|
|
|
Method Summary
| Habitat Evaluation Procedure - HEP |
| HEP |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980a. Habitat evaluation procedure (HEP) 102 ESM. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Click here to access the reference online |
- Condition assessment and/or assessment of functions
- Project/impact evaluation
|
|
| “Pennsylvania Habitat Evaluation Procedure” (Palmer 1995) and the “Wetland Value Assessment Methodology” (Environmental Work Group 2002) are based on HEP. Many other methods use concepts from HEP and accordingly acknowledge this within their respective documentation (e.g., “New Hampshire Method” [Ammann and Lindley Stone 1991] and "Evaluation for Planned Wetlands" [Bartoldus et al. 1994] note that indices used are analogous to those of habitat suitability indices and habitat units used in HEP). |
Adrian Farmer
US Geological Survey
2150 Centre Avenue, Building C
Fort Collins Science Center
Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118
Phone: 970-226-9410
Email: adrian_farmer@usgs.gov
|
| Paul Adamus (08/12/04) |
| Candy Bartoldus (05/23/06) |
| Yes |
| Document Content (brief statements used as search criteria) |
|
|
|
- Assess current ecological condition or function
|
|
| Assess the quality and quantity of available habitat for selected wildlife species, by comparing the same area at different points in time, or different areas at one point in time. |
- Method based on field data - may include GIS component.
|
| None specified. |
| Study area: The limits are based on the purposes of the study, significant changes that may occur in existing habitat, and the interrelationships of species within the biological community (102 ESM 3.1) |
- Ecological: Discrete site (rules defined in method)
|
- General guidance provided; user has flexibility to modify.
|
| Include areas where biological changes related to the proposed alteration are expected to occur. Should include contiguous areas with significant biological linkages to the area where actual physical impacts are expected to occur. |
| Classification Scheme(s) Required By Method |
- Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the US (Cowardin et al. 1979)
- Any regionally accepted habitat classification scheme may also be used
|
The steps to performing HEP are:
1. Define study area and limits
2. Map cover types
3. Select evaluation species
4. Delimit the available habitat within study area for each evaluation species
5. Conduct field assessment of habitat features relevant to all evaluation species associated with each cover type
6. Use existing species-specific Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models to process the field data, yielding an index (0.0 to 1.0) for each species
7. Multiply the HSI value of each species by the area for which the HSI was calculated
8. Combine the HSI's of all evaluation species
9. Repeat to assess different time periods or areas, then compare with initial results using HSI’s and average annual habitat units (AAHUs).
10. Determine Relative Value Indices (optional) if there is an need to document value judgments (102 ESM 6).
The user(s) selects evaluation species based on public interest, economic value, and whether the species provide a broad ecological perspective of the area. Note that there are separate models are available for over 150 species (USGS 2006: http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsiindex.htm). Models may also be developed (see guidelines for model development at http://www.fws.gov/policy/ESMindex.html).
The EXpert Habitat Evaluation Procedures (EXHEP) program provides an automated means to conduct HEP analyses in a Microsoft Windows environment (USACE 2003) (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/tools/exhep.html).
|
Available habitat:
an area of land or water, or both, composed of one or more cover types, capable of providing direct support for an evaluation species.
Average annual habitat unit (AAHU):
the total number of habitat units gained or lost as a result of a proposed action, divided by the life of the action.
Evaluation species:
individual animal species, groups of species, life stages of a species, or life requisites of a species selected for purposes of analysis.
Environmental variable:
a variable used in the determination of a Habitat Suitability Index.
Habitat suitability index (HSI):
unitless number bounded by 0 and 1 where 0 represents no habitat and 1 represents optimum habitat.
Habitat suitability index model:
the rules, in either narrative or mathematical form, by which a Habitat Suitability Index is determined for a particular evaluation species at a particular location. The HSI model consists of two parts: a value of interest (numerator) and a standard of comparison (denominator). The denominator is a description of optimum habitat; the numerator is a description of habitat in the area of interest. The descriptions may be either narrative or mathematical.
Habitat unit (HU):
a value derived from multiplying the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) for an evaluation species by the size of the area for which the HSI was calculated. The HU provides a standardized basis for comparing habitat changes over time and space.
Relative value index (RVI):
a value between 0.0 and 1.0 that is used to adjust Habitat Unit data to accommodate socioeconomic and environmental considerations.
|
| Sample Data Sheet Availability |
Click here to access the sample data sheet online.
|
- Ordinal scale (e.g., 0-1 scale; HGM Approach FCIs; Indices of Biological Integrity)
|
| Measure of habitat suitability for individual and/or group of evaluation species within the study area. |
- Reference is based on literature review.
|
Best attainable condition given current conditions
We defined for this review as: conditions that currently exist in a watershed or region and most closely reflect culturally unaltered conditions (Smith 2003a).
|
| USGS 2006a: “Models define conditions indicative of highest habitat suitability (capacity) for each evaluation species. Populations are not measured directly. The models in this series reference numerous literature sources in an effort to consolidate scientific information on species-habitat relationships. Models are included that provide a numerical index of habitat suitability on a 0.0 to 1.0 scale, based on the assumption that there is a positive relationship between the index and habitat carrying capacity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1981). The models vary in generality and precision, due in part to the amount of available quantitative habitat information and the frequent qualitative nature of existing information. When possible, models are included that are derived from site-specific population and habitat data.” |
| Terrestrial | Riparian |
|---|
Desert and barren land
Forest
Herbaceous (e.g., prairie, grassland)
Shrubland
Sparsely vegetated (e.g., dune, rock outcrop, beach)
| Non-woody
Woody
| | Nontidal Wetland | Tidal Wetland |
|---|
Non-vegetated
Vegetated
| Non-vegetated
Vegetated
| | Nontidal Open Water | Tidal Open Water |
|---|
Intermittent & ephemeral streams
Non-wadeable rivers & streams
Standing water bodies (e.g., lakes, ponds & reservoirs)
Urban drainages
Wadeable rivers & streams
| Other tidal open water
Tidal rivers & streams
| | Other Habitats |
|---|
Not applicable
|
|
| No. This document is not designed to address several habitat types within a watershed context. |
| All terrestrial and aquatic habitats for which HSI models are available. These models are least available for estuarine species. |
| All regions regularly inhabited by species for which HSI models are available |
- Alaska (AK)
- Atlantic (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)
- Intermountain (AZ, CO, MT, NM, OK, TX, UT, WY)
- Midwest (AR, IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, WI)
- National Capital (DC, DE, MD, VA)
- Northeast (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, WV)
- Pacific (Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa)
- Pacific West (CA, ID, NV, OR, WA)
- Southeast (AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN)
|
- Additional calibration or references needed (e.g., development of new HGM models, IBI metrics/indices)
|
| HEP is applicable throughout most of the United States; however, its use may be limited if there are insufficient number of applicable species models. In this case, additional models may need to be developed. |
| Method Specific Categories |
| | Species (separate models for 150 + individual fauna species) |
| Alewife and Blueback Herring, American Alligator, American Black Duck (wintering), American Coot, American Eider (breeding), American Oyster (Gulf of Mexico), American Shad, American Woodcock (wintering), Arctic Grayling Riverine Populations, Atlantic Croaker, Baird's Sparrow, Bald Eagle, Barred Owl, Beaver, Belted Kingfisher, Bigmouth Buffalo, Black Bear (Upper Great Lakes Region), Black-Bellied Whistling Duck, Black Brant, Black Bullhead, Black-Capped Chickadee, Black Crappie, Black Duck (Wintering), Black-Shouldered Kite, Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, Blacknose Dace, Blue Grouse, Blue-Winged Teal, Bluegill, Bobcat, Brewer's Sparrow, Brook Trout, Brown Pelican (eastern), Brown Thrasher, Brown Trout, Bullfrog, Cactus Wren, Canvasback (breeding habitat), Channel Catfish, Chinook Salmon, Chum Salmon, Clapper Rail, Coho Salmon, Common Carp, Common Shiner, Creek Chub, Cutthroat Trout, Diamondback Terrapin (nesting) Atlantic Coast, Downy Woodpecker, Eastern Brown Pelican, Eastern Cottontail,Eastern Wild Turkey, English Sole (juvenile), Fallfish, Ferruginous Hawk, Field Sparrow, Fisher, Flathead Catfish, Forster's Tern, Fox Squirrel, Gadwall (breeding) Gizzard Shad, Gray Partridge, Gray Squirrel, Great Blue Heron, Great Egret, Greater Prairie Chicken, Greater Sandhill Crane, Greater White-Fronted Goose (wintering), Green Sunfish, Gulf of Mexico American Oyster, Gulf Menhaden, Hairy Woodpecker, Hard Clam, Great Blue Heron, Inland Silverside, Juvenile Atlantic Croaker, Juvenile English Sole, Juvenile Spot, Lake Trout (Exclusive of the Great Lakes), Largemouth Bass, Lark Bunting, Larval and Juvenile Red Drum, Laughing Gull, Least Tern, Lesser Scaup (breeding), Lesser Scaup (wintering), Lesser Snow Goose (wintering), Lewis' Woodpecker, Littleneck Clam, Longnose Dace, Longnose Sucker, Mallard (Winter Habitat, Lower Mississippi Valley), Marsh Wren, Marten, Mink, Moose (Lake Superior Region), Mottled Duck, Muskellunge, Muskrat, Northern Bobwhite, Northern Gulf of Mexico Brown Shrimp and White Shrimp, Northern Pike, Northern Pintail (Gulf Coast wintering), Osprey, Paddlefish, Pileated Woodpecker, Pine Warbler, Pink Salmon, Pink Shrimp, Plains Sharp-Tailed Grouse, Pronghorn, Quail (Northern bobwhite), Rainbow Trout, Red Drum (larval and juvenile), Red King Crab, Red-Spotted Newt, Red-winged Blackbird, Redbreast Sunfish, Redear Sunfish, Redhead (wintering), Roseatte Spoonbill, Ruffed Grouse, Sharp-Tailed Grouse, Shelter-Belt Community, Shortnose Sturgeon, Slider Turtle, Slough Darter, Smallmouth Bass, Smallmouth Buffalo, Snapping Turtle, Snowshoe Hare , Southern and Gulf Flounders,, Southern Red-Backed Vole (Western United States), Southern Kingfish, Spotted Bass, Spotted Owl, Spotted Seatrout, Striped Bass (Inland), Striped Bass (Coastal), Swamp rabbit, Turkey, Veery, Walleye, Warmouth, Western Grebe, White Bass, White Crappie, White Ibis, White Sucker, White-Fronted Goose (wintering), White-Tailed Deer in the Gulf of Mexico & South Atlantic Coastal Plains, Williamson's Sapsucker, Wood Duck, Yellow Perch, Yellow Warbler, Yellow-Headed Blackbird |
| Specific Information About Output |
| Does method combine variables that have different measurement units ? |
|---|
| No. | |
How method addresses size of individual unit being scored/assessed ? |
|---|
Size is included and integrated into the unit of measure as a scaling or normalization factor after initial assessment is completed (e.g., condition scores are multiplied by size; scores are normalized to size or expressed as a score per unit area).
| |
|
| Expertise, Training, Peer Review, and Testing |
| Not stated. |
| Not stated, but HEP training has been offered by various institutions for many years. |
| As one of the most-used methods, it has experienced the most peer review. |
| Depending on the particular evaluation species' HSI model, testing ranges from none to extensive. |
|
|
| Documentation of impact assumptions, data analysis, and calculations should average from 4 to 7 days per proposed action (102 ESM 2.1C). Adamus (reviewer) estimates about 1 day per 4000 acres for cover mapping; estimated field time is 2-3 days per cover type; estimated data analysis 4-10 days. Considerably more hours if evaluation species models must first be developed. |
Brooks, R.P. 1997. Improving habitat suitability models. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(1): 163-167.
Crance, J.H., 1987. Guidelines for using the Delphi technique to develop habitat suitability index curves: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(10.134), Washington, D.C.
http://policy.fws.gov/ESMindex.html
Flood, B.S., M.E. Sangster, R.D. Sparrowe, and
T.S. Baskett. 1977. A handbook for habitat
evaluation procedures. Resource Publication 132.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Hays, R.L., C. Summers, and W. Seitz. 1981. Estimating wildlife habitat variables. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-81/47.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. EXHEP: Expert Habitat Evaluation Procedures. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center website http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/tools/exhep.html
http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/tools/exhep.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1980b. Habitat as the basis for environmental assessment (101 ESM). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
http://policy.fws.gov/ESMindex.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1981. Standards for the development of habitat suitability index models (103 ESM). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
http://policy.fws.gov/ESMindex.html
U.S. Geological Survey. 2006a. Habitat suitability index: Species index. USGS National Wetlands Research Center website. Retrieved May 23, 2006 http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsiintro.htm
http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsiintro.htm
U.S. Geological Survey. 2006b. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) accounting program. Retrieved May 23, 2006 from USGS Fort Collins Science Center Online http://www.fort.usgs.gov/products/software/hep/hep.asp
http://www.fort.usgs.gov/products/software/hep/hep.asp
|
- Method bases reference on data from several sites. This is in contrast to methods that base reference on one site which can result in low scores for less diverse habitats.
- Method can be characterized as “repeatable” among different users. This assumes that the user possesses the requisite level of expertise/training to employ the method.
- Method provides a set list of metrics/indicators that should be measured/estimated. This is in contrast to methods that provide a list of considerations that may or may not be used in assessing condition.
- Method uses clearly defined metrics/indicators that are easily measured/estimated and distinguished (e.g., percent vegetation cover, percent impervious surface, soil type, seasonally flooded). This is in contrast to methods that provide loosely defined metrics (e.g., aquatic diversity is sufficient to utilize nutrients).
- Provides explicit definition of reference and uses reference sites (e.g., based on literature or field data).This is in contrast to being based on best professional judgment.
|
| P. Adamus (reviewer): Perhaps the most-used method for habitat impact assessment, but labor intensive. Selection of appropriate evaluation species is crucial. HSI unavailable for many species. Unmeasured factors can influence habitat suitability. |
| n/a |
USGS 2006a: “Graphic or word model formats may be used to support reconnaissance level assessments, although repeatability may be reduced when using these model forms.
The models should be viewed as hypotheses of species-habitat relationships rather than statements of proven cause and effect relationships. Their value is to serve as a basis for improved decision making and increased understanding of habitat relationships because they specify hypotheses of habitat relationships that can be tested and improved. Results of model performance tests, when available, are presented or referenced with each model. However, models that have been reliable in specific studies may be less reliable in other situations. For this reason, feedback is encouraged from model users concerning model tests, and suggestions that may increase the effective use of habitat information for fish and wildlife planning.” |
|
This NBII site is maintained and hosted by the Center for Biological Informatics of the U.S. Geological Survey
|
|
