Summary of Known Canadian Perspectives

Transcription

1 Summary of Known Canadian Perspectives Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide a high level overview of various Canadian perspectives on the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) based on publicly available information. Columbia Basin Trust, a regional organization that works to improve the social, economic, and environmental well-being of communities in the Canadian portion of the basin through various programs and initiatives, produced a similar document on known United States (US) perspectives. 1 In addition to summarizing perspectives by topic, this document also identifies other matters/issues that underlie, explain, or provide context for those perspectives and describes reference tools developed during the creation of this document. Disclaimer This summary is based on 1) a review of available Canadian documents relevant to the CRT review, 2) observations at the public review meeting and technical conference in Nelson, BC and Castlegar, BC in March 2013, and 3) a survey of news articles published by Canadian media outlets. This document is not a comprehensive inventory of Canadian perspectives, nor does it ascribe viewpoints to particular individuals or groups. Specific deficiencies include the consultation of the First Nations and discussions at recent British Columbia CRT Review (BC CRT Review) Sounding Board meetings. Information on those parts of the BC CRT Review are not yet publicly available. Known Canadian Perspectives on the Columbia River Treaty The following subsections discuss themes that emerged during this review of Canadian perspectives, including specific interests within each theme. The themes are categorized as process, content/substance, or distribution issues. Process Issues Process issues are those concerning if and how governments and residents would like to be engaged in both potential Treaty negotiations as well as management of the Columbia River under the Treaty before and after Involvement in Decision Processes Interests in Canada expressed a strong desire to maintain involvement in the management of the Columbia River in 1) the Canadian CRT Review, 2) any potential Treaty negotiations, and 3) BC Hydro dam and reservoir operations. For each process, various interests would like to see basin residents, local governments, and/or First Nations engaged and consulted in a meaningful way. Interest and involvement in dam and reservoir operations is of concern basin-wide, but in particular, some Canadian interests would like input into Libby operations. If in future operations under the Treaty, the US makes requests for changes in flows, various interests would like to be involved in the processing of those requests. 1 Available at: August

2 Recognition of Past Losses Some interests also expressed a desire for recognition of past losses due to the creation and implementation of the CRT. They feel that those impacts have not yet been properly acknowledged and/or addressed. These losses include a lack of consultation of citizens in the original Treaty negotiations, agriculture and forestry losses, damage to cultural sites, and other losses associated with river and reservoir fluctuations. Substance Issues Substance issues are the topics that Canadian interests want addressed in the Treaty post Reservoir Operations There is concern over both the rate of change in reservoir levels as well as the degree of change over the course of the year as a result of Treaty operations. Specific concerns related to drawing/refilling reservoirs quickly or maintaining certain high/low levels include: Dust: Exposed portions of reservoirs at low water levels can result in dust storms. In addition to dust, exposed mudflats are unsightly. Erosion: Changing reservoir levels can result in erosion of dikes and bank slumping. Wave action also results in erosion at that level in the reservoir. Debris: High reservoirs can mobilize debris. When reservoirs are drawn down the remaining debris impedes navigation and other boat access for transportation and recreation. Archeological and cultural sites: Wave action can erode and degrade cultural sites and low levels expose sites to the elements and human disturbance. First Nation s hunting and gathering rights: Inundation of specific areas can limit First Nation access to areas where they have hunt and gathering rights. Economic Impacts: Reservoir operations result in a variety of economic impacts on different sectors such as forestry, agriculture, recreation and tourism. For recreation, low reservoirs limit boat access and angling, while high reservoirs limit shore-based recreation access. Low reservoirs reduce navigability in Kinbasket and Arrow Reservoirs impeding transport in the forest sector. High reservoir levels result in high pumping costs to prepare areas for spring dry-land farming. A recurring suggestion to address these issues is more consistent water levels with fewer, reduced fluctuations. Some interests saw this as a way to improve recreation, reduce property damage, and consider environmental values. If these issues could not be addressed by changes in reservoir operations, Canadian interests would like compensation for these impacts. In addition to these concerns and recommendations for general reservoir operations, some interests specifically would like Canadian input into Libby Dam operations as Canadian interests are directly impacted by Libby operations. Flood Control Flood control is a concern for a number of Canadians and is a prominent issue following the 2012 flooding in parts of the basin (such as Trail, Castlegar, Revelstoke, Creston and Kootenay Lake). Some view coordinated flood management as the best form of flood risk management for basin residents in British Columbia (and the US). They view Called Upon Flood August

3 Control as problematic because of its associated inefficient use of reservoirs, operational uncertainty, and potential social, economic, and environmental impacts. Canadian perspectives of Called Upon include the following interpretations: Storage able to be called upon: All storage in the Columbia River basin in Canada, including storage at the Treaty dams (Mica (including non-treaty), Arrow, and Duncan), as well as in Revelstoke, Kootenay Lake, and smaller reservoirs. Definition of Effective Use: All U.S. reservoirs, regardless of its designated use or licensing or the economic cost, upstream of The Dalles should be managed reduce the peak flow at The Dalles throughout the flood event. Basis for making call: The US must manage for risk by making effective use of its storage, even in years when the peak flow may not exceed 600,000 cfs. Future development of detailed procedures for implementing Called Upon should consider how to allocate risk of changed or inaccurate forecasts and forecast uncertainty. Such efforts will be needed to reduce the unnecessary calls and to facilitate timely requests. Extent of call: Called Upon may only be used for controlling flows that are forecasted to exceed 600,000 cfs at The Dalles. Called Upon efforts should only control floods down to 600,000 cfs. Flood control priorities: Canadian flood control is a primary obligation and requires equal consideration with US flood control needs. Winter storms: Called Upon was not developed for winter storms and could not be applied to effectively mitigate them. Compensation for economic loss or operating costs: Potential calculation procedures have not been explored; however, Canadian interests expect that economic loss could include social and environmental costs, impacts to irrigation, transportation, recreation interests, impacts to power production in BC, and reduced value of generation as a result of drafting and refilling reservoirs for Called Upon efforts. Climate Change A number of Canadian interests would like to integrate climate change into how the Columbia River and its tributaries are operated. Expected changes in the Canadian portion of the basin include warmer temperatures, increased precipitation in the fall, winter and spring, decreased precipitation in the summer, diminished snow packs (except at high elevations), loss of glaciers, and annual runoff that is slightly higher, less predictable, and altered in terms of timing. Ecosystem Benefits Some interests have a strong desire to expand the CRT to incorporate ecosystem benefits. Restoration of salmon to Canadian waters such as the Salmo River is desired by many. They call for studies to explore the technical and financial feasibility of such an endeavor. However, others view this as an issue that first must be addressed by the United States at Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams. A third set of interests view the loss of salmon in BC reaches of the Columbia as a historic issue not relevant to CRT discussions. August

4 Other ecosystem benefits some Canadian interests would like to incorporate into the CRT include: Vegetation: Those interested in improving vegetation along the Kinbasket and Koocanusa reservoirs as well as the Mid-Columbia River would like to see more stable reservoir levels and less frequent inundation. The duration, depth and timing of inundation affect the establishment and composition of vegetation in the drawdown zone of reservoirs. Wildlife habitat: Various interests would like to improve habitat for wildlife, particularly for nesting shore birds and migrating birds. For example, high levels at Arrow Lakes Reservoir negatively impact these birds by inundating their habitat during spring nesting for some species or fall migration for others. Fish: Species of interest include kokanee, bull trout, rainbow trout, sculpin, and white sturgeon. Some interests would like to improve spawning conditions and habitat availability for these species. Others would like to minimize high rates of change in reservoir levels that can result in fish stranding and low reservoir levels that impair access to kokanee or bull trout spawning habitat. Various interests would also like to see additional efforts to increase primary productivity to bolster kokanee populations that depend on phytoplankton. A table for what each ecosystem benefit may require is included in Appendix A (Table A-1). Power Generation Hydropower generation is valued in the BC portion of the Columbia River Basin as evidenced by the hydropower projects are planned or underway to meet growing power demands and greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. 2 Canadian interests would like coordinated power generation and Canadian Entitlements to continue. They value the Canadian Entitlement around $100-$200 million and they expect that value to decline. Some view the sharing of downstream benefits from additional power production as the only Treaty benefit to Canada. If the Treaty were terminated, Canada would further investigate how to balance power generation and other benefits. Some interests would also like to protect the CBT s power assets which enable it to invest in economic development opportunities and other programs in the basin. Access to Water Various Canadian interests are very keen on protecting their access to water for domestic uses as outlined in the original Treaty. Some note that while the Treaty allows each country to withdraw water for consumptive uses (domestic, municipal, stock-water, irrigation, mining, or industrial uses) low river and reservoir levels may limit their ability to do so. Distribution Issues The third category, distribution issues, includes themes that discuss how costs and benefits should be addressed under the Treaty. Benefit Sharing Canadian interests would like to see benefit sharing, made possible by coordinated river operations, continue across the border. In particular various interests would like 2 See Other Relevant Issues below. August

5 to continue sharing the downstream power benefits that result from coordinated river operations. Canadian interests would also like to see account for additional benefits and ensure that a fair share of those new or improved benefits is appropriately distributed across the border and around the Canadian portion of the basin. They believe that in addition to flood control and hydropower benefits, the US receives ecosystem, navigation, and water supply benefits from Treaty operations. Various Canadian interests want those benefits to be considered in efforts to equitably distribute benefits across the international border. However, even as Canadian interests want to continue benefit sharing, they also believe that changes in flows for non-power uses below the border are not a reason to reduce benefits to Canada. To reduce benefits to Canada because of domestic decisions or re-regulation of water within the US would result in an inequitable distribution of benefits. Compensation In addition to benefit sharing, Canadian interests would like to see adequate compensation for both past and current negative impacts resulting from river operations. Compensation is seen as a way to equitably share costs and benefits in the basin. The Canadian Entitlement is seen as the primary, if not the only, Treaty benefit to Canada. The downstream power benefits returned to Canada have been used to address some of the costs in the BC portion of the basin and some interests would like to see this continue and/or be increased. Compensation concerns include, agriculture, fish and wildlife conservation programs, and lost economic development opportunities 3 due to dam construction and river operations. Other Relevant Issues In addition to Canadian perspectives on CRT issues, the US Entity and others may be interested in Canadian current events, their approach to their review, and other domestic issues that have emerged during the review process. These issues may directly or indirectly affect the salience of different perspectives in potential future CRT discussions across the border. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets & Commitments The Province of British Columbia is committed to public sector carbon neutrality with many local governments doing likewise. BC passed a law stating that greenhouse gas emissions will 33% less than 2007 levels in 2020 and 80% less than 2007 levels in Hydropower generation is a critical component of those efforts. Water Use Plans A Water Use Plan (WUP) is a technical document that defines how water control facilities will be operated. 4 The Columbia River System and Duncan Dam and Reservoir both have WUPs which include provisions based on the current operations dictated under the CRT. Consultation efforts related to the development of WUPs provide insight on what basin residents value and are concerned about. The BC CRT Review technical studies include or update many of the performance measures used in the WUP process. Two summary tables of the 3 The Treaty is seen as both creating and limiting economic development opportunities in Canada. Some note that economic development in terms of agriculture, forestry, and recreation/tourism opportunities is negatively impacted by dam construction and operations. Others recognize that the Treaty and dams created opportunities in BC. 4 The general process for creating a WUP is as follows, 1) conduct a multi-stakeholder consultative process to identify recommendations for a preferred operating strategy, 2) write WUP based on those recommendations and other system constraints (e.g., CRT, Non-Treaty Storage Agreements, etc.) 3) provincial and federal agencies review plan, and 4) the provincial Comptroller of Water Rights accepts the plan. August

6 Columbia and Duncan WUPs operation constraints and mitigation efforts are provided in Appendix A (Tables A-2 and A-3). The Kootenay River and Koocanusa Reservoir do not have a WUP. First Nations Rights and Title Aboriginal rights and title are acknowledged in the Canadian Constitution and specifically identified via a treaty. Once established these rights are not absolute but can be infringed upon by the federal government of Canada if it 1) demonstrates a compelling and substantive legislative objective for doing so, 2) consults with the Aboriginal group prior to acting, and 3) provides compensation when required. The Ktunaxa Kinbasket Treaty Council and Northern Shuswap Tribal Council are currently in Stage 4 (agreement-inprinciple negotiations) of treaty negotiations. Geographic vs. Topical Approach Many of the BC CRT Review efforts and documents take a geographic versus topical approach to the review. That is stakeholder concerns, performance measures, and other CRT-related information are often tied to a particular river reach, reservoir, dam, or locality within the BC portion of the basin. Interests that are basin-wide (e.g., incorporation of climate change into river management and planning) are identified as such, but an additional level of detail is also available for various locations (some seasonal information is also available). This highlights potential tradeoffs at different locations as well as within the some of the topical issues. For example, some benefits, such as recreation/tourism require higher reservoir levels at Arrow, while others, such as riparian vegetation and wildlife thrive with higher levels in the spring/summer and lower levels at Arrow in the fall. Yet at the same time not all environmental interests benefit from a lower Arrow Reservoir. While riparian vegetation and the wildlife that use it as habitat prefer Arrow to be lower at times, a lower Arrow can impede kokanee and bull trout access to spawning habitat. Technical Studies & Alternatives In its technical analyses, the BC CRT Review analyzed two primary paths the Treaty could take--either terminate or continue. Within the option to continue the Treaty the BC CRT Review acknowledged the fact that the CRT could be modified and result in a Treaty Plus scenario. However, alternatives under that scenario were not modeled because the conditions adopted under such a scenario are unknown. Some interests in BC also believe it would be extremely difficult to negotiate Treaty modifications due to the current political climates in Ottawa and/or Washington DC. Domestic Concerns Through the BC CRT Review and other water planning efforts, a number of domestic interests in Canada have also emerged around the operations of river. They include, more equitable sharing of benefits within the BC portion of the basin (e.g., distribution of Canadian Entitlement), environmental restoration efforts for vegetation, wildlife, and fish, and engagement of basin residents in dam/reservoir operations, implementation of the Columbia and Duncan Water Use Plan, development of a Kootenay River water management process, economic development efforts (i.e. pursuing opportunities to bolster agriculture, forestry, recreation/tourism and other sectors impacted by dam development). These domestic issues reveal what various Canadian interests value in the basin and may want considered in dam/reservoir operations. However, the fact that they have been categorized as domestic matters by various governments may indicate that Canada does not believe they should be addressed via the Treaty. August

7 Appendix A Table A-1. Brief Overview of Desired Ecosystem Benefits in the Columbia River Basin (Canada) Ecosystem Benefit What it May Take Complicating Factors Salmon restoration Improved wildlife habitat for nesting and migrating birds Vegetation re-growth Kokanee and bull trout access to spawning habitat White Sturgeon, bull trout, rainbow trout, sculpin habitat Dam passage in both the US and Canada Technical and financial feasibility studies Higher Arrow Reservoir level in the spring/ summer Lower Arrow Reservoir level in the fall More stable reservoir levels and flows at Kinbasket, Arrow, and along the Mid-Columbia Typically lower reservoir levels Higher reservoir levels at Arrow August- November Reduced velocities in Mid- Columbia River Reduced fluctuations in river operations of Mid-Columbia Potential high risk and high cost Potential detriment to kokanee (i.e., competition for nutrients) Lower Arrow in fall impedes fish access to habitat Reduced power production Lower Arrow in fall impedes fish access to habitat Reduced power production Higher levels inundate vegetation (killing it) and wildlife habitat Power production tradeoffs Table A-2. Summary of Operational and Soft Constraints in the Columbia and Duncan Water Use Plans Geographic Area Operational Constraints Soft Constraints Kinbasket Reservoir/Mica Dam Revelstoke Dam & Reservoir Mid-Columbia River & Arrow Lakes Lower Columbia (below Keenleyside) Duncan Reservoir Duncan Dam 5 kcfs min. year-round flow (fish); Jul-Aug experi. flow for white sturgeon Target to reach full btwn Aug 1-10 (recr. & water supply); 4 ft draft (fish) 100 cfs min. flow (fish), 10 kcfs max (FC); Max rates of change Surcharge (safety& flood control) Surcharge (safety& flood control) Surcharge (safety & flood control), vegetation, wildlife, fish, recreation, erosion, cultural sites, power generation Min. fish stranding; flows for whitefish & rainbow trout August

8 Table A-3. Summary of Mitigation Efforts in the Columbia and Duncan Water Use Plans Geographic Area Debris Mgt. Boat Efforts Reveg. Archeological sites Other Kinbasket Reservoir/ Mica Dam Revelstoke Dam & Reservoir Mid-Columbia River & Arrow Lakes Lower Columbia (below Keenleyside) X X X X X X X X X X Sturgeon aquaculture; wildlife habitat studies Turbidity & opportunistic high flows; dredging Duncan Reservoir X X Erosion protection; nutrient loading Duncan Dam Bull trout migration August