Threatened species impact assessments: survey effort requirements based on criteria for cumulative impacts

18 Aim: Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) often involve establishing whether a species 19 of concern is present at the site considered for development. When surveys falsely conclude 20 that sites are unoccupied, species prevalence in the region is cumulatively reduced. We argue 21 that setting an acceptable level of induced decline in species occurrence provides a defensible 22 strategy to determine minimum survey effort requirements. We investigate methods for 23 setting such requirements. 24 Location: Eastern Australian, although we demonstrate methods applicable wherever species 25 detection data are available to inform survey design. 26 Methods: We use probability theory to investigate required survey effort when aiming to 27 limit decline in species occurrence. We use optimization tools to provide a method that, in 28 addition, minimizes overall survey costs. We demonstrate the methods using data for an 29 Australian gliding marsupial. 30 Results: A method based on ensuring a constant probability of occupied site 31 misclassification directly links with a prescribed acceptable decline in occurrence. 32 Optimization results indicate that, under particular conditions, a cost-efficient survey effort 33 allocation can be achieved by setting a constant posterior probability of occupancy at sites 34 where the species is not detected, provided the target level is set in accordance with the 35 acceptable decline in occurrence. Our results provide a critical examination of the approach 36 recently proposed by Wintle et al. (2012) for determining minimum survey effort 37 requirements. 38 Main conclusions: EIA survey effort requirements should explicitly link uncertainty in 39 establishing species absence with the broader consequences of failing to detect species 40

[1]  J. Michael Reed,et al.  Using Statistical Probability to Increase Confidence of Inferring Species Extinction , 1996 .

[2]  José J. Lahoz-Monfort,et al.  Using occupancy as a state variable for monitoring the Critically Endangered Alaotran gentle lemur Hapalemur alaotrensis , 2010 .

[3]  Lee Belbin,et al.  Which environmental variables should I use in my biodiversity model? , 2012, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[4]  Steven J. Phillips,et al.  Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[5]  H. Possingham,et al.  IMPROVING PRECISION AND REDUCING BIAS IN BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS: ESTIMATING FALSE‐NEGATIVE ERROR RATES , 2003 .

[6]  B. Schmidt,et al.  Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. , 2005 .

[7]  Jane Elith,et al.  On estimating probability of presence from use-availability or presence-background data. , 2013, Ecology.

[8]  Cindy E. Hauser,et al.  Streamlining 'search and destroy': cost-effective surveillance for invasive species management. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[9]  A. Baccini,et al.  Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar , 2011 .

[10]  G. Guillera‐Arroita,et al.  Species Occupancy Modeling for Detection Data Collected Along a Transect , 2011 .

[11]  Cindy E. Hauser,et al.  Resource allocation for efficient environmental management. , 2010, Ecology letters.

[12]  José J. Lahoz‐Monfort,et al.  Designing studies to detect differences in species occupancy: power analysis under imperfect detection , 2012 .

[13]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  ESTIMATING AND DEALING WITH DETECTABILITY IN OCCUPANCY SURVEYS FOR FOREST OWLS AND ARBOREAL MARSUPIALS , 2005 .

[14]  Terry Walshe,et al.  Designing occupancy surveys and interpreting non‐detection when observations are imperfect , 2012 .

[15]  Pedro P. Olea,et al.  Spatially explicit estimation of occupancy, detection probability and survey effort needed to inform conservation planning , 2011 .

[16]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Inference from presence-only data; the ongoing controversy. , 2013, Ecography.

[17]  Tony W. Norton,et al.  A comparison of techniques for sampling amphibians in the forests of south-east Queensland, Australia , 1999 .

[18]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  A general model of detectability using species traits , 2013 .

[19]  Darryl I. MacKenzie,et al.  Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort , 2005 .

[20]  M. Bar-Hillel.  The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. , 1980 .

[21]  Simon Ferrier,et al.  Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression , 2000 .

[22]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  When have we looked hard enough? A novel method for setting minimum survey effort protocols for flora surveys , 2008 .

[23]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Imperfect detection impacts the performance of species distribution models , 2014 .

[24]  Cindy E Hauser,et al.  Optimal surveillance strategy for invasive species management when surveys stop after detection , 2014, Ecology and evolution.

[25]  Darryl I MacKenzie,et al.  Sampling design trade-offs in occupancy studies with imperfect detection: examples and software. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[26]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications , 2015 .

[27]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE , 2002, Ecology.

[28]  Marc Kery,et al.  Inferring the absence of a species -- a case study of snakes , 2002 .

[29]  Byron J. T. Morgan,et al.  Design of occupancy studies with imperfect detection , 2010 .

[30]  B. McArdle.  When are rare species not there , 1990 .

[31]  D. Ruppert.  The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction , 2004 .