Public Consultations

Document Sample
Public Consultations Powered By Docstoc
					NEW NUCLEAR – DARLINGTON PROJECT

       Fisheries and Oceans Canada
 Fish and Fish Habitat Impact Assessment

                       Presented By: C.Thomas Hoggarth
                                   Date: March 24, 2011
                         Overview
•   Fisheries and Oceans Canada mandate
•   Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat
•   Baseline Fish and Fish Habitat Information
•   Recommendations
          Fisheries and Oceans Canada Mandate
The Canadian Constitution provides the federal government with the
authority to:

 • Manage coastal and inland fisheries,
 • Conduct fisheries research, and
 • Administer the Fisheries Act.

Within Ontario, the federal government has delegated the management of the
fisheries to the Province while maintaining the legislative authority to protect fish
habitat in waters frequented by fish.
            Fisheries and Oceans Canada Mandate
                       The Fisheries Act

• Manages and protects Canada's fisheries resources
• Applies to all fishing zones, territorial seas and inland waters
• Binding on all Canadians, including all levels of government
            Fisheries and Oceans Canada Mandate
                       The Fisheries Act


Defines Fish as:
 “shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any parts of fish, shellfish,
  crustaceans or marine animals, and the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and
  juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals”
           Fisheries and Oceans Canada Mandate
                      The Fisheries Act

Defines Fish Habitat as:

 “spawning grounds and nursery,
  rearing, food supply, migration and
  any other areas on which fish
  depend directly or indirectly in order
  to carry out their life processes”
             Fisheries and Oceans Canada Mandate
                        The Fisheries Act
The Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat (HADD), is prohibited under
subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act, unless authorized under subsection 35(2).

The mortality of fish.
Section 32 of the Fisheries Act states: No person shall destroy fish by any means other than
fishing except as authorized by the Minister or under regulations made by the Governor in
Council under this Act.

Further to this, subsection 30(1) of the Fisheries Act states: If the Minister deems it necessary in
the public interest, a fish guard or a screen shall be installed to prevent the passage of fish from
any Canadian fisheries waters into the water intake, ditch, channel or canal.
                Fisheries and Oceans Canada Mandate
                        Habitat Compensation
DFO’s Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat provides a hierarchy of preferences for the
development of a fish habitat compensation plan:

 • DFO’s preference is to assess alternative measures to redesign, relocate or mitigate the potential impacts.

 • Then, should it be impossible to avoid impacts, compensation would be a condition of the Authorization for
   HADD:

     • The preferred option is like-for-like habitat on site.
     • The second option would be unlike habitat on site.
     • Compensation that provides habitat that is otherwise limiting or that provides greater suitability than the
       existing habitat is also a preferred option.
                  Fisheries and Oceans Canada Mandate
                          The Species at Risk Act
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is responsible for all aquatic species (fish and marine plants) except
individuals located in Parks Canada land.

 Section 32. Individual Organisms
      Prohibitions against killing, harming, harassing, buying, collecting, selling extirpated, endangered or threatened
       Schedule 1 species

 Section 33. Residences
      Only applies for those species to which the concept of residence applies
      To date, not defined for any aquatic species

 Section 58. Critical Habitat
      Prohibitions against destroying Critical Habitat as defined in recovery plans
           Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat


•   Site Preparation
•   Lake Infill and Shoreline Stabilization
•   Construction of cooling water intake and diffuser
•   Operation and maintenance
             Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat
Site preparation and clearing will result in potential impacts to:

  • three artificially constructed onsite ponds,
  • a tributary to Lake Ontario, and
  • Darlington Creek and its tributaries.


 DFO believes that the impact to these aquatic resources can be mitigated with standard
 mitigation and best management practices and, where required, compensated for using
 standard approaches.
           Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat
Lake Infill and Shoreline Stabilization - Ontario Power Generation proposes these works to:

 • dispose of excess material from site clearing,
 • create extra land for reactors,
 • create land for construction staging lay down areas,
 • create a 100 m security buffer along the shoreline for both the new and existing reactor
   locations, and
 • stabilize the shoreline to protect infrastructure during storm events.

As proposed this would result in the permanent loss of 40 Hectares of Fish Habitat in the near
shore area of Lake Ontario.
               Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat
Lake Infill and Shoreline Stabilization

•   DFO believes that the 40 ha infill associated with the bounding scenario poses a high risk to fish and fish habitat.

•   Redesigning the proposed bounding scenario to limit infill to a maximum depth of 2 metres (approximately 25 ha)
    would greatly decrease the risk to fish and fish habitat.

•   The assessment of alternatives to minimize the infill will continue to be investigated after the reactor and cooling
    water technologies are selected.

•   DFO is confident that, through continued negotiation with OPG and implementation of the Round Whitefish
    Action Plan, OPG will be able to develop compensation that is acceptable to DFO for the a maximum loss of 25
    ha of fish habitat and an Authorization pursuant to subsection 35(2) authorization could be issued.
              Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat
Intake and Diffuser – OPG’s preferred alternative is to use Once Through Cooling
Technology at the new facility.

• This will result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat associated with the
  construction of the intake and diffuser.

• DFO believes that the construction of the proposed intake and diffuser poses a high risk to fish habitat and
  will require an Authorization pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, if one is appropriate.

• With changes to the design of the proposed intake structure, including additional mitigation measures, and
  the development of acceptable habitat compensation to address residual habitat impacts, DFO is satisfied
  that the risk to fish habitat can be offset such that an Authorization can be issued.
              Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat
Operations - Ontario Power Generation’s preferred option for reactor cooling is once through cooling.

 • This option poses a high risk for the impingement and entrainment of fish, fish eggs, fish larvae, invertebrates
   and plankton and would require a section 32 Authorization, if one is appropriate.

 • If once through cooling is selected, additional mitigation measures may be required to minimize mortality and
   these measures would be included in a Section 32 authorization under the Fisheries Act.

 • The once through cooling option will result in the discharge of thermal effluent. Environment Canada is
   assessing the impact of this thermal discharge on the aquatic environment.
               Baseline Fish and Fish Habitat Data
• The capture of adult Round whitefish, during fall sampling, in spawning condition indicates that
  they are spawning at or adjacent to the existing Darlington site.

• The capture of Round whitefish larvae, during spring sampling, indicates that spawning was
  successful at or immediately adjacent to the existing Darlington site.

• Ontario Power Generation has concluded that the Round whitefish population appears to be on the
  decline (2009 Studies).

• Recent Ontario Power Generation reports indicate that Round whitefish populations show signs of
  stress, in that there may be loss of recruitment (population is getting older).
                          DFO Recommendations
• To protect Round whitefish populations, the proposed infill should be limited to the 2m depth
  contour.

• Ontario Power Generation should finalize and implement a Fish Habitat Compensation Plan
  to offset residual impacts to fish habitat that will result from the development of the New
  Nuclear at Darlington Project.

• Ontario Power Generation should develop and implement a monitoring program, to the
  satisfaction of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, that will verify compliance with commitments
  expressed in the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan and all conditions of any Authorization
  provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
                         DFO Recommendations
• A workshop should be held with Ontario Power Generation and the appropriate government
  agencies to identify and develop an implementation plan for the collection of outstanding
  data needs which will be incorporated into the Round Whitefish Action Plan.

• A workshop should be held to finalize the development of the Round Whitefish Action Plan
  and that this plan be included as a condition of regulatory approvals to ensure full
  implementation.
                          DFO Recommendations
• If the once-through cooling option is selected, options for moving the intake to deeper
  water should be considered to decrease potential impacts to Round whitefish.

• If the once-through cooling option is selected, it should be designed such that future
  retrofits are possible. This will allow for adaptive management throughout the life of the
  project.

• If the once-through cooling option is selected, that additional mitigation measures be
  engineered into the proposed design, for example, fish bypass alternatives, fish screens
  and acoustic deterrents.
Questions ?
                      Lake Infill Options
Maximum lake infill option:

Option 1 – Bounding Scenario of 40 ha

No lake infill options:

Option 2 – Offsite Soil Disposal;
Option 3 – Offshore Deep Water Soil Disposal; and,
Option 4 - CN Rail Realignment Across the New Nuclear Darlington Site.
                     Lake Infill Options
Minimum lake infill options:

Option 5 – Alternative Staging and Delivery of Materials;
Option 6 – Additional Temporary Lake Infill; and,
Option 7 – Relocation of Existing Darlington Nuclear Generating Station
Buildings and Facilities.
                         Intake options
Intake options that are being considered are:
  • Bounding Scenario (No enhancements)
  • Cylindrical Wedge Wire Mesh Screens
  • Porous Dike
  • Reduced Intake Velocity Cap
  • Behavioural Barrier – Fish Acoustic System
  • Deeper Water Location
  • Fish Return System
            Habitat Alteration and Assessment Tool
• HAAT is a model that allows DFO to assess the impact of shoreline developments
  in the Great Lakes on the productive capacity of fish habitat.

• Compares conditions of a site in the pre-development stage with the expected
  condition of the site once construction is complete.

• Provides the ability to integrate fish community objectives into the assessment.

• The model includes; life stage preferences in defined areas for fishes grouped by
  feeding and thermal preferences; depth, submergent and emergent vegetation, and
  substrate type.
        The HAAT Model Looks at 4 Variables:
                             AREA

         0-1

        1- 2
                                                      COVER
DEPTH   2-5

        5 - 10

        10 +                                      Emergent
                                             Submergent
                                      None




                 SUBSTRATE
The HAAT model distinguishes
between areas that are:                Land


                                               A MOD-I
Lost/Gained or   Directly/Indirectly                               A
                                                         A LOSS        MOD-I


Modified:                              Water

                                                         A MOD-D
                                                                   A UNCH


                                       Land                                    A COMP

                                               A MOD-I
Areas used as                                                      A
                                                         A LOSS        MOD-I

Compensation:                          Water

                                                         A MOD-D
                                                                   A UNCH
Pathways of Effects for Placement of Materials or Structures in
                            Water
Risk Matrix

				
DOCUMENT INFO