Identifying Disturbance Mechanisms Influencing Habitat Selection by Elk in Natural Gas Development Fields | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the main purpose of this BLM grant opportunity?

This opportunity supports a focused, field-based research study in northeastern Wyoming to determine why elk avoid areas undergoing coalbed methane natural gas (CBNG) development. The central goal is to identify the specific disturbance mechanisms associated with energy development that influence elk habitat selection, so future projects can be designed to reduce harm to elk habitat effectiveness.

2. Where will the research take place?

The study is centered on the Fortification Creek Area (FCA) in the Powder River Basin of northeastern Wyoming. The FCA is described as a 123,000-acre landscape that provides year-round habitat for a geographically isolated prairie herd of Rocky Mountain elk.

3. What elk population is the study focused on?

The project focuses on the FCA elk herd, described as a geographically isolated prairie herd of roughly 250 Rocky Mountain elk that uses the area year-round.

4. Why is the Fortification Creek Area considered important for this research?

The FCA herd has limited alternative habitat, and the region is under active pressure for hydrocarbon development. Because avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat can effectively shrink usable range, BLM is seeking practical evidence about what aspects of development are driving changes in elk space use.

5. What types of development are being studied?

The research is aimed at understanding elk responses to coalbed methane natural gas (CBNG) development activity occurring within the Fortification Creek Area.

6. What does the grant mean by "disturbance mechanisms"?

Rather than treating energy development as a single factor, the study is intended to separate out which components of development are most responsible for elk avoidance behavior. The announcement highlights noise and traffic volume as key candidate mechanisms, while also emphasizing the broader intent to determine what disturbances matter most.

7. What questions is the study expected to answer about elk avoidance?

Based on the announcement, the study is intended to determine: which disturbance factors are most strongly linked to avoidance; how far their influence extends across the landscape; and how elk responses vary over time as development progresses.

8. How will the phased CBNG development in the FCA be used in the research design?

Development in the FCA is expected to be phased so that CBNG activity is restricted to one-third of the area at a time until the full area is developed in thirds. This creates a natural comparison framework to evaluate how elk redistribute themselves as development progresses and how much "refuge" the undeveloped portions provide.

9. What is meant by "refuge" in this opportunity?

"Refuge" refers to the undeveloped portions of the FCA at any given time during the phased development process. The study is expected to assess whether and how those less-disturbed areas function as places elk can shift into when other portions are actively being developed.

10. Will the project use any existing elk monitoring data?

Yes. The opportunity indicates the study is expected to place new findings in a longer-term context by comparing results to historical radio-telemetry datasets from earlier elk monitoring in the FCA (1992-2000 and 2005-2007).

11. What is the value of comparing new results to older radio-telemetry datasets?

The historical datasets can help describe pre-development or lower-development habitat selection patterns and help detect changes through time, providing longer-term context for current elk habitat use and avoidance behavior.

12. Does the opportunity mention comparisons to other study areas outside the FCA?

Yes. BLM signals interest in broader comparisons by linking this work to an earlier study near Big Piney in western Wyoming (2000-2002) that examined deep oil and gas development effects on elk habitat selection.

13. Why compare the FCA study to the Big Piney study?

Comparing elk location and habitat use patterns across the two settings can help managers understand whether avoidance patterns are consistent across different types of energy development and landscapes, or whether the FCA elk respond differently due to their prairie setting, geographic isolation, or limited habitat options.

14. How is this project expected to help land and wildlife managers?

Management relevance is a central theme. The stated goal is to help protect elk habitat while still allowing orderly energy development on public lands. The expected outcome is actionable information that managers can use to plan future development to minimize the disturbances that cause avoidance, and to restore habitat functionality in areas already developed by reducing or removing the disturbance factors most strongly associated with avoidance.

15. What kinds of management actions does the announcement imply could be informed by the study?

The announcement gives examples such as adjusting traffic patterns, timing, road placement, or operational practices that influence noise, with the broader intent of designing mitigation and restoration around the specific mechanisms driving elk responses rather than relying only on general setback assumptions.

16. What is the award type for this funding opportunity?

This was offered as a cooperative agreement and described as a discretionary funding opportunity.

17. What CFDA program is associated with this opportunity?

The opportunity was listed under CFDA 15.231, titled Fish, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Resource Management.

18. How many awards was BLM expecting to make, and what was the funding amount?

BLM anticipated making a single award with total funding of $34,000. The award floor and ceiling were both listed as $34,000.

19. Was cost sharing or matching required?

Yes. The announcement states that cost sharing or matching was required.

20. Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was listed as unrestricted, meaning a wide range of entity types could apply, subject to any additional eligibility clarifications contained in the full announcement.

21. What were the key dates for this opportunity?

The opportunity was posted on May 21, 2008, and it closed on May 28, 2008. An archive date of June 27, 2008 was also listed.

22. Who was the listed grants management contact?

The listed grants management contact was Ilze Karklins Powers, Grants and Agreements Specialist, reachable at 307-775-6293.

23. What is the overarching conservation concern behind this research?

The announcement emphasizes that avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat can shrink usable range and that prior research has linked avoidance around oil and gas fields to negative demographic outcomes for elk and mule deer. The grant is framed to produce practical evidence that helps reduce such impacts while accommodating development.

24. What kind of study approach is implied by "practical, field-based evidence"?

The opportunity emphasizes a focus on real-world, on-the-ground conditions in an actively developing landscape, using the phased development pattern in the FCA and incorporating comparisons to prior monitoring datasets to understand how elk space use shifts in relation to specific development-related disturbances.