e s p e c i a l l y  f o r mountain w h i t e f i s h , r a i n trophy species), 6 w h l t e sturgeon  125 profiles Often  are  their  following the as  new  shape  as  (Baxter,  t i m i n g of the  The  thus can  a  water  Baxter  and  levels  water  to increased  such  the  dam.  stabilization erodibility  there  elevations  operation  a  erosion.  greater Natural  s p i l l w a y and  volume,  of  generation  and  the  inflows  a  greater vertical  discharge o f t e n the  considerable  flow depth  r a t e of discharge  of  and  reverse  of  sediment  carrying capacity  t e m p e r a t u r e and a  rate,  n u t r i e n t , and  sediment  f l o o d c o n t r o l requirements.  f o r the  i s often  backward  of  The  electricity.  and  regimes  are  or  the  from  i s determined  Revelstoke  Reservoir  However, the  source  of i t s i n f l o w , the M i c a R e s e r v o i r , i s used f o r f l o o d c o n t r o l p r o p e r t i e s of  the Revelstoke  by  and  Reservoir.  Reservoir EIS  #1-4).  predicted  Firstly,  expected banks,  the  the  These e f f e c t s a r e  has  i n f l o w d e t e r m i n e s some o f t h e  The  to  wave  result  first  inundation year  of  four  impacts  a c t i o n and  i n erosion  especially in  following the  v i a the  predominantly  5.1.1.1  by  density,  quality,  the  this  by  middle.  1980).  reservoir  of t w o - t h i r d s  caused  as  from  demands and  the  Shoreline  b e c a u s e t h e r e s e r v o i r a c t s as a h e a t ,  surface  in  deltas at higher  Consequently  c h a n g e d as w a t e r i s u s u a l l y d i s c h a r g e d  serves  than  determined  tributary  Claude,  from  from the  c l e a r outflow  electricity  outflow round.  rate  new  mechanisms  effects arise  outflows  lead  of  than  natural lakes.  1977;  i n t h e dam,  at  the  i n r e s e r v o i r s i s more s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by  circulatory  Downstream  sink.  formation  are  at  rather  place  fluctuating  than  of  currents  the  the  deeper  elongated  Circulation  outflows  activity  and  on  reservoir.  those  is  being  impoundment t a k e s  banks  well  and  different,  the (#1).  of  Downie  and  the  r e s e r v o i r environment  continuously s a n d y and Creek  Although  impoundment  on  fluctuating  silty  area,  materials  during  b a n k e r o s i o n was annually  the  water and first  (Table levels  5.1 were  sloughing  of  few  years  monitored weekly  during  t h e r e a f t e r , time  constraints  of  126 this  study  d i d not permit  consultant  t o B.C.  Downie Creek that  an e x a m i n a t i o n  Hydro  reports  that  area, but i s p a r t i a l l y  e r o s i o n of reservoir  erodible material Secondly,  banks  (Fleming,  i t was  of these  some  caused  records.  However,  s l o u g h i n g has o c c u r r e d  by t h e c r e e k i t s e l f .  should  be  minimal  due  i n the  He a l s o  1988).  predicted  s u r f a c e a r e a was  that  the t o t a l  t o i n c r e a s e from  R i v e r t o some 28,500 a c r e s o f t h e r e s e r v o i r t o be n e g l i g i b l e acre-feet);  from would  potential  i n relation  t h e 7000  evaporation  t o t h e mean a n n u a l  Columbia  i t was n o t m o n i t o r e d .  the Mica  R e s e r v o i r (Kinbasket Lake) could induce  superimposed  atmospheric  through  of the  because  f l o w a t t h e dam ( 2 1 . 9 m i l l i o n  the prediction,  fisheries  acres  would  ( # 2 ) . T h i s i m p a c t was c o n s i d e r e d  Thirdly,  be  noted  to the paucity of  i n c r e a s e b y a f a c t o r o f 3.6 ( f r o m 16,500 t o 59,000 a c r e - f e e t p e r y e a r ) the water  a  conditions  biologist  on  that  differences  the thermal  the reservoir  reservoir  (#3), i s thought  (Smith, 1988).  In density  likely  of inflowing  density  currents which  stratification t o be  true  by  arising B.C.  c u r r e n t below  from  Hydro's  I n f l o w from K i n b a s k e t Lake probably  as an i n t e r f l o w  water  passes  the surface water  layer  (epilimnion). Lastly, the upper about  t h e E I S e x p e c t e d mean v e l o c i t i e s  end o f t h e r e s e r v o i r  f i v e under normal  monitored,  (about  the EIS foresaw r a t e appears  a reservoir  than  conditions  that  flushing  t o be t w e l v e t i m e s t h a t  be c o n s i d e r a b l y f a s t e r  2 f t / s ) and t o i n c r e a s e by a f a c t o r o f  maximum f l o o d  b u t i t c a n be i n f e r r e d  t o be e x t r e m e l y s m a l l e x c e p t a t  ( # 4 ) . T h i s p a r a m e t e r was n o t  the prediction  rate  of f i v e  i s incorrect.  Whereas  times per year, the a c t u a l  ( F l e m i n g , 1988) and thus v e l o c i t i e s  predicted.  would  127 5.1.1.2  Downstream of t h e  The  physical  affected the  higher  River,  sediment  Downstream  dam.  then  the  e r o s i o n was t o be  i t can  outflow from  the  decrease i n sediment  expected to r e s u l t  in  turn  less  possibly Whereas  would  slight  allow  decrease  t r i b u t a r i e s which  a  The  EIS  carry  could this  expected  increase impact  the r a t e  flow  to  be  flow  of  to  have  erosion  is  a  (#5).  theoretically  of d i s c h a r g e from  carried  without  previously,  increasing  erosion  discharged  in  light  T u r b i d i t y was as  sediments.  that  summer  f r o m t h e dam  the t h e r m a l l y  by t h e w a t e r d i s c h a r g e f r o m t h e  a  penetration  third  The  powerflows  and  increase  a t 30 m w o u l d  s t r a t i f i e d water  of  the  inflow  revealed  less that  during a weak  in  late  summer.  in  the  forebay.  in  July  in  winter  and  reservoir  might  decrease  them  i n winter  almost  certainly  (hypolimnion) (#7a).  spring.  thermocline develops  1984  temperatures.  temperatures  (Smith,  increase  1987).2  No  that  is  from  the  downstream  because be  water  from a  Water  to  of water  be  layer  temperatures and  of at  temperatures  outflow (forebay)  5.5°C i n May  d a t a was  water  lower  t h e upper warmer w a t e r  from  not  (Smith, 1988).  i n the r e s e r v o i r  ranged  inflow  i n summer and f a l l ,  Monitoring  M i x i n g o f t h e h y p o l i m n e t l c and Outflow  hence  this  from K i n b a s k e t Lake would  l a y e r w e r e t h o u g h t t o be i n t h e r e g i o n o f 12°C 5°C  and  dam  (#6),  not monitored, but Smith b e l i e v e s  as I t i s d e p o s i t e d i n t h a t r e s e r v o i r  predicted  temperatures  winter  was  (not defined) decreased t u r b i d i t y  greater  i s possible  c a r r y much s e d i m e n t  least  to the n a t u r a l  than the r i v e r  turbid  load carried  in "local"  photosynthetic a c t i v i t y .  15°C  monitored.  reservoir  assessed i n conjunction w i t h  accommodate  was  this  the  capacity which not  In relation  predicted  1988).  The  of  #5-8).  I f the volume d i s c h a r g e i s l e s s  (Smith,  a  o f t h e d o w n s t r e a m e n v i r o n m e n t was  ( T a b l e 5.1,  carrying  c o r r e c t , i t has the  character  i n f i v e ways  Columbia  Dam  available  and  occurs June  for fall  to and  128 On the  the  other  hand,  r e c e i v i n g water  directly  marked warming of the in  J u l y ) would  anticipated To  date  test  run A  The  this  1988;  "negligible" Dam  control only  time  periods  of  into  account  the  been used  on  was  be  to  i f that  operated  the  specified.  reservoir f i l l i n g . affect  the  anticipated  extensive  "no-flow"  strong  for  19°G  use  and  was  for  flow  r e g i m e was  predicted  power  generation  mainly  by M i c a Dam  specific both the  These  two  was  inadequate.  a  time  flow  d i u r n a l and  for  d e f i n e d nor were  the  one  has  Depending  the  and  the  regime  periods.  (#8).  However,  seasonal  to  on  take  energy  flow  make  development  stage  material  releases  the  from the  initial  four  to  dam  regimes  f o r three  of  the  to  the  17  days.  F i s h and  aquatic  Wildlife  ecosystem  months  s i x weeks, t h i s  i n f l o w i n t o Upper Arrow Lake (#9).  to  was  However, i n  Branch  (FWB),  downstream  of  the  who dam  B I O L O G I C A L SYSTEMS  systems  interactions  decomposition.  the  objections  cut  flow  Following  damage  t i m e was  CHEMICAL AND  organic  spillway  reservoir f i l l i n g  When a s s e s s i n g  i n t e n t i o n to stop  response to  5.1.2  The  under extreme f l o o d c o n d i t i o n s .  as n e i t h e r " n e g l i g i b l e " was  variations in  predicted to l i k e l y  the  of  i n summer (maximum  However,  during  downstream  provided  verified  temperatures  ( t a i l w a t e r ) i n summer ( # 7 b ) .  ten years twice  raise  changed.  I t was during  to  1988).  the  demand, i t seems p o s s i b l e t h a t c o u l d be  dam  prediction correct.  Mahovich,  flow  expected  r e s e r v o i r water reported  effect  p r e d i c t i o n c a n n o t be  was  the  o n l y once e v e r y  s p i l l w a y has  Revelstoke  flood  render  (Smith,  below  surface  to occur  the  s p i l l w a y flow  i t hard of and  Little  have to  been  separate  both  systems  soils  flooded  organic  grouped  is  them  (Langford,  largely  and  m a t t e r and  the  together  as 1983).  determined  conditions  a short  by that  their  complex  The the  initial  amount  of  govern  their  r e t e n t i o n time would  result  129 in  a  smaller  release  of  nutrients.  During  the  impoundment a n u t r i e n t ( t r o p h i c ) u p s u r g e t a k e s by  the  decomposition  leached With  depletion  reservoir  goes through  years.  In  the  increase  until  the  initial  production  kill lead  nutrient  bottom the  production  can  decreases  a  stable level.  v a r i e s w i t h the  over  Downstream  nutrients  littoral  of  algae)  The  toxic  reach  high  during  the  higher  nutrients changes of  in  the  the  the  and  levels  f l o o d i n g of  of  power  the  less  outflow. regime  flow  to the  be  slowly  results  from  sealing  increased  of  can  as  mercury,  (fish).  displace  or  ground  can  which  concentration i n f i s h . and  The  primary  production  p r e v i o u s l y dry  such  through  Biological  eventually  stabilizes  Changes i n f i s h  increased  turbid The  imposed  and  bubble disease  o f t h e most s e r i o u s i m p a c t s Significant  in  hypolimnion  trophic depression  may  of  temperature  t o gas  levels  trophic levels.  secondary  the  substances,  there  reservoir  of  the  composition  term.  dam  transparency  supersaturation l o s s e s due  the  water.  to twenty-five  or form the  results  conditions) i n  (benthos).  the long of  up  Stability  fluctuating  w i t h the n u t r i e n t l e v e l s of the mature r e s e r v o i r . o f t e n occur  are  sediment d e p o s i t s .  (anaerobic  release  bioaccumulation,  reaches  available  dwellers  aging  the m i n e r a l i z a t i o n process  (phytoplankton,  depletion  to  of  the  released  nutrients  process,  of  activity of  available  stage  l a y e r by  increase  and  extend  reservoir  biological  material  t h a t can  the e q u i l i b r a t i o n  The  organic  following  of the r e s e r v o i r  a trophic depression  final  the degradation  Oxygen  the  years  i n o r g a n i c substances  T h i s can l e a d t o deoxygenation  of  few  p l a c e as n u t r i e n t s a r e  f l o o d e d o r g a n i c m a t e r i a l and  from the s o i l .  the  either  of  first  water  by  spillway  process  of  p r o d u c t i o n due from  will  the water  the  flow  can  vary  with  Nitrogen  lead Of  to  leached  discharges.  of f i s h  Revelstoke  the  also  t o bends i n d i v e r s ) .  i s t h e dam's b l o c k a g e  aging  and  productivity  especially  (similar  primary  to  fish  course  one  i s that  the  movement. reservoir  130 vegetative much o f  cover  the  small  impoundment verify  from  and  the  amount  removed  some o f  the  reservoir of  as  area  remaining floating  impacts  was  almost  organic  debris.  material Also  the  completely  EIS,  was  i t is  predicted  by  as  dissolved  oxygen l e v e l s  mobilized  still  the  removed  too  and  during  early  reservoir  is  to  still  young.  5.1.2.1  Reservoir  The be  high  EIS  predicted  due  to  the  s y s t e m s and  the  (#10).  scant  than  The  that  short  virtual  predicted  retention  absence of  amount o f  retention  time  In occur  h y p o l i m n i o n of  the  first  (#1).  few  The  m o d e r a t e number o f arose mainly the  from  reservoir  1988).  has  F i s h are  fish the been  still  outcome, w h i c h i s not Of habitat of  the  course  lower  tributary  population the  tunnel.  was  l e v e l was  of  found  to  only the  reaches  habitat  of  was  3  to  affected  be  slight  reservoir  led  but  small  to  nutrient  (oligotrophic) upsurge d i d flooded  the  (#13a).  (24  was  column,  take  5% not  as  or  the  realized the  place,  soils.  17%  to  support  To  1985; the  of  but  Smith,  (Smith, was  term  1988). lost net  the  prediction (#13b).  a  date  long  However, the  acres,  d i v e r s i o n of f r y and  dissolved  and  mainstem Columbia R i v e r  by  shorter  u p s u r g e was  e a r l y to p r e d i c t  inundated  which  C o n s i d e r a b l e numbers o f  a  reservoir productivity  underestimated  by  the  throughout the w a t e r  from the  i t i s too  tributaries  reservoir  1987).  trophic  of  to  reservoir  the  u l t r a - o l i g o t r o p h i c (Watson,  7000 a c r e s  already  i n the  nutrients be  development  alternate  and  impoundment  d e p e n d e n t on  the  the  reservoir  (Smith,  following  leaching  of  the  to s a t u r a t i o n  forebay  A  in  water  f i s h b e c a u s e i t was  habitat)  compensatory  close  (#12).  each  r e s e r v o i r were  organic waste discharge i n t o  the  "healthy",  a l l of  for river  of  the  years  trophic  of  organic matter  oxygen l e v e l s t h a t were at or even i n the  time  i n the  as loss  total  included The  Columbia River  f i n g e r l i n g s were expected  fish  through to  be  131 lost  to  the  filling  (//14b).  definitely that  upstream  blocked  most  tributary  of  the  to  are  the  between  below  tunnel.  573  especially  of  but  the  Smith  the  Revelstoke fish  as  basis  of  the  r e s e r v o i r was the  be  experience  with  filling 96%, other  (October  River  did  and  rainbow  4%.  squawfish  prior  to  showed no  trout,  Species  rainbow  composition  4.5%. 1987  t h a t kokanee are indicate  that  and  present  would  not  fact  species of f i s h  and  that  f r o m t h e one  be  the  able  the  support  be this  mainstem.  appeared  to  Lakes  support  Again  t o have  stayed  was  slightly  Dolly  Varden  captured  by  gillnett  i n the  (now  reservoir  that  the  fish  other  different  showed  a  i n 1985  (Smith,  change  to  i n percentage  p r e d i c t e d , no  definite  the  and  first  the year  total  increase  and  p e a m o u t h ) made  (Smith,  has  for  to 81% of the  1986), but  up the  by B.C.  H y d r o ) show  The  of the  populations date  from  reservoir  accounted  relative  1988).  a  mountain w h i t e f i s h  during  decreased  to  of  i n an  populations  1978)  species  being analyzed  reservoir  However,  rainbow t r o u t c o u l d r e s u l t of  the  same s p e c i e s  (#15a).  change i n r e s i d e n t f i s h : 14  reservoirs,  the  impoundment  l a r g e - s c a l e suckers, burbot,  the  to  River  Arrow  t h e y were g e n e r a l l y pre-impoundment the  different  fish  c o n s t r u c t i o n (November  f i s h derby r e s u l t  Notwithstanding  is  and  and  Kokanees were not c r e e l study  Resident  M o u n t a i n w h i t e f i s h had  trout  other species (longnose  (#14a).  Monitoring  D o l l y V a r d e n and  after reservoir f i l l i n g . population;  (#15b).  diversion tunnel 1983)  and  able  i n Columbia the  anticipated  River  the  increase  of  i t was  was  lost.  i n t h e a b u n d a n c e o f D o l l y V a r d e n and  start  filling,  that f i s h  decrease  the  that upstream m i g r a t i o n  from  (1988) notes  reservoir  Columbia  would  fish  d i v e r s i o n and  mainstem  lost  p r e d i c t e d t o be  Columbia  than  the  large  of  reservoir  in  m would  t h e r e s e r v o i r and w e r e n o t On  With  fish  time  other  h a b i t a t s , which  that  data,  the  available  resident  tributary  t h e r e w e r e no in  data by  reaches  displaced influx,  No  system  age  (Smith,  supported  composition  of  c o n c l u s i o n c a n be  the  fish  1986).  the  same  species  drawn about  132 the  long  term outlook, o f these  productivity  resulting  two f a c t o r s .  from  the  I n response t o the higher  expected  nutrient  p o p u l a t i o n s were a n t i c i p a t e d t o i n c r e a s e over t h e f i r s t construction sustained maximum and  (#16a).  yields  10,000  even t h i s  thus  were  expected  might  t o drop  n o t be s u s t a i n a b l e .  different  (//16b).  f o r two a n d a  ruling  i n i t i a l burst t o lower  t o 15,000 p o u n d s o f f i s h ,  qualitatively nutrients  But f o l l o w i n g t h i s  half  out an i n c r e a s e  years, i n fish  overall  paucity the  of l i t t o r a l  long  development.  the f l i p b u c k e t design  s u p e r s a t u r a t i o n , the EIS p r e d i c t e d be  date, than and  caused  Watson  fish),  over  the long  a  slight  In the long  The s u s t a i n e d  term:  was  t o be  upsurge  of  increase,  run, reservoir  than i n the Columbia R i v e r , f a c t o r s a r e t h e low n u t r i e n t  the r e l a t i v e l y  high  yield  f l u s h i n g r a t e , and  h a s t o be v e r i f i e d i n  (1985)  b u t was  reported  observed  a dozen f i s h the plunge  o f t h e s p i l l w a y w h i c h was t o l o w e r that  by s p i l l w a y d i s c h a r g e s  was  biologists.  l o s s e s due t o g a s b u b b l e  (#17).  This  i t d i d not exceed  1988).  p a r a m e t e r was 115% (>115%  deepened  considerably  t o prevent  g o l f course  changes were u n d e r t a k e n w i t h o u t  While nitrogen  disease  monitored  harmful At a  The s p i l l w a y f l i p b u c k e t d e s i g n was  downstream a t a p a r k and t h e R e v e l s t o k e These d e s i g n  nitrogen  120% once and a d v e r s e e f f e c t s were o b s e r v e d  (Smith,  pool  that  fish  a s f a r a s 10 km d o w n s t r e a m o f t h e dam.  however, i t reached  River.  production, the  D o w n s t r e a m o f t h e Dam  Despite  and  after  term.  5.1.2.2  could  The l i m i t i n g  cold waters,  (5-10)  the f i s h e r y  was  production.  only  the r e l a t i v e l y  fish  p r o d u c t i v i t y d i d not  but  content,  the  be a s l o w a s 3,600 p o u n d s  there  i n g e n e r a l was p r e d i c t e d t o be h i g h e r low t o moderate.  of f i s h  Furthermore,  productivity at best  few y e a r s  levels  but could  Although  upsurge,  overall  possible  to  later  i n less changed erosion  which border the Columbia c o n s u l t a t i o n of the s i t e  s u p e r s a t u r a t i o n and m i n i m a l f i s h  l o s s e s have  been  133 observed,  this  prediction  cannot  be  verified  because  of  the  project  design  changes Although the EIS mentioned affected the  dam  according to (#18),  observation (1988) dam  and  variations  p r e d i c t i o n was  that  give  of water  excluded.  the e f f e c t  deoxygenation  due  oxygen  being  levels  discharged  I t a p p e a r s more l i k e  on  the system.^  to increased  can  Furthermore,  water  (Dolly  possible with  habitats  from  trout,  the Arrow  filling  L a k e s was (Dolly  fish  species  Varden,  Lakes w i t h  (#19).  kokanee,  (presumably and  long  Smith  temperatures  Lakes  loss  their  were a n t i c i p a t e d  Varden, fishery,  Dam.  rainbow  habitat  In the due  long  t o changes  Significant trout  particularly  and  from oxygen  over the long  term.  the d i v e r s i o n  tunnel  could  and  lead  been  lost  losses of  To  with  the  to  were  quality  the  Arrow  expected was  Varden  and  any stop  thought  migrating  Lakes  of water Lakes  evidence  fish  losses  1440  of  because Arrow  productivity  Fishery  from for  quality  endangered  need  fish  the  release  the  t o be  of the f i s h e r i e s  the  as  creation  and  of o t h e r  significant  i n Arrow  i n the temperature  date  Initial  l o s s e s were  t e r m , some c h a n g e s  losses  white  Lakes would  to increases  for Dolly  Kokanee  fish  c o m p o s i t i o n (percentage) of  p r e s e n t ) (#20).  20-30%,  kokanee  and  possibly  monitoring i s necessary.  had  to migratory  whitefish,  species  trout)  f o r trophy f i s h ,  Changes i n the p r o d u c t i v i t y  of  lost  t h e same, b u t u p s t r e a m  g i v e n ) (#21a).  spawning  reservoir.  Revelstoke  not  mountain  fish  rainbow  as  t o be  p o p u l a t i o n s t o the Arrow  The  term  were  t h e use  those already  e s t i m a t e d f o r kokanee  (percentage  t h e dam  kokanee,  expected to remain  inconclusive  of  of  r e c r u i t m e n t from upstream  fish  were  upstream  rainbow  reservoir  Arrow  from  level.  Varden,  sturgeon)  be  a general  d i s c h a r g e s a p p e a r s most u n l i k e l y as t h e r e s e r v o i r w a t e r s a r e a t t h e  Spawning  20%  temperature  does not  observes  saturation  is  this  t h a t downstream d i s s o l v e d  of  the  Dolly the  (#21b).  t o be e v a l u a t e d  134  5.2  THE TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE The  the  EIS assessed  reservoir  Although safe  the  area,  slope  but other  stability  a n d no i m p a c t s  reservoir  banks  environment Revelstoke  impoundment  outcome  forms  i t s cause  5.1.1.1).  originates  paucity of monitoring  topic  City of Revelstoke  t h e Columbia R i v e r  1985).  filed  and e r o s i o n o f of the aquatic erosion  i n changes  of this  here  as a  t o the aquatic  on w i l d l i f e  section,  ofthe  resources  however,  i t  g o l f course  downstream o f t h e R e v e l s t o k e full  operation  three  eroding  the  s i t u a t e d on t h eeast Dam w e r e e r o d i n g  i s  o f t h e dam, o n c e a l l f o u r  rate of erosion.  o f 1984 ( W a t e r Management B r a n c h , sections  of the golf  a t a slow r a t e .  bank was proposed  those  years.  The f i n d i n g s  total  A monitoring  to establish the rate  Ameliorative  e r o s i o n p r o t e c t i o n was e s t i m a t e d This  of a  1984).  length  claim  confirmed  o f 1000 m  were  C o m p a r i s o n o f 1977 a n d 1980 a i r p h o t o s showed t h a t no  l a n d had been l o s t d u r i n g  dam o p e r a t i o n .  course  bank  (Sussex,  R i v e r s S e c t i o n o f t h e W a t e r Management B r a n c h i n v e s t i g a t e d t h i s  thef a l l  full  considered  i s evaluated  impacts  concerns.  a c l a i m f o r m i t i g a t i o n and compensation w i t h  The C i t y ' s c o n c e r n was t h a t  The  river  no  data.  t u r b i n e s were i ns e r v i c e , would i n c r e a s e  that  part  However,  impact,  of the predicted  t h e main  sloughing  was c o n s i d e r e d  the CIC because p a r t s o f t h ecity-owned  in  raised  s t a b i l i t y of  THE LAND SURFACE The  of  Initial  an u n p r e d i c t e d  though  and slope  f o rthe latter  anticipated.  The c o m p a r i s o n  l i m i t e d by the  5.2.1  course,  impact,  environment. their  than  soils,  o f two a r e a s was m o n i t o r e d , t h e y were  were  following  landforms,  i n the EIS ( s e esection  golf  terrestrial  and  the geology,  problem and other  work  to cost  claims  p r o g r a m o f 2000 m o f t h e  of erosion  i n t h e form  and t h e e f f e c t o f  o f broken  rock  riprap  $425,000.  by l o c a l  government were  further  assessed  135 in  a consultant's study  commissioned  under  the water  However, i t c o u l d n o t c l e a r l y  e s t a b l i s h whether  operation  o f t h e Arrow  or the Revelstoke  potential  f o r e r o s i o n was a low Arrow L a k e l e v e l  the  Revelstoke  monitoring  Dam.  Lake  I n order  program  should  study  undertaken  hydrological  to clarify  have  been  5.2.2  (Sussex,  1985).  t h e e r o s i o n was c a u s e d  by t h e  Reservoir.  implemented,  to establish  The  greatest  and peak power g e n e r a t i o n a t  the City's  t h e cause  c l a i m w a s s e t t l e d b y B.C. H y d r o a n d t h e C i t y monitoring having  licence  claim,  the  proposed  and, i f warranted, of the erosion.  a The  i n t h e summer o f 1988 w i t h o u t a n y  taken place.  THE W I L D L I F E RESOURCE The  area  climatic  are harsh  and t o p o g r a p h i c  for wildlife  conditions i n the Revelstoke  and  determine  both  Project  the species  and  Study their  distribution.  Moose, c a r i b o u , and g r i z z l y  are better able to survive i n the  area,  are limited  part with less  As  but deer  part  of the P a c i f i c  to the southern  Flyway,  the area  i s utilized  inclement  by m i g r a t o r y  weather.  b i r d s , but  a l s o b y many r e s i d e n t b i r d s . Despite study  the long  area,  caribou. little  AH  about  and s e a s o n a l  concerns  valley species  could  species such  such  only  very  beaver,  as c a r i b o u and g r i z z l y  size, general  One  analyzed  potential  deer,  because  impacts  i s based  and w a t e r f o w l , Whereas  vague,  areas  because habitat  of w i l d l i f e  the change  of lack  of  on d a t a  The f o r m e r  of the  moose, and  habitat,  of these,  a n d t h e FWB.  bear.  and b i r d s  and e x t r e m e l y  population Seven  n o t be  mammals  to waterfowl,  i n the EIS.  b e t w e e n B.C. H y d r o as deer,  t h e many  are qualitative  movements.  of the s i x remaining  an agreement  refer  the species'  are outlined  use p a t t e r n ,  Evaluation under  p r e d i c t e d impacts  known  utilization,  wildlife  cataloguing  the EIS p r e d i c t i o n s  was  resource  lists  of  data.  gathered  monitored the  and t h e l a t t e r t h e FWB's w o r k  upland  has been  136 p u b l i s h e d , B.C.  Hydro's remains  analyzed  by  difficult  because  field  the  permanent  staff  of  the  notes  resemble  field  research methodologies The  comparison  distinguishes those  that  i n the form of f i e l d  b e t w e e n p r e - and after  and  relates  grouped  under  concerns  disturbance acres), the  and  r e s o u r c e was removal  of  facilities.  areas,  where  given  result  i n animal d i e - o f f s  5.2,  #1).  Whereas  h i g h w a y and  expected  Preliminary wetlands  route  data  i n t h e r e s e r v o i r a r e a and areas during t h e i r  had  been  flooded  many  Project  cannot  A l s o no population.  impacted  of  5.2,  arising The  further  acres),  are from  impacts  are  subdivided  by  reservoir  the  (21,500  the t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e  animals  and  the  to relocate  pressure  on  food  and  i n adjacent  sources  would  times of the y e a r , u s u a l l y w i n t e r (Table a r e a was  affected,  like  the  borrow p i t s , were a l t e r e d  but  some p a r t s ,  itself.  suggest  that  about  by  staging  the areas.  Arrow The  and  20,000  birds  Flyway. Mica  impact  be e s t a b l i s h e d a s t h e n e c e s s a r y d a t a a r e  use  projects  of  the  the  as  However,  this which  Revelstoke  lacking.  c o n c l u s i o n c a n be d r a w n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e e f f e c t  on t h e  The  area  d e e p snow i n t h e n o r t h e r n p a r t o f t h e P r o j e c t  them t o t h e s o u t h e r n p o r t i o n .  the  impacts  s e v e r e l y impacted  m i g r a t i o n along the P a c i f i c  known w a t e r f o w l  of  material.  the lower reaches of the t r i b u t a r i e s  previously  most  i n Table  impact  and  most  r i g h t - o f - w a y s and  1979)  EIS  areas  force  to r e e s t a b l i s h (Bonar,  the 900  densities  study  the  t o be  in  in critical  transmission line  v e g e t a t i o n was  staging  in  expected  T h i s would  the whole  the  is  table.  habitat  increased animal  i m p a c t s , summarized  being  some  the u s e f u l n e s s of the  However,  the highway r i g h t - o f - w a y (about  ancillary  task  and  to the c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d .  a c c o r d i n g t o s p e c i e s a s shown i n t h e wildlife  This  "hieroglyphics"  actual  impoundment.  garbage d i s p o s a l  The  a r e now  post-impoundment d a t a , i . e . a c t u a l  illegal  s i x main  Corporation.  employed l i m i t  of p r e d i c t e d  happened  the  notes which  deer  restricts  Whereas i n i t i a l l y s i g h t i n g s o f d e e r had  been  T a b l e 5.2  Comparison  o f P r e d i c t e d and A c t u a l  PREDICTED  PARAMETER  I.  disturbance S of habitat  removal  reduced  IMPACT  animal  numbers  -ACTUAL  I m p a c t s on t h e W i l d l i f e  waterfowl/no  b:  deer/no  data  data  I c: moose/1nconclus Ive'  2.  I l l e g a l garbage disposal  removal troying bears  3.  reservoir debrIs  ungulate drownlnqs; could affect caribou populatIon  surface  ' i . b a r r i e r s t o movement: - reservoir - transmission lines  S the desof nuisance  possibly result fatal I ties  caribou Inconclusive  some r e m o v e d , some d e s t r o y e d  a:  deer/no  COMMENT  IMPACT/VERIFICATION  a:  d:  Resource  - a r e a I s p a r t o f P a c i f i c R e g i o n F l y w a y , p r e v i o u s l y a f f e c t e d by M i c a and A r r o w L a k e s R e s e r v o i r s - m a i n l y a r e i n s o u t h e r n a r e a , l i m i t i n g f a c t o r Is snow; a p p e a r to I n c r e a s e due t o m i l d w i n t e r s i n r e c e n t y e a r s -samolinq procedures l i m i t u s e f u l n e s s of d a t a ; long term e f f e c t w i l l be m a n i f e s t e d f o l l o w i n g a s e v e r e w i n t e r -1980 t o 198^: p o s s i b l e p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e ; t r e n d p o s s i b l y r e v e r s e d s i n c e r e s e r v o i r f i l l i n g , needs more d a t a  b e a r s were a probjcm at s i t e s of I l l e g a l g a r b a g e d i s p o s a l i n t h e r e s e r v o i r a r e a a n d a t t h e r e g i o n a l s < n i i t ; i l I on f i l l ; the I m p a c t c o u l d n o t be q u a n t i f i e d  data  b: m o o s e - n o n e r e p o r t e d ' ' / I n a c c u r a t e - r e c o r d e d c: . c a r I b o u - n o n e / i n a c c u r a t e -recorded t o 1985,  reservoir crossings: reservoir crossings: no f a t a l i t i e s  3, no f a t a l i t i e s 6 p r e - and 8 p o s t - I m p o u n d m e n t  In a: c a r I bou-none r e p o r t e d / i n a c c u r a t e - p r o b l e m s due t o f l o o d e d l a n d m a r k s b: c a r l b o u / n o d a t a c: w a t e r f o w l / n o d a t a - l a r g e s t h a z a r d l i n e f r o m M i c a Dam  d i d not crossing  occur reservoir  5.  r e s e r v o i r drawdown d u r i n g Ice f o r m a t i o n  ungulate  drownings  a: deer-some r e p o r t e d / a c c u r a t e b: moose/some r e p o r t e d / a c c u r a t e c: c a r Ibou-none r e p o r t e d /Inaccurate  t h e i m p a c t o n u n g u l a t e s was n o t c l o s e l y m o n i t o r e d , some f a t a l i t i e s r e p o r t e d due t o u n g u l a t e s u n a b l e t o c l i m b o u t of r e s e r v o i r o v e r i c e s h e e t s - c r o s s I n f a l l £ A p r i l w h e n d a n q e r I s much r e d u c e d  6.  a n I ma 1 - v e h l c l e c o l l i s i o n s m a i n l y on Highway 23 N o r t h  ungulate  fatalities  a: deer-some r e p o r t e d / a c c u r a t e b: m o o s e - s o m e r e p o r t e d / a c c u r a t e c: c a r i b o u - s o m e r e p o r t e d / a c c u r a t e  a m i n i m u m o f ^9 u n g u l a t e s w e r e k i l l e d I n 1983/8't t o 1 9 8 6 / 8 7 i n c l u s i v e ; t h i s i m p a c t was n o t c l o s e l y m o n i t o r e d , h i g h w a y s i g n s w a r n i n g o f h a z a r d have had m i n i m a l effect  1.  Long  term  effects  may  possibly  be  determined  w i t h more  data.  2. None r e p o r t e d - d o e s n o t e x c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e s p e c i e s w e r e a f f e c t e d . Sources: B o n a r , 1 9 7 8 , 1 9 7 9 , 1 9 8 7 ; B.C. H y d r o , 1977-19814; B r a d l e y , I986, 1 9 8 7 ; Gabrowski S i m p s o n , 1 9 8 7 ; S i m p s o n e_t a ] _ , 1987 ; S o m m e r v i l l e , 1987.  1988;  Krause,  1988;  Mahovich,  I988;  138 few  (B.C.  Hydro,  1976b;  Bonar,  1979),  w i n t e r s have been m i l d ( S o m m e r v i l l e ,  they  1987;  appear  to  have  Simpson, 1987).  increase No  because  other data  are  available. The report at  impact  of  (Bradley,  163  and  117  interpreted  h a b i t a t removal  1986)  estimates  (95%  confidence  moose w i n t e r r a n g e  (below  removed a l l h a b i t a t l o w e r 0.125  moose/km  B.C.  Zone)  (0.4  2  t o 0.30  of  t o 362  m) was  573  m,  moose/km .  and  high.  this  t h e moose p o p u l a t i o n .  methods a l l o w f o r a The  northern  preferred low  migrants.  habitats.  migrate Ease  of  Critical  Revelstoke  area  be  not  and  h a b i t a t s of used  i n the Revelstoke southern food  s p r i n g range  equally  as  mobility,  i n the  important.  valley  bottoms  Predator  southern  of  the  term  i n the Interior  based  of  a  the  are  Unlike seasonal  determine  the  c a r i b o u w e r e known t o  for early winter  avoidance,  r a t h e r than food a v a i l a b i l i t y ,  c h o i c e of s p r i n g h a b i t a t .  long  area.  availability  a l . , 1987),  the  a  caribou  consultant  et  allow  1987).  f o r l a t e w i n t e r range.  (Simpson  zone  Cedar-Hemlock  c r i t i c a l i n d e t e r m i n i n g the impact  mobility  from  the f i r s t severe w i n t e r w i t h  elevation subalpine forest u t i l i z e d t o t h e FWB  removal  sub-boreal spruce (Interior  i n f o r m a t i o n does  north-south,  e l e v a t i o n o l d growth f o r e s t  of the  post-  R e s e r v o i r impoundment  t h a t i n the  only migratory ungulates  caribou, which  elevational  the  the  effect  be  t o t h e d e n s i t y o f moose i n  R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t on t h e moose p a p u l a t i o n ( B r a d l e y , Caribou are  cannot  leading to a density increase  It will  d e e p snow a c c u m u l a t i o n w h i c h w i l l be  populations  difference  also assessed. thus  A preliminary  impoundment  this  animals.  2  However,  But sampling  m o o s e / k m ) and  2  post-  In comparison  2  moose/km ), t h a t i n the  i s not  prognosis  pre-  i s inconclusive.  limits).  126  914  than  the Peace R i v e r r e g i o n (0.6 in  the  moose  as a d e c l i n e b e c a u s e t h e f i e l d  impoundment p o p u l a t i o n r a n g e o f of  on  on  a p p e a r s t o be  range But  and  the  be  high  according to a  Revelstoke  study  area,  C e d a r H e m l o c k Zone i s ease  of  sighting  and  the prime f a c t o r i n the  139 Pre-impoundraent  the caribou  used  the reservoir  area  only  i n  M o r e t h a n 8 0 % o f t h e r i p a r i a n meadows a n d c l e a r e d  habitat  radio-collared caribou  Use i n t h e post—impoundment  period  forest.  expected  use of c l e a r - c u t  by  increased  the b i o l o g i s t , that  survival  and  from  t o 1984, due  from  1980  predators  of the reservoir  meadows  and  caribou.  census  recently  t o t h e r e s e r v o i r was  available  rate.  The M a r c h  paths  Grizzly  lower  somewhat  their  emergence  l o c a t i o n o f good f e e d i n g time.  drainages  The  that  food  the caribou  reservoir (Simpson,  population  area  which  1987).  cleared  reservoir  that  o f 1984/1985.  With the  areas  were  lost  population  They  used  from  winter  to the  of the c a l f  the increasing  population  More c e n s u s d a t a i s needed t o  i s d e c r e a s i n g , and i f s o , w h e t h e r t h e  range i n t h e r e s e r v o i r  area.  i n the EIS p r e d i c t i o n s ,  the reservoir dens  area  i n April  m i g h t a l s o be  primarily  (Simpson,  i n spring  1987).  s i t e s p r e d o m i n a n t l y d e t e r m i n e d t h e i r movements  principal  of the Columbia  feeding  River.  was  o f 1984, t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l y used r i p a r i a n  bears, though not i n c l u d e d  by t h e P r o j e c t .  following  abundant  1985 c e n s u s s u g g e s t s  determine whether the caribou  habitats The  food  were  avalanche  abundance  a r e a s however was c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e n a t u r a l l y d i s t u r b e d some  increased  r e s u l t i n an immediate l o w e r i n g  i n the winter  cause i s t h e l o s s o f s p r i n g  suggest  to the cleared  i n the f a l l  P o t e n t i a l l y , t h i s could  t r e n d was r e v e r s e d  affected  adjacent  of avalanche  data  and o f f e r e d  flooding  survival  areas  1987).  Calf  secure  b u t was  t o t h e c e d a r - h e m l o c k f o r e s t and Englemann s p r u c e s u b a l p i n e f i r  Whereas  (Simpson,  this  t h e range of  c o n t i n u e d i n t h e few r e m a i n i n g v a l l e y b o t t o m meadows i n s p r i n g ,  mainly confined  than  was i n t h e r e s e r v o i r a r e a .  within  spring.  paths  i n cleared habitats  of  The during side  reservoir  and a t t r a c t e d  grizzlies. While  population,  so f a r t h e l o s s i t could  of reservoir  i f snow-melt were  habitat late,  has not a f f e c t e d  forcing  the bears  the g r i z z l y to look f o r  140 areas of e a r l i e r Following risk  s p r i n g green-up a t lower e l e v a t i o n s  reservoir  flooding,  reservoir habitat  North  and  to hunting  night-time  activity  offsets  this  Of  (Table  danger (Simpson, also  #2).  nuisance  regional  This  sanitation  The  fatalities  amounts  of  was  reservoir  5.2,  surface  totally  year  debris  cleared  reservoir  was  program  by  #3-5).  be  particular  the low  Highway  made  23  them  more  secrecy  and  habitat  partially  of bears which were  garbage d i s p o s a l length  sites  i n Section  area  established  were p r e d i c t e d The  present  ungulates,  that  and  4.2.  at the  "some"  were  EIS  t o be t h e c a u s e o f  stated  problems  that  even  small  t o swimming  moose,  and a c c u m u l a t i o n o f any s i g n i f i c a n c e  5.2, # 3 ) .  t o be r e l a t i v e l y  C r i t i c a l reservoir crossing  short;  i n the EIS.  as l i t t l e  Duration  a s two y e a r s  sites of the  depending  program.  was  not a  shoreline  a young  b i g problem debris  navigable  should  no i n f o r m a t i o n  accompanied 1987).  and  only  a n d moose w e r e i d e n t i f i e d  m a i n s t r e a m was  clean-up  there  other  clean-up  Surface  increased  i n the r e s e r v o i r  debris  r e s u l t i n drowning (Table  the debris  The  a t some  and i t s o p e r a t i o n  usually  on  This  illegal  discussed  i t could  and p r e s u m a b l y  i m p a c t was p r e d i c t e d  from  destroyed.  (Table  times f o r caribou  line.  or the destruction  problem  caribou  and  to shift  of the relocated  bears i n t h i s  by f r e q u e n t i n g  a  f i l l ,  reservoir itself  ungulate  margins  collisions.  the removal  were  r e m o v e d a n d "some" w e r e  observed  paths.  1987).  issue  bears  risk  traffic  t o become a n u i s a n c e  5.2,  Whereas  and  were  of the transmission  of the g r i z z l y  c o n c e r n was  predicted  to the high  the right-of-way  vulnerable  grizzlies  than the avalanche  been  within  be c o m p l e t e  of deer calf,  had  The p o t e n t i a l f o r s e v e r e l y  the r e s e r v o i r  removed,  one y e a r  too.  of f l o o d i n g  i n 1988 ( M a h o v i c h ,  crossing  crossed  because  four  had  been  Indeed,  the  and t h e f i v e  1988).  Whereas  t h e r e s e r v o i r , two moose c o w s , one times  without  a f f e c t i n g caribou  problems  existed.  (Bradley,  These  animals  141 travel  i n herds  relatively  small  c r o s s i n g s by An  and  drowning  population  a d d i t i o n a l hazard of  construction  of  be  and  confused  possibly  could  a v a i l a b l e on  the  abandon result  the e f f e c t  could  area.  significantly  However, the  line  especially  during  night  flooding  line.  I t was  transmission  to  collide  migration.  transmission  line  known.  Downie from  I t d e p e n d s on  impact  on  the  Dam the  the  1987).  arisen  reservoir  anticipated that  5.2,  routes,  #4a,  from  the  and  the  animals and  4b).  to  As  waterfowl  a hazard with  that  this  noted, no  to migrating  transmission are  lines  usually  The  p o t e n t i a l impact  the  substation just patterns  could  might  the  data  are  line.  Collisions  migration  the  reported  birds  (Table  and  towers,  fatal.  i s the M i c a t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e , w h i c h  Creek.  the  of  have  affect  eight  t o c a r i b o u movement b u t  a l s o presented  known  could  migration  (Table  a barrier  potential for collisions  r e s e r v o i r at  caribou  the  fatalities  of the  are  actual  study  traditional  a p p e a r t o be  which  not  by  their  in  #4c),  the  herd  migrating  transmission  transmission  greatest  one  the  to  landmarks  r e s e r v o i r does not  The  of  of  r a d i o - c o l l a r e d c a r i b o u were t r o u b l e - f r e e (Simpson,  obliteration  5.2,  the  and  of  the  south  routs  be  assessed  reservoir i n winter  was  expected  crosses  Revelstoke  of R e v e l s t o k e  of  not  The  the due  is  birds. to  The  lack  of  information. The  operation  of  fatalities  due  periods  i c e accumulation  that  of  forms  to  the  during  drowning  a f t e r i c e has  s h e l f above the w a t e r .  reservoir  and  result  #5).  i n two  Since  inward  difficulties  into  ungulate  drawdowns  dangerous s i t u a t i o n s :  formed at the  i m p a c t d e p e n d s l a r g e l y on  climatic conditions.  Reservoir  the  an  during  i c e sheet  reservoir,  and,  r e s e r v o i r edge, i t i s l e f t  In both cases ungulates  then have g r e a t  magnitude of t h i s  5.2,  r e s e r v o i r drawdown s l o p e s  when drawdown o c c u r s a  (Table  to cause  can  slide  i n c l i m b i n g out  or over  fall  as  into  the  the i c e .  The  t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e r e s e r v o i r and  impoundment ( O c t o b e r  1983), i c e f o r m a t i o n  has  been  142 spotty i n a l l years except The caused  Conservation Officer  by  the  1983/84  five  (1987) noted after  deer are  by  and no  crossed is  not  ungulates  drowned  (B.C.  i n the the  coyotes  i n the f i r s t  EIS  especially be  not  fall  a s d e e r , and  Whereas one  total  of  tracks  the  the  and  from  on  March of  the  Simpson  moose  reports a  of  In  drowned  nine  deer  i c e many m o o s e ,  that  year.  There  i c e cover.  They  mainly  o r A p r i l , when t h e d a n g e r o f t h e i c e c o v e r The  total  reported  number  of  ungulate  one  as moose.  No  of  data are a v a i l a b l e  A c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h dam  o p e r a t i o n and  which  f o r the climatic  ungulate  time  of  fatalities  from  H i g h w a y 23 N o r t h  animal-vehicle  ( T a b l e 5.2,  the year, c a r i b o u i n e a r l y  As w i t h f a t a l i t i e s  closely  (Krause,  spring  #6). and  collisions  Moose c o u l d  late  from r e s e r v o i r i c e , road k i l l s  1984).  He  animals  also  in  Conservation moose  in  1986/87;  the  notes most  Officer  1984/85; and  two  that  highway  problematic r e p o r t s the  probably  caribou since  c a r i b o u to avoid double  f o u r moose ( B . C . H y d r o ,  signs warning areas,  following  more  and  than  1985/86  ten  first  not  biologist,  deer  the  have  i m p o u n d m e n t t h e r e i s no o t h e r r e c o r d t h a n t h a t o f t h e s i t e w i l d l i f e of f i v e  For  and  following  reported w i n t e r road k i l l s  1988).  fall,  year  who  monitored  and  1988).  attempted.  deer at a l l times. been  (Krause,  1977-1984).  s i x deer  fatalities  two w i n t e r s f o l l o w i n g impoundment i s f i f t e e n ,  predicted  any  closely  ungulate  (1988)  resulting  1987).  along the r e l o c a t e d  involved  1984/85  i c e i n February  past three w i n t e r s (1985-1988). c o n d i t i o n s was  Hydro,  the basis  i n late  (Simpson,  nine were i d e n t i f i e d  The  of  caribou f a t a l i t i e s  reduced  fatalities  On  reports that  monitored  i c e , Krause  crossed the  the r e s e r v o i r  much  winter  i c e cover.  known  area  i c e are  through  the  f o r the  reservoir  that  falling  killed  1985/86.  have  drivers had  minimal  known w i n t e r animals  (Krause,  of  in  1988).  road each  the  1977-  presence  effects. kills: of  of The  twenty  1985/86  and  E x c l u d i n g the  two  c o u n t i n g , a minimum o f f o u r t y - n i n e a n i m a l s w e r e  killed  143 in  the four years;  Goldstream  many o f t h e f a t a l i t i e s  River.  In the opinion  occurred  of the Conservation  valley wintering habitat i sforcing  ungulates  h e n c e more a n i m a l s  than  a r e on t h e road  1988;  Gabrowski,  years  are not available,  significant  5.3  Figures  Officers,  towinter  prior  f o rother  Carnes  the loss of  c l o s e t o t h e Highway,  to reservoir  seasons  Creek and  flooding  and f o r  s o o n e d o e s n o t know w h e t h e r  (Krause,  pre-impoundraent  a l l these  numbers a r e  o r not.  THE ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT Extensive  not  1988).  between  taken  place,  (Bandler, reservoir  research  because  1986). size  on r e s e r v o i r - i n d u c e d c l i m a t i c the large  Climatic  (Baxter,  s c a l e weather  impacts  1977),  eight  climatic  impacts  i n general has  i s not a f f e c t e d  t o be p r o p o r t i o n a l t o  and s i t e - s p e c i f i c  w h i c h makes t h e c h o i c e o f c o n t r o l m o n i t o r i n g Altogether  regime  a r e considered  localized  changes  (Bandler,  sites problematic  affecting  (PADC,  temperature,  1986), 1983).  h u m i d i t y , and  w i n d regimes o f t h e r e s e r v o i r and i t s immediate v i c i n i t y were p r e d i c t e d i n t h e EIS.  A l l effects  significance, was  not clear  magnitude  were  classified  and ambivalent as they  could  of t h e impacts  One  component  Reservoir  achieved  Community  Impact  McKenzie generally profit  ski hill, warmer  because affect  was l i k e l y  reservoir i s small, especially Upper Arrow Lake (B.C.  as i r r e v e r s i b l e ,  Hydro,  Committee.  society of l o c a l  (positive  interests  t o be m i n i m a l  of  minor  or negative)  differently.  as t h e s u r f a c e area  t o theadjacent  Kinbasket  The of the  Lake and  1976b). atmospheric  impacts  because o f a compensation The C i t y  l o c a t e d south temperature  end e f f e c t  various  i nrelation  of the potential prominence  their  localized,  of the City,  caused  citizens,  of Revelstoke  of the Revelstoke  claim filed claimed  was a d v e r s e l y  by t h e r e s e r v o i r .  with the  that  Mt.  a f f e c t e d by t h e  The o p e r a t o r ,  had t o r e l o c a t e t h e s k i l i f t  the  a non-  further uphill  144 at  considerable costs.  temperatures temperature  would  likely  be  a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0.5°C  moderated  a consequential small the reservoir As  increase  The  range  of f r o s t - f r e e  changes  reservoir.  of  the reservoir  McKenzie north  ski hill  of  (1986)  changes  Upper  do  daily  temperature  days  i n the region  Arrow  have  n o t been  are not possible.  monitored,  The E I S p r e d i c t e d  t o occur only at the shore of the r e s e r v o i r . diurnal  temperature  range was b a s e d  a t M i c a Dam f o l l o w i n g  quotes  an A u s t r a l i a n  not extend  i s about  l i t e r a t u r e examined,  5.4  days  recorded right  Bandler  temperature  t h e minimum  i n t h e number o f f r o s t - f r e e  effects  of the ElS-predicted  temperature  raising  diurnal a i r  r a n g e d e c r e a s e o f 0.8°C, t h u s t h e r e c o u l d be  instrumental checking of the predictions decrease  extreme  shore.  temperature  the  by  that  a n d d e c r e a s i n g t h e maximum d a i l y  0.3 f e , f o r a t o t a l d i u r n a l  about  of  The E I S h a d p r e d i c t e d  beyond  impoundment  source  1 km  of a  on  which  actual of that  states  reservoir.  that  The M t .  9 km s o u t h o f t h e R e v e l s t o k e Dam a n d r o u g h l y 32 km  Lake.  According  t h e compensation  to the limited  c l a i m appears  evidence  of the  invalid.  CONCLUSION It  has been w e l l  are d i f f i c u l t environmental  documented  that  to carry out, especially impact  assessment  post-development  environmental analyses  f o r p r o j e c t s w h i c h have undergone  ( E I A ) (PADC,  1983; B i s s e t t ;  early  1984).  The  The  large  R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t a n a l y s i s h a s b e e n no e x c e p t i o n . The  E I S was  found  t o be  very  difficult  t o work  with.  e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t m a t r i x and t h e two l o n g t a b l e s s u m m a r i z i n g the f i s h and w i l d l i f e  r e s o u r c e s were u s e l e s s because  I n s t e a d i m p a c t s h a d t o be e x t r a c t e d were  imprecise, qualitative,  Statements  from  concerning the probability  they were so n o n s p e c i f i c .  the EIS t e x t .  and n o t i n t h e form  t h e i m p a c t s on  Predictions  of testable  of occurrence, magnitude,  generally  hypotheses.  t e m p o r a l , and  145 spatial  extent,  and t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e p o t e n t i a l i m p a c t s w e r e  vague, or absent.  Ecosystem l i n k a g e s were o f t e n not considered.  were a l s o encountered w i t h more d e s c r i p t i v e  than  be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h The  determining the actual impacts.  interpretive, while  the help  fish  resources  the  impact  and  that  and f o r w i l d l i f e  predictions  on  the  on  resources  the t e r r e s t r i a l  atmospheric  The o v e r a l l e f f e c t i v e n e s s  figure  (11) of  could  ( # 1 3 b ) w h i c h was because  Taking w i l d l i f e the  vagueness  likely  predictions (7b,  environment (4.3%).  and  the  correct.  the  fish  less  V e r i f i c a t i o n i n the  resource.  three  quarters  Fish  habitat  prediction  long  of which  composition  terra  i s possible  pertain  and s u s t a i n e d  the  resource,  i s  yield  both  four were  20.9% (9) o f aquatic  unremarkable  f o r 18.6%  to the aquatic  more  o f t h e 19.2% ( 5 )  categories,  predictions,  out.  r e s u l t s from  The E I S d i d n o t c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t  and w i l d l i f e  incorrect  7% ( 3 ) o f t h e p r e d i c t i o n s  two  low. This  carried  Probably this  e n v i r o n m e n t and f i s h  the  are  prediction  as  not  i n t e r e s t i n g , that  between  rather  predicted.  was  specific a  erosion)  established.  t o be c l a s s i f i e d  measure, w h i c h  I t i s also  difference  resource  fish  Both  change)  n o t be  accurately  t h e one  but had  found a c c u r a t e f o r the a q u a t i c  predictions,  of  appear a c c u r a t e .  as p a r t i a l l y  5.3.  course  climate  could  improves t o 35.3%.  the p r e d i c t i o n s — t h e  predictions;  fish  were  1 3 a , 1 4 b , 19) w e r e " n o - m i s s " p r e d i c t i o n s .  verified all  impacts  compensation  alone, the rate of  i tw i l l  a  (golf  ( s k i hill  t o 2 7 . 9 % by i n c l u d i n g  on  were  environment  a r e shown i n T a b l e  the Project  essentially correct,  i t depended  f o r the aquatic  o f t h e E I S a s a p r e d i c t i v e t o o l was  the forty-three  be r a i s e d  A few r e p o r t s  s p e c i a l i z e d and had t o  environment  environment  e x c l u d e d , because a d e f i n i t e l i n k w i t h  25.6  But problems  of professional b i o l o g i s t s .  r e s u l t s of the post-development a n a l y s i s  and  Only  o t h e r s were  generally  (8) of a l l  environment  up- and downstream  t h e dam a n d t h e t r o p h i c l e v e l o f t h e r e s e r v o i r a r e e x p e c t e d t o s t a b i l i z e r e s e r v o i r ages.  The i m p a c t o f h a b i t a t  and  l o s s o n moose w i l l  only  become  as  Table  5.3  Post-Development  Predictions  Environmental  Analysis Results  Aquatic Environment & F i s h Resource No.  Wildlife  %  No.  Resource  Combined  %  No.  %  35.3  11  25.6  3  7.0  5  19.2  3  11.4  inaccurate  5  19.2  23.5  9  20.9  v e r i f i a b l e i n long term & i n c o n c l u s i v e  6  23.1  11.8  8  18.6  7  26.9  29.4  12  27.9  accurate partially  accurate^  not v e r i f i a b l e (no d a t a , n o t monitored, etc.)  Total:  1.  26  I n c l u d e s one p r e d i c t i o n " p r o b a b l y  17  correct".  43  147 apparent factor  f o l l o w i n g the f i r s t  severe  monitored.  27.9%  (12) of the p r e d i c t i o n s .  appreciable All  25.6%  7%  i n the long  careful  impacts  of the l a t t e r  result.  could  critical  of t h i s  is still  n o t be u n d e r t a k e n f o r  a l lpredictions a  accurate  terra w i t h  and  20.6%  more m o n i t o r i n g  verification inaccurate.  was  i t :  i t must  not  consider  preclude  and o f s h o r t  the r e s e r v o i r a r e a .  attributed  the  site-specific  i s f u r n i s h e d by t h e R e v e l s t o k e  T h i s was  possible:  This  might  be  i s not p o s s i b l e .  a n d i t must  slight  was  f o r 18.9% o f t h e p r e d i c t i o n s .  o b s e r v a t i o n concerns the r e s e r v o i r paradigm. to apply  u p s u r g e was  verification  The  The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two c a t e g o r i e s  of  partially  f o r 27.9% v e r i f i c a t i o n  potential  not  impoundment.  (2.5%).  i n a l l f o r 53.5%  A final be  For lack of data,  accurate,  improved But  after  f o r caribou i s the l o s s of s p r i n g h a b i t a t , the e f f e c t  being  not  winter  Researchers  possibility conditions.  of  have t o other  An  example  P r o j e c t , where the u s u a l  trophic  d u r a t i o n , and a r e s p o n s e i n p r o d u c t i v i t y d i d to the removal of a l l v e g e t a t i v e  matter  in  148 NOTES  Though t h e r e s e r v o i r paradigm i s w i d e l y a c c e p t e d , Hecky e t a l . (1984) c a u t i o n t h a t i t i s a p p l i c a b l e o n l y i n i m p o u n d m e n t s o f t h e same t y p e o f environment as t h a t of t h e o r i g i n a l paradigm. The d i f f e r e n c e i n j u s t o n e e n v i r o n m e n t a l f a c t o r can r e s u l t i n a wrong o r m i s s e d i m p a c t prediction. Marmorek e t a l . (1986) examined e l e v e n C a n a d i a n h y d r o e l e c t r i c developments (including Revelstoke) located i n diverse environmental settings. From t h e r e s u l t s of these post-development analyses they d e r i v e d a s e t of "generic impact h y p o t h e s e s and d i a g r a m s " . T h e s e h y p o t h e s e s , i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h some f u r t h e r recommendations, a r e t o m a k e E I S p r e d i c t i o n s more a c c u r a t e a n d t e s t a b l e f o r f u t u r e development. Duchnisky (1987) used t h e r e s e r v o i r paradigm t o e v a l u a t e t h e E I S p r e d i c t i o n s f o r t h e p r o p o s e d S i t e C dam i n B.C. He g i v e s a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e paradigm. 1  Marmorek e t a l . (1986) r e p o r t t h i s p r e d i c t i o n as c o r r e c t . They s t a t e t h a t the " R e v e l s t o k e r e s e r v o i r i s a c t i n g as a heat t r a p and d i s c h a r g e d w a t e r i s a b o v e h i s t o r i c a l mean v a l u e s i n w i n t e r a n d b e l o w t h e m i n summer ( b a s e d o n Watson, 1985)." The d i s c h a r g e i s n o t e n t i r e l y f r o m t h e h y p o l i m n i o n , b u t r a t h e r m i x e d w i t h u p p e r , w a r m e r w a t e r s i n summer. Temperature d a t a r e p o r t e d by S m i t h ( 1 9 8 7 ) make t h i s p r e d i c t i o n i n c o r r e c t . Another problem i s the basis of t h e p r e d i c t i o n : was i t C o l u m b i a R i v e r w a t e r p r e - M i c a o r p o s t ? The E I S does n o t s p e c i f y t h i s . M a s o n ( 1 9 8 2 ) r e p o r t s p o s t - M i c a Dam w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e s f o r the Columbia River at Revelstoke as: summer maximum 9-12° C, w i n t e r temperatures Q - 3 C . These t e m p e r a t u r e s a r e c a u s e d b y t h e h y p o l i m n e t i c d i s c h a r g e s f r o m t h e M i c a Dam, t h u s r a i s i n g t h e t e m p e r a t u r e i n w i n t e r a n d l o w e r i n g i t i n summer a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e p r e - M i c a C o l u m b i a R i v e r t e m p e r a t u r e regime. D i s c h a r g e f r o m M i c a Dam i s g e n e r a l l y b e l o w 4*C i n w i n t e r ( S m i t h , 1988). C  Note Marmorek e t a l . (1986) g i v e ; , a f i g u r e o f 77%, b u t t h e E I S does s t a t e 17%. C l a r k e t a l . (1985) e x c l u d e EIS p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t a r e based on m i t i g a t i o n measures. H o w e v e r , t h e e n h a n c e m e n t o r c r e a t i o n o f new f i s h h a b i t a t i s a compensation measure. As s u c h i t s h o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d i n t h e EIS p r e d i c t i o n . 3  ^ C l a r k e t a l . (1985) a l t o g e t h e r e x c l u d e E I S p r e d i c t i o n s based on m i t i g a t i o n measures from t h e post-development a n a l y s i s . T h i s i s c o r r e c t as i ti s i m p o s s i b l e t o know w h a t v a l u e t h e p a r a m e t e r w o u l d h a v e w i t h o u t t h e m i t i g a t i v e measure. However, i n t h e case o f n i t r o g e n s u p e r s a t u r a t i o n a s t a n d a r d e x i s t s ( 1 1 5 % ) a g a i n s t w h i c h t o e v a l u a t e t h e i m p a c t on t h e a q u a t i c s y s t e m . T h e r e f o r e , nitrogen supersaturation i s evaluated. 5 C l a r k e t a l . (1985, p. 527) d e f i n e an impact p r e d i c t i o n as "a p r o b a b i l i s t i c s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g a change o r c h a n g e s i n environmental parameter or p a r a m e t e r s a r i s i n g f r o m a p r o j e c t a c t i o n ( a l s o , no ' c h a n g e ' ) . " I t i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o s t a t e t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f a p o l l u t a n t , b u t o n e m u s t go f u r t h e r and e i t h e r g i v e t h e ambient c o n c e n t r a t i o n o r p r e d i c t t h e e f f e c t on t h e s y s t e m .  149 CHAPTER 6 THE CURRENT ENERGY PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS I N B R I T I S H COLUMBIA In Mica)  t h e decade  a n d two s t o r a g e  following of  1964-1974, two l a r g e  those  River  (Keenleyside  the procedures i d e n t i f i e d on t h e C o l u m b i a  Treaty  energy  dams  with  projects  River  with  power  dams  or  their  The e x p e r i e n c e broader  environmental  participation  impact  i n the licensing  licensed  1 and  and  built  social  t h e framework o f t h e Columbia of t h i s  forces  1 9 7 1 , t h e B.C. g o v e r n m e n t s t a r t e d t o i n t r o d u c e  mitigate  River  i n t h e Water A c t (1960) and, i n t h e case  period  and p r o v i d e  scale public  C o n s e q u e n t l y as e a r l y  l e g i s l a t i o n and i d e n t i f y and f o r public  and o p e r a t i o n  of large  l e d to widespread  c o n c e r n about t h e i r economic and e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t s . as  (Peace  and Duncan) were  system, w i t h i n  t h e U.S.A.  coupled  scale  of such  information  projects  about  (see Table  2.1). Even place  though  before  t h e ELUC A c t ( 1 9 7 1 ) a n d t h e B.C. E n e r g y A c t ( 1 9 7 3 ) w e r e i n  B.C. H y d r o a p p l i e d  governments o f t h e day were the  construction  of a  f o ra licence to build  pre-occupied with  large  scale  R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t was t h e r e f o r e the  Water  this and  A c t of 1960.  A c t were the very In  scale  government greatly energy  inadequate  real  reaction  energy  This  introduced  projects.  (both  This  application  t o B.C.  concluding  chapter  experience  chapter  which  that  reviews  Site  assesses  "C"  The  the provisions  and w i t h  Dam.  the prospect  of large  i n t h e 1980's t h e  Commission A c t (1980) w h i c h and l i c e n s i n g  t h e components o f t h i s proposal,  the extent  as  of  system of the p u b l i c  and e l e c t r i c a l )  f o r the s e l e c t i o n  Hydro's  system.  o f such p r o j e c t s as the Revelstoke  hydrocarbon  P r o j e c t and  t o procede under t h e procedures o f  t h e changed v a l u e  t h e B.C. U t i l i t i e s  procedures  Coal  transmission  has demonstrated  to deal with  to the Revelstoke  projects  changed  study  complexities  the Northeast  electrical  permitted  t h e R e v e l s t o k e Dam, t h e  a  to which  of  provided  "regulated"  A c t and t h e i r  preliminary the current  overcomes t h e shortcomings o f t h e p r o c e s s used f o r t h e R e v e l s t o k e  Dam.  to the system  150  6.1  THE ENERGY PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS The  energy the  contentious nature  projects,  such  as t h e Seven-Mile  Cheekeye-Dunsmuir  1970s,  of the selection  i n prompting  t o Vancouver  t h e government  Island  Site  development  C Hydroelectric  determining  t o what  R e v e l s t o k e Case The It of  Dam o n t h e P e a c e R i v e r . t h e EPRP  i n  EPRP w a s i n t r o d u c e d u n d e r  "Regulated"  and improved  energy  or additions  i s that  f o r the  serve as a t e s t f o r  the issues  raised  by t h e  projects.  t h e B.C. U t i l i t i e s procedure These  1  to existing  ones  Commission A c t (1980).  f o r the selection are defined  like  pipelines,  and l i c e n s i n g  as major  new  energy  transmission  lines  (>500 k V ) , e n e r g y  s t o r a g e and u s e f a c i l i t i e s ,  plants  The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e EPRP i s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  (>20 MW).  M i n i s t e r o f Energy Mines some d e c i s i o n s Utilities the in  Project  t h e review  project, obtain  (BCUC),  of project  an Energy  shown  i n Figure  the Minister  s e t up u n d e r  proposals. follow  ( M i n i s t e r o f EMPR).  the U t i l i t i e s (EPCC) a s s i s t  I n order  However, The B.C.  Commission A c t , and theMinister  t o proceed  t h e procedures  certificate  o f Environment.  of the  with  prescribed  f o ri t s construction  a  o f EMPR proposed  b y t h e EPRP t o and an  energy  f o r i t s operation.2  EPRP c o n s i s t s  application The  must  Project  operating c e r t i f i c a t e The  with  C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee  t h e proponent  and hydro- and t h e r m a l - e l e c t r i c  and P e t r o l e u m Resources  a r e made j o i n t l y  Commission  Energy  the  To d a t e t h e o n l y  procedure  This w i l l  addresses  (1978)  Study.  p r o v i d e d a changed  projects  p r o p o s a l r e v i e w e d by t h i s  extent  scale  t o i n t r o d u c e t h e Energy  P r o j e c t R e v i e w P r o c e s s ( E P R P ) i n 1980 ( O ' R i o r d a n , J . , 1 9 8 8 ) . hydroelectric  of large  ( 1 9 7 3 - 1 9 7 5 ) a n d R e v e l s t o k e Dams a n d  Transmission Line  was i n s t r u m e n t a l  and l i c e n s i n g  6.1.  of the application The a p p l i c a t i o n  and t h e a p p l i c a t i o n  phases,  procedure  procedure which  and t h e r e v i e w i s divided  are outlined  into  procedure the  pre-  i n F i g u r e 6.2.  p r e - a p p l i c a t i o n p h a s e i s n o t a r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e EPRP, b u t i t i s u s e f u l  151  F i g u r e 6.1  T h e B.C. E n e r g y P r o j e c t R e v i e w P r o c e s s : Procedures ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, 1982)  Certification  PRELIMINARIES T O APPLICATION WATER LICENCE/POLLUTION C O N T R O L PERMIT APPLICATION As appropriate  Prospectus Preliminary Planning Report APPLICATION FOR A N ENERGY PROJECT CERTIFICATE Reviewed for compliance with regulations  t  MINISTER(S) Disposition decision  19 (1) (a)  19 (1) (b)  ENERGY PROJECT CERTIFICATE  CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC C O N V E N I E N C E A N D NECESSITY  Regulated energy projects reviewed in public hearing by B.C.U.C.  Public utility projects regulated by B.C.U.C.  TERMS OF REFERENCE ISSUED FOR PUBLIC HEARING  T O B.C.U.C. UNDER PART 3 OF THE A C T  CONSTRUCTION A N D OPERATION  The Commission may convene a hearing on the application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity  Subject to conditions and other statutory requirements  T B.C.U.C. HEARING B.C.U.C. RECOMMENDATIONS T O CABINET T CABINET DECISION on Energy Project Certificate and approvals, licences, or permits of Water Act and Pollution Control Act CONSTRUCTION CABINET DECISION on Energy Operation Certificate OPERATION  If approved, must satisfy other statutory requirements  19 (1) (c) EXEMPTION ORDER  152  Figure  6.2  The E n e r g y P r o j e c t R e v i e w P r o c e s s : Pre-Application A p p l i c a t i o n Phases ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, 1982)  and  PRE-APPLICATION PHASE k  PROSPECTUS (1) (2) (3)  General project description and schedule. Project rationale. Description of proposed preliminary studies. • ~ Review by Energy Project Coordinating Committee and Working Committees; consultation with proponent  PRELIMINARY P L A N N I N G REPORT (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)  Identification and assessment of feasible alternative locations. Analysis of alternative locations and identification of preferences. Preliminary Procurement Plan. Terms of reference for proposed environmental/socio-economic impact studies. Terms of reference for proposed project justification studies. Description of public consultation program. Preliminary list of approvals, licences, and permits required. Review by Energy Project Coordinating Committee and Working Committees; consultation with proponent i n developing Application  : APPLICATION  APPLICATION PHASE i  (1) (2)  Description of applicant as per Regulation. Project description: (a) purpose, costs, and ancillary facilities. (b) timetable for construction, operation, abandonment, reclamation, with critical dates. (c) public works, undertakings, or infrastructure entailed with costs and schedule. (3) Environmental and socio-economic impact assessment and proposals for minimizing negative impacts and m a x i m i z i n g positive impacts. (4) Project justification: energy supply/demand, technical feasibility, financial feasibility, procurement, benefit-cost data. (5) A n c i l l a r y applications: approvals, permits, licences required under Pollution Control Act, Water Act, and other pertinent statutes. (6) Public consultation program description and summary of response. (7) Other information as required. 1  Review by Energy Project Coordinating Committee and Working Committees; consultation with applicant as necessary  }  A P P L I C A T I O N D I S P O S I T I O N BY M I N I S T E R ( S ) [Section 19(1) of Utilities  Commission  Act]  153 in  the preparation  applicant's  p r o s p e c t u s and p r e l i m i n a r y  three Working various and  a n d r e v i e w o f a n a p p l i c a t i o n ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, 1 9 8 2 ) .  Committees  proponent  This  then  planning  under  prepares  an a p p l i c a t i o n  which, as r e q u i r e d  the  6.3).  a r e r e v i e w e d b y t h e EPCC a n d i t s identifies  the concerns  government a g e n c i e s , and t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r o t h e r  f o r project  contain  (Figure  report  the information  Minister  the U t i l i t i e s  by R e g u l a t i o n  Commission  f o r an energy  6.2.  licences, Act.  of the permits  The  project  388/80 o f t h e U t i l i t i e s  shown i n F i g u r e  The  project  certificate  Commission Act,  must  The a p p l i c a t i o n i s s u b m i t t e d t o  o f EMPR a n d i s r e v i e w e d b y t h e EPCC a n d i t s W o r k i n g C o m m i t t e e s i n  consultation  with  the proponent  deficiencies.  T h e EPCC r e p o r t s  to  identify  t o and a d v i s e s  and  correct  the Minister  information  o f EMPR, who  then  d e c i d e s on t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . Four  options  application and  (c)).  a r e open  and t h e t h r e e Firstly,  a p p l i c a t i o n from  operation  determines review  application.  o f EMPR c a n r e j e c t  any p r o v i s i o n  subject  t h e EPCC.  of the  (19(1)(a),(b)  the application  outright.  o f E n v i r o n m e n t , exempt Construction  t o any c o n d i t i o n s  with  and  and s t a t u t o r y  convenience  o r n o t t o convene  the application, Upon a p p r o v a l ,  decides  and n e c e s s i t y a  public  E n v i r o n m e n t , may exempt t h e p r o j e c t  the Minister  whether  (19(l)(b)).  hearing,  T h e BCUC  or  reject  the necessary  the the  statutory  This step i s f a c i l i t a t e d  o f EMPR, t o g e t h e r w i t h during  fora  and, f o l l o w i n g  t o approve  t h e p r o p o n e n t must o b t a i n  However, t h e M i n i s t e r  utility,  b y t h e BCUC a s a n a p p l i c a t i o n  p e r m i t s and l i c e n c e s b e f o r e commencing c o n s t r u c t i o n . by  6.1  of the Act ( 1 9 ( l ) ( c ) ) .  may p r o c e e d  i t t o be d e a l t  of public  whether  of  p r o c e d u r e s shown i n F i g u r e  i n t h e case o f an a p p l i c a t i o n by a p u b l i c  EMPR may o r d e r  certificate  the rejection  imposed.  Thirdly, of  o f EMPR:  the concurrence of the M i n i s t e r  of the project  requirements  review  the Minister  S e c o n d l y , h e may, w i t h the  to the Minister  the Minister of  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n  from  F i g u r e 6.3  The E n e r g y P r o j e c t C o o r d i n a t i n g ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, 1982)  Committee  and I t s T h r e e W o r k i n g  Committees  ENERGY PROJECT C O O R D I N A T I N G C O M M I T T E E Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Project Analysis Branch) Ministry of Environment (Assessment Branch) British Columbia Utilities Commission (Staff Member)  WORKING COMMITTEE  ENVIRONMENT/RESOURCE/ L A N D USE  SOCIAL/ECONOMIC  ENERGY/ECONOMICS/FINANCE  AREA OF GENERAL INTEREST  Resource Management Land Use Planning  Regional and Community Development Planning Social Service Policies  Energy Policy Industrial Strategy Taxation/Financial Policy  FUNCTION REGARDING APPLICATION A N D PROJECT  Environmental Impact Analysis Benefit/Cost Analysis Mitigation/Compensation Permitting  Impact Analysis Social services Mitigation/Compensation Permitting  Energy Policy Demand/Supply Forecasting Economic/Financial Feasibility Benefit/Cost Analysis  MEMBER AGENCIES  'Currently  chairs working committee.  Environment* Forests Agriculture and Food Transportation and Highways Lands, Parks and Housing Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Provincial Secretary and Government Services  Coordinated by Socio/Economic Coordinating Committee (SECC) Review Agencies Include: Municipal Affairs* Health/Education Lands, Parks and Housing Attorney General/Labour Transportation and Highways Provincial Secretary and Government Services Industry and Small Business Development  Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources* Finance Industry and Small Business Development  155 any  of the provisions of the A c t . The  fourth  application hearing  choice  open  f o ra d e t a i l e d review  (19(l)(a)).  two M i n i s t e r s on t h e b a s i s  the  public  the  approval  or can  hearing  the Minister  to Cabinet,  a report  necessary  licences  construction  of the energy  certificate,  energy  hold  With  t h e energy  and i n c l u d e  i n which  c a n be project  certificate  and p e r m i t s  certificate,  any c o n d i t i o n s  specified.  Whereas  certificate  of public  to satisfy  and t h e proponent's  project  a public  cannot  convenience  be  concerning  of t h e energy  certificate  Cabinet  l i c e n c e o r permit of the  The p r o p o n e n t m u s t  other  statutory  acquire  requirements.  " s u b s t a n t i a l compliance" w i t h the Cabinet  necessary a  Following  d e c i s i o n t o approve  project  any a p p r o v a l ,  an  a r e d e t e r m i n e d by  and recommendations  w h i c h t h e n makes t h e f i n a l  proposal.  impose any c o n d i t i o n s ,  project  t h e n must  refer  o f t h e recommendations o f t h e EPCC.  t h e BCUC s u b m i t s  reject the project  terms  i s to  o r r e j e c t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n and t h e c o n d i t i o n s  certificate  Following  EMPR  f o r the hearing  W a t e r A c t ( 1 9 7 9 ) a n d W a s t e Management A c t ( 1 9 8 0 ) . the  of  t o t h e BCUC, w h i c h  The t e r m s o f r e f e r e n c e  the  project  to  Cabinet  an energy  operating  f o r the operation decision  appealed,  and n e c e s s i t y  issues  with  that  by  c a n be  of the  respect  t o an  t h e BCUC  f o r a  (Ministry  o f EMPR,  1 9 8 2 a ; A n d r e w s a n d H i g h a m 1 9 8 6 ; Thompson e t a l . , 1 9 8 1 ) . No  provisions  management The  of environmental  Ministry  general  are provided  o f EMPR  i n a  and s o c i o - e c o n o m i c Technical  f r a m e w o r k shown i n F i g u r e  specific  requirements  f o r an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  6.4, w h i c h  of i n d i v i d u a l energy  m a i n l y on e x i s t i n g government a g e n c i e s , degree  on t h e proponent's  steering the  field  Discussion  staff.  impacts Paper  structure  the  during  construction.  (1983a)  proposes the  c a n be a d a p t e d projects.  for  according  to the  The s t r u c t u r e  relies  e s p e c i a l l y l o c a l b r a n c h e s , a n d t o some  A ministerial  or cabinet  order  sets  up a  c o m m i t t e e a n d t w o i m p a c t management b o d i e s w h o s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s implementation of a p r o j e c t i n accordance w i t h  a p p r o v a l s and p o l i c y  156  F i g u r e 6.4  G e n e r a l F r a m e w o r k f o r M a n a g i n g t n v i r o n m e n t a l and S o c i o - E c o n o m i c Impacts ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, 1983a)  Cabinet/Ministerial Order  •  Energy Project  Coordinating  Committee  •  Provincial Ministry and  • •  Regional  British C o l u m b i a Utilities C o m m i s s i o n Staff of federal, regional, and other  •  Headquarters  Staff  governments  Proponent and  Contractors  St. E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact Provincial and other surveillance  Management  government  staff  Proponent environmental supervision  staff  Functions Compliance with Approvals  S o c i o - E c o n o m i c Impact M a n a g e m e n t  M o n i t o r i n g of Impacts  Provincial and federal g o v e r n m e n t  M a n a g e m e n t of  Regional/local government  C o m p e n s a t i o n of  Impacts Impacts  P r o p o n e n t c o m m u n i t y liaison staff  Environmental Monitoring  Social M o n i t o r i n g  Information Mechanism  Information Mechanism  Public a n d .Advisory G r o u p s  staff  staff  157 directions.  Site-specific  cooperative  approach.  headquarter o f f i c i a l s .  problems  Unresolved  t o range from " i n f o r m a l  defined  terms  bodies.  A  of reference more  detailed  B.C.  Hydro  1981  of approved regulated  t h e two  Public input i s  committees" w i t h  t o t h e two i m p a c t  structure  senior  and t h o s e  or order;  minor ones.  to advisory  administrative  following  Dam  the introduction  f o r an  energy  on t h e Peace R i v e r  clearly  management  and p r o c e d u r e s  f o rthe  energy p r o j e c t s w i l l  experience  i n applying  (Figure  five  and i s s u e d  commissioners  Following  lengthy  be  t h e EPRP  Panel submitted i t s report The  eighty  reference, river  t h e terms  conditions  of the energy  impacts could  concluded  be m i t i g a t e d  of reference  a l l issues project  the a p p l i c a t i o n t o the a panel of  f o r a public  hearing.  (BCUC, 1 9 8 3 a , b , c ) .  pertaining  certificate,  t o t h e terms o f  review  of  e x p o r t and i n d u s t r i a l development  that whereas  northern policies.  S i t e C was t e c h n i c a l l y f e a s i b l e and  and compensated, n e i t h e r  t o recommend  C  In the spring of  The C o m m i s s i o n a p p o i n t e d  p a r t i c u l a r energy p r o j e c t had been j u s t i f i e d commissioners  f o r the Site  ( 2 4 November 1981 t o 2 November 1 9 8 2 ) , t h e  covered  development, and e l e c t r i c i t y  commissioners  referred  B.C.  and recommendations t o C a b i n e t  recommendations  i n September 1980,  certificate  i n northeastern  6.1, 1 9 ( 1 ) ) .  public hearings  o f t h e EPRP  project  t h e M i n i s t r i e s o f EMPR a n d E n v i r o n m e n t  BCUC f o r a r e v i e w  four  contact  to  ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, 1 9 8 3 a ) .  applied  Hydroelectric  that  referred  and  THE SITE C EXPERIENCE Immediately  The  resolve  b y t h e M i n i s t r y o f EMPR a s i t g a i n s  to f u t u r e p r o j e c t s  be  compensation claims  and r e l a t i o n s h i p s  implementation of the conditions developed  will  i n a coordinated  be s p e c i f i e d i n t h e c e r t i f i c a t e  management b o d i e s p o s s i b l y c o u l d  envisaged  6.2  issues  The p r o c e d u r e f o r l a r g e  r e q u i r i n g a r b i t r a t i o n should impact  a r e t o be r e s o l v e d  the deferral  t h e need n o r t h e c h o i c e o f  b y B.C. H y d r o .  of the issuance  This l e d of the energy  158 project  certificate  other commissioner  until  such  time  t h a t the  .  at  that  time  i t may  ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, Because  project  proposal,  monitoring project  6.2.1  C was  l e a d s up  administrative  can  The  program  for  be  and  a  year  retained  the  decision  on  10 y e a r s  smaller projects  e v a l u a t i o n of  to approve  experience.  to  the  implementation  took for  C):  r e c e i v e the p u b l i c ' s  of  or  The  Panel's  application.  The  .  instead"  the  that part  reject  an  assessment  recommendations c o n d i t i o n s of  Panel  the Panel i t s e l f ,  the  of  energy of  the  for  a  energy  Duplication  their  hearings  were  to  BCUC  to explain  a f o r m a l one  submissions  coordinated their B.C.  and  with  f o r pre-hearing  Panel  reviewed  the  visited  the  were h e l d i n F o r t  St.  the review procedures  and  to hear  submissions  on  and  Hydro a l s o  were  asked  in  Panel  and  reviewed  the  answered d a t a d e f i c i e n c i e s , G o v e r n m e n t i n p u t was to  file  "blue  found  papers"  noted to  be  outlining  of the h e a r i n g s t h r e e weeks.  e f f o r t were  proceed  the  requests f o r a d d i t i o n a l information  volume r e p o r t .  ministries  data  The  a year  p r e - h e a r i n g meetings  This delayed the s t a r t of  half  f o r the h e a r i n g .  i n a two  various  a half,  t e c h n i c a l c o n s u l t a n t s , and  i n f o r m a l meeting  Hydro's response.  concerns.  Two  and  s u g g e s t i o n s , and  filed  and  hearings.  l e g a l Counsel  e s t a b l i s h the procedures Intervenors  a year  the  an  (near S i t e  formal  the  pertains  John  their  implemented, o n l y  based  project.  inadequate;  build  to Cabinet's  area of the proposed  by  preferable to  another  1983a).  i f t h i s w e r e t o be i s s u e d .  hearing process  application,  B.C.  . . . f o r at l e a s t  (BCUC,  the  HEARING PROCESS  activities  and  justified;  3  not  structure  certificate,  THE  be  1983b).  Site  t h e EPRP w h i c h  c o u l d be  recommended t h e r e j e c t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n  Cabinet decided to "shelve . . . Site C .  project  t o be m i n i m i z e d .  s i x phases  each  H e n c e most o f  addressing  the  different  159 aspects  of the a p p l i c a t i o n :  supply;  ( 3 ) p r o j e c t c o s t and adequacy o f d e s i g n ;  social  and  financial  economic impacts  arguments.  impacts, on  Reports  consultants  to  (1) e l e c t r i c  B.C.  on  and  the Panel  economic  Hydro  each  and  of  and  provided  the  Panel  b y t h e BCUC.  awarded  costs  on  these  demand; ( 2 ) e l e c t r i c (4) environmental,  electricity  issues  users;  were  hearings  hearings  with  formal  to a l l parties.  activities.  Funding  b y B.C. H y d r o .  community  I n d i ans  T r i b a l Counsel.  organizations,  conducted  i n four  presentation  formal  meetings,  and  an  and  individuals,  delay  of  a p p l i c a t i o n were o n l y their  submissions  special  informal  phased  meetings  with  information,  filed  the formal  before  before  participants.  More  to better identify  impacts  resources  hearings  on  f o r l a c k of data.  w e r e t o be e v a l u a t e d b e f o r e  Hence  requested  and  of  Data  by  forestry  Commission.  adequacy resulted i n the  Some  filed  of the  Thus d e l a y s w e r e  caused  a n d h a d t o be s t u d i e d  hearings  losses  the  levels,  deficiencies  the hearings.  services could  less  communities.  during the hearing  the issuance  unphased  governmental input  t h e i s s u e s and c l a r i f y  and t h e s o c i a l  and  b y some M i n i s t r i e s w h e n t h e y  70% of t h e f o r m a l  examination  on t h e  of evidence,  Counsel  t h e h e a r i n g , was o u t d a t e d .  than  based  t o t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n and  hearings.  the start  w h e n u p - d a t e s o r new d a t a w e r e f i l e d by  respect  stages,  i n o r d e r o f government  a p p l i c a n t , Commission  formally identified  just  private  f o r i n t e r v e n o r s was  cross-examination  As a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d , t h e l a c k o f e a r l y  initial  by  final  of the i s s u e s .  formats:  I n t e r v e n o r s were heard  Problems were experienced  in  (6)  (5)  I f possible,  These were  Most m e e t i n g s w e r e h e l d i n F o r t S t . J o h n and t h e n e a r b y  of d a t a .  land use,  However, a t t h e end o f each o f t h e h e a r i n g  t o be p a i d  were  and  prepared  i n t e r v e n o r s ' need and c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g The  energy  benefit-cost evaluation;  distributed  i n t e r v e n o r s were t o c o o r d i n a t e t h e i r not  energy  were  spent  evidence.  on c r o s s -  Many o f t h e  n o t be e v a l u a t e d under  transmission  at the lines  o f an energy p r o j e c t c e r t i f i c a t e , and  160 the  determination  undertaken  by  the monitoring  socio-economic native  of f i s h e r i e s  impacts  program.  on t h e l o c a l  p o p u l a t i o n , as w e l l  compensation  and r e c r e a t i o n a l The  fishing  l o s s e s were  identification  communities,  of a  regional  t o be  number o f  districts,  and  as t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e m i t i g a t i o n and  m e a s u r e s h a d t o be d e f e r r e d .  They t o o w e r e  t o be d e a l t w i t h b y  t h e m o n i t o r i n g p r o g r a m recommended b y t h e P a n e l . ^  6.2.2  MANDATE AND E X P E R T I S E OF THE BCUC REVIEW PANEL The  BCUC  review  Panel  h e a r i n g f o r S i t e C. 1980),  was  given  very  broad  I n t h e c o n t e x t o f B.C.'s e n e r g y  they were t o examine p r o j e c t j u s t i f i c a t i o n ;  use, s o c i a l The briefly  and economic i m p a c t s ; and o t h e r  particular outlined.  6.2.4 o f t h i s  concerns Those  thesis.  f o r project Under  and  ancillary  undertakings.  and  o p e r a t i o n were  environmental, terms,  land  as w e l l  as p r o p o s a l s  means f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n land  use impacts  was  design,  f o r their of these  resources, a g r i c u l t u r e , outdoor  land alienation;  regional local  economies.  Other matters  was  impacts  mitigation measures.  the local  and p r o v i n c i a l  topics  were  are described i n Section was  t o review public  such  works,  f o r construction  directed  to assess the  i n the short  and l o n g  and compensation,  and t h e  The r e v i e w climate,  of environmental  hydrology,  recreation, forestry, w i l d l i f e ,  regional  s e t t l e m e n t , land use,  of these  and s c h e d u l e  S o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c i s s u e s t o be e v a l u a t e d w e r e : future  ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR,  of the project,  The P a n e l  and economic  t o cover  each  the Panel  feasibility  t o be e x a m i n e d .  f o r the public  design; environmental, land  under  The d e s i g n , s a f e t y  use, social  policy  justification  project  mandate  matters.  t o be a d d r e s s e d  items as t h e adequacy and t e c h n i c a l  and  a  and f i s h e r i e s .  heritage sites; labour markets;  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , and s t a b i l i t y ;  terrain  p r e s e n t and  community and  and r e g i o n a l and  t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e v i e w w e r e t h e a w a r d i n g  of a p p r o v a l s , l i c e n c e o r p e r m i t s under c e r t a i n s e c t i o n s o f t h e Water and Waste  161 Management A c t s . m a  tter  did  general  and  Although  these  to  riot  not  i s that  cumulative  them.  aggregate  be  of  Site  Panel  was  of  the  of  C  the  Site  to  of  C  of  a l l Peace  concern  Development  of  free  review  to  northern  reference  also  the  thus  other Panel's  developments  development  progressed  o n l y an  Panel  too  incremental the  context  to  far  review  Panel  be  in  projects.  i n t e r v e n o r s , the  Futherraore,  development  any  However, the  t h e P e a c e R i v e r had  proposal.  i n the  address  northern  River  some o f  approach f o r i t s review,  undertaken  evaluation  cover  impacts  i s s u e s were  the  of the S i t e C a p p l i c a t i o n .  specifically  address  t a k e an  could  note  r e l e v a n t to the review  mandate  did  Of  thought  beyond  their  .mandate. The Cabinet the be  terms a  of  r e p o r t and  refusal  or  giving  of  of  energy  approvals,  the  sector,  expertise however,  positions survey,  of  work  i n water  licences,  the  experience  resource  stages  section, of  the  legal  review;  technical, environmental,  6.2.3  supporting  or  to  submit  to  rationale,  on  any  conditions to  operation certificates;  permits,  with  any  necessary  and  the  terras  or  Review of  Panel  the  private  mainly  commissioners and  One  retained  consultant  socio-economic  in  Director. the  firms  engineering from  forestry  of the f i v e  in  the  ranged  development,  Regional D i s t r i c t was  was  As  senior and  land  commissioners  was  d e s c r i b e d i n the  prehearing assisted  and the  hearing Panel  in  matters.  PROJECT SELECTION U n d e r t h e EPRP t h e  the  energy  c i t y manager.  counsel  and  the  project certificate;  conservation  a P e a c e R i v e r b u s i n e s s m a n and  Commissioners  W a s t e Management A c t s .  BCUC  t o s c h o o l t r u s t e e and  previous  energy  p r o j e c t and  c o n d i t i o n s , u n d e r t h e W a t e r and The  the  recommendations, i n c l u d i n g  issuance  i n c l u d e d i n the  directed  i s s u e of  voluntary pre-planning  stage.  project selection The  can  first  preliminary planning  be  considered  report  calls  in for  162 the  comparison of a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s ,  alternative(s) impact  assessment.  evaluation the  on t h e b a s i s  of a preliminary  sites  should  as o f p r o p o s a l s  and methodology f o r detailed  c o m p u l s o r y r e q u i r e m e n t , t o be i n c l u d e d assessment.  identified of  studies  the of  Major  environmental  engineering,  s e l e c t i o n become a  i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l and s o c i o - e c o n o m i c and s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  f o r a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s and a p r e f e r r e d  technical  for  be i n c l u d e d .  O n l y i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n p h a s e o f t h e EPRP d o e s p r o j e c t  impact  of the preferred  e n v i r o n m e n t a l and s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  A c l e a r o u t l i n e of the c r i t e r i a  of a l t e r n a t i v e s as w e l l  preferred  and t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  environmental,  impacts  a r e t o be  l o c a t i o n s e l e c t e d on t h e b a s i s  socio-economic,  and c o s t  criteria  ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, 1 9 8 2 a ) . In  the Site  examined  C public  together  with  review  project  b y t h e BCUC  justification.  s e l e c t i o n was  B.C. H y d r o h a d e v a l u a t e d  only  alternative to Site  thermal-electric generating  plant.  The  P a n e l r u l e d o u t H a t C r e e k a s a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e b e c a u s e a much  reduced  Site  energy growth f o r e c a s t  C inappropriate.  nonconventional latter were  were  probably  consideration  alternatives  a  better  by  choice  smaller  than  t o a l l other  the benefit-cost  of a wide  the Panel  S i t e C was t h e o n l y  i t was p r e f e r a b l e  6.2.4  had rendered  not f e a s i b l e , but that  demonstrate that that  A  Hat Creek  project  one  electric  C—the  Panel,  Site  possible  range  comparison  with  of conventional  and  l e d to the conclusion hydroelectric C.  that  generating  B.C. H y d r o  the  plants  had f a i l e d  to  s o u r c e t o be d e v e l o p e d n e x t a n d  sources.  PROJECT J U S T I F I C A T I O N The  EPRP i s n o t d e s i g n e d a s a t w o - s t a g e a p p r o v a l  provisions broad design,  f o r the separate,  policy  context  resulting i n a  consecutive  leading  assessment  procedure.  T h e r e a r e no  of project  need  i nthe  and o f  project  t o an a p p r o v a l - i n - p r i n c i p l e  conditional  licence,  should  a  project  be  approved.  163 Whereas  the project  prospectus  and  proponent  may. a d d r e s s  the preliminary  project  planning  a p p l i c a t i o n phase o f t h e EPRP, he i s r e q u i r e d for  an energy p r o j e c t  define the  the project's  Province,  certificate purpose,  a n d known  (Figure  justification  report  of  proposed p r o j e c t j u s t i f i c a t i o n  Terms  project  certificate.  viability the  must  be i n c l u d e d  Topics  t o be  depending  government  indication  on t h e type  subsidies  o f how  project  covered  resources  and  financial  t o the Province  use.  Data  and  requirements  the potential f o r e x t e r n a l i t i e s ,  ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, justification  and c o s t s  The p r o j e c t  f o r the energy  a r e t h e economic  and energy  of project,  r e v i e w o f t h e p r o j e c t b y t h e BCUC.  report.  i n the application  of the project, the overall benefits  p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s on energy  may v a r y and  studies  of reference f o r  a r e worked out i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the  EPCC's W o r k i n g C o m m i t t e e s and o u t l i n e d i n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y justification  i s to broadly  a n d demand, b e n e f i t s t o  and c o n s t r a i n t s .  studies  pre-  i n the application  The p r o s p e c t u s  i m p l i c a t i o n s of supply  issues  the voluntary  t o do s o o n l y  6.2).  i n both the  1982a).  There  i s t o be d e a l t  i s , h o w e v e r , no  with  i n the public  Hence t h e p r o c e d u r e f o l l o w e d  for Site C i s  instructive. B.C. filed was  Hydro bypassed t h e p r e - a p p l i c a t i o n phase f o r t h e S i t e C p r o j e c t , and  t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n e n e r g y p r o j e c t r i g h t away. reviewed  mandate.  at  the public  hearing  held  by  Project  t h e BCUC  under  justification a very  broad  The P a n e l was t o r e v i e w t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s : " e l e c t r i c i t y demand f o r e c a s t s r e l a t i v e t o s u p p l y i n a total energy c o n t e x t , and i n d u s t r i a l development opportunities made a v a i l a b l e i n t h e P r o v i n c e , t h e project's financial impacts on t h e A p p l i c a n t and e l e c t r i c i t y u s e r s ; and t h e p r o j e c t ' s o v e r a l l impact on t h e Province, s p e c i f i c a l l y i t s social benefit-cost, including e n v i r o n m e n t a l , l a n d u s e , s o c i a l and economic i m p a c t s . " (BCUC, 1 9 8 3 b , p . 6 )  Furthermore, Guidelines serve  ELUC's  (1980)  Environmental  and G u i d e l i n e s  as a r e f e r e n c e  f o r review.  and S o c i a l  Impact  f o r Benefit-Cost In consideration  Compensation/Mitigation  Analysis  (1977) w e r e  to  of the p r o v i n c i a l energy  164 policy  and t h e i r  mandate,  determine whether whole. was  design  Hydro's  of the Panel's  between  evaluation  the review  private  financing and/or  social  was t o  benefit-cost  justification  C was  which  t h e need  took  interest.  into  The P a n e l  f e a s i b l e , but i f i t were  factors  t h e impact  as a  (e.g.interest  on c u s t o m e r s '  and  rates,  rates  could  Whereas  f o r Site  also  t o be  B.C.  C, t h e  consideration a l l showed  found  built  electricity be  difference  f o r the s e l e c t i o n and  by t h e government.  had e s t a b l i s h e d  criteria,  A basic  uses and t h e s o c i a l w o r t h o f c a p i t a l and l a b o u r ,  of S i t e  changed,  criteria  relevant.  b y B.C. H y d r o  proposed  was n o t i n t h e p u b l i c  exogenous  objective  of project  a r e most  used  and those  corporate  foregone resource project  their  hearings.  findings  the c r i t e r i a  of projects  government's  the  to separate  i n t h e s i x phases of t h e formal  noted  that  p u b l i c r e v i e w w a s t h e n u n d e r t a k e n , i n w h i c h some a t t e m p t  by t h e P a n e l  Several was  concluded  t h e S i t e C p r o j e c t was i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e P r o v i n c e  An e x h a u s t i v e  made  the Panel  that  that, the prematurely  export  significant.  markets)  Its final  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o C a b i n e t w a s n o t t o a p p r o v e S i t e C a n d f o r t h e BCUC t o h o l d a  review  needed  i n 1984 o f B.C. H y d r o ' s s y s t e m p l a n  then,  and i f s o , t o determine  from  p l a n s , w h e t h e r S i t e C was t h e b e s t c h o i c e  6.2.5  need f o r a m o n i t o r i n g  these,  was  municipalities areas  S i t e C was  a comparison of a l t e r n a t i v e system (BCUC,  1983a).  THE PROPOSED MONITORING PROGRAM The  form  t o e s t a b l i s h whether  identified  by t h e a p p l i c a n t  of the region  and impacts,  program f o r p r o j e c t  wanted  the Panel  unresolved  and unanticipated  conditions  of t h e energy p r o j e c t  The  unresolved  issues  and i n t e r v e n o r s .  an open-ended  recommended impacts,  a  impacts and c l a i m s  program  limited  that  program  and t o m o n i t o r  arising  Whereas t h e included a l l to deal  compliance  with  with the  certificate.  referred  to the monitoring  program were  (1) the  165 identification economic  and  impacts  determination on  some  of  the  people;  (2) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  impacts  caused  (3)  d e t e r m i n a t i o n of  the  studies  by  highway  recommended by  The  monitoring  p r o g r a m was  i t s attention  term  effects  of  flooding  to  Water  the  compensation  such  agencies  environmental As  an  by  energy  be  so  as  r e g i o n , and  native  carried  on  fisheries  o u t by B.C.  The  undertaken  by  Of  had  program  generally  note  i s  to prevent  specifying  also  who  was  to  of  as  they  of  long  for  the  two  impacts  determined  that  conflicts  on  Hydro.^  monitoring the  and  based  u n a n t i c i p a t e d impacts  parties.  Panel  for wildlife  development;  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r many  impacts.  clearly  s t u d i e s and  the  socio-  compensation  impact  deal with  to  the  for  transmission line  f o r the  C o m p t r o l l e r was  recommendations were designed government  and  affected  not  compensation  communities,  t o be  to  and  and  d e t e r m i n a t i o n of  by  was  reservoir, for  and  t h e P a n e l and  to  related  local  compensation  brought  The  mitigation  relocation  were  reasons.  of  with  the  other  Panel  t h e mandate  design  and  of  implement  c o m p e n s a t o r y e n h a n c e m e n t and management p r o g r a m s .  project  certificate  was  not  i s s u e d , i t i s not  possible  to  a s c e r t a i n the scope of the m o n i t o r i n g of the compliance w i t h the c o n d i t i o n s of such  a  certificate.  However,  g i v e s some i n d i c a t i o n , the  handling  of  the  mainly above  the  Panel's  i n the form mentioned  Report  to  Cabinet  of recommendations.  unresolved  impacts,  (BCUC,  1983a)  These r e f e r  and  to  environmental  c o n s e r v a t i o n and m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s t o be i m p l e m e n t e d d u r i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of  the  project.  w e r e t o be But  the  I n s p e c t i o n s were not  t o be  0  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  p r o g r a m was  of  the r e l e v a n t m i n i s t r i e s  t o r e s o l v e any  factors  guided  monitoring  program:  (1)  agencies  should  have  ready  the  the  Panel  public  access  by  the program,  or l o c a l  to  in  and the  Hydro  devising local  nature.  directly. the  structure  provincial  program;  they  government.  d i s p u t e s i f they were of a p u b l i c  P r i v a t e c o n f l i c t s w e r e t o be s e t t l e d w i t h B.C. Three  undertaken  who  of  the  ministries  and  thus would  be  better  166 informed;  ( 2 ) t h e program  operate should  quickly be  s h o u l d n o t be i m p e d e d  and e f f i c i e n t l y ,  clearly  defined.  The  commissioner,  appointed  located i n Fort  S t . John.  only.  consultants,  Private  technical matters. of  the resources  the lines  by  program  The c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s hired  as needed,  Whenever p o s s i b l e , of e x i s t i n g  of communication  was  C a b i n e t , and a  to consist small  Hydro.  presence, to him.  After  having  t h e Commissioner  local  was t o r e s o l v e  T h i s l e a d s one t o i n f e r  of  were  that  authority  a monitoring  staff  both  t o be  adjudicative  to support the monitor i n  t h e m o n i t o r i n g program  government  advised  office  and ( 3 ) t o  and  f u n c t i o n w a s t o be  ministries  p e r s o n s w e r e t o be a p p o i n t e d f r o m t h e s e a s w e l l B.C.  by b u r e a u c r a c y ;  w a s t o make u s e  and a g e n c i e s .  as from  communities  local  Liaison  government and  and government  the concerns  and d i s p u t e s  of h i s referred  i t was n o t h i s d u t y t o i n i t i a t e  action  himself. The enforce  commissioner h i s decisions.  mitigation project  was  These were  and compensation  certificate.  t o have  used  authoritative t o be b a s e d  power  over  o n t h e same  f o r determining the conditions  B.C.  Hydro  to  principles f o r of the energy  The c o m m i s s i o n e r w a s t o a d v i s e g o v e r n m e n t m i n i s t r i e s o f  h i s d e c i s i o n s and o f any r e q u i r e d a c t i o n a r i s i n g t h e r e f r o m . An  appeal  Commission  procedure  A c t would  member o f t h e BCUC. BCUC  be  was  t o be  applicable  a  review  arising  f o r m a c l a i m w e r e t o be p a i d differently.  program  was  project.  That  under  of any o f  B.C. H y d r o  to terminate with  the  Utilities  i f the m o n i t o r i n g commissioner  F u r t h e r m o r e , u p o n a r e q u e s t b y B.C. H y d r o ,  direct  decided  instituted.  the commissioner's  were  Cabinet  decisions.  The  a  could costs  by t h e c l a i m a n t , u n l e s s t h e commissioner  was  to fund  t h e m o n i t o r i n g program.  the completion of the c o n s t r u c t i o n  The  of the  167 NOTES  The B.C. U t i l i t i e s Commission A c t a l s o i n c l u d i n g B.C. H y d r o , a n d r e v i e w s a n d c e r t i f i e s 1  regulates public utilities, t h e e x p o r t o f e n e r g y f r o m B.C.  The d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s i s k e p t v e r y b r i e f . F o r more d e t a i l s the reader i s r e f e r r e d t o t h e three sources used here: M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, 1 9 8 2 a ; A n d r e w s a n d H i g h a m , 1 9 8 6 ; a n d Thompson e t a l . , 1 9 8 1 .  2  Simultaneously, t h e g o v e r n m e n t a n n o u n c e d a new e l e c t r i c i t y e x p o r t p o l i c y , w h i c h a d v o c a t e d t h e s a l e t o t h e U.S.A. o f f i r m , l o n g t e r r a s u r p l u s e l e c t r i c i t y r a t h e r than i n t e r r u p t i b l e s h o r t term power. The M i n i s t r y o f EMPR g a v e t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s " t h e s e v e r e r e c e s s i o n h a s t h r o w n a l l demand f o r e c a s t s o u t t h e w i n d o w , t h e R e v e l s t o k e Dam i s c o m i n g o n s t r e a m , a n d we a r e f a c i n g a surplus considerably l a r g e r t h a n a n t i c i p a t e d " ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, 1 9 8 3 b ) . H o w e v e r , t h e s e s a l e s t o t h e U.S.A. c o u l d n o t be r e a l i z e d a s t h e U.S.A. transmission l i n e s were l a t e r v i r t u a l l y closed to the transmission of e l e c t r i c i t y f r o m B.C. 3  ^ O f c o u r s e , some i m p a c t s implementation of a p r o j e c t .  can only  be  properly  identified  during  the  -* I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t , t h e c o s t s o f t h e s e s t u d i e s w e r e n o t counted as c o m p e n s a t i o n payments. The s t u d i e s w e r e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n payments a n d , t h e r e f o r e , s h o u l d have been c o m p l e t e d b e f o r e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n y e n e r g y p r o j e c t c e r t i f i c a t e was f i l e d . T h u s B.C. H y d r o should bear the c o s t s . The P a n e l d i d n o t s p e c i f y w h a t t h e s e i n s p e c t i o n s w e r e . One c a n assume t h a t they r e f e r r e d t o the s u r v e i l l a n c e inspections of compliance w i t h approvals, l i c e n c e s , a n d p e r m i t s t o be i s s u e d t o B.C. H y d r o . I n a general information b u l l e t i n t h e M i n i s t r y o f EMPR ( 1 9 8 2 b , p . 6 ) w r o t e t h a t " t h e o n g o i n g i n s p e c t i o n of c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n i s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e d e v e l o p e r , w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e s u p e r v i s i o n by government agencies." 0  168  CHAPTER 7 THE REVELSTOKE E X P E R I E N C E AND THE CURRENT ENERGY PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS I N B R I T I S H COLUMBIA The  main  analysis energy  body  and c r i t i q u e project  the  thesis  (Chapters  of the l i c e n s i n g  t o be  preceding chapter which  of this  built  (Chapter  i n B.C., t h e R e v e l s t o k e  6) r e v i e w s  of the Revelstoke  a  description,  and c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e l a s t  t h e Energy  i s now i n p l a c e i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a .  shortcomings  2-5) p r o v i d e s  Dam.  The  immediately  P r o j e c t Review P r o c e s s  This concluding chapter  experience,  t h e c u r r e n t EPRP d e a l s w i t h t h o s e s h o r t c o m i n g s  assesses  and o f f e r s  large  (EPRP)  summarizes  the extent  to which  some s u g g e s t i o n s f o r  further modification of the process.  7.1  REVIEW OF THE REVELSTOKE PROJECT EXPERIENCE For  t h e purpose  shortcomings a  of this  of practices  the licence  itself  during  (7.1.5),  Impact Statement  (7.1.2),  underj  (7.1.1) and g o i n g  the conditions of the licence  of the environmental  and f i n a l l y  the perceived  i n the Revelstoke Project  with pre-application  guidelines  the predictive  (7.1.4) and  capability  of the  (7.1.6).  concern  about  t h e dam b u i l d i n g  the lack  o f t h e 1960s  of project  I s s u e s , b u t when B.C. H y d r o  development Consequently,  i n the early  1970s  proponent  and  selection  of l e g i s l a t i o n .  A c t ( 1 9 7 3 ) t o some e x t e n t d e a l t  indicated  t h e need  f o r another  o p e r a t i o n a l procedures  f o r t h e R e v e l s t o k e Dam, s e l e c t i o n  by t h e p r o j e c t  justification  l e d to the introduction  ELUC A c t ( 1 9 7 1 ) a n d t h e B.C. E n e r g y  these  out  process  used  t o group  PRE-APPLICATION Public  The  application  monitoring  Environmental  7.1.1  starting  (7.1.3), the effectiveness  compliance  i t i s convenient  and p r o c e d u r e s  s e q u e n t i a l s e t of headings  onto  review  i n t h e absence  were  large  scale  not i n place.  a n d j u s t i f i c a t i o n was  o f an e x p l i c i t  with  provincial  carried energy  169 plan  and  without  participation the  of  consideration  the  project  selection  assessment of  of  proposals  Although  of  B.C.  Hydro  own  terms of  the  g o v e r n m e n t and  establishment  of  for  guidelines  electric  The  on  a  priorities  to  ( E I S ) was  not  two  of  forecast  superficial  selected  but  identification  corrected  required  Project,  the  perceived  not  the  Revelstoke  of  those  justified  demand  somewhat  the  proposals.  the  exclusion  Hydro  energy  for i t s preparation,  d e f i c i e n c i e s were  evaluation  the  Revelstoke hearing  hearing  little  issues  for  The  procedure followed raised  the the  several  provisions the  requested  the  of  Data  project  the  d a t e as  time  (e.g.  the  Project  and  devoted l a r g e l y to i t .  of  i n c o n t r o l of  rescheduling  the  B.C.  and  three of  as  before  was  project.  the  Company  free  to  set  main p a r t i e s ,  c o n c e r n s and  important the  for  by  Project  the B.C.  entered  phase.  seemed t o be  of  EIS  context  APPLICATION  public  the  public.  Project  p u b l i c , l i m i t e d the  their  Thus d a t a  The for  an  reference. the  policy  a l t e r n a t i v e developments or  prepared  its  7.1.2  i t s own  Revelstoke  e i t h e r the  h a v e t o meet any  next  the  environmental impact statement  not  the  s o l e l y on  the  did  Hydro.  public  s e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e development  F u r t h e r m o r e , an the  the  g o v e r n m e n t m i n i s t r i e s and  n e e d f o r a new  and  of  of  the  s c h e d u l e of by  the  examination hearing.  of  of  events.  hearing  information  the  The  for  did  fish  to  B.C.  intervenors necessitated  underway,  than to  the  the  r e s o l u t i o n of  and  wildlife  the  Hydro  Water C o m p t r o l l e r  allowing  rather  d e f e r r a l of  application  Initially,  get  agreement  for  Act.  the  the  provisions  Water  the  pertaining  this  to  implementation  criticisms  a l l documents;  deficiencies led compensation  major  Public Utility,  When  gathering  i n dealing with  i t  set too a was  assessment important  resources)  to  phase. public  p a r t i c i p a t i o n were  not  satisfactory.  170 Intervenors  had  i n s u f f i c i e n t funds  significant,  t h o u g h , was  sham.  arose  This  under  the  Water  justification. be  not and,  in  Act,  On  m a n d a t e by  r u l i n g on  that  his  of  retained  the  for  Project.  the  consultants  them  biased  due  conflict the  issues  were also  inaccessible  to  the  to  social,  the his  economic  expertise  ministries  p u b l i c , who future  of  exceed  was  was  project  and  beyond h i s  provision  anticipated  could  Commission  appeared  and  electric  interest  provincial  this  the  development  the  a  Comptroller  matters  Energy  in  More  selection  between  scale  was  However,  and  B.C.  a large  from  Water  fundamental  environmental,  consultants  past  two  Comptroller  of  hearing.  their  that  Water  these  were  to  project  these  aid.  p u b l i c h e a r i n g was  of  Project,  range  the  assessment  by  broad  that  the  H y d r o and  the  financial  to  The  hand,  As  public  of  established  technical  the  because as  the  the  no  assigned  hearing.  Revelstoke  other  staff,  B.C.  not  the  Province.  the  by  mandate  neither  the  received  perception  excluded  at  i t was  particular  of  narrow  which  forecasts and  concerns  the  addressed  growth  resolved  from  public's  Consequently,  adequately  energy  the  and  and were  inadequate  also  dealings  perceived with  B.C.  Hydro. The  appeal  deficiencies  to  of  the  Project's  need  had  precluded  the  i n the  moratorium  appellants.  Water not  efficient  participation the  the  nor  issuance Act been  as  of  well  However,  handling  of  cancellation  i t  as  established  implementation of the  the  amended  the  water  of and  the  licence  licensing  the  water  environmental the  Project.  of  the  licence  reflected procedure:  licence  matters  Cabinet  licence  the the  provisions and  public  neither  granted  called  as  recommended  by  conditions  under w h i c h  the  for the  by  the  Appeal  Committee.  7.1.3  LICENCE The  amended w a t e r  licence  set  the  Revelstoke  Project  was  document First, While  to  be  implemented  however,  the the  seriously  lines Water  of  and  hampered  Hydro,  Comptroller  not  clearly  (p,  q,  the  Fish  and  held  environmental  B.C.  to  guidelines.  Hydro to a l l l i c e n c e Branch  water  and  these  wildlife  p r o g r a m s t o B.C.  causing  a  Project  prolonged  monitoring  wildlife  l o s s e s was  The clause  work (q).  administered other  of  than  his  the  did  was  the  one  RPCC  of nor  B.C.  H y d r o was  biologists  appear  to  not  given  Water  Comptroller  had  assigned  the  environmental  then to  delegated  adequately  the  guidelines  i t to the monitor  few  did  not  assigned on  roles  biologists  of  task  were  monitoring,  s p e c i f y who  the  was  of  and to  compensation f o r implementation  t h e m a n d a t e o f t h e FWB  two.  Hence  the  integrating agreement  to of  Water  the  of and  Revelstoke environmental  for  fish  role  any  surveillance  of  (clause  engineering  ( r ) ) to staff.  construction activities  the  (q)  and  the The and  as  terms  was  neither  direction, employment.  they  liked  Furthermore,  Hydro's  adherence  C o n s t r u c t i o n Manager, site  and  the  e n f o r c e m e n t p o w e r and B.C.  in  C o n s t r u c t i o n Manager,  important.  biologists  that  biologists'  clause  as  general  Comptroller's  site  a u t h o r i t y of  their  the  the  i n very  conditions  interpret  the  site  defined  licence  length  under  l i c e n c e had  site  s t u d i e s , impact  the  was  f r e e to  water  c l a u s e s , the  the  compensation  subject  perceive  responsible  difficult.  the  the  was  e n h a n c e m e n t o f and  (RPCC)  biologists  determining  site  not  site  most  designed.  from three l i c e n c e c o n d i t i o n s  impinging  negotiating a  rendered  It  Consequently, placed  and  well  tasks.  arose  ( p ) ) , but  Committee's  not  these  this  and  c o n f r o n t a t i o n between  the  by  (clause  Hydro, thereby  Coordinating  effects  who  habitat  of  of  (FWB)  licence  d e s i g n t h e p r o g r a m s f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n and fish  execution  u l t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y and  environmental  The  shortcomings  a u t h o r i t y were  This ambivalence  pertained  The  efficient  and  the  Wildlife  established.  r) which  the  responsibility  f o r e n s u r i n g t h e a d h e r e n c e by B.C.  administrated.  b i o l o g i s t s were  establish  the to who  unable  liaison with  the  172 contractors,  t h e RPCC a n d B.C. H y d r o ' s h e a d o f f i c e b i o l o g i s t s .  problems were  encountered  work were t o f u l f i l l Second, for  severe  i n determining which  clause  shortcomings  were  noted  licence.  provisions  Neither  of  these  programs  power was v e s t e d o n l y  distinct  approach  leadership.  and condoned  requests.  The  s t a f f was  dependent  lack  also  provisions,  governed B.C.  Instead,  In resolving  of environmental  a  by  contributing  Confusion B.C.  Committees  the  o u t and  no  them.  Despite  was  this  prevailed  training  Due  to relegate  management  i n the claims  directly,  and t h e L o c a l  however, was  while  Impact  unable  Impact  RPCC's  the s i t e  Committee  (CIC).  Management  chairman  was  o f B.C. H y d r o , who of water  licence  biologists to a seemed  t o be  minor  largely  staff. Some c l a i m a n t s  approached of  many  n e c e s s a r y s u p p o r t s t a f f and a u t h o r i t y . Community  The  to the lack  procedure.  Committee  responded t o  o f t h e Water  at the s i t e  others  to resolve  characterized  w h i c h B.C. H y d r o  factor.  goals.  able  environmental  Hydro  b y t h e RPCC was  o f t h e C o m m i t t e e members a n d t h a t distinct  Hydro  with  u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l o f B.C. H y d r o ' s e n g i n e e r i n g  the  thought  problems t h e Committee t o o k an ad hoc  the procrastination  on t h e a d v i c e  each  latter,  well  program h a v i n g none.  e n v i r o n m e n t a l management o f t h e P r o j e c t  indecisive  role.  was  d i v i s i o n , c l e a r l i n e s of a u t h o r i t y were not e s t a b l i s h e d .  The  Branch  program  i n t h e two C o m m i t t e e s o f t h e o f f i c i a l  program, t h e s i t e b i o l o g i s t s and u n o f f i c i a l  with  conceived but  program under t h e terms o f t h e c o n d i t i o n a l  w e r e made i n t h e w a t e r l i c e n c e t o i n t e g r a t e  Authoritative  were  framework  e v o l v e d o v e r t h e s p a n o f two a n d a h a l f y e a r s a s t h e u n o f f i c i a l  water  its  i n the administrative  T h i s f r a m e w o r k was n o t h o l i s t i c a l l y  u n d e r B.C. H y d r o a n d t h e o f f i c i a l  by  of the s i t e b i o l o g i s t s '  ( q ) and w h i c h c l a u s e ( p ) .  the Revelstoke Project.  rather  parts  Additionally,  some  of  the u n o f f i c i a l  of the claims  this  the Adjunct  program.  because  Unresolved claims Initially,  negotiated  The  i t lacked  were r e f e r r e d t o  Committee  had  been  173 i g n o r e d by c l a i m a n t s as i t had no l o c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . the  CIC had been  provided  The  seemed t o be s e t t l e d claims  L o c a l Impact Committee. reports  commissioning which  this  f u n c t i o n as the o f f i c i a l  the Claims  Officer  and c l a u s e  program  (u) o f the  However, these were not i n s t i t u t e d by the Water C o m p t r o l l e r as  CIC d e a l t w i t h  hoc  to f u l f i l l  f o r a c l a i m s procedure w i t h  water l i c e n c e . claims  intended  I t i s questionable i f  and  by o t h e r  of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e framework.  i n an ad hoc manner as they were r e f e r r e d by the  I t appears t h a t the CIC's d e c i s i o n s were based on ad  political  lobbying  of the two r e p o r t s  evaluated  bodies  (DPA  (DPA Group,  the socio-economic  impacts  Group,  1986) p r i o r  1986; Sussex,  to the  1985) i n 1984,  of the P r o j e c t  on the l o c a l  communities. The  Office  of the Impact Monitor  l a c k of d e f i n i t e l i n e s B.C.  handicapped  by the  of a u t h o r i t y — a s w e l l as by the l a c k of support  staff.  Hydro p l a c e d the Monitor  was a l s o s e r i o u s l y  under the s u p e r v i s i o n of the R e g i o n a l Board, but  seems to have had some c o n t i n u i n g i n f l u e n c e on the o p e r a t i o n The  Monitor's  suited  a c c o u n t a b i l i t y t o the R e g i o n a l  choice  Project.  The  knowledgeable Monitor's  because  the Region  Board's  inability  as a whole to provide  Board  turned  was  little  of the O f f i c e .  out t o be an i l l affected  the n e c e s s a r y  s u p e r v i s i o n r e s u l t e d i n the l i m i t e d  by t h e  directives  usefulness  and  o f the Impact  work and i n the t e r m i n a t i o n o f the O f f i c e a f t e r o n l y two and a h a l f  years. The the  water l i c e n c e had no p r o v i s i o n s f o r meaningful p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n ;  RPCC was  could  to I t , and the CIC d i d not encourage  i t .  The p u b l i c  o n l y respond t o the recommendations of the two Committees and the Water  Comptroller's kind  closed  of  without  approvals  participation the Claims  Meaningful  public  and o r d e r s , which had t o be p u b l i s h e d . was  Officer  reactive  the o f f i c i a l  participation  rather  than  proactive.  program l a c k e d d i r e c t  through  the u n o f f i c i a l  However, t h i s Furthermore, local  program  contact. was not  174 p o s s i b l e as t h e b o d i e s o f t h a t program were o n l y In  conclusion  administrative  i t c a n be  framework were  said  that  advisory.  the formation  characterized  and o p e r a t i o n  by a n ad h o c a p p r o a c h .  of the This  was  e x a c e r b a t e d by t h e i n a d e q u a c i e s o f t h e w a t e r l i c e n c e and t h e l a c k o f r e q u i s i t e professional failed  to establish  provide  an  function  7.1.4  t r a i n i n g which  l e d to indecisive leadership.  distinct  adequate,  lines  integrated  administrative  licence  and a u t h o r i t y  and t o  framework  that  was  able  to  efficiently.  ENVIRONMENTAL G U I D E L I N E S As  called  f o r i n the water  environmental guidelines  updated as t h e P r o j e c t (contractual  requirements  main  clauses  body  practices  commonly  environment.  and  Construction the  site  the  wording  Manager.  of  contract  government r e g u l a t i o n s The lacked  actual detail  contractual  thus  clauses  environmental  requirements.  d e t a i l e d , but these  the proviso  environmental  t h e B.C. H y d r o only  outlined  were  that  t h e y be  both the format  guidelines)  and t h e  construction  contract  construction  and p r o t e c t i o n  made  t o a minor  vague  but r e f e r r e d  of the to the  f o r consultation role.  and r e f e r e n c e  with  Additionally,  to the  relevant  incomplete.  guidelines  to clarify  contributed  t h e purpose  The s e c t i o n provisions  were  relegated was  general  not addressed,  no p r o v i s i o n s  and A c t s was  and f a i l e d  the  r e v i e w by t h e M i n i s t r y o f  f o r the conservation  details  b i o l o g i s t s , who w e r e  prepared  inadequate.  accepted  Almost  Hydro  s t u d y h a s shown t h a t  actual  requirements),  Site-specific  Following  This  of the guidelines,  (contractual  B.C.  a p p r o v e d them w i t h  progressed.  content of t h e g u i d e l i n e s were The  licence,  f o r the Project.  Environment, t h e Water C o m p t r o l l e r  more  of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  The w a t e r  of f i s h  were  little.  They, t o o ,  and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and w i l d l i f e  not part  of the  protection  of the contract  was  clauses.  175 The  guidelines  sets  neither  of c l e a r i n g  lines.  were  standards  Review  undertaken.  and  Indeed,  binding.  COMPLIANCE A  the  prepare assign  program  the  to ensure  government  The w a t e r  to monitor  r e q u i s i t e environmental site  d i d not p r o v i d e  and  with  and enforcement  r e g u l a t i o n s and A c t s ,  and t o  subjective.  integrate  was  licence  f o r t h e e m p l o y m e n t o f two  only  called  and w i l d l i f e  the s i t e  could  aspects  not provided  f o r the  a n d f o r B.C. H y d r o t o  The W a t e r C o m p t r o l l e r d i d n o t  to the s i t e  engineering  not adequately  effectiveness  recorded  biologists,  staff,  who  but to  lacked  the  and c o n t i n u o u s l y m o n i t o r  the  of  the guidelines.  Contrary  inadequate. was  i n soliciting  attitude  lacking.  t o the c o n c l u s i o n that compliance  of impacts  biologists  and n o t a n a l y z e d .  instrumental faire  Assessment The s i t e  rendered  of  training.  information leads  insufficient.  the  environment.  to the  g u i d e l i n e s , t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n Manager d i d n o t p e r c e i v e t h i s as t h e i r d u t y . available  not  as c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t s  compliance  and enforcement  and  biologists  implementation  was  regulatory agencies  fish  monitoring  C o n s t r u c t i o n Manager  The  and t r a n s m i s s i o n  guidelines  guidelines  and adhere t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s . compliance  area  the environmental  the environmental  of the various  biologists  f o r the reservoir  the separate  MONITORING  Revelstoke Project. site  of  nor mentioned  t h i s w o u l d have been d i f f i c u l t  guidelines,  activities  developed  filling  f o r t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n and p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e  monitoring  environmental  reservoir  updating  Overall,  necessary guidance  7.1.5  covered  kept  tended  t o be q u a l i t a t i v e  enforcement.  surveillance  m o n i t o r i n g was and  sometimes  few r e c o r d s ; some o f t h e d a t a w e r e  The m o n i t o r i n g t h a t was c a r r i e d Insufficient  and enforcement  The  only  o u t was o f t e n n o t  staff  and a  by government  A s t r o n g commitment t o t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l  laissez agencies quality  176 To  summarize,  there  were  no  provisions  p r o g r a m , n o r was a p r o g r a m d e v e l o p e d . of  long  term  effects  had  was  not occurred,  s u c c i n c t l y expressed  Hydro had b u i l t luck  the Project  objective  determine analysis  f o r the  The m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t  wildlife  biologist:  environmental  "B.C.  p r o b l e m s more b y  w o u l d have been a mess"  of the post-development  the effectiveness serves  also  the analysis: the form  because  as a r e c o r d ,  though  incomplete,  (Bonar,  of testable monitoring  analysis;  tool.  Three major d i f f i c u l t i e s  hypotheses;  ( 2 ) many  had n o t been  1987).  a n d ( 3 ) much o f t h e d a t a  was  to  However, t h e impacts  l i m i t e d the extent  non-specific  variables  designed  analysis  of the actual  (1) t h e EIS p r e d i c t i o n s were g e n e r a l l y  effects  development  environmental  o f t h e E I S as a p r e d i c t i v e  caused by t h e R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t .  in  accidents  POST-DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL A N A L Y S I S The  of  monitoring  disregard  t o go u n c h e c k e d .  any major  than f o r e s i g h t — a major accident  7.1.6  the general  by t h e s i t e  without  compliance  Although major environmental  e n v i r o n m e n t c a u s e d many m i n o r i n c i d e n t s observation  for a  were  and n o t  not monitored  f o r the purpose  had n o t been  of  post-  interpreted  or  w r i t t e n up. Overall impacts. is  that  t h e E I S was  Just  (35%)  over a quarter  the lack  the w i l d l i f e  of baseline  resource  percent  resource  "no-miss"  p r e d i c t i o n s were of data,  This  might,  inaccurate  nineteen  of course,  an  ineffective tool  of a l l p r e d i c t i o n s were data  t o r e s u l t i n a higher  predictions.  While  and t w e n t y - e i g h t  percent change  may  resource  f o r the aquatic  possibly  the predictive  f o r predicting  accurate.  l i m i t e d the s p e c i f i c i t y  environment and f i s h  of the predictions  were  lack  t o be  and appeared  than f o r the aquatic  eighty  found  Significant  of predictions f o r predictive  (19%).  Furthermore,  environment  twenty-one  capacity  and  percent  fish  of a l l  percent were not v e r i f i a b l e f o r be v e r i f i e d capacity  i n the long  term.  of the EIS, which  to  177 date i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y .  7.2  ASSESSMENT OF THE ENERGY PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS IN LIGHT OF THE REVELSTOKE EXPERIENCE The  of  Energy P r o j e c t  the issues  partially has  raised  or entirely  shown  Review P r o c e s s  (EPRP) has e f f i c i e n t l y  by t h e R e v e l s t o k e unaddressed.  improvements  Case  Study  while  dealt with leaving  As t h e f o c u s on t h e R e v e l s t o k e  and s h o r t c o m i n g s  arise  from  both  some  others  experience  t h e design and  a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e EPRP. In  sharp  prescribes  project  t o t h e Water  a definite structure  licensing phases  contrast  of large scale  provide  and p r o c e d u r a l  energy p r o j e c t s .  f o rthe orderly  Coordinating relevant Two  issues  and i n f o r m a t i o n  Cabinet M i n i s t e r s  requires  Early  p u b l i c and  t o the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of concerns, by t h e Energy  r e q u i r e m e n t s have been a d e q u a t e l y  t h e n d e c i d e o n one o f f o u r  a public hearing,  I f a project  theapplicant  The  of t h e proposed  p o l i c y context.  exempt  from  EPRP,  however,  provisions  f o r some  operation.  While  i s approved  to obtain does  possible  a review;  a n d makes t h e f i n a l  BCUC, w h i c h must c o n v e n e a p u b l i c h e a r i n g , Cabinet.  sequence f o r t h e s e l e c t i o n and  of the application  r e j e c t i o n ; approval  w h i c h may c a l l  by  Review  t h e EPRP  issues, Project  Committee (EPCC) and i t s W o r k i n g Committees i s t o e n s u r e t h a t a l l  application:  the  needs.  Act with  and a s s e s s m e n t  and i t s a l t e r n a t i v e s i n t h e p u b l i c  information  t h e Energy  The p r e - a p p l i c a t i o n a n d a p p l i c a t i o n  screening  government p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s t o l e a d and  Act,  under  o f t h e major  i t i s important  review  but the f i n a l  an energy p r o j e c t  not d e t a i l  dispositions of the  decision;  the latter  b y t h e BCUC, and review by  d e c i s i o n i s made  procedure,  operating  to retain  of project flexibility  t h e EPRP  certificate.  a l l l i c e n s i n g procedures  procedures  addressed.  and l a c k s  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and i n the licensing  procedures i norder t o address p r o j e c t - s p e c i f i c circumstances, there  s h o u l d be  178 some i n d i c a t i o n are  to take.  narrow  t h e BCUC of p u b l i c  provisions  project  either.  i s responsible convenience  t h e BCUC p u b l i c  The a d v e r s e  that  certificate.  certificate.  requisite need  There  f o r adequate  with  (Figure  an energy  compliance"—a  (Chapter  (Chapter  framework  3).  energy  operating certificate  regulated  energy  (Ministry  o f EMPR,  development in  but procedures  1982).  Furthermore,  shortcomings  project resulting  certificate from  of post-development  demonstrated  t h e EPRP  lack  i n the of a  socio-economic tentatively  prescribed.  i t are not o u t l i n e d  should  incorporate  post-  analyses as a requirement  either  operating certificate.  as w e l l  analyses were noted  The  the importance and  a  f o r the operation of a  f o r obtaining  o r t h e energy  the total  t h e EPRP.  has o n l y been  i s necessary  e n v i r o n m e n t a l and s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  t h e energy  planning  project,  under  also  a d d r e s s e d b y t h e EPRP; d e f i n i t e p r o v i s i o n s h a v e n o t b e e n An  the energy  not d e f i n e d — i s  4 ) , as was  issue  under  no  i s t o be r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r environmental  The l a t t e r  with the  6.1, 1 9 ( l ) ( b ) ) ,  term  was  of too  of the conditions of  operating certificate  m o n i t o r i n g and enforcement  administrative  management  and enforcement  effects  compliance  i s no m e n t i o n o f w h i c h a g e n c y  of the Revelstoke Project  designed  impact  and n e c e s s i t y  But " s u b s t a n t i a l  f o robtaining  analysis  f o r ensuring  hearings  (Chapter 2 ) .  a r e made f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f p r o j e c t s  the monitoring of compliance  well  and mandate  a mandate w e r e n o t e d i n t h e R e v e l s t o k e Case S t u d y  certificate  for  g e n e r a l format  T h e EPRP d o e s n o t a d d r e s s  Whereas  such  o f what  as t h e l a c k  of  The early  i n t h e R e v e l s t o k e Case  Study  ( C h a p t e r s 5 and 3 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Evaluation phases  of the implementation of the pre-application  o f t h e EPRP  i n general  additional  perspective.  application  phase  eliminate  early  A  and w i t h  most  significant  i s not compulsory.  participation  respect  by both  to Site  shortcoming  By-passing government  and a p p l i c a t i o n C  provides  i s that  i t would,  i n  and t h e p u b l i c .  the  an pre-  effect, Whereas  179 later  input  public p.  by  i s not  23)  are  necessary  government i f a public  correct i n  requirement  I n the severely  case  EIS  (based  inadequate  government  largely  t h a t was up  in  the  as  an  costly  and  major  project.  case  Panel  before  the  before  the hearings  allow  two  hearings.  should  early  For  the  needs  ready  of of  access  the  Panel  data  to a l l data H y d r o was  thought  participation  at  the the  the  and  throughout  the  issue c l a r i f i c a t i o n  function  to  the  and  be  Site  c o u l d not  the  their  priority  be  Site  EPRP  hearings)  of  funding  two  satisfactory,  C Panel  hearings,  to  not  dealt with  procedure.  f o r the  of  Site  C.  of  the  Timing  i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of  allowed  Roberts  months  Thus t h e q u a l i t y o f a l l  review  (partially  by  efficient  sufficient  hearings.  time  and  Unlike  at  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r some f u n d i n g o f i n t e r v e n o r s .  method  the  established  submitted the  made  of  some p r o c e d u r a l a s p e c t s  i n the  prepare  the  i n a more  required during  I n t e r v e n o r s were  to adequately  be  implementation  h o w e v e r , t h e EPRP h a d  improved  phase  hearings  deficiencies  experience,  s e t by  a l l participants.  R e v e l s t o k e , B.C. the  h e a r i n g s were  a  reference)  of the R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t review  significantly  i s not  deficiencies,  t o and  p a r t i e s would r e s u l t  C,  the  C  information should  Site  of  Project,  t o f o u r weeks b e f o r e i t s c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . improved.  data  consultation in  identified  new  of  preapplication  terms prior  and  that  Up-to-date  and,  hearings were  format  just  deferred  I n c o n t r a s t to the Revelstoke  and  Hydro's  be  be  the  Significant  Revelstoke  interested would  c o n s u l t a t i o n program  Many d a t a  to  of the s e r i o u s shortcomings  public  B.C.  the  concluded  Issues  e v i d e n c e w o u l d be one  on  that  i f Thompson e t a l . ( 1 9 8 3 ,  Hydro's by-passing  money.  had  and  phase,  1  hearings.  of  and  g o v e r n m e n t , a p p l i c a n t , and process.  public  information gathering  i n time  review  a  i n p u t were o n l y noted  decisions  The  B.C.  public  in  As  C,  that  application  called  application.  the  especially  served  the  stating  Site  i n the  h e a r i n g i s not  of the  of  impeded  hearings.  i s assured  based (1982)  on  the  While  value  states that  of the  180 late  reimbursement  imposed  r e t e n t i o n of expert The issues  format (formal  especially  with  respect  to  the  witnesses.  of  the  phased  hearings  was  tailored  hearings)  and  to  outlet  for built-up  i n the  process,  i t proved  area  of  too  such  from  area and  interruptive  technical  O v e r a l l and  counsel advise  addressed and  the  i n the  technical Panel  raised  and  i n the  review  of  actively  partake  a n a l y s i s of Site  hearings enable  "on  the  the  review  cross-examination" An the wide Site the  panels  and  direction  C hearings. public policy  I t not  by  the  hearing  For  future  concern  in  issues i n  the  larger  hearing,  meaningful.  the Revelstoke  application. to  Project  Adequate the  was  legal  hearings  Notwithstanding  c o n s u l t a n t s b e f o r e and  of  the  hearings"  "the  should  t h r u s t of  the Revelstoke  to  their  during be  the  held  the evidence  M i n i s t e r s of  P r o j e c t review  EMPR and  only included project selection  context, which  the  to and  14).  o u t s t a n d i n g improvement over mandate d e v e l o p e d  an  t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r s recommended t h a t  to b e t t e r understand  (BCUC, 1 9 8 3 c , p .  C  been  i n the h e a r i n g s .  C o m m i s s i o n c o u n s e l and  progress  of l o c a l  been r e t a i n e d p r i o r  wide range of p r o f e s s i o n a l work e x p e r i e n c e , f r e q u e n t b r i e f i n g s by  had  as in  i n the  parties.  justification  process  not  W h e r e a s h o l d i n g most  i n c o n t r a s t to the Revelstoke  the  c o n s u l t a n t s had  and  hearings),  also served  confidence  to other  of  of a l l  public participation  only matters  p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the S i t e C review  properly  t h a t the hearings  established local  p r o j e c t , and  Another shortcoming  community  other major energy p r o j e c t s .  costly  as V a n c o u v e r .  informal  inadequate  recommended t o r e v i e w  a proposed  cities,  of  Peace R i v e r  p r o j e c t s the Panel  observed  frustrations  d e c i s i o n making process hearings  Panel  and  participation  the n a t i v e I n d i a n p o p u l a t i o n ( s p e c i a l h e a r i n g s ) — a need t h a t d i d The  unphased  the  including  Revelstoke.  (formal  facilitate  o r d e r l y examination  of  at  public  f o r the  segments  arise  the  limitations,  had  been  excluded  at  process  Environment and  was  for  the  justification  Revelstoke,  but  in  also  181 allowed  the  P a n e l t o e x a m i n e any  Project Site  C  hearings.  proposal and  selection  as  no  The  rather  However, the  rejected  applicable  and  than  energy  employed  by  growth  B.C.  use  inputs B.C.  of and  private  Hydro of  was  not  techniques  w e r e t o be  forecasts  with  a l s o noted  c r i t e r i a , the  concerns. evaluation  The  review  troubled  by  an  apparent  statement  r e l a t e d to  of  Panel assess Site  C,  of  i n the  of  they not  felt  that  the  hydroelectric the  Province.  first  the  and  In  EMPR.  justification  former  based  e i t h e r of policy river  was  methodology improved  future,  and data  comparison A  of  persistent  criteria  used  i t s judgments  government  Project,  (Roberts,  basin  d e v e l o p m e n t s on had  included  Both  The  ruled  their  for  resource  1982).  contexts. but  beyond  other  that  a p o l i c y of  development  u n d e r "any  that  the  conservation,  f a c i l i t a t e the of  by  by  on  social  advise  B.C.  adopted.  Revelstoke  been s p e c i f i c a l l y  have been d i s c u s s e d  to  project  considerably  inadequate.  recommended  c u m u l a t i v e impacts of  because  that  been  industry  p r o v i n c i a l context,  development  had  of  the  conventional  government's d e c i s i o n s were guided  lack  and  smaller  found  still  the  other  established  were  Whereas  the  a  i t was  at  alternative  interest  s e l e c t i o n and  Panel  such  regional  northern  T h e s e i s s u e s had could  the  proposal  context  the  energy context  c r i t e r i a t o be  the  C  in  that  total  of  government.  to  Site  those  corporate  overt  be  only  addressed  to evaluate  standardized  between the  Similar  an  Hydro's  forecasts  of  the  the  extensively  proceeded  While  these  H y d r o and  cost-benefit  B.C.  would  considerations  references  was  B.C.  for  econometric  Hydro's  conflict  C  were  They d e t e r m i n e d  forecast.  Hydro  since Revelstoke, the  Site  matters.  n e e d f o r s u c h p r o j e c t s w o u l d h a v e t o be  electric  of  Panel  longer  relevant  justification  nonconventional a l t e r n a t i v e s .  projects  by  and  other  that  mandate. the  matters".  too,  projects  were  Panel reviewed  the  evaluation  in  the  did  the  Neither  progressed  terms of  Two  C,  i n t e r e s t s or  Peace R i v e r ,  already i n the  Site  including too  reference  far. but  recommendations were  182 made  by  the Panel.  First,  t h e government  was  development p o l i c y and r e e v a l u a t e t h e e l e c t r i c i t y planning  and review  context.  Second,  cumulative  impact  the  limitations  project  of energy northern  imposed  selection  further  river  would  projects  by t h e noted  and j u s t i f i c a t i o n  proceed were  i n each  shortcomings, represents  a  i n a  separate  project  application.  Revelstoke  approved  made  Report  which  was  had been  their  recommendations  and b i n d i n g d e c i s i o n  (BCUC,  Despite  assessment of improvement o f  f o r making  1983a,b,c,).  p e r c e i v e d a sham, t h e S i t e  and r a t i o n a l e  and s u b s e q u e n t l y  Whereas C review  the Revelstoke clearly  the  final  In contrast to the  by a s e n i o r b u r e a u c r a t  t o C a b i n e t w h i l e t h e P r o j e c t was a l r e a d y b e i n g  a final  policy f o rthe  basin.  significant  d e c i s i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o an energy  submitted  definite  the Panel's  provision  C Panel  so t h a t f u t u r e  t o be a s s e s s e d  t h e EPRP  appealed  industrial  review.  improvement  Project,  its  export p o l i c y  developments  of a l l proposed  the Revelstoke P r o j e c t A  projects  to c l a r i f y  and t h e n  constructed, the Site to Cabinet, which  r e l e a s e d t h e BCUC Project  demonstrated  review  then Panel  had been  the integrity  of the  EPRP. Yet Unlike  a  final  the Revelstoke  facilitated their the  difference review,  implementation  under  between  t h e Water  t h e two r e v i e w  A c t , t h e format  procedures. o f t h e EPRP  Firstly,  C, i f a p p r o v e d ,  t o those  the Panel  upon  i t appears  an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  study) f o r Site of  that  as f o r t h e improvement o f  study.  proposed  approval  as w e l l  recommendations a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d , two o t h e r s  relevant to this  p r o g r a m , S e c t i o n 6.2.5 o f t h i s implemented  In  (BCUC, 1 9 8 3 a , b , c ) t h e P a n e l made r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r  of Site  In addition  are p a r t i c u l a r l y  experience,  noted  the Panel's use of the S i t e C review as a l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e .  report t o Cabinet  the EPRP.  was  the project.  this  program  structure  (monitoring  C a n d recommended t h a t t h i s On would  hand  of  not have  be  the Revelstoke provided  the  183 i n t e g r a t e d management o f e i t h e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l o r s o c i o - e c o n o m i c m a t t e r s n e e d e d for  such  a  complex  development.  appear t o have t o take establishment with  an a c t i v e  of a plan  authority monitoring framework Ministry  early  I t seems  Study. EPRP  f o r regulated  offers  projects  a r e n o t made  i n general  the criticisms  was  raised  an  improvement  over  both  impacts, Panel,  i t had a l s o  therefore,  chosen  t o meet  and l i n e s  of has  for effects administrative  proposed (Section  by t h e 6.1  this  i n the Revelstoke  Case  the administrative  recommended a s i g n i f i c a n t  need shown  that  recommended  panel  that  that  i n the policy this  that  f o r a new e n e r g y  BCUC h e a r i n g  the  of whether the  framework  of the  c a n n o t be a n s w e r e d .  project  t h e need  precludes  t h e commissioner  A more a p p r o p r i a t e  2  does n o t  a r e t o be d e a l t  of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  Provisions  S i t e C e x p e r i e n c e had demonstrated  assessing  the  matters  i n 1983 ( M i n i s t r y o f EMPR, 1 9 8 3 a )  t o answer  Secondly, the Panel  which  that  However, s i n c e S i t e C was n o t i m p l e m e n t e d , t h e q u e s t i o n  Revelstoke Project  the  energy  monitoring  o u t , however,  and post-development a n a l y s e s .  o f EMPR  study).  thought  h i s orders.  the commissioner  i n initiating  The a s s i g n m e n t  are not w e l l  t o enforce  part  that  o f a c t i o n , and i m p l i e s  on a n ad h o c b a s i s .  communication  The f a c t  change i n t h e EPRP.  t h e o n e - s t a g e EPRP w a s c a p a b l e o f context,  p r o c e s s was  a two-stage  project would  Thus,  and p r o j e c t  rather  review  design  inefficient.  process  be i d e n t i f i e d  l i m i t e d t o t h e assessment  need.  While  and The  be a d o p t e d i n  and t h e t a s k o f  of the p a r t i c u l a r project  f o r the following  year  (1984),  the Panel  proposed a major r e v i e w o f t h e need f o r S i t e C and a c o m p a r i s o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e system plans, of  new  addressing  generating  such i s s u e s  plants,  as l o a d  f o r e c a s t i n g , sequence and t i m i n g  and n o n s t r u c t u r a l  d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r S i t e C w o u l d be t h e b e s t c h o i c e , be  needed  (BCUC,  1983a).  Subsequent  annual  alternatives. should  reviews  This  was t o  a new e n e r g y  project  o f B.C. H y d r o ' s  s y s t e m p l a n s w e r e t o be u n d e r t a k e n b y t h e BCUC u n d e r t h e U t i l i t i e s  up-dated  Commission  184 Act.^ lead  The S i t e C P a n e l to a better  each  project,  project The proposal and  proposal  and  efficient  o f t h e EPRP  to several  two-stage approval process would  and speedy  and t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f  evaluation  and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n  conclusions.  sequence f o r t h e review  energy p r o j e c t s .  with  this  o f each  specific  (BCUC, 1 9 8 3 c ) .  evaluation lead  that  assessment o f the whole system plan  a n d a more  procedural  scale  concluded  such broad  The c u r r e n t  EPRP  provide  C  a  project  structure  o f t h e s e l e c t i o n and a p p r o v a l o f l a r g e  I f t h e EPRP w e r e a p p l i e d  terms  i n the Site  of reference  as i s s u e d  efficiently  i n i t s entirety  f o r the S i t e C review,  then  m e a n i n g f u l p u b l i c a n d g o v e r n m e n t a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n w o u l d be a s s u r e d ; t h e l a c k o f establishing  issue  public hearings, the  policy  proposal  priorities  w o u l d be overcome; p r o j e c t  context;  and t h e design  be e x a m i n e d .  p e r s i s t t o b o g down t h e  j u s t i f i c a t i o n w o u l d be a s s e s s e d i n  and impacts  of the specific  project  Regrettably,  the implementation  and o p e r a t i o n a l  procedures f o r l a r g e s c a l e energy p r o j e c t s  r e m a i n a moot p o i n t  i n t h e EPRP.  7.3  would  and data problems, that  FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENERGY PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS The  foregoing  demonstrated  that,  assessment  of the review  while  of the shortcomings  process were c o r r e c t e d , and  many others  c o s t l y , both f i n a n c i a l l y  in this  persisted  of the Site  of the Revelstoke  and rendered  and i n t i m e .  C a p p l i c a t i o n has  the process  review  difficult  I n view o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n s  reached  s t u d y t h e f o l l o w i n g recommendations f o r t h e improvement o f t h e c u r r e n t  EPRP a r e p r o p o s e d : (1)  T h e p r e - a p p l i c a t i o n p h a s e o f t h e EPRP s h o u l d b e made c o m p u l s o r y .  (2)  A l l information compulsory.  (3)  S u f f i c i e n t t i m e s h o u l d be a l l o w e d o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n b y t h e EPCC  requirements  of the application  f o r an e f f i c i e n t  should  b e made  and adequate  review  185 Particular issues,  attention  the p o s s i b i l i t y  should  be p a i d  to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  of r e s o l v i n g minor issues  before  the hearing,  c o r r e c t i o n o f d a t a problems, such as o u t d a t e d and i n s u f f i c i e n t (4)  structure  appropriate. should size,  similar  to that  proposed  However, an e v a l u a t i o n  be c a r r i e d could  (5)  out.  by  data.  the Ministry  o f EMPR  of the experience a t other major  Such an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  structure, possibly  a l s o be e x t e n d e d t o t h e o p e r a t i o n a l  type  and scope  the administrative  projects (6)  could  of a  of the review  be e v a l u a t e d  first  regional  stage  should review project EPRP w e r e  changed  project.  and, i f so i n d i c a t e d ,  should  policies,  analysis  assess  and r i v e r  particulars  t o a two-stage  could  projects  reduced i n  Based  on  be w o r k e d o u t this  and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f l a r g e  The EPRP s h o u l d be changed recommended b y t h e S i t e C R e v i e w  The  t o the two-stage Panel.  project basin  need  review  development, w h i l e  process  The Project  analysis have  current  conclusion evolving  of the procedures  safety  Energy  Project  of this review  thesis  process.  a r e made  Process.  and e f f i c i e n t  review  provincial  t h e second  stage I f the  only  accordingly.  of the Revelstoke  partially  corrected  The r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  to further  The i m p l e m e n t a t i o n s  of  process  and i m p a c t s .  a t the time  t o inadequacies w h i c h were Review  energy  then the requirements of the  pointed  B.C. a n a d e q u a t e  projects.  i n place  scale  review  i n the contex  such as design,  learning  improved.  p r e - a p p l i c a t i o n a n d a p p l i c a t i o n p h a s e s w o u l d h a v e t o be a d a p t e d  give  seems  phase of a p r o j e c t .  of t h e post-development management  experience, a l l facets  the  and t h e  A p o s t - d e v e l o p m e n t a n a l y s i s s h o u l d be made a c o m p u l s o r y r e q u i r e m e n t o f the EPRP, e i t h e r i n the energy p r o j e c t c e r t i f i c a t e o r the energy operating certificate. The  and  major  A n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e management o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d s o c i o - e c o n o m i c i m p a c t s s h o u l d be w o r k e d o u t i n d e t a i l a n d i n c l u d e d i n the EPRP. A  by  of  improve  of these process  this  given  by i n  continually  recommendations would  f o r large  scale  energy  186 NOTES  W h e r e a s i t a p p e a r s f r o m F i g u r e 6.2 t h a t t h e p r o p o n e n t i s r e q u i r e d t o s u b m i t a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n and c o n s u l t a t i o n p r o g r a m , Thompson e t a l . ( 1 9 8 1 , p . 23) p o i n t o u t t h a t t h i s o n l y a p p l i e s " i f s u c h a p r o g r a m e x i s t s " . H o w e v e r , t h e P a n e l d i d recommend t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e g o v e r n m e n t a g e n c y study e x i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l r e s e r v o i r s to gain a b e t t e r understanding of the p r o d u c t i v i t y and o t h e r b i o l o g i c a l i m p a c t s o f r e s e r v o i r s . 2  3  by  A n n u a l r e v i e w s o f B.C. t h e BCUC.  Hydro's updated systems plans  are  c u r r e n t l y conducted  187 BIBLIOGRAPHY A n d r e w s , W. J . a n d H i g h a m , J . W. 1 9 8 6 . P r o t e c t i n g t h e B.C. E n v i r o n m e n t : A C a t a l o g u e o f P r o j e c t Review P r o c e s s e s . Vancouver: Environment Canada. A n t h o n y , R. J . 1979. U n t i t l e d . I n Second E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact Assessment Conference. R e s o u r c e I n d u s t r i e s Programmes, Centre f o r Continuing E d u c a t i o n . V a n c o u v e r : U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C., p p . 5 9 - 6 9 . B a n d l e r , H. 1986. "Environmental Considerations i n Planning, C o n s t r u c t i o n o f Dams." W a t e r I n t e r n a t i o n a l 11:98-106.  D e s i g n and  B a n k e s , N. a n d T h o m p s o n , A . R. 1980. M o n i t o r i n g f o r Impact Assessment and M a n a g e m e n t . V a n c o u v e r : W e s t w a t e r R e s e a r c h C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C. .  1 9 8 1 . " L e g a l and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Frameworks f o r M o n i t o r i n g and Feedback Systems i n E n v i r o n m e n t a l Assessment." I n C l a r k , S. D. ( e d . ) E n v i r o n m e n t a l Assessment i n A u s t r a l i a and Canada. Vancouver: Westwater R e s e a r c h C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f B.C., p p . 4 3 7 - 4 8 5 .  B a x t e r , R. M. 1977. " E n v i r o n m e n t a l E f f e c t s o f Dams a n d I m p o u n d m e n t s i n Canada: E x p e r i e n c e and P r o s p e c t s . " A n n u a l Review o f E c o l o g y and S y s t e m a t i c s 8:255-283. B a x t e r , R. M. a n d C l a u d e , P. 1980. "Environmental Impoundments i n C a n a d a : E x p e r i e n c e and P r o s p e c t s . " F i s h e r i e s and A q u a t i c S c i e n c e s No. 2 0 5 . O t t a w a .  E f f e c t s o f Dams a n d Canadian B u l l e t i n of  B e a n l a n d s , G. E . a n d D u i n k e r , P. N. 1 9 8 3 . An E c o l o g i c a l Framework f o r E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact Assessment I n Canada. Halifax: Institute f o r Resource and E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t u d i e s , D a l h o u s i e U n i v e r s i t y . B e r r y , B. J . , B r u z e w i c z , A. J . , C a r g o , D. B . e t a l . 1 9 7 4 . L a n d U s e , U r b a n Form and E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y . R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 1 5 5 . C h i c a g o : Department o f Geography, U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o . Bissett, R. 1980. "Problems and I s s u e s i n t h e I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact Assessment A u d i t s . " E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact Assessment Review 1(4):379-396. • 1984. "Post-Development A u d i t s t o I n v e s t i g a t e t h e Accuracy of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact P r e d i c t i o n . " Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r U m w e l t p o l i t i k 4:463484. B o n a r , R. L . 1978. Summary o f T e r r e s t r i a l B i o l o g y P r o g r a m - R e v e l s t o k e Project. 1 s t A n n u a l R e p o r t - M a r c h 1977 - M a r c h 1 9 7 8 . Revelstoke: B.C. H y d r o a n d P o w e r A u t h o r i t y . . 1979. R e v e l s t o k e P r o j e c t T e r r e s t r i a l B i o l o g y Program, A n n u a l R e p o r t 19787 R e v e l s t