Strategic Plan for the Coordinated Intermountain Restoration 

Project

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

USGS/BRD/ITR—2002–0011

Information and Technology Report
Balsamorhiza hookeri in sagebrush grassland east of Burns, Oregon, courtesy of David A. Pyke, U.S. Geological 

Survey.
Strategic Plan for the Coordinated 

Intermountain Restoration Project

By David A. Pyke, U.S. Geological Survey, and 

Mike Pellant, Bureau of Land Management

Information and Technology Report

USGS/BRD/ITR—2002–0011

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2002

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Suggested citation:

Pyke, D.A., and Pellant, M., 2002, Strategic Plan for the Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR—2002-0011, 14 p.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

 Pyke, David A.

 Strategic plan for the Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project / 

by David A. Pyke and Mike Pellant

 p. cm. –(Information and technology report ; USGS/BRD/ITR-2002-0011)

1. Range plants--Ecology--Great Basin. 2. Range plants--Effect of 

fires on--Great Basin. 3. Invasive plants--Control--Great Basin. 4. 

Plant diversity conservation--Great Basin. 5. Ecosystem 

management--Great Basin. 6. Fire management--Great Basin. I. Pellant, 

Michael L. II. Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project (U.S.) III. 

Title. IV. Series. 

 QK141.P95 2003

 333.95’316’0979--dc21

2003003985
iii

Executive Summary

In 1982, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Idaho State Office began the Intermountain Greenstripping and Rehabilitation Research Project (IGRRP), or the “Greenstripping 

Program,” to investigate plant materials and technologies that can reduce wildfire incidence 

and improve rehabilitation practices. Rehabilitation is normally applied as a reactive process 

to wildfires, yet land managers in the Great Basin wish to become proactive by replacing 

fire-prone invasive annual grasses with native plants. The Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project (CIRP) evolved from the Greenstripping Program to conduct research studies and 

provide technical assistance on restoration of native ecosystems on rangelands that are infested 

with invasive annual grasses or other invasive or noxious weeds. To accomplish this objective, the CIRP will promote the understanding of ecosystem disturbance dynamics as well as 

evaluate plant materials, site preparation techniques, weed control methods, seeding equipment, 

management methods, and monitoring techniques for restoration projects.

The CIRP will not address the restoration of forested or woodland (juniper [Juniperus]) 

ecosystems. It will include a component on fuel management to reduce the impacts of wildfires 

on semiarid rangeland ecosystems where exotic annual grasses provide the fuel. The people 

who will benefit directly from this research include land managers and users of public and 

private lands in the northern Great Basin, the Columbia Plateau, and the Snake River Plain. The 

CIRP will provide an integration framework for a multidisciplinary approach to research with 

numerous opportunities for input and collaboration. 

The U.S. Geological Survey will initially dedicate approximately $1 million over 5 years 

(about $200,000 per year) to jump-start this effort. U.S. Geological Survey funds will establish 

a science advisory board to oversee the project. This board will contain members of Federal 

research and management agencies within the region. U.S. Geological Survey funds will support (1) continued development of VegSpec, a computer program that is a restoration expert 

system, (2) research to examine changes in ecosystem processes when native plant-dominated 

communities shift to communities dominated by exotic annual grasses, and (3) research to 

address mechanisms for establishing native plants in locations dominated by exotic annual 

grasses. Through these initial funds, USGS hopes to leverage additional research with other 

agencies (e.g., BLM’s Great Basin Restoration Initiative or the Native Plant Materials Development Project, which is an interagency program to supply and manage native plant materials for 

restoration and rehabilitation on Federal lands) or funding organizations (e.g., the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s [USDA] National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, or the 

USDA’s and U.S. Department of the Interior’s [USDOI] Joint Fire Science Program), and to 

obtain additional research partners (e.g., university or Federal scientists) willing to expand this 

effort to address all aspects of this strategic plan.

Project Vision

This project shall increase our understanding of natural and human-caused disturbances 

(e.g., wildfires, livestock, and recreational impacts, etc.) and invasive plants in the Great Basin, 

and develop strategies to manage, maintain, and restore above and belowground biodiversity 

and functional ecosystems.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
iv STRATEGIC PLAN - COORDINATED INTERMOUNTAIN RESTORATION PROJECT 

Project Goals

1. Understand ecological responses to disturbances and invasive plants.

2. Develop strategies and appropriate techniques to maintain or restore functioning ecosystems.

3. Demonstrate and transfer scientific results and applications.

Prioritized Historical Plant Communities for Restoration

• Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis)

• Winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata)

• Shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia)

• Other sagebrush species and subspecies
v

Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... iii

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Vision................................................................................................................................................. 1

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Initiatives and Programs Potentially Supported by the 

Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project (CIRP)............................................................ 2

Great Basin Restoration Initiative..................................................................................................... 2

Invasive Species Executive Order.................................................................................................... 2

Standards for Rangeland Health....................................................................................................... 2

Bureau of Land Management Science Strategy............................................................................ 2

Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project (CIRP) Objectives ..................................................... 3

Science Advisory Committee...................................................................................................................... 3

Project Goals ................................................................................................................................................. 4

1. Understand Ecological Responses to Disturbances and Invasive Plants ............................. 4

2. Develop Strategies and Appropriate Techniques to Maintain or Restore 

Functioning Ecosystems ....................................................................................................... 7

3. Demonstrate and Transfer Scientific Results and Applications .............................................. 7

Summary and Future Direction................................................................................................................. 11

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................................... 11

References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Appendix. Prioritized Communities and Species for Management.................................................... 14

CONTENTS
vi STRATEGIC PLAN - COORDINATED INTERMOUNTAIN RESTORATION PROJECT

Frontispiece. A Wyoming big sagebrush – Thurber’s needlegrass site dominated by native shrubs and 

grasses near Boise, Idaho. Photograph taken by David A. Pyke, USGS.
Strategic Plan for the 

Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project

By David A. Pyke1 and Mike Pellant2 

Background

The Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project 

(CIRP) evolved from the Intermountain Greenstripping and 

Rehabilitation Research Project, or the “Greenstripping 

Program.” The Greenstripping Program was established by 

the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Idaho State Office 

in 1982 to select plant materials and technologies that can 

reduce wildfire incidence and improve rehabilitation practices. Implementation of the Greenstripping Program and the 

research associated with it was stimulated by the realization 

that the increase in wildfire size and frequency on Idaho’s 

Snake River Plain was not controllable by traditional fire suppression efforts (Pellant, 1990). Nor could BLM’s Emergency 

Fire Rehabilitation (EFR) program replace the native plant 

communities that were adversely impacted by wildfires and 

the subsequent increase in flammable annual exotic grasses.

The Greenstripping Program used both short- and 

long-term proactive approaches to the problems of increasing wildfire frequency and size, and the loss of native vegetation. In the short term, strips of fire-resistant vegetation were 

planted at strategic locations on the landscape to reduce the 

frequency and/or size of wildfires. The long-term approach 

was to reestablish perennial plant communities to return fire 

frequency and severity to historic levels. A critical element in 

both the short- and long-term approaches was control of exotic 

annual grasses through seedbed preparation and establishment 

of competitive vegetation.

The Greenstripping Program achieved anticipated results 

with some successes (establishing fire-resistant vegetation 

that slowed or stopped some wildfires), although some project 

seedings suffered establishment failures because of drought 

conditions in the mid-1980s. The research component of the 

project has also been successful as evidenced by the plant 

materials selected (four cultivar releases are pending) and 

planting methods (e.g., row spacing, seeding rates, effectiveness of anchor-chaining) that were developed to improve 

wildfire rehabilitation success (Anderson and others, 1998, 

unpub. report to USGS, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center; Monsen and others 1999, unpub. report to BLM 

Idaho State Office).

1

U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 

Corvallis Research Group, 3200 W. Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331

2

Bureau of Land Management, Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, 

Boise, ID 83709

Abstract

Since the late 1800s, arid and semiarid rangelands in the 

Great Basin have changed continually from diverse shrublands 

and grasslands dominated by native perennial plants to grasslands dominated by invasive annual plants such as Bromus 

tectorum, also known as cheatgrass or downy brome. This 

conversion has affected or threatens to affect over 30 million 

ha (74 million acres) of land in the Great Basin region managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. This change has led to larger and more frequent 

wildfires and to an annual plant community that is difficult 

to eliminate and limits the success of native plant restoration. 

Led by U.S. Geological Survey research and technical assistance, the Cooperative Intermountain Restoration Project’s 

(CIRP) goal is to increase knowledge of natural and human 

disturbances and of the impacts caused by invasive plants to 

ecosystems in the Great Basin. The CIRP will also develop 

methods to manage, maintain, and restore native biodiversity 

and functional ecosystems within this region. Information 

gained from this effort will be demonstrated and transferred to 

scientists, land managers, and the general public.

Keywords: biodiversity, Bromus tectorum, disturbances, 

ecosystem processes, ecosystem resilience, ecosystem resistance, fire, invasive plants, livestock, nutrient cycling, rangelands, rehabilitation, restoration, soil organisms, technical 

assistance

Project Vision

This project shall increase our understanding of natural 

and human-caused disturbances (e.g., wildfires, livestock, and 

recreational impacts, etc.) and invasive plants in the Great 

Basin, and develop strategies to manage, maintain, and restore 

above and belowground biodiversity and functional ecosystems.
2 STRATEGIC PLAN - COORDINATED INTERMOUNTAIN RESTORATION PROJECT 

The program was evaluated in 1991 and 1998 to (1) 

determine if objectives were being met, (2) determine if 

current objectives were still appropriate or if modification to 

future direction of the program was necessary, and (3) assess 

the scientific value and technology transfer of the research. In 

1998, an ad-hoc evaluation team provided a positive review 

of the program and made several recommendations regarding continued management and direction (see Anderson and 

others, 1998, unpub. report to USGS, Forest and Rangeland 

Ecosystem Science Center):

• The program should be expanded with a greater 

funding base to meet research needs relative to the 

increasing problem of invasive weeds and fuel management, along with the use of native plants for rangeland 

restoration.

• A full-time research coordinator should be added to 

the project to develop the scientific program.

• A scientific oversight committee should be established to assist with the development of scientific goals, 

help coordinate projects, ensure scientific merit, and 

increase technical output.

• The project should maintain the dual emphasis of 

basic research to answer mechanistic questions as well 

as adaptive management to test and evaluate plant 

materials used in fuel management and restoration 

projects.

• The scientific objectives of the Greenstripping Program should expand to include more process-oriented 

studies and research of larger scale issues, possible 

interactions of restoration with livestock grazing, and 

development of improved scientific methods for plant 

materials evaluation and selection.

• Current direction of the project should emphasize closure on some of the long-term projects and encourage 

submission of publications to peer-reviewed scientific 

journals.

Initiatives and Programs Potentially 

Supported by the Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project

Great Basin Restoration Initiative

Wildfires burned a record number of acres in the Great 

Basin during the summer of 1999, resulting in the Great Basin 

Restoration Initiative (GBRI), which was funded for the 

Federal fiscal year 2001 at the level of approximately $11 million. The scope of this initiative includes portions of five states 

and roughly 10 million ha (25 million acres) of public land. 

Priorities associated with the GBRI include restoring fire-damaged or weed-infested rangelands. The CIRP fits well into the 

goals of the GBRI by providing more scientific information to 

conduct successful restoration projects (USDOI, 1999, 2000).

Invasive Species Executive Order

On February 3, 1999, President William Clinton signed 

Executive Order 13112 establishing the National Invasive 

Species Council. This Executive order encouraged agencies, 

including BLM, to research mechanisms of introduction, 

spread, and control of invasive species, and to procure, use, 

and maintain native species and healthy plant communities to 

aid in limiting invasion and spread of exotics. The Executive 

order also encouraged strong public education and information-sharing programs related to invasive species.

Standards for Rangeland Health

In 1995, BLM grazing regulations were changed to focus 

public land management on ecosystem health. These regulations spawned the development of standards for rangeland 

health and guidelines for grazing management for each state 

(USDOI, BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2001-079, 

January 19, 2001). The standards set minimum requirements 

for proper nutrient and hydrologic cycling and energy flow 

relative to the ecological potential of a site; the guidelines 

direct grazing management to promote significant progress 

towards meeting the standards (e.g., USDOI, 1997). Research 

funded through CIRP provides managers with information on 

how to maintain existing, healthy native ecosystems as well as 

techniques and materials for restoring degraded landscapes. 

These resources are important for meeting the standards and 

implementing the guidelines.

Bureau of Land Management Science Strategy

The Bureau of Land Management has identified the role 

of science in making sound land management decisions and 

meeting Federal legislative and regulatory requirements for 

lands administered by the BLM (BLM, 2000a). Specifically, 

both the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

prescribe an interdisciplinary approach and integration of 

scientific data in planning and decisionmaking. The BLM’s 

Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2001-05 (BLM 2000b) dictates 

that the agency will “. . . sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.” The BLM’s science strategy also 

identifies the need to use science proactively to help identify 

BLM management goals and needs. Examples set forth in the 

science strategy include addressing invasive species on both 

regional and national levels.
 3

Coordinated Intermountain Restoration 

Project Objectives

The main objective of the CIRP is to restore species 

native to rangelands of the northern Great Basin, Snake River 

Plain, and Columbia Plateau that are infested with exotic 

annual grasses (primarily cheatgrass, Bromus tectorum, and 

medusahead wildrye, Taeniatherum caput-medusae) and 

that may be threatened with further introductions of secondary exotic invasive plants (e.g., knapweeds [Centaurea spp.] 

and rush skeletonweed [Chondrilla juncea]). To accomplish 

this objective, the project will promote the following: (1) the 

understanding of ecosystem dynamics following long-term 

degradation, particularly with regards to fire; (2) the evaluation 

and selection of plant materials, and the development of site 

preparation, weed control techniques, and seeding equipment; 

and (3) the management and monitoring of projects focused on 

restoration of functioning ecosystems.

The CIRP will not address restoration of forest- or woodland-dominated (juniper [Juniperus]) ecosystems. It will not 

include a component on fuel management to reduce wildfire 

impacts on rangeland ecosystems, since this is a major charge 

of the interagency Joint Fire Science Program, but it may 

address how fuel management techniques may impact ecosystem processes. The beneficiaries of this research include land 

managers and users of public and private land in the northern 

Great Basin, Snake River Plain, and Columbia Plateau. The 

CIRP will provide an integration framework for a 

multidisciplinary approach to research with numerous opportunities for input and collaboration.

Regional problem analyses have already defined the 

research priorities to be addressed by the CIRP (Pyke and Borman, 1993; USDA, 1996). A research strategy for Department 

of the Interior (DOI) lands within the interior Columbia Basin 

and Snake River Plateau identified rangeland health (including 

control of exotic plants), restoration of degraded lands, and 

development of protocols for adaptive management as three of 

the top five research priorities (Beever and Pyke, 2002). The 

CIRP already has in place background research and a network 

of cooperators, as well as management support within the 

BLM, to provide a base for continued study.

Science Advisory Committee

The CIRP Science Advisory Committee is an interagency, multidisciplinary committee that is responsible for 

development, review, and revision of the CIRP strategic plan. 

The committee members will prioritize research needs based 

on their knowledge of management research needs and based 

on current publications or reports. The committee will be 

co-chaired by representatives of the BLM and USGS or by the 

project manager. The other members will include two research 

scientists, a plant materials specialist, and a BLM manager. 

Duties of the Advisory Committee will include (1) critically 

reviewing proposed study plans associated with this project; 

CIRP OBJECTIVES

Fire in a Wyoming big sagebrush – Thurber’s needlegrass community on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hart Mountain National 

Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Photograph taken by Troy Wirth, Oregon State University.
4 STRATEGIC PLAN - COORDINATED INTERMOUNTAIN RESTORATION PROJECT 

(2) reviewing the need for a project manager and, if the need 

is sufficient, assisting in preparing a draft position description 

and providing recommendations for the appointment to the 

hiring official(s); (3) establishing guidelines for submission 

and evaluation of future requests for research proposals should 

additional money become available; (4) reviewing and advising the project manager regarding current and future projects; 

(5) reviewing annual research reports to insure that projects 

are addressing the project goals and that deliverable products 

are received; and (6) reviewing and recommending future 

budget items. The Advisory Committee will meet annually in 

the winter to review the previous year’s work, adjust plans for 

the next year, and recommend future budget modifications. 

During the annual report phase of these meetings additional 

managers and resource specialists will be invited. Managers 

and resource specialists will be given an opportunity to hear 

current research results and to provide insight into the results 

or to future work related to the project. The Advisory Committee will provide or conduct peer reviews of all study results 

in publications that are not peer-reviewed (e.g., compiled proceedings), theses, and all final reports stemming from CIRP 

funds before publication of material, thus insuring adherence 

to USGS policy.

Project Goals

The following section outlines three project goals that are 

of equal importance. These goals collectively address our need 

to understand effects of disturbance and invasive plants on 

ecosystems. To this end, we must understand the structure and 

function of ecosystems and how to restore these characteristics 

as well as demonstrate techniques for restoration and monitoring 

of their recovery. Functional ecosystems are complex and 

comprise both abiotic (soil, water, air) and biotic components 

(microorganisms, plants, animals). Loss or modification of 

either component can have serious effects on the ecosystem as 

a whole (USDA, 1996). For instance, loss of vegetative cover 

because of fire or overgrazing can result in accelerated soil 

loss, which in turn can inhibit reestablishment of vegetation. 

Therefore, it is critical that the goals integrate a multidisciplinary approach to fully address the intricacies of ecosystem 

restoration.

1. Understand Ecological Responses to 

Disturbances and Invasive Plants

Rationale

Restoration research must be built on a foundation of 

understanding how existing biotic and abiotic systems respond 

to disturbances (human-induced and natural). Vegetation 

states, transitions among vegetation states, and unidirectional 

thresholds leading to alternative vegetation states (Westoby 

and others, 1989) are thought by many scientists to provide 

a better explanation of vegetation dynamics in sagebrush 

grasslands (Laycock, 1991; West, 1988). If thresholds can be 

identified, then a manager could ascertain if a site will require 

active restoration (e.g., invasive species control, revegetation, 

etc.) or passive restoration (e.g., restoration by adjustments in 

management) to maintain or attain desirable communities. By 

achieving the objectives of this first goal, subsequent success 

will be ensured for the second CIRP goal that includes developing both active and passive restoration strategies.

A hypothetical state and transition model for a sagebrush grassland with two ecological states, a reference state and 

an invasive-dominated state. Each state is connected by a relatively irreversible transition that represents a theoretical 

threshold between these states. The communities represent the following: Community A – shrubs dominate with perennial 

grass; Community B – perennial grasses; Community C – equal mix of shrubs and grasses; Community D – annual invasive 

grasses; Community E – equal mix of shrubs and annual invasive grasses.
 5

Objective 1.1 Define abiotic and biotic thresholds that determine ecosystem recovery potential and the alternative biotic 

states that may occur once a threshold is crossed.

Discussion: Current ecological theory holds that plant communities can exist in multiple states, and that thresholds exist 

between states that, once crossed, require active intervention 

to revert to a former or desired state (Friedel, 1991). One 

such situation is the conversion of Wyoming big sagebrush 

(Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) communities in the 

northern Great Basin and Snake River Plain to annual grasslands dominated by cheatgrass and/or medusahead wildrye 

(Laycock, 1991). Land managers need to quantify the biotic 

and abiotic conditions that define the thresholds beyond 

which restoration of the former native plant community and 

levels of ecosystem function are improbable (Friedel, 1991). 

Making management changes prior to crossing this threshold 

is more economical and timely than implementing expensive, 

active restoration treatments once the threshold has been 

crossed.

When rehabilitating plant communities where both cheatgrass and herbaceous native species were present before a 

fire, it is critical to know what elements contribute to cheatgrass dominance after a fire. Factors that may contribute to 

cheatgrass dominance and that need further investigation are 

soil nutrient status, temperature, texture, and other physical 

properties that influence hydrology and rooting depths; soil 

microbial populations that affect decomposition and nutrient 

cycling; and the proportion of native versus exotic species 

in the prefire community. Resting the recovering native 

vegetation from grazing is an appropriate response if the 

“cheatgrass threshold” has not been crossed. However, if the 

postfire cheatgrass community would suppress recovery of 

native plants and lead to an increase in future wildfires, then 

additional site treatment to reduce cheatgrass dominance, 

followed by reseeding native plants, would be an appropriate 

course of action. Understanding the threshold between cheatgrass and the native plant community is essential in prescribing post-disturbance treatments.

Objective 1.2 Identify, characterize, and quantify factors and 

processes that contribute to ecosystem resistance and resilience to invasive plants.

Discussion: Invasion resistance refers to the ability of an ecosystem to retard the entry of invasive plants, while resilience 

is the ability of the system to recover on its own once disturbance has occurred. If the factors and processes that contribute to resistance and resilience are known, then management 

can be modified, or active restoration can be implemented to 

promote these factors or processes.

For example, it has been observed that biological soil crusts 

in arid and semiarid plant communities on the Snake River 

Plain impede invasion of cheatgrass by limiting seed-soil 

contact and appropriate microsites (safe sites) for establishment 

(Kaltenecker and others, BLM, unpub. data, 1999). Grazing 

management can be modified to reduce livestock impacts and 

maintain or increase cover of biological crusts by changing 

from hot season to cool season grazing (Marble and Harper, 

1989; Memmott and others, 1998). Preliminary observations 

indicate that biological crusts are more resilient during cool, 

moist periods when they are physiologically active or when 

the soil surface is frozen than during hot, dry periods (Marble 

and Harper, 1989). However, level of resilience at various 

moisture levels depends on soil texture (Belnap and others, 

2001). Quantification of these relationships for a broad range 

of soils would lead to better management prescriptions and 

might limit cheatgrass invasion and dominance after disturbance on vulnerable sites.

Objective 1.3 Examine the role of temporal and spatial scales 

of disturbance on the recovery potential of the ecosystem or 

invasive plant establishment and spread.

Discussion: Sagebrush-steppe landscapes have been modified differently depending on scale. On a landscape scale, 

continuous stands of vegetation have become increasingly 

fragmented. Human encroachment on these systems by 

means such as livestock use and roads have created vectors 

for exotic plant invasions that contribute to and spread with 

larger spatial disturbances such as wildfire. At the scale of 

the community, vegetation has become less patchy and eventually homogenized by invasion of exotic annual grasses. 

Loss of the local-scale mosaic results in larger, more continuous fires and loss of native plant communities at a landscape 

level (USDA, 1996).

The areas of concern have arid and semiarid climates where 

natural plant communities respond to pulses of favorable 

conditions, primarily with regards to moisture, but also to 

other resources. Disturbances during dry years have a greater 

effect than the same disturbances in a normal moisture year. 

Plant communities impacted (i.e., grazed or burned) during 

extended drought periods may exceed a threshold for recovery because of the lack of resources for regrowth following 

disturbance.

Climatic conditions that are favorable to growth and reproduction of native plants can also result in pulses of invasion 

by exotic species. Information regarding disturbance size and 

frequency relative to conditions favorable to exotic plants 

would provide support for adaptive management to minimize 

impacts when plant communities have low resistance to invasion.

Objective 1.4 Evaluate the effects of disturbances and invasive plants on soil integrity, organisms, and processes.

Discussion: Disturbances such as alterations in natural wildfire patterns and inappropriate livestock grazing may impact 

soil organic matter, structure, integrity, and stability. These 

disturbances may also impact soil organisms that enhance 

both nutrient cycling and nutrient uptake. Short- and longterm effects of both human and natural disturbances are not 

well known for key groups of soil organisms (e.g., bacterial 

nitrifiers, bacterial and fungal decomposers, mycorrhizae, 

nematodes, and microinvertebrates and macroinvertebrates) 

CIRP OBJECTIVES
6 STRATEGIC PLAN - COORDINATED INTERMOUNTAIN RESTORATION PROJECT 

in arid and semiarid systems. Information is needed regarding whether disturbances change soil organism population 

structure and dynamics and, if so, also affect decomposition, 

nutrient cycling, and soil hydrology. This information is 

pertinent to both the conditions that contribute to the susceptibility of plant communities by invasive nonnative plants, as 

well as to the success or failure of restoration treatments.

Effects of disturbance could include compaction caused 

by livestock, human, or vehicular traffic, and removal of 

aboveground biomass because of fire or grazing. Soil surface 

compaction reduces water infiltration, as well as activities of 

soil biota including nitrogen and carbon fixation and decomposition (Belnap, 1995). Removal of aboveground vegetative 

cover, and, most likely, the biological soil crust, changes 

litter input as well as soil temperature, which can affect 

the activity of belowground organisms (Belnap and others, 

2001). Mycorrhizal biomass responds to availability of photosynthates that are reduced by vegetative removal, as well 

as plant community composition (Reeves and others, 1979; 

Bethlenfalvay and Dakessian, 1984). If subsequent invasion 

of exotic annual grasses occurs, there is further modification 

in the spatial quality of the community (Kaltenecker and 

others, 1999). Current research, funded through the CIRP, 

indicates that bacterial populations and mycorrhizal potential 

may not be altered by exotic annual grass invasion (Kaltenecker and others, BLM, unpub. data, 2000). Because there 

is a lack of understanding how these bacterial populations 

fit within a functioning, weed-infested community, further 

research is needed to illuminate mechanisms that contribute 

to annual exotic grass dominance.

Objective 1.5 Investigate the population biology, life history, 

and ecophysiological responses of important native and invasive plants to disturbances.

Discussion: Not all native plants respond equally to the same 

level of disturbance. In natural systems, disturbance drives 

the dynamic balance in species composition both spatially 

and temporally. Overall, this information would enable 

additional understanding of thresholds from a community 

perspective, assist in selecting native plants for successful restoration, and provide a greater understanding of why 

invasions occur (even in seemingly intact communities). For 

The left side of the photo depicts a cheatgrass-dominated annual grassland, while the right side depicts remnant Wyoming big sagebrush that was not burned in the previous fire. Photograph taken by David A. Pyke, USGS.
 7

example, little is known about the longevity of seeds once 

they enter the soil and the role of the seed bank as a mechanism for invasion and recovery. Vegetative reproduction is 

also important for maintenance and survival of perennial 

plants. Better knowledge of life-history strategies is needed 

to improve predictions of the response of both native and 

exotic species to disturbance.

Objective 1.6 Define the relationships between biodiversity 

and disturbances and/or invasive plants.

Discussion: Progressive conversion of sagebrush ecosystems to exotic annual grasslands is placing numerous 

sagebrush-dependent species at risk for extinction or at 

least severe restriction in potential habitat. Recent research 

in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area 

(NCA) in southwestern Idaho indicates that several species 

of birds, including sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), Brewer’s 

sparrow (Spizella breweri), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and prairie falcon 

(Falco mexicanus) are sensitive to fragmentation of sagebrush habitats. For sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage 

thrasher, their abandonment from the communities appears 

to be due to loss of nesting habitat and reduction in patch 

size (Knick and Rotenberry, 1995). For top-level predators, 

population declines are due to loss of habitat for important 

prey species, primarily black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) (USDOI, 1996a). Understanding how species assemblages respond to different levels of disturbance, including 

less obvious aspects of communities such as the biological 

crust and soil microbes is needed.

2. Develop Strategies and Appropriate 

Techniques to Maintain or Restore 

Functioning Ecosystems

Rationale

Maintenance of functioning ecosystems requires involving and educating land managers to ensure that the future 

direction of management does not contribute to degradation. 

Restoration of degraded systems requires management support 

for both implementation of treatments and protection of the 

restored area to enhance probability of success. Fuel management strategies will ensure protection of both intact native 

areas and restoration projects. Fuel management should be 

pursued from a landscape, as well as from a site-specific

perspective; therefore, coordination with land management specialists is critical to identify priority areas based on 

resource needs. Because availability of native seed appropriate for a broad scope of ecological sites is critical for implementation of restoration projects, CIRP cooperators and land 

managers need to work with regional producers to ensure seed 

availability. Cooperation with local operations staff is also 

essential to ensure (1) availability of proper equipment either 

within the agency or through private contractors; (2) design of 

projects that are both scientifically and logistically sound; and 

(3) proper application of treatments.

Objective 2.1 Develop management guidelines to maintain or 

achieve acceptable levels of resistance and resilience in currently functioning or at-risk ecosystems.

Discussion: Establishment of management guidelines requires 

an understanding of the ecosystem in question from both 

biological and physical perspectives (USDA, 1996). While 

patterns and processes that define ecosystems are not entirely 

predictable, long-term ecological research provides invaluable information for predicting ecosystem responses to 

disturbance or changes in management from both temporal 

and spatial perspectives. The CIRP will work with managers 

to assess the effects of timing and levels of disturbance on 

biological and physical processes and to adapt management 

prescriptions based on monitoring outcomes. Monitoring 

indicators need to be identified so that status and recovery 

of ecosystems can be quantitatively evaluated. In particular, 

these monitoring indicators need to be sensitive enough to 

identify systems that are at risk of crossing a threshold where 

recovery of a site to a stable condition will require active 

intervention and application of restoration treatments (e.g., 

application of herbicides and seeding native species).

Because of economic costs and threats to human life from 

large, repeated fires, improved fuel management strategies 

need to be developed to reduce wildfire impacts on functioning or restored ecosystems. The Snake River Plain has 

become an extremely fragmented system where increased 

fire frequencies have both precipitated the loss of sagebrush 

steppe habitats and severely limited the ability to complete 

restoration before a site burns again. Fuel management has 

been cited as a high priority to increase defensibility of intact 

communities and restoration projects (Entwistle and others, 2000). Current techniques include greenstripping and 

mechanical fuel breaks along roads that can be major ignition sources and the use of herbicides to suppress production of fine fuels. Techniques to reduce fuels on a landscape 

scale should be investigated, including creation of low-fuel 

areas within larger stands of continuous vegetation. Studies 

might include a variety of techniques including livestock 

management (intensive grazing and exclusion), herbicide 

use, prescribed fire, and enhancement of natural community 

elements (such as biological crusts).

Objective 2.2 Identify and select native plant ecotypes and 

develop plant production techniques that will increase the 

availability of native plants for restoration.

Discussion: Cooperators and local land managers will help 

the CIRP identify native plant species priorities and select 

native seed collection sites. Both propagation and large-scale 

production techniques (planting, harvesting, seed conditioning, storage, culture, and management) for many native 

plants are still relatively unknown (Roundy and Call, 1988; 

Young, 1988). Information is needed regarding potential 

CIRP OBJECTIVES
8 STRATEGIC PLAN - COORDINATED INTERMOUNTAIN RESTORATION PROJECT 

and techniques for successful plant establishment on various ecological sites, as well as the ability of various plant 

accessions to compete with exotic annual grasses. Common 

garden studies along elevational and precipitation gradients 

will provide valuable information regarding the ecological 

amplitude of locally collected ecotypes.

Cooperators as well as local and regional growers will also 

work with the CIRP to increase seed for use in large-scale 

projects. Native seed production will increase as seed growers gain the skill and knowledge to grow native plants and as 

demand for native plants increases. This knowledge can be 

increased and thus the time required for adequate seed production reduced if culture techniques (row spacing, watering 

schedule, fertilization, and harvest timing/equipment) can be 

identified before the selection is given to the seed producer. 

Properly designed research can provide this information.

Products on seed production should include manuals that 

discuss seed conditioning, seed storage, germination testing, 

seedling establishment, stand management of seed production fields, and harvest techniques.

Objective 2.3 Develop site preparation (including weed 

control) and native plant establishment techniques associated 

with specific disturbances and sites.

Discussion: A wide range of site conditions exist on rangelands including, but not limited to, steep slopes, rocky soils, 

weed infestations, degraded soil surfaces (including loss of 

the biological crust), and unstable sands. Site preparation 

equipment is not available for all of these site conditions and 

comparisons among existing site preparation alternatives 

is rare, especially on many intermountain sites. Herbicide 

application technology has improved dramatically for cropland application, but little application of this technology has 

been done for noncrop rangelands.

Seeding technology has improved greatly on agricultural 

croplands while most rangeland seed application is still done 

with 1950s technology. Aerial seeding of native plants (especially shrubs such as sagebrush) is commonly implemented 

with little information available on the benefits of covering 

the seed (e.g., using an anchor chain or harrow) compared 

to no seed coverage or allowing natural recovery without 

seeding. Native plants have unique seedbed placement and 

germination requirements. For example, the seed of Thurber’s needlegrass (Achnatherum thurberianum) has a genticulate awn that serves as a self-burial mechanism; however, the 

seeds are highly dormant, apparently because they have very 

specific light requirements for germination (Young, 1988). 

Revegetating a sagebrush grassland site using a rangeland drill in the BLM Prineville District, Oregon. Photograph taken by Scott Cook, 

Bureau of Land Management.
 9

Considerable research is needed regarding site preparation 

to enhance native plant establishment on sites with harsh 

environmental conditions (e.g., salt-desert shrub) and heavy 

weed competition (Monsen, 1994; Roundy and others, 1997).

Objective 2.4 Develop criteria and monitoring protocols for 

evaluating restoration and rehabilitation success.

Discussion: There is no well-defined guidance in terms of 

techniques or protocols for monitoring restoration or rehabilitation projects. Several technical references describe a 

variety of sampling techniques and plot-selection protocols 

(e.g., USDOI, 1996b; Elzinga and others, 1998); however, 

no guidance has been developed specifically to monitor the 

establishment of seeded species during the first two growing seasons nor the long-term persistence of seeded species 

beyond the establishment period. In addition, little information is available to go beyond site-level to landscape-level 

evaluations of restoration and rehabilitation project success. 

Remote sensing and geographic information system technology needs to be investigated to see if these tools can provide 

larger-scale information on locations for restoration as well 

as information about rehabilitation success.

Objective 2.5 Develop postrestoration management guidelines.

Discussion: Bureau of Land Management policy currently 

dictates that a rest of two growing seasons from livestock 

grazing should be implemented following fire and/or seeding 

to allow recovery of burned endemic vegetation or successful 

establishment of seeded species. This rest period for seeded 

plants was based on the average time required for crested 

wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) to establish (Sonnemann 

and others, 1981). Native plants were not generally seeded 

when these guidelines were developed, and the time required 

for a native seeding to successfully establish has still not 

been documented well. Shrubs take longer to become reproductive than herbaceous species, and establishment of young 

plants can be inhibited by trampling disturbance (Meyer, 

1994). In addition, the length of time required for biological 

soil crusts to recover after disturbance has only recently been 

investigated and is highly dependent on site characteristics 

(e.g., soil texture and chemistry, aspect, slope) and climatic 

patterns (Belnap and others, 2001). While it appears that 

biological soil crusts recover more slowly than the vascular plant community, some development of both appears to 

be synchronous (Danin, 1978; Danin and Barbour, 1982; 

Danin and others, 1989; Kaltenecker, Boise State University, unpub. data, 1997). Therefore, nutrient inputs and soil 

stability imparted by the crust may be important in successional dynamics of the vascular plant community. Further 

research is needed to understand biological crust recovery 

and interactions among seeded species, microbial organisms, 

and vascular plants.

Livestock management strategies that will successfully 

result in long-term maintenance of restored areas can be 

inferred from previous management experience and studies. 

However, earlier studies focused more on increasing or maintaining “key species” (i.e., palatable forage plants) and not 

on the health and stability of the landscape (i.e., maintenance 

of properly functioning ecological processes and plant diversity). Management strategies should also include consideration of invasive species and how to increase the resiliency 

and resistance of intact and restored native plant communities to minimize impacts from these unwanted plants.

Objective 2.6 Evaluate social and economic impacts of alternatives.

Discussion: In recent years, wildfires have burned extensive 

areas in the western United States, a number of which have 

affected urban areas. As a result of the public’s heightened awareness of wildfires in urban areas, there has been 

more opportunity for land managers to educate the public 

regarding the ecological issues surrounding wildfire, invasive species, and restoration. One such effort was the 1999 

workshop on restoration of the Snake River Birds of Prey 

National Conservation Area (see Entwistle and others, 2000, 

for results of this workshop), which included members of the 

ranching and conservation communities as well as researchers and land management specialists.

Regional-scale restorations need to be designed from the 

perspective of sound science and ecological theory, but they 

should also integrate aspects of practicality and sustainability 

from a land-use perspective. Understanding of the complex 

issues surrounding restoration could be critical for restoration 

projects that are subject to public review. Surveys addressing 

issues such as prescribed burning and herbicide use would 

be helpful in identifying issues that require attention from 

an educational perspective. Involvement of interested citizen 

groups might also be helpful for support of controversial 

issues, for example, securing the assistance of local ranchers 

in studies regarding livestock grazing and fuel management, 

or to determine the tolerance of native and restored communities to grazing pressure.

3. Demonstrate and Transfer Scientific Results 

and Applications

Rationale

Research and demonstration projects funded by the CIRP 

will provide critical information to public land managers and 

other clients regarding invasive species control and native 

community restoration on a regional scale. However, if the 

program is to be effective, it is critical that project results be 

disseminated to clients as well as a broader scientific audience. 

Dissemination will be accomplished through a combination of 

progress reports and scientifically reviewed, published papers. 

In addition, practical applications of materials and methods 

will be illustrated via management-scale research and demonstration projects.

CIRP OBJECTIVES
10 STRATEGIC PLAN - COORDINATED INTERMOUNTAIN RESTORATION PROJECT 

Objective 3.1 Establish management-scale research and management demonstration projects.

Discussion: Regional large-scale, long-term projects will be 

established to investigate the success of restoration techniques for a range of plant communities, soils, and climates. 

The first “demonstration research area” will be established 

near Boise, Idaho, to conduct integrated, management-scale 

research and demonstration projects on ecology of sagebrush-steppe and salt-desert shrub communities, restoration 

technologies, ecotype species performance and adaptation, 

and management techniques necessary to maintain and/or 

restore native ecosystems in the Great Basin. This area will 

include disturbed and relatively undisturbed areas within 

dominant range sites and soil mapping units along an elevational gradient and will be chosen to represent conditions on 

a regional scale within the Snake River Plain and the Great 

Basin.

Objective 3.2 Publish research results in scientifically peerreviewed journals, USGS fact sheets, application-oriented 

and popular literature.

Discussion: At least one publication will be required of 

cooperators for each funded project. The audience and target 

journals will be determined jointly by the CIRP director and 

project lead. Periodic USGS fact sheets will be developed to 

highlight research results and management implications of 

those results.

Objective 3.3 Present results in symposia, workshops, scientific meetings, and Web pages.

Discussion: Regional symposia and workshops are often 

more locally focused, management oriented, and accessible 

to field office resource staff and managers. Participation in 

these events by cooperators helps to assist in dissemination 

of information to a local audience and provide opportunity 

Participants learning rangeland assessment techniques at a monitoring workshop near Warm Springs, Oregon. Photograph taken by 

David A. Pyke, USGS.
SUMMARY 11

for discussion of research results, as well as the availability 

of materials and methods. Attendance by cooperators at 

national and international scientific and professional meetings will provide interaction and input from a broader, scientific and professional community. Creation of a CIRP Web 

page would make current information accessible to a broad 

audience. The focus here would need to be tiered from the 

broad goals of the CIRP to specific research projects. 

Objective 3.4 Develop, maintain, and enhance decision support tools (e.g., expert systems) for assisting land managers 

in rehabilitation and restoration of disturbed lands.

Discussion: Decision support systems, such as VegSpec, provide basic information on potential plants to consider when 

implementing a rehabilitation and/or restoration project. 

Enhancements that would improve VegSpec might include 

wildfire rehabilitation treatments, coordination between 

VegSpec and seed producers who have the seed available, or 

creation of a GIS-based structure to the data layers.

Objective 3.5 Conduct annual field tours and research and/or 

management meetings.

Discussion: Annual meetings will be organized to promote 

information exchange between cooperators and clients. Tours 

of project or demonstration areas will help promote use of 

plant materials and methods and increase understanding of 

CIRP goals by the clients.

Objective 3.6 Promote information exchange, including 

technical assistance, between research cooperators and land 

managers, both nationally and internationally.

Discussion: Submission of annual reports from research 

cooperators to pertinent land management agencies will be 

required. An annual synthesis report compiled by the CIRP 

director will be distributed and available to a larger audience 

to promote program achievements.

Objective 3.7 Provide research and management data and 

metadata to a project databank.

Discussion: A standardized procedure and format for data 

reporting will be established by using readily available software (such as MS Access), with a central repository and person dedicated to insuring database maintenance and quality.

Summary and Future Direction

The CIRP is intended to be an interagency, interdisciplinary program that focuses on issues surrounding the restoration 

of degraded rangelands in parts of the Great Basin. Research 

funded by the CIRP is intended to focus on both local- and 

regional-scale studies that integrate a variety of disciplines 

within a single project. The USGS will, when possible, 

attempt to leverage its funds devoted toward this project by 

participating in cooperative research and demonstration efforts 

that match the CIRP goals. Because of the potentially long 

duration of restoration studies, funding by CIRP is intended 

for both the establishment of restoration projects and the initiation of long-term monitoring.

Mechanisms are in place for both short-term review of 

individual studies to long-term review of the program. The 

Scientific Advisory Committee will meet annually and review 

the progress of projects, including mid-course corrections and 

completion of reports and publications. The Science Advisory Committee (see page 7) will be responsible for soliciting 

outside assistance for 5- and 10-year national-level reviews 

(2006 and 2011) of CIRP as well as continued funding for the 

program.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the other members of the 

CIRP Advisory Committee, J.C. Chambers, L. Holzworth, K. 

Kitchell, and J.D. Williams, for their assistance in developing 

and refining the vision, goals and objectives of CIRP; J. Hilty 

for preparing early draft material used in this document; R. 

Jacobs and the FRESC Information and Outreach for funding 

this publication; the USGS Invasive Plants Program for funding this project.

References Cited

Beever, E.A., and Pyke, D.A., 2002, Research plan for lands 

administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior in the 

interior Columbia Basin and Snake River Plateau. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Information and Technology Report 

USGS/BRD/ITR 2002–0003, p. 76.

Belnap, J., 1995, Surface disturbances: their role in accelerating desertification: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, v. 37, p. 39-57.

Belnap, J., Kaltenecker, J., Rosentreter, R., Williams, J., Leonard, S., and Eldridge, D., contributors, 2001, Biological 

soil crusts: ecology and management: Denver, Colo., U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Technical Reference 1730-2, p. 110.

Bethlenfalvay, G.J., and Dakessian, S., 1984, Grazing effects 

on mycorrhizal colonization and floristic composition of the 

vegetation on a semiarid range in northern Nevada: Journal 

of Range Management, v. 37, p. 312-316.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2000a, Science strategy: 

Bureau of Land Management Publication BLM/RS/PL-00/

001+1700, 23 p.
12 STRATEGIC PLAN - COORDINATED INTERMOUNTAIN RESTORATION PROJECT 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2000b, Bureau of Land 

Management strategic plan, FY2000 to FY2005 [Available 

at http://www.blm.gov/nhp/info/stratplan/strat0105.pdf].

Danin, A., 1978, Plant species diversity and plant succession 

in a sandy area in the northern Negev: Flora, v. 167, p. 409-

422.

Danin, A., and Barbour, M.B., 1982, Microsuccession of 

cryptogams and phanerogams in the Dead Sea Area, Israel: 

Flora, v. 172, p. 173-179.

Danin, A., Bar-Or, Y., Dor, I., and Yisraeli, T., 1989, The role 

of cyanobacteria in stabilization of sand dunes in southern 

Israel: Ecologia Mediterranea, v. 15, p. 55-64.

Elzinga, C.L., Salzer, D.W., and Willoughby, J.W., 1998, 

Measuring and monitoring plant population: Bureau of 

Land Management, Technical Reference BLM/RS/ST-98/

005+1730, 477 p.

Entwistle, P.G., DeBolt, A.M., Kaltenecker, J.H., and Steenhof, K., compilers, 2000, Proceedings: Sagebrush Steppe 

Ecosystems Symposium: Bureau of Land Management 

Publication BLM/ID/PT-001001+1150, 145 p.

Friedel, M.H., 1991, Range condition assessment and the concept of thresholds: a viewpoint: Journal of Range Management, v. 44, p. 422-426.

Kaltenecker, J.H., Wicklow-Howard, M., and Pellant, M., 

1999, Biological soil crusts: natural barriers to Bromus tectorum L. establishment in the northern Great Basin, USA, 

in Eldridge, D., and Freudenberger, D., eds., Proceedings 

of the VI International Rangeland Congress, Aitkenvale, 

Queensland, Australia, p. 109-111.

Knick, S.T., and Rotenberry, J.T., 1995, Landscape characteristics of fragmented shrubsteppe habitats and breeding 

passerine birds: Conservation Biology, v. 9, p. 1059-1071.

Laycock, W.A., 1991, Stable states and thresholds of range 

condition of North American rangelands: a viewpoint: Journal of Range Management, v. 44, p. 427-433.

Marble, J.R., and Harper, K.T., 1989, Effect of timing of grazing on soil-surface cryptogamic communities in Great Basin 

low-shrub desert: a preliminary report: Great Basin Naturalist, v. 49, p. 104-107.

Memmott, K.L., Anderson, V.J., and Monsen, S.B., 1998, 

Seasonal grazing impact on cryptogamic crusts in a cold 

desert ecosystem: Journal of Range Management , v. 51, p. 

547-550.

Meyer, S.E., 1994, Germination and establishment ecology 

of big sagebrush: implications for community restoration, 

in Monsen, S.B., and Kitchen, S.G., comps., Ecology and 

Management of Annual Rangelands, Proceedings: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-GTR-313, p. 244-251.

Monsen, S.B., 1994, The competitive influences of cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum) on site restoration, in Monsen, S.B., and 

Kitchen, S.G., comps., Ecology and Management of Annual 

Rangelands, Proceedings: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-GTR-313, p. 

43-50.

Pellant, M., 1990, The cheatgrass-wildfire cycle—are there 

any solutions? in McArthur, E.D., Ronmey, E.M., Smith, 

S.D., and Tueller, P.T., comps., Symposium on cheatgrass 

invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology 

and management, Proceedings: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-276, p. 

11-18.

Pyke, D.A., and Borman, M.M., 1993, Problem analysis for 

the vegetation diversity project: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Report 

OR-936-01, 100 p.

Reeves, F.B., Wagner, D., Moorman, T., and Kiel, J., 1979, 

The role of endomycorrhizae in revegetation practices in the 

semi-arid west, I, A comparison of incidence of mycorrhizae in severely disturbed vs. natural environments: American Journal of Botany, v. 66, p. 6-13.

Roundy, B.A., and Call, C.A, 1988, Revegetation of arid and 

semiarid rangelands, in Tueller, P.T., ed., Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and management: 

Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 

p. 607-635.

Roundy, B.A., Shaw, N.L., and Booth, D.T., 1997, Using 

native seeds on rangelands, in Shaw, N.L., and Roundy, 

B.A., comps., Using seeds of native species on rangelands, 

Proceedings: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-GRT-372, p. 1-8.

Sonnemann, D., Shane, R., Evans, R.A., and Young, J.A., 

1981, Crested wheatgrass production costs for northern 

Nevada, 1981: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension 

Service Economic Fact Sheet E-28-81. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1996, Status of the 

interior Columbia basin: summary of scientific findings: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-385, 144 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), 1996a, Effects of 

military training and fire in the Snake River Birds of Prey 

National Conservation Area: BLM/IDARNG Research 

Project Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

Research Division, Snake River Field Station, Boise, ID.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), 1996b, Sampling 

vegetation attributes: U.S. Department of the Interior, 
 13

Bureau of Land Management, BLM Technical Reference 

BLM/RS/ST-96/002+1730, 163 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), 1997, Idaho standards for rangeland health and guidelines for livestock grazing management: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Publication No. BLM/ID/PT-97/

002+4120, 18 p. [Also available at http://www.id.blm.gov/

publications/data/SGFinal.pdf].

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), 1999, Out of 

ashes, an opportunity: Boise, Id., U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Office of Fire and 

Aviation, 28 p. [Also available at http://www.fire.blm.gov/

textdocuments/pub262.pdf].

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), 2000, The Great 

Basin: healing the land: Boise, Id., U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Office of Fire and 

Aviation, 36 p. [Also available at http://www.fire.blm.gov/

textdocuments/gbrepor.pdf].

West, N.E., 1988, Intermountain deserts, shrub steppes, and 

woodlands, in Barbour, M.G., and Billings, W.D., eds., 

North American Terrestrial Vegetation: New York, N.Y., 

Cambridge University Press, p. 210-230.

Westoby, M.B., Walker, B., and Noy-Meir, I., 1989, Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium: 

Journal of Range Managment, v. 37, p. 262-264.

Young, J.A., 1988, Seedbeds as selective factors in the species 

composition of rangeland communities in Tueller, P.T., ed., 

Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and 

management: The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p. 171-188.

REFERENCES
14 STRATEGIC PLAN - COORDINATED INTERMOUNTAIN RESTORATION PROJECT

Published in the Central Region, Lafayette, Louisiana.

USGS Publishing Staff: Charron, T., Davis, R., Farris, G., Lauritzen, S., 

Vairin, B.

Johnson Controls, Inc. Staff: Sundvall, E., Trahan, N., Wiggins, L.

Appendix. Prioritized Communities and Species for Management

Prioritized Historical Plant Communities for Restoration

(generally in 6-14 inch [15-36 cm] annual precipitation zones)

Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata

Shadscale Atriplex confertifolia

Low sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula

Basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Prioritized Invasive Plants for Control

Exotic Annual Grasses

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

Medusahead wildrye Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Perennial Herbs (secondary to annual grass invasion)

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea

Prioritized Life Forms and Native Plants for Restoration

Common Name Taxa Priority

Native Forbs (need basic germination and establishment information)

Mountain-dandelion Agoseris High

Milkvetch Astragalus High

Hawksbeard Crepis High

Biscuit-root Lomatium High

Lupine Lupinus High

Buckwheat Eriogonum Medium

Globemallow Sphaeralcea Medium

Penstemon Penstemon Low

Balsamroot Balsamorhiza Low

Native Grasses (local ecotype identification and selection)

Thurber’s needlegrass Achnatherum thurberianum High

Great Basin wildrye Elymus cinereus High

Bottlebrush squirreltail Elymus elymoides High

Needle-and-thread Hesperostipa comata High

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata High

Native Shrubs (enhancing seed production in wildland locations and 

developing strategies for managing wildland areas for seed production and 

collection)

Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis High

Shadscale Atriplex confertifolia High

Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus, High

C. viscidiflorus

Winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata High

Basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata Medium

Low sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula Low

Pyke, David A—Strategic Plan for the CIRP—USGS/BRD/ITR—2002–0011

Printed on recycled paper