Lesser Prairie-Chicken Science Team Meeting
Holiday Inn & Suites Denver International Airport
August 30-31, 2012
Facilitator: Bill Van Pelt (WAFWA)
Intent of the meeting:
The LPCIWG invites you to assist in the development of criteria to address the following rangewide lesser prairie-chicken conservation issues:
 Population and habitat goals
 Identification of conservation focal areas
 Estimating habitat loss as a function of potential development
 Identifying potential changes to existing conservation programs to counteract habitat loss
At minimum, we expect to identify directions and data sources required for these criteria. Future
meetings or webinars may be required to fully address these issues.
August 29 (Travel day)
7:00 PM
Planning meeting for 5-member core LPCIWG
August 30
8:00 AM
Purpose and Meeting objectives



8:15 AM
WAFWA Grassland Initiative and LPCIWG background
Range-wide management plan and CHAT, Bill Van Pelt and Jon
Haufler
Develop a scientific foundation for population goals and habitat needs
for the range-wide plan
Introductions









Bill Van Pelt, WAFWA
Sean Kyle, TPWD
Jim Pitman, KDWPT
Doug Schoeling, ODWC
Grant Beauprez, NMGF
David Klute, CPW
Lyman Mc Donald, West Ecosystems Technology
Jon Haufler, EMRI
Dwayne Elmore, OK State University










8:30 AM
Dan Mulhern, USFWS
Don Wolfe, Sutton Research Center/ Univ. of OK
Christian Hagen, Oregon State University/NRCS
Alex Daniels, PLJV
Blake Grisham, TTU
Dave Haukos, USGS
Hannah Powell, ODWC
Chris O’Melia, USFWS
Allison Arnold, USFWS
Aron Flanders, USFWS Partners
Establishing population goals





Update on range-wide aerial survey effort, Lyman McDonald
o See PowerPoint
o Future preferences of the science team:
 Partial fixed sample, pre-stratified for LPC region,
partial rotating panel
 Annual monitoring at least for the next 10 years
Review of the basis for population goals in the OK LPC Conservation
Plan, John Haufler
How should we define population goals?
o State verses ecoregional population goals?
 The Science team agreed on LPC regional population
goals
 Translate those into state-level goals for habitat and
populations
How might we set those goals?
o The Science Team collectively recognizes the limitations of
historic population data and the lack of a range-wide or LPC
regional population viability analysis to set those goals
o The group agrees to utilize long term population average, trend
and variability information as a basis for setting draft goals on
an LPC regional basis.
o The group agrees to consider the possible conservation
opportunities for each LPC region to estimate how much these
populations might increase from active habitat management
and restoration.
LPC regional goals
o SOPR—We estimate that focused habitat work could increase
that long-term average to 10,000 birds (~5,000-15,000 range)
o SSPR—We estimate that conservation efforts could produce an
average of approximately 6,000 birds (2,000-8,000)
o MGPR— We estimate that conservation efforts could produce
an average of approximately 20,000 birds (10-30k)


o SGPR— We estimate that conservation efforts could produce
an average of approximately 30,000 birds (20K-40K)
o Total range-wide 66,000 average (37,000-93,000)
The team agrees to set these as 10 year goals
The team agrees that information from the analysis that Oz Garton for
the LPCIWG to estimate the potential risk of extirpation by LPC
region will inform or confirm these draft goals.
o A draft of that work is expected in late October.
10:00 AM
Break
10:15 AM
Estimating habitat requirements to achieve population goals





1:00 PM
Defining criteria for conservation focal areas

August 31
Option 1: Develop LPC region-based estimates for habitat
requirements
o Aerial survey data back-forecasted to get average and variance
of density estimates—Oz Garton
 Action Item—Christian Hagen
o Estimate suitable habitat within each ecoregion—USGS-FORT
 Action Item—Jim Pitman
o Apply aerial survey estimates to suitable habitat for each
ecoregion to develop habitat goals
Option 2: Start with 5-10 birds per mile as a straw man model to
be confirmed or refuted by option 1
How much of our populations goals should be supported by focal
areas?
o OK used 50%
o The group agrees to start with 75%
o 75% at 5/mile = 6,336,000 acres
o 75% at 10/mile = 3,168,000 acres
Linkage zones between
IWG State members will develop drafts by Oct
Draft guidelines for focal areas
o Average size > 50,000 acres ~180 focal areas on average if 70%
all suitable, less if larger
o Goal of 70% suitable habitat
o Connectivity max of 20 mile nearest neighbor distance
o Identify options for establishing ‘permanency’
8:00 AM
Wrap-up of day one and unfinished business
8:30 AM
Habitat evaluation


AM
Review of OK LPC plan approach, Jon Haufler
o OK HSI model
Team recommendations
o Three-part model—Action item Pitman, Haufler, and
Hagen—
 ESD state transition model
 CRP included as state
 NRCS WHEG and veg protocol
 Consider varying detail levels for landowner
monitoring vs. mitigation
 Post-hoc classification of results like HSI model
o Include ecoregional components?
o Draft to LPCIWG Science team by October 2 and discuss
at fall LPCIWG meeting in late Oct.
o Draft to UFWS Section 10 for review (same time?)—FWS
science team members will take the draft to Sec 10 staff
o Landowner documentation document (visual resources and
training materials for implementation)—Later on
Developing criteria to estimate habitat loss
Options

OK plan approach—Jon Haufler
o Define and discuss anthropogenic threats, use threats from
OK spatial planning tool

FWS project deconstruction table/report
o Intention was transparency
o Deconstruct development into individual components
o Assess effects of components
o Define avoidance, minimization and mitigation/offset
recommendations
o WEWAG may have thought it was “too transparent”

Sage grouse noise impact assessment and abatement/offset process
for wind energy development
o Was not included in the federal wind guidelines and was
not popular with industry
o Hunt 2004 MS thesis—LPCs in NM
o UC Davis Sage Grouse work

Habitat loss research needs
o Noise avoidance
o Avoidance of vertical structures
o Time-lag effects
o Density thresholds
o Dave Haukos—Lit review
o Dwayne Elmore—Worldwide grouse/disturbance
review paper
o Sutton Center bibliography on the web

Transmission conservation framework (HCP?) in KS—Region 6,
Amelia Orton-Palmer- lead
o Chris and David – lead on contacting and coordinating
towards a range-wide approach
o Doodle poll by Sept 7—Action Item—Chris O’Melia

Mitigation committee--IWG will designate members and establish
meeting timelines and goals

Director/oil and gas meeting—Sept. 5—IWG circle back with
individual oil and gas associations

Great Plains Wind HCP plan to WEWAG for review by Sept 1213—For review by IWG by Oct. 1To science team
LPCIWG Science Team Webinar Notes
11/19/2012
Attending: Sean Kyle, Jim Pitman, Anne Bartuszevige, Grant Beauprez, Lyman McDonald,
Blake Grisham, Christian Hagen, Allison Arnold, Chris O’Meilia, Dan Mulhern, Mike Disney,
Jon Haufler, Dave Haukos, Doug Schoeling, Heather Whitlaw, Aron Flanders, David Klute
Review and Background


Jim Pitman and Sean Kyle provided a review of previous Science Team decisions:
o Population goals
o Guidelines and definitions for Habitat Focal Areas (HFAs)
o Connectivity Zones
o Review of upcoming deadlines for the range-wide plan effort
Sean Kyle noted the timelines required for making decisions, the limitations of the data to
make those decisions, and highlighted the importance of ensuring that the adaptive
management process was a part of the range-wide management plan to continue to
inform these decisions.
Reproductive Season Dates




Jim Pitman requested Science Team input on defining range-wide dates to encompass the
bulk of lekking, nesting and brooding chronology
March 1-July 15 was put forth as the dates that FWS and NRCS had agreed upon in the
NRCS Conferencing Report.
Concerns were raised by Allison Arnold and others about how these dates would be
applied.
DECISION—The team agreed upon March 1-July 15 with the conditions that:
o These dates defined the majority of the lekking, nesting, and brooding seasons
o These dates could constitute the basis for measures directed at minimization of
impacts, but could not guarantee the complete avoidance of impacts.
Guidelines for Connectivity Zones



Jim Pitman requested Science Team input on defining guidelines for Connectivity Zones
(CZs)and reviewed a draft set of guidelines
Sean Kyle brought up the fact that 25% of the population goals must be accounted for
outside of HFAs, so definitions of CZs should be based on more than just requirements
for a corridor. They should be able to support resident birds in some cases.
Don Wolf said that percentages and arrangement of suitable habitat constituted only part
of the equation, but vertical structures within that CZ would also determine success. But




he also stated that we would be unlikely to be able to designate CZs without power lines
and other vertical structures.
David Klute stated that “connectivity” should be defined in terms of goals and
timeframes, but also stated that not all connectivity zones could be considered equal or
even meet the same goals.
Anne Bartuszevige noted that the OK spatial planning tool used the Core-Buffer habitat
of the PLJV Core/Core-Buffer model which utilized 40% suitable habitat
Christian Hagen brought up the possibility of using the MaxEnt Lek and Nest
propbability maps to define CZs
DECISION—The Science Team agreed to the following 5 guidelines for CZs
1. CZs should be defined on a site specific basis with a desired maximum of 20
miles in length and a desired minimum of 5 miles in width.
2. Where possible use the MaxEnt probability Layers to define the location of CZs
to encompass areas with the most existing suitable habitats
3. Desired goal of 40% suitable, high quality habitat within CZs
4. Habitat juxtaposition within CZs should be considered within management efforts
to ensure connectivity across that zone
5. CZ should be designated to minimize existing vertical structures and attempts
should be made to minimize the development of new structures within those CZ
wherever possible.
Setback Distances



Sean Kyle, Jim Pitman and Christian Hagen Reviewed the methodology used in the
proposed approach and the data gaps
Sean Kyle reviewed the possible options for binned verses fixed setback distances
including the biological relevancy and potential complexity of applying binned distances.
Allison Arnold raised concerns about how these setback distances might be applied, and
the group decided that it would be better to see the metrics system before making
decisions on specific setback distances.
Habitat Quality and Impact Metric System


Jim Pitman and Christian Hagen reviewed the use of the NRCS WHEG within the LEPC
Initiative
Jim Pitman worked the Science Team through an example of the HIAG for defining
habitat quality, impacts and credit generation.
Lesser Prairie-chicken Science Team
Webinar
Friday, December 7 2012
Attendees:
Jon Haufler
Jim Pitman
Dave Klute
Dan Mulhern
Lyman McDonald
Blake Grisham
Dave Haukos
Christian Hagen
Aron Flanders
Chris O’Melia
Heather Whitlaw
Anne Bartusevidge
Dwayne Elmore
AGENDA
1. Presentation illustrating how the frameworks will be used to estimate impacts and
credits
2. Discussion and decision about the way in which impact buffers will be applied (binned
vs. fixed buffers)
Binned vs fixed distances
--- Discussion of advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches
Decision: Use Binned buffers, until better information becomes available
Use 3 bins with 33% decrease in each further concentric ring
Buffer distances:
Decision: (until better information becomes available)
300 m O&G (pump jacks, well heads)
1000 m wind
600 m electric transmission
200 m electrical distribution
1000 m vertical structures (need to consider size of vertical structures)
100 m gravel roads
750 m paved roads
1000 m commercial buildings (including compressor stations)
200 m residential buildings
Action Item: Need to develop description of what types and sizes of structures qualify in each
category
3.
Discussion and decisions about specific HIAG questions
1. What distance should be used for the broad scale habitat assessments (questions
1 & 5)? Currently assessed at a one mile radius from center of evaluation unit.
Decision: until better information is available we will use a one-mile radius from the center
of the evaluation unit
2. Should points be awarded for planting and/or managing non-native grasses
(questions 12 &13)?
Planting non-natives
Decision: Award zero points for planting non-native grasses
Managing non-native grasses:
Decision: Provide minimal points for management of non-native grasses
3. Should chemical treatment of planted native grasses (e.g. CRP) be an approved
management practice (question 13)?
Decision: No chemical treatment allowed for planted native grasses, except for treatment of
invasive species.
Action item: Need to develop list of invasive species
4. Should chemical application be an approved management practice to treat dense
stands of shinnery and/or sand sagebrush (question 10)?
Decision:
No credits for chemical treatment of sandsage
Allow credits for shinnery treatments.
Action item: Need to develop specifications for chemicals, location, percent cover.
Lower the point total from 7 to 5 for shinnery treatment
5. Should management practices be required to receive points for conservation
easements? How?
Decision: Conservation easements are required to have a management plan aimed at
increasing or maintaining benefits for LEPC which is developed by a natural resource
professional in order to receive points for the easement.
LPCIWC Science Team Conference Call Notes--01/16/2013
Attending: Jim Pitman, Sean Kyle, Allison Arnold, Dave Klute, Dan Mulhern, Aron Flanders,
Chris O’Meilia, Jon Haufler, Allan Janus, Grant Beauprez, Doug Schoeling, Blake Grisham,
Dave Haukos, Christian Hagen, Don Wolf, Lyman McDonald
1. Review of HIAG modifications:
 Removed points for chemical treatment of sand sage
 Added points for grass maintenance
 Added points for chemical treatment of noxious and invasive,
o Dave H suggested changing the language on #13 to noxious, invasive or
non-native
o Lyman suggested that not all non-natives are bad. Jim and Jon said they
are working on a draft list of species.
 Added new impact weighting for large tracts of land under long term agreements
 Removed easement language in favor of long-term vs short term markets
o Permanent = 30-100 years easements and management
o Short term = 5-30 years of management
o Initial credits awarded at signing would be based on percentage of 100
years related to agreement duration times base credits
o Initial thoughts are 25% of required off-sets go into the 30-100 year
market
2. Population/Habitat Goals
 Proposed population changes summarized in excel spreadsheet based on Garton
and Hagen
o Haukos thinks some of the extreme data points are driving the analysis and
this analysis may not adequately represent what has happened historically.
o Christian clarified that some of those extreme numbers are routes not leks
and hence represent much more area
o Haukos thinks that density dependence and environmental conditions are
confounded in these data.
o Haukos thinks that we should be cautious in making decisions based on
this manuscript until we can drill down into it deeper.
o Science team will provide detailed comments on the document. Christian
will establish a timeline for comments.
o No problems voiced with using these population goals as a draft.
 Revised poulation goals and densities that were approved
o Shinnery 6500-NM, 1500-TX, 4 birds per square mile is fine
o Sand Sage CO-3k, KS-7k, 5 birds per sq. mile is fine
o Short grass-25,000 birds, 9 birds per sp. mile is fi ne
o Mixed grass-KS:14k@9, TX:5k@5, OK:5k@5
o Chris suggested we revisit the population variability in relation to meeting
our goals
Interstate Working Group-Science Team call
March 13, 2013
Jim Pitman, Sean Kyle, Blake Grisham, Anne Bartesavige, Doug Schoeling, Bob McCready,
Allison Arnold, Jon Haufler, Aaron Flanders, Dave Haukos, Dave Klute, Christian Hagen, Chris
O’meila
Metrics Discussion
1. Veg. cover, veg. quality, species composition
2. Removal of ESDs as weighting
3. How to sell to lanowners?
a. Base management plan
b. Grass management plan
c. Sign-up incentives-site conditions
4. LT credits
a. Easements
b. Endowments
5. What % of contracts for different practices?
6. Cost estimates are just examples
a. Actual amounts will be determined later
7. Allison concerns
a. Does not like the temporary nature of contracts
i. Annual payments won’t work
b. Industry pays for impacts
c. System based on implementations and not outcomes
i. Explain how it would be done annually
d. *note-Allison left the call early
8. Payments are reflective of costs
9. HIAG annually or every 3-5 years?
10. Veg. sampling will show improvement before credits are increased
11. Compliance monitoring
a. Update prescriptions
12. Need to switch to fixed buffers for simplicity?
a. 100% loss at fixed distance
b. Fixed buffers?
i. Simpler
ii. Complete impact vs. partial
iii. Everyone on ST is ok with fixed buffers
c. Are distances appropriate?-YES
d. Mitigation rates
i. Are they too high?
ii. Big penalty for development in focal areas
iii. 20cents on the dollar?
e. Get road info from DOTs
i. Traffic lands
f. Sean-some values too high
g. Will stick with buffers we have