Lower Snake River Fish & Wildlife Compensation Plan Scott Marshall LSRCP Program Manager US Fish & Wildlife Service

Topics Legislative History Legislative History Goals & Benefits Goals & Benefits Conservation Actions Conservation Actions Operational Overview Operational Overview Budget Budget Operations Operations Non-recurring maintenance Non-recurring maintenance Equipment Equipment HRT/HSRG/BiOp/US v OR HRT/HSRG/BiOp/US v OR Summary Summary

Legislative History Public Law (1958): Required the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to develop a plan to compensate for fish & wildlife losses caused by construction & operation of the four Lower Snake River dams. Public Law (1958): Required the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to develop a plan to compensate for fish & wildlife losses caused by construction & operation of the four Lower Snake River dams. Public Law (1976): Authorized construction & operation of the LSRCP in accordance with the COE plan. Public Law (1976): Authorized construction & operation of the LSRCP in accordance with the COE plan. Public Law (1995): Authorized construction of fall Chinook acclimation facilities to support conservation efforts. Public Law (1995): Authorized construction of fall Chinook acclimation facilities to support conservation efforts. LSRCP funding is “a Power Related Expenses” i.e. an inherent cost of operating the four dams. LSRCP funding is “a Power Related Expenses” i.e. an inherent cost of operating the four dams.

Goals Locating hatcheries guided by desire to replace lost salmon, steelhead & trout “in place and in kind”. Locating hatcheries guided by desire to replace lost salmon, steelhead & trout “in place and in kind”. Goals for adult returns above Lower Granite Dam Goals for adult returns above Lower Granite Dam Fall Chinook Salmon – 18,300 Fall Chinook Salmon – 18,300 Spring Chinook – 58,700 Spring Chinook – 58,700 Steelhead – 55,100 Steelhead – 55,100 Rainbow Trout: 86,000 lbs (about 215,000 fish) Rainbow Trout: 86,000 lbs (about 215,000 fish) Anticipated benefits (COE cost/benefit study) : Anticipated benefits (COE cost/benefit study) : 817,000 days of recreational fishing (150,000 fish harvest), 817,000 days of recreational fishing (150,000 fish harvest), 260,000 coast-wide commercial harvest. 260,000 coast-wide commercial harvest.

LSRCP Conservation Activities Integrated programs to support conservation Integrated programs to support conservation Spring Chinook – NE Oregon, Tucannon, McCall, Sawtooth Spring Chinook – NE Oregon, Tucannon, McCall, Sawtooth Snake River Fall Chinook Snake River Fall Chinook Steelhead – Clearwater, Tucannon, Touchet, E. Fork Salmon Steelhead – Clearwater, Tucannon, Touchet, E. Fork Salmon Juvenile supplementation strategies – increase natural stock abundance & distribution: Released in locations where returning adults can spawn naturally, Juvenile supplementation strategies – increase natural stock abundance & distribution: Released in locations where returning adults can spawn naturally, 47% of fall Chinook (2.1 million fish) 47% of fall Chinook (2.1 million fish) 31% of steelhead (1.7 million fish) 31% of steelhead (1.7 million fish) 34% of spring Chinook. (2.8 million fish) 34% of spring Chinook. (2.8 million fish) Adult outplanting - increase abundance & distribution. Adult outplanting - increase abundance & distribution.

Operational Overview COE constructed facilities. COE constructed facilities. FWS owns facilities & administers program. FWS owns facilities & administers program. States, tribes & FWS operate facilities & evaluate program. States, tribes & FWS operate facilities & evaluate program. BPA funds LSRCP through Memoranda of Agreement. BPA funds LSRCP through Memoranda of Agreement.

FY 12 – FY 13 Budget

LSRCP Budget Components Operations Operations Non-Recurring Maintenance Non-Recurring Maintenance Real Property Real Property Equipment Equipment HRT/HSRG/BiOp HRT/HSRG/BiOp

Ongoing Operational Budget FY Includes Hatchery Operations & M&E Includes Hatchery Operations & M&E Generally stable program. Generally stable program. FWS will continue aggressive cost containment. FWS will continue aggressive cost containment. High inflation rate of 6% seen in previous rate case period for fish food, energy, commodities, heath insurance and salaries will moderate to near long term average of 3.5% High inflation rate of 6% seen in previous rate case period for fish food, energy, commodities, heath insurance and salaries will moderate to near long term average of 3.5% Assume that 75% expenses accrue in current year and 25% in following year. Assume that 75% expenses accrue in current year and 25% in following year. Request is $18.0 m/yr average expense Request is $18.0 m/yr average expense

Nonrecurring Maintenance Real Property Assets (not including land) Real Property Assets (not including land) Equipment Equipment

Real Property Assets Budget LSRCP assets LSRCP assets How Needs are Assessed How Needs are Assessed How Projects are Prioritized How Projects are Prioritized What is Included What is Included Budget Budget

LSRCP Hatcheries & Labs 11 Hatcheries, 15 Satellites & 2 Labs Oregon Oregon Lookingglass (Imnaha) Lookingglass (Imnaha) Wallowa (LSC,BC) Wallowa (LSC,BC) Irrigon Irrigon Washington Washington Lyons Ferry (Cottonwood & DP) Lyons Ferry (Cottonwood & DP) Tucannon (Curl Lk) Tucannon (Curl Lk) Snake River Lab Snake River Lab Idaho Idaho Clearwater (CR, Red R. Clearwater (CR, Red R., Powell), Powell) Magic Valley Magic Valley Hagerman NFH Hagerman NFH McCall (S. Fork) McCall (S. Fork) Sawtooth (E. Fork) Sawtooth (E. Fork) Capt J., Pitt. & Big Canyon (with BPA) Capt J., Pitt. & Big Canyon (with BPA) Dworshak (joint with COE) Dworshak (joint with COE) Idaho Fish Health Lab Idaho Fish Health Lab

28 Facilities located in three states 28 Facilities located in three states Present value of assets (less land) is $322.1 million. Present value of assets (less land) is $322.1 million. Most (65%) built in 1980’s now 25 + years old. Most (65%) built in 1980’s now 25 + years old. Maintenance is an inherent cost of ownership and public trust Maintenance is an inherent cost of ownership and public trust

A Structured Approach to Assessing Needs Annual Condition Assessments Annual Condition Assessments Safety Inspections Safety Inspections Seismic Surveys Seismic Surveys Bridge Inspections Bridge Inspections Environmental Compliance Audits Environmental Compliance Audits ADA Inspections ADA Inspections ESA Consultations (fish passage, screening) ESA Consultations (fish passage, screening) Mission Requirements & Programmatic Review Mission Requirements & Programmatic Review Other State & Federal Legal Compliance Audits Other State & Federal Legal Compliance Audits

Prioritizing Projects All projects ranked through a formal process: All projects ranked through a formal process: Importance of asset Importance of asset Substitutability of asset Substitutability of asset Human safety Human safety Fish Security Fish Security ADA compliance ADA compliance ESA compliance ESA compliance Environmental compliance Environmental compliance Risk of further deterioration Risk of further deterioration Energy efficiency Energy efficiency Mission requirements Mission requirements Scientific defensibility Scientific defensibility Visitor services Visitor services General application is to ensure mission requirements, human safety, fish security and legal obligations are met first. General application is to ensure mission requirements, human safety, fish security and legal obligations are met first.

Program Components Deferred – fix broken items Deferred – fix broken items Preventative – minimize untimely failures of mission critical assets Preventative – minimize untimely failures of mission critical assets Corrective – meet current standards (e.g. ESA) Corrective – meet current standards (e.g. ESA) Programmatic – meet mission needs Programmatic – meet mission needs Routine Maintenance – LSRCP purchase to save agency overhead. Routine Maintenance – LSRCP purchase to save agency overhead.

Forecasted FY Nonrecurring Maintenance Budget Needs (less Equipment) Currently Identified Projects ……. $ m Currently Identified Projects ……. $ m Minus FY 10– 11 Projects ………. - $ 5.57 m Minus FY 10– 11 Projects ………. - $ 5.57 m Estimated FY 12 – 13 Backlog … $ 5.90 m Estimated FY 12 – 13 Backlog … $ 5.90 m Amount Needed to Cover Untimely Breakdowns & Newly Identified Needs During FY is Uncertain - but historically it has been substantial Amount Needed to Cover Untimely Breakdowns & Newly Identified Needs During FY is Uncertain - but historically it has been substantial Plan is to Prioritize Needs & Allocate $2.2 m/yr Plan is to Prioritize Needs & Allocate $2.2 m/yr

Projected FY Backlog by Category Deferred Maintenance $2.30 million Corrective Maintenance $0.67 million Preventative Maintenance $1.17 million Programmatic $1.61 million Routine Maintenance $0.15 million Total $ 5.90 million

EQUIPMENT

LSRCP Equipment (review in FY 09 extended useful life span of most items) Category Useful Life Cost (Replace) Cost (Replace) Rearing Equipment Years $ 0.56 million Vehicles Years $ 3.32 million Heavy Equipment Years $ 5.64 million Scientific Equip. 15 Years $ 1.17 million Office Electronics 5 – 10 Years 5 – 10 Years $ 0.26 million Small Equipment 15 Years $1.93 million Total $ million

Estimated deferred replacement of $3.48 million by FY 12 Estimated deferred replacement of $3.48 million by FY 12 Substantial costs to replace aging equipment will occur over next 10 years. Substantial costs to replace aging equipment will occur over next 10 years.

Replacement Decisions Current Needs Assessment Current Needs Assessment Actual Condition Actual Condition Consequence of Failure (human & fish Safety) Consequence of Failure (human & fish Safety) Maintenance vs. Replacement Cost Comparison Maintenance vs. Replacement Cost Comparison Substitutability Substitutability Facility Sharing Facility Sharing New vs. Used vs. Surplus New vs. Used vs. Surplus

FY Forecasted Equipment Needs Estimated Backlog Beginning FY 12 = $3.48 m Estimated Backlog Beginning FY 12 = $3.48 m Est. Replacements in FY 12 – 13 = +$0.76 m Est. Replacements in FY 12 – 13 = +$0.76 m Total Need $4.24 m Total Need $4.24 m Plan is to Prioritize Needs & Allocate $0.75/yr Plan is to Prioritize Needs & Allocate $0.75/yr

Summary FY Nonrecurring Maintenance Request Request Request To Provide for Progressive Improvement but Require Prioritization of Needs To Provide for Progressive Improvement but Require Prioritization of Needs Cap Annual Request at about 1% of Asset Value Cap Annual Request at about 1% of Asset Value Real Property Assets………………… $4.4 m Real Property Assets………………… $4.4 m Equipment ………………………… $1.5 m Equipment ………………………… $1.5 m Total ……………………………… $5.9 m Total ……………………………… $5.9 m (average of $2.95 / yr) (average of $2.95 / yr) FY Request ………………. $5.91 m FY Request ………………. $5.91 m

Summary of Ongoing Program Expenses

Ongoing Operational Expenses FY Category FY 12 FY 13 Operations $17.64 m $18.39 m Evaluation $ 4.83 m $ 5.03 m Non-recurring maintenance & equipment $ 2.89 m $ 3.02 m Total Total $ m $ m

FWS Has Tried to be a Good Steward of Rate Payer Funds. Annual Savings from Aggressive Cost Containment Annual Savings from Aggressive Cost Containment Waiver of full FWS overhead - $1.06 million / yr Waiver of full FWS overhead - $1.06 million / yr Aggressive cost containment by purchasing items for state & tribal agencies to save overhead & sales taxes. Aggressive cost containment by purchasing items for state & tribal agencies to save overhead & sales taxes. Tags, fish Food & utilities – $ 0.66 million /yr Tags, fish Food & utilities – $ 0.66 million /yr Construction & Equipment - $0.53 Million / yr Construction & Equipment - $0.53 Million / yr Total annual Savings – $ 2.25 Million/yr Total annual Savings – $ 2.25 Million/yr

BiOp/HRT/HSRG/US v Oregon

Hatchery Reform Drivers  Specific Projects in Hydro System Biological Opinion Tucannon & Touchet Steelhead (RPA 40) Tucannon & Touchet Steelhead (RPA 40) East Fork Salmon River Steelhead (RPA 42) East Fork Salmon River Steelhead (RPA 42) HSRG – NOAA/Congress Hatchery Review HSRG – NOAA/Congress Hatchery Review U.S.F.W.S. Hatchery Scientific Review U.S.F.W.S. Hatchery Scientific Review RPA 39 & 40 – Utilize BPS in Section 7 Consultations to not Impede Recovery & Reduce Genetic/Ecological Risks RPA 39 & 40 – Utilize BPS in Section 7 Consultations to not Impede Recovery & Reduce Genetic/Ecological Risks

Summary of Recommendations 499 HRT recommendations 499 HRT recommendations 69 HSRG recommendations 69 HSRG recommendations Many reflect US. v OR Agreement Many reflect US. v OR Agreement LSRCP staff have reviewed – and provided initial response – some no cost, some rejected or unlikely to get co-manager support only 94 were assigned a cost estimate LSRCP staff have reviewed – and provided initial response – some no cost, some rejected or unlikely to get co-manager support only 94 were assigned a cost estimate Final List Awaits Comanager Review & NOAA Review & Approval Final List Awaits Comanager Review & NOAA Review & Approval

Classification of Expenses Four Classes of Expenses Four Classes of Expenses Large Capital > $1.0 m & 15 yrs Large Capital > $1.0 m & 15 yrs Small Capital < $1.0 m Small Capital < $1.0 m Annual Hatchery Operations Annual Hatchery Operations Annual M&E Annual M&E Eleven Categories of Expenses within Each Class: Eleven Categories of Expenses within Each Class: ESA, Fish heath, Fish security, Human safety, Legal obligation, Production reform, Facility security, Pollution abatement, Facility maintenance, I & E, Production evaluation ESA, Fish heath, Fish security, Human safety, Legal obligation, Production reform, Facility security, Pollution abatement, Facility maintenance, I & E, Production evaluation

Forecasted Summary Actual Amounts may Differ once HGMPs Approved, Designs Finalized, & Projects Peer Reviewed Actual Amounts may Differ once HGMPs Approved, Designs Finalized, & Projects Peer Reviewed Large Capital all ESA Related Large Capital all ESA Related Small Capital - Dominated by Fish Health, ESA Production Reforms & Fish Security Small Capital - Dominated by Fish Health, ESA Production Reforms & Fish Security Annual O&M Costs are Relatively Minor Annual O&M Costs are Relatively Minor Annual RM&E Costs Dominated by ESA to Evaluate Conservation Programs Annual RM&E Costs Dominated by ESA to Evaluate Conservation Programs

Costs by Category & Type CategoryLarge CapitalSmall CapitalAnnual ESA$ 29.0$ 0.77$ 1.07 Fish Health$ 1.69$ 0.10 Fish Security$ 0.37 Human Safety$ 0.26 Production Reform$ 0.40$ 0.04 Information & Education$ 0.22 Pollution Abatement$ 0.20 Facility Maintenance$ 0.10 Production Evaluation$ 0.21 Legal & Facility Security$ 0.03 Total$ 29.0$ 4.04$ 1.42