Sage-Grouse and Coal-Bed Methane: Can They Coexist within the Powder River Basin?

Abstract

Concerns are growing regarding the availability of sustainable energy sources due to a rapidly growing human population and a better understanding of climate change. In recent years, the United States has focused much attention on developing domestic energy sources, which include coal‐bed methane (CBM). There are vast deposits of the natural gas within the Powder River Basin (PRB), Wyoming. A sharp increase in exploration and development of CBM in the region has led to a decline in the surrounding greater sage‐grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations in developed areas. This case study presents the issues surrounding CBM development and sage‐grouse conservation within the PRB and provides instructors with online resources and classroom activities that can be used to stimulate and develop students’ active learning and critical thinking skills.

Sagebrush conservation strategy—Challenges to sagebrush conservation

“…The impacts of drilling activities for energy resourcesparticularly oil, natural gas, and coal-bed methane-on some sagebrush-associated species are better studied than impacts associated with mining have been. A number of studies indicate that activities associated with oil and gas development have significant effects on greater sage-grouse and can result in reduced fecundity (Lyon and Anderson, 2003;Holloran and others, 2010;Fedy and others, 2014), reduced recruitment (Holloran and others, 2010) and survival (Aldridge and Boyce, 2007;Holloran and others, 2010), direct avoidance across life stages (Carpenter and others, 2010;Holloran and others, 2010), declines in lek attendance and population trends (Doherty and others, 2010b;Harju and others, 2010;Blickley and others, 2012a;Hess and Beck, 2012;Taylor, R.L., and others, 2013;Gregory and Beck, 2014;Green and others, 2017), and localized extirpations of populations (Aldridge and Boyce, 2007;Walker and others, 2007;Duncan, 2010;Harju and others, 2010;Gregory and Beck, 2014;Green and others, 2017). Associated infrastructure (for example, roads, pipelines, storage facilities, and transmission lines) decreases the effectiveness of habitat for greater sage-grouse (Braun and others, 2002;Lyon and Anderson, 2003;Doherty and others, 2008;others, 2014a, 2014b;LeBeau and others, 2014;Kirol and others, 2015a).…”

Using resilience and resistance concepts to manage threats to sagebrush ecosystems, Gunnison sage-grouse, and Greater sage-grouse in their eastern range: A strategic multi-scale approach

“…A number of studies indicate that energy development activities have significant effects on GRSG and can result in localized extirpations of GRSG populations (Aldridge and Boyce 2007;Duncan 2010;Gregory and Beck 2014;Harju et al 2010;Walker et al 2007). Infrastructure related to energy development (e.g., roads, pipelines, storage facilities, mines, wind turbines, transmission lines) decreases the effectiveness of habitat for GRSG (Braun et al 2002;Dinkins et al 2014a,b;Doherty et al 2008;Kirol et al 2015a;LeBeau et al 2014;Lyon and Anderson 2003).…”