DOCSLIB.ORG

COQMON-7 | Lower Coquitlam River Fish Productivity Index

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COQMON-7 | Lower Coquitlam River Fish Productivity Index Coquitlam-Buntzen Project Water Use Plan Lower Coquitlam River Fish Productivity Index Implementation Year 12 Reference: COQMON-7 Study Period: 2000-2017 Results Prepared by: Jody Schick Jason Macnair 529 Gower Point Road, 2919 Ontario St., Vancouver B.C. Gibsons, BC., V5T 2Y5 V0N 1V0, [email protected] [email protected] March 31, 2019 Coquitlam River Fish Monitoring Program: 2000-2017 Results Final Report Prepared for: BC Hydro Prepared by: Jody Schick1* and Jason Macnair2 _____________________________________________________________________ 1 529 Gower Point Road, Gibsons, BC., V0N 1V0, [email protected] 2 2919 Ontario St., Vancouver B.C. V5T 2Y5, [email protected] * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed ii Executive Summary As part of the Coquitlam River Water Use Plan (LB1 WUP), a long-term adaptive management study is being conducted in the Coquitlam River to compare anadromous fish production under two experimental flow regimes. Fish population monitoring under the first flow regime (Treatment 1, dam release flows from 0.8-1.4 cms) occurred from 2000 until the completion of the Coquitlam Dam seismic upgrade in October 2008, with the exception of 2001(8 years). Fish production under Treatment 2 (release flows from 1.1-6.1 cms) will be monitored for up to 9 years. The Lower Coquitlam River Fish Productivity Index Monitoring Program (COQMON-07) focuses on four anadromous species: Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) and Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), and includes adult escapement and smolt outmigration monitoring for each species. Higher returns during 2007-2014 allowed Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) escapements to be estimated as well. Since 2006, night snorkeling surveys have also been included in the monitoring program to provide estimates of late summer standing stocks of juvenile Coho and Steelhead. This report summarizes monitoring results of 8 years during Treatment 1 (2000-2008) and the 9 years of Treatment 2 (2009-2017) for the four major components of the COQMON-07: adult salmon escapement surveys, Steelhead redd counts, juvenile standing stock surveys, and smolt trapping. The primary emphasis of this report is on 2016 fall salmon escapement estimates and outmigration, fall standing stock and Steelhead escapement in 2017. Summaries of all data years for each species and life stage are presented and discussed as well. Estimates of adult escapement, late summer juvenile standing stocks and egg-to-smolt survival estimates should be considered preliminary and will change as additional observer efficiency data are accumulated in future years. Coho escapement to the Coquitlam River in 2002-2016 (880-13,290 adults) likely exceeded that necessary to seed available juvenile habitat based on preliminary stock-recruitment analysis. The 2015 escapement estimate of 6,867 was based on 14 surveys under relatively favourable survey conditions that spanned the entire spawning period. High water events were minimal and short in duration. As with the Pink, Chum and Chinook, there was insufficient survey life and observer efficiency information to calculate the uncertainty of Coho escapement estimates. The 2017 late summer standing stock fry estimate was 59,166 (95%CI ±29%) based on night snorkel surveys, which was above average compared with previous years (18,405-91,367 fish). During 2017, 9,810 (95%CI ± 1,080) Coho smolts originating from mainstem habitats outmigrated past the lowermost trapping site and an additional 4,340 smolts outmigrated from the four off-channel habitats above RST2. Using smolt yield as the primary measure of freshwater carrying capacity, there was no difference in mean smolt abundance between Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 when including off-channel smolts (mean: 12,949 and 12,507 smolts, respectively; 2-tailed t-test p=0.97) but is significantly different for mainstem origin smolts (mean: 5,479and 7,848, respectively; 2-tailed t-test p=0.05), when excluding the 2009 transition year. This reflects a 43% increase in mean abundance from Treatment 1 to Treatment 2. However, the 95% confidence intervals of the percent change in smolt yield from Treatment 1 to Treatment 2 are broad, ranging from no-increase to a nearly two-fold increase in abundance (95% CL: -0.5% to 87%). While this may represent a meaningful change in abundance, we are uncertain whether the iii change was due to Treatment 2 flows or a regional increase in freshwater productivity that occurred over a similar time period. If smolt yield from the Alouette River– an adjacent watershed with similar hydrology – is a reliable control for changes in productivity in the Coquitlam River that would have occurred if there was no change in flow treatment, Treatment 2 may have had no effect or even a negative effect on productivity. This is because there was a greater increase in smolt abundance in the Alouette River (117%) over a similar time period than in the Coquitlam (mean increase: 43%). However, the reliability of the Alouette Rivers as a control is uncertain because of its low precision of the estimated change in abundance between treatments (95% CI: 25%-250%), including only the first five of nine Treatment 2 years, and the possibility that pre-2008 estimates were biased low. Redd counts suggested that Steelhead escapements during 2005-2015 (230-870 adults, 24 to 80 adults/km, 39,000-149,000 eggs/km,) were well above that necessary to seed available juvenile habitat based on stock and recruitment data for the Keogh River, a well-studied coastal stream, and based on preliminary stock-recruitment analysis from the Coquitlam River. The 2017 estimate of 398 adults was minimally influenced by modeling redd loss since the period between surveys was sufficiently short that virtually all redds constructed after one survey remained visible during the subsequent survey. The late summer standing stocks and 95%CI of Steelhead fry, age 1+ and 2+ parr for 2015 was 54,358 ±44%, 9,064 ±28% and 3,207 ±50%, respectively. Smolt yield for the mainstem upstream of the lowermost trap (RST 2) was 3,696 ±16% in 2017. Mean smolt yield for the Coquitlam River mainstem increased 24% from Treatment 1 to Treatment 2 (mean: 3,716 and 4,684 smolts, respectively). Although this result isn’t statistically significant, we expected that it will with additional monitoring if current trends continue (2-tailed t-test, p=0.07). The 95% confidence intervals of the percent change in smolt abundance from Treatment 1 to 2 ranged from -5% to 53%. This increase was almost entirely the result of increased smolt yield in reach 4. Mean abundance in reach 4 increased significantly from Treatment 1 to Treatment 2 (926 and 2,253 smolts, respectively; 2-tailed t-test, p< 0.01). As well, reach 4 abundance has been at least two-fold higher than during Treatment 1 in all but one year since 2009. This continues the trend of generally increasing abundance in reach 4 from less than 400 smolts in 1996 (prior to the start of Treatment 1) to over 2,800 smolts in recent years. Similar to Coho, increased Steelhead production may be the product of regional increases in freshwater productivity rather than Treatment 2 flows. If smolt yield from the Alouette River is a reliable control for changes in productivity in the Steelhead in the Coquitlam River that would have occurred if there was no change in flow treatment, Treatment 2 may have had no effect or even a negative effect on productivity. There has been a greater increase in mean smolt abundance in the Alouette River (78%) than for the Coquitlam River (24%) between Treatment 1 and 2. We are uncertain about the reliability of the Alouette River as a control for the same reasons as for Coho: low precision of the estimated change in abundance between treatments (95% CI: 10%-132%), small Treatment 2 sample size (3 years) and the possibility that pre-2008 estimates were biased low. Distinguishing between flow treatment and non-treatment effects will require further assessment of the reliability of the Alouette River as a control and or including considering other nearby rivers as controls. iv Chum escapement for 2016 was the highest since monitoring began in 2002 (78,120 adults). This was based on 11 evenly spaced surveys with moderate to good survey conditions. Considering this, the 2016 escapement estimate is likely a reliable index for evaluating freshwater production even though we still lack adequate information about survey life and observer efficiency. In 2017, 12.7 million (95% CI ± 17%) Chum fry outmigrated past the lowermost trap. This is likely a product of the exceptionally high escapement in 2016. Egg-to- fry survival ranged from 3.7%-26.8%, and averaged 10.0% during Treatment 1. Egg-to-fry survival during Treatment 2 averaged 24.7% and ranged from 12%-40%. Some or all our survival estimates could be biased high as they exceed the published values for Pacific Northwest streams. Survival estimates may be better interpreted as an index, only comparable within the Coquitlam River Monitoring Program. Mean survival was significantly higher during Treatment 2 then during Treatment 1 (2-tailed t-test p=0.01). Preliminary stock-recruitment analysis also suggests that Treatment 2 likely increased fry production compared with Treatment 1. These findings could change as we further refine the Chum escapement model as well as with further comparisons with other rivers. Chum salmon returns to Coquitlam River were greatly improved in 2002-2017 compared to escapements in years prior to the implementation of the Treatment 1 flow regime in 1997. No Pink escapement estimates were generated for 2016 or outmigration estimates for 2017 as spawning occurs during odd years for the Coquitlam River. Escapement during the most recent run year, 2015 was comparable to the 2009 and 2011 runs and less than 1/3 of 2013 returns.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Electrical Service Information Form
    Electrical Service Information Form Date: (DD/MM/YY) Service address (full address and postal code if available) Project name Legal description BC Hydro Reference # Anticipated energization date: Owner information Name Mailing address Email address Address line 2 Phone/Cell # GST# Technical contact persons Name Email address Phone no. Electrical contractor Electrical consultants General contractor Building and electrical details Building state: New Existing Proposed use of building: Permanent service Temporary service Number of hours of operation per day: Number of operational days per week: Main switch size: amps Code peak demand: kW Your Designer may inquire further about your computation 80% rated 100% rated (BC Hydro approval required) for the code demand Voltage: volts Average operating demand: kW Largest motor: hp Time of day of peak demand: AM PM Fire pump: No Yes - Size Building heated by: Gas Electric Heat pump - Locked Rotor Amp A Electric furnace Other On-site customer-owned generation: No Yes—open transition Yes—closed transition Requested service type: Overhead Underground Load details Existing (if applicable) New Electric heating load kW kW Lighting load kW kW Heat pump including geothermal kW kW Air conditioning motor load kW kW Electric vehicle charging load kW kW Other motor load kW kW Other load kW kW Total connected load kW kW Proposed future load kW kW Metering Information Total number of meters Residential: Commercial: Voltage: Meter type: 120/240 120/208 347/600 TBD 1 Phase 3 Phase TBD Meter details Other: Temporary master metering required Number of wires: Yes No Current transformer Bar CT lugs conductor size: x Window TBD CT type: Conductor to CT lugs: Cu Al Energization ○ Energization of the project will be scheduled upon receipt of: • Necessary approvals, permits from appropriate authorities, including municipal, electric inspection and other utilities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Story of the Coquitlam River Watershed Past, Present and Future
    Fraser Salmon and Watersheds Program – Living Rivers Project Coquitlam River Stakeholder Engagement Phase I The Story of the Coquitlam River Watershed Past, Present and Future Prepared for: The City of Coquitlam and Kwikwetlem First Nation Funding provided by: The Pacific Salmon Foundation Additional funding provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada Prepared by: Jahlie Houghton, JR Environmental – April 2008 Updated by: Coquitlam River Watershed Work Group – October 2008 Final Report: October 24, 2008 2 File #: 13-6410-01/000/2008-1 Doc #: 692852.v1B Acknowledgements I would like to offer a special thanks to individuals of the community who took the time to meet with me, who not only helped to educate me on historical issues and events in the watershed, but also provided suggestions to their vision of what a successful watershed coordinator could contribute in the future. These people include Elaine Golds, Niall Williams, Don Gillespie, Dianne Ramage, Tony Matahlija, Tim Tyler, John Jakse, Vance Reach, Sherry Carroll, Fin Donnelly, Maurice Coulter-Boisvert, Matt Foy, Derek Bonin, Charlotte Bemister, Dave Hunter, Jim Allard, Tom Vanichuk, and George Turi. I would also like to thank members of the City of Coquitlam, Kwikwetlem First Nation, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Watershed Watch Salmon Society (representative for Kwikwetlem) who made this initiative possible and from whom advice was sought throughout this process. These include Jennifer Wilkie, Dave Palidwor, Mike Carver, Margaret Birch, Hagen Hohndorf, Melony Burton, Tom Cadieux, Dr. Craig Orr, George Chaffee, and Glen Joe. Thank you to the City of Coquitlam also for their printing and computer support services.
    [Show full text]
  • BC Hydro's Response to Intervener Information Requests Round 4
    Fred James Chief Regulatory Officer Phone: 604-623-4046 Fax: 604-623-4407 [email protected] November 14, 2019 Mr. Patrick Wruck Commission Secretary and Manager Regulatory Support British Columbia Utilities Commission Suite 410, 900 Howe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2N3 Dear Mr. Wruck: RE: Project No. 1598990 British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC or Commission) British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) Fiscal 2020 to Fiscal 2021 Revenue Requirements Application (the Application) BC Hydro writes in compliance with Commission Order No. G-279-19 to provide its responses to Round 4 information requests as follows: Exhibit B-22 Responses to Commission IRs (Public Version) Exhibit B-22-1 Responses to Commission IRs (Confidential Version) Exhibit B-23 Responses to Intervener IRs (Public Version) Exhibit B-23-1 Responses to Intervener IRs (Confidential Version) BC Hydro is filing a number of IR responses and/or attachments to responses confidentially with the Commission. In each instance, an explanation for the request for confidential treatment is provided in the public version of the IR response. BC Hydro seeks this confidential treatment pursuant to section 42 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Overall, BC Hydro received 327 Round 4 information requests. Responses to 260 of those information requests are included in this filing. Thirty-four information requests are the subject of BC Hydro’s letter of November 8, 2019 (the information requests at issue are listed in the attachment to that letter). They are being addressed through the comment process established by Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B: Hydrotechnical Assessment
    Sheep Paddocks Trail Alignment Analysis APPENDIX B: HYDROTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT LEES+Associates -112- 30 Gostick Place | North Vancouver, BC V7M 3G3 | 604.980.6011 | www.nhcweb.com 300217 15 August 2013 Lees + Associates Landscape Architects #509 – 318 Homer Street Vancouver, BC V6B 2V2 Attention: Nalon Smith Dear Mr. Smith: Subject: Sheep Paddocks Trail Alignment – Phase 1 Hydrotechnical Assessment Preliminary Report 1 INTRODUCTION Metro Vancouver wishes to upgrade the Sheep Paddocks Trail between Pitt River Road and Mundy Creek in Colony Farm Regional Park on the west side of the Coquitlam River. The trail is to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic and be built to withstand at least a 1 in 10 year flood. The project will be completed in three phases: 1. Phase 1 – Route Selection 2. Phase 2 – Detailed Design 3. Phase 3 – Construction and Post-Construction This letter report provides hydrotechnical input for Phase 1 – Route Selection. Currently, a narrow footpath runs along the top of a berm on the right bank of the river. The trail suffered erosion damage in 2007 and was subsequently closed to the public but is still unofficially in use. Potential future routes include both an inland and river option, as well as combinations of the two. To investigate the feasibility of the different options and help identify the most appropriate trail alignment from a hydrotechnical perspective, NHC was retained to undertake the following Phase I scope of work: • Participate in three meetings. • Attend a site visit. • Estimate different return period river flows and comment on local drainage requirements. • Simulate flood levels and velocities corresponding to the different flows.
    [Show full text]
  • BC Hydro and Power Authority 2021/22
    BC Hydro and Power Authority 2021/22 – 2023/24 Service Plan April 2021 For more information on BC Hydro contact: 333 Dunsmuir Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5R3 Lower Mainland 604 BCHYDRO (604 224 9376) Outside Lower Mainland 1 800 BCHYDRO (1 800 224 9376)] Or visit our website at bchydro.com Published by BC Hydro BC Hydro and Power Authority Board Chair’s Accountability Statement The 2021/22 – 2023/24 BC Hydro Service Plan was prepared under the Board’s direction in accordance with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The plan is consistent with government’s strategic priorities and fiscal plan. The Board is accountable for the contents of the plan, including what has been included in the plan and how it has been reported. The Board is responsible for the validity and reliability of the information included in the plan. All significant assumptions, policy decisions, events and identified risks, as of February 28, 2021 have been considered in preparing the plan. The performance measures presented are consistent with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, BC Hydro’s mandate and goals, and focus on aspects critical to the organization’s performance. The targets in this plan have been determined based on an assessment of BC Hydro’s operating environment, forecast conditions, risk assessment and past performance. Doug Allen Board Chair 2021/22 – 2023/24 Service Plan Page | 3 BC Hydro and Power Authority Table of Contents Board Chair’s Accountability Statement .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bc Hydro Rights of Way Guidelines Compatible Uses and Development Near Power Lines Contents
    BC HYDRO RIGHTS OF WAY GUIDELINES COMPATIBLE USES AND DEVELOPMENT NEAR POWER LINES CONTENTS OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................3 WHO ARE THESE GUIDELINES FOR? ................................................................................................................................................................4 PREPARING AND SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL ..................................................................................................................................................5 POSSIBLE COMPATIBLE USES OF RIGHT OF WAY ...........................................................................................................................................6 GENERAL SAFETY INFORMATION .....................................................................................................................................................................7 PLANTING AND LOGGING NEAR POWER LINES ..............................................................................................................................................8 UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................9 DESIGNING AROUND BC HYDRO RIGHTS OF WAY .........................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Port Coquitlam Flood Mapping Update
    Port Coquitlam Flood Mapping Update RECOMMENDATION: None. PREVIOUS COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ACTION On September 17, 2019 Council carried the following motion: That staff prepare flood maps showing current flood risk to Port Coquitlam from the Fraser Basin and provide a report in the fall 2019 with information about the risks facing the community from rising sea levels that align with projections in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. REPORT SUMMARY Port Coquitlam has participated in the Fraser Basin Council’s Lower Mainland Flood Management Strategy (“the Strategy”) since its development in 2014. Participants in the strategy have responsibilities or interests related to flood management and include the Government of Canada, the Province of British Columbia, Lower Mainland local governments, First Nations and non- governmental and private sector entities in the region. This report summarizes the flood projections for Port Coquitlam, the regional work completed to date and presents the Strategy’s next phase. BACKGROUND The Lower Fraser Watershed is fed by 12 major watersheds. 1. The Upper / Middle Fraser 7. Chilcotin 2. Stuart 8. North Thompson 3. McGregor 9. South Thompson 4. Nechako 10. Thompson 5. Quesnel 11. Lillooet 6. West Road-Blackwater 12. Harrison These watersheds are illustrated on Figure 1. Report To: Committee of Council Department: Engineering & Public Works Approved by: F. Smith Meeting Date: November 19, 2019 Port Coquitlam Flood Mapping Update Figure 1 – Fraser Basin Watersheds https://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/basin_watersheds.html In addition, the Lower Fraser watershed incorporates a number of smaller watersheds: Stave Lake and River drain into the Fraser between Maple Ridge and Mission; Alouette Lake and River flow into the Pitt River; the Pitt River drains south from Garibaldi Provincial Park through Pitt Lake, emptying into the Fraser River between Pitt Meadows and Port Coquitlam.
    [Show full text]
  • August 7, 2019 Mr. Patrick Wruck Commission Secretary
    Fred James Chief Regulatory Officer Phone: 604-623-4046 Fax: 604-623-4407 [email protected] August 7, 2019 Mr. Patrick Wruck Commission Secretary and Manager Regulatory Support British Columbia Utilities Commission Suite 410, 900 Howe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2N3 Dear Mr. Wruck: RE: British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC or Commission) British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) Fleet Electrification Rate Application BC Hydro writes to file its Application pursuant to sections 58 to 60 of the Utilities Commission Act (UCA) for approval of Rate Schedules 164x – Overnight Rate (150 kW and over) and 165x - Demand Transition Rate (150 kW and over) for use for charging of electric fleet vehicles and vessels. These new services are in response to customer requests for fleet charging rates and support the electrification of commercial fleet vehicles and vessels. For further information, please contact Anthea Jubb at 604-623-3545 or by email at [email protected]. Yours sincerely, (for) Fred James Chief Regulatory Officer ac/tl Enclosure British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 333 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver BC V6B 5R3 www.bchydro.com BC Hydro Fleet Electrification Rate Application August 7, 2019 August 7, 2019 Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Need for Fleet Electrification Rates ......................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Application .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Need for the Optional Rates .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dams and Hydroelectricity in the Columbia
    COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN: DAMS AND HYDROELECTRICITY The power of falling water can be converted to hydroelectricity A Powerful River Major mountain ranges and large volumes of river flows into the Pacific—make the Columbia precipitation are the foundation for the Columbia one of the most powerful rivers in North America. River Basin. The large volumes of annual runoff, The entire Columbia River on both sides of combined with changes in elevation—from the the border is one of the most hydroelectrically river’s headwaters at Canal Flats in BC’s Rocky developed river systems in the world, with more Mountain Trench, to Astoria, Oregon, where the than 470 dams on the main stem and tributaries. Two Countries: One River Changing Water Levels Most dams on the Columbia River system were built between Deciding how to release and store water in the Canadian the 1940s and 1980s. They are part of a coordinated water Columbia River system is a complex process. Decision-makers management system guided by the 1964 Columbia River Treaty must balance obligations under the CRT (flood control and (CRT) between Canada and the United States. The CRT: power generation) with regional and provincial concerns such as ecosystems, recreation and cultural values. 1. coordinates flood control 2. optimizes hydroelectricity generation on both sides of the STORING AND RELEASING WATER border. The ability to store water in reservoirs behind dams means water can be released when it’s needed for fisheries, flood control, hydroelectricity, irrigation, recreation and transportation. Managing the River Releasing water to meet these needs influences water levels throughout the year and explains why water levels The Columbia River system includes creeks, glaciers, lakes, change frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Basin Plan
    FOR REFERENCE ONLY This version is now archived. Updated 2019 Columbia Region Action Plans available at: fwcp.ca/region/columbia-region Photo credit: Larry Halverson COLUMBIA BASIN PLAN June 2012 Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program ........................................................................ 1 Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Principles .................................................................................................................................. 2 Partners .................................................................................................................................... 2 Policy Context ........................................................................................................................... 2 Program Delivery ...................................................................................................................... 4 Project Investment Criteria ...................................................................................................... 4 2. The Columbia River Basin .................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Setting .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Building of the Coquitlam River and Port Moody Trails Researched and Written by Ralph Drew, Belcarra, BC, June 2010; Updated Dec 2012 and Dec 2013
    Early Trail Building in the New Colony of British Columbia — John Hall’s Building of the Coquitlam River and Port Moody Trails Researched and written by Ralph Drew, Belcarra, BC, June 2010; updated Dec 2012 and Dec 2013. A recent “find” of colonial correspondence in the British Columbia Archives tells a story about the construction of the Coquitlam River and Port Moody Trails between 1862 and 1864 by pioneer settler John Hall. (In 1870 Hall pre-empted 160 acres of Crown Land on Indian Arm and became Belcarra’s first European settler.) The correspondence involves a veritable “who’s who” of people in the administration in the young ‘Colony of British Columbia’. This historic account serves to highlight one of the many challenges faced by our pioneers during the period of colonial settlement in British Columbia. Sir James Douglas When the Fraser River Gold Rush began in the spring of 1858, there were only about 250 to 300 Europeans living in the Fraser Valley. The gold rush brought on the order of 30,000 miners flocking to the area in the quest for riches, many of whom came north from the California gold fields. As a result, the British Colonial office declared a new Crown colony on the mainland called ‘British Columbia’ and appointed Sir James Douglas as the first Governor. (1) The colony was first proclaimed at Fort Langley on 19th November, 1858, but in early 1859 the capital was moved to the planned settlement called ‘New Westminster’, Sir James Douglas strategically located on the northern banks of the Fraser River.
    [Show full text]
  • BC Hydro Climate Change Assessment Report 2012
    POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON BC HYDRO’S WATER RESOURCES Georg Jost: Ph.D., Senior Hydrologic Modeller, BC Hydro Frank Weber; M.Sc., P. Geo., Lead, Runoff Forecasting, BC Hydro 1 EXecutiVE Summary Global climate change is upon us. Both natural cycles and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions influence climate in British Columbia and the river flows that supply the vast majority of power that BC Hydro generates. BC Hydro’s climate action strategy addresses both the mitigation of climate change through reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and adaptation to climate change by understanding the risks and magnitude of potential climatic changes to our business today and in the future. As part of its climate change adaptation strategy, BC Hydro has undertaken internal studies and worked with some of the world’s leading scientists in climatology, glaciology, and hydrology to determine how climate change affects water supply and the seasonal timing of reservoir inflows, and what we can expect in the future. While many questions remain unanswered, some trends are evident, which we will explore in this document. 2 IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON BC HYDRO-MANAGED WATER RESOURCES W HAT we haVE seen so far » Over the last century, all regions of British Columbia »F all and winter inflows have shown an increase in became warmer by an average of about 1.2°C. almost all regions, and there is weaker evidence »A nnual precipitation in British Columbia increased by for a modest decline in late-summer flows for those about 20 per cent over the last century (across Canada basins driven primarily by melt of glacial ice and/or the increases ranged from 5 to 35 per cent).
    [Show full text]