Raymond A. Demarchi, Ecodomain Consulting 

Contact Information:
Ray Demarchi, Ecodomain Consultiing
934 Khenipsen Road, Duncan BC V9L 5L3
Phone: 250-746-4067 
Rdemarchi@home.com

COLUMBIA BASIN PAST: THE WILDLIFE INVENTORIES

Impounding streams and rivers for hydroelectric power generation is a Twentieth Century phenomenon. The first registered power dam in British Columbia was built in 1903 on Trout Creek in North Vancouver. At first, dams for power or water storage were small and located adjacent to the area of need. By 1951, there were only sixty-one registered dams in the province. By 1961 the number had increased by twenty-one, with a tenfold increase in capacity from 6.5 billion cubic meters of water to 66 billion cubic meters. Over the next twenty years the number of dams increased to one hundred and three with an overall storage capacity of 177 billion cubic meters covering some 426,000 hectares of valley bottom and riparian habitat within British Columbia. (Demarchi and Demarchi (1987). 

During the late 1960s and early 1970s British Columbia's Omineca and Kootenay Regions were subjected to major perturbations resulting from massive hydroelectric impoundments. Land conversion from one form of use to another such as old growth forest to plantation forest results in changes to ecosystem functions, which in turn affects wildlife populations. Urban, industrial and agricultural conversions of natural habitats lead to losses and changes in wildlife populations varying from partial to total. Few modern land use practices including urbanization and transportation result in habitat losses as severe as those caused by hydroelectric impoundments. 

Major alterations of ecosystems on a regional scale usually occur in time measured on the geological scale- occurring gradually over centuries or millennia. Yet in a brief interval of barely a decade, destruction of ecosystems occurred in the Kootenays, the likes of which had not been witnessed since the onset of the last ice age.

(Note: I define a lake as a body of water that fluctuates in elevation within a natural range. This includes artificially controlled water regimes that do not prevent the establishment of perennial riparian vegetation, such as Kootenay Lake. I use the terms reservoir or impoundment as a body of water that is caused by man to fluctuate in elevation outside of its natural range. Such features are exclusively artificially controlled and usually result in the destruction of all perennial vegetation within the drawdown zone.)

Demarchi and Demarchi (1987) describe the effects of hydroelectric reservoir impoundments on fish and wildlife resources as follows:

"The impounding of a stream or river has a great impact on the movement of riverine fishes, especially adandromous fish. The dams are barriers to fish moving upstream, and fry moving downstream are often sucked through the turbines to die. The impacts on terrestrial wildlife may not be so dramatic, except when a reservoir blocks a migration route, and the animals try to cross, then drown. The direct impact on wildlife is the loss of critical habitat. The lower valley slopes, terraces and floodplains are the most productive forage-producing areas within our mountainous province, they are often the most snowfree in a valley system; yet those are the places that may be flooded. The direct influence of the a dam on a river is not confined to the reservoir; the downstream flood regime is also greatly altered."

The conditional water licenses issued for Duncan, Arrow and Mica all contained provisions that allowed the provincial water comptroller to order studies to measure the impacts of the impoundments on fish and wildlife and to develop mitigative measures to compensate for these impacts. These clauses, known as provisional water license clauses "N" and "O" were not included in the Libby Reservoir agreement. This project was included in the Columbia Treaty but because the dam was built in the US it did not come under the mandate of BC Hydro. The province formed the Libby Preparation Committee that included exclusively, provincial government agencies such as the Ministry of Forests, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Water Rights Branch and the Ministry of Highways with direct responsibility for land use in the British Columbia portion of the Libby Reservoir. The Kootenay Canal, Revelstoke, and Pend d' Orielle dams were strictly in-province BC Hydro projects and each was treated as a separate project.

Fish and Wildlife studies were based primarily on reconnaissance level field inventories. Studies were directed almost exclusively at game species and furbearers although brief mention was made of other vertebrates, which were categorized, as "non-game" in a sort of "important/non-so-important" hierarchy of species. Although the term biological diversity had been coined by at least one Canadian biologist at the time (i.e. the late Douglas Pimlot) the concept had not yet been developed let alone applied and no attempts were made to quantify overall biological diversity. Had we had the same level of understanding of ecosystem function then as we do now, the entire approach towards quantifying environmental impacts would have been different. This is not to imply that all of the dams we see today would not have been built. However, the catalogue listing the environmental losses would have been a lot more comprehensive and thinking idealistically, perhaps some of the projects would have been significantly modified. At the very least, the form and size of any compensation packages would certainly have been different than they are today.

The following briefly describes the procedure followed in assessing wildlife losses in the Mica, Arrow and Duncan dam areas-of influence. Peterson and Withler (1965) describe their pre-flood field survey of the Mica dam area-of-influence as follows:

"Investigations of wildlife resources were largely confined to exploration of habitat and counting of big game animals and waterfowl. Upland game birds and fur bearers were casually investigated. A helicopter was used for much of the survey because of the large size and remote location of the drainage area." 

Lists of species' numbers, which were expected to be impacted, were developed and debated by the Fish and Wildlife staff biologists. There was no statistical validation of their accuracy and estimates were based largely on the experience of the individuals conducting the surveys. 

In the Libby (Smith 1969) and Pend d' Oreille Basins (Woods, 1984) estimates of impacted wild ungulate populations were made by extrapolating numbers seen during aerial winter surveys. An attempt was also made to improve population estimates in the Mica area-of-influence by Peterson and Withler (1965) utilizing the Canada Land Inventory Ungulate Capability ratings (Farquharson, 1974). This same technique was also utilized in determining estimates of wild ungulate populations impacted in the Arrow Basin. Supplemental aerial winter counts were also utilized to improve population estimates, particularly in the Libby and Pend d' Orielle reservoir areas-of-influence. Most of this work was done immediately preceding or during clearing and flooding of the reservoirs. 

In some cases, pre-flooding land clearing activities greatly influenced wildlife population estimates. The best example of this was white-tailed deer which were attracted by availability of forage in the form of freshly fallen cottonwood trees in the Libby Basin. The only project, which involved both pre- and post-flooding population estimation attempts, was for white-tailed deer in the Pend d' Oreille, which sustained the least amount of habitat loss of all of the large projects.

Once the numbers of game animals lost were agreed to and depending on the project or the particular government in office, estimates were made of the economic worth of the predicted wildlife losses. As these were mainly game or furbearer species, estimates of net worth were based on projected losses in the economic value of hunting and trapping. Guides were left to their own initiative and some individuals negotiated directly with BC Hydro for compensation (B. Dean, pers. comm.). A separate program to compensate trappers was carried out by BC Hydro with each of the registered trap line holders affected. 

Various compensation funds were established including a fund under the Libby Preparation Committee that served for about 20 years as the Libby Wildlife Compensation Fund. Initially, BC Hydro seemed reluctant to admit that they were paying compensation and initially no formal process was developed. Various projects such as Kootenay Lake fertilization, the Meadow Creek kokanee spawning channel and parts of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area were all developed in cooperation in one form or another with BC Hydro. Once the Columbia Treaty dams were constructed, and new projects were initiated separate compensation fund packages were created including the Pend d' Oreille and Arrow Basin compensation agreements.

COLUMBIA BASIN PRESENT: MISSING IN ACTION

Except for imprecise estimates of game species or other species of commercial value, wildlife species population losses in the Columbia Basin as a result of hydroelectric reservoir flooding remain largely unknown. The current situation is one where the most productive riparian ecosystems have been displaced by largely unproductive reservoir draw-down zones and cold water reservoirs, including in the winter months, an extensive and hazardous ice cover. Wildlife losses were major and should be considered significant in terms of social, cultural and economic value. Current compensation funds are based on incomplete and likely underestimated wildlife losses. 

COLUMBIA BASIN FUTURE: TOWARD A COMPLETE ACCOUNTING

For all practical purposes, the accuracy of the numerical estimates for most of the impacted species, which have been considered and reported in provincial government documents, could be considered adequate. New habitat mapping techniques developed for grizzly bears and black bears could be utilized to improve the estimates, however. Additionally and perhaps more importantly, the list of species lost should be expanded and an ecosystem approach should be taken to assess overall losses to biological diversity.

New habitat inventory techniques developed by the Ministry of Environment's Resources Inventory Branch now make it possible to describe and quantify wildlife habitats lost to hydroelectric development. Once the habitat, which formerly existed, is described and quantified, wildlife population estimates can be more accurately derived. 

The technique for reassessing wildlife losses in the Columbia Basin is referred to as "backcasting". It is a relatively new procedure based on the same mapping techniques employed in the Ministry's Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM) process (Ecosystems Working Group, 1995). By utilizing pre-flooding aerial photographs and BC Forest Service forest cover maps plus Columbia Basin topographical maps and applying the TEM procedure it is feasible that pre-flood habitat capability maps could be prepared for a large number of species, mainly those which still exist in the remaining habitats adjacent to the existing reservoirs. Because most of the riparian areas lost due to flooding were in a pristine or at least, largely unaltered condition, capability should reflect suitability, eliminating one major step in the mapping procedure. Using these new species lists and where possible, revised population estimates, conventional non-market economics can be applied to calculate a more realistic estimated economic value of the lost habitat and wildlife populations in the Columbia Basin. This same habitat information may then be interpreted by First Nations to determine the basis for their social, cultural and economic losses as well.

CONCLUSION

Original attempts to assess wildlife population losses in the hydroelectric reservoir impoundments in the Columbia Basin of the Kootenay Region of British Columbia were incomplete and occurred mainly at the reconnaissance level. Few attempts were made to assess habitat losses. Increased public awareness and concern for the environment coupled with public ownership of resources should motivate BC Hydro and the Provincial and Federal governments to re-inventory wildlife population and habitat losses which incurred in the past. 

Providing that pre-flood aerial photographs are still available, new mapping techniques make it possible to obtain a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of wildlife species and habitat losses. Only in this way can the public be brought to more fully understand both the benefits and the costs of hydroelectric development and only in this way can ecologically, economically and socially relevant compensation programs be developed. 

REFERENCES

Demarchi, D.A. and R. A. Demarchi. 1987. Wildlife habitat-the impacts of settlement. In: A. Murray. Ed. Our Wildlife Heritage: 100 Years of Wildlife Management. Centennial Wildlife Society of British Columbia. Victoria, BC. 192 pp.

Ecosystems Working Group. 1995 Standards for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia. Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force of the Resources Inventory Committee. Victoria, BC. 222 pp.

Farquharson, K. 1974. Mica Reservoir Region resource study. Volume 1. British Columbia Environment and Land Use Committee. Victoria, BC. 

Farquharson, K. 1974. Mica Reservoir Region resource study. Volume 2. British Columbia Environment and Land Use Committee. Victoria, BC. 

Peterson, G.R. and I. L. Withler. Effects on fish and game species of development of Duncan dam for hydro-electric purposes. Management Publication No.8. BC Fish and Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC. 72 pp.

Peterson, G.R. and I. L. Withler. Effects on fish and game species of development of Arrow Lakes dam for hydro-electric purposes. Management Publication No.9. BC Fish and Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC. 43 pp.

Peterson, G.R. and I. L. Withler.1965. Effects on fish and game species of development of Mica Creek dam for hydro-electric purposes. Management Publication No.10. BC Fish and Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC. 67 pp.

Smith, I.D. 1969. Effects of the Libby Dam upon wildlife resources of the East and West Kootenay. BC Fish and Wildlife Report. Victoria, BC. 

Woods, G. 1984. Habitat selection of white-tailed deer in the Pend d' Oreille Valley, BC. M.Sc. Thesis. U of Idaho Moscow, ID.

Contact Information:
Ralph Legge
BC Hydro
6911 Southpoint Drive Burnaby BC V3N 4X8
Phone: 604-528-7832 
ralph.legge@bchydro.bc.ca

The Columbia River Treaty is an agreement between Canada and the United States on the coordinated operation of the Columbia River, and included the development of additional water storage and hydroelectric projects in Canada and the United States. The agreement was developed and formalized in the early 1960's (1961, 1964) and is limited to optimizing the electrical power and flood control benefits. The environmental issues were left to each of the parties to deal with on their own. This limitation of the Treaty was a reflection of the social and economic values at that time, which are very different from the values now. 

BCHydro, as the operator of the Canadian Treaty projects (Duncan, Mica, Arrow) must therefore manage the issue of Treaty commitments limited to optimizing the electrical power and flood control benefits, and a lack of Treaty recognition of environmental and other objectives. This issue is one that the United States Entity must also manage. 

Hope is not lost however, since it is possible within the context of the Treaty to include environmental objectives, provided the Treaty Entities can agree. This has been done through Treaty detailed operating agreements, and is possible to continue to do in the future, but it requires a great amount of cooperation among the parties within each country, and with parties across the border. The Treaty infrastructure has traditionally provided this capability by focusing on a sharing of mutual benefits. 

(No summary available)

Contact Information:
Gary Birch, BC Hydro
601 18th Street, Castlegar BC V1N 4G7
Phone: 250-365-4569 
Gary.birch@bchydro.bc.ca

Contact information:
Jay Hammond,
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Protection
401-333-Victoria St, Nelson BC V1L 4K3
Phone: 250-354-6343 
Jay.hammond@gems2.gov.bc.ca

Contact Information: 
Dr. Mart Gross 
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto
25 Harbord Street, Toronto ON M5S 3G5
Phone: 416-978-3838 
Mgross@zoo.utoronto.ca

Wild fishes become adapted to their local environments both genetically and developmentally and research during the past two decades has shown that even neighbouring streams can have, for example, genetically differentiated populations of the same species. Hatchery programs largely ignore genetic differentiation and adaptation of populations and create their own forces of selection which radically alter the fish released. The consequence has been that hatchery fish are both maladapted for the native environment and also impact negatively on wild populations. It is therefore extremely important to match the production of hatchery fish with the goal of the program, be it conservation, supplementation, or the introduction of novel fish species for harvest. I will discuss how populations become differentiated, why hatchery fish become maladapted for nature, and the kinds of techniques that can be used to improve the use of hatcheries for the various programs that may be of interest to you.

Contact Information
Ken Ashley, Ministry of Fisheries
2204 Main Mall, University of BC, Vancouver V6T 1Z4
Phone: 604-222-6751 
Ken.ashley@gems5.gov.bc.ca

Two large water bodies within the Columbia River basin (Kootenay Lake and Arrow Reservoir) have experienced a series of major perturbations during the past 50 years that has resulted in the collapse of several native species of fish. 

The kokanee collapse in Kootenay Lake was a product of dam construction in Canada (Duncan) and the US (Libby) together with subsequent impoundment and nutrient retention on both main inflow tributaries to Kootenay Lake (Duncan River into the North Arm and Kootenai River into the South Arm), and the introduction of an exotic mysid shrimp (Mysis relicta) which is an efficient competitor with kokanee for zooplankton. In addition, a large number of kokanee and a unique strain of trophy rainbow trout "The Duncan strain" were eliminated by the construction of the Duncan Dam. 

The kokanee collapse in Arrow Reservoir was a product of extensive dam construction (Mica, Revelstoke, and Keenleyside), large seasonal drawdowns (up to 21 m) for hydropower generation and introduction of mysid shrimp. In addition, bull trout, rainbow trout, sturgeon and other fish species were negatively influenced by the combination of dam construction, reservoir operation and mysid introduction. Following the recommendations of a modeling workshop at UBC in 1991, the seasonal application of low concentrations of limiting nutrients has been experimentally tested on Kootenay Lake and now Arrow Reservoir in an attempt to restore reservoir productivity and rebuild native fish stocks. To date, the experimental fertilization program on Kootenay Lake has been effective at rebuilding native stocks, and the results from the first year (1999) of the Arrow Reservoir fertilization program are encouraging. 

Citation: Ashley, K., L.C. Thompson, D. Sebastian, D.C. Lasenby, K.E. Smokorowski and H. Andrusak. 1999. Restoration of kokanee salmon in Kootenay Lake, a large intermontane lake, by controlled seasonal additions of nutrients. pp. 127-170. In: Aquatic Restoration in Canada. T. Murphy and M. Munawar (eds.). Ecovision Wold Monogaph Series, Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands.

Contact Information:
Ed Hill, BC Hydro
6911 Southpoint Drive, Burnaby BC V0E 2S0
Phone : 604-528-7873 
ed.hill@bchydro.com

Severe dust storms in Revelstoke originating from the reservoir bottom exposed during twenty metre drawdowns in the Upper Arrow Reservoir resulted in a dust control program. The long-term revegetation program in the drawdown zone of the Revelstoke Reach of Upper Arrow Reservoir has controlled the dust, and also has resulted in unplanned benefits to wildlife, fish, and recreational users of the area. Many of these benefits are immediately obvious to even casual observers (e.g., bird activity, increased angling effort). A study was initiated in 1999 to evaluate the effects of shoreline revegetation on aquatic productivity in Upper Arrow Reservoir. A multidisciplinary team was assembled to define the study, undertake a literature review, develop a conceptual model, and undertake the required field studies. While the original focus of the study was on aquatic productivity, our intent is to expand the study in 2000 and 2001 to include benefits to the riparian and terrestrial ecosystems adjacent to the reservoir (i.e., benefits to wildlife and recreational users). 

Contact information:
Mike Halleran
Box 1090 Kaslo BC V0G 1M0
Phone: 250-366-4278 
Westland@wkpowerlink.com

"The nice thing about apathy is that you don't have to
do anything to prove you're sincere about it."

Many have been the ecological surprises emerging in the aftermath of big dams. You have heard a diverse set of presentations on that topic today. I commend you for your interest and congratulate the presenters for their articulate and informative deliveries. I now ask that you (and they) expand your collective horizons so as to include equal appreciation of the social and economic aspects of dam-building. It is my belief that these are equally as important as environmental or ecological concerns. Neglecting to include a social commentator in plenary session left two thirds of the dam aftermath story untold. That is about to change.

Here in the Kootenays we learned that the immediate consequences of various dam projects were in a way less disturbing than those that emerged more recently. Perhaps that is because the early ones were more predictable; less insidious. The ecological consequences that emerged later were gradual, inexorable and worse, cumulative. It is thirty years since we built the last big dam in BC and yet, negative environmental impacts continue to appear. As you will see from the film, drastic social inequity and economic uncertainty followed the dam-building binge of the sixties and seventies. 

Today you have heard how live rivers distribute nutrients along their various reaches as regulated by the seasons and the weathers. The behavior of natural rivers is a marvelous process and one that seems to become evermore wonderful the more rivers we find it necessary to destroy. I admit to personal bias here. I have never met a river that I didn't like. 

And just for the record: my long association with this story has made it possible for me to observe the operations of BC Hydro. That body came into being at the same time as the Treaty. The BC Hydro of thirty years ago was quite single use in its approach to things. It has developed a conscience over the years. And the people who work in its land use or environmental sections are listening to the call for better fish and wildlife management and responding. It feels good. 

Dams trap nutrients in the upstream reservoirs. Enrichment of the receiving water bodies is diminished and declining fish numbers (and size) are manifestations of that. Because the Kootenay River is dammed (upstream) near Libby, Montana, adding fertilizer to Kootenay Lake (downstream) has become required. 

Within the last few years, researchers in both the US and Canada found that containment of spring run-off behind the Libby Dam has greatly reduced the flows normally associated with spring. It so happens that sturgeon spawning is timed to coincide with those large flows and when they don't happen the big fish reabsorb their eggs and "that's it" for spawning. Of course the river moves the same amount of water it always did but it is at the wrong time of year. The result of this unnatural timing of flows is declining sturgeon numbers, lack of population recruitment, and banshee representation in age classes. 

Sturgeon may live for more than century but it is the small and juvenile fishes, most lacking in the system. Remember, it is about thirty years since Libby Dam was built. Lo and behold, very few Kootenay Lake sturgeon are less than thirty years old. Recruitment is nominal to say the least. The US and Canadian power corporations, fisheries agencies in the US and Canada and native Indians of both nationalities are cooperating on a program to try and recover sturgeon populations in the Kootenay River basin. No international treaties, no trips to the White House. They just went ahead and did it. At the Libby Dam, they are now experimenting with changes in flow regulation to try and provide better conditions for sturgeon spawning. 

Black cottonwood is a species that loves bottomland habitat. As some of you heard from Bob Jamieson this morning, he has learned that reproduction of black cottonwood is also linked to the timing of spring freshet. The black cottonwood and the aspen are both members of the willow family. In an earlier life, I referred to the young of the black cottonwoods as poplars, believing them to be two different species. Wrong again.

I wish people would stop using the "S" word, sustainability, at least until they learn what it means. According to the Brundtland Commission Report (compiled by the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development) we move closer to sustainability as we reach equilibrium between the requirements of environment, economy and social justice. On that last point we ain't even started yet. 

The Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as "that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Like others, I have a problem with that word "needs". 

People don't need to go to Maui every year although I think everyone should go at least once. Once is enough to learn what happens to the social structure of a community in which tourism is basically the only resource. Hawaiians have no coal, no minerals, no petroleum, next to no wildlife, next to no agriculture and no forestry. The environment is deteriorating under a crush of people. The social gap between wealthy and poor is ever widening. It is made worse because the poverty split is also divided along racial lines. The resident poor are largely descended from natives. The middle class is almost non-existent. I'm NOT talking about British Columbia, am I? 

In the Columbia Basin within Canada, we brought about sweeping environmental changes but the social impacts were just as devastating. The people affected were made to feel they stood in the path of a development the rest of the country wanted. The majority of the population felt that the benefits were worth the price. But the people who got the benefits were not ones who paid. 

I gotta say it. One of the reasons I came up here is that I think it is happening again. The changing of our economy from resource oriented to service or high-tech oriented is causing massive disruption in rural communities. Once again, a generation of rural residents is being swept aside. We are witnessing a reinstatement of the class system. Resource extraction is resisted, whether by loggers, guides ranchers miners trappers etc. and seen as primitive, unsophisticated, undesirable -- and we should do the smart thing and go for high tech. Well first of all, resource management and extraction are all high tech. Look at satellite communications, GPS, DNA sampling, genetic fingerprinting and on. 

I actually wanted to use the story of Revelstoke's journey from boomtown to self-reliance as a theme for this presentation. The conference organizers wanted some of the Treaty history instead but I felt it would be wrong not to mention that the people of Revelstoke have gotten more deeply involved with resource extraction and are catering to eco-tourists, doing intensive forestry and high tech value-added. 

Is the Revelstoke response perfect? Of course not. Has Revelstoke achieved sustainable development or "sustainability"? Forgive the pun, but not by a damsite. The people of Revelstoke are moving "toward sustainability". No flag waving or illegal blockades. Theirs is an attitude of calm. They already know that sustainability is not a destination; it is a direction. They are on their feet. Moving.

I have been covering the Columbia Treaty story for almost forty years. In the fall of 1964, when Lyndon Johnson signed that big cheque at Blaine, Washington I was there. Things are working out a lot better than I thought they would. The fertilization of Kootenay Lake is working. After nearly two cycles, run size is up at Meadow Creek where most of the kokanee spawn, and also at Gerrard where the big rainbow spawn. 

It's too early to gauge the success of Upper Arrow fertilization. But already I've heard skeptics deriding the plan. What a surprise! "It costs too much". " We've never done it before". It reminds me of Hemingway who said that criticizing people for taking too many risks is nearly always done by people who never take any risks at all. 

The Columbia River Trust remains a controversial body. And as it grows, it seems to be assuming some of the characteristics of a government agency; hard to reach, slow to react; perhaps I could use the word "ponderous". But the list of accomplishments is growing. Things we used to dream might happen are taking place. It is vastly more of an open process than anything we have known before. The dam days left us with a sustainability deficit. We are making slow progress in reducing it. It feels good.

My friend and fellow dam-hater Ray Demarchi once put that same thought into an even longer time scale. We were up on the Pickering Hills winter range surrounded by elk and talking about the environmental carnage wreaked upon the once wildlife rich habitats of the Duncan River.

Eventually we all deal with these matters in our own way. I got angry. Ray waxed philosophic. Sort of like the man would be Uncle. What he said conveyed the long-term approach to dams and damming. It went something like this: "Relax, Mikey," he said. "Those dams are all temporary. The next ice age will take them away."

Beginning about forty years ago the Columbia Treaty became law; since then, 350 lineal miles of the valley bottom have been sacrificed, a displacement of several thousand people occurred, and the great majority of the people in BC watched it all happen and did nothing. 

Here in the Kootenays, a few stood up for their rights -- their neighbourhood, their community, their heritage, their environment, and their piece of land. I'd like you to meet some of them. And, if you have any questions, I would be happy to deal with those afterwards. Now, let's fun the film.

(The audience viewed a half-hour segment from the Westland television series that featured social and economic aspects of constructing the Columbia River Treaty dams.)

Contact Information
Eileen Delehanty Pearkes
223 Union Street Nelson BC, V1L 4A4
Phone: 250-352-6373 
Edp@netidea.com

Developing an understanding of landscape can happen in many ways: through fieldwork, ground truthing, studying a map, reading text, or flying over in a plane. Being somewhat fearful of heights and prone to motion sickness, I rarely catch this last and biggest picture available in my own study of landscape, but when I do, such a view astonishes me with its rich, bird's eye perspective on how landscape functions as a whole. I liken the most recent CMI workshop, "Ecology of the Columbia River Reservoirs" to an ecological fly-over. It presented those who attended with an expansive overview of the reservoir system's ecological issues in the Basin and a chance to view the Basin's primary waterways -- the complex system of rivers, dams and lakes -- in a larger context than is usually available.

The workshop was not for the faint of heart. Much of the information we received detailed a landscape injured critically and in need of triage. After more than fifty years of human control of the Columbia Basin's vast water flow, it is not surprising that the CMI ecological fly-over revealed countless injuries and scars to human and wildlife habitat, some permanent, some not yet even healed.

The First Nations perspective offered information on historical cultural loss. Wilfred Jacobs (Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Tribal Council) spoke of traditional ice fishing in Creston becoming memory after the installation of the Libby Dam; Marilyn James (Sinixt Nation) detailed the loss of salmon fishing to her culture, the impact of mercury poisoning in fish harvested by her people from Roosevelt Lake and the accumulation of wood fibre discharged by the Celgar pulp processing plant into the river bed, which damages fish habitat.

Then we heard from an array of biologists. Bob Jamieson highlighted the failure to establish recruit cottonwoods in Kootenay River floodplains in the trench, a failure he sees as a "canary" for the eventual loss of the dynamic cottonwood ecology; Ray Demarchi spoke of the immeasurable depletion of critical and highly productive terrestrial wildlife habitat; Jay Hammond described the current state of the fisheries in the Basin, a sad story of fish struggling for spawning habitat and healthy water conditions; Mart Gross warned of the undermining of genetic variation and local adaptation in wild fish stocks when hatcheries are used for supplementing stock; Ken Ashley described the "immense" overall impact of human activity on the habitat for the region's landlocked salmon, the kokanee. By the end of the day, it was clear that the region will spending at least the next fifty years repairing damages inflicted on the watershed system in the past five decades. 

Though much of the information contained judgment and loss, some of what we heard was plain old interesting. Jack Stanford (University of Montana) described how a 10 square meter plot of river wetland could host 100 species of vascular plants, and told a fascinated audience about his research into the vertical flow of rivers, the exchange of water flow between deep underground aquifers and the water flowing on the surface. We learned that a hatchery-produced fish costs $60 by the time it is caught. And throughout the day, we heard various speakers take sides in a complex debate over whether Kootenay Lake is a reservoir or a lake as a result of impoundments.

Speed was a theme. In a brief interval of one decade (1960s-70s) said Ray Demarchi, the development of hydro impoundments in the Basin resulted in rapid and thorough landscape destruction for this region not seen since the last ice age. And the speed of water as it exits the dams, as well as its slow down when held back, dramatically affects the ability of fish to survive. Jack Stanford pointed out that rivers typically change in base flow no more than 5 -10% in a day. His measurements of the Columbia on the day of the workshop showed a 20% flow change in four hours. Flow and its regulations, Stanford reminded those in attendance, is a critical part of fisheries restoration.

Water mass flux model. Riverene. Back-casting. Load-shaping. Recreational capture. Assortative mating bias. Mercury mobilization. Turbidity plumes. Ecological insults. Carbon sequestration. Silt scour. 

After a day of thinking about fish and other wildlife, about silt scouring, load-shaping and turbidity plumes, it was refreshing to return in the evening to hear journalist Milk Halleran speak eloquently about the dams' human impact. He commended the scientists for "finally starting to get their acts together," complimented B.C. Hydro for developing a social conscience over the years, and then reminded us that 2/3 of the story of the dams had been left untold by leaving social and human cultural commentary off the plenary for the workshop.

Thank you for the reminder, Mike. As the CMI continues with its much needed and well-executed examinations of the ecology of the reservoir system, we must be sure to broaden the definition of science, to remember that it is a method of inquiry as well as subject matter. The Oxford dictionary says science can be broadened even more to be defined as "skillful technique." I await the next reservoir workshop, at which I expect a musician, a poet and a visual artist, demonstrating through their own skillful technique the cultural and social messages related to the reservoir system and our place in it. 

Contact Information:
Brian Gadbois, BC Hydro
Bag 5700, Revelstoke BC V0E 2S0
Phone: 250-837-5261 
 

Brian led a field trip on the river flats near the Revelstoke airport to look at features of the revegetation work adjacent to the reservoir.

Contact information
John Woods, Faunal Specialist
Parks Canada
Box 350 Revelstoke BC V0E 2S0
Phone: 250-837-7527 
John.woods@wildvoices.ca

John Woods led a field trip to the location of the bird migration monitoring station near the Revelstoke airport. Because so much bird habitat has been lost to the reservoirs, the ponds near the Revelstoke Airport are one of the last remaining staging areas for migrating birds on the Columbia River between the USA border and the northern reach of the Columbia Basin. 

Contact Information:
Frances Maltby 
Box 2687 Revelstoke BC V0E 2S0
Phone: 250-837-5845 
flm@revelstoke.net

Frances led a trip through the Illecillewaet Greenbelt. The volunteer Illecillewaet Greenbelt Society is overseeing the rehabilitation of this area. The following is a list of objectives for the rehabilitation project:

• To stabilize surface and ground water levels at an elevation that will allow for the development of a diverse and productive wetland ecosystem.
    
• To increase the diversity of habitat types and ecological conditions within the area of the nature park.  
    
• To create off channel fish rearing habitat that will provide high water quality and abundant food resources for salmonids and other fish species.
    
• To create wetland habitat capable of providing food resources and nesting opportunities for waterfowl, song birds, fish predators (Blue Heron, Osprey, Kingfisher), and shorebirds
    
• To create wetland habitat as well as over-wintering and nesting areas for Western Painted Turtle.
    
• To provide a ground water supply that would be readily available for terrestrial and riparian vegetation within the park at a stable minimum level during the growing season.   
    
• To create opportunities for public education and promote the appreciation of the value and significance of the wetland areas near Revelstoke. 
   
• To aid the diversification of the local economy, promoting the park lands and the project as an ecological attraction for tourists seeking nature oriented experiences within the community.  
   
• To provide excellent research opportunities to monitor development, function and responses of wetland and fish rearing habitats within a water storage reservoir.
    
• To protect the park area and habitat as well as a nearby community dike from loss or damage from erosion resulting from channel instabilities related to sediment accumulation in the Illecillewaet River adjacent the park.

[Back to page 1]

 Columbia Mountains Institute of Applied Ecology
Box 2568 Revelstoke, B.C. VOE 2SO
Tel: 250-837-9311 Fax: 250-837-9311
E-mail: office@cmiae.org
[Home Page]
  
© 1998 - 2008 Columbia Mountains Institute
 Website designed & maintained by Solutions Interactive - Contact Webmaster