Federal Actions and Greater Sage-Grouse The Current Status: Proposed High Voltage Transmission Lines

Endangered Species Act of 1973 Purpose: Conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend as key components of America’s heritage. 2010 - Greater Sage-grouse were identified by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as “warranted [for federal for federal protection under the ESA] but precluded” A species is added to the list when it is determined to be endangered or threatened because of any of the following 5 CRITERIA (those in yellow flagged as concerns sage-grouse): present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms other natural or manmade factors affecting its survival. 2010 – “Candidate” Meaning that grouse warranted protection but formal listing, as a federally protected species, precluded by other higher priority species Raised alarm, set ball moving by states and federal agencies to address threats USFWS said that the primary threats to the species are the loss, fragmentation and degradation of sagebrush habitat due to a variety of causes.

About Sage-Grouse Grouse Population by State: BLM plays a big role, their Resource Management Plans provide regulatory certainty

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service identified primary threats to Greater Sage-Grouse: Loss and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat Infrastructure: transmission towers, energy development, fences, roads, pipelines Lack of regulatory mechanisms to protect sagebrush habitat Invasive plants: cheatgrass, Piñyon-Juniper encroachment Agricultural conversion • Urbanization, ranchette development Fire cycle (amplified by cheatgrass) Males are known for their elaborate communal mating dances on breeding grounds known as “leks.”

USFWS - Why Transmission Lines Are a Concern for Grouse: “Roads, railroads, power lines, communication towers, wind turbines and fences result in habitat loss and fragmentation, and can cause greater sage-grouse to avoid otherwise suitable habitat. Infrastructure can also facilitate the spread of invasive plants, increase fire risk, and provide food, water and perches for predators, which may increase densities of ravens, foxes, skunks and other predators.”

BLM’s National Planning Strategy: Goal of Strategy: to preserve, conserve, and restore sagebrush habitat, the ecological home of the greater sage-grouse Between 2011 and 2015, BLM revised or amended 98 Resource Management Plans – provide “regulatory certainty” USFWS - Threats vary across range: Western Range (Great Basin Region): Primary threats are the expansion of invasive grasses such as cheatgrass (which results in more frequent and intense wildfires) and conifer encroachment. Eastern Range (Rocky Mountain Region): habitat loss is driven primarily by energy development and infrastructure needed to support it. BLM is the largest land manager of grouse habitat – together with USFS they manage 2/3 pf grouse habitat - making them a pivotal player in their management. In response to the USFWS 2010 listing decision, BLM creates the “National Planning Strategy” for grouse. BLM needs to incorporate explicit objectives and adequate conservation measures into RMPs in order to conserve greater sage-grouse and avoid a potential listing under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Identifies Threats, Which Vary across the range: Eastern Range - Other stressors, such as habitat loss to ex-urban development, conversion to cropland, invasive grasses, nest predation and West Nile virus, can cause localized population declines.

Sept 22, 2015: Department of Interior makes announcement Sept 30, 2015: Court-ordered deadline for final decision – list (threatened/endangered) or not Sept 22, 2015: Department of Interior makes announcement Video released on Twitter by Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, in addition to formal announcement on stage alongside four Western Governors Closing statement made by Audubon’s Brian Rutledge “ Because of an unprecedented effort by dozens of partners across 11 western states, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the greater sage-grouse does not require protection under the Endangered Species Act.”  

Why did the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service make this determination? “The Service evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information regarding the greater sage-grouse, including threats to the species and its sagebrush habitat and concluded that the threats which caused the Service to initially designate the bird as “warranted but precluded” in 2010 had been significantly reduced due to federal and state land use conservation plans. Implementation of these plans will reduce threats to the greater sage-grouse across 90 percent of the species’ breeding habitat.” Since 2010, states within the range of the species range have updated, finalized or implemented conservation plans for the greater sage-grouse. These plans take different approaches, but in general, they identify important conservation objectives for greater sage-grouse and include mechanisms to incentivize conservation. In particular, state plans developed by Wyoming, Montana and Oregon contain regulatory provisions that provide certainty and will help to reduce habitat loss and fragmentation in the best remaining greater sage-grouse habitat. Dave Showalter/Sage Spirit

What Do These RMPs Mean for Proposed Transmission Lines? BLM/USFS plans take a layered management approach, with strongest protections in the areas of highest value to grouse (see green areas in map, representing “priority habitat”) In Priority Habitat, avoid or minimize infrastructure development, with limited exceptions (*) for new transmission rights-of-way. To be avoided and only permitting with special protective stipulations, but are not excluded anywhere (note: Utah is unusual in that it has no “avoidance” requirement or major protective stipulations for large-scale transmission lines in general habitat)

RMPs include seasonal timing restrictions, noise restrictions, buffer distances from leks, and required design features to minimize infrastructure impacts on greater sage-grouse. State sage-grouse plans in Wyoming, Montana, Oregon and Utah contain regulatory measures intended to minimize impacts from infrastructure on state lands and, in some instances, on private lands.

Sage Grouse Habitat Categories Sagebrush Focal Areas: Most valuable habitat with highest level of protection. the plans seek to eliminate new surface disturbance from various sources, including new mining, in these areas. Priority habitat Management Areas: The encompass the SFAs and additional priority habitat. The plans seek to limit or eliminate new habitat disturbance with limited exceptions. The plans put in place a disturbance cap in priority habitat that limits how much fragmentation of habitat can occur. The caps take into account both existing disturbance and new authorized disturbance. General habitat: Areas that require some special management to protect and sustain greater sage-grouse populations, but permit more flexible management and resource development.  While the federal plans differ in specifics to reflect local landscapes, threats and conservation approaches, their overall goal is to prevent further degradation of the best remaining sage- grouse habitat, minimize disturbance where possible and mitigate unavoidable impacts by protecting and improving similar habitats.

More About these Special Exception Transmission Lines? Exceptions were made for certain transmission lines (i.e. TransWest Express and Gateway South) that were previously identified as priorities for completion, along with commitments to seek compensatory mitigation in the individual project decision processes. “The BLM, working with the proponents, will seek to achieve net conservation gain by analyzing and including appropriate mitigation measures that aim to avoid, minimize, and provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to GRSG in the project specific NEPA document for these two lines.” Gerrit Vyn

Now What?: For More Information: States continue to manage the species … but scrutiny continues BLM Resource Management Plans in place – habitat protections vary Implementation of federal and state plans – critical! Two lawsuits already filed: - State of Idaho 2 Nevada counties/mining companies For More Information: www.doi.gov/sagegrouse www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/index.php