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

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 by searching the docket records and

technology regulatory agencies

from Canada’s Department of 

responsible for overseeing programs and s

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: 

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 Canada Department of Fisheries and 

To complement existing information on cooling water intake structures and intake 

technologies, EPA directed Tetra Tech (Tt) to research information on and to 

contact with international regulatory personnel working in relevant oversight programs.

Tt began by 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 services that support the use and development of 

waterways and aquatic resources, would be the most practical avenue for 

l 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

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 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 

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 

waterways and aquatic resources, would be the most practical avenue for 

Tt first made contact with DFO by emailing 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 the 
2

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 
3

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.

1

 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.

2

 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. 

 

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

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 

(March 2004). Stephan J. Peake and Carole Grant, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Mr. King 

provided Tt with a copy of this document.