Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)
description
Transcript of Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)
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• Regional HEP Team
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
ACCOUNTINGHEP is an accounting tool
HEP was developed to answer one question…..How Much Will It Cost If We Build It?
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 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
4Study objectives are established.4Resource categories have been determined.4Study area has been delineated.4Cover types have been defined.
Species can be selected to represent:8Important species.8Important resource categories.8Important habitats.8Important cover types.
Species are selected after:
An evaluation species may be:
A single speciesuChannel catfishuNine-banded armadillouLeast Tern
A life stage or life requisite of a speciesuRainbow trout fryuEastern Cottontail winter coveruBlue-winged teal brood pond
A group of taxonomically related speciesuBlack basses (Spotted, Sm.mouth & Lg.mouth)uChipmunks (Eastern, and Least)uChickadees (Black-capped & Carolina)
A group of species using similar resourcesuCoolwater reservoir fishuCavity usersuForest interior songbirds
A fish or wildlife community
Five Considerations in evaluation species selection
1. 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 (i.e., many or few HUs).
5. The Phylum of a species should not be a consideration in the selection.
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
“Futures Analysis”
TY0 TY10 TY20 TY35 TY40 TY50TY1
Determine Target Years & HUs for the speciesCalculate habitat units for each periodSum the habitat units over the period of analysisDivide to determine the Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHU)H
abit
at U
nits
AAHUs
A Futures Analysis is conducted on both the project area and compensation site
Without project conditions
HU
s fo
r sp
ecie
s A
TimeTY0 TY1 TY5 TY10 TY20 TY30 TY40 TY50
PROJECT LOSS
With project conditions
HU
s fo
r sp
ecie
s A
TimeTY0 TY1 TY5 TY10 TY20 TY30 TY40 TY50
MANAGEMENT GAIN
Without management
With management
HU
HU
Period of analysis
Compensation area gains due to management
Project area losses due to project
Continued management gains
Continued project losses
NET EFFECTS of “project life”
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.”
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 as outlined in HEP protocols
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 not clearly defined and/or followed leading to a mix of “Equal” and “In-Kind” compensation resulting in “paradigm” conflicts
Primary Inconsistencies (cont.)
5. “Follow-up” HEP surveys/HUs appear to be unique to our situation6. Time between impacts and compensation
Regional HEP Team (RHT)
Regional HEP Team Mission Statement: “To conduct HEP analyses in the most consistent, objective, impartial, and biologically sound manner possible.”
The Regional HEP Team conducts HEP analyses throughout the Region and provides HEP training to wildlife managers bringing consistency to the HU accounting process.
The RHT not only conducts HEP analyses, but also actively consults with Wildlife Managers and BPA COTR staff to resolve HEP related issues e. g., HU “stacking” in out of kind cover types….
The RHT is committed to collecting robust habitat variable data using consistent and proven techniques and sampling protocols.
Habitat Unit Stacking refers to the number of HEP species models used to evaluate a given cover type
For Example….
“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
• 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
In Summary……
Thank You
Questions?