Habitat Assessment Modeling: Ecosystem Diagnosis and

Treatment

Environment and Habitat

• Environment: broad description of conditions at a location– Not species specific

– Sets the metrics

– Defines appropriate scale, hierarchy, extent and grain

• Habitat: species specific description of conditions at a location– Species specific subset of environment

– Relates to biological performance of focal species

Habitat Rehabilitation Process

Actions

Recovery

Environmental

ProcessesEnvironmental Pattern

Geology and Climate

Environment

Appraisal for a species

Habitat Assessment

Habitat Description

--Hydrology--Sediment mechanics--Channel dynamics--Riparian function

--Appropriate scale and hierarchy--Metrics--Extent--Grain

Assessment: Species-focused rating of habitat

• How much habitat is there?– Quantity: Biological capacity

• How good is it?– Quality: Productivity– Connectivity: Life history trajectories– Breadth: Trajectory diversity

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT)

• EDT rates the quality and quantity of habitat with respect to one or more focal species.

• EDT identifies restoration and protection priorities and limiting conditions– Where do we start?– What needs to be fixed?

• EDT is NOT a dynamic population dynamics model.– It rates a static depiction of habitat conditions.

• EDT does NOT PROVE ANYTHING.– It creates a testable working hypothesis as a basis for

action.

Habitat and population models: essential tools for recovery planning

PopulationObservations

Spe

cies

-pop

ulat

ion

know

ledg

eba

se

CRI (populationmodels)

HabitatObservations

Spe

cies

-hab

itat k

now

ledg

eba

se

BiologicalPerformance:Productivity,Capacity and

Diversity

EDT

Assessment provides restoration and protection priorities

Environmental Conditions

Spa

ce (

stre

am m

ile)

Current

Res

tora

tion

Tem

plat

e

Deg

rada

tion

Tem

plat

e

Protection Restoration

EDT prioritizes habitat based on biological performance

Habitat Priorities for J ohnson Creek: Coho Capacity

Columbia R & EstuaryWillamette

Lower J ohnsonMiddle J ohnsonUpper J ohnson

CrystalKelley

0% 50% 100% 150% 200%-200% -150% -100% -50% 0%

Biological Cost of Degradation Biological Value of Restoration

Change from current

Habitat Assessment ProcessI. Prepare EDT Input Table

Environmental Attributes (45)

Monthly shaping of flow, temperature and width

= Snap-shot of conditions

Hydrography: HUC-6/Reaches

Attributes

Rea

che

s

Mon

ths

EDT Habitat InputEDT Environmental Description

Habitat Assessment ProcessII. Rate the Habitat

BiologicalCapacity &Productivity

Descriptors

Rea

chesLife

Sta

ge

Attributes

Re

ach

es

Mon

ths

EDT Habitat InputEnvironmental

Description

1. Water chemistry1.1. Dissolved oxygen1.2. Salinity1.3. Toxic chemicals

2. Water condition2.1. Flow2.2. Temperature

3. Geomorphology3.1. Channel stability3.2. Sediment load

4. Habitat4.1. Habitat diversity4.2. Obstructions4.3. Key habitat (quantity)4.4. Structural entrainment

5. Productivity5.1. Food

6. Community effects6.1. Competition

6.1.1. With hatchery fish6.1.2. With other species

6.2. Predation6.3. Harassment6.4. Pathogens

Mon

ths

Factors

Rea

che

s

Habitat Descriptors

Life stage-survival rules

Habitat Assessment ProcessIII. Rate the Watershed

BiologicalCapacity &Productivity

Factors

Re

ach

es

Life S

tage

Life history/Population structure

Population Capacity and Productivity

Capacity

Spawners

Pro

gen

y

Beverton-Holt Function for a salmonpopulation

Validation of a habitat assessment model

• Does the biological rating metric comport with reality?

• Does it accurately predict distribution of the rating species?

• It it useful?

Source: Bruce Watson, YIN

Validation of EDT for Spring Chinook in the Yakima River. 1981-94 broods.

P o p u l a t i o n M o d e l O b s e r v e d M o d e l O b s e r v e d M o d e l O b s e r v e dA m e r i c a n 3 1 0 3 9 3 1 3 , 0 0 1 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a 4 . 2 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a

N a c h e s 8 7 3 9 4 8 4 5 , 3 3 2 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a 2 . 6 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a

U p p e r Y a k i m a 1 2 , 4 7 9 2 , 0 9 5 1 1 1 , 1 0 7 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a 2 . 7 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a

T O T A L 3 , 6 6 2 3 , 4 3 6 1 6 9 , 4 4 0 1 8 0 , 5 3 0 2 . 9 3 . 11 I n c l u d e s T e a n a w a y p o p u l a t i o n2 W e i g h t i n g f a c t o r i s e q u i l i b r i u m a b u n d a n c e

A d u l t A b u n d a n c e S m o l t A b u n d a n c e P r o d u c t i v i t yC o m p a r i s o n o f p r e d i c t e d a n d o b s e r v e d p e r f o r m a c e p a r a m e t e r s , Y a k i m a

Validation of EDT for Spring Chinook in the Yakima River. 1981-94 broods.

Case Study: Johnson Creek, Portland, OR

Johnson Study Area Map

Coho Production in Johnson Creek Current Habitat Conditions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Spawners

Pro

gen

y

Replacement

Pre 1993 Harvest

Post 1993 Harvest

No Harvest

EDT Population Estimates

Habitat Assessment of Johnson Creek, Portland, ORAnalysis Date:

SpeciesHabitat

ScenarioHarvest

Scenario Capacity Productivity Neq DICoho Reference None 8,269 24.0 7,924 100%

Coho Current Pre-1993 189 1.2 32 1%

Coho Current Post 1992 474 2.1 247 6%

Coho Current None 614 2.5 0 11%

May 8, 2002

Johnson Creek-entire

Focus AreaJohnson Creek-entire

Johnson Creek-entire

Johnson Creek-entire

Combined priorities for rehabilitation of Johnson Creek habitat for coho salmon

PrioritiesCombined priority rank for all areas for J ohnson Creek coho

Columbia R & EstuaryWillamette

Lower J ohnsonMiddle J ohnsonUpper J ohnson

CrystalKelley

Low Priority

Biological Cost of Degradation Biological Value of Restoration

High PriorityHigh Priority

Combined priority ranks of Willamette River for J ohnson Creek coho

Industrial

Portland Harbor

Downtown

Ross Island

Sellwood

Low Priority

Biological Cost of Degradation Biological Value of Restoration

High PriorityHigh Priority

Combined Priority Rankings for coho for Middle J ohnson Creek

J ohnson8J ohnson9

J ohnson10J ohnson11J ohnson12J ohnson13J ohnson14J ohnson15

VeteransWahoo

Low Priority

Biological Cost of Degradation Biological Value of Restoration

High PriorityHigh Priority

Reach 15 Attributes

Geographic Area: Johnson15 Stream:

Reach Length (mi):

Reach Code:

Restoration Benefit Category:1/ B Productivity Rank:1/ Potential % change in productivity:2/

Overall Restoration Potential Rank:1/ 4 Average Abundance (Neq) Rank:1/ Potential % change in Neq:2/

(lowest rank possible - with ties)1/ 17 Life History Diversity Rank:1/ Potential % change in diversity:2/

Preservation Benefit Category:1/ B Productivity Rank:1/ % loss in productivity with degradation:2/

Overall Preservation Rank:1/ 5 Average Abundance (Neq) Rank:1/ % loss in Neq with degradation:2/

(lowest rank possible - with ties)1/ 16 Life History Diversity Rank:1/ % loss in diversity with degradation:2/

Change in attribute impact on survival

Spawning Oct-Jan 5.8% -9.5% 6

Egg incubation Oct-May 5.8% -30.9% 4

Fry colonization Mar-May 9.9% -18.3% 3

0-age active rearing Mar-Oct 6.0% -49.9% 1

0-age migrant Oct-Nov 12.7% -3.9% 7

0,1-age inactive Oct-Mar 4.0% -55.7% 2

1-age migrant Mar-Jun 22.3% -1.0% 9

1-age resident rearing Mar-May 4.0% -21.4% 5

1-age transient rearing

2+-age transient rearing

Prespawning migrant Sep-Nov 34.9% 0.0% 10

Prespawning holding Oct-Dec 5.8% -5.4% 8

All Stages Combined 35% Loss Gain

1/ Ranking based on effect over entire geographic area. 2/ Value shown is for overall population performance. KEY None

Notes: Changes in key habitat can be caused by either a change in percent key habitat or in stream width. NA = Not applicable Small

Potential % changes in performance measures for reaches upstream of dams were computed with full passage Moderate

allowed at dams (though reservoir effects still in place). High

Extreme

58.4%

Johnson Cr.

2.60

Johnson15

247.8%

Key

hab

itat

quan

tity

6

8

With

draw

als

Har

assm

ent/

poac

hing

41.7%

Pre

datio

n

Sed

imen

t lo

ad

Tem

pera

ture

Pat

hoge

ns

Life

Sta

ge R

ank

Cha

nnel

sta

bilit

y

Che

mic

als

Com

petit

ion

(w/

hatc

h)

Oxy

gen

Flo

w

Foo

d

Hab

itat

dive

rsity

Life stage

Com

petit

ion

(oth

er s

p)

Obs

truc

tions

Reach:Johnson 15 extends from SE190 to footbridge at Gresham City Park. Riparian is some trees w/ blackberry/canary grass. Very deep and slow

4

% of life history

trajectories affected

Productivity change (%)

Relevant months

4 -11.9%

4 -6.5%

5 -10.1%

EDT habitat assessment

Restoration Priorities

Protection Priorities

Modified from Roni et al. (2002): A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. N.Am.J.Fish. Mgmt.22:1-20

Example of how EDT can relate to watershed actions

Impervious surfaces impairing processes

Impervious areas not impairing processes

Prioritize and restoreImpervious areas