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 f

rom correspondence Oceans staff Background To complement existing information on cooling water intake structures and intake technologies, EPA directed Tetra Tech (Tt) to resear contact with international regula Methodology Tt began b y searching the docket records and technology

regulatory

agencies from Canada ’s Department of responsible for overseeing programs and s Canada’s waterway s and aquatic resources, would be the most practical avenue for mak ing internationa l connections. Tt first made contact with DFO b y em ailing the general information emailing addresses provided b y the DFO Web site: introductory

email , Tt referenced Act , requiring that: Every water intake, ditch, channel or canal in Canada constructed or adapted for conducting water from any Canadian fisheries waters for irri 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



### MEMORANDUM
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340

Christine Wong, Tetra Tech, Inc. February 6, 2009 correspondence with C anada Department of Fisheries and

To complement existing information on cooling water intake structures and intake technologies, EPA directed Tetra Tech (Tt) to resear ch information on and to contact with international regula tory personnel working in r elevant oversight programs.
Tt began b y searching the docket records and the Internet for international intake technology

regulatory

agencies
. Tt staff concluded that making contact with personnel ’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the government agency

programs and s ervices that support the use and development of waterway s and aquatic resources, would be the most practical avenue for

l connections. Tt first made contact with DFO b y em ailing the general information emailing addresses provided b y the DFO Web site: info@dfo

- mpo.gc.ca and Min@dfo

- mpo.gc.ca

referenced the language in Section 30 of the Canada’s Every water intake, ditch, channel or canal in Canada constructed or adapted for conducting water from any Canadian fisheries waters for irri gating, 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

1 Fisheries and

To complement existing information on cooling water intake structures and intake to make elevant oversight programs.

international intake Tt staff concluded that making contact with personnel Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), the government agency use and development of waterway s and aquatic resources, would be the most practical avenue for
Tt first made contact with DFO b y em ailing the general information emailing addresses mpo.gc.ca . In this the language in Section 30 of the Canada’s Fisheries Every water intake, ditch, channel or canal in Canada constructed or adapted for 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 the2 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 th e 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 o r 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 t o 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 an y t ype of project involving water extractions based mainly on enginee ring expertise and related scientific advice re garding 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 oc cur 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. L onnie King, the Sen ior H abitat A dviso r in the Ha bitat 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 an y personal knowledge of facilities working with saltwater exaction, but speculated that there are likel y man y 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 , thous ands of water intakes, and likely tens of thousands of water crossings, but specific data on approximately how man y facilities are permitted and what types of industries they represent would be difficult to obtain. He indicated that the number of nuclear f acilities 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 “DFO3

administers a suite of s ections 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 A c t, as it applies to aquatic species. ” Mr. King agreed with Ms. Grant that the permitti ng 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 p rocesses 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

. 1 He indicated that there are various compilations of the fish swi mming 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 cri teria for fishways and culverts

. 2 Mr. King noted that fish screen s are j ust 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 indi cated that the DFO does not establish national m inimum flow requirements or general requirements allowing for minimum fish swimming ability . He stated that most of the data used b y 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 us ed at water intakes appears to only

be available at the provincial or regional level, rather than at the national level.

1 Introduction to Fishway Design

– Working document (January 1992). Chris Katopodis, Freshwater Institute, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 501 University Crescent Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Mr. King provided Tt with a copy of this document. 2 Swimm ing 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 (March 2004). Stephan J. Peake and Carole Grant, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Mr. King provided Tt with a copy of this document.