Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · ofr20201125

Sagebrush conservation strategy—Challenges to sagebrush conservation

Abstract

The sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) biome, its wildlife, and the services and benefits it provides people and local communities are at risk. Development in the sagebrush biome, for many purposes, has resulted in multiple and often cumulative negative impacts. These impacts, ranging from simple habitat loss to complex, interactive changes in ecosystem function, continue to accelerate even as the need grows for the resources provided by this biome. This “Sagebrush Conservation Strategy—Challenges to Sagebrush Conservation,” is an overview and assessment of the challenges facing land managers and landowners in conserving sagebrush ecosystems. This strategy is intended to provide guidance so that the unparalleled collaborative efforts to conserve the iconic greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) by State and Federal agencies, Tribes, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders can be expanded to the entire sagebrush biome to benefit the people and wildlife that depend on this ecosystem. This report is organized into 3 parts. “Part I. Importance of the Sagebrush Biome to People and Wildlife” introduces the biome and a subset of the more than 350 species of plants and animals associated with sagebrush for which there is some level of conservation concern. These include several sagebrush obligates that have been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including greater sage-grouse, Gunnison sage-grouse ( C. minimus ; listed as threatened), and pygmy rabbit ( Brachylagus idahoensis ). Other sagebrush-dependent species, such as pronghorn ( Antilocapra americana ) and mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ), have experienced significant population declines. “Part II. Change Agents in the Sagebrush Biome—Extent, Impacts, and Effort to Address Them” is an overview of the variety of change agents that are causing the continued loss and degradation of sagebrush. Topics covered include altered fire regimes, invasive plant species, conifer expansion, overabundant free-roaming equids, and human land uses, including energy development, cropland conversion, infrastructure, and improper livestock grazing. Climate changes, including warmer temperatures and altered amounts and timing of precipitation, have and will likely increasingly compound negative effects to sagebrush ecosystems from all these threats. “Part III. Current Conservation Paradigm and Other Conservation Needs for Sagebrush” begins with an overview of how sage-grouse conservation, and the associated efforts and collaborations, may be able to address threats to and restoring degraded sagebrush and habitat for other sagebrush-dependent and -associated species. Meeting conservation goals for sage-grouse, mule deer, pygmy rabbits, and other sagebrush-associated wildlife will require extensive restoration of sagebrush communities already converted or degraded by the change agents outlined in Part II of this report. Concepts, considerations, techniques for restoration, and adaptive management and monitoring are discussed to help set the stage for potential strategies to improve conditions throughout the sagebrush biome. Communication, outreach, and engagement can enhance grassroots conservation efforts and build the next generation of managers, practitioners, scientists, and communicators who will care for the sagebrush ecosystem and stimulate or sustain public participation in sagebrush conservation issues.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 33.50475906922609° to 48.86471476180277° latitude; -121.81640624999999° to -101.77734374999999° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas E. Remington, Patricia A. Deibert, Steve E. Hanser, Dawn M. Davis, Leslie A. Robb, Justin L. Welty. 2021-03-11. Sagebrush conservation strategy—Challenges to sagebrush conservation. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201125

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 2, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 2 (April–June), 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.

Open-File Report↗

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 1, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 1 (January–March) of 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov . One specific activity that the ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team closely monitored was a Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor encoder alerts anomaly. On March 18, 2026, the Thermal Infrared Sensor instrument’s mechanism control electronics board reset, driving several parameters to default power-on values. Subsequent telemetry and analysis determined that no persistent hardware misconfiguration was present and no radiometric or geometric degradation was observed.

Open-File Report↗

Floods of June 20–July 6, 2024, in the Big Sioux River, Rock River, Little Sioux River, Ocheyedan River, and Floyd River Basins, northwestern Iowa

Major flooding occurred on June 20–July 6, 2024, in northwestern Iowa affecting the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd River Basins. Heavy rain fell in northwestern Iowa, southwestern Minnesota, and southeastern South Dakota on June 20–22, 2024. Parts of northwestern Iowa recorded 2–6 inches of rainfall and localized amounts exceeding 12 inches. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 175,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Big Sioux River at Akron, Iowa (06485500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at four locations along the Big Sioux River between U.S. Interstate 29 at Sioux City, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 north of Hawarden, Iowa, a distance of 75.7 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 157,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Rock River near Rock Valley, Iowa (06483500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability of less than 0.2 percent. High-water marks were measured at eight locations along the Rock River between County Road B30 east of Hudson, South Dakota, upstream to Iowa Highway 9 at Rock Rapids, Iowa, a distance of 39.3 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 63,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Little Sioux River at Correctionville, Iowa (06606600), was recorded on June 24, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at 11 locations along the Little Sioux River between Iowa Highway 31 west of Correctionville, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 north of Spencer, Iowa, a distance of 134.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 24,500 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Ocheyedan River near Spencer, Iowa (06605000), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at three locations along the Ocheyedan River between County Road M38 west of Spencer, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 west of Everly, Iowa, a distance of 12.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 41,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Floyd River at Alton, Iowa (06600100), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 1–1.99 percent. High-water marks were measured at six locations along the Floyd River between Iowa Highway 3 at Le Mars, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 at Alton, Iowa, a distance of 27.5 river miles. The high-water marks were used to develop flood profiles for the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd Rivers.

Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota↗