Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Prepared By Paul R...

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.)


• 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.)


• 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


With Annualization

-1563 HUs -136 HUs

+208 HUs -1491 HUs

Net

Change-2658 HUs -236 HUs

+275 HUs-2619 HUs


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


Pre-Dam

HUsMixed Upland Forest BC Chickadee 2700 HUsRiparian Shrub/Forest Yellow warbler 240 HUs


MP2 HUs

135 HUs 39 HUs

208 HUs 382 HUs

Net

Change-2658 HUs -236 HUs

+275 HUs-2619 HUs


Modified HEP HUs

Mixed Upland Forest BC Chickadee 450 HUs

Riparian Shrub/Forest Yellow warbler 40 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.





Riverine/Open Water Lesser Scaup 0 HUsTotals -2940 HUs

With Annualization

-1563 HUs -136 HUs

0 HUs -1699 HUs

In Kind

Equal





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


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


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



#Spp. 3 6 6 5 2 2 5

CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO


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



#Spp. 3 6 6 5 2 2 5

CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO


MUSK MUSK



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



#Spp. 3 6 6 5 2 2 5

CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO


MUSK MUSK



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


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


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


Acres Gain Loss Gain Loss Gain N/A N/A

#Spp. 3 6 6 5 2 ? ?

CAGO CAGO CAGO CAGO


MUSK MUSK

BAEAb BAEAb BAEAb

BAEAw BAEAw BAEAw

WTDE WTDE

YEWA

BLCC

Herbaceous Wetland

Forested Wetland


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



#Spp. 6 5 2 3

CAGO

MALL MALL

MUSK

BAEAb BAEAb

BAEAw BAEAw

WTDE

BLCC

Herbaceous Wetland

Forested Wetland



#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

Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Prepared By Paul R...

Documents

Transcript of Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Prepared By Paul R...