Columbia River Wildlife MitigationHabitat Evaluation Procedures
(HEP)
Prepared ByPaul R Ashley-CBFWA
Regional HEP TeamFebruary 2010
Much Appreciation to Peter Paquet, Richard Stiehl, and John Andrews For
Their Contributions to This Presentation
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• Related HEP Issues
Genesis
• The Northwest Power Act
“The Council shall develop and adopt a program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlifewildlife … 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 wildlife to the extent affectedthe 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 wildlifewildlife including related spawning grounds and habitathabitat.” Section 4(h)(11)(A)(i)
Mitigation Process:
• Avoid impacts
• Minimize impacts
• Repair impacts & restore the affected environment on-site
• Compensate for unavoidable impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Mitigation Process
HEP
Habitat Evaluation Procedures
OVERVIEW
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
HEP was developed to answer one question…..How Much Will It Cost If We Build It?
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!!!!
Population or otherperformance measure
0.0 Habitat Suitability Index 1.0
high
low
Linear Relationship
A Similar Concept: Cattle Forage Carrying Capacity
Low forage Carrying capacity
10 acres
High forageCarrying capacity
10 acres
(Low Quality) (High Quality)
Index = Value of interest Standard of comparisonIn HEP:
HSI = Habitat condition on the study site Optimum habitat condition
In math:
50 = Bird species seen on the best birding day 30 = Bird species seen on this birding trip 50 = Bird species seen on the best birding dayINDEX OF BIRDING = 0.60 Index = Value of interest
Standard of comparison
100% = optimum hydrophytic shrub c.c. for YEWA 40% = hydrophytic shrub c.c. on study area
100% = optimum hydrophytic shrub c.c. for YEWA 0.4 = HSI for YEWA HSI = Habitat condition on the study site Optimum habitat condition
“HQ Expressed as Habitat Suitability Index”
Habitat Suitability
0.0 0.5 1.0
Habitat Suitability Index Scale
No SuitableHabitat
Medium QualityHabitat
High QualityHabitat
ZeroCarrying Capacity
OptimalCarrying Capacity
The Currency of HEP is the Habitat Unit or HU
Quantity X Quality = HU
AREA HSI
Habitat Suitability Index – ranges from zero to one (0-1.0)
50 Acres X 0.50 HSI = 25 HUs
20 Baseline HUs
0 HU credit for existing value
No Net Gain to Wildlife
60 HUs after enhancements
60 HUs – 20 HUs = 40 HUs
Net Gain to Wildlife = 40 HUs: Compensation Achieved
HEP Crediting BasicsProject Area
40 HU Loss
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
HEP PHASES
• Pre-field Activities
• Field Activities
• Data Compilation and Reporting
Pre-field Activities
Pre-field Activities (Project Scoping)
•Form an assessment (HEP) team•Define study objectives•Delineate study boundaries
•Assemble baseline data
•Delineate cover types
•Select evaluation species/HSI models
•Select inventory techniques
•Select a sampling design
Species Selection
Study objectives are established.Resource categories have been determined.Cover types have been defined.Study area has been delineated.
Species can be selected to represent:Important species.Important resource categories.Important habitats.Important cover types.
Species are selected after:
An evaluation species may be:
A single speciesChannel catfishNine-banded armadilloLeast Tern
A life stage or life requisite of a speciesRainbow trout fryEastern Cottontail winter coverBlue-winged teal brood pond
A group of taxonomically related speciesBlack basses (Spotted, Sm.mouth & Lg.mouth)Chipmunks (Eastern, and Least)Chickadees (Black-capped & Carolina)
A group of species using similar resourcesCoolwater reservoir fishCavity usersForest interior songbirds
A fish or wildlife community
Six Considerations in evaluation species selection1. Evaluation species MUST relate to the fish & wildlife objectives.
2. The number of evaluation species depends on objectives, project complexity, and constraints.
3. The process of evaluation species selection must be well documented.
4. The way a species responds to the project should not be a reason for selection.
5. The Phylum of a species should not be a consideration in the selection.
6. Evaluation species MUST relate to the fish & wildlife objectives.
HEP PHASES (cont.)
• Pre-field Activities
• Field Activities• Data Compilation and Reporting
Field Activities Collect Habitat Data
Percent shrub cover
Basal area
Tree height
Photo documentation
and more……
For example………
HSI models define habitat variables….
Habitat Needs:Shrubby areas, especially nearwater with willows and alders.
Yellow Warbler
Habitat Characteristics that are measured:
• Shrub height• Shrub canopy cover• % cvr riparian shrub species
No Suitable Yellow Warbler Riparian Habitat (HSI = 0)
No riparian shrubs/trees
Low Quality Yellow Warbler Riparian Habitat (HSI = 0.2)
Some riparian shrubs
High Quality Yellow Warbler Riparian Habitat (HSI = 0.8)
Average shrub height =/> 6.6 feetShrub canopy cover near 60-80%Multiple riparian shrub species
HEP PHASES (cont.)
• Pre-field Activities
• Field Activities
• Data Compilation and HU Reporting
Habitat Suitability
Dam Location
Key Habitat Type Evaluation Species
Pre-Dam
HUsMixed Upland Forest BC Chickadee 2700 HUs
Riparian Shrub/Forest Yellow warbler 240 HUs
Riverine/Open Water Lesser Scaup 30 HUsTotals 2970 HUs
Post-Dam
HUs 42 HUs 4 HUs
275 HUs321 HUs
Determine NET Impacts
Net
Change-2658 HUs
-236 HUs
+275 HUs-2619 HUs
Average Annual Habitat Units
AAHUs
AAHU Examples
Habitat Type Evaluation Species
Pre-Dam
HUsMixed Upland Forest BC Chickadee 2700 HUsRiparian Shrub/Forest Yellow warbler 240 HUs
Riverine/Open Water Lesser Scaup 30 HUsTotals 2970 HUs
With Annualization
-1563 HUs -136 HUs
+208 HUs -1491 HUs
Net
Change-2658 HUs -236 HUs
+275 HUs-2619 HUs
Habitat Type Evaluation Species
Without Annualization
Mixed Upland Forest BC Chickadee -2700 HUs
Riparian Shrub/Forest Yellow warbler - 240 HUs
Riverine/Open Water Lesser Scaup +275HUsTotals -2970 HUs
Post-Dam
HUs 42 HUs 4 HUs
275 HUs321 HUs
Loss (PA) AAHU Comparison
Habitat Type Evaluation Species
Pre-Dam
HUsMixed Upland Forest BC Chickadee 2700 HUsRiparian Shrub/Forest Yellow warbler 240 HUs
Riverine/Open Water Lesser Scaup 30 HUsTotals 2970 HUs
MP2 HUs
135 HUs 39 HUs
208 HUs 382 HUs
Net
Change-2658 HUs -236 HUs
+275 HUs-2619 HUs
Habitat Type Evaluation Species
Modified HEP HUs
Mixed Upland Forest BC Chickadee 450 HUs
Riparian Shrub/Forest Yellow warbler 40 HUs
Riverine/Open Water Lesser Scaup 275 HUsTotals 765 HUs
Post-Dam
HUs 42 HUs 4 HUs
275 HUs321 HUs
Gain (MP) AAHU Comparison
MP1 HUs
0 HUs
0 HUs
0 HUs 0 HUs
COMPENSATION GOALS
1. In Kind
2. Equal
3. Relative
Goal 1: In Kind compensation is intended to replace AAHU losses with equal AAHU gains for that same species….no trade-off….only losses are considered.
Goal 2: Equal Replacement goal is to offset HU losses through a gain of an equal number of HUs. A gain of 1 HU for any target species can be used to offset the loss of 1 HU for any evaluation species. The list of target species may or may not be identical to the list of impacted species. Can apply an average HSI in a single cover type.
Habitat Type Evaluation Species
Without Annualization
Mixed Upland Forest BC Chickadee -2700 HUs
Riparian Shrub/Forest Yellow warbler - 240 HUs
Riverine/Open Water Lesser Scaup 0 HUsTotals -2940 HUs
With Annualization
-1563 HUs -136 HUs
0 HUs -1699 HUs
In Kind
Equal
Habitat Type Evaluation Species
Without Annualization
Mixed Upland Forest BC Chickadee -2700 HUs
Riparian Shrub/Forest Yellow warbler - 240 HUs
Riverine/Open Water Lesser Scaup +275HUsTotals -2665 HUs
With Annualization
-1563 HUs -136 HUs
+208 HUs -1491 HUs
Goal 3: Relative Replacement is used when 1 HU for a target species is used to offset the loss of 1 HU for an evaluation species at a differential rate depending on the species involved.
RVI Example
If the RVI values for white-tailed deer and ruffed grouse are 1.0 and 0.5 respectively, one white-tailed deer HU can be used to offset two ruffed grouse HUs, or two RUGR HUs could be traded for one WTDE HU.
RVI CONSIDERATIONS
After modifying HUs with an RVI, HUs no longer relate to habitat potential (carrying capacity) because they include value judgments.
RVIs should be used to trade less important habitat HUs for critical habitat HUs….never from the “top - down.”
RVI Development Needs…..
2. Interdisciplinary team members willing to participate and come to consensus.
3. Set of user defined criteria.
4. User defined criteria scale.
1. AT LEAST ONE REALLY GOOD REASON TO DO AN RVI!!!
All or nothing: 0.0 or 1.0 ---- 0.1 to 1.0
RVIs (trade-off decisions) …….Based on resource management goals, administrative policy, or both.
Weighting values are determined by a user defined set of socioeconomic and ecological criteria.
Trade-off analysis does not imply a desirableway of dealing with HUs..only a method to document changes that will result in gains and losses of different wildlife resources.
A RELATIVE VALUE INDEX IS….
A CompromiseA Framework for making value comparisons between species or cover typesA Record and Documentation of your decision process
A Subjective Value Judgment to compare HU changes for different evaluation species or cover types.
HEP Methods Summary
•Formed an assessment (HEP) team•Defined HEP study objectives•Delineated study boundaries and cover types•Determined baseline and enhancement HUs•Collected and analyzed habitat variable data•Selected evaluation species/HSI models•Selected inventory techniques and sampling protocols•Selected type of compensation•Document and report findings
HEP Versus Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation Program
Inconsistencies
1. Did not annualize HU losses or gains
2. Net HU losses/gains were either not reported and/or were inconsistent between States/Regions
3. HU credit was awarded for compensation site baseline HUs
Primary Inconsistencies
4. Compensation strategies either not identified and/or followed leading to the “default” strategy of “equal” compensation and “paradigm” conflicts
Primary Inconsistencies (cont.)
5. “Follow-up” HEP surveys/HUs appear to be unique to our situation
6. Time between impacts and compensation
RHT HEP Challenges
• Loss Assessment/Compensation Site Matrix Reconciliation
• HEP model Applications
• Cover Type Mapping
Regional HEP Team Mission Statement: “To conduct HEP analyses in the most consistent, objective, impartial, and biologically sound manner possible.”
Berger Butte/Deep Canyon Dam 2009 HEP Comparison Matrix
Deep Canyon Dam Loss Assessment Cover Types and Number of Species
Open water Emergent WetlandScrub Shrub
WetlandGrassland Meadow
Wet MeadowForested Wetland
Conifer Forest
3 3 2+ 2 2 3+ 3+
Berger Butte Paired Cover Types and Number of Species
Open water Emergent Wetland Scrub ShrubGrassland Meadow
Wet MeadowForested Wetland
Conifer Forest
3 3 2+ 2 2 3+ 3+
Bald eagle x x
Black-capped chickadee x x
Canada Goose x x x x
Mallard x x x x
Muskrat x x
Yellow Warbler x
White-tailed deer x x x
Mallard 100m bands adjacent to water
x x x
“In-kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrices
Open Water
Herbaceous Wetland
Scrub Shrub
Forested Wetland
Wet Meadow
Grassland Meadow
Con. Forest
Acres Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss
#Spp. 3 6 6 5 2 2 3+
CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO
MALL MALL MALL MALL MALL MALL MALL
MUSK MUSK
BAEAb BAEAb BAEAb BAEAb
BAEAw BAEAw BAEAw BAEAw
WTDE WTDE WTDE
YEWA
BLCC
“In-kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrices
“Out of Kind” Loss/Comp. Site MatrixHames Parcel/Deep Canyon Dam 2009 HEP Comparison Matrix
Deep Canyon Dam Loss Assessment Cover Types and Number of Species
Open water Herbaceous WetlandScrub Shrub
WetlandForested Wetland
Wet Meadow
3 5 6 5 2
Hames Parcel Paired Cover Types and Number of Species
Open water Herbaceous Wetland Forested Wetland
Shrubsteppe Conifer Forest
3 5 5 ? ?
Bald eagle breeding x x x
Bald eagle wintering x x x
Black-capped chickadee x
Canada Goose x x x x
Mallard x x x x x
Muskrat x x
Yellow Warbler x
White-tailed deer x x
Mule deer
Number of Species3 5 6 5 2
Open Water
Herbaceous Wetland
Scrub Shrub
Forested Wetland
Wet Meadow
Shrubsteppe Con. Forest
Acres Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Gain Gain
#Spp. 3 6 6 5 2 ? ?
CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO
MALL MALL MALL MALL MALL
MUSK MUSK
BAEAb BAEAb BAEAb
BAEAw BAEAw BAEAw
WTDE WTDE
YEWA
BLCC
Open Water
Herbaceous Wetland
Scrub Shrub
Forested Wetland
Wet Meadow
Shrubsteppe Con. Forest
Acres Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Gain Gain
#Spp. 3 6 6 5 2 2 5
CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO
MALL MALL MALL MALL MALL
MUSK MUSK
BAEAb BAEAb BAEAb
BAEAw BAEAw BAEAw
WTDE WTDE
YEWA
BLCC
Are extant matrix species appropriate for new CVR types?
“Out of Kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrix
What species would be appropriate if the loss assessment matrix did not exist?
For HU stacking purposes…What loss assessment cover type does the new cover types most closely resemble?
Open Water
Herbaceous Wetland
Scrub Shrub
Forested Wetland
Wet Meadow
Shrubsteppe Con. Forest
Acres Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Gain Gain
#Spp. 3 6 6 5 2 2 5
CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO
MALL MALL MALL MALL MALL
MUSK MUSK
BAEAb BAEAb BAEAb BAEAb
BAEAw BAEAw BAEAw BAEAw
WTDE WTDE WTDE
YEWA
BLCC BLCC
BLGR
MUDE
SAGR
“Out of Kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrix
Open Water
Herbaceous Wetland
Scrub Shrub
Forested Wetland
Wet Meadow
Shrubsteppe Con. Forest
Acres Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Gain Gain
#Spp. 3 6 6 5 2 2 5
CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO
MALL MALL MALL MALL MALL
MUSK MUSK
BAEAb BAEAb BAEAb BAEAb
BAEAw BAEAw BAEAw BAEAw
WTDE WTDE WTDE
YEWA
BLCC BLCC
BLGR
MUDE
SAGR
Challenges
Model Issues
BAEAb Distance to water/food source exceeds the maximum distance described in the model…Result: the HSI is and will always be 0.00BAEAw
BLGRLandscape model used in cover types that do not nor ever will provide all life requisites… Result: the HSI will always be 0.00 or extremely low…limited by one or two variables
MUDELandscape model that heavily “weights” winter cover attribute(s) not currently present nor ever will be present on a compensation site: Result: the HSI will never change if winter cover determines the HSI
SAGR Applying sage grouse model to shrubsteppe cover type comprised of bitterbrush. Result: the HSI will always be 0.00 in the absence of sagebrush
Challenges
Consider: HEP allows for model substitutions (“Equal Compensation”) and/or model modifications e. g., change variables/SI equations to provide a better biologically “fit” REGARDLESS OF HU OUTCOME! The goal is to use models that are appropriate for a given cover type and that respond to biological/ecological stimuli.
ChallengesHames Parcel/Deep Canyon Dam 2009 HEP Comparison Matrix
Deep Canyon Dam Loss Assessment Cover Types and Number of Species
Open water Herbaceous WetlandScrub Shrub
WetlandForested Wetland
Wet Meadow
3 5 6 5 2
Hames Parcel Paired Cover Types and Number of Species
Open water Herbaceous Wetland Conifer Forest Shrubsteppe Shrubsteppe Conifer Forest
3 3 5 1 ? ?
Bald eagle breeding x x x
Bald eagle wintering x x x
Black-capped chickadee x
Canada Goose x x x x
Mallard x x x x x
Muskrat x x
Yellow Warbler x
White-tailed deer x x x
Mule deer
Number of Species 3 3 out of 5 6 4 out of 51 out of 2 or
inappropriate species
Paradigm: “Only use loss assessment species-if they don’t fit, don’t substitute”
Open Water
Herbaceous Wetland
Scrub Shrub
Forested Wetland
Wet Meadow
Shrubsteppe Con. Forest
Acres Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain N/A N/A
#Spp. 3 6 6 5 2 ? ?
CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO
MALL MALL MALL MALL MALL
MUSK MUSK
BAEAb BAEAb BAEAb
BAEAw BAEAw BAEAw
WTDE WTDE
YEWA
BLCC
Herbaceous Wetland
Forested Wetland
Shrubsteppe Con. Forest
Acres Loss Loss N/A N/A
#Spp. 6 5 ? ?
CAGO
MALL MALL
MUSK
BAEAb BAEAb
BAEAw BAEAw
WTDE
RWBL
BLCC
Challenges
Herbaceous Wetland
Forested Wetland
Shrubsteppe Con. Forest
Acres Loss Loss N/A N/A
#Spp. 6 5 2 3
CAGO
MALL MALL
MUSK
BAEAb BAEAb
BAEAw BAEAw
WTDE
BLCC
Herbaceous Wetland
Forested Wetland
Shrubsteppe Con. Forest
Acres Loss Loss N/A N/A
#Spp. 6 5 6 5
CAGO
MALL MALL
MUSK
BAEAb BAEAb
BAEAw BAEAw
WTDE
BLCC
Consider: HU stacking less than identified in loss assessment matrices may result in more mitigated HUs than currently identified in HEP reports
Key Habitat Type Acres Associated HEP ModelsMixed Upland Forest 2,700 Black-capped chickadee
Riparian Shrub/Forest 300 Yellow warbler
Riverine/Open Water 1,000 Mink
Cover Types
“Fix It Loop” Suggestion
Move forward…correct what needs correcting….make adjustments and apply to “follow-up” HEP surveys
• 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• Related HEP Issues
In Summary……
Thank You