Powder River Energy CorpPowder River Energy CorpSageSage--Grouse Protection PlanGrouse Protection Plan

February 2008February 2008

Powder River Energy Corporation

RUS (WY 25)

Sundance, WY

Sage-Grouse Protection Plan

February 2008

Powder River Energy Corporation Sage-Grouse Plan Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………i Board Resolution………………………………………………………………..iv PRECorp Contacts………………………………………………………………vi Chapter I – Basic Plan 1.0 Status, Authority, Management, Ecology & Habitat……………………….1-4 2.0 Project and Route Planning…………………………………………………5-6 3.0 Structure Design Criteria……………………………………………………7-8 4.0 Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Data and Information……………………….... 9 Chapter II - Perch Management Review Summary of Important Point to Consider in “Perch Management Review”…..10-11 Perch Management Review PRECorp prepared by EDM International………..1-17 Chapter III – What Do We Know about Greater Sage-Grouse & the Electric Utility Industry? Prepared by EDM International………………………………1-9 Appendix A Table 1 – Project Routing Guide Lines Table 2 – Construction Timing Stipulations Table 3 – Contacts for Sage-Grouse Information: Consultants, Federal and State Agencies, Industry Appendix B Perch Deterring Design Standards (RG) Raptor Guard – Distribution Line 3Ø & 1Ø Perch Deterring Design for 69 kV Transmission Lines (Example – Indian Creek Line) Appendix C Supplemental Sage-Grouse and Habitat Information (a work in progress)

i

Introduction

Concern for the future of greater sage-grouse populations in the West, and in Wyoming and fear and uncertainty of the impacts of listing the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), are both driving forces behind the efforts of federal, state, local and private entities, to address habitat and development issues impacting the species. Many segments of the Wyoming economy, particularly agriculture, energy production (oil and gas), mining industries and supporting industries have common concerns and interests in preserving and improving sage-grouse habitat. Extending the viability of the species is of greatest concern to all. For a state like Wyoming, with a non-diversified economic base, the repercussions of having the sage-grouse listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act would be severe and create significant economic hardship on industries, agriculture, the private sector, state government and numerous other agencies. This concern was made very public and clear when Governor Freudenthal called a Sage-Grouse Summit Meeting in the spring of 2007. The two main challenges posed by the Governor were: the need for measurable goals that define success and active participation by all parties who can positively affect the outcome. At the Sage-Grouse Summit, Wyoming Game and Fish Department Director Terry Cleveland stated in his remarks: The West has lost 45% of its historic 300 million acres of sagebrush habitat. Sage-grouse numbers and distribution have been declining since the initial settlement of the West by European immigrants. While there is much debate about the historical causes of this decline, there is general agreement on the need to take immediate proactive steps to stabilize the population and avoid listing under the Endangered Species Act. Cleveland also stated that the issue of energy development is the top priority being addressed in Wyoming, but there are other issues such as urbanization, invasive weeds, grazing practices, predation and disease that also deserve attention. Mr. Cleveland noted that the eight local sage-grouse working groups, which are composed of a broad cross section of Wyoming citizens, including agriculture and the oil, gas and coal industries, is a good indicator of the strong political and public support for the proactive approach being taken to enhance sage-grouse habitat and increase sage- grouse populations in Wyoming. A significant part of the Powder River Basin is prime sage-grouse habitat and has been historically known for large populations of sage-grouse. The Powder River Basin has long been the focus of energy development of national importance including the most recent energy play, coal-bed natural gas (CBNG) production. Powder River Energy Corp has been tasked with the huge challenge of providing electricity to the many thousands of existing and thousands more proposed CBNG wells, many of which are located in the heart of the Powder River Basin (PRECorp) between Gillette and Buffalo. There is little existing electrical infrastructure in this area which has some of the best sage-grouse habitat in the PRECorp service territory.

ii

Published and professionally accepted studies indicate that sage grouse populations in the CBM development areas of the Powder River Basin have seen a significant decline, much greater than in comparable habitats in non-developed CBNG areas. Many factors such as habitat loss and fragmentation, weather, diseases, extended drought and increased predation all are contributing factors to the overall decline in sage-grouse populations in recent years. Some of these negative factors on sage-grouse are caused by or related to human activities. Because they can be controlled by man, these are the contributing factors to negative impacts that need our focus and correction. Governor Freudenthal stated at his Sage-Grouse Summit Meeting, “The finger pointing must stop and we all must find ways we can best contribute to and improve conditions for sage-grouse, and we can not accept failure and allow the species to become eligible for protection under the Endangered Species Act.” “The ESA listing and protection of the sage-grouse would be devastating to Wyoming, making the ESA protection of grizzly bears and wolves, minute in comparison.” Because of the regional and national attention given to the plight of sage-grouse in the West, specifically in the Powder River Basin, PRECorp finds itself the focus of attention because of our association with CBNG development. The manner in which PRECorp addresses the perplexing challenges of balancing our support of energy development through providing electricity and our proactive efforts to do what is feasible and effective to contribute to effort to minimize negative impacts on sage-grouse populations, will set the standard for other electric utilities across the West. This document addresses how PRECorp plans to lessen the impacts of power lines and facilities on sage-grouse. This Sage-Grouse Protection Plan is a continuation and enforcement of the PRECorp commitment to reduce the impacts of our electrical facilities on Wyoming’s avian resources. PRECorp’s Avian Protection Plan focuses mainly on protecting birds of prey, also known as raptors, (eagles, hawks and owls) from electrocution by implementing designs which allow for safe or controlled perching. Protecting sage-grouse from indirect impacts of power lines, such as providing hunting perches for raptors, is not addressed in a typical Avian Protection Plan. This Sage-Grouse Protection Plan addresses the special concerns associated with this species. Existing scientific data on which to base decisions is limited. This Sage-Grouse Plan is entering PRECorp into a new dimension of power line planning and construction, solely for the purpose of reducing the impacts of power lines on sage-grouse. It should be understood that results from on-going studies, agency information that is not yet available to the public and state of the art materials not yet marketed will make this plan a “work in progress”. PRECorp is committed to making improvements and modifications to this plan as science and technological advancements progress. PRECorp is the leader in Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain Region when it comes to energy-related services and infrastructure, with greater loads and more miles of new power line construction than any other utility company in the region. PRECorp has been mandated by our Board of Directors and CEO to take the leadership role by preparing and implementing a Sage-Grouse Protection Plan. It is the intent of PRECorp to support the energy industry while leading the way in Wyoming and the West in the prudent

iii

electrification practices that set the standards for others in the protection of the sage- grouse. The Board Resolution 2007-09, Powder River Energy Corporation Greater Sage-Grouse Management, gives focus and importance to PRECorp’s commitment to sage-grouse through the development and implementation of this plan. Resolution 2007-09 is presented on the following page of this plan. Ed Mignery Engineering Support Supervisor 2/2008

vi

Powder River Energy Corp. Contact Information Powder River Energy Corporation (headquarters) WY 25 (RUS designation) P.O. Box 930 221 Main Street Sundance, WY 82729-0930 1-800-442-3630 Contacts dealing with sage grouse or other avian and power line issues: Tracy Jones, Engineering Support Supervisor Headquarters Office - Sundance 1-800-442-3630 or 307-283-4950 Quentin Rogers, Distribution Engineer Gillette Office P.O. Box 937 200 Garner Lake Rd. Gillette, WY 82718-0937 1-800-442-3630 or 307-685-3516 Ray Frigo, Project Supervisor Sheridan Office P.O. 5087 1095 Brundage Lane Sheridan, WY 82801-1387 1-800-442-3630 or 307-674-3442

Chapter I

1

1.0 Status, Legal Authority, Sage-Grouse Management, Ecology & Habitat 1.1 Sage-Grouse Management Management of the sage-grouse is under the authority of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Much information is available on the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) web site http://gf.state.wy.us 1.2 Public Land Managers The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are the federal agencies that approve and issue the special use permits which allow PRECorp to construct power lines and other facilities on the federal lands they manage. With that permitting authority, they can establish their own construction rules, standards and stipulations for the project. The rules and stipulations pertaining to sage grouse leks and habitats may not be standardized between these agencies. BLM is standardizing their rules pertaining to sage-grouse within the agency on a state and regional basis. 1.3 Status of the Sage-Grouse In 2008, as this plan is being finalized, the sage-grouse is managed state wide by the WGFD. In 2004, several organizations filed a petition with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to list the sage-grouse as a threatened species and protect it under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ruling made by the USFWS in 2005 stated the sage-grouse did not warrant federal protection under the ESA but would be treated as a “species of concern”. In early 2007, the same organizations challenged that decision not to protect the sage-grouse under the ESA. Arguments have been heard from both sides of the debate in Federal Court District 9 in Boise, ID. On December 4th, 2007, Judge Winmill issued a Decision Memorandum, which basically stated that the USFWS ignored the best science available and that the decision to not protect the bird under the ESA had been manipulated by improper political interference. The Court ordered the USFWS to begin again and reconsider the previous determination not to list and protect the sage-grouse under the ESA, using the best science now available. Since 2004, the sage-grouse has been given special consideration and has been treated as a “species of concern” by numerous state and federal agencies, in an effort to keep the species from becoming eligible for listing under the ESA. On going efforts to conserve sage-grouse and protect and improve their habitat have been reinforced by this recent decision of the Court. 1.4 Management and the Ecology of Sage-Grouse Ecology is defined as the science of the relationships between organisms and their environment. The environment can be also called habitat. Current sage-grouse

2

management efforts focus primarily on maintaining high quality sage-grouse habitat and improving or reducing declining or fragmented sage grouse habitat. Predators such as fox, coyote, skunk and a variety of predatory birds are a part of the environment and do not normally negatively impact prey populations. PRECorp power lines have also been part of the environment for decades. However, when multiple factors such as habitat loss, persistent drought and disease occur simultaneously, impacts from other factors become exacerbated. During those times, actions such as predator control can have a positive impact on dwindling prey populations. Long-term approaches such as the use of perch deterrents can also benefit prey species such as sage-grouse. at times need population reduction which is a positive management action for sage grouse sharing the same space. 1.5 Sage-Grouse and their Habitat Sage-grouse are considered a landscape species which means their survival is directly and totally tied to a specific habitat or landscape. As the name implies, sage-grouse require sagebrush habitat; no sagebrush, no sage-grouse. Unlike whitetail deer and coyotes, sage-grouse are not adaptable to other landscapes. The sage-grouse is the largest of the grouse species and utilizes sagebrush habitat throughout the year. Despite current impacts, Wyoming has the greatest amount of relatively intact sage grouse habitat in the country and, therefore, the largest populations of sage-grouse. Sagebrush and sagebrush/grassland communities are essential for sage grouse survival. Suitable habitat consists of plant communities dominated by sagebrush and a diverse native grass and forb understory. The composition of shrubs, grasses and forbs varies with the subspecies of sagebrush and the conditions of the habitat at any given location and range potential. Seasonal habits must occur in a patchwork or mosaic across the landscape. Their spatial arrangement, the amount of seasonal habitat and the vegetative condition determines the landscape’s potential for sage grouse. This arrangement is an important factor in determining if a population is migratory or non-migratory in nature. Both quantity and quality of the sagebrush environment determines suitability for and productivity of sage-grouse. As of 2007, at least 416 strutting grounds, also known as leks had been documented in Northeast Wyoming, inclusive of the Powder River Basin. Each spring, sage-grouse gather on these leks to strut and perform their mating ritual. This mating activity occurs during early morning hours from mid-March to mid-May. After mating occurs, females begin building nests in nearby sagebrush, usually within three (3) miles of the lek. Chicks hatch in late May and early June and stay with the hens for most of their first year. By mid-summer, hens move their broods to wet meadows and riparian areas along perennial streams and water sources without substantial tree cover. Most sage-grouse within the Powder River Basin occupy the same habitat year-round (resident populations), but some groups of birds at higher elevations must seek out more favorable winter sagebrush habitat requiring movements of up to 15 miles or more (migratory populations).

3

1.6 Influences Affecting Sage-Grouse Habitat fragmentation and loss of habitat top the list of negative impacts on sage grouse. Oil and gas development, poor vegetative (grazing) management, invasive plants (weeds) are the factors with the most influence on the sage grouse populations in the Powder River Basin. These factors are also the factors that can most effectively be addressed and provide the greatest benefit for sage grouse conservation in Northeast Wyoming. 1.6 A Habitat Fragmentation and Power Lines

To some unknown degree, corridors of multiple overhead transmission and distribution lines and the associated roads and trails, have been implicated as contributors to habitat fragmentation which may curtail the movement and land use by sage-grouse. No definitive study has been completed which measures the impact of power lines on sage- grouse populations by habitat fragmentation. Nevertheless PRECorp recognizes that a negative relationship is a possibility. Therefore, PRECorp’s approach will be to consolidate overhead power lines into the same corridor routes whenever possible to minimize habitat fragmentation.

1.6 B Collision Potential and Power Lines

To date, the collision risk for sage-grouse has primarily been reported for new fences erected near leks. Potential collisions with power lines likely would be more of an issue when the route is placed adjacent to or at an elevation below a lek site (e.g., beneath or adjacent to a ridge or bench that supports breeding grouse). Examples of sage grouse colliding with overhead lines have been isolated and anecdotal. Therefore, the incidence of power line collisions is considered to be low and infrequent, not resulting in population-level effects to sage-grouse. By routing over head power lines away from leks or with elevated terrain between a lek and the power line, collisions would be extremely rare. Consequently, efforts and resources would be more wisely directed at reducing predation and habitat fragmentation.

1.6 C Other Influences Affecting Sage-Grouse

Weather, disease and predation are also significant influences on sage grouse populations but the birds have evolved for thousands of years without experiencing the negative effects on long term population trends currently being documented in the West. Weather and disease are difficult or perhaps impossible to address. However, PRECorp’s most positive management actions can be tied to the reduction of predation on sage-grouse and sage-grouse nests/eggs by minimizing the use of power poles as hunting perches for raptors in the vicinity of sage-grouse leks (mating grounds) and the surrounding nesting and brood

4

rearing habitat. No definitive and measurable studies have been completed to statistically show the relationship between the use of power lines as hunting perches and sage-grouse populations but PRECorp believes sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a negative relationship does exist and that our proactive actions under this plan will reduce the predation that does occur.

5

2.0 Project and Route Planning - PRECorp’s Role 2.1 Research Habitat and Sage-Grouse Lek Information Preliminary planning for all distribution and transmission lines and substation projects will include researching the best available sage-grouse lek data bases and habitat data bases. This research should not be limited to the information presently on hand at PRECorp. Agencies have ongoing surveys to gather better and more current information and it will be important to use the most current available sage-grouse lek and habitat information when routing power lines in sage-grouse habitat. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have placed a high priority on providing the public updated sage grouse lek and habitat data on a regular basis. A list of agency and consultant contacts for updating sage grouse lek and critical habitat information can be found in Appendix A, Table 3 of this plan. 2.2 Planning Options for New Overhead Power Line Construction Avoidance routing or placement away from leks and critical sage grouse habitat will be the most favorable option for most projects. The distances from leks for various construction designs can be found in Appendix A, Table 1, located in the back of this plan. If the specified distance criteria in Appendix A, Table 1 for avoidance routing can not be maintained, then the special raptor guard (RG) designs drawings will be utilized for overhead construction rather than the normal raptor safe (R) design drawings used for normal avian protection. See Appendix B, RG Design Standards for examples of the raptor guard (RG) structure designs. If federal land is involved in part or in whole, whether managed by the BLM or USFS, direct communication should be made with the appropriate agency contact to discuss the proposed route and possible alternatives. The design for the power line should be discussed and established for the route alternatives. A list of agency and consultant contacts is provided in Appendix A, Table 3 of this plan. 2.3 Landscape Line of Sight Visibility Buffers When convenient and feasible by the location of a proposed overhead power line and the relief of the adjacent terrain, the natural topography of the land will be used to obstruct the view of perching birds of a sage-grouse lek. This routing tactic will be used in conjunction with the application of perch deterrent structure designs and rarely if ever used independently. It is not a part of the PRECorp plan to use only terrain as a preying deterrent. In special cases, the terrain could allow construction to take place beyond the limits of standard seasonal construction stipulations. (See section 2.5)

6

2.3 Planning Options for Line Replacement and Upgrade Projects When existing power lines in close proximity to sage-grouse leks are being converted, upgraded or replaced, reasonable efforts will be make to deter perching and preying by raptors, by using the raptor guard (RG) design for the appropriate distances. The distances and design criteria are provided in Appendix A, Table 1. 2.4 Planning Options for Underground Electric Cable The application of underground power cable construction will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Selected radial power line taps that must be in close proximity to sage-grouse leks may be constructed underground if other feasible options are not available. Underground lines will meet the criteria provided in Appendix A, Table 1. 2.5 Seasonal Construction Stipulations All construction within the distance guide lines to sage-grouse leks and critical habitat, Appendix A, Table 1, will be constructed in accordance with the seasonal construction stipulations specified in Appendix A, Table 2. Occasionally, seasonal construction stipulations may be waived through the appropriate agency, near busy highways or other existing disturbances. BLM will normally be the lead agency for coal bed methane and oil related power lines, except on USFS land. Special Use Permits from BLM and USFS will typically address the construction timing stipulations. The wildlife reports associated with RUS loan funds for PRECorp projects will address sage-grouse and construction timing stipulations. PRECorp will observe these stipulations when scheduling these projects for construction.

Route & Site Planning with GIS Data

507832507833

7

3.0 Structure Design Criteria 3.1 Modification of Raptor Safe Design to Deter Perching It is easier to make distribution power line structures safe from electrocution of raptors and large perching birds than it is to prevent them from perching on various structures. The vast majority of PRECorp structures protect birds from electrocution by providing safe perching by providing adequate spacing between conductors and grounded parts. Structures have been redesigned for deterring the perching of large birds rather than allowing them to safely perch. Design modifications have been implemented as a part of this plan to help prevent power line structures from being used as hunting perches for preying on sage-grouse. These special structure designs, designated (RG) for raptor guard, will be used for distribution power lines constructed within the distances from leks provided on Appendix A, Table 1. 3.2 Effectiveness of Perch Deterring Designs on Distribution Lines Perch discouragers have been shown to be very effective, even in areas with high concentrations of raptors and ravens. A discussion of the effectiveness of perch discouragers can be found in an overview provided by EDM International. An electric utility industry and greater sage-grouse overview is located in Chapter III of this document. (“What Do We Know about Sage Grouse and the Electric Utility Industry?”) Chapter II of this document, “Perch Management Review”, gives a very thorough discussion of perch discourager and proper and improper application and the effectiveness in preventing perching. In summary, when applied in the proper manner, discouragers are very effective and greatly reduce the likelihood of birds perching on structures but it cannot be guaranteed that birds will not find a way to perch on certain structure in certain situation. 3.3 PRECorp Raptor Guard (RG) Design Drawings A set of current Raptor Guard (RG) distribution structure design drawings is made a part of this plan and exhibited in Appendix B. 3.4 Continuing Development of Structure Designs PRECorp will continually examine the effectiveness of our structures for deterring perching. As better information and materials become available, modifications to the designs will be implemented.

8

3.5 Retrofit of Existing Lines If an authorized agency (BLM, USFS, WYGF or USFWS), involved in sage-grouse conservation, approaches PRECorp or a PRECorp customer with concerns that an existing line without perch deterrents is impacting sage-grouse, PRECorp will work with the customer and agency and install perch deterrents on an agreed to section of the power line. Requests for retrofitting existing lines with raptor guards will be negotiated on a case by case basis. Retrofitting existing lines with perch deterrent devices can be associated with new line construction which utilizes the existing line as a source and tapping point. 3.6 Transmission Line Designs Raptor guarding transmission structures to deter perching and preying on sage-grouse requires special materials and design and will be addressed on a project by project basis. See Appendix B, Transmission Design, for the designs used in the Barber Creek to Indian Creek 69 KV line near the Morgan Draw sage-grouse lek. Establishing the designs for future 69 kV transmission lines may evolve during the BLM, USFWS & RUS permitting process. The 69 kV design in Appendix B was recommended by Rick Harness, EDM International and accepted by BLM in the Indian Creek project permitting process.

9

4.0 Sage-Grouse Lek Distribution and Habitat Information and Studies Related to Sage Grouse and Power Lines 4.1 Keeping Data Current with the Most Recent Science and GIS It is paramount that PRECorp have the best sage-grouse lek and habitat data available on which to plan and base decisions dealing with project routing and locating. PRECorp Engineering Support will coordinate with the PRECorp GIS team and keep the most up to date information from state and federal agencies and the private sector, installed in the PRECorp GIS and make it available to the appropriate member of the PRECorp team. 4.2 Standards for Sage-Grouse Mapping & Habitat Assessments will continue to be Improved and Expanded PRECorp (Engineering Support) will maintain an active line of communication with BLM, USFWS and the WYG F to keep informed on the availability of new and upgraded sage-grouse lek and habitat information. PRECorp will keep proactive dialog with the people assigned to sage-grouse conservation efforts in these agencies and keep informed on all issues important to PRECorp and the PRECorp sage-grouse conservation commitment. (See contacts – Appendix A, Table 2) 4.3 A few studies pertaining to power lines and sage-grouse are in progress but little definitive information on the subject is available PRECorp will seek out results and information about the relationship and impact of power lines on sage-grouse to improve our knowledge base on the subject. As good science on the subject becomes available, PRECorp will improve this plan to lesson the direct and indirect impacts of our power lines on sage-grouse. 4.4 Participation in Scientific Studies PRECorp will actively support studies being conducted relating to power lines and sage- grouse. PRECorp will work with private and public entities to further the knowledge base about sage-grouse and power line interaction. If the opportunity exists for participation in a meaningful research project or working group, engineering staff will be notified in order to evaluate the benefits of PRECorp participation.

Chapter II

10

Perch Management Review Special Sage Grouse Design and Plan

Powder River Energy Corp

Important Points to Consider

1. p. 4 – Discouragers placed too close to conductors can lead to flashover

problems under certain environmental conditions. On the other hand, providing too much separation may allow birds to land next to discouragers.

2. p. 5 – Utilities should not increase their separation beyond 5 inches if the goal

is to keep eagles and hawks off their structures.

3. p. 8 – Perch discouragers are actually a tool to manage where birds can land and does not always keep birds off structures. It may be difficult to keep birds entirely off structures to prevent perching by raptors and corvids in sage grouse areas.

4. p. 8 – Perch discourager products are not available for all perching locations

(mainly equipment)

5. p. 9 – Some perching will be impossible to prevent on overhead power lines

6. p. 11 – PRECorp’s present construction standards were established to protect birds from being electrocuted but not designed to keep birds from perching on structures. (safely perching)

7. p. 11 - PRECorp asked for a review of standards for the recommendation of

additional measures to effectively deter perching in sage grouse lek areas.

8. p. 11 – Structures without 60” separation (i.e. 8’ arms) is easier to perch deter.

9. p. 11 – Pole top pins are difficult places to deter perching and the only

product available is the Raptor Guard Pole Top Deterrent. (efficiency in not scientifically known)

10. p. 12 – Exposed pole tops can be guarded by Pole Caps by Zena or Kaddas

or with the use of Raptor Guard Pole Top Deterrents. (no published literature on effectiveness)

11. p. 13 - Tangent arm structures – 10’ arms & drop for 60’ spacing – Perch

Guard Discouragers 36” with extended arm over insulator is recommended.

11

12. p. 14 – Add Zena Mini spikes to center – all devices attach to top of arm – not the side of the arm.

13. p. 14 – Tap (take off) insulators are impossible to discourage perching but are not commonly used as perches; focus on deterring perching on top of tangent structure.

14. p. 15 – Dead end Structures(VC5.21R) – Double arms require discouragers

on both front and back arm per the spacing guidelines shown in Figure 1 (p. 6)

15. p. 15 – Equipment Structures – (i.e. 3Ø transform bank structure VR3.3R)

Double arms both top and kicker arms require discouragers placed to the spacing guidelines shown in Figure 1 (p. 6) Pole top will require Raptor Guard Pole Top Deterrent (RG-PT)

Perch Management Review Powder River Energy Corporation

Submitted to:

Prepared by:

August 2007

EDM International, Inc.

4001 Automation Way Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-3479 USA

970/204-4001 Fax: 970/204-4007 Email: jhurmence@edmlink.com

www.edmlink.com

i

Table of Contents 1.0 PERCH MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 Elevated Perches ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Perch Discouragers .............................................................................................. 2

1.2.1 Bird Spikes................................................................................................. 2 1.2.2 Triangles .................................................................................................... 4

2.0 RAPTORS AND PREDATION ISSUES................................................................ 8 3.0 PRECORP STANDARDS................................................................................... 11

3.1 Spacing .............................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Center Pin .......................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Exposed Pole Tops ............................................................................................ 12 3.4 Offset Neutral Assembly..................................................................................... 13 3.5 Tangent Units ..................................................................................................... 13 3.6 Taps and Takeoffs.............................................................................................. 14 3.7 Deadend Units.................................................................................................... 15 3.8 Equipment Structures ......................................................................................... 15

4.0 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 16 5.0 LITERATURE ..................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED PERCH DISCOURAGERS FOR PRECorp

STANDARDS APPENDIX B EXAMPLES OF MODIFIED STANDARDS

1

1.0 PERCH MANAGEMENT Historically, perch management has been used to mitigate raptor electrocutions. This is evidenced in the 1981 version of Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines – The State of the Art in 1981 (Olendorff et al. 1981) which recommended using perch discouragers to encourage eagles to perch in less lethal positions on a power line. Perch management is most successful when alternative safe locations are still left for the bird to perch (Photo 1).

Testing has shown that perch discouragers are effective at reducing electrocutions, but not eliminating them (Harness and Garrett 1999). The most recent version of Suggested Practices places a heavier emphasis on the use of insulating materials over the use of perch discouragers (APLIC 2006). In new construction it is preferable to provide adequate separation of conductors for birds rather than to use perch discouragers. Placing perch discouragers on the top of some poles can even contribute to electrocutions, since birds may choose to roost lower on the pole near energized equipment. Perch discouragers also can simply shift problems onto other dangerous line segments. 1.1 Elevated Perches Perch encouragement is achieved with elevated perches designed to attract birds to the highest point on the structure. When elevated perches are constructed, they should be designed so birds cannot get under the perch during the heat of the day or during inclement weather. Eagle perches should be approximately 16 inches above a crossarm to prevent birds from sitting under the perch (Photo 2). Installation of perches also must adhere to the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) and all other pertinent safety requirements. Elevated perches (Photo 3) historically have been deployed on structures located at topographical high points near a prey base.

Photo 1 Ferruginous Hawk on a Three-Phase Tangent Structure

2

Perch discouragers can be successfully used in tandem with elevated perches. As with all devices, they should be installed properly so they do not create future operational problems. Manufactured perches are available from Aluma-Form and Hughes Brothers.

1.2 Perch Discouragers A variety of perch discouragers are commercially available from several manufacturers in a variety of shapes, colors, and materials. As with any product, it is important to access the material properties to make sure the devices will persist in a harsh environment. All products should come with ultraviolet inhibitors. Perch Discouragers can be separated into two types, spikes and triangles. 1.2.1 Bird Spikes Spikes can be placed in hard to reach areas and come in a variety of materials (e.g., metal, plastic polymers) and sizes to deter a wide range of bird species. However, the spikes must be sized properly and installed in the right location on the structure in order to effectively deter birds. Small spikes will not deter large raptorial birds and small birds may nest in them (Photo 4 and Photo 5). Small plastic-type spikes become brittle and break easily, reducing their effectiveness. The potential risks to employees climbing and working around sharp spikes also can be significant.

Maximum 16 inches

Support arm used as a perching barrier

Photo 2 Elevated Perch on a Three-Phase Tangent Structure

Photo 3 Ferruginous Hawk Using an Elevated Perch

3

In recent years, a new class of bird spikes has been developed specifically for raptors (Photo 6). These spikes were developed in South Africa for use on transmission structures. They were designed to deter large birds from causing streamer outages (Taylor et al. 1999). Raptor bird spikes are available from the following vendors: Indalo: http://www.ieps.biz/

Mission Engineering: http://www.mission-eng.co.za/

Zena Design Group: http://www.zenadesign.com/ Raptor bird spikes have been tested with captive raptors at the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program and have been shown to be effective at discouraging perching (Harness 2005). The Mission Engineering units also have effectively mitigated raptor streamer problems in Africa (Vosloo and van Rooyen 2001).

Deteriorated bird spike

Bird nest

Photo 4 Raptor Perching on Small Plastic Spikes

Photo 5 Bird Nesting in Small Plastic Spikes

Photo 6 Swainson's Hawk Perched Next to a Raptor Bird Spike

Photo Chris van Rooyen

4

1.2.2 Triangles The most common perch discouragers come in a variety of triangular or X-shapes. Some can be installed “hot” with hotline sticks; others must be bolted to the structure. In general, perch discouragers that can be installed “hot” cost more than discouragers requiring more labor to install. Several discouragers require the horizontal crossarm surface for mounting. This is the preferred method of mounting because placing a discourager on the face of a crossarm may still allow a bird to land behind the discourager (Photo 7). However, this may not be possible when cutouts, arresters, and other items are present. In those situations a unit that mounts into the vertical crossarm surface is required.

Table 1 lists the various manufacturers of perch discouragers and their contact information. As with any device, installation is critical. Like all utility components, discouragers should be installed according to the manufacturers’ specifications using NESC clearances to avoid potential electrical problems. Discouragers placed too close to conductors can lead to flashover problems under certain environmental conditions. On the other hand, providing too much separation may allow birds to land next to discouragers.

Photo 7 Golden Eagle Electrocution on a Structure Retrofitted with Homemade Triangles Mounted on the Crossarm Face

5

Table 1 Perch Discouragers Manufacturer Material Web Site EcoElectrical PVC w/Silicone Coating http://www.ecoelectrical.com Hendrix Wire and Cable Polypropylene http://www.hendrix-wc.com Hughes Brothers Fiberglass http://www.hughesbros.com Indala HDPE http://www.ieps.biz/ Kaddas PVC http://www.kaddas.com Mission Engineering HDPE httt://www.mission-eng.co.za Pacer Industries PVC None: (208)733-8074 Raptor Guard Electrical Grade PVC http://www.raptorguard.com/ Zena HDPE http://www.zenadesign.com Perch discouragers should be sized properly to discourage birds from perching under or adjacent to the discouragers (Photo 8), and purchased with a protective coating to prevent UV deterioration. Home-made discouragers without UV protection will often prematurely deteriorate, becoming ineffective (Photo 9).

Captive bird tests reveal hawks require 6 inches of separation before they will attempt to land between an insulator and a perch discourager (Figure 1). Eagles will attempt to land when there is a minimum of 10 inches between a discourager and insulator. Accordingly, utilities should not increase their separation beyond 5 inches if the goal is to keep eagles and hawks off their structures. Installation of discouragers also must adhere to the NESC and all other pertinent safety requirements. The proper way to install the discouragers in order to prevent bird electrocutions is shown in Figure 2.

Photo 8 Raptor Perching Under a Perch Discourager

Photo 9 Deteriorated Traffic Cone Used as a Perch Discourager

Photo by: Chad Olson

6

Figure 1 Perch Discourager Spacing Recommendations for Eagles and Hawks

7

Kaddas Enterprises, Inc.

Raptor Guard

Mission Engineering and Zena Design

Hendrix Wire and Cable, Inc.

Figure 2 Correct Perch Discourager Installation for Different Configurations Using a Variety of Products

8

2.0 RAPTORS AND PREDATION ISSUES In recent years utilities have been asked to prevent perching by raptors and corvids in areas where sage-grouse, prairie chickens, and mountain plovers exist. It is important to note that the use of perch discouragers has typically been used as a tool to exclude birds from hazardous locations. This is because keeping birds entirely off a structure is difficult and may simply shift birds to other structures. Perch discouragers are simply a tool to manage where birds can land on a structure and it is important to note that perch discouragers do not always keep birds off structures, as depicted in Photo 10 and Photo 11. The goal of a perch discourager is to discourage a bird from roosting in a problematic area. This approach is most successful if safer portions of the pole are still available to the bird or when used in tandem with elevated perches.

There are many potential perching points on utility structures. Although there are several different products available to discourage perching, products are not available for all perching locations. For example, birds will perch on equipment such as transformers, reclosers, capacitors, and regulators. There are no products available to dissuade perching on such equipment. When pressed for a perching location, birds are able to perch in areas with very minimal spacing (Photo 12 and Photo 13). Raptors and corvids also can perch on wires (Photo 14).

Photo 10 Rough-Legged Hawk Perching on a Perch Discourager

Photo 11 Bird Perching on a Triangle Perch Discourager

9

Talon size plays an important role in the ability of a bird to perch on small diameter surfaces such as wires. Birds with smaller talons are able to perch on wires spanning between poles. Although not common, raptors as large as red-tailed hawks and Swainson’s hawks have been seen perching on wires (Photo 14). These birds are typically seen perching closer to the structure and not mid-span. Small raptors, such as American kestrels, are regularly seen perching on wires. However, kestrels are primarily insectivores.

Photo 12 Golden Eagle Perching on a Neutral Spool Insulator

Photo 13 Golden Eagle Perching on a Pin Insulator

Photo 14 Swainson's Hawk Perching on a Wire

10

Birds with larger talons, such as eagles, osprey, great-horned owls, and ferruginous hawks, have not been noted perching on wires by EDM field crews. Refer to Photo 15 for talon sizes (Hurmence and Harness 2004).

Photo 15 Size Comparison of Common Talons (Golden Eagle, Bald Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Great-Horned Owl, Barn Owl, Red-Tailed Hawk, and Peregrine Falcon)

11

3.0 PRECORP STANDARDS The Powder River Energy Corporation (PRECorp) construction standards were reviewed to determine if additional measures to discourage perching in greater sage-grouse habitat are recommended. It is important to note the existing standards were developed to protect birds from potential electrocutions. The existing standards were not designed to keep birds from perching on the structures, as mentioned previously. The following are general recommendations to deter raptor perching. Appendix A provides detailed recommendations in a matrix. Appendix B provides examples of PRECorp standards with additional perch discouragers. 3.1 Spacing The preferred method of providing raptor protection is to frame the poles with at least 60 inches of separation in order to accommodate perching eagles. If perch discouragers are to be used in order to keep birds off structures, it may be more judicious to design structures without the 60-inch separation. Narrow profile configurations would require less area for perching birds, and thus fewer perch discouragers. 3.2 Center Pin Most PRECorp configurations entail the center phase being supported on a pin insulator mounted on the top of a wood pole. It is possible for a raptor to perch on the top of the pin insulator, as depicted in Photo 13. Presently, there is one device commercially available to dissuade perching at this location; the Raptor Guard Pole Top Deterrent (Photo 16). Although there is no published literature of the efficacy of this product, this device is the only option for discouraging perching above the pole top insulator. Homemade remedies should not be used due to product material concerns and a lack of data on their effectiveness (Photo 17 and Photo 18).

Photo 16 Raptor Guard Pole Top Deterrent

12

3.3 Exposed Pole Tops There are some situations where the top of the pole (Photo 19) will provide an attractive perch (VC5.21R and VC5.31R). In these situations the top of the pole can be fitted with a pole cap. Although there is no published literature of the efficacy of these products, pole caps are commercially available from Kaddas and Zena. The Raptor Guard Pole Top Deterrent is also an option. Refer to Table 1 for a complete list of vendors.

Photo 17 Homemade Deterrent Photo 18 Traffic Cone

Photo 19 Bald Eagle on Pole Top

13

3.4 Offset Neutral Assembly PRECorp standards include the use of an offset assembly for the neutral support spool (Figure 3). This offset bracket provides a perching location for raptors. To date there is one product available from Raptor Guard to discourage perching on this bracket (Figure 4).

Figure 3 Offset Neutral Assembly

Figure 4 Offset Neutral Assembly with Raptor Guard Pole-Mount Perch Discourager

3.5 Tangent Units Three-phase tangent structures are the most common configuration on most circuits (PRECorp Standards VC1.11/12LR, VC1.11/12R, VC1.41R, VC2.20LR, VC2.20R, VC2.21LR, VC2.21R, VC2.51LR, VC2.51R, VC2.52LR, VC2.52R, VC5.11GR, VP1.3R). These structures are presently fitted with discouragers as depicted in Figure 1. Photo 20 shows a PRECorp three-phase tangent structure (10-foot crossarm) with 36-inch Raptor Guard discouragers on a 10-foot crossarm, and a pole-top Raptor Guard discourager. Note, the outer edge of the discouragers extend out over the pin insulator. Raptor Guard perch discouragers should be ordered with these extended arms to discourage birds from perching on insulator pins. These discouragers are sufficient to reduce electrocution risk to raptors, but do not adequately discourage all perching on the structure. If the goal is to deter all perching, the crossarm center needs additional discouragers. Photo 21 illustrates the same PRECorp structure with Mini-Zena spikes added to dissuade perching between the perching discouragers.

14

Three-phase tangent structures with double primary supports must have perch discouragers installed on both crossarms (PRECorp standards VC2.20LR, VC2.20R, VC2.21LR, VC2.21R, VC2.51LR, VC2.51R, VC2.52LR, VC2.52R). 3.6 Taps and Takeoffs A tap insulator and insulating link are not commonly used as a perch (Photo 22), and there are currently no products available to discourage perching. Therefore, a single-phase takeoff from a tangent structure should focus on installing perch discouragers only on the top tangent configuration (PRECorp standard VC5.11GR). The structures for three-phase takeoffs (PRECorp standards VC5.21/31T, VC5.31TR, and VC5.71TLR) require perch discouragers on the takeoff configuration as well as the top configuration. Perch discouragers for the takeoff configuration should follow the recommendations for deadend structures (next section).

Photo 20 Perch Discouragers on PRECorp Three-Phase Tangent Structure VC1.11LR

Photo 21 Illustration of Mini-Zena Added to Three-Phase Tangent Structure VC1.11LR

Photo 22 Vulture Perched on a Horizontal Insulator

15

3.7 Deadend Units Deadend units are preferred raptor perches in many areas. Single deadend structures (as opposed to double deadend structures) are particularly favored because they are free of obstructing wires on the back side of the structure (PRECorp standards VC5.21/31R, VC5.71LR, and VC5.71R). The preferred method of using perch discouragers to prevent electrocutions has been to place discouragers on the front arms only. This allows a bird to use the unencumbered crossarm as a safe perching site (Photo 23). If the goal is to deter all perching then discouragers must be installed on all crossarms and pole tops of deadend structures, using the spacing guidelines shown in Figure 1. When perch discouragers are mounted next to each other, these same spacing guidelines apply. 3.8 Equipment Structures There are currently no products available to discourage perching on electrical devices and equipment. Retrofitting of equipment poles and platforms should focus on discouraging perching on top constructions, pole tops, kicker arms, bridges, and support beams. Perch discouragers should be placed using the spacing guidelines shown in Figure 1. When perch discouragers are mounted next to each other, these same spacing guidelines apply. Photo 24 shows a three-phase transformer bank on a deadend structure with a golden eagle perched on the kicker arm. This example illustrates the need to install perch discouragers on kicker arms and other timbers which serve as mounting locations for devices.

Photo 24 Golden Eagle Perched on Kicker Arm

Photo 23 Golden Eagle Safely Perching on a Deadend Unit

16

4.0 SUMMARY It should be reiterated that current perch management products were developed to mitigate bird electrocutions at unsafe perching locations. They are typically intended for placement on crossarms between insulator pins or devices mounted on the crossarms. Perch management devices are not designed to completely prevent birds from perching on a structure. Determined birds can be very adept at finding alternate places to perch on a structure (Photo 25), or even perching on the perch discouragers. While the extensive use of perch discouragers should greatly reduce the likelihood of birds perching on a structure, it cannot be guaranteed that birds will not perch on the structure at all.

Photo 25 Raptor Perching on Crossarm Brace

17

5.0 LITERATURE Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2006. Suggested practices for avian

protection on power lines; The state of the art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC, and the California energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested practices for raptor

protection on power lines; The state of the art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute; Raptor Research Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Harness, R. and M. Garrett. 1999. Effectiveness of perch guards to prevent raptor

electrocutions. Journal of the Colorado Field Ornithologists 33: 215-220. Hurmence, J. and R. E. Harness. 2004. Guide to Raptor Remains: A Photographic

Guide for Identifying the Remains of Selected Species of California Raptors. EDM International, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. (120 pp.)

Olendorff, R.R., A.D. Miller and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested practices for raptor

protection on power lines--The state of the art in 1981. Raptor Research Report 4: 111.

Taylor, P.V., H.F. Vosloo, C.C.E. Wolmarans, A.C. Britten, P. Naidoo, D.A. Hoch, and

C.S. van Rooyen. 1999. "Unknown" category of MTS line faults; bird streamers as a cause of transient earth faults. Progress Report, July 1999. Eskom Transmission Group.

Vosloo, H.F. and C.S. van Rooyen. 2001. Summary report on the performance of the

National Bird Guard Project. Report to Eskom Transmission Group. August 2001. Eskom. Megawatt Park. Sandton.

Chapter III

Appendix A

Appendix A – Table 1

Current Project Routing Gulde Lines: (Feb-18-2008) 1. No surface occupancy with over head power line construction of any design within a minimum of ¼ mile of an identified active lek. 2. Controlled surface occupancy within a minimum of ¼ of an active lek allows for underground construction with minimized disturbance. 3. When feasible, (i.e. short radial taps) underground power lines should be evaluated for use when the route is in direct line of sight of a lek. 4. Whenever possible, the most favorable routing alternative for a power line is to select a route beyond two miles or if possible three miles from active sage-grouse leks. Nesting and brooding grounds are generally within a two and up to three miles radius of the lek. 5. When overhead power line construction is determined the most feasible and the route selected is within the 2 mile radius of an active sage-grouse lek, the line will be constructed with RG design to deter perching and preying of raptors. 6. When the terrain offers a line of site buffer between the power line and the lek, this route alternative should be explored as an option but does not remove the RG design requirement. 7. If the majority of a power line route falls within a sage-grouse lek buffer zone, then it is justifiable to call for RG design for the entire line. This would be particularly warranted when the line is in and out of lek buffer zones.

Appendix A – Table 2

Current Agency Construction Timing Stipulations: (Feb-18-2008) 1. No power line construction or avoidable disturbing activities will occur within a two mile radius of an active sage-grouse lek from March 1 through June 15th. 2. BLM construction stipulations (see 1. above) will be applied to all CBM related projects regardless of the surface ownership, unless otherwise directed by the USFS or some other lead agency. 3. The construction timing stipulations pertaining to critical habitat and leks, addressed in BLM and USFS special use permits will be followed. 4. PRECorp will consider and implement recommendations developed by other entities (e.g. NE WY Sage-Grouse Working Group) where possible to minimize impacts to sage-grouse.

Appendix A – Table 3

Contacts for Sage Grouse Information

Consultant Contracts: ICF - Jones & Stokes (Environmental Consultants, formerly known as Thunderbird Wildlife Consulting) Gwyn McKee Suite 115 1901 Energy Court Gillette, WY 82718 307-660-3972 (cell) 307-685-1313 gmckee@jsanet.com EDM International, Inc. Lori Nielsen Senior Wildlife Biologist (sage grouse) 4001 Automation Way Fort Collins, CO 80525-3479 970-204-4001 970-204-4007 (fax) lnielsen@edmlink.com EDM International, Inc. Rick Harness Raptor & Perch Deterrent Expert 4001 Automation Way Fort Collins, CO 80525-3479 970-217-1580 (cell) 970-204-4001 970-204-4007 (fax) rharness@edmlink.com

Bighorn Environmental Consultants Tom Maechtle P.O. Box 207 Sheridan, WY 82801 307-673-7571 307-751-2565 (cell) tom@bighornec.com Agency Contacts: Wyoming Game & Fish Department Andrea Cerovski Non-Game Bird Biologist 260 Buena Vista Lander, WY 82520 307-332-7723 ex. 232 307-349-3798 (cell) andrea.cerovski@wgf.state.wy.us Wyoming Game & Fish Department Nyssa Witford Non-Game GIS Analyst 206 Buena Vista Lander, WY 82520 307-332-7723 nyssa.witford@wgf.state.wy.us Wyoming Game & Fish Department Tom Christiansen Sage Grouse Coordinator 351 Astle Green River, WY 82935 307-875-3225 ex. 227 307-870-6847 (cell) tom.christiansen@wgf.state.wy.us

Wyoming Game & Fish Department Dan Thiele Wildlife Biologist 42 Longhorn Drive Buffalo, WY 82834 307-684-2801 307-620-0053 (cell) dan.thiele@wgf.state.wy.us Wyoming Game & Fish Department Tim Thomas Wildlife Biologist 700 Valley View Drive Sheridan, WY 82801 307-672-8003 ex. 228 307-752-0659 tim.thomas@wgf.state.wy.us Wyoming Game & Fish Department Heather O’Brien Wildlife Biologist 8501 Ptarmigan Ave. Apt. B Gillette, WY 82718 307-682-1579 307-689-0621 (cell) heather.obrien@wgf.state.wy.us Wyoming Game & Fish Department Joe Sandrini Wildlife Biologist PO Box 615 Newcastle, WY 82701 307-746-4646 307-941-1016 (cell) joe.sandrini@wgf.state.wy.us

US Fish & Wildlife Service Pat Deibert Ecological Services 5353 Yellowstone Rd., Suite 308A Cheyenne, WY 82009 307-772-2374 ex. 226 US Fish & Wildlife Service Brad Rogers BLM – Buffalo Field Office 1425 Fort Street Buffalo, WY 82834 307-684-1046 brad_rogers@fws.gov US Forest Service Thunder Basin National Grassland Tim Byer, Biologist 2250 E. Richards St. Douglas, WY 82633 307-358-4690 307-358-7107 (fax) BLM – Buffalo Field Office Chris Durham Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist 1425 Fort St. Buffalo, WY 82834 307-684-1100 BLM – Buffalo Field Office Diane Adams GIS Specialist 1425 Fort St. Buffalo, WY 82834

307-684-1100 BLM – Newcastle Field Office Nate West Wildlife Biologist 1101 Washington St. Newcastle, WY 82801 307-746-6608 Oil & Gas Industry Biologists: Williams Energy Penny Bellah Environmental Specialist 300 Works Ave. Gillette, WY 82716 307-772-2374 307-680-2397 – (cell)

Appendix B

Basic- Commonly Used 1Ø Designs

69 kV Transmission Line Design

Appendix C

Supplemental Information

Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan

August 15th 2006

Kent Nickell

PREPARED BY:

The Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group

“Working Cooperatively to Benefit Sage-grouse”

Recommended Management Practices for Sage-Grouse Conservation Recommended management practices (RMPs) are those that are most appropriate in a certain set of conditions, which may or may not be present. It is the user who determines the relevance and appropriateness of the RMP, and the user may modify any given RMP to meet particular circumstances. RMPs are not implied regulations and they are certainly not appropriate in all circumstances. It is the voluntary nature, flexibility and capacity to change that make RMPs a useful management tool. The RMPs that have so far been identified by the Northeast Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group are listed below. RMPs were taken from the Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Plan and adapted when necessary to better fit northeast Wyoming. Seasonal RMPs entail clear timing guidelines for activities such as road building, facility placement, project development, vehicular and general human activity near and around sage-grouse habitat areas. Project type RMPs are also identified for common practices such as road building and powerline placement. Many of these guidelines are also restated under relevant limiting factors.

1. Working cooperatively with all involved permittees, lease holders or field operators to develop a master powerline plan for all areas within 3 miles (5 km) (Connelly et al.

2000) of sage-grouse leks and on other identified sage-grouse habitats. 2. Where feasible, bury new power lines. 3. Map all existing and proposed powerlines for the area, consolidating new powerlines

into existing disturbance corridors. 4. Coordinate planning and powerline needs among companies operating in the same

field. 5. Include power-line access roads in the road use and travel plan to include power

companies in appropriate use times. 6. Select sites for construction that will not disturb suitable nest cover and brood-rearing

habitats within 3 miles (Connelly et al. 2000) of a lek. 7. Select sites for construction that will not disturb wintering habitat. 8. Locate any above-ground power-lines off of ridges and out of riparian areas (1,000 ft

(300 m) riparian buffer where feasible). 9. Direct power-line construction (above or underground) to areas of existing disturbance

corridors (ie existing roads, railroads, power-lines, etc). 10. Recommend the lowest voltage powerline needed for the project while considering

future needs. 11. Reduce existing above ground powerlines by burying them as opportunities (such as

rebuilds) arise.

Power line Construction and Maintenance

a) If burying power-lines cannot be accomplished, install perch guards to prevent raptor use.

b) Recommend on-site power generation to minimize overhead power lines. c) Visibility markers should be included on above ground lines in high avian use

areas such as across drainages, water bodies, prairie dog colonies, etc.

RMP’s are voluntary conservation practices available for use on a site specific basis. NE Wyoming Sage-grouse Conservation Plan 15 August 2006 Literature Cited Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to

Manage Sage-grouse Populations and their Habitats. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28(4): 967-985.

Sage Grouse Fact SheetThe sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), which was first described for science by Lewisand Clark during their 1804 expedition, is an inhabitant of the open sagebrush plains. It is a large,ground-dwelling, chicken-like bird, up to 30 inches in length and two feet tall, weighing from twoto seven pounds. It has a long, pointed tail with legs feathered to the base of the toes.

Their mottled brown, black and white coloring serves as a camouflage from predators. The malesare larger and more colorful than females, and they have a black throat and bib, white feathersalong the sides of the neck, and a large white ruff on the breast. Males also exhibit two large,frontally directed air sacs of olive-green skin and yellow combs. Both are inflated duringbreeding display.

The sage-grouse is found from 4,000 to over 9,000 feet in elevation. It is omnivore, eating softplants, primarily sagebrush, and insects. One of the most interesting aspects about the sage-grouse is its nearly complete reliance on sagebrush. Throughout much of the year, adultsage-grouse rely on sagebrush to provide roosting cover and food. The type and condition ofshrub-steppe plant communities strongly affect habitat use by sage grouse populations, but thesepopulations also exhibit strong site fidelity (loyalty to a particular area). These birds cannotsurvive in areas where sagebrush no longer exists. Sage-grouse may disperse up to 100 milesbetween seasonal use areas; however, average individual movements are generally less than 21mile

During the spring breeding season, male sage-grouse gather together and performcourtship displays on display areas called leks (also known as “drumming grounds”), which arerelatively open sites and often surrounded by denser shrub-steppe cover. Males defend individualterritories within leks, strutting with tails fanned and emitting plopping sounds from the air sacson their chests to attract females. The mating season generally begins at the same time eachspring, but ultimately depends on weather and vegetative conditions. Some leks are used formany years.

Females lay a clutch of 7-8 eggs from mid-March to mid-June. Sage-grouse hens raiseone brood in a season. The average life span of sage-grouse is 1 to 1-1/2 years. However, theyhave been found to survive up to 10 years in the wild. In the evening until early morning, theyroost on the ground. Approximately half of sage-grouse mortality is caused by predators,including raptors, badgers, ravens and ground squirrels (eat the eggs).

In the summer sage-grouse depend on sagebrush for shelter from predators, while thegrass and plants under the sagebrush provide materials for nesting and high-protein insects forfood, a critical diet for chicks in their first month of life. In winter, over 99 percent of their diet issagebrush leaves and buds.

Common names for sage-grouse include: sage hen, sage fowl, sage cock, sage chicken,heath cock and heath hen. Adult sage-grouse have dark-green toes. In early fall, comb-like fringeappears alongside each of the three toes which then act as snowshoes for walking on deep snow

and are shed in the spring.

Sagebrush is a woody shrub with silvery leaves that stay green all year. Sagebrush iseasily identifiable by its sharp odor, described by pioneers on the Oregon Trail as a mixture ofturpentine and camphor. Although sagebrush may seem hardy, a sagebrush community may takeyears to recover from fire and some range management practices. In some areas of theColumbian Basin where a large fire burned 40 years ago, sagebrush has still not returned. Anumber of wildlife species depend on healthy sagebrush habitat, including larks, burrowing owls,long-billed curlews, sage sparrows, sage thrashers, loggerhead shrikes and pygmy rabbits.

The historic range of the sage-grouse included Washington, Oregon, eastern California,Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, western Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota,Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Mexico, Arizona, and the Canadian provinces of BritishColumbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Sage-grouse are no longer found in Nebraska, Kansas,Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and British Columbia. The distribution of greater sage-grousehas contracted, most notably along the northern and northwestern periphery and in the center ofthe historic range.

Rangewide estimates of sage-grouse abundance prior to European settlement in westernNorth America vary, but consensus estimate is that there may have been about 1.1 million birds in1800. The 1998 rangewide spring population numbered about 157,000 sage-grouse. Morerecent estimates put the number of sage-grouse rangewide at roughly between 100,000 and500,000 birds.

A recent sagebrush die-off in Utah has affected approximately one million acres ofsagebrush habitat - 600,000 acres of those are directly associated with wildlife. It is believed thatthis is the only major die-off of sagebrush since white settlers arrived in the area in the mid-1800s. At this time, the elevation of the large die-off of sagebrush seems to be below 7,000 feet andinvolves mainly Bureau of Land Management land. The die-off is thought to be a result of thecontinuing stress on the plants due to the 5-year drought ongoing in Utah. In addition, most ofthe sagebrush is made up of older plants, with little new growth being found. If this droughtcontinues, it is believed that next year sagebrush located at higher elevations (7,000 feet andabove) will suffer similar loss. In Utah, higher elevations of sagebrush are found on USDA-ForestService lands.

Last updated 1/5/04