3.7.1.8 Greater Sage-grouse Lek and Habitat Study

winters in coastal marshes in Texas; 59 captive-raised individuals released to establish a non-migratory Florida Population in central Florida; and 64 individuals introduced between 2001 and 2005 that migrate between Wisconsin and Florida in an eastern migratory population. The last remaining wild bird in the reintroduced Rocky Mountain Population died in the spring, 2002. The captive population contained 135 birds in February 2006. The total population of wild and captive whooping cranes in February 2006, was 473 (Canadian Wildlife Service and USFWS 2005).

Whooping cranes are omnivorous feeders that forage on many items including mollusks, crustaceans, minnows, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, small mammals, small birds, berries, live oak, agricultural grains, and plant tubers located in wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural fields (PRRIP undated-g). On breeding grounds whooping cranes feed primarily on mollusks and crustaceans, insects, minnows, frogs, and snakes (USFWS 2006).

Remaining whooping cranes continue to breed in ancestral breeding areas and use ancestral migration routes and wintering grounds. Whooping cranes use a variety of habitats during migration. A common feature of the vast majority of sites used by whooping cranes during migration is the proximity to wetlands that provide undisturbed habitat for roosting (USFWS 2006). In general whooping cranes breed in large marshes and extensive mosaics of wetlands mixed with upland patches and small ridges (Travsky and Beauvais 2004). The Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming (Orabona et al. 2016) describes habitat as wet-moist meadow grasslands, sedge meadows, irrigated native and introduced meadows, small grains, and marshes. The Canadian Wildlife Service and USFWS (2005) summarize habitat as including coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows and rivers, and agricultural fields. The wildlife study area is outside the known range of whooping crane, thus whooping crane are not anticipated to occur in the Project vicinity (HDR 2022c).

A revised recovery plan was published in 2007 (USFWS 2006). Currently, expanding human populations throughout the range of the whooping cranes continue to threaten survival and recovery of the birds. Factors affecting whooping crane survival and recovery include the potential for catastrophic loss of birds or habitat due to severe climatic events, infectious disease, and environmental contamination; chronic habitat loss due to development and human encroachment; and loss and degradation of wetland and other suitable migrational habitats (USFWS 2006).

3.7.1.8 Greater Sage-grouse Lek and Habitat Study

The Greater Sage-grouse is a BLM Sensitive Species and WGFD Tier II SGCN species. The Greater Sage-grouse was petitioned for listing under the ESA in 2002 and became a candidate for listing in 2010 (75 Federal Register [FR] 13910). However, following a status review in 2015, the USFWS determined that the species was not at risk of extinction and withdrew Greater Sage-grouse from the candidate list (80 Federal Register [FR] 47510). To preclude listing under the ESA, some states established relatively rigorous conservation measures, such as the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Protection EOs. Current management of the Greater Sage-grouse in Wyoming is based largely on Governor Gordon’s EO 2019-3. In November 2021, BLM announced a new planning

initiative to address management of Greater Sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat on BLM lands (86 FR 66331). This effort may affect future management of the species in the Project vicinity (HDR 2022e).

The historic range of the Greater Sage-grouse covered most of the shrublands and prairies of the intermountain west, including 16 states and 3 Canadian provinces. Today the species has been extirpated from 5 states and 1 province, while their distribution has contracted within their current range. Populations across the west have declined, although accurate estimates are difficult to obtain due to variability in lek attendance. The major driver of population decline and range contraction is habitat alteration, including loss and fragmentation of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) due to wildfire, cultivation, energy development, invasive species, and pinyon-juniper encroachment (Schroeder et al. 2020).

Greater Sage-grouse are closely associated with sagebrush landcover. Although there is variability in vegetative composition and topography, sagebrush is an underlying factor in all stages of the Greater Sage-grouse life cycle. Nests are located in areas with thick and diverse vegetative cover generally dominated by big sagebrush and, in some regions, are located near riparian habitat. Leks are located near nesting habitat on sparsely vegetated broad ridgetops, dry lake beds, disturbed areas, or grassy swales. Overwintering habitat is similar to nesting; tall sagebrush ensure access in deep snow (Schroeder et al. 2020).

Males strut on leks during early morning from mid-March through mid-May. Females establish nests around this same time and initiate incubation about three weeks following copulation. Young are born about one month later and can leave the nest almost immediately. Broods remain intact near the nest site for 10 to 12 weeks, at which time juveniles disperse towards winter habitat (Schroeder et al. 2020).

Greater Sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming was delineated by the USGS for the BLM in the 2015 Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) for Greater Sagegrouse (BLM 2015). The ARMPA included habitat management categories to help apply management guidelines designed to protect and/or manage for Greater Sage-grouse habitat. These habitat management categories are referred to as Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) and General Habitat Management Area (GHMA). In 2017, the Wyoming state director of BLM signed the updated Wyoming Sage-grouse ARMPA which changed the PHMA boundaries, bringing them into consistency with the Wyoming Core Areas (version 4) from the current Governor’s EO 2015-4. The BLM (2015) management categories are defined as follows:

• PHMA—BLM-administered lands identified as having the highest value to maintaining sustainable Greater Sage-grouse populations. Areas of PHMA largely coincide with areas identified as Priority Areas for Conservation in the USFWS’s Conservation

Objectives Team report (USFWS 2013). These areas include breeding, late broodrearing, winter concentration areas, and migration or connectivity corridors. • GHMA—BLM-administered lands where some special management will apply to sustain Greater Sage-grouse populations. Areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PHMAs.

Construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project may have the potential to affect Greater Sage-grouse. Black Canyon has, therefore, performed a Greater Sage-grouse study to assess the direct and indirect effects the Project may have on Greater Sagegrouse habitat. The study area, and areas classified as PHMA, Core Population Area, and non-habitat, are depicted in Figure 3.7-5.

Black Canyon conducted a fine-scale, outcome-based baseline assessment of Greater Sage-grouse habitat and lek status for the Project. The study included habitat suitability analysis, lek monitoring, density disturbance calculation through the WGFD Density Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) as part of the permitting process per EO 2019-3 guidelines19, and a lek proximity analysis. The study methods and results are described in detail in Black Canyon’s Greater Sage-grouse Lek and Habitat Study (HDR 2022e) included as Appendix F to this FLA.

Black Canyon monitored four Greater Sage-grouse lek locations on April 20–22, April 27–28, and May 5–6, 2021 and monitored seven Greater Sage-grouse lek locations on April 18, 19 and 21, April 26–28, and May 3, 5, and 6, 2022, during the 2022 season (Table 3.7-6 and Figure 3.7-6). Field biologists followed the WGFD Handbook of Biological Techniques Sage-grouse Lek Count Protocol and conducted counts at each lek at 7- to 10-day intervals over a 3- to 4-week period after the peak of mating activity (early April), a minimum of three times annually. Lek counts were conducted from the ground, between one-half hour before sunrise and one hour after, when wind speeds were less than 16 kilometers per hour (10 miles per hour) and no precipitation was falling. If no birds were observed, biologists searched the lekking areas on foot for Greater Sage-grouse sign. A proximity analysis for the seven Greater Sage-grouse leks near the Project (Table 3.7-7) was completed using GIS to model the line of sight from the nearest Greater Sage-grouse lek towards the Project (HDR 2022e).

19Per the study plan, Black Canyon is coordinating with WGFD regarding the DDCT results and submittal, which will be completed during 2022.