Columbia Basin Wildlife Mitigation

3. Columbia Basin Wildlife Mitigation Genesis and Mitigation Process HEP Overview Case Study Example (“how HEP should be applied”) Annualization and Compensation Options In kind, Equal, Relative HEP/Columbia River W/L Mitigation Comparison Regional HEP Team The intent of the presentation is to review the underlying principles that relate to Full Mitigation, No Net Loss, and Mitigation Ratios. Several examples, or case studies, will be presented, some of which have incorporated the mitigation ratio concept. To better understand the historic lack of consensus between the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Managers about wildlife mitigation crediting, a brief review of the Northwest Power Planning Council’s (Council) Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) will be provided. Wildlife Rules from 1989 through 2000 will be highlighted. The interim nature of the wildlife mitigation agreements and contracts developed between Bonneville and the wildlife managers will also be explained. The Council’s 2:1 crediting ruling will be described and a comparison between 1:1 crediting, 2:1 crediting, and other mitigation ratios will be given. Finally, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) managers will present several issues for future discussion relative to wildlife crediting. The intent of the presentation is to review the underlying principles that relate to Full Mitigation, No Net Loss, and Mitigation Ratios. Several examples, or case studies, will be presented, some of which have incorporated the mitigation ratio concept. To better understand the historic lack of consensus between the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Managers about wildlife mitigation crediting, a brief review of the Northwest Power Planning Council’s (Council) Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) will be provided. Wildlife Rules from 1989 through 2000 will be highlighted. The interim nature of the wildlife mitigation agreements and contracts developed between Bonneville and the wildlife managers will also be explained. The Council’s 2:1 crediting ruling will be described and a comparison between 1:1 crediting, 2:1 crediting, and other mitigation ratios will be given. Finally, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) managers will present several issues for future discussion relative to wildlife crediting.

4. Genesis The Northwest Power Act “The Council shall develop and adopt a program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife … while assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply.” Section 4(h)(5) “The BPA shall fund to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife to the extent affected by the development and operation of the FCRPS ... in a manner consistent with the Council’s Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.” Section 4(h)(10)(A) “ The Administrator shall … exercise such responsibilities to adequately protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife including related spawning grounds and habitat.” Section 4(h)(11)(A)(i) The Northwest Power Act of 1980 provides the basis for considering the effects of the hydropower system on wildlife and mitigating for wildlife losses. The Act: 1. Created the Northwest Power Planning Council Called for the development of a Council Program to direct fish and wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement, and 3. Obligated BPA to fund impacts to fish and wildlife to the extent affected by the hydropower system and in a manner consistent with the Council’s Program. The key issues here are that the Northwest Power Act mandates consideration of not only fish, but wildlife, and that protection, mitigation, and enhancement actions are mandated to compensate for the losses incurred by the power system and in a manner consistent with the Council’s Program.The Northwest Power Act of 1980 provides the basis for considering the effects of the hydropower system on wildlife and mitigating for wildlife losses. The Act: 1. Created the Northwest Power Planning Council Called for the development of a Council Program to direct fish and wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement, and 3. Obligated BPA to fund impacts to fish and wildlife to the extent affected by the hydropower system and in a manner consistent with the Council’s Program. The key issues here are that the Northwest Power Act mandates consideration of not only fish, but wildlife, and that protection, mitigation, and enhancement actions are mandated to compensate for the losses incurred by the power system and in a manner consistent with the Council’s Program.

5. Mitigate - to modify the scope or design of a project On-Site to reduce projected impacts of proposed actions. Mitigation is a process done ON-SITE & PRE-IMPACT. The first three steps in the mitigation process are 1) avoid impacts, 2) minimize impacts, and 3) repair impacts and restore the affected environment within the project area (on-site). Compensate - to replace losses resulting from unavoidable impacts of implemented actions. Compensation or Compensatory Mitigation is based on the principle that wildlife resources are renewable and thus can be replenished through management of suitable land to increase existing habitat value. A tract of land has an existing inherent habitat value. To receive compensation credit, the land must be managed to increase its carrying capacity, as measured by Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), so it can maintain existing wildlife populations while concurrently supporting additional populations to make up for the wildlife values lost as a result of the project impacts. Compensation is a process done POST-PROJECT for purposes of the FWP and may include both protection and enhancement measures. Compensation can be done either On-Site or Off-Site. At this point in time for the FCRPS construction/inundation impacts, avoidance of impacts through the first three steps of the mitigation process is not possible because the impacts have already occurred. Therefore, for purposes of discussion, the term “mitigation” will refer to the fourth step in the mitigation process, that being compensation for unavoidable impacts post-project either on-site or off-site. The No Net Loss goal is full functional replacement to mitigate for all of the habitat functions and values that were lost as a result of an action. Full mitigation is analogous to no net loss. The goal of No Net Loss of habitat values is held by the USACE, USFWS, and NRCS. The Council adopted a full mitigation policy with the 1993 Wildlife Rule.Mitigate - to modify the scope or design of a project On-Site to reduce projected impacts of proposed actions. Mitigation is a process done ON-SITE & PRE-IMPACT. The first three steps in the mitigation process are 1) avoid impacts, 2) minimize impacts, and 3) repair impacts and restore the affected environment within the project area (on-site). Compensate - to replace losses resulting from unavoidable impacts of implemented actions. Compensation or Compensatory Mitigation is based on the principle that wildlife resources are renewable and thus can be replenished through management of suitable land to increase existing habitat value. A tract of land has an existing inherent habitat value. To receive compensation credit, the land must be managed to increase its carrying capacity, as measured by Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), so it can maintain existing wildlife populations while concurrently supporting additional populations to make up for the wildlife values lost as a result of the project impacts. Compensation is a process done POST-PROJECT for purposes of the FWP and may include both protection and enhancement measures. Compensation can be done either On-Site or Off-Site. At this point in time for the FCRPS construction/inundation impacts, avoidance of impacts through the first three steps of the mitigation process is not possible because the impacts have already occurred. Therefore, for purposes of discussion, the term “mitigation” will refer to the fourth step in the mitigation process, that being compensation for unavoidable impacts post-project either on-site or off-site. The No Net Loss goal is full functional replacement to mitigate for all of the habitat functions and values that were lost as a result of an action. Full mitigation is analogous to no net loss. The goal of No Net Loss of habitat values is held by the USACE, USFWS, and NRCS. The Council adopted a full mitigation policy with the 1993 Wildlife Rule.

8. WHY HEP? Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Methodology is habitat based and considers habitat quality and quantity. a scientific method for impact and compensation analysis developed by the USFWS in the 1970’s used world-wide upheld in court What does “extent affected” mean? It implies the measurement or assessment of impact relative to the “carrying capacity” of a given tract of land to support certain population levels. Even before the passing of the Northwest Power Act, federal agencies grappled with the impact assessment process. Early federal legislation starting in the mid 1930s authorized the assessment of adverse environmental impacts associated with Federal water projects. Then in 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed, requiring all federal agencies to consider environmental values in planning and decision-making. Energy Flow, Population Estimation, and Habitat Assessment are examples of different approaches which can be used to assess the impacts of an action within a particular landscape over time. “Energy Flow” assessment is difficult to measure. Data are often time consuming and costly to collect and interpretation relative to impacts difficult to assess. “Population Estimation” alone is considered by many to be an unreliable indicator of habitat value. The Habitat Evaluation Procedures (or HEP) methodology was developed by the USFWS in the 1970s in response to the need for environmental impact assessment. HEP has been used throughout the world and is currently being used nationwide as an impact assessment tool and for compensation planning. In HEP, changes in habitat quality and quantity resulting from planned or forecasted land use actions can be predicted. HEP is based on the fundamental assumption that habitat quality and quantity can be numerically described. What does “extent affected” mean? It implies the measurement or assessment of impact relative to the “carrying capacity” of a given tract of land to support certain population levels. Even before the passing of the Northwest Power Act, federal agencies grappled with the impact assessment process. Early federal legislation starting in the mid 1930s authorized the assessment of adverse environmental impacts associated with Federal water projects. Then in 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed, requiring all federal agencies to consider environmental values in planning and decision-making. Energy Flow, Population Estimation, and Habitat Assessment are examples of different approaches which can be used to assess the impacts of an action within a particular landscape over time. “Energy Flow” assessment is difficult to measure. Data are often time consuming and costly to collect and interpretation relative to impacts difficult to assess. “Population Estimation” alone is considered by many to be an unreliable indicator of habitat value. The Habitat Evaluation Procedures (or HEP) methodology was developed by the USFWS in the 1970s in response to the need for environmental impact assessment. HEP has been used throughout the world and is currently being used nationwide as an impact assessment tool and for compensation planning. In HEP, changes in habitat quality and quantity resulting from planned or forecasted land use actions can be predicted. HEP is based on the fundamental assumption that habitat quality and quantity can be numerically described.

9. HEP Assumptions/Tenets A linear relationship exists between habitat quality and carrying capacity (population) Habitat quality can be measured and expressed as a “habitat suitability index” Habitat “losses” and “gains” can be expressed as habitat units (HUs) Compensation site baseline HUs are not credited HEP plans/applications include both Project Areas (PA) and Management Plans (MP) or “compensation areas” HEP CAN BE MODIFIED AS LONG AS EVERYONE AGREES!!!!

11. A similar concept is the relationship between cattle density in a given area and rangeland capacity. The left box shows 10 acres of pasture with low quality forage. This area can only support one cow, while the same sized area, depicted by the box on the right, has high quality forage and can support nine cows. A similar concept is the relationship between cattle density in a given area and rangeland capacity. The left box shows 10 acres of pasture with low quality forage. This area can only support one cow, while the same sized area, depicted by the box on the right, has high quality forage and can support nine cows.

13. Habitat Suitability

14. A tract of land has existing inherent habitat value. This value, or habitat quality is expressed as the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) in HEP. The value of a tract of land affects its carrying capacity – or its ability to support certain levels of wildlife populations. As habitat quality increases on a piece of land, so does the carrying capacity of that particular habitat type to provide for certain life requirements of particular species. A tract of land has existing inherent habitat value. This value, or habitat quality is expressed as the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) in HEP. The value of a tract of land affects its carrying capacity – or its ability to support certain levels of wildlife populations. As habitat quality increases on a piece of land, so does the carrying capacity of that particular habitat type to provide for certain life requirements of particular species.

15. The HEP methodology measures changes in habitat by considering the amount of habitat that is impacted and the value of the habitat that is impacted. A tract of land has existing inherent habitat value. Not all habitats are alike nor are they of the same value. The Habitat Unit quantifies habitat in terms of quantity and quality. The amount of habitat, or quantity, is typically expressed in Acres in the United States. Habitat quality is expressed through a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), which ranges from zero to one. The HSI rates the ability of an area of habitat to provide for the life requisites (forage, cover, reproduction) of a particular species. Bonneville Dam impacted a variety of habitat types including riparian forest, mixed forest, grassland, shoreline, and wetland habitats. Necessary habitat attributes for the species selected to represent each of these habitat types were estimated for a pre-dam time and a post-dam time. Shrub height, shrub canopy cover, and shrub species were measured for the yellow warbler to rate the quality of riparian shrub/forest habitats at the Bonneville Dam project. Example: One acre of riparian shrub/forest habitat with an HSI = 1.0 for the yellow warbler yields 1 yellow warbler Habitat Unit. Ten acres of riparian shrub/forest with an HSI = 0.1 would also yield 1 Habitat Unit. The HEP methodology measures changes in habitat by considering the amount of habitat that is impacted and the value of the habitat that is impacted. A tract of land has existing inherent habitat value. Not all habitats are alike nor are they of the same value. The Habitat Unit quantifies habitat in terms of quantity and quality. The amount of habitat, or quantity, is typically expressed in Acres in the United States. Habitat quality is expressed through a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI), which ranges from zero to one. The HSI rates the ability of an area of habitat to provide for the life requisites (forage, cover, reproduction) of a particular species. Bonneville Dam impacted a variety of habitat types including riparian forest, mixed forest, grassland, shoreline, and wetland habitats. Necessary habitat attributes for the species selected to represent each of these habitat types were estimated for a pre-dam time and a post-dam time. Shrub height, shrub canopy cover, and shrub species were measured for the yellow warbler to rate the quality of riparian shrub/forest habitats at the Bonneville Dam project. Example: One acre of riparian shrub/forest habitat with an HSI = 1.0 for the yellow warbler yields 1 yellow warbler Habitat Unit. Ten acres of riparian shrub/forest with an HSI = 0.1 would also yield 1 Habitat Unit.

17. HEP Components Species Models -mathematical formulas generate Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) HEP Team -selects models and methods Field Sampling -measure physical habitat characteristics Data Compilation - generate Habitat Units (HUs) Report Findings What does “extent affected” mean? It implies the measurement or assessment of impact relative to the “carrying capacity” of a given tract of land to support certain population levels. Even before the passing of the Northwest Power Act, federal agencies grappled with the impact assessment process. Early federal legislation starting in the mid 1930s authorized the assessment of adverse environmental impacts associated with Federal water projects. Then in 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed, requiring all federal agencies to consider environmental values in planning and decision-making. Energy Flow, Population Estimation, and Habitat Assessment are examples of different approaches which can be used to assess the impacts of an action within a particular landscape over time. “Energy Flow” assessment is difficult to measure. Data are often time consuming and costly to collect and interpretation relative to impacts difficult to assess. “Population Estimation” alone is considered by many to be an unreliable indicator of habitat value. The Habitat Evaluation Procedures (or HEP) methodology was developed by the USFWS in the 1970s in response to the need for environmental impact assessment. HEP has been used throughout the world and is currently being used nationwide as an impact assessment tool and for compensation planning. In HEP, changes in habitat quality and quantity resulting from planned or forecasted land use actions can be predicted. HEP is based on the fundamental assumption that habitat quality and quantity can be numerically described. What does “extent affected” mean? It implies the measurement or assessment of impact relative to the “carrying capacity” of a given tract of land to support certain population levels. Even before the passing of the Northwest Power Act, federal agencies grappled with the impact assessment process. Early federal legislation starting in the mid 1930s authorized the assessment of adverse environmental impacts associated with Federal water projects. Then in 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed, requiring all federal agencies to consider environmental values in planning and decision-making. Energy Flow, Population Estimation, and Habitat Assessment are examples of different approaches which can be used to assess the impacts of an action within a particular landscape over time. “Energy Flow” assessment is difficult to measure. Data are often time consuming and costly to collect and interpretation relative to impacts difficult to assess. “Population Estimation” alone is considered by many to be an unreliable indicator of habitat value. The Habitat Evaluation Procedures (or HEP) methodology was developed by the USFWS in the 1970s in response to the need for environmental impact assessment. HEP has been used throughout the world and is currently being used nationwide as an impact assessment tool and for compensation planning. In HEP, changes in habitat quality and quantity resulting from planned or forecasted land use actions can be predicted. HEP is based on the fundamental assumption that habitat quality and quantity can be numerically described.

18. HEP PHASES Pre-field Activities Field Activities Data Compilation and Reporting

23. HEP PHASES (cont.) Pre-field Activities Field Activities Data Compilation and Reporting

25. HSI models define habitat variables….

26. To demonstrate how a Habitat Unit is calculated, the yellow warbler will be considered. The yellow warbler was selected as an indicator of riparian shrub/forest habitat for the Bonneville Dam project. The construction and inundation of Bonneville Dam resulted in the loss of 163 Habitat Units (HUs) of suitable yellow warbler habitat. The yellow warbler is a neo-tropical migratory songbird (winters in tropical North America and nests in temperate North America) associated with deciduous riparian shrub/forest habitat throughout the Columbia River Basin, as well as other parts of North America. The yellow warbler feeds primarily on insects, larvae, and some fruit that are found in the vegetation along streams. Studies have shown that ideal habitat, which provides the conditions necessary to meet the yellow warbler’s nesting, foraging, cover, and courtship requirements, is comprised of hydrophytic, or water-loving, shrubs found in riparian areas that are at least two meters (or 6.6 feet) in height with a canopy closure of between 60-80 percent. In order to measure what habitat characteristics are present for the yellow warbler, a calibrated stick and tape are used in the field. The height and canopy coverage of hydrophytic shrubs/trees are measured and the types of shrubs/trees present are identified along a transect line. To demonstrate how a Habitat Unit is calculated, the yellow warbler will be considered. The yellow warbler was selected as an indicator of riparian shrub/forest habitat for the Bonneville Dam project. The construction and inundation of Bonneville Dam resulted in the loss of 163 Habitat Units (HUs) of suitable yellow warbler habitat. The yellow warbler is a neo-tropical migratory songbird (winters in tropical North America and nests in temperate North America) associated with deciduous riparian shrub/forest habitat throughout the Columbia River Basin, as well as other parts of North America. The yellow warbler feeds primarily on insects, larvae, and some fruit that are found in the vegetation along streams. Studies have shown that ideal habitat, which provides the conditions necessary to meet the yellow warbler’s nesting, foraging, cover, and courtship requirements, is comprised of hydrophytic, or water-loving, shrubs found in riparian areas that are at least two meters (or 6.6 feet) in height with a canopy closure of between 60-80 percent. In order to measure what habitat characteristics are present for the yellow warbler, a calibrated stick and tape are used in the field. The height and canopy coverage of hydrophytic shrubs/trees are measured and the types of shrubs/trees present are identified along a transect line.

27. This site doesn’t provide for any of the life requirements (food, cover, nesting, courtship, juvenile rearing) for the yellow warbler and therefore has a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) of 0 (zero) for yellow warbler. Land management practices, such as this example with year-round grazing and no seasonal rotations, have resulted in the loss of riparian vegetation, the invasion of dryland vegetation into the riparian zone, the downcutting and widening of the stream channel, and increased sedimentation into stream waters. The prognosis for the future under this same management scenario is further lowering of the water table, greater incision of the stream channel, disconnection of the stream from its original floodplain, and further lessening of forage quality for cattle as well as wildlife. Migratory songbirds such as the yellow warbler would not be found along this stream. This site doesn’t provide for any of the life requirements (food, cover, nesting, courtship, juvenile rearing) for the yellow warbler and therefore has a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) of 0 (zero) for yellow warbler. Land management practices, such as this example with year-round grazing and no seasonal rotations, have resulted in the loss of riparian vegetation, the invasion of dryland vegetation into the riparian zone, the downcutting and widening of the stream channel, and increased sedimentation into stream waters. The prognosis for the future under this same management scenario is further lowering of the water table, greater incision of the stream channel, disconnection of the stream from its original floodplain, and further lessening of forage quality for cattle as well as wildlife. Migratory songbirds such as the yellow warbler would not be found along this stream.

28. In this example, the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for the yellow warbler is estimated at a 0.2. Willows are starting to grow along the banks and vegetation is becoming established. This stream and adjacent riparian area are well on the way to recovery. A change in land management (riparian pasture fencing and seasonal rotation of cattle grazing) has allowed the stream banks to stabilize; willows, grasses, and other water-loving vegetation to colonize the riparian area; and the water table to raise, thus reconnecting the hydrology of the stream channel to its adjacent lands. With more water, forage will become more robust for longer periods, willows and other deciduous trees and shrubs will become established, and cows as well as yellow warblers, frogs, and fish will be able to “make a living” because some of their life requirements will be met. In this example, the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for the yellow warbler is estimated at a 0.2. Willows are starting to grow along the banks and vegetation is becoming established. This stream and adjacent riparian area are well on the way to recovery. A change in land management (riparian pasture fencing and seasonal rotation of cattle grazing) has allowed the stream banks to stabilize; willows, grasses, and other water-loving vegetation to colonize the riparian area; and the water table to raise, thus reconnecting the hydrology of the stream channel to its adjacent lands. With more water, forage will become more robust for longer periods, willows and other deciduous trees and shrubs will become established, and cows as well as yellow warblers, frogs, and fish will be able to “make a living” because some of their life requirements will be met.

29. The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for yellow warbler in this example is estimated at a 0.8. This site provides multi-layered shrub cover near water that is close to optimal in meeting yellow warbler needs. This stream, with its pools and overhanging vegetation (diverse, multi-aged vegetative species), provides a multitude of benefits for wildlife and fish, as well as people making a living from the land that is immediately adjacent to this water course. Vegetation holds water in the soil, allowing slow release over longer periods; keeps water temperatures lower during the summer months, which nets more water for vigorous plant growth, greater forage production, and irrigation potential; and supports multitudes of insects for leaf-gleaning by birds such as the yellow warbler and for insect drop for fish and other predatory aquatic species. The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for yellow warbler in this example is estimated at a 0.8. This site provides multi-layered shrub cover near water that is close to optimal in meeting yellow warbler needs. This stream, with its pools and overhanging vegetation (diverse, multi-aged vegetative species), provides a multitude of benefits for wildlife and fish, as well as people making a living from the land that is immediately adjacent to this water course. Vegetation holds water in the soil, allowing slow release over longer periods; keeps water temperatures lower during the summer months, which nets more water for vigorous plant growth, greater forage production, and irrigation potential; and supports multitudes of insects for leaf-gleaning by birds such as the yellow warbler and for insect drop for fish and other predatory aquatic species.

30. HEP PHASES (cont.) Pre-field Activities Field Activities Data Compilation and HU Reporting

31. Habitat Suitability

32. To determine Post-Project habitat conditions in this hypothetical example, Habitat Units are calculated for each species after the dam is built and the reservoir is inundated. The dam and reservoir have eliminated much of the Mixed Upland Forest, Riparian Shrub/Forest, and Riverine habitat types. The Post-Dam HUs reflect these declines in habitat quantity and quality for the black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler, and mink. The reservoir has created a new habitat type – Open Water. The Open Water habitat is used by Lesser Scaup, a deep-water diving duck. The Net Change in HUs from the dam and reservoir is: a Loss of 300 HUs for the black-capped chickadee a Loss of 200 HUs for the yellow warbler a Loss of 75 HUs for the mink, and a Gain of 100 HUs for the lesser scaup.To determine Post-Project habitat conditions in this hypothetical example, Habitat Units are calculated for each species after the dam is built and the reservoir is inundated. The dam and reservoir have eliminated much of the Mixed Upland Forest, Riparian Shrub/Forest, and Riverine habitat types. The Post-Dam HUs reflect these declines in habitat quantity and quality for the black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler, and mink. The reservoir has created a new habitat type – Open Water. The Open Water habitat is used by Lesser Scaup, a deep-water diving duck. The Net Change in HUs from the dam and reservoir is: a Loss of 300 HUs for the black-capped chickadee a Loss of 200 HUs for the yellow warbler a Loss of 75 HUs for the mink, and a Gain of 100 HUs for the lesser scaup.