DOCSLIB.ORG

Bull Trout Spawning Migrations in the Duncan River: Insights Columbia Basin from Telemetry and Dna Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bull Trout Spawning Migrations in the Duncan River: Insights Columbia Basin from Telemetry and Dna Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program BULL TROUT SPAWNING MIGRATIONS IN THE DUNCAN RIVER: INSIGHTS COLUMBIA BASIN FROM TELEMETRY AND DNA FISH & WILDLIFE COMPENSATION PROGRAM PREPARED BY David Sean O’Brien FOR Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program April 2001 www.cbfishwildlife.org BULL TROUT (SALVELINUS CONFLUENTUS) SPAWNING MIGRATIONS IN THE DUNCAN RIVER: INSIGHTS FROM TELEMETRY AND DNA. David Sean O’Brien BSc, University of British Columbia, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ University of British Columbia April 2001 © David Sean O’Brien, 2001 Abstract Radio telemetry and microsatellite DNA analyses were used to describe spawning migrations and the spatial scale of genetic differentiation among populations of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Duncan River system, southeastern British Columbia. Over two years, 66 radio-tagged bull trout were tracked to destinations in the upper Duncan River. The distribution of bull trout by destination in the upper Duncan River and migration timing among all destinations did not vary between the two study years. One third of bull trout tracked for two spawning migrations switched spawning stream from one year to the next. There was also a trend for increasing size of radio-tagged bull trout with spawning stream size. This suggests that bull trout in the upper Duncan River do not have fidelity at the scale of individual spawning stream. Microsatellite DNA analysis of juvenile bull trout from two spawning streams in the upper Duncan River indicate that there is little between stream variation. Exact tests of population differentiation over allele frequencies of six polymorphic microsatellite loci suggest no significant genetic differentiation between the two spawning streams. An analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) partitioned a small (< 1%) but significant amount of genetic variance to the between spawning stream variance partition. The estimate of between spawning stream FST was 0.01. These estimates of low genetic variation between spawning streams, especially when combined with direct evidence from telemetry, suggest that bull trout in the upper Duncan River do not home at the scale of individual spawning streams. ii Table of Contents Abstract......................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents .........................................................................................................................iii Table of Tables...............................................................................................................................v Table of Figures........................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 - BULL TROUT (SALVELINUS CONFLUENTUS) RADIO TELEMETRY IN THE DUNCAN RIVER: MIGRATORY TIMING AND INSIGHT INTO THE MECHANISM OF SPAWNING STREAM SELECTION.............................................................................................. 6 2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 6 Study Site ...................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 METHODS.................................................................................................................................... 11 Capture and tagging.................................................................................................................... 11 Tracking...................................................................................................................................... 14 Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 15 2.3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................................... 19 Capture and tagging.................................................................................................................... 19 Destinations in the upper Duncan River...................................................................................... 20 Migratory timing comparisons..................................................................................................... 23 Multi-year migrations.................................................................................................................. 28 Houston Creek fish trap............................................................................................................... 29 2.4 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 30 Bull trout migrations in the upper Duncan River......................................................................... 31 Spawning stream switching.......................................................................................................... 33 Houston Creek fish trap............................................................................................................... 34 Conservation implications........................................................................................................... 34 2.5 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................... 36 CHAPTER 3 - AN EVALUATION OF GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN TWO BULL TROUT (SALVELINUS CONFLUENTUS) SPAWNING STREAMS IN THE UPPER DUNCAN RIVER USING MICROSATELLITES.......................................................................................... 38 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 38 3.2 METHODS.................................................................................................................................... 42 Tissue collection.......................................................................................................................... 42 iii Microsatellite amplification ........................................................................................................ 47 Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 47 3.3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................................... 49 Microsatellite loci ....................................................................................................................... 49 Genetic population structure ....................................................................................................... 53 3.4 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 55 Number of migrants..................................................................................................................... 59 Comparison to previous bull trout studies ................................................................................... 61 Conservation implications........................................................................................................... 63 3.5 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................... 64 CHAPTER 4 – GENERAL CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................ 71 Migratory timing and spawning locations in the upper Duncan River.......................................... 71 Spawning stream selection........................................................................................................... 71 Population structure and geneflow .............................................................................................. 72 Comparison between methods...................................................................................................... 73 Conservation and management implications................................................................................ 74 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................ 76 iv Table of Tables Table 2-1. Characteristics of radio tags employed in the study....................................... 11 Table 2-2. Migratory destinations and ANOVA groups of radio-tagged bull trout in the upper Duncan River. Destination 3, mainstem upper Duncan River, is broken into five sub-categories (3.a. – 3.e., italics) which are separated by tributary confluences (Fig. 2-6). ....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kootenay System Operations
    Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies Appendix C Kootenay System Operations Operation of the Kootenay River system is complicated as it is administered by several different jurisdictions and the hydroelectric facilities are owned by different agencies/companies. As shown in Figure 1, the Kootenay River originates in the Rocky Mountains not far from Field, BC. The river flows south, within a few km of the source of the Columbia River at Canal Flats, and then continues south into Koocanusa Reservoir, formed behind Libby Dam in Montana, United States. From Libby, the Kootenay River turns west and north, and re-enters British Columbia near the community of Creston, flowing into the south arm of Kootenay Lake. In the northern part of the Kootenay basin, the Duncan River is joined by the Lardeau River just downstream from Duncan Dam, and then flows into the north arm of Kootenay Lake. Water from the north and south arms of Kootenay Lake then flows through the west arm of the lake and past the Corra Linn Dam near Nelson (as well as other dams) en route to the Columbia–Kootenay confluence at Castlegar. The components of this system and various agreements/orders that regulate flows are described in this Appendix. November 29, 2013 1 Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies Figure 1: Kootenay and Columbia Region November 29, 2013 2 Columbia River Treaty Review – Technical Studies 1.0 Coordination of Libby Operations Background Under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty, Canada permitted the U.S. to build the Libby Dam on the Kootenai River (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • KR/KL Burbot Conservation Strategy
    January 2005 Citation: KVRI Burbot Committee. 2005. Kootenai River/Kootenay Lake Conservation Strategy. Prepared by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho with assistance from S. P. Cramer and Associates. 77 pp. plus appendices. Conservation strategies delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and maintain species and populations that have been recognized as imperiled, but not federally listed as threatened or endangered under the US Endangered Species Act. This Strategy resulted from cooperative efforts of U.S. and Canadian Federal, Provincial, and State agencies, Native American Tribes, First Nations, local Elected Officials, Congressional and Governor’s staff, and other important resource stakeholders, including members of the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative. This Conservation Strategy does not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of all individuals or agencies involved with its formulation. This Conservation Strategy is subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of conservation tasks. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho would like to thank the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) and the KVRI Burbot Committee for their contributions to this Burbot Conservation Strategy. The Tribe also thanks the Boundary County Historical Society and the residents of Boundary County for providing local historical information provided in Appendix 2. The Tribe also thanks Ray Beamesderfer and Paul Anders of S.P. Cramer and Associates for their assistance in preparing this document. Funding was provided by the Bonneville Power Administration through the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, and by the Idaho Congressional Delegation through a congressional appropriation administered to the Kootenai Tribe by the Department of Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Treaty Review Technical Studies Report
    Columbia River Treaty Review Technical Studies Prepared by BC Hydro and Power Authority November 29, 2013 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Approach to Treaty Strategic Decision ............................................................................................... 5 1.3 Process and Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................ 7 1.3.1 Environmental Advisory Committee and Fish and Wildlife Technical Committee ............. 7 1.3.2 Water Use Plan and Structured Decision Making Process ................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Columbia and Kootenay Hydroelectric System Summary ............................................................. 9 2.1 Operations on the Columbia River - Relationship between Columbia River Treaty, Non Treaty Storage Agreement, and Water Use Plans ............................................................................................... 10 2.2 Operations on the Kootenay River - Relationship between Columbia River Treaty, Duncan Water Use Plan, International Joint Commission Order, and Canal Plant Agreement ...................................... 12 Chapter 3: Selection of Alternatives to Model .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Kootenay System Overview
    Kootenay System Overview Heather Matthews March 2016 Kootenay System Storage - Koocanusa Reservoir - Duncan Reservoir - Kootenay Lake 2 Dams • Libby Dam (USACE) • Duncan Dam (BC Hydro) • Kootenay Canal Plant (BC Hydro) • River Plants (Fortis) • Corra Linn • Upper Bonnington / [City of Nelson] • Lower Bonnington • South Slocan • Brilliant & Expansion (CPC) 3 River Plants 4 Agreements & Regulatory • Columbia River Treaty • Duncan Reservoir • Koocanusa Reservoir • International Joint Commission • Kootenay Lake • BC Water Licenses • Storage and diversion for power purposes • Canal Plant Agreement • Operate like one owner 5 Libby and the Treaty Columbia River Treaty: o Provide the US with the option to build Libby Dam o Koocanusa reservoir floods 42 miles into Canada o Libby Dam provides flood and power benefits for Canada. o Power generated at Libby belongs to the US o Power benefits downstream in Canada on the Kootenay river stay in Canada o Coordination on Libby operation continues even if Treaty is terminated. o Canada can request a change in operation. If it is not to the US disadvantage the US shall agree 6 Canal Plant Agreement History • 1964: Columbia River Treaty was ratified • River plants and Brilliant already existed on the Kootenay River • Regulation of Kootenay River flows by Duncan Dam (1967) and Libby Dam (1973) made the Kootenay Canal Plant economic • In 1972 BC Hydro, West Kootenay Power and Cominco entered into the Canal Plant Agreement “cooperate in the operation of their available storages and generating facilities in British Columbia for the purpose of obtaining optimum generation” 7 Kootenay River System An Engineer’s View Since KCL is more efficient than the River Plants, water is diverted to Kootenay Canal instead of through river plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Duncan River Riparian Cottonwood Monitoring Annual Report
    Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Duncan Watershed Riparian and Cottonwood Monitoring Implementation Year 8 Reference: DDMMON#8-1 Lower Duncan River Riparian Cottonwood Monitoring Annual Report Study Period: April 2017 – January 2018 VAST Resource Solutions Inc. Cranbrook, B.C. Contact: Dr. Mary Louise Polzin [email protected] March 31, 2018 Lower Duncan River Riparian Cottonwood Monitoring Year 8 Annual Report (2017) Final Prepared for: BC Hydro 601-18th Street Castlegar, B.C., V1N 2N1 Prepared by: Mary Louise Polzin1 and Stewart B. Rood2 1VAST Resource Solutions Inc., and 2 University of Lethbridge, Alberta. March 2018 BOX 538, CRANBROOK, BC V1C 4J1 PHONE: (250) 426-5300 • FAX: (250) 426-5311 • WWW.VASTRESOURCE.COM March, 2018 Lower Duncan River Riparian Cottonwood Monitoring File: 17.0057.00_003 DDMMON#8-1 VAST Resource Solutions Inc. BC Hydro Suggested Citation Polzin, M.L1., and S.B. Rood2. 2017. Lower Duncan River Riparian Cottonwood Monitoring Program. Year 7 Report – 2016. 1VAST Resource Solutions and 2University of Lethbridge, Alberta. Unpublished report by VAST Resource Solutions, Cranbrook, B.C., for BC Hydro Generations, Water License Requirements, Castlegar, BC. 50 pp. + Apps. (134 pp). Cover photo Lower Duncan River, 2009, Segment 3, Transect line 11 on mid-channel bar, looking towards the Point Of Commencement (POC) which is on the point bar behind the mid- channel bar. The second photo is 2017, Segment 3, Transect line 11 on mid-channel bar, looking towards the End Of Transect (EOT). Photos © Mary Louise Polzin, VAST Resource Solutions Inc. © 2018 BC Hydro. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission from BC Hydro, Burnaby, B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Operations Summary Fall 2020
    Pend d’Oreille Reservoir. Photo by Fabio Moscatelli. Columbia River Operations Summary Fall 2020 This publication provides an overview of BC Hydro’s operations on the Columbia River. At 2,000 kilometres long, the Columbia River is the fourth largest river in North America. The headwaters of the Columbia River are in Canal Flats, British Columbia (B.C.). The river then flows northwest Canada through the Rocky Mountain trench before heading south through B.C. and Washington, emptying into the Pacific Vancouver Ocean at Astoria, Oregon. Other major tributaries of the Columbia River in Canada include the Kootenay and Pend U.S. d’Oreille rivers. Seattle Only 15% of the Columbia River basin lies in Canada. The Montana Canadian portion of the basin is mountainous and receives a Washington lot of snow producing, on average, 30 to 35% of the runoff for Canada and the United States (U.S.) combined. The river’s large annual discharge and relatively steep gradient Idaho gives it tremendous potential for the generation of Oregon electricity. The hydroelectric dams on the Columbia’s main stem and many more on its tributaries produce more hydroelectric power than on any other North American river. BC Hydro’s facilities in the Columbia basin include 13 hydroelectric dams, two water storage dams, and a system of reservoirs. Four of the larger reservoirs within Canada are operated according to the Columbia River Treaty and other agreements signed between Canada and the U.S. BCH20-712 Columbia River Operations Update | 1 Columbia River Treaty compensated for energy losses at its Kootenay Canal operations that result from the timing of water releases The Columbia River Treaty between Canada and the United from the Libby Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • REGION 4 - Kootenay
    REGION 4 - Kootenay CONTACT INFORMATION Fish and Wildlife Regional Offices R.A.P.P. (250) 489-8540 Report All Poachers and Polluters 205 Industrial Rd G Conservation Officer 24 Hour Hotline Cranbrook BC V1C 7G5 1-877-952-RAPP (7277) Cellular Dial #7277 (250) 354-6333 Please refer to page 78 for more information 401-333 Victoria St rapp.bc.ca Nelson BC V1L 4K3 National Parks Conservation Officer Service Provincial angling regulations and licensing Field Offices do not apply in the National Parks in this Please call 1-877-952-7277 for recorded region (see page 9). Please contact Parks information or to make an appointment at Canada for fishing information at any of the following Field Offices: 1-888-773-8888. Castlegar, Cranbrook, Creston, Fernie, STAY UP TO DATE: Golden, Invermere, and Nelson Check website for in-season changes or closure dates for the 2021-2023 season at: www.gov.bc.ca/FishingRegulations Canoe Reach 7-2 KINBASKET 3-44 LAKE R d o o 3-43 W Mica 4-40 Creek B Columbia u s h S cr igmouth Cr ip B R 3-40 Cr 3-42 Reach Gol ds R 3-41 t am re R Gold R 4-36 LAKE S y e Donald rr y ebe m 4-38 4-37 Station la o REVELSTOKE B u r YOHO GLACIER T a R n NATIONAL g i e r NATIONAL R Golden Kic PARK R 4-39 ki n 3-36 MT. g y R H r PARK r REVELSTOKE t o e ae rs SHUSWAP P NATIONAL lew C e il O c L R 4-35 PARK e Sp U ll il l M REVELSTOKE I am KOOTENAY LAKE R a B c h I e A R x en u 4-33 e R le l ag p 4-34 NATIONAL E 3-34 p r a 4-28 C UPPER m o 4 Sicamous c PARK 3-26 p ARROW n a I W LAKE D u Cr n c es R a nc n ra I K F V Salmon Arm O (Class II Classified
    [Show full text]
  • J Bull Trout
    J BULL TROUT (SALVELINUS CONFLUENTUS) SPAWNING MIGRATIONS IN THE DUNCAN RIVER: INSIGHTS FROM TELEMETRY AND DNA. David Sean O'Brien BSc, University of British Columbia, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard University of British Columbia April 2001 © David Sean O'Brien, 2001 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date /jf)yii 23; Zoo! Abstract Radio telemetry and microsatellite DNA analyses were used to describe spawning migrations and the spatial scale of genetic differentiation among populations of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Duncan River system, southeastern British Columbia. Over two years, 66 radio-tagged bull trout were tracked to destinations in the upper Duncan River. The distribution of bull trout by destination in the upper Duncan River and migration timing among all destinations did not vary between the two study years. One third of bull trout tracked for two spawning migrations switched spawning stream from one year to the next.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 International Kootenay Lake Board of Control 2018 Annual Report To
    International Kootenay Lake Board of Control 2018 Annual Report to the International Joint Commission This Annual Report covers the operations of Corra Linn Dam by the Applicant to the IJC Order (FortisBC) and the associated effects on the water level of Kootenay Lake in 2018. FortisBC operates Corra Linn Dam on the Kootenay River, approximately 22 kilometers upstream from its confluence with the Columbia River, and downstream from the West Arm of Kootenay Lake. FortisBC controls discharge through and around Corra Linn Dam in accordance with requirements of the Order of the International Joint Commission dated November 11, 1938. FortisBC co-operates with BC Hydro, which also manages a hydro-electric generating facility (the Kootenay Canal Project) which is hydraulically connected to the Corra Linn dam forebay on the Kootenay River through a constructed canal. Corra Linn Dam 1 Kootenay Lake 2018 Summary Throughout 2018, FortisBC operated Corra Linn Dam in a manner consistent with that prescribed by the 1938 Kootenay Lake Order. The minimum instantaneous water level was observed at 02:05:00 PDT on April 14th, 2018, at elevation 530.079 metres1 (1739.10 feet). Due to high lake inflow beyond the control of the Applicant, the lake level exceeded the IJC rule curve during the winter-spring drawdown period on March 17th, 2018, and the lake level did not reach the low elevation target of 530.145 metres (1739.32 feet) by the date required in the order (on or around April 1st). However, the Board determined that there was no violation of the IJC Order for Kootenay Lake because the Applicant responded by taking appropriate action of maintaining maximum flow through the natural flow constriction at Grohman Narrows, upstream of Corra Linn Dam.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River Operations Summary Fall 2018
    Columbia River Operations Summary Fall 2018 View of the City of Revelstoke and Arrow Lakes Reservoir from Revelstoke Mountain Resort. Photo by Thane Isert The purpose of this publication is to provide an overview of BC Hydro’s operations on the Columbia River. The Columbia River is the fourth largest river in North America. The headwaters of the 2,000 kilometre long Columbia River are in Canal Flats, B.C. From here, the river flows northwest through Canada the Rocky Mountain trench and then south through B.C. and Washington, finally emptying into the Vancouver Pacific Ocean at Astoria, Oregon. Other major tributaries of the Columbia River in Canada include the Kootenay and Pend d’Oreille rivers. U.S. Although Canada has only about 15% of the Seattle Columbia River basin area, but the Canadian portion Montana of the basin is mountainous and receives a lot of Washington snow. On average, the Canadian portion produces 30 to 35% of the runoff for the entire basin. The river’s heavy flow and relatively steep gradient gives it tremendous potential for the generation Idaho of electricity. The hydroelectric dams on the Oregon Columbia’s main stem and tributaries produce more hydroelectric power than those of any other North American river. BC Hydro’s facilities in the Columbia basin include 11 hydroelectric dams, two water storage dams, and a system of reservoirs. Four of the larger reservoirs within Canada are operated according to the Columbia River Treaty and other agreements signed between Canada and the United States. 1 Columbia River Treaty The Columbia River Treaty between Canada and the United States was ratified in 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Impacts of Man on Kootenay Lake and Its Salmonoids
    SOME IMPACTS OF MAN ON KOOTENAY LAKE AND ITS SALMONOIDS T. G. NORTHCOTE Fish and Wildlife Branch Department of Recreation and Conservation Victoria, B.C. and Institute of Animal Resource Ecology University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C. TECHNICAL REPORT No. 25 GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION 1451 Green Road P.O. Box 640 Ann Arbor, Michigan April, 1973 FOREWORD This paper is one of seven lake case histories-Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Lake Opeongo, and Lake Kootenay. Concise versions of these papers, together with other lake case histories developed for and by an international symposium on Salmonid Communities in Oligotrophic Lakes (SCOL) appeared in a special issue of the Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada (Vol. 29, No. 6, June, 1972). While this and each of the others in this series is complete in itself, it should be remembered that each formed a part of SCOL and is supplemented by the others. Because much detail of interest to fisheries workers in the Great Lakes area would not otherwise be available, this and the other case histories revised and refined in the light of events at the symposium are published here. SCOL symposium was a major exercise in the synthesis of existing knowledge. The objective was to attempt to identify the separate and joint effects of three major stresses imposed by man: cultural eutrophication, exploitation; and species introduction on fish communities. Recently glaciated oligotrophic lakes were chosen as an “experimental set.” Within the set were lakes which have been free of stresses, lakes which have been subjected to one stress, and lakes which have been subjected to various combinations of stresses.
    [Show full text]
  • HYDRO DEVELOPMENT Along the Columbia River Has Brought
    ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF HYDRO DEVELOPMENT: A Case Study of the Columbia River Basin in British Columbia1 SUSAN TOLLER AND PETER N. NEMETZ YDRO DEVELOPMENT along the Columbia River has brought major benefits to British Columbia, most notably electric H power production and improved flood control. Accomp­ anying these positive effects, however, have been significant local costs associated with the flooding of land for reservoir creation and the continuing disruption of resource use associated with changing reservoir levels. This article re-examines the controversial impact of hydro development on the Columbia using, as an analytical aid, several indicators of sustainable development. While the concept of sustainability suggests that resource use decision-making should attempt to balance demands on environmental, social, and economic systems, the application of this concept is particularly challenging when the greatest benefits of hydro development — those related to increased power generation — are decided in and received by communities hundreds of kilometres away in the Lower Mainland of BC and the US Pacific Northwest. The profound imbalance in the locus of costs and benefits associated with hydro development on the Columbia River is a variant of what has been termed the "ecological footprint" (Wackernagel and Rees 1996) of the modern urban economy. The resource demands of urban centres extend far beyond their physical confines and may have major detrimental effects on their hinterlands. Such impacts are frequently invisible to the urban dweller and, where visible, are usually justified on the grounds that they have facilitated economic 1 The authors are particularly grateful to all the residents of the Kootenays who shared with us their convictions, concerns, and hopes.
    [Show full text]