Transcript Document
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 • Regional HEP Team
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
ACCOUNTING
HEP 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!!!!
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 (Low Quality) High forage Carrying capacity (High Quality)
“HQ Expressed as Habitat Suitability Index” In math: In HEP:
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 = 25 HUs Habitat Suitability Index – ranges from zero to one (0-1.0)
HEP Crediting Basics
Project Area 20 Baseline HUs 60 HUs after enhancements 40 HU Loss No Net Gain to Wildlife 0 HU credit for existing value Net Gain to Wildlife = 40 HUs: Compensation Achieved 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:
4
Study objectives are established.
4
Resource categories have been determined.
4
Study area has been delineated.
4
Cover types have been defined.
Species can be selected to represent:
8
Important species.
8
Important resource categories.
8
Important habitats.
8
Important cover types.
An evaluation species may be:
A single species A life stage or life requisite of a species A group of taxonomically related species
u
Nine-banded armadillo Least Tern A group of species using similar resources
u
A fish
u
or wildlife community
u
Forest interior songbirds Carolina )
Five Considerations in evaluation species selection 1. Evaluation species MUST fish & wildlife objectives.
relate to the 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….
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 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
Net Change
-2658 HUs -236 HUs +275 HUs -2619 HUs
Average Annual Habitat Units
AAHUs
“Futures Analysis”
TY0 TY1 TY10
AAHUs
TY20 TY35 TY40 TY50
A Futures Analysis is conducted on both the project area and compensation site
Without project conditions PROJECT LOSS With project conditions
TY0 TY1 TY5 TY10 TY20 TY30 TY40 TY50 Time
With management
MANAGEMENT GAIN
Without management
TY0 TY1 TY5 TY10 TY20 TY30 TY40 TY50 Time
HU NET EFFECTS of “project life”
Compensation area gains due to management Continued management gains
HU
Project area losses due to project Period of analysis Continued project losses
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
Mixed Upland Forest Riparian Shrub/Forest Riverine/Open Water
Habitat Type
Mixed Upland Forest Riparian Shrub/Forest Riverine/Open Water
In Kind Evaluation Species
BC Chickadee Yellow warbler Lesser Scaup
Totals Without Annualization
-2700 HUs - 240 HUs 0 HUs -2940 HUs
With Annualization
-1563 HUs -136 HUs 0 HUs -1699 HUs
Equal Evaluation Species
BC Chickadee Yellow warbler Lesser Scaup
Totals Without Annualization
-2700 HUs - 240 HUs +275HUs -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 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 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
(cont.) 4. Compensation strategies not clearly defined and/or followed leading to a mix of “Equal” and “In-Kind” compensation resulting in “paradigm” conflicts 5. “Follow-up” HEP surveys/HUs appear to be unique to our situation 6. Time between impacts and compensation
Regional HEP Team (RHT)
Regional HEP Team Mission Statement: conduct HEP analyses in the most “To consistent , objective , possible.” impartial , and biologically sound manner
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 is committed to collecting robust habitat variable data using consistent and proven techniques and sampling protocols. 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….
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 Matrix
Deep Canyon Dam Loss Assessment Cover Types and Number of Species Hames Parcel Paired Cover Types and Number of Species Bald eagle breeding Bald eagle wintering Black-capped chickadee Canada Goose Mallard Muskrat Yellow Warbler White-tailed deer Mule deer
Number of Species
Hames Parcel/Deep Canyon Dam 2009 HEP Comparison Matrix Open water 3 Herbaceous Wetland Scrub Shrub Wetland 5 6 Open water Herbaceous Wetland 3 5 x x x x Forested Wetland 5 Forested Wetland 5 x x x Wet Meadow 2 x x x x x x x x x x x x Shrubsteppe Conifer Forest ?
?
x x
3 5 6 5 2
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 • Regional HEP Team
Questions?