• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

TECHNICAL REVIEWS LOWER ATHABASCA RIVER (LAR) THE PHASE 2 WATER MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK A REVIEW OF LOWER ATHABASCA RIVER INSTREAM FLOW NEEDS & THE PHASE 2 WATER MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK- FISHES AND THEIR HABITAT. REVIEW OF THE ATHABASCA RIVER PHASE II FRAMEWORK COMMITTEE (P2FC) REPORT, JANUARY 2010 - ABORIGINAL KNOWLEDGE, USE, INTERESTS AND RIGHTS REVIEW OF THE PHASE TWO FRAMEWORK COMMITTEE NON-CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LOWER ATHABASCA RIVER Hydrology, Geomorphology, Basin Issues, Decision Framework Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) and the Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN) 23 August 2010 DISCLAIMER This report remains the sole property of both the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) and the Mikisew Cree First Nation (MCFN). Citations, quotations, reproductions, and usage or of the information contained herein is permissible only with the explicit written consent of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Mikisew Cree First Nation. While the authors endeavored to state factual and relevant information (within the scope of the study), nothing in this report should be constituted as a definitive list of: concerns, impacts, needs, rights, and uses nor should it be taken as a limitation on the uses or rights of both First Nations. We reserve the right to alter, amend, revise, or update any portion of this report to reflect the fluid and emerging interests of both the ACFN and MCFN. A REVIEW OF LOWER ATHABASCA RIVER INSTREAM FLOW NEEDS & THE PHASE 2 WATER MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK- Fishes and their habitat Submitted to: Athabasca Chipewyan and Mikisew Cree First Nations Fort MacKay and Fort McMurray, Alberta Submitted by: Applied Aquatic Research Ltd. Calgary, Alberta July 2010 File: AAR10-20 A REVIEW OF LOWER ATHABASCA RIVER INSTREAM FLOW NEEDS and the PHASE 2 WATER MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK – Fishes and their habitat. Submitted to: Athabasca Chipewyan and Mikisew Cree First Nations Fort MacKay and Fort McMurray, Alberta Submitted by: T.D. Boag and M. Vander Meulen Applied Aquatic Research Ltd. Calgary, Alberta July 2010 File: AAR10-20 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Review Objectives ............................................................................................................... 2 2.0 APPROACH ....................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 TECHNICAL COMPONENTS ............................................................................................................... 4 3.1 IFN and Aquatic Ecosystem Health ..................................................................................... 5 3.2 IFN for the LAR .................................................................................................................... 5 Meso-habitat and fish habitat ............................................................................................ 5 Lake whitefish spawning and walleye recruitment ............................................................ 6 Connectivity in the PAD ...................................................................................................... 8 Water Quality and Dissolved Oxygen Concentration ......................................................... 8 3.3 LAR Habitat Limiting Factors ............................................................................................. 10 Wintering of Fishes ........................................................................................................... 10 Role of peripheral habitat ................................................................................................. 10 The Peace-Athabasca Delta .............................................................................................. 11 3.4 Uncertainty ....................................................................................................................... 12 3.5 IFN and Precautionary Flow .............................................................................................. 13 3.6 Monitoring and Enforcement .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.0 OUTSTANDING ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... i 5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... iii 5.1 Personal Communications ................................................................................................. iii 5.2 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. iii Applied Aquatic Research Ltd. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview The pace of development of the oil sands region of northeastern Alberta has accelerated since 1990. Both open-pit oil sands mining and in situ extraction, such as steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), require appreciable volumes of water as part of the industrial process. The outcome of hearings into oil sands projects in the mid-2000s was an initiative on the part of provincial and federal regulators to define minimum instream flow needs (IFN) for the lower Athabasca River (LAR). This was undertaken by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). In 2006-2007, when CEMA could not reach a conclusion regarding an IFN for the LAR, Alberta Environment (AENV) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) introduced the Phase 1 Water Management Framework to guide water withdrawal. This approach was relatively simple and based on water withdrawal cut off (almost) during “red”, reduced withdrawal during “yellow”, and full permitted withdrawal during “green” discharge ranges. These ranges correspond to the following thresholds: “potential sustainability”, “cautionary”, and “sufficient water availability” for maximum withdrawal, respectively. Phase 1 is in effect until September 2010 at which time the Phase 2 (long-term) Water Management Framework (P2WMF) is to be in place based on the current state of hydrological and biological science. To establish more formal guidelines for water withdrawal, the Instream Flow Needs Technical Task Group (IFNTTG) of CEMA examined various Evaluation Criteria (EC) and supplied findings and technical details to the Phase 2 Framework Committee (P2FC) which included regulatory, industry, and First Nation stake-holders. The P2FC also received input from sub-committees that investigated water needs of industry, effects of climate change, socio-economic needs (including traditional use), and ecosystem base flow (EBF – that flow below which there may be irreversible stress to the aquatic ecosystem). The summary report of the P2FC (Ohlson et al. 2010) brings together a collection of insight from Delphi-type analyses, scientific studies, and models to inform the establishment of a next generation of water management rules for the river (AENV 2007). Volume 1 of the P2FC report describes options for management of the Athabasca River with particular reference to three key interest areas: Ecosystem Health, Traditional / Public Use, and Sustainable Economic Development. A second volume of technical appendices accompanies Ohlson et al. (2010). The P2WMF rules conceived of by the P2FC result from selected scientific studies and reviews looking at climate change, hydrology, geomorphology, fishes, fish habitat, and traditional uses. Of these issues, by far the most studied by P2FC are fish and fish-habitat issues, while the least studied was traditional use. Option H is the recommendation preferred by the P2FC and is the recommended option that regulators adopt in the P2WMF. Option H, which was determined without consensus, but was reached by various stakeholders attempting to balance water withdrawal, costs of onsite storage, and loss of fish habitat potential (productive capacity) has been the focus of much of the P2FC’s work. Based on the outcome of the committee’s work, a maximum low flow withdrawal for industrial use of 4.4 m3/s at a minimum instream flow (EBF) of 87 m3/s has been proposed. The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) recently hosted a National Advisory Workshop on Athabasca River In-stream Flow Needs to assist DFO Science. Its purpose was to provide DFO Habitat Management with advice (i.e., a Science Advisory Report, SAR) regarding instream flow needs and their Applied Aquatic Research Ltd. 1 assessment in the LAR. Instream flow needs are the quantity, timing, and variability of flow required to maintain desired levels of population biomass and biotic diversity (Poff et al. 1997). 1.2 Review Objectives The Mikisew Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations retained Applied Aquatic Research Ltd. (AAR) to review and comment on the merit of the science and predictions by the P2FC. We reviewed the rationale, approach, results, and interpretation of the minimum recommended discharge necessary to support a viable ecosystem in the LAR (the IFN for the river). Specific objectives of this review are to answer three questions within its subject areas, and with respect to the work carried out under the auspices of the P2FC: 1. Is the science behind the fish biology and habitat modeling sufficient to provide confidence

Load more

  327

Copy Link