Pinedale WY lope
- Thread starter mtmiller
- Start date
Good point, looks like some valuable habitat when the snow and cold arrives, even looks like a prime fawning area back by the tank.
On another note, actually similar note, I thought I would share this info I received this morning. It was in a table, so "pasted" poorly, but some interesting stuff for some folks.
Table 1. Synopsis of impacts of energy development on selected species of wildlife that
use sagebrush habitats in the western United States. Information on greater
sage-grouse is grouped by study because of the abundance of new information
for this species. Literature used to characterize effects of roads on elk is not
specific to energy development because little research on this topic has been
conducted1.
Species
Impact Literature source(s) and study area
Mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus) Mule deer avoidance of otherwise suitable habitats within 2.7-3.7 km of natural gas wells suggests substantial indirect habitat loss from energy development. Changes in habitat use were immediate with no evidence of acclimation over time (3 yrs). Observed shifts in deer distribution as study progressed were toward less-preferred and presumably less-suitable habitats. Sawyer et al. (2005), Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA) in western WY
1Elk
(Cervus elaphus) Elk respond negatively to roads by increasing their daily movements2, altering habitat use in favor of escape cover3,4, or by avoiding roads altogether by >200 m5 during fall and spring3,6. In open environments, the cumulative impact of <1.6 km of road per 2.6 km2 eliminated elk use of otherwise favorable habitats7. Elk were more vulnerable to poaching and harvest near roads2-4,8 which resulted in skewed sex ratios and unbalanced age structures9. Bull elk ≥2 yrs old near roads had an annual survival rate of 0.41 (95% CI 0.30-0.56) compared to 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.88) for bulls in roadless areas4. Restricting vehicle access on public lands decreased poaching and increased survival of elk in Oregon4, but closures must encompass large areas to be effective3. 2Cole et al. (1997) in southwest OR, 3Hurley and Sargeant (1991) in western MT, 4Unsworth and Kuck (1991) in north-central ID,
5Rost and Bailey (1979) in CO, 6Grover and Thompson (1986) in southwest MT,
7Lyon (1979) in western MT, 8McCorquodale et al. (2003) in Cascade Range of south-central WA, and 9Leptich and Zager (1991) in northern ID.
Table 1 (cont.). Synopsis of impacts of energy development on selected species of
wildlife that use sagebrush habitats in the western United States.
Information on greater sage-grouse is grouped by study because of the
abundance of new information for this species. Literature used to
characterize effects of roads on elk is not specific to energy development
because little research on this topic has been conducted1.
Species
Impact Literature source(s) and study area
Pronghorn
(Antilocapra americana) Unlike mule deer and elk, pronghorn typically habituate to humans when not hunted, but continual fracturing of previously undisturbed lands lead pronghorn to reduce their use or to abandon habitat patches <243 ha (600 ac) in size. Once density of wells reached a threshold, pronghorn no longer used gas fields irrespective other factors such as snow depth. Radio-marked pronghorn consistently avoided otherwise suitable habitats with 100 m of a producing well at all times, including night when human disturbance was reduced. Aerial flight data and >56,000 locations of radio-marked pronghorn indicate complete avoidance of the Jonah Gas Field, an area of intense development where >600 pronghorn spent the winter prior to drilling. Berger et al. (2006), PAPA in western WY
Brewer’s sparrow
(Spizella breweri) Density of breeding Brewer’s sparrows declined by 36% within 100 m of dirt roads within a natural gas field. Effects occurred along roads with light traffic volume (<12 vehicles per day). Findings suggest that indirect habitat losses from energy development may be substantially larger than direct habitat losses. Ingelfinger (2004), PAPA in western WY
Sage sparrow
(Amphispiza belli) Density of breeding sage sparrows was reduced by 57% within a 100-m buffer of dirt roads regardless of traffic volume. The density of roads constructed in natural gas fields exacerbated the problem and the area of impact was substantial. Ingelfinger (2004), PAPA in western WY
Table 1 (cont.). Synopsis of impacts of energy development on selected species of
wildlife that use sagebrush habitats in the western United States.
Information on greater sage-grouse is grouped by study because of the
abundance of new information for this species. Literature used to
characterize effects of roads on elk is not specific to energy development
because little research on this topic has been conducted1.
Species
Impact Literature source(s) and study area
Greater sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) Sage-grouse that were radio-marked at leks within 3-km of natural gas field moved twice as far (4,116 m) as birds from undeveloped leks (2,090 m) in search of undisturbed nesting habitat9. Despite increased movements, nest initiation rate for birds from developed leks was lower (65%) than that for birds nesting in undisturbed landscapes (89%)9. Unlike nests in disturbed landscapes9, distributions of sage-grouse nests in contiguous habitat that was free of gas development were spatially related to lek location, and a 5-km buffer included 64% of nests10. Closely spaced nests had lower success than isolated nests10, suggesting that predation risk decreases the quality of otherwise suitable habitat when birds are forced to crowd nests into smaller areas to avoid energy development10. 9Lyon and Anderson (2003), 10Holloran and Anderson (2005), PAPA in western Wyoming
Greater sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) Male lek attendance decreased with distance to the nearest drilling rig. Negative effects were apparent out to 6.2 km of the lek, and no males attended leks within 2 km from a drilling rig. Male lek attendance also decreased as traffic volume from energy development increased. Male attendance decreased with <12 vehicles per day, and leks became inactive when volumes exceeded 75 vehicles per day. Number of males also declined when the lek was located downwind from a drilling rig, indicating that noise from energy development was likely a contributing factor. Leks that became inactive did so within 3-4 years. The number of males at disturbed leks declined 24% annually compared to an 8-21% decline in population growth predicted from the effects of energy development on vital rates. This comparison suggests that extirpation of leks near energy development is the result of avoidance and decreased survival. Holloran (2005), PAPA in western Wyoming
Table 1 (cont.). Synopsis of impacts of energy development on selected species of
wildlife that use sagebrush habitats in the western United States.
Information on greater sage-grouse is grouped by study because of the
abundance of new information for this species. Literature used to
characterize effects of roads on elk is not specific to energy development
because little research on this topic has been conducted1.
Greater sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) Leks with coal-bed natural gas development (>40% developed within 3.2 km of lek) showed lower population trends than leks with minimal or no development. Leks adjacent to natural gas fields (10-40% developed) also showed higher population trends than leks further away from development, suggesting that sage-grouse may be avoiding developed areas by moving into adjacent undeveloped habitat. The avoidance hypothesis is supported by finding that, by 2005, active leks, and large (i.e., >20 males) and medium-sized leks, were more often found outside or adjacent to than within gas fields. Naugle et al. (2006), Powder River Basin in northeast WY and southeast MT
Effects of development on human interactions with wildlife Frequency of wildlife law violations were used to evaluate whether characteristics of three discrete and expanding human populations were related to type of land use development. Petroleum-based “boom towns” had more wildlife violations per capita than agrarian-based population centers. Recreation-based (skiing) boom towns had the lower number of violations during periods of the most rapid growth. Berger and Daneke (1988) in the central Rocky Mountains
Literature Cited
Berger, J., and D. Daneke. 1988. Effects of agricultural, industrial, and recreational
expansion on frequency of wildlife law violations in the central Rocky Mountains, USA. Conservation Biology 2:283-289.
Berger, J., K. M. Berger, and J. Beckmann. 2006. Wildlife and energy development:
Pronghorn of the Upper Green River Basin—Year 1 Summary. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA. Available for download from http://www.wcs.org/yellowstone.
Cole, E. K., M. D. Pope, and R. G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of road management on
movement and survival of Roosevelt elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1115-1126.
Grover, K. E., and M. J. Thompson. 1986. Factors influencing spring feeding site
selection by elk in the Elkhorn Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:466-470.
Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population
response to natural gas field development in western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.
Holloran, M. J., and S. H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse
nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742-752.
Hurley, M. A., and G. A. Sargeant. 1991. Effects of hunting and land management on
elk habitat use, movement patterns, and mortality in western Montana. Pages 94-98 in A. G. Christensen, L. J. Lyon, and T. N. Nooner, editors. Proceedings of the elk vulnerability symposium. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
Ingelfinger, F., and S. Anderson. 2004. Passerine response to roads associated with
natural gas extraction in a sagebrush steppe habitat. Western North American Naturalist 64:385-395.
Leptich, D. J., and P. Zager. 1991. Road access management effects on elk mortality
and population dynamics. Pages 126-131 in A. G. Christensen, L. J. Lyon, and T. N. Nooner, editors. Proceedings of the elk vulnerability symposium. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage
grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491.
Lyon, L. J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. Journal
of Forestry 77:658-660.
McCorquodale, S. M., R. Wiseman, and C. Les Marcum. 2003. Survival and harvest
vulnerability of elk in the Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:248-257.
Naugle, D. E., B. L. Walker, and K. E. Doherty. 2006. Sage-grouse population response
to coal-bed natural gas development in the Powder River Basin: Interim progress report on region-wide lek-count analyses. Unpublished Report, Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
Rost, G. R., and J. A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to
roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:634-641.
Sawyer, H., R. M. Nielson, F. Lindzey, and L. L. McDonald. 2005. Winter habitat
selection of mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field.
Journal of Wildlife Management 70:396-403.
Unsworth, J. W., and L. Kuck. 1991. Bull elk vulnerability in the Clearwater Drainage
of North-central Idaho. Pages 85-93 in A. G. Christensen, L. J. Lyon, and T. N. Nooner, editors. Proceedings of the elk vulnerability symposium. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
On another note, actually similar note, I thought I would share this info I received this morning. It was in a table, so "pasted" poorly, but some interesting stuff for some folks.
Table 1. Synopsis of impacts of energy development on selected species of wildlife that
use sagebrush habitats in the western United States. Information on greater
sage-grouse is grouped by study because of the abundance of new information
for this species. Literature used to characterize effects of roads on elk is not
specific to energy development because little research on this topic has been
conducted1.
Species
Impact Literature source(s) and study area
Mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus) Mule deer avoidance of otherwise suitable habitats within 2.7-3.7 km of natural gas wells suggests substantial indirect habitat loss from energy development. Changes in habitat use were immediate with no evidence of acclimation over time (3 yrs). Observed shifts in deer distribution as study progressed were toward less-preferred and presumably less-suitable habitats. Sawyer et al. (2005), Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA) in western WY
1Elk
(Cervus elaphus) Elk respond negatively to roads by increasing their daily movements2, altering habitat use in favor of escape cover3,4, or by avoiding roads altogether by >200 m5 during fall and spring3,6. In open environments, the cumulative impact of <1.6 km of road per 2.6 km2 eliminated elk use of otherwise favorable habitats7. Elk were more vulnerable to poaching and harvest near roads2-4,8 which resulted in skewed sex ratios and unbalanced age structures9. Bull elk ≥2 yrs old near roads had an annual survival rate of 0.41 (95% CI 0.30-0.56) compared to 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.88) for bulls in roadless areas4. Restricting vehicle access on public lands decreased poaching and increased survival of elk in Oregon4, but closures must encompass large areas to be effective3. 2Cole et al. (1997) in southwest OR, 3Hurley and Sargeant (1991) in western MT, 4Unsworth and Kuck (1991) in north-central ID,
5Rost and Bailey (1979) in CO, 6Grover and Thompson (1986) in southwest MT,
7Lyon (1979) in western MT, 8McCorquodale et al. (2003) in Cascade Range of south-central WA, and 9Leptich and Zager (1991) in northern ID.
Table 1 (cont.). Synopsis of impacts of energy development on selected species of
wildlife that use sagebrush habitats in the western United States.
Information on greater sage-grouse is grouped by study because of the
abundance of new information for this species. Literature used to
characterize effects of roads on elk is not specific to energy development
because little research on this topic has been conducted1.
Species
Impact Literature source(s) and study area
Pronghorn
(Antilocapra americana) Unlike mule deer and elk, pronghorn typically habituate to humans when not hunted, but continual fracturing of previously undisturbed lands lead pronghorn to reduce their use or to abandon habitat patches <243 ha (600 ac) in size. Once density of wells reached a threshold, pronghorn no longer used gas fields irrespective other factors such as snow depth. Radio-marked pronghorn consistently avoided otherwise suitable habitats with 100 m of a producing well at all times, including night when human disturbance was reduced. Aerial flight data and >56,000 locations of radio-marked pronghorn indicate complete avoidance of the Jonah Gas Field, an area of intense development where >600 pronghorn spent the winter prior to drilling. Berger et al. (2006), PAPA in western WY
Brewer’s sparrow
(Spizella breweri) Density of breeding Brewer’s sparrows declined by 36% within 100 m of dirt roads within a natural gas field. Effects occurred along roads with light traffic volume (<12 vehicles per day). Findings suggest that indirect habitat losses from energy development may be substantially larger than direct habitat losses. Ingelfinger (2004), PAPA in western WY
Sage sparrow
(Amphispiza belli) Density of breeding sage sparrows was reduced by 57% within a 100-m buffer of dirt roads regardless of traffic volume. The density of roads constructed in natural gas fields exacerbated the problem and the area of impact was substantial. Ingelfinger (2004), PAPA in western WY
Table 1 (cont.). Synopsis of impacts of energy development on selected species of
wildlife that use sagebrush habitats in the western United States.
Information on greater sage-grouse is grouped by study because of the
abundance of new information for this species. Literature used to
characterize effects of roads on elk is not specific to energy development
because little research on this topic has been conducted1.
Species
Impact Literature source(s) and study area
Greater sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) Sage-grouse that were radio-marked at leks within 3-km of natural gas field moved twice as far (4,116 m) as birds from undeveloped leks (2,090 m) in search of undisturbed nesting habitat9. Despite increased movements, nest initiation rate for birds from developed leks was lower (65%) than that for birds nesting in undisturbed landscapes (89%)9. Unlike nests in disturbed landscapes9, distributions of sage-grouse nests in contiguous habitat that was free of gas development were spatially related to lek location, and a 5-km buffer included 64% of nests10. Closely spaced nests had lower success than isolated nests10, suggesting that predation risk decreases the quality of otherwise suitable habitat when birds are forced to crowd nests into smaller areas to avoid energy development10. 9Lyon and Anderson (2003), 10Holloran and Anderson (2005), PAPA in western Wyoming
Greater sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) Male lek attendance decreased with distance to the nearest drilling rig. Negative effects were apparent out to 6.2 km of the lek, and no males attended leks within 2 km from a drilling rig. Male lek attendance also decreased as traffic volume from energy development increased. Male attendance decreased with <12 vehicles per day, and leks became inactive when volumes exceeded 75 vehicles per day. Number of males also declined when the lek was located downwind from a drilling rig, indicating that noise from energy development was likely a contributing factor. Leks that became inactive did so within 3-4 years. The number of males at disturbed leks declined 24% annually compared to an 8-21% decline in population growth predicted from the effects of energy development on vital rates. This comparison suggests that extirpation of leks near energy development is the result of avoidance and decreased survival. Holloran (2005), PAPA in western Wyoming
Table 1 (cont.). Synopsis of impacts of energy development on selected species of
wildlife that use sagebrush habitats in the western United States.
Information on greater sage-grouse is grouped by study because of the
abundance of new information for this species. Literature used to
characterize effects of roads on elk is not specific to energy development
because little research on this topic has been conducted1.
Greater sage-grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) Leks with coal-bed natural gas development (>40% developed within 3.2 km of lek) showed lower population trends than leks with minimal or no development. Leks adjacent to natural gas fields (10-40% developed) also showed higher population trends than leks further away from development, suggesting that sage-grouse may be avoiding developed areas by moving into adjacent undeveloped habitat. The avoidance hypothesis is supported by finding that, by 2005, active leks, and large (i.e., >20 males) and medium-sized leks, were more often found outside or adjacent to than within gas fields. Naugle et al. (2006), Powder River Basin in northeast WY and southeast MT
Effects of development on human interactions with wildlife Frequency of wildlife law violations were used to evaluate whether characteristics of three discrete and expanding human populations were related to type of land use development. Petroleum-based “boom towns” had more wildlife violations per capita than agrarian-based population centers. Recreation-based (skiing) boom towns had the lower number of violations during periods of the most rapid growth. Berger and Daneke (1988) in the central Rocky Mountains
Literature Cited
Berger, J., and D. Daneke. 1988. Effects of agricultural, industrial, and recreational
expansion on frequency of wildlife law violations in the central Rocky Mountains, USA. Conservation Biology 2:283-289.
Berger, J., K. M. Berger, and J. Beckmann. 2006. Wildlife and energy development:
Pronghorn of the Upper Green River Basin—Year 1 Summary. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA. Available for download from http://www.wcs.org/yellowstone.
Cole, E. K., M. D. Pope, and R. G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of road management on
movement and survival of Roosevelt elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1115-1126.
Grover, K. E., and M. J. Thompson. 1986. Factors influencing spring feeding site
selection by elk in the Elkhorn Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:466-470.
Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population
response to natural gas field development in western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.
Holloran, M. J., and S. H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse
nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742-752.
Hurley, M. A., and G. A. Sargeant. 1991. Effects of hunting and land management on
elk habitat use, movement patterns, and mortality in western Montana. Pages 94-98 in A. G. Christensen, L. J. Lyon, and T. N. Nooner, editors. Proceedings of the elk vulnerability symposium. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
Ingelfinger, F., and S. Anderson. 2004. Passerine response to roads associated with
natural gas extraction in a sagebrush steppe habitat. Western North American Naturalist 64:385-395.
Leptich, D. J., and P. Zager. 1991. Road access management effects on elk mortality
and population dynamics. Pages 126-131 in A. G. Christensen, L. J. Lyon, and T. N. Nooner, editors. Proceedings of the elk vulnerability symposium. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.
Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage
grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:486-491.
Lyon, L. J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. Journal
of Forestry 77:658-660.
McCorquodale, S. M., R. Wiseman, and C. Les Marcum. 2003. Survival and harvest
vulnerability of elk in the Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:248-257.
Naugle, D. E., B. L. Walker, and K. E. Doherty. 2006. Sage-grouse population response
to coal-bed natural gas development in the Powder River Basin: Interim progress report on region-wide lek-count analyses. Unpublished Report, Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
Rost, G. R., and J. A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to
roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:634-641.
Sawyer, H., R. M. Nielson, F. Lindzey, and L. L. McDonald. 2005. Winter habitat
selection of mule deer before and during development of a natural gas field.
Journal of Wildlife Management 70:396-403.
Unsworth, J. W., and L. Kuck. 1991. Bull elk vulnerability in the Clearwater Drainage
of North-central Idaho. Pages 85-93 in A. G. Christensen, L. J. Lyon, and T. N. Nooner, editors. Proceedings of the elk vulnerability symposium. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
Probably not. Might have something else planned for that time of year. Sorry.
Grazing dollars still pay for quite a bit of projects that benefit other programs. Yet I do agree that the $$/AUM is low. Besides, if a planning document says one thing and you change it that opens it for appeal. Different side of the same coin that allows folks to sue the BLM for improper grazing or other decisions.
Grazing dollars still pay for quite a bit of projects that benefit other programs. Yet I do agree that the $$/AUM is low. Besides, if a planning document says one thing and you change it that opens it for appeal. Different side of the same coin that allows folks to sue the BLM for improper grazing or other decisions.
JoseCuervo
New member
1_pointer said:
Please explain what Grazing Dollars pay for!!!! They don't pay enough to feed a housecat for a month, they can't pay enough to cover any expenses. A lawsuit per BLM district quickly consumes more than the revenue from grazing. How much do we pay range scientists to stand at copier machines preparing discovery for counsel?
Depends on the range scientist. A GS-7 level employee is less expensive than a GS-11 per hour. How many hours depends on how many copies need to be made. It also depends if the office charges those requesting the copies for the copies.
Tom
New member
"Restricting vehicle access on public lands decreased poaching and increased survival of elk in Oregon4, but closures must encompass large areas to be effective3."
Its not all bad news, there's some "good" news there on better management possibilities despite roads in the area, right?
Its not all bad news, there's some "good" news there on better management possibilities despite roads in the area, right?
MarvB
Well-known member
Tyler, you also forgot that it depends if you're copying single or double sided
Tom
New member
Its better than thinking most of the world is made of shit, although I'll hand it to you, its everywhere. Peanuts, corn, peanut butter and creamed corn too, eh?!
TheGreatwhitehunter
New member
Horn Seeker
New member
Oh...grazing....a fish bio's nemesis...and for what??
