
                                  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: 		April 15, 2009

SUBJECT:	Notes from teleconferences 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 Canadian cooling water intake structures and intake technologies that might be of potential interest for site visitations by EPA and contractor personnel.  

Methodology

Based on previous correspondence 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, Tt did not attempt to contact national-level DFO staff about individual cooling water intake structures and intake technologies, because such information is typically not aggregated at the national level.  Instead, based on the recommendation of previous contacts, Tt staff directly contacted personnel in the provincial governments of coastal provinces and those adjoining the Great Lakes, since the permitting process takes place at the provincial level.  Tt made telephone inquiries to the general information lines (provided at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/contact-eng.htm) at the Pacific, Central and Arctic, Gulf, Maritimes, and Newfoundland and Labrador regional DFO offices.  In each case, Tt inquiries were referred to personnel from the Fish Habitat Management Program. 

Tt made contact with Fish Habitat Management Program personnel from the Vancouver, British Columbia; St. John's, Newfoundland; and Burlington, Ontario regional offices.  The discussion below summarizes the information gathered from these staff.

                         ****************************

Terry Fleet (709-772-5597), Habitat Management Engineer in Newfoundland

Mr. Fleet knew of two examples of fish protection technologies on water intake structures, but did not know of any large-scale or widespread implementation of such technologies.  He knew of one example indirectly  -  a hydroelectric project in Great Falls, Newfoundland, for a pulp and paper mill has been using a louver system to guide fish away from the intake structure.  Mr. Fleet indicated that the louver is known to be approximately 75-80% effective at fish deterrence (specifically salmon deterrence), and suggested more information about the project is available on the Internet from Mr. Leon King (709-292-5197).  

Mr. Fleet spoke at length about another water intake project under his supervision. A municipal drinking water intake on the salmon-bearing Shoal Harbor River in Clarenville, Newfoundland, has a fine-mesh traveling to protect the fish from uptake.  He stated that the mesh is 1.3 mm and the intake velocity at this facility is typically less than 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s).  He noted that the environmental assessment for this project is likely available on the Internet.

Mr. Fleet stated that there are no requirements for fish protection at intakes in non-fish bearing waters, but noted that it is common to have some types of screens (generally, stationary screens) on water intakes (most are drinking water intakes) in fish-bearing water to prevent impingement, as well as debris buildup.  He indicated that there are no nuclear facilities in Newfoundland, but there are a number of geothermal and hydroelectric facilities.  Mr. Fleet noted that hydroelectric facilities do not necessarily have or are required to have screens on their intakes, and such requirements are made by regulatory personnel on a case-by-case basis.  

                         ****************************

Al Johnson (604-666-0226), Habitat Management and Enhancement Branch for the Lower Frazier area in Vancouver, BC

Mr. Johnson stated that fish protection technologies at water intake structures in the greater Vancouver area are only implemented at very small scale intakes; for example, on farms.  He stated that this is very likely true of all of British Columbia.  

Mr. Johnson noted that all of the fish protection technologies at water intakes that he is aware of are being implemented in the United Stated in Washington state and California.  
                                       
                         ****************************

Derrick Beach (905-336-4435), Habitat Management Engineer for the greater Ontario area

Mr. Beach stated that Canada is still trying to catch up with the United States in terms of fish protection technologies on water intake structures.  He stated that he is working with some nuclear power plants on the Great Lakes to negotiate the potential installation of fish protection technologies on their intake structures.  He stated that these projects are still in the biological assessment stage; the facilities are studying the number of fish impacted by water intakes in the affected waterbodies.

Mr. Beach stated that most facilities do not have any kind of fish protection technologies on water intake structures, though many might have debris screens.  He noted one municipal drinking water facility that does have stationary fish protection screens, but did not know the mesh size of the screens.  He suggested that the mesh size is determined according to the size of the local fish intended to be protected.  Mr. Beach stated that habitat management personnel are most interested in preventing entrainment, noting the difficulty with maintenance (i.e., for deep intakes) in the Great Lakes.  He indicated that regulators in the area are interested in designing structures that can be retrofitted with screens and allow for continuous monitoring.  

Mr. Beach indicated that all the intake screening that he knew of were all stationary screens; he did not know of any traveling screen technology being used on water intakes in the Great Lakes.  He stated that regulatory personnel were also looking into implementing requirements for reducing the intake velocity to protect fish.  He emphasized that all of the tools were being discussed, but none, to his knowledge, were being implemented yet.

Mr. Beach confirmed that the requirements and authority for protecting fish at water intakes comes from several different parts of the Fisheries Act, and that the language in those regulations is very general and does not contain specific implementation requirements.  He suggested that Habitat Management offices in British Columbia and the other maritime provinces might have more information on fish protection technologies. 

During a follow-up conversation, Tt personnel spoke with Mr. Beach to confirm whether he knew of or was requiring any facilities, specifically nuclear generating facilities, to use closed-cycle recirculating systems (CCRSs) or changes in flow regimes for the purpose of fish protection.  He was chosen for these follow-up questions because his area has the highest concentration of power plants in Canada, which mainly derives its electricity from hydropower.

Mr. Beach stated that he does not know of any facilities that are using CCRSs or targeted flow regimes (i.e., seasonal changes, variable speed pumps, low intake velocity) for fish protection or other purposes.  He indicated that his department has been in negotiations (for many years) with facilities that may have intakes in biologically rich areas, but those talks have not yielded anything past discussions about what types of aquatic organism protection screening might be used at those intakes, per the Canadian guidelines for fish protection at intake structures, and has definitely not led to the installation flow-based technologies.  He noted that those negotiations have included some discussion of flow regime changes or CCRSs, but no facilities have yet used or been required to use those technologies or methods.  He mentioned that there has been a rumor circulating around SFO staff that the Fisheries Act, which contains the current guidelines for fish protection at intake structures, might be rewritten in the near future, but that is the extent of his knowledge about national rulemaking on this topic.


