BPA’s Pisces BPA’s Pisces Wildlife Crediting LedgerWildlife Crediting Ledger

Bonneville Power Bonneville Power AdministrationAdministration

February 17, 2010February 17, 2010

OverviewOverview

Basis of the Pisces crediting report.Basis of the Pisces crediting report.

What the crediting report shows.What the crediting report shows.

Recent updates and changes.Recent updates and changes.

What the crediting report doesn’t show.What the crediting report doesn’t show.

Thoughts on next steps to fill in the ledger.Thoughts on next steps to fill in the ledger.

Basis of the Pisces Crediting ReportBasis of the Pisces Crediting Report

Based on program amendments depicting Based on program amendments depicting wildlife losses and gains due to FCRPS wildlife losses and gains due to FCRPS dam construction and inundationdam construction and inundation– HUs come from HEP reports and minimum HUs come from HEP reports and minimum

irreducible estimatesirreducible estimates

What the Ledger ShowsWhat the Ledger Shows

Completed mitigation to dateCompleted mitigation to date– Excludes Libby, Hungry Horse, and DworshakExcludes Libby, Hungry Horse, and Dworshak

Includes HUs for both habitat protection Includes HUs for both habitat protection (acquisition) and enhancements(acquisition) and enhancements

Recent changes in percent of completed Recent changes in percent of completed mitigation resulted from adding new HEPsmitigation resulted from adding new HEPs

Why BPA Takes Protection CreditWhy BPA Takes Protection Credit

NW Power ActNW Power Act: BPA shall “protect” wildlife : BPA shall “protect” wildlife habitat.habitat.1995 Program1995 Program: “It is clear that Bonneville should : “It is clear that Bonneville should receive some credit for protection of existing receive some credit for protection of existing habitat.”habitat.”1992 Council letter to BPA1992 Council letter to BPA: BPA and managers : BPA and managers should reach “a mutually agreeable resolution of should reach “a mutually agreeable resolution of the crediting issue” and that could take place “as the crediting issue” and that could take place “as part of negotiations leading to agreements.”part of negotiations leading to agreements.”Crediting agreementsCrediting agreements: “Full credit means one : “Full credit means one HU credit for each HU acquired.” HU credit for each HU acquired.”

What the Ledger Doesn’t Yet ShowWhat the Ledger Doesn’t Yet Show

Baseline HUs based on HEPs for all acquisitionsBaseline HUs based on HEPs for all acquisitions

Updated HU values for habitat enhancementsUpdated HU values for habitat enhancements

Stacking and habitat substitution issues Stacking and habitat substitution issues corrected through follow-up surveys corrected through follow-up surveys

Pre-Act mitigationPre-Act mitigation

HUs from fish habitat mitigation projectsHUs from fish habitat mitigation projects– Acquisitions and Riparian FencingAcquisitions and Riparian Fencing

Construction and inundation HU gainsConstruction and inundation HU gains

Doesn’t resolve over-mitigationDoesn’t resolve over-mitigation

Ongoing Effort to Update HEPsOngoing Effort to Update HEPs

Use baseline and updated HEPs to Use baseline and updated HEPs to document actual HU valuesdocument actual HU values

Ongoing mitigation status reports offer the Ongoing mitigation status reports offer the opportunity to stack mitigation credit consistent opportunity to stack mitigation credit consistent with loss assessments with loss assessments

– Equal compensation/equal tradeoff model offers the Equal compensation/equal tradeoff model offers the most principled way to resolve stacking problemsmost principled way to resolve stacking problems

Replace minimum irreducible HUs with actual Replace minimum irreducible HUs with actual baseline HEPsbaseline HEPs

Pre-Act MitigationPre-Act Mitigation

Prior to 1980 the COE, BOR, and USFWS received Prior to 1980 the COE, BOR, and USFWS received appropriations to mitigate FCRPS dams.appropriations to mitigate FCRPS dams.Loss assessments reflect impacts from all project Loss assessments reflect impacts from all project purposes.purposes. 1982 through 2000 Programs1982 through 2000 Programs: Pre-Act mitigation may : Pre-Act mitigation may be satisfactory full mitigation in some circumstances.be satisfactory full mitigation in some circumstances.19921992: Customers and resource managers all agree “that : Customers and resource managers all agree “that some credit is due” for pre-Act mitigation.some credit is due” for pre-Act mitigation.19941994: Council calls on region to “determine the amount : Council calls on region to “determine the amount of credit to be given for existing wildlife mitigation….”of credit to be given for existing wildlife mitigation….”

Pre-Act Mitigation ExamplesPre-Act Mitigation Examples

LSRCPLSRCP: Council recognizes l:l credit for Corps : Council recognizes l:l credit for Corps project lands protected for wildlife and with project lands protected for wildlife and with adequate O&M. adequate O&M.

LSRCP loss assessments amended into the program LSRCP loss assessments amended into the program showing only remaining unmitigated HUs.showing only remaining unmitigated HUs.

USF&WS 1991 Geiger reportUSF&WS 1991 Geiger report: recognizes pre-: recognizes pre-Act mitigation for lower 4 mainstem dams.Act mitigation for lower 4 mainstem dams.

Program accepted principle of “pre-act Program accepted principle of “pre-act mitigation.” Only questions were “when and mitigation.” Only questions were “when and how” to credit.how” to credit.

Credit for Fish Habitat ProjectsCredit for Fish Habitat Projects

Program directs resource managers and BPA to Program directs resource managers and BPA to find way to credit wildlife ledger with HUs from find way to credit wildlife ledger with HUs from fish mitigation projects.fish mitigation projects.

Beginning in 2000, the Council “revised its Beginning in 2000, the Council “revised its approach, treating a given habitat as an approach, treating a given habitat as an ecosystem that includes both fish and wildlife.” ecosystem that includes both fish and wildlife.”

Managers propose, Council recommends, and Managers propose, Council recommends, and BPA funds fish habitat projects that mitigate BPA funds fish habitat projects that mitigate wildlife.wildlife.

Fish Habitat Credit ExamplesFish Habitat Credit Examples

Wagner Ranch/Pine Creek MOAWagner Ranch/Pine Creek MOA: “BPA : “BPA shall receive full credit for all HUs shall receive full credit for all HUs achieved through protection or achieved through protection or improvement activities.”improvement activities.”

Red River-Little Ponderosa Ranch MOARed River-Little Ponderosa Ranch MOA: : BPA received wildlife credit in proportion BPA received wildlife credit in proportion to its funding.to its funding.

Construction and Inundation GainsConstruction and Inundation Gains

1982-2009 Programs1982-2009 Programs: “[C]onsider the net effects : “[C]onsider the net effects on wildlife associated with hydroelectric on wildlife associated with hydroelectric development.”development.”

Out of place/out of kind mitigation prevalent Out of place/out of kind mitigation prevalent throughout programthroughout program

An HU is an HUAn HU is an HU– Program began with in-kind approach but evolved into Program began with in-kind approach but evolved into

equal trade offequal trade off– HEP’s equal trade off compensation model offers HEP’s equal trade off compensation model offers

consistent way to address construction gainsconsistent way to address construction gains

Over-MitigationOver-Mitigation

Mitigation agreements assure BPA “full Mitigation agreements assure BPA “full credit”credit”

Council, managers, and BPA agreed to Council, managers, and BPA agreed to pursue out of place/out of kind mitigationpursue out of place/out of kind mitigation

Equal trade off compensation model Equal trade off compensation model supports an HU for an HUsupports an HU for an HU

Not reassigning over-mitigated HUs Not reassigning over-mitigated HUs understates completed mitigationunderstates completed mitigation

Completing the LedgerCompleting the Ledger

Next steps to fill in the ledgerNext steps to fill in the ledger– Continue follow-up HEPsContinue follow-up HEPs

Use species appropriate to mitigation sitesUse species appropriate to mitigation sitesUse matrix with number of species and habitats as in loss assessmentsUse matrix with number of species and habitats as in loss assessments

– Employ stacking consistent with loss assessmentsEmploy stacking consistent with loss assessmentsNorthern and Southern IdahoNorthern and Southern IdahoSouth central WashingtonSouth central Washington

– WillametteWillametteResolve inability to credit like other areas in the basinResolve inability to credit like other areas in the basin

– Prioritize HEPs on fish habitat projectsPrioritize HEPs on fish habitat projects– Quantify pre-Act mitigationQuantify pre-Act mitigation– Tradeoff construction and inundation gainsTradeoff construction and inundation gains– Tradeoff over-mitigationTradeoff over-mitigation