UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Sustainability and hydro development in the Columbia River Basin Toller, Susan B. 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0307.pdf [ 7.5MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0094707.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094707-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094707-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094707-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094707-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094707-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094707-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

SUSTAINABILITY AND HYDRO DEVELOPMENTIN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASINbySUSAN B. TOLLERB.E.S., University of Waterloo, 1986A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Interdisciplinary Studies)Resource Management and Environmental StudiesWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 22, 1994© Susan B. Toiler, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of b’J4t. RThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate (ipvJ &/?/DE6 (2/88)11ABSTRACTThis thesis examines the concept of sustainability and the implications of large-scalehydroelectric development for the sustainability of communities in the Canadian portion of theColumbia River Basin. A literature review of sustainability provides a background fordiscussion and a working definition of sustainability is proposed for consideration throughout thestudy. An overview of the Canadian experience with hydro development and its ecological,social and economic impacts provides a context within which to consider issues related tosustainability.The Columbia River Basin is the setting of a case study of sustainability and hydro developmentin British Columbia. The Kootenay region has been affected by extensive hydro projects sincethe early 1900s on the Kootenay River and most significantly by large dams built on theColumbia system as a result of the Columbia River Treaty. Communities in the Kootenays haveborne a large share of the impacts of these dams. The resulting degradation of fisheries, wildlifeand forests has jeopardized the integrity of the region’s resource base and its capability toenhance the quality of life of those living within the Columbia River drainage basin.Future hydroelectric planning should address the sustainability of the ecological, social andeconomic systems affected by this land use change and ensure that local communities areincluded in project decision-making. Increased awareness of the consequences of large-scalehydro projects during planning stages may enable sustainable development to occur.111TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT iiTABLE OF CONTENTS iiiLIST OF FIGURES viLIST OF TABLES viiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii1. INTRODUCTION 11.1 Rationale1.11 Canadian Energy Resource Development1.12 Hydroelectric Development and Sustainability1.13 The Columbia River Basin as a Case Study1.2 Research Question and Objectives1.3 Approach1.31 Interdisciplinary Approach .1.32 Regional/Watershed Focus .1.33 Case Study1.4 Implications and Limitations of Approach1.5 Organization2. SUSTA1NABILITY2.1 Origins of Sustainability2.2 Sustainable Development2.3 Criticisms of Sustainable Development2.4 The Evolving Concept of Sustainability2.41 Carrying Capacity2.42 Social Equity2.43 Ecological Economics2.5 Sustainability in Policy Making2.51 Environmental, Social and Economic Sustainability2.52 Shared Decision Making and Sustainability2.6 Sustainability and Hydroelectric Development in Canada2.61 Environmental Impacts of Dams2.62 Hydro Dams and Resource Use Conflicts2.63 Hydro Development and Resource Stewardship .2.64 Local Control of Resources and Shared Decision Making2.7 Implications for Sustainability2.8 Sustainability as Defmed in this Thesis225916171718192022242426283032333436373940434750515558iv3. REGIONAL IMPACTS OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENTIN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN 603.1 Methods 643.2 Resource Dependency in the Kootenays 683.3 The Columbia River Treaty 733.4 The Impacts of Columbia and Kootenay River Dams 783.41 Impacts of Dams on Fish 813.42 Impacts of Dams on Wildlife 843.43 Impacts of Dams on Forests 873.44 Impacts of Dams on Agricultural Land 893.5 Impacts of Dams on Water Supplies 913.5 Environmental Policy at B.C. Hydro 913.51 Environmental Regulation of B.C. Hydro Dams 923.52 Compensation/Mitigation 943.53 Monitoring 1113.54 New Supply Options 1133.55 New Policy Initiatives 1153.6 Columbia River Treaty Committee 1183.61 Low Reservoir Levels 1223.62 Downstream Benefits 1263.63 The Columbia-Kootenay Symposium . . 1273.7 Evaluation of Implications of Hydro Development on the Columbia RiverBasin 1303.71 Evaluation of the Negative Impacts of Hydro Development 1363.72 Evaluation of the Positive Impacts of Hydro Development 1403.73 Implications of Hydro Development for the Kootenays 1424. INDICATORS OF THE IMPACTS OF HYDRO DEVELOPMENTON SUSTAINAB1LITY 1444.1 Indicators 1454.2 Development of Indicators 1484.3 Difficulties Encountered During Indicator Selection . . . 1594.4 Ecological Indicators 1624.41 Fish - Kokanee Salmon Populations 1634.42 Wildlife - Land Capability for Ungulates 1714.43 Ecological Integrity- Net Primary Productivity . 1784.5 Social Indicators 1894.51 Community Stability - Population of Revelstoke 1904.52 Recreational Fishing- Rod Hours 1994.53 Social Systems - Participation in Decision-Making 2054.6 Economic Indicators 2134.61 Economic Diversity- Tourism Room Revenues . 2144.62 Employment Stability- Unemployment Rates in the Kootenays . 2294.63 Forestry Constraints - Accessibility to Timber Supply 235V4.7 Indicator Trends.2474.71 Ecological Indicators 2484.72 Social Indicators 2494.73 Economic Indicators 2505. CONCLUSIONS 2536. REFERENCE LIST 264APPENDIX 1: Interviews 281APPENDIX 2: Indicator Evaluations 284viLIST OF FIGURES1 The B.C. Hydro Electric System 72 The Columbia River Basin 113 Columbia River Basin Hydro Development 134 The Generation-Demand Balance 145 Hydro Development in the Canadian Portion of the Columbia River Basin(The Kootenay Region) 156 Map of Tribal Lands- Ktunaxa Territory 697 The Displacement-Resettlement Pattern 798 Logging Operations on Kinbasket Reservoir (October 1992) 909 Debris on Kinbasket Reservoir (Summer 1991) 10610 Regional District Boundaries 12011 Columbia River Basin Reservoir Levels 12312 Low Reservoir Levels at Nakusp 12513 Annual Kokanee Populations - Meadow Creek 16614 Meadow Creek 16715 Land Capability for Ungulates Before and After Mica Dam(North Section of Kinbasket Reservoir) 17216 Land Capability for Ungulates Before and After Mica Dam(Southern Section of Kinbasket Reservoir) 17317 Estimated Average Net Primary Productivity by Plants in Major Types ofEcosystems 18218 Population of Revelstoke 19319 Annual Rod Hours on Kootenay Lake 20120 Public Participation in Columbia River Dam Planning 20721 Annual Room Revenue in the Kootenays 21822 Room Revenue in the Kootenays during July 199 1-1993 22323 Unemployment Rates in British Columbia 23124 Mica Reservoir Access and Transportation 24025 Mica Reservoir Forestry Activities 24126 Evans Phase Costs - Big Bend Highway vs. Mica Pondage Operations 245viiLIST OF TABLES1 Hydroelectric Development in the Columbia River Basin 122 Comparison of Treaty Vs. Non-Treaty Costs and Benefits 973 Environmental Requirements for B.C. Hydro Water Licences 1004 1992 Property Taxes, Grants and Water Rentals 1105 Summary of Treaty Impact by Region 1216 Negative Impacts of Columbia River Basin Dams as Identified by Residents of theKootenays 1327 Positive Impacts of Columbia River Basin Dams as Identified by Residents of theKootenays 1358 Indicators of Sustainability 1529 Indicator Attributes 15410 Basic Sector Dependence 237viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI appreciate the assistance of everyone who has facilitated the completion of my thesis. I wouldespecially like to thank the people of the Kootenays who spent a lot of time helping me with myresearch. Numerous government representatives and B.C. Hydro officials were also very helpfuland contributed substantial amounts of information. I am grateful for the financial supportprovided by B.C. Hydro and my supervisor.My supervisor, Peter Nemetz, and advisors, Les Lavkulich, Maureen Reed and John Robinson,contributed many helpful ideas and suggestions throughout my research. Their advice, kindnessand sense of humour were greatly appreciated.I would like to thank my family and friends for their constant love and support. I haveespecially appreciated the warm sense of community provided by The Resource Managementgang with whom I have shared both the good and the bad times during the last three years.11. INTRODUCTIONWe live in a world of imperfect knowledge. Each one of us is faced with a variety of decisionsevery day and must develop appropriate criteria upon which to base decisions. In this thesis,it is argued that sustainability is a concept which provides us with a framework for reachingbetter decisions through the integration of environmental, social and economic systems, andthrough the empowerment of people to take a greater role in local resource management.The purpose of this thesis is to assist in the clarification of what is meant by sustainability andhow this concept may be useful in hydroelectric development and water resources planning.This subject was chosen in an effort to consider the role of environmental stewardship amidstthe increasing number of controversies related to large hydro projects throughout Canada.Although the development of hydro megaprojects has provided many Canadians with a relativelyinexpensive and abundant supply of electricity, the damming of many of this country’s largestrivers has caused a wide range of ecological and social problems. Those who reap the benefitsfrom the use of this energy do not always bear its social and environmental costs.A case study of hydro development in the Columbia River basin of British Columbia providesa useful setting for the examination of sustainability issues associated with this type of resourcedevelopment. The introduction of large hydro dams into a mountainous resource-dependentregion with competing interests for the use of limited flat and productive valley bottoms hascaused significant environmental, social and economic problems for those who depend on theregion’s resource base. This thesis will attempt to explain the parameters of this resourcemanagement issue and offer suggestions for the consideration of sustainability in future hydro2project planning.1.1 RationaleIn recent years, resource use conflicts have been the focus of much political controversy.Increasingly, individuals and interest groups are challenging resource allocation decisions madeby governments and large corporations. Frustrated by their limited access to decision-makingsome environmental activists have resorted to road blockades, tree spiking, boycotts, politicallobbying and court proceedings to communicate their dissatisfaction with resource use decisions.Contemporary concerns regarding sustainability suggest that many previous practices of resourceexploitation solely for economic benefit are no longer sufficient. The public is demandinggreater consideration of the social and environmental consequences of large-scale industrialdevelopments. The concept of sustainability provides a framework for the examination of long-term resource values that are inadequately represented when private sector profit maximizationis the sole or principal decision criterion.1.11 Canadian Energy Resource DevelopmentCanadian energy resources have been developed through the construction of megaprojects, asthese large-scale engineering enterprises have been viewed as effective tools for implementingfederal and provincial economic and political goals. Governments have favoured megaprojectsdue to their ability to accomplish regional development goals and gain regional political support.3Large energy projects have usually been announced with great fanfare and promises of largenumbers of jobs (although generally short-term) which can be credited to the government inpower.While Canadians have benefitted from the industrial growth and improved standard of livingattributable to the development of energy resources, it has become increasingly apparent that thereal social and environmental costs of energy projects have not been fully considered duringproject planning or implementation. Energy resource development can cause significantproblems for communities located near the site of energy production or for those living alongtransportation or transmission corridors. Residents of large urban centres tend to prosper fromthe long-term benefits of energy projects, while those dwelling near project sites are often leftwithout adequate resources to compensate for or mitigate the residual effects.The extraction and development of many of Canada’s primary sources of energy have occurredin remote northern locations, where the large-scale exploitation of resources has disruptedsurrounding communities whose well-being depends largely on the state of the naturalenvironment. Oil and gas development in northern Canada has jeopardized the integrity of theArctic environment through the construction of pipelines and periodic occurrence of oil spills,and has triggered socio-economic problems resulting from the imposition of economic valuesfrom southern urban markets on local communities (Berger 1977). The production of toxicwastes and leakage of mine tailings from uranium mining activities at Elliott Lake, Ontario hascontaminated water, fish and wildlife and necessitated long-term waste management planningwhich may affect the health of local communities and future development opportunities (NuclearFuel Waste Management Environmental Assessment Panel 1991). The damming of many of4Quebec’s northern rivers flowing into James Bay has caused the drowning of caribou, theaccumulation of mercury in fish, the disruption of hunting and fishing economies, causing manysocial and economic hardships for aboriginal communities whose livelihood was strongly linkedto these resources (Berkes 1988).During the 1980s, a growing awareness of environmental problems related to the production andconsumption of energy resulted in debate over the viability of various energy resources. Thediscovery of the relatively new phenomena of acid rain and global warming focused concern onthe consequences of burning fossil fuels. The accident at Chernobyl (1986) generatedwidespread apprehension about the safety of the operation of nuclear plants throughout theworld. Oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez (1989) drew attention to the risks imposed onmarine and shoreline ecosystems by the transportation of oil. Many Canadians questioned theirdependence on fossil fuels and their interest in nuclear energy.The development of energy resources was considered by the World Commission on Environmentand Development (WCED) as part of its mandate of “a global agenda for change”. Since theWCED endorsement of the concept of sustainable development in its report “Our CommonFuture” (1987), Canada and many other countries have endeavoured to include environmentaland social factors in economic development policies. However, the implementation ofsustainable development has been fraught with controversy regarding the interpretation of themeaning of this term. The pursuit of sustainability or sustainable development has beenaddressed by energy policy makers and has become a criteria in energy project decision making.In comparison with other energy sources, hydroelectric dams have been perceived as one of the5most environmentally friendly forms of energy generation (Standing Committee on Energy,Mines and Resources 1993, 85). Since the generation of hydroelectricity is renewable and doesnot produce any “pollution”, many people favour this form of energy production over nuclearor the combustion of fossil fuels. While there is some merit to these views, the construction andoperation of hydro dams results in a different set of impacts, those related to the displacementof people, fish, wildlife, vegetation and sediments. The flooding and diversion of large watersystems causes a wide assortment of changes to natural ecosystems and social communities andmany impacts do not become evident until years later.1.12 Hydroelectric Development and SustainabilityCanada is fortunate in its rich endowment of water resources. The construction of dams tocontrol the flow of water systems has been primarily for the purpose of hydroelectric generation.Ninety-five per cent of the water stored behind large dams in Canada is associated with thegeneration of hydroelectricity (Day and Quinn 1992, 176). Hydroelectricity representsapproximately 10% of Canadian primary energy production, and supplies 12.9% of domesticdemand for primary energy as reported by Statistics Canada/Energy, Mines and ResourcesCanada (1993).Although the hydroelectric potential of Canadian rivers varies across the country, the large riversflowing from the mountains of British Columbia produce sufficient energy to meet the majorityof electricity demands within this province. Hydroelectricity provides 11,000 MW (87%) of the12,700 MW of electrical generating capacity installed in the province. The remaining 1,700MW (13%) is generated through thermal production. More than 70% of provincial electricity6is produced from dam systems on the Peace and Columbia Rivers (British Columbia EnergyCouncil 1992, 10).Most of the electricity produced in British Columbia is supplied by the province’s public utility,B.C. Hydro. The provincial utility has a total generating capacity of 10,500 MW, which itsupplies through 29 hydroelectric generating stations, two gas turbines, one thermal plant andthree diesel generators (Figure 1). West Kootenay Power is a private utility based in southeastern British Columbia with a total capacity of 205 MW, supplied by four hydroelectric plants.Numerous other small public and private utilities, generate approximately 2000 MW throughhydroelectric power and cogeneration of wood residue (B.C. Energy Council 1992, 10).Canadian hydro development has occurred largely in remote areas and, until recently, with littleconcern for its long-term implications other than electricity generation and economicdevelopment. Post-project assessments of the consequences of hydro dam activity onsurrounding communities and ecosystems have documented many of the immediate and long-term impacts of this energy source (The Peace-Athabasca Delta Project Group 1972; Baxter andGlaude 1980; Day and Quinn 1992). Communities have been displaced, fish and wildlife habitathas been lost, recreational opportunities have been foregone, and people have been forced toadopt different lifestyles as a result of the changes to regional resource bases. In many cases,it is aboriginal people, who have traditionally been most closely linked to the land, who haveexperienced the most substantial losses (Berkes 1988; Day and Quinn 1992).After several decades of experience with large hydro dams, Canadians are particularly aware ofmany of the impacts of hydro development. The majority of Canada’s large river systems haveNFigure1.TheB.C.HydlD‘ElectricSystem16PeaceCanyon17Puntledge18Revelstoke19Ruskin20Seton21SevenMile22Shrum,G.M.23Shuswap24Spillimacheen25StaveFalls26Strathcona27Wahleach28WalterHardman29WhatshanStorageADuncanBKeenleysideConventionalThermalCBurrardGasTurbinebKeoghEPrinceRupertHydroelectric1Aberfeldie2Alouette3AshRiver4BridgeRiver5Buntzen6Cheakamus7Clowhom8Elko9FaI!sRiver10JohnHart11JordanRiver12KootenayCanal13Ladore14LaJoie15MicaAlbertaU.S.A.Source:B.C.Hydro(1993k),p.3.8been dammed with substantial electrical generation projects on the Peace, Columbia, Churchill,James Bay and Churchill Falls networks. These hydro projects were all constructed since the1960s and some offer opportunities for further development.While many Canadians have benefitted from the abundant and relatively inexpensive supply ofhydroelectricity produced within this country, the majority of costs of this form of powergeneration have been significantly underestimated. Most of the benefits derived from thedevelopment of many of Canada’s largest rivers have been received by those living in largemetropolitan centres, hundreds of kilometres from large dam sites and their consequences. Theconcentration of resource use decision-making in large corporate agencies in urban heartlandshas jeopardized the sustainability of human and wildlife communities living near hydro dams.Since the late 1980s, there have been a growing number of conflicts related to the developmentof hydroelectric resources across Canada. The Rafferty-Alameda Dam in Saskatchewan, theOldman Dam in Alberta, and the two phases of hydro development on James Bay in Quebec,have generated much public concern over questions of equity for those impacted by projectconstruction (Rafferty-Alameda Project Environmental Assessment Panel 1991, Oldman RiverDam Environmental Assessment Panel 1992, Hydro Quebec 1992), and have caused muchuncertainty for dam builders and government policy-makers. All three sets of projects have beenchallenged by environmental groups and aboriginal organizations in numerous court cases, inan unprecedented show of support for the appreciation of environmental and social issues relatedto hydro megaprojects (Robinson 1993).9The examination of sustainabffity in the context of hydro development provides an opportunityto evaluate some of the past problems associated with the harnessing of water resources, andsome of the consequences for present and future generations who have been left with thechallenge of meeting their needs with the constraints imposed by hydro dam operations. SinceBritish Columbia depends almost exclusively on hydroelectric energy to meet its powerrequirements, this province is a useful setting in which to study sustainability. Its large riversoriginate in mountainous and snow-capped terrain and provide substantial hydroelectricopportunities for the residents of this province.1.13 The Columbia River Basin as a Case StudyAlthough British Columbia has harnessed the power of its water resources since the 1850s, itspresent reliance on hydroelectric generation is a result of W.A.C. Bennett’s “Two River Policy”.Premier Bennett recognized the power generating capabilities of the Peace and Columbia Rivers,and favoured their ability to stimulate provincial economic growth. Although the federalgovernment supported the development of the Columbia River, the premier was anxious to reapthe benefits of both hydroelectric systems, and succeeded in gaining financing for the Peacethrough American payments for joint development of the Columbia River. Construction of largehydro dams along both river systems occurred simultaneously during the late 1960s. Peace andColumbia River dams continue to provide the majority of electrical capacity within BritishColumbia (Figure 1).While dams in the Canadian portion of the Columbia River basin were first built on theKootenay River at the turn of the century, the largest hydro projects in the region were10developed as a result of the Columbia River Treaty. The governments of Canada and the UnitedStates signed this agreement in 1961 in a cooperative effort to regulate the Columbia for theirmutual interests in flood control and power generation. The Columbia River is the fourth largestriver in North America, originating high in the Canadian Rockies, and flowing throughWashington and Oregon, before emptying into the Pacific Ocean (Figure 2).Hydro dams on the Columbia River system in southeastern British Columbia (Table 1) nowgenerate approximately half of the electricity produced by BC Hydro, and regulate water levelsfor one of the world’s largest hydroelectric systems (Figure 3). While hydro development inthe Kootenays has created some short-term employment and economic benefits for communitiesin the region, the majority of advantages have accrued in the form of relatively inexpensive andabundant electricity for urban residents of the Lower Mainland in British Columbia, and theU.S. Pacific Northwest. Many of the long-term costs have been experienced in terms of lostresources for those living in the Kootenays. Regional variations in B.C. Hydro electricitygeneration and demand are illustrated in Figure 4.This thesis focuses on sustainability in the Columbia River basin, a region of communities thatare heavily dependent on resource-based industries, and one in which extensive hydrodevelopment has caused ongoing problems due to the creation of reservoirs and fluctuatingreservoir levels (Figure 5). This region, known as the Kootenays, presents an interesting areafor a case study due to the large-scale development of hydro resources that has occurred overthe last twenty-five years, the possibility to address social equity concerns through therenegotiation of 1998 downstream benefits according to the Columbia River Treaty, and therecent initiatives that have been undertaken to manage the consequences of this permanent legacyFigure 2. The Columbia River Basin.11Approximate Scale 1 cm = 70 inn‘an Cob ver9RITISH—- OREGONCALIFORN-Source: Krutilla (1967), p. 16Table1-HYDROELECTRICDEVELOPMENTINTHECOLUMBIARIVERBASINRiver/CreekDam/DiversionCompletionDateHydroelectricPlantCapacity(MW)ReservoirSurfaceArea(ha)OperatingAuthoityColijitiaRiverSystemCoti.anbiaRiverMica1973Mica1736Kinbasket43200B.C.HydroRevelstoke1984Revelstoke1843Revelstoke10125B.C.HydroKeenleyside1968--ArrowLakes52600B.C.HydroPendd’OreitteSevenMiLe1980SevenMile594SevenMile370B.C.HydroWaneta1954Waneta375Waneta99ComincoCranberryCreekCoursierLake-CoursierLake200B.C.HydroWalterHardmanWalterHardman8CranberryHeadpondB.C.HydroWhatshanWhatshan1972Whatshan50WhatshanLake1700B.C.HydroSpillimacheenRiverSpUlimacheen1955Spillirnacheen4Spitlimacheen2B.C.HydroKootenayRiverSystemBullRiverAberfeldie1922Aberfeldie5Aberfeldie26B.C.HydraElkRiverElko1924Elko12ELkoB.C.HydraDuncanRiverDuncan1967-Duncan7140B.C.HydroKootenayRiverCityofNelson1896CityofNelson7KootenayLake7CityofNelsonCorraLinn1932CorraLinn51KootenayLake38760WestKooter’PcrUpperBonnington1907UpperBonnington59UpperBonnington38WestKooter’PowerLowerBonnington1897LowerBonnington41LowerBorinington19WestKooteyPowerSouthStocan1928SouthSlocan53SouthSlocan26WestKooteryPowerKootenayCanal1976KootenayCanal528-B.C.HydraBrilliant1943BriLliant129BrilLiant569ComincoSource:CoitedfromB.C.Hydro(1993k);andHirst(1991),p.85-87.1•’—13‘-Aç ç f\O‘kVV i’\ N’,(1 k(‘_Q c’ ,‘ 1 •‘°°•‘“ \Ii i— IIisJ ILi I (‘‘ S cAUj. —— _/_ Jt— $Ac(s I——01 — f--iV-“°V-I i/ V \_.‘I C—— / \‘1‘? ‘1VV__ZSSI V—i-V(/_1—‘_•s \f\C\ (‘(V—SFigure 3. COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN HYDRO DEVELOPMENTTRIY R0JECTS30 0V60KM ( OTHER P0JECTSFigure 4. The Generation — Demand BalancePeace RegionColu biaRegi n14I wcr1\lainland &• 1- i.’ ie ekp(’(IV /)(‘I <•I?I ()/loI(III)lt11( 1(11 ‘CflC’lcIfK)It!U/ (/‘,HClflI.Source: B.C. Hydro (1993k), p. 5Approximate Scale 1 cm =20 kmSource: Adapted from B .C. Hydro (1989)15Figures. HYDRO DEVELOPMENT IN THECANADIAN PORTION OF THECOLUMBIA RIVER BASIN(THE KOOTENAY REGION)Mica DamReveistokeReservoirReveistoke1,Reveistoke0-z(Dci-)tipperArrowtakeDuncanReservoirArrowReservoirNakuspLowerArrowtake-30cc’Duncan DamIoolenuzjLake(Reservoir)K1nI)erIe\• CesionC.\’ U \USAKeenleysideC ranh •KoocanusaReservoir16to future generations. Emphasis is placed on defining sustainability and understanding theimplications of hydroelectric development on the sustainability of surrounding communities.1.2 Research Question and ObjectivesWhile hydroelectric projects have been viewed as a favourable means of generating electricityand stimulating economic development, they have also created resource use conflicts in nearbyareas. Since Canadians and particularly residents of British Columbia continue to rely on waterresources for the generation of electricity, and as hydro project conflicts are costly and time-consuming for governments, industry, interest groups and individuals, it is necessary to examinethe controversial issues related to hydroelectric development. The concept of sustainabilityprovides a framework for considering some of the problems related to dams and their effects onlocal communities.This thesis examines the following question:How has hydroelectric development affected sustainability in the Columbia River basin?The research objectives are summarized as follows:1. to define sustainability;2. to examine the sustainabiity of areas affected by hydroelectric development through acase study of the Columbia River basin;3. to develop of a set of indicators to evaluate the impacts of hydro development on17sustainability; and4. to recommend measures through which sustainability could be included in future hydroproject planning.1.3 ApproachThis thesis is interdisciplinary in nature, and uses a case study to examine the effects ofextensive hydro development on the sustainability of communities sharing the resources of acommon watershed. The following discussion outlines the interdisciplinary approach, therationale for a regional (watershed) focus, and the justification for the use of a case study.131 Interdisciplinary ApproachSince the concept of sustainability involves the integration of economic, social and environmentalsystems, an examination of sustainability is inherently interdisciplinary. The research for thisthesis has involved the study of various aspects of economics, sociology, ecology, and politicalscience in an effort to understand some of the problems related to the concept of sustainability.While the author is more familiar with some of these disciplines than others, an attempt has beenmade to emphasize the aspects of each field that are most helpful in understanding sustainability.Interdisciplinary research requires some context to give meaning to its approach. This study wasundertalcen within the field of environmental resource management as this resource-basedapproach provides some useful frameworks for drawing links among elements of what have beentraditionally known as science or arts disciplines. Although environmental resource management18has developed from biophysical studies of forests, fish and wildlife, it is now evolving toconsider resource use conflicts and the socio-economic factors that affect management decisionsof natural resources.1.32 Regional)Watershed FocusA regional or watershed approach is the most appropriate for this study since many communitieswithin the Columbia River basin share similar experiences with past and ongoing hydro damoperations. Recent community efforts to organize as a region for increased political visibilitygenerated useful information for regional analysis. Although the consideration of sustainabilityof those living in the Kootenays must acknowledge extra-regional issues due to social andpolitical linkages with other parts of British Columbia, as well as bioregional or geographicalrelationships with communities downstream in the Pacific Northwest, this study focuses on theCanadian portion of the Columbia River Basin.The subject of this research appeared to be quite timely as it coincided with the formation of theColumbia River Treaty Committee, a regional organization developed to address politicalconcerns related to the impacts of hydro development in the Kootenays. During the course ofresearch, issues related to Columbia River hydro projects achieved increased political visibilitydue to problems related to low reservoir levels during the summers of 1992 and 1993, combinedwith upcoming negotiations related to the 1998 return of downstream power benefits, known asthe Canadian Entitlement.191.33 Case StudyThis thesis uses a case study as a means of examining sustainability and its implications forhydro development. According to Robert K. Yin (1989, 14), a case study is an appropriatemethod to conduct research under the following conditions:1. to answer how and why a situation is occurring;2. when no control over behavioural events is required; and3. when the focus is on contemporary events.A case study is a relevant method to undertake this research as the previously stated objectivesconcur with the three conditions described above:1. This thesis has focused on addressing:(a) how the concept of sustainability has evolved, and why it is important, and(b) how hydroelectric projects have caused problems related to resourcemanagement and why these problems have occurred;2. The study of hydro development in the Columbia River basin requires anexamination of events that have already occurred or are presently occurring. Nocontrol over behavioural events is required; and3. While this thesis has endeavoured to review the history of past hydro developmentto understand how the current situation has evolved, the present emphasis on the20concept of sustainability, as well as opportunities for including this concept infuture hydro-related planning, necessitate a focus on contemporary events.The interdisciplinary nature of case studies usually requires that multiple sources of informationbe used to gain a thorough understanding of the problem under examination. This case studyhas involved:1. a literature review of (a) sustainability and (b) impacts of hydroelectric projects;2. interviews with (a) representatives of communities within the Columbia Riverbasin, (b) B.C. Hydro officials, and (c) provincial government representatives;3. observation of impacts related to hydro development;4. participation at conferences addressing sustainability, in particular the ColumbiaKootenay Symposium held in Castlegar June 18-20, 1993; and5. the development of indicators of sustainability.1.4 Implications and Limitations of ApproachAlthough an interdisciplinary study is a useful approach to understand the parameters of theresearch described, there are certainly limitations of this type of study. The interpretation ofsustainability adopted for this thesis has focused on the integration of environmental, social andeconomic factors in decision-malcing. While others have encompassed cultural, political andspiritual factors in their definitions of sustainability, this thesis limits its consideration to threemain factors which embrace most of the other elements considered by researchers and policymakers.21The use of hydroelectric projects and their impacts as a case study is only one example of theapplication of sustainability in resource-based decision-making. However, the examination ofhydro dams presents an opportunity to evaluate many of the social equity concerns related tomegaproject decision-making. While some of the impacts of Columbia River basin dams arefairly site-specific, the overall consequences of this region’s experiences have been experienceduniversally with hydro developments throughout Canada, and possibly around the world. Theconsideration of sustainability provides a framework for evaluating the cumulative combinationsof site-specific impacts accompanying large dam projects.The methods used to accomplish the research objectives of this thesis are outlined in the previousdiscussion of the case study. Since a case study entails the use of several methods of datacollection, and since this study has involved the selection of appropriate methods in a sequentialprocess, the explanation of the specific procedures undertaken are described in more detail whereappropriate (chapters 4 and 5). The process of developing a set of indicators of sustainabilityrelied on conclusions reached through interviews, participation at public forums and conferences,and a review of relevant information, and is explained in this context.The author has endeavoured to understand many of the issues significant to people living in theKootenays and to those involved with hydroelectric project operations. However, knowledgeof the communities visited is limited to that learned through field trips, and comprehension ofthe complicated subject of hydroelectric systems is restricted to that gained from literature anddiscussions with B.C. Hydro officials.221.5 OrganizationThe following chapters provide a theoretical framework for the consideration of environmentaland social, as well as economic factors in decision-making for large-scale resource developmentprojects. A case study is used to provide specific examples of how large hydro dams haveaffected the integrity of the regional resource base and influenced access to the use of resources,generating conflicts, in addition to power.Chapter 2 reviews literature on the evolution of the concept of sustainability and its relevanceto hydro development. It explains the origins of the term and discusses current themes and thespecific emphasis addressed in this thesis. Past experiences with hydro dams are outlined, andkey characteristics of hydro projects are examined in terms of their significance forsustainability. A definition of sustainability is proposed for consideration throughout the thesis.Chapter 3 summarizes the case study of the Columbia River Basin. Research methods arediscussed in greater detail, and the history of hydro development in the Kootenays is explained.Impacts of past projects are described, policy initiatives are outlined and recent communityorganization efforts are summarized.The significance of the information gained from the case study is analyzed through the use ofindicators in chapter 4. The methods used to develop a set of indicators are explained. Nineindicators are evaluated in terms of their ability to illustrate how hydro development has affectedsustainability in the Kootenays.23Chapter 5 contains conclusions and recommendations for the consideration of sustainability infuture hydro project planning. The effects of hydro development on the resource base of theKootenays are summarized. Opportunities for shared decision-making in regional sustainabilityissues are identified.In this thesis, the term “ecological” is used to describe the system of relationships existingbetween organisms and their natural surroundings. Although humans are part of ecologicalsystems, the use of this term will focus largely on relationships among other living organisms.The use of the term “social” pertains to the relationships occurring between people and involvesactivities aimed at the satisfaction of various basic needs (food and shelter) or supplementaryneeds (recreation, spirituality, human rights). The term “economic” refers to the network ofactivities related to the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services, i.e.forestry operations, social welfare policies. The use of the word “environmental” denotes thewide range of interactions occurring between humans and other living organisms.242. SUSTAINABILITYSustainability is an evolving concept that has received increasing recognition since the 1980s.Originating from the management of renewable resources, it is a framework that is now beingused to consider the interconnectedness of social, environmental and economic issues during aperiod of history when there is growing awareness of the links between environmental crises andsocio-economic problems. Sustainability and the related idea of “sustainable development” havebecome popular terms following their endorsement by the World Commission on Environmentand Development in the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future (1987).Sustainability is a concept discussed by a wide range of people concerned with environmentaland social aspects of development. In general, sustainability refers to the ability to managehuman and natural resources as life support systems for present as well as future generations.This idea is the subject of much debate, and considerable effort is being directed towards thedevelopment of a common vision of its meaning. In order to understand the significance ofsustainability, it is helpful to examine how it has been defined and used previously. Thefollowing discussion attempts to summarize the evolution of sustainability and identify some ofthe critical aspects of its interpretation by policy-makers. It concludes with a description ofsustainability in the context of this thesis.2.1 Origins of SustainabilityThe idea of sustainability has been derived from references in the natural sciences to themanagement and harvesting of renewable resources. Lélé (1991), Toman (1992) and Brown et25al. (1987) discuss the origins of the term sustainability in their respective efforts to define theconcept, emphasizing its significance in forestry and fisheries management. They explain thatresource managers have adopted the concept of managing self-renewing stocks for “maximumsustainable yield,” in an effort to limit harvests to the amount that can be reproduced within thefollowing year.Ecologists have since applied the concept of sustainability to ecological systems. Sustainabilityis often linked to the idea of “carrying capacity”, meaning a recognition that an area is onlycapable of supporting a certain number of living organisms due to ecological limits. Lélé (1991,609) states that many now understand sustainability to be “the existence of the ecologicalconditions necessary to support human life at a specific level of well-being through futuregenerations,” and refers to this as ecological sustainability.More recently, the consideration of sustainability has embraced ideas related to social conditions,as well as the renewability of natural resources. Lélé (1991, 610) notes that when theInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) madesustainability issues popular with its World Conservation Strategy, its primary focus was onecological sustainability, and it was later criticized for not addressing the difficult questionsconcerning politics and economics. Brown and others (1987, 716) believe that while ecologicalsustainability focuses on natural biological processes, continued productivity and functioning ofecosystems, social sustainability addresses the satisfaction of basic human needs such as foodand shelter, as well as other social necessities such as security, freedom, education, employmentand recreation (as suggested by Maslow 1970).26The concept of a social dimension to sustainability represents the need to confront socialproblems related to those human needs that extend beyond the satisfaction of physical comfort.Decision making has placed a large emphasis on economic efficiency and profit maximizationat the expense of environmental and social values. The concept of sustainability questions thisassumption by addressing the social and environmental, as well as economic problems that affectthe long-term ability to fulfill our needs.One of the most difficult issues related to social sustainability is distributional equity. Westernsocieties have developed through the promotion of neoclassical economics, with the assumptionthat economic growth will improve social welfare through the trickling down of the benefitsacquired by the wealthy. This allocation of power and resources has been questioned and newmodels of decision-making and economic development are being pursued in an effort to addressincome disparity, access to and ownership of resources, and inclusivity in decision-making(Boothroyd 1991b).2.2 Sustainable DevelopmentThe recent emphasis on sustainability is largely related to the concept of “sustainabledevelopment”, a term originating from the RJCN in its 1980 World Conservation Strategy. Itwas later popularized in “Our Common Future”, the 1987 report of the World Commission onEnvironment and Development (WCED). This Commission, chaired by Gro Brundtland ofNorway, was established in 1983 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, and was giventhe mandate to develop a “global agenda for change” in its examination of internationalenvironmental issues.27The Brundtland Commission accomplished its task during a period of time when the world facedunprecedented economic and environmental crises. A series of environmental incidents withsignificant international implications shocked people around the world (WCED 1987, 3). Someof the most noteworthy included: the pesticide leak at a Union Carbide factory at Bhopal, India(1984); widespread drought in Africa (1984/85); and the release of radiation from the nuclearfacility at Chernobyl (1986), in the former USSR. Scientific studies on the consequences ofglobal warming and ozone depletion by chiorofluorocarbons (CFC5) were also released (WorldMeteorological Organization 1985, Brasseur 1987), compounding the international sense ofglobal environmental degradation.In addition to feeling the effects of environmental catastrophes, western nations experienced theworst recession since the 1930s. During the mid 80s, welfare states around the world sufferedfrom high interest rates, high unemployment, high levels of inflation and no real increases inwages since the boom years in the 1970s. Boothroyd (1991a, 277) demonstrates the severity ofthese economic conditions in his discussion of challenges to the welfare state in Canada.The Brundtland Commission embraced the idea of sustainable development in an internationaleffort to address problems emerging from the separation of environmental and economic policies.Sustainable development was proposed as a strategy for development that “meets the needs ofthe present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”(WCED 1987, 8). Throughout its report the term is used in reference to the linking ofecological and economic systems to prevent further degradation to existing processes andcomponents and to facilitate the goal of economic growth.28The recent interest in sustainability is a direct result of the endorsement of sustainabledevelopment by the World Commission on Environment and Development. Although variousaspects of these concepts have been embraced under other terms such as “stewardship”, or“conserver society”, originating from the field of natural resource management, as well as fromenvironmental and development movements, the WCED has achieved international recognitionfor its emphasis of the importance of addressing global sustainability. Further interest in thedevelopment of world-wide cooperation on sustainability issues resulted in the United NationsConference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.2.3 Criticisms of Sustainable DevelopmentSince the publication of the Brundtland report, there has been considerable debate over thedefinition of sustainable development and the role of economic growth in its implementation.Many believe that the concept of sustainable development is an oxymoron, insisting thatperpetual economic development, when interpreted as growth, can never be sustainable since theEarth has a finite supply of resources (Rees 1989). The social and environmental goals of asustainable existence, one that indefinitely nourishes and perpetuates life, may be irreconciablewith the requirements of long-term economic growth (Engel 1990, 10).The WCED (1987) supports new growth on the first page of its report:We see instead the possibility for a new era of economic growth, one that must be basedon policies that sustain and expand the environmental resource base. And we believe suchgrowth is absolutely essential to relieve the great poverty that is deepening in much ofthe developing world.The WCED endorsement of continued economic growth has sparked controversy as adoption of29this policy may preclude global goals of environmental stewardship and social equity. Thosewho perceive “sustainable development” as a contradiction of terms, maintain that the promotionof development in terms of economic growth actually reduces the ability to live sustainably (Rees1989). In fact, a more equitable distribution of resources may require that those who alreadybenefit from the use of a wide range of resources may have to reduce their consumption toenable others to merely survive. This requires a reduced consumption of many of the goods thatwestern societies take for granted, and contradicts mainstream conservative ideas ofdevelopment, which have been interpreted to mean the accumulation of wealth through continuedeconomic growth.Daly and Cobb (1989, 71) address the problematic juxtaposition of the two terms in sustainabledevelopment, but endorse the use of this phrase, emphasizing that “development” should bedistinguished from “growth”. Costanza and Daly (1991, 43) concur, emphasizing the qualitativenature of the former and the quantitative focus of the latter. They explain that an improvementin human welfare can occur by pushing more matter-energy through the economy or bysqueezing more human satisfaction out of each unit of matter-energy used. Growth is viewedas a throughput increase that is destructive of natural capital or the stock of natural resources,while development constitutes an efficiency increase that does not degrade the integrity of theresource base.Due to the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of sustainable development, there has been someskepticism regarding whether this concept represents any real change in approach to theconservation of resources or distribution of wealth. Boothroyd (1991a, 286), in his review ofthe sustainable development debate, calls the WCED support for renewed economic growth a30classic compromise:It listed the problems identified by the ecologists and came up with a solution that wouldcomfort the economists: more growth.Although the Brundtland report clearly indicated the extent of environmental problems that weface currently, and suggested that significant institutional and legal changes are necessary, it hasbeen criticized for its support of continued economic growth and its assumption that wealth willtrickle down from the profits of the affluent to those who earn lower incomes:While the WCED does recommend some major, and appropriate, social reforms, itavoids the call for a re-evaluation of development by economic growth - undoubtedlybecause the kind of social reorganization this requires would be unpalatable to thecaptains of the industrialized minority. (Gardner and Roseland 1989a, 30)This type of criticism has stimulated much deliberation about how to ensure that developmentis socially, and not just ecologically, sustainable.The concept of sustainable development, although clouded by controversy, raises some verydifficult but important questions related to the distribution of power and the sharing of resources.These questions form the base of many current resource use conflicts and are integral to makingequitable decisions. As the linkages between resource management and social equity concernsbecome more evident, the pursuit of sustainable development may lead to integrated long-termcooperative approaches to determining the appropriate and acceptable distribution of resources.2.4 The Evolving Concept of SustainabilityTo avoid the complications surrounding the meaning of sustainable development, there is an31increasing tendency to examine the concept of “sustainability”, a term gaining favour due to itsemphasis on the idea of living in harmony with the limits of one’s surroundings, without thecomplication of the various interpretations of “development”. The following are examples ofrecent definitions that reflect the current emphasis on sustainability:“the existence of the ecological conditions necessary to support human life at a specifiedlevel of well-being through future generations” (Lélé 1991, 609)“the persistence over an apparently indefinite future of certain necessary and desiredcharacteristics of the socio-political system and its natural environment” (Robinson et al.1990, 39)“a relationship between dynamic human economic systems and larger dynamic, butnormally slower-changing ecological systems, in which: (a) human life can continueindefinitely; (b) human individuals can flourish; (c) human cultures can develop; but inwhich (d) effects of human activities remain within bounds, so as not to destroy thediversity, complexity, and function of the ecological life support system” (Costanza 1991,85)The first definition is a simple representation of the predominant theme of sustainability andrefers to the perpetuation of systems necessary for survival. The second definition focuses onthe need to consider long time-frames, and emphasizes the persistence of social systems. Thethird definition reinforces the concept that sustainability is a process and recognizes theimportance of qualitative development and ecological constraints on economics. While therecognition of ecological limits has been a central theme in the development of the concept ofsustainability, discussions of sustainability have since evolved to embrace concerns regardingsocial equity, and the fundamental assumptions upon which our economic systems and, hence,the allocation of resources are based.The following discussion summarizes some of the key issues addressed by the concept ofsustainability. Since this topic is often characterized as comprised of three aspects - ecological,32social and economic sustainability (Brown et al. 1987, Shearman 1990, BC Round Table 1992),the most significant attributes of these three perspectives are described according to the recurringthemes of carrying capacity, social equity, and ecological economics.2.41 Carrying CapacityThe central theme to sustainability is the idea of living within certain limits, and this is usuallyunderstood as ecological limits. The ecological concept of carrying capacity is often referredto when discussing sustainability, implying that there are physical, chemical, and biologicalfactors that limit the extent to which an area can support life. By adhering to these naturalconstraints it is believed that a steady state system or ecological stability, may be achieved.Since many communities are now consuming resources from outside their land base andproducing waste at rates greater than its land can absorb, many large urban centres are“artificially” extending the carrying capacity of the land they occupy. Rees (1993) hasundertaken research to determine what he calls the “ecological footprint” of human activities.He estimates that if the whole world consumed resources and produced waste at the same rateas Vancouver, it would require two “phantom planets” to satisfy worldwide needs. Rees’ workhas important implications for sustainability as it raises questions concerning the allocation ofresources, the efficiency of resource use, and the assimilative capacity of a region to accomodateits generation of waste.The idea of biodiversity is included under the rubric of sustainability due to the recognition thatall species deserve respect for their living conditions regardless of their use to humanity, and33also due to the wide range of functions that living organisms perform as part of human lifesupport systems (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991, 28). The preservation of a wide diversity of speciesensures ecosystem stability as a rich variety of species allows an ecosystem greater adaptabilityto change, and therefore better long-term resilience. Biodiversity is now widely perceived asbeing a critical element in ensuring sustainability (WCED 1987, 147; Gadgil 1993).2.42 Social EquityOne of the newer concerns being addressed by the concept of sustainability is that of socialequity. Sustainability is now being used to describe the need to ensure intergenerational equity,the idea that future generations should have sufficient resources to meet their needs; as well asintragenerational equity, the equitable distribution of resources between different groups orsocieties existing currently. Even if present generations are capable of living within theecological limits imposed by our common pool of resources, the misallocation of resourcesbetween nations or interest groups may jeopardize sustainability in the immediate future.Intergenerational equity is viewed as a fundamental component and an overriding ethic ofsustainability, yet economic practices in pursuit of economic growth favour the currentgeneration, and may jeopardize opportunities for future populations (Toman 1992, Dovers 1990).For example, the economic practice of discounting is justified by the assumption that peopleprefer current benefits over those received in the future, and results in the exploitation of naturalresources for the benefit of those living in the present. This contradicts one of the centralthemes of sustainability, that present decisions should not impair the prospects of futuregenerations to maintain or improve their living standards (Repetto 1986, 15). As well as34maximizing the benefits of present consumers through inadequate consideration of the welfareof future generations, and questionable value judgements regarding the selection of anappropriate discount rate, discounting also favours human development over the well-being ofother species (Daly and Cobb 1989, 155).In addition to the consideration of equity issues between generations, many of those attemptingto give meaning to sustainability believe that its mainstream interpretation has not addressedintragenerational equity issues adequately. In any community or political jurisdiction, decisionsmust be made regarding what is to be sustained, by and for whom, and for how long. Thesequestions conjure up a wide range of equity issues, in particular, who should be given theauthority to make these decisions.Gardner and Roseland (1989a, 29) emphasize that true equity depends not only on the sharingof wealth, but also of power. They believe that principles of equity and social self-determinationdepend largely on control over fundamental natural resources (Gardner and Roseland (1989b,43). As central governments have not made the fundamental changes that are needed to ensureequitable development, changes may be more effective at the grass-roots level (Durning 1989).Comanagement arrangements and community land trusts are presented as models of communitybased resource management systems that incorporate equity in their operations (Gardner andRoseland 1989b; Hilts and Mitchell 1993; McGonigle 1990).2.43 Ecological EconomicsSince economics has been developed as the study of the production, distribution and consumption35of goods and services, it is only appropriate that sustainability should be incorporated in thisdiscipline. The recently evolving field of ecological economics is beginning to address concernsrelated to economic development limits which have relevance for sustainability.Much of the substance of ecological economics is based on a criticism of neo-classicaleconomics. Ecological economists emphasize the need to recognize constraints imposed byecological processes in economic evaluation. They insist that although many resources arerenewable, a resource base is finite. The rate of regeneration of a particular resource may beslower than desired by its consumers, and alternative goods may not satisfy needs to the sameextent. Repetto (1986, 16) uses accounting terms to express this ideology, stating that naturalresources should be managed so that society lives off the dividends of resources, ensuring thatthe resource base is maintained as an asset for future generations.Daly and Cobb criticize many of the fundamental principles of economics in “For the CommonGood” (1989) beginning with a discussion of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness in thediscipline of economics. They explain how the extensive use of abstraction has enabled thisstudy to ignore social and environmental concerns by deeming anything that doesn’t fit economictheory to be an “externality” (Daly and Cobb 1989, 34-37). They argue that the developmentof economic markets has failed to serve the common good due to emphasis on efficiency, andnot justice or sustainability (Daly and Cobb 1989, 35-61). The measurement of economicsuccess has focused largely on using indicators of market activity rather than economic welfare(Daly and Cobb 1989, 62-84).In the first volume of the journal Ecological Economics, Ehrlich (1989, 10) criticizes economics36for having operated under the assumption that humans can satisfy their needs from an unlimitedsupply of natural capital. He argues that they have overemphasized the ability to substitute oneresource for another to avoid scarcity, and believes there are many indications that opportunitiesfor substitution are really quite limited.The recognition of the importance of environmental limits and social preferences may contributegreatly to the study of economics. As sustainability relies on the capability of a resource baseto endure, as well as a more equitable distribution of resources (Gardner and Roseland 1989a,Boothroyd 1991b), there is a need to accommodate these concerns in economic analysis.Ecological economics should assist in the provision of information towards a more sustainableeconomic system.2.5 Sustainability in Policy MakingThe concept of sustainability is currently being interpreted and adopted in policy making inBritish Columbia and throughout the rest of Canada. The stimulus for consideration ofsustainability has arisen from the global commitment to sustainable development, as embracedby the WCED. Canada’s contribution to the pursuit of this goal is summarized in The GreenPlan. The development of this national plan as well as the establishment of various federal,provincial and municipal policy advisory groups, such as the National, and British Columbia,Round Tables on the Environment and the Economy, represent major efforts to integrateevolving ideas about sustainability in public sector decision making.Although sustainability and sustainable development are often used interchangeably to represent37similar ideas in policy making, some groups have made a concerted effort to distinguish theirmandate as being the former rather than the latter. Evidently, this is due to the fact that theconcept of sustainable development remains firmly linked to the idea of economic growth(Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources 1993, 32). The BC Round Table prefersto address sustainability rather than sustainable development, as this group believes that theformer provides “a clearer message” (BC Round Table 1992, 11). This preference to examinesustainability is shared by various other policy groups in British Columbia, and is evident inworkshop discussions, policy statements and reports.Regional and local round tables are also engaged in the interpretation of sustainability. Thereare over thirty of these community or region-based initiatives underway in British Columbia(Leach 1993). Local round tables are characterized by having a broad mandate to addresssustainability through their multi-stakeholder, consensus-based and continuing nature (BC RoundTable 1991, 4). The Fraser Basin Management Board (FBMB) is an example of a watershed-based round table operating throughout a large region in British Columbia. The FBMB hasadopted a vision of “sustainability together,” referring to the development of a managementprogram “that will balance environmental health, economic renewal and community viabilitythroughout the (Fraser) Basin” (Fraser Basin Management Board 1993, 5). This watershedboard was established in 1992 and may serve as a model for future round tables in river basins.2.51 Environmental, Social and Economic SustainabilityThe necessity to examine the relationships between the environment, society and the economyis a common theme among those seeking to interpret sustainability. The National Round Table38(1990, 6) states that a sustainable society “is one that is sustainable in environmental, economicand socio-political terms.” The BC Round Table (1992, 15) refers to the same three aspects ofsustainability and warns that they are on a collision course. A similar view is expressed by thefederal and British Columbia governments (1993, 2) in the State of the Environment Report forBritish Columbia:An appropriate ecological perspective on sustainability starts with a view of the wholeand an understanding that the environment, society and economy are part of a mutuallysupporting system. All of the elements in the system are interdependent. Removing oraltering even one, can have serious complications for the whole system.The desire to integrate environmental, social and economic systems in decision-making is anatural extension of ecological thinking. As the links between human activities and theenvironment become more evident, the need to understand the interactions between variouselements in one system and their consequences for those of another, is important. Decisionsbased solely on economic criteria avoid the reality of their consequences for components ofsocial and environmental systems, and ignore the fact that living organisms often behaveaccording to natural processes or values that may not be addressed by economic theory. If notadequately considered, ecological processes or social organizations (i.e. interest groups) mayeven cause deliberate or unintentional adverse effects on economic policies; whereas, theirinclusion in planning presents opportunities for the enhancement of relationships betweenelements and whole systems.The common effort to link the environment, society and the economy has resulted in anincreasing interest in the development of indicators of sustainability. The idea of establishingindicators to measure progress towards sustainability arises from the realization that better39information is needed for comprehensive decision making. Although economic indicators arealready widely established and accepted, there is a lack of commonly accepted comparablemeasurements to represent environmental and social conditions. While units of economicsystems, such as currency, are consistent within Canada, environmental and social units ofmeasurement vary regionally or locally, making them difficult to compare and evaluate. Policymakers believe there is a need to develop indicators that are meaningful and consistent tomonitor key changes and trends (British Columbia and Environment Canada 1993, 4).2.52 Shared Decision Making and SustainabilityShared decision making is another recurring theme identified by many in their examination ofsustainability. While there has been an increasing interest in involving the public in decisionmaking during the last two decades, participation in the context of sustainability is evolving evenfurther, embracing ideas of direct citizen control. This represents a greater recognition of thepublic and interest groups, beyond the idea of mere consultation through the generally acceptedprocess of public hearings. The endorsement of greater degrees of public participation in policymaking represents a significant departure from past practices that relied on representativedemocracy, restricting the direct involvement of citizens (Tester 1992).Individuals, groups and communities are seeking processes that give them greater control overdecisions affecting community sustainability. Community development planning through localround tables and public forums on future community visions enables members of communitiesto conthbute to decisions that suit community interests, not just those that satisfy provincialpolicies or shareholders of distant corporations or urban centres. As stated by The Greenprint40for Canada Committee (1989, 7), a coalition of Canadian environmental, conservative andaboriginal communities, in its recommendations for a federal environmental agenda:Local communities must always have a say in economic decisions that directly affect theirlives. The voices of people most vulnerable to the adverse environmental impacts ofresource extraction must especially count.Policy makers recognize the desire for greater public participation in decision making and aretaking steps to incorporate greater involvement by geographic/local communities, First Nationsand interest groups. The concept of empowerment of stakeholders in decision-making isespecially evident throughout those addressing sustainability in British Columbia. The BCRound Table recommends that participatory and consensus-based decision-making processes beincluded as part of provincial planning (BC Round Table 1993, 21). In developing a provincialland use strategy for British Columbia, the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE)has decided that its mandate is best fulfilled through the concept of consensus or shared decisionmaking (CORE 1992, 25). The Fraser Basin Management Board consists of multiplestalceholders operating on consensus-based decision making, and coordinates cooperativemanagement to ensure sustainability in the Fraser Basin (Fraser Basin Management Board 1993,4).2.6 Sustainability and Hydroelectric Development in CanadaEarly hydroelectric project planning in Canada focused primarily on engineering andgeotechnical issues, neglecting socio-economic and environmental concerns (Day and Quinn1992, 177). Large power projects were celebrated as engineering marvels that would facilitatehigher standards of living and create new recreational opportunities around reservoirs (Halleran411974). There was little environmental assessment or public debate about the advantages anddisadvantages of water resource developments until the 1970s (Day and Quinn 1992, 19).Canada encouraged the construction of large dams as part of its investment in energymegaprojects during the 1960s and 70s (Douglas and Battle 1983, 27). The large-scaledevelopment of water resources was stimulated by increasing demand for electricity related topost-war affluence and government policies favouring low energy prices (Brooks 1981, 22).Dams were built on the assumption that they would be beneficial to society as a whole (Baxterand Glaude 1980, 24), and were rationalized by economic criteria.Although some of Canada’s first dams were financed privately, the large-scale nature of laterprojects required a similar scale of funding, and public sector utilities were established toregulate hydroelectric development (Dorcey 1986, 482). Since dam-building was a relativelynew technology in this country, provincial electrical utilities were faced with learning fromexperience. Emphasis on economic expansion goals overshadowed the evaluation ofenvironmental and social concerns (Dorcey 1986, 482).Public expenditures on large water resource projects were justified through the utilitarianprinciples of cost-benefit analysis. Since hydro development projects require large reservoirsfor water storage, the expropriation of land and the forced relocation of previous valley residentshave been justified in terms of the greater electricity benefits received by society. Thisreasoning is based on the utilitarian assumption that when benefits from public use of propertyexceed those from private use, expropriation will increase societal welfare (Schwindt 1992, 21).42While cost-benefit analysis provides a mechanism for comparative analysis of different projectproposals, it is primarily concerned with economic efficiency, and has been widely criticized dueto the difficulties associated with the evaluation of environmental costs and benefits, and for itsinability to address distributional issues (Swartzman 1982, 53; Riek 1987; OECD 1992, 33-34).Although the Pareto improvement principle implies that the “winners” of a cost-benefitevaluation should redistribute some of their gains to the “losers,” this case for compensation isusually hypothetical and compensation is not actually paid (Trumbull 1990, 207) or is rarelysufficient to cover the losses incurred.The construction of hydro projects has uprooted people from their homes and disruptedcommunities in valleys designated as future reservoir sites. Hydro development along the St.Lawrence Seaway during the 1950s flooded 20,000 acres, eliminated eight communities anddislocated 6500 people, causing much bitterness among previous residents (Bocking 1972, 69).Cheslatta Band members living along Alcan’s Kemano spillway route in northern BritishColumbia were forced to relocate in 1952 and “for a time lost all dignity and succumbed todespair and alchohol” (Carrier Sekani Tribal Council 1985). The rapid influx of workers toHudson’s Hope overloaded local health and social services during construction of the BennettDam (Pollon and Matheson 1989).Although the effects of displacement and disruption of communities adjacent to dam sites wereexperienced almost immediately, many long-term environmental impacts were not appreciatedfully until many years after dams were in operation. As the scale of Canadian hydroelectricprojects increased, society became more concerned about the consequences of these large-scaledevelopments (Day and Quinn 1992, 19). The ecological effects of large hydro projects were43examined and subjected to public review through the establishment of environmental assessmentprocesses. Although dam builders became familiar with some general kinds of impacts, theirimplications for sustainability only became evident some years later.2.61 Environmental Impacts of DamsCanadians first became aware of the environmental impacts of large dams in Canada as a resultof the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and its consequences on the Peace-Athabasca Delta, several hundredkilometres downstream. In 1971, the governments of Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewaninitiated an interdisciplinary study of the impacts of the Bennett Dam, constructed in 1968. ThePeace-Athabasca Delta Project Group concluded that the regulation of water flow on the Peacehas interrupted the normal flooding cycle of the river as it flows through the Delta, disruptingthe lives of the wildlife and people that depend on one of the few remaining wetland deltas onthe continent. Previously, hydrological and ecological processes maintained a delicate balancefor plant and animal life through seasonal water level fluctuations (The Peace-Athabasca DeltaProject Group 1972).The examination of environmental and socio-economic impacts of dams was initiated throughthe development of environmental assessment processes. The impacts of federal projects wererequired to be considered according to the establishment of the federal EnvironmentalAssessment and Review Process (EARP) in 1973. According to EARP, federal departments arerequired to assess the consequences of their decisions during early project planning stages, andthe identification of significant impacts or public concern may lead to a referral for a publicreview by an environmental assessment panel (Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office441987). The first federal public review of a hydro development project was at Wreck Cove onCape Breton Island and was completed in 1976.Provincial environmental assessment has lagged behind federal processes. Throughout the lateseventies, the primary opportunity for public review of a hydro project in British Columbia wasthrough a hearing initiated by the Water Comptroller in consideration of an application for awater licence under the Water Act (Dorcey 1987, 18). The Environment and Land UseCommittee developed an assessment process and conducted its first review of a BC Hydro damproposal on the Pend d’Oreille River in 1974. There was no comprehensive legislation forenvironmental assessment until the establishment of the Energy Project Review Process (EPRP)in 1980. The scope and procedural aspects of public hearings to address environmental issueswere strengthened under the EPRP, resulting in the first rejection of a B.C. Hydro proposal (SiteC on the Peace River) by the provincial government, in 1983 (Missler 1988).In light of increased public concern arising from hydro projects on the Peace and ChurchillRivers, and around James Bay, Baxter and Glaude (1980) reviewed the environmental effectsof Canadian dams and reservoirs, focusing on how hydro development has affected aquaticecosystems. This national survey summarized Canadian experience with impacts according tothe following general categories: effects of flooding and pre-clearing of vegetation; problemsrelated to water level fluctuation in the reservoir drawdown zone; effects of impoundment onwater quality; erosion, sedimentation and modification of the new shoreline; downstream effectsof changes in flow regime; impacts of impoundments on fish populations; seismic activityinduced by impoundments; climate effects of impoundments; impacts of infrastructureconstruction; and effects of impoundments on humans.45Although Baxter and Glaude did not discuss any effects of the damming of the Columbia River,they provided a thorough description of many of the environmental consequences of Canada’smajor hydro developments documented prior to 1980, and suggested that the general impacts ofdams were reasonably well understood. However, they advised that the site-specific nature ofenvironmental impacts prevents accurate prediction for any one hydro project and concluded,A combination of ecological understanding and sympathetic consideration of the feelingsand aspirations of the people likely to be affected should go a long way towards theprevention of undesirable environmental and social consequences of the furtherdevelopment of Canada’s water resources. (Baxter and Glaude 1980, 26)Berkes (1988, 207) has examined many of the environmental and social impacts of hydroelectricdevelopment at James Bay, and concludes that Baxter and Glaude were premature in declaringthat the consequences of dams were well understood. He states that five of the six majorimpacts of concern to local Cree communities were not predicted correctly, and maintains thatthe success of impact prediction for major hydro dams in Canada has generally been low (Berkes1988, 217).The impoundment of large areas of water has caused several long-term effects that have onlybecome significant some years later. Although Baxter and Glaude had dismissed evidence ofelevated mercury concentrations in fish in the Smaliwood Reservoir of Labrador and in theSouthern Indian Lake in Manitoba, the accumulation of mercury in fish has been a majorconcern around James Bay, resulting in the closure of fisheries in La Grande reservoirs (Berkes1988, 208). Although mercury levels in La Grande reservoirs peaked within the first five yearsof inundation, it is now generally believed that mercury concentrations should return to baselineconditions within 20 to 30 years, although ongoing studies will reveal whether continuous46erosion of organic material will maintain elevated levels of toxicity (Day and Quinn 1992, 139).According to Hydro-Québec (1992, 26),The significant increase in mercury levels in fish, resulting from the release ofmethylmercury in the new reservoirs, has proved to be the greatest environmental impactof the La Grande Rivière development.The recent suggestion that reservoirs may contribute to accelerated global warming is anotherexample of how large-scale flooding may cause long-term disturbances to ecological processes.Current research indicates that the inundation of forested land may contribute to “greenhousegas” emissions since bacterial decomposition and methane production have been found to occurmuch faster after sediments are flooded (Environment Canada 1993, 1). Estimates of fluxes ofcarbon dioxide and methane per unit of energy produced may be as significant as similaremissions from fossil fuel electricity generation (Rudd et al. 1993).Throughout the study of environmental impacts of hydroelectric development in Canada, it isevident that aboriginal communities have experienced a large portion of the environmentalimpacts of hydro dams (Sykes 1973, 22; Berkes 1988; Day and Quinn 1992, 20). Aboriginalsocieties are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of hydro development as traditionally theyhave been closely linked with the land and dependent on its resources (Baxter and Glaude 1980).Although Hydro-Quebec maintains that Phase I hydro development of the La Grande complexhas not upset the ecological balance of northern Quebec (Hydro-Québec 1992, 3), Cree huntershave noted a reduction in their wildlife harvests from the La Grande valley since 1979 (Berkes1988, 209) and bioaccumulation of mercury has been detrimental to those who depend on localfish for food (Day and Quinn 1992, 140). Flooding related to the Bennett Dam has caused fishand wildlife losses in the Peace River area, particularly significant for the Saulteau band, since47ninety-five per cent of its members live off the land (Cameron 1991, 5).2.62 Hydro Dams and Resource Use ConflictsWhile a substantial amount of knowledge has been gained regarding the predictability of thebiophysical impacts of dams, there has been no effort to evaluate the effects on resources or thetrade-offs experienced by various resource users affected by hydro development (Day and Quinn1992, 178). The operation of a large hydro dam on a river system results in the domination ofwater rights by a single user, most often a provincial utility managed to satisfy the demands ofdistant power needs. This leaves previous users of the river and its surroundings with little orno ability to use resources or participate in water use decisions. Community values areunderestimated and deemed to be worth less than the benefits derived from regulation for powergeneration or other priorities of a larger society.Day and Quinn explain that the identification of environmental impacts has been addressedthrough mitigation and compensation, and resolved after receiving project approval. Theyprovide the following words of caution:Questions of the sustainability of interacting environmental components, and humanpopulations dependent on them have consistently been ignored. These areas requireserious consideration in the future. (Day and Quinn 1992, 178)In addition to losing fish and wildlife, and the socio-economic problems associated with this lossof food, income and liveithood, communities near dam sites often experience unanticipatedchanges in access to resources due to ongoing hydro operations. For example, access to48traditional Cree hunting territories has been disrupted by Hydro-Quebec’s La Grande damcomplex. Crees lost access to hunting territories across the lower La Grande during late winterand spring when higher flows of warmer water prevented the formation of ice, which hadformerly provided a safe way across the river (Berkes 1988, 211). Road construction hasincreased access to Cree hunting territories, causing the overexploitation of some wildlife andthe partial breakdown of the family-based traditional hunting territory system.Although environmental impact assessment activities such as public hearings have improvedopportunities for public participation in public sector decision-making, processes such as thefederal EARP have been criticized, among other things, for their narrow scope, limited publicparticipation and advisory nature (Tester 1992, 38; Bowden and Curtis 1988, 101; Rees andBoothroyd 1987, 4). In many cases, environmental assessment has occurred after critical projectdecisions have already been made. Although La Grande and Churchill-Nelson hydro projectswere subjected to some degree of assessment, this evaluation occurred after project decisions toproceed (Day and Quinn 1992, 19).While hydro dams are promoted as a means of generating economic benefits, they have alsobeen responsible for increasing national debt (Schrecker 1984, 5; IUCN et al. 1991, 137; Dayand Quinn 1992, 179). Hydro projects require extensive capital investment, which is usuallyborrowed internationally. Since building costs frequently exceed initial estimates, electricalutilities become trapped in spiralling payments as they must sell more energy to repay debts,build more to sell, and borrow to build. The opportunity cost of hydro megaprojects issubstantial when the actual costs of its completion are compared to initiatives where the samecapital could be more efficiently invested elsewhere (Schrecker 1984, 4).49Since the late 1980s, there have been a growing number of conflicts related to the developmentof hydroelectric resources across Canada and the inadequate consideration of environmental andsocio-economic consequences by federal and provincial governments. Governmental reluctanceto review the impacts of dams such as Rafferty-Alameda in Saskatchewan, the Oldman Dam inAlberta, and James Bay hydro dams in Quebec, and a British Columbia court order specificallyexempting the Kemano diversion project from environmental review, have generated publicconcern over questions of equity for those impacted by project construction (Tester 1992, 39;Day and Quinn 1992). Frustrated with the federal government’s lack of enforcement of itsEARP guidelines, environmental groups, aboriginal organizations and individuals have initiatedan unprecedented number of court challenges to hydro development proposals resulting insubstantial delays and additional costs to dam proponents (Robinson 1993). The Cree have beenso successful in conveying the extent of their losses from James Bay hydro projects that NewYork State cancelled its proposed purchase of electricity from Hydro-Québec (McKenna andMcNish 1992).Public opposition to large dam projects has resulted in the strengthening of federal and provincialenvironmental impact assessment legislation. The 1989 Rafferty-Alameda decision by theFederal Court of Canada ruled that the EARP Guidelines Order was binding and notdiscretionary as previously assumed, and has precipitated the introduction of the CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Act. This legislation is undergoing amendments and may clarifyfederal responsibilities when enacted. British Columbia has recently introduced a bill to combineits three existing processes (the Energy Project Review Process, the Mine DevelopmentAssessment Process, and the Major Project Review Process) into comprehensive environmentalassessment legislation (Cashore 1993, 1).502.63 Hydro Development and Resource StewardshipAfter several decades of experience with large dams in Canada, it is evident that the myriad ofproblems related to the construction of hydroelectric megaprojects are fundamentally a result ofour system of resource stewardship. This assertion is clearly stated by Day and Quinn (1992,177) in their evaluation of Canadian experience with hydroelectric development:At the heart of the problem is the current system of resource governance. Canadianwater management has for too long been based on elitist, secretive, and closed decision-making systems which are marred by interjurisdictional rivalries and lack of cooperationamong federal, provincial, regional and local actors.Lee (1989) expresses a similar opinion, insisting that the issue of governance must be addressedif the concept of sustainability is to be taken seriously. This conclusion results from anexamination of fish and wildlife enhancement initiatives that have been launched by theNorthwest Power Planning Council to mitigate the impacts of large-scale hydro development onthe American portion of the Columbia River. Lee asserts that sustainable development can onlyoccur when institutional arrangements are able to balance the complexity of human and economicobjectives with natural boundaries and biological rhythms.The control over natural resources is identified as being critical to the sustainability ofcommunities that depend on a continuing supply of local resources. When decision-makingpower over resource exploitation is concentrated in the hands of a few, the stability of resourcedependent settlements may become jeopardized, as explained by McGonigle (1990, 81) withparticular reference to British Columbia, using a quote from a native/environmental conference:51Most of the land use conflicts that native peoples and environmentalists have beeninvolved in are a reflection of a certain kind of political-economic system whichencourages uncontrolled, widespread and short-term exploitation of natural resources-a process carried out in British Columbia by large corporations and facilitated bygovernment policy and administration. In economic terms, it represents wholesaleliquidation of natural resources capital, and the diversion of the profits into the hands ofa few. (Anonymous 1989)Although the exploitation of natural resources may jeopardize the integrity of a resource basefor future generations, environmental degradation may occur because people lack options(Repetto 1988, 2). People may choose to persist with unsustainable harvesting practices becausethey have inadequate knowledge, resources, property rights or other basic institutions to makedecisions that would ensure their long-term access to natural capital. Effective management ofresource systems requires remedies to provide opportunities to address the market and policyfailures that have led to the liquidation of natural capital.2.64 Local Control of Resources and Shared Decision MakingGreater local participation in resource use decision malcing is seen as the solution to problemsstemming from the centralization of resource use decision making (Bromley, 1989, 56;McGonigle 1990, 80; Pinkerton 1991). Empowerment of local individuals and authorities tomanage their resources has been endorsed for the following reasons: local people may have agreater long-term interest in ensuring the continuation of their resource base than externalcommercial enterprises that come and go (IUCN et al. 1991, 58); local knowledge of naturalhistory and resource harvesting concerns provides inexpensive and useful information, asdocumented in the study of co-operative management of fisheries (Rettig, Berkes and Pinkerton1989, 285); and meaningful public involvement in resource decision making results in a higher52level of public satisfaction with management outcomes, as substantiated by research oncommunity forestry initiatives (Duinker et al. 1991, 134).While Canadians are generally demanding greater participation in environmental issues (Tester1992, 40), British Columbia appears to be at the forefront of a movement towards moreparticipatory resource management decisions. The traditional approach of managing resourcesby statutory decisions has not worked effectively (CORE 1992, 25), so the government of BritishColumbia has initiated several new processes to encourage shared decision making. Thisconcept of shared decision making has been interpreted to mean that,“... those with authority to make a decision and those who will be affected by thatdecision are empowered to jointly seek an outcome that accommodates rather thancompromises the interests of all concerned . ... The cornerstone of a shared decision-making process is its cooperative, problem-solving approach.” (CORE 1992, 25)British Columbia has established a number of multi-stakeholder shared decision-makinginitiatives during the 1990s to address resource use conflicts occurring in the province: the BCRound Table has been given the mandate to examine and advise on sustainability and itsimplementation in provincial policy-making; the Fraser Basin Management Board was createdto address the management of resources within the Fraser River drainage basin; and theCommission on Resources and Environment (CORE) has focused on developing land use plansfor the resolution of resource use conflicts in specific valleys designated by the province. Theseadvisory groups are comprised of a wide range of members including representatives of FirstNations, environmentalists, industry, municipalities, and the provincial government.In the Pacific Northwest, multi-stakeholder institutions have been established to mitigate the53effects of hydro power development on the American portion of the Columbia River through thePacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (1980). The Northwest PowerPlanning Council, formed as a result of an interstate agreement, has the authority to bind federalagencies by its decisions and is comprised of two appointees from each of the four states of thePacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana). In 1982, the Council establisheda Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, which coordinates a wide variety ofAmerican interests in Columbia River resources including 11 state and federal agencies, 13tribes, 8 utilities and numerous interest groups (Lee 1989, 11). The goal of the program is todouble salmon production in the basin without losing biological diversity (Northwest PowerPlanning Council 1992, 17).Co-management has been viewed as an integral part of achieving community self-governmentand is key to the implementation of environmentally sustainable and culturally appropriateeconomic development (Berkes et al. 1991, 3). The concept of co-management has developedaround common property resources, such as fisheries and forests, that are susceptible toexploitation by individuals, corporations and state agencies (Pinkerton 1993, 37) and combineselements from local and state management systems.Co-management arrangements in general involve genuine power sharing betweencommunity-based managers and government agencies, so that each can check thepotential excesses of the other. (Pinkerton 1993, 37)Co-management reinforces self-reliance and local stewardship of resources, and enables localecological knowledge and cultural traditions to be included in resource management plans.Many of these ideas have been supported by community economic development (CED)enthuisiasts who seek to take some degree of control over the local economy back from the54markets and the state, recognizing that communities may desire to manage resources to achievea broad range of community goals (Boothroyd and Davis 1991, 1).Co-management thus goes hand-in-hand with CED as an integrated community strategyto use limited local resources more efficiently by redirecting the benefits locally underlocal control, rather than mortgaging the resource base still further to the extractive needsof external, large-scale economic interests. (McGonigle 1990, 79)Berkes and Feeny (1990, 53) believe that some of the best examples of co-management havearisen with respect to the management of resources around James Bay, a region that hasexperienced a wide range of impacts as a result of a series of large hydro projects. Aboriginalpeople have traditionally managed resources communally, and this practice has beenacknowledged and protected through the 1975 James Bay and Northern Ouebec Agreement(JBNQA), signed between the Cree, the Inuit, the governments of Canada and Quebec, and threeQuebec crown corporations (James Bay Energy Corporation, James Bay DevelopmentCorporation, and Hydro-Quebec). Although the Cree and Inuit signed the JBNQA underpressure from the hydroelectric project construction schedule,This changed them, almost overnight, from being complete outsiders to the resourcedecision-making process, to being co-equals with government resource managers in aformalized institutional structure. (Berkes 1 989a, 191)Hydro development plans in northern Quebec have set a precedent for establishing user groupparticipation in resource decision-making in Canada (Berkes 1989a, 190). Berkes (1989a, 204)explains that what distinguishes James Bay co-management from other shared decision-makingarrangements is the existence of a formal political agreement. The JBNQA represents thegovernment of Quebec’s resolution of outstanding land settlement issues relating to the extensionof its boundaries in 1912, and was precipitated by provincial hydroelectric development pians55for James Bay. Negotiations with aboriginal peoples began in 1972, were delayed by asuccessful court challenge of the hydro project initiated by the Quebec Association of Indians,and resumed when the Quebec Superior Court recognized the legitimacy of native land claimsin the area in 1973 (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 1992, 1).The JBNQA has gone far beyond the settlement of land claims in its efforts to address aboriginalrights. The JBNQA defines the rights of Cree and Inuit regarding land ownership andmanagement of resources, self-government, economic development, the administration ofjustice,health and social services and environmental protection. In fact, the birth of the Cree Nation,and its movement towards self-government through the establishment of co-managementarrangements has been attributed to this agreement (MacGregor 1989, 274, 280; Day and Quinn1992, 168).2.7 Implications for SustainabilityHydroelectric development has occurred without full consideration of the range of itsconsequences on ecological, social or economic systems. The generation of large supplies ofelectricity through the installation of dam systems has been promoted to stimulate economicdevelopment in remote areas, and to provide power for industrial centres. While theestablishment of substantial and secure sources of electricity contributes to the welfare of energyconsumers outside the hydro project area, the land use changes caused by the interruption ofnatural ecosystem processes in the vicinity of dam operations may affect the sustainability oflocal communities.56Although there was little concern for the ecological impacts of hydroelectric development inearly dam project planning, increased interest in ecology and environmental impact assessmenthas led to the documentation of many of the impacts affecting aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.While project planners are now familiar with many of the most common characteristics of dam-related disturbances, several long-term consequences, such as the bioaccumulation of mercury,and the contribution of gaseous emissions from reservoirs to global warming, have only beenrecognized years later. These impacts are a result of complex and cumulative ecologicalprocesses, and may be significant for nearby communities, as well as larger populations outsidethe river basin, whose sustainability relies on the integrity of certain fish species or a particularclimatic regime.The social implications of hydro development are less well understood. While post-projectevaluations have addressed ecological consequences, contributing knowledge for future waterresource planning, social issues have not been examined with the same thoroughness. Socialimpact assessment and common property resource theory have delved into this domain,enlightening policy-makers on ways in which hydro development has affected human behaviourand social interactions. However, much of this research relies on measuring the secondaryimpacts of how humans are affected by environmental changes, which may not be determinedfor a number of years, and requires asking difficult questions regarding the distribution ofoverall benefits and costs. The development of processes to include those people affected bydams in project planning and ongoing operations may increase awareness of sustainability issuesthrough the sharing of local knowledge, and the questioning of the utilitarian assumption thatmaximizing the benefits of the greatest number of people justifies the losses of a few.57Dam projects have been promoted as being favourable for economic development. While theyhave stimulated local economies during construction periods, and have transmitted large suppliesof energy for distant urban development, surrounding communities do not receive many long-term economic benefits from hosting hydroelectric projects. The flooding of forests, and fishand wildlife habitat, and related changes in resource use access, may significantly impair theeconomic sustainability of resource-dependent communities through degradation of the resourcebase and the related reduction of economic development opportunities. Compensation programsestablished to address environmental and social impacts represent an effort to redistribute theeconomic benefits of hydro projects, but have failed to provide sufficient compensation for thewide range of impacts experienced near dam sites. In addition, dam projects have caused somepublic utilities to incur substantial loans, increasing the debt load for all of society.Resource use conflicts caused by the domination of hydroelectricity production over other usesof a common resource base have resulted in a variety of outcomes. Some situations have evokedconsiderable controversy and have been addressed through court actions (e.g., Rafferty-Alameda,Oldman, James Bay). A multi-stakeholder group has been established to address the diversityof interests around the American portion of the Columbia River. Co-management arrangementsacknowledging aboriginal rights to resources in the James Bay region have combined localresidents and government representatives in resource base decision-malcing.The sustainability of communities which depend on the resource base affected by large-scalehydroelectric development is related to the ability of hydro project decision-makers to integrateecological, social and economic factors in the regulation of water resources. The ability tointegrate the various components and processes interacting between ecological, social and58economic systems may be a function of a particular resource management regime. Institutionalarrangements that emphasize shared decision making may offer new opportunities to improveconditions for sustainability for those who have borne the costs of dam-related impacts.2.8 Sustainability as Defined in this ThesisTo avoid the confusion surrounding the meaning of sustainable development, this thesis examinesthe concept of sustainability, a term which is being used more frequently to describe the ideaof living in harmony with the limits and opportunities of one’s surroundings. Throughout mostof this work the term “sustainability” is used to represent a goal to which communities andnations strive. “Sustainable development” is referred to as a process, framework or strategy toachieve societal goals. However, due to the tendency of people to use these two conceptsinterchangeably, the two terms may be mentioned within a different context, as defined byothers.The following definition is proposed for consideration throughout this thesis:Sustainability is a long-term societal goal to maintain and enhance quality of life throughthe balance of ecological, social and economic systems.While many previous definitions of sustainability have emphasized the constraints imposed bybiophysical limits, it is necessary to move beyond this somewhat “negative” approach tosustainability. For example, we are beginning to understand that the government decision toundertake large-scale flooding of land, causes the oxidation of mercury into a more toxic form,which bioaccumulates in fish, is consumed by humans, and results in health and related social59problems, which may require substantial financial remedies (e.g., replacement of food sources,health treatment, loss of fishing and guiding income, and increased welfare costs). Althoughit is useful to recognize the limits exerted by one element or system on another, it is alsoimportant to seek the opportunities to enhance the quality of a system through the activities ofanother.The consideration of sustainability could stimulate the creative use of resources that would openup possibilities for the appreciation of environmental, social and economic values. We may notyet be familiar with the idea of more cooperative community-based approaches to resourcemanagement that may enable the enhancement of one system to benefit another. An examplemight be the establishment of a community development corporation that pools common financialresources to stimulate local social initiatives to manage watershed resources sustainably (withother goals besides profit maximization).This thesis examines various aspects of sustainability relevant to the hydroelectric developmentof the Columbia River Basin. A literature review of the history of hydroelectric projectsprovides a Canadian context within which to consider sustainability issues related to this typeof energy development and land use change. A case study of the Kootenay region of BritishColumbia examines the chronology of significant decisions and events that have affectedsurrounding communities. A set of indicators of sustainability are suggested as a means ofevaluating the ability of ecological, social and economic systems to enhance one another insupport of life.603. REGIONAL IMPACTS OF HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENTIN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASINDams built in the 1960s and 1970s brought considerable disruption to the lives of thepeople living in the region of the Columbia River Basin. People were displaced; land,farming, and forestry resources were lost; few permanent jobs and little financial benefitreturned to the area once construction was finished. Meanwhile, the rest of the provincebenefited from the electricity created. The people of the Columbia River Basin regionhave long maintained that they were shortchanged in this regard. (B.C. Hydro 1993d,18).The Columbia River supports much of the life within the Kootenays region of southeasternBritish Columbia, and provides many resources for the American Pacific Northwest. It is thefourth largest river in North America in terms of its length, 1936 km, and flow, with extremesof 250 cubic metres per second (cms) and 10,700 ems measured near the American border. Thewaters of the Columbia travel 744 km from their source at Columbia Lake, high in the CanadianRockies, before crossing the American border south of Castlegar, B.C., and continue another1192 km through Washington, forming the border between Washington and Oregon, andemptying into the Pacific Ocean (International Joint Commission 1959, Mallette 1991, B.C.Hydro 19930 (Figure 2).The international drainage basin of the Columbia encompasses an area of 259,000 mi.2 (720,000km2) (U.S. Department of Energy et al. 1991, 5). Approximately 25% of the basin’s total floworiginates in Canada, draining an area of 39,500 mi.2 (64,800 km2) north of the border. Eighty-five per cent of this watershed is situated in the United States. The major tributaries of theColumbia River are the Kootenay, also originating in British Columbia, and the Snake, which61flows through the American Pacific Northwest region.The Canadian portion of the Columbia River Basin flows through a mountainous region knownas the Kootenays, a scenic area characterized by a series of north-south oriented valleysseparated by high mountain ranges. This region has been classified as the southern interiormountains ecoprovince, spanning the Columbia Mountains to the north and the Rocky Mountainsto the east, including the Monashee, Selkirk and Purcell ranges (Figure 5). The western slopesof these ranges receive substantial amounts of precipitation, and heavy winter snowfall. Denseconifer forests are common, although dry forests occupy southern valleys. High altitude terrainconsists of alpine tundra and barren rock (British Columbia and Environment Canada 1993, 78).The Kootenays region supports a population of 250,000 in five regional districts (Smienk1993b), representing approximately 5% of the provincial total (British Columbia andEnvironment Canada 1993, 78). Residents of this area live in communities along river valleys,with development extending from regional centres at Cranbrook, Nelson, Castlegar andRevelstoke. The nine hundred members of the KtunaxalKinbasket Tribal Council, comprisingfour Ktunaxa Bands and one Shuswap Band, live on five reserves on the Kootenay River nearCranbrook, Creston and Grasmere, and near the source of the Columbia River at Windermereand Invermere (KtunaxalKinbasket Tribal Council 1992, 3). Many Italian, German andDoukhobour residents of the Kootenays migrated to this region during past mining, forestry andagriculture booms (British Columbia 1976, 36).Communities within the Columbia River Basin have developed as a result of the extraction ofregional resources. Since this region relies heavily on the harvest of wood and mineral62resources, the extent of the resource base is extremely important, especially since much of theland is on steep mountain slopes or beneath rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Valley bottoms arehighly desirable for timber production, wildlife habitat, farming, recreation and humansettlements. Competing interests for the use of resources in these valleys have caused socialconflict within and between communities. Tourism is being promoted as a means of economicdiversification in an effort to moderate the susceptibility of resource-based economies to thecyclical swings of external commodity markets (B.C. Central Credit Union 1989).The Columbia River Treaty, signed between Canada and the United States in 1961, has resultedin large-scale hydro development within the Columbia River Basin (Figure 3). In addition toexisting structures on the Kootenay River, the construction of one American and three CanadianTreaty dams, as well as additional projects within the basin, have added significant flood controland power generating capacity to this international river system. With approximately 500 damson the Columbia and its tributaries (Mallette 1991, 14), this river hosts one of the largesthydroelectric systems in the world, generating an average of 18,500 MW of electricity annually(U.S. Department of Energy et al. 1991, 6). Canadian Treaty projects play a key role instoring water due to their strategic position near the source of the river system.The development of hydroelectric resources in the Kootenays has raised questions concerningthe distribution of costs and benefits related to the large-scale generation of electricity. Whilethe region receives some flood control and electricity supply benefits, the majority of ColumbiaRiver Treaty benefits have been experienced by power consumers in large urban centres in theLower Mainland of British Columbia, and in the American Pacific Northwest. Dams along theCanadian portion of the Columbia River system now provide power generation capacity of63approximately 5,000 MW, representing 50% of total provincial generation, yet localconsumption accounts for only 12% of provincial electricity demand (B.C. Hydro 1993e) (Figure4).Hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin has affected the integrity of the regionalresource base and continues to affect the lives of local residents. Local communities believe thatthey have borne an unfair amount of the costs of supplying energy to the rest of the province.The following is a case study of hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin. Itbegins with a description of the methods used to examine the impacts of hydro development.The resource dependency of this region is outlined, and the relevance of the Columbia RiverTreaty is summarized. Impacts of hydro operations are described, and B.C. Hydro’s policyresponse is reviewed. The formation of the Columbia River Treaty Committee is explained,providing a focus for further discussion of the consequences of ongoing dam operations. Thissection concludes with a summary of the major impacts of Columbia River Basin dams, asperceived by the residents of the Kootenays.643.1 MethodsMultiple sources of information were used to collect data for a case study of the Columbia RiverBasin. The principal means of assembling evidence of the impacts of hydro development in thisdrainage basin included the following:1. literature review on: sustainability, impacts of large dams, and the Columbia RiverTreaty;2. direct observation of communities and dam sites in the Kootenays;3. interviews with community members, government representatives and BC Hydroofficials;4. participant observation at meetings and public forums; and5. development of indicators of sustainability.The first approach to understanding hydro development and its significance in the ColumbiaRiver Basin was through a review of literature on related subjects. Recent interpretations of theconcept of sustainability provided a framework for the consideration of hydro development andits impacts on ecological, social and economic systems. An examination of environmentalimpact studies related to the effects of large dams indicated the wide range and magnitude ofconsequences of hydro megaprojects. A review of the history of the Kootenays region and thepolitics of the Columbia River Treaty provided background information related to past andongoing environmental, social and economic problems in the Kootenays region.Observation of communities and dam sites in the Kootenays provided an appreciation of the65preponderance of hydro dams and their implications for the sustainability of this region. Visitsto the principal population centres gave a visual perspective of community development in theKootenays. Human settlement and land use patterns were observed through trips along thenarrow lakes contained within the steep mountain ranges of the Monashees, Selkirks and Purcells(Figure 5). Tours of dams and observation of their impacts on surrounding aquatic andterrestrial ecosystems provided information on dam operations and the nature and magnitude oftheir consequences for ecological systems.Interviews with community members, government representatives and BC Hydro officialsassisted in the interpretation of the significance of dam-related activities in the Columbia RiverBasin. Interviews were conducted with mayors, councillors and/or First Nations representativesof the following communities during three week-long visits during August, October andNovember, 1992: Castlegar, Cranbrook, Golden, Kaslo, Kimberley, the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket FirstNation of the St. Mary’s Reserve, Nakusp, New Denver, Nelson, Revelstoke, Rossland, Salmo,Silverton, Slocan, and Trail. These interviews provided an overview of the history of effectsof large dams operating within the region and furnished additional local contacts. Communityleaders facilitated introductions to regional planners, representatives of interest groups, andindividuals with helpful information. A list of the interviews conducted is contained in Appendix1.Interviews with community members were semi-structured and revolved around the followingsubjects:661. community development plans;2. hydro projects near the community;3. environmental, social and economic impacts of hydro projects; and4. helpful contacts in the community.Residents of the Kootenays were very eager to share information regarding the impacts of hydrodevelopment in their region. Many long-time residents remain bitter about issues related to theexpropriation of land and the adequacy of compensation arising from the construction ofColumbia River Treaty dams almost thirty years ago. Since many of these concerns havealready been documented by Wilson (1973), Halleran (1974) and Wilson and Conn (1983) thisstudy focuses primarily on the present and ongoing impacts of dam operations in the Kootenays.Interviews with BC Hydro officials at dam sites and in the Lower Mainland clarified detailsconcerning dam operations and the implications of the Columbia River Treaty. BC Hydroengineers and managers described dam activities during tours of the Mica, Reveistoke, and HughKeenleyside Dams on the Columbia, and of Kootenay Canal on the Kootenay River. Interviewswith officials in Vancouver provided information on BC Hydro policy. Presentations made bysenior managers at the “Columbia River Treaty Seminar” in Burnaby in November 1992, as wellas at BC Hydro’s “Sixth Annual Electric Energy Forum” in Victoria in May 1993 outlinedhydroelectric system planning problems and their political significance.Government representatives provided information concerning their involvement with themanagement of resources in the Kootenays, and provincial efforts to prepare for downstreambenefits negotiations. Officials from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks were67especially helpful with respect to details of dam impacts.Information compiled as a result of the establishment of a regional organization to address theeffects of Columbia River hydro dams was particularly helpful. The formation of the ColumbiaRiver Treaty Committee (CRTC) in 1991 stimulated discussion of regional hydro-relatedimpacts, and focused interest on the evaluation of past losses, opportunities for participation innegotiations concerning the settlement of downstream benefits in 1997, and issues related to lowreservoir levels during the summer of 1992.To gain a perspective on community-specific issues and impacts experienced throughout theentire region, the author attended the September 1992 meeting of the Association of KootenayBoundary Municipalities (AKBM) in Vernon, and the Columbia-Kootenay Symposium held inCastlegar, June 1993. Presentations made at the latter event provided a synthesis of the variousproblems resulting from hydro development along the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers.Statements made by various individuals, interest groups and communities, as well as provincialgovernment representatives (including three Provincial Cabinet Ministers) and BC Hydroofficials, highlighted common concerns and specific problems experienced at particular locationsalong the Columbia River system.Issues identified by local individuals and groups during interviews, CRTC meetings and at theColumbia-Kootenay Symposium, were fairly consistent and provided the basis for much of thefocus of the case study. Although the provincial government and BC Hydro have addressedsimilar issues, their documentation of Kootenay region concerns was limited, partly due tobroader mandates requiring that they balance the interests of one region with other jurisdictions68for which they are responsible. This study therefore endeavours to focus on the issues perceivedto be most significant to the residents of the Kootenays.An understanding of the Columbia and Kootenay drainage basins is necessary to appreciate thesignificance of the role of these rivers in ensuring the sustainability of ecological, social andeconomic systems in both Canada and the United States. The examination of sustainabilityinvolves some knowledge of fluvial processes and their impacts on terrestrial ecosystems, as wellas consideration of socio-political borders.3.2 Resource Dependency in the KootenaysTo appreciate the significance of hydro projects to the sustainability of the Kootenays region,it is necessary to place this form of industrial development in context with the history of humansettlement in the region. Generally, settlement has occurred in a linear manner along riverchannels in steep mountain valleys (Rawson and Wiles 1967). Some of the key factors whichhave influenced community development in the Kootenays are: heavy reliance on the extractionof natural resources (Kootenay Task Force 1974), cyclical occurrences of economic booms andbusts (B.C. Central Credit Union 1989), and a consistent peripheral relationship to Vancouverand other distant markets (McCann 1983; Barnes et al. 1992). The following is a brief summaryof resource-based community development in the region.The Ktunaxa Nation were the first people known to inhabit southeastern British Columbia. Forover 10,000 years the Ktunaxa people occupied most of the land contained within the northernportion of the Columbia River Basin (Figure 6). Traditionally, Ktunaxa territory was sharedFigure 6. Map of Tribal LandsETUNAXA TERRITORYA’f\ kunnuqjij‘)c (fyi’1iinuqtapi1kCAL C4ya97I-.yiqiuxaqu’ku’kjccç1— iqawu’tu’ia.kunaa fl1yaqahen nu1kjCF1d)- ,atasnuqH’1taqanqj kWASlNGTON ‘LJkxap1i’n1Spuqin0CsPoLfE)69Approximate Scale 1 cm = 30 km0tuhutnin,CkL lovu)“C’utiij ‘kC0(C..s SIuq,, d’_qas1 Va(I.rTbCE)A-. if0 I’NSource: Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council (1992), p. 270with the Kinbasket people of the Shuswap Nation, and consisted of the land bordered by theArrow Lakes, the Big Bend of the Columbia River, the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains,and extended south to Missoula, Montana and Bonner’s Ferry, Idaho (KtunaxalKinbasket TribalCouncil 1992). This region is now known as the Kootenays.The Ktunaxa culture was based on reverence and respect for all living things. Co-existence withnature was determined by seasonal, spiritual and community needs, and was reflected in asophisticated governing system with judicial, social, economic, spiritual and educationalcomponents. The Ktunaxa people were nomadic, following vegetation and hunting cyclesthroughout their territory (KtunaxalKinbasket Tribal Council 1992).The first encounter of the Ktunaxa with early European settlers occurred with the arrival ofDavid Thompson, a British explorer travelling through the Rocky Mountain Trench.Thompson’s initial contact in 1800 (KtunaxalKinbasket Tribal Council 1992), marked thebeginning of colonialism in the Kootenays. Through the meeting of the two cultures, theKtunaxa began trading their furs for manufactured goods such as knives, cooking pots and axes.Thompson initiated the region’s first resource-based industry, the fur trade, during his manyvoyages through the Rocky Mountain Trench from 1807 until 1811 (Atkins 1977).The lucrative fur trade in the Kootenays, which flourished during the first half of the nineteenthcentury, quickly lost its significance with the discovery of gold in 1856. An unprecedentednumber of people migrated into the region as miners rushed in to claim mineral rights. Muchof the impetus for new settlement in the Kootenays arose from the establishment of miningcamps situated near newly discovered mineral deposits in Boundary country, the southern Rocky71Mountain Trench, and in thbutaries of the Columbia north of Reveistoke (Kootenay Task Force1974).The Ktunaxa lost control over their traditional territories when British Columbia joined Canadain 1871. The 1867 British North America (BNA) Act outlined the jurisdiction of the newlyformed federal government of Canada, and authorized it to rule on matters relating to Indiansand the lands reserved for them. By 1888, the Ktunaxa were confined to reserves(Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council 1992). Tensions developed between the aboriginal peopleof the Kootenays and immigrating settlers, as the previous occupants of Ktunaxa territoryobserved their best pieces of land being taken away and awarded to new immigrants (KootenayTask Force 1984).The establishment of the fur trade, and subsequent gold rush were the first of a series of boomsand busts that drew people to the Kootenays. During the late 1800s and throughout the twentiethcentury, the development of the Kootenays was characterized by cyclical occurrences ofprosperity and recessionary conditions associated with resource development initiatives.Forestry, mining, agriculture and, more recently, hydroelectric development have provided thebasis for economic development and community settlement in this region.Forestry booms related to Canadian settlement and international demand for lumber wereaffected by war activity and economic market conditions. The construction of the CanadianPacific Railroad, the opening of the Panama Canal, settlement in the Prairies and the Kootenays,and resource consumption during World War II resulted in the development of Revelstoke andGolden as lumber towns, and the later establishment of Nelson, Nakusp and Salmo as regional72and provincial centres for wood products.Mining rushes were precipitated by the initial discovery of gold, followed by discoveries ofsilver, lead, zinc, gold, copper and coal that led to the creation of settlements at Kaslo, Slocan,Rossland, Sandon, Nelson, Nakusp and Kimberley (Kootenay Task Force 1974). Miningdevelopment fluctuated according to international demand for minerals, and was especially linkedto military demand during the two world wars. Smelters were established at Greenwood, GrandForks, Trail, Marysville, Boundary Falls and Nelson (Kootenay Task Force 1974).The cultivation of fertile land along the Arrow and Kootenay Lakes resulted in a “fruit rush”during the early twentieth century, leading to development in the Slocan Valley, along the ArrowLakes and at Grand Forks (Affleck 1976, 99). Agricultural development and cattle ranchingwere introduced by Doukhobours and English settlers (Kootenay Task Force 1974). Agricultureprospered until the Depression of the 1930s (Affleck 1976, 99).The construction of hydro dams along the Kootenay River created periods of economic growthin the central Kootenays, while the large scale development of Columbia River water resourcesgenerated significant boom and bust cycles, affecting community development near dam sites.West Kootenay Power and Cominco projects along the Kootenay River were built for municipalpurposes and for the mineral processing needs of Cominco. The considerable influx of workersrequired for the construction of large Columbia River Treaty dams to provide power for extraregional needs caused cycles of booms and busts affecting the development of areas aroundNelson, Castlegar, Reveistoke, Nakusp and Trail (Government of British Columbia 1976, 205).73The Kootenays have developed as a resource-bearing hinterland, providing raw materials formarkets in Vancouver, as well as for centres in Britain, eastern Canada, the United States, andmost recently the Pacific Rim (Wynn 1992; Barnes et al. 1992). While much decision-makingfor resource-based industries has occurred in Vancouver, the acquisition of forestry and miningcompanies by multinational corporations has landed Vancouver in the role of a broker operatingbetween resource buyers and sellers. This concentration of power in large financial centres hascaused further isolation of the resource-producing periphery, leaving small one-industry towns,such as those in the Kootenays, susceptible to the fluctuations of world financial and resourcemarkets (North and Hardwick 1992, 230).3.3 The Columbia River TreatyAlthough the Columbia River Treaty led to a significant increase in hydro development withinthe Kootenays region, and was responsible for the initial damming of the Columbia, the regionwas already somewhat familiar with smaller hydro projects along the Kootenay and Pendd’Oreille Rivers. The region’s first hydro installations began with a power plant constructed onthe Kootenay in 1896, still operated by the City of Nelson, and a small Pelton wheel unit atSandon, a mining town near New Denver, in 1897 (Cominco Magazine 1962). This wasfollowed by a series of hydro dams constructed by West Kootenay Power and Cominco alongthe Kootenay between Nelson and Castlegar, as well as the development of the Waneta Dam onthe Pend d’Oreille in 1954. Table 1 summarizes the history of hydro development in theKootenay region.The large-scale development of water resources was undertaken by British Columbia under its74policy of “hydro-industrialization” in the late 1960s and during the 1970s. The construction oflarge hydro dams was part of W.A.C. Bennett’s plan for development of the remote regions ofthe province during the period of his administration as premier from 1952 until 1972. Bennett’s“Two River Policy” led to extensive hydro development on both the Peace and the Columbiariver systems (Krutilla 1967; Swainson 1979; Tomblin 1990).Bennett believed that provincial control over the generation of power was essential for hisprovince-building goals, and was instrumental in the formation of B.C. Hydro as a crowncorporation in 1962. Although the federal government favoured the development of theColumbia River alone, Premier Bennett believed that the province would benefit from dammingboth rivers. A series of amalgamations of the various hydro utilities operating in the provinceensured the development of markets for the Peace and Columbia power projects (Swainson 1979;Tomblin 1990; Vining 1981).Hydroelectric development on the Canadian portion of the Columbia was stimulated by jointCanadian and American interest in harnessing the powerful flows of this international river. In1944, the Governments of Canada and the United States requested that the International JointCommission (IJC) examine whether bilateral cooperation on future water resource developmenton the Columbia would be practical and advantageous. Both countries favoured increasedopportunities for hydroelectric generation, and the benefits of flood control were reinforced whena 1948 flood inundated part of Trail, B.C., claimed 50 lives, made 38,000 homeless, anddestroyed the community of Vanport, Oregon (Canada 19Mb, 16; Swainson 1979, 42).The selection of water development sites was a lengthy process requiring substantial engineering75studies and economic evaluations. The International Columbia River Engineering Board wasestablished by the UC and, in 1959, presented three water development plans based on theidentification of a number of large storage reservoir sites in Canada that would benefit bothcountries. Years of technical studies and negotiations resulted in cost-benefit analyses of overone hundred combinations of sites, and led to the selection of the Arrow Lakes, Duncan Lakeand Mica as reservoirs, as well as the preservation of a variety of possible Kootenay Riverdiversions (Canada 19Mb).Although the reservoir sites were ranked and constructed in order of their benefit-cost ratios,many of the political and economic aspects of these sites and their alternatives have beenquestioned. Controversies focused on the dubious economics of the Libby Dam, the greaterdisplacement of people and land use resulting from the selection of the non-diversion plan overthe diversion of the Columbia into the Kootenay, and the implications of dam site proposals onfuture diversion plans which would flood the Columbia Trench to enable massive power exportsthrough the proposed North America Water and Power Alliance (Krutilla 1967, Waterfield 1970,Swainson 1979).Canada and the United States signed the Columbia River Treaty in 1961 in an effort tocoordinate hydro operations for mutual benefit. The Treaty focuses on Canadian regulation ofwater in the upper portion of the Columbia for the purposes of power generation and floodcontrol. It stipulates certain restrictions on hydro development and diversions on the Columbiaand its tributary, the Kootenay River, and outlines procedures for the calculation of U.S.payment to Canada for benefits received (Canada 1964a,b; Krutilla 1967).76The Columbia River Treaty provides for the appointment of Canadian and American Entities toaid its implementation. In 1963, Canada and British Columbia agreed that British Columbiawould receive all rights to the payment of the Canadian Entitlement, and B.C. Hydro was namedthe Canadian Entity. The American Entity is the Administrator of Bonneville PowerAdministration (BPA) and the Division Engineer, North Pacific Division, U.S. Corps ofEngineers. A Permanent Engineering Board reviews the operations of both Entities to ensurethat Treaty obligations are met (B.C. Hydro 1993a).The agreement was ratified in 1964, at which time Canada’s role in moderating the flow of theColumbia was acknowledged through payments for power and flood control benefits receiveddownstream. The Canadian Entitlement to half of the downstream benefits received for U.S.power generation over a thirty-year period was sold to a group of American electrical utilities,at British Columbia’s request, for a one-time payment of $273.3 million. Canada received atotal of $69.3 million for flood control benefits, half of the U.S. flood control benefits receivedover a sixty-year period, and was paid in stages as each of the storage dams was completed.Canada also received an additional $9.2 million for early completion of the Duncan andKeenleyside dams. (B.C. Hydro 1983).In accordance with the Columbia River Treaty, Canada built three dams: the Mica and HughKeenleyside Dams on the Columbia River, and the Duncan Dam above Kootenay Lake, whosewaters enter the Columbia via the Kootenay River. Duncan Dam was completed in 1967,followed by Keenleyside in 1968, and Mica in 1972, resulting in 15.5 million acre-feet ofstorage. Although all three dams were designated as storage facilities, they were designed toaccommodate additional power generation capability for Canada. B.C. Hydro has since77benefitted from Treaty storage through the addition of power generation at Mica, and throughlater construction of the Kootenay Canal (1976), Seven Mile (1980) and Reveistoke (1985) Dams(B.C. Hydro 1993a).The Treaty also provided the option for the United States to build a dam near Libby, Montanaon the Kootenay River, within five years of Canadian ratification. The United States insistedon the inclusion of the Libby project, with its questionable economic efficiency, due to theimportance of flood control near Bonners Ferry, Idaho (Krutilla 1967, 100). The Libby Damwas completed in 1973, adding five million acre-feet of storage in the Koocanusa Reservoirwhile flooding 42 miles (67 1cm) of shoreline in Canada (Spritzer 1979).The terms of the Columbia River Treaty apply for a period of sixty years after the ratificationdate, and may be prolonged indefinitely. Either Canada or the United States may terminate theTreaty at any time with ten years written notice. While the payment or return of downstreambenefits resulting from power generation will be negotiated for the second period of thirty yearsin 1997, Canada has already been remunerated for flood control benefits, and is obliged toprovide a certain amount of flood control as long as the Treaty dams are in service, with nofurther payment (Canada 1964a,b; Krutilla 1967).Subsequent to the Columbia River Treaty, B.C. Hydro and BPA signed the Non-Treaty StorageAgreement in 1984 to provide effective use of additional storage behind Mica Dam in a morecoordinated manner. This Agreement was initially to last for ten years, but in 1990 the twoagencies agreed to expand the additional 2 million acre-feet storage to 4.5 million acre-feet, andextended the Agreement until 2003. The further power generating capability of this storage is78shared between B.C. Hydro and BPA (U.S. Department of Energy et al. 1991, 23).3.4 The Impacts of Columbia and Kootenay River DamsThe impacts of the Columbia River Treaty and ensuing hydro development on communities inthe Canadian portion of the Columbia River Basin varied throughout different stages of hydroproject activity. Two thousand residents of Burton, Fauquier, Edgewood, Renata andArrowhead on the Arrow Lakes experienced emotional and financial hardships as they wereforced to relocate completely due to flooding for reservoir creation (Figure 7). Many membersof other communities near dam sites, such as Revelstoke and Castlegar, prospered through dam-related employment and the provision of services for the large number of workers imported towork during dam construction. Generally, each project generated its own local boom and bustcycle, causing periods of high economic activity near dam sites before and during construction,followed by difficult financial situations for communities left with the burden of managingexpanded municipal services once the dam builders moved on (Waterfield 1970; Wilson 1973).Aboriginal communities within the Columbia River basin received little warning of hydrodevelopment plans within their traditional territory (Phillips et al. 1992). The KtunaxalKinbasketFirst Nation experienced direct fishing and hunting losses due to the blockage of fish passageand the flooding of winter range along the Kootenay River, resulting from the construction ofthe Libby Dam. After losing their principal sources of food supply and livelihood, many peoplewho had lived independently moved onto the St. Mary’s Reserve. Aboriginal heritage sitesconsisting of the pictographs and pit houses of the Senatcheggs, a lake tribe already extinct,were inundated beneath the Arrow Reservoir and are commemorated by a totem pole at the79Figure 7. THE DISPLACEMENT * RESETTLEMENTPATTERNSource: Wilson (1973), p. 680relocated Edgewood townsite.Halleran (1974) outlines many of the immediate effects of Columbia River Treaty dams in hisfilm, “The Reckoning”. He emphasizes the emotional suffering and financial losses experiencedby those whose land was expropriated, and summarizes the loss of regional resources due toflooding and habitat loss as follows: 81,727 acres of forested land; 18,000 acres of farmland;8000 deer; 600 elk; 1500 moose; 2000 black bear; 70,000 ducks and geese; and a decline ingiant rainbow trout productivity.In a 1981 survey administered to resettled residents of the Arrow Lakes by independentresearchers, interviewees conveyed the opinion that the Arrow Lakes area was perceived as“somewhat less livable” since hydro development. Local residents had adapted to theconsequences of living along a reservoir, and for the first time experienced the exposure ofbanks as a result of shoreline fluctuations, the occurrence of dust storms from bank exposure,and the inability to use boats and pontoons when stranded by occasional summer draw-downs(Wilson and Conn 1983). The incomplete removal of timber and debris before reservoirflooding delayed the use of Mica and Duncan reservoirs for recreation and transportation,resulting in conflicts between BC Hydro, salvage operators and recreationists (Szaraz 1981).Although much of the bitterness related to the resettlement of individuals and communities asa result of initial reservoir creation has subsided (Wilson and Conn 1983), it is evident that manybelieve that the ongoing operation of Columbia River Basin dams has affected the integrity ofthe resource base of the Kootenays. Since there has been no comprehensive report on theoverall impacts of hydro development in the Columbia River Basin, the following discussion81documents some of the most well-known impacts of large dams in the Kootenays, those relatedto the resource base of the region. While some of these consequences have been recorded,literature on this subject is quite limited. This summary integrates documented references withinformation provided by residents of the area.3.41 Impacts of Dams on FishThe impacts of Columbia River Basin dams on fisheries have been widely acknowledged and areprobably the most extensively documented consequences of hydro development in this region.The Columbia River system is unique in sustaining the most productive rainbow trout fisheryin North America, and a diversity of other indigenous fish species, including: Dolly Vardenchar, yellowstone cutthroat trout, kokanee, mountain whitefish, burbot and white sturgeon; aswell as the following introduced species: eastern brook trout, brown trout, walleye, and chinooksalmon. However, many of these fisheries have declined significantly with the construction ofdams on the Columbia River system (Maher 1961; Andrusak 1981; Mallette 1991; Hirst 1991).The development of a long network of hydroelectric dams has been detrimental to migrating fishthat depended on the Columbia River system to travel between freshwater streams and the ocean(Northwest Power Planning Council 1992; U.S. Department of Energy et al 1991). Salmon andsteelhead runs in the Columbia River ranged between 10 million and 16 million during the mid1800s, but have since decreased to approximately 2.5 million fish. While industrial developmentand overfishing have contributed to the substantial reduction of fish runs in the Columbia Riverbasin, hydroelectric development is believed to have caused the most significant portion of thisloss, between five to 11 million fish (Northwest Power Planning Council 1992, 17).82The completion of the Grand Coulee Dam in northern Washington in 1941 approximately halvedthe total salmon production of the entire river system through habitat loss, and closure of accessto previous spawning grounds in the Kootenays on the upper Columbia, eliminating the salmonfishery in the Canadian portion of the river with the exception of the land-locked kokanee(Mallette 1991). The Columbia River Treaty has further contributed to salmon losses since theextra storage provided in Canada has reduced the spring freshets that previously assisted smoltmigration downstream (Muckleston 1990).Within the Canadian portion of the Columbia, hydro development has significantly disrupted fishpopulations in a number of ways: blocking access to spawning channels, trapping nutrientsbehind dams, creating hazards and changing fish habitat through manipulation of the natural flowregime. These dam-induced changes have reduced the capacity of previous fisheries on theColumbia, Kootenay and Pend d’Oreille Rivers (British Columbia 1974, 6-73; Mallette 1991;Woods 1993). Target numbers for compensation of fisheries impacts resulting from theReveistoke Dam have amounted to 500,000 kokanee, 1,000 rainbow trout and 4,000 bull trout(Hirst 1991, 4).Hydro projects have flooded a substantial amount of spawning habitat and prevented access toremaining spawning grounds upstream (Sigma Engineering 1990; Mallette 1991). The Mica andKeenleyside dams have reduced the capacity of the Arrow Lakes to support a sport fishery byestimates of 50 percent (British Columbia 1974, A10-8). The cumulative effect of theinstallation and operation of the Reveistoke Dam in addition to the two previous Treaty damshas had a devastating impact on kokanee, Dolly Varden char, rainbow trout, mountain whitefishand white sturgeon, due to their loss of access to previous spawning habitat on the Arrow Lakes83and has resulted in cumulative losses of 75% of spawning habitat (Mallette 1991). The DuncanDam has caused similar problems for fish, reducing spawning habitat such that it supports onlyone tenth of the previous kokanee population (Hirst 1991, 73), and destroying spawning groundsfor a race of large rainbow trout, that has since become extinct (Mallette 1991).Dams have blocked a substantial flow of nutrient supplies, enhancing the productivity of certaintypes of fish upstream, while preventing the flow of nutrients downstream. During the initialstages of impoundment, reservoir productivity increases due to the rapid supply of nutrientsintroduced through flooding of organic rich lands; however, this phenomena is usually followedby a decline in productivity, as nutrient levels stabilize or even decrease, resulting inoligotrophic conditions. The completion of the Reveistoke Dam resulted in a short-term pulsein nutrient concentrations followed four years later by a decline to levels below detection (Smith1990, 324). The blockage of nutrients behind the Duncan and Libby Dams has causedsignificant declines in kokanee populations downstream in Kootenay Lake (Mallette 1991; BritishColumbia and Environment Canada 1993, 81). However, fishers on Kinbasket Reservoir havenoted increased productivity of stocked kokanee behind the Mica Dam (Baltakis 1992; Ant,Gutzman and Sim 1992).The supersaturation of nitrogen as sluice gates force air into plunging water, causes fish to sufferfrom gas bubbles in their tissues, similar to what divers know as the bends, and has caused fishkills downstream of the Libby (Bocking 1972, 59) and Hugh Keenleyside dams (BritishColumbia and Environment Canada 1993, 80). Fisheries studies along the Columbia Riverbetween the Keenleyside Dam and the U.S. border indicate that the highest incidence of gasbubble truama has occurred in sucker species below the dam (Hildebrand 1991).84The construction of dams along the Columbia and Kootenay river systems has transformed theprevious naturally flowing aquatic environment into a series of reservoirs, resulting in a changein species composition from riverine species, primarily mountain whitefish, to lake-orientedspecies such as bull trout, kokanee and sucker species (Smith 1989, Mallette 1991). Thereplacement of highly valued sportsfish with coarse species has changed fishing opportunities.The Seven Mile and Waneta Dams on the Pend d’Oreille River have transformed a prime fishingand recreation area into a wasteland where signs warn visitors to stay away from the water dueto the risk of banks caving in (Mallette 1991).3.42 Impacts of Dams on WildlifeLiterature on the environmental impacts of Columbia basin hydro development on wildlife isquite limited. Although reports published before the construction of Columbia River basin damspredicted wildlife losses focusing on displacement caused by the flooding of habitat (BritishColumbia 1965a,b,c; British Columbia 1974; British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority1976), there has been little post-project evaluation of impacts.In assessing the impacts of the Reveistoke Dam, Missler (1988) observes that wildlife impactshave been difficult to evaluate due to a lack of baseline information, and the cumulative natureof impacts associated with the entire hydroelectric system in the Columbia Basin. Bradley(1993) concurs explaining that wildlife issues were not considered important when ColumbiaRiver dams were built, and the evaluation of impacts is complicated due to the number of factorsinfluencing wildlife populations and habitats. Missler’s study noted potential impacts on moose,caribou, deer and grizzly as a result of flooding of riparian habitat. She documents deer, moose85and caribou fatalities resulting from vehicle collisions, and records deer and moose drownings,similar to those occurring due to reservoir drawdown after ice formation on the Libby Reservoir(Reid 1976, 5-45; Missler 1988, 137).It is generally believed that the principal impact of Columbia River Basin hydro projects onwildlife has been the loss of riparian habitat (Mallette 1991; Phillips et al. 1992; Ant, Gutzmanand Sim 1992; Woods 1993). Due to the region’s harsh climatic and topographic conditions,the flooding of niparian land has reduced the region’s capacity to support wildlife populations,and may have increased crowding pressures on adjacent populations. Since the availability ofwinter ranges limits the distribution and abundance of ungulates (British Columbia 1974, 6-69)the loss of low elevation winter range along the Kinbasket, Reveistoke, Arrow and KoocanusaReservoirs, as well as along the Pend d’Oreille River has reduced the habitat available to moose,elk, deer and caribou.The flooding of land for the Kinbasket Reservoir behind Mica Dam was predicted to causesevere or significant losses for most big game, small game, migratory game, upland game, furand non-game species. The loss of 520 km of ripanian vegetation, 400 hectares of permanentwetland, 1100 hectares of seasonal wetland, almost 400 hectares of meadows and 28,000hectares of forest land was expected to cause wildlife losses through dislocation, increasedmigration barriers and hazards (e.g., floating debris, water drawdown during ice formation).The greatest losses were predicted for species dependent on wetland habitat: the elimination ofmany aquatic fur-bearers (beaver, muskrat, otter and mink), waterfowl and raptors (osprey,peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and red-tailed hawk) was anticipated within the Mica basin; andextensive habitat losses were foreseen for moose, black bear, elk, deer, coyote, and ruffed86grouse (British Columbia 1974, A4-25).Wildlife losses in the Kinbasket area have been confirmed through local observations and anenvironmental impact assessment report. Hunters, guides and conservation officers haveobserved lower numbers of wildlife within the Kinbasket Reservoir region. Local residentsbelieve that the loss of habitat inundated by the reservoir has decreased moose, caribou, bear,and elk populations (Ant, Gutzman and Sim 1992; Schuck 1992; Cibulka 1992). A studycommissioned by B.C. Hydro to examine the impacts of increasing the capacity of its non-treatystorage behind the Mica Dam, concludes that reservoir level fluctuations combined with otherfactors such as steep terrain severely limit the production of aquatic/wetland wildlife around thereservoir (Triton 1990, 157).A report prepared for B.C. Hydro indicates that riparian habitat losses were particularlysignificant on the Arrow Reservoir south of Reveistoke, and were more moderate betweenReveistoke and Mica where steeper slopes reduced the extent of habitat loss at low elevations.The greatest impact along the Revelstoke Reservoir was the loss of upland winter range onmoderate valley slopes, while similar losses along the Arrow Reservoir were only important inkey areas. The flooding of 111 km2 (11,100 ha) of riparian habitat to create the ArrowReservoir caused extensive losses for species such as white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose,beaver, otter, waterfowl species, and a wide range of bird and mammal species that relied onniparian habitats. The loss of 11,500 hectares along the Revelstoke Reservoir has affectedcaribou, moose, grizzly bear, black bear, beaver, otter, waterfowl and a wide range of riverbased riparian species (Sigma Engineering 1990).87First Nations people living near the Koocanusa Reservoir have observed decreasing populationsof wildlife since the flooding of the Kootenay River behind the Libby Dam. The inundation ofgrasslands along the Rocky Mountain Trench has removed extensive range land for ungulates(Phillips et al. 1992).3.43 Impacts of Dams on ForestsThe impacts of dams in the Columbia River Basin on forestry are described by Szaraz (1981).He explains that dam builders and forest resource users both compete for access to valleybottoms. Hydro development has withdrawn forest land from production, disrupted access toresources, and changed transportation patterns, thereby increasing costs incurred by forestryoperators. While the dam-induced withdrawal of forest land from the regional timber supplymay not be significant, the consequences for local forestry may be different.According to Szaraz (1981, 82), the inundation of forest land for the creation of reservoirs atDuncan, Keenleyside, Mica, Revelstoke and Seven Mile, has removed 38,481 ha from forestproduction, representing an annual cut of 142,204 m3. Regional forest withdrawal may amountto a total of 50,000 ha or 180,000 m3 annually when flooding at Libby, transmission lines andother indirect impacts are considered. This withdrawal represents four percent of the 1977 cutlevel for Crown-managed forests in the region, although the impacts of each dam vary slightlywith respect to their reduction of local timber supplies (Szaraz 1981, 67): Mica Dam (6.5%),Reveistoke Dam (3.6%), Hugh Keenleyside Dam (2.7%), Duncan Dam (0.8%) and Seven Mile(negligible). Since Szaraz’ approximation of the surface area of the reservoir behind Mica(30,511 ha) underestimated the actual area (42,500 ha according to Triton 1990, 52; 44,549 ha88as calculated by British Columbia 1974, A4-25), local and regional forest losses are likely higherthan estimated above. Equivalent proportions of current cut levels have not been estimated dueto difficulties involved in accounting for changes in administrative boundaries, and evolvingforest practice restrictions to protect wildlife habitat, water quality and visual considerations.Local forestry operations may have been affected by forest withdrawal to a greater extent,particularly since 64% of the forest flooded for the Kinbasket Reservoir consisted of good andmedium forest site classes (as specified by the Ministry of Forests) and the respective proportionof similar site classes comprised 98% of the forest inundated for the Revelstoke Reservoir(Szaraz 1981, 60-61). The proportion of good and medium forest land flooded for the MicaDam is similar to its representation within the Golden Timber Supply Area (67%) and withinthe Kootenay Region (63-65%). However, the area flooded for Revelstoke contained a higherproportion of good and medium sites than occurring locally within the Revelstoke area (88%)or the Kootenay Region (63-65%). Szaraz suggests that intensive silviculture may provide somedegree of mitigation of forest withdrawal impacts.In addition to losing timber supply, local logging operators have incurred increased costsassociated with reduced access to forest resources, as well as the construction and maintenanceof additional transportation infrastructure (Szaraz 1981, Ricards 1992, Bennett 1993). Theflooding of highly productive forests in low and relatively flat areas has led to increased loggingcosts since remaining forests are further away and harder to access on steep slopes. Previouslogging roads were flooded and were expensive to replace as new roads traverse steeper terrainand travel a greater distance around the enlarged area of the reservoir. Log drives betweenMica Creek and Revelstoke, and between Duncan and Kootenay Lakes are no longer possible.89The use of boats on Kinbasket Reservoir (behind the Mica Dam) requires log dewateringfacilities and maintenance for boat ramps due to fluctuating reservoir levels (Figure 8).3.44 Impacts of Dams on Agricultural LandDue to the limited availability of arable land in British Columbia (approximately three percentin 1961) the flooding of land capable of supporting agriculture was one of the considerationsduring Columbia River Treaty negotiations (Krutilla 1967, 101; Waterfield 1970, 78). Theproposal to divert the Kootenay River into the Columbia was rejected partly because ofgovernment reluctance to flood both of the fertile valley bottoms along the Arrow Lakes and theRocky Mountain Trench.Prior to Treaty-related hydro projects, farming communities had developed along the ArrowLakes, the Creston Flats and along the Rocky Mountain Trench in the East Kootenays (BritishColumbia 1976, 68). Orchards and farms along the Arrow Lakes provided a local source offruit and vegetables for residents of the Kootenays. Dairy products, grains, vegetables and fruitwere cultivated with the dyking of the fertile floodplain around Creston. Cattle and hayproduction occurred on ranches along the Kootenay River in the East Kootenays.Hydro projects within the Columbia River basin have reduced the agricultural capability of theKootenays through the flooding of farm land along the Arrow Lakes and the Kootenay River,while improving flood control for arable land on the Creston Flats. While many farmers incommunities along the Arrow Lakes believed their land to be of high soil fertility, a federalDepartment of Agriculture report dismissed its importance nationally citing high land clearingFigure8.LoggingOperationsonKinbasketReservoir(October1992)Chi91costs (although costs were higher elsewhere), the need for irrigation (ignoring the abundant andinexpensive water from the Arrow Lakes) and the spread of disease (which was no problem indry years) (Waterfield 1970, 133). Approximately 40,000 acres (16,200 ha) of farm land (38%of total farm land in the Central Kootenay Regional District according to the 1966 census) wereflooded behind the Keenleyside Dam (Waterfield 1970, 68). The creation of the KoocanusaReservoir inundated some of the most productive range land along the Kootenay River (Halleran1974; Phillips et al. 1992). However, water flow regulation resulting from the same dam, theLibby Dam, improved the agricultural potential of the Creston floodplain due to the added floodprotection received (British Columbia 1986).3.5 Impacts of Dams on Water SuppliesMunicipal water supplies have been affected by Columbia River Basin hydro projects. Theconstruction of the Hugh Keenleyside dam has resulted in conflict over the financing of thesupply of domestic water for Trail. B.C. Hydro originally drilled groundwater wells to providewater to this community when hydro-related turbidity made river water unfit for domestic use.The ongoing financing for Trail’s water supply has caused disputes between BC Hydro and theCity of Trail (Royds 1991). However, B.C. Hydro has been devolved of further responsibilityfor Trail’s water supply as a result of a decision reached through arbitration (Geissler 1994).3.5 Environmental Policy at B.C. HydroB.C. Hydro has acknowledged the significance of the impacts of its dams on the inhabitants ofthe Columbia River Basin, and is embarking on new initiatives to address past problems.92Commitments expressed in B.C. Hydro’s “Corporate Strategic Plan” for 1993 indicate itswillingness to accept responsibility for the consequences of hydro development in the Kootenays.B.C. Hydro’s policy of accountability for the environmental and social impacts of itshydroelectric operations has evolved as a result of experience gained during two and a halfdecades of large-scale dam projects. Initially, this provincial utility had little interest inenvironmental policy during hydroelectric planning for the Columbia River Basin, as damproposals were subjected to minimal environmental regulation.B.C. Hydro has now adopted a more long-term conservation-minded approach to resource usein its electricity planning. It is monitoring the environmental consequences of its operations andimplementing programs for mitigation and enhancement of fish and wildlife affected byhydroelectric projects. Major compensation programs have been developed to address ongoingenvironmental problems in the Columbia River Basin. New energy supply options are beinginvestigated with emphasis on demand-side management to avoid the construction of more largeprojects, and various aspects of sustainability are being included in B.C. Hydro’s strategicpolicy.3.51 Environmental Regulation of B.C. Hydro DamsMany of B.C. Hydro’s projects were licensed under the provincial Water Act (1960). This pieceof legislation was not designed to deal with broader environmental issues, and the applicationof this legislation to Hydro’s projects was criticized by many opponents of the utility’s plans(Missler 1988).93Residents of the Arrow Lakes region were frustrated with The Water Act’s licence approvalprocess for Columbia River dams. The Water Comptroller allowed public hearings to occurafter substantial agreements had already been made between Canada and the United Statesregarding the conditions of The Columbia River Treaty. Local people felt powerless to affectany planning decisions. Their frustration was increased when informed that they could notdiscuss the Arrow Lakes projects or their justification during the public hearings. Residentswere also intimidated by Hydro’s strength in numbers and confrontational approach whenquestioning local people (Waterfield 1970, 87; Wilson 1973, 18; Missler 1988).Further provincial legislation addressing resource use had little effect on B.C. Hydro. Theutility was not subjected to the requirements of the Pollution Control Act established in 1967.The Environment and Land Use Act (1971) dealt with some aspects of hydro development andled to related Guidelines on Linear Developments (1977), Guidelines on Benefit-Cost Analysis(1977) and Environmental and Social Impact Compensation/Mitigation Guidelines (1980). TheB.C. Energy Act (1973) was developed with the intention to regulate energy utilities, but itsmandate was not extended to include B.C. Hydro, the largest producer of electrical energy inthe province (Missler 1988).The continued development of large scale energy projects in British Columbia and increasingawareness of their environmental impacts led to the formation of The Energy Project ReviewProcess (EPRP), in 1980. This legislation was a significant improvement over its predecessor(The Water Act) in its ability to address environmental issues and improve the public hearingsprocess through its definite structure and procedural sequence for selection and licensing. Asof 1988, B.C. Hydro’s Site C proposal for the Peace River was the only Hydro project reviewed94through the EPRP (Missler 1988).Site C was rejected by the EPRP Panel and this rejection was accepted by the provincialgovernment. This rejection shows the potential strength of the new evaluation measuresprovided through the EPRP legislation, as B.C. Hydro had never been refused approval of itsprojects previously. The proposal was rejected on the grounds that it was unnecessary, as Hydrohad overestimated future energy demand, and because Hydro had not proven that Site C was thebest project due to a lack of consideration of reasonable alternatives (Riek 1987).3.52 CompensationlMitigationThe issue of compensation has been at the heart of much of the discussion of hydro-relatedproblems. Many of the problems associated with compensation for the initial expropriation andresettlement of people displaced by Columbia River Dams are documented by Wilson (1973) andWilson and Conn (1983). Although Wilson criticizes B.C. Hydro and the provincial SocialCredit government for various decisions and approaches to the management of social andeconomic impacts on the residents of the Arrow Lakes, he states that government officialsaccomplished their difficult jobs “for the most part, with understanding and humanity.” Heconcludes that although compensation was not generous, it was adequate.As a result of a 1970 survey of relocated families along the Arrow Lakes, Wilson (1973, 146)remarks that the question of compensation dominated most of the responses he received. Whilethe majority of owners of the 1280 properties affected accepted compensation offers, seventyeight cases involved some degree of expropriation. The resettlement of residents involved the95relocation of the communities of Burton, Fauquier and Edgewood at three new sites. In afollow-up survey in 1981, Wilson and Conn (1983) found that opinion regarding adequacy ofcompensation remained divided; however, some of the bitterness towards B.C. Hydro hadabated.Wilson (1973, 150) addresses the problems related to compensation for those living along theArrow Lakes, emphasizing the difficulties in attaining fair replacement for losses. As theestimation of value is subjective, the evaluation of “intangibles” such as scenic views andfriendships was not easily translated into dollars. The assessment of property values variedaccording to the appraiser involved. Although compensation was determined by market value,the replacement value may have been more appropriate since large-scale hydro project planninghad removed any real property market in the communities affected. The lengthy process ofcompensation settlement created hardships for those remaining in almost abandonedcommunities.The Government of British Columbia agreed to the flooding of 13,600 acres (5500 ha) ofCanadian land for the creation of the Koocanusa reservoir between 1973 and 1975. In return,British Columbia was entitled to retain the full share of downstream benefits received atKootenay Canal rather than returning half to the operators of Libby, as is the procedure forColumbia River Treaty dams (Spafford 1994). Few details are available regarding compensationas most of the land along the Kootenay River was public land. However, members of theKtunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council recall that people were relocated from the area withinadequate compensation. Aboriginal communities received little warning and no compensationfor their loss of food supply (fish and wildlife) and livelihood (Phillips et al. 1992).96The question of compensation continues to be an important part of ongoing concerns related tohydro development in the region. While the sense of injustice regarding past compensation forproperties persists with some residents, many more are concerned about compensation for lostresources (Ricard 1992; Moore 1992; Demmon 1992). Community representatives believe thathydro projects have reduced the size of their land base and the quality of their water. Thesechanges have affected the integrity of and access to water, timber, fish and wildlife resources,and are particularly significant to communities dependent on resource-based industries (Smienk1992).The consideration of compensation issues requires an understanding of the overall costs andbenefits incurred as a result of hydro development in the Kootenays during the first thirty yearsof the Columbia River Treaty. Since the majority of costs and benefits resulted fromconstruction of the large Columbia River Treaty Dams by B.C. Hydro, these dams are the focusof discussion regarding compensation. Table 2 compares the cooperative hydro developmentoption (involving Canada and the U.S.) with the independent development option (just Canada)as summarized by Newton (1994). Further details are described by Krutilla (1967), Canada(1964a,b), Wilson (1973) and Swainson (1979).As actual costs of Columbia River Treaty hydro development ($600.3 million) were greater thanoriginal estimates (447.7 million as reported in Canada 19Mb, 96) both the cooperative andindependent options result in net losses (Table 2), instead of the predicted net gain of $53.4million. Assuming that the Mica Dam would have been built regardless of internationalcooperation (this assumption is validated by the subsequent development of several other damsin addition to Mica), the development of Columbia River dams would have resulted in greaterTable2.COMPARISONOFTREATYVS.NON-TREATYCOSTSANDBENEFITSCooperative(Canada-U.S.)HydroDevelopmentIndependent(Canada)HydroDevelopmentActualDamCosts(Canadiancapitalcostsin$millionCan.)Duncan32.9(1967$)Arrow196.7(1968$)Mica364.1(1973$)Mica364.1(1973$)roadreplacement4.0Libbyreservoirclearing2.6Totaldamcosts600.3Totaldamcosts364.1ActualBenefits(U.S.paymentsandCanadianbenefitsin$millionCan.)U.S.downstreampowerbenefits273.3nilU.S.floodcontrolbenefits69.3CanadiandownstreampowerbenefitsatKootenayCanal6.7paymentofinterestonmoneyalreadyspentbyCanada129.8Totalbenefits(asof1974)479.1TotalbenefitsNetBenefits($millionCan.)benefits479.1benefits-costs-600.3costs—364.1Netbenefits-121.3Netbenefits-364.1Notes*Theabovecostsandbenefitsindicateaccountingcosts(inyearspent)noteconomiccosts(constantdollars),orthetotalofastreamofpayments(Overseveralyears)andarethereforedifficulttocompare.However,theypresentageneralapproximationofthecostsandbenefitsforthefirstthirtyyearsoftheColumbiaRiverTreatyasincurredbetween1967and1974.*CostsincludeoperatingcostsandcompensationforrealestateSource:Newton(1993)98losses, an additional $242.8 million, if undertaken independent of the United States. However,the real long-term benefit of the Columbia River Treaty is believed to be the power generationat Mica and subsequent power dams (e.g., Reveistoke). The resulting benefits from this largesupply of relatively inexpensive electricity and the ensuing economic development are difficultto evaluate but may compensate for the direct net losses incurred (Newton 1993).This discussion is not intended to provide a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of ColumbiaRiver dam projects but serves as a basis for the consideration of compensation issues. Actualdam costs shown in Table 2 include compensation for real estate along the Arrow Lakes, but donot include compensation for foregone resource use (e.g., fish, wildlife and forest losses), thesubject of much of this study. Some losses have been estimated and are included whereappropriate in the case study. However, there has been no regional evaluation of environmentalimpacts or their equivalent dollar value. The failure of cost-benefit analysis to estimateenvironmental resource values of the Columbia River is addressed by Mallette (1991).The lack of valuation of environmental costs makes it difficult to review the real costs ofColumbia River dams or determine an appropriate level of compensation. B.C. Hydro hasundertaken various forms of compensation as outlined in the following discussion.Compensation payments and programs have been based on their ability to generate benefitsrather than compensate losses (Newton 1993).A further U.S. payment or return of downstream power benefits for the second term of theTreaty could provide a means of redistributing some of the benefits received by British Columbiaas a whole, to the region that continues to incur costs from the operation of Columbia River99dams. The previous one-time payment of downstream power benefits was received by theprovince with no formal compensation arrangements between the province and the regionaffected by hydro development.Compensation and mitigation of environmental impacts from Columbia Basin hydro projects haveoccurred as a result of requirements in provincial water licences. Licences issued prior to the1960s did not require environmental assessment or compensation for impacts (B.C. Hydro1992d). As all of the large hydro projects in the basin were licensed after 1962, they have allrequired varying degrees of compensation or mitigation for environmental, social and economicimpacts (Table 3).Water licenses for Columbia River Treaty dams were less exigent regarding environmentalmatters than those issued subsequently. According to licences issued to Treaty dams in 1962,B.C. Hydro was required to undertake reservoir clearing, ensure public access, pay for fish andwildlife studies, and complete remedial measures for fish and wildlife protection. In additionto fish and wildlife studies, the Kootenay River diversion licence issued in 1971 required damoperators to maintain a minimum flow. The 1974 Pend d’Oreille licence for the Seven MileDam stipulates the development of fish and wildlife programs, and this was further strengthenedby an Order under the Water Act directing B.C. Hydro to pay $1.8 million to plan andimplement a fish and wildlife habitat management programme for the Pend d’Oreille Valley.The Reveistoke Dam, licensed in 1976, has been subject to the greatest number of specificationsregarding compensation and mitigation procedures (Table 3).B.C. Hydro has completed a large number of projects to mitigate and compensate for itsNotes:TABLE3-ENVIRONMENTALREQUIREMENTSFORB.C.HYDROWATERLICENCESOtherproject-specificcommitmentsinadditiontowaterlicencerequirementsRecreationAgreement2FishandWildlifeCompensationProgramParksAgreement,WaterActOrderrewatersupply,WaterActOrderreTrustFundAccountSource:MinistryoftheEnvironmentWaterLicences,andSigmaEngineeringLtd.1990.DamLicenceEnvironmentalRequirementsofWaterLicenceDatereservoirpublicfishandfishandminimumfishandrecreationalfishandenviron-mitigationcompen-ProjectbiologistsCommunitytransferclearingaccesswildlifewildlifeflowwildlifefacilitieswildlifementalforlocalsationCoordinatingconsultImpactoflogsstudyremediationprogramsbiologistsguidelinescommunitycomm.(PCC>withcccommitteearounddarnDuncan1962XXXKeenleysideI1962KXXXMica1962XXXX(storage)Kootenay1971XxCanal-Mica(power)1972SevenMile11974XXXRevelstoke11976X—XSXXXSXXXXC C101operations on the Columbia system. However, B.C. Hydro acknowledges that some waterlicence stipulations were limited to one-time payments and have not provided adequate oreffective payment to meet the needs of those living in the region (B.C. Hydro 1992d, 4).Details regarding compensation and mitigation efforts are summarized in two B.C. Hydro reportsaddressing the status of environmental and recreation compensation (Sigma Engineering 1990;Davidson 1992).Fisheries and wildlife compensation and mitigation efforts have included payments for fish andwildlife studies, the completion of remediation measures and the establishment of fishenhancement programs. Compensation has focused on terrestrial and aquatic habitat loss as aresult of the initial flooding and blockage of access to spawning grounds, with little concern forthe consequences of ongoing dam operations. Since most compensation was financed by B.C.Hydro, but implemented by provincial ministries, B.C. Hydro’s involvement has not beenvisible, and in some cases, provincial ministries may have directed compensation payments toother environmental projects in the area, rather than to specific hydro-related mitigation projects.The development of major compensation programs by B.C. Hydro is an attempt to gainleadership and accountability in the mitigation of its dam projects (Birch 1994).Some of the most significant fish enhancement initiatives have included the development ofspawning channels and hatcheries. The Meadow Creek spawning channel (1967) was createdin a prime spawning area on a tributary to the Lower Duncan River to mitigate kokanee lossesassociated with the Duncan reservoir, and has maintained approximately 175,000 spawnersannually; however, this has not replaced even 50 percent of the natural pre-project levels,enumerated as 2.8 million on the lower Duncan River in 1966 (Hirst 1991, 20). The Hill Creek102hatchery (1980) on Upper Arrow Lake, and Mackenzie Creek spawning channel (1981), weredesigned to replace annual losses of 500,000 kokanee, 1,000 rainbow trout and 4,000 bull trout,resulting from construction of the Reveistoke Dam (Hirst 1991, 5); this hatchery has beensuccessful in achieving returns of over 235,000 kokanee annually since 1988 (150,000 spawnersproduce approximately 500,000 kokanee for the sport fishery), and releases of rainbow trout andbull trout have consistently exceeded the losses attributed to the Reveistoke project (BritishColumbia Environment 1994).In recognition of the ongoing impacts of its dam operations, particularly the alteration of flowregimes and nutrient loading, B.C. Hydro has initiated various efforts to address fish problems.Spawning conditions for white sturgeon and rainbow trout are being studied downstream ofKeenleyside, to examine the reproductive capability of sturgeon, and to ensure sufficient flowregimes to protect rainbow trout spawning grounds, temporarily dewatered during 1991 (B.C.Hydro 1992d). Barriers and impediments to fish on Joseph Creek are being examined incooperation with the KtunaxalKinbasket Nation. B.C. Hydro has been involved in the additionof phosphorus to Kootenay Lake to improve nutrient levels for kokanee and Gerrard trout (B.C.Hydro 1993g).The compensation and mitigation of the impacts of hydro development on wildlife in theColumbia River Basin have not been fully addressed. Wildlife impacts have received lessemphasis than those experienced by fish. There are several reasons for the limited attention towildlife: there is a lack of baseline data since few wildlife studies were done before damconstruction (Missler 1988); dam-related impacts have been harder to assess since wildlife rangeis larger and more dispersed than fish contained within rivers (Woods 1993); and opportunities103to replace lost habitat within the river basin are limited (British Columbia 1974, A4-4).Wildlife compensation has focused on funding population and habitat research, often withinbroad management programs. Most of the initiatives have been directed towards the mitigationof waterfowl and big game species as they have been directly affected by the loss of riparianhabitat, and are also important because of their hunting value. Some of the most comprehensiveefforts have addressed habitat within the Creston wetlands, and around the Seven Mile andReveistoke Dams.B.C. Hydro has participated in wildlife and waterfowl habitat enhancement at Duck Lake in theCreston Valley Wildlife Management Area, established by the provincial Creston Valley WildlifeAct. The protection of wildlife and waterfowl within 7,000 ha of floodplain along the KootenayRiver has resulted in the establishment of a waterfowl breeding population on the Creston flats,where none existed before (Wilson 1992). Although the Creston wetlands have not been affectedby B.C. Hydro operations, this area is downstream of the Libby Dam operated by BonnevillePower Authority and is managed to compensate for water level fluctuations. B.C. Hydro’sinvolvement in this project reflects its interest in replacing wetland losses experienced in otherparts of the Columbia Basin.Water licences for the more recent Seven Mile and Reveistoke Dams have required theestablishment of fish and wildlife programs. B.C. Hydro’s involvement has consisted largelyof financial contributions toward management plans developed by provincial ministries. Wildlifeprojects at Seven Mile have emphasized management of white-tailed deer due to the loss ofcritical winter range for this species (Sigma 1990). Revelstoke mitigation has focused on habitat104management for caribou, moose, deer, grizzly bear and waterfowl (Sigma 1990).Generally, compensation for forestry impacts has consisted of the replacement of roads and logtransport facilities, due to the flooding of previous access roads and interruption of log floatingpractices. B.C. Hydro contributed $2.3 million toward the $4 million cost of the WestColumbia Road, along the Kinbasket Reservoir, under the condition that it would have no furtherobligations for Mica forestry impacts. The balance was paid by the B.C. Forest Service as acredit on stumpage to Evans Products Ltd., who paid for the road extension through normalstumpage procedures. Evans Products was unsuccessful in obtaining a similar stumpage creditfor the East Columbia Road due to inaccurate cost estimates (Szaraz 1981, 103).In accordance with provisions to accommodate the handling of forest products in the waterlicence for the Keenleyside Dam, B.C. Hydro incorporated a lock into its dam structure,upgraded access roads and financed the construction of a loading-out transfer unit for logdumping (Szaraz 1981, 92).Although the Duncan Dam water licence stipulated the accommodation of forestry operations,the major logging operator, Kootenay Forest Products, could not convince the WaterComptroller or B.C. Hydro to include a spiliway or flume to facilitate log transport. Insteadthe B.C. Forest Service built a bridge and B.C. Hydro financed an access road, that was laterupgraded by the Forest Service to meet forestry standards (Szaraz 1981, 89).Compensation to forestry operations affected by the Revelstoke Dam consisted of thereplacement of logging roads and ferry landings, as well as the construction of a dewatering105facility to accommodate the transfer of logs around the dam, as required by the water licenceissued (Lagore 1994).B.C. Hydro has undertaken a large number of community projects to address impacts torecreation caused by its dams. Most of its efforts have focused on the Arrow Reservoir, andwere initially related to the resettlement of Burton, Edgewood and Fauquier, and the upgradingof existing facilities at Nakusp to accommodate some of those who relocated to this centre.Recreation improvements have included: reservoir debris clearing, establishment of provincialparks, recreation facilities and community centres, boat launches, airport improvements, bankstabilization and landscaping, golf courses enhancement, archeological studies, visitor centresat dam sites, tourism development, arts council funding and property acquisition (Davidson1992). A joint committee consisting of members of the community of Reveistoke, provincialgovernment departments and B.C. Hydro has been initiated to examine recreational planningopportunities for the Reveistoke Reservoir, and may serve as a model for recreational planningin the Columbia River basin (B.C. Hydro 1993j).The accumulation of debris in reservoirs as a result of incomplete forest clearing before clearing,as well as from windfall and logging practices has restricted use of certain reservoirs forrecreation and transportation (Figure 9). Due to the ongoing nature of this problem, B.C. Hydrodeveloped a debris management strategy in 1992, and has taken initiatives for reservoir clearingdue to public perception that the utility is responsible for its accumulation even though some ofthe debris originates elsewhere (Gurnsey 1994). Ongoing debris clearing activities are focusedon the Kinbasket and Duncan reservoirs. The other reservoirs on the Columbia system arerelatively clear of debris, although the exposure of stumps on the Arrow Reservoir continues toFigure9.DebrisonKinbasketReservoir(Summer1991)PhotocourtesyofPaulRicard(EvansForestProducts)C0•107be hazardous for boating. Floating debris in the Kinbasket reservoir has been reduced to 550ha from a surface area of 2428 ha in 1979 (B.C. Hydro 1993j, 27).The periodic occurrence of low water levels on the Arrow Reservoir has exposed shorelines,resulting in the development of dust storms in Revelstoke and Nakusp (Johnson 1992, Conn1992). The Upper Arrow Dust Control Program has been in operation for six years in an effortto reduce the incidence of this nuisance. Rye grain has been planted within the drawdown zoneof the reservoir to reduce slope erosion during wind storms, and ongoing studies will attemptto identify vegetation types that tolerate frequent water level fluctuations (B.C. Hydro 1993j).Water level fluctuations on Koocanusa Reservoir have exposed burial sites of importance to theKtunaxalKinbasket First Nation. The erosion of land within the drawdown zone has made theburial sites susceptible to degradation and vandalism. Although the Koocanusa Reservoir isoperated by the Bonneville Power Authority, B.C. Hydro funded an archaeological study of thereservoir area and financed the removal and reinterment of aboriginal artifacts along theshoreline (Gumsey 1994).B.C. Hydro recognizes that some resource issues have not been addressed by governmentagencies or its own organization and is therefore undertaking major project compensationprograms. In 1991, B.C. Hydro established the Mica Fisheries and Wildlife CompensationProgram to provide funding for impacts associated with the completion of the Mica Dam andthe Non-Treaty Storage Agreement. Preliminary studies were conducted to develop five-yearplans for fish and wildlife enhancement and management in the Kinbasket and Revelstokewatersheds (B.C. Hydro 1992d, 4). Community workshops were held in Golden, Revelstoke108and Valemount to assist B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of Environment in identifying prioritiesfor future fish and wildlife enhancement (B.C. Hydro 1991b).In 1993, B.C. Hydro announced the establishment of the Columbia Basin Fish and WildlifeCompensation Program. Annual contributions of $3.2 million from a $65 million fund suppliedby B.C. Hydro will finance the enhancement of fish and wildlife affected by hydroelectricdevelopment throughout the Columbia River basin and will incorporate the program alreadydeveloped to address similar initiatives for the Mica Reservoir. This fund is larger than itspredecessor, designed to compensate for similar impacts along the Peace River ($11 million),reflecting the geographical diversity and larger population of the Kootenay region (B.C. Hydro1993g).The initiation of the Columbia Kootenay Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program is anacknowledgement that hydroelectric development causes a range of long-term impacts that maynot be known or suspected, and that cannot be mitigated through one-time payments orreplacements, as originally believed. Although mitigation and compensation projects may beable to replace some resource and recreation losses, they may not be able to restore previousterrestrial and aquatic systems to their previous state, or make up for foregone developmentopportunities. Smienk (1992) notes the inadequacy of mitigation or compensation to addressunanticipated impacts, such as the long-term implications of mercury accumulation, aconsequence of large-scale damming around James Bay. Battersby (1992) states that hydrodevelopment around Reveistoke has reduced the land available for community development, andalthough B.C. Hydro pays grants-in-lieu-of taxes for the use of local land, this payment does notreplace taxation or the loss of economic activity that could have occurred otherwise.109The “taxation” procedures of B.C. Hydro facilities are somewhat complicated, but are worthconsidering with respect to compensation for the use of land and services under the jurisdictionof municipalities, regional districts and the province. The following information on taxation wasprovided through correspondence (Wright 1993a) and discussion (Wright 1993b) with OrvilleWright, Property Tax Manager, at B.C. Hydro.B.C. Hydro is exempt from all property taxes, according to section 52 of the Hydro and PowerAuthority Act, but compensates communities, regional districts and the provincial governmentfor the use of land, water and services through school taxes, water rentals and grants-in-lieu-oftaxes. Table 4 indicates the distribution of taxes and grants paid on the operation of B.C. Hydrofacilities in the Columbia River Basin to municipalities, school districts, regional districts andthe provincial government.B.C. Hydro is required to pay annual grants to municipalities and regional districts as specifiedin order-in-council 1218 (1965). In 1982, a further order-in-council (2091) proclaimed that B.C.Hydro would be exempt from school taxes on land and improvements related to the generationof power on the Columbia, Peace, and Pend d’Oreille Rivers. Although this utility does not payschool taxes on dam facilities, it does pay school taxes on transmission lines, warehouses, andnon-dam structures.B.C. Hydro has paid annual grants to municipalities and regional districts instead of similar taxessince 1965; however, the recognition that some municipalities could receive larger portions oftheir tax base if the same hydroelectric facilities were operated by private utilities, and weresubject to municipally determined tax rates, resulted in the promulgation of order-in-council 934Table 4. B.c. 1-IYDRO 1101992 PROPERTY TAXERANTS, and WATER RENTALSLocal TaxesCentral Kootenay R.D. School Taxes and Grants Water Rentals TotalCastlegar $67,677- $67,677Nakusp $16,797 24,530- 41,327New Denver 5,077 3,665- 8,742Silverton 1,501 1,300- 2,801School Dist. 07 3,531,658 5,797- 3,537,455School 01st. 09 105,707 7,548- 113,255School Dist. 10 951,558 4,658- 956,216School Dist. 86 676,888 6,153- 683,041Central Kootenay R.D.- 360,630 $20,218,418 20,579,048Sub-total $5,289,186 $481,958 $20,218,418 $25,989,562East Kootenay R.D.Cranbrook $100,540 $151,656 $252,196Fernie 26,309 28,229 54,538Kimberley 43,056 24,850 67,906Sparwood 182,595 71,468 254,063Radium Hot Springs 9,046 2,029- 11,075Elkford 27,797 73,803- 101,600Invermere 13,154 15,012 28,166School Dist. 01 674,169 53,534- 727,703School Dist. 02 1,050,755 42,555- 1,093,310School Dist. 03 117,645 21,333 138,978School Dist. 04 377,277 1,354 378,631East Kootenay R.D.- 8,781 $692,582 701,363Sub-total $2,622,343 $494,604 $692,582 $3,809,529‘ Kootenay Boundary R.D.School Dist. 11 $394,574 $22,529- $417,103School Dist. 12 211,318 187- 211,505School Dist. 13 228,382-.- 228,382Kootenay Boundary R.D.- 312,930 $17,607,150 17,920,080Sub-total $834,274 $335,646 $17,607,150 $18,777,070Columbia Shuswap R.D.Revelstoke $121,584 $1,003,217- $1,124,801Salmon Arm 174,514 85758- 260,272Golden 39,031 47,588- 86,619School Dist. 18 91,667 15,233- 106,900School 01st. 19 1,165,751 25,301- 1,191,052School Dist 89 2,701,311 136,471 2,837,782Columbia Shuswap R.D.- 597,345 $98,481,807 99,079,152Sub-total— $4,293,858 $1,910,913 $98,481,807 $104,686,578GRAND TOTAL $136,999,957Source: B.C. Hydro111in 1991. This statute stipulates that B.C. Hydro is required to make annual grants-in-lieu ofproperty taxes in addition to those paid previously in compensation for the use of land for dams,reservoirs, power houses and the Burrard Thermal Generating Plant. The rates relevant toindividual municipalities and regional districts are specified.“Taxation” policies for B.C. Hydro have been created to ensure that provincial rate payersreceive affordable electricity consistently throughout the province. If municipally determinedtax rates were applied to B.C. Hydro, as is the case for private utilities, B.C. Hydro would beforced to pay a higher proportion of the municipal tax base. This policy would enablemunicipalities and regional districts in the Columbia River Basin to reduce the present tax ratesapplied to other tax payers within their municipality or district, and would require provincial taxpayers and/or B.C. Hydro rate payers to increase their portion of the payment for hydroelectricfacilities. Various representatives of communities in the Kootenays insist that taxation of B.C.Hydro could be applied in a manner that would be more fair to those who reside within theregion that produces up to 50% of the province’s electricity capacity and, similarly, haveexpressed interest in receiving some portion of future downstream benefits.3.53 MonitoringB.C. Hydro has conducted numerous monitoring studies related to the environmental aspects ofits operations in the Columbia River Basin. Most of its monitoring efforts have focused onelements of aquatic systems, due to the direct impact of dams on this ecosystem. Aquaticstudies have focused on monitoring changes to fish populations, aquatic productivity and nutrientbalances in reservoirs; testing for total dissolved gases from operations at the Keenleyside Dam;112and defining operational impacts of hydrological changes in rivers and reservoirs on organismsdependent on natural flows. Researchers are also studying means to prevent fish from passingthrough turbines at older power plants (B.C. Hydro 1992d).Mercury concentrations have been measured and will continue to be monitored in ColumbiaRiver Basin reservoirs. The analysis of samples of water collected between 1981 and 1985, andzooplankton during 1985 and 1986 showed no indication of the presence of mercury. However,mercury was consistently detected in fish muscle tissue in the five Columbia River Basinreservoirs sampled. A 1985 study revealed that out of a total sample of 35 fish, two char fromWhatshan Lake, one of the oldest Columbia reservoirs, had mercury concentrations exceeding0.5 ug/g, the recommended level for commercial harvest. Mercury in char sampled from theReveistoke reservoir were all below the 0.5 ug/g, although 20% exceeded 0.2 ug/g, the currentmedically significant limit (Smith 1987).The role of carbon releases from Columbia River Basin reservoirs is being monitored as part ofthe “B.C. Carbon Project”, a provincial examination of the carbon cycle balance. B.C. Hydroreservoirs cover approximately one percent of the total area of the province, and may representimportant sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. The B.C. Hydro carbon study focuses on thecarbon balance of its reservoirs, and will be used in conjunction with similar studies to examinethe carbon balance of British Columbia, and its implications for global warming (Schelihase1993).B.C. Hydro is participating in research conducted by the Columbia River IntegratedEnvironmental Monitoring Program (CRIEMP). This program was initiated in 1991 in an effort113to coordinate various aquatic monitoring programs established by industrial and governmentorganizations. The CRIEMP Committee hopes that coordination of data collection may providea greater understanding of the impacts of dam operations and other industrial activities on theColumbia River Basin, and has prepared design, data, and reconnaissance reports. Datainterpretation is in progress, and may require lengthy analysis due to the difficulty of studyingan aquatic system with fluctuating flows and problems related to the attribution of impacts to aparticular industrial activity (Beattie-Spence 1993).3.54 New Supply OptionsWhile previously dependent on strategies for increasing electrical energy supply, B.C. Hydronow favours demand management alternatives while options for additional supply are beinginvestigated (B.C. Hydro 1993i). Programs such as Power Smart and Resource Smart haveproven that substantial energy savings can be gained through conservation and improved energyefficiency. Power Smart has continually surpassed expectations regarding its potential since itsinception (Marsh 1992) and is being promoted as an effective means of minimizingenvironmental impacts.B.C. Hydro’s Corporate Business Plan (1991 a) outlines its preferred sources of electricitysupply. It ranks its options in the following order:1141. Power Smart2. Coordination and Purchases3. Resource Smart4. Private sector generation5. New hydro generation in developed basins6. New hydro generation in undeveloped basinsThis list of priorities clearly shows a shift in emphasis on energy sources. New powergeneration projects, the traditional approach to electrical supply needs, are currently consideredto be expensive and detrimental to the environment.Future hydroelectric planning for the Columbia River Basin involves seven Resource Smartinitiatives at existing hydro facilities, and two proposals for new generating plants. Energyefficiency improvements are in progress on Kootenay Canal turbines, and the diversion of BarnesCreek to provide additional water to the Whatshan Plant is being studied. Hydroelectric plansfor what is known as the Lower Columbia Development involve the addition of generators atfive existing dams: Seven Mile, Waneta, Brilliant, Keenleyside and Duncan; and the installationof new facilities at Murphy and Border, downstream of Keenleyside on the Columbia River.The two new projects have not been included in the current 20 year plan, but are considered asfuture options (B.C. Hydro 1992c).The repatriation of downstream benefits from Columbia River Treaty power generation couldresult in an additional supply of power to British Columbia in 1998. However, delivery of theCanadian Entitlement would require the construction of new transmission lines on both sides of115the border. In addition to evaluating downstream benefits, the province is considering two otheralternatives: negotiation of U.S. payment for the construction of power generation facilities inBritish Columbia that would provide an equivalent amount of energy, or the reselling of someor all of the Entitlement (B.C. Hydro 1993e).3.55 New Policy InitiativesPast experience with hydroelectric developments has led B.C. Hydro to establish newenvironmental policy initiatives. B.C. Hydro’s recent efforts represent its greatest emphasis onenvironmental concerns in its thirty years of existence. The following is a summary of theprincipal components of its current environmental policy, with particular emphasis on aspectsaffecting the Columbia River Basin.B.C. Hydro has adopted a new strategic initiative, “to develop and maintain a leadership rolein environmental stewardship”, in its Corporate Strategic Plan (1993). Specific actions to beaddressed include: development of regional environmental initiatives to address the impacts ofpower production, identification of operations impacts, sharing of environmental expertise, andcommunication with the public. The six-member Environmental Committee of the Board ofDirectors assists B.C. Hydro in fulfilling its environmental leadership role (B.C. Hydro 1993j).The adoption of regular reporting on environmental aspects of its operations will provide ameans for B.C. Hydro to monitor its progress in meeting environmental objectives. B.C. Hydropublished its second annual “Report on the Environment” in 1993 and is conductingenvironmental audits of various aspects of its operations.116B.C. Hydro has recognized the impacts of its hydroelectric operations on fish and wildlife, andin addition to ongoing research and mitigation at specific dam or transmission sites, establishedthe Peace and Mica major compensation programs to address the impacts of dam operations onthe land and water resources of the Peace and Columbia basins. These compensation programsconsist of fish and wildlife studies and enhancement initiatives, and will be used as models forsimilar programs in other watersheds. Efforts are being made to involve local communities inthe planning and implementation of program activities (B.C. Hydro 1993j).Issues related to hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin have taken on a higherprofile at B.C. Hydro during recent years. B.C. Hydro has made a corporate commitment toaddress the concerns of those living in this region in one of its strategic initiatives. Thecorporation seeks to invest in increased recreational and economic development opportunities forcommunities in the Columbia River Basin, using models developed in the Peace River Basin(B.C. Hydro 1993i, 4).In keeping with its efforts to address dam-related issues in the Columbia River basin, B.C.Hydro has undertaken a number of initiatives to include Kootenays residents in basin-wideplanning (Geissler 1994). In recognition of the need for clarification of Columbia River Treatydetails, and in response to concerns arising from unresolved hydro development issues, twentyfive public meetings were held within the region in 1989. Due to the high level of interestshown at these meetings, B.C. Hydro’s Board of Directors established The Columbia RiverAdvisory Committee (CRAC), consisting of a group of representatives from seven communitieswith a Board member as chairperson, to provide recommendations on the provincial utility’soperations in the region.117CRAC has been effective in providing communities with information related to the ColumbiaRiver Treaty, and in serving as a forum for the discussion of unresolved hydro developmentissues. Major issues have been resolved, such as the removal of B.C. Hydro’s registeredinterest on the Columbia Marshes flood reserve between Canal Flats and Golden, inacknowledgement of the utility’s decision not to proceed with proposals for the diversion of theKootenay River in the near future. Decision-making structures have been established toundertake specific initiatives, such as the formation of a committee to address dust controlproblems at Reveistolce.Although CRAC has provided a forum to address ongoing hydro development issues, variousother initiatives have arisen from its work, and this group is no longer active (Geissler 1994).B.C. Hydro initiated the Columbia River Basin Operating Program to enable a management teamwithin the utility to address a wide range of operational issues. Involvement of Kootenaysrepresentatives has been further strengthened through the appointment of three residents of thisregion to B.C. Hydro’s Board of Directors.Further efforts to involve the Kootenays in hydroelectric planning consist of a new ColumbiaBasin office and public consultation concerning the Electrical System Operating Review (ESOR).The establishment of a B.C. Hydro regional office in Castlegar in April 1993 indicates theutility’s commitment to the ongoing management of hydro development issues as well as toincreasing employment and economic development opportunities in the Columbia Basin region(B.C. Hydro 1993g). Participation by residents in the ESOR, B.C. Hydro’s province-widereview of its hydroelectric system, should assist in the optimization of other goals besides powergeneration and flood control. Working groups with representation from different sectors have118been established by seven communities to work with B.C. Hydro officials in the evaluation oftradeoffs between power and other uses of water such as economic development, recreation, andfish habitat (Geissler 1994).The initiation of the Columbia Kootenay Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program in 1993represents B.C. Hydro’s most comprehensive compensation effort. Programs established underthe Columbia Kootenay Fish and Wildlife fund will be administered by joint management andtechnical committees of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and B.C. Hydro, withinvolvement from local communities. The Mica compensation program will continue to operatefor another year, and will then be incorporated into the comprehensive program for theColumbia basin (B.C. Hydro 1993g).3.6 Columbia River Treaty CommitteeThe Columbia River Treaty Committee (CRTC) was formed in 1991 to address the impacts ofhydro development in the Columbia River Basin. Representatives of the Association ofKootenay Boundary Municipalities established this regional committee as a result of their beliefthat communities in the Kootenays have not received fair treatment for their role in hydro projectoperation. The Committee seeks a more equitable arrangement through establishing an equalpartnership with provincial decision-makers. Some of its main objectives are: to restore theintegrity of the environment and native heritage sites, to generate more local benefits from hydrooperations through partial ownership or taxes, and to have the same development potential asother regions through compensation for economic losses (Smienk 1992).119During the summer of 1992, the CRTC held a workshop with community representatives fromthe five regional districts operating in the Kootenays (Figure 10) and the KtunaxalKinbasketTribal Council to discuss their mutual interest in the consequences of hydro dam operations inthe region. Table 5 contains a summary of the impacts identified at the workshop.Representatives of communities throughout the Kootenays agreed that the Columbia River Treatyhad caused “substantial economic devastation” in many parts of the region (Fairbairn and Kumar1992).At a subsequent meeting of the Association of Kootenay Boundary Municipalities in September,the establishment of the CRTC was endorsed and the structure of the Regional SteeringCommittee was decided upon. The Regional Steering Committee now consists of tworepresentatives (mostly mayors and councillors) from each of five regional districts, as well astwo representatives from the KtunaxalKinbasket Tribal Council. The primary mode of decisionmalcing is based on reaching a consensus.Each of the five regional districts and the KtunaxalKinbasket Tribal Council have contributed$10,000 toward funding for the CRTC. This cooperative affiliation provides regional supportfor mutual interests in local resource management issues (Smienk 1993). The Ktunaxa Nationis pursuing many similar issues through its land claim, presented to the Canadian governmentin 1981 (KtunaxalKinbasket Tribal Council 1992).While residents of the Kootenays are aware of many of the impacts of hydro development in thisregion, the CRTC has stimulated interest in Columbia Basin hydro development through twomain events: the recent occurrence of extremely low water levels in Columbia and Kootenay(I,‘.0‘0 C’:N-,_çl1SNI//z/IL L/I./K/i—_1/0//‘1 -Im I—,.2•) IfrC:*.I1 p CD 0 Cl) ‘-4. C) 0 C 1 CD Cl) C121Table 5. SUMMARY OF TREATY IMPACT BY REGIONMUNIC1ALITY/ARA SUMMARY OF ECONOMiC IMPACTSVALEMOUNT 19,000 acres of forestry, tributary creek dried up, water- shortageP4AKUSP Fluctuating lake vels, property eroston, fisheries, affectstourism, debris problemAREA E Libby Dam stripping nutrients, sterile Kootenay lake, fishing.- species-- especially troutCASTLEGAR fluctuating lake level as much as 70 feet, export of resources,high discharge of oxygen, high flows, eroding andCITY OF REVELSTOKE Forestry, 800,000 cubic meters, approximately $52 million peryear loss; tourism value lost, maintain minimum lake levels atleast in summer, some economic funds for the Region, 97% ofwater to southGOLDEN Loss of transporation, loss of forest, wildlife, popular huntinglost— 1 1 fishing lakes, lake level low, serious economic effectsCOLUMBIAJSHUSWAP Province reneged on its economic role for the Region, no orlittle consulation processPRASR FORT GEORGE Loss of timber, recreation, fishing, draw of the timber affecting- VALEMOUNT McBride up stream, loss of hot springs— Williston LakeTRAIL Whole Region receiving benefit from flood control, negativeimpact on fishing, tourism, transfer of benefits from one Regionto another, e.g. recreation to Champion Lake vs. Syringa Creek-- loss of water supply to Trail— new water treatment plant at acost of $8 million required for TrailR.D.C.K. Same impacts as outline in other areasR.D,E.K. Libby Reservoir, lost land, agriculture, mining, tourism,hardship, some recognition to the effect of climate to lake levelsOSSLAND Adverse impact on touristm. adverse impact on someinfrastructure, economic loss to this RegionTRIBAL COUNCIL 16 major dams, native fisheries, economic loss, archaeology- NAKUSP sites exposed, people movedSource: Fairbairn and Kumar (1992), p. 16122River reservoirs during the summers of 1992 and 1993; and the 1997 return of downstreambenefits. These two “events” have focused attention on the Columbia River Treaty and itsimplications for present and future residents of the Kootenays.3.61 Low Reservoir LevelsDuring the summers of 1992 and 1993, water levels in Columbia River Basin reservoirs wereparticularly low and did not refill to their normal full levels (Figure 11). Low water levels haveresulted from two consecutive years of light winter snowfalls with corresponding small releasesof moisture from snowpacks at the source of the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers, combined withdeep drafts of water for power generation (particularly due to the colder winter of 1992/93),Columbia Treaty obligations, and recent American efforts to assist juvenile salmon migrationand white sturgeon spawning through increased spring water releases (B.C. Hydro 1993b).B.C. Hydro (1992b) recorded the following water levels on Columbia River Basin reservoirsduring July/August of 1992:Mica: 2452 ft. (747 m) - 23 ft. (7 m) below fullArrow: 1415 ft. (431 m) - 29 ft. (9 m) below fullDuncan: 1856 ft. (566 m)- 36 ft. (11 m) below fullLibby: 2440 ft. (744 m) - 19 ft. (6 m) below fullThe 1992 low level registered at Duncan was the lowest in its twenty-five years of operation.Although reservoir levels at Mica, Arrow and Libby were also low during this period, even242420—24002380-J L.23800 > C 0 0 0Figure11.ColumbiaRiverBasinReservoirLevelsigoo18901880‘I18701880J1q80C.1840> C.183001820Ct1810180017904., 0 > 0-J C..1 0 > C. I, 6 6 IIArrowReservoirLevelsSummaryfor1968—934.1 6- C C -j C. •2 0 C C C C CtDuncanReservoirLevelsSummaryfor1968—93———EEi—\:JEo13*9——19921092—0809mum1968—92916fl1968—02—MInimum1068—02LibbyReservoirLevelsSummaryfor1974—93Source:AdaptedfromB.C.Hydro013*9010*0QIMaY01301..01900OINOV013*9——1902—1993—M8,Imcgm1968—92218(11958—02—MinImum1068—92MicaReservoirLevelsSummaryfor1976—93:____E.34V———.---———-—2320—————————2300———————22R0L -=2480246024402420240023802360234023200i*N01(4*6019*6OI3ULOtSEP0190”013*9—19921093—60(1160(42974-92olIn1974—02—I.llnImuln1974—02013*9010*80124*601301..O1SEPOINOV013*6——10021993—M.016U61976—0208216fl1976—92MinImum1976—92Figure11.ColumbiaRiverBasinReservoirLevelsArrowReservoirLevelsSummaryfor1968—93DuncanReservorLevelsSummaryfor1968—93.---—I—-—JZETH/!‘‘\L2_Z?QIIlLOlJAt,019*9016*001J1Jt.QISEPOINOVO1J*N—19921993—60*10*61968-92----MedIan1988—92—HinH1968-92*1 0 > S J 0 > C S S 0Source:AdaptedfromB.C.Hydro41 > J C 0 > C eMicaReservoirLevelsSummaryfor1976—934J ‘I 0 > 0 -J C 0 > C- 0 01 01900189016801870ac:o1040ICCO18101800014*9019*90111*?OIJIJLOISEPOINQV014*9——19921993—9001,num1988—92001801988—9291618*6198092014*00,999010*1oiJuL.01626010000,409—9921993—Maloom1974-92-9e*iñ’l9?4-S2-0101.6*01974—92014*001966019*00142L0186001900014*9—19921993—MaxImum1978—92MedIan1978—92—9101.6*01976—92124lower levels have been recorded at other times during the history of their operation (B.C. Hydro1992b).Low water levels in Kinbasket, Koocanusa, Arrow and Duncan reservoirs during the summersof 1992 and 1993 have caused a variety of problems for residents of the Kootenays. Low waterlevels have affected fish by restricting access to certain tributaries, inhibiting spawning,increasing fishing pressure by concentrating fish in smaller areas, and increasing the likelihoodof fish passing through hydroelectric turbines. Low levels affect farming as fences may needto be extended to control livestock. Exposed mud flats have caused dust storms and areperceived as an eyesore. Boat ramps were not constructed for such low levels and have reducedaccess to water for recreation, fishing, tourism and logging operations. Aboriginal burial sitesalong the Koocanusa Reservoir have been uncovered by water level fluctuations, and artifactshave been removed (B.C. Hydro 1993b, Phillips et al. 1992, Bennett 1993).During the summer of 1992, the Arrow Lakes were particularly affected by low reservoir levels(Figure 11). Low levels normally experienced earlier in the spring were delayed until thesummer as a result of a B.C. Hydro agreement to store additional water in the Arrow Reservoirfor release in May and June, to assist fish migration in the United States (B.C. Hydro 1992b).Low water levels disrupted boating, swimming and fishing in the reservoir, and exposed bankscaused dust storms and reduced the scenic nature of the area (Figure 12). Communities alongthe Arrow Reservoir believe that these impacts are particularly significant to their economicdevelopment, as many are trying to reduce their dependency on forestry by promoting tourismas a means of economic diversity (Johnson 1992, Hamling 1992).Figure12.WharfextensionatNakuspduringlowlevelsontheArrowReservoir(August1992)ii-‘;.cM126B.C. Hydro has taken several initiatives to address some of the low water level problemsexperienced during the past two summers through revisions to its operating plans. It hasreduced exports of non-firm (non-guaranteed) energy, increased energy production at BurrardThermal Plant, bought energy from other utilities, and transferred storage requirements from onereservoir to another in an effort to maintain adequate levels of water for the various users of itsreservoirs. Reservoir levels have been adjusted to assist fish spawning downstream of Arrow,and recreational users. Fencing has been made available to farmers, and boat ramps have beenextended (B.C. Hydro 1993b).Although Arrow Reservoir levels improved during the summer of 1993, as a result of a U.S.agreement to not use water stored in the Arrow Reservoir for its fish migration program, lowlevels were experienced in other reservoirs during this period. Low water levels in theKoocanusa Reservoir have disrupted fisheries, recreation and tourism for communities livingupstream from the Libby Dam (Cutts 1993, Parker 1993, B.C. Hydro 1993b). Low levels inthe Kinbasket Reservoir delayed logging operations and required an extension of the boat rampat Valemount to enable recreational use of the reservoir (Bennett 1993, B.C. Hydro 1993b).3.62 Downstream BenefitsThe negotiation of downstream benefits for the second thirty-year period of the Columbia RiverTreaty has also sparked interest in hydro development issues in the Kootenays. In recognitionof Canada’s role in regulating the Columbia River for the purposes of power generation, it wasawarded one half of all of the power generated downstream at the Grand Coulee Dam. SinceCanada did not foresee a need for this power due to its abundance of untapped water resources127in British Columbia, it was decided that its downstream benefits would be sold for a period ofthirty years. Current negotiations will result in a 1997 announcement of British Columbia’s newagreement regarding either the return of power generated downstream to a point near Oliver,B.C. (the default scenario) or a renegotiated settlement for payment, as agreed during the firstthirty years (B.C. Hydro 1993c).In interviews with residents of the Kootenays, many insisted that some portion of thedownstream benefits should be given to those living with the consequences of hydrodevelopment. Communities in the Columbia River Basin believe that they were not treated fairlyduring Columbia River Treaty negotiations and consider the 1997 negotiations regardingdownstream benefits as an opportunity to assert their concerns with past, present and futureimplications of dam operations. The distribution of some portion of downstream benefits tocommunities in the Kootenays would recognize their role in the regulation of water resources,assist the financing required to manage the effects of hydro development, and compensate forlosses related to foregone opportunities for community development.3.63 The Columbia-Kootenay SymposiumIn late May and early June of 1993, the CRTC organized meetings in seven communities in theColumbia River Basin to provide a public forum for the discussion of Columbia River Treatyissues. The purpose of these meetings was to share information from local residents, provincialgovernment and B.C. Hydro representatives related to cooperative processes for past, presentand future hydro development concerns and future development possibilities. Meetings wereheld in Valemount, Kaslo, Revelstoke, Golden, Nakusp, Castlegar and Cranbrook.128Representatives from communities throughout the Kootenays were invited or nominated to attendthe regional “Columbia-Kootenay Symposium” in Castlegar, June 18-20. Approximately 30provincial government representatives (including the Ministers of Energy, Mines and PetroleumResources; Economic Development, Small Business and Trade; and Labour and ConsumerServices) and six BC Hydro officials were invited to participate, make presentations and assistwith information clarification; however, the majority (approximately one hundred) of participantsrepresented community interests within the region.The first half of the symposium focused on the identification of past problems related to hydrodams in the region. Presentations and small group sessions enabled Kootenay residents toexpress their opinions to provincial decision-makers and share information with those who havesimilar concerns from other parts of the region. The latter half of the symposium addressedfuture development ideas. Participants discussed priority issues for community development andattempted to develop creative solutions to address hydro-related problems.The following themes were identified in a summary report of the Columbia-KootenaySymposium (Salasan Associates 1993):1. People of the Columbia-Kootenay Basin are closely linked to its land, lakes and rivers;2. There is a need to redress the impacts of past hydro development;3. Residents of the Kootenays seek empowerment to make decisions regarding the future oftheir region;4. Empowerment requires access to useful information;5. The region should receive some share of downstream benefits;1296. In addition to applying downstream benefits to mitigation and economic developmentwithin the Columbia-Kootenay Basin, some portion should be directed toward regionalwater management and the development of alternative energy sources for the province;7. Local people should participate in reservoir management decisions;8. The duration of energy, storage and water commitments to the United States should belimited to allow flexibility to respond to changing needs and economic conditions;9. A local authority should manage funds for economic development within the region;10. Future development should “meet the test of sustainability” through a process of “fullcost accounting” that considers economic, social and environmental interests;11. Development initiatives should be community-based but coordinated regionally to achievemaximum benefit; and12. The provincial government, First Nations and local governments should respond to ideaspresented in the Symposium in a timely manner.The establishment of the CRTC was strongly endorsed throughout the symposium, and the threeprovincial ministers in attendance committed themselves to developing a cooperative partnershipwith this organization in future decisions involving the river systems of the Kootenays. Twosmall group sessions developed resolutions expressing their support for the formation of aColumbia River Basin management board or authority, emphasizing the need for a multistakeholder group that would participate in regional resource use decisions.1303.7 Evaluation of Implications of Hydro Development on the Columbia River BasinResidents of the Kootenays have lived with the effects of hydro development and are well awareof its implications for their communities. Hydro development has replaced the natural cyclesof rivers, lakes and wetlands with a series of reservoirs with unseasonal water level fluctuations.The regulation of the Columbia River system for power generation and flood control has resultedin changes to the integrity of the regional resource base, land use modification, and has affectedthe ability of local communities to make resource use decisions.B.C. Hydro has acknowledged the disruption that its dams have caused to the lives of thosedwelling within the Columbia River Basin, and is making efforts to compensate and mitigate forpast and ongoing impacts. New hydroelectric planning policies endeavour to undertake a morecomprehensive approach to mitigating and compensating the impacts of hydro development, andincluding local communities in resource base decision-making.The information collected during the case study indicates that many of the direct consequencesof the operation of large dams in the Kootenays are commonly understood, although furtherresearch is necessary to monitor ongoing impacts. Fisheries impacts have been particularly welldocumented. Wildlife impacts have not received the same level of attention. Although localresidents are aware of the links between resource and land use changes, and their significancefor future community development, there has not been much documentation of theirinterdependence.Residents of the Kootenays are familiar with the general nature of the Columbia River Treaty;131however, misunderstandings concerning operating details have generated confusion andfrustration. Information related to the Columbia River Treaty and the preparation of operatingplans has been largely controlled by B.C. Hydro and the provincial government (Swainson1986). Communities near dam sites believe that their interests have not been consideredadequately in hydroelectric planning, and seek greater control over the use of their resourcebase.The formation of the CRTC, and the organization of the Columbia-Kootenay Symposium haveempowered the region to assert its rights to the stewardship of resources within the ColumbiaRiver Basin. This regional initiative has stimulated a cooperative effort to address resource useissues and may assist communities, B.C. Hydro and the provincial government in theexamination of the implications of hydro development impacts on the long-term sustainabilityof resources and the communities that depend upon them.In an effort to clarify some of the most significant impacts of the operation of hydro dams in theColumbia River Basin, two tables were prepared summarizing many of the issues identifiedduring the community meetings preceding the Columbia-Kootenay Symposium (Tables 6 and 7).The concerns addressed during these meetings and at the regional forum encompass most of theimpacts and community development issues raised by the various sources consulted throughoutmy research.Table 6 is a compilation of the negative impacts of hydro development, perceived throughoutthe region. The positive impacts experienced are summarized in Table 7. The impactsidentified by community members are organized according to the three main stages of hydroTableGa-NEGATIVEIMPACTSOFCOLUMBIARIVERBASINDAMS.ASIDENTIFIEDBYRESIDENTSOFTHEKOOTENAYSHydroDevelopmentStage:DamConstructionHydraDevelopmentEcologicalImpactsSocialImpactsEconomicImpactsPolicyOptionsActivityCausingLandUseChangeconstructionchangestocorusJnityboom-busteconomycomlunityparticipationactivitiesstructureandduringprojectplanninginfrastructurethoroughevaluationofalternativessmallprojectscoimnunityinvestmentfundsalternativetechnologiescogenerationenergyconservationlowpowerratesforhostconinunitiesappropriatecompensationforrelocationimprovementofLocaleducationsystemsdevelopmentoflocalresearch_centresblockageoflossofnutrientsforfishlossoffoodsourcenutrientlossstrategiesnutrientsbehinddamlossoffishing,recreation-Plossofincomeandtaxesandtourismfromfishing,recreationand_tourismtransmissionlineshazardtowildlifehazardtohumanhealthundergroundpowerlinesspreadofweedseyesoreNote:Tables6a,6b,ócand7werecompiledfromcoimnentsincludedin“ColtinbiaRiverTreatyCoonnitteeLocalComnunityMeetingNotes”.Comentshavebeencategorizedasindicatedtoassisttheinterpretationofrelationshipsbetweendam-relatedactivitiesandecological,socialandeconomicimpactstocomnunitiesintheKootenays.Linksbetweendamactivitiesandimpactsareindicatedbyreadingacrossthetable.Linksbetweenimpactsareindicatedwitharrows.Table6b-NEGATIVEIMPACTSOFCOLUMBIARIVERBASINDAMS,ASIDENTIFIEDBYRESIDENTSOFTHEKOOTENAYSHydroDevelopmentStage:FloodingHydroDevelopmentEcologicalImpactsSocialImpactsEconomicImpactsPolicyOptionsActivityCausingLandUseChangetossoflandbasedepletionofnaturallossofsoveref9ntytossofcoeam.1nity•tedeconomicincreaselandavailabilityresourcebaseanddevelopmentforcoema.inityprojectsreductionofbiodiversitylossoflandforconmunityexpansionduetolossofsoil,forests,andrichlossofheritageriparianzonesinflat,lowareasalongriver-)lossofforestry,mining,-reducedeconomicdiversityduetoresearchinpactsvalleysagriculture,recreation,andtourismlossofincomeendtaxesfromforestry,mining,agriculture,corpensationrecreation,andtourismdevelop_holistic_forestryinadequatecoirpensation‘)encouragetourism)conflictsoverremaininglandbase-->lossofhomesandcofinnunitiessenseof_injusticetruama—induced_health_problemslossoftransportlinks,lossofeconomicdevelopmentinproveroadsystemandopportunitiesairportlossofinfrastructure(powerand—increasedreplacementcostforinproveinfrastructuretelephone)infrastructurelossofwaterfowLend-)tossoffoodsourceandlossof)lossofincomeendtaxesfromcoemunitymanagementofwildlifehabitatandhuntinghuntingfishandwildlifeincreasedpressureonremainingtendbaseincreasewildlifehabitatresearchinpactsconpensationlargerwaterbodyclimatechangemorewindreducedloggingseasondueto)increasedforestrycostsandlossfreezingofreservoirofincomeandtaxfromforestryriverinefishhabitat-lossofsportsfishery—>1055ofincomeandtaxesfromfishenhancementreplacedbylacustrinefishing,recceatlonandtourismhabitatinconpietewaterqualitydegradation-)lossoffishing,recreationend—)lossofincomeendtaxesfromremovestuipsclearingoftreestourismasdebrisiseneyesoreendafishing,recieationendtourismbeforefloodinghazardTable6c-NEGATIVEIMPACTSOFCOLUMBIARIVERBASINDAMS,ASIDENTIFIEDBYRESIDENTSOFTHEKOOTENAYSHydroDevelopmentStage:DamOperationHydroDevelopmentEcologicalImpactsSocialImpactsEconomicImpactsPolicyOptionsActivityCausingLandUseChangefluctuatingwaterunseasonal>changeinreLationshipwithlocalparticipationindecisionslevelsinvariationinwaterLandreservoirsflowregimeusedownstreambenefitstoimplementcosimini tymanagementforegofinancialbenefitstoensureappropriatewaterLevelsdamoperationagreementsshouLdbeshort-terminstallturbinesatKeenleysideDamtostabilizewaterlevelsLossoffish>Lossoffoodsourcearidlossof->increasedfisheriesmanagementcoeniunitymanagementoffishandwildlifehabitat,variabLefishing,recreationandtourismcostsandLossofincomeandaccesstofishtaxesfromfishing,recreationresearchonfishenhancementhabitat,endendtourismchangingfish.habitatconditionsincreasedfundingforfishandwildlifemanagementloggingdi.1çsitemaintenance—‘increasedforestrycOstsendestablishminins,nwaterlevelsandboatlaunchingaccesslossofincomeandtaxesfromproblemsfishing,recreationandimproveaccesstowatertourismitrcrovenon-reservoir-basedrecreationwaterintakesunusable-increasedwatersupplycostsjirprovecoirinunityinfrastructureflooding->increasedmaintenancecostserosionexposureofaboriginalheritagebankstabilizationsitespropertylosslossofpropertyvalueduststormsnuisancereducedwaterhealthimpactsofconcentratedindustrialwastemanagementflowspulpnilleffluentBC.HydrotaxlossoftaxesB.C.HydrocouldpaymunicipaLtaxesexemptionsimilartootherindustriesTable7-POSITIVEIMPACTSOFCOLUMBIARIVERBASINDAMS,ASIDENTIFIEDBYRESIDENTSOFTHEKOOTENAYSHydroDevelopmentHydroDevelopmentEcologicalImpactsSocialImpactsEconomicImpactsStagesActivityCausingLandUseChangeDamConstructiondamandroadroadinçrovementstransportationbenefitsconstructi onshort-termjobscoapensationsomefinancial,gaintopropertyownersthrough_coopensationFloodingLargerwaterbodyclimatechange—moremoderateclimatemoretakeviewlotsincreasedwatertransportmarginal.recreation(dependsonwaterlevel s)DamOperationfloodcontrolpropertysecurityeconomicbenefitspowergenerationpowerbenefitsforB.C.andU.S.;some—long-termemploymentandeconomicpowerbenefitsinKootenaysdevelopmentinB.C.;someLong-termemploylnentandeconomicdevelopmentinKootenaysregulationofwaterreducedturbidity—)improvednavigation-Hishing,recreationandtourismflowbenefitsvisitorcentre*tourismbenefitscompensation*parksandmarinaimprovements-fishing,recreationandtourismbenefitsNote:*Althoughthevisitorcentreandcompensationprogramshaveactuallyresultedfrompolicyinitiativesratherthanlandusechange,theyhavebeeninc’udedastheirimpactshavebeennotedbyKootenayresidents.136development (construction, flooding and ongoing operations) that have influenced land andresource use changes within the Columbia River Basin. Issues have been categorized asecological (affecting the relationships between living organisms and their surroundings), social(affecting the relationships between people) or economic (affecting the relationships involved inthe production, distribution and consumption of resources) impacts, and suggestions forcompensation, mitigation or community development have been considered as developmentpolicy options.3.71 Evaluation of the Negative Impacts of Hydro DevelopmentWhen read horizontally, Table 6 indicates the impacts of various stages of hydro development.Many of the specific activities associated with these stages have resulted in land use changes thathave caused ecological, social and economic impacts. The activities identified in the firstcolumn of Table 6 do not represent a complete list of activities, but highlight those most directlyconnected to impacts of importance to Kootenay residents. Although empty spaces imply anabsence of impacts, this may not always be the case, as this table was prepared based onperceptions expressed during community meetings. The table may not be a completecompilation of impacts; however, it summarizes the principal issues discussed throughout thisexamination of hydro development in the Kootenays.Communities are well aware of the relationships between ecological, social and economicimpacts of hydro project activities. For example, it is fairly widely understood that the blockageof nutrients behind dams has reduced the nutrient supply available to fish, causing decreasedfishing, recreation and tourism opportunities, resulting in a loss of income from fishing,137recreation and tourism. These linkages have been noted with arrows on Table 6. Impacts ofdam development were expressed independent of related consequences (without arrows) whenlinkages were less certain.When read vertically, Table 6 shows the overall adverse changes that have occurred toecological, social and economic systems. These cumulative impacts provide useful informationregarding implications for sustainability of these three systems. In general, they can besummarized as follows.According to the perceptions of Kootenay residents, ecological impacts can be described interms of their effects on ecological productivity. In general, fish nutrients and habitat havedeclined, and variable unseasonal aquatic conditions make it difficult for fish populations tomaintain their previous levels of productivity. The flooding of wildlife habitat has reduced thecapability of river valleys to support wildlife populations. The flooding of forest land hasreduced the regional forest base and may have affected biodiversity.The social impacts described by Kootenays residents represent a general feeling that regional“livability” has changed. The sense of happiness or satisfaction derived from living in aparticular place or region has been disturbed. Residents have stated that they have experiencedinjustice through various stages of hydro development and are frustrated with their lack ofinclusion in decision-making. The installation of hydroelectric facilities on productive land andwater in valley bottoms has led to various resource use conflicts. Fluctuating reservoir levelsand exposed stumps and shorelines are a nuisance and pose hazards for people and wildlife.Residents of the Kootenays are closely linked to the land and resent the loss of fishing,138recreation and tourism resulting from ongoing dam operations, and are unhappy with changesto the aesthetic appeal of their scenic landscape.The economic impacts described by Kootenay residents can be summarized as affectingopportunities for economic development. The reduction in size, quality and access to forest,fish, wildlife and water resources as a result of past and ongoing hydro operations is believedto have caused reduced employment and a smaller tax base for communities dependent onresource-based and related industries. Forestry operators have borne increased costs to continuetheir logging businesses. Some municipalities have had to replace infrastructure affected byhydro development, or are faced with continued maintenance costs for infrastructure expandedfor the short-term use of hydro project workers. Lost aboriginal and other heritage sites mayjeopardize land claims and future economic development based on heritage information.Overall, residents believe that the region’s resource base has been diminished, resulting in feweropportunities for future economic development.Future compensation, mitigation and development possibilities, as identified by communityresidents, have been listed under “Policy Options.” Some suggestions address changes toencourage community participation in resource management and new development initiatives,while others identify specific areas for compensation or mitigation efforts. Many of these ideasemphasize enhancement of the resource base and related improvements in communityinfrastructure or access to decision-making.In examining the potential of policy options to address the impacts of hydro development, it ishelpful to consider the impacts in terms of the three stages outlined in Table 6. Many of the139impacts of dam construction have already occurred and are to a large extent irreversible, unlessthe actual dam structure was removed, as considered for a dam that has blocked fish runs on theElwha River in Washington (Egan 1993). Although compensation and mitigation programs mayoffset some of the adverse impacts experienced, many of the policy options suggested arerecommendations for future hydro project planning, and represent efforts to avoid the repetitionof similar problems when meeting energy needs in the future.Opportunities to address the impacts of flooding the valley bottoms of the Kootenay andColumbia Rivers are limited similarly to those resulting from dam construction. Essentially, themajority of land which was flooded several decades ago will remain under water, and theresidents of the region must face the consequences of this change to the land base, althoughcertain infrastructure improvements may mitigate some of the residual impacts.Impacts arising from dam operation represent a different set of problems which have a greaterability to be addressed due to their ongoing nature. The fluctuation of water levels in reservoirsis the most significant activity resulting from ongoing dam operations that continues to affectland and water use, resource management and economic development. Although reservoir levelsare determined according to Columbia River Treaty and Non-Treaty Storage Agreements, thereis some flexibility in the various operating plans that implement international obligations, andthe distribution of benefits will be reviewed in 1997 downstream benefit negotiations. Many ofthe policy options suggested by Kootenay residents may indeed be possible, throughconsideration of trade-offs between power and other uses of Columbia River Basin water;however, the forfeit of power benefits may cause financial losses to the province. Communityparticipation in decision-making may provide the central opportunity to affect policy changes on140issues significant to local residents.3.72 Evaluation of the Positive Impacts of Hydro DevelopmentIn reviewing the contents of Table 7, it is evident that the benefits of hydro development aregenerally perceived by residents of the Kootenays to be fewer in number than the detrimentalimpacts.The local benefits of dam construction are viewed as being largely economic and social, andrelatively short-term in nature. Employment advantages were relatively short-term in nature andare considered as past benefits, as ongoing hydro operations employ few residents of theKootenays as compared to those employed in the Lower Mainland. Some property ownersrealized one-time financial gains from B.C. Hydro compensation. Road improvements arerestricted to certain areas around dam sites and should be balanced against losses to roadnetworks experienced elsewhere.The benefits of flooding are fairly specific to several communities. They consist of socialadvantages derived from a more moderate climate, the increased availability of lakeview lots,increased water transport (although this is partly offset by fluctuating water levels), andmarginally improved recreational opportunities (also affected by changing water levels).Current dam operations have contributed some social and economic benefits to the Kootenays.Flood control, for example, is considered a social and economic benefit. Power generationproduces energy, employment and economic development benefits for the United States, and141British Columbia, and stimulates similar advantages to a lesser degree in some parts of theKootenays. The regulation of water flow reduces turbidity, improving navigation in some partsof the river system. The improvement of parks and marinas and the development of a touristcentre through B.C. Hydro has enhanced certain opportunities for fishing, recreation, andtourism in specific areas.When the information from Table 7 is interpreted vertically, the overall consequences of hydrorelated benefits can be summarized. Generally, there are few ecological benefits perceived asensuing from hydro development. While the Kootenays derive some social benefits from hydrodevelopment, the large majority are directed towards power consumers throughout BritishColumbia and the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Some residents of the Kootenays receive powerservices from West Kootenay Power, and therefore do not benefit from B.C. Hydro’s largehydro projects.Economic benefits to the Kootenays are largely believed to have accrued during damconstruction through short-term employment, economic development (e.g., hydro-relatedconstruction, housing development, expansion of retail services) and financial gains to someproperty owners. The majority of benefits from employment and economic development arewidely considered to flow to power consumers in large urban centres in British Columbia andin the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Dam operation employs some local residents; however, sincepower rates are the same throughout the province, local power generation by B.C. Hydro doesnot attract industrial development to the region. The adverse impacts on fishing, recreation andtourism identified in Table 6 are viewed by residents as outweighing any benefits received bythese sectors.1423.73 Implications of Hydro Development for the KootenaysThe natural processes and relationships among rivers, trees, fish and wildlife, and the humanpopulations that dwell within the mountainous countryside known as the Kootenays have beendisturbed. People living in the region believe that the integrity of their fish, wildlife and forestresource base has been jeopardized. They feel unhappy about their lack of control overconditions that affect their lifestyle. The withdrawal of land from a resource base that isnaturally limited by physiographic conditions represents foregone economic developmentopportunities, and decreases the future options available for resource-dependent communities.According to the perceptions of Kootenays residents, the negative impacts of hydro developmentappear to have been much greater than the benefits received within the region. The majority ofbenefits resulting from hydro projects have been experienced by power consumers and industrialenterprises outside of the Kootenays: in the Lower Mainland and in the U.S. Pacific Northwest.Those living with the effects of large dams in the Columbia River basin believe they have notbeen compensated adequately for the losses they have incurred.B.C. Hydro and provincial government officials recognize the problems that local communitieshave experienced as a result of hydro development. They have acknowledged that compensationhas been inadequate and have established a basin-wide compensation program. While thepayment of compensation may help to address the unfair share of costs that have been borne bythe Kootenay region, it does not ensure that communities will be included in future hydro projectdecisions. B.C. Hydro has committed itself to involving residents of the region in its planninginitiatives. However, as there is no co-management agreement or formal recognition of a143regional advisory group, there is no guarantee of rights for local people to ensure their accessto the local resource base.While this evaluation of the positive and negative aspects of dams in the Columbia River basindoes not measure the magnitude of impacts experienced, it provides a basis for understandingthe number, type and duration of issues arising from hydro development over a period ofapproximately thirty years. To gain a more meaningful appreciation of the significance of someof the impacts identified by Kootenay residents, key issues are examined in greater detailthrough the use of indicators in the next chapter.1444. INDICATORS OF THE IMPACTS OF HYDRO DEVELOPMENTON SUSTAINABILITYInformation gained from literature, interviews with residents of the Kootenays, and participationin community forums suggests that hydro development in the Columbia River Basin has changedcertain conditions relevant to the operation of ecological, social and economic systems interactingwithin the region. In a mountainous region where harsh climatic and physiographic factors limitthe diversity of activities that can occur, the land situated in low and relatively flat marginsalong valleys provides the most favourable characteristics for a wide variety of land uses, ashuman and non-human communities tend to establish their activities along the shores of riversystems where the most productive renewable resources are easily accessible. Residents believethat some dam-related changes have affected the well-being of various elements of theirsurroundings and have influenced the opportunities for access to key elements of these systems.To understand the importance of hydro development impacts in the Kootenays it is useful toidentify some of the key problems experienced in this region through the analysis of indicators.While the previous discussion has outlined a wide range of consequences of Columbia RiverBasin dams, this chapter will examine specific issues in an effort to determine the extent towhich dams have affected ecological, social and economic conditions. The use of indicatorsallows one to examine the state of ecological, social and economic systems, as well as periodsof change or stress. The evaluation of sustainability enables the consideration of resilience andadaptability of these three systems and what this means for long-term goals of ecological,community and social stability. The information arising from the examination of indicators canthen be compared to the perceptions described in the previous chapter.145An evaluation of the significance of the impacts of hydro development in the Columbia RiverBasin requires the use of suitable criteria. As this thesis examines the consequences ofhydroelectric dams and their implications for sustainability, it is necessary to adopt an evaluationmethod that addresses key aspects of sustainability. Since there are no well-established methodsfor testing sustainabiity, this section will outline a set of indicators that have been selected forthis purpose.The development of indicators represents an effort to monitor the state of a system(s) and anytrends and/or progress towards desirable societal goals. To appreciate the significance of theimpacts described previously, and describe them in the context of sustainability, it is useful totest these perceptions with measurements of values or conditions that are important to people andtheir quality of life. Indicators may not be able to determine cause and effect relationships withcertainty; however, the use of a variety of measures that reflect issues identified by communitymembers may assist residents of the Kootenays, hydro development planners, and resourcemanagers in gaining some basic insights regarding the implications of land use change relatedto industrial activities, and the significance for sustainability of their communities.4.1 IndicatorsIn recognition of the need to improve environmental information, policy makers have encouragedthe development and use of indicators. An indicator is a useful piece of information that tellsa story about the state of larger systems. Although indicators are intended to demonstrate thegeneral conditions of a system, they may be able to establish cause and effect relationships, andfacilitate the monitoring of trends. With respect to environmental concerns, indicators can146provide early warning signals and provide information on the extent to which human activity iscausing environmental stress (Environment Canada 1991, 2). For example, the presence of troutor salmon in freshwater streams is considered to be an indicator of a healthy aquatic ecosystem.The demise or absence of an indicator species may signify a decline in ecological productivity,resulting from human or non-human activity.The “indicators movement” has arisen largely in response to the perception that economicindicators have been overly emphasized in terms of their ability to monitor societal well-being.During the mid-1960s, many social scientists assisted in the development of social indicators inan effort to provide more meaningful sets of information for social policy makers (Carley 1981,1). A similar interest among those concerned with ecological integrity and the state of theenvironment has resulted in research on ecological and environmental indicators. Althoughsocio-economic indicators such as unemployment rates, gross national product and literacy ratesare now commonly used, the establishment of appropriate environmental indicators has laggedbehind other types of indicators. The development of environmental indicators is consideredimportant in order to monitor progress towards sustainability.Recent interest in developing indicators of sustainability has arisen from the recogition of theinteraction of ecological, social and economic systems, and the need to fmd methods formeasuring progress towards this societal goal. Policy makers have realized that there is a lackof information addressing the links between the various elements of these systems and areattempting to establish useful sets of data that contribute to the understanding of the myriad ofrelationships that play a role in sustainability. Policy groups focusing on sustainability, such asthe BC Round Table and the Fraser Basin Management Board, are undertaking research on147establishing this type of indicators.The concept of developing indicators of sustainability is relatively new. Although many differenttypes of data have been suggested (IUCN, UNEP and WWF 1991; United Nations 1991; OregonProgress Board 1992), there has been little testing of the suitability of various indicators. Thegovernments of Canada and British Columbia have published sets of experimental indicators intheir recent state of the environment reports (Environment Canada 1991; British Columbia andEnvironment Canada 1993). These two reports have been particularly helpful in providingexamples of indicators.Some of the main criticisms of the use of indicators as a methodology are those outlined byWilims and Gilbert (1991, 5) with particular reference to social indicators. Incompleteknowledge or theory on behaviour and relationships of components in systems has led critics todoubt the causality that indicators endeavour to establish. Many question the value neutralityof indicators, suggesting that their selection and use is subjective, and therefore believe that allbias should be made explicit. The ambiguous nature of the concept of sustainability, and relatedideas of ecological integrity, healthy communities and economic stability make them difficult tomeasure as the interpretation of these themes varies widely.While these constraints are certainly relevant to the use of indicators, this method has beenundertaken with the belief that the information generated from this type of analysis may sparkfurther discussions and enlighten those involved in the consideration of sustainability and hydrorelated matters. Indicators may not provide answers to ongoing problems; however, if theysucceed in enabling stakeholders with different interests to ask more questions and inform148themselves further on common issues, than they can be viewed as being a useful technique forresource management policy analysis. The use of indicators in this study also contributes to theongoing evaluation of this method as a technique for examining sustainability.The initiation of work on indicators of sustainability is the cumulative effect of the previousresults of the indicators movement. The following discussion on indicators and themethodological approach adopted in this thesis will explain how various aspects of past andcurrent indicators research have been incorporated into the examination of sustainability andhydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin.4.2 Development of IndicatorsThe selection of indicators may be undertaken with respect to measuring progress towardssocietal goals or, conversely, indicators may be chosen to gain information regarding a problemthat has already occurred and is significant with respect to present and future conditions. In thisthesis, indicators are used to measure the effects of previous and ongoing human activity inorder to understand its significance for future sustainability. However, the problems studiedthrough the identification of indicators are also related to goals for continuing communitydevelopment, or sustainable development.The approach used to develop a set of useful indicators for this study is similar to that describedby Carley in his summary of progress from the social indicators movement (Carley 1981, 85).Carley outlines a theoretical approach to be undertaken according to the following steps:1491. Development of a problem statement;2. Formulation of an explicit causal model;3. Operationalisation of the problem statement into relationships between indicatorsand variables; and4. Testing of the model.According to Carley’s formal approach, the results of the Columbia Basin case study aresummarized in three problem statements. While numerous sources of information were usedthroughout the thesis research, the opinions of the residents of the Kootenays, as compiled inTables 6 and 7, serve as the basis for the formulation of these summary statements. This setof information is the most comprehensive set of community views assembled to date and isgenerally representative of most of the major areas of concern identified during the case study.The three problem statements can be expressed as follows:1. Ecological productivity has been disturbed;2. Social living conditions have been degraded; and3. Economic development opportunities have been restricted.To test these statements in terms of their consequences for sustainability, it is necessary todevelop hypotheses that link these statements to hydro development. While the development ofa comprehensive conceptual model relating hydro development to sustainability is beyond thescope of this thesis, some fundamental relationships can be established from literature and fromfield investigations in the Columbia Basin. The review of literature on the impacts ofhydroelectric projects across Canada and internationally, as well as the theoretical conclusions150reached through the evolution of common property resources theory, supports the generalhypotheses repeated consistently by people living with the consequences of Columbia Riverdams. The hypotheses corresponding to the above problem statements are:1. Hydro development has reduced the ecological productivity of the Kootenays;2. Hydro development has reduced the ability of local residents to participate in themanagement of regional resources, and has decreased the desirability of livingconditions; and3. Hydro development has removed land from the regional resource base, restrictingthe availability of land for economic development, and has caused conditions thatmake ongoing and future community development more costly.These three hypotheses can be tested through the identification of key issues. Tables 6 and 7provides the basis for choosing sustainability issues relevant to hydro development. Threeissues, and related indicators, are used to test each of the three corresponding hypotheses.While there is no statistical significance corresponding to the use of three issues or indicators,this number is reasonable for the scope of this thesis. Relying on merely one indicator for eachsystem would not provide an adequate basis upon which to draw general conclusions sinceindicators are useful for highlighting the state of certain critical pieces of information, but maynot be able to establish definite causal relationships between specific elements of systems. Thedevelopment of any more than three indicators per system would require a large degree ofanalysis that may not contribute substantially to the clarification of sustainabiity.151The issues identified for indicator analysis are as follows:Ecological systemsa) reduced fish productivityb) reduced wildlife habitatc) ecosystem integrity disturbedSocial systemsa) community stability/boom-bust effectsb) reduced recreation opportunitiesc) little public participation in dam decision-makingEconomic systemsa) restricted economic diversity/tourism opportunitiesb) high unemploymentc) reduced resource base and increased forestry costsThese indicators were selected based on their ability to portray the issues of concern to residentsof the Kootenays. Other indicators were examined but were rejected if relatively clear links withhydro development could not be established or if they did not assist in the clarification ofsustainability issues.The development of indicators is summarized in Table 8. A brief review of the nine issuesreveals that they are non-comparative in nature. Therefore, there is no common unit (e.g.,Table8-INDICATORSOFSUSTAINABILITYProblemIHypothesisIssueIndicator1.Ecologicalhydrodevelopmenthasreducedfishkokaneefishproductivityreducedecologicalproductivitypopulationsdisturbedproductivityreducedwildlifeungulatehabitathabitatcapabilityecosystemintegritynetprimarydisturbedproductivity2.SociallivinghydrodevelopmenthasboomandbusteffectspopulationofconditionslimitedcommunityRevelstokedegradedparticipationindecision—makingandreducedrecreationalanglerhourscausedundesirableopportunitieslivingconditionslittlecommunityopportunitiesforparticipationinpublicparticipationdecision—making3.Economichydrodevelopmenthasrestrictedeconomictourismroomrevenuesdevelopmentwithdrawnlandanddevelopmentopportunitiesresourcesfromregionalopportunitiesrestrictedresourcebase,andincreasedcostsforhighunemploymentunemploymentratescommunitydevelopmentreducedresourcebaseaccessibilityto.andincreasedforestrytimbersupplycostsVI153dollars) that can be used to evaluate them. To attempt to do so would result in the loss ofmeaningful information.The non-comparative nature of the indicators selected is a result of the need to measure elementsof different systems while also considering scale or hierarchical appropriateness (Costanza,Norton and Haskell 1992, 8; Karr 1992, 231). Some issues reflect concerns over resources orquality of life (e.g., fish) that are considered to be of intrinsic value, while others addresscommunity diversity (e.g., economic diversity) or integrate aspects of greater systemic processes(e.g., participation in decision-making). Although researchers in the indicators movement havedistinguished between some general purposes for gathering information through the use ofindicators, a clear system of classification has not been established. Generally, there isrecognition of the distinction between measuring something because of its intrinsic value, its rolein maintaining those things that are important to communities, or its usefulness in explaining keyprocesses that determine the overall health of a system.While the identification of key issues is relatively simple, the progression from an issue to thedevelopment of an indicator requires the consideration of the five attributes that comprise anindicator (Wilims and Gilbert 1991, 3). Each indicator consists of information pertaining to:subject, property, place, time and statistical measurement. For example, the decision to examinereduced recreational opportunities as an issue requires further decisions resulting in thespecification of the annual total of rod hours of residents and non-residents on Kootenay Lakefrom 1953-1986 as an indicator of fishing activity. Table 9 shows the nine indicators selectedfor use in this study and their attributes.Table9-INDICATORATTRIBUTESSubjectCharacteristicPlaceTimeIndicatorfishpopulationKootenay1964-1991annualkokaneepopulationsLakeatMeadowCreekwildlifehabitatKinbasketpre-andlandcapabilityforReservoirpost—ungulatesbeforeandafterareaimpoundmenttheMicaDam(1970,1974)ecosystemproductivityKootenaypre-andnetprimaryproductivityregionpost—impoundmentcommunitystabilityReveistoke1963-1991annualpopulationofReveistokerecreationopportunitiesKootenay1953—1986annualrodhoursonLakeKootenayLakesocialopportunitiesforKootenay1940s-l994publicparticipationinsystemscommunityregionColumbiaRiverdamplanningparticipationindecision-makingeconomicdiversityKootenay1985-1992annualtourismroomsystemsregionrevenuesforregionaldistrictsintheKootenaysemploymentstabilityKootenay1963-1992annualunemploymentrates.regionforregionaldistrictsintheKootenaysforestryconstraintsonGoldenpre—andaccessibilitytotimbereconomicTimberpost-supplyinGoldenTSAdevelopmentSupplyAreaimpoundment155In selecting indicators to study the issues identified, it is necessary to establish some generalcriteria to judge the suitability of particular sets of data. The following criteria were used todetermine the suitability of indicators for this study. These criteria are some of the mostcommon identified by those pursuing the development of environmental or sustainabilityindicators (Environment Canada 1991, 4; IUCN, UNEP, and WWF 1991, 198; British Columbiaand Environment Canada 1993, 4; B.C. Round Table 1993, 49). An indicator should be:1. meaningful in the clarification of the most important issues identified by residentsof the Kootenays;2. technically valid;3. sensitive to dam-induced changes;4. relatively easy and inexpensive to monitor;5. useful for policy-makers; and6. fairly easy to understand conceptually.Another criterion frequently used is sensitivity to regional variations. As this study is by its verynature limited to a regional or watershed focus, indicators have been selected primarily becauseof their inherent regional importance, therefore, this criterion has been omitted. There has beenno effort made to compare the information obtained from the development of indicatorsappropriate for this drainage basin to similar data in other watersheds.The selection of indicators was achieved through testing various sets of data according to thecriteria identified. This information is summarized in Appendix 2. The most important aspectsof this evaluation are addressed in the discussion of each of the nine indicators. B.C. Hydro156officials, government representatives and academic advisors were consulted regarding the validityof potential indicators. Although it would have been helpful to consult residents of theKootenays upon whose ideas the indicators were based, financial and travel limitations preventedthis from occurring.Since the criteria above emphasize the importance of the use of indicators to various groups ofhumans, it is necessary to recognize the assumption that the development of indicators is donelargely to satisfy the information needs of humans. While research conducted for this study hasendeavoured to include non-human parameters, it is unrealistic to ignore the fact that mostinformation is collected because of its importance to human functions. In their characterizationof ecosystem responses to stress, Harwell et al. (1990, 96) state, “the single most usefulcriterion to apply to measure ecosystem health is the requirement of relevance to issues ofconcern to humans”. These authors believe that a change in an ecosystem is only consideredrelevant if it relates directly or indirectly to something affecting humans.Harwell et al. (1990, 105) provide a useful set of purposes for the classification of types ofindicators in their research on indicators and ecological stress. After identifying desirable piecesof ecological knowledge as “ecological endpoints”, they classify the development of indicatorsaccording to the following purposes:1571. intrinsic importance (indicator is endpoint);2. early warning indicator (rapid indication of potential effect- used when endpointis slow or delayed in response);3. sensitive indicator (reliability in predicting actual response- used when endpointis relatively insensitive); and4. process/functional indicator (endpoint is process).The nine indicators selected can be classified according to these four indicator types if the issuesare considered as endpoints for which there is a need for greater knowledge. While indicatorsmay have been chosen for one purpose initially, during the process of information gathering foreach indicator, additional related data frequently contributed to the usefulness of the indicatorsfor other purposes. The relevance of each indicator is discussed in the following sections.Within the indicators movement, there has been much discussion regarding the use ofquantitative versus qualitative indicators (Carley 1981; Potvin 1991). Quantitative indicatorstend to be viewed more favourably as they are relatively easy to monitor for changes ifconsistent measurements are made. However, some aspects of sustainability may not be wellrepresented by numbers. For example, some of the most important issues related to the analysisof public participation in decision-making involve the consideration of timing of events, thescope of public hearings, and the effectiveness of public involvement. While these factors couldbe measured in terms of numbers of days of hearings, or cost of public participation activities,these quantitative measurements may not be the most effective way of examining the root of theissue.158Both quantitative and qualitative indicators are used in this study. In a society where facts aregenerally linked to statistics, the development of qualitative measures may require a greaterdegree of creative thought. However, this effort is worthwhile as questions of sustainability areoften linked to quality of life concerns.The use of single indicators or the aggregation of data into a composite index is another subjectwidely debated among those establishing indicators. While some argue that a composite indexsummarizes more information and may be easier to use for comparative purposes, others insistthat helpful details are lost in aggregation (Carley 1981, 33; Potvin 1991, 10). For the purposesof this thesis, a set of single indicators is used to show a range of effects relevent to the conceptof sustainability, and no effort has been made to combine this information for the reason statedpreviously.The evolving field of ecological economics has contributed the concept of natural capital to thesearch for sustainability indicators (Victor 1991). Recognizing the first law of thermodynamics,that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the second law of thermodynamics, that theconversion of heat energy into a usable form results in the degradation of some of this energyto a more dispersed and less useful form, the concept of natural capital attempts to measure therenewability of the natural stock of resources. While not stated explicitly, the examination ofthe conservation of a finite set of resources is one of the central premises underlying the use ofecological indicators in this study. However, indicators of sustainability arising from the conceptof natural capital are still considered as being fairly weak by those developing this conceptwithin ecological economics (Pearce and Atkinson 1993, 1).15943 Difficulties Encountered During Indicator SelectionMany difficulties were encountered with respect to the selection of indicators. The mainproblems related to this process were a result of the following factors: the non-comparativenature of ecological, social and economic boundaries or scales; the relatively complexchronology of hydro development in the Columbia River Basin; the lack of consistent time seriesdata; and the interdisciplinary nature of this study of sustainability. Similar methodologicallimitations have been outlined by others researching indicators (Wilims and Gilbert 1991, 6;Potvin 1991, 11). They are outlined briefly to clarify the context within which indicators areevaluated.The collection of data within a watershed requires the consideration of ecological, social andeconomic boundaries. Information that could serve as an indicator is often categorized withingroupings appropriate to each of these three systems, and it may not be possible to disaggregatedata specific to only the watershed portion of the units used. For example, unemployment ratesare averaged and reported according to regional districts. However, some of the regional districtboundaries in the Kootenays embrace areas outside of the Columbia River drainage basin, theregion examined in this study. It is therefore difficult to determine to what degree the regionaldistrict average represents the watershed portion of this socio-economic unit.The selection of appropriate spatial and temporal scales created problems due to the difficultyassociated with defining the boundaries of dam-related impacts. Unless the scale of specificimpacts is already established, the examination of events during a particular time period orgeographic area may not reveal meaningful information. This problem is further complicated160by the lack of understanding of ecological and socio-economic systems, and changing humanvalues. The attempt to identify impacts at their relevant scale of occurrence has resulted in theselection of indicators at various scales within the three systems examined.The examination of the effects of establishing six reservoirs, as well as the cumulative impactsof previous dams on the Kootenay River, within the Columbia River Basin requires theconsideration of the chronology of each of these dam projects. The comparison of dam orreservoir-specific data is fairly difficult due to varying ecological, social and economicconditions at each site, inconsistent baseline measurements, and the implications of the effectsof earlier dams on the planning of later projects. Generally, issues related to individual projectshad to be considered within the context of their separate, and overlapping histories. Ascomparative data were often not available, or would have required extensive transformation, fewof the indicators selected represent the entire water basin. Instead, indicators were chosen fortheir ability to reflect issues of particular concern to communities near specific dam projects.A large effort was made to collect time series data to illustrate conditions before, during, andafter the construction of dam projects. However, this endeavour was difficult to accomplish asfew sets of data are collected consistently over the approximately thirty years that large damshave been operating in the Kootenays. Ecological surveys were not conducted in acomprehensive manner during the preparation or implementation of the Columbia River Treatydue to their lack of political significance at that time. Therefore, there is little baselineinformation upon which to evaluate the effects of hydro development. The collection ofeconomic data tends to vary according to political budgets and priorities, and the reporting ofinformation according to categories and economic regions is often subject to change. This161variation makes it difficult to compare data such as labour force occupation over time.The challenge of examining the relationships within and between ecological, social and economicsystems can be overwhelming and requires some general knowledge regarding basic principlesof a wide range of subjects, such as wildlife biology, local forestry operations, and resourceeconomics. This thesis is written in the context of resource management, therefore it linksaspects of disciplines which are often examined separately, but relies on the judgement of thosewith expertise in specific fields. In selecting indicators, this study attempts to identify the mostsignificant factors that define the state of some of the important aspects of the systems interactingwithin the Columbia River Basin. Indicators have been chosen for their ability to providemeaningful, although generalized, information, so that they are useful to the public,hydroelectric planners, policy-makers and academics.Since this study is regional in nature, indicators were selected to represent regional concerns.However, due to site-specific factors affecting events at various locations, it was often easier tofocus on the occurrence of a regional issue by examining conditions in one particular area. Theselection of locations was governed by the significance of the issue and availability ofinformation. Although an effort was made to represent various parts of the Kootenay region,the specific concerns of some areas are not represented as well as others. While many of theindicators used are of importance to First Nations, communities in the East Kootenays, andnorthern residents near Valemount, their issues are not discussed to the same extent as thosepertaining to the central Kootenays where data are more accessible.1624.4 Ecological IndicatorsEcological indicators were chosen in an effort to identify some of the key aspects of hydrodevelopment that have affected the ability of ecological systems to support life, as well as toenhance the operations of social and economic systems. Ecological indicators were selected todevelop a general overview of the ecological integrity of the Columbia River basin. Since thefunctions and productivity of an ecosystem rely on a wide range of components, key indicatorswere selected according to their intrinsic value, their critical role in maintaining ecologicalintegrity, and their ability to reflect larger ecological system processes.While Harwell et al. (1990, 96) state that “the single most useful criterion to apply to measureecosystem health is the requirement of relevance to issues of concern to humans”, this thesisrecognizes that ecological components such as fish, trees and animals have intrinsic value andplay important roles in sustaining a healthy ecosystem for the benefit of other forms of life, aswell as humans. According to this assumption, ecological indicators should be selected basedon their function within an ecosystem. In reality, it is difficult to adhere to this principle sinceresearch is usually conducted on species of particular value to humans.The ecological indicators selected reflect the importance of certain key species to people livingin the Kootenays. Due to the high level of interest in the sport fishery, big game hunting andforestry in this resource-based region, there is a greater quantity of information available on thespecies that are the focus of these activities. While data availability and human interest havecertainly influenced the selection of indicators, an effort has been made to acknowledge the roleof these indicators in contributing to the continuation of ecological processes regardless of their163significance to humans.Several types of ecological indicators have been chosen in an effort to measure the impacts ofhydro development on ecological integrity. The measurement of kokanee fish populationsenables the analysis of impacts on a particular species of fish and is valuable in terms of thedirect and indirect (concern for the welfare of its predator, Gerrard trout) intrinsic value of thisfish. The analysis of information pertaining to land capability to support ungulates is an indirectintrinsic indicator of the health of big game populations. Consideration of net primaryproductivity as a process indicator enables the examination of the integrity of large-scaleecosystem functions.4.41 Fish - Kokanee Salmon PopulationsFish are often used as indicators of the state of aquatic ecosystems. Water bodies that supporthealthy trout and salmon populations are generally believed to be relatively uncontaminated andproductive. The use of kokanee salmon, a land-locked salmonid, as an indicator of theecological state of Kootenay Lake has already been endorsed by the British Columbia and federalgovernments (British Columbia and Environment Canada 1993, 80) and has also been selectedfor use in this study because of its intrinsic value.Fisheries biologists are particularly interested in kokanee salmon due to their importance to thesport fishery in Kootenay Lake, an easily accessible and highly productive sports fishery that hasattracted anglers from all over North America since the 1950s (Pearse and Laub 1969, 11).Kokanee have been one of the most abundant sport fish and are particularly popular as a summer164fishery in this lake (Andrusak 1981, 3). Kokanee also play an important role as food forGerrard trout, renowned in Kootenay Lake for their trophy size.The effects of dams on kokanee are well documented. The most immediate consequence of damconstruction is the prevention of access to previous spawning grounds. The recognition of thisloss has resulted in the establishment of the Meadow Creek spawning channel, an attempt toenhance fish productivity through the replacement of lost habitat with a long channel of gravelbeds along a tributary of the north arm of Kootenay Lake.Dams have also been responsible for nutrient retention. Increased sedimentation behind theDuncan and Libby Dams has reduced the downstream supply of nutrients available tophytoplankton, which feed the zooplankton consumed by kokanee and other fish in a food chainthat relies on a continuous flow of nutrients from upstream sources (Daley et al. 1981; BritishColumbia and Environment Canada 1993, 81) The regulation of the Duncan and KootenayRivers has changed the hydrological regime of Kootenay Lake, resulting in the removal of theJune freshet, previously responsible for flushing nutrients downstream, and changing the timeof year when nutrients, although greatly reduced, are supplied to the lake (Daley et al. 1981,93).Kootenay Lake kokanee consist of three racially distinct populations that tend to inhabit thenorth, south or west arms of the lake. The productivity of these three separate populationsvaries as a result of such site-specific factors as: quality and quantity of spawning grounds,fishing pressure and food supply. Kokanee populations at Meadow Creek (the north arm) havebeen selected as an indicator as these populations are relatively easy to count in narrow blocked165sections of the spawning channel, and are therefore believed to be relatively accurate (Parkinson1993).DiscussionThe analysis of kokanee populations in Kootenay Lake is quite complicated due to thechronology of human-induced events affecting the ecological characteristics of this lake, inaddition to the natural occurrence of hydrological, biological and chemical cycles. Figure 13shows the fluctuation of kokanee populations in Meadow Creek, from 1964 until 1991. MeadowCreek flows into the Duncan River between the Duncan Dam and Kootenay Lake (Figure 14).In general, Figure 13 can be interpreted as showing a general increase in kokanee populationspeaking in the late 70s, followed by a decline through the 1980s. These trends can be largelyattributed to the establishment of the Meadow Creek spawning channel, phosphorus loadingvariation due to fertilizer plant emissions and nutrient retention behind the Libby dam, andpredator enhancement techniques (Parkinson 1993). Although this discussion addresses the mainfactors identified as influencing population size, some fluctuations may be the result of naturalpopulation cycles, and may be related to the four-year reproductive cycle of Meadow Creekkokanee.Prior to the regulation of the Duncan and Kootenay Rivers as a result of the Columbia RiverTreaty, the ecological functions of the Kootenay River system had already been significantlydisturbed by industrial and fisheries management activities. In 1949, a small shrimp-likeorganism, mysis relicta, was introduced into Kootenay Lake to improve the supply of food forFigure13.KokaneePopulationsinKootenayLake-MeadowCreekU, 0 E 0 4-I 0 a-0cc0cC>cc0r’.wccococar-.ccccccccccO)O0)0i0)0)I-——_-I-——IYearDuncanDamfertilizereffluentrecycling1., p.81PLLELI b.3 ECENTRALAREA£rio’1]167Figure 14. Kocienoy Loke with d.signaled oros.TroutDuncanResrvoirNORTH ARMKo sf0WEST ARM,(arr/7iC-JAJc.CrI 6 0187o 4 ISource: Andrusak (1987), p. 3.168the aquatic food chain (Hirst 1991, 23). The mysis proved to be too large for consumption byjuvenile Gerrard trout, and in fact competed for the same zooplankton that fed the kokanee.Several years later, the 1953 opening of a fertilizer plant near Kimberley, and its resultingdischarges of phosphates into the St. Mary River, a tributary to the Kootenay River, suppliedsubstantial amounts of nutrients (Whateley 1972, 21) to both the mysis and the kokanee.Phosphorus inputs increased when fertilizer production doubled in 1962, and tripled in 1965.This additional source of phosphorus is believed to have contributed to the eutrophication ofKootenay Lake during the 1950s and 60s, resulting in an abundance of kokanee, particularly inthe west and north arm of the lake (Hirst 1991, 23). Since Meadow Creek populations weretraditionally lower than those in the rest of the lake, before the creation of a spawning channel,this trend is not reflected in Figure 13.The major impact of the Duncan Dam (1967) on kokanee was its blockage of access to spawninghabitat upstream. Bull (1965) estimated that of over 4 million kokanee spawners in the DuncanLardeau system, 2.8 million would not reach their normal spawning grounds behind the dam.This loss was somewhat mitigated by the establishment of the Meadow Creek spawning channel,in 1967, the same year the dam was completed. The rising population sizes in Figure 13illustrate how improved spawning conditions in Meadow Creek contributed to increasedproductivity. Since the pre-impoundment supply of nutrients from the Duncan River wasrelatively small, the Duncan Dam caused little effect on the overall supply of nutrients toKootenay Lake (Daley et al. 1981, 82).Phosphorus loadings to Kootenay Lake were greatly reduced by the combination of stricter169pollution controls on phosphorus emissions and the construction of the Libby Dam (1973). The1969 introduction of settling ponds to control phosphorus releases from the fertilizer plant,followed by complete fertilizer effluent recycling in 1975, reduced nutrient supplies to theKootenay system (Daley er al. 1981, 75). Nutrient retention behind the Libby dam has causedsignificant reductions (45-50%) of phosphorus downstream (Daley et aL 1981, 82). While the1973 operation of the Libby dam on the Kootenay River combined with the complete recyclingof fertilizer effluent reduced nutrient supplies to the river system, the effect on Meadow Creekpopulations may have been delayed and partially mitigated by enhanced spawning conditions.As water levels in Kootenay Lake do not vary as much as those of the reservoirs on theColumbia and Kootenay Rivers, kokanee are not significantly disturbed by reservoir drawdown.Water levels on Kootenay Lake have the least variation in the Columbia system, fluctuating onlya few metres annually.Increased numbers of kokanee accompanied by high fishing success rates attracted large numbersof anglers throughout the 1970s until fish populations crashed dramatically (Hirst 1991, 23),resulting in a closure of the west arm kokanee fishery in 1980 (Andrusak 1981, 4). The westarm closure caused increased angling effort in the north and south arms, contributing to thereduction of kokanee populations in subsequent years (Hirst 1991, 23).The dramatic decline of kolcanee productivity results from the cumulative effect of a number offactors. While large numbers of kokanee survived predation from Gerrard trout and anglersduring periods of high productivity, increasing sedimentation of Meadow Creek spawningchannel combined with decreased supplies of nutrients, may have made this population more170vulnerable to competition between natural and stocked kokanee, and consumption by efficientGerrard trout enhanced through stocking and strict fishing regulation (Parkinson 1993).During the early 1990s, kokanee productivity has been limited by reduced phosphorusavailability, due to the elimination of phosphate in effluents, nutrient retention behind the LibbyDam, and the competition for this nutrient by mysis. Since there is no known method to removemysis, and as the Libby dam continues to impede nutrient flow, in 1992, fisheries managersimplemented a phosphorus addition program to ensure sufficient food supply (British Columbiaand Environment Canada 1993, 81). As fisheries management programs continue to focus onthe Gerrard trout sport fishery, the preservation of kokanee populations are believed to beimportant for the productivity of Gerrard trout.ConclusionThe analysis of kokanee populations requires an examination of the complex interactionsoccurring between various components of the aquatic ecosystem, as well as an understanding ofthe various industrial activities affecting kokanee, and knowledge of fisheries managementstrategies that have been implemented. The study of fisheries is complicated by the fact thatmany interactions occur underwater, and are often not perceived by humans until theconsequences become obvious some time later. The impacts of a specific human activity orfisheries management technique may not be evident until a full reproductive cycle has transpired.Since the effects of the Duncan Dam on accessibility to spawning grounds, and the nutrientretention caused by the Libby dam are well recognized, it is probable that these factors have171contributed to the decline of kokanee, although the establishment of the Meadow Creek spawningchannel may have offset their consequences. Future fisheries management programs will haveto address the ongoing problems related to dam operations. However, this may require themodelling of dam-related consequences with other variables such as availability of nutrients,quality and quantity of spawning grounds, predator efficiency, and fishing pressure.4.42 Wildlife - Land Capabifity for UngulatesThe selection of this indicator is based on concerns expressed by residents regarding the impactsof dams and reservoirs on local wildlife populations. The Rocky Mountain Trench providesparticularly good habitat for moose, deer, caribou and elk. These animals are valued highly bywildlife observers as well as big game hunters. Wildlife studies confirm that the effects offlooding valleys within the Kootenays region has reduced the ability of the Columbia River Basinto support wildlife (British Columbia 1974). Therefore, the capability of land to supportungulates is an indirect indicator of a species of intrinsic value to humans.Although the examination of the land capability to support ungulates is a useful measure of theimpacts of reservoir flooding on available habitat of big game species, this indicator has beenselected for its conceptual nature, and cannot be interpreted too accurately. Since the CanadaLand Inventory (CLI) mapping with respect to capability for ungulates in the Kootenays regionwas undertaken during the late 1960s and early 70s, and in many cases was never repeated, theclassifications shown in Figures 15 and 16 are somewhat outdated and represent fairlygeneralized information. Biologists consulted during the development of this indicatoremphasized that the classes portrayed in this mapping are not very accurate and are beingFigure 15172Land Capability for Ungulates Before and After Mica Dam(Northern Section of Kinbasket Reservoir)Kinbasket ReservoirIke ImpoundmentSource: Energy Mines and Resources Canada Land Inventory - Land Capability for Wildlife Ungulates (1975)Capability Classification (1970)British Columbia (1974)ValemountLegendLand Capability for Ungulates•Moderate-High Capability(Classes 1,2,3)Little or None to Moderate Capability(Classes 4, 5)W Winter RangeApproximate Scale 1:500 000w /Kinbasket Reservoir AreaPost ImpoundmentWood RiverColumbia Riverw wFall Crossing ofFigure 16Land Capability for Ungulates Before and After Mica DamBush jjw173Kinbasket Reservoir AreaPost ImpoundmentGolden1.Source: Energy Mines and Resources Canada Land Inventory - Land Capability for WildlifeUngulates (1975)Capability Classification (1970)British Columbia (1974)(Southern Section of Kinbasket Reservoir)Cuininins RiverLegend.Land Capability for UngulatesModerate-High Capability(Classes 1,2,3)Little or None to ModerateCapability (Classes 4, 5,6)W Winter RangeApproximate Scale 1:500 000wSullivan RiverWFall Crossing of Caribou4’Bush RiverKinbasket Reservoir AreaPre ImpoundmentGolden174revised.Since there is little baseline information for wildlife at the time of dam construction in theColumbia River Basin, and as pre- and post-impoundment ungulate habitat information wasmapped and readily available for the Kinbasket Reservoir, this reservoir was selected in an effortto examine impacts on regional ability to support ungulates. While similar mapping for areasalong the Arrow, Duncan, Kootenay, Reveistoke and Koocanusa Reservoirs is available, in somecases it was only evaluated after reservoir flooding, and for others classification was done beforebut not following impoundment. The publication of the Mica Reservoir Region Resource Study,commissioned by the British Columbia Environment and Land Use Committee (1974), provideda post-impoundment map that enabled a comparison with the pre-impoundment state, asclassified in in 1968 and 1970 according to the CLI map (Energy, Mines and Resources Canada,1974).Although it is possible to make an approximate estimate of the amount of land lost from variousCLI classes with the use of a planimeter, skepticism expressed by biologists regarding theaccuracy of the information provided from CLI maps suggests that this may not be a worthwhileendeavour. Therefore, this indicator is presented for conceptual interpretation in an effort toillustrate the limited availability of land that is capable of supporting ungulates with and withoutreservoir flooding.DiscussionFigures 15 and 16 illustrate land capability for ungulates around the Kinbasket Reservoir before175and after the construction of the Mica Dam. From visual inspection of the representations ofungulate habitat in the reservoir area before and after flooding, it appears that moose, elk anddeer lost a substantial portion of high capability habitat along the Canoe (Figure 15) andColumbia (Figure 16) Rivers, particularly at the confluence of the Bush River and the Columbia.A sizeable aiea of lower capability habitat was submerged around the former “Big Bend” area,where the Columbia River is joined by the Wood and the Canoe Rivers, before bendingsouthward (Figure 15). Figures 15 and 16 only depict the habitat in the immediate reservoirregion. Steep mountain ranges to the east and west present limitations which reduce the abilityto support ungulates, however, wide valleys at both ends of the reservoir (near Valemount andGolden) offer relatively large sections of high capability habitat particularly important for winterrange.Several discrepancies are evident from the comparison of pre- and post-impoundmentrepresentations of wildlife habitat. The British Columbia Environment and Land Use Committee(ELUC), which published the post-impoundment map depicted in Figures 15 and 16, notes thevariation from the original pre-impoundment classifications developed by the Canada LandInventory (CLI) survey (British Columbia 1974, A4-12). The ELUC states that its mapcomplements the original CLI map, but includes several smaller areas of good ungulatecapability along some tributary valleys that were omitted from the original CLI map; e.g., thehigh capability areas along the Wood and Cummins Rivers (Figure 15).The ELUC estimated that the reservoir would flood 105,000 acres (42,500 ha) of wildlife habitatincluding wetlands, riparian zones and natural meadows, causing reductions in populations ofmoose (70%), deer (50%), elk (40%) and caribou (10%), as well as the displacement of most176aquatic animals and waterfowl (British Columbia 1974, A4-26, 6-70). Since there wereapproximately 340,000 acres (137,600 ha) of winter range below the elevation of 3,500 feet(1067 m) (British Columbia 1974, 6-69), the inundation of 105,000 acres (42,500 ha) ofrelatively high capability habitat represents a withdrawal of approximately one third of theoriginal winter range, and a substantial reduction in variety of habitat which cannot be replacedat higher elevations.It is difficult to ascertain the significance of the loss of habitat beneath the Kinbasket Reservoirdue to the lack of accurate information existing before the establishment of the reservoir.Ungulates that previously relied on narrow strips of habitat along the valley bottom may havemoved elsewhere, increasing the competition for limited food and shelter in adjacent areas, ormay have chosen to accept less favourable conditions along the steep slopes of the reservoir.Habitat fragmentation may interfere with population size, dispersal and local species diversityas many animals occupy a range of different habitat types according to demographic needs(Lubchenco et al. 1991, 371).Since the critical factor affecting the distribution and abundance of ungulates in the reservoirarea is the availability of winter ranges (British Columbia 1974, 6-69), it is probable that wildlifelosses have been severe, especially since there is little opportunity to replace habitat within theKinbasket reservoir region (British Columbia 1974, 1-11). Habitat destruction has beenidentified as the chief cause of global extinction of species (Lubchenco et al. 1991, 392).In addition to affecting ungulates through habitat loss, the reservoir poses an accident hazard andacts as a barrier to migration. Floating debris is a hazard to moose and caribou attempting to177cross the reservoir. Winter reservoir drawdown can cause accidents after ice formation formoose, elk, deer and caribou due to ice breakage. The additional area covered by water actsas a barrier to migrating species such as caribou (British Columbia 1974, A4-23).The loss of big game as a result of the creation of the Kinbasket reservoir affects local hunting.Hunters and guides have noted decreased numbers of ungulates around the Kinbasket reservoirarea since its creation (Schuck 1992; Arlt, Gutzman and Sim 1992). The annual value ofguiding for moose, caribou, deer and elk hunting prior to impoundment ($308,800) waspredicted to decrease by approximately 50% after flooding due to the potential harvest beinghalved (British Columbia 1974, A4-18, A4-31). Due to the lack of information on the use andvalue of wildlife in the Mica basin prior to flooding, the value of non-consumptive losses wasassumed to be equal to consumptive losses in the same study. The total capital value of allwildlife resources (excluding waterfowl) in the Mica basin was evaluated as $10.9 million(discounted at 8%) before flooding and $5.6 million after reservoir creation, representing a lossof 50% of the original value of wildlife resources (British Columbia 1974, 1-12).While the loss of habitat shown in Figures 15 and 16 is clearly a result of the establishment ofthe Kinbasket Reservoir, there are other factors which may affect the significance of this lossin terms of its implications for sustainabiity. Local forestry operations, forest fires, landslides,competition among ungulates and other types of wildlife, hunting pressure, and wildlifemanagement practices all play a role in the determination of the significance of the habitat lossdescribed. A thorough examination of all of these factors is beyond the scope of this thesis.Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of habitat loss depends primarily on its comparisonwith the portion remaining, in terms of the capability of the reservoir region to support178ungulates.ConclusionThe reduction of wildlife habitat resulting from the Kinbasket Reservoir has decreased thecapability of this region’s ability to support ungulates, and presumably other wildlife groups thatdepend on wet and flat valley bottoms. As there is little opportunity to replace the good habitatlost within the reservoir region, it may be assumed that local wildlife losses may be severe.While it may not be possible to predict the significance of this loss to the integrity of ungulatepopulations, one may speculate on the foregone wildlife observation and hunting opportunitiesthat this represents. If ungulate populations have in fact left the area, preferring morefavourable habitat elsewhere, wildlife observers, local hunters and guiding outfits that relied onthis region may suffer from reduced wildlife numbers, and may incur greater travelling costs,or withdraw from the pursuit of these activities.4.43 Ecological Integrity- Net Primary ProductivityPeople living in the Kootenays are concerned that hydro development has reduced their resourcebase (Table 6). The inundation of highly productive valleys has diminished their total stock offorest land, and has withdrawn riparian habitat from wildlife. Fluctuating water levels continueto alter fish habitat in reservoirs. Some residents believe that these physical changes haveaffected their relationship with the land, and there is a sense that the ecological integrity of theregion has been disrupted.179While the concept of ecological integrity is rather vague, it is generally used in referral to theidea of ecosystem health or environmental quality. The examination of ecological integrityusually involves the discussion of concepts such as energy fluxes (e.g., gross and netproductivity, biomass) nutrient flows (e.g., horizontal transport), community structure (e.g.,biological diversity) and system characteristics (e.g., succession, stability). Generally, researchon ecological integrity seeks to determine how well an ecosystem functions.In this discussion, net primary productivity is used as an indicator of ecological integrity. Netprimary productivity is a measure of the rate of production of usable energy available forconsumption by other organisms. The ability to make energy available to support the growthof vegetation, and the consumers of plants and trees varies among different types of ecosystems.With respect to hydro development, net primary productivity is examined in an effort to considerthe changes in the production of usable energy that occur when a terrestrial ecosystem isreplaced with an aquatic ecosystem. This indicator is not capable of representing all of thefactors that contribute toward the “health” of an ecosystem but is an important and commonmeasurement of energy transfers throughout ecological systems.DiscussionDue to the harsh constraints imposed by the climate and physiography of mountainous regions,valleys contain the most productive ecosystems within this type of landscape. Vegetation,wildlife and human populations tend to concentrate in valleys where higher rates of ecologicalproductivity favour plant growth, providing greater opportunities to obtain some of the basicrequirements of life, nutrient supplies and shelter. In the Columbia River basin, forest180ecosystems have occupied these highly productive zones.Forest productivity rates in the Columbia River Basin are some of the highest in Canada (Canada1970). The interior cedar-hemlock zone is the most productive, characterized by westernhemlock and western redcedar forests growing along lower to middle elevations of the Purcelland Selkirk mountains of the interior wet belt of British Columbia. The interior douglas fir zoneconsists of douglas fir and ponderosa pine forests bordering the Kootenay River, as well assavannah-like grass lands that provide important summer range for livestock, mule deer and elkin drier regions. According to the Canada Land Inventory classification system, portions of theforest land along the Columbia River and Arrow Lakes have been classified as having thehighest capability to support the growth of commercial species such as hemlock and cedar.Class one forest land is capable of producing mean annual increments of greater than 7.8m3/halyr (Canada 1970).Forests fulfill many ecological functions that contribute to the ecological integrity of local andglobal environments (Soussan and Millington 1992). Locally, trees provide wildlife habitat,prevent soil erosion, and influence hydrological and microclimate regimes through theirregulation of water flows and air temperature. Globally, forests provide large supplies ofoxygen through respiration, and are an effective carbon sink reducing the rate of global warmingthrough their storage of carbon. The wide range of habitat contained in forests provides manykey conditions supporting biodiversity. One of the most fundamental characteristics of forestland that distinguishes it from other types of ecosystems is its relatively high ability to produceusable energy for consumption by other organisms.181The productivity of an ecosystem relies on the ability of energy to be received and transferredbetween various organisms within a food chain. The rate at which incoming solar radiation isinitially converted into chemical energy or biomass through photosynthesis is known as grossprimary productivity. As plants receive energy they break down some of the chemical energythey are able to capture through the process of respiration. The rate at which usable energy isproduced and made available to other organisms after respiration has occurred is known as netprimary productivity. The production of usable energy can be measured in terms of energy(kcallm2/yr) or dry organic matter (also known as biomass) produced (g/m2/yr).Primary productivity of vegetation is of fundamental importance to an ecosystem as thisdetermines its carrying capacity (Lieth 1975, 203). The availability of energy for use at thelowest trophic level of an ecosystem is effectively the principal limiting factor that determinesthe variety of organisms that can be supported by an area. Ecosystems with higher net primaryproductivity may be able to maintain a greater biomass or volume of organisms per unit areathan those producing less usable energy.Forests are capable of producing a relatively high rate of usable energy per unit of area whencompared with other ecosytem types. Figure 17 shows average net primary productivity forvarious types of ecosystems. Forests in general, are surpassed only by estuaries and wetlandsin net primary productivity.Hydroelectric development in the Columbia River Basin has caused the inundation ofapproximately 50,000 hectares of wooded land. The replacement of forests with another type ofecosystem affects a wide range of ecological processes. One of the most fundamental changesTypeofEcosystemestuariesswampsandmarshestropicalforesttemperateforestnorthernconiferousforest(taiga)savannaagriculturallandwoodlandandshrublandtemperategrasslandlakesandstreamscontinentalshelftundra(arcticandalpine)openoceandesertscrubextremedesertIII8001600240032000004800560064007,2008.00(188009,60()AverageNetPrimaryProductivity(kcal/m2/yr)Figure17.Estimatedaveragenetprimaryproductivitybyplantsinmajortypesofecosystems.Source:Miller(1982),p.7200183that occurs is the alteration of the net primary productivity.The flooding of forest land to create hydroelectric reservoirs results in a reduction of net primaryproductivity as forest ecosystems are replaced with less productive aquatic ecosystems. Thisdifference in net primary productivity is due to the greater transparency of air which providesmore light intensity for terrestrial organisms than that which is available to aquatic organisms,as well as the higher concentration of nutrients found in soil and available for plant uptakethrough root systems as compared to the random distribution of nutrients in aquatic ecosystems(McNaughton and Wolf 1979, 124).Although estimates of net primary productivity of ecosystem types vary, measurements of thisrate of energy transfer indicate that forest ecosystems produce three or four times more usableenergy than aquatic ecosystems. According to Figure 17, lakes and streams produce on average2300 kcal/m2/yr, approximately one third of the usable energy available from temperate forestsof a similar size (6000 kcal/m2/yr). McNaughton and Wolf (1979, 587) indicate that lentic(standing water) and lotic (running water) ecosystems produce 800 kcal/m2/yr, less than onequarter of the net primary productivity of temperate coniferous forests (3760 kcal/m2/yr).Since net primary productivity varies with geographic location and is greater with increasedradiation, low elevation and high moisture levels (Spurr and Barnes 1980, 504), this variationmay account for the different ranges of net primary productivity that have been attributed toecosystem types.In addition to examining the net primary productivity through the consideration of energy, it ispossible to make general estimates of resulting changes through biomass production, the184measurement of the mass of carbon produced in a year. Since few measurements are availablefor the study area, this discussion relies on general estimations of aquatic and terrestrialecosystems.Net primary productivity measured during May, June and August at four stations on KootenayLake in 1964 (before Duncan and Libby Dams) ranged from 35 - 827 mg/m/day (Daley et al.1981). Assuming 245 growing season days per year (Kimmel et al. 1990), Kootenay Lakeproductivity rates ranged from 9 - 203 g/m2/yr, slightly lower or equal to the 200 g/m2/yrestimate (McNaughton and Wolf 1979, 587) provided for lentic and lotic systems, and a similarapproximation of 250 g/m2/yr as the mean net primary productivity for lakes and streams (Spurrand Barnes 1980, 507).Although recent data on the net primary productivity of Kootenay Lake were not available,current biomass production appears to be lower than that measured in 1964. The previous ratesreflected increased nutrient loadings from the leakage of phosphates from the fertilizer plant onSt. Mary’s River. The reduction of phosphorus loadings as a result of improvements in emissioncontrol, as well as the the blockage of nutrients behind the Libby and Duncan Dams upstreamhave further affected primary productivity rates on Kootenay Lake. Declining fisheriesproductivity (see section 5.41) and recent phosphorus addition initiatives indicate oligotrophicconditions (a low supply of nutrients) and low net primary productivity. Studies of aquaticconditions in the Kinbasket, Revelstoke and Arrow Lakes Reservoirs conclude that thesereservoirs are low in biological productivity (Smith 1990; Triton 1990 31, 41).A comparison of biomass productivity estimates for aquatic and temperate coniferous ecosystems185suggests that ecological productivity is lower within flooded portions of the Columbia RiverBasin than for forests within the same region. The forest cleared or submerged for the creationof the five major reservoirs (Arrow, Mica, Reveistoke, Libby and Duncan) represents an areaof approximately 50,000 ha. Using the net biomass production rates of 200 g/m2/yr for lenticand lotic systems, and 800 g/m2/yr as suggested for temperate coniferous forests (McNaughtonand Wolf 1979, 587) the corresponding annual production of biomass is approximately 400,000tonnes of carbon in forests or 100,000 tonnes of carbon in aquatic organisms. The ratio ofbiomass production of these two ecosystems (4:1) may actually be greater as the mean netprimary productivity of temperate evergreen forests has also been estimated as 1300 g/m2/yr(Spurr and Barnes 1980, 506) and the low productivity of reservoirs in the Columbia River Basinmay result in lower rates of biomass production than have been measured for lakes and streams.Higher accuracy could be obtained through consideration of actual density of wood which varieswith forest maturity.The low net primary productivity of reservoirs in the Columbia system differs from trendsidentified in an international comparison of the primary productivity of reservoirs and naturallakes. Kimmel et al. (1990, 141) conclude that reservoirs tend to be more productive than lakes.This survey of the productivity of water bodies throughout the world determined that of 102lakes sampled, 46% were oligotrophic (low supply of nutrients), 40% were mesotrophic, and14% were eutrophic (high supply of nutrients). In contrast, data from studies of 64 reservoirs,indicated that 16% were oligotrophic, 52% were mesotrophic, and 33 % were eutrophic. Thephytoplankton productivity for reservoirs ranged from 67-3975 mgC/m2/day, while similarmeasurements for lakes varied from 3-5529 mgC/m/day. However, this study made no effortto link productivity with the time elapsed since impoundment, a critical factor since productivity186increases during the first few years following inundation as nutrients from flooded soil areintroduced into the aquatic ecosystem.The oligotrophic conditions characteristic of reservoirs in the Columbia River system are likelya result of such factors as turbidity, temperature, lake morphology, flow regime and climate.The cold turbid waters in this regulated river system flush quickly through deep reservoirs ina temperate climate resulting in low levels of nutrients for consumption by aquatic organisms.The exception to the low ecological productivity in Columbia reservoirs has occurred during thefirst four years following impoundment due to the increased nutrient supply from recentlyinundated soil (British Columbia 1965c, 19; Smith 1990).In addition to comparing the net primary productivity of temperate coniferous forests withaquatic ecosystems, it is necessary to consider the particular case of reservoirs as modifiedaquatic ecosystems. The hydrological regime of reservoirs is substantially different from thatof lakes and rivers. Although the flow of water passing through both types of water systemsvaries throughout the year, reservoir fluctuations may be unseasonal and more pronounced.The annual variation in electricity demand and related water storage does not correlate to thenatural hydrological cycle of rivers. Natural river systems have high flow rates after snowmeltduring the spring and early summer, followed by low discharges during the winter. Conversely,water systems regulated for the production of electricity require high flows during the winterwhen the demand for power is greatest, and low flows during the summer when electricaldemand is correspondingly low. The regulated version of the hydrological cycle may notcorrespond to the life cycles of resident biota.187Annual fluctuations in water levels as a result of the modified hydrological cycle are oftengreater than natural variation. While water level changes may increase terrestrial and aquaticproductivity by washing new supplies of nutrients into the water for consumption by aquaticspecies and exposing decomposed aquatic organisms along shorelines for terrestrial consumers,the ecological value of repeated fluctuations depends on the magnitude, frequency and rates ofwater level changes, and the morphometry of the water body (Petts 1990, 243). Processes suchas erosion, resuspension, entrainment and redistribution of sediments may greatly reduce oreliminate primary productivity, as has occurred in the drawdown zone of the Arrow Lakes(Triton 1990, 45).Hydroelectric regulation results in perpetual unseasonal variation in reservoir water levels andmay represent a stress on what would otherwise be natural ecosystems. While some ecosystemsflourish under the influence of certain kinds of disruptions termed as “disturbances”, theimposition of severe disruptions may cause “stress” leading to the degradation or debilitation ofnatural processes. Primary productivity is an indicator of ecological stress as stress disruptsenergy processing and necessitates increased respiration for system maintenance, divertingenergy away from growth and production (Rapport and Regier 1992). Terrestrial and aquaticorganisms may expend larger amounts of energy surviving within the drawdown zone ofreservoirs with large fluctuations where wetlands have not reestablished (e.g., Kinbasket,Koocanusa, Duncan and Arrow Reservoirs).Wetlands that are able to thrive under continual disturbance produce high rates of net primaryproductivity. The removal of this type of ecosystem may have important implications for largerwater systems if wetlands serve as central organizing features of the entire system (Rapport and188Regier 1992). Although the total area of wetlands existing before and after hydro developmentin the Columbia River basin is not documented in this study, it is worthwhile to note theecological value of this ecosystem. The Mica Reservoir Region Resource Study anticipated thedestruction of all wetlands of importance to nesting, staging and migrating waterfowl in theRocky Mountain Trench between Valemount and Douglas as a result of the creation of theKinbasket Reservoir behind the Mica Dam (British Columbia 1974, A5-1).ConclusionNet primary productivity varies from one ecosystem type to another. The replacement of forestecosystems with reservoirs has caused a reduction in primary productivity and loss of biomassalong the shores of the Columbia and Kootenay River systems. While part of this terrestrialecosystem has been replaced with an equivalent size of aquatic area, this does not result in asimilar transfer of productivity or biomass.A reduction in primary productivity does not necessarily mean that ecological integrity has beenreduced as many other ecological processes interact to fulfill the essential functions of ecologicalsystems. Different ecosystems transfer energy at different rates to fulfill various roles withinthe larger ecosphere. However, the perpetual unseasonal fluctuation of water levels may affectthe ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as species occupying this habitatmust continually adapt to changing conditions that are not synchronous with ecological processesoccurring on larger scales.While one type of ecosystem is not necessarily better or worse from an ecological viewpoint,189certain ecosystems tend to have more value from a human perspective. Changes in primaryproductivity may have social and economic implications for local communities. People who relyon the presence of forests, fish and wildlife for economic and recreational pursuits may beaffected by the diminished supply of resources available from their surrounding environment andits reduced carrying capacity. The intensification of silviculture, the maintenance of fishspawning channels and increased wildlife habitat management may enable greater levels ofproductivity in existing ecosystems affected by hydro development. However, these mitigationoptions may necessitate tradeoffs, e.g., the preservation of wildlife habitat may require reducedforestry in certain areas, the regulation of water levels to provide appropriate spawningconditions may mean decreased power generation opportunities. Mitigation efforts will alsorequire continued economic support.4.5 Social IndicatorsSocial indicators were chosen in an effort to identify some of the key aspects of hydrodevelopment that have affected the ability of social systems to support life, as well as to enhancethe operations of ecological and economic systems. These indicators are intended to representhow dam operations have affected the lives of the people living in their vicinity; in general, the“livability” of the Kootenays. Although social and economic factors are often intertwined andare sometimes labelled according to the term “socio-economic”, this analysis separates the two.The three indicators considered to represent social conditions are intended to measure feelingsof contentment, control and harmony in the lives of those living in the Columbia Basin. Since190residents of the Kootenays perceive themselves as being strongly linked to their naturalsurroundings, their overall satisfaction with their lives may be affected by any substantial changeto what they consider to be their normal or usual environment. Changes may disrupt feelingsof contentment with a particular lifestyle, and cause tensions to arise between different groups,resulting in varying degrees of conflict. The ability of individuals and groups to adapt to ormanage change through their social interactions determines their social sustainability.The three indicators selected to examine social sustainability provide information at three levelsof social interactions. The consideration of the population size of Revelstoke serves as an earlywarning indicator of changes occurring as a result of boom-bust effects at the community level.Fishing activity trends enable the evaluation of the intrinsic value of individual or communityrecreation. The analysis of opportunities for public participation in dam-related decision-makingenables the consideration of the effectiveness of large-scale processes within the social system.4.51 Community Stability - Population of ReveistokeTo obtain an indicator of community stability, the changing population size of Revelstoke wasexamined. Many resource-dependent communities are concerned about long-term stability,having experienced various periods of growth and decline associated with the fluctuations ofexternal resource markets. The use of Reveistoke population as an indicator enables theexamination of social interactions occurring at the community level.Various communities in the Kootenays have been affected by the consequences of thedevelopment of large-scale hydroelectric dams in their vicinity. The series of hydro191megaprojects constructed between 1964 and 1985 have caused disruptions to local communitiesas a result of the “boom and bust” phenomena associated with large industrial projects.Residents of these communities have complained about the effects of the rapid influx of largenumbers of labourers on the social and economic fabric of their communities, and maintain thatthere are ongoing consequences related to over-expanded infrastructure that continue to causeproblems locally.The City of Revelstoke has been affected by two periods of hydro development. Revelstokeprovided services for the Mica Dam, constructed between 1965 and 1973, and was the centreof activity for work on the Reveistoke Dam, built between 1977 and 1985. As the rapid growthof a city affects many services and organizational arrangements that shape the desirability ofliving in a place, an examination of population trends provides information about socialdisruption that may affect sustainability.Although other factors besides hydroelectric development may have influenced populationchanges in Revelstoke, the impacts of local megaprojects on such a small community arerelatively easy to measure due to their immediate and obvious consequences on theirsurroundings. Linkages have been well documented by provincial and municipal governments,B.C. Hydro and by the DPA Group (socio-economic consultants).DiscussionReveistoke has developed through a series of industrial booms, primarily in response to railwayand forestry operations. Prospectors drawn to this vicinity by the discovery of gold in the 1860s192established mining camps along tributaries of the Columbia, north of Revelstoke (The KootenayTask Force 1974). Mining activity was followed by railway construction in the late 1880s, withwork camps located at Reveistoke and Golden. The expansion of the Canadian Pacific Railway(CPR) stimulated the sawmill industry by creating demand for railway ties and lumber. Theinstallation of the main office of the CPR in the late 1800s, followed by the establishment oflocal forestry and lumber processing enterprises, have been responsible for Reveistoke’sdevelopment throughout most of the twentieth century (DPA 1986, 12).Figure 18 illustrates Revelstoke’s population between 1961 and 1991. Two periods of growthaie evident from this graph. The first expansion occurred during the early 1960s, resulting ina 49% increase from 1961 until 1968. After a period of stabilization throughout the 70s, thecity experienced very rapid growth (76%) between 1980 and 1981. Although Reveistokemaintained its larger size for several years, its populaton has since decreased, but has remainedhigher than pre-1981 levels.Reveistoke experienced growth between 1960 and 1965 as a result of the construction of theTrans Canada Highway and the expansion of the CPR. With improved transportation links, theinitiation of tourism opportunities diversified the local economy (DPA 1986, 12).Construction of the Mica Dam, 136 km north of Revelstoke, provided a new stimulus fordevelopment. The population of Revelstoke increased in response to dam construction activity,occurring from 1965 until 1973. The peak of construction occurred in 1972, and declined asthe dam became operational in 1973.12000100008000C 0600040002000Figure18.PopulationofReveistokeRevelstokeDamconstruction0I-Lflr..()LI)(0(0(0CD1-eI-—eeeYearSource:compiledfrom:BritishColumbia.MunicipalStatistics(1961-1991).MicaDamconstruction—InLI)—GoCOCOCOCO a,—194Although a community was established at the Mica dam site to accommodate many of theworkers and relieve pressure on Reveistoke, rapid population growth in and around Reveistokecaused various effects on its residents. Dam-related employment increased local income levels,exceeding the 1971 average in the Kootenay region by 17%. However, social, health,educational and recreational services were all strained by the additional demands placed on thiscommunity, and were deemed to be inadequate for future population expansion. In addition tothese problems, the provincial government identified heavy winter snowfall, limited watersupply, and a lack of housing availability as constraints to further development (British Columbia1976, 257).The population of Reveistoke was fairly stable between the completion of the Mica Dam in1973, and the start of construction of the Revelstoke Dam in 1977. Rather than leaving thearea, it is likely that many workers and their families stayed in Revelstoke in anticipation ofcontinued hydroelectric employment through construction of the Revelstoke Dam.During the initial construction stages of the Revelstoke dam, Revelstoke’s population sizeremained relatively constant. However, the community expanded substantially in 1981. In1982, at the peak of construction activity, there were 2926 hydro construction jobs. Of these,410 jobs were filled by local residents, and 2516 were filled by in-migrants (DPA 1986, 65).This large influx of workers, some of them accompanied by their families, had a substantialimpact on Revelstoke, comprising over 25% of its 1982 population of 9682.Job creation, and the resulting stimulation of the local and regional economy are the mainbenefits received by Reveistoke. Employment provided by dam construction insulated195Reveistoke from the economic recession of the early 1980s (DPA 1986, 67) (see Figure 23 anddiscussion on unemployment in section 4.62). Hydro-related jobs paid high hourly wages to alargely male workforce for periods of several months. While the short-term nature of hydroemployment did not result in high annual wages (DPA 1986, 59), these jobs created competitionfor tradesmen and skilled workers, and displaced workers from the forestry and railway sectors.Labour shortages required the recruitment of less skilled workers from outside the region (DPA1986, 75). While many unemployed employable residents of Revelstoke gained jobs from thedam activity, the number of people who required social assistance during the same periodincreased by 43% due to inflation of food and housing costs. This rate was higher than the 37%total provincial increase during the construction period, 1979 to 1984 (DPA 1986, 114).High levels of income created an income disparity between those with highly paid dam jobs andothers on fixed incomes, such as the elderly and the unemployed. Local inflation affectedhousing and food prices. Housing prices almost doubled from 1975 to 1980, then declinedduring the peak period of construction as workers preferred to rent rather than own. However,with the exception of the first two to three years of dam construction, the rate of housing priceincrease was lower in Revelstoke (60%) than in the province as a whole (81%) from 1975 to1984. Rental rates for two and three bedroom apartments were substantially higher thanprovincial averages from 1981 to 1983 (DPA 1986, 19). According to the DPA socio-economicimpact monitoring study, this problem could have been addressed through the provision of rentsubsidies and food allowances (DPA 1986, 147).The expanded population of Reveistoke resulted in increased demands on social servicesprovided in the community. B.C. Hydro contributed to municipal infrastructure improvements196(water and sewer systems, community planning, waste disposal), mobile home parks, schools,libraries and recreational services. Police, fire protection, human resources, mental health careand hospitals provided increased levels of service without B.C. Hydro assistance, responding tomoderate increases in crime, fire alarms, counselling and medical needs. However, the numberof dentists and physicians was insufficient to meet the needs of the larger population (DPA 1986,149).In accordance with the 1976 water licence for the Revelstoke Dam, two provincial governmentcommittees were formed to monitor impacts: the Reveistoke Project Co-ordinating Committee,and the Community Impact Committee. These two committees addressed impact managementand mitigation, as outlined in the water licence. In addition, a local citizens’ group, comprisedof local government representatives and members of the general public, was established outsideof the water licence requirements to act as an advisory body on mitigation and compensationmatters. Relationships between this local group and the two other committees were not welldefined initially, and in 1980, after three years of monitoring, the citizens’ monitoring programwas discontinued (DPA 1986, 14).The completion of the Reveistoke Dam resulted in a gradual population decline in Revelstoke,beginning in 1985 (Figure 18). This population decrease coincided with the closure of theGoldstream mine in 1984, and reduced sawmilling activity in 1986. However, employmentgenerated by rail jobs associated with CPR tunnelling and double-tracking at Rogers Pass offsetthe loss of other jobs from 1984 until 1988 (British Columbia 1986).Respondents to a post-project survey conducted during the last year of project construction197indicated that their lives had not changed substantially as a result of the Reveistoke project.Some of the most immediate impacts recorded during the downturn of construction activity,were: increased housing availability, some recreation and transportation improvements,decreased employment and income, loss of some friendships with people who had moved on,and increased demand for mental health and human resources services (DPA 1986, 134).The DPA evaluation of the social impacts of the Reveistoke Dam concludes that local residentsgenerally perceived the project as a net gain, however, they listed four main concerns: residentsreceived an unfair (small) share of dam-related jobs; local businesses did not profit as much asanticipated; residents in nearby Sicamous perceived that their community was not compensatedas fairly as Reveistoke in terms of municipal infrastructure; and Sicamous residents weregenerally dissatisfied with B.C. Hydro’s community relations. While DPA concluded that theoverall impacts of the Reveistoke Dam are positive, stating that some of the adverse downturnimpacts are “part of the natural consequences of development and progress in society” (DPA1986, 151), these consultants suggested that some issues could have been better addressed, suchas price inflation, inadequacy of health care, and fear of dam failure. They emphasized that thecompensation and mitigation requirements of the Revelstoke water licence were inadequate andthat local involvement in compensation/mitigation planning is essential.In the early 1990s, Revelstoke’s population has been sustained through ongoing forestry andrailway activity, and increasingly relies on tourism and the service industry (Battersby 1992).In their examination of the basic sector dependence of Revelstoke in 1990, Home and Penner(1992, 11) show that this city relies on several sectors for its income: “other basic” e.g.,administration and services (29%), forestry (27%), pensions (18%) and accommodation and food198services (12%). This municipality does not dependent on any megaproject currently; however,it is strongly influenced by government forest policy.With a smaller population and corresponding tax base, residents of Revelstoke continue to payongoing maintenance costs for expanded infrastructure established during dam-building. Thisplaces a heavy burden on the remaining population. Although B.C. Hydro initially contributedto improving the water supply and sewage system, funded fire trucks, and pays annual grantsand taxes to the municipality amounting to $1,003,217 in 1992 (B.C. Hydro 1993h), the localpopulation believes it finances an unfair share of what is now unnecessary infrastructure(Battersby 1992).Revelstoke also faces constraints with respect to local development opportunities due to itslimited land base which has been diminished due to the area occupied by hydroelectric operations(Battersby 1992). B.C. Hydro has contributed funding towards local park development,recreational facilities, and erosion control for a golf course (Davidson 1992). However, themayor insists that neither mitigation and compensation, nor the payment of annual grants andtaxes, are considered adequate replacement for the loss of potential economic activity that couldoccur without hydro development such as forestry, tourism and farming (Battersby 1992).ConclusionThe construction of the Mica and Reveistoke dams has caused significant population changes forthe community of Reveistoke. Some of its residents may have enjoyed prosperous times duringthe “boom”, and have had to adapt their lifestyles during the “bust” period, to return to thesomewhat more “normal” growth levels of this city. Certain sectors of the community, such as199those on fixed incomes, bore more of the adverse impacts than those employed during damconstruction. Future project planners should ensure that project impact assessments consider thefull range of costs and benefits incurred by people living in surrounding areas.In examining the long-term implications of hydro development on sustainability, it may benecessary to consider the effects of land base constraints and oversized infrastructure on theremaining population of Reveistoke. Future hydroelectric planning should consider some of thedisruptions experienced at Reveistoke and take measures to avoid the repetition of similarproblems. In examining implications for social sustainability, planners should take care toascertain which groups will experience benefits or incur costs, and not assume that the benefitsenjoyed by some will be distributed throughout all groups of society. Redistributional measuresmay need to be introduced to share some of the benefits generated through dam constructionwith groups who may not receive direct gains.4.52 Recreational Fishing - Rod HoursThe measurement of recreational opportunities, through the use of angling activity in rod hours,provides an indication of the extent to which recreational needs are met within the region.Various social interaction needs are filled through the pursuit of recreation, and since outdooractivities are popular in the Kootenays, an examination of fishing trends facilitates theassessment of one aspect of social sustainability in this region. The monitoring of fishingactivity provides an indicator of the intrinsic value of recreation to residents of the ColumbiaRiver Basin.200Kootenay Lake is renowned for hosting one of the most productive fisheries in British Columbia.Anglers from all over North America have been drawn to this lake due to its wide variety ofsport fish, principally rainbow trout, Dolly Varden, kokanee, mountain whitefish and burbot(Pearse and Laub 1969, 11). Although the trophy size Gerrard trout are the most favourablespecies of the sport fishery (Cartwright 1961, 27), kokanee have become a popular summerfishery due to high fishing success rates (Andrusak 1981, 5). As of 1987, kokanee representedthe majority of the lake’s total catch (Andrusak 1987, 6).Local residents value the Kootenay Lake sport fishery due to the important role it plays in termsof recreation, rather than income as there has never been a commercial fishery on this lake(Pearse and Laub 1969, 34). Since people living in the Columbia Basin feel strongly attachedto its rivers and lakes, water-based activities are very popular forms of recreation. Thesignificance of angling in Kootenay Lake may have particularly increased in recent years dueto unfavourable conditions in other reservoirs where substantial water level fluctuations havedisrupted fisheries and angling accessibility. The value of Kootenay Lake fishing has beenestimated as being a large portion of the $18 million (in 1981) value of the sport fishery in theKootenay region (Hirst 1991, 23).DiscussionFigure 19 portrays changes in angling effort on Kootenay Lake from data collected by provincialfisheries officials from 1953 until 1986. Unfortunately, annual surveys of the entire sportfishery were not conducted some years (1960, 1961 and 1964-1967), and have been discontinuedas of 1987. However, sufficient information is available to discern the general implications ofFigure19.AnnualRodHoursonKootenayLake25000020000015000010000050000SpecialLakes0LflIt)I-YearLibbyDamLicencewestarmclosureDuncanDam(1967)B.C.recessionfertilizerplant /c’JI-Lfl[%.LflLI)(0(0COC)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)——Source:compiledfrom:Cartwright(1961)p.28; B.C.FishandGameBranch(1965)p.24;Andrusak(1987)202dam activity on fishing trends.Kootenay Lake angling focuses largely on trophy sized rainbow trout of Gerrard stock, andkokanee. Gerrard trout can grow up to 18 kg and the average fish caught weighs approximately6 kg. Kokanee are smaller growing up to 4 kg and weighing an average of 1 kg (Andrusak1987, 4). Fishing activity occurs in three areas of the lake, as these fish tend to reside withindistinct populations located in the north, south or west arms of the lake. For the purposes ofthis study, the total rod hours for all populations of all five sport fish (rainbow trout, kokanee,Dolly Varden, burbot and whitefish) is used as an indicator. While fishing effort for variousspecies may change annually, Figure 19 summarizes the overall trends of the sport fishery.Generally, angling in Kootenay Lake has increased substantially since 1953, reaching a peak in1975, and declining afterwards. Cartwright (1961, 29) suggests that increased angling activityin the late 1950s may have been triggered by an upward trend in catch success, resulting fromgreater numbers of fish. Increased fish productivity may have occurred due to the greateravailability of nutrients arising from phosphorous emissions from a fertilizer plant opening onthe Kootenay River in 1953. Rising settlement in the Kootenay region resulted in increasingnumbers of local anglers in the region. Some portion of this fishing activity may be attributedto the influx of workers on Columbia River Treaty dams during the 1960s.Fishing pressure increased through the early 1970s in response to rising populations and fishsizes, until 1975. The requirement for anglers to obtain a Special Lakes licence in 1974, toensure a high quality fishing experience based on large size Gerrard trout (Andrusak 1987, 4),may have caused an initial reaction that reduced anglers in this year (Andrusak 1981, 9). The203decreasing catch success since 1975 was originally believed to be a result of overfishing andpoor stream production. However, the corresponding 1980 closure of the west arm kokanee andthe construction of two spawning channels have not reinstated this population, and declining lakeproductivity appears to be affecting all three stocks of kokanee (Andrusak 1987, 17). Althoughthe closure of the west arm fishery resulted in decreased fishing throughout various parts of thelake, the slight increase in effort shown in 1981 may be a result of some anglers relocating toother areas.The decreasing productivity of Kootenay Lake has been attributed to nutrient retention behindthe Libby Dam, completed in 1975. Fish populations may have also suffered from a lack ofaccess to major spawning and rearing grounds (Andrusak 1981, 12) due to the construction ofthe Duncan Dam.In addition to reduced lake productivity, angling pressure has weakened through the 1980s dueto the complete closure of the west arm kokanee fishery, and the economic recession experiencedthroughout British Columbia during the mid 1980s. This recessionary trend has also reducedangling in the Arrow Lakes, and is reflected in provincial fishing statistics which did not showimprovement until 1986 (Andrusak 1987, 6). Slight decreases in size may account for somedecline in fishing effort in the north arm fishery in 1985 and 1986 (Andrusak 1987, 18).Data on the number of rod hours spent on Kootenay Lake have been collected from creel censusprograms. A creel census is conducted by fisheries officers who survey anglers while they arefishing. Surveys are done on random days representative of each day of the week, and dailytotals are multiplied by the frequency of similar days (Saturday, Sunday or weekdays) in a month204to obtain monthly estimates. In recognition that the creel census cannot register all anglers,recorded estimates have been increased by 20%, and slightly further adjusted by 25% since 1982(Andrusak 1987, 3). The measurement of angling effort in rod hours may be somewhatinaccurate due to the small degree of error from the method of calculating monthly estimates,and the adjustment of recorded hours for census inefficiency. However, the creel census hasbeen the standard method used to monitor fishing effort by provincial fisheries officials.ConclusionAlthough fishing has been an important recreational activity in the Kootenays, fishers havereduced their use of Kootenay Lake since 1975, although data were not available for the periodafter 1986. Kootenay Lake is a focal point for regional recreation due to its scenic qualities andaccessibility within the surrounding terrain which is predominantly mountainous. Residents areconcerned about the decline in fisheries productivity in the region, as their trophy-sized fish havebeen a source of pride for several decades.Ecological problems affecting the sport fishery have concerned the people of the Kootenays, andspecifically anglers who have enjoyed the high quality fishing experience that this lake offers.If local communities are interested in developing more recreation or tourism opportunities, theymay wish to promote one of the natural assets for which they are already well known.However, they must also recognize that previous trophy size fish have likely been the productof high phosphorus loading, which is not a “normal” condition of Kootenay Lake. While somefisheries management strategies may be able to enhance sport fish productivity, the ongoingregulation of the Duncan River and the Kootenay River, both of the principal sources of flow205into Kootenay Lake jeopardizes the productivity of the resource upon which fishers focus anddiscourages the pursuit of this form of recreation.If communities in the Kootenays perceive angling to be an important part of their lifestyle, thenfishing activity should be considered in the preparation of dam operating plans. Representativesof local communities, B.C. Hydro and government officials should meet to discuss opportunitiesfor the inclusion of fisheries concerns in future reservoir management.4.53 Social Systems - Participation in Decision-MakingThe examination of participation in decision making provides an indicator of social sustainabilityat a systems level. As the management of natural resources usually involves decision-makingby stakeholders with varying degrees of overlapping jurisdictions, the extent to which differentsocial groups participate may indicate how well communication and feedback loops operatewithin a system of social interactions. The focus of this indicator is on public participation indam-related decision-making at the community level, as this is a major concern of residents ofthe Kootenays.The importance of local participation in decision-making was emphasized by many of thoseinterviewed (Smienk 1992; Demmon 1992; Johnson 1992) and was identified as being one ofthe major issues related to hydro development in the Columbia River Basin at the ColumbiaKootenay Symposium, and at previous community meetings (Table 6). B.C. Hydro hasrecognized that its dam operations have disrupted the lives of Kootenay residents and has madea commitment to seek greater involvement with local governments and community organizations206in its future hydroelectric planning (B.C. Hydro 1993d, 18).Since both B.C. Hydro and local communities have expressed interest in increasing the extentof public participation in hydroelectric decision-making, this indicator is helpful in the evaluationof past and present initiatives, and may provide clues as to how efforts could be directed in thefuture. While the analysis of this indicator is relatively subjective, the use of a projectmanagement diagram assists the interpretation of the chronology of events related to theColumbia River Treaty.DiscussionFigure 20 summarizes the most significant opportunities for public participation in decision-making related to the signing and implementation of the Columbia River Treaty, and subsequentdam projects. Opportunities for participation in decision-making consisted mainly of publichearings. As most of the key development decisions were made before public hearings, andsince the terms of reference given to the Water Comptroller were narrow, the effectiveness ofpublic hearings was quite limited (Waterfield 1970, 87; Wilson 1973, 18). More recently, localgroups have been asked to assist in the development of fish and wildlife compensation programs.The Columbia-Kootenay Symposium and the community meetings that preceded it were the firstexample of a community-based effort to address regional hydro development issues.The lack of concern for public involvement in Columbia River planning is evident from theinitial stages of Treaty preparation, and has created much resentment among residents of theKootenays. Public hearings were not held until after the signing of the Columbia River Treaty,Figure20.PUBLICPARTICIPATIONINCOLUMBIARIVERDAMPLANNING1940195019601970198019902000EventsIJCreview(1944-1959)negotiations(1960-1964)>COLUMBIARIVERTREATYsigning(1961)xCanada/B.C.Agreements(1962,1963)IxxTreatyratification(1964)xTreatyduration(1964-2024)-->2024Non-TreatyStorageAgreement(1984)xCotui*,iaRiverAdvisoryComittee(1989-1991)ColuitiaRiverTreatyComnittee(1991->)ICoLuia-KootenaySynpositml(1993)*CotunbiaCompensationProgram(1993)*returnofdownstreambenefits(1998)xDuncanDamhearings(1961,1964)**Licence(1962)Ixconstruction(1964-1967)IKeenteysideDamhearings(1961,1964)1**Licence(1962)xconstruction(1964-1969)>MicaDamhearings(1961,1964,1973)1***licence(Treatystorage)(1962)xLicence(Non-Treatystorage)(1972)xconstruction(1965-1973)>compensationprogram(1991-1993)*****LibbyDamU.S.Congressauthorization(1950)xhearings(1951)*construction(1966-1973)ReveLstokeDamhearings(1976)IxLicence(1976)construction(1977-1985)>Notes:xdecision<—>continuingactivity*pubLicparticipationactivitySources:CompiLedfromMinistryoftheEnvironmentI.aterLicences,WaterfieLd(1970),WiLson(1973),BritishCoLumbia(1974),Spritzer(1979),k)Swainson(1979,46),B.C.Hydro(1993k),Smienk(1993),GeissLer(1994)208on January 17, 1961. Several days of Water Comptroller hearings were then arranged in eachof the communities of Reveistoke, Nakusp, Castlegar and Kaslo during September, October andNovember of 1961 to discuss the water licences for the Duncan, Keenleyside and Mica Dams.Local residents perceived these hearings as a “farce” due to the limited mandate which preventedsubstantive discussion of the justification of the various projects, and instead addressed licensingconditions and compensation, indicating that the fate of the Kootenays residents was alreadydecided (Waterfield 1970; Wilson 1973).After the signing of the Main and Supplementary British Columbia and Canada Agreements in1963 and 1964, another set of hearings was held. In April and May, 1964, hearings were heldin Parliament before the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on External Affairs. TheTreaty passed by a vote of 92 to 16 in the House of Commons in June, with only 108 memberspresent out of a total of 264. The Senate passed the Treaty without a formal vote and withoutdissent (Wilson 1973, 24). The Treaty was ratified September 16, 1964.Although the relocation of Arrow Lakes residents from Burton, Edgewood and Fauquier wasachieved with the involvement of community groups, B.C. Hydro’s overall performance drewcriticism and led to the impression that project management decisions were being directed fromVancouver. Jim Wilson, the planner responsible for B.C. Hydro’s resettlement, notes that theresettlement program lacked a central figurehead in the Arrow Lakes area, and the absence ofa local contact contributed to the feeling of powerlessness experienced by residents of relocatingcommunities (1973, 173).In a follow-up survey conducted by Wilson in 1970, respondents indicated that the question of209compensation overshadowed the entire resettlement program (Wilson 1973, 146). With itsauthority to expropriate, the government held a large degree of control over compensationdecisions. Wilson (1973, 145) concludes that this negative perception of B.C. Hydro may notactually represent their true performance, but portrays their role in a situation which wasinevitable according to the decision-making practices at that time.Although Arrow Lakes residents were somewhat involved in planning for the relocation of theircommunities along the new reservoir, further public discussion of substantive issues did notoccur until after the construction of the Mica Dam in 1973. In recognition of the minimal studyof the impacts of the establishment of the Kinbasket Reservoir on surrounding resources, theBritish Columbia Environment and Land Use Committee conducted an examination of resourceuse in the Kinbasket Reservoir region in May, several months after the completion of the dam.This post-project evaluation included four days of additional public hearings, held in July inCastlegar, Revelstoke, Golden and Valemount (British Columbia, 1974, 1-2). Presentationsfocused on wildlife, forestry and recreation issues related to the consequences of hydroelectricdevelopment in the Mica region. The ELUC report emphasizes the high value that localcommunities place on recreation. Participants stated that the people of the Kootenay regionbelieve they have borne the brunt of problems resulting from hydro development, and that theirvalues have not been considered adequately (British Columbia 1974, 8-2).The International Joint Commission held public hearings regarding construction of the LibbyDam on the Kootenay River in Montana, in Cranbrook in March 1951. Discussion of theconsequences of the flooding of Canadian land occurred after the U.S. Congress had alreadyauthorized the construction of the dam in 1950 (Swainson 1979, 46).210The 1984 Non-Treaty Storage Agreement was signed without any public consultation, and wassimilarly extended in a subsequent agreement in 1990. Since the additional storage providedthrough these agreements was already authorized by the original water storage licence for Mica,no hearings were deemed to be necessary (Kendall 1993).B.C. Hydro established the Columbia River Advisory Committee in 1989, so that representativesof the Kootenays could discuss unresolved hydro development issues and providerecommendations on the provincial utility’s operations in the region. This committee reviewedvarious B.C. Hydro initiatives and established working groups to address specific problems, suchas grass seeding to reduce dust storms along the Arrow reservoir (Newton 1993). CRAC is nolonger active as its function has been replaced with other initiatives to include communities inB.C. Hydro’s decision-making (Geissler 1994).The establishment of fish and wildlife compensation programs in the 1990s indicates a politicalwillingness to acknowledge that communities in the Columbia River Basin have experiencedresource use problems as a result of hydroelectric decision-making. The Columbia Basincompensation program, as well as its predecessor focusing solely on Mica, have attempted toincorporate a greater degree of public participation in this resource enhancement program. TheMica compensation program, initiated in 1991, has involved consultation with members of localcommunities in an effort to incorporate local ideas into the identification of fish and wildlifemanagement priorities (B.C. Hydro 1991b).The establishment of the Columbia River Treaty Committee (CRTC) in 1991 represents asignificant community-based effort to participate in hydro-related decisions affecting the lives211of those living with the consequences of dam operations. The CRTC consists of representatives(mostly mayors and councillors) of the five regional districts and tribal councils in the ColumbiaRiver Basin. Its mandate is to ensure that the provincial government addresses social, economicand environmental impacts of hydro development, and to insist a portion of the downstreambenefits resulting from hydro operations in the region is returned to the Kootenays. Thisorganization is attempting to regain some control over regional resource use and decision-makingthrough a regional coordination of information sharing and lobbying on issues related to hydrodevelopment in the Kootenays.The 1993 Columbia-Kootenay Symposium, organized by the Columbia River Treaty Committee,provided a unique multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of many of the impacts andcommunity development issues related to hydro development in the region. This initiative isparticularly significant as it is a product of regional efforts to address dam-related problems, andwas not initiated by B.C. Hydro or the provincial government. Community representativespresented their concerns, summarizing those expressed in seven previous community meetings.Resentment regarding past injustices was verbalized through the discussion of hydroelectricimpacts throughout the region, and participants then identified opportunities for futurecommunity development strategies.B.C. Hydro has included Columbia River Basin communities in its Electrical Systems OperatingReview. Working groups have been established in seven communities to assist in theidentification of issues relevant to the operation of dams in the region.212ConclusionPublic participation has not been given much priority before, during and immediately after hydrodevelopment. Up until the last few years, the majority of effort has been focused on publichearings, which have been largely informative in nature, meaning that the public has beeninformed of future development plans. This is consistent with public information programsacross Canada and within British Columbia. However, since the late 80s, during a time ofincreasing societal environmental awareness, B.C. Hydro has made a greater effort to includethose who live near its dam sites in consultation processes.While public participation initiatives have evolved considerably from the limited scope and latetiming of water licence hearings for Columbia River Treaty dams, individuals, communities andthe Columbia River Treaty Committee are demanding a greater role in the control of decisionsregarding watershed resources. Previous hydroelectric planning has been made without adequateconsideration of local concerns and community development priorities. In some cases, thereduced availability of land due to reservoir creation has heightened conflicts between variousresource users. Residents feel that they cannot manage their resources to achieve the futures towhich they would like to aspire.The development of the CRTC shows how regional bonds have formed to address adverseconditions experienced throughout the Columbia Basin. The strengthening of the identity of theKootenay region, through the work of the CRTC and other regional initiatives, may enhance thesocial sustainability of those communities affected by hydro dams. Cooperative efforts to regainsome control over resource use decisions may go a long way towards improving the desirability213of living conditions in this region. The continuation of work by the Columbia River TreatyCommittee, or some other regional organization, should assist in the inclusion of Kootenayresidents in regional resource base decision making.B.C. Hydro and provincial government officials could assist in providing opportunities for publicparticipation by opening up resource use decisions to include those who are directly affected bythe outcome. Communities impacted by ongoing dam operations could be included in futureplanning for the return of downstream benefits, as well as information collection for theElectrical Systems Operating Review. Participation in decision-making processes that affectlocal resource use may empower those who have previously felt detached from the stewardshipof their surroundings, and may provide new opportunities for information sharing.4.6 Economic IndicatorsEconomic indicators were chosen in an effort to identify some of the key aspects of hydrodevelopment that have affected the ability of economic systems to support improvement inquality of life, as well as to enhance the operations of ecological and social systems. Economicindicators are used in this analysis to examine how dam operations have affected the ability oflocal communities to pursue economic activities from their resource base. Since resource-basedindustries have generated the majority of income for human settlements throughout theKootenays, the withdrawal of land or water from local development in a region with severe landuse constraints may have significant consequences for economic development or economicdiversity, a goal of many communities dependent on forestry or mining across BritishColumbia.214Land use decisions in one area may have critical effects on economic activities of adjacent areas.The designation of priorities for the management of a strip of land or water body can limit orenhance activities conducted previously on the same or nearby land or water. Economicopportunities may be affected by changes in access to resources, changes to environmentaloperating conditions (e.g., reservoir fluctuations), or uncertainty due to changes in decision-making and the communication of decisions. The following discussion uses economic indicatorsrelated to resource use in the Kootenays to monitor how hydro development has affectedeconomic development opportunities in surrounding communities.Economic indicators have been selected to examine the effects of hydro development oneconomic aspects of sustainability. Tourism is of interest because of its role in contributingtowards economic diversity, a goal of many resource-dependent communities. Unemploymentdata provide an indication of the employment situation at the community level and may act asan early warning indicator with respect to related social problems. Concerns related toaccessibility to timber supply are important to the forestry sector and are also of significance tothe local community due to its high dependence on this industrial sector.4.61 Economic Diversity - Tourism Room RevenuesMany communities in the Kootenays are encouraging tourism as a means of economicdiversification. At the Columbia-Kootenay Symposium, representatives from various parts ofthe region expressed their frustration with the boom and bust cycles associated with previousindustrial development. Participants view the scenic quality of their surroundings as anattraction that could stimulate economic activity in the region (Salasan 1993).215Initially, regional developers viewed dams and reservoirs as being assets for tourism (BritishColumbia 1970, 49). It was predicted that tourists would be drawn to the region to observesome of Canada’s largest engineering accomplishments, and to enjoy a wide range ofrecreational opportunities based around the region’s six reservoirs. Several decades later, someof the adverse impacts of this form of regional development have become apparent. Localmayors and economic development planners are concerned that various aspects of hydrodevelopment, particularly the low reservoir levels experienced on the Kinbasket, Arrow andKoocanusa reservoirs, may cause adverse effects on tourism.Room revenues are a useful measure of tourism due to the ability of this indicator to reflect thenumber of tourist dollars flowing into a community, unlike some other tourism data related tohighway traffic or golf courses which would include some component of local travel orrecreation.DiscussionThe scenic beauty of the mountains, valleys and waterways of the Kootenays is the principalattraction for tourism in this region. A large proportion of tourism in the Kootenays is basedon touring and outdoor, adventure and sport activities. Popular activities of visitors to theregion include sport fishing, recreational boating, hunting, golf, and various types of skiing(downhill, cross-country, heli-skiing, cat-skiing), wilderness and beach/lakeshore experiences(DPA Group 1990).Although the aesthetic appeal of the mountains and waterways throughout the Kootenays has216been widely recognized for its ability to stimulate tourism, this form of economic developmentremains relatively unexploited and largely undeveloped due to the lack of good highway accessto this region (British Columbia 1986). The completion of the Coquihalla highway in 1986 hassince improved accessibility to the northern portion of the Columbia River Basin. However,road and air access continues to constrain tourism in this region (DPA Group 1990).Visitor spending throughout the Kootenays is generally lower than in other parts of the province.Non-resident tourism expenditures are particularly low in the tourism area known as “KootenayCountry” (generally the Central Kootenay Regional District), representing a mere 1% of nonresident provincial tourism, as only 4% of all visitor parties to British Columbia stayed one ormore nights in this area. Tourism expenditures in the Kootenay Country area are lower than theprovincial average and less than in any other tourism area in the province. This is largely aresult of the large number of tourists that visit with friends and relatives (42% of visitors toKootenay Country in 1989), the focus on independent outdoor recreation activities, and theabsence of other attractions such as shopping or nightlife entertainment (Campbell, Goodell andAssociates 1990). In 1989, visitors to this area spent $29 per person per day, staying an averageof 2.61 nights, compared to the provincial average of $55 per person per day and regional visitsof 3.08 nights during a visit of 5.83 days within the province (Campbell, Goodell and Associates1990, 5).Although most communities in the Kootenays continue to rely on forestry and mining for localincome and employment, many local residents would like to encourage tourism as a means ofstimulating economic diversification. The large amount of interest in this form of developmentwas noted by the authors of a 1990 study addressing tourism development opportunities in the217region. The region’s natural aesthetic features play an integral role in a resulting tourismstrategy that relies strongly on the development of adventure travel, outdoor recreation, natureand wilderness experiences (DPA Group 1990, 13).Figure 21 shows the annual expenditures on accomodation for the five regional districts thatrepresent parts of the Columbia River Basin. Figure 21 represents actual room revenues (beforetax) in constant ($1986) dollars, so that the effects of inflation are removed. The data arelimited to the years following 1985, as this information was not gathered previously. Data for1988 are not available in two cases.Room revenue is a useful indicator for tourism, since the majority of expenses onaccommodation are made by non-residents. Visitors to the Kootenays spend less onaccommodation than the provincial average of approximately $15/day (only $6.17 out of theaverage $29/day on tourism in Kootenay Country; $11.29 out of the average $36/day on tourismin the B.C. portion of the Rocky Mountains), due to the wide use of campgrounds and visitswith family and friends. Although accommodation expenses do not represent a large portion ofvisitor spending, these expenses are one of the largest components of tourism revenues,exceeding all other components in the Rocky Mountains, and matching restaurant revenues inKootenay Country. In addition, room revenue trends may correspond to food expenditures sincethose who choose to pay more for indoor accomodation are likely to contribute more tourismdollars through spending on meals than campground users. Revenues from campgrounds couldalso be used as an indicator; however, recent data from relevant areas were not as readilyavailable as the information obtained for room revenues.0 E (0 0) I 4 C C) C) E 0 0 C CFigure21.AnnualRoomRevenueintheKooteriaysCoquihallacompletion?Expo8630 25 20 15 10 5 0recessioninCanadaandU.S.EastKootenayCentralKootenayKootenayBoundary—Fraser-FortGeorgeAColumbia-Shuswap19851986198719881989199019911992YearSource:compiledfromBritishColumbia,MinistryofGovernment Services,Central StatisticsBranch(1993)219Tourism trends are a result of a variety of factors, such as weather, access, economic conditionsand special events. While it is difficult to interpret the cumulative impacts of all of theseinfluences, there are some key considerations that can be used to explain the tourism trendsshown.According to Figure 21, room revenues in the East Kootenay generate the most income in theregion, although its dominance over other regions is diminishing. East Kootenay tourism hasdeclined since 1988, while tourism in all other regional districts has increased gradually between1986 and 1989, and then stabilized or slightly declined, with the exception of Fraser-Fort Georgewhich increased in 1992. These trends generally correspond to provincial room revenues, whichhave slowed in growth since 1990 (British Columbia 1992). Although a portion of the FraserFort George Regional District is situated within the Columbia River basin, this area is ignoredin the following analysis as it is likely that the majority of these revenues pertain to tourism nearPrince George, which is outside of the study area.Several important events occurred in 1986 which have had significant effects on tourism in theKootenays. The completion of the Coquihalla in time for Expo ‘86 in Vancouver increasedaccess to the northern portion of the Kootenays, and stimulated tourism throughout BritishColumbia as visitors travelled to and from Vancouver. Decreasing accommodation expendituressince 1989 may be a result of the diminishing effects of Expo, and recessionary economicconditions in Canada and the United States, combined with increasing tourism interest in otherparts of the province.In an effort to reduce dependency on the fluctuations of external markets for forest and mineral220resources, communities in the Kootenays are interested in promoting tourism to diversify theireconomies. Some representatives of these municipalities are concerned about barriers to tourismimposed by the operation of large hydro dams.The consideration of the consequences of hydro development on tourism requires an examinationof its positive contributions in terms of the development of dam and reservoir tourist attractions,in contrast with its adverse impacts on the scenic nature of the local environment and access towater-based recreation. Dam sites in the Kootenays have been developed as tourist attractionsthrough the establishment of visitor centres and dam tours. The enhancement of recreation areasand parks along reservoirs has improved recreational opportunities along some sections of theshoreline.However, local mayors and economic development officers are concerned that low reservoirlevels in recent years may reduce the aesthetic appeal of activities focused on the lakeshore.Hydro development has blocked waterways, limiting international and intraregional travel, andreducing boating opportunities in free-flowing water. Fluctuating reservoir levels have affectedangling due to adverse effects on fish populations, and all types of boating opportunities havebeen impacted by the hazardous presence of stumps that were flooded but never cleared, andreduced accessibility when wharves are inadequate to reach low water levels.The positive effects of hydro development on tourism in the Kootenays are difficult to discernfrom Figure 21. While dam tours have likely contributed to tourism in the vicinity of dam sites,without a survey of dam visitors it is impossible to deduce whether dam tours attract and prolongvisits, or whether they merely replace other activities in the region. It is unlikely that dam visits221are the principal purpose of regional tourism as this activity is not mentioned by respondents toregional tourism surveys (Campbell, Goodell and Associates 1990).The establishment of a visitor centre at the Reveistoke Dam has attracted tourists travellingthrough the Kootenays. Since the opening of the Reveistoke visitor centre coincides with thecompletion of the Coquihalla and additional tourism resulting from Expo, it is not possible toestablish the degree to which Reveistoke dam visitors contribute to regional tourism, especiallyas all three of these factors continue to influence tourism within the Columbia-Shuswap regionaldistrict (although the effects of Expo may be diminishing). However, the number of annualvisitors (including a local component) to the Reveistoke visitor centre has varied from 47,379in 1987 to 65,668 in 1992, suggesting that many travellers spend several more hours in theRevelstoke vicinity than they might have otherwise. Improved highway travel plays a role infacilitating these visits, and dam tours may draw tourists away from other tourist facilities.B.C. Hydro has made financial contributions toward the enhancement of many parks andrecreation areas throughout the Kootenays (Davidson 1992), and it is likely that theseimprovements have increased tourism in certain areas. However, it is difficult to evaluate thedegree to which these enhancements have affected tourism as this requires extensive tabulationof park information and would require site inspections.The principal adverse effects on tourism that have been attributed to hydro development arelargely a result of fluctuating reservoir levels. Although sport fishing and hunting opportunitieshave been affected due to fish and wildlife habitat degradation as described in the discussion ofprevious indicators, this section will focus on the effects of low reservoir levels.222Tourism studies of the Central Kootenay area along the Arrow reservoir have recognized thedetrimental consequences of large drawdowns with respect to tourism development. Recreationopportunities have been significantly reduced due to problems related to reduced boating access,and debris accumulation in the water and along the shoreline, which affects boating safety andaesthetic appeal (Marshall Mackim Monaghan 1982b, 24; DPA Group 1990, 2-2). Local mayorsand tourism operators have expressed concern over these impacts on regional tourism (Johnson1992).To assess the effects of low reservoir levels on regional tourism, it is necessary to examine theroom revenue expenditures for the areas affected during the specific months when low levelsoccur, although drawdown effects on fish may affect fishing-related tourism during other timesof the year. Figure 22 shows monthly room expenditures for the five regional districts duringthe peak tourism season (July), when low reservoir levels during 1992 and 1993 (Figure 11) areperceived to have reduced tourism.While room expenditures in all regional districts in the Kootenays decreased during June andAugust of 1992 compared to the previous year with the exception of Fraser-Fort George,accommodation use increased during July throughout the region with the exception of the CentralKootenay Regional District. Room revenue expenditures of approximately $837,900 ($1986)in July 1992, represent an 8% decline from the previous year’s expenditures of $908,700($1986), while similar spending in other regional districts increased 1- 5%, excluding the 19%increase in Fraser-Fort George. Provincial average growth from July 1991 was 2.9%,corresponding to an almost negligible change in the number of U.S. border crossings (0.2%)during July. The 8% decline in the Central Kootenay Regional District experienced during JulyC 0 E (0 cc a) z C > a) E 0 0Figure22.RoomRevenueintheKootenaysDuringJuly,1 991-1993lowreservoir levels30000002500000200000015000001000000500000 0lowreservoirlevelsEastKootenayCentral KootenayKootenayBoundaryD—Fraser-Fort GeorgeAColumbia-Shuswap199119921993YearSource:compiledfromBritishColumbia,MinistryofGovernment Services,CentralStatisticsBranch(1993).224represents some degree of variation from the rest of the Kootenay area, and the province, andcoincides with the occurrence of particularly low reservoir levels on the Arrow reservoir.Changes in total room revenues are representative of fluctuations in numbers of visitors to anarea, and an increase or decrease in room rates could affect the volume of tourists and overallroom revenues. However, it is unlikely that room rates in the Kootenays would have changedsubstantially from one year or season to the next or that increases would dissuade visitors to anynoticeable extent.Other tourism statistics support the fact that increased numbers of visitors were travellingthrough the northern part of the Kootenays during July of 1992, yet do not explain the declinein the Central Kootenay area. Traffic patterns along the Coquihalla and the Trans Canada atRogers Pass concur with room expenditures, decreasing during June and August 1992 comparedwith the previous year’s volumes, and increasing during July 1992. The number of visitors tothe Reveistoke visitor centre also shows decreases from the previous year during June andAugust, and an increase during July of 1992.Attendance at the three national parks within the Kootenays (Glacier, Reveistoke and Kootenay),as well as at Jasper National Park near Valemount, showed little or no change from the previousyear (-2 to 5%) from June until August, with the exception of a 12% decline at KootenayNational Park during August 1992. Daily mean temperatures recorded at the park andthroughout the Central Kootenay Regional District were higher than historical averages (1961-1990) in June, and similar to past averages during July and August. Rain was generally lowerthan average at the park and throughout the Kootenays in June, followed by relatively average225local precipitation in July, although rainfall in the park was 60 - 90% higher than average.August rainfall throughout the Central Kootenay Regional District was average.British Columbia Parks officials believe that attendance at the various provincial parks along theArrow Reservoir decreases when water levels are low since people visit these parks primarilyto enjoy shoreline or water-based activities. Park employees have become aware of the impactsof low reservoir levels as a result of complaints from campers, reduced visitors and decreasedrevenues. Attendance at Syringa Provincial Park near Castlegar can be used as a barometer oflocal campground use due to its popularity during the summer. During 1992, the number ofparties camping overnight at Syringa from mid-May until mid-September declined by 20.2%from 1991, and day use decreased by 14.1 % during the same time. Although reservoir levelsimproved during the summer of 1993, overnight camping declined a further 6.1% from 1992as a result of poor weather conditions, although day use increased by 8.3% (Price 1993).The effects of reservoir drawdown on tourism in communities near the Arrow, Libby andKinbasket reservoirs was evident during summer visits by the author in 1992 and 1993. Theexposure of steep shorelines of coarse sediment partially covered with debris diminished theaesthetic appeal of these three water bodies. Athough the wharf at the Nakusp marina wasextended by BC Hydro, many smaller wharves along the Arrow reservoir were unusable duringAugust 1992. Debris and stumps remaining in the reservoir pose a hazard to boating safety, andare a continuing concern even during higher reservoir levels, as overheard by the author duringan August 1993 observation of a lone water skier on the Arrow reservoir.Statistics related to highway traffic, Reveistoke visitor centre records, national and provincial226park attendance, and local weather all indicate favourable conditions for tourism in theKootenays during the summer of 1992. However, the decrease in room revenues in CentralKootenay, as well as declines in attendance at Kootenay National Park and Syringa ProvincialPark suggest that tourism in the Central Kootenay area may have been affected by damoperations on the Arrow reservoir. While some portion of these declines may represent normalvariation, it is likely that tourism was affected by the occurrence of low reservoir levels, dueto the significance of outdoor activities and water-based recreation to local tourism. Fieldobservations and interviews with local mayors corroborate this proposition.The impacts of low reservoir levels on the Koocanusa and its implications for East Kootenaytourism are more difficult to assess. Although large reservoir fluctuations are acknowledged asa hindrance to local recreational opportunities (Marshall Mackim Monaghan Limited 1982a, 15),the impacts of particularly low levels during the summer of 1993 are not evident from theincreasing room revenues experienced in July of this year (Figure 22), although this does notremove the possibility that revenues might have been higher.Analysis of the factors used to examine tourism in the Central Kootenay area is limited by thelack of similar statistics for the East Kootenays. Highway data are not collected to the sameextent in the southeastern portion of the Kootenays and there are no nearby national parks tomonitor visitor attendance.However, low levels on the Koocanusa reservoir are believed to have affected tourism in theEast Kootenays, especially during the summer of 1993. The effects of Koocanusa water levelfluctuations on tourism has been outlined by participants at the Columbia-Kootenay Symposium,227and by those attending the preceding community meetings, as well as by a local campgroundoperator. Recreational opportunities have been degraded due to the exposure of muddyshorelines and the inability to use existing wharves during low water levels. Tourists who wouldnormally use campgrounds along the shoreline are reducing the length of their visits or leavingthe area altogether (Cutts 1993).Low reservoir levels on the Kinbasket reservoir during the summers of 1992 and 1993 havelikely affected local tourism development possibilities, rather than existing tourism or recreationfacilities. There has been little recreational development on this water body due to lack ofaccess and facilities, and remoteness (British Columbia 1974, 6-60), and problems related toreservoir level fluctuations since the completion of the Mica Dam in 1973.Room revenues for July in the Columbia-Shuswap Regional District varied little from 1991 to1992, but have since increased. The variables discussed previously with respect to the CKRD(highway statistics, weather, Revelstoke visitor centre attendance and national park records),apply similarly to the analysis of tourism in the vicinity of the Kinbasket reservoir, behind theMica Dam. Although the lack of substantial change in revenue from July of the previous yearcorresponds to the provincial trend for this time period, local mayors and tour operators areconcerned that drawdown is affecting tourism development opportunities.Anglers, hunters and outfitters have experienced difficulties pursuing their recreational interestsdue to hydro development in the Kinbasket Reservoir area. Some areas that were previouslyreached by travel along logging roads, are now limited to boat access. Boating is constrainedby wharf lengths during drawdown periods, and is hazardous due to the presence of stumps and228debris (Baltakis 1992; Ant, Gutzman and Sim 1992; Schuck 1992).ConclusionThe examination of room revenues, and additional tourism-related statistics suggests that lowreservoir levels have affected tourism in the Kootenays during the summers of 1992 and 1993.Tourism along the Arrow Reservoir has been particularly affected as it has already beenestablished as a popular area to visit, and shoreline and water-based activities play a prominentrole in local tourism. Ongoing problems related to reservoir drawdown on the Koocanusa andKinbasket reservoirs may not have reduced existing tourism to the same extent, but may continueto inhibit the development of water-based activities.Since many communities are interested in encouraging economic diversity through thedevelopment of tourism, the impacts of reservoir drawdown may be significant to futureeconomic sustainability of the Kootenays. Although the severity of these impacts varies annuallyaccording to water levels established by climatological conditions at the source of the Columbiaand Kootenay Rivers, as well as demands for water and electricity further downstream,communities desiring to promote tourism would benefit from their concerns being included inreservoir operation planning.This analysis has examined many of the most common factors affecting tourism, and specificallyroom revenues along the Arrow, Koocanusa and Kinbasket reservoirs. Other conditionsaffecting tourism at particular communities along the reservoirs, such as local events, may alsocontribute to local variation.2294.62 Employment Stability - Unemployment Rates in the KootenaysUnemployment rates are an indicator of economic stability in terms of employment at thecommunity level, and may provide useful information as an early warning indicator of economicand related problems. As employment satisfies some basic human needs, the examination of theproportion of those unemployed in a specific area enables one to deduce to what extent apopulation is unable to meet its fundamental requirements or to what degree a group may bedependent on external assistance. Unemployment trends may be useful in reflecting the generaleconomic stability of a community or region.Unemployment is a major concern in the Kootenay region due to the cyclical occurrence ofbooms and busts associated with dependence on resource-based industries. Although theconstruction of hydro dams stimulates substantial short-term employment, residents of theKootenays are dissatisfied with the small number of long-term jobs resulting from this use oflocal water and land resources. Columbia Basin hydro development does not alleviate ongoingemployment problems in the Kootenay region. Some residents believe that resource useproblems resulting from dam operations constrain opportunities for economic activity, and mayactually influence unemployment rates (Table 6).Unemployment rates are often used as a measure of socio-economic welfare. While the generalfamiliarity with this indicator makes it conceptually easy to understand, its links with specificsectors of the economy, such as hydroelectricity, may not be as obvious. It is also worth notingthat although unemployment rates provide a general idea of economic activity in an area, the useof this general statistic does not elucidate which groups of society are unemployed.230DiscussionThe discussion of unemployment rates shown in Figure 23 is limited by the availability of dataon economic regions. Statistics Canada did not publish regional divisions of unemployment ratesbefore 1975. However, the information portrayed in Figure 23 enables a reasonable examinationof the effects on unemployment of the Mica, Kootenay Canal, Seven Mile and Revelstokeprojects.Figure 23 shows a slow increase in the average unemployment rate for British Columbia fromthe early 1960s onward, until the recession in the mid 80s caused a significant increase. Theprovincial unemployment rate has since declined, but appears to be rising again in the early 90s.Unemployment trends in British Columbia are similar to those for Canada since the 1960s;however, national increases peaked at approximately 12% in the early 80s, while BritishColumbia’s rates rose to 14.7% in 1984 (Statistics Canada, 1992).The Economic Council of Canada attributes British Columbia’s unemployment trends toincreasing structural unemployment and international commodity prices. Although BritishColumbia’s structural unemployment increased throughout the 1960s and 70s, high commodityprices during the 70s kept unemployment low. In 1979, world commodity prices fell andprovincial unemployment rates increased dramatically as the provincial economy relies heavilyon forestry and mining industries. Recovery from this plunge was delayed by the rise instructural unemployment, previously hidden by favourable commodity prices (Gera 1991, 51).Unemployment rates for the three economic regions in the Kootenays generally follow provincialIIIIIIIIIIIIII(Y)II,0CY)Lf)—(Y)LI,—(.0(.0(.0F-.COCOCOGDaDo_)0)0)O)0)0)Iee———e——e—Year•BritishColumbia———EastKootenayCentralKootenay/———KootenayColumbia-ShuswapBoundary/OkanaganFigure23.Unemployment RatesinBritishColumbia25 20RevelstokeDamSevenMileDamKootenayCanalMicaDamKeenleysideDamDuncanDamB.C.recessionSource:compiled:fromStatisticsCanada(1992).LabourForceAnnualAverages;DPAGroup(1986)p.54;B.C.(1976)p.206.232trends with some regional variation (Figure 23). Economic region 910 (East Kootenay RegionalDistrict) has lower rates, while region 920 (Central Kootenay and Columbia-Shuswap RegionalDistricts) has had higher unemployment, surpassing region 930 (Kootenay Boundary, OkanaganSimilkameen, Central Okanagan and North Okanagan Regional Districts) until the early 90s.The East Kootenays have relied heavily on mining at Fernie and Kimberley, along with forestryand agriculture around Cranbrook. These industries have been affected by the rise in commodityprices, and have resulted in regional employment rates that parallel the provincial average whileremaining slightly lower until 1986. Although the eastern section of the Kootenays has nothosted large dam construction activity, its unemployment may have been offset by forest clearingbefore flooding of the Kootenay River to create the Koocanusa reservoir behind the Libby Damin Montana, in 1975. Recent unemployment rates are not available for this economic region asdata are statistically insignificant.The Central Kootenay and Columbia-Shuswap Regional Districts have experienced the worstunemployment within the Kootenays. Unemployment rates in this area were similar to theprovincial average during the late 1970s, but increased dramatically through the early 80sreaching a high of 20.3 % in 1985. They have since declined, but remain higher than theprovincial average. This area depends largely on forestry for employment, and has thereforebeen susceptible to labour reductions due to increased mechanization, diminishing supply,increased international competition (Barnes et al. 1992, 184) and high union wages (Gera 1991,44).The development of four large dams in this area from the 1970s until the 80s provided some233short-term insulation from increasing unemployment rates. Many workers employed nearReveistoke on the Mica project (1973) were able to use similar skills on later Reveistoke damconstruction (1985), reducing unemployment for this community. Although the number ofunemployed employable applicants decreased significantly as a result of dam-related jobs atRevelstoke, non-resident workers also brought dependents requiring social assistance (DPAGroup 1986, iv). Nelson and Castlegar labourers found employment on the Kootenay Canalproject (1976), which was followed by the Seven Mile Dam (1980).Unemployment increased substantially in the Central Kootenay and Columbia-Shuswap area,reaching a high of 20.3% in 1985. While the large hydroelectric development project atReveistoke partially alleviated unemployment in the Reveistoke and Sicamous-Malakwa area,maintaining unemployment rates in the range of 9.9% (1981) to 11.3 % (1985), dam activitymay have only delayed the inevitable problem of growing unemployment in this region (DPA1986, 128). Some of the high unemployment in 1985 is a direct result of the completion ofwork on the Revelstoke dam and represents those who had not yet relocated, as well as theclosure of the Goldstream mine in 1984. Railway jobs associated with CPR tunnelling anddouble-tracking at Rogers Pass offset some unemployment from 1984 until 1988.Unemployment rates have declined as workers previously employed on the Reveistoke projecthave resettled within or outside the region.As economic region 930 encompasses the Okanagan area as well as Kootenay Boundary RegionalDistrict, it is difficult to discuss what portion of the unemployment in this economic regionpertains to the Kootenays. Unemployment rates follow provincial patterns, but tend to behigher. The Cominco smelter at Trail has been responsible for the majority of employment in234the Kootenay Boundary Regional Disthct. The construction of the Seven Mile Dam on the Pendd’Oreille River alleviated some unemployment around Trail in the late 70s; however,unemployment in this area has risen in response to falling mineral prices and increased labourproductivity as a result of modernization (British Columbia 1986).B.C. Hydro continues to play a role in alleviating unemployment in the Kootenays, althoughfewer people are employed near the sites of energy production for ongoing dam operation thanduring construction activities. Of the 6,468 regular and temporary people employed by B.C.Hydro as of January 1994 (Prior 1994), 207 (3 %) were residents of the Kootenays (Ferraro1994).ConclusionLarge hydroelectric projects have provided considerable short-term employment for residents andmigrant workers in the Kootenays. Dam-related jobs have reduced unemployment incommunities near dam sites during dam construction, but have also contributed to highunemployment during the immediate post-project period. While buffering communities nearproject sites from external economic conditions, dam employment may just postpone eventualunemployment.While large hydro development projects have alleviated unemployment in the Kootenays forshort periods, they do not contribute substantially to long-term economic sustainability for localcommunities. Dams in the Kootenays largely provide employment for engineers and plannersin Vancouver, where most of B.C. Hydro’s central decision-making is done. Future hydro235projects could be scheduled consecutively to provide continuous employment for a regionallabour force, although economic forecasts and labour mobility would also need to be considered.Work activity should be planned to avoid the large flux of unemployed workers that has followedthe completion of large dams.4.63 Forestry Constraints - Accessibility to Timber SupplyThe Kootenay region is strongly dependent on forestry for regional income. Logging operations,sawmills and pulp mills have provided employment for residents of the Kootenays since theconstruction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad when logging camps were first established in theregion. The sale of forest products contributes a large share of regional income.Hydroelectric development within the Columbia River basin has caused economic hardships forforestry operations. The series of large hydro projects built during the 1960s until the mid-80shas withdrawn timber from local supply areas, affected accessibility to timber supply andincreased operating costs. Compensation has been limited to the replacement of logging roads(Szaraz 1981).While forestry contributes to local economies throughout the region, its role is most importantto Golden, and the Castlegar-Arrow Lakes area (Home and Penner 1992). Forestry operationsin the Golden Timber Supply Area (TSA) have been affected by hydro development moreseverely than any other timber supply areas within the Kootenays. The examination ofaccessibility to timber supply within the Golden Timber Supply Area is an indicator of theongoing economic constraints that affect forestry in the Kootenays.236DiscussionThe economies of many communities in the Kootenays depend largely on forestry. This isevident from studies on community economic dependence completed for the British ColumbiaForest Resources Commission (Home and Penner 1992), later revised for the BC Round Table(Home and Robson 1993). Table 10 indicates the percentage of employment income derivedfrom the various basic sectors of the British Columbia economy for areas in the Kootenaysregion, as calculated by Home and Robson (1993). The data in Table 10 are based on the 1986census and have been updated with 1990 estimates (Home and Penner 1992, 3). Although theseestimates may have changed somewhat since then, they represent general trends in theKootenays.The consideration of basic sector dependence provides useful information that clarifies thesignificance of resource use issues to those living in the Kootenays. Table 10 indicates that theKootenays region is highly dependent on forestry, with some areas benefiting from mining andpension incomes. Forestry dependence varies from 4% in the Trail-Rossland area to 56% in thevicinity of Golden. Forestry provides a substantial portion of income to the Castlegar-ArrowLakes area as well as McBride-Valemount (both 45%), and plays an important role in theeconomies of Nelson (28%), Invermere (26%), Cranbrook-Kimberley (20%) and Revelstoke(20%).Economic constraints on forestry are particularly significant to the local economy of Golden dueto its high level of dependence on this sector and its lack of economic diversity. According tothe 1986 labour force census, forestry employed 410 (11.2%) of the total labour force of 3,655237Table 10. Basic Sector Dependence% of Basic Sector FOR MIN F&T AG TOU H&E 0TH UN PEN INV TRA SOCEAST KOOTENAYFernie Area 14 44 0 2 5 0 2 7 12 9 3 2Cranbrook-Kimberley Area 20 2 0 2 4 3 10 8 23 17 3 6Invermere Area 2.6 3 0 4 31 0 0 8 12 12 2 2CENTRAL KOOTENAYCastlegar-Arrow Lakes Area 45 1 0 1 5 5 1 8 17 10 3 4Creston Area 16 3 0 12 5 1 5 8 27 16 3 5Nelson Area 28 3 0 2 8 2 4 8 23 15 3 4SalmonArua Area 24 1 0 5 2 0 10 7 26 17 3 5Golden Area 56 2 0 1 8 0 3 8 8 9 2 3Revelstoke Area 20 1 0 1 12 0 23 7 16 12 3 4OKANAGAN- BOUNDARYPeachiand Area 13 7 0 10 1 6 10 9 24 12 3 4Kelowna Area 6 2 0 7 3 0 11 7 29 28 3 5Grand Forks-Greenwood Area 35 3 0 4 6 3 6 5 20 12 2 4Trail-Rossland Area 4 43 0 0 6 3 1 5 22 12 2 2Vernon Area 17 0 4 6 0 14 8 25 19 3 ‘3Spallumcheen Area 23 1 0 13 1 0 9 7 20 13 3 10Princeton Area 29 28 0 2 5 0 1 7 13 9 2 4Oliver-Osovoos Area 4 2 0 17 7 0 7 6 31 21 2 3Penricton Area 7 2 0 5 7 1 9 7 33 22 2 4LILLOOET- THOMPSONSquamish Area 32 2 0 2 16 0 11 9 10 12 3 3Lillooel Area 36 1 0 2 11 0 12 8 14 8 3 4Ashcroft Area 17 18 0 9 7 3 11 7 14 9 3 3Merritt Area 36 8 0 8 3 0 8 7 12 9 3 6Kamloops Area 12 10 0 4 2 1 18 9 20 15 3 5North Thompson Area 54 1 0 6 4 0 8 6 9 6 2 3CARIBOO- FORT GEORGESmirhers-Houston Area 44 8 0 3 10 0 5 7 7 10 3 3Burns LakeArea 51 0 0 4 5 2 5 7 9 11 3 3Vanderhoof Area 59 2 0 4 5 0 2 6 8 9 3 3Williams Lake Area 45 4 0 5 7 0 2 8 10 10 3 5Quesnel area 50 2 0 4 3 1 4 8 10 11 3 6Prusce George Area 47 2 0 2 5 0 11 8 7 10 3 5McBride-Vajerrsont Area 45 0 0 4 14 2 10 6 8 7 2 2lire abnrevtauorrs used for he econr,rntc secrors are as fOIIo’nsFOR forestry 0ll- Other Basic hrdustres (including government and oarrs ofMfN Muting manufacturing, iransponarion. cortsrruclloi-c crc1&T l-ishrng and ftappIig UN Unemployment InsuranceAG Agnculiure PEN PensionYOU 1 oi rism I N V Invest mcnrH&E Ilealtlr and Edtaat, TR.\ Other Transfer PaymentsSOC Soctal Assistance PaymentsSource: Home and Robson (1993), p. 9238in this village (British Columbia 1989). While this number does not seem large in itself,harvesting operations are directly responsible for the employment of other workers in forestry-related occupations and contribute indirectly to the creation of jobs in the service sector. Dueto the strong influence of forestry on Golden’s economy, its economic diversity is relatively lowcompared to other communities in the communities and has been estimated as having a value of47 on a scale with a maximum of 100 (Home and Robson 1993, 13).Forestry jobs are viewed favourably due to their relatively high weekly earnings and their abilityto generate additional employment locally. Compared to other basic sectors in British Columbia,average weekly earnings for forestry-related manufacturing jobs ($741.32 before taxes) andforestry jobs ($724.25) are surpassed only by mining ($869.32) (Home and Penner 1992, A-b).Of all industries operating provincially, forestry creates the largest number of additional jobs innon-basic sectors (Home and Penner 1992, A-7). Each forestry job creates a total of 0.197 jobsin sectors such as transportation, wholesale trade, business services and construction. Miningis second in importance, creating 0.135 non-basic jobs for every mining job. Forestrymanufacturing results in 0.092 additional non-basic jobs.The creation of reservoirs associated with hydro development throughout the Columbia Riverbasin has affected forestry operations by reducing access to forest resources in a number ofways. The type of problems encountered throughout the region are relatively similar and canbe broadly grouped in three categories: loss of most accessible timber supply, reduced accessto remaining forest resources, and increased reservoir operating costs. Hydro developmentimpacts on forestry are clearly attributed to reservoir creation and have resulted in a permanentwithdrawal from the forest resource base and perpetual additional logging costs (Szaraz 1981;239Triton 1990; Thibodeau 1991; Bennett 1993; Table 6). Since the discussion of accessibilityrequires an understanding of the spatial arrangement of logging areas, transport routes andphysiographic characteristics of a reservoir and its surroundings, accessibility issues have beenconveyed through the use of pre- and post-impoundment maps (Figures 24 and 25).Although forest operators throughout the region have been affected by the same general resourceuse constraints as a result of hydro development, the consequences for some companies havebeen more severe than for others. The inundation of land behind the Mica Dam to create theKinbasket Reservoir has caused particularly costly harvesting problems for operators along thisreservoir. The flooding of between 25,765 ha (Thibodeau 1991, 2) and 35,000 ha (Coombs1994) of land along the Rocky Mountain Trench represents the largest withdrawal of forest areaof all the reservoirs within the Columbia River basin. Estimates of the area of the forest landflooded range from 16,219 ha (Szaraz 1981, 57) to 28,000 ha (70,000 acres) (British Columbia1974, A4-25).The Golden TSA consists of forests dominated by spruce, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine. Thetotal area of the Golden TSA is 921,321 ha, of which 592,279 ha (64.3%) is non-forest land dueto the mountainous terrain, 302,056 ha (32.8%) is Crown forest land and 26,896 ha (2.9%) isnon-Crown forest land. After reductions to productive Crown forest, the current timberharvesting land base is 174,599 ha (19% of total area) with a total volume of timber of33,000,000 m3, of which 27,500,000 m3 is of merchantable age (British Columbia 1993,4). Thecurrent annual allowable cut (AAC) is 650,000 m3.While smaller amounts of land are withdrawn annually for parks, transfers to private ownership,Figure24.KinbasketReservoirAccessandTransportation/J—-NN)NLCEDGoldenTSABouodryOperaMlityLineOutlineofFeservoirAccessPtadPrOsnl‘.nSitePrcr.uneJGo.o.erin1fataltIenSource:Szaraz(1981), p.94BargePointCC.I,T.C.STATIONFigure25.KinbasketReservoirForestryActivitiesa,52030LEGEND----LoggingRoads•CampADe-wateringSiteLogDump(numbered-Westsrbargepoints)SSiocanForestProductsWWestarTimberEEvansProductsSource:Triton(1990),p.101242and other purposes, the construction of the Mica Dam has resulted in the largest withdrawals offorest land from the Golden TSA. The inundation of forest land behind the Mica Dam causeda direct and permanent reduction of 11,491 ha of some of the most productive and mostaccessible forest land from the harvesting area of this TSA (Figure 24) as well as the subsequenttransfer of 11,728 ha to the Reveistoke TSA (Thibodeau 1991).At the time of the construction of the Mica Dam, Golden’s main supply of timber was from theGolden TSA, formerly the Kinbasket Public Sustained Yield Unit (PSYU). The creation of theKinbasket Reservoir resulted in a direct annual loss of 75,393 m3, or 9% of the AAC at thetime. This loss was caused due to the initial inundation of productive forest land, and becauseof a reallocation of forest land from the northern portion of the PSYU previously accessible toGolden operators by the Big Bend Highway and later transferred to Revelstoke in the late 1970s,after the flooding of this highway limited accessibility to Yellow-Potlack Creek. As EvansForest Products is the major forest operator within the TSA, this company has incurred manyof the impacts of hydro development, and is the focus of much of the following discussion.With a licence equivalent to 73% of the 1991 AAC, Evans’ annual loss amounts to 54,750 m3(Thibodeau 1991).The withdrawal of forest land from the Golden TSA represents a permanent loss of access toforest resources and a reduction in related jobs and local income. The value of the annualproduction loss from the Kinbasket PSYU (which covers the same general area as the GoldenTSA) has been estimated as $689,080 (British Columbia 1974, Table 6.1). Temporaryreductions to the forest resource base, such as losses resulting from fire (6,200 m3/yr) or insects(12,800 m3/yr) may regain productivity, while other reductions relating to the preservation of243riparian areas (1,015 ha) or recreational trails are reversible. Aside from hydro-relatedwithdrawal, the only other potential long-term loss from the resource base would be the arearendered unproductive from poor harvesting operations (1,200 ha) (British Columbia 1993b).The creation of the Kinbasket Reservoir has caused further reductions to local timber supply asa result of wildlife enhancement initiatives and road building. The recognition of the importanceof wildlife habitat losses from Kinbasket Reservoir flooding has led to efforts to enhanceremaining habitat within the area. The preservation of marginal riparian habitat along sidedrainages has caused deferrals of 80,000 m3 of harvesting proposals over the two yearspreceding 1991 (Thibodeau 1991, 3). The replacement of roads inundated by the reservoir hasresulted in increased road density on the remaining land base and has also reduced the forestland available for harvesting (Thibodeau 1991, 3).In addition to removing a portion of the resource base from local use, accessibility to the timbersupply around Golden has decreased as a result of reservoir flooding. The creation of theKinbasket Reservoir resulted in the inundation of the Big Bend Highway, the central transportroute for forestry operations within the Golden TSA (Figure 24). This 117 km highway hasbeen replaced with a total of 200 km of roads comprising the Bend-East side system to SullivanRiver and the West Columbia Road to Wayne Creek. Although most of this network wasfinanced by Forest Service funding or B.C. Hydro, Evans Forest Products extended the SullivanRiver Forest Road from Boulder Creek to the top of Sullivan Arm at a capital investment of$1,076,000 amortized over 20 years (Thibodeau 1991, 11).Reduced access to the local timber supply has increased forestry costs in a number of ways244besides initial road construction (Figure 26). The replacement of the public Big Bend highwaysystem with logging roads has resulted in increased road maintenance costs for Evans ForestProducts. These costs amount to $1.37/rn3 for the Sullivan-Bend section (shown as “Fast-BendMaintenance” in Figure 26) and $2.40/rn3 for the West Columbia Road (Thibodeau 1991, 11).The additional maintenance costs of the replacement roads along the Sullivan-Bend sectioncannot be recovered as would have been possible if the Big Bend Highway was still in place,as these logging roads do not connect to a public highway, and therefore cannot be creditedagainst stumpage, unlike the West Columbia Road which connects to the TransCanada Highway.Hauling costs have increased due to the reduced accessibility to the sawmill at Donald. Haulingwood from areas only accessible by water increases transport costs due to the multiple stagesinvolved in this type of transport: loading and hauling to a dump, booming, towing andreloading, and hauling to Donald. Water transport hauling costs are $13.23/m. In comparison,hauling costs along the east side of the reservoir are $11.63/rn3 (shown as “Fast Side RoadCycle” in Figure 26) and include an extra cost of $3.45/rn due to the additional 40 km of roadrequired to travel around flooded drainages (Thibodeau 1991, 11).The steep terrain bordering the reservoir poses difficulties and increased costs for harvesting aswell as road construction (Ricard 1992). Since the most gradual forested slopes of the reservoirarea are now inundated, remaining forest stands are less accessible as they are on steep terrain.Logging costs have increased due to the need to use cables in place of conventional harvestingpractices. Logging costs are on average $1.14/rn3higher than they would have been without thewithdrawal of forests that could have been harvested conventionally, as indicated in Figure 26(Thibodeau 1991, 6).FOREST EAST-BENDMANAGEMENT MAIITENANCE(Lake Permits)Figure 26. Evans Forest Products’ Costs on Kinbasket Reservoir18.00245EVaNS PHASE COSTSBIG BEND FIIGHWAYvs.____MICA PONDAGE OPERATIONS__16.5015.0013.5012.0010.50Cost/ni39.007.506.004.503.001.500DEVELOPMENT LOGGING(Lake Permits)EAST SEROAD CYCLESource: Thibodeau(1991)246Forest management and development costs are higher due to reduced accessibility and use ofwater transport. Tree planting bids for comparable sites are higher where water transport isrequired ($0.39/rn3instead of $0.26/rn3). Related silviculture administration support costs resultin additional costs of $ 1.50/rn3,depicted as “Forest Management” in Figure 26. Developmentcosts including mapping, road layout, cruising and pre-harvest silviculture preparation accountfor $0.25/rn3 in addition to normal costs (Figure 26) (Thibodeau 1991, 10).The use of the reservoir for log transport causes problems and additional costs for forestryoperators. Fluctuating water levels limit forestry operations and have required the use andmaintenance of boat ramps at varying levels along the abrupt slopes within the drawdown zone(Ricard 1992).After the inundation of the Big Bend Highway logs previously hauled by trucks were transportedby water. Water transport has reduced the logging season to an average of five months peryear, generally mid-June or early July to mid-October, due to water level fluctuations andweather hazards during October and November. However, low water levels in 1989 delayedreservoir use until mid-July (Triton 1990, 104). Slocan Forest Products experienced similardelays in 1993 when low water levels delayed forestry operations by a month from mid-May toJune and necessitated additional expenses of $30,000 for boat ramp extensions (Bennett 1993).Water transport operations have required investment in additional infrastructure such as logdumps with ramps at various levels, dewatering and reloading facilities (Figure 25), as well asadditional supervision and administrative costs. Evans estimates that approximately 12 logdumps each costing $15,000 will be required to fully develop forestry operations along the247reservoir excluding the costs of boats and loaders (Thibodeau 1991, 4). In 1989, the additionalcosts of water transport (strapping, dumping, towing, dewatering and reloading) amounted to$7.00 per metre (Thibodeau 1991, 5). Occasionally, even the use of boat ramps at lowelevations does not alleviate water transport difficulties as protruding stumps prevent passage insome areas (Triton 1990, 104). Wave and ice action, as well as accumulation of debris requiresongoing ramp maintenance (Ricard 1992).In his analysis of the impacts of hydro development on forestry in the Kootenay region, Szraz(1981, 185) concludes that changes to access and transportation patterns were more significantthan the withdrawal of timber supply, even around the Kinbasket Reservoir (since the volumecut was always below the maximum net AAC). Szaraz notes that the economic impacts of forestland withdrawal are conveyed to local and provincial economies in terms of loss of forestryemployment, value-added, regional income and government revenue operators; increasedoperating costs without adequate mitigation for changes to transportation and access patternsresults in a greater sensitivity to market conditions.While Szaraz’s conclusions continue to be relevant to the preceding summary of economicconstraints on forestry, the withdrawal of forest land may become more significant as currentAACs are reduced, as predicted for the Golden TSA, in recognition that current harvesting ratescannot be maintained. The current harvesting rate of 650,000 m3/yr will decline by 7% to605,000 m3/yr during the first decade, with further decreases of 10% each decade until the long-term harvest rate of 309,000 m3/yr is achieved 80 years from now (British Columbia 1993b).248ConclusionHydroelectric development has reduced accessibility to timber supply within the Columbia RiverBasin. Operators along the Kinbasket Reservoir have experienced economic constraints as aresult of the withdrawal of some of the most productive and accessible timber within the GoldenTSA, reduced accessibility to the remaining timber supply, as well as increased costs resultingfrom accessibility difficulties caused by reservoir operations. Due to the high dependence onforestry, and the relatively high multiplier effect of forestry on related employment in thenonbasic sector, economic constraints on forestry could have serious consequences for Golden,and other communities in the region.While lost forest resources are essentially a provincial loss due to their location on Crown land,they also represent lost income and taxes for local communities. Reduced access is also feltlocally, but of little concern provincially. However, additional costs affiliated with reservoiroperating fluctuations present an opportunity where costs could be defrayed when considered asa cost of generating electricity. Alternatively, electricity benefits could be foregone in favourof creating favourable reservoir conditions for forestry operations. Intensive silviculture mayimprove the timber supply available for the future, but may be limited by the physiographicconstraints affecting productivity in the region.4.7 Indicator TrendsThe analysis of indicators in the preceding sections enables some general conclusions regardingtrends related to hydro development and its relationship with sustainability. The following249summary identifies the cumulative impacts of hydro development on ecological, social andeconomic systems operating within the Columbia River Basin. The overall implications forsustainability of the region are discussed.4.71 Ecological IndicatorsThe ecological indicators used to examine sustainability show a general decrease in ecologicalproductivity and ecological integrity. Kokanee populations, land capability to support wildlifeand net primary productivity have declined, supporting the hypothesis that ecologicalproductivity has decreased. While many of the ecological impacts of hydro development in theColumbia River basin may still not be understood or documented, it is relatively well establishedthat the large-scale hydro projects operating in the region have disrupted fish and wildlife habitatand ecological processes that maintain the integrity of the ecosystems they inhabit.Mitigation and compensation programs have made a contribution toward restoring some of theecological integrity of the region, and have focused largely on fisheries habitat enhancement andrestocking. The success of these initiatives is more easily evaluated for fisheries than forwildlife as there is little baseline information on wildlife prior to hydro development. Theimpacts on broad ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, energy fluxes and globalwarming may be difficult to determine and complex to address.The regulation of the flows of the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers has replaced naturally varyingecosystems with aquatic and terrestrial systems managed for human purposes. Ecologicalintegrity has declined and may reach a new equilibrium with lower productivity if left250undisturbed. The enhancement of fish and wildlife may require continuous management byhumans.4.72 Social IndicatorsThe social indicators used in this study depict communities that have undergone many changesdue to resource development booms and busts. While this trend may continue as a result ofeconomic activity by other industrial sectors, it is unlikely that future hydro development willtrigger such large impacts on communities in the Columbia River basin. Generally, hydrorelated population changes have stabilized, certain recreational opportunities such as fishing havedeclined, and the previous limitations inhibiting local participation in decision-making have beenimproved opening up new possibilities for local management of resources. While these findingscorroborate the hypothesis that hydro development has changed local resource use and createdundesirable living conditions, this premise varies largely according to community and sectorswithin each community. Certain groups such as those on low incomes, fishers, and thosewithout access to decision-making may have been particularly affected by specific changesresulting from the construction and operation of large dams.Increased community participation in the planning of hydroelectric operations appears to be acritical element in addressing many of the social issues concerning residents of the Kootenays.Improved opportunities for local involvement arising from community and regional initiatives,as well as from B.C. Hydro should increase awareness of the impacts of dams on communityservices, recreation and access to information and decision-making. Community participationin resource management decisions may lead to more effective management enabling the251identification of issues and goals relevant to community and not just provincial needs.473 Economic IndicatorsThe economic indicators examined highlight some of the economic conditions in the Kootenays.Unemployment is rising as in the rest of British Columbia; however, unemployment rates haveremained higher in the Kootenays. Large resource-based corporations such as B.C. Hydro,exploit resources from this region for the creation of jobs and economic activity in Vancouver,Victoria and the Pacific Northwest. Although communities are interested in economicdiversification, tourism revenues from accomodation are decreasing in terms of real dollars.Economic development opportunities are constrained by the harsh physiographic conditions ofthe region.Although it is difficult to attribute particular economic problems experienced in the Kootenaysdirectly to hydro development based on the indicators used, it is fairly obvious that hydroprojects have generated short-term employment increases and may have only postponed theeventual occurrence of economic difficulties in this region. The majority of long-term economicbenefits in terms ofjobs and electricity are received by residents of Vancouver, Victoria and thePacific Northwest.The hypothesis that hydro development has diminished the regional resource base, and restrictedeconomic development through reduced land availability and increased development costs hasbeen partially confirmed through the consideration of impacts on forestry, tourism and to someextent unemployment. However, a more complete verification of this premise would require252detailed examination of the constraints and opportunities that influence sectors such as mining,agriculture, recreation and other types of economic development.Extrapolation of the information conveyed through the examination of ecological and socialindicators provides additional substantiation of concerns regarding resource-based economicdevelopment. Any type of economic development relying on fish or wildlife (e.g., guiding,tourism, recreation) may be restricted by the diminished size of these resources. Productiveforest land has been withdrawn from forestry operations resulting in a loss of timber harvesting(although evolving forest practices may have restricted some of this harvesting anyway for theprotection of fish and wildlife habitat) and decreased accessibility to remaining stands.Maintenance of municipal infrastructure, expanded as a result of population increases during damconstruction, may cause ongoing costs for communities affected.Generally, dams have caused some adverse conditions for economic development. While theymay not be overwhelming, they are significant for resource-based communities with a restrictedrange of natural assets.2535. CONCLUSIONSThis thesis has examined how issues related to sustainability have been addressed with respectto hydroelectric development in the Columbia River basin. Since the damming of rivers isincreasingly viewed as a desirable method of generating electricity in comparison with otherelectricity sources, this study has explored how hydro projects have affected the ability ofsurrounding areas to satisfy or enhance their quality of life through a balance of ecological,social and economic systems. The use of a case study focused discussion on the circumstancesparticular to the Columbia River system, and provided issues which were examined through thedevelopment of indicators of sustainability. Many of the problems addressed are representativeof similar situations encountered in other regions affected by hydro development, and serve asa means of identifying resource management issues specific to this type of energy production andland use change.The definition of sustainability used in this thesis was developed through a survey of literatureon this concept, and proved useful in providing a framework for examining the impacts of damson ecological, social and economic factors within nearby communities. While previously it hasbeen assumed that hydroelectric projects provide a means of regulating water (with little concernfor its role in maintaining critical ecological processes) for economic purposes with the beliefthat benefits will improve social living conditions, decades of experience with dams on theColumbia and Kootenay Rivers shows that the relationships among ecological, social andeconomic systems are not easily controlled. The interactions between the various elements ofthese networks must be delicately balanced if the integrity of each is to be maintained.254The results of the case study are consistent with the findings of the literature review onsustainability issues relevant to hydro development, although few studies have specificallyaddressed the linkages among ecological, social and economic impacts with the exception ofresearch on common property resources. The impacts of Columbia River dams on ecological,social and economic systems are typical of large hydro projects across Canada. Theestablishment of a regional organization to ensure that the concerns of local communities areaddressed in hydro project planning is relatively unique among non-aboriginal communities butparallels some of the initial efforts of First Nations affected by dam complexes around JamesBay.One of the major conclusions reached in the investigation of the impacts of hydro developmenton sustainability in the Kootenays is that large dam projects cause significant changes to land andresource use. The inundation of productive valley bottoms disrupts previous resource use andcreates conflict over the remaining land available. The resulting changes in landscape, qualityand quantity of resources, access to resources, resource use costs and ongoing operatingconditions jeopardize the ability of the region to satisfy or improve the quality of life for thosewho live there.The ecological sustainability of the Kootenay region has been degraded through the disruptionof natural processes. The productivity of fish, wildlife and forests has decreased and theimplications for long-term ecological processes are uncertain. Although fish, wildlife and forestlosses were predicted during project planning, little effort was made to prevent or compensatefor these losses effectively. The decreased ability of the region to support certain species mayhave long-term implications for ecological relationships within the area. The consequences of255this ecological damage is a smaller and less valuable resource base for communities that rely ontheir terrestrial and aquatic surroundings to sustain their basic needs.The ecological impacts of hydro development have affected the social sustainability of theKootenays. Changes in resource use conditions and access have reduced the quality of life forthose living in the vicinity of dam projects. Since people in the Kootenays identify strongly withtheir physical environment, they have likely all been affected by recreation use constraints andtheir restricted access to resource use decisions. This has imparted a sense of frustration anddisempowerment to those living with the repercussions of dam projects.The analysis of opportunities for public participation in decision-making as an indicator showsthat recent initiatives to include local people in hydro project planning are an example of largersocial processes that may sustain communities and enhance quality of life. Ironically, whilehydro projects may have jeopardized the functioning of social systems within communities (afterthe initial boom-bust cycle), the necessity to address ongoing problems may have reinforcedsocial sustainability in the long run. Regional links have been strengthened socially andpolitically and may result in the creation and reinforcement of more effective structures fordecision making in the future.Ecological problems affecting the resource base have also influenced the economic sustainabilityof the Columbia River basin. The withdrawal of land from the limited supply of productive andaccessible resources available within this mountainous region has reduced the opportunities foreconomic development such as forestry, farming, outfitting and lakeshore recreation and tourismdevelopment. The flooding of fish habitat, incomplete clearing of timber, and ongoing water256level fluctuations prevent fish, wildlife and people from taking advantage of water resources andreduce possibilities for fishing, hunting, logging, recreation and tourism development. Theseactivities have been highly valued in the past and those that continue to use reservoirs for thesepurposes must incur additional costs. Dam construction has provided short-term employmentfor local workers, but has generated long-term resource use constraints.When the balance of ecological, social and economic sustainability is reviewed, it is clear thathydro development has proceeded under the premise that societal welfare will improvespecifically through an emphasis on economic development. This economic development hasbeen for the benefit of society, or in this case the province of British Columbia, and not thelong-term sustainability of the local communities affected. Ecological systems have been largelyignored in previous hydro planning. Although there is a much greater interest in ecologicalimpacts presently, many of the long-term effects on ecosystems remain uncertain. While it hasbeen assumed that the presumed economic benefits of project construction would spill over intosocial welfare improvements, hydro development has disturbed the activities of certain socialgroups and has affected their ability to control resource use decisions critical to overallsustainability.Hydro development has disrupted the sustainability of communities within the Columbia Riverbasin. While some of the changes that have occurred may be addressed through specific policyinitiatives, others are irreversible unless dams are removed. Mitigation and compensationprograms have been introduced to address the past neglect of ecological systems; however, theremay be natural limits to the extent of enhancement possible. Opportunities to remedy socialsustainability are promising and are largely dependent on communities having a voice in257decision-making. Economic development initiatives will require creativity and new approachesthat consider the resource base, its opportunities and its limitations. Environmentally-friendlydevelopment could be encouraged and could focus on resource management strategies thatenhance ecological productivity.The consideration of sustainability clearly raises questions of distributional equity. The casestudy of the hydroelectric development Columbia River Basin shows that the large-scaleregulation of river systems benefits those who consume the electricity transmitted hundreds ofkilometres away while leaving local communities unable to manage the impacts of thisexploitation of resources. This conclusion is supported by the experience of communities in thevicinity of large dam projects in Canada and throughout the world. However, the uniquechronology of hydro development in the Kootenays, the international treaty that regulates waterflow within the larger Columbia River drainage basin, and the recent community initiatives toestablish more control over local resource use decisions provide specific opportunities to addresspast concerns of distributional equity.Although communities within the Columbia River Basin benefit from additional flood controlresulting from the provisions of the Columbia River Treaty, they are dissatisfied with the extentthat power generation has superceded all other uses of the Columbia River system. Theregulation of the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers by provincial and American utilities hasresulted in the degradation of certain common property resources by “external” parties whosedevelopment goals have not integrated the concerns of those living in the vicinity ofhydroelectric projects. The ecological, social and economic impacts of this deterioration of theresource base jeopardize regional sustainability.258The development of a set of indicators of sustainability was a useful method of testing thesignificance of hydro-related issues with respect to their ability to affect societal goals for theenhancement of quality of life, as well as the validity of some of the perceptions of localcommunities. Indicators provided a means of focusing on key issues or problems, establishinglinks between hydro development and specific impacts, and discussing the extent of particularconsequences and their relevance to local communities. Indicators served as a way of tellinga story about the events surrounding the current state of ecological, social and economicsystems. Qualitative indicators were useful in representing conceptual issues when quantitativeinformation alone was unable to convey meaningful information.Indicators were chosen primarily for their importance to issues of concern to local communitiesin an effort to clarify some of the confusion surrounding the wide range of impacts resultingfrom a century of hydro development and three decades of large-scale dam operations within theregion. The ongoing monitoring of the indicators identified in this thesis or others deemed tobe appropriate for the Columbia River basin may assist in the identification of problems and theevaluation of compensation and mitigation measures related to hydro development. Indicatorsdo not provide solutions in themselves, but stimulate the discussion of issues and may serve toidentify concerns that have not been adequately addressed previously.The selection of indicators may have influenced the conclusions reached in this study. Whilethe use of different indicators for ecological systems could have highlighted conditions specificto other species or processes, it is likely that similar implications for sustainability would havebeen reached. Other social indicators may have revealed issues of concern to specific groupsor communities; however, the monitoring of public participation and community involvement259in resource decision-making provided critical information that could affect the outcome ofregional sustainability, and if ignored would result in different conclusions. The selection ofeconomic indicators gave an overview of economic conditions in the Kootenays but could bestrengthened through additional indicators on land use and specific hydro-related costs andbenefits incurred by key economic sectors. Many of the economic issues pertaining to specificresource use groups were identified in interviews with residents and provide information inaddition to the indicators used showing that sustainability may have been jeopardized by theconstraints imposed on certain economic development opportunities.The examination of sustainability and hydro development in the Columbia River basin providesa basis upon which to make recommendations for future resource management decisions andhydroelectric project planning. The regulation of water resources causes long-term changes inresource and land use. Ongoing and future hydro projects should recognize the magnitude ofthese changes through the consideration of impacts on ecological, social and economic systems.The winners and losers of hydroelectric development should be clearly identified so that thebroader benefits received by society can be distributed to those who bear the majority of costs.The participation of communities in local resource use decisions should assist in the provisionof information relevant to hydroelectric operations, and may prevent further degradation of theresource base.With specific reference to the Columbia River basin, the continuous disruption of the ecologicalrelationships between natural aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems will likely necessitate perpetualmanagement of fish, wildlife and forests to provide levels of productivity that can sustain thosewho have depended on these and resources with related trophic relationships. The degree of260management required may be greater than that applied to mitigate other land use changes suchas clearcuts, since hydroelectric projects require continuous regulation of water flows, while themodification of forest and adjacent water ecosystems arising from clearcuts occurs largely froma one-time harvesting effort and aside from periodical silviculture interventions, naturalprocesses are left to reestablish similar or desirable forest types until the next rotation period(e.g., eighty or a hundred years) unless irreparable damage is caused by poor forestry practices.Resource use conflicts arising from hydro development may be addressed through the inclusionof user groups in water management decisions. Community-led initiatives as well as B.C.Hydro efforts have begun to integrate local, regional and provincial concerns into hydro-relatedresource use decisions and community development plans. While shared decision-making mayrequire lengthy processes involving many players, the ongoing nature of dam operations in theregion will necessitate continual communication between resource users and may assist in thedevelopment of working arrangements for other resource management problems in theKootenays. The concerns of First Nations (although not explicitly incorporated into indicators)should be addressed as they have been excluded from the resource base decisions that haveaffected them for over a hundred years, since British Columbia joined Canada.Recent initiatives by communities and B.C. Hydro to collaborate on hydro-related resource usedecisions may represent the initial stages of co-management, a more cooperative effort to blendcommunity needs with those of the Province, and possibly the Pacific Northwest. Jointmechanisms may facilitate regional sustainability by improving communication links andmanagement programs so that they accommodate the needs of local as well as provincialdevelopment. The recognition of community development goals through joint management261arrangements, as well as the identification of barriers to fulfilling quality of life improvements,could enhance opportunities for community economic development enabling local individuals andorganizations to initiate ideas based on community strengths without reliance on the privatesector or the state.Analysis of the ongoing and interrelated problems related to hydro projects in the ColumbiaRiver basin suggests that existing institutional arrangements may be inadequate to addresssustainability issues. The long-term and interjurisdictional nature of dam impacts and theirrelationships with ecological, social and economic systems requires a broad range of knowledgebeyond the scope of any one agency. The ability to effectively manage the various dam-relatedproblems experienced in the Kootenays requires the involvement of utilities, municipalities, FirstNations, government departments, industries, and interest groups, as well as internationalcooperation from utilities and other stakeholders in the United States.The establishment of a river basin management board might ensure that the wide range of issuesrelated to sustainability among different user groups in the Columbia River basin is addressedon an ongoing and cooperative basis. A multi-stakeholder advisory board consisting ofrepresentation from the previous groups mentioned could integrate plans for activities within theriver basin to avoid conificts and enhance development (social and cultural as well as economic)opportunities. While such an organization might create an additional level of bureaucracy andwould require multiple sources of financing, it may be the only effective means to ensure thatcommunity, regional and provincial issues are addressed. A Columbia River Basin ManagementBoard could focus its agenda on hydroelectric issues initially and expand its mandate to includebroader resource management concerns when necessary.262Economic development within the Columbia River basin will require creative ideas to ensure thesustainability of communities in the area. Ecological constraints should be considered in anyresource-based development initiatives since various parts of the resource base are alreadydegraded. Forestry operations should attempt to enhance wildlife habitat and prevent further fishhabitat degradation. Tourism development should not jeopardize the integrity of the mainattractions of the area such as fish, wildlife, forests and waterways. Since economicdevelopment will continue to be constrained by the impacts of dam developments, there shouldbe some mechanism that will ensure that the region producing half of the provincial electricitysupply receives a greater share of resulting benefits.Current provincial negotiations on the return of downstream benefits pertaining to the secondstage of the Columbia River Treaty should consider the distribution of some portion of the poweror financial benefits received by the Province to the Kootenay region. This transfer of benefitswould assist communities and government departments that are currently unable to addressongoing hydro-related problems or are spending higher proportions of their budgets on theseissues at the expense of other community concerns. Additional financing of mitigation andcompensation efforts would create opportunities for local employment and may provideecological knowledge and sustainable development leading to overall improvements in the qualityof life of those living in the Kootenays.The information collected and analyzed during this study suggests that the sustainability ofcommunities affected by hydro development in the Columbia River basin has not beenconsidered adequately in project planning. The lack of concern or valuation of dam impacts onenvironmental resources has resulted in ecological degradation, as well as unpredicted mitigation263and resource use costs. The majority of long-term benefits of large dam construction have beenreceived by electric power consumers in urban centres in British Columbia and the PacificNorthwest, while the residents of the Kootenays have incurred costs in terms of a reducedquality of life resulting from hydro-related changes to their ecological, social and economicsystems. Although past hydroelectric planning has not accommodated the sustainability ofsurrounding areas, there may be opportunities to change this trend and enable this form ofdevelopment to occur if local information and development goals are integrated into projectdecision-making.2646. REFERENCE LISTAffleck, Edward L. 1976. Kootenay Pathfinders. Vancouver: The Alexander Nicolls Press.Andrusak, H. 1981. Kootenay Lake Sportfishery Statistics. Province of British Columbia,Ministry of Environment. Fisheries Technical Circular No. 53.Anonymous. 1989. “Tin Wis Congress: An Environmental Perspective.” Background paperpresented at the conference, “For Our Children: Creating a Sustainable Future for BritishColumbia”, 3-5 February, Tofino, British Columbia, quoted in McGonigle, Michael. 1990.“Developing Sustainability: A Native/Environmentalist Prescription for Third-LevelGovernment.” BC Studies no. 84 (Winter 1989-90):65-99.Ant, Grant, Carl Gutzman, and Tom Sim, Golden District Rod and Gun Club. 1992. Interviewby author, 27 October, Golden.Association of Kootenay Boundary Municipalities. 1992. “Memorandum of Minutes.” GeneralMeeting, Vernon, 24 September.Atkins, B. Richard. “A History of the Kootenay District in the 19th Century.” In ColumbiaRiver Chronicles. Edited by Edward L. Affleck, Vancouver: The Alexander Nicolls Press, 1977.Baltakis, John. 1992. Interview by author, 27 October, Golden.Barnes, Trevor J., David W. Edgington, Kenneth G. Denike, and Terry G. McGee. 1992.“Vancouver, the Province and the Pacific Rim.” In Vancouver and its Region. Edited byGraeme Wynn and Timothy Oke, Vancouver: UBC Press, 171-199.Battersby, Geoff, Mayor of Reveistoke. 1992. Interview by author, 23 September, Vernon.Baxter, R.M. and Pierre Glaude. 1980. “Environmental Effects of Dams and Impoundments inCanada: Experience and Prospects.” Canadian Bulletins of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No.20. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Hull: Minister of Supply and Services.B.C. Central Credit Union, Economics Department. 1989. “Paying for B.C.’s EconomicGrowth.” Economic Analysis of British Columbia 9, 5 (November).B.C. Hydro. 1983. “Columbia River Treaty.” BC Hydro.B.C. Hydro. 1991a. “Environmental Resolution and Principles.”B.C. Hydro. 1991b. “Mica Compensation Program Summary Notes: Golden CommunityWorkshop.”B.C. Hydro. 1992a. “Pocket Facts.” Vancouver: BC Hydro.265B.C. Hydro. 1992b. “Columbia River Reservoir Levels”. Media Briefing from Peter McMullan,Vancouver, 18 November.B.C. Hydro. 1992c. 1992 Electricity Plan.B.C. Hydro. 1992d. Report on the Environment.B.C. Hydro. 1993a. “Columbia River Treaty”. Columbia River Report 1.B.C. Hydro. 1993b. “Columbia Basin News (Draft).”B.C. Hydro. 1993c. “The Canadian Entitlement.” Columbia River Report 2.B.C. Hydro. 1993d. Corporate Strategic Plan. Vancouver.B.C. Hydro. 1993e. “Alternatives for the Canadian Entitlement.” Columbia River Report 4.B.C. Hydro. 1993f. “Reservoir Operations.” Columbia River Report 3.B.C. Hydro. 1993g. Columbia Basin News 1, 2 (December): 1-8.B.C. Hydro. 1993h. “1992 Property Taxes, Grants and Water Rentals.”B.C. Hydro. 1993i. B.C. Hydro Annual Report.B.C. Hydro. 1993j. B.C. Hydro Report on the Environment.B.C. Hydro. 1993k. Making the Connection: The B.C. Hydro Electric System and How it isOperated.Beattie-Spence, Julia, Chairperson of Columbia River Integrated Environmental MonitoringProgram. 1993. Telephone interview by author, 9 August, (Nelson).Bennett, Don, Divisional Manager, Slocan Forest Products Ltd. 1993. Letter from Valemountto Josh Smienk, 31 May.Berger, Thomas R. 1977. Northern Frontier. Northern Homeland.The Report of the MackenzieValley Pipeline Inquiry: Volume One. Toronto: Minister of Supply and Services.Berkes, Fikret. 1988. “The Intrinsic Difficulty of Predicting Impacts: Lessons from the JamesBay Hydro Project.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 8: 201-220.Berkes, Fikret. 1989a. “Comanagement and the James Bay Agreement.” In CooperativeManagement of Local Fisheries. Edited by Evelyn Pinkerton, Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia Press.Berkes, Fikret. 1989b. “Cooperation from the Perspective of Human Ecology.” In Common266Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. Edited by FikretBerkes, London: Beihaven Press, 70-88.Berkes, Fikret, Peter George and Richard Preston. 1991. Co-Management: The Evolution of theTheory and Practice of Joint Administration of Living Resources. TASO Research Report,Second Series, No. 1, McMaster University, Hamilton.Berkes, Fikret and David Feeny. 1990. “Paradigms Lost: Changing Views on the Use ofCommon Property Resources.” Alternatives 17, 2: 48-55.Berkes, Fikret and M. Taghi Farvar. 1989. “Introduction and Overview.” In Common PropertyResources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. Edited by Fikret Berkes,London: Beihaven Press, 1-17.Birch, Gary, Senior Coordinator for Columbia Projects and Compensation, B.C. Hydro. 1994.Personal communication, 31 January (Vancouver).Bocking, Richard C. Canada’s Water for Sale? Toronto: James Lewis & Samuel, Publishers.Boothroyd, Peter. 1991a. “From Keynes to Buddhist Ecology: Rationalizing and Criticizing theWelfare State.” In Intellectual Roots of the Welfare State: A Reader for Students of SocialPolicy and Development Theory. Edited by Bill Kirwin, Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.Boothroyd, Peter. 199 lb. “Distribution Principles for Compassionate Sustainable Development.”In Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in theFraser River Basin. Edited by Anthony H.J. Dorcey. Vancouver: University of BritishColumbia, Westwater Research Centre.Boothroyd, Peter and Craig Davis. 1991. The Meaning of Community Economic Development.UBC Planning Papers Discussion Paper 25, School of Community and Regional Planning,University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Bowden, Marie-Ann and Fred Curtis. 1988. “Federal EIA in Canada: EARP as an EvolvingProcess.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 8:97-106.Brasseur, G. 1987. “The Endangered Ozone Layer: New Theories on Ozone Depletion.”Environment 29, 1.British Columbia, Department of Economic Development. 1976. A Summary Report ofDevelopment Possibilities in the Kootenay Region of British Columbia.British Columbia, Department of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce, EconomicStatistics Branch. 1970. The Central Kootenay Region. Victoria.British Columbia, Department of Recreation and Conservation, Fish and Game Branch. 1965a.Effects on Fish and Game Species of Development of Arrow Lakes Dam for Hydro-electricPurposes.267British Columbia, Department of Recreation and Conservation, Fish and Game Branch. 1965b.Effects on Fish and Game Species of Development of Duncan Dam for Hydro-electric Purposes.British Columbia, Department of Recreation and Conservation, Fish and Game Branch. 1965c.Effects on Fish and Game Species of Development of Mica Dam for Hvdro-electric Purposes.British Columbia, Environment and Land Use Committee. 1974. Mica Reservoir RegionResource Study: Final Report. Volumes 1 and 2.British Columbia, Ministry of Economic Development. 1986. British Columbia Regional Index.Victoria.British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Environment Canada. 1993.State of the Environment Report for British Columbia. Hemlock Printers Ltd.British Columbia, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. 1992. B.C. Tourism RoomRevenues. July 1992. BC Stats Issue 92-07.British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 1988. “Biogeoclimatic Zones of British Columbia 1988.”Victoria.British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 1993b. Golden Timber Supply Analysis. Victoria.British Columbia, Ministry of Regional Development and Ministry of Finance and CorporateRelations. 1989. British Columbia Regional Index 1989.British Columbia Energy Council. 1992. Overview of Electricity on the West Coast. Vancouver.British Columbia Environment, Fisheries Program. 1994. “Hill Creek Spawning Channel - AdultKokanee Returns 1977-1993” and “Hill Creek Hatchery - Gerrard Rainbow Trout Releases 1984-1993 and Bull Trout Release Data 1980-1993”.British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. 1976. Revelstoke Project: Environmental ImpactStatement. Volumes 1 and 2.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1991. Guide toEstablishing a Local Round Table. Victoria.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1992. Towards a Strategyfor Sustainability. Victoria.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1993. Sustainability: FromIdeas to Action. Victoria.Bromley, Daniel W. 1992. “Property Rights as Authority Systems: The Role of Rules inResource Management.” Journal of Business Administration 20, 1&2: 453-470.268Bromley, Daniel W. and Michael M. Cernea. 1989. The Management of Common PropertyResources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 57,Washington: The World Bank.Brooks, David B. 1981. Zero Energy Growth for Canada. Toronto: McLelland Steward Limited.Brooks, David B. 1987. “On Big Dams.” Alternatives 11, 2 (May/June): 49-52.Brown, Becky J., Mark E. Hanson, Diana M. Livennan, and Robert W. Jr. Meredith. 1987.“Global Sustainability: Toward Definition.” Environmental Management 11, 6: 713-719.Bull, C.J. 1965. Enumeration of Kokanee Salmon Populations on the Lardeau-Duncan RiverSystem. British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, Fish Management Report 46.Cameron, Stewart. 1991. “A Native Perspective.” The Peace/Williston Nature Line. BCHydro/BC Environment. (February): 1-6.Campbell, Goodell and Associates. 1990. Visitor ‘89. Kootenay Country Tourism Region.Prepared for Industry, Science and Technology Canada, and the British Columbia Ministry ofTourism and Ministry of Regional and Economic Development.Canada, Departments of External Affairs, and Northern Affairs and National Resources. 1964a.The Columbia River Treaty Protocol and Related Documents. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer andController of Stationery.Canada, Departments of External Affairs, and Northern Affairs and National Resources. 1964b.The Columbia River Treaty and Protocol: A Presentation. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer andController of Stationery.Canada, Department of Regional Economic Expansion. 1970. The Canada Land Inventory: LandCapability Classification for Forestry. The Canada Land Inventory Report No. 4.Canada. 1990. Canada’s Green Plan. Hull: Minister of Supply and Services.Carley, Michael. 1981. Social Measurement and Social Indicators: Issues of Policy and Theory.London: George Allen and Unwin Limited.Carrier Sekani Tribal Council. 1985. Quoted in J.C. Day and Frank Quinn. 1992. WaterDiversion and Export: Learning from Canadian Experience. Department of GeographyPublication Series Number 36, University of Waterloo, p. 95.Cashore, John, Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1993. Letter from Victoria toParticipants in the Reform of Environmental Assessment, 4 June.Cibuilca, Walter. Conservation Officer, British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 1992.Interview by author, 27 October, Golden.269Cinacy-Wantrup, S.V. and Richard C. Bishop. 1975. “Common Property’ as a Concept inNatural Resources Policy.” Natural Resources Journal 15 (October): 713-727.Clapperton, Dave, British Columbia Forest Service. 1992. Interview by author, 28 October,Golden.Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1992. Report on a Land Use Strategy forBritish Columbia. Victoria.Cominco Magazine, 1962. “People, Power and Progress.”Coombs, Al, Ministry of Forests. 1994. Personal communication, 8 February, (Nelson).Costanza, Robert. 1991. “The Ecological Economics of Sustainability: Investing in NaturalCapital.” In Environmentally Sustainable Economic Development: Building on Brundtland.Edited by Robert Goodland, Herman Daly, Salah El Serafy and Bernd von Droste. Paris:UNESCO, 83-90.Costanza, Robert, and Herman E. Daly. 1992. “Natural Capital and Sustainable Development.”Conservation Biology 6, 1 (March):37-46.Costanza, Robert, Bryan G. Norton and Benjamin D. Haskell. 1992. What is Ecosystem Healthand Why Should We Worry About It? In Ecosystem Health: New Goals for EnvironmentalManagement. Edited by same. Washington: Island Press, 3-19.Cutts, Bob. 1993. Interview by Art Moses on “Sunday Morning”, CBC Radio, 25 July.Daley, R.J., E.C. Carmack, C.B.J. Gray, C.H. Pharo, S. Jasper and R.C. Wiegand. 1981. IliEffects of Upstream Impoundments on the Limnologv of Kootenay Lake. B.C. Scientific SeriesNo. 117, National Water Research Institute, Inland Waters Directorate, Vancouver.Daly, Herman E. 1990. “Toward Some Operational Principles of Sustainable Development.”Ecological Economics. vol. 2, 1-6.Daly, Herman E. and John B. Cobb. 1989. For the Common Good. Boston: Beacon Press.Davidson, M. 1992. Status Report: Recreation Compensation for Columbia River HydroelectricProjects. B.C. Hydro Report No. ER-91-17.Day, J.C. and Frank Quinn. 1992. Water Diversion and Export: Learning from CanadianExperience. Department of Geography Publication Series Number 36, University of Waterloo.Demmon, Fred, Mayor of Golden. 1992. Interview by author, 23 September, Vernon.Dorcey, A.H.J. 1986. “Research for Water Resources Management: The Rise and Fall of GreatExpectations.” In Canadian Waters: The State of the Resource. Edited by M.C. Healey andR.W. Wallace, Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 215, Ottawa.270Dorcey Anthony H. 1987. “The Management of Super, Natural British Columbia.” BC Studies73 (Spring): 14-42.Douglas, Gordon W. and Ellen F. Battle. 1983. Energy and Regional Investment in Canada.Calgary: Canadian Energy Research Institute.Dovers, Stephen R. 1990. “Sustainability in Context: An Australian Perspective.” EnvironmentalManagement. vol. 14, no. 3, 297-305.The DPA Group. 1990. Kootenay Development Region: Tourism Development OpportunitiesStrategy. Summary Report. Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Regional and EconomicDevelopment.The DPA Group Inc. 1986. Reveistoke Canyon Dam: Socio-Economic Impact Monitoring.Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment. Calgary.Duinker, P.N., P.W. Matakala and D. Zhang. 1991. “Community Forestry and its Implicationsfor Northern Ontario.” The Forestry Chronicle 67, 2: 13 1-135.Durning, Alan B. 1989. Action at the Grassroots: Fighting Poverty and Environmental Decline.Woridwatch Paper 88. Woridwatch Institute.Edwards, Anne. 1993. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. “The ColumbiaRiver Treaty.” Interview on CBC Radio, Vancouver, 26 July.Egan, Timothy. 1993. The (Bruised) Emperor of the Outdoors. The New York Times, 1 August,section 6, 21.Ehrlich, Paul. 1989. “The Limits to Substitution: Meta-Resource Depletion and a NewEconomic-Ecological Paradigm.” Ecological Economics. vol. 1, 9-16.Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. 1974. Land Capability for Wildlife- Ungulates. CanadaLand Inventory maps 82M, 82N and 83D, 1:250 000.Engel, J. Ronald. 1990. “Introduction: The Ethics of Sustainable Development.” In Ethics ofEnvironment and Development. London: Bethaven Press.Environment Canada. 1990. A Framework for Discussion on the Environment. Hull: Ministerof Supply and Services.Environment Canada, Indicators Task Force. 1991. A Report on Canada’s Progress Towardsa National Set of Environmental Indicators. SOE Report No. 91-1. State of the EnvironmentReporting, Environment Canada, Ottawa.Environment Canada. 1993. “Fluxes of CH4 and CO2 to the Atmosphere from HydroelectricReservoirs.”2/Climate Report. Issue 92-2 (Winter 1993): 1-2.271Environment Land Use Committee. 1978. Columbia-Windermere Lakes Land Use Study. Reportto the Environment and Land Use Committee.Esteva, Gustavo; and Madhu Sun Prakash. 1992. “Grassroots Resistance to SustainableDevelopment: Lessons from the Banks of the Narmada.” The Ecologist 22, 2 (March/April): 45-51.Fairbairn, Dave and Victor Kumar. 1992. “Columbia River Treaty Committee Workshop.”Castlegar.Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. 1987. The Federal Environmental Assessmentand Review Process. Hull: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.Feeny, David; Fikret Berkes; Bonnie J. McCay; and James M. Acheson. 1990. “The Tragedyof the Commons: Twenty-Two Years Later.” Human Ecology 18, 1: 1-19.Ferraro, Paddie, Administrative Assistant, Regional Production Office, B.C. Hydro. 1994.Personal communication, 24 March.Fraser Basin Management Board. 1993. “Sustainability Together: A Prospectus on the FraserBasin Management Board (Draft)”.Frost, Evan and Jasper Carlton. 1993. “Protecting Biodiversity in the Selkirk Mountains.” WildEarth (Fall): 28-31.Gadgil, Madhav. 1993. “Biodiversity and India’s Degraded Lands.” Ambio 22, 2-3 (May): 167-172.Gadgil, Madhav and Prema Iyer. 1989. “On the Diversification of Common-Property ResourceUse by Indian Society.” In Common Prooerty Resources: Ecology and Community-BasedSustainable Development. Edited by Fikret Berkes, London: Beihaven Press, 240-255.Gardner, Julia, and Mark Roseland. 1989a. “Thinking Globally: The Role of Social Equity inSustainable Development.” Alternatives 16, 3: 26-34.Gardner, Julia, and Mark Roseland. 1989b. “Acting Locally: Community Strategies forEquitable Sustainable Development.” Alternatives 16, 3: 36-48.Geissler, Al, Manager, Columbia Kootenay Program, B.C. Hydro. 1994. Personalcommunication, 1 February, (Castlegar).Gera, Surendra (ed.). 1991. Canadian Unemployment: Lessons from the 80s and Challenges forthe 90s. Economic Council of Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.Goldsmith, Edward, and Nicholas Hildyard. 1984. The Social and Environmental Effects ofLarge Dams. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.272Goldsmith, Edward, and Nicholas Hildyard (eds.). 1986. The Social and Environmental Effectsof Large Dams. Volume Two: Case Studies. Camelford, U.K.: Wadebridge Ecological Centre.Golley, F.B. 1971. “Energy Flux in Ecosystems.” In Ecosystem Structure and Function. Editedby J.A. Wiens. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 69-88.Goodland, R. 1987. “Hydro and the Environment: Evaluating the Tradeoffs.” Water ResourcesJournal. (June): 25-31.The Greenprint for Canada Committee. 1989. Greenprint for Canada: A Federal Agenda for theEnvironment. Ottawa.Gumsey, Cohn. 1994. B.C. Hydro. Personal communication, 9 February, Vancouver.Halleran, Mike. 1974. The Reckoning. Produced and directed by Mike Poole. 85 mm. CanadianBroadcasting Corporation, Vancouver. Videocassette.Hamling, Karen, Village Councillor for Nakusp. 1992. Interview by author, 24 August, Nakusp.Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Science 162: 1243-1248.Harwell, Mark A., Christine C. Harwell, David A. Weinstein, and John R. Kelly. 1990.“Characterizing Ecosystem Responses to Stress.” In Ecological Risks: Perspectives from Polandand the United States. Edited by Wiadyslaw Grodzinski, Ellis B. Cowling and Alicja I.Breymeyer. Washington: National Academy Press, 91-115.Hildebrand, L. 1991. Lower Columbia River Fisheries Inventory. 1990 Studies. Volume 1 MainReport. R.L. and L. Environmental Studies Ltd., Edmonton.Hilts, Stewart and Peter Mitchell. 1993. “Bucking the Free-Market Economy: Using Land Trustsfor Conservation and Community-Building.” Alternatives 19, 3: 16-23.Hirst, S.M. 1991. Impacts of the Operation of Existing Hydroelectric Developments on FisheryResources in British Columbia. Volume II. Inland Fisheries. Canadian Manuscript Report ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2093, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Vancouver.Home, Garry and Charlotte Penner. 1992. British Columbia Community EmploymentDependencies. Final Report. Planning and Statistics Division, Ministry of Finance and CorporateRelations. Background paper prepared for the British Columbia Forest Resources Commission.Home, Garry and Lee Robson. 1993. British Columbia Community Economic Dependencies.Treasury Board Secretariat, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. Prepared for theBritish Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.Hydro Québec. 1992. The Natural and Human Environment of the La Grande Complex.Montreal: Hydro-Québec.273Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. 1992. The James Bay and Northern Ouebec Agreement andthe Northeastern Ouebec Agreement. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.Johnson, Rosemarie, Mayor of Nakusp. 1992. Interview by author, 24 August, Nakusp.Karr, James R. 1992. Ecological Integrity: Protecting Earth’s Life Support Systems. InEcosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Edited by Costanza, Robert,Bryan G. Norton and Benjamin D. Haskelisame. Washington: Island Press, 223-238.Kendall, Colleen, Public Affairs Coordinator, B.C. Hydro. 1993. Personal communication, 10November.The Kootenay Task Force. 1974. The Kootenays: An Evaluation of Regional Prospects. Ministryof Municipal Affairs and Housing, Victoria.Krutilla, John V. 1967. The Columbia River Treaty: The Economics of an International RiverBasin Development. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.KtunaxalKinbasket Tribal Council. 1992. “The Ktunaxa Nation Land Claim InformationBooklet.” Cranbrook.Lagore, Douglas, Resource Officer-Engineering, Ministry of Forests. 1994. Personalcommunication, 3 February, (Reveistoke).Leach, Joy, Chair, British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.Keynote Address, Howe Sound Round Table Launch Forum, 14 July, Vancouver.Lee, Kai N. 1989. “The Columbia River Basin: Experimenting with Sustainability.”Environment 31, 6: 6-33.Lélé, Sharachchandra M. 1991. “Sustainable Development: A Critical Review.” WorldDevelopment 19, 6: 607-621.Leopold, Aldo. 1966. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Ballantine Books.Lubchenco, Jane, Annette M. Olson, Linda B. Brubaker, Stephen R. Carpenter, Marjorie M.Holland, Stephen P. Hubbell, Simon A. Levin, James A. MacMahon, Pamela A. Matson, JerryM. Mellilo, Harold A. Mooney, Charles H. Peterson, H. Ronald Pulliam, Leslie A. Real, PhilipJ. Regal, and Paul G. Risser. 1991. “The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: An EcologicalResearch Agenda.” Ecology 72, 2: 371-412.Maher, F.P. 1961. A Preliminary Report on the Effects on Fisheries of Four Dams Proposedfor the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers in British Columbia. British Columbia Department ofRecreation and Conservation, Fish and Game Branch.Mallette, Gregory Francis. 1991. An Investigation of Some Aspects of the Dollar Value of theEnvironmental Resources of the Columbia River in South-Central British Columbia. MA Thesis.274University of Waterloo.Marchak, M. Patricia. 1989. “What Happens When Common Property Becomes Uncommon?”BC Studies 80: 3-23.Marsh, Lorne. Director of Environment, B.C. Hydro. 1992. Interview by author, March 24,Vancouver.Marshall MackIm Monaghan Limited. 1982a. B.C. Rocky Mountain: Province of BritishColumbia Tourism Development Strategy. Prepared for the Canada-British Columbia TravelIndustry Development Subsidiary Agreement.Marshall MackIm Monaghan Limited. 1982b. The Kootenay Boundary Tourism Region:Province of British Columbia Tourism Development Strategy. Prepared for the Canada-BritishColumbia Travel Industry Development Subsidiary Agreement.Marshall Mackim Monaghan Limited. 1982c. Thompson-Shuswap Tourism Region: Provinceof British Columbia Tourism Development Strategy. Prepared for the Canada-British ColumbiaTravel Industry Development Subsidiary Agreement.Maslow, A. 1970. Motivation and Personality. 2nd edn. New York: Harper and Row, quotedin Brown, Becky J., Mark E. Hanson, Diana M. Liverman, and Robert W. Jr. Meredith. 1987.“Global Sustainability: Toward Definition.” Environmental Management 11, 6: 716.McCann, L.D. (ed.). 1982. “Heartland and Hinterland: A Framework for Regional Analysis.”In Heartland and Hinterland. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall.McGonigle, Michael. 1990. “Developing Sustainability: A Native/Environmentalist Prescriptionfor Third-Level Government.” BC Studies 84 (Winter 1989-90): 65-99.McKenna, Barrie, and Jacquie McNish. 1992. Hydro-Quebec loses power struggle. Globe andMail. 28 March, Al.McNaughton, S.J. and Larry L. Wolf. 1979. General Ecology. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.Miller, G. Tyler Jr. 1982. Living in the Environment. Belmont: Wadsworth PublishingCompany.Miller, Peter. 1991. “A Comeback for Nuclear Power? Our Electric Future.” NationalGeographic (August): 62-88.Missler, Heidi Erika. 1988. The Reveistoke Dam: A Case Study of the Selection, Licensing andImplementation of a Large Scale Hydroelectric Project in British Columbia. Masters thesis.University of British Columbia.Moore, Audrey, Mayor of Castlegar. 1992. Interview by author, 26 August, Castlegar.275Muckleston, Keith W. 1990. “Striking a Balance in the Pacific Northwest.” Environment 32,1 (January/February): 10-36.Narver, David W. 1984. The West Kootenay Fisheries Program- A Review. British ColumbiaMinistry of the Environment.National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1990. A Report to Canadians. June1989-1990.Newton, Tim, Senior Planning Consultant, B.C. Hydro. 1993. Telephone interview by author,14 June, (Vancouver).North, Robert N. and Walter G. Hardwick. 1992. “Vancouver Since the Second World War:An Economic Geography.” In Vancouver and its Region. Edited by Graeme Wynn and TimothyOke, Vancouver: UBC Press, 200-233.Northwest Power Planning Council. 1992. Strategy for Salmon. Volume II.Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Environmental Assessment Panel. 1991. “Panel Visits NativeCommunities.” Dialogue 4 (Summer): 2-3.Oldman River Dam Environmental Assessment Panel. 1992. Oldman River Dam: Report of theEnvironmental Assessment Panel. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Hull.Oregon Progress Board. 1992. Oregon Benchmarks: Standards for Measuring Statewide Progressand Government Performance. Report to the 1993 Legislature.Parker, Sid. 1993. Comments made at Columbia-Kootenay Symposium, 19 June, Castlegar.Parkinson, Eric, Biologist, British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks,Fisheries Research Section. 1993. Interview by author, 2 November, Vancouver.The Peace-Athabasca Delta Project Group. 1972. The Peace-Athabasca Delta: A CanadianResource. Summary Report.Pearce, David W. and Giles D. Atkinson. 1993. “Capital Theory and the Measurement ofSustainable Development: An Indicator of ‘Weak’ Sustainability.” Ecological Economics 8: 109-133.Pearse, Peter H. and Gary Bowden. 1966. Big Game Hunting in the East Kootenay.Pearse, Peter H. and Michael E. Laub. 1969. The Value of the Kootenay Lake Sport Fishery.Petts, Geoffrey E. 1990. “The Role of Ecotones in Aquatic Landscape Management.” In IhEcology and Management of Aquatic-Terrestrial Ecotones. Edited by Robert J. Naiman andHenri Décamps. Paris: UNESCO and The Parthenon Publishing Group, 227-262.276Phillips, Lexine, Thomas Munsen, Garry Merkel and Allan Hunter, KtunaxalKinbasket TribalCouncil, Department of Land and Resources. 1992 Interview by author, 24 November, St.Mary’s Reserve.Pinkerton, Evelyn. 1991. “Locally Based Water Quality Planning: Contributions to Fish HabitatProtection.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 1326-1333.Pinkerton, Evelyn. 1993. “What is Comanagement?” Alternatives 19, 3: 37.Pollon, Earl K. and Matheson, Shirlee Smith. This Was Our Valley. Calgary: DetseligEnterprises Ltd.Potvin, Joseph R. 1991. Indicators of Ecologically Sustainable Development: SynthesizedWorkshop Proceedings. Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. Ottawa: Minister of Supplyand Services.Price, Gary. British Columbia Environment, Lands and Parks. 1993. Personal communication,29 November.Prior, Bruce. Acting Public Relations Coordinator, B.C. Hydro. 1994. Personal communication,31 March.Probe International. 1993a. Damming the Three Gorges. Second Edition. Edited by MargaretBarber and Grainne Ryder, London: Earthscan.Probe International. 1993b. “Our Record of Accomplishment.”Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Economic Development. 1986. British ColumbiaRegional Index.Rafferty-Alameda Project Environmental Assessment Panel. 1991. Rafferty-Alameda Project:Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel. Federal Environmental Assessment ReviewOffice. Hull.Rapport, David J. and Henry A. Regier. 1992. “Disturbance and Stress Effects on EcologicalSystems.” In Complex Ecology. Edited by B.C. Patten and S.E. Jorgensen. Prentice Hall. (Inpress.)Rawson and Wiles Limited. 1967. Concept Central Kootenay. Vancouver.Reed, Maureen G. 1991. “Sustainability and Community: Still Searching for Meaning.”Environments 21, 2: 48-52.Rees, William E. 1989. Defining “Sustainable Development”. University of British ColumbiaCentre for Human Settlements Research Bulletin, Vancouver.Rees, William. 1993. “Regional Futures: B.C.” Presentation at the sixth annual BC Hydro277Electric Energy Forum “Energy for Our Future: Balancing Regional Interests” on May 3, 1993,Victoria.Rees, William and Peter Boothroyd. 1987. Activities: A Background Paper on EARP Reform.The University of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning, Vancouver.Reid, David J. 1976. Reveistoke Project Benefit-Cost Analysis. B.C. Hydro and PowerAuthority.Repetto, Robert. 1986. World Enough and Time. New Haven: Yale University Press.Repetto, Robert. 1988. Economic Policy Reform for Natural Resource Conservation. The WorldBank, Environment Department Working Paper No. 4.Rettig, R. Bruce, Fikret Berkes and Evelyn Pinkerton. 1989. “The Future of Fisheries CoManagement: A Multi-Disciplinary Assessment.” In Co-Operative Management of LocalFisheries. Edited by Evelyn Pinkerton, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 273-286.Ricard, Paul, Logging Superintendent, Evans Forest Products. 1992. Interview by author, 28October, Golden.Riek, Christine. 1987. The Problems with Social Cost-Benefit Analysis: Economics, Ethics andPolitics. Masters Thesis. University of British Columbia.Robinson, John, George Francis, Russell Legge, and Sally Lerner. 1990. “Defining aSustainable Society: Values, Principles and Definitions.” Alternatives 17, 2 (July/August): 36-46.Robinson, Raymond, Deputy Chairman, Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office.1993. Personal communication, 17 August, Vancouver.Royds, W.E. 1991. Report into Certain Matters Concerning the Trail Water Supply.Rudd et al. 1993. “Are Hydroelectric Reservoirs Significant Sources of Greenhouse Gases?”Ambio 24, 4 (June): 246-248.Salasan Associates Inc. 1993. “Columbia-Kootenay Symposium Saturday Night Report.”Castlegar.Scarlett, Donald. 1992. Interview by author, 24 August, Kaslo.Schelihase, H.U. 1993. B.C. Hydro Carbon Project - Reservoir Case Study Progress Report:2nd Project Milestone. Powertech Labs Inc.Schrecker, Ted. 1984. “Megaproject Mania: Round Two.” Alternatives 12, 1 (Fall): 3-6.Schuck, Brian, Guide, Kinbasket Lake Outfitting. 1992. Interview by author, 28 October 1992,278Golden.Shea, Cynthia Pollock. 1988. Renewable Energy: Today’s Contribution. Tomorrow’s Promise.Woridwatch Paper 81, Woridwatch Institute.Shearman, Richard. 1990. “The Meaning and Ethics of Sustainability.” EnvironmentalManagement 14, 1: 1-8.Sigma Engineering Ltd. 1990. Environmental Compensation Status.Smienk, Josh, Chairman, Columbia River Treaty Committee. 1992. Interview by author, 26August, Nelson.Smienk, Josh, Chairman, Columbia River Treaty Committee. 1993a. Personal communication,5 August.Smienk, Josh, Chairman, Columbia River Treaty Committee. 1993b. Letter from Nelson toDelegates of the Columbia-Kootenay Symposium, 17 June.Smith, H.A. 1989. “Reveistoke Reservoir (Columbia River System): Biophysical Status to1987.” In Managing the Effects of Hydroelectric Development 9. Montreal Symposium,Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists, Montreal.Soussan, J.G. and A.C. Millington. “Forests, Woodlands and Deforestation.” In EnvironmentalIssues in the 90s. Edited by A.M. Mannion and S.R. Bowiby. West Sussex: John Wiley & SonsLtd., 79-96.Spafford, Ken, Manager of Resource Optimization, B.C. Hydro. 1994. Personal communication,4 April.Spicer, Janet. 1993. Letter from Nakusp to Mrs. Johnson, 20 January.Spritzer, Donald E. 1979. Waters of Wealth: The Story of the Kootenai River and the LibbyDam. Boulder: Pruett Publishing Company.Spurr, Stephen H. and Burton H. Barnes. 1980. Forest Ecology. New York: John Wiley &Sons.Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources. 1993. Sustainable Energy and MineralDevelopment: A Realistic Response to the Environmental Challenges. Ottawa.Statistics Canada. 1992. Labour Force Annual Averages. (1975-1992). Ottawa: Minister ofSupply and Services.Statistics CanadalEnergy, Mines and Resources Canada. 1993. Energy Statistics Handbook.Ottawa.279Sterling, Claire. 1974. “The Trouble with Superdams.” In 1974 Britannica Yearbook of Scienceand the Future. Chicago: Enclycopaedia Britannica, Inc., 112-127.Swainson, Neil A. 1979. Conflict over the Columbia: The Canadian Background to an HistoricTreaty. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Swainson, Neil A. 1986. “The Columbia River Treaty - Where Do We Go From Here?” NaturalResources Journal 26 (Spring): 243-259.Swartzman, Daniel. 1982. “Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Regulation: Sources of theControversy.” In Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Regulations. Edited by DanielSwartzman, Richard A. Liroff and Kevin G. Croke. Washington: The Conservation Foundation,53-85.Szaraz, Gerard. 1981. The Impacts of Hydro Dams on Forestry in Southeastern BritishColumbia. Master of Science Thesis, University of British Columbia.Tester, Frank J. 1992. “Reflections on Tin Wis: Environmentalism and the Evolution of CitizenParticipation in Canada.” Alternatives 19, 1 (September/October): 34-41.Thibodeau, D. 1991. Effects of the Mica Reservoir on the Forest Operations of Evans ForestProducts. Golden. B.C.Toman, Michael A. 1992. “The Difficulty in Defining Sustainability.” Resources (Winter): 3-6.Tomblin, Stephen G. 1990 “W.A.C. Bennett and Province-Building in British Columbia.”Studies (Spring) :45-61Triton Environmental Consultants Ltd. 1990. B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Columbia RiverReservoir Coordination Studies: Environmental Impact Assessment Final Report. Prepared forB.C. Hydro and Power Authority, Burnaby.Trumbull, William N. 1990. “Who Has Standing in Cost-Benefit Analysis?” Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management 9, 2: 201-218.United Nations. 1991. Concepts and Methods of Environment Statistics. Statistics of the NaturalEnvironment: A Technical Report. New York.U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Authority; U.S. Department of the Army, Corpsof Engineers, North Pacific Division; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,Pacific Northwest Region. 1991. The Columbia River System: The Inside Story. Portland.Victor, Peter A. 1991. “Indicators of Sustainable Development: Some Lessons from CapitalTheory.” Ecological Economics 4: 191-213.Vining, Aidan R. 1981. “Provincial Hydro Utilities.” In Public Corporations and Public Policyin Canada. Edited by Allan Tupper and G. Bruce Doern, Montreal: The Institute for Research280on Public Policy, 149-188.Waterfield, Donald. 1970. Continental Waterboy. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin and Company Limited.Whateley, M.R. 1972. Effects on Fish in Kootenay River of Construction of Libby Dam.Department of Recreation and Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Fish Habitat ProtectionSection, Fisheries Management Report No. 65.Wilims, Sharon Manson, and Leslie Gilbert. 1991. “Healthy Community Indicators: Lessonsfrom the Social Indicator Movement.” University of British Columbia Centre for HumanSettlements Bulletin.Wilson, J.W. 1973. People in the Way. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Wilson, J.W. and Maureen Conn. 1983. “On Uprooting and Rerooting: Reflections on theColumbia River Project.” BC Studies 58 (Summer): 40-54.Wilson, Steven F. 1992. Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area: Habitat Management andWildlife Responses. 1968-199 1. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, TechnicalReport Series No. 162.Wright, O.N. Property Tax Manager, B.C. Hydro. 1993a. Letter from Vancouver to author,10 September.Wright, O.N. Property Tax Manager, B.C. Hydro. 1993b. Telephone interview by author, 16September, (Vancouver).Woods, Guy, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1993. Telephone interview by author,5 July, (Nelson).World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future.Oxford: Oxford University Press.World Conservation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), andWorld Wide Fund For Nature (WWF). 1991. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for SustainableLiving. Gland, Switzerland.World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 1985. A Report of the International Conference onthe Assessment of Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Variations andAssociated Impacts. Villach, Austria, 9-15 October 1985, WMO No. 661. Geneva:WMO/ICSU/UNEP, 1986.Wynn, Graeme. 1992. “The Rise of Vancouver.” In Vancouver and its Region. Edited byGraeme Wynn and Timothy Oke, Vancouver: UBC Press, 69-145.Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social ResearchMethods Series volume 5. Revised Edition. Newbury Park: Sage Publications Inc.APPENDIX1-INTERVIEWSThefollowingisasummaryofsubstantiveinterviewsconductedduringthesisresearch.Numerousotherpeopleprovidedvariousotherdetailsinresponsetobriefinformationrequests.IntervieweeAffiliationDateLocationB.C.HydroLorneMarshDirectorof Environment92/03/24VancouverF.G.HathornManagerofEnvironmentalResources92/04/14VancouverAlGeisslerManager,Columbia-KootenayProgram92/08/23Vernon94/02/0 1(telephone)RickLarsonManagerfor WestKootenayProductionArea92/08/28KootenayCanalDennisDuncanOperationsSupervisor,ReveistokeProductionArea92/10/26ReveistokeDamJaneNewlandsPublicAffairsCoordinatorTrainee93/01/28VancouverLachRusselManagerof ColumbiaRiverProgram93/01/28VancouverGlenSingletonActingManager,EnvironmentalResources93/05/25VancouverTimNewtonSeniorPlanningConsultant(Vancouver)93/06/14(telephone)OrvilleWrightPropertyTaxManager(Vancouver)93/09/16(telephone)BobBradleySeniorBiologist(Vancouver)93/10/12(telephone)DaveWilsonEnvironmentalBiologist(Vancouver)93/10/25VancouverGaryBirchSeniorCoordinatorforColumbiaProjectsandCompensation(Vancouver)94/01/31(telephone)CohnGuernseyManager,SocialResources94/02/09(telephone)BritishColumbiaGovernmentOfficialsWalterCibulkaConservationOfficer,Ministryof Environment,LandsandParks92/10/27GoldenDaveClappertonResourceOfficer,Silviculture,MinistryofForests92/10/28GoldenEricParkinsonHeadof LakesUnit,FisheriesResearch,MinistryofEnvironment,93/03/26VancouverLandsandParks93/11/02VancouverGuyWoodsRegionalWildlifeBiologist,Ministryof Environment,LandsandParks93/07/05(telephone)(Nelson)MartinMonkmanActingEconomist,CentralStatisticsBranch,93/11 /16(telephone)MinistryofGovernmentServicesCommunityRepresentativesEvoDeprettoMayorofSilverton92/08/24SilvertonRosemarieJohnsonMayorofNakusp92/08/24NakuspKarenHamlingVillageCouncillorforNakusp92/08/24NakuspDonaldScarlettKootenay-OkanaganElectricConsumersAssociation92/08/24KasloGordonBrookfieldAldermanforNewDenver92/08/25NewDenverBernardCzelenskiMayorof Slocan92/08/25SlocanRichardBurtonsmallhydrooperator92/08/25NewDenverDonHarasymRegionalDistrictofCentralKootenay92/08/26NelsonWilliamRamsdenMayorof Nelson92/08/26NelsonJoshSmienkChairmanof ColumbiaRiverTreatyCommittee92/08/26Nelson93/03/07(telephone)93/08/05(telephone)94/03/06(telephone)AudreyMooreMayorofCastlegar92/08/26CastlegarPhilBerukoffAldermanforSalmo92/08/27SalmoFredDemmonMayorofGolden92/09/23Vernon92/10/27GoldenStanLimCouncillorforGolden92/09/23VernonGeoffBattersbyMayorofRevelstoke92/09/23Vernon92/10/26RevelstokeMarkMcKeeCouncillorforRevelstoke92/09/23Vernon92/10/26RevelstokeMaureenConnTeacher92/10/26ReveistokeJohnBaltakisFishingcampowner92/10/27GoldenPaulRicardLoggingSuperintendent,EvansForestProducts92/10/28GoldenRodDrownColumbia-ShuswapRegionalDistrict92/10/28GoldenGrantAnt,CarlGutzman,GoldenDistrictRodandGunClub92/10/27GoldenTomSimBrianSchuckOutfittingoperator92/10/28GoldenMikePattersonMayorof Cranbrook92/11/24CranbrookJamesOgilvieMayorofKimberley92/11/23KimberleyLarryHaberDirector,EconomicDevelopment,CityofKimberley92/11/23KimbenleyGamyJenkinsCouncillorforRossland92/11/25RosslandJackMcDonaldresidentof Rossland92/11/25RosslandVictorKumarCityTreasurer,Trail92/11/25TrailDieterBogsCouncillor forTrail92/11/25TrailRichardDeanresidentofRossland92/11/25RosslandFirstNationsLexinePhillips,Ktunaxa/KinbasketTribalCouncil,DepartmentofLandandResources92/11/24St.Mary’sReserveThomasMunsen,GarryMerkel,AllanHunterOthersAlMalletteEnvironRecResearch(Vancouver)92/11/03(telephone)GregMalletteEnvironRecResearch93/09/07VancouverJimWilsonformerViceChairmanandregionaldevelopmentplanner,B.C.Hydro93/04/15Vancouver00284APPENDIX 2- INDICATOR EVALUATIONProblem: ecological productivity has been disturbedHypothesis: hydro development has reduced ecological productivityIssue: dams have blocked fish migration and nutrient flow, flooded wetlands, and have createdan unseasonal flow regime with fluctuating water levels that disrupt fish productivityIndicator: kokanee fish populations in Kootenay LakeEvaluation Criteria:a) public concernfish losses are significant to local residents (l’able 6, Smienk 1992, Moore 1992, Johnson 1992)b) technical validitythe impacts of dams on Kootenay Lake fish is well-established (Daley et al. 1981; Mallette 1991;Hirst 1991; British Columbia and Environment Canada 1993, 81)c) sensitivity to changedams directly affect fish populations through prevention of migration, nutrient blockage, waterlevel changes, and variable aquatic conditions; however, some variation may result from naturalpopulation cyclesd) monitoring abilityfisheries management funding may need to be increased to conduct ongoing monitoring andrelated researche) usefulness to policy-makersprovides a focus for compensation, mitigation, management strategies, downstream benefitsconceptual understandingimplications for fish are easily understood; linkages with human and economic systemsunderstood locally, not as significant to external decision-makersOther Factors Influencing the Indicator:• introduction of mysis relicta, an organism that competes for the same zooplankton as kokanee(British Columbia and Environment Canada 1993, 81);• phosphorus loading from leaking fertilizer plant (reduced levels after pollution control in 1975)and phosphorus addition programs (recently) (British Columbia and Environment Canada 1993,81);• changing degrees of fishing effort (Narver 1984).• fisheries management decisions (e.g. operation of spawning channels, enhancement of predatorssuch as Gerrard trout, fisheries regulation of catch)285INDICATOR EVALUATIONProblem: ecological productivity has been disturbedHypothesis: hydro development has reduced ecological productivityIssue: reservoir flooding has reduced wildlife habitat, affecting wildlife populations in the basinIndicator: land capability for ungulates in Kinbasket Reservoir regionEvaluation Criteria:a) public concernwildlife losses are significant to local residents (Table 6, Demmon 1992, Battersby 1992, Arltet al. 1992)b) technical validitythe East Kootenay mountain ranges and the Rocky Mountain Trench provide ideal habitat formany ungulates (Pearse and Bowden 1966; Environment and Land Use Committee 1978);loss of riparian habitat has caused a severe impact on wildlife populations around the Micareservoir (British Columbia 1974, 1-11)c) sensitivity to changereservoir flooding has removed most of the best wildlife habitat along valley systems of thereservoird) monitoring abilitywildlife management funding may need to be increased to conduct ongoing monitoring and relatedresearche) usefulness to policy-makersprovides a focus for compensation, mitigation, management strategies, downstream benefitsf) conceptual understandingimplications for wildlife residency within this area are easily understood, however, wildlife maymigrate elsewhere; linkages with human and economic systems understood locally, not assignificant to external decision-makersOther Factors Influencing the Indicator:• habitat changes due to forestry policy, forest fires, and human activities• species competition for habitat286INDICATOR EVALUATIONProblem: ecological productivity has been disturbedHypothesis: hydro development has reduced ecological productivityIssue: reservoir flooding has reduced the amount of land in the most ecologically productivezones within the basinIndicator: net primary productivityEvaluation Criteria:a) public concernmuch of the most productive forest, in the valley bottoms of the Columbia River, has beenflooded (Battersby 1993; Table 6)before the inundation of valley bottoms, more land was available to support a diversity of landuse activities, limited to the flat productive shorelines of water bodies (Hamling 1992, Table 6)residents of the Kootenays believe that their relationship with the land and water in the region haschanged (Table 6)b) technical validitythe most productive land in the Kootenay region is located in valley bottoms along the Columbiaand Kootenay Rivers (Szaraz 1981, 23)overall capability of region to support fish and wildlife has been reduced as habitat flooded hasnot been replaced by equivalent aquatic habitat due to unseasonal fluctuations in reservoir levels(Woods 1993)the net primary productivity of temperate forests is greater than that for lakes and rivers (Golley1971; Miller 1982, 72)c) sensitivity to changenet primary productivity is a function of limnological conditions, nutrient availability, moisture,climate and vegetation, and changes only when one of these factors changesthe inundation of forest land for reservoir creation affects net primary productivityd) monitoring abilityforest productivity is monitored by the Ministry of Forests monitoring of aquatic productivityrequires specific studiese) usefulness to policy-makersprovides an indication of land use capability and the state of ecological systemsf) conceptual understandingalthough the analysis of ecological productivity requires some understanding of ecologicalprinciples, the concept of various types of land capability zones is fairly easy to comprehendOther Factors Influencing the Indicator:• changes due to forestry policy, forest fires, and human activities• climate change287INDICATOR EVALUATIONProblem: social living conditions have been degradedHypothesis: hydro development has reduced the ability of local residents to participate in themanagement of regional resources, and has decreased the desirability of living conditionsIssue: in- and out-migration of a large labour force during dam construction has caused rapidchanges in community stabilityIndicator: population size of communities affected by dam constructionEvaluation Criteria:a) public concerncommunity stability has been disturbed by boom and bust cycles (Table 6, Battersby 1992)b) technical validityhydro projects have caused population fluctuations and related social impacts on adjacentcommunities in the Kootenays (Wilson 1973; British Columbia 1976, 205; Wilson and Conn1983)c) sensitivity to changefluctuating demand for labour during dam construction causes immediate population changesd) monitoring abilitymunicipal population statistics are collected annuallye) usefulness to policy-makersprovides a focus for compensation, mitigation, grant allocations, downstream benefitsf conceptual understandingimplications for local communities understood locally, not as significant to external decisionmakersOther Factors Influencing the Indicator:• external economic conditions• other forms of industrial development288INDICATOR EVALUATIONProblem: social living conditions have been degradedHypothesis: hydro development has reduced the ability of local residents to participate in themanagement of regional resources, and has decreased the desirability of living conditionsIssue: hydro development has occurred with little community participation in decision-makingand has reduced the ability of communities to manage their resourcesIndicator: opportunities for public participation in hydro-related decision-makingEvaluation Criteria:a) public concernlocal residents believe they have little control over resource use decision-making as there havebeen few opportunities for their participation in hydro project planning or operations (Scarlett1992, Smienk 1992, Table 6)b) technical validityColumbia River Basin hydro projects have proceeded with little consultation with localcommunities (Waterfield 1970, Wilson and Conn 1983, Missler 1988)c) sensitivity to changethe participatory nature of hydro project decision-making varies with public, corporate andpolitical support for shared decision-makingd) monitoring abilitythe degree of participatory decision-making undertaken requires the development of a chronologyof public participation efforts, and an analysis of such factors as decision-making authority,scope, timing, and access to informatione) usefulness to policy-makersprovides an indication of the degree to which communities have been included in resource usedecisions, and may assist in the understanding of ecological, social and economic problemsrelated to resource use conflictsI) conceptual understandingwhile there is a general understanding of the need to include those affected by a decision duringdecision-making, the subject of participatory decision-making raises questions related to thedistribution of power, and opinions on appropriate levels of empowerment and participation mayvaryOther Factors Influencing the Indicator:political pressures at provincial, national and international levels289INDICATOR EVALUATIONProblem: social living conditions have been degradedHypothesis: hydro development has reduced the ability of local residents to participate in themanagement of regional resources, and has decreased the desirability of living conditionsIssue: hydro development has reduced fishing opportunities through impacts to fish productivityIndicator: annual rod hours on Kootenay LakeEvaluation Criteria:a) public concernproductivity of local sport fishery has decreased (Table 6)b) technical validityimportance of sport fishery to residents and non-residents (Pearse 1969, 35; Hirst 1991, 23)fishing on Kootenay Lake has been popular since the 1930s, however, angling hours havedeclined since the mid-70s (Hirst 1991, 23)c) sensitivity to changefishing effort is related to previous catch rates and may lag a year or more in response to dam-related fish population changesd) monitoring abilityrequires an annual survey of anglers (creel census)e) usefulness to policy-makerssince residents of the Kootenays have strong links with their natural surroundings, the popularityand pursuit of fishing as a form of recreation or sport provides information regarding the abilityof the region to fulfill social or recreational needs; the existence of a significant sport fisheryprovides incentives for recreational and tourism developmentf) conceptual understandingthe importance of fishing to residents and non-resident anglers is well understood locally, but maynot be significant to external decision-makersOther Factors Influencing the Indicator:• fish size• competition between fish species• fisheries management decisions (e.g. fisheries closures, hatcheries)• popularity of fishing and angler congestion• availability of alternative sports or recreational activities within the region• fuel and transport prices• highway access to fisheries• changes in population size of local communitiesweather290INDICATOR EVALUATIONProblem: economic development opportunities have been restrictedHypothesis: hydro development has removed land from the regional resource base, restricting theavailability of land for economic development, and has caused conditions that makeongoing and future development more costlyIssue: hydro development has affected tourismIndicator: annual room revenue expenditures for the KootenaysEvaluation Criteria:a) public concernmany communities would like to reduce their dependency on forestry through tourismdevelopment, however low reservoir levels jeopardize tourism (Johnson 1992; Demmon 1992)b) technical vaJiditytourism is being encouraged as an economic diversification strategy in the Kootenays (BritishColumbia 1989; B.C. Central Credit Union 1989, 5)hydro development has affected recreation along the Arrow reservoir (Marshall MackilnMonaghan 1982b, 24; DPA Group 1990, 2-2); the Koocanusa reservoir (British Columbia 1976,208; Marshall Macklin Monaghan 1982a, 15)c) sensitivity to changelow reservoir levels cause immediate effects on tourism due to unattractive shorelines and reducedaccess to water-based recreation (Cutts 1993)d) monitoring abilityroom rental expenditures are collected annually for taxation purposes by provincial governmente) usefulness to policy-makerspolicy-makers are interested in tourism, as it is frequently promoted as a means towards economicdiversificationI) conceptual understandingthe contribution of accomodation revenue towards a local economy is easily understoodOther Factors Influencing the Indicator:weatherexternal economic conditionscompeting tourism areasbusiness and cultural events, e.g., Expotransportation access291INDICATOR EVALUATIONProblem: economic development opportunities have been restrictedHypothesis: hydro development has removed land from the regional resource base, restricting theavailability of land for economic development, and has caused conditions that makeongoing and future development more costlyIssue: hydro development has affected employmentIndicator: annual unemployment rates for the KootenaysEvaluation Criteria:a) public concerndam construction causes employment booms and busts, and does not create long-term employmentfor local residents; dam impacts on the resource base reduce employment opportunities (Table6; Salasan 1993, 7; Spicer 1993; Bennett 1993)b) technical validityunemployment rates may increase after project construction until labour force finds newemployment or relocates (Reid 1976, 6-23)hydro development eliminates other resource uses that provide employment opportunities (Reid1976, 6-59; Szaraz 1981, 186; Waterfield 1970, 63)c) sensitivity to changeunemployment rates for small communities are likely to respond rapidly with changes in majorindustrial activityd) monitoring abilityunemployment rates are calculated frequently by federal and provincial governmentse) usefulness to policy-makersunemployment rates are generally considered to be key measures of economic conditions withina communityf) conceptual understandingthe significance of unemployment is well understood by all sectors of societyOther Factors Influencing the Indicator:external economic conditionsother industrial activity292INDICATOR EVALUATIONProblem: economic development opportunities have been restrictedHypothesis: hydro development has removed land from the regional resource base, restricting theavailability of land for economic development, and has caused conditions that makeongoing and future development more costlyIssue: hydro development has reduced the resource base and increased forestry costsIndicator: accessibility to timber supply in Golden Timber Supply AreaEvaluation Criteria:a) public concerninundation of some of the most productive forest land has reduced the volume of wood availablefor harvesting; flooding of previous road systems has reduced accessibility to timber supply andincreased operating costs due to water transport; fluctuating water levels result in additional costsdue to ramp maintenance and debris removal as well as reduced access to timber supply (Triton1990; Thibodeau 1991; Bennett 1993; Table 6)b) technical validityBritish Columbia Forest Service recognizes that forest operators have incurred financial lossesas a result of hydro development (Clapperton 1992)flooding of the Big Bend highway has handicapped the forest industry around Golden (BritishColumbia 1974, 6-23, Szaraz 1981, 118))hydro-related forest land withdrawal has decreased opportunities for employment, value added,and regional income; increases in operating costs when reduced access and transport problemsare not mitigated lead to a greater sensitivity to market conditions (Szaraz 1981, 186)c) sensitivity to changethe flooding of productive forests and logging roads has caused immediate increased costs forforestry operators; ongoing reservoir level fluctuations reduce access to timber supply andincrease operation costsd) monitoring abilityforestry companies and the government map forestry operations; forestry companies calculate thecosts of their operations and are able to quantify the extent of their losses due to hydrodevelopmente) usefulness to policy-makersforestry is the most important economic sector in British Columbia and in the Kootenay regionf) conceptual understandingthe contribution of forestry to employment and regional income is easily understood; hydrorelated constraints to forestry are also easy to comprehendOther Factors Influencing the Indicator:external economic conditions and competing forestry operations


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics