1. Alan F. Hamlet Jeffrey Payne Dennis P. Lettenmaier Richard Palmer JISAO Climate Impacts Group and the Department of Civil Engineering University of Washington December, 2000 Long-Term Solutions to the Salmon vs. Hydro Problem in the Columbia River Basin

2. Hydrological Characteristics of the Columbia Basin Elevation (m) Avg Naturalized Flow The Dalles Flows Originating in Canada

3. Columbia River Basin and System of Dams and Reservoirs Included in ColSim Model Storage Reservoirs Run-of-River Dams

4. A Brief Overview of the Salmon vs. Hydro Problem

5. Natural River ChannelReservoir Pool Small X-sec area High flow velocity Short travel time Cold temperature Large X-sec area Low flow velocity Long travel time Warmer temperature Effects of Channel Development on Streamflow

6. Trends in Regulated Peak Flow at The Dalles Completion of Major Dams (Columbia River Treaty 1964) 2001

7. Natural Variability Compared to Effects of Regulation 1990 Level Regulated Flow

8. Effects of Climate Variability and Operating System Design

9. Effects of Natural Variability for Status Quo

10. Effects of Natural Variability for Fish Flow Alternative

11. Potential Effects of Climate Change

12. Potential Long-Term Effects of Climate Change Current ~2045 April 1 Snow Extent 20th Century Natural Flows Estimated Range of Natural Flow With 2040’s Warming

13. Why Doesn’t the Status Quo Provide a Very Good Balance Between Fish Flows and Hydro?

14. The flow needed to provide sufficient velocity is frequently higher than natural flow, particularly in late summer (I.e. use of storage is required). Currently very little storage is allocated to fish in comparison with hydropower. In a conflict between hydro and fish, the operating system is designed to protect hydro (fish allocation is at the top of pool and same storage is available to hydro system) The Columbia River Treaty does not provide explicitly for summer flow in the U.S. (transboundary issues). Compare with guaranteed winter releases associated with flood control. Hydro storage Fish flow storage

15. Exploring Some Alternatives to the Status Quo

16. Typical Energy Load Shape Prior to Wholesale Deregulation and Proposed Changes to Benefit Fish Less Here More Here Align Spot Sales with Fish Flows

17. Design of Experimental Reservoir Operating Rule Continue to provide a portion of current “firm” energy resources to help meet local energy demand (a range of values), but shift significant energy production to summer by allocating more storage to fish flows. Permit non-firm energy production only when conjunctive with summer fish flow needs or other local system objectives. Fish and hydro have same storage allocation and share the same resources.

18. Energy Marketing Assumptions Firm energy assumed to be marketed at = $25.0 per MW-hr Spot Market Prices and Cost of Buyback:

19. Simulated Performance of Alternatives for Historic Flows (100% Active Storage Available for Fish Flows)

20. Change in Firm + Spot Market Revenues Relative to Status Quo

21. Additional Cost Assuming PNW Energy Shortfalls Must be Bought Back at Spot Market Prices

22. Estimate of Maximum Capacity Requirement for Replacement Energy Source (Highest Hydro Capacity Shortfall)

23. Reliability of Hydro and McNary Fish Flows

24. Simulated Performance Under Climate Change

25. Increasing storage allocation for fish flows Reductions in Supportable Energy Production Under Climate Change (~2.5 C warming)

26. Increasing storage allocation for fish flows Storage allocation for fish flows (MAF)

27. Conclusions Allocating more storage for fish flows and aligning energy production in summer with fish flow targets is shown to strongly increase the reliability of McNary fish flows to almost 100% for the observed climate. Energy revenues would be essentially unaltered (modest increases) despite reductions in “firm” energy production. Significant reductions in energy capacity are likely to accompany reallocation of hydro storage to fish flows (Need to assess current and future sources of alternate capacity). Replacement capacity requirements are lowered when firm energy targets are decreased. Increasing storage allocation for fish over time may help reduce vulnerability of fish to reductions in summer flow that may accompany climate change.

28. Reductions in Firm Energy Production Under Climate Change (~2.5 C warming) Increasing storage allocation for fish flows