Greater Sage‐Grouse Response to the Physical Footprint of Energy Development

Abstract

Energy infrastructure and associated habitat loss can lead to reduced reproductive rates for a variety of species including the greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Our goal was to refine our understanding of how the physical footprint of energy development relates to sage‐grouse nest and brood survival. Our survival analyses were conditional upon the amount of surface disturbance female sage‐grouse were exposed to during reproductive stages. We quantified levels of exposure and compared them to the surface disturbance levels of the surrounding area. From 2008–2014, we collected data in 6 study areas in Wyoming, USA, containing 4 primary types of renewable and nonrenewable energy development. Our research focused on press disturbance (i.e., disturbance sustained after initial disturbance and associated with existing energy infrastructure and human activity). Our results suggest exposure to press disturbance during nesting and brood‐rearing was related to lower nest and brood survival, which manifested at different spatial scales. Our analysis of nest survival suggested that the likelihood of a successful nest was negatively associated with the amount of press disturbance within an 8‐km² area. Broods exposed to any press disturbance within a 1‐km2 area were less likely to survive compared to broods not exposed to press disturbance. Female sage‐grouse consistently used habitat with lower disturbance levels during reproductive periods. Greater than 90% of nest and brood‐rearing locations were in habitat with <3% press disturbance within a 2.7‐km2 area. Our research links surface disturbance associated with press disturbance to reproductive costs incurred by sage‐grouse exposed to diverse energy development. Our results demonstrate a pattern of female avoidance of areas where press disturbance was high during nesting and brood‐rearing and survival of nests and broods were highest in areas that had the least amount of disturbance. Our findings underscore the importance of minimizing disturbance to maintain viable sage‐grouse populations. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

Columbian sharp‐tailed grouse brood success and chick survival in a wind‐energy landscape

“…Additionally, there was weak evidence that the number of wind turbines within the late brood‐rearing home range negatively affected 42‐day brood success. These results support our predictions based on similar findings for sage‐grouse broods (LeBeau et al 2014, Kirol et al 2020) but are contrary to findings of Harrison (2015) and LeBeau et al (2017) who reported no effect of wind turbines on brood survival of prairie‐chickens and sage‐grouse, respectively.…”

Resource selection by greater sage‐grouse varies by season and infrastructure type in a Colorado oil and gas field

“…A large majority of female use locations in the PPR had <3% disturbed surface within 1000 m, and mean and median values for disturbed and total anthropogenic surface around sage‐grouse used locations in all three seasons were also below or only slightly above BLM's 3% recommended surface disturbance cap, even in summer–fall, when females actively selected locations near pipelines and roads. These results are similar to those from six studies in Wyoming, where >90% of marked sage‐grouse locations occurred in areas with <3% disturbed surface (i.e., “press disturbance”; Kirol et al, 2020). Based on selection relationships during breeding and winter, disturbance caps should be set between 1.1% and 2.5% disturbed surface (see Figure 3a,e) or 1.8% and 3.5% total anthropogenic surface (see Figure 3b,f), to prevent detectable levels of avoidance in the PPR.…”

“…Previous analyses found the strongest support for selection in relation to landcover at 100 and 400‐m radii in this population (Walker et al, 2016). However, I also tested landcover and infrastructure cover within 1000 m because it matches maximum observed daily movement distances and the distance at which birds realistically perceive and respond to changes in landcover caused by energy infrastructure when selecting habitat within seasonal use areas is likely greater than 400 m (Dinkins et al, 2014; Kirol et al, 2020). Some infrastructure cover variables were standardized to a z ‐scale to facilitate model convergence.…”

“…Finally, reducing impacts of energy development on local sage-grouse populations requires identification of metrics and thresholds that accurately predict negative impacts (BLM, 2011;Gamo & Beck, 2017). Negative impacts on sage-grouse are most often associated with measures of percent anthropogenic surface disturbance (e.g., Gamo & Beck, 2017;Kirol et al, 2020;Smith et al, 2014) or well-pad density (e.g., Carpenter et al, 2010;Dinkins et al, 2014;Doherty et al, 2008Doherty et al, , 2010Fedy et al, 2015;Green et al, 2017;Gregory & Beck, 2014;Holloran et al, 2015;Spence et al, 2017). For that reason, resource management plan amendments in Colorado have incorporated caps on anthropogenic surface disturbance (3%) and disruptive energy feature density (one feature per section) for development projects in priority sage-grouse habitat management areas (BLM, 2011(BLM, , 2015a(BLM, , 2019a.…”

Prairie grouse and wind energy: The state of the science and implications for risk assessment

“…Fourth, existing research has focused on turbine proximity as an index of the expected magnitude of impact, yet proximity is at best an incomplete measure (LeBeau et al 2020 b ). Overall extent of surface disturbance may be more important (Kirol et al 2020). For example, the deleterious effects of oil and gas development tend to increase with well density (Doherty et al 2008, Green et al 2017) and in some cases are only detectable after a certain threshold of well density is passed (Doherty et al 2010, Harju et al 2010).…”