|
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
June 26, 2006
Contact Information
Second Powder River Basin Study Shows CBM
Impacts
to
Grouse Winter Range
LARAMIE – The second phase of a study by researchers at the University of Montana shows serious impacts of coalbed methane drilling on sage grouse winter range in the coalbed methane fields of the Powder River Basin.
Released on Friday, the study is titled, Sage-grouse Winter Habitat Selection and Energy Development in the Powder River Basin: Completion Report, by David E. Naugle and colleagues, and was commissioned by the Miles City office of the Bureau of Land Management. Naugle also released a study linking CBM development in the Powder River Basin to sage grouse declines earlier this month.
“Much of the focus has been on what impacts drilling and production might have during the breeding and nesting seasons, but this study shows that we also need to spend serious effort at protecting sage grouse in their wintering areas as well,” said Erik Molvar, Wildlife Biologist with Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. “Even if the BLM were to have a major policy shift and require adequate protection for breeding and nesting areas, it still might not be enough if we lost the winter ranges.”
The study followed wintering grouse with radio transmitters during the winters of 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The study found that sage grouse selected large tracts of intact sagebrush, and avoided stands of conifers. Once winter habitat preference had been established, the study was run again and determined that wintering sage grouse avoid coalbed methane fields.
The study pointed out the scarcity of suitable sage grouse wintering habitat in the northern part of the Powder River Basin, and stated, “Expansion of CBNG [coalbed natural gas] development threatens to extirpate birds from otherwise suitable habitats and further isolate remaining populations. Risk of complete loss of this population is high if plans to proceed to develop the entire northern study area because their non-migratory status and behavioral avoidance of CBNG will leave these birds with no other options.”
The researchers concluded, “Knowledge that sage-grouse avoid energy development in breeding (Naugle et al. 2006) and wintering seasons (this study) shows that conservation strategies to date to protect the species have been largely ineffective.” They added, “Current ‘Best Management Practices’ that place timing stipulations or limit surface occupancy next to leks still result in a human footprint that far exceeds the tolerance limits of sage-grouse.”
The researchers recommended, “effective conservation strategies will be those that limit the cumulative impact of disturbances at all time of year. Size of a functional conservation area will need to be large because sage-grouse are a landscape species that require contiguous tracts of undisturbed habitat that meet all their seasonal life requisites.”
The study comes on the heels of a blueprint for sage grouse recovery drafted by Clait Braun, one of the world’s most eminent sage grouse biologists, which makes specific recommendations for improving oil and gas development and other land uses to slow the decline and initiate the recovery of sage grouse.
“Minimizing habitat fragmentation and the footprint of oil and gas development needs to be a top priority for land managers in sage grouse country,” added Molvar. “It’s getting to the point where the BLM can no longer deny the fact that its oil and gas decisions are resulting in real problems for sage grouse and other sagebrush wildlife.”
Both reports are available for review online at www.voiceforthewild.org/SageGrouseStudies.
 |
Contact Information
Erik Molvar, Wildlife Biologist, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, (307) 742-7978
|
