DOE/EA-0227 ---- ,------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Proposed Agreements to Resolve Revelstoke Filling Issues and Access Reservoir Storage Space in Canada Office of Power and Resources Management BONNEVILLE PO'WER ADMINISTRATION OCTOBER 1983 APPENDIX A REPRODUCTION OF BPA BROCHURE ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY A-l Appendix A: Co lumbia River Treaty This doc ume nt is reprinted for infor­ mational purposes . Although some data may no t be c urrent , the report was appropriate f or the point- in- time i n which it was published . INTRODUCTION dam, Libby; in northwestern Montana. It backs water 42 miles into Canada. These dams have Until the 60's, dams on the Columbia River had more than doubled the amount of water that can been built only iri the United States. In 1964, how­ be stored to regulate flows on the main stem of the ever, the Columbia River Treaty between the Columbia River. Canadian and United States governments inaugu­ rated a dam construction program in Canada to This means that water formerly · flowing un­ harness the upper reaches of the Columbia and checked to the sea can be held back to control its tributaries and develop their potential to the floods and released as needed to produce power mutual advantage of both co·untries. at dams downstream in Canada and in the United The United States derives two major benefits States. from the Treaty: One is flood control-ending the danger of serious flooding on both the Columbia There are now 11 dams operating on the Co­ and Kootenay rivers (Kootenai in the United lumbia in the United States. Six are owned by the States). The other ·is a large block of low-cost Federal government and five by three public util­ power. For her part, Canada also receives flood ity districts of the State of Washington. control on the Columbia and Kootenay and an equal share of low-cost power from the Columbia The regulation of streamflows made possible River. by the thtee Canadian reservoirs enables dams in the United States to produce up to 2.8 million In accordance with the Treaty; Canada built kilowatts of dependable capacity; which Canada three dams in British Columbia which were com­ and the United States share equally: Canada has pleted between 1967 and 1973. The Treaty also sold her share in the United States on a long-term allowed the United States to construct a fourth contract. One-half the downstream power bene- A-2 Signing the Columbia River 'ITealy; January 17. 1961 . fits attributable to each Canadian project go to the THE COLUMBIA RIVER United States purchasers for 30 years after the Heavy snows and rains which fall on the Ca­ completion date of each project. Thereafter, they nadian Rockies create the Columbia River. From revert to Canada. Columbia Lake in British Columbia, deep in the rocky spine of the North American continent, the Generation at Libby Dam will add to this sup­ Columbia River flows northward for 200 miles, ply about 750,000 kilowatts of firm power at site then abruptly turns south . .It enters the United and downstream in the United States. Thus total States near Northport, Washington, about 90 Treaty power benefits in the United States, in­ miles north of Spokane. From its source in Co­ cluding Canada's share, amount to as much as 3.5 million kilowatts. Canada, too, can reap lumbia Lake to its mouth in the Pacific Ocean the river flows 1,240 miles and drops 2,650 feet. Five downstream benefits from Libby Dam, estimated hundred miles and 1,350 feet of the river'S descent by the British Columbia Hydro and Power Author­ are in Canada. ity to be about 200,000 kilowatts. This includes the Kootenay Canal project on that river in Canada. Although only 15 percent of the drainage area of the Columbia River is in Canada, about 30 per­ The Treaty and the Pacific Northwest-Pacific cent of its total flow originates there. In the 1948 Southwest Intertie made feasible the construction flood which destroyed Vanport, Oregon, about 28 of a third powerhouse at Grand Coulee Dam. Ul­ percent of the ~olumbia waters came from timately the third powerhouse is capable of hav­ Canada. - ing an installed nameplate generating capacity of 7.5 million kilowatts, for a total of almost 10.1 mil­ The flood control benefits achieved during lion kilowatts, larger than any existing hydro plant 1974 as a result of the reservoir capacity of Arrow in the world. La.kes and Duncan in Canada and the Libby A-3 reservoir in the United States were significant. Duncan, Keenleyside (formerly Arrow Lakes), and Mica dams in British Columbia. All of this is It is estimated that Libby; Duncan, and Keen­ usable for power production and for flood control. leyside (referred to as "Arrow Lakes" in the Treaty) projects contributed about 23 percent of Canada under the Treaty has agreed to oper­ the total effective storage for flood control regula­ ate 8,450,000 acre-feet of storage for flood control tion of the lower Columbia River during the peak in the United States. The United States may call on runoff month of June 1974. Canada for additional flood control, but must then pay extra for it. The Columbia is the second largest river in the United States. Only the Mississippi travels Two of the Canadian storage dams, Mica and farther and carries more water. The Columbia's Keenleyside, are on the main stream of the Co­ flow is 10 times that of the Colorado, 2Yz times that lumbia. The third, Duncan, is on a tributary of the of the Nile. It has one-third of the hydroelectric Kootenay: potential of the United States. As a source of power, the Columbia is the mightiest stream on Duncan Dam was completed on July 31, 1967; the North American continent. Keeleyside Dam, October 10, 1968; and Mica Dam, March 29, 1973, all in advance of schedule. The Columbia River and its tributaries drain a basin larger than France, a basin of 258,000 The United States under the Treaty option square miles. built Libby Dam on the Kootenai River in Mon­ Like the main stream, the tributaries of the tana. Libby Dam adds nearly 5 million acre-feet of Columbia, rising high in the region's mountains, storage, all of it usable both for power and flood are fed by snows and rain. As the seasons change control. Storage was available for flood control and the snows melt, the flows of the Columbia July 1, 1973. River and its tributaries fluctuate widely. At Revelstoke, British Columbia, the Columbia Existing non-treaty storage on the Columbia River's largest measured flow is 99 times the low­ River and its tributaries, including non-Federal est. At the International Boundary; 130 miles south installations, totals 28 million acre-feet - all us­ of Revelstoke, the Columbia's largest flow is able for power production and 16.9 million acre­ 680,000 cubic feet per second, its smallest 12,900 feet usable for flood control. cfs. These characteristics intensify the problems Total storage on the Columbia and its of flood control and power production. The solu­ tributaries is 'now some 43.5 million acre-feet of tion to both of these problems is to build storage which over 25 million acre-feet are usable for dams to control the river and thus alleviate flood flood control, as shown in the following table: losses while regulating the flow to increase firm power production. Although equivalent control U• • ble lor U•• b le lor pow.r llood control could be achieved by building storage on Co­ (million . cre-IMt) lumbia River tributaries within the United States, Non-treaty Columbia River storage in the U.S. above The Dalles oR. 28.0 16.9 the sites where the needed amount of storage Three Canadian Treaty Dams 15.5 8.450' could be built at the least initial cost were in Total 43.5 25.350 Canada. The Treaty provided for development of 'Under the Treaty the United States has paid for the use of 8,450, 000 acre-feet of storage for flood control. The remaining 7 million this storage to benefit both Canada and the acre-feet may be used on an 'on-caW basis for control of large United States. floods with additional payment to Canada. TREATY SUMMARY Under the Treaty Canada was to develop 15.5 million acre-feet of water storage by building PROFILE SHOWING ELEVATIONS AND RIVER-MILE LOCATIONS OF PROJECTS IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASE SYSTEM 4000 " TREATY PROJECT J7' BASE SYSTEM FEDERAL PROJECT Y BASE SYSTEM NONFEOERAl 'RQJECT JSOC JOOO -' w 2500 ~ ~ '"w > 2000 0 ..< ~ 1500 . 000 500 1------~~~~:.....:~--------------------ICEHARaoR*-----_l 100 200 300 " 400 100 tOO 7(1) 100 100 1000 1100 12'11) MILES FROM MOUTH OF COLUMBIA RIVER Operating Plan base system includes Kootenay Lake in British Columbia, the II dams on the main stem, and 12 Under the terms of the Treaty, each nation has dams on the Columbia tributaries. designated an operating entity. Canada's entity is British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. The Most of the Treaty power is produced at the 11 United States entity consists of the Administrator main stem dams. The six Federal dams are Bon­ of the Bonneville Power Administration, Chair­ neville, Grand Coulee, McNary, The Dalles, Chief man, and the Division Engineer, North Pacific Joseph and John Day. The five non-Federal main Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The en­ stem dams are Rock Island and Rocky Reach tities are charged with formulating and carrying owned by Chelan County PUD; Priest Rapids and out the operating arrangements necessary to im- Wanapum owned by Grant County PUD; and plement the Treaty.