This special issue of Rangeland Ecology and Management is dedicated to applying the Sagebrush Conservation Design (SCD) to improve conservation outcomes across the sagebrush biome in the face of pervasive ecosystem threats. This special issue provides new science and real-world examples of how we can implement the SCD to save a biome. The SCD is a tool to identify intact sagebrush areas and address the largest threats to the ecosystem. The SCD focuses on first protecting intact and functioning sagebrush ecosystems, called Core Sagebrush Areas, then works outward toward more degraded areas (i.e., “Defend the Core”). The premise behind the Defend the Core approach is simple: focus resources first on preventative actions that retain ecosystem services in Core Sagebrush Areas because they are more cost-effective and more likely to be successful. The opening article of this special issue creates a foundation for the 19 following papers, providing a coherent path for implementing the SCD. The overarching themes are: 1) Business-As-Usual Won't Save the Sagebrush Sea, 2) Better Spatial Targeting Can Improve Outcomes, 3) Conservation Planning is Needed to Develop Realistic Business Plans, 4) Targeted Ecosystem Management: Monitoring Shows Managing for Sagebrush Ecological Integrity is Working, 5) Maintaining Sagebrush Ecological Integrity is Ecologically Relevant, and 6) There is Only Hope if We Manage Change. The collective articles show that there is no shared plan to save the biome, yet a business plan for the biome could ensure realistic goals. The sagebrush biome still has vast expanses of open spaces with high ecological integrity at a scale that is rare in other ecological systems within the lower 48 states. If we focus on the common ground of the main drivers of ecosystem change, implementing the SCD and Defending the Core are viable strategies to help save a biome.

Core sagebrush areas (CSAs), patches of high sagebrush ecological integrity, continue to decline despite significant conservation and restoration investments across the sagebrush biome. Historically, conservation decisions in the biome have been driven by wildlife species-specific demands, but increasing recognition of the scale of threats and the pace of ecosystem degradation has compelled a shift towards threat-based ecosystem management. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate the scale of conservation implementation relative to the rate of degradation or loss from specific threats to the biome to assess whether a conservation deficit exists. To this end, we: 1) quantified and compared the average hectares of conservation practices implemented annually relative to the hectares of CSA loss attributed to each threat; 2) evaluated the relative amount of conservation actions in core sagebrush areas, growth opportunity areas, and other rangeland areas; and 3) assessed how much additional conservation may be needed to stop CSA declines. 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 the conservation needed to offset annual loss and degradation and the capacity for conservation implementation. We found that current rates of conservation (e.g., hectares treated annually) are markedly lower than rates of CSA loss (∼10% of average annual loss). Furthermore, most conservation actions, ∼90% for some treatment types, occurred outside of CSAs likely reducing the efficacy of these conservation actions at retaining and restoring intact sagebrush rangelands. Additionally, we found that conservation efforts will need to increase by more than an order of magnitude (at least 10x) annually to halt CSA declines. However, through better spatial targeting of conservation actions, the increase in conservation needed to stop CSA loss could be reduced by 70% or more. This analysis demonstrates the divergent futures that may await the sagebrush biome pending key decisions regarding conservation targeting, stakeholder cooperation, and the strategic addition of resources.

Understanding how climate change will contribute to ongoing declines in sagebrush ecological integrity is critical for informing natural resource management, yet complicated by interactions with wildfire and biological invasions. We assessed potential future changes in sagebrush ecological integrity under a range of scenarios using an individual plant-based simulation model, integrated with remotely sensed estimates of current sagebrush ecological integrity. The simulation model allowed us to estimate how climate change, wildfire, and invasive annuals interact to alter the potential abundance of key plant functional types that influence sagebrush ecological integrity: sagebrush, perennial grasses, and annual grasses. Our results suggest that climate driven reductions in sagebrush ecological integrity may occur over broader areas than increases in sagebrush ecological integrity. Declines in sagebrush ecological integrity were most likely in hot and dry regions while increases were more likely in cool and wet regions. The most common projected transitions of sagebrush ecological integrity classes were declines from Core Sagebrush Area to Growth Opportunity Area and from Growth Opportunity Area to Other Rangeland Area. Responses varied considerably across projections from different global climate models, highlighting the importance of climate uncertainty. However, our projections tended to be robust in areas that currently have the highest sagebrush ecological integrity. Our results provide a long-term perspective on the vulnerability of sagebrush ecosystems to climate change and may inform geographic prioritization of conservation and restoration investments. The results also suggest that ongoing threats, such as the continued invasion by annual grasses and increased wildfire frequency, are likely to be amplified by climate change, and imply that the current imbalance between capacity for conservation to address threats to sagebrush will grow as the climate warms.

Conservation of species' mobility and ecological integrity is necessary for the productivity of the sagebrush biome in the western United States. Building on the recently developed Sagebrush Conservation Design (SCD) that mapped sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI)—defined as the higher cover of sagebrush and perennial grass and reduced threats due to invasive annual grass, tree encroachment, and human disturbance—we modeled the structural connectivity of sagebrush ecosystems to better incorporate the role of landscape-level processes into assessments of integrity. Because integrity can vary spatially, as well as temporally, we quantified both interannual variability and trends in variability in SEI from 2001–2021. We used the resultant map to identify areas with high structural landscape connectivity (i.e., “well-connected cores”), then determined the coincident core sagebrush areas (CSAs) that represent functioning sagebrush ecosystem with few landscape threats, and growth opportunity areas (GOAs) that represent functioning systems impacted by one or more threats as originally defined and mapped in the SCD. We found that CSAs were located in areas with higher landscape connectivity, and the biome-wide average of SEI declined by 30% from 2001 to 2021, although the structural connectivity biome-wide declined one-third less (by 20%). CSAs located in areas with high connectivity had 25% higher SEI values on average than those with low connectivity, and the trend in declining SEI values was slower. Our datasets of landscape connectivity can be combined with other SCD products to provide a broader ecosystem context—both spatially and temporally. Our results can be used to inform, refine, focus, and prioritize conservation and management efforts to those CSAs and GOAs we identified as particularly well connected and which may be more resilient to recently altered dynamics and declines—those that will serve to anchor efforts to conserve the sagebrush biome in light of changing land use and climate.

Sagebrush ecosystems across the western U.S. are in decline due to numerous threats, including expansion of coniferous woodlands and forests. The interagency Sagebrush Conservation Design effort recently quantified sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI) to map remaining core sagebrush areas (relatively intact and functional sagebrush ecosystems) and understand spatial and temporal patterns of change relative to primary threats. Recent work has identified conifer expansion as the second leading cause of decline in sagebrush ecological integrity biome wide. Here, we sought to create a spatial prioritization of conifer management that maximizes return-on-investment to defend and grow core sagebrush areas. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was used to incorporate a series of biome-level inputs including SEI, invasive annual grass cover and risk, structural connectivity, and conifer cover and expansion vulnerability into a single prioritization based on collaborative expert input. Our analysis identifies priority areas for conifer management across the sagebrush biome, simulates conifer treatments based on those priorities, and estimates potential changes in SEI as a result of targeted treatment. At a broad scale, we found that the highest priority areas for conifer management were largely located east of the Rocky Mountains. This represents a departure from recent landscape-level trends of conifer management efforts in sagebrush systems, which were focused primarily on pinyon-juniper expansion in the Great Basin. A majority (52%) of the highest priority areas are managed by the Bureau of Land Management, followed by a large proportion (26%) of priority areas located on privately-owned land – particularly in Wyoming and Montana. Targeting simulated conifer treatments using our prioritization resulted in higher within-core targeting percentages (≥93%) than business-as-usual efforts (23.8%), which would result in a four-to eight-fold reduction in the time to treat priority areas within cores. Finally, we demonstrate that these simulated treatments, targeted with our prioritization, have the capacity to improve SEI in and around treatment areas. This work provides an actionable path to “Defend the Core” as outlined by the Sagebrush Conservation Design effort by helping conservationists more efficiently address conifer expansion in and around core sagebrush areas.

In the last 20 years, the North American sagebrush biome has lost over 500 000 ha of intact and largely intact sagebrush plant communities on an annual basis. Much of this loss has been associated with expansion and infilling of invasive annual grasses (IAGs). These species are highly competitive against native perennial grasses in disturbed environments, and create fuel conditions that increase both the likelihood of fire ignition and the ease of wildfire spread across large landscapes. Given the current rate of IAG expansion in both burned and unburned rangelands, we propose a range-wide paradigm shift from opportunistic and reactive management, to a framework that spatially prioritizes maintenance of largely intact, uninvaded areas and improvement of invaded habitats in strategic locations. We created a framework accompanied by biome-wide priority maps using geospatial overlays that target areas to MAINTAIN large, uninvaded areas as natural resource anchors through activities to prevent IAGs, IMPROVE areas where management success in restoring large, intact landscapes is most likely, and CONTAIN IAG infestations where necessary. We then offer three case studies to illustrate the use of these concepts and map products at multiple scales. Our map products operate at the biome scale using regional data sources and additional data sources will be needed to inform local conservation planning. However, the basic strategic management principles of (1) maintaining the intact and uninvaded areas that we can least afford to lose to IAGs, (2) improving areas where we have a reasonable likelihood of restoration success, and (3) containing problems where we must, are timely, relevant, and scalable from the biome to local levels.

Cropland conversion is anticipated to continue westward from the Great Plains into the sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) biome – the most intact biome remaining in the conterminous United States. However, relatively little is known about the extent and risk of cropland conversion to sagebrush ecosystems and the landscape scale benefits of easements in averting loss of ecological function. Therefore, our goals were to 1) quantify the cropland area of the sagebrush biome, 2) identify where the highest quality sagebrush rangelands are most at risk to future cropland conversion, and 3) estimate the ecological benefits of conservation easements to adjacent public lands. We found that croplands span 14.4 million ha in the sagebrush biome, 16.2 million ha in the historic range of the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and are clustered regionally. Our spatial risk model identified 3.7 million ha of high-quality sagebrush rangelands in need of conservation protections from cropland conversion, with higher risk areas clustered regionally (e.g., Northern Great Plains). Our estimates of previous losses to cropland conversion indicated that roughly 80% of at-risk high-quality sagebrush communities have already been tilled. Spatial data and online maps of our risk model are publicly available as planning tools for prioritizing conservation and restoration actions in support of the Sagebrush Conservation Design framework. Using a case study from north-central Montana, we demonstrated that private land easements are crucial for the preservation of Core Sagebrush Areas (CSAs). These easements were found to indirectly preserve an area of CSAs that is 3.6 times larger than the easements themselves. Notably, a significant portion of this conservation benefit—approximately 80%—occurred on public lands adjacent to the easements. Our findings establish a clear connection between investments in private land conservation and beneficial outcomes on nearby public lands, and that focused, permanent protection efforts can extend ecosystem function beyond easements.

For millennia, wildfire has helped shape the sagebrush biome of the western United States. Over recent decades, historical fire regimes have been altered by several factors, including contemporary climate and fuel conditions, leading to the loss or degradation of hundreds of thousands of hectares (ha) of sagebrush each year. In response to wildfire threats, extensive fuel treatment investments are proposed across the region. To help inform strategic and cost-effective investments, we conducted a quantitative assessment of wildfire risk for the sagebrush biome. We used a geospatial fire modeling approach, customized for the sagebrush biome, to estimate spatially explicit burn probability and expected average annual area burned within three Sagebrush Ecological Integrity classes under the Sagebrush Conservation Design: Core Sagebrush Areas (CSAs), Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs), and Other Rangeland Areas. We further used indices of ecological resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive grasses to characterize fire risk and recovery potential. Our approach indicates that nearly 530,000 ha are likely to burn in a typical contemporary fire year across the highest integrity Sagebrush Ecological Integrity classes (7% in CSAs and 31% in GOAs). Of the CSAs and GOAs likely to burn, nearly 9 000 and 66 000 ha, respectively, are expected to have low resilience or resistance and therefore highest loss potential. Cost-effective conservation investments should include wildfire protection for high-integrity sagebrush with low resilience or resistance. Protection objectives may be met with strategically placed fuel breaks intended to enhance fire prevention and containment efforts. Fuel treatments, including prescribed fire and mechanical activities outside of fuel breaks, are by contrast best suited for high-integrity areas with relatively high resilience and resistance. Those activities should be risk-informed and intended to maintain or improve ecological integrity and resilience to wildfire rather than to exclude fire altogether.

Strategic plans for landscape-scale conservation are preferable to ad-hoc decisions that lack evidence and cohesion. The Sagebrush Conservation Design (SCD) is a biome-wide geospatial decision-support framework for a “Defend the Core, Grow the Core” strategy. We mapped US National Parks and Refuges across the SCD to guide “defend and grow” investments. We summarized amounts of sagebrush “Core Sagebrush Areas” (CSAs) and “Growth Opportunity Areas” (GOAs) areas within Parks and Refuges and asked: 1) Where are the Parks and Refuges that contain substantial sagebrush resources and that are likely to retain these resources under future climate conditions? 2) What is the trend of loss across CSAs and GOAs within Parks and Refuges? 3) Do trends immediately surrounding Parks and Refuges correlate with those within? 4) Which Parks and Refuges contain the most CSAs and GOAs? 5) What will it cost to defend and grow CSAs in these places?

Approximately 127 000 ha (313 824 ac) or 75% of CSAs was lost from Parks and 87 000 ha (214 982 ac) or 25% was lost from Refuges since 1998. Climate change is likely to reduce CSAs and GOAs in the northeastern and southwestern biome periphery and at low elevations. Similar trends of loss were observed surrounding Parks and Refuges. This underscores the ‘outside-in’ nature of changes occurring in the biome as fires, conifer encroachment, and invasive grasses move rapidly through permeable landscapes. Ten Parks and 10 Refuges contain >95% of CSAs and GOAs and exhibit climate durability under our examined future scenario, revealing how investments can be prioritized. Within this list, however, estimated costs of recommended actions (e.g., annual grass suppression) greatly exceeds plausible available amounts, emphasizing the need to use strategic prioritization within high-priority units. We examined application of the SCD for guiding “open” and “defined” investment decisions for Park and Refuge case studies.

Conservation efforts for the sagebrush biome in the western United States have been significant, but habitat loss and degradation are currently outpacing collective conservation efforts. The Sagebrush Conservation Design (SCD), cocreated by scientists and managers working across the biome, issues an urgent call to action to radically reprioritize conservation efforts to save the biome. At the heart of SCD is the “defend and grow the core” strategy, which means prioritizing conservation in intact sagebrush areas with native understories and low levels of threats, as opposed to the business-as-usual approach of treating all threats or focusing on areas with the most severe threats. However, SCD applications are limited by the capacity of land managers to integrate maps of rangeland conditions and threats into planning processes for their management area. To increase the integration of spatial data and help managers and planners step down SCD to local-scale conservation planning, we developed a web application that provides a user-friendly interface. Here, we lay out a guide for web application users, which we hope will empower land managers to make strategic conservation decisions that best protect the sagebrush biome.

The Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has served as a primary delivery mechanism for Farm Bill investments in voluntary conservation of private rangelands in the western U.S. for fifteen years. Consistent with interagency efforts to extend conservation beyond sage-grouse to the entire sagebrush biome, the SGI has evolved to focus on conservation actions that benefit wildlife by addressing complex ecosystem problems undermining the resilience of working lands. Recent development of the Sagebrush Conservation Design (SCD) provides a common framework to coordinate the efforts of many partners invested in saving the biome's last remaining intact sagebrush ecosystems. In this forum paper, we explore the history of the SGI's strategic conservation on private lands relative to the SCD and reflect on how it could be used to improve future conservation delivery. From 2010 to 2022, NRCS contributed $423USD million in Farm Bill funds through SGI to easements, conifer removal, and invasive annual grass management with the shared goal of defending and growing Core, with most SGI actions occurring in Core (6–14%) and Growth (an additional 40–57%). The SCD's ecological integrity scores suggest that SGI-funded conifer removal has either reversed (7) or halted (2) the degradation attributable to conifer encroachment in nine focal landscapes. Concentrating conifer removals together was 20% more effective at restoring Core and Growth than the 5% gains realized among scattered, isolated treatments. Our evaluation also shows that invasive annuals are undermining the integrity of initial SGI investments and warrant more attention to defend and grow Core. Embracing the SCD could help the SGI more effectively achieve desired wildlife outcomes given the biological relevance of Cores to sage-grouse and sagebrush-obligate songbirds.

Woody encroachment into grasslands and shrublands disrupts ecosystem processes and reduces biodiversity. Tree removal is a widespread strategy to restore ecosystem services and biodiversity in impacted landscapes. However, tree removal can also increase the risk of invasion by exotic annual grasses. In western North America, juniper (Juniperus spp.) encroachment threatens the ecological integrity of intact sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) shrublands. We used remote sensing to track vegetation changes following juniper removals on 288 parcels totaling 106 333 ha in southern Idaho, USA. We also analyzed vegetation changes following 64 wildfires that burned 152 611 ha of nearby rangeland during the same period. We matched areas within removals and wildfires to similar undisturbed areas, and then used causal impact analysis to estimate the effects of the disturbances. Juniper removals resulted in sustained reduction of tree cover and increased perennial forb and grass cover across nearly all sites, achieving key management goals. Based on the metrics evaluated, juniper removal was more effective than wildfire in delivering long-term restoration in this sagebrush system. However, juniper treatments also stimulated temporary undesirable increases in annual grasses and forbs, indicating the need for additional management to achieve durable conservation outcomes. Intensive mechanical methods initially reduced shrub cover in some treatments, but shrubs recovered to near pre-treatment levels within 7 years. Using a recently-developed metric of ecological integrity for sagebrush ecosystems, we show that these large, long-term projects halted or reversed degradation attributed to juniper expansion, demonstrating that restoration can improve the trajectory of ecosystems when implemented at scale.

Developing a robust monitoring framework that integrates efficacy assessments of cooperative conservation and restoration actions in relation to population viability is critical for successful long-term recovery of target ecosystems and species. However, often it is difficult to quantify conservation action efficacy because of the complex, dynamic nature of ecosystem processes and practical limitations associated with assessing target species' population dynamics. Here, we present an analytical framework that allows for quantification of conservation action efficacy using greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) within the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment which spans the border of Nevada and California. This framework utilizes a web-based repository of conservation efforts carried out in sagebrush ecosystems and readily fits within contemporary sagebrush conservation design strategies. We employed a state-space model within a Bayesian framework to estimate abundance (N) as inputs for a progressive change before-after-control-impact paired series (BACIPS) design. Although sage-grouse populations continue to decline in the Bi-State, count data from 57 leks (monitored between 2003–2021) coupled with 85 unique actions (initiated between 2012–2019) provided clear evidence that conservation efforts increased population abundance, on average, by 4.4% annually, resulting in a predicted population abundance that was 37.4% greater than if no actions had occurred, since 2012. Population gains varied by the type of conservation action and according to the number of lag years following its implementation.

Sagebrush ecosystems support a suite of unique species such as the emblematic greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; sage-grouse) but are under increasing pressure from anthropogenic stressors such as annual grass invasion, conifer encroachment, altered wildfire regimes, and land use change. We examined the ability of an ecosystem-based framework for sagebrush conservation, the sagebrush conservation design (SCD) strategy, and the associated model of sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI), to identify and rank priority habitats for sage-grouse, a sagebrush indicator species. We compared sage-grouse population trends from 1996–2021 across the three ranked SEI categories. We then modeled those trends directly as a function of the same landcover predictors underlying SEI, used the median trend estimates to recategorize the sage-grouse's range, and used spatial correlation methods to compare our sage-grouse performance categories with those of SEI. Finally, we compared the sage-grouse condition categories, predicted by our landcover-based model, to empirical trends derived from population count data. We found that the SCD and SEI were effective tools for identifying and ranking priority habitats for sage-grouse. Population trends were stable in the core areas identified by SEI but declining in the lower (i.e., growth and other) condition categories. As a result, core areas encompassed an increasingly larger share of the total sage-grouse population in a disproportionately smaller area. Our model supports the general functional relationships between landcover and sage-grouse performance suggested by SEI. We found strong spatial congruence between our categories of predicted sage-grouse population performance, the condition categories of SEI, and empirical trends derived from population count data. Our analysis demonstrates that proactive ecosystem-based approaches to the conservation of the sagebrush biome can help optimize the return on limited conservation resources and benefits for sagebrush obligate species and help reduce some of the real and perceived conflicts inherent in single-species management.

Population declines among sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) reliant birds mirror the larger deterioration of the sagebrush ecosystem. To combat this biome decline, western partners have unified around a common vision for sagebrush conservation by developing the Sagebrush Conservation Design, which identified high-priority areas, designated as “core sagebrush areas” (CSAs), to anchor conservation actions throughout the biome. While this conservation design did not explicitly consider the distribution or abundance of focal species, an underlying assumption has been that sagebrush-associated wildlife will benefit from actions targeting threats to the sagebrush biome. Herein, we explicitly test whether sagebrush ecological integrity (SEI), the metric used to quantify CSAs, is associated with sagebrush songbird abundance and population trends, such that CSAs provide an effective umbrella for wildlife conservation. Because species likely vary in their response to different ecological factors, we further examined the relative importance of the five components of SEI: sagebrush cover, tree cover, perennial grass cover, annual grass cover, and human modification, in structuring sagebrush songbird populations. We found substantial increases in population counts associated with increased values of SEI across three species examined: sagebrush sparrow (Artemisiospiza nevadensis), Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri), and sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus). Specifically, models supported 10 times (sage thrasher), six times (Brewer's sparrow), and three times (sagebrush sparrow) higher median relative abundances in CSAs compared with surrounding areas. Further, we found strong evidence of large population declines as areas transitioned out of CSAs. Finally, although we found some species-specific differences in the relative importance of the five SEI components, generally, sagebrush cover and tree cover were more important than grass cover in influencing bird populations. We show that conservation actions designed to preserve or grow CSAs will likely benefit sagebrush-obligate songbird populations and other focal wildlife, especially if consideration is given to which component(s) of SEI are targeted.

Rangeland carbon is often conceptualized similarly to intensively managed agricultural lands, in that we need to sequester and store more carbon. Unlike intensively managed agricultural lands, rangeland soils cannot sequester more carbon due to pedogenic and climatic limitations that influence plant community and microbial community dynamics. This requires a new paradigm for rangeland carbon that focuses on maintaining carbon security following disturbances like fire and plant community conversions (e.g., annual grasslands and conifer woodlands). To attain this, we propose the creation of a Carbon Security Index (CSI). CSI is a unitless, scalable value that can be used to compare carbon security across rangeland sites and over time and incorporates a plant fractional cover ratio, resistance and resilience, and wildfire probability. Using the Great Basin as a case study, we found that CSI decreased by 53% basin wide from 1989 to 2020. Using the Sagebrush Conservation Design's sagebrush ecological integrity categories across the Great Basin, we found that CSI in “core” areas remained relatively unchanged between 1998 and 2020 (decreased by 1%), whereas “growth opportunity” areas CSI began to change (decreased by 13%) and “other rangeland” areas CSI decreased by 67%. We found that CSI was able to act as an indicator for determining when carbon security would decrease several years prior to a wildfire disturbance, which then rapidly reduced CSI. Finally, we created a carbon security management map to help prioritize potential management for achieving greatest carbon security and locations for restoration. These results show that CSI provides landowners and land managers an opportunity to assess how secure their carbon is on the land and help them prioritize areas for restoration.

The rangeland science discipline has produced innovative science, datasets, maps, and tools to support rangeland conservation and management, such as those presented in this issue. Yet, there is a persistent gap between science production and on-the-ground implementation of conservation and management actions, and many managers remain in “information overload” while struggling to integrate technical products into management applications. Technical transfer seeks to overcome these barriers and empower land managers to address their land management challenges. We present a principle-based process for conducting effective technical transfer based on the collective experience of a network of technical transfer professionals and highlight an example of this process with Threat-Based Strategic Conservation workshops. We describe how much of the work of technical transfer occurs before any actions are taken, provide best practices for conducting technical transfer, and suggest steps to take after an effort to learn from and perpetuate technical transfer work. We provide considerations and insights for conducting effective technical transfer to support conservation and management in rangelands and beyond.

The sagebrush biome is rapidly deteriorating largely due to the ecosystem threats of conifer expansion, more frequent and larger wildfires, and proliferation of invasive annual grasses. Reversing the impacts of these threats is a formidable challenge. The Sagebrush Conservation Design (SCD) emphasized that limited conservation resources should first be used to maintain Core Sagebrush Areas (CSA), and then to grow such areas where possible. The SCD heightens the ecological importance of maintaining and strategically growing CSAs. However, the fact that these areas have been identified does not mean that conservation is immediately possible or will be effective. Strategic conservation in the sagebrush biome does not only involve working in ecologically important areas; it is an approach that must explicitly acknowledge the social and administrative conditions in which individuals and organizations are making decisions. We accordingly propose that strategic, durable work can only occur in geographies of “conservation readiness,” that is, where ecological importance, social capacity, and conducive administrative conditions intersect. We offer a framework for assessing conservation readiness that functions as both an inventory and diagnostic tool, highlighting current assets while shining a light on needs and the types of activities that will create or sustain conservation readiness. We demonstrate the utility of the Conservation Readiness Framework for identifying the different roles and activities that must occur at local, mid, and regional levels to nurture conservation readiness over time. In practice, this approach contrasts with management driven solely by ecological importance and illustrates that effective conservation must also involve targeted efforts that curate both social and administrative conditions.

During our careers with State Wildlife Agencies and involvement with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, we have watched and participated as state and federal agency perspectives about, and actions toward sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) have evolved. This change from sagebrush removal efforts to encourage forage production to conservation and restoration had several causes, but the largest factor was the long-term decline in greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) populations and potential for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Potential for listing accelerated planning and implementation activity by the Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, states, nongovernmental organizations, and private landowners that continues to this day. The tremendous investment we have all made in collaborative science has set us up for success in conserving sagebrush and sagebrush obligate species. We offer insights organized around five themes and specific recommendations for moving sagebrush conservation forward. Despite over three decades of unprecedented conservation efforts, we are still losing sagebrush at a rate of 0.53 million hectares (1.3 million acres) per year, which means we must both increase our capacity for sagebrush conservation and become more strategic in our investments. Shifting the emphasis of conservation from sage-grouse to sagebrush will reduce conflicts, increase participation, and broaden benefits. Increasing capacity, both fiscal and human from biome to local scales will require effectively communicating the value of, and threats to, the sagebrush biome. Recent science products, including this issue, offer a new ability and create a responsibility to strategically target sagebrush dollars where we can be successful. This strategic approach should be adaptive, with explicit conservation goals and monitoring to evaluate progress. This will require unprecedented collaboration to establish priority areas and goals, which will necessitate a collaborative governance structure to coordinate. Toward this end, we offer 9 specific implementation recommendations.

This is not a typical journal article in tone or style. As part of a special issue focused on the Sagebrush Conservation Design and Strategic Conservation, this paper highlights how we need to change our management of the sagebrush biome with a perspective of why that change matters. Sagebrush ecosystems are in steep decline, losing more than 1 million acres annually for decades from biome-altering threats of invasive annual grasses, conifer expansion, catastrophic wildfire, and climate change. As illustrated by the other papers in this special issue, management of the sagebrush biome needs to drastically change, focusing prevention and restoration on intact landscapes while accepting we cannot bring back the biome where it is already lost. Imbedded in this choice to change how we manage the biome is why that change matters. In this paper I include a series of personal anecdotes, observations, and connections that I hope helps you, the reader, understand the content of this special issue not only as an integrated body of science, but also an embrace of how we relate to the future of the biome. I embrace that future by applying the Defend and Grow the Core framework around Sagebrush Conservation Design Core and Growth Areas, and by layering in the tenants of the Resist, Accept, Direct model. The biggest gaps for ecosystem management are not from lack of knowledge, but from lack of clear administration priorities and funding, and robust social capacity to restore and steward our last geographies of hope. By using both a pessimist's and optimist's perspective on the plight of the range, I hope you deeply sense the opportunity and the urgency we face, making hard choices of what we do and where, building a long-term commitment to a restoration economy, and supporting people to save the sagebrush sea.