Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) StatusStatus

Presented to Members Advisory Group Presented to Members Advisory Group By By

Paul Ashley and Ken MacDonaldPaul Ashley and Ken MacDonald2/17/092/17/09

Regional HEP TEAM Regional HEP TEAM Presentation OverviewPresentation Overview

HEP 101 RefresherHEP 101 Refresher HEP HistoryHEP History

HEP Pre-History (1982 -1991)HEP Pre-History (1982 -1991) HEP Early Years (1992 – 1998)HEP Early Years (1992 – 1998) HEP Transition Period (1999 – 2003)HEP Transition Period (1999 – 2003) RHT Present Time (2004 to Present)RHT Present Time (2004 to Present)

Current Status and BOG RequestCurrent Status and BOG Request

HEP 101HEP 101HEP is a tool used to measure habitat quality

on a scale from 0.0 (poor) to 1.0 (optimum)

HSI Model : HSI Model : Black-capped ChickadeeBlack-capped Chickadee

HEPHEP

Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) developed Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) developed by USFWS in late 1970s…to answer one question:by USFWS in late 1970s…to answer one question:

““How much will it cost if we build it?”How much will it cost if we build it?”

Most HEP manuals and “blue book” models Most HEP manuals and “blue book” models developed from 1980 – 1984; updated developed from 1980 – 1984; updated manuals/HEP course materials in the 1990smanuals/HEP course materials in the 1990s

HEP is used to estimate habitat quality HEP is used to estimate habitat quality based on specific wildlife/fish species’ life based on specific wildlife/fish species’ life requisite needs e.g., percent shrub cover, requisite needs e.g., percent shrub cover, tree height/dbh, large woody tree height/dbh, large woody debris/stream mile, water temperature etc.debris/stream mile, water temperature etc.

HEP HEP (cont.)(cont.)

Wildlife/fish habitat variables are included in Wildlife/fish habitat variables are included in single species HEP modelssingle species HEP models

Model output or “Habitat Suitability Index” (HSI), Model output or “Habitat Suitability Index” (HSI), a number between 0 and 1, is determined by a number between 0 and 1, is determined by mathematically combining the habitat suitability mathematically combining the habitat suitability ratings for individual habitat variables in a ratings for individual habitat variables in a specific model specific model

For Example: Three habitat variables are included For Example: Three habitat variables are included in the black-capped chickadee HEP modelin the black-capped chickadee HEP model

V1: Percent tree canopy closure (food)

V2: Average height of over-story trees (food)

V4: Number of snags 4 to 10 inches dbh (reproduction)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 5 10 15 20 30 70 100

Percent Canopy Cover

Su

ita

bili

ty In

de

x

HSI = lower value between food (V1 x V2) 1/2 and reproduction (V4)

HEP (cont.)

HEP HEP (BC chickadee – cont.)(BC chickadee – cont.)

(V1 x V2) (V1 x V2) ½ ½ = (0.5 x 0.7) = (0.5 x 0.7) ½ ½ = 0.59 = 0.59 ((foodfood))

(V4) = 0.4(V4) = 0.4 ((reproductionreproduction i.e. few snags of appropriate i.e. few snags of appropriate dbh)dbh)

HSI = Lower value between HSI = Lower value between foodfood and and reproductionreproduction needs needs

HSI = 0.4HSI = 0.4

HEP HEP (cont.)(cont.)

HEP “unit of currency” is the habitat HEP “unit of currency” is the habitat unit or HUunit or HU

HU = Habitat suitability (HSI) x acres HU = Habitat suitability (HSI) x acres of habitat of habitat (assume project area is 100 acres); (assume project area is 100 acres); Therefore,Therefore,

HUs = 0.4 HSI x 100 acres = 40 HUsHUs = 0.4 HSI x 100 acres = 40 HUs

In Summary…..In Summary…..

HEP is an HEP is an accounting toolaccounting tool used to used to quantify habitat losses (HU loss ledger) quantify habitat losses (HU loss ledger) and,and,

Measure credit towards the lossesMeasure credit towards the losses HEP does notHEP does not

Monitor project effectiveness towards most Monitor project effectiveness towards most floristic, biological, or ecological objectivesfloristic, biological, or ecological objectives

Monitor species population responseMonitor species population response

Columbia Basin HEP HistoryColumbia Basin HEP History

HEP Pre-History: 1982 - 1991

In the Beginning….HEP….In the Beginning….HEP….

Identify construction and Identify construction and inundation losses inundation losses Loss Assessments…..Loss Assessments…..

Grand Coulee, Libby, Minidoka, Grand Coulee, Libby, Minidoka, Willamette, Lower Columbia Willamette, Lower Columbia

River…..River…..

GenesisPre – History: 1982……1991Pre – History: 1982……1991

Loss Assessment Loss Assessment DocumentsDocuments

Hydro Power Loss Hydro Power Loss AssessmentsAssessments

Only construction and inundation Only construction and inundation losses were addressed in the loss losses were addressed in the loss assessmentsassessments Impacts summarized as habitat units Impacts summarized as habitat units

(HU) (HU) Created “HU ledger” (Table 11-4; Created “HU ledger” (Table 11-4;

NPCC’s Program)NPCC’s Program)

Early Years : 1992 – 1998Early Years : 1992 – 1998

Early Years : Early Years : 1992 – 19981992 – 1998

Pre Regional HEP Team (RHT)Pre Regional HEP Team (RHT) Project managers responsible for HEP Project managers responsible for HEP

surveys surveys Managers assisted each other conduct HEP Managers assisted each other conduct HEP

surveys; some worked independently or with surveys; some worked independently or with contractorscontractors

WDFW staff assisted some project WDFW staff assisted some project managers conduct HEP surveys ( 1 or 2 managers conduct HEP surveys ( 1 or 2 employees)employees)

Early Years Early Years (cont.)(cont.)

BY 1998, WDFW HEP staff was BY 1998, WDFW HEP staff was involved in most HEP field work in involved in most HEP field work in BasinBasin WDFW paid all costs with WDFW MOA WDFW paid all costs with WDFW MOA

funds (funds (≈$50k to $100k annually)≈$50k to $100k annually) WDFW provided vehicle(s)/equipment WDFW provided vehicle(s)/equipment

and administrative supportand administrative support Project Managers responsible for HEP Project Managers responsible for HEP

ReportsReports

Inconsistent HEP assessments Inconsistent HEP assessments across Basinacross Basin Measured versus ocular HEP analyses Measured versus ocular HEP analyses

((concerns over the results and repeatability)concerns over the results and repeatability)

Habitat unit stacking issuesHabitat unit stacking issues Crediting of out-of-place, out-of- kind Crediting of out-of-place, out-of- kind

habitat types...habitat types...all or nothing acquisitions…some all or nothing acquisitions…some credit vs. no creditcredit vs. no credit

Using inappropriate models to evaluate Using inappropriate models to evaluate simplified cover type strata simplified cover type strata e. g. sage grouse e. g. sage grouse in a shrubsteppe/bitterbrush plant communityin a shrubsteppe/bitterbrush plant community

Report inconsistencies: Report inconsistencies: content, scope, timingcontent, scope, timing

Early Years : 1992 – 1998 Early Years : 1992 – 1998 Issues Issues

BPA and most managers recognized BPA and most managers recognized the need for HEP training and to the need for HEP training and to establish a “primary” HEP team to establish a “primary” HEP team to assist project managers conduct HEP assist project managers conduct HEP surveys in a consistent surveys in a consistent manner….active and advisory rolesmanner….active and advisory roles WDFW and CCT staff provided HEP WDFW and CCT staff provided HEP

training/certification to project training/certification to project managers et al. by 1998managers et al. by 1998

Early Years : 1992 – 1998 Early Years : 1992 – 1998 Issues Issues (cont.)(cont.)

Transition Period: 1999 -Transition Period: 1999 -20032003

Transition Period: 1999 -Transition Period: 1999 -20032003

WDFW HEP staff assisted project WDFW HEP staff assisted project managers conduct HEP surveys ( 4 managers conduct HEP surveys ( 4 person crew). Independent HEP person crew). Independent HEP analyses still being conductedanalyses still being conducted Project managers responsible for HEP Project managers responsible for HEP

Reports (WDFW HEP Team staff shared Reports (WDFW HEP Team staff shared HU compilation responsibilities in many HU compilation responsibilities in many cases)cases)

WDFW paid all costs with WDFW MOA WDFW paid all costs with WDFW MOA funds (funds (≈$100k annually) until 2002≈$100k annually) until 2002

Transition Period Transition Period (cont.)(cont.)

In 2002, CBFWA’s contract was In 2002, CBFWA’s contract was modified to include HEP work…modified to include HEP work…primarily funding HEP team crew primarily funding HEP team crew member positions….member positions….

CBFWA contracted w/WDFW for HEP CBFWA contracted w/WDFW for HEP analysesanalyses

Transition Period Transition Period (cont.)(cont.)

WDFW continued to fund vehicle WDFW continued to fund vehicle costs, most equipment, and lead costs, most equipment, and lead position; shared administrative position; shared administrative support with CBFWA in 2002 and 2003support with CBFWA in 2002 and 2003

FY 03-05 CBFWA contract included FY 03-05 CBFWA contract included objective:objective: ““Facilitate Regional Habitat Facilitate Regional Habitat

Evaluation Procedure Team”Evaluation Procedure Team”

Manage HEP team contractManage HEP team contract Assist Regional HEP Team w/logistics and Assist Regional HEP Team w/logistics and

schedulingscheduling

FY 2003 - CBFWF administered HEP FY 2003 - CBFWF administered HEP ContractContract

WDFW funded vehicle costs, most WDFW funded vehicle costs, most equipment, and lead position until equipment, and lead position until June 2004June 2004

Transition Period (cont.)Transition Period (cont.)

REGIONAL HEP TEAM REGIONAL HEP TEAM (2004 to Present)(2004 to Present)

FY 2004 – CBFWA HEP contract is sole HEP FY 2004 – CBFWA HEP contract is sole HEP funding Source ($187,000)…”Birth” of the funding Source ($187,000)…”Birth” of the RHTRHT June 2004 Paul Ashley became CBFWA employee June 2004 Paul Ashley became CBFWA employee

as Regional HEP Team Coordinatoras Regional HEP Team Coordinator WDFW stops funding HEP activities June 2004WDFW stops funding HEP activities June 2004

FY 2004 – FY2005: RHT conducts HEP FY 2004 – FY2005: RHT conducts HEP surveys for YN, STOI, CCT, Kalispel, Umatilla, surveys for YN, STOI, CCT, Kalispel, Umatilla, Coeur d’ Alene, Nez Perce, and Burns-Paiute Coeur d’ Alene, Nez Perce, and Burns-Paiute Tribes, WDFW, IDFG, ODFW, and TNC Tribes, WDFW, IDFG, ODFW, and TNC Conducted two 4-day HEP Training CoursesConducted two 4-day HEP Training Courses Compiled HEP data, drafted HEP reports etc.Compiled HEP data, drafted HEP reports etc.

REGIONAL HEP TEAM REGIONAL HEP TEAM (cont.)(cont.)

(2004 to Present)(2004 to Present)

REGIONAL HEP TEAM REGIONAL HEP TEAM (cont.)(cont.)

(2004 to Present)(2004 to Present) FY2006 – RHT received $100,000 through FY2006 – RHT received $100,000 through

BOG request BOG request (replace WDFW funding; RHT Budget = (replace WDFW funding; RHT Budget = $287,000)$287,000)

FY2006 - 2008: RHT conducted HEP surveys FY2006 - 2008: RHT conducted HEP surveys for Kalispel, STOI, CCT, YN, CDA, BPT, and for Kalispel, STOI, CCT, YN, CDA, BPT, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, WDFW, IDFG, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, WDFW, IDFG, TNC, and USACOETNC, and USACOE Conducted two 4-day HEP Training CoursesConducted two 4-day HEP Training Courses Compiled HEP data, drafted HEP reports etc.Compiled HEP data, drafted HEP reports etc. Partnered with NHI to develop CHAP methodologyPartnered with NHI to develop CHAP methodology

CBFWF continues to administer HEP contractCBFWF continues to administer HEP contract

Current SituationCurrent Situation

Current SituationCurrent Situation

HEP follow-up surveys behind HEP follow-up surveys behind schedule (five year intervals)schedule (five year intervals) Difficult to determine HEP needs prior to Difficult to determine HEP needs prior to

Pisces “tool”Pisces “tool” Pisces HEP data inputs from reports/info Pisces HEP data inputs from reports/info

provided by managersprovided by managers HEP survey needs identified in Pisces for HEP survey needs identified in Pisces for

FY 2009FY 2009

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

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

Current Situation Current Situation (cont.)(cont.)

HEP is not the appropriate crediting tool for HEP is not the appropriate crediting tool for Willamette Valley mitigation projectsWillamette Valley mitigation projects Original HEP surveys not repeatableOriginal HEP surveys not repeatable

Used “checklists” not HEP models (few models available)Used “checklists” not HEP models (few models available) HU “stacking” issuesHU “stacking” issues

Habitat and species priorities have changed since Habitat and species priorities have changed since loss assessment HU estimates were derivedloss assessment HU estimates were derived

Sub-basin Plans focus on oak savannah, Willamette Sub-basin Plans focus on oak savannah, Willamette Valley prairie/associated wildlife species etc…..not elk Valley prairie/associated wildlife species etc…..not elk and upland conifer forests….(out of kind, out of place and upland conifer forests….(out of kind, out of place mitigation)mitigation)

Little to no public, NGO, or Agency support for HEP Little to no public, NGO, or Agency support for HEP in the Willamette Valley - in the Willamette Valley - New Crediting Tool New Crediting Tool NeededNeeded

Current Situation Current Situation (cont.)(cont.)

Preliminary assessment of Combined Preliminary assessment of Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols (CHAP) as a Habitat Assessment Protocols (CHAP) as a crediting “tool” for the Willamette Valley crediting “tool” for the Willamette Valley showed promise for overcoming crediting showed promise for overcoming crediting issuesissues CHAP combines elements of HEP with NHI’s HAB CHAP combines elements of HEP with NHI’s HAB

programprogram CHAP does not require HEP modelsCHAP does not require HEP models Eliminates evaluation species, “out of kind” “out Eliminates evaluation species, “out of kind” “out

of place” concernsof place” concerns Eliminates HU “stacking” issuesEliminates HU “stacking” issues Is ecologically more robust than HEPIs ecologically more robust than HEP Is repeatableIs repeatable

Current Situation Current Situation (cont.)(cont.)

RHT team currently conducts most HEP RHT team currently conducts most HEP surveys; some independent HEP surveys; some independent HEP analysesanalyses Managers consult with RHT to ensure Managers consult with RHT to ensure

consistent application of HEP; RHT reviews consistent application of HEP; RHT reviews independent HEP reports and enters HUs independent HEP reports and enters HUs into Piscesinto Pisces

Inconsistent crediting of HUs by project Inconsistent crediting of HUs by project managers early on managers early on (Coulee and Chief Joseph (Coulee and Chief Joseph review)review)

No one knows status of “Credit” ledgerNo one knows status of “Credit” ledger

Current Situation SummaryCurrent Situation Summary

Need to increase RHT staffingNeed to increase RHT staffing to:to: Reduce HEP survey backlog and update Reduce HEP survey backlog and update

crediting status; enter HUs into Piscescrediting status; enter HUs into Pisces Ensure HEP results and reports are Ensure HEP results and reports are

completed in a consistent, timely completed in a consistent, timely mannermanner

Allow time for RHT staff to plan/prepare Allow time for RHT staff to plan/prepare for HEP surveys and provide input on for HEP surveys and provide input on HEP/crediting related topicsHEP/crediting related topics

Current Situation SummaryCurrent Situation Summary Continue review of hydro facility loss Continue review of hydro facility loss

assessment matrices and project HU assessment matrices and project HU creditingcrediting

Assist managers develop loss assessment Assist managers develop loss assessment matrices as neededmatrices as needed

Compare loss assessment matrices/HU stacking Compare loss assessment matrices/HU stacking with mitigation project creditingwith mitigation project crediting

Recommend solutions to reconcile discrepanciesRecommend solutions to reconcile discrepancies

Need to fund NHI to complete Combined Need to fund NHI to complete Combined Habitat Assessment Protocols (CHAP) Habitat Assessment Protocols (CHAP) pilot study in the Willamette Valley pilot study in the Willamette Valley during FY 2009during FY 2009

FY 2009 Funding RequestFY 2009 Funding Request

Consequences Alternative 1Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 1 –Status Quo ($287,000)Alternative 1 –Status Quo ($287,000)

BenefitBenefit Conduct baseline surveys on new projects; few Conduct baseline surveys on new projects; few

follow-upsfollow-ups ConsequencesConsequences

Continue to fall further behind with follow-up HEP Continue to fall further behind with follow-up HEP surveyssurveys

Unable to complete HEP reports and report HEP Unable to complete HEP reports and report HEP results in a timely mannerresults in a timely manner

No time to review hydro facility loss matrices and No time to review hydro facility loss matrices and extant crediting (unable to confirm HU crediting extant crediting (unable to confirm HU crediting status), or prepare for 2010 HEP surveysstatus), or prepare for 2010 HEP surveys

Fall further behind on resolving Willamette Valley Fall further behind on resolving Willamette Valley crediting issuescrediting issues

Consequences Alternative 2Consequences Alternative 2 Alternative 2 – Fund full time assistant, Alternative 2 – Fund full time assistant,

temporary technician, and NHI CHAP pilot temporary technician, and NHI CHAP pilot study in the Willamette basin study in the Willamette basin (+$115,729(+$115,729)) BenefitsBenefits

Conduct new baseline surveys and make significant Conduct new baseline surveys and make significant “headway” completing backlog of follow-up surveys “headway” completing backlog of follow-up surveys Complete HEP reports and HEP results in a timely Complete HEP reports and HEP results in a timely mannermanner

Complete review of loss assessment matrices and Complete review of loss assessment matrices and project HU creditingproject HU crediting

Complete CHAP pilot study/evaluation in the Willamette Complete CHAP pilot study/evaluation in the Willamette Valley…begin crediting Willamette mitigation projectsValley…begin crediting Willamette mitigation projects

ConsequencesConsequences NoneNone

Regional HEP Team “BOG” Request Regional HEP Team “BOG” Request (2009)(2009)

$115,729$115,729 RHT Full time Field Team Supervisor positionRHT Full time Field Team Supervisor position Additional Temporary Field Tech PositionAdditional Temporary Field Tech Position NHI contract to complete CHAP pilot study in NHI contract to complete CHAP pilot study in

the Willamette Basinthe Willamette Basin Total RHT budget including BOG Total RHT budget including BOG

request: $402,729request: $402,729 $287,000 – current budget$287,000 – current budget $115,729 – 2009 BOG request$115,729 – 2009 BOG request

FY 2009 Funding Request FY 2009 Funding Request

In Summary….In Summary…. Seeking MAG recommendation and Seeking MAG recommendation and

support for Alternative 2 for:support for Alternative 2 for: FY 2009 Budget Increase ($115, 729)FY 2009 Budget Increase ($115, 729) FY 2010 -???: Maintain funding at FY 2010 -???: Maintain funding at

increased levelincreased level

QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?