|
The Silverspot Butterfly Recovery Efforts
Location:
Oregon, Washington, and California
Case description (read more)
The Oregon silverspot butterfly was listed as a threatened species in 1980. Since then, the Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, and many others have worked together to manage butterfly habitat and share monitoring data. In recent years, they have begun captive breeding programs in conjunction with the Oregon Zoo to boost populations.
Primary partners
U.S. Forest Service
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
Primary objectives
To create a mechanism for sharing information and coordinating management efforts to restore populations of this threatened species on public and private lands.
|
Year of initiation
The working group began meeting soon after the silverspot butterfly was listed as a threatened species in 1980. |
What is fostering progress? (read more)
- Commitment: The Forest Service staff and leadership made a serious, long-term commitment to this project in 1980.
- Going Beyond the Call of Duty: Individuals in the Forest Service made "above-and-beyond" efforts to keep this project going.
- Filled a Recognized Need: The recovery project recognized and filled an existing gap in dealing with the recovery need of the silverspot.
- Willingness to Share Information: While there were different perspectives on appropriate management strategies among the parties, a significant amount of information was shared between the Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, and others which created a mechanism for discussing and coordinating management.
What challenges were faced and how were they overcome? (read more)
- Agency Attitudes toward Endangered Species: There was an attitude among some Forest Service personnel early in the project that threatened and endangered species were an impediment to other activities in the Pacific Northwest, namely timber sales.
- Conflicting Opinions over Management Methods: The Forest Service and The Nature Conservancy had differences of opinion over appropriate methods for managing habitat -- burning vs. mowing. These differences were overcome by allowing each other to proceed with different management practices yet working together to closely monitor results and share observations and research data.
- Staff Transfers and Losses: Lack of continuity in National Forest staffing has made it difficult to have staff consistently involved in the project. It has been helpful to have an Oregon State lepidopterist involved in the project as a consultant to the Forest Service for 22 years. In addition, the ranger district has lost a number of staff members, making on-the-ground management more difficult. In response to this challenge, the Forest Service now contracts out the mowing work.
- Budget Cuts: Budget deficits have led to creative efforts to generate resources to support the program, including cost-sharing arrangements with The Nature Conservancy and cooperative agreements with the Oregon Department of Transportation.
What lessons can be drawn? (read more)
- Lead by Example: The Forest Service's on the ground activities demonstrated commitment to the goals of the partnership and motivated others. One Forest Service staff member described this as "more action, less talk."
- Generate Needed Resources: By cooperating in research and management experimentation, the Forest Service and the Nature Conservancy were able to expand limited resources. The groups were able to be both more efficient and more committed in their management activities.
- Network among Managers and Scientists: It has been enormously beneficial to develop contacts with the scientific community and with experts.
Learn more about related lessons from a broader set of partnerships
Contact information at the Forest Service
Related Links
This site was developed by the Ecosystem Management Initiative through a partnership with the US Forest Service and the US Department of Interior. Read more.
|
