Various models & tools to support
WGA Decision Support System
Decision Support System (DSS)
• Suite of Decision Support Tools (DSTs) that
collectively provide guidance on management
decisions for species or ecosystems.
– DSTs address a specific question or purpose
– Can have one or many DSTs
– DSTs can be non-spatial
• written guidance such as BMPs
Existing DSSs &DSTs for LEPC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LEPC range maps
LEPC habitat layers
OK LEPC Spatial Planning Tool (OLEPCSPT)
KS Natural Resource Planner
Maximum Entropy model for LEPC in KS
LEPC corridor mapping - future
Population viability analysis - future
LEPC Range Maps
Range maps
– Purpose
• To delineate approximate LEPC distribution, current & historical
– End-users
• Biologists, wind industry, public
– Format/Components
• Spatial data layer or map (available by request)
– Advantages
• Provides a description the species range
– Limitations/Considerations
• Multiple versions of range maps exist; not the only range map
• Not developed consistently in each state (diff methods)
– Stakeholders & Partners
• LPCIWG, larger wildlife and scientific community
LEPC Habitat Layers
LEPC Habitat Layers
– Purpose
• To map areas that meet minimum habitat requirements according to peerreviewed literature & expert opinion (based on spatial landcover data )
– End-users
• Biologists, wind industry
– Format/Components
• Spatial data layers, maps, metadata, and abstracts
• Available online
– Advantages
• Range-wide, consistent across state lines
• Provides hard boundaries (opposed to gradient)
• Can be used for targeting habitat and for corridor mapping
– Limitations/Considerations
•
•
•
•
Conceptual model
Known errors in landcover, source info study-specific, expert opinion
Provides hard boundaries
No detailed guidance specific to energy development
– Stakeholders & Partners
• PLJV developed with LEPC biologists, used by wind industry
OLEPCSPT
OLEPCSPT
– Purpose
• To provide siting guidance to all development occurring within the historical
range of the LEPC & facilitate voluntary mitigation discussions
– End-users
• Wind industry, O&G Development, transmission line planners/builders, and any
other entity considering development within the range of LEPC
– Format/Components
• Spatial data layers, maps, user’s manual, and written guidance
• Available online
– Advantages
• Transparent process; results (ranks of 1-8) have ecological definitions
• Provides written guidance on how to use the data for siting & mitigation
• Often initiates discussion between industry & agency personnel
– Limitations
• Conceptual model – assumes factors selected for model are important (equally)
• Corridors not included; lek data incomplete; compounded spatial data errors
– Stakeholders & Partners
• Buy-in from: wind industry, Sec of Enviro, & local wildlife groups
KS Natural Resources Planner
KS Natural Resources Planner
– Purpose
• To provide a central, accessible repository for natural resources data currently available in Kansas.
• To provide an unbiased, on-line resource that can be used to evaluate potential natural resource
impacts arising from development projects, including those related to energy development
– End-users
• Policy makers, industry, planners, developers, public
– Format/Components
• Interactive map service with query of features, downloadable data
– Advantages
•
•
•
•
Transparent development process
Incorporates data that are quantifiable, repeatable, and non-subjective
Addresses multiple resources
User friendly & publically accessible, downloadable data
– Limitations/Considerations
•
•
•
•
•
Some data are known to be incomplete or are based on the interpretation of experts.
Sensitive species not a complete census of all locations, only known occurrences
NRP should be considered a resource for general planning purposes
Final decisions should be based on field investigation &consultation with appropriate agencies
Not designed specifically for LEPC but does include Lek Probability
– Stakeholders & Partners
• Federal, state, and local wildlife groups & universities
• Electrical companies also consulted in development
LEPC Maximum Entropy Model
Lesser Prairie-Chicken Lek Locations
DRAFT
(n = 295)
LEPC Maximum Entropy Model
– Purpose
• To replace point data with a model that depicts the suitability of environments for supporting leks
• To alert users that there may areas suitable for supporting leks that do not currently support leks
– End-users
•
Policy makers, industry, planners, developers, public, biologists
– Format/Components
• Displayed in KNRP online
• Spatial data layer & methods paper available upon request
– Advantages
•
•
•
•
Empirical model based on presence only data of leks
Transparent and repeatable method based on an accepted scientific approach
Method allows for evaluating fit of various models, including calculation of variance components
Allows explicit incorporation of all relevant spatial data in a model framework, including
anthropomorphic (roads, transmission) as well as biological factors
– Limitations/Considerations
• Does not address corridors; does not account for spatial habitat characteristics (patch size,
connectivity); predictor variables solely based on spatial data (however, model does include roads,
transmission lines, and oil/gas wells that are known to affect the species)
• No written guidance on application of layer re LEPC conservation
• Not synonymous with a habitat suitability map
– Stakeholders & Partners
• Cooperative effort by USGS & KDWP
Corridor Mapping
Among
Range
Within
Range
Corridor Mapping
– Purpose
• To map current or potential corridors among populated habitat patches
• To discourage development and encourage conservation in these areas
– End-users
• Wind industry, biologists, wildlife habitat managers, developers
– Format/Components
• Not complete
• Would be data layers, maps, and written guidance
– Advantages
• Addresses population connectivity
• Can map corridors within or among metapopulations (i.e., isolated range
polygons)
– Limitations
• Conceptual model – not a lot of LEPC-specific research on corridors
• Many assumptions regarding bird movement, population dynamics
– Stakeholders & Partners
• Wildlife community, energy industry, developers
PVA analysis
– Purpose
• To estimate extinction risk for a species or a population given different
management options. Models can be non-spatially explicit or spatially
explicit.
– End-user
• Usually biologists
– Format/Components
• Various, depends on request of end user
– Advantages
• Empirical model based on demographic and habitat data and in the case of
spatially explicit models, spatial data
• Best used for ranking a suite of management options
– Limitations
• Choice of model is dictated by objectives, availability of data, and
assumptions that are realistic
• Requires demographic & habitat data that may not be available for LEPC
– Stakeholders & Partners
• Determined by objectives of the model
Tool
Method
Intended/Potential Use
LEPC Range Maps
Data Driven &
Expert Knowledge
• Identifying areas where LEPCs might be found at broadest geographical
scale
LEPC Habitat Layers
Conceptual Model
• Locating areas that are likely valuable for LEPC habitat conservation
• Targeting conservation work/programs toward those areas
• Guiding development away from those areas
OLEPCSPT
Conceptual Model
• Providing siting guidance to all development occurring within the
historical range of LEPC
• Facilitating voluntary mitigation
• Initiating discussion between industry & agency personnel
KS Natural Resources
Planner
Suite:
Conceptual &
Empirical Model,
General Data
• Providing a central, accessible repository for natural resources data
currently available in Kansas
• Evaluating potential natural resource impacts arising from development
projects, including those related to energy development
LEPC Maximum
Entropy Model, KS
Empirical Model
• Mapping areas that are likely suitable for supporting leks
• Designing lek surveys & monitoring
LEPC Corridors
(not complete)
Conceptual Model
• Identifying current or potential corridors among LEPC-populated habitat
patches
•Targeting conservation work/programs toward those areas
• Guiding development away from those areas
LEPC PVA analysis
(not complete)
Empirical Model
• Estimating extinction risk for a species or a population given different
management options.
Existing DSSs
• Many versions of DSSs exist
• Variation regarding
– Components
• Data, maps, written guidance, BMPs, etc
– Applications
• What it’s intended use(s)?
– Formats
• Web-based, interactive, map service, data downloads
– Audience
• Developers, habitat biologists, etc
• None is perfect…all have limitations
– Budgets, technology, time, expertise
Example DSS
Colorado & New Mexico Wind & Wildlife
Example DSS
AZ Game & Fish: Environmental Review Tool
Potential Elements for WGA LEPC DSS
• Components
–
–
–
–
–
Spatial Data (WGA: critical habitat & corridors)
Maps
Guidance on data use
BMPs
Consultation
• Applications
–
–
–
–
–
Development planning (renewables, oil & gas, urban)
Mitigation estimates
Conservation programs (USDA: CRP, SAFE)
Habitat work (Partners Program, mitigation funds)
Monitoring (framework)
• Format
– Website
– Map services (interactive, query enabled)
– Data repository (downloadable data and documents)
• Audience
– Developers, biologists, policy makers
Thanks to
• Western Governors Association
• Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
• Kansas Applied Remote Sensing & University of
Kansas
• Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• Arizona Game and Fish Department
Contacts
Bob McCready, Project Manager, PLJV: bob.mccready@pljv.org
Tool
Contact
Email
LEPC Range Map
Grant Beauprez,
NMGF & LEPC Interstate
Working Group
grant.beauprez@state.nm.us
LEPC Habitat Layers
Megan McLachlan,
PLJV
megan.mclachlan@pljv.org
OLEPCSPT
Russ Horton,
ODWC
rhorton270@sbcglobal.net
KS Natural Resource
Planner
Mike Houts,
KARS
mhouts@ku.edu
LEPC MaxEnt Model
Murray Laubhan,
KDWP
murray.laubhan@ksoutdoors.com
LEPC Corridors
Megan McLachlan,
PLJV
megan.mclachlan@pljv.org