Closing the conservation gap in the sagebrush biome: Spatial targeting and exceptional coordination are needed for conservation efforts to keep pace with ecosystem losses

Authors: MOZELEWSKI, TINA - Conservation Science Partners; FREEMAN, PATRICK - Conservation Science Partners; KUMAR, ALEXANDER - Us Fish And Wildlife Service; NAUGLE, DAVID - University Of Montana; OLIMPI, ELISSA - Conservation Science Partners; MORFORD, SCOTT - University Of Montana; JEFFRIES, MICHELLE - Us Geological Survey; PILLIOD, DAVID - Us Geological Survey (USGS); LITTLEFIELD, CAITLIN - Conservation Science Partners; McCord, Sarah; WIECHMANF, LIEF - Us Geological Survey (USGS); DOHERTY, KEVIN - Us Fish And Wildlife Service

Submitted to: Rangeland Ecology and Management
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 8/8/2024
Publication Date: 10/15/2024
Citation: Mozelewski, T.G., Freeman, P.T., Kumar, A.V., Naugle, D.E., Olimpi, E.M., Morford, S.L., Jeffries, M.I., Pilliod, D.S., Littlefield, C.E., McCord, S.E., Wiechmanf, L.A., Doherty, K.E. 2024. Closing the conservation gap in the sagebrush biome: Spatial targeting and exceptional coordination are needed for conservation efforts to keep pace with ecosystem losses. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 97:12-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.016.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.016

Interpretive Summary: The ecological integrity of the sagebrush biome continues to deteriorate despite significant and sustained investments in its conservation and restoration, with an additional 25% loss projected over the next 20 years. Counteracting this loss with business-as-usual conservation strategies would require a tenfold increase in conservation investment across the biome, implying that traditional frameworks for targeting and implementation will be ineffective, even if conservation funding is significantly increased. In contrast, by adopting the 'Defend the Core' conservation strategy—where management is strategically focused on maintaining and enlarging CSAs—additional investment needs could be reduced from tenfold to twofold. Realizing the conservation volume required to protect and expand CSAs will require: (1) applying the Sagebrush Conservation Design alongside the 'defend the core' approach to inform the selection of landscapes for conservation investment; (2) strengthening coordination between wildfire management and proactive conservation programs and across land ownership boundaries to enhance conservation benefits; and (3) augmenting funding through federal sources to bolster conservation capacity will be essential. These strategies are all within scope of managers and decision makers today. Employing strategic targeting is the most readily deployable strategy, leveraging existing conservation resources, and it is the strategy that yields the biggest increase in conservation acres that mitigate CSA loss. Enhanced coordination efforts are already happening at small scales throughout the biome and frameworks are in place to scale these efforts up. It will take a concerted effort to ensure the social capacity to deliver conservation and conducive administrative conditions exist to support strategic conservation at this scale. Consistent coordination across agency and geographic boundaries will be required to support conservation policies and improve resource allocation to the sagebrush biome, which will be key to increasing conservation capacity.

Technical Abstract: High-quality core sagebrush areas (CSAs) continue to decline despite significant conservation and restoration investments across the sagebrush biome. Historically, conservation decisions in the biome have been driven by species-specific demands, but increasing recognition of the scale of threats and the pace of ecosystem degradation has compelled a shift towards threats-based ecosystem management. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate the acres of conservation implementation relative to the rate of degradation or loss for specific threats to the biome to assess whether a conservation deficit exists. To this end, we: 1) quantified and compared the average annual acres of conservation practices implemented relative to the acres of CSA loss attributed to each threat; 2) evaluated the relative amount of conservation actions in core sagebrush areas vs growth opportunity areas vs other rangeland areas; and 3) assessed how much additional conservation may be needed to stop CSA loss. We then quantified how better spatial targeting and enhanced coordination might reduce the total additional amount of future conservation needed, and evaluated how an influx of resources can close the conservation gap, or the deficit between conservation needed and the capacity for conservation implementation. We found that current rates of conservation (e.g., acres treated) are markedly lower than rates of CSA loss. Furthermore, the majority of conservation actions, ~90% for some treatment types, occur outside of critical core sagebrush areas even though CSAs are where conservation actions are more likely to be effective. Additionally, we found that conservation effort will need to increase by more than an order of magnitude annually to halt biome decline. However, through better spatial targeting of conservation actions, the increase in effort could be cut by 70% or more. This analysis paints a stark picture of the divergent futures that may await the sagebrush biome pending key decisions regarding conservation targeting, stakeholder cooperation, and the strategic addition of resources.