HEAT Habitat Evaluation and Assessment Tools

HEAT: 

Habitat Evaluation 

and Assessment Tools 

The rapid assessment of 

changing habitat conditions and 

the evaluation of the effects 

these changes have on species, 

communities and ecosystems 

must be determined by planners, 

resource managers, and 

biologists when comparing 

environmental design 

alternatives.




Many techniques (e.g., population 

assessments, qualitative matrices, 

life-history modeling, and habitat 

evaluation techniques) have been 

developed to investigate and 

predict environmental impacts on 

ecological systems at numerous 

scales with varying degrees of 

success.




Advances in technology have led 

many agencies to automate and 

distribute automated 

environmental evaluation tools to 

users. 

The value and validity of these 

packages depends greatly on their 

objectivity, repeatability, and 

efficiency. 

To guarantee their constant use by 

the users, these systems must be 

easy to apply, cost-effective, and 

instantly responsive.


Habitat Evaluation and 

Assessment Tools 

The US Army Engineer Research 

and Development Center’s 

Environmental Laboratory 

(ERDC-EL) develops and adapt 

methods and models to quantify 

and document the effects of 

Corps activities under 

Environment, Flood and Storm 

Risk Management, and 

Navigation Business areas in 

terms of Threatened and 

Endangered species, ecosystem 

services and benefits through 

research, application, 

facilitation, knowledge 

management, and technical 

support. 

Spatial 

Analyses 

Environmental 

Analyses 

Cost 

Analyses 

Ecosystem Benefits Team




The Habitat Evaluation and 

Assessment Tools (HEAT) software 

was developed to provide a userfriendly 

(intuitive), flexible, and 

efficient means to conduct Habitat 

Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and 

the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to 

Wetland Assessments (HGM), using 

Microsoft® Windows programming 

capabilities.

HEAT Modules 

The sheer number of calculations necessary 

to conduct a HEP or HGM evaluation in a 

study necessitates the use of automated 

systems to complete the assessments in a 

timely manner. 

ERDC-EL has developed HEAT – Habitat 

Evaluation and Assessment Tools to address 

this need. 

Currently comprised of two evaluation MS 

Access 2003 modules: 

• EXHEP: EXpert Habitat Evaluation 

Procedures, and 

• EXHGM: EXpert Hydrogeormorphic 

Approach to Wetland Assessments 

The system provides a fully automated 

interface to facilitate simultaneous HEP and 

HGM assessments.

System Capabilities 

HEAT was designed to process large 

quantities of data quickly and 

efficiently, handling a large number of 

index models simultaneously. 

Each model can incorporate any 

number of: 

- Cover types 

- Variables 

- Functions 

- Target Years 

These capabilities support the 

examination of complex studies with 

large numbers of permutations.

HEAT Applications 

Developed to address 

any occasion, the 

HEAT tools can be 

used in restoration, 

planning & design, and 

any type of wetland 

impact assessments.

HEAT Applications Nationwide 

(1993 – Present) 

Training (10) 

Case Studies 

(23) 

Technology 

Transfer 

(29)

10 

Clear Creek FDR 

Feasibility Study 

(Galveston District) 

• Over the last 100 years, the cumulative 

effects of urban development along the 

Clear Creek (southern Texas) has led 

to substantial increases in flooding 

directly attributed to both the 

narrowing of the floodplain and the 

construction of buildings and 

infrastructure in the region’s floodprone 

areas. 

• In 1999, the USACE Galveston District 

initiated a feasibility study to revise 

past efforts and formulate new 

solutions to address the Clear Creek 

problems, and contacted ERDC-ELin 

2003 to assist in these endeavors using 

HEAT’s EXHEP Module. 

• 2 Community-based index models 

were developed and applied in the 

impact and mitigation assessments: 

• Floodplain Forest 

• Coastal Wet Prairie 

Average Annual Habitat Units (AAHUs) 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Clear Creek Forest Gains from Mitigation Plans - Floodplain Forest 

180 

118 

112 

109 

78 

59 

46 

34 34 

20 

9 9 

0 0 

ER-6-A1a 

ER-6-A1b 

ER-6-A2a 

ER-4-C1 

ER-5-C1 

ER-4-C2 

ER-5-C2 

ER-4-D 

ER-3-E 

ER-2-F 

ER-2-G 

ER-2-I 

ER-5-Xa 

ER-5-Xb

11 

Arizona Feasibility 

Studies 

(Los Angeles District) 

• Over the last century, Arizona’s riverine 

wetlands have been exposed to significant 

anthropogenic pressures yielding highly 

degraded wetland ecosystems that today are 

poised on the brink of collapse. 

• Between 2002 and 2009, the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) (Los Angeles District, 

Phoenix Field Office) was authorized to study 

these critical ecosystems in 6 separate 

ecosystem restoration studies. 

• They contacted ERDC-EL in 2002 to assist in 

these endeavors using HEAT 

• 10 Functional Capacity Indices were 

developed and applied in the 6 individual 

ecosystem restoration assessments: 

• Maintenance of Characteristic Dynamics 

• Dynamic Surface Water Storage/Energy 

Dissipation 

• Long Term Surface Water Storage 

• Dynamic Subsurface Water Storage 

• Nutrient Cycling 

• Detention of Imported Elements and 

Compounds 

• Detention of Particles 

• Maintain Characteristic Plant Communities 

• Maintain Spatial Structure of Habitat 

• Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity 

Biogeochemistry Habitat Functions Functions 

Species Richness 

Vegetative Volume 

Hydrologic Functions 

Functional Capacity Units 

(Averaged Across All Functions) 

Wetland Indicator Score 

Algal Growth 

2500 

Hydroregime 

Invasives 

Decayed Woody Alterations Debris 

Herbaceous Cover 

Sediment Leaf Litter Delivery 

2000 Shrub 

Fine Floodprone 

Canopy 

Woody Debris Area 

Cover 

Tree Canopy Cover 

Coarse Woody Debris 

Flood Frequency 

Adjacent Landuse 

1500 Floodprone Frequency Area 

Buffer Width 

Surface Topography Inflow 

Vegetative Layering 

Vegetative Subsurface Volume Inflow 

1000 


Coarse Algal Woody Growth Debris 

Nutrient Cycling 

Maintenance of Characteristic 

Channel 

Maintain 

Dynamics 

Characteristic 

Plant Community 

Dynamic Surface Water Storage 

and Energy Dissipation 

Removal and/or Detention of 

Imported Elements 

Maintain Spatial 

Structure of Habitat 

Fine Woody Debris 

Leaf Litter 

Flood Frequency 

500 Leaf Litter 

Soil Porosity 

Long-term Surface 

Topography 


Water Storage 


Soil Porosity 

Buffer Width 

0Subsurface Floodprone Inflow Area 

Flood 2002 Frequency 2021 2031 2041 2051 2061 

Topography 

Calendar Years 

Topography 

Plan Fine A Woody - HIGH Debris 

Plan B - HIGH Plan C - HIGH Dynamic Subsurface Plan D - LOW 

Saturated 

Contiguousness 

Soil Depth 

Plan A - MED Plan B - MED Plan C - MED Water Detention Storage of Particulates 

Maintain Interspersion Plan STATUS QUO 


Tributary Plan A - Connections LOW Plan B - LOW Plan C - LOW and Connectivity Future Without Project 

Sediment Delivery 



Buffer Width

12 

Middle Rio Grande 

Feasibility Study 

(Albuquerque District) 

• Over the last century, the Middle Rio 

Grande was subjected to significant 

anthropogenic pressures producing a 

highly degraded ecosystem that today 

is poised on the brink of collapse. 

• In 2002, the USACE Albuquerque 

District was authorized to conduct a 

Reconnaissance study focused on a 17- 

mile long stretch of the Rio Grande 

flowing through the city of 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

• The District contacted ERDC-EL to help 

using the using HEAT’s EXHEP Module. 

• 1 model was developed and applied for 

the bosque riparian community 

Reach 5 Reach 4 Reach 3 Reach 2 

Reach 1 Reach 

HEP-only Results MCDA Results 

Acres Acres 

Established Total 

Established Total 

and/or Actionable Output Total Reach 

and/or Actionable Output Total Reach 

Alternative Preserved Rehabilitated Acres (AAHUs) Cost 

Alternative Preserved Rehabilitated Acres (MCDA) Cost 

Plan 1-J 651 449 1,100 222 $44,051,967 Plan 1-B 1,012 78 1,090 0.1 $4,678,476 

Plan 1-K 593 507 1,100 231 $46,175,444 Plan 1-L 795 322 1,117 0.27 $16,947,740 

Plan 1-M 359 767 1,126 264 $60,467,428 Plan 1-J 651 449 1,100 0.57 $44,051,967 

Plan 1-M 359 767 1,126 0.74 $60,467,428 

Reach 

Reach 1 

Plan 2-F 546 23 569 139 $2,587,414 Plan 2-F 546 23 569 0.14 $2,587,414 

Plan 2-B 499 75 574 155 $8,435,531 Plan 2-G 382 195 577 0.36 $12,614,421 

Plan 2-K 307 270 577 172 $21,049,952 Plan 2-J 277 300 577 0.44 $21,677,892 

Plan 2-M 97 501 598 176 $82,938,153 

Plan 2-M 97 501 598 0.59 $82,938,153 

Reach 2 

Plan 3-A 435 73 508 100 $6,688,739 Plan 3-F 351 165 516 0.45 $11,834,865 

Plan 3-B 288 228 516 110 $11,832,260 

Plan 3-H 167 357 524 0.54 $18,981,868 

Plan 3-H 167 357 524 118 $18,981,868 

Reach 3 

Plan 4-F 661 68 729 34 $4,165,340 Plan 4-A 671 67 738 0.17 $5,045,227 

Plan 4-H 582 164 746 62 $10,501,885 Plan 4-B 596 137 733 0.28 $9,522,505 

Plan 4-K 336 419 755 108 $29,299,072 

Plan 4-K 336 419 755 0.68 $29,299,072 

Reach 4 

Plan 5-G 435 208 643 155 $7,731,650 Plan 5-G 435 208 643 0.28 $7,731,650 

Plan 5-H 433 210 643 157 $15,990,607 Plan 5-H 433 210 643 0.36 $15,990,607 

Plan 5-K 187 458 645 0.46 $27,591,666 

Reach 5

So how does it work? 

• There are 12 steps to complete when applying HEP in an ecosystem 

evaluation. 

1. Build a multi-disciplinary evaluation team. 

2. Define the project. 

3. Map the site’s cover types or PWAAs. 

4. Select, modify and/or create index model(s). 

5. Conduct a baseline inventory. 

6. Perform data management and statistical analyses. 

7. Calculate baseline conditions. 

8. Set goals and objectives, and establish the assessment’s 

temporal scale. 

9. Generate without-project conditions and calculate outputs. 

10. Generate with-project conditions and calculate outputs. 

11. Perform trade-offs. 

12. Report the results of the analyses.


• Once a model or models have been 

selected/developed (Step 4), and the evaluation 

team has inventoried the site using the model’s 

parameters (i.e., Step 5), it becomes necessary 

to generate outputs [Habitat Units (HUs)]. 

• It is at this point the HEAT software can be fully 

deployed. A series of steps have been devised 

to move through this process quickly and 

cleanly: 

1. Gather the pertinent information, 

2. Setup the models in EXHEP, 

3. Associate the models, 

4. Enter the baseline data and generate 

baseline results, 

5. Enter the without-project conditions and 

calculate the effects, 

6. Enter the with-project conditions and 

calculate the effects, and 

7. Recycle the datafile and evaluate 

alternative designs. 

HEAT 

Engine 

RESULTS 

Baseline Baseline Design A1 Design A1 

Evaluation Species HSI AAHU's HSI HU's 

Downy Woodpecker 1.00 37.33 0.50 18.67 

Song Sparrow 0.50 10.00 0.84 16.80 

Yellow Warbler 0.81 9.88 0.50 6.14 

Marsh Wren 0.00 0.00 0.50 5.00 

River Otter 0.43 23.71 1.00 55.15 

Western Meadowlark 0.34 9.04 0.50 13.25 

Mule Deer 0.35 27.00 0.04 3.04 

Chukar 0.00 0.00 0.30 3.00 

California Quail 1.00 117.15 0.06 6.81 

Ring-necked Pheasant 0.39 41.45 0.02 1.73 

Mallard 0.40 10.00 1.00 25.00 

Canada Goose 1.00 20.00 0.50 10.00 

Table 1 below provides a comprehensive 

review of the current baseline conditions and 

contrasts these to the effects of Design A1 on 

the critical species found within the area. 

Table 1: Results of the environmental impacts for 

Mill Creek if Design A1 is implimented.

What to pull together 

It is also important to gather all 

information supporting the application of 

the models prior to setting up the software. 

Collect basic information (i.e., references, 

cover types, variables, sampling protocols, 

SI curves, HSI formulas, etc.) early on. The 

software can be setup incrementally as this 

information becomes available, but 

analysis cannot commence without these 

basics. 

Component Items Example 

Evaluation Data 

Baseline, end of construction, and life of the project (including 

additional years when needed). 

Example: 

Target 

TY Calendar Year 

Years 

0 2002 

1 2003 

51 2053 

Baseline acres per cover type 

Acres Without-project acres per cover type 

With-project acres per cover type for each alternative 

Baseline means/modes per cover type 

Variables Without-project means/modes per cover type 

With-project means/modes per cover type for each alternative 

Component Items Example 

Background Information 

Model Specifics 

Project 

Name 

Alternative 

Name 

Methods 

Model(s) 

and Life 

Requisite 

Names 

Cover 

Type(s) 

Variables 

SI Curves 

LRSI and 

HSI 

Formulas 

Mill Creek Ecosystem Restoration Study 

Design 1 

Model References and Support Documentation 

Model Modifications 

List of Evaluation Team Members 

Goals and Objectives 

Data Management Strategies 

Evaluation Strategies (including tradeoff approaches) 

Field Sampling Team and Metadata (include locations, 

assumptions, dates, etc.) 

Species/Community and life requisites (both short-hand 

names or codes and detailed descriptions). 

Examples: 

Model: Slider Turtle 

Life Requisite: Food and Cover 

Short-hand names or codes and detailed descriptions 

Examples: 

Deciduous Forested Wetlands 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

Freshwater Lakes 

Riverine 

Deciduous Scrub-Shrub Wetland 

Short-hand names or codes, detailed descriptions, sampling 

protocols, and data management (statistical) activities. 

Examples: 

Emergent and submerged vegetation 

Water depth 

Water regime 

Water temperature 

Velocity 

X,Y coordinates for all variables included in the model(s). 

For example: 0,0.2,90,1,100,1 

Mathematical algorithms for each function in each wetland 

subclass. 

Example: 

IndexSliderTur tle = Minimum of (LRSIFoodCover or 

LRSIWQ or LRSI WaterTemp) 

(Continued)


Step 1: Model Setup

How does it Work? 

Step 1: Model Setup


Step 1: Model Setup


Step 2: Model Association


Step 2: Model Association


Step 3: Field Data Entry


Step 3: Field Data Entry

How Does It Work? 

Step 4: Calculate Baseline HUs 

Click This Button Now


Step 5: Define & Calculate Without Project


Step 5: Define & Calculate Without Project - Acres


Step 5: Define & Calculate Without Project - Variables


Step 6: Define & Calculate With Project 

Click This Button Now


Step 7: Review & Report Results - Setup


Step 7: Review & Report Results - Analysis


Step 7: Review & Report Results

Other Features

Fast Keys – your best 

friend! 

• Ctrl + c 

• Ctrl + v 

• Ctrl + Enter 

• Ctrl + z 

• Esc 

Copy 

Paste 

Hard 

Return 

Undo 

HELP! GET 

ME OUTTA 

HERE!

Support 

Software 

Demonstrations 

On-Site Installation 

Training Workshops 

User Guides 

On-Site Technical 

Consultations 

Website: 

http://www.wes.army. 

mil/el/emrrp/analyt.ht 

ml

Summary 

Flexible Programming - 

Interchangeable 

Dynamic Linkages to 

Reports 

Multiple Applications 

Full Support Available

HEAT Habitat Evaluation and Assessment Tools

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?