HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-R Equipment - Final Written Testimony
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of December 15, 2014
_____________________________
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: December 2, 2014
FROM: Paul Blikstad Department CDD Phone # 6554
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Board deliberations on applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone change to allow
surface mining on property adjacent to Highway 20 and Spencer Wells Road near Millican. File
numbers PA-04-8/ZC-04-6
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The applications have been approved locally three different times through written decisions by the
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), in December 2006 (Document 2006-609), October 2008
(Document No. 2008-536), and September 2010 (Document No.2010-570). Each decision resulted in
an appeal and subsequent remand by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The BOCC’s third
decision was appealed to LUBA by Keith and Janet Nash (LUBA No. 2010-082). LUBA issued a Final
Opinion and Order on February 5, 2011.
4-R Equipment, on September 25, 2014, requested the Planning Division initiate the remand process
and schedule a public hearing. The Board held a public hearing on the LUBA remand on November
12, 2014. The Board determined that they will conduct deliberations on the applications on December
15, 2014.
In this remand, the Board could not hold a hearing or make decisions on issues that were the subject of
previous appeals and not remanded by LUBA in the 2011 LUBA decision. The Board then chose to
review only the issues remanded by LUBA and not open the record for new issues. As a result, the
only issues that are the subject of this remand and, therefore, to be included in the decision are:
1. Should the impact analysis area be limited to one-half mile from the proposed mine or expanded to
include the entire "Flat Pasture" because of potential conflicts with agricultural operations occurring on
the Flat Pasture.
2. Does the evidence in the record support the Board finding that the proposed zone change will not
have any negative impacts on agricultural operations within one-half mile of the mining site, including
whether the proposed mine would cause sage grouse to abandon the area and seek winter habitat on
other allotments and, therefore, cause the BLM to further limit grazing on the Flat Pasture.
The Board must make a decision within 90 days of the date the applicant initiated the remand. That
deadline falls on January 11, 2015. The Board will need to approve the final, written decision prior to
that date unless the applicant agrees to extend the deadline further.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The County's hearing costs are factored into the remand hearing fee.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
The Board is required to make a decision on the applications, which will be limited to the two issues
raised by LUBA in their 2011 Final Order and Opinion.
ATTENDANCE: Paul Blikstad, Laurie Craghead
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Copy of decision to Paul Blikstad for distribution to the parties
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soil. Division
P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005
(541)388~6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 26, 2014
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
RE: File Nos. PA-048, ZC-04-6, 4-R Equipment Surface Mining Rezone
The following materials have been submitted by the November 24th cut-off date for additional
testimony on the Millican mine rezone:
• Steve Wright email letter (11-20-14)
• Sharon R. Smith letter w/map (Received 11-24-14)
• Tammy and Clay Walker email letter (11-24-14)
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife letter (11-24-14)
• Central Oregon Landwatch letter w/attachment (11-24-14)
I am anticipating that Sharon Smith will submit rebuttal. She has until Monday, December 1st to
submit any rebuttal. I will provide you with a copy of anything she submits.
Happy Thanksgiving!!
Quality Seroices Perfonned with Pride
Paul Blikstad
From: Steve Wright <wright@bendcable.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1 :36 PM
To: Paul Blikstad; Alan Unger; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone
Subject: PA-04-8, ZC-04-6 comments on 4-R Equipment LLC Zone Change to Surface Mining
Comm issioners,
My name is Steve Wright and I own property in the Millican Valley, near the base of Pine
Mountain. The map/tax lot numbers of my properties are 20-15-09/1900&4303, 10 acres in
total. My property is located roughly 4 miles southeast of the proposed mine of 4-R
Equipment. Although the distance of my property to the proposed mine may seem far, the
direction is a key factor here. The predominant wind in the Millican Valley is northwest, meaning
my property is directly downwind of the proposed mine. Wind carries sound, smoke, and
smell. Just an FYI, the wind in the Millican Valley is typically much greater than the Bend or
Redmond areas. Also, the direction of the proposed mine from my property is in direct line of site
from my view of Mount Jefferson.
Some of the features about my property near Pine Mountain and others in the immediate vicinity
are the great views, quiet location, clear skies, clean air, nighttime clear skies/stars, peace and
quiet of the surrounding desert. My property in particular has a great view of Mount Jefferson to
the northwest.
My concerns are this: Any smoke or dust that will distort the great Mt. Jefferson views, other
mountains/desert views, and nightime sky stars I enjoy from my property. Any noise that will
interrupt the peace and quiet I enjoy from my property. Any smell from the proposed mine or
future asphalt production that will affect the clean air I enjoy from my property.
Another question: Is there a shortage of Surface Mining zoned land in the Central Oregon area?
lhanks for taking my concerns into account. Thanks also for your time and talent serving in public
office.
Steve Wright
P.O. Box 7965
Bend, OR 97708
541-419-6519
1
ATTORNEYS
Neil R. Bryant
John A. Berge
Sharon R. Smith
John D. Sorlie
Mark G. Remecke
Melissa P. Lande
Paul J. Taylor
Jeremy M. Green
Melinda Thomas
Heather J. (Hepburn) Hansen
Garrett Chrostek
DaOieile Lord,
November 21, 2014
Via: e-mail and regular mail
Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
Deschutes County Community Development Department
1 I 7 NW Lafayette Ave
Bend, Oregon 97701
PauI.Blikstad@deschutes.org
Re: Nash v. Deschutes County
Oregon Land Use Board of Appeal Case No. 2010-082
Deschutes County Planning File Nos. P A-04-08 and ZC-04-06
Dear Paul:
Enclosed for inclusion in the Record is an 11 x 17 color copy of a portion of the 1988
Deschutes National Forest -South Half map used for illustration at the hearing.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~~
Sharon R. Smith
smith@bljlawyers.com
Enclosure
RECEIVED
fiY: _______
NOV 2 4 2014
DEUVEttED By:
{06829091-0048048J;1}
A legacy of service to our community.
591 SW Mill View Way, Bend, OR 97702 I P 541.382.4331 I F 541.389.3386 I bljlawyers.com
Paul Blikstad
From: Walker, Tammera A (HSS) <tammera.walker@alaska.gov>
Sent: Monday. November 24, 2014 2:34 PM
To: Paul Blikstad
Cc: Board; tammiew@mtaonline.net
Subject: Walker testimony file # PA -04-08, ZC -04-06
Attachments: [Untitled]. pdf
Good Afternoon!
Please find additional testimony form Clay and I. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact me.
Thanks so much,
Tammie and Clay Walker
PO Box 871124
Wasilla, AK 99687
Property address:
26730 Hwy 20 E
Bend, OR 97701
1
November 23, 2014
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St.
Bend, OR 9nOl-1960
RE: Third Remand Hearing from LUBA Appeal-4R Equipment
File Number; PA-04-08, ZC 0-06
Commissioners Baney, Unger and DeBone;
Thank you for granting the opportunity for further testimony. As was stated in the
hearing, we are coming upon the 10th anniversary of this process. While this process has
been a long, exhaustive, expensive and extremely emotional on both sides; it does
demonstrates the severity the impact this open surface mine will have on the community.
We're not just looking at a Goal Five Resource, but all the environmental. agricultural,
cultural and wild life concerns need to be considered as well.
From the beginning, this has been a flawed application and process. As those issues have
been worked through. although not to our satisfaction, they have been ruled upon. As
Commissioner Baney stated at the end of the hearing held on November 12,2014. Please
be assured I will not be bringing up past issues previously ruled on. Although Ms. Baney
also asked Paut to send us -the Walkers - a copy of the spread sheet, I never received it.
In addition. 4R Equipment's attorney, Susan Smith was allowed to include in a persuasive
argument, post issues to convince you this was a perfect place for a mine. It is my position
as a concerned land owner in the impact area and of the community that the record be set
straight; I'll be prOViding the facts for those items only at the end of this letter.
After reviewing the LUBA decision dated February 15, 2011: Keith Nash and Janet Nash
VS Deschutes County and 4R Equipment, Luba # 210-082, I reread page 11 and 12 starting
at line 12, page 11 and finishing with line 4, page 12 - I hove cut and pasted it into this
letter.
**On remand. the county should consider) in detennining whether the proposed
mine conflicts with petitioners' agricultural operations} effects of the proposed mine on
sage grouse that winter in the impact area and the possibility that such effects could lead to
a reduction in lands available for grazing for petitioners' cattle.
Ig summarize. remand is again Decea:",,:)" for il) the county to cxpand the impact
area to incIJlde the flat Pastule or to identif.J 'ubi_tial eyidace in the record that
suppgm its deci~ion to limit the jmpact area to one-bill mile from the proposed
mine: and iZl to evaluate auy conOicts with petltJonm' l&mcultural operations in
the imP.1t area that the
Pagett
9
In W-alur II, we summarized the argument as follows:
"According to petitioners, on remand the Nashcs submitted additional testimony detaiHng specific impacts of the
proposed mine on their gruing operation, including impacts on a nearby grazin~ allotment known as 'Flat Pasture'
that hIlS access to an important water source tbat does not freeze in the winter. • • • The Nashes explained that BLM
recently reduced their use of F1at Pasture to provide additional winter habitat for sage grouse. and arIP't!3 that the
impact ofmine blasling on nearby Boge grouse populo/ions may couse BLM to fill1her reduce or eliminate grazing
0/Flat Pa'iillre.» Walker II at 494.
countY desia3tes. iudwUQ& whether the proposed mine would cause sace grouse to
abandQll the area and SCek Winter habitat on PetitioDMts' other aUotments.
The fiat and Se5;OOd assipmCDt1 oferror are sustained. in part
The <;ounty's dedslon is remiuded,
PIJBCl~
While listening to the hearing, I did not hear how the above two items remanded from
LUBA are being addressed. It was very gracious of Mr. Robinson to purchase additional
private parcels for Mr. Roth to graze his cottle on and to provide water. However, those
actions didnot address the remanded issues. Regardless of who has the grazing rights,
BLM is the owner I and as such can and will restrict grazing activities to protect the
currently listed, threatened Greater Sage Grouse. I have enclosed an older mop thcrt
has been submitted before, but I realize the amount of testimony on this case is massive.
It shows the migration I leks and nesting areas of the sage grouse. Including across the
proposed mine and into the flat pasture and across our property as well. Ad you can see,
there is a lot of activity out there!
As I talked with Monte Kuk, the Wildlife 8iologist at 8LM, phone number 541-416-6700,
on November 18 th , 2014; he explained to me, the Flat Pasture he lists in his report Is one
and the same flat posture that Mr. Roth is currently grazing on. When asked about the
"other Flat Pasture" that Mr. Roth references to in the hearing, Mr. Kuk stated, there
isn't another one, he did all the research for the letter, and the one that is being used
for grazing by Mr. Roth is the same one in the impact area and in the report.
Mr. Kuk stated that since they wel'£ only asked to review and to only point out factual
information. It is not an opinion from BLM on whether the Spencer Wells mine would or
would not impact the Sage Grouse, hence the lack of clarity in parts of the BLM letter.
In the second to the last paragraph, -If the BLM were to do an analysis of grazing
management for the Horse Ridge. Allotment, mining on adjacent lands would not be
considered a connected action to livestock grazing. However, if the mine is allowed to
proceed, the effect of mining on sage grouse may be considered as part of a cumulative
effects analysis."" Which in my opfnfon, is what LUBA is asking, in the remand in Item
#2 -What is the effect on sage grouse?
**Item # 1
To summarize. remand is apin D~essary for (1) the glugty to expand the iJDPIct
area to include tbe Flat Pasture or to identify mbsantial evidence in the re&;ord that
$!.JllPOrts it:i dectslon lit limit the Impact art" to one-half mile from the pmposed
IDinci
**(Z) to "algate ODY conflicts with petitionea' aaricultgml oPeratiops in the impact
area that the county desJaoates, includlne whether the RnUlOSed mine would cause ale
crouse to abandon the area and seek winter habitat on petiUgners' other alJobnents.
The first and secoud assiInments ofelTor arc sustained. in part.
the countY's dedsiOU is remanded.
9
In Walker 11. we summarized the argument as follows:
"According to petitioners, on remand the Nashes submitted additional testimony detailing spe<:ific impacls ofthe
proposed mine on their grazing operation, including impacts on a nearby grazing allotment known as ·flat Pasture'
that bas access to an important water source that does not freeze in the winter. '" '" '" The Nasbes explained that BLM
receDtly reduced their use of Flat Pasture to provide additional winter habitat for sage grouse., and argues ihal the
impacf ofminz blasling on nearby sage grouse pOpulations may cmlSe BLM to furlher reduce or eliminale grazing
ofFlat Pas/lire." Walker /I at 494.
I listened with great interest during the November 12th, hearing, on how this was going to
be decided, however I I did not hear any testimony from the applicant or county on why
there should not be an expanded impact area. Mr. Roth gave incorrect information on the
two Flat Pastures, there is one and is should be considered to be in the. impact area. As
Mr. Roth currently has an agreement with Mr. Robinson, it does not address the overall
question of; BLM owns the property, it is leased to Mr. Roth, other people will have these
grazing rights if available, if Mr. Roth chooses to sell or when the Sage Grouse move and
take up more nesting on this parcel, the grazing rights will be diminished or removed. In
addition to the grazing rights during the winter months, there is water there that does
not freeze up -please see the Lubo Remand report of February 15, 2011. As Mr. Roth
points out, water in the desert is a commodity that is essential for life. So, even though
there is an agreement between Mr. Roth and Mr. Robinson, this item is not mitigated to
reach ,"-USA's question -which is why it was remanded.
Grazing of the flat pasture as testified to by Mr. Ro·th is November! -December 15th ,
this was also substantiated by the Nash's. During this time, there is increased mine
activity -blasting, hauling, crushing etc, Even though Mr. Roth states that his cows are
not sensitive to this noise, that is not up for debate, that was introduced by Susan Smith,
and it was decided at an earlier hearing, Why was this brought up again to convince. you
this is the best place for Q mine? What is up for debate is: how does the noise impact the
Sage Grouse to move to increase their movement to the Flat Pasture and what is the
impact on livestock/agricultural; not just Mr. Roth's' livestock. The global picture here is
not being addressed. The Coun1y has based their decision on a private contractor hired
by the applicant, chances of it being without prejudice is sUm. Should we not contact and
expect our Federal government agencies to render their opinion? The ODFW and the
BLM?
Increasing the impact area to include Flat Pasture should be reviewed. There are Sage
Grouse Leks in that piece and they too are listed as a Goal 5 resource, however, they
are not being addressed because of the desire to have Q 365 acre or more. open rock pit
mine.
Along with the Sage Grouse, there are other Goal Five Resources, in this area, Including,
but not limited to the Dry River Canyon on our property that is now listed on the f'Jational
Register for Archeological places. The canyon is in the impact area as well.
In regards to the hearing that took place on November 12, 2014, This application is not Q
zone change of Exclusive Farm use, and flood Plane only, as mentioned. The zoning for
this area also includes Landscape Management and Wildlife Area .
Sharon Smith stated it was an excellent source of rock, 90% of the aggregate in
Deschutes/Crook county are an excellent source of rock. In addition she said, .. you have
to have a place that has very few impacts on people and there's very few people out
there" Really? There's quite a few people out therel with our property, home and Canyon
in the impact zone, as we've let you know, there are impacts. If there wasn't any, why has
this drug on for 10 years?
I
I
I
i
I
!
I
!
I
She also address evidence in the record based on sound and the decibels. r would like to
resubmit an emaif and explanation from Lorry Chitwood, then at Deschutes National Forest
as a Geologist, on why sound travels farther in the Millican Valley, You may find it
interesting if nothing elsel During the cold layer evident in the valley during the winter,
sound is intensified, this is also the time that increased mining will take place.
In Summary: we would ask the Board of Commissioners to review the LUBA remand in it's
entirety. not just the sections that have been presented to you by us or by the applicant.
We would also ask that a cumulative an<lfysis, as BLM suggested, and include ODFW as
well, be conducted to truly find out what is the impact and the movement of Sage Grouse
that will impact the agriculture uses.
We would ask that the imp<lct be. extended to include Flat Pasture, the report is more than
a couple of years old, does not address this in a non biased wa; nor does it contain the
detail that LUBA was looking for.
As we listened to the hearing. there appeared to be some concern from Tammy Baney
regarding my husband and I. It's almost as if there is a biased against us because we have
been bringing up issue atter issue for the last 10 years. Her comment at the beginning of
the hearing about out of respect for the applicant to make a deciSion, because this has
been going on for so long, feels impatient with the process and with our rights. When in
actualityI Ron Robinson waited almost 4 years to respond to the remand, that was his
choice and with no time limits on these proceeding, that's out of everyone's control except
for the applicants. However, we would like to ask for the same respect, that the
decisions are thoughtful, global and inclusive of all the facts.
I agree with the Board and with Mr. Dewey on the need to relook out how the land use laws
and LUBA remands re addressed in the future. In this case, the conditions have changed,
the facts have changed and in reality, the applicant should start over. By starting over I
mean reapply, provide the ESEE report etc. We also understand and realize, the response
is being brought up because the economy is starting to turn for the better in Deschutes
County. Responding to a remand from almost 4 years ago, seems c;razy! This rock pit
would create jobs and bring in more money for the County, but when it's all said and done,
what was really gained, some rock? $ in 4R Equipment's pocket? What was lost? Other
Goal Five resources, the landscape; which by the way was used in the filming of the movie
Wild, coming out in December. Do you think they would have selected that area and our
house for the movie had they seen and heard the rock pit? Decreased agricultural uses
because of BLM's having to remove grazing or pastures?
Please consider all the information before you make your decision, I understand you're in a
tough spot as either wat, someone is unhappy_
Thank you for allowing us to submit this.
~~U
TCII!Ihlfund Clay Walku t1t/.. ~
Mailing address: I
PO Box 8711Z4
Wasilla, AK 99687
Property address:
26730 Hwy 20 E
Bend, OR
.... BLM letter 60000 (ORP060) Molly Brown, Field Manager, Deschutes Resource Area.
**LUB remand decision February, 15, 2011
Attachments:
Sage Grouse migration, Leks and nesting
Email from 2005 from Larry Chitwood regarding sound in the Millicon valley
BeV~
Bulle "t'"
r.18S.
T.19S.
Oeec:hutes
R. 13 E.
T.20S.
Fl.'" E.
Leaend
Multiple Bird Movements I~tl
mJ Individual Bird
Movements
A Strutting Grounds
• Nest Sites
o 3 B Miles
I .' . I
--.;,1(.,
HnrnpIOO ~/';
1:111110 I
R.15E.
r.225. /"
A
u..,.h',t.... Co.
A.18E. A. 19E. R. aoE.
N
/iiN. 12. SUge (jrolt.ft! Mnw!mem Pal/em'> Idell1ijlf~J
Ilrr(JIt.~/1 t"lt(/io nlllrked MnllocaI;olls. Prill«1\'ille
l}i~'lrjCI, m.M. 19'11 i'l /91J.t
Page lofl
Tammie Walker
From: "Larry Chitwood" <Ichitwood@fs.fed.us>
To: <tammiew@mtaonline.net>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:43 PM
Subject: Sound in layer of cold air
Tammie,
This is a follow-up to our discussion this morning (15 Apr 05) about the
effect of a layer of cold air on how far sound can travel.
The volcanic ash soils of central Oregon, especial1y those from the
7700-year-old eruption of Mt. Mazama, have an unusually low density due to
the fact that they're largely made of small pieces of pwnice ("volcanic
styrofoam"). The low density allows these soils to rapidly cool down when
the sun goes down and when no clouds are in the sky. These soils radiate
their heat into outer space. The overlying air loses its heat to the soil
and every night develops a cold layer that hugs the ground. The layer can
be a few feet to tens offeet thick. Wben the sun comes up, the soil heats
and the cold air layer disappears.
Sounds made within the cold layer tend to stay in the cold layer due to
reflection ofsound along the top of the cold layer. The effect is that
sound travels much further over the land than when no cold layer exists.
(In mathematical terms, sound attenuates proportional to roughly the square
of the distance in the cold layer, but attenuates proportional to roughly
the cube of the distance with no cold layer.)
Larry
=++=++=++=++=+1-=++= I I-I I ++ +.. ++ I I ++-++=++=++=++=++=++=++=
Larry Chitwood. Geologist. Deschutes National Forest, Bend, OR 97701
lchitwood(4!fs.fcd.us, Phone (541) 383-5618, FAX (541) 383-5531
=H=I I I I I I I 1=++=++= t I I I ++=++=++=++--++ I I I 1=++ I I I +=++=
8/812005
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Deschutes Watershed District
East Region
regon
John A. Kitzhaber, MO, Governor 61374 Parrell Road
Bend, Oregon 97702
(541) 388-6363
FAX (541) 388-6281
November 24,2014 OREGON
p~
Fl!Ih"WIdIIIe
Deschutes County
Community Development Department
POBox 6005
117 NW Lafayette Ave
Bend, OR 97708-6005
Re: 4-R Equipment, LLC remand LUBA -ODFW Comments
Dear Deschutes County Planning,
Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been asked to submit comments regarding the
LUBA remand of4-R Equipment, LLC's land use application for a zoning change, from EFU to SM, for
a 385 acre property located at 57720, 57750 and 57600 Spencer Wells Road in Deschutes County. The
subject property is within two Deschutes County Combining Zones: Sensitive Bird and Mammal Habitat
(Chapter 18.90) and Wildlife Area (WA) (Chapter 18.88).
If the requested zoning change is allowed, ODFW is concerned about possible impacts that blasting, and
crushing, basalt rock at the proposed surface mining operation will have on documented sage-grouse
winter range and within 3 miles of a known lek site.
ODFW bases its response on Oregon Administrative Rules: 635-140-000, 015 (Greater Sage-Grouse
Conservation Strategy for Oregon) and 635-415-000 (Mitigation Policy) and the following documents:
2012 ODFW Mitigation Framework for Sage-Grouse Habitats, 2009 Updated Wildlife Information and
Recommendations for Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update, Greater Sage-Grouse
Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (Hagen, 2011) and BLM's Sage Grouse in the High
Desert of Central Oregon (Hanf, et aI, 1994) study.
ODFW's Mitigation Framework identifies impacts of proposed renewable energy and industrial
commercial developments (such as mining) on sage grouse habitat in Oregon and provides
recommendations and mitigation actions to address these impacts. The recommendations and mitigation
actions are implemented under ODFW's Core Approach as described in the Greater Sage-Grouse
Conservation Strategy. This Core Approach identifies two macro-scale classification of sage-grouse
habitat: Core Areas and Low Density Areas, each with specific recommendations to avoid impacts such
that there is 'no net loss and with a net benefit'.
Per the Sage-Grouse Strategy and Mitigation Policy, it is ultimately the Department's obligation to
determine in which mitigation habitat category a proposed project occurs. Once this category (Habitat
Category 1, Habitat Category 2) is determined the Department will then recommend mitigation actions
/
I I
i based on a site level analysis and disturbances due to operations and maintenance (e.g. road development,
~ noise, weed infestations, fencing). Mitigation actions will then be recommended, followed by monitoring
to determine the effectiveness of mitigation actions. For example, for a mining operation, the
Department would calculate habitat area impacts for noise levels greater than 40 dbA using noise
propagation models and for new road development using traffic volume calculations and habitat
disturbance weightings (see Mitigation Framework pgs5-6).
ODFW submitted recommendations (below) to Deschutes County during its Comprehensive Plan update.
These recommendations are still relevant and are further supported by the 2011 Greater Sage-Grouse
Conservation Assessment and Strategy.
Greater Sage Grouse in Deschutes County
• Establish a 3-mile radius (habitat protection area) around occupied leks. All habitat
within the 3-mile radius is essential for greater sage-grouse, limited, and irreplaceable
(ODFW Habitat Category J). The mitigation goalfor essential, limited, and
irreplaceable habitat is no net loss ofeither habitat quantity or quality through
avoidance.
• Any sagebrush habitat identified as brood rearing or winter habitat for greater sage
grouse is essential and limited (ODFW Habitat Category 2). Where possible avoid
development within 0.5 mile ofthese areas. The mitigation goal for essential and limited
habitat ifimpacts are unavoidable is no net loss ofeither habitat quantity or quality and
to provide a net benefit ofhabitat quantity or quality.
• Transmission lines should be placed in existing right-ol-ways to aggregate this
disturbance; ifnot possible then transmission lines should be sited at least 2-miles from
leks, and where possible 0.5 mile from brood rearing habitat and wintering areas.
• Unimproved roads should be 0.5 mile from leks. Paved (or improved gravel) larger
volume roads should be at least J-mile from leks.
• Ground level structures (i.e., residences, roads, buried power lines, natural gas lines)
should not be sited within 0.5 mile ofthe nearest lek site.
• Timing restrictions: construction and maintenance activity associated with any
development or industrial and commercial activities (i.e., mineral extraction, shooting
sports, paintball course, landfills, OHV systems) should be avoidedfrom J5 February to
3 J July time frame in sage-grouse habitat. Ifavoidance is not possible then activity
should be restricted from 2 hrs prior to and 2 hrs after sunrise during this timeframe.
Sagebrush conversion to agricultural lands, wetland degradation, invasive plants, mining,
transmission lines, grazing practices that affect necessary cover or forage, recreational
disturbance -motorized and non-motorized, and residential and wind energy developments all
can impact local sage-grouse populations and could be considered conflicting uses relative to
conservation of greater sage-grouse.
Sage-grouse populations have declined since the 1960s across their range. The declines have
been substantial enough to initiate 9 petitions to protect the sage-grouse under the Federal
Endangered Species Act. The Sage-Grouse Plan was developed to maintain sustainable
populations in Oregon, so that listing under the Endangered Species Act would not be warranted.
To this end, the Plan established a "no net loss" objective for sage-grouse habitat conservation.
Breeding habitat (lekking, nesting habitat, and early brood-rearing) is critical to the life-history
of sage-grouse (Johnson and Braun 1999, Walker 2008). Like many upland birds, sage-grouse
rear only 1 brood of young in a breeding season. Thus, any hindrance to breeding activities (Le.,
habitat loss or other disturbance) may be deleterious to production and ultimately recruitment
into the population (Lyon and Anderson 2003, Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007).
Leks are used for breeding and the surrounding sagebrush habitat is used for nesting. Oregon
research shows that nearly all nests occur within 5 miles of a lek, while 80 percent of nests occur
within 3 miles of a lek. However, regional radio-telemetry data in Deschutes and Crook counties
showed that 80 percent of hens nest within 4 miles of a lek. This distance becomes paramount
when considering the sage-grouse population in Deschutes County, which is on the fringe of the
species range, and therefore is more susceptible to cumulative effects of habitat alteration and
disturbance. Population models suggest that such a loss (20%) can be sustained by a large
"healthy" population, but the carrying capacity will be diminished resulting in a smaller but
viable population in the future (Walker et al. 2007).
Breeding and nesting habitats are essential, limited, and irreplaceable. Based on Oregon's
research and elsewhere in the West, the biological dynamic that occurs between female nest site
selection and movement patterns that drive males to establish a lek in these areas of female use
has yet to be successfully recreated. Given the uncertainty and risk involved in trying to mitigate
for the loss ofthese habitats (Le., replace/restore), protection of breeding and nesting habitat is
paramount.
Winter habitat is comprised of low elevation flats in stands of Wyoming big sagebrush, basin big
sagebrush, or stands of low sagebrush along windswept ridges or drainages. Winter habitat has
not been adequately inventoried in Oregon, thus its distribution and abundance is unknown.
However, in Deschutes County, some wintering areas are known and have been delineated.
(Hanf, et al. 1994). These habitats have included extensive stands of mountain big sagebrush
and low and early-flowering sagebrush. Depending on winter snow accumulations, some
wintering areas become especially important, as heavy snowfall forces birds out oflow sage
areas into big sage areas where sagebrush is still accessible. Because of sage-grouse dependence
on sagebrush for winter forage, losses to these areas can have severe impacts on winter survival
and subsequent breeding population size (Swenson et al. 1987, Connelly et al. 2004).
Because of the essential and limited nature of winter habitat "no net loss" and "net benefit"
(restoration) are paramount if avoidance is not possible.
The subject property is located within 3 miles of a known lek site. It is also located within sage grouse
winter range. If the zoning change is allowed and a surface mining pennit pursued, ODFW will submit
further comments, determinations and recommendations to address impacts to important sage grouse
habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this LUBA remand letter.
Sincerely,
Corey Heath, Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist
cc: Nancy Breuner, Deschutes Habitat Biologist
References
Aldrige, C.L., S.E.Nielsen, H. L. Beyer, M. S. Boyce, J. W. Connelly, S. T. Knick, M.A.
Schroeder. 2008 Range-wide patterns of greater sage· grouse persistence. Diversity and
Distributions 14,983-994.
Connelly, J. W., S.T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of
greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report, Western Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, CO.
Hagen, C.A. 2011. Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan
to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department ofFish and
Wildlife. Salem, Oregon.
Hanf, J.M., P.A. Schmidt, and E.B. Groshens. 1994. Sage grouse in the high desert of central
Oregon: results of a study, 1988-1993. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, Series P-SG-Ol, Prineville, OR.
Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) popUlation response to
natural gas field development in western Wyoming. Dissertation, University of
Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.
Johnson, K. H., and C. E. Braun. 1998. Viability and conservation of an exploited sage grouse
population. Conservation Biology 13: 77-84.
Lyon, L. A., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest
initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486-491.
Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, C. W. Meinke, and L. H. Suring. 2005. Utility of greater sage
grouse as an umbrella species. (pages 232-249). In Habitat Threats in the Sagebrush
Ecosystem: Methods of Regional Assessment and Applications in the Great Basin
(Wisdom et al. eds). Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas.
Swenson et al. 1987. Decrease of Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus after ploughing of
sagebrush steppe. Biological Conservation. 41: 125-132.
Walker, B. L. 2008. Greater sage-grouse response to coal-bed methane natural gas development
and West Nile viruse in the Powder River Basin, Montana and Wyoming USA.
Dissertation, Universtiy of Montana, Missoula, MT.
Walker, B. L., D. E. Naugle, and K. E. Doherty. 2007. Greater sage-grouse population response
to energy development and habitat loss. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2644-2654.
CENTR OREGON 50 SW Bond St" Ste. 4 I Bend. OR 97702
Phone: (541) 647-2930
www.centroloregonlondwatch.orgLANDWATCH
50 SW Bond SL Ste. 4 I Bend. OR 97702
Phone: (541) 647-2930
www.centraloregonlandwotch.org
Please enter the attached study into the record on the LUBA remand for the Millican
Mining Site.
Thank you,
tBECEIVED ~~~. av: --:.,..f...I<&M:~~1-!6:::::!-_
Gail Snyder
NOV 2 4 2014
DELIVERED BY:
_....;;~;.....;..:..:,.t!-/~
Protecting Central Oregon's Natural Environment And Working For Sustainoble Communities
EUSGS
st:ieRce forti changing world
Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage
Grouse-A Review
By Daniel J. Manier, Zachary H. Bowen, Matthew L. Brooks, Michael L. Casazza, Peter S. Coates, Patricia A. Deibert,
Steven E. Hanser, and Douglas H. Johnson
Open-File Report 2014-1239
U.S. Department ofthe Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior
SALLY JEWEL, Secretary
U.S. Geological Survey
Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director
U.S. GeolOgical Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014
For more infomlation on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth,
its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment--visit
htJp:llwww.usgs.gcNor calI1-883-ASK-USGS
For an overviaw of USGS information producIs, including maps, imagery, and publications,
visit htJp:llwww.usgs.gcN/pubpIOd
To order this and other USGS information products. visit htJp:llstore.usgs.gcN
Suggested citation:
Manier, D.J., Bowen. ZH., Brooks, M.L. Casazza, M.L. Coates. P.S., Deibert, P.A.. Hanser. S.E., and Johnson, D.H.,
2014, Conservation buffer d'1Stance estimales for Greater Sage-Grouse-A I'6Yiew: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 2014-1239. 14 p., htJp:lldx.doi.O'ft/O.31331ofr20141239.
Any use of trade, product. or finn names Is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply
endorsement by the U.S. Government
Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual
copyright owners to reproduce 8lIY copyrighted material contained within this report.
ii
Contents·
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Analytical Realities and Additional Background ............................................................................................................. 2
Surface Disturbance ......................................................................................................................................................3
Linear Features .............................................................................................................................................................5
Energy Development .....................................................................................................................................................7
Tall Structures ...............................................................................................................................................................8
Low Structures ...............................................................................................................................................................9
Activities (Without Habitat Loss) ....................................................................................................................................9
References Cited ..........................................................................................................................................................10
Table
Table 1. Lek buffer-distance estimates for six categories of anthropogenic land use and activity ......................... 14
iii
Conversion Factors
InchIPound to SI
By Tooblaln
foot (ft) 03048 meter(m)
mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)
yard(yd) 0.9144 meter(m)
Area
4,041 square meter (ml)
OA047 hectare (ha)
acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)
section (640 acres or 1 square mile) 259.0 square bectometer (bm1
square mile (mil) 259.0 hectare (ha)
square mile (mi1 2.590 square kilometer (km1
SI to InchIPound
Mulllply By Tooblaln
Length
meter(m) 3.281 foot (ft)
kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)
meter(m) 1.094 yard (yd)
Area
square meter (~ 0.0002471 acre
hectare (ha) 2.471 acre
square kilometer (km1 247.1 acre
square hectometer ~) 0.003861 sectioo (640 acres or 1 square mile)
hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mil)
square kilometer (leml ) 03861 square mile (mil)
iv
Conservation-Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage
Grouse-A Review
By Daniel J. Manier, Zachary H. Bowen, Matthew L. Brooks, Michael L. Casazza, Peter S. Coates, Patricia A.
Deibert, Steven E. Hanser, and Douglas H. Johnson
Introduction
This report was prepared at the request
of the U.S. Department of the Interior and is a
compilation and summary of published
scientific studies that evaluate the influence of
anthropogenic activities and infrastructure on
Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus
urophasi~;hereafter,sage-~use)
populations. The purpose of this report is to
provide a convenient reference for land
managers and others who are working to
develop biologically relevant and
socioeconomically practical buffer distances
around sage-grouse habitats. The framework for
this summary includes (1) addressing the
potential effects of anthropogenic land use and
disturbances on sage-grouse populations, (2)
providing ecologically based interpretations of
evidence from the scientific literature, and (3)
informing implementation ofconservation
buffers around sage-grouse communal breeding
locations-known as leks.
We do not make specific management
recommendations but instead provide
summarized information, citations, and
interpretation offindings available in scientific
literature. We also recognize that because of
variation in populations, habitats, development
patterns, social context, and other factors, for a
particular disturbance type, there is no single
distance that is an appropriate buffer for all
populations and habitats across the sage-grouse
range. Thus, we report values for distances upon
which protective, conservation buffers might be
based, in conjunction with other considerations
(table 1). We present this information for six
categories of land use or disturbance typically
found in land-use plans which are representative
ofthe level of definition available in the
scientific literature: surface disturbance
(multiple causes; immediate and cumulative
influences); linear features (roads); energy
development (oil, gas, wind, and solar); tall
structures (electrical, communication, and
meteorological); low structures (fences and
buildings); and activities (noise and related
disruptions). Minimum and maximum distances
for observed effects found in the scientific
literature, as well as a distance range for
possible conservation buffers based on
interpretation ofmultiple sources, expert
knowledge of the authors regarding affected
areas, and the distribution of birds around leks
are provided for each ofthe six categories (table
1). These interpreted values for buffer distances
are an attempt to balance the extent of protected
areas with multiple land-use requirements using
estimates ofthe distribution ofsage-grouse
habitat. Conservation efforts may then focus on
the overlap between potential effect zone and
important habitats. We provide a brief
discussion of some of the most relevant
literature for each category. References
associated with the minimum and maximum
values in table 1 are identified in the References
Cited section with corresponding symbols.
Distances in this report reflect radii
around lek locations because these locations are
typically (although not universally) known, and
1
management plans often refer to these locations.
Lek sites are most representative ofbreeding
habitats, but their locations are focal points
within populations, and as such, protective
buffers around lek sites can offer a useful
solution for identifying and conserving seasonal
habitats required by sage-grouse throughout
their life cycle. However, knowledge of local
and regional patterns of seasonal habitat use
may improve conservation of those important
areas, especially regarding the distribution and
utilization of nonbreeding season habitats
(which may be underrepresented in lek-based
designations).
Analytical Realities and Additional
Background
Understanding the effects of multiple
human land uses on sage-grouse and their
habitats is complicated by the combination of
environmental, ecological, and socioeconomic
conditions across the species range, which
includes parts of II U.S. States and 2 Canadian
Provinces in western North America. Responses
of individual birds and populations, coupled
with variability in land-use patterns and habitat
conditions, add variation in research results.
This variability presents a challenge for land
managers and planners seeking to use research
results to guide management and plan for sage
grouse conservation measures.
Variability between sage-grouse
populations and their responses to different
types of infrastructure can be substantial across
the species' range. Our interpretations attempt
to encompass variability in populations (for
example, migratory versus nonmigratory) and
rangewide response patterns of sage-grouse to
various human activities. Logical and
scientifically justifiable departures from the
"typical response," based on local data and
other factors, may be warranted when
implementing buffer protections or density
limits in parts of the species' range.
Natural movement behaviors of sage
grouse have been documented by multiple
studies that provide direct evidence of inter-and
intraseasonal movements from a few kilometers
(km) (nonmigratory poPlJlations; Berry and
Eng, 1985; Connelly and others, 2004) to 20-30
km or more (Connelly and others, 2004; Pedy
and others, 2012; Tack and others, 2012). An
influential, telemetry-based, tracking project in
central Montana indicated more than 90 percent
of breeding season movements by male grouse
were within 1.3 km (0.8 mi) ofa lek and 76
percent were within 1 km ofa lek (0.6 mi;
Wallestad and Schladweiler, 1974). The l-km
(O.6-mi) buffer used in many management
efforts was based upon this research. More
recent analyses have indicated that 90-95
percent of habitat use at the population level
was focused within approximately 8 km (5
miles [mi]) ofsevera1 California and Nevada lek
sites (Coates and others, 2013), and 95 percent
ofall nests were located within approximately 5
km (3.1 mi) ofleks. Holloran and Anderson
(2005) found that 64 percent of nests in
Wyoming occurred within 5 km (3.1 mi) of
leks, suggesting considerable protection of
sage-grouse within these proximate habitats. In
contrast, home ranges as large as 2,975 km 2
(1,149 mi 2) have been documented (Connelly
and others, 2000, 2004) in some portions ofthe
species' range. These larger distances suggest
that for some populations, the minimum
distance inferred here (5 km [3.1 mil) from leks
may be insufficient to protect nesting and other
seasonal habitats. Based on the collective
information reviewed for this study,
conservation practices that address habitats
falling within the interpreted distances may be
expected to protect as much as 75 percent
(Doherty and others, 2010) to 95 percent
(Coates and others, 2013) oflocal population's
. habitat utilization.
Habitat condition, composition,
structure, and distribution are important
potential modifiers ofthe effect of human
infrastructure and activities on sage-grouse
2
I
1
populations (Dinkins and others, 2014; Walters
and others, 2014). The distribution of sagebrush
(4r~misia spp,}j~~}Yen.:lqt9Ym.1?J910gic~l_and
statistical predictor ofsage-grouse response to
their environment (for example, Connelly and
others, 2004; Aldridge and Boyce, 2007; Hagen
and others, 2007; National Technical Team,
Sage Grouse, 2011; Wisdom and others, 2011;
Kirol and others, 2012; Beck and others, 2014;
Smith and others, 2014). Differences among
sagebrush communities within a population
range may also affect the impact of
infrastructure. For example, primary
productivity of sites is typically greater in
mountain big sagebrush (A. tridendata ssp.
vaseyana) communities than Wyoming big
.~agebrush (A. t. ssp. wyomingensis)
communities (Davies and Bates, 2010).
Sage-grouse depend on sagebrush, so
buffer protections may be most effective when
focused on avoidance of disturbance to
sagebrush that provides the keystone to sage
grouse habitat. Important sage-grouse habitats
include those with >40 percent sagebrush
~ mdcover (within 5 km [3.1 mil radial
assessment area; Knick and others, 2013),
sa§ebrush patch sizes greater than 1 km 2 (0.4
mi ) (Aldridge and Boyce, 2007), and plot-level
composition ofapproximately 10-30 percent
sagebrush cover and >15 percent grasses and
forbs (Connelly and others, 2004; Stiver and
others, 2006). A voidance ofactivities that
increase distance between sagebrush patches or
that impose barriers to dispersal could also help
maintain popUlations (Wisdom and others,
2011; Knick and Hanser, 2011).
Various protection measures have been
developed and implemented, including
complete closure ofimportant habitats, distance
buffers that restrict disturbing activities within
designated distances, and development
disturbance density limits within habitats (for
examples see, "Policy and Rules for
Development" at http://utahcbcp.org/htmltall
structure-info). Timing restrictions have also
commonly been employed at lek sites, primarily
to reduce disturbance to breeding sage-grouse.
Although specific details and implementation of
_<~.C?~ dLff~rent appr:o~l)~sJ"!~v~ vari~.42.~~ch
approach has the ability (alone or in concert
with others) to protect important habitats,
sustain populations, and support multiple-use
demands for public lands. As such, local and
regional differences in design and
implementation ofconservation plans should be
assessed with explicit attention to the details
and cumulative impact of a suite ofactions,
including but not limited to the buffer distances,
which are the focus ofthis report.
Surface Disturbance
Surface disturbance represents a
combination ofhuman activities that alter or
remove the natural vegetation community on a
site. Isolating the potential effects ofhuman
land-use patterns on sage-grouse is challenging
because causal factors are frequently
interrelated and interactive (for example roads
and distribution lines or roads and well pads)
making a general discussion of"development
effects" necessary. In cases where better
discrimination is available, those specific types
of surface disturbances are addressed in the
following sections. The values in this section
reflect a nondiscriminatory understanding of the
independent and interactive and cumulative
effects ofactivities that remove sagebrush cover
and other natural vegetation, and often include
continual and (or) intermittent activities, such as
running motors and pumps, vehicle visits, and
equipment servicing. The collective influence of
human activity on the landscape, often referred
to as the human footprint (Leu and others,
2008), has been associated with negative trends
in sage-grouse lek counts (Johnson and others,
2011) and population persistence (Aldridge and
others, 2008; Wisdom and others, 2011). A
multiscale assessment of factors associated with
lek abandonment between 1965 and 2007 found
that the level of the human footprint within 5
km (3.1 mil of the lek was negatively associated
3
with lek persistence (Knick and Hanser, 2011).
Agricultural activities, including tilling,
seeding, and other highly managed activities,
are a component ofthe human footprint and
clearly fall into the category ofsurface
disturbance (removal of native vegetation);
however, agriculture is a special case because,
although agriculture occupies large areas with
transformed conditions, these lands are typically
privately owned and the habitat value of
agricultural areas is not zero because these lands
can provide cover and forage for some
populations in some seasons (Fischer and
others, 1996). For example, sage-grouse have
been known to use agricultural lands in late
summer and early spring (Fischer and others,
1996). Though we found no direct evidence for
spacing recommendations between agricultural
lands and leks or other sage-grouse habitat, the
conversion of sagebrush to agriculture within a
landscape has been shown to lead to decreased
abundance of sage-grouse in many portions of
their range (Swenson and others, 1987; Smith
and others, 2005; Aldridge and Boyce, 2007;
Aldridge and others, 2008). A potential
mechanism for this decrease in abundances,
besides the direct loss of habitat, is the
association of generalist predators (Common
Raven [Corvus corax] and Black-billed Magpie
[Pica hudsonia]) with agricultural in:frastructure
(Vander Haegen and others, 2002) and
subsequent predation on sage-grouse (Connelly
and others, 2004; Coates and Delehanty, 2010).
Estimated distance effects were
translated to a 5-to 8-km (3.1-to 5-mi) radius
around each lek to describe a possible
conservation buffer area (interpreted range)
based on interpretation of two principal factors:
the potential effect area and the potential
distribution ofhabitat use within affected areas.
The need for protection ofpopulations that are
not well understood requires some
generalization, and this distance range is
proposed because research suggests that a
majority of sage-grouse distributions and
movements (within and between seasons) occur
within this range (for example, Berry and Eng,
1985; Lyon and Anderson, 2003; Holloran and
Anderson, 2005; Walker and others, 2007;
Aldridge and others, 2008; Knick and others,
2011; Naugle and others, 2011; Coates and
others, 2013). Importantly, due to variability
among individuals and populations, some
individuals in most populations (migratory and
nonmigratory) may move greater distances than
those included in the buffer, but specific·
protections cannot, practically, be determined
for all individuals and all behavioral patterns.
Although leks are generally recognized as the
center ofbreeding and nesting habitats, recent
utilization distribution analyses have helped to
refine understanding of sage-grouse habitat-use
patterns throughout the year. Based on this
approach. Coates and others (2013) suggested
that an 8-km (5-mi) protection area centered on
an active lek location should encompass the
seasonal movements and habitat use of90-95
percent of sage-grouse associated with the lek.
Longer distance movements are not always
explicitly protected in this context, and habitats
associated with previously unidentified leks
may not be protected. However, final settling
locations for more mobile individuals may be
associated with quality habitats protected by
buffers around adjacent lek sites. Furthermore.
buffer distances beyond 8 km (5 mi) result in a
decreaSing benefit (cost-benefit trade-off) of
increasing protection in areas that are less
commonly used by sage-grouse. Without
population-specific information regarding the
location ofhabitats and movement ofbirds.
which may be utilized when available (for an
example see, Colorado Greater Sage-grouse
Steering Committee, 2008), this generalized
protection area (circular buffer around active
leks with radius of8 km [5mi]) offers a
practical tool for determining important habitat
areas. (Note: the Colorado Plan [Colorado
Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee, 2008]
recommended a 6.4-km [4-mi] circular buffer,
which may be well suited for those populations
and falls within the range identified here.)
4
Importantly, similar results and interpretations
to those derived from California and Nevada
p.QPuIatiQllS .(~~s..mlq Qtb~r.s~~9.Ul~ent
attained from the eastern portion of sage-grouse
range; namely, Holloran and Anderson (2005)
reported 64 percent of monitored nests fell
within 5 km (3.1 mil of a lek, and response to
industrial development (decreased nesting rates
and success rates) was observable to distances
between 5 and 10 km (3.1-6.2 mil from a lek
suggesting that similar buffer distances are as
relevant in Wyoming as in the Great Basin. In
Utah, approximately 90 percent of nests (not all
movements) were located within 5 km (3 mil of
a lek and threshold distance increased with
greater contiguity ofhabitats. The smallest
effect distance (3.2 km [2 mi] from a lek)
described by Naugle and others (2011) was
previously described and tested in field research
by Holloran and Anderson (2005) and Walker
and others (2007); these studies were designed
to evaluate the effectiveness ofexisting
stipulations. However, recent evaluation of
different effect areas (Gregory and Beck, 2014)
suggested significant immediate effects on lek
attendance with one well pad within 2 km (1.2
mil of a lek and time-lagged effects due to
industrial development within 10 km (6.2 mil of
a lek indicating a habitat within the 8 km (5 mil
identified here may still experience an influence
ofdevelopment on some landscapes. Although
considerable protections would be afforded by
using a greater buffer distance from leks,
research has indicated population effects are
variable, and the cumulative effect of
development may extend across the landscape
many kilometers (>1 0 km [6 miD beyond the
immediately affected areas. Diminishing gain
analysis (Coates and others, 2013) suggested
that sustained gains from habitat protection
(based on percent of highly used areas protected
versus total area protected) diminished after 8
km (5 mi)(radius) from leks, which helped to
establish a ceiling on interpretations for habitat
buffers seeking to maximize conservation
benefits and minimize impacts on land uses.
Linear Features
.Roads, especially.actiYe.roads such as
collectors, major haul, and service roads, as well
as county, State, and Federal highways, create
many of the same "aversion" factors described
previously that are related to traffic noise on
roadways and interactions with infrastructure
associated with corridors (such as fences, poles,
and towers). One potential mechanism behind
road-aversion behavior by sage-grouse could be
the intermittent noise produced by passing
traffic. BUckley and others (2012) discovered
that noise-disturbance simulations that
mimicked intermittent sources (road noise), or
separately, drilling noises (continuous),
generated a significant reduction in lek
attendance of sage-grouse (73-percent reduction
with road noise, 29 percent with drilling noise).
Most planning related to linear features
applies to new construction, that is, avoidance
of placing new roads or transmission lines in
important habitats, but existing roads might also
be addressed by considering seasonal closures,
or removal, of roads within protective buffer
areas. Fragmentation of habitats related to the
network ofroads and other linear features
(potential for cumulative effects) may have
negative effects on sage-grouse popUlations by
reducing and fragmenting sagebrush habitat.
When compared to extirpated leks, occupied
leks have twice the cover of sagebrush (46
percent versus 24 percent) and ten times larger
average sagebrush patches (4,173 hectares [ha]
[10,31 0 acres] versus 481 ha [1, 190 acres])
(Wisdom and others, 2011). However, it is
important to recognize that previous
assessments of relations between sage-grouse
distributions and roads include a combination of
positive and negative relations (Johnson and
others, 2011), and local effects may be
restricted to visible (or audible) range.
Correlations between the distribution of roads
with the distribution of quality sagebrush
habitats (due to moderate topographic relief),
interactions between influence of roads and
5
infrastructure with topography and habitat
conditions (visibility and audibility), and
differences in traffic volumes may all contribute
to population effects on sage-grouse; not all
roads have the same effect (Carpenter and
others, 2010; Dinkins and others, 2014).
Because roads and other linear features can
have different effects on sage-grouse behavior,
regional models ofdistributions and population
dynamics have attempted to capture some
differences; for example, roads closer to lek
locations and other seasonal habitats may have
greater effects than those occurring farther from
important habitats (Hanser and others, 2011).
Effects ofpipelines and powerline corridors
were tested but were not found to have clear,
rangewide effects on lek trends (Johnson and
others, 2011). However, it has become evident
that interactions and co-location of linear
features (for example, power distribution lines
along roads and railroads) can make separation
ofeffects difficult (Walters and others, 2014);
power lines are addressed in a following section
(Tall Structures).
Because of general concerns about
habitat fragmentation and loss due to
transportation networks, rangewide assessment
ofthe effects of distributed human features,
including road proximity (distance) and density,
on trends in sage-grouse populations (based on
lek counts), were conducted (Johnson and
others, 2011). Incremental effects of
accumulating length of roads in proximity to
leks were apparent rangewide, although limited
to major roads (State and Federal highways and
interstates). This effect was demonstrated by
decreasing lek counts when there were more
than 5 km (3.1 mil ofFederal or State highway
within 5 km (3.1 mil of leks and when more
than 20 km (12.4 mil ofhighway occurs within
an IS-km (11.2-mi) window (Johnson and
others, 2011). Regional assessments (sage
grouse management zones, MZs; see Stiver and
others. 2006) indicated downward trends in
northern Great Basin (MZ4 and a portion of
MZ5) populations when road density within
5-km (3.1-mi) radius oflek exceeded 30 km
(18.6 mi).1n Great Plains populations (MZI),
lek trends declined within a 10 km (6.2 mil
radius ofa major road. It is important to note
that many of the regional assessments did not
indicate decreasing lek trends associated with
the various size-classes of roads that were
assessed (Johnson and others, 2011). In separate
analyses in Wyoming, probability of sage
grouse habitat use (based on pellet-count
surveys) declined around major roads (State and
Federal highways and interstates) when
assessed using a I-km (0.6-mi) exponential
decay function (exp(diS1llnCe I-Ikni); Hanser and
others, 2011). Assessment oflek trends in
proximity to a large, interstate highway (I-SO)
indicated that all formerly recorded lek sites
within 2 km (1.25 mil ofthe highway were
unoccupied, and leks within 7.5 km (4.7 mil of
the highway had declining attendance (Connelly
and others, 2004).
Radio-telemetry (Very High Frequency,
VHF) studies are often used to help track and
document animal movements and habitat use,
and some have reflected affinity of sage-grouse
to roads (for example, Carpenter and others,
2010; Dinkens and others, 2014). However, this
pattern may be due to search patterns employed
by road-bound investigators (Fedy and others,
2014) or the distribution ofroads across quality
habitats in flat and lower elevation terrain
(Carpenter and others, 2010; Dinkins and
others, 2014) as opposed to selection of roads as
preferred habitats. Seasonal, Statewide habitat
models in Wyoming indicated a difference in
seasonal sensitivity to density ofpaved roads,
suggesting a decaying effects function
approaching zero as distance approaches 3.2 km
(2 mil of leks (negative exponential) during the
nesting and summer seasons. and a decay
function approaching zero as distance
approaches 1.5 km (0.9 mil ofleks during
winter (Fedy and others. 2014). However.
Dinkins and others (2014) found decreased risk
ofdeath for hens with increasing road density.
but they also noted that the co-location of road
6
distribution and quality habitat may have
influenced this result. Although noise has been
.clearly_<ieJllQJJstmte(t tQ..intl\le{1~_sp'~.:grQ\tse
(Blickley and others, 2012), the influence of
individual roads or networks of roads on sage
grouse habitat use and demographic parameters
remains a research need. This is a good example
of the challenge associated with making clear
interpretations ofthe effect area (and therefore,
a definitive buffer distance) for these types of
infrastructure.
Energy Development
Research and applications addressing
surface disturbances in sagebrush ecosystems
have been commonly conducted in relation to
energy development activities. Lands affected
by these activities have been the focus of many
studies investigating the effects of
anthropogenic activities on sage-grouse
behavior and population dynamics, so the
previous section (Surface Disturbance) contains
much of the information relevant here.
Direct impacts of energy development
on sage-grouse habitats and populations, such as
loss of sagebrush canopy or nest failure, have
been estimated to occur within a 1.2-ha (3-acre)
area ofleks (radius: 62 m [68 yards]); indirect
influences, such as habitat degradation or
utilization displacement, have been estimated to
extend out to 19 km (11.8 mi) from leks
(Naugle and others, 2011). Regional analyses of
well-density and distance effects (Johnson and
others, 2011) suggested negative trends in
populations (lek counts) when distance was less
than 4 km (2.5 mi) to the nearest producing
well; whereas density effects were evident
rangewide based on decreasing population
trends when greater than eight active wells
occurred within 5 km (3.1 mi) ofleks, or when
more than 200 active wells occurred within 18
km (11 mi)ofleks. In Wyoming, significant
negative relations between use of seasonal
habitats and well densities have been
demonstrated. Fedy and others (2014) found a
significant negative relation between well
density and probability of sage-grouse habitat
~]~.9!i9.!tgwin&-{1~jngJ3-,,2_-Jcm_.[4:milJooius)
and winter (6.44-km [4-mi] radius) seasons. In
the Powder River Basin, wintering sage-grouse
were negatively associated with increasing
coalbed natural gas well densities within a 2-km
x 2-km (1.24-mi x 1.24-mi) window (Doherty
and others 2008). Also, Gregory and Beck
(2014) documented lek attendance decline when
energy development averaged 0.7 well
padslkm2 (1.81 well pads/mi2; using a 10-km x
IO-km [6.2-mi x 6.2-mi] assessment window)
across multiple populations and different
development patterns.
A key consideration, besides the impacts
of the development footprint on habitat
condition and predation potential, is the effect
of intermittent noise on behavior (avoidance) as
evident from work by Blickley and others
(2012) who found decreased lek activity due to
mimicked drilling and road noise produced at
close range (volume level equivalent to a road
or well 400 m [1300 ft] away). A precise
distance for noise effects has not been
determined, but this value likely varies
depending on the source (equipment, vehicles)
and the terrain.
Less information is available about the
effects of renewable energy development, such
as wind-turbine arrays, on sage-grouse. LeBeau
and others (2014) monitored effects during
breeding season (95 nests and 31 broods) and
found a linear decline of7.1 percent in nest
failure and 38 percent in brood failure with each
I-km (0.6-mi) increase in distance from wind
energy infrastructure (less effect with greater
distance). Changes in mortality were not
attributed to direct collisions but to increased
predation. It is notable that one study on prairie
chickens (a related galliform, Tympanuchus
cupido) found increased nest success rates
adjacent to recent wind-energy facilities
(Winder and others, 2014).
Suggestions that sage-grouse
instinctively avoid wind turbines (tall
7
structures) to avoid predators are debated
because ofthe difficulty in directly connecting
predation risk to infrastructure, which often
includes a combination of features (Walters and
others, 2014). A further discussion of this topic
is contained in the Tall Structures section
below. It is notable that use ofwind turbines as
perches has not been documented.
Tall Structures
It is important to recognize that the
effect oftall structures remains debated, and this
category contains a wide array of infrastructure
including poles that support lights, telephone
and electrical distribution, communication
towers, meteorological towers, and high-tension
transmission towers. Determining effects of
these structures has remained difficult due to
limited research and confounding effects (for
example, towers and transmission lines are
typically associated with other development
infrastructure; Messmer and others, 2013;
Walters and others, 2014). Lacking precise
information regarding the influence of tall
structures on the foraging behavior of corvids
and raptors, management plans have adopted
similar buffer distances to other infrastructure,
for example a l-km (0.6-mi) buffer of
avoidance around lek sites. The general
assumption is that these structures offer
opportunities for increased predator use and
thereby generate aversion behaviors among prey
species (that is, sage-grouse); however, other
effects, such as electro-magnetic radiation, have
not been eliminated, and effects on predation
rates have not been confirmed (Messmer and
others, 2013). Habitat alteration, akin to other
linear features (see previous section), may also
be considered an important component of
interactions between powerline corridors and
sage-grouse popUlations. The l-km (0.6-mi)
buffer indicated here (table 1) was based upon
Wallestad and Schladweiler (1974) who
observed that more than 90 percent of breeding
season movements by male grouse were within
1.3 km (0.8 mi) of a lek (76 percent of
movements occurred within 1 km [0.6 mi]).
Subsequently, Connelly and others (2000, p.
977) suggested, "avoid building powerlines and
other tall structures that provide perch sites for
raptors within 3 km of seasonal habitats ... lines
should be buried or posts modified to prevent
use as perches..." Recent research has added
important information to previous speculations
and estimations, specifying concentrated
foraging behaviors by common ravens (a
common predator of sage-grouse nests) at 2.2
km (1.4 mi) from electrical transmission towers
with the observed foraging area extending out to
11 km (6.8 mi; Coates, and others, 2014a).
According to estimates, the greatest potential
impact on sage-grouse nests occurs within 570
m (0.35 mi) of structures (Howe and others,
2014). Negative trends in lek counts were
associated with increasing number of
communication towers within 18km of leks
range wide (Johnson and others 2011). Johnson
and others (2011) also documented negative
trends in lek counts for Great Plains popUlations
within 20 km (12.4 mi) ofa power transmission
line or when the linear density of powerlines
within 5 km (3.1 mi) ofleks was greater than 10
km (62 mi)-notably, affected areas may be
greater in these habitats (compared to other
intermountain communities) because visibility
is often greater in gentle terrain.
Although considerable attention has
been paid to the influence of tall structures
(both anthropogenic and trees) on the quality of
sage-grouse habitat (for example, Connelly and
others, 2000; Connelly and others, 2004; Stiver
and others, 2006; National Technical Team,
Sage-Grouse, 2011; Manier and others, 2013),
solid evidence that sage-grouse instinctively
avoid tall structures to avoid predators remains
debated because ofthe difficulty in connecting
predation risk to various combinations of
infrastructure (Walters and others, 2014).
However some evidence exists; in Wyoming the
risk ofdeath for sage-grouse hens was greater
near potential raptor perches (Dinkins and
8
others, 2014), and in Idaho common raven
abundance was greater near energy
lI!..f!:a:~t:n!Q~J~!~19nDA Jnn;_Q;)~j~~.C!Qd
others 20 14a,b). Coates and others (20 14b)
found different effects of infrastructure on three
species of raptor (Buteo spp.) and common
ravens, with clear increases in raven abundance
with infrastructure but less consistent results
with raptors. Also, in Wyoming, common raven
habitat use was greatest within 3 kIn (1.8 mil of
human activity centers, and raven occupancy
was correlated with nest failure (Bui and others,
2010). These studies suggest a potential
increase in predators of sage-grouse, in
particular ravens, which may influence
predation pressure more than raptors.
Low Structures
Collisions of flying sage-grouse with
fences have been associated with mortality
(Beck and others, 2006; Stevens and others,
2012a,b). Incidents were focused within 1.6-3.2
kIn (1-2 mil ofleks on flat to rolling terrain and
fences with wide spacing ofpoles and (or) less
visible 't-posts' (as opposed to wooden posts)
(Stevens and others 2012a,b). Importantly, the
effect of fences was apparently less in rougher
terrain, presumably due to differences in flight
behaviors in the birds. Marking fences helps
flying grouse avoid these collisions; therefore,
marking or removal of fences within 2 km (1.2
mil of leks on flat or rolling terrain can reduce
sage-grouse mortality associated with collisions.
In a review ofprevious research, including
theses and reports, Connelly and others (2004,
p. 4-2) described findings ofRogers (1964)
who stated that only 5 percent of leks were
found within 200 m (656 ft) ofa building,
.!!hi~ILS!Um~ ~_tt1I~evenJ:vj!hol!t.~..gular
activity and (or) noise, may have produced
aversion behavior in historic sage-grouse
populations. Recent research provides evidence
that ravens forage at distances as far as 5.1 kIn
(xx mil from buildings in sagebrush
environments (Coates and others, 2014a)
suggesting that a wide distribution of
infrastructure that can supply nesting or resting
sites for ravens could have negative effects on
sage-grouse populations.
Activities (Without Habitat Loss)
Tests using recorded noises and wild
sage-grouse populations (Blickley and others,
2012) suggest that loud noises transmitted at
decibels (70 dB at 0 m; 40 dB at 100 m [328 ftn
to approximate a noise source 400 m (1300 ft)
from leks caused decreased activity on leks.
Though they did not test the range of potential
noise volumes or activities (different noises)
associated with recreation or other
(nonindustrial) activitie~ this research is our
best evidence ofthe effect of noise (independent
from infrastructure) on sage-grouse behavior.
The upper limit (4.8 km [3 mil) is the value
being used by the State ofNevada for reducing
noise effects on sage-grouse due to locations of
geothermal energy facilities (Nevada
Governor's Sage-Grouse Conservation Team,
2010). Better understanding ofthe type,
frequency, and volume of noise effects on sage
grouse behavior will enhance our ability to
derme effect areas.
9
References Cited
Symbols in this section refer to citations in Table 1.
Aldridge, C.L., and Boyce, M.S., 2007, Linking
occurrence and fitness to persistence
Habitat-based approach for endangered
Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecological
Applications, v. 17, p. 508-526.
Aldridge, C.L., Nielsen, S.E., Beyer, H.L.,
Boyce, M.S., Connelly, J.W., Knick, S.T., and
Schroeder, M.A., 2008, Range-wide patterns
of Greater Sage-Grouse persistence: Diversity
and Distributions, v. 14, p. 983-94.
Beck, J.L., Booth, D.T., an~Kennedy, C.L.,
2014, Assessing Greater Sage-Grouse
breeding habitat with aerial and ground
imagery: Rangeland Ecology and
Management, v. 67, p. 328-332.
Beck, J.L., Reese, K.P., Connelly, J.W., and
Lucia, M.B., 2006, Movements and survival
ofjuvenile Greater Sage-Grouse in
southeastern Idaho: Wildlife Society Bulletin
v.34,p.l070-1078.
Berry, J.D., and Eng, R.L., 1985, Interseasonal
movements and fidelity to seasonal use areas
by female sage-grouse: Journal of Wildlife
Management, v. 49, p. 237-40.
l Btickley, J.L., Blackwood, D., Patricelli, G.L.,
2012, Experimental evidence for the effects of
chronic anthropogenic noise on abundance of
greater sage-grouse at leks: Conservation
Biology, v. 26, p. 461-471.
Bui, T.V.D., MarzluH: J.M., Bedrosian, B.,
2010, Common raven activity in relation to
land use in western Wyoming: implications
for greater-sage grouse reproductive success:
Condor, v. 112, p. 65-78.
Carpenter, J., Aldridge, C.L., and Boyce, M.S.,
2010, Sage-grouse habitat selection during
winter in Alberta: Journal of Wildlife
Management, v. 74, p. 1806-1814.
Coates, P.S. and Delehanty, D.J., 2010, Nest
predation of Greater Sage-Grouse in relation
to microhabitat factors and predators: Journal
of Wildlife Management, v. 74, p. 240-248.
Coates, P.S:, Casazza, M.L., Blomberg, EJ.,
Gardner, S.C., Espinosa, S.P., Vee, J.L.,
Wiechman, L., and Halstead. B.1., 2013,
Evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal
space use relative to leks: Implications for
surface use designations in sagebrush
ecosystems: Journal of Wildlife Management,
v. 77,p. 1598-1609.
Coates, P.S., Howe, K.B., Casazza M.L., and
Delehanty, D.1., 2014a, Common raven
occurrence in relation to energy transmission
line corridors transiting human-altered
sagebrush steppe: Journal ofArid
Environments, v. 111, p.68-78.
Coates, P .S., Howe, K.B., Casazza, M.L., and
Delehanty DJ., 2014b, Landscape alterations
influence differential habitat use of nesting
buteos and ravens within sagebrush
ecosystem: Implications for transmission line
development: Condor, v. 116, p. 341-356.
Connelly, J. W., Schroeder, M. A., Sands, A.
R., and Braun, C. E., 2000, Guidelines to
manage sage grouse populations and their
habitats: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 28,
p.967-985.
§ Connelly, J. W., Knick, S.T., Schroeder, M.
A. and Stiver, S. J., 2004, Conservation
assessment ofgreater sage-grouse and
sagebrush habitats: Western Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA),
600 p.
Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering
Committee, 2008, Colorado Greater Sage
Grouse Conservation Plan. Colorado Division
of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Davies, K.W. and Bates, J.D., 2010, Vegetation
Characteristics of Mountain and Wyoming
Big Sagebrush Plant Communities in the
10
Northern Great Basin: Rangeland Ecology
and Management, v. 63, p. 461-466.
Dinkins, J.B.,-Conover, M.R-Kirol, C.P. Beck,
J. L. and Frey S.N,. 2014, Greater sage-grouse
hen survival: effects of raptors, anthropogenic
and landscape features, and hen behavior:
Canadian Journal ofZoology, v. 92, p. 319
330.
Doherty, K.B., Naugle, D.E., Walker, B.L., and
Graham J .M., 2008, Greater Sage-Grouse
Winter Habitat Selection and Energy
Development: Journal of Wildlife
Management, v. 72, p. 187-95.
Doherty, K.E., Naugle, D.E., and Walker B.L.,
2010, Greater Sage-Grouse nesting habitat:
the importance ofmanaging at multiple
scales: Journal of Wildlife Management, v.
74, p. 1544-1553.
Fedy, B.C., Aldridge, C.L., Doherty, K.E.,
O'Donnell, M., Beck, J.L., Bedrosian, B.,
Holloran, M.J., Johnson, G. D., Kaczor,
N.W., Kirol, C.P., Mandich, C.A., Marshall,
D., McKee, G., Olson, C., Swanson, C.C. and
Walker, B.L., 2012, Interseasonal Movements
ofGreater Sage-Grouse, Migratory Behavior,
and an Assessment ofthe Core Regions
Concept in Wyoming: Journal of Wildlife
Management, v. 76, p. 1062-1071.
Fedy, B.C., Doherty, K.E., Aldridge, C.L.,
O'Donnell, M., Beck, J.L., Bedrosian, B.,
Gummer, D., Holloran, M.J., Johnson, G.D.,
Kaczor, N.W., Kiml, C.P., Mandich, D.A.,
Marshall, D., McKee, G., Olson, C., Pratt,
A.C., Swanson, C.C.,Walker, B.L., 2014,
Habitat prioritization across large landscapes,
multiple seasons, and novel areas: An
example using Greater Sage-Grouse in
Wyoming: Wildlife Monographs, v. 190,
p.I-39.
Fischer, RA., Reese, K.P., and Connelly, J.W.,
1996, Influence ofvegetal moisture content
and nest fate on timing offemale sage grouse
migration: Condor, v. 98, p.868-872.
Gregory, AJ., and Beck, J .L., 2014, Spatial
heterogeneity in response ofmale greater
sage:groyse Jf?k~tt~ndan_~e_~()_~t).~gy____ _
development: PLoS ONE, v. 9, e97132.
Hagen, CA., Connelly, J.W., Schroeder, MA.,
2007, A meta-analysis ofgreater sage-grouse
Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and brood
rearing habitats: Wildlife Biology, v. 13,
p.42-50
Hanser, S.B., Aldridge, C.L., Leu, M., Rowland,
M.M., Nielsen, S.E., and Knick S.T., 2011,
Greater Sage-Grouse: General Use and Roost
Site Occurrence with Pellet Counts as a
Measure ofRelative Abundance, p. 112-140
in S. E. Hanser, M. Leu, S. T. Knick, and C.
L. Aldridge, eds., Sagebrush ecosystem
conservation and management: ecoregional
assessment tools and models for the
Wyoming Basins: Allen Press, Lawrence, KS.
• Holloran, M.J., and Anderson. S.H., 2005,
Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse
Nests in Relatively Contiguous Sagebrush
Habitats: Condor, v. 107, p. 742-52.
o Howe, K.B., Coates, P.S., and Delehanty, DJ.,
2014, Selection of anthropogenic features and
vegetation characteristics by nesting Common
Ravens in the sagebrush ecosystem: Condor,
v. 116, p. 25-49.
oJohnson, D. H., Hol1oran, M. J. Connelly, J.
W. Hanser, S. E. Amundson, C. L. andKnick
S. T., 2011, Influences of Environmental and
Anthropogenic Features on Greater Sage
Grouse Populations, 1997-2007, Chapter 17
In S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, eds.,
Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology ofa Landscape
Species and Its Habitats, Studies in Avian
Biology No. 38: University ofCalifornia
Press: Berkeley, CA, p. 407-450.
Kirol, C.P., Beck, J.L., Dinkins, J.B., and
Conover, M.R., 2012, Microhabitat selection
for nesting and brood-rearing by the Greater
Sage-Grouse in xeric big sagebrush: Condor,
v. 114, p.75-89.
11
Knick, S.T., 2011, Historical development,
principal federa1legislation, and current
management ofsagebrush habitats:
implications for conservation. in S. T. Knick
and J. W. Connelly, eds. Greater Sage
Grouse: ecology and conservation ofa
landscape species and its habitats. Studies in
Avian Biology No. 38, University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA. p. 13-31.
Knick, S.T., and Hanser, S.E., 2011, Connecting
pattern and process in Greater Sage-Grouse
populations and sagebrush landscapes, in S.
T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, eds., Greater
Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a
landscape species and its habitats. Studies in
Avian Biology No.3 8: University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA. p. 383-405.
Knick, S.T., Hanser, S.E., and Preston, K.L,.
2013, Modeling ecological minimum
requirements for distribution ofgreater sage
grouse leks: implications for population
connectivity across their western range,
U.S.A.: Ecology and Evolution, v. 3,
p.1539-1551.
Knick, S.T., Hanser, S.E. Miller, RF., Pyke,
D.A., Wisdom, M.J., Finn, S. P., Rinkes, E.T.
and Henny C.J., 2011, Ecological Influence
and Pathways ofLand Use in Sagebrush, In S.
T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, eds., Greater
Sage-Grouse: Ecology ofa Landscape
Species and Its Habitats, Studies in Avian
Biology No.3 8: University of California
Press: Berkeley, CA, p. 203-252.
LeBeau, C.W., Beck, J.L., Johnson G.D. and
Holloran, M.J., 2014, Short-tenn impacts of
wind energy development on Greater Sage
Grouse fitness: Journal ofWildlife
Management, v. 78, p. 522-530.
Leu, M., Hanser, S.E., and Knick S.T., 2008,
The human footprint in the West: a large
scale analysis ofanthropogenic impacts,
Ecological Applications, v. 18, p. 119-1139.
Lyon, A.G., and Anderson S.H,. 2003, Potential
Gas Development Impacts on Sage Grouse
Nest Initiation and Movement. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, v. 31, p. 486-91.
Manier, D.J., Wood, DJ.A., Bowen, Z.H.,
Donovan, RM., Holloran, M.J., Juliusson,
LM., Mayne, K.S., Oyler-McCance, SJ.,
Quamen, F.R., Saber, D.J., and Titolo, A.J.,
2013, Summary of science, activities,
programs, and policies that influence the
rangewide conservation of Greater Sage
Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013
1098,331 p.
Messmer, T.A., Hasenyager, R. Burruss, J. and
Liguori S., 2013, Stakeholder contemporary
knowledge needs regarding the potential
effects oftall structures on sage-grouse.
Human-Wildlife Interactions, v. 7, p.273
298.
National Technical Team, Sage-Grouse, 2011,
A report on national Greater Sage-Grouse
conservation measures. Bureau of Land
Management: Technical Report. Washington,
D.C. and Denver, Colorado. 74p.
+Naugle, D. E., Doherty, K.E. Walker, B.L.
Holloran, MJ. and Copeland H.E., 2011,
Energy Development and Greater Sage
Grouse. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology ofa
Landscape Species and Its Habitats, edited by
S.T. Knick and Connelly J.W. Studies in
Avian Biology No. 38, University of
California Press: Berkeley, CA, p. 489-504.
'" Nevada Governor's Sage-Grouse
Conservation Team, 2010, Nevada energy and
infrastructure development standards to
conserve Greater Sage-Grouse populations
and their habitats. State ofNevada, Reno,
58 p.
Rogers, G.E., 1964, Sage-grouse investigations
in Colorado. Colorado Game and Fish
Department, Technical Publication No. 16,
Fort Collins, Colo.
Smith, J.T., Flake, L.D., Higgins, K F.,
Kobriger, G.D., and Homer C.G., 2005,
12
Evaluating lek occupancy ofGreater Sage
Grouse in relation to landscape cultivation in
,..Jh~PakQtas: W~~~rQ.NQ.tlb.AtPm~,
Naturalist, v. 65, p. 310-320.
Smith, K.T., Kirol, C.P., Beck, J.L, .and
Blomquist, F.C., 2014, Prioritizing winter
habitat quality for greater sage-grouse in a
landscape influenced by energy development:
Ecosphere, vol. 5, article 15
Stevens, B.S., Reese, K.P. Connelly, J.W., and
Musil D.D., 20l2a, Greater sage-grouse and
fences: Does marking reduce collisions?
Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 36, p. 297-303.
« Stevens, B.s., Connelly, J.W. and Reese K.P.,
2012b, Multi-scale assessment of greater
sage-grouse fence collision as a function of
site and broad scale factors.: Journal of
Wildlife Management, v. 76, p. 1370-1380.
Stiver, S.1., Apa, A.D., Bohne, J.R., Bunnell,
S.D., Deibert, P.A., Gardner, S.C., Hilliard,
M.A., McCarthy C.W., and Schroeder M.A.,
2006, Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive
Conservation Strategy. Western Association
ofFish and Wildlife Agencies. W AFW A
Report, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Available
online:
http://www.wafwa.orgidocumentslpdflGreater
Sage-grouseConservationStrategy2006.pd/
Swenson, J. E., Simmons, C.A. and Eustace
C.D., 1987, Decrease of Sage Grouse
Centrocercus urophasianus after ploughing
of sagebrush steppe: Biological Conservation,
v. 41, p. 125-132.
Tack, J.D., Naugle D.E., Carlson J.C. and
Fargey PJ., 2012,. Greater sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) migration links
the USA and Canada: a biological basis for
international prairie conservation: Oryx, vol.
46, p. 64-68.
Vander Haegen, W.M., Schroeder M.A. and
DeGraafR.M.. 2002. Predation on real and
._., _~U!<li.!ll!.1~_4t ,~l!n!!? ~~~!~4,sc~pes.
fragmented by agriculture: Condor, v. 104,
p.496-506.
* Walker, B. L., Naugle, D. E. and Doherty K.
E.. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse popUlation
response to energy development and habitat
loss: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 71,
p. 2644-2654.
o Wallestad, R. 0., and Schladweiler, P, 1974.
Breeding season movements and habitat
selection ofmale sage grouse: Journal of
Wildlife Management, v.38, p. 634-637.
Walters, K., Kosciuch K., and Jones, J., 2014,
Can the effect oftall structures on birds be
isolated from other aspects of development:
Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 38, p. 250-256.
Winder, V.L., McNew, L.B., Gregory, A.J.,
Hunt, L.M., Wisely, S.M., and Sandercock,
B.K., 2014, Effects ofwind energy
development on survival of female greater
prairie-chickens: Journal of Applied Ecology,
v. 51, p. 395-405.
Wisdom, M. J., Meinke, C. W. Knick, S. T. and
Schroeder, M. A., 2011, Factors associated
with extirpation of sage-grouse. In Knick, S.
T. and Connelly, J. W., eds. Greater Sage
Grouse: ecology ofa landscape species and its
habitats. Studies in Avian Biology No. 38,
University of California Press: Berkeley,
California, p. 451-472.
ISSN 2331·1258 (oninel
htIp:lld>.dd.tJI!II10,31~41239
13
Table 1. Lek buffer-dlstance estimates for six categories of anthropogenic land use and activity. Literature
minimum and maximum values are distances for observed effects found in the scientific literature. Interpreted
ranges indicate potential conservation buffer distances based on multiple sources. [Citations for literature minimum
and maximum values are denoted using corresponding symbols in the References Cited section.]
Category uteretura minimum Interpreted range (lower) Interpreted range (upper) uteretura maximum
Sll.lftlce distuJbance 32km(2mi)' SIcm(3.1mi) 81cm(Smi) 20km (12.4mi) 0
Linear features 400m (O.2Smi) ; SIcm(3.1mi) 81cm(Smi) 181cm (11.2mi) 0
Energy development 321cm (2mi) I 51cm(3.1mi) 81cm(Smi) 201cm (12.4mi) 0
Tall structures llcm (0.6mi) 0 3.31cm(2mi) 81cm(Smi) 181cm (1I2mi) 0
Low structures 200 m (0.12 mi) I 21cm(l2mi) 5.1 Icm (3.2mi) 5.1 Icm (3.2mi)·
Activities 400 m (OJ 2 mi); 400 m (0.12 mi) 4.8 km(3mi) 4.8 Icm (3mi)·
14