
                                  MEMORANDUM


Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
phone	703-385-6000
fax	703-385-6007


TO:			Record
FROM:		Christine Wong, Tetra Tech, Inc.
DATE: 		February 6, 2009

SUBJECT:	Notes from correspondence with Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff

Background

To complement existing information on cooling water intake structures and intake technologies, EPA directed Tetra Tech (Tt) to research information on and to make contact with international regulatory personnel working in relevant oversight programs.

Methodology

Tt began by searching the docket records and the Internet for international intake technology regulatory agencies.  Tt staff concluded that making contact with personnel from Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the government agency responsible for overseeing programs and services that support the use and development of Canada's waterways and aquatic resources, would be the most practical avenue for making international connections.

Tt first made contact with DFO by emailing the general information emailing addresses provided by the DFO Web site: info@dfo-mpo.gc.ca and Min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.  In this introductory email, Tt referenced the language in Section 30 of the Canada's Fisheries Act, requiring that:

      Every water intake, ditch, channel or canal in Canada constructed or adapted for conducting water from any Canadian fisheries waters for irrigating, manufacturing, power generation, domestic or other purposes shall, if the Minister deems it necessary in the public interest, be provided at its entrance or intake with a fish guard or a screen, covering or netting so fixed as to prevent the passage of fish from any Canadian fisheries waters into the water intake, ditch, channel or canal.
      
Tt also inquired about any specific policies, additional legislation, and approvals or permitting activities related to fish protection requirements for water extraction, or data related to the development of those policies and regulation.

Tt's introductory email also referenced the DFO's 1995 Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guidelines, a guidance document for implementing fish protection intake technologies in fresh waters, and asked if similar documents or other requirements existed for saline waters.

Tt's email was shared among the relevant DFO divisions and Tt staff made contact with Carole Grant, the Section Head for Habitat Evaluation in the Marine Environment and Habitat Management Division of the DFO (Carole.Grant@dfo-mpo.gc.ca).  Ms. Grant confirmed that the 1995 Freshwater Intake End-of-Pipe Fish Screen Guidelines is the DFO's main guidance document for freshwater extraction and that no similar document exists for brackish or saline waters.  She noted that the guidance document is not a policy or regulatory document and "was developed by DFO to assist proponents/developers in the design and installation of fish screens for the protection of fish in areas where water is being extracted.  As stated in the guideline, the main objective is to provide a national standard-of-practice and guidance for end-of-pipe fish screens at freshwater intakes to prevent potential losses of fish due to entrainment or impingement."  Ms. Grant indicated that decisions about the individual permits are based on a "review [of] each application for any type of project involving water extractions based mainly on engineering expertise and related scientific advice regarding minimum flow requirements for any fish species present in the area."  She also noted that most, if not all, of the water extraction in projects in Newfoundland and other areas under her jurisdiction occur in freshwater.  She stated that she does not possess or know of the existence of any efficacy data on impingement and entrainment reduction technologies.

Ms. Grant referred Tt to Mr. Lonnie King, the Senior Habitat Advisor in the Habitat Protection Branch at DFO (Lonnie.King@dfo-mpo.gc.ca), to answer some follow-up questions about water intake facilities in Canada.  Mr. King indicated that he does not have any personal knowledge of facilities working with saltwater exaction, but speculated that there are likely many such facilities and recommended follow-up with the coastal provincial governments for specific examples.  He stated that there are hundreds of hydro-electric facilities across the country, thousands of water intakes, and likely tens of thousands of water crossings, but specific data on approximately how many facilities are permitted and what types of industries they represent would be difficult to obtain. He indicated that the number of nuclear facilities or hydro-electric projects might be obtained by contacting those agencies involved in managing them (e.g., the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board).

Mr. King clarified that Section 30 of the Fisheries Act does not represent all of the water extraction regulation (related to fish protection) in Canada.  He specified that "DFO administers a suite of sections known as the Habitat Protection Provisions of the Fisheries Act.  Withdrawing water may have implications on Fish Habitat, Fish Mortality or Fish Passage, which each have their own specific permitting requirements.  DFO also has responsibilities to administer the Species at Risk Act, as it applies to aquatic species."  Mr. King agreed with Ms. Grant that the permitting requirements for specific projects/facilities are administered by the local (provincial) government and are determined on a site-specific basis, depending on the fish species and habitat being affected, and what other provincial/territorial permitting processes may be in place.  

Mr. King stated that the DFO fish screening guideline differentiates species based on body form and referenced the guidelines in Introduction to Fishway Design.  He indicated that there are various compilations of the fish swimming ability for specific species, referencing the data in Swimming performance and behaviour of fish species endemic to Newfoundland and Labrador: A literature review for the purpose of establishing design and water velocity criteria for fishways and culverts.   Mr. King noted that fish screens are just one means of deterring fish and that other technologies (e.g., sound and light deterrents) have been explored for fish protection, particularly for use at hydro-electric facilities.

Mr. King indicated that the DFO does not establish national minimum flow requirements or general requirements allowing for minimum fish swimming ability.  He stated that most of the data used by DFO are derived from laboratory flume experiments and some field studies.

Conclusion

Tt did not make contact with any Canadian DFO personnel that knew of national regulations or policies comparable to the U.S. 316(b) rules.  In Canada, information about specific facilities with water intakes and fish protection technologies used at water intakes appears to only be available at the provincial or regional level, rather than at the national level.  





 

