1

BPA Fish and Wildlife DivisionUsing Pisces Data to Analyze Wildlife Management Costs

December 2006

Portland, Oregon

2

Introduction

• Tom Karier asked BPA to provide an analysis of the costs associated with the operations and maintenance (O&M) of wildlife projects.

• This presentation will discuss our efforts to date to meet Dr. Karier’s request.

• This was initially an informal exercise designed to provide information to support the FY07 – FY09 selection process.

3

Layers of Data

WE WE

WE

ProjectFrom BES and Pisces

ContractFrom BES and

Pisces

WE WE

WE

ContractFrom BES and

Pisces

Work Elements are only found in Piscesand provide the basis for most of what is

new and useful about reporting out ofPisces

4

WE HubThe Work Element

is the hub.

Work Element“Install Fish Screen”

Budget/ActualsAn estimate of how much

the work element willcost.

ScheduleWhen the work will

occur.

Target SpeciesIdentification of thebenefiting species.

ImplementationStrategy

Identification of the BiOpor NWPA strategy the

work supports.

MetricsObjective measurements

of what the workaccomplished.

Today

Today

Today Tomorrow

Today

Today

$

LocationThe on-the-ground

location of where thework will occur.

N

S

EW BiOp ?

Much of a contract’s pertinent informationis organized by the work element.

Currently in Pisces.

Not yet in Pisces.

Legend

NWPA?

5

WE Budget Estimates

• WE Budgets are estimates provided by the contractor. They are not based on invoiced actuals, but rather the contractors professional opinion. Pisces provides some guidance on what to include in these estimates but is not overly prescriptive.

• Planned WE Budgets are the contractors’ best estimates of the costs associated with a given WE at the time of SOW development.

• Updated WE Budgets are the contractors’ best estimates of the costs associated with a given WE at the time the work is completed.

6

WE Duration

8/06 9/066/064/06

1/06 2/06

1/06 2/06 3/06 4/06 5/06 6/06

12/1/2005 6/30/2006

11/05 12/05 1/06 2/06 3/06 4/06

10/1/2005 4/30/2006

4/06 5/06 6/06 7/06 8/06 9/06

3/1/2006 9/30/2006

WE A Spending Plan

WE B Spending Plan

WE C Spending Plan

Figure 1: Issued Contract and BPA Internal “Contract” Spending Plan

Contract or BPA Internal Spending Plan

$1,000

$5,000

$20,000

The Contract or BPA Internal SpendingPlan is built from the work elements. Theshape of the spending plan comes from

the the work element budgets anddurations.

$26,000

$143 $143 $143 $143 $143 $143 $143

$714 $714 $714 $714 $714 $714 $714

$2857 $2857 $2857 $2857 $2857 $2857 $2857

11/05

$143 $143 $857

10/1/2005

12/05

$857 $857 $3714 $3714 $3571 $3571 $2857 $2857 $2857

9/30/2006

7

Project Performance Period

$15333

2/0712/06

Contract 1

Figure 3: Project Spending Plan

8/06 9/066/064/06

1/06 2/06

$26,000

11/05

$143 $143 $857

10/1/2005

12/05

$857 $857 $3714 $3714 $3571 $3571 $2857 $2857 $2857

9/30/2006

Contract 2

Contract 3(BPA Internal)

10/06

$40,000

8/06

7/1/2006 2/28/2007

$3000 $3000 $5000 $5000 $7000 $7000 $5000 $5000

10/1/2005 2/28/2007

2/06 3/06 4/06 5/06 6/06 7/06 8/06 9/06 10/06 11/06 12/06

1/1/2006 12/30/2006

$100,000

$8333 $8333 $8333 $8333 $8333 $8333 $8333 $8333 $8333 $8333 $8333 $8333

Project I $13190 $16190 $13333 $5000 $5000$15333$13190$857 $9190 $12047 $11904 $11904$12047$9190$143 $143

For this project, the FY06 CouncilRecommendation would be $166,000. Based onthe spending plans to the right, the actual amountof spending in FY06 is predicted to be ~$107,500.

If this were an ongoing project, Contract B andBPA Internal “Contract” C would likely have somework from the FY05 Council Recommendation that

occurs in FY06. Depending on the timing andbudget of that work, the predicted spending may

or may not be close to $166,000.

The project spending plan is the sum of itscontract and BPA Internal “Contract” spending

plans. It’s shape comes from their shape.

11/05 12/05 1/06 2/06 3/06 4/06 5/06 6/06 7/06 8/06 9/06 10/06 11/06 12/06 1/07 2/07

8

Discussions/conclusions

• This analysis is not intended to provide a definitive answer to any specific management question.

• There is substantial variation amongst wildlife projects with respect to:– Wildlife management costs/acre and– The distribution of funding amongst the work categories

• Additional analysis is required to determine the source of the variation.

• There is currently overlap between the habitat enhancement and habitat O&M work categories. Work elements in their current form are focused on what the work is and not why we are doing the work.

9

Next Steps

• Optimize Wildlife Enhancement and O&M Work Elements – Improve our ability to differentiate between

management phases – Review work element classifications

• Which are enhancement? Which are O&M?

– Better identify all of the costs associated with each phase

• Redistribute foundational work element budget estimates

10

Next Steps

• Incorporate Wildlife Data into Pisces– HU/Crediting Information– Acquisition Level Data

• Categorize acquisitions and projects– Use structured data from Pisces (WE

information, metrics) to compare “like to like”