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 wildlife “ 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) wildlife to the extent affected “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) wildlife habitat “ 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: Avoid impacts Minimize impacts Repair impacts & restore the affected environment on-site Compensate for unavoidable impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mitigation Process

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

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

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

12. Habitat Suitability

13. 0.00.51.0 Habitat Suitability Index Scale No Suitable Habitat Medium Quality Habitat High Quality Habitat Zero Carrying Capacity Optimal Carrying Capacity

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

15. 20 Baseline HUs 0 HU credit for existing value No Net Gain to Wildlife 60 HUs after enhancements 60 HUs – 20 HUs = 40 HUs Net Gain to Wildlife = 40 HUs: Compensation Achieved HEP Crediting Basics Project Area 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 4Study objectives are established. 4Resource categories have been determined. 4Cover types have been defined. 4Study area has been delineated. Species can be selected to represent: 8Important species. 8Important resource categories. 8Important habitats. 8Important cover types. Species are selected after:

20. An evaluation species may be: A single species uChannel catfish uNine-banded armadillo uLeast Tern A life stage or life requisite of a species uRainbow trout fry uEastern Cottontail winter cover uBlue-winged teal brood pond A group of taxonomically related species uBlack basses (Spotted, Sm.mouth & Lg.mouth) uChipmunks (Eastern, and Least)  Chickadees (Black-capped & Carolina ) A group of species using similar resources uCoolwater reservoir fish uCavity users uForest interior songbirds A fish or wildlife community

21. 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.

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. Habitat Needs : Shrubby areas, especially near water with willows and alders. Yellow Warbler 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. Dam Location KeyHabitat TypeEvaluation Species Pre-Dam HUs Mixed Upland ForestBC Chickadee2700 HUs Riparian Shrub/ForestYellow warbler 240 HUs Riverine/Open WaterLesser Scaup 30 HUs Totals2970 HUs Post-Dam HUs 42 HUs 4 HUs 275 HUs 321 HUs Determine NET Impacts Net Change -2658 HUs -236 HUs +275 HUs -2619 HUs

32. Average Annual Habitat Units AAHUs

33. AAHU Examples

34. Habitat TypeEvaluation Species Pre-Dam HUs Mixed Upland ForestBC Chickadee2700 HUs Riparian Shrub/ForestYellow warbler 240 HUs Riverine/Open WaterLesser Scaup 30 HUs Totals2970 HUs With Annualization -1563 HUs -136 HUs +208 HUs -1491 HUs Net Change -2658 HUs -236 HUs +275 HUs -2619 HUs Habitat TypeEvaluation Species Without Annualization Mixed Upland ForestBC Chickadee -2700 HUs Riparian Shrub/ForestYellow warbler - 240 HUs Riverine/Open WaterLesser Scaup +275HUs Totals -2970 HUs Post-Dam HUs 42 HUs 4 HUs 275 HUs 321 HUs Loss (PA) AAHU Comparison

35. Habitat TypeEvaluation Species Pre-Dam HUs Mixed Upland ForestBC Chickadee2700 HUs Riparian Shrub/ForestYellow warbler 240 HUs Riverine/Open WaterLesser Scaup 30 HUs Totals2970 HUs MP2 HUs 135 HUs 39 HUs 208 HUs 382 HUs Net Change -2658 HUs -236 HUs +275 HUs -2619 HUs Habitat TypeEvaluation Species Modified HEP HUs Mixed Upland ForestBC Chickadee 450 HUs Riparian Shrub/ForestYellow warbler 40 HUs Riverine/Open WaterLesser Scaup 275 HUs Totals 765 HUs Post-Dam HUs 42 HUs 4 HUs 275 HUs 321 HUs Gain (MP) AAHU Comparison MP1 HUs 0 HUs

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 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.

39. Habitat TypeEvaluation Species Without Annualization Mixed Upland ForestBC Chickadee -2700 HUs Riparian Shrub/ForestYellow warbler - 240 HUs Riverine/Open WaterLesser Scaup 0 HUs Totals -2940 HUs With Annualization -1563 HUs -136 HUs 0 HUs -1699 HUs In Kind Equal Habitat TypeEvaluation Species Without Annualization Mixed Upland ForestBC Chickadee -2700 HUs Riparian Shrub/ForestYellow warbler - 240 HUs Riverine/Open WaterLesser Scaup +275HUs Totals -2665 HUs With Annualization -1563 HUs -136 HUs +208 HUs -1491 HUs

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….. 2. Interdisciplinary team members willing to participate and come to consensus. 3. Set of user defined criteria. 4. User defined criteria scale. 1. AT LEAST ONE REALLY GOOD REASON TO DO AN RVI!!! 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 Compromise A Framework for making value comparisons between species or cover types A Record and Documentation of your decision process A Subjective Value Judgment to compare HU changes for different evaluation species or cover types.

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. 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

50. 4. Compensation strategies either not identified and/or followed leading to the “default” strategy of “equal” compensation and “paradigm” conflicts Primary Inconsistencies (cont.) 5. “Follow-up” HEP surveys/HUs appear to be unique to our situation 6. Time between impacts and compensation

51. RHT HEP Challenges Loss Assessment/Compensation Site Matrix Reconciliation HEP model Applications Cover Type Mapping Regional HEP Team Mission Statement: “To conduct HEP analyses in the most consistent, objective, impartial, and biologically sound manner possible.”

52. Berger Butte/Deep Canyon Dam 2009 HEP Comparison Matrix Deep Canyon Dam Loss Assessment Cover Types and Number of Species Open waterEmergent Wetland Scrub Shrub Wetland Grassland Meadow Wet Meadow Forested Wetland Conifer Forest 332+223+ Berger Butte Paired Cover Types and Number of Species Open waterEmergent WetlandScrub Shrub Grassland Meadow Wet Meadow Forested Wetland Conifer Forest 332+223+ Bald eagle xx Black-capped chickadee xx Canada Goosexx xx Mallardxx xx Muskratxx Yellow Warbler x White-tailed deer x xx Mallard 100m bands adjacent to water x xx “In-kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrices

53. Open Water Herbaceous Wetland Scrub Shrub Forested Wetland Wet Meadow Grassland Meadow Con. Forest AcresLoss #Spp.3665223+3+ CAGO MALL MUSK BAEA b BAEA w WTDE YEWA BLCC “In-kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrices

54. “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 Open waterHerbaceous Wetland Scrub Shrub Wetland Forested Wetland Wet Meadow 35652 Hames Parcel Paired Cover Types and Number of Species Open waterHerbaceous Wetland Forested Wetland ShrubsteppeConifer Forest 35 5 ?? Bald eagle breeding xxx Bald eagle wintering xxx Black-capped chickadee x Canada Goosexxx x Mallardxxxxx Muskratxx Yellow Warbler x White-tailed deer x x Mule deer Number of Species 356 5 2

55. Open Water Herbaceous Wetland Scrub Shrub Forested Wetland Wet Meadow ShrubsteppeCon. Forest AcresLoss Gain #Spp.36652?? CAGO MALL MUSK BAEA b BAEA w WTDE YEWA BLCC Open Water Herbaceous Wetland Scrub Shrub Forested Wetland Wet Meadow ShrubsteppeCon. Forest AcresLoss Gain #Spp.3665225 CAGO MALL MUSK BAEA b BAEA w WTDE YEWA BLCC Are extant matrix species appropriate for new CVR types? “Out of Kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrix What species would be appropriate if the loss assessment matrix did not exist? For HU stacking purposes…What loss assessment cover type does the new cover types most closely resemble?

56. Open Water Herbaceous Wetland Scrub Shrub Forested Wetland Wet Meadow ShrubsteppeCon. Forest AcresLoss Gain #Spp.3665225 CAGO MALL MUSK BAEA b BAEA w WTDE YEWA BLCC BLGR MUDE SAGR “Out of Kind” Loss/Comp. Site Matrix

57. Open Water Herbaceous Wetland Scrub Shrub Forested Wetland Wet Meadow ShrubsteppeCon. Forest AcresLoss Gain #Spp.3665225 CAGO MALL MUSK BAEA b BAEA w WTDE YEWA BLCC BLGR MUDE SAGR Challenges

58. ModelIssues BAEA b Distance to water/food source exceeds the maximum distance described in the model…Result: the HSI is and will always be 0.00 BAEA w BLGR Landscape model used in cover types that do not nor ever will provide all life requisites… Result: the HSI will always be 0.00 or extremely low…limited by one or two variables MUDE Landscape model that heavily “weights” winter cover attribute(s) not currently present nor ever will be present on a compensation site: Result: the HSI will never change if winter cover determines the HSI SAGRApplying sage grouse model to shrubsteppe cover type comprised of bitterbrush. Result: the HSI will always be 0.00 in the absence of sagebrush Challenges Consider : HEP allows for model substitutions (“Equal Compensation”) and/or model modifications e. g., change variables/SI equations to provide a better biologically “fit” REGARDLESS OF HU OUTCOME! The goal is to use models that are appropriate for a given cover type and that respond to biological/ecological stimuli.

59. Challenges Hames Parcel/Deep Canyon Dam 2009 HEP Comparison Matrix Deep Canyon Dam Loss Assessment Cover Types and Number of Species Open water Herbaceous Wetland Scrub Shrub Wetland Forested Wetland Wet Meadow 35652 Hames Parcel Paired Cover Types and Number of Species Open water Herbaceous Wetland Conifer ForestShrubsteppe Conifer Forest 33 51?? Bald eagle breeding x xx Bald eagle wintering x xx Black-capped chickadee x Canada Goosexxx x Mallardxxx xx Muskratxx Yellow Warbler x White-tailed deer x x x Mule deer Number of Species 33 out of 56 4 out of 5 1 out of 2 or inappropriate species Paradigm: “Only use loss assessment species-if they don’t fit, don’t substitute”

60. Open Water Herbaceous Wetland Scrub Shrub Forested Wetland Wet Meadow ShrubsteppeCon. Forest AcresGainLossGainLossGainN/A #Spp.36652?? CAGO MALL MUSK BAEA b BAEA w WTDE YEWA BLCC Herbaceous Wetland Forested Wetland ShrubsteppeCon. Forest AcresLoss N/A #Spp.65?? CAGO MALL MUSK BAEA b BAEA w WTDE RWBL BLCC Challenges

61. Herbaceous Wetland Forested Wetland ShrubsteppeCon. Forest AcresLoss N/A #Spp.6523 CAGO MALL MUSK BAEA b BAEA w WTDE BLCC Herbaceous Wetland Forested Wetland ShrubsteppeCon. Forest AcresLoss N/A #Spp.6565 CAGO MALL MUSK BAEA b BAEA w WTDE BLCC

62. Consider: HU stacking less than identified in loss assessment matrices may result in more mitigated HUs than currently identified in HEP reports

63. Key Habitat TypeAcres Associated HEP Models Mixed Upland Forest2,700Black-capped chickadee Riparian Shrub/Forest300Yellow warbler Riverine/Open Water1,000Mink Cover Types

64. “Fix It Loop” Suggestion Move forward…correct what needs correcting….make adjustments and apply to “follow-up” HEP surveys

65. 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 In Summary……

66. Thank You