Appendix C Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA) Models...REA Inputs to Develop a Framework of...

Appendix C Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA) Models

86

APPENDIX G: EXAMPLES USING RESOURCE EQUIVALENCY ANALYSIS TO ESTIMATE THE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE TAKE OF GOLDEN AND BALD EAGLES FROM WIND

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 1. IntroductionThisappendixprovidesResourceEquivalencyAnalysis(REA)examplesdevelopedbytheServicetoillustratethecalculationofcompensatorymitigationfortheannuallossofgolden(GOEA)eaglesandbald(BAEA)eaglescausedbywindpowerifconservationmeasuresandACPsdonotremovethepotentialfortake,andtheprojectedtakeexceedscalculatedthresholdsforthespeciesormanagementpopulationaffected.Theseexamplesresultinestimatesofthenumberofhigh‐riskelectricpowerpolesthatwouldneedtoberetrofittedpereagletakenbasedontheinputsprovidedbelow.Detailedexplanatorydocumentation,literature,andsupportingREAspreadsheetsarenowlocatedat:www.fws.gov/windenergy/index.htmlAsaframeworkforcompensatorymitigation,itneedstobeclearthattheresultsprovidedbelowareanillustrationofhowREAworksgiventhecurrentunderstandingofGOEAandBAEAlifehistoryinputs,effectivenessofretrofittinghigh‐riskelectricpowerpoles,theexpectedannualtake,andthetimingofboththeeagletakepermitandimplementationofcompensatorymitigation.Aswouldbeexpected,theestimatednumberofeaglefatalitiesandthepermitrenewalperiodaffectthenumberofpolestoberetrofitted.Delaysinretrofittingwouldleadtomoreretrofittedpolesowed.Newinformationonchangesintheleveloftake,understandingoftheeaglelifehistory,oreffectivenessofretrofittingcouldbeusedtochangethenumberofretrofittedpolesneededforcompensation.Finally,whileonlyelectricpoleretrofittingispresentedhereindetail,theREAmetricofbird‐yearslendsitselftoconsiderationofothercompensatorymitigationoptionstoachievetheno‐net‐lossstandardinthefuture.Withenoughreliableinformation,anycompensatorymitigationthatdirectlyleadstoanincreasednumberofGOEAandBAEA(e.g.,habitatrestoration)ortheavoidedlossoftheseeagles(e.g.,reducingvehicle/eaglecollisions,makinglivestockwatertanks‘eagle‐safe’,leadammunitionabatement,etc.)couldbeconsideredforcompensationwithinthecontextoftheREA.2. REA InputsThebestavailablepeer‐reviewed,publisheddataareprovidedinTablesG‐1andG‐2.ItshouldbenotedthatadditionalmodelingworkwithintheREAmaybeneeded,particularlyonissuesrelatedtomigration,adultfemalesurvivorship,nataldispersal,ageatfirstbreeding,andpopulationsexratio.

87

Table G-1. EXAMPLE INPUTS. REA Inputs to Develop a Framework of Compensatory Mitigation for Potential Take of GOEA from Wind Energy Development

Parameter REAInput Reference

Startyearofpermit 2012 Example.Lengthofpermitrenewal

period5years Example.

Estimatedtake 1eagle/year Example.

Averagemaximumlifespan

30years28years,3months,USGSBirdBanding

Lab.ConsistentwithCole(2010)approach.

Agedistributionofbirdskilledatwindfacilities

(basedonagedistributionofGOEA

population)

(0‐1)(1‐4)(4‐30)

20%35%45%

20%juveniles(ageclass(0‐1)) 35%sub‐adults(11.67%foreachageclassfromageclass(1‐2)throughage

class(3‐4)) 45%adults(1.73%foreachageclassfromageclass(4‐5)throughageclass

(29‐30))Assumeageclassisdistributedevenlyovertime.Agedistributionderived

frommodelspresentedinUSFWS2009.

AgestartreproducingAge5

[ageclass(5‐6)]Steenhofetal.1984;Kochertetal.2002

Expectedyearsofreproduction

25years =(MaximumLifespan)–(AgeStartReproducing)(Harmata2002)

%ofadultfemalesthatreproduceannually

80% Steenhofetal.1997

Productivity(meannumberofindividuals

fledgedperoccupiednestannually)

0.61 USFWS2009

year0‐1survival 61%

USFWS2009year1‐2survival 79%year2‐3survival 79%year3‐4survival 79%year4+survival 90.9%

Relativeproductivityofmitigationoption

0.0036eagleelectrocutions/pole/year

Example. Compensatorymitigationinvolvesretrofittinghigh‐riskelectricpowerpoles,thusavoidingthelossofGOEAfromelectrocution(Lehmanetal.

2010).

Discountrate 3%

A3%discountrateiscommonlyusedforvaluinglostnaturalresource

services(Freeman1993,Lind1982,NOAA1999;andcourtdecisionson

damageassessmentcases)

88

Table G-2. EXAMPLE INPUTS. REA Inputs to Develop a Framework of Compensatory Mitigation for Potential Take of BAEA from Wind Energy Development

Parameter REAInput Reference

Startyearofpermit 2011 Example.Lengthofpermitrenewalperiod

5years Example.

Estimatedtake 1eagle/year Example.

Averagemaximumlifespan

30years32years10months;LongevityrecordfromUSGSBirdBandingLab.ConsistentwithCole(2010)approach.

Agedistributionofbirdskilledatwindfacilities(basedonagedistributionofBAEApopulation)

(0‐1)(1‐4)(4‐30)

15.4%30%54.6%

15.4%juveniles(ageclass(0‐1)) 30%sub‐adults(10%foreachageclassfromageclass(1‐2)throughageclass(3‐4))

54.6%adults(2.1%foreachageclassfromageclass(4‐5)throughageclass(29‐30))

Assumeageclassisdistributedevenlyovertime.AgedistributionderivedfrommodelspresentedinUSFWS2009.

AgestartreproducingAge5

[ageclass(5‐6)] Buehler2000

Expectedyearsofreproduction 25years

=(MaximumLifespan)–(AgeStartReproducing)

%ofadultfemalesthatreproduceannually

42% Hunt1998,per.comm.Millsap

Productivity 1.3 Millsapetal. 2004year0‐1survival 77%

Millsapetal.2004year1‐2survival 88%year2‐3survival 88%year3‐4survival 88%year4+survival 83%

Relativeproductivityofmitigationoption

0.0036eagleelectrocutions/pole/year

Example. Mitigationinvolvesretrofittinghigh‐riskelectricpowerpoles,thusavoidingthelossofBAEAfromelectrocution(Lehmanet.al2010).

Discountrate 3%

A3%discountrateiscommonlyusedforvaluinglostnaturalresourceservices(Freeman1993;Lind1982;NOAA1999;andcourtdecisionsondamageassessmentcases).

89

3. REA Example – WindCoA TheServicedevelopedthefollowinghypotheticalscenarioforpermittingandcompensatorymitigationtobeappliedtothetakeofGOEA1fromwindpoweroperations:WindCoAconductedthreeyearsofpre‐constructionsurveystodeterminerelativeabundanceofGOEAattheirproposedwindprojectinTexas.Thesurveydatawasthenusedtopopulateariskassessmentmodeltogenerateaneaglefatalityestimate.TheinitialfatalityestimateoftwoeaglesperyearwasfurtherreducedafterWindCoAimplementedafewmutuallyagreeduponACPs.Thefinalfatalityestimategeneratedfromtheriskassessmentmodel,afterconsiderationoftheadvancedconservationpractices,wasanannualtakeofoneGOEAperyearoverthelifeofthepermitstartingin2012.WindCoAdecidedtoconductanREAtodeterminethenumberofhigh‐riskpowerpolesthatwouldneedtoberetrofittedtogettono‐net‐loss.ThecompanyusedtheService’sGOEAREAinputsandassumedthepowerpoleretrofitwouldoccurincalendaryear2012,thusoffsettingthepotentiallossofeaglesatthenewlyoperatingwindprojectwithavoidanceofelectrocutionofanequalnumberofGOEA.Throughproperoperationandmaintenance(O&M),theretrofittedpolesareassumedtobeeffectiveinavoidingthelossofeaglesfor10years.Theresultsofthemodelareexpressedinthetotalnumberofelectricpowerpolestoberetrofittedtoequatetono‐net‐lossof5eaglesforthe5‐yearpermitrenewalperiod(1eagleannuallyoverfiveyears).Theseresultsareextrapolatedovertheexpectedoperatinglifeofthewindproject,whichisassumedtobe30years,foratotaltakeof30eagles.TheresultsoftheREAindicatedthatWindCoAneededtoretrofitapproximately149powerpolesforthefirst5‐yearpermitperiod(seeTableG‐3).Usinganestimatedcostof$7500/pole,theServiceestimatedthatWindCoAcouldcontribute$1,117,500toathird‐partymitigationaccountorcontracttheretrofitsdirectly.Afterdeterminingthattheycouldfundtheretrofitsdirectlyatalowercost,WindCoAdecidedtopartnerwithUtilityCoBtogettherequirednumberofpolesretrofitted.UtilityCoBhadpreviouslyconductedariskassessmentoftheirequipmentandhadidentifiedhigh‐riskpolesthatwerelikelytotakegoldeneagles.Throughawrittenagreement,WindCoAprovidedfundingtoUtilityCoBtoretrofittherequirednumberofpowerpolesandmaintaintheretrofitsfor10years.Inaddition,WindCoAcontractedwithConsultCoCtoperformeffectivenessmonitoringoftheretrofittedpowerpolesfor2years.ThecontractrequiredthatConsultCoCvisiteachretrofittedpowerpoleevery4months(quarterly)toperformfatalitysearchesandcheckforproperoperationandmaintenanceoftheequipment.TheServicereviewedthecompensatorymitigationprojectproposedbyWindCoAandfoundittobeconsistentwithrequirementsat50CFR22.26.AfterreviewingthesignedcontractbetweenWindCoA,UtilityCoB,andConsultCoC,theServiceissuedaprogrammaticeagletakepermittoWindCoA.

a. REA Language and Methods Asdiscussedingreaterdetailindocumentsonthesupportingwebsite,thisREAincludes:

ThedirectlossofGOEA/BAEAeaglesfromthetake(debitinbird‐years); Therelativeproductivityofretrofittinghigh‐riskpowerpoles,whichisthe

effectivenessinavoidingthelossofGOEA/BAEAbyelectrocutionasamitigationoffset(measuredintotalbird‐yearsperpole);and

1 Using the inputs provided in Table G-2, this scenario may also be applied to BAEA.

90

Themitigationowed,whichisthetotaldebitdividedbytherelativeproductivity(scaling)toidentifythenumberofhigh‐riskpowerpolesthatneedretrofittingtocompletelyoffsetthetakeofGOEA/BAEAeagles(credit).

Thereareupto16stepswhenconductingaREA.Dependingonwhetherforegonefuturereproduction(partofthedebit)isincluded,thereareupto13totalstepsinvolvedincalculatingtheinjuryside(debit)ofaREA,andthreeadditionalstepsinvolvedinestimatingcompensatorymitigationowed(credit).Pleaserefertothetechnicalnote“ScalingDirectlyProportionalAvoidedLossMitigation/RestorationProjects”onthesupportingwebsite(www.fws.gov/windenergy)forfurtherinformationonthedevelopmentofREAinputsandtheinclusionoflostreproduction.Notably,inthecaseofanavoidedlossprojectwheretheestimatedpreventedlossofbird‐years(e.g.,throughmitigation)isdirectlyproportionaltothelossofbird‐years(e.g.,from“take”),thelifehistoryinputs(e.g.,longevity,agedistribution,survivalrates,reproduction)donotaffectthefinalresultsofthecreditowed.Thatis,theretrofittingofhigh‐riskpowerpolesisadirectlyproportionalavoidedloss,soonlytheleveloftake(numberofeaglesannually),theavoidedlossofeaglespermitigatedelectricpole,thenumberofyearsthemitigatedpoleiseffectiveinavoidingthelossofeagles,andthetimingofthemitigationrelativetothetakeaffectthefinalcreditowed.Itshouldalsobenotedthattheannualtakeofoneeagleisusedintheexamplebecausethelostbird‐yearsassociatedwithoneeaglecanbeeasilymultipliedbytheactualtaketoestimatethetotaldebitinbird‐years.ThefollowingisabriefdiscussionofREAvariablesusedintheService’sWindCoAexamplethataffecttheoutcomeofthecompensatorymitigationcalculation:

RelativeProductivityofMitigation(0.0036electrocutions/pole/year)–ThisrateistakendirectlyfrompublishedliteratureoneagleelectrocutionratesinnortheasternUtahandnorthwesternColoradoandisspecifictoeagles(Lehmanetal.2010).Althoughthereferencedstudyalsolistsahigherrate(0.0066)thatincludesallknowneaglemortalities,thisrateincludedeaglesthatmayhavediedfromcausesunrelatedtoelectrocution.

YearsofAvoidedLossPerRetrofittedPole(10Years)–TheServiceusesaperiodof10yearsforcreditingtheprojectdeveloperoroperatorfortheavoidedlossofeaglesfrompowerpoleretrofits.Thisisareasonableamountoftimetoassumethatpowerpoleretrofitswillremaineffective.However,projectdevelopersoroperatorsshouldconsiderenteringintoagreementswithutilitycompaniesorcontractorsforthelong‐termmaintenanceofretrofits.Evidenceofthistypeofagreementcouldincreasetheamountofcreditreceivedbytheprojectdeveloperoroperatorand,asaresult,decreasetheamountofcompensatorymitigationrequired.

PermitRenewalPeriod(5Years)–ThiswillbethereviewperiodthatisusedbytheServiceforadaptivemanagementpurposesandre‐calculationofcompensatorymitigation.TheServicebelievesthatthislengthoftimewillenabletheprojectdeveloperoroperatortocontinuetomeetthestatutoryandregulatoryeaglepreservationstandard.Thispermitreviewtenurewillremainthesameregardlessoftheoveralltenureofthepermit.

RetrofitCost/Payment($7,500/pole)–TheServicereceivedinputdirectlyfromtheindustryregardingtheactualcoststoretrofitpowerpoles.Estimatesrangedfromalowofapproximately$400toover$11,000giventhatcostsvaryaccordingtomanyfactors.TheServicebelievesthat$7,500representsareasonableestimateforthecurrentcosttoretrofitpowerpolesintheUnitedStates.Projectdevelopersor

91

operatorsareencouragedtocontractdirectlyforretrofitsasthiswilllikelynotbeascostlyascontributing$7,500/poletoaneaglecompensatorymitigationaccount.

b. REA Results for WindCoA UsingtheWindCoAexampledescribedabove,alongwiththeREAinputsprovidedinTableG‐1,TableG‐3providesasummaryoftheresults:

Table G-3. WindCoA Example: Compensatory Mitigation Owed for a 5-Year Permitted Take of 5 GOEA Extrapolated to the 30-Year Expected Operating Life of the Wind Project (30 GOEA in Total).

TotalDebitforTakeof1GOEA 28.485 PV*bird‐yearsfor5yearsofGOEAtake

÷RelativeProductivityofHigh‐RiskElectricPoleRetrofitting ÷0.191

AvoidedlossofPVbird‐yearsperretrofittedpole(assumes10yearsofavoidedlossperpolebasedonthecommitmentfromUtilityCoB)

=MitigationOwedfor5‐YearPermittedTake

=149.136Polestoberetrofittedtoachieveno‐net‐loss

x#Cyclesof5‐YearPermitReviews=TotalMitigationOwed

x6=894.818Polestoberetrofittedtoachieveno‐net‐lossforthe30‐yearexpectedoperatinglifeofthewindproject

*PV=PresentValueIfalloftheREAinputsremainthesameaftertheinitialfiveyears,thentheestimated149.14polesmaybemultipliedbytheexpectednumberofpermitreviewstoprovideanestimateofthetotalnumberofpolesthatwouldeventuallyberetrofitted.Forexample,forthe30‐yearlifecycleoftheWindCoAwindproject,149.14poleswouldbemultipliedby6permitrenewalstoequalapproximately895high‐riskpowerpolesintotaltoberetrofittedascompensatorymitigationforthetakeof30GOEAover30years(1eagleannually).Whilethisexampleshowstheeffectivenessofthemitigationmethodaslastingfor10years,itmaybethecasethatthemethodselectedismoreorlesseffectiveatavoidingthelossofeagles(e.g.,5years,morethan10years).TheREAcanbeadjustedfortheexpectedeffectivenessofmitigation,andmoreorfewerhigh‐riskpowerpoleswouldneedtobemitigated.AllestimatesofcompensatorymitigationarecontingentonproperoperationandmaintenancebeingconductedbyUtilityCoBoracontractortoensurethattheexpectedeffectivenessisachieved.Forpurposesofillustration,shouldWindCoAchoosetousetheGOEAinputsprovidedinTableG‐1andtheirfatalityestimateisthat5GOEAwillbetakenannually,theresultsmaybeeasilyadjustedasshowninTableG‐4:

92

Table G-4. WindCoA Example: Compensatory Mitigation Owed for a 5-Year Permitted Take of 25 GOEA Extrapolated to the 30-Year Expected Operating Life of the Wind Project (150 GOEA in Total).

TotalDebitforTakeof1GOEA 28.485PVbird‐yearsfor5yearsofGOEAtakefromTableF‐3

xActualAnnualTakeofGOEA x5=142.425 PVbird‐yearsfor5yearsofGOEAtake

÷RelativeProductivityofHigh‐RiskElectricPoleRetrofitting

÷0.191

AvoidedlossofPVbird‐yearsperretrofittedpole(assumes10yearsofavoidedlossperpolebasedonthecommitmentfromUtilityCoB)

=MitigationOwedfor5‐YearPermittedTake

=745.681Polestoberetrofittedtoachieveno‐net‐loss



PV=PresentValue

c. Summary of Bald Eagle REA Results FollowingthesameprocessdescribedaboveforGOEA(i.e.,usingtheWindCoAexampleandtheBAEAREAinputsprovidedinTableG‐2),TableG‐5providesasummaryoftheresultsforbaldeagles:

Table G-5. Example of Compensatory Mitigation Owed for a 5-Year Permitted Take of 5 BAEA Extrapolated to the 30-Year Expected Operating Life of the Wind Project (30 BAEA in Total).

TotalDebitforTakeof1BAEA 20.229 PVbird‐yearsfor5yearsofBAEAtake÷RelativeProductivityofHigh‐RiskElectricPoleRetrofitting

÷0.136 AvoidedlossofPVbird‐yearsperretrofittedpole

=MitigationOwedfor5‐YearPermittedTake =149.136

Polestoberetrofittedtoachieveno‐net‐loss



PV=PresentValue

AlthoughtherearedifferencesbetweenGOEAandBAEAlifehistoryinputs(e.g.,longevity,agedistribution,survivalrates,reproduction),theestimatedavoidedlossofbird‐yearsthroughmitigationisdirectlyproportionaltothelossofbird‐yearsfromthetake,sothelifehistoryinputsdonotaffectthefinalresultsofthecreditowed.Becausetherewasnochangeintheleveloftake(numberofeaglesannually),theavoidedlossofeaglesper

93

mitigatedelectricpole,thenumberofyearsthemitigatedpoleiseffectiveinavoidingthelossofeagles,orthetimingofthemitigationrelativetothetake,thereisnochangeinthecreditowed.Tohelpillustrate,whencomparingtheresultsofBAEAtoGOEA,boththedebit(20.23÷28.49)andtherelativeproductivityofelectricpoleretrofitting(0.14÷0.19)forBAEAareapproximately70%ofGOEA,sotheamountofretrofittingowedisthesame.Thatis,boththenumeratorofthescalingequation(totaldebit)andthedenominator(relativeproductivityofmitigation)werechangedproportionally(approximately70%),sothereisnochangeinthemitigationowed.d. Discussion on Using REA TheECPGdoesnotmandatetheuseofREA.Rather,theServicerecognizedtheneedforareliable,transparent,reproducible,andcost‐effectivetooltoexpeditewindpowerpermits,whileensuringsufficientcompensatorymitigationforthetakeofgoldeneaglesandbaldeaglesfromoperationstomeetregulatorypermittingrequirements.Althoughthereisalearningcurve,REAmeetsthesebasicneeds.Thisappendixandmaterialsonthesupportingwebsiteexplainthemethods,sharethetoolstorunREAs,anddiscusshowchangesinthedifferentinputscanaffecttheresults.Shouldprojectdevelopersoroperators/applicantschoosetousetheprovidedinputs,methods,andtools,theServicewillbeabletoappropriatelyfocusontheexpectedtakeofeagles.Projectdevelopersoroperators/applicantshavethediscretiontoofferalternativeREAinputsorusedifferentcompensatorymitigationmodelingmethods.However,theywillneedtoprovidesufficientevidenceandtools(ifnecessary)toensurethattheServicecanprovideappropriatereviewoftheresults,andshouldexpectthatsuchaneffortwilllikelytakeadditionaltime.e. Additional Compensatory Mitigation Example IntheUnitedStates,anotherknowncauseofmortalitytoeagles,bothbaldandgolden,isvehiclecollisions.Eaglesaresusceptibletobeingstruckbyvehiclesastheyfeedoncarcassesalongroadsides,particularlyinareasoftheUnitedStateswherelargenumbersofungulatesconcentrateseasonally(e.g.winter,breedingseason,etc.).Asacompensatorymitigationstrategy,aprojectdeveloperoroperatormaydecidetocollectdata(oruseexistingdataifitisavailable)ontheannualnumberofeaglemortalitiesthatresultfromvehiclecollisionsinaspecifiedgeographicareaoralongaspecificstretchofroadway.Thisdatacouldthenbeusedtogenerateanestimateofthenumberofeaglemortalitiesthatcouldbepreventedinthesameareabyremovingcarcassesfromroadsides.Iftherewassufficientevidencethatthiswasavalidproject(e.g.quantifiableandverifiable),theprojectdeveloperoroperatorcouldcontracttohavetheseroadsides‘cleaned’ofcarcassesduringthetimeofyearthatungulatesconcentrateandeaglesareknowntobestruck.Thecredibleestimateofeaglemortalitiesthatwouldbeavoidedthroughcarcassremovalwouldbethevalueofthecompensatorymitigationachieved.f. Take from Disturbance ProjectdevelopersoroperatorsshouldworkwiththeServicetodetermineiftakefromdisturbanceislikelytooccur.ThisshouldbepredictedinadvancebasedonStage3data,andverifiedthroughpost‐constructionmonitoringinStage5.ThefollowingarerecommendedtakecalculationsbasedoninformationcontainedwithintheFEA(USFWS2009):Forthestandardbaldeaglepopulation:

94

Takeresultingfromdisturbanceatonenestononlyoneoccasion=takeof1.3individuals

Onenesttakeresultinginthepermanentabandonmentofaterritory=takeof1.3individualsforthefirstyear,thentakeof8individualsannuallyuntildatashowthenumberofbreedingpairshasreturnedtoorexceededtheoriginalestimatednumberfortheeaglemanagementunit.

Forthestandardgoldeneaglepopulation:

Takeresultingfromdisturbanceatonenestononlyoneoccasion=takeof0.8individuals

Onenesttakeresultinginthepermanentabandonmentofaterritory=takeof0.8individualsforthefirstyear,thentakeof4individualsannuallyuntildatashowthenumberofbreedingpairshasreturnedtoorexceededtheoriginalestimatednumberfortheeaglemanagementunit.

UsingthedatapresentedintheaboveWindCoAexample,thecompensatorymitigationrequiredfordisturbanceresultinginthelossofproductivityfromoneGOEAnestforoneyearwouldresultinthefollowing:

1. DisturbancetakeofoneGOEAnestononeoccasion=0.8GOEA,2. FromtheREA,thetakeofoneGOEAforoneyear=6PVbird‐years,3. SixPVbird‐years/GOEA*0.8GOEA=4.8PVbird‐years,and4. FromtheREA,4.8PVbird‐years÷0.191PVbird‐years/poleretrofitted(for10year

maintenanceofpoles)=25.1polesretrofitted.WindCoAwouldberequiredtoretrofitatotalof174.24poles(149.14polesforthelethaltakeof5GOEA(seeTableG‐3)+24.5polesforthedisturbancetakeofoneGOEAnest)tocovertheinitialfiveyearpermittedtake.

Literature Cited Buehler,D.A.2000.BaldEagle(Haliaeetusleucocephalus),TheBirdsofNorthAmericaOnline(A.

Poole,Ed.).Ithaca:CornellLabofOrnithology;RetrievedfromtheBirdsofNorthAmericaOnline:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506.

Cole,S.2010.Howmuchisenough?Determiningadequatelevelsofenvironmentalcompensationforwindpowerimpactsusingresourceequivalencyanalysis:AnillustrativeandhypotheticalcasestudyofseaeagleimpactsattheSmolaWindFarm,Norway.EpsilonOpenArchivePublishing,SwedishAgriculturalUniversity.

Freeman,A.M.III.1993.TheMeasurementofEnvironmentalandResourceValues:TheoryandMethods.(ResourcesfortheFuture,Washington,DC).

Harmata,A.R.2002.EncountersofGoldenEaglesbandedintheRockyMountainWest.J.FieldOrnithol.73:23‐32.

Hunt,W.G.1998.RaptorfloatersatMoffat’sequilibrium.Oikos81:1‐7.Kochert,M.N.,K.Steenhof,C.L.McintyreandE.H.Craig.2002.GoldenEagle(Aquilachrysaetos),

TheBirdsofNorthAmericaOnline(A.Poole,Ed.).Ithaca:CornellLabofOrnithology;RetrievedfromtheBirdofNorthAmericaOnline:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/684.

Lehman,R.N.,Savidge,J.A.,Kennedy,P.L.andHarness,R.E.(2010),RaptorElectrocutionRatesforaUtilityintheIntermountainWesternUnitedStates.JournalofWildlifeManagement,74:459‐470.

95

Lind,R.1982.APrimerontheMajorIssuesRelatingtotheDiscountRateforEvaluatingNationalEnergyOptionsinDiscountingforTimeandRiskinEnergyPolicy,editedbyR.Lind.Washington:ResourcesfortheFuture.

Millsap,B.A.,T.Breen,E.McConnell,T.Steffer,L.Phillips,N.Douglass,S.Taylor.2004.ComparativefecundityandsurvivalofbaldeaglesfledgedfromsuburbanandruralnatalareasinFlorida.JournalofWildlifeManagement68:1018‐1031.

NOAA.1999.DiscountingandtheTreatmentofUncertaintyinNaturalResourceDamageAssessment.TechnicalPaper99‐1(SilverSpring,MD:NOAA).

Steenhof,K.,M.N.Kochert,andM.Q.Moritsch.1984.DispersalandmigrationofsouthwesternIdahoraptors.J.FieldOrnithol.55:357‐368.

Steenhof,K.,M.N.Kochert,andT.L.McDonald.1997.InteractiveeffectsofpreyandweatheronGoldenEaglereproduction.J.Anim.Ecol.66:350‐362.

USFWS.2009.Finalenvironmentalassessment.ProposaltopermittakeprovidedundertheBaldandGoldenEagleProtectionAct.U.S.FishandWildlifeService,DivisionofMigratoryBirdManagement,WashingtonD.C.,USA.

Name the model: R3 Ibat REA Model v6.userCreators: Jennifer Szymanski, Forest Clark Programmer: Drew Laughland

Purpose:

User guide: A comprehensive user guide accompanies this model. All users are expected to read the guide before applying the model.

To calculate the credit gained from proposed mitigation projects to offset residual take (i.e., take anticipated after avoidance and minimization measures have been applied). Note, the model is not intended to calculate mitigation debit due to population level effects.

DebitCredit

Lost reproduction

Credit Due

# expected females from Summer

Protection Model

# females directly taken

# females gained


Restoration Model

# expected females from

Winter Protection Model

Gained reproduction

External take model

Total expected # of adult females

# females lost

Demographic (credit) model

Demographic (debit) model

Hibernaculum protectionProject Details:

Project start year 2013Project end year (include 10 years beyond last monitoring year) 2043

Hibernaculum Conditions:N (population size of hibernaculum) ‐ Evidence of WNS resiliency No 0Evidence of non‐disturbance threat? Yes 0

Level of threat Partial loss 0.5Likelihood of threat Probable (>60%) 1.0

Evidence of disturbance/vandalism? Yes 0.0a. Vulnerability of bats to disturbance: 1.0

Hibernaculum easily accessible Yes 1.0Bats in accessible locations Yes 1.0

Low Ceiling No 0.0Clumped or clustered Yes 1.0

b. Proportion of N in accessible locations 50‐74% 0.75c. Likelihood of disturbance 0.02

Expected female gain 0 0

Tables for Hibernaculum Protection model drop downs.WNS Resiliency MultiplierYes 1No 1

Level of non‐disturbance threatNATotal loss 1Partial loss 0.5

Likelihood of threat occurringLow (<30%) 0Likely (30%‐60%) 0.55Probable (>60%) 1

Evidence of bat disturbance or vandalismYes 0.02No 0.00

Hibernaculum AccessibilityYes 1No 0

Bats hibernating in an accessible area of the hibernaculumYes 1No 0

Low CeilingYes 1No 0

ClumpedYes 1No 0

Proportion of N in accessible locations<25% 0.2525‐49% 0.550‐74% 0.7575% or greater 1

23

45

678

910

11121314151617181920212223

24252627282930313233343536373839

B C D E FSummer habitat protectionProject Details:


Habitat function served by the "to be protected" habitat Roosting & Foraging 1.00Acreage of the "to be protected" occupied forest block 0 Qualifying acreage 0

Acreage of the "to be protected" corridor 20.0 10

Acreage of the "to be protected" roosting & foraging habitat 46 46Required Conditions: 1.00

Is the "to be protected" roosting and foraging habitat≥5 acres? Yes 1.00

Are the "to be connected" termini blocks >500' apart? Yes 1.00

Are the occupied "to be connected" termini blocks ≥ 5acres? Yes 1.00

Is the unoccupied "to be connected" terminus block ≥20 acres? NA 1.00

Will or are both termini forest blocks protected? Yes 1.00Level of threat No demonstrable threat 0.00Expected female gain 0.00 Expected K ‐

Tables for Summer Habitat Protection model drop downsMaternity Colony Habitat Function:

Roosting & Foraging 1.00Roosting & Foraging + Corridor 1.00

Functional travel corridor 1.00Foraging only 0.75

Unoccupied terminus >500' from occupied habitatYes 1.00No 0.00

Forest Block more than 5 acres:Yes 1.00No 0.00

Immediacy/Degree of ThreatForest cover <20% 1.00

Imminent & total loss threat 1.00Imminent but partial loss threat 0.75

No demonstrable threat 0.00

implies 46 acres/bat

Summer habitat restorationProject Details:

Project start year 2013

Project end year (include 10 years beyond last monitoring year) 2043

Habitat function Roosting & Foraging + Corridor 1

Acres of "to be restored" forest adjacent to (within 500' of) occupied habitat 100 110 Qualifying acreage

Acres of "to be restored" corridor habitat 10.0 10

Acres of "to be restored" forest at unoccupied terminus 0 0

Habitat Conditions:

Existing % forest cover 21% to 50% 1.00

Required Conditions: 1.00 implies 46 acres/bat

"To be restored" forest area ≥5 acres Yes 1

Unoccupied terminus forested block >500' from occupied forest block Yes 1

Unoccupied terminus forest block ≥20 ac Yes 1

Will or are both termini forest blocks protected Yes 1

Expected female gain 1.20 2.39 Expected K


Roosting & Foraging 1.00

Corridor 1.00Roosting & Foraging + Corridor 1.00

Forest Block more than 5 acres:Yes 1No 0

Existing % forest cover

20% or less 4.0021% to 50% 1.0051% to 75% 0.7575% or more 0.00

Unoccupied forest block more than 500' from occupied patchYes 1No 0

Unoccupied forest block connected by corridor >20 ac

Yes 1No 0

Project YearPercent Services

0 0%8 25%25 50%37 75%50 100%

Year Year Services Gain

2013 1 0% ‐ 2014 2 0% ‐ 2015 3 0% ‐ 2016 4 0% ‐ 2017 5 0% ‐ 2018 6 0% ‐ 2019 7 0% ‐

2020 8 25% 0.3 2021 9 25% 0.3 2022 10 25% 0.3 2023 11 25% 0.3 2024 12 25% 0.3 2025 13 25% 0.3 2026 14 25% 0.3 2027 15 25% 0.3 2028 16 25% 0.3 2029 17 25% 0.3 2030 18 25% 0.3 2031 19 25% 0.3 2032 20 25% 0.3 2033 21 25% 0.3 2034 22 25% 0.3 2035 23 25% 0.3 2036 24 25% 0.3 2037 25 50% 0.6 2038 26 50% 0.6 2039 27 50% 0.6 2040 28 50% 0.6 2041 29 50% 0.6 2042 30 50% 0.6 2043 31 50% 0.6 2044 32 50% 0.6 2045 33 50% 0.6 2046 34 50% 0.6 2047 35 50% 0.6 2048 36 50% 0.6 2049 37 75% 0.9 2050 38 75% 0.9 2051 39 75% 0.9 2052 40 75% 0.9 2053 41 75% 0.9 2054 42 75% 0.9 2055 43 75% 0.9 2056 44 75% 0.9 2057 45 75% 0.9 2058 46 75% 0.9 2059 47 75% 0.9 2060 48 75% 0.9 2061 49 75% 0.9 2062 50 100% 1.2 2063 51 100% 1.2 2064 52 100% 1.2 2065 53 100% 1.2 2066 54 100% 1.2 2067 55 100% 1.2 2068 56 100% 1.2 2069 57 100% 1.2 2070 58 100% 1.2 2071 59 100% 1.2 2072 60 100% 1.2 2073 61 100% 1.2 2074 62 100% 1.2 2075 63 100% 1.2 2076 64 100% 1.2 2077 65 100% 1.2 2078 66 100% 1.2 2079 67 100% 1.2 2080 68 100% 1.2 2081 69 100% 1.2 2082 70 100% 1.2 2083 71 100% 1.2 2084 72 100% 1.2 2085 73 100% 1.2 2086 74 100% 1.2 2087 75 100% 1.2 2088 76 100% 1.2 2089 77 100% 1.2 2090 78 100% 1.2 2091 79 100% 1.2 2092 80 100% 1.2 2093 81 100% 1.2 2094 82 100% 1.2 2095 83 100% 1.2 2096 84 100% 1.2 2097 85 100% 1.2 2098 86 100% 1.2 2099 87 100% 1.2 2100 88 100% 1.2 2101 89 100% 1.2 2102 90 100% 1.2 2103 91 100% 1.2 2104 92 100% 1.2 2105 93 100% 1.2 2106 94 100% 1.2 2107 95 100% 1.2 2108 96 100% 1.2 2109 97 100% 1.2 2110 98 100% 1.2 2111 99 100% 1.2 2112 100 100% 1.2

Project Services Pattern

Simplified Reproduction Services Model ‐ Including lifetime of progeny

Input Parameters OutputPermit start year: 2013 2033 Debit AccruedInjured Adult Females Annually: 1 Undiscounted

Permitted take years 20 years to 2033 Direct take 20.0 female adults

Lambda condition Stationary Total lost reproduction 38.0 female pups

Adult Female Breeding Rate 0.601 pups/female/year = AP*AB Total Lost 58.0 Adult F‐F Breeding Rate 0.301 female pups/female/yearJuvenile Female Breeding Rate 0.143 pups/female/year

Juvenile F‐F Breeding Rate 0.071 female pups/female/year Mitigation Credit AccruedUndiscounted

Pup Survival to juvenile 0.636 rate Direct females added by project 2.6 female adults

Juvenile Annual Survival 0.697 rate Summer habitat protection ‐ female adults

Adult Annual Survival 0.873 rate Hibernaculum protection ‐ female adults

Maternity habitat restoration 2.6 female adults

Total reproduction gained 6.2 female pupsTotal Gain 9.0 females

Mitigation Credit Due

Net gained ‐49.0Total qualifying mitigation acres 110.0 must be >46 acres

The underlying demographic model to calculate debit and credit accrued

Reproduction Lost Calculation Gained Reproduction Calculation

Year

Direct Female Take

Lost First Generation Females

Lost Second Generation Females

Lost Reproduction

Summer Habitat

ProtectionWinter Habitat Protection

Summer Habitat

RestorationFemales Added

Gained First Generation Females

Gained Second

Generation Females

Gained Reproductio

n1 2013 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2 2014 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 2015 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4 2016 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 2017 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 2018 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 2019 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8 2020 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 9 2021 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 10 2022 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 11 2023 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 12 2024 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 13 2025 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 14 2026 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 15 2027 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 16 2028 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 17 2029 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 18 2030 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 19 2031 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 20 2032 1 1.17 0.73 1.900 ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 21 2033 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 22 2034 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 23 2035 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 24 2036 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.090 0.090 0.13 0.08 0.213 25 2037 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.180 0.180 0.26 0.16 0.425 26 2038 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.180 0.180 0.26 0.16 0.425 27 2039 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.180 0.180 0.26 0.16 0.425 28 2040 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.180 0.180 0.26 0.16 0.425 29 2041 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.180 0.180 0.26 0.16 0.425 30 2042 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.180 0.180 0.26 0.16 0.425 31 2043 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 32 2044 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 33 2045 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 34 2046 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 35 2047 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 36 2048 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 37 2049 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 38 2050 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 39 2051 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40 2052 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 41 2053 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42 2054 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 43 2055 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 44 2056 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 45 2057 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 46 2058 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 47 2059 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 48 2060 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 49 2061 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 2062 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51 2063 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 52 2064 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

20 38.01 ‐ ‐ 2.61 2.61 6.16

CreditMitigation ProjectsDebit

Name the model: R3 LBB REA Model v1.userCreators: Jennifer Szymanski, Forest Clark, Erik Olson Programmer: Drew Laughland

Purpose:

User guide: TBD ‐ use Ibat User Manual as an interim guide

To calculate the credit gained from proposed mitigation projects to offset residual take (i.e., take anticipated after avoidance and minimization measures have been applied). Note, the model is not intended to calculate mitigation debit due to population level effects.

DebitCredit

Lost reproduction

Credit Due


Protection Model


# females gained


Restoration Model



Gained reproduction

External take model


# females lost





Hibernaculum Conditions:N (population size of hibernaculum) 1,000 Evidence of WNS resiliency No 0.0Evidence of non‐disturbance threat? Yes 500.0

Level of threat Partial loss 0.5Likelihood of threat Probable (>60%) 1.0

Evidence of disturbance/vandalism? Yes 15.0a. Vulnerability of bats to disturbance: 1.0

Hibernaculum easily accessible Yes 1.0Bats in accessible locations Yes 1.0

Low Ceiling No 0.0Clumped or clustered Yes 1.0

b. Proportion of N in accessible locations 50‐74% 0.8c. Likelihood of disturbance 0.0

Expected female gain 258 515

Tables for Hibernaculum Protection model drop downs.Level of non‐disturbance threatNATotal loss 1Partial loss 0.5

WNS Resiliency MultiplierYes 1No 1


Evidence of bat disturbance or vandalismYes 0.02No 0.00




ClumpedYes 1No 0

Proportion of N in accessible locations<25% 0.2525‐49% 0.550‐74% 0.7575% or greater 1

23

45678

910111213

141516171819

20

21

22

2324

25262728293031323334353637383940414243

B C D E FSummer habitat protectionProject Details:

Project start year 2013Project end year (include 10 years beyond last monitoring year) 2043Artificial habitat No

N(population size of maternity colony) 50Natural habitat Yes

Habitat function served by the "to be protected" habitat Roosting & Foraging 1.00Acreage of the "to be protected" occupied forest block 50 50

Acreage of the "to be protected" corridor 10 10 Qualifying acreage 50Acreage of the "to be protected" roosting & foraging habitat 46 46

Required Conditions: 1.00

Is the "to be protected" roosting and foraging habitat≥5 acres? Yes 1.00

Are the "to be connected" termini blocks >3 mi apart? Yes 1.00

Are the occupied "to be connected" termini blocks ≥ 5acres? Yes 1.00

Is the unoccupied "to be connected" terminus block, in total, ≥20 acres? Yes 1.00

Will or are both termini forest blocks protected? Yes 1.00Level of threat Imminent & total threat 1.00

Expected female gain 0.54 expected K 1.09


Roosting & Foraging 1.00Foraging only 0.75

Functional travel corridor 0.50Roosting & Foraging + Corridor 1.00

Unoccupied terminus >3 mi from occupied habitatYesNo


Immediacy/Degree of ThreatImminent & total threat 1

Imminent but partial threat 0.75No imminent threat 0


Summer habitat restorationProject Details:

Project start year 2013

Project end year (include 10 years beyond last monitoring year) 2043

Habitat function Roosting & Foraging 1

Acres of "to be restored" roosting or foraging habitat 46 0.0 Qualifying acreage:

Acres of "to be restored" corridor habitat 50 10

Acres of "to be restored" forest at unoccupied terminus 0 0

Habitat Conditions: 0.00

Existing % forest cover 75% or more 0.00

Required Conditions: 1.00 implies 46 acres/bat

Is the "To be restored" forest area ≥5 acres? Yes 1

Is unoccupied terminus forested block >3 mi from occupied forest block? Yes 1

Is unoccupied terminus forest block ≥20 ac? Yes 1

Will or are both termini forest blocks protected? Yes 1

Expected female gain 0.00 0.00 Expected K

Tables for Summer Habitat Protection model drop downs

Maternity Colony Habitat Function:

Roosting & Foraging 1.00Corridor 0.50

Roosting & Foraging + Corridor 1.00


Unoccupied forest block more than 3 mi from occupied patchYes 1No 0

Unoccupied forest block connected by corridor >20 acYes 1No 0

% Existing Forest Cover20% or less 4.0021% to 50% 1.0051% to 75% 0.7575% or more 0.00

Project YearPercent Services

0 0%8 25%25 50%37 75%50 100%

Year Year Services Gain2013 1 0% ‐ 2014 2 0% ‐ 2015 3 0% ‐ 2016 4 0% ‐ 2017 5 0% ‐ 2018 6 0% ‐ 2019 7 0% ‐ 2020 8 25% ‐ 2021 9 25% ‐ 2022 10 25% ‐ 2023 11 25% ‐ 2024 12 25% ‐ 2025 13 25% ‐ 2026 14 25% ‐ 2027 15 25% ‐ 2028 16 25% ‐ 2029 17 25% ‐ 2030 18 25% ‐ 2031 19 25% ‐ 2032 20 25% ‐ 2033 21 25% ‐ 2034 22 25% ‐ 2035 23 25% ‐ 2036 24 25% ‐ 2037 25 50% ‐ 2038 26 50% ‐ 2039 27 50% ‐ 2040 28 50% ‐ 2041 29 50% ‐ 2042 30 50% ‐ 2043 31 50% ‐ 2044 32 50% ‐ 2045 33 50% ‐ 2046 34 50% ‐ 2047 35 50% ‐ 2048 36 50% ‐ 2049 37 75% ‐ 2050 38 75% ‐ 2051 39 75% ‐ 2052 40 75% ‐ 2053 41 75% ‐ 2054 42 75% ‐ 2055 43 75% ‐ 2056 44 75% ‐ 2057 45 75% ‐ 2058 46 75% ‐ 2059 47 75% ‐ 2060 48 75% ‐ 2061 49 75% ‐ 2062 50 100% ‐ 2063 51 100% ‐ 2064 52 100% ‐ 2065 53 100% ‐ 2066 54 100% ‐ 2067 55 100% ‐ 2068 56 100% ‐ 2069 57 100% ‐ 2070 58 100% ‐ 2071 59 100% ‐ 2072 60 100% ‐ 2073 61 100% ‐ 2074 62 100% ‐ 2075 63 100% ‐ 2076 64 100% ‐ 2077 65 100% ‐ 2078 66 100% ‐ 2079 67 100% ‐ 2080 68 100% ‐ 2081 69 100% ‐ 2082 70 100% ‐ 2083 71 100% ‐ 2084 72 100% ‐ 2085 73 100% ‐ 2086 74 100% ‐ 2087 75 100% ‐ 2088 76 100% ‐ 2089 77 100% ‐ 2090 78 100% ‐ 2091 79 100% ‐ 2092 80 100% ‐ 2093 81 100% ‐ 2094 82 100% ‐ 2095 83 100% ‐ 2096 84 100% ‐ 2097 85 100% ‐ 2098 86 100% ‐ 2099 87 100% ‐ 2100 88 100% ‐ 2101 89 100% ‐ 2102 90 100% ‐ 2103 91 100% ‐ 2104 92 100% ‐ 2105 93 100% ‐ 2106 94 100% ‐ 2107 95 100% ‐ 2108 96 100% ‐ 2109 97 100% ‐ 2110 98 100% ‐ 2111 99 100% ‐ 2112 100 100% ‐


Simplified Reproduction Services Model ‐ Including lifetime of progeny

Input ParametersPermit start year: 2013 2033

Injured Adult Females Annually: 1Permitted take years 20 years to 2033

Lambda condition StationaryAdult Female Breeding Rate 0.900 pups/female/year = AP*AB Adult F‐F Breeding Rate 0.450 female pups/female/yearJuvenile Female Breeding Rate 0.560 pups/female/year

Juvenile F‐F Breeding Rate 0.280 female pups/female/year

Pup Survival to juvenile 0.550 rate

Juvenile Annual Survival 0.865 rate

Adult Annual Survival 0.865 rate

OutputDebit AccruedUndiscounted

Direct take 20.0 female adults

Total lost reproduction 71.4 female pups

Total Lost 91.4

Mitigation Credit AccruedUndiscountedDirect females added by project 264.8 female adults

Summer habitat protection 7.3 female adults

Hibernaculum protection 257.5 female adults

Maternity habitat restoration ‐ female adultsTotal reproduction gained 1,168.4 female pupsTotal Gain 1433.0 females


Net gained 1341.6Total qualifying mitigation acres 50.0 must be >46 acres



Year

Direct Female Take



Lost Reproduction

Summer Habitat


Summer Habitat



Gained Second Generation Females

Gained Reproduction

1 2013 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 2 2014 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 3 2015 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 4 2016 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 5 2017 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 6 2018 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 7 2019 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 8 2020 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 9 2021 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 10 2022 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 11 2023 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 12 2024 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 13 2025 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 14 2026 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 15 2027 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 16 2028 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 17 2029 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 18 2030 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 19 2031 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 20 2032 1 1.72 1.85 3.568 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 21 2033 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 22 2034 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 23 2035 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 24 2036 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 25 2037 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 26 2038 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 27 2039 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 28 2040 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 29 2041 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 30 2042 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.245 8.58 ‐ 8.828 18.76 20.18 38.946 31 2043 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 32 2044 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 33 2045 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 34 2046 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 35 2047 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 36 2048 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 37 2049 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 38 2050 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 39 2051 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40 2052 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 41 2053 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42 2054 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 43 2055 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 44 2056 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 45 2057 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 46 2058 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 47 2059 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 48 2060 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 49 2061 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 2062 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51 2063 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 52 2064 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

20 71.36 7.34 257.50 ‐ 264.84 1,168.37


LBB Rates: Median Min MaxAdult survival 0.865 0.7 0.9

First‐year survival 0.55 0.2 0.7Loss from median age

Loss/Gain from full life span

Adult reproductive success 0.9 0.6 0.95 T for FG 4 6 in both cases T for SG is 6.1st year reproductive success 0.56 0.3 0.95 FG 1.719 2.126 1st generation female pups per adult female

Pup C 1.076 1.076 female pups per female pupYr‐to‐YR variation: SG 1.849 2.286 2nd generation female pups per adult female

Lowest HighestAdult survival 0.6 0.84First‐year survival 0.3 0.7 2 3 4 5 6 Adult reproductive success 0.7 0.97 Pup= birth to entering into hibernaculumFirst year reproductive success 0.25 0.65 Juvenile Adult Pup Juvenile Adult Ist Year ‐ 1st year hibernation to 2nd year hibernation

Stationary 0.560 0.900 0.550 0.865 0.865 Adult= 2nd year hibernation and beyondDeclining 0.300 0.600 0.200 0.700 0.700 Increasing 0.950 0.950 0.700 0.900 0.900

Stationary Declining Increasing1st Year Breeding Rate 0.560 0.300 0.950 Adult Breeding Rate 0.900 0.600 0.950 Pup Survival to breeding Juvenile 0.550 0.200 0.700 1st Year Survival to Adult 0.865 0.700 0.900 Adult Annual Survival 0.865 0.700 0.900

Total Female Repro Potential Model ConditionFirst Generation 1.719 StationarySecond Generation 1.849

Take First Generation Second GenerationLost Female Reproduction Year Female 0 Pup 0 Pup 1 Pup 2 Pup 3 Pup 4 Pup 00 Pup 01 Pup 02 Pup 03 Pup 04 Pup 05 Pup 06 Pup 10 Pup 11 Pup 12 Pup 13 Pup 14 Pup 15 Pup 16 Pup 20 Pup 21 Pup 22 Pup 23 Pup 24 Pup 25 Pup 26 Pup 30 Pup 31 Pup 32 Pup 33 Pup 34 Pup 35 Pup 36 Pup 40 Pup 41 Pup 42 Pup 43 Pup 44 Pup 45 Pup 46

0.450 0 1 0.900 0.459 1 0.865 0.495 0.779 0.277 0.493 2 0.748 0.428 0.428 0.673 0.152 0.385 0.240 0.510 3 0.647 0.370 0.370 0.370 0.582 0.132 0.212 0.333 0.132 0.333 0.207 0.513 4 0.560 0.320 0.320 0.320 0.320 0.504 0.114 0.183 0.183 0.288 0.114 0.183 0.288 0.114 0.288 0.179 0.288 5 0.277 0.277 0.277 0.277 0.277 0.099 0.159 0.159 0.159 0.249 0.099 0.159 0.159 0.249 0.099 0.159 0.249 0.099 0.249 0.155 0.270 6 0.240 0.240 0.240 0.240 0.240 0.137 0.137 0.137 0.137 0.216 0.085 0.137 0.137 0.137 0.216 0.085 0.137 0.137 0.216 0.085 0.137 0.216 0.085 0.216 0.233 7 0.207 0.207 0.207 0.207 0.207 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.187 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.187 0.074 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.187 0.074 0.119 0.119 0.187 0.074 0.119 0.187 0.161 8 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.161 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.161 0.064 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.161 0.064 0.103 0.103 0.161 0.105 9 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.140 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.140 0.055242 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.140 0.060 10 0.134 0.134 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.121 0.076796 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.121 0.026 11 0.116 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066429 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.104

0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.057461 0.057 0.057 0.057 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050

0.043 0.043 0.043 0.037

3.568 3.820

Key:0.601 Probability of birth0.382 Probability of survival each year0.266 used to calculate probability of the next generation of births0.232 0.203 0.177 0.155

Breeding Rate Survival Rate

Demographic Rates used to parameterize the demographic model

Using Ibat lookup data (median values) from Ibat Demographic Model tool v4

Stationary ConditionDeclining Condition

Increasing condition

Loss from median age


Parameters (λ=0.99‐1.01) (λ=0.97‐0.98) (λ=1.02‐1.03) T for FG 4 6 in both cases T for SG is 6.lambda lambda 1.00040 0.97505 1.02520 FG 1.166 1.451 1st generation female pups per adult female1st Year Winter Survival JWS 0.83962 0.82179 0.85201 Pup C 0.629 0.629 female pups per female pupAdult Winter Survival AWS 0.95889 0.95197 0.95800 SG 0.734 0.914 2nd generation female pups per adult femaleNon‐reproductive Summer Survival NSS 0.88579 0.86914 0.91249 1st Year Summer Survival JSS 0.87423 0.86650 0.88592 Adult Summer Survival ASS 0.95356 0.94763 0.95660 2 3 4 5 6 Pup Fall Survival PFS 0.75732 0.71227 0.79381 Pup= birth to entering into hibernaculum1st Year Fall Survival JFS 0.83115 0.81746 0.83987 Juvenile Adult Pup Juvenile Adult Ist Year ‐ 1st year hibernation to 2nd year hibernationAdult Fall Survival AFS 0.95445 0.94996 0.95483 Stationary 0.143 0.601 0.636 0.697 0.873 Adult= 2nd year hibernation and beyond1st Year Propensity to breed JP 0.37688 0.37239 0.40916 Declining 0.130 0.562 0.585 0.674 0.857 Adult Propensity to breed AP 0.77711 0.75621 0.82571 Increasing 0.176 0.668 0.676 0.713 0.875 1st Year Breeding Success JB 0.37868 0.34992 0.42931 Adult Breeding Success AB 0.77374 0.74371 0.80945

1st Year Breeding Rate JP*JB 0.143 0.130 0.176 Adult Breeding Rate AP*AB 0.601 0.562 0.668 Add to user guide:

6.78 years of breeding ls; and assuming the female killed was an adult at median reproductive age (a bit less than 3 years)==>6.78‐2=4.78Pup Survival to breeding Juvenile PFS*JWS 0.636 0.585 0.676 So, modeled a 5 year reproductive potential1st Year Survival to Adult JSS*JFS*AWS 0.697 0.674 0.713 Whereas pups forgone, would have had a normal breeding ls (6 years with yr 1 at juv rate and the 7th year die before birthing a pup)Adult Annual Survival ASS*AFS*AWS 0.873 0.857 0.875 Changing model to add 1 more year of pup reproduction to the second generation.

Total Female Repro Potential Model Condition **modeled generations would change slightly if used an increasing or decreasing conditionFirst Generation 1.166 StationarySecond Generation 0.734


0.301 0 1 0.601 0.276 1 0.873 0.382 0.525 0.055 0.281 2 0.762 0.266 0.334 0.458 0.035 0.160 0.048 0.280 3 0.665 0.232 0.232 0.291 0.400 0.024 0.102 0.140 0.030 0.140 0.042 0.275 4 0.580 0.203 0.203 0.203 0.254 0.349 0.021 0.071 0.089 0.122 0.021 0.089 0.122 0.026 0.122 0.036 0.114 5 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.222 0.018 0.062 0.062 0.078 0.106 0.018 0.062 0.078 0.106 0.018 0.078 0.106 0.023 0.106 0.032 0.116 6 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.068 0.093 0.016 0.054 0.054 0.068 0.093 0.016 0.054 0.068 0.093 0.016 0.068 0.093 0.020 0.093 0.101 7 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.059 0.081 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.059 0.081 0.014 0.047 0.047 0.059 0.081 0.014 0.047 0.059 0.081 0.014 0.059 0.081 0.071 8 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.052 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.052 0.071 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.052 0.071 0.012 0.041 0.041 0.052 0.071 0.012 0.041 0.052 0.071 0.046 9 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.045 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.045 0.062 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.045 0.062 0.01068 0.036 0.036 0.045 0.062 0.027 10 0.090 0.090 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.039 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.039 0.054 0.031351 0.031 0.031 0.039 0.054 0.012 11 0.078 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.034 0.02736 0.027 0.027 0.034 0.047

0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.023877 0.024 0.024 0.030 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021

0.018 0.018 0.018 0.016

1.900 3.879



Name the model: R3 NLEB REA Model v1.userCreators: Jennifer Szymanski, Forest Clark, Erik Olson Programmer: Drew Laughland

Purpose:

User guide: TBD ‐ use Ibat User Manual as an interim guide

To calculate the credit gained from proposed mitigation projects to offset residual take (i.e., take anticipated after avoidance and minimization measures have been applied).Note, the model is not intended to calculate mitigation debit due to population level effects.

DebitCredit

Lost reproduction

Credit Due


Protection Model


# females gained


Restoration Model



Gained reproduction

External take model


# females lost





Hibernaculum Conditions:N (population size of hibernaculum) ‐ 0Evidence of WNS resiliency? Yes 0Evidence of non‐disturbance threat? No 0

Level of threat Total loss 1.0Likelihood of threat Probable (>60%) 1.0

Evidence of disturbance/vandalism? No 0a. Vulnerability of bats to disturbance: 1

Hibernaculum easily accessible Yes 1Bats in accessible locations Yes 1

Low Ceiling No 0.0Clumped or clustered Yes 1

b. Proportion of N in accessible locations ≥75% 1.0c. Likelihood of disturbance 0.02

Expected female gain 0.00 0.0

Tables for Hibernaculum Protection model drop downs.Population Size0 01‐15 1516‐45 4546‐100 100101‐200 200201‐500 500>500 1000

WNS Resiliency MultiplierYes 1No 1

Level of non‐disturbance threatNATotal loss 1Partial loss 0.5





ClumpedYes 1No 0

Proportion of N in accessible locations<25% 0.2525‐49% 0.550‐74% 0.75≥75% 1

23

45678

910

11

1213

14

15

16

17

181920212223242526272829303132333435

B C D E FSummer Habitat ProtectionProject Details:

Project start year 2013Project end year (include 10 years beyond last monitoring year) 2043Artificial habitat No

N(population size of maternity colony) 50Natural habitat Yes

Habitat function served by the "to be protected" habitat Roosting & Foraging 1.00Acreage of the "to be protected" occupied forest block 25 25 Qualifying acreage 25

Acres of "to be protected" corridor habitat 20 10

Acres of "to be protected" forest at unoccupied terminus 50 50Required Conditions: 1.00

Is the "to be protected" roosting and foraging habitat≥25 acres? Yes 1

Is the unoccupied terminus forested block >500 ft from occupied forest block? Yes 1

Is the unoccupied terminus forest block, in total, ≥50 ac? Yes 1

Will or are both termini forest blocks protected? Yes 1

Level of threat Imminent & total loss threat 1.00expected K 0.54

Expected female gain 0.27


Roosting & Foraging 1.00Corridor only 1.00

Roosting, Foraging & Corridor 1.00

Immediacy/Degree of ThreatForest cover <75% 1.00

Imminent & total loss threat 1.00Imminent but partial loss threat 0.75

No imminent threat 0.00


Tables for Summer Habitat Restoration model drop downsMaternity Colony Habitat Function:

Roosting & Foraging 1.00Riparian corridor 1.00

Roosting & Foraging + Corridor 1.00

% Existing Forest Cover

30% or less 4.0031% to 50% 1.0051% to 75% 0.7576% or more 0.00


Unoccupied forest block more than 3 mi from occupied patchYes 1No 0

Unoccupied forest block connected by corridor >20 acYes 1No 0

Multiplier for "filling in gaps" restoration projectYes 2No 1

Project Year Services0 0%16 25%29 50%

42 75%50 100%

Year Year Services Gain2013 1 0% ‐ 2014 2 0% ‐ 2015 3 0% ‐ 2016 4 0% ‐ 2017 5 0% ‐ 2018 6 0% ‐ 2019 7 0% ‐ 2020 8 0% ‐ 2021 9 0% ‐ 2022 10 0% ‐ 2023 11 0% ‐ 2024 12 0% ‐ 2025 13 0% ‐ 2026 14 0% ‐ 2027 15 0% ‐ 2028 16 25% ‐ 2029 17 25% ‐ 2030 18 25% ‐ 2031 19 25% ‐ 2032 20 25% ‐ 2033 21 25% ‐ 2034 22 25% ‐ 2035 23 25% ‐ 2036 24 25% ‐ 2037 25 25% ‐ 2038 26 25% ‐ 2039 27 25% ‐ 2040 28 25% ‐ 2041 29 50% ‐ 2042 30 50% ‐ 2043 31 50% ‐ 2044 32 50% ‐ 2045 33 50% ‐ 2046 34 50% ‐ 2047 35 50% ‐ 2048 36 50% ‐ 2049 37 50% ‐ 2050 38 50% ‐ 2051 39 50% ‐ 2052 40 50% ‐ 2053 41 50% ‐ 2054 42 75% ‐ 2055 43 75% ‐ 2056 44 75% ‐ 2057 45 75% ‐ 2058 46 75% ‐ 2059 47 75% ‐ 2060 48 75% ‐ 2061 49 75% ‐ 2062 50 100% ‐ 2063 51 100% ‐ 2064 52 100% ‐ 2065 53 100% ‐ 2066 54 100% ‐ 2067 55 100% ‐ 2068 56 100% ‐ 2069 57 100% ‐ 2070 58 100% ‐ 2071 59 100% ‐ 2072 60 100% ‐ 2073 61 100% ‐ 2074 62 100% ‐ 2075 63 100% ‐ 2076 64 100% ‐ 2077 65 100% ‐ 2078 66 100% ‐ 2079 67 100% ‐ 2080 68 100% ‐ 2081 69 100% ‐ 2082 70 100% ‐ 2083 71 100% ‐ 2084 72 100% ‐ 2085 73 100% ‐ 2086 74 100% ‐ 2087 75 100% ‐ 2088 76 100% ‐ 2089 77 100% ‐ 2090 78 100% ‐ 2091 79 100% ‐ 2092 80 100% ‐ 2093 81 100% ‐ 2094 82 100% ‐ 2095 83 100% ‐ 2096 84 100% ‐ 2097 85 100% ‐ 2098 86 100% ‐ 2099 87 100% ‐ 2100 88 100% ‐ 2101 89 100% ‐ 2102 90 100% ‐ 2103 91 100% ‐ 2104 92 100% ‐ 2105 93 100% ‐ 2106 94 100% ‐ 2107 95 100% ‐ 2108 96 100% ‐ 2109 97 100% ‐ 2110 98 100% ‐ 2111 99 100% ‐ 2112 100 100% ‐


Simplified Reproduction Services Model ‐ Including lifetime of progenyVersion 1 20‐Aug‐15

Input Parameters OutputPermit start year: 2013 2033 Debit AccruedInjured Adult Females Annually: 1 Undiscounted

Permitted take years 20 years to 2033 Direct take 20 female adults

Lambda condition Stationary Total lost reproduction 38 female pups

Adult Female Breeding Rate 0.601 pups/female/year = AP*AB Total Lost 58 Adult F‐F Breeding Rate 0.301 female pups/female/yearJuvenile Female Breeding Rate 0.143 pups/female/year

Juvenile F‐F Breeding Rate 0.072 female pups/female/year Mitigation Credit AccruedUndiscounted

Pup Survival to juvenile 0.636 rate Direct females added by project 2 female adults

Juvenile Annual Survival 0.697 rate Summer habitat protection 2 female adults

Adult Annual Survival 0.873 rate Hibernaculum protection ‐ female adults

Maternity habitat restoration ‐ female adultsTotal reproduction gained 6 female pupsTotal Gain 8.0 females


Net gained ‐50Total qualifying mitigation acres 25 must be >46 acres



Year

Direct Female Take



Lost Reproduction

Summer Habitat


Summer Habitat



Gained Second Generation Females

Gained Reproduction

1 2013 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 2 2014 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 3 2015 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 4 2016 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 5 2017 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 6 2018 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 7 2019 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 8 2020 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 9 2021 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 10 2022 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 11 2023 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 12 2024 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 13 2025 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 14 2026 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 15 2027 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 16 2028 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 17 2029 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 18 2030 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 19 2031 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 20 2032 1 1.17 0.73 1.901 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 21 2033 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 22 2034 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 23 2035 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 24 2036 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 25 2037 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 26 2038 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 27 2039 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 28 2040 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 29 2041 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 30 2042 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.082 ‐ ‐ 0.082 0.12 0.07 0.193 31 2043 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 32 2044 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 33 2045 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 34 2046 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 35 2047 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 36 2048 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 37 2049 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 38 2050 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 39 2051 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40 2052 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 41 2053 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42 2054 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 43 2055 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 44 2056 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 45 2057 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 46 2058 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 47 2059 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 48 2060 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 49 2061 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 2062 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 51 2063 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 52 2064 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

20 38.02 2.45 ‐ ‐ 2.45 5.80


Loss from median age


T for FG 4 6 in both cases T for SG is 6.FG 1.166 1.452 1st generation female pups per adult femalePup C 0.630 0.630 female pups per female pupSG 0.735 0.915 2nd generation female pups per adult female

2 3 4 5 6 Pup= birth to entering into hibernaculum

Juvenile Adult Pup Juvenile Adult Ist Year ‐ 1st year hibernation to 2nd year hibernationStationary 0.143 0.601 0.636 0.697 0.873 Adult= 2nd year hibernation and beyondDeclining 0.130 0.562 0.585 0.674 0.857 Increasing 0.176 0.668 0.676 0.713 0.875

Stationary Declining Increasing1st Year Breeding Rate 0.143 0.130 0.176 Adult Breeding Rate 0.601 0.562 0.668 Pup Survival to breeding Juvenile 0.636 0.585 0.676 1st Year Survival to Adult 0.697 0.674 0.713 Adult Annual Survival 0.873 0.857 0.875

Total Female Repro Potential Model ConditionFirst Generation 1.166 StationarySecond Generation 0.735


0.301 0 1 0.601 0.276 1 0.873 0.382 0.525 0.055 0.281 2 0.762 0.266 0.334 0.458 0.035 0.160 0.048 0.280 3 0.665 0.233 0.233 0.291 0.400 0.024 0.102 0.140 0.030 0.140 0.042 0.275 4 0.581 0.203 0.203 0.203 0.254 0.349 0.021 0.071 0.089 0.122 0.021 0.089 0.122 0.026 0.122 0.036 0.114 5 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.222 0.018 0.062 0.062 0.078 0.107 0.018 0.062 0.078 0.107 0.018 0.078 0.107 0.023 0.107 0.032 0.116 6 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.155 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.068 0.093 0.016 0.054 0.054 0.068 0.093 0.016 0.054 0.068 0.093 0.016 0.068 0.093 0.020 0.093 0.101 7 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.135 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.059 0.081 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.059 0.081 0.014 0.047 0.047 0.059 0.081 0.014 0.047 0.059 0.081 0.014 0.059 0.081 0.071 8 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.052 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.052 0.071 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.052 0.071 0.012 0.041 0.041 0.052 0.071 0.012 0.041 0.052 0.071 0.046 9 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.045 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.045 0.062 0.036 0.036 0.036 0.045 0.062 0.010726 0.036 0.036 0.045 0.062 0.027 10 0.090 0.090 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.039 0.031 0.031 0.031 0.039 0.054 0.031421 0.031 0.031 0.039 0.054 0.012 11 0.078 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.027 0.034 0.02743 0.027 0.027 0.034 0.047

0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.023947 0.024 0.024 0.030 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021

0.018 0.018 0.018 0.016

1.901 3.881



Using Ibat vital rates

Appendix C Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA) Models...REA Inputs to Develop a Framework of...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix C Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA) Models...REA Inputs to Develop a Framework of...