Lower Snake River Fish & Wildlife Compensation Plan

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

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

3. Legislative History • Public Law 85-264(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 94-587 (1976): Authorized construction & operation of the LSRCP in accordance with the COE plan. • Public Law 103-672 (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.

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

5. LSRCP Conservation Activities • Integrated programs to support conservation • Spring Chinook – NE Oregon, Tucannon, McCall, Sawtooth • Snake River Fall Chinook • Steelhead – Clearwater, Tucannon, Touchet, E. Fork Salmon • 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) • 31% of steelhead (1.7 million fish) • 34% of spring Chinook. (2.8 million fish) • Adult outplanting - increase abundance & distribution.

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

7. FY 12 – FY 13 Budget

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

9. Ongoing Operational Budget FY 12 -13 • Includes Hatchery Operations & M&E • Generally stable program. • 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% • Assume that 75% expenses accrue in current year and 25% in following year. • Request is $18.0 m/yr average expense

10. Nonrecurring Maintenance • Real Property Assets (not including land) • Equipment

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

12. LSRCP Hatcheries & Labs11 Hatcheries, 15 Satellites & 2 Labs • Oregon • Lookingglass (Imnaha) • Wallowa (LSC,BC) • Irrigon • Washington • Lyons Ferry (Cottonwood & DP) • Tucannon (Curl Lk) • Snake River Lab • Idaho • Clearwater (CR, Red R. • , Powell) • Magic Valley • Hagerman NFH • McCall (S. Fork) • Sawtooth (E. Fork) • Capt J. , Pitt. & Big Canyon (with BPA) • Dworshak (joint with COE) • Idaho Fish Health Lab

13. 28 Facilities located in three states • Present value of assets (less land) is $322.1 million. • Most (65%) built in 1980’s now 25 + years old. • Maintenance is an inherent cost of ownership and public trust

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

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

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

17. Forecasted FY 12 -13 Nonrecurring Maintenance Budget Needs (less Equipment) • Currently Identified Projects ……. $ 11.47 m • Minus FY 10– 11 Projects ………. - $ 5.57 m • Estimated FY 12 – 13 Backlog … $ 5.90 m • Amount Needed to Cover Untimely Breakdowns & Newly Identified Needs During FY 12 -13 is Uncertain - but historically it has been substantial • Plan is to Prioritize Needs & Allocate $2.2 m/yr

18. Projected FY 12 - 13 Backlog by Category

19. EQUIPMENT

20. LSRCP Equipment (review in FY 09 extended useful life span of most items)

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

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

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

24. Summary FY 12 - 13 Nonrecurring Maintenance Request • Request • To Provide for Progressive Improvement but Require Prioritization of Needs • Cap Annual Request at about 1% of Asset Value • Real Property Assets………………… $4.4 m • Equipment ………………………… $1.5 m • Total ……………………………… $5.9 m (average of $2.95 / yr) • FY 12 -13 Request ………………. $5.91 m

25. Summary of Ongoing Program Expenses

26. Ongoing Operational ExpensesFY 12 -13

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

28. BiOp/HRT/HSRG/US v Oregon

29. Hatchery Reform Drivers Specific Projects in Hydro System Biological Opinion Tucannon & Touchet Steelhead (RPA 40) East Fork Salmon River Steelhead (RPA 42) HSRG – NOAA/Congress Hatchery 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

30. Summary of Recommendations 499 HRT recommendations 69 HSRG recommendations 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 Final List Awaits Comanager Review & NOAA Review & Approval

31. Classification of Expenses • Four Classes of Expenses • Large Capital > $1.0 m & 15 yrs • Small Capital < $1.0 m • Annual Hatchery Operations • Annual M&E • 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

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

33. Costs by Category & Type