Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Addition Restoration: Feasibility Reporta100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r50224/F-F16-02... · 2016. 3. 31. · Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Addition

Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Addition Restoration:

Feasibility Report

July 2015

Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Addition Restoration

Feasibility Report

Project No.-FF16-02

Prepared for

Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program – Columbia

Prepared by

Greg Andrusak, RPBio

Redfish Consulting Ltd. Nelson, BC

July 2015

Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Addition Restoration Feasibility-2015

REDFISH CONSULTING LTD.

i

Prepared with financial support of the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program on behalf of its program partners BC Hydro, the Province of BC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations and public stakeholders.

Cover Photo: ‘Photo of the upper Whatshan River at the confluence with Whatshan Reservoir during Kokanee surveys.’ Photograph taken on the 2nd of September 2014 by Greg Andrusak.

Suggested Citation: Andrusak, G.F. 2015. Feasibility of Restoration of the Whatshan Fishery Through Nutrient Addition. Prepared for the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program – Columbia Basin and the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Nelson, BC. July 2015. 19 pp+



ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Baseline data of current Whatshan Reservoir productivity, angler use and Kokanee spawner counts confirm a relatively unproductive system. In particular, the size of Kokanee is small (< 23 cm) and unattractive to anglers as evidenced by extremely low angler effort of < 1,200 angler days per season. Restoration of this reservoir is proposed through a combination of nutrient additions and some control over spawning. This proposal mimics the highly successful fertilization programs conducted annually on Arrow Lakes Reservoir and Kootenay Lake. Such a proposal supports the goal and objectives of the FWCP that is tasked with restoring fish, wildlife and their habitats impacted by hydro developments throughout the Columbia Basin.

The rationale for nutrient addition is predicated on nutrient limitation as evidenced by low total phosphorus (< 5 µg L-1) coupled with low phytoplankton biomass (chlorophyll a< 5 µg L-1) and low densities of small zooplankton (< 5 individuals L-1). These metrics are characteristic of low productivity reservoirs. Nutrient addition, primarily N, will stimulate bottom up growth of preferred algae, macrozooplanktors, and ultimately Kokanee, which has been well documented on other fertilized systems. In other nutrient addition programs, increased Kokanee growth is followed by increased recruitment and density, which eventually decreases size. However, this program will also include efforts to constrain Kokanee recruitment and thereby maintain Kokanee at a target size sought by anglers. Similar to other nutrient restoration programs (Alouette, Wahleach, Arrow and Kootenay) and based on their results, there is a high degree of certainty that the program will improve, enhance and restore fish populations on Whatshan Reservoir.

The cost of this project would be approximately $100,000 per year. However, with FWCP and Ministry staff overseeing project implementation and monitoring, costs could be substantially reduced to less than $90,000 per year. Partnership funding would be sought, especially from the FFSBC which may have an interest in developing a Kokanee egg collection station on the Upper Whatshan River, in addition to improving recreational fishery. Based on the experience of other nutrient addition projects there is little risk associated with this proposal and very high benefits are anticipated.



iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Project is funded by the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP). The FWCP is partnership between BC Hydro, the Province of B.C. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations and public stakeholders to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife impacted by the construction of BC Hydro dams.

Eva Schindler (MFLNRO) is acknowledged for the in-kind support and continued work on restoration of large lakes in the Columbia-Basin.

Marley Bassett (MFLNRO) is acknowledged for the in-kind support and continued work on restoration of large lakes in the Columbia-Basin.

Shannon Harris (MOE) and Allison Herbert (MOE) are acknowledged for the in-kind support and timely edits and comments.

Paul Askey (Freshwater Fish Society of BC-FFSBC) is acknowledged for technical support and comments.



iv

TABLE OF CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... v INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 6

Report objectives: ........................................................................................................... 6 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 7

Whatshan Reservoir ........................................................................................................ 7 Lake and Reservoir Nutrient Addition ............................................................................ 8 Compensation/Restoration Opportunities ..................................................................... 9

RATIONALE .......................................................................................................................... 9 Ensure Productive and Diverse Ecosystem ................................................................... 10 Restoration and Improvement of Recreational Fishery ............................................... 10

WHATSHAN RESERVOIR RESTORATION ............................................................................ 13 Nutrient Addition .......................................................................................................... 13

Fertilizer Type............................................................................................................ 13 Fertilizer Application ................................................................................................. 13 Seasonal Loading and Timing .................................................................................... 13 Costs .......................................................................................................................... 13 Potential Cost Recovery ............................................................................................ 15

Kokanee and Fishery ..................................................................................................... 15 Kokanee Density ....................................................................................................... 15 Harvest Regulations .................................................................................................. 15 Egg Collection ............................................................................................................ 16 Regulation of Spawning ............................................................................................ 16

Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 16 Risks............................................................................................................................... 17

COST BENEFIT .................................................................................................................... 18 PARTNERSHIPS .................................................................................................................. 18 PUBLIC STAKEHOLDERS SUPPORT .................................................................................... 19 OPTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 19 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 20 Appendix 1 Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Loading .................................................... 23 Appendix 2 Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Budget ..................................................... 24 Appendix 3 ALR Compensation Fish Targets .............................................................. 25



v

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. TASK 1-ANNUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF PHOSPHORUS (10-34-0) AND NITROGEN

(28-0-0) FOR WHATSHAN RESERVOIR ...................................................................................................14 TABLE 2. TASK 2-ANNUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DISPENSING AND APPLICATIONS OF NUTRIENTS FOR WHATSHAN

RESERVOIR .......................................................................................................................................14 TABLE 3. TASK 3-ANNUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MONITORING OF NUTRIENTS FOR WHATSHAN RESERVOIR .................14 TABLE 4. FRESHWATER FISH SOCIETY OF BC ECONOMIC SURVEY INFORMATION ..........................................................18

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. RECENT ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS (µG L-1) IN FERTILIZED BC LAKES COMPARED TO WHATSHAN RESERVOIR. VERTICAL

LINE SEPARATES SYSTEMS FERTILIZED VS NON-FERTILIZED. (DATA FROM HERBERT ET AL. 2013, SCHINDLER ET AL. 2013, 2014). ....................................................................................................................................7

FIGURE 6. AUC ESTIMATE FROM SPAWNER BANK COUNTS PREDICTED FROM AUC MODEL ON WHATSHAN RIVER IN 2012 TO 2014. ...............................................................................................................................................8

FIGURE 2. COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES OF KOKANEE BIOMASS DENSITY (KG/HA) IN PELAGIC HABITAT OF LAKES AND RESERVOIRS, BASED ON HYDROACOUSTIC SURVEYS (MOE ON FILE). WHATSHAN RESERVOIR DEPICTED AS AVERAGE OF REVELSTOKE, KINBASKET AND ARROW PRE-FERTILIZATION .......................................................................9

FIGURE 3. KOKANEE SPAWNER SIZE IN RELATION TO STOCK DENSITY FOR VARIOUS LAKES AND RESERVOIRS IN BC (DATA FROM P. ASKEY FISHERIES SCIENTIST FFSBC SUMMERLAND, BC). NOTE: ONLY INCLUDES KOOTENAY DATA UP TO 2009, BUT MORE RECENT DATA SUPPORTS THE PREDICTED TREND AT LOW DENSITY. .................................................11

FIGURE 4. ARROW LAKES RESERVOIR AGE 3 KOKANEE SIZE (MM) FROM 1993-2008. NUTRIENT ADDITION COMMENCED IN 1999. DATA FROM SCHINDLER ET AL. (2013). .......................................................................................12

FIGURE 5. ALOUETTE RESERVOIR AGE 3 KOKANEE SIZE (MM) FROM 1999-2012. NUTRIENT ADDITION COMMENCED IN 2000. . DATA FROM HERBERT ET AL. (2013A). ................................................................................................12



6

INTRODUCTION

Lake fertilization has been used extensively as a restorative and enhancement technique for recreational sport fisheries for several decades (Hyatt et al. 2004). The technique has also been widely used in the enhancement of Sockeye salmon (Onchorynchus nerka) populations by federal agencies in the United States (Alaska) and western Canada (Hyatt et al. 2004). Addition of nutrients, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), are primarily used to stimulate the bottom up process and food web interactions within these lake systems with the main goal of increasing planktivorous fish production (Hyatt et al. 2004).

Within BC, lake fertilization has been primarily used as a method to restore planktivorous fish populations resulting from adverse negative impacts due to hydro-electric development (Ashley et al. 1997, 1999, Ashley 1999). The Columbia-Basin has endured some of the greatest impacts due to hydro-electric development within the entire province (Moody et al. 2007). As a result, many former lakes are now reservoirs that have been significantly altered leaving a landscape that is generally more homogenous and less productive than their pre-dam state (Moody et al. 2007). Most of these reservoirs are generally nutrient poor and limit the productive capacity of fish populations (Ney 1996). The ability to mitigate the effects of impoundment with increased nutrient levels has the potential to have a profound positive impact on fish populations and subsequent recreational fishing potential (Ashley et al. 1997).

This report assesses the rationale and feasibility of nutrient addition on Whatshan Reservoir, a relatively small unproductive reservoir (Vonk 2002, Andrusak 2013a) that has been adversely affected by hydro-electric development (Hirst 1991, Moody et al. 2007). Restoration and enhancement of the reservoirs’ fish populations is considered an important mandate of Ministry of Forests Land, Natural resource Operations (MFLNRO), Ministry of Environment (MOE), BC Hydro and the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP) as outlined in the FWCP Large Lakes Action Plan for the Columbia Basin (FWCP 2012). The intent of this plan is to 1) ensure productive and diverse ecosystem 2)enhance and restore reservoir fish populations, primarily Kokanee (Onchorynchus nerka) 3) improve status of species of concern, such as Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and 4) improve the recreational fishing potential and sustainable use.

Report objectives:

1. Provide costs of nutrients required for lake fertilization 2. Provide monitoring costs of lake fertilization 3. Project improvement to the reservoir fish populations 4. Estimate the improvement to the recreational fishery due to fertilization



7

BACKGROUND

Whatshan Reservoir

Whatshan Reservoir (1691 ha) is an oligotrophic system (< 10 ug L-1 TP) that has been impounded by a hydro-electric dam for over 62 years (Hirst 1991, Vonk 2002, Andrusak 2013b). While the original lake was considered oligotrophic, impoundment has had a substantial impact on the productivity of the system, exacerbating the decline beyond its natural state. Low total phosphorus (< 5 µg L-1) coupled with low phytoplankton biomass (chlorophyll a< 5 µg L-1) and low densities of small zooplankton (< 5 individuals L-1; Figure 1) are often characteristic of many of low productivity reservoirs, similar to Whatshan (Andrusak 2013b). The combination of these factors has likely resulted in the Whatshan Reservoir having reduced and unnaturally low productivity with limited ability to support productive fish populations. The depressed trophic state of the reservoir has likely limited the capacity to support fish populations (Ney 1996) and quality angling opportunity (Hirst 1991).

Figure 1. Recent zooplankton biomass (µg L-1) in fertilized BC lakes compared to Whatshan Reservoir. Vertical line separates systems fertilized vs non-fertilized. (data from Herbert et al. 2013, Schindler et al. 2013, 2014).

Prior to dam construction, Rainbow Trout, Bull Trout and Kokanee were present in Whatshan Lake (Hirst et al. 1991). However, it’s unclear whether Kokanee were indigenous to the watershed. Stocking of Rainbow Trout and Meadow Creek Kokanee into the lake occurred over a period of 22 years prior to 1948 (B.C. Game Branch 1948 in Hirst (1991)), indicating that natural reproduction in the lake was assumed to be inadequate . Limited spawning habitat was available in tributary streams to the lake and migrations from the Arrow Lakes Reservoir via lower Whatshan River were blocked by natural obstructions at the lake outlet. Prior to impoundment in 1952 Whatshan Lake was described as providing excellent recreational angling (B.C. Game Branch 1948 in



8

Hirst (1991). Currently, a creel census conducted in 2014 indicates angling quality and effort is very poor (Andrusak 2014).

Whatshan Reservoir Kokanee spawning escapements are estimated between 20,000-30,000 (12-17 spawners/ha), using area under the curve bank counts (Andrusak 2014).

Figure 2. AUC estimate from spawner bank counts predicted from AUC model on Whatshan River in

2012 to 2014.

Lake and Reservoir Nutrient Addition

Transformation of lakes into reservoirs managed for hydroelectric demands has had profound effects upon the lakes’ limnology and the aquatic ecosystem it supports (Moody et al. 2007, Utzig and Schmidt 2011). Often, reservoirs demonstrate an increase in productivity followed by a substantial decline in productivity, typically coined the “boom and bust” phases (Ney 1996, Stockner et al. 2000). Operational impacts from water level fluctuation results in a loss of production in the littoral areas of small reservoirs and has been cited as factor in reducing reservoir productivity (Wetzel 2001). Further, reservoirs often act as nutrient sinks, increasing sedimentation rates and reducing productivity of the littoral areas that are subject to large environmental changes with reservoir drawdown (Friedl and Wuest 2002, Stockner and Ashley 2003). Changes in the natural hydrograph by increased rates at which withdrawal occurs are also factors associated with the decline in productivity in reservoirs (Matzinger et al. 2007).

Nutrient addition has played a prominent role in restoring and enhancing nerkid populations within many lakes and reservoirs within BC and throughout the Pacific Northwest (Hyatt et al. 2004). Increased reservoir productivity through nutrient addition or lake fertilization, detailed in Figure 2, has been successfully established (Alouette,



9

Wahleach, Kootenay, Arrow Lakes Reservoir) and is considered a viable mitigation strategy on many impacted reservoirs and lakes in BC (Ashley et al. 1997, Herbert et al. 2013a, 2013b, Schindler et al. 2013, 2014).

Figure 3. Comparison of estimates of kokanee biomass density (kg/ha) in pelagic habitat of lakes and reservoirs, based on hydroacoustic surveys (MOE on file). Whatshan Reservoir depicted as average of Revelstoke, Kinbasket and Arrow pre-fertilization

Compensation/Restoration Opportunities

To meet the water licence requirements under the Water Act, BC Hydro was required to develop the Whatshan Reservoir Water Use Plan (WUP) that addresses operational impacts as a result of the construction of the Whatshan Dam (BC Hydro 2005). However, the WUP for this system only relates to operational impacts from the dam and precludes footprint impacts associated with reservoir inundation and impoundment. In practical terms this means that the enhancement/restoration opportunity identified in Hirst (1991), that is the basis for this project, falls under footprint impacts associated with dam construction which is the purpose and mandate of the FWCP.

RATIONALE

Collection of baseline data reported in Andrusak (2013a, 2014) support the notion that nutrient addition to Whatshan Reservoir is desirable and highly feasible. Increasing reservoir productivity through nutrient addition would meet FCWP restoration initiatives by 1) ensuring a productive and diverse ecosystem is maintained 2) enhancing and restoring a sustainable recreational fishery that has been impacted by hydro-electric development. For those reservoirs or lakes that have been fertilized there is substantial scientific data that demonstrates improvements to predators and their prey (especially Kokanee). Highly successful fertilization projects have been reported on

02468

10121416

Biom

ass d

ensi

ty (k

g/ha

) Lakes Reservoirs



10

Alouette, Wahleach, Kootenay and Arrow Lakes reservoirs (ALR) detailed inHerbert et al. (2013a, 2013b) and Schindler et al. (2013, 2014).

Ensure Productive and Diverse Ecosystem

Kokanee are considered to be a keystone species (Andrusak and Parkinson 1984) which have colonized lacustrine habitats in many of the large lakes/reservoirs in BC post-glacially (McPhail 2007). Most of these Kokanee populations are instrumental in supporting other predacious species of fish such as Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) and burbot (Lota lota). While natural populations of Kokanee are indigenous to many large lakes in BC (McPhail 2007), other populations have colonized the large lacustrine habitats of many reservoirs through hatchery introduction (Stockner et al. 2005, Sebastian et al. 2009). Formation of reservoirs has created a substantial increase in lentic habitat which can support lacustrine adapted species, especially Kokanee (Thorley 2008).

Note: Whatshan Reservoir does not appear to support a predacious Rainbow Trout population. A limited number of Bull Trout have been observed whose size suggests some predation occurs but their numbers are unknown. As well, it is unclear whether the freshwater opossum shrimp (Mysis diluviana) were introduced into the reservoir.

Restoration and Improvement of Recreational Fishery

Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) are considered a target species in many recreational fisheries in BC, attracting high angler effort and satisfaction with increased fish size (Askey and Johnston 2013). Kokanee, similar to sockeye, are often regulated by density dependent factors which control population numbers and individual fish size (Hyatt and Stockner 1985, Rieman and Myers 1992, Myers 2001). In many instances, lakes and reservoirs that support kokanee populations often provide limited angling potential due to smaller than average fish size (Askey and Johnston 2013). The ability to mitigate the effects of impoundment through nutrient addition has been demonstrated to profoundly improve fish populations and the recreational fishing potential (Ashley et al. 1997).

The current fishery on Whatshan Reservoir is considered to be of low angling quality based on fish size and catch rates observed in 2014. For the season only a total of 1,100 angler days (0.65 AD/ha) and approximately 2,600 rod hours were generated on this reservoir (Andrusak 2014). In comparison, Alouette Reservoir (1,656 ha) generates 2,174 angler days and 7,609 rod hours (MOE on file) and nearby Arrow Lakes Reservoir (47,724 ha) generates 15,000 to 18,000 angler days and approximately 80,000 to 90,000 rod hours (Arndt 2014).



11

Kokanee fisheries are considered to be highly sensitive to fish size, and many Kokanee populations attract little to no angling effort. This occurs because Kokanee are a relatively small bodied species that are only catchable and attractive when spawners exceed a minimum size threshold of about 25 cm (Askey and Johnston 2013). High effort Kokanee fisheries (e.g. Wood Lake, Kootenay West Arm, Monte Lake, Bridge Lake, etc.) occur when spawner size is in excess of 30 cm. Therefore, fisheries management aimed at improving Kokanee fisheries must have fish size as a primary performance measure. The broadly accepted predictors of Kokanee size are lake productivity and population density (Reiman and Maiolie 1995). These two metrics clearly impact Kokanee size in BC fisheries as shown in Figure (2) (pers. comm. P. Askey FFSBC, Summerland). Kokanee spawner size is variable for a variety of reasons, but Figure (2) is highly informative as presents a predictable pattern for Kokanee size from management actions that control lake productivity (fertilization) and fish density. Predicted changes to size with density in Whatshan reservoir at current productivity are presented as the red line. The baseline spawner size data for Whatshan appears slightly above pre-fertilized Kootenay Lake, therefore, fertilization of Whatshan should lead to a growth trajectory somewhere between Kootenay Lake (navy blue line in Figure 2) and Skaha Lake (orange line).

Figure 4. Kokanee spawner size in relation to stock density for various lakes and reservoirs in BC

(data from P. Askey Fisheries Scientist FFSBC Summerland, BC). Note: Only includes Kootenay data up to 2009, but more recent data supports the predicted trend at low density.

Such compensatory responses have also been observed during nutrient addition to ALR and Alouette reservoirs (Herbert et al. 2013a, Schindler et al. 2013). Kokanee in both reservoirs demonstrated substantial increases in body size when fish density was low under initial years of nutrient addition (Figure 3; Figure 4). Following the initial years of

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Spaw

ner f

ork

leng

th (c

m)

Spawner density (fish/ha)

Okanagan

Skaha

Wood

Whatshan

Kootenay

Kootenay Fert



12

nutrient addition, the Kokanee populations increased and body size was reduced as competition increased for available resources and density dependent factors regulated growth and survival (Rieman and Myers 1992, Rieman and Maiolie 1995).

Figure 5. Arrow Lakes Reservoir age 3 Kokanee size (mm) from 1993-2008. Nutrient addition commenced in 1999. Data from Schindler et al. (2013).

Figure 6. Alouette Reservoir age 3 Kokanee size (mm) from 1999-2012. Nutrient addition commenced in 2000. . Data from Herbert et al. (2013a).



13

WHATSHAN RESERVOIR RESTORATION

Nutrient Addition

Fertilizer Type

Nutrient addition would utilize an agricultural grade liquid fertilizer blend of ammonium polyphosphate (10-34-0 N-P2O5-K2O, % by weight) and urea ammonium nitrate (28-0-0, N-P2O5-K2O, % by weight) similar to that utilized on ALR and detailed in Schindler et al. (2013).

Fertilizer Application

Applications would begin in the last week of April and would continue weekly until last week of September, similar to ALR. The nitrogen to phosphorus (N : P) ratio of fertilizer would vary throughout the season to optimize growth of preferred phytoplankton species and efficient transfer of nutrients through the food chain. Detailed nutrient loadings and schedules are available in Appendix 1.

Seasonal Loading and Timing

The seasonal loading of fertilizer is intended to approximate pre-impoundment spring freshet conditions for phosphorus (P) loading, and to compensate for biological uptake of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) as the growing season progresses. It is anticipated that phosphorus additions would be implemented primarily in late spring when biological uptake is highest, following declining input (P) throughout the summer. Weekly nitrogen input will increase from the spring through the summer in an attempt to inhibit the growth of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), which can be associated with low N:P ratios. Nutrient loadings for Whatshan reservoir are similar to that implemented on ALR, Alouette and Wahleach reservoirs (Herbert et al. 2013a, 2013b, Schindler et al. 2013).

Costs

Based on consultation with restoration biologists within MFLNRO, MOE and independent experts, costs of implementing nutrient addition on Whatshan Reservoir is estimated $110,000 (including GST) annually. These costs include

• Task 1) purchase and delivery of fertilizer in Table 1 • Task 2) dispensing and application of fertilizer in Table 2 and • Task 3) implementation of an intensive monitoring program in Table 3.



14

Table 1. Task 1-annual costs associated with purchase and delivery of phosphorus (10-34-0) and nitrogen (28-0-0) for Whatshan Reservoir

Week 10-34-0 10-34-0 Sub-Total 28-0-0 28-0-0 Sub-Total Shipping ($100/mt) Total Cost

1-4 $800.00 7.3 $5,840.00 $400.00 0 $0.00 $730.00 $6,570.00 5-8 $800.00 3 $2,400.00 $400.00 7.9 $3,160.00 $1,090.00 $6,650.00

9-12 $800.00 1.3 $1,040.00 $400.00 11.9 $4,760.00 $1,320.00 $7,120.00 13-16 $800.00 1.3 $1,040.00 $400.00 15.9 $6,360.00 $1,720.00 $9,120.00 17-18 $800.00 1.3 $1,040.00 $400.00 7.9 $3,160.00 $920.00 $5,120.00

Total $11,360.00 $17,440.00 $5,780.00 $34,580.00

Table 2. Task 2-annual costs associated with dispensing and applications of nutrients for Whatshan

Reservoir

Application of Nutrients Personnel Unit Quantity Unit Rate($) Cost($) Labour Crew Days 18 $300.00 $5,400.00

Crew Days 18 $300.00 $5,400.00 Expenses

Truck Rental Days 18 150 $2,700.00 Boat Rental Days 18 $400.00 $7,200.00

Delivery truck Days 18 $300.00 $5,400.00

Storage tank1 Unit Cost 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Tank site prep Unit Cost 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Subtotal $33,100.00 1Note-One-time purchase cost of storage tanks

Table 3. Task 3-annual costs associated with monitoring of nutrients for Whatshan Reservoir

Monitoring Personnel Unit Quantity Unit Rate($) Cost($)

Labour Biologist Days 6 $500.00 $3,000.00

Technician Days 6 $400.00 $2,400.00 Expenses

Water analysis (5 months) Unit Cost 42 $150.00 $7,300.00 Water samples - shipping Unit Cost 6 $120.00 $720.00

Zooplankton and phytoplankton analysis & summary report Unit Cost 5 $500.00 $2,500.00

Truck Rental Days 6 150.00 $900.00 Boat Rental Days 6 400.00 $2,400.00

Per Diem food allowance Days 14 $42.00 $588.00 Accommodation Days 6 $100.00 $600.00

WCB Unit Cost 1 $250.00 $250.00

Subtotal

$20,658.00



15

Nutrient addition budgets were calculated using a range of costs based on Alouette and ALR costs (Herbert et al. 2013a, Schindler et al. 2013). Direct costs on Alouette (1666 ha) were used due to the comparative size of Whatshan Reservoir (1691 ha). Costs associated with ALR (upper basin) were calculated as a comparison of the total area (1691 ha/19,000 ha) which is approximately 7%. Combined budgets are available in Appendix 1.

Potential Cost Recovery

There is a potential for substantial cost savings from the proposed annual budget (section above). For example, with FWCP and Ministry staff overseeing project purchase of nutrients and monitoring could be substantially reduce the budget to less than $90,000 per year. As well, purchase of storage tanks would be expected to be a one-time cost to the annual budget.

Kokanee and Fishery

Kokanee Density

Objectives of nutrient addition programs within BC are variable depending on the lake or reservoir. For example, Kootenay Lake and ALR nutrient addition programs objectives are to increase Kokanee production to promote and sustain a popular large predator population (s) and fishery. Whereas, Alouette and Wahleach nutrient addition programs objectives are to maximize the potential of providing a sustainable Kokanee fishery. The main objective of nutrient addition on Whatshan Reservoir would be to increase the size of Kokanee to create a productive fishery.

In order to develop large sized Kokanee on Whatshan Reservoir some level of control over the spawning population is highly desirable. Having the ability to regulate Kokanee fry production would ensure that optimal size of Kokanee would be available to anglers. Fortunately virtually all Whatshan Kokanee spawn in the lower reaches of Upper Whatshan River and a number of potential controls could be implemented to regulate spawning production and stock density including;

1) implementation of liberal regulations on Kokanee and restrictive regulations on their predators

2) potential donor egg source for FFSBC 3) Regulation of spawning population.

Harvest Regulations

It is known that increased catchability and vulnerability is associated with increases in size of Kokanee (Rieman and Maiolie 1995). Therefore, as fish size increases,



16

exploitation rates should increase to higher levels. However, as observed on Wood Lake, despite the relatively large average size (> 30 cm), exploitation rates rarely exceeded maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of 0.62 yr-1 for this population of Kokanee (Askey and Andrusak 2010). Moreover, it was suggested that high rates of harvest near 0.45 yr-1 were sustainable on Wood Lake. This would suggest, that a harvest of 10,000-15,000 Kokanee could be allowable on Whatshan Reservoir. As a result, Kokanee regulations could be set to accommodate relatively high bag limits (i.e. 10-15 fish per day) to attract an angler response and assist with regulating the Kokanee population. In addition, highly restrictive regulations on Bull Trout could be considered as this may aid to sustain and bolster a population of trophy bull trout that will aid with controlling Kokanee recruitment.

Egg Collection

There is a potential opportunity to utilize the Whatshan Reservoir Kokanee population as an egg source for the provincial stocking program conducted by the FFSBC. Egg takes from the Whatshan Kokanee population would reduce the spawning production, thus decreasing the total annual recruitment to the lake that in turn would potentially increasing fish size due to a density growth response. Egg collection on this system would be relatively easy to implement and provide another donor source for the province.

Regulation of Spawning

It appears that the quality of spawning habitat within the Upper Whatshan River may also be a limiting factor. It is suspected that low egg to fry survival (< 10%) currently limits the Kokanee population in concert with the current low reservoir productivity. Based on distribution of the spawning population from 2012-2014, it appears that quality spawning habitat is limited to the lower 2 Km and some level of control of spawning could be implemented through exclusion fencing or impassable low head weir; albeit this is not the most desirable method of controlling spawning. An egg collection would be the best option.

Benefits

Restoration of an impacted ecosystem has significant measurable (i.e. social, economic, education, community and partnerships) and non-measurable benefits (i.e. conservation and sustainability).

1. Restoration of the Whatshan Reservoir would contribute to the FWCP’s goal of restoring fish and fish habitat within the Columbia Basin.



17

2. Social benefits of restoring a functional ecosystem include improved use of the reservoir’s potential to support a fishery and other recreational opportunities (i.e. camping, hiking, sight-seeing and boating).

3. Economic benefits include costs associated with an improved fishery, increased reservoir use through camping and other opportunities. Potential benefits may also include improvements to the local economy as a result an increased use of the reservoir’s potential.

4. Educational benefits include a better understanding of how ecosystems function and how these ecosystems have been impacted as a result of hydro-electric impacts. There is the potential to engage students of the BC Institute of Technology (BCIT) restoration program to be involved in some capacity as part of their curriculum.

5. Community engagement could be a potential benefit. Engagement of local clubs and societies may provide substantial benefits to the local area.

6. Establishment of future partnerships would be a potential benefit of restoring this ecosystem. Freshwater Fish Society of BC (FFSBC), Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation (HCTF) with FWCP and provincial ministries (MFLNRO and MOE) would provide leadership and funding.

7. Conservation of species at risk and concern is a potential benefit of restoring this ecosystem. Nutrient addition could mitigate on-site and offsite compensation targets which ensure a productive and diverse ecosystem can be maintained.

8. Restoring and improving a recreational fishery that is sustainable is a potential benefit of restoring this reservoir.

9. Provide additional (offsite) compensation if ALR nutrient program is unable to meet its compensation objectives for fish losses as detailed in Appendix 3.

Risks

Based on nutrient addition programs implemented on other lakes and reservoirs within BC, potential risks are considered low. Potential risks include;

1. Low reservoir water residence time. Pettigani (1995) indicated that residence time was approximately 4 months. However, it appears that residence time has improved (> 6 months) as a result of operating changes under the WUP Consultative Committee for the reservoir (BC Hydro 2005).

2. Whatshan Reservoir appears to indicate nitrogen limitation starting in July when reservoir temperatures are often above 200C. Cyanophytes noticeably increased as the season progressed from spring to fall, indicating a nitrogen limitation. This risk can be avoided by limiting phosphorus additions during the summer when nitrogen limitation occurs.



18

3. Increased reservoir productivity could possibly reduce water quality hence the necessity of monitoring to ensure Ministry of Environment Water Quality Standards are maintained. Currently, there are only four domestic water licenses on Whatshan Reservoir, located in the South Basin of the lake.

4. Increasing costs associated with using liquid grade fertilizer (N and P). Costs associated with ALR and Kootenay Lake have demonstrated cost increases of 150% since 1992 (Marley Bassett pers comm., MFLNRO Fish Restoration Biologist).

COST BENEFIT

Freshwater Fish Society has indicated that 61% of all angling occurs on open water lakes in BC and that an average angler day is worth approximately $120 per day (GSGislason and Associates Ltd 2009; Table 4). Based on the estimated angler days on Whatshan Reservoir of 1,109 (Andrusak 2014), the fishery generates a total value of near $130,000. Based on these values, restoration of the reservoir with an approximate cost of $100,000 would be a small net benefit. However, if the restoration work has the potential to double the effort to approximately 2,218 angler days, the realized net benefits increase substantially to $266,160.

Table 4. Freshwater Fish Society of BC economic survey information

Provincial Cost Avg. Angler Day WHA Angler Day Total $120 1,109 $133,080 $120 2,218 $266,160

PARTNERSHIPS

As with many of the nutrient addition programs within BC, partnerships are an important aspect to the delivery of the success of such undertakings. It is anticipated that a number of partners would be involved in the delivery and funding of this restoration project. Partners may include;

1. Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP)

2. BC Hydro

3. Freshwater Fish Society of BC (FFSBC)

4. Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation (HCTF)

5. Columbia Basin Trust (CBT)

6. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)



19

7. British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT)

PUBLIC STAKEHOLDERS SUPPORT

It is anticipated that a number of public stakeholders would support the proposed work on The Whatshan Reservoir. Improvement to the recreational opportunities on the reservoir is widely recognized within the local community and region. Public stakeholder support includes;

• Lower Arrows Lakes Conservation Association-Edgewood, BC

• Kelowna & Dist. Fish & Game Club - Kelowna, BC

• Vernon Fish & Game Club - Vernon, BC

• West Arm Outdoors Club

Additional potential public stakeholder may include;

• Nakusp Rod & Gun Club

• Revelstoke Rod & Gun Club

OPTIONS

1. Do not undertake restorative measures on Whatshan Reservoir. This would be the least preferable option since it is contrary to the mandates of FWCP, BC Hydro, MFLNRO and the DFO commissioned study detailed by Hirst (1991)

2. Reduce spawning and future production by way of egg collection. Alternatively, reduce the spawning potential by utilizing exclusion fences to reduce future recruitment (Rieman and Maiolie 1995). Both methods would illicit a compensatory response in Kokanee size, but at current lake productivity there is not a feasible combination of fish density and fish size to create a substantive fishery (see Figure 2).

3. Implement nutrient addition on the reservoir similar to that conducted on ALR, Kootenay and Alouette. Increased food availability would improve size and growth of Kokanee almost immediately as observed on ALR and Alouette.

4. Reduce spawner numbers and implement nutrient addition simultaneously. This would illicit the highest growth and size response in the Kokanee population.



20

REFERENCES Andrusak, G. 2013a. Whatshan Reservoir Kokanee Enhancement. Habitat Conservation

Trust Foundation, Nelson, BC.

Andrusak, G. 2013b. Whatshan Reservoir Kokanee Enhancement- 2012. Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program – Columbia Basin.

Andrusak, G. 2014. Whatshan Reservoir Kokanee Enhancement. Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, Nelson, BC.

Arndt, S. 2014. Arrow Lakes Reservoir Angler Creel Survey: 2010-2012. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Nelson, BC.

Ashley, K.I. 1999. Review of provincial lake fertilization experiments in British Columbia, Canada. In International Workshop at Uppsala University. International Workshop at Uppsala University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Ashley, K., Thompson, L.C., Lasenby, D.C., McEachern, L., Smokorowski, K.E., and Sebastian, D. 1997. Restoration of an interior lake ecosystem: the Kootenay Lake fertilization experiment. Water Qual. Res. J. Can. 1997 (32): 295–323.

Ashley, K., Thompson, L.C., Sebastian, D., Lasenby, D.C., Smokorowski, K.E., and Andrusak, H. 1999. Restoration of kokanee salmon in Kootenay Lake, a large intermontane lake, by controlled seasonal application of limiting nutrients. Aquat. Restor. Can.: 127–169.

Askey, P.J., and Andrusak, G.F. 2010. Preliminary Stock Assessment Analyses of the Wood Lake Kokanee Fishery. Ministry of Environment, Penticton, BC.

Askey, P.J., and Johnston, N.T. 2013. Self-Regulation of the Okanagan Lake Kokanee Recreational Fishery: Dynamic Angler Effort Response to Varying Fish Abundance and Productivity. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 33(5): 926–939. doi: 10.1080/02755947.2013.818082.

B.C. Game Branch. 1948. B.C. Game Branch. 1948. Game fish culture obstructions. Memo report, B.C. Game Department.

BC Hydro. 2005. Consultative Committee Report: Whatshan Project Water Use Plan. BC Hydro, Vancouver, B.C.

Friedl, G., and Wuest, A. 2002. Disrupting biogeochemical cycles – Consequences of damming. Aquat. Sci. 64(64): 55–65.

FWCP. 2012. Columbia Basin: Large Lake Action Plan-DRAFT. Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program –BC Hydro.

GSGislason and Associates Ltd. 2009. Freshwater Sport Fishing in British Columbia: Sending Ripples through the Provincial Economy. Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC, Victoria, BC.



21

Herbert, A.S., Harris, S.L., Weir, T., Sebastian, D., Andrusak, G.F., Andrusak, H., and Down, N.E. 2013a. Alouette Reservoir Nutrient Restoration Project 2011-2012. Ministry of Environment, Ecosystems Protection & Sustainability Branch, Aquatic Conservation Science Section, Vancouver, B.C.

Herbert, A.S., Harris, S.L., Weir, T., Vidmanic, L., and Down, N.E. 2013b. Wahleach Reservoir Nutrient Restoration Project 2011-2012. Fisheries Project Report, Ministry of Environment, Conservation Section, Vancouver, B.C.

Hirst, S.M. 1991. Impacts of the Operation of Existing Hydroelectric Developments on Fishery Resources in British Columbia. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Habitat Management Division Pacific Region Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Vancouver, B.C.

Hyatt, K.D., McQueen, D.J., Shortreed, K.S., and Rankin, D.P. 2004. Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) nursery lake fertilization: Review and summary of results. Environ. Rev. 12(3): 133–162. doi: 10.1139/a04-008.

Hyatt, K.D., and Stockner, J.G. 1985. Responses of Sockeye Salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka ) to Fertilization of British Columbia Coastal Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42(2): 320–331. doi: 10.1139/f85-041.

Matzinger, A., Pieters, R., Ashley, K.I., Lawrence, G.A., and Wüest, A. 2007. Effects of impoundment on nutrient availability and productivity in lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr.: 2629–2640.

McPhail, J.D. 2007. The freshwater fishes of British Columbia. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton.

Moody, A., Slaney, P.A., and Stockner, J. 2007. Footprint impact of BC Hydro dams on aquatic and wetland primary productivity in the Columbia Basin. Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program., Nelson, BC.

Myers, R. 2001. Stock and recruitment: generalizations about maximum reproductive rate, density dependence, and variability using meta-analytic approaches. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 58(5): 937–951. doi: 10.1006/jmsc.2001.1109.

Ney, J.J. 1996. Oligotrophication and its discontents: effects of reduced nutrient loading on reservoir fisheries. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. (16): 285–295.

Pettigani, E. 1995. Barnes Creek Project: Preliminary assessment of the impacts of Barnes Creek waters on the physical limnology of Whatshan Lake. Aquatic Resources Limited, BC Hydro, Vancouver, B.C.

Rieman, B.E., and Maiolie, M.A. 1995. Kokanee population density and resulting fisheries. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 15(1): 229–237.

Rieman, B.E., and Myers, D.L. 1992. Influence of fish density and relative productivity on growth of kokanee in ten oligotrophic lakes and reservoirs in Idaho. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121(2): 178–191.



22

Schindler, E.U., Sebastian, D., Weir, T., Andrusak, G.F., Andrusak, H., Bassett, M., and Ashley, K.I. 2013. Arrow Lakes Reservoir Nutrient Restoration Program, Years 11 and 12 (2009 and 2010) Report. Fisheries Project Report, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Nelson, BC.

Schindler, E.U., Weir, T., Bassett, M., Vidmanic, L., Ashley, K.I., and Johner, D. 2014. Kootenay Lake Nutrient Restoration Program, Years 18 and 19 (north Arm) and Years 6 and 7 (south Arm) (2009 and 2010). Fisheries Project Report, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Sebastian, D., Andrusak, G., Scholten, G., and Langston, A. 2009. Peace Project Water Use Plan Williston Fish Index Reference: GMSMON# 13.

Stockner, J.G., and Ashley, K.I. 2003. Salmon nutrients: closing the circle. In American Fisheries Society Symposium. pp. 3–15.

Stockner, J.G., Rydin, E., and Hyenstrand, P. 2000. Cultural oligotrophication: causes and consequences for fisheries resources. Fisheries 25(5): 7–14.

Stockner, J., Langston, A., Sebastian, D., and Wilson, G. 2005. The limnology of Williston Reservoir: British Columbia’s largest lacustrine ecosystem. Water Qual. Res. J. Can. 40(1): 28–50.

Thorley, J.L. 2008. Aquatic habitat losses and gains due to BC Hydro dams in the Columbia Basin. Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program– Columbia Basin, Nelson, BC.

Utzig, G., and Schmidt, D. 2011. BC Hydro Dam Footprint Impact Summary. Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program-Columbia Basin, Nelson, BC.

Vonk, P. 2002. Overview of fish, habitat and sport fisheries within Whatshan River and Reservoir. Water Use Planning, BC Hydro, Burnaby, BC.

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology: lake and river ecosystems. In 3rd ed. Academic Press, San Diego.



23

Appendix 1 Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Loading

Week Application Phosphorus Nitrogen

mg/m2 kgs metric tonnes mg/m2 kgs metric tonnes 25-Apr 1 7.6 95.1 0.6 5.1 64.1 0.0 01-May 2 7.6 95.1 0.6 5.1 64.1 0.0 07-May 3 11.4 143.2 1.0 7.7 96.4 0.0 14-May 4 15.2 191.2 1.3 10.3 128.8 0.0 19-May 5 16.7 209.8 1.4 36.3 455.3 1.1 26-May 6 13.3 166.7 1.1 39.9 500.7 1.4 02-Jun 7 19.5 245.2 1.7 72.1 904.9 2.6 09-Jun 8 19.5 245.2 1.7 72.1 904.9 2.6 16-Jun 9 11.7 147.1 1.0 80.1 1005.3 3.2 23-Jun 10 5.0 62.8 0.4 34.3 430.7 1.4 30-Jun 11 6.7 84.3 0.6 45.8 574.6 1.8 07-Jul 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.6 647.3 2.3 14-Jul 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.8 1202.1 4.3 21-Jul 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.8 1202.1 4.3 28-Jul 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.8 1202.1 4.3

04-Aug 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.8 1202.1 4.3 11-Aug 17 10.2 127.8 0.9 83.4 1047.2 3.4 18-Aug 18 9.8 122.9 0.8 83.9 1053.2 3.5 25-Aug 19 9.4 118.0 0.8 84.4 1059.1 3.5 01-Sep 20 9.4 118.0 0.8 84.4 1059.1 3.5 Total 20 173.1 2172.3 14.6 1179.6 14804.3 47.7



24

Appendix 2 Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Budget TASK DESCRIPTION Personnel UNIT QUANTITY UNIT RATE ($) COST ($)

Task 1 Purchase and Deliver of Nutrients Expenses

10-34-0 Unit Cost 13.54 $800.00 $10,832.00 28-0-0 Unit Cost 44.15 $400.00 $17,660.00 Shipping Unit Cost 57 $100.00 $5,700.00

Subtotal

$34,192.00

Task 2 Dispensing and Application of Nutrients Labour Crew Days 18 $300.00 $5,400.00

Crew Days 18 $300.00 $5,400.00

Expenses Truck Rental Days 18 150.00 $2,700.00 Boat Rental Days 18 $400.00 $7,200.00

Delivery truck Days 18 $300.00 $5,400.00 Storage tank Unit Cost 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 Subtotal $33,100.00

Task 3 Limnological Monitoring

Labour Biologist Days 6 $500.00 $3,000.00

Technician Days 6 $400.00 $2,400.00

Expenses

Water analysis (6 months) Unit Cost 42 $150.00 $6,300.00

Water samples - shipping Unit Cost 6 $120.00 $720.00

Zooplankton analysis & summary report Unit Cost 5 $500.00 $2,500.00

Truck Rental Days 6 150.00 $900.00

Boat Rental Days 6 400.00 $2,400.00

Per Diem food allowance Days 14 $42.00 $588.00

Accommodation Days 6 $100.00 $600.00

WCB Unit Cost 1 $250.00 $250.00

Subtotal $19,658.00

Task 4 Project management & data analysis

Labour (mngt, public meetings, report) Biologist Days 15 $500.00 $7,500.00

Database, GIS, maps Biologist Days 2 $500.00 $1,000.00

Subtotal $8,500.00

Total $96,450.00

GST $4,822.50

Contingency (10%) $10,127.25

GrandTotal $111,399.75



25

Appendix 3 ALR Compensation Fish Targets

Documents

Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Addition Restoration: Feasibility Reporta100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r50224/F-F16-02... · 2016. 3. 31. · Whatshan Reservoir Nutrient Addition