Trends in greater sage‐grouse lek counts relative to existing wind energy development in Wyoming

Abstract

AbstractRapid increases in wind energy development globally highlight the need to evaluate how electricity generation may impact wildlife. The greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage‐grouse) has experienced range‐wide population declines, primarily due to habitat loss and degradation. Studies have documented a negative association between oil and gas development and sage‐grouse populations. However, potential sage‐grouse population declines associated with wind energy development have not been adequately addressed. We investigated the relationship between wind energy infrastructure and changes in male sage‐grouse counted on leks from 2000–2020 in Wyoming, USA, using Bayesian state‐space models. Our study was conducted in central and southwest Wyoming in the vicinity of 10 wind energy facilities that were in proximity to sage‐grouse leks occurring outside of Wyoming's Core Areas (i.e., areas of high breeding densities of sage‐grouse designated for restricted development by the State of Wyoming) and dominated by big sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) communities. Facilities became operational between 1998 and 2010 and had an average of 67 turbines. Covariates describing wind energy infrastructure included distance to the nearest wind turbine, and the number and distribution (clustering) of turbines within 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, and 10.0 km. We also explored whether males attending leks exhibited lagged responses of 1–7 years following development. We used counts from 78 leks located within 15 km of the 10 wind energy facilities, consisting of 288 counts before and 845 counts after development. We expected that trends in male lek attendance would experience a delayed negative response following wind energy development like other forms of anthropogenic features. However, we failed to detect a relationship between male sage‐grouse lek attendance and proximity to, density of, or distribution of wind turbines following development in all models. Our findings were based on the average lek in our analysis being 6.5 km from a wind turbine and most turbines were clustered such that undisturbed habitat surrounding leks remained. Therefore, interpretation of our results should be restricted to siting practices of the facilities that we evaluated because direct habitat removal and fragmentation resulting from any form of energy development is unlikely to benefit sage‐grouse populations. Our study evaluated the response of low‐density, peripheral populations of sage‐grouse to wind energy development outside or near the edge of Core Areas. As such, our results should not be extrapolated to higher density sage‐grouse populations occurring in Core Areas.