Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Prepared for the Village of Valemount with generous funding from the Regional District of Fraser Fort George and the Columbia Basin Trust 2013
Prepared by Jared Smith BSc. & Owen Torgerson
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Executive Summary
The Mica Dam and associated Kinbasket Reservoir form an integral component of BC Hydro’s electricity generation system. Completed in 1973 as part of Canada’s obligations under the Columbia River Treaty, the Mica Dam generates 12 per cent of BC’s electricity needs while the Kinbasket Reservoir contains 45 per cent of the total water storage required under the Treaty.
Although the Reservoir and Dam provide considerable economic benefit to the Province in the form of electricity generation and flood control, it has been accompanied by a range of bio-physical and socio-economic impacts. 425 km2 of Columbia and Canoe River valley- bottom ecosystems were inundated, destroying a variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Communities adjacent to the Reservoir, most notably Valemount and Golden, experience a range of impacts to this day that greatly influence their forestry and tourism dependent economies and overall quality of life.
While the Columbia River Treaty does not expire, ten years advance notice is required by either country wishing to terminate the agreement and 2014 is the earliest this could happen. Because of this, municipal, provincial, and federal decision makers on both sides of the border have initiated comprehensive reviews and public consultation sessions regarding the Treaty’s benefits and impacts. These analyses will provide direction for future re-negotiation or termination of the Treaty.
Commissioned by The Village of Valemount, the purpose of the Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report is twofold. First, the report examines the bio-physical and socio-economic impacts on Valemount and surrounding area resulting from the Kinbasket Reservoir. A combination of past reports, public consultation sessions, and new research has formed the basis of this examination. Secondly, economic development and environmental remediation opportunities identified during the public consultation sessions are presented as businesses cases. They address specific impacts from the Reservoir and are an attempt to mitigate and/or remediate them.
The first business case examines apportionment within the Robson Valley Timber Supply Area as a strategy to improve local employment opportunities. The second business case looks at how preliminary geological mapping in Valemount may enable a district heating pilot project. The third business case proposes environmental remediation of a local wetland area to better support natural ecological processes and sustain existing plant and animal communities. These cases represent an opportunity to balance past impacts with future progress and growth. They are directed to stakeholders interested in improving the socio-economic and environmental conditions in Valemount and the Regional District of Fraser Fort George.
Page | 2
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………..... 2 Methodology/Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………..... 4 Advisory Panel…………………………………………………………………………………...... 4 Socio-Economic Impacts…………………………………………………………...……...... 5 Impacts on Forestry Operations…………………………………………………………...... 5 History………………………………………………………………………………………...... 5 Annual Allowable Cut/Employment and Wages…………………………….... 6 Loss of Value Added Processing…………………………………………...... 7 Loss of ICH & SBS / Loss of Canoe Forest Road & Big Bend Highway... 8 Increased Cost of Access/Loss of Revenue/Current Impacts...... 9 Impacts on Past and Future Tourism/Recreation Potential………………………... 10 Lost Access to Recreational Areas and Transportation Corridor…….... 11 Loss of Canoe Hot Springs…………………………………………………………….... 13 Current Recreational Opportunities……………………………………………..... 14 Psychological Impacts………………………………………………………………...... 15 Bio-physical Impacts………………………………………………………………...... 16 Loss of Habitat………………………………………………………………………………...... 17 Habitat Fragmentation……………………………………………………………………...... 19 Loss of Wildlife…………………………………………………………………………………...... 20 Woody Debris in Reservoir………………………………………………………………...... 21 Affect on Local Climate………………………………………………………………………...... 22 Rationale for Business Cases……………………………………………………...... 23 Business Case 1-Re-allocation of Volume to Valemount Community Forest……...... 25 Business Case 2- Geo-thermal Exploration- Pre-feasibility……………………………...... 34 Business Case 3-R.W. Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary Remediation………………………...... 44 Summary of Reviewed Studies………………………………………………………………………...... 54 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………...... 55
Page | 3
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Methodology/Acknowledgements As part of the Columbia River Treaty Review, the Province of BC initiated community consultation sessions which took place throughout the Province in November of 2012. The objectives of the community consultation sessions were to increase basin residents’ understanding of the Treaty and gather feedback from residents to help inform future Provincial direction. Once completed, the review will help the Provincial Government decide whether to continue, amend, or terminate the Columbia River Treaty.
Being located at the northern end of the basin and adjacent to the Kinbasket Reservoir, Valemount residents were eager to share their views regarding the Columbia River Treaty, and more specifically, the Kinbasket Reservoir. The community consultation session summary report noted many participants felt that “while the Kinbasket Reservoir is a huge revenue generator to the Province, relatively few resources flow back to the community and compensation has not been adequate for the impacts experienced.”1
As a result of the interest shown at the Valemount community consultation session, an ad hoc committee was formed to discuss next steps in the Treaty review process. Representatives of the Village of Valemount, the Columbia Basin Trust and, the Regional District Fraser-Fort George decided that an updated review of the impacts of the Kinbasket Reservoir on Valemount was needed. It was also decided that the review should include ‘business cases’ of economic development and environmental remediation opportunities (‘business cases’) to offset those impacts.
This report was commissioned as a result of those discussions. Drawing information from a number of past reports, insights gathered from meetings with the advisory panel, and new research, this report examines the impacts of the Kinbasket Reservoir on Valemount. Ideas for the business cases came from the dedicated volunteers on the advisory panel (see below). This report would not have been possible without the generous funding contributions from The Regional District of Fraser Fort George and the Columbia Basin Trust. It also relies on a number of interviews with local residents, amateur historians, BC Parks staff, and other stakeholders.
Advisory Panel
Public consultation for the Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report began almost immediately following the start of the project. Invitations to participate on an Advisory Panel were advertised through local newspapers and online social networking mediums. Responses were received and members were selected based on fields of expertise, local history, participation with previous reservoir studies and municipal,
1 Columbia River Treaty Review: Summary Report (2012) p.16
Page | 4
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
regional and basin involvement. Project coordinators met with members of the Advisory Panel to review socio-economical and environmental impacts of the Kinbasket Reservoir on the Valemount area and to discuss five potential business cases. Two business case ideas based on economic and exploratory expansion were selected by the Advisory Panel to be further developed by the project coordinators. A third business case idea of providing additional rejuvenation to a local established wetland was discussed via e-mail and positive recommendations were received. This project is grateful to have the many contributions from the Advisory Panel members:
• Marie Birkbeck • Korie Marshall • Art Carson • Rick Plamondon • Bill Kruisselbrink • Curtis Pawliuk
Socio-Economic Impacts
Impacts on Forestry Operations
History
The introduction of the Kinbasket Reservoir to the Robson Valley timber supply area (TSA) had significant impacts on forestry operations. 2 Before clearing of the Reservoir began in the late 1960s, the Canoe Valley up to the confluence with the Columbia River, contained an estimated 17,125 hectares of productive, valley bottom, interior cedar/hemlock (ICH) and sub-boreal spruce (SBS) biogeoclimatic zones. 3 An established road network linked the forestry dependent communities of Valemount, Revelstoke, and Golden allowing for easy transportation of forest resources to multiple saw-milling operations. Ministry of Forests’ inventories estimate the Robson Valley timber supply area affected by the Reservoir to have contained 4,750,000 m3 of harvestable timber, less than 20 per cent of which was harvested pre-inundation. 4
2 Robson Valley timber supply area is within the Headwaters Forest District (previously administered by the Prince George Forest District) 3 Penfold, George (2012) 4 Townsend, Jeanette (1994)
Page | 5
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
(Pre and post flood pictures of the Canoe Valley and Kinbasket Reservoir -Joan Nordli)
Annual Allowable Cut Lost
The loss of annual allowable cut (AAC) at the time of inundation, from many historical perspectives, was the single most disruptive impact of the creation of the Kinbasket Reservoir. The Robson Valley TSA was reduced by 17,125 hectares of productive forest land due to flooding. Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations’ (MFLNRO) mean annual increment (MAI) (growth rates) range from 3.5-6.3 m³ / hectare for medium productivity ICH and SBS biogeoclimatic zones. 5 The forested land base inundated by Kinbasket Reservoir was predominantly valley bottom ecosystems with medium to high productivity.6 As such, the Robson Valley timber supply area lost in perpetuity, an additional AAC of between 59,937 m³ – 107,887 m³. Past reports including the Valemount Report (Townsend, Jeanette-1994), calculated this loss at 66,500 m³ by using a MAI of 3.88 m³
Loss of Employment & wages
This loss of AAC had both immediate and long term consequences for the entire TSA. At the time of inundation, Valemount and McBride’s economies were heavily dependent on forestry harvesting and processing with approximately 40 per cent of the labour force employed directly in forestry jobs or induced jobs. 7 8 The clearing of the Reservoir created
5 Ministry of Forests and Lands Annual Report (1989) 6 Utzig, G. & Schmidt, D. (2011); Townsend, Jeanette (1994) 7 Townsend, Jeanette (1994) 8 Population (1970) of 700, labour force participation rate of 55 per cent & multiplier effect of 1.5.
Page | 6
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
a temporary boom in harvesting employment which subsequently disappeared overnight when clearing efforts were called off and the Reservoir began filling in 1973, leaving 3.8 million m³ of volume un-harvested. The “Valemount Report” contains a memorandum which details the lost jobs (direct & induced), wages, and stumpage revenue from filling the Reservoir before harvesting was completed. It calculates wages lost due to prematurely filling the Reservoir as $255,580,977.9
Loss of Value Added Processing
As important to the local economy as wages were at that time, was the revenue created from processing or selling the timber. In the late 1960s, it wasn’t unusual for small milling operations to situate close to one another and to harvesting operations. These smaller operations often moved around to follow harvesting operations, thus enjoying the benefits of agglomeration. Historical accounts report at least several milling operations were located in the inundation zone of the Reservoir.
(Canoe River Mill, circa 1934) Sawmill at Canoe River Camp-1937 10
Art Carson, long-time Valemount resident and member of this report’s advisory panel describes one such operation:
Nearby Bulldog canyon was to me a fascinating place to explore during the off hours. In fact, I found time to develop quite an appreciation of the natural environment around camp, little affected by our small scale operation. And so it was rather a shock for me the day the inevitable happened. The Reservoir clearing crews had been making steady progress. In the morning the forests stood on all sides of the camp as they always had, at about 11am two huge bulldozers connected by a length of ships' anchor cable drove side by side through the bush adjacent to the camp, flattening all that stood between them. By evening the camp stood in the open, with windrows and piling progressing in the debris all around. In that year, hundreds of small mills along the Rocky Mountain Trench sawed their last board, and of course, Bulldog creek was one of them. The site is now many feet beneath the waters of Kinbasket Lake.11
9 Not considering inflation and using 1992 wages-see schedule # for details 10 Revelstoke Museum and Archives 11 Valemount Historic Society (1984)
Page | 7
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Loss of Valley Bottom ICH & SBS Ecosystems
The geography and ecosystem characteristics of the inundated portion of the Robson Valley TSA are another important consideration. Although the Robson Valley TSA covers approximately 1.35 million hectares, the current timber harvesting land base is only 12 per cent of that, or 180,000 hectares.12 This is due to a number of economic, environmental, and social constraints such as riparian, parks, old growth management, and protected areas, and areas deemed by the MFLNRO as un-economic or inoperable under current management practices. In the Robson Valley TSA, much of this area consists of the Rocky, Cariboo, and Monashee Mountain ranges. Valley bottom eco-systems are, because of their marginal contribution to the overall land-base, highly valuable for development and resource extraction activities in this region. Because the Reservoir inundated predominantly valley bottom ICH and SBS ecosystems, arguably the most economically productive and easily accessible timber in the TSA, this had notable consequences for the region’s economic, social, and environmental sustainability then, and indefinitely into the future.
Loss of Canoe River Forest Road and Big Bend Highway Access
Before flooding of the Kinbasket Reservoir, Canoe River Forest Road continued south from Valemount alongside the Canoe River eventually connecting to the portion of Highway 23 known as The Big Bend Highway. Big timber in the Canoe River Valley 13 The road was passable year round except during isolated periods in the winter months.14 This road network allowed forest resources to be transported relatively cheaply and quickly between Valemount, Golden, and Revelstoke. Based on a 1973/1974 road map published by the Ministry of Transportation, the distance from Valemount to either Revelstoke or Golden was approximately 282 km. If the Reservoir had not been created and
12 Robson Valley Timber Supply Area Review (2012) 13 Library and Archives of Canada 14 Personal communication with Bill Kruisselbrink (Feb. 2013)
Page | 8
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
the Canoe River Forest Road had been upgraded to current standards, distances and travel times between these three communities would have been improved upon and shortened. With the creation of the Reservoir, these distances are now: 534 km (Revelstoke) and 429 km (Golden) making trade in forest resources more difficult.
Increased Costs Associated With Accessing Remaining Volume
For the Robson Valley TSA, rebuilding roads to access forest resources adjacent to the Reservoir was an expensive proposition.15 Where one mainline road had previously accessed timber on both sides of the valley, two were now required; one on each steep toe slope on either side of the Reservoir. Significant work went into switchbacks, crossing active slide paths (snow and earth), and minimizing slope erosion on steep side-slope portions of roads. These added costs are still being realized by active licensees in the Kinbasket Reservoir area. In areas in-accessible by the new roads, or in places where road upkeep was now prohibitively expensive, forest companies resorted to transporting timber on barges or by tugboat on the Reservoir, a practice which added an estimated $7 per m³ (1989 estimate).16
Loss of Provincial Revenue
Lost Provincial revenue from stumpage and annual rent are another impact of the Reservoir; however, because stumpage rates and annual rent depend on numerous and ever-changing variables, calculating lost Provincial revenue from these sources is not a worthwhile exercise in the scope of this paper. As a ballpark figure for interest, stumpage accrued by the provincial government from harvesting the remaining volume would have ranged from $30.6 – $50.4 - $95 million.17
Losses Continue to Impact Forestry Operations
The impacts on the forest industry from the creation of the Kinbasket Reservoir are still felt today by local licensees and residents. In 2001, forestry continued to employ between 35 and 40 per cent of the local workforce although that number has steadily declined to less than 20 per cent as of 2012. The last decade has been particularly difficult for the Robson Valley TSA with: the loss of the appurtenance clause and a shift away from local processing;
15 Penfold, George E. (2012) 16 Ibid 17 Using stumpage rates of $8.05, $13.25, and $25.00 per m³ from 1979, 1992, and 2000 17 Robson Valley Timber Supply Analysis (2005) 17 Using employment coefficient of .5 jobs/1000m³
Page | 9
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report re-organization of major licensees; and the overall impact of larger market conditions due to downturns in the US housing market and BC’s pine beetle epidemic.
Summary of Losses to Robson Valley TSA:
♦ Loss of an additional annual allowable cut of between 59,937 m³ – 107,887 m³
♦ Loss of 25-50 full time jobs involved in harvesting additional AAC and unknown additional employment opportunities of increased value added processing18
♦ Loss of 17, 125 hectares of most productive and easily accessible ICH and SBS harvestable land-base in TSA
♦ Loss of transportation corridor allowing easy access to southern portion of TSA and trade with forestry dependent communities of Revelstoke & Golden
Impacts on Past and Future Tourism/Recreation Potential
The Kinbasket Reservoir inundated 42, 647 hectares of lakes, rivers, wetlands, riparian forests, and upland ecosystems that were easily accessible from Canoe River Forest Road and the Big Bend portion of Highway 23.19 These ecosystems have been described as:
“…archetypal British Columbia wilderness: mountainous, glaciated, heavily forested, cleft by icy watercourses, and almost completely uninhabited.”20
“…a thrilling travelogue of mountain peaks, glaciers, and entrancing views of the mighty Columbia River.”21
View from the Big bend Highway
19 Utzig, G. & Schmidt, D. (2011) 20 Bradley, Ben (2011) 21 Provincial Government brochure from Bradley, Ben (2011)
Page | 10
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
“The flora and fauna of in this area was entirely different: giant cedar trees were in abundance, many of them eight or nine feet in diameter [...] along with species of ferns and creepers not commonly seen in the surrounding are.”22
Such vivid and evocative descriptions of the pre-flood landscape confirm the loss of biologically rich habitat, spectacular scenery, and extensive recreational and tourism potential. The Reservoir submerged the Canoe River Hot Springs, the majority of former Hamber Provincial Park, and the road network linking Mt. Robson Provincial Park with Yoho National Park, therefore eliminating the possibility of a future “Great Circle Route.” Though not easily quantified in an economic sense, the loss of these attractions greatly impacted Valemount’s future tourism development prospects.
Lost Access to Recreational and Tourism Areas
The loss of the Canoe River Forest Road and Highway 23 portion known as the Big Bend Highway had impacts beyond those felt by the forest industry at the time inundation. As tourism related employment in the Robson Valley increased and began to rival that of forestry, the impacts of losing this valuable transportation corridor became evident. Pre- flood, the Canoe River Forest Road traversed an area rich in recreational opportunities including: canoeing and kayaking routes, hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, access to Hamber Park and Kinbasket Lake. Bridge near convergence of Canoe River Loss of Transportation Corridor Forest Road and the Big Bend Highway The creation of the Kinbasket
Reservoir forever changed the Robson Valley’s transportation network by eliminating the most direct route to Golden and Revelstoke. Pre-flooding, the distance to either Golden or Revelstoke from Valemount via Canoe River Forest Road and The Big Bend highway was about 282 km.23 Between 1940 and 1962, the Big Bend Highway was designated as Highway 1, The Trans-Canada Highway, and was the only route from Revelstoke to Golden.24 The Valemount Report states that travelling from Valemount to Kamloops via
22 Mclean, Sandy from Townsend, Jeanette (1994) memorandum 23 Penfold, George E. (2012) 24 Bradley, Ben (2011)
Page | 11
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Canoe River Forest and Big Bend Highway was often faster than travelling via Highway 5, prior to Highway 5 improvements.25
Speculation from local residents and members of the advisory panel suggest that had the Reservoir not been created, Canoe River Forest Road would have become, over time, a modern paved highway linking the communities of Valemount, Revelstoke, Golden, and other southern destinations in BC and Alberta. Considering the geographical and political boundaries of the area, and that a decently maintained roadbed already existed along the entire route, this suggestion has considerable merit. In addition to having an alternate route through the Rocky Mountains from BC to Alberta, the Provincial Government would have inadvertently linked many of the Rocky Mountains’ most iconic national and Provincial parks, undoubtedly drawing more visitations to Valemount, the Robson Valley, and the region as a whole. This route, dubbed by supporters as “The Great Circle” (akin to “The Great Triangle”), would have made possible a circumnavigation of BC and Alberta mountain parks including:
25 Townsend, Jeanette (1994)
Page | 12
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
● Mt. Robson Provincial Park ● Glacier National Park
● Jasper National Park ● Mt. Revelstoke National Park ● Banff National Park ● Hamber Provincial Park ●Yoho National Park
Loss of Canoe Hot Springs
When local residents are asked, losing year round access to the Canoe Hot Springs was one of the more unfortunate consequences of the Kinbasket Reservoir. Before inundation, naturally occurring, geothermal heated water bubbled into a series of hot pools within 30 kilometres of Valemount. The series of hot pools, with surface temperatures of up to 80 oC, flowed into a lake known as “Hot Springs Lake.”26 Various accounts in Yellowhead Pass and Its People, refer to memorable visits to the hot springs:
“The undeveloped springs bubbled up at 160 oF only a few yards from some of our skid trails, and we would bounce over there in Billy Holmin’s 4x4 and have an outrageously hot bath. A trapper had built a square wooden cribbing adjacent to one of the most prolific vents, and hot water could be diverted into the wood lined pit and allowed to cool to a survivable temperature. In the early spring with deep snowdrifts all around, it was quite an experience. Later on, in the hot weather, an adjacent cold pond provided swimming and fishing.”27
Old growth cedar forests surrounded the springs, creating an atmosphere of peaceful seclusion.28
In many residents’ opinions, it would have been a case of when, not if, the Canoe Hot Springs would have been further developed. Reinforcing this opinion is the fact that most known hot springs in BC that have good road access and are within close proximity to population centres have been developed as tourist destinations.
The Canoe Hot Springs would now be un-recognizable to those early visitors. Being located at 718 m above sea level, the springs are rarely exposed because of Kinbasket Reservoir’s extensive drawdown elevation range of between 707 m to 755 m. Because it is uncommon for the Reservoir to reach lower operating levels, the hot springs are exposed perhaps once
26 Kimball, Sarah (2010) 27 Valemount Historic Society (1984) Quote from Art Carson 28 Personal communication with Joan Nordli
Page | 13
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report every three to four years for only a few weeks at a time.29 Despite local enthusiasm to enjoy this precious resource, successful visitations are infrequent, with many trips finding submerged springs. When the hot springs are exposed to enjoy, the barren mud-flats and extensive debris do not invoke the same awe-inspiring grandeur the springs previously did.
Current Recreational Opportunities
Valemount did not receive the “greatest man-made lake in the world,” as promised by Honourable Ray Williston, Minister of Lands and Forests at that time, when he visited Valemount in 1964. The Reservoir’s recreational potential is greatly impacted by the fluctuating water levels. These seasonal variations and subsequent recreational impacts are noted below: 30
Reservoir Drawdown Drawdown Area Drawdown Area (metres) (km2) (per cent full) Kinbasket 47 220 50 % Revelstoke 1.5 2.4 2 % Arrow 20 159 30 % Koocanusa 52 Duncan 28 Kootenay 3
Winter (November-March) - during the winter months, the Reservoir is not safe for any use because the ice that freezes on top unexpectedly drops as Reservoir levels drop. At times, the ice is suspended over the water by a number of feet before it collapses under its own weight.
Spring (March-June) – Reservoir is at its lowest elevation in April. For anyone wishing to recreate during these months, they must travel 25 or more kilometres down unmaintained forest service roads alongside a barren landscape of mud and debris before reaching the Reservoir.
Summer/Fall (July-October) – By July, the Reservoir is becoming full enough to access. Users must walk over heavily eroded shorelines, piles of woody debris, left over logging/milling machinery and metal scraps to reach the water’s edge. Whole bays are still inundated with woody debris, making these areas un-usable. Boating requires extreme caution as there is still significant amount of woody debris in the lake with which to collide
29 KRIFOBC Advisory Panel 30 BC Hydro- Columbia River Water Use Plan (2012)
Page | 14
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report with. Much of the debris is water logged to a point of floating just below the water line, making detection difficult.
Extensive drawdown zone in late winter – looking northwest towards Valemount 31
Summary of Tourism and Recreational Impacts:
♦ Lost canoeing, kayaking, and fishing opportunities along the Canoe and Columbia Rivers
♦ Lost tourism development potential from inundation of southern transportation corridor with Golden, Revelstoke, and other southern destinations in BC and Alberta
♦ Lost opportunity to develop a modern highway linking national and Provincial parks and creating a “Great Circle Route” for travellers
♦ Loss of Canoe Hot Springs and associated tourism development
♦ Loss of an array of possibilities for eco-tourism and professionally guided excursions
♦ A marginally useful Reservoir in return, dependent on water level and debris
31 Photo credit: Wade Carson
Page | 15
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Psychological Impacts on Affected Communities
Being abstract and not easily quantified, the psychological impacts experienced by those affected by the Reservoir have received less attention. They are however, inextricably linked to the social, economic, and environmental health of an area, making them just as important. In the case of the Kinbasket Reservoir, psychological impacts can be categorized as those felt by the valley residents during and immediately after inundation, and those felt by current residents of Valemount and area.
By this stage of the report, the audience has most likely gained an appreciation of what the inundated area was like. Being referred to as an “unspoiled wilderness”… “full of eight foot cedar trees, glaciated peaks, and a plethora of flora and fauna,” the Canoe and Columbia River valleys had obvious appeal to anyone who appreciated wild, untouched wilderness. Not surprisingly, those are the same types of individuals the nearby communities attracted. When flooding began, citizens of inundated communities (Downie, Mica, Big Bend, Boat Encampment, La Porte) as well as nearby communities, especially Valemount, and Golden, lost their sense of place and attachment to a certain way of life. Forever gone were the opportunities to:
“relieve their rheumatism and arthritis in the Canoe Hot Springs”
Enjoy the “…high-bush cranberries, wild orchids, and early lilies that were visible from the river, giant spruce and cedars flanked by swamps, and snow capped peaks that enclosed the valley.”32
Replacing this veritable paradise were miles of barren silt flats, a heavily eroded shoreline, and widespread debris from the 3.8 million m3 of un-harvested timber.
For current residents, although many did not have the chance to experience firsthand the Canoe River Valley, historical accounts and passed down narratives paint an appealing picture. As noted in the Valemount Report, while people in rural areas understand the use of crown land for the benefit of the entire province, there is still a very real sense of personal connection and ownership over their region, as is the case in Valemount.
Being at the most northerly point in the basin and experiencing the greatest drawdown and associated impacts, residents question the fairness of the current situation. Many feel isolated from decisions that greatly affect their “backyard.”33 With the review of the Columbia River Treaty, however, there is hope for the future. While residents know that we cannot “un-flood” the Reservoir and return the valley to its former state, there is optimism that future negotiations will consider the socio-economic and bio-physical consequences the Reservoir had, and will attempt to mitigate or remediate those impacts.
32 Townsend, Jeanette (1994) 33 Personal communication with KRIFOBC Advisory Panel and Public
Page | 16
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Biophysical Impacts
Hydro-electric development, along with the necessary creation of Reservoirs, has a large ecological footprint correspondent with the area of land-base it requires. The Kinbasket Reservoir is no exception, having inundated 42,647 hectares of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. It altered all aspects of the Canoe and Columbia River Valleys’ environment from the forest covered valley bottom to the local climate and weather patterns.
This had obvious impacts on flora and fauna, with many species losing between 40-70 per cent of their Area of Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems local Inundated by Kinbasket Reservoir (ha) populations.34 A Lakes 2,343 study Rivers 4,897 commissioned Streams 192 by the Fish and Shallow ponds 555 Wildlife Gravel Bars 236 Compensation Wetlands 5,863 Program, Floodplains, Riparian Forests 15,526 assigned Upland Ecosystems 13,036 Wildlife Species Total 42,647 Impact Ratings (WSIR) to all Columbia River Treaty Reservoirs based on the habitat loss for 289 different species. Of all the Reservoirs, Kinbasket’s mean rating was highest at 2.96 out of 5 (higher number = greater habitat loss).
The biophysical impacts include those to the biotic (living) and abiotic (non living) components of an environment. Because very little environmental impact research was completed pre-inundation, post studies rely on: eco-system mapping from pre-flood aerial photos, topographic maps, land class mapping, and extrapolation from studying similar environments. Given the size and ecological complexity of the inundated area, comprehensive biophysical assessments are exceedingly complex, lengthy and beyond the scope of this report. A summary of more significant bio-physical impacts will be provided, drawing from a number of previously published studies including:
Dam Footprint Impact Summary – BC Hydro Dams in the Columbia Basin Utzig & Schmidt (2011)
34 Utzig and Schmidt (2011)
Page | 17
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Assessing the Impact of Hydro Development – A Case Study for the Columbia Basin in BC Toller & Nemetz (1997)
Loss of Habitat
Habitat loss is the main driver behind species decline and extirpation in the case of the Kinbasket Reservoir. The pre-dam aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems noted in **(table ***) were replaced by an artificial aquatic Reservoir with fluctuation levels of up to 47 m. The Reservoir is located in the relatively flat bottomed Rocky Mountain Trench and the drawdown zone elevation range is broad. Because of this, the area in the drawdown zone that experiences submersion /exposure cycles is vast, covering an area of 220 km2 (52 per cent of the total Reservoir area).35 The drawdown zone is particularly inhospitable for both plant and animal communities, with very few species being adapted to such extreme fluctuations in environmental condition. Of the ecosystems inundated, those that had very little comparable ecosystem unaffected by the Reservoir and within the same region, were most critically affected. The following ecosystems are considered critically affected, and are no longer well represented in the Reservoir area:
● Riparian Forests- biologically and habitat diverse riparian forests along the Canoe, Columbia, and tributary rivers. 1600 linear kilometres in total of riparian habitat was lost.36
● Wetlands & Floodplains- known to provide important ecosystem services such as water purification, flood control, groundwater replenishment, and hot spots of biodiversity. Upwards of 7,000 hectares of these ecosystems were lost to the Reservoir, greatly impacting migratory birds and waterfowl.
● Natural Aquatic Environments- an estimated 8,000 hectares of lakes, ponds, rivers and streams, were inundated, impacting associated fish and amphibious species. The environmental conditions of the Reservoir do not provide the level of heterogeneity provided by the original aquatic ecosystems pre-flood, and thus cannot accommodate the same variety of species.
35 Bray, K. (2012) 36 Utzig & Schmidt (2011)
Page | 18
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
The Canoe River and adjacent riparian forests pre-flood 37
Habitat Fragmentation
The amount of suitable habitat available ultimately determines the carrying capacity of a given ecosystem. Habitat fragmentation occurs when distinct areas of habitat are fragmented by anthropogenic events, reducing the connectivity between them and leaving isolated pockets of habitat with intact plant and animal communities. This can have obvious impacts on seasonal migrations, connectivity, genetic exchange, predator/prey relationships, reproduction, and dispersal, all of which influence overall species sustainability.38
Having inundated the Rocky Mountain Trench, the Kinbasket Reservoir forever altered an important migration corridor. The Rocky Mountain Trench is a large valley extending for approximately 1600 kilometres from the BC/Yukon border in the north, to Montana State in the south. Being a relatively flat bottomed valley with very little elevation variance (600- 900 m above sea level), the Trench was an ideal corridor for a variety of large mammals. After creation of the Reservoir, the corridor was limited to conduits above high water line, much of which are exceptionally steep. In addition, the biologically productive valley bottom, which in the past had provided resources for migrating animals, no longer existed. The Canadian Rocky Mountain Eco-Regional Assessment, noted habitat fragmentation was of particular concern for grizzly bears, grey wolves, and Jefferson’s badgers.39 Another study noted that for resident and migratory waterfowl, the once prevalent wetlands and
37 Photo Courtesy of Art Carson 38 Ibid 39 Rumsey, C., Wood, B., Buttersfield, P. et al. (2003)
Page | 19
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
floodplains no longer existed, making migration and survival difficult. That study estimated that 600,000 migrant and 13,000 resident waterfowl were lost to the Reservoir.40
Loss of Wildlife
The Mica Region Resource Study of 1974 completed a quantitative analysis of wildlife lost due to the Kinbasket Reservoir. Because there was little statistical basis for how these numbers were assigned, it is assumed by subsequent reports that these estimates are based on the judgement of the author, and of Fish and Wildlife Department personnel, and are therefore to be used as rough estimates only.41
Species Est. Anticipated Remnant Species Est. Anticipated Remnant pop. Losses (%) pop. pop. Losses (%) pop. Moose 2000 70 600 Blue Grouse ? 10 ? Elk 300 40 180 Ptarmigan ? 0 ? Deer 800 50 400 Squirrel ? 20 ? Caribou 500 10 450 Martin ? 20 ? Goat 1000 0 1000 Weasel ? 50 ? Black Bear 3000 70 900 Muskrat 4000 100 0 Grizzly Bear 100 30 70 Beaver 3000 90 300 Wolf 100 70 30 Mink 2000 80 400 Cougar 25 50 12 Fisher 1000 20 800 Snowshoe Hare ? 50 ? Otter 300 80 60 Coyote ? 70 ? Wolverine 1000 10 900 Lynx ? 40 ? Osprey 14 90 2 Bobcat ? 10 ? Bald Eagle ? 70 ? Ruffled Grouse ? 70 ? Peregrine Falcon ? 100 0 Franklin Grouse ? 30 ?
Noting the lack of pre-flood information as a major hindrance, following reports decided to focus on a qualitative analysis of impacted species and assign Wildlife Species Impact Ratings (WISR) instead of actual population numbers. WSIR’s are deduced from Habitat Loss Risk Ratings (HLRR) for each habitat associated with that species.42 Dam Footprint Impact Summary prepared for Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program43 utilized this method of statistical analysis and produced the following tables. This report studied all resident and breeding species within the Reservoir area as well as migratory bird species that use the basin during spring/fall migrations, whereas the previous report focused mainly on species with “consumptive” uses (i.e. hunting, trapping, guiding).44
Guild Priority 1 Wildlife Priority 2 Wildlife Guild Priority 1 Wildlife Priority 2 Wildlife
40 Economic Growth Solutions (2009) 41 Hambruch, Paul (1994) 42 Utzig & Schmidt (2011) 43 Prepared by Utzig & Schmidt (2011) 44 Hambruch, Paul (1994)
Page | 20
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Northern Leopard Frog w w Brown Creeper u Red-eved Virco
Amphibians / Western Toad w Chestnut-backed Chickadee u American Dipper
Reptiles Wood Frog w Eastern Kingbird u Red-breasted Nutbatch
Painted Turtle w Olive-sided Flycatcher u Alder Flycatcher
Harlequin Duck w Pacific-slope Flycatcher u American Pipit
American Coot w Common Goldeneye w Songbirds Veery w Black-capped Chickadee
Barrow's Goldeneye w Common Loon w Western Wood-pewee u Golden-crowned Kinglet
Belted King Fisher w Eared Grebe w Flycatcher - Willow Flycatcher w Gray Catbird
Blue-winged Teal w Virco Hammond's Flycatcher
Waterbirds Canvasback w Horned Grebe w Least Flycatcher
Cinnamon Teal w Red-necked Grebe w Marsh Wren
Lesser Scaup w Ring-necked Grebe w Winter Wren
Northern Pintail w Bufflehead w Northern Mockingbird
Pie-billed Grebe w Hooded Merganser w Yellow Warbler w American Redstart
Redhead w Songbirds Black-headed Grosbeak
Western Grebe w Purple Finch u Blackpoll Warbler
Wood duck w Warblers - Yellow-headed Blackbird w Brown-headed Cowbird
American Bittern w Sora w Sparrows Common Yellowthroat
Waders Great Blue Heron w Bobolink w Magnolia Warbler
Virginia Rail w Yellow-breasted Chat u Nashville Warbler
Raptors Northern Harrier w Cooper's Hawk u Northern Yellowthrush
Shorebirds Common Snipe w Black Tern w California Myotis u
Killdeer w Hoary Bat w
Game birds Dusky Grouse Bats Long-eared Myotis u
Ruffed Grouse Long-legged Myotis u
Northern Pygme Owl u Barred Owl u Northern Myotis w
Owls Short-eared Owl w Silver-haired Bat u
Western Screech-owl w American Beaver
Hummingbirds Rufous Hummingbird u Dusky Shrew
Lewis' Woodpecker w Downy Woodpecker u Small Meadow Vole
Woodpeckers Pileated Woodpecker u Mammals North American Water Vole
Red-naped Sapsucker w Western Jumping Mouse
Barn Swallow w American Water Shrew
Black Swift w Fisher w American Badger
Aerial Cliff Swallow w Carnivores Northern River Otter w American Marten
Insectivores Northern Ruff-winged Swallow w Grey Wolf u American Mink
Violet Green Swallow w Grizzley Bear u
Vaux's Swift w Caribou u Bighorn Sheep
Corvids Steller's Jay u Moose w
Ungulates White-tailed Deer u
Mule Deer u
Elk u
Wildlife Species Impact Rating Very High High Medium Low Very Low
Priority 1 wildlife is classified as having high or very high WSIR’s and high priorities for management as determined by other agencies. Priority 2 wildlife has high or very high WSIR’s but were not designated as high a priority by outside agencies.45
Woody Debris in Reservoir
45 Utzig & Schmidt (2011)
Page | 21
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Floating woody debris has been an ongoing problem in the Kinbasket Reservoir. When BC Hydro proposed the Reservoir, they acknowledged that debris clean-up would be necessary. As mentioned before, over 3.8 million m3 of timber volume was un- harvested before flooding, leaving it to eventually become stranded around the “bath-tub” ring of the Reservoir, rising and falling with fluctuating water levels. Had clearing of the Reservoir been properly scheduled to allow for complete harvesting prior to inundation, the debris issue would have been greatly minimized, and the province as a whole would have benefited greatly from the additional stumpage and revenue creation. BC Hydro filled the Reservoir before properly harvesting the timber, consciously creating a long term and difficult to solve debris problem. For many area residents, this is another example of how BC Hydro and the Provincial government at the time, showed complete disregard to the Reservoir’s effects on local communities. The Farquharson Report was commissioned in 1974 by the Environment and Land Use Extensive clean-up of debris has taken place since 1980 Committee to examine The Reservoir’s impacts. It stated: “Clearance of debris should be completed by 1980 to enable use of Reservoir for transportation.”46
BC Hydro has made it a priority to address the debris issue, and significant progress has been made as noted in the before and after photos. Since 2007, BC Hydro has contributed $3 million dollars towards debris removal in the Kinbasket Reservoir, roughly divided between efforts in Golden and Valemount. Despite the efforts, “the lake is [still] not a recreational experience; it’s an adrenaline ride just to go fishing,” as one participant voiced at the Columbia River Treaty Community Consultation Session.47
Impacts on Local Climatic Conditions
Since introduction of the Kinbasket Reservoir to the Robson Valley environment, local residents have observed an increase in frequency and speeds of wind. While observations up to this point have been anecdotal, the claims are well supported by a wealth of scientific literature regarding the effects of surface roughness on wind speed in the surface boundary
46 Farquharson, K.G. (1974) p.17 47 Summary Report: CRT Review-Community Consultations (2012)
Page | 22
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
layer. Before inundation, the Canoe River valley was a mosaic of different ecosystems, each having variable surface roughness coefficients. A mature cedar/hemlock forest for example, has a much higher surface roughness than a water body. A simplified version of a wind speed equation illustrates this:
V2 = V1 x (height 2/height 1)N
(Where V1 is the known wind speed at height 1 above ground, V2 is the speed at height 2, and N is the surface roughness of friction co-efficient)
As illustrated, the surface friction has an exponential impact on the wind speed. In the example of the Kinbasket Reservoir, mature forest with an N value of .5 was replaced by a water body with an N value of .1.48 Although scientific studies would be needed to verify the impacts of this change, supporting literature suggests that wind speeds could have increased by between 20 and 30 per cent.49 Potential impacts from increased wind speeds in the Valemount area are: increased soil erosion from agricultural areas; increased airborne particulate especially fine sediments (PM10-PM2.5) that have health impacts (i.e. airborne silica in the Kinbasket Reservoir); increased risk to recreational boaters when on the Reservoir.
Wind events pick up silica from drawdown zone and create high levels of airborne particulates
48 He, Y., A. H. Monahan, et al. (2011) 48 Thompson, Russell (1998)
Page | 23
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Rationale for Business Cases
When the Columbia River Treaty was ratified in 1964, the provincial government, by their own admission, did not adequately consult those that would be most affected by the associated dams and reservoirs. Of the consultation that did occur, much of it was based on unrealistic expectations and promises of what would be. In the case of the Kinbasket Reservoir, Valemount residents were promised one of the “greatest manmade lakes in the world”...with a drawdown of only 12 metres.50 The mountain lake was supposed to attract tourism investment in the form of lake side cabins and resorts. As demonstrated in the socio-economic and biophysical impacts section of this report, this is certainly not the case.
The Province as a whole, however, has realized significant benefits from the Mica Dam and Kinbasket Reservoir. The financial benefits are summarized below:51
Benefit Value Notes Electricity Generating 12 per cent of BC’s Mica Dam (additional 13 per cent from Revelstoke Capacity electricity needs Dam enabled by Mica’s control of water flow) Water Rental Fees $46.7 million/year Kinbasket Reservoir -10 year average (2003- 2012) BC Hydro Crown Land $265,590 /year Kinbasket Reservoir -10 year average (2003- Reservoir Fees 2012) Crown Corporation $12.68 million/year Mica Dam -10 year average (12 percent of Revenue (from BC Columbia Basin’s $105.7 million per year Hydro) contribution) Non Treaty Storage $12 million /year From additional 6.17 km3 non-treaty storage Revenues capacity in Kinbasket Reservoir Canadian Entitlement $202 million/year Compensation for all CRT dams (10 year average -fluctuates between $120-300 million)
50 Townsend, Jeanette (1994) p.17 51 Penfold (2012)
Page | 24
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Mica Dam & Kinbasket $90-181 million/year See footnote 52 Reservoir portion of Canadian Entitlement Total Provincial $161-252 Goes into Provincial Consolidated Revenue Fund Revenue from Mica Dam million/year & Kinbasket Reservoir
Benefits to areas most affected by the Kinbasket Reservoir and Mica Dam have mostly related to mitigating impacts. While the recreational value of the reservoir is marginal, owing to the factors mentioned in the impacts section of this report, it does exist in the form of boating and fishing. The creation of the BC Hydro Fish and Wildlife Compensation fund has benefited Valemount by providing useful studies regarding Reservoir impacts on the bio-physical environment. It has also undertaken re-vegetation work in some drawdown areas near Valemount. BC Hydro has assisted the Valemount Marina Association in completing upgrades to the Valemount Marina. BC Hydro has also contributed funding ($3 million since 2008) towards debris clean-up.53 The Village of Valemount receives grants in lieu of property taxes amounting to $228,850 per year.54 The most meaningful compensation to date, according to local residents, has been the creation of the Columbia Basin Trust. It contributes upwards of $225,000 per year to the Village of Valemount for various programs related to the environmental, economic, and social health of the community.55
Discussions with the Advisory Panel and review of the Columbia River Treaty Community Consultations sessions (Nov. 2012) both suggest that Valemount resident would like further consideration. They feel like Valemount has born a disproportionate amount of the economic, social, and ecological costs associated with the Mica Dam and Kinbasket Reservoir while receiving only nominal benefit.
It represents a typical struggle between the core and periphery regions of any economic and political entity. While the core is reliant on the resources and some services, hydro- electric power in this case, originating from the periphery, the periphery is simultaneously reliant on the core for the work associated with transforming those resources into sellable products and services. The regions are ultimately dependent on one another and must cooperate to make sure each one is productive and healthy.
52 In the interest of determining Mica Dam and Kinbasket Reservoir’s overall financial contribution to the Provincial Consolidated Revenue Fund, each Treaty Dam’s contribution based on treaty storage capacity and also by electricity generation was calculated. Kinbasket Reservoir contains 45 per cent of treaty storage and produces 90 per cent of Treaty Dams’ electricity.
53 Kinbasket Reservoir Floating Debris Management Program (2013) 54 See schedule ***** (based on 3 year average (2010-2012) 55 http://www.cbt.org/uploads/pdf/CIP_AAPFactSheet_web.pdf
Page | 25
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
On many accounts, and as outlined in the impacts section of this paper and in the following business cases, the Valemount economy is currently not very productive or healthy. It is a town in transition struggling with a collapsing forest sector and juvenile tourism industry. The Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, and Innovation has already recognized this fact and included the McBride to Barrier Corridor in the Regional Economic Investment Pilot Project. The following business cases present locally designed opportunities for reinvestment into Valemount. They are not requests for millions of dollars of compensation for past injustices of the Reservoir, but rather an appeal to the Province to reinvest in this periphery region to renew and diversify the local economy and environment. With such assistance, Valemount will continue to contribute resources and revenue to the Province in a sustainable fashion, long into the future.
Business Case 1- Re-Allocation of Volume to VCF
The Robson Valley forest industry has been a fundamental building block of Valemount’s economic, environmental and social landscape. In the early 1970s when the Kinbasket Reservoir was created, forestry accounted for over 40 per cent of the town’s jobs.56 Many residents identify and define themselves in relation to our natural environment and the abundant natural resources it contains.57 An assortment of studies including: Valemount Economic Opportunity Study, The Community Integrated Sustainability Plan, the Regional District Opportunities Study, and academic papers recognize the importance of value added forestry’s contribution to the “blended economy” of Valemount’s future.
Continually changing socio-economic circumstances, however, confront the local forest industry’s survival. Creation of the reservoir: reduced in perpetuity the AAC, thereby eliminating the harvesting and processing jobs associated with it, dismantled the southern transportation corridor, and altered the available species diversity (i.e. ICH and SBS). Introduction of the Forest Revitalization Act removed the requirement to process locally harvested timber enabling a drastic outsourcing of area jobs. The pine beetle epidemic required extensive harvesting in areas deemed previously as visually sensitive. And perhaps most importantly, less than 40,000 m3 of the Robson Valley TSA’s AAC (536,000 m3) is staying in the Valley for processing, despite the critical need for local employment opportunities.58
As part of the BC Jobs Plan, the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, and Innovation chose the Barrier to McBride Corridor to participate in the Regional Economic Investment Pilot. The goal of the pilot project is to “…attract investment, identify economic growth opportunities,
56 Townsend, Jeanette (1994) 57 Parkins, Varghese, & Stedman (2004) 58 Personal communications with VCF Manager Shane Bressette
Page | 26
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
diversify local economies, and create regional jobs.”59 While the Ministry made it clear that no funding would be provided to communities, government resources in the form of personnel would be made available to help achieve the above mentioned goals. Valemount has developed an opportunity for the provincial government to provide that help and be part of building a more resilient and diversified economy in the Robson Valley. After a brief introduction to the Robson Valley timber supply area (TSA) and the Valemount Community Forest, this business case will argue that re-allocation of additional volume to local community forest regimes will diversify the local economy, increase employment per unit of wood harvested and associated provincial revenues, and ensure long term environmental stewardship.
Robson Valley TSA Introduction
The Robson Valley timber supply area includes the communities of Valemount, McBride, Dunster, Tete Jaune, Crescent Spur-Loos, and Albreda and has a timber harvesting land base of approximately 180,000 hectares. 1 The current annual allowable cut (AAC) from the 2006 Robson Valley timber supply review is 536,000 m3 (2013 timber supply review is in- progress). Three community forests: Valemount, McBride & Dunster, operate within the timber supply area and control AAC’s of 33,000 m3, 50,000 m3, and 15,000 m3 respectively; the majority of the remainder of the total AAC is allocated to forest licenses. Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) projections indicate that due to the “fall-down effect” the long term AAC for the Robson Valley timber supply area will gradually decrease to 348,247m3 over the next 55 years.60
Background on Valemount Community Forest
Since incorporation as a village in 1962, Valemount has struggled with the cyclical boom and bust periods common in resource extraction based communities. A long procession of companies and corporations controlled Valemount’s timber supply over the years, often
59 Regional Economic Investment Pilot Forum Summary 60 Falldown effect: a decline in timber supply due to the transition from harvesting natural forests with high timber volumes to future harvesting in younger second growth forests yielding lower volumes per hectare.
Page | 27
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
with little regard for the long term social, economic, and environmental health of the community.
In the last two decades, the Valemount mill and associated quota (A15430) has changed ownership four times. While under the first three owners (Slocan, Canfor, and Northwest Specialty Lumber), the mill operated on a fairly continuous bases, minus a few shut-downs and reductions from three to two shifts per day. Under new ownership of Carrier Lumber, the mill was permanently shut down in 2007 and dismantled in 2009. Carrier Lumber continued to harvest timber but shipped it to Prince George for processing (enabled by Forest Revitalization Act’s appurtenance elimination). Because two to three times more jobs are related to processing compared to harvesting, this resulted in significant job losses for area citizens.61
Much to the relief of residents, and after much lobbying by municipal leaders, Valemount was awarded a Community Forest License in December of 2007. At that time, area residents were becoming increasingly disenfranchised with the control, or lack thereof, of local resources, especially with recent decisions to permanently dismantle the mill and ship the wood elsewhere for value added processing.62 The formation of the Valemount Community Forest and McBride Community Forest licences provided a sense of renewed hope for the future, one where socio-economic and environmental health of the region would take precedence over profits and shareholders’ interests.
The Valemount Community Forest (VCF) received a 25 year license effective April of 2012, after three years of operating successfully under the initial five year probationary license. To date, the VCF has harvested approximately 600,000 m3 with an annual AAC of 40,000 m3 (decreasing to 33,000 m3 within 2013). The additional volume above the AAC has been harvested under uplifts to manage beetle affected pine stands.
As per its mission statement, the VCF works to: “…enhance forest resources, while respecting the principles of integrated use, environmental stewardship and public consultation, and provide the following community benefits:”
2. Creating local employment and contracting opportunities
4. Encouraging local processing and value added manufacturing of timber resources
Maximizing employment is, according to the manager and board of directors, one of the most important objectives of the VCF. So far, the VCF has created 75 full time jobs through its “tree to truck” operations which include: layout, road building/maintenance, consulting,
61 Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resource (1993) 4 Personal communications with residents and Advisory Panel 61 Interim Guidelines for the Preparation of Socio-Economic Assessments for Timber Supply Reviews (2003)
Page | 28
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
harvesting, trucking, silviculture, and administration activities. Additional jobs are created, but have not yet been quantified, through value added processing operations.
In order to employ this number for comparison purpose, an employment coefficient is calculated. Employment coefficients reveal how much employment is created by a given harvest and are expressed in terms of person-year (PY) per 1000 m3 of harvested timber. The Forest Analysis Branch states that a person-year is defined as a job lasting between 180-270 days per year (approx. 9-12 working months).63 The VCF has an employment coefficient of .44 PY per 1000 m3 for harvesting operations (tree-truck). The following table compares VCF’s employment coefficient with other timber supply areas: 64 65 66 67
Region Person-years per 1000 m3 Valemount Community Forest .44 Quesnel Forest District .19 Central Coast TSA .49 Prince George Forest District .25 Williams Lake Forest District .27 Central Kootenay Region .48
While the employment coefficient is influenced by many variables (i.e. terrain, timber type, accessibility, technological level of machinery used, etc), it is still a useful number for individual TSA’s to use to track their own progress. For most forest licenses, the goal is to minimize the employment coefficient (and labour costs) so as to increase profit. Community forests on the contrary, have exactly the opposite mandate: to increase the employment coefficient while still maintaining competitiveness. Because harvesting efficiencies are usually controlled by technological labour saving innovations, it is very difficult to stay competitive while increasing employment levels. For this reason, most community forests focus their energy on increasing employment in value-added processing operations which account for two to three times more person-years per 1000 m3 than harvesting does.
Benefits of Re-Allocation of Volume to VCF
Valemount Community Forest is locally owned, managed and operated. This is the key to its success and adaptability to locally changing conditions. It is ‘rooted’ in the community where it operates – just like the trees are. Having local people responsible for forest management ensures that they are aware of the consequences of their management
64 Mid-term Timber Supply Socio-Economic Analysis (2012) 65 BC Central Coast and North Coast Timber Harvesting & Processing Employment Survey (2012) 66 Valemount Community Forest Manager (2013) 67 Central Kootenay Region Timber Harvesting & Processing Employment Survey (2008)
Page | 29
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
decisions; after all, they are making decisions which affect their own drinking water, recreational areas, and town’s economic success.
Increased and Diversified Employment
Two to three times as many jobs are created from value added processing operations than harvesting alone. This number varies upon the labour intensity of the operation, of course, and is much higher when considering more labour intensive value added products (i.e. furniture, cabinetry, etc). This estimate however, is based upon existing operations in the Prince George Forest District (i.e. veneer, pulp/paper, & dimensional lumber operations).68
When timber harvested in the Robson Valley was being processed in local mills, there were an estimated 600 person-years of employment created from an AAC of 602,377 m3, 70 per cent of which were held by local residents.69 An additional 730 induced jobs were created province wide, some of those occurring in the Robson Valley.70 In Valemount alone, there were 200+ direct forestry jobs in harvesting and processing (160 at the Slocan mill during peak production).
Although the VCF is putting significant energy into attracting and encouraging value added manufacturers, its efforts so far have been hindered by its lack of available volume. While VCF has been harvesting upwards of 150,000 m3 annually for the last three years, these harvest levels are declining rapidly because most of the beetle affected pine has been cut. Once the pine uplifts are finished, the VCF will have access to 33,000 m3 per year. This volume will employ only 15 people in harvesting and silviculture using VCF’s current employment coefficient. While a number of value added manufacturers have approached the VCF about locating their value added operations in Valemount, committing the volume they require to operate hasn’t yet worked.71 It is risky to dedicate all the volume to one manufacturer, and unlikely that such a small volume will be able to provide more than 25 full time jobs.
Providing the VCF with additional AAC will have immediate benefits to the Robson Valley. Interested manufacturers have shovel-ready projects contingent on a commitment from VCF for fibre agreements. Additional volume will also allow the VCF to spread out volume between a number of small manufacturers, thereby reducing dependency on one company. Additional employment opportunities will allow Valemount to reverse the trend of out migration of workers, a trend which has a number of negative social implications. Any available increase in VCF’s AAC will supports Valemount’s goals of having a healthy working population and diversified economy.
68 Prince George Region Timber Harvesting & Processing Employment Survey (2008) 69 Robson Valley Timber Supply Review (2000) 70 Ibid 71 Personal communications with VCF manager, Shane Bressette (2013)
Page | 30
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Local Control of Resources
A noteworthy social aspect of allocating additional volume to VCF is returning control of local resources to local populations. VCF was initiated though local grassroots and participatory democratic processes which empower local people. Its bottom-up approach helps Valemount envision a desirable future and begin steps to achieve those goals.
Forestry workers in Valemount are all too familiar with the ups and downs of non-local control of forest resources. In the past, when conditions were not producing a desirable profit, the mill shut down or reduced shifts indefinitely with little warning or compensation. The VCF, however, will not skip town; it is firmly anchored in the local economy. Creating steady employment is enough; producing profit which is re-invested into the community is even better.
In the past, Valley residents have felt removed from major decision that influence their livelihoods and their homes. The creation of the Kinbasket Reservoir without local consultation and the removal of the appurtenance clause in the Forestry Revitalization Act are two such cases the Advisory Panel talked about that created feelings of exclusion and mistrust towards provincial decision makers. Times have changed and public consultation practices have drastically improved. The formation of the VCF is one such example of giving partial control of resources back to local populations. Allocating additional volume to VCF would demonstrate that the province realizes that local and public control of forest resources area a great tool in ensuring healthy local economies.
Environmental Stewardship
Achieving a balance between short term productivity and long term environmental sustainability is always a challenge in forestry operations. While forest companies plan in years or maybe decades, a regenerating forest may take centuries to reach ecological maturity. As Bill Bertain, a former attorney for Pacific Lumber explains: “There is simply no structural [economic incentive] reason for a corporation to practice the kind of forestry that will lead to a healthy, productive stand of trees two hundred years from now.” 72
While community forests struggle with achieving this balance, much like corporations do, their mandates and ownership regimes allow them to be more responsive to environmental considerations. For example, while the VCF is structured as a corporation, its sole shareholder is the Village of Valemount. Through its objectives in its Corporate Mission Statement and Commitment to the Community, the VCF aspires to a triple bottom line, one of social, environmental, and economic sustainability.73 Because of this, VCF can
72 Raphael, R. (1994) p. 169 73 Valemount Community Forest Corporate Mission Statement and Commitment to the Community
Page | 31
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
legally practice environmental management practices that exceed the Forests and Range Practices Act, even when it is less profitable to do so.
Publicly traded corporations on the other hand, which control a majority of BC’s total AAC, do not have this flexibility.74 Their primary mandate is to work on shareholders behalf to increase profitability of the corporation. Shareholders can, and have, sued boards of directors for pursuing other interests (i.e. social or environmental betterment) beyond which are required by law. The recent introduction of Community Contribution Companies (CCC’s) in BC as an alternate form of incorporation may help social enterprises with this issue.
VCF is dedicated to its commitment to environmental stewardship. In December of 2012, it received a positive review after randomly selected audit by the Forest Practices Board covering two out of three years of operation.75 While balancing visual quality objectives has been a challenge while harvesting significant volumes of pine in the main trench, VCF has learned that additional public consultation in critical areas alleviates concerns. Because of this, VCF is initiating public education and consultation campaigns in two such areas adjacent to town.76 These programs go beyond legislative requirements. In one respect, the Provincial Government has acknowledged community forests’ exemplary track records in environmental stewardship by awarding them area based tenures; something they’ve been weary of doing for corporate tenure holders. Any additional volume allocated to the VCF will continue to be subject to environmental management practices that meet or exceed the regulations and involve community consultation.
Source of Additional Volume
Finding additional volume to be allocated to the VCF is perhaps the biggest obstacle to this proposal. There are a number of possible sources that can be considered. See table below for current apportionment.
1. BC Timber Sales Volume- BCTS received roughly half of the 2003 Forest Revitalization Act take back consisting of 20 per cent of BC`s AAC while the other half was designated for Community Forest Agreements and First Nation`s Tenures. With the closure of Valemount`s processing facilities, BCTS in the Robson Valley TSA has struggled to meet its objectives because of high trucking costs and hard to access timber. Whether or not this trend will continue to plague BCTS in this area cannot be seen. Because VCF has an area based tenure and enjoys lower stumpage rates, it may be able to profitably harvest BCTS areas. While transfer of volume from
74 Ministry of Forests and Range - Apportionment System (2013) 75 Forest Practices Board- VCF Audit (2012) 76 Personal communications with VCF Manager –areas are: McKirdy Mt. and Swift Creek
Page | 32
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
BCTS to VCF would have Softwood Lumber Agreement complications, it may still be a viable option.
2. Additional Volume from 2013 TSA Review- the last Timber Supply Area Review for the Robson Valley took place in 2006. The 2013 TSA Review is currently in progress. Because TSA reviews study the changes to the harvesting land-base over the previous harvesting period, there is the possibility of additional volume being available from this review.
3. Non-replaceable Forest License- These licenses are awarded to deal with specific forest issues and have a definitive expiry. While this type of license does not offer a stable operating supply for the VCF, it would offer additional employment opportunities for a short term. If any non-replaceable forest licenses do become available, VCF should be considered
4. Volume to area based conversion- perhaps the most plausible of the scenarios, an existing volume based forest license could be converted and added to an area based Community Forest Agreement. This option would require political support because such a transfer has not been done before. The significant volume attached to the major licensee in the area would greatly improve VCF`s chances of attracting value added manufacturers.
Robson Valley TSA apportionment from 2006 TSA Review*
Apportionment (effective March 2007) Volume (m3) Per cent of total 77 Forest Licenses (replaceable) 283,930 52.97
Forest Licenses (non-replaceable) 81,468 15.20 BCTS Timber Sales License 108,980 20.33 Community Forest Agreement 55,000 10.26 Forest Service Reserve 5,360 1.00 Forest Service Reserve – Small scale salvage 1,262 .24 Total 536,000 100.00 *(Table does not account for more recently awarded community forest agreements of Valemount & Dunster)
Conclusion
The introduction of the Kinbasket Reservoir to the Robson Valley TSA negatively impacted the region’s forest industry at the time of inundation and in perpetuity into the future. The consequences of losing valuable AAC, the Canoe River Forest Service Road, additional
77 Robson Valley TSA Apportionment (2009)
Page | 33
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report timber species diversity, and an unquantifiable number of jobs are still felt today. Local residents feel that provincial assistance with economic development opportunities could diversify and improve the resilience of their rural economies in response to these impacts.
Recently awarded Community Forest Agreements (Valemount, McBride, & Dunster) have proven to be successful tools in improving employment ratios per volume harvested, returning control of resources to local communities, and ensuring a high degree of environmental stewardship. A number of forest sector challenges, however, are making it difficult for them to significantly improve employment related opportunities.
For the Valemount Community Forest in particular, the conclusion of pine harvesting uplifts will mean a decline of AAC to 33,000 m3, or six percent of the TSA’s total AAC of 536,000 m3. With such a small volume, VCF will no doubt continue to have difficulty attracting much needed value added manufacturers. Relying solely on employment generated from harvesting (tree to truck operations), the Valemount Forest Industry will continue its decline of forest employment from its peak of 200 plus workers in the early 2000s, to its current number of 75, eventually settling at roughly 15 workers or 2.3 per cent of the labour force within the next five years.
The Robson Valley, however, has all the necessary ingredients to reverse these trends of declining employment and outmigration of skilled workers. The region already possesses a diversity of high value timber species; it now needs the opportunity use those resources to its own benefit. Allocating additional AAC to the VCF will enable it to support a diversified value added manufacturing sector, thereby improving employment opportunities for area residents. Local control of this additional AAC will also ensure sustainable management of these resources.
While the availability and origin of additional AAC needs further attention, there already exists a number of potential sources. Dedicated support from high level government ministers and staff are the necessary next step for this proposal to become a reality.
Page | 34
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Business Case 2- Geothermal Exploration Pre- feasibility
Utilization of geothermal resources began over 10,000 years ago with the discovery of hot springs. Early man used the springs for their warmth and cleaning properties. 78 Advancements in technology give scientists the ability now to explore geothermal resources more than 10 miles below the earth’s surface.
Borealis Geo Power, of Calgary, AB, currently holds subsurface geothermal rights throughout most of the northern portion of the Kinbasket Reach near the Canoe Hot Springs.79 It is important to recognize that while the presence of surface anomalies, such as hot springs, may be linked to a high temperature geothermal system below, the absence of thermal springs is not indicative of geothermal potential.80 An exploration program is developed to cover key elements of reconnaissance, pre-feasibility and feasibility area.81
To optimize exploration of this potential, several steps are needed to acquire data prior to engaging in a production drilling program:82
1. Initial Data Collection 2. Geological Mapping 3. Geophysical Data Acquisition 4. Data Integration / Analysis / Interpretation 5. Creation of a 3D computer model of the subsurface based on above data 6. Shallow Drilling Program to collection on subsurface temperatures and geology 7. Refine and update 3D computer model of the subsurface and re-interpret 8. Deeper drilling 9. Refine and update 3D computer model and further understanding of the subsurface 10. Deeper drilling
78 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/history.html 79 Personal Communications with C. Dunn, Chief Geologist, Borealis Geo Power 80 Kimball, Sarah (2009) 81 http://www.geothermal-energy.org/geothermal_energy/what_is_geothermal_energy.html#c321 82 Personal communication with T. Thompson, CEO, Borealis Geo Power (2013)
Page | 35
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
The systematic approach above minimizes exploration risk and maximizes the chances of success. This also helps in realizing whether or not a project should be abandoned, based on uninspiring exploration results, before drilling a large and expensive production well. Numerous geology research and drilling companies are within the Regional District Fraser- Fort George to begin exploration. Local contractors are available in the Valemount area to assist where needed.
Reconnaissance Studies
Initial data collection can include gaining temperature of hot springs and geo-thermometry calculations which can give estimations of a geothermal reservoir based on chemical composition. In the absence of a surface anomaly, this can include gaining temperatures near the bottom of several local deep-drilled water wells. There are several residential and commercial deep water wells are known to be drilled deeper than 110 metres. With permission to access private property, deep water wells could be accessed to measure initial temperature gradients.
As a community surrounded by mountain ranges, fault lines are within close proximity of Valemount.83 Locally, the Rocky Mountain Trench runs from the southeast along the Kinbasket Reservoir, converges north of Valemount’s Water Treatment Facility with a fault line from the North Thompson valley and continues towards McBride. The Purcell Thrust fault runs east to west along the Canoe Mountain plateau and near the proposed Glacier Destinations Resort (Figure 1). With publicly available software such as Google Earth to overlay data, the BC fault line overlay may be suitable for visual reference; however it may have an accuracy margin of up to +/- 100m.84
83 C. Skeleton, BC Fault Line Dataset, http://geocommons.com/overlays/136536 (2011) 84 Personal communication with D. Mahoney, GIS Technician, RDFFG
Page | 36
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Figure 1 Google Earth Map with BC Fault-line Overlay Detailed field mapping of faults and other geologic features in the Valemount area can assist in figuring out which faults are more likely to be permeable and allow up-flow of hot geothermal fluids from depth, and of course, which faults are not. This form of geo- mapping and analysis methodology has been chosen favourably over the last ten (10) years by researchers at the University of Nevada, Reno, regarding geothermal systems in Nevada.85 Costs incurred by such a geological mapping program may cost $50,000. In the US, the Department of Energy (DOE) helped to solve the feasibility challenge. The US DOE partnered with state cooperative geological survey groups and over 30 university geological departments to create the National Geothermal Data System.86 This interactive, open source database helps reduce upfront costs by providing project developers and other industry partners with the critical information to identify and develop new production areas.87
Pre-feasibility Studies
Three initial geophysical methods that may be useful in the Valemount area are gravity, magnetic and magnetotellurics. The terrain around Valemount is quite rugged, vegetation is dense and, generally, access to certain locations can be difficult and limited to current road infrastructure. Therefore, an airborne geophysical survey may be the best option from a logistics perspective. Although costs can be higher with airborne surveys, the
85 Personal communication with J. Witter (2013) 86 http://geothermaldata.org/page/data-types-and-contributors#data-contributors 87 http://energy.gov/articles/pinpointing-america-s-geothermal-resources-open-source-data
Page | 37
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
results are more efficient by giving greater data coverage of the area being surveyed. Gravity and magnetic surveys can be performed at same time during the flight and, depending on the area size, and can cost $75-200K.
Magnetotelluric (MT) is an electromagnetic geophysical method of imaging the Earth’s subsurface and measuring natural variations of the electrical and magnetic fields at the Earth’s surface.88 By its definition, this survey is performed at ground level. This phase could prove difficult to complete a truly definitive study because of Valemount’s topography, but it is not impossible. An alternative approach may be to perform an airborne survey utilizing Z Tipper Axis Electromagnetic technology.89 ZTEM surveys provide a subsurface imaging result that is similar to an MT survey, but cannot “see” as deep as an MT survey can. Depending on ground conditions and rock types, typically a ZTEM survey has a depth resolution from several hundred metres to 1.5km. As ZTEM scan results prove favourable over certain areas, an MT survey could be utilized to further image depths to 2km and much deeper (10- 25km). For the purposes of geothermal exploration with the intent of generating heat, a depth of 1.5 kilometres may be sufficient, however to map a resource sufficient to generate electricity, greater depths may be needed.90 An airborne ZTEM survey may cost $100,000 (+/- 50%) depending on the area surveyed. Twin rotary aircraft capable of low-altitude flight are available in the Valemount area.
Initial 3D Model Fig. 2 -Example of 3D modeling software based on gravity and magnetic surveys One of the most important steps now is to integrate the data collected and ready it for further interpretation. The above surveys will create a lot of high quality data and in order to learn as much about the subsurface from the data collected, it requires a construction of a 3D computer model. The 3D model will depict a visual of the data collected, will represent the best understanding of what lies under the surface and will lead to sound drilling strategies. Current software, along with geological and geophysical analysis techniques, allows for the creation of 3D models (Figure 2). Integration and analysis of the geological / geophysical data and construction of 3D model can cost between $50,000 and
88 Wikipedia, definition of magnetotelluric, 89 http://www.geotech.ca/ztem-Helicopter-Features-and-Benefits 90 Dr. Ghomshei, Mory, Golden Geothermal Final Report (2010)
Page | 38
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
$100,000. While there are contractors in the Valemount area capable of rendering surface 3D models, subsurface 3D modeling would have to be outsourced.
Shallow Drilling Program
Initial data has been collected, some geological mapping has been done, three or four geophysical aerial surveys have been completed and a preliminary 3D representation of what the subsurface in the Valemount area look like has been generated. This leads to a drilling strategy and the beginning of a shallow drilling program. Drilling programs are varied depending on the confidence of the data. Data that can be obtained through shallow drilling includes down-hole geology and down hole temperatures. The down-hole geology data will help test the initial 3D model. It will answer the question of whether or not it is correct or needs to be updated. The temperatures measured during this phase will answer where it is hot and where it is not. Additional data that can be collected during a shallow drilling program includes the magnetic properties of the rocks down the hole, the densities of the rocks down the hole and the electrical resistivity of the rocks down the hole. Verification of the data compared to initial surveys will significantly improve the accuracy of the 3D geophysical layered models which would improve the overall 3D Earth model. Due to their proximity to fault lines and distance from each other, promising locations for a shallow-hole program within Village of Valemount include Valemount Secondary School, Village of Valemount Water Treatment Facility. Initial data will verify favourable locations (Figure 3).
Collection of temperature and physical properties, as well as the analysis of the down-hole geology may cost $5,000 (+/- 50%) per hole, depending on the depth of the drilling program. The cost to drill a single hole for geotechnical exploration (core samples) can cost $249.00 per vertical metre and this drilling expertise is available in the Regional District Fraser-Fort George. To secure a reasonable model of the subsurface, five (5) to twelve shallow wells may be needed in the drilling program, spaced no further than one to two kilometres apart. This stage may carry a cost ranging from $124,000 (five, 100m holes) to $896,000 (twelve, 300m holes) for the initial shallow drilling program. This exploration phase can also be coupled with a geothermal district heating project. The downtown core and a cluster of institutional facilities near Gorse Street could be considered because of their district heating and cooling potential (Figure 3).
Page | 39
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Figure 3 -Google Earth map with BC Fault Line Overlay displaying possible shallow drilling locations
Updating 3D Model
Once the shallow drilling program is complete and data is collected from the drill holes, the 3D Earth model can be updated and improved. Costs will vary depending on how new data analysis needs to be completed and may range from $20,000 to $50,000. The new data and improved 3D model of the subsurface will lead to the decision of whether or not to go to a deep drilling program, geographically and geologically where to continue drilling, which holes would need to go deeper and how many of them there would be. (See figure 4 to the right).
Deep Drilling Program
At this stage, enough data has been collected and enough analysis has been done to know whether or not a geothermal target worth pursuing in order to justify the expense of deep drilling. Drilling for deeper targets can account for up to 15 percent of the overall capital cost, which is required at a point when the risk of project failure is still high.91 If the data obtained suggests going deeper, perhaps the next program target zones are 500 metres to 700 metres. The data values collected during the shallow drilling program should also be collected during the deep drilling phase. It will test the overall accuracy and ultimately improve the existing 3D
91 http://www.esmap.org/sites/esmap.org/files/FINAL_Geothermal%20Handbook_TR002-12.pdf
Page | 40
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
model and give rationale to go even deeper. Drilling to depths of 1000 metres to 1500 metres and gathering data along the way may cost between $124,000 for one hole to 500 metres and $1.8 million for five holes to 1500 metres (Figure 5). 92 93
Exploration Phase Purpose Low High Initial data Temps/chemistry $5,000.00 $15,000.00 Detailed mapping Geologic features $40,000.00 $65,000.00 Geophysical Surveys Flight studies $75,000.00 $200,000.00 Magnetotelluric Deep scans $50,000.00 $150,000.00 Interpretation Initial 3D model $50,000.00 $100,000.00 Shallow drill data Physical properties $25,000.00 $60,000.00 Shallow drill program Data collection $124,500.00 $896,400.00 (100-300m) Re-interpretation Update 3D model $20,000.00 $50,000.00 Initial Studies Subtotal $389,500.00 $1,536,400.00 Drill deeper? (500-700m) Geothermal targets $124,500.00 $2,091,600.00 Drill deeper? (1000- Data driven certainty $498,000.00 $1,867,500.00 1500m) Target Zone Exploration $622,500.00 $3,959,100.00 Subtotal Total $1,012,000.00 $5,495,500.00 Figure 5 - Cost Breakdown for Initial Studies and Target Zone Exploration Benefits
There are vast amount of benefits associated with having results of exploration. Knowing what resources are available in an area and what resources are not, goes a long way in knowing what direction a municipality may take heading into the future. It allows for sound decision-making in regards to evolving the Official Community Plan (OCP) and zoning by-laws. It can improve and expand current infrastructure by stimulating residential and commercial development, such as the potential Valemount Village Resort and Spa by Saas Fee Land Developments Inc.
The benefit of geothermal exploration in the Valemount area can be increased if united with a district heating and cooling project. Several potential areas in the Village of Valemount, such as the downtown core, could participate in a shallow-hole drilling program should preliminary surveys prove favourable. These locations potentially contain
92 Personal communication with J. Witter, Senior Geoscientist, Mira Geoscience (2013) 93 Personal communication with J. Ongman, Project Manager, Geotech Drilling (2013)
Page | 41
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
valuable data for mapping and can also provide geothermal heating and cooling to a variety of service facilities.
Figure 5 (below) illustrates one potential drilling site within the Village of Valemount and would also support a district heating and cooling pilot project. Facilities in this area include:
1. Valemount Elementary School, 2. Valemount Curling Club, 3. Canoe Valley Recreational Centre, 4. Community Services Building, 5. Valemount Community Hall and Valemount Daycare 6. Valemount Public Works Compound 7. Future Potential
Many of the buildings shown in Figure 5 are on a boiler (water-heat) system reliant on heat provided by propane. Conversion to a geothermal heat exchanger with boiler systems is not a difficult task. 94 Heating upgrades to this district will benefit the Village of Valemount, Regional District Fraser Fort George, Regional District Fraser Fort-George and support future development by sharing heating costs and reducing Valemount’s dependence on fossil fuels and reduce long-term costs of heating and cooling.
The introduction of a geothermal district heating and cooling system demonstrates a community’s commitment to environmental stewardship. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and harmful impacts on the environment. Geothermal heating is recognized as one of the most environmentally friendly space conditioning options available today.95 A properly designed system can cut energy costs by a factor of four and potentially reduce electric consumption by half.96 Qualified engineering services are available in the Robson Valley and Regional District Fraser-Fort George. Industrial developments, such as value-added wood
94 Personal Communication with M. Dryden, Maintenance Department, School District 57 95 Manitoba Hydro, http://www.amm.mb.ca/PDF/Magazine/Fall2007/IceRinks.pdf 96 http://c03.apogee.net/contentplayer/?coursetype=geo&utilityid=oge&id=7040
Page | 42
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
manufacturers, would benefit from lower heating costs to off-set currently rising transportation and fuel costs.
Federal and Provincial Initiatives
Realizing the significant geothermal potential in the Valemount area is only the beginning. Four key elements are needed to support further exploration to develop a successful geothermal exploration program and they include: 1. Accurate geothermal resource data; 2. Dedicated institutions; 3. Supportive policies, and; 4. Access to financing.97
The Village of Valemount has recently drafted an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP). There are a number of initiatives available for communities with an ICSP in place. Several initiatives at the federal and provincial level are designed to support the growth of renewable energy.98 For example, Western Economic Diversification Canada supports program funding for community economic development as well as the advancement of science and technology.99
There is a natural flow of heat from depth to the surface anywhere on the Earth and local geological processes can lead to abnormally high-temperature geothermal resources that are within economical drilling depths.100 BC Hydro contributed to the Mount Meager Geothermal Project in 1981 by drilling for geothermal steam. Temperatures of about 250 degrees were discovered.101 As published in their Integrated Resource Plan, BC Hydro, in collaboration with the Provincial Government, will undertake activities to assess the viability of geothermal generation in the province. These ongoing reviews include: (i) Explore the opportunity to advance pilot projects; (ii) Assess the viability of a mechanism to share development costs with potential developers; (iii) Assess the potential impact of providing an up-front EPA for sites that prove to be commercially viable; and (iv) Collaborate with the Ministry to ensure the regulatory issues are dealt with in lock-step with exploration and development activities102
97 http://esmap.org/sites/esmap.org/files/FINAL_Geothermal Handbook_TR002-12.pdf 98 http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/8803 99 http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/245.asp 100 http://www.geothermal-energy.org/geothermal_energy/what_is_geothermal_energy.html 101 http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/geothermal-energy 102 BC Hydro, Integrated Resource Plan 20 (2012)
Page | 43
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Core projects funded by The Columbia Power Corporation will soon be completed and should be approached to consider other projects to benefit the Columbia Basin.103 Exploration is vital with any research and funding could be secured to assist developing a more sustainable energy in the Columbia Basin.
The Province of British Columbia has established policies which promotes geothermal energy and places environmental taxes on the use of fossil fuel, CO2 emissions and local air pollution. These are some policies which will promote the use of geothermal energy in BC. As exploration results prove favorable in the Valemount area, initial guaranteed pricing of 7 cents per kWh will be provided by the province until 2015.104
Recommendations
As with all finite resources, there are limited fossil fuels that can be extracted to create natural gas, coal or oil. Globally, we consume approximately 84.06 million barrels of oil in fossil fuels per day, with proved resources of 1.532 trillion barrels. 105 It is only a matter of time before we do not have anymore. In Canada, there are substantial geothermal resources across the country. For example, based on resources between 10° and 60° C, it has been estimated that the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin contains more geothermal energy than the energy in its conventional crude oil and natural gas reserves. Most of the accessible high-temperature geothermal resources (hotter than 80° C) are located in British Columbia.106
The intent of the US geothermal program was to initially understand geothermal resources, further improve geothermal science and engineering technology, and ensure that information was publicly available to geothermal stakeholders, such as developers, utilities, financial institutions, regulators, and others necessary to spur development of a vital, progressive geothermal industry. Their report demonstrates the intent was achieved to not only further geothermal energy development in the United States, but also around the world.107
Therefore, it is the position of this report that the Village of Valemount and the Regional District Fraser-Fort George secure funding to begin exploration of its geothermal resources immediately. Feasibility studies and 3D modeling will verify Valemount is sitting on immense geothermal heating potential. Services are available in the Regional District Fraser Fort-George to complete initial exploration and district heating consultation.
103 http://www.columbiapower.org/company/ourcompany.asp 104 http://www.bcsea.org/learn/get-the-facts/renewable-energy-technologies/geothermal-power 105 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html 106 http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/Geothermal/Overview.asp?page=4 107 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/geothermal_history_1_exploration.pdf
Page | 44
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Completing the initial phases of exploration and having this data readily available will attract investment necessary to continue onto deep drilling exploration and lead to a green, sustainable future.
Business Case 3- R.W. Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary Remediation
Wetlands are the most biologically diverse ecosystems on the planet and provide a range of ecosystem services that benefit human and animal communities. A wetland is classified as land that is periodically or permanently saturated with surface or groundwater and is inhabited by water tolerant plant and animal species. They offer critical habitat for fish, birds, reptiles, ungulates, and other wildlife. The various classes of wetlands: bogs, fens, marshes, and swamps, all play important roles in the water cycle, usually by storing and purifying water.
Without an awareness of their importance, humans have contributed to the loss or degradation of about 70 per cent of Canada’s wetlands.108 In the Cariboo region
108 Ducks Unlimited Canada: http://www.ducks.ca/learn-about-wetlands/why-i-care/
Page | 45
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report surrounding Valemount, some wetlands have been altered or destroyed by conversion to farming and water course modifications.109 The biggest single event, however, has been the creation of Kinbasket Reservoir, which inundated an estimated 5, 863 hectares of wetlands in addition to floodplains and shallow ponds.110 Large expenses of wetland existed just south of Valemount along the Canoe River, an area now occupied by the drawdown zone of the Reservoir.
Wetlands in Canoe River Valley –looking south from Valemount (pre-flood) 111
The R.W. Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary is a wetland situated just south of Valemount. Classified as a marsh, it offers abundant habitat to wildlife; critical ecosystem services to the Village; and excellent recreational opportunities for both residents and visitors. This important wetland is endangered, however, due to historic changes to McKirdy Creek which was once the main water supply. Water levels are reaching all time lows, and the dry cycles which seem to occur every decade or so, are becoming more pronounced in magnitude and duration. The marsh also has some issues with invasive plants and unregulated motorized vehicle use. These problems are having implications for recreational users, wildlife, and residents that depend on the underlying aquifer for drinking and irrigation water. After a brief history of the R.W. Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary, this section will describe the consequences of these impacts and examine possible remediation strategies to ensure the long term sustainability of this precious ecosystem.
109 Wetland Stewardship Partnership (2009) 110 Penfold (2012) 111 Royal BC Museum-BC Archives
Page | 46
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
112
A Brief History
Earlier in the century, the Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary was named Cranberry Lake. Water levels were significantly higher and the lake covered a larger area than the Marsh does now. Below is a description of the lake from Yellowhead Pass and Its People:
I have stood on the shore of Cranberry Lake when it was bank full, apparently the work of countless beaver prior to being trapped out. The banks were riddled with muskrat burrows. Well beaten elk trails led out from shore, clearly visible under water. Along the shore were countless racks of huge elk horns […] Before the railroad McKirdy Creek flowed into Cranberry Lake, but was diverted by C.N. to its present course.113
112 Hobden, J. and L. Scott. (2011) 113 Yellowhead Pass and Its People (1984) p.256
Page | 47
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Original Cranberry Lake circa 1920 114
McKirdy Creek flowed into the lake and the main outflow, Alder Creek - later named Cranberry Creek, provided water to a number of marshes downstream, eventually flowing into the McLennan River.
Around 1915, Canadian National Railway (then Canadian Northern) began construction of a rail line from Tete Jaune Cache to Kamloops. It passed through Valemount, and beside Cranberry Lake having to cross McKirdy Creek in the area now known as Whiskey Fill. McKirdy Creek, and the marshes it supplied, caused the rail bed to continually sink, even after extensive fill was brought into the area. In Rails Across Canada, a description of Canada’s railroad network, ‘whiskey curve’ is mentioned: “the rail bed here at Cranberry Marsh had to be built on a 'mattress' of logs to keep tracks from sinking into the muskeg.”115 A train derailment took place along that stretch; one of the railcars was carrying whisky and most of it ended up in the Marsh, hence the name Whiskey Fill Road.
Historical archives have no accounts of the exact date that McKirdy Creek was diverted. It could have been soon after railway construction when CNR realized how much of a problem the creek was causing, or later on, when they realized how close the creek lay to the height of land. Art Carson, local hydrology enthusiast and history authority has spent time and research on this subject. Art created a map showing the most likely location that CNR diverted the creek. Before this event, McKirdy Creek was part of the Fraser River Basin. After diverting the creek, an event that was probably done in less than a few days with a bull-dozer, McKirdy Creek flowed into the Canoe River and Columbia Basin. With its
114 Valemount Historic Society 115 Rails Across Canada p.10
Page | 48
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
largest water supply flowing into another drainage, Cranberry Lake and the marshes it supplied began to dry up.
From that point on, Cranberry Lake became less of a lake and even more of a marsh. While two smaller tributaries, Selkirk and Tapli Creeks continued to supply water, they were not enough to sustain the previous water levels. The construction of Highway 5 in the 195s dealt another blow to the Lake when machinery removed the organic matter to build a proper highway foundation and penetrated the relatively impermeable lake bed, under which was gravel and sand. This caused the water levels to decline further.
In the early 1980s, Ducks Unlimited undertook a habitat improvement project to create nesting islands and water control structures in the Wildlife Sanctuary. Heavy machinery was used to construct the canals, dikes, and islands (see 1985 photo below). The project was successful in that it created incredible nesting grounds for a variety of waterfowl, beavers and muskrats, thereby restoring some critical habitat to the marsh. Once again, however, the delicate marsh bottom, a relatively impermeable deposit of fine sediment holding the water in, may have been penetrated, allowing further seepage to occur.
The Current Situation
The Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary is important for ecological and recreational purposes. It provides important habitat for over 100 species of birds and a variety of other wildlife.116 Migratory waterfowl use the marsh as a breeding ground or resting site. A number of
116 http://in.britishcolumbia.travel/valemount/things-to-do/parks-wildlife/bird-watching.aspx
Page | 49
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
reptiles call the marsh home including: the western terrestrial and the common garter snake; the boreal toad; the western wood frog; and the long toad salamander.117
The marsh provides ecosystem services that benefit the Village of Valemount and the greater environment as a whole. Some of the more important processes includes: absorption and filtration of sediments, pollutants, and excess nutrients and recharging groundwater and deeper aquifers. Essentially, the march does this by absorbing water quickly and releasing it slowly with an improvement in the quality.
The recreation infrastructure at the marsh provides enjoyment to visitors and locals on a regular basis. The 7km marsh loop goes around the entire marsh and offers walkers a glimpse into a functioning wetland ecosystem. Interpretive signs explain the unique habitat and ecological processes that are taking place. Two viewing towers, an easily accessible one near highway 5 and another located at the south side of the marsh, provide ideal look-outs for the numerous birders that come to observe the variety of species. Canoeing on the marsh offers recreationalists an opportunity to see beavers and muskrats and a chance to observe the nesting islands and canals constructed by Ducks Unlimited.
All the ecological and recreational benefits mentioned above, however, are dependent on adequate and sufficient water levels –and the data are not reassuring. Bruce Harrison of Ducks Unlimited shared his insights about water levels in the marsh. He said that Ducks Unlimited has monitored water levels since completing the canal, nesting island, and water control structures (dykes) work in the early 1980s. Bruce noted cyclical wet and dry cycles with distinct drops of half a metre in the mid 1980s, 1993-1994, and 2004-2005. The last dry period didn’t seem to end until 2012, when an above average snowpack filled up the marsh. Given that much of the marsh is only half a metre deep when full, this variation means the difference between a functioning wetland and waterless mudflats. Of even greater concern, mentions Bruce, is the overall trend. The dry periods are lasting longer and becoming more pronounced.
Impacts of Low Water Levels
Not surprisingly, these low water levels are having impacts on the human, animal, and plant communities that depend on the marsh. One of the ecological services that many marshes provide is to replenish groundwater and/or deeper aquifers. While no formal studies have been done to confirm this is happening in Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary, a wealth of anecdotal data suggests that it is. In a July 2010 interview with the Rocky Mountain Goat Newspaper, local resident Ron Baer says the water table at his property adjacent to the marsh, has dropped 15 feet in the last seven years. Other landowners in the vicinity are having the same problems and are requiring deeper wells to access water. It is
117 Personal communication with Nicole Genton, wildlife biologist studying marsh.
Page | 50
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report understandable that with less water volume flowing into the marsh, there is less water to contribute to the groundwater and deeper aquifers.
Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary during low water levels –summer 2010 118
For recreationalists, the marsh is changing too. In many years, canoeing is limited to a few months in the spring when snow melt is delivering water to the marsh. By July, or even earlier in some years, only the deepest of the canals allow for passage and the main water body is a thin layer of water over sediment. Ice skating on the marsh is a popular winter activity. The Village of Valemount maintains skating rinks and an oval. If water levels are not high during the summer, however, there is not sufficient ice for skating.
The overall ecological integrity of the Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary also suffers during extended dry periods. One example pointed out by Bruce Wilkinson, a local naturalist and spokesperson for the Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary, is the encroachment of cattails. “Because the cattails don’t germinate well in water, high water levels are what keep the plants in check. When the water levels are low and the cattail seeds fall onto exposed mud, they germinate and further vegetation encroachment into the canal occurs.” Further studies would need to be undertaken to monitor the effects on other plant and animal species.
118 Photo courtesy of the Rocky Mountain Goat Newspaper
Page | 51
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
New Designation as a Wildlife Management Area
As of March 28, 2013, the R.W. Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary is designated as a Provincial Wildlife Management Area (WMA). According to Wayne Van Velzen, Mt. Robson Park Manager, this will make administration and management of the Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary more effective. Before this designation, different areas of the marsh were managed as separate entities by different organizations. This made it difficult to create a single management plan that considered the entire ecological area. As a WMA, the marsh will be managed by a single organization, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations. It will allow managers to establish rules governing allowable uses (i.e. motorized recreation) and reduce the number of steps required to initiate changes. This is a very positive step for any remediation work that will happen in the future.
Recommendations
1. The long term sustainability of the R.W. Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary is ultimately dependent on a stable water supply. Without a supplemental water supply, levels may continue to drop to a point where the ecological integrity of the marsh is compromised. While there have been some formal studies done by Ducks Unlimited Canada, more data need to be gathered in order to verify anecdotal information. It needs to be determined whether existing water supplies are sufficient to provide adequate water levels in the marsh and if the cyclical drops are increasing in magnitude and duration.
Recommendation 1: Review existing water level information and summarize results. Develop water level monitoring program and initiate as soon as possible.
2. A study reviewing all available information regarding historic, current, and future projected water levels will determine if the marsh’s current water sources can provide adequate water levels to sustain a functioning wetland. If the results indicate that a supplemental source of water is required, another study would need to be undertaken to determine possible options. Ducks Unlimited has completed some research into this and would be an excellent source of information and valuable partners.
Recommendation 2: Commission a report to further investigate potential water sources and the processes necessary to acquire water rights to them
3. In 2011, An Invasive Plant Management Plan was developed for Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary. It was funded by Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation on behalf of The Nature Trust of BC. It recognized that an invasive plant management plan was necessary for the long term sustainable protection of
Page | 52
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
the marsh. The plan assessed the extent of invasive plants and identified actions to prevent further impacts to the native plant communities.
Recommendation 2: Implement Invasive Plant Management Plan
4. All wetlands are particularly vulnerable to human development. The Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary is no exception, and is surrounded by a range of developments including highways, railroads, trails, and urbanization. One consequence of its proximity to Valemount is its exposure to motorized recreation (i.e. atvs, snowmobiles, etc). These activities endanger the plant and animal found in this sensitive ecosystem and are not compatible with its long term protection.
Recommendation 3: Implement a motorized vehicle closure
5. On the northern edge of the marsh along McKirdy Road, there is a site referred to by some as ‘Canoe View’ point. It provides road access and parking at the marsh and creates a jumping off point for many recreational activities. The Valemount Winter Festival is staged here and recreationists often start from here for canoeing, walking, biking, and skating excursions. Wayne Van Velzen, Mt. Robson Park Manager, recommended a regional park be established here to facilitate and encourage approved recreation within the WMA. It could offer a picnic shelter, parking, and interpretive signs that explain the unique ecosystem. At the time it was proposed, the land owners, the Regional District of Fraser Fort George, were in favour of the idea. It is now on a list of potential new parks. The proposed regional park site is not within the WMA, making designation as a park much simpler.
Recommendation 4: Establish a regional park: ‘Canoe View Park’ to provide regulated access to a wide range of recreational visitors and to offer interpretive information about the marsh’s unique ecosystem
Conclusion
Starratt Wildlife Sanctuary continues to play an important role in Valemount’s ecology and economy. Because of the significant amount of wetland inundated with the creation of the Kinbasket reservoir, protecting our remaining wetlands is more important than ever. The marsh’s new designation as a Wildlife Management Area will help in managing some issues facing it including: declining water levels, invasive plants, and unregulated motorized
Page | 53
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report vehicle use. The above recommendations will improve the marsh’s ecological and recreational capacity now and long into the future. They will require dedicated funding, however, and may be beyond the scope of the MFLNRO’s budget for this area. If this is the case, additional funding from the province would be required to see them to completion.
Summary of Reviewed Studies
Minimal study of the effects of the Mica Dam on local resources was considered during the previous 20-year period of investigation and design. Studies highlighting socio-economical and environmental impacts were only published following the creation of the Mica Dam and the eventual flooding of the Canoe and Columbia Reaches of the Kinbasket Reservoir.
Page | 54
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Published in 1973, and commonly known as the Farquharson Report, the preliminary Mica Region Report led to a two-volume Mica Reservoir Region Resource Study Final Report commissioned by the British Columbia Environment and Land Use Committee in 1974. It is one of the first studies to measure the immediate post-flood effects of the Kinbasket Reservoir.
Both Valemount and Golden had studies published in 1994. The Golden and Area Mica Report prepared by Paul Hambruch analyzed the effects of the Mica Dam and Kinbasket Reservoir on the economy of the Town of Golden and Area. The Columbia River Treaty Valemount Report by the Kinbasket Research and Economic Development Committee was created to brief the Columbia River Treaty Committee on the perspective of the Village of Valemount and surrounding area in regards to the Kinbasket Reservoir.
In 2004, the Village of Valemount commissioned the Socio Economic Opportunity Study for the Valemount Area to prepare for future resort development and subsequent deliveries of the community vision, implementation strategy and land use plans. The Kinbasket Reservoir Commercial and Recreation Opportunities Study was published in 2009 and was prepared for Golden Area Initiatives. It highlights the impacts of the Kinbasket Reservoir by comparing other reservoirs in British Columbia and presented potential commercial and recreational opportunities for the Golden area.
The Rural British Columbia Project Discussion Paper provides a year by year summary of the long-term strategy positions announced by 14 provincial government administrations from 1961 to 2010 and was completed in September 2011. The most recent edition of the Robson-Canoe Valleys Economic Opportunities Plan was completed in September 2012 and examines current and future opportunities to develop an approach to build upon economic development in the Robson and Canoe Valleys.
Bibliography
American Museum of Natural History (2012). Rails Across Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.osolemedia.com/RailsacrossCanada.pdf
Page | 55
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
BC Hydro (2013). Kinbasket Reservoir Dam: Feasibility Study as part of the Columbia River Treaty Review. Retrieved from: http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/CRT_KinbasketResevoir_ver01.pdf
Bray, K. 2011. Kinbasket and Revelstoke Reservoirs Ecological Productivity Monitoring. Progress Report Year 3. BC Hydro, Environment. Study No. CLBMON-3. 4.
Brent Harley and Associates (2004). Socio Economic Opportunity Study for the Valemount Area. Prepared for the Village of Valemount.
B.C. Ministry of Forests and Lands. 1989. Annual report 1987-88 of mean annual increment- growth rates.
Campbell, C. (Ed.) (2011). A Century of Parks In Canada. University of Calgary Press. Chapter 1: A Questionable Basis for Establishing a Major Park by Ben Bradley.
Columbia River Water Use Plan (2013). Kinbasket Reservoir Floating Debris Management Program Review. Retrieved from: http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/wup/s outhern_interior/2012q2/2012-04_gds12-80_columbia.Par.0001.File.2012-04-GDS12-80- Columbia-River-WUP-Update.pdf
Columbia River Treaty Review (2012). Summary Report: Columbia River Treaty Review, November 2012 Community Consultations. Retrieved from: http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/Treaty-Review-November- 2012-Public-Consultation-Summary-Report1.pdf
Degu, A. M., F. Hossain, D. Niyogi, R. Pielke Sr.,J. M. Shepherd, N. Voisin, and T. Chronis (2011). The influence of large dams on surrounding climate and precipitation patterns. Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 38.
Economic Growth Solutions (2009). Kinbasket Reservoir Commercial and Recreation Opportunities Study-Final Report. Prepared for the Golden Area Initiatives.
Farquharson K.G. (1973). Mica Reservoir Region Resource Study-A Summary Report. Prepared for the BC Environment and Land Use Committee.
Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (2012). Columbia Basin Species of Interest Action Plan Draft. BC Hydro & Dept. Fisheries and Oceans. Retrieved from: http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/about/our_commitment/fw cp/columbia_SpeciesofInterest_ActionPlan_2012_jun.Par.0001.File.Columbia- SpeciesofInterest-ActionPlan-2012-jun.pdf
Page | 56
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Forest Practices Board (2012). Valemount Community Forest Gets Good Audit. Retrieved from:http://www.fpb.gov.bc.ca/NEWS_RELEASE_Valemount_community_forest_gets_good audit.htm
Forest Supply Analysis Branch (2003). Interim Guidelines for the Preparation of Socio- Economic Assessments in Timber Supply Review.
Ghomshei, M. (2010). Study of the Feasibility of Geothermal Operations for Golden, British Columbia. Prepared on behalf of the Golden Initiative.
Hambruch, Paul (1994). The Golden and Area Mica Report.
Hobden, J. & L. Scott ( 2011). Invasive Plant Management Plan for Cranberry Marsh near the Village of Valemount. Prepared for the Nature Trust of British Columbia.
Janmut J. & Shafiqul Islam M (2013). Review of Biophysical Impact of Columbia River Treat Dams Draft. Prepared for the Columbia Basin Trust.
Ministry of Forests and Range (2013). Ministry of Forests and Range Apportionment System. Retrieved from: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hth/external/!publish/web/timber- tenures/apportionment/aptr043.pdf
Parkins, Varghese, & Stedman (2004). Identifying indicators of community sustainability in the Robson Valley, British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management: Volume 4, Number 2.
Penfold, G. E. (2012). A review of the Impacts and Benefits of the Columbia River Treat on Basin Communities, the Region and the Province. Prepared for the Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Natural Gas as part of the Columbia River Treaty Review.
Pierce Lefebvre Consulting (2008). Timber Harvesting & Processing Employment Survey- Central Kootenay Final Report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.
Pierce Lefebvre Consulting (2008). Timber Harvesting & Processing Employment Survey- Prince George Region Final Report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.
Pierce Lefebvre Consulting (2006). Timber Harvesting & Processing Employment Survey- BC Central Coast and North Coast Final Report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.
Page | 57
Kinbasket Reservoir Impacts and Future Opportunities Report
Pierce Lefebvre Consulting (2009). Timber Harvesting & Processing Employment Survey- Central Cariboo Final Report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.
Pierce Lefebvre Consulting (2006). Timber Harvesting & Processing Employment Survey-Sea to Sky Final Report. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.
Regional District of Fraser Fort George (2010). Robson-Canoe Valleys Economic Opportunity Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.rdffg.bc.ca/Report_Library/RobsonCanoeEcOppPlanSept2010.pdf
Rumsey, C., M. Wood, B. Butterfield, P. Comer, D. Hillary, M. Bryer, C. Carroll, G. Kittel, K.J. Torgerson, C. Jean, R. Mullen, P. Iachetti, and J. Lewis. 2003. Canadian Rocky Mountains Eco- regional Assessment, Volume Three: Conservation Areas Descriptions. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy and the Nature Conservancy of Canada.
Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources (1993). Lumber Remanufacturing in British Columbia.
Sneirson, Judd. F. (2011). The sustainable corporation and shareholder Profits. Wake Forest Law Review: Nov. 10, 2010. Retrieved from: http://wakeforestlawreview.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/10/w09_Sneirson.pdf
Toller S. & Nemetz P. (1997). Assessing the Impact of Hydro Development: A Case Study of the Columbia River Basin in British Columbia. BC Studies: No. 114. Retrieved from: http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/view/1710/1756
Townsend, Jeanette (1994). Columbia River Treaty Valemount Report. Prepared by the Kinbasket Research and Economic Development Committee.
Utzig, G & Schmidt, D. (2011). Dam Footprint Impact Summary: BC Hydro Dams in the Columbia Basin. Prepared for Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program.
Page | 58