Columbia River Treaty Review: Environmental Discussion Paper

Author: Province British Columbia

The discussion paper focuses on those interests which may be impacted by potential alterations in reservoir elevations and discharge levels at storage facilities in the Columbia River Basin that are related to the Columbia River Treaty. Chapter 1 of this discussion paper summarizes the various environmental interests as they relate to water management in the Columbia River Basin. Chapter 2 gives examples of past and current activities and initiatives conducted to address those interests. Chapter 3 explores how different potential water management scenarios reflecting future decision options related to the Columbia River Treaty could impact or enhance key environmental values in the Canadian Columbia Basin. Chapter 4 provides a summary of key findings and observations.The discussion paper was commissioned by the Ministry of Energy and Mines of British Columbia and is based on the report of the consultation conducted by the Columbia River Treaty Review Team between March 2012 and October 2013, modelling and analysis conducted between August2012 and October 2013 which is detailed in the Technical Studies Report, BC HydrosNon-Treaty Storage Agreement consultation reports, Water Use Plans, Summary Report of local consultations conducted by the Columbia Basin Trust, and other documentation. It was prepared by Dr. Glen Hearns, of Aristos Consulting, and does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the Province.

Under the treaty terminate scenario there is greater flexibility to operate the system. However, even with greater flexibility to operate the system there is no perfect way to operate the facilities to improve all the interests.

Key Message 1: With Treaty Termination, Arrow Lakes operational choices become less linked to choices made at Kinbasket.
Key Message 2: Operating constraints on Kinbasket reservoir will have the highest costs, and potentially increased GHG if thermal generation is needed to replace the loss of firm energy.
Key Message 3: Operations at Arrow Lakes will have trade-offs under any scenario.
Benefits to vegetation, bird and wildlife benefits in the Mid-Columbia River are at odds with recreation, flood control, power generation at Hugh Keenleyside and potentially kokanee access to tributaries. The alternative that best meets the Arrow Lakes soft constraints is the current operating alternative.
Key Message 4: Terminating the Treaty will open up new operating alternatives for the Columbia River facilities, and create new trade-offs, particularly between Arrow Lakes and the Lower Columbia River. While these can be somewhat mitigated, as shown in the Ecosystem alternative, they come at a large cost in lost power revenue and potentially higher flood risk.
Key Message 5: Even under the Treaty Terminate scenario there are constraints to operating the facilities on the Columbia River.
Key Message 6: Regardless of whether the CRT continues in its present form or is terminated the flood control regime will switch to Called Upon flood control and will likely impact operations at Libby.
Key Message 7: Deeper spring drafts at Libby over current operations improves some Canadian interests while worsens others.
Key Message 8: While benefits to Canada could be achieved by different operations at Libby they are unlikely to meet U.S. regulations for fish in US waters.
The purpose of this paper is to help forward discussions around whether or not there are greater benefits for Canada to terminate the Treaty, continue it in its current state, or continue it with some modifications. Since the treaty does provide flexibility for Canada to make domestic decisions (section 2.5), the key question is whether there are social/environmental benefits that cannot be achieved under the Treaty that outweigh the benefits of maintaining the Treaty. If the answer to this is yes, then we need to ask if these environmental and social values could be accommodated under a Treaty Plus scenario. If not then the option would be to terminate the Treaty.In thinking about power benefits it is important to remember that any alternatives that significantly reduce the production of firm energy from the Columbia system will require the replacement of firm energy from another source. These other sources will have cost implications as well environmental impacts associated with them. Ultimately, the decision to terminate or continue the Columbia River Treaty will come down to value trade-offs between possible future options. The work of the Review Team is to inform and engage the communities in the Columbia Basin around the Treaty. In this way decision-makers can make future decisions in the most informed manner possible.

Under the treaty terminate scenario there is greater flexibility to operate the system. However, even with greater flexibility to operate the system there is no perfect way to operate the facilities to improve all the interests.

Key Message 1: With Treaty Termination, Arrow Lakes operational choices become less linked to choices made at Kinbasket.
Key Message 2: Operating constraints on Kinbasket reservoir will have the highest costs, and potentially increased GHG if thermal generation is needed to replace the loss of firm energy.
Key Message 3: Operations at Arrow Lakes will have trade-offs under any scenario.
Benefits to vegetation, bird and wildlife benefits in the Mid-Columbia River are at odds with recreation, flood control, power generation at Hugh Keenleyside and potentially kokanee access to tributaries. The alternative that best meets the Arrow Lakes soft constraints is the current operating alternative.
Key Message 4: Terminating the Treaty will open up new operating alternatives for the Columbia River facilities, and create new trade-offs, particularly between Arrow Lakes and the Lower Columbia River. While these can be somewhat mitigated, as shown in the Ecosystem alternative, they come at a large cost in lost power revenue and potentially higher flood risk.
Key Message 5: Even under the Treaty Terminate scenario there are constraints to operating the facilities on the Columbia River.
Key Message 6: Regardless of whether the CRT continues in its present form or is terminated the flood control regime will switch to Called Upon flood control and will likely impact operations at Libby.
Key Message 7: Deeper spring drafts at Libby over current operations improves some Canadian interests while worsens others.
Key Message 8: While benefits to Canada could be achieved by different operations at Libby they are unlikely to meet U.S. regulations for fish in US waters.
The purpose of this paper is to help forward discussions around whether or not there are greater benefits for Canada to terminate the Treaty, continue it in its current state, or continue it with some modifications. Since the treaty does provide flexibility for Canada to make domestic decisions (section 2.5), the key question is whether there are social/environmental benefits that cannot be achieved under the Treaty that outweigh the benefits of maintaining the Treaty. If the answer to this is yes, then we need to ask if these environmental and social values could be accommodated under a Treaty Plus scenario. If not then the option would be to terminate the Treaty.In thinking about power benefits it is important to remember that any alternatives that significantly reduce the production of firm energy from the Columbia system will require the replacement of firm energy from another source. These other sources will have cost implications as well environmental impacts associated with them. Ultimately, the decision to terminate or continue the Columbia River Treaty will come down to value trade-offs between possible future options. The work of the Review Team is to inform and engage the communities in the Columbia Basin around the Treaty. In this way decision-makers can make future decisions in the most informed manner possible.