Environmental and Cultural Data Products Environmental Data Work Group October 7, 2016 Nathan Wagoner, ICF Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Presentation Overview Greater Sage-Grouse: Available Data and Sub-Group Recommendations Wildlife Data Discussion: NatureServe vs Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies CHAT data Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Greater Sage-Grouse Data and Sub-Group Recommendations Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Great Sage-Grouse: Questions Addressing management and data coming from the 2015 BLM and US Forest Service Land Use Plan Amendments? Other tools and data available to reduce risk to electrical transmission siting? Based on direction from the EDWG at the July meeting, WECC convened a sub-group of experts in the area of GRSG science and management to investigate these questions, and attempt to develop a set of recommendations for consideration by the full EDWG. Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Great Sage-Grouse: Questions (cont) EDWG Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Sub-group: September 6 and September 19 EDWG, WECC, BLM, USFWS participation Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Group Agenda Confirm universe of GIS data available for GRSG Available Data Review EDWG’s existing approach GRSG PHMA/GHMA in Environmental Risk Layer Current Process EDWG Environmental Risk Layer? Separate data layers in Data Viewer? Data Use Recommendation Next Steps Identify future/ongoing initiatives to explore Identify any upcoming GRSG data to track Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Sub-group: Available Data US Fish and Wildlife Service, Greater Sage-Grouse Team Leads: Lief Wiechman, Sage-Grouse Ecologist, Colorado Heather McPherron, Biologist, Washington The sub-group, through BLM and USFWS participants, identified several new data layers that could be of use to WECC stakeholders. These layers complement the existing data acquired by the EDWG (PHMA and GHMA data). USFWS will lead a brief overview of that data. Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Sub-Group Data Recommendations GRSG in the Environmental Risk Data Layer Data Source Risk Classification Where it applies Right-of-way Exclusion Areas* Category 4 Federal lands Right-of-way Avoidance Areas* Category 3 Right-of-way Corridors* Category 1 The Sub-group recommended WECC use ROW Avoidance, Exclusion, and Corridor data layers from the 2015 GRSG Land Use Plans as the basis for representing risk to transmission development from GRSGs. The group recommended WECC assign Avoidance areas to Category 3, Exclusion areas to Category 4, and Corridors to Category 1. Use of this ROW data would supersede PHMA/GHMA data on federal lands. The ROW and corridor data represents how the federal government will consider transmission proposed on federal lands through GRSG habitat, and are therefore the best and most appropriate source of risk information. *Right-of-way data from the 2015 BLM/US Forest Service Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Sub-Group Data Recommendations (cont) GRSG in the Environmental Data Viewer Data Source Relevance to Transmission Planners PHMA/GHMA * + Priority Areas of Conservation (PACs) Relative importance of GRSG habitat Planning-level opportunity to avoid GRSG habitat that could complicate permitting/approvals with Federal (or State) agencies Resistance and Resiliency Models, and Population Index and Breeding Habitat Suitability Models Further gradation of GRSG habitat Planning-level opportunity to ID routes through PHMA/GHMA when avoidance is impractical Habitat Concentration Areas, and Pinch Points Washington-specific data for use in conjunction with the other regional data layers The Sub-group recommended the Resistance/Resilience and Population Index model data be used as informational GIS data layers on the WECC Data Viewer; these layers were not recommended for addition to WECC’s Category 1-4 Environmental Risk Classification GIS layer. The sub-group also recommended that PHMA/GHMA be removed from the Risk Classification Layer and added as informational layers to the WECC Data Viewer. *Priority/General Habitat Management Areas Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Sub-Group Data Recommendations: Next Steps Track emerging data/other initiatives that may affect transmission planning State Conservation Plans and variations in management on non-Federal lands Decision: should EDWG perform additional outreach to the States? Multi-agency Science Framework project to combine and update the Resistance/Resilience and Population Index model data GRSG Seasonal Habitat Data The sub-group noted that there were inconsistencies around how individual states manage GRSG habitat on non-Federal lands. State management currently runs the gamut from requesting developers consider and consult on impacts to GRSGs (i.e., no real regulatory teeth), to State Conservation Plans that impose restrictions and mitigation requirements for impacts to GRSG habitat on state/private lands. State management and priorities may be more appropriately identified through other means (e.g., the CHAT data). Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Representing Risk from Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife WAFWA CHAT’s Species of Concern data or NatureServe Species? Western Electricity Coordinating Council

NatureServe Data: What is it? State/Provincial Fish and Wildlife data Presence/Absence: G1-G2, G3, and U.S. ESA/SARA wildlife species G3 = EDWG Risk Category 2 G1-G2 and U.S. ESA/Canadian SARA = EDWG Risk Category 3 License agreement; updated every 1-2 years Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Western Electricity Coordinating Council WAFWA CHAT: What is it? Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT) Managed by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) to provide: A starting point for discussing the intersection of development and wildlife A method to reduce conflicts and surprises while ensuring wildlife values are better incorporated into land use planning, particularly for large-scale linear projects. A non-regulatory tool, intended for regional planning, not project-level approvals Recognizes that State/Provincial Fish and Wildlife have the right/responsibility to manage wildlife within their borders. Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Western Electricity Coordinating Council WAFWA graphic showing the CHAT model Western Electricity Coordinating Council

WAFWA CHAT: Species of Concern CHAT’s Species of Concern data Species of Concern: Species of state and/or national conservation importance, including those vulnerable to extinction or those undergoing regional decline or other species requiring special management attention. Most states defined their Species of Concern list using State Wildlife Action Plan "Species of Greatest Conservation Need" and NatureServe conservation status rankings, and other criteria in some cases. Individual species are not depicted but the resources section of this site contains information specific to the Greater Sage Grouse and the Lesser Prairie Chicken. Terrestrial Species of Concern: Species of state and/or national conservation importance that occur on land. May include birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, insects, plants and invertebrates. Western Electricity Coordinating Council

WAFWA CHAT: Species of Concern Species of State/Federal conservation importance Vulnerable to extinction, undergoing regional decline, or requiring special management attention ESA/G1-G3 Species Occurrence, but also other items (e.g., Greater Sage-Grouse habitat) Free and updated twice a year on average Coordination between WECC/WAFWA: map 1-4 Risk Score to CHAT 1-6 Importance Score Missing for Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, but WECC could work with those states to acquire their Species of Concern layers Western Electricity Coordinating Council

NatureServe vs. WAFWA CHAT NatureServe treats each occurrence of a species equally, regardless of jurisdiction All ESA/G1 species = Risk Category 3, All G2-G3 species = Risk Category 2 CHAT reflects state management priorities ESA listed species (generally) treated equal State-to-State; other species are more/less important based on State listing status + the State’s wildlife management priorities For example, a G1 species may be abundant in Nevada, but a State-listed species in Arizona; CHAT would show more importance for that species in Arizona. Western Electricity Coordinating Council

NatureServe vs. CHAT State Regulations & Wildlife Mgmt Priorities Species Occurrence Data Internal State Wildlife Data Species Occurrence Data Modeled Habitat Data State Regulations & Wildlife Mgmt Priorities NatureServe Wildlife Data Buffer Occurrences Uses 2 Categories (Risk Cat 2/3) US and Canada WAFWA CHAT Species of Concern Data Uses 1 – 6 importance scale US only

NatureServe vs. WAFWA CHAT Decision Point: Renew NatureServe License? -or- Incorporate CHAT Species of Concern data and coordinate with WAFWA on its use? Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Finalizing 2016 Environmental Risk Data Layer Update Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Environmental Data Set Update Methods completed: Check the source of each Preferred Data Set 2. Where needed, download and view the data to identify if changes occurred Download and log each updated data set; run Data Quality Protocol to assess fitness-for-use 4. Coordinate with agencies, EDWG, and other data providers on any changes to data or data interpretation Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Environmental Data Set Update Methods (cont) to do: **EDWG approve final data and data interpretation approach Revise and run the GIS models to calculate new risk classes Publish new risk class layer to Environmental Data Viewer and Cultural/Environmental Data Viewer Publish new risk class layer to WECC’s download page Advise user community of update Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Environmental Data Set Update: Decision Points **EDWG approve final data and data interpretation approach Approve Greater Sage-Grouse data Approve use of NatureServe or CHAT data Western Electricity Coordinating Council