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

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Finalizing 2016 Environmental Risk Data Layer Update
Western Electricity Coordinating Council

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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