Download maintain existing and credited habitat values

DRAFT
Wildlife Program Amendments
Joint Technical Committees and Members Advisory Group
Amendment Strategy Workshop
July 23, 2007
Program Objectives
• Quantify wildlife losses due to construction,
inundation, and operations
• Develop and implement habitat acquisition and
enhancement projects to fully mitigate for
identified losses
• Coordinate activities with fish mitigation and
restoration
• Maintain existing and created habitat values
• Monitor and evaluate habitat and species
responses to mitigation actions
Wildlife Program
• Wildlife losses due to construction and
inundation calculated using Habitat
Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
• Impacts summarized in loss assessments
for terrestrial habitats as habitat units (HU)
losses and gains by indicator species and
project
• Created "ledger”
Confirm: Focal Species, Populations, and
Biological Objectives
Sharp-tailed Grouse
Shrubsteppe Habitat
Focal Species/
Habitat
Hydroelectric Project: Chief Joseph
Biological Objective: 2,290 Habitat Units
Status: 14 Habitat Units Acquired (0.61%
completed)
Biological
Objective
Status
of HU Ledger
HEP Problems
• Little record of vegetation communities prior to
dam construction
• Single species focus often prioritized wrong
species for management & restoration
• Inconsistent assessments across basin
• Models applicable to NW often not available
• Some out-of-place, out-of-kind mitigation
contained habitats not considered in the loss
assessments
Wildlife Amendment Issues
Problems with program implementation
– Operations and Maintenance
– Monitoring and Evaluation
– Crediting including Operational Losses
– Ecological Function
Operations and Maintenance
2000 Program
– “maintain existing and credited habitat values”
– BPA and applicable agency propose for Council a
maintenance agreement adequate to sustain
minimum habitat values for the life of the project
1995 program
– “Within three years following adoption of this program,
develop long-term agreements for all wildlife
mitigation” including a funding level likely to achieve
stated objectives
O&M - Current Concerns
• Council concerns over variable O&M costs
• Not all projects have long term
agreements
• Little flexibility to allow manager to react to
management needs
• Confusion over O&M and enhancement
• Many projects under-funded to achieve
objectives, thus habitat “debt” continues
O&M - Recommendations
Managers need adequate, stable, O&M budget to
maintain baseline conditions and the flexibility to
adapt to changing needs on the landscape
BPA Credit for project implementation is
dependent on:
– Completion of habitat protections
– Adoption of project area management plan
– Completion of long-term O&M funding agreements
O&M Recommendations (cont’d)
BPA should develop a funding mechanism
outside existing prioritization process to
assure:
– Continuity of funding in perpetuity
– Long-term maintenance of habitat units
– Develop and maintain proper ecological
functions
– Address known and unforeseen external
threats (e.g. invasives, wildfires, etc)
Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation
2000 Program Scientific principles
1. The abundance, productivity and diversity of organisms are integrally linked to the
#
characteristics of their ecosystems. …The combination of suitable habitats and
necessary ecological functions forms the ecosystem structure and conditions needed
to provide the desired abundance and productivity of specific species.
#5. Species play a key role in developing and maintaining ecological conditions. Each
species has one or more ecological functions that may be key to the development
and maintenance of ecological conditions. Species, in effect, have a distinct job or
occupation that is essential to the structure, sustainability and productivity of the
ecosystem over time. The existence, productivity and abundance of specific species
depend on these functions
#6. Biological diversity allows ecosystems to persist in the face of environmental
variation. The diversity of species, traits and life histories within biological
communities contributes to ecological stability in the face of disturbance and
environmental change. Loss of species and their ecological functions can decrease
ecological stability and resilience. …Maintaining the ability of the ecosystem to
express its own species composition and diversity allows the system to remain
productive in the face of environmental variation.
Wildlife M&E – Current Concerns
• Little support or incentive from BPA to develop or
implement wildlife mitigation monitoring. Most wildlife
M&E not funded
• Little direction or support from NPCC or BPA to
participate in regional monitoring programs (e.g. State
conservation strategies)
• No NPCC direction on what to monitor, nor protocols
• HEP remains only region-wide assessment process and
focus of BPA over more relevant monitoring or
assessment programs.
• HEP used to define losses but does not determine if
desired habitat or ecological conditions attained of focal
species responding
Consequences to Wildlife Projects
• an inefficient use of resources (funding and staff time) lack of data to direct and inform management decisions,
• increased risk of implementing inappropriate
management actions because of the lack of biological
information,
• no indicators that quantify success or failure of
management actions or approaches,
• little feedback for adaptive management of wildlife
projects, and
• few data that link to regional or basin-wide monitoring
efforts.
Potential Benefits of Monitoring
• the development of benchmarks or
measures of success and failure of
management decisions and actions,
• an effective adaptive management system
for wildlife projects,
• an ability to assess status of ecological
functions (e.g., are they intact or
dysfunctional),
Benefits (cont’d)
• linkages to region-wide planning efforts
(Conservation Strategies) and monitoring
programs (e.g., use regional monitoring to
support project level decision making and
implementation),
• a more effective and efficient management
program for mitigation sites because monitoring
data will be used in the planning and
implementation of specific habitat restoration
and enhancement activities that directly benefit
wildlife and fish populations, and
• better data to inform policy decisions.
Wildlife M&E – Recommendations
• Need stable monitoring funding
• Monitoring needs based upon
management plan objectives
• Monitoring needs to be adequate to
– Track crediting based on HEP
– Track trends in ecological function and
restoration effectiveness
– Complement larger scale efforts through
compatible protocols and data sharing
Wildlife Monitoring Framework
• Focus on status/trend and effectiveness
• Ability to compare data across basin and link to
subasin and State strategies
• Use reference sites to define habitat objectives
• Transition from HEP to new paradigm (IEI,
CHAP, etc)
• Identify consistent (basin-wide) review process
for project M&E)
• Stable and consistent funding to allow flexibility
based on changed conditions
Crediting
• 2000 Program
“…Bonneville and the fish and wildlife
managers should complete mitigation
agreements for the remaining habitat units.
These agreements should equal 200 percent
of the habitat units (2:1 ratio) identified as
unannualized losses of wildlife habitat from
construction and inundation… This mitigation
is presumed to cover all construction and
inundation losses, including annualized
losses”
Crediting –Program Language
cont’d
• 2000 program
– “An assessment should be conducted of direct
operational impacts on wildlife habitat. Subbasin
plans will serve as the vehicle to provide mitigation for
direct operational losses and secondary losses” (No
annualization of losses)
– “Complete the current mitigation program for
construction and inundation losses and include
wildlife mitigation for all operational losses as an
integrated part of habitat protection and restoration.”
Crediting – Current Concerns
• BPA refers to the 2:1 crediting ratio as a
“point of divergence”
“Bonneville and the regional wildlife managers
have documented through contract terms,
support for Bonneville taking 1:1 credit for
habitat acquisitions and enhancements.”
BPA position is not consistent with the interim
mitigation contracts and agreements
Crediting Concerns - cont’d
• Operational Losses have not been addressed
• Issue of “credit” for non-wildlife projects
–
–
–
–
No loss ledger for fish
Can result in out-of-place, out-of-kind mitigation
May not meet wildlife needs
BPA maintains they have sole discretion as to where
such credit applies
• Perception BPA may be intending to apply
credits outside appropriate areas for facilities
Crediting - Recommendations
• Discuss protection credits, annualization,
2:1 ratio and define “full mitigation”
• Maintenance agreements to sustain
minimum credited habitat values for life of
project – Council consideration
• Provision of long-term O&M as condition
of crediting
• Oversight committee responsible for
tracking the crediting accounting ledger
Crediting - Recommendations
• Implementation of Wildlife Plan
• In-lieu definition/issues
• Ecological connectivity between aquatic and
terrestrial
• Definition, assessment and crediting for
secondary impacts
• Species habitat substitution – need
standardization
• Ecosystem-based operational loss framework
• Clarify ambiguities in the 2000 FWP language