Transcript HUs

Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation
Habitat Evaluation Procedures
(HEP)
Prepared By
Paul R Ashley-CBFWA
Regional HEP Team
February 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 wildlife … 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 the 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 wildlife including
related spawning grounds and habitat.” Section 4(h)(11)(A)(i)
Mitigation Process
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.
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!!!!
high
Linear Relationship
Population
or other
performance
measure
low
0.0
Habitat Suitability Index
1.0
A Similar Concept: Cattle Forage Carrying Capacity
10 acres
10 acres
Low forage
Carrying capacity
High forage
Carrying capacity
(Low Quality)
(High Quality)
“HQ Expressed as Habitat Suitability Index”
In math:
30 = Bird
species
seen
on of
this
birding trip
Index
=
Value
interest
50 = Index
Bird
species
seen
on
the
best
birding day
=
Value
of
interest
50 = Bird species Standard
seen on the
birding day
of best
comparison
INDEX OFStandard
BIRDING
=
0.60
of comparison
In HEP:
HSI
=
Habitat
condition
onstudy
the study
site
40% =HSI
hydrophytic
shrub
c.c.
on
area
= Habitat condition on the study site
Optimum habitat
condition
100%==optimum
optimumhydrophytic
hydrophytic
shrub
c.c.for
forYEWA
YEWA
100%
shrub
c.c.
Optimum habitat condition
0.4 = HSI for YEWA
Habitat Suitability
Habitat Suitability Index
Scale
No Suitable
Habitat
Medium Quality
Habitat
High Quality
Habitat
0.0
Zero
Carrying Capacity
0.5
1.0
Optimal
Carrying Capacity
The Currency of HEP is the
Habitat Unit or HU
AREA
HSI
Quantity X Quality = HU
50 Acres
X
0.50 HSI
Habitat Suitability Index – ranges
from zero to one (0-1.0)
= 25 HUs
HEP Crediting Basics
Project Area
40 HU Loss
20 Baseline HUs
60 HUs after
enhancements
No Net
Gain to
Wildlife
Net Gain to
Wildlife = 40
HUs:
Compensation
Achieved
0 HU credit for
existing value
60 HUs – 20 HUs
= 40 HUs
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
Species are selected after:
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.
An evaluation species may be:
A single species
Channel
catfish
A life
stage or
life requisite of a species
Nine-banded armadillo
A group
of taxonomically
related species
Rainbow
trout fry
Least Tern
Eastern
Cottontail
winter
cover
Black
basses
(Spotted,
Sm.mouth
& Lg.mouth)
A group of species using similar resources
Blue-winged
teal brood
pond
Chipmunks (Eastern,
and
Least)
Coolwater
reservoir
fish
A fish
or wildlife
community
Chickadees
(Black-capped
& Carolina)
Cavity users
Forest interior songbirds
Six 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.
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….
Yellow Warbler
Habitat Needs:
Shrubby areas, especially near
water with willows and alders.
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 feet
Shrub canopy cover near 60-80%
Multiple riparian shrub species
HEP PHASES (cont.)
• Pre-field Activities
• Field Activities
• Data Compilation and HU
Reporting
Habitat Suitability
Determine NET Impacts
Dam Location
Key
Habitat Type
Mixed Upland Forest
Riparian Shrub/Forest
Evaluation Species
BC Chickadee
Yellow warbler
Pre-Dam
HUs
2700 HUs
240 HUs
Riverine/Open Water
Lesser Scaup
Totals
30 HUs
2970 HUs
Post-Dam
HUs
42 HUs
4 HUs
Net
Change
-2658 HUs
-236 HUs
275 HUs
321 HUs
+275 HUs
-2619 HUs
Average Annual Habitat Units
AAHUs
AAHU Examples
Loss (PA) AAHU Comparison
Habitat Type
Mixed Upland Forest
Riparian Shrub/Forest
Riverine/Open Water
Evaluation Species
BC Chickadee
Yellow warbler
Lesser Scaup
Totals
Pre-Dam
HUs
2700 HUs
240 HUs
30 HUs
2970 HUs
Post-Dam
HUs
42 HUs
4 HUs
275 HUs
321 HUs
Without
Annualization
Net
Change
-2658 HUs
-236 HUs
+275 HUs
-2619 HUs
With
Annualization
Habitat Type
Mixed Upland Forest
Riparian Shrub/Forest
Evaluation Species
BC Chickadee
Yellow warbler
-2700 HUs
- 240 HUs
-1563 HUs
-136 HUs
Riverine/Open Water
Lesser Scaup
Totals
+275HUs
-2970 HUs
+208 HUs
-1491 HUs
Gain (MP) AAHU Comparison
Habitat Type
Mixed Upland Forest
Riparian Shrub/Forest
Riverine/Open Water
Evaluation Species
BC Chickadee
Yellow warbler
Lesser Scaup
Totals
Habitat Type
Mixed Upland Forest
Riparian Shrub/Forest
Evaluation Species
BC Chickadee
Yellow warbler
Riverine/Open Water
Lesser Scaup
Totals
Pre-Dam
HUs
2700 HUs
240 HUs
30 HUs
2970 HUs
Modified HEP
HUs
Post-Dam
HUs
42 HUs
4 HUs
275 HUs
321 HUs
MP2 HUs
450 HUs
40 HUs
135 HUs
39 HUs
275 HUs
765 HUs
208 HUs
382 HUs
Net
Change
-2658 HUs
-236 HUs
+275 HUs
-2619 HUs
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.
In Kind
Without
Annualization
With
Annualization
Habitat Type
Mixed Upland Forest
Riparian Shrub/Forest
Evaluation Species
BC Chickadee
Yellow warbler
-2700 HUs
- 240 HUs
-1563 HUs
-136 HUs
Riverine/Open Water
Lesser Scaup
Totals
0 HUs
-2940 HUs
0 HUs
-1699 HUs
Equal
Without
Annualization
With
Annualization
Habitat Type
Mixed Upland Forest
Riparian Shrub/Forest
Evaluation Species
BC Chickadee
Yellow warbler
-2700 HUs
- 240 HUs
-1563 HUs
-136 HUs
Riverine/Open Water
Lesser Scaup
Totals
+275HUs
-2665 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…..
1. AT LEAST ONE REALLY GOOD
REASON TO DO AN RVI!!!
2. Interdisciplinary team members
willing to participate and come to
consensus.
3. Set of user defined criteria.
4. User defined criteria scale.
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 desirable
way 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 Subjective Value Judgment to
compare HU changes for different
evaluation species or cover types.
A Compromise
A Framework for making value
comparisons between species or
cover types
A Record and Documentation of
your decision process
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
Primary 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 (cont.)
4. Compensation strategies either not
identified and/or followed leading to the
“default” strategy of “equal”
compensation and “paradigm” conflicts
5. “Follow-up” HEP surveys/HUs
appear to be unique to our situation
6. Time between impacts and
compensation
RHT HEP Challenges
Regional HEP Team Mission Statement: “To
conduct HEP analyses in the most consistent,
objective, impartial, and biologically sound manner
possible.”
• Loss Assessment/Compensation Site Matrix
Reconciliation
• HEP model Applications
• Cover Type Mapping
“In-kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrices
Berger Butte/Deep Canyon Dam 2009 HEP Comparison Matrix
Open water
Emergent Wetland
Scrub Shrub
Wetland
Grassland
Meadow
Wet Meadow
Forested
Wetland
Conifer Forest
3
3
2+
2
2
3+
3+
Open water
Emergent Wetland
Scrub Shrub
Grassland
Meadow
Wet Meadow
Forested
Wetland
Conifer Forest
3
3
2+
2
2
3+
3+
Bald eagle
x
x
Black-capped chickadee
x
x
Deep Canyon Dam Loss
Assessment Cover Types and
Number of Species
Berger Butte Paired Cover Types
and Number of Species
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
MUSK
MUSK
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAw
BAEAw
BAEAw
BAEAw
WTDE
WTDE
WTDE
YEWA
BLCC
MALL
“Out of Kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrix
Hames Parcel/Deep Canyon Dam 2009 HEP Comparison Matrix
Deep Canyon Dam Loss Assessment
Cover Types and Number of Species
Hames Parcel Paired Cover Types and
Number of Species
Open water
Herbaceous Wetland
Scrub Shrub
Wetland
Forested
Wetland
Wet Meadow
3
5
6
5
2
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
Mallard
x
x
x
Muskrat
x
x
Yellow Warbler
x
x
x
x
White-tailed deer
x
x
6
5
Mule deer
Number of Species
3
5
2
“Out of Kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrix
Herbaceous
Wetland
Loss
Scrub
Shrub
Loss
Forested
Wetland
Loss
Wet
Meadow
Loss
Shrubsteppe
Acres
Open
Water
Loss
Gain
Con.
Forest
Gain
#Spp.
3
6
6
5
2
2?
5?
CAGO
CAGO
CAGO
MALL
MALL
MALL
MALL
MUSK
MUSK
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAw
BAEAw
BAEAw
WTDE
WTDE
CAGO
MALL
YEWA
BLCC
For
HU
stacking
purposes…What
loss
assessment
cover
What
species
would
be
appropriate
if
the
loss
assessment
Are does
extant
matrix
species
appropriate
for new
CVR types?
type
the
new
cover
types
most
closely
resemble?
matrix did not exist?
“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
MALL
MALL
MALL
MALL
MUSK
MUSK
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAw
BAEAw
BAEAw
BAEAw
WTDE
WTDE
WTDE
BLCC
BLCC
CAGO
MALL
YEWA
BLGR
MUDE
SAGR
Challenges
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
MALL
MALL
MALL
MALL
MUSK
MUSK
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAw
BAEAw
BAEAw
BAEAw
WTDE
WTDE
WTDE
BLCC
BLCC
CAGO
MALL
YEWA
BLGR
MUDE
SAGR
Challenges
Model
Issues
BAEAb Distance to water/food source exceeds the maximum distance described in the
BAEAw model…Result: the HSI is and will always be 0.00
Consider
Landscape
: HEP
model
allows
used infor
cover
model
types that
substitutions
do not nor ever will
(“Equal
provide all life
BLGR
requisites… Result:
the HSI
will always
be 0.00 or extremely
low…limited by
Compensation”)
and/or
model
modifications
e. g., change
one or two variables
variables/SI equations to provide a better biologically “fit”
Landscape model that heavily “weights” winter cover attribute(s) not currently
REGARDLESS
OF
OUTCOME!
The goal
is to the
useHSI
models
MUDE
present nor ever
willHU
be present
on a compensation
site: Result:
will
never
change if winter
determines
HSI and that respond to
that are
appropriate
forcover
a given
coverthetype
SAGR
Applying sage grouse
model to shrubsteppe cover type comprised of bitterbrush.
biological/ecological
stimuli.
Result: the HSI will always be 0.00 in the absence of sagebrush
Challenges
Hames Parcel/Deep Canyon Dam 2009 HEP Comparison Matrix
Deep Canyon Dam Loss Assessment
Cover Types and Number of Species
Hames Parcel Paired Cover Types
and Number of Species
Open water
Herbaceous
Wetland
Scrub Shrub
Wetland
Forested
Wetland
Wet Meadow
3
5
6
5
2
Open water
Herbaceous
Wetland
Conifer Forest
Shrubsteppe
Shrubsteppe
Conifer Forest
Paradigm: “Only use loss assessment
species-if they don’t fit, don’t substitute”
3
3
5
Bald eagle breeding
x
x
x
Bald eagle wintering
x
x
x
Black-capped chickadee
1
x
Canada Goose
x
x
x
Mallard
x
x
x
Muskrat
x
x
x
x
x
Yellow Warbler
x
White-tailed deer
x
x
x
6
4 out of 5
1 out of 2 or
inappropriate species
Mule deer
Number of Species
3
3 out of 5
?
?
Challenges
Acres
Gain
Herbaceous
Wetland
Loss
#Spp.
3
6
6
CAGO
CAGO
CAGO
MALL
MALL
MALL
MALL
MUSK
MUSK
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAb
BAEAw
BAEAw
BAEAw
WTDE
WTDE
Open
Water
RWBL
Wet
Meadow
Shrubsteppe
Gain
Forested
Wetland
Loss
Gain
N/A
Con.
Forest
N/A
5
2
?
?
Scrub
Shrub
CAGO
YEWA
BLCC
MALL
Acres
Acres
#Spp.
#Spp.
Herbaceous
Herbaceous
Wetland
Wetland
Loss
Loss
Forested
Forested
Wetland
Wetland
Loss
Loss
66
CAGO
CAGO
55
MALL
MALL
MUSK
MUSK
MALL
MALL
BAEA
BAEAbb
BAEA
BAEAww
BAEA
BAEAbb
BAEA
BAEAww
WTDE
WTDE
BLCC
BLCC
Shrubsteppe
Shrubsteppe
N/A
N/A
26
Con.
Con.
Forest
Forest
N/A
N/A
35
Consider: HU stacking less than identified in
loss assessment matrices may result in more
mitigated HUs than currently identified in
HEP reports
Cover Types
Key
Habitat Type
Mixed Upland Forest
Riparian Shrub/Forest
Acres
2,700
300
Associated HEP Models
Black-capped chickadee
Yellow warbler
Riverine/Open Water
1,000
Mink
“Fix It Loop” Suggestion
Move forward…correct what needs
correcting….make adjustments and
apply to “follow-up” HEP surveys
In Summary……
•
•
•
•
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
Thank You