PNWA Summer Meeting LaConner, WA J June 24, 2013 1 Columbia River - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

PNWA Summer Meeting LaConner, WA J June 24, 2013

1

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Treaty Basics

P f / T t R i

 Purpose of 2014/2024 Treaty Review  Mechanics of Treaty Review  Summary of Iteration 2 Navigation Impact

Assessment

 Stakeholder involvement and input  Next steps

2

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review  Originates in Canada

Fl il th h

 Flows over 1,240 miles through

2 countries

 259,000 square mile drainage

59, q g area

 15% of basin area in Canada

with 38% average annual flow with 38% average annual flow from Canada.

 Over 60 large dams and

g reservoirs owned and operated by many different entities for multiple purposes

3

multiple purposes.

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

• Flood risk management

g

• Hydropower
• Fish and wildlife
• Navigation
• Water supply
• Recreation

4

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

An agreement to manage water for flood g g risk management and power

Between Canada and the U.S. Implemented in 1964

“Relating to International Cooperation in Water Resource Cooperation in Water Resource Development in the Columbia River Basin”

5

Treaty monument at Libby Dam (Montana)

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

Capture the spring l i C d Release water from C di T i snowmelt in Canada to refill the reservoirs and manage peak flood flows Canadian Treaty reservoirs for power production at all Columbia River dams from manage peak flood flows along the Columbia and specifically at Portland, Columbia River dams from Mica in British Columbia through Bonneville, east of p y , OR. g , Portland

Vanport, OR

1948 flood devastated homes, farms, d l f T il B i i h C l bi

6

and levees from Trail, British Columbia to Astoria, Oregon

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

7

Kcfs is a flow rate measured by 1000 cubic feet of water per second

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

1948 1948‐56 1964 1967‐73 2014 2024

Treaty Duncan, Arrow, Earliest analyses begins Mica and Libby dams completed possible date to terminate Major flooding advances Treaty ratified by both countries Latest date for 10‐year notice

8

regional discussions if either country desires termination by 2024

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Canadian storage ‐ 51% of total basin capacity  Canadian storage 51% of total basin capacity  Infrastructure and

governance governance

 Power coordination

agreements

9

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Canada must operate 15.5 million acre‐feet of

Treaty storage to optimize power generation d t i b th ti downstream in both nations.

 U.S. must deliver power to Canada equal to one‐

h lf h i d U S b fi f h half the estimated U.S. power benefits from the

• peration of Canadian Treaty storage, This

Canadian Entitlement currently worth about y $250‐$350 million annually.

 British Columbia owns Canadian Entitlement  Five Mid‐Columbia non‐federal hydro projects

deliver 27.5% of Canadian Entitlement to BPA for

10

deliver 27.5% of Canadian Entitlement to BPA for delivery to B.C.

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Canada obligated to operate 8.95 million acre‐feet of

storage to help eliminate or reduce flood damages in b h C d d h U S both Canada and the U.S.

 Canada must also operate all additional storage in these

dams on an on‐call basis (as requested and paid for) dams on an on call basis (as requested and paid for). This has never been used to date.

 U.S. paid Canada $64.4 million for expected future flood

d d i U S f 68 h h damages prevented in U.S. from 1968 through 2024.

 U.S . purchase of assured flood

flood storage expires in 2024

Portland 1996

flood storage expires in 2024.

an acre-foot is 1 acre of water to a depth of 12 inches

11

p

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT UNITED STATES Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade Ministry Natural Resources BRITISH COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT Department of State Department of Army Department of Energy

TREATY

CANADIAN ENTITY UNITED STATES

U.S. Entity:

• Bonneville Power Administration Administrator

ENTITY ENTITY

Bonneville Power Administration Administrator

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Northwestern Division Engineer

Canadian Entity:

12

Canadian Entity:

• B.C. Hydro, a province‐owned electric utility
• Province of British Columbia (disposal of Canadian Entitlement)

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 While Treaty has no specified end date either nation  While Treaty has no specified end date, either nation

can unilaterally terminate most provisions as early as September 2024 with 10 years’ written notice. p 4 y

 2014 is the latest date for either nation to declare its

intentions to terminate at the earliest possible date p

• f 2024.

 Important changes in flood risk management

provisions in 2024.

13

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Enable the U.S. Entity to provide an informed

and regionally supported recommendation to and regionally supported recommendation to the U.S. Department of State by end of 2013.

 Determine if the United States better off with the

Determine if the United States better off with the Treaty or without the Treaty

14

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

process process

 An Endangered Species Act (ESA) process

Th d l t f d t il d ti l l

 The development of a detailed operational plan

• r implementation plan for the Columbia Basin

15

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 The world has changed

The world has changed since 1964. O t it t

 Opportunity to

“modernize” the Treaty to reflect regional values and reflect regional values and priorities. O i l

 Opportunity to re‐evaluate

the value of Canadian Entitlement in terms of

16

Entitlement in terms of today’s power benefits.

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 What are the possible impacts and benefits from

different Treaty futures on:

 Water supply  Navigation  Recreation

 Ho might these be impro ed or hindered ith a  How might these be improved or hindered with a

modified Treaty? What if Treaty terminates?

 Can the Treaty be modified to be resilient and  Can the Treaty be modified to be resilient and

adaptable to future conditions such as climate change?

17

c a ge

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

H i ht th T t b h d t b tt fl t

 How might the Treaty be changed to better reflect

ecosystem needs?

 What are impacts and benefits of various Treaty

futures on ecosystems in the Basin?

 How would these impacts and benefits change if the

Treaty were modified or terminated? y

18

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

Ch i i Changes in 2024 In Treaty Review Assured flood control procedures end in 2024 – with What is the level of flood risk certainty for the U S when this procedures end in 2024 with

• r without the Treaty.

certainty for the U.S. when this assured protection expires? The U.S. must “call upon” How often will we have to call Canada for flood management assistance and pay associated costs. upon Canada for flood risk protection? costs. How much will it cost? The U.S. must make effective f f How effective use impact U.S.

19

use of its reservoirs before calling on Canada. reservoirs and ecosystems?

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

C i Current Treaty In Treaty Review

U.S. delivers power in exchange for water storage in Canadian reservoirs. What are the actual power benefits to the U.S. from the operation of the Currently 536 average annual mw; $250‐350 million per year. h h h Canadian projects? Is the Canadian Entitlement a true fl f h b f Power payments are higher than actual benefits produced in the U.S. today. reflection of the power benefits resulting from Treaty operation? If not what is a more equitable Mid‐Columbia utilities deliver 27.5%

• f power. Remainder delivered by

BPA’s regional electricity customers If not, what is a more equitable payment? What should the Canadian

20

BPAs regional electricity customers. What should the Canadian Entitlement look like post‐2024?

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

Understand

• Impacts and

Ask

• Can the

Analyze & Answer

p benefits of current Treaty

• Today’s

l current Treaty meet those needs? h

• Collect

information

• Evaluate

Provide

Informed, regionally regional needs and priorities.

• Possible
• Does the

Treaty need to be changed?

• Modify current

policies,

• ptions and

potential results regionally supported recommendation

• Possible

future needs & priorities

• Modify current

Treaty or develop new

• ne?

results

• Assess

impacts

21

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

Advance 3 alternatives from Iteration 1 for full impact t assessment

• 1A‐TC: Treaty Continues with 450 kcfs flood flow

B TC T t C ti ith 6 k f fl d fl

• 2B‐TC: Treaty Continues with 600 kcfs flood flow
• 1A‐TT: Treaty Terminates with 450 kcfs flood flow

RC‐CC (Reference Case, Current Condition)

• This is how the system is now under current Treaty provisions

d U S i and current U.S. operations

• All alternatives and components are compared to the current

condition

22

condition

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

Ecosystem E1 – Natural Spring Hydrograph p g y g p

Store and release water from U.S. and Canadian reservoirs to meet a natural flow based on the type of water year, no system flood control, no

• peration specifically for power

E2 – Reservoirs as Natural Lakes

Generally hold reserves full and pass inflows through, no system flood control, no operation specifically for power

Hydropower H1 – Optimize Canadian and U.S. hydropower system

O ti i C di d U S h d t i t j t Optimize Canadian and U.S. hydropower systems using current projects

H2 – Optimize Canadian and U.S. power system with Biological Opinion operations included

23

g p p

Including fish operations, optimize the Canadian and U.S. hydropower system using current system projects

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

Flood risk F1 – Full use of authorized storage

Maximize use of authorized U.S. storage (full draft as needed)

F N C ll d U fl d t F2 – No Called Upon flood storage

No use of Canadian storage for U.S. flood risk management

F3 – Modify U.S. levees to perform to authorized 3 y p levels

Evaluate ability to reduce U.S. flood risk if all U.S. levees perform to authorized level authorized level

24

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

• Ecosystem‐based
• Flood risk

Ecosystem‐based function

― Water quality

Flood risk management

• Hydropower

Water quality

― Resident fish ― Anadromous fish

Hydropower

• Water supply

― Anadromous fish ― Estuary

Wildlife

• Recreation
• Navigation

― Wildlife ― Cultural resources

• Sediment and toxics
• Cli

t h

25

• Climate change

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

• Compared relative frequency of flow thresholds

for Treaty alternatives against current conditions

• Flow thresholds that impact commercial

navigation g

• High flows at Snake and Columbia River dams
• Low flows on Columbia River below Bonneville
• Used input from commercial navigation

stakeholders (December 2012 and April 2013)

26

p 3

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Very little difference in the alternatives and Very little difference in the alternatives and components for navigation on the lower Snake River.  For the lower Columbia River, ,

 Alternatives that attempt to create higher spring/summer flows for ecosystem (E‐1 and E‐2) generally resulted in i i h b f d h l C l bi increase in the average number of days that lower Columbia River high and low flow thresholds are exceeded.  If the Treaty is terminated (2A‐TT) after 2024, loss of If the Treaty is terminated (2A TT) after 2024, loss of proportional draft of Canadian reservoirs for hydropower resulted in increase in the average number of days that lower Columbia River flows fall below the low flow threshold

27

Columbia River flows fall below the low flow threshold.

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Small changes in river flow can cause large

g g changes in Sediment transport

 2A‐TC & 2A‐TT cause moderate increases in erosion relative to the RC‐

CC for the Federal Navigation Channel (FNC), and mixed erosion and deposition in off‐channel areas

 E1 & E2b cause large increases in erosion in FNC, and larger increases in

g , g erosion and deposition in off‐channel areas relative to RC‐CC

 Relative to RC‐CC, all alternatives and components can cause:

 Erosion resulting in sediment grain size getting larger  Erosion, resulting in sediment grain size getting larger  Deposition, resulting in sediments getting smaller, like in side channels and bays i di i h l i i h f l

28

 Active sediment transport in the FNC, resulting in growth of large sand waves on the bottom that may require dredging

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

Iteration 3 Modeling

ling and mentation

Drafting Technical Appendices (60%) Review and finalize Drafting Technical Appendices

Mode Docum

Review and finalize all technical material Drafting Technical Summary (500 page)

ndation and Review

Drafting and Review Recommendation (5 page) and Recommendation Report (50 page) (Government and Internal Review) Finalization and Review of Recommendation and Recommendation Report

(2) (4)

Recommen Development a

Public Release and Comment Period of Draft Recommendation and Recommendation Report (Regional Briefings and Workshops)

Development of Working Draft of Regional Recommendation (Stakeholders and SRT)

Development of Working Draft of Regional Recommendation (SRT)

(1a) (1b) (3)

D

SRT)

2 2 2 2

29 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

SRT meetings

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Release Working Draft Recommendation for

g Stakeholder Review and Comment

 Targeted for release on June 27

g

 Basis for further regional discussions with

stakeholders and sovereigns

 Work will continue to develop and refine the draft

recommendation through summer 2013

30

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Complete Iteration 3

 Hydroregulation Modeling by Mid‐July for 3 final

Alternatives

 Integrated Ecosystem Based Function (3E)  Integrated Ecosystem‐Based Function (3E)  Planned Storage for Flood Risk and Flow Augmentation with 1.5 to 2 maf storage in Canadian Reservoirs (3PRS 1.5‐2.0) Pl d S f Fl d Ri k d Fl A i i h i h  Planned Storage for Flood Risk and Flow Augmentation with with 4.4 maf storage in Canadian Reservoirs (3PRS 4.4)

 Impact Assessment by end of August

p y g

 Incorporate Iteration 3 results and findings into the

draft recommendation

31

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Sovereign Review Team (SRT)

St t

US Entity

― 4 States ― 15 Tribes (5 representatives) ― 11 Federal Agencies

SRT

4 States 15 Tribes

 Sovereign Technical Team

―Technical leads and staff

11 Federal

Technical leads and staff representing SRT members

 Each team has been meeting at least monthly since

Federal Agencies

ac tea as bee eet g at east

• t y s ce

Fall 2010

 Influence and advise on every aspect of Treaty

32

y p y Review

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Make sure we are accountable and transparent

― Frequent involvement opportunities ― Frequent involvement opportunities

Over 70 meetings, presentations and discussions with a wide variety of interests throughout the four‐state region

 U.S. Department of State

― Monitoring and engaged in Treaty Review

g g g y

 Interagency Policy Committee (IPC)  Regional federal agency coordination

33

Regional federal agency coordination

 Congressional delegation

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Ongoing Treaty implementation

S b ll l T R i

 Separate but parallel Treaty Review process  Communication on possibilities within current Treaty

f k framework

 The ultimate decision to terminate certain

provisions or pursue negotiations to modify the provisions or pursue negotiations to modify the Treaty rests with the U.S. Department of State and the White House

34

and the White House.

Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review

 Visit www.crt2014‐2024review.gov  Email treatyreview@bpa.gov

y @ p g

 Read Treaty Review fact sheets  Call  Call

 Bonneville Power Administration, 800‐622‐4519  Corps of Engineers 503 808 4510  Corps of Engineers, 503‐808‐4510

35