ASHLU CREEK CASE STUDY by Michael

INDEPENDENT HYDROPOWER PRODUCTION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND

THE IMPACTS TO WHITEWATER KAYAKERS: ASHLU CREEK CASE STUDY

Michael John Neville

Thesis

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the Degree of Master of Recreation Management

Acadia University

Spring Convocation 2018

This thesis by Michael John Neville was defended successfully in an oral examination on December 8, 2017.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

______Dr. David F. Duke, Chair

______Dr. John W. Colton for Dr. Alan W. Ewert, External Reader

______Dr. Brian L. VanBlarcom, Internal Reader

______Dr. John W. Colton, Supervisor

______Dr. Glyn C. Bissix, Head

This thesis is accepted in its present form by the Division of Research and Graduate Studies as satisfying the thesis requirement for the degree MASTER OF RECREATION MANAGEMENT.

I, Michael John Neville, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to archive, preserve, reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper, or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I undertake to submit my thesis, through my University, to Library and Archives Canada and to allow them to archive, preserve, reproduce, convert into any format, and to make available in print or online to the public for non-profit purposes. I, however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

______Author

______Supervisor

______Date

iii

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... v

List of Figures ...... vi

Abstract ...... vii

List of Abbreviations ...... viii

Acknowledgements ...... ix

CHAPTER 1: Introduction ...... 1

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review ...... 6

CHAPTER 3 : Administration of Hydropower in BC ...... 24

CHAPTER 4: Research Approach and Methods ...... 38

CHAPTER 5: Results ...... 48

CHAPTER 6: Discussion ...... 105

CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 114

References ...... 124

Appendix A: Interview Guide Sample Questions ...... 143

Appendix B: Informed Letter of Consent ...... 144

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form: Photographs ...... 146

List of Table

Table 1. Definitions 4

Table 2. Results Summary: Major Themes and Sub-Themes 49

List of Figures

Figure 1. Typical Run of River 27

Figure 2. Large Scale Dam 28

Figure 3. Sea-to-Sky Map 30

Figure 4. Ashlu Creek Map 31

Figure 5. 50/50 Entry Falls - Box Canyon 32

Figure 6. Ashlu Creek Project - pre- and post-project Hydrograph 36

Abstract

This thesis assessed a small-scale Independent Power Project (IPP) on Ashlu

Creek, British Columbia. An interpretive approach was used to examine the relationship between independent hydropower production and water-based recreation, as RoR (Run- of-River) projects often require similar gradient and flow regimes as those that are sought after by advanced whitewater kayakers, often referred to as ‘creekers’ or ‘creekboaters.’

Key issues included outdoor recreation and its benefits, conflict, the role of community engagement in addressing conflict, and the evolution of the regulatory environment that relates to IPP development in British Columbia.

The results of the study indicated: 1) that creekboaters’ needs are very specific to the sport, 2) mitigation efforts reasonably maintained kayaking on the Ashlu, 3) mitigation efforts did not take into account all sections of the bypass reach adequately,

4) more communication can help alleviate some negative impacts, 5) more can be done to reduce impacts on other rivers.

vii

List of Abbreviations

BC Hydro – British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

BCTC – British Columbia Transmission Corporation

BCUC – British Columbia Utilities Commission

EAA – Environmental Assessment Act

EAO – Environmental Assessment Office

GWh – Gigawatt hour

IPP – Independent Power Producer

MW – Megawatt or 1,000,000 Watts

MWh – Megawatt hour

ROE – Return on Equity

RoR – Run-of-the-River

REB – Research Ethics Board

SLRD – Squamish-Lillooet Regional District

T & D – Transmission and Distribution

UCA – Utilities Commission Act

viii

Acknowledgements

This thesis would have never been possible without the help and support of several people. I would first like to thank Dr. John Colton for his endless patience, encouragement, friendship and support to make this research possible. A chance meeting on the Tatshenshini River in 2009 and a conversation about graduate studies has changed my life profoundly and has enabled me to follow paths that would not have otherwise been possible.

I would like to thank Dr. Glyn Bissix, Dr. Brian VanBlarcom, Dr. Alan Ewert, and Dr. David Duke for the insightful feedback during the process of this thesis. Their input helped form the analytical framework for this research and helped shape these ideas into a more complete finished product.

I would like to thank all of the participants in this study. Their insight about the impacts and on how to increase meaningful mitigation while decreasing negative impacts was valuable when forming recommendations.

I would like to thank my friends and family for their encouragement. I would like to dedicate this work to Mackenzie Schafers and Mackenzie Neville.

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1.1 Context

The worldwide growing demand for energy has served as a catalyst for the emerging renewable energy sector (IPCC, 2011). Renewable energy accounts for the majority (59%) of energy production in Canada (Natural Resources Canada, 2016). The majority of this power is from hydropower (Ibid). Within the BC Hydro grid, that provides power to 95% of the population, 98.4% of power is considered Clean Energy, with the vast majority being generated from hydroelectric sources (BC Hydro, 2016).

British Columbia’s geography, from a renewable energy perspective, has exceptional potential for energy growth, specifically with hydropower. Large amounts of precipitation and gradient create thousands of potential sites for energy generation (Hui,

2008). To increase its hydro capacity, BC Hydro has been investing billions of dollars in upgrading its older hydroelectric facilities, known as ‘Heritage Energy,’ and using

Independent Power Producers (IPP) to answer its call for clean energy (BC Hydro, 2009).

While the growth of renewable energy will ultimately reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and the resulting impacts, it does not come without its own impacts.

BC has extensive existing and potential renewable energy resources for hydroelectric generation. Small and large-scale hydro works modify water flows, impact biodiversity, displace local populations, and alter accessibility to wilderness rivers

(Fearnside, 2015; Nilsson & Berggren, 2000). There are many challenges associated with these types of developments including environmental, economic, and cultural impacts.

Environmental impacts are widespread as many traditional large-scale dams have a lifespan of 100 years. During this time areas of land are flooded above the works and

flow regimes are altered below the dam. Typically the annual freshet is held back and released slowly during times where more energy is consumed. In Canada, this is typically during the winter. Small-scale dams have less impact above the project as the headpond is less expansive however there are still impacts as flow regimes alter the natural state of the river.

Economic impacts from any dam include some benefits from the construction of the works to the local community, national and international businesses, and in some cases the local First Nation. Long-term economic benefits to the local municipality are water use fees and several jobs for maintenance and monitoring of the site. Economic impacts can also be seen through either an increase or decrease of visitation to the area.

The cultural aspect of hydropower is commonly addressed during the project review period. Stakeholders such as local municipalities, First Nations, recreationalists

(such as anglers, campers, hikers, birdwatchers, and whitewater kayakers) are often given an opportunity to voice their support or concerns with the project either with the proponent directly or the government through an environmental review process or a

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). New hydropower projects typically have conflicting viewpoints among stakeholders and often the battle lines are drawn for either economic development or environmental/recreation protection. A better understanding of this conflict could help recreationalists, businesses, and government to find common ground on how to best manage these resources in the future.

1.2 Purpose of this Research

The purpose of this study was to explore the development of an Independent

Hydropower Power Project, more precisely a Run-of-River (RoR) project on Ashlu Creek

(BC), and its impacts on advanced whitewater kayakers (‘creekboaters’). More specifically, the study identified:

1. The benefits associated with whitewater kayaking on the Ashlu Creek;

2. The impacts of an IPP Run-of-River (RoR) project on kayakers;

3. Recommendations for policy development to mitigate the impacts of IPP RoR on

whitewater kayakers.

The context of the study was the Ashlu Creek IPP RoR project development and implementation of flow regimes that were sought to maintain recreation on the Ashlu.

Analysis of government policy and planning documents in addition to a site visit to the

Ashlu Creek during the prime whitewater kayaking paddling season supported data collection. Field research consisted of formal and informal interviews with key stakeholders that were primarily whitewater kayakers, government officials, business managers and local residents. Grounded theory informed the research approach with the belief that emergent stakeholder perspectives would provide collective insight into the challenges related to IPP development and advanced whitewater kayaking (a.k.a.

‘creeking’ or ‘creekboating’).

1.3 Case Study: Ashlu Creek

The Ashlu Creek was selected for this study because, at the time of the study, it was one of the systems that had received attracted a great deal of media attention, was relatively close to an urban center and held some of the highest recreational value to

creekboaters - described by some as one of the most “amazing” rivers on the planet.

Much of the contention that arose on the Ashlu was the project was initially not approved by the local municipality several times. Eventually the government released a new Bill, under the Utilities Act, dictating that projects under 50 megawatts (MW) did not require municipal approval. Perhaps not surprisingly, the day after this amendment, the proponent changed their proposal from 70MW to 49.9MW. This study will discuss the resulting impacts of this project.

1.4 Definitions

Table 1 highlights the definitions used during this research.

Table 1. Definitions

Outdoor “Outdoor recreation is a dynamic activity comprised of multiple Recreation phases, including anticipation, travel to a site, on-site experience, return travel, and recollection” (Manning, 1999, p. 46).

Renewable “Renewable energy is energy obtained from naturally repetitive and Energy persistent flows of energy occurring in the local environment.” (Twidell and Weir, 2015, p. 3)

Run-of-the- “A waterpower project on a stream that does not have the flow River (RoR) regulated by a reservoir authorized by a water license; or a waterpower project that is on a stream that does have the flow regulated by a reservoir, but the regulation is not specifically for the beneficial use of water at the waterpower project” (Province of BC, 2010, p. 19).

Creeking or Whitewater kayaking on low-volume steep, technical, and often Creek boating remote Class IV – V whitewater including waterfalls, slides, and dangerous features such as sieves, holes, and undercuts. “Creekboating is as much a game of strategy as it is a sport. Half of your time on creeks is spent scouting, and half of the fun comes from picking lines based on how you predict the river will affect your kayak” (Whiting & Varette, 2008, p. 146).

Grounded “Grounded theory methods consist of systematic inductive guidelines Theory for collecting and analyzing data to build middle-range theoretical frameworks that explain the collected data” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003, pp. 249-250).

1.5 Organization of Thesis

This thesis will begin with a literature review (Chapter 2) to further explain the context of this study. An explanation of hydropower in BC will inform the reader and provide more context on issues surrounding the IPP development on Ashlu Creek in

Chapter 3. A review of the research methodology and research methods will be explained in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 will discuss the results from the formal and informal interviews.

Chapter 6 will highlight key insights from the study that informs the broader field of outdoor recreation management. Chapter 7 will provide recommendations a brief conclusion and discuss possible ideas for future research.

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

Policy changes between 2004 and 2007 in British Columbia and the development of numerous independent power projects focused on hydro development initiated a substantial shift in outdoor recreational water use and access to wilderness areas in

British Columbia. This is especially true for whitewater paddlers on the Ashlu Creek.

This literature review focuses on a review of theoretical literature and Chapter 3 focuses specifically on the administration of hydropower. Key issues explored in the literature review include outdoor recreation and the benefits associated with outdoor recreation, conflict, the role of community engagement in addressing conflict, and the evolution of the regulatory environment that relates to IPP development in British

Columbia. In order to comprehend the benefits that wilderness areas offer, especially to whitewater kayakers, it is important to first appreciate the development of outdoor recreation and its evolution toward adventure recreation.

2.1 Outdoor Recreation

Outdoor recreation can be defined as voluntary participation in free-time activity that occurs in the outdoors and embraces the interaction of people with the natural environment for immediate satisfaction (Hutchinson, 1990; Kraus, 2011; Plummer,

2009). The scope and breadth of outdoor recreation is expanding and includes, but is not limited to, horseback riding, caving, hiking, walking, rock-climbing, rafting, kayaking, biking, bird watching, and motorized activities involving all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles (Gossling & Hickler, 2006; Lynch & Dibben, 2015).

The rise in outdoor recreation has been closely linked to the development of the middle class (Huntington, 1993; Pigram & Jenkins, 2006). On average this growth has

been observed in the development of professionals like teachers, civil servants and technicians (Huntington, 1993). Increasingly, higher income-yielding jobs, and typically more disposable income, led to a higher likelihood of participating in outdoor recreation

(Ghalwash, 2008; Lundmark & Ericsson, 2013). This meant that people could enjoy a wider variety of outdoor recreation opportunities than had been previously enjoyed

(Pigram & Jenkins, 2006). The wider variety of activities led to exploration and evolution of certain sports that included hiking, camping, recreational boating like whitewater kayaking, and other outdoor pursuits. Paralleling this growth in outdoor recreation has been research that has explored the motivations for these types of activities.

2.1.1 Motivation.

Recreation motivations have been explored in numerous academic fields such as sociology, psychology, and leisure sciences (Kil, Holland & Stein, 2014). Understanding the origins of motivation for different people can help explain why people choose recreation activities in the outdoors.

People often look to escape, relax, view scenery, and try to get closer to nature

(Pearce, 2005). Some of this attraction has been described by assorted push-pull factors

(Dann, 1977; Chan & Baum, 2007, Dann, 1981; Kim, Lee, & Klenosky, 2003; Klenosky,

2002). Dann (1981) has postulated that there are two main ‘push’ factors that lie at the heart of people’s motivation for travel and recreation. The first factor is the need to break away from the monotony of an everyday life (Baker, 1993; Iso-Ahola, 1982; Snepenger,

King, Marshall, & Uysal, 2006). If someone is able to live a more exciting life outside of a mundane work routine, then they are more satisfied with life overall. As opposed to the

alienation and lack of purpose felt in everyday life, someone who gets outdoors on the weekends is often referred to as a ‘weekend warrior’ (Lee, 2004).

A second push factor is ego-enhancement, whereby a recreationist looks to heighten his/her perceived image by improving his/her social standing through participating in an activity that is recognized as desirable (Dann, 1981). Pull factors can include pristine natural settings or other aspects that pull people into an area (Dann, 1977;

Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Once a person has experienced a particular area or outdoor recreation activity they may be drawn to it in the future. Whitewater kayakers likely experience both push and pull factors. Pull factors that include experiencing the natural environment of a free flowing river, would be a significant factor where deep attachments are likely to occur over time.

2.1.2 Place attachment.

There is significant research (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000; Inglis, Deery, Whitelaw,

2008; Korpela, Ylan, Tyrvainen, & Silvennoinen, 2009; Kyle et al. 2003; Kyle, Mowen,

& Terrant, 2004; Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1992) that discusses place attachment. William and Roggenbuck (1989) describe place attachment through their framework that explores how people value a recreation setting through symbolic, functional and emotional meanings. This psychological framework emphasizes how unique and special relationships develop with a place and how this attachment influences them to experience it again (Davidson & Stebbins, 2011; Kyle et al. 2003; Stedmant,

2002). Wolf, Sticker and Hagenloh (2014) discussed how place attachment can be specific to one place and one community, and is not necessarily easily exchangeable. For example, whitewater kayakers may develop a deep attachment to a specific river with

specific experiences and emotions derived from being active in this environment. These emotions cannot be simply substituted by moving these kayakers to a different river.

We see other evidence of specific place attachment in the research by Kyle et al.

(2003), and Kyle, Mowen, & Terrant, (2004). People’s relationships with National Parks have been studied, and researchers have learned about the unique relationships that people have with very specific parks (Kyle et al., 2003; Stedman, 2002) and the experiences people have shared with others in these settings. Framed as an environmental psychological construct, parks and other places have symbolic meaning for the recreationist that extends beyond the physical attachment to the place.

Studies measure the level of attachment by observing social bonding (Kyle,

Mowen & Terrant, 2004), lifestyle orientation (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000), place familiarity, rootedness, and belonging (Hammitt, Blacklund & Bixler, 2006). These studies were supported by Williams and Roggenbuck’s (1998) earlier study that used a two-dimensional construct that included place identity and place dependence. Further research by Williams and Vaske (2003) noted that while research separated these distinct elements (i.e. place identity and place dependence), people typically experience placement attachment as a single construct and do not easily separate the two factors.

Also, research has demonstrated that the higher the level of attachment to a place, the higher the likelihood of a conflict, should that place be threatened (Kyle, Graefe,

Manning & Bacon 2003).

Beyond psychological attachment, there is evidence that people will use ‘places’ to achieve personal goals, as discussed by Freire (2013) who referred to this as place- relatedness. Place-relatedness is the concept that specific places are the main motivating

factor for people to pursue outdoor recreation in a certain area to achieve specific personal goals (Budruk & Wilhelm Stanis, 2013; Fredman & Heberlein, 2005). Budruk and Stanis (2013) showed that people’s level of place-relatedness cannot be predicted by their recreation experience preferences (REP). They noted that the results of their research were the inverse of what they expected – people’s place attachment can predict

REP dimensions. These findings can suggest the belief that people could use places to experience personal growth through recreation.

Fredman and Heberlein (2005) explored motivation through a constraints framework, working to identify barriers to participation in outdoor activities. Their study noted that commitment and motivation to participate in outdoor activities were driven largely by the level of attachment to a given place. Studies of visitation to mountain parks highlighted these findings (Lovelock, Jellum, & Thompson, 2011), noting that natural scenery was the strongest motivator. Understanding motivation provides insight into why people seek outdoor recreation, and in what environments. Deeper insight into how and why people connect to outdoor recreation and outdoor settings is supported by research by Hass, Driver, and Brown (1980), and more recently Hassell, Moore, and Macbeth

(2015) studied the benefits that can be derived from outdoor recreation.

2.2 Benefits of Recreation

Benefits-based research has been underway for several decades and has evolved from an understanding of the types of benefits that accrue from recreation experiences

(Driver, 1977; Driver, Manning, 1999; Nash & Hass, 1987; Roggenbuck & Driver, 2000;

Schreyer & Driver, 1989) to how an understanding of benefits can support the management of recreation areas (Fadeeva, 2005; Jamal & Getz, 1995). Numerous other

studies have presented various social, physiological, environmental, and personal benefit dimensions of recreation (Anderson, Nickerson, Stein, & Lee, 2000; Driver, et al, 1991;

Driver, 2008; Kil, Holland, & Stein, 2012; Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, & Cohen, 2005).

Roggenbuck and Driver (2000) specifically articulated the benefits associated with wilderness recreation.

This section will explore the benefits of wilderness recreation that have been identified by Easley, Passineau, and Driver (1990) as: (1) personal growth, development, and social bonding; (2) therapeutic benefits; and (3) environmental awareness and wilderness education.

2.2.1 Benefits: personal growth, therapeutic recreation, and environmental

awareness.

Whitewater kayaking can support personal growth and development, as well as social bonding. Youth, for example, involved in recreation activities like kayaking, had a higher level of perceived self-competence when compared to those who were not involved (Feltz & Petlichkoff, 1983). Participation at a young age is especially important as youths aged 8-15 have been shown to place the highest level of importance on their physical appearance (Harter, 1989). Being physically fit by participating in either sport or recreation activities can help with self-image. Looking at early childhood development, one can infer that benefits from recreation include motor skill development, which has been shown to increase social status and success (Evans & Roberts, 1987). Youth involved in whitewater kayaking, for example, benefit from both being physically active but also from the image of being perceived as a paddler. Pryor, Carpenter and Townsend

(2005) discussed how personal development, such as increasing skills, knowledge, self-

confidence, physical fitness, and mental restoration, can be realized by participating in activities that involve outdoor settings. But to what extent do intensity levels impact benefits? This is an important question to consider, given that this research explored an extreme form of whitewater kayaking.

The evidence surrounding outdoor recreation intensity and its benefits is limited and inconsistent (Bauman, 2004; Netz, Wu, Becker, & Tenenbaum, 2005; Oweis &

Spinks, 2001). However, a distinguishing feature is the idea of a ‘quest’ for adventure

(Buchanan, Christensen, & Burdge, 1981; Driver & Knopf, 1979; Virden & Knopf,

1989). For some people who climb mountains, run rivers, or cross oceans, it is a quest to

‘conquer’ Mother Nature by pushing the human body beyond conventional limits (Krein,

2007). To others, however, their drive is not to ‘conquer’ Mother Nature but to

‘harmonize’ with her (Krein, 2007, p. 89). Krein (2007) stated, “It is my claim that the opportunity to play with such awesome partners is one of the principal sources of the attraction of adventure sports” (p. 91). That is to say, a force like a river cannot be conquered because it is extremely powerful and so those who play with it must remain humble and honest and capable of managing the inherent risks.

Krein (2007) described risks as those situations or factors that are out of one’s control, where a participant must accept an element of risk in order to use their skills and experiences to mitigate hazards. Accidents happen when the participant misjudges his or her level of expertise and makes a poor decision. Risk is inherent with river kayaking and risk lies at the core of the numerous personal, social, physical, and spiritual benefits of recreation that involve whitewater kayaking (Ewert, Chang & Davidson 2016; Gilbertson

& Ewert, 2015). The following section serves to highlight how and why experiencing

nature with the inherent risks like extreme kayaking is tied to the benefits of recreation and more particularly how these benefits can be considered therapeutic.

Recreation can be therapeutic, thereby enhancing quality of life (Maller,

Townsend, Pryor, Brown, & Leger, 2005; Orsega-Smith, Mowen, Payne, & Godbey,

2004; Zabriskie, Lundberg, & Groff, 2005). While limited research has explored the therapeutic effects of whitewater kayaking, research on, for example, wilderness-based skiing and horseback riding programs have provided insight in the how these experiences improve participants’ health, family life, and social life (Zabriskie, Lundberg, & Groff,

2005). Collectively, stress levels are reduced through participating in these types of activities (Ulrich et al., 1991; Ewert & Yoshino, 2011) leading to diminished levels of depression and anxiety.

Outdoor recreation activities also support social cohesion, and, in turn, community building (Wood & Giles-Corti, 2008; Wold, Stricker, & Hegenloh, 2014).

This sense of community also contributes to a greater sense of safety (Borrie &

Roggenbuck, 2001; Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998). The sense of community and social cohesion is important for whitewater paddlers as this community also provides a sense of security when paddling whitewater. People are not only looking after themselves but others as well.

It is important to note that the style of recreation can have a direct impact on the appreciation of nature by individuals. Studies by Dunlap and Heffernan (1975), Tarrant and Green (1999) and Thapa (2010) have discussed how people who participate in an

‘appreciative’ activity, such as kayaking, hiking, and cross-country skiing, have stronger ties to the environment than those who participate in wilderness recreation with

‘consumptive’ activities, such as riding ATVs or snowmobiling. A heightened sense of social responsibility has been observed by Theodori, Luloff, and Willits (1998), demonstrating that, regardless of the activity, someone who participates in outdoor recreation activities has a higher sense of environmental responsibility and appreciation.

Crompton and Sellar (1981) discussed how immersion in the outdoors fosters positive long-term environmental attitudes. We see this increase of engagement in several studies

(Orams, 1997; Perkins & Grace, 2009) suggesting that people who enjoy and experience the wilderness are more likely to protect wilderness places (Kil, Holland, & Stein, 2014).

These studies suggest that individuals will seek to preserve wilderness areas for recreation. In many cases wilderness areas have unique characteristics, and are the only places where these types of benefits can be satisfied; this is especially true for groups like extreme kayakers.

Research has demonstrated that benefits exist in several dimensions from participation in outdoor recreation activities. Also highlighted were benefits that accrue specifically from participating in risky activities, like whitewater kayaking in natural settings. Given the nature of these benefits, and also the sense of attachment that people experience in these wild places, changes of any kind to these environments can result in conflict. This is especially true in British Columbia, where energy projects on wild rivers have displaced whitewater kayakers.

2.3 Conflict

Most conflict-related research in the past four decades has been based on how different user groups interact with each other, and centers around conflicts that occur because of this interaction (Manning, 2011; Vaske et al, 1995; Vaske, Needham, & Cline,

2007). Two dominant conflict types that have been studied include interpersonal conflict

and social values conflict.

Much of the work in interpersonal conflict has been supported, in part, by Jacob and

Schreyer’s (1980) framework on conflict, noting the major issue as “goal interference

attributed to another’s behaviour” (p. 369). They describe four primary elements that can

contribute to interpersonal conflict as:

1. Activity Style – the various personal meanings assigned to an activity

2. Resource Specificity – the significance attached to using a specific recreation

resource for a given recreation experience

3. Mode of Experience – the varying expectations of how the natural environment will

be perceived

4. Lifestyle Tolerance – the tendency to accept or reject lifestyles different from one’s

own (p. 370)

All four factors need not exist to create conflict, but any one element can be

enough for conflict to occur. Most often however it is a combination of all four elements

that results in conflict.

Research based on recreation conflict has historically focussed on interactions

between different user groups such as cross-country skiers and snowmobilers (Knopp &

Tyger, 1973; Jackson & Wong, 1982), hikers and mountain bikers (Crothers et al., 2001),

skiers and snowboarders (Donelly & Baird, 2000, Thapa & Graefe, 2003), and motorized

vs. non-motorized watercraft (Lucas, 1964; Shelby, 1981). Typically, the research

explored how desirable or undesirable it was to encounter others while participating in an

outdoor recreation pursuit. Watson, Williams and Daigle (1991) explored the degree to

which people’s experiences were impacted by encountering other groups in outdoor settings. While there has been a large amount of research looking at what groups might be in conflict (Miller & Vaske, 2016; Riley et al., 2015; Usher & Gomez, 2017), little research has explored conflict across settings and across experiences.

Vaske, Donnelly, Wittmann, and Laidlaw (1995) contributed to the body of knowledge on conflict by distinguishing between interpersonal conflict and social values conflict. They saw the need to identify where interpersonal and social values conflict differ as the solutions to each will be unique. For example, social values conflict can occur even though there is no direct contact between different user groups (Carothers et al., 2001; Vaske et al. 2007). Different user groups can be in conflict simply because their values are very different. This was true in a study of hunters and non-hunters (Vaske et al., 1995). To address this type of conflict, managers of outdoor resources designated specific areas as hunting zones, and while conflict might occur over different values, interaction between user groups was minimized by the use of this designation, resulting in less conflict (Cline 2007). Where conflict could not necessarily be addressed by zoning, increased education has been a tool for outdoor managers as well (Vaske et al.,

1995).

Studies in conflict have provided insight into how conflict occurs, and while there are two streams of conflict (i.e., interpersonal and social), it is likely that people might experience interpersonal and social values conflict simultaneously. Whitewater kayakers on the Ashlu Creek could very well experience both types of conflict, however, it is more likely that they will experience a level of social values conflict.

2.3.1 Conflict - wilderness areas.

Wilderness areas provide outstanding opportunities for outdoor recreation but also serve as important regions for resource extraction, particularly for energy development.

Case studies, both nationally and internationally, have highlighted the conflict between outdoor recreation users like whitewater kayakers and competing uses such as energy development.

According to Sæthornórsdóttir (2010), “the management of natural resources for outdoor recreation exemplifies many of the conflicts confronting natural resource management today” (p. 354). This was highlighted in Iceland where geothermal and hydroelectric energy development and local outdoor recreation values collided in the highlands. Local people believed that the wilderness values of the area would be compromised if the power plants were built (Thórhallsdóttir, 2007). Furthermore, local people and tourism organizations believed the tourism values in the region would diminish as well. While significant studies explored the benefits associated with energy development, no such studies examined the impacts on outdoor recreation and tourism.

Frustration emerged in Iceland, particularly in the region where the energy project was proposed, over the lack of attention to the value of outdoor recreation resources for local communities and the tourism industry (Thórhallsdóttir, 2007). In this case, both interpersonal and social values conflict emerged. Mitigating this conflict has been slow and on-going with significant engagement of the various groups involved

(Thórhallsdóttir, 2007).

Other regions have experienced similar conflict. New hydropower projects in

Costa Rica have been planned in light of the President’s declaration that the country

would be carbon neutral by 2021 (Fletcher, 2011). The result has been significant hydroelectric development in the Turrialba region, a region also very popular for whitewater kayakers and rafters. In the Angostura hydroelectric project, for example, paddlers were displaced from the Rio Reventazón to the Rio Pacuare due to inconsistent water flow levels on the Rio Reventazón, which makes conditions dangerous and unpredictable (Fletcher, 2011). Lessons learned from these development projects included the importance of watershed management for multiple uses (e.g., energy development and kayaking) and the need for mitigation and adaptive measures (Dobles,

2008). In a very popular move, the President of Costa Rica banned dams on the Rio

Pacuare for the next 25 years (The Tico Times, August, 29, 2015) to preserve the famous rapids on the river.

Hydroelectric energy development on the Roughty River in County Kerry,

Ireland, a river very popular for whitewater kayaking, provides further insight into conflict and its mitigation (Hynes & Hanley, 2004). In their study, Hynes and Hanley

(2004) described how the community of whitewater kayakers had been increasing in

Ireland at a rate of 15% per annum for the previous six years at the time of the study. This growth paralleled the growth of the hydroelectric industry with an emphasis on using run- of-river projects, as was the case in British Columbia. Interestingly, in this case Ireland had 273 rivers that were appropriate for hydro-power and only 95 of the 273 were considered worthy of kayak runs according to Irish Whitewater Guidebook (MacGearailt,

1996). This provided significant flexibility in resource management and allocation.

Hynes and Hanley (2004) suggested that “a substantial middle ground is available where hydroelectric and whitewater kayaking can exist without coming into direct conflict” (p.

172). While this is certainly true, experience has demonstrated that government, and oftentimes local municipalities, will opt for options that support economic development over outdoor recreation development (Sæthornórsdóttir, 2010).

In Iceland, Costa Rica and Ireland conflict was experienced at both levels; interpersonal and social. These cases demonstrated conflict between outdoor recreation users and resource development. All of the studies highlighted that these projects would invariably disrupt an individual’s place attachment. Their recreation would be affected with goal interference and/or social values conflict. Complicating these cases further was the bigger picture of economic development, and government officials were faced with choosing one activity over the other. In the end they chose energy development in all cases. British Columbia has experienced much of this same kind of conflict over outdoor resources and the Ashlu Creek project is just one example. Addressing the conflict in many of these instances involves extensive stakeholder engagement.

2.3.2 Role of community engagement in conflict management.

While conflict can be addressed through many mechanisms, community and stakeholder engagement is often the medium by which conflict and conflict strategies are addressed. Community engagement is a subset of community development and relies heavily on public participation. Community development has been defined as a “process designed to create conditions of economic and social progress with the active participation of the whole community and with the fullest possible reliance on the community” (1999; Levine & Perkins, 1997; Rothman, 1974, as cited in Duffy & Wong,

2003). This process heavily relies on having a dialogue with stakeholders as a key factor in resolving conflict (Healey,1992). Part of this dialogue, for example, might be a

coordinated effort that engages various levels of government with voluntary organizations to provoke change and reduce conflict (Bracht & Tsouros, 1990).

Framing engagement processes should involve the principles of trust, transparency, and credibility (Kerr et al., 2014). With a values-based framework, engagement processes should be designed where they consult, involve, and inform the public in order to allow stakeholders to have a voice (Bryson et al., 2013). In cases of energy development, specifically in Iceland, Costa Rica, and Ireland, whitewater paddlers and other outdoor recreationists could participate in stakeholder forums where they could express their concerns over the development (Hynes & Hanley, 2004; Dobles, 2008;

Thórhallsdóttir, 2007).

Formalized public participation methods include referenda, public hearings/inquires, public opinion surveys, negotiated rule making, consensus conferences, citizens’ jury/panels, citizen/public advisory committees, and focus groups

(Rowe & Frewer, 2000). However, how does one evaluate the effectiveness of these engagement types? To what extent do these processes provide enough voice for impacted stakeholders so that a shared vision for access to a river, for example, is created for the future? No methods exist either empirically or theoretically that can evaluate the effectiveness of engagement (Wiedemann & Femers, 1993), although research has more recently attempted to do so.

Research (Crosby, Kelly & Schaefer, 1986; Lynn & Busenberg, 1995) suggested that methods exist to evaluate the effectiveness of engagement primarily by measuring the process as opposed to the outcomes (Rowe & Frewer, 2000). Rowe and Frewer

(2000) presented research that showed that public hearings score low on process and

acceptance criteria. They added that more meaningful engagement came from referenda, public opinion surveys, and focus groups, as they scored high in their study. These approaches also require less time from citizens and fewer resources, which can also make them more cost-effective.

Conflict certainly exists in the case of Ashlu Creek. And like Iceland, Costa Rica, and Ireland, the conflict is more than interpersonal and social values-based, and also encompasses a broader economic development strategy. Engagement is a strategy to address, and in some cases resolve, conflict. This occurred somewhat when the President of Costa Rica was pressured by public opinion to protect a river for paddlers and others for the next 25 years. Context in this case was important, and so too is it important for understanding the case of the Ashlu Creek in British Columbia.

2.4 Property Rights

Legal and inferred property rights and jurisdictional boundaries lie at the heart of the conflict faced by many managers who focus on natural resource management.

Property rights can be exclusive or temporary by means of leases and licenses (Ewert,

Baker & Bissix, 2004). In order to gain a better understanding of local jurisdictional property rights it is important to briefly review a historical perspective on land ownership.

The origins of public access and property rights were identified and understood during Roman times. In this period, common doctrine supported people’s rights to use waterways as a means for livelihood and commerce (Smallwood, 1993; Maguire, 1996;

Tigerstrom, 1998). Over the following centuries, the doctrine was incorporated into

European common law. The British version of the doctrine dictated that the Crown held

the title to natural resources including waterways (Smallwood, 1993). Canadian common law, outside Quebec, is based on the same principles as the British system providing a suite of rights that are related to property (Ewert, Baker & Bissix, 2004). One of these rights, and the focus, in part, of this research is navigation.

While Canadian common law considers our rights to navigation, statute law controls other aspects of property rights. Ewert, Baker, and Bissix (2004) stated that

“statute law provides a basis for legal establishment of ‘new principles’ governing our recognition of changing property rights” (p. 92). It is these ‘new principles’ that have resulted in legislative changes to laws that impact the Ashlu Creek. The lack of clarity in these legislative changes to the statute created conflict as user groups interpreted these changes differently.

This literature review has identified that the Ashlu Creek is likely a case where a competition for resources exists due to policy changes. Understanding property rights informs this research about the potential dynamic, as discussed by Ewert, Baker and

Bissix (2004), who explained that value-based understanding is often the root of a conflict. Bromley’s (1990) definition of property rights is well suited as a framework for this study. He suggests that there are essentially three variables that categorize the nature of rights: 1) who is being affected, 2) what is the ultimate social value of the property in question, and 3) what is being affected. This study used Bromley’s framework to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of the conflict between kayakers and the development of the IPP on the Ashlu Creek during the building and operation phases.

The focus of this research identified how kayakers’ legal and perceived rights to water-based recreation have been impacted. Under current B.C. legislation some of these

claims may be justified, however, is it possible that some of these perceived rights to the

Ashlu Creek are not supported. Chapter 3 provides a background of the Ashlu Creek and discusses some of the regulatory frameworks surrounding small hydro developments in

British Columbia.

CHAPTER 3 : Administration of Hydropower in BC

3.0 BC Hydro – Context

The development and administration of hydropower in BC changed during the

1960s with the amalgamation of BC Electric & BC Power Commission to form the

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro), which is a Crown

Corporation. Subsequently, BC Hydro invested in some of the world’s largest hydropower production, at the time, with the construction of the W. A. C. Bennett Dam, completed in 1968, and the Peace Canyon Dam, completed in 1980, on the Peace River system. This was followed by a series of dams on the Columbia River system that flows into the United States (BC Hydro, 2010). Reorganization on July 5, 2010, under the auspices of the new Clean Energy Act (BC Hydro, 2010; Karanasios & Parker, 2016), recombined the BC Transmission Corporation and merged it back into BC Hydro. The majority of BC Hydro’s energy came from Crown assets (BC Hydro, 2010; Karanasios &

Parker, 2016) and there are numerous independent power producers providing energy to the BC grid. As Independent Power Producers (IPP) development is the focus of this thesis it is important to understand IPPs in British Columbia.

3.1 Independent Power Producers in BC

While there are numerous publicly accessible wild places in British Columbia, changes in public policy produced increased interest by corporate developers. Corporate interest in British Columbia’s rivers increased in 2002 with the new BC Energy Plan

(Karanasios & Parker, 2016). This plan focused on the need for “green” energy to enhance BC’s self-reliance, increase economic gains from power production, and make

BC a global leader in renewable energy. It stated that BC Hydro, one of the world’s

leading hydro utilities, was no longer allowed to consider new power generation projects except for one additional large-scale dam on the Peace River system. The vast majority of new projects would be developed through independent power producers (Province of BC,

2010).

An independent power producer can include municipal or regional governments, subsidiaries of the Columbia Power Corporation, First Nations communities, private individuals, and business corporations (IPPBC, 2008). Projects can either contribute to the BC electrical grid system or use the power for their own industrial use. IPP projects can use many forms of both renewable and non-renewable energy, including biomass, solar, geothermal, tidal, ocean, natural gas fired, or, most commonly, wind or water- based sources (IPP in BC, Integrated Land Management Bureau, 2010). As of November

1, 2017, BC Hydro had 122 Electricity Purchase Agreements with IPPs. Of these projects, 39 are not hydro-related, and, of the hydro projects, 10 use storage and the rest are non-storage projects (BC Hydro, 2017) such as a RoR project . The private sector has most likely concentrated on hydro-development as BC has the perfect elements for hydropower generation: gradient and precipitation. The RoR projects do not rely on large-scale reservoirs (see Figure 1), and therefore use unreliable fluctuating seasonal runoff that cannot be tailored to trends in demand.

3.1.1 Run-of-River small hydro.

In 2007, BC Hydro solicited Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. to assess BC’s potential for run-of-river projects. The report was presented in November 2007 and concluded that, “All together, the 8,242 sites [rivers] would have a potential installed capacity of more than 12,000 megawatts and could generate nearly 20,000 gigawatt hours

of energy per year” (Hui, 2008, p. 1), which is enough to power approximately 1,800,000 homes. In a further effort to promote new hydropower development, the federal government established incentives for energy companies to potentially lessen the risk of looking into new projects.

The development and operation of RoR projects can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if they are replacing electricity that is produced from a fossil-fuel fired power plant, by harnessing a river with built infrastructure (Hoffert, et. al, 2002). However, depending on the location of a project, current levels of development in the area, and the extent of infrastructure, RoR projects can have detrimental effects on the local environment because they involve the construction of roads, transmission lines, dams, a powerhouse, tunnels, channels, a substation, and a tailrace (Frey & Linke, 2002) (see

Figure 1). Some of this construction takes place in-stream, and the rest have terrestrial impacts (BC Hydro, 2011). The most noteworthy impact for water-based recreation is the diversion and the restriction of the flow and volume of water in the bypass reach of a river as well as the dam that obstructs navigation entirely (England, 2011). Hui’s (2008) research noted that some levels of government argue that the impacts of these developments are not understood and the cumulative impacts must be further studied.

Figure 1. Typical Run-of-River (Henrich, 2007).

RoR projects do not use a traditional large-scale reservoir, similar to the Hoover Dam

(Figure 2), to catch water during seasonal flows; rather, it utilizes a stream’s natural flow of water to power the turbines that generate electrical energy when available.

Nevertheless, RoR projects do require a dam (often referred to as a weir) to either divert water from a smaller tributary to a catchment area (i.e., a headpond) or intake the water into the penstock. RoR projects will have a bypass reach of several kilometers where the penstock meets the powerhouse, after which the water is returned to the river via a manmade channel that is called the tailrace (Province of BC, 2010).

Figure 2. Large scale dam (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2017).

RoR projects have been popular with governments around the world as sustainable, renewable, and green energy initiatives (BC Hydro, 2010; Mosier, Sharp &

Hill, 2016). RoR projects are considered a green source of energy and are relatively inexpensive to build, resulting in a significant increase in the number of project applications to the Environmental Assessment Office (Jaccard, Melton, & Nyboer, 2011).

3.1.2 Permits, licenses, and approvals list for IPP RoR.

For IPP RoR projects there are approximately 50 different permits that must be addressed by 15 different ministries (IPPBC, 2015). Permits related to Environment

Canada, Land and Water BC, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, BC

Hydro and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) are pertinent to this research, with particular attention to rezoning and construction permits that fall under the

Local Governments’ jurisdiction and recreational mitigation measures (i.e. flow releases for continued in-stream use), which falls under the Navigable Waters division of

Transport Canada (IPPBC, 2015).

The Navigation Protection Act (NPA) is one of Canada’s oldest pieces of legislation. Its mandate was to monitor and maintain navigation of Canadian river systems (Typlan, 2004). Much of its focus is to manage waters in ways that do not interfere with navigation. It typically refers to in-stream works of any kind that may affect any form of navigation. Amendments to the NPA are made routinely, and there have been significant changes to this Act since the time of this study. For example, in

2012 the NPA was amended such that schedules were introduced relating to approval and application, and most significantly created a list of ‘scheduled’ and ‘non-scheduled’ waters (Transport Canada, 2014). Scheduled rivers include waters that are important for either their commercial use or recreation-related uses. The most alarming piece of this legislation was that only a handful of lakes (97) and rivers (62) in all of Canada are mentioned on the List of Scheduled Waters, instead of every river, stream, or canal being included. Initially, it appeared that small creeks like the Ashlu would not be reviewed during future applications. However, all rivers that are being proposed for RoR projects are still required to address issues relating to navigability.

3.2 Case Study – Ashlu Creek

3.2.1 Geography and History.

The Ashlu Creek is renowned as one of British Columbia’s top whitewater paddling locations, and as a world-class attraction (O’Keefe, 2005). During the time of this study (2010-2011), it was also the focal point of heated discussion. Figure 3 shows part of Highway 99, also known as the Sea-to-Sky highway; is the main highway from

Vancouver to Whistler in southwestern BC, and travels through the Squamish-Lillooet

Regional District, which is the gateway to the Squamish River drainage.

Figure 3. Squamish, BC (Capilano University, 2017).

Access to the Ashlu Creek area is reached off of Hwy 99 via approximately 22 km of Forest Service roads. The creek begins at an unnamed lake on the east side of

Mount Creara and flows southeast and has only one major tributary, Tatlow Creek.

Figure 4 shows the Ashlu Creek watershed, approximately 292 km2, that is a tributary of the Squamish River, joining it approximately 35 km northwest of the town of Squamish

(Deane, 2010). The Ashlu Creek consists of several whitewater runs that include technical drops, big holes, waterfalls, bedrock rapids, and steep boulder piles that appeal to intermediate, advanced, and expert kayakers (Arns, 2017) and flows into the Squamish

River.

Figure 4. Ashlu Creek (Squamish Parks & Trails, 2017)

This creek has become iconic in the world of advanced kayaking (also known as

‘creekboating’ or ‘creeking’). Figure 5 shows a kayaker on the first rapid in the Box

Canyon section of the Ashlu. The creek is known internationally to paddlers due to its characteristics of beautifully polished granite, deep canyons, difficult whitewater, wildlife, remoteness, and its proximity to a large city (Reel Water Production, 2007).

While paddlers still have access to Ashlu Creek despite the IPP development on this

creek, it is important to determine the extent to which this community of paddlers has been impacted by this type of development. Given the growing demand for renewable energy and the abundance of development opportunities on BC rivers, it is important to better understand the nature of these changes and their impacts.

Figure 5. 50/50 Entry Falls - Box Canyon of the Ashlu Creek (Liquidlore, 2012).

Throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium, kayakers have been able to access the Ashlu Creek via forest service roads, and could paddle the river at appropriate flows. Not surprisingly, the same characteristics that attracted kayakers (steep gradient and abundant flow) were also of commercial interest to the developer who saw the Ashlu

Creek as an appropriate place for a new hydroelectric project.

During the time of this research, the necessary rezoning requirements were the responsibility of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (SLRD). The SLRD council created Bylaw 828 (Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Zoning By-law No. 540, 1994,

Amendment By-law No. 828, 2003) for the Ashlu Creek Hydropower Project in order to facilitate due process and determine whether or not the project should be built. The project was rejected by a majority vote on January 11, 2005, and January 30, 2006 by the regional council (S. Stratis, Regional Board Meeting notes, September 18, 2006) as the

Ashlu Creek was seen as a river with significant value that would be compromised with an electrical generation project.

More specifically, during the third reading in 2005, the SLRD Regional Board denied the rezoning application, as the project did not align with the core values of the

Official Community Plan (OCP). The level of community concern relating to recreation, tourism, and spiritual values of the Ashlu Creek was seen as having a greater value than resource development. This was compounded as the SLRD lacked an overall strategy for

IPP development as well.

Despite the high recreation values of the Ashlu Creek, recognized in the

Squamish Lillooet Regional District Official Community Plan (OCP), an IPP RoR was approved by the provincial government. Instrumental in this process was Bill 30, which allowed the province to trump local municipal and regional district policies. Upon approval, the proponent and Transport Canada had to identify the recreational value of the Ashlu Creek and what, if any, the mitigation/compensation would be for the hydro project being built.

3.2.2 Assessment on navigation and mitigation.

The assessment is required by Transport Canada to address navigability issues whereby a proponent (or developer) is required to offer solutions to mitigate, and in prior cases compensate, recreation losses or impacts (Department of Justice, 1992;

Environmental Assessment Office, 2011; Transport Canada, 2009). Part of this assessment is a hydrological study that focuses on flow statistics that identify what levels are appropriate for kayaking and how many days per calendar year the stream is navigable or ‘runable’. A proposed project ideally does not decrease the amount of navigable days.

The Navigation Protection Act Sec 5(1) (formerly the Navigable Waters

Protection Act) application that Ledcor Power Inc. submitted for the Ashlu Creek was approved on June 20, 2006 (Transport Canada, 2006). Within their application, Ledcor explained how they would mitigate or nullify any concerns that were presented by a third party consulting company that was contracted to evaluate navigational issues that might contradict the Navigation Protection Act (formerly the Navigable Waters Protection Act) on the Ashlu Creek. Similarly in 2004, a consulting company was contracted to analyse the Ashlu’s river classification, river characteristics for whitewater use, verify experience with users, identify optimal flow range, assess navigational mitigation, and monitor post- project in-stream river flows.

Initially the consulting company used a local guidebook (Smith, 1995) and information from a study (Sea to Sky Whitewater Stream Inventory, 2002) to gather information about the different sections and related difficulties on the Ashlu and then sought to verify this information by talking to local kayakers, gathering photographs, and

comparing the information to the International River Grading System. It showed that, indeed, the Ashlu has several sections of navigable whitewater that would be affected by the project (Typlan, 2004). The company then turned its focus to whether or not the river was being used by kayakers, and if so, where and when the river was being used.

Ledcor hired the local First Nation to undertake a study on the frequency of use for the Ashlu Creek. They were to monitor the use for one full paddling season. Their study was conducted from June 21 – October 19, 2003 (Typlan, 2004). Ledcor had previously discussed with user groups twice in 2002 about their usage and ability level.

As with many projects that involve different stakeholders, there were discrepancies between how each user group felt about the results. It was deemed that the study from the local First Nation was the most accurate and would be used to determine historical data

(Typlan, 2004). It should be noted that the road was closed twice during the study from late August to early September by the Ministry of Forests due to fire hazard potential and again closed in mid-late October by Interfor due to flooding. Once the frequency had been addressed, the consulting firm then had to determine ideal flows – typically measured in cubic meters per second (m3/s).

There are 3-4 sections in the bypass reach that are paddled. There was a consensus on flow ranges on all but one section. The study that Ledcor used suggested that ideal flow ranges were deemed to be between 16-32 m3/s (Typlan, 2004). Providing flows within this range, primarily on the weekend outside of the freshet, would mitigate the loss of kayaking during other times in the season post-project. Figure 6 was used in order to identify how many days the proponent would have to provide recreational release days by using the post-project hydrograph and comparing it to the pre-project hydrograph.

Figure 6. Ashlu Creek project pre- and post-project hydrograph (Typlan, 2004).

The resulting mitigation was to provide 12 weekends during May, August, and

September where kayakers could go online and ask for a release of between 16-32 m3/s.

The results are then added up, and a mean (average) is taken for that paddling day. In addition to these paddling days, kayakers would also see flows that are appropriate for navigation in the bypass reach during the freshet post-project. The consulting company added that this project could see kayaking increase as real-time hydrometric data is now available. It is now easier to plan a trip in this region, as there was not much to gauge whether or not the flow of the Ashlu Creek was within a good range prior to this project.

Hydrometric data is now available on many of the creeks with RoR projects. More recently, the real-time hydrometric data on the Ashlu was not available during the winter of 2016-2017 as the gauge was taken offline by Innergex. The proponent states that the

gauge keeps getting destroyed during the winter floods (Arns, 2017). The result is kayakers are now in the same situation as before the project was built, guessing as to whether or not the Ashlu would have appropriate flows.

3.3 Summary and Analytical Framework

As the coming decade will continue to see an increase in the amount of applications for, and the development of, hydro projects, it is important to understand their impacts from the perspective of different user groups, one such group being whitewater kayakers. This study explored how whitewater kayakers were impacted by

IPP RoR by focusing on Ashlu Creek.

Very little research has explored the IPP RoR phenomenon and its impacts on outdoor recreation user groups. After reviewing some of the key issues in the literature, it appears that the key issues emerging are resource conflict and implications for recreational benefits. This could be related to different motivations relating to resource use and the legal and implied rights of how user groups are permitted to use a region.

Understanding the interplay between user rights and property rights gives us a lens to view the results. This thesis used the concepts of interpersonal conflict, social values, community, and space attachment as a framework for the interview questions used to guide how the data was interpreted.

CHAPTER 4: Research Approach and Methods

An interpretive approach and its related methods were used to advance a better understanding of the relationship between independent hydropower production and water-based recreation on creeks and rivers, with a specific focus on whitewater kayaking. This was supported by field research initiated in 2011 with the research project completed in fall of 2017.

4.1 Research and Analytical Approach

There are inherent difficulties with the traditional positivist approach in leisure studies, because it relies on an attempt to either prove or disprove a hypothesis.

Interpretive research has ties to positivism in terms of the methods of data collection, but its goals and philosophical premises are different (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). An interpretive study can bring new questions as it unfolds, and therefore the researcher must

“believe in multiple realities rather than a single truth” (Samdahl, 1999, p. 126). This was originally stated by Lincoln & Guba (1985) who argued that a qualitative study allows the researcher to be open to ideas, and relies on the notion that there are multiple realities.

In this sense, the researcher asked different questions during the data collection process as new information was presented, and progressed to a better understanding of the meaning of the phenomenon under study (Samdahl, 1999).

This study focused on gaining a deeper understanding of the management of IPPs in BC and the paticipants’ experience. While the interpretative methodology framed the research approach and provided the context in which to analyze the data, the analytical framework of the study is supported by key issues that emerged in the literature review.

These were the interplay between user rights and property rights, and resource conflict

and implications on recreational benefits. Collectively, questions were developed for the participant interviews, and these became the lens by which the data were analyzed. These questions were largely supported by these concepts.

4.2 Methods

The methodological approaches proposed for this research relied mostly on the framework that Creswell (2002) and Stake (1994) described as an instrumental case study, and additionally used some intrinsic case study techniques. The case study focused on the impacts on extreme kayaking due to the IPP on the Ashlu Creek near Squamish,

BC.

4.2.1 Case study.

The case study method is defined as “systematic inquiry into an event or a set of related events which aims to describe and explain the phenomenon of interest” (Bromley,

1990, p. 302). Case studies are a common form of research. They have been used in the fields of medicine, psychology, business, law, and in the social sciences (Berg, 2009). A case study can be done to broaden a view on society or of a lifestyle by looking at people’s “background, experiences, roles, and motivations that affect his or her behaviour in society” (Berg, 2007 p. 283). The case study method endeavours to identify significant interactions and relationships between a given phenomenon and its effects through a process where subtle differences are sometimes overlooked when using other research methods (Berg, 2007).

Yin (1998) suggested that in facilitating a successful case study, a researcher must have an inquiring mind, an ability to listen, and be adaptable and flexible when unanticipated results or events change the research process. Furthermore, the researcher

requires a deep understanding of information that will enhance the data rather than to simply record it, and the researcher must be able to interpret the data and attempt to minimize inherent biases. These measures are especially important when interviewing or using participant observation as the primary data gathering techniques (Berg, 2007).

There are three design types of case studies identified by Yin (1994, 2003) and

Winston (1997): exploratory, explanatory, and descriptive. Briefly, an exploratory case study begins with no defined research question (Berg, 2007). An explanatory case study is best suited for a study involving many different or complex organizations where the research is looking to understand what influences specific outcomes (Berg, 2007). A descriptive case study must establish the framework before the study commences and determine how the data will be analyzed. This research was primarily based using a descriptive case study approach. The research followed the descriptive case study process as it began with a research question as the researcher sought to better understand the relationship between independent hydropower production and its impact on water-based outdoor recreation.

4.2.2 Research participants and field work.

In the case of the Ashlu Creek, policy change facilitated the development of a small hydroelectric facility that led to impacts to water-based recreation. Innergex

Renewable Energy Inc., began in December 2009 to divert water for commercial operation and is responsible for regulating water flows for commercial use, recreation flow releases for kayakers, and required flow regimes appropriate to mitigate against unwanted biological impacts. This study presented a perfect opportunity to visit the site and to speak with people who are interested in outdoor recreation, in particular,

whitewater kayaking. Research was conducted in the spring and summer of 2011. The data collection methods included informal interviews and formal in-depth interviews.

4.2.3 Interviewing.

The interview setting offered participants a chance to openly express themselves while the researcher posed questions. The researcher was then able to reflect on comments made during the interview in order to inform his research (Morse & Richards,

2002). Interviews can be structured, semi-structured, and unstructured, and the research in this case drew upon all forms. For this research, both formal in-depth interviews and informal interviews were utilized. Formal in-depth interviews lasted approximately one to one and a half hours each and were audio-recorded and later transcribed.

Neuman (2000) suggested that purposive sampling best represents the most valid data. Members of the paddling community, government workers, and independent corporations hold much of the knowledge in this area, and therefore they were the primary focus of data gathering. In selecting key informants for interviews, the researcher successfully maximized the diversity of expertise by soliciting research participants through telephone calls and emails to key stakeholder groups. Following the interviews, the researcher ensured the information was accurate by member checking (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985). Member checking is the process of reviewing material with the goal of establishing credibility and is done by a select group of one’s peers (Lincoln & Guba,

1985). Member checking was done both formally and informally. During some informal member checks the researcher became aware of other stakeholders whose perspectives needed to be included in this study.

There is no formula for selecting the number of participants in qualitative research

(Morse & Richards, 2002). The researcher judged when adequate data saturation had been achieved. It was thought that the sample size would be approximately 18-22 participants. In total, there were 23 formal and informal interviews. Participants ranged from representatives of whitewater societies (3), business owners (2), corporate representatives (2), members of government (2), utilities commissions (1), and water- based recreation participants (16).

4.2.4 Trustworthiness.

Qualitative research has been criticized when compared to quantitative research due to a belief that qualitative research is undisciplined and therefore the information is unreliable. Lincoln & Guba (1985) suggested that the term trustworthiness should be recognized in qualitative research as the equivalent to reliability and validity in the positivist paradigms that attempt to establish internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Internal validity is defined as “the extent to which variations in an outcome

(dependent) variable can be attributed to controlled variation in an independent variable”

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 290). This means that one outcome may have several hypotheses and therefore the study must attempt to control these factors. External validity is defined as “the approximate validity with which we infer that the presumed causal relationship can be generalized to and across alternate measures of the cause and effect and across different types of persons, settings, and times” (Cook & Campbell, 1979, p. 37 in Lincoln & Guba, 1985 p. 291).

Reliability requires that there are no external events or aspects that threaten validity. Reliability is evident when the research is repeated and generally replicates the outcomes in the initial study. If reliability is not appropriately dealt with, then validity has not been established (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Objectivity can be looked at if criteria have “intersubjective agreement; if multiple observers can agree on a phenomenon their collective judgment can be said to be objective” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 292). Alternatively, a study must remain objective by using perfect methodologies and avoid the researcher changing meanings and therefore single researcher processes are discouraged (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Credibility is improved by using several techniques identified by Lincoln and

Guba (1985). Prolonged engagement is aimed at establishing trust between participants, which better enables the researcher to member check by testing information that s/he has gathered. This is done to establish whether or not there is any incorrect information being presented, and/or if distortions show up in the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lastly, the most important aspect of prolonged engagement is to build trust so that the participants believe that their anonymity will be ensured. These steps towards confidentiality should be addressed during the developmental process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and often take the form of Informed Consent Forms that describe the ethical treatment of research participants (see Appendix B).

Triangulation is “the gaining of multiple perspectives through completed studies that have been conducted on the same topic and that directly address each other’s findings” (Morse & Richards, 2002, p. 76). This technique can be used during a single study by also using different methods (i.e. interview, focus group, participant

observation) and thus establish dependability and confirmability by creating and following an audit trail. This study used an inquiry audit identified by Lincoln and Guba

(1985). Triangulation by the means of peer debriefing was used in this study and aided in establishing confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

4.5 Data Analysis

4.5.1 Grounded theory.

The data was analyzed using the “Grounded Theory” format that takes data and uses a set of procedures to develop themes that can be verified (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003).

The goal of grounded theory is to derive theory from the data. The goal of this study was

“not to reproduce reality descriptively, but to add insight and understanding and to create theory that provides explanations and even prediction” (Morse & Richards, 2002, p. 60).

This methodology fits well with this study as it investigated the relationships between independent power projects and their impacts on whitewater kayakers.

4.5.2 Open coding.

Coding was used to develop themes, taking ideas and putting them into different categories. A theme should not be segments of text, rather; it should identify an idea

(Morse & Richards, 2002). Axial coding takes general themes and separates them into sub-themes (Neuman, 2000). Due to the interpretive nature of qualitative research it is rare that two researchers will deduce the same results. To avoid this, the researcher must

“monitor, revisit, and debate” (Morse & Richards, 2002, p. 125) their conclusions to assure that the research is consistent with its results. Member checking and peer review was used to develop some of the themes, establish credibility of the information, and highlight the most important areas that emerged.

4.6 Ethical Considerations

Each participant was referenced using a pseudonym in an attempt to establish anonymity. Furthermore, information that could be used for identification regardless of the pseudonyms was not published in the final thesis and every effort was made to avoid the inclusion of comments that might identify a participant.

4.6.1 Informed consent.

This study only collected information on a voluntary basis from participants. They were informed that the information is for the purpose of publication and for partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Recreation Management.

Participants were given and were asked to sign an informed consent form (Appendix B) consisting of an informed oral / written consent form.

4.6.2 Meeting ethical research requirements.

This research project met all requirements of the Acadia University’s Research

Ethics Board (REB) and the researcher obtained approval to conduct the research before any field research was undertaken. The REB required prior approval, as this study (under section 1.1 Research Requiring Ethics Review) involved “living human subjects,”

“interviewing a human subject,” and “secondary use of data” (Acadia University, 2011).

4.7 Limitations

Time of Year (season). Research was conducted during the core part of the paddling season in 2011, which began in April and ran until September. Weather was not a limiting factor as initially expected.

Stage of IPP Development in BC. The year in which the research was being conducted was approximately halfway through the 2007 BC Energy Plan, with the goal

of being energy self-sufficient by 2016. If the research had taken place 5 years prior to

2011, or 5 years past this date, there could have been different results.

Access. Approximately 75% of the interviews were with whitewater kayakers, and

25% were with government officials, business owners, and society representatives.

Gaining access and information from IPP organizations was difficult at times. It was brought to the attention of the participants that the purpose of this research was to deliver data, and thus IPP’s could expect the public to hear both positive and negative aspects of

IPP development.

Biases: The researcher is a water-based recreation enthusiast, and was cognizant of attributes that could sway some participant responses. As well, these biases could potentially influence the answers provided by the other water-based recreation enthusiasts, the independent power producers, the government employees, and/or potentially eliminate access altogether to some stakeholders. Peer-debriefing with the researcher’s faculty advisor, Dr. John Colton, provided an opportunity to check and keep track of any biases.

Information: This study, in part, focused on the policy process for independent power producers. There are vast amounts of literature pertaining to the rules and regulations to which they must adhere. The complexity of the laws and literature is extensive and intricate. In addition, much of this information is written to a high legal standard, from which deducing the message or implications was difficult for the researcher, who does not have a legal background.

4.8 Researcher Experience

The researcher is a current river professional working for Canadian River

Expeditions / Nahanni River Adventures in Yukon, BC, and Alaska as a whitewater rafting guide on the Tatshenshini and Alsek River system, which forms part of the largest international bio-preserve in the world. From this and previous outdoor experiences, the researcher has become aware of conservation movements and of threats to wild places.

Outdoor recreation requires a place for the activity, access to roads and the land, and appropriate weather and environmental conditions to have sufficient reward for the participants’ pursuits.

The life experience of the researcher assisted in gaining access to some of the interviewees. A long time resident of BC, the researcher has traveled throughout the province and has experienced many of the protected and unprotected remote wilderness areas similar to those that were explored in this study. Many of these trips have involved water-based recreation via raft, canoe, or whitewater kayak.

These experiences have sensitized the researcher to the importance of natural areas. The researcher has also whitewater kayaked on the Ashlu Creek during its transformation from a wild free flowing stream into a dammed river for an IPP RoR hydroelectric project. It has given the researcher a heightened level of respect for riparian areas and their importance in the broader ecosystem as well as for various forms of recreation.

CHAPTER 5: Results

The setting for this study was the Ashlu Creek, located near the town of

Squamish, BC. The Ashlu is not within an area of protected lands, and the valley has been historically used by the forestry industry. The Ashlu was considered a “flagship river” within the sea-to-sky corridor and has been known worldwide for its stunning canyon and spectacular whitewater. Along with its remarkable recreational value, the

Ashlu was a good option for the development of an RoR hydroelectric power project because of its predictable hydrology, proximity to the provincial electrical grid, and its proximity to the city of Vancouver. The purpose of this study was to better understand how independent hydropower production has impacted water-based outdoor recreation on the Ashlu Creek.

This chapter will review the major themes that emerged from the analysis of the findings. A total of 23 interviews were conducted in the period May – September 2011.

The interviews provided an opportunity to discuss:

● the benefits associated with whitewater kayaking;

● the perceived issues relating to positive and negative impacts from the project;

● the extent to which these impacts are mitigated by developers and whitewater

kayakers;

● the kayaker’s historical and present day usage of the Ashlu;

● the political framework and process that led to the construction of the Ashlu

Creek hydropower project; and

● what are the best kinds of mitigation are for past projects, the current Ashlu

project, and other future projects.

Table 2 highlights the outcomes of qualitative data from the interviews. The data yielded several themes and sub-themes relating to independent hydropower production and the impacts to water-based outdoor recreation on the Ashlu Creek.

Table 2: Results Summary: Major Themes and Sub-Themes

5.1 Benefits of Extreme Kayaking 5.1.1 A connection with likeminded people 5.1.2 A connection with nature 5.1.3 Mastering paddling skills 5.1.4 Mini-vacation away from society and other life stresses 5.1.5 Exercise 5.2 Ashlu conflict 5.2.1 Public input process 5.2.2 The significance of Bill 30 5.2.3 Un-democratic results and process concerns 5.3 Communication 5.3.1 Pre-project communication 5.3.2 Project communication 5.3.3 Post-project communication 5.3.4 Lack of unified voice from the paddling community 5.4 Impacts of IPPs on Recreation 5.4.1 Nine-to-five paddlers 5.4.2 Timing of releases 5.4.3 Connection with wilderness values lost 5.4.4 Loss of the “ephemeral feeling” of kayaking 5.5 Mitigation 5.5.1 Access road is a benefit 5.5.2 “Mine Run” road in disrepair 5.5.3 Recreational flow release 5.5.4 Lack of mitigation for different sections 5.5.5 Online hydrometric data 5.6 Summary

5.1: Benefits of Extreme Kayaking

An assessment of the benefits of extreme kayaking was undertaken to illustrate the importance of the activity for participants. Without this understanding, it would not be possible to accurately gauge how hydropower development impacts the kayaking experience. The theme of benefits of extreme kayaking and its five sub-themes show that there are different reasons why people kayak; however, the data suggested that there are numerous similarities in their reasoning to go river kayaking.

5.1.1 A connection with like-minded people.

Due to safety considerations and other aspects such as carpooling, kayaking is most often a multi-person pursuit. Every paddler who was interviewed spoke about the enjoyment they received from being a part of the paddling community. When asked if he paddles alone, Bayou responded by stating:

[I] definitely don’t creek alone - another cool aspect of it is that you’re out there

making your own decisions but it is one of the most solo team sports I’ve ever

played. I mean you definitely have to have faith in your crew that everybody is

going to help out if you get in a jam. (personal communication, September 16,

2011)

Kayakers seldom paddled solo, though they would only when they could not find someone else to paddle with. This phenomenon was explained by Jordan after being asked if he paddles alone, “I’ve gone out by myself … [in] Jasper, I had trouble finding people to go kayaking with” (September 11, 2011). Other than Jordan, and the rare solo- boater that prefers boating alone to potentially heighten the experience, many seek to paddle with their friends or when they travel to new places with other like-minded

individuals. When asked, many refer to the community as a tight group. Kelvin expressed his connection with like-minded people in the following manner:

I’m a member of the broader outdoor community of people who like to recreate

outdoors. But, I do have an interest and a focus within the whitewater community.

I know lots of those people. I hang out with them. I go boating with some of them.

And that community is a really small tight knit group of people that go whitewater

kayaking together. (personal communication, September 9, 2011)

Kelvin first talked about the larger outdoor community as a whole and then specified down to the local kayak contingent of boaters. It is of particular interest that he spoke of knowing a lot of whitewater kayakers. Despite only kayaking with some of them, Kelvin still felt connected through the sport with other individuals. Leith expressed his connection with like-minded individuals as follows, “I would say the social component is definitely on par with the scenery – who you paddle with and the relationship you have with those people can make all the difference” (personal communication, September 12, 2011). For Leith, paddling with certain people is as equally important as the aesthetic value of the area or the specific river he is paddling.

Leith stated that he can have a great day on a less exciting stretch of whitewater with the right group, rather than a more interesting piece of water with the wrong group. Talking about the broader community, Wiley described his experience with the whitewater community as follows:

It is an incredible community … It’s a very special community because the

personality types are all very independent. They are very unique. They are very

hard lined in their way of thinking. They are all alpha type personalities. For the

most part they are well educated. They are very generous. They are open. They

are blunt [&] specific … Those the feathers of the same brand flock together and

it’s a pretty cool experience paddling with those people. (September 19, 2011)

Wiley said that interacting and spending time with people is very important to him and paddling with the particular kinds of people that this sport attracts is a particular advantage of extreme kayaking. When asked about the difference between the local community and the international community of whitewater paddlers, Wiley responded:

The paddling community actually is always open arms to other people that are

similar in desire and nature and drive … I found the experiences going to

California, going to Ecuador, [or] going to Quebec to always be easy just because

there is always somebody that is keen. They are active. They are out there

wanting to show off what they have; the quality of rivers that they have and there

is a similar passion around the world for it and there is a similar danger that they

all seem to have the same passions and the same [things to] watch out for and you

have to worry about and this is the problem with this sort of thing and a lot of it

has to do with the sort of blend with recreation and the need for power and the

fact that gradient plus water can either equal recreation or power production. And

that is an issue in Ecuador in California and Quebec and of here [British

Columbia] it is a worldwide issue more and more in Asia as well and all that.

(personal communication, September 19, 2011)

Wiley stated that he feels paddlers around the world are often similar

because there are the same dangers and risks whether you are in the northern or

southern hemisphere. Furthermore, he discussed how it does not matter where you

are in the world in regard to hydropower development. Wiley stated that every

continent in the world is experiencing hydro development, which bonds paddlers

together from different countries and areas because they are facing similar

concerns. The dream of paddling a river can lead people to stay fit and dedicate

part of their life to go explore a new area. These dreams can be lost after a river

has been dammed. The bond that paddlers share was also described by Phoenix:

If you can paddle … you can be welcomed in … I think because there is a trust

aspect with this kind of stuff … Even on an easy class 2-3 run there is an aspect of

trust. Cause you need to be able to go and this person is going to help me and if

something happens to them I need to be able to help them. And you don’t have

that with a lot of other sports. To a certain degree the environment itself is moving

and it is very dynamic and in other sports if an accident happens it - everything is

calm and there is usually more people around and kayaking even on a small class

2-3 run you can be quite alone you can be in the middle of nowhere. (personal

communication, September 12, 2011)

Phoenix stated that he believes that paddling is unique when compared to most mainstream sports because kayakers are often paddling in areas that are very remote, so they have to trust their partners. An intimate relationship develops due to the trust partners have between them. Other interviewed paddlers voiced their opinions on why the bond between kayakers forms quickly. For example, when asked why some of these relationships are so strong Leith suggested:

The team environment that you have on the river [makes the difference] … I

definitely think that people build really strong bonds with other people under

stress and even with all the precautions that we take there are some very stressful

situations. Yeah, very strong relationships and I paddle because it is a passion and

to be able to share that passion is great. (September 15, 2011)

The above comments indicated that there is an inherently stressful aspect to extreme kayaking. For those who do not participate in extreme sports, the connection between kayakers might be hard to understand. Some respondents attributed the connection to the nature of rivers in British Columbia. Mersey, a kayaker who often paddles remote areas, discussed why he thinks groups meld so well:

Well, it’s a tight knit bunch for sure. BC paddling is notorious for being quite

committing and in Canada I guess there are not that many people that paddle at

that level. So, I guess here we have a small group of people who are all good

friends maybe a dozen or so that are just living here. Most of them are from other

countries who have immigrated to Canada, from Britain from New Zealand and

the Ashlu is one of the biggest reasons that they came here. (May 22, 2011)

The above comments indicated that tight knit groups and connections with like- minded individuals are a benefit for whitewater kayakers. Some respondents noted that they fear that, as more IPPs come online, there will be a smaller community in future years. Kelvin stated that the importance of the community is often overlooked, noting, “I think what brings me back is that this community that we are talking about - the benefits that you get from the community shouldn’t be displaced without consideration”

(September 9, 2011). Kelvin’s statement underlines the importance of due process and consideration. He enjoys this community and does not want to see it disappear. This was

echoed by Jordan, who said, “this is my population here … I’m in a specific population that I relate to” (September 11, 2011).

5.1.2 A connection with nature.

A connection with nature was identified by nearly every person in this study.

Many respondents discussed how whitewater kayaking gets them to places that no one else has ever been or to places where the average person does not get to see or experience. One interviewee expressed that feeling as follows: “It’s the places you visit … you end up in places where no one would ever go unless they are a whitewater kayaker you see things no one else will ever see unless they are a whitewater kayaker”

(Bayou, September 8, 2011). This special feeling is only heightened by the activity that the paddlers are participating in, as identified by another paddler:

You know just hearing the boulders rolling down the canyon underneath the water

and that was one of the coolest sounds and pulling into this tiny eddy after

running a grade four drop and your heart is racing and you look up and there is

this tiny little bird perched on this little ledge of rock … it was one of those

experiences where nobody else is going to be here and see this and then of course

you look over your shoulder and peel out of the eddy and the experiences like that

- yeah it’s just awesome! (Leith, personal communication, September 3, 2011)

Another paddler felt that the visual environment added to his connection after he was asked if the scenic aspect of the area was important to him. He responded by stating,

“Oh yeah! More and more so, the older I get … The adrenaline rush is secondary to the being in a pristine area that is protected or a natural type of environment” (Hume,

personal communication, May 8, 2011). I interpreted his response to suggest that the natural setting of an area is important for him to reap the benefits of whitewater kayaking.

Wiley, an avid whitewater recreationist, described his connection with nature as follows:

The energy behind the water is different - the scenery is very different. I think the

scenery accounts for 60% of my paddling more than anything else - being able to

see what I see is more important than the actual paddling for the most part - the

rock formations - the water, what the water does - the beauty that it can create -

the remoteness - the last untouched places are on the rivers. There’s nothing like

finding those little corners with the old growth and the moss and the fog and

everything else hanging all into the river valleys and everything else and the

sculpted rock all at the same time and that specific special color of the water that

you can get on the rivers around the area. (September 10, 2011)

For Wiley, it is clear that the experience he has with kayaking is different than other forms of recreation. Extreme kayaking could not be replaced with other forms of recreation because one often finds themselves in remote areas that are untouched by humans. The uniqueness of river canyons, the colours, and the feeling of being in a remote place are some of the reasons people feel a connection with nature. These features are the reason the Ashlu has attracted hundreds of kayakers to experience an amazing place.

5.1.3 Mastering paddling skills.

The benefit of mastering paddling will be given special attention because it lies at the heart of what makes creeking different from other forms of kayaking because if you

do not perform a stroke properly, it could result in a serious injury or death.

Understanding the movement of water is one of the reasons Leith paddles:

I absolutely love kayaking because it is all about reading the water and letting the

water do all the work and it was fast and dynamic and it was about balance and

power and it was awesome. (September 15, 2011)

Leith’s response indicated that working with nature is fundamentally important to his enjoyment of extreme kayaking. He added to this statement by discussing how doing a ‘move’ well makes him feel great by working with the river:

I love the fluidity of the water and the power and the feeling of running a drop

clean or boofing into an eddy … the scenery that you get into not only just the

scenery it’s the physical feeling of running something successfully. You have

scouted it out and you have looked, [and] you have seen where you want to go

and you’ve gotten there, not just standing upright at the bottom. (September 15,

2011)

This indicates that doing something well is not simply about getting to the bottom of the rapid; rather, performing well is about understanding and working with the river to heighten the joyous feeling of accomplishing what you were trying to do. Jordan had similar thoughts: “I like feeling [I’ve] accomplished something” (personal communication, September 11, 2011) after a day of paddling. Jordan stated that he truly felt his life would be wasted if he was not perfecting his abilities on creeks and connecting with nature, stating that:

[We would come back from a kayaking trip and we would be] always making

jokes and saying we should have just gone shopping today, we could have found

some good buys. It seems like such a waste of time when you can instead go out

and do something that other people can’t do I think that is something that factors

into it. (personal communication, September 11, 2011)

Jordan spoke about the difficulty of extreme whitewater kayaking. Not everyone can learn how to interact with rivers safely and these acquired skills make the experience feel exceptionally valuable and special. Jordan concluded the section on the interview by saying:

I know that when I was in the Box Canyon [of the Ashlu] … I just loved the

movement of water … the other stuff is sort of peripheral … I focus on the

movement of water and I like the movement of water and I like the color of the

water. (personal communication, September 11, 2011)

Jordan indicated that both the movement of the water and moving with the water is an integral part of whitewater kayaking. A number of respondents made it apparent that this joy of movement was hard to replicate in other activities. Wiley described:

There’s a joy that I can’t seem to replace with much else. It feels free, it’s

awesome there’s a love of that environment that I can’t find in any other form

yet … as clearly and as specifically and as cleanly [as] with whitewater kayaking.

(personal communication, September 19, 2011)

Wiley stated that interacting with water is his preferred form of recreation, which he enjoyed more when interacting with free-flowing rivers. This feeling was common amongst most participants; however, there were a few paddlers that seemed almost equally happy paddling on a system that has been dammed, such as the Ashlu Creek.

Jordan discussed his enjoyment of water on an industrialized stream:

Like when I paddled the Box Canyon [on the Ashlu], [a friend] just didn’t seem to

think it mattered to paddle it if it was controlled and it was not natural … My

perspective was that I can’t wait to go paddle the Box Canyon again. I think it is

critical that our flows are maintained and that we can paddle … I can sacrifice a

few rivers to industry if that industry is justified. (Jordan, personal

communication, September 11, 2011)

For Jordan, the feeling he got from interacting with the Ashlu was exceptionally enjoyable, so it did not matter that the Ashlu was dammed. What was important to Jordan was that there was water in the river to paddle. It is possible to have favourable experiences from dammed rivers, which was echoed by Alum:

I paddled the Ashlu a bit before [the hydroelectric project] and a lot since. That is

how I would describe my usage. But I lived here for a year when it was free

flowing and I paddled it twice. I was just as keen to get up there as I am now. Last

year I paddled it 12 times. (personal communication, September 16, 2011)

There has been major construction on the Ashlu. Even though the area has been modified, Alum still gets the benefits from paddling the Ashlu on release days and when there is enough water going over the dam. Alum was able to get most of his sought benefits from interacting with the river features whether or not the river is dammed. For him kayaking is, “Just dangerous and mastering that and facing your fears” (personal communication, September 16, 2011) is what gives him a lot of pleasure.

5.1.4 Mini-vacation away from society and other life stresses.

Building on previous sub-themes, the benefit of having a mini-vacation away from society and other life stresses was identified as one of the most important attributes

of kayaking. Alum described his experience navigating difficult water systems such as the Ashlu or other similar creeks:

It’s just the feeling of going someplace powerful and being able to navigate

through things. Something that I get a big charge out of is being scared and

overcoming the fear and performing under pressure. Doing something that is

difficult, not just difficult whitewater but difficult trips, the sense of

accomplishment of completing is something that I enjoy. You don’t do it every

time you paddle, sometimes you paddle your local runs to just stay in paddling

shape or just to hang out with your buddies, but the best trips of the year are the

ones where you go, you are exposed, and you are challenged. (personal

communication, September 13, 2011)

Alum spoke of recharging his system by getting out of the city and into the wilderness, forgetting about work, and living in the moment. Hard whitewater runs require kayakers to focus 100% of their energy on the task at hand. As he was getting older, Leith also used kayaking as an escape from some of his life’s stresses:

As I got older and older and started going to university … I could get on [the

river] and it takes all your attention. You forget everything else that’s going on. It

was a great way to have a break from everything else and absolutely love what

you’re doing. (personal communication, September 15, 2011)

Leith used his river trips as a way to get away from stressful aspects with university. Getting away from the city and having a mini-vacation was also expressed by

Bayou:

Spiritually, it is the only time that I’m not stressing out about my job and my

house or, you know, all the stuff that is mundane day-to-day stuff. As soon as you

put on the river, you worry about the river until the take out again and worry

about the flat tire or whatever else reality wants to throw at you. Definitely a good

escape from the everyday. (personal communication, September 16, 2011)

Bayou indicated that he uses paddling to get away from life stresses, forgetting about his job and his other commitments by getting into the wilderness. This was echoed by Jordan, who said that he enjoyed “resetting my clock of [after] being indoors …

[because] at work I’m not challenged” (September 11, 2011). Using paddling as a mini- vacation was best described by Hume:

Well kayaking itself … is a microcosm of vacation in a way. What do you get out

of a vacation? You get away from your normal life. You forget the things that are

bothering you in the modern world. You socialize with other people of a like

mind. It is therapeutic. It is cathartic … [there are] so many ways the benefit of

the outdoors. So simply very underestimated by physiologists, physiatrists, mental

health professionals. The benefits that it provides all of us that enjoy the outdoors.

It’s multi-faceted for sure. (personal communication, September 8, 2011)

Hume’s remarks indicated that he uses kayaking to help himself get through the regular grind of every week and to really enjoy his life. He specifically is an extreme kayaker and does very little other recreational paddling. Some of the rafting guides, who are also kayakers, enjoy working vacations and paddle on rivers like the Ashlu. Phoenix illustrated how kayaking has taken him around the world:

You can’t get to them [vacations] for quite as long of a time [without guiding]

like India, going there three times or New Zealand or going to Australia and doing

a different style of job (guiding) compared to going there working as a bartender

or server or the fruit industry. I mean rafting and kayaking have led me into

photography and health care; it has led my path through different doorways and I

wouldn’t have had that path through different doors and avenues and paths.

(personal communication, September 12, 2011)

Phoenix’s life path has been guided by kayaking. While Phoenix has used kayaking as a paid vacation, the majority of the respondents used kayaking as mini- vacations away from society and other life stresses because recharging their soul is important. They use extreme kayaking because it requires 100% of one’s focus and therefore they forget about anything in their life that might be stressing them out.

5.1.5 Exercise.

Having a good workout is a theme that was broadly reflected amongst the majority of the participants. Many respondents identified the activity itself as a good source of exercise, along with a heightened desire to stay fit to benefit their kayaking performance. One boater simply said, “For me too, it is the most exercise I ever get.

There is definitely a health benefit” (Bayou, personal communication, September 16,

2011). Over the years, the continued drive to kayak caused Bayou to increase his activity level. For some respondents, exercise was one of the most valuable aspects of kayaking:

I think I really enjoy the exercise. I like the fine tuned motor control. I’m a

physiotherapist. I like movement, I like the joy of movement, I don’t necessarily

like accomplishing or overcoming fears or any of this kind of stuff, I like the joy

of moving, I like moving with all my sports, I like moving and kayaking is one of

the most fluid things in the whole world. (Jordan, personal communication,

September 9, 2011)

The above comment illustrates how integral fitness can be for those who take part in whitewater kayaking. The majority of the respondents mentioned a fear that a loss of this activity would result in a loss of their preferred form of recreation. For example, a respondent stated, “We are not getting any exercise out of the program anymore if we can’t go” (Hume, personal communication, September 8, 2011). Hume’s concern is that if most of the rivers are dammed and the number of potential paddling days decreases, he will no longer get the health benefits from kayaking. A loss of paddling days would surely affect his activity level unless new pursuits equalled the same level of activity as kayaking.

Not all interview participants did extreme kayaking for the workout, as stated by

Alum, “Yeah I don’t really do it for fitness. I do other things for fitness” (personal communication, September 13, 2011). However, most often these creeks are typically found in deep incised canyons and have a steep hike out; therefore, it is a full body workout. Kayakers can get a great workout from extreme kayaking. However, as more rivers are dammed - kayakers fear they will not get this benefit from kayaking.

5.2 Ashlu Conflict

This research examined the public input process of new hydroelectric developments on the Ashlu Creek, with particular attention to how these developments impacted whitewater kayaking. This included perceptions of the regulatory process,

historical perspectives about the Ashlu, and current feelings of kayakers and industry specialists towards the Ashlu Creek.

5.2.1 Public input process.

The public input process is required with any hydro project that has an environmental assessment. Though the Ashlu was not part of a provincial environmental assessment, in 2005 and 2006 there were numerous hearings in the SLRD to determine the public's opinion of this project. The majority of the people who participated in this study mentioned their disdain for the public input process. One of the most expressed concerns for interviewees was the approvals of hydro projects. One participant spoke of her experience with changing regulations and legislation:

We were running around like chickens with their heads chopped off when this

government got elected because they had an agenda that was massively rolling

back environmental regulations, calling it red tape, and gutting the Ministry of

Environment. We couldn’t believe what was happening because we weren’t really

paying attention to IPPs or electricity production. (Branch, personal

communication, September 28, 2011)

This statement illustrated that this respondent was aware that there were going to be changes to environmental legislation, though she was uninformed about what this meant to hydro development. One noteworthy change was when the provincial government divided BC Hydro into different entities and had a separate corporation for transmission to export power to the United States. When asked about the history of transmission and the BC Transmission Corporation (BCTC), Pike, someone with extensive knowledge of the workings of BCTC, noted:

BCTC was part of BC Hydro originally … at some stage the government believed

that the federal energy regulatory commission in the United States was going to

change its rules and would require the transmission lines to be under separate

management and control. So, it spun off, it [BC Hydro] created BCTC. And then

BCTC was in existence from about 2003 to about 2010 and then it became

obvious that you didn’t need the separate control so all they did was as of July the

1st BCTC is part of BC Hydro. (Pike, personal communication, September 13,

2011)

An understanding of the motives for exporting power was critical because it related to one of the primary motives for pursuing RoR hydro projects in BC. Namely, this was of special interest because much of the energy from RoR projects becomes available during the spring and fall when the BC Hydro grid has a lower demand than in winter.

In order for these projects to get approved, the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) must accept the project under the given terms of the proponents agreement with BC

Hydro. When asked about the history of the BCUC, Pike noted:

The utility commission has been around forever. Every province has a utility

commission its role is to be the independent regulator of monopoly utilities … the

Utilities Commission has never been a part of BC Hydro. The Utilities

Commission reports to the Attorney General. The decisions of the Utilities

Commission are appealable to the BC Court of Appeal and then the Supreme

Court of British Columbia. (Pike, September 13, 2011)

The BCUC is an independent agency, as noted by Pike, and had a lot of control over these projects. However, the approval process changed as the Clean Energy Act was created. Pike discussed how the government has been rapidly changing how projects are approved and what the current process looks like:

The Utilities Commission was given oversight over a lot of BC Hydro’s

operations. It was given oversight on its long-term plan. It was given oversight

over its capital additions. It was given oversight on its’ rates and revenue

requirement. And it was given oversight over its’ acquisitions of power from third

parties. That is to say BCUC used to approve all of the EPA’s the energy purchase

agreements that Hydro entered into with the private producers. That all changed

with the Clean Energy Act. The Clean Energy Act basically took the approval of

the EPAs away. It took the approval of large capital projects away such as Mica 5

& 6, transmission lines things like that away. (personal communication,

September 13, 2012)

During these large steps by the provincial government there was no public input process. It was simply the provincial government following a new mandate for clean energy that encompassed a variety of new legislations. The planning was intended to protect the environment through the development of more hydro projects. However, it was also done to promote private business and take control over some sectors of the hydro production industry in BC. More frustrating to kayakers who love the Ashlu was that the government saw the rejection of the Ashlu hydropower project by the Squamish-

Lillooet Regional District as a threat to the IPP industry.

5.2.2 The significance of Bill 30.

The Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) was in charge of zoning rights in the Ashlu valley. They were in the process of making a plan for IPP development during the application for the Ashlu. One participant discussed her understanding of the application process:

What happened, of course, was the local jurisdictions and the regional district

were not supportive [of a hydropower project on the Ashlu]. They saw the Ashlu,

they had done an assessment of a number of the waterways and the rivers in their

area, and they deemed the Ashlu as one of significant importance for numerous

different reasons. Because of that, we are not supportive of it being used for

independent power because [the SLRD] thinks that it seriously limits [the valleys]

ability to be used for other things it has value for. So, they said “No”.

Interestingly, they were prepared to put a number of other rivers up [for

development] and allow them to go ahead but the Ashlu was one of three that they

said “No” to. (Severn, personal communication, September 28th, 2011)

Almost all of the participants voiced a similar understanding of how the SLRD was prepared for the public hearings regarding the Ashlu. A local paddler voiced his understanding:

I believe there were two local hearings, municipal hearings, for the dam in

Squamish back in the day. We voted it down once, I forget the year, and we voted

it down in 2005 - I believe it was it was a 9 to 1 ratio - it was overwhelmingly to

reject the proposal. This was still when the municipality, from my understanding,

had rights on zoning for local energy and resource developments. (Mersey,

personal communication, May 22, 2012)

Every participant was aware that the local governing body, the SLRD, had not approved the Ashlu Creek IPP. In 2006, the rights of the local municipalities to manage

IPPs soon changed after the SLRD decision to not develop the Ashlu Creek. Bill 30 was an amendment to the Utilities Commission Act, one of the guiding pieces of legislation with regard to IPP approvals. Mersey discussed when he first became aware of Bill 30:

And then, with Bill 30 that all changed. [The IPP project was not being allowed to

go ahead] in September or October [2005], but it was August 2006 when it was

the first time we got to the river and we were denied access. People were laying

what are now the power lines … all of a sudden we were denied access and

loggers were cutting down trees … some beautiful trees. (personal

communication, May 22, 2012)

Mersey was aware of the implications of Bill 30, but was surprised at the level of activity and the rate that the Ashlu project was progressing. Another participant discussed how Bill 30 changed the approval process; Severn noted:

So, ultimately the government brought in the legislation that essentially took away

the authority of the local government to make those decisions over their own

jurisdictions and that obviously caused a lot of concern … This was clearly

around private power but it is also legislation that can be exercised on other

matters too. (personal communication, September, 28, 2011)

The implications of Bill 30 towards the SLRD made it very hard for the SLRD to plan for their land in their jurisdiction. Severn stated that she felt that taking away local

governments control over their area was detrimental because they could no longer plan accordingly towards their goals as a community. Another participant, Branch, described how Bill 30 affected the SLRD’s decision making:

Well 49.9 [megawatts (MW)] of course [the Ashlu project] didn’t need to go

through the provincial environmental process because [the cut off is] 50[MW] ...

they [the SLRD] identified I think 11 rivers in that area that they didn’t think

should have a development … The SLRD after having 7 or 8 public meetings

listened to people knew the majority of people were against the project and so

they were going to pull the project and at time they had zoning authority ... then

government came in with Bill 30 which is known as the Ashlu bill and not only

removed the right of SLRD to say no to that project but all the right of regional

districts across BC to say no and I think that was a little heavy. (personal

communication, September 28, 2011)

Branch not only understood the implications of Bill 30 on the Ashlu, but also drew conclusions on the implications to the rest of the province. She stated that she thought that the change in the legislation was a very strong move by the government.

Other participants saw the move by government as a heavy handed move because it made the process less democratic at a local level. Pike explained his feelings towards Bill 30:

Well, good question, it’s unfortunate that Bill 30 came along because that was one

avenue that … the locally affected people have. Under … 50MW, as you say, it’s

a process with the ILMB [Integrated Land Management Bureau] which is less

than transparent. The only form of recourse the public has I guess is to make sure

that you get undertakings and commitments to not to affect the quality of the

kayaking the quality of the fishing and quality of the water and god knows how

you would enforce them. (personal communication, September 13, 2011)

Pike stated that once the process does not have to go through the Environmental

Assessment Office, it is much more difficult to get recreation maintained. He felt that, though you can get assurances from the proponent, much of the process is happening behind closed doors and it is difficult for the general public to get information. Many felt that, before Bill 30, there was a democratic process in place and the Ashlu Creek project was not going to be approved. Many of the participants saw the implementation of Bill 30 by the government as undemocratic.

5.2.3 Un-democratic result and process concerns.

As stated in the previous section, the feeling among the participants was that the democratic process had been followed by municipal authorities because they voted down the hydro project on the Ashlu. This was swiftly followed by a change to the Utilities

Commission Act saying that the Commission did not have to adhere to the Local

Government Act or the Community Charter when deciding whether or not to accept a project under the given terms. One of the paddlers discussed how he felt about the process:

It’s probably one of those rivers that shouldn’t have been touched and I think that

there was enough out there that everybody knew that it probably shouldn’t have

been touched. Yet, it was still dammed and I think that is a fault of the

environmental assessment system. It’s a fault of due process and it let the

democratic part of society down. The society had said no. There was a very

distinct public outcry against it, even the municipality was against it. The public

in the area were extremely anti-proponent and the proponent used outside

influences the powers at be … The BC liberals who were fully in power with no

real opposition. They had one seat of opposition at the time. Ummm to do what

they want they pulled the strings that they needed to and got the project in place.

(Wiley, personal communication, September 19, 2011)

This quote illustrated that Wiley thought the due process was followed initially.

Then the government undemocratically, on a local level, approved the project. Another participant discussed his feelings toward how government changed the process on the

Ashlu Creek:

Seems like most of these environmental issues around … water you are often put

into two different camps that oppose each other. That is the system. That is the

framework. That is how everything is set up. There really isn’t much dialog or

much collaboration and there really isn’t much sharing of anything. And it is …

typically on these kinds of things, the IPPs, [from] what I’m seeing is industry

wins out. Or if industry doesn’t win out - like say the Ashlu the system just gets

re-tweaked. And then it just gets done again and then all of a sudden it is slightly

different and you are in the same battle and guess what round two you lost that

time and now there’s a power plant there. (Kelvin, September 9, 2011)

The processes surrounding natural resource exploitation in BC inevitably led to industry and environmental activists going head to head. The respondent stated that he felt that after a project like the Ashlu is turned down, the system gets changed to facilitate the project. This aspect of changing the process left some participants disgruntled with the government and this was also reflected onto the proponent.

The process surrounding the Ashlu Creek IPP was long and complicated. The local municipality rejected the project until the implementation of Bill 30. Many were upset after the project was approved and many felt disheartened. While these negative feeling persisted, the proponent was trying to appease both the paddling community and local citizens. Kelvin discussed the public input period and how he felt that his efforts along with others seem to fall on deaf ears. He stated:

There’s not a framework developed around the context of the letters and that if X

number of people say this … it seems to be a meaningless process. I’ve seen

nothing come out of it. It’s not like there was one letter there was hundreds of

letters plus all the other comments plus the phone calls and it just goes on and on

and on. How much of this how much do you need before something happens? …

It’s easy to become disillusioned because you get the sense that it really doesn’t

matter you could have a thousand or ten thousand people and maybe that would

make no difference. (Kelvin, personal communication, September 9, 2011)

Kelvin felt that the public input process is largely useless. The net result of the public input period is not meaningful. He added that every project like the Ashlu has to be fought individually at the provincial level, “and with Bill 30 of course you can’t fight them on a local level you have to do this ridiculous [vocal protest or written opposition] every single time” (Kelvin, personal communication, September 9, 2011). Kelvin was frustrated with the process and did not agree with how the Ashlu project came to terms.

Another paddler explained his feelings about the Ashlu and the approval process:

The features are really incredible - the quality of the drops continue to be good

through the whole run. It is beautiful. It’s scenic. Its’ of a fairly consistent quality

as well as far as difficulty uniqueness and cleanness of the features is remarkable

and you take that system and you take the amount of public outcry against having

such a project and the ability of the proponent to push it aside and still move it

forward is sad. (Wiley, personal communication, September 9, 2011)

Wiley stated that he was upset at the way the process took place. His feelings are further exacerbated by the quality of the Ashlu, and perhaps on a lesser system this process would not have mattered or upset him as much. The quality of the Ashlu canyon was also spoken to by Hume:

And in the case of the Ashlu it is all the more disturbing because there is a

juxtaposition between how beautiful that lower canyon is when you look down

into the place there’s that little Box Canyon below the 50/50 falls the carved out

little rock sections and the blue bright almost iridescent water. The shine coming

off of it and how lovely of a valley it is. And if you compare that to the lower

Cowichan, not to knock the lower Cowichan, there’s a whole different level of

experience that can be it is almost as if there is a sliding scale of how beautiful

that particular outdoor area is … there is going to be a qualitative, a vast

qualitative difference between the destruction of those two habitats and the way

that is reflected with some of the choices that some of the IPPs have made for.

And naturally they probably don’t factor that into their decisions at all - it’s going

to be what’s got the most gradient per volume that they can put money into and

get passed. But they miss that element for sure. So looking at the lower section in

comparison to what they have done above it and just ripped the s--- out of that

valley part and gravel it all in, it’s pretty devastating. (personal communication,

September 8, 2011)

Hume was left with a bad feeling about the Ashlu project due to the nature of the creek itself. As discussed, by Wiley and other boaters, the quality of the Ashlu was immense and they felt that no matter how much mitigation was offered it would never be enough to replace some of the values lost by the impact of the project. In order for paddlers not to lose the Ashlu forever, the proponent was mandated to provide release days and to work with boaters to find some common ground. Paddlers who have been in contact with the proponent have been content with the relationship the company has been maintaining. For example, Mersey noted:

I think they have been a fairly honest player. You know, after the horrendous start

up, how Ledcor and Innergex combined and lobbied the government, and how it

all happened. It was absolutely un-democratic, it was absolutely unacceptable, but

since then they have become more responsible and we got our feelings a bit more.

They have been fairly reliable. (personal communication, May 22, 2011)

Mersey was disappointed initially with how the project came to fruition. However, like other participants, he has been content with the mitigation that Innergex Renewable

Energy Inc. has so far been responsible for - such as release days. However, the initial

‘undemocratic’ part of the process that the respondents are speaking to does not involve

Innergex Inc. The proponent who built the dam and power plant, the Ledcor Group of

Companies, was following guidelines and rules set out by the municipal, provincial and federal government. The participants in this study are upset at how the government took

away their voice and the voice of every community across BC for projects that are under

50MW.

5.3 Communication

There was significant discussion surrounding communication; however, communication, as a major theme - has less direct references than the other themes.

Nevertheless, it had sufficient importance to warrant a separate section, it was an underlying theme in other sections involving process and mitigation.

5.3.1 Pre-project communication.

Much of the communication about the Ashlu Creek IPP was examined through discussing the need for the project itself. Through the 2003 Energy Plan, the government identified that there was a need for BC to become “self-sufficient” by 2016 and that the majority of the new energy was to come from “green energy” initiatives. This was combined with an ideological shift towards a free market economy with regard to energy generation. One participant described the energy plan:

[The Premier wanted to] encourage private power independent power projects. So

what I’ll do is I’ll handcuff BC Hydro to say that you can only develop existing

sites … you can [further develop] where there is room for more turbines, at Mica

and Revelstoke, you can put [in] those. Where there is room for another dam on

the Peace River you can do that. It is basically the two rivers policy. You got the

Columbia and the Peace and those are the only two rivers that [BC Hydro] can do

anything with. (Pike, personal communication, September 13, 2011)

Pike discussed how the B.C. Government decided that the Crown utility was no longer allowed to build new power projects, unless they were upgrading or renovating

heritage assets. At the time, the perceived need for more IPP was influenced by the definition of self-sufficiency because it was based on critical low water years. Though this definition has been changed since the Ashlu Creek project, Pike explained why he felt that this definition was detrimental to creeks like the Ashlu:

The provincial policy is you have self-sufficiency based on the lowest water year

ever and … that is 42,600 GW-hrs. [BC Hydro heritage dams] are capable most

water years of delivering 4000GW-hrs more than that. Then, on top of that, you

have the 3000 GW-hrs of insurance. So that means you’ve got 7000 GW-hrs of

power that you don’t need that you’re going to have to dump on to Oregon,

Columbia or whatever you call it the California Oregon Border the COB … most

of [IPP RoR projects] being produced during the freshet when it has very little

value and does that make any sense? I don’t think so, as a policy. (personal

communication, September 13, 2011)

From this statement, Pike explained why he felt that the goals of self-sufficiency were exaggerated. There was some contempt expressed from some participants for this policy, while others understood the ideology. When asked why the government was making the shift, Leith responded, “The argument … it is the ideology the government should not run the economy, the private sector should. The government should regulate as minimally as possible and the free-market should dictate prices” (personal communication, September 15, 2011). When trying to understand why this had such an impact on the increase of RoR projects, I asked a participant about the correlation, who responded:

There’s a number of things and part of it is ideological on the part of the

government - the government I think looked at BC Hydro and said that they have

a monopoly on energy … and they looked to break that monopoly and they

choose to do it through independent power … They have not had much success in

doing that in the past but the green aspect, for lack of a better term, with IPPs and

in particularly run of the river. And I think there some distinguishment between

run of the river and other forms of independent power because the real

proliferation there has been around run of the river. (Severn, personal

communication, September 28, 2011)

This respondent connected three aspects of communication with the public that led to the Ashlu project. He discussed the ideological shift and the movement for IPPs to fulfill the mandate of self-sufficiency through “green” initiatives. As discussed, these initiatives are being sought through IPPs rather than the Crown corporation of BC Hydro.

Some participants in this study were asked how, when dealing with private companies, it is difficult to access information. In response, Wiley stated:

The one thing I find typically frustrating with proponents is they feel the data is

proprietary and they are very reticent to give out that information. It has to stay

private and it makes it very difficult to plan even more difficult especially when

there is a proponent in the area to plan with proper flows and you don’t know

what you are really going to get and the Ashlu is a key example of where you

really don’t know what you are going to get. (personal communication,

September 18, 2011)

Wiley discussed the communication difficulties he experienced with proponents before projects, during construction, and once a project is operational. Information is typically withheld pre-construction as the information is seen as proprietary. This has been a concern with several participants in this study. A lot of information is still withheld once there is online data. The Ashlu shows real-time data for the past twenty four (24) hours. If you ask the proponent for historical data they will say it is proprietary and unavailable to the public.

5.3.2 Project communication.

Reports from the proponent stated that they did not restrict access to the public other than when there were safety considerations (Blanchard, personal communication,

December 20, 2011). Though the proponent attempted to block access minimally to the

Ashlu watershed, kayakers could not receive information on what days the road closed and access would be denied. The result was that kayakers had to travel long distances, not knowing if access to the river was open. One participant described the paddling atmosphere that is part of his life, he noted:

For example, I mean, people have to plan their trip weeks, if not a month, in

advance just for the transportation of it. If they are not going to let us know these

kinds of things [road closures], or if it is going to become that it is just not

available at the time of year [how are we supposed to plan?] (Hume, personal

communication, September 8, 2011)

Hume described how planning becomes difficult if you do not inform the boating community of potential closures. Another participant had issues with knowing whether or not the roads were open:

During the construction period it was never known if we could get up there. There

were security guards. It’s not like they were hostile but it they definitely seemed

confrontational not accommodating at the time - there was blasting going on there

was logging going on. The roads were closed for long times - that was probably

worst in 2007 - 2008 … often times it was just closed. (Mersey, personal

communication, May 22, 2011)

He said that he would drive for hours only to be turned away at the gate with little to no explanation other than it was closed for public safety. Once the project was in place, participants reported more favourable communication about access and water flows - though not everyone knew how to access the river and the information. It is up to the individual proponent to manage communication about release days. There is no system set up with Transport Canada or any other agency where the information is organized and communicated collectively and efficiently.

5.3.3 Post project communication.

Post-project communication with involved stakeholders was a major theme that came out of this study. Participants were concerned that there would be limited communication with a private developer as opposed to communication that paddlers have experienced with BC Hydro. Rand discussed his feelings towards the communication:

Everything associated with these projects, communication between the

stakeholder groups has been terrible and that has led to substantive mis-

communications and lack of consensus or the bi-polar values system that we see

right now. (personal communication, October 4, 2011)

This quote illustrates how Rand felt that there has been a lack of communication between the proponent, people that are opposed to the project, and people who want to find ways to mitigate negative impacts of the project. He also alluded to a ‘bi-polar values system’ that refers to some stakeholder’s unwillingness to find common ground with a potential project like the Ashlu. Once the project was fully operational on the

Ashlu, paddlers had no choice but to work with the proponent in order to maintain their preferred form of recreation on their preferred creek. Most of the participants in this study found the operator, Innergex Inc., favourable to work with on matters related to the

Ashlu Creek specifically. One kayaker had this to say about his experience with

Innergex:

It was really responsive actually … They had one guy - we put in an application

online. He called me a bunch of times … [He was] very agreeable and it was

higher than they said they would release ... We had requested a certain level like a

medium level and it was just below the high mark medium-high. We ran it

anyway but it was pumping. (Jordan, personal communication, September 11,

2011)

Jordan was happy with his experience with the online system and the subsequent phone calls with the proponent. Another kayaker who was familiar with the release process noted:

I think from my understanding Innergex was fairly accommodating they tried to

listen to us and hear us they are trying to be in the good books. Or get back in the

good books … I think they have been a fairly honest player … they have become

more responsible and we got our feelings [good feelings back] a bit more. They

have been fairly reliable. (Mersey, personal communication, May 22, 2011)

Mersey, though still upset at the way that the Ashlu Creek project came to fruition, had been content with the communication post project he had with Innergex about the Ashlu project’s release days. Those who have communicated with Innergex have been generally content with response times from Innergexs’ employees related to release days.

One issue that was discussed by four kayakers in this study was they did not know how the process of requesting release days worked. Phoenix replied by saying, “Oh I don’t know about that” (personal communication, September 12, 2011) when asked about what he knows about requesting release days. Another participant who has paddled the

Ashlu had this to say about his knowledge about requesting release days:

I don’t even know where to go to look for levels on the Ashlu. I don’t even know

what a permissible level would be. I don’t know if they are regular with their

flows do they just decide if they are going to do it this weekend or do they decide

a week in advance. Do they let us know a week or two or a month in advance? Or

is there something regular up there? … I don’t know and that to me is bothersome

and I think it should be better publicized. (Hume, personal communication,

September 8, 2011)

Hume was concerned with the level of information he had about this project. He explained that there were no information session about how release days are going to work. Another issue for Hume was that he did not know what a permissible level in cubic meters per second (CMS) would be for the Box Canyon. In order to get information from

Innergex about a release weekend one must vote. However, if a boater is not sure whether or not s/he can paddle then they would typically not vote. Another paddler discussed his understanding surrounding people’s knowledge of Ashlu release days:

No one really knew about the Ashlu releases in 2010 … then in March started I

contacted the company I contacted like 15 people kayakers, kayaking clubs it is

really bad to say but the only people to get back to me after phone calls and

emails was Innergex. (Alum, personal communication, September 16, 2011)

Alum was surprised that no one got back to him about the Ashlu project. He was especially surprised that the proponent was the only person to get back to him. This quote highlighted the need for the last sub-section within the communication theme, as it also referred to mitigation. However, it was discussed here as it connected with the communication theme more appropriately.

5.3.4 Lack of unified voice from the paddling community.

Paddling communities exist in many different areas of the world, including the lower mainland of B.C. There are several paddling communities in this area, including creekers (extreme kayakers), play boaters, slalom paddlers, as well as various intermediate paddlers. Each of these sub-communities has different interests. The absence of consistent desires from the paddling community surrounded several different aspects relating to IPPs and potential mitigation. As previously discussed, some people simply say “no” to a project and are not willing to discuss any kind of mitigation. This potentially leaves the proponent at a loss as to what mitigation would be appropriate to the paddling community. Some kayakers might want features built in the river, some may

want release days, and others may be happy with improved road access and parking spaces.

On a previous project, Innergex tried to compensate the loss of paddling on

Rutherford Creek by developing a slalom park; however, this was met with a great deal of concern because a slalom park does not compensate for the loss of a creek run. Bayou expressed his feelings towards having a creek run compensated with a whitewater park:

That has been the biggest point of controversy - aside from whether or not the

projects can happen … kayakers are as much as fault for that one being a

disaster … [Rutherford Creek] was a class 4+ to 5 creek run and the people in

Whistler, Squamish and around the world came to paddle [Rutherford Creek] and

it was … replaced with a whitewater park [that was] essentially designed for

Slalom paddlers who didn’t lose a resource - [slalom paddlers] gained the

resource but [creekers] were sitting on the sidelines going, now what? (personal

communication, September 16, 2011)

A whitewater play park could be put in anywhere with some gradient and water.

Bayou felt that the uniqueness of Rutherford creek could not be replaced with a different form of recreation and this happened due to the paddling community not having a consistent message and unified voice. Another participant discussed his feelings towards the implications of not having a consistent message from the paddling community:

I’m somewhat passionate on co-use and co-existence I think it can work but it has

been frustrating over the years because of the communication issue between the

user groups and to be quite frank the main issue is actively communicating

between user groups to say this is our guidelines this is what we can do and this is

how hopefully we can address this issue to allow both the project and the user

groups to enjoy this resource but there is a whole bunch of other things about

privatization that gets wrapped up in it and it gets difficult to decipher what can

and can’t be done. (Rand, personal communication, October 4, 2011)

Rand stated that he believes that an agreeable form of mitigation can work.

However, it is the lack of a consistent message from the paddling community that fosters an uncooperative relationship between proponents and paddlers. Another paddler discussed his feelings towards the lack of organization of the paddling community:

If the community of whitewater paddlers are clear of what they want … they

could [get it] but they are not that organized. Because if you talk to ten different

people they are going to have ten different answers. Yes to the road - no to the

road - yes to gravel - no to pavement - yes to a fence - I don’t want a fence - I

want a washroom - I don’t want a washroom. But if you pooled [together, and]

they could reach some kind of a consensus and hand over something to the

proponents saying this is what we would like to see if given the opportunity. But

that doesn’t exist, it’s not set up that way. (Kelvin, personal communication,

September 9, 2012)

Kelvin identified the problem of how so many different viewpoints create problems for the proponent and the community of boaters by not having a consistent message. He adds how important he believes getting this message is:

As a community I don’t think whitewater boaters have … done an adequate job of

stepping up and voicing our concerns with these [IPPs]. I don’t think we’ve been

given the ear of government. I really don’t think there is someone listening to us,

and that’s disheartening. I mean the river belongs to us, the people, it’s not

independent power producers’ water, and it’s the people of Canada. And really

it’s another example of us giving that away and once it’s gone you can’t get it

back and that saddens me. (personal communication, September 9, 2012)

Kelvin went beyond the message of coherent communication; however, without a message from the community, the proponent might not appreciate the importance of this kind of recreation and that, without mitigation, these projects are lost to the public.

5.4 Impacts of IPPs on Recreation

Gaining an understanding of the perceived impacts from hydro development was the primary objective in this study. Numerous questions were asked about the positive and negative impacts for kayakers and several themes emerged.

5.4.1 Nine-to-five paddlers.

The release days have maintained recreation for people who work a typical

Monday to Friday job and, in most cases, it appears that these release days have actually increased this user group’s paddling. Alum, someone who works a 9-5 job, has been able to enjoy the Ashlu more since the dam was built. He stated that he felt that this was primarily due to the release days and the online hydrometric data:

There are no more surprises. The Ashlu has gone from being like they used to do

it once or twice a year cause they didn’t know what the flow is like to now they

can do it a dozen times a year cause there is a gauge online and they have

scheduled releases. So from a user standpoint and days of use I would imagine it

has skyrocketed. (personal communication, September 16, 2011)

On the recreational release days, Innergex tailors how much water is in the creek.

Alum also stated that he used the hydrometric data online to identify days that the power plant is operating at full capacity and water is spilling over the dam. There are potentially more days that the Ashlu spills over the dam to provide navigable flows, due to when the proponent changed the requested nameplate capacity from 70MW to 49.9MW. When asked about the change in the size of the project, Alum responded that:

The Ashlu [is a] big river right. And they only divert a small portion of the flow.

The Rutherford isn’t as big of a river and they divert the same amount of flow …

so the number of days that it is spilling over the dam for runnable flow is much

less. (personal communication, September 16, 2011)

Another paddler echoed that the online flow aided in his paddling:

We get to paddle it more during the summer in the height of summer with the

gauge - I guess it is an advantage because water is being diverted and the gauge

you can predict from the previous day and the weather forecast on when the water

will reach. That is an advantage that we get a few more runs in July that we didn’t

used to get. But it used to be a run that we would do in August, September, April,

March even, April, May and sometimes cold June weekends and then August and

September used to be the prime time for The Box [Canyon]. The season is

certainly shorter these days. (Mersey, personal communication, May 22, 2011)

During peak times during the summer, Mersey agreed that he was able to get on the river some days due to the online data. Other paddlers discussed how the release days have facilitated paddling for them. Bayou discussed that though he works most weekends he has not been able to paddle the Ashlu on recreational release days:

You may have increased the weekend warriors but I think there are less mid-week

after work runs for locals ... they will go and do after work laps but not anymore

during the week unless it is spilling over the dam and because scheduled releases

only happen on weekends. I have a whole bunch of raft guide buddies up in

Squamish and Whistler there is a lot of whitewater rafting and it is part of the lure

for those guys to work there it is not the money they go up there to work in these

places to know that they can get off work and go paddle the Box or the Mine Run

(September 16, 2011)

Bayou stated that he felt that the release days have increased paddling for him, though he alludes to a major feeling amongst some boaters who work weekends: they cannot paddle the Box if they are service industry workers.

5.4.2 Timing of Releases.

The issue with only having releases on the weekend is that some of the highest previous users of the Ashlu are unable to get time off on the weekend because they are raft guides who work weekends. One former Whistler paddler discussed how much he used to paddle in the evenings or before work:

I was paddling and rafting close to 320 days of the year … I did one season in

Whistler, [where] I worked 66 days in a row and I paddled - I rafted 3-4 trips a

day and I kayaked in the morning before work and kayaked two class 5 runs a day

on top of working 3-4 trips per day. (Pheonix, personal communication,

September 12, 2011)

This was at a time before hydro development in the Squamish-Lillooet Regional

District. Rivers like the Rutherford, Sue, and Ashlu had not yet been diverted. It is clear

that Phoenix could not have paddled the Ashlu once in a season if the release days were between 9-5 on the weekends. He also discussed people that he knew who guided in the area. He noted that, “People who work on the weekends have never paddled [the weekend releases] because they’re always weekend releases” (personal communication,

September 12, 2011). Furthermore, Mersey had the same experience of paddling after work in the shoulder season in the SLRD:

We could go … in August … and rally together and go for an early evening

paddle. And maybe get off work at 3 and those were some of the most glorious

days but it’s just not possible anymore. Innergex is trying but the river has been

dammed and there are only a few certain set weekends of the year (personal

communication, May 22, 2011)

Mersey loved getting on the water after work. The quality of river paddling is what brought him to the SLRD. When asked about his upcoming season and if he was going to be able to take advantage of weekend releases he noted, “I’m going to miss out on a lot - especially in August because I won’t have a single weekend free and it [the Box

Canyon of the Ashlu] used to be a run that we could do after work” (Mersey, personal communication, May 22, 2011). Another paddler expressed his frustration with only having releases on the weekend, stating that “Some of these runs will not be possible for me to do” (Kelvin, personal communication, September 9, 2011). Kelvin works nearly every weekend of the year and has not been able to take advantage of weekend releases on the Ashlu as well as other rivers. The weekend releases were seen as the best way to facilitate paddling though 50% of the paddlers in this study work a typical Monday-

Friday workweek. The nature of any industrial project in a river valley is going to have some adverse effects. Some paddlers had a loss of their connection with the wilderness.

5.4.3 Connection with wilderness values lost.

The Ashlu Valley, though heavily logged decades prior, is stunningly beautiful with huge mountain peaks and old growth trees next to the river. Though the majority of the paddlers in this study highlighted the physical act of paddling as the most important aspect of kayaking, visual aesthetics and the wilderness feeling was a big part of why they paddled. There were concerns about how something is lost on the Ashlu after the power project. Phoenix described his experience having been to the valley before and after the project, stating that, “It has changed the whole dynamics around wild places.

Especially places like the Ashlu. It has changed the whole dynamic of the valley … [It has] created a lot of stress and it changes the whole environment” (Phoenix, personal communication, September 12, 2011). Phoenix stated that he felt that the project has changed the valley and the feeling of a wild place. Another participant discussed how the

Ashlu project was described as a “green project”. However, this title only refers to how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere from hydro electric generation. On referring to the project as “green”, Wiley said that:

The Ashlu, they [Ledcor & Innergex] really tried to promote it as a green project

and everything else. There is no green. There is no lack of dam. There is no lack

of powerhouse. Everything is very visible. Very in your face. The dam is huge.

There’s tons and tons of concrete in a place that was remote and beautiful before.

So, it’s kinda sad the way it has gone down. (personal communication, September

19, 2011)

Wiley experienced the Ashlu before and after the project. He does not see this as small hydro and a green project. Hume echoed his frustration because the Ashlu is a very beautiful valley, he noted:

In the case of the Ashlu it is … more disturbing because there is a juxtapositions

between how beautiful that lower canyon is … the carved out little rock sections

the bright blue almost iridescent water the shine coming off of it and how lovely

of a valley it is … So looking at the lower section in comparison to what they

have done above it and just ripped the s--- of that valley part and gravel it all in,

it’s pretty devastating. (personal communication, May 8, 2011)

The Ashlu is a stunning place for those who saw the area before the project.

Afterwards, it is hard to feel at ease because getting to beautiful places is one of the most important benefits from kayaking. Hume added more on his disconnection with the Ashlu

Valley or other industrialized areas:

That is probably what all outdoor pursuits are about, getting away from things. If

you wanted to be around things that are built up by man you stay home. If you

want to get out, the whole point of the exercise of recreation is to avoid that kind

of thing and so IPPs really disturbed that. (personal communication, September 8,

2011)

Hume described how paddling for him is to get away from man-made things and he described how this feeling has been lost for him on the Ashlu. Elaborating on this point, he noted, “And it completely ruined the atmosphere of the river itself … Didn’t want to go back … They just totally ruined the thing ... Feels a bit industrial. Almost like you are paying for a water park” (Hume, personal communication, September 8, 2011).

Hume went to the Ashlu for kayaking and the benefits of nature. Others who enjoy working with the natural fluctuations of rivers felt this loss of wilderness feeling, though some of the weekend releases made it easier to plan trips.

5.4.4 Loss of the “ephemeral feeling” of kayaking.

The paddlers in this study noted how it is a great feeling to look at the weather forecast and make a plan when there is a weather event. It can be compared to skiers waking up and finding out that it is a powder day. When the flows are perfect sometimes the paddlers in this study would drop everything to go paddling while it lasted. Though the release days facilitate paddling, some paddlers in this study felt that they have lost the enjoyment of working with a free flowing system:

It’s not natural - that’s for sure - the whole ephemeral idea of what paddling is all

about and you go when there is water and you don’t when there isn’t or there is

too much. The season has changed there … My experience so far is that you don’t

have the opportunity to take advantage of nature, it’s a man-made control now.

It’s something that is no longer natural - it has specific constraints - you feel like

you are within a boundary and kayaking is not about those boundaries … you’re

paddling one day and you’re not paddling the next because of flow. And those

constraints removed that from you and now there’s expectations that weren’t there

before it’s not free it comes with a cost or a limit and one thing that is very

beneficial for kayaking is that it's free it’s open - it happens when it happens - it

doesn’t when it doesn’t and go with that flow. When there’s a dam or planned

release or anything like that you are stuck with that constraint and that constraint

is very, very, tight. (Wiley, personal communication, September 19, 2011)

Wiley stated that the feeling of kayaking on a dammed river is different from one that is free flowing. It is a feeling of being constrained by industry; rather, he likes to get out into nature and finds a lot of enjoyment on free flowing systems. The constraints of working with a power company have taken some of the enjoyment of the Ashlu away from him. Several participants echoed this. Jordan discussed his feeling of paddling down the Ashlu during construction:

That was one of the more profound IPP moments for sure - was paddling through

a half completed site in a place that didn’t have a site before. I don’t try to get too

wing-nutty but I didn’t feel good about that. (personal communication, September

11, 2011)

The construction phase of the Ashlu project saw a lot of logging and in-stream works. Jordan did not feel good after coming from a pristine area to a construction site and remembering what it was like in its natural state. Another paddler discussed his experience working with hydro projects:

It is different because you are stuck there in a line up of 50 boaters cause

everyone knows when it [the release day] is and everyone is waiting for it to

happen and it is not quite the same. It becomes quite a commercial process and it

is not what we are used to here because there is a rain event or I don’t have class

on Thursday and do you want to go paddle. So when you have set dates - it does

take away from it. (Leith, personal communication, September 15, 2011)

Leith found that release days led to crowding on some rivers. The Ashlu has not seen this level of activity and one paddler in this study was happy to see people on the river:

[The] last few weekends have been fairly busy. I was surprised to see lots of

people from Vancouver on the class 3 mini-mine section. We saw maybe six or

seven cars here the other weekend it was very very encouraging. (Mersey,

personal communication, May 22, 2011)

The Ashlu is not having crowding issues, though the feeling of a free flowing stream and the associated benefits such as a ‘mini-vacation away from society and other life stresses’ are lessened or disappear entirely. Kelvin described how he enjoys whitewater kayaking because it is tied to the weather and the ephemeral feeling of kayaking:

Whitewater boating is tied to weather. It’s all you’re ever doing is looking at rain

snowpack, temperature and that stuff. I find this interesting right, so you know if

it’s been pissing rain, the rivers are jacking, you have a window before the rivers

get too high and things are perfect for this run at this level and off you go. And

that is part of the excitement there is a weather event just like a big powder day at

the ski hill it is the exact same thing. And once you prescribe it all and on this day

the level will be at this. Certainly there is a certain utility in the handiness of that

but then it removes maybe the excitement around weather events on windows on

timing on motivating and activating groups quickly to take advantage. It really

changes the nature of how you’re going to pursue the sport. (personal

communication, September 9, 2011)

Kelvin described the feeling of how dams change the sport of whitewater kayaking. Though recreation can be maintained, the feeling that kayakers get from interacting with a river in its natural state has decreased. On the Ashlu, kayakers can still

get some of the ephemeral feeling of kayaking in mid-summer when the river is flowing over the dam. However, the flows regime has been changed and though there are still days with appropriate river levels during full production it can be challenging to mind appropriate river levels.

5.5 Mitigation

The major theme of mitigation primarily deals with the Ashlu Creek; however, it will include other possible forms of mitigation for IPP projects as these provide further insight. As noted in the previous section, there are many different forms of mitigation that paddlers seek. It is important to distinguish between mitigation and compensation. As discussed, on Rutherford Creek, Innergex Renewable Energy Inc. agreed to spend a considerable amount of money to build a whitewater play park. When asked about potential impacts with the Ashlu, participants discussed different kinds of direct and indirect impacts..

5.5.1 Access road is a benefit.

Before the hydro project on the Ashlu began, the road to the river was in disrepair. This was stated by several participants, including Mersey: “Before 2006 … the road was in really s----- conditions, really s----- shape it was a bit of a mission to get up there … [a] 4X4 was necessary” (personal communication, May 22, 2011). Many IPP projects involve constructing or improving the roads. To many in this study, it was considered a project benefit and very good indirect compensation.

Rand described how proponents will often highlight the benefit of the project by highlighting the improved access, he noted that, “proponents will always come to you and say that we are improving the roads to these areas and that is a project benefit - that’s

our mitigation. Well yes, but not really, no” (Rand, personal communication, October 4,

2011). Rand felt that though the road is a benefit, it should not be the sole project benefit to kayakers. Some of the kayakers did not care about improved access as mitigation. For example, Jordan stated, “I don’t care about that one bit and I don’t think we should. I think as close to the natural state as possible is good” (Jordan, personal communication,

September 11, 2011). Though Jordan would still have preferred a natural state, some paddlers felt that once an area has a project, why not make it even easier for paddlers?

For example, Hume stated that:

If they are making money off of these places and if they are essentially causing a

disruption to our access there are things they can do even beyond releases to

improve our access - why don’t they pave the road to the Ashlu? (personal

communication, May 8, 2011)

Hume felt that proponents should go above and beyond to compensate paddlers with better roads. With the idea of going above and beyond, participants were asked about how they felt about improving access to a different section of the Ashlu that is primarily outside of the bypass reach of the project.

5.5.2 “Mine Run” road in disrepair.

The “Mine-Run” is a kayak section above the Box Canyon that exists mostly above the bypass intake for the hydro project. At the time of this study, the road to the put-in for the Mine–Run was in disrepair. I asked participants if they would consider improved access through improving the road to the Mine-Run or to Tatlow Creek, the

Ashlu Creek largest tributary, as mitigation. Wiley thought that improved access would be great, he noted, “Access is a huge mitigation – it would be a huge mitigation but the

proponents are not willing to do it” (Wiley, personal communication, September 19,

2011). Wiley agreed with better road access in this system but he doubted that the proponent would do it because they are not required to. Hume agreed that the proponent would not consider this kind of mitigation if they were not required to do so by law:

I should clarify - I don’t by any means expect that the private companies going to

necessarily volunteer this kind of thing if they don’t have any incentive of their

own. Rather, what I would like to see is some sort of strengthening of government

regulations to require them if they are going to come in here and do this thing …

there needs to be some sort of mechanism within the regulatory part of it with the

government itself to ensure that they do certain compensatory actions to offset the

bad things that they are doing. (personal communication, May 8, 2011)

This statement highlights Hume feels that kayakers deserve more mitigation for future paddling and more effort should be made for the paddling community to make paddling more accessible. Companies need to go above and beyond current measures as development persists. He discussed why he felt that companies need to do more than maintain recreation:

Hume, as well as others, believed that even if you maintain recreation by providing release days, there should still be other compulsory measures for ruining certain benefits that they get from creeking. Every paddler in this study believed that maintaining water in their river is the most important mitigation measure.

5.5.3 Recreational flow release.

Release days is when Innergex provides in-stream flows for recreation 24 days per calendar year. They tailor the flow of the river to a level deemed appropriate for kayaking based on an online voting system. The need for release days depends on the post-project hydrograph predictions as identified by Transport Canada. One participant described how release day mitigation is developed:

You only look at the pre and the post hydrograph and superimpose on that

hydrograph known user days and the equivalent flows. Everything after that just

becomes academic as to what to do. The extent of the impact is defined as to

whether or not there are adequate number of user-days available to the users at

post project flows that are equivalent to when they ran the project on pre-project

flows. That’s when you start talking about mitigation. (Polaris, personal

communication, October 4, 2011)

Guidelines are in place and proponents must act accordingly. Alum stated that he believes that, regardless of the guidelines, there should be release days in place:

I think the two most important things are having releases specific for whitewater

recreation and providing their gauging information and I think those are of equal

importance. (personal communication, September 16, 2011)

Alum stated that release days are important and that is what has maintained his recreation on the Ashlu. Alum stated that he believes that the release days have increased his level of recreation:

There are no more surprises - the Ashlu has gone from being like they [kayakers]

used to do it once or twice a year cause they didn’t know what the flow is like to

now they can do it a dozen times a year cause there is a gauge online and they

have scheduled releases so if the flow isn’t quite right so they can adjust them to

make it right. So from a user standpoint and days of use I would imagine it has

sky rocketed because you have got the release days plus the days of the year that

the water is flowing over the dam? (personal communication, September 16,

2011)

Alum found that his recreation has increased. However, he cautions that the

Ashlu is special and that other rivers without release days specific to recreation has seriously hindered kayaking:

The Ashlu is a special case, though it is one of the only IPPs in BC that has

mitigation of kayaking in mind. If you look at Pingsten creek in the Kootenays …

that thing is virtually impossible to paddle because of the diversion. No one

knows the flows … There was no mitigation basically there are no releases -

there’s no gauge. (personal communication, September 16, 2011)

Alum, along with others, believes that release days do help to mitigate losses to recreation from IPPs. The Ashlu is special because there are several sections on the river that appeal to kayakers. All of the sections on the Ashlu were impacted by the project.

For the sections downstream of the dam release days were provided for the Box Canyon.

The sections above and below the Box Canyon including the Bottom Mile section were apparently forgotten when considering appropriate mitigation for this creek.

5.5.4 Lack of mitigation for different sections.

When kayakers are asked to talk about the Ashlu, they think of the Box Canyon section. It is the run that made the Ashlu Creek famous and why paddlers were concerned

about the hydro project. Possibly for this reason, other sections within and outside of the bypass reach were forgotten about. There were several ideas on how to maintain kayaking on the Ashlu that would not affect Innergex’s ability to produce power.

Paddlers thought that it would be great to have hydrometric data for river sections above the bypass reach. Mersey explained that, “They could put that on the internet. I don’t think there is that on the internet right now” (Mersey, personal communication,

May 22, 2011). One of the participants thought that this was a problem because the proponent possibly considers that information proprietary. Wiley explained that he would like to have the information on how much water is being diverted:

The one thing I find typically frustrating with proponents is they feel the data is

proprietary and they are very reticent to give out that information. It has to stay

private and it makes it very difficult, even more difficult especially when there is a

proponent in the area, to plan with proper flows and you don’t know what you are

really going to get and the Ashlu is a key example of where you really don’t know

what you are going to get outside of the diverted reach which is a bit of an issue.

(personal communication, September 19, 2011)

Wiley was frustrated that the proponent does not disclose how much water they are diverting. The Bottom Mile and the Mini-Mine Run are within the bypass reach but had little to no mitigation. Wiley was frustrated that there is no mitigation for the Mini-

Mine section and the Bottom Mile section:

There’s no option for the bottom mile. There is no differentiation for the Mini-

Mine and the Box where the Mini-Mine needs way more water than the box does

so it eliminates that. (personal communication, September 19, 2011)

The Mini-Mine section is a broader section of river that paddlers could benefit from because there it appeals to a wider skill range group of paddlers. Alum echoed

Wiley’s feelings about the Mini-Mine:

None of the class 5 section is affected – Mini-Mine is severely affected and it is

difficult not to do the mine run at a good flow and do the mini-mine at a good

flow unless it is a release weekend. (personal communication, September 16,

2011)

Even during release weekends Alum thought that the Mini-Mine is not what it used to be. For the best paddling, it needs a lot of water and there is no option for that with the current mitigation measures surrounding release days. More troublesome for

Alum was the complete lack of mitigation for the Bottom Mile section:

It needs really low water and there is no provision within their release scheduled

for them to release water that is low enough for that section to be runnable …

Now the Bottom Mile of the Ashlu has basically been rendered un-runnable

(September 16, 2011).

When asked why he thought the Bottom Mile did not get appropriate mitigation,

Alum responded that:

I think it was just overlooked cause the Box Canyon … is the crown jewel of

kayaking in the sea to sky corridor. You know that and Tatlow and the Callahan

or like you know that’s what everyone raves about and I think it [the Bottom

Mile] just got overlooked when the mitigation came to pass or maybe they

thought it was used so little that you know boaters would make it work when it

100

flows over the dam. For me that is something that wasn’t addressed properly.

(personal communication, September 16, 2011)

The Bottom Mile is arguably one of the hardest sections to paddle on the Ashlu.

This could be another reason that it was overlooked as it appeals to a small user group.

This research has shown that kayakers are frequenting the Bottom Mile section more often due to online hydrometric data.

5.5.5 Online hydrometric data.

The online hydrometric data has enabled paddlers to paddle the Mini-Mine, Box

Canyon and the Bottom Mile during hydroelectric production at times of high flow while the power plant is diverting water. Hydrometric data has been identified as a project benefit by all the paddlers in this study. One issue that was noted is that hydrometric data is of little use if the post-project hydrograph rarely creates a situation appropriate for kayaking - as is the case for Rutherford Creek. There is a gauge, however, due to the nature of the creek there is rarely enough water to fill the penstock so that the turbines are at full capacity. It was noted that it is extremely rare to have enough water spilling over the dam to provide kayakers with enough flow. Speaking to this point, Alum stated that,

“Rutherford is basically ruined.” (personal communication, September 16, 2011)

Alum and other paddlers have found it difficult even with hydrometric data to get on the river due to the IPPs lack of release days for mitigation. However, online hydrometric data has been identified as a project benefit. Wiley stated that he believes if development is going to go through then recreation should benefit as well:

That is what development is all about its growth and growth happens for the

proponent and growth happens for recreation. If recreation has more information

101

it’s going to grow; it is part and parcel. If you’re going to put a project on a river

that river, now has more information, that river is going to have more use and that

is the nature of the beast and the proponent has to be willing to accept that. They

are going to be able to produce power they are going to be able to take more

advantage from the system well recreation can too … what’s wrong with that?

(personal communication, September 19, 2011)

The dream of the Rutherford Creek play park was that kayakers would have a place to practice kayaking and the sport would grow. Unfortunately, the play park is not functioning. Through design errors the park is deemed dangerous. Furthermore, organizations were not able to get insurance to use the park. There is certainly some room for improvement with the release days on the Ashlu Creek. The system could evolve to accommodate more paddlers.

5.6 Summary

There are benefits to whitewater kayaking and that it is possible for many of these benefits to exist as long as release days are maintained on the Ashlu. The benefits from extreme kayaking include personal growth and social bonding. Some people experience their best feelings from knowing they can travel to places on the planet and discover a river that has some white water. It is likely that like-minded people will be on the river sharing similar passions.

Paddlers and members of the public were troubled with how the IPP project emerged. New provincial policy striking local control of local resources coupled with poor communication and engagement practices by the proponent throughout the phases of the development process complicated matters further. However, upon completion of

102

the project, and despite the feeling that communication between paddlers and the proponent were difficult at times, it was felt that communication had improved in the latter stages of the project.

Participants noted that during the IPP approval process on Rutherford Creek, the kayaking community did not articulate their wants or needs adequately. Also, it was apparent that consensus was lacking among kayakers regarding flow levels and which sections deserved the most mitigation on the Ashlu. Because of the inability to meet the needs of the kayaking community, there are many paddlers who feel that paddling on the

Ashlu is a much different experience, and not for the better.

For some participants these impacts related to not being able to take advantage of release days or that their connection with nature would no longer be possible once the

Ashlu was industrialized. However, many felt that some of the negative impacts could be minimized through appropriate mitigation – with the preface that they would prefer a free flowing stream.

The mitigation process is perhaps the most important element where clear communication is needed in order to maintain the benefits from this form of recreation.

The most meaningful mitigation was shown to be release days and online hydrometric data. The Ashlu has several different sections within the bypass reach. During the communication process surrounding mitigation some elements were missed surrounding these different sections and different flow requirements.

Though the community engagement process pre-development resulted in the

SLRD voting against a project on the Ashlu, Bill 30 removed their decision making power. Appropriate policy needs to be in place to maintain kayaking so that participants

103

can receive the desired benefits from paddling. IPPs and Transport Canada and other agencies and actors involved in this type of development have been shown that they can provide reasonable levels of mitigation, however, there are still some areas where there could be improvements. Lastly, it can be said that creeking delivers an inherently unique feeling among some recreationists and the Ashlu is an especially special place to the paddlers who choose to paddle in that valley over other options.

104

CHAPTER 6: Discussion

The goal of this research was to gain a better understanding of the impacts of independent hydropower production on water-based recreation on creeks and rivers, with a specific focus on whitewater kayaking. The purpose of this research was to identify:

● the benefits associated with whitewater kayaking on the Ashlu Creek;

● the impacts of IPP Run-of-River (RoR) projects on whitewater kayakers;

● the extent to which these impacts are mitigated by developers;

● recommendations for policy development related to IPPs and whitewater

kayaking.

Through a critical exploration of the literature and an analysis of the results of interviews, there were several themes that emerged from this research that support deeper insight into the development of Ashlu Creek: These are:

I. Recreation benefits

II. Place attachment in the context of the development

III. Conflict

IV. Legal and inferred property rights

The discussion of recreation benefits and place attachment support a deeper and broader discussion on conflict that is associated with IPP development and whitewater paddlers, as well as what lessons can be derived from this conflict, and the subsequent mitigation of the conflict. The following section discusses the theoretical contributions and implications of this study.

105

6.1 Theoretical Contribution and Implications

The purpose of this study was to explore the development of a Run-of-River project on Ashlu Creek (BC), and its impacts on water-based recreation with a specific focus on creekboating. Recreation benefits and place attachment were key concepts that emerged both in the literature review and in the data, which in turn were framed within the context of public and private policy practices related to IPP development.

6.2 Recreation benefits

This study highlighted a variety of personal benefits that can occur through interaction with nature. These benefits include personal growth and development, and social bonding (Easley, Passineau, & Driver, 1990). The many benefits from being physically active have been a focus of this study as they are routinely mentioned by kayakers as a reason why they choose creeking as their preferred form of outdoor recreation.

While physical activity is important and has many benefits, one can do this in many different forms. This study shows that creeking requires a very unique skill set and paddlers in this study noted that creeking on the Ashlu enabled them to tune and hone their skills to a more advanced degree than would have been possible on intermediate rivers. The joy of looking at rapids, finding one’s line, and executing the moves required to successfully navigate the rapids was a primary driver for most of the kayakers in this study. It was not simply about getting to the bottom of the rapid; rather, performing well and working with the river to heighten the sense of accomplishment.

Other benefits of creeking were described as social bonding. Research on the

Ashlu Creek supports Easley, Passineau, and Driver’s (1990) work, which suggested that

106

wilderness trips are beneficial, especially if there is a component of social bonding. This study showed that creeking is typically done by a group of kayakers. Rarely does one go by him or herself. The connection with likeminded people and a feeling that you are part of a local, national, and international community of kayakers is a benefit of whitewater kayaking. This study demonstrated the value of spending time in these social networks, and that participants felt better at the end of a day creeking than other activities.

Highlighting the range of benefits accrued from paddling the Ashlu Creek is not an especially significant contribution to knowledge in the broader field of outdoor recreation. However, exploring these benefits, and to some degree consecrating these benefits with respect to IPP development in British Columbia, is unique, important, and timely. There is a sense of urgency in British Columbia for both protecting wild rivers for their aesthetic and recreation values, as well as their use for energy production. This dynamic tension that exists between these competing uses has been explored within the

Ashlu Creek context. The range of outdoor recreation benefits associated with paddling the Ashlu and other creeks and rivers underscores the deep attachment to place, a key theme emerging from the results of this study.

6.3 Place Attachment in the Context of Development

William and Roggenbuck (1989) described place attachment using their framework that explores how people value a recreation setting in terms of symbolic, functional and emotional meanings. It was shown that remote riparian areas are special to the kayaking community, since nearly every kayaker in this study discussed how being on the Ashlu, or other rivers of a similar nature, gave them extreme joy. Numerous paddlers discussed how their lives are positively impacted, even while not on the river.

107

During the ‘mundane’ daily routine they can think of the river as a special place in their hearts and have a sense of peace (Bayou, September 8, 2011). For numerous people, this attachment was, or can be, fixated on one specific area or zone.

Wolf, Sticker and Hagenloh (2014) discussed how place attachment can be specific to one place and one community and therefore is not necessarily easily exchangeable. This study shows that the Box Canyon of the Ashlu Creek, as well as other sections on the Ashlu, were shown as unique places that cannot be exchanged with other rivers in the area. Stokol and Schumacker (1981) discussed how participants measure the quality and quantity of a place and compare it to other places in order to determine whether or not they are dependent on a specific spot. There are many other rivers that have spectacular creekboating in the lower mainland of British Columbia, however, the

Box Canyon on the Ashlu has often been described as, “the crown jewel of kayaking in the sea to sky corridor” (Alum, September 16, 2011). Other sections of the river have been described as “classic.” The diversity of whitewater, the proximity of the Ashlu to

Squamish and the Whistler area, and how the Ashlu can have appropriate water levels at certain times of the year when other rivers are not navigable, were important to kayakers in this study, and confirmed the theory of resource specificity, as identified by Jacob and

Schreyer (1980). Many of the benefits cannot be attained by paddling a different river system.

This study also proved how creekboating is different than other water-based pursuits, and that this activity style, as descried by Jacob and Schreyer (1980), brings a strong sense of personal meaning. Part of this meaning comes from the challenges and risks related to the sport. This was demonstrated by kayakers on the Ashlu Creek as they

108

enjoyed being in a difficult and remote river canyon and performing under pressure and having the ability to overcome the fear of potential injury or death (Alum, personal communication, September 16, 2011). The Ashlu provides the perfect mix of white water hazards and significant natural beauty; an environment unlike others. For this reason, the Ashlu became a favoured spot for paddlers. Once the paddling community learned of the impending IPP development, the connection to place intensified.

Place attachment is significant in the context of IPP’s and whitewater paddling on the Ashlu. The symbolic, functional and emotional meanings that paddlers attach to the

Ashlu Creek would not be dissimilar to what other paddlers might experience in other riparian environments in British Columbia, but it is important to remember that even though other rivers might provide similar experiences, it is not like being on the Ashlu.

Highlighting this sense of attachment to the Ashlu Creek provides insight into the deeper meaning behind recreation and resource development conflict and its mitigation, and moves the discussion beyond simply the “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) discourse.

6.4 Conflict

The Ashlu Creek case study explored the development of the IPP and its impacts on the paddling community. Benefits and place attachment were both the theoretical constructs that underlie the resulting conflict and mitigation measures. The following section highlights this conflict.

6.4.1 Kayakers versus Development.

Independent Power Producers (IPPs) seek river characteristics that are often similar to those sought by whitewater kayakers (Hynes & Hanley, 2004). The study illustrated the idea that competing interests on the Ashlu between water-based recreation

109

enthusiasts and hydropower production companies generated both interpersonal and social values conflict (Vaske, et al. 1995). Participants in this study were affected in numerous ways, beginning with the initiation of energy development.

In the SLRD (Squamish-Lillooet Regional District) had an Official Community

Plan (OCP) where tourism and recreation values were prioritized over the commercial development of natural resources. But despite this protection under the Squamish-

Lillooet Regional District regulatory purview, the creation of Bill 30 under the Utilities

Commission Act in the British Columbia legislature trumped local and regional protection of natural resources.

Many stakeholders were upset and frustrated by their inability to learn more about the project, despite the efforts by the proponent in trying to appease both the paddling community and local citizens. While engagement processes should be based on trust, transparency, and credibility (Kerr, 2014), many factors that paddlers felt existed during the pre-construction phase of the IPP diminished significantly during the construction process, after the initial consultations which involved this level of engagement and transparency. This is typical in many development projects where significant effort is put into stakeholder buy-in and once this occurs, engagement diminishes considerably

(Colton, 2013). Another key insight that was developed in this study was noting the conflict between and among the same stakeholder group, such as the paddling community.

6.4.2 Mitigation vs. Compensation.

There are several paddling ‘communities’ in the lower mainland of BC, including creekers, play boaters, slalom paddlers, as well as various intermediate river runners.

110

Each of these communities has different interests, but all rely on maintaining flows in local rivers. As noted in an interview with Bayou (September 16, 2011, most of these communities have a united voice in that they oppose the damming of British Columbia rivers. The Rutherford Creek IPP, for example, was developed around the time of the study in the Sea-to-Sky corridor and was the focal point of conflict within the paddling community. This conflict demonstrated the importance of some forms of mitigation over others.

In the Rutherford Creek case, the energy proponent working with support of some members of the local paddling community designed and built a whitewater park. This park was largely beneficial to slalom paddlers only, as this park was more course-like and did not accommodate typical paddlers or creekers looking for natural river runs (Bayou, personal communication, September 16, 2011). The result was that “a class 4+ to 5 creek run … [was] replaced with a whitewater park [that was] essentially designed for slalom paddler[s] who didn’t lose a resource – [Slalom paddlers] gained the resource, but

[creekers] were sitting on the sidelines” (September 16, 2011). The Rutherford Creek experience explored compensation options in light of competing interests in one of the local paddling communities.

The earlier focus of the Ashlu experience was centered around whether or not the project should proceed. But once the project was approved, the local kayaking community began to focus on mitigation measures that would support their continued use of the Ashlu Creek instead of any form of compensation.

Underscoring this conflict and the subsequent mitigation, was the sense of ownership that kayakers felt over the Ashlu Creek. While it is true that there was no

111

proprietary ownership, the use of the river over several decades by kayakers gave many of them a sense of de facto ownership. Supporting this feeling of ownership was the fact that the Ashlu Creek was technically owned by the Crown, or to put it another way, a public resource. This point was echoed by a research participant who noted, “The river belongs to us, the people, it’s not independent power producers’ water, and it’s the people of Canada” (Kelvin, personal communication, September 9, 2012). This sense of inferred property rights by the kayakers became legitimized somewhat by the decision of the

Squamish-Lillooet Regional District to reject the IPP project to a degree with the concept of ‘value-based judgements’ as described by Ewert, Baker and Bissix (2004).

Ewert, Baker and Bissix (2004) suggested, “competing and changing claims for property rights are often the basis for conflict and change within society” (p. 93). Driving the change in the Ashlu Creek and many other rivers was a decision made by the British

Columbia government to meet renewable energy targets with the aim of becoming energy self-sufficient in just over a decade. This provided the context for IPP development and creation of Bill 30. This process of IPP development was legitimized by the government and supporting regulations despite the growing concerns of the paddling community.

Even though kayakers felt a sense of ownership over their favourite paddling spot, this inferred sense of ownership was not as legitimate as the claim on the Ashlu Creek by the

IPP developer.

There is a new normal on the Ashlu Creek. Gone are the days of paddlers throwing their boats onto their cars and heading to the river when the urge to challenge themselves and experience the raw intensity of nature called them. Today, a trip to the

Ashlu is more about checking water levels on the IPP company’s website, wondering if

112

they released as much water as they predicted, and checking your watch to make sure you don’t miss the release time. What types of benefits or place attachment will be discussed in a decade in this context?

113

CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Key Insights

Rivers are like playgrounds, and as more are developed there is a strong possibility that recreation paddling will suffer. This research has shown that kayakers receive a range of benefits from paddling the Ashlu Creek that cannot be satisfied through other forms of outdoor recreation. While not all the benefits exist post- development, specifically those relating to wilderness aesthetics, the majority of the kayakers explained that their primary love was enjoying the movement of water and mastering their preferred form of recreation. The Ashlu Creek was also shown as a unique place for respondents, which is not interchangeable with other places, due to specific values that are attributed to the valley.

Though theoretical in nature, there are a few notable implications that can be learned from this research. This study discussed a number of instances of what Vaske et al. (1995) described as interpersonal and social values conflict with the approval process, communication, mitigation, compensation, historical usage, and the loss of natural settings due to industrialization. In order to support water-based recreation on the Ashlu and other creeks and rivers that have been, or will be, industrialized, it is necessary to carefully manage its development so that recreation can be maintained, and for industry to know what to suggest when trying to mitigate and compensate for a project’s impacts on the people who have been using the space before the development occurred.

Providing release days is a successful way of preserving water-based recreation on the Ashlu Creek; however, a perfect system, if there is such a thing, is not yet in place.

It remains glaringly obvious that the mitigation efforts on the Ashlu were mostly

114

appropriate for the Box Canyon section within the bypass reach of the river. The Mini- mine and the Bottom Mile received little to no attention. No responses were received from Innergex on the possibility of increasing the number of release days for either section. This is especially curious, as the ‘Bottom Mile’ does not need much water when compared to the ‘Mini-mine.’ Furthermore, this section has become almost unusable since the smallest fluctuation of flow can make the section too high or too low.

Mitigation on the Ashlu Creek has been more successful than compensation, particularly compensation as it occurred on Rutherford Creek with the development of a whitewater park. Real-time hydrometric data helps creekboaters to plan trips during normal hydropower production on the Ashlu. However, flow data only helps if their stream and snowpack characteristics are such that navigable conditions exist after development. The Rutherford Creek is an example of a smaller creek that has the same nameplate capacity as the Ashlu and is navigable less often during full operations, therefore, careful analysis of the post-project hydrograph must demonstrate that there will be numerous days that have appropriate levels for navigation.

A series of recommendations is highlighted below that support other mitigation and compensation efforts on the Ashlu. Provided there are appropriate flows, it appears that many of the benefits that range from personal growth, development, and social bonding can still exist on a river that is actively being used for hydroelectric production.

7.2 Recommendations

The primary purpose of this research was to understand impacts and ways to potentially minimize negative impacts. It is essential to prudently manage development

115

so that industry can meaningfully contribute to the sport of whitewater kayaking and know that their efforts are going to be positively received by the public.

Recommendation #1: Provide more context with historical usage and review the number of required paddling days.

Historical usage was not sufficiently addressed in this instance. The core paddling season as identified by kayakers is between April and October. Industry described the core paddling season as between May and September. The data set used to establish historical usage was fundamentally flawed as it was derived from a study between June

21st – October 19th, 2003, and road access was closed twice during this time. Therefore, much of the paddling season may not have been accurately depicted. The result is that the

Ashlu has potentially fewer release days.

Recommendation #2: Provide mitigation as it is more effective than compensation.

Perhaps the most relevant result from this study was the importance of maintaining navigable flows in the rivers as a means of mitigating against impacts.

Transport Canada is no longer entertaining any ideas of compensation like building man- made river features such as an artificial playwave or a whitewater park like that on

Rutherford Creek, as they find it is not within their jurisdiction to say what a proponent is responsible for or not (Polaris, 2011).

Recommendation #3: Provide appropriate forms of terrestrial compensation.

Though Transport Canada is only looking at the pre- and post-hydrograph and comparing that with historical usage, this study shows that some forms of compensation could be valuable for creekboaters. Improved road access is widely regarded as a net

116

benefit of the project. Improving road access to other sections outside the bypass reach would be important compensation. Access to Mine Run and Tatlow Creek could be improved. At present it is a ‘gruelling 5-hour hike’ to the put-in of Tatlow.

Recommendation #4: Re-establish year round real-time hydrometric data.

Hydrometric data has the potential to mitigate against lost paddling days, given certain river characteristics. Innergex removed the gauge during winter of 2016/2017 until May 2017 because it was being damaged. Kayakers use this data to find days where there is enough water in the bypass reach during times when the power plant is fully operational. If it is not possible to have real-time flow data, it would be beneficial to kayakers if Innergex could look at alternatives to provide kayakers with any information while the gauge is removed during the winter season. A web-camera with a staff gauge could help. Alternatively, knowing how much power the project is generating could also help kayakers assess whether or not the Mine Run is within an appropriate range for kayaking.

Recommendation #5: Establish year-round hydrometric data online outside the bypass reach.

This study shows that kayakers would benefit from having real-time hydrometric data from above the dam as well as the bypass reach. Knowing how much water is being diverted for hydro generation could help to maintain or increase the amount of recreation on Ashlu Creek. It is a matter of mathematical certainty, Innergex knows exactly how much water is being diverted, and if they made that information public, paddlers would be able to infer how much water is in the Mine Run above the dam. Furthermore, for the

Bottom Mile section below the dam, kayakers could hypothesize instances when the

117

power plant is nearly at maximum capacity and water would soon be spilling over the top; enabling kayakers to go paddling. It would also give kayakers an idea of what the level is on Tatlow Creek – a popular river despite the difficult access.

Recommendation #6: Establish an archive of historical hydrometric data.

In addition to knowing what the current river level is above the dam, this study shows that kayakers would benefit from access to historical data. The hydrometric data that Innergex releases only shows people the data from the previous 24 hours. To further improve kayaking on the Ashlu, it would be beneficial to have more access to historical information to better assist kayakers to plan for trips in the future. If historical data could be made available, kayakers would be able to better plan future trips as they could correlate current weather forecasts and snow profiles to make decisions about where to paddle.

Recommendation #7: Establish better cooperation with the government and the removal of Bill 30.

Processes followed at the Municipal level involved meaningful and democratic community engagement. Bill 30 eliminated some decision-making power at the local level on projects that are under 50MW. The resulting conflict was, and still is, contentious with the kayaking community. Removing Bill 30 would allow more oversight at a local level when managing social values attached to natural resources.

Recommendation #8: Establishing better communication with IPPs and creekboaters to identify release times/flows and access.

118

Create an online database or app that kayakers can access remotely to get up-to- date information on access closures, release days, real-time hydrometric data from above the dam, year-round information on river levels, how to use the system.

Recommendation #9: Provide specific mitigation for all navigable sections on the Ashlu Creek.

Create an online survey to better identify current flow needs for the Mini-mine,

Box Canyon, and Bottom Mile sections and understand how users think release days should be divided to accommodate all sections of the river. Paddlers on the Ashlu also noted that the Bottom Mile needs very low water and how a very minimal rise in baseline flows could often accommodate usage on the river.

7.3 Future research

This study has identified several recommendations for managers. Future research may wish to look at the following areas to further assess and/or reduce negative impacts to water-based recreation, and potentially increase a social license from the paddling community to build dams in British Columbia.

Small hydro RoR projects should not be built to their maximum output.

It is possible that Ashlu Creek has numerous days that are still navigable as a result of the downgrading from 70MW to 50MW. Future research examining the

Rutherford Creek (50MW) and other rivers hydrograph data might show that recreation could be substantially increased if future projects were built on a smaller scale and diverted less water.

Coordinate releases for different rivers to avoid overlap.

119

Establish a cumulative IPP river hydrometric flow and release day database for all rivers in BC. Many of the release days on RoR projects in BC overlap with one another.

Ideally creating a province-wide database would allow kayakers to vote for different rivers and potentially have a circuit route of rivers that have release days.

Identify forms of compensation that would be acceptable for kayakers and

development proponents.

Establish a better understanding about what different forms of indirect compensation would be appropriate. Though Transport Canada only looks at the pre- and post-hydrograph and compares that with historical usage, this study shows that some forms of compensation that do not involve in-river works could be valuable for creekboaters.

Tailored flow or natural flow?

It is still unclear in the kayaking community what the preferred method would be regarding natural flow v. designated water levels. Some of the participants in this study suggested that some proponents are in favour of not tailoring the river levels for liability reasons. The proponent potentially sees tailoring specific flows for kayakers as condoning extreme kayaking - an inherently dangerous pursuit. Furthermore, they feel that if they say they are releasing a certain amount of water, and it is higher than reported, that they are going to be held responsible if there is an accident.

This study shows that the timing of release days is difficult for some kayakers to access, and natural flow may create a more specific set of weather events and seasonal flows in order to have appropriate water levels. This is further compounded because release days are not flexible, and are most often forfeited if conditions are too high or too

120

low for navigable levels. Though preliminary thoughts are that tailored flows are preferable to kayakers, more research is needed as some creekboaters might prefer the ephemeral feeling of natural flows and the subtle or major divergences from set flow regimes. Natural flows on paddling day may lessen the feeling of being on an industrialized river however, may also decrease the overall number of days that the river was paddled in a year.

A formal review of rivers that do not have online hydrometric data and

organized release days.

The sport of creeking is continually growing. It would be interesting to explore what the result of more hydrometric data could be on the sport of creeking.

7.4 Limitations

There are some key limitations of this study that need to be addressed. The researcher looked to known users of the Ashlu to depict impacts to water-based river users. Therefore, many of the participants were advanced and expert whitewater kayakers; beginners and novices may not have been adequately represented. This study was based on one-time primarily formal in-person interviews. These results are limited, and the primary data therefore may not represent the general population of creekboaters at large.

Much of the research in the study is dated, due to a long delay between when it was gathered and when the final Master’s Thesis was published. The information provided in this study has yet to be replicated or explored since the time of this study.

Therefore, this research provides a perspective during 2010-2011 for this field of study.

More research could promote a deeper understanding of navigational effects for

121

creekboaters on Ashlu Creek, as well as other rivers that have experienced similar projects, however the data must be interpreted with care.

7.5 Conclusion

Provided that there are appropriate flows, it appears that many of the benefits that range from personal growth, development, and social bonding can still exist on a river that is actively being used for hydroelectric production. However, to some respondents who use extreme kayaking as a means of escape, industrialized rivers, like the Ashlu, are less attractive because of the loss of some of the natural beauty. The river has profoundly changed as it contains in-stream works, transmission corridors, and deforestation around the dam and powerhouse site.

The key findings of this study indicated that providing release days is a successful way of preserving water-based recreation on the Ashlu Creek; however, a perfect system is not yet in place. It remains glaringly obvious that the mitigation efforts on the Ashlu were mostly appropriate for the Box Canyon section within the bypass reach. The Mini- mine and the Bottom Mile received little to no attention. This is especially curious as the

‘Bottom Mile’ does not need much water to allow for kayaking, only around triple the minimum release. Furthermore, this section of the creek has become almost unusable since the smallest fluctuation of flow can make the section too high or too low.

7.6 Final Word

The opportunity to interview government officials, industry leaders, and kayakers has been a rewarding experience. This research could not have happened without people taking time out of their busy lives to be interviewed. Everyone in this study seemed very eager to participate and to discuss their views. Those who seek water-based recreation

122

will continue to have some level of conflict, though it is the hope of the researcher that more mitigation can take place on rivers that have not experienced the same levels of mitigation as seen on the Ashlu. Hopefully, further research will bring me back to the

Ashlu valley to either watch creekboaters continuing to enjoy the river, or possibly paddled the ‘crown jewel of the Sea-to-Sky’ corridor myself.

123

References

Anderson, D. H., Nickerson, R., Stein, T. V., & Lee, M. E. (2000). Planning to provide

community and visitor benefits from public lands. In Gartner, W. C., & Lime, D.

W. (Eds.), (2000). Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure and Tourism (pp. 197-

211). St. Paul, MN: CAB International.

Askey, E. (2002). Whitwater stream inventory (2002) of “Sea to Sky” Squamish forest

district, British Columbia. (Research Report No. CDSSCONFLUENCE).

Retrieved from

https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/document/fetch/documented/203/.ra

Bauman, A. E. (2004). Updating the evidence that physical activity is good for health: an

epidemiological review 2000-2003. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,

7(1) (suppl. 1), 6-19.

Province of BC (2002). Energy for our future: a plan for BC.

BC Hydro (2010) Clean Energy Act. Retrieved from

www.bclaws.ca/civi/document/id/consol24/consol24/00_10022_01

BC Hydro (2011). Water & Fish Habitat. Retrieved from

https:www.bchydro.com/about/sustainability/environmental_responsibility/water_

fish_habitat.html

BC Hydro (2012) Generation System website

http://www.bchydro.com/energy_in_bc/our_system/generation.html

124

BC Hydro (2016). 2016/17 Annual Service Plan Report. Retrieved from

https://www.bchydro.com/about/accountability_reports/financial_reports/annual_r

eports.html

BC Hydro (2017). Independent Power Producers (IPPs) currently supplying power to BC

Hydro. Retrieved from https://www.bchydro.com/work-with-us/selling-clean-

energy/meeting-energy-needs/how-power-is-acquired.html

Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to

physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 28(2) (suppl. 2), 159-168.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. (6th ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Borrie, W. T., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (2001). The dynamic, emergent, and multi-phasic

nature of on-site wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research; 33(2), 202-

228.

Botkin, M. R. (1987). The forest planning model and outdoor recreation resource

allocation. Dissertation Abstracts International (48)2, 479.

Bracht, N. & Tsouros, A. (1990). Principles and strategies of effective community

participation. Health Promotion International, 5(3), 199-208.

Bricker, K. S., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2010). Level of specialization and place attachment:

An exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(4), 233-257.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. (2013). Ministry of Environment policy and

legislation development process: How is policy and legislation developed in the

125

Ministry of Environment. Retrieved from Province of British Columbia website:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/spd/policyleg_devt.html

Bromley, D. B. (1990). Academic contributions to psychological counseling: I. A

philosophy of science for the study of individual cases. Counseling Psychology

Quarterly, 3(3), 299-207.

Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public

participation processes. Public administration reveiew 73(1), 23-34.

Buchanan, T., Christensen, J. E. & Burdge, R. J., (1981). Social Groups and the Meaning

of Outdoor Recreation Activities. Journal of Leisure Research 13(3), 254-266.

Budruk, M., & Wilhelm Stanis, S. A. (2013). Place attachment and recreation experience

preference: A further exploration of the relationship. Journal of Outdoor

Recreation and Tourism, 1-2, 51-61.

Boman, M., Fredman, P., Lundmark, L., & Ericson, G. (2013). Outdoor recreation-a

necessity or a luxury? Estimation of Engel curves for Sweden. Journal of Outdoor

Recreation and Tourism, 3, 49-56.

Capilano University, (2017). Directions and Maps. Retrieved from

https://www.capilanou.ca/about/Directions-Maps/

Carothers, P., Vaske, J. j., & Donnelly, M. P. (2001). Social values versus interpersonal

conflict among hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 23(1), (pp. 47-61).

Chan, J. & Baum, (2007). Motivation factors of ecotourists in ecolodge accommodation:

The push and pull factors. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 12(4), (pp.

349-364).

126

Charmex, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.), (pp.

509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Education research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice

Hall. In Berg, B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences

6th Ed.. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Crompton, J. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research

6(4), 408-424.

Crompton, J. (1981). Dimensions of the social grouop role in pleasure vacations. Annals

of Tourism Research 8(4), 550-568.

Crompton, J. (1998). Emergence of the unfair competition issue in United States

recreation. Managing Leisure, 3(2), 57-70.

Crompton, J. & Sellar, C. (1981). A review of literature: Do outdoor education

experiences contribute to positive development in the effective domain? Journal

of Environmental Education, 12(4), 21-29.

Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizens panels: A new approach to

citizen participation. Public Admninstration Review 46(2), 170-178.

Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,

4(4), 184-194.

Dann, G. (1981). ‘Tourist motivation: an appraisal’, Annals of Tourism Research, 8: 187-

219.

127

Davidson, L. & Stebbins, R. A., (2011). Water. In Serious Leisure and Nature (pp. 57-

92). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Deane, R., 2010. Up the creek – Irish engineers help meet environmental challenges on

Canadian river project. The Engineers Journal, 64(9) Retrieved from

http://www.engineersjournal.ie/issues/november-2010/articles/ashlucreekproject/

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (2nd. Ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing Inc.

Department of Justice, (1985). Navigation Protection Act (R.S.C., c. N-22). Retrieved

from laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-22/

Dobles,C., Murillo, C., & Chang, G., (2008). Boyerors, Bueyes y carretas, Por la senda

del patrimonio intangible. San Jose, CR: Editorial UCR.

Driver, B. L. (1976). Toward a better understanding of the social benefits of outdoor

recreation. In Proceedings of the Southern States Recreation Research

Applications Workshop. General Technical Report SE-8 (163-198). Asheville,

NC. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Driver, B. L. (1977). Item pool for scales designed to quantify the psychological

outcomes desired and expected from recreation opportunities. Unpublished

manuscript, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest

Service, Ft. Collins, CO.

Driver, B. L. & Knopf, R. C., (1979). Personality, outdoor recreation, and expected

consequences. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 7, 391-403.

Driver, B. L., Nash, R., & Haas, G. (1987). Wilderness benefits: A stat of knowledge

review, In R.R. Lucas, R. C. (Ed.) Proceedings of the National Wilderness

128

Research Conference: issues, state-of-knowledge, future direction. 1985 July 23-

26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep> INT-220. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station; 294-319.

Driver, B. L., Howard, E., Tinsley, A., & Manfredo, M. J., (1991). Leisure and recreation

experience preference scales, in Driver et al (1991). Benefits of Leisure. State

College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Driver, B. L. (1999). Recognizing and celebrating progress in leisure studies. In E.L.

Jackson & T.L. Burton, (Eds.), Leisure Studies – Prospects for the twenty-first

century (pp. 119-131). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Duffy, K. G., Wong, Y. F. (2003). Community Psychology (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson

Education.

Dunlap, R. E. & Heffernan, R. B., (1975). Outdoor recreation and environmental

concern: An empirical examination. Rural sociology (40) 18, 18-30.

Dwyer, J. F., & Hutchinson, R. (1990). Outdoor recreation and participation and

preferences by black and white Chicago households. Outdoor recreation

participation and preferences by black and white Chicago households., 49-67.

Easley, A. T., Passineau, J. F., & Driver, B. L. (Eds.) (1990). The use of wilderness for

personal growth, therapy, and education. General technical report – Rocky

mountain forest and range experiment station, USDA forest service (193) pp. iii-

197.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, (2017). Hoover Dam. Retrieved from

https://kids.britannica.com/students/assembly/view/53160

129

Environmental Assessment Office, (2011). Navigable Water Potential Approval, Permit

or Code of Practice Requirements. Retrieved from

www.th.gov.bc.ca/key_enviro_topics?navigable_brief.html

Evans, J., & Roberts, G. (1987). Physical competence and the development of children’s

peer relations. Quest, 39, 23-35.

Ewert, A. W., Baker, D. C., & Bissix, G. C., (2004). Integrated resource and

environmental management: the human dimension. Cambridge, MA: CABI

Publishing.

Ewert, A. W., Chang, Y., & Davidson, C. (2016). Examining the adventure experience

from multiple perspectives: Psychological, observational and biophysical. In

Coalition for Education in the Outdoors 3th Biennial Research Symposium (p. 9).

Ewert, A. W., & Yoshino, A. (2011). The influence of short-term adventure-based

experiences on levels of resilience. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor

Learning, 11(1), 35-50.

Fadeeva, Z., (2005). Promise of sustainability collaboration-potential fulfilled? Journal of

Cleaner Production, 14(2), 165-174.

Fearnside, P. M. (2015). Environment: deforestation soars in the Amazon. Nature,

521(7553), 423-423.

Feltz, D. & Petlichkoff, L., (1983). Perceived competence among interscholastic

participants and dropouts. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 8, 231-

235.

Fletcher, R., (2011). When environmental issues collide: Climate change and the shifting

political ecology of hydroelectric power. Peace & Conflict Review (5)1, 1-15.

130

Fredman, P., & Heberlein, T. A. (2005). Visits to the Swedish mountains: Constraints and

motivations. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(3), 177-192.

Frey, G. W., & Linke, D. M. (2002). Hydropower as a renewable and sustainable energy

resource meeting global energy challenges in a reasonable way. Energy policy,

30(14), 1261-1265.

Ghalwash, T. M. (2008). Demand for environmental quality: An empirical analysis of

consumer behaviour in Sweden. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41, 71-

87.

Gilbertson, K., & Ewert, A. (2015). Stability of motivations and risk attractiveness: The

adventure recreation experience. Risk Management, 17(4), 276-297.

Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and

adolescents. In: Baumeister R. F. (eds) Self-esteem. The plenum series in social /

clinical psychology. Springer, Boston: MA.

Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., & Bixler, R. D. (2006). Place bonding for recreation

places: Conceptual and empirical development. Leisure studies, 25(1), 17-41.

Harter S. (1989). Causes, correlates and the functional role of global self-worth: A

lifespan perspective. In J. Kolligian, Sternberg, R., (Eds.), Perceptions of

competence and incompetence across the lifespan. (67-97) New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Henrich, (2007). From Douglas, T. (2007, August). “Green” hydro power understanding

impacts, approvals, and sustainability of run-of-river independent power projects

in British Columbia. Watershed Watch Salmon Society, p. 7.

131

Hoffert, M. I. et al,. (2002). Advanced technology paths to global climate stability:

energy for a greenhouse planet. Science 1, 298(5595). 981-987 DOI:

10.1126/science. 1072357

Hui, S. (2008, April 16). Province has 8,000 potential run-of-river power sites: B. C.

Hydro study. Vancouver Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.straight.com

Huntington, S. P. (1993). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Hynes, S., & Hanley, N. (2006). Preservation versus development on Irish rivers: white

water kayaking and hydro-power in Ireland. Land Use Policy, 23(2), 170-180.

Healey, P. (1992). A planner’s day: knowledge and action in communicative practice.

Journal of the American planning association, 58(1), 9-20.

Inglis, J., Deery, M., & Whitelaw, P. A. (2008). The development of place attachment in

parks. Sustainable Tourism CRC.

IPCC, 2011. Special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation.

Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change [Edenofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Matschoss,

P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schlomer S., von

Stechow, C., Eds. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A

rejoinder. Annals of tourism research, 9(2), 256-262.

Jaccard, M. (2001). Deconstructing hydro: the BC electricity sector in this decade. BC

Studies: The British Columbian Quarterly (129), 51-78.

132

Jaccard, M., Melton, N., & Nyboer, J. (2011). Institutions and process for scaling up

renewable: Run-of-river hydropower in British Columbia. Energy Policy (39)7

4042-4050.

Jackson, E. L. (1986). Outdoor recreation participation and attitudes to the environment.

Leisure Studies 5 1-23.

Jacob, G. R., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical

perspective. Journal of leisure research, 12(4), 368.

Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning.

Annals of tourism research, 22(1), 186-204.

Jaskcon, E. L., & Wong, R. A. (1982). Perceived conflict between urban cross-country

skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research, 14(1), 47-62.

Karanasios, K., & Parker, P. (2016). Recent developments in renewable energy in remote

aboriginal communities, Quebec, Canada, Papers in Canadian Economic

Development, 16, 98-108.

Kerr, S., Watts, L., Colton, J., Conway, F., Hull, A., Johnson, K., & Potts, T. (2014).

Establishing an agenda for social studies research in marine renewable energy.

Energy Policy, 67, 694-702.

Kil, N., Holland, S. M., Stein, T. V., Ko, Y. J. (2012). Place attachment as a mediator of

the relationship between nature-based recreation benefits and future visit

intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(4), 603-626.

Kil, N., Holland, S. M., & Stein, T. V. (2014). Structural relationships between

environmental attitudes, recreation motivations, and environmentally responsible

behaviors. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7, 16-25.

133

Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors

at Korean national parks. Tourism management, 24(2), 169-180.

Klenosky, D. B. (2002). The “pull” of tourism destinations: A means-end investigation.

Journal of travel research, 40(4), 396-403.

Knopp, T. B., & Tyger, J. D. (1973). A study of conflict in recreational land use:

Snowmobiling vs. ski-touring. Journal of Leisure Research, 5(3), 6.

Korpela, K. M., Ylen, M., Tyrvainen, L., & Silvennoinen, H. (2009). Stability of self-

reported favourite places and place attachment over a 10-month period. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 95-100.

Krein, K. (2007). Nature and risk in adventure sports. In McNamee, M. (Ed.),

Philosophy, risk and adventure sports. (pp. 80-93). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for

community: inner-city neighbourhood common spaces. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 26(6), 823-851.

Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2003). An examination of the

relationship between leisure activity and place attachment among hikers along the

Appalachian Trail. Journal of leisure research, 35(3), 249.

Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place

meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place

attachment. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(4), 439-454.

Lee, L-Min, Sesso, H. D., Oguma, Yuko, & Paffenbarger Jr, R. S. (2004). The “weekend

warrior and risk of mortality, American Journal of Epidemiology, 160(7), pp. 636-

641.

134

Lime, D. W. (1981). Outfitted and nonoutfitted river runners – who are they and what do

they think? In: Recreation use allocation. Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station

(149) 51-58.

Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications Inc.

Lovelock, K., Lovelock, B., Jellum, C., & Thompson, A. (2011). In search of belonging:

immigrant experiences of outdoor nature-based settings in New Zealand. Leisure

Studies, 30(4), 513-529.

Lucas, R. C. (1964). Wilderness perception and use: The example of Boundary Waters

Canoe Area. Natural Resources Journal, 3(3), 294-411.

Lynn, F. M., & Busenberg, G. J. (1995). Citizen advisory committees and environmental

policy: What we know, what’s left to discover. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 147, 162.

Lynch, P., & Dibben, M. (2014). Maintaining leisure values in adventure recreation

events: the role of trust. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(2), 180-199.

MacGearilt, S. (1996). Irish white water: Guide to Irish white water rivers and surf.

Dublin: Fontwork Graphics Publishers.

Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & St Leger, L. (2006). Healthy nature

healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion

intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21(1), 45-54.

Manning, R. E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation – Search and research for

satisfaction 2ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Manning, R. E. (2011). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for

satisfaction (3rd Edition). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

135

McNamee, M. (2007). Philosophy, risk and adventure sports. London: Routledge.

Miller, A. D., & Vaske, J. J. (2016). Winter recreationist conflict and management

approaches at Vail Pass, Colorado. Journal of Parks & Recreation Administration,

34(2).

Mosier, T. M., Sharp, K. V., & Hill, D. F. (2016). The hydropower potential assessment

tool (HPAT): Evaluation of run-of-river resource potential for any global land

area and application to Falls Creek, Oregon, USA. Renewable Energy, 97, 492-

503.

Morse, J. M. and Richards, L. (2002). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative

methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Natural Resources Canada, (2016). About renewable energy. Retrieved from

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/renewable-electricity/7295

Netz, Y., Wu, M. J., Becker, B. J., & Tenenbaum, G. (2005). Physical activity and

psychological well-being in advanced age: a meta-analysis of intervention studies.

Neuman, W. (2000). Social research methods – Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Boston, MA: Pearson Education Company.

Nilsson, C., & Berggren, K. (2000). Alterations of riparian ecosystems caused by river

regulation: Dam operations have caused global-scale ecological changes in

riparian ecosystems. How to protect river environments and human needs of rivers

remains one of the most important questions of our time. AIBS Bulletin 50(9),

783-792.

O’Keefe, T. (2005, January). Victory for the Ashlu (BC). American Whitewater.

Retrieved from https://www.americanwhitewater.org/archive/article/1266

136

Orams, M. B. (1997). The effectiveness of environmental education: can we turn tourists

into ‘Greenies’?. Progress in tourism and hospitality research, 3, 295-306.

Orsega-Smith, E., Mowen, A. J., Payne, L. LL., & Godbey, G. (2004). The interaction of

stress and park use on psycho-physiological health in older adults. Journal of

Leisure Research, 36(2). 232.

Oweis, P., & Spinks, W. (2001) Biopsychological, affective and cognitive responses to

acute physical activity. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 41(4),

528.

Pearce, P. L., & Lee, U. I. (2005). Developing the travel career approach to tourist

motivation. Journal of travel research, 43(3), 226-237.

Perkins, H., & Grace, D. A. (2009). Ecotourism: Supply of nature or tourist demand?

Journal of Ecotourism, (3), 223-236.

Peterson, G. L., & Loomis, J. B. (2000). Trends in leisure value and valuation. In

Gartner, W. C., & Lime, D. W. (Eds.), Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure, and

tourism (pp. 215-234). New York, NY: CABI Publishing.

Pigram, J. J., & Jenkins, J. M. (2006). Outdoor Recreation Management 2nd ed. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Plummer, R. (2009). Outdoor recreation an introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.

Province of British Columbia, Integrated Land Management Bureau. (2010). Independent

power production in BC: An inter-agency guidebook for proponents. (ISBN

Publication No. 978-0-7726-6034-3). Retrieved from

http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/clad/IPP_guidebook.pdf

137

Reel Water Productions, (2007). 49 Megawatts. Available from

www.reelwaterproducitons.com/item/49-megawatts/

Riley, C. J., Pierskalla, C. D., Burns, R. C., Maumbe, K. C., Graefe, A. R., Smaldone, D.

A., & Williams, S. (2015). Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism.

Roggenbuck, J. W. & Driver, B. L. (2000). Benefits of nonfacilitated uses of wilderness.

Proceedings – Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service 15(3) pp.

33-49.

Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for

evaluation. Science, technology, & human values, 25(1), 3-29.

Samdahl, D. M. (1999). Epistemological and methodological issues in leisure research. In

E.L. Jackson & T.L. Burton, (Eds.), Leisure Studies – Prospects for the twenty-

first century (pp. 119-131). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Sæthornórsdóttir, A. D. (2010). Tourism struggling as Icelandic wilderness is developed.

Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 10(3) pp. 334-357.

Snepenger, D., King, J., Marshall, E., & Uysal, M. (2006). Modeling Iso-Ahola’s

motivation theory in the tourism context. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 140-

149.

Schreyer, R. & Driver, B. L. (1989). The benefits of outdoor recreation participation.

General technical report – Southeastern forest experiment service, USDA forest

service (52) pp. 472-482.

Shelby, B. (1981). Allocation issues identified in recreation research. In: Recreation use

allocation. Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, (149) 35-50.

Reel Water Productions, (2006)

138

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of

Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. In Berg, B.L. (2007).

Qualitative research methods for the social sciences 6th Ed.. Boston, MA: Pearson

Education Inc.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of

Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. In Berg,

B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences 6th Ed.. Boston,

MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behaviour from

place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and behaviour, 34(5),

561-581.

Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings.

Cognition, social behaviour, and the environment, 441-488.

Stratis, S. (2004). Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Zoning By-law NO.540, 1994,

Amendment By-law No. 828, 2003, Public Hearing. Retrieved from

https://www.americanwhitewater.org/resources/repository/ashlu_slrd_report.pdf

Swuamish Parks & Trails, (2017). Squamish Parks and Trails. Retrieved from

https://maps.squamish.ca/mobile/?viewer=parks

Thapa, B. (2010). The mediation effect of outdoor recreation participation on

environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. The Journal of Environmental

Educaion, 41(3), 133-150.

139

Theodori, G. L., Luloff, A. E. & Willits, F. K., (1998). The association of outdoor

recreation and environmental concern: Reexamining the Dunlap-Heffernan thesis.

Rural Sociology (63)1, 94-108.

Transport Canada, (2006). Annual reports. Retrieved from

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/anre-menu.htm

Transport Canada, (2009). Transport Canada’s guide to applying for in-stream works.

Retreived from www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/oep/nwpp.guide/htm

Twidell, J. & Weir, T. (2015). Renewable energy resources. New York, NY: Routledge.

Typlan Consulting Ltd., (2004, November). Ashlu Creek: Review of Navigational Issues

and Proposed Mitigation.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities. (1999).

Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EAP Review of NEPA Documents (EPA

Publication No. 315-R-99-002). Retrieved from

http://www.eap.gov.compliance/resources/plicies/nepa/cumulative.pdf

Usher, L. E., & Gómez, E. (2017). Managing Stoke: Crowding, conflicts, and coping

among Virginia Beach surfers. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration,

35(2).

Vaske, J. J., Carother, P., Donnelly, M., & Donnelly, B. B., (2010). Recreation conflict among skiers and snowboarders. Leisure Sciences, 22(4), 297-313.

Vaske, J. J., Needham, M. D., & Cline, R. C. (2007). Clarifying interpersonal and social

values conflict among recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(1), 182-195.

140

Virden, R. J. & Knopf, R. C., (1989). Activities, experiences, and environmental settings:

A case study recreation opportunity spectrum relationships. Leisure Sciences: An

interdisciplinary Journal 11(3), 159-176. doi: 10.1080/01490408909512217

Whiting, K. & Varette, K. (2008). Whitewater kayaking: The ultimate guide (2nd ed.).

Beachburg, Ontario: The Heliconia Press.

Wiedemann, P. M., & Femers, S. (1993). Public participation in waste management

decision making: Analysis and management of conflicts. Journal of Hazardous

Materials, 33(3), 355-368.

Williams, D. R., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989, October). Measuring place attachment:

Some preliminary results. In NRPA Symposium of Leisure Research, San

Antonio, TX (Vol. 9).

Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond

the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to

place. Leisure sciences, 14(1), 29-46.

Winston, T. (July 1997). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. In

Berg, B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences 6th Ed..

Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Wolf, I. D., Stricker, H. K., & Hagenloh, G. (2014). Outcome-focussed national park

experience management: transforming participants, promoting social well-being,

and fostering, place attachment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(3), 358-381.

Yates, G. & Stone, E. R. (1992). The Risk Construct, In F. Yates (ed.) Risk-Taking

behavior. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

141

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage. In Berg, B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social

sciences 6th Ed.. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Yin, R. K. (1998). The abridged version of case study research: Design and method. In L.

Bickman & D. J. Rog, Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. In Berg, B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social

sciences 6th Ed.. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. In Berg, B.L.

(2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences 6th Ed.. Boston, MA:

Pearson Education Inc.

Yoon, Y., & Usal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and

satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management,

26(1), 45-56.

West Coast Environemntal Law, (2009, May). Independent Power Producer Projects in

British Columbia. Retrieved from

https://www.wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/idependent

Zabriskie, R. B., Lundberg, N. R., & Groff, D. G., (2005). Quality of life and identity: the benefits of a community-based therapeutic recreation and adaptive sports program

Therapeutic Recreation Journal. (39) 3, pp. 176-191.

142

Appendix A: Interview Guide Sample Questions

1) Have you been to the site of a small hydro Run-of-the-River IPP before?

2) How have you been impacted by the development of the Ashlu Creek project?

3) Can you describe the whitewater paddling community in which you participate?

4) What does belonging to this community mean to you?

5) How has limited access impacted your paddling community?

6) In what ways have you and/or your community worked with local and provincial government to address issues related to access and water flow on the Ashlu Creek?

7) What benefits do you experience from whitewater paddling?

8) In what way does you recreation interact with small hydro Run-of-the-River

IPP?

9) What can you tell me about British Columbia’s movement towards hydro development?

10) Could you tell me what you know about the process of developing and implementing IPP RoR projects?

11) Much of my research has shown that the vast majority of IPP projects are hydro based. Can you tell me about some of the advantages and disadvantages of hydropower, specifically RoR projects?

12) Please describe terrestrial access considerations for before, during, and after construction of the Ashlu hydropower project.

13) What are the major barriers to recreation?

14) What are the benefits of this hydro project with regards to water-based recreation

143

Appendix B: Informed Letter of Consent

University of Acadia Faculty of Professional Studies Recreation Management & Community Development

INFORMED RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

Research Project Title: Independent Hydropower Production and the Impacts to Water-based Outdoor Recreation on the Ashlu Creek, British Columbia

Supervisor: Dr. John Colton, Associate Professor, School of Recreation Management and Kinesiology

Researcher: Michael John Neville, Master Candidate ______

The purpose of this research is to better understand the relationship between independent hydropower production and the impacts to water-based outdoor recreation. More specifically, the research will explore the types of impacts that independent power producer (IPP) Run-of-the-River (RoR) projects have on extreme whitewater kayakers. In order to better understand the impacts of IPP RoR projects on water-based recreation such as whitewater kayaking, it is necessary to explore the regulatory environment in which these projects occur while gaining a deeper understanding of the benefits that water-based recreation activities like whitewater kayaking have on its participants.

You have been identified as someone who can contribute to this study. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you agree to participate you will be interviewed between one and two times and asked to share your knowledge and views about the planning methods used by legislative powers to develop small hydro projects. Photographs may be used to supplement the research. Interviews will be approximately one (1) hour in length and audio taped. The interviews will be transcribed at a later date and a pseudonym used in any reports or published and/or presented materials resulting from the research.

There are no risks to you other than a disruption in your routine. There are limited potential benefits to your participation and no payment will be made for expenses or time spent. All information obtained from the research will be kept secure by the researcher. No other person will have access to the data and the records will be kept secure by the researcher for a period of seven years at which time they will be destroyed by incineration.

You have the right to refuse to participate in this research and the right to stop the interview at any time.

144

Consent: I ______,

1) have read and understand the above information, 2) understand that I might asked more questions in the future, and 3) indicate my free consent to participate by signing this form.

Signature: ______Date: ______

School of Recreation Management and Kinesiology Acadia University Wolfville, N.S. B4P 2R6

145

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form: Photographs

University of Acadia Faculty of Professional Studies Recreation Management & Community Development

INFORMED CONSENT FORM: PHOTOGRAPHS

Date of Research Ethics Board Approval: April 22, 2011

Research Project Title: Independent Hydropower Production and the Impacts to Water-based Outdoor Recreation on the Ashlu Creek, British Columbia

Supervisor: Dr. John Colton, Associate Professor, School of Recreation Management and Kinesiology

Researcher: Michael John Neville, Master Candidate ______

The use of photographs taken by the researcher may be used to supplement the research and used in community, professional, and academic presentations and publications.

The photographs will not be used for any other purpose and will not be sold or duplicated for any reason. The photographs (digital or printed) will be kept on record for a period of seven years at which time they will be destroyed by incineration.

You can revoke the permission to use the photographs at any time for any reason.

Consent: I ______,

1) have read and understand the above information, 2) am aware that the photographs may be used in academic presentations in the future, and 3) indicate my free consent to release the photographs by signing this form.

Signature: ______Date: ______

School of Recreation Management and Kinesiology Acadia University Wolfville, N.S. B4P 2R6

146