1. Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) Status 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 101 Refresher HEP History HEP 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 Request Current Status and BOG Request

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 1970s…to answer one question: Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) developed 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 developed from 1980 – 1984; updated manuals/HEP course materials in the 1990s 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. 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 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 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 For Example: Three habitat variables are included in the black-capped chickadee HEP model

6. V1: Percent tree canopy closure (food) V2: Average height of over-story trees (food) V4: Number of snags 4 to 10 inches dbh (reproduction) HSI = lower value between food (V1 x V2) 1/2 and reproduction (V4) HEP (cont.)

7. HEP (BC chickadee – cont.) (V1 x V2) ½ = (0.5 x 0.7) ½ = 0.59 (food) (V1 x V2) ½ = (0.5 x 0.7) ½ = 0.59 (food) (V4) = 0.4 (reproduction i.e. few snags of appropriate dbh) (V4) = 0.4 (reproduction i.e. few snags of appropriate dbh) HSI = Lower value between food and reproduction needs HSI = Lower value between food and reproduction needs HSI = 0.4 HSI = 0.4

8. HEP (cont.) HEP unit of currency is the habitat unit or HU 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, HU = Habitat suitability (HSI) x acres of habitat (assume project area is 100 acres); Therefore, HUs = 0.4 HSI x 100 acres = 40 HUs 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, HEP is an accounting tool used to quantify habitat losses (HU loss ledger) and, Measure credit towards the losses Measure credit towards the losses HEP does not HEP does not Monitor project effectiveness towards most floristic, biological, or ecological objectives Monitor project effectiveness towards most floristic, biological, or ecological objectives Monitor species population response Monitor species population response

10. Columbia Basin HEP History HEP Pre-History: 1982 - 1991

11. In the Beginning….HEP…. Identify construction and inundation losses Loss Assessments….. Grand Coulee, Libby, Minidoka, Willamette, Lower Columbia River….. Genesis Pre – History: 1982……1991

12. Loss Assessment Documents

13. Hydro Power Loss Assessments Only construction and inundation losses were addressed in the loss assessments Only construction and inundation losses were addressed in the loss assessments Impacts summarized as habitat units (HU) Impacts summarized as habitat units (HU) Created HU ledger (Table 11-4; NPCCs Program) Created HU ledger (Table 11-4; NPCCs Program)

14. Early Years : 1992 – 1998

15. Pre Regional HEP Team (RHT) Pre Regional HEP Team (RHT) Project managers responsible for HEP surveys Project managers responsible for HEP surveys Managers assisted each other conduct HEP surveys; some worked independently or with contractors 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) 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 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 paid all costs with WDFW MOA funds ($50k to $100k annually) WDFW provided vehicle(s)/equipment and administrative support WDFW provided vehicle(s)/equipment and administrative support Project Managers responsible for HEP Reports Project Managers responsible for HEP Reports

17. Inconsistent HEP assessments across Basin Inconsistent HEP assessments across Basin Measured versus ocular HEP analyses ( concerns over the results and repeatability) Measured versus ocular HEP analyses ( concerns over the results and repeatability) Habitat unit stacking issues Habitat unit stacking issues Crediting of out-of-place, out-of- kind habitat types... all or nothing acquisitions…some credit vs. no credit Crediting of out-of-place, out-of- kind habitat types... all or nothing acquisitions…some credit vs. no credit Using inappropriate models to evaluate simplified cover type strata e. g. sage grouse in a shrubsteppe/bitterbrush plant community Using inappropriate models to evaluate simplified cover type strata e. g. sage grouse in a shrubsteppe/bitterbrush plant community Report inconsistencies: content, scope, timing Report inconsistencies: content, scope, timing Early Years : 1992 – 1998 Issues

18. 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 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 WDFW and CCT staff provided HEP training/certification to project managers et al. by 1998 Early Years : 1992 – 1998 Issues (cont.)

19. Transition Period: 1999 -2003

20. WDFW HEP staff assisted project managers conduct HEP surveys ( 4 person crew). Independent HEP analyses still being conducted 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) 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 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 work…primarily funding HEP team crew member positions…. In 2002, CBFWAs contract was modified to include HEP work…primarily funding HEP team crew member positions…. CBFWA contracted w/WDFW for HEP analyses 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 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: FY 03-05 CBFWA contract included objective: Facilitate Regional Habitat Evaluation Procedure TeamFacilitate Regional Habitat Evaluation Procedure Team

23. Manage HEP team contract Manage HEP team contract Assist Regional HEP Team w/logistics and scheduling Assist Regional HEP Team w/logistics and scheduling FY 2003 - CBFWF administered HEP Contract FY 2003 - CBFWF administered HEP Contract WDFW funded vehicle costs, most equipment, and lead position until June 2004 WDFW funded vehicle costs, most equipment, and lead position until June 2004 Transition Period (cont.)

24. REGIONAL HEP TEAM (2004 to Present)

25. FY 2004 – CBFWA HEP contract is sole HEP funding Source ($187,000)…Birth of the RHT 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 June 2004 Paul Ashley became CBFWA employee as Regional HEP Team Coordinator WDFW stops funding HEP activities June 2004 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 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 Conducted two 4-day HEP Training Courses Compiled HEP data, drafted HEP reports etc. Compiled HEP data, drafted HEP reports etc. REGIONAL HEP TEAM (cont.) (2004 to Present)

26. FY2006 – RHT received $100,000 through BOG request (replace WDFW funding; RHT Budget = $287,000) 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 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 Conducted 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 methodology Partnered with NHI to develop CHAP methodology CBFWF continues to administer HEP contract CBFWF continues to administer HEP contract

27. Current Situation

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

29. SponsorProjectAcresEWD A HEP Type Burns Piaute TribeMalheur (Denny Jones)44,76210Follow-up IDFGBoise River1663Follow-up IDFGKruse Pine Creek Easement8005Follow-up IDFGTex Creek WMA2,1356Follow-up IDFGWinterfield Easement4222Follow-up IDFGCentennial Marsh1,5004Baseline IDFGBeaver Dick3003Follow-up Kalispel TribeBeaver Lake4624Follow-up Kalispel TribeFlying Goose 21562Follow-up Kootenai TribeKootenai River Flood Plain1122Baseline Nez PercePrecious Lands16,28610Follow-up ODFWBurlington Bottoms4175Follow-up ODFW/TNC (CHAP)Various sites (8)7,00040Baseline Shoshone BannockSoda Hills2,56310Follow-up

30. SponsorProjectAcresEWD A HEP Type STOIFox Creek2001Follow-up STOIMcCoy Lake2,15710Follow-up Umatilla TribeIskuulpa5,93710Follow-up Umatilla TribeRainwater8,76810Follow-up USFWSLPO NWR9065Follow-up USFWSSteigerwald Lake NWR3175Follow-up USFWSTualatin Rver NWR2275Follow-up Warm Springs TribePine Creek25,14610Follow-up WDFWSchlee (Asotin WA)7,00010Follow-up WDFWEder Phase II1,5004Baseline WDFWDagnon Acquisition1,2004Baseline Yakama NationSatus WA etc.8,00015Follow-up CCTAgency Butte Management Area3,1585Follow-up CCTBerg Ranch Management Area8,1156Follow-up CDA TribeElk Horn6083Baseline CDA TribeSt. Joe871Baseline CDA TribeHepton Lake1431Baseline CDA TribeWindy Bay1471Baseline US Forest ServiceSandy River Delta1004Follow-up Total 147,297216 UnknownNew projects????????Baseline

31. Current Situation (cont.) HEP is not the appropriate crediting tool for Willamette Valley mitigation projects HEP is not the appropriate crediting tool for Willamette Valley mitigation projects Original HEP surveys not repeatable Original HEP surveys not repeatable Used checklists not HEP models (few models available) Used checklists not HEP models (few models available) HU stacking issues HU stacking issues Habitat and species priorities have changed since loss assessment HU estimates were derived 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) 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 Little to no public, NGO, or Agency support for HEP in the Willamette Valley - New Crediting Tool Needed

32. 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 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 combines elements of HEP with NHIs HAB program CHAP does not require HEP models CHAP does not require HEP models Eliminates evaluation species, out of kind out of place concerns Eliminates evaluation species, out of kind out of place concerns Eliminates HU stacking issues Eliminates HU stacking issues Is ecologically more robust than HEP Is ecologically more robust than HEP Is repeatable Is repeatable

33. Current Situation (cont.) RHT team currently conducts most HEP surveys; some independent HEP analyses 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 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) Inconsistent crediting of HUs by project managers early on (Coulee and Chief Joseph review) No one knows status of Credit ledger No one knows status of Credit ledger

34. Current Situation Summary Need to increase RHT staffing to: Need to increase RHT staffing to: Reduce HEP survey backlog and update crediting status; enter HUs into Pisces Reduce HEP survey backlog and update crediting status; enter HUs into Pisces Ensure HEP results and reports are completed in a consistent, timely manner 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 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 Continue review of hydro facility loss assessment matrices and project HU crediting Assist managers develop loss assessment matrices as needed Assist managers develop loss assessment matrices as needed Compare loss assessment matrices/HU stacking with mitigation project crediting Compare loss assessment matrices/HU stacking with mitigation project crediting Recommend solutions to reconcile discrepancies 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 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. Consequences Alternative 1 Alternative 1 –Status Quo ($287,000) Alternative 1 –Status Quo ($287,000) Benefit Benefit Conduct baseline surveys on new projects; few follow-ups Conduct baseline surveys on new projects; few follow-ups Consequences Consequences Continue to fall further behind with follow-up HEP surveys Continue to fall further behind with follow-up HEP surveys Unable to complete HEP reports and report HEP results in a timely manner 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 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 Fall further behind on resolving Willamette Valley crediting issues

38. Consequences Alternative 2 Alternative 2 – Fund full time assistant, temporary technician, and NHI CHAP pilot study in the Willamette basin (+$115,729) Alternative 2 – Fund full time assistant, temporary technician, and NHI CHAP pilot study in the Willamette basin (+$115,729) Benefits Benefits Conduct new baseline surveys and make significant headway completing backlog of follow-up surveys Complete HEP reports and HEP results in a timely manner Conduct new baseline surveys and make significant headway 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 review of loss assessment matrices and project HU crediting Complete CHAP pilot study/evaluation in the Willamette Valley…begin crediting Willamette mitigation projects Complete CHAP pilot study/evaluation in the Willamette Valley…begin crediting Willamette mitigation projects Consequences Consequences None None

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

40. In Summary…. Seeking MAG recommendation and support for Alternative 2 for: Seeking MAG recommendation and support for Alternative 2 for: FY 2009 Budget Increase ($115, 729) FY 2009 Budget Increase ($115, 729) FY 2010 -???: Maintain funding at increased level FY 2010 -???: Maintain funding at increased level

41. QUESTIONS?