| Abstrakt: |
Energy development is one of the most rapidly increasing land uses in North America, so understanding how wildlife respond to different types of energy infrastructure is crucial for informing land‐use policies. Effects of energy development on wildlife habitat use and selection can vary depending on infrastructure type, level of industrial activity, and density. I examined seasonal habitat use and selection of greater sage‐grouse in relation to energy development in a high‐elevation oil and gas field in western Colorado by linking spatially and temporally explicit energy infrastructure layers with telemetry locations of marked females from 2006 to 2014. Objectives were to (1) quantify energy infrastructure around seasonal use locations; (2) examine how seasonal resource selection is affected by energy infrastructure with disturbed versus reclaimed surface and different levels of industrial activity; and (3) assess current surface disturbance and infrastructure density caps. Between 92% and 97% of seasonal use locations had <3% disturbed surface within 1000 m. After accounting for landcover and topography, breeding and wintering females selected locations with less disturbed, reclaimed, and total anthropogenic surface. Breeding females selected locations farther from high‐activity well pads and facilities. In contrast, females selected locations with low to intermediate values of disturbed and reclaimed surface and locations closer to pipelines and roads in summer–fall. This is the first evidence that greater sage‐grouse select locations with energy infrastructure in any season and suggests that responses to energy development may differ between mesic and arid sagebrush ecosystems. Females avoided locations with >1.1%–2.5% disturbed surface during breeding and winter and selected locations with lower densities of active energy features during breeding and roads in winter. Density caps of one active energy feature and 1.5 mi (2.41 km) of road per section were adequate to prevent avoidance except during the breeding season. Disturbance caps should be set at 1.1% disturbed surface and 1.8% total anthropogenic surface in breeding habitat and 2.5% disturbed surface and 3.5% total anthropogenic surface in winter habitat to minimize negative impacts on female habitat selection in this population. Results also support timing restrictions on construction and drilling during breeding and rapid transitioning of well pads from drilling to production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Plný text