Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) Status

1

• Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
  Status
• Presented to Members Advisory Group
• By
• Paul Ashley and Ken MacDonald
• 2/17/09

2
Regional HEP TEAM Presentation Overview

• HEP 101 Refresher
• HEP History
• HEP Pre-History (1982 -1991)
• HEP Early Years (1992 1998)
• HEP Transition Period (1999 2003)
• RHT Present Time (2004 to Present)
• Current Status, BOG Request, 2010

3
HEP 101
HEP is a tool used to measure habitat quality on
a scale from 0.0 (poor) to 1.0 (optimum)
HSI Model Black-capped Chickadee
4
HEP

• Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) developed by
  USFWS in late 1970sto answer one question
• How much will it cost if we build it?
• Most HEP manuals and blue book models developed
  from 1980 1984 updated manuals/HEP course
  materials in the 1990s
• HEP is used to estimate habitat quality based on
  specific wildlife/fish species life requisite
  needs e.g., percent shrub cover, tree height/dbh,
  large woody debris/stream mile, water temperature
  etc.

5
HEP (cont.)

• Wildlife/fish habitat variables are included in
  single species HEP models
• Model output or Habitat Suitability Index
  (HSI), a number between 0 and 1, is determined by
  mathematically combining the habitat suitability
  ratings for individual habitat variables in a
  specific model
• For Example Three habitat variables are included
  in the black-capped chickadee HEP model

6
HEP (cont.)
V1 Percent tree canopy closure (food)
V2 Average height of over-story trees (food)
V3 Number of snags 4 to 10 inches dbh
(reproduction)
HSI lower value between food (V1 x V2) 1/2 and
reproduction (V3)
7
HEP (BC chickadee cont.)

• (V1 x V2) ½ (0.5 x 0.7) ½ 0.59 (food)
• (V3) 0.4 (reproduction i.e. few snags of
  appropriate dbh)
• HSI Lower value between food and reproduction
  needs
• HSI 0.4

8
HEP (cont.)

• HEP unit of currency is the habitat unit or HU
• HU Habitat suitability (HSI) x acres of habitat
  (assume project area is 100 acres) Therefore,
• HUs 0.4 HSI x 100 acres 40 HUs

9
In Summary..

• HEP is an accounting tool used to quantify
  habitat losses (HU loss ledger) and,
• Measure credit towards the losses
• HEP does not
• Monitor project effectiveness towards most
  floristic, biological, or ecological objectives
• Monitor species population response

10
Columbia Basin HEP History
HEP Pre-History 1982 - 1991
11
In the Beginning.HEP.
Genesis Pre History 19821991

• Identify construction and inundation losses
• Loss Assessments..
• Grand Coulee, Libby, Minidoka, Willamette, Lower
  Columbia River..

12
Loss Assessment Documents
13
Hydro Power Loss Assessments

• Only construction and inundation losses were
  addressed in the loss assessments
• Impacts summarized as habitat units (HU)
• Created HU ledger (Table 11-4 NPCCs 2000
  Program)

14
Early Years 1992 1998
15
Early Years 1992 1998

• Pre Regional HEP Team (RHT)
• Project managers responsible for HEP surveys
• Managers assisted each other conduct HEP surveys
  some worked independently or with contractors
• WDFW staff assisted some project managers conduct
  HEP surveys ( 1 or 2 employees)

16
Early Years (cont.)

• BY 1998, WDFW HEP staff was involved in most HEP
  field work in Basin
• WDFW paid all costs with WDFW MOA funds (50k to
  100k annually)
• WDFW provided vehicle(s)/equipment and
  administrative support
• Project Managers responsible for HEP Reports

17
Early Years 1992 1998 Issues

• Inconsistent HEP assessments across Basin
• Measured versus ocular HEP analyses (concerns
  over the results and repeatability)
• Habitat unit stacking issues
• Crediting of out-of-place, out-of- kind habitat
  types...all or nothing acquisitionssome credit
  vs. no credit
• Using inappropriate models to evaluate simplified
  cover type strata e. g. sage grouse in a
  shrubsteppe/bitterbrush plant community
• Report inconsistencies content, scope, timing

18
Early Years 1992 1998 Issues (cont.)

• BPA and most managers recognized the need for HEP
  training and to establish a primary HEP team to
  assist project managers conduct HEP surveys in a
  consistent manner.active and advisory roles
• WDFW and CCT staff provided HEP
  training/certification to project managers et al.
  by 1998

19
Transition Period 1999 -2003
20
Transition Period 1999 -2003

• WDFW HEP staff assisted project managers conduct
  HEP surveys ( 4 person crew). Independent HEP
  analyses still being conducted
• Project managers responsible for HEP Reports
  (WDFW HEP Team staff shared HU compilation
  responsibilities in many cases)
• WDFW paid all costs with WDFW MOA funds (100k
  annually) until 2002

21
Transition Period (cont.)

• In 2002, CBFWAs contract was modified to include
  HEP workprimarily funding HEP team crew member
  positions.
• CBFWA contracted w/WDFW for HEP analyses

22
Transition Period (cont.)

• WDFW continued to fund vehicle costs, most
  equipment, and lead position shared
  administrative support with CBFWA in 2002 and
  2003
• FY 03-05 CBFWA contract included objective
• Facilitate Regional Habitat Evaluation
  Procedure Team

23
Transition Period (cont.)

• Manage HEP team contract
• Assist Regional HEP Team w/logistics and
  scheduling
• FY 2003 - CBFWF administered HEP Contract
• WDFW funded vehicle costs, most equipment, and
  lead position until June 2004

24
REGIONAL HEP TEAM (2004 to Present)
25
REGIONAL HEP TEAM (cont.)(2004 to Present)

• FY 2004 CBFWA HEP contract is sole HEP funding
  Source (187,000)Birth of the RHT
• June 2004 Paul Ashley became CBFWA employee as
  Regional HEP Team Coordinator
• WDFW stops funding HEP activities June 2004
• FY 2004 FY2005 RHT conducts HEP surveys for
  YN, STOI, CCT, Kalispel, Umatilla, Coeur d
  Alene, Nez Perce, and Burns-Paiute Tribes, WDFW,
  IDFG, ODFW, and TNC
• Conducted two 4-day HEP Training Courses
• Compiled HEP data, drafted HEP reports etc.

26
REGIONAL HEP TEAM (cont.)(2004 to Present)

• FY2006 RHT received 100,000 through BOG
  request (replace WDFW funding RHT Budget
  287,000)
• FY2006 - 2008 RHT conducted HEP surveys for
  Kalispel, STOI, CCT, YN, CDA, BPT, and
  Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, WDFW, IDFG, TNC, and
  USACOE
• Conducted two 4-day HEP Training Courses
• Compiled HEP data, drafted HEP reports etc.
• Partnered with NHI to develop CHAP methodology
• CBFWF continues to administer HEP contract

27
Current Situation
28
Current Situation

• HEP follow-up surveys behind schedule (five year
  intervals)
• Difficult to determine HEP needs prior to Pisces
  tool
• Pisces HEP data inputs from reports/info provided
  by managers
• HEP survey needs identified in Pisces for FY 2009

29
Sponsor Project Acres EWDA HEP Type
Burns Piaute Tribe Malheur (Denny Jones) 44,762 10 Follow-up
IDFG Boise River 166 3 Follow-up
IDFG Kruse Pine Creek Easement 800 5 Follow-up
IDFG Tex Creek WMA 2,135 6 Follow-up
IDFG Winterfield Easement 422 2 Follow-up
IDFG Centennial Marsh 1,500 4 Baseline
IDFG Beaver Dick 300 3 Follow-up
Kalispel Tribe Beaver Lake 462 4 Follow-up
Kalispel Tribe Flying Goose 2 156 2 Follow-up
Kootenai Tribe Kootenai River Flood Plain 112 2 Baseline
Nez Perce Precious Lands 16,286 10 Follow-up
ODFW Burlington Bottoms 417 5 Follow-up
ODFW/TNC (CHAP) Various sites (8) 7,000 40 Baseline
Shoshone Bannock Soda Hills 2,563 10 Follow-up
30
Sponsor Project Acres EWDA HEP Type
STOI Fox Creek 200 1 Follow-up
STOI McCoy Lake 2,157 10 Follow-up
Umatilla Tribe Iskuulpa 5,937 10 Follow-up
Umatilla Tribe Rainwater 8,768 10 Follow-up
USFWS LPO NWR 906 5 Follow-up
USFWS Steigerwald Lake NWR 317 5 Follow-up
USFWS Tualatin Rver NWR 227 5 Follow-up
Warm Springs Tribe Pine Creek 25,146 10 Follow-up
WDFW Schlee (Asotin WA) 7,000 10 Follow-up
WDFW Eder Phase II 1,500 4 Baseline
WDFW Dagnon Acquisition 1,200 4 Baseline
Yakama Nation Satus WA etc. 8,000 15 Follow-up
CCT Agency Butte Management Area 3,158 5 Follow-up
CCT Berg Ranch Management Area 8,115 6 Follow-up
CDA Tribe Elk Horn 608 3 Baseline
CDA Tribe St. Joe 87 1 Baseline
CDA Tribe Hepton Lake 143 1 Baseline
CDA Tribe Windy Bay 147 1 Baseline
US Forest Service Sandy River Delta 100 4 Follow-up
Total   147,297 216  
Unknown New projects ????? ??? Baseline
31
Current Situation (cont.)

• RHT team currently conducts most HEP surveys
  some independent HEP analyses
• Managers consult with RHT to ensure consistent
  application of HEP RHT reviews independent HEP
  reports and enters HUs into Pisces
• Inconsistent crediting of HUs by project managers
  early on (Coulee and Chief Joseph review)
• No one knows status of Credit ledger

32
Current Situation (cont.)

• HEP is not the appropriate crediting tool for
  Willamette Valley mitigation projects
• Original HEP surveys not repeatable
• Used checklists not HEP models (few models
  available)
• HU stacking issues
• Habitat and species priorities have changed since
  loss assessment HU estimates were derived
• Sub-basin Plans focus on oak savannah, Willamette
  Valley prairie/associated wildlife species
  etc..not elk and upland conifer forests.(out of
  kind, out of place mitigation)
• Little to no public, NGO, or Agency support for
  HEP in the Willamette Valley - New Crediting Tool
  Needed

33
Current Situation (cont.)

• Preliminary assessment of Combined Habitat
  Assessment Protocols (CHAP) as a crediting tool
  for the Willamette Valley showed promise for
  overcoming crediting issues
• CHAP combines elements of HEP with NHIs HAB
  program
• CHAP does not require HEP models
• Eliminates evaluation species, out of kind out
  of place concerns
• Eliminates HU stacking issues
• Is ecologically more robust than HEP
• Is repeatable

34
Current Situation Summary

• Need to increase RHT staffing to
• Reduce HEP survey backlog and update crediting
  status enter HUs into Pisces
• Ensure HEP results and reports are completed in a
  consistent, timely manner
• Allow time for RHT staff to plan/prepare for HEP
  surveys and provide input on HEP/crediting
  related topics

35
Current Situation Summary

• Continue review of hydro facility loss assessment
  matrices and project HU crediting
• Assist managers develop loss assessment matrices
  as needed
• Compare loss assessment matrices/HU stacking with
  mitigation project crediting
• Recommend solutions to reconcile discrepancies
• Need to fund NHI to complete Combined Habitat
  Assessment Protocols (CHAP) pilot study in the
  Willamette Valley during FY 2009

36
FY 2009 Funding Request
37
Alternatives

• Alternative 1 Status quo (287,000)
• Alternative 2 Hire second temporary technician
  and NHI contract (287,000 79,429 366,429)
• Alternative 3 - Hire full-time professional
  assistant, Contract with NHI for CHAP in
  Willamette (390,207)
• (287,000 103,207 390,207)
• Alternative 4 Alternative 3 plus additional
  temporary field technician
• (287,000 115,729 402,729)

38
Consequences Alternative 1

• Alternative 1 Status Quo (287,000)
• Benefit
• Conduct baseline surveys on new projects few
  follow-ups
• Consequences
• Continue to fall further behind with follow-up
  HEP surveys
• Unable to complete HEP reports and report HEP
  results in a timely manner
• No time to review hydro facility loss matrices
  and extant crediting (unable to confirm HU
  crediting status), or prepare for 2010 HEP
  surveys
• Fall further behind on resolving Willamette
  Valley crediting issues

39
Consequences Alternative 2

• Alternative 2 Hire second temporary technician
  and NHI contract (79,429)
• Benefits
• Conduct new baseline surveys and complete some
  follow-up surveys
• Compile HEP results in a timely manner
• Complete CHAP pilot study/evaluation in the
  Willamette Valleybegin crediting Willamette
  mitigation projects
• Consequences
• Few follow-up HEP surveys would be accomplished
  (could not split the field crew)
• Only slight improvement in ability to complete
  reports

40
Consequences Alternative 3

• Alternative 3 Hire Full time professional
  assistant and NHI contract (103,207)
• Benefits
• Conduct new baseline surveys and begin completing
  backlog of follow-up surveys
• Complete HEP reports and HEP results in a timely
  manner
• Complete review of loss assessment matrices and
  project HU crediting
• Complete CHAP pilot study/evaluation in the
  Willamette Valleybegin crediting Willamette
  mitigation projects
• Consequences
• Fewer follow-up HEP surveys would be accomplished
  than could be completed under Alternative 4

41
Consequences Alternative 4

• Alternative 4 Alternative 3 plus additional
  field technician (115,729)
• Benefits
• Conduct new baseline surveys and make significant
  headway completing backlog of follow-up surveys
  (increase HEP work days from 90 to 110)
• Complete HEP reports and HEP results in a timely
  manner
• Complete review of loss assessment matrices and
  project HU crediting
• Complete CHAP pilot study/evaluation in the
  Willamette Valleybegin crediting Willamette
  mitigation projects
• Consequences
• None

42
FY 2009 Funding Request

• Regional HEP Team BOG Request (2009)
• 115,729
• RHT Full time Field Team Supervisor position
• Additional Temporary Field Tech Position
• NHI contract to complete CHAP pilot study in the
  Willamette Basin
• Total RHT budget including BOG request 402,729
• 287,000 current budget
• 115,729 BOG request

43
In Summary.

• Seeking MAG recommendation and support for
  Alternative 4
• FY 2009 Budget Increase (115, 729)
• FY 2010 -??? Maintain funding at increased level

44
QUESTIONS?
45
Line Item Cost/month Months Subtotal Benefits Subtotal Indirect Totals
RHT Coordinator 5,931 12 71,177 22,777 93,954 13,558 107,511
RHT Field Supervisor 4,012 5 20,060 6,419 26,479 3,821 30,300
RHT Technician (2) 2,189 10 21,887   21,887 3,158 25,045
Contract Services 20,000 4 80,000 (Americorps)   11,544 91,544
Contract Services 1,000 3.8 3,800 (GIS support)   548 4,348
Contract Services 28,326 2 42,489 (NHI)   6,131 48,620
RHT Per Diem 4,000 9 34,000     4,906 38,906
RHT Airline Travel 495 9 4,455     643 5,098
RHT Vehicle Lease 1,650 6 9,900     1,429 11,329
RHT Lease Veh. Costs 2,000 6 12,000     1,732 13,732
POV Mileage Costs 1,500 6 9,000     1,299 10,299
RHT Cell Phones 125 12 1,500     216 1,716
RHT Printer Cart., CDs etc. 75 12 900     130 1,030
RHT Postage 30 11 330     48 378
RHT Equipment/storage 800 12 9,600     1,385 10,985
RHT Misc. Supplies 300 6 1,650     238 1,888
Totals     322,748 29,196 142,320 50,785 402,729
46
(No Transcript)
47
Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols (CHAP)
48
Combined Habitat Assessment Protocol
Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols (CHAP)

• Habitat Accounting and Appraisal (HAB) method
• crosswalk
• Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)
• Habitat Units
• Combined Habitat Assessment Protocol
• (CHAP)

49
The Process
50
Photo courtesy of Hayes
51
HAB Method

1. Preliminary Mapping
2. Field Inventory
3. IBIS Species-Habitat-Functions Relationships
4. Calculations
5. Final maps and reports

Photo courtesy of Dr. Richard Forbes
52
Preliminary Mapping

• - Geo-referenced aerial imagery for site
• - Habitat types delineated using GIS (in-office)
• Visual land formation differences
• Vegetation (color, texture)
• Structural conditions

53
Field Inventory

• - Spatial data
• - Tabular data

54
Field Inventory
Spatial data

• - Bring aerial photography
• - Confirm initial polygon delineation (by habitat
  type)
• - Refine boundary, habitat types and structural
  conditions

55
Field Inventory
Tabular data for each polygon

• Record presence and abundance of Key
  Environmental Correlates (KECs)
• Record invasive species presence and abundance

56
Species-Habitat-Functions Relationships
IBIS

• Create potential species list for the site
• Review species list by regional or local expertise

Photo courtesy of Dr. Richard Forbes
57
Species-Habitat-Functions Relationships
IBIS

• - Query databases to establish
• a) Matrix A - potential species by habitat type
  and function
• b) Matrix B - for site-specific KECs that
  characterize potential functions

Photo courtesy of Dr. Richard Forbes
58
Calculations

• HAB value calculated
• - based on species, habitat components, and
  functions associated with each polygon
• - combined polygons to determine single HAB
  value for site
• - HAB values can be evaluated for different
  situations

Photo courtesy of Hayes
59
Calculations
Mitigation

• - Impacted site HAB compared to mitigation site
  HAB
• - Calculations act as an Accounting and Tracking
  Method (ATM) for mitigation banks
• - HAB acts as currency that can be traded in a
  conservation marketplace

Photo courtesy of Hayes
60
Calculations
Example
Information tracked for each polygon at a site.
Focus for further calculations
61
Matrix A- Species-Function
Lowland Mixed Conifer Habitat Type Species Value (Potential) Function 1 Creates Feeding, Opportunities for Others Function 2 Breaks up Down Wood Function 3 Primary Excavator Function 4 Eats Terrestrial Insects
Williamson's Sapsucker 1 1 1 1
Black Bear 1 1 1
Red Squirrel 1
Great Blue Heron 1 1
62
Matrix B- Habitat-Function
Lowland Mixed Conifer Habitat Type KEC Value (Actual) Function 1 Creates Snags Function 2 Breaks up Down Wood Function 3 Pollination Vector Function 4 Primary Excavator Function 5 Filtering Water Function 6 Eats Terrestrial Insects
KEC 1 down wood 1 1
KEC 2 snags 1 1 1
KEC 3 tree cavities 1 1 1 1
KEC 4 hollow living trees 1 1
KEC 5 flowers 1
KEC 6 Emergent vegetation 1
63
HAB Process Calculations
Two numbers from each matrix 1. Total number of
1s in table 2. Total number of non-zero
functions

1. Total of species performing fxns 14
2. Total non-zero fxns 4

1. Total of KECs linked to fxns 8
2. Total non-zero fxns 3

Function ID
Function ID
A
B
1.3 2.2 2.6 4.5
20170 1 1 1 1
40140 1 1 0 1
43680 1 1 1 1
44870 1 1 1 0

1.3 2.2 2.6 4.5
1.10 0 0 1 1
1.1.3 1 0 0 1
2.4.1 1 0 0 1
2.7.2.1 0 0 1 1

KEC ID
Species ID
64
HAB Process Calculations
Divide total number of 1s total number of
non-zero functions

1. Total of 1s 14
2. Total non-zero fxns 4

1. Total of 1s 8
2. Total non-zero fxns 3

A
B
Note Functions Dependent Variable to Species
65
HAB Process Calculations
B
A
Species Value
KEC Value


Habitat Value
Species Value
KEC Value
66
Impact Value
Baseline Habitat Value
Affected Habitat Value
minus
Debit
Credit
67
Final Habitat Mapping

• Spatial data from field inventory incorporated
  into a GIS
• Polygons (map units) incorporated into
  calculations

Photo courtesy of BLM
68
Habitat Mapping

• Maps used for multiple purposes examples
• - Choose restoration priority areas
• - Monitoring
• - Spatially depict habitat function
• - Communicate science to the public

Photo courtesy of BLM
69
Examples of Map Products
Photo courtesy of BLM
70
(No Transcript)
71
(No Transcript)
72
ODOT Mirror Lake Mitigation Site Inferences to
SOIL EROSION
73
Big Bear Lake Wildlife Habitat CHAP Results
74
(No Transcript)
75
Big Bear Lake Wildlife Habitat CHAP Results
76
Big Bear
77
(No Transcript)
78
(No Transcript)