Managing Sage-Grouse Habitat: Disturbance Thresholds and Conservation Strategies in Oregon
180 likes | 307 Vues
This document explores the disturbance thresholds affecting sage-grouse habitats in Oregon based on scientific evidence. It covers critical questions such as how much habitat can be altered, what baseline values to utilize for regulation, and the timing and locations for potential alterations. Highlighting categories of disturbance (abiotic, biotic, anthropogenic, and natural), key characteristics, and managing guidelines, the report emphasizes the vulnerability of sage-grouse populations and proposes specific thresholds to ensure habitat viability.
Managing Sage-Grouse Habitat: Disturbance Thresholds and Conservation Strategies in Oregon
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Disturbance Thresholds for Oregon Evidence from the scientific community
The Problem • How much sage-grouse habitat can be altered? • What baseline values can we use to regulate disturbance? • Where can sage-grouse habitat be altered? • When can sage-grouse habitat be altered?
Disturbance …”a relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, community, or population structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment” -- Pickett and White (1985: 7) Categories: • Physical(abiotic) • Biological (biotic) • Human (anthropogenic) • Natural • Discrete • Diffuse • Short-term • Long-term
Disturbance Categories Physical (abiotic) Biological (biotic) Human Natural Diffuse Discrete Short-term Long-term
Key Characteristics of Disturbance • Intensity • Frequency • Spatial scale (extent and distribution)
Sage-Grouse and SagebrushSpace-time dimensions 100 Sage-Grouse range Management Zone Core areas Temporal scale (yr) Populations 10 Landscapes Habitat Sage-Grouse Leks Stands Management concepts Sites Disturbance space Shrubs Individuals 1 1,000 0.1 1,000,000 1 Spatial scale (km2)
Thresholds 3%??
Knick et al. 2013 • >3,200 leks across 6 states • 90% of leks had >40% sagebrush cover in landscape (mean cover around active leks >78%) • 99% of active leks were in landscapes with <3% developed
Landscape Thresholds 40% 70 % Matrix Sagebrush
Disturbance 3 % 5 % Matrix Sagebrush
Landscape Thresholds 37% 65 % Matrix Sagebrush
Birds occupy big, flat and undisturbed sagebrush landscapes Baruch-Mordo et al., in press
Sage-grouse do best in landscapes with >70% sagebrush “Sagebrush from horizon to horizon”
Sage-grouse have trouble persisting in landscapes with <40-50% sagebrush (Knick et al. 2013, Wisdom et al. 2011)
Take home points • Sage-grouse are highly aggregated • Multiple factors are related to lek persistence and could be used turned into thresholds, but human disturbance is being used by others • Research suggests that sage-grouse do not tolerate much habitat loss (Knick et al. 2013, Karl and Sadowski 2005, Wisdom et al. 2011) • 5% rule in Wyoming based on the footprint of a wellpad in a 1 sq. mile section (Naugle, Doherty) • 70/30 ODFW ratio based on Karl and Sadowski 2005, as well as other studies
Recommendations • Need to specify the extent for applying the disturbance threshold • Will it be at the core area? • Will it be range wide? • NTT used two extents • The fine scale helps define when mitigation might be engaged, what the mitigation should be, and where it should occur • Range wide extent ensures long-term persistence of habitat • Consider the disturbance regime when considering the extent(s) • Define the disturbances that will be included