tribes, the Bureau of Reclamation, Council staff, Bonneville and the utility sector. The committee 

 provided guidance and direction during development of the mitigation proposal. 



a. Wildlife Losses. In place of a detailed wildlife loss statement, the Washington 

 Department of Wildlife used a different procedure to identify and quantify impacts. Initially a 

 working paper outlined concerns and direction for wildlife planning. The working paper proposed 

 mitigation concepts and a "conceptual" goal. The goal was acquisition of lands or management 

 rights to lands totaling approximately 70,000 acres, and improvement and maintenance of those 

 lands to increase and maintain wildlife carrying capacity (the maximum number of animals an area 

 can sustain without suffering vegetation and other habitat damage). 



Then, the Washington Department of Wildlife performed a limited study to estimate losses of 

 wildlife and habitat due to inundation and reservoir level fluctuations resulting from development 

 and operation of Grand Coulee Dam for hydropower production. Habitat losses were determined 

 from interpretation of pro-project aerial photographs. Indicator species were chosen to represent 

 general habitat types and habitat requirements of most wildlife which were known to occur in the 

 study area and which were likely to have been affected by the project. Losses in terms of habitat 

 were determined for the indicator species using a modification of the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service 

 Habitat Evaluation Procedure. 



b. Mitigation Proposal. To fully replace the estimated habitat unit losses associated 

 with Grand Coulee development, the Washington Department of Wildlife estimated that 244,722 

 acres of land would need to be protected and improved for wikllife. Rather than pursue full redress 

 for losses, the Washington Department of Wildlife proposes to protect the same number of habitat 

 units as were lost (approximately 73,522 acres) due to the inundation behind Grand Coulee Dam. 

 As estimated by the Washington Department of Wildlife, this is less than one third of the estimated 

 wildlife and habitat losses caused by Grand Coulee Dam. 



67 The working paper was drafted by the Washington Department of Wildlife from a meeting held 

 on April 2, 1985 to discuss wikjiife planning efforts. Representatives from the agencies, tribes, 

 utilities. Bureau, Bonneville and the Council attended the meeting. While the concept of the 

 "conceptual" goal was discussed, it may not have been agreed to by all parties attending the 

 meeting. However, no other goals were offered as alternatives. 



77 Generally, wikJIife agencies and tribes in Washington, Oregon and Idaho have used a process 

 known as the Habitat Evaluation Procedure to evaluate habitat losses. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Division of Ecological Services, "Habitat Evaluation Procedure" (1980). Using the 

 process, habitat losses for each target species are represented by Habitat Units (quantity of 

 habitat multiplied by quality) instead of arbitrary acreages assigned for replacement purposes. 

 One Habitat Unit is equal to one acre of optimum habitat for an individual target species. To 

 compare preconstruction with replacement habitat, agencies assign habitat suitability values 

 for a given indicator species selected to represent a number of species using similar habitat. 

 The Habitat Evaluation Procedure is a modeling tool that has been used by the fish and wikJIife 

 agencies and tribes for several years. Like any model, its reliability rests with the quality of 

 data used by the agencies and tribes to estimate wildlife habitat losses and gains. To ensure 

 the best data was applied, the agencies and tribes utilized interagency teams of biologists to 

 assist in data gathering and analysis at each of the hydroelectric projects. 



