|
Introduction
This management strategy and supporting background information is intended to promote effective management of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and intact functioning sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) communities in Oregon. The strategy is tied to the life history of greater sage-grouse (hereafter sage-grouse) and uses the best science available. Most of the current sagebrush habitat in Oregon occurs on public lands and much of this document focuses on public land management. Conservation actions on private lands should be encouraged as these are likely some of the more productive sites, but conservation on private land is voluntary. Although this strategy focuses on conservation of sage-grouse, the intent is to benefit conservation needs of other species associated with sagebrush-steppe (Wisdom et al. 2002). Oregon sage-grouse populations and sagebrush habitats likely comprise nearly 20% of the North American range wide distribution (Connelly et al. 2004). Thus, management actions in Oregon will have implications on a rangewide scale.
This Plan is the result of a multi-stakeholder effort to conserve sage-grouse and their habitats. Because Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has the legal authority and responsibility for Oregon wildlife, ODFW has taken a lead role in crafting this Plan. This document is not exclusively an ODFW plan; it is a strategy represented by multiple interests and users of sage-grouse and their habitats. The motive for development of this Plan is multifaceted ranging from national to local objectives and need and include:
First, ODFW signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) that commits the ODFW to development of a sage-grouse conservation strategy (1999). Additionally, WAFWA has signed a similar MOU with the primary federal land management agencies (U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), which in summary directs signatories to maintain or enhance sage-grouse populations and their habitats into the future.
Second, development of this Plan facilitated a statewide assessment of sage-grouse populations and their habitats. This has enabled us to identify knowledge gaps (Rowland and Wisdom 2002) and guide ODFW and other resource agencies to strive for the collection of needed data. Information in this Plan will become a part of a range-wide strategy of sage-grouse and their habitats that is being developed by WAFWA.
Third, the purpose of this Plan is to provide a framework within which sage-grouse conservation efforts can occur into the future; establishing habitat and population goals. This Plan describes the habitat needs of sage-grouse, which relates to the management actions that land managers or working groups should consider to ensure that healthy sage-grouse populations and sagebrush habitats persist into the future.
Nature of this Guidance
The intent of this strategy is to ensure that sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats will be maintained or enhanced into the future. The management strategies listed herein, if followed, should increase the likelihood that this occurs. The Plan is meant to be a dynamic document so as new information is learned it will be used in an adaptive management process to evaluate, maintain and enhance sage-grouse populations and sagebrush habitat.
The outcomes of each conservation action suggested in this document must be evaluated for their effectiveness. As such, many of the proposed actions should be implemented in an experimental context, and evaluated under the framework of adaptive resource management (ARM). ARM is learning by doing (Macnab 1983, Nudds 1999), and it is an iterative process that enables managers to evaluate the effectiveness of their management decisions (e.g., harvest quotas, habitat projects), and researchers gain information on system response (e.g., nesting success, recruitment) to the treatment (Lancia et al. 1993). In this context, management actions are not “failures,” but may be an ineffective management tool, because we can learn from ineffective actions as easily as actions that are effective. The critical point is to learn and understand why an action was ineffective so that it is not repeated. It is the spirit of learning by doing that an unsuccessful experiment has the same merit as a successful experiment, and each management action herein should be treated as an experiment with controls, treatments, appropriate replication (where possible), and measurable response variables.
|
