Archive

ShareThis Page
3-mile buffer suggested for grouse breeding, oil and gas drilling | TribLIVE.com
News

3-mile buffer suggested for grouse breeding, oil and gas drilling

The Associated Press
| Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:51 p.m
SageGrouseEnergyJPEG0f08e1
This July, 26, 2014 photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shows a Greater Sage Grouse at the Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge in Wyoming. A government study recommends keeping oil and gas drilling, wind farms and solar projects more than 3 miles away from the breeding grounds of a bird that ranges across much of the Western U.S. a finding that could carry significant impacts for the energy industry as the Obama administration weighs whether the greater sage grouse needs more protections after seeing its population plummet in recent decades. (AP Photo/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Tom Koerner)

BILLINGS, Mont. — A government report with significant implications for the United States energy industry says a struggling bird species needs a 3-mile buffer between its breeding grounds and oil and gas drilling, wind farms and solar projects.

The study occurs as the Obama administration weighs new protections for the greater sage grouse. The ground-dwelling, chicken-sized birds range across 11 western states and two Canadian provinces.

A 3-mile buffer for the birds represents a much larger area than the no-occupancy zones where drilling and other activity is prohibited under some state and federal land management plans.

However, those plans contain more nuanced provisions, which backers say will protect sage grouse, such as seasonal restrictions on drilling or other activity and limits on the number of oil and gas wells within key sage grouse habitat.

Some wildlife advocates say too much energy development is being allowed, undermining efforts to help grouse. Such opposition could be bolstered by the U.S. Geological Survey report Friday.

The USGS made no management recommendations, and agency scientists said the buffer distances were for guidance only.

Greater sage grouse populations dropped sharply in recent decades because of disease, pressure from the energy industry, wildfires and other factors.

Now state and federal officials are scrambling to come up with conservation measures to protect the grouse ahead of a court-ordered September 2015 decision on protections.

A related bird, the Gunnison sage grouse of Utah and Colorado, received federal protection as a threatened species on Nov. 12. An adviser for Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said Friday that the state plans to challenge the decision in court.

The USGS report on the more-common greater sage grouse represents a compilation of scientific studies aimed at seeing what it takes to protect the bird.

It was requested by the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which oversees millions of acres of sage grouse habitat and regulates the energy industry across much of the West.

BLM spokesman Jeff Krauss said the agency will use the new information as it works on changes to land use plans that include new sage grouse conservation measures.

The report said a minimum buffer extending to a 3.1-mile radius around sage grouse breeding sites would provide considerable protections for the bird. That radius would equal a circle around the leks covering 30 square miles.

The report suggests a maximum buffer of 5 miles.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.