Response Records Part 3

1
Russell, Veronica A ENV:EX

From: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:46 AM
To: 'Knight, Francesca'
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Hydro Project (Water file 2001264) - OPP (Operating Parameters and
Procedures Report)
Attachments: image001.jpg
Great point of clarification.
From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

Sent : Monday, April 26, 2010 10: 38 AM
To: Richard Blanchet ; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; gst eeves@ameresco.com; Adam Lewis;
Robert Kulka
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264) - OPP (Operat ing Paramet ers and Procedures Report )

Hello Richard, thank you for sending these documents, however, the WQ monitoring plan does not represent a "final"
draft. The final has not been completed as yet; the most recent draft is out for comments right now, and there is some
information remaining outstanding on that draft.
regards,
Francesca

Francesca Knight, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.
Habitat Biologist
Fisheries and Oceans Canada / Pches et Ocans Canada
Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement Branch / Direction des ocans, de l'habitat et de la mise valeur
Lower Fraser River - Le Bas Fraser
Unit 3 - 100 Annacis Parkway
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Francesca.Knight@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627
Government of Canada - Gouvernement du Canada

From: Richard Blanchet [ mailt o: RBlanchet @innergex.com]
Sent : April 23, 2010 3: 03 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; gst eeves@ameresco.com;
Adam Lewis; Robert Kulka
Subj ect : Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264) - OPP (Operat ing Paramet ers and Procedures Report )
DearTim:
AsrequestedduringourmeetingonApril22,pleasehereattachedtheOPP(OperatingParametersandProcedures
Report)issuedonOctober28,2009.IhavealsoattachedAppendiceFWaterQualityManagementPlan.Pleaselet
meknowifyouneedtheotherAppendices.
Bestregards
Richard
Page 1
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

__________________________
RI CHARD BLANCHET, P.Eng., M.Sc.
Vice President West ern Region - Hydroelect ric Energy
I nnergex nergie renouvelable - I nnergex Renewable Energy

Suit e 303 - 38 Fell Avenue
Nort h Vancouver, Brit ish Columbia V7P 3S2

Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855
Page 2
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:46 PM
Subject: RE: Ashlu R. power project
Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.jpg; image003.jpg; image004.jpg; image005.jpg; image006.jpg;
image007.jpg
Solid!

Sent : Monday, April 26, 2010 4: 42 PM
To: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Cc: Bust o, Vince
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu R. power proj ect

Summary of stranding problem at Ashlu weir spillway channel

1. Headpond filling incident in March, 2009: R. Kulka filled the headpond in the early spring, and likely affected
downstream fish populations. That incident involved dropping below the IFR for over 12 hours (does this sound right,
Vince?). In addition, ramping was about 10x greater than allowable DFO ramping.The worst part was that there was
no water replaced downstream via the tailrace, as water was not going into the intake, penstock,etc. This event likely
involved stranding at the weir spillway channel, but could very well have had stranding all downstream, beyond the
tailrace. Unfortunately, no IEM was on site or downstream to document the effects on fish. As a result of this incident,
DFO requested a detailed headpond filling plan (including, for example, withholding no more than 10% of ambient
inflows at the intake, ramping, etc). We reviewed this plan through June-July 2009, with the next planned filling event
scheduled for August 2009.

2. Spillway channel stranding first identified as a problem - August 2009: As a result of DFO concerns over the
previous headpond filling incident, I was at the intake from about 8am, to view the headpond filling. As the last gate of
the Obermeyer weir was inflated, the pools started to form. With the weir fully inflated, I went down into the spillway
channel and began noticing fish, lots of them, in various size classes (all rainbow, plus of course the tailed
frogs). With the weir fully inflated, fish were stranded all the way down to the confluence of the spillway channel with
the river mainstem. I estimated stranded fish number at 50-60 fish. Given the numbers of fish and the pool
configuration, it was pretty obvious that the IEM, with dip nets, would not be able to capture all of the fish. I then
requested that the last gate be lowered a bit to provide minimal flows downstream, such that most of the pools were
again connected and fish could make their way downstream to the main river channel. This worked, except for the
pools in about the upper 25% of the spillway channel.

3. R. Kulka summarized the stranding problem in the attached drawing "Spillway d-s section sketch August 2009".
While this drawing roughly conveys the problem, I don't think it captured the scope and magnitude of the potential for
fish stranding. The attached email contains Robert's account of the August stranding incident to George Steeves. I
can assure you that more than "several trout" were observed stranded.

4. The channel downstream of the Obermeyer weir was not built according to design drawings (Vince, I believe you
made this observation). The drawings were referenced in the Leave to Construct for Spillway Channel Fisheries
Improvements. These drawings are named as follows, and I believe they contain the plans that should have been
built, and don't reflect the as-built condition. George issued this leave November 26, 2009. The purpose of this Leave,
which looks like an amendment to an existing Leave to Construct, was to provide guidance on how to fix the spillway
channel problem.
3.4.19 Leave to Construct Emergency Spillway Concrete
3.4.31 Leave to Construct Diversion/Spillway Channel Rock Excavation
3.4.32 Leave to Construct Diversion Channel Phase 1 Excavation
George included the following guidance RE: spillway modification to prevent stranding:
Page 3
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
-- The following is a general description of the proposed work program as explained by Innergex to the IE. The
spillway gate will be temporarily opened and then closed. There will be a fish salvage and the identification of areas
susceptible to fish stranding. The limits of the pools will be marked and channels designed to link the pools to each
other and eventually the main body of the river. The slopes, widths and depths of the linking channels will as
prescribed on site by the attending R.P Bio. The spillway gate will be partially opened again and the area re-flooded
and the effectiveness of the channels constructed in the first phase evaluated. Should it be determined there is still
potential for stranding, additional channels and/or pools will be built, again under the direction of the attending R.P.
Bio.
-- The process is to be repeated until the attending R.P. Bio. is satisfied that the potential for stranding has been
mitigated..
-- Clear segregation of the work area from the adjacent stream to ensure no deleterious materials are allowed to enter
the watercourse.. Confirmation from DFO and ESD that this is not instream work is required.
-- This letter constitutes granting of permission to proceed with the spillway channel fisheries improvements. The
works covered under this Leave to Construct comprises the excavation of channels and pools to mitigate the potential
for fish stranding in the in the spillway channel on closure of the spillway gates.
R. Kulka prepared the drawing "spillway excavation sketch Nov 2009", in what appeared to be technical support for
George's leave. This drawing, however, is not referenced in the Leave.
Vince and I responded to this proposed channel repair method by requesting that a design drawing be provided that
actually showed the proposed works; we were not comfortable with the "field-fit" solution, nor with the coarseness of
the drawing. Also, we confirmed that the works would in fact be deemed "instream" and should therefore be
conducted during the low-risk late-summer work window.

5. DFO has not heard anything since from Innergex RE: spillway modifications. In a recent meeting (April
2010) between DFO and R. Kulka regarding elevated arsenic concentrations in the penstock, we did discuss the
channel. DFO requested that the works be completed by this summer's work window; therefore, a work plan and
design drawing needed to be sent to DFO prior to construction.

6. Cascade Environmental salvaged fish when the headpond was filled in April 2010; I believe they caught 26
rainbow. We'll get all salvage results from Cascade.

comments welcome and appreciated!
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

From: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX [ mailt o: Scot t .Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca]
Sent : April 26, 2010 3: 45 PM
To: Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Cc: Bust o, Vince
Maybe collate the comments, but hold off sending it until we all get the chance to chat about it at our MOE-
DFO IPP meeting on Wed PM?
Page 4
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3


Cc: Bust o, Vince

sure, is everyone OK if I just send it to him, or would anyone like to review first?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 26, 2010 3: 36 PM
Cc: Bust o, Vince
A distillation/ summary of the various comments & concerns that yall have expressed in the series of emails
today would be helpful for Adam Lewis in his imminent work.
Anyone wanna volunteer?

To: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince

I totally agree, Erin. I don't think that salvage is the way to manage this problem long-term, for all the reasons you list
here. These are the photos from the day I was up there last August (note that tailed frog juveniles were stranded as
well). The closest we got to a resolution on this a few months back was Robert was going to have an IEM on site to
"supervise" a solution, which might entail blasting out the pools, filling in (concrete), and whatever else, at the
discretion of the monitor. Vince and I said we would like to see something more like a real design, to demonstrate that
the problem has truly been thought about, and the best possible sol
tial reduction in river flows downstream of the weir when
I am sorry to say that I think any chances of capturing "b
to operate, are seriously diminished. And I would agree, Erin, the stranding problem could be serious
enough to affect population estimates.
I'll send a note to Cascade for the salvage results,
C

Habitat Biologist
Page 5
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
S. 22
4
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

From: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX [ mailt o: Erin.St oddard@gov.bc.ca]
Sent : April 26, 2010 3: 12 PM
To: Knight , Francesca; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
ThanksforthehistoryonthisFrancesca.YesIwouldlikethereportsforallsalvagesconducted.Likeyou,Idoubt
thatsalvageswhereveryeffectivecertainlynotwithdipnets,butalsowithelectrofishing.Therearetoomany
spacesinthoserockstosalvagefish,andelectrofishingwouldtendtodrivethemdownfurther,whichwouldlikely
endininjuryordeathfromrepeatedshocks,especiallyduringlowwatertemperatures.Inmyopinionthe
strandingstodatewouldhaveresultedinfishkills,andwouldhaveimpactedthepopulation.Thisiscertainly
somethingAdamLewisshouldaddressinthedevelopmentoftheLTMP.
Tim,IseethisasasignificantissuethatshouldhaveandcouldhavebeenresolvedalongtimeagobyInnergex,
especiallyastheywereorderedtoaddressitbyDFO.IhaveconcernswithInnergexhavingtheopportunitytostart
operationsasearlyasthe1
st
ofMaywithouthavingthisresolved.Theremaybeawaytomanageitsomewhat
throughacombinationofincreasedinterimflowsandsalvages,butitwillremainmoreofanissueuntilitisfixed,
andcontinueasanissuethatwillneedtobemanagedforthelifeofthisprojectduetothepoordesign.Inorderfor
Innergextocontinuewithcommissioning,Isuggestthatthereshouldbeanapproveddesignsignedoffbya
professionalfishhabitatbiologistandariverhydrologist/engineer,andasupportedcommitmenttofixthechannel
(anappropriatebondsubmittedtoWSDorDFO),andthataninterimincreasedflowandsalvagebeusedtomitigate
impactsuntiltheinchannelworkscanbecompleted.Isuggestthatitwouldalsobeworthwhiletohavean
appropriatebondprovidedtoWSDfortheLTMPworkpriortotherecommencementofcommissioningtoensure
thatwegetagoodworkingdraftbytheendofJuneascommittedtobyInnergex.
ErinM.Stoddard,R.P.Bio.


Hey Erin, that channel downstream of the Obermeyer is the one we have been concerned about since last year. We
(Vince and I) first noticed it when we went up to watch a headpond filling. This was not long after the incident wherein
the operators held back a significant portion of ambient inflows (that was in February-March of last year), and went
below IFR. When they were prepared to fill the pond again, even though Vince had given them very clear direction
on how much water could be retained for headpond filling, we went up to the intake to observe the filling. It was on
that day that we saw fish stranded in the pools downstream of the Obermeyer. Cascade had shown up with dip nets
for fish salvage, but there was a lot of fish (probably 50-60) in numerous pools; I did not think dip nets would be
adequate to salvage all the fish. Given the number of fish stranded, and the inadequacy of the materials on hand for
salvage, we requested that a small volume of water be discharged through the weir via lowering the last gate by about
20-30 cm. This provided enough water for most of the fish to get out, but not the ones in the pools closest to the weir.

Vince and I have since made repeated requests to Robert Kulka (AILP) for channel modifications, such that fish
strandings are prevented. We have not yet received these plans. In my most recent request to Robert, which would
have been approx. 2 weeks ago, I told him that it was DFO's expectation that the channel repairs were done in this
year's work window.
Page 6
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5

As for the fish strandings in headpond filling over the last year, it is my understanding that Cascade has been on hand
to conduct fish salvage (I believe with an electrshocker). At the most recent headpond fill, I believe 26 rainbow (some
adults) were salvaged. Shall I ask Cascade for a summary of all fish salvages conducted at this area?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 26, 2010 1: 45 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca
I mpor t ance: High
Tim,
Astherearefishthroughoutthediversionreach,Iseesignificantissueswithfishstrandingandfishaccessreflected
intheseimageswithrespecttotheoperationofthisfacilityandintheLTMPandtheOPP.Theseshouldberesolved
priortofurthercommissioningactivitiesandcommencementofoperations.Theestablishmentofanappropriate
rampingratewouldhelp,butwouldnotresolvestrandingandaccessissuesorincreasedlossestothefish
populationduetopredation.Ifthedatesontheimagesarecorrect,thenthereappearstohavebeennoeffective
attempttoresolvetheseissuestodatethroughchangestothechannel.
Pleasecontactmeifyouwouldliketodiscussthisfurther.
From: Rochet t a, St eve J ENV: EX

To: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; George, Greg ENV: EX; Niet velt , Cliff ENV: EX; Barret t , Scot t
ENV: EX; Willcox, Michael ENV: EX; McGuire, Jennifer ENV: EX
Cc: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Subj ect : FW: Ashlu R. power proj ect

ThelatestpicturesfromtheSquamishStreamkeepers,withdatesandtimes.Notveryimpressive......green?
From
Sent :
Subj ect : Fwd: Ashlu R. power proj ect

d last and last photo tell the story. We were lied to to before.

Page 7
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S22
S22
6

Begin forwarded message:

From:

Subject: Ashlu R. power project

Video links-
Ashlu intake (no water being diverted)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKww1M94UKY

7 days later (water diverted to power house)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNXr_4DMX-Q

.........................................................................................................................................
Ashlu R. halfway between intake dam, and power house discharge (no water being diverted)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JkmSGl_nTg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEiXptrX7ek
Page 8
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S22
7
Page 9
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
8
Page 10
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
9
Page 11
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
10
Page 12
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
11
Page 13
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
12
Page 14
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
13

Page 15
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2010 3:36 PM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; 'Busto, Vince'; 'Knight, Francesca'
Subject: FW: Ashlu Creek Hydro Project (Water file 2001264): Letter - Rational for Extension on
the LTC Commissioning
Tim,

Per your request, Ive reviewed the following document:
Framework for a Operational Environmental Monitoring Plan [OEMP] for the Ashlu Creek Hydro
Project and an Opinion Regarding the Effectiveness of the Plan, composed by Ecofish Research
Ltd. (ERL), dated April 30 2010, 7 pp (hereafter referenced as ERL, 2010).

ERL (2010) is consistent with the outcome of discussions regarding the Ashlu OEMP Framework held on
April 22 2010 between the Ashlu hydro power proponent, Adam Lewis (of ERL), and representatives of
DFO and MOE. ERL (2010) elaborates on the relative merits of various approaches to establishing a
monitoring program that will provide the capacity to detect changes in stream flow and aquatic species
associated with operation of the facility.

I concur with the professional opinions included in ERL (2010), but have three specific recommendations
regarding immediate actions to be undertaken by the proponent with the explicit aim of minimizing the
likelihood that ongoing commissioning activities will not impact fish & fish habitat more than has already
occurred since commissioning was initiated. I recommend that the proponent be obligated to immediately:

1. Ensure that reliable continuous stream flow data is available at the four locations described as
hydrometric stations in the OEMP. This will require installation of pressure transducers & data
loggers, development of site-specific rating curves and establishment of protocol for downloading,
analyzing & submitting IFR & ramping rate data to agencies that is satisfactory to MOE & DFO.
2. Establish interim ramping rates that meet the default rates typically acceptable to MOE & DFO (e.g.
2.5 cm/ hour if fry are present, 5.0 cm/ hour otherwise), and adjust operational systems in the
powerhouse to ensure compliance with these ramping rates.
3. Ensure that adequate flows pass the intake to allow successful fish migration and will not allow fish
stranding or isolation downstream of the dam. Until appropriate remediation on the spillway (and
other blasted areas) are designed and implemented, this may require release of instream flows in
excess of the IFR prescriptions.

Thanks for the opportunity to provide review, and as always, please let me know if you require additional
detail.

Scott

Scott Babakaiff, M.Sc. P.Geo.

Regional Fish Hydrologist
Ministry of Environment
South Coast Region
2nd Floor- 10470 152nd Street
Surrey, BC, V3R 0Y3
604-930-7121
Page 16
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
From: Adam Lewis [ mailt o: fj alewis@ecofishresearch.com]
Sent : Friday, April 30, 2010 7: 43 AM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; 'Richard Blanchet '
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; 'Knight , Francesca'; 'Bust o, Vince'; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX;
gst eeves@ameresco.com; 'Robert Kulka'
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264): Let t er - Rat ional for Ext ension on t he LTC
Commissioning

HelloTim:
AttachedpleasefindaletterregardingtheOEMPfortheAshluHydroProject.
Regards,Adam

FJ Adam Lewis, M.Sc. R.P.Bio.
Principal, Senior Biologist

Ecofish Research Ltd.

fjalewis@ecofishresearch.com
www.ecofishresearch.com

F-450 8th Street, Courtenay, BC, V9N 1N5
Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

1031 355 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6C 2G8
Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163

This email contains confidential information that is proprietary to Ecofish Research Ltd.. This information is intended
only for the person(s) named in the destination address. Unauthorized distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error please delete it immediately.
From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX [ mailt o: Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca]

To: Richard Blanchet
Commissioning
I mpor t ance: High

Hi Richard,

Thank you for your request ( below) for an ext ension for commissioning of t he Ashlu facilit y.

I would also remind you t hat we had request ed t hat Adam provide us wit h a let t er:
1) discussing a proposed framework for a revised OEMP t hat can provide a quant it at ive/ st at ist ically
meaningful, and scient ifically support able, assessment of proj ect impact s;
2) providing a brief rat ionale as t o why addit ional proposed commissioning ( e. g. , including furt her
diversion for t est ing, et c. . ) act ivit ies would not adversely affect your abilit y t o collect any addit ional
dat a ( baseline or ot herwise) required t o support t he OEMP or implement t hat OEMP; and,
3) st at ing t hat in his opinion t hat t he proposed commissioning would not affect his/ your abilit y t o
develop and implement t hat OEMP.

I would request t hat you/ Adam provide t his let t er at your earliest convenience, so I can complet e my
review of t his request .

Page 17
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Please provide t his let t er t o my at t ent ion, cc all individuals on t his e- mail, and not e t hat I am at a
workshop all day t oday and may not be able t o complet e t hat review unt il end of day.

Regards,

Tim Bennet t
Assist ant Regional Wat er Manager

Sent : Mon 26/ 04/ 2010 9: 56 AM
Subj ect : Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264): Let t er - Rat ional for Ext ension on t he LTC Commissioning
DearTim,

AsrequestedduringourmeetingonApril22,2010,pleasefindhereattachedtheletterexplainingtherationalfor
obtaininganExtensionontheLTCCommissioning.

Ifyouhaveanyquestion,pleasedonthesitatetocontactmeorRobertKulka.

Bestregards

Richard

__________________________
http: / / www.inner gex.com/ logo.j pg


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855

Page 18
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2010 2:48 PM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; 'Busto, Vince'; 'Knight, Francesca'
Subject: FW: 2001264 - Ashlu - 100429 BB-Ashlu EM to 25 Apr 10 ...
SharePoint Document Library:
2001264 - Ashlu
http://sharepoint.env.gov.bc.ca/ipp/2001264%20%20Ashlu
FYI...
_____________________________________________
From: Willcox, Michael ENV: EX
Sent : Thursday, May 6, 2010 9: 16 AM
To: Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Subj ect : FW: 2001264 - Ashlu - 100429 BB-Ashlu EM t o 25 Apr 10 ...
Shar ePoi nt Document Li br ar y: 2001264 - Ashlu
ht t p: / / sharepoint .env.gov.bc.ca/ ipp/ 2001264%20%20Ashlu

Thisisoldnewstookme3daystoforwarditandthereportingperiodendsApril25.Thereportdocuments
ongoingconcernsabouttheIFRpipeoutflowinterferingwithuseoftheladderbyrainbow.Theresaphotoofanice
chunkysalvagedrainbow.ClickonView100429
_____________________________________________
From: Lower Mainland Region I PP Sharepoint Sit e [ mailt o: Dave.Donovan@gov.bc.ca]
Sent : Monday, May 3, 2010 3: 45 PM
To: Willcox, Michael ENV: EX
Subj ect : 2001264 - Ashlu - 100429 BB-Ashlu EM t o 25 Apr 10 ...

Lower Mainland Region I PP Sharepoint Sit e
100429 BB- Ashl u EM t o 25 Apr 10 ... has been added

Modify my aler t set t ings | View 100429 BB- Ashlu EM t o 25 Apr 10 ... | View 2001264 - Ashlu | Mobile View

Last Modified 5/ 3/ 2010 3: 42 PM by Mike Nelson

Page 19
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Knight, Francesca [Francesca.Knight@dfo-mpo.gc.ca]
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Busto, Vince
Subject: RE: 2001264 - Ashlu - 100429 BB-Ashlu EM to 25 Apr 10 ...
Cascade confirmed exactly what we had anticipated about the fish ladder! I don't know whether I stepped on toes
asking Eco fish to look into it, but my understanding is they are the "long-term" monitoring consultants, and Cascade
is the construciton and commissioning consultant. Monitoring of the fish ladder falls under long-term monitoring, so I
kinda thought that might be Ecofish's task. As Vince and I are going up to upper stave tomorrow, would either of you
be able to send a note to Robert directing him to get on the fish ladder?
C

Sent : Thu 5/ 6/ 2010 2: 47 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca
() has invited you to connect the Lower Mainland Region IPP Sharepoint Site - 2001264 - Ashlu Document
Library to Outlook.

This SharePoint List is supported on any computer with a compatible program, such as Microsoft Office
Outlook 2007. To connect to this SharePoint List, copy and paste the following Web address into your Web
browser:

stssync://sts/?ver=1.1&type=documents&cmd=add-folder&base-
url=http%3A%2F%2Fsharepoint%2Eenv%2Egov%2Ebc%2Eca%2Fipp&list-
url=2001264%20%20Ashlu&guid=%7b27ED2ACB%2d1F67%2d4BB2%2d97F8%2dFEBEA5E39E1C%7
d&site-name=Lower%20Mainland%20Region%20IPP%20Sharepoint%20Site&list-
name=2001264%20%2D%20Ashlu

Alternatively, you can view this content on the Web at:


For instructions on how to connect SharePoint Lists to Outlook copy and paste the following Web address
into your Web browser:

http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=57560

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

FYI...

_____________________________________________
From: Willcox, Michael ENV: EX
To: Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX

Page 20
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Thisisoldnewstookme3daystoforwarditandthereportingperiodendsApril25.Thereportdocuments
ongoingconcernsabouttheIFRpipeoutflowinterferingwithuseoftheladderbyrainbow.Theresaphotoofanice
chunkysalvagedrainbow.ClickonView100429

_____________________________________________
Subj ect : 2001264 - Ashlu - 100429 BB-Ashlu EM t o 25 Apr 10 ...

100429 BB- Ashl u EM t o 25 Apr 10 ... has been added

Modify my aler t set t ings | View 100429 BB- Ashlu EM t o 25 Apr 10 ... | View 2001264 - Ashlu | Mobile View

Last Modified 5/ 3/ 2010 3: 42 PM by Mike Nelson

Page 21
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Birchard, Leona ENV:EX
From: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2010 4:19 PM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Davies, James W ENV:EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; 'Busto, Vince'; 'Knight, Francesca'
Subject: RE: Clarification of EM staff (Ashlu - 2001264)
Inworkingonthetemplate,IcameacrosstwosignificantissueswiththeAshluIEMasfollows:
ItnamesacompanyCascadeastheIEM.Itshouldneverdothat.TheIEMneedstobeaqualifiedindividual
professionalwhocanbeheldaccountable.Youcantholdacompany(Ashlu)orIEMTeam(Bear)accountable,
thereforetheyarenotappropriate.TheIEMhereshouldbeidentifiedasMikeNelson,R.P.Bio.,butonlyifheis
planningtobefullyinvolvedwiththeproject.OtherwisetheIEMshouldbeaqualifiedprofessional(e.g.Hilary
Lindh,R.P.Bio.?)thatworksforhimthatwillbefullyinvolved,and
TheAshludocumentlistsMr.Nelson,R.P.Bio.andnumerousothersasIEMdelegateswithoutproviding
qualifications.AsIreadintotheprovincialdocument,DelegatesshouldbeofequalqualificationtotheIEM,justas
anIEDelegatewouldneedtohaveequivalentqualifications.However,IthinkthattheguidanceIhaveprovidedin
thetemplateandrepeatedbelowcouldprovidesomeflexibilitywithDelegatequalificationprovidedthatall
incidentsaremanagedbythenamedIEM,andallregular,finalandincidentreportsaresignedoffbythenamed
IEM.
Erin
IEMQualificationRequirements
- Appropriateprofessionaldesignationingoodstandingfromarecognizedorganizationwithacodeof
conductorethicsandassociateddisciplinaryprocedure(e.g.RegisteredProfessionalBiologist(R.P.Bio.),
CollegeofBCBiologists);
- Knowledgeandexperiencewithcurrentregulatoryrequirementsandbestpracticesfortheprotectionof
aquaticandterrestrialenvironmentsontheSouthCoastRegionofBC;
- Knowledgeofthefish,plantandwildlifespeciesinhabitingtheSouthCoastRegionofBC(particularlyin
theprojectwatershed),theirhabitatrequirements,risksandlifehistorystages;
- Appropriatetrainingandexperienceinconstructionmonitoring,and
- Appropriatetrainingandexperienceinconstructionmitigation.
IEMDelegateQualificationRequirements
- EquivalentqualificationstotheidentifiedIEM,or
- Appropriatetechnologistdesignationingoodstandingfromarecognizedorganizationwithacodeof
conductorethicsandassociateddisciplinaryprocedure(e.g.RegisteredProfessionalBiologyTechnologist
(R.P.Tech.),CollegeofBCBiologists;CertifiedProfessionalinSedimentandErosionControl(CPESC),
CertifiedErosionControlProfessionalInc.);
- Appropriateprofessionalbiologistortechnologisttraineedesignationingoodstandingfromarecognized
organizationwithacodeofconductorethicsandassociateddisciplinaryprocedure(e.g.Biologistin
Training(B.I.T.),RegisteredProfessionalBiologyTechnologistinTraining(TraineeR.P.Tech.),CollegeofBC
Biologists);
Page 22
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
- Knowledgeandexperiencewithcurrentregulatoryrequirementsandbestpracticesfortheprotectionof
aquaticandterrestrialenvironmentsontheSouthCoastRegionofBC;
- Knowledgeofthefish,plantandwildlifespeciesinhabitingtheSouthCoastRegionofBC(particularlyin
theprojectwatershed),theirhabitatrequirements,risksandlifehistorystages;
- Appropriatetrainingandexperienceinconstructionmonitoring,and
- Appropriatetrainingandexperienceinconstructionmitigation.
From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX

Sent : Friday, January 29, 2010 11: 58 AM
To: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Davies, James W ENV: EX
Subj ect : FW: Clarificat ion of EM st aff (Ashlu - 2001264)

Hiall,
FYI,asIdmentioned,IdrecentlynotednewbodiesactingasdelegatesatAshluandaskedMike(Cascade)forsome
info.
Inparticular,youmightwanttolookattheworkplanprovidedfortheEMroleonthisproject.Idbeinterestedin
anycomments/concerns(lateastheymightbe)andthismightbehelpfulinyourreviewoftheBearEMworkplan
andguidance/templatedevelopment.
Thanks!
TimothyBennett,M.Sc.,P.Eng.
SectionHead,WaterAllocation
WaterStewardshipDivision
MinistryofEnvironment
10470152Street,Surrey,BCV3R0Y3
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235
Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca
From: Mike Nelson [ mailt o: mnelson@cerg.ca]

Sent : Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9: 49 AM
Cc: XT: Bust o, Vince DFO EAO: I N; Robert Kulka
Subj ect : RE: Clarificat ion of EM st aff (Ashlu - 2001264)

Tim,
Pleasefindattachedforyourrecords:
OurletterofEngagement:20090417AshluEnvironmentalMonitor.pdf
TheCascadeEnvironmentalpreparedScopeofworkandworkplan:090310EnvironmentalMonitoring
ProposalNCRev.pdf
SignedscopeofInformationandreportbytheEM:090422ScopeofInformationandReportsbythe
EnvironmentalMonitor.pdf
ConstructionEnvironmentalManagementPlanAshluCENPRevJ(Contractorsdefined).pdf
ResumeforChristineBecker(ne ChristineBecker.pdf
ResumeforKenMcNamara:CorporateCVKen.pdf
ResumeforMikeNelson:090806ResumeLongMikeNelson.pdf
onginvolvedwiththeproject,
Ken

Page 23
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
S. 22
S. 22
S22
S22
S22
3
Iwillendeavourtosignallremainingreportsemanatingfromouroffice,butIhavereadandreviewedeachreport
sofar.AsnotedinourDecember731reportdatedJanuary14,2010,constructionhasbeensubstantially
completed,andourmonitoringfromthispointforwardwillbelimitedtomonthlyinspectionsandwaterquality
sampling(aspertheWaterQualityManagementPlan,Dec8,2009),untilMOEgrantsleavetooperateatwhich
pointenvironmentalconstructionmonitoringwillbediscontinued,andtheOperationalEnvironmentalMonitoring
Programwillbeimplemented.
Itrustthisinformationmeetsyourinformationrequirements.
Cheers,
MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

Principal
Cascade Environmental Resource Group Ltd.
Whistler and Squamish, BC | Whitehorse, YT | San Diego, CA
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
Avenue | Squamish | BC | Canada | V8B 0C3
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
mnelson@cerg.ca | www.cascade-environmental.ca

Sent : January-22-10 11: 51 AM
To: Mike Nelson
Cc: XT: Bust o, Vince DFO EAO: I N
Subj ect : Clarificat ion of EM st aff (Ashlu - 2001264)

HiMike,
Ivehadaquicklookoverourfileandcannotfindcopiesofsomeinformation.
CouldyoupleasereforwardmeacopyoftheagreementfortheEMrole,andyourworkplanasspecified?
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/waterpower/cabinet/appendix_h.pdf
Couldyoualsopleaseconfirmwhoyourdelegatesare,ensurewehavecopiesoftheirCVsforour
review/approval/filing,andthatallfutureEMreportsarereviewedandsignedbytheEM(you).
Thankyou.
Ph.(604)5825227 Fx.(604)5825235
Page 24
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 9:50 AM
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Subject: RE: East Toba River Powerhouse and Penstock Inspectors Direction
Attachments: ID October 27.pdf
you saw this one on Ashlu, didn't you? I wrote it but Al J. had to sign it because of course, why would I be given the
enforcement training that would enable me to legally sign off on IDs? That would be way too logical!
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : March 2, 2010 9: 41 AM
To: Knight , Francesca
Subj ect : RE: East Toba River Powerhouse and Penst ock I nspect ors Direct ion
Yeah, its the first DFO Inspectors Direction Ive seen amongst the 20 (or so) hydropower construction
projects Ive been involved with monitoring.

Sent : Tuesday, March 2, 2010 9: 35 AM
To: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX
Subj ect : RE: East Toba River Powerhouse and Penst ock I nspect ors Direct ion

wow, very cool, thanks for sending,
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Page 25
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Sent : March 2, 2010 9: 18 AM
To: Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Subj ect : FW: East Toba River Powerhouse and Penst ock I nspect ors Direct ion
FYI...
Page 26
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 27
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Daniels, Kate EMPR:EX
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: Soo ROR
Thanksalot,Scott.
_____________________________________________
From: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX
To: Daniels, Kat e EMPR: EX
Subj ect : RE: Soo ROR
C102203

(http:/ / a100.gov.bc.ca/ pub/ wtrwhse/ water_licences.output?p_Source_Name=ashlu&p_Licence_No=&p
_Priority_Issue_Date=&p_POD_Purpose=&chk_Appurtenant_Land=&p_POD_Qty_Equality=%3D&p_P
OD_Qty=&chk_Licence_Comments=&chk_POD_Qty_Flag_Desc=&chk_Date_Updated=&p_ Licensee=&
p_Dist_Prec_Name=&chk_Client_ No=&p_Client_No=&chk_Points_Code=&p_Points_Code=&chk_File
_No=&p_File_No=&p_WR_Map=&chk_PCL_No=&p_PCL_No=&chk_Watershed=&p_Watershed=&p_
Export=Screen)

FYI, Ashlus water license is old, and doesnt include the sort of detail common in current water
licenses...there may be little of interest to you in the water license.

Scott
_____________________________________________
From: Daniels, Kat e EMPR: EX
Subj ect : FW: Soo ROR
HiScott,OliviaforwardedmeyouremailbutIamabiutmystifiedwhenIgotothelink.ImlookingforAshluany
hintsonwhatnumberitmightbe?
_____________________________________________
Sent : Thursday, August 6, 2009 3: 17 PM
To: Chang, Olivia Y EMPR: EX
The short answer is that yes, you could get copies of the water licenses, but there are a couple problems:

1. They are not available in a digital format that is easily transferrable: one has to find, download and
print each page of each water license separately;
2. The information that is likely of greatest interest to the legislators (ie. minimum instream flows
required for protection of ecosystems, obligations for biological monitoring, etc.) is rarely included
in the water licenses. Rather, such information is typically included in supplemental documents
that the water license references...but these supplemental documents are not available online, and
are often not available in a digital format (ie. only in hardcopy in a file);
Page 28
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
3. Many of the files (containing the hardcopies referenced in #2) are not stored in the Regional MOE
offices, and some are incomplete due to all the changes in administrative responibility (Water
Management to Land&Water BC to Water Stewardship Division) in recent years.

If you wanna see what the water licenses look like, use this link
(http:/ / a100.gov.bc.ca/ pub/ wtrwhse/ water_licences.input) to search for the water license number (for
instance, enter Rutherford Creek under stream name) for any IPP of interest, and then use this link
(ftp:/ / ftp.env.gov.bc.ca/ pub/ outgoing/ lic_images/ ) to find the file that contains the water license of
interest (e.g. 117388 for Rutherford Creek). And this is what youll find: << File: lic04A01.tif >> << File:
lic04B01.tif >> << File: lic04C01.tif >> << File: lic06A01.tif >> << File: tec04A01.tif >> << File:
tec04B01.tif >> << File: tec04C01.tif >> << File: tec04D01.tif >>
Probably not the answer you were hoping for, but Im just the messenger!

Scott
_____________________________________________
From: Chang, Olivia Y EMPR: EX
Sent : Thursday, August 6, 2009 2: 53 PM
Scott,morerequests.CanIgetcopiesofthewaterlicenceforsomeoftheIPPswewillbevisiting?Mikethinksit
wouldbegoodtohavetheminourpackageforthelegislatorssinceitisthemajorregulatorydocument.
_____________________________________________
Sent : Wednesday, August 5, 2009 4: 08 PM
To: Chang, Olivia Y EMPR: EX
Well,

the extreme low flows typically occur in Dec/ J an (when it will truly look dry). This year, most of the
seasonal snowpack has already melted, so Id expect flows to diminish at a fairly rapid rate in August &
September until the seasonal rains begin in early autumn.

A more immediate concern (in terms of the proposed tour) will be the sediment removal that is likely to
begin within the next few weeks. The exact start date depends on the Federal Dept of Fisheries & Oceans
providing approval to do so; I understand the approval is expected shortly. Once approval is granted, alot
of backhoes & dumptrucks will immediately begin to excavating thousands of cubic meters of sediment that
have accumulated in the headpond (immediately upstream of the dam). It wont be pretty, and will likely
persist from mid-August to mid-September.

Scott
_____________________________________________
From: Chang, Olivia Y EMPR: EX
Sent : Wednesday, August 5, 2009 3: 51 PM
Subj ect : Soo ROR
Scott,
Page 29
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
IrememberyousayingthattheSoowillbedryinthedistantfuture.Whenwasthat?MidAug?LateAug?
Thanks!
OliviaChang
A/ExecutiveDirector,Minister'sCouncilonMineralExplorationandMining
BCMinistryofEnergy,MinesandPetroleumResources
7thfloor1675DouglasSt|Victoria,BC|V8W9N3
direct1.250.952.0485|mobile1.250.514.8061
Page 30
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Mike Nelson [mnelson@cerg.ca]
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Robert Kulka
Cc: gsteeves@ameresco.com; Knight, Francesca
Subject: RE: Inquiry re Ashlu IFR flows
Scott,
Iwasafraidyouweregoingtosaythat(justkidding).
Robert,
Canyouprovidethedatatoallassoonasyouareable.Illlookatthedataandgetto
everyonewithabriefsummaryreport.
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
OriginalMessage
From:Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX[mailto:Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca]
Sent:April05101:03PM
To:MikeNelson;Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX;RobertKulka
Cc:gsteeves@ameresco.com;Knight,Francesca
Subject:RE:InquiryreAshluIFRflows
Ican'tspeakforTim,butmypreferencewouldbethatyoudoboth:providethedatato
allowourreviewASAP,butalsoreviewthedatayourselves.
________________________________
From:MikeNelson[mailto:mnelson@cerg.ca]
Sent:Mon05/04/201012:32PM
To:Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX;RobertKulka
Scott,
Theshortanswertoyourquestionisyes.IjustgotoffthephonetoRobert,andhewill
forwardthedatatoallorwouldyouratherwepourthroughthedatatoverify
compliance?
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
CascadeEnvironmentalResourceGroupLtd.
WhistlerandSquamish,BC|Whitehorse,YT|SanDiego,CA
Page 31
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Unit203380262ndAvenue|Squamish|BC|Canada|V8B0C3
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
mnelson@cerg.ca<mailto:lnelson@cerg.ca>|www.cascadeenvironmental.ca
<http://www.cascadeenvironmental.ca/>
OriginalMessage
To:MikeNelson;Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX
CancomplianceoftheIFRbeverifiedviaprovisionofcontinuousstreamflowdatawithin
thediversionreachfromthepastfewmonths?
________________________________
Sent:Mon05/04/201010:36AM
To:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX
Cc:Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;gsteeves@ameresco.com;Knight,Francesca
Tim,
Iamnotawareofanynoncompliances.Whentheheadpondisfull,theIFRisreleased
automaticallythroughtheIFRpipe.Also,theheadpondhasbeenemptysinceMarch1due
tocleaningofgravelfromthetunnel;so100%oftheriverwasreleasedlastmonth.We've
beentakingweeklysamplesfromtheriverandfromthetunnelseepageforarsenicand
relatedparameters.We'llbefilingareportonthatshortly.
TheplanistorefilltheheadpondeithertomorrowofWednesday,holdingbackamaximum
of10%oftheAshlu'sflowandthenstartthetunnelflushingprocedureaccordingtothe
protocol.We'llresumeweeklyreportingduringthiswork.
Cheers,
Page 32
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
MIKENELSON,R.P.BIO.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
mnelson@cerg.ca|www.cascadeenvironmental.ca
OriginalMessage
From:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX[mailto:Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca]
Sent:April051010:14AM
To:MikeNelson
Cc:Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;gsteeves@ameresco.com
HiMike,
We'vereceivedinquiriesregardingwhetherAshluisreleasingitsIFRrequirement.
Canyou(orGeorge)pleaseconfirmifyouareawareofanynoncomplianceswiththeIFR
requirement(i.e.,dateswhentheplantmaynothavebeenreleasingtherequiredflows)?
Also,canyoupleaseconfirmthestatusoftheplant?Iunderstanditstillundergoing
commissioning(viaGeorge'slatestextension),buthowoftenareeitherofyouor
delegatesonsitetomonitorthis?
thanks,
TimBennett
Page 33
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
________________________________
Sent:Thu25/03/201011:50AM
Subject:FW:413Ashluwaterqualityresults
Don'tknowifyouhavebeengettingthischainornotyournamewasspelledwrongtoo
manymms
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 34
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
From:MikeNelson
Sent:March25109:52AM
To:'Knight,Francesca';timmothy.bennett@gov.bc.ca;gsteeves@ameresco.com;Nikl,Lee
Cc:ChristineBecker;Busto,Vince;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX;
'RobertKulka'
Subject:RE:413Ashluwaterqualityresults
Chessy,,
Furthertoourphoneconversationthismorning,pleasefindattachedthewaterquality
measurementstakenfromthedischargeofthetunnel,andfromtheroadsideditch(into
whichthedischargeflowedatthetimeofsampling).Basedontheseresults(arsenic
concentrationof15.6ppb(total)and14.6ppb(dissolved))andourconversation,Ihave
advisedRobertKulkathathecanresumedischargingthetunnelseepagewaterintothe
ditch.Waterqualitysampleswillbetakenthisafternoon,tomorrowmorning,andon
Mondaytoconfirmarseniclevels.Inaddition,Innergexwillinstallaboardtodirect
thetributaryflowsintothemainflowsoftheAshlu,awayfromtheshallowrifflealong
therightbank.Thistemporarymeasurewillberemovedwhenthetunnelseepagedischarge
ceasein710days.
WaterQualitysampleswerealsotakenyesterdayfromthetailrace,wherethetunnel
seepagehasbeendirectedsinceTuesday.Theresultsexpectedtomorrow.Ifthearsenic
levelsarelessthan50ppb,thentheestablishedprotocolwillbeusedfordisposal;if
thearsenicconcentrationsarehigherthan50pbb,thenanappropriatedisposal
methodologywillhavetobedeveloped.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
Page 35
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
From:Knight,Francesca[mailto:Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca]
Sent:March23109:22AM
To:MikeNelson;timmothy.bennett@gov.bc.ca;gsteeves@ameresco.com;Nikl,Lee
Cc:ChristineBecker;Busto,Vince;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX
Subject:RE:413Ashluwaterqualityresults
FrancescaKnight,M.Sc.,R.P.Bio.
HabitatBiologist
FisheriesandOceansCanada/PchesetOcansCanada
Oceans,HabitatandEnhancementBranch/Directiondesocans,del'habitatetdelamise
valeur
Page 36
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
7
LowerFraserRiverLeBasFraser
Unit3100AnnacisParkway
Delta,BCV3M6A2
Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca
Ph:(604)6663191/Fax:(604)6666627
GovernmentofCanadaGouvernementduCanada
Helloeveryone,
Mike,thanksfortakingtheleadonreviewingtheguidanceinthewaterquality
protocol...whatyouarecitingbelowismyrecollection.Giventhatthedissolved
concentrationissohigh,andthatthisperiodofdischargecoincideswithfryemergence,
IthinkthebestcourseofactionistohaltthedischargeuntilLeehasachancetowork
uparationale/planforhandlingthiswater.Thismayincludesometoxtesting(rainbow
troutandDaphnid,forexample).Ihavenowayofknowingwhatthetotalquantityofwater
fordischargewouldbe,butLeewillbeabletogetahandleonthatthroughtalkingwith
RobertandMike.Letmeknowhowyouwanttoproceed.
Chessy
________________________________
Sent:March22,20105:03PM
Page 37
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
8
To:timmothy.bennett@gov.bc.ca;gsteeves@ameresco.com;Knight,Francesca
Cc:ChristineBecker
Subject:FW:413Ashluwaterqualityresults
Timetal.,
DuringthecommissioningexercisesattheirAshlufacility,Innergexhasbeenexperiencing
someissueswithmaterialinthetunnelbecomingmobilized.Theyhavedrainedthetunnel
toinspectitandarereleasingtheapproximately10l/sofwaterseepingfromthetunnel
intotheroadsideditch(about300minlength)thateventuallyflowsintoatributaryof
theAshluandthentheAshluitself.Watersamplescollectedlastweek,andreportedtoday
indicatethatarseniclevelsareelevated(0.085mg/ldissolvedand0.097mg/total)in
theseepagewaters.TheGolderwaterqualitymanagementplantodealwiththisissues
(November8,2009),calledfora0.050mg/l(50ug/l)tobeadoptedasthemaximum
dischargeconcentration.Italsostatesthat"intheeventthatthereareminor
exceedancesofthe50ug/ltotalarseniclimit,thedissolvedarsenicconcentrations
shouldbeevaluatedbyaqualifiedprofessional(QP)todetermineifthearsenic
concentrationobservedisappropriatefordischarge".Asthe50ug/llevelisbeing
exceeded,wehavesuggestedtoInnergexthattheseepageshouldbecontaineduntilfurther
waterqualitysamplingshowstheconcentrationshavedroppedtothisvalue,oruntilthey
havethewaterqualityresultsevaluatedbyLeeNiklofGolder(orotherQPtheyretain).
NotethatRobertKulka(Innergex)hasspokentoLeeNiklaboutthismatter,butasofyet
IhavenotreceivedanythinginwritingfromLee(likelytomorrow).
Atpresentthewaterisnotbeingcontained,andisflowingasstatedabove;Innergexare
reluctanttocollectthewatersinthetailrace,asthetailraceisbeingusedto
ventilatetheongoingworksinthetunnel.Theseepagewatersmaynotbeanissue,
however,astheAshlu'sdischargeisnowapproximately15cms,whichwouldamounttoa
dilutionratioofabout1,500to1.Ifyouwouldlikeustotakefurtherstepsatthis
time,pleaseadvise.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
Page 38
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
9
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
From:ChristineBecker
Sent:March221012:43PM
To:'RobertKulka'
Cc:MikeNelson;'Knight,Francesca'
Subject:413Ashluwaterqualityresults
HiRobert,
InmylastemailIattachedthesedimentpondsamplingresultsaswellasthewater
qualityresultsforthetunnelseepageattheportal.Ihavereviewedthewaterquality
resultsfromtheportalditchanditlookslikethereisanissuewithdissolvedarsenic
(0.085mg/L),whichexceedstheWQguidelinesof0.005mg/L.Irepeatedthesampling
lastweektoincludealocationattheoutletoftheditchaswellasahydrocarbon
analysis.
Iwouldstronglysuggestthatyoupumptheseepagetoacontainedlocationuntilwe
receivethemostrecentsampleresults(expectedthisweek)topreventelevatedarsenic
levelsfromreachingAshluCreek.Chessy,doyouhaveanyfurthercommentsatthistime?
Page 39
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
10
Regards,
christinebecker(neecunliffe).B.sc.,b.i.t.
TEL:6048150901|FAX:6048150904
cbecker@cerg.ca<mailto:lnelson@cerg.ca>|www.cascadeenvironmental.ca
Page 40
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2010 9:42 AM
To: Robert Kulka
Cc: gsteeves@ameresco.com; Busto, Vince; Nikl, Lee; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett,
Timothy A ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; mnelson@cerg.ca; Richard Blanchet
Subject: RE: IFR flow data
ThankyouRobertforgivingcarefulconsiderationoftheupcomingworks,Francesca
HabitatBiologist
FisheriesandOceansCanada/PchesetOcansCanadaOceans,HabitatandEnhancement
Branch/Directiondesocans,del'habitatetdelamisevaleurLowerFraserRiverLe
BasFraserUnit3100AnnacisParkwayDelta,BCV3M6A2Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca
Ph:(604)6663191/Fax:(604)6666627GovernmentofCanadaGouvernementduCanada
OriginalMessage
From:RobertKulka[mailto:RKulka@innergex.com]
Sent:April7,20106:07PM
To:Knight,Francesca
Cc:gsteeves@ameresco.com;Busto,Vince;Nikl,Lee;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Bennett,
TimothyAENV:EX;Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX;mnelson@cerg.ca;RichardBlanchet
Subject:RE:IFRflowdata
HiFrancesca,
IhavebeenintensivelydiscussingwithMikeduringthelastdaystheheadpondfilling,
penstock/tunnelflushing,penstock/tunnelfillingandcommencementofwaterdiversionand
weareensuringthatenoughpersonnelfromCascade(andfromInnergexforthatmatter)is
availabletoensurethattheworkwillbeperformedinaccordancewiththeaccepted
procedures.Withregardstothoseandyouremail,Iwouldliketogivethefollowing
comments:
1.WaterQuality:thetunnelandpenstockwillbeflushedat0.1to0.2cmsforabout2to
4hourswithwaterfromtheintake.Thewaterwillberetainedinthetailrace,asample
takenandrushedtoalabinVancouver.Subjecttotheresultofthissample,wewill
dischargethewaterintothecreekandcommencefillingthepenstockandtunnel.Flushing
couldbefinishedbytomorrowafternoonandthelabresultavailableFridaymorning.The
processandbenchmarksestablishedintheWaterQualityManagementPlanwillbeadhered
to.TurbiditywillbemonitoredbyCascade;IwilldiscussuseofNTUmeasurementsasper
youremailwithMiketomorrow.Thiscouldbecertainlyaverypracticalsolutiontoavoid
turnaroundtimesfromlabs(whichcanbeanissueinparticularovertheweekend).I
appreciatethatmadethissuggestion.
2.Headpondfilling:
A)Thecurrentcreekflowd/softheintakeisabout10cms,soIdefinitelyagreewithyou
thatthisdoesnotleaveusalotofwatertofilltheheadpondandthiswilltherefore
beatimeconsumingtask(headpondisabout80,000CM.Sofillingat1cmswouldtakeabout
22hrs.
B)Cascadeisreadytoperformafishsalvageimmediatelyafterweraisedthespillway
gatesasthefirststepofheadpondfilling.Withregardstoapermanentsolution:we
areconsideringseveraloptionsandexpecttopresentourdesignwithinthenextweeks.
Regards,
Robert
Page 41
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
________________________________________
ROBERTJ.KULKA,P.Eng.,Dipl.Wirt.Ing.
ConstructionManager
InnergexnergierenouvelableInnergexRenewableEnergy
Suite30338FellAvenue
NorthVancouver,BritishColumbiaV7P3S2
Phone:604984.8600*Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
OriginalMessage
Sent:Wednesday,April07,20103:31PM
To:RobertKulka
Cc:gsteeves@ameresco.com;Busto,Vince;Nikl,Lee;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Bennett,
TimothyAENV:EX;Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX
HiRobert,
Ihavebeenfollowingthisdiscussion,butitsurelookslikeyouhavegottenplentyof
responsefromothers.SomeitemscameupthatIwantedtobringtoyourattentionasyou
proceedwithpenstockflushingandsubsequentheadpondandpenstockfilling(sorryVince,
Iwasincorrecttheheadpondwasemptiedduringthepenstockwork).
1.WRTwaterquality:Iunderstandthatthepenstockwillbepartiallyflushedwithwater
currentlybeingheldinthetailrace.IbelieveMikementionedthathewillhaveaWQ
samplebackpriortotheflushingandreleaseofwatersthroughthetailrace,butplease
keepinmindtheturbidity/TSSguidelineintheGolderWQplan,specifically,25mg/L
forTSSand25NTUforturbidity.Whilewedon'tknowtheexactsitespecificrelationship
betweenturbidityandTSS,IthinkusingtheinsituNTUmeasurementisacceptableinlieu
ofwaitingonthelabturnaroundtime(others,pleaseweighinifyoudisagree).I
receivedareportofasedimentplumeintheAshlu;unfortunatelyIhavenomore
informationonit,soIthoughtthemostappropriateactionwouldbetojustremindyouof
DFO'sexpectationsforTSS/turbidityintheflushingdischarge.
2.WRTheadpondfilling
A)Pleasekeepinmindtheguidelinetowithholdnomorethan10%oftheambientinflowsat
thetailrace.Ionlymentionthisbecauseriverflowsarenotsuperhighrightnow(based
onIFRdata),sowedon'twanttorunintoasituationwherefillingtheheadpondresults
indewatering/reducedinstreamhabitatdownstream,particularlygiventhatwaterisnot
beingpassedbackintotheriverviathetailrace.Cascade'spresenceonsiteduringthe
headpondfillingisanimportantcomponentofensuringadequateinstreamflows.
B)fishsalvagewillberequired,giventheconfigurationofthechanneldownstreamofthe
Obermeyer.PleasemakesureCascadeisavailableforthis;maybeyoucouldalsocrackthe
weirlikewedidlastyear;thisseemedtoreallybenefitthestrandedfish,asmanyof
theminthelowersectionsofthechannelwereabletoescapeintothemainriverflow.We
arehopingtogetthechannelrepairedduringthisyear'sworkwindow,sopleasesubmita
designanytime.
regards,
Francesca
HabitatBiologist
Page 42
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Page 43
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Robert Kulka [RKulka@innergex.com]
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; mnelson@cerg.ca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Cc: gsteeves@ameresco.com; Francesca.Knight@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Berardinucci, Julia F
ENV:EX; Richard Blanchet; Francois Hebert
Subject: Re: IFR flow data
Tim,
WehavethedatafromheadpondfillingandcommissioningstartinginOctoberbutitwill
requireafairamountof ubmitto
youassoonaspossible, andI
maynotbeabletofinishthisuntilaftermyreturn.
Reards,
Robert
SentusingBlackBerry
OriginalMessage
From:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX<Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca>
To:MikeNelson<mnelson@cerg.ca>;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX<Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca>
CC:gsteeves@ameresco.com<gsteeves@ameresco.com>;Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca
<Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca>;Berardinucci,JuliaFENV:EX
<Julia.Berardinucci@gov.bc.ca>;RichardBlanchet;FrancoisHebert;RobertKulka
Sent:WedApr0713:58:222010
HiMike,Robert:
Couldyouconfirmifthereis(andifsoprovide)additionaldatatocovertheentire
periodofcommissioning,andtheperiodsoftime(withinthecommissioningphase,which
commencedlastyear)inwhichflowswerediverted?(e.g.,forheadpondfilling,etc..)
Thankyou.
AssistantRegionalWaterManager
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235
Sent:Wednesday,April7,201010:39AM
Page 44
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S22
2
To:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX
Cc:gsteeves@ameresco.com;Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca;Berardinucci,JuliaFENV:EX;
RichardBlanchet;FrancoisHebert;RobertKulka
TimandScott,
IhavereviewedthechartsanddataprovidedbyRobert,andtheIFRwaseithermaintained
orexceededforFebruaryandMarch2010attheAshluhydrofacility.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
OriginalMessage
To:Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca;MikeNelson;Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca
Cc:gsteeves@ameresco.com;Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca;Julia.Berardinucci@gov.bc.ca;
RichardBlanchet;FrancoisHebert
HelloTim,
AttachedaretwofileswithflowdataforAshluasperyourrequest.Iputintheminimum
IFRof2.42cmsasabenchmark.PleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyquestionsbutIneedto
advisethatIamontheroadforthenextthreedaysandthereforemaynotbeableto
respondquickly.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
Page 45
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
OriginalMessage
From:RobertKulka
Sent:Monday,April05,201011:01PM
To:'Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca';'mnelson@cerg.ca';'Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca'
Cc:'gsteeves@ameresco.com';'Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca';
'Julia.Berardinucci@gov.bc.ca';RichardBlanchet
Subject:Re:IFRflowdata
HelloTim,
IwillgotoAshlutomorrowandwilldownloadthedatafromthecontrolsystem.Itwill
takemeafewhourstoconvertthedataandperformatleastsomepreliminaryquality
control.Iwilltrymybesttoissuesomethingtomorrowafternoon.Itrustthat
formattingandlayoutcouldbecompromisedinordertospeeduptheprocess.
Regards,
Robert
SentusingBlackBerry
Page 46
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
OriginalMessage
To:MikeNelson<mnelson@cerg.ca>;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX<Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca>;
RobertKulka
CC:gsteeves@ameresco.com<gsteeves@ameresco.com>;Knight,Francesca
<Julia.Berardinucci@gov.bc.ca>
Sent:TueApr0601:22:392010
HiMike,Robert;
Thanksforfollowingupwiththis.
Pleaseprovideallavailableflowdataassoonaspossible,andanexpectedtimelineasto
whenwecouldreceivethisinformation.
Pleasesendtoallrecipientsofthisemail.
Regards,
TimBennett
________________________________
Sent:Mon05/04/20101:36PM
Page 47
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
Scott,
Robert,
Canyouprovidethedatatoallassoonasyouareable.I'lllookatthedataandgetto
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 48
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: mnelson@cerg.ca
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2010 11:51 AM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Cc: George Steeves; Chessy Knight; Berardinucci, Julia F ENV:EX; Francois Hebert; Richard
Blanchet; Robert Kulka
Subject: Re: IFR flow data
Tim/Scott,
IhavereviewedthedataandgraphsprovidedbyRobert,anditappearsthattheIFRwas
maintainedforthemonthsofOctober2009throughJanuary2010.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,RPBio,
CascadeEnvironmental
SentontheTELUSMobilitynetworkwithBlackBerry
OriginalMessage
From:"RobertKulka"<RKulka@innergex.com>
Date:Fri,9Apr201005:15:57
To:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX<Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca>
Cc:<gsteeves@ameresco.com>;<Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca>;Berardinucci,JuliaF
ENV:EX<Julia.Berardinucci@gov.bc.ca>;FrancoisHebert<FHebert@innergex.com>;
<mnelson@cerg.ca>;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX<Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca>;Richard
Blanchet<RBlanchet@innergex.com>
Tim,
Attachedarethefileswithflowdatad/sintakeforOctober,November,andDecember2009.
FirstchangestothewaterflowscausedbytheprojectwereonOctober19withthefinal
fillingoftheheadpondandsubsequentfillingofpenstockandtunnelandstartofwet
commissioning.ImarkedthisdateinthechartforOctober.
Ihopethisinformationissufficienttodealwiththeissuesathand.Pleasecontactme
ifyouneedanyfurtherinformationorclarifications.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
OriginalMessage
From:RobertKulka
Sent:Thursday,April08,20109:33PM
To:'Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX'
FrancoisHebert;mnelson@cerg.ca;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;RichardBlanchet
HiTim,
Page 49
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Ididnotrealizetheurgencybehindyourrequest.Ifinishedprocessingthedatafor
Januaryandthefileisattachedtothisemail.IexpecttoprovideDecemberandNovember
bytomorrowafternoon.
RegardingtheformatandavailabilityoftheIFRdata:Instreamflowdataisdisplayedin
realtimeontheoperatorscontrolstationatthepowerhouseandatallremoteterminals
Innergexoperates;thissystemalsoprovidesatrendchartofthelast30daysand
immediatepromptingofflowdatawithinthetrendwindow.Thedataisthereforealways
readilyavailableintheplantandattheremoteterminals.Unfortunately,downloading
andconvertingthedataintoacommonuserfriendlyformatlikeexcelinvolvesmultiple
stepsthatarerelativelytimeconsumingand(inmyopinion)tosomedegreecumbersome.
Ihopethenowavailableandforthcomingdataallowsyoutorespondtothecomplainsyou
havereceived.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
OriginalMessage
To:RobertKulka;RichardBlanchet
FrancoisHebert;mnelson@cerg.ca;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX
HiRobert,Richard:
Robert:Thankyouforyouremail.Iappreciateyourquickturnaroundandunderstand
thatyouwillbeawayuntilApril22nd,andunabletopersonallyprovidetherequested
data.
Unfortunately,yourproposedtimelinetoprovidetheotherdataI'verequesteddoesn't
helpusinrespondingtonumerousinquiriesandcomplaintsinregardstoallegednon
compliancewithyourIFRrequirements.Iwouldaskthatyouhaveoneofyourother
operationalstaffobtain/downloadthisflowdataandforwardtousassoonaspossible.
Ifforwhateverreasonthiscannotbedoneorisimpractical,pleaseprovidemewith
furtherinformationsoIcanunderstandwhattheissuesare.Iwouldalsonotethatthis
wouldsuggestthatintheeventofarealIFRnoncompliance,you/Innergexwouldbeunable
toinformusand/orprovideuswiththerequireddatainatimelyfashion;andthis
could/wouldbeproblematicfromourpointofview.
Ilookforwardtoyourresponseand/oraschedulefortheimminentdeliveryofthis
information.
Regards,
Page 50
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235
OriginalMessage
Sent:Thursday,April8,201012:23AM
To:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX;mnelson@cerg.ca;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX
Tim,
WehavethedatafromheadpondfillingandcommissioningstartinginOctoberbutitwill
requireafairamountofprocessingandconsequentlytime.Iwilltrymybesttosubmitto
youassoonaspossible,butIwillbeawayallofnextweekanduptoApril22ndandI
maynotbeabletofinishthisuntilaftermyreturn.
Reards,
Robert
SentusingBlackBerry
OriginalMessage
To:MikeNelson<mnelson@cerg.ca>;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX<Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca>
CC:gsteeves@ameresco.com<gsteeves@ameresco.com>;Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca
<Julia.Berardinucci@gov.bc.ca>;RichardBlanchet;FrancoisHebert;RobertKulka
Sent:WedApr0713:58:222010
HiMike,Robert:
Couldyouconfirmifthereis(andifsoprovide)additionaldatatocovertheentire
periodofcommissioning,andtheperiodsoftime(withinthecommissioningphase,which
commencedlastyear)inwhichflowswerediverted?(e.g.,forheadpondfilling,etc..)
Thankyou.
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235
Page 51
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Sent:Wednesday,April7,201010:39AM
To:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX
RichardBlanchet;FrancoisHebert;RobertKulka
TimandScott,
IhavereviewedthechartsanddataprovidedbyRobert,andtheIFRwaseithermaintained
orexceededforFebruaryandMarch2010attheAshluhydrofacility.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
OriginalMessage
To:Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca;MikeNelson;Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca
Cc:gsteeves@ameresco.com;Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca;Julia.Berardinucci@gov.bc.ca;
HelloTim,
AttachedaretwofileswithflowdataforAshluasperyourrequest.Iputintheminimum
IFRof2.42cmsasabenchmark.PleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyquestionsbutIneedto
advisethatIamontheroadforthenextthreedaysandthereforemaynotbeableto
respondquickly.
Regards,
Robert
Page 52
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
OriginalMessage
From:RobertKulka
Sent:Monday,April05,201011:01PM
To:'Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca';'mnelson@cerg.ca';'Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca'
Cc:'gsteeves@ameresco.com';'Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca';
'Julia.Berardinucci@gov.bc.ca';RichardBlanchet
HelloTim,
IwillgotoAshlutomorrowandwilldownloadthedatafromthecontrolsystem.Itwill
takemeafewhourstoconvertthedataandperformatleastsomepreliminaryquality
control.Iwilltrymybesttoissuesomethingtomorrowafternoon.Itrustthat
formattingandlayoutcouldbecompromisedinordertospeeduptheprocess.
Regards,
Robert
SentusingBlackBerry
Page 53
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
OriginalMessage
To:MikeNelson<mnelson@cerg.ca>;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX<Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca>;
RobertKulka
CC:gsteeves@ameresco.com<gsteeves@ameresco.com>;Knight,Francesca
<Julia.Berardinucci@gov.bc.ca>
Sent:TueApr0601:22:392010
HiMike,Robert;
Thanksforfollowingupwiththis.
Pleaseprovideallavailableflowdataassoonaspossible,andanexpectedtimelineasto
whenwecouldreceivethisinformation.
Pleasesendtoallrecipientsofthisemail.
Regards,
TimBennett
________________________________
Sent:Mon05/04/20101:36PM
Page 54
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
7
Scott,
Robert,
Canyouprovidethedatatoallassoonasyouareable.I'lllookatthedataandgetto
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 55
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
8
Page 56
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Subject: RE: Outstanding Requirements for Ashlu Creek Hydro Project
ofcourse.Nonparametricstuffisgreat,sometimesbestwhenyoujust
cangettheparametricassumptionsaddressed.Somefolks(notmentioninganynames!)use
itanyway,andpuffouttheirchestsandsay"lookhowsmartIam".ThenIhaveworked
withotherfolks(aPhD!)whosaidIdon'tbelieveinstatistics!
C
HabitatBiologist
OriginalMessage
Sent:April15,201010:02AM
To:Knight,Francesca
Subject:RE:OutstandingRequirementsforAshluCreekHydroProject
GreatstuffChessy.Thanksmuch.
Foryourinfo,I'llalsoforwardsomerecentwork(astatsanalysisandmyresponse)ona
differentIPPinRegion2.Itrelatestoanonparametricstatisticalapproachfor
macroinvertmonitoringtobeusedatEastTobaMontrose.Noreviewrequested(themajor
projectsfolkatDFOareinvolved),justalittlelightreadingforyourenjoymentwhen

Scott

________________________________
Sent:Thu15/04/20109:58AM
Cc:Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Busto,Vince;Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX;
gsteeves@ameresco.com;mnelson@cerg.ca;Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX
Subject:OutstandingRequirementsforAshluCreekHydroProject
HelloRobertandRichard,
IhaveincludedhereDFO'scommentsonFocus'draftOEMP.
Overall,I'dsaythatthemonitoringprogramasproposeddoesnotenableDFOtodetermine
whethertheassumptionscarriedforwardintheCEAAscreeningandapprovaldocumentswere
infactcorrect.Inotherwords,theprogramwillnotbeabletodeterminewhetherthere
areanyadverseeffectsontheAshluasaresultofplantoperations.
Page 57
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
S. 22
S. 22
2
I.Waterlevels,temp.,andflows
1.MoEhasprovidedanexcellentidentificationoftheproposedprogram's
deficiencieswithrespecttoinstreamflowmonitoring.Ican'timproveonhiswork,
althoughIhaveonecommentonramping.
2.Ramping(Sec.5.1.2):FocusalludestoarampingstudyconductedbyCascade
Environmentalin2009.Whatwasthepurposeofthatstudy?Whatrampingrateswere
evaluated?FocusseemstoindicatethattheOEMPwillmonitorrampingduringanyplant
startupsandshutdowns,buthow,accordingtowhatrates,etc?Thisisapretty
importantcomponentofascertainingthepotentialeffectsofplantoperations.Itseemsto
bedismissed.
II.WaterQuality
Iwillfocusonmybiggestissuewiththissection,asopposedtocommentingonselected
parametersorstationlocations.TheobjectiveoftheFocusprogramisto"detectchanges
towaterqualityinAshluCreekasaresultoftheproject".Further,"Changestowater
qualitywillbeassessedbycomparingbaselineandoperationsvaluesandamongsample
sitesforeachoftheparametersusingCavanahetal.(1998)".Theproblemwiththis
objectiveisthatIdon'tseeanywaytocompareoperationalWQwithbaselineWQ,asthe
baselineprogramissuchamishmashofdatacollectionoverseveralyears'time,by
variousconsultants.Thesituationcouldbeimprovedbyareviewandsummaryofallpre
operationaldatabyanappropriatelyqualifiedscientist.Idon'tknowifanysummary
statisticscouldbedone,buttheywouldbehandyforunderstandingthebasicwater
chemistryoftheriverandvariabilityaroundthoseparameters.Overall,though,weknow
AshluWQwasnotlimitingtoaquaticlifebeforeoperations,butmaybeaffectedbyplant
operations.Anotherwaytoputthisistosaythattheabilitytoconductrigorous
statisticalcomparisonsofselectWQparametersbeforeandafteroperationcommencementis
a"nicetohave".ComparingoperationalWQ(bothincontrolreachesandeffectedreaches)
torelevantguidelines(BCWQGsorliteraturevaluesforthoseparametersthatdonothave
existingWQGs)isa"musthave".IfareallydetailedanalysisexistsofbaselineWQdata,
itshouldbesummarizedintheOEMP.Ifitdoesnot,that'samissedopportunity.Ican't
reallycriticizetheparameterselection,butrather,howitrelatestothebaseline
"picture"ofAshluwaterchemistry.IdothinkthatFocusshouldpayverycloseattention
ontemperatureanddissolvedoxygeninthediversionvs.controlreaches.
III.FishHabitat
1.WhileIcanseesomevalueinqualitativehabitatassessmentonareachwide
basis,thereisnorealscientificrigorintheFocusproposal,sonowaytomeaningfully
assesshabitatchangesorimpairmentovertime,asaresultofthealteredflowregime.
Representativetransectsshouldbeselectedineachreach,andavailablehabitattypeand
areaquantifiedatvariousflows.Andnobaselinehabitatdatawerecollectedafter2004,
andit'snow2010.That'splentyoftimetohavesetuptransects!
2.Focusisplanningondocumenting"qualitative"changestoinstreamhabitat
potentiallycausedbythealteredflowregime.How?Ifa"substantialeffortwasspenton
baselinestudiesassessingspawningpotential[inthediversionreachanddownstream]"
thenpicksomerelevantmetricsfromthisworkandusethemtoquantitativelyassess
changesovertime.Andifrearinghabitatwasnotadequatelyassessedduringbaseline
studies,whydidACILPnotcollectsuchdatabetween2004andnow?
3.Focusproposesthat"Additionalinformationsuchashabitatsuitabilityfor
speciesofinterestforspawning,rearingandoverwinteringlifehistorystageswillbe
assessedusingprofessionaljudgementatIFR".WithallduerespecttoMr.Johnson'smany
yearsinthefield,wejustdon'tplacemuchvalueonsuchmethodsanymore.Simply,the
sciencehasevolved.Effectivequantitativehabitatmonitoring(e.g.,transects)would
enableuseofhabitatsuitabilityindexmodelsforsteelheadandcoho.Idon'tthinkthese
modelsareperfect,andtheycancertainlybemisused(i.e.,modelparameterizedwith
Page 58
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
habitatvariablesthatarenotrelevanttothestreamofinterest),butwhynotgiveita
shothere?TheHSImodelwouldbeagoodplacetostartameaningfulevaluationofhabitat
suitabilitytothereferencedspeciesandlifestages,andhowplantoperationseffectthe
modeledrelationships.
IV.FishCommunity
1.Thissectionwouldbenefitfromagoodfigureshowingreachbreaksandsample
locations.
2.Allexistingbaselinedatashouldbeevaluatedbyaqualifiedfisheriesbiologist
togiveDFOandMoEthebestpossiblepictureoffishuse,abundance,populationsize,
etc.Thebaselineworkdoneonthisveryimportantindicatorislimited,andunfortunately
providesuswithnorealpopulationestimatesforspeciesandlifestagesofinterest.
Additionalbaselineworkcouldhavebeendoneoverthelastcoupleofyears,toatleast
giveusgoodpopulationestimatesandformthebasisforcomparisoninfutureyearsof
operation.Focusshouldbeverycarefulincharacterizingbaselineconditions...while
baselinesamplingresultedinlowfishcapturenumbers,Iwoulderronthesideof
inadequatesampling,ratherthanlowfishproductivityintheAshlu!
3.Idon'tseethevalueofthegutcontentssurvey...stomachpumpingthefish
placesunduestressonthemfornorealreason.IfFocusfeelsthatstronglyaboutthis
partofthestudy,whynotthenonlydoitonalimitednumberoffish?Thewaythereport
reads,itsoundslikeallcapturedfishwillhavetheirstomachspumped.Idon'tseeany
reasonforthis.
4.ACILPisresponsibleformonitoringfishpassageupstreamoftheintakestructure
(i.e.,useofthefishladder).Theproposedmonitoringistooqualitative..."periodic
observations"?...howmany?Anypossibilityforapassivefishcounter,etc?
5.Focusmakesnomentionofbasicstatisticalanalysistoolsthatcouldbeusedfor
evaluatingdifferencesinfishcommunitymetricsincontrolvs.diversionreachsites.For
Focus'consideration:
i.hypothesistesting:
canbeusedtoevaluatewhetheragivenmetric(meanparrabundance,forexample)inthe
diversionreachdiffersfromeithertheupstreamcontrolordownstreamsites.Ideally,
thiscouldalsobedoneforcomparisonsofbaselinevs.operationaldata.
ii.ANOVA:verygoodfor
understandingtherelationshipbetweennaturalvariabilityandmeasuredbiological
response.
Useofthesetoolsdoesrequiresomeasamplingconsiderationsinstudydesign,which
unfortunatelyisnotevidentinFocus'OEMP.
6.MoEhasalreadybroughtuptheissueofpoweranalysisintheircomments,andI
havechosentoaddressitinalatersectionofmycomments.But,Focusdoesstate:
"Quantitativemultivariateanalysisofthedatawithpoweranalysistoassessthe
biologicalchangewillbeperformedifpossible".Attheriskofsoundingincredibly
critical,thereisnothinginFocus'OEMPstudydesignthatwouldenablesuchananalysis.
Foronething,poweranalysisneedstobedonefirst.Itisacriticalcomponentofstudy
designandformsthebasisforsuchthingslikenumberofsamplingstations,numberof
replicates,etc.AndwithrespecttoFocus'useofmultivariatestatistics...Focushas
notdemonstratedaworkingknowledgeofunivariatestatisticsinthestudydesign,soIam
cautiousastotheircorrectuseofmultivariatetools.
V.Aquaticinsects
Page 59
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
1.Ithinkthebaselinedatawouldbenefitfromathoroughreviewandsynthesisbya
biologistexperiencedwiththesetypesofdatasets.Itishoweverunfortunatethat
taxonomywasnotatleasttothegenuslevel.
2.IhaveemphasizedinotherreportreviewsjusthowimportantIthinkbenthic/drift
invertebratedataisforassessingchangesinaquaticenvironments.Idon'tthinkthat
maintenanceofpredisturbanceinvertebrateabundanceandbiomassissufficientto
maintaintheproductivityofagivenaffectedreach(e.g.,sufficienttomaintainfoodfor
fish,thereforemaintainingpredevelopmentfishpopulationlevels),andthereforethe
affectedstreamasawhole.FromFocus'overviewofbaselinestudies,itsoundslikethe
emphasiswasoninvertebrateabundance.
3.IsupportFocus'directiontoevaluatetaxonomytothegenus/specieslevel,but
beyondthat,Iamnotconfidentintheproposeddataanalysisandsummary,primarily
becausethereisnotasolidanalysisplanpresentedintheOEMP.Focuscouldconsiderthe
followingmetrics.Themetricslistedherearenotanexhaustivelist;othersitespecific
metricsofinterestmaybeadded(suchaspresenceofraretaxa).
Simpson'sdiversityindex:takesintoaccountboththeabundance
patternsandtaxonomicrichnessofthecommunity.Theformulaforcalculatingthismetric
canbefoundintheprimaryliterature.
Taxa(i.e.,Family)richness.
Taxa(e.g.,family)density:thenumberofindividualsofeach
familyexpressedperunitarea.I'dpaycarefulattentiontopresentingthetopthreetaxa
(basedonabundance).
Taxa(e.g.,family)proportion:thepercentageabundanceforeach
taxonateachstation.
EPTdensityandproportion:expressesthedensityandproportionof
taxarepresentingtheordersEphemeroptera(Mayflies),Trichoptera(caddisflies)and
Plecoptera(stoneflies).Theseordersareconsideredtobeindicativeofhealthystream
conditions,andmakeupavaluablecomponentofthesalmoniddiet.
BrayCurtis(BC)Index:expressesthedegreeofinvertebrate
communitysimilarity/dissimilaritybetweenstations(i.e.,diversionreachvs.controls,
orpostdevelopmentvs.baseline).Itisadistancecoefficientthatreachesamaximum
valueof1fortwositesthatareentirelydifferent,andaminimumvalueof0fortwo
sitesthatareentirelythesame.Thedistancecoefficientmeasurestheamountof
associationbetweensites,andwouldbeusefulforpresentinganoverallpictureofhow
theinvertebratedatadifferinordinationspace,andthereforehowtheinvertebrate
communitywithinthediversionreachdiffersfromthecontrolorbaseline(ifatall),
whichisaprimaryresearchquestion.
4.Focusshouldrevisittheirconsiderationsonwhatconstitutesadriftnetsample.
Inmymind,ifnetsarepulledeveryhourinsteadofeveryfourhours,eachpullisnota
separatesample,butrathercreatesincidentsofpseudoreplication(which,ofcourse,
confoundsdataanalysis).Thesampleinterval(e.g.,fourhours)shouldbesetinthe
studydesign;ifnetsarecloggingwithfinesedimentandhavetobepulledhourly,those
fourhourlypullsshouldbecompositedintoonereplicate.
VI.MitigationandCompensationWorks
IsEdithTobe(SquamishRiverWatershedSociety)monitoringthecompensationworks?
VII.Assessmentofeffects
1.KudostoFocusforidentifyingtheveryimportantissueofeffectthresholds
withinthefieldofIPPeffectsmonitoring.IbelievethattheIPPindustryisverymuch
Page 60
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
behindsomeotherindustrieswithrespecttoacceptedcriticaleffectthresholds.Also,
though,IbelievethatFocusisabsolutelyincorrecttosaythattheterm"effect
thresholds"referstothedegreeofchangeorlevelofeffectbasedon"professional
opinion".FocusshouldlookatmodelsliketheMMEREEMprogram(metalminingeffluent
effectsregulationenvironmentaleffectsmonitoringprogram)andthepulpandpapermill
effluentEEMprograms(theseareonlytwoofmany!).Or,lookatnumerousecologicalrisk
assessmentmodels.Anyofthesecontainnarrativeandquantitativeguidanceonselecting
criticaleffectsizes,orgosofarastostipulateagiveneffectthreshold,abovewhich
somepolicy,regulatory,oroperationalaction/changeisrequired.Focushasan
opportunitytoreallyshinehere...theyhaveacknowledgedaveryimportantissue,which
nootherconsultantsworkinginthefieldofIPPeffectsmonitoringseemtobediscussing.
2.TheonlyotherthingIcanaddtoMoE'scommentsonpoweranalysisishowpower
analysisrelatestotheideaofeffectthresholds.Youcannotbegintoquantifyaneffect
sizeofinterestwithoutadequatepoweranalysis.Ideally,effectsizeisdetermineda
priori....Let'ssayIamonlygoingtocareabouta50%reduction(mychoseneffect
threshold)inparrabundanceinthediversionreachrelativetowhatever(upstream
control,abaselineyearofinterest,etc).Poweranalysisisgoingtotellmethatmy
samplingeffortwillbealotlessthanifIwanttobeabletodetecta20%reductionin
thatfishpopulationmetric.
regards,
Francesca
HabitatBiologist
Page 61
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Richard Blanchet; Robert Kulka
Cc: Barrett, Scott ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Stoddard, Erin M
ENV:EX; gsteeves@ameresco.com; mnelson@cerg.ca
Subject: RE: Outstanding Requirements for Ashlu Creek Hydro Project (Water file 2001264)
Hi guys, I can be available for this meeting,
regards,
Francesca

Sent : Sun 18/ 04/ 2010 9: 43 PM
To: Richard Blanchet ; Robert Kulka
Cc: Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX;
gst eeves@ameresco.com; mnelson@cerg.ca
Subj ect : RE: Out st anding Requirement s for Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264)

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your e-mail.

We (Scott, Erin and I) would be available for a meeting this thursday afternoon. However, I suggest that Francesca
and Vince should be at this meeting as I understand that DFO has provided comments on the OEMP as well.

Chessy, Vince: are either of you available on thursday afternoon?

Regards.

Tim

Sent : Thu 15/ 04/ 2010 10: 47 AM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Robert Kulka
GoodmorningTim,

IntheabsenceofRobertandbasedonyouravailability,Iamsuggestingtohavethemeetingscheduledfornext
Thursdayafternoon(April22
nd
).Pleaseletmeknowifthatisstillpossibleforyou.

Bestregards

Richard

__________________________

Page 62
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855

Sent : April 14, 2010 5: 19 PM
To: Robert Kulka; Richard Blanchet
I mpor t ance: High

HiRobert;

ThankyouforprovidingarevisedOEMP(RevisionC,datedMarch2010)fortheAshlufacility,whichisintendedto
addressMoEsearliercommentsonthepreviousrevisionB,datedandsubmittedNovember2009.

StaffhavecompletedtheirreviewoftheOEMPandprovideddetailedcomments,attachedintheemailchain
below.Insummary,itdoesnotappearthattherevisedOEMPfullyaddressourpreviouscomments,andthe
followingobservationshavebeenmade:
Apparentinconsistencybetweenproposedmethodology/monitoringandreferencedguidelines(e.g.,rating
curves,etc);
Concernsaboutproposedrampingratesvscriteriaincurrentuse(e.g.,defaultratesacceptedbyDFO),and
thetimingoffutureproposedrampingstudies;
insufficientdetail/quantificationofbaselinedataandnoanalysestodeterminewhetherthisdataandthe
proposedmonitoringprogramcanbeusedtodrawscientificallydefensibleandstatisticallyvalidconclusions
regardingimpacts;
apparentincompletionofprediversionactivitieswhicharerequiredforimpactandcompliancemonitoring
andassessment;and,
insufficientdetailandinferred/suggested(over)relianceonprofessionaljudgementorqualitative
assessment,ratherthanrigorousquantitativeassessment.
Pleasereviewandcarefullyconsiderallofthedetailedcomments(intheemailchainbelow).

IalsonotethatyourcoverlettersuggeststhatyouunderstandthattheOEMPisthelastremainingdocument
requiredpriortomyissuanceofaLeavetoCommenceOperation(LTCO),andthatyouwouldliketoreapplyforthe
LTCO.IwouldliketoclarifythatthefollowinginformationmustbesubmittedpriortoyourobtainingaLeaveto
CommenceOperationsforthisproject:
1. amonitoringplansuitabletodeterminethenatureofanyimpactsfromoperations(OEMP);
2. amonitoringplantoconfirmthatinstreamflowrequirements(IFR)arereleasedattheintakeand
observedwithinthestream[currentlyspecifiedwithintheOPPand/orOEMP];and,
3. aplandocumentinghowworkswillbeoperatedandmaintained(OperatingParametersandProcedures
manual,OPP).

Withregardtothelastitem(#3),IwillbeforwardingdetailedcommentsontheOPPmanualearlynextweek.

Theinformationoutlinedinitems#1to#3,above,mustbesatisfactoryto,andacceptedby,theRegionalWater
ManagerorAssistantRegionalWaterManager.Icurrentlyconsiderthattheseinformationrequirementshavenot
beenmet,andamnotwillingtoconsiderissuanceofaLeavetoCommenceOperationsatthistime.

Pleasedonothesitatetocontactmetoarrangeacallormeetingtodiscussthesecomments,itemsand/ornext
steps.IamcurrentlyavailablenextWednesdayorThursdayafternoon;however,Isuggestyoucontactmeviae
mailtosetupameetingordiscussiontimeasIwillbeinmeetingsandoutoftheofficeuntilnextTuesday.

Regards,
Page 63
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3

Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

From: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Sent : Wednesday, April 14, 2010 12: 02 PM
Cc: Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; 'Knight , Francesca'; 'Bust o, Vince'
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er St ewardship Division file number: 2001264): Operat ions
Environment al Management Plan, Revision C

Tim,

GeneralandspecificcommentsontheMarch2010versionoftheOperationEnvironmentalMonitoringPlanforthe
abovereferencedprojectareprovidedbelowandadditionalspecificcommentsareimbeddedwithinScott
Babakaiffsattachedemail.

1. Thedocumentmakesreferencetoqualitativeassessmentsorprofessionalobservationsinseveral
sections.Thisisaninappropriateapproachthatprovidesnoopportunitiesforanalysis,noassurancethat
assessmentswouldbecompletedconsistentlythroughthetermoftheprogram,andthedatacouldnotbe
usedtodetermineeffectorimpactafterthe5yearterm.
2. Themonitoringoffishwayaccessanduseneedstobequantitative,notbyobservation.Thissection
(5.7.2.1)needstobeextensivelyrevised,andshouldincludethemonitoringandmanagementofthe
approachesthroughfloworchannelrevisiontoensurethatpassageisprovidedandeffective.The
managementandmaintenanceofthefishwayandensuringitseffectivenessshouldalsobeincludedwithin
theOPP.
3. Asaresidentfishpopulationextendsintoandbeyondthefacilityheadpond,themonitoringprogram
shouldincludemonitoringtheeffectsofmanagementandmaintenanceoftheheadpond,includingbutnot
limitedtosubstratestabilityandheadpondflushing.Themanagementoftheheadpondandmitigationof
impactstofishandfishhabitatfrommaintenanceactivitiesshouldalsobeaddressedintheOPP.
4. Themonitoringandmanagementofthetailraceshouldbeincorporatedintotheprogramtoensurethat
accesstofishisrestricted.Ifrestrictionisnotpossible,thentheprogramshoulddescribeindetailhowthe
tailracewouldbemonitoredandmanagedtomitigatefishstrandingandkills.Themonitoringand
managementofthetailraceshouldalsobeaddressedindetailintheOPP.

AswithScott,Icouldcontinuewithmyreviewandprovidespecificdetailsofalltheinadequaciesofthismonitoring
program;however,Iunderstandthattheproponentisanxioustoreceivefeedbackonthisrecentversionofthe
document.Pleasecontactmeifyourequireclarificationoradditionalinformation.

Sincerely,


Sent : Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2: 06 AM
Cc: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX
Subj ect : FW: Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er St ewardship Division file number: 2001264): Operat ions

Hi Tim,

Page 64
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Per your request (and in anticipation of our meeting on Tuesday afternoon), I've competed a more detailed review of
the latest OEMP iteration (Revision C) for the Ashlu IPP. You may recall that I sent a short email a few weeks ago
indicating that the latest iteration did not address the deficiencies I'd previously identified in Revision B back in
December 2009. So, here's a point-by-point review of Revision C in comparision to my December 2009 comments on
Revision B (review comments on Revision B shown in italics):

"Ive reviewed Revision B of the Operations Environmental Management Plan for the Ashlu Creek project (dated
November 2009) as submitted by Innergex. The document is hereafter referenced simply as the OEMP since there
is no authorship or bibliographic detail included. The absence of any explicit authorship is notable: there is little
evidence that the OEMP has been composed by a licensed professional (e.g. RP Bio) with experience in the
development or implementation of a monitoring program intending to fulfill agency needs. In short, the OEMP is
typical for a preliminary draft, but it is troubling that completion of project construction & commissioning is
imminent."
Revision C has been composed by Focus Environmental Ltd. , but no individual author is named. Given the corporate
structure of Focus Environmental, it seems safe to assume that the author is Bill J ohnson (a RP Bio.) but this detail
should have been provided.

Forconsistencyandaccountability,allsubsequentdocumentsshouldbesignedbyanappropriatelyqualified
professional(s)ascommittedtobytheproponent.Thesignatoriesofthisdocumentshouldonlybedevelopingand
signingoffonthesectionsofthedocumentthattheyarequalifiedtoprovideadviceon.

"Regardless, I have several primary concerns with the OEMP:

1. Few com m i t m en t s t o f ollow com m on ly -a ccep t ed gu i d eli n es f or d a t a collect i on & a n a ly s i s ,
despite a proposal that monitoring details meet the requirements of DFO and MOE(p. 6 of the OEMP). I
suggest many details proposed in the OEMP are seemingly arbitrary and do not reference any guidelines or
standards typically referenced by Provincial or Federal agencies.

Revision C certainly includes more details than Revision B: a simple glance at the Table of Contents would allow
this conclusion. Whether much of this detail is required is certainly questionable, but leaving that aside, I
appreciate that Revision C similarly includes more commitments to follow commonly-accepted guidelines for
data collection & analysis (e.g. text in Section 5). However, the details of data collection & analysis tabulated
in the respective sub-sections of Section 5 are often inconsistent with the details of the respective guidelines
(e.g. hydrometric guidance in Section 5.1). I'll suggest that this represents a lack of due dilligence rather than
any intentional deceit. However, it is interesting that Section 5.0 (p.15) of Revision C includes the
retrospective explanation that "baseline studies were carried out from 2001 to 2006 by Sigma and TRC
Biological Ltd (TRC, 2005) according to B.C. Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC) standards, but
prior to the Provincial guidelines compiled by Hatfield et al (2007)". This is a very generalized statement,
and the author of Revision C does not provide any detail or supporting evidence for the claim of 'RISC
standards' being met (ie. which RISC standards and for which components?). Nor does the author indicate
how these RISC standards may or may not apply to the collection & analysis of data at this particular site. For
example, RISC standards in 2006 did not include detailed guidance determination of stage-discharge rating
curves, nor did they include guidance regarding recommended protocol for the collection of fish abundance
data at sites such as Ashlu (ie. cold, deep, silty, low-conductivity streams) where standard methods (ie.
electro-shocking) may be inappropriate.

For instance:
1. St a ge-d i s ch a r ge r a t i n g cu r v es - the OEMP commits to collecting a minimum of three
discharge measurementsand warns that ...it is unlikely that flows will be able to be measured
above 20% of mean annual discharge. There are clear and well-established guidelines for
developing stage-discharge rating curves (e.g. LWBC Hydrometric Guidelines; B.C. Provincial
Hydrometric Standards (see
http:/ / www.env.gov.bc.ca/ fia/ documents/ Manual%20of%20British%20Columbia%20Hydrometri
c%20Standards%20V1.0,%20March%2012,%202009.pdf) that the proponent is recommended to
meet.

Section 5.1.2 includes reference to appropriate guidance (RISC, 2009 & LWBC, 2005) for development
of stage-discharge rating curves at the three proposed hydrometric stations, but explicit work to be
undertaken to develop rating curves (e.g. 'three measurements' per Table 2 in Section 5.1.2) is
inadequate and not consistent with provincial guidance. In fact, Section 5.1.2.1 of Revision C
indicates that two of the three gauges have yet to be installed (so the rating curves have not yet been
established), and Revision C indicates that 'calibration' of the gauge proposed for verifying
compliance with IFR & ramping rates (WQ1) has already been completed by Northwest Hydraulic
Consultants Ltd.(December 9 2009 report) but I do not believe this work has been reviewed &
Page 65
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
accepted by MOE. Text includes within Section 2.8 of Revision C suggests that the proponent may
have a different understanding of IFR gauge calibration than the standard expected by MOE
for streamflow measurement (" The sensor was tied into a benchmark in November 2009 following
calibration of the 2.42 m / s IFR required under the DFO Authorization. The benchmark serves as a
visual reference to calibrate the level probe") .

The absence of an agency-approved rating curve and data collection protocol calls into question the
reliability of streamflow data provided to date, including verification of compliance with IFR
provision, so I recommend that the work be completed & submitted for MOE review ASAP, with no
provision of final leaves to commence operation until the rating curves have been reviewed and
accepted by MOE. Rating curve development for all three proposed gauges must be completed by a
licensed Professional with appropriate training and experience in the collection & analysis of stream
discharge data. The OEMP (and OPP) should also include a commitment to complete ongoing
discharge measurements at each station to allow verification of the rating curve (or re-development of
a rating curve, if need be) per the latest (2009) RISC standards. I can provide more detail to the
consultants if need be.

2. Rep or t i n g of s t r ea m f low d a t a : the OEMP commits to collect to collect flow data on a
continuous basis, typically in 15-minute intervalsand promises that data will be recorded...and
can be provided to onsite DFO and/ or MOE staff...for compliance purposes...flow data will be
reported quarterly. I suggest there is no need to submit data to review agencies more frequently
than once per year, but agencies must be informed within 24 hours of any non-compliance (e.g. IFR
provision, ramping rates), and the proponent must resolve the issue of non-compliance
immediately. In terms of data collection&logging, I note that the BC Provincial Hydrometric
Standards (Section 3.2.2.3) recommends a stage reading every 15 minutes, but advises that "this is a
minimum requirement...site specific flow regimes may necessitate a shorter frequency...". For
purposes of verifying compliance with flow ramping requirements in fish-bearing waters,
particularly those with the diversity of fish values in the Ashlu diversion reach, I would recommend
a much shorter stage sampling frequency (say, 10-second), with a 2-minute average for storage in
the data logger (and submission to agencies). I would also recommend that data be downloaded
from the logger on a frequency no less than once per month, to ensure that any equipment
malfunctions (e.g. battery loss, equipment damage) do not result in lengthy data gaps. For
purposes of graphical presentation in monitoring reports, it may be helpful to apply an hourly
average to the 2-minute stage data.

Section 5.1.3 of Revision C includes more detail than previous iterations, but still does not address the
deficiencies identified in Revision Revision B (see above). Of greatest concern is the absence of a
commitment to inform MOE within 24 hours of any non-compliance with water license conditions (ie,
IFR provision, ramping rates) and immediately address any issues of non-compliance. Instead,
Revision C simply commits to having the data available for agency review, if need be, along
with annual submission: this is obviously inadequate. Also, Table 2 does not include any explicit
commitments to the sample averaging intervals to be applied, despite my previous comments
requesting such detail. I'm left with the impression that the author of Revision C has either not been
provided with my previous review comments, or has wilfully ignored them.

3. Dev elop m en t of r a m p i n g r a t es : Section 12.2 of the OEMP proposes that the ramping rates
shall not exceed 29.0 cms per 90 minutes. This rate will be established during the commissioning
process of the plant, and may be subject to different flow conditions in the creek. This rate was
based on the natural ramping rates that have been historically observed in Ashlu Creek over several
years since 1991.... The OEMP provides some detail regarding proposed methods for establishing
ramping rates during commissioning, but I would suggest that such protocol (and such interim
rates like 29 cms per 90 minutes) should be established and scientifically-justified by an experienced
professional, with reference to established agency criteria (e.g. DFOs default hourly ramping rates
of 2.5 cm & 5.0 cm for fry & juveniles) or recommended guidelines. Finally, I suggest that the
commitment within Section 14 of the OEMP to submit the ramping rate report six months after
commissioning represents an inappropriate risk to fish & fish habitat given the rapid interim
ramping rate proposed and the fish values present in the diversion reach.

Ramping rate monitoring is proposed in Section 5.1 of Revision C, but again, the streamflow gauges
proposed for monitoring of the ramping rates have either not yet been installed (WQ2, WQ3) or lack
agency-approved rating curves (WQ1, WQ2, WQ3). Text within Section 5.1 of Revision C also
suggests that the proponent is aiming to simply "track ramping rates during shut down" and may not
fully understand that they will be obligated to verify compliance with ramping rates that will
not harmfully alter or disrupt fish & fish habitat. It is also my understanding in the ongoing absence
of a detailed ramping rate assessment, the proponent will be obligated to follow the DFO default
Page 66
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
standards (2.5 cm/ hour when fry are present, 5.0 cm/ hour otherwise) but there is no reference in
Revision C to this standard.

Thelackofappropriatelycalibratedflowmonitoringequipmentandagencysupportedrampingrateshasthehigh
potentialtoresultinsignificantimpactstofishandfishhabitat,includingfishkills.Thisshouldbeaddressedand
confirmedinthenextversionofthedocumentandresolvedpriortooperation.

4. Fi s h Abu n d a n ce ( S ect i on 7) & I n v er t ebr a t e Den s i t y ( S ect i on 8 ) : no methodological
guidelines for data collection or analysis are proposed, despite the bibliographic reference in Section
16 of the OEMP to Hatfield & Lewis (2007). The MOE-ESD information checklist provided in the
Provincial IPP Guidebook also provides supplemental guidance for OEMP development. It is my
understanding that the baseline biological data collected in recent years did not follow any
particular protocol, but was undertaken by several different biologists in different locations, using
different methods. As such, it is imperative that all baseline data be collated and assessed by a
professional biologist with experience in the relevant specialization (ie. fisheries biology,
macroinvertebrate biology), and compiled for assessment regarding its adequacy as a baseline to
assess future changes that may be attributable to operation of the IPP facility.

Revision C includes an update on biological data collection undertaken since provision of the Water
License & DFO Authorization (J uly 2006) : none. It includes some qualitative summaries of the
baseline fish abundance & macroinvertebrate data collected in 2001-2004, but very little quantitative
summarization.
Section 5.3.1 of Revision C provides qualitative summaries of baseline fish habitat work (Section 5.3.1),
and concludes that "Sampling and reporting standards and protocols for the inventory and analysis
of fish habitat were available at the time Sigma conducted baseline programs, such as Fish Habitat
Assessment Procedures (FHAP) outlined in J ohnston and Slaney (1996) and the
Reconnaissance1:20,000 Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures (RIC, 1999a,
1999b, and RISC, 2001). Sigma (2002) did not refer to these documents, although we suspect, given
the type of discussion in Sigma (2002 and 2004a) that they were aware of them, but simply omitted
to reference them". Of course, an alternative explanation is that no specific set of guidelines were
followed by the consultants in completion of the baseline studies, which I recall was the conclusion
generated in MOE's review of the baseline studies back in 2004. It is proposed in Section 5.3.2 of
Revision C that such qualitative fish habitat summaries persist as a component of operational
monitoring.
Similarly, Section 5.4.1 includes a summary of baseline fish sampling efforts, which seems to represents a
total baseline effort in the diversion reach of approximately seven site visits over 14 days in 2001, and
some follow-up work in 2002 (effort unquantified). It is subsequently concluded in Section 5.4.1 of
Revision C that "Sigma conducted salmon spawning surveys in Reach 1 in 2003 (see Sigma2004a). It
appears no further fish sampling was conducted by either Sigma or TRC". Section 5.4.2 includes
several pages of proposed future (post-diversion) fish monitoring efforts, but given the negligible
baseline data collection efforts conducted to date, I question the utility of such
information to "determine the nature of any impacts of the project on fish" (per the water license).
However, I'll leave any detailed consideration of proposed fish and macroinvertebrate baseline
sampling effort to agency biologists in ESD (Erin Stoddard, Scott Barrett) or DFO (Francesca Knight).
Finally, I suggest that any reference to informing DFO of any fish mortalities related to project operations
(ie. Section 5.4.3) should also include a commitment to inform MOE.

Alackofadequatebaselinefishpopulationassessmentisnoexcuseforproposinganinadequate,inconsistentand
inappropriatefishmonitoringprogram.Consistentdetailsofeffortincludingaadequatenumberofsamplesites,
appropriatemethodrecommendationsandproperanalysisshouldhavebeenprovidedwithalevelofintensity
necessarytoconfirmeffect.Thiswascommittedtobytheproponent,butwasnotprovidedinVersionC.

Thereshouldnotbeanyopportunitiestochangeanyofthemonitoringparametersbasedonprofessional
judgmentorconsultationwiththeagencies.Theplanshouldbedevelopedproperlyandapprovedbythe
agenciessothatdatacanbeadequatelycollectedandanalyzedsothatitcanbeshownbytheproponentthatthere
wasnoeffect/impactsbeyondwhatwasexpected.

Baselineandfishcommunitydatacollectionshouldincorporateaproperlydevelopedmarkrecaptureprogram.
Onlymethodsincludingthreepassremovalelectrofishing,nightsnorkelingandintensiveminnowtrappingshould
beproposed.Allfishsamplingshouldincludesignificantsamplinginallreachesandallhabitattypesofconcern
includingcompensationhabitats.Thesamplesites,effortandmethodsproposedintheVersionCprogramare
considerablyinadequateorinappropriate.
Page 67
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
7

Someappropriatebaselinedatacouldbecollectedwithguidancefromanappropriatelyqualifiedprofessional
duringthecurrentlowflowperiod.However,opportunitiesforcollectingthisdataareveryshortpriortohigh
water,andlikelywillnotextendbeyondthenexttwoweeks,weatherdependent.Thenextlowerflowopportunity
wontbeavailableuntiltheearlyfall(notaslow)orwinter.

2. No ba s elin e d a t a or p ower a n a lys is : the adequacy of the monitoring details proposed in the
OEMP (e.g. duration and frequency of sampling, expected natural variability, sample sizes, methods
of analysis, a priori agreement on ecologically-acceptable thresholds of dependent variables,
corrective/compensatory measures to be adopted upon threshold exceedance, monitoring program
budgets, etc. ) cannot be objectively considered without preliminary analysis of baseline data,
including statistical power analysis. In the absence of such analyses, particularly for the biological
data described in Sections 6&7 of the OEMP, I have little confidence in the adequacy of pre-
diversion baseline data described in the OEMP to assess any diversion-induced changes in these
biological response variables.

Revision C does not include any quantitative analysis of baseline data or power analysis on fish abundance.
This is not surprising, given the baseline dataset described in Section 5.4.1 of Revision C. I suggest that it
is either naive or misleading to justify the absence of a power analysis on "low fish capture numbers during
baseline sampling in the Project area" and to subsequently suggest that "there may be insufficient baseline
information to apply the BACI approach with any statistical reliability...since fish capture numbers were low
during baseline sampling". It seems more likely that it was it is inadequate sampling effort, not necessarily
low fish numbers, that have resulted in the inability to apply the BACI approach or to complete a power
analysis on fish abundance data. Rather than proposing that "only trends in fish community metrics can be
used for comparison with baseline", I suggest that an appropriate level of diligence would include proposal of
a detailed fish data collection program prior to diversion that would address this deficiency in baseline
data. The proposal in Section 5.4.2.2 of Revision C that "Quantitative multivariate analysis of the data with
power analysis to assess the biological change will be performed if possible" doesn't meet agency needs to
assess the likelihood that the proposed monitoring program will be adequate to allow statistical resolution
of project-related impacts to fish.

Theanalysisandjustificationfortheproposedfishcommunitytrendanalysisisinappropriate,andtheproposed
trendanalysisisalsoinappropriatetodeterminepotentialeffectsorimpacts.Adequatebaselinefishcommunity
datashouldbecollectedpriortooperationsuchthataproperfishmonitoringprogramcanbedeveloped.

3. Det a ils of m on it or in g com m it m en t s t a bu la t ed in t h e Ap p en d ix of t h e OEMP d o n ot s eem
con gr u en t wit h t ext in t h e bod y of t h e OEMP. For instance, page 3 of the OEMP clearly states: In the
case of the Ashlu Project, baseline studies were carried out from 2001 to 2006, a period of five (5) years and
were done prior to the new Provincial guidelines (Hatfield and Lewis, 2007); therefore, not all of the criteria
outlined in the guidelines for control sites have been implemented during these previous studies. However,
monitoring proposed for some components (e.g. biological components from Tables 3-5 of the OEMP) have
been copied verbatim from the guidelines (which, incidentally, are not referenced correctly) and subsequent
case study (Trout Creek), so it is unclear what aspects of the monitoring criteria will or will not be
undertaken per the OEMP.

Monitoring commitments tabulated in Revision C are relatively congruent with the associated text, but (as
described above) there are many instances where these commitments refer to consistency with Provincial
Guidelines, when such consistency may not be achieved by tabulated protocol (ie. sampling, analysis).

4. Pr e-d iver s ion a ct ivit ies wh ich m a y r equ ir e s ever a l m on t h s t o com p let e h a ve yet t o h a ve been
in it ia t ed . For instance:
1. installation of the four pressure transducers (per Section 4.2.1 of the OEMP) and development of
associated rating curves for water flow (Section 4) and instream flow (Section 11) monitoring;

As described above, gauge installation & rating curve establishment has still has not yet been completed.

2. Collection of stream channel morphology data (per Section 10 of the OEMP). This component of
the OEMP is particularly ill-defined: there are no explicit guidelines or standards referenced, and I
also question the proposed benefits of completing repeat surveys at a few transects to assess
whether the IFR is affect any of the fish habitat as was originally predicted. Assessment of changes
in channel morphology related to project operations (e.g. flow diversion, changes in sediment and
Page 68
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
8
LWD transport rates and volumes, etc.) is crucial, but should be considered more holistically using
low-level air photos and longitudinal survey profiles. Again, it is recommended that an professional
experienced with development of channel monitoring programs (ie. a fluvial geomorphologist or
river engineer) be tasked with developing the study design and undertaking the work prior to final
commissioning;

Section 5.6.1 of Revision C clearly states what baseline data has been collected: "Geomorphology studies
designed specifically to establish bed load transport and deposition characteristics through the
Project area were not conducted as baseline prior to construction of the Project". This certainly
doesn't preclude collection of such 'baseline' data prior to initiation of operations. However, the data
collection program proposed in Section 5.6.2.2 of Revision C will not meet agency goals of resolving
whether changes to sediment & LWD transport associated with project operations have impacts fish &
fish habitat in reaches downstream (and potentially upstream) of the project. I strongly suggest that a
more careful consideration of the proposed channel morphology data collection & analysis program
be undertaken by a professional experienced in fluvial geomorphology, with reference to the baseline
data collection program recommended in my review of Revision B (ie. site surveys and aerial
methods such as low-level photography or LIDAR).

Allflowmonitoringequipmentinstallationandsetup,andgeomorphology/habitatassessmentsneedtobe
conductedpriortooperations.Thisistoensuretheavailabilityofadequatebaselinedatatodevelopthemonitoring
programandthendetermineeffect/impactonaquaticspeciesandtheirhabitatspostoperation.

Again, as per my review of Revision B, I suggest that the examples I've provided regarding deficiencies in Revision
C do not represent the full suite of deficiencies; they were simply the most obvious shortfalls within my area of
expertise. A more complete suite of review comments may be available through consultation with other ESD staff (ie.
Erin Stoddard & Scott Barrett), WSD staff (e.g. J im Davies) or our Federal counterparts (e.g. Vince Busto & Francesca
Knight). Revision C is certainly an improvement on Revision B, but it is unfortunate so many deficiencies in the
OEMP persist. It is also unfortunate that it has become apparent that no baseline fish&fish habitat data has been
collected in the last eight years. I remain unconvinced that the monitoring program as proposed in Revision C
adequately addresses Conditions i(2) of the Water Licence which "Requires a monitoring program suitable to
determine the nature of any impacts of the project on fish and wildlife" and i(3) which requires a monitoring program
to evaluate the effect of the regulation of works as ordered in number 1 above.

Scott

From: Robert Kulka [ mailt o: RKulka@innergex.com]
Sent : Thu 18/ 03/ 2010 4: 40 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; gst eeves@ameresco.com; Richard Blanchet ; Kelly Boychuk; Bill Johnson
Subj ect : Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er St ewardship Division file number: 2001264): Operat ions Environment al
Management Plan, Revision C
HelloTim,

AttachedisRevisionCoftheOEMP.AlsoattachedisacoverletteroutliningthehistoryoftheOEMP,ourre
applicationforLTCOperation,andcurrentstatusoftheproject(shutdownfortunnelrepairs).Asealedandsigned
copyoftheOEMPwillbesentpermailtoyouearlynextweek.

Pleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyquestions.Regards,

Robert
________________________________________
ROBERT J. KULKA, P. Eng., Di pl .- Wi r t .- I ng.
Const ruct ion Manager


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 69
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:46 AM
To: Busto, Vince; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C
ENV:EX
Subject: RE: MoE/DFO Premeeting ? - Ashlu Creek Hydro Project (Water file 2001264)
that's great, thanks Vince, and sorry, I did not explain the call properly, I should have said RE: Cloudworks
thanks guys,
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

From: Bust o, Vince
Sent : April 21, 2010 10: 45 AM
To: Knight , Francesca; 'Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX'; 'St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX'; 'Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX'
Subj ect : RE: MoE/ DFO Premeet ing ? - Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264)
Francesca

I have no problem with you having to bow out early from the DFO/CEA Agency discussion. I do not believe that
Cloudworks will be participating.

Vince Busto, B.A.Sc., P.Eng.
Habitat and Hydrotechnical Engineer | Ingnieur de l'habitat et de lhydrotechnique
Habitat and Enhancement Branch | Protection et mise en valeur des habitats
Lower Fraser River | Le bas Fraser
Fisheries and Oceans Canada | Pches et Ocans Canada
100 Annacis Parkway, Unit 3 | 100 Annacis Parkway, Unit 3
Delta, BC V3M 6A2 | Delta (C.-B.) V3M 6A2
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
Telephone/Tlphone 604-666-8281
Facsimile / Tlcopieur 604-666-6627
E-mail Vince.Busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

From: Knight , Francesca
Sent : April 21, 2010 10: 41 AM
To: 'Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX'; Bust o, Vince; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX
Subj ect : RE: MoE/ DFO Premeet ing ? - Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264)
Page 70
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Hi guys, I can meet at 1pm, although Vince and I have a conference call with cloudworks at 10; if I have to I'll cut out
of that in time to be at the meeting in Surrey for 1pm. Is that Ok Vince?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 21, 2010 10: 16 AM
To: Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX
Subj ect : MoE/ DFO Premeet ing ? - Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264)
Higuys,
Wouldyouseevalueinapremeetingtogooverourcomments,priortomeetingwithInnergexandco?
Ifso,howwouldyoufeelaboutgettingtogetherat1pm?
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

Sent : Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9: 34 AM
To: Richard Blanchet ; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Robert Kulka
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; gst eeves@ameresco.com; mnelson@cerg.ca;
Adam Lewis
Subj ect : RE: PROPOSED MEETI NG (Apr 22, 2: 00-4: 30 pm) - Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264)

I'll be there Tim, but likely have to leave by 4-4:15, if that's OK,
Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627
Page 71
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3

Sent : April 21, 2010 9: 07 AM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Robert Kulka
Adam Lewis
Subj ect : RE: PROPOSED MEETI NG (Apr 22, 2: 00-4: 30 pm) - Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264)
Tim,
Iamconfirmingmyattendance.Seeyouat2:00pmtomorrow.
Regards
Richard

__________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855

Sent : April 21, 2010 9: 05 AM
To: Richard Blanchet ; Knight , Francesca; Robert Kulka
Adam Lewis
Subj ect : PROPOSED MEETI NG (Apr 22, 2: 00-4: 30 pm) - Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264)

Hiall,
IhavebookedtheMikeGowroom,inourSurreyoffice,fora2pm4:30pmmeetingtodiscusstheAshluProject.
Topicsfordiscussionwillinclude:
1) TheOEMP,andMoEand/orDFOcomments
2) OutstandingrequirementspriortoissuanceofaLeavetoCommenceOperations
3) Workplanand/orscheduleforcompletionofoutstandingrequirements
Pleaseemailmetoconfirmyouravailabilityandattendance,andletmeknowifyouwishtoaddanythingtothe
agenda.
Thankyou!
Regards,
Page 72
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

To: Knight , Francesca; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Robert Kulka
Cc: Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX;
gst eeves@ameresco.com; mnelson@cerg.ca; Adam Lewis

HelloEveryone,
AssuggestedbyScott,2h00pminSurreyisacceptablefrommyside.
Bestregards
Richard

__________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855

Sent : April 19, 2010 3: 59 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Richard Blanchet ; Robert Kulka

Hello everyone, if this meeting is going ahead, any chance we could have it in the Innergex offices in North Van? Is a
time set yet?
thanks
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627
Page 73
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5

Sent : April 18, 2010 9: 44 PM

Hi Richard,




Regards.

Tim

Sent : Thu 15/ 04/ 2010 10: 47 AM
GoodmorningTim,

nd

Bestregards

Richard

__________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855

Sent : April 14, 2010 5: 19 PM
Page 74
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
I mpor t ance: High

HiRobert;


curves,etc);
regardingimpacts;
andassessment;and,

manual,OPP).




Regards,

Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

Page 75
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Adam Lewis [fjalewis@ecofishresearch.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:44 AM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; 'Richard Blanchet'; 'Knight, Francesca'; 'Robert Kulka'
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; 'Busto, Vince'; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX;
gsteeves@ameresco.com; mnelson@cerg.ca
Subject: RE: PROPOSED MEETING (Apr 22, 2:00-4:30 pm) - Ashlu Creek Hydro Project (Water
file 2001264)
Attachments: image002.jpg; image003.jpg
Tim:
Iamconfirmingmyattendance;seeyoutomorrow.
Regards,Adam




Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163


Sent : Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9: 05 AM
To: Richard Blanchet ; Knight , Francesca; Robert Kulka
Adam Lewis
Subj ect : PROPOSED MEETI NG (Apr 22, 2: 00-4: 30 pm) - Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264)

Hiall,
IhavebookedtheMikeGowroom,inourSurreyoffice,fora2pm4:30pmmeetingtodiscusstheAshluProject.
Topicsfordiscussionwillinclude:
1) TheOEMP,andMoEand/orDFOcomments
2) OutstandingrequirementspriortoissuanceofaLeavetoCommenceOperations
3) Workplanand/orscheduleforcompletionofoutstandingrequirements
Pleaseemailmetoconfirmyouravailabilityandattendance,andletmeknowifyouwishtoaddanythingtothe
agenda.
Page 76
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Thankyou!
Regards,
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

To: Knight , Francesca; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Robert Kulka
gst eeves@ameresco.com; mnelson@cerg.ca; Adam Lewis

HelloEveryone,
AssuggestedbyScott,2h00pminSurreyisacceptablefrommyside.
Bestregards
Richard

__________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855

Sent : April 19, 2010 3: 59 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Richard Blanchet ; Robert Kulka

Hello everyone, if this meeting is going ahead, any chance we could have it in the Innergex offices in North Van? Is a
time set yet?
thanks
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Page 77
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 18, 2010 9: 44 PM

Hi Richard,




Regards.

Tim

Sent : Thu 15/ 04/ 2010 10: 47 AM
GoodmorningTim,

nd

Bestregards

Richard

__________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855

Page 78
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Sent : April 14, 2010 5: 19 PM
I mpor t ance: High

HiRobert;


curves,etc);
regardingimpacts;
andassessment;and,

manual,OPP).




Regards,

Page 79
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

From: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Cc: Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; 'Knight , Francesca'; 'Bust o, Vince'
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er St ewardship Division file number: 2001264): Operat ions

Tim,

GeneralandspecificcommentsontheMarch2010versionoftheOperationEnvironmentalMonitoringPlanforthe
abovereferencedprojectareprovidedbelowandadditionalspecificcommentsareimbeddedwithinScott
Babakaiffsattachedemail.

1. Thedocumentmakesreferencetoqualitativeassessmentsorprofessionalobservationsinseveral
sections.Thisisaninappropriateapproachthatprovidesnoopportunitiesforanalysis,noassurancethat
assessmentswouldbecompletedconsistentlythroughthetermoftheprogram,andthedatacouldnotbe
usedtodetermineeffectorimpactafterthe5yearterm.
2. Themonitoringoffishwayaccessanduseneedstobequantitative,notbyobservation.Thissection
(5.7.2.1)needstobeextensivelyrevised,andshouldincludethemonitoringandmanagementofthe
approachesthroughfloworchannelrevisiontoensurethatpassageisprovidedandeffective.The
managementandmaintenanceofthefishwayandensuringitseffectivenessshouldalsobeincludedwithin
theOPP.
3. Asaresidentfishpopulationextendsintoandbeyondthefacilityheadpond,themonitoringprogram
shouldincludemonitoringtheeffectsofmanagementandmaintenanceoftheheadpond,includingbutnot
limitedtosubstratestabilityandheadpondflushing.Themanagementoftheheadpondandmitigationof
impactstofishandfishhabitatfrommaintenanceactivitiesshouldalsobeaddressedintheOPP.
4. Themonitoringandmanagementofthetailraceshouldbeincorporatedintotheprogramtoensurethat
accesstofishisrestricted.Ifrestrictionisnotpossible,thentheprogramshoulddescribeindetailhowthe
tailracewouldbemonitoredandmanagedtomitigatefishstrandingandkills.Themonitoringand
managementofthetailraceshouldalsobeaddressedindetailintheOPP.

AswithScott,Icouldcontinuewithmyreviewandprovidespecificdetailsofalltheinadequaciesofthismonitoring
program;however,Iunderstandthattheproponentisanxioustoreceivefeedbackonthisrecentversionofthe
document.Pleasecontactmeifyourequireclarificationoradditionalinformation.

Sincerely,


Sent : Tuesday, April 13, 2010 2: 06 AM
Cc: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX
Subj ect : FW: Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er St ewardship Division file number: 2001264): Operat ions

Hi Tim,

Per your request (and in anticipation of our meeting on Tuesday afternoon), I've competed a more detailed review of
the latest OEMP iteration (Revision C) for the Ashlu IPP. You may recall that I sent a short email a few weeks ago
indicating that the latest iteration did not address the deficiencies I'd previously identified in Revision B back in
December 2009. So, here's a point-by-point review of Revision C in comparision to my December 2009 comments on
Revision B (review comments on Revision B shown in italics):

Page 80
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
"Ive reviewed Revision B of the Operations Environmental Management Plan for the Ashlu Creek project (dated
November 2009) as submitted by Innergex. The document is hereafter referenced simply as the OEMP since there
is no authorship or bibliographic detail included. The absence of any explicit authorship is notable: there is little
evidence that the OEMP has been composed by a licensed professional (e.g. RP Bio) with experience in the
development or implementation of a monitoring program intending to fulfill agency needs. In short, the OEMP is
typical for a preliminary draft, but it is troubling that completion of project construction & commissioning is
imminent."
Revision C has been composed by Focus Environmental Ltd. , but no individual author is named. Given the corporate
structure of Focus Environmental, it seems safe to assume that the author is Bill J ohnson (a RP Bio.) but this detail
should have been provided.

Forconsistencyandaccountability,allsubsequentdocumentsshouldbesignedbyanappropriatelyqualified
professional(s)ascommittedtobytheproponent.Thesignatoriesofthisdocumentshouldonlybedevelopingand
signingoffonthesectionsofthedocumentthattheyarequalifiedtoprovideadviceon.

"Regardless, I have several primary concerns with the OEMP:

1. Few com m i t m en t s t o f ollow com m on ly -a ccep t ed gu i d eli n es f or d a t a collect i on & a n a ly s i s ,
despite a proposal that monitoring details meet the requirements of DFO and MOE(p. 6 of the OEMP). I
suggest many details proposed in the OEMP are seemingly arbitrary and do not reference any guidelines or
standards typically referenced by Provincial or Federal agencies.

Revision C certainly includes more details than Revision B: a simple glance at the Table of Contents would allow
this conclusion. Whether much of this detail is required is certainly questionable, but leaving that aside, I
appreciate that Revision C similarly includes more commitments to follow commonly-accepted guidelines for
data collection & analysis (e.g. text in Section 5). However, the details of data collection & analysis tabulated
in the respective sub-sections of Section 5 are often inconsistent with the details of the respective guidelines
(e.g. hydrometric guidance in Section 5.1). I'll suggest that this represents a lack of due dilligence rather than
any intentional deceit. However, it is interesting that Section 5.0 (p.15) of Revision C includes the
retrospective explanation that "baseline studies were carried out from 2001 to 2006 by Sigma and TRC
Biological Ltd (TRC, 2005) according to B.C. Resource Inventory Standards Committee (RISC) standards, but
prior to the Provincial guidelines compiled by Hatfield et al (2007)". This is a very generalized statement,
and the author of Revision C does not provide any detail or supporting evidence for the claim of 'RISC
standards' being met (ie. which RISC standards and for which components?). Nor does the author indicate
how these RISC standards may or may not apply to the collection & analysis of data at this particular site. For
example, RISC standards in 2006 did not include detailed guidance determination of stage-discharge rating
curves, nor did they include guidance regarding recommended protocol for the collection of fish abundance
data at sites such as Ashlu (ie. cold, deep, silty, low-conductivity streams) where standard methods (ie.
electro-shocking) may be inappropriate.

For instance:
1. St a ge-d i s ch a r ge r a t i n g cu r v es - the OEMP commits to collecting a minimum of three
discharge measurementsand warns that ...it is unlikely that flows will be able to be measured
above 20% of mean annual discharge. There are clear and well-established guidelines for
developing stage-discharge rating curves (e.g. LWBC Hydrometric Guidelines; B.C. Provincial
Hydrometric Standards (see
http:/ / www.env.gov.bc.ca/ fia/ documents/ Manual%20of%20British%20Columbia%20Hydrometri
c%20Standards%20V1.0,%20March%2012,%202009.pdf) that the proponent is recommended to
meet.

Section 5.1.2 includes reference to appropriate guidance (RISC, 2009 & LWBC, 2005) for development
of stage-discharge rating curves at the three proposed hydrometric stations, but explicit work to be
undertaken to develop rating curves (e.g. 'three measurements' per Table 2 in Section 5.1.2) is
inadequate and not consistent with provincial guidance. In fact, Section 5.1.2.1 of Revision C
indicates that two of the three gauges have yet to be installed (so the rating curves have not yet been
established), and Revision C indicates that 'calibration' of the gauge proposed for verifying
compliance with IFR & ramping rates (WQ1) has already been completed by Northwest Hydraulic
Consultants Ltd.(December 9 2009 report) but I do not believe this work has been reviewed &
accepted by MOE. Text includes within Section 2.8 of Revision C suggests that the proponent may
have a different understanding of IFR gauge calibration than the standard expected by MOE
for streamflow measurement (" The sensor was tied into a benchmark in November 2009 following
calibration of the 2.42 m / s IFR required under the DFO Authorization. The benchmark serves as a
visual reference to calibrate the level probe") .

Page 81
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
7
The absence of an agency-approved rating curve and data collection protocol calls into question the
reliability of streamflow data provided to date, including verification of compliance with IFR
provision, so I recommend that the work be completed & submitted for MOE review ASAP, with no
provision of final leaves to commence operation until the rating curves have been reviewed and
accepted by MOE. Rating curve development for all three proposed gauges must be completed by a
licensed Professional with appropriate training and experience in the collection & analysis of stream
discharge data. The OEMP (and OPP) should also include a commitment to complete ongoing
discharge measurements at each station to allow verification of the rating curve (or re-development of
a rating curve, if need be) per the latest (2009) RISC standards. I can provide more detail to the
consultants if need be.

2. Rep or t i n g of s t r ea m f low d a t a : the OEMP commits to collect to collect flow data on a
continuous basis, typically in 15-minute intervalsand promises that data will be recorded...and
can be provided to onsite DFO and/ or MOE staff...for compliance purposes...flow data will be
reported quarterly. I suggest there is no need to submit data to review agencies more frequently
than once per year, but agencies must be informed within 24 hours of any non-compliance (e.g. IFR
provision, ramping rates), and the proponent must resolve the issue of non-compliance
immediately. In terms of data collection&logging, I note that the BC Provincial Hydrometric
Standards (Section 3.2.2.3) recommends a stage reading every 15 minutes, but advises that "this is a
minimum requirement...site specific flow regimes may necessitate a shorter frequency...". For
purposes of verifying compliance with flow ramping requirements in fish-bearing waters,
particularly those with the diversity of fish values in the Ashlu diversion reach, I would recommend
a much shorter stage sampling frequency (say, 10-second), with a 2-minute average for storage in
the data logger (and submission to agencies). I would also recommend that data be downloaded
from the logger on a frequency no less than once per month, to ensure that any equipment
malfunctions (e.g. battery loss, equipment damage) do not result in lengthy data gaps. For
purposes of graphical presentation in monitoring reports, it may be helpful to apply an hourly
average to the 2-minute stage data.

Section 5.1.3 of Revision C includes more detail than previous iterations, but still does not address the
deficiencies identified in Revision Revision B (see above). Of greatest concern is the absence of a
commitment to inform MOE within 24 hours of any non-compliance with water license conditions (ie,
IFR provision, ramping rates) and immediately address any issues of non-compliance. Instead,
Revision C simply commits to having the data available for agency review, if need be, along
with annual submission: this is obviously inadequate. Also, Table 2 does not include any explicit
commitments to the sample averaging intervals to be applied, despite my previous comments
requesting such detail. I'm left with the impression that the author of Revision C has either not been
provided with my previous review comments, or has wilfully ignored them.

3. Dev elop m en t of r a m p i n g r a t es : Section 12.2 of the OEMP proposes that the ramping rates
shall not exceed 29.0 cms per 90 minutes. This rate will be established during the commissioning
process of the plant, and may be subject to different flow conditions in the creek. This rate was
based on the natural ramping rates that have been historically observed in Ashlu Creek over several
years since 1991.... The OEMP provides some detail regarding proposed methods for establishing
ramping rates during commissioning, but I would suggest that such protocol (and such interim
rates like 29 cms per 90 minutes) should be established and scientifically-justified by an experienced
professional, with reference to established agency criteria (e.g. DFOs default hourly ramping rates
of 2.5 cm & 5.0 cm for fry & juveniles) or recommended guidelines. Finally, I suggest that the
commitment within Section 14 of the OEMP to submit the ramping rate report six months after
commissioning represents an inappropriate risk to fish & fish habitat given the rapid interim
ramping rate proposed and the fish values present in the diversion reach.

Ramping rate monitoring is proposed in Section 5.1 of Revision C, but again, the streamflow gauges
proposed for monitoring of the ramping rates have either not yet been installed (WQ2, WQ3) or lack
agency-approved rating curves (WQ1, WQ2, WQ3). Text within Section 5.1 of Revision C also
suggests that the proponent is aiming to simply "track ramping rates during shut down" and may not
fully understand that they will be obligated to verify compliance with ramping rates that will
not harmfully alter or disrupt fish & fish habitat. It is also my understanding in the ongoing absence
of a detailed ramping rate assessment, the proponent will be obligated to follow the DFO default
standards (2.5 cm/ hour when fry are present, 5.0 cm/ hour otherwise) but there is no reference in
Revision C to this standard.

Thelackofappropriatelycalibratedflowmonitoringequipmentandagencysupportedrampingrateshasthehigh
potentialtoresultinsignificantimpactstofishandfishhabitat,includingfishkills.Thisshouldbeaddressedand
confirmedinthenextversionofthedocumentandresolvedpriortooperation.
Page 82
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
8

4. Fi s h Abu n d a n ce ( S ect i on 7) & I n v er t ebr a t e Den s i t y ( S ect i on 8 ) : no methodological
guidelines for data collection or analysis are proposed, despite the bibliographic reference in Section
16 of the OEMP to Hatfield & Lewis (2007). The MOE-ESD information checklist provided in the
Provincial IPP Guidebook also provides supplemental guidance for OEMP development. It is my
understanding that the baseline biological data collected in recent years did not follow any
particular protocol, but was undertaken by several different biologists in different locations, using
different methods. As such, it is imperative that all baseline data be collated and assessed by a
professional biologist with experience in the relevant specialization (ie. fisheries biology,
macroinvertebrate biology), and compiled for assessment regarding its adequacy as a baseline to
assess future changes that may be attributable to operation of the IPP facility.

Revision C includes an update on biological data collection undertaken since provision of the Water
License & DFO Authorization (J uly 2006) : none. It includes some qualitative summaries of the
baseline fish abundance & macroinvertebrate data collected in 2001-2004, but very little quantitative
summarization.
Section 5.3.1 of Revision C provides qualitative summaries of baseline fish habitat work (Section 5.3.1),
and concludes that "Sampling and reporting standards and protocols for the inventory and analysis
of fish habitat were available at the time Sigma conducted baseline programs, such as Fish Habitat
Assessment Procedures (FHAP) outlined in J ohnston and Slaney (1996) and the
Reconnaissance1:20,000 Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory: Standards and Procedures (RIC, 1999a,
1999b, and RISC, 2001). Sigma (2002) did not refer to these documents, although we suspect, given
the type of discussion in Sigma (2002 and 2004a) that they were aware of them, but simply omitted
to reference them". Of course, an alternative explanation is that no specific set of guidelines were
followed by the consultants in completion of the baseline studies, which I recall was the conclusion
generated in MOE's review of the baseline studies back in 2004. It is proposed in Section 5.3.2 of
Revision C that such qualitative fish habitat summaries persist as a component of operational
monitoring.
Similarly, Section 5.4.1 includes a summary of baseline fish sampling efforts, which seems to represents a
total baseline effort in the diversion reach of approximately seven site visits over 14 days in 2001, and
some follow-up work in 2002 (effort unquantified). It is subsequently concluded in Section 5.4.1 of
Revision C that "Sigma conducted salmon spawning surveys in Reach 1 in 2003 (see Sigma2004a). It
appears no further fish sampling was conducted by either Sigma or TRC". Section 5.4.2 includes
several pages of proposed future (post-diversion) fish monitoring efforts, but given the negligible
baseline data collection efforts conducted to date, I question the utility of such
information to "determine the nature of any impacts of the project on fish" (per the water license).
However, I'll leave any detailed consideration of proposed fish and macroinvertebrate baseline
sampling effort to agency biologists in ESD (Erin Stoddard, Scott Barrett) or DFO (Francesca Knight).
Finally, I suggest that any reference to informing DFO of any fish mortalities related to project operations
(ie. Section 5.4.3) should also include a commitment to inform MOE.

Alackofadequatebaselinefishpopulationassessmentisnoexcuseforproposinganinadequate,inconsistentand
inappropriatefishmonitoringprogram.Consistentdetailsofeffortincludingaadequatenumberofsamplesites,
appropriatemethodrecommendationsandproperanalysisshouldhavebeenprovidedwithalevelofintensity
necessarytoconfirmeffect.Thiswascommittedtobytheproponent,butwasnotprovidedinVersionC.

Thereshouldnotbeanyopportunitiestochangeanyofthemonitoringparametersbasedonprofessional
judgmentorconsultationwiththeagencies.Theplanshouldbedevelopedproperlyandapprovedbythe
agenciessothatdatacanbeadequatelycollectedandanalyzedsothatitcanbeshownbytheproponentthatthere
wasnoeffect/impactsbeyondwhatwasexpected.

Baselineandfishcommunitydatacollectionshouldincorporateaproperlydevelopedmarkrecaptureprogram.
Onlymethodsincludingthreepassremovalelectrofishing,nightsnorkelingandintensiveminnowtrappingshould
beproposed.Allfishsamplingshouldincludesignificantsamplinginallreachesandallhabitattypesofconcern
includingcompensationhabitats.Thesamplesites,effortandmethodsproposedintheVersionCprogramare
considerablyinadequateorinappropriate.

Someappropriatebaselinedatacouldbecollectedwithguidancefromanappropriatelyqualifiedprofessional
duringthecurrentlowflowperiod.However,opportunitiesforcollectingthisdataareveryshortpriortohigh
water,andlikelywillnotextendbeyondthenexttwoweeks,weatherdependent.Thenextlowerflowopportunity
wontbeavailableuntiltheearlyfall(notaslow)orwinter.

Page 83
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
9
2. No ba s elin e d a t a or p ower a n a lys is : the adequacy of the monitoring details proposed in the
OEMP (e.g. duration and frequency of sampling, expected natural variability, sample sizes, methods
of analysis, a priori agreement on ecologically-acceptable thresholds of dependent variables,
corrective/compensatory measures to be adopted upon threshold exceedance, monitoring program
budgets, etc. ) cannot be objectively considered without preliminary analysis of baseline data,
including statistical power analysis. In the absence of such analyses, particularly for the biological
data described in Sections 6&7 of the OEMP, I have little confidence in the adequacy of pre-
diversion baseline data described in the OEMP to assess any diversion-induced changes in these
biological response variables.

Revision C does not include any quantitative analysis of baseline data or power analysis on fish abundance.
This is not surprising, given the baseline dataset described in Section 5.4.1 of Revision C. I suggest that it
is either naive or misleading to justify the absence of a power analysis on "low fish capture numbers during
baseline sampling in the Project area" and to subsequently suggest that "there may be insufficient baseline
information to apply the BACI approach with any statistical reliability...since fish capture numbers were low
during baseline sampling". It seems more likely that it was it is inadequate sampling effort, not necessarily
low fish numbers, that have resulted in the inability to apply the BACI approach or to complete a power
analysis on fish abundance data. Rather than proposing that "only trends in fish community metrics can be
used for comparison with baseline", I suggest that an appropriate level of diligence would include proposal of
a detailed fish data collection program prior to diversion that would address this deficiency in baseline
data. The proposal in Section 5.4.2.2 of Revision C that "Quantitative multivariate analysis of the data with
power analysis to assess the biological change will be performed if possible" doesn't meet agency needs to
assess the likelihood that the proposed monitoring program will be adequate to allow statistical resolution
of project-related impacts to fish.

Theanalysisandjustificationfortheproposedfishcommunitytrendanalysisisinappropriate,andtheproposed
trendanalysisisalsoinappropriatetodeterminepotentialeffectsorimpacts.Adequatebaselinefishcommunity
datashouldbecollectedpriortooperationsuchthataproperfishmonitoringprogramcanbedeveloped.

3. Det a ils of m on it or in g com m it m en t s t a bu la t ed in t h e Ap p en d ix of t h e OEMP d o n ot s eem
con gr u en t wit h t ext in t h e bod y of t h e OEMP. For instance, page 3 of the OEMP clearly states: In the
case of the Ashlu Project, baseline studies were carried out from 2001 to 2006, a period of five (5) years and
were done prior to the new Provincial guidelines (Hatfield and Lewis, 2007); therefore, not all of the criteria
outlined in the guidelines for control sites have been implemented during these previous studies. However,
monitoring proposed for some components (e.g. biological components from Tables 3-5 of the OEMP) have
been copied verbatim from the guidelines (which, incidentally, are not referenced correctly) and subsequent
case study (Trout Creek), so it is unclear what aspects of the monitoring criteria will or will not be
undertaken per the OEMP.

Monitoring commitments tabulated in Revision C are relatively congruent with the associated text, but (as
described above) there are many instances where these commitments refer to consistency with Provincial
Guidelines, when such consistency may not be achieved by tabulated protocol (ie. sampling, analysis).

4. Pr e-d iver s ion a ct ivit ies wh ich m a y r equ ir e s ever a l m on t h s t o com p let e h a ve yet t o h a ve been
in it ia t ed . For instance:
1. installation of the four pressure transducers (per Section 4.2.1 of the OEMP) and development of
associated rating curves for water flow (Section 4) and instream flow (Section 11) monitoring;

As described above, gauge installation & rating curve establishment has still has not yet been completed.

2. Collection of stream channel morphology data (per Section 10 of the OEMP). This component of
the OEMP is particularly ill-defined: there are no explicit guidelines or standards referenced, and I
also question the proposed benefits of completing repeat surveys at a few transects to assess
whether the IFR is affect any of the fish habitat as was originally predicted. Assessment of changes
in channel morphology related to project operations (e.g. flow diversion, changes in sediment and
LWD transport rates and volumes, etc.) is crucial, but should be considered more holistically using
low-level air photos and longitudinal survey profiles. Again, it is recommended that an professional
experienced with development of channel monitoring programs (ie. a fluvial geomorphologist or
river engineer) be tasked with developing the study design and undertaking the work prior to final
commissioning;

Page 84
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
10
Section 5.6.1 of Revision C clearly states what baseline data has been collected: "Geomorphology studies
designed specifically to establish bed load transport and deposition characteristics through the
Project area were not conducted as baseline prior to construction of the Project". This certainly
doesn't preclude collection of such 'baseline' data prior to initiation of operations. However, the data
collection program proposed in Section 5.6.2.2 of Revision C will not meet agency goals of resolving
whether changes to sediment & LWD transport associated with project operations have impacts fish &
fish habitat in reaches downstream (and potentially upstream) of the project. I strongly suggest that a
more careful consideration of the proposed channel morphology data collection & analysis program
be undertaken by a professional experienced in fluvial geomorphology, with reference to the baseline
data collection program recommended in my review of Revision B (ie. site surveys and aerial
methods such as low-level photography or LIDAR).

Allflowmonitoringequipmentinstallationandsetup,andgeomorphology/habitatassessmentsneedtobe
conductedpriortooperations.Thisistoensuretheavailabilityofadequatebaselinedatatodevelopthemonitoring
programandthendetermineeffect/impactonaquaticspeciesandtheirhabitatspostoperation.

Again, as per my review of Revision B, I suggest that the examples I've provided regarding deficiencies in Revision
C do not represent the full suite of deficiencies; they were simply the most obvious shortfalls within my area of
expertise. A more complete suite of review comments may be available through consultation with other ESD staff (ie.
Erin Stoddard & Scott Barrett), WSD staff (e.g. J im Davies) or our Federal counterparts (e.g. Vince Busto & Francesca
Knight). Revision C is certainly an improvement on Revision B, but it is unfortunate so many deficiencies in the
OEMP persist. It is also unfortunate that it has become apparent that no baseline fish&fish habitat data has been
collected in the last eight years. I remain unconvinced that the monitoring program as proposed in Revision C
adequately addresses Conditions i(2) of the Water Licence which "Requires a monitoring program suitable to
determine the nature of any impacts of the project on fish and wildlife" and i(3) which requires a monitoring program
to evaluate the effect of the regulation of works as ordered in number 1 above.

Scott

Sent : Thu 18/ 03/ 2010 4: 40 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; gst eeves@ameresco.com; Richard Blanchet ; Kelly Boychuk; Bill Johnson
Subj ect : Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er St ewardship Division file number: 2001264): Operat ions Environment al
Management Plan, Revision C
HelloTim,

AttachedisRevisionCoftheOEMP.AlsoattachedisacoverletteroutliningthehistoryoftheOEMP,ourre
applicationforLTCOperation,andcurrentstatusoftheproject(shutdownfortunnelrepairs).Asealedandsigned
copyoftheOEMPwillbesentpermailtoyouearlynextweek.

Pleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyquestions.Regards,

Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

Page 85
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:57 AM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Busto, Vince
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX
Subject: RE: Ashlu Fish Ladder
Hi guys, we asked Mike Nelson yesterday to take photos and prepare a rough as-built report of the work that they do.
Maybe we could meet when he sends that out, to help with our discussions?
Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 26, 2010 9: 29 AM
To: Bust o, Vince
Cc: Knight , Francesca; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Fish Ladder
HiAll,
Iwouldsuggestwehaveaninternalmeetingtofollowuponthestatusofthefishladder(howdyesterdaygo),and
nextsteps.
Areyouguys(andgals)availableforashortconferencecalleitherthisFriday,nextWednesdaybeforenoonor
Thursday?
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235
From: Bust o, Vince [ mailt o: Vince.Bust o@dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

Sent : Friday, May 21, 2010 2: 32 PM
To: Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Brian Pat j as; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Francois Hebert ; Mike
Nelson; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Adam Lewis
Robert
Page 86
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

I agree with Erin Stoddard's comment that there are a number of alterations that have been done that have not
addressed the problem satisfactorily, and that this planned work on Tuesday is another minor alteration that will not
address the long-term need for reliable fish passage at the Ashlu dam.

Innergex has not satisfied DFO in a few significant aspects of the construction and commissioning of the project. For
example, as you know, DFO is not satisfied with condition of the emergency bypass channel; and DFO sees the
Innergex's notching of the Obermeyer weir as a temporary mitigation, not the final solution, to accommodate stranding
of fish within the emergency bypass channel.

DFO is also open to discussing the solutions to the unanticipated problems that are occurring. Time is short.

I will arrange to accompany Francesca Knight to attend the work at Ashlu on Tuesday.

Sent : May 21, 2010 1: 46 PM
To: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince; Brian Pat j as; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Francois
Hebert
Pleasefindattachedthemitigationsignofflistforthefishladderrepairworkstobe
conductedonTuesdayMay25.
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
OriginalMessage
From:Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX[mailto:Erin.Stoddard@gov.bc.ca]
Sent:May20103:34PM
To:Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;MikeNelson;RobertKulka
Cc:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX;Knight,Francesca;Busto,Vince;BrianPatjas;Francois
Hebert
Subject:RE:AshluFishLadder
Importance:High
Ifworksaretobeconductedinthechannelatthistime,theyshouldbemonitoredbythe
IEM(MikeNelson),nothisdelegate,asshouldanyfurthermodificationstothefish
ladder.Also,Mikeshouldprovideasignedofflistofallmitigativemeasuresthatwill
Page 87
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
beundertakentonotcauseanyadditionalimpactstothefishinthispopulationorfish
habitatduringtheseworks,withspecialconsiderationtothosethatarestagingtospawn
orspawning,whichisanextremelysensitiveandcriticaltime.Forexample,awet
crossingshouldnotbeconsideredunlessthereisnootherchoiceandcanbedonewithno
impactstofishorfishhabitat.
WhatIseeintheemailsbelowisfurther"tryingtofix"asignificantproblembytrying
todolittlechanges,whenitneedssignificantworktomakethestructurefunctional.
Thesetemporarymitigativefixesshouldbeconsideredassuch,withasubsequentplanand
commitmentforapermanentfixduringthenextinstreamworkwindowduringamuchless
sensitivetimeforfish.
Pleasecontactmehereorat6042021389ifyourequireadditionalinformation.
OriginalMessage
From:Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX
Sent:Thu5/20/201010:38AM
To:'MikeNelson';'RobertKulka'
Cc:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX;'Knight,Francesca';'Busto,Vince';'BrianPatjas';
'FrancoisHebert';Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX
Mikeetal.,
PleaseensurethatErinStoddard(Erin.Stoddard@gov.bc.ca<mailto:Erin.Stoddard@gov.bc.ca>
)iscc'donthesecommunications;heisthefisheriesbiologistfromMOEESDthathas
beenprovidingtechnicalreviewofhydropowerissuesfortheSouthCoastRegioninrecent
months,andwillcontinuetodosointotheforeseeablefuture.
Scott
Sent:Thursday,May20,201010:34AM
To:RobertKulka
Cc:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX;Knight,Francesca;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Busto,Vince;
BrianPatjas;FrancoisHebert
Robert,
Iwouldprefernotmanipulatingthesluiceflowstoaccommodatethecrossingifpossible,
asEcoFishhavebeenfindingafewgravidrainbowtroutinthisarea;thelessdewatering
work/salvagesthebetteratthistimeofyear.I'veseenFletcher'sSpyderworkinsome
prettyamazingplaces,andI'mreasonablyconfidentthatthemachinecantraversethatthe
slope;however,Iwoulddefertothemachineoperatorwheresafetyisanissue.
Also,justtocomplicatethingsalittle,ItalkedtoIanMurphyatEcoFishthismorning,
andunderstandthattheyhaveputPITtagson10fishtheycapturedaroundtheentranceto
Page 88
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
thefishladderanddownstreamoftheintake.Theywillbeinstallinganantennaetoday
inthefishladdertotrytodetectanyofthosefishmovingwithintheladder.Iansaid
thatthefishbeingcapturedweregravid,milkwaseasilyinducedfromthemales,although
eggswerenotyieldedfromthefemales(althoughtheywereripe).Intheabsenceof
gainingaccesstothefishladder,thefishmaybelookingforalternativespawningareas
i.e.inthevicinityofthefishladder.Theareawherewerecommendedplacing
additionalripraparegenerallydevoidofgravelduetothehighIFRpipevelocities;
howeverextremecaremustbetakentolimitactivitiestonongravelareas,andtolimit
anydewateringboththetimeandextent.
Inlightoftheabove,ifMOEand/orDFOwanttodefertheseworkstoanalternativetime,
Iwouldappreciatebeingadvised.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Sent:May19105:00PM
To:MikeNelson
Mike,
IhavebookedthemachineyourecommendedfromPemberton(Fletcher)forTuesday.Neither
Fletchernortheotheroptionfromthelowermainland(SpyderCan)areabletomakeit
Friday.Themachineoperatesonacanolatypehydraulicoilandwillbepressurewashed.
Wewillhavesufficientamountsofspillequipmentandpersonnelonstandbytodealwith
potentialspills.Workistentativelyscheduledtostartaround9am.Weshouldallmeet
around8amtohaveakickoffmeetingcoveringenvironmentalandsafetyissues.
Asforaccess:WewouldneedtoconsultwiththeoperatorandIamnotsurethatwalking
downtherockfillweirovertherelativelylargeriprapisasaveoption(wecould
certainlytemporarilyremovethechainlinkfenceandthebridgeisdesignedfora120ton
Page 89
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
craneload,sothebridgewouldnotbeanissue).Wemightwanttoconsiderwalkingdown
ontheothersideofthesluiceway(noriprapthereandgentlerslope)andwhiledoingso
divertingthespillwaterfromthesluicewaytotheObermeyerspillwayandkeepitthat
wayuntiltheworkiscomplete.Thiswouldallowa"dry"crossingofthesluicewayoutlet
areaandwouldalsokeepwaterfurtherawayfromtheareawhenweperformthework.I
believethatyourteamwouldneedtosurveyforfishd/softhesluicewayafterwe
"switched"theflows.Thiswouldalsoallowtotestthenewriprapconfigurationunder
conditionsthatwateronlycomesfromtheIFRpipe(andfishladderofcourse)andno
waterpassesthesluiceway.Letmeknowwhatyourthoughtsaboutthisare.Iaminthe
officetomorrow,sopleasegivemeacall.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600.Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
Sent:Wednesday,May19,201011:20AM
To:RobertKulka
BrianPatjas
Robert,
FurthertomyemailandrecommendationsfortheFishLadderdatedMay17,I'vehada
chancetotalktoMattFoy(HabitatEnhancementBiologist,DFO)andChessyKnightabout
theinlettotheladder.Mattrecommendedthattheinletbemodifiedtoinclude4
verticalslots,asopposedtothepresenthorizontalopening.Theslotswouldbe
approximately10cmwide,withaheightextendingfromtheladderinverttotheheightof
theanticipatedhighwateratthatlocation(say2030cmhigh).Spacingoftheslotscan
bedeterminedinthefield,buttheywouldbeabout20cmapartsothattheywillfitin
thelowerpartoftheladder.WecangooverthiswithBrianwhenweareattheintakeon
ournextmonitoringvisit.
IunderstandthattheyouaretryingtolineupequipmentforFriday.Pleasekeepus
advised.NotethatIhaverecommendedthataccesstothesitebeviathebridgeoverthe
sluiceway(andthendowntheslopebyremovingaportionofthechainlinkfence)as
opposedtoawetcrossing.Ihaveassumedthatthebridgewillbeartheweightofthe
Spider?
Page 90
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
From:MikeNelson
Sent:May17102:48PM
To:'RobertKulka'
Cc:'Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX';Knight,Francesca;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Busto,
Vince
Subject:AshluFishLadder
Robert,
Attachedaremyrecommendationsforthefishladder.Myapologiesforthecrudenessof
thedrawings,butIthinkitismoreprudenttogetthisoutthanspendtimemakingthe
drawingslookpretty.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 91
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 11:08 AM
To: Mike Nelson
Subject: FW: Ashlu - Spillway Apron and Grouted Rip Rap channel
Mike,

Attached are three documents to demonstrate the design and two documents issued by George Steeves for Leave to
Commence the work. Francesca had already responded to my question if the work is in stream or not (she said
instream).

I understand that Ken has a clear understanding from talking to Brian as to when the Obermeyer starts and stops
spilling and the need for renewed fish salvage. Since we can not do any work prior to start of instream work window
in the summer, I suggest we use the next months to confirm that the deep pool/crack relatively close to the control
building is indeed the only key location for fish entrapment. If confirmed, we could consider filling it rather then
excavating a channel as just discussed.

Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

From: Robert Kulka
Sent : Monday, November 16, 2009 12: 09 PM
To: 'St eeves, George'
Cc: Richard Blanchet
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu - Spillway Apron and Grout ed Rip Rap channel

George,

The downst ream sect ion of t he spillway channel was excavat ed in bedrock in wint er/ spring 2007. The excavat ion
drawing for t he channel invert called for a flat surface wit h a consist ent slope. The area was excavat ed in bedrock
and due t o t he rock condit ions t he as built excavat ed surface is uneven. Prior t o t he headpond filling in August 2009,
t he spillway was const ant ly used t o bypass a port ion of t he creek wat er and t herefore const ant ly wet t ed (wit h
except ion of st age 3 coffer damming in Jan/ March 2009: a fish salvage was performed by t he EM aft er cut t ing of t he
flows). During t he head pond filling on August 11, 2009 t he spillway inflat able weir was raised and consequent ly t he
downst ream sect ion of t he spillway channel effect ively dewat ered. Small pools and channels formed in t he uneven
rock surface. The EM observed several t rout in t hose pools and salvaged t hem. No ot her species have been
observed or are known t o reside in t his area of t he creek. The EM salvaged t rout again during t he filling of t he
headpond and consequent ly reducing flows in t he d/ s sect ion of t he spillway on Oct ober 19. Since t hen ACI LP has
operat ed t he spillway in a way t hat some wat er has been const ant ly spilling over t he t op of t he raised gat es,
t herefore prevent ing t he building of isolat ed pools. I t is planned t hat during normal operat ion of t he plant up t o
creek flows of approximat ely 100cms no flows over t he spillway gat es will be provided. The primary gat e sect ion
(Sect ion 1) at t he rockfill weir side of t he spillway will be lowered first , allowing for a capacit y of approximat ely
150cms in addit ion t o sluiceway and int ake flows of 100cms, or a t ot al capacit y of 250cms. Higher flows will be
managed by lowering t he remaining sect ions of t he spillway gat e (Sect ion 2/ 5). I t is our observat ion t hat flows
t hrough Sect ion 1 effect ively wat er t he area of concern and t herefore a dist inct ion bet ween operat ion of Sect ion 1
Page 92
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
and Sect ion 2 has no impact on t he issue at hand. I t is expect ed t hat during an average year, t he spillway channel
will be used bet ween 10 t o 25 t imes for durat ions varying from a few hours t o several consecut ive days. For t he
balance of t he t ime, no wat er would pass t he spillway gat es int o t he d/ s sect ion. I n order t o prevent building of
pools aft er each gat e operat ion and consequent ly avoiding pot ent ial ent rapment of t rout in t hose pools, ACI LP plans
t o perform addit ional excavat ion in t he affect ed area. The goal of t he excavat ion is t o provide channels for t he
pot ent ially isolat ed t rout from t he pools t o t he const ant ly wet t ed areas of t he st ream. The work would be performed
by means of hand operat ed pneumat ic hammers, powered by a port able compressor. The following procedure is
proposed:

1. Open sluiceway enough t o st op spilling of wat er over t he spillway gat es (no draining of headpond);
2. Survey t he d/ s spillway area for st randed fish, salvage and release;
3. I dent ify pools and mark areas t hat require excavat ion;
4. Perform excavat ion wit h pneumat ic handheld rock-hammer(s);
5. Release wat er over t he spillway for 10 minut es and t hen st op flow (subj ect t o accept able t urbidit y levels).
Observe during t he dewat ering if pot ent ially or act ually present t rout would be able t o escape from any pools
t hat may form. Repeat st eps 2 t o 5 unt il EM confirms t hat t he work has been complet ed.

ACI LP has discussed t his approach wit h t he EM on November 13 and t he EM confirmed it s principal feasibilit y and t he
EMs availabilit y t o perform t asks 2, 3 and 5. ACI LP would like t o perform t he work bet ween November 18 and
November 30. I t is expect ed t hat t he act ual work will last bet ween 1 t o 3 days. The work will be performed in t he
dry and is t herefore not considered in-st ream-work; see at t ached marked up drawing C1100-04 (file name int ake
wet t ed areas ). We also provide at t ached ppt file Spillway d-s sect ion sket ch t o provide furt her clarificat ion of t he
proposal. Please not e t hat t he sket ch does not ident ify all pools and possible channels, but is int ended t o
demonst rat e t he principal for informat ion only. The design is depending on t he field observat ions during t he
proposed dewat ering of t he area.

Furt her t o t he requirement s of t he Condit ional Wat er Licence, Ashlu Creek I nvest ment s Limit ed Part nership ( ACI LP )
is hereby applying for a Leave t o Const ruct t he afore described work. We not e t hat t he fish salvage process you
suggest ed in underneat h email relies on t he abilit y t o access t he area. Spillway operat ion will occur during wint er
mont hs and immediat e access t o t he area may not be possible during such t imes. ACI LP believes t hat t he above
proposed design present s t he best possible solut ion because it does not rely on permanent access t o t he sit e and
eliminat es for t he long t erm t he pot ent ial impact of unlikely but nevert heless possible malfunct ions of equipment and
human oversight .

Please cont act me if you require any addit ional informat ion or clarificat ion.

Regards,
Robert

________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

From: St eeves, George [ mailt o: gst eeves@ameresco.com]
Sent : Friday, November 13, 2009 7: 58 AM
Subj ect : Ashlu - Spillway Apron and Grout ed Rip Rap channel

Robert/Richard

During our extended meeting yesterday with Tim Bennett we discussed the modifications to the grouted rip rap
channel to reduce the incidences of fish stranding.. In response to our question Robert as to where you should send
Page 93
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
the request please send it to me as a Leave to Construct request. I will respond and then send seek a referral
response from DFO ad ESD. If there are construction timing issues identify them. If there are in-stream windows
identify them. If the work is essentially out of the stream and therefore the work window is not an issue, present that in
the form of a drawing. Identify the number of times that the spillway is operated in a typical year and commit to a fish
salvage process each time the gate is operated. I assume the proposed works recognize that the primary operating
gate is on the right side.

George

George L. Steeves, P.Eng.

c/o Ameresco Canada
7th Floor
90 Sheppard Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6X3
Tel: (416) 512-7700 x 3322
Direct: (647) 788-6028
Fax: (416) 218-2288
Cell: (416) 452-4715

*******************************************************************************
*******
NOTE: This e-mail may contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information and is intended
only for the use of the specific individual(s) to which it is addressed. If you are
not an intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any
unauthorized use, dissemination or copying of this e-mail or the information contained
in it or attached to it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please delete it and immediately notify the person named above by reply e-mail.
Thank you.
*******************************************************************************
*******
Page 94
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Ashlu Creek Hydroelectric Project
Downstream section of spillway after raising of spillway gates (August 11, 2009)
Pools (approximation)
Proposed channels
for fish escape
(approximation)
Page 95
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 96
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince
image007.jpg
sorry guys, I also meant to add that I sent the photos/video to Adam Lewis, as we discussed the issue with him at our
meeting last week,
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 26, 2010 1: 45 PM
I mpor t ance: High
Tim,


Page 97
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
From:
Sent :

The third last and last photo tell the story. We were lied to to before.


From:


Video links-


.........................................................................................................................................

Page 98
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S22
S22
S22
1
image007.jpg
man, yer fast!

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 26, 2010 4: 46 PM
Solid!

Cc: Bust o, Vince

Summary of stranding problem at Ashlu weir spillway channel

1. Headpond filling incident in March, 2009: R. Kulka filled the headpond in the early spring, and likely affected
downstream fish populations. That incident involved dropping below the IFR for over 12 hours (does this sound right,
Vince?). In addition, ramping was about 10x greater than allowable DFO ramping.The worst part was that there was
no water replaced downstream via the tailrace, as water was not going into the intake, penstock,etc. This event likely
involved stranding at the weir spillway channel, but could very well have had stranding all downstream, beyond the
tailrace. Unfortunately, no IEM was on site or downstream to document the effects on fish. As a result of this incident,
DFO requested a detailed headpond filling plan (including, for example, withholding no more than 10% of ambient
inflows at the intake, ramping, etc). We reviewed this plan through June-July 2009, with the next planned filling event
scheduled for August 2009.

2. Spillway channel stranding first identified as a problem - August 2009: As a result of DFO concerns over the
previous headpond filling incident, I was at the intake from about 8am, to view the headpond filling. As the last gate of
the Obermeyer weir was inflated, the pools started to form. With the weir fully inflated, I went down into the spillway
channel and began noticing fish, lots of them, in various size classes (all rainbow, plus of course the tailed
frogs). With the weir fully inflated, fish were stranded all the way down to the confluence of the spillway channel with
the river mainstem. I estimated stranded fish number at 50-60 fish. Given the numbers of fish and the pool
configuration, it was pretty obvious that the IEM, with dip nets, would not be able to capture all of the fish. I then
requested that the last gate be lowered a bit to provide minimal flows downstream, such that most of the pools were
Page 99
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
again connected and fish could make their way downstream to the main river channel. This worked, except for the
pools in about the upper 25% of the spillway channel.

3. R. Kulka summarized the stranding problem in the attached drawing "Spillway d-s section sketch August 2009".
While this drawing roughly conveys the problem, I don't think it captured the scope and magnitude of the potential for
fish stranding. The attached email contains Robert's account of the August stranding incident to George Steeves. I
can assure you that more than "several trout" were observed stranded.

4. The channel downstream of the Obermeyer weir was not built according to design drawings (Vince, I believe you
made this observation). The drawings were referenced in the Leave to Construct for Spillway Channel Fisheries
Improvements. These drawings are named as follows, and I believe they contain the plans that should have been
built, and don't reflect the as-built condition. George issued this leave November 26, 2009. The purpose of this Leave,
which looks like an amendment to an existing Leave to Construct, was to provide guidance on how to fix the spillway
channel problem.
3.4.19 Leave to Construct Emergency Spillway Concrete
3.4.31 Leave to Construct Diversion/Spillway Channel Rock Excavation
3.4.32 Leave to Construct Diversion Channel Phase 1 Excavation
George included the following guidance RE: spillway modification to prevent stranding:
-- The following is a general description of the proposed work program as explained by Innergex to the IE. The
spillway gate will be temporarily opened and then closed. There will be a fish salvage and the identification of areas
susceptible to fish stranding. The limits of the pools will be marked and channels designed to link the pools to each
other and eventually the main body of the river. The slopes, widths and depths of the linking channels will as
prescribed on site by the attending R.P Bio. The spillway gate will be partially opened again and the area re-flooded
and the effectiveness of the channels constructed in the first phase evaluated. Should it be determined there is still
potential for stranding, additional channels and/or pools will be built, again under the direction of the attending R.P.
Bio.
-- The process is to be repeated until the attending R.P. Bio. is satisfied that the potential for stranding has been
mitigated..
-- Clear segregation of the work area from the adjacent stream to ensure no deleterious materials are allowed to enter
the watercourse.. Confirmation from DFO and ESD that this is not instream work is required.
-- This letter constitutes granting of permission to proceed with the spillway channel fisheries improvements. The
works covered under this Leave to Construct comprises the excavation of channels and pools to mitigate the potential
for fish stranding in the in the spillway channel on closure of the spillway gates.
R. Kulka prepared the drawing "spillway excavation sketch Nov 2009", in what appeared to be technical support for
George's leave. This drawing, however, is not referenced in the Leave.
Vince and I responded to this proposed channel repair method by requesting that a design drawing be provided that
actually showed the proposed works; we were not comfortable with the "field-fit" solution, nor with the coarseness of
the drawing. Also, we confirmed that the works would in fact be deemed "instream" and should therefore be
conducted during the low-risk late-summer work window.

5. DFO has not heard anything since from Innergex RE: spillway modifications. In a recent meeting (April
2010) between DFO and R. Kulka regarding elevated arsenic concentrations in the penstock, we did discuss the
channel. DFO requested that the works be completed by this summer's work window; therefore, a work plan and
design drawing needed to be sent to DFO prior to construction.

6. Cascade Environmental salvaged fish when the headpond was filled in April 2010; I believe they caught 26
rainbow. We'll get all salvage results from Cascade.

comments welcome and appreciated!
C

Page 100
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 26, 2010 3: 45 PM
Cc: Bust o, Vince
Maybe collate the comments, but hold off sending it until we all get the chance to chat about it at our MOE-
DFO IPP meeting on Wed PM?


Cc: Bust o, Vince

sure, is everyone OK if I just send it to him, or would anyone like to review first?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 26, 2010 3: 36 PM
Cc: Bust o, Vince
A distillation/ summary of the various comments & concerns that yall have expressed in the series of emails
today would be helpful for Adam Lewis in his imminent work.
Anyone wanna volunteer?
Page 101
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4

I totally agree, Erin. I don't think that salvage is the way to manage this problem long-term, for all the reasons you list
here. These are the photos from the day I was up there last August (note that tailed frog juveniles were stranded as
well). The closest we got to a resolution on this a few months back was Robert was going to have an IEM on site to
"supervise" a solution, which might entail blasting out the pools, filling in (concrete), and whatever else, at the
discretion of the monitor. Vince and I said we would like to see something more like a real design, to demonstrate that
the problem has truly been thought about, and the best possible solution put forward. Between these strandings and
the substantial reduction in river flows downstream of the weir when Robert really messed up on the headpond filling
last spring, I am sorry to say that I think any chances of capturing "baseline" over the next year, even if the plant were
not allowed to operate, are seriously diminished. And I would agree, Erin, the stranding problem could be serious
enough to affect population estimates.
I'll send a note to Cascade for the salvage results,
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 26, 2010 3: 12 PM
ThanksforthehistoryonthisFrancesca.YesIwouldlikethereportsforallsalvagesconducted.Likeyou,Idoubt
thatsalvageswhereveryeffectivecertainlynotwithdipnets,butalsowithelectrofishing.Therearetoomany
spacesinthoserockstosalvagefish,andelectrofishingwouldtendtodrivethemdownfurther,whichwouldlikely
endininjuryordeathfromrepeatedshocks,especiallyduringlowwatertemperatures.Inmyopinionthe
strandingstodatewouldhaveresultedinfishkills,andwouldhaveimpactedthepopulation.Thisiscertainly
somethingAdamLewisshouldaddressinthedevelopmentoftheLTMP.
Tim,IseethisasasignificantissuethatshouldhaveandcouldhavebeenresolvedalongtimeagobyInnergex,
especiallyastheywereorderedtoaddressitbyDFO.IhaveconcernswithInnergexhavingtheopportunitytostart
operationsasearlyasthe1
st
ofMaywithouthavingthisresolved.Theremaybeawaytomanageitsomewhat
throughacombinationofincreasedinterimflowsandsalvages,butitwillremainmoreofanissueuntilitisfixed,
andcontinueasanissuethatwillneedtobemanagedforthelifeofthisprojectduetothepoordesign.Inorderfor
Innergextocontinuewithcommissioning,Isuggestthatthereshouldbeanapproveddesignsignedoffbya
professionalfishhabitatbiologistandariverhydrologist/engineer,andasupportedcommitmenttofixthechannel
(anappropriatebondsubmittedtoWSDorDFO),andthataninterimincreasedflowandsalvagebeusedtomitigate
impactsuntiltheinchannelworkscanbecompleted.Isuggestthatitwouldalsobeworthwhiletohavean
appropriatebondprovidedtoWSDfortheLTMPworkpriortotherecommencementofcommissioningtoensure
thatwegetagoodworkingdraftbytheendofJuneascommittedtobyInnergex.
Page 102
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5


Hey Erin, that channel downstream of the Obermeyer is the one we have been concerned about since last year. We
(Vince and I) first noticed it when we went up to watch a headpond filling. This was not long after the incident wherein
the operators held back a significant portion of ambient inflows (that was in February-March of last year), and went
below IFR. When they were prepared to fill the pond again, even though Vince had given them very clear direction
on how much water could be retained for headpond filling, we went up to the intake to observe the filling. It was on
that day that we saw fish stranded in the pools downstream of the Obermeyer. Cascade had shown up with dip nets
for fish salvage, but there was a lot of fish (probably 50-60) in numerous pools; I did not think dip nets would be
adequate to salvage all the fish. Given the number of fish stranded, and the inadequacy of the materials on hand for
salvage, we requested that a small volume of water be discharged through the weir via lowering the last gate by about
20-30 cm. This provided enough water for most of the fish to get out, but not the ones in the pools closest to the weir.

Vince and I have since made repeated requests to Robert Kulka (AILP) for channel modifications, such that fish
strandings are prevented. We have not yet received these plans. In my most recent request to Robert, which would
have been approx. 2 weeks ago, I told him that it was DFO's expectation that the channel repairs were done in this
year's work window.

As for the fish strandings in headpond filling over the last year, it is my understanding that Cascade has been on hand
to conduct fish salvage (I believe with an electrshocker). At the most recent headpond fill, I believe 26 rainbow (some
adults) were salvaged. Shall I ask Cascade for a summary of all fish salvages conducted at this area?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 26, 2010 1: 45 PM
I mpor t ance: High
Tim,
Page 103
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6


From:
Sent :

rd last and last photo tell the story. We were lied to to before.


From


Video links-


.........................................................................................................................................

Page 104
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S22
S22
S22
1
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Robert Kulka; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M
ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Davies, James W ENV:EX
Cc: Francois Hebert; Richard Blanchet; Brian Patjas; Ian Murphy; Adam Lewis
Subject: RE: Ashlu: update on ramping activities
thanks for the update Robert. An email notification of ramping to accomodate kayak flows would be appreciated.
ALso, I look forward to seeing the ramping studies.
Francesca

Sent : Thu 9/ 9/ 2010 7: 42 PM
To: Knight , Francesca; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o,
Vince; Davies, James W ENV: EX
Cc: Francois Hebert ; Richard Blanchet ; Brian Pat j as; I an Murphy; Adam Lewis
Subj ect : Ashlu: updat e on ramping act ivit ies
Francesca,
Hereistherequestedupdateonplannedandanticipatedrampingactivities:
Rampingrate:Ecofishrecommendstorampupanddownat1.5cms/hour.ThisratehasbeenusedontheAug.29
rampingandnofishstrandingorisolationwasobservedbyEcofish.Thisratewillbeusedduringthenextkayakflow
releaserampingonSept11/12inordertoconfirmadequacyduringthesensitivefallseason.Ifthisrampingis
successful,thenEcofishbelievesthattheirattendanceduringfuturerampingisnotrequiredandtherampingstudy
canbefinalizedforagenciesreview.
Sep.11/12
Requestedkayakflows:25cms
Currentflowsinthecreekaspertoday(September9)areabout12cms.Theforecastedrainwilllikelyleadto
increasedflows,butunlikelyabovetherequestedflowrelease.Consequentlyacompleteshutdownislikelyto
occur.Ecofishwillbeonsiteduringallrampingtocollectfinaldatafortherampingstudyandtointerveneifthere
shouldbeanyfishisolationorstranding.
Sept.18/19
Sept.25/26
Requestedkayakflows:thebookingsystemisnotopenyetforthisweekend,howeverweunderstandfromkayakers
thatthereisahighlevelofinterestintherangearound25cmsandweexpecttoreceivetheaccordingbookingsin
duetime.Thisisthelastweekendforkayakflowreleaseinthisyear.
Itrustthisinformationmeetsyourrequestforupdatesonramping.Wetypicallysendanotificationtokayakersthe
daybeforeflowreleasetoadviseofthefinalrequestedflowreleaseandtheavailableflows.Ifwantedwecan
providethisinformationtoDFOandMOE.ItwouldcomeforthonFridaysandSaturdaysmorningsattheclosingof
thekayakbookingsystem24hourspriortoflowrelease.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
Page 105
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

Sent : Tuesday, August 31, 2010 3: 21 PM
To: Richard Blanchet ; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o,
Cc: Robert Kulka; Francois Hebert
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu: St randing I ncident Not ificat ion
I guess it goes without saying that we will be discussing these ramping problems at our upcoming meeting on the 21st
of September. While this is still a few weeks away, can Innergex (through Ecofish, if that's the preference) provide us
with frequent updates of ramping, as we are still in kayak flow-release season,
thanks,
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : August 29, 2010 10: 47 AM
Subj ect : Ashlu: St randing I ncident Not ificat ion
All:
Unfortunately,wehaveexperiencedanotherStrandingIncidentduringtheShutdownoftheplanttoaccommodate
theSaturdayflowreleaseforkayaking.
EcoFishwasonsiteduringtheeventandwillbespendingaconsiderableamountoftimeonsiteovertheweekend
toassesstheincident.
Basedontheirrecommendation,wehavedecidedtoremainshutdownallweekendtoavoidanyotherincident
consideringhowsensitivetherampingratesareatthepresenttimebasedonthenumberoffryinthecreekandthe
flowavailableinthecreekatthepresenttime(around15cms).
Attheendofthekayakingweekend,theplantwillberesumedinmanualmodewithEcoFishonsitetoassess
furtherthecorrectrampingratesandprocedures.
Page 106
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Iwouldliketostressoutthatweareconsideringveryseriouslytheseeventsandaredeployingalleffortand
resourcestocorrectthesituation.
Regards
Richard

__________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855
Page 107
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2010 6:46 PM
To: Knight, Francesca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Stoddard,
Erin M ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Davies, James W ENV:EX
Cc: Francois Hebert; Richard Blanchet; Brian Patjas; Adam Lewis; Ian Murphy; Elyse
MacDonald
Subject: Ashlu Creek: ramping incident notification
Importance: High
Rampingratesweretemporaryexceededduringthecurrentshutdownforkayakflowreleaseontwooccasions:1)
Friday,September17,approximatelyat7pm,2)Saturday,September18,approximatelyat9am.Ecofishis
evaluatingtheincidentsandwillprovideafollowupreport.
Regards,
Robert

________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 108
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 9:23 AM
Cc: Francois Hebert; Richard Blanchet; Brian Patjas; Ian Murphy; Adam Lewis; Elyse
MacDonald
Subject: RE: Ashlu: Kayak flow release notification for Saturday , September 25
KayakflowreleaseforSunday,September26:
Requestedflows:24.0cms
Actualflows(Friday,9am):73cms
Flowshaveincreasedsignificantlyduringthelast24hours.FlowsareexpectedtoremainhighthroughoutSunday
anditisverylikelythatnoorverylimitedrampingisrequired.
Pleasenotethatthisnotificationisthelastoneforthisyearforkayakflowreleases.Thankyoutoallwhohave
contributedtothisprocess.
Regards,
Robert

________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 109
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 4:40 PM
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Subject: RE: Action Items from Innergax meeting on Sept 21 2010 re: Ashlu
Itookatonofnotes.Adamproposedatwostageapproachandwassupposedtoprovideuswithaletterwithina
coupleweeksontheIFRadequacyandthenamoredevelopedprocess/approachbyJanuary2011.Formynotes
andrecollection,therevisedOPPwouldhavetowaituntilafterthattoincorporateanyrecommendedchanges.
Erin
_____________________________________________
Sent : Friday, Oct ober 15, 2010 4: 16 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Subj ect : Act ion I t ems from I nnergax meet ing on Sept 21 2010 re: Ashlu
Gents,

You may recall that the majority of the discussion during the Sept 21 2010 meeting with staff from
Innergex, Ecofish & DFO (re: Ashlu IPP) concentrated on the August 28 fish stranding episode, the
discharge threshold for pool isolation in the diversion reach (10-12 cms), and the resulting modifications to
operations. However, there were also chats regarding the three outstanding deliverables:

1. Ramping Study: work is ongoing, results presently being integrated with existing streamflow data
collected by other consultants...no date proposed for completion/ submission to MOE/ DFO.
2. OEMP: MOE/ DFO review comments provided in August & September, review comments presently
being considered by proponent & Ecofish...no date proposed for completion/ submission to
MOE/ DFO.
3. OPPR: MOE/ DFO suggested that the proponents rewrite on the OPPR be delayed until the
Ramping Study & OEMP reports were completed, in order to include associated modifications...no
date proposed for completion/ submission to MOE/ DFO.

Thats all the detail my meeting notes include regarding deliverables; it seems that we may need to
establish to firm deadlines for submission of the various reports.

Scott

P.S. The ramping study on Fitzsimmons was also scheduled for submission to MOE/ DFO in late October,
so hopefully we will get with adequate period of review prior to the proposed meeting in early November
(presently looking like a Nov 10 meet date).
Page 110
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 4:19 PM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; XT:Busto, Vince DFO EAO:IN;
'Knight, Francesca'
Cc: Bickerton, Nicola ENV:EX
Subject: Ashlu IPP- Action Items from Nov 10 meeting
Tim,

Per your request, here is my list of the Ashlu proponent (Innergex)s action items and deadlines from our
Nov. 10 2010 meeting at Innergexs offices, which they committed to provide to MOE &DFO p r ior t o
s eekin g I LCO:

1. A professional opinion (to be completed by Ecofish) regarding the a d equ a cy of r a m p in g r a t es &
t h r es h old s (ie. based on streamflow data collected at various gauges during commissioning, are
there any subtle but important operational burps in diversion and ramping? Any issues with the
PLC which need to be resolved?);
2. An updated OPP which includes realtime streamflow monitoring to ensure timely mitigative
activities (e.g. fish salvage) in the event of ramping non-compliances.

Interestingly, these commitments seem prescient given the Dec. 5 2010 ramping issue (and un-timely
response from the proponent).

We (MOE/ DFO) also committed to:
1. review the Ecofish report (provided on Nov. 10 2010) regarding adequacy of the IFR at Ashlu. No
deadline was identified, but intent was ASAP.
2. If allowed to do so, MOE were to forward the ILCO from East Toba & Montose to Innergex/ Ecofish
to consider as a template.

Scott
Page 111
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Adam Lewis
Cc: Busto, Vince; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A
ENV:EX
Subject: Ashlu ramping incident
Hey Adam,
Could you give me a ca Vince and I are pretty concerned about the ramping
incident up at Ashlu. Glad to hear your gang was called in, but was it a case of too little, too late? Not sure if you were
able to find any evidence of stranding and/or fish kill, and of course other worries at this time of year are incubating
eggs. It looks like the event was more than just a ramping violation, but also a flow reduction in both the diversion
reach and downstream of the powerhouse. Vince and I were thinking of going up to the site tomorrow, but I don't
know that we would find much so long after the event. And without knowing how the stage and how it relates to
spawning areas, I don't know that I'd have a good sense of whether eggs were put in jeopardy. I'd think they could
survive a bit longer than a juvenile fish in a dewatering event, but it's hard to say because I just don't have a good
picture of exactly what happened, what areas were dewatered, redd locations etc.
Thanks,
Chessy
Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627
Squamish phone: 604-892-2040

Page 112
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
1
To: Busto, Vince; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A
ENV:EX
Subject: RE: An alternative resolution to Cloudworks October fish kill - Upper Stave

ThemeetingissetforThursdaymorning,andIhavetobeavailableto
assisttheFisheryOfficerwhoiscomingupfromStevestontotakethestatement.
Scott,perhapswecouldaddtailraceretrofittotheagreement.AsmuchasIwouldloveto
askfor$100k,Idon'tthinkourmanagementwouldsupportit.Ithinksomethinginthe
neighbourhoodof$1020kisreasonable,andwouldgetCloudwork'sattention.Idon'tknow
ifyouwantmetomakeanychangestotheagreementdocjustyet,oryouwanttohavethe
discussionfirstwithCloudworks.
Chessy
HabitatBiologist
Ph:(604)6663191/Fax:(604)6666627Squamishphone:6048922040GovernmentofCanada
GouvernementduCanada
OriginalMessage
From:Busto,Vince
Sent:December7,20102:30PM
To:'Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX';Knight,Francesca;Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX;Bennett,
TimothyAENV:EX
Subject:RE:AnalternativeresolutiontoCloudworksOctoberfishkillUpperStave
Iwilltrytobetherearound0830.
OriginalMessage
Sent:December7,20106:21AM
To:Knight,Francesca;Busto,Vince;Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX;Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX
Subject:RE:AnalternativeresolutiontoCloudworksOctoberfishkillUpperStave
Iliketheideaofachatlaterthisweek,butthescheduleislookingpretty
full....perhapswecantalkpriortothe9AMmeetingonthe9thwithCloudworksstaff?
Inthemeanwhile,here'stwoquickresponses:
1.Isuggestthatthisrationaleplacesalittletoomuchfocusonthe'incident',rather
thantheseriesofnoncomplianceswiththeAuthorization&CEMP(e.g.nopresenceofIEM
andnoinformingofagenciespriortoworks)thatledtotheincident.Thefinancial
savingsfromnothavingaIEMonsiteduringthecommissioningperiodwouldrepresentmuch
morethan10k.
Page 113
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S22, S16
S22, S16
S22, S16
2
2.Tailraceredesignandreconstructionisanotherimportantissue.The'incident'
showedthatthetailracewouldnotbesufficientlybackwateredfromthemainstemchannel
duringlowflowstoallowfishsurvivaloverseveralhours.
Scott
________________________________
Sent:Mon06/12/20105:50PM
To:Busto,Vince;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX;Bennett,TimothyA
ENV:EX
Subject:AnalternativeresolutiontoCloudworksOctoberfishkillUpperStave
<<ALTERNATIVEMEASURESAGREEMENTUpperStavedraft.doc>>
Higuys,

HabitatConservationTrustFundforpurposesofprojectsthatbenefitbulltrout(could
alsobeBCCF,whatdoyouthinkErin?)..Ihaveplaceavalueof$10,000fornow,subject
todiscussionamongstusall.Pleasereviewandletmeknowifyouwouldliketodiscuss
onacalllaterintheweek.
Chessy
HabitatBiologist
Ph:(604)6663191/Fax:(604)6666627Squamishphone:6048922040GovernmentofCanada
GouvernementduCanada
Page 114
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S16
S16
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
2010-12-05 0:00 2010-12-05 3:00 2010-12-05 6:00 2010-12-05 9:00 2010-12-05 12:00 2010-12-05 15:00 2010-12-05 18:00 2010-12-05 21:00 2010-12-06 0:00
W
a
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l
s

(
m
)
R
a
m
p
i
n
g

(
c
m
s
/
h
r
)
Date/Time
Ashlu: ramping vs. water levels, Dec 05, 2010
effective ramping Level d/s powerhouse Level d/s intake
Page 115
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2010 4:24 PM
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Ramping non compliance notification
oh, so I guess he's back to divide and conquer.

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : December 8, 2010 4: 20 PM
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Creek Proj ect (wat er file 2001264): Ramping non compliance not ificat ion
Yup,hedid.Butthanksforfollowingup.

Sent : Wednesday, December 8, 2010 3: 21 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Subj ect : FW: Ashlu Creek Proj ect (wat er file 2001264): Ramping non compliance not ificat ion
Hi guys, don't know why Robert did not send this to you as well, when I asked him to,
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Page 116
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

Sent : December 8, 2010 9: 33 AM
To: Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince
Francesca,Vince,
Underneathemailbouncedback(seeunderneatherrormessage).ThereforeIsendthetwofilesintwoemails.This
isthefirstemail.
ErrorMessage:
Yourmessagedidnotreachsomeoralloftheintendedrecipients.
Subject:RE:AshluCreekProject(waterfile2001264):Rampingnoncompliance
notification
Sent:12/8/20109:30AM
Thefollowingrecipient(s)cannotbereached:
Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.caon12/8/20109:30AM
Thismessageislargerthanthecurrentsystemlimitortherecipient's
mailboxisfull.Createashortermessagebodyorremoveattachmentsandtrysendingit
again.
<Sigon.innergex.com#5.2.3smtp;4505.2.3MsgSizegreaterthanallowedby
RemoteHost>
Vince.Busto@dfompo.gc.caon12/8/20109:30AM
Thismessageislargerthanthecurrentsystemlimitortherecipient's
mailboxisfull.Createashortermessagebodyorremoveattachmentsandtrysendingit
again.
<Sigon.innergex.com#5.2.3smtp;4505.2.3MsgSizegreaterthanallowedby
RemoteHost>

From: Robert Kulka

Sent : Wednesday, December 08, 2010 9: 30 AM
To: 'Knight , Francesca'; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Cc: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Richard Blanchet ; Francois Hebert ; Brian
Pat j as; Tony Durand; Colin Murrell
Francesca,
AttachedisthestageandflowdataforDecember5.IunderstandthatAdamtalkedtoyouyesterdayandclarified
someitems,includingthattheminimumIFRflowwasnotaffected.
Regards,
Robert

________________________________________

Page 117
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3

Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

Sent : Tuesday, December 07, 2010 4: 38 PM
To: Robert Kulka; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Robert, could you please send whatever flow and stage data you have available related to this event? Anything
downstream of the powerhouse would also be helpful. When was Ecofish called on site?
thanks,
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Cc: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince; Richard Blanchet ; Francois
Hebert ; Brian Pat j as; Tony Durand; Colin Murrell
Subj ect : Ashlu Creek Proj ect (wat er file 2001264): Ramping non compliance not ificat ion
I mpor t ance: High
Tim,
OnSunday,December5,2010at13:47,thedivertedflowof3.21m/secwasrampeddownwithin2minutes,
thereforeviolatingtherampingrateof1.5m/secperhour.Theplantwasrestartedat15:42andrampedupas
programmed.Ecofishhasbeendispatchedtorespondandassessthesituation.Wewillissueafollowupreport
withinoneweekoftheincident.Werecognizethatthisemailnotificationispastthe24hournotificationwindow.
Innergexisrevisingitsinternalnotificationprotocoltoensurenotificationwithintherequiredtimelines.
Atthistimeweknowthefollowingfacts:Theincidentwascausedbytwoalarmconditionsthatsimultaneously
indicatedatunnel/penstockcollapsetothePLC.Bothconditionswerenotpresentandthereforefalsealarms.The
PLCimmediatelyclosedtheintakegate,thereforeshuttingoffalldivertedflowandthePLCimmediatelyclosedthe
TIVswithoutopeningtheEDSvalvestoavoidrapiddrainingoftheshaftandtunnel.Rapiddrainingofthesystem
wouldhavelikelyleadtoacatastrophicshaftortunnelcollapse.Weareinvestigationwhathasleadtothefalse
alarmsandthefollowupreportwillprovidedetailsontheeventandactionstakentopreventthisinthefuture.
EnvironmentalimpactswillbeassessedbyEcofish.
Pleasecontactmeifyourequirefurtherinformationatthistime.
Page 118
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 119
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Willcox, Michael ENV:EX
To: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Subject: FW: 2001264 - Ashlu - 101213 BB-Ashlu EM to 12 Decembe...
2001264 - Ashlu
Thesubjectmonitoringreportsmentionsapossiblerampingviolationbutdoesnotprovidedetails.Itsaysagencies
werecontacteddirectlyaboutthis.
Mike
_____________________________________________
Sent : Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10: 45 AM
Subj ect : 2001264 - Ashlu - 101213 BB-Ashlu EM t o 12 Decembe...

101213 BB- Ashl u EM t o 12 Decembe... has been added

Modify my aler t set t ings | View 101213 BB- Ashlu EM t o 12 Decembe. .. | View 2001264 - Ashlu | Mobile View

Last Modified 12/ 14/ 2010 10: 44 AM by Mike Nelson

Page 120
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:09 AM
Cc: 'Knight, Francesca'; 'vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca'; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Subject: RE: RESPONSE REQUIRED: Ashlu ramping and fish ladder operations
Attachments: DSC04681.JPG; DSC04683.JPG; DSC04687.JPG; DSC04688.JPG; DSC04693.JPG;
DSC04701.JPG; DSC04703.JPG
Importance: High
Tim,
Thefourofusvisitedthesiteyesterdayafternoon.Theoperatorandaweldermetusatthesiteaftertheysawus
driveby.Thefollowingobservationsweremade:
1. Thefishladderisnonfunctional.Thereisnotenoughflowgoingthroughtheladderforanadultsized
rainbowtomigrateupstream.Thedownstreamendoftheladderisperchedwithnoobservableplunge
pool.Theyalsocutthebottomoutofthelowersectionoftheladder.TheIFRpipeisdischargingdirectly
ontothecutoutsectionofthefishladder.Flowswouldneedtobeincreasedintotheladder,theIFR
dischargeneedstoredirectedandtheentranceofthefishladderneedstobefixedandalteredinorderto
accommodateaccesstoadultRainbowTrout.TheoperatormentionedthathehadobservedRainbowTrout
usingtheladderinthefallof2009,buthadnotseenanyfishusingtheladderyetthisspring.
2. Asectionoftheweirhasbeencutawaytoallowsomeoverflowintothechanneldownstreamofthedam
whichisstrandingandkillingfish.Thoughthisactionisprovidingsomeflowstothisarea,itisnotenoughto
providefishwithanobviouswaytogetbacktotheIFRwateredchannelortoavoidstrandingandkilling
fish.Thesubjectareaisverylargeandismadeupofnumerousshallowpoolsandchannels,mostofwhich
fishwouldbeeasilystrandedwithin.Asthewaterisshallowandclear,strandedfishwouldbeeasilypreyed
upon.Theareawillrequireextensiveinstreamworkandcontinuousmonitoringthroughthelifeofthe
projecttoavoidstrandingandkillingfish.Evenworkwhichwouldinvolvetheconstructionofanextensive
concretesillthatextendedfardownstreamwouldstilllikelycontinuetostrandandkillfishforthelifeofthe
facility.
Iveattachedseveralimagesfromoursitevisit.Ihavenumerousothers.
Afurtherobservationfromthissitevisitasitwasmyfirsttimetothefacilityisthattheyhavenotcreateda
headpondwiththeinstallationofthisfacility,theyhavecreatedasmallreservoir.
Pleasecontactmeoranyoftheothersthatattendedifyouwouldliketodiscussthisfurther.
Sincerely,

To: Robert Kulka; rblanchet @innergex.com
Cc: Knight , Francesca; vince.bust o@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Subj ect : RESPONSE REQUI RED: Ashlu ramping and fish ladder operat ions
I mpor t ance: High

HiRobert,
Page 121
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
ThankyouforyouremailofMay9,2010regardingtheobservednoncompliancewithspecifiedrampingratesat
theAshlufacility,onMay8,2010.
Iunderstandthatrampingratesonthatdate(May8,2010)werehigherthanDFOguidanceof2.5cm/hour,andalso
resultedinfishstrandingandsalvageactivities.Youareremindedthatyourauthorization(Leave)tocontinue
commissioningactivities,issuedbytheIndependentEngineeranddatedApril30,2010,wassubjecttoanumberof
conditionsincluding:
1) ...toprovideaworkplanandscheduleforfacility(e.g.,bypassspillway)modificationstopreventfish
strandinginthebypassweirspillway,tothesatisfactionoftheAssistantRegionalWaterManager,within30
days.Intheinterim,commissioningactivitiesshouldbeundertakeninsuchawayastominimizethe
potentialforfishstranding;and,
2) CommissioningactivitiesmustnotresultinrampingrateswithinthestreamthatexceedDFOguidance,
i.e.,DFO'sdefaulthourlyrampingratesof2.5cm/hr.
Itdoesnotcurrentlyappearthatthesetwoconditionshavebeenadheredto.Ialsounderstandthattherewilllikely
befurther,imminentrampingeventsasadditionalflowsarereleasedforkayakersinMay,asrequiredbyyour
TransportCanadaApproval.
Youareherebyadvisedthatyourauthorizationtocontinuecommissioningwillberevokedifduecareisnot
undertakentominimizethepotentialforfishstrandingand/orthespecifiedrampingratesarenotadheredto.
IalsounderstandthattheEnvironmentalMonitor(EM)fortheprojecthasraisedconcernsregardingfishpassagevia
thefishladderintheprevioustwoweeklyenvironmentalmonitoringreports(#201004,20105),andthesehave
notbeenaddressedtodate.ThoseconcernspertaintotheconfigurationoftheIFRpipeoutletandfishladder
entranceway,andseveralproblemsarebelievedtocontributetothissituation,including:
theIFRpipereleasesflowsalmostontopofthefishladderentrance,likelycreatingahydraulic
barrier/deterrentforfishtryingtoenterthefishladder;
theentrancetothefishladderisnotwelldesignedtoencouragefishtoenter;Cascadehasrecommended
riprapplacedattheentrancetocreatemoreofadefinedchannelthatcanguidefishtotheentrance;and,
anallegedreductionofflowsinthefishladderduringlowriverflows,whenalloftherequiredIFRisbeing
conveyedviatheIFRpipeandtheproponent/operatorhasconcernsoverlosingtoomuchwaterthrough
thefishladder.
DFOstaffhaveindicatedthatthisisprimespawningseasontimeforrainbowtomigrateupabovetheheadpondfor
spawning;andthat,currently,thisisnotpossible.Adequateflowsneedtopassthroughthefishladder,andpassing
lesswaterthroughtheIFRpipemayreducetheeffectofthehydraulicbarrier/deterrent.Youmayconsiderreducing
(redirecting)IFRflowsfromtheIFRpipesuchthatthefishladdercanreceivemoreflow.Theladdershouldbeabout
halffull,andtheEMwillbeabletodirectproponentastoadequatevolume.Alternatively,thefishladderinlet
couldhavetobereconfiguredrelativetothelocationoftheIFRpipeoutlet.Finally,DFOhassuggestedthat
dependingonwhetherthefishladderinletrequiressubstantialrefittingtoavoidtheIFRflows,theinletmayneedto
beenhancedwithripraptobetterguidefishthefishladderentrance.
Basedontheabove,Iamrequestingthatyoucompletethefollowingwithin48hoursofthisemail(i.e.,priortothe
endofday,onFridayMay15,2010):
1) ProvidewrittenconfirmationtotheAssistantRegionalWaterManagerofyourunderstandingofyour
requirementtoundertakeplantcommissioningandflowdiversionsinsuchawayastoensurethatfishare
notstrandedandrampingratesdonotexceed2.5cm/hour,andyourintenttoadheretothisrequirement;
2) ImplementinconsultationwiththeEM,andprovidedetailson,measurestoensureandmonitorthatfish
passageviathefishladdercanoccur.Thesemeasurescouldincludephysicalmodificationsand/orrelease
ofadditionalflows,ordiversionofflowsfromtheIFRpipe,tothefishladder,insuchawaythatthenet,
requiredIFRreleaseisaccomplishedandfishpassageisnothindered.
Ifyouhaveanyquestionsinthisregard,pleasedonothesitatetocontactme.
Regards,
Page 122
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
TimBennett,P.Eng.,

Page 123
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 4:44 PM
To: 'Mike Nelson'; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; 'Knight, Francesca'; 'Busto,
Vince'; 'Ian Murphy'; 'Robert Kulka'
MikeandTim:
Wewillbeonsitemonitoringrampingeventsovertheweekend,repeatingthestructuredquantitativeassessment
weconductedlastweekend.
Regardingthefishladder,Iconcurwithyourobservationsregardingtheneedformodificationsattheentrance,but
notethatInnergexhasalreadymodifiedthefishwaytoimproveaccess.Wehavebeenmonitoringfishwayusesince
theinitiationofourmonitoringonMay5,includingfishsamplingandtaggingattheentrancetothefishladder.Fish
laddereffectivenessmonitoringisalreadyongoingandwillcontinuetobemonitoredaspartoftheOEMPwehave
beentaskedtoprepareandimplement.Wehavecapturedfourfishadultrainbowtroutinspawningcondition
holdingatthefishladder(immediatelyunderneath).Itappearsthatrainbowtroutareabletoenterthepoolatthe
baseofthefishladder.Thesefishhavebeentagged,alongwithothersdownstream,alsoinholdingcondition,to
allowustomonitormovement.However,nofishhavebeenobservedinthefishladder,suggestingthattheyare
notsimulatedtoenter.Wewillcontinuemonitoringthisthroughouttheweek,integratingthisworkwithourother
fieldstudies.WewillalsocombinetheresultswithvideofootagethatInnergexwillbecollectedinoneofthefish
ladderpools.
Thereareanumberoffactorsthatcancontributetotheeffectivenessoffishladders,includingabsoluteflow,
relativeflow,structure,grade,depthandvelocity,orientationtothecurrent,andgenerallayoutrelativetothe
alternativeflowsources.Themonitoringdatawearecollectingnowwillallowustoevaluatetheeffectivenessof
theladder,andwhethertherecentfixbyInnergexiseffective.DFOmayhavesuggestions,astoomaythe
consultingengineerswhodesignedtheintake.
IwillcontactMikebyphonetodiscussthisandensurethatourmonitoringactionsareintegrated.
Regards,




Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163

Page 124
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; AdamLewis
Cc: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince
Subj ect : RE: RESPONSE REQUI RED: Ashlu ramping and fish ladder operat ions

Tim,
Iamconductingasitevisitthisafternoontodraftuprecommendationstoimproveaccessintothefishladder.Illbe
thefirsttoadmitthatIamnotanexpertonfishladderdesign,butiffishcantgetintotheladderthecertainlywont
useit.Asfortheladderitself,IassumethatMOEandDFOstaffwithladderexperiencereviewedthedesign,and
thattheladderisfunctional.OnceIhavesomerecommendations,IwillpassthembyMattFoyatDFO(ErincanI
passthemontoyouaswell?)toseeifhehasanyotherideas.Ourstaffarealsopresentlyreviewingvarious
monitoringoptionsforthefishladder(asopposedtocampingoutthere),soweshouldhavesomethingfor
implementationearlynextweek.
Adam,
Ibelieveyourcrewaremonitoringtherampingthisweekendastheydidlastweekend.Ifthisisnotcorrectcanyou
advise?Myunderstandingthattherampingwillthisweekendwillbeover12hourswhichwillachievetheDFO
prescribedrampingrate;isthatcorrect?
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904

Sent : May-14-10 9: 12 AM
To: Mike Nelson; AdamLewis
Subj ect : FW: RESPONSE REQUI RED: Ashlu ramping and fish ladder operat ions
I mpor t ance: High

HiMike,Adam;
FYI,IamcopyingyouonrecentcorrespondencetoInnergexrelatedtotherecentramping,fishstrandingand
salvageincidentanddirectiononfixingthefishladdertoensurepassage.
Mike:couldyoupleaseletmeknowifInnergexdoesnotcontactyoutodiscussoptionsproposedtofixtheladder,
and/orimplementanymeasurestofixthisproblem?Myexpectationisthattheywillalsoimplementimmediate
monitoring(postfix)toensurefishpassagecanand/orisoccurring.Iwouldalsoaskthatyouattendtositeto
confirmmeasuresandmonitoring,andifrequiredbepreparedtoissueastopworkorderifmeasuresarenot
implementedorrampingdoesexceedtheDFOguidance.
Adam:willthisevent,the(ineffective)fishladderoperation,and/orotherissuesnoted(reflowreleaseattheweir
and/orpotentialforfurtherfishstranding)impactyourabilitytocollectappropriatedata,designand/orimplement
arevisedOEMP?
Thankyou.
Page 125
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

I mpor t ance: High

HiRobert,
thefishladder.
Page 126
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Regards,
TimBennett,P.Eng.,

Page 127
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Mike Nelson; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; AdamLewis
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince
Hi Mike and everyone, just to recap...
I don't believe the project has been utilizing DFO's default ramping rate of 2.5 cm/her. This is what has led to ramping-
related problems. The proponent has used 0.3cms (flow reduction)/hr, which of course, depending on river flows, can
and has led to stage changes way in excess of 2.5 cm/hr. The DFO Authorization does not stipulate a project-specific
ramping rate; that was supposed to be determined at some point. Until the project-specific ramping rate is
determined, the default ramping rate of 2.5 cm/hour should apply.
regards,
Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 14, 2010 12: 02 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; AdamLewis
Tim,
Iamconductingasitevisitthisafternoontodraftuprecommendationstoimproveaccessintothefishladder.Illbe
thefirsttoadmitthatIamnotanexpertonfishladderdesign,butiffishcantgetintotheladderthecertainlywont
useit.Asfortheladderitself,IassumethatMOEandDFOstaffwithladderexperiencereviewedthedesign,and
thattheladderisfunctional.OnceIhavesomerecommendations,IwillpassthembyMattFoyatDFO(ErincanI
passthemontoyouaswell?)toseeifhehasanyotherideas.Ourstaffarealsopresentlyreviewingvarious
monitoringoptionsforthefishladder(asopposedtocampingoutthere),soweshouldhavesomethingfor
implementationearlynextweek.
Adam,
Ibelieveyourcrewaremonitoringtherampingthisweekendastheydidlastweekend.Ifthisisnotcorrectcanyou
advise?Myunderstandingthattherampingwillthisweekendwillbeover12hourswhichwillachievetheDFO
prescribedrampingrate;isthatcorrect?
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 128
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

Sent : May-14-10 9: 12 AM
To: Mike Nelson; AdamLewis
I mpor t ance: High

HiMike,Adam;
arevisedOEMP?
Thankyou.
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

I mpor t ance: High

HiRobert,
Page 129
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
thefishladder.
Regards,
TimBennett,P.Eng.,

Page 130
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Adam Lewis; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; mnelson@cerg.ca
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Ian Murphy; Robert
Kulka
thanks Adam,
Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 14, 2010 4: 30 PM
To: 'Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX'; mnelson@cerg.ca
Cc: 'St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX'; 'Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX'; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince; 'I an Murphy'; 'Robert
Kulka'
Tim:
WehavebeenonsitedailysinceMay5andhavecollectedthetimesensitivecriticaldatafortheOEMP.Fishladder
operation,flowrelease,andfishstrandinghavebeenmonitoredbyusduringthistime:theseprojectcomponents
andtheissuesassociatedwiththemwillnotimpairtheabilitytoimplementtheOEMP.Myopinionremainsasper
myletterdatedApril30,2010onthissubject.Asweareonsitemonitoringtheeffectsoftheseissueswecurrently
collectedtimelymonitoringdataandareactivelymonitoringfishresponsetotheseissues.
Regards,




Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Page 131
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163


Sent : Friday, May 14, 2010 9: 12 AM
To: mnelson@cerg.ca; AdamLewis
I mpor t ance: High

HiMike,Adam;
arevisedOEMP?
Thankyou.
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

I mpor t ance: High

HiRobert,
Page 132
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
thefishladder.
Regards,
TimBennett,P.Eng.,

Page 133
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:02 PM
Cc: 'Knight, Francesca'; 'vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca'; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Importance: High
Tim,
Inmyopinion,theirmodificationtotheinletofthefishladderwillnotbeeffectiveas
supportedinAdamLewis'emailofMay14,2010asthereisnothingtoattractmigrating
prespawnfishtoit.AtthetimeofoursitevisitonMay12th,asindicatedtoyou
previously,themodificationhadalreadybeencompleted,butwasineffectiveatthattime.
TheonlypurposeIseethemodificationservingwouldbetomitigatetheentranceofthe
fishladderfrombeingblownoutfromtheIFRdischargeasthepressureonthestructure
wouldbesignificant.Ifanything,themodificationwouldconfusefishmoreratherthan
provideabetterattraction.Itisnotclearfromanyofthecommunicationsprovidedasto
whoseadvicewasbeingfollowedwhenthemodificationwasmadeoranymitigationmeasures
thatwereundertakenduringthework.Theentranceofthefishladderneedstobedirected
awayfromtheIFRdischarge,ortheIFRdischargeneedstobedirectedawayfromthefish
ladderentrance,anthereneedstoadequateflowinthefishladdertoattractandpass
adultRainbowTrout.
FromtheimagessenttoyoupreviouslyfromourMay12,2010sitevisit,youcanseethat
thedischargeontotheentranceofthefishladderfromtheIFRpipewassignificantly
morethantheimagesprovidedintheMay14,2010Innergexletterreport.Itisdifficult
toseefromtheimagesprovidedinthesameInnergexreportiftheflowsinthefish
ladderwereadequatetopassadultRainbowTrout.ItwasclearduringourMay12thsite
visitthattheywerenot.IalsonoticeduponfurtherreviewoftheMay10,2010EM
reportimagesthattherewassignificantlymorewaterbeingdischargedoverthedaminto
thechannelsectionthatisstrandingandkillingfishthantherewasduringourMay12,
2010sitevisit.
IcontinuetohaveconcernswithrespecttohowtheEMdutiesarebeinghandledbytheEM,
MikeNelsonandhisdelegatesatthissite.Hehasclearlynotattendedthesite
recently,norhasthepersonwhosignedtherecentreport,anditisnotclearwhatadvice
isbeingprovidedtoInnergex.
Pleasecontactmeifyouwouldliketodiscussanyoftheabovefurther.
Sincerely,
Ecosystems
OriginalMessage
From:Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX
Sent:Friday,May14,20103:37PM
To:Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX
Subject:FW:RESPONSEREQUIRED:Ashlurampingandfishladderoperations
Importance:High
Yourthoughts,gentlemen?
Page 134
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235
OriginalMessage
Cc:Knight,Francesca;vince.busto@dfompo.gc.ca;AdamLewis;MikeNelson;Richard
Blanchet;FrancoisHebert
Subject:RE:RESPONSEREQUIRED:Ashlurampingandfishladderoperations
Importance:High
HiTim,
Attachedisourreplytoyouremail.Pleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyquestions.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600*Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
OriginalMessage
Cc:Knight,Francesca;vince.busto@dfompo.gc.ca
Subject:RESPONSEREQUIRED:Ashlurampingandfishladderoperations
Importance:High
<mailto:s@ecofishresearch.com>
HiRobert,
ThankyouforyouremailofMay9,2010regardingtheobservednoncompliancewith
specifiedrampingratesattheAshlufacility,onMay8,2010.
Iunderstandthatrampingratesonthatdate(May8,2010)werehigherthanDFOguidance
of2.5cm/hour,andalsoresultedinfishstrandingandsalvageactivities.Youare
remindedthatyourauthorization(Leave)tocontinuecommissioningactivities,issuedby
theIndependentEngineeranddatedApril30,2010,wassubjecttoanumberofconditions
including:
1)...toprovideaworkplanandscheduleforfacility(e.g.,bypassspillway)
modificationstopreventfishstrandinginthebypassweirspillway,tothesatisfaction
oftheAssistantRegionalWaterManager,within30days.Intheinterim,commissioning
Page 135
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
activitiesshouldbeundertakeninsuchawayastominimizethepotentialforfish
stranding;and,
2)Commissioningactivitiesmustnotresultinrampingrateswithinthestreamthat
exceedDFOguidance,i.e.,DFO'sdefaulthourlyrampingratesof2.5cm/hr.
Itdoesnotcurrentlyappearthatthesetwoconditionshavebeenadheredto.Ialso
understandthattherewilllikelybefurther,imminentrampingeventsasadditionalflows
arereleasedforkayakersinMay,asrequiredbyyourTransportCanadaApproval.
Youareherebyadvisedthatyourauthorizationtocontinuecommissioningwillberevoked
ifduecareisnotundertakentominimizethepotentialforfishstrandingand/orthe
specifiedrampingratesarenotadheredto.
IalsounderstandthattheEnvironmentalMonitor(EM)fortheprojecthasraisedconcerns
regardingfishpassageviathefishladderintheprevioustwoweeklyenvironmental
monitoringreports(#201004,20105),andthesehavenotbeenaddressedtodate.Those
concernspertaintotheconfigurationoftheIFRpipeoutletandfishladderentranceway,
andseveralproblemsarebelievedtocontributetothissituation,including:
theIFRpipereleasesflowsalmostontopofthefishladderentrance,likely
creatingahydraulicbarrier/deterrentforfishtryingtoenterthefishladder;
theentrancetothefishladderisnotwelldesignedtoencouragefishtoenter;
Cascadehasrecommendedriprapplacedattheentrancetocreatemoreofadefinedchannel
thatcanguidefishtotheentrance;and,
anallegedreductionofflowsinthefishladderduringlowriverflows,whenall
oftherequiredIFRisbeingconveyedviatheIFRpipeandtheproponent/operatorhas
concernsoverlosingtoomuchwaterthroughthefishladder.
DFOstaffhaveindicatedthatthisisprimespawningseasontimeforrainbowtomigrateup
abovetheheadpondforspawning;andthat,currently,thisisnotpossible.Adequate
flowsneedtopassthroughthefishladder,andpassinglesswaterthroughtheIFRpipe
mayreducetheeffectofthehydraulicbarrier/deterrent.Youmayconsiderreducing
(redirecting)IFRflowsfromtheIFRpipesuchthatthefishladdercanreceivemoreflow.
Theladdershouldbeabouthalffull,andtheEMwillbeabletodirectproponentasto
adequatevolume.Alternatively,thefishladderinletcouldhavetobereconfigured
relativetothelocationoftheIFRpipeoutlet.Finally,DFOhassuggestedthat
dependingonwhetherthefishladderinletrequiressubstantialrefittingtoavoidtheIFR
flows,theinletmayneedtobeenhancedwithripraptobetterguidefishthefishladder
entrance.
Basedontheabove,Iamrequestingthatyoucompletethefollowingwithin48hoursof
thisemail(i.e.,priortotheendofday,onFridayMay15,2010):
1)ProvidewrittenconfirmationtotheAssistantRegionalWaterManagerofyour
understandingofyourrequirementtoundertakeplantcommissioningandflowdiversionsin
suchawayastoensurethatfisharenotstrandedandrampingratesdonotexceed2.5
cm/hour,andyourintenttoadheretothisrequirement;
Page 136
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
2)ImplementinconsultationwiththeEM,andprovidedetailson,measuresto
ensureandmonitorthatfishpassageviathefishladdercanoccur.Thesemeasurescould
includephysicalmodificationsand/orreleaseofadditionalflows,ordiversionofflows
fromtheIFRpipe,tothefishladder,insuchawaythatthenet,requiredIFRreleaseis
accomplishedandfishpassageisnothindered.
Regards,
TimBennett,P.Eng.,
Page 137
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:15 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince
Hi guys, just wanted to make sure you saw Mike's comments on the amendment to the plan for modifying the fish
ladder. I see where you are coming from, Erin, with concerns about the suggested modifications. I am just worried
that if we don't try something soon, we will lose anything remaining of this year's spawning window. Do you see any
value in letting the modifications go ahead ASAP, with Matt Foy's recommendations for the slots, and including some
energy dissipation from the IFR pipe? Then both Cascade and Ecofish would be on hand to monitor fish use. I think if
we don't do this "field fix", the next step is to require a more engineered design, which will of course take longer to
prepare, review and approve. If monitoring shows that the mods were unsuccessful, then we move on to plan B (the
engineered solution). Thoughts?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 17, 2010 3: 51 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince
IdonotconsidertherecommendationsintheMay17,2010Cascadereporttobeadequateorappropriateto
addresstheAshlufishladderissuesasdocumentedpreviously.
EcosystemsBiologist

To: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Subj ect : FW: Ashlu Fish Ladder
FYI
For some reason, you werent on the cc list.

To: Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince
Subj ect : Ashlu Fish Ladder
Page 138
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Robert,
Attachedaremyrecommendationsforthefishladder.Myapologiesforthecrudenessofthedrawings,butIthinkit
ismoreprudenttogetthisoutthanspendtimemakingthedrawingslookpretty.
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 139
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto,
Vince; Brian Patjas
Robert,
FurthertomyemailandrecommendationsfortheFishLadderdatedMay17,IvehadachancetotalktoMattFoy
(HabitatEnhancementBiologist,DFO)andChessyKnightabouttheinlettotheladder.Mattrecommendedthatthe
inletbemodifiedtoinclude4verticalslots,asopposedtothepresenthorizontalopening.Theslotswouldbe
approximately10cmwide,withaheightextendingfromtheladderinverttotheheightoftheanticipatedhighwater
atthatlocation(say2030cmhigh).Spacingoftheslotscanbedeterminedinthefield,buttheywouldbeabout
20cmapartsothattheywillfitinthelowerpartoftheladder.WecangooverthiswithBrianwhenweareatthe
intakeonournextmonitoringvisit.
IunderstandthattheyouaretryingtolineupequipmentforFriday.Pleasekeepusadvised.NotethatIhave
recommendedthataccesstothesitebeviathebridgeoverthesluiceway(andthendowntheslopebyremovinga
portionofthechainlinkfence)asopposedtoawetcrossing.Ihaveassumedthatthebridgewillbeartheweightof
theSpider?
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
From: Mike Nelson

Sent : May-17-10 2: 48 PM
To: 'Robert Kulka'
Cc: 'Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX'; Knight , Francesca; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince
Robert,
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 140
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; 'Mike Nelson'; 'Robert Kulka'
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; 'Knight, Francesca'; 'Busto, Vince'; 'Brian Patjas'; 'Francois
Hebert'
Importance: High
OriginalMessage
Sent:Thu5/20/201010:38AM
Mikeetal.,
Scott
To:RobertKulka
Page 141
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Robert,
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Sent:May19105:00PM
To:MikeNelson
Page 142
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Mike,
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600.Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
To:RobertKulka
BrianPatjas
Robert,
Page 143
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Spider?
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
From:MikeNelson
Sent:May17102:48PM
To:'RobertKulka'
Vince
Robert,
drawingslookpretty.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
Page 144
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 145
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
incredible!

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 20, 2010 10: 39 AM
To: Mike Nelson; Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince; Brian Pat j as; Francois Hebert ; St oddard, Erin M
ENV: EX
Mike et al.,

Please ensure that Erin Stoddard (Erin.Stoddard@gov.bc.ca) is ccd on these communications; he is the
fisheries biologist from MOE-ESD that has been providing technical review of hydropower issues for the
South Coast Region in recent months, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

Scott

To: Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Brian Pat j as; Francois
Hebert
Robert,
Iwouldprefernotmanipulatingthesluiceflowstoaccommodatethecrossingifpossible,asEcoFishhavebeen
findingafewgravidrainbowtroutinthisarea;thelessdewateringwork/salvagesthebetteratthistimeofyear.Ive
seenFletchersSpyderworkinsomeprettyamazingplaces,andImreasonablyconfidentthatthemachinecan
traversethattheslope;however,Iwoulddefertothemachineoperatorwheresafetyisanissue.
Also,justtocomplicatethingsalittle,ItalkedtoIanMurphyatEcoFishthismorning,andunderstandthattheyhave
putPITtagson10fishtheycapturedaroundtheentrancetothefishladderanddownstreamoftheintake.They
willbeinstallinganantennaetodayinthefishladdertotrytodetectanyofthosefishmovingwithintheladder.Ian
saidthatthefishbeingcapturedweregravid,milkwaseasilyinducedfromthemales,althougheggswerenot
Page 146
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
yieldedfromthefemales(althoughtheywereripe).Intheabsenceofgainingaccesstothefishladder,thefishmay
belookingforalternativespawningareasi.e.inthevicinityofthefishladder.Theareawherewerecommended
placingadditionalripraparegenerallydevoidofgravelduetothehighIFRpipevelocities;howeverextremecare
mustbetakentolimitactivitiestonongravelareas,andtolimitanydewateringboththetimeandextent.
Inlightoftheabove,ifMOEand/orDFOwanttodefertheseworkstoanalternativetime,Iwouldappreciatebeing
advised.
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904

Sent : May-19-10 5: 00 PM
To: Mike Nelson
Hebert
Mike,
IhavebookedthemachineyourecommendedfromPemberton(Fletcher)forTuesday.NeitherFletchernorthe
otheroptionfromthelowermainland(SpyderCan)areabletomakeitFriday.Themachineoperatesonacanola
typehydraulicoilandwillbepressurewashed.Wewillhavesufficientamountsofspillequipmentandpersonnelon
standbytodealwithpotentialspills.Workistentativelyscheduledtostartaround9am.Weshouldallmeetaround
8amtohaveakickoffmeetingcoveringenvironmentalandsafetyissues.
Asforaccess:WewouldneedtoconsultwiththeoperatorandIamnotsurethatwalkingdowntherockfillweir
overtherelativelylargeriprapisasaveoption(wecouldcertainlytemporarilyremovethechainlinkfenceandthe
bridgeisdesignedfora120toncraneload,sothebridgewouldnotbeanissue).Wemightwanttoconsiderwalking
downontheothersideofthesluiceway(noriprapthereandgentlerslope)andwhiledoingsodivertingthespill
waterfromthesluicewaytotheObermeyerspillwayandkeepitthatwayuntiltheworkiscomplete.Thiswould
allowadrycrossingofthesluicewayoutletareaandwouldalsokeepwaterfurtherawayfromtheareawhenwe
performthework.Ibelievethatyourteamwouldneedtosurveyforfishd/softhesluicewayafterweswitched
theflows.Thiswouldalsoallowtotestthenewriprapconfigurationunderconditionsthatwateronlycomesfrom
theIFRpipe(andfishladderofcourse)andnowaterpassesthesluiceway.Letmeknowwhatyourthoughtsabout
thisare.Iamintheofficetomorrow,sopleasegivemeacall.
Regards,
Robert

________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 147
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Sent : Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11: 20 AM
To: Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Brian Pat j as
Robert,
theSpider?
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
From: Mike Nelson

Sent : May-17-10 2: 48 PM
To: 'Robert Kulka'
Robert,
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 148
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Busto, Vince [Vince.Busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca]
To: Adam Lewis; Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Brian Patjas; Babakaiff, Scott C
ENV:EX; Francois Hebert; Mike Nelson; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Ian Murphy
Francescca and I will be departing from the DFO Office for Ashlu around 11:30 a.m. following an earlier meeting.



-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Lewis [mailto:fjalewis@ecofishresearch.com]
Sent: Fri 5/21/2010 4:00 PM
To: Busto, Vince; 'Robert Kulka'
Cc: 'Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX'; Knight, Francesca; 'Brian Patjas'; 'Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX'; 'Francois Hebert'; 'Mike
Nelson'; 'Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX'; 'Ian Murphy'

Hello:

Further to a discussion with Robert Kulka, I will also attend the meeting on-site on Tuesday. I understand work will commence at
8:30 and I will be onsite in the morning to these issues.

Regards, Adam




fjalewis@ecofishresearch.com <mailto:ecofish@telus.net>

www.ecofishresearch.com <http://www.ecofishresearch.com/>

Page 149
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2


Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742


Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163

This email contains confidential information that is proprietary to Ecofish Research Ltd.. This information is intended only for the
person(s) named in the destination address. Unauthorized distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you receive
this e-mail in error please delete it immediately.

From: Busto, Vince [mailto:Vince.Busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca]
To: Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Brian Patjas; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Francois Hebert; Mike Nelson;
Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Adam Lewis

Robert

I agree with Erin Stoddard's comment that there are a number of alterations that have been done that have not addressed the
problem satisfactorily, and that this planned work on Tuesday is another minor alteration that will not address the long-term need
for reliable fish passage at the Ashlu dam.

Innergex has not satisfied DFO in a few significant aspects of the construction and commissioning of the project. For example, as
you know, DFO is not satisfied with condition of the emergency bypass channel; and DFO sees the Innergex's notching of the
Obermeyer weir as a temporary mitigation, not the final solution, to accommodate stranding of fish within the emergency bypass
channel.



Habitat and Hydrotechnical Engineer | Ingnieur de l'habitat et de l'hydrotechnique

Page 150
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3

________________________________

From: Mike Nelson [mailto:mnelson@cerg.ca]
Sent: May 21, 2010 1:46 PM
To: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Busto, Vince; Brian Patjas; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Francois Hebert

Please find attached the mitigation sign-off list for the fish ladder repair works to be conducted on Tuesday May 25.

Cheers,

Mike Nelson, R.P.Bio.

Principal



Unit 203 - 38026 2nd Avenue | Squamish | BC | Canada | V8B 0C3

TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904

mnelson@cerg.ca <mailto:lnelson@cerg.ca> | www.cascade-environmental.ca <http://www.cascade-environmental.ca/>

From: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX [mailto:Erin.Stoddard@gov.bc.ca]
Sent: May-20-10 3:34 PM
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Mike Nelson; Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Busto, Vince; Brian Patjas; Francois Hebert
Importance: High

If works are to be conducted in the channel at this time, they should be monitored by the IEM (Mike Nelson), not his delegate, as
should any further modifications to the fish ladder. Also, Mike should provide a signed-off list of all mitigative measures that
will be undertaken to not cause any additional impacts to the fish in this population or fish habitat during these works, with
special consideration to those that are staging to spawn or spawning, which is an extremely sensitive and critical time. For
example, a wet crossing should not be considered unless there is no other choice and can be done with no impacts to fish or fish
habitat.

What I see in the e-mails below is further "trying to fix" a significant problem by trying to do little changes, when it needs
significant work to make the structure functional. These temporary mitigative fixes should be considered as such, with a
subsequent plan and commitment for a permanent fix during the next instream work window during a much less sensitive time for
fish.

Page 151
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4

Please contact me here or at 604-202-1389 if you require additional information.

Erin M. Stoddard, R.P.Bio.



Sent: Thu 5/20/2010 10:38 AM

To: 'Mike Nelson'; 'Robert Kulka'

Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; 'Knight, Francesca'; 'Busto, Vince'; 'Brian Patjas'; 'Francois Hebert'; Stoddard, Erin M
ENV:EX


Mike et al.,

Please ensure that Erin Stoddard (Erin.Stoddard@gov.bc.ca <mailto:Erin.Stoddard@gov.bc.ca> ) is cc'd on these
communications; he is the fisheries biologist from MOE-ESD that has been providing technical review of hydropower issues for
the South Coast Region in recent months, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

Scott



To: Robert Kulka

Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Brian Patjas; Francois Hebert


Page 152
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5

Robert,

I would prefer not manipulating the sluice flows to accommodate the crossing if possible, as EcoFish have been finding a few
gravid rainbow trout in this area; the less dewatering work/salvages the better at this time of year. I've seen Fletcher's Spyder
work in some pretty amazing places, and I'm reasonably confident that the machine can traverse that the slope; however, I would
defer to the machine operator where safety is an issue.

Also, just to complicate things a little, I talked to Ian Murphy at EcoFish this morning, and understand that they have put PIT
tags on 10 fish they captured around the entrance to the fish ladder and downstream of the intake. They will be installing an
antennae today in the fish ladder to try to detect any of those fish moving within the ladder. Ian said that the fish being captured
were gravid, milk was easily induced from the males, although eggs were not yielded from the females (although they were ripe).
In the absence of gaining access to the fish ladder, the fish may be looking for alternative spawning areas - i.e. in the vicinity of
the fish ladder. The area where we recommended placing additional riprap are generally devoid of gravel due to the high IFR
pipe velocities; however extreme care must be taken to limit activities to non-gravel areas, and to limit any dewatering -both the
time and extent.

In light of the above, if MOE and/or DFO want to defer these works to an alternative time, I would appreciate being advised.

Cheers,


Principal




Page 153
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904


From: Robert Kulka [mailto:RKulka@innergex.com]

Sent: May-19-10 5:00 PM

To: Mike Nelson

Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Brian Patjas; Francois Hebert


Mike,

I have booked the machine you recommended from Pemberton (Fletcher) for Tuesday. Neither Fletcher nor the other option
from the lower mainland (Spyder-Can) are able to make it Friday. The machine operates on a canola type hydraulic oil and will
be pressure washed. We will have sufficient amounts of spill equipment and personnel on standby to deal with potential spills.
Work is tentatively scheduled to start around 9am. We should all meet around 8am to have a kick off meeting covering
environmental and safety issues.

As for access: We would need to consult with the operator and I am not sure that walking down the rockfill weir over the
relatively large rip rap is a save option (we could certainly temporarily remove the chain link fence and the bridge is designed for
a 120ton crane load, so the bridge would not be an issue). We might want to consider walking down on the other side of the
sluiceway (no riprap there and gentler slope) and while doing so diverting the spill water from the sluiceway to the Obermeyer
spillway and keep it that way until the work is complete. This would allow a "dry" crossing of the sluiceway outlet area and
would also keep water further away from the area when we perform the work. I believe that your team would need to survey for
fish d/s of the sluiceway after we "switched" the flows. This would also allow to test the new rip rap configuration under
conditions that water only comes from the IFR pipe (and fish ladder of course) and no water passes the sluiceway. Let me know
what your thoughts about this are. I am in the office tomorrow, so please give me a call.

Regards,
Page 154
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
7

Robert

________________________________________

ROBERT J. KULKA, P. Eng., Dipl.-Wirt.-Ing.

Construction Manager

Innergex nergie renouvelable - Innergex Renewable Energy

Suite 303 - 38 Fell Avenue

North Vancouver, British Columbia V7P 3S2

Phone : 604 984.8600 . Fax : 604 984.8699

Cell.: 778 227.0434



To: Robert Kulka

Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Brian Patjas


Robert,

Further to my email and recommendations for the Fish Ladder dated May 17, I've had a chance to talk to Matt Foy (Habitat
Enhancement Biologist, DFO) and Chessy Knight about the inlet to the ladder. Matt recommended that the inlet be modified to
include 4 vertical slots, as opposed to the present horizontal opening. The slots would be approximately 10cm wide, with a height
extending from the ladder invert to the height of the anticipated high water at that location (say 20-30cm high). Spacing of the
slots can be determined in the field, but they would be about 20cm apart so that they will fit in the lower part of the ladder. We
can go over this with Brian when we are at the intake on our next monitoring visit.

Page 155
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
8

I understand that the you are trying to line up equipment for Friday. Please keep us advised. Note that I have recommended that
access to the site be via the bridge over the sluiceway (and then down the slope by removing a portion of the chain link fence) as
opposed to a wet crossing. I have assumed that the bridge will bear the weight of the Spider?

Cheers,


Principal




TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904


From: Mike Nelson

Sent: May-17-10 2:48 PM

To: 'Robert Kulka'

Cc: 'Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX'; Knight, Francesca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince

Subject: Ashlu Fish Ladder

Page 156
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
9

Robert,

Attached are my recommendations for the fish ladder. My apologies for the crudeness of the drawings, but I think it is more
prudent to get this out than spend time making the drawings look pretty.

Cheers,


Principal




TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904


Page 157
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: 'Busto, Vince'; 'Robert Kulka'
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; 'Knight, Francesca'; 'Brian Patjas'; Babakaiff, Scott C
ENV:EX; 'Francois Hebert'; 'Mike Nelson'; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; 'Ian Murphy'
Hello:
FurthertoadiscussionwithRobertKulka,IwillalsoattendthemeetingonsiteonTuesday.Iunderstandworkwill
commenceat8:30andIwillbeonsiteinthemorningtotheseissues.
Regards,Adam




Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163


To: Robert Kulka
Robert




Page 158
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

Sent : May 21, 2010 1: 46 PM
Hebert
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
OriginalMessage
Sent:May20103:34PM
Hebert
Importance:High
Page 159
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
OriginalMessage
Sent:Thu5/20/201010:38AM
Mikeetal.,
Scott
To:RobertKulka
Robert,
Page 160
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Sent:May19105:00PM
To:MikeNelson
Mike,
Regards,
Page 161
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600.Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
To:RobertKulka
BrianPatjas
Robert,
Spider?
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
Page 162
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
From:MikeNelson
Sent:May17102:48PM
To:'RobertKulka'
Vince
Robert,
drawingslookpretty.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 163
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Mike Nelson; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Brian Patjas; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX;
Francois Hebert
Hi guys, I am happy to spend the afternoon on site, as well. I have a meeting in the morning, but could make it out to
the site by noon, for the remainder of the day.
Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 21, 2010 1: 46 PM
Hebert
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
OriginalMessage
Sent:May20103:34PM
Hebert
Importance:High
Page 164
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
OriginalMessage
Sent:Thu5/20/201010:38AM
Mikeetal.,
Scott
To:RobertKulka
Robert,
Page 165
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Sent:May19105:00PM
To:MikeNelson
Mike,
Page 166
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600.Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
To:RobertKulka
BrianPatjas
Robert,
Spider?
Cheers,
Page 167
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
From:MikeNelson
Sent:May17102:48PM
To:'RobertKulka'
Vince
Robert,
drawingslookpretty.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 168
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard,
Erin M ENV:EX
I thought male fish had "milt" (sp?) not "milk"

Sent : May 20, 2010 10: 34 AM
To: Robert Kulka
Hebert
Robert,
Iwouldprefernotmanipulatingthesluiceflowstoaccommodatethecrossingifpossible,asEcoFishhavebeen
findingafewgravidrainbowtroutinthisarea;thelessdewateringwork/salvagesthebetteratthistimeofyear.Ive
seenFletchersSpyderworkinsomeprettyamazingplaces,andImreasonablyconfidentthatthemachinecan
traversethattheslope;however,Iwoulddefertothemachineoperatorwheresafetyisanissue.
Also,justtocomplicatethingsalittle,ItalkedtoIanMurphyatEcoFishthismorning,andunderstandthattheyhave
putPITtagson10fishtheycapturedaroundtheentrancetothefishladderanddownstreamoftheintake.They
willbeinstallinganantennaetodayinthefishladdertotrytodetectanyofthosefishmovingwithintheladder.Ian
saidthatthefishbeingcapturedweregravid,milkwaseasilyinducedfromthemales,althougheggswerenot
yieldedfromthefemales(althoughtheywereripe).Intheabsenceofgainingaccesstothefishladder,thefishmay
belookingforalternativespawningareasi.e.inthevicinityofthefishladder.Theareawherewerecommended
placingadditionalripraparegenerallydevoidofgravelduetothehighIFRpipevelocities;howeverextremecare
mustbetakentolimitactivitiestonongravelareas,andtolimitanydewateringboththetimeandextent.
Inlightoftheabove,ifMOEand/orDFOwanttodefertheseworkstoanalternativetime,Iwouldappreciatebeing
advised.
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904

Sent : May-19-10 5: 00 PM
To: Mike Nelson
Hebert
Mike,
Page 169
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Regards,
Robert

________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

To: Robert Kulka
Robert,
theSpider?
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 170
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
From: Mike Nelson
Sent : May-17-10 2: 48 PM
To: 'Robert Kulka'
Robert,
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 171
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:50 AM
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard,
Erin M ENV:EX
My impression of fish passage, based on the site visit a number of us conducted last week, is not good; and I expect
that the monitoring will show limited success for fish passage. A good fish passage design would have:
1) attraction flow - the IFR release provides some (leads fish to the fishway), but so does the new notch in the
Obermeyer weir (leads fish to a dead end a the dam)
2) an entrance that is easy to find and get into - I think the existing hydraulics, including the modifications to the steep-
pass, does not achieve this
3) sufficient flow to allow fish to swim up the steep-pass. This requires close regulation of the water level at the
headpond. My concern is that at low flows, especially with the recent Obermeyer weir modifications, fish passage will
not be possible.

I think we need to initiate some dialogue with Innergex to tackle the problems with:
a) the Obermeyer (notch),
2) the overflow channel downstream of the Obermeyer
3) the IFR pipe and the fishway
All three have impacts on fish passage.


Sent : May 19, 2010 5: 00 PM
To: Mike Nelson
Hebert
Mike,
Page 172
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Regards,
Robert

________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

To: Robert Kulka
Robert,
theSpider?
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
From: Mike Nelson

Sent : May-17-10 2: 48 PM
To: 'Robert Kulka'
Page 173
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Robert,
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 174
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Knight, Francesca; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX
Scott had a particular meeting location in mind as well.

Sent : May 27, 2010 10: 22 AM
To: 'Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX'; Bust o, Vince
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
gotcha!
No, I think we are supposed to have our IPP monthly meeting on the 1st. If that does not work, do we want to change
the meeting to Friday, talk about Ashlu and other IPP items?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 27, 2010 9: 52 AM
Huh?!..Doh!
DowehaveanothermeetingplannedforJun1?
Whattimeandwhereisit?
Thx!
Page 175
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince
Hi guys, do you want to discuss at our general meeting June 1? Or on the Friday, June 4?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 26, 2010 4: 56 PM
Yup,couldyoufollowupwithMikeandaskhimtoprovidethat.
Apartfromthat,Ibelievescottanderinaretiedupthisweeksonextweekwouldworkbetterforameeting.
Whaddyathink?
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince
Hi guys, we asked Mike Nelson yesterday to take photos and prepare a rough as-built report of the work that they do.
Maybe we could meet when he sends that out, to help with our discussions?
Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Page 176
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 26, 2010 9: 29 AM
To: Bust o, Vince
Cc: Knight , Francesca; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
HiAll,
Iwouldsuggestwehaveaninternalmeetingtofollowuponthestatusofthefishladder(howdyesterdaygo),and
nextsteps.
Areyouguys(andgals)availableforashortconferencecalleitherthisFriday,nextWednesdaybeforenoonor
Thursday?
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

To: Robert Kulka
Robert




Page 177
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4

Sent : May 21, 2010 1: 46 PM
Hebert
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
OriginalMessage
Sent:May20103:34PM
Hebert
Importance:High
Page 178
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
OriginalMessage
Sent:Thu5/20/201010:38AM
Mikeetal.,
Scott
To:RobertKulka
Robert,
Cheers,
Page 179
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Sent:May19105:00PM
To:MikeNelson
Mike,
Regards,
Robert
Page 180
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
7
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600.Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
To:RobertKulka
BrianPatjas
Robert,
Spider?
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 181
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
8
From:MikeNelson
Sent:May17102:48PM
To:'RobertKulka'
Vince
Robert,
drawingslookpretty.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 182
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Busto, Vince; Brian Patjas; Babakaiff,
Scott C ENV:EX; Francois Hebert
Attachments: P5260195 (Small).JPG; P5260197 (Small).JPG
Attachedareacoupleofphotostakenyesterdayofthefishladderrepairs.Illbefilingareporttomorrowonthe
works.
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
From: Mike Nelson

Sent : May-21-10 1: 46 PM
To: 'St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX'; Robert Kulka
Hebert
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
OriginalMessage
Sent:May20103:34PM
Hebert
Importance:High
Page 183
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
OriginalMessage
Sent:Thu5/20/201010:38AM
Mikeetal.,
Scott
To:RobertKulka
Robert,
Page 184
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Sent:May19105:00PM
To:MikeNelson
Mike,
Page 185
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600.Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
To:RobertKulka
BrianPatjas
Robert,
Spider?
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
Page 186
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
From:MikeNelson
Sent:May17102:48PM
To:'RobertKulka'
Vince
Robert,
drawingslookpretty.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 187
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 188
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 189
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX
Subject: FW: Ashlu Fish Ladder
Attachments: 100517 Fish Ladder.pdf
FYI
For some reason, you werent on the cc list.

To: Robert Kulka
Cc: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince
Robert,
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 190
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Busto, Vince; Brian Patjas; Babakaiff,
Scott C ENV:EX; Francois Hebert
Attachments: 100521 Fish Ladder Mitigation.pdf
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
OriginalMessage
Sent:May20103:34PM
Hebert
Importance:High
OriginalMessage
Sent:Thu5/20/201010:38AM
Mikeetal.,
Page 191
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Scott
To:RobertKulka
Robert,
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
Page 192
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Sent:May19105:00PM
To:MikeNelson
Mike,
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600.Fax:604984.8699
Page 193
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Cell.:778227.0434
To:RobertKulka
BrianPatjas
Robert,
Spider?
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
From:MikeNelson
Sent:May17102:48PM
To:'RobertKulka'
Vince
Page 194
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
Robert,
drawingslookpretty.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 195
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 196
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
S. 22
Page 197
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 198
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 199
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2010 4:36 PM
Subject: RE: Ashlu baseline report
Nice work...my to-do list for tomorrow has one item: review this report.
Oh yeah, and a couple of conference calls re: commissioning issues at IPPs.


Sent : Thursday, July 8, 2010 3: 08 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince
Subj ect : Ashlu baseline report

Hi guys,
I took a quick read through Adam's baseline report for the Ashlu, trying to get ready for next w folks
e's a quick summary, with my comments

FISH
1. Ecofish (ERL) found quite a lot of fish in their surveys over the last couple of months, as usual, impressive work
using a variety of sampling techniques:
- resident rainbow and cutthroat trout throughout the diversion reach (and upstream), in various size classes.
ERL thinks there may be hybridization of the two species; also thinks there might be anadromous cutties below the
anadromous barrier (upstream of powerhouse)
- steelhead are present in the lower diversion reach: ERL collected 29 otoliths from juvenile rainbow/steelhead in
an effort to determine whether the fish represent resident rainbow populations, or anadromous SH populations. I was
not aware they were going to do otoliths; I would have liked to discuss the lethal sampling, but I suppose it's really the
only way to evaluate anadromy.
- bull trout in the diversion reach (below the anadromous barrier): seems strange that they are not above this
barrier, at least a resident form.
- the anadromous barrier is approximately 600m upstream from the powerhouse: salmon are expected to be in this
area between the barrier and the powerhouse (spawning): future sampling at appropriate times of year will
evaluate.
-ERL looked at a number of historical resources / data sets of varying quality to further characterize species presence
and habitat preferences; unfortunately, none of these sources had reliable population estimates for any given species.
There are some old anadromous salmon escapement estimates (all pre-1998), nothing for resident fish or
anadromous trout.
The implications for all of these various species and life stages in the diversion reach certainly call to question the
appropriateness of the IFR; as well, the fish ladder absolutely needs to be kept operational year-round.
2. 95 fish have been PIT-tagged (88 rainbows, 5 cutthroat, 2 bull trout)
-21 fish in lower diversion reach (PH to anadromous barrier)
- 36 fish in the middle diversion reach (anadromous barrier to 6m tall falls)
- 29 (2 cutties, 27 rainbow) fish in the upper diversion reach (these are the ones we would hope to see using the fish
ladder, as a PIT receiver is at the fish ladder)
3. Coho, pink, chinook and chum fry were observed in the mainstem Ashlu downstream of the powerhouse
during the May 2010 ramping test.
Page 200
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
S22
S22
2
4. No current fish species population estimates presented at this time. ERL is likely waiting for a second year of
data, at least.
5. It looks like the upper Squamish (above the confluence with the Elaho) has been selected as a supplementary
reference site, but ERL has not yet sampled. I believe this sampling will be conducted in further ERL works.

INVERTEBRATES
1. Unfortunately, ERL did not have much good to say about the inverts data collected to date. Everything from the
mesh size was too big to taxonomy only done to order (rather than at least family, and at best genus and species) are
limitations to characterizing the invertebrate community pre-operations. I was really disappointed to see this; I
expected the fish data to be spotty, and was hoping that high quality bug data would be a strong line of evidence in
understanding the baseline aquatic ecosystem. As well, ERL does not think the data are even of sufficient quality to
calculate the most basic metrics of density and biomass. I'll have to talk with Adam a bit next week to see what we
can salvage. ERL does say they can calculate a few simple community metrics, but I am not sure why these are not
presented in the report.
CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
1. No stream morphology data collected prior to commencement of plant operations (wow!). ERL has established
transects within the diversion reach to collect hydraulic and channel geomorphic data. The data collected in 2010 will
serve as the "baseline" and will be used for purposes of future comparisons.
WATER QUALITY
1. ERL commented that some historical samples (e.g., during construction) had elevated levels of aluminum. I filled
Adam in today on the acid rock drainage issue (penstock) and let him know that elevated aluminum concentrations
also occurred in the discharge last fall that contained the elevated arsenic. I asked him to look at the station locations
for the samples that had elevated aluminum, as any site that could have been influenced by tunnel drainage could
have the elevated aluminum.
WATER QUANTITY
1. ERL briefly summarized a 27-year synthetic hydrological record for Ashlu Creek (e.g., MAD = 29.4 cms; lowest
mean monthly discharge = 10 to 14 cms, etc.).
2. ERL described location of current gauging:
- IFR station: located 250m downstream of intake, installed after project construction. Pressure sensor measures
water level on a continuous basis.
- Via-Sat gauge: located 800m downstream of intake (at Mile 25 bridge): records stage and water temp. every 15
minutes. Has been operating intermittently since 2001.
- ERL gauge: located 120m downstream of the powerhouse: records average stage and temperature every 2 minutes,
based on 15 second data scans

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627
Page 201
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:14 AM
To: 'Adam Lewis'
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Hydro Project (Water file 2001264): Baseline Environmental Document
Hey Adam,

Im unable to print the document; the function seems to be have been disabled in the baseline
environmental monitoring report.

Scott

Sent : Monday, June 28, 2010 7: 37 PM
To: 'Adam Lewis'; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; 'Knight , Francesca';
gst eeves@ameresco.com; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; 'Bust o, Vince'
Cc: 'Richard Blanchet '; 'Robert Kulka'
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264): Baseline Environment al Document

Helloall:
AttachedpleasefindabaselineenvironmentalmonitoringreportpreparedbyEcofishResearchonbehalfofthe
ACILPfortheAshluCreekPowerProject.ThereportcontainshistoricdatafortheAshluwatershedalongwithdata
collectedbytheproponentsconsultantsduringtheEA,aswellasdatarecentlycollectedbyEcofish.
Pleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyquestions.




Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163


Sent : Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6: 54 AM
Adam Lewis; Richard Blanchet
Subj ect : Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264): Revision of OEMP

Page 202
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
HiTim,
IprovidethefollowingupdatewithregardstotheOEMPandotherdocuments:Weexpecttosubmittherevised
OEMPonFriday,June25
th
andtwodocumentssummarizingthebaselinedatareviewandanoverviewoftherecent
baselinedatacollectedthroughEcofishbyMonday,June28
th
,2010.
Pleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyquestionsorcomments.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

Page 203
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2010 8:27 AM
To: Knight, Francesca
Subject: RE: Cloudworks meeting Tuesday, July 13, 9am - 12 pm

Sent : Fri 09/ 07/ 2010 8: 17 AM
Subj ect : RE: Cloudworks meet ing Tuesday, July 13, 9am - 12 pm
thanks for doing these comments, Scott, as I just don't know when I'll be able to sit down with the Cloudworks reports.

Sent : July 8, 2010 4: 34 PM
To: Mat t Kennedy; Bust o, Vince; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Yall,
In advance of our sitdown on Tuesday morning, I thought Id scribble down some issues Ive noticed in my
preliminary review of the Long-term Aquatic Monitoring Program: Baseline & Interim Year Report,
completed by Streamline Environmental Consulting Ltd. for Cloudworks Energy Inc., dated April 2010
(hereafter referenced as the LTAMP Baseline Report). Im not sure if there will time (or desire) to discuss
these issues at our meeting on Tuesday, but if not, I suggest we schedule a followup meeting to do so.
First off, Ill define the relatively narrow scope of my review: Ive concentrated my efforts on sections of the
LTAMP Baseline Report dealing with Water Flow (Sections x.1) and Channel Morphology (Sections x.7),
but have also provided a bit of review on the Water Temperature (Sections x.3) and Fish Abundance
(Sections x.4). Ive also had a look at Appendices A-F to assess compliance with IFR & ramping rates.
My review of the LTAMP & appendices have yielded a total of ten issues of concern. So: here are my issues,
break out the tissues:
1. Details on datalogger sampling, averaging and downloading frequency should meet agency
guidance. I suggest that the proposals contained within the LTAMP Baseline Report (1 minute
sampling, 5 minute averaging & an unspecified downloading frequency for assessment of
compliance with IFR; rolling 60-minute averages for assessment of compliance with ramping
rate) are not appropriate given the risks to fish & fish habitat in the event of non-compliance.
Rather I recommend a commitment to download data from the data loggers no less frequently than
on ce p e r m on t h (with associated battery check at each download), and consideration towards a
Page 204
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
S. 22
2
higher frequency sampling & averaging interval (Id previously recommended 10-seconds and 2-
minutes to J ackie Hamilton: see attached email from November 2009).
2. The explanation of difficulties in verifying compliance with ramping rates during commissioning
and in the first few months of operations at each of the facilities is not reasonable, nor
logical...ramping rates can be considered merely from stage; established rating curve relations with
streamflow are not required. Even more disheartening: the text from the respective sections
(Interim Year Results and Discussion for Ramping) for each facility is repeated verbatim, which
calls into question the precision of the information being presented. Finally, Im a bit confused by
the explanation of the present status of this monitoring: are the sensors truly calibrated and
functioning properly as of January 2010 or is ramping compliance...presently a manual
procedure...with CEI presently implementing an automatic stage monitoring program, or is it
possible that both these statements reflect the present status?
3. I understand that the LTAMP Baseline Report is primarily a summary of data collected prior to
diversion, but it does also include Interim data during commissioning & operations. However, the
incidents of non-compliance in IFR or ramping rate (as described in the LTAMP Baseline Report)
cannot be easily identified in the respective Appendices given the methods for data presentation.
The data presentation should follow the guidance previously provided by Tim Bennett, which
stated: a regulator/ operator/ officer should be able to quickly identify and understand
environmental criteria (e.g., ifr, ramping rates, sediment transport objectives), procedures
(headpond flushing) and monitoring (IFR, stage+ for ramping, fish stranding in tailraces)
required to ensure attainment of those criteria and other environmental objectives. This should be
laid out in a way that is unambiguous and detailed, to allow a regulator to understand and
concur with exactly what is being proposed and allow easy assessment of compliance and
enforcement. In other words, data presentation is key and should be used to elucidate (not
obscure) the issues of interest. I suggest it is prudent to provide the data in both a tabulated and
graphical format with any periods of non-compliance clearly identified & summarized, along with
adequate presentation to allow regulators to determine the frequency & duration of non-
compliance.
4. Going a step further, for facilties where commissioning is ongoing (ie. Stokke & Upper Stave), I
wouldve expected onsite assessments by professional biologists of the ecological significance of the
non-compliance incidents described above. It also remains unclear if any fish salvages in the
tailraces were justified or undertaken.
5. Several components of the Channel Morphology work did not meet expectations:
a. no photo survey points seem to have been collected at the cross-sectional surveys (despite
assurance in an February 9 2010 email from J udith Romero of CEI that the work was
complete for most sites). The repeated text from Photo Survey Points sub-section at each
facility seems unlikely to be true: did all six facilities have high or sediment laden flows at
each cross-section during every attempt to collect photo surveys?;
b. the methods described for baseline air photography of the diversion reach (photos collected
from a helicopter at a known elevation) do not meet the standard (Ham, 1996) described in
the February 9 2010 email from J udith Romero of CEI).
6. Mechanisms described in Interim Years Results and Discussion for IFR (e.g. Sectio 3.1.1) in the
event of non-compliance of IFR provision must include immediate (within 24-hour) notification of
MOE & DFO. This commitment is included in the OP&P, and should also be included in the
LTAMP Baseline Report...since data in the Appendices suggest there have been incidents of IFR
non-compliance, but Im not aware of any subsequent notifications to MOE & DFO, it suggests that
this obligation has also not been complied with.
7. I appreciate the detailed Icing protocol at Lamont (described in Section 6.10 of the LTAMP Baseline
Report), but I dont understand how the protocol will inform decision-makers (or CEI) regarding an
increased incidence of frazil ice. I also note that it is a bit different than the protocol described in
the LTAMP, so I would appreciate a subsequent (brief) summary of any such deviations from the
LTAMP; Ive identified a few in my issues list herein, but I believe there are a few others (e.g.
baseline surveys at Upper Stave, etc.).
Page 205
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
8. The LTAMP should address the significance of the changes in the baseline data collection strategy
for fish abundance: across all six projects, 30 % (9/ 30) of all impact sites were relocated and 4 0 %
(48/ 120) of all study sites did not achieve the minimum 100m
2
sample area standard. No sites
adopted a mark-recapture, and some sites (e.g. Upper Stave) used split years (2008, 2009) for
impact assessment.
9. The ecological significance of fish temperature thresholds being exceeded for Bull Trout egg
incubation (e.g. Douglas) should be included. Also: there is no need to explain that the threshold
fish temperature for Bull Trout are being exceeded for projects where Bull Trout are not present...it
simply highlights the cut&paste nature of many sections of the LTAMP.
10. Finally, Id appreciate an update on the suite of reports I believe to be presently outstanding, to
ensure that we all have a common understanding of their present status:
a. The supplemental analyses/ proposal for amendments to the LTAMP involving fish
abundance monitoring at Stokke, fish ladder monitoring at each of the relevant intakes (e.g.
Lamont, U. Stave, etc.), tailrace fish-stranding protocol;
b. The ramping rate study for all six facilities;
c. The OPPs for all six facilities;
d. Final (present) confirmation of rating curves at each of the streamflow gauges & gates. I
also notice (based on descriptions within the LTMAP Baseline Report) that some IFR
compliance gauges are not located where Id expected them (e.g. Tipella: 600 m downstream
of the intake), while others do not have the location explicitly specified (e.g. Douglas IFR
gauge, Douglas ramping gauge).
As a final comment, I appreciate the data collection effort that is summarized in the LTAMP Baseline
Report. However, I cant help but feel a little under-whelmed by the analysis and presentation. I was
excited by the notion that this suite of six concurrent projects concentrated in a small region presented a
unique opportunity to collate the data and consider impact assessment in a more refined & integrated
manner. These hopes were expressed at many of our meetings, by agency folk, CEI reps & consultants
alike. I understand that it is not too late to do so (the five-year operational summary is the obvious time &
place), but it seems that were not off to a spectacular start on this front...instead, it seems that the focus
has been on efficiency of report preparation via cut&pasted text!
See you all on Tuesday,

Scott
From: Mat t Kennedy [ mailt o: m.kennedy@cloudworksenergy.com]

Sent : Wednesday, July 7, 2010 8: 01 AM
To: Bust o, Vince; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C
ENV: EX
Cc: St uart Smit h; Krys Muniak; Judit h Romero; I sabelle Deguise
Subj ect : Cloudworks meet ing Tuesday, July 13, 9am - 12 pm
Hiall,
PleasefindattachedadraftagendaforourmeetingatCloudworksonTuesdaynextweek(July13,9:00am).Also
attachedaretheminutesofourmostrecentmeetingsregardingCloudworksprojects(Oct22,Nov25).
IfyouhaveanyadditionalinformationyouwouldliketoaddtoTuesdaysagenda,pleaseletmeknowbyreplyemail
orat6046339990.
Bestregards,
Matt
Matt Kennedy, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.

Page 206
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
VP Environment
Cloudworks Energy Inc.

Suite 403, 1168 Hamilton Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 2S2
o) 604-633-9990
c) 604-561-3690
m.kennedy@cloudworksenergy.com
www.cloudworksenergy.com
Page 207
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2010 9:06 AM

Sent : Fri 09/ 07/ 2010 9: 01 AM

From: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX [mailto:Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca]
Sent: July 9, 2010 8:27 AM

________________________________

From: Knight, Francesca [mailto:Francesca.Knight@dfo-mpo.gc.ca]
Sent: Fri 09/07/2010 8:17 AM

thanks for doing these comments, Scott, as I just don't know when I'll
be able to sit down with the Cloudworks reports.

________________________________

Sent: July 8, 2010 4:34 PM
Page 208
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
S. 22
S. 22
S. 22
2
To: Matt Kennedy; Busto, Vince; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight,
Francesca; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX

Y'all,

In advance of our sitdown on Tuesday morning, I thought I'd scribble
down some issues I've noticed in my preliminary review of the "Long-term
Aquatic Monitoring Program: Baseline & Interim Year Report", completed
by Streamline Environmental Consulting Ltd. for Cloudworks Energy Inc.,
dated April 2010 (hereafter referenced as the 'LTAMP Baseline Report').
I'm not sure if there will time (or desire) to discuss these issues at
our meeting on Tuesday, but if not, I suggest we schedule a followup
meeting to do so.

First off, I'll define the relatively narrow scope of my review: I've
concentrated my efforts on sections of the LTAMP Baseline Report dealing
with Water Flow (Sections x.1) and Channel Morphology (Sections x.7),
but have also provided a bit of review on the Water Temperature
(Sections x.3) and Fish Abundance (Sections x.4). I've also had a look
at Appendices A-F to assess compliance with IFR & ramping rates.

My review of the LTAMP & appendices have yielded a total of ten issues
of concern. So: here are my issues, break out the tissues:

1. Details on datalogger sampling, averaging and downloading
frequency should meet agency guidance. I suggest that the proposals
contained within the LTAMP Baseline Report (1 minute sampling, 5 minute
averaging & an unspecified downloading frequency for assessment of
compliance with IFR; "rolling 60-minute averages" for assessment of
compliance with ramping rate) are not appropriate given the risks to
fish & fish habitat in the event of non-compliance. Rather I recommend
a commitment to download data from the data loggers no less frequently
than once per month (with associated battery check at each download),
and consideration towards a higher frequency sampling & averaging
interval (I'd previously recommended 10-seconds and 2-minutes to Jackie
Hamilton: see attached email from November 2009).

2. The explanation of 'difficulties' in verifying compliance with
ramping rates during commissioning and in the first few months of
operations at each of the facilities is not reasonable, nor
logical...ramping rates can be considered merely from stage; established
rating curve relations with streamflow are not required. Even more
disheartening: the text from the respective sections ("Interim Year
Results and Discussion for Ramping") for each facility is repeated
verbatim, which calls into question the precision of the information
being presented. Finally, I'm a bit confused by the explanation of the
present status of this monitoring: are the sensors truly "calibrated and
functioning properly as of January 2010" or is "ramping
compliance...presently a manual procedure...with CEI presently
implementing an automatic stage monitoring program", or is it possible
that both these statements reflect the present status?

Page 209
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3

3. I understand that the LTAMP Baseline Report is primarily a
summary of data collected prior to diversion, but it does also include
Interim data during commissioning & operations. However, the incidents
of non-compliance in IFR or ramping rate (as described in the LTAMP
Baseline Report) cannot be easily identified in the respective
Appendices given the methods for data presentation. The data
presentation should follow the guidance previously provided by Tim
Bennett, which stated: "a regulator/operator/officer should be able to
quickly identify and understand environmental criteria (e.g., ifr,
ramping rates, sediment transport objectives), procedures (headpond
flushing) and monitoring (IFR, stage+ for ramping, fish stranding in
tailraces) required to ensure attainment of those criteria and other
environmental objectives. This should be laid out in a way that is
unambiguous and detailed, to allow a regulator to understand and concur
with exactly what is being proposed and allow easy assessment of
compliance and enforcement". In other words, data presentation is key
and should be used to elucidate (not obscure) the issues of interest. I
suggest it is prudent to provide the data in both a tabulated and
graphical format with any periods of non-compliance clearly identified &
summarized, along with adequate presentation to allow regulators to
determine the frequency & duration of non-compliance.

4. Going a step further, for facilties where commissioning is
ongoing (ie. Stokke & Upper Stave), I would've expected onsite
assessments by professional biologists of the ecological significance of
the non-compliance incidents described above. It also remains unclear
if any fish salvages in the tailraces were justified or undertaken.

5. Several components of the Channel Morphology work did not meet
expectations:

a. no photo survey points seem to have been collected at the
cross-sectional surveys (despite assurance in an February 9 2010 email
from Judith Romero of CEI that the work was complete for most sites).
The repeated text from "Photo Survey Points" sub-section at each
facility seems unlikely to be true: did all six facilities have high or
sediment laden flows at each cross-section during every attempt to
collect photo surveys?;

b. the methods described for baseline air photography of the
diversion reach (photos collected from a helicopter at a known
elevation) do not meet the standard (Ham, 1996) described in the
February 9 2010 email from Judith Romero of CEI).

6. Mechanisms described in "Interim Years Results and Discussion
for IFR" (e.g. Sectio 3.1.1) in the event of non-compliance of IFR
provision must include immediate (within 24-hour) notification of MOE &
DFO. This commitment is included in the OP&P, and should also be
included in the LTAMP Baseline Report...since data in the Appendices
suggest there have been incidents of IFR non-compliance, but I'm not
aware of any subsequent notifications to MOE & DFO, it suggests that
this obligation has also not been complied with.

7. I appreciate the detailed Icing protocol at Lamont (described in
Section 6.10 of the LTAMP Baseline Report), but I don't understand how
Page 210
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
the protocol will inform decision-makers (or CEI) regarding an increased
incidence of frazil ice. I also note that it is a bit different than
the protocol described in the LTAMP, so I would appreciate a subsequent
(brief) summary of any such deviations from the LTAMP; I've identified a
few in my issues list herein, but I believe there are a few others (e.g.
baseline surveys at Upper Stave, etc.).

8. The LTAMP should address the significance of the changes in the
baseline data collection strategy for fish abundance: across all six
projects, 30% (9/30) of all impact sites were relocated and 40%
(48/120) of all study sites did not achieve the minimum 100m2 sample
area standard. No sites adopted a mark-recapture, and some sites (e.g.
Upper Stave) used split years (2008, 2009) for impact assessment.

9. The ecological significance of fish temperature thresholds being
exceeded for Bull Trout egg incubation (e.g. Douglas) should be
included. Also: there is no need to explain that the threshold fish
temperature for Bull Trout are being exceeded for projects where Bull
Trout are not present...it simply highlights the cut&paste nature of
many sections of the LTAMP.

10. Finally, I'd appreciate an update on the suite of reports I
believe to be presently outstanding, to ensure that we all have a common
understanding of their present status:

a. The supplemental analyses/proposal for amendments to the LTAMP
involving fish abundance monitoring at Stokke, fish ladder monitoring at
each of the relevant intakes (e.g. Lamont, U. Stave, etc.), tailrace
fish-stranding protocol;

b. The ramping rate study for all six facilities;

c. The OPPs for all six facilities;

d. Final (present) confirmation of rating curves at each of the
streamflow gauges & gates. I also notice (based on descriptions within
the LTMAP Baseline Report) that some IFR compliance gauges are not
located where I'd expected them (e.g. Tipella: 600 m downstream of the
intake), while others do not have the location explicitly specified
(e.g. Douglas IFR gauge, Douglas ramping gauge).

As a final comment, I appreciate the data collection effort that is
summarized in the LTAMP Baseline Report. However, I can't help but feel
a little under-whelmed by the analysis and presentation. I was excited
by the notion that this suite of six concurrent projects concentrated in
a small region presented a unique opportunity to collate the data and
consider impact assessment in a more refined & integrated manner. These
hopes were expressed at many of our meetings, by agency folk, CEI reps &
consultants alike. I understand that it is not too late to do so (the
five-year operational summary is the obvious time & place), but it seems
that we're not off to a spectacular start on this front...instead, it
seems that the focus has been on efficiency of report preparation via
cut&pasted text!

See you all on Tuesday,
Page 211
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5

Scott

From: Matt Kennedy [mailto:m.kennedy@cloudworksenergy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 8:01 AM
To: Busto, Vince; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca;
Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Cc: Stuart Smith; Krys Muniak; Judith Romero; Isabelle Deguise
Subject: Cloudworks meeting Tuesday, July 13, 9am - 12 pm

Hi all,

Please find attached a draft agenda for our meeting at Cloudworks on
Tuesday next week (July 13, 9:00 am). Also attached are the minutes of
our most recent meetings regarding Cloudworks' projects (Oct 22, Nov
25).

If you have any additional information you would like to add to
Tuesday's agenda, please let me know by reply email or at 604-633-9990.

Best regards,
Matt

Matt Kennedy, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.

VP Environment

Cloudworks Energy Inc.

Suite 403, 1168 Hamilton Street

Vancouver, BC V6B 2S2

o) 604-633-9990

c) 604-561-3690

m.kennedy@cloudworksenergy.com

www.cloudworksenergy.com

Page 212
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
meeting be the point where the request is re-stated as a requirement for final leave?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : July 22, 2010 11: 49 AM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince
Subj ect : A few comment s on t he Ashlu OEMP (June 25 2010 draft ) & Environment al Baseline Report (June 25 2010
draft )
Folks,

As discussed at the meeting last week, I've reviewed the following two reports:
"Ashlu Creek Hydroelectric Project: Environmental Baseline Report, Draft V1.0", completed for
Ashlu Creek Investments Ltd. Partnership by Ecofish Research Ltd., dated June 25 2010, 99
pp. (hereafter referenced as the 'Baseline Report');
"Ashlu Creek Hydropower Project: Operational Environmental Monitoring Report, Draft for Agency
Review V1", completed for Ashlu Creek Investments Ltd. Partnership by Ecofish Research Ltd.,
dated June 25 2010, 59pp (hereafter referenced as the 'OEMP').
Note that this review concentrates on hydrology, stream channel morphology, effects of flow diversion &
IFR on physical channel properties that may affect fish (aka. 'fish habitat'), and monitoring study design).
I'll suggest that reviews pertinent to the living things (e.g. fish, macroinvertebrates & wildlife) be provided
by biologists with DFO and/or MOE.

In general, these reports represent a significant amount of field & office work undertaken by Ecofish
Research Ltd. staff in a relatively short amount of time, and I commend them for their efforts. These two
Ecofish reports take large steps towards a product that I would consider as reasonable and acceptable to
agencies, but it must be clearly understood that the relatively scant efforts undertaken by the proponent pre-
2010 regarding collection & analysis of baseline data have resulted in a considerable information vacuum.

The Baseline Report does an excellent job of summarizing available biological information for the Ashlu
watershed, including an integration with data collection & analysis undetaken in recent months by Ecofish
Research Ltd. My understanding is that the primary aim of this report was to serve as an 'inventory' that
would inform the OEMP. The title of the report ('environmental baseline') implies what this report does not
include: this is not an environmental impact assesment associated with construction & (imminent) operation
of the Ashlu Creek hydroelectric project. As such, the Baseline Report does not include professional
opinion of the likelihood/significance of impacts to aquatic/terrestrial species and their habitats. Although
such expectations may have been outside of the report's original terms of reference, I suggest that it
is essential, given the report findings on the presence of specific fish species (and life stages) in the
Page 213
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
diverison reach that were not previously identified. More specifically: the instream flow requirements (IFR)
and associated habitat impact assesment were based on the previous belief that rainbow trout were the only
species of interest, and that their use of the diversion reach was minimal. However, the Baseline Report
concludes that cutthroat trout are also found throughout the diversion reach, and that the Lower Diversion
reach is used for spawning by steelhead & bull trout, and possibly chinook and coho. These are not
insignificant findings, and in my opinion, justify an updated IFR assessment which would follow the
generalized steps specified in Section 4.1.1.10 of Lewis et al. (2004), and would make use of much
information from the Baseline Report (e.g. timing & volume of tributary inflows; fish periodicity chart from
p.57).

A final note regarding the Baseline Report: it makes reference to the various rating curves & hydrometric
analyses undertaken for the stream gauges, but does include the data; I suggest that this information must be
provided to (and reviewed by) agencies prior to issuance of the final Leave to Commence Operations (LCO)
from MOE-WSD. It is essential for agencies to be confident that the stream gauge network installed &
maintained by the proponent will be adequate to verify compliance with water license conditions (e.g. IFR,
ramping rates, etc.).

The OEMP does a reasonably-complete job of highlighting information gaps, and proposes reasonable
strategies to address these gaps. However, I suggest that some proposed strategies should be elucidated in
greater detail (e.g. methods & deadlines) to provide review agencies with a reasonable assurance that
project-related impacts may be quantitatively resolved, with objective thresholds for compliance. This
would typically be provided in the form of a power analysis, but the proposed study design framework
("mixed BACI & RCA" for fish community monitoring) may not easily lend itself to such an approach;
perhaps a mock-up with synthetic data would provide some clarity on the study design details, and could
provide assurance that an adequate baseline data set has been collected & analyzed. Other apsects
of the OEMP would also benefit from additional detail (but #3&4 may be best delivered as stand-alone
reports to be considered by agency staff prior to LCO issuance):
1. Hydrometric information (ie. stream gauges, rating curves, data sampling/averaging/downloading
details);
2. Stream channel morphology: survey data (ie. cross-sections & thalweg profiles) and airphotos must
be adequately details to allow hydropower operations-related changes in bed elevation or channel
pattern to be resolved: detail provided in the OEMP (and Table 11) does not allow consideration of
the program's adequacy to meet these needs;
3. Modification of the IFR to "keep the spiilway wetted" and the associated assessment of its adequacy
to prevent fish stranding on the spillway;
4. Ramping rate assessment, and the associated compliance monitoring details to be integrated into the
OPP.
I suggest that we have a meeting shortly, with an aim to provide clear & consistent guidance to the
proponent. Obviously, some of these review comments may relate directly to other documents produced for
the decision-making agencies (ie. the OPP; the Fisheries Act Authorization) which will be undergoing
revision in the weeks/months to come.

Scott

To: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; 'Knight , Francesca'; gst eeves@ameresco.com; St oddard,
Erin M ENV: EX; 'Bust o, Vince'
Page 214
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4

Helloall:

Ihaveresentthebaselinemonitoringreportwithreducedsecuritytoallowprintingathighresolution.Thanksfor
theheadsupScott.




Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163


To: 'Adam Lewis'; 'Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX'; 'Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX'; 'Knight , Francesca';
'gst eeves@ameresco.com'; 'St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX'; 'Bust o, Vince'

Helloall:






Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Page 215
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163



HiTim,

OEMPonFriday,June25
th
th
,2010.


Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

Page 216
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:24 PM
To: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX;
Scheepers,Adam [PYR]; Moore, Brent ENV:EX
Cc: Busto, Vince; mnelson@cerg.ca
Subject: Ashlu Creek - long term WQ monitoring
Attachments: TM 0413_10 - Algal Tox Test Results.pdf
Hello everyone, as many of you are aware, arsenic concentrations in the Ashlu penstock are elevated again, due to a
drainage of the penstock for maintenance purposes. This time a pattern is emerging, with concentrations rising when
the penstock is drained and the rock is exposed to oxygen. The tunnel was recently drained to make some repairs to
the tunnel, as rock fragments from the tunnel were breaking off and making their way toward plant turbines and
associated infrastructure.

During the last incidence of elevated arsenic (relative to BC WQGs), Golder's Lee Nikl prepared a rationale for a
short-term (first-time penstock flushing as part of the plant commissioning) discharge criteria for arsenic; this criteria of
50 ug/L is 10x the BC WQG, but was considered appropriate, based on Lee's review of the arsenic toxicity literature
and some other site-specific considerations. The criteria also assumed a dilution ratio that would, at worst, bring the
concentration down to the WQG of 5 ug/L beyond a short mixing zone, and at best, many times lower than that,
based on river flows at the time of the discharge. The Golder plan only allowed for this elevated concentration during
penstock flushing/draining. Regular plant operations were supposed to meet the BC WQG at the point of discharge
(e.g., tailrace outlet).

When Mike Nelson alerted me to this current incident, I requested that Robert Kulka (Innergex) re-engage Lee Nikl, to
refine the plan into more of a long-term penstock de-watering/ re-filling plan. Lee has done so (attached here), and as
part of that plan, included site-specific toxicity testing (algal species; this trophic level was deemed most-sensitive,
based on the lit. review). Lee has proposed a new discharge criteria, to ONLY be applied during penstock
maintenance (not part of regular operation) of 80 ug/L, and applied to the dissolved fraction.This new criteria is
based on the results of the algal growth inhibition tox. test. It appears that Lee has chosen the concentration that
roughly corresponds with between an EC25 and EC50 (effect concentration that represents a 25% or 50% reduction
in the growth endpoint). While at first this seemed like a large "allowable effect size", this discharge criteria would be
used relatively infrequently, and therefore may be defensible.

Mike has conveyed to Robert that the revised arsenic discharge concentration must be reviewed and agreed to by all
agencies; my intent here is to circulate Lee's document for comment.
My specific comments on the proposal are:

1. I'd like to get a sense of the expected discharge volumes for regular penstock draining and re-filling. I think it's
important to have a sense over time of just how much arsenic is entering surface receiving waters, particularly given
that this system does not have high background arsenic concentrations (virtually not detectable). In addition, it would
give us a sense of the 80 ug/L exposure duration.
2. Further to #1, arsenic does bioaccumulate in aquatic biota, although I don't believe that it biomagnifies (which is
good). However, because it has bioaccumulative properties, I'd like to ask Lee to consider a long-term monitoring
indicator, that could be looked at say after 3 years, and then maybe every 5 after that. This indicator might be a
composite invertebrate sample; tissue concentrations could then be compared to literature effect values, for example.
3. I'd like to see a sampling plan for each successive penstock draining-refilling. Mike, I like your station locations...
could we "enshrine" them, as well as include a sampling protocol for each successive draining maintenance
procedure?

You can send me any comments or concerns, and I will send all of our comments out to Lee for his consideration.
thanks everyone,
Chessy

Page 217
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627
Page 218
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:46 AM
Cc: 'Busto, Vince'; 'Knight, Francesca'; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Hydro Project (Water file 2001264): June 25th Draft OEMP & Baseline
Report Review for Fish Effects
Tim,
Ivereviewthefollowing2EcofishResearchLtd.,June25,2010datedreportsfortheAshluHydroproject:
AshluCreekHydroelectricProject:EnvironmentalBaselineReport,DraftV1.0
AshluCreekHydroelectricProject:OperationalEnvironmentalMonitoringPlan,DraftforAgencyReviewV1
Herearemycomments:
1. IsupporttherecommendeddirectionfortheOEMPwhichwoulduseinformationthatiscollectedinthe
Ashlucombinedwithinformationthatiscollectedinareferencestream(upperSquamishRiver),dueto
inadequateandinappropriatebaselinedataavailable.However,Idohaveconcernswiththepotentialto
determineeffectswhenthereareseveralsignificantissuesthathaveandwillcontinuetoimpactfish
populationsassociatedwiththisproject.Theseissuesincludefishstrandingandkills/predationinthe
spillway,IFRsthatmitigateimpactstoalleffectedfishpopulations,andeffectivenessofthefishway.Left
unaddressed,theseissueswilllikelyovershadowanymeasureablefisheffectsassociatedwiththewater
withdrawal.Assuch,theOEMPshouldmoreclearlyindicatehowtheseissueswillbemonitored,with
confirmedlinkstotheirmanagementintherevisedOPPsothatitisclearthattheseissuesarebeing
appropriatelyaddressed;
2. Theinformationprovidedinthebaselinestudyconfirmsbluelistedcoastalcutthroattroutthroughoutthe
diversionreachandupstreamoftheintake.Asaconsequence,theIFRshouldberevisedtoprovideforthe
mitigationofimpactsonthispopulationandtheassociateddifferencesincriticalperiodsascomparedto
RainbowTrout;
3. Asbluelistedbulltroutandsteelheadtroutwereconfirmedtousethelowerdiversionreach,therevised
IFRshouldalsoaccommodateconfirmedusebybulltroutandsteelheadtrout,andshouldaccommodate
criticalperiodsforthosespecies,and
4. Thefishwaywasalteredseveraltimestoattempttomakeiteffectiveinpassingfish,andyetIseeno
confirmationthatfishwilluseitandthatitwillpassfish.Also,thereisanindicationintheOEMPtoonly
maintainuseofcamerasandPITtagreceiversthroughthespring,andyetinapersonalcommunicationto
theagencies,thefieldoperatorindicatedthatfishwereusingitinthefall.Also,therewerealterations
madetotheintakestructuretoallowflowtopassthroughthespillway,buttherehavebeennoother
effortstoalterthespillwaytoavoidstranding.Assuch,thefollowingrecommendationsareprovided:
Thefishwayshouldbemaintainedforfishpassageyearround.Thismayhelptomitigatetheeffectsto
thefishpopulationsfrommortalitiesassociatedwithfishpassingdownstreamoverthespillwayduring
lowerflows.Monitoringequipmentshouldbemaintainedandmonitoringinthefishwayyearroundfor
thetermoftheOEMP.Theyearroundmonitoringandmaintenanceofthefishwayshouldbe
addressedintheOEMPandtheOPP.Thefishwayshouldbecloselymonitoredoverthenextyear.A
reportontheeffectivenessofthefishwayneedstobeprovidedforreviewtoDFOandESDbyJuly2011,
suchthatanysignificantworkthatneedstobeconductedonthefishway,includingreplacement,canbe
conductedwithinthe2011workwindow.Ifthefishwayatanytimeisdeterminedtobeineffective,
thentheagenciesmustbeinformedimmediately,andincooperationwithDFOandESD,alterationsor
Page 219
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
replacementshouldbeundertakenimmediately,orassoonaspossiblewiththeleastpotentialimpacts
tofishandfishhabitat,and
Thespillwayshouldbealteredthissummerorearlyfallduringlowflowstomitigatethestrandingof
fish.Alterationshouldbethroughthemovementbymachineofexistingsubstrateandboulderssothat
strandingpoolsarereducedandalowflowoutflowchannelisprovideddownstreamtoitsconfluence
withthemain/lowflow/IFRstreamchannel.Themonitoringofeffectsofstrandingandfishkillsneeds
tobeincorporatedintotheOEMP,andlinkedtothemanagement(fishsalvagesandprovidedintake
flows)andmonitoring(reportingofflows,salvagesandstrandings/mortalities)ofthespillway,which
needstobeclearlydescribedindetailintheOPP.Thespillwayshouldbecloselymonitoredoverthe
nextyear.Areportontheeffectivenessofmeasurestomitigatestrandingandfishkillsinthespillway
needstobeprovidedforreviewtoDFOandESDbyJuly2011,suchthatanysignificantworkthatneeds
tobeconductedonthespillway,canbeconductedwithinthe2011workwindow.Ifatanytimeitis
determinedthatmitigationmeasuresareinadequate,ineffectiveornotbeingundertaken,thenthe
agenciesmustbeinformedimmediately,andincooperationwithDFOandESD,alterationsshouldbe
undertakenimmediately,orassoonaspossiblewiththeleastpotentialimpactstofishandfishhabitat.
Onceagaintheissuesassociatedwiththecommissioning/managementofthisprojectclearlyindicatehow
importantgoodpreconstructionbiologicalassessmentandprojectplanningare,andhowtheseprojectscanchange
significantlyintheirpotentialenvironmentalimpactsafterinitialreviewbytheagencies.Thisexamplealsoonce
againsupportstheimportanceofappropriate,adequatebiologicalassessmentinformationforagencyreviewand
baselinedata,andtheimportanceofprojectprofessionalsignoffandaccountability.
Pleasecontactmeifyouwouldliketodiscussanyoftheaboveorifyourequireadditionalinformation.
Erin
Page 220
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 10:09 AM
To: Richard Blanchet; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Stoddard,
Cc: Robert Kulka; Adam Lewis
Subject: RE: Ashlu: Stranding Incident Notification
Hi Richard, thanks for sending this notification.
I am concerned that Innergex staff still seem to think that the ramping rate of 2.5 cms per hour is acceptable. I believe
we have had numerous discussions regarding this ramping rate, and how very likely the ramping rate is often not
protective enough for fish because the corresponding stage change is so variable (as it would be dependent on
ambient river flows that day). Scott and Erin, please feel free to weigh in, but I am guessing this is what you recollect
as well. We know that Ecofish has conducted a spring ramping survey, but we have not seen the report. The report
will help put some things in context, but I think we need to be really clear that the 2.5 cms/hour ramping rate is not
appropriate as an across-the-board ramping rate. It may be appropriate at some flows, but certainly would not be at
all flows.I suggest we add this as an agenda item for our upcoming meeting. Adam, if you have anything to add here,
please feel free.
Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : August 24, 2010 2: 05 PM
Cc: Robert Kulka
PleasefindhereattachedasummaryfromEcoFishregardingaStrandingIncidentthatoccurredatAshluduring
partialshutdownoftheplanttoaccommodateflowreleaseforkayaking.
Nomortalityoccurredandallstrandedfryweresalvaged.
WewillcoordinatewithEcoFishtheproperadjustmentstotheplantstartuptocorrectthesituation.
Regards
Richard

__________________________
Page 221
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627


Sent : August 23, 2010 9: 59 AM
To: Nat alie Closs; Knight , Francesca; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Davies,
James W ENV: EX
Cc: Richard Blanchet ; Robert Kulka
Subj ect : RE: I nnergex Meet ing Dat e - Thursday Sept ember 16?
Thatworksforme.
From: Nat alie Closs [ mailt o: NCloss@innergex.com]

Sent : Friday, August 20, 2010 4: 29 PM
Cc: Richard Blanchet ; Robert Kulka
HiEveryone,
Sept16doesnotworkforTimsohowisTuesdaySeptember21
st
?
Natalie

__________________________
NATALI E CLOSS, P.Eng.
Proj ect Manager


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 1219

Sent : Monday, August 16, 2010 9: 06 AM
To: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Nat alie Closs; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince
Page 222
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
works for me too,
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : August 16, 2010 9: 04 AM
To: Nat alie Closs; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca
works for me.

Sent : Thu 12/ 08/ 2010 9: 40 AM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; XT: Bust o, Vince DFO EAO: I N;
Knight , Francesca
Subj ect : I nnergex Meet ing Dat e - Thursday Sept ember 16?
Willthisdateworkforeveryone?Richardisnotavailable(forAshlu&Rutherford)earlierthatweek.
Natalie

__________________________
Proj ect Manager


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 1219
Page 223
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 3:21 PM
To: Richard Blanchet; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Stoddard,
Subject: RE: Ashlu: Stranding Incident Notification
thanks,
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : August 29, 2010 10: 47 AM
All:
Regards
Page 224
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Richard

__________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855
Page 225
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Christine Becker [cbecker@cerg.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2010 11:11 AM
To: Knight, Francesca; Busto, Vince; rblanchet@innergex.com; Robert Kulka
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Subject: RE: 413 Ashlu Monitoring Report
Attachments: 100902 CB (3).JPG; 100902 CB (4).JPG
HiChessy,
Despitethelowerheadpondlevels,watercontinuestoflowovertheObermeyerweiraswellasthroughthe
spillway,sotheareasdownstreamremainwetted(seeattachedphotos).Ididnotseeanyareaswheretherewas
strandingpotentialduringmyinspectionofthedownstreamflows.
Thanks,
CHRISTINE BECKER, R.P. BIO.

Unit 203 38026 2nd Avenue | Squamish | BC | Canada | V8B 0C3
TEL: 604 815-0901 | FAX: 604 815-0904
cbecker@cerg.ca | www.cascade-environmental.ca

Sent : Wednesday, Sept ember 08, 2010 10: 05 AM
To: Christ ine Becker; Bust o, Vince; rblanchet @innergex.com; Robert Kulka
Cc: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX
Subj ect : RE: 413 Ashlu Monit oring Report
Hey Christine, a couple of questions. Given the lower headpond level, would this prevent water from flowing over the
modified section of the Obermeyer weir? Looking at photo 1, I can't really tell if there is any water in the spillway
channel downstream of the dam; it looks like maybe there's a little bit, but not much. Did anyone check for stranded
fish?
thanks,
Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

From: Christ ine Becker [ mailt o: cbecker@cerg.ca]
Sent : Sept ember 7, 2010 2: 44 PM
To: Bust o, Vince; anna.khan@t c.gc.ca; gst eeves@ameresco.com; rblanchet @innergex.com; Kelly Boychuk; Robert
Kulka; Francois Hebert ; Knight , Francesca; imurphy@ecofishresearch.com
Cc: Mike Nelson; Ken McNamara
Subj ect : 413 Ashlu Monit oring Report
Page 226
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
HiAll,
PleasefindattachedthemonitoringreportfortheperiodAug30Sept5,2010.
Regards,
CHRISTINE BECKER, R.P. BIO.

TEL: 604 815-0901 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 227
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 228
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 229
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 8:06 AM
To: Francesca.Knight@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Vince.Busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Babakaiff, Scott C
ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: gsteeves@ameresco.com; Richard Blanchet; Francois Hebert;
Subject: Ashlu Creek Hydroelectric Project: Non Compliance Notification
AshluCreekHydroelectricProject,NonComplianceNotification
May9,8:00am
Asrequiredundercondition#4oftheLTCCommissioning,4thextensiondatedApril30,
2010,wereportthefollowingnoncompliance:
OnMay8,2010atapproximately7:30amaplantshutdownwasinitiatedinordertocomply
withtheconditionforkayakflowreleaseonfourweekendsinMayasperTransportCanada,
NavigableWatersProtectionDivisionApproval#8200T10595.2.Theplantwasoperatingat
aflowofapproximately10cmsandrampeddownoverdurationofapproximately2hours,as
comparedtotheoriginallystudiedrampingrateof29cmsover90minutes(whichwouldhave
resultedinarampingdurationofapproximately1/2hourfor10cms).
EcofishResearchLtd.wasinthefieldtoobserveimpactoframping.Atapproximately1
hrintotheprocedurestrandedfishwasobservedandtherampdownwasstoppedandsalvage
initiated.Ecofishisevaluatingthesituationandwillproduceareport.
TherampingratefortheMay8,6pmstartupwas2hoursfor10cms.Criticallocationsas
identifiedbyEcofishweremonitoredbyEcofishpersonnelandnofishstrandingor
isolationwasobserved.RampingwillbeagainrequiredforkayakflowreleaseonMay9th
(Sunday).Theshutdowninthemorningwillberampedover4hoursfor10cms.The6pm
startupwillberampedafterfurtherconsultationwithEcofishandbasedonthe
observationsduringtheshutdowninthemorning.
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600*Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
Page 230
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 8:06 AM
To: Francesca.Knight@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Vince.Busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Babakaiff, Scott C
ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: gsteeves@ameresco.com; Richard Blanchet; Francois Hebert;
Subject: Ashlu Creek Hydroelectric Project: Non Compliance Notification
AshluCreekHydroelectricProject,NonComplianceNotification
May9,8:00am
Asrequiredundercondition#4oftheLTCCommissioning,4thextensiondatedApril30,
2010,wereportthefollowingnoncompliance:
OnMay8,2010atapproximately7:30amaplantshutdownwasinitiatedinordertocomply
withtheconditionforkayakflowreleaseonfourweekendsinMayasperTransportCanada,
NavigableWatersProtectionDivisionApproval#8200T10595.2.Theplantwasoperatingat
aflowofapproximately10cmsandrampeddownoverdurationofapproximately2hours,as
comparedtotheoriginallystudiedrampingrateof29cmsover90minutes(whichwouldhave
resultedinarampingdurationofapproximately1/2hourfor10cms).
EcofishResearchLtd.wasinthefieldtoobserveimpactoframping.Atapproximately1
hrintotheprocedurestrandedfishwasobservedandtherampdownwasstoppedandsalvage
initiated.Ecofishisevaluatingthesituationandwillproduceareport.
TherampingratefortheMay8,6pmstartupwas2hoursfor10cms.Criticallocationsas
identifiedbyEcofishweremonitoredbyEcofishpersonnelandnofishstrandingor
isolationwasobserved.RampingwillbeagainrequiredforkayakflowreleaseonMay9th
(Sunday).Theshutdowninthemorningwillberampedover4hoursfor10cms.The6pm
startupwillberampedafterfurtherconsultationwithEcofishandbasedonthe
observationsduringtheshutdowninthemorning.
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600*Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
Page 231
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: 'Busto, Vince'; 'Knight, Francesca'; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Willcox, Michael ENV:EX;
Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: Barrett, Scott ENV:EX
Worksforme.

To: Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Willcox, Michael ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Cc: Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX
Subj ect : RE: 2001264 - Ashlu - 100429 BB-Ashlu EM t o 25 Apr 10 ...

Erin, Scott, Tim

Can we arrrange a teleconference for tomorrow? Francesca and I will both be at Annacis tomorrow.



From: Knight, Francesca
Sent: Mon 5/10/2010 3:30 PM
To: 'Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX'; Willcox, Michael ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: Barrett, Scott ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince

Hi guys, I know that Mike Nelson is quite familiar with the site and the project, but beyond that, I don' t know how often he is on
site. I think this is a really clear example of IEM's having difficulty utilizing their powers of site shut-down. That being said, on
this site in particular, the operator/project manager has everything to do with the success or failure of on-site impact mitigation
measures (ramping appropriately, effective fish salvage, monitoring for the use of the fish ladder).

We would have to ask Mike how many times he (or anyone from Cascade) the spillway and fish
ladder issues. That is not apparent from the report. I don't know if the blam oes not provide strong
enough direction to a proponent, or a proponent who has no qualms about disregarding that advice. But Erin, I share your
frustrations that these two issues are, well, still issues. Maybe Mike is not involved with the fish ladder monitoring because that's
included in the long-term monitoring now, I suppose); maybe the fish ladder monitoring is considered
part of operation, and not commissio nt failure at a critical time of year.

I'm torn about the best way to proceed. We heard at the IEM workshop that for the IEM's to be fully empowered to shut down site
Page 232
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 13, S. 16, S22
S. 13, S. 16, S22
S22, S16
S16, S22
2
works, they need to know that we (the regulators) are standing by to give them back up. I think we need to find out from Mike
exactly how many times Cascade to fix
order, and then monitor its success. That seems like step 1.

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

________________________________

Sent: May 10, 2010 11:16 AM
To: Willcox, Michael ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: Barrett, Scott ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Knight, Francesca
Importance: High

My review of the above referenced report, other documents with respect to this report and the Ashlu hydro project, is that the
identified IEM (Mike Nelson, R.P.Bio.) does not fully understand his role, and as such is not fulfilling work consistent with that
role. The following comments are provided:

1. Salvage reports when requested and provided were inconsistent and inaccurate. Reporting has not been to industry
standards.

2. Reports are only signed "reviewed" by the IEM, with the main contact being a "biologist in training". Mr. Nelson should
be the contact and should be signing off on the report, and on the accuracy of the information provided and any actions taken;

3. There are no reports indicating that Mr. Nelson has been fully involved with the project, and salvage reports indicate that
Mr. Nelson has been to the site infrequently. Under the College of Applied Biologists code of ethics, a registered biologist can't
sign-off on a project unless they have been fully involved in the project, and

4. Issues were identified in the April 29, 2010 report with respect to the potential timing of pre-spawn staging of Rainbow
Trout and fish access at the fish ladder that should have been managed by the IEM, and who has authority to order the proponent
to immediately address such issues. The report indicates that only recommendations were provided. Due to a limited spawn
timing period, impacts to population spawning for this year may have already occurred, may have been significant and may be
unrecoverable when combined with the impacts to this population associated with the consistent strandings and kills.

The above needs to be addressed immediately. Please contact me here or at 604-202-1389 if you would like to discuss this
further.

Erin

Page 233
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S16, S22
S16, S22
S16, S22
S16, S22, S13
3
To: Barrett, Scott ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX


2001264 - Ashlu

This is old news . took me 3 days to forward it and the reporting period ends April 25. The report documents ongoing concerns
about the IFR pipe outflow interfering with use of the ladder by rainbow. There's a photo of a nice chunky salvaged rainbow.
Click on "View 100429 ."

_____________________________________________
From: Lower Mainland Region IPP Sharepoint Site [mailto:Dave.Donovan@gov.bc.ca]
To: Willcox, Michael ENV:EX
Subject: 2001264 - Ashlu - 100429 BB-Ashlu EM to 25 Apr 10 ...


2001264 - Ashlu

Lower Mainland Region IPP Sharepoint Site <http://sharepoint.env.gov.bc.ca/ipp>

100429 BB-Ashlu EM to 25 Apr 10 ... has been added

Modify my alert settings <http://sharepoint.env.gov.bc.ca/ipp/_layouts/MySubs.aspx>

|

View 100429 BB-Ashlu EM to 25 Apr 10 ... <http://sharepoint.env.gov.bc.ca/ipp/2001264%20%20Ashlu/100429%20BB-
Ashlu%20EM%20to%2025%20Apr%2010%20with%20lab%20results.pdf>

|

View 2001264 - Ashlu <http://sharepoint.env.gov.bc.ca/ipp/2001264%20%20Ashlu>

|

Mobile View <http://sharepoint.env.gov.bc.ca/ipp/_layouts/mobile/dispform.aspx?List=27ED2ACB-1F67-4BB2-97F8-
FEBEA5E39E1C&ID=42>

Last Modified 5/3/2010 3:42 PM by Mike Nelson

Page 234
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: 'Knight, Francesca'; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; 'Busto, Vince'; Stoddard, Erin M
ENV:EX
Cc: Willcox, Michael ENV:EX
Lets go with 3:30 PM tomorrow afternoon.

If there is a boardroom available at Annacis, howsabout Erin & I come there for some face-to-face action.

ice on the telephone, offering wisdom & suggesting assignments.


To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Willcox, Michael
ENV: EX

Hi gang, I can make any of those times work... closer to 9 is better for me, if we go with morning, because of the drive
from Squamish to Annacis,
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 10, 2010 3: 47 PM
To: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Willcox, Michael ENV: EX
Hiall,
Amswampedasusualandonlyavailablebetween8:309:30am;noon1pm;andbetween3:304:00pm.
FYI,otherenforcementpossibility=recindcommissioningleaveifmatternotaddressedpromptly.
Page 235
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S22
S22
2
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

To: 'Bust o, Vince'; 'Knight , Francesca'; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Willcox, Michael ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A
ENV: EX
Cc: Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX

Worksforme.

To: Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Willcox, Michael ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Cc: Barret t , Scot t ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX

Erin, Scott, Tim




Sent: Mon 5/10/2010 3:30 PM

this site in particular, the operator/project manager has everything to do with the success or failure of on-site impact mitigation

We would have to ask Mike how many times he (or anyone from Cascade the spillway and fish
ladder issues. That is not apparent from the report. I don't know if the blame lies more with an IEM that does not provide strong
Page 236
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22, S16, S13
S. 22, S16, S22, S13
S. 22, S16
3
included in the long-term monitoring (and that's I suppose); maybe the fish ladder monitoring is considered
part of operation, and not commissioning. We see it as a significant failure at a critical time of year.

exactly how many times Cascade has to fix the spillway channel, as well, to get the fish ladder in good working

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

________________________________

Sent: May 10, 2010 11:16 AM
Importance: High


standards.




further.

Page 237
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
S13, S16, S22
S16, S22, S13
S16, S22
4
Erin



2001264 - Ashlu


_____________________________________________


2001264 - Ashlu




|


|


|

FEBEA5E39E1C&ID=42>

Page 238
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5


Page 239
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 10:22 AM
Cc: Busto, Vince; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Hydro Project (Water file 2001264): Letter - Rational for Extension on
good point Erin, and I don't think Mike is prepared to defend the reduced flows, given that he also sees it as a
problem. I believe Adam's crew will continue monitoring,
Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 10, 2010 9: 42 AM
Cc: Bust o, Vince; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX
Commissioning
Tim&Francesca,
Iagree,theirrequirementistokeepthefishladderfunctional,andthisisthekeytimeoftheyearregardlessof
whethertheythinktheyarelosingtoomuchwatertokeepitoperational.DidMikeNelson,R.P.Bio.provide
monitoringevidenceandhisprofessionalassurancethatthereducedflowswouldnotaffectfishmigration?Ifhe
cant,thenflowsmustbemaintainedatthehigherlevelasrequiredandagreedto.
Erin

Sent : Wednesday, May 5, 2010 3: 50 PM
To: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Cc: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince
Commissioning

thanks Scott. I actually asked Adam today (because he's got some guys up at Ashlu working) if he could have his
folks check the fish ladder. This is the critical time of year, and they are required in their S.35(2) Authorization to
monitor. Along with the concerns we all know about (IFR pipe dumping right on top of entrance to fish ladder; access
to fish ladder entrance may not be adequately fish-friendly), Mike Nelson told me today that they are reducing flows in
the fish ladder because they were concerned that they were losing too much water via the fish ladder. I don't think this
Page 240
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
is the time of year to get stingy on the water in the fish ladder!
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 5, 2010 3: 36 PM
Cc: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca
Subj ect : FW: Ashlu Creek Hydro Proj ect (Wat er file 2001264): Let t er - Rat ional for Ext ension on t he LTC
Commissioning
Tim,





detail.

Scott
Page 241
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3


South Coast Region
Surrey, BC, V3R 0Y3
604-930-7121

Commissioning

HelloTim:
Regards,Adam




Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163


Commissioning
I mpor t ance: High

Hi Richard,
Page 242
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4





Regards,

Tim Bennet t

Sent : Mon 26/ 04/ 2010 9: 56 AM
DearTim,



Bestregards

Richard

__________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855

Page 243
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
To: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Subject: FW: RESPONSE REQUIRED: Ashlu ramping and fish ladder operations
Attachments: 2010-05-14 Ashlu ltr RK to TB email reply.pdf
Importance: High
Yourthoughts,gentlemen?
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235
OriginalMessage
Cc:Knight,Francesca;vince.busto@dfompo.gc.ca;AdamLewis;MikeNelson;Richard
Blanchet;FrancoisHebert
Subject:RE:RESPONSEREQUIRED:Ashlurampingandfishladderoperations
Importance:High
HiTim,
Attachedisourreplytoyouremail.Pleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyquestions.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600*Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
OriginalMessage
Importance:High
HiRobert,
Page 244
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
including:
stranding;and,
Page 245
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
entrance.
Regards,
TimBennett,P.Eng.,
Page 246
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

May 14, 2010

Tim Bennett, P.Eng.
Section Head - Water Allocation
10470 152nd Street, 2nd Floor
Surrey, BC, V3R 0Y3
Tel: (604) 582-5235
Email: timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca

Re: Ashlu Creek Green Power Hydroelectric Project
Response to your email, dated May 13, 2010

Dear Tim;
With reference to your email dated May13, we provide the following information and
clarifications:
Top 1) Provide written confirmation to the Assistant Regional Water Manager of your
understanding of your requirement to undertake plant commissioning and flow diversions in
such a way as to ensure that fish are not stranded and ramping rates do not exceed 2.5
cm/hour, and your intent to adhere to this requirement;

We confirm the following information and our intention to adhere to them: The ramping duration
of the plant is set for start and stop at 12 hours for full plant flow of 29 m/sec. Ecofish
confirmed during the May 8 start up and May 9 shut down that this duration results in actual
ramping rates within the DFO recommended value of 2.5cm/hour. Ecofish will be present
during the next ramp down to accommodate kayak flow release on May 15.

Top 2) Implement in consultation with the EM, and provide details on, measures to ensure and
monitor that fish passage via the fish ladder can occur. These measures could include physical
modifications and/or release of additional flows, or diversion of flows from the IFR pipe, to the
fish ladder, in such a way that the net, required IFR release is accomplished and fish passage is
not hindered.

Cascade Environmental Services (CES) was on site May 13 and project EM Mike Nelson
confirmed on the phone that flows and the added entrance window are adequate as per May 13.
Mike will visit the site today to determine if the access to the entrance area is adequate or
requires modification to the rip rap. He intends to issue a memo to this matter on Monday, 17.
Ecofishs Adam Lewis has surveyed the area on May 10 and found that modification to the
access channel rip rap would improve access to the ladder. We are awaiting Mikes
assessment and if it is found that change to the riprap improves the access, then ACILP would
perform the changes at the earliest possible time. We note that accessing the area would
require equipment to walk across the downstream section of the spillway. We are currently
sourcing a spider type excavator with an experienced operator to cross the spillway and work in
Page 247
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Page 2

this area. The machine would operate on biodegradable hydraulic oil and would be pressure
washed prior to use. Spill containment equipment and trained personnel would be present to
immediately deal with any potential oil or fuel spills. Refueling the equipment would be
performed on the Forest Service Road north of the spillway, approximately 80 meters away from
any streams at a location approved by the EM. The work would be monitored by the EM. We
are hereby seeking MOE and DOF approval to perform this work. DFO has previously advised
that work in the downstream section of the spillway is considered instream work and does
therefore require agencies approval.
Further we provide the following information and underneath pictures:
Entrance modification: The fish ladder entrance area was modified on May 11
th
in accordance
with the recommendation in the weekly EM report dated May 5
th
and after discussions on site
with the EM and Ecofish. The flow through the fish ladder was shut off for approximately 2
hours to accommodate the modification. The fish ladder was surveyed for stranded fish in the
ladder sections and for isolated fish in the tank sections at that time and no fish were found.
Fish ladder flows: The flow volume through the fish ladder depends primarily on the head pond
water level and to a smaller degree on the fish ladder inlet gate opening. The gate is open and
the head pond level is now programmed to maintain a set point of 275.95m. Head pond levels
below 275.92m noticeably reduce the flow through the system and an alarm will be generated
by the control system if the level reaches 275.92m. All plant alarms are relayed to plant
operators and management personnel through pagers. A marker will be set later today in one
of the channels by the EM to indicate optimal flow volume based on water level. The operators
perform daily inspections of the fish ladder to verify flows. A camera will be installed on May 17
at one of the interim resting tanks and will take pictures every 12 seconds during daylight hours
to document presence of fish in the ladder system. Camera recordings will be analyzed on a
weekly basis. Ecofishs survey results for fish downstream of the intake as part of the ongoing
baseline studies will be used to monitor the presence of fish in the area, their general migration
pattern, and be compared with the camera recordings to confirm the effectiveness of the fish
ladder. Operation of the fish ladder flow is independent from the IFR pipe flow volumes. Fish
ladder flow is estimated to be 0.05 cms, which is approximately 2% of the required IFR and
therefore less than the precision with which the IFR flow can be adjusted and can be measured.
The project does therefore not rely on fish ladder flows to meet IFR requirements. IFR flow is
set at 2.7cms through the IFR bypass pipe or 112% of required IFR.

Page 248
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Page 3

If you have any further questions, comments, or require additional information please contact
me at 604-984-8600 local 224.

Sincerely,
Innergex Renewable Energy Inc.

Robert Kulka, P.Eng.

Encl.

Cc. (per email only): Vince Busto, DFO
Francesca Knight, DFO
Mike Nelson, Cascade Environmental Services, Project EM
Richard Blanchet, ACILP
George Steeves, Independent Engineer for MOE
Adam Lewis, Ecofish Research Ltd.

Page 249
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Page 4

Photos, May 11 and 13, 2010

Picture #1: new window in side of fish ladder entrance, May 11

Picture #2: window in side of fish ladder entrance, May 13.
IFR at 2.5cms, head pond level at 275.95m

Page 250
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Page 5

Picture #3: top tank of fish ladder looking
downstream, head pond level at 275.95m

Picture #4: top section of fish ladder looking
downstream, head pond level at 275.95m

Page 251
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Matt Henderson; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: busto@shaw.ca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX;
rkulka@innergex.com; RBlanchet@innergex.com
thanks Matt, please keep us informed,
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

From: Mat t Henderson [ mailt o: MHenderson@innergex.com]
Sent : March 31, 2011 3: 03 PM
To: t imot hy.bennet t @gov.bc.ca
Cc: Knight , Francesca; bust o@shaw.ca; Babakaiff, Scot t ; erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca; rkulka@innergex.com;
RBlanchet @innergex.com
Tim,
Asof15:00today,theNeonhasstillnottransmittedsowedonothavethedatafromtheeventontheafternoonof
Monday,March28,2011.Ecofish(andmyself)willbeonsiteatAshlutomorrowandwilldownloadthedata
manually.IwillsendyouEcofishsreportoncethedataisanalysedagainstourplantdata.
Thanks,
Matt
Matt Henderson

Environmental Coordinator

INNERGEX

Tel : 604 984-8600 | Fax : 604 984-8699 | www.innergex.com
From: Mat t Henderson

Sent : March-29-11 5: 50 PM
To: Tim Bennet t (t imot hy.bennet t @gov.bc.ca)
Page 252
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Cc: Knight , Francesca; Vince Bust o (bust o@shaw.ca); Babakaiff, Scot t ; Erin St oddard (erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca);
Robert Kulka; Richard Blanchet
Tim,
Yesterday,March28,2011,theplantshutdowninaccordancetheapprovedrampingratesintheearlymorning.
Restartcommencedintheeveningaround17:54.Duringrestart,theunitrampedupinaccordancetothe
programmedratestoapproximately1cms,rampeddowntoapproximately0cmsat18:01,thensuccessfullystarted
upandrampedupwithintheapprovedrampingratestoapproximately6.5cmsat18:09.Wewereunabletoaccess
thedatarecordedbytheinstreamflowgaugedownstreamofthepowerhouseduetocommunicationissues(the
stationcommunicatesviasatellitephone,butisscheduledtocommunicatewiththepowerhouseviadirectradio
linkbyendofMay2011).Thestationsentitslastsignalwithloggedflowsat4pmyesterday.Thereforeweare
currentlyunabletodetermineiftheactualflowandlevelchangesinthestreamwerenoncompliantwiththe
approvedratesandwethereforeprovidethispreliminarynoncompliancenotice.
Tobecautious,IdispatchedandpersonallyjoinedanEcofishcrewtodayfromapproximately13:00to14:00hrs.
(Ecofishwastherelonger).DuringthetimeIwasthereEcofishsurveyedcriticalareasdownstreamofthe
powerhouseanddidnotfindstrandedorisolatedfish.IFRflowswerenotaffectedbytheevent.
Weanticipatetoaccessthestagechangedatawithinthenext48hoursandwillsendafollowupreport,including
Ecofishsreport.
Thankyou,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Page 253
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Matt Henderson; Bennett, Timothy A FLNR:EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; rkulka@innergex.com; FHebert@innergex.com;
BPatjas@innergex.com; cmurrell@innergex.com; Busto, Vince; Stoddard, Erin M
FLNR:EX
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Preliminary ramping non-compliance
notification
thanks Matt, please keep us informed as soon as you know more.
Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 6, 2011 5: 11 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t ; rkulka@innergex.com; FHebert @innergex.com; BPat j as@innergex.com;
cmurrell@innergex.com; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince; erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca
Subj ect : Ashlu Creek Proj ect (wat er file 2001264): Preliminary ramping non-compliance not ificat ion
Tim,
Yesterday,April5,2011,theplantreceivedamainpowertransformeroverheatalarmat21:07.Theresultwasa
discrepancybetweengenerator3andtheEDSsystemthatresultedinwhatappearstobeanoncomplianceevent.
AstheplanttrackingtechniciansarebasedinMontreal,wewillbeabletofullyunderstandthesituationtomorrow
morning.Iwillsendanupdatedemailtomorrow.Ecofishhasbeenalertedtotheevent.
Thankyou,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Page 254
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Matt Henderson [MHenderson@innergex.com]
To: Bennett, Timothy A FLNR:EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; rkulka@innergex.com; Francois Hebert; Brian Patjas;
cmurrell@innergex.com; Francesca.Knight@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca;
Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX; RBlanchet@innergex.com
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance notification
Tim,
SorryforbeingadaylatewiththeupdatedemailImentionedbelow.Itappearsthatwedidhaveanoncompliance
eventonApril5,2011.IwillsendournoncompliancereportalongwithEcofishsreportnextweek.
Thankyouandhaveagreatweekend,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX


Sent : April-06-11 5: 11 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t ; Robert Kulka (rkulka@innergex.com); Francois Hebert (FHebert @innergex.com); Brian Pat j as
(BPat j as@innergex.com); Colin Murrell (cmurrell@innergex.com); Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca;
vince.bust o@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Erin St oddard (erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca)
Tim,
Thankyou,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Page 255
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Bennett, Timothy A
Cc: Knight, Francesca; Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; Stoddard, Erin M
FLNR:EX; rkulka@ lanchet@innergex.com; FHebert@innergex.com;
BPatjas@innergex.com; cmurrell@innergex.com
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Ramping non compliance report for March
28, 2011
Attachments: image001.jpg; Ashlu non compliance report 2011-03-28.pdf; Ecofish - Memo re Ashlu
ramping event March 28 2011.pdf; 2011_3_28 FLOW.xlsx; 2011_3_28 Flow Graph.pdf
Tim,
WithregardstothenoncomplianceeventonMarch28,2011,pleasefindattachedtothisemailthefollowing:
AshluCreekInvestmentsLimitedPartnershipNonComplianceReport;
EcofishResearchLimitedMemorandumApril7,2011;
Plantdataspreadsheet:2011_3_28FLOW.xlsx;and,
Plantdatagraph:2011_3_28FlowGraph.pdf
Hardcopiesofalloftheaboveexceptforthe.xlsxspreadsheethavebeenmailedtoyou.MyMarch29,2011
notificationemailandMarch31,2011followupemailcanbeseenbelow.
Pleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyquestions,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX


To: 'Tim Bennet t (t imot hy.bennet t @
Cc: 'Knight , Francesca'; 'Vince Bust o 'Babakaiff, Scot t '; 'Erin St oddard (erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca)';
Robert Kulka (rkulka@innergex.com); Richard Blanchet (RBlanchet @innergex.com)
Tim,
Asof15:00today,theNeonhasstillnottransmittedsowedonothavethedatafromtheeventontheafternoonof
Monday,March28,2011.Ecofish(andmyself)willbeonsiteatAshlutomorrowandwilldownloadthedata
manually.IwillsendyouEcofishsreportoncethedataisanalysedagainstourplantdata.
Thanks,
Matt
Matt Henderson


Page 256
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S22
S22
2
INNERGEX


To: Tim Bennet t (t imot hy.bennet t @
Cc: Knight , Francesca; Vince Bust o Babakaiff, Scot t ; Erin St oddard (erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca);
Robert Kulka; Richard Blanchet
Tim,
Yesterday,March28,2011,theplantshutdowninaccordancetheapprovedrampingratesintheearlymorning.
Restartcommencedintheeveningaround17:54.Duringrestart,theunitrampedupinaccordancetothe
programmedratestoapproximately1cms,rampeddowntoapproximately0cmsat18:01,thensuccessfullystarted
upandrampedupwithintheapprovedrampingratestoapproximately6.5cmsat18:09.Wewereunabletoaccess
thedatarecordedbytheinstreamflowgaugedownstreamofthepowerhouseduetocommunicationissues(the
stationcommunicatesviasatellitephone,butisscheduledtocommunicatewiththepowerhouseviadirectradio
linkbyendofMay2011).Thestationsentitslastsignalwithloggedflowsat4pmyesterday.Thereforeweare
currentlyunabletodetermineiftheactualflowandlevelchangesinthestreamwerenoncompliantwiththe
approvedratesandwethereforeprovidethispreliminarynoncompliancenotice.
Tobecautious,IdispatchedandpersonallyjoinedanEcofishcrewtodayfromapproximately13:00to14:00hrs.
(Ecofishwastherelonger).DuringthetimeIwasthereEcofishsurveyedcriticalareasdownstreamofthe
powerhouseanddidnotfindstrandedorisolatedfish.IFRflowswerenotaffectedbytheevent.
Weanticipatetoaccessthestagechangedatawithinthenext48hoursandwillsendafollowupreport,including
Ecofishsreport.
Thankyou,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Page 257
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S22
Page 258
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 259
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 260
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
A hl di t d fl M h 28 2011
7
Ashlu:divertedflowsMarch28,2011
5
6
4
m
s
)
3
F
l
o
w
s
(
c
m
2
0
1
0
3/28/20116:00 3/28/201112:00 3/28/201118:00 3/29/20110:00 3/29/20116:00
Date/Time
Page 261
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; rkulka@innergex.com; Brian Patjas;
Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX; RBlanchet@innergex.com; Michel Malette;
FHebert@innergex.com
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance notification for
April 5, 2011.
Attachments: image001.jpg; Ashlu non compliance report 2011-04-05.pdf; Ecofish - Ashlu Creek
Project (water file 2001264) Ramping non-compliance notification for April 5 2011.pdf;
Ashlu 2011-04-05_FLOW.XLSX
Tim,
WithregardstothenoncomplianceeventonMarch28,2011,pleasefindattachedtothisemailthefollowing:
Ashlu(CreekInvestmentsLimitedPartnership)NonComplianceReport20110405;
EcofishResearchLimitedMemorandumApril11,2011;and,
Plantdataspreadsheet:Ashlu20110405_FLOW.xlsx.
Hardcopiesofalloftheaboveexceptforthe.xlsxspreadsheethavebeenmailedtoyou.MyApril6,2011
notificationemailandApril7,2011followupemailcanbeseenbelow.
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX


Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t ; Robert Kulka (rkulka@innergex.com); Brian Pat j as; Colin Murrell (cmurrell@innergex.com);
'Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca'; 'vince.bust o@dfo-mpo.gc.ca'; Erin St oddard (erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca); Richard
Blanchet (RBlanchet @innergex.com); Michel Malet t e; Francois Hebert (FHebert @innergex.com)
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Creek Proj ect (wat er file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance not ificat ion for April 5, 2011.
Tim,
Status:
GeneratorUnit3runninganddivertingapproximately5.5cmsonTuesday,April5,2011.
Initialevent:
Atapproximately18:50,themainpowertransformertrippedduetoanoverheatingalarm(devicemalfunction).
Unit3trippedinemergencyshutdownwiththeEDSrespondinginstantaneouslyandassumingfulldiversionofplant
flow.Therewasnonetflowchangewiththeplantremaininginfullcompliance.Tripconditionswereeliminated,
tripswereclearedfromthecontrolsystem,andtheplantreadiesforstartup.
Page 262
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Secondaryevent:
Unit3startedupinwaterlevelcontrol(WLC)modeat22:07.Astheunitstartedup,theEDSreducedflowsto
compensatefortheincreasedturbineflow.EDSreducedflowstoorapidly,leadingtoanoncomplianceinramping.
Duetothereductionofdivertedflows,theheadpondwaterlevelincreased.Unit3sensedtheincreasedheadpond
levelandfollowedtheprogrammedlogicunderWLCandrampeduptomatchtheassumedhigherinflowintothe
headpond.Atthesametime,theEDSreducedflowsbutnotrapidlyenoughtomatchunit3.Unit3startedtodraw
toomuchwater,thereforeloweringtheheadpondlevelandrespondedbyreducingdivertedflowat23:38.Unit3
returnedtopreeventlevelsof5.5cmsshortlyafter.
Measurestaken:
1)Operatorswillnotifyoperationscentereverytimeaunitswitchesflow.Theoperationcenterwillanalyse
dataforcompliancewithinthenext13hours.
2)Operatorshavebeennotified/remindedtofollowStandardOperatingProcedures(i.e.,startunitin
POSITIONCONTROL,stabilizeallflows/levels,andthentransferunitstoWLC.
3)HydroECIhasbeencontactedandinstructedtofindawaytosupervise/limitWLCduringstartupinorder
toavoid/minimizefutureoperatoroverlook.
4)PrimeEngineeringhasbeennotifiedandarescheduledtocometositeandtotroubleshootthedefective
TransformerTemperatureDetector.
5)Ecofishwascontactedandacknowledgedtheevent.Ecofishsaidthatalthoughitisanoncompliance
event,thethresholdforinitiatingafishisolation/salvagestudywasnotreached.
Expectafullreportwithinthenexttwoweeks.
Pleasecontactmeifyourequirefurtherinformation,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX


Tim,
Thankyou,
Matt
Matt Henderson


Page 263
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
INNERGEX

Page 264
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mathew Henderson
FROM: Elyse MacDonald
DATE: April 11, 2011
FILE: 1112-05.12
RE: Ashlu Creek unplanned ramping event (April 5, 2011)
This memo describes the water level observations made following an unplanned ramping incident
which occurred at the Ashlu Creek run-of-river hydroelectric Project (Squamish, BC) on April 5,
2011. Ecofish Research Ltd. (Ecofish) observed a potential ramping incident during the routine
review of the data from the Ashlu Creek gauge downstream of the powerhouse. Ashlu Creek
Investments Limited Partnership (ACILP) observed a potential ramping incident on the same day
and notified Ecofish at approximately 16:00 hrs on April 6, 2011 that operational ramping rates had
been observed.

Background
Ecofish is retained by ACILP to respond to any unplanned ramping event or operational anomaly
that may affect fish or fish habitat. This is a contingency measure and to assess the potential impact
of the event and provide a report suitable for Ministry of Environment (MOE) and Fisheries and
Oceans Canada (DFO) review.
Ecofish completed a ramping study to determine rates for startup and shutdown that would protect
fish from stranding in the diversion or downstream of the powerhouse, respectively. Monitoring
during the ramping study was completed using a portable pressure transducer to record the rate of
stage change at the sensitive site. Stage change rates that protected fish from stranding in the
sensitive sites were correlated to permanent hydrometric gauges as compliance points. The ramping
study recommendations included a ramping rate of no more than 4.0 cm/hr for both startup and
shutdown measured at the IFR gauge and the permanent downstream logger (ASU-DSLG01)
respectively. During testing, an operational rate of 1.5 cms/hr did not strand fish and achieved the
4.0 cm/hr recommended rate.
In the morning on April 6, a sudden stage decrease that had occurred in the late evening of April 5
was observed during routine review of the data from the permanent downstream logger (ASU-
DSLG01). The data was processed to calculate the rate of stage change and evaluate this for a
potential stranding event. Information from ACILP indicated that operational ramping rates
exceeded 1.5 cms/hr; however, given the criteria outlined below in the methods section for stage
change rates, the ramping rates were within compliance.

Page 265
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Table 1. Summary of stage change, incident duration, and rate of change during
shutdown ramping on April 5, 2011 as measured at the compliance point
(ASU-DSLG01). Data presented is from the initial stage drop.

Data Analysis Methods
The following criteria were used to evaluate data from ASU-DSLG01 for a potential ramping
incident:
1. For each data point, the maximum stage over the past hour was identified.
2. If the difference between the data point and this stage exceeded the recommended stage
decrease criteria of -4.0 cm/hr at ASU-DSLG01, then the ramping event was flagged.

Results
Based on the maximum and mean stage change rate, the agency accepted compliance rate of 4.0
cm/hr was exceeded for a short time period. The stage dropped by more than 4.0 cm within an
hour, returned to within 4.0 cm of the previous maximum after 6 minutes, and then repeated this
cycle. Figure 1 shows the stage and maximum change in stage over the period during which the
incident occurred. The two brief periods where the stage change was >4.0 cm are also labelled
along with a ramping criteria reference line (Figure 1). According to our criteria for identifying
stranding events, if the stage returns to within 4.0 cm of the pre-ramping stage within 10 minutes of
the violation, there is little potential for a stranding event and rates are deemed to be in compliance
(i.e., 10 min is the designated asphyxiation time). The April 5 event was not flagged as a stranding
event by the syntax and hence was not considered an incident.

Logger Date, Incident
Start Time
(PST)
Date, Incident
End Time
(PST)
Stage
Start (m)
Stage
End (m)
Total
Stage
Change
(cm)*
Avg. Rate
of Stage
Change
(cm/hr)*
Discharge
Start
(cms)
Discharge
End
(cms)
ASU-DSLG01 April 5, 21:08 April 5, 21:18 0.928 0.886 -4.2 -25.2 11.33 9.66
* Negative number indicates stage decrease
Page 266
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Figure 1. Operation and discharge data for shutdown and startup ramping events on
April 5 - 6, 2011 observed at ASU-DSLG01. Blue circles represent stage and
green circles indicate maximum change in stage.

Given the short duration and small stage reduction, stranding was deemed to be unlikely for this
event. Thus, this was not considered a stranding incident and crews were not mobilized to search
the downstream, pre-established ramping monitoring study sites.
Please contact us if you have any questions.

Yours truly,

Elyse MacDonald, B.Sc., R.P.Bio., CPESC
Project Manager, Environmental Biologist
Page 267
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 3:56 PM
Cc: Knight, Francesca; vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; Stoddard,
Erin M FLNR:EX
Subject: Ashlu April 20, 2011 non-compliance update
Tim,
PleaseseebelowforanupdatefromEcofishonyesterdaysfloweventatAshlu.
Thanks,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

From: Elyse MacDonald [ mailt o: emacdonald@ecofishresearch.com]

To: Mat t Henderson
Cc: fj alewis@ecofishresearch.com
Subj ect : Ashlu results t oday
HiMatt,
WearrivedatthedownstreammonitoringsitesatAshluat~10:30amtoday.Wesearched7sitesforatotalof700
m2andfound23deadfish.Twoofthesiteswesearchedtodayweresearchedyesterday,when16deadfishwere
found,foratotalof39deadfishfoundinthedownstreamreach.
Hereisabreakdownofourresults,whereDSSD04and05areourpreestablishedmonitoringsitesand0812are
sitessearchedtoday,downstreamof04and05butwithinthereconnaissanceareas1and2inourMay2010report.
DSSD040deadfishfoundyesterday;3deadfishfoundtoday.Allfishingoodconditionandlikely
strandedduetoramping.
DSSD0516deadfishfoundyesterday;8deadfishfoundtoday.Allfishingoodconditionandlikely
strandedduetoramping.
DSSD08nodeadfishfoundtoday
DSSD098deadfishfoundtoday;allinpoorconditionandpossiblynotduetoyesterdaysramping.
DSSD10nodeadfishfoundtoday
Insummary:
16deadfishfoundyesterdayinourestablishedmonitoringsitesandlikelystrandedduringramping.
11deadfishfoundtodayinourestablishedmonitoringsitesandlikelystrandedduringramping.
Page 268
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
12deadfishfoundfurtherdownstreamthanourestablishedmonitoringsites.Allbutoneofthesefishwere
inpoorconditionandpossiblynotstrandedduetoramping.Theonefishfoundingoodconditionmayhave
beenstrandedduetoramping.
Atotalof28fishmayhavebeenstrandedduetoyesterdaysincidentand11fishwerefounddeadbutpossiblynot
duetorampingstagechanges.Approximately718m2wassearchedtodayand190m2yesterdayforatotalareaof
908m2and39deadfishfound.Wealsoobservedseverallivefishinoursearchsites.
Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcerns.
Thankyou,

Environmental Biologist, Project Manager


emacdonald@ecofishresearch.com

Suite 1000 355 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, V6C 2G8
Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163; Cell: 604-785-6726

Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

This email contains confidential information that is proprietary to Ecofish Research Ltd.. This information is intended only for
the person(s) named in the destination address. Unauthorized distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you
receive this e-mail in error please delete it immediately.
Page 269
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX; Bennett, Timothy A FLNR:EX;
Busto, Vince
Cc: Barrett, Scott FLNR:EX
April 20, 2011
yuh-huh.
I actually wonder if there is any value in us looking at a plant's logic model on new projects... not the programming,
but the programming must be based on some logic model.So, if we see something in a logic model that says
"unplanned intake gate closure" is followed by a step that says "close penstock outflows", we can say, no, that's going
to drastically reduce flows downstream of the powerhouse (i.e., IFR flows + tributary inflows downstream of the
intake), likely stranding / killing fish for an unknown distance downstream. Can we talk to George Steeves about this?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627
Pacific Region 'Working Near Water' website
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/habitat/index-eng.htm

From: Babakaiff, Scot t C FLNR: EX [ mailt o: Scot t .Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca]
Sent : April 21, 2011 9: 50 AM
To: Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M FLNR: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A FLNR: EX; Bust o, Vince
Cc: Barret t , Scot t FLNR: EX
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Creek Proj ect (wat er file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance not ificat ion for April 20, 2011
P.S. I understand that it is much easier for proponents to identify a problem with programming once an
incident during operation has occurred, but I agree that industry needs to be encouraged to improve their
bench-testing & de-bugging of operational programming prior during commissioning. This will have an
obvious cost (time & effort), and recent history suggests that these costs will only be deemed as
accommodated by industry if there is appropriate encouragement. And we know what that means...
From: Babakaiff, Scot t C FLNR: EX

Sent : Thursday, April 21, 2011 9: 30 AM
To: 'Knight , Francesca'; St oddard, Erin M FLNR: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A FLNR: EX; 'Bust o, Vince'
Page 270
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Yeah, when I heard about the incident yesterday afternoon, I started thinking about the exact things you
were...I agree with your assessment & analysis, and thanks for engaging with Matt to get that primary data.

I agree that the remoteness of these facilities will not allow the operational risks to fish&fish habitat
associated such stranding incidents to be adequately mitigated via post-impact actions (e.g. fish salvage).
Given the frequency of emergency shutdowns & other operational glitches, it has been suspected that these
sorts of issues have been occurring at other facilities with a disturbing frequency. However, it is obviously
difficult to collect data in a timely manner to directly confirm impacts; it seems that the recent issues at
Lower Mamquam & Ashlu have focused attention on the downstream impacts to fish & fish habitat. Such
impacts to migratory (especially anadromous) fish species are not likely to be observed (or quantified) in
the annual operational monitoring, since such monitoring concentrates on species within the diversion
reach. And it would challenging to isolate any observed impacts to migratory (especially anadromous) fish
populations to project operations. Since it seems unlikely well get support for policy that doesnt allow
these facilities in fish-bearing water, it is apparent that two things need to be done:

1. Issues associated with water licensing & authorizations need to be revisited following
commissioning and the first year (at least) of operation to allow the actual operational impacts to be
more clearly quantified & accounted for (via mitigation & compensation);
2. The Risk Management Framework developed by DFO for Instream Flow (March 2011 draft) should
be expanded to allow consideration of operational flow-related impacts such as emergency
shutdowns & other ramping issues.

And maybe following up on #1&2, it will become apparent that to agencies that the sensitivity of fish & fish
habitat at some locations justifies a response of: No. Relocate.

Scott

To: St oddard, Erin M FLNR: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A FLNR: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C FLNR: EX
Subj ect : FW: Ashlu Creek Proj ect (wat er file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance not ificat ion for April 20, 2011

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Page 271
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
3
Sent : April 20, 2011 6: 19 PM
To: Bust o, Vince; Nait o, Brian; Salomi, Corino
Subj ect : Ashlu Creek Proj ect (wat er file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance not ificat ion for April 20, 2011
Hi guys,
Brian and Corino, it's important that you are aware of the incident at Ashlu that occurred today. While the incident is
being called a "ramping rate non-compliance" , that's not all it was.

Vince, I gave Matt Henderson a call after we spoke, and got some more information. The intake gate closed at
approximately 11am. Total river flow was about 5.4 cms (low flows for Ashlu). I estimated that flow, based on plant
diversion flow prior to the intake gate closing, which was 3 cms, and the IFR of 2.4 cms, for a total river flow of
5.4 cms. The plant flow of 3 cms at 11 am dropped to 0.01 cms at 11:06, due to the intake gate clsoure. Of
course, fear of collapsing the penstock in this situation means the plant's logic controller closed the penstock
flow into the tailrace. Thus, no water was discharged at the tailrace. Given the river low flows, the lag time
from the spilling of water from the headpond (I am assuming through the sluicegate, VB?) took over two
hours to reach the powerhouse. The intake gate remained closed for about 2.5 hours.

The lowest recorded stage at the gauge just downstream of the powerhouse occurred at 11:27am, and stage
did not begin to come back up until 1:10pm. In other words, in addition to effects on resident fish in the
diversion reach, several km of anadromous habitat was affected by this event. We know from the ramping-
induced fish kill of May 2010 that newly emerged / very young fry are present in this affected area
downstream of the powerhouse (chum, chinook, coho). As well, juvenile steelhead and bull trout fry were
also likely present in the area.

The proponent's consultant (Ecofish Research Ltd) was notified of the incident at around noon, and
mobilized to get up to the site. They were on site at approximately 1pm. While Ecofish responded as rapidly
as one could hope, the remoteness of the site is an issue. While water levels were depressed for a good 2
hours or so downstream of the powerhouse (plenty of time to kill fry), by the time anyone could get to site
to look for stranded fish, water levels were back up and the chances of finding dead fry are slim.

Vince, the details of stage and flow data, as well as other event details, are going to be included in Matt's
report... this information is just what I can recall from my phone call with Matt. I got just enough info from
him to confirm that the incident was as serious as . Given the unpredictability of these
events, and the remoteness of many run-of-river sites, I am really thinking about how we can better address
the problems with proponents. I don't think the answer is having an environmental consultant on stand by all
the time to respond to events. There's got to be more we can do to raise industry standards around how the
plants are controlled. It can't be that complicated to get the plant logic and programming right; proponents
have just never had a reason to do so. You know way more about this that I do, but I just wonder if we
should be approaching the problem from this angle, instead of "train your operators to do fish salvage"
included in the plant's Standard Operating Procedures manual.
C

Sent : Wed 4/ 20/ 2011 2: 54 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t ; erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca; Knight, Francesca; Bust o, Vince; rkulka@innergex.com;
FHebert @innergex.com; RBlanchet @innergex.com; cmurrell@innergex.com; BPat j as@innergex.com
Tim,
Page 272
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
4
TheAshluCreekHydroProjecthadanoncomplianceeventtoday,April20,2011at11:06duetoanunexpected
intakegateclosure.Ecofishcrewsstartedmobilizingforasitevisitjustafter12:00.Anoncompliancereportwillbe
sentalongwithEcofishssitereportinthecomingdays.
Matt
Matt Henderson
Descr iption: Descr iption : Descr iption : Descr iption : I nner gex
INNERGEX

Page 273
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 274
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 275
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 276
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Henderson
FILE: 1112-05.12
RE: Ashlu Creek unplanned ramping event on April 13, 2011
This memo describes the water level observations made following an unplanned ramping event
which occurred at the Ashlu Creek run-of-river hydroelectric Project (Squamish, BC) on April 13,
2011. On the morning of April 14, 2011, Ashlu Creek Investments Limited Partnership (ACILP)
notified Ecofish Research Ltd. (Ecofish) of a potential ramping incident in the evening of April 13.
Ecofish staff immediately analyzed data from the downstream, permanent gauge (ASU-DSLG01)
for compliance. ACILP provided plant data on the morning of April 15 to analyze data from the
permanent gauge located approximately 200 m downstream of the weir (ASU-IFR01).
On April 13, 2011 a ramping event occurred at the downstream hydrometric gauge (ASU-DSLG01),
between 23:14 and 23:54. The stage decreased by 3.7 cm in 40 minutes, and a stage change of -3.7
cm was recorded in one hour (Figure 1). The changes in stage associated with this event were in
compliance with the criteria of 4.0 cm/hr (Table 1).
Figure 1. Stage at ASU-DSLG01 between 10:00 hrs April 13 to 04:00 hrs April 14, 2011.

Page 277
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
The plant resumed operation at 19:00 hrs, causing a decrease in stage in the diversion reach of -3.9
cm recorded at ASU-IFR01 gauge over 4 hours (Figure 2). This is in compliance with the 4.0
cm/hr criteria.
Figure 2. Stage at ASU-IFR01 between 10:00 hrs April 13 to 04:00 hrs April 14, 2011.

Table 1, below, summarizes the stage change, stage change rate and compliance for the ramping
events on April 13, 2011.
Table 1. Summary of stage change, incident duration, and total stage change during
ramping events on April 13, 2011.

Compliance
Point
Date, Start Time
(PDT)
Date, End Time
(PDT)
Duration
(hh:mm)
Stage
Start
(cm)
Stage
End
(cm)
Total Stage
Change
(cm)*
Hourly Stage
Change (cm
in one hour)
Non-
Compliance
Discharge
Start
(cms)
Discharge
End
(cms)
ASU-DSLG01 13-Apr-11 12:32:00 13-Apr-11 13:26:00 00:54 89.6 87.4 -2.2 -2.2 No 10.1 9.2
ASU-DSLG01 13-Apr-11 23:14:00 13-Apr-11 23:54:00 00:40 95.2 91.5 -3.7 -3.7 No 12.4 10.8
ASU-IFR01 13-Apr-11 18:57:00 13-Apr-11 23:03:00 04:06 42.2 38.3 -3.9 -1.8 No 3.9 2.6
Page 278
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Startup and shutdown events on April 13 did not exceed 4.0 cm/hr and are considered within
compliance with approved ramping rate criteria. No crews were mobilized to search for stranded or
isolated fish based on this analysis.


Yours truly,

Page 279
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX; Bennett, Timothy A FLNR:EX;
Busto, Vince
Cc: Barrett, Scott FLNR:EX
April 20, 2011
excellent summary, Scott,
Elyse MacDonald confirmed that Ecofish collected 39 dead fish today (all salmonid juveniles except I think for 1
sculpin).
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

From: Babakaiff, Scot t C FLNR: EX [ mailt o: Scot t .Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca]
Sent : April 21, 2011 9: 30 AM
To: Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M FLNR: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A FLNR: EX; Bust o, Vince
Yeah, when I heard about the incident yesterday afternoon, I started thinking about the exact things you
were...I agree with your assessment & analysis, and thanks for engaging with Matt to get that primary data.

I agree that the remoteness of these facilities will not allow the operational risks to fish&fish habitat
associated such stranding incidents to be adequately mitigated via post-impact actions (e.g. fish salvage).
Given the frequency of emergency shutdowns & other operational glitches, it has been suspected that these
sorts of issues have been occurring at other facilities with a disturbing frequency. However, it is obviously
difficult to collect data in a timely manner to directly confirm impacts; it seems that the recent issues at
Lower Mamquam & Ashlu have focused attention on the downstream impacts to fish & fish habitat. Such
impacts to migratory (especially anadromous) fish species are not likely to be observed (or quantified) in
the annual operational monitoring, since such monitoring concentrates on species within the diversion
reach. And it would challenging to isolate any observed impacts to migratory (especially anadromous) fish
populations to project operations. Since it seems unlikely well get support for policy that doesnt allow
these facilities in fish-bearing water, it is apparent that two things need to be done:

Page 280
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
1. Issues associated with water licensing & authorizations need to be revisited following
commissioning and the first year (at least) of operation to allow the actual operational impacts to be
more clearly quantified & accounted for (via mitigation & compensation);
2. The Risk Management Framework developed by DFO for Instream Flow (March 2011 draft) should
be expanded to allow consideration of operational flow-related impacts such as emergency
shutdowns & other ramping issues.

And maybe following up on #1&2, it will become apparent that to agencies that the sensitivity of fish & fish
habitat at some locations justifies a response of: No. Relocate.

Scott

To: St oddard, Erin M FLNR: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A FLNR: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C FLNR: EX

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 20, 2011 6: 19 PM
To: Bust o, Vince; Nait o, Brian; Salomi, Corino
Hi guys,
Brian and Corino, it's important that you are aware of the incident at Ashlu that occurred today. While the incident is
being called a "ramping rate non-compliance" , that's not all it was.

Vince, I gave Matt Henderson a call after we spoke, and got some more information. The intake gate closed at
approximately 11am. Total river flow was about 5.4 cms (low flows for Ashlu). I estimated that flow, based on plant
diversion flow prior to the intake gate closing, which was 3 cms, and the IFR of 2.4 cms, for a total river flow of
5.4 cms. The plant flow of 3 cms at 11 am dropped to 0.01 cms at 11:06, due to the intake gate clsoure. Of
course, fear of collapsing the penstock in this situation means the plant's logic controller closed the penstock
flow into the tailrace. Thus, no water was discharged at the tailrace. Given the river low flows, the lag time
from the spilling of water from the headpond (I am assuming through the sluicegate, VB?) took over two
hours to reach the powerhouse. The intake gate remained closed for about 2.5 hours.
Page 281
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
3

The lowest recorded stage at the gauge just downstream of the powerhouse occurred at 11:27am, and stage
did not begin to come back up until 1:10pm. In other words, in addition to effects on resident fish in the
diversion reach, several km of anadromous habitat was affected by this event. We know from the ramping-
induced fish kill of May 2010 that newly emerged / very young fry are present in this affected area
downstream of the powerhouse (chum, chinook, coho). As well, juvenile steelhead and bull trout fry were
also likely present in the area.

The proponent's consultant (Ecofish Research Ltd) was notified of the incident at around noon, and
mobilized to get up to the site. They were on site at approximately 1pm. While Ecofish responded as rapidly
as one could hope, the remoteness of the site is an issue. While water levels were depressed for a good 2
hours or so downstream of the powerhouse (plenty of time to kill fry), by the time anyone could get to site
to look for stranded fish, water levels were back up and the chances of finding dead fry are slim.

Vince, the details of stage and flow data, as well as other event details, are going to be included in Matt's
report... this information is just what h Matt. I got just enough info from
him to confirm that the incident was Given the unpredictability of these
events, and the remoteness of many r ng about how we can better address
the problems with proponents. I don't think the answer is having an environmental consultant on stand by all
the time to respond to events. There's got to be more we can do to raise industry standards around how the
plants are controlled. It can't be that complicated to get the plant logic and programming right; proponents
have just never had a reason to do so. You know way more about this that I do, but I just wonder if we
should be approaching the problem from this angle, instead of "train your operators to do fish salvage"
included in the plant's Standard Operating Procedures manual.
C

Sent : Wed 4/ 20/ 2011 2: 54 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t ; erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca; Knight, Francesca; Bust o, Vince; rkulka@innergex.com;
FHebert @innergex.com; RBlanchet @innergex.com; cmurrell@innergex.com; BPat j as@innergex.com
Tim,
TheAshluCreekHydroProjecthadanoncomplianceeventtoday,April20,2011at11:06duetoanunexpected
intakegateclosure.Ecofishcrewsstartedmobilizingforasitevisitjustafter12:00.Anoncompliancereportwillbe
sentalongwithEcofishssitereportinthecomingdays.
Matt
Matt Henderson
Descr iption: Descr iption : Descr iption : Descr iption : I nner gex
INNERGEX

Page 282
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
1
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:56 PM
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A FLNR:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX
April 20, 2011
Attachments: Squamish River at Brackendale (April 20 and 21).jpg
In answer to your last question, the "effect" likely extended to the Mouth of the Squamish River; fortunately, it was greatly
attenuated within the Squamish River.

At 11:06 the plant flow ceased.
Around 2 p.m. the Squamish River WSC gauge at Brackendale shows the start of a flow drop of just under 2 cms that lasted about
6 hours. At Brackendale the stage change only amounted to about 1.5 centimetres.
The Squamish was flowing at about 45.5 cms at the time the Brackendale gauge experienced the flow drop.
Attached is a screen shot of the WSC data plot for the event.

Undoubtedly the flow flow was experienced to a greater extent within the Ashlu River with the backwatering from the Squamish
atennuating some of the impact near its confluence with the Squamish.



Sent: Tue 4/26/2011 5:47 PM
To: 'Matt Henderson'; timothy.bennett@gov.bc.ca
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott; erin.stoddard@gov.bc.ca; Busto, Vince; rkulka@innergex.com; FHebert@innergex.com;
RBlanchet@innergex.com; cmurrell@innergex.com; BPatjas@innergex.com; Michel Malette
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance notification for April 20, 2011

Hi Matt, thanks for sending this information. Some quick comments / questions:

1. While the attached spreadsheet contains the turbine diversion flows and EDS (bypass) activity through to 2300 hours on April
20 / 0100 hours on the 21st, this spreadsheet does not contain data on what was being spilled at the Obermeyer (sluice?) through
2300 hours. Please include this data in a revision to the spreadsheet.

2. Stranded fish search

- please include a figure showing all sites searched for stranding (e.g., new sites #8 - 12); how far downstream of the tailrace was
searched?

- looking at the stage data at the downstream gauge (DSLG01), it's apparent that water levels were back up below the powerhouse
before Ecofish staff were able to begin searching for stranded fish. Specifically, water levels were back up to pre-shutdown
condition by approximately 13:45, while Ecofish did not begin searching for stranded fish until 14:30. It is most unfortunate that a
search for stranded fish could not have commenced sooner, while water levels were still depressed relative to the normal
operating condition.

3. Please include a figure / data showing the stage at the downstream gauge during the fish search that was conducted on April 21.

Page 283
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
4. I am bothered that the title and emphasis of the two reports pertains more to ramping events (that may have led ramping non-
compliance). In fact, the emergency shutdown should not only be included in the title of the report, but should be its emphasis,
given that the event very likely had resulted in effects some distance downstream of the powerhouse. It would be helpful if
Ecofish could attempt to spatially bound the extent of this effect downstream.

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2

Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627


________________________________

From: Matt Henderson [mailto:MHenderson@innergex.com]
Sent: April 26, 2011 2:29 PM
To: timothy.bennett@gov.bc.ca
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott; erin.stoddard@gov.bc.ca; Knight, Francesca; Busto, Vince; rkulka@innergex.com;
FHebert@innergex.com; RBlanchet@innergex.com; cmurrell@innergex.com; BPatjas@innergex.com; Michel Malette
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance notification for April 20, 2011

Tim,

With regards to the non-compliance event on April 20, 2011, please find attached to this email the following:

. Ashlu (Creek Investments Limited Partnership) Non-Compliance Report 2011-04-20.pdf;

. Ecofish Research Limited Memorandum April 25, 2011; and,

. Plant data spreadsheet: Ashlu_April_20_2011_Flow_Ramping.xls.

Hardcopies of all of the above except for the .xls spreadsheet have been mailed to you. My April 20, 2011 notification email can
be seen below.

Please contact me if you have any questions,

Page 284
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Matt

Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Tel : 604 984-8600 | Fax : 604 984-8699 | www.innergex.com <http://www.innergex.com/>

From: Matt Henderson
Sent: April-20-11 2:54 PM
To: Tim Bennett (timothy.bennett@gov.bc.ca)
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott; Erin Stoddard (erin.stoddard@gov.bc.ca); Knight, Francesca; vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Robert Kulka
(rkulka@innergex.com); Francois Hebert (FHebert@innergex.com); Richard Blanchet (RBlanchet@innergex.com); Colin
Murrell (cmurrell@innergex.com); Brian Patjas (BPatjas@innergex.com)
Subject: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance notification for April 20, 2011

Tim,

The Ashlu Creek Hydro Project had a non-compliance event today, April 20, 2011 at 11:06 due to an unexpected intake gate
closure. Ecofish crews started mobilizing for a site visit just after 12:00. A non-compliance report will be sent along with
Ecofish's site report in the coming days.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Matt

Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Tel : 604 984-8600 | Fax : 604 984-8699 | www.innergex.com <http://www.innergex.com/>

Page 285
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 286
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 11:55 AM
To: Busto, Vince
Cc: Knight, Francesca; Bennett, Timothy A FLNR:EX; Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX; Babakaiff,
Scott C FLNR:EX; Richard Blanchet; Robert Kulka; Francois Hebert; Brian Patjas; Colin
Murrell; Michel Malette
April 15, 2011
Theydo.Thanks.
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX


Sent : April-26-11 11: 54 AM
To: Mat t Henderson
Cc: Knight , Francesca; Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca; St oddard, Erin M FLNR: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C FLNR: EX; Richard
Blanchet ; Robert Kulka; Francois Hebert ; Brian Pat j as; Colin Murrell; Michel Malet t e
Matt

I assume that G1 G2 and G3 refer to generators. Please confirm.



Sent : April 26, 2011 10: 45 AM
To: Bust o, Vince
Blanchet ; Robert Kulka; Francois Hebert ; Brian Pat j as; cmurrell@innergex.com; Michel Malet t e
Page 287
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Vince,
Pleaseseeattached.csvfilewithmeasurementunits.
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX


Sent : April-26-11 10: 27 AM
To: Mat t Henderson
Blanchet ; Robert Kulka; Francois Hebert ; Brian Pat j as
Matt

The csv file has a number of columns

Date and Time; G1; G2; G3; EDS; Sluice Gate; Obermeyer gate 1; Obermeyer gates 2-5; Mile 25 Bridge; Downstream Dam

While some of the measurement units may be obvious, like time and IFR, others are not. Please provide
measurement units for the columns.



Sent : April 26, 2011 8: 58 AM
Bouncedback.
Matt Henderson
Page 288
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3


INNERGEX


Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t ; Erin St oddard (erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca); Knight , Francesca; vince.bust o@dfo-mpo.gc.ca;
Robert Kulka (rkulka@innergex.com); Francois Hebert (FHebert @innergex.com); Richard Blanchet
(RBlanchet @innergex.com); Colin Murrell (cmurrell@innergex.com); Brian Pat j as (BPat j as@innergex.com); Michel
Malet t e
Tim,
WithregardstothenoncomplianceeventonApril15,2011,pleasefindattachedtothisemailthefollowing:
Plantdataspreadsheet:Ashlu_2011_04_15_FLOW.csv.
Hardcopiesofalloftheaboveexceptforthe.csvspreadsheethavebeenmailedtoyou.MyApril18,2011
notificationemailcanbeseenbelow.
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX


(RBlanchet @innergex.com); Colin Murrell (cmurrell@innergex.com); Brian Pat j as (BPat j as@innergex.com)
Tim,
TheAshluCreekHydroProjecthadanoncomplianceeventonFriday,April15,2011.Iapologizeforthedelayed
emailaswehaddownstreamflowgaugedatatransmissionissues.Anoncompliancereportwillbesentalongwith
Ecofishssitereportinthecomingdays.
Matt
Matt Henderson
Page 289
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4


INNERGEX

Page 290
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:57 PM
To: Busto, Vince
Cc: Bennett, Timothy A FLNR:EX; Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX;
Richard Blanchet; Robert Kulka; Francois Hebert; Brian Patjas; Colin Murrell; Michel
Malette; Knight, Francesca
Subject: RE: intake gate closure incident
Vince,
WehaveEcofishonsiteatAshluasearlyastomorrowtoinstallthenecessaryequipmenttomakeyourrequest
possible.
Thanks,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX


To: Mat t Henderson
Cc: Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca; St oddard, Erin M FLNR: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C FLNR: EX; Richard Blanchet ; Robert
Kulka; Francois Hebert ; Brian Pat j as; Colin Murrell; Michel Malet t e; Knight , Francesca
Subj ect : RE: int ake gat e closure incident
Matt

I thought that there is a flow or stage gauge downstream of the powerhouse. If so, can that data be included in the
csv file?


Sent : April 26, 2011 1: 10 PM
Page 291
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
To: Mat t Henderson; Bust o, Vince
Cc: Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca; St oddard, Erin M FLNR: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C FLNR: EX; Richard Blanchet ; Robert
Kulka; Francois Hebert ; Brian Pat j as; Colin Murrell; Michel Malet t e
Subj ect : int ake gat e closure incident
Hello Matt,
when can we expect Ecofish's report on this indident? Also, I think we all need to get straight on our incident
terminology.
1. There was a ramping rate non-compliance event on April 15 and 16. You have sent the Ecofish incident report for
this event.

2. The intake gate closure incident, which also likely included a ramping rate non-compliance event, occurred on April
20, 2011. You have sent us the raw data for that event, but as yet there is no incident report from Ecofish. Could you
also please send that csv file as an excel file? I am unable to open it today due to computer problems, but I think I
could open an excel file.
thanks,
Francesca

Sent : Tue 26/ 04/ 2011 11: 54 AM
To: Bust o, Vince
Theydo.Thanks.
Matt Henderson
INNERGEX

Sent : April-26-11 11: 54 AM
To: Mat t Henderson
Matt
I assume that G1 G2 and G3 refer to generators. Please confirm.

Page 292
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3

Sent : April 26, 2011 10: 45 AM
To: Bust o, Vince
Blanchet ; Robert Kulka; Francois Hebert ; Brian Pat j as; cmurrell@innergex.com; Michel Malet t e
Vince,
Pleaseseeattached.csvfilewithmeasurementunits.
Matt
Matt Henderson
INNERGEX

Sent : April-26-11 10: 27 AM
To: Mat t Henderson
Blanchet ; Robert Kulka; Francois Hebert ; Brian Pat j as
Matt
The csv file has a number of columns
Date and Time; G1; G2; G3; EDS; Sluice Gate; Obermeyer gate 1; Obermeyer gates 2-5; Mile 25 Bridge; Downstream Dam
While some of the measurement units may be obvious, like time and IFR, others are not. Please provide
measurement units for the columns.


Page 293
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4

Sent : April 26, 2011 8: 58 AM
Bouncedback.
Matt Henderson
INNERGEX

(RBlanchet @innergex.com); Colin Murrell (cmurrell@innergex.com); Brian Pat j as (BPat j as@innergex.com); Michel
Malet t e
Tim,
WithregardstothenoncomplianceeventonApril15,2011,pleasefindattachedtothisemailthefollowing:
Plantdataspreadsheet:Ashlu_2011_04_15_FLOW.csv.
Hardcopiesofalloftheaboveexceptforthe.csvspreadsheethavebeenmailedtoyou.MyApril18,2011
notificationemailcanbeseenbelow.
Matt
Matt Henderson
INNERGEX

Page 294
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
(RBlanchet @innergex.com); Colin Murrell (cmurrell@innergex.com); Brian Pat j as (BPat j as@innergex.com)
Tim,
TheAshluCreekHydroProjecthadanoncomplianceeventonFriday,April15,2011.Iapologizeforthedelayed
emailaswehaddownstreamflowgaugedatatransmissionissues.Anoncompliancereportwillbesentalongwith
Ecofishssitereportinthecomingdays.
Matt
Matt Henderson
INNERGEX

Page 295
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; Bennett, Timothy A FLNR:EX; Knight, Francesca;
vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Robert Kulka; Francois Hebert; Richard Blanchet; Colin
Murrell; Brian Patjas; Michel Malette
April 15, 2011
Erin,
Thenoncomplianceeventoccurredat11:04April20,2011.Thereweretwosearches,one
onthedayof(14:30April20,2011),andagainthefollowingmorning(09:37April21,
2011)bothwithin24hoursoftheevent.
Regards,
Matt
MattHenderson
EnvironmentalCoordinator
INNERGEX
Tel:6049848600|Fax:6049848699|www.innergex.com
OriginalMessage
From:Stoddard,ErinMFLNR:EX[mailto:Erin.Stoddard@gov.bc.ca]
To:MattHenderson;Bennett,TimothyAFLNR:EX
Cc:Babakaiff,ScottCFLNR:EX;Knight,Francesca;vince.busto@dfompo.gc.ca;Robert
Kulka;FrancoisHebert;RichardBlanchet;ColinMurrell;BrianPatjas;MichelMalette
Subject:RE:AshluCreekProject(waterfile2001264):Rampingnoncompliancenotification
forApril15,2011
Asthesearchforstrandedanddeadfishoccurredmorethan24hoursaftertheevent,It
can'tbeconfirmedwhetherfishwerestrandedorkilled.Thisshouldhavebeenincluded
intheEcofishmemo.
Erin
________________________________________
From:MattHenderson[MHenderson@innergex.com]
To:Bennett,TimothyAFLNR:EX
Cc:Babakaiff,ScottCFLNR:EX;Stoddard,ErinMFLNR:EX;Knight,Francesca;
vince.busto@dfompo.gc.ca;rkulka@innergex.com;FHebert@innergex.com;
RBlanchet@innergex.com;cmurrell@innergex.com;BPatjas@innergex.com;MichelMalette
forApril15,2011
Tim,
WithregardstothenoncomplianceeventonApril15,2011,pleasefindattachedtothis
emailthefollowing:
Page 296
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
*Ashlu(CreekInvestmentsLimitedPartnership)NonComplianceReport201104
15;
*EcofishResearchLimitedMemorandumApril20,2011;and,
*Plantdataspreadsheet:Ashlu_2011_04_15_FLOW.csv.
Hardcopiesofalloftheaboveexceptforthe.csvspreadsheethavebeenmailedtoyou.
MyApril18,2011notificationemailcanbeseenbelow.
Matt
MattHenderson
[cid:image001.jpg@01CC003D.F6E6D5F0]INNERGEX
Tel:6049848600|Fax:6049848699|www.innergex.com<http://www.innergex.com/>
From:MattHenderson
To:TimBennett(timothy.bennett@gov.bc.ca)
Cc:Babakaiff,Scott;ErinStoddard(erin.stoddard@gov.bc.ca);Knight,Francesca;
vince.busto@dfompo.gc.ca;RobertKulka(rkulka@innergex.com);FrancoisHebert
(FHebert@innergex.com);RichardBlanchet(RBlanchet@innergex.com);ColinMurrell
(cmurrell@innergex.com);BrianPatjas(BPatjas@innergex.com)
forApril15,2011
Tim,
TheAshluCreekHydroProjecthadanoncomplianceeventonFriday,April15,2011.I
apologizeforthedelayedemailaswehaddownstreamflowgaugedatatransmissionissues.
AnoncompliancereportwillbesentalongwithEcofish'ssitereportinthecomingdays.
Matt
MattHenderson
[cid:image001.jpg@01CC003D.F6E6D5F0]INNERGEX
Page 297
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; Knight, Francesca; Bennett, Timothy A FLNR:EX;
vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Robert Kulka; Francois Hebert; Richard Blanchet; Colin
Murrell; Brian Patjas; Michel Malette
April 20, 2011
ThanksfortherequestErin,IwillsenditalongtoEcofishtoday.
Matt
MattHenderson
INNERGEX
Tel:6049848600|Fax:6049848699|www.innergex.com
OriginalMessage
From:Stoddard,ErinMFLNR:EX[mailto:Erin.Stoddard@gov.bc.ca]
To:MattHenderson;Bennett,TimothyAFLNR:EX
Cc:Babakaiff,ScottCFLNR:EX;Knight,Francesca;vince.busto@dfompo.gc.ca;Robert
Kulka;FrancoisHebert;RichardBlanchet;ColinMurrell;BrianPatjas;MichelMalette
forApril20,2011
PleasehaveEcofishprovidetheidentificationofallfishstrandedandkilledtothe
specieslevel,andhavethemconfirmthatalldeadfishwereretainedbythem.
Erin
________________________________________
From:MattHenderson[MHenderson@innergex.com]
Sent:Tuesday,April26,20112:29PM
To:Bennett,TimothyAFLNR:EX
Cc:Babakaiff,ScottCFLNR:EX;Stoddard,ErinMFLNR:EX;Knight,Francesca;
vince.busto@dfompo.gc.ca;rkulka@innergex.com;FHebert@innergex.com;
RBlanchet@innergex.com;cmurrell@innergex.com;BPatjas@innergex.com;MichelMalette
forApril20,2011
Tim,
WithregardstothenoncomplianceeventonApril20,2011,pleasefindattachedtothis
emailthefollowing:
*Ashlu(CreekInvestmentsLimitedPartnership)NonComplianceReport201104
20.pdf;
*EcofishResearchLimitedMemorandumApril25,2011;and,
*Plantdataspreadsheet:Ashlu_April_20_2011_Flow_Ramping.xls.
Hardcopiesofalloftheaboveexceptforthe.xlsspreadsheethavebeenmailedtoyou.
MyApril20,2011notificationemailcanbeseenbelow.
Page 298
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Matt
MattHenderson
[cid:image001.jpg@01CC041D.6A1FE6A0]INNERGEX
From:MattHenderson
To:TimBennett(timothy.bennett@gov.bc.ca)
Cc:Babakaiff,Scott;ErinStoddard(erin.stoddard@gov.bc.ca);Knight,Francesca;
vince.busto@dfompo.gc.ca;RobertKulka(rkulka@innergex.com);FrancoisHebert
(FHebert@innergex.com);RichardBlanchet(RBlanchet@innergex.com);ColinMurrell
(cmurrell@innergex.com);BrianPatjas(BPatjas@innergex.com)
Subject:AshluCreekProject(waterfile2001264):Rampingnoncompliancenotificationfor
April20,2011
Tim,
TheAshluCreekHydroProjecthadanoncomplianceeventtoday,April20,2011at11:06
duetoanunexpectedintakegateclosure.Ecofishcrewsstartedmobilizingforasite
visitjustafter12:00.AnoncompliancereportwillbesentalongwithEcofish'ssite
reportinthecomingdays.
Matt
MattHenderson
[cid:image001.jpg@01CC041D.6A1FE6A0]INNERGEX
Page 299
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 300
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Pages 301 through 308 redacted for the following reasons:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Non responsive
Water licence application for cranberry farm and supporting documentation
Page 309
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 310
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 311
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 312
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S
.

2
2
Page 313
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S
.

2
2
Page 314
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 315
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 316
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S
.

2
2
Page 317
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S
.

2
2
Page 318
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 319
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 320
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 321
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 322
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 323
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 324
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 325
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 326
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 327
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 328
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
Page 329
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:31 PM
To: 'Elyse MacDonald'; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: 'Matthew Henderson'; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; 'Busto, Vince'; 'Knight, Francesca';
'Adam Lewis'
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Ramping Compliance Specifications
Thanks for the prompt response, Elyse.

I dont speak on behalf of all agency reps ccd on your email, but heres my opinion:
The table provided is a good start, but I was expecting that it would also include a column that specifies
actions (with deadlines) to be undertaken by the proponent in the event of exceedance (ie. non-compliance)
of ramping thresholds. For instance: agency notification, data review, inspection of affected reaches to
assess need for application of mitigative prescriptions (e.g. fish salvage), initiation of fish salvage activities,
submission of impact assessment report to agencies. More concisely: the table would reflect & summarize
sections in the OPP which detail these actions.

Scott

Sent : Thursday, January 13, 2011 12: 04 PM
Cc: Mat t hew Henderson; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; 'Bust o, Vince'; 'Knight , Francesca';
'Adam Lewis'
Subj ect : Ashlu Creek Ramping Compliance Specificat ions
GoodafternoonTim,
Attachedpleasefindourmemoincludingthetableofcompliancespecificationsrequestedatthe11Janmeeting
withInnergex.YourequestedthistabletosupportanextensionoftheLeavetoCommissionfortheAshluCreek
HydroelectricProject.
Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcernsorifyourequirefurtherinformationtocompletethis
extension.
Regards,




Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163; Cell: 604-785-6726

Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Page 330
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Page 331
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 5:46 PM
To: 'Robert Kulka'; 'mhenderson@innergex.com'; 'Richard Blanchet'
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; 'Busto, Vince'; 'Knight,
Francesca'; 'Richard Blanchet'
Subject: RE: Outstanding information requirements - Ashlu IPP Leave to Commence Operations
(water file 2001264)
HiRobert,Matt,Richard:
Ihavebeenunabletoaccessthespecifiedfiles(i.e.,OPPappendicesandotherattachments)onyourftpsite(asthe
AshluOPPRfolderdoesntappeartobethere?).Couldyoupleasedoublecheckthesiteandreuploadthe
information?
IneedtoseealltheattachmentsfortheOPPR.
Also,couldyoupleaseemailmyself,ScottandErinwiththeEcofishsummaryletteronramping(asIhadrequested
inmyearlieremailreextendedcommissioning)?Couldyoupleaseconfirmthatthisletteristherampingletter
referredtobyAdaminourmeetingonTuesday?
Thanks!
SectionHead,WaterAllocation(SouthCoastRegion)
MinistryofNaturalResourceOperations
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

Sent : Monday, December 6, 2010 6: 53 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca; Richard Blanchet
Subj ect : RE: Out st anding informat ion requirement s - Ashlu I PP Leave t o Commence Operat ions (wat er file 2001264)
I mpor t ance: High

HelloTim,
PleasefindattachedtherevisedOPPR,RevisionBdraftforyourreview.T
dthenonthefollowingftpsitefordownload
ThefolderAshluOPPRcontainsallfilesincludingtheappendicesinsubfolders.The
optionincludesubfoldersmustbecheckedwhengoingthroughthedownloadprocess.Intotalthisshouldtake
notmorethan3minutes.Pleaseadvisewhenthedownloadhasbeencompletedandifyourequireanyhardcopies
atthisstage.

WeincorporatedthechangesrequestedasperyouremailfromAugust9.Ihavealsoinsertedseveralfiguresto
betterdescribethedesignparametersandtheoperationoffeaturesrelevanttothecontrolofwater(e.g.Figure4
combinestheheadpondlevelsandshowsthoserelativetoelevationsofintake,IFR,sluiceway,etc.,therefore
allowingthereadertoseewhatstructuresandinletsaresubmergedatwhatheadpondelevations).TheOPPR
confirmsthatdevelopmentofflowdischargecurvesforIFRisinaccordancetoLWBCHydrometricGuidelinesand
providesthecalibrationreportoftheIFRgateasanappendix.Ifurtherprovidemoredetailsandsummaryof
monitoringandreportinginSection5,includingprovisionofthecalibrationtabledevelopedbyNorthwest
HydraulicsfortheIFRgateopeningvs.netheadatrequiredminimumIFRflow.Additionalinformationinclude
overviewmapsandtableofallflowmonitoringandrampingmonitoringstationsandtheirrespectivedatarecording
Page 332
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 21
S. 21
2
andbackupfrequencies.UnfortunatelyFigure5ProjectOverviewwithmonitoringstationsdoesnotshowwellin
thescaleprovidedandIwillturnitintoa11x17foldoutdrawingforthefinalissuanceofthisdocumentafteragency
acceptance.
AsperourdiscussionlastweekIwasnotabletofinishthesectionabouttunnelflushingafterdewatering.Sincethis
isaeventwithanexpectedreturnperiodof5yearsorlessfrequently,weaskMoEtoacceptalatercompletionof
thissectionwithoutimpactontheissuanceofaLeavetoCommenceOperation.Further,thesectionaboutramping
issubjecttothefindingsofthependingrampingstudy.Inlieuoftherampingstudy,asummaryletterfromAdam
Lewishasbeenincludedinthecorrespondingappendix.
WetrustthattherevisedOPPR,RevisionBDRAFTmeetsMoEsrequirementstoallowissuanceofaLeaveto
CommenceOperation,eitherinterimorfinal.Iwillcallyoutomorrowtodiscussthepathforward.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

Sent : Tuesday, November 09, 2010 4: 58 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca
Subj ect : FW: Out st anding informat ion requirement s - Ashlu I PP Leave t o Commence Operat ions (wat er file
2001264)

HiRichard,Robert:
Inadvanceoftomorrowsmeeting, Icanresummarizethat theoutstandinginformation andactionsitems
withrespecttotheAshluIPP(andLeavetocommenceoperations)include:
1) MoEacceptanceoftheIFRvalue
2) SubmissionandacceptanceoftheOEMPandBaselinedata
3) SubmissionandacceptanceoftheOPPR
4) Rampingstudy
Thefirstthreeitems(andfurtherdetails)werediscussedinpreviousmeetings,andprovidedwithsome
detailinmyemailofAugust9,2010(textinsertedbelow). Noinformationorreportsappeartohave
beenprovided todate, inresponseto MoEspreviouscomments.
Thelatteritem (rampingstudy)doesnotappeartohavebeencompleted,andisacomponentofthe
OPPR. TheOPPRmustinclude aspecified,andappropriate,rampingrate (e.g.,whetherdefaultDFO
Page 333
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
valuesorrefinedvalue,basedonappropriatestudy) toensurethatfuturestrandingevents(e.g.,repeats
ofMay8,etc)donotoccur.
ScottandErin canelaborateontheoutstandingtechnicalissues duringtheAshludiscussion,tomorrow
morning andwecanfurtherdiscussnextsteps(i.e., schedulingand whatinformationInnergexmust
provideintheimmediatefuture,inordertoobtainatleastaninterimLeaveandcontinueanydiversionof
wateroroperations), onceIcallin(after10:30am).
Regards,
SectionHead,WaterAllocation (SouthCoastRegion)
10470152 Street,Surrey,BCV3R0Y3
Ph.(604)5825227 Fx.(604)5825235

___________________________________________________________
... priortoissuanceofaLeave(interim,orotherwise),thefollowingissuesmustbesatisfactorily
addressed:
(1) MoEacceptanceofanIFRvalue
a. TheEcofishbaselinedatareportreferencedthepresenceofmultiplefishspeciesthatwerenot
previouslyconsideredtobepresentwithinthediversionreach.MoEandDFObiologistshaveexpressed
concernregardingtheirpresence,andraisedconcernsthatthecurrentIFRvalue(asauthorizedbyDFO,
butnotyetformallyacceptedbyMoE)doesnotconsiderthosespecies(i.e.,maynotbeadequatefor
thosespecies).
b. Clause(i)(1)ofyourwaterlicence(C102203)requiresthattheplantbeoperatedinaccordancewitha
minimumIFRthatisorderedorapprovedbytheRegionalWaterManager(orAssistantRegionalWater
Manager).MoEhasnotcurrentlyacceptedororderedaminimumIFRvalue,orinterimIFRvalue,for
operations.
c. PleasehaveEcofishprovidearesponsetotheconcernsraisedabove(item1a).Thisresponsemust
provideasubstantiatedopinionastowhetherthecurrentIFRvaluesareadequateforallfishspecies
present,andifnotproviderecommendationsforanappropriateinterim,conservativeIFRvalueand/or
seasonalIFRvalues(whichmayberefined/revisedatalaterdate,i.e.,uponcompletionoffurtherstudy
andpriortoissuanceofafinalLeave),andbesignedbyanRPBio.
(2) SubmissionofsatisfactoryOEMPandbaselinedatareports
a. ThefollowingcommentswereparaphraseddirectlyfromcommentsfromScott/ESDre:thebaseline
andOEMP.
thereportsareconsideredtorepresentasignificantamountoffield&officeworkundertaken
byEcofishResearchLtd.staffinarelativelyshortamountoftime,andtakelargestepstowardsaproduct
thatIwouldconsiderasreasonableandacceptabletoagencies,butitisnotedthattherelativelyscant
effortsundertakenbytheproponentpre2010regardingcollection&analysisofbaselinedatahave
resultedinaconsiderableinformationvacuum.
Page 334
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
theBaselineReportmakesreferencetothevariousratingcurves&hydrometricanalyses
undertakenforthestreamgauges,butdoesincludethedata.Thisinformationisrequestedtoensurethat
thestreamgaugenetworkinstalled&maintainedbytheproponentwillbeadequatetoverifycompliance
withwaterlicenseconditions(e.g.IFR,rampingrates,etc.).
TheOEMPdoesareasonablycompletejobofhighlightinginformationgaps,andproposes
reasonablestrategiestoaddressthesegaps.However,someproposedstrategiesshouldbeelucidatedin
greaterdetail(e.g.methods&deadlines)toprovidereviewagencieswithareasonableassurancethat
projectrelatedimpactsmaybequantitativelyresolved,withobjectivethresholdsforcompliance.This
wouldtypicallybeprovidedintheformofapoweranalysis,buttheproposedstudydesignframework
("mixedBACI&RCA"forfishcommunitymonitoring)maynoteasilylenditselftosuchanapproach;
perhapsamockupwithsyntheticdatawouldprovidesomeclarityonthestudydesigndetails,andcould
provideassurancethatanadequatebaselinedatasethasbeencollected&analyzed.Otheraspects
oftheOEMPwouldalsobenefitfromadditionaldetail:
1. Hydrometricinformation(ie.streamgauges,ratingcurves,datasampling/averaging/downloading
details);
2. Streamchannelmorphology:surveydata(ie.crosssections&thalwegprofiles)andairphotosmust
beadequatelydetailstoallowhydropoweroperationsrelatedchangesinbedelevationorchannelpattern
toberesolved:detailprovidedintheOEMP(andTable11)doesnotallowconsiderationoftheprogram's
adequacytomeettheseneeds;
3. ModificationoftheIFRto"keepthespiilwaywetted"andtheassociatedassessmentofitsadequacy
topreventfishstrandingonthespillway;
4. Rampingrateassessment,andtheassociatedcompliancemonitoringdetailstobeintegratedintothe
OPP.
b. PleaseaskEcofishtoreviewandprovideresponsesandadditionalinformationbasedonScotts
comments,i.e.,
o Pleaseprovideapoweranalysesoralternatemockupwithsyntheticdata,whichallowsforan
assessmentoftheabilityoftheprogramtoquantitativelyresolveimpacts;
o providetherequestedinformation(e.g.,items1through4)[somecomponentsofthis
informationwillbereiteratedintheOPPdiscussionbelow]
(3) SubmissionofasatisfactoryOPP
a. TheOPPmustclearlyoutlineaoperatingrequirementsandparameters(e.g.,asrequiredbypermits,
etc..),providedetailsonhowtheplantwillbeoperatedtomeetthoserequirementsandwhatmonitoring
andreportingwillbeundertakentoconfirmcompliance.
b. NotethatyouwillberequiredtoadheretothedetailedconditionsoftheOPP,asaconditionofany
interimleaveand/oranOrder.Assuch,allattachments,figureandappendicesmustbeincludedfor
reviewandacceptance.
c. AfterreviewofthedraftOPP,thefollowingcommentsarenoted:
o Section1.2.1:providemoredetailaboutspillwaye.g.,toreflecthow/thatithasbeen
modifiedtoensurespillwayflowsandpreventfishstranding?
Page 335
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
o Section1.2.2.:shouldreflectthatthestation(s)arebothforIFRconfirmationandrampingrate
confirmation(hereorsubsequentsections,e.g.,5.1,statedbelow,providemoredetailaroundIFRand
rampingratemonitoringmethodologyi.e.,measurement/recordingfrequency,ratingcurve
establishment/maintenance,reporting,etc..).
o Section2.2.1:mustreflectanacceptedinterimIFRvalue(tobedeterminedbasedonresponses
toitem1aabove),whichisrequiredbythewaterlicenceandwillbeorderedbyMoE
o Section2.2.2:mustspecifythatMoEisrequiringaninterimmaximumrampingrateasperDFO
guidance(e.g.,2.5cm/hror5cm/hrasappropriate),andthismayonlybereviseduponcompletionofa
satisfactoryrampingratestudyandafteracceptancebyMoE.Wordingandoperationsshouldberevised
toreflectadherencetothisrequirement(e.g.,doublecheckdurationsinlatterparagraphs)
o Section2:shouldbeexpandedtodocumentoperating/environmentalrequirementstoensure
adequatefishpassagevialadder(i.e.,forallspeciesandappropriatetimesofyear,suchasyearround
givenrecent/baselinefishobservations),andnofishstrandinginspillway(obermeyeroperationand
spillwayflows)andassociatedfishstranding/monitoringtopreventstrandingatanyperiodsoftimeduring
ayear.
o Section3:could/shouldbeexpandedasappropriatetodocumentobermeyerweir/gate
operation(e.g.,partlyopen/deflated?,releasingXflows)toensurespillwayremainswetted,tominimize
potentialforfishstranding,monitoringundertakenandfollowupsalvage/activitiesasappropriate.
o Section3.2:ifnotspecifiedexplicitlywithinthissection,mustincludethedetailedheadpond
andwaterconveyancesystemfillinganddrainingprocedurewithintheAppendix.
o Section3.3.1.:pleaseprovidetheWaterQualityManagementPlanforreview,withinAppendix
F
o Section3.6:confirmthatspecifiedshutdownflowrampingratesdoactuallycorrespondto(i.e.,
willcomplywith)instreamstagerampingraterequirements.
o Section3.8.2:discusshowthefishladderwillbeoperated,monitoredandmaintainedas
appropriate,checkothersectionsandprovidesufficientdetailonhowIFRflowswillbemaintained(i.e.,if
totalIFRflowisactuallyprovidedbyIFRpipe,fishladder,andobermeyerweir/spillwayflows;howdoes
thisaffectexpectedoperationwherebyIFRisexpectedtobereleasedviaIFRpipeifheadpondlevelsare
maintainedabovecertainelevation,i.e.,Section2.2.1?)
o Section5.1:shouldspecifyandsummarizedetailsonmonitoringundertakentoconfirm
compliancewithIFR,Rampingrates,(yearround)fishpassage,sedimenttransport,andspillwayoperation
(i.e.,monitoringforstrandedfish,undernormaloperatingconditionsandfollowinghigherflowevents
whereadditionalflowsandsubsequentisolatedpocketsofwaterand/orstrandedfishmightbepresent).
Providedetail/maponIFRmonitoringlocations,frequency,etc..(realtime=every5seconds?,recorded
andrecordmaintainedforwhatperiod?E.g.,overwritewithinafterxperiodoftime?).Itisreiteratedthat
thissectionmustbedetailedenoughthatMoEcanseeandconcurwithproposedprocedures/monitoring
toachievethespecifiedgoal.
o Section5.5:ThisannualreportingisrequiredoverandaboveOEMPreporting,forthelifeofthe
project,tosummarymonitoringinSection5.1andconfirmcompliancewithregulatoryandpermit
requirements.Itisexpectedthatthissectionwillalsodocumentsubmissionofstagedatatoconfirm
compliancewithrampingraterequirements,andthatMoEwillbenotifiedwithin24hoursofanynon
Page 336
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
complianceofpermitconditionsoroperatingconditionsspecifiedwithinthisOPP(IFR,rampingrate,
inadequatefishpassage,fishstranding,etc..).
d. PleasesubmitarevisedOPPwhichreflectsthesecomments.
Page 337
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Elyse MacDonald [emacdonald@ecofishresearch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:53 AM
Cc: 'Matt Henderson'; 'Adam Lewis'
Subject: Ramping rate calculation
Attachments: image001.jpg; image034.png; image035.png; image036.png; image037.png;
image038.png; image039.png; image040.png; image041.png; image042.png;
image043.png; image044.png; image045.png; image046.png; image047.png;
image048.png; image016.png; image017.jpg
Scott,
InourmeetingwithInnergexonNovember10,weindicatedwewouldprovideyouwithaproposedrationalefor
calculatingrampingrateswhenmeasuringcompliancefortheAshluandFitzsimmonsCreekProjects.Below,please
findapotentialrampingcalculationmethodforyourreview.Pleasereviewandletusknowyourthoughts:please
callifyouhaveanyquestions.
Regards,




Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163; Cell: 604-785-6726

Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Measuring Ramping Rate Violations

The proposed procedure is as follows:
1. The maximum stage observed over the past hour at time t
i
, bmox(t
), should be determined for each

data point according to the following equation:
bmox(t
) = max (b(t
-k
), , b(t
-1
))
where h is stage, k is the number of data points recorded per hour, and t is time,
The maximum stage decrease over the past hour relative to time t
i
is then defined by the equation:
Page 338
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
bmox(t
) = b(t
) -bmox(t
2. For the Innergex projects, the preliminary ramping rate criteria are dependent on the volume of flow.
There are three flow categories for ramping rate criteria:
c
0
between 0 cms and
1
,
c
1
between
1
and
2
, and
no restriction on ramping rates for flows above
2
.
In cases where both bmox(t
) and b(t
) are within the same flow category, exceedances of criteria are

straightforward to determine. However, if b(t

) and bmox
are in separate categories (e.g., b(t

) is in
category c
0
and bmox(t
) is in category c
1
) the criteria may be prorated for each data point by weighting
c
0
by
h(
1
)- h(t
i
)
hmux(t
i
)-h(t
i
)
and weighting c
1
by 1 -
h(
1
)- h(t
i
)
hmux(t
i
)-h(t
i
)
. If there are no ramping criteria for flows at
bmox(t
) then bmox(t
) may be treated as though it is the maximum stage for which criteria exist (in
this example, b(
2
)) with respect to stage and ramping criteria.
3. If the maximum stage change bmox(t
) exceeds the ramping criterion (e.g. 2.5 cm), the data are
flagged as a potential ramping event.
4. A mortality event is assumed to occur if the stage remains below bmox(t
) for a critical period, which

is assumed to be the time to asphyxiation. As stated earlier, the time to asphyxiation has been estimated
to be 10 minutes considering both air exposure and the time needed for the substrate to drain (Figure
1). The appropriate duration may be shorter and this can be tested on-site during ramping rate tests.
5. The average stage over some time prior to a down-ramping event may be used to determine the
likelihood of habituation of the affected habitat (we have selected 48 hours as a preliminary level). If the
maximum level associated with the down-ramping exceeds the average stage from the past 48 hours,
then violations will not be flagged (Figure 2). If H is the habituation time, i.e., the time required for
colonization of newly wetted habitat, and n
H
is the number of cases (i.e., the number of stage
measurements) over this period of time, if bmox(t
) o:crogc(b(t
-n
H
), , b(t
-1
)) then a
ramping violation is present.
Figure 1: Stage time series showing violation events calculated using steps 1-4 above.

Figure 2: : Stage time series showing violation events calculated using steps 1-5 above (habituation rule
included).
Page 339
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3

Page 340
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:42 PM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C
ENV:EX
Subject: RE: Comments on Ashlu OPPR and/or any outstanding information requirements (water
file 2001264)
Hi Tim, here are comments RE: Ashlu OPPR:

1. Spillway channel - downstream of Obermeyer: monitoring for fish stranding, etc.

The OEMP and the OPPR don't quite say the same thing:
- the OEMP says that monitoring for fish stranding post-spill over the weir will be scheduled but does not specify
under what circumstances the monitoring will take place, but the OPPR says that ALL post-spill events will be
monitored. My preference? ALL post-spill events are monitored for at least through spring 2011. I am curious as to
what was found through 2010 spill events, which should have been monitored.

I have never been crazy about the fix for the spillway; guess we'll just have to wait and see.

2. Fish ladder monitoring

I am glad to see the OPPR speak to the ladder being operational year-'round . While I support the current PIT tagging
program, I have always wanted a longer-term and more reliable monitoring method other than relying on the plant
operator. A resistivity counter could be considered (cost is about $9,000); it fits the bill nicely.

3. headpond filling

I don't think we can say enough here about the application of caution in the filling of the headpond.The OPPR states
that no more than 10% of ambient inflows can be diverted for filling the headpond; it's great to see that in there. Also,
though, there should be the statement speaking to minimum natural flows, below which the headpond can't be filled.
"Headpond filling shall not be conducted if the natural inflow is less, or expected to be less than, 2.7 cms."

4. penstock water quality (when emptied and then re-filled, with rock in tunnel being exposed to oxygen) - these are
the items that remain outstanding on the draft penstock WQ management plan.

a. I'd like to get a sense of the expected discharge volumes for regular penstock draining and re-filling. I
think it's important to have a sense over time of just how much arsenic is entering surface receiving waters,
particularly given that this system does not have high background arsenic concentrations (virtually not
detectable). In addition, it would give us a sense of the 80 ug/L exposure duration.
b. Further to #1, arsenic does bioaccumulate in aquatic biota, although I don't believe that it biomagnifies
(which is good). However, because it has bioaccumulative properties, could you consider whether a long-
term monitoring indicator might be warranted, that could be looked at say after 3 years, and then maybe
every 5 after that? This indicator might be a composite invertebrate sample; tissue concentrations could then
be compared to literature effect values, for example.
c. I'd like to see a sampling plan for each successive penstock draining-refilling. Maybe we could we
"enshrine" Cascade's station locations, as well as include a sampling protocol for each successive draining
maintenance procedure? Could be worked on with Cascade?
Page 341
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
I spoke to Lee Nikl recently, and I think he is working on finalizing the plan.

Chessy
Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : January 26, 2011 11: 48 AM
To: Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX
Subj ect : Comment s on Ashlu OPPR and/ or any out st anding informat ion requirement s (wat er file 2001264)
HiAll,
ThanksScott,foryourcomments.
Idliketoforwardallofour[combined]comments/editsontheOPPRtoInnergexasap.Ifpossible,couldyouplease
forwardanyOPPcommentsyouhavepriortotheendofdaynextmonday?
Myplanistoforwardonourcomments/questions/editstoInnergexnexttuesday,sotheycanfinalizetheOPPprior
tomyFebruary14
th
deadline.
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

Sent : Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4: 54 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Cc: 'Knight , Francesca'; 'Bust o, Vince'

Tim,

I believe your primary request in my review of the Dec 6 2010 (Revision B) OPPR for Ashlu to
identify any showstoppers to provision of an ILCO with a secondary focus on other deficiencies
which could be addressed via direction in an ILCO. Your commissioning extension letter (J an. 14
2011) indicates that the proponent needs to obtain an accepted Operating and Parameters (OPP)
report, so I understand the urgency involved: we need to respond to the proponent ASAP.

Pot en t ia l s h ows t op p er s p r eviou s ly id en t ified
In my reviews (dated J an. 13 & 14, 2011) of the OPPR, Id identified four potential showstoppers:

Page 342
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
1. Commitment of specific ramping thresholds which meet the default (2.5 cm/ hour) rates in the
absence of a complete ramping study: Elyses table provided earlier today implies that 4 cm/ hr is the
compliance threshold at both gauges (ie. the diversion reach gauge for startup and the downstream
gauge for shutdown); the table indicates that this threshold will allow compliance with the default 2.5
cm/ hour threshold for the fisheries-sensitive site during shutdown (1.95 cm/ hour), b u t n ot d u r i n g
s t a r t u p ( 4 . 12 cm / h ou r ) . I havent seen any reports verifiying that the 4.12 cm/ hour will not strand
fish during start-up...has this professional opinion been provided by Ecofish?

2. Per my email from an hour ago (14:31 on Jan. 13 2011), the table provided by Elyse should be
expanded to include specific commitments by the proponent regarding a ct i on s ( w i t h d ea d li n es ) t o b e
u n d er t a k en b y t h e p r op on en t i n t h e ev en t of ex ceed a n ce ( i e. n on -com p li a n ce) of r a m p i n g
t h r es h old s . For instance: agency notification, data review, inspection of affected reaches to assess need
for application of mitigative prescriptions (e.g. fish salvage), initiation of mitigative activities,
submission of impact assessment report to agencies. I also suggest that the proponent be obligated to
submit regular (weekly?) verification of compliance with ramping & IFR for the period of the ILCO.

3. Details proposed in the latest (Nov. 2010) OPPR regarding f i s h la d d er op er a t i on s and s p i llw a y
a s s es s m en t f or f i s h s t r a n d i n g (per Section 2.2.3 of the OPPR) should be assessed by Erin & Chessy,
with formal comment prior to the ILCO issuance...the protocol outlined in Section 2.2.3 of the OPPR
indicate that they are likely to be implemented during the period of the ILCO, and agency-approved
protocol must be developed ASAP.

4. Reference to appropriate protocol re: t r ea t m en t [& r elea s e] of p en s t ock w a t er i n t h e ev en t
of ex t en d ed s h u t d ow n

Sin ce t h en . . .
Issue #2 has since been addressed via Ecofishs J an.13 2011 Ashlu Creek Ramping Compliance
Specifications report, specifically within Table 1 and Figure 2. These tables & figures should be
included in an updated version of the OPPR; the text of the OPPR will need to edited in several
locations to ensure consistency with the compliance monitoring protocol proposed in Fig. 2 of the
J an. 13 Ecofish report. For instance, in Section 4.0 (Operating Staff), I presume that some
allowance must be made for the folk responsible for the preliminary data review...perhaps within
the blank Section 4.3. Also within Section 5.1.1 (IFR Flow Monitoring), 5.1.2 (Ramping Rate
Monitoring) and 5.5 (Ministry Reporting Requirements).

The other issues/ potential showstoppers listed above remain outstanding, but youve identified
these issues in your commissioning extension letter, and specified conditions intended to mitigate
these OPPR deficiencies (e.g. ongoing EM presence & weekly reporting; in the event of a
prolonged/ extended shut-down during commissioning, the need to obtain Ministry approval prior
to recommencing diversion of water and release of penstock water). I suppose these conditions
could persist beyond the commissioning extension and into an ILCO (until the issues are
addressed to your satisfaction), but Id prefer to have Issue #1 addressed ASAP: your
commissioning extension letter directed the proponent to re-send the Ecofish summary letter
regarding ramping rates, referenced as being in the OPP Appendices in Robert Kulkas e-mail of
December 6, 2010 and/ or an updated letter (professional opinion) from Ecofish regarding the
potential for fish stranding at these ramping rates, but Ive yet to see it.

Id also recommend that Erin/ Francesca provide review of Section 2.2.3 & 3.8.2 of the OPPR to
ensure that that appropriate protocol are in place prior to initiation of rainbow trout migration
(April?).

One final suggested requirement prior to issuance of an ILCO, which is unrelated to the OPPR:
confirmation that the proponent has been compliant with all conditions listed in your J an. 13 2011
commissioning extension. For instance, has the proponent been compliant with conditions (3)
and (4) which require that The Environmental Monitor (EM) must continue in their role of
monitoring environmental impacts and p r ov i d i n g w eek ly EM r ep or t s ...include site
inspections at a minimum of weekly frequency, including on site presence during any high risk
Page 343
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
activities...independent review of stage, diversion and calculated ramping data, and provide a
w eek ly r ep or t w i t h s u p p or t i n g d a t a t o con f i r m com p li a n ce w i t h p r es cr i bed
r a m p i n g r a t es a n d I FR?

Scott

P.S. On a related note, we havent yet been provided the J an 11 2011 meeting minutes from the
Ashlu/ Rutherford portion (Elyse was taking notes for Innergex)...Richard may need a reminder
prompt.

To: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
2001264)
I mpor t ance: High

Incaseyouhadntseenityet.
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

I mpor t ance: High

HelloTim,
dthenonthefollowingftpsitefordownload:
hefolderAshluOPPRcontainsallfilesincludingtheappendicesinsubfolders.The
mustbecheckedwhengoingthroughthedownloadprocess.Intotalthisshouldtake
atthisstage.

acceptance.
Page 344
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 21
S. 21
5
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

2001264)

HiRichard,Robert:
4) Rampingstudy
Page 345
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
Regards,
Ph.(604)5825227 Fx.(604)5825235

___________________________________________________________
addressed:
thosespecies).
operations.
andOEMP.
Page 346
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
7
details);
OPP.
comments,i.e.,
Page 347
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
8
ayear.
F
Page 348
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
9
Page 349
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:20 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; XT:Busto,
Vince DFO EAO:IN; Robert Kulka; Richard Blanchet
Subject: RE: Outstanding items for Leave to Commence Operations: OPP comments (Ashlu IPP -
Water File 2001264)
Tim,
Ashortemailenquiringaboutthecommentsthatyousaidwouldbeprovidedlastweek(yellowhighlightedtextat
endofemail).Inadditiontoitems3and4,couldyoupleaseelaborateontheproposedIFRvalueconcerns(first
yellowhighlightedtextbelow)?
Thankyou,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Tl. 604 984-8600 | Tlc. 604 984-8699 | www.innergex.com

Sent : February-04-11 6: 01 PM
To: Mat t Henderson; Robert Kulka; Richard Blanchet
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; XT: Bust o, Vince DFO EAO: I N
Subj ect : Out st anding it ems for Leave t o Commence Operat ions: OPP comment s (Ashlu I PP - Wat er File 2001264)

HiMatt,Robert,Richard:
Furtherto myemailofJanuary14,2011,and ourrecentmeeting(January11,2011),you arereminded
that yourapprovalfor commissioningactivitiesattheAshlufacility expireson February15,2011;and you
areexpectedto obtainanInterimorfinalLeavetoCommenceOperationsinordertocontinuediversion
anduseofwater.
TheoutstandinginformationandactionsitemswithrespecttotheAshluIPP(andLeavetocommence
operations)include:
1) MoE (nowNRO) acceptanceof anIFRvalue
4) Rampingstudy
Oftheseitems,thefirstthree mustbeaddressedpriortomyissuanceofaLeave.
Page 350
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Withrespectto Item 1, NROhas not completeditsreviewof EcofishsNovember10,2010reportre the
AdequacyofInstreamFlowRegimefortheAshluCreekHydroProject InterimAssessment. However,
basedonpreliminarydiscussions, concernshavebeenraised regarding the adequacyofthe proposedIFR
value(e.g.,forfallspawningofbulltrout).ThisissuemaynotimpactmydecisiontoissueanInterimLeave,
butmustberesolvedpriortomyissuanceofafinalLeaveand thisfall.
Withrespectto Item 2(theOPPR), thefollowingcomments orquestions areprovided:
o Section2.2.2shouldberevisedtoreflect/includeEcofishsJanuary13,2011memorandumre:
rampingratecompliancespecifications,explicitlystatingrampingratecriteria(asbothcms/hrandcm/hr,
atappropriatemeasurementlocations).Thetables&figuresshouldbeincludedandthetextoftheOPPR
editedinseverallocationstoensureconsistencywiththecompliancemonitoringprotocolproposedinFig.
2oftheJan.13Ecofishreport.Forinstance,inSection4.0(OperatingStaff),Ipresumethatsome
allowancemustbemadeforthefolkresponsibleforthepreliminarydatareview...perhapswithinthe
blankSection4.3.AlsowithinSection5.1.1(IFRFlowMonitoring),5.1.2(RampingRateMonitoring)and
5.5(MinistryReportingRequirements).
o Section2.2.3:
a. Fishladderpleasereiteratedescriptionofdatacollection,evaluationetcand/orattachappropriate
OEMPsectionswithinanappendix.
b. Spillwaydownstreamareashouldberevisedtoreflectthatthedownstreamareawillbesurveyed
byaqualifiedfisheriesbiologistaftereveryfloweventthroughthespillwaywithin24hours,andthis
surveywillbeundertakenuntilwrittenapprovalisreceivedfromNROtorelaxthismonitoring
requirement(e.g.,notjustuntilspring2011,asNROwillwanttoseethesurveyresultsandconclusions
priortograntingthisrelaxation).
o PleaseprovideAppendixF
o Section3.2:headpondfillingcouldrevisethissectiontoexplicitlystatethatheadpondfilling
willnotbeconductedifnaturalinflowsarelessthan2.7cms(e.g.,inordertomeetbothmax10%
diversionandIFRcriteria).
o Section3.3:penstockflushingandfillinghavenotseenAppendixG(detailedprocedure).
PleaseprovideAppendixG(detailedfilling/drainingprocedure).Questions:
1. Whatareexpecteddischargevolumesforregularpenstockdrainingandrefilling?>Ithinkit's
importanttohaveasenseovertimeofjusthowmucharsenicisenteringsurfacereceivingwaters,
particularlygiventhatthissystemdoesnothavehighbackgroundarsenicconcentrations(virtuallynot
detectable).Inaddition,itwouldgiveusasenseofthe80ug/Lexposureduration.
2. Itisnotedthatarsenicdoesbioaccumulateinaquaticbiota,althoughIdon'tbelievethatit
biomagnifies.However,becauseithasbioaccumulativeproperties,couldyouconsiderwhetheralong
termmonitoringindicatormightbewarranted,thatcouldbelookedatsayafter3years,andthenmaybe
every5afterthat?Thisindicatormightbeacompositeinvertebratesample;tissueconcentrationscould
thenbecomparedtoliteratureeffectvalues,forexample.
o Whatisthe samplingplanforeachsuccessivepenstockdrainingrefilling?
1. DFO: Maybewecouldwe"enshrine"Cascade'sstationlocations,aswellasincludeasampling
protocolforeachsuccessivedrainingmaintenanceprocedure?CouldbeworkedonwithCascade?
Page 351
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
o Ithasbeennotedthat theroadtothepowerhouse appearstobepartiallyploughedwithaccess
byfourwheeldrivevehicle,but notploughedbeyondthepowerhouse,duringthewinter.Astheabove
describedramping,stranding,fishmortalityand/orfishwayaccessissuescanoccuratanytimeofyear,
andsomeofthemcanbemoredifficulttomanageinthewinter,thisrestrictedaccessshouldbewell
addressedintheOPP,andtheissuesmanagedasbestaspossiblethroughchangesandconfirmationof
efficacies,sothattheneedforimmediateaccessbytheoperatorisminimized
o Ecofishand others,onInnergexbehalf,hascompletedasubstantialamountofworktoaddress
theissuesidentifiedabove,andhasconfirmedthattheywouldbeaddressedintheOEMP. Asabove,that
workandtheactionstoaddresstheissues should bemirroredintheOPP.
PleaserevisetheOPPtoaddressorreflectthesecomments/questions.
Also,I amrequestingthatyou resendpreviouslyreferencedreport(s)(Ecofish) tosupport/justify
proposedrampingcriteria(1.5cms/hr,correspondingto approx 4cm/hr at sensitivesites);and
justificationforaninstantaneousexceedanceof1.5timestherampingratecriteria.
<<Ongoing Commissioning - Ashlu facility (Water file 2001264)>>
Finally,Iwillforwardadditionalcommentswithrespecttoitems3and4nextweek.
Pleasedonthesitatetocontactmeifyouhaveanyquestionsorwishany clarification.
Regards,
Ph.(604)5825227 Fx.(604)5825235

Page 352
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 4:26 PM
Cc: 'Busto, Vince'; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; 'Knight,
Francesca'; 'Adam Lewis'; 'Matt Henderson'; rkulka@innergex.com
Subject: Ashlu Creek - Interim Fish Community Monitoring Report
Attachments: image001.jpg; Ashlu_Creek_Hydro_-_Fish_Com__Interim__Monitoring_Report_Final
with Appendices.pdf
GoodafternoonTim,
AttachedpleasefindtheAshluCreekInterimFishCommunityMonitoringReport,perourpreviousagencymeetings
withInnergex.
ThisissubmittedonbehalfofInnergex,withtheirapproval.
Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcerns.
KindRegards,




Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163; Cell: 604-785-6726

Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Page 353
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Henderson
FILE: 1112-05.12
RE: Ashlu Creek unplanned ramping event for April 15 and 16, 2011
This memo describes the water level observations made following an unplanned ramping events
which occurred at the Ashlu Creek run-of-river hydroelectric Project (Squamish, BC) on April 15
and April 16, 2011. Ecofish Research Ltd. (Ecofish) observed a potential ramping incident during
routine review of the data from the Ashlu Creek gauge downstream of the powerhouse (ASU-
DSLG01) and notified Ashlu Creek Investments Limited Partnership (ACILP) on the morning of
April 16, 2011 that a potential ramping incident had been observed. Analysis of DSLG01 confirmed
a non-compliance with the approved 4.0 cm/hr ramping rate. Analysis of the IFR gauge (ASU-
IFR01), located approximately 200 m downstream of the intake weir, confirmed all ramping was in
compliance in the diversion on April 15 and 16.
The April 15 non-compliance event occurred between 15:38 hrs and 16:52 hrs. The stage decreased
by 5.5 cm in 74 minutes, and a stage change of -4.8 cm was recorded within one hour (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Stage at ASU-DSLG01 gauge between 06:00 and 18:00 on April 15, 2011.

Page 354
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Between 15:00 hrs and 18:30 hrs on April 15, a startup event was observed as the plant resumed
operation, causing the stage at IFR01 to drop by 2.0 cm in 118 minutes (Figure 2). These changes in
stage are in compliance with the ramping criteria of -4.0 cm/hr.
Figure 2. Stage at ASU-IFR01 gauge between 10:00 and 23:00 on April 15, 2011.

Upon confirmation of the non-compliance event, crews were mobilized in the morning of April 16
to search two, established downstream sites (ASU-DSSD04 and DSSD05) as well as two, established
diversion sites (ASU-DVSD01 and DVSD02), as a conservative measure, as the satellite uplink had
not yet completed and another ramping event in the early morning of April 16 was apparent but not
yet complete for evaluation.
Once the satellite data for ASU-DSLG01 was available, stage changes for April 16 were observed
between 8:44 - 10:00 hrs and included both stage increases, which would reflect stage decreases in
the diversion, and stage increases. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the changes in stage at the ASU-
IFR01 and ASU-DSLG01 gauges respectively. Analysis of the data from ASU-IFR01 and ASU-
DSLG01 showed these stage changes were in compliance with the criteria of -4 cm/hr.

0.375
0.380
0.385
0.390
0.395
0.400
0.405
0.410
10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
S
t
a
g
e

(
m
)

ASU-IFR01 15-Apr-11
Page 355
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Figure 3. Stage at ASU-IFR01 between 06:00 and 18:00 on April 16, 2011.

Figure 4. Stage at ASU-DSLG01 between 06:00 and 18:00 on April 16, 2011.

Page 356
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

events on April 15 and 16, 2011.
ramping events on April 15 and 16, 2011.

In response to the ramping event on April 15, crews mobilized and were onsite to monitor potential
fish stranding on April 16, 2011, one day after the ramping event occurred. A hand-based search
was conducted at the previously established sites in the downstream reach (DSSD04 and DSSD05)
and in the diversion reach (DVSD01 and DVSD02) between 16:25 hrs and 18:00 hrs.
In the downstream reach, an approximate area of 100 m
2
of the stream margin was broadly (visually)
searched for 50 min at DSSD04 and a 90 m
2
area was broadly searched for 60 min at DSSD05.
Hand searching of hot spots was completed at DSSD04 and DSSD05 with a total hotspot area for
both sites of 14 m
2
. In the diversion reach, broad based searches were conducted for an area of 283
m
2
at DVSD01 for 65 minutes. Broad based searches were conducted at DVSD01 over 319 m
2
for
a total of 50 min. Hot spot searches were also completed for a total area of 368.3 m
2
for both sites
was
,
as well as in water along the shore up to 20 cm in depth.
No stranded or isolated fish were found in any of the searches for the four sites.
Yours truly,

Compliance
Point
Start Time
(PDT)
End Time
(PDT)
Duration (Hours) Stage Start
(cm)
Stage
End
(cm)
Total Stage
Change
(cm)*
Hourly Stage
Change (cm
in one hour)
Non-
Compliance
Discharge
Start
(cms)
Discharge
End (cms)
ASU-DSLG01 15-Apr 15:38 15-Apr 16:52 01:14 88.1 82.6 -5.5 -4.8 Yes 9.5 7.6
ASU-DSLG01 16-Apr 08:44 16-Apr 09:04 00:20 86.3 84.4 -1.9 -2.3 No 8.8 8.1
ASU-IFR01 15-Apr 18:02 15-Apr 20:00 01:58 40.9 38.9 -2.0 -1.5 No 3.3 2.7
Page 357
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Mike Nelson
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; gsteeves@ameresco.com

Hi Mike,

We've received inquiries regarding whether Ashlu is releasing its IFR requirement.

Can you (or George) please confirm if you are aware of any non-compliances with the IFR requirement (i.e., dates
when the plant may not have been releasing the required flows)?

Also, can you please confirm the status of the plant? I understand it still undergoing commissioning (via George's
latest extension), but how often are either of you or delegates onsite to monitor this?

thanks,

Tim Bennett

Sent : Thu 25/ 03/ 2010 11: 50 AM
Subj ect : FW: 413 Ashlu wat er qualit y result s
Dontknowifyouhavebeengettingthischainornotyournamewasspelledwrongtoomanymms

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
From: Mike Nelson

Sent : March-25-10 9: 52 AM
To: 'Knight , Francesca'; t immot hy.bennet t @gov.bc.ca; gst eeves@ameresco.com; Nikl, Lee
Cc: Christ ine Becker; Bust o, Vince; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; 'Robert Kulka'
Subj ect : RE: 413 Ashlu wat er qualit y result s
Chessy,,
Furthertoourphoneconversationthismorning,pleasefindattachedthewaterqualitymeasurementstakenfrom
thedischargeofthetunnel,andfromtheroadsideditch(intowhichthedischargeflowedatthetimeofsampling).
Basedontheseresults(arsenicconcentrationof15.6ppb(total)and14.6ppb(dissolved))andourconversation,I
haveadvisedRobertKulkathathecanresumedischargingthetunnelseepagewaterintotheditch.Waterquality
sampleswillbetakenthisafternoon,tomorrowmorning,andonMondaytoconfirmarseniclevels.Inaddition,
InnergexwillinstallaboardtodirectthetributaryflowsintothemainflowsoftheAshlu,awayfromtheshallow
rifflealongtherightbank.Thistemporarymeasurewillberemovedwhenthetunnelseepagedischargeceasein7
10days.
WaterQualitysampleswerealsotakenyesterdayfromthetailrace,wherethetunnelseepagehasbeendirected
sinceTuesday.Theresultsexpectedtomorrow.Ifthearseniclevelsarelessthan50ppb,thentheestablished
Page 358
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
protocolwillbeusedfordisposal;ifthearsenicconcentrationsarehigherthan50pbb,thenanappropriatedisposal
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904

To: Mike Nelson; t immot hy.bennet t @gov.bc.ca; gst eeves@ameresco.com; Nikl, Lee
Cc: Christ ine Becker; Bust o, Vince; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627
Hello everyone,
Mike, thanks for taking the lead on reviewing the guidance in the water quality protocol... what you are citing below
is my recollection. Given that the dissolved concentration is so high, and that this period of discharge coincides with
fry emergence, I think the best course of action is to halt the discharge until Lee has a chance to work up a rationale /
plan for handling this water. This may include some tox testing (rainbow trout and Daphnid, for example). I have no
way of knowing what the total quantity of water for discharge would be, but Lee will be able to get a handle on that
through talking with Robert and Mike. Let me know how you want to proceed.
Chessy

Sent : March 22, 2010 5: 03 PM
To: t immot hy.bennet t @gov.bc.ca; gst eeves@ameresco.com; Knight , Francesca
Cc: Christ ine Becker
Timetal.,
DuringthecommissioningexercisesattheirAshlufacility,Innergexhasbeenexperiencingsomeissueswithmaterial
inthetunnelbecomingmobilized.Theyhavedrainedthetunneltoinspectitandarereleasingtheapproximately10
l/sofwaterseepingfromthetunnelintotheroadsideditch(about300minlength)thateventuallyflowsintoa
tributaryoftheAshluandthentheAshluitself.Watersamplescollectedlastweek,andreportedtodayindicatethat
arseniclevelsareelevated(0.085mg/ldissolvedand0.097mg/total)intheseepagewaters.TheGolderwater
qualitymanagementplantodealwiththisissues(November8,2009),calledfora0.050mg/l(50ug/l)tobeadopted
asthemaximumdischargeconcentration.Italsostatesthatintheeventthatthereareminorexceedancesofthe
50ug/ltotalarseniclimit,thedissolvedarsenicconcentrationsshouldbeevaluatedbyaqualifiedprofessional(QP)
Page 359
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
todetermineifthearsenicconcentrationobservedisappropriatefordischarge.Asthe50ug/llevelisbeing
exceeded,wehavesuggestedtoInnergexthattheseepageshouldbecontaineduntilfurtherwaterqualitysampling
showstheconcentrationshavedroppedtothisvalue,oruntiltheyhavethewaterqualityresultsevaluatedbyLee
NiklofGolder(orotherQPtheyretain).NotethatRobertKulka(Innergex)hasspokentoLeeNiklaboutthismatter,
butasofyetIhavenotreceivedanythinginwritingfromLee(likelytomorrow).
Atpresentthewaterisnotbeingcontained,andisflowingasstatedabove;Innergexarereluctanttocollectthe
watersinthetailrace,asthetailraceisbeingusedtoventilatetheongoingworksinthetunnel.Theseepagewaters
maynotbeanissue,however,astheAshlusdischargeisnowapproximately15cms,whichwouldamounttoa
dilutionratioofabout1,500to1.Ifyouwouldlikeustotakefurtherstepsatthistime,pleaseadvise.
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
From: Christ ine Becker

Sent : March-22-10 12: 43 PM
To: 'Robert Kulka'
Cc: Mike Nelson; 'Knight , Francesca'
Subj ect : 413 Ashlu wat er qualit y result s
HiRobert,
InmylastemailIattachedthesedimentpondsamplingresultsaswellasthewaterqualityresultsforthetunnel
seepageattheportal.Ihavereviewedthewaterqualityresultsfromtheportalditchanditlookslikethereisan
issuewithdissolvedarsenic(0.085mg/L),whichexceedstheWQguidelinesof0.005mg/L.Irepeatedthesampling
lastweektoincludealocationattheoutletoftheditchaswellasahydrocarbonanalysis.
Iwouldstronglysuggestthatyoupumptheseepagetoacontainedlocationuntilwereceivethemostrecentsample
results(expectedthisweek)topreventelevatedarseniclevelsfromreachingAshluCreek.Chessy,doyouhaveany
furthercommentsatthistime?
Regards,
CHRISTINE BECKER (NEE CUNLIFFE). B.SC., B.I.T.

TEL: 604 815-0901 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 360
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: 'Knight, Francesca'; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: 'Busto, Vince'; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Tim&Francesca,
Erin

Commissioning

C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 5, 2010 3: 36 PM
Commissioning
Tim,

Page 361
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2




detail.

Scott


South Coast Region
Surrey, BC, V3R 0Y3
604-930-7121

Commissioning

HelloTim:
Regards,Adam
Page 362
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3




Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163


Commissioning
I mpor t ance: High

Hi Richard,





Regards,

Tim Bennet t

Sent : Mon 26/ 04/ 2010 9: 56 AM
Page 363
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
DearTim,



Bestregards

Richard

__________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855

Page 364
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Stoddard, Erin M
ENV:EX
Subject: RE: Ashlu IPP Conference Call (May 11, 3:30 - 4 pm)

Sent : May 10, 2010 4: 33 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu I PP Conference Call (May 11, 3: 30 - 4 pm)


To: 'Bust o, Vince'; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; 'Knight , Francesca'; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Subj ect : Ashlu I PP Conference Call (May 11, 3: 30 - 4 pm)

Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

To: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX
Cc: Willcox, Michael ENV: EX

Sorry, I'm a few e-mails behind.
3:30 p.m. works for me

Page 365
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
S. 22
S22
2


Sent: Mon 5/10/2010 4:09 PM
To: Knight, Francesca; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX
Cc: Willcox, Michael ENV:EX

Let's go with 3:30 PM tomorrow afternoon.

If there is a boardroom available at Annacis, howsabout Erin & I come there for some face-to-face action.

Tim can be the lone voice on the telephone, offering wisdom & suggesting assignments

From: Knight, Francesca [mailto:Francesca.Knight@dfo-mpo.gc.ca]
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Willcox, Michael
ENV:EX

Hi gang, I can make any of those times work... closer to 9 is better for me, if we go with morning, because of the drive from
Squamish to Annacis,

C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

________________________________

From: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX [mailto:Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca]
Page 366
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
3
Sent: May 10, 2010 3:47 PM
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Knight, Francesca; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Willcox, Michael ENV:EX

Hi all,

Am swamped as usual - and only available between 8:30-9:30 am; noon-1 pm; and between 3:30-4:00 pm.

FYI, other enforcement possibility = recind commissioning leave if matter not addressed promptly.

Timothy Bennett, M.Sc., P.Eng.

Section Head, Water Allocation
Water Stewardship Division
10470 - 152 Street, Surrey, BC V3R 0Y3
Ph. (604) 582-5227 Fx. (604) 582-5235

To: 'Busto, Vince'; 'Knight, Francesca'; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Willcox, Michael ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: Barrett, Scott ENV:EX

Works for me.

From: Busto, Vince [mailto:Vince.Busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca]
To: Knight, Francesca; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Willcox, Michael ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: Barrett, Scott ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX

Erin, Scott, Tim


Habitat and Hydrotechnical Engineer | Ingnieur de l'habitat et de l'hydrotechnique

Page 367
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4

Sent: Mon 5/10/2010 3:30 PM

this site in particular, the operator/project manager has everything to do with the success or failure

We would have to ask Mike how many times he (or anyone from Cascade) has directe the spillway and fish
ladder issues. That is not apparent from the report. I don't know if the blame lies more oes not provide strong
included in the long-term monitoring (and I suppose); maybe the fish ladder monitoring is considered
part of operation, and not commissioning. lure at a critical time of year.

exactly how many times Cascade has to fix the spillway channel, as well, to get the fish ladder in good working
order, and then monitor its success. That seems like step 1.

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

________________________________

Sent: May 10, 2010 11:16 AM
Importance: High

Page 368
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 13, S. 16, S22
S. 13, S. 16, S22
S16, S13, S22
S22, S16
S22, S16
S22, S16
S16, S22, S13
5

standards.




further.

Erin



2001264 - Ashlu


_____________________________________________


2001264 - Ashlu

Page 369
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6



|


|


|

FEBEA5E39E1C&ID=42>


Page 370
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Cc: Knight, Francesca; vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff,
Scott C ENV:EX; Adam Lewis; mnelson@cerg.ca; Richard Blanchet; Francois Hebert;
Brian Patjas
Attachments: Letter to R Kulka re Ashlu IPP spillway and fish ladder May 2010.pdf
HelloTim,
AttachedisAdamLewis'letterregardingfishladderimprovementsandfishstranding
downstreamofthediversionchannelObermeyergates.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600*Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
OriginalMessage
Importance:High
HiRobert,
including:
Page 371
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
stranding;and,
entrance.
Page 372
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Regards,
TimBennett,P.Eng.,
Page 373
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2010 4:06 PM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Robert Kulka
Cc: Knight, Francesca; Busto, Vince; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX;
Brian Patjas; Francois Hebert
Attachments: 100601 Fish Ladder As-Built.pdf
Attachedpleasefindthemonitoring/asbuiltreportfortheAshlufishladder.
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
From: Mike Nelson

Sent : May-21-10 1: 46 PM
To: 'St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX'; Robert Kulka
Hebert
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
OriginalMessage
Sent:May20103:34PM
Hebert
Importance:High
Page 374
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
OriginalMessage
Sent:Thu5/20/201010:38AM
Mikeetal.,
Scott
To:RobertKulka
Robert,
Page 375
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Sent:May19105:00PM
To:MikeNelson
Mike,
Page 376
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600.Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
To:RobertKulka
BrianPatjas
Robert,
Spider?
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
Page 377
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
From:MikeNelson
Sent:May17102:48PM
To:'RobertKulka'
Vince
Robert,
drawingslookpretty.
Cheers,
MikeNelson,R.P.Bio.
Principal
TEL:6048150901|CELL:6048159973|FAX:6048150904
Page 378
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:04 PM
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX;
Busto, Vince
Cc: Adam Lewis; Robert Kulka
Subject: Ashlu OEMP comments
Hello everyone, here are some quick comments on the Ashlu OEMP, in preparation for this week's meeting.

1. page 6 and throughout: I think for the most part ERL has reconciled the DFO/Lewis and Harwood monitoring
guidelines with the Fisheries Act S. 35(2) Authorization monitoring requirements, but adding a statement or table to
that effect would be helpful. For example, Gravel and LWD recruitment be included in the evaluation of stream
channel morphology?
2. Ramping rate section: Note that DFO ramping rates (default 2.5 cm/hour, etc) were actually not followed during
various stages of project commissioning. I believe this has been documented on more than one occasion by both
MoE and DFO (Cascade Environmental should have these data). The Authorization speaks to ramping as follows:
Ramping rates to be used for start up and shutdown of flow diversions into the water conduit will be determined in
further consultation with DFO and MoE prior to commissioning of the project, and tested and amended during
commissioning of the project.
The proponent has presented information on a ramping rate range of 1.5 to 2 hours based on the natural Creek
ramping rates as well as using DFO methodology.
As far as I know, a ramping rate has yet to be determined. In that case, the default ramping rate of 2.5 cm/hour (fry
present), 5 cm/hour at all other times should have been applied during testing and commissioning activities, but I don't
believe this was always adhered to. Previous iterations of the OEMP spoke to a proposed ramping rate of stage
change per unit time, but of course the appropriateness of this type of ramping rate would be influenced by river stage
and flows on any given day when ramping activities were scheduled. As far I can recall, the conservative DFO
ramping rates have not been observed.
I would really like to see the results of the May 2010 ramping study, even in draft form; I do understand that the
studies will continue for the fall. As well, I was hoping that ERL could add a table for ramping that identifies the
ramping study period for every fish species and life stage, both within the diversion reach and downstream, that could
be affected by operational stage changes.
3. monitoring stream flows: I don't have much to add to whatever Scott's comments will be here, so just a couple of
opinions: I am not keen on abandoning the diversion reach channel gauge anytime soon, once the infrastructure
gauge has been proven accurate. I don't really think that is what ERL is advocating in the short-term, but the
suggestion for the long term makes me a nervous. I would imagine abandoning the diversion reach gauge would only
be done following discussions with MoE and DFO.
4. Footprint verification: while as-builts have been provided to DFO, note that the relevant drawings (e.g., areas of
footprint encroachment into riparian habitats, instream habitats) are included with all other drawings (which are not
relevant to habitat impacts). In other words, we got a big pile of drawings, and in the interest of time, it would be
appreciated if only the drawings relevant to DFO (and MoE?) purposes and approvals are cited and summarized.

5. Reference Condition Approach - I like the suggestion of using the upper Squamish River site as an additional
reference, and I really appreciate the study considerations of target effect size, multiples lines of evidence, etc. The
supplementation of the reference condition data with site specific (e.g., upstream of intake, downstream in the
diversion reach) data should help to reduce the variance (which I like to think of as natural variability, but could
include other factors unrelated to plant operations that influence biological metrics of interest) around a given metric of
interest, thereby increasing the ability to detect changes as a result of plant operations.
Page 379
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
I think it is incredibly unfortunate that the characterization of background is so deficient, but ERL has done a good job
of salvaging the situation and developing a study design that still has the potential to detect plant operational effects
on the aquatic receiving environment. Some specific comments on the proposed study design:
Fish
- I am unclear as to whether the detailed flow and stream channel morphology data will be collected at the upper
Squamish site as well. I think this information is important to ensure that comparisons between various biological
metrics at the Ashlu and upper Squamish are appropriate.
- Fish abundance is to be characterized via 7 metrics, including anadromous spawning and rearing. Any reason why
resident fish spawning and rearing is not also included, or is the relative abundance of various age classes intended
to be a surrogate measure of resident fish spawning success?
- The trend analysis proposed will utilize a 5 year data set. In my experience, it is difficult to conduct such trend
analyses with less than 7 years of data. Essentially, I think that the 5 year monitoring proposed may be too short for
some of the intended analyses. Can ERL speak to this?
- In the section Electrofishing and Snorkelling (section 2.2.1, but should be 2.5.1), a scale or otolith will be collected
from each fish. I think ERL correctly notes that agency discussions could be part of the determination of how many
otoliths to collect. I guess beyond a certain point, otoliths may represent a "nice to have", rather than a "need to
have". When does the knowledge to be gained from otolith collection outweigh the lethality?
- A large number of PIT tags are proposed. Could ERL comment on potential mortality associated with the PIT
tagging? I know it's pretty low, but maybe a brief summary of current literature, as well as any potential for sub-lethal
effects, would be appreciated.
- Fishway and potential downstream movement (outmigration). I think the documented fish presence within the vicinity
of the intake and upstream pretty much confirms that the fishway needs to be operational year 'round. But, I don't
know that much thought has been give to either juvenile outmigration (from above the headpond to habitats
downstream of the headpond, albeit still above fish barriers) or adult movement back downstream of the intake. Can
ERL comment?
- Fish stranding in the Spillway Channel: ERL alludes to my comment above about conducting a literature review of
fish passage mortality through IFR valves, over the Obermeyer, etc. This may help to answer my questions,
particularly if the review is formed around the movement downstream of various size classes. As well, could ERL and
ACILP provide estimates of how the IFR is distributed between the IFR pipe and the Obermeyer weir?

Invertebrates
- You folks all know that I am trying to move the industry away from the idea that stream invertebrates are only
valued/monitored as they contribute to food abundance for fish. ERL does speak to the value of invertebrates as
important indicators of stream health, which is good, but it's more than that. Aside from my personal beliefs that
stream invertebrates have their own intrinsic value, invertebrate data is a very important line of evidence in the
assessment of impacts. At most sites, and at the Ashlu in particular (because of poor baseline characterization), I
believe that the line of evidence approach is the best way to assess type and magnitude of impact. If we rest our
conclusions on any one line of evidence, we may not get the most accurate understanding of how the biological
community responds to an altered flow regime.
- ERL will do genus-level taxonomy on at least one sample from each site (do you mean replicate?), and family level
for the other samples (replicates?). I understand that this will save valuable monitoring dollars, but could you run a
correlation analysis (between the genus level and family level at the same site) to make sure that we are not losing
too much detail by predominately using family-level taxonomy? I would prefer that the Bray-Curtis analysis be done
on genus-level data, but I could be convinced that family-level is perfectly adequate.
- Another positive comment on the proposed study design: I think this study combines the best of the RCA approach
with the added advantage of replication, thereby enabling more relevant data analyses.
stranding
Water Quality
Page 380
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Quick question the report speaks to normalizing WQ data for purposes of conducting ANOVA, bootstrapping, etc
(or other appropriate parametric test). I think this means transformation (e.g., logarithmic) such that the data have a
distribution that is suitable for running a parametric test? I tend to use the word "normalize" in a slightly different way,
for example: standardizing the concentration of a lipophilic contaminant like PCBs to an individual test organism's
lipid content, in order to compare body burdens across a range of organisms.

Formatting: Section numbers and Table numbers need to be corrected (but I am sure you figured that out, Adam), as
well as page numbers added between pages 11 and 41.
The efforts on the part of both ACILP and ERL are acknowledged; I dont want these comments to be interpreted as
an effort to push the limits and advocate for a very expensive monitoring program just because we have the chance to
work with a willing proponent and a capable consulting company. I have worked on other types of environmental
effects monitoring programs for different industries, and I believe that run-of-river hydro effects monitoring still has
some room for improvement. This program, as proposed, has the potential to serve as an excellent model for other
run-of-rive hydro effects monitoring programs.
See you all Wednesday!

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Page 381
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:06 PM
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX;
Busto, Vince
Subject: RE: A few comments on the Ashlu OEMP (June 25 2010 draft) & Environmental Baseline
Report (June 25 2010 draft)
great comments, Scott, thank you. I think the biggest question, and where we might get the most resistance from
Innergex, is the IFR suitability question. When we brought it up at the last meeting, I am sure we made Innergex
nervous. We have sort of informally asked the proponent (through ERL) to review the appropriateness of the IFR for
other fish species that are within the diversion reach or just downstream (and were not accounted for during the initial
calculations for adequate instream flows), but I did not get the sense they are too keen to do that work. Would a future
meeting be the point where the request is re-stated as a requirement for final leave?
C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : July 22, 2010 11: 49 AM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince
Subj ect : A few comment s on t he Ashlu OEMP (June 25 2010 draft ) & Environment al Baseline Report (June 25 2010
draft )
Folks,

As discussed at the meeting last week, I've reviewed the following two reports:
"Ashlu Creek Hydroelectric Project: Environmental Baseline Report, Draft V1.0", completed for
Ashlu Creek Investments Ltd. Partnership by Ecofish Research Ltd., dated June 25 2010, 99
pp. (hereafter referenced as the 'Baseline Report');
"Ashlu Creek Hydropower Project: Operational Environmental Monitoring Report, Draft for Agency
Review V1", completed for Ashlu Creek Investments Ltd. Partnership by Ecofish Research Ltd.,
dated June 25 2010, 59pp (hereafter referenced as the 'OEMP').
Note that this review concentrates on hydrology, stream channel morphology, effects of flow diversion &
IFR on physical channel properties that may affect fish (aka. 'fish habitat'), and monitoring study design).
I'll suggest that reviews pertinent to the living things (e.g. fish, macroinvertebrates & wildlife) be provided
by biologists with DFO and/or MOE.

In general, these reports represent a significant amount of field & office work undertaken by Ecofish
Research Ltd. staff in a relatively short amount of time, and I commend them for their efforts. These two
Page 382
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Ecofish reports take large steps towards a product that I would consider as reasonable and acceptable to
agencies, but it must be clearly understood that the relatively scant efforts undertaken by the proponent pre-
2010 regarding collection & analysis of baseline data have resulted in a considerable information vacuum.

The Baseline Report does an excellent job of summarizing available biological information for the Ashlu
watershed, including an integration with data collection & analysis undetaken in recent months by Ecofish
Research Ltd. My understanding is that the primary aim of this report was to serve as an 'inventory' that
would inform the OEMP. The title of the report ('environmental baseline') implies what this report does not
include: this is not an environmental impact assesment associated with construction & (imminent) operation
of the Ashlu Creek hydroelectric project. As such, the Baseline Report does not include professional
opinion of the likelihood/significance of impacts to aquatic/terrestrial species and their habitats. Although
such expectations may have been outside of the report's original terms of reference, I suggest that it
is essential, given the report findings on the presence of specific fish species (and life stages) in the
diverison reach that were not previously identified. More specifically: the instream flow requirements (IFR)
and associated habitat impact assesment were based on the previous belief that rainbow trout were the only
species of interest, and that their use of the diversion reach was minimal. However, the Baseline Report
concludes that cutthroat trout are also found throughout the diversion reach, and that the Lower Diversion
reach is used for spawning by steelhead & bull trout, and possibly chinook and coho. These are not
insignificant findings, and in my opinion, justify an updated IFR assessment which would follow the
generalized steps specified in Section 4.1.1.10 of Lewis et al. (2004), and would make use of much
information from the Baseline Report (e.g. timing & volume of tributary inflows; fish periodicity chart from
p.57).

A final note regarding the Baseline Report: it makes reference to the various rating curves & hydrometric
analyses undertaken for the stream gauges, but does include the data; I suggest that this information must be
provided to (and reviewed by) agencies prior to issuance of the final Leave to Commence Operations (LCO)
from MOE-WSD. It is essential for agencies to be confident that the stream gauge network installed &
maintained by the proponent will be adequate to verify compliance with water license conditions (e.g. IFR,
ramping rates, etc.).

The OEMP does a reasonably-complete job of highlighting information gaps, and proposes reasonable
strategies to address these gaps. However, I suggest that some proposed strategies should be elucidated in
greater detail (e.g. methods & deadlines) to provide review agencies with a reasonable assurance that
project-related impacts may be quantitatively resolved, with objective thresholds for compliance. This
would typically be provided in the form of a power analysis, but the proposed study design framework
("mixed BACI & RCA" for fish community monitoring) may not easily lend itself to such an approach;
perhaps a mock-up with synthetic data would provide some clarity on the study design details, and could
provide assurance that an adequate baseline data set has been collected & analyzed. Other apsects
of the OEMP would also benefit from additional detail (but #3&4 may be best delivered as stand-alone
reports to be considered by agency staff prior to LCO issuance):
1. Hydrometric information (ie. stream gauges, rating curves, data sampling/averaging/downloading
details);
2. Stream channel morphology: survey data (ie. cross-sections & thalweg profiles) and airphotos must
be adequately details to allow hydropower operations-related changes in bed elevation or channel
pattern to be resolved: detail provided in the OEMP (and Table 11) does not allow consideration of
the program's adequacy to meet these needs;
3. Modification of the IFR to "keep the spiilway wetted" and the associated assessment of its adequacy
to prevent fish stranding on the spillway;
4. Ramping rate assessment, and the associated compliance monitoring details to be integrated into the
OPP.
I suggest that we have a meeting shortly, with an aim to provide clear & consistent guidance to the
proponent. Obviously, some of these review comments may relate directly to other documents produced for
Page 383
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
the decision-making agencies (ie. the OPP; the Fisheries Act Authorization) which will be undergoing
revision in the weeks/months to come.

Scott

To: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; 'Knight , Francesca'; gst eeves@ameresco.com; St oddard,
Erin M ENV: EX; 'Bust o, Vince'

Helloall:

Ihaveresentthebaselinemonitoringreportwithreducedsecuritytoallowprintingathighresolution.Thanksfor
theheadsupScott.




Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163


To: 'Adam Lewis'; 'Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX'; 'Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX'; 'Knight , Francesca';
'gst eeves@ameresco.com'; 'St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX'; 'Bust o, Vince'

Helloall:




Page 384
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4


Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163



HiTim,

OEMPonFriday,June25
th
th
,2010.


Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

Page 385
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2010 7:43 PM
Subject: Ashlu: update on ramping activities
Francesca,
Sep.11/12
Sept.18/19
Sept.25/26
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 386
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
thanks,
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : August 29, 2010 10: 47 AM
All:
Regards
Richard

__________________________
Page 387
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855
Page 388
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 11:12 AM
To: Robert Kulka; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Richard Blanchet
Hi Robert, I wanted to let you know that I have downloaded all the files into our project file.
However, I am concerned about the request to finish the penstock flushing and re-filling protocol at a later date; a final
version of this document has been outstanding for almost a year now, and I don't understand the reason for the
continued delay.
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : December 7, 2010 10: 11 AM
Tim,
TheattachedIFRcalibrationreportshouldhavebeenpartofyesterdayssubmissionandInowuploadeditalsoto
theftpsiteintothefolderforAppendixHDischargeCurves.Myapologiesforthisoversight.
Regards,
Robert

________________________________________

Page 389
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
From: Robert Kulka

To: 'Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX'
I mpor t ance: High

HelloTim,
email,thereforeIhaveplacedthenonthefollowingftpsitefordownload:
atthisstage.

acceptance.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 390
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 21
S. 21
3
2001264)

HiRichard,Robert:
4) Rampingstudy
Regards,
Ph.(604)5825227 Fx.(604)5825235

___________________________________________________________
addressed:
Page 391
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
thosespecies).
operations.
andOEMP.
details);
Page 392
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
OPP.
comments,i.e.,
ayear.
Page 393
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
F
Page 394
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:30 AM
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Richard Blanchet;
Francois Hebert; Brian Patjas; Tony Durand; Colin Murrell
Attachments: Ashlu Dec 5-2010 all data.xlsx; Ashlu Dec 5-2010 graph.pdf; image001.jpg
Francesca,
Regards,
Robert

________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

thanks,
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Page 395
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

I mpor t ance: High
Tim,
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 396
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
A hl i t l l D 05 2010
1 6
Ashlu:rampingvs.waterlevels,Dec05,2010
0.8
0.9
2
4
0.6
0.7
2
0
)
0.5
0.6
6
4
W
a
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
s
(
m
)
R
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
c
m
s
/
h
r
)
0.3
0.4
10
8
R
0.1
0.2
14
12
12/5/2010 0:00 12/5/2010 3:00 12/5/2010 6:00 12/5/2010 9:00 12/5/2010 12:00 12/5/2010 15:00 12/5/2010 18:00 12/5/2010 21:00 12/6/2010 0:00
0 16
12/5/20100:00 12/5/20103:00 12/5/20106:00 12/5/20109:00 12/5/201012:00 12/5/201015:00 12/5/201018:00 12/5/201021:00 12/6/20100:00
Date/Time
effectiveramping Leveld/spowerhouse Leveld/sintake
Page 397
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:00 PM
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Busto, Vince;
Richard Blanchet; Francois Hebert; Brian Patjas; Tony Durand; Colin Murrell
Attachments: Ashlu Dec 5-2010 all data.xlsx; Memo to Kulka - 5-Dec 2010 Ramping Rate
Monitoring.pdf; 2010-12-07 email Non Compliance Note Ashlu.pdf; 2010-12-13 Ashlu non
compliance report.pdf; Ashlu Dec 5-2010 graph.pdf; image004.jpg; image003.jpg
Tim,
AttachedisourfollowupreporttotherampingincidentonDecember5.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________

Phone :604 984. 8600Fax :604 984. 8699

Cell. :778 227. 0434
From: Robert Kulka

Cc: 'St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX'; 'Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX'; 'Knight , Francesca'; 'Bust o, Vince'; Richard Blanchet ;
Francois Hebert ; Brian Pat j as; Tony Durand; Colin Murrell
I mpor t ance: High
Tim,
Regards,
Page 398
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 399
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Robert Kulka
From: Robert Kulka
To: 'Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX'
Cc: 'Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX'; 'Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX'; 'Knight, Francesca'; 'Busto, Vince';
Subject: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Ramping non compliance notification
Importance: High
Tim,
OnSunday,December5,2010at13:47,thedivertedflowof3.21m/secwasrampeddownwithin2minutes,therefore
violatingtherampingrateof1.5m/secperhour.Theplantwasrestartedat15:42andrampedupasprogrammed.
Ecofishhasbeendispatchedtorespondandassessthesituation.Wewillissueafollowupreportwithinoneweekof
theincident.Werecognizethatthisemailnotificationispastthe24hournotificationwindow.Innergexisrevisingits
internalnotificationprotocoltoensurenotificationwithintherequiredtimelines.
indicatedatunnel/penstockcollapsetothePLC.Bothconditionswerenotpresentandthereforefalsealarms.ThePLC
immediatelyclosedtheintakegate,thereforeshuttingoffalldivertedflowandthePLCimmediatelyclosedtheTIVs
withoutopeningtheEDSvalvestoavoidrapiddrainingoftheshaftandtunnel.Rapiddrainingofthesystemwouldhave
likelyleadtoacatastrophicshaftortunnelcollapse.Weareinvestigationwhathasleadtothefalsealarmsandthe
followupreportwillprovidedetailsontheeventandactionstakentopreventthisinthefuture.Environmentalimpacts
willbeassessedbyEcofish.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Tracking:
Page 400
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Recipient Delivery Read
'Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX'
'Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX'
'Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX'
'Knight, Francesca'
'Busto, Vince'
Richard Blanchet Delivered: 12/7/2010 3:09 PM
Francois Hebert Delivered: 12/7/2010 3:09 PM Read: 12/7/2010 3:12 PM
Brian Patjas Delivered: 12/7/2010 3:09 PM
Tony Durand Delivered: 12/7/2010 3:09 PM Read: 12/7/2010 3:16 PM
Colin Murrell Delivered: 12/7/2010 3:09 PM
Page 401
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

December 13, 2010

Ministry of Natural Resource Operations
per mail and email
Re: Ashlu Creek Hydroelectric Project
Non Compliance Report, ramping incident December 5, 2010

Dear Tim;
In accordance with Section 5.5 of the Revision B - DRAFT Operating Parameters and
Procedures Report for the Ashlu Creek Project and following up our notification via email on
December 7, we provide the following non compliance report:

Incident type: ramping rates were exceeded
Date of incident: December 5, 2010
Average daily flow in Ashlu Creek
at point of diversion: 6.0 cms
Average daily flow diverted: 3.2 cms
Average water temperature
d/s of powerhouse: 0.78 degree Celsius
Weather: overcast, rain/snow fall
Observed impact on fish: see enclosed Ecofish report
Observed impact on wildlife: n.a.

Description of incident
The Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) is programmed to react to conditions that indicate a
tunnel or penstock failure by simultaneously a) closing the intake gate and b) shutting off all
flows in the powerhouse without ramping. The second step prevents rapid draining of the tunnel
which has a high potential to cause a catastrophic collapse of the tunnel and penstock. One of
the conditions indicating a failure is a sudden drop in penstock/tunnel pressure. Each of the
three T/G units has one pressure transducer, powered by its respective 24VDC system and
typical pressure readings are approximately 220m. The PLC constantly compares the three
values and disregards one value if it deviates more than 10 meters from the other two values.
This is to prevent operations due to malfunctions of transducer. At the same time the PLC
issues and alarm on the HMI if a false reading is detected.
Page 402
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Page 2

At the time of the incident the generator-turbine system supplier performed planned
maintenance and minor repairs on the system, taking advantage of the relatively low flows and
subsequent shut down of two of three units. At the time of the work one of three T/G units was
operating. As part of standard safety procedures, the two out of operation units were locked-
out, meaning that they were disconnected from sources of power such as hydraulic or electric.
Typically this process does not include low voltage circuits (24VDC and below) since those are
not a safety concern. However, the work included cleaning and labelling of the 24VDC wiring
system, therefore power for those circuits was also cut off by removing a set of fuses.
Disconnecting the transducer power supply results in a reading of 0m of head. The
disconnection of two 24VDC circuits lead to the following events:
When the first T/G unit was disconnected, its transducer reading dropped to 0. The following
information was available to the PLC:
T/G_1 0 meters of head
The PLC identified the reading of T/G_1 as false due to its deviation from the other readings
and the PLC calculated the average value of the two accepted readings as 220 meters which
reflects normal operating conditions. The PLC issued an alarm for false transducer reading and
the operator acknowledged the alarm because he was aware that the transducer has been
disconnected.
When the second T/G unit was disconnected, the following information was available to the
PLC:
The PLC compared the three readings and analyzed that T/G_3 deviates more then 10 meters
from 1 and 2, and therefore 3 must be a false reading and its value was dropped. The new
average value for pressure was the average of T/G_1 and T/G_2, therefore 0 meters. The PLC
identified a sudden decrease in tunnel/penstock pressure and the PLC executed its
programmed logic by closing the intake gate and shutting off T/G 3 without extended ramping.
T/G 3 shut off flow of 3.2cms within 2 minutes. The EDS bypass was not opened to prevent
draining of the tunnel.

Response
Immediately following the shut down, the PLC logic to compare the three readings was disabled.
This allowed opening the intake gate and restarting one unit approximately 2 hours after the
shut down. Ecofish Research conducted an impact assessment on site and prepared the
attached report.

Future prevention of comparable incidents
The PLC logic will be modified to disregard pressure readings when their power source is turned
off. The change will be implemented by January 15, 2011. In the interim the PLC logic that
lead to the event remains disabled.

Page 403
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Page 3

Environmental impact
Ecofish Researchs report describes that no stranded or isolated fish was found. No other
potential environmental impacts were identified.

Notification of agencies
We recognize that ACILP did not report the incident to the agencies within the required time
frame; the following events occurred: The maintenance and repair work that was conducted on
the generating equipment at the time of the incident had started about one week prior to the
incident. The work caused frequent false alarms, often on a hourly basis, and the operator on
site continuously acknowledged alarms, including those triggered by the ramping incident.
When the incident happened, the operator focused on the immediate response to open the
intake gate and recommence diversion as soon as possible, but he did not follow internal
response protocol to notify the operations management team as soon as possible; the
management team was notified on December 7 in the morning.
We are improving operator awareness and understanding of environmental sensitive aspects of
the operations and subsequent requirements such as notifications. With the increasing number
of hydroelectric power plants in operation and the developing requirements, Innergex has
created the position of Environmental Coordinator (the EC) at our North Vancouver office
which will be placed in early January 2011. The EC will work closely with the operating
personnel to continuously develop and audit their level of training to prevent oversights such as
the failure to notify this incident in due time.

Please let me know if you need any other information.
Sincerely,


Encl: Ecofish Memorandum, December 9, 2010
Email, R. Kulka to T. Bennett, December 7, 2010
Files (via email only): Ashlu Dec 5-2010 all data.xlsx; Ashlu Dec 5-2010 graph.pdf

Cc. (per email only):
MoNRO: Erin Stoddard, Scott Babakaiff
DFO: Francesca Knight, Vince Busto
ACILP: Richard Blanchet, Francois Hebert, Brian Patjas, Colin Murrell
Page 404
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
A hl i t l l D 05 2010
1 6
0.8
0.9
2
4
0.6
0.7
2
0
)
0.5
0.6
6
4
W
a
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
s
(
m
)
R
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
c
m
s
/
h
r
)
0.3
0.4
10
8
R
0.1
0.2
14
12
12/5/2010 0:00 12/5/2010 3:00 12/5/2010 6:00 12/5/2010 9:00 12/5/2010 12:00 12/5/2010 15:00 12/5/2010 18:00 12/5/2010 21:00 12/6/2010 0:00
0 16
12/5/20100:00 12/5/20103:00 12/5/20106:00 12/5/20109:00 12/5/201012:00 12/5/201015:00 12/5/201018:00 12/5/201021:00 12/6/20100:00
Date/Time
Page 405
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
'Knight, Francesca'
Subject: RE: Ashlu IPP- Action Items from Nov 10 meeting
P.S. Regarding Ashlu ILCO 'showstoppers', I'm sure this wouldn't be forgotten, but don't forget about
ensuring that the ILCO includes reference to appropriate protocol re: treatment of penstock water in the
event of extended shutdown...I seem to recall Chessy mentioning that the present OPPR draft was deficient
on this issue (e.g. inadequately detailed protocol?).

Sent : Thu 13/ 01/ 2011 3: 36 PM
To: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; XT: Bust o, Vince DFO EAO: I N; 'Knight , Francesca'
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu I PP- Act ion I t ems from Nov 10 meet ing
Hey Tim,
J ust following up our meeting earlier today, and your request to identify any showstoppers that
Id recommend be resolved prior to issuance of an ILCO at Ashlu. The first two show-stoppers
Im suggesting was previously identified at our Nov. 10 2010 meeting with the proponent (see
email below) and the third one relates to an old outstanding issue:
1. Commitment of specific ramping thresholds which meet the default (2.5 cm/ hour) rates in
the absence of a complete ramping study: Elyses table provided earlier today implies that 4 cm/ hr
is the compliance threshold at both gauges (ie. the diversion reach gauge for startup and the
downstream gauge for shutdown); the table indicates that this threshold will allow compliance
with the default 2.5 cm/ hour threshold for the fisheries-sensitive site during shutdown (1.95
cm/ hour), bu t n ot d u r in g s t a r t u p ( 4. 12 cm / h ou r ) . I havent seen any reports verifiying that
the 4.12 cm/ hour will not strand fish during start-up...has this professional opinion been provided
by Ecofish?
2. Per my email from an hour ago (14:31 on J an. 13 2011), the table provided by Elyse should be
expanded to include specific commitments by the proponent regarding a ct ion s ( wit h
d ea d lin es ) t o be u n d er t a ken by t h e p r op on en t in t h e even t of exceed a n ce ( ie. n on -
com p lia n ce) of r a m p in g t h r es h old s . For instance: agency notification, data review,
inspection of affected reaches to assess need for application of mitigative prescriptions (e.g. fish
salvage), initiation of mitigative activities, submission of impact assessment report to agencies. I
also suggest that the proponent be obligated to submit regular (weekly?) verification of
compliance with ramping & IFR for the period of the ILCO.
3. Details proposed in the latest (Nov. 2010) OPPR regarding fis h la d d er op er a t ion s and
s p illwa y a s s es s m en t for fis h s t r a n d in g (per Section 2.2.3 of the OPPR) should be assessed
by Erin & Chessy, with formal comment prior to the ILCO issuance...the protocol outlined in
Section 2.2.3 of the OPPR indicate that they are likely to be implemented during the period of the
ILCO, and agency-approved protocol must be developed ASAP.
I will be formally reviewing the Ashlu IFR memo next week, but I believe the only sticky issue is
w.r.t. Chinook/ bull trout spawning IFR in autumn (ie. is 2.41 cms adequate?)...but I wouldnt
classify this as a showstopper for the ILCO since it doesnt need to be resolved in the next few
months (ie. the anticipated period of the ILCO). Im flexin tomorrow, but feel free to call (604-
876-0006) if you require any clarification. However, as of this afternoon, I may not have access to
Page 406
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
my email until Monday J an. 17. BTW, I reckon that your verbage from the Upper Stave ILCO is a
good foundation to start with...again, it may be necessary to explicitly state that any conditions
specified in your ILCO supercede the latest (Nov. 2010) version of the OPPR.
Later, Scott
_____________________________________________
Cc: Bickert on, Nicola ENV: EX
Subj ect : Ashlu I PP- Act ion I t ems from Nov 10 meet ing
Tim,
Per your request, here is my list of the Ashlu proponent (Innergex)s action items and deadlines
from our Nov. 10 2010 meeting at Innergexs offices, which they committed to provide to MOE
&DFO p r ior t o s eekin g I LCO:
1. A professional opinion (to be completed by Ecofish) regarding the a d equ a cy of r a m p in g
r a t es & t h r es h old s (ie. based on streamflow data collected at various gauges during
commissioning, are there any subtle but important operational burps in diversion and ramping?
Any issues with the PLC which need to be resolved?);
Interestingly, these commitments seem prescient given the Dec. 5 2010 ramping issue (and un-
timely response from the proponent).
1. review the Ecofish report (provided on Nov. 10 2010) regarding adequacy of the IFR at
Ashlu. No deadline was identified, but intent was ASAP.
2. If allowed to do so, MOE were to forward the ILCO from East Toba & Montose to
Innergex/ Ecofish to consider as a template.
Scott
Page 407
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:54 PM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX
Cc: 'Knight, Francesca'; 'Busto, Vince'
Attachments: image001.jpg; RE: Ashlu Creek Ramping Compliance Specifications
Tim,







Sin ce t h en . . .

Page 408
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

(April?).


Scott

prompt.

2001264)
I mpor t ance: High

Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

I mpor t ance: High

Page 409
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
HelloTim,
PleasefindattachedtherevisedOPPR,RevisionBdraftforyourreview.Theappendicesaretoolargeinfilesizeto
email,thereforeIhaveplacedthenonthefollowingftpsitefordownload
atthisstage.

acceptance.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

2001264)

HiRichard,Robert:
Page 410
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 21
S. 22
4
4) Rampingstudy
Regards,
Ph.(604)5825227 Fx.(604)5825235

___________________________________________________________
addressed:
thosespecies).
operations.
Page 411
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
5
andOEMP.
details);
OPP.
comments,i.e.,
Page 412
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
6
ayear.
F
Page 413
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
7
Page 414
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: 'Matthew Henderson'; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; 'Busto, Vince'; 'Knight, Francesca';
'Adam Lewis'
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Ramping Compliance Specifications
Attachments: Memo- M Henderson re Ashlu Creek Ramping Compliance Specifications V2.pdf;
image001.jpg
HiScott,
Thankyouforthefeedback.Wehaverevisedourmemoandaddedinthecolumnsyousuggestedwiththe
informationcontainedintheOPPRassubmitted.Wehavealsoincludedaflowchartoftheresponse.
Pleaseletmeknowifthereisanythingelseweshouldaddinorifthisissufficient.
Thankyou,
Elyse

Sent : January-13-11 2: 31 PM
To: Elyse MacDonald; Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX
Cc: Mat t hew Henderson; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Bust o, Vince; Knight , Francesca; Adam Lewis
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Creek Ramping Compliance Specificat ions
Thanks for the prompt response, Elyse.

I dont speak on behalf of all agency reps ccd on your email, but heres my opinion:
The table provided is a good start, but I was expecting that it would also include a column that specifies
actions (with deadlines) to be undertaken by the proponent in the event of exceedance (ie. non-compliance)
of ramping thresholds. For instance: agency notification, data review, inspection of affected reaches to
assess need for application of mitigative prescriptions (e.g. fish salvage), initiation of fish salvage activities,
submission of impact assessment report to agencies. More concisely: the table would reflect & summarize
sections in the OPP which detail these actions.

Scott

Sent : Thursday, January 13, 2011 12: 04 PM
Cc: Mat t hew Henderson; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; 'Bust o, Vince'; 'Knight , Fra cesca';
'Adam Lewis'
Subj ect : Ashlu Creek Ramping Compliance Specificat ions
GoodafternoonTim,
Attachedpleasefindourmemoincludingthetableofcompliancespecificationsrequestedatthe11Janmeeting
withInnergex.YourequestedthistabletosupportanextensionoftheLeavetoCommissionfortheAshluCreek
HydroelectricProject.
Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcernsorifyourequirefurtherinformationtocompletethis
extension.
Regards,

Page 415
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2



Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163; Cell: 604-785-6726

Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Page 416
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:27 PM
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; 'Knight, Francesca'; 'Busto, Vince'
Subject: Ashlu Stuff
Tim,

Per your request, Ive reviewed three documents related to the Ashlu Creek Hydroelectric Project:

Adequacy of Instream Flow Regime for the Ashlu Creek Hydro Project- Interim Assessment,
completed by Ecofish Research Ltd., dated November 10 2010, 22 pp. Hereafter referenced as the
IFR report;
Confirmation of Ramping Rate for the Ashlu Creek Hydro Project, completed by Ecofish Research
Ltd., dated November 26 2010, 5 pp. Hereafter referenced as the Ramping report;
Ashlu Creek Power Project- Operating Parameters & Procedures Report completed by Ashlu Creek
Investments Limited Partnership, dated February 9 2011. Hereafter referenced as the OPPR.
Appendices of the OPPR include several reports also assessed hererin, including the Ramping Rate
Compliance Specifications Memorandum by Ecofish Research Ltd., dated J anuary 13 2011, within
Appendix E of the OPPR.

Comments provided herein are based solely on review of the reports listed above; some issues identified via
this review were discussed in recent meetings with the proponent & report authors, but no formal opinions
were captured in meeting minutes, and are thus not referenced in this email.

The I FR r e p or t and associated analyses were completed in response to an August 9 2010 request from
MOE to provide a substantiated opinion as to whether the current IFR values are adequate for all fish
species present, and if not, provide recommendations for an appropriate interim, conservative IFR value
and/ or seasonal IFR values (which may be refined/ revised at a later date, ie. upon completion of further
study and prior to issuance of a final leave).... I support the methodology adopted within the IFR report,
making use of existing site-specific data (e.g. modelled hydrology, fish presence, fish habitat mapped at 5
cms) and assumed species-specific habitat-flow relations (via meta-analyses from Hatfield & Bruce, 2000)
along with professional judgement to interpret the biological significance of the estimated changes in
habitat. I would not recommend such an approach to develop IFR during the pre-licensing stage, but
given the scope of this work and its present status (ie. licensed and authorized many years ago, habitat
compensation already built & functioning, commissioning completed), I agree with the approach adopted.
The IFR report acknowledges various data uncertainties (e.g. the modelled hydrology data is likely to
underestimate winter flows, p.12) and also describes operations that should be considered in data
interpretation (e.g. the post-operational modelled changes in fish habitat do not include kayak release flows
which will add to the IFR provided). I have no disputes with the analyses completed, and offer three
observations:

1. The IFR reports conclusion that the IFR does not appear to be adequate for Pacific salmonid and
bull trout spawning in the diversion reach must be carefully considered by decision-makers. The
IFR report includes supplemental context for this conclusion, describing the habitat losses as
moderate in %magnitude within the diversion reach and places these losses in the context of the
overall Ashlu anadromous reach length and the fish habitat compensation work. The IFR report
clearly states that losses of spawning habitat do not reflect the dewatering of habitat, but rather
indicate suboptimal depths and velocities and concludes, an IFR of 3.55 cms was estimated to
result in zero habitat loss for generalized salmonid spawning and may be sufficient to avoid
spawning habitat loss for this species [bull trout]. However, the IFR report does not explicitly
recommend such an increase in IFR for bull trout spawning. Rather, the IFR report concludes that
there are likely to be specific losses in spawning habitat for Pacific salmon and bull trout. These
losses may be minor for Chinook salmon given that they spawn throughout the anadromous
reach. For bull trout, the losses are of greater concern, although losses in spawning habitat
would be offset by predicted gains from increased rearing habitat for this species (p.15). I agree
with the methodological steps taken to develop the habitat-flow data (presented in Table 4), but Im
Page 417
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
not a fisheries biologist, so Im not in a professional position to provide opinion regarding the
significance (or offsetting) of such changes in fish habitat.

2. The IFR reports conclusion that the commitment to extensive operational monitoring will
further assess the habitat gains and losses, providing a detailed assessment. The risks to fish and
fish [habitat] posed by continued operation of the plant can be offset by continuing monitoring as
described in the OEMP...is a logical conclusion which I do not dispute. The OEMP represents a
considerable commitment by the proponent, and will provide very useful site-specific data on
impacts to fish & fish habitat. The proposed strategy to rely on the monitoring program to identify
operational impacts to fish populations, and to subscribe to a strategy of careful flow
management may be adequate. However, the proponent must understand the risks associated
with such an adaptive management approach (ie. future increases in IFR), and agencies must
ensure that this approach does not conflict with existing policies (e.g. No Net Loss; the DFO Risk
Matrix).

3. On a final note, I would have appreciated more rigorous quantitative consideration of cutthroat
trout. I understand that the diversion reach is dominated by rainbow trout: cutthroat only
represent 2-7% of the trout population in the diversion reach. However, despite the reports
conclusion that the diversion reach does not provide typical cutthroat trout habitat, I would have
preferred to see the habitat-flow analyses completed for cutthroat for the sake of completeness.

The Ra m p in g Rep or t is a short memo intended to confirm that the ramping rates in place are
adequate to meet the recommended 2.5 cm/ hour ramping rate and protect fish and it commits to the
provision of a more detailed report to follow, presumably in Spring 2011. As a result of recent
conversations with the authors and professionals involved with the Ramping Report, and associated field
work, I am reasonably confident that the ramping study was completed in a scientifically-defensible
manner, but it is challenging to provide detailed review of the ramping study protocol given the limited
information provided in the Ramping Report. The general conclusions of the ramping report are that the
operational flow ramping rate of 1.5 cms per hour meets the recommended 2.5 cm/ hour downstream
stage change maximum for shutdown events, but exceeds the stage change maximum at some sites
during plant start-up. The report authors recommend the project continue to use 1.5 cms per hour
during all ramping for operations or plant startup and shutdown. I do not dispute this conclusion, nor
do I dispute the suggestion that a faster rate when diversion flows exceed 10 cms and slower rate
thereafter, may be possible, and still protect fish based on our field observations in 2010 with the proviso
that further rate testing can be conducted in May 2011. However, I have one observation regarding the
proposed ramping rates:
1. it remains uncertain if the proposed ramping rates will be adequate to protect recently-emerged bull
trout fry in the lower diversion reach (ie. the downstream-most 325 m) during plant shutdown (it is
assumed that the lower diversion reach is likely to contain bull trout fry). The Ramping Study
implies that the recommended rates will do so, and Table 1 of the Ramping Rate Compliance
Specifications Memorandum (Appendix E of the OPPR) indicates that the average stage change at
sensitive sites will be 1.95 cm/ hour during plant shutdown, which is less than the default rates (2.5
cm/ hour) when fry are present. However, neither report explicitly addresses the bull trout fry life
stage, and the ramping study was not conducted at a time when recently-emerged bull trout fry
would be present; I would appreciate a professional opinion on the issue from the report authors.

The OPPR includes nearly all the requested editorial changes requested in my previous (December 2010)
review. The only outstanding item I identified was consistent reference to the Ramping Rate Compliance
Specifications Memorandum within Appendix E of the OPPR. Section 2.2.2 of the OPPR does so, but other
Sections (5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.5) do not. I would also appreciate if the Flow Chart of Response (ie. Figure 2) from
the Ramping Rate Compliance Specifications Memorandum were included in the main body of the OPPR:
directly within Section 2.2.2. Finally, stating the obvious: I appreciate that the Ramping rates portion of
Section 2.2.2 is to be completed when the ramping study is available in early February 2011, and it must
be ensured that a subsequent edit of the OPPR incorporates any changes resulting from agency review of
the imminent ramping study.

Scott
Fish Hydrologist
Page 418
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
South Coast Region
Surrey, BC, V3R 0Y3
604-930-7121
Page 419
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: 'Natalie Closs'
Subject: RE: Innergex Meeting March 1
Didnotreceiveinvite.March1isgoodforme.WontbeabletoattendMarch9meeting.

Sent : Thursday, February 10, 2011 2: 18 PM
To: St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince; Bennet t , Timot hy A
ENV: EX
Subj ect : I nnergex Meet ing March 1
Ireceivedanautomaticreplysayingtheinvitemightnothavemadeittoyou.
PleaseletmeknowifyoudidnotreceivetherevisedinviteforMarch1,2011meetingforRutherford,Ashlu&
Fitzismmons.
AlsoasaheadsupfortheUpperLillooetEAOSchedule:
March8WorkingGroupMeeting(includingCumulativeEffectspresentations?)
March9FisheriesTechnicalWorkingGroupMeeting(TWG)
March30ForestryTWG
April7WildlifeTWG
Thankyou,
Natalie
__________________________
Proj ect Manager

Phone :604 984. 8600Fax :604 984. 8699

Cell. :778 228. 1219
Page 420
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Cc: Knight, Francesca; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince
Subject: Ashlu IPP OEMP and Baseline
Tim,
Asrequested,Ihadaquicklookthroughtheseanddidntseeanyshowstoppers.Therewereseverallooseends,
includingthefishwayfunction,intakeoverflowchannelreworkdownstreamofthedam,waterqualitytesting
(tunnelarsenic),andprovidingflowsforupstreammigratingsteelhead.Alsoasapotentialisprovidingflowsfor
upstreammigratingchar,butindicationssofararethattheyaregoingpastthelowerdiversionreach.
Adam/Ecofishdidanalyzefishspeciesagestructure/populationdynamicsinthebaselinereport,soaslongasitis
continuedthroughtheOEMPreporting,thatwouldbeappropriate.Otherthanthat,Idonthaveanysignificant
concerns.
Erin
Page 421
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
From: Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX
Subject: RE: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Preliminary ramping non-compliance
notification

To: Mat t Henderson; Bennet t , Timot hy A FLNR: EX
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t C FLNR: EX; rkulka@innergex.com; FHebert @innergex.com; BPat j as@innergex.com;
cmurrell@innergex.com; Bust o, Vince; St oddard, Erin M FLNR: EX
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu Creek Proj ect (wat er file 2001264): Preliminary ramping non-compliance not ificat ion
thanks Matt, please keep us informed as soon as you know more.

Chessy

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : April 6, 2011 5: 11 PM
Cc: Babakaiff, Scot t ; rkulka@innergex.com; FHebert @innergex.com; BPat j as@innergex.com;
cmurrell@innergex.com; Knight , Francesca; Bust o, Vince; erin.st oddard@gov.bc.ca
Tim,
Thankyou,
Matt
Page 422
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S. 22
2
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Page 423
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
April 5, 2011.
Tim,
Status:
Initialevent:
Secondaryevent:
Measurestaken:
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX
Page 424
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2


Tim,
Thankyou,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Page 425
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX; Knight, Francesca;
vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; rkulka@innergex.com; FHebert@innergex.com;
RBlanchet@innergex.com; cmurrell@innergex.com; BPatjas@innergex.com
Subject: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance notification for April
13, 2011
Tim,
TheAshluCreekHydroProjecthadanoncomplianceeventonWednesday,April13,2011.Iapologizeforthe
delayedemailaswehaddownstreamflowgaugedatatransmissionissues.Anoncompliancereportwillbesent
alongwithEcofishssitereportinthecomingdays.
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Page 426
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Henderson
FILE: 1112-05.12
RE: Ashlu Creek unplanned ramping event for April 15 and 16, 2011
This memo describes the water level observations made following an unplanned ramping events
which occurred at the Ashlu Creek run-of-river hydroelectric Project (Squamish, BC) on April 15
and April 16, 2011. Ecofish Research Ltd. (Ecofish) observed a potential ramping incident during
routine review of the data from the Ashlu Creek gauge downstream of the powerhouse (ASU-
DSLG01) and notified Ashlu Creek Investments Limited Partnership (ACILP) on the morning of
April 16, 2011 that a potential ramping incident had been observed. Analysis of DSLG01 confirmed
a non-compliance with the approved 4.0 cm/hr ramping rate. Analysis of the IFR gauge (ASU-
IFR01), located approximately 200 m downstream of the intake weir, confirmed all ramping was in
compliance in the diversion on April 15 and 16.
The April 15 non-compliance event occurred between 15:38 hrs and 16:52 hrs. The stage decreased
by 5.5 cm in 74 minutes, and a stage change of -4.8 cm was recorded within one hour (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Stage at ASU-DSLG01 gauge between 06:00 and 18:00 on April 15, 2011.

Page 427
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Between 15:00 hrs and 18:30 hrs on April 15, a startup event was observed as the plant resumed
operation, causing the stage at IFR01 to drop by 2.0 cm in 118 minutes (Figure 2). These changes in
stage are in compliance with the ramping criteria of -4.0 cm/hr.
Figure 2. Stage at ASU-IFR01 gauge between 10:00 and 23:00 on April 15, 2011.

Upon confirmation of the non-compliance event, crews were mobilized in the morning of April 16
to search two, established downstream sites (ASU-DSSD04 and DSSD05) as well as two, established
diversion sites (ASU-DVSD01 and DVSD02), as a conservative measure, as the satellite uplink had
not yet completed and another ramping event in the early morning of April 16 was apparent but not
yet complete for evaluation.
Once the satellite data for ASU-DSLG01 was available, stage changes for April 16 were observed
between 8:44 - 10:00 hrs and included both stage increases, which would reflect stage decreases in
the diversion, and stage increases. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the changes in stage at the ASU-
IFR01 and ASU-DSLG01 gauges respectively. Analysis of the data from ASU-IFR01 and ASU-
DSLG01 showed these stage changes were in compliance with the criteria of -4 cm/hr.

0.375
0.380
0.385
0.390
0.395
0.400
0.405
0.410
10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
S
t
a
g
e

(
m
)

ASU-IFR01 15-Apr-11
Page 428
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Figure 3. Stage at ASU-IFR01 between 06:00 and 18:00 on April 16, 2011.

Figure 4. Stage at ASU-DSLG01 between 06:00 and 18:00 on April 16, 2011.

Page 429
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

events on April 15 and 16, 2011.
ramping events on April 15 and 16, 2011.

In response to the ramping event on April 15, crews mobilized and were onsite to monitor potential
fish stranding on April 16, 2011, one day after the ramping event occurred. A hand-based search
was conducted at the previously established sites in the downstream reach (DSSD04 and DSSD05)
and in the diversion reach (DVSD01 and DVSD02) between 16:25 hrs and 18:00 hrs.
In the downstream reach, an approximate area of 100 m
2
of the stream margin was broadly (visually)
searched for 50 min at DSSD04 and a 90 m
2
area was broadly searched for 60 min at DSSD05.
Hand searching of hot spots was completed at DSSD04 and DSSD05 with a total hotspot area for
both sites of 14 m
2
. In the diversion reach, broad based searches were conducted for an area of 283
m
2
at DVSD01 for 65 minutes. Broad based searches were conducted at DVSD01 over 319 m
2
for
a total of 50 min. Hot spot searches were also completed for a total area of 368.3 m
2
for both sites
was
,
as well as in water along the shore up to 20 cm in depth.
No stranded or isolated fish were found in any of the searches for the four sites.
Yours truly,

Compliance
Point
Start Time
(PDT)
End Time
(PDT)
Duration (Hours) Stage Start
(cm)
Stage
End
(cm)
Total Stage
Change
(cm)*
Hourly Stage
Change (cm
in one hour)
Non-
Compliance
Discharge
Start
(cms)
Discharge
End (cms)
ASU-DSLG01 15-Apr 15:38 15-Apr 16:52 01:14 88.1 82.6 -5.5 -4.8 Yes 9.5 7.6
ASU-IFR01 15-Apr 18:02 15-Apr 20:00 01:58 40.9 38.9 -2.0 -1.5 No 3.3 2.7
Page 430
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 6:05 PM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Steeves, George
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince
Subject: RE: MoE Acceptance of request to extend LTC Commissioning (Ashlu Creek Hydro
Project - Water file 2001264)
That'sgreat,thanksTim,
Chessy
HabitatBiologist
OriginalMessage
Sent:April30,20105:36PM
To:Steeves,George
Cc:Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX;Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Knight,Francesca;Busto,Vince
Subject:RE:MoEAcceptanceofrequesttoextendLTCCommissioning(AshluCreekHydro
ProjectWaterfile2001264)
HiGeorge,
Basedontheinfoprovidedbytheproponent,andyouropinionregardingwhetherthe
extensionandplannedactivitiescouldtrulybeconstruedtobeforthepurposesof
commissioning,Iamwillingtoprovideanadditionalextensiononthetimeframefor
commissioninguntilJune30,2010.
However,DFOandScott/Erinhaveflaggedthefollowingtwoconcerns:
1)fishstrandingdownstreamoftheobermeyerweir(e.g.,afteranyeventswhereinthere
arespillsbehindthisweirandthendropsinflows),andalackofmeasures(e.g.,
proposedmodifications)topreventfishstrandinginthespillway.
2)currentprojectrampingrates(e.g.,zerotofulldiversionin90mins)areconsidered
toresultingreaterstagechangethanspecifiedinDFOguidance
CouldyoupleaseissuetheextensionfortheLeaveforcommissioning,subjecttothe
followingconditions:
1) theproponentmustprovideaworkplanandscheduleforfacility(e.g.,spillway)
modificationstopreventfishstrandingintheweirspillway,tothesatisfactionofthe
assistantregionalwatermanager,within30days.Intheinterim,commissioning
stranding;
2) commissioningactivitiesmustnotresultinrampingrateswithinthestreamthat
exceedDFOguidance,i.e.,DFO'sdefaulthourlyrampingratesof2.5cm/hr;
3) theIEMmustcontinuetoundertakenmonitoringactivitiesthroughoutthe
commissioningperiod,andcontinuetoprovideweeklyEMreports;and,
4) anyactivitiesthatresultinfishstrandingand/orsalvage,exceedancesoframping
rates,ornoncompliancewithlicenceorauthorizationconditions(i.e.,IFR)mustbe
reportedtoDFOandMoEwithin24hours.
Page 431
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Thankyou!
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235
OriginalMessage
From:Steeves,George[mailto:gsteeves@ameresco.com]
Sent:Friday,April30,20102:33PM
Subject:Re:AshluCreekHydroProject(Waterfile2001264):LetterRationalforExtension
ontheLTCCommissioning
Yes.Notaproblem.
George
SentwirelesslyfrommyBlackBerrydeviceontheBellnetwork.
EnvoysansfilparmonterminalmobileBlackBerrysurlerseaudeBell.
OriginalMessage
From:"Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX"<Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca>
Date:Fri,30Apr201016:58:13
To:Steeves,George<gsteeves@ameresco.com>
Subject:RE:AshluCreekHydroProject(Waterfile2001264):LetterRationalfor
ExtensionontheLTCCommissioning
HiGeorge,
IwillhaveoneconditiontoaddtotheLeaveextension,butwon'tgetthistoyouuntil
4:30pmorso(asI'mstillinaworkshop).
Willyoubeabletoissuethatleavelaterontonight(i.e.,after4:30pm)?
Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235
OriginalMessage
From:Steeves,George[mailto:gsteeves@ameresco.com]
Sent:Friday,April30,201010:21AM
Subject:Fw:AshluCreekHydroProject(Waterfile2001264):LetterRationalfor
SentwirelesslyfrommyBlackBerrydeviceontheBellnetwork.
EnvoysansfilparmonterminalmobileBlackBerrysurlerseaudeBell.
________________________________
Page 432
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
From:AdamLewis<fjalewis@ecofishresearch.com>
Date:Fri,30Apr201010:43:270400
To:'Bennett,TimothyAENV:EX'<Timothy.Bennett@gov.bc.ca>;
'RichardBlanchet'<RBlanchet@innergex.com>
Cc:'Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX'<Scott.Babakaiff@gov.bc.ca>;
'Knight,Francesca'<Francesca.Knight@dfompo.gc.ca>;'Busto,Vince'<Vince.Busto@dfo
mpo.gc.ca>;'Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX'<Erin.Stoddard@gov.bc.ca>;Steeves,
George<gsteeves@ameresco.com>;'RobertKulka'<RKulka@innergex.com>
HelloTim:
Regards,Adam
FJAdamLewis,M.Sc.R.P.Bio.
Principal,SeniorBiologist
EcofishResearchLtd.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAE838.CBD580A0]
fjalewis@ecofishresearch.com<mailto:ecofish@telus.net>
www.ecofishresearch.com<http://www.ecofishresearch.com/>
F4508thStreet,Courtenay,BC,V9N1N5
Cell:2502184180;Voice:2503343042;Fax:2508971742
1031355BurrardStreet,Vancouver,BC,V6C2G8
Cell:2502184180;Voice:6046086180;Fax:6046086163
ThisemailcontainsconfidentialinformationthatisproprietarytoEcofishResearchLtd..
Thisinformationisintendedonlyfortheperson(s)namedinthedestinationaddress.
Unauthorizeddistribution,copyingordisclosureisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyoureceive
thisemailinerrorpleasedeleteitimmediately.
Sent:Friday,April30,20107:08AM
To:RichardBlanchet
Cc:Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Knight,Francesca;Busto,Vince;Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX;
gsteeves@ameresco.com;AdamLewis;RobertKulka
Importance:High
HiRichard,
Thankyouforyourrequest(below)foranextensionforcommissioningoftheAshlu
facility.
IwouldalsoremindyouthatwehadrequestedthatAdamprovideuswithaletter:
1)discussingaproposedframeworkforarevisedOEMPthatcanprovidea
quantitative/statisticallymeaningful,andscientificallysupportable,assessmentof
projectimpacts;
2)providingabriefrationaleastowhyadditionalproposedcommissioning(e.g.,
includingfurtherdiversionfortesting,etc..)activitieswouldnotadverselyaffectyour
abilitytocollectanyadditionaldata(baselineorotherwise)requiredtosupportthe
OEMPorimplementthatOEMP;and,
Page 433
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
3)statingthatinhisopinionthattheproposedcommissioningwouldnotaffecthis/your
abilitytodevelopandimplementthatOEMP.
Iwouldrequestthatyou/Adamprovidethisletteratyourearliestconvenience,soIcan
completemyreviewofthisrequest.
Pleaseprovidethislettertomyattention,ccallindividualsonthisemail,andnote
thatIamataworkshopalldaytodayandmaynotbeabletocompletethatreviewuntil
endofday.
Regards,
TimBennett
________________________________
From:RichardBlanchet[mailto:RBlanchet@innergex.com]
Sent:Mon26/04/20109:56AM
Cc:Babakaiff,ScottCENV:EX;Knight,Francesca;Busto,Vince;Stoddard,ErinMENV:EX;
gsteeves@ameresco.com;AdamLewis;RobertKulka
Subject:AshluCreekHydroProject(Waterfile2001264):LetterRationalforExtension
ontheLTCCommissioningDearTim,
AsrequestedduringourmeetingonApril22,2010,pleasefindhereattachedtheletter
explainingtherationalforobtaininganExtensionontheLTCCommissioning.
Ifyouhaveanyquestion,pleasedon'thesitatetocontactmeorRobertKulka.
Bestregards
Richard
__________________________
RICHARDBLANCHET,P.Eng.,M.Sc.
VicePresidentWesternRegionHydroelectricEnergyInnergexnergierenouvelable
InnergexRenewableEnergy
[https://spring.gov.bc.ca/Gov/Timothy.Bennett/Drafts/RE:%20Ashlu%20Creek%20Hydro%20Project
%20(Water%20file%202001264):%20Letter%20
%20Rational%20for%20Extension%20on%20the%20LTC%20Commissioning.EML/1_multipart/image001.jp
g]
Phone:604984.8600*Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778228.0855
***NOTE:ThisemailmaycontainPRIVILEGEDandCONFIDENTIALinformationandisintended
onlyfortheuseofthespecificindividual(s)towhichitisaddressed.Ifyouarenotan
intendedrecipientofthisemail,youareherebynotifiedthatanyunauthorizedreview,
use,dissemination,disclosure,distributionorcopyingofthisemailortheinformation
containedinitorattachedtoitisstrictlyprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthisemail
inerror,pleaseimmediatelynotifythepersonnamedabovebyreplyemailanddestroyall
copiesoftheoriginalmessage.Thankyou.***
Page 434
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: Mike Nelson
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; gsteeves@ameresco.com

Hi Mike,

We've received inquiries regarding whether Ashlu is releasing its IFR requirement.

Can you (or George) please confirm if you are aware of any non-compliances with the IFR requirement (i.e., dates
when the plant may not have been releasing the required flows)?

Also, can you please confirm the status of the plant? I understand it still undergoing commissioning (via George's
latest extension), but how often are either of you or delegates onsite to monitor this?

thanks,

Tim Bennett

Sent : Thu 25/ 03/ 2010 11: 50 AM
Dontknowifyouhavebeengettingthischainornotyournamewasspelledwrongtoomanymms

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
From: Mike Nelson

To: 'Knight , Francesca'; t immot hy.bennet t @gov.bc.ca; gst eeves@ameresco.com; Nikl, Lee
Cc: Christ ine Becker; Bust o, Vince; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX; 'Robert Kulka'
Chessy,,
Furthertoourphoneconversationthismorning,pleasefindattachedthewaterqualitymeasurementstakenfrom
thedischargeofthetunnel,andfromtheroadsideditch(intowhichthedischargeflowedatthetimeofsampling).
Basedontheseresults(arsenicconcentrationof15.6ppb(total)and14.6ppb(dissolved))andourconversation,I
haveadvisedRobertKulkathathecanresumedischargingthetunnelseepagewaterintotheditch.Waterquality
sampleswillbetakenthisafternoon,tomorrowmorning,andonMondaytoconfirmarseniclevels.Inaddition,
InnergexwillinstallaboardtodirectthetributaryflowsintothemainflowsoftheAshlu,awayfromtheshallow
rifflealongtherightbank.Thistemporarymeasurewillberemovedwhenthetunnelseepagedischargeceasein7
10days.
WaterQualitysampleswerealsotakenyesterdayfromthetailrace,wherethetunnelseepagehasbeendirected
sinceTuesday.Theresultsexpectedtomorrow.Ifthearseniclevelsarelessthan50ppb,thentheestablished
Page 435
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
protocolwillbeusedfordisposal;ifthearsenicconcentrationsarehigherthan50pbb,thenanappropriatedisposal
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904

To: Mike Nelson; t immot hy.bennet t @gov.bc.ca; gst eeves@ameresco.com; Nikl, Lee
Cc: Christ ine Becker; Bust o, Vince; Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX; St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627
Hello everyone,
Mike, thanks for taking the lead on reviewing the guidance in the water quality protocol... what you are citing below
is my recollection. Given that the dissolved concentration is so high, and that this period of discharge coincides with
fry emergence, I think the best course of action is to halt the discharge until Lee has a chance to work up a rationale /
plan for handling this water. This may include some tox testing (rainbow trout and Daphnid, for example). I have no
way of knowing what the total quantity of water for discharge would be, but Lee will be able to get a handle on that
through talking with Robert and Mike. Let me know how you want to proceed.
Chessy

Sent : March 22, 2010 5: 03 PM
To: t immot hy.bennet t @gov.bc.ca; gst eeves@ameresco.com; Knight , Francesca
Cc: Christ ine Becker
Timetal.,
DuringthecommissioningexercisesattheirAshlufacility,Innergexhasbeenexperiencingsomeissueswithmaterial
inthetunnelbecomingmobilized.Theyhavedrainedthetunneltoinspectitandarereleasingtheapproximately10
l/sofwaterseepingfromthetunnelintotheroadsideditch(about300minlength)thateventuallyflowsintoa
tributaryoftheAshluandthentheAshluitself.Watersamplescollectedlastweek,andreportedtodayindicatethat
arseniclevelsareelevated(0.085mg/ldissolvedand0.097mg/total)intheseepagewaters.TheGolderwater
qualitymanagementplantodealwiththisissues(November8,2009),calledfora0.050mg/l(50ug/l)tobeadopted
asthemaximumdischargeconcentration.Italsostatesthatintheeventthatthereareminorexceedancesofthe
50ug/ltotalarseniclimit,thedissolvedarsenicconcentrationsshouldbeevaluatedbyaqualifiedprofessional(QP)
Page 436
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
todetermineifthearsenicconcentrationobservedisappropriatefordischarge.Asthe50ug/llevelisbeing
exceeded,wehavesuggestedtoInnergexthattheseepageshouldbecontaineduntilfurtherwaterqualitysampling
showstheconcentrationshavedroppedtothisvalue,oruntiltheyhavethewaterqualityresultsevaluatedbyLee
NiklofGolder(orotherQPtheyretain).NotethatRobertKulka(Innergex)hasspokentoLeeNiklaboutthismatter,
butasofyetIhavenotreceivedanythinginwritingfromLee(likelytomorrow).
Atpresentthewaterisnotbeingcontained,andisflowingasstatedabove;Innergexarereluctanttocollectthe
watersinthetailrace,asthetailraceisbeingusedtoventilatetheongoingworksinthetunnel.Theseepagewaters
maynotbeanissue,however,astheAshlusdischargeisnowapproximately15cms,whichwouldamounttoa
dilutionratioofabout1,500to1.Ifyouwouldlikeustotakefurtherstepsatthistime,pleaseadvise.
Cheers,

Principal
Unit 203 - 38026 2
nd
TEL: 604 815-0901 | CELL: 604 815-9973 | FAX: 604 815-0904
From: Christ ine Becker

Sent : March-22-10 12: 43 PM
To: 'Robert Kulka'
Cc: Mike Nelson; 'Knight , Francesca'
Subj ect : 413 Ashlu wat er qualit y result s
HiRobert,
InmylastemailIattachedthesedimentpondsamplingresultsaswellasthewaterqualityresultsforthetunnel
seepageattheportal.Ihavereviewedthewaterqualityresultsfromtheportalditchanditlookslikethereisan
issuewithdissolvedarsenic(0.085mg/L),whichexceedstheWQguidelinesof0.005mg/L.Irepeatedthesampling
lastweektoincludealocationattheoutletoftheditchaswellasahydrocarbonanalysis.
Iwouldstronglysuggestthatyoupumptheseepagetoacontainedlocationuntilwereceivethemostrecentsample
results(expectedthisweek)topreventelevatedarseniclevelsfromreachingAshluCreek.Chessy,doyouhaveany
furthercommentsatthistime?
Regards,
CHRISTINE BECKER (NEE CUNLIFFE). B.SC., B.I.T.

TEL: 604 815-0901 | FAX: 604 815-0904
Page 437
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
To: 'Knight, Francesca'; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX
Cc: 'Busto, Vince'; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX
Tim&Francesca,
Erin

Commissioning

C

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : May 5, 2010 3: 36 PM
Commissioning
Tim,

Page 438
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2




detail.

Scott


South Coast Region
Surrey, BC, V3R 0Y3
604-930-7121

Commissioning

HelloTim:
Regards,Adam
Page 439
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3




Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 250 334-3042; Fax: 250 897-1742

Cell: 250 218-4180; Voice: 604 608-6180; Fax: 604 608-6163


Commissioning
I mpor t ance: High

Hi Richard,





Regards,

Tim Bennet t

Sent : Mon 26/ 04/ 2010 9: 56 AM
Page 440
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
4
DearTim,



Bestregards

Richard

__________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855

Page 441
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Cc: Knight, Francesca; vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff,
Scott C ENV:EX; Adam Lewis; mnelson@cerg.ca; Richard Blanchet; Francois Hebert;
Brian Patjas
Attachments: Letter to R Kulka re Ashlu IPP spillway and fish ladder May 2010.pdf
HelloTim,
AttachedisAdamLewis'letterregardingfishladderimprovementsandfishstranding
downstreamofthediversionchannelObermeyergates.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________
ConstructionManager
Phone:604984.8600*Fax:604984.8699
Cell.:778227.0434
OriginalMessage
Importance:High
HiRobert,
including:
Page 442
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
stranding;and,
entrance.
Page 443
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Regards,
TimBennett,P.Eng.,
Page 444
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:04 PM
To: Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX;
Busto, Vince
Cc: Adam Lewis; Robert Kulka
Subject: Ashlu OEMP comments
Hello everyone, here are some quick comments on the Ashlu OEMP, in preparation for this week's meeting.

1. page 6 and throughout: I think for the most part ERL has reconciled the DFO/Lewis and Harwood monitoring
guidelines with the Fisheries Act S. 35(2) Authorization monitoring requirements, but adding a statement or table to
that effect would be helpful. For example, Gravel and LWD recruitment be included in the evaluation of stream
channel morphology?
2. Ramping rate section: Note that DFO ramping rates (default 2.5 cm/hour, etc) were actually not followed during
various stages of project commissioning. I believe this has been documented on more than one occasion by both
MoE and DFO (Cascade Environmental should have these data). The Authorization speaks to ramping as follows:
Ramping rates to be used for start up and shutdown of flow diversions into the water conduit will be determined in
further consultation with DFO and MoE prior to commissioning of the project, and tested and amended during
commissioning of the project.
The proponent has presented information on a ramping rate range of 1.5 to 2 hours based on the natural Creek
ramping rates as well as using DFO methodology.
As far as I know, a ramping rate has yet to be determined. In that case, the default ramping rate of 2.5 cm/hour (fry
present), 5 cm/hour at all other times should have been applied during testing and commissioning activities, but I don't
believe this was always adhered to. Previous iterations of the OEMP spoke to a proposed ramping rate of stage
change per unit time, but of course the appropriateness of this type of ramping rate would be influenced by river stage
and flows on any given day when ramping activities were scheduled. As far I can recall, the conservative DFO
ramping rates have not been observed.
I would really like to see the results of the May 2010 ramping study, even in draft form; I do understand that the
studies will continue for the fall. As well, I was hoping that ERL could add a table for ramping that identifies the
ramping study period for every fish species and life stage, both within the diversion reach and downstream, that could
be affected by operational stage changes.
3. monitoring stream flows: I don't have much to add to whatever Scott's comments will be here, so just a couple of
opinions: I am not keen on abandoning the diversion reach channel gauge anytime soon, once the infrastructure
gauge has been proven accurate. I don't really think that is what ERL is advocating in the short-term, but the
suggestion for the long term makes me a nervous. I would imagine abandoning the diversion reach gauge would only
be done following discussions with MoE and DFO.
4. Footprint verification: while as-builts have been provided to DFO, note that the relevant drawings (e.g., areas of
footprint encroachment into riparian habitats, instream habitats) are included with all other drawings (which are not
relevant to habitat impacts). In other words, we got a big pile of drawings, and in the interest of time, it would be
appreciated if only the drawings relevant to DFO (and MoE?) purposes and approvals are cited and summarized.

5. Reference Condition Approach - I like the suggestion of using the upper Squamish River site as an additional
reference, and I really appreciate the study considerations of target effect size, multiples lines of evidence, etc. The
supplementation of the reference condition data with site specific (e.g., upstream of intake, downstream in the
diversion reach) data should help to reduce the variance (which I like to think of as natural variability, but could
include other factors unrelated to plant operations that influence biological metrics of interest) around a given metric of
interest, thereby increasing the ability to detect changes as a result of plant operations.
Page 445
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
I think it is incredibly unfortunate that the characterization of background is so deficient, but ERL has done a good job
of salvaging the situation and developing a study design that still has the potential to detect plant operational effects
on the aquatic receiving environment. Some specific comments on the proposed study design:
Fish
- I am unclear as to whether the detailed flow and stream channel morphology data will be collected at the upper
Squamish site as well. I think this information is important to ensure that comparisons between various biological
metrics at the Ashlu and upper Squamish are appropriate.
- Fish abundance is to be characterized via 7 metrics, including anadromous spawning and rearing. Any reason why
resident fish spawning and rearing is not also included, or is the relative abundance of various age classes intended
to be a surrogate measure of resident fish spawning success?
- The trend analysis proposed will utilize a 5 year data set. In my experience, it is difficult to conduct such trend
analyses with less than 7 years of data. Essentially, I think that the 5 year monitoring proposed may be too short for
some of the intended analyses. Can ERL speak to this?
- In the section Electrofishing and Snorkelling (section 2.2.1, but should be 2.5.1), a scale or otolith will be collected
from each fish. I think ERL correctly notes that agency discussions could be part of the determination of how many
otoliths to collect. I guess beyond a certain point, otoliths may represent a "nice to have", rather than a "need to
have". When does the knowledge to be gained from otolith collection outweigh the lethality?
- A large number of PIT tags are proposed. Could ERL comment on potential mortality associated with the PIT
tagging? I know it's pretty low, but maybe a brief summary of current literature, as well as any potential for sub-lethal
effects, would be appreciated.
- Fishway and potential downstream movement (outmigration). I think the documented fish presence within the vicinity
of the intake and upstream pretty much confirms that the fishway needs to be operational year 'round. But, I don't
know that much thought has been give to either juvenile outmigration (from above the headpond to habitats
downstream of the headpond, albeit still above fish barriers) or adult movement back downstream of the intake. Can
ERL comment?
- Fish stranding in the Spillway Channel: ERL alludes to my comment above about conducting a literature review of
fish passage mortality through IFR valves, over the Obermeyer, etc. This may help to answer my questions,
particularly if the review is formed around the movement downstream of various size classes. As well, could ERL and
ACILP provide estimates of how the IFR is distributed between the IFR pipe and the Obermeyer weir?

Invertebrates
- You folks all know that I am trying to move the industry away from the idea that stream invertebrates are only
valued/monitored as they contribute to food abundance for fish. ERL does speak to the value of invertebrates as
important indicators of stream health, which is good, but it's more than that. Aside from my personal beliefs that
stream invertebrates have their own intrinsic value, invertebrate data is a very important line of evidence in the
assessment of impacts. At most sites, and at the Ashlu in particular (because of poor baseline characterization), I
believe that the line of evidence approach is the best way to assess type and magnitude of impact. If we rest our
conclusions on any one line of evidence, we may not get the most accurate understanding of how the biological
community responds to an altered flow regime.
- ERL will do genus-level taxonomy on at least one sample from each site (do you mean replicate?), and family level
for the other samples (replicates?). I understand that this will save valuable monitoring dollars, but could you run a
correlation analysis (between the genus level and family level at the same site) to make sure that we are not losing
too much detail by predominately using family-level taxonomy? I would prefer that the Bray-Curtis analysis be done
on genus-level data, but I could be convinced that family-level is perfectly adequate.
- Another positive comment on the proposed study design: I think this study combines the best of the RCA approach
with the added advantage of replication, thereby enabling more relevant data analyses.
stranding
Water Quality
Page 446
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
Quick question the report speaks to normalizing WQ data for purposes of conducting ANOVA, bootstrapping, etc
(or other appropriate parametric test). I think this means transformation (e.g., logarithmic) such that the data have a
distribution that is suitable for running a parametric test? I tend to use the word "normalize" in a slightly different way,
for example: standardizing the concentration of a lipophilic contaminant like PCBs to an individual test organism's
lipid content, in order to compare body burdens across a range of organisms.

Formatting: Section numbers and Table numbers need to be corrected (but I am sure you figured that out, Adam), as
well as page numbers added between pages 11 and 41.
The efforts on the part of both ACILP and ERL are acknowledged; I dont want these comments to be interpreted as
an effort to push the limits and advocate for a very expensive monitoring program just because we have the chance to
work with a willing proponent and a capable consulting company. I have worked on other types of environmental
effects monitoring programs for different industries, and I believe that run-of-river hydro effects monitoring still has
some room for improvement. This program, as proposed, has the potential to serve as an excellent model for other
run-of-rive hydro effects monitoring programs.
See you all Wednesday!

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Page 447
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2010 7:43 PM
Subject: Ashlu: update on ramping activities
Francesca,
Sep.11/12
Sept.18/19
Sept.25/26
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 448
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
thanks,
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Sent : August 29, 2010 10: 47 AM
All:
Regards
Richard

__________________________
Page 449
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 228. 0855
Page 450
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:30 AM
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Busto, Vince; Richard Blanchet;
Francois Hebert; Brian Patjas; Tony Durand; Colin Murrell
Attachments: Ashlu Dec 5-2010 all data.xlsx; Ashlu Dec 5-2010 graph.pdf; image001.jpg
Francesca,
Regards,
Robert

________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

thanks,
Francesca

Habitat Biologist
Delta, BC V3M 6A2
Ph: (604) 666-3191 / Fax: (604) 666-6627

Page 451
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

I mpor t ance: High
Tim,
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 452
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
A hl i t l l D 05 2010
1 6
0.8
0.9
2
4
0.6
0.7
2
0
)
0.5
0.6
6
4
W
a
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
s
(
m
)
R
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
c
m
s
/
h
r
)
0.3
0.4
10
8
R
0.1
0.2
14
12
12/5/2010 0:00 12/5/2010 3:00 12/5/2010 6:00 12/5/2010 9:00 12/5/2010 12:00 12/5/2010 15:00 12/5/2010 18:00 12/5/2010 21:00 12/6/2010 0:00
0 16
12/5/20100:00 12/5/20103:00 12/5/20106:00 12/5/20109:00 12/5/201012:00 12/5/201015:00 12/5/201018:00 12/5/201021:00 12/6/20100:00
Date/Time
Page 453
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:00 PM
Cc: Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX; Babakaiff, Scott C ENV:EX; Knight, Francesca; Busto, Vince;
Attachments: Ashlu Dec 5-2010 all data.xlsx; Memo to Kulka - 5-Dec 2010 Ramping Rate
Monitoring.pdf; 2010-12-07 email Non Compliance Note Ashlu.pdf; 2010-12-13 Ashlu non
compliance report.pdf; Ashlu Dec 5-2010 graph.pdf; image004.jpg; image003.jpg
Tim,
AttachedisourfollowupreporttotherampingincidentonDecember5.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________

Phone :604 984. 8600Fax :604 984. 8699

Cell. :778 227. 0434
From: Robert Kulka

Cc: 'St oddard, Erin M ENV: EX'; 'Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX'; 'Knight , Francesca'; 'Bust o, Vince'; Richard Blanchet ;
Francois Hebert ; Brian Pat j as; Tony Durand; Colin Murrell
I mpor t ance: High
Tim,
Regards,
Page 454
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434
Page 455
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

December 13, 2010

per mail and email
Re: Ashlu Creek Hydroelectric Project
Non Compliance Report, ramping incident December 5, 2010

Dear Tim;
In accordance with Section 5.5 of the Revision B - DRAFT Operating Parameters and
Procedures Report for the Ashlu Creek Project and following up our notification via email on
December 7, we provide the following non compliance report:

Incident type: ramping rates were exceeded
Date of incident: December 5, 2010
Average daily flow in Ashlu Creek
at point of diversion: 6.0 cms
Average daily flow diverted: 3.2 cms
Average water temperature
d/s of powerhouse: 0.78 degree Celsius
Weather: overcast, rain/snow fall
Observed impact on fish: see enclosed Ecofish report
Observed impact on wildlife: n.a.

Description of incident
The Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) is programmed to react to conditions that indicate a
tunnel or penstock failure by simultaneously a) closing the intake gate and b) shutting off all
flows in the powerhouse without ramping. The second step prevents rapid draining of the tunnel
which has a high potential to cause a catastrophic collapse of the tunnel and penstock. One of
the conditions indicating a failure is a sudden drop in penstock/tunnel pressure. Each of the
three T/G units has one pressure transducer, powered by its respective 24VDC system and
typical pressure readings are approximately 220m. The PLC constantly compares the three
values and disregards one value if it deviates more than 10 meters from the other two values.
This is to prevent operations due to malfunctions of transducer. At the same time the PLC
issues and alarm on the HMI if a false reading is detected.
Page 456
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Page 2

At the time of the incident the generator-turbine system supplier performed planned
maintenance and minor repairs on the system, taking advantage of the relatively low flows and
subsequent shut down of two of three units. At the time of the work one of three T/G units was
operating. As part of standard safety procedures, the two out of operation units were locked-
out, meaning that they were disconnected from sources of power such as hydraulic or electric.
Typically this process does not include low voltage circuits (24VDC and below) since those are
not a safety concern. However, the work included cleaning and labelling of the 24VDC wiring
system, therefore power for those circuits was also cut off by removing a set of fuses.
Disconnecting the transducer power supply results in a reading of 0m of head. The
disconnection of two 24VDC circuits lead to the following events:
When the first T/G unit was disconnected, its transducer reading dropped to 0. The following
information was available to the PLC:
The PLC identified the reading of T/G_1 as false due to its deviation from the other readings
and the PLC calculated the average value of the two accepted readings as 220 meters which
reflects normal operating conditions. The PLC issued an alarm for false transducer reading and
the operator acknowledged the alarm because he was aware that the transducer has been
disconnected.
When the second T/G unit was disconnected, the following information was available to the
PLC:
The PLC compared the three readings and analyzed that T/G_3 deviates more then 10 meters
from 1 and 2, and therefore 3 must be a false reading and its value was dropped. The new
average value for pressure was the average of T/G_1 and T/G_2, therefore 0 meters. The PLC
identified a sudden decrease in tunnel/penstock pressure and the PLC executed its
programmed logic by closing the intake gate and shutting off T/G 3 without extended ramping.
T/G 3 shut off flow of 3.2cms within 2 minutes. The EDS bypass was not opened to prevent
draining of the tunnel.

Response
Immediately following the shut down, the PLC logic to compare the three readings was disabled.
This allowed opening the intake gate and restarting one unit approximately 2 hours after the
shut down. Ecofish Research conducted an impact assessment on site and prepared the
attached report.

Future prevention of comparable incidents
The PLC logic will be modified to disregard pressure readings when their power source is turned
off. The change will be implemented by January 15, 2011. In the interim the PLC logic that
lead to the event remains disabled.

Page 457
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Page 3

Environmental impact
Ecofish Researchs report describes that no stranded or isolated fish was found. No other
potential environmental impacts were identified.

Notification of agencies
We recognize that ACILP did not report the incident to the agencies within the required time
frame; the following events occurred: The maintenance and repair work that was conducted on
the generating equipment at the time of the incident had started about one week prior to the
incident. The work caused frequent false alarms, often on a hourly basis, and the operator on
site continuously acknowledged alarms, including those triggered by the ramping incident.
When the incident happened, the operator focused on the immediate response to open the
intake gate and recommence diversion as soon as possible, but he did not follow internal
response protocol to notify the operations management team as soon as possible; the
management team was notified on December 7 in the morning.
We are improving operator awareness and understanding of environmental sensitive aspects of
the operations and subsequent requirements such as notifications. With the increasing number
of hydroelectric power plants in operation and the developing requirements, Innergex has
created the position of Environmental Coordinator (the EC) at our North Vancouver office
which will be placed in early January 2011. The EC will work closely with the operating
personnel to continuously develop and audit their level of training to prevent oversights such as
the failure to notify this incident in due time.

Please let me know if you need any other information.
Sincerely,


Encl: Ecofish Memorandum, December 9, 2010
Email, R. Kulka to T. Bennett, December 7, 2010
Files (via email only): Ashlu Dec 5-2010 all data.xlsx; Ashlu Dec 5-2010 graph.pdf

Cc. (per email only):
MoNRO: Erin Stoddard, Scott Babakaiff
DFO: Francesca Knight, Vince Busto
ACILP: Richard Blanchet, Francois Hebert, Brian Patjas, Colin Murrell
Page 458
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
A hl i t l l D 05 2010
1 6
0.8
0.9
2
4
0.6
0.7
2
0
)
0.5
0.6
6
4
W
a
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
s
(
m
)
R
a
m
p
i
n
g
(
c
m
s
/
h
r
)
0.3
0.4
10
8
R
0.1
0.2
14
12
12/5/2010 0:00 12/5/2010 3:00 12/5/2010 6:00 12/5/2010 9:00 12/5/2010 12:00 12/5/2010 15:00 12/5/2010 18:00 12/5/2010 21:00 12/6/2010 0:00
0 16
12/5/20100:00 12/5/20103:00 12/5/20106:00 12/5/20109:00 12/5/201012:00 12/5/201015:00 12/5/201018:00 12/5/201021:00 12/6/20100:00
Date/Time
Page 459
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
'Knight, Francesca'
Subject: RE: Ashlu IPP- Action Items from Nov 10 meeting
P.S. Regarding Ashlu ILCO 'showstoppers', I'm sure this wouldn't be forgotten, but don't forget about
ensuring that the ILCO includes reference to appropriate protocol re: treatment of penstock water in the
event of extended shutdown...I seem to recall Chessy mentioning that the present OPPR draft was deficient
on this issue (e.g. inadequately detailed protocol?).

Sent : Thu 13/ 01/ 2011 3: 36 PM
Subj ect : RE: Ashlu I PP- Act ion I t ems from Nov 10 meet ing
Hey Tim,
J ust following up our meeting earlier today, and your request to identify any showstoppers that
Id recommend be resolved prior to issuance of an ILCO at Ashlu. The first two show-stoppers
Im suggesting was previously identified at our Nov. 10 2010 meeting with the proponent (see
email below) and the third one relates to an old outstanding issue:
1. Commitment of specific ramping thresholds which meet the default (2.5 cm/ hour) rates in
the absence of a complete ramping study: Elyses table provided earlier today implies that 4 cm/ hr
is the compliance threshold at both gauges (ie. the diversion reach gauge for startup and the
downstream gauge for shutdown); the table indicates that this threshold will allow compliance
with the default 2.5 cm/ hour threshold for the fisheries-sensitive site during shutdown (1.95
cm/ hour), bu t n ot d u r in g s t a r t u p ( 4. 12 cm / h ou r ) . I havent seen any reports verifiying that
the 4.12 cm/ hour will not strand fish during start-up...has this professional opinion been provided
by Ecofish?
2. Per my email from an hour ago (14:31 on J an. 13 2011), the table provided by Elyse should be
expanded to include specific commitments by the proponent regarding a ct ion s ( wit h
d ea d lin es ) t o be u n d er t a ken by t h e p r op on en t in t h e even t of exceed a n ce ( ie. n on -
com p lia n ce) of r a m p in g t h r es h old s . For instance: agency notification, data review,
inspection of affected reaches to assess need for application of mitigative prescriptions (e.g. fish
salvage), initiation of mitigative activities, submission of impact assessment report to agencies. I
also suggest that the proponent be obligated to submit regular (weekly?) verification of
compliance with ramping & IFR for the period of the ILCO.
3. Details proposed in the latest (Nov. 2010) OPPR regarding fis h la d d er op er a t ion s and
s p illwa y a s s es s m en t for fis h s t r a n d in g (per Section 2.2.3 of the OPPR) should be assessed
by Erin & Chessy, with formal comment prior to the ILCO issuance...the protocol outlined in
Section 2.2.3 of the OPPR indicate that they are likely to be implemented during the period of the
ILCO, and agency-approved protocol must be developed ASAP.
I will be formally reviewing the Ashlu IFR memo next week, but I believe the only sticky issue is
w.r.t. Chinook/ bull trout spawning IFR in autumn (ie. is 2.41 cms adequate?)...but I wouldnt
classify this as a showstopper for the ILCO since it doesnt need to be resolved in the next few
months (ie. the anticipated period of the ILCO). Im flexin tomorrow, but feel free to call (604-
876-0006) if you require any clarification. However, as of this afternoon, I may not have access to
Page 460
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2
my email until Monday J an. 17. BTW, I reckon that your verbage from the Upper Stave ILCO is a
good foundation to start with...again, it may be necessary to explicitly state that any conditions
specified in your ILCO supercede the latest (Nov. 2010) version of the OPPR.
Later, Scott
_____________________________________________
Cc: Bickert on, Nicola ENV: EX
Subj ect : Ashlu I PP- Act ion I t ems from Nov 10 meet ing
Tim,
Per your request, here is my list of the Ashlu proponent (Innergex)s action items and deadlines
from our Nov. 10 2010 meeting at Innergexs offices, which they committed to provide to MOE
&DFO p r ior t o s eekin g I LCO:
1. A professional opinion (to be completed by Ecofish) regarding the a d equ a cy of r a m p in g
r a t es & t h r es h old s (ie. based on streamflow data collected at various gauges during
commissioning, are there any subtle but important operational burps in diversion and ramping?
Any issues with the PLC which need to be resolved?);
Interestingly, these commitments seem prescient given the Dec. 5 2010 ramping issue (and un-
timely response from the proponent).
1. review the Ecofish report (provided on Nov. 10 2010) regarding adequacy of the IFR at
Ashlu. No deadline was identified, but intent was ASAP.
2. If allowed to do so, MOE were to forward the ILCO from East Toba & Montose to
Innergex/ Ecofish to consider as a template.
Scott
Page 461
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:54 PM
To: Bennett, Timothy A ENV:EX; Stoddard, Erin M ENV:EX
Cc: 'Knight, Francesca'; 'Busto, Vince'
Attachments: image001.jpg; RE: Ashlu Creek Ramping Compliance Specifications
Tim,







Sin ce t h en . . .

Page 462
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2

(April?).


Scott

prompt.

2001264)
I mpor t ance: High

Ph.(604)5825227Fx.(604)5825235

I mpor t ance: High

Page 463
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
3
HelloTim,
edthenonthefollowingftpsitefordownload:
atthisstage.

acceptance.
Regards,
Robert
________________________________________


Phone : 604 984. 8600 Fax : 604 984. 8699
Cell. : 778 227. 0434

2001264)

HiRichard,Robert:
Page 464
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
S21
S21
1
April 5, 2011.
Tim,
Status:
Initialevent:
Secondaryevent:
Measurestaken:
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX
Page 465
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
2


Tim,
Thankyou,
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Page 466
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3
1
Cc: Babakaiff, Scott C FLNR:EX; Stoddard, Erin M FLNR:EX; Knight, Francesca;
vince.busto@dfo-mpo.gc.ca; rkulka@innergex.com; FHebert@innergex.com;
RBlanchet@innergex.com; cmurrell@innergex.com; BPatjas@innergex.com
Subject: Ashlu Creek Project (water file 2001264): Ramping non-compliance notification for April
13, 2011
Tim,
TheAshluCreekHydroProjecthadanoncomplianceeventonWednesday,April13,2011.Iapologizeforthe
delayedemailaswehaddownstreamflowgaugedatatransmissionissues.Anoncompliancereportwillbesent
alongwithEcofishssitereportinthecomingdays.
Matt
Matt Henderson


INNERGEX

Page 467
FNR-2011-00265 Part 3

Response Records Part 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Response Records Part 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Russell, Veronica A ENV:EX

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Rochet t a, St eve J ENV: EX

Scott Babakaiff, M.Sc. P.Geo.

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX [ mailt o: Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca]

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX

From: Mike Nelson [ mailt o: mnelson@cerg.ca]

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX [ mailt o: Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca]

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX [ mailt o: Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca]

From: Richard Blanchet [ mailt o: RBlanchet @innergex.com]

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX [ mailt o: Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca]

From: Richard Blanchet [ mailt o: RBlanchet @innergex.com]

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Bust o, Vince [ mailt o: Vince.Bust o@dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

From: Rochet t a, St eve J ENV: EX

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Rochet t a, St eve J ENV: EX

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

Francesca Knight, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.

From: Richard Blanchet [ mailt o: RBlanchet @innergex.com]

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Robert Kulka

From: Knight , Francesca [ mailt o: Francesca.Knight @dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX

From: Mike Nelson [ mailt o: mnelson@cerg.ca]

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX [ mailt o: Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca]

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX [ mailt o: Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca]

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX [ mailt o: Timot hy.Bennet t @gov.bc.ca]

From: Bennet t , Timot hy A ENV: EX

From: Babakaiff, Scot t C ENV: EX

From: Mike Nelson [ mailt o: mnelson@cerg.ca]

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

From: Mike Nelson

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

From: Mike Nelson [ mailt o: mnelson@cerg.ca]

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

From: Robert Kulka [ mailt o: RKulka@innergex.com]

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

From: Mike Nelson

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

From: Bust o, Vince [ mailt o: Vince.Bust o@dfo-mpo.gc.ca]

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.

MIKE NELSON, R.P.BIO.