Number range CHAPTER ***Briefing Paper***

**Prairie Grouse Leks and Wind Turbines: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Justification for a 5-Mile Buffer from Leks; Additional Grassland
Songbird Recommendations**

**[Date]{.underline}:** July 30, 2004 \[Prairie Grouse Lek 5 Mile
Public.doc\]

**[Issue]{.underline}:** The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS,
Service, or we) recommended "\... avoiding placing wind turbines within
5 miles \[8 km\] of known leks (communal pair formation grounds[^1]) in
known prairie grouse habitat" (see p. 4, item 7, Site Development
Recommendations) in our *Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize
Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines*, a notice of its availability
published July 10, 2003 in the *Federal Register*. Some have questioned
the validity of this recommendation, specifically the distance metric.
While many grouse biologists consider 3 distinct groups of grouse in
North America, including forest grouse (*e.g.*, Ruffed, Blue, and
Spruce), prairie grouse (*e.g.*, Greater and Lesser Prairie-chickens and
Sharp-tailed Grouse), and Sage-grouse (F. Hall 2004 personal
communication \[hereafter pers. comm.\]), the Service's guidance
included prairie and sage grouse within the same general "prairie
grouse" category. This briefing paper provides justification for the
Service's recommendation for a 5-mile buffer from occupied prairie
grouse leks.

> The Service reiterates that our wind siting guidelines are voluntary;
> we are not restricting installation of wind turbines or wind
> facilities within a 5-mile radius of active leks. Prior to any site
> selection, we recommend that the wind consultant/company/contractor
> assess the complete habitat requirements and habitat use and needs of
> whatever species of prairie and sage grouse is involved (*e.g.,*
> Greater and Lesser Prairie-chickens, and Gunnison and Greater
> Sage-grouse, and Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse) at the site. All
> habitat requirements of prairie grouse should be considered, *i.e.*,
> habitats for courting and breeding (leks), nesting, brooding, resting,
> feeding, migrating, and wintering. Given continuing uncertainties
> about structural impacts on prairie grouse, especially the lack of
> data regarding impacts from wind facilities, and the clearly declining
> trends in prairie grouse populations (see below), we urge a
> precautionary approach by industry and recommend a 5-mile buffer where
> feasible. The public comment period on our voluntary guidance will
> continue to be open through July 10, 2005. We strongly encourage all
> interested parties to provide suggestions and recommendations on our
> voluntary guidance that will help improve its reliability and update
> its usability. Comments on the distance metric, especially those
> derived from ongoing scientific studies, will be important.
>
> It also was recommended that we include a brief discussion on the
> declining populations of grassland and sage-steppe obligate songbirds
> and the need to protect their habitats. This briefing statement will
> review their habitat needs and will briefly discuss disturbance and
> habitat fragmentation.

**[Prairie Grouse Status]{.underline}:**

> All species of prairie grouse are declining, some severely. The range
> and population of the Lesser Prairie-chicken (LPCH) have declined \>
> 90% since European settlement of the great plains 100 years ago
> (Giesen 1998). The Attwater's Greater Prairie-chicken has been
> Federally listed as endangered in its entire range \-- now Texas \--
> since 1967. The LPCH is currently listed as a candidate species under
> ESA in CO, KS, NM, OK, and TX. A "candidate species" is a plant or
> animal for which FWS has sufficient information on their biological
> status and threats to propose listing under ESA, but for which
> development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher
> priority listing activities. It is a formal ESA designation, although
> candidate species do not receive legal protections under the Act.
>
> The Gunnison Sage-grouse, found in the Gunnison Basin (CO and UT) was
> candidate-designated under ESA in 2000. Their listing priority has
> recently been elevated. Populations of the Greater Sage-grouse have
> declined 66-92% during the past 30 years in western Canada where they
> are listed as endangered (Aldridge and Brigham 2002). Throughout North
> America, Sage-grouse distribution has been reduced by at least 50%
> since the early 1900s, with extirpation in 5 of 16 States and 1 of 3
> Canadian Provinces. Breeding populations of Sage-grouse have declined
> 45-80% from numbers estimated in the 1950s (Connelly and Braun 1997,
> Braun 1998, Connelly *et al.* 2004). The Greater Sage-grouse in the
> Columbia Basin (WA and OR) was also designated as a candidate species.
> In April 2004, FWS published a 90-day finding in the *Federal
> Register* (69 FR 21484) with regard to range-wide listing petitions
> for the Greater Sage-grouse. The FWS found that the petitions and
> additional information available in our files present substantial
> information indicating that listing may be warranted. This positive
> 90-day finding triggered a FWS status review of the species which will
> result in a 12-month finding that is to be available in December 2004
> (K. Kritz 2004 pers. comm.). In June 2004, the Western Association of
> Fish and Wildlife Agencies published a comprehensive, science-based
> assessment of the Greater Sage-grouse and its habitat, reviewing
> landscape information for the past 100 years, population data for the
> past 60 years, and the available literature (Connelly *et al.* 2004;
> see beyond).
>
> While wind turbines and wind facilities are new additions to prairie
> grouse habitats in the Midwest and West, their impacts to grouse
> populations could add to the cumulative effects of human development
> and exploitation from other sources in grouse and songbird habitats.
> With these continuing uncertainties, we recommend that the industry
> take a cautious approach. Prairie grouse did not evolve with tall
> vertical structures present so the addition of wind turbines and their
> supporting infrastructure represents a significant change in the
> species' environment (J. Connelly 2004 pers. comm.). Given the
> declining or precarious status of grouse populations, the impacts of
> wind development on prairie grouse must be evaluated with great care
> and considerable detail. Prairie grouse are "indicator organisms,"
> showing us the health of their environments, and sage grouse are
> "sensitive keystone species," representing critical components of
> their habitats (Lyon and Anderson 2003, S. Harmon 2004 pers. comm.).
> Grassland and sage-steppe-obligate songbirds (*e.g.*, Sage Sparrow,
> Brewer's Sparrow, Sage Thrasher, and Black-chinned Sparrow) are also
> showing serious population declines. Grassland songbirds are the
> fastest declining suite of birds in North America (Johnson *et al.*
> 2004).

**[Justification for Our Distance Recommendation]{.underline}:**

> While we acknowledge that much research continues on prairie grouse
> and the impacts of tall structures, including wind turbines -- and
> thus much of the data have yet to be peer reviewed and published --
> several studies and their recommendations have been published and are
> used as the basis for our 5-mile recommendation. Most compelling was
> the recommendation by Connelly *et al.* (2000:978) calling for
> protection of breeding habitats within 11.2 mi (18 km) of the leks of
> migratory populations of Sage-grouse (see discussion beyond). See also
> Giesen and Connelly (1993) beyond for a discussion of management
> guidelines for Columbian Sharp-tailed grouse.
>
> Extensive personal communications with many grouse specialists were
> also important in helping us make our determination. The published
> reviews (some of which were in press at the time of our
> recommendation) are included below.
>
> We believe it is important to clarify that avoidance of vertical
> structures by grassland and sage-steppe-obligate wildlife is not a new
> issue, and the Service's recommendations are not merely reactive to
> current recommendations promoting wind power development nationwide.
> Concerns were brought to the Division of Migratory Bird Management as
> early as 2000 regarding the possible impacts of wind turbines on
> prairie grouse, including noise, habitat disruption, disturbance,
> fragmentation, and increased predator access (R. Reynolds and N.
> Niemuth, FWS Habitat and Population Evaluation Team, Bismark, ND 2000
> pers. comm.). Much research has also been conducted on the impacts of
> high tension power transmission and electric distribution lines on
> prairie grouse, providing a detailed body of literature on a related
> structural issue (*e.g.*, Connelly *et al.* 2000, Braun *et al.* 2002,
> Hagen 2003, Wolfe *et al.* 2003a and 2003b, Pitman 2003, Hagen *et
> al.* 2004, Patten *et al.* 2004, and Connelly *et al.* 2004).
>
> ***Lesser Prairie-chicken*s**
>
> Mote *et al.* (1998:18) reported the findings of the Lesser
> Prairie-Chicken Interstate Working Group (represented by CO Division
> of Wildlife, KS Department of Wildlife and Parks, NM Department of
> Game & Fish, OK Department of Wildlife Conservation, and TX Department
> of Parks & Wildlife). This State-led team of species experts, with
> input and review by researchers and academics, identified the need for
> a contiguous block of 20 mi^2^ (52 km^2^) of high quality rangeland
> habitat to successfully maintain a local population of LPCH. If this
> area represented a hypothetical square home range (Figure 1), its
> boundaries would be approximately 4.5 x 4.5 mi (7.2 km) and a lek
> located in its center would be 2.25 mi (3.6 km) from the nearest side.
> If the hypothetical contiguous block were a circle (Figure 2), its
> radius would be 2.5 mi (4.1 km) in length from a lek located in its
> center. In Figure 2, we incorporated an additional 1.25-mi (2 km)
> minimum protection buffer zone beyond this hypothetical home range as
> recommended by Hagen *et al.* (2004:79), discussed below. Because
> range wide, the majority of remaining LPCH populations are fragmented
> and isolated into "islands" of unfragmented, open prairie, thus we
> assert that a 5-mile buffer from a lek is recommended to protect the
> wind power industry from later determinations that construction
> activities could significantly impact important LPCH populations and
> habitat corridors needed for future recovery.

Fig 1. 20 mi^2^ protected habitat. Fig 2. 20 mi^2^ protected habitat
using 2.5 mi radius from lek; with additional buffer zone recommended by
Hagen *et al.* (2004), protected area = 44.2 mi^2^.

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the minimum scale of unfragmented habitat
necessary to maintain a LPCH local population (S. Harmon 2004 pers.
comm., B. Obermeyer 2004 pers. comm., after Mote *et al.* 1998:18).

Other individual studies however, discussed in the next several
paragraphs, have suggested recommendations for protected distances less
than those presented by Mote *et al.* (1998). These variations may
reflect differences between individual populations, the variability in
the complexity of different habitats, habitat fragmentation and
disturbance, and other unknowns. For example, Pitman (2003:45, 49) and
J. Pitman (2004 pers. comm.) noted that \> 80% of LPCH hens nested
closer to a lek other than their lek of capture and they moved on
average \> 1.9 mi (3 km) from their capture location to initiate a nest.
He indicated that the presence of buildings, improved roads, power
lines, agricultural edge, and oil and gas wellheads all eliminated
potential nesting habitat for a radius of up to 0.62 mi (1 km; p. 46).
Roads, power lines and sometimes agricultural edge are all anthropogenic
features associated with wind energy facilities. He suggested that in
order to maintain movement between sub-populations of LPCH, habitat
fragments should not be further than 6.2 mi (10 km; p. 142) apart. The
recommendation was based on the dispersal distance of juvenile females
although the sample size was very small.

As a further example, Hagen (2003:156, 177) and C. Hagen (2004 pers.
comm.) studied LPCH in southwestern KS. He concluded that landscape
features, the proportion of an area occupied by power lines, and the
proximity of human structures clearly reduced otherwise suitable
habitat. The mean distance chickens avoided structures was 0.9 mi (1.4
km; p. 162). However, Hagen (2004 pers. comm.) cautioned that data are
presently lacking that indicate what happens to LPCH as habitat patches
become smaller or as patch quality becomes less diverse and as
anthropogenic features become more abundant. The distances in his study
may reflect the "tolerance" level of LPCH to structures in fragments of
\< 12,350 ac (5,000 ha) in size of moderate quality. He recommended that
as patch size becomes smaller and/or of lower quality, the LPCH will be
less tolerant to disturbance and fragmentation. Until data can support
an alternate hypothesis, Hagen (2003:159) and C. Hagen (2004 pers.
comm.) suggested protecting as large a buffer around remaining habitat
as possible.

> Hagen *et al.* (2004:79), in "guidelines for managing lesser
> prairie-chicken populations and their habitats," recommended that wind
> turbines and other tall vertical structures be constructed \>1.25 mi
> (2 km) from known or potentially occupied LPCH habitat, at a minimum.
> This recommended area represents a buffer beyond already existing LPCH
> home ranges (Figure 2). If wind facilities must be placed in known
> LPCH habitats, Hagen *et al.* (2004) suggested they be positioned
> along prairie edge or clustered in sites with other disturbances.
>
> Wolfe *et al.* (2003a:18) assessed LPCH habitat use and avian impacts
> in OK and NM. They indicated that while a common suggestion is to
> manage for nesting habitat within 1 mile (1.6 km) of a gobbling ground
> (lek), much larger areas are more likely to sustain broods. On
> average, hens nested 2.3 miles (3.7 km) from the lek on which they
> were captured (the record distance was 13.7 mi \[21.9 km\], p. 9),
> while successful nests averaged 2.6 miles (4.2 km) from the lek upon
> which the hen was captured. Their research also suggested that
> fragmentation from roads, fences, and power lines are a greater
> mortality factor than what had previously been thought. Collisions
> with human-built structures may be additive to other mortality. Wolfe
> *et al.* (2003b) reported that fragmentation likely elevated LPCH
> mortality due to collisions with fences and power lines. Wolfe *et
> al.* (2003a:16 and 2003b) noted that scavenging, especially by
> mammals, can occur at \> 50% of the carcasses within days, resulting
> in collision rates that are likely higher than they had reported.
> Wolfe *et al.* (2003b) and Patten *et al.* (2004a:1) reported that
> females in both NM and OK suffered greater mortality from collisions
> with human-built structures than did males. Females were reported less
> susceptible to predation in both NM and OK, but more susceptible to
> collisions with fences, power lines, and vehicles (Patten *et al.*
> 2004a:9; 0.29 for female mortality due to predation vs. 0.48 for
> female mortality due to collisions, N=79 females, based on the
> Kendall's T correlation matrix).
>
> Patten *et al*. (2004a:12-13) noted that female LPCHs tend to breed
> only during a single year in OK, making the OK population more
> susceptible to annual environmental stochasticity (randomness) and a
> higher probability of going extinct within the near future. In NM,
> breeding was more likely to also occur in the 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ years.
> Habitat fragmentation, based on evidence from their study, can
> markedly affect the likelihood of population persistence and survival
> (p. 14). Patten *et al*. (2004a:28) modeled the probability of
> extirpation of LPCH in OK over the next 30 years. A few "bad years,"
> they concluded (*i.e.,* climatic changes resulting in unfavorable
> weather conditions, low food yields, and heavy predation) could put
> the species over the brink, giving conservation professionals little
> time to react. This "too little, too late" scenario occurred with the
> Attwater's Prairie-chicken, largely due to the unavailability of
> necessary habitat that prairie grouse require (S. Harmon 2004 pers.
> comm.).
>
> For LPHCs, increased habitat fragmentation and isolation of existing
> populations are of major concern. The placement of wind plants in a
> critical corridor area between 2 or more populations might permanently
> prevent connectivity. Potential connectivity corridors, however, have
> not been fully identified (D. Wolfe 2004 pers. comm.).
>
> ***Greater Prairie-chickens***
>
> Although many studies have identified prairie grouse avoidance of
> vertical structures, to date, the only documented case of interaction
> specifically between prairie grouse and a commercial wind facility
> comes from northwestern MN. This information, however, is anecdotal in
> nature, collected peripheral to other research. As a result, no peer
> review or statistical testing of the findings are possible at this
> time. Society and Toepfer (2003:47) reported in their study area,
> composed of a habitat patch approximately 3 x 4 mi (4.8 x 6.4 km),
> that some individual Greater Prairie-chickens (GPCH) appeared to
> tolerate to some degree a small complex of 3 wind turbines.
> Specifically, researchers documented 6 active leks within 2 mi (3.2
> km) of the 3 wind turbines, 1 lek within 0.6 mi (1 km) of the nearest
> turbine, and 1 hen with a brood immediately adjacent to a turbine.
> However, Society and Toepfer (2003:47) cautioned that further
> development and expansion of wind power on this site could negatively
> impact the use of the grassland by Chickens.
>
> When considering this case, the Service contacted the primary
> investigator and discussed the observations at length. For the
> following 3 reasons, we find that Society and Toepfer\'s (2003)
> observations may not necessarily be in conflict with other
> researchers\' findings and our voluntary siting guidelines. First, it
> is important to emphasize that this study site is relatively small and
> isolated within a landscape of primarily cultivated fields. As a
> result, individual GPCHs in the local population have little
> alternative than to continue using the habitat, regardless of its
> level of fragmentation.
>
> Second, the documentation of active leks within 5 miles of the
> turbines may reinforce what is widely known about the behavior and
> life history of male Prairie Grouse. Within these species, females are
> the primary dispersers, whereas males \"imprint\" on a particular lek
> and nearby leks, and remain in the vicinity until their death. For
> this reason, males are very unlikely to leave historic leks,
> regardless of habitat quality or disturbance. Unless a particular
> human activity results in direct adult mortality, local lek counts may
> not decline for many years following a particular fragmentation event.
> An often-cited example of this behavior involves Greater Sage-grouse
> cocks observed strutting on the busy airport runway in Jackson Hole,
> WY. The runway was constructed over an historic lek, yet cocks
> continued to display on the site for many years because there is
> little alternative habitat in the small, isolated valley (P. Deibert
> 2004, pers. comm.).
>
> Third, the population of GPCHs inhabiting this particular study site
> is considered very robust compared to other studies of Prairie Grouse.
> Lek counts in the small study area are known to be as high as 40
> birds/lek. Given the small habitat scale and high density of both leks
> and birds per unit area, it is clear that amount of habitat, and not
> necessarily survivability, is a primary limiting factor constraining
> this population. Consequently, birds within this population are likely
> to be observed in all portions of useable space, and anecdotal sitings
> near the wind turbines neither confirm nor deny prairie grouse
> tolerance of commercial wind facilities in more typical habitats.
> However, these sitings offer the possibility that prairie grouse may
> be more tolerant of wind turbines than current research data suggest
> (S. Harmon 2004 pers. comm., B. Obermeyer 2004 pers. comm.). The
> preliminary findings also imply that, if other factors are not
> limiting to GPCHs, turbines might not be avoided elsewhere. However,
> while birds may persist near turbines, survival of those individuals
> may be compromised, resulting in a population decline. Until more
> studies are conducted, we can only speculate about cause-and-effect
> and survivorship (B. Millsap 2004 pers. comm.).
>
> Because Prairie Grouse are relatively long-lived birds (often 3-6
> years), and because they exhibit high site fidelity and clumped
> distribution on the landscape, the Service cautions that anecdotal
> sitings of individuals near wind turbines are neither unexpected nor
> informative about the cumulative effects of structural avoidance and
> habitat fragmentation on populations as a whole. Comprehensive,
> long-term studies in unconstrained habitats are essential to
> determining what level of habitat avoidance can be expected in
> response to wind turbine construction in occupied Prairie Grouse range
> (S. Harmon 2004 pers. comm.).

Patten *et al.* (2004b:1-2, 32) examined habitat fragmentation and its
impacts on GPCH. Because of virtually no habitat fragmentation and a
high continuity of tallgrass prairie in their study area, their estimate
of home range size was determined to be the smallest of any study for
this species. The minimum habitat size needed to avoid impacts to GPCHs
in their study area was estimated at about 38.5 mi^2^ (99.7 km^2^). If
the hypothetical contiguous block were a circle (Figure 4), its radius
would be 3.5 mi (5.6 km) in length from a lek located in its center.
When we incorporated an additional minimum 1.25-mi (2 km) protection
zone recommended by Hagen *et al* (2004:79), the area of the larger
circular home range is 70.9 mi^2^ (184.3 km^2^). If this area
represented a hypothetical square home range (Figure 3), its boundaries
would be approximately 6.2 x 6.2 mi (10 km) and a lek located in its
center would be 3.1 mi (5 km) from the nearest side.

Fig 3. 20 mi^2^ home range. Fig 4. 38.5 mi^2^ protected habitat using
3.5 mi radius from lek; with additional buffer zone recommended by Hagen
*et al.* (2004), protected area = 70.9 mi^2^.

> Figures 3 and 4 show the minimum area of un-fragmented habitat
> necessary to maintain a local population of GPCH (S. Harmon 2004 pers.
> comm., B. Obermeyer 2004 pers. comm., after Patten *et al.*
> 2004b:1-2,32).
>
> Results of the Patten *et al.* (2004b:2, 32) study predict that
> increased habitat fragmentation will force individual GPCHs to expand
> their home range, resulting in a decrease in survivorship from more
> predation, collisions, and energy expenditures.
>
> ***Sage-grouse***

Connelly *et al.* (2000) recently revised and expanded the guidelines
for the management of Sage-grouse, originally published by Braun *et
al.* (1977). Based on seasonal movements among populations, Connelly *et
al.* (2000:969) summarized the 3 types of Sage-grouse populations: 1)
those which are non-migratory and do not make long-distance movements
(*i.e.* \> 6 mi \[10 km\] one-way), 2) those which exhibit one-stage
migration between 2 distinct seasonal ranges, and 3) those which exhibit
2-stage migration among 3 distinct seasonal ranges. Connelly *et al.*
(2000:969) further reported that migratory Sage-grouse can occupy areas
in excess of 1,042 mi^2^ (2,700 km^2^). Connelly *et al.* (2000:977-978)
developed recommendations for habitat protection upon which, in part,
the Service's guidance is based. Specifically, for non-migratory
populations occupying habitats that are uniformly distributed, they
recommended protecting sagebrush and herbaceous understory within 2 mi
(3.2 km) of all occupied leks. For non-migratory populations, leks
should be considered the center of year-round activity and treated as
the focal points for management activities. For non-migratory
populations where sagebrush is not uniformly distributed, suitable
habitats should all be protected out to 3.1 mi (5 km) from all occupied
leks. For migratory populations of Sage Grouse, breeding habitats within
11.2 mi (18 km) of active leks should be protected, recognizing that
nesting birds may move \> 11.2 mi (18 km) from leks to nest sites. This
recommendation (Figures 5 and 6) obviously represents a protected area
much larger than the 5-mile suggestion by the Service. While Connelly
*et al.* (2000) made a distinction between resident and migratory (2
types) populations, in radio telemetry research conducted by Hall in
Lassen County, CA, from 1998-2001 (F. Hall 2004 pers. comm.), his team
discovered that some Sage-grouse populations include both resident and
migratory birds down to the individual lek level. Specifically, they
found resident, 1-stage and 2-stage females present on each of 9 leks
(unpublished data). Populations are not always either resident or
migratory.

Fig 5. 502 mi^2^ home range. Fig 6. 394 mi^2^ protected habitat using
11.2 mi radius from lek; with additional buffer zone recommended by
Hagen *et al.* (2004), protected area = 486.95 mi^2^.

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the recommended protected breeding habitat
for migratory populations of Sage-grouse based on a hypothetical square
and circular home range, after Connelly *et al.* (2000:978) with buffer
suggested by Hagen *et al.* (2004:79).

> C. Braun (2004 pers. comm.) provided further comment on the
> recommendations discussed by Connelly *et al.* (2000:978) above (he
> was a coauthor of this article). For non-migratory populations of
> Sage-grouse, he felt a distance of 2 mi (3.2 km) was sufficient to
> protect breeding habitat from leks where no habitat disturbance was
> present. Where habitat disturbances were noted, he recommended a
> 3-mile (5 km) no-disturbance zone. For migratory populations, he
> reiterated Connelly *et al*'s 11-mile (18 km) no-disturbance zone from
> active leks. These recommendations he felt were based on "best
> professional judgment" and should change only when "no impacts could
> be demonstrated" by industry for zones of disturbance of lesser
> distance from leks. Wind generators, he indicated, were quite tall and
> could be seen and avoided by Sage-grouse for long distances. Noise
> (especially humming), motion, and height all may negatively affect
> Sage-grouse, although he indicated we still don't know the specific
> effects. Braun therefore felt that FWS could defend our 5-mile
> recommendation even though definitive data showing impacts are still
> being collected. C. Aldridge (2004 pers. comm.) also felt the
> Service's 5-mile distance recommendation "was reasonable" and
> represented an adaptive management approach by the FWS. He indicated
> that it was in "everybody's best interest to err on the safe side"
> especially due to issues regarding avoidance (including known and
> unknown impacts), landscape effects of wind and other structures, and
> the simple occurrence of birds versus their overall survival.
>
> For the biologists who have worked on Sage-grouse for some time, it
> was noted that birds seem to be especially susceptible to disturbance
> and will often abandon nests even in later stages of incubation.
> Certainly wind turbine construction and maintenance activities fall
> under the category of "disturbance" (J. Connelly 2004 pers. comm.).
>
> Connelly *et al.* (2004) published the most comprehensive,
> science-based synthesis of the Greater Sage-grouse and its habitat
> needs yet conducted. While the Conservation Assessment did not provide
> minimum distance recommendations from wind turbines, it did discuss
> wind energy development as one of several factors that could impact
> sagebrush ecosystems and thereby Sage-grouse. Noise from wind turbine
> rotor blades and bird mortality were cited as issues of concern
> regarding wind energy (Chap. 7:42-43). Connelly *et al.* (2004) were
> not optimistic about the future of Sage-grouse because of long-term
> population declines coupled with loss and degradation of habitat and
> other factors such as disease (ES:5). They also raised concerns about
> the distribution, configuration, and characteristics of Grouse
> migration corridors which unfortunately are largely unknown in most
> portions of the Sage-grouse range (Chap. 4:19). Disturbance issues
> were also discussed regarding lek distribution and highways (Chap.
> 13:12-13. Lyon and Anderson (2003) further documented effects of
> disturbance on breeding Sage-grouse.
>
> Braun *et al.* (2002:345, 346) reported that the sagebrush-obligate
> species, Gunnison and Greater Sage-grouse, were particularly
> susceptible to noise near leks and to the placement of overhead power
> lines at least 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from any Greater Sage-grouse breeding
> and nesting grounds. Development was viewed as a negative impact in
> this study, characterized by a loss of habitat and disturbances
> associated with structures, roads, and noise -- especially during the
> breeding season.
>
> F. Hall (2004 pers. comm.) in a Lassen County, CA study on Greater
> Sage-grouse has recently documented significant impacts from overhead
> power transmission and communication distribution lines to this
> species out to 3.7 mi (6 km). When these lines are placed near
> turbines, they could provide perches for Golden Eagles and nest sites
> for Common Ravens. This concern coincides with the Service's
> recommendation (see Turbine Design and Operation, no. 4, p. 4) to
> place electric power lines underground or on the surface as insulated,
> shielded wire to minimize strike and electrocution problems.
>
> In a related study, Popham and Gutierrez (2003:331, 332) radio-tagged
> 65 female Greater Sage-grouse in northern CA of which 45 radio-tagged
> hens were tracked to their nests. Successful grouse nests were located
> farther from the nearest lek (2.2 mi \[3.6 km\], SE= 811 m) than were
> nests that were unsuccessful (1.2 mi \[1.96 km\], SE=384 m; p. 331).
> Others, however, have not noticed this difference (J. Connelly 2004
> pers. comm.). Popham and Gutierrez noted that native shrub-steppe
> habitat had been degraded due to excessive grazing, juniper
> encroachment, agriculture, and anthropogenic development. Results from
> the Popham and Gutierrez study represent a portion of the entire
> ongoing project being conducted by Hall and his team in Lassen County,
> CA (F. Hall 2004 pers. comm.).
>
> Johnsgard (2002:116) indicated that there was no obvious relationship
> between lek location and nest site. In 5 different studies involving
> more than 300 nests the average distance between lek and Sage-grouse
> nest where the females was first seen or captured was 3.5 mi (5.6 km
> ). This distance is greater than the mean interlek distance from
> several studies, which ranged from 0.8- 3 mi (1.3- 4.8 km; Wakkinen
> *et al.* 1992, Johnsgard 2002:116, J. Connelly 2004 pers. comm., R.
> Hazlewood 2004 pers. comm.).
>
> ***Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse***
>
> Disturbance to Sharp-tailed Grouse was reported by Baydack and Hein
> (1987:538) in southwestern Manitoba. While males were reported present
> during disturbances (*e.g.*, parked vehicles, propane exploders,
> scarecrows, taped voices, radio sounds, and a leashed dog), female
> Sharptails were not observed on leks during test disturbances.
> Disturbance appeared to limit reproductive opportunities for both
> sexes. They concluded that continued disturbance over several seasons
> could bring about population declines.
>
> Giesen and Connelly (1993) reported on movements and management needs
> of Columbia Sharp-tailed Grouse in the West. While wind turbines were
> unavailable to assess during this time frame, reported Grouse
> movements between breeding areas and winter range -- varying from 1.6
> mi (2.6 km) to 12.4 mi (20 km) depending on study and location (p.
> 327) -- could be impacted by current and proposed wind development.
> They specifically indicated the lack of experimental data on the
> effects of habitat alterations on this species. Among their
> recommendations, Giesen and Connelly (1993:331) suggested avoiding
> vegetation manipulation within a 1.25-mi (2 km) radius of the active
> lek in order to protect the nesting and brood-rearing habitats of this
> Sharp-tailed Grouse.
>
> ***Suitable But Abandoned Habitat***
>
> During periods of population decline, prairie grouse may abandon
> lekking sites in smaller, fragmented habitats and congregate into
> larger, more intact areas (core habitat). Given that many grouse
> species are currently at population lows, human development of
> suitable but abandoned prairie grouse habitat could severely impede
> efforts to restore their numbers. In other words, protection of core
> prairie grouse habitat through the use of the Service's 5-mile buffer
> is a conservative approach (B. Obermeyer 2004 pers. comm.).
>
> 2004b:2)pr

![](media/image2.png){width="3.6354330708661418in"
height="3.5070866141732284in"} airie grouse habitat through the use of a
5-mile buffer is a conservative approach.

> Obermeyer and Applegate (unpublished data) located 31 active GPCH leks
> in a 181-mi^2^ area (465 km^2^, 115,000 acres) of native rangeland in
> eastern Greenwood County, KS, during spring of 1997. Lek influence
> within the study area, as defined by a 1.9-mi (3-km) radius, was 152.6
> mi^2^ (391.4 km^2^; Figure 7). Generally, the stronger leks were
> located in the more unfragmented areas of native rangeland. A much
> larger zone of lek influence at this study area was noted just a few
> years previous. Lek distribution along the western boundary shrank by
> approximately 6 miles between 1987 and 1997 (B. Obermeyer 2004 pers.
> comm.). Development of suitable but abandoned prairie grouse habitat
> (*e.g.*, unoccupied, historical leks) could seriously impede prairie
> grouse restoration efforts.
>
> ***Concerns for Other Grassland and Shrub-Steppe Avifauna in Relation
> to Wind Energy Development***

Manes *et al.* (2004 manuscript in preparation, R. Manes, S. Harmon, B.
Obermeyer, and R. Applegate 2004 pers. comm.) summarized the documented
effects of wind facilities on birds, indicating that Golden Plovers and
Lapwings had been displaced by as much as 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from wind
facilities in Denmark (citing Pederson and Poulsen 1991) while in
Netherlands, Lapwings and Curlews avoided areas within 0.15-0.3 mi (0.25
-- 0.5 km) of wind turbines (citing Winkelman 1990).

> Although focused on grassland passerines rather than prairie grouse,
> Leddy *et al.* (1999:101) recommended placing wind plants within
> cropland habitats in MN rather than in native grasslands. Research at
> the Buffalo Ridge Project in southwestern MN revealed that the
> Bobolink, Red-winged Blackbird, Savanna Sparrow, and Sedge Wren nested
> in densities 4 times higher in grasslands that were \~ 600 ft. (180 m)
> from wind turbines than those within \~ 260 ft (80 m) of turbines.
> Densities beyond 600 ft. were not evaluated (Leddy *et al.* 1999).
> Because of the trend for larger turbines, avoidance zones adjacent to
> the new generation turbines may differ from those of previous studies
> (R. Manes, S. Harmon, B. Obermeyer, and R. Applegate 2004 pers.
> comm.). Sage-steppe-obligate songbirds (*e.g.*, Sage Sparrow, Brewer's
> Sparrow, Sage Thrasher, and Black-chinned Sparrow) are also showing
> population declines and management concerns should also focus on these
> species.

The Service asserts that by avoiding or minimizing construction of wind
facilities in native prairie grasslands and native sage-steppe habitats,
grassland- and sage-dependent native songbird species would be protected
and habitat fragmentation would be avoided.

> ***Service's Recommendation for 5-Mile Buffer from Leks***
>
> The intent of the Service's recommendation for a 5-mile zone of
> protection is to buffer against increased mortality (both human-caused
> and natural), against habitat degradation and fragmentation, and
> against disturbance. In considering our recommendation, FWS recognizes
> major declines in populations and habitats of prairie grouse. All
> species of prairie grouse are in varying stages of decline -- some
> populations declining precipitously \-- requiring a major focus on
> direct human impacts, disturbance from structures, and fragmentation
> of habitats. While wind plants are new additions to prairie grouse
> habitats in the Midwest and West, cumulative impacts from human
> development and exploitation must be assessed with great care and
> considerable detail. To reverse these declines will take significant
> commitment from industry, the Service, and other stakeholders. We view
> the voluntary nature of our guidance and specifically our 5-mile
> recommendation as a reasonable effort needed to conserve these
> important resources.

While migratory populations of Sage-grouse may require in excess of 11
miles in radius of protected habitat from active leks (Connelly *et al.*
2000:978), it can be argued that LPCH may require protection less than
being suggested by FWS (Mote *et al.* 1998:18; 2.5 mi \[4.1 km\]
distance from a lek located in the center of a circular home range).
However, rangewide the majority of remaining LPCH populations are
fragmented and isolated into "islands" of open prairie. Our 5-mile
setback is intended to protect both Prairie Chickens and the wind
industry. Later wind turbine construction, for example, could if in
close proximity to leks significantly impact Prairie Chicken
populations. Habitat corridors between leks and population centers could
also be impacted by close development, likely impacting future recovery.
Our distance recommendation will also help address decreasing habitat
patch sizes and diminishing habitat complexity that will be affected as
structures become more abundant and roads, power lines, vehicles, and
human disturbance further fragment and impact habitats. Current distance
recommendations for LPCHs may simply reflect the "tolerance" level of
LPCHs to "structures" in fragments of \< 12,350 ac (5,000 ha) in size of
moderate complexity (C. Hagen 2004 pers. comm.). As patch size becomes
smaller and less complex, the LPCH may likely be less tolerant of
disturbance. Until data can support an alternate hypothesis, Hagen
(2003:159) and C. Hagen (2004 pers. comm.) suggested protecting as large
a buffer as possible for LPCH. Again, the Service's 5-mile
recommendation seems reasonable (Figures 7 and 8) and applicable to all
species of prairie grouse. As the necessary research is conducted to
more clearly define the effects on grassland and sage-steppe species and
as new data become publicly available, we will use it to refine our
recommendation.

Fig 7. 100 mi^2^ Fig 8. 78.5 mi^2^

Figures 7 and 8. FWS summary of recommended 5-mile protection zone from
active leks for populations of prairie grouse based on hypothetical
square and circular home ranges with centrally-located leks, after S.
Harmon (2004 pers. comm.), Connelly *et al.* (2000:978), Pitman (2003),
Hagen (2003), C. Hagen (2004 pers. comm.), Wolfe *et al.* (2003a and
2003b), Patten *et al.* (2004a and 2004b), C. Braun (2004 pers. comm.),
C. Aldridge (2004 pers. comm.), F. Hall (2004 pers. comm.), and B.
Obermeyer (2004 pers. comm.).

> The results from and concerns raised by a March 2003 Kansas City, MO,
> workshop on "Great Plains Wind Power and Wildlife" were used as
> further evidence by the Service to take a precautionary approach in
> recommending our 5-mile distance (R. Manes 2003 pers. comm.).

**[Acknowledgements]{.underline}:**

> The Service and this author wish to especially thank those prairie
> grouse biologists and other scientists who provided suggestions and
> critically reviewed this manuscript. They include Stephanie Harmon,
> Wildlife Biologist, FWS Tulsa, OK, Field Office; Cameron Aldridge,
> Wildlife Biologist and Ph.D. candidate, University of Alberta,
> Edmonton; Clait Braun, Wildlife Biologist, CO Division of Wildlife,
> Fort Collins and Grouse Inc., Tucson, AZ; John Connelly, Wildlife
> Biologist, ID Department of Fish and Game, Pocatello; Pat Deibert,
> Wildlife Biologist, FWS Cheyenne, WY, Field Office; Christian Hagen,
> Sage Grouse Conservation Coordinator, OR Department of Fish and
> Wildlife, Hines; Frank Hall, Associate Wildlife Biologist, CA
> Department of Fish and Game, Susanville; Rob Hazlewood, Wildlife
> Biologist, FWS Helena, MT, Field Office; Kevin Kritz, Wildlife
> Biologist, FWS Reno, NV, Field Office; Rob Manes, Wildlife Biologist,
> Wildlife Management Institute, Pratt, KS; Brian Millsap, Chief,
> Division of Migratory Bird Management, FWS, Arlington, VA; Brian
> Obermeyer, Wildlife Biologist, The Nature Conservancy, Eureka, KS;
> Michael Patten, Wildlife Biologist, Sutton Avian Research Center,
> University of Oklahoma, Bartlesville; James Pitman, Farmland Research
> Biologist, IN Division of Fish and Wildlife, West Lafayette; Donald
> Wolfe, Wildlife Biologist, Sutton Avian Research Center, University of
> Oklahoma, Bartlesville; and Robert Willis, Biologist, FWS Division of
> Habitat Conservation, Arlington, VA.

**[Literature Cited]{.underline}:**

Aldridge, C.L., and R.M. Brigham. 2002. Sage-grouse nesting and brood
habitat use in southern Canada. Journal Wildlife Management
66(2):433-444.

> Baydack, R.K., and D.A. Hein. 1987. Tolerance of sharp-tailed grouse
> to lek disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15(4):535-539.

Braun, C.E. 1998. Sage grouse declines in western North America: what
are the problems? Proceedings Western Association of State Fish and
Wildlife Agencies 78:139-156.

Braun, C.E., T. Britt, and R.O. Wallestad. 1977. Guidelines for
maintenance of sage grouse habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 5:99-106.

Braun, C.E., O.O. Oedekoven, and C.L. Aldridge. 2002. Oil and gas
development in Western North America: effects of sagebrush steppe
avifauna with particular emphasis on sage grouse. Transactions 67^th^
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conf.:337-349.

Cannon, R.W., and F.L. Knopf. 1980. Distribution and status of the
Lesser Prairie Chicken in Oklahoma. Pp. 71-74 *in* Proceedings Prairie
Grouse Symposium (P.A. Vohs and F.L. Knopf, eds.). OK State Univ.,
Stillwater.

Connelly, J.W., and C. Braun. 1997. Long-term changes in sage-grouse,
*Centrocercus*

*urophasianus* populations in western North America. Wildlife Biology
3:229-234.

> Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000.
> Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats.
> Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967-985.
>
> Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004.
> Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats.
> Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne, WY. 610
> pp. Available from FWS at \<http://www.fws.gov\>.
>
> Giesen, K.M. 1998. Lesser prairie-chicken (*Tympanucus
> pallidicinctus*). *In* F. Gill and A. Poole, editors. The Birds of
> North America, No. 354, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA,
> and the American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.
>
> Giesen, K.M., and J.W. Connelly. 1993. Guidelines for management of
> Columbian sharp-tailed grouse habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin
> 21(3):325-333.

Hagen, C.A. 2003. A demographic analysis of lesser prairie-chicken
populations in southwestern Kansas: survival, population viability, and
habitat use. Ph.D. Dissertation, Division of Biology, College of Arts
and Sciences, Kansas State Univ., 199 pp. \[Robert J. Robel, major
professor\]

> Hagen, C.A., B.E. Jamison, K.M. Giesen, and T.Z. Riley. 2004.
> Guidelines for managing lesser prairie-chicken populations and their
> habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(1):69-82.
>
> Johnsgard, P.A. 2002. Grassland grouse and their conservation.
> Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.
>
> Johnson, D.H., L.D. Igl, and J.A. Dechant Shaffer. 2004. Effects of
> management practices on grassland birds. Northern Prairie Wildlife
> Research Center, Jamestown, ND. May 28. Located at:
> <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm>.
>
> Leddy, K.L., K.F. Higgins, and D.E. Naugle. 1999. Effects of wind
> turbines on upland nesting birds in conservation reserve program
> grasslands. Wilson Bulletin 111(1):100-104.
>
> Lyon, A.G., and S.H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts
> on sage grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin
> 31(2):486-491.
>
> Manes, R., S.A. Harmon, B.K. Obermeyer, and R.D. Applegate. 2004. Wind
> energy and
>
> wildlife in the Great Plains: identification of concerns and ways to
> alleviate them. Proceedings of Great Plains Wind Power & Wildlife
> Workshop, March 19-20, 2003, Kansas City, MO. 13 pp. in press.
>
> Mote, K.D., R.D. Applegate, J.A. Bailey, K.E. Giesen, R. Horton, and
> J.L. Sheppard (editors). 1998. Assessment and conservation strategy
> for the Lesser Prairie-chicken (*Tympanuchus pallidicinctus*).
> Proceedings of Lesser Prairie-chicken Interstate Working Group,
> Emporia, KS, Kansas Dept. Wildlife and Parks. 25 pp.
>
> National Wildlife Federation. 2004a. Saving Sage Grouse. National
> Wildlife Federation, Northern Rockies Office, Missoula, MT, 1 p.
> information sheet.
>
> National Wildlife Federation. 2004b. Sage Grouse: the life of a Sage
> Grouse. National Wildlife Federation, Northern Rockies Office,
> Missoula, MT. 3 pp.
>
> Patten, M.A., D.H. Wolfe, E. Shochat, and S.K. Sherrod. 2004a. Habitat
> fragmentation, rapid evolution, and population persistence.
> Evolutionary Ecology Research. 29 pp. Provisionally accepted for
> publication.
>
> Patten, M.A., D.W. Wiedenfeld, D.H. Wolfe, and S.K. Sherrod. 2004b.
> The consequences of habitat fragmentation on home range size of a
> grassland grouse.
>
> Manuscript for publication.

Pitman, J.C. 2003. Lesser prairie-chicken nest site selection and nest
success, juvenile gender determination and growth, and juvenile survival
and dispersal in southwestern Kansas. M.Sc. Thesis, Division of Biology,
College of Arts and Sciences, Kansas State Univ. 169 pp. \[Robert J.
Robel, major professor\]

Popham, G.P., and R.J. Gutierrez. 2003. Greater sage-grouse
*Centrocercus urophasianus* nesting success and habitat use in
northeastern California. Wildlife Biology 9(4):327-334.

Society of Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus and J.E. Toepfer. 2003. A report
to the Council of Chiefs. G. Septon (editor) *in* Prairie Chickens &
Grasslands: 2000 and Beyond. 63 pp.

Taylor, M.A., and F.S. Guthery. 1980. Status, ecology, and management of
the Lesser Prairie-Chicken. U.S. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-77.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta., Fort Collins, CO.

> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and threatened
> wildlife and plants; 90-day finding for petitions to list the Greater
> Sage-grouse as threatened or endangered. Federal Register
> 69:21484-21494.
>
> Wakkinen, W.L., K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 1992. Sage grouse nest
> locations in relation to leks. Journal Wildlife Management
> 56(2):381-383.

Wolfe, D.H., M.A. Patten, and S.K. Sherrod. 2003a. Factors affecting
nesting success and mortality of Lesser Prairie-Chickens in Oklahoma.
ODWC Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-146-R Final Report.
OK Dept. Wildlife Conservation, 23 pp.

Wolfe, D.H., M.A. Patten, and S.K. Sherrod. 2003b. Causes and patterns
of mortality in Lesser Prairie-Chickens. Poster presented at meetings of
The Wildlife Society, Burlington, VT, and Prairie Chicken Technical
Committee, OK Dept. Wildlife Conservation. OK Biological Survey and
George M. Sutton Avian Research Center. \[pdf file\]

**[Contact]{.underline}:**

Dr. Albert (Al) Manville, Division of Migratory Bird Management, FWS,
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Mail Stop MBSP-4107, Arlington, VA 22203;
703/358-1963, or [[Albert_Manville@fws.gov]{.underline}]()

Suggested citation:

Manville, A.M., II. 2004. Prairie grouse leks and wind turbines: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service justification for a 5-mile buffer from leks;
additional grassland songbird recommendations. Division of Migratory
Bird Management, USFWS, Arlington, VA, peer-reviewed briefing paper. 17
pp.

[^1]: Leks are technically not "communal pair formation grounds."
    Sage-grouse, for example, are not "pair forming" on leks and only a
    few males complete most of the breeding (F. Hall 2004 pers. comm.).
    Leks may best be described as traditional display areas normally
    located on very open sites in or immediately adjacent to breeding
    (nesting and early brood-rearing) habitats (F. Connelly 2004 pers.
    comm.).