How was your season

[bcubed]

What came of the presentation, particularly the "Some thoughts on what the Bow Fishery looks like into the future"?

[fishteck]

I did not attend - others who were there can answer. Discussions I've had would suggest the fishing community needs to address what they believe is a goods day on the river. Either fish counting in numbers, and length caught, or a quality fishing experience catching a few better than average fish. It is my understanding regulations can be customized to fit either objective.

There will be a need to broaden the scope of stakeholder input beyond the floppy hat-wader-fly fishing community. Single hooks and no triple-hooks should be the first step. We also need to be aware of the AEP Fish Conservation and Management Strategy - link attached:

https://www.alberta.ca/fish-conservation-and-management-strategy.aspx

The documents goes into the AEP principals to fishery management. What is of most importance are the guiding principals for consultation and delivery of the program. Recreational fishing is at the top of the agenda and commercial interests ( that includes outfitters and tournaments)) at the bottom. This would suggest that any policy change in the management of the Bow River would protect the interests of the individual angler in preference to guiding and corporate interests. 

 

[bcubed]

On 9/30/2019 at 8:00 AM, fishteck said:

 

• Although discussions with TransAlta in 2018 did highlight a need for flow stability and I believe that has now been accomplished within their operational proceedures

How do you feel about that statement after the joke of water management that happened this week?

[fishteck]

 

Bcubed - Rather than just criticize, maybe you need to rationalize what the reason for the drop could be or phone AEP / TransAlta for an explanation:

• A drop in Bearspaw Reservoir storage levels - could have generated the need to fill.
• Standard operation proceedures accommodate a 15 CMS movement of flows up or down - the equipment is not sensitive enough to make finer adjustments.
• The drop and rise in flows are within these objectives and meet my statement. 
• Possibly a malfunction at the dam 
• Possibly a demand by governments to drop the river levels to remove or service instream infrastructure downstream.

Go to the AEP Bearspaw flow charts for more accurate information on the release of water within the system. Calgary data is indicative of flows through Calgary centre but are compromised by local runoff. For a more accurate assessment of TransAlta's operations look at the upstream flow recording stations.

 

 

 

 

 

[Sparkplug]

 

Fishteck, while I agree with and like your thoughts about numerous factors possibly contributing to flow/level changes, the fact remains that with more wind generation being added to the Alberta electric system, Power Pool price volatility will increase, which will increase the financial incentive for TransAlta to use these hydro units to respond to that price volatility. 

This will in turn translate into more flow/level fluctuations.  The fact that certain Bow system hydro PPA's are expiring in 2020 (giving TransAlta more latitude in terms of using these generators more aggressively to respond to Pool Price, for their own account/profit) won't help either.

 

 

[fishteck]

Sparkplug, Although your viewpoint has been expressed to me by others with far more knowledge of the pricing model than me. But I've yet to find any information that would suggest that hydro power generation will increase on the Bow River  once the PPP agreements are  discontinued. The limiting factor is the water resource upstream and licensing agreements downstream. Under the existing federal agreements hydropeaking is the only way power can be generated, by way of storing water capacity for a proportion of the day to give sufficient reserve to operate the electrical turbines. This usually takes place when peak price revenues can be achieved. TransAlta has told me when asked if the system could be switched over to "run-of-the-river" hydro power generation on both the Bow and Kananaskis rivers that the water reserves will not allow it. In other words the limiting factor is water supply.

If you look at the AEP stream flow website and review the storage capacity summaries across the Bow River Basin you will see the majority of upstream storage is currently at 85 to 95 % full. In the spring this will drop to less than 50% in some reservoirs. This suggests to me that the current hydro-power generation is close to maximum. The one exception is the AEP Flood Mitigation Operational Model put in place from April to July when Ghost hydro  is take off line when the reservoir is emptied.

Interestingly, I have started to look at the impact of the proposals for one of three new dam options upstream of Calgary, at either Morley, Ghost or Glenbow. The Ghost upgrade, whereby a new dam and spillway is installed down stream of the existing dam looks to be the best option. It also offers the opportunity to stop hydropeaking and possibly elimination power generation at that site all together. But still the hydrologists believe power hydro power generations will offset the cost of the new dam to some degree.

I find it difficult to believe that a new dam could ever be built on the Bow River to protect Calgary against flooding. The proposals as they stand give little relief in stream flow. There is a need for a fresh look at the report generated by the Bow River Water Working Group who put the recommendations together for the three-dam options. Decommissioning all power generation on the Bow River and using the existing storage capacity to offset floods and maintain constant flows where at all possible would make far more sense. Only time will tell!

  

 

[rudedawg]

Getting back to the opening theme of this thread ...

My season on the Bow was a mixed bag. Not as many fish-to-net as in past years, but most of them were large (18-24") and healthy. Very few small fish.

This reflects a change in my approach over the past few years. I used to be a die-hard dry fly fisher. Even if there was no active surface feeding, I would toss attractor patterns while scanning the water for surface action. The result was that I would catch quite a few 6-12 inch rainbows while skating a caddis emerger, often getting surprise hook-ups while retrieving my line, "accidentally" catching dumb juvenile trout while intent on setting up for my next cast.

A few years ago my approach started to evolve, after having some heart-thumping success with streamers. That, and a perception that finding pods of surface sipping snouts is becoming more and more uncommon on the Bow - at least during the daylight hours (and my bat phobia keeps me off the water after sunset). So now my go-to technique involves wet-wade streamer swinging, while always keeping a weather eye open for rising fish. This also means that I don't often rig up with full sinking rigs, so I can switch to dry flies without too much hassle. Not the most effective approach for getting streamers down where the fish are holding, but not completely without merit. At least when you are swinging streamers near the surface, you get to see some big swirling refusals that would go unnoticed with a sinking rig.

All that being said, I still think my empirical observations support the conclusion that the Bow still has plenty of large trout (more rainbows than browns in my notional creel, but that might be due to my floating rig approach), but the 6-12 inch cohort seems to have suffered a noticeable decline. Overall, even though my fish/day rate has dropped, by biomass my success rate has improved (one twenty inch fish probably has the equivalent mass of a dozen or more juveniles). I guess having fewer, but larger, fish might result in good biomass figures, but is that healthy/sustainable?

Is this perceived change in age/size distribution borne out by the electro-shocking surveys? If so, what is the cause?

I don't think angler pressure would do this. Probably the opposite.

Did the flood change the feeding habits of mature trout? Lots of banged up little fish making for easy hunting in the summer of 2013, training a generation of eager piscivores?

Did the flood reduce the quality and quantity of rearing habitat? I used to have a favourite beat near Home Rd that got swept away and replaced by riprap in 2013/14. I've spent some time poking around the NW this fall, and it seems to me that in addition to the riprap wasteland that continues to expand along the left bank of the river, there isn't a lot of natural vegetation in those parts of the riverbed that haven't been flood-proofed. The shallows in the NW are just a large expanse of rock snot. Not much cover for juvenile trout, and it doesn't look like ideal bug habitat. Last fall I saw redds being tended in water that was quite deep and fast-flowing (as compared to redds down below Police): is this an attempt by spawning fish to stay clear of the rock snot? is it a successful spawning strategy? 

A couple of one-liners to cover the high- and lowlights of my season:

- The Bow is changing, and I've had to adopt different techniques to keep up. Still not going to be tossing bobbers anytime soon, though.

- The Oldman system is on the verge of angler-pressure crisis. One day on the Livingston was enough for me: fishers at every access point (on a weekday!), battle-scarred trout the new norm. And there's a summer job for someone who wants to provide valet parking at the Gap.

- The Elk is facing similar angler pressure issues ... and don't get me started on how BC has hijacked a federal (it's in our Constitution!) resource and made it virtually impossible for most Canadians to fish the Michel and Wigwam.

- The mountain tribs of the Bow remain relatively overlooked, but a successful day of fishing usually involves a couple km of bushwhacking and wading to find the honey holes.

- I now have to walk further to find the solitude that I'm looking for with my wet-wades, but the day I say I don't enjoy a 30 minute hike to find prime fishing water, it'll be time to hang up my gear and spend weekends watching Bob Izumi catch bass with crank bait.

[bcubed]

On 10/4/2019 at 11:47 AM, fishteck said:

 

Bcubed - Rather than just criticize, maybe you need to rationalize what the reason for the drop could be or phone AEP / TransAlta for an explanation:

• A drop in Bearspaw Reservoir storage levels - could have generated the need to fill.
• Standard operation proceedures accommodate a 15 CMS movement of flows up or down - the equipment is not sensitive enough to make finer adjustments.
• The drop and rise in flows are within these objectives and meet my statement. 
• Possibly a malfunction at the dam 
• Possibly a demand by governments to drop the river levels to remove or service instream infrastructure downstream.

Go to the AEP Bearspaw flow charts for more accurate information on the release of water within the system. Calgary data is indicative of flows through Calgary centre but are compromised by local runoff. For a more accurate assessment of TransAlta's operations look at the upstream flow recording stations.

So these are all great legit reasons, but why are we accepting this operating procedure as ok?

Are we ok with a system that they can only change flows at 15 cms increments? That is a 30 % of the flow on that day.  How about the need to fill in September after having ample opportunity all year, such that were now below our lower quartile for flows as we come into brown trout spawning season. Should we not expect better standard operating procedures for something that makes a profit off our shared resource?

[Sparkplug]

On 10/4/2019 at 5:40 PM, fishteck said:

Sparkplug, Although your viewpoint has been expressed to me by others with far more knowledge of the pricing model than me. But I've yet to find any information that would suggest that hydro power generation will increase on the Bow River  once the PPP agreements are  discontinued. The limiting factor is the water resource upstream and licensing agreements downstream. Under the existing federal agreements hydropeaking is the only way power can be generated, by way of storing water capacity for a proportion of the day to give sufficient reserve to operate the electrical turbines. This usually takes place when peak price revenues can be achieved. TransAlta has told me when asked if the system could be switched over to "run-of-the-river" hydro power generation on both the Bow and Kananaskis rivers that the water reserves will not allow it. In other words the limiting factor is water supply.

If you look at the AEP stream flow website and review the storage capacity summaries across the Bow River Basin you will see the majority of upstream storage is currently at 85 to 95 % full. In the spring this will drop to less than 50% in some reservoirs. This suggests to me that the current hydro-power generation is close to maximum. The one exception is the AEP Flood Mitigation Operational Model put in place from April to July when Ghost hydro  is take off line when the reservoir is emptied.

Interestingly, I have started to look at the impact of the proposals for one of three new dam options upstream of Calgary, at either Morley, Ghost or Glenbow. The Ghost upgrade, whereby a new dam and spillway is installed down stream of the existing dam looks to be the best option. It also offers the opportunity to stop hydropeaking and possibly elimination power generation at that site all together. But still the hydrologists believe power hydro power generations will offset the cost of the new dam to some degree.

I find it difficult to believe that a new dam could ever be built on the Bow River to protect Calgary against flooding. The proposals as they stand give little relief in stream flow. There is a need for a fresh look at the report generated by the Bow River Water Working Group who put the recommendations together for the three-dam options. Decommissioning all power generation on the Bow River and using the existing storage capacity to offset floods and maintain constant flows where at all possible would make far more sense. Only time will tell!

  

 

 

Fishteck, good note.   There is no suggestion that the total amount of "hydro power generation", i.e., MWh of electricity generated, will increase upon PPA expiry.  Rather, once the PPA's expire and the units are more fully under TransAlta's operational/commercial control, it is expected that volatility in flows will increase - i.e., more jacking around with the operation of these units in response to the hourly power pool price,which means more short-term volatility in flows (i.e., daily, or over several days).  Your point about the available water supply is correct, in terms of capping total electricity generated.  But there's plenty of room for TransAlta to screw with flows to control when that electricity is generated (and just as importantly, when it is not).

On the comment about conversion to "run-of-river" for some or all of these hydro units, I don't buy that in the least.  There is no technical reason why the dams could not be operated simply for flood protection and downstream water management reasons only - and as a result of this operating regime, whatever water is flowed through each dam on any day (with those operating parameters) generates power, to whatever amount and whenever that may be.  The Oldman dam operates in that matter - AEP controls the flows for water management reasons, and Atco simply generate whatever power they can from those flows as they are available.  No reason why the Bow/Kananaskis hydro units couldn't be operated in exactly the same way.