Columbia River Project Water Use Plan

Transcription

1 Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan Monitoring Program and Physical Works Annual Report: 2012 Implementation Period: February 2011 to January 2012 CLBMON-9 Kinbasket Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition Analysis CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources CLBMON-11A Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation in Kinbasket Reservoir CLBMON-11B Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife Physical Works in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir CLBMON-12 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition Analysis CLBMON-13 Inventory of Mosquito Populations in the Revelstoke Area CLBMON-33 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources CLBMON-35 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Plant Response to Inundation CLBWORKS-1 Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works CLBWORKS-2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works Conditional Water Licences for Kinbasket storage (27068 and 39432), Mica diversion (39431), Revelstoke diversion and storage (47215), and Arrow storage (27066) February 29, 2012

2 BC Hydro Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Kinbasket & Arrow Reservoir Revegetation Management Plan Annual Report: Introduction This document represents a summary of the status and the results of monitoring programs and physical works under the Kinbasket & Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan of the Columbia River Water Use Plan (WUP) to January 31, 2012, as per the Columbia River Order under the Water Act, dated January 26, There are eight monitoring programs and two physical works included within this Management Plan: CLBMON-9 Kinbasket Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition Analysis CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources CLBMON-11A Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation in Kinbasket Reservoir CLBMON-11B Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife Physical Works in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir CLBMON-12 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition Analysis 2 Background CLBMON-13 Inventory of Mosquito Populations in the Revelstoke Area CLBMON-33 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources CLBMON-35 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Plant Response to Inundation CLBWORKS-1 Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works CLBWORKS-2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works The water use planning process for BC Hydro s Columbia River project was initiated in August 2000 and completed in June The conditions proposed in the WUP for the operation of the project reflect the June 2004 consensus recommendations of the Columbia River WUP Consultative Committee (CC). In July 2006, the Columbia River Draft WUP was submitted to the Comptroller of Water Rights (CWR). The draft WUP was sent out to regulatory agencies, First Nations and interested stakeholders for review. In January 2007, the CWR approved the final WUP and issued an Order to BC Hydro to implement the conditions proposed in the Columbia River WUP and prepare the monitoring programs and physical works Terms of Reference (TOR). BC Hydro Page 2

3 An addendum to the Columbia River WUP was submitted to the CWR in July 2007 after an Environmental Assessment Certificate was issued for the Revelstoke Unit 5 Project. The addendum proposes additional terms and conditions for the Columbia River WUP, as recommended by the Revelstoke Unit 5 Core Committee in December 2006, to address incremental impacts of the operation of the fifth generating unit at Revelstoke Dam. In August 2007, the CWR accepted the Columbia River Project WUP Addendum resulting from the Revelstoke Unit 5 Project, and issued amendments to the Columbia River Implementation Order to include the commitments made by BC Hydro to undertake additional monitoring programs and physical works associated with the Revelstoke Unit 5 Project. An addendum to the Columbia River WUP was submitted to the CWR in April 2010 resulting from Mica Generating Unit 5 and Unit 6. Environmental assessment certificates were issued for the addition of the two units. In August 2010, the CWR accepted the Columbia River Project WUP Addendum resulting from the Mica Generating Unit 5 and Unit 6, and issued amendments to the Columbia River Implementation Order to include the commitments made by BC Hydro to undertake additional monitoring programs associated with the Mica Generating Unit 5 and Unit 6. The following terms of reference related to these amendments will be submitted in 2012: CLBMON-57 (an addendum to extend CLBMON 10 an additional year). The following table outlines the dates that Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan TOR have been submitted to, and approved by the CWR. Original ToR Submission Most Recent ToR Resubmission Monitoring Program TOR Order Clause Date Submitted Date Approved Date Submitted Date Approved CLBMON-9 Kinbasket Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition Analysis CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources CLBMON-11A Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation in Kinbasket Reservoir CLBMON-11B Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife Physical Works in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir Schedule A, Clause 2(a) Jan 25, 2008 Mar 3, 2008 Sep 17, 2010 Oct 26, 2010 Schedule A, Clause 2(b) Apr 4, 2007 Apr 19, 2007 Jan 12, 2009 Apr 8, 2009 Schedule A, Clause 2(c) Schedule C, Clause 5(a) Schedule D, Clause 2(a) Jan 25, 2008 Feb 26, 2008 Oct 22, 2008 Dec 10, 2008 Apr 3, 2009 May 11, BC Hydro Page 3

4 Original ToR Submission Most Recent ToR Resubmission Monitoring Program TOR Order Clause Date Submitted Date Approved Date Submitted Date Approved CLBMON-12 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition Analysis CLBMON-13 Inventory of Mosquito Populations in the Revelstoke Area CLBMON-33 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources CLBMON-35 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Plant Response to Inundation CLBWORKS-1 Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works CLBWORKS-2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works (Phase 1) CLBWORKS-2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works (Phase 2) CLBWORKS-2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works (Phase 3) Schedule C, Clause 2(a) (b) Schedule D, Clause 2(b) (c) Schedule C, Clause 5(b) Schedule C, Clause 2(b) Schedule D, Clause 2(c) Schedule C, Clause 2(c) Schedule D, Clause 2(d) Schedule A, Clause 1(a) Schedule C, Clause 1(a) Schedule D, Clause 1(a) Schedule C, Clause 1(a) Schedule D, Clause 1(a) Schedule C, Clause 1(a) Schedule D, Clause 1(a) Jan 25, 2008 Mar 3, 2008 Sep 17, 2010 Oct 26, 2010 Jan 25, 2008 Feb 26, Apr 4, 2007 Apr 19, 2007 Jan 12, 2009 Apr 8, 2009 Jan 25, 2008 Apr 8, 2008 Feb 2, 2009 Mar 26, 2009 Apr 27, 2007 May 3, 2007 Mar 2, 2009 Apr 13, 2009 Apr 27, 2007 May 3, Feb 26, 2008 Apr 23, Jul 6, 2010 Aug 10, 2010 As outlined in the Columbia River WUP, the Consultative Committee recommended a full review of the Columbia River Water Use Plan 13 years after implementation, unless results of the monitoring program suggest an earlier review is appropriate or significant risks are identified that could result in a recommendation to change operations. BC Hydro will convene a multi-party panel five years after commencing the implementation of this WUP to evaluate the effectiveness of operations and physical works in meeting the stated objectives for Arrow Lakes Reservoir and the lower Columbia River. The outcomes from this process will be used to assess any potential need to review the Arrow Lakes Reservoir component of this WUP. If a replacement Non-Treaty Storage Agreement (NTSA) is negotiated within this 5-year period, it is also recommended that agreement provisions and implications be reported out through this panel. Signing of a new NTSA is not a trigger for panel evaluation or a review of this Water Use Plan recommendation to change operations. BC Hydro Page 4

5 3 Status The following table (Table 3-1) outlines the schedule for implementing the monitoring programs and physical works being delivered under the Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan of the Columbia River Water Use Plan. Table 3-1: Status and Schedule of Columbia River WUP Monitoring Programs and Physical Works Implementation under the Kinbasket & Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan Monitoring Programs WLR YR1 WLR YR2 WLR YR3 WLR YR4 WLR YR5 WLR YR6 Interim Review WLR YR7 WLR YR8 WLR YR9 WLR YR10 WLR YR11 WLR YR12 WLR YR13 Final Review CLBMON-9 Kinbasket Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition Analys is CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources CLBMON-11A Wildlife Effectivenss Monitoring of Revegetation in Kinbasket Reservoir CLBMON-11B Wildlife Effectivenss Monitoring of Revegetation in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir CLBMON-12 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition Analys is CLBMON-13 Inventory of Mosquito Populations in the Revelstoke Area CLBMON-33 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources CLBMON-35 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Plant Response to Inundation Physical Works CLBWORKS-1 Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works x CLBWORKS-2 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program Physical Works Legend: = Program to be undertaken/initiated in identified year u/w = Project is underw ay = Program completed for the year = Program started, but encountered operational or hydrological delays 4 Columbia River Project WUP Monitoring Programs - Kinbasket & Arrow Lakes Revegetation Management Plan This section summarizes the status of the monitoring programs being implemented under the Kinbasket & Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Revegetation Management Plan of the Columbia River Water Use Plan, as per the Order under the Water Act, dated January 26, BC Hydro Page 5

6 4.1 CLBMON-9 Kinbasket Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition Analysis Management Questions The management questions for this monitoring program address the intra-community response of existing vegetation in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir to the continued implementation of the operating regime at the local (site) level. For revegetated areas, the management questions will address whether the continued implementation of the current reservoir operating regime allows for the establishment and expansion of vegetation at site level through a revegetation program in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir Existing Vegetation Primary management questions for existing vegetation communities in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir between elevations 754 m to 741 m (approximate 1 ) are: What is the species composition (i.e., distribution, distribution and vigour) of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone? What is the cover, abundance and biomass of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone? How does the current operating regime affect the within-community quality and quantity (i.e., species cover, abundance, biomass, diversity and distribution within existing communities) of existing vegetation? Is there a shift in community structure (e.g., species dominance) or a potential loss of existing vegetated communities that is attributable to environmental conditions, including the current operating regime (i.e., timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation)? What are species-specific survival rates under current operating conditions (i.e., what are the tolerances of existing plant species to inundation)? What recommendations can be made to more effectively maintain existing vegetation at the site level in the future? Re-vegetated Areas Primary management questions for re-vegetated areas are in the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir between elevations 754 m to 741 m (approximate): What is the quality and quantity of vegetation in re-vegetated areas between elevations 754 m to 741 m (approximate) compared to untreated areas, based on an assessment of species distribution, diversity, vigour, abundance, biomass and cover? 1 Locations suitable for successful establishment and development of vegetation communities are tied to the average reservoir level and currently occupy a zone in the upper elevations of the reservoir, above 741 m. BC Hydro Page 6

7 What are species-specific survival rates under current operating conditions (i.e., what are the tolerances of re-vegetated plant communities to inundation timing, frequency, duration and depth)? What environmental conditions, including the current operating regime (i.e., timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation), may limit or improve the restoration and expansion of vegetation communities in the drawdown zone? What is the relative effectiveness of the different revegetation treatments, as applied through CLBWORKS-1, at increasing the quality and quantity of vegetation in the drawdown zone? Does implementation of the revegetation program result in greater benefits (e.g., larger vegetated areas, more productive vegetation) than those that could be achieved through natural colonization alone? Is there an opportunity to modify operations to more effectively maintain revegetated communities at the landscape and site level in the future? Overview The Columbia River Project WUP CC recommended effectiveness monitoring to ensure that the revegetation efforts were providing the intended environmental and social benefits over the long term. Given the considerable uncertainty regarding the potential effects of inundation on riparian and wetland environments, the WUP CC recognized that a monitoring program would be required to assess selected treatment techniques applied under the revegetation program, and to evaluate the effectiveness of revegetation efforts. The monitoring program was to focus on those components of the operating regime assumed to drive vegetation establishment (i.e., inundation depth, duration and timing) by imposing wet stress or dry stress over a defined period of time. This monitoring program focuses on monitoring existing vegetation and revegetated areas at the site (local) scale. The objectives of this monitoring program are to: 1) Define and map the boundaries of the study area and define the biophysical and management strata that will structure the sampling methodology and analysis strategy for monitoring existing vegetation communities. 2) Document within-community responses (through monitoring of species cover, distribution, diversity, vigour, biomass and abundance) of existing vegetation communities to environmental conditions, including the current operating regime, through a plot-based assessment. 3) Assess the effectiveness of the revegetation program at expanding the quantity (as measured by cover, abundance and biomass) and quality (as measured by diversity, distribution and vigour) of vegetation in the drawdown zone under the current operating conditions (i.e., timing, frequency, depth and duration of inundation) over a 10-year period. BC Hydro Page 7

8 4) Assess the response of revegetated communities and their species assemblages to environmental conditions, including the current operating regime (i.e., inundation timing, frequency, depth and duration) through plot-based monitoring at the site level over a 10-year period. 5) Maintain a data collection and management database for the period of the monitoring program. These objectives will be addressed by assessing the specified response variables at sample sites, stratified by primary topographic and biophysical criteria, under the various treatment options relative to control sites (areas of naturally established vegetation and barren sites). Vegetation responses will be monitored over a range of geographic areas within the drawdown zone of Kinbasket Reservoir based on locations selected for treatment and control under the Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program. This monitoring program involves: 1) Determining the species composition (i.e., diversity, distribution and vigour) of existing vegetation communities to identify species that have been successfully surviving long-term inundation; 2) Evaluating the cover, abundance and biomass of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone; 3) Monitoring the response of existing vegetation communities at the local (site) level to the continued implementation of the operating regime for Kinbasket Reservoir and other environmental variables; 4) Assessing the long-term effectiveness of the revegetation program at expanding the quality (as measured by diversity, distribution and vigour) and quantity (as measured by cover, abundance and biomass) of vegetation in the drawdown zone for ecological and social benefits; and, 5) Assessing the costs and benefits of the revegetation prescriptions applied under the Kinbasket Reservoir Revegetation Program by monitoring the response of revegetated communities to different treatments in the drawdown zone of the reservoir Status This monitoring program was initiated in April 2008 and is being carried out biannually over 10 years from 2008 until 2017; 2011 was the third year of field work. The draft report was submitted in December Interpretation of Data CLBMON-9 consists of two components: the "existing vegetation" component is designed to monitor changes in local plant communities in the existing drawdown zone. The revegetation monitoring component tests hypotheses about the effectiveness of revegetation efforts being implemented under the revegetation BC Hydro Page 8

9 program (CLBWORKS -1). The study collects a time series of observations, and strong inferences will only be made after several years of data collection. Although the existing vegetation was assessed, the third year of the study focused mostly on assessing the effectiveness of revegetation efforts. Existing Vegetation. Most combinations of geographic region, elevation, vegetation community types and revegetation prescriptions in the north and south ends of the reservoir were sampled in The m elevation band was inundated during 22% of the growing season in 2011; this is the second longest duration of inundation in that band since 1999 (2007 being the longest, at 30%). There is not enough data to link any effect of reservoir operations to any change in vegetation communities in the drawdown zone. There was little or no change in vegetation characteristics (species richness, diversity, cover) over the last four years ( ). As was the case in 2008, plots in the south end of the reservoir had a slightly higher average total cover than plots in the central and north portions of the reservoir. Species richness, diversity, and evenness did not differ among the three regions. There was no detectable effect of elevation on vegetation characteristics. Revegetated Areas. There were no effects of revegetation treatments, as neither per cent cover of vegetation, plant species diversity, nor plant species richness differed significantly from control sites. Treated plots experienced large-scale mortality over the first two years following planting, with fewer than 40 per cent of sedge plugs alive after two growing seasons. This could not be attributed to any effect of soil or nutrients, as analyses did not show any differences between treatment and control plots. These results indicate that thus far CLBWORKS-1 is failing to meet the stated objectives, and corrective action is referenced in Section CLBMON-10 Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources Management Questions The primary management questions to be addressed by the Kinbasket Reservoir Vegetation Inventory program are: What are the existing riparian and wetland vegetation communities in the Kinbasket Reservoir drawdown zone between elevations 754 m to 741 m (approximate 2 )? What are the spatial extents, structure and composition (i.e., relative distribution and diversity) of these communities within the drawdown zone between elevations 754 m to 741 m (approximate 2 )? How do spatial extent, structure and composition of vegetation communities relate to reservoir elevation and topo-edaphic site conditions (aspect, slope, soil moisture, etc.)? 2 Locations suitable for successful establishment and development of vegetation communities are tied to the average reservoir level and currently occupy a zone in the upper elevations of the reservoir, above 741 m. BC Hydro Page 9

10 Does the current operating regime of Kinbasket Reservoir maintain the spatial extent, structure and composition of existing vegetation communities in the drawdown zone? Are there operational changes that can be implemented to maintain existing vegetation communities at the landscape scale more effectively? If results of the monitoring indicate that the operating regime does not adequately maintain the vegetation communities and their associated fauna at the landscape level, future decisions regarding reservoir operations may be affected, because of the high value placed on vegetated shorelines by many interest groups. The information gained through the inventory is also intended to assist in determining the scope of the KIN Revegetation Program Physical Works (CLBWORKS-1) by informing on whether existing vegetated areas can be enhanced and expanded under the present operating regime Overview During the Columbia WUP process, the WUP CC made several assumptions regarding vegetation tolerances to inundation and responses to changes in the hydrologic pattern, based on information gained from studies in Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Given differences in the elevation, climate and operating regime of the two reservoirs, the WUP CC recognized the inherent uncertainties of any assumptions related to the response of vegetation to reservoir operating conditions, and acknowledged the importance of long-term data collection for assessing the effects of the operating regime on vegetation at different spatial scales. The Kinbasket Reservoir Inventory of Vegetation Resources monitoring program will address key uncertainties related to the relative contribution and importance of the current reservoir operating regime (i.e., timing, duration and depth of inundation, and multi-year stresses) on the maintenance of existing vegetation communities delineated at the landscape scale. The objectives of this monitoring program are to: 1) Identify and spatially delineate existing riparian and wetland vegetation communities within the drawdown zone; 2) Measure the spatial extent, structure and composition (i.e. distribution and diversity) of the communities in the drawdown zone at repeated time intervals over a 10-year period; 3) Assess whether there are changes in the spatial extent, structure and composition of the communities in the drawdown zone over the monitoring period; 4) Assess whether observed changes in the spatial extent, structure and composition are attributable to the current operating regime of the reservoir; and, BC Hydro Page 10

11 5) Provide information on the effectiveness of the current operating regime at maintaining the existing spatial extent, structure and composition of the communities in the drawdown zone. These objectives will be addressed through a landscape level analysis of vegetation community changes over time in response to the current operating regime of Kinbasket Reservoir. This monitoring program involves evaluating changes in the existing vegetation communities in the reservoir drawdown zone between elevations 741 m and 754 m, using a combination of aerial photographic interpretation at 1:5,000 scale, and field measurements of biomonitoring transects Status This monitoring program was initiated in June 2007 and commenced bi-annual implementation in The study implemented its third year of monitoring in April 2010, and the last annual program report was delivered in December The study will commence its fourth year of monitoring in April 2012, and the next program report is expected in December Interpretation of Data There are no additional data to interpret at this time. 4.3 CLBMON-11A Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation in Kinbasket Reservoir Management Questions This monitoring program is designed to address key management questions relating to the effectiveness of the revegetation program at improving wildlife habitat in the Kinbasket Reservoir. To assess the effectiveness of the revegetation program at meeting the CC wildlife objectives, this monitoring study will focus on how effectively the revegetation program enhances amphibian habitat, bird habitat, small mammal habitat, and ungulate habitat. In addition, this monitoring program will assess the impact of revegetation efforts on the abundance of arthropods, which are a fundamental component of the food chain, particularly for birds, amphibians, and several species of small mammals The primary management questions to be addressed by the monitoring program are: How effective is the revegetation program at enhancing and increasing the utilization of habitat in the drawdown zone by wildlife such as amphibians, birds, small mammals, and ungulates? To what extent does revegetation increase the availability of invertebrate prey (e.g., arthropods) in the food chain for birds, amphibians and small mammals? BC Hydro Page 11

12 Are revegetation efforts negatively impacting wildlife in the drawdown zone? For example, does revegetation increase the incidence of nest mortality in birds or create sink habitat for amphibians? Which methods of revegetation are most effective at enhancing and increasing the utilization of wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone? Overview The WUP CC supported reservoir-wide revegetation in the Kinbasket Reservoir to increase vegetation growth in the drawdown zones in lieu of maintaining lower reservoir levels. One of the primary objectives of the revegetation program is to provide benefits to wildlife through increased habitat diversity. In association with the revegetation program, the WUP CC recommended effectiveness monitoring to ensure that the revegetation program provides the intended environmental benefits. The rationale for the monitoring program is to assess the effectiveness of revegetation in Kinbasket Reservoir at enhancing wildlife habitat by monitoring wildlife utilization patterns of revegetated habitats in the drawdown zone. The CC recommended collection of baseline data in Years 1 and 2, followed by monitoring every other year. In Years 5 and 10, results from this study will be evaluated to assess how effectively the revegetation program is enhancing wildlife habitat. The objectives of this study are to: 1) Develop an effectiveness monitoring program to assess the success of revegetation program in Kinbasket Reservoir at increasing wildlife utilization of the drawdown zone and assess the potential effects of revegetation on wildlife populations. 2) Monitor wildlife indicator taxa to assess the effects of revegetating the drawdown zone on those taxa and their utilization of drawdown habitat in Kinbasket Reservoir. The proposed monitoring indicators 3 include: a. Small mammals b. Ungulates c. Terrestrial Arthropods d. Avian nest mortality e. Amphibian and reptiles 3) Assess how effective the revegetation efforts are at improving habitat for wildlife in the drawdown zone between 741 m and 754 m elevation. 3 d and e are monitored separately under CLBMON-36: Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs Nest Mortality of Migratory Birds and CLBMON-37: Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Amphibian and Reptile Life History and Habitat Use Assessment. BC Hydro Page 12

13 4) Report and provide recommendations on the effectiveness of the revegetation program at improving habitat for wildlife in the drawdown zone in Years 5 and 10 (2012 and 2018, respectively) Status This monitoring program was initiated in May 2008 and will be carried out over 11 years. Sampling occurred for the third year from June through July, A draft report was produced in April The final report was provided in June Due to remissions cap constraints in CY2012, this monitoring program is not implementing in 2012, pending approval from the Water Comptroller Interpretation of Data Sites were sampled in two regions of Kinbasket Reservoir: Canoe Reach and Bush Arm. At each site, sampling was conducted along three transects (treatment, control and local reference). Data were collected on seasonal ungulate use (pellet surveys), small mammal abundance and diversity (mark recapture), and terrestrial arthropod biomass, abundance and diversity (Malaise traps). As in 2010, ungulates were more abundant in Bush Arm than in Canoe Reach (based on pellet counts) and they used the drawdown zone differentially: moose preferred the area above the drawdown zone whereas deer pellets were more common in reference transects adjacent to and above the drawdown zone. There were eight species of small mammals caught, the most abundant species of which was deer mice (95% of captures), as in the previous year. There was a slight trend for them to be more abundant in treatment transects. Terrestrial arthropods biomass was generally higher in control than in treatment transects, and highest in the upper portion of the drawdown zone. It is not yet possible to make any conclusions about the effectiveness of the revegetation program in enhancing wildlife habitats in the drawdown zone. There were however some positive signs: small mammal captures increased in revegetated transects, moose and deer pellets were observed for the first time in treatment transects in Bush Arm, and arthropod biomass was highest in drawdown zone transects containing the most vegetation. 4.4 CLBMON-11B Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife Physical Works in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir Management Questions This monitoring program is designed to assess the effectiveness of enhancing wildlife habitat through the revegetation program and wildlife physical works in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The monitoring program will evaluate the response of several wildlife taxa and habitat elements to wildlife habitat enhancements. The findings of this study will help improve the effectiveness of revegetation and physical BC Hydro Page 13

14 works projects through an adaptive management approach. The primary management questions to be addressed by the monitoring program are: Are the revegetation and the wildlife physical works projects effective at enhancing wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone? If so, o o To what extent do the revegetation program and the wildlife physical works projects increase the productivity of habitat in the drawdown zone for wildlife? Are some methods or techniques more effective than others at enhancing wildlife habitat in the drawdown zone? Overview The WUP CC supported reservoir-wide revegetation and wildlife physical works to enhance wildlife habitat in drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir. In association with these programs, the WUP CC recommended effectiveness monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the revegetation and wildlife physical works in Arrow Lakes Reservoir by monitoring wildlife utilization patterns of revegetated and enhanced habitats in the drawdown zone. The CC recommended collection of baseline data in Years 1 and 2, followed by monitoring every other year. In Years 5 and 10, results from this study and related studies will be evaluated to assess the effectiveness of the revegetation program. The objectives of this study are to: 1) Develop an effectiveness monitoring program to assess the success of the revegetation and wildlife physical works programs in Arrow Lakes Reservoir at increasing wildlife utilization of the drawdown zone and assess the potential effects of revegetation on wildlife populations. 2) Monitor wildlife indicator taxa to assess the effects of the revegetation and the wildlife physical works on those taxa and their utilization of drawdown zone habitat in the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. 3) Report and provide recommendations on the effectiveness of the revegetation and wildlife physical works at improving habitat for wildlife in the drawdown zone in Years 5 and 10. CLBMON-11B seeks to assess (i) the effectiveness of the revegetation program (CLBWORKS-2) at improving habitat for wildlife, (ii) the effectiveness of wildlife physical works in Revelstoke Reach, and (iii) the effectiveness of wildlife physical works in the mid and lower Arrow Lakes Reservoir. As these programs are being implemented at different temporal and spatial scales and may target different suites of species, CLBMON-11B is being delivered as four separate monitoring programs (CLBMON-11B1, 11B2, 11B3 and 11B4). In addition to these monitoring programs, the effectiveness monitoring of the revegetation and wildlife physical works has also been incorporated into some of the wildlife monitoring programs currently underway, BC Hydro Page 14

15 including CLBMON-36, CLBMON-37 and CLBMON-40. These monitoring programs, as well as the four studies discussed under CLBMON-11B, will provide recommendations for improving habitat enhancement efforts and may identify additional opportunities for revegetation and wildlife physical works to enhance wildlife habitat Status CLBMON-11B is being delivered under the following four monitoring studies. 1) CLBMON11-B1 Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring and Enhancement Area Identification for the Lower and Mid Arrow Lakes Reservoir. This monitoring program was initiated in May 2009 and will be carried out over 11 years. Fieldwork was carried out between April and September, Aerial ungulate surveys were completed in February The draft report was submitted in March A sampling protocol detailing the sampling methodology was prepared in June 2009 and was updated in The preparation of wildlife enhancement treatment options under CLBWORKS-29B was incorporated into the delivery of this project (CLBMON-11B1). Several potential projects identified in the annual report have been presented to BC Hydro, the Ministry of Environment (MoE), and the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) for preliminary input. 2) CLBMON-11B2 Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife Physical Works on Spring Migrants in Revelstoke Reach. This monitoring program was initiated in May 2009 and will be carried out over 10 years. Field work was conducted between April and June, An annual progress report was received in November A sampling protocol detailing the sampling methodology was prepared in October 2009 and updated in ) CLBMON-11B3: Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Western Painted Turtles in Revelstoke Reach. This monitoring program was initiated in the fall of 2009 and will be carried out over 11 years. Thompson Rivers University carried out a two-year preliminary assessment of the painted turtle population in Revelstoke Reach, involving identification of opportunities for enhancing painted turtles habitat, and design of a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of habitat enhancement for painted turtles. A sampling protocol was completed in March 2010 and a literature review completed in April ) CLBMON-11B4 Wetland Effectiveness Monitoring for Wildlife Physical Works This monitoring program was initiated in June 2009 and will be carried out over 11 years. A biophysical reconnaissance of proposed project sites was conducted in May and June 2010 and a draft of a monitoring plan was provided in December The monitoring plan was finalized in April BC Hydro Page 15

16 4.4.4 Interpretation of Data 1) CLBMON-11B1 Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring and Enhancement Area Identification for the lower and mid Arrow Lakes Reservoir. In 2009, a multi-year study was initiated to: Identify wildlife habitat for potential enhancement or protection in the middle and lower reaches of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir; Monitor the effectiveness of the revegetation program (CLBWORKS-2) in the middle and lower reaches of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir; Establish baseline monitoring to monitor the effectiveness of the wildlife physical works (CLBWORKS-30) in the middle and lower reaches of the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Following the sampling plan developed in 2009, field surveys of songbirds, terrestrial arthropods and mammals were first conducted in The 2011 field season is thus the second full year of monitoring. Options for wildlife enhancement strategies (CLBWORKS-29B) were also submitted as a standalone report in 2011; that report provides prescriptions to improve wildlife habitat in and immediately adjacent to the drawdown zone of mid- and lower Arrow Lakes Reservoir. The field work was conducted between May and September, Sites were categorized as treatment (revegetation prescriptions), reference (drawdown zone, untreated) and control (upland). Mean temperatures were similar to those of 2010, but precipitations were lower. Reservoir elevations were on average 20 cm higher than in Arthropods were sampled with Malaise traps, light and primarily with pitfall traps. Their diversity was highest in reference sites but their overall abundance did not differ between drawdown and upland sites. Arthropod biomass in 2011 was slightly lower than in There were more songbird detections and species recorded in 2011 than in previous years (5,000 vs in 2010; 121 species vs.116 in 2010), for the same effort than in The species assemblages were similar to 2010 and were associated with either the drawdown zone or upland reference habitats. There was no relationship between the biomass of arthropods or the relative abundance of songbirds and revegetation prescriptions in the drawdown zone. Terrestrial mammal signs from 10 species were documented in 2011, as compared to 16 in As in the previous year, the most commonly encountered signs were from White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Elk (Cervus canadensis) and Black Bear (Ursus americanus). Ungulate use of the drawdown zone was not related to revegetated areas. BC Hydro Page 16

17 Bat detections (using ultrasonic bat detectors) resulted in ten species records (there were nine in 2010).There were no relation between bat detections and revegetation prescriptions. Physical works will be carried at three sites under CLBWORKS-30 and enhancement prescriptions will follow those presented in CLBWORKS-29B. 2) CLBMON-11B2 Wildlife Effectiveness Monitoring of Revegetation and Wildlife Physical Works on Spring Migrants in Revelstoke Reach. In 2009, BC Hydro initiated CLBMON-11B2 to monitor effectiveness of revegetation and wildlife physical works (CLBWORKS-2 and CLBWORKS-30) in Revelstoke Reach to improve riparian habitat for spring migrants. The program is designed to monitor the effectiveness of the above physical works with respect to their success in improving spring habitat for migrant songbirds in Revelstoke Reach. Although the projects currently planned (CLBWORKS-29B) are not specifically designed to enhance habitat for songbirds, revegetation should provide benefits to migrating birds, and direction was provided in the WUP to enhance riparian habitat for these birds. This year (2011) was the third year of monitoring. Spring migrant birds were surveyed weekly for seven consecutive weeks at fixed 2500 m 2 plots in revegetation treatment and random plots. At the wildlife physical works Site WPW-6A near Machete Island, a project designed to control the erosion of wetland and grass meadow habitat, 186 birds from seven species were detected from four permanent plots (compared to 125 birds and 24 species in 2010). The results to date suggest that habitat manipulations at WPW6A is unlikely to have significant negative effects on migrating songbirds. At the wildlife physical works site WPW-14 and WPW-15A in Cartier Bay, 997 birds from two species were detected (compared to174 birds from nine species in 2010). American pipit (99%) and savannah sparrow (1%) were the most common species, as in the previous year. Reservoir operations had no influence on bird use in There was evidence that migrating songbirds may have been selecting treated plots over control plots. Shrub and tree habitats were used more than unvegetated and grassland plots; wetland habitats received intermediate levels of use. The 2011 season was the last year that spring migration monitoring in Revelstoke Reach was conducted under CLBMON-11B. Spring migration monitoring in Revelstoke Reach will continue as part of the CLBMON-39 project, which will monitor songbird migrations in both spring and fall. 3) CLBMON-11B3 Western Painted Turtles are the only native freshwater turtle in British Columbia. The species is provincially blue listed and is a SARA Schedule 1 Species of Special Concern. A northern population of Western Painted Turtles resides in the BC Hydro Page 17

18 Upper Arrow Lakes Reservoir, near Revelstoke, British Columbia. In 2009, a Painted Turtle study was initiated to assess the effects of reservoir operations on painted turtles and monitor the effectiveness of revegetation and wildlife physical works. The study was delivered by Thompson Rivers University in 2010 and A number of techniques were employed including visual surveys, markrecapture, radio telemetry, and environmental monitoring (e.g., temperature) to determine turtles distribution, abundance, productivity, population demographics, and habitat use. A total of 203 individual turtles (all age classes and sizes) were captured alive during the pilot project, providing a population estimate of 242 turtles in the study area. Adult females were over-represented in both 2010 and 2011 samples. This bias may be an effect caused by hand captures, although female biased populations have been observed elsewhere. Six nesting locations were identified: Airport, Firebase, along the road at Montana Slough and Nichol Road, Williamson Lake and Turtle Pond. All nesting locations identified to date are located above the drawdown zone of the reservoir and all sites are anthropogenic in origin. A total of 41 turtles (29 female, 10 males, 1 female juvenile, and 1 unknown juvenile) were outfitted with VHF radio transmitters during the two years. Telemetry revealed that turtles moved between the two principal study sites in the reservoir, and between ponds upland of the reservoir. At least one turtle moved as far south as 12 km south, along the west side of reservoir. Public sightings also suggest that turtles can on occasion be found as far north as the town of Revelstoke. Results to date suggest that amplitude and frequency of movements may be related to water levels, which may influence habitat and food availability. The data from 2010 and 2011 will provide a framework for turtle monitoring and potential habitat enhancement opportunities for the next nine years. 4) CLBMON-11B4 This project is being undertaken to: 1) develop a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of wildlife physical works projects at enhancing wetland and riparian habitat in Revelstoke Reach (CLBWORKS-30); 2) monitor the appropriate physical parameters and biological response variables to assess the effectiveness of the wildlife physical works projects; and 3) provide recommendations based on the results of the monitoring program to improve wetland enhancement techniques. In 2010, a biophysical reconnaissance was conducted in Airport Marsh, Montana Slough and Cartier Bay and a draft monitoring and sampling protocol was developed. The 2010 pilot study results were applied in 2011 and baseline data were collected on wetland vegetation and invertebrate communities. Four sites were sampled for macrophytes, terrestrial vegetation and invertebrates in spring and late summer: Airport Marsh (reference site), Cartier Bay (two sites) and Montana Slough. BC Hydro Page 18

19 The 2011 surveys indicated that the three study sites differ from each other ecologically. Cartier Bay was characterized by a high biomass of aquatic macrophytes, particularly Common Hornwort and Stonewort, but had relatively low macrophyte diversity. Montana Slough was characterized by low densities and diversities of aquatic macrophytes and invertebrates. Pelagic invertebrates were particularly scarce at this site. Montana Slough receives direct input of clear, cold, oligotrophic water from Montana Creek throughout the year, which likely prevents the establishment of diverse and abundant ecological communities. The ecological communities at Airport Marsh were much more developed and diverse than those at either Cartier Bay or Montana Slough, presumably due to the high elevation of the wetland and relatively infrequent and short-term inundation by the Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Macrophyte diversity was higher at Airport Marsh than at any of the other sites. The surveys provided good baseline data of pre-works conditions to assess the efficacy of the proposed works, slated to begin in CLBMON-12 Arrow Lakes Reservoir Monitoring of Revegetation Efforts and Vegetation Composition Analysis Management Questions The management questions for this monitoring program address the intra-community response of existing and treated vegetation communities in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir (including Revelstoke Reach) to the continued implementation of the soft constraints operating regime at the local (site) level. For re-vegetated areas, the management questions specifically address whether the continued implementation of the soft constraints allows for the establishment and expansion of vegetation at site level through a revegetation program in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir Existing Vegetation Primary management questions for existing vegetation communities in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir between elevations 434 m to 440 m are: What is the species composition (i.e., distribution, distribution and vigour) of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone? What is the cover, abundance and biomass of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone? How does the current operating regime affect the within-community quality and quantity (i.e., species cover, abundance, biomass, diversity and distribution within existing communities) of existing vegetation? Is there a shift in community structure (e.g., species dominance) or a potential loss of existing vegetated communities that is attributable to environmental conditions, including the current operating regime (i.e., timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation)? BC Hydro Page 19

20 What are species-specific survival rates under soft constraints operating regime (i.e., what are the tolerances of existing plant species to inundation)? What recommendations can be made to more effectively maintain existing vegetation at the site level in the future? Re-vegetated Areas Primary management questions for re-vegetated areas in the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir between elevations 434 m to 440 m are: What is the quality and quantity of vegetation in re-vegetated areas between elevations 434 m to 440 m compared to untreated areas, based on an assessment of species distribution, diversity, vigour, abundance, biomass and cover? What are species-specific survival rates under current operating conditions (i.e., what are the tolerances of re-vegetated plant communities to inundation timing, frequency, duration and depth)? What environmental conditions, including the current operating regime (i.e. timing, frequency, duration and depth of inundation), may limit or improve the restoration and expansion of vegetation communities in the drawdown zone? What is the relative effectiveness of the different revegetation treatments, as applied through CLBWORKS-2, at increasing the quality and quantity of vegetation in the drawdown zone? Does implementation of the revegetation program result in greater benefits (e.g., larger vegetated areas, more productive vegetation) than those that could be achieved through natural colonization alone? Is there an opportunity to modify operations to more effectively maintain revegetated communities at the landscape and site level in the future? Overview The final decision of the WUP CC to support a revegetation program for the mid Columbia River (Revelstoke Reach) and the Arrow Lakes Reservoir was based on the assumption that the soft operational constraints would be effective in maintaining current levels of vegetation, and that revegetation activities would be a more costeffective means of restoring and expanding vegetation cover for ecological and social benefits than imposing hard constraints on operation of the reservoir. In accepting soft constraints for Arrow Lakes Reservoir, the WUP CC recognized that the uncertainty associated with the response of vegetation communities to flexible operations on a yearly basis needed to be addressed, and consequently recommended a monitoring approach comprised of a series of interlinked studies at different spatial scales to investigate the effects of the operating regime on riparian and wetland vegetation at the landscape, site and organism level. This monitoring BC Hydro Page 20

21 program focuses on monitoring existing vegetation and revegetated areas at the site (local) scale. This is Year 3 of a six-year project running from 2008 through Sampling has thus far occurred in 2008, 2009 and The next sampling event is due in 2013 (Table 3-1). Its main objectives are to a) monitor Arrow Lakes Reservoir drawdown zone existing vegetation communities responses to the soft constraints operating regime and assess whether the soft constraint regime allows for establishment and expansion of vegetation, and b) assess the effectiveness of revegetation treatments carried out under CLBWORKS-2. The interpretation of potential effects of REV5 operations on vegetation was added in Year 3. The formal objectives of this monitoring program are to: Determine the species composition (i.e., distribution, distribution and vigour) of existing vegetation communities) to identify species that have been successfully surviving long-term inundation; Evaluate the abundance and biomass of existing vegetation communities in relation to elevation in the drawdown zone; Monitor the response of existing vegetation communities at the local (site) level to the continued implementation of the soft constraints operating regime and other environmental variables; Assess the long-term effectiveness of the revegetation program at restoring and expanding the quality (as measured by diversity, distribution and vigour) and quantity (as measured by cover, abundance and biomass) of vegetation in the drawdown zone for ecological and social benefits; and, Assess the costs and benefits of the recommended revegetation prescriptions applied under the Arrow Lakes Reservoir Revegetation Program) by monitoring the response of revegetated communities to different treatments in the drawdown zones of the reservoir. These objectives are being addressed by assessing the specified response variables at sample sites, stratified by primary topographic and biophysical criteria, under the various treatment options relative to control sites (areas of naturally established vegetation and barren reference sites). Vegetation responses will be monitored over a range of geographic areas within the drawdown zone of Arrow Lakes Reservoir, based on locations selected for treatment under the Revegetation Program Status This monitoring program was initiated in April 2008, and is being carried out biannually over 10 years. The study finished its third year of monitoring in July 2011, and the first draft of the report was delivered in January The next field season will happen in 2013, and the program report is expected in December, BC Hydro Page 21