A COMPARISON OF THE AQUATIC IMPACTS OF LARGE HYDRO AND SMALL HYDRO PROJECTS by Lara A. Taylor, P.Eng. B.A.Sc. Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia 2004 A.Sc. University College of the Fraser Valley 2000 PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Project # 501 In the School of Resource and Environmental Management © Lara A. Taylor 2010 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Fall 2010 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for Fair Dealing. Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. APPROVAL Name: Lara A. Taylor Degree: Master of Resource Management Title of Research Project: A Comparison of the Aquatic Impacts of Large Hydro and Small Hydro Projects Project No.: 501 Supervisory Committee: Chair: Garett Cooper ______________________________________ Dr. Duncan Knowler Senior Supervisor Associate Professor ______________________________________ Dr. Andrew Cooper Supervisor Associate Professor Date Defended/Approved: ______________________________________ ii ABSTRACT The expansion of small hydro development in British Columbia has raised concerns surrounding the effects of these projects, and the provincial government’s decision to proceed with Site C has brought attention to the impacts of large hydro. Together, these decisions highlight that there are impacts associated with all energy development. My study examines the aquatic effects of large and small hydro projects using two case study sites: Site C and the Upper Harrison Water Power Project. I first determine the aquatic effects of each of the case study sites. Next, I use existing literature and benefits transfer to determine the monetary value of these effects. My results suggest that, with mitigation, small hydro projects have less of an effect on the environment than a large hydro project per unit of electricity. I also describe the implications of my study in the context of current British Columbia energy policy. Keywords: hydropower; aquatic effects Subject Terms: environmental impact assessment; benefits transfer iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my senior supervisor, Duncan Knowler, for humouring a full-time engineer on the 6.3-year master’s degree schedule. I am particularly grateful for the final push that made the difference between coming out of this with letters after my name vs. becoming a statistic demonstrating why you shouldn’t take a job before finishing your 699. Thank you to my secondary supervisor, Andy Cooper, for stepping in at the last minute and helping me get through this. Thank you to my editor, Ed, for reading and commenting on this study more times than anyone could be humanly expected to. His insightful comments helped shape and improve the report. Thank you to my chair, Garett, for taking a day away from CEAA so that I would have a familiar face at my defence. Thank you and lots of love to my support team: Mom, Dad, Ange, Sue, Barry, Amber, Mike and Belle, for everything. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Approval.............................................................................................................. ii Abstract.............................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements........................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................... v List of Figures................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ................................................................................................... viii Acronyms........................................................................................................... ix Glossary ............................................................................................................. xi 1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem Statement............................................................................. 1 1.2 Case Study Background..................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Context ........................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Study Sites...................................................................................... 7 1.3 Study Objective ................................................................................ 10 1.4 Study Outline.................................................................................... 10 2 Literature Review ........................................................................... 12 2.1 Environmental Effects of Hydropower Development ........................ 12 2.1.1 Aquatic Effects.............................................................................. 15 2.2 Review of Previous Analyses ........................................................... 26 3 Methods and Assumptions............................................................ 29 3.1 Project Evaluation Methods.............................................................. 29 3.2 Valuation Techniques....................................................................... 32 3.3 Data Sources.................................................................................... 34 3.4 Parameter Assumptions ................................................................... 34 4 Results: Site C................................................................................ 40 4.1 Environmental Impact Assessment .................................................. 40 4.1.1 Backwater Effects ......................................................................... 40 4.1.2 Dewatering.................................................................................... 44 4.1.3 Fish Passage – Upstream Blockage............................................. 45 4.1.4 Fish Passage – Entrainment......................................................... 47 4.1.5 Habitat Alteration .......................................................................... 48 4.1.6 Downstream Effects...................................................................... 50 4.1.7 Summary of Environmental Impact Assessment........................... 53 4.2 Aquatic Effects Valuation ................................................................. 53 4.2.1 Aquatic Life Effects ....................................................................... 53 v 4.2.2 Carbon Dioxide Production ........................................................... 58 4.2.3 Riparian Habitat Loss.................................................................... 59 4.2.4 Summary of Aquatic Effects Valuation.......................................... 61 5 Results: Upper Harrison Water Power Project ............................ 62 5.1 Environmental Impact Assessment .................................................. 62 5.1.1 Backwater Effects ......................................................................... 62 5.1.2 Dewatering.................................................................................... 65 5.1.3 Fish Passage – Upstream Blockage............................................. 69 5.1.4 Fish Passage – Entrainment......................................................... 71 5.1.5 Habitat Alteration .......................................................................... 73 5.1.6 Downstream Effects...................................................................... 74 5.1.7 Summary of Environmental Impact Assessment........................... 77 5.2 Aquatic Effects Valuation ................................................................. 77 5.2.1 Habitat Loss.................................................................................. 78 6 Discussion and Policy Implications ............................................. 79 6.1 Sensitivity Analysis........................................................................... 79 6.1.1 Discount Rate ............................................................................... 79 6.1.2 Aquatic Life ................................................................................... 80 6.1.3 Carbon Dioxide ............................................................................. 82 6.1.4 Riparian Vegetation ...................................................................... 83 6.1.5 Range of Possible Results............................................................ 83 6.2 Synthesis.......................................................................................... 84 6.3 Policy Implications............................................................................ 90 6.4 Conclusions...................................................................................... 91 Reference List................................................................................................... 93 Appendices ..................................................................................................... 104 Appendix A.................................................................................................... 105 Appendix B...................................................................................................