2017 Columbia River Basin Fish And Wildlife Program Costs Report
2017 Columbia River BasinFish and Wildlife ProgramCosts Report17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THENORTHWEST GOVERNORS
PAGE 2 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS FISH & WILDLIFE COSTSContents0406070822Summary of 2017 CostsPower System CostsBackgroundFiguresEndnotes
FISH & WILDLIFE COSTS 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS PAGE 3Figures08091011121314151618192021Figure 1: Costs by Major Area, FY2017, as Reported by Bonneville’s Fish andWildlife DivisionFigure 2: Costs by Types of SpeciesFigure 3: Costs of FCRPS BiOp ProjectsFigure 4: Costs Associated with ESA Listed FishFigure 5: Costs by FundFigure 6A: Costs by CategoryFigure 6B: Artificial Production Costs by CategoryFigure 7: Costs for Research, Monitoring & EvaluationFigure 8: Costs by ProvinceFigure 9: Costs by Work Element Location TypesFigure 10: Costs by Contractor TypesFigure 11: Costs of Land Purchases for Fish and Wildlife HabitatFigure 12: Cumulative Costs by Major Spending Area
PAGE 4 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS FISH & WILDLIFE COSTSOverviewSince 2001, in response to a request from the governorsof Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, thefour states that comprise the Northwest Power andConservation Council, we have reported annually onall costs related to fish and wildlife incurred by theBonneville Power Administration, (BPA) as reportedby Bonneville. This includes the cost of implementingthe Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and WildlifeProgram.In this 17th annual report, the Council provides anupdate of Bonneville’s reported fish and wildlife costsin Fiscal Year 2017 (October 1, 2016 – September 30,2017). The information in this report was provided byBonneville in response to requests from the Councilstaff and was not independently verified by the Councilor its staff. The Council prepares this report solely forinformational purposes, not as a requirement of theNorthwest Power Act, and has neither the expertise northe resources to analyze the accuracy of Bonneville’sreported costs.Summary of 2017 costsIn Fiscal Year 2017, Bonneville reported total fishand wildlife costs of approximately 450.4 million, asfollows: 254.7 million in direct (expense) costs for thedirect-funded program, which pays for projects suchas habitat improvements, research, and some fishhatchery costs. 85.2 million in reimbursements to the federalTreasury for expenditures of appropriated funds bythe Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation,and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for investmentsin fish passage and fish production, including directfunding of operations and maintenance expenses offederal fish hatcheries; this category also includesone-half of the Council’s 10.8 million in costsin Fiscal Year 2017 (the other half is assigned toBonneville’s Power Business Line budget). 121.4 million for debt service (interest,amortization, and depreciation) of capitalinvestments for facilities such as hatcheries, fishpassage facilities at dams, and some land purchasesfor fish and wildlife habitat. 9.6 million in forgone hydropower sales revenuethat results from dam operations that benefit fishbut reduce hydropower generation. Bonneville’s Fishand Wildlife Division considers forgone revenue asthe result of spill at dams to benefit fish passage acost attributable to fish and wildlife mitigation. Negative 20.5 million in power purchases.Bonneville buys power in the wholesale marketduring periods when dam operations to protectmigrating fish reduce hydropower generation belowfirm loads, such as by spilling water over damsin the spring or storing it behind dams in wintermonths in anticipation of flow augmentation. Thenegative number for 2017 is an anomaly. Powerpurchases and forgone revenue have a wide variancefrom year to year due to differences in streamflows,power prices and operations. The 2017 Fiscal Yearexhibited an unusual and unintuitive result for bothreplacement power purchases (which are a part ofthe 4.h.10.C calculation) and forgone revenues.According to Bonneville, one of the reasons these“cost of fish operations” were lower in 2017 canbe attributed to the modeled reservoir operationsin the previous year as well as an unusual runoff.Bonneville’s calculations show that operationsfor fish pushed some generation into monthswith higher power prices, and the value of thatgeneration more than offset the fact that Bonnevillelost approximately 210 average megawatts ofgeneration due to operations for fish in 2017.
FISH & WILDLIFE COSTS 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS PAGE 5The 450.4 million total does not include the amountBonneville borrowed from the U.S. Treasury in 2017totaling 65.6 million — 5.4 million for programrelated (capital) projects, 1.4 million for softwaredevelopment costs, and the 58.9 million appropriatedby Congress for associated federal projects as part ofthe Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program. Theseinvestments are all repaid by Bonneville. Including themin the same total as fixed costs would double-count someof the capital investment.The total also does not reflect a credit of 53.7 millionfrom the federal Treasury related to fish and wildlifecosts in 2017 that Bonneville is required to take underSection 4(h)(10)(C) of the Northwest Power Act. Theannual credit comprises the obligations of other federalagencies for dam purposes other than hydropower, andwhich Bonneville pays in full. The credit is applied toBonneville’s federal Treasury debt. Subtracting the creditreduces the total fish and wildlife costs to 396.7 millionin fiscal year 2017 (the credit is explained in more detailin the “Power System Costs” section of this report).The total of all fish and wildlife costs reported byBonneville’s Fish and Wildlife Division for FiscalYear 2017 ( 450.4 million) comprises 18.2 percent ofBonneville’s entire Power Business Line costs of 2.465billion. This amount includes forgone revenue andpower purchases that result from lost hydropower salesas the result of court-ordered spill to assist juvenile fishmigration past Columbia and Snake river dams. Becauseforgone revenue is an estimate of lost revenue and notan actual cost, Bonneville’s Power Business Line doesnot include forgone revenue in its calculation of annualfish and wildlife costs ( 441 million), which is separatefrom the amount calculated by the Fish and WildlifeDivision. Without forgone revenue, fish and wildlifecosts comprise 17.8 percent of Bonneville’s 2.465billion in total power-related costs.Fish and wildlife costs account for a significant portionof the rate Bonneville charges its wholesale powercustomers. Approximately one third of Bonneville’s2017-2019 wholesale rate of 35.57 per megawatt houris estimated to be associated with its fish and wildlifeprogram. This includes the estimate of forgone revenue.BPA’s forecast annual total power cost for the BP16 rate period was 2.348 billion and includes 535million in direct fish and wildlife costs. In addition to
PAGE 6 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS FISH & WILDLIFE COSTSBPA’s forecast direct fish and wildlife costs, Bonnevilleestimated roughly 200 million in forgone revenuefor a total forecast annual fish and wildlife cost of 735 million, which is 31 percent of 2.348 billion,or approximately one-third, which is the approximateimpact to rates. These estimates assume 2014 BiologicalOpinion operations and include the portion of costsallocated to non-power uses of the dams (NorthwestPower Act Section 4(h)10(C)).The Council understands the impact fish and wildlifecosts have on rates and is working on measures tokeep its program as efficient and effective as possible.Accordingly, the Council formed a cost-savingsworkgroup with Bonneville that identifies and reviewson a regular basis fish and wildlife projects for potentialclose-out or significant cost reductions (greater than 50,000). The cost-savings work began in 2015, when 182,746 in savings were identified and reprogrammedin Fiscal Year 2016 to other projects. In 2016, savingstotaling 560,000 were identified, and in Fiscal Year2017, Bonneville and Council staff identified additionalprojects and the savings grew to roughly 1.1 million.Cost savings allow new projects to be funded by shiftingmoney among projects without increasing the total fishand wildlife budget. Most of the projects identified forsavings are in the process of a “smart closeout,” meaningthat their funding will decline by approximately onethird each year for three years. Due to this process,the cost-savings increase each year until the projectscompletely close out.
FISH & WILDLIFE COSTS 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS PAGE 7Power system costsThe Council’s program and the biological opinionson Federal Columbia River Power System operationsissued by NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service specify hydropower dam operations forfish that also affect power generation. These measuresinclude river and dam operations to protect spawningand rearing areas for both anadromous and resident fishand to improve passage conditions at dams for juvenilesalmon and steelhead. Sometimes these operationsrequire Bonneville to purchase power to meet loadswhile at other times Bonneville simply forgoes arevenue-making opportunity (forgone revenue).Regardless of how Bonneville handles the reducedgeneration, fish operations to comply with these federalrequirements affect Bonneville rates for utility customers.Bonneville customers pay the cost of power Bonnevillepurchases to meet regional loads. Also, compliance withthese legal requirements, and others, limits the amountof revenue that would be possible from an unrestrictedoperation of the hydropower system. For reportingpurposes, on an annual basis Bonneville calculates thevalue of both power purchases and forgone revenuesattributable to fish operations and reports them as partof its costs to mitigate the impacts to fish and wildlifefrom operation of the federal hydropower system. Whilethe Council recognizes there is debate over the reportingof these power-system costs, a principle of the Actrequires the Council to consider the “monetary costs andelectric power losses resulting from implementation ofthe program” (Section 4(h)(8)(D)) which are allocatedby the Administrator. Accordingly, this report includesforgone revenues and power purchases as reported byBonneville, as the Council does not have the capabilityto audit Bonneville’s financial records.The amounts of forgone revenue and power purchasesvary from year to year because the demand for powerand the amount of water in the Columbia River systemalso vary. During some months of the year (most notablyspring), the hydropower system generates sufficientpower, even with fish operations, to both meet firm loadand generate surplus power. During these months, thefish operations often reduce electrical generation at thedams, thereby lowering so-called “secondary” revenuesfrom sales of surplus power (water that is spilled overdams to aid fish passage cannot be used to generatepower). Bonneville calls these revenue reductions“forgone revenues.” Among the many factors Bonnevilleconsiders in setting rates, one is an assumption thatsurplus power sales will be lowered because of howthe river and dams are operated for fish. During othermonths of the year, and under low-water conditions, thehydropower system does not generate enough powerto meet firm loads and Bonneville must supplementthrough purchasing electricity from other suppliers.When fish operations necessitate these additional powerpurchases to meet firm loads, Bonneville identifies thisincrement as “power purchases for fish enhancement” inits fish and wildlife costs.To calculate the annual power-generation share offorgone revenue and power purchases attributable tofish operations at the dams, Bonneville conducts twostudies of hydropower generation for the relevant fiscalyear. One study includes dam-operating requirementsfor fish protection, and the other has no fish-protectionrequirements. The differences for each month arecalculated and the corresponding monthly actualMid-Columbia wholesale electricity market prices (asreported by the Intercontinental Exchange, or ICE) areapplied. Combined with assumptions of the monthlypower-demand load, this provides monthly estimates ofthe forgone revenue and power purchases resulting fromthe fish-enhancement operations.In Fiscal Year 2017, the overall annual average differencebetween the two studies (fish protection and no-fishprotection) was 210 average-megawatts. Of this, about119 average-megawatts contributed to the estimated 9.6 million in forgone revenue. About 91 averagemegawatts contributed to the estimated negative 20.5million in replacement power purchases. The negativeamount, an anomaly, is explained on page 4 of thisreport.As noted above, Bonneville receives a credit underSection 4(h)(10)(C) of the Northwest Power Act asreimbursement for the non-power share of fish and
PAGE 8 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS FISH & WILDLIFE COSTSwildlife costs that Bonneville pays annually, includinga portion of the power purchases. Other costs are notfactored into that 4(h)(10)(C) credit, such as forgonerevenue, interest on Treasury borrowing, amortizationand depreciation of capital projects, reimbursableexpenditures, and the Council budget. Non-powerpurposes such as irrigation, navigation, and floodcontrol comprise a weighted, system-wide average of22.3 percent of the authorized purposes of the federaldams. The annual credit to Bonneville is based on thispercentage, and is applied against Bonneville’s Treasurypayment at the end of the year.The 2017 credit was 53.7 million — 22.3 percentof 241 million, the total of fish and wildlife capitalcosts ( 6.8 million), direct program costs ( 254.7million), and power purchases (negative 20.5 million)for fish enhancement. In effect, the credit reduces thefish and wildlife costs paid by electricity ratepayers.As noted earlier in this report, the grand total of allfish and wildlife costs incurred by Bonneville in 2017was approximately 450.4 million (including forgonerevenue and power purchases). Applying the 4(h)(10)(C) credit reduces Bonneville’s total fish and wildliferelated costs, meaning that ratepayers were responsiblefor 396.7 million and the federal government creditedBonneville 53.7 million.BackgroundTThe Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning andConservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 839; Public Law96-501), the federal law that authorized the states ofIdaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington to form theNorthwest Power and Conservation Council, directsthe Council to prepare a program to protect, mitigateand enhance fish and wildlife, and related spawninggrounds and habitat, of the Columbia River Basin thathave been affected by hydroelectric development. TheBonneville Power Administration satisfies its Power Actresponsibilities for fish and wildlife mitigation throughfunding of the Council’s Columbia River Basin Fishand Wildlife Program. Bonneville is a federal powermarketing authority within the U.S. Department ofEnergy that sells wholesale electricity from 31 federalhydropower dams and one non-federal nuclear powerplant in the Pacific Northwest (the Federal ColumbiaRiver Power System — FCRPS).In addition to this annual report on Bonneville’s fish andwildlife costs, the Council also tracks progress of fishand wildlife efforts in the Columbia River Basin usingthree high-level indicators (HLI). Posed as questions,they are:1.Are Columbia River Basin fish species abundant,diverse, productive, spatially distributed, andsustainable?2.Are operations of the mainstem Columbia andSnake River hydropower dams meeting the fishpassage survival objectives of the program?3.What is being accomplished by projects thatimplement the Council’s fish and wildlife program?Over time, the Council expects to augment and refinethese indicators to provide a more comprehensivepicture of fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin.Columbia River basinwide HLI information is reportedin graphics that are posted on the Council’s High-LevelIndicator report webpage (www.nwcouncil.org/ext/hli).Subbasin-specific information is posted on the Council’ssubbasin dashboard webpage (www.nwcouncil.org/ext/dashboard).The indicators, questions, and graphics are developedand refined in collaboration with fish and wildlifeagencies and tribes. Information used to populate theindicator graphics is provided by 1) sponsors of projectsfunded through the fish and wildlife program, and2) fish and wildlife agencies and tribes that report onprojects not funded through the program. The currentreporting status of the three high-level indicators canbe viewed in the Table of Indicators on the Council’swebsite (www.nwcouncil.org/fw/hli/table).
FISH & WILDLIFE COSTS 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS PAGE 9FiguresData tables for all figures -4Figure 1: Costs by Major Area, FY2017Total of 450.4 million does not reflect 65.6 million in obligations to capital projects forfish and wildlife projects, software development, and structures at dams, or 53.7 millionfederal credits Bonneville receives from the U.S. TreasuryPower Purchases forFish Enhancement(est.), - 20.5 millionAmoritization/Depreciation(est.), 62.8 millionInterestExpense (est.), 58.6 millionFixed Costs, 121.4 millionDirect F&W Program, 254.7 millionNW Power &Conservation Council, 5.4 millionBureau of ReclamationO&M (est.), 7.0 millionReimburseableCosts, 85.2 millionLower Snake CompPlan, 26.0 millionCorps of Engineers O&M(est.), 46.8 millionForgoneRevenue, 9.6 millionThis information has been made publicly available by BPA on 3/20/2018. The figures shown are consistent with audited actuals that contain Agencyapproved financial information, except for forgone revenues and power purchases which are estimates and do not contain Agency approved financialinformation.1/ Capital Investments include both BPA’s direct Fish and Wildlife Program capital investments, funded by BPA’s Treasury borrowing, and “AssociatedProjects”, which include capital investments at Corps of Engineers’ and Bureau of Reclamation projects, funded by appropriations and repaid by BPA.The negative amount in FY 1997 reflects a decision to reverse “plant-in-service” investment that was never actually placed into service. The annualexpenses associated with these investments are included in “Program-Related Fixed Expenses”.2/ Includes High Priority and Action Plan Expenses and other supplemental programs.3/ “Reimbursable/Direct-Funded Projects” includes the portion of costs BPA pays to or on behalf of other entities that is determined to be for fish andwildlife purposes.“4/ “Fixed Expenses” include depreciation, amortization and interest on investments on the Corps of Engineers’ projects, and amortization and intereston the investments associated with BPA’s direct Fish and Wildlife Program.
PAGE 10 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS FISH & WILDLIFE COSTSFigure 2: Costs by Types of Species, FY2017Total: 260.0 million includes 5.4 million in obligations to capital projectsProgramSupport 25 millionWildlife 18 millionResident Fish 42 millionAnadromousFish 175 million1) Starting in 2008, Spending can be tracked back to a work element where the contractor explicitly identified the“Primary Focal Species” benefiting from the work.2) Program Support includes includes contracts that contain only administrative work elements or program levelspending that could not be mapped to a specific project, as well as BPA internal overhead such as personnel costs.3) FY2017 revised as of February 21, 2018.Source: Bonneville Power Administration
FISH & WILDLIFE COSTS 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS PAGE 11Figure 3: Costs of FCRPS BiOp Projects, 2006-2017 250CapitalExpense 29 200(Millions) 31 22 150 30(See note) 8 1 6 12 100 50 0 5 74 9 78 10 92 114 130 143 162 151 143 165 160 1572006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20171) Estimated spending is based at the project level. Therefore, if a project partially supports the FCRPSBiOp, all expenditures for the project are included.2) Passage projects were moved from Capital to Expense funding starting with FY16 contracts.3) FY2017 reviewed as of February 21, 2018; no changes.4) FY2017 Capital Spending is - 396,792. Negative value is a result of over-accruing costs in theprevious year.Source: Bonneville Power Administration
PAGE 12 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS FISH & WILDLIFE COSTSFigure 4: Costs Associated with ESA-Listed Fish, FY2017Total: 191.3 million (Expense: 191.7 million, Capital: -.4 million)Trout, Bull (threatened)Sturgeon, White - Kootenai RiverDPS (endangered)Cutthroat Trout, Lahontan(threatened)Expense TotalSpendingChub, Oregon (delisted) 4Capital TotalSpendingSteelhead - Upper Willamette RiverDPS (threatened)Steelhead - Upper Columbia RiverDPS (endangered)Steelhead - Snake River DPS(threatened)Steelhead - Middle Columbia RiverDPS (threatened)Steelhead - Lower Columbia RiverDPS (threatened)Sockeye - Snake River ESU(endangered)Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU(threatened)Chum - Columbia River ESU(threatened)Chinook - Upper Willamette RiverESU (threatened)Chinook - Upper Columbia RiverSpring ESU (endangered)Chinook - Snake RiverSpring/Summer ESU (threatened)Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU(threatened)Chinook - Lower Columbia RiverESU (threatened) 0 10 20 30 401) Direct spending can be tracked back to a work element where the contractor explicitlyidentified the “Primary Focal Species”(Millions)benefiting from the work. 502) Contract Administration spending can be tracked back to a work element that did not require the contractor to identify the “PrimaryFocal Species” benefiting from the work.3) Negative values for Capital Spending are a result of over-accruing costs in the previous year.4) Oregon Chub, once an endangered species, have rebounded and were delisted in 2015.Source: Bonneville Power Administration
FISH & WILDLIFE COSTS 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS PAGE 13Figure 5: Costs by Fund, FY2017Total: 260.0 million includes 5.4 million in obligations to capital projectsTotal BPAOverhead 17 million6%Total General 41 million16%Total BiOp(non Accord) 99 million38%Accords non-BiOp 47 million18%Accords BiOp 57 million22%1) BiOp tracking at fund level began in 2009, Accords began in 2008.2) Spending is estimated based on the percent of funding towards a project. For example, if a project budget is 70 percent BiOpand 30 percent General, the project expenditures will be prorated 70 percent towards BiOp and 30 percent General.3) Revised on February 21, 2018.4) In this figure and the corresponding table, overhead is reported two ways: BPA internal support ( 14,542,931) and technicalsupport ( 2,023,130) for a total of 16,566,061, rounded up to 17 million.Source: Bonneville Power Administration
PAGE 14 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS FISH & WILDLIFE COSTSFigure 6A: Costs by Category, FY2017Total: 260.0 million includes 5.4 million in obligations to capital projectsCoordination(Local/Regional) 13.9 million5%Research,Monitoring andEvaluation 82.2 million32%DataManagement 6.8 million3%Coordination(BPA Overhead) 14.5 million5%Habitat(Restoration/Protection) 98.2 million38%PredatorRemoval 4.2 million2%Production(Supplementation) 34.9 million13%LawEnforcement 1.0 million0%HarvestAugmentation 4.3 million2%1) BPA’s database identifies projects by their “Purpose” (general goal) and “Emphasis” (primary type of work, e.g., habitat restoration).BPA does not track its project management overhead against individual projects or contracts, so there is no easy or accurate way toallocate BPA overhead to specific purposes or emphases. Thus, in the above report, BPA includes its staffing to manage the 600-pluscontracts in its fish and wildlife program in the category identified as Coordination (BPA Overhead), and its direct technical servicescontracts for Data Management and Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation in those respective categories. This differs from the BPAoverhead amount reported in Figure and Table 5, which includes internal support plus technical support. Here, Figure and Table 6only reports internal support as BPA overhead. Technical support is included in the amounts reported in the individual categories.2) Estimated spending is based at the project level. Therefore if a project is assigned an emphasis of Habitat, but also does RME, allexpenditures for the project are included under Habitat.3) Starting in Fiscal Year 2015 (and revised for FY2014), Costs by Category will now separate Coordination costs between Regional/Local Coordination and BPA Overhead.4) FY2016 revised as of February 21, 2018.Source: Bonneville Power Administration
FISH & WILDLIFE COSTS 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS PAGE 15Figure 6B: Costs of Artificial Production byCategory, FY2017Total: 64.8 million does not include obligations to capital projectsCoordination(Local/Regional) .7 million1.1%HarvestAugmentation 4.3 million6.7%Supplementation 34.9 million53.8%RM and E 24.9 million38.5%1) Estimated spending is based at the project level. Therefore if a project is assigned an emphasis of Habitat, but also does RME, allexpenditures for the project are included under Habitat.2) FY2016 reviewed on February 22, 2018, no changes.Source: Bonneville Power Administration
PAGE 16 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS FISH & WILDLIFE COSTSFigure 7: Costs of Research, Monitoring and Evaluation(RM&E), FY2017Total: 82.2 million does not include obligations to capital projectsProgrammatic, 32.5 million, 39%ArtificialProduction, 24.9 million, 30%Habitat, 13.2million, 16%Predation, 1.2million, 2%Hydrosystem, 8.9million, 11%Harvest, 1.4million, 2%1) Estimated spending is based at the project level. Therefore if a project is labeled Artificial Production, but also supportsHabitat, the expenditures are counted as Artificial Production.2) The term “Programmatic” is used to describe projects whose purpose is broader than a specific project or region, but fallsunder the larger umbrella of the overall Fish and Wildlife Program. Examples include projects such as Coded Wire Tags,Climate Change Impacts, the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program, the Comparative Survival Study, andthe Fish Passage Center.Source: Bonneville Power Administration
FISH & WILDLIFE COSTS 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS PAGE 17Figure 8: Costs by Province, FY2017Total: 260.0 million includes 5.4 million in obligations to capital projectsProgram Support, 19.7 million, 8%Blue Mountain, 15.4 million,6%Upper Snake, 5.2 million,2%Columbia Cascade, 22.9 million, 9%Other, 5.0million, 2%Columbia Gorge, 10.8 million, 4%Mountain Snake, 34.8 million, 13%Columbia Plateau, 63.7 million, 24%Mountain Columbia, 15.3 million, 6%Middle Snake, 4.5 million, 2%Lower Columbia, 32.6 million, 12%Intermountain, 20.2 million, 8%Columbia Estuary, 9.9 million, 4%1) Starting in 2008, spending by province is tracked in Pisces based on where the contractor explicitly identified work location.2) Other includes “Undetermined” locations such as Ocean, Canada; and provinces not recognized by NPCC.3) Program Support/Admin includes spending that cannot be traced back to a contract that has at least one work element requiringlocation; contracts without any work elements at all; program level spending not mapped to a specific project; and BPA Overhead.4) FY2016 revised as of February 22, 2018.Source: Bonneville Power Administration
PAGE 18 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS FISH & WILDLIFE COSTSProvince Map
FISH & WILDLIFE COSTS 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS PAGE 19Figure 9: Costs by Work Element Location, FY2017Total: 260.0 million includes 5.4 million in obligations to capital projectsBritish Col. 2 million0.8%Ocean 1 million0.4%Washington 87.8 million36.5%Oregon 83.8 million34.9%Montana 4.9 million2%Idaho 60 million25%Nevada 0.7 million0.3%1) Starting in 2008, spending by state is tracked in Pisces based on where the contractor explicitly identified work location.2) Program Support/Admin/Other ( 19.7 million) includes spending that cannot be traced back to a contract that has at least onework element requiring location; contracts without any work elements; program level spending not mapped to a specific project orNPCC province; and BPA Overhead.3) FY2016 revised as of February 22, 2018.Source: Bonneville Power Administration
PAGE 20 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS FISH & WILDLIFE COSTSFigure 10: Costs by Contractor Types, FY2017Total: 260.0 million includes 5.4 million in obligations to capital projects 0 mil 5 mil 10 mil 15 mil 20 mil 25 mil 30 milFederal: BPA Overhead (& Non-Contracted Project Costs)Federal: National Marine FisheriesFederal: US Fish & Wildlife ServiceFederal: US Geological SurveyFederal: US Forest ServiceFederal: OtherState: Oregon Department of Fish & WildlifeState: Idaho Department of Fish & WildlifeState: Washington Department of Fish & WildlifeState: Idaho State Office of Species ConservationState: Montana Fish, Wildlife And ParksTribe: Yakama Confederated TribesTribe: Colville Confederated TribesTribe: Nez Perce TribeTribe: Umatilla Confederated TribesTribe: Kootenai TribeTribe: Columbia River Intertribal Fish CommissionTribe: Confederated Tribes of Warm SpringsTribe: Kalispel Tribe of IndiansTribe: Shoshone-Bannock TribesTribe: Spokane Tribe of IndiansTribe: Coeur D'Alene Tribe of IdahoTribe: Shoshone-Paiute TribesTribe: Burns-PaiuteTribe: OtherInterstate: Pacific States Marine Fisheries CommissionUniversityOther: Private/Non-Profit/OtherOther: Land AcquisitionsOther: National Fish & Wildlife FoundationOther: Local/Semi Governme
FISH & WILDLIFE COSTS 17TH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NORTHWEST GOVERNORS PAGE 3 Figures 08 Figure 1: Costs by Major Area, FY2017, as Reported by Bonneville's Fish and Wildlife Division 09 Figure 2: Costs by Types of Species 10 Figure 3: Costs of FCRPS BiOp Projects 11 Figure 4: Costs Associated with ESA Listed Fish 12 Figure 5: Costs by Fund 13 Figure 6A: Costs by Category
When I found One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish I was sure I’d found the best learn-to-count book and that it would explain how to count without a grown-up to get you started.7 Here’s how it begins: One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish. Black fish, blue fish old fish, new fish. This one has a litt
r. Seuss's One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish is a clas-sic children's story, a simple rhyming book for beginning readers. We need a similar rhyme to help people grasp the problems afflicting Alberta's native fish species. It might read like this: Two fish, one fish, dead fish, no fish, No grayling or goldeye, something's amiss .
Fish noun Fish noun Examples Freshwater fish live in rivers and lakes. Freshwater fish live in rivers and lakes. Saltwater fish live in oceans and seas. Saltwater fish live in oceans and seas. The fish is swimming in the water. The fish is swimming in the water. The fish is looking at the bait. The fish is looking at the bait. freshwater fish .
Mad River rinity Salmon Redwood eek Scott Shasta River River River River River River River Crater Lake Spring Creek Summer Lake gue Sprague Upper Klamath Lake Illinois TH RIVER W i l l i a m s o n R i v e r ood River A-Canal OREGON CALIFORNIA 0 50 100 KILOMETERS 050100 MILES Chiloquin Yreka Fort Jones Seiad Valley Agness Prospect Somes Bar .
The following tables show common New York freshwater fish and some other interesting fish. Also see the “Key to Identifying Common New York Freshwater Fish” at the end of this chapter. NIAGARA RIVER/ LAKE ERIE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER CHEMUNG ALLEGHENY RIVER RIVER MOHAWK RIVER OSWEGO RIVER/ FINGER LAKES RAMAPO RIVER HOUSATONIC RIVER LAKE ONTARIO .
Delaware River Basin Commission - Proposed New 18 CFR Part 440 Review March 2018 American Petroleum Institute Page vi Executive Summary The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) published proposed rules on November 30, 2017, which would prohibit high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF *) within the Delaware River Basin (DRB).
the Ohio River Basin Water Resources Initiative . The goals of this report is to provide a quantifiable estimate of water lost via interbasin transfers, the regulatory policies in place, the role of agencies / . Water Resources Council, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Apalachicola .
The majority of Plaistow is located in the Little River Watershed which is a sub-basin of the Merrimack River Basin. The Merrimack River Basin covers 173.2 square miles - 10.5 square miles of it is located in Plaistow. The Little River and its drainage basin make up most of Plaistow's surface water.
