USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70187007

Science framework for conservation and restoration of the sagebrush biome: Linking the Department of the Interior’s Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy to long-term strategic conservation actions, Part 1. Science basis and applications

Jeanne C. Chambers·Jeffrey L. Beck·John B. Bradford·Jared Bybee·Steve Campbell·John Carlson·Thomas J Christiansen·Karen J. Clause·Gail Collins·Michele R. Crist·Jonathan B. Dinkins·Kevin Doherty·Fred Edwards·Shawn Espinosa·Kathleen A. Griffin·Paul Griffin·Jessica R. Haas·Steve E. Hanser·Douglas W. Havlina·Kenneth F. Henke·Jacob D. Hennig·Linda A Joyce·Francis F. Kilkenny·Sarah M Kulpa·Laurie L Kurth·Jeremy D Maestas·Mary E. Manning·Kenneth E. Mayer·Brian A. Mealor·Clinton McCarthy·Mike Pellant·Marco A. Perea·Karen L. Prentice·David A. Pyke·Lief A. Wiechman·Amarina Wuenschel
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Science Framework is intended to link the Department of the Interior’s Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy with long-term strategic conservation actions in the sagebrush biome. The Science Framework provides a multiscale approach for prioritizing areas for management and determining effective management strategies within the sagebrush biome. The emphasis is on sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystems and Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). The approach provided in the Science Framework links sagebrush ecosystem resilience to disturbance and resistance to nonnative, invasive plant species to species habitat information based on the distribution and abundance of focal species. A geospatial process is presented that overlays information on ecosystem resilience and resistance, species habitats, and predominant threats and that can be used at the mid-scale to prioritize areas for management. A resilience and resistance habitat matrix is provided that can help decisionmakers evaluate risks and determine appropriate management strategies. Prioritized areas and management strategies can be refined by managers and stakeholders at the local scale based on higher resolution data and local knowledge. Decision tools are discussed for determining appropriate management actions for areas that are prioritized for management. Geospatial data, maps, and models are provided through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ScienceBase and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Landscape Approach Data Portal. The Science Framework is intended to be adaptive and will be updated as additional data become available on other values and species at risk. It is anticipated that the Science Framework will be widely used to: (1) inform emerging strategies to conserve sagebrush ecosystems, sagebrush dependent species, and human uses of the sagebrush system, and (2) assist managers in prioritizing and planning on-the-ground restoration and mitigation actions across the sagebrush biome.

Explore related subjects

General Technical ReportReport
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 34.813803317113155° to 49.095452162534826° latitude; -125.33203125° to -102.568359375° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeanne C. Chambers, Jeffrey L. Beck, John B. Bradford, Jared Bybee, Steve Campbell, John Carlson, Thomas J Christiansen, Karen J. Clause, Gail Collins, Michele R. Crist, Jonathan B. Dinkins, Kevin Doherty, Fred Edwards, Shawn Espinosa, Kathleen A. Griffin, Paul Griffin, Jessica R. Haas, Steve E. Hanser, Douglas W. Havlina, Kenneth F. Henke, Jacob D. Hennig, Linda A Joyce, Francis F. Kilkenny, Sarah M Kulpa, Laurie L Kurth, Jeremy D Maestas, Mary E. Manning, Kenneth E. Mayer, Brian A. Mealor, Clinton McCarthy, Mike Pellant, Marco A. Perea, Karen L. Prentice, David A. Pyke, Lief A. Wiechman, Amarina Wuenschel. 2017. Science framework for conservation and restoration of the sagebrush biome: Linking the Department of the Interior’s Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy to long-term strategic conservation actions, Part 1. Science basis and applications. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70187007

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Avoiding common pitfalls in the implementation of adaptive forest wildlife management

Forest management planning requires the evaluation of tradeoffs in proposed management actions to meet multiple objectives, including providing the habitat required to sustain wildlife populations. However, various species-specific life history strategies and ecological uncertainties complicate our understanding of the responses of wildlife to disturbances, such as wildfires and forest management. We believe that adaptive management processes, applied through the close collaboration of researchers and managers (e.g., coproduction), will be valuable in this effort. Although adaptive management programs have been touted in the past, we stress that many of these programs have fallen short of the requisite steps to complete the learning cycles of this process (i.e., single- and double-loop learning). Thus, we provide guidance on what we believe to be the missing components of these efforts in hopes to guide future coordination of local and regional adaptive management programs for forest wildlife.

General Technical Report↗
USGS2025

Chapter 6: Climate change, wildlife, and wildlife habitats in the Oregon Coast Range

Climate change is likely to have profound effects on wildlife species within the Oregon Coast Adaptation Partnership (OCAP) assessment area, although the direction and magnitude of effects are likely to vary across species. Increased mean and extreme temperatures, especially during summer, may cause shifts in plant and animal species ranges, reduce habitat for some temperature-sensitive wildlife, alter plant phenology and the timing of available food resources, and affect species interactions (e.g., predation, competition). Altered timing of precipitation, summer drought, loss of fog, increased flooding events, earlier snowmelt, and rising sea level may reduce plant productivity, increase tree mortality, shift plant species composition, and lead to reduced wildlife habitat and habitat quality for some forests, riparian areas, wetlands, meadows, estuaries, and beaches. In addition, increasing frequency and extent of wildfire and insect outbreaks may reduce the extent of late-successional forest, reduce habitat connectivity, and increase the spread of invasive species. The biggest change expected for the assessment area is an increase in area where climatic conditions favor coastal mixed forest and a large reduction in area favoring montane conifer forest. Although actual changes in forest types may not necessarily occur by the end of the 21st century, climate change may add physiological and behavioral stress to wildlife. Some wildlife species will be able to persist in place and adapt to new conditions; some may be able to migrate to find suitable habitat; and some may be greatly reduced or extirpated from the assessment area or even go extinct. Shifts in major tree and shrub species will play a major role in food, den, and cover availability for wildlife. Rising sea level will reduce low-elevation habitats along the coast. An increase in the frequency of high-severity weather events will increase frequency and magnitude of flooding, including debris flow events. Coupled with increased temperatures during summer, this may reduce or fragment important ecosystems for aquatic and semi-aquatic species. Evaluation of the vulnerabilities of nine wildlife species based on literature reviews suggests that each species has life-history attributes that can lead to resilience or vulnerability to climate change effects. Depending on long-term objectives, several broad adaptation strategies focus on protecting refugia, establishing redundant wildlife strongholds with large-scale connectivity, and promoting structural and biological complexity.

Oregon↗