Toward Ecosystem-Based Management in the Upper Columbia River Basin: Workshop Summary Report

Toward Ecosystem-Based Management in the Upper Columbia River Basin: Workshop Summary Report

Preliminary Draft for Review and Comment

October 1998

Sustainable Fisheries Foundation
Building Partnerships for the Future
2376 Yellow Point Road, R.R. #3
Ladysmith, British Columbia V0R 2E0

[Note: This document lost some formatting in transition to web format.]

Preface

Toward Ecosystem-Based Management in the Upper Columbia River Basin: An International Conference and Workshop attracted just over 400 delegates and more than 40 organizations to Castlegar last April. This impressive turnout demonstrates the high degree of interest in ecosystem-based management among stakeholders on both sides of the international border. This is good news for the future of the Upper Columbia River Basin.

The Castlegar conference was precedent-setting, in that for the first time in Canada people from both sides of the border came together to focus on managing the ecosystem of the Upper Columbia River Basin. Participants represented a wide range of interests, including United States and Canadian federal, state and provincial government agencies, electricity producers, First Nations, conservation organizations, recreational groups, local governments, industries, scientists and interested citizens.

The conference and workshop included technical presentations, and work group sessions that gave participants the opportunity to focus on specific transboundary watersheds. From these sessions came recommendations for action that will further ecosystem-based management in those watersheds. These recommendations are set out in the attached summary of conference proceedings.

Now the challenge for every one of us who attended the conference and workshop is to do our best to ensure that the commitments we made do not languish. Already there is progress. For example, since the conference the Columbia Basin Trust and Northwest Power Planning Council have sponsored a tour of the Upper Columbia in the United States and Canada and have agreed to have their respective vice-chairs act as liaisons between the two agencies and regularly attend each others meetings. A transboundary technical working group is researching the issue of dissolved gas (TGP) systemwide. More examples of the follow-up on commitments made at the conference can be found in the conference summary document.

On behalf of our respective agencies, we are committed to carrying forward the recommendations from the conference, and we look forward to joining with others to convene a follow-up conference in the future to assess progress, renew commitments, review the latest science and identify further actions to promote ecosystem-based management in the Upper Columbia River Basin.

Josh Smienk Ken Casavant Columbia Basin Trust Northwest Power Planning Council Executive Summary The Columbia River is the dominant river system in the Pacific Northwest United States and south eastern British Columbia. Its health is of vital importance to communities and stakeholders on both sides of the border. Resource managers in Canada and the United States recognize that open, honest communication and effective information sharing are important foundations for resolving land and water use conflicts, and are essential to economic and environmental sustainability in the Columbia Basin. To this end, an international workshop, entitled Toward Ecosystem-Based Management in the Upper Columbia River Basin: An International Conference and Workshop, was convened April 27-30, 1998 to foster information exchange and cooperation among resource managers, First Nations, policy makers, scientists, industry, environmental groups and concerned citizens.

The workshop, which was held in Castlegar, B.C., consisted of plenary sessions, technical presentations, exhibits, and work group sessions. This workshop design was used to provide delegates with opportunities to explore a wide range of technical, environmental and community issues and to develop recommendations for fostering proactive aquatic resource management in the entire basin. The four-day workshop was attended by some 400 delegates from throughout the basin on both sides of the border. The number and diversity of delegates attending the workshop provides an indication of the level of interest in and commitment to ecosystem-based management that currently exists in the basin. A First Nations elder introduced the forum this way:

"We're all from different places and different races, but for the next few days we're all of one heart - to preserve and protect our natural resource."

Workshop delegates advocated an ecosystem-based approach to managing the Upper Columbia River Basin. Unlike past approaches to resource management which consider community, economic and environmental factors separately and in isolation of each other, ecosystem-based management integrates and inextricably links all these factors from planning through decision-making, law-making and implementation. Ecosystems managed in this way are healthy, livable and prosperous. Workshop delegates responded to the challenge of fostering ecosystem-based management in the Upper Columbia River Basin by developing a common vision for the future, identifying the factors that are constraining our ability to achieve this vision, and recommending a series of strategic actions to support watershed sustainability. Some of the key recommendations developed include:

Incorporate the results of the workshop into to series of Principles for Ecosystem-Based Management;
Develop a Sustainability Charter for the Upper Columbia River Basin that encompasses the common vision for the future and the Principles for Ecosystem-Based Management. Encourage interested organizations to sign on to the Charter and use it to guide their activities;
Conduct an independent assessment of the state of ecosystem management in the Upper Columbia River Basin (reporting by 2001);
Use the re-licencing of dams as an opportunity to explore alternate governance models, encourage collaborative decision-making, and consider a broader range of societal values;
Establish Watershed Councils and, possibly, International Watershed Boards to coordinate planning and decision-making functions; and,
Develop watershed management plans on a sub-basin and basin wide basis;

What distinguished this workshop from many other meetings on watershed management and sustainability was the level of commitment shown by workshop delegates for advancing their recommendations. Specific commitments made by workshop delegates and the progress that has been made to date are described below.

Commitment: To pursue cross-border cooperation in environmental management. Progress: A formal linkage is being established between the Columbia Basin Trust and the Northwest Power Planning Council, through the designation of individuals to act as formal liaisons.

Commitment: To establish a total gas pressure (TGP) working group to coordinate research and mitigation efforts in the basin. Progress: A transboundary TGP working group, comprised of more than 50 individuals from both sides of the border, has been established; two meetings of the working group have been convened.

Commitment: To establish a site on the World Wide Web to facilitate access to information on the Upper Columbia River Basin. Progress: A number of organizations have established Web sites that contain information on the Upper Columbia River Basin; U.S. Geological Survey is currently evaluating the possibility of establishing a master, GIS driven Web Site that will provide easy access to information on the basin, utilizing links to other relevant sites.

Commitment: To promote the implementation of fish and wildlife restoration projects through the Northwest Power Planning Council and relevant Canadian authorities. Progress: A science-based framework for fish and wildlife restoration in the Upper Columbia River Basin is being established; the framework will provide a single set of ecological principles to guide decision-making activities regarding fish and wildlife restoration; potential applicants for funding under the Northwest Power Planning Council have been made aware of the application process and workshops are being planned to assist applicants in preparing their submissions.

Commitment: To establish an Okanagan River Basin working group to advance the recommendations that emerged from the workshop. Progress: A working group has been established and a workshop to discuss key issues is scheduled for October, 1998.

Commitment: To establish a set of principles for ecosystem-based management in the Upper Columbia River Basin that embody the interests of diverse participating organizations. Progress: A working group has been established to integrate the ecological principles from the framework (described above) with the recommendations provided by workshop delegates.

1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Historic Basis for Transboundary Water Resource Management 1 1.2 Goals of the Toward Ecosystem-Based Management Workshop 3

2.0 Okanagan/Okanogan River Basin 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Developing a Common Vision 5 2.3 Constraints to Achieving Sustainability 6 2.4 Strategies for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management in the Okanagan River Basin 6 2.5 Ecosystem Maintenance Indicators 9

3.0 Upper Kootenay River, Lake Koocanusa, and Middle Kootenay River Basin 11 3.1 Introduction 11 3.2 Developing a Common Vision 11 3.3 Constraints to Ecosystem-Based Management 12 3.4 Strategies for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management 15

4.0 Duncan Reservoir, Kootenay Lake, and Lower Kootenay River Basin 18 4.1 Introduction 18 4.2 Developing a Common Vision 18 4.3 Constraints to Ecosystem-Based Management 19 4.4 Strategies for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management 20

5.0 Kinbasket Lake and Revelstoke Lake Basin 23 5.1 Introduction 23 5.2 Developing a Common Vision 23 5.3 Constraints to and Strategic Actions for Ecosystem-Based Management 24

6.0 Arrow Lakes, Upper Columbia River, and Lake Roosevelt Basin 27 6.1 Introduction 27 6.2 Developing a Common Vision 27 6.3 Constraints to Ecosystem-Based Management 30 6.4 Strategies for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management 34

7.0 Clark Fork and Pend d=Oreille River Basin 36 7.1 Introduction 36 7.2 Developing a Strategic Plan 36 7.3 Developing a Common Vision 37 7.4 Constraints to Ecosystem-Based Management 38 7.5 Strategies for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management 43

8.0 Opportunities for Ecosystem-Based Management in the Upper Columbia River Basin: Summary and Conclusions of the Transboundary Workshop 46

List of Appendices

Appendix 1. Additional Details on the Upper Kootenay River, Lake Koocanusa, and Middle Kootenay River Basin 50 A1.1 Detailed Comments Related to Key Elements of a Vision 50 A1.2 Detailed Recommendations for Supporting Ecosystem-Based Management 51

Appendix 2. Additional Details on Duncan Reservoir, Kootenay Lake, and Lower Kootenay River Basin 53 A2.1 Detailed Comments Related to Key Elements of a Vision 53 A2.2 Detailed Recommendations for Supporting Ecosystem-Based Management 56

Appendix 3. Additional Details on the Kinbasket Lake and Revelstoke Lake Basin 61 A3.1 Detailed Comments Related to Key Elements of a Vision 61 A3.2 Detailed Comments on the Constraints and Recommendations for Ecosystem-Based Management 67

Appendix 4. Detailed Comments on the Arrow Lakes, Upper Columbia River, and Roosevelt Lake Basin 71 A4.1 Detailed Recommendations for Advancing the Prospects for Ecosystem-Based Management 71

Appendix 5. Detailed Comments on the Workshop Summary and Conclusions 74 A5.1 Opportunities for Ecosystem-Based Management 74 A5.2 Strategies for Achieving Ecosystem-Based Management 76

Acknowledgements The Toward Ecosystem-Based Management in the Upper Columbia River Basin: An International Conference and Workshop was convened with the support and assistance of many individuals and organizations from throughout the Pacific Northwest. In particular we would like to thank everyone who took time out of their busy schedules to attend the workshop and share their knowledge, experience, and wisdom. We would also like to thank the members of the Steering Committee, Program Planning Committee, and Local Arrangements Committee for their hard work and dedication. Finally, we would like to thank our sponsors for making it possible to implement this important project. This report was prepared by:

Susan Bercha Scott Bettin Lynne Betts Gary Birch Jim Bryan Nancy Cooley Bill Green John Harrison Jo Ann Howery Lynn Hunter Kim Hyatt Don MacDonald Fred Mah David Marmorek Carol Metz Murray Susan Mulkey Mark Munn Michael Newsome Chuck Rice Walt Roberts Ivan Robinson Janet Stavinga Tom Wood Steering Committee Ken Casavant - Co-chair, Northwest Power Planning Council Josh Smienk - Co-chair, Columbia Basin Trust Jim Abbott - Member of Parliament Larry Adamache - Environment Canada Scott Bettin - Bonneville Power Administration Gary Birch - BC Hydro Dori Bixler - Rivers and Lakes Foundation of Canada Jim Bryan - BC Environment Rick Crozier - BC Environment Julia Beatty-Spence - BC Environment Megan Callahan - Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission Bill Duncan - Cominco Limited Bill Funk - State of Washington Water Research Center Bill Green - Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission Jay Hammond - BC Environment John Harrison - Northwest Power Planning Council Jim Heffernan - Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission Kim Hyatt - Northwest Ecosystem Institute Mark Johannes - Northwest Ecosystem Institute Kirk Johnstone - Environment Canada Herb Klassen - Fisheries and Oceans Canada Don MacDonald - Sustainable Fisheries Foundation Greg Mallette - BC Wildlife Federation Fred Mah - Mah and Associates Ed Manary - Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Mark Munn - US Geological Survey Michael Newsome - US Bureau of Reclamation Carl Nuechterlein - Washington Department of Ecology Wally Penner - Columbia Power Corporation Chuck Rice - US Environmental Protection Agency Ivan Robinson - Columbia Basin Trust Bruce Smith - Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Patti Stone - Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reseration Bill Warren - Lake Roosevelt Forum Nick Winfield - Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Program Planning Committee Larry Adamache - Environment Canada Scott Bettin - Bonneville Power Administration Gary Birch - BC Hydro Jim Bryan - BC Environment Bill Funk - State of Washington Water Research Center Bill Green - Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission John Harrison - Northwest Power Planning Council Don MacDonald - Sustainable Fisheries Foundation Greg Mallette - BC Wildlife Federation Fred Mah - Mah and Associates Carl Nuechterlein - Washington Department of Ecology Chuck Rice - US Environmental Protection Agency Ivan Robinson - Columbia Basin Trust Josh Smienk - Columbia Basin Trust Patti Stone - Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Local Arrangements Committee Margaret Birch - Chair, Birchland Heights Enterprises Barbara Aripa - Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Castlegar Chamber of Commerce Jack Chernoff - Rotary Club Joe Dos Santos - Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Dan Gebhart - Aquatic Resources Ltd. Angus Graeme - Selkirk College Bill Green - Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council Scott Hall - Kalispel Tribes Marie Kee - BC Hydro Don MacDonald - Sustainable Fisheries Foundation Rob Macrae - Selkirk College Don McDowell - Rotary Club Tim Peone - Spokane Tribes Don Pongracz - Lower Columbia All First Nations Council Patti Stone - Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Communications Committee Eliah Farrell - Co-Chair, Columbia Basin Trust John Harrison - Co-Chair, Northwest Power Planning Council Dori Bixler - Rivers and Lakes Foundation of Canada Cindy Reichelt - Colville National Forest Service Linda Schulte - Colville National Forest Service Bill Warren - Lake Roosevelt Forum Presenting Sponsors B.C. Hydro - Kootenay Generation Area Bonneville Power Administration Columbia Basin Trust Cominco Ltd. Columbia Power Corporation Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Northwest Power Planning Council Powerex U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Activity Sponsors Acres International Limited Aquatic Resources Ltd. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd. MMA Group Selkirk College Sustainable Fisheries Foundation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Geological Survey Washington Department of Ecology

Session Sponsors Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission Celgar Ltd. City of Castlegar Northwest Ecosystem Institute Okanagan Native Fisheries Commission Summit Environmental Consultants

Banquet Hosts and Sponsors Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Kalispel Tribes Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council Kootenai Tribes of Idaho Lower Columbia All First Nations Council Okanagan Nation Alliance Okanagan Native Fisheries Commission Shuswap Nation Fisheries Commission Sinixt Nation Spokane Tribes Participating Organizations Aquatic Resources Limited Acres International Limited B.C. Hydro B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks B.C. Wildlife Federation Bonneville Power Administration Canadian Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Commission City of Castlegar Columbia Basin Trust Columbia Power Corporation Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Columbia River Integrated Environmental Monitoring Program Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Cominco Limited Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Kalispel Tribes Kootenai Tribes of Idaho Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council Lake Roosevelt Forum Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council Lower Columbia All First Nations Council MacDonald Environmental Sciences Limited MMA Group National Parks Service - Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area) Northwest Ecosystem Institute Northwest Power Planning Council Okanagan Nation Alliance Okanagan Native Fisheries Commission Powerex Rivers and Lakes Foundation of Canada R. L. & L. Environmental Services Limited Selkirk College Shuswap Nation Fisheries Commission Sinixt Nation Spokane Tribes State of Washington Water Research Center Summit Environmental Consultants Limited Sustainable Fisheries Foundation Tri-State Implementation Council U.S. Bureau Reclamation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Geological Survey Washington Department of Ecology Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife West Kootenay Power 1.0 Introduction The Columbia River and its tributaries form the dominant river system in the Pacific Northwest, draining 102,300 km2 in British Columbia and 567,200 km2 in the United States. The Columbia River headwaters originate at Columbia Lake on the west slope of the Canadian Rocky Mountain Range. Flowing north through the Rocky Mountain Trench, then south into the Selkirk Trench, the river converges with the Kootenay and Pend d'Oreille rivers before crossing the international boundary into the State of Washington, where it forms the Lake Roosevelt storage reservoir contained by Grand Coulee Dam. The Columbia River continues its course in the United States to form the Washington-Oregon boundary, eventually flowing into the Pacific Ocean. The river's size, transboundary nature, and consequent economic and environmental significance make its health and vitality an issue of vital importance on both sides of the border.

The Upper Columbia River Basin represents the largest transboundary portion of the Columbia River Basin. This area encompasses all of the water courses located upstream of the Wells Dam, including the Okanagan, Kootenay, Upper Columbia, Clark Fork, Pend d=Oreille, and Flathead river systems. These transboundary river systems provide a wide range of benefits to residents in the Pacific Northwest. However, conservation and protection of the designated land and water uses in this portion of the Columbia River Basin requires effective and cooperative management of transboundary water, fisheries, and aquatic-dependent wildlife resources.

1.1 Historic Basis for Transboundary Water Resource Management The Columbia River Treaty between Canada and the United States facilitates cooperative water resources development of the Columbia River Basin. The Treaty was signed in 1961 and formally ratified by both governments in 1964. Under the Treaty, Canada was to provide 15.5 million acre-feet of usable storage by building three dams on the Columbia River mainstem: one near Mica Creek, one at the outlet of the Arrow Lakes and another at the outlet of Duncan Lake. The United States also had the option of building a dam on the Kootenai River at Libby, Montana, with Canada allowing the Libby reservoir to extend 42 miles into Canadian territory above the international boundary. Additional power generated in the United States resulting from the upstream storage in Canada would be shared equally between the United States and Canada. Downstream power benefits in the United States, arising from operation of the Canadian storage facilities under the treaty, were pre-determined for the first thirty years. Each government was required to declare its intention to renegotiate and have any changes approved well in advance of the pre-determined expiry date for benefits accruing from each Canadian project. Downstream benefits are returnable to Canada as follows: Duncan storage by April,1998; Arrow storage by April,1999; and Mica storage by April, 2003.

Storage facilities became fully operational for the Duncan Dam (Duncan Project) in July 1967, the Hugh Keenleyside Dam (Arrow Project) in October 1968, the Mica Dam (Mica Project) in March 1973, and the Libby Dam (Libby Project) in April 1973. Only the Mica and Libby dams were constructed with hydroelectric power generating facilities, but power generation has now been proposed for the Duncan dam and approved for the Hugh Keenleyside dam.

The primary benefits of the Treaty include flood control and the regulation of streamflows for non-power and non-flood purposes. These include activities such as construction in river channels, assistance of fish migration and environmental studies. Since the operation of Columbia Basin reservoirs has reduced the natural annual peak discharge, payments required as compensation for flood control provided by the treaty have been made by the United States to Canada. The Treaty extends until the year 2024, with a ten-year notice required for either government to withdraw.

In 1992, the Province of British Columbia and the State of Washington signed an Environmental Cooperation Agreement. This agreement provided for the establishment of the B.C.-Washington State Environmental Accord to promote coordinated action and information sharing on environmental matters. Water quality in the Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt is one of the priority concerns that have been identified to date. Under the terms of the agreement, a task force involving affected interest groups may be formed to examine the issues and ensure that the necessary action is taken to protect the environment. Thus far, however, neither of the signatories have deemed the formation of the task force to be necessary, in part due to the effective communication function that has been provided by the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council.

1.2 Goals of the Toward Ecosystem-Based Management Workshop Resource managers in Canada and the United States have recognized that efficient and effective information sharing can help to create an atmosphere that fosters the understanding and resolution of land and water-use conflicts. For this reason, the Canada/United States Technical Workshop on the Upper Columbia River Basin: An International Dialogue was convened in November, 1994 to encourage information sharing among First Nations, conservation groups, resource managers, policy makers, scientists, and concerned citizens. The initial workshop was an unqualified success, attracting over 300 participants and addressing such issues as water quality monitoring and management, contaminants, watershed management, fish and fish habitats, limnology, hydroelectric facilities, air quality, and human and environmental health.

In recognition of the value of continuing dialogue and the need to develop cooperative management approaches for the Upper Columbia River Basin, a number of organizations agreed that a second international workshop should be convened. The second workshop, entitled Toward Ecosystem-Based Management in the Upper Columbia River Basin: An International Conference and Workshop, provided participants with an opportunity to discuss a wide range of technical issues and develop a series of recommendations for fostering cooperative aquatic resource management in this portion of the watershed. Specifically, the objectives of the workshop were:

To share technical information on a broad range of issues relating to aquatic resource management in the Upper Columbia River Basin.
To facilitate open and positive discussions on a broad range of aquatic resource management issues.
To develop a series of management options for moving towards cooperative management of the aquatic ecosystems and associated aquatic-dependent wildlife in six distinct areas, including: 1) Okanagan River Basin; 2) Upper Kootenay River/Lake Koocanusa/Middle Kootenay River Basin; 3) Duncan Reservoir/Kootenay Lake/Lower Kootenay River Basin; 4) Kinbasket Lake/Revelstoke Lake; 5) Arrow Lakes Basin/Upper Columbia River, Lake Roosevelt; and, 6) Clark Fork/Pend d'Oreille River Basin (including the Flathead River).
To combine the management options for each geographic area into an integrated framework for fostering a cooperative, ecosystem-based approach to managing water, fish, and associated wildlife resources in the Upper Columbia River Basin. The workshop consisted of Plenary Sessions, Technical Sessions, Exhibition Sessions, and Work Group Sessions. The Plenary, Technical, and Exhibition Sessions provided opportunities to provide background information on the basin, to identify issues and concerns, to present information on ongoing planning processes and ecosystem-based management, and to share technical information on a wide range of topics related to the management of water, fisheries, and associated wildlife resources. The Work Group Sessions followed directly from the Plenary, Technical, and Exhibition Sessions and provided participants with an opportunity to articulate a common vision for the future of the Upper Columbia River Basin, to identify key issues that are constraining progress towards that vision, to develop strategies and options for overcoming those constraints, and to identify indicators that can be used to measure progress towards ecosystem-based management.

The information presented at the workshop and the recommendations provided by participants form the basic elements of a cooperative, transboundary aquatic resource management strategy. The following chapters describe the desired future condition of each of the six geographic areas considered in the Upper Columbia River Basin. The factors that are currently limiting our ability to achieve the long-term vision for the future, as well as the strategies and management options that could be used to overcome those constraints, have also been identified. The recommendations and integrated framework are likely to be used directly by the Columbia Basin Trust and the Northwest Power Planning Council to focus restoration efforts in the basin. These recommendations will also contribute to broader planning initiatives and facilitate cooperative action among a wide variety of organizations and stakeholder groups. It is anticipated that everyone with an interest in the management of the Upper Columbia River Basin will review this document and determine how they can help build a brighter future for this important transboundary watershed. 2.0 Okanagan/Okanogan River Basin 2.1 Introduction The Okanagan/Okanogan River Basin encompasses a relatively large area within south central British Columbia and north central Washington State. From its headwaters near Armstrong, B.C., the Okanagan River flows in a southerly direction for some 225 km to the international boundary near Osoyoos. Within Canada, the river joins three major lake systems, including Okanagan Lake, Skaha Lake, and Osoyoos Lake. After crossing the boundary, the Okanogan River flows south roughly 150 km to its confluence with the Columbia River between the Wells and Chief Joseph dams. The Similkameen River, also a transboundary system, is the major tributary to the Okanogan River.

2.2 Developing a Common Vision Work group sessions were convened on April 28, 29, and 30, 1998 to engage delegates in discussions regarding the Okanagan River Basin. The goals of the work group sessions were to develop a long-term vision for the future of the basin, to identify the factors that are currently constraining our ability to achieve that vision, and to identify strategic actions than can be implemented to overcome those constraints. The delegates responded to this challenge by developing a common vision for the future of the Okanagan River Basin, which included two parts:

1. To restore and maintain intact natural ecosystems and environmental health through responsible planning and accountable political and personal decision-making; and, 2. To maintain a balance between environmental, social, and economic benefits that define the overall quality of life.

2.3 Constraints to Achieving Sustainability The work group participants recognized that there are a number of barriers that are impeding our progress towards sustainability in the Okanagan River Basin. Some of the important factors that were identified include:

The basin is managed based on the political boundaries, with the more ecologically-relevant watershed boundaries typically ignored;
The existing human nature/belief and value systems do not support sustainability;
There are insufficient human and financial resources available;
There is a lack of public and political will to do the right thing;
There is conflict and fragmentation among the jurisdictions involved in the management of the river basin;
The existing treaties were not designed to support ecosystem-based management;
There is a lack of enabling legislation;
There is a lack of commitment to implement effective long-term planning;
There is a lack of understanding about ecosystem-based management;
There are a lack of appropriate incentives and disincentives; and,
Cross-boundary environmental degradation (past and present).

2.4 Strategies for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management in the Okanagan River Basin Before developing strategies for the Okanagan River Basin, workshop delegates examined the current conditions in the basin to determine if it was likely to support ecosystem-based management. The results of this evaluation indicated that there were many community, environmental, and economic factors operating in the basin that would likely support ecosystem-based management. At the community level, there has been a shift in public sentiment (values) toward environmental responsibility. While human population growth and associated activities have impacted the ecosystem, it has not yet been destroyed (i.e., there is a window of opportunity). Importantly, growth management is possible within the basin. In addition, environmental principles (e.g., 'cradle to grave' management of toxic chemicals) are now being taught and information is being provided and shared by a variety of institutions. There is a move toward public participation and community-based information-sharing and decision-making and improved dialogue with First nations and other interests. Furthermore, there is growing commitment by some decision-makers and businesses. Improving technology for rehabilitation, protection, and communication will also support ecosystem-based management in the basin.

There are also a number of environmental conditions in the basin that support a transition to ecosystem-based management. For example, technology exists to gather, analyze, interpret, present, and communicate critical information about the state of the ecosystem. In addition, there are a number of economic benefits attached to ecosystem-based management (e.g. high-tech industry). An opportunity exists for people to support/improve existing enabling legislation. Good water-based and land-based indicator species (e.g., kokanee, anadromous sockeye, big horn sheep, bunch grass, sage brush, cactus) are available. Furthermore, recent information indicates that water quality conditions are improving.

There are also several economic conditions that support ecosystem-based management. Specifically, there has been a move toward encouraging responsible economic development. Moreover, people are starting to recognize the value and economic benefits of water for all uses (e.g. industry, agriculture, tourism) and that water is a limiting factor in growth. Hence, it makes sense to pursue mechanisms to charge what water is really worth (e.g. metering). New technology is also available that enables industries to operate cleaner and to rehabilitate past damage. There is also an opportunity to establish incentives (e.g. reduced lending rates) and disincentives (e.g. fines) to support our common vision for the future.

After establishing that conditions within the basin that were likely to be supportive of ecosystem-based management, work group participants developed a number of recommendations for advancing the prospects for its implementation. These strategic actions included:

Defining 'ecosystem' and 'management' to develop common understanding of the terms;
Redefining the boundaries of the Columbia River Basin to include Okanagan River and its tributaries;
Revisiting the Okanagan River Basin Study and Implementation Plan to identify key recommendations, assess progress to date, and provide a starting point for further actions;
Including provisions in the Municipal Act that require ecosystem management to be included in OCPs, etc.;
Introducing local and provincial legislation that reflects ecosystem management;
Making Section 910 (Flood Plain Development Requirements) of the Municipal Act mandatory rather than optional (similar U.S. legislation);
Coordinating government mandates (including binational) to support ecosystem-based management;
Developing and enacting B.C. groundwater legislation;
Seeking mechanisms for engaging local communities in resource stewardship decisions and initiatives;
Providing funding for capacity building to support involvement in local resource management;
Developing short-, medium-, and long-term plans for ecosystem-based management;
Expanding the list of designated sensitive streams under the Fish Protection Act to include Okanagan River basin streams;
Developing new legislation to address the connection between water rights and natural ecosystem needs;
Identifying instream flow requirements;
Developing a Terms of Reference for the Pacific Salmon Commission adhoc Okanagan Basin Technical Working Group;
Developing mechanisms to assure that resource benefits remain in the community (e.g. fish, forestry, water);
Continuing to pressure federal governments to ratify and implement international agreements (e.g. climate change, biodiversity);
Establishing an International Joint Commission watershed board for the Okanagan River Basin;
Promoting the concept "Think globally, act locally";
Assessing the true cost of human impacts on ecosystem resources;
Identifying ways to connect actions to ecosystems;
Providing financial incentives (e.g., tax breaks, reduced lending rates) and disincentives (e.g., fines) to encourage environmental responsibility;
Establishing appropriate pricing structures for water use;
Providing general education that stresses the importance of ecosystem-based management;
Initiating 'nested' hierarchical associations;
Demanding political and personal accountability;
Developing comprehensive residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural water quality and conservation plans; and,
Creating and maintaining an Okanogan/Okanagan Basin Ecosystem Work Group.

2.5 Ecosystem Maintenance Indicators Ecosystem maintenance indicators (EMIs) are biological and non-biological indicators that reflect changes in ecosystem health. Such indicators provide a means of measuring the health of the ecosystem and, in so doing, enable us to determine if we are achieving the goals and objectives (i.e., long-term vision) that have been establish for the watershed. Recognizing the importance of monitoring in the implementation of the ecosystem approach, work group participants identified a number of candidate EMIs for the Okanagan River Basin. These EMIs fell into five general categories, including biological, physical, chemical, social, and institutional indicators. The candidate biological indicators included:

Species abundance (Aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity);
Rates of extinction; and,
Availability of habitat.

The candidate physical indicators of ecosystem health in the Okanagan River basin included:

Water quantity;
Air quality;
Air/water temperature;
Presence of artificial barriers on streams/rivers; and,
Man-made impervious surfaces.

A number of candidate chemical indicators of ecosystem health were also identified by work group participants, including:

Water quality;
Waterborne contaminants in sediments, and fish and wildlife; and,
Airborne contaminants.

As ecosystem-based management is premised on effective participation of the community in watershed management, a number of candidate social indicators were also identified, including:

Population growth and distribution;
Land-use status;
Public awareness and involvement;
Consumptive and non-consumptive uses of natural resources;
General human health; and,
Environmentally-certified industry.

Implementation of ecosystem-based management within the Okanagan River Basin will require reformation of the existing institutional and regulatory structures. Some of the candidate institutional indicators that were identified include:

Existence of effective enabling legislation;
Transboundary communication and cooperation; and,
Existence of effective international, inter-institutional watershed management body.

3.0 Upper Kootenay River, Lake Koocanusa, and Middle Kootenay River Basin 3.1 Introduction The Upper Kootenay River, Lake Koocanusa, and Middle Kootenay River Basin encompasses a drainage area within south eastern British Columbia, north western Montana, and northern Idaho. From its headwaters near Foster Peak in Kootenay National Park, the Upper Kootenay River flows in a southerly direction some 250 km to Lake Koocanusa. Over that distance, the Kootenay River is joined by several important tributaries, including the Vermillion, White, Lussier, St. Mary, and Bull rivers. Lake Koocanusa, which was formed following the construction of the Libby Dam, extends some 130 km from Wardner, British Columbia to Libby, Montana. The Elk River is the largest tributary to Lake Koocanusa. The Lower Kootenay River extends some 180 km from the Libby Dam to its mouth in Kootenay Lake. Over that distance, the Lower Kootenay River is joined by several important tributaries, including the Fisher, Yaak, and Moyie rivers.

3.2 Developing a Common Vision Participants in this work group indicated that their long-term vision included an effective integration of environmental, economic, and community interests to produce equitability, livability, and sustainability. The work group participants also identified a number of values and conditions that are necessary to achieve the vision of a fully implemented ecosystem- based approach to management in the Upper Kootenay River, Lake Koocanusa and the Middle Kootenay River Basin. The following elements of a vision were agreed to by all participants in the working group:

A strong basin-wide culture has been established, which is based on a clear understanding of the linkages between individuals, within the community, and throughout the entire basin;
A clear understanding of the values and costs associated with a healthy ecosystem has been established;
Local, broad-based organizational structures have been established to make decisions for local communities, and are integrated with other structures across the basin;
First Nations and Tribes are integral, valued and respected members of the basin community and are fully involved in ecosystem management;
Economic benefits have returned to the communities;
A number of dams have been removed from major arteries; and,
Transportation systems have been rationalized to include alternative strategies, new technology, and road decommissioning.

More detailed comments related to the key elements of the long-term vision are presented in Appendix 1.

3.3 Constraints to Ecosystem-Based Management Work group participants recognized that there are a number of factors that are currently affecting our ability to move toward ecosystem-based management in the Upper Kootenay River, Lake Koocanusa, and Middle Kootenay River Basin. These constraints are summarized in key categories below:

Environmental Quality
Many developments have been built on flood plains;
Many exotic species have become established;
Ecosystems are fragmented;
Damaged ecosystems present huge challenges and costs to restore; and
Many streams are over-committed, with water rights frequently considered to be property rights.

Technical Information Base

Incomplete baseline information currently exists;
Technical studies do not always have a common starting point, which makes it difficult to compare and share data; and,
Successful removal of dams will require complex solutions to overcome the issues that will result from their removal (impact on species, clear flood plains, channel relocation, decommission funds, sediment sludge, etc.).

Societal, Cultural, and Community Values

There is a general lack of understanding of ecological values and an unwillingness to cooperate in developing adequate solutions. Individuals and decision-makers do not typically think or share information on a basin-wide basis, resulting in a limited understanding beyond individual jurisdictions;
Poor communication exists at all levels;
Materialistic values tend to prevail;
Human population continues to grow and demographics are changing;
There is a lack of political will and social commitment to change;
Current societal values and choices are not necessarily compatible with ecosystem-based management approaches;
No shared vision currently exists within the basin;
There is little attachment to place;
Transient and seasonal populations are common, both of which may have different values and expectations than more permanent residents;
There is an unequal wealth distribution;
Far too much emphasis is placed on fiscal deficits, while too little emphasis on ecological and social deficits;
There is a lack of trust, particularly of politicians, institutions, bureaucracy, interest groups;
Special interests tend to be polarized and there is a general lack of tolerance for different perspectives; and,
There is a significant political, societal and industrial desire to maintain existing dams.

Institutional Structures

IJC has been inflexible and silent on ecosystem-based management;
There is no regional forum for addressing basin issues;
There is a general failure to incorporate ecological principles into decision making;
Knowledge, institutions and decision making tends to be overly specialized and narrowly focused;
There is a lack of ability to think long-term;
There is a lack of regulation for orderly development;
There are no mechanisms for ecologically sustainable planning; and,
Time lags exist in the realization of educational efforts.

Economic Activities

Economic theory is driven by the concept of growth;
There has been a significant increase in destination and backcountry recreation; and,
Multi-national ownership of resources will make it difficult to return economic benefits to local communities or aggressively pursue local value-added initiatives.

Political and Legal Considerations

Political boundaries do not match watershed boundaries;
Trends toward globalization are increasing;
Madison Avenue sets unreal expectations, which are unsustainable;
Demand for natural resources often exceeds supply;
There is a lack of political will to establish groundwater legislation, and dealing with other issues will delay its implementation; and,
Unsettled land claims are impeding progress.

Regulatory Considerations

No groundwater regulations currently exist; and,
Land-use planning will be faced with some very difficult choices about which land uses should prevail in certain areas (for example, should agriculture continue on the Creston Flats?).

3.4 Strategies for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management Work group participants recognized that a number of strategic actions would be required to overcome the factors that are currently constraining our ability to implement ecosystem-based management in the Upper Kootenay River, Lake Koocanusa, and Middle Kootenay River Basin. The key actions that were identified are listed below:

Economic Actions

Initiate a process to forecast the economic implications of implementing ecosystem-based management and seek economic remedies for those people who are most affected; and,
Establish programs that reward responsible environmental action through various economic instruments, including tax incentives.

Political Actions

Support and utilize the treaty-making and other processes in Canada, as well as the Three Sovereigns process in the United States, to achieve ecosystem management objectives.

Societal, Cultural & Community Actions

Improve education of the general public and stakeholders, while improving communication among scientists, decision-makers, and others, so that awareness of the need for and benefits of ecosystem-based management increases throughout the basin; and,
Establish a "Grandparents Foundation" as a means to secure funds and community involvement in ecosystem-based projects.

Institutional Actions

Establish a basin-wide entity to coordinate, facilitate and oversee transboundary activities related to the achievement of ecosystem-based management.

Regulatory Actions

Improve land-use planning based on current models, recognizing that this is an iterative process with a need to build on the experiences (and mistakes) of previous efforts;
Develop watershed plans on a sub-basin and basin-wide basis; and,
Develop and implement groundwater legislation in British Columbia.

Technical Actions

Identify and overcome technical information gaps; and,
Pursue energy conservation and alternative energy initiatives (e.g., solar, wind, micro- hydro, geothermal, etc.).
A number of more detailed recommendations emerged from the individual discussion groups that comprised the overall work group; these additional recommendations are listed in Appendix 1. In the final working group session, participants did not break into smaller groups as they had previously, but instead came together as a group, identified a number of areas for further discussion, and began developing those ideas. The following highlights of that discussion were presented at the closing plenary session attended by all participants.Establish a basin-wide entity and process. There is a need for all parties and all governments (federal state, provincial, tribal) to come together to address shared issues. A coordinated effort is essential to address issues such as dissolved gases, return of the salmon, stream restoration.
Pursue information sharing and education initiatives (web page, festivals etc.). Ask the Columbia Basin Trust and the Northwest Power Planning Council to coordinate ongoing action such as another forum that includes a broader range of perspectives and stakeholders.
Support Canadian efforts to reconcile questions of aboriginal title and rights, by actively working with First Nations to jointly develop and implement ecosystem management strategies.
Contact First Nations in the Canadian Columbia requesting advice on how best to support efforts to address the land question. With the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Tribal Council, an option is to actively support treaty negotiations. Other means of support may be more appropriate with the Okanagan and Sinixt Nations.
Support the American Three Sovereigns process (federal, state, tribal) to improve resource and watershed management in the Basin.
Identify multiple sources for funding which may include the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Forest Renewal BC, Columbia Basin Trust, and Northwest Power Planning Council.
Set joint binational priorities and then find funding sources.
Renew a previous Washington-British Columbia Accord on transboundary environmental issues.
Review the suitability of the IJC taking on the role of coordinating national efforts in the basin.
The Ministry of Forests and others need to be educated about ecosystem-based management, with inter-agency education being the key.
Publicize the issues and outcomes from this conference on TV and through other means. Determine the potential for a TV documentary on the basin. 4.0 Duncan Reservoir, Kootenay Lake, and Lower Kootenay River Basin 4.1 Introduction The Duncan Reservoir, Kootenay Lake, and Lower Kootenay River Basin is located south western portion of British Columbia. The Duncan River flows some 65 km from its headwaters in Glacier National Park to Duncan Reservoir, with the Westfall River being the only major tributary to the Duncan River. The Duncan Reservoir, which was formed following the construction of the Duncan Dam, is roughly 60 km in length. Kootenay Lake is the major lake system within the basin, with an overall length of roughly 120 km and an average width of over 4 km. The west arm of the lake extends from Balfour to Nelson, a distance of roughly 20 km. The Lower Kootenay River flows in south westerly direction for some 35 km from Nelson to its confluence with the Columbia River at Castlegar. The lower Kootenay River is highly regulated, with numerous impoundments along its length.

4.2 Developing a Common Vision In responding to the vision question, the work group broke into two discussion groups and then used four categories to respond to the question. After answering the question in each of the smaller groups, the sub-groups combined to consider each other's ideas and to set priorities. The group as a whole then discussed the ideas and used a quick way of getting a sense of the whole group's priorities. Each person placed a dot on the three ideas that were most important to them or that they felt were most important to present to the plenary. In these notes, asterisks represent the dots. The group as a whole then considered whether they were satisfied with the ideas that had the most dots being presented to the plenary and serving as the basis of their further consideration. The most important elements of the long-term vision are presented below; additional vision elements and the relative priority of each element are listed in Appendix 2.

Changes in the environment are understood and people and institutions are working with them (e.g., climate change). People are moving with large scale global and regional changes and not uselessly resisting or fighting them. People are educated as to consequences of actions, especially the ecological impacts of their own actions.
Biodiversity of indigenous species is maintained or enhanced. Water quality and riparian areas are healthy enough to maintain indigenous fisheries.
Land-use planning is community based and more effective. Land-use plans and regulations are followed and enforced.
There is effective monitoring of systems with full public and scientific access to the processes and the results.
Residents have meaningful work that contributes to ecological sustainability. Full cost accounting is commonly used in decision-making.
People in the basin support broader initiatives (national, international) that contribute to maintaining healthy ecosystems locally.

4.3 Constraints to Ecosystem-Based Management To identify key constraints or barriers in the way of moving toward the desired vision for the Duncan sub-basin, the group continued discussion in the two sub-groups that were formed for the visioning exercise. They then gathered as a whole group to consider each other's ideas and used the same dot exercise (as in visioning) for getting a quick sense of priorities. Again, as the dots were highly clustered, it was not difficult for them to agree on what should be presented to the plenary and pursued in further discussion. The most important constraints are listed below, while more detailed information on the constraints is presented in Appendix 2.

Short-term outlook, thinking and planning dominated decision-making processes, primarily because there is a lack of a long-term view or vision, and a lack of long range planning.
There is a lack of political will and follow through (the work group noted that the first and second constraints were closely related and mutually reinforcing).
There is a prevalent distrust of institutions and other parties (The distrust of institutions was seen largely as a result of the first two constraints, which results in institutions being perceived as not appropriately protecting public interests. The group also thought that there was a general lack of trust between parties with different interests and this impedes their capacity to undertake cooperative efforts.)
Current economic and lifestyle expectations are contrary to the concept of sustainability. The group felt that the overwhelmingly consumer oriented lifestyles we pursue are at the root of many ecological difficulties.
There is a lack of motivation to change, lack of economic incentive to change, and an unwillingness to relinquish rights and power.
Fragmented knowledge and specialization make it difficult to understand complex systems. Creating and maintaining institutions, with fragmented or specialized mandates, also acts as a barrier to ecosystem approaches. Fragmentation within both US and Canada and different systems makes integration a challenge.
The growth of large multi-national corporations means that global transfers of resources are being made solely for private gain and there is a tendency to pursue corporate agendas and make decisions on a "business" basis.
Regionalism and globalism can lead to trade-offs that negatively impact some areas. The group recognized that the trend to decision-making on larger scales often seemed to mean decisions that favoured one area at the expense of another.

4.4 Strategies for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management In the third working session, the two sub-groups continued discussions separately, identifying possible recommendations and actions to overcome the key constraints they had identified. In the last small group session of the workshop, there was sufficient attrition that the sub-groups decided to join and meet as a whole. There were approximately 25 people in this last session. The group reviewed the key constraints and obstacles and the suggested actions to address them that they had identified the day before. They continued discussion on possible recommendations. Approximately half of the session was spent exploring possible options for achieving more of a coordinated and basin-wide approach to eco-system management. As the major ideas the group agreed upon were clear, the facilitators were simply instructed to report them. The group then turned its attention to look at more specific recommendations with respect to the Duncan dam. The key ideas the group agreed upon and wanted to have reported to the plenary were identified through a quick dotting exercise. Both the recommendations for the Upper Columbia River Basin, as a whole, and for the Duncan sub-basin are presented below:

The Columbia Basin Trust should convene and fund a Task Force to investigate the best ways to achieve coordinated action, including considering appropriate mandates, funding, geographic scope, relationship to the International Joint Commission (if any), how to deal with actions by private parties, and how to best educate the public on ecosystem-based management. The group spent considerable time discussing several options for structures or bodies that could be responsible for coordination (see points in the sub-group discussions) and finally concluded that they did not have enough information to settle on one option. They felt it was premature to select one option without further investigation, hence the recommendation for a task force to take a comprehensive and thorough look.
Establish ecosystem information centres, ombudspersons, and/or ecosystem liaison people. Such people would be asked to provide state of the watershed information and/or produce a state of the watershed report. What the group wanted here was a one-stop approach to finding information, which is organized and provided on an ecosystem basis. The preference was for an agency or person(s) who could do this. The second choice was for a place or person that one could start with who could effectively help one find one's way through the maze of ministries and public and private organizations who have information and responsibilities.
Individuals should take responsibility for educating themselves as to their ecological footprint by doing a personal environmental audit, helping youth develop better (less consumptive and wasteful) habits, and promoting self-sufficiency (e.g., in food and energy production). The group felt strongly that people needed to understand the ecological impacts of their actions and take steps to reduce the footprint of their own actions and lifestyles.

While the preceding recommendations apply throughout the Upper Columbia River Basin, the following strategic actions are specific to the Duncan sub-basin:

Determine how water management at Duncan Dam affects fish and habitat above and below the dam, especially with regard to fish passage.
Synthesize information on relationships between terrestrial and aquatic components of the ecosystem. Fill information gaps, as necessary. Identify restoration needs and options.
Look at recommendations of previous workshops and processes to see what can be implemented now. This final recommendation was a kind of general summation for the group. They recognized that many of their recommendations were not new, yet little or no action had been taken on the same or similar recommendations made in previous sessions. The emphasis here was to see what other, earlier groups had done and see what could be acted on without further conferences, workshops, or deliberation.

5.0 Kinbasket Lake and Revelstoke Lake Basin 5.1 Introduction The Kinbasket Lake and Revelstoke Lake basin represents the Canadian headwaters of the Columbia River system. The headwaters of this basin are located in Columbia Lake, which is located near Fairmont Hot Springs, British Columbia. From the outlet of Columbia Lake, the Columbia River flows in a north westerly direction some 160 km to its mouth in Columbia Reach of Kinbasket Lake. The Canoe River, which originates near the headwaters of the Fraser River system near Valemount, flows into the northern portion of Kinbasket Lake (Canoe Reach). Kinbasket Lake, which was formed following the construction of the Mica Dam, is approximately 210 km in length. Revelstoke Lake lies behind the Revelstoke Dam, which constructed near the town of Revelstoke, is roughly 140 km in length and covers the historic channel of the Columbia River.

5.2 Developing a Common Vision Work group participants recognized the importance of this basin, both to local residents and to the province as a whole. To facilitate the realization of its full potential, participants developed the following long-term vision for the Kinbasket Lake and Revelstoke Lake Basin.

The region has become a world leader in managing human activities within a watershed ecosystem. The conditions that are necessary to support the fulfilment of this vision include:

Population distribution and growth are strictly controlled through land use regulation, concentrated in a few communities at higher densities.
A large, contiguous or connected set of diverse protected areas allows free movement of wildlife; protection and restoration of wetland, riparian and littoral areas. Reservoirs are managed for a wide range of benefits (environmental, economic, social). Power requirements have been reduced through conservation. The drawdown of Kinbasket Lake is greatly reduced relative to 1998 levels.
The regional economy is diversified, with secondary manufacturing expanded, recreation and tourism increased, and logging strictly managed to prevent ecological impacts (i.e., sustainable logging is practised).
Basin culture is diverse, respectful and harmonious, supported by education systems which emphasize knowledge of ecosystems, human and natural history of the basin, creativity and exploration, and seven-generation thinking.

5.3 Constraints to and Strategic Actions for Ecosystem-Based Management Work group participants felt that is would be most useful to address constraints and strategic actions together. In this way, it would be possible to make sure that each of the constraints that are identified are addressed through the development of appropriate recommendations. The following constraints and strategic actions were identified:

Constraint: Government agencies are unable to enforce regulations, maintain long term monitoring, and preserve biological diversify. Proposed Action: Establish an environmental surcharge. WHAT: Environmental surcharges on resource uses (power, water, flood protection, forest use) flow back to region to support environmental, social, and economic reinvestment (extend FRBC); HOW: Establish a database of economic activities and assess what surcharges are appropriate and sustainable. Implement the surcharge, with mechanisms to retain resources for local use. WHO: The surcharge should be established by a public body created by CBT (but independent) to guide and administer program, with technical input and expert review of proposals (like NPPC process for BPA dollars). Public input and scrutiny are essential. WHEN: 1-2 years

Constraint: There is a short-term focus on planning; Benefits usually flow outside of the region; Natural capital is being diminished; Land and water ownership and tenure are a confusing morass. Proposed Action: Implement an eco-evolutionary approach to economic development. WHAT: Support the long-term potential "economic fitness" of region in a manner that benefits and is well adapted to unique features of sub-basin, is resilient to change, and has a high integrity of functions. HOW: Develop an inventory of land commitments and economic plans; build on past CBT work; assess consistency with vision; identify major future uncertainties; identify missing parts (e.g. telecommunications); use surcharge fund to catalyze evolution using clear selection criteria; let economy evolve (> 5 years). WHO: Independent commission started by CBT, with technical input from wide range of thinkers on world economy. WHEN: 1 - 2 years

Constraint: There are overlapping mandates and weak implementation of ecosystem approaches by federal, provincial, and municipal agencies. Proposed Actions: CBT should convene regular forums on ecosystem management for scientists, practitioners and the public. The objectives of these forums are to encourage agencies, the private sector and civil society to embrace ecosystem management concepts, to enhance inter-organizational cooperation and collaboration, and to work with opinion leaders. An independent assessment and audit of the state of ecosystem management in the CRB should be conducted. The audit should be undertaken in 1999 and reported on by 2001. Mechanisms to improve the effectiveness of ecosystem management in the basin should be examined. In addition, a service organization (1 800 eco-syst) should be established to help citizens and the private sector get through regulatory processes related to ecosystem management.

Constraint: Regulatory agencies implementing the Columbia River Treaty have narrow mandates (for example, the Non-Treaty Storage Agreement). Proposed Actions: Develop and implement a Columbia basin-wide initiative to develop a renewed mandate and structure for governance of dam operations, consistent with but in addition to the CRT. Develop and evaluate a series of alternatives that would provide a range of benefits (flood control, power, fish and wildlife habitat and amenity values). The new governance structure should include a strong independent scientific group (e.g. Independent Scientific Review Panel). Its mandate would include production and evaluation of alternatives for dam operations to provide a wider range of social, environmental and economic benefits. Such an initiative should be led by the CBT and NPPC, with basin-wide, effective public consultation.

Constraints: There is a lack of political will to implement a long-term ecosystem approach (i.e. to lead the paradigm shift). Youth and elders are isolated. Appropriate Actions: A basin culture should be articulated. This paradigm should be defined and broadened by consulting elder teams for historical information and youth teams for future vision (i.e., bring both groups together). The CBT and NPPC should commit to providing support and facilitation to elder/youth teams. Seed funding and contributions in kind for this initiative should be provided by various agencies. Finally, decision makers should be made aware of the refined basin culture and asked to define how their programs reflect the paradigm shift.

6.0 Arrow Lakes, Upper Columbia River, and Lake Roosevelt Basin 6.1 Introduction The Arrow Lakes, Upper Columbia River, and Lake Roosevelt Basin encompasses a large drainage area within south central British Columbia and north eastern Washington. The Revelstoke Dam, at Revelstoke, British Columbia, represents the upstream boundary of the basin. While upper and Lower Arrow lakes were natural lake systems on the Columbia River mainstem, construction of the Keenleyside Dam has increased their surface areas and depth. The Lardeau River is one of the largest tributaries to the Arrow Lakes. Below the Keenleyside Dam, which is located at Castlegar, the Columbia River flows some 120 km, across the international boundary, to Roosevelt Lake in the United States. Over that distance, the Columbia River is joined by the Kootenay River and the Pend d=Oreille River. Lake Roosevelt is a major reservoir, which was formed following the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam. Lake Roosevelt is approximately 100 km in length. The Columbia River from the Grand Coulee Dam to the Well Dam is also included in this sub-basin of the Upper Columbia River system.

6.2 Developing a Common Vision The participants in the Arrow Lakes, Upper Columbia River, and Lake Roosevelt work group developed a detailed vision for the future. This vision had elements that related to the environment, economy, values, decision-making process, information, learning, and community, as follows:

Environment

Specific ecosystem indicators and air and water quality standards are defined, attained and monitored for each ecosystem of the Columbia River system.
Air quality, water quality and water quantities all meet the acceptable standards. These standards are based on the integrated values of ALL stakeholders. Standards must be based and/or limited by air, water and land capacities.
Environmental ecosystems have balanced nutrient cycles, genetic diversity, species diversity, appropriate flood planes and upland plant communities that are diverse and resilient.
Ecosystem-based management must be based on adequate base-line environmental information.

Economy

Strong regional and local economies, with diverse employment opportunities for all groups, are based on (and supportive of) healthy and productive ecosystems.
Economic interests (i.e. forestry, fishing, recreation and power generation) are integrated on/across local, regional and trans-national levels.
Sustainable fisheries support economically viable sport, tribal, and commercial fishing. The harvest technology and practices of all who fish are supportive of sustainable fisheries.
Sustainable fisheries for Tribes include subsistence as well as economically viable sport fisheries.

Values/Principles

Water quality, air quality and land are respected by ALL.
Ecosystem relationships are clearly understood: 1) Ecosystem relationships can have substantially different value systems within and between different communities (communities of place, communities of interest); 2) Human behaviours create no 'net' damage; and, 3) Lifestyle choices support ecosystem-based management.
Trust, confidence and respect are built amongst all stakeholders to ensure and maintain a quality of life, including such things as full employment and ecologically sound and healthy lifestyles.

Decision-Making Processes

Legislative and management processes established to protect, preserve and control land use to prevent detrimental effects to the environment.
Regulations supporting environmental sustainability are in place regarding population growth.
Regulations are developed with attainable standards tailored to specific ecosystems.
Clean water and air that meet acceptable standards.
Legal and institutional structures are in place, adequately funded, open and responsive and have jurisdiction to act.
Management of an ecosystem knows no boundaries/borders. Inter-jurisdictional means are required to effectively deal with cross-boundary issues. A possibility may be to arrange political boundaries around watershed boundaries.
Decision-making processes must be community driven. The process must encompass: 1) Stakeholder involvement; 2) Community values and issues; 3) Informed and educated decisions; 4) Exchange of scientific, traditional ecological and community knowledge priorities; or, 5) Ongoing monitoring.
To ensure productive results, the decision-making process must be sensitive and appreciative of stakeholder diversity and foster a balance between the benefit of each stakeholder group and the well-being of the ecosystem=s natural environment.
Consensus-based decision making can be time consuming, costly and difficult. We must develop decision making processes that are timely, efficient and effective.

Information

An information data-base must be established and designed for information exchange between agencies, states and nations.
The exchange of information can be shared through communications technology.
Adequate resources are required to collect and access information.
Quality information must contain adequate baseline data, specific indicators for monitoring and evaluation, outline and explain ecosystem relationships, have objectives for defining information needs and encompass social, economic and environmental goals.

Learning/Education

A shared awareness of ecological and economic values creates a willingness to learn and work together.
An increased understanding of environmental, economic and community issues involves: 6) Community, First Nation and tribe participation; 7) Ongoing student and adult education; or, 8) Ongoing public participation in awareness building.
Developing a community and international understanding of the environment and ecology includes: developing guidelines which address population growth throughout the Basin as growth directly impacts the environment; humans will be required to change lifestyles to reduce environmental impacts.

Community

There is trust, confidence and respect amongst all stakeholders and a willingness to work together as partners in creating a continually improving future.
Community health includes: reduced crime, addiction, and child abuse; stable families, good medical care, education and child care.
Communities are successful at: 9) Matching community values to ecosystem/environmental goals; 10) Managing land use, population growth and human influence to preserve environmental health and livability; 11) Reducing/modifying energy requirements and utilizing alternative energy resources; or, 12) Sustaining high levels of involvement from all groups, including tribes and First Nations, as groups work together for a high quality of life.

6.3 Constraints to Ecosystem-Based Management Work group participants recognized that there are a number of factors that are currently constraining our ability to achieve the long-term vision for the future. These constraints also fall into a number of categories and include:

Environment

Environmental indicators and standards are not uniform within the upper Columbia River Basin (i.e. EPA, DOE, Tribes and BC Environment).
There needs to be an understanding of carrying capacity.
Lack of agreements by experts (i.e. two equally qualified experts will put forward opposing views on an issue).
Large scale ecological climate change caused by human activities.
Dams in the watershed.
Existing Governance structure doesn't work for an ecosystem approach: duplication/lack of coordination; under-funding; conflicting requirements; species by species approach; lack of a decision making process.
Government not organized or motivated to work collaboratively together on issues or management programs of mutual concern.
The issue of political boundaries not recognizing the realities of watersheds and ecosystem boundaries.
Lack of environmental goals and objectives shared across the entire basin that are definable and pragmatic.
Lack of long-term comprehensive planning which includes environmental objectives, data, and restoration and remediation of damage caused by the dams.

Economy

Constraints of economic losses to farming communities resulting from land-use decisions.
Need to accept limited economic growth that is sustainable.
International boundary impacts availability of financial resources in different parts of the basin.
Economic realities and priorities may preclude the attainment of some visions for the natural environment.
Inequitable distribution of wealth, resource benefits and impacts amongst nations, provinces and regions.
'Local' environments versus global circumstances - different perspectives and priorities on what is important.
Growth is unsustainable but no jurisdiction is willing to limit growth.

Politics

Constraint of reducing government budgets.
Different jurisdictions with different priorities and regulations.
Constraints of funding for remediation.
Lack of trust among and between stakeholders, governments and the public.
Conflicting resource demands often result in poor allocation processes and tradeoffs.
Political decisions which are not based on or informed by science.
Problems with shared-risk which means that parties to a partnership must be willing to share the risks as well as the successes.
Absence of effective institutional vehicle to make consensus-based changes.

Information

Constraints of funding to generate information, organize/interpret information and disseminate information.
Inadequate communications between interested parties in the basin.
Current communication system impedes rural communities from accessing current communication and information technologies.
Uncertainty of information base.

Learning/Education

Even though we have quality public education systems, the general public is largely scientifically illiterate.
Education and an understanding of the complex issues.
Lack of awareness, interest or understanding by many citizens and politicians of environmental issues related to economic growth.
The many and differing lifestyle values of the residents of the Basin and the lack of ability to come together because of those differences.

Values/Principles

Natural resources are treated as economic commodities.
Perceptions of idealism versus pragmatism.
Ecological values aren't given sufficient weight when compared with human benefits.
Economic systems and interests heavily influence and weigh our cultural values.
Acceptance/understanding of ecological imperatives is not widespread amongst the general population.
Unwillingness to face the learning curve about issues that are complex and sometimes technical.
Historic concepts of private property that allow for decisions on land use and resource use without regard to the larger community and ecosystem interests.
Human behaviour which focuses outward, i.e. on everyone else should make changes and sacrifices, and shuns solutions that would impact them financially.
The public lacks power and influence while multi-national corporations and governments rule without accountability.
Discussions at community level will require support at provincial-federal level. Different values and objectives within the community are challenging without support and facilitation.
Unequal values at the individual, community and government level.
Linking individual communities to each other--creating an interdependence and overcoming local optimization.

Community

Population growth and consumption, especially in developed countries.
Lack of understanding of the complex interactions of people and the environment.
Lack of shared community values.
Governance: Institutions of power don=t change quickly enough to reflect increased understanding and new values.

6.4 Strategies for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management To overcome the constraints identified above, work group participants developed a series of detailed recommendations that should be pursued to facilitate the implementation of ecosystem-based management (see Appendix 4). In addition, three key recommendations were developed to address the most pressing limitations to ecosystem-based management, as follows:

Recommendation #1 Constraint: There is a lack of information for decision makers. Goal: To widely distribute the recommendations of this conference. Recommended Action: Ensure that recommendations of this conference are disseminated widely to the public, agencies and local governments, Tribes and First Nations, and industry; and, Make a formal presentation to the BC-Washington Environmental Cooperation Council (which is made up of state, province and federal political leaders).

Recommendation #2 Goal: To manage population growth and settlement to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. Objective: To urge and support appropriate local authorities to create land use planning or revise existing plans to reflect the ecosystems carrying capacities. Recommended Action: The Columbia Basin Trust and the Northwest Power Planning Council should develop a discussion paper linking land use planning, population growth and growth management with ecosystem carrying capacity and present it to local governments and communities.

Recommendation #3 Constraint: There is a lack of an ecosystem component in the Columbia River Treaty. Objective: To establish an operating system for Hydro/Flood control on the Columbia that addresses the full range of ecosystem impacts and values. Recommended Actions: Establish a transboundary consultative forum linking citizens and government agencies on both sides of the border; Implement the Columbia Basin water use planning process (BC Government) as a priority; Explore and evaluate IJC and other processes; Establish a Canadian equivalent to the Lake Roosevelt Forum and the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council (CBT ad CRIEMP); and, Prepare strategies for re-negotiating the Columbia River Treaty.

7.0 Clark Fork and Pend d=Oreille River Basin 7.1 Introduction The Clark Fork and Pend d=Oreille River Basin is a large watershed that encompasses portions of Montana, Idaho, Washington, and British Columbia. The Canadian headwaters of the system, the Flathead River, are in south eastern British Columbia near Mt. Taylor. The Flathead River flows in roughly a southerly direction for about 180 km to its outlet in Flathead Lake. From Flathead Lake, the lower portion of the Flathead River flows roughly 100 km to its confluence with the Clark Fork River. The major tributaries to the Flathead River system include the North Fork, Middle Fork, and South Fork of the Flathead River, the Stillwater River, and the Swan River.

In the United States, headwaters of the Clark Fork River are located in west central Montana. From its headwaters near Butte, Montana, the Clark Fork flows some 500 km, in a roughly north westerly direction, to its outlet in Pend d=Oreille Lake. Over that distance, the Clark Fork is joined by several important tributaries, including Flint Creek, Rock Creek, the Blackfoot River, the Bitterroot River and the Flathead River. Pend d=Oreille Lake is drained by the Pend d=Oreille River, which flows nearly 200 km before emptying into the Columbia River near the international boundary (near Trail, British Columbia). The Priest River is the major tributary to the Pend d=Oreille River over this distance.

7.2 Developing a Strategic Plan In conjunction with the Towards Ecosystem-Based Management in the Upper Columbia River Basin conference, work group sessions were conducted to provide opportunities for participants to identify and discuss issues important to the goal of achieving sustainability through the implementation of ecosystem-based management in the Clark Fork/Pend d'Oreille River Basin. The goals of these work group sessions were:

To develop a common vision of ecosystem-based management in the Clark Fork/Pend d'Oreille River Basin;
To identify the factors that are currently constraining our ability to achieve the long term vision of ecosystem-based management in the Clark Fork/Pend d'Oreille River Basin; and,
To identify actions that need to be implemented in the near term (i.e., 1-2 years), in the medium term (3 to 5 years), and the long term (> 5 years) to support a transition to ecosystem based management in the Clark Fork/Pend d'Oreille River Basin.

To provide an atmosphere that would foster effective participation and group interaction these individuals were initially assigned to one of three discussion groups consisting of 10-12 individuals. These groups were consolidated into one group on the last day of the work group session to maintain the size of the discussion groups. To focus discussions, a series of questions were posed related to an ecosystem based approach to the management of human activities and resource utilisation that would support ecosystem health (Appendix 1). The first series of questions were related to the long-term vision or conditions that would exist within the sub-basin to support ecosystem health. The next question served to identify the factors that are currently constraining our ability to achieve this long-term vision of ecosystem-based management. The final series of questions were designed to identify short-, medium-, and long-term strategies that could be implemented to overcome the impediments to achieving ecosystem-based management in the Clark Fork/Pend d'Oreille River Basin.

7.3 Developing a Common Vision The work group sessions were conducted to provide participants with an opportunity to identify common goals that could be achieved in co-operation and collaboration amongst various organisations and interest groups by fostering new partnerships, particularly transboundary partnerships through environmental management and restoration measures and through economic, social, legal and institutional reform. Although each discussion group identified a number of conditions that would exist in the sub-basin to support an ecosystem-based management approach, there was a tremendous degree of agreement among the entire work group regarding conditions that are needed to support ecosystem health.

Healthy ecosystems are integrated into the concept of quality of life. Human activities and associated resource utilisation support a sincere commitment to ecosystem-based management approaches. There is widespread recognition and acceptance of the inherent value of the environment and healthy ecosystem beyond monetary gains. The economic impacts of ignoring ecosystem health for short-term financial gain are well understood and avoided.
A system of governance and holistic decision-making reflecting an ecosystem approach that is unified and balanced. The governance structure and associated decision-making processes encourage extensive multi-agency and community involvement at the sub-basin level, as well as at other levels. The roles and responsibilities of resource managers have been broadened to encompass greater degrees of resource integration, and citizen participation.
A healthy ecosystem within the sub-basin. A number of specific themes were discussed including: healthy fish populations; functional flood plains and riparian zones; operational and structural changes in the provision of hydro power dam operations improving both downstream and upstream habitats; improvements in water quality; and, the diversification and stabilisation of economic activities (e.g., non-resource and resource-based activities)
A variety of solutions or strategies are in place to support improvement of ecosystem health including engineered solutions, "smarter" resource extraction, and non-engineered solutions. There is an expectation that there will be improved methods or technological innovations (i.e., extraction) to support an ecosystem-based approach to resource management. However, participants strongly believed those technological innovations, in and of themselves would not provide the ultimate solution to achieve sustainability. Rather it will be through a combination of re-focussing engineering tools, as well as non-engineered solutions that will enable society to support healthy ecosystems.

7.4 Constraints to Ecosystem-Based Management The discussion from the work group session indicated that a number of factors currently constrain our ability to successfully implement ecosystem-based management in the Clark Fork/Pend d'Oreille River Basin. Some of the most important constraints include decision-making processes within existing institutional, administrative and regulatory structures that do not reflect natural boundaries and processes of watersheds and hamper co-ordinated efforts to restore ecological balances. There is a widespread perception that the preservation and restoration of healthy ecosystems will cost money, resulting in tremendous resistance to changing existing management practices. A "Wild West" mentality is predominant encouraging the perception that natural resources are inexhaustible compounded by the absence in understanding or acceptance that choices and lifestyle decisions can negatively impact the health of ecosystems. The following constraints are not to be considered as mutually exclusive, but rather they are closely interconnected.

Current large-scale system organisation and process issues, or in a word, issues of governance, impede the implementation of ecosystem-based management. A number of issues were identified including:

No broad vision or goal of sustainability for 50 years hence;
Decision-making processes involving the allocation of water resources, particularly for large-scale applications such as irrigation and hydropower, are often not equitable among users and uses; and,
Self-interests versus the common interest often direct decision-making. Often there is an absence of trust among stakeholders (e.g., between government and citizens or between governments). Decision-makers must be trusted to follow through on their actions. This lack of trust can develop from different understandings of the same situation.

The sub-basin lacks an effective, all-inclusive governance structure for centralised decision-making.

Given that watersheds do not follow political boundaries, existing structures tend to hamper any co-ordinated effort to support healthy ecosystems and elements of sustainability at the local, sub-basin, and in particular, transboundary level.
Up-river management decisions have down-river impacts, and in the case of the Clark Fork/Pend d' Oreille sub-basin, this is a transboundary issue as decisions in the United States can have impacts in British Columbia.
Current structures and policies can be counter-productive, compounded by the inability of agencies and various interest groups to share control and decision-making. The goal of long-term sustainability of natural resources is not shared among politicians and decision-makers. Funding for large-scale watershed restoration programs does not exist.
Currently, only consumptive users (e.g., fishers and hunters) pay to protect resources, and in a very limited means. In addition, the deregulation of the electric industry may mean fewer dollars are allocated to support fish and wildlife programs.
There continues to be great uncertainty about the availability of funding to implement ecosystem-based management.

The economy of a particular sub-basin may be weak or narrowly focused on industries that might be affected by ecosystem-based management decisions.

For many people who work in resource-dependent industries, one's sense of personal economic security is closely linked to existing management practices (e.g., logging practices). Thus, there could be resistance to moving toward ecosystem-based management if the practical result of its implementation is perceived as a threat to personal income and family stability.
Implementing an ecosystem approach could involve higher electricity bills if hydropower generation is constrained and replaced with more expensive forms of generation, or it could mean lost wages or unemployment in resource-dependent businesses.
De-regulation of the electricity industry in the United States will lead to increased competition among energy providers, leading to higher power prices for some customers and lower prices for others.
Existing resource extraction and allocation (i.e., consumption) decisions that are profit-driven may not be consistent with implementing ecosystem-based management. There is a perception that industry and development interests own the resources, thus the protection of the resources implies that these sectors are giving something up.
Existing tax structures vary between states, with certain states perceived as friendlier towards businesses than others. These factors can influence whether a business chooses to locate in a particular area. For example, the absence of particular infrastructures (e.g., public services, such as utilities, transportation, schools, etc.) may not be able to support the greater diversity of business and industry, that could trigger the implementation of ecosystem-based management.
With increasing land development of shoreline areas, particularly the construction of vacation homes, implementing ecosystem-based management approaches could possibly modify river operations, impacting these developments and land values.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that economic diversification will result in decreased resource extraction when in fact it ought to lead toward reduced resource consumption.

Humans impact their ecosystems, and yet management decisions largely ignore the impacts on the functioning of ecosystems.

There is an unwillingness to accept a new paradigm of ecosystem health. There appears to be a persistent "Wild West" mentality and belief that natural resources are inexhaustible. This belief is encouraged in the United States by the fact that the federal government subsidises agricultural water withdrawals and generates electricity at large dams.

Resource management decisions may often be in conflict with one another.

Individuals, and government agencies, may be unwilling or unable to pay for the activities that result from particular management decisions. One's sense of personal or institutional economic security may be tied to current management practices. In addition, there may be an inability or unwillingness to "go back" or reverse management decisions.

Dealing with the uncertainties of our knowledge base.

Given that we are often working with insufficient information, or more so an uncertainty as to how to deal with rapid ecological changes, the outcomes of decision-making processes are often best guesses. Operating within these parameters, we limit ourselves to short-term decisions, rarely taking a long-term view.
Our knowledge of current and past status of native fish populations is largely unknown; thus decisions are often made without data or with the lack of reliable water quality data. There is difficulty in understanding a complex system.
We are faced with extreme difficulties in re-establishing native fisheries in greatly impacted ecosystems [e.g., the legacy of environmental impacts pollution associated with past logging, mining, land use practices, logistical difficulties in co-ordinating dam operations to reduce total dissolved gases (TDG) and increases in temperature].

Instituting ecosystem-based management could be expensive in terms of the changes and the actions that would be required, with some people unwilling or unable to pay.

There is a perception that working and living within an ecologically protective framework is too expensive (e.g., maintaining and restoring healthy riparian zones and floodplains will cost money with no long-term visible gain). It appears that the public is unwilling to pay more for alternative forms of energy, or through conservation practices, use less.
It is recognised that there are economic costs associated with resource protection, yet there is wide spread perception that these short-term costs will not be recouped by the long-term economic benefits derived from managing resources with an ecosystem based approach.

Many citizens and our governance structures do not recognise the inherent value of natural systems.

People do not realise that their every day choices affect the health of the ecosystem.
In certain cases specific exotic species are replacing native flora and fauna, and sometimes it is government agencies that plant these species in response to public pressure.

7.5 Strategies for Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management The work group identified a number of overarching strategies that could address the constraints identified above and improve the prospects for implementing ecosystem-based management in the Clark Fork and Pend d=Oreille River Basin, including:

Improve communication and inter-governmental co-operation through the creation of a Columbia Basin Commission, perhaps modelled after the Fraser Basin Management Board. Such an entity could co-ordinate activities within the Columbia River basin, including dam operations and resource activities. It could also serve as an umbrella organisation for watershed councils within the river basin. There was strong agreement among participants that the effort should begin immediately with ongoing commitment and participation of existing organisations on both sides of the border, such as the Columbia Basin Trust and the Northwest Power Planning Council. Financial support could be provided through various avenues including federal, state, province, tribal, institutions, businesses, utilities, and other agencies. Participants readily acknowledged that these efforts would require a long-term focus.
In conjunction with watershed councils, the Columbia Basin Commission could co-ordinate region-wide communication and education efforts, including addressing constraints such as the lack of adequate information or inconsistent data reporting formats. The Columbia Basin Commission could co-ordinate periodic "State of the Basin" reports undertaken by an objective party, perhaps the International Joint Commission.
One primary focus of the communication effort should be education -- education of the public, of decision-makers and, particularly, of students. This education effort could be co-ordinated by the Columbia Basin Commission with the assistance of the watershed councils. Technical experts would work with watershed councils to develop educational programs, and these in turn would be co-ordinated through the Columbia Basin Commission with other watershed councils to develop an overarching education and communication program for the upper Columbia River Basin.
Encourage resource scientists from agencies in Canada and the U.S. to collaborate more on resource issues and to be involved in more resource decisions. A network system for data and program exchange should be established, perhaps in the form of a web page, in order to connect existing programs within the short-term.
Commitments must be obtained from relevant management agencies to apply ecosystem management principles and approaches equitably and as soon as possible in order to commence restructuring of the large-scale system organisation and process issues. Incentives must be developed to support a change in the status quo (e.g., the creation of incentives to change water allocation management practices to be in keeping with an ecosystem-based approach to management).
Produce periodic "State of the Basin" reports that address issues such as improving data collection and format. Existing assessments of watershed health could be used, as well as existing funding sources.
Effort should be focused on developing a transboundary agreement on water quality and biological resources in relation to priorities and management strategies. A long term effort should commence focused upon assessing the relationship between nutrients and biological productivity, in order that agencies and interest groups truly understand the trade-offs between "cleaning-up" water quality and fish production. These issues are particularly important in relation to stocking practices.
Encourage the creation of watershed councils. There is a need to create economic supports and incentives to facilitate the establishment of watershed groups. Other areas should investigate the example of the State of Washington, which legislated the creation and funding of these councils through House Bill 2514, 1998.
Explore alternative electricity supplies, improved water-use efficiencies, the use of recycled construction materials, energy conservation and power-generation peak-shaving on both sides of the border as a means of creating additional dollars to implement ecosystem-based management or pursue ecosystem-based management initiatives.
In order to deal with unknown factors, we should aim to identify information deficiencies and design a process to collect the needed information. Efforts should focus on creating or providing a process to quantify and account for water withdrawals, and the volume of water that is used for hydropower generation. The work group strongly agreed that in order for society to decide means to improve our water use, and move toward ecosystem-based management, we require a better understanding of the quantity of water we are using. A time period of three years was deemed as an appropriate target to gather information on the volume of water withdrawals, and five years for a better understanding of hydropower volumes. In the medium-term, efforts should be targeted to the compilation of a physical and biological inventory of the sub-basin and basin.
Standardise measurements and data reporting formats. Ideally, this would be completed within five years, but it could take longer. We should be targeting our efforts to identifying specific information needs and determining ways to address the deficiencies. Reference was made to resource processes applying the environmental management protocol embodied in ISO 14000.
Given the number of re-licensing processes to be initiated within the next two years there is a tremendous opportunity to encourage collaborative decision making prior to re-license of dams, including all levels and both the U.S. and Canada. The Cabinet Gorge re-licensing process was cited as an opportunity for a collaborative solutions and resolutions on a number of issues for all affected parties, including fish passage, water quality, and fisheries enhancement.
Examine and revise existing legal frameworks. Following the identification of these strategies and actions the work group highlighted that it may be necessary to examine and revise our existing legal frameworks to ensure our ability to successfully implement the strategies and actions described above.

8.0 Opportunities for Ecosystem-Based Management in the Upper Columbia River Basin: Summary and Conclusions of the Transboundary Workshop The Columbia River is the dominant river system in the Pacific Northwest United States and south eastern British Columbia. Its health is of vital importance to communities and stakeholders on both sides of the border. Resource managers in Canada and the United States recognize that open, honest communication and effective information sharing are important foundations for resolving land and water use conflicts, and are essential to economic and environmental sustainabilty in the Columbia Basin. To this end, an international workshop, entitled Toward Ecosystem-Based Management in the Upper Columbia River Basin: An International Conference and Workshop, was convened in April, 1998 to foster information exchange and cooperation among resource managers, First Nations, policy makers, scientists, industry, environmental groups and concerned citizens.

"We're all from different places and different races, but for the next few days we're all of one heart - to preserve and protect our natural resource."

Workshop delegates advocated an ecosystem-based approach to managing the Upper Columbia River Basin. Unlike past approaches to resource management which consider community, economic and environmental factors separately and in isolation of each other, ecosystem-based management integrates and inextricably links all these factors from planning through decision-making, law-making and implementation. Ecosystems managed in this way are healthy, livable and prosperous. Some of the opportunities for ecosystem-based management in the Upper Columbia River Basin are summarized in Appendix 5. Workshop delegates responded to the challenge of fostering ecosystem-based management in the Upper Columbia River Basin by developing a common vision for the future, identifying the factors that are constraining our ability to achieve this vision, and recommending a series of strategic actions to support watershed sustainability. Some of the key recommendations developed include:

Incorporate the results of the workshop into to series of Principles for Ecosystem-Based Management;
Develop a Sustainability Charter for the Upper Columbia River Basin that encompasses the common vision for the future and the Principles for Ecosystem-Based Management. Encourage interested organizations to sign on to the Charter and use it to guide their activities;
Conduct an independent assessment of the state of ecosystem management in the Upper Columbia River Basin (reporting by 2001);
Use the re-licencing of dams as an opportunity to explore alternate governance models, encourage collaborative decision-making, and consider a broader range of societal values;
Establish Watershed Councils and, possibly, International Watershed Boards to coordinate planning and decision-making functions; and,
Develop watershed management plans on a sub-basin and basin wide basis;

Commitment: To support the First Nations treaty-making process in B.C. to advance ecosystem management principles. Progress: Initial contacts have been made with each of the First Nations in the basin; appropriate follow-up activities will be identified in consultation with each First Nation. Commitment: To establish a total gas pressure (TGP) working group to coordinate research and mitigation efforts in the basin. Progress: A transboundary TGP working group, comprised of more than 50 individuals from both sides of the border, has been established; two meetings of the working group have been convened.

The international workshop was intended to be one step in a longer-term process to advance ecosystem management objectives in the Upper Columbia River Basin. In the near-term, the next steps include communicating the workshop results to decision-makers and the public on both sides of the border, continuing to follow through on the commitments that were made at the workshop, and compiling the Principles for Ecosystem-Based Management. In the longer-term, there is a need to convene another workshop to share new information, report on the progress that has been made, continue the strategic planning process, and renew our shared commitment to sustainability in the Upper Columbia River Basin. Appendix 1. Additional Details on the Upper Kootenay River, Lake Koocanusa, and Middle Kootenay River Basin A1.1 Detailed Comments Related to Key Elements of a Vision In addition to the specific themes identified in Section 3.1, participants in smaller discussion groups identified a number of additional elements that should be considered in the pursuit of an ecosystem-based management in the Upper Columbia River Basin and this particular sub-basin. These elements related to five general topic areas:

Regulatory

Improved land use planning that minimizes the human footprint.
Systems characterized by natural hydrographs which meet the full range of ecological and community needs.

Societal, Cultural & Community

A managed approach to population growth (including recreational uses) and access to the land base that recognizes the capacity of the ecosystem.
Where dams have been removed, downstream communities have been equitably protected. All settlement has been removed from flood plains.
A new approach to agriculture is being pursued, one that focuses on growing crops suitable to the basin (e.g., rice, and cranberries).
Resources are conserved through lifestyle and societal changes that reduce the overall demand.

Economic

Economic returns are optimized, through increased value-added initiatives which go beyond resource extraction and primary manufacturing.
Economic benefits are returned to individual communities. Environment
Environmental degradation has been minimized, damaged ecosystems are restored and species rehabilitated wherever possible, based on an understanding of long-term ecological patterns.
Ecosystem productivity and biodiversity are maintained and enhanced.
Environmental degradation has been minimized, to ensure clean water and air sheds. All developments are evaluated through cumulative impact assessments. Resource extractors pay the full cost of reclamation.

Institutional

Centres of excellence, such as the Creston Valley Wildlife Management area, are in place across the basin.

A1.2 Detailed Recommendations for Supporting Ecosystem-Based Management In addition to the "key" points identified in Section 3.4, participants identified many other actions that could be taken to move the sub-basin and in fact, the entire basin towards ecosystem-based management. Participants also provided additional detail related to implementing some "key" actions. These suggestions include the following:

Economic Actions

Expand the BC Small Business Forest Enterprise Program, which encourages small business operators in the forestry sector.
Expand local value-added programs and efforts to encourage entrepreneurs.
Diversify local economies.
Identify long-term stable funding sources to facilitate ecosystem-based planning and management.

Regulatory Actions

Set water quality objectives that are agreed to throughout the basin.
Develop a land-use planning model that is inclusive, binational, and region wide. Begin land-use planning on a sub-basin level that starts by considering ecological regions. Its success will depend on the commitment and support from all governments, on both sides of the border.

Environmental Actions

Develop strategies to overcome problems related to the intentional and unintentional introduction of non-indigenous species to the sub-basin.
Return the ecosystem to an ecological norm while maintaining biological integrity.
Develop an ecosystem report card to monitor change.

Technical Actions

Develop a staged, incremental plan for dam removal.
Offset the impacts of the dams, until they are removed, in order to restore the biological communities.

Institutional Actions

Land-use planning process could be facilitated jointly by the Columbia Basin Trust and the Northwest Power Planning Council, have dedicated resources (staff and money) and incorporate both traditional knowledge and technical information.
The proposed basin-wide entity should consider existing models such as Saskatchewan's basin boards and Ontario's conservation authorities.

Societal, Cultural & Community Actions

A sustainable grassroots movement is needed to ensure ecosystem-based approaches are considered and understood in planning processes and decision-making (leaders will follow the people) and to encourage ownership.
Educate the general public and decision-makers about issues and opportunities related to fish and wildlife, natural resource management, energy conservation, ground water management etc.
Volunteers could be recruited to assist with information sharing within the education systems; students should have ecological work experiences as part of the curriculum.
Increase understanding of how people live on the land (e.g., Columbia Basin Trust's Living Landscape project) and share that information across the basin.

Appendix 2. Additional Details on Duncan Reservoir, Kootenay Lake, and Lower Kootenay River Basin A2.1 Detailed Comments Related to Key Elements of a Vision In addition to the elements of the long-term vision that were identified in Section 4.2, individual discussion group participants developed a number of additional ideas on the vision. The discussion groups' ideas fell into five categories, including institutional, ethical/social, condition of resources(both aquatic and terrestrial), economic, and other. These ideas are listed below:

Institutional Vision

Local management with provincial/federal setting larger priorities; decision-making at the regional level.
Democracy truly works; increased accountability.
First Nations are represented on all bodies.
Decision-making community based. If outsiders introduce something, they must consult.
Multi-stakeholder management Board must create response plans for extreme events. (*)
Ecosystem mechanism for dealing with conflict.(*)
More effective land-use planning. (*********)
Community-based land-use control. (**)
People's activities more regulated (e.g. no building on flood plains).
Direct say in regulation for residents;
Regional centres of ecological and other expertise.(*)
Adequate knowledge to understand natural systems.(*)
Adequate funding to fill information / data gaps in understanding.
Effective monitoring of systems.
Full public and scientific access to results. (******)
Well developed international agreements to fund and manage fisheries.
Residents/ organizations support broader initiatives (national & international) that support local conditions (***) Ethical and Social Ideas
Awareness of need for self-sufficiency - where our food etc. comes from.
Management less by government, more by ecological conscience.
Consideration for future generations -- 20 years - 200 years. (**** )
Respect each other and all life.
Traditional/scientific knowledge are considered in management decisions. (*)
Recognition and respect for cultural and spiritual values put into practice.
All users satisfied their needs are respected/met.
Population expanded- doubled or much more.
People living in valley bottoms.
Good information and feedback built into management processes.
More closely resembles original (pre-human) landscape, fish and wildlife populations at earlier levels. (*)
Spiritual value of nature appreciated.
Human creative activities express spiritual value of nature.
Quality of life approximately as now- not degraded.
Recreational opportunities maintained, "out-door" life possible.
More individual effort to keep ecosystem healthy. (*)
People better educated as to consequences of actions. (******)
Residents more locally focused- more local activities.
Residents less consumptive (including traveling less)
50-70% fewer cars /more transit.
Diverse communities.(****)
Appropriate/ assimilatable rates of change.
Houses use natural heating/cooling (appropriate north/south orientation used).

Conditions of Resources

Wilderness is managed for wilderness values. (**)
More value-added, less extractive.
Species/habitat totally monitored -- management reserves.
Streams rehabilitated--fully functioning
Healthy human and wildlife populations.
Land/water-use reflects limitations.
Better balance of power interests and water-based recreation.
Salmon are back.
Communities are concentrated --people live closer to work.
Resources used with conservation as key --sustainable, equitable, efficient.
Watersheds highly managed for flood control, power, irrigation, recreation/urban/ wilderness. (**)
Areas set aside for no development. (*)
Ongoing monitoring in order to take corrective action. (*)
Domestic and community watersheds prohibit development.
High value recreational fisheries in reservoirs.
Increased pressures so areas are designated for uses.
Minimize conflict over resources - all parties involved. (*)
Water quality sufficient to maintain native fisheries (indigenous species). (***)
Fish populations self-maintaining (no human management needed).
Biodiversity of indigenous species maintained or enhanced. (*********)
Natural flow regimes accepted.
Balance between power production and fishery health. (*)
Recreational fishing still possible.
Riparian areas and uplands used in manner that supports high water quality. (**)
Shorelines repaired and restored.
Wildlife populations are self-sustaining without human management. ]
Biodiversity of indigenous species at same or higher levels. (***)
Healthy, fully functioning terrestrial system.

Economic Vision

Fusion and other possibilities rather than hydro-electric. (***)
Self-sufficient in energy production.
Road building unnecessary --mass transit used, not individual vehicles.
Discharges/reservoirs managed to maintain all fish species.
Dismantled Duncan Dam in favour of fish/forests.
Forestry harvesting sustainable.
Meaningful work that supports sustainability. (******)
Full cost accounting is in common use. (*****)
Economy offers a variety of opportunities and supports high level of educational and health services.
Local areas self-sufficient in food production to extent possible. (*)
High level of economic activity supports larger population.
More resources processed to higher level locally.
Small mining flourishes as a sustainable activity.

Other Ideas

Decommission Duncan Dam.
Hydro power a minor part of power supply.
Individual residences/businesses self-generate own power.
Ecological footprint of human activities well understood --footprint has been steadily decreasing for 25 years.
Changes in the environment are understood and people and institutions are working with them (e.g., climate change). (**********)

A2.2 Detailed Recommendations for Supporting Ecosystem-Based Management

Recommended Immediate Action

To address the goal of coordinated action to achieve ecosystem-based management, the group wanted to see the Columbia Basin Trust take the initiative to convene and fund a task force to investigate:
The best way to proceed;
What the mandate of any body / bodies should be;
What functions should be undertaken;
How coordinated action / planning could be funded;
Who should be involved;
What the geographic scope should be;
Appropriate relationship to the International Joint Commission and proposed watershed councils;
How to minimize effects of the border between the US and Canada;
How to deal with private actions and private property rights; and,
How to best educate the public on ecosystem functioning and management.

Recommended Immediate Action - Specific to Duncan Sub-Basin In the following recommendations, the asterisks indicate the number of dots each idea received in the quick priority setting exercise. Hence, recommendations with more asterisks should be considered to be of higher priority.

Determine how water management at the dam affects fish, fish habitats, and fish passage both above and below the dam: (******)
Determine status of baseline information; and, ( may be lacking)
The group thought that BC Hydro, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks should be involved.
Synthesize information on relationships between terrestrial and aquatic components of the ecosystem: (*****)
Identify and fill information gaps; and,
Identify restoration needs and options for terrestrial and aquatic components of the ecosystem(s).
Determine how to ensure fish passage above and below the Duncan Dam; (*)
Eventually do site specific investigations downstream.

Possible Actions to Address Fragmented Knowledge and Specialization

Do an inventory of all resources in the basin, comprehensive, covering all sectors.
Pursue coordination of agencies' actions / initiatives / information / research.

Options to Address Lack of Political Will and Short-term Thinking

Establish ecosystem information centres and/or "ombudspersons":
To find information and disseminate it; and,
To respond to resident requests for information.
To provide information that addresses "state of the watershed" questions.
Establish "ecosystem liaison personnel" to do the above options proposed:
Assign a staff person in each MLA's office (This was considered as one way to raise the political profile of ecosystem-based approaches and to educate politicians.);
Designate permanent staff in ecosystem information centres (as above) or other organizations; and,
Columbia Basin Trust sponsor / fund the function, personnel and / or educational activities (The group felt strongly that this function should be carried out by people, not publications. That is they wanted people they could contact and talk to for information.)
Prioritize aquatic / fisheries issues and options.
Incorporate aquatic and fisheries issues into land-use planning. (It was pointed out by some participants that the Kootenay Boundary Land-Use Plan virtually ignores fisheries concerns.)
Columbia Basin Trust to convene all affected and responsible parties:
Change terms of reference of the CBT, if necessary, to allow this and expand its mandate;
CBT to take a stronger linkage role;
CBT to support basin culture; and,
At the larger geographic scale, forge new institutional arrangements if necessary. Link to bigger scale, basin wide and beyond.
International Joint Commission as a possible umbrella for watershed consultations/ priorities.
Create a permanent Columbia Basin Watershed Forum:
Report state of the watershed biannually; and,
Build on partnerships.
Create a joint task force of local, provincial, federal governments and the Columbia Basin Trust to establish a multi-stakeholder, co-management board including CBT, local governments, First Nations, agencies, and non-governmental organizations which will:
Develop a regional export business plan;
Utilize full cost accounting;
Acquire participant funding; and,
Develop co-management capacity.

Actions to Address Consumerism, Lifestyle Expectations and Resistance to Change

Educate self and others as to ecological footprint - share that information.
Do personal environmental audits.
Educate youth on their / people's ecological footprints - encourage them to change their habits to have a smaller footprint.
Promote self-sufficiency:
Local food production;
Organize local / regional marketing;
Develop community-based gardens; and,
The group wanted the Columbia Basin Trust to promote and assist in the organization and promotion of actions to increase self-sufficiency.
Encourage recycling and reuse. Additional Suggestions for the Duncan Sub-Basin
Take the results of previous work and see what can be implemented. (*******)
Determine how water management. (******)
Identify potential environmental disturbances from forestry, agriculture, other industry, private users, etc.: (****)
Identify impacts on riparian areas.
Create community forest boards in the sub-basin: (***)
Provide for a larger community voice in forestry practices and management.
Assess the social and economic resiliency of the sub-basin, its ability to deal with change: (*)
With a view to identifying ways to increase the resiliency.
Bridge users' understanding / perspectives, especially at the community level, to reduce polarization and get groups working together: (*)
The group suggested action projects as the suggested focus and way of proceeding here.
Pressure / lobby members of parliament and members of the legislative assembly to request the International Joint Commission to set up a watershed management board for the Duncan/ Kootenay Lake / Lower Kootenay River sub-basin.

Suggested Actions Individuals Can Take The members of one of the sub-groups were challenged by their facilitator to come up overnight with one action they personally could take to contribute to establishing ecosystem-based management. The following suggestions were made.

Get Involved! in local community groups and lobby politicians to effect change.
Initiate a group of local residents that would develop a better understanding of the "local" ecosystem.
Budgets / priorities for monitoring - role of training volunteers to help scientists.
Limitations/constraints - People's objections to tighter controls. Question as not understanding the need. I think better to educate and motivate than to mandate.
Look at impacts of individual actions on other individuals and not just pointing the finger at government and industry. Share responsibility. Share in restoration efforts.
Crucial to look at individuals' roles and responsibilities, especially in riparian areas (all waterfront residents) and to educate, stimulate, motivate raising awareness of individual actions.
Act locally / take responsibility / share your knowledge.
Focus on your strength. Active interest, not passive interest = responsibility.
Please consider concept of "motivation" in "education" and "awareness" programs stressing benefits to individuals (the public). Action needed now especially on riparian areas.
I will remove part of my lawn and plant some food.
I will become more active in attending and participating in public forums and processes, as well as recycling, carpooling, gardening and reducing consumption.
Be more personally involved in public (informal) education.
Understand source of confirmed items.
Seek locally produced and low energy requiring products.
Attempt to think seven generations ahead, instead of less than one.
I will reduce my use of electricity by using a clothesline.
I will also assess my hydroelectric consumption.

Appendix 3. Additional Details on the Kinbasket Lake and Revelstoke Lake Basin A3.1 Detailed Comments Related to Key Elements of a Vision In addition to the vision elements listed in Section 5.2, the participants in the Kinbasket Lake and Revelstoke Lake work group developed more a more detailed vision. The elements of the long-term vision are described below:

Economy General

Economy less boom and bust; healthy employment conditions for all age groups, youth can build future in their community.
World model of ecosystem friendly industry.
Telecommuting.
New economic system which provides meaningful employment so that people participate in global economic system but are not "slaves" to it (e.g. jerked around by commodity prices), less environmental impact.
No subsidies; people pay true cost of resource use including environmental and social costs (full cost accounting); reduced ecological footprint.
Live and buy locally to reduce environmental impacts and support local economy. Power Production (The description of water management under environment section)
Independent power producers on some small streams (run of river), but limited so as not to create too much environmental impact.
Revelstoke remains as run of river dam generating power (less environmental impact than adding lots of IPP projects).
Some movement towards removing big dams as energy conservation increases, and energy production becomes more efficient.
New electricity storage technologies reduce need for water storage of electricity, and need for daily fluctuations in water levels.
Hydrogen cells, cogeneration, solar, wind, cold fusion.
Global carbon tax has increased pressure to use hydroelectricity, but increased conservation and improved renewables counteracts this pressure.
Climate change slowed because of reduced fossil fuel use. Some stabilization or reversal of current global trends. Forestry
Sustainable forestry established in sub-basin; no clear-cutting and strong adherence to the Forest Practices Code.
Smaller cut blocks.
Less reliance on logging as backbone of economy; more secondary manufacturing adding wealth to the community.
Underwater logging in Kinbasket Reservoir, providing income and reducing hazard, while increasing aesthetics.
Alternate fiber supplies to reduce logging (e.g. hemp).
Forest cover is healthy providing sustainable jobs.

Recreation

High recreational value.
4-season recreation attracting visitors from outside the region and maintaining the economy (skiing, camping, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing; reduce snowmobile access to limit impacts on wildlife).
Well managed, major tourism / recreation sector with strong access management.
Non-consumptive fish/wildlife uses.
Health "spa" retreats for stressed out people living in the rest of the world.

Mining

Increased mining of gold, lead and zinc, but strictly controlled to maintain water and land quality.

Environmental Water Management

Reduced drawdown of Kinbasket reservoir (36 - 40ft.), through reduced maximum pool elevation and increased minimum pool:
More natural hydrograph;
Stabilized reservoir shorelines;
Stable daily flows and reduced load-flow shaping through development and use of new electricity storage technologies;
various reservoirs used for flood control, but not power generation because alternative energy for home use - cold fusion, hydrogen cells, cogeneration, solar, wind, etc.;
VS. Kinbasket used to moderate extreme flows downstream resulting from global climate change; and,
Big battle around Mica flow fluctuations.
Revelstoke remains run of river operation.

Fisheries

Lakes and streams support excellent fisheries:
Enhance and maintain spawning and rearing habitat u/s of Kinbasket reservoir; and,
Sustainable fisheries in Revelstoke and Kinbasket reservoirs.
Fish communities dominated by native species.
Research and long-term monitoring programs re: reservoir productivity:
Learn from mistakes in other impoundments.
Aquatic communities left alone so they don't need 'Band-Aid' management interventions:
Fish and other aquatic organism populations self-sustaining; allowed to change naturally; allow for evolutionary processes.
Restoration of riparian zones around Kinbasket reservoir through planting of willows, sedges, etc., which act as a nutrient source, improve aesthetics.
Fish ladders on all the dams.
Anadromous fish restored in abundance and diversity to their previous natural range.

Water quality

High water quality in rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs, and in groundwater:
Tertiary sewage treatment, then distribute nutrients to support aquatic productivity in reservoirs.
Strict 'domestic' water standards for Revelstoke and Kinbasket reservoirs.
Landslides from road building, etc. controlled.
Glaciers reduced due to global warming; therefore increased water clarity.

Reduced forest harvesting

Protected areas

Need for expanded system of protected areas.
Mt. Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks are connected and expanded to include a portion of the Columbia River valley.
of Kinbasket watershed as wildlife preserve and continuous with Jasper and Banff National Parks.
Increase opportunities for local communities to use and appreciate Jasper and north Hamber Parks.
Increased number of protected areas which provide for some use (biosphere reserves).
Wildlife corridors link all protected areas in the region and cross all major transportation routes.
Connectivity to provide for ability to respond to ecosystem perturbations.
Especially important to protect wetlands; some marginal agricultural areas should be restored as protected wetlands.
Foresight -- hopefully we can look back in 50 years and see that we protected areas before they were degraded.
No new north-south road connections.
No grizzly bear hunting in the region.
Columbia Valley wetlands protected with adequate buffer strips.
Kinbasket reservoir -- restricted access continues to protect wildlife.
Old growth ecosystems restored and allowed to function naturally.

Institutional/Regulations Columbia River Treaty renegotiated for 2024

New treaty between USA and Canada recognizes multiple use in the basin and has local decision-making.
New binational body to coordinate management of Columbia River system for a broader range of values -- Permanent Ecological Board to supersede PEB.
New flood agreement with US; DSBs used for riparian restoration.

Different and simplified institutional arrangements

One Sub-Basin plan for all land (crown and private) consistent with overall plan for entire Columbia Basin

Communities Population growth and distribution

Regional land use plan in place to minimize impacts of population growth.
Population has doubled and stabilized (30,000).
Donald - Revelstoke area is re-populated, so that there are local people who care VS. limited recreational use around Kinbasket; maintain for wildlife; no land development around reservoirs; mining and logging are less damaging.
Urban sprawl eliminated; development outside cities limited.
People live in small communities, not isolated acreages; consolidation.
Limit development areas but accept population growth; mainly in Golden and Revelstoke.
Reduced roads; more walking, biking, transit, etc.
Live locally; bioregionalism; reduce ecological footprint.
Lakeshore development around Rev. reservoir for tourism, but fewer people living downstream of reservoirs due to earthquakes.

Stringent regulations

Will be in place to manage residential development activities. Regulations may limit the number of houses in an area, and thus the local/regional population.

No building on flood plains

Turf management of golf courses to reduce environmental impacts

Reduce water use.
Eliminate use of toxins (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.).

Number and extent of lawns are reduced and or eliminated

Institute 'backyards for wildlife' programs in all communities.

Shift from tax-based land use perspective to ecosystem perspective

Use both water quality and biodiversity criteria to regulate development

Solid waste management
Less solid waste as a result of 4R programs.
Expand what we can recycle in the basin. Need to develop bear-proof community composting systems.
Energy recovery from garbage.
Need better facilities to allow for better handling of wastes, include hazardous wastes (e.g., paints and solvents for reuse).

Social Education

Education about ecosystems emphasized - part of curriculum in all schools:
All children connect directly and meaningfully with local natural areas.
Highest per capita rate of highly-trained professional people.
School system encourages creativity and exploration.

In 50 years time, our society in the basin will be thinking 500 years in advance

Understand historical, social, biological and cultural context

Know who we are and where we have been -- have an objective record of both human and natural history.

Healthy employment conditions such that youth can build future in their community

Area's great natural beauty is protected and utilized

Residents and visitors enjoy water recreation opportunities in the area

Overall/Holistic

Individual citizens have assumed greater environmental responsibility, reflected in their day to day activities and lifestyle.
People are managed instead of ecosystems being managed; manage ourselves, not the environment.
The value of being the 'source' for the Columbia basin ecosystem is recognized:
Least-impacted part of entire Columbia Basin.
Ecosystem values are highest priority; have people bought in to 'ecosystem management'.
Resource use is ethical, humane and sustainable.
Basin is a world leader/model in predictive science and ecosystem management.
Major research focus given gradient in ecosystems types within the region.
Basin is a world leader/model in sustainable human populations.
One people -- we're all Canadians.

A3.2 Detailed Comments on the Constraints and Recommendations for Ecosystem-Based Management In addition to the constraints and recommendations that were identified in Section 5.3, the work group participants offered the following detailed insights for transitioning to ecosystem-based management.

Environmental Quality/Information Base Constraints

Limited ability to enforce environmental regulations (e.g. FPC).
Deal with urgent concerns (e.g. prevent extinction of endangered species; prevent degradation of human health) while doing more systematic modeling and impact assessments (water quality - Revelstoke and Slocan; air quality - use of wood for heat, beehive burners).

Climate change

Insufficient information and understanding to assess actions and impacts. Lack of understanding of long-term impacts. Lack of understanding of ecosystem processes and functions (vs. natural resource management approach) and species interactions.
Lack of funding for research.
Dismantling of long term monitoring.

Actions

Through an iterative process, develop a scientifically defensible model of impacts of actions on environment. Use this model to identify data gaps and develop research and monitoring programs.
Identify implications, tradeoffs, integrate information.
Need for environmental surcharge on resource use, e.g., FRBC, Environmental Conservation Fund, Fisheries Renewal BC, Duck Unlimited) Environmental levy on energy bills to pay for research and monitoring programs (1 - 2 years).
Basin governments should get a share of hydro revenues to be used for research, monitoring and mitigation of impacts.
Support ecosystem research and disseminate results. Monitor long term effects and measure real costs. For example, support early implementation of Water Use Plans in the Columbia basin to develop information base on relationships between aquatic productivity and drawdown (reservoirs) and flow fluctuations (downstream reaches).
Involve other knowledgeable groups (e.g. Conservation Data Centre) (1 - 2 years)
Re wood heat: regulations, technologies, incentives to reduce air quality problems (3 - 5 years).
Maintain sufficient resources to enforce regulations (1 - 2 years; ongoing).
Monitor, participate and learn from global commitments (1 - 2 years; ongoing).
Development estimate of ecological footprint from sub-basin.

Economic Activities Constraints

Poor telecommunications.
Regional zoning can be a constraint to ecosystem vision.
Sustainability of forestry - short vs. long term harvest.
Money generated in the region leaves it. Funding is controlled by those who prefer the status quo. This limits the scope of solutions or even what questions are asked and researched.
Size, skill and commitment of the labour force.
Poor transportation (esp. winter) for commodities and goods.
Lack of cooperation among communities.
Land base is limited; patchwork of land tenures.
The global economy rewards short-term thinking that compromises environmental social values and future generations. Concentration of ownership of media.
Lack of revenues to basin from hydro generation.
Hidden (environmental, social) subsidies of energy industries.
High unemployment.
High proportion of land committed to forest harvesting.

Actions

Upgrade telecommunications (1 - 3 years).
Ecological land use plan based on integrated model. Build on CORE. Expand CORE by looking at time frames associated with changing land tenures. ID what areas are most appropriate for what uses.
Develop package tours across the region.
Provide accessibility for seniors.
Re forestry: Add time dimension to CORE assessments. 50 - 100 year time scale. Look at climate change and disturbance regimes.
Re land base limitations: Map land ownership, tenure and time limits to set boundaries on achievable change. Re-examine tenure and tenure allocation in B.C.
Develop regulations based on an ecological footprint for economic enterprises and privately-owned land.
Recognize difference between private and crown tenure land.
Pressure government to return tax revenues. Calculate net inflows to/from region.
Attract environmentally-benign industries. Need for a plan to attract these industries.
Economic strategies and plans need to be more focused on long-term benefits (include. forestry AAC).
Provide vision and direction for the future that encompasses long term thinking and basin thinking.
Eliminate environmental subsidies of energy production/consumption.
Look at making a living, as opposed to simply getting a job.

Political/Legal/Regulatory/Institutions Constraints

Insufficient legislation (endangered species).
Scope of ecosystem management is much broader than CRT.
Overlapping mandates between agencies/governments, jurisdictions.
Political and administrative boundaries are not ecological.
Need to change land ownership/jurisdiction in order to create additional protected areas.
Ecosystem management not incorporated into agency mandates.
No ecosystem management curriculum at post-secondary level.
Political, community and funding constraints limit establishment of coordinating body
Focus of the Columbia River Treaty on flood control and power.
Non-treaty storage agreement.
Global economic/trade agreements (e.g. MAI, NAFTA).
Land claims.

Actions

Have one environmental regulatory body for the Canadian Columbia River Basin.
Avoid duplication between EC and MELP for example. This needs to be looked at carefully. Look at FREMP model of coordination.
Develop elder and youth councils; work with them in situations in which they are comfortable.
Re CRT: i) Research and document CRT impacts before negotiating changes; ii) Develop TOR for a commission to plan for a broader range of benefits from Columbia River water management; to be presented for ratification/implementation by the IJC.
Re NTSA: Don't sell without investigating all impacts and all values.
Re MAI/NAFTA: Ensure binational and international agreements retain regional autonomy, flexibility, participation.
Re land claims: Resolve these to the satisfaction of all parties.
Re agency mandates: Establish agency mandates for biodiversity and ecosystem management

Societal and Community Values Constraints

Growth in population in the Okanagan sub-basin has political ramifications affecting what can be done in the rest of the Columbia Basin. Urban-rural.
Unconstrained use of private land.
Lack of political will to lead a change in values.
Ecosystem approach not generally accepted as important.
Isolation of youth.
Short-term thinking.
View of quality of life - varies with stage of life.
Independence; desire for less government and less government intervention.
Society values quick, technical fixes.

Actions

Education from grade school up.
Marketing: 'Eco-condos', 'Eco-heroes'.
Better transportation options than cars (e.g. communal vans).
Exchange visits within Columbia Basin (e.g. eco-camp for kids; between First Nations and other cultures. Look to Rediscovery model).
Regions (sub-basins) should be required to meet their energy needs within the region.
Political structures should reflect sustainability; not just 'rep by pop'.
Change in political structure to support democratic decision making.
Information, education and accountability to address constraint of short-term thinking.
Address desire for less government by investigating alternative ways of achieving land use goals through incentives and education as opposed to simply regulations.

Appendix 4. Detailed Comments on the Arrow Lakes, Upper Columbia River, and Roosevelt Lake Basin A4.1 Detailed Recommendations for Advancing the Prospects for Ecosystem-Based Management Work group participants developed a number of detailed recommendations for advancing the prospects for ecosystem-based management in the Arrow Lakes, Upper Columbia River and Lake Roosevelt basin, as follows:

1. Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council Forum is open and workable. Arrow Lakes should set up a similar forum to bring parties together on the issues.

2. Evaluate and decide as a region whether or not support the IJC proposal to establish International watershed boards (which must be adequately funded and community driven).

3. Explore the feasibility of a trans-boundary (non-regulatory; inter-jurisdictional ) consultative forum to provide the vehicle for linking citizens and government agencies, on both sides of the border, to share information, vision, goals and opinions regarding the issues surrounding the watershed.

4. Expand the CRIEMP "agreement" to communicate with the Roosevelt Water Quality Council. Use CRIEMP as technical support for a forum for Arrow Lakes. CRIEMP can gather, interpret and present technical information gathered north of the border.

5. Prepare for re-negotiation of the Columbia River Treaty that requires giving notice by 2014. Determine who should participate and what needs to be done.

6. Create an umbrella international organization for watershed management, water quality for short term and long term planning processes which deal with such issues such as identifying information gaps, data collection, water flows and levels, wildlife, water quality, and energy strategies including non-Hydro and water use plans. Refine IJC? 7. Share results of conference with the BC Washington Environmental Cooperation Council and seek their concurrence on considering and moving forward with the recommendations of the conference.

8. The results and relative consensus of the ideas of this conference be presented to our respective governments (preferable in a forum where they are gathered together). This would address one of the largest road blocks to ecosystem management. Political leaders must address the issue of public and private resource issues.

9. Columbia Basin Trust meet with Environment Canada to see if they would support a recommendation for an IJC watershed Board to promote and communicate results of this conference.

10. Every relevant funding agency, organization and industry commit funds to support community based environmental/ecological projects and long term strategies and agreements to increase understanding within and to rebuild communities.

11. Fund incentive programs to develop alternate/safe energy sources.

12. Do a feasibility study on how salmon could be brought back to the Columbia Basin.

13. Develop a chat room on the web to have a dialogue on values for watershed management within the basin. Have the IJC or a joint agency create a network/web site to collate projects/ data collection, etc.

14. Develop a communications plan to disseminate information, share values, experience diverse cultures, educate the public on environmental, economic and political systems, and relay the vision for the Columbia River Basin. (Confucius said ' you can never understand a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes'.)

15. Salmon restoration efforts could potentially include ladder/removal of Chief Joseph and GCD. Find a salmon gene pool (diverse) imprinted to BC water.

16. Create an invisible international boundary.

17. Limit the geographic scope of the systems to areas of community influence.

18. Develop a comprehensive information center.

19. Look for success stories for the Basin and reconvene a conference in several years to talk about and learn from the successes.

20. Develop a science plan based on 50 years.

21. Develop comprehensive educational programs on the importance of water and its relationship to all we do in the Basin on both sides of the border.

22. Harmonize water quality objectives and standards across borders. Harmonize methodologies and scientific data to be gathered within the watershed.

23. Develop a joint by-national Basin Strategy in which the two countries work together, pooling talent, knowledge and resource to reach common goals and visions. Appendix 5. Detailed Comments on the Workshop Summary and Conclusions A5.1 Opportunities for Ecosystem-Based Management Workshop participants recognized that there are a number of emerging conditions in the Upper Columbia River Basin that are likely to foster a transition toward ecosystem-based management. These conditions were termed opportunities by workshop delegates and fell into three general categories, as follows:

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITIES

Social and Cultural Factors Changing beliefs and value systems

Shift in public sentiment (values) toward environmental responsibility.\
Environmental principles are now being taught from 'cradle to grave'.

Shifting public and political will

Growing commitment by some decision-makers, businesses, stakeholders, citizens.

Awareness/Education Improved information-sharing and public participation

Information is being provided and shared by a variety of institutions.
Move toward public participation and community-based information-sharing.
Technology to gather, analyze, interpret, present, and communicate critical information about the state of the ecosystem.

Improving data-gathering technologies

Improving information base and technology for environmental rehabilitation and protection.

Improving communications technology

Government Structures and Mechanisms Recognition of jurisdictional conflict, fragmentation, and duplication

Improving dialogue with First Nations and other interests.

More toward consensus-based decision-making

Move toward public participation and community-based decision-making.

Growing commitment to environment by some decision-makers.

Public support of enabling legislation

Pro-active planning

Growth management is possible.

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

Environment-driven management

Move towards encouraging responsible economic development.
Economic benefits attached to ecosystem-based management (e.g. high-tech industry).
People starting to recognize the value and economic benefits of water for all uses (e.g. industry, agriculture, tourism).
Water is a limiting factor in growth.

Increasing numbers of incentives and disincentives

Incentives (e.g. reduced lending rates) and disincentives (e.g. fines).

Emerging financial strategies

Mechanisms to charge what water is worth (e.g. metering).

Available and more affordable environmentally-friendly technology

ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES

Emerging attitudes and technologies

Human population and activities have impacted but not yet destroyed ecosystem (window of opportunity).
Good water- and land-based maintenance indicator species (e.g. Kokanee, anadromous sockeye, big horn sheep, bunch grass, sage brush, cactus).
Improved water quality.
New technology can rehabilitate past damage.

A5.2 Strategies for Achieving Ecosystem-Based Management Collectively, workshop delegates developed a number of important recommendations that would support a transition to ecosystem-based management in the Upper Columbia River Basin. These recommendations fell into three categories, including community recommendations, economic recommendations, and environmental recommendations. The recommendations that apply to individual sub-basins are included in the various sections of the report, while the recommendations that apply to the Upper Columbia River Basin, as a whole, are summarized in Section 8.0 and listed below:

COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATIONS

Social and Cultural Factors Develop and promote beliefs and value systems that support environmental health

Define 'ecosystem' and 'management' to develop collective understanding.
Promote the concept C "Think globally, act locally".
Identify ways to connect actions to ecosystems.
Articulate a basin culture.
Define and broaden this paradigm by consulting elder teams for historical information and youth teams for future vision; bring both groups together. Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) and Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) commit to providing support and facilitation to elder/youth teams. Seed funding and contributions in kind provided by various agencies.

Build Public and Political Will

Demand personal and political accountability.
Inform decision-makers of the refined basin culture and the trend toward ecosystem-based management; they must show how their programs reflect the paradigm.
Obtain commitments from relevant management agencies to apply ecosystem management principles and approaches equitably and as soon as possible.
Develop incentives to support a change in the status quo
e.g., Creation of incentives to change water allocation management practices to be consistent with an ecosystem-based approach.

Use demographic information to support and enhance ecosystem management

Promote elder and youth participation

Awareness/Education Promote understanding of the human/environment connection

Provide user-friendly information for decision-makers, stakeholders, students, and the public

Develop an overarching education program for the upper Columbia River Basin;
This education effort could be coordinated by a Columbia Basin Commission in conjunction with watershed councils. Technical experts could work with watershed councils in the development of educational programs; and,
Would include addressing constraints such as the lack of adequate information or inconsistent data reporting formats.
Pursue information sharing and education initiatives (web page, festivals, etc.):
CBT and NPPC to coordinate ongoing action such as another forum that includes a broader range of perspectives and stakeholders.
Convene regular fora on ecosystem management for scientists, practitioners, and the public (preferably by the CBT):
Encourages agencies, private sector, and civil society to embrace ecosystem management concept;
Enhances inter-organizational cooperation and collaboration; and,
Works with opinion leaders;
Establish ecosystem-information centres, ombudspersons, and/or ecosystem-liaison people.
Understand the trade-offs between "cleaning-up" water quality and fish production. These issues are particularly important in relation to stocking practices.
Produce periodic "State of the Basin" reports :
Undertaken by an objective party (e.g. IJC);
Could be coordinated by Columbia Basin Commission;
Address a wide variety of issues;
Examine mechanisms to improve effectiveness of ecosystem management;
Use existing assessments of watershed health; and
Use existing funding sources.
Take individual responsibility for educating themselves as to their ecological footprint by:
Doing a personal environmental audit;
Helping youth develop better (less consumptive and wasteful) habits; and,
Promoting self-sufficiency (e.g. in food and energy production).
Examine recommendations of previous workshops/processes to see what can be implemented now.
Distribute the recommendations of this conference to:
To the public, agencies and local governments, Tribes and First Nations, and industry;
By TV and other media; and,
Determine the potential for a TV documentary on the basin.
Present the recommendations of this conference to the B.C.-Washington Environmental Cooperation Council (comprised of state, provincial, and federal political leaders).
Create service organization (1 800 eco-syst) to help citizens and private sector get through regulatory processes related to ecosystem management.

Identify and overcome gaps in technical information

Encourage resource scientists from agencies in Canada and the U.S. to collaborate more on resource issues;
A network system for data and program exchange could connect existing programs (perhaps in the form of a web page). This could be established within the short-term.
Standardize measurements and data reporting formats.
Could be completed within five years;
Target efforts to identify specific information needs, determine ways to address deficiencies; and,
Apply the environmental management protocol embodied in the ISO 14000.
Identify information deficiencies and design processes to collect the needed information:
Quantify and account for water withdrawals. (Time frame: three years);
Quantify and account for volume of water used for hydropower generation. (Time frame: five years);
Compilation of a physical and biological inventory of the basin and sub-basins. (Time frame: medium-term);
Assessment of the relationship between nutrients and biological productivity;
Identify instream flow requirements; and,
Assess the true costs of human impacts on ecosystem resources.

Improve communication among stakeholders

Develop region-wide and basin-wide communication efforts to improve communication between and amongst scientists, decision-makers, stakeholders, the public, etc.
Web page with links;
Forums; and,
Overarching communications program could be coordinated by the Columbia Basin Commission in conjunction with watershed councils.

Government Structures and Mechanisms Overcome jurisdictional conflict and fragmentation

Coordinate government mandates (including bi-national) to support ecosystem-based management.
Establish a basin-wide entity and process. There is a need for all parties and all governments (federal, state, provincial , tribal, first nations) to come together to address shared issues. A coordinated effort is essential to address a variety of issues including dissolved gases, return of the salmon, stream restoration.
Work with First Nations to jointly develop and implement ecosystem management objectives.
Convene and fund a CBT Task Force that will investigate the best ways to achieve coordinated action:
This would include consideration of appropriate mandates, funding, geographic scope, relationship to the IJC (if any), how to deal with actions by private parties, and how to best educate the public on ecosystem-based management.
Establish a basin-wide initiative to develop a renewed mandate and structure for governance of dam operations, consistent with but in addition to the CBT:
Develop and evaluate a series of alternatives that would provide a range of benefits (flood control, power, fish and wildlife habitat, and amenity values);
Structure should include a strong independent scientific group (e.g. Independent Scientific Review Panel);
Mandate would include production and evaluation of alternatives for dam operations to provide a wider range of social, environmental, and economic benefits; and,
Initiative could be led by CBT and NPPC, with basin-wide, effective public consultation.
Establish a transboundary consultative forum linking citizens and government agencies on both sides of the border.
Improve communication and inter-governmental cooperation through the creation of a Columbia Basin Commission.
Could be modeled after the Fraser Basin Management Board;
The entity could coordinate activities within the Columbia River Basin, including dam operations and resource activities. It could also serve as an umbrella organization for watershed councils within the river basin;
The efforts, requiring long-term focus, should begin immediately with ongoing commitment and participation of existing organizations (e.g. CBT, NPPC) on both sides of the border;
Financial support could be provided through various avenues including federal, state, province, tribal, institutions, businesses, utilities, and other agencies; and,
These efforts would require long-term focus.

Manage water resources according to natural watershed and ecosystemboundaries

Establish a basin-wide entity to coordinate, facilitate, and oversee transboundary activities related to the achievement of ecosystem-based management.
Encourage the creation of watershed councils. (Investigate the example of the State of Washington, which legislated the creation and funding of these councils through House Bill 2514, 1998.)

Rethink and revise governance structures and mechanisms

Initiate 'nested' hierarchical associations.
Seek mechanisms for greater control by local communities for resource stewardship.
Implement the Columbia Basin water-use planning process (BC Government) as a priority.
Explore and evaluate IJC and other processes.
Establish a Canadian equivalent to the Lake Roosevelt Forum and the Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Council (CBT ad CRIEMP).
Apply ecosystem management principles and approaches equitably and as soon as possible in order to commence restructuring of the large-scale system organization and process issues.

Encourage informed and pro-active decision-making

Support the American Three Sovereigns process (federal, state, tribal) and Canadian processes to improve resource and watershed management decisions in the basin.
Increase involvement of resource scientists from Canadian and American agencies in resource decisions.
Encourage collaborative decision-making including all levels of government (both U.S. and Canada) in conjunction with re-licensing of dams:
A number of re-licensing processes will be initiated with in the next two years;
The Cabinet Gorge re-licensing process was cited as an opportunity for collaborative solutions and resolutions on a number of issues for all affected parties. Issues include fish passage, water quality, and fisheries enhancement.

Implement and enforce legislation that supports ecosystem-based management

Make Section 910 (Flood Plain Development Requirements) of the Municipal Act mandatory rather than optional (similar to U.S. legislation).
Include provisions in the Municipal Act that require ecosystem management to be included in OCPs, etc.
Introduce local and provincial legislation that reflects ecosystem management.
Develop and enact BC groundwater legislation.
Develop new legislation to address the connection between water rights and natural ecosystem needs.
Continue to pressure federal governments to ratify international agreements (e.g. relating to climate change, and biodiversity).
Support Canadian efforts to reconcile questions of aboriginal title and rights.
Support and utilize the treaty (CBT) to achieve ecosystem management objectives.
Prepare strategies for re-negotiating the Columbia River Treaty.
Work towards a transboundary agreement on water quality and biological resources in relation to priorities and management strategies.
Examine and, if necessary, revise existing legal frameworks to ensure successful implementation of ecosystem-based management.

Develop and implement pro-active and protective planning strategies and tools

Develop short-, medium-, and long-term plans for ecosystem-based management.
Develop comprehensive residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural water quality and conservation plans.
Improve land-use planning based on current models, recognizing this as an iterative process. Build on the experiences (including mistakes) of previous efforts.
Prepare watershed plans on a sub-basin and basin-wide basis.
Develop a discussion paper (CBT and NPPC) linking land-use planning, population growth, and growth management with ecosystem carrying capacity, and present it to local governments and communities.
Develop a comprehensive long-term planning process that includes environmental objectives, data, and restoration and remediation of damage caused by the dams.

ECONOMIC RECOMMENDATIONS

Promote the economic benefits of ecosystem-based management

Begin a process to forecast the economic implications of ecosystem-based management; begin to determine economic remedies.
Develop and implement an eco-evolutionary approach to economic development. Support long-term potential 'economic fitness' of region that benefits and is well adapted to unique features of each sub-basin, is resilient to change, and includes high integrity functions
Could be achieved through: inventory land commitments and economic plans, build on past CBT work, assess consistency with vision-dialogue, analysis, identify major future uncertainties, identify missing parts (e.g. telecommunications), use surcharge fund to catalyze evolution clear selection criteria, and let economy evolve (over five years). The process could be carried out by an independent commission started by the CBT. Technical input from a wide range of thinkers on world economy. Action can begin within two years.

Develop and implement incentives and disincentives

Provide financial incentives (e.g. tax breaks, reduced lending rates) and disincentives (e.g. fines) to encourage and reward environmental responsibility.
Create economic supports and incentives to facilitate the establishment of watershed groups.

Identify and access financial sources and resources

Show me the money!
Provide funding for capacity building to support involvement in local resource management.
Identify multiple sources for funding which may include the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Forest Renewal BC, CBT, NPPC. Set joint, bi-national priorities and then find funding sources.
Establish a 'Grandparents Foundation' as a means to secure funds and community involvement in ecosystem-based projects.
Convene and fund a CBT Task Force to investigate ways to achieve coordinated action, including considering appropriate funding.
Establish appropriate pricing structures for water use.
Explore alternative electricity supplies, improved water-use efficiencies, the use of recycled construction materials, energy conservation, and power-generation peak-shaving on both sides of the border as ways of creating additional dollars to implement ecosystem-based management or to pursue ecosystem-based management initiatives.

Enable and promote local economic benefits

Develop mechanisms for resource benefits to remain in the community (e.g. fish, forestry, water).
Introduce an environmental surcharge:
On resource uses (e.g. power, water, flood protection, forest use) flow back to region to support environmental, social, and economic reinvestment (extend FRBC);
Create a database of economic activities; assess what surcharges are appropriate and sustainable; implement with mechanism to retain money for local use;
An independent public body could be created by CBT to guide and administer the program. Technical input, expert review of proposals (e.g. like NPPC process for BPA $), and public input and scrutiny would be important components; and,
This could be implemented within two years.
Pursue energy conservation and alternative energy (e.g. solar, wind, micro-hydro, geothermal).
Enable and promote the long-term economic benefits of restoration and remediation on impacted ecosystems.

ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Mitigate and prevent environmental degradation caused by human activities

Implementation of ecosystem-based management.

Recognize and manage natural ecosystems

Encourage creation of watershed councils.
Establish a basin-wide entity to coordinate, facilitate, and oversee activities related to the achievement of ecosystem-based management.

Manage according to environmental carrying capacity

Work to gain a greater understanding of environmental carrying capacity.
Manage population growth and settlement to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem.

^ top