1. Visit by Government Officials from Mozambique COLUMBIA RIVER SYSTEM BRIEFING III U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division North Pacific Water Management Portland, Oregon 15-16 October 2001

2. SYSTEM COORDINATION NEEDS:  Joint planning requirements for inter-system transfer, and bilateral agreements  Efficiency of single ownership with individual autonomy;  Firm commitment  Fair headwater benefit payment  Optimize use of storage for system flood control

3. Columbia River Treaty Organization

4. Columbia River Treaty Signed 1961; ratified 1964 Three Candian Reservoirs: Mica, Keenleyside, and Duncan FLOOD CONTROL FLOOD CONTROL:  8.45 Maf for flood control for 60 years from 1964;  Additional 7 Maf TS and 5 Maf of Non-Treaty Storage on call  $64.4 million to Canada (1/2 of estimated present worth of future flood damages prevented) ( 1 Maf=1.23 Km 3 )

5. Columbia River Treaty POWER POWER:  $254 million to Canada (1/2 of estimated present work of future power generation)  This payment enabled Canada to build three Treaty storage projects  The Columbia River Treaty allowed the U.S. to build the third powerhouse at Grand Coulee ( 1 Maf=1.23 Km 3 )

6. Columbia River Treaty Hydropower: Hydropower: 5.5 maf of Can. Stor. for optimum power generation in the U.S. and Canada. Power Benefits Power Benefits : Dependable Capacity and Average Annual Usable Energy Canada Entitlements Canada Entitlements : 1/2 of the increased MW generated downstream in the U.S. due to the operation of Canadian Treaty Storage. Calculated 6 years in advance, based on 1961 Base Hydro System; Independent of Actual operation and runoff year. Downstream Power Benefits : Downstream Power Benefits : remain in country where they are generated.

7. Treaty Project Data Treaty Non-Treaty Installed Hydraulic Completed Storage Storage Capacity Capacity MICA 1973 7.0 maf 5.0 maf 1740 MW 40 Kcfs ARROW 1968 7.1 maf.25 maf 170 MW* 139 Kcfs DUNCAN 1967 1.4 maf None None 10 Kcfs 15.5 maf LIBBY 1973 - - - - - 5.0 maf 604 MW 25 Kcfs *under construction online date - Fall of 2001 (1 Maf=1.23 km 3 )

8. Non-Treaty Storage (NTS) In addition to the 15.5 maf of Treaty storage, Canada built 5 Maf of non-Treaty storage in Mica.  BPA and BC Hydro are parties to the NTS Agreement to use this storage for power generation purposes.  The Corps monitors weekly Non-Treaty storage activity as it pertains to overall Canadian storage. We are not active in the use of the storage. (1 Maf=1.23 Km 3 )

9. Treaty Challenges Current: Libby Coordination Agreement Biological Opinion request for 1 maf & other storage at Arrow Meeting Canadian Needs: fish, recreation, & dust storm control Long Term Strategy for Developing Assured Operating PlansPotential: Need for additional Canadian storage operation for U.S. fish Within month flexibility of Treaty storage operation Adopting Alternative Flood Control (called VARQ) Additional Endangered Species Act Listings (burbot)

10. Coordination Agreement Agreement for Coordination of Operations among Power Systems of the Pacific Northwest, signed 1964 Members: Corps, BPA, USBR & generating utilities Parties agree to coordinate the operation of their respective Systems... so as to : Make available to each System its optimum Firm Load Carrying Capacity, Provide optimum Firm Load Carrying Capability for the Coordinated Systems, and Produce the optimum amount of usable secondary energy for each System Outlines water storage and power transfer rights and obligations

11. PNCA CONCEPTS  Set of operating rules and “Rule Curves " that govern the amount of firm energy each project can produce during particular months, as if all projects operates like a single system.  Developed by representatives from each participating utility as part of the Northwest Power Pool, which also helps coordinate operation and transmission concerns.  Many other smaller agreements among utilities to promote Cooperation (when desirable) and Competition (when appropriate).

12. PNCA at a Glance CONTRACT: 26 sections, 5 Amendments PARTIES: 16 in 1964; 17 after 1984; Hydro projects coordinated: 102 in 1964; 120 in 1992 ACTUAL ENERGY REGULATION: (1) Unified, twice/month continuous simulation using actual & forecasted Q for current operating year; (2) Determines actual rights & obligations CRITICAL PERIOD (NOT AVERAGE YEAR) PLANNING: Must meet Firm Energy Load Carrying Capacity (FELCC) during most adverse 60-year historical stream flows (permitted reservoir elevations) OBLIGATIONS: store or discharge water, deliver energy, make payments, and demonstrate refill capability if drafting below targets.