Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)

1. Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Prepared By Paul R Ashley-CBFWA Regional HEP Team February 2010

2. Much Appreciation to Peter Paquet, Richard Stiehl, and John Andrews For Their Contributions to This Presentation

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedures OVERVIEW

7. 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?

8. 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!!!!

9. high Linear Relationship Population or other performance measure low 0.0 Habitat Suitability Index 1.0

10. 10 acres 10 acres Low forage Carrying capacity High forage Carrying capacity A Similar Concept: Cattle Forage Carrying Capacity (Low Quality) (High Quality)

11. Index = Value of interest Standard of comparison HSI = Habitat condition on the study site Optimum habitat condition “HQ Expressed as Habitat Suitability Index” In math: 50 = Bird species seen on the best birding day INDEX OF BIRDING = 0.60 30 = Bird species seen on this birding trip 50 = Bird species seen on the best birding day Index = Value of interest Standard of comparison In HEP: 100% = optimum hydrophytic shrub c.c. for YEWA 0.4 = HSI for YEWA 40% = hydrophytic shrub c.c. on study area 100% = optimum hydrophytic shrub c.c. for YEWA HSI = Habitat condition on the study site Optimum habitat condition

12. Habitat Suitability

13. Habitat Suitability Index Scale No Suitable Habitat Medium Quality Habitat High Quality Habitat 0.0 0.5 1.0 Zero Carrying Capacity Optimal Carrying Capacity

14. AREA HSI The Currency of HEP is the Habitat Unit or HU Quantity X Quality = HU 50 Acres X 0.50 HSI = 25 HUs Habitat Suitability Index – ranges from zero to one (0-1.0)

15. HEP Crediting Basics Project Area 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 40 HU Loss

16. 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

17. HEP PHASES • Pre-field Activities • Field Activities • Data Compilation and Reporting Pre-field Activities

18. 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

19. 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.

20. An evaluation species may be: A single species • Channel catfish • Nine-banded armadillo • Least Tern A life stage or life requisite of a species A group of taxonomically related species • Rainbow trout fry • Eastern Cottontail winter cover • Blue-winged teal brood pond • Black basses (Spotted, Sm.mouth & Lg.mouth) • Chipmunks (Eastern, and Least) • Chickadees (Black-capped & Carolina) A group of species using similar resources • Coolwater reservoir fish • Cavity users • Forest interior songbirds A fish or wildlife community

21. Six Considerations in evaluation species selection 1.Evaluation speciesMUSTrelate to the fish & wildlife objectives. 2.Thenumber 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 speciesMUSTrelate to the fish & wildlife objectives.

22. HEP PHASES (cont.) • Pre-field Activities • Field Activities • Data Compilation and Reporting

23. Field Activities • Collect Habitat Data • Percent shrub cover • Basal area • Tree height • Photo documentation • and more…… For example………

24. HSI models define habitat variables….

25. 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

26. No Suitable Yellow Warbler Riparian Habitat (HSI = 0) No riparian shrubs/trees

27. Low Quality Yellow Warbler Riparian Habitat (HSI = 0.2) Some riparian shrubs

28. 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

29. HEP PHASES (cont.) • Pre-field Activities • Field Activities • Data Compilation and HU Reporting

30. Habitat Suitability

31. Determine NET Impacts Dam Location

32. Average Annual Habitat Units AAHUs

33. AAHU Examples

34. Loss (PA) AAHU Comparison

35. Gain (MP) AAHU Comparison

36. COMPENSATION GOALS 1. In Kind 2. Equal 3. Relative

37. 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.

38. Goal 2: Equal Replacement goal is to offset HU losses through a gain of an equal number of HUs. A gain of1 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.

39. In Kind Equal

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.”

43. 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

44. 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.

45. 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

46. 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

48. HEP Versus Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation Program Inconsistencies

49. 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

50. 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