Research Plan for Lands Administered

by the U.S. Department of the Interior

in the Interior Columbia Basin and

Snake River Plateau

Information and Technology Report

USGS/BRD/ITR-2002-0003

June 2002

science for a changing world science for a changing world science for a changing world

U.S. Department of Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Copies of this publication are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, Virginia 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 703-487-4650). Copies are also available to registered users from

the Defense Technical Information Center, Attn.: Help Desk, 8725 Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir, Virginia

22060-6218 (1-800-225-3842 or 703-767-9050).

A limited number of hard copies are available from the senior author; an electronic version of the text is available on the Internet at http://fresc.usgs.gov/.

Cover photo Credits: Front cover - Great Basin National Park, Erik Beever, USGS; bull trout, Russ Thurow,

USDA - Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; collared lizard, Great Basin National Park; sage grouse,

©Terry Steele. Back cover – Steens Mountain (lower right), Tamzen Stringham, Oregon State University. Others are

public domain.

Biological Science Reports ISSN 1081-292X

This series records the significant findings resulting from

sponsored and co-sponsored research programs. They may

include extensive data or theoretical analyses. Papers in

this series are held to the same peer-review and high

quality standards as their journal counterparts.

Information and Technology Reports ISSN 1081-2911

These reports are intended for publication of book-length

monographs; synthesis documents; compilations of conference and workshop papers; important planning and

reference materials such as strategic plans, standard operating procedures, protocols, handbooks, and manuals; and

data compilations such as tables and bibliographies.

Papers in this series are held to the same peer-review and

high quality standards as their journal counterparts.

Technical Report Series

The Biological Resources Division publishes scientific and technical articles and reports resulting from the research

performed by our scientists and partners. These articles appear in professional journals around the world. Reports are

published in two report series: Biological Science Reports and Information and Technology Reports.

Series Descriptions

Recycled

Paper
Research Plan for Lands Administered

by the U.S. Department of the Interior

in the Interior Columbia Basin and

Snake River Plateau

Information and Technology Report

USGS/BRD/ITR-2002-0003

June 2002

by

Erik A. Beever

David A. Pyke

with contributions from

Robert Gresswell

Susan M. Haig

Steve Knick

Edward Starkey

U.S. Geological Survey

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

Corvallis, Oregon

in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Fish & Wildlife Service

National Park Service

Bureau of Reclamation
ii

Suggested citation:

Beever, E.A., and D.A. Pyke. 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. 76 pp.
iii

Contents

Page

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

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Implementation of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

on DOI Lands: Step-down Process, Socioeconomic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

General Overview of the Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Biophysical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Dominant Vegetation Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Background Information Specific to Each of the Plan's Major Research Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Rangeland Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Exotic Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Wildfire Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Herbivory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Expansion of Western Juniper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Restoration Across DOI Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Broad-scale Assessment of Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Issues of Particular Concern for Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Aquatic-Terrestrial Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Special-status Fish Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Development of Protocols for Adaptive Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Extent of Current Knowledge and Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Monitoring Across Several Spatial Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Reasons for Limited Success of Past Monitoring Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Aspects of Design and Analysis for Monitoring Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Species and Habitats at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Terrestrial Upland Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Ecological Roles and Trends of Endangerment, by Taxon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Genetic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Rangeland Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Exotic Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Fire and its Effects on Ecosystem Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Biological Soil Crusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Assessment of Status and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Response to Disturbance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
iv

Restoration across DOI Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Landscape Ecology: Habitat Fragmentation, Connectivity, Boundary Effects . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Native Plant Communities in the Face of Encroachment by Exotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Effects of Invasive Plants on Native Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Restoration Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Aquatic-Terrestrial Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Multi-scale Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Spring Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Development of Monitoring and Implementation Protocols for Adaptive Management . . . . . . .42

Overarching Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Riparian Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Testing Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Habitats and Species at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Habitats at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Expansion of Western Juniper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Other Habitats at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Species at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

General Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

USFWS High-priority Species or Groups and their Management Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Salmon Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Research Issues of National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Appendix A. Research Needs of DOI Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Appendix B. Scientist FTE's, by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

Appendix C. Estimated Personnel Needs, by Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Appendix D. Estimated Project Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

Appendix E. List of Common and Scientific Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Figures

Number Page

1 Classification of ecological integrity in subbasins (4th-field hydrologic units) of the 

Interior Columbia Basin and of portions of the Klamath Basin and Great Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2 Expanded conceptual model for habitats of arid ecosystems, showing measurable 

attributes that represent candidate indicator variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

3 Historical distribution of six key salmonid species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

4 Current distribution of six key salmonid species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

5 General rangeland successional and disturbance processes, including altered sagebrush-steppe . . . . . .10

6 A list of key issues to address sequentially in the design of a prospective monitoring program. . . . . .18

7 Conceptual model demonstrating the relationship of management to monitoring under 

an adaptive-management approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

8 Relationships among monitoring, assessments, decisions, and implementation in a general 

planning model for ecosystem management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

9 Hierarchical division of hydrological drainage areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Research Plan for Lands Administered by the 

U.S. Department of the Interior in the 

Interior Columbia Basin and Snake River Plateau

By

Erik A. Beever1

and

David A. Pyke

U.S. Geological Survey

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

3200 SW Jefferson Way

Corvallis, Oregon USA 97331

Abstract: This document presents a long-term research strategy designed to address current and future research

needs for management of Department of the Interior-administered ecosystems in the Intermountain West. Although

the research plan was developed in the context of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, the

plan addresses many high-priority issues facing land managers throughout the Intermountain West. These issues

pose management challenges that may be addressed with applied research both currently and in upcoming decades.

Possessing a particular focus on semiarid ecosystems, the plan is a collection of research questions under five categories of research emphases: 1) restoration; 2) rangeland health; 3) aquatic-terrestrial connections; 4) development

of monitoring and evaluation protocols; and 5) species and habitats at risk.

The goal of the research strategy is to provide ideas for integrating emerging scientific understanding into

future management in order to restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and ecological integrity; provide

consistent management direction over broad spatial and temporal scales; emphasize adaptive management over the

long term; restore and maintain habitats for plant and animal species; and support economic and social needs of

people, without compromising the above goals. Research questions are prioritized into three categories based on

the immediacy of their need, feasibility of addressing the question rigorously under varying funding budgets, and

magnitude of risk posed by not addressing the issue. The research strategy is intended to support and integrate with

existing management efforts and strategies. As such, it melds observational studies with experimental manipulation, treating management actions as experiments whenever feasible. 

The research strategy focuses on disturbance processes and events that have been the primary drivers of

change, to provide a predictive model for future changes. These drivers include fire, nonnative plants, herbivory,

roads and associated human influences, and climate change. Whereas management in the western United States has

striven to move from an inefficient species-based approach to a habitat-based approach, the plan focuses on

ecosystem function and ecological processes as critical measures of habitat response. Because of the large amount

and contiguity of public lands in the western United States, the region presents both a compelling opportunity to

implement landscape-level science and a challenge to understand a relatively understudied region that is expected

to contribute heavily to national biotic integrity in the future.

Key Words: prioritized research needs, public lands management, Intermountain West, arid ecosystems, rare

species, restoration, monitoring, rangeland health, aquatic habitats.

1Contact: erik_beever@usgs.gov; (541) 758-7785; FAX (541) 758-7761

OVERVIEW

The Interior Columbia Basin encompasses 125 million acres (50.6 million ha) in eastern Oregon, eastern

Washington, Idaho, and western Montana, and more

than half of the Basin is managed by federal agencies.

Within this area, Department of the Interior (DOI)

agencies are responsible for management of 37 wildlife

refuges and hatcheries, numerous Bureau of Reclamation

reservoirs and watersheds, 15 American Indian reservations, 11 National Park Service units, and 26 million

acres (10.5 million ha) of land across 10 Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) districts. Research is needed to

address management challenges associated with the 

current condition of public lands in the western United

States. For example, 51% of BLM- and Forest Service

-administered lands in the Basin have low ecological

integrity, compared with only 23% that possess high

integrity (Figure 1). Because of the large amount and

contiguity of public lands in the western United States,

the region presents both a compelling opportunity to

implement landscape-level science and a challenge to

understand a relatively understudied region that is

expected to contribute heavily to national biotic integrity

in the future.

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 3

WASHINGTON

OREGON

Subbasin Borders

Major Road

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project EIS Border

Low

Moderate

High

50 0 50 100 50 miles

50 0 50 100 150 km

OREGON IDAHO

CALIFORNIA NEVADA UTAH

CANADA

WASHINGTON IDAHO MONTANA

WYOMING

Fig. 1. Classification of ecological integrity in subbasins (4th-field hydrologic units) of the Interior Columbia Basin and of portions

of the Klamath Basin and Great Basin. Composite ratings of ecological integrity synthesized integrity ratings of forest, rangeland,

forest and rangeland hydrologic, and aquatic component classifications, and were compared against knowledge of actual onthe-ground conditions. Classifications are based on average trends of subwatershed composite departure from the historical

range of variability (based in turn on vegetation composition, structure, size, proximity to other patches of vegetation, and succession and disturbance processes), aquatic habitat conditions, and road density. Adapted from USDA and USDI (2000a).
This document presents a long-term research strategy

designed to address current and future research needs for

management of semiarid DOI-administered ecosystems in

the Intermountain West. Although the Research Plan

(hereafter, Plan) was developed in the context of the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project,

the Plan addresses many high-priority issues facing land

managers throughout the Intermountain West. Research

needs in forested ecosystems are being addressed extensively by the U.S. Forest Service; therefore, scientists

and managers at a joint meeting in June 1999 agreed

that this research strategy should focus particularly (but

not exclusively) on rangelands. 

At the request of the constituent agencies participating in the June 1999 meeting, the Plan contains five categories of research emphases: 1) restoration; 2) rangeland

health; 3) aquatic-terrestrial connections; 4) development

of monitoring and evaluation protocols; and 5) species

and habitats at risk. Sections of the Plan that address

specific research needs of each DOI agency are listed in

Appendix A. The ultimate goal of the research strategy

is to provide ideas for integrating emerging scientific

understanding into future management in order to

• Restore and maintain long-term ecosystem

health and ecological integrity;

• Provide consistent management direction over

broad spatial and temporal scales; 

• Emphasize adaptive management over the

long term;

4 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003

Fig. 2. Expanded conceptual model for habitats of arid ecosystems, showing measurable attributes that represent candidate indicator variables. Natural and human-caused processes affect components of biological diversity through their effects on ecosystem properties at several spatial scales. Adapted from Hemstrom et al. (1999).
• Restore and maintain habitats for plant and

animal species;

• Support economic and social needs of people,

without compromising the above goals.

We provide background information, extracted from

Interior Columbia Basin science assessments and reports,

as well as from primary literature sources. This contains

relevant information about the region as a whole, as well

as information specific to each of the five research foci.

The information is intended to familiarize readers with

species, habitats, communities, ecosystems, and major

drivers of change in the interior Columbia River, Snake

River, Klamath, and Great Basins. 

The research strategy focuses on disturbance

processes and events that have been the primary drivers

of change, to provide a predictive model for future

changes. These drivers include fire, invasive weeds,

herbivory, roads and associated human influences, and

climate change. Whereas management has striven to

move from an inefficient species-based approach to a

habitat-based approach, the Plan focuses on ecosystem

function and ecological processes as critical measures

of habitat response (Figure 2). However, single species

(e.g., sage grouse) that are both highly charismatic and

assumed to act as umbrellas for other taxa within a

habitat type receive special attention in a few cases.

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 5

WASHINGTON

OREGON

Fig. 3. Historical distribution of six key salmonid species (bull, westslope cutthroat, Yellowstone cutthroat, and redband trout;

steelhead; and chinook salmon) in watersheds and subwatersheds of the northern Intermountain West. This distribution represents the speculated potential range of species before European settlement. Ranges were characterized from historical distributions in preexisting databases (created by expected distributions modified by professional judgment) and augmented with

selected published and anecdotal accounts. Adapted from USDA and USDI (2000a).
For each research issue, the Plan provides a broad

framework of questions within which specific questions

and hypotheses can be designed. Information regarding

the need and importance of research also accompanies

each issue. Research questions in the Plan possess designations to guide prioritization. Designations reflect

the magnitude and immediacy of the research need, as

well as the relative risk associated with not undertaking

the research. 

The Rangeland Health section explores the role of

exotic weeds in shaping community dynamics of plants, 

biophysical dynamics of soils, and the factors that

determine weed distributions. Also included are investigations of how fire affects various components of

ecosystems, and how the dynamics of prescribed fires

compare with those of wildfires. We propose research

that addresses ecological roles of biological soil crusts

(i.e., soil-surface mosses, lichens, and bacteria) and

their response to various disturbances. Status and trends

of various groups such as bats, sagebrush-dependent

species, and wild horses also receive attention.

Active restoration has been proposed as the most

effective means to address the deteriorated structure,

composition, and function of ecosystems of the Interior

Columbia Basin. An important element of restoration is

the spatial relationships among habitats. Accordingly,

6 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003

WASHINGTON

OREGON

Fig. 4. Current distribution of six key salmonid species (bull, westslope cutthroat, Yellowstone cutthroat, and redband trout;

steelhead; and chinook salmon) in watersheds and subwatersheds of the northern Intermountain West. This distribution was

determined through the classification of subwatersheds (6th-field hydrologic units) by private, agency, and tribal fishery biologists, and augmented with information from existing electronic databases maintained by state and federal agencies, and other

sources. Adapted from USDA and USDI (2000a).
the Restoration section suggests research on spatial

ecology to support the establishment and maintenance

of native diversity at landscape to regional scales.

Effects of habitat fragmentation, connectivity via corridors, and characteristics of habitat patches are also

investigated. We suggest research to support the development of techniques and spatial strategies to address

the key roles played by beavers, amphibians, and exotic

plants across habitat types. 

The Aquatic-Terrestrial Interface section recognizes

the connection of habitats within and across watersheds,

and between riparian/wetland and upland areas. Our

focus centers on natural and management-induced disturbance processes as drivers of change, and again we

adopt an integrative, landscape-level approach to assess

their effects. Spring- and stream-dwelling invertebrates,

amphibians, and aquatic nuisance species are investigated as indicators of aquatic health. 

Although management and ecological research are

shifting toward broader areas and longer time scales,

few efforts have been able to integrate meaningful monitoring and analysis across these scales. The Monitoring

for Adaptive Management section addresses agencies’

need to find reliable indicators that may be economically and efficiently sampled across various spatial scales.

The section addresses biological response to climate

change, spatial prioritization of monitoring and restoration efforts, assessment of the adequacy of different

sampling strategies, and explicit testing of assumptions.

Proposed research also addresses effects of decreased

water availability and numerous recreational activities

on aquatic resources.

Species and habitats at risk are addressed through

research that strives to move from single-species

approaches for resource management and conservation to

habitat- or functional group-based approaches. Habitats

particularly at risk include sagebrush-steppe areas,

springs, ephemeral wetlands, and areas affected by either

road networks or expansion of western juniper and other

woody species. Focal species include narrowly distributed

rare fishes, key salmonids (i.e., trout and salmon; Figures

3 and 4), wide-ranging top predators, and listed and candidate species on individual DOI management units.

Many research issues in the Plan require collaboration across political and disciplinary boundaries, and

involve mapping, hydrological, geomorphological, and

biological expertise (see Appendix B). U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS), with its multidisciplinary structure, is

well suited to provide rigorous, integrated science information relevant to management in the Interior

Columbia Basin. Furthermore, the Plan includes many

issues that are national-level priorities for USGS, including water quality, invasive species, fire hazards, global

change, GAP analysis, species at risk, and status and

trends. The research strategy is proposed as a multidisciplinary framework of at least 10 years’ duration, at a level

of approximately $7 million per year to address all questions contained within the proposed framework. Potential

cooperators and partners have been identified and included in shaping the strategy.

The Plan is intended to support and integrate with

existing management efforts and strategies. As such, it

melds observational studies with experimental manipulation, treating management actions as experiments

whenever feasible. Consequently, numerous issues of

research design are described as essential components

to a successful research strategy. The Plan recognizes

the dynamic and unpredictable nature of ecosystems,

and explicitly allows for a range of outcomes rather

than an unvarying endpoint.

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 7
BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Introduction

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Plan (ICBEMP) owes its beginning to the

Northwest Forest Plan, which was initiated in the early

1990s in response to controversy regarding management

of old forests and associated species on federal lands in

the Pacific Northwest. Issues such as management of old

forests, anadromous fishes, riparian areas, and forest

health spawned a similar controversy in the interior 

portion of the Pacific Northwest. This occurred because

traditional U.S.D.A. Forest Service (FS) and U.S.D.I.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approaches that

addressed single-resource issues often produced disparate

and conflicting management prescriptions. Thus, in July

1993, the President directed the FS to “develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for management” of forests in Oregon and Washington located east

of the crest of the Cascade Range. The BLM joined the

effort later in 1993 to work with the FS on the Eastside

and Columbia Basin draft Environmental Impact

Statements. By 1996 and 1997, scientific assessments

were produced that examined historical and current ecological, social, and economic systems on all lands in the

project area, which included portions of seven states.

Subsequently, numerous management options were 

proposed to address the challenges posed by the results of 

the assessment, and three of the options (including continuation of current management strategies) remained feasible options in the Supplemental Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (USDA and USDI 2000a).

In June 1999, biologists and managers from several

management and research agencies met to devise a

research strategy for lands administered by DOI in the

Interior Columbia Basin Plan area. Because ICBEMP

has often given greater attention to forested systems in

the Basin, constituent agencies agreed that the research

strategy should focus particularly on rangelands,

although not exclusively. The participants specified

major issues that resource managers will face in implementing ICBEMP, and identified five categories of

research emphases: 1) restoration; 2) rangeland health;

3) aquatic-terrestrial connections; 4) development of

monitoring and evaluation protocols; and 5) species and

habitats at risk. Potential cooperators and partners identified include BLM, FS, USGS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS), National Park Service (NPS),

Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS), Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), non-governmental organizations (e.g.,

The Nature Conservancy), universities, agricultural experiment stations, and Native American tribes, among others.

The geographic domain pertaining to the Plan

includes portions of Oregon and Washington east of the

Cascade Range, and the parts of Idaho and Montana that

are drained by the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In effect,

all of Idaho except its extreme southeastern corner is

included, as is the northwestern corner of Montana west

of the continental divide and north of Butte. The Plan is

designed to address information needs of all Department

of Interior agencies (i.e., BLM, USFWS, NPS, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Reclamation). However,

because (as stated above) issues relating to BLMadministered lands have not been well addressed in

research strategies proposed by the FS, special attention

is afforded to the lower-precipitation (1.6–4.7 in./yr; 4–12

cm/yr), lower-elevation lands that comprise rangelands in

the interior Columbia River Basin, upper Klamath Basin,

and northern Great Basin (hereafter collectively referred

to as “the Basin”). Ultimately, however, effectiveness of

research and management on public lands in the region

will hinge upon strategic, landscape-scale collaboration

with FS research, and upon coordinated effort among

DOI bureaus to address common research interests.

Implementation of the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Plan on DOI

Lands: Step-down Process,

Socioeconomic Considerations

The focus of future management and research is to

promote sustainable ecosystems through maintenance,

protection, or restoration of habitats. Sustainable ecosystems maintain a characteristic diversity of major

functional groups, productivity, soil fertility, and rates

of geochemical cycling, over the normal cycle of 

disturbance events (Chapin et al. 1996). Management

decisions (e.g., determination of stocking rates) for any

particular area will continue to be made locally through

the land-use planning process for each BLM resource

area, wildlife refuge, or national park. Information from

multiple scales will be integrated to aid decision-making

through a step-down process, such that commitments of

actions to meet broad-scale objectives occur only after

local conditions are considered (USDA and USDI

2000a). Three tiers of more focused analyses include

subbasin review [a mid-scale assessment: 800,000- to

8 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
1,000,000-acre (300,000 to 400,000 ha) drainage areas]

ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale [10,000-

to 100,000-acre (4,000 to 40,000 ha) drainage areas,

usually watersheds or subwatersheds], and site-specific

analysis (the level of most management activities, typically resulting in a National Environmental Policy Act

[NEPA] process). These three levels of analysis will

provide the primary means for setting landscape and

project goals and objectives.

At the fine-scale level of individual allotments, it

may be challenging to implement significant change in

livestock grazing practices. Many ranchers’ families have

grazed livestock in the region for several generations,

although as ranchers grow older, more operators leave the

profession than enter it (Haynes and Horne 1997). In the

Basin, BLM permittees manage operations that are generally more profitable and significantly larger than are those

of non-permittees (Haynes and Horne 1997). Dependency

of the livestock industry on forage from BLM and FS

lands averages 7% across the Basin, ranging from 1% to

12% among economic subregions and from ~0 to 40%

among individual counties (Frewig-Runyon 1995, Haynes

and Horne 1997). Economic dependence of communities

on industries such as livestock grazing, mining, and

recreation is highest in areas that are geographically

isolated and offer few opportunities for alternative

employment (Haynes and Horne 1997). Because of

lower beef cattle prices and higher production costs, the

fee for grazing on public lands has stayed at the legal

minimum of $1.35 per AUM since 1996 (USDA and

USDI 2000a). The number of cattle grazing on public

lands is predicted to decline by about 1% per year for

the next 20 years, as a result of herd reductions to avoid

resource damage; declining economic feasibility of livestock grazing; and implementation of recovery plans for

federally listed species (Haynes and Horne 1997).

Nonetheless, complete elimination of livestock grazing

is neither projected nor recommended at the broad

scale, because elimination of grazing disturbance may

1) increase incidence of wildfire in some systems

(Young and Evans 1978), which is especially problematic in areas where fire is not desirable; 2) disrupt the

economic and social needs of rural residents for federal

resource products; and 3) depart from the existence of

at least minimal levels of grazing in the Basin throughout time (Mack and Thompson 1982). 

General Overview of the Basin

Biophysical Background

Volcanism, plate tectonics, glaciation, weathering,

erosion, and sedimentation occurring over millions of

years have provided the physical foundation for the 

evolution of the ecological relationships currently

observed in the Basin. Furthermore, the physiographic

environment dictates ecological potential, response to 

disturbances, and management options. Overlaid on this

template is the inherent stochasticity in environmental

(particularly climatic) conditions. For example, although

all areas in the Basin experience irregularly occurring

droughts, more arid ecosystems generally are affected

most strongly by drought (Barry and Chorley 1982).

Whereas succession and disturbance regimes on forested

lands have been most dramatically altered by timber harvest, road development, and fire exclusion, disturbance

regimes on arid lands have been altered most dramatically

by the introduction of exotic plants, excessive livestock

grazing, and fire suppression (Figure 5; Hann et al. 1997).

Biophysical templates on rangelands in the West have

changed more significantly than have templates on

forests or mixed lands, largely as a result of agricultural

development (Hann et al. 1997)

Establishment of shrubs and other perennial plants in

arid and semiarid habitats may be episodic and dependent

upon periods of above-average precipitation (Shaw and

Haferkamp 1994). In the Basin, frequency of drought,

favorable periods of precipitation for establishment

(defined as precipitation >110% of average for more than

2 years), and variability in precipitation all increase as

aridity increases (MacMahon 1980, Osmond et al.

1990, Leonard et al. 1995). Because timing of wetter

periods is unpredictable and because many of the

Basin’s rangelands receive low amounts (7.9-14.2 in.;

20–36 cm annual average) of precipitation overall,

potential for restoration success clearly varies across 

the Basin (Miles and Karl 1995, Hann et al. 1997).

Furthermore, especially in areas that normally experience

high levels of inherent environmental stress, management-induced stresses may exacerbate the effects of

harsh or variable climate on ecosystems. For example,

Hann et al. (1997) suggest that recovery potential for

native vegetation, soil integrity, and ecological processes decrease from areas of >11.8 in. (30 cm) annual precipitation to areas between 9.8-11.8 in. (25 to 30 cm)

annual precipitation to areas receiving <9.8 in. (25 cm)

annually. Soils that are naturally susceptible to erosion

by wind or water, have high salinity, are sodic, or

shrink or swell upon wetting and drying also appear

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 9
especially vulnerable to management-induced stress.

Soil types of highest susceptibility occur in southeastern

Oregon and across southern Idaho, and to a lesser

extent in southern Washington.

Soils are determined primarily by climate, geologic

parent material, vegetation, local topography, and the

age of the soil (Brady 1974). Soils provide six valuable

ecosystem services: 1) buffering and moderation of 

the hydrological cycle; 2) physical support of plants; 

3) retention and delivery of nutrients to plants; 4) recycling of wastes and dead organic matter; 5) renewal of

soil fertility; and 6) regulation of major element cycles

(Daily et al. 1997). Soils in the Basin are generally

young and thin, such that critical soil processes like

nutrient cycling, infiltration, and percolation, occur in

the top few inches to feet (centimeters to decimeters) of

soil (Hann et al. 1997). Because precipitation during the

growing season is generally low on DOI lands in the

Basin, water-holding capacity of soils is critical in

determining ecosystem response to various disturbances

(Hann et al. 1997). 

Soil productivity across the Basin is generally

declining, due to improper implementation of vegetation

management activities, road construction and maintenance, and excessive livestock grazing (Hann et al.

1997). While soil properties and function can be compromised in as little as one month of disturbance (Weltz

et al. 1989), recovery of soils in the Basin from compaction has been estimated to require several decades 

to centuries (Knapp 1989; Hann et al. 1997), and regeneration of one inch of topsoil may require 200 to 1,000

years (Pimentel et al. 1993). For example, soil compaction due to heavy equipment, vehicles, pedestrian

activity, and excessive livestock grazing often reduces

the porosity, permeability, and hydrologic conductivity

of soils, thereby increasing surface erosion (Hann et al.

1997). Erosion may also result from concentration of

water in roads near riparian areas and from increased

soil exposure such as loss of biological soil crusts

(Jones et al. 2000a). Similarly, although fire can make

nutrients more readily available to newly establishing

plants, fire can also change surface soil characteristics,

increase erosion rates, and can consume organic matter

from soils. Soil material has been lost via erosion and

through direct displacement of soils (e.g., for use in

agriculture or as “fill dirt”). 

Dominant Vegetation Groups

Rangelands in the Basin are composed primarily of

two vegetation groups, dry grass and dry shrub. From

historical to current times, the geographical extent of

dry grass habitats decreased from 9% to 4% of the

10 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003

Fig. 5. General rangeland successional and disturbance

processes (includes altered sagebrush steppe). There are

three common pathways of succession in the sagebrush

steppe. Pathway A represents succession from a grassland

to a shrub-grass-dominated plant community, with fire acting

to move the shrub-grass-community back to a grassland.

This type of succession follows the climax model of plant

succession. Pathway B represents succession of a shrubgrass-dominated plant community to either a woodland

(dominated mostly by juniper) or a shrubland, and is caused

by a reduction in fire occurrence. The dense shrub or woodland plant community can re-enter Pathway A if native

perennial understory plants are sufficient to establish themselves following a wildfire, or it could move into Pathway C if

the understory plants are mostly introduced annuals such as

cheatgrass following a wildfire. Pathway C represents succession of a shrub-grass or woodland-shrub-grass-dominated plant community to a community dominated by introduced

annual grasses, characterized by an increase in fire occurrence. Once dominated by introduced annual grasses, the

community tends to remain this way because of frequent fire

and competition from the introduced annual grasses, which

prevents shrubs and native perennial grasses from establishing. This type of succession follows the model of plant succession known as state and transition. Figure and legend

adapted from Vavra et al. (1994).
Basin, largely due to habitat conversion on non-federal

lands (Hann et al. 1997). Dry grass areas (e.g., fescue

grasslands, fescue grasslands with conifers, wheatgrass

grasslands) are the second-most vulnerable vegetation

type to invasion by exotic plants, and are affected most

notably by cheatgrass, yellow starthistle, spotted knapweed, and dalmatian toadflax. However, the degree to

which these and other exotic plants (including seeded

exotics such as wheatgrasses) affect ecosystems varies

considerably across the Basin. Particularly within the

upland herblands, native bunchgrasses have declined,

while smaller-stature native grasses (e.g., Sandberg

bluegrass) and exotic plants have increased (Hann et al.

1997). Before Euro-American settlement, fire-return

intervals in dry grass habitats ranged from 5 to 75 years,

and most fires were such that herbaceous vegetation

returned after a fire (Figure 5; Hann et al. 1997). In contrast, most current fires produce a mix of lethal and

non-lethal outcomes (i.e., burning of the upper vegetative

layer of shrubs, trees, or both). These mixed-fire events

historically occurred only where shrub or woodland

cover types existed within dry grass areas, but now they

occur more broadly, because of fire suppression (Hann

et al. 1997). Future management of dry grass habitats

will probably involve little to no use of prescribed fire

and timber harvest, but will involve greater effort to

control exotic plants.

Of the more than 150 million acres (60.7 million

ha) of sagebrush-steppe habitat that occur in western

North America, BLM manages >45 million acres

(>18.2 million ha)— about 30%— in nine western

states (USDI BLM 2000). These dry shrub habitats

have also declined from historical to current times,

from occupying 30% to occupying 21% of the Basin.

Again, this has occurred largely as a result of habitat

conversion on non-federal lands (Hann et al. 1997). As

in dry grass habitats, production of vegetation within

dry shrub areas depends greatly on precipitation

received during the fall-winter and winter-spring periods, the times of the year when most precipitation falls.

Dry shrub areas receive less precipitation than do dry

grass habitats, and the amount of precipitation varies

more drastically across years in dry shrub habitats

(Hann et al. 1997). As in dry grass areas, invasion of

upland herblands and upland shrublands by exotic

plants (especially cheatgrass, but also rush skeletonweed, medusahead, whitetop, and diffuse knapweed)

has caused a change in dominance within dry shrub

areas. As a result of fire exclusion, upland herbland

areas have also been invaded by woody species such as

sagebrush, and low sagebrush habitats have been

encroached upon by western juniper in the northern

Klamath Basin (Figure 4; Hann et al. 1997). Future

management of dry shrub habitats will probably involve

little to no use of timber harvest, but will involve

greater use of prescribed fire than in dry grass areas and

greater effort to control exotic plants than in cool shrub

habitats (Britton and Ralphs 1979, Hann et al. 1997). 

Background Information

Specific to Each of the Plan’s

Major Research Themes

Rangeland Health

Rangeland health has been defined as “the degree

to which the integrity of the soil and the ecological

processes of rangeland ecosystems are sustained”

(National Research Council 1994). In sustainable

ecosystems, the system is capable of retaining its characteristic vegetation and soils within predictable bounds

of variation, given a natural disturbance regime (Chapin

et al. 1996). More generally, ecosystem health can be

defined as the capacity of rangeland, aquatic, and forest

ecosystems to persist and perform as expected in a particular area (USDA and USDI 2000a).

Exotic Plants

The project area has been invaded by hundreds of

exotic plants during the last 100 years (Mack 1986), and

the spread of invasive plants claims approximately 4,600

acres (1,900 ha) of federal lands per day (USDI BLM

2000). As of the mid-1990s, approximately 862 exotic

species of plants inhabited the area in Washington,

Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Rice 1994).

Because many of these species are native to the

Mediterranean region, they often thrive in the similar

climate of the project area (i.e., wet, cool autumns and

winters; and hot, dry summers; Mack 1986). Agriculture

was the major means by which exotic plants initially

entered the project area, although road networks, livestock grazing, wildlife, increased deposition of CO2 and

nitrogen, and other disturbances to soil surfaces have

facilitated their establishment and spread (Bazzaz 1986,

Hann et al. 1997, Davis et al. 2000). Nonetheless,

species such as cheatgrass, spotted knapweed, yellow

starthistle, and leafy spurge have the ability to invade

even relatively undisturbed sites such as wilderness

areas and national parks (Svejcar and Tausch 1991,

Asher 1994, Kindschy 1994). At a broad spatial scale,

grasslands, riparian areas and some open forests are cover

types that are more susceptible to exotic invasions than

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 11
are montane areas, dense forests, and alkaline desert

valley floors (Hann et al. 1997). The rapid spread and

competitive nature of invasive exotic plants in the Basin

deteriorate the structure, composition, and function of

native plant and animal communities (Figure 2). These

alterations to communities are observed as a) decline in

aquatic and terrestrial habitats for wildlife; b) reduction of

forage for grazing animals; c) potential increase in surface water runoff, sediment delivery, and soil erosion;

d) decline in water quality; e) reduction in biological

diversity; and f) changes in fire cycle and disturbance

regime as they relate to succession (Figure 5; Hessburg

et al. 1999). 

Perhaps the most abundant invasive exotic plant in

the Basin is cheatgrass (Hessburg et al. 1999). Introduced

to the Basin in the 1880s from Europe, probably via contaminated grain, cheatgrass reached its current distributional extent in the 1930s and has subsequently increased

in density (Mack 1981). Ecotypic variation in cheatgrass

has allowed it to colonize diverse habitats at elevations

from 450 to 2,745 m, and areas receiving between 15 to

56 cm precipitation annually (Bradley 1986, Pyke and

Novak 1994). Characteristics of cheatgrass that facilitate

its establishment in native vegetation, particularly in disturbed areas, include high seed production, earlier germination than most native species, greater germination rate,

tolerance to grazing, and rapid reestablishment after fire

(Hulbert 1955, Mack 1981, D’Antonio and Vitousek

1992, Martens et al. 1994, Vallentine and Stevens 1994).

Wildfire Suppression

Across most of the Basin, wildfire suppression 

during the last 130 years has combined with other 

factors such as agriculture, excessive livestock grazing,

and exotic plants to cause great changes in vegetation

structure, density, and composition (Hessburg et al. 1999).

Due to suppression, wildfires now generally occur with

much less frequency (yet with greater intensity, size,

and severity). However, invasion by exotic grasses has

increased the frequency of wildfires in dry shrub and

dry grass habitats (Figure 5; Hann et al. 1997). The

consequences of fire suppression on rangelands include 

a) shifts of all vegetation types to agricultural lands; 

b) encroachment of woody species (e.g., juniper, sagebrush, ponderosa pine) into dry grass and cool shrub

areas, resulting in reduction of herbaceous cover and

species richness; c) increased density of sagebrush in dry

shrub areas; d) increased fragmentation and loss of connectivity between habitat patches; e) increased erosion; 

f) lower biodiversity; and g) lower habitat value for

wildlife species (Johnsen 1962, Young and Evans

1981, Hessburg et al. 1999). 

Roads 

Roads occupy only about 2% of the Basin’s area,

but because 39% of the Basin’s roads are located in

watersheds that are highly susceptible to erosion and

sediment transport, water quality and hydrologic function in many streams have declined substantially (Lee et

al. 1997). Roads often facilitate the spread of exotic

weeds, reduce and fragment native habitats, serve as a

barrier to many less vagile species, and increase human

disturbance by providing easier access (Swanson and

Dyrness 1975, Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Forman and

Alexander 1998, Jones et al. 2000a, Trombulak and

Frissell 2000). For example, most recreation use in the

Basin is tied to roads and accessible water bodies

(Haynes and Horne 1997, Lee et al. 1997). In rangelands, road construction has facilitated the expansion of

woody species through indirectly assisting fire suppression (as fuel breaks) and livestock grazing (Hessburg et

al. 1999). Although some road closures may occur in

the Basin in the future (particularly in forests), implementation strategies assume that “the current minimal

level of road construction on BLM lands will continue”

(USDA and USDI 2000a:16-11). In fact, very little

change in road density classes is expected during the first

decade of implementation (USDA and USDI 2000a).

Many roads on public lands were established through

repeated use by early settlers and later land managers. 

Herbivory

Herbivory by native grazers likely played a less

significant role in Basin landscapes during the

Pleistocene and early- to mid-Holocene than it does

currently (Mack and Thompson 1982, Grayson 1993,

Miller et al. 1994), as climatic changes and fires were

the primary factors influencing vegetation historically

(Hessburg et al. 1999). The introduction of domestic

sheep, cattle, and horses by Euro-Americans led to

higher grazing intensities, especially in the late 1800s

and early 1900s (Mack and Thompson 1982), creating

adverse effects, especially in riparian areas, upland 

vegetative types, and ponderosa pine forests (Hessburg

et al. 1999). In addition, human practices used with

domestic livestock (e.g., artificial maintenance of livestock at consistently high levels, fences that prevent

migration, supplemental feeding) have significantly

altered the frequency, intensity, extent, and magnitude

of grazing in semiarid communities (Archer and Smeins

1991). Nonetheless, many areas exist in the Basin in

which removal of livestock alone is unlikely to improve

ecological integrity, because transitions to altered vegetative states (e.g., encroaching junipers, areas of widespread cheatgrass and medusahead) have prevented the

12 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
possibility of return to previous conditions (Archer and

Smeins 1991, Laycock 1994, Miller et al. 1994).

Because semiarid ecosystems generally do not exhibit

succession to climax communities in the Clementsian

sense, research is needed to improve our understanding

of the conditions under which state transitions occur in

diverse vegetation communities and the inputs of

resources (i.e., active restoration treatments) needed to

shift ecosystems from less desirable states to one of

many other possible metastable configurations.

In general, excessive herbivory leading to new

states or altered system trajectories has decreased the

overall density of native grasses and increased the dominance of smaller-stature grasses and forbs (Hann et al.

1997). Continued stocking of livestock at near-normal

levels during times of moderate to severe droughts may

be the greatest cause of range deterioration and critical

thresholds being crossed in upland areas (Jardine and

Forsling 1922, Vallentine 1990). Determining how

ecosystem patterns and processes in semiarid regions

respond to bulk grazing by cattle, horses, and wapiti

(elk) constitutes a major focus area of future research

needs. Concentration of livestock in riparian areas

remains an ongoing challenge. 

Riparian areas have been particularly altered during

the last 100 years, primarily due to improper livestock

grazing practices (i.e., grazing during summer for too

great a duration or in too great a number; Hann et al.

1997), but also due to impoundments for agriculture,

historic mining, dams, channelization, insect and disease outbreaks, and introduction of exotic species.

Although season, duration, livestock type and class, distribution, and stocking rates may all be manipulated to

attempt recovery of riparian areas (Kauffman and

Krueger 1984), most cases of successful riparian

restoration have excluded livestock for two or more

years. This period of exclusion often facilitates

improvements due to improved future management

(Hann et al. 1997). Livestock in riparian areas may

affect water quality directly through deposition of fecal

material in and near surface water, causing nutrient

enrichment and contamination from bacterial and protozoan parasites, or by increasing temperatures, and suspended sediments (Behnke and Raleigh 1978, Platts

1979, Larsen 1996). Excessive livestock grazing may

alter water quality indirectly by accelerating erosion,

stream incision, and siltation; compacting soils and thus

reducing infiltration; widening and shallowing the

streambed; producing gradual stream channel trenching

or braiding; altering timing and volume of water flows;

and decreasing vigor and biomass and altering species

composition and diversity of riparian vegetation

(Kauffman and Krueger 1984, Belsky et al. 1999). In

addition to these changes, livestock can affect viability

of riparian vertebrates by eliminating nesting substrates,

altering habitat structure and composition, encouraging

cowbird expansion, and increasing exotic plants (Wales

2001). Few studies exist on how landscape-level patterns in riparian vegetation affect viability of wildlife

populations (Wales 2001).

Expansion of Western Juniper

Expansion of western juniper into mountain big

sagebrush, low sagebrush, quaking aspen, and riparian

communities has been proposed to stem from the addition of excessive livestock grazing and fire suppression

to historic disturbance regimes in the Basin (Eddleman

et al. 1994, Miller and Rose 1995). Excessive grazing

pressure, particularly in the late 1800s and early 1900s,

reduced fuels that could carry fire, and fire suppression

further decreased frequency of fires in juniper habitats

(Miller and Rose 1995, Hann et al. 1997). In contrast,

before Euro-American settlement, distribution of

juniper expanded during climatically wetter and cooler

periods and contracted during warmer and drier periods

via fire’s often-lethal effect on juniper saplings (Miller

and Wigand 1994, Hann et al. 1997). In some cases,

increased densities of juniper in the above-mentioned

communities can produce various effects on vegetative

structure and composition and ecological processes,

including a) decline in production or elimination of

understory vegetation; b) reduced forage availability

and quality of winter range for mule deer; c) potential

decline in sagebrush-obligate species; d) potentially

reduced rates of infiltration and increased runoff and

soil erosion; and e) potential decline in biodiversity at

very high juniper densities (Haugen 1993, Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993, Bates et al.

1994, Eddleman et al. 1994). As an example of the

broad-scale magnitude of change in juniper habitats,

Hann et al. (1997) estimated a 163% increase in extent

of the juniper-sagebrush cover type from circa 1850 to

1991. Sagebrush, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine

are examples of woody species that may similarly

encroach upon dry grassland or increase their dominance in dry shrubland communities, often reducing

herbaceous understory and biotic diversity (Eddleman

et al. 1994, Miller and Rose 1995).

Climate Change

Although climatic changes must be viewed from

the perspective of several temporal scales to adequately

assess trend, mounting climatological data suggest that

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 13
rapid shifts in climate (e.g., temperature, precipitation,

seasonality, increased deposition of CO2 and nitrogen)

are occurring in the United States and across the globe

(Schneider 1990, Kittel et al. 1997). A reasonable body

of theory has been put forward to predict biological

responses to changes in climate (e.g., Peters and

Darling 1985, McDonald and Brown 1992, Murphy and

Weiss 1992), although few predictions regarding biological responses have been tested across broad spatial

scales. Under presumed increases in temperature, populations are predicted to move up in elevation or latitude,

or to experience local extirpations when migration upslope or to more northern habitats is not possible. As an

example, Beever (1999) re-visited sites of historically

recorded American pika populations in the hydrographic Great Basin, and found that more than one-fourth of

the populations have suffered apparent extirpation during the latter part of the 20th century. Furthermore,

most extirpations occurred at the lowest-elevation sites,

although habitat area and proximity to roads also

appeared to contribute to greater extinction risk. 

Restoration Across DOI Lands

Definitions

One of the overarching goals of research and resulting management on federal lands is to restore and 

maintain ecological integrity and ecosystem health over

the long term. ICBEMP efforts have defined restoration in

the manner of the Society for Ecological Restoration:

“Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the

recovery and management of ecological integrity.”

Restoration may involve a mix of active and passive

approaches, and must consider the context (e.g., 

conditions in adjacent habitats, current climate) in which

restoration projects occur. The Society defines ecological

integrity as “a critical range of variability in biodiversity,

ecological processes and structures, regional and historical context, and sustainable cultural practices.” Ecological

integrity has also been defined as “a measure of the 

presence of physical and biological processes, patterns,

and functions” (USDA and USDI 2000a:2-11). National

Academy of Sciences (1974) provides more explicit 

definitions of rehabilitation, reclamation, and restoration.

Broad-scale Assessment of Conditions

Nearly three-fifths (59%) of FS- and BLM-administered lands in the Basin currently exhibit moderate (36%)

or high (23%) degrees of departure from the historical

range of variability (HRV; Morgan et al. 1994) in vegetation composition and disturbance regime, compared with

only 7% of all lands that were classified as having no

departure (Hessburg et al. 1999). Departure from HRV

compares how vegetation composition, vegetation structure, and succession/disturbance regimes differ between

current patches in a subwatershed landscape and the normal range and variability of these variables in historical

landscape patches. However, BLM lands generally exhibit

less departure from historical conditions than do privately

owned lands. Ecological integrity, as used in the

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(USDA and USDI 2000a), is based on average trends of

subwatershed composite HRV departure, road density,

and conditions of aquatic habitat. Over half (51%) of FSand BLM-administered lands in the Basin are estimated

to have low ecological integrity currently, compared

with 23% that have high integrity (Figure 1; Quigley et

al. 1996). Landscape health can be defined as “the best

fit of the dynamic interaction of human land use, biodiversity, and ecosystem health that is in balance with the

limitations of the biophysical system and inherent disturbance processes” (Hann et al. 1997, p. 918).

Although no FS- or BLM-administered lands are

believed to currently exhibit ‘high’ or ‘very high’ landscape health, 34% of these lands in the Basin have

‘very low’ health, compared with 49% exhibiting ‘low’

health and 17% exhibiting ‘moderate’ health (USDA

and USDI 2000a).

Issues of Particular Concern for Restoration

Three fundamental research needs exist with

respect to restoration: 1) understanding and defining

restoration potential (i.e., existence of alternative states

and thresholds); 2) setting goals; and 3) determining

appropriate methods to achieve restoration goals. 

At broad spatial scales, the most dramatic alteration

to biological systems is the conversion, fragmentation,

and degradation of habitats (Noss and Csuti 1994).

Regarding conversion and degradation, criteria are not

currently available to determine when the amount of

land area remaining in any given ecosystem type threatens its existence as a functioning ecological entity

(Flather and Sieg 2000). There is growing recognition

that ecosystem behavior can change abruptly in

response to a change in the environment—a pattern

called a critical threshold. Ecosystem degradation, or

loss of land within a particular successional stage, is

one ecological change that has been suggested to exhibit threshold behavior (Fahrig 1998). Accordingly, understanding when ecosystems can sustainably withstand

further area reductions, or when ecosystem processes

are not reversible, will require knowledge of when critical thresholds are being approached at landscape scales

14 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
(Flather and Sieg 2000). Because most research on

landscape fragmentation has been performed in forested

ecosystems, there is a critical need to complete studies

in rangeland ecosystems (Flather and Sieg 2000).

Research is needed to promote understanding of how

landscape patterns such as fragmentation affect species

population dynamics, dispersal, and diversity

(Lubchenco et al. 1991). Remotely sensed satellite

imagery can be used to quantify rangeland fragmentation and formulate hypotheses about specific agents of

fragmentation such as roads, concentrations of exotic

species, and intensive land uses (Flather and Sieg 2000).

The shrub-steppe region well illustrates the challenges associated with fragmentation and degradation.

Extensive areas of shrub-steppe habitat (e.g., ~60% of

shrub-steppe in Washington) have been permanently

converted to other uses such as agriculture and urban

areas (Dobler et al. 1996). Furthermore, the best sites

for healthy sagebrush communities (e.g., deep soils, and

relatively mesic conditions) are also best for agricultural

productivity. At the landscape scale, most of the

remaining shrub-steppe habitat occurs in private ownership. Few areas of extensive high-quality sagebrush

habitat remain, as brush control, intensive grazing,

invasive species (e.g. Russian olive, cheatgrass, and

other exotic annual grasses), altered fire regimes, seeding of crested wheatgrass, domestic predators (e.g., cats

and dogs), and nest parasites (e.g. brown-headed cowbird) may all reduce habitat quality for different species

(Altman and Holmes 2000). Analysis of habitat trends

across the Basin suggests that three other issues are of

high priority for seven mammal and birdsagebrush-obligate species. These issues include a) soil compaction,

erosion, and loss of microbiotic crusts; b) continued

degradation of wet meadow and riparian vegetation

adjacent to springs, seeps, and streams; and c) adverse

effects of human disturbance (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Given increasing competition among alternative

land uses and the limited amount of the terrestrial landbase dedicated to strict resource protection, when there

is choice over which areas to allocate to which protection status, the decision should be informed and in

some sense optimal (Flather and Sieg 2000). However,

rangeland ecologists do not yet know how to allocate

limited conservation areas in a way that assures comprehensive protection of ecosystem types (Flather et al.

1997). Furthermore, we do not fully understand what

degree of protection is required to sustain various

ecosystem components, and what mechanisms determine whether protection of a given rangeland type will

sustain viable populations of species in that type

(Flather and Sieg 2000). 

Biological soil crusts, composed of algae,

bryophytes, microfungi, cyanobacteria, and bacteria

growing near the soil surface, can comprise up to 80%

of the living cover in an area (Belnap 1990, Eldridge

and Greene 1994). Biotic crusts contribute to soil stability, nutrient cycling, and soil moisture, and their ecological importance is probably greatest in arid ecosystems

that have low aboveground productivity (Hann et al.

1997). Microbiotic crusts contribute to soil structure

and stability by binding soil particles within physical

structures of the microphytes (Belnap and Gardner

1993, Danin and Yaalon 1980). The resulting microtopography creates greater surface roughness, which

reduces water velocity, creates ponding, and enhances

deposition of sediment (Brotherson et al. 1983). Crusts

may exhibit competitive, mutualistic, or amensal (i.e.,

neutral) relationships with vascular plants, depending

upon phenological stage of the organisms, climate,

edaphic conditions, plant-animal interactions, and

resource management (Graetz and Tongway 1986, Meyer

1986, Beymer and Klopatek 1992). Development of soil

crusts may be compromised by any activity that disturbs

the soil surface, such as off-road vehicle use, trampling by

large animals, very frequent or severe fire, or recreational

hiking. Cyanobacteria and algae are some of the first

components to recover after disturbance, whereas

bryophytes and lichens recover more slowly (Leonard et

al. 1995, Rosentreter 1995). Much remains to be learned

of the ecological functions of microbiotic crusts, including their roles in hydrology, nutrient cycling, energy

flow, and biodiversity, their historic and potential future

distributions, and their responses in the Basin to various

types of disturbances. 

Texture and chemistry of the soil surface are the

main soil characteristics that influence potential for

crust development (Hann et al. 1997). For example,

fine-textured, mineral soils (e.g., calcareous gravelly

loams and silt loams) tend to have more microbiotic

crusts than do coarse-textured, well-drained rhyolitic

soils. In addition, sites with inherently lower densities

of herbaceous plants possess greater potential for crust

development. As exotic annual grasses increase in

abundance, they cover and shade the soil, thus reducing

photosynthesis of crust components and leading to crust

decline (Brotherson et al. 1983, Williams 1994).

Biological crusts are fragile and vulnerable to disturbance when dry (and dormant, as during summer), but

are more resilient to disturbances such as livestock

grazing during their growing season, the cool, moist

winter and late fall periods (Belnap 1993, USDA and

USDI 2000b). Many details regarding restoration of soil

crusts remain unknown, and knowledge of which comInformation and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 15
ponent species of crusts in what proportions to expect on

which soil types is fragmentary at best (Williams 1994).

The rapid expansion in the Basin of numerous

exotic plant species, whose control can exact high costs,

has led managers to adopt integrated weed management

to restore native vegetation by releasing resident perennials from the competition of exotics or revegetating the

native community. Integrated weed management

involves combining several control techniques in a

well-planned and coordinated manner to reduce impacts

of exotic plants on public lands (USDA and USDI

2000a). Although most exotic plant species entered the

Basin initially by way of agriculture, exotic plants may

be spread by livestock, pack animals, wildlife, motor

vehicles, seed mixtures, hay, wind, water, hikers, and

other means. Limiting dispersal of weed seeds, minimizing disturbance to soils, and proper management of

native vegetation are general techniques for preventing

weed spread. Because exotic plants affect not only

plant composition but also the structure, function, and

disturbance regime of plant communities, establishment (or re-establishment) of native forbs, grasses,

and shrubs is critical to preventing further degradation. Although techniques for re-establishing certain

native grasses, sagebrush, and other shrubs exist,

information is largely lacking on the restoration of

native forbs. Other formidable impediments to restoration of native habitats are the high cost and low availability of native seeds; hence, it is often cheaper and

easier to use nonnative species. 

In addition to maintaining or re-establishing 

perennial plants, management options to control weeds

include cultural control methods (e.g., management of

livestock grazing and public use, prevention of soil 

disturbance); physical control methods (e.g., “grubbing,”

mowing, plowing, hand pulling, burning); biological

control methods (e.g., introduction of species-specific

herbivores); and chemical control methods (e.g., 

herbicides, fertilization of non-target species). In order 

of decreasing importance, priorities for control include 

1) eradicating new introductions; 2) restricting expansion

of large-scale infestations; 3) controlling large-scale

infestations; 4) re-vegetating or establishing competitive

grasses (probably the best long-term strategy); and 

5) proper range management (USDA and USDI 2000a).

Considerations important in selecting control techniques

include cost; proximity to water (for chemical methods); 

specificity of herbicide or biological control agent, as it

relates to potential to negatively impact non-target

(native) species; and time to eradication, as it relates to

potential for further degradation of the site. Research is

needed to ascertain the effectiveness of multiple control

techniques and the spatial application of these techniques in coordination with native plant restoration

techniques. At a broader level, because the relative roles

of fire and livestock grazing have been altered by climate

change and exotic plant invasions, research is also needed

to clarify the potential for restoration and the importance

of various passive and active approaches within different

vegetative communities.

Aquatic-Terrestrial Interface

Approximately 444,000 km (275,890 mi) of

streams and up to 9,186 lakes occur in the Basin (Lee et

al. 1997). Healthy watersheds provide numerous

ecosystem services, including a) a high-quality, dependable supply of water; b) moderation of the effects of

flooding, drought, and climate change; c) recharge of

stream systems and groundwater aquifers; d) maintenance of diverse and productive vegetation that buffers

sediment pulses, moderates stream temperatures

through shading, and houses a diversity of watchable

wildlife; and many others (Postel and Carpenter 1997,

Williams et al. 1997). Whereas sources of disturbance in

riparian areas historically included periodic floods and

fires, beaver dams, as well as some browsing by deer,

wapiti, and pronghorn antelope, recent disturbances leading to decreased riparian function have included livestock

grazing, fire, timber harvest, conversion to crop and pastureland, road development, and dams, diversions, and

pumping (Chamberlain et al. 1991, Platts 1991). Many of

these disturbances have led to fragmentation of riparian

habitat and, consequently, uncharacteristic isolation of

aquatic organisms across the landscape. In addition,

various forms of toxic pollutants, especially acid-mine

drainage in streams, deposition of heavy-metal contaminated sediment in streams, lakes, and wetlands, and

concentration of selenium salts in irrigation drainage,

have compromised water quality and therefore biota in

riparian systems. In addition to recent disturbance, past

management activities such as homesteading and associated plowing, beaver trapping, in-stream dredging,

overgrazing, and road building have left a legacy of

altered channels by affecting rates at which sediment,

water, and wood are transported through stream channels

(Lee et al. 1997, Hessburg et al. 1999).

Across the Basin, key habitat trends identified by

analysis of 120 stream re-surveys and 6,000 recent stream

inventories include a) decreased extent and continuity of

riparian and wetland vegetation in nonforest areas; b)

decreased amount and diversity of riparian cover; c)

decreased frequency of large trees and late seral vegetation; d) 80% decrease in riparian shrublands due to

juniper invasion, conversion to riparian herblands, and

16 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
increased abundance of exotic grasses and forbs (Hann

et al. 1997, Hessburg et al. 1999). The surveys additionally found that, once variability in slope, lithology, and

vegetation was accounted for, frequency of large pools

alone and all pools combined decreased with increasing

road density and management intensity (Lee et al.

1997). 

However, stream habitat data are more available in

forested regions than in rangelands, and are practically

nonexistent in valley-bottom and agricultural areas,

because stream inventories are generally motivated by

concerns about fish habitat (Lee et al. 1997). Furthermore, most streamflow in the Basin originates from

higher-elevation FS-administered lands (Lee et al. 1997),

and Wissmar et al. (1994) believed that in eastern Oregon

and Washington, most BLM-administered lands do not

contribute significantly to streamflow. Even among

forested systems, investigation of trends in riparian 

systems is compromised by the fact that no systematic

or statistically based survey of conditions previously

existed for federal or non-federal lands. Thus, conclusions

drawn from available data may not be representative of

the region of interest, and the lack of consistent protocols

for data collection complicates analysis and interpretation of surveys across broad spatial scales. 

Sixty-six percent of inventoried BLM-administered

riparian areas in the western United States are either

“non-functioning” or “functioning at risk” (USDI BLM

1994). The goals of BLM’s Riparian-Wetland Initiative

are to 1) restore and maintain existing riparian and

wetland areas so that 75% are in “proper functioning

condition” (i.e., adequate vegetation, landforms, or

large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy

associated with high water flows); and 2) provide the

widest variety of habitat diversity for wildlife, fish,

and watershed protection (USDI BLM 1993).

Exchange of materials between aquatic and both adjacent

terrestrial habitats and near-stream aquifers (e.g., the

hyporheic zone) has been reduced by construction of

drains, ditches, and dikes, as well as by clearing

streams for boat passage (Lee et al. 1997). Similarly,

connectivity of waterways has been compromised in

part by the existence of at least 2,103 dams across the

Basin (Lee et al. 1997). In streams with impaired water

quality on BLM lands, impairment is most commonly

caused by non-point pollution consisting of high levels

of turbidity and sedimentation, and high temperatures

(Lee et al. 1997). Although the ecological integrity of

streams, lakes, and wetlands was significantly compromised by the 1920s, riparian areas have been the focus

for some of the Basin’s most successful restoration

efforts to date (Lee et al. 1997). Improvement generally

has resulted from enhanced management by

livestock-grazing permittees working collaboratively

with management agencies (Hann et al. 1997). 

Riparian Areas

Riparian areas are the most biologically diverse

habitats on federal lands, as the interface of aquatic and

terrestrial habitats brings together a diversity of structural features, and provides contrast and a water source.

Riparian areas provide food, cover, and water for over

half of the terrestrial vertebrate species in the Basin,

and up to three-quarters of species within a given area,

such as the Blue Mountains, may use riparian areas disproportionately (Bull 1977, Thomas 1979, Raedeke

1989). Because riparian areas contain increased humidity, higher transpiration rates, greater shade, and

increased air movement than surrounding (non-forested)

upland habitats, they provide thermal cover and favorable microclimates that permit species to expend lower

amounts of energy (Thomas 1979). Riparian shrubs and

trees such as cottonwood, alder, and willow are important food sources for herbivorous mammals such as

deer, wapiti, moose, beavers, hares, rabbits, and voles.

Many species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals associate strongly with aspen-cottonwood riparian

areas that contain both herbaceous and shrubby components. For example, within the Basin, 84 of the 132

species of breeding migratory birds use riparian areas

for foraging or nesting (Saab and Rich 1997). Similarly,

ecologists have only a superficial understanding of the

distribution of and threats to amphibian taxa across this

broad region that is often limited to generalized habitat

relationships (Corn 1994). Riparian areas also act as

corridors for dispersal or migration for many taxa,

including carnivores, ungulates, birds, bats, and plants

(Bull 1977, Gregory et al. 1991, Heinemeyer and Jones

1994, Vogel and Reese 1995). In addition to improper

livestock grazing—the most important influence on

riparian areas in Basin rangelands; (USDA and USDI

2000a)—riparian areas have been affected by conversion to agriculture, heavy recreational use, introduction

of exotic plant and animal species, fire exclusion, historic mining, and dams.

Wetlands

Wetlands in the Basin include marshes, ponds,

lakeshores, sloughs, wet meadows, and bogs, and range

from permanent to ephemeral in their seasonal occurrence. Wetlands are defined by three fundamental characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation; hydric (i.e., becomInformation and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 17
ing anaerobic) soils; and periodic to permanent inundation (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland

Delineation 1989). About 40% of historical wetlands

have been lost from the Basin, primarily due to losses

on private lands from past draining for pasture or cropland (Lee et al. 1997). The largest existing wetlands on

DOI lands in the planning area occupy valley bottoms

in the Upper Klamath Basin and northwestern Great

Basin. Wetlands in the southern area of the Basin serve

as critical links in migration routes for numerous waterbirds and shorebirds (Haig et al. 1998, Plissner et al.

2000), and contain many species of narrowly endemic

fishes, amphibians, aquatic snails, and other aquatic

species (Corn 1994, Lee et al. 1997). Wetlands depend

on freshwater inflow from adjacent riparian areas to

prevent increased mineralization (e.g., salts); thus,

water quality in wetlands can be compromised by

excessive “offtake” of water from source streams.

Ephemeral ponds in arid lands are often heavily altered

for the creation of guzzlers for livestock and upland game

species. Within the Basin, lake conditions have been

altered most strongly by residential development and

recreational activities such as backpacking, horse packing,

recreational vehicle use, and road and trail development

(Lee et al. 1997). Recreation has led to disturbance or

damage of beach and near-shore habitats, as well as the

introduction of non-native plants (e.g., purple loosestrife,

saltcedar, Russian olive) and animals (e.g., bullfrogs,

non-native trout). These non-native species often become

well established, and greatly influence the functional

dynamics of existing native habitats. 

Special-status Fish Species

Twenty-two of the 47 special-status fish species in

the planning area occur in the Great Basin and Klamath

Basin areas. These and other listed species on DOIadministered lands are affected most strongly by several

factors, including water withdrawal or diversion; loss of

connectivity and consequent disruption of metapopulation structure; degradation of habitat due to excessive

livestock grazing, urbanization, and upstream silvicultural practices; and introduction of 55 non-native fish

species across the Basin (Quigley et al. 1996, Lee et al.

1997, USDA and USDI 2000a). Data on distribution,

life history, and habitat relationships are generally lacking for most narrow endemics, thus hindering the understanding necessary for their management and 

conservation (Lee et al. 1997). Although many key

salmonid species inhabit DOI-administered aquatic 

habitats only along the Salmon River in Idaho, numerous

salmonid strongholds occur on DOI lands (Figures 3 and

4). The role of these lands in regional maintenance of

aquatic faunas, especially as corridors for migration, is

critical. Furthermore, current distributions of redband

trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout overlap many

BLM-administered lands in the Basin (Lee et al. 1997).

Although the projected 1.9% annual growth of the human

population across the Basin may undermine efforts to

improve aquatic integrity, aquatic conservation strategies

have highlighted the need for multi-scale approaches that

acknowledge cumulative (i.e., synergistic) effects and

metapopulation dynamics, and assume that federal lands

will bear the responsibility for sustaining biological diver18 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003

Fig. 6. A list of key issues to address sequentially in the design

of a prospective monitoring program. In an adaptive management framework, monitoring is an ongoing, iterative process,

refined over time as new understanding and insights are

gained. Adapted from Noon et al. (1999).

Fig. 7. Conceptual model demonstrating the relationship of

arrangement of monitoring under an adaptive-management

approach. The goal of monitoring is to provide feedback about

status and trends in resource condition that will be useful for

evaluating effects of management actions or regulatory practices. Adapted from Mulder and Palmer (1999).
Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 19

Fig. 8. Relationships among monitoring, assessments, decisions, and implementation in a general planning model for ecosystem

management. Because the model is iterative, internal and external influences may initiate any step in the process, and the

process is ongoing. Adapted from Quigley et al. (1996).
sity (Lee et al. 1997). Research needs for specialstatus fish include examining the effects of various 

disturbances and restoration techniques, as well as

increasing understanding of genetic diversity, stagebased survival rates, and connection of instream 

conditions to adjacent uplands. 

Development of Protocols for 

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management (Holling 1978, Brunner and

Clark 1997) provides the means to accommodate our

imperfect knowledge of natural systems and changing

conditions, through a dynamic, iterative process of

planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation

of outcomes, to adjust management strategies to meet

ecosystem objectives. Monitoring involves not only

making observations or taking measurements over time,

but also data management, assessment, and decision

making (Figure 6; Mulder and Palmer 1999).

Although the ICBEMP planning process has provided

management direction and desired outcomes for DOI

agencies at landscape and bioregional scales, the responsibility for implementing specific activities and analyses

remains with local land managers. Coordination and

collaboration with other agencies will ensure the strongest

likelihood for achieving regional biotic integrity and management goals. Opportunities for collaboration in research

related to natural resources include prioritization of

research and monitoring issues and sampling areas; selection of frequency and level of sampling; data collection,

management, inventory, and specific analytic techniques;

assessment of cumulative effects; and accountability and

credibility (USDA and USDI 2000a).

Monitoring plays a vital role in adaptive management (Figures 7 and 8), in that it is intended to detect

long-term environmental change, provide insights to the

potential ecological consequences of the change, and

help decisionmakers determine whether and how management practices should be amended (Noon et al. 1999).

Although monitoring is essential to critical evaluation

and iterative improvement of management efforts, monitoring and evaluation have typically been displaced by

a greater focus on the planning and implementation

phases of adaptive management (USDA and USDI

2000a). At the most fundamental level, monitoring is

performed because long-term human welfare is intimately tied to environmental integrity. In a practical

sense, monitoring is performed on an indicator for one

or more of the following reasons: 1) to detect differences in its value across an area at a given moment

(i.e., status); 2) to detect changes in value over time at a

given location (i.e., trend); 3) to provide information to

assess whether mandated environmental standards are

being met; or 4) to provide an early warning system of

ecological change, before unacceptable environmental

losses occur (Noon et al. 1999).

An indicator is a measured ecosystem attribute that

is assumed to indicate the quality, health, or integrity of

the larger system to which it pertains. Recognizing

meaningful change in ecosystems is complicated by the

inherently dynamic and spatially heterogeneous nature

of biotic systems. Thus, an important goal of monitoring

is filtering out the effects of expected intrinsic variability

or cycles (i.e., noise) from the effects of human-induced

patterns of change (i.e., signal) (Noon et al. 1999). The

focus of monitoring should be on disturbances and

stressors related to human activities, because they are

more likely to be amenable to management intervention

and changes in policy. 

Providing benchmarks for environmental standards

or thresholds at which to activate management responses

is difficult to determine a priori, due to several sources of

uncertainty (Taylor et al. 2000). Two approaches for

establishing the benchmark value of an indicator

involve referring to recorded historical values and conducting baseline monitoring of a purportedly nonaffected system. However, given the rarity of broadly and

systematically collected historical data and the scarcity

of pristine systems, benchmarks may have to be based

on some range of desired conditions (Bisson et al.

1997). Due to the dynamic and unpredictable behavior

of ecosystems, benchmarks for management should

incorporate the precautionary principle of Holt and

Talbot (1978, pp. 15-16): “Management decisions

should include a safety factor to allow for the facts that

knowledge is limited and institutions are imperfect,” and

“the magnitude of the safety factor should be proportional

to the magnitude of risk.” Because data that suggest a

trend in an indicator are of limited value without evidence

of causation, cause-effect relationships should be

addressed by simultaneous assessment of suspected

ecosystem stressors (Noon et al. 1999).

Recent designs of monitoring programs (Thornton

et al. 1994, Noon et al. 1999) have involved a predictive approach to monitoring that integrates numerous

ecosystem components and processes (Figure 6). To 

be scientifically defensible yet sensitive to changes in

the landscape, monitoring design should be based on

conceptual models that are supported by both ecological theory and empirical information. Designing a monitoring program that can be implemented requires the

identification of quantifiable questions and measurable

indicators, as well as the development of monitoring

20 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
design, field methods, and supporting infrastructure

(Vora 1997). 

Four types of monitoring will be used to evaluate

management practices, including 

1. Implementation monitoring: Have planned

activities occurred according to objectives?

2. Effectiveness monitoring: Have implemented

activities met the desired goals/objectives?

3. Validation monitoring: Do cause-and-effect

relationships exist among management activities

and changes in natural resources?

4. Baseline monitoring: What are the reference

conditions that may be affected by future management activities?

Noon et al. (1999) specified a list of seven steps to

address in designing a monitoring program, which include

1) specifying goals and objectives; 2) characterizing

stressors and disturbances; 3) developing conceptual

models that outline pathways from stressors to the 

ecological effects on one or more resources; 4) selecting

indicators to detect how stressors are acting on resources;

5) determining detection limits for indicators to guide

sampling design; 6) establishing “trigger points” for

management intervention; and 7) establishing clear 

connections to the management decision process

(Figure 6).

Extent of Current Knowledge and Uncertainty

Of the 17,186 taxa known to inhabit the Basin, about

12,800 taxa (74%) are vascular plants and allies and about

3,400 (20%) are insects and arthropods. However, over

43,800 species are estimated to occur in the Basin, and

this number excludes most microscopic species, which

may number in the hundreds of thousands. Thus, to

improve efficiency, monitoring efforts should be

“batched” when possible, to monitor numerous ecosystem

components (e.g., soils, vegetation, and invertebrates)

simultaneously. Systematic broad-scale surveys have not

been completed for many taxa, including lichens,

bryophytes, rare fungi, and invertebrates. 

Additionally, there exists no systematic and 

reliable estimate of current condition and trend for DOI

-administered ecosystems deemed ‘rangelands’.

Specifically, no mid-scale, consistent map of rangeland

vegetation conditions exists, nor does a systematic

understanding of the condition and trend of exotic

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 21

Fig. 9. Hierarchical division of hydrological drainage areas. The entire assessment area of the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project can be subdivided into subbasins and further divided into subwatersheds. The 1:100,000-scale

hydrography can be seen at the subwatershed level. Hydrologic boundaries provide a useful framework with which to assess

and monitor biological resources because 1) their classification is a well-established system used by numerous agencies and

other research institutions; 2) their boundaries can generally be unequivocally defined and mapped; and 3) water is a critical

landscape element for both biological systems and human civilizations. Adapted from Lee et al. (1997).
plants across the Intermountain West. Consistent

mid-scale sampling and mapping of riparian conditions

is also lacking, meaning that fine-scale examination of

riparian areas will remain case studies not amenable to

robust extrapolation. The lack of this systematic 

information will continue to present challenges for

mid- and broad-scale assessments and monitoring, and

will hinder the creation of a statistically reliable plan of

effectiveness monitoring on rangelands. The usefulness

of mid- and broad-scale sampling depends, however,

upon the existence of a statistically valid fine-scale

(plot-based) sampling strategy that addresses ecosystem

attributes not detectable from remotely sensed imagery. 

Monitoring Across Several Spatial Scales

Because ecosystem interactions operate within a

hierarchy (Noss 1990), it is critical that monitoring and

evaluation address questions and trends at various spatial scales. As managers and researchers focus their

attention at broader spatial and temporal perspectives,

scale will become an increasingly important issue for

questions of community ecology and natural resource

management (Allan et al. 1997, Hamer and Hill 2000,

Schaefer et al. 2000). Sampling should be planned to

represent the domain from which valid inferences are

desired; caution is merited when extending conclusions

beyond the study domain (Wester 1992). With careful

planning, correlations among variables and trends can

be compared within a given ecosystem, watershed,

basin, vegetative structural stage, or cover type. Using a

hierarchy of sampling, with smaller-scale units nested

within larger blocks, permits accrual of information and

testing of hypotheses at various scales (Figure 9). It

may be necessary to use a combination of coarse-scale

and fine-scale filters to assess the status and trends of

biological resources (Dufrène and Legendre 1997).

Ideally, monitoring should be management-objective

oriented, scientifically credible, economically feasible,

and performed at a scale appropriate to the questions

being addressed.

Monitoring has the greatest potential when it builds

upon and improves ongoing monitoring activities.

These activities rely heavily on data obtained by local

management units, and local specialists can assist the

regional program in interpreting local data, calibrating

models, and establishing thresholds of concern.

Conversely, regional monitoring affects local management units indirectly rather than directly, by providing a

regionwide context for interpreting local-scale results.

Nonetheless, scientific approaches developed for the

regional program (e.g., monitoring design, indicator

selection, methods of data analysis) can also be used in

local-scale monitoring efforts. 

Reasons for Limited Success of Past Monitoring Efforts

Because managers and the general public perceive

monitoring costs to be high, monitoring has often been

included only superficially in management strategies.

Thus, monitoring receives low priority and insufficient

funding, and is implemented in a fragmentary manner.

Furthermore, programs often try to measure too many

variables, have vague objectives, fail to follow fundamental statistical principles of sampling and estimation,

and are implemented ad hoc (Noon et al. 1999). Noon

et al. (1999) suggested that the primary reasons for the

failure of monitoring programs are a) minimal foundation in ecological theory or knowledge; b) little logic to

justify selection of indicators; c) no necessary understanding of causation; d) trigger points not identified;

and e) no connection to decision making. 

Aspects of Design and Analysis for Monitoring

Strategies

Both monitoring and management-oriented

research, whether manipulative or observational,

should be guided by clear, specific objectives.

Treating management actions as manipulative ecological experiments (Walters 1986) allows separation of

the effects of land-use activities from confounding

factors such as geomorphology, climatic variability,

and demographic stochasticity. In the absence of

experiments to confirm all causal relationships, path

analysis (Kingsolver and Schemske 1991, Wootton

1994) can be used to infer causation from correlations.

Path analysis partitions the simple correlations among

a set of variables according to a specific working

model that describes their causal relationships (e.g., a

causes b, b in turn causes c). Because monitoring may

often involve re-measurement of the same experimental units over time, repeated measures analysis

(Crowder and Hand 1990, Green 1993, Huggins 1993)

can be used to detect important changes. 

Spatially explicit techniques are also available to

examine landscape change through time at varying spatial scales. The intersection of spatially referenced data

from both species’ population status and remotely

sensed habitat provides estimations of the proportions

of variability in population status due to variation in

habitat versus other factors. Changes in status and trend

of habitat quality must be monitored at local through

landscape scales to explain variability in population status at the scale of the individual, the local population,

and the metapopulation (Noon 1999). Because variation

22 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
in habitat availability and quality rarely accounts for all

variation in population status, other potential drivers of

change should be treated as covariates and added to

models. Factors that are significantly correlated with

population status can guide hypothesis testing in subsequent manipulative experiments. 

When investigating an activity or management

practice that has an unknown effect on resources of

interest, it may preferable to relax alpha (i.e., significance level) in statistical tests to favor type I error over

type II error (Toft and Shea 1983). This practice reduces

the likelihood that an effect that is in fact present (e.g.,

clearcutting is increasing levels of surface erosion) goes

undetected by observers. Because natural systems are

complex and many factors can impinge upon ecosystem

processes and components (Hilborn and Stearns 1982,

Lidicker 1991), alternative explanations for observed

phenomena should always be considered and explicitly

tested whenever feasible. Although it is difficult to

achieve adequate replication in factorial designs with

more than two or three factors, several parametric and

nonparametric multivariate techniques are available to

account for multiple causes.

Stratification. If questions of many disciplines and

taxa are to be addressed with a single monitoring scheme,

it is important to determine the appropriate factor by

which to stratify sampling areas. For example, sampling

may be broadly stratified by soil series, ecological site,

potential vegetation type, habitat type or GAP designation, life zone, dominant vegetative species, site potential, or by another factor. When sampling occurs over a

heterogeneous area, stratification provides information

on population characteristics within distinctive habitats,

and suggests how to obtain total estimates over the

entire range (Hayek and Buzas 1997). Algorithms in

GIS can be applied across landscapes to randomly

select sampling locations within blocks of each of the

above factors. Selection among possible stratifying factors should reflect the question being addressed, and

can be defined by examining sources of variability in

preliminary sampling. 

Given limited agency funding, there may be

aspects of particularly charismatic species or communities that could be monitored by interested members of

the general public (e.g., Operation HeadStart, Breeding

Bird Surveys). Alternatively, naturalist activities (e.g.,

Breeding Bird Atlas) may be expanded to monitor a

wider array of species or data on life-history variables.

This technique may be used as one tool of a comprehensive strategy, with the understanding that assistance

will be greatest near population centers and during economically prosperous periods. It is fundamentally

important that monitoring be economically feasible, yet

flexible enough to adapt to new information and new

management philosophies. Existing plans with which

new management direction must interface include the

Healthy Rangelands Initiative, Inland Native Fish

Strategy, PACFISH (1994), INFISH (1995), Biological

Opinions (e.g., bull trout, steelhead, and chinook

salmon), and USFWS recovery plans, especially for

caribou and grizzly bears. Attempts should be made to

look for common attributes and indicators that might

relate to multiple management plans.

Replication. Temporal replication allows the quantification of the effects of extreme and variable climate

and other elements that comprise environmental stochasticity. Spatial replication allows the assessment of

variability across the landscape, produced by factors

such as clinal variation and phenotypic plasticity. Both

types of replication increase the likelihood that

observed results reflect the normal range of natural

variation in conditions.

Whenever possible, a priori power analyses

(Cohen 1977) should be used to determine whether

monitoring or a manipulative experiment could detect

an effect of predicted magnitude for a given sample

size. In general, sample sizes should be large enough to

give a high probability of providing clear evidence of

any effects that are of practical importance. Although

exceptions may be likely, projects with low statistical

power and low ability to deliver externally valid information should be undertaken sparingly and with a realization of the inherent limitations (Toft and Shea 1983,

Peterman 1990, Taylor and Gerodette 1993). However,

replication may not be possible when experimental units

are very large (e.g., major lakes), and may be less important when experimenters do not wish to apply results to

other areas (Wester 1992). Furthermore, several authors

(e.g., Johnson 1999) have recently argued that the search

for statistical significance is secondary in importance to

direct interpretation of biological significance and the

major patterns and phenomena that are directly revealed

by convincing experimental design.

Even when replication is attempted, it remains

important to assure that ‘replicates’ are truly independent, rather than being subsamples, repeated measures,

spatially clumped samples, or other forms of

pseudoreplication (Hurlbert 1984). However, because

spatial and temporal axes are often correlated in ecological systems, it is critical that replicates constitute unbiased samples of the spatial and temporal scales and

variables of interest (Peterson and Parker 1998).

Consistency in data collection, sampling design, and

analysis platforms across watersheds, management disInformation and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 23
tricts, and states is an excellent means to increase replication, and it allows statistically more powerful analyses, especially when multiple factors are involved. With

respect to feasibility, there exists a trade-off between

the number of treatment levels and experimental power:

the greater the number of treatment levels for a given

total sample size, the lower the statistical power.

Semivariograms (Hamlett et al. 1986, Cardina et

al. 1997) may be used in the field or after preliminary

sampling to determine the minimum sample size at

which variability within treatments is minimized.

Similarly, species effort curves (Hayek and Buzas

1997, Moreno and Halffter 2000, Patton et al. 2000)

can suggest when sampling is adequate enough that

further surveys will have little chance to detect new

species. Techniques are also available (Hayek and

Buzas 1997) to predict a sample size that will estimate

an unknown variable (e.g., population density) with a

given confidence within some range (e.g., within one

standard deviation). Ideally, study design should

address criteria of biological importance as well as

statistical significance.

Species and Habitats at Risk

The BLM as well as FS, Departments of Defense

and Energy, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and NPS have

legal responsibilities and policy requirements to provide

habitat for threatened, endangered, sensitive, proposed,

and candidate (TESPC) species occurring on their

lands. There are 235 plant and animal species federally

listed as endangered or threatened in the western United

States, and the USFWS has an increasing backlog of

species proposed for listing. Management guidance relevant to TESPC species includes ecosystem analysis at

the watershed scale and subbasin review guidelines;

landscape consideration; direction for aquatic and terrestrial habitats; specific direction for aquatic and terrestrial TESPC areas; and guidelines for road management (USDA and USDI 2000a).

As a result of increasing numbers of listed species

occurring on public lands, regional multi-species 

conservation strategies are being developed through the

cooperation of federal, state, and local governments

across the western United States. However, managing

agencies lack sufficient knowledge to carry out conservation responsibilities for most threatened, endangered,

and sensitive species. Land managers need a scientifically based understanding of 1) the historic abundance

and distribution of species and their habitats; 2) natural

environmental factors influencing them; 3) the effectiveness of conservation actions; and 4) acceptable levels of land uses in order to achieve healthy, resilient

ecosystems capable of supporting viable populations of

native plants and animals in adequate abundance (USDI

BLM 2000). Thus, the highest research priorities for

land managing agencies include 1) a comprehensive

assessment of the condition of habitats and their spatial

arrangement at landscape and regional levels; 2) determination of the adequacy of remaining habitats; 3)

determination of the requirements and constraints for

restoration of damaged habitats; and 4) assessment of

the effects of noxious weeds, fire, grazing, and other

disturbance processes on endangered habitats and

species (USDI BLM 2000).

Whereas timber extraction and fire suppression

have been the primary drivers of recent change in

Basin forests, rangelands in the Basin have been

altered as a result of grazing by livestock and feral

horses, the introduction of exotic plant species,

changes in the fire regime, and roads, and associated

anthropogenic effects. Because of their lower elevations

and consequent milder climates, Basin rangelands often

comprise or are adjacent to areas of human settlement

and activity. However, rangelands generally occur in

areas of very dry climate, shallow soils, or cold climates with short growing seasons. 

The primary disturbance agents of landscape 

pattern in rangelands include herbivory, fire, and exotic

species, although succession/disturbance regimes 

differ among ridge, slope, toeslope, footslope, terrace,

and plains landforms (Hann et al. 1997). For example,

responses to grazing and potential for restoration of

slope landforms to a native disturbance regime depend

on the dominance and composition of exotic plants. In

contrast, in toeslope and channel landforms, disturbance

regimes have been altered by fire exclusion, dams,

removal of beavers, construction of roads near the

floodplain, and traditional grazing practices. 

Terrestrial Upland Vegetation 

(see Aquatic-Terrestrial Interface section for aquatic

species) 

From historical to current periods, fragmentation

has increased and connectivity within and among habitats has decreased, particularly in lower-elevation

forests, shrub-steppe, and riparian habitats (Hessburg et

al. 1999). Reduced connectivity among habitats can

compromise dispersal, genetic exchange among populations, and rescue of locally extirpated populations

(Hanski and Gilpin 1991, Saunders et al. 1991).

Functional groups that may be particularly affected in

the short term include wide-ranging species (i.e.,

species with large home ranges), species with poor dispersal abilities, species with low fecundity, habitat-obli24 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
gate species (e.g., shrub-steppe birds), ground nesters,

and interior species that avoid habitat edges (Wilcove

1985, van Dorp and Opdam 1987, Pimm et al. 1988,

Noss and Csuti 1994). The greatest change in vegetation in the Basin has been the conversion of 37% of

non-BLM, non-FS-administered lands to agricultural

use (Hessburg et al. 1999). 

Terrestrial Species 

(see Aquatic-Terrestrial Interface section for aquatic

species)

Although only 14,000 terrestrial plant and animal

species were considered explicitly in the assessment of

the Basin, 28 amphibian, 27 reptile, 362 bird, 132 mammal, 24,270 invertebrate, and approximately 19,000

plant species are estimated to occur in the Basin

(Quigley et al. 1996, USDA and USDI 2000a). Flather

and Sieg (2000) highlighted the need to develop standardized rangeland surveys for vertebrates other than

birds and game animals, as well as for invertebrates and

plants, to allow examination of spatial and temporal

patterns of species richness, as well as trends in abundance. As of November 1999, federally listed species in

the Basin included 16 threatened, 19 endangered, 3 proposed, and 10 candidate species (USDA and USDI

2000a). In addition, as of March 2000, 14 amphibian

and reptile, 66 bird, 19 mammal, 23 invertebrate, and

>700 plant species are listed as ‘sensitive’ by the FS,

BLM, or both (USDA and USDI 2000a). Declines in

plant and animal species have resulted from conversion

of habitat to agriculture and urban development, overgrazing, recreation, high road densities, off-highway

vehicles, fire suppression, mining, introduction of exotic plants and animals, and increased fire frequencies

resulting from dense annual exotic grasses (Marcot et

al. 1997). The area of source habitat has declined for

most native species, and the degree of decline is generally consistent across the Basin (Marcot et al. 1997). 

Of the 547 terrestrial vertebrate species in the

Basin, Wisdom et al. (2000) identified 91 species “of

conservation concern” based on rankings of The Nature

Conservancy; management alternatives proposed for

federal lands; public concern expressed through appeals

of federal actions; and the ability to map their habitats

across the Basin using about a 2 mi2 (1-km2 ) pixel size.

Wisdom et al. (2000) then subdivided 91 species of

concern into 40 groups using hierarchical clustering

analysis based on pairwise similarities in source habitats between species. Subsequently, cluster analysis was

used to condense 37 of the 40 groups into 12 families

based on terrestrial community types. The 12 families

were believed to be the smallest set of groups that could

be meaningfully used by managers and biologists to

identify habitat requirements and species trends at the

broadest scales of ecosystem management. Of the 12

families, the greatest declines in broad-scale habitat

were projected for species dependent on native grasslands and open-canopy sagebrush, combinations of

rangelands with early- or late-seral forests, and low-elevation old-forest habitats. 

Bayesian belief network models provide an alternative to formal population viability analysis, and have

been used to combine assessments of the quality and

quantity of habitat with other environmental factors

affecting populations of each species in order to project

their Basin-wide distribution and abundance (Raphael et

al. 2001). Bayesian belief models use conditional probabilities to predict the combined effects of multiple

variables on landscape conditions for a given species.

Environmental outcomes were defined in five classes

that differed in abundance and connectivity of suitable

habitat patches, and consequently, likelihood of regional

extirpation. Population outcomes projected 100 years

into the future for species dependent on old-forest conditions generally improved under all proposed management scenarios, whereas outcomes for rangeland

species did not improve and often declined (Raphael et

al. 2001). Declines in rangeland species were projected

to occur as a result of slow rates of recovery, continued

displacement of native plants by exotic plants facilitated

by various human-associated disturbances, and crossed

environmental thresholds (Raphael et al. 2001).

Preliminary validation analyses of the Bayesian belief

models using independent data sets for species such as

pronghorn antelope and sage grouse confirm that habitat amount is a fundamental determinant of species viability. Furthermore, other influences of habitat quality

and connectivity, as well as non-habitat factors (e.g.,

road density, human population density) play secondary,

but sometimes important, additive roles in decrementing broad-scale estimates of habitat (M. Wisdom, personal communication, April 2001).

Ecological Roles and Trends of Endangerment, by

Taxon

Bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, and hornworts)

combine with lichens and cyanobacteria to form microbiotic soil crusts, and serve as important sources of

food and shelter for vertebrates and invertebrates.

About 40% of the Basin’s more than 800 species of

bryophytes appear to be rare or endemic (Marcot et al.

1997). Modifications to the substrate or associated

microclimate pose threats for terrestrial bryophytes, as

do declines in water quality for aquatic and riparian

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 25
bryophytes. As decomposers, fungi recycle nutrients

within the ecosystem to make them available for other

organisms. Fungi facilitate moisture and nutrient

absorption by plants through mycorrhizal relationships

with plant roots, and many species serve as important

food sources for diverse animal species. Lichens, which

consist of fungal and algal components, are important

sources of food and organic matter in ecosystems.

Modifications to lichens’ substrates (e.g., rock, soil,

wood) are the most serious known threat to the continued persistence of lichens, although lichens are sensitive to sulphur dioxide and other elements of air quality

(Richardson 1992, Geiser et al. 1994, Rosentreter 1995,

Marcot et al. 1997). Vascular plants (ferns, conifers, and

flowering plants) provide the base of many food webs,

protect soils against erosion, and provide shade and

cover to animals and watercourses (Marcot et al. 1997). 

Invertebrates include groups such as arthropods, 

mollusks, earthworms, protozoa, nematodes, and butterflies. Because invertebrates often have very fine-scale

habitat requirements, estimates suggest that identified

species represent only 1% to 15% of all (~24,270) species

occupying the region (Marcot et al. 1997). Invertebrates

play important roles in soil development, in pollination of

crops and wild plants, as natural enemies of important

pest species, and as vectors for numerous diseases, and

may act as early indicators of ecosystem health

(Ginsberg 1993, Samways 1993). Numerous factors

may have contributed to declines observed in invertebrates, including use of pesticides; loss of litter and

dead plant material; decline in forb abundance due to

uncharacteristic grazing, range treatments, fire exclusion,

and increased fire frequency; disturbance of wetlands,

talus slopes, caves, springs, and other habitats; and habitat

conversion (Marcot et al. 1997).

Except in riparian areas, amphibians are relatively

uncommon in arid grasslands and shrublands of the

Basin, instead inhabiting dry and moist forests (Corn

1994, Marcot et al. 1997). Amphibians bioturbate soils;

control insects; serve as food for fishes, birds, and

mammals; and indicate water quality and quantity

(Marcot et al. 1997). Exact reasons for widespread

amphibian declines have not been pinpointed, although

potential contributors in the Basin include the reduction

of riparian and other habitats, mining of talus and rock,

climate changes, introductions of exotic fishes and bullfrogs, degraded water quality, irrigation, roads, pesticides, livestock effects on soils and water quality,

chytrid fungi, and reduced invertebrate populations

(Bury and Whelan 1984, Jennings and Hayes 1985,

Leonard et al. 1993, Marcot et al. 1997). Habitats of

reptiles in the Basin have been affected by the operations of large dams and associated regulated rivers;

livestock grazing; exotic plant species; off-road vehicle

use (that fragments habitat and causes direct mortality);

fire suppression; and loss of wetlands. Additionally,

capture for the pet trade may affect populations of some

species such as horned lizards and black-collared

lizards. Many birds in the Basin have experienced

long-term declines due largely to habitat conversion,

fragmentation, and degradation, and particularly in

riparian, wetland, grassland, and shrub-steppe habitats

(Marcot et al. 1997, Haig et al. 1998). A greater percentage of bird species (44%; 128 of 362 species) have

suffered the loss of >10% of their habitat area within

the Basin than have reptile species (41% of species with

>10% declines), amphibians (26%), or mammals (25%)

(Marcot et al. 1997). However, species such as northern

flicker, house wren, mountain bluebird, American robin,

and gray flycatcher appear to be increasing, at least in part

due to the expansion of western juniper (Collopy and

Smith 1995).

More of the Basin’s mammal species inhabit forested areas than other vegetation types, although rangelands also contain numerous characteristic mammal

species. Species that have increased in the Basin

include those that have been able to adapt to habitat

changes, species that have been favored (though habitat

manipulation and regulated harvest) as game animals,

and meso-predators that have benefitted from control of

larger predators (Marcot et al. 1997). Factors that have

contributed to declines in mammals include loss and

fragmentation of native habitats; altered prey or forage

base; changes in vegetation structure and composition;

rodent poisoning; soil compaction from uncharacteristic

grazing; polluted waters; road building and roadkills;

recreational shooting; disturbance of bat roosts; alteration of fire cycles; and past hunting by humans

(Marcot et al. 1997, Verts and Carraway 1998, Wilson

and Ruff 1999). Other factors that may affect viability

of some species of mammals and birds include fire

suppression; agricultural practices such as use of 

pesticides or high amounts of tilling; predator control

and illegal killing; skiing resorts, snowmobiles, and

disturbance associated with summer recreation; effect

of fencing on dispersal and metapopulation structure;

and loss of wetlands. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

The Basin contains 6 candidate species of amphibians, 2 candidate reptile taxa, 19 imperiled bird taxa 

(3 threatened, 2 endangered, and 14 candidate taxa),

26 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
and 19 imperiled mammal taxa (1 threatened, 1 endangered, and 17 candidate taxa). Populations of the endangered peregrine falcon have exhibited slow increases in

density since the drastic declines due to pesticide use

between 1946 and 1975. Two primary threats for persistence are contaminants and disturbance of nest sites.

In addition, eggshell thinning continues to contribute to

reduced reproductive fitness (Pagel 1995). The migratory whooping crane winters in areas outside the Basin.

Efforts have been made to translocate birds and to

cross-foster whooping crane chicks with sandhill crane

parents (e.g., at Grays Lake NWR in Idaho), but recent

breeding of whooping cranes within the Basin has been

nearly nonexistent. Whooping cranes likely were never

common in the Basin, especially after collectors nearly

extirpated them for their plumage in the early 1900s.

Loss of wetlands, illegal shooting, collisions with

power lines, and disease pose the greatest threat to the

endangered crane. Because of their strong association

with sage-steppe habitats that have declined significantly in recent decades, sage grouse and sharp-tailed

grouse are being considered for listing across the

region. Although it is tempting to assume that grouse

will act as umbrellas under which other sagebrush-obligates will be conserved, each species requires a relatively unique management focus for its conservation

(Altman and Holmes 2000). For example, sharp-tailed

grouse are associated with deciduous trees and shrubs,

where canopy cover >15 cm occupies 15% to 35% of

the site, and native forbs occupy >10% of cover

(Altman and Holmes 2000).

Gray wolves, currently considered federally endangered, were nearly exterminated from the Basin in the

late 1800s to early 1900s due to shooting, poisoning,

trapping, and reductions in wolves’ native prey base

(Laufer and Jenkins 1989, Fritts et al. 1994). Major

threats to ongoing recovery and reintroduction efforts

include continuing hunting and illegal killing by

humans. An endangered population of less than 100

caribou occupies the Selkirk Mountains of Idaho and

Washington. Population augmentations from the late

1980s forward have helped offset declines that occurred

during 1954-1987 due to illegal killing. Major threats to

this small population currently include habitat alteration

due to timber harvest or wildfire, illegal killing, highway

road-kill, and, to a lesser degree, disturbance by winter

recreation. Four threatened vertebrate species from the

Basin include the bald eagle, grizzly bear, northern 

spotted owl, and marbled murrelet, although the latter

two species have distributions that only slightly overlap

the Basin, on the east slope of the Cascade Range. 

Genetic Diversity

Although geographic ranges of species fluctuate

through time in response to influences such as predation,

interspecific competition, glaciation, and climatic 

fluctuation, ranges of numerous species have exhibited

sharp declines recently. Because directly measuring

genetic markers to estimate genetic diversity carries a

high cost, mapping and analyzing the contraction of

species’ ranges may provide a surrogate estimate of the

loss of genetic variability (Soulé and Mills 1998).

Reliable interpretations of trends in geographic range size

depend on research that establishes a robust link between

range reduction and genetic diversity. Combining spatial

statistics with geographical population analysis will be

important for establishing the relative occupancy of a

species’ range, which must then be coupled to 

independent measures of genetic variation (Flather

and Sieg 2000).

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 27
RESEARCH PROGRAM

Introduction

The following list of research questions is

designed to both support current management efforts

and provide ideas for integrating emerging scientific

understanding into future management. Questions are

organized into five broad headings: rangeland health,

restoration, the aquatic-terrestrial interface, monitoring

and implementation protocols for adaptive management, and species and habitats at risk. Under each

heading, questions are organized into several more

specific categories. If this document is used to create a

coordinated research strategy for the Intermountain

West, the overarching themes of ecological integrity,

changes in disturbance regimes, changes in landscape

pattern and composition, and cumulative effects of

past, current and future management may provide additional frameworks. 

Each research question is accompanied by a brief

background that provides rationale and possible

approaches for addressing the question. The Plan 

primarily focuses on major issues that resource managers

would face in implementing management with the Basin.

Each question is preceded [in brackets] by a priority ranking of High, Medium, or Low, which was determined

based on three questions: 1) How important is resolving

this question to current and future management of DOI

resources? 2) To what extent would current and future

management suffer by not addressing this question? and

3) How feasible is implementation of research that would

address the underlying hypothesis rigorously so as to contribute meaningfully to future management strategies and

philosophies? Questions accompanied by the superscript,

AD.MGMT are also appropriate for addressing monitoring and

implementation protocols for adaptive management. 

The Research Plan is a compilation of urgent and

important research needs for DOI-administered lands in

the Basin planning area. The Plan includes areas of

research identified by ICBEMP documents (Quigley

and Arbelbide 1997, USDA and USDI 2000a), agencies

responsible for managing natural resources (USFWS

1998, USDI BLM 1999, USDI BLM 2000), and other

sources relevant to management-oriented research (e.g.,

Soulé and Kohm 1989, Altman and Holmes 2000,

USGS 2000). An important challenge for the Research

Plan is to identify questions of broad-scale importance

that are relevant to managers and researchers yet feasible to implement at local scales. Although research

needs are presented here in the format of questions,

research generally will address questions as testable,

falsifiable hypotheses using inferential or Bayesian statistics. However, when questions are framed as hypotheses, it is important to distinguish between scientific

hypotheses (about phenomena in nature) and statistical

hypotheses (about properties of a population based on

samples) (Connor and Simberloff 1986). Thus, because a

primary goal of management research is an understanding

of natural systems and maintenance of ecological integrity, a more qualitative description, catalogue, or result may

be a more important outcome in some cases. 

Rangeland Health

Exotic Weeds

i. [H] AD.MGMT What are the ranges of disturbance

regimes and habitat, climate, and soil conditions that

predispose communities to higher risk of invasion by

exotic plants? In contrast, what physical and biological

factors limit invading species? Stated another way, can

abundance of individual invasive species such as cheatgrass be predictably modeled over ecosystem and landscape scales? 

Potential factors in models include physical and

chemical soil properties, fire frequency, current and 

historical grazing system (intensity, season, and frequency), potential vegetation type, precipitation, and

proximity to roads. Accuracy and robustness of models

must be tested with sets of empirical data independent

of those used to parameterize the models. Sensitivity

analyses (Burgman et al. 1993) can be used to determine factors that most strongly alter model outcomes.

Greater attention should be given to these factors in

subsequent monitoring and management.

ii. [H] What is the relationship between microbiotic

soil crusts and exotic plants? Are there specific characteristics of crusts (e.g., minimum extent, stage of development, or presence of particular lichen, bryophyte, algal,

or bacterial species) that drive responses of invaders?

Invasion of exotic annual grasses and the consequent increase in fire frequency (to >40 times historical

frequencies) have produced dramatic changes in ecosystem structure in grasslands (Figure 4; Whisenant 1990),

and are a major threat to continued persistence of

microbiotic crusts. Whether intact soil crusts inhibit the

establishment of cheatgrass and other exotic invasive

species, the mechanism of inhibition, and the influence

of land use, disturbance history, and soil properties on

the crust-exotics relationship all merit further study

(Vallentine and Stevens 1994, Hann et al. 1997). 

28 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
Fire and its Effects on Ecosystem Sustainability

i. [H] AD.MGMT When prescribed fire is used, what are

its effects during the 1–15 years after a fire on the following ecosystem attributes and processes: a) species

richness of plants; b) percent cover of grasses, shrubs,

and forbs, plus their relative proportions; c) diversity 

of the small mammal, avian, and reptile communities; 

d) abundance of rare and habitat-specialist species;

e) soil erosion, surface hardness, and soil moisture; f)

microbiotic soil crusts; g) nutrient availability; h) rates

of decomposition; i) abundance of invertebrates (e.g.,

thatch-building ants, a potential keystone)?

• Do effects of prescribed fire vary with post-fire

treatment (natural colonization, regeneration

from onsite surviving vegetation, planted exotic species such as crested wheatgrass, or

assisted colonization with native species)?

• How do effects vary with the timing (i.e., season) of the prescription?

• When wildfires are allowed to burn, how do

their effects compare with effects produced by

prescribed fires in similar areas?

• In addition to the nature of the fire ignition,

the timing and burning conditions under

which the fire occurred, as well as post-fire

management and precipitation all influence

the effects that fires will exert on ecosystem

components (M. Miller, personal communication, March 2001). Because prescribed fires

often occur in spring or late fall, compared

with wildfires, which occur most frequently

during hot, dry summers, abiotic factors that

may also influence results of fire should be

explicitly included in analyses. 

• Because fire frequency varied historically

with landform (i.e., ridge, slope, toeslope),

precipitation, soil type, vegetation type,

among other factors, at what resolution

should sampling occur to determine HRV in

fire-return intervals? Are there conditions

other than invasion of exotic plants that

would cause desired fire frequencies to differ

from HRV?

Wildfire has been a critical element of disturbance

regimes in the Basin since at least the mid-Holocene.

Data from several lines of evidence suggest that

fire-return intervals in many semi-arid habitats of the

Basin have shortened, due to the presence of exotic

annual grasses. In contrast, fire-return intervals in some

semi-arid habitats of the Basin have lengthened, a phenomenon that has been implicated in the encroachment

of juniper and other conifers into higher elevation sagebrush communities and dry grasslands, often removing

native understory species (Johnsen 1962, Young and

Evans 1981). A major goal of post-fire rehabilitation in

Basin rangelands consists of maintaining or enhancing

health of native perennials, while limiting the establishment and spread of noxious weeds. Regarding vegetative diversity and composition, BLM now strongly

encourages the use of native seed in post-fire revegetation efforts whenever possible (Richards et al. 1998). 

Relationships between ambient conditions (e.g.,

wind speed, humidity), vegetative characteristics (e.g.,

moisture content, ratio of shrubs, forbs, and grasses,

physiognomy, amount of fine fuels), fire characteristics

(e.g., flaming residence time, surface and subsurface

burn temperature, extent), damage or mortality of vegetation after fire, and post-fire recovery trajectories

must be more firmly established. Models that incorporate critical elements of these factors can be tested

and validated with field data. Furthermore, sensitivity

analyses should be performed on models to determine

the robustness of results to variability in key factors. 

The response of vertebrates to fire varies greatly

among species, depending upon the pre-fire condition

of habitats, the extent and intensity of fire, and the

species’ natural history (Wales 2001). Although fire has

been shown to directly affect vertebrate individuals

through mortality or lost reproduction, most fire effects

on terrestrial vertebrates are indirect, occurring through

changes in food, habitat (e.g., cover, nesting sites), and

competitors (Bendell 1974, Russell et al. 1999, Smith

2000). Because disturbances may combine synergistically to affect ecosystem structure and processes (Meffe

and Carroll 1994, Steenhof et al. 1999), it is crucial that

influences other than fire be explicitly considered in

management planning. (See background of the previous

question for additional information.)

ii. [M - H] AD.MGMT At sites with high potential for

post-fire invasion by exotic grasses and forbs, what fire

frequency, relative to HRV, provides the greatest

long-term stability and ecosystem services?

Determining desired fire interval at sites highly

vulnerable to invasion by exotic annual grasses requires

a balanced perspective. On one hand, reducing fuel

accumulations and volatility of vegetation reduces

future risk of frequently reoccurring fires; however,

early re-establishment of cheatgrass may preempt

re-establishment of native perennials, thus increasing

density of cheatgrass. Depending upon site characteristics,

available funding, and intensity of fire management, other

management strategies (e.g., mowing, disking, plowing,

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 29
livestock grazing, herbicides, fire-resistant greenstrips)

may be used in concert with prescribed fire to move

disturbance regimes closer to HRV (Pellant 1999). In

many vegetation types, the timing of prescribed fires

may be critical, because land managers want to avoid

letting fire escape designated boundaries, yet fires are

sometimes difficult to ignite and keep burning (e.g., in

low sagebrush communities with few fine fuels). The

management challenge thus involves ascertaining how

to maintain the beneficial effects of fire disturbance,

while avoiding undesirable effects. 

Biological Soil Crusts

Although much remains to be learned about the

biology of microbiotic soil crusts, two of the more

important areas of research for land managers concern

their ecological roles and their response to disturbance.

i. [H] Which component species comprise crusts

across soil types and topographic positions (i.e., with

respect to landforms, aspects, and slope gradient) in

semi-arid communities?

Sampling, description, and cataloging of soil crusts

could be stratified by NRCS Ecological Site, because this

system of vegetation classification is tied to soils, as are

microbiotic crusts. In many districts and refuges in the

Basin, managers have little information either on which

species comprise crusts on lands under their jurisdiction

or on how composition varies across the landscape.

ii. [H] AD.MGMT At what intensity and during which

season can livestock be grazed without harming the

sustained functioning of soil crusts (e.g., soil stabilization and erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, mutualisms

with vascular plants)? [Wicklow-Howard and

Kaltenecker 1994]

Livestock can graze areas containing shrubs and

microbiotic crusts when soils are moist without imposing

much harm to crust components (Wicklow-Howard and

Kaltenecker 1994), although crusts have been severely

affected in many areas by dry-season livestock grazing.

Damage to crusts has also been observed under continuous season-long grazing, short-duration grazing that

provides intense physical impact to soil surfaces, and

grazing that persists into late winter and early spring

(Brotherson et al. 1983, Jeffries and Klopatec 1987,

Marble and Harper 1989). Because cryptogamic crusts

occur in regions with extreme and variable climates, it

is crucial to examine crust response to disturbance

across multiple years. A longer-term approach permits

quantification of environmental stochasticity and its

effect on various components of soil crusts, in either the

presence or absence of other disturbances.

iii. [M] What is the relationship (i.e., linear,

asymptotic, etc.) between cover of soil crusts and

nutrient cycling; energy flow; establishment of native

seedlings; water quality; and aboveground 

biodiversity?

Leonard et al. (1995) summarized existing current

understanding of ecological roles of crusts and implications of crusts for rangeland management. Cryptogamic

crusts in general increase soil stability, affect water

infiltration, and may improve seed germination for various plant species. However, many details of the ecological roles of microbiotic crust species as soil stabilizers

and nitrogen fixers are still being elucidated (Belnap

1994). Cryptogamic crusts are often most developed in

salt desert scrub, low sagebrush, and big sagebrush vegetation types, occupying up to 80% of the living cover

in some areas (Belnap 1990). Roles of crusts vary

greatly among ecosystems. For example, the influence

of crusts on infiltration and soil moisture depends on

climate, soil type, disturbance history, age of the crust,

state of wetness of the soil when rewetted, and other

factors (Seyfried 1991, Williams 1993). 

iv. [H] What is the availability of nitrogen fixed by

microbiotic crusts, and what is its contribution to vascular plants and community structure and function

(Snyder and Wullstein 1973, Belnap 1994, Evans and

Ehleringer 1993)?

This question provides a specific example of one

relationship listed in the broader question iii (above).

Soils stabilized by crusts are known to have higher concentrations of organic material, nitrogen, calcium,

potassium, magnesium, and available phosphorus

(Harper and Pendleton 1993). Nitrogen fixation by

crusts containing cyanobacteria is known to occur

broadly in the Basin; however, the end fate of nitrogen

fixed by crusts and its necessity to ecosystem function

remain unknown. 

Biodiversity

Assessment of status and trends. i. [H] AD.MGMT

Are there plant or animal species that a) represent a

particular use, ecosystem, or management concern

(i.e., indicator species); b) exert disproportionate

effects on ecosystem composition and function (i.e.,

keystone species); or c) are important functional components of more than one food web, plant-animal

association, or ecosystem (i.e., link species; Soulé

30 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
and Kohm 1989)? If such species do exist what factors limit the ability of trends in one species to predict

dynamics of other species?

Because it is not feasible to monitor all resources

across broad areas, various taxa can be monitored to

reflect trends in composition, processes, and function of

ecosystems. Although indiscriminate use of indicators is

not recommended, some species possess attributes that

may make them more likely to reflect the status of other

species (e.g., species that act as keystone species; West

1993). Samson and Knopf (1993) recommend assessment of biodiversity by using species groups rather than

by relying heavily on individual species. Consequently,

ICBEMP evaluated relations of 12 ‘families’ of species

with key environmental correlates and key ecological

functions (Wisdom et al. 2000). Of the 12 families, 2

contained species (all birds) that were associated exclusively with non-forested habitats, another 2 of the

remaining 10 families contained species primarily associated with rangelands. Selected families that have

undergone significant decline, have more stringent

habitat requirements, and whose habitats encompass

habitats for other families may be useful for developing

multi-species research hypotheses and management

strategies in the Basin. Viability may be estimated at

coarse scales through analysis of factors such as habitat

abundance, habitat quality and resiliency, and connectivity (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

For example, does the trend in abundance and distribution of sage grouse correlate with trend in other

sage-associated species (e.g., pygmy rabbit, sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, sagebrush vole,

loggerhead shrike)? Objective identification of keystones has been simplified by the recent formulation of

the keystone species concept into an expression that

quantitatively links species dynamics to ecosystem

processes (Power et al. 1996).

ii. [H] AD.MGMT Are the abundance and diversity of

bat species declining in the project area? If so, which

factors contribute most strongly to this decline? Does

gating caves or mines increase likelihood of persistence

over long time scales?

In arid regions of western North America, bats

dominate lists of candidate and sensitive species, in

spite of relatively sparsely collected distributional data.

In the Basin, very little information on bats is available;

information is lacking on habitat associations, effects of

vegetative alterations, effects of pesticides, and abundance, trends, and distribution of bats in the Basin

(Marcot et al. 1997). Because bats use a variety of habitats (e.g., roosting, feeding, and breeding sites) throughout the year, they may be early signals of ecosystem

degradation. Gating caves prohibits disturbance of

roosting sites by human explorers, while still allowing

nightly migrations by foraging individuals. Bats are not

highly regarded in popular culture, and only recently

have scientists and the general public begun to appreciate the ecological importance of bats (e.g., their role in

insect pest control). Because of the association of bats

with several types of habitats (e.g., caves, rock crevices,

forests, springs), surveys for bats should be performed

using a stratified sampling scheme, rather than with

simple random or systematic sampling.

Response to disturbance. i. [H] Is it feasible and

ecologically tenable to actively manage for locations of

minimal livestock use? Alternatively, can grazing exclosures be used to maintain vertebrate diversity within

mountain ranges and at larger scales? What quantity and

size of exclosures are needed to achieve this objective?

Actively managing for minimal livestock use may

involve herding, use of mineral blocks, or taking advantage of habitat-selection patterns of livestock (Cruz et

al.1998, Vavra and Ganskopp 1998). 

Livestock exclosures can be useful for investigating grazing because 1) they provide a matched-pairs

design, eliminating potentially confounding edaphic and

vegetative differences; 2) they allow the separation of

effects attributable to climatic effects as opposed to

livestock activity; and 3) when sufficiently large, they

allow investigation of response to grazing removal

across spatial scales (Bock and Bock 1993). 

Maintenance of relatively undisturbed patches in

disturbed landscapes may prevent local extirpation of

species through subsequent recolonizations onto disturbed areas (Bock and Bock 1993, Perry and

Amaranthus 1997). However, the persistence of species

within an exclosure is not likely unless the exclosure is

large enough to contain populations large enough to

withstand environmental stochasticity. Thus, given their

common use as the basic unit in landscape ecology and

planning (Johnson and Patil 1998, Jones et al. 2000b),

watersheds could be used to delineate source habitats.

Ungrazed watersheds could be strategically located to

maximize habitat diversity to provide for a maximum

number of species and to contribute to regional ecological integrity. Small excluded watersheds could also provide an interesting comparison to other watersheds that

receive light and heavy livestock use. However,

because experimental units will be relatively large, the

use of many subsamples is recommended to capture

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 31
existing variability. Collection of data over several

years would be most likely to produce robust results.

ii. [H] Which vertebrates have either benefited 

from or have been unaffected by cheatgrass-dominated

areas? Which vertebrates avoid these areas? Does

avoidance depend on the density of cheatgrass plants,

extent of cheatgrass “ocean,” or distance to areas with

little or no cheatgrass that can act as colonizing sources?

In addition to altering fire-return intervals (Pellant

1996), cheatgrass can change vegetative composition by

reducing native grasses and occupying previously bare

ground in shrub interstices. Thus, cheatgrass can change

availability of seeds of native grasses, microsite conditions (e.g., insolation, nutrient levels), and soil attributes. Examining how abundance of habitat specialists,

endemics, and species needing open spaces (e.g.,

pygmy rabbit, longnose leopard lizard, sagebrush lizard,

whiptail lizards, sage grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse) changes over a gradient of increasing dominance of exotic plants would be useful. Although defining levels for some variables can be problematic,

approaches involving island biogeography (e.g., patch

size, distance to habitat ‘mainlands’) can provide

insight for landscape-scale questions.

iii. [H] What level of accuracy do aerial censuses of

wild horse populations possess, and how can actual population size be most reliably modeled across herd management areas? How do ecosystem components respond

to imposition or removal of grazing by feral horses in

different habitat types? What factors control habitat use

by horses across seasons in western North America? 

Herd management areas (HMAs) for horses occupy

46 million acres (18.6 million ha) of land in 186 areas

across 10 states of the western United States. Monitoring of population size is critical for managers to both

design and assess the effectiveness of population control efforts. Horses have the capacity to increase to high

densities relative to forage resources (Coughenour

2000), and herds of feral horses have been observed to

exhibit annual growth rates of 5% to 20% annually

(Wolfe 1980). Bias in aerial censuses typically results in

underestimates of population size, and can result from

physiographic features or tree cover (e.g., pinyonjuniper habitat) that conceal individuals, large aggregations of bands, and other factors (Caughley 1974, Crane

et al. 1997). Because horses occupy a unique place in

both the American psyche and in management strategies, immunocontraception has been deemed the most

preferred method of population regulation. Further

research is needed to clarify how identity and strength

of contraceptives used, as well as method and frequency of delivery, affect pregnancy rates.

Feral horses have been found to influence various

components of terrestrial ecosystems (Turner 1987,

Reiner and Urness 1982, Beever and Brussard 2000,

Beever et al., in press). In the Pryor Mountains of

Montana and Wyoming (horse density = 0.0083 animals/ha), however, Fahnestock and Detling (1999)

found that herbivory by horses affected plant cover significantly less than did interannual variability in growing season precipitation. Understanding how herbivory

by horses interacts with herbivory by cattle, across spatial and temporal axes, is also of interest. Very few data

have been published on the response of semi-arid

ecosystems to removal of grazing pressure by horses,

and drastic reductions in herd sizes across many areas

present a unique research opportunity. Habitat use by

horses in Montana and Wyoming has been investigated

through the use of field data (Miller 1980, McInnis

1985, Crane et al. 1997) and a spatially explicit simulation model (Coughenour 2000). However, GIS technology presents a new opportunity to investigate how factors such as visibility (i.e., viewshed) affect habitat use.

iv. [L] Does dominance of deer mouse increase in

communities of small mammals (especially at low elevations) with increasing degrees of habitat alteration?

By which mechanisms are rarer species lost from habitats dominated by this species?

The deer mouse is one of the most abundant and

ubiquitous mammals in North America, and occurs in

nearly every type of terrestrial habitat (Burt 1980).

They are the primary known vector for hantavirus, and

their extreme fecundity allows them to increase rapidly

in newly colonized sites. Several studies have found

that the deer mouse dominates small-mammal communities in disturbed systems (Martell 1983, Schulz and

Leininger 1991, Bich et al. 1995). However, other than

the fact that this species has broad physiological tolerances and great behavioral plasticity in the face of environmental variability, mechanisms by which the deer

mouse come to dominate communities remains largely

unknown. Simplification of small mammal communities

due to increasing dominance of the deer mouse can inhibit natural rehabilitation of disturbed sites, as many plant

species of semi-arid regions rely on caching and dispersal

of seeds by desert-adapted rodents (e.g., heteromyids).

32 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
Restoration Across DOI Lands

Landscape Ecology: Habitat Fragmentation,

Connectivity, Boundary Effects

Although habitat alteration and fragmentation 

comprise two of the most serious threats to ecological

integrity and ecosystem services across the Basin, many

effects of fragmentation and alteration remain poorly

studied (especially cumulative and synergistic effects). In

contrast to the large, contiguous land areas administered

in the Basin by the FS, many DOI-administered lands

exist in small or fragmented landscape patches. For example, BLM management needs in the western Pacific

Northwest are strongly influenced by the 640-acre

(259-ha) ownership pattern that characterizes BLM land

in that region (Richardson 1980). Even the most extensive

and contiguous BLM landholdings (i.e., southwestern

Idaho and southeastern Oregon) are mixed with or subdivided by private and other lands. With respect to national

parks, Newmark (1987) demonstrated that even the

largest parks in western North America were not large

enough to avoid losses of mammal species over time,

given species-area relationships. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service refuges are similarly small and scattered across

the Basin landscape, and are centered usually on distinctive local features in the landscape.

i. [H] AD.MGMT How does spatial pattern of land use

affect movement or persistence of native vertebrates?

For example, does concentrating activities such as

grazing and future human developments away from

movement corridors or source habitats promote viability of native vertebrates?

Distribution and abundance of most plant and animal

species are heavily influenced by the spatial arrangement

of suitable habitats across the landscape (Flather et al.

1992, Short and Turner 1994). This question indirectly

addresses how altered habitats compare with natural barriers to dispersal (e.g., mountain ranges, rivers) in their permeability to species. Methods to examine movements are

discussed in the section on corridors.

ii. [M - H] Within sagebrush ecosystems, how do

soil characteristics, nutrient and water flows, vertebrate and invertebrate assemblages, and

sagebrush-obligate species vary across the landscape in

areas of different patch size, habitat quality (i.e., composition and cover of exotic forbs, native grasses,

native forbs), grazing history, current grazing system,

and distance from sagebrush “mainland”? In a mosaic

of varying land uses and vegetation types, how does

rate of habitat change and conversion compare with

historic rates of change and conversion? Do size and

geometry of fragments and their interspersion across the

landscape predict the spread of exotics, nutrient flow into

and from ecosystem fragments, or abundance of species

with large or specialized habitat requirements?

Federal lands in the Basin comprise 102.8 million

acres (41.6 million ha), although road construction, spread

of exotic grasses, and housing development resulting

from human population growth will continue to reduce

and fragment habitat, with consequences that ecologists

do not yet fully understand. For most species, there exists

relatively little understanding of nonlinear numerical and

functional responses to habitat fragmentation or degradation due to factors such as invasive exotic grasses. Native

shrubland (e.g., big sagebrush) habitats are one of four

habitat types that have probably experienced the greatest degree of loss and fragmentation since the beginning

of the 19th century. Particular losses have been

observed in areas of, which may be the subspecies with

the least resistance to disturbance, Wyoming big sagebrush. Although agricultural development and other factors have made native grasslands and sage-shrub habitats the most fragmented vegetative types in the Basin,

all ICBEMP modeling of trends in habitat patches (i.e.,

fragmentation) was performed on forested ecosystems. 

Patch characteristics (especially patch size) are

known to influence abundance of several sage-steppe

obligates, including sage sparrows (Rich 1980, Knick

and Rotenberry 1995, Vander Haegen et al. 2000) and

sage grouse (Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

1995). For most species, understanding of landscape

dynamics and patch use must be integrated with factors

acting at smaller spatial scales. For sage grouse, for

example, proximate factors that may interact with landscape-level factors to affect fitness include productivity,

diversity, and vigor of native grasses and forbs, as well

as relative nutritive value of various vegetative species

in different phenological states. 

This analysis requires investigation at watershed,

landscape, or regional spatial scales (Figure 9), and either

extensive field census of taxa that may indicate aspects

of ecosystem integrity or analysis of already collected

(standardized) empirical data. Measures of landscape

structure, including concepts such as fractal dimension (a

measure of patch size and shape complexity), contagion

(the positive or negative association between patch

types), and connectivity, could be applied to remotely

sensed data (e.g., GAP, AVHRR imagery) to model patterns in broadly collected data on sagebrush taxa (Turner

1989, Knick and Rotenberry 2000). As an example,

analyses of landscape-level changes in cover types and

succession dynamics were performed for the Basin using

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 33
the Columbia River Basin Successional Model 

(CRBSUM) and Vegetation Dynamics Development

Tool (VDDT) models (Beukema and Kurz 1995).

Because of the interaction of landscape and patch

dynamics, field-collected data should be used to refine

models produced by broad-scale data such as satellite

imagery or aerial photos.

Maintaining or re-establishing connectivity among

habitat patches is one restoration strategy that may

prove useful in addressing habitat fragmentation, and

may be achieved in numerous ways. First, designation

of certain DOI-administered areas containing noteworthy resources as part of the National Landscape

Conservation System (USDI BLM 2000) or changing

the suite of activities permitted on selected lands may

provide greater connectivity. If the designation will

cause shifts in management, ‘before-after’ experiments

with subsamples and appropriate control areas in various blocks (i.e., strata) can assess effectiveness of the

designation in conserving local and regional resources.

One example of an opportunity for landscape-scale management on federal and adjacent lands is the potential

reduction in irrigated agriculture across the region in the

future, a forecasted result of future water shortages

(Haynes and Horne 1997). To meet municipal demands,

amount of land in irrigated agricultural is projected to

decrease for eight of nine economic analysis areas by the

year 2040 (Haynes and Horne 1997). If lands that will

no longer receive irrigation are arranged in dispersed

and clumped patterns in areas of similar landform and

vegetation, their contribution to ecological integrity can

be compared. Clearly, socioeconomic studies are

encouraged for assessing the costs and benefits to both

private landowners and federal land agencies in collaborative management efforts.

Second, especially for wide-ranging species or

species using multiple habitat types, coordinated 

management (e.g., attention to movement patterns or

seasonally used habitats) may improve likelihood of

persistence. Salwasser et al. (1987) highlighted the

importance of cooperation among agencies in managing

species that move across jurisdictional boundaries.

Given increasingly fragmented landscapes, interagency

collaboration can improve efficiency by unifying goals,

facilitating data exchange, and improving management

of particularly mobile taxa. A research application particularly important for rangelands is examining the relationship between attributes of adjacent mountains (e.g.,

vegetative cover and diversity, abundance of large trees)

and either composition of animal species or stream

characteristics in valleys.

iii. [M - H] AD.MGMT What level of connectivity do

corridors of different width, length, or quality/type (e.g.,

natural remnants vs. fencelines vs. created corridors)

provide for mobile organisms, if any?

Corridors between source populations or key

resource areas may serve to rescue extirpated populations (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977), and to facilitate

exchange of species, genes, energy, and materials

among recently fragmented areas. Use of corridors will

vary across species, depending on the habitat structure

and landscape context of the corridor, as well as the

social structure, diet, foraging patterns, and home range

of the target species (Harris 1984, Noss and Harris 1986,

Lindenmayer and Nix 1993). Habitat connectivity for

highly mobile organisms such as waterbirds differs from

that of landbirds, in that disjunct wetlands can be ‘connected’ habitat as the birds move among them both within and across seasons. Thus, understanding connectivity

for these organisms requires a landscape perspective in

order to fully address management and research needs.

Addressing this issue requires the acquisition and

management of experimental corridors and observation

of dispersal in disjunct areas and areas connected by

different types of corridors. Mark-recapture and telemetry studies can be used to observe movements of more

mobile species, while comparisons of genetic markers

for organisms of differing vagility may be appropriate

for investigating consequences of movements over

longer time scales. Evidence from multiple lines of

genetic markers will be the strongest indicator, although

attention may focus on more rapidly evolving loci (e.g.,

mtDNA). For example, considering sage grouse as a

model for other sage-obligate species, one can ask [M]

what levels of genetic variability exist within and

among populations across various spatial scales for

populations of varying migration status?

iv. [M] AD.MGMTWhat determines the establishment of

natural boundaries between ecosystems, and how can

this knowledge be used to minimize the detrimental

effects of anthropogenic fragmentation on ecosystem

processes (Soulé and Kohm 1989)?

Potential determinants of natural boundaries

include climatic (e.g., temperature, precipitation), vegetative, edaphic, hydrologic (e.g., watersheds), and geologic factors (Hann et al. 1997). Strongest determinants

of boundaries should be ascertained for each type of

disturbance. A crucial question to address includes

determining how characteristics of the matrix surrounding a habitat patch influence the magnitude and extent

of edge effects within the patch.

34 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
Wildlife Habitat

i. [H] AD.MGMT Does distribution of individual exotic

animal species correlate with biotic or abiotic factors

within subwatersheds or at larger scales? For example,

do bullfrogs only colonize bodies of water above some

threshold temperature or water depth, with low vegetative cover, year-round permanence, or having certain

fish assemblages?

Bullfrogs, as well as many other vertebrates, have

been introduced to many permanent waters of the

Northwest, and now occupy many permanent ponds and

streams in lowland areas (Bury and Whelan 1984,

Jennings and Hayes 1985). Bullfrogs and other

non-native vertebrates can radically alter community

dynamics in areas they invade. Thus, understanding the

factors controlling the distribution of non-natives may

assist in efforts to restore affected communities, potentially suggesting priority areas for eradication of existing exotics or prevention of further spread. Results

from the investigation could be used to create a model

GIS coverage of distributions of bullfrogs and other

invasive species. This spatially explicit data layer, in

turn, might increase ability to predict distributions of

other aquatic taxa and investigate causes of amphibian

declines within the Basin. Because the effects of bullfrogs may be confounded by variability in conditions

such as seasonality of standing water, presence of exotic fishes, and topography (Corn 1994, Kiesecker and

Blaustein 1995, Adams 1999), including other variables

when modeling bullfrogs and potentially affected taxa

may elucidate multiple contributing factors (Lidicker

1991). For this analysis, the highest priority should be

given to widely distributed species that may affect a

broad array of taxa.

ii. [M] Are there areas where beavers occurred historically, have been extirpated, and could feasibly be

re-introduced? After re-introduction, what is the effect

on nutrient and sediment levels, channel characteristics, and riparian biodiversity? 

Beavers comprised a significant factor in dynamics

of aquatic systems historically, but have been removed

from many stream systems because they fell riparian

trees and their dens increase the extent of the floodplain, conflicting with other human land uses. Beaver

dams can attenuate the magnitude of pulse flows, and

thus change the frequency, duration, and intensity of

disturbance in riparian habitats. Because of their 

influence on diverse ecological processes and riparian

habitats, beavers have been termed keystone species

in lotic systems. Beaver dams can influence movement patterns of fishes, re-colonization of stream

reaches by invertebrates, and stream flows (Schlosser

1995). Imposition or removal of beaver dams may be

used as models to observe hydrology associated with

human-constructed dams, although issues of scale

must be addressed. Experimental design to determine

the effects of beaver dams might include replicated

reintroductions of beavers into areas from which

beavers were known historically, compared against similar control streams with no beavers. Various geomorphological, hydrological, and ecological variables

should be collected before and after reintroductions,

and could be used to characterize change over time.

A word of caution is in order. Because beavers can

act as keystones and ecosystem engineers in riparian

areas of semi-arid regions, careful attention should be

given to stream type (Rosgen 1985, 1994), current

channel characteristics, and their historic presence in

proposed sites of reintroduction. Beaver dams have the

potential to cause flooding, property damage, and loss

of human and animal life both during and outside of

normal periods of flooding. Very old, large beaver dams

that may have been abandoned may require controlled

removal or at least close supervision to ensure that they

do not burst. It is not uncommon for railway lines,

highways and buildings to be washed away and in some

cases for people to die when a beaver dam breaks.

Installing water-level control devices, such as ‘beaver

bafflers’ are helpful in preventing sudden and unexpected

dam breakages.

Native Plant Communities in the Face of Encroachment

by Exotics

Two main foci of research regarding exotic species

include 1) diagnosing and predicting the effect of

exotics on vegetative structure, composition, and function; and 2) evaluating the effectiveness of existing and

future treatment options across a range of ecological

conditions and temporal and spatial scales. Research is

needed to better define life history characteristics of

numerous invasive plant species. For example, it is critical for control efforts to understand which life stages

limit population growth for various invaders, so that

unique characteristics of invaders can be attacked in a

species-specific fashion at critical life stages.

Effects of invasive plants on native vegetation.

[H - M] What conditions represent thresholds for

cheatgrass and other invasive species, beyond which

ecological processes and function are compromised to

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 35
the point that reseeding of native perennials (after

control of exotics) is the only means to reestablish

native communities? 

Ecologists and resource managers are increasingly

realizing that a state-transition paradigm better

describes vegetative succession and response to disturbance than does the single-equilibrium climax paradigm

(Archer and Smeins 1991, Laycock 1994, West and

Young 2000). In the former model, natural perturbations, human-related disturbances, or a combination of

both can cause shifts in systems to one of numerous

alternative states. Unfortunately, understanding of

which levels (e.g., intensity, duration, frequency) of disturbance constitute threshold-crossing events, and how

factors combine, remains underdeveloped. Potential

determinants of thresholds include density, species richness of exotics, and successional sequence of invaders

(Pellant 1996). Threshold conditions will likely vary

across the landscape, depending on ecological site, climate, management activities, disturbance regime, and

plant and animal composition (Hann et al. 1997). 

Framing questions about thresholds in terms of

ecosystem processes may improve efficiency by elucidating dynamics of numerous ecosystem components

simultaneously. For example, one might ask, across biophysical settings, what is the shape of the response

curve of ecosystem services (Daily 1997) such as nutrient cycling, decomposition, carbon sequestration, and

the hydrologic cycle to increasing densities of invasive

plants? As a more specific example, do exotics alter

pollination dynamics to the extent that native species

are limited by a lack of animal pollinators? Axelrod

(1960) estimated that two-thirds of all flowering plant

species benefit from insects that visit their flowers; substantial declines since the late 1940s in abundance of

honey bees may threaten productivity in agricultural

and natural systems (Watanabe 1994, Nabhan and

Buchmann 1997). As a final example, how do exotics

change the composition and diversity of soil microorganisms, other than crust species, and how does this

affect establishment and persistence of native species?

Restoration treatments. Again framing questions in

terms of ecosystem processes, one might conversely ask

what changes occur in ecosystem processes after physical,

chemical, and biological control methods are employed

for well-established and newly established infestations of

invasive exotics? How do the changes vary as extent of

control method (i.e., treated area) increases? The four

questions below are examples that address restoration and

its implementation across the Basin.

i. [H] After fires of large spatial extent when native

seeds cannot be collected or produced in sufficient

amount to re-seed the entire burned area, what spatial

arrangement of native and non-native reseeding creates

greatest productivity and diversity of native species? 

Effectiveness of restoration actions depend upon

the nature of the disturbance(s), the abiotic conditions

of the site (e.g., soil type, climate), which invasive

plants are involved, and the spatial extent of the infestation. Marlette and Anderson (1986) observed little invasion by native perennial grasses into established crested

wheatgrass stands. They concluded that most native

perennials do not possess mechanisms for long-range

dispersal, such that establishment declines exponentially with increasing distance from the parent plant. From

results of simulated expansion from dispersed foci of

revegetation, Moody and Mack (1988) concluded that

small satellite patches possess greater potential for 

expansion than does a large central focus of revegetation.

Potential spatial arrangements that can be compared

include all lands mixed, core and buffer arrangement,

interspersed patches, non-natives at areas of highest 

erosion potential, among others. Restoration efforts 

are most effective when site-specific conditions are 

considered within the framework of how they contribute

to restoring connectivity and reducing fragmentation at

larger spatial scales. 

ii. [H] In preparing seed mixes and restoration

plantings with native species, what mix provides an

optimum compromise between the objectives of rapid

soil stabilization, development of diverse native flora,

and creation of soil nutrient and hydrological dynamics

that are resistant to exotic species?

A high priority for restoration research is a better

understanding of the factors affecting the establishment

of native species. Of particular interest are finding

native species that compete effectively against invasive

exotics, understanding how exotic species alter the

establishment process, and selecting native species for

seed increase. Interspecific competitive interactions

during and after establishment are also of interest, and

finding native species that possess life histories and

uptake patterns similar to cheatgrass and other exotics

merits further research.

iii. [M - H] In areas of small spatial extent but

relatively extensive degradation, does the use of

seedlings (as opposed to seeds) improve rates of

shrub establishment? 

36 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
In arid regions, plant establishment occurs slowly

and is contingent upon a narrow range of climatic 

conditions (Williams 1977). Restoration of shrubs is

important, because of their roles in substrate stabilization, creation of diverse microclimates, and development of a self-sustaining community that will require

minimal future management. From research on efforts

to restore sage-shrub habitat that underwent surface

strip-mining, Parmenter et al. (1985) reported that use

of seedlings (grown from seeds collected on adjacent

areas) achieved higher levels of plant establishment

than did cultivated seeds. High establishment success

occurred in seedlings in the first planting, contrasting

with the several successive plantings commonly

required for seed establishment in restoration efforts. 

iv. [M - H] In areas with unstable soils, do

clumped plantings of seedlings exhibit greater ecological function (e.g., soil stabilization, nutrient cycling)

than random or dispersed plantings? 

Species of perennial grasses and forbs display a

diversity of strategies to disperse seed propagules from

parent plants. Especially in relatively windy areas,

bunchgrasses and shrubs trap organic matter and spores

of mycorrhizal fungi, and provide microclimate suitable

for establishment of new individuals. In restoration of

sage-shrub habitat in western Wyoming that underwent

strip-mining for coal, plants established in clumps were

more successful (in terms of both survivorship and production of new plants) than plants cultivated in regular

or random spacing patterns (Parmenter et al. 1985). 

Soils

i. [H] Will different components of crusts recover

after 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, or even 20 years’ removal of disturbance agents such as excessive grazing or severe

fires? How does this vary with soil type? Can soils be

efficiently and feasibly inoculated with crust components to facilitate the process?

Microbiotic crusts can be damaged temporarily by

fire (Harper and Marble 1988, West 1990) and by continuous season-long or very intense, short-duration

grazing (Brotherson et al. 1983, Johansen 1986, Jeffries

and Klopatec 1987). Regrowth of crusts varies with disturbance history (Marble and Harper 1989) and current

abundance of exotic annuals, but initial recovery of

crusts after disturbances abate can be fairly rapid (several to 100 years). Cyanobacteria and algae comprise

initial stages of recovery, followed by bryophytes and

lichens in later successional stages of recovery

(Rosentreter 1986, Belnap and Gardner 1993). Hann et

al. (1997) noted a lack of research on response of

microbiotic crusts to disturbances, particularly anthropogenic disturbances associated with land uses such as

livestock grazing. Using knowledge of recovery trajectories and timing of various components, managers may

be able to aid crust regrowth through subsurface inoculation of soils over small spatial areas. This question

can be best addressed through an interdisciplinary

group of soil scientists at numerous sites (with paired

control sites), using repeated measures over time

(Green 1993).

ii. [H] To what degree and extent has soil chemistry

been altered in arid ecosystems? Are there any aboveground indicators that reliably signal areas with significantly altered soil chemistry? What factors affect the

success of restoration, reclamation, and rehabilitation

efforts that use various soil treatments? 

Soil productivity across the Basin is generally

declining, due to improper implementation of vegetation

management activities, road construction and maintenance, and excessive livestock grazing (Hann et al.

1997). Although physical characteristics of soils such as

bulk density, porosity, and water-holding capacity are

known to affect rates of erosion and vegetation establishment, an understanding of how soil chemistry

affects the structure, composition, and function of other

ecosystem elements (Figure 2) is less developed. 

The C/N ratio is one critical aspect of soil chemistry,

and is increasingly investigated as a target in restoration

efforts. Addition of sucrose, a source of carbon, has

been tested as a means to limit nitrogen availability to

plant communities in grassland and shortgrass steppe

habitats. Torok et al. (2000) found that degree of nitrogen

immobilization can vary with soil moisture and organic

matter. In red fescue grown from callus tissue, treatment with sucrose enhanced regeneration capacity and

decreased frequency of albino plants (Zaghmut and

Torello 1992). In abandoned croplands in the shortgrass

steppe of Colorado, addition of N increased relative

abundance of annual forbs and grasses (e.g., noxious

weeds), whereas the addition of sucrose increased relative abundance of perennials (Paschke et al. 2000).

Late-seral plant communities may be less effective than

earlier-seral communities at capturing added N, and

sucrose additions may affect the rate and course of

plant and soil redevelopment in as little as four years

(Paschke et al. 2000). Should further experimentation

corroborate this initial work, treatment methods that can

be widely and economically applied should be sought.

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 37
iii. [M] Have areas with a particular slope gradient

and aspect (e.g., south-facing, steep slopes) suffered soil

losses so severe that historical plant communities can no

longer exist? Which techniques are most effective for

restoring soils or mitigating soil losses in areas such as

these, with varying levels of retrogression? 

Increasing slope gradient can be one of the

strongest predictors of high erosion rates in arid ecosystems (Wilcox and Wood 1989, Ludwig et al. 1995, Kim

and Miller 1996). Due to physical forces involved, finer

particles are washed downhill in disturbed areas, leaving soils remaining on slopes with a coarser texture.

Vegetative cover or leaf litter on slopes can attenuate the

force of incident precipitation and thus reduce soil loss

(Wilcox and Wood 1989). However, steep slopes are

commonly grazed by domestic sheep, which can reduce

cover and thus increase erosion potential. Broad-scale

re-creation of soils is not feasible, and numerous plant

species cannot tolerate drastic changes in soil characteristics. This question should be addressed for soils possessing several types of parent material.

Aquatic-Terrestrial Interface

Multi-scale Importance

i. [H] How do aquatic habitats respond to disturbance events (fires, large floods, droughts) over short and

longer time scales, and how does this level of resiliency

compare with the response to altered frequency and 

magnitude of disturbances caused by anthropogenic 

influences such as roads, exotic species, livestock grazing,

water diversions, dams, and gravel mining?

Structure and function of riparian areas often

depend upon the frequency, magnitude, and duration of

disturbance by extreme hydrological events and upon

the way in which these events affect geomorphic and

hydrologic processes. Research design may focus on

three types of studies: a) field surveys that measure the

impact of historical events such as fires and large

floods; b) intensive, opportunistic surveys during and

immediately after rare disturbance events; and c) use of

human influences to assess response of aquatic systems

to changed disturbance regimes (Lee et al. 1997).

Because the role of disturbance in shaping riparian and

aquatic systems varies with climate region and from

naturally stable to highly variable systems, broader

inference will be gained from replication across watersheds and dominant natural gradients. Especially in

complex and variable aquatic systems, understanding

long-term responses to disturbance over scales relevant

to disturbance regimes of the Intermountain West is

critical. Approaches such as retrospective analysis,

fast-system analogues, simulation models, and

space-for-time substitution may be used to complement

long-term research (Fleming 1999). 

In some stream systems, legacies of past climate

change strongly affect stream geomorphology and current stream functioning and can result in a natural tendency towards stream incision or degradation.

Human-related impacts can greatly exacerbate both the

magnitude and rate of change (degradation) in these

stream systems. (Chambers et al. 1998, Miller et al.

2001). Thus, management strategies in riparian areas

may be improved by incorporating an understanding of

the effects of climate change processes as well as natural and anthropogenic disturbance.

ii. [H] AD.MGMT If sufficient data exist to estimate 

HRV in intensity, frequency, and duration of flooding

disturbance, do expected changes in recruitment of

riparian trees, species composition of plants, channel

morphology, and upland conditions occur when the disturbance regime is restored? If not, which conditions

(e.g., lowered water table, altered composition of vegetation) most strongly inhibit potential for recovery? 

In aquatic systems, disturbance events may differ

in their magnitude, frequency, and duration, all of

which diminish laterally away from the active channel

(Gregory et al. 1991). Because irrigation and dams tend

to attenuate pulse flows, heterogeneity in disturbance

pattern has decreased from historic conditions. Removal

of dams has been considered as one means to restore

historic disturbance regimes and connectivity of aquatic

habitats. However, the hydrogeomorphic and faunal

responses to dam removal are largely unknown in this

region. In addition, the importance of dams for agriculture and generation of hydroelectric power necessitates

careful planning when considering dam removal. Field

experiments during and after rare events can intensively

and opportunistically examine changes during and following rare events. The nature of the changes can be

compared with changes due to human impacts (e.g.,

construction of a new road, imposition of a dam or livestock grazing) to assess the resilience of aquatic ecosystems to disturbance.

Historically, wildfires were a natural and important

part of the disturbance regime, and may have been the

most pervasive disturbance agent across the landscape

(Reeves et al. 1995). The pattern of wildfire frequency

and intensity historically reflected variability in vegetative structure and cover types, climate, and topography,

and aquatic populations were recolonized from connected neighboring populations after small-scale disturbances. In contrast, wildfires currently occur less fre38 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
quently but with greater intensity than they did historically, due largely to fire suppression efforts. In addition,

dams and diversions often prevent population recolonization. Wildfires can directly affect water chemistry,

and can indirectly affect hydrologic regime, erosion,

debris flows, and riparian cover (McMahon and

deCalista 1990, Bozek and Young 1994).

iii. [H] At scales from the stream reach or wetland

to the landscape, how have historic landscape processes

been altered by anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., land

and water uses), and what effects do the change in physical processes have on aquatic habitat and populations?

Connectivity among aquatic habitats occurs naturally in contiguous lotic systems, but also occurs in

lentic systems through climatic cycles and active dispersal of vagile organisms. Ecologists and managers

have increasingly been investigating aquatic integrity

and riparian function at larger scales (Hynes 1975). In

particular, watersheds have often been proposed as the

unit of analysis for investigating pattern and process in

ecosystems (Johnson and Patil 1998, Jones et al. 2000b,

Kepner et al. 2000). This approach emphasizes the fundamental connection between stream, riparian (or wetland), and adjacent upland habitats, and provides the

broad context within which smaller-scale investigations

can be realized. A key interaction to consider is the

manner in which roads, fuel treatments, grazing, diversions, impoundments, and channelization have affected

stream temperature, stream sedimentation, channel

structure (e.g., incision) and complexity, as well as connectivity of aquatic habitat. The use of replicated aquatic units with controls is essential to remove effects of

climate and intrinsic stochasticity, which can confound

investigations of disturbance in semi-arid regions

(Hastings and Turner 1965, Herbel 1979, Branson

1985). Addressing this question robustly requires an

interdisciplinary team of hydrologists, aquatic ecologists, landscape ecologists, modeling experts, and managers of spatially explicit data.

Grazing presents an example of a disturbance that

has changed from nomadic wild grazers in

pre-European times to current conditions. Riparian

zones often receive heavier use by livestock than do

upland zones, because they have flatter terrain, abundant water and shade, and more succulent vegetation

(Platts 1991). Platts (1991) reviewed effects of grazing

on streambanks, the water column, and the stream channel, and evaluated the compatibility of seven major

grazing strategies with fishery needs. High priority

should be assigned to improving our understanding of

riparian condition, and research should involve a

multi-disciplinary approach that includes hydrologists,

geomorphologists, modelers, and vertebrate biologists.

Designing a grazing system requires consideration not

only of grazing intensity (i.e., utilization level), duration, season, frequency of rotation, and grazer identity

(sheep vs. cattle), but also of the spatial arrangement of

grazing pressure across the landscape. 

iv. [H] AD.MGMT How do water quality and aquatic

diversity vary across DOI-administered lands with

respect to changes in road density, canopy cover and

composition, sedimentation, and grazing system? 

In this context, diversity includes genetic variability within species (e.g., evolutionarily significant units),

composition of various functional groups (e.g., macroinvertebrate shredders, macroinvertebrate scrapers,

algae, microinvertebrates, fishes), and community

diversity. Extensive sampling for the ICBEMP has produced broad-scale maps documenting the status and distribution of aquatic species, especially salmonids, for

the Basin. However, algae, microinvertebrates, and

macroinvertebrates, the basic biotic components of

most aquatic habitats, are poorly known from the Basin.

Furthermore, point samples of invertebrates may reflect

only conditions in the immediate vicinity, and thus correlate poorly with particular land uses. 

Due to the influence of topographic and geomorphologic factors on aquatic diversity (Gregory et al.

1991), experiments are needed to separate effects of

land-use activities from confounding factors (e.g., geomorphology, stream profile). Thus, more direct links

can be established between landscape conditions and

biological responses. For example, field experiments

within and between watersheds can use sites of restoration and development activities as experimental replicates to manipulate levels of the factors of interest (e.g.,

grazing system, canopy cover, abundance of exotics).

Corresponding invertebrate sampling should occur at

sampled locations along gradients of human influence. 

v. [L - M] What disturbance factors cause departures in correlation between upstream and downstream

conditions in streams?

Hynes (1975) underscored the importance of a

landscape perspective for understanding structure and

function of stream ecosystems. Geomorphic processes,

fluvial landforms, succession of plant communities, and

production of nutritional resources all combine to

define riparian conditions (Gregory et al. 1991).

Although geomorphologic and vegetative conditions

can vary among different reaches of the same stream, it

is unclear to what extent human land uses combine with

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 39
endogenous sources of variability in stream ecosystems.

In the Basin, most stream inventories have been performed in high-elevation, constrained reaches, while

low-elevation rangelands have been greatly undersampled (Lee et al. 1997). Integrating information from

upper reaches of the same stream or from lower-order

streams may aid interpretation of stream surveys performed on DOI-administered lands.

Spring Locations

i. [H] What are the composition, abundance, and

trend of spring-dwelling biotas? How do soils and

nearby communities (e.g., invertebrates, plants, large

mammals, birds, granivorous mammals) respond to

changes in spring management? 

Many spring-dwelling animal species in arid and

semi-arid regions have restricted distributions, due to

the disjunct distribution of springs. Such taxa include

ostracods, springsnails, butterflies, and diverse aquatic

insects. Systematic, broad-scale surveys of springs in

the western United States, in addition to detecting high

levels of endemism in spring communities, have found

springs to be highly altered by recreation, impoundment

for irrigation or livestock grazing, and large-animal use

(Hamlin 1996, Külköylüoglu and Vinyard 2000). The

influences of domestic cattle and feral horses are greatest immediately adjacent to springs, and decrease

asymptotically with increasing distance from the spring

(Valentine 1947). Spring networks provide a naturally

replicated system, in which the effects of uncapping

springs or changes in grazing management can be

experimentally investigated. 

Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Communities

i. [H] AD.MGMT What levels of shoreline disturbance

by humans or livestock cause loss of fitness in wetland

animal species? Does minimizing disturbance during

periods of reproduction mitigate effects on fitness? 

Lee et al. (1997) cite shoreline disturbance as one of

numerous factors contributing to declines in wetland

species. For many nesting shorebirds, periods of reproduction are when species are most vulnerable to anthropogenic influences. Seasonally restricted access to breeding and nesting areas has been successful in bolstering

population sizes for some species. Similarly, some fishes

require specific site conditions to complete reproduction.

Examples of taxa on which to focus investigation include

resident and migratory birds, endemic fishes, aquatic

invertebrates, and introduced species. Comparing reproductive success of several species or groups representative of key ecosystem processes at several human-excluded and control areas over two to five years should address

this question adequately. A smaller-scale approach to

addressing the question would ask: In areas where

humans are allowed access to only portions of wetlands,

how much time do vertebrate species spend in

human-limited areas? (Also see question v. in this section

for further discussion on thresholds.)

ii. [H] To what degree have ephemeral wetlands

been converted to other uses within the region? 

In many areas of the Basin, water is a limiting

resource, and ephemeral wetlands may play critical

roles at landscape scales in water and energy budgets of

native wildlife. Recent research (Clausnitzer 2000) suggests that some ephemeral wetlands within the Basin

possess many hydrologic and edaphic similarities to

vernal pools of California, which have been afforded

high levels of protection there. Exotic bullfrogs, exotic

fishes, and predaceous aquatic insects tend to occur in

relatively deep, structurally simple, more permanent

ponds that have become more common in western

North America (Hayes and Jennings 1986, Roth and

Jackson 1987). Because these exotics often cannot persist in more ephemeral water bodies, ephemeral water

sources may become increasingly important for sustaining populations of amphibians through time. Alterations

to ephemeral wetlands may affect aquatic invertebrates,

aquatic birds, amphibian breeding, and, by reducing

springtime forb production, pronghorn antelope and

sage grouse. Increased salinization of either ephemeral

or permanent wetlands may dramatically reduce their

value to native vertebrates (Rubega and Robinson

1996). Effects of livestock grazing on ephemeral water

sources in the region have largely not been quantified.

Experimental manipulation of ephemeral wetlands, via

digging out and re-filling of replicated seasonal wetlands, could be used in concert with comparison of

unaltered and excavated areas to rigorously address

effects of alteration and attempted restoration.

iii. [M] Which factors limit the success of vegetation reestablishment at aquatic-terrestrial interfaces

experiencing trampling, eutrophication, or salinization? 

A knowledge base for streamside revegetation

already exists, but improved understanding of external

validity (numerous conditions) would assist in applicability of revegetation techniques. Many plant species

are specialized to tolerate conditions unique to the

aquatic-terrestrial interface, and cannot immediately

colonize sites that have suffered compaction or altered

balance of nutrients. 

40 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
In addition to the disturbances of trampling, eutro

phication, and salinization, various characteristics of the

hydrological regime such as the intensity, duration, and

frequency of pulse flows in riparian zones, as well as the

discharge level throughout the year, can affect the

recruitment of vegetation. Furthermore, in many streams,

legacies of past geomorphologic activity (e.g., natural

geologic processes, historic mining) in the stream, as

well as anthropogenic disturbances upstream and upland

can constrain potential options for recovery. This question can be addressed either through multivariate analysis

of sites with varying recolonization success or through

one- or two-factor experimental manipulation of conditions known to be important in plant establishment.

iv. [M] At what concentrations of salinity, total dissolved solids, toxic pollutants, and dissolved oxygen

will populations of fishes, birds, and aquatic invertebrates start to decline (i.e., experience compromised

reproductive success)? Can exceeding these thresholds

be reliably avoided through manipulation of water levels using existing systems of water management?

Due to withdrawals for irrigation, mining, road

construction, farming, livestock grazing, and shoreline

recreation, numerous characteristics of water quality

have been altered significantly from historic conditions,

especially in low-elevation water bodies (Rubega and

Robinson 1996, Lee et al. 1997). Many fishes in the

southern portion of the Basin are relatively narrow

endemics, and do not have broad tolerances for changes

in salinity, dissolved solids, and dissolved oxygen. For

example, Lahontan cutthroat trout die at high water

temperatures or in the presence of high levels of total

dissolved solids (Dickerson 1997). Often, loss of links

in aquatic food webs can lead to a cascade of further

extirpations. For many species, tolerance levels can be

established in laboratories; however, it is most important to determine the synergistic effects of simultaneous

stressors on organisms. Tolerance levels of many

species to toxic pollutants have not been established,

and environmental scientists often have only a superficial understanding of synergistic effects of multiple

stressors on organisms. 

This question assumes the existence of thresholds,

above which organisms respond fundamentally differently to biotic or abiotic stressors than they do at conditions below the threshold. However, not all organisms

respond in a distinctly binary manner, as implied by a

threshold, but rather in a graded, continuous fashion.

Furthermore, intrinsic variability in ecosystems complicates the ability to evaluate stressors using a precise,

static threshold. Three types of variability include stochastic variation, successional trends after natural disturbance, and cyclic variation (Noon et al. 1999).

Therefore, active management may be recommended

when monitoring produces repeated observations of

indicator variables out of the normal (or historic) range

of values, rather than simply when a threshold is

crossed. Accordingly, the goal of research relating to

thresholds is a better understanding of ecosystem

processes and ecological resilience.

v. [M] AD.MGMT Similar to questions related to upland

exotic plants, what are the conditions most favorable

for establishment of “aquatic nuisance species” (e.g.,

zebra mussel and other mussels, crustaceans, cordgrasses)? What detection, monitoring, prevention, and

control techniques should be employed?

Answers to these two questions may help prioritize

how to distribute funding and management effort

among many areas, which control method or methods

to employ, and when. Although animal invasions are

most likely in the Columbia River and its immediate

tributaries, species such as whitetop and tamarisk have

broad distributions and can drastically alter hydrological conditions in waterways across the more arid rangelands of the Basin. Given rates of spread of aquatic nuisance species and the consequent ecological disruption

observed in other ecoregions, proactive management

strategies should prove to be fiscally prudent. Altered

hydrologic regimes, changes in water quality due to

various land uses, and changes in riparian vegetation

due to overgrazing may all facilitate the establishment

and spread of nuisance species. 

vi. [M] AD.MGMT If it is socially and biologically feasible to eradicate introduced fishes, do ecosystem and

regional integrity benefit more from efforts in fewer

medium- to large-sized aquatic habitats or in more

numerous small-sized habitats? Does this action

increase fitness of native fishes, amphibians, or 

aquatic insects? 

In western North America, numerous exotic fishes

have been introduced into permanent waters (Moyle

1986), and in lowland areas bullfrogs now occupy

many permanent ponds and streams (Bury and Whelan

1984). Introductions of bullfrogs and fish have been

implicated in declines of native amphibians (Leonard et

al. 1993) as well as native fishes (Williams et al. 1989,

Nehlsen et al. 1991, Fisher and Shaffer 1996).

However, numerous factors mediate the effects of exotic species on biotic diversity, and these factors may

interact in complex or correlated fashion to produce

faunal change (Winter and Hughes 1995, Adams 2000).

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 41
National parks in the western United States have generally stopped introducing fishes, and abundance of planted species has often declined in park water bodies.

Biological integrity and not just species diversity is

increasingly recognized as an important characteristic

of ecosystem health. Thus, determining the effects of

habitat size on manipulation of ratios of native to

non-native species is but one of many factors that can be

investigated to maximize ecological benefits of control

efforts. Logistical difficulties may preclude restoration of

very large water bodies. However, experimental design

could employ a paired design across patch sizes, with

fish removals in half of the units. Within financial constraints, replicates should be located in several broad

environmental strata (e.g., GAP vegetation types, ecological reporting units) if broad applicability is desired.

vii. [L] To what extent is regional integrity and

persistence of species affected by stocking events of

native fishes?

Native fishes are stocked periodically in water bodies across the region, yet there has been no definitive

assessment of their effects on target species and other

components of aquatic systems. To achieve the most

definitive answer, manipulations of stocking rates

should ideally be done for one species at a time in replicated water bodies, and over the course of several years

to account for environmental stochasticity.

Development of Monitoring 

and Implementation Protocols 

for Adaptive Management

Overarching Issues

i. [H] What is the minimum set of variables that can

be used to reliably detect disturbance or departure from

historic range of variability within a given soil-vegetation

type, elevation band, and aspect? For example, for what

range of values can an easily monitored (on-site,

fine-scale) variable such as penetration resistance (hardness) of soil surfaces be used as a proxy to detect changes

in other ecosystem components? Which components are

and are not predicted by the proxy?

Multivariate characterization of disturbance has

become an increasingly common focus of ecologists

during the last two decades. Often, variables of interest

are difficult, if not logistically impossible, to collect

across broad spatial scales. As an alternative, proxies

are often used to represent ecosystem components or

processes. Descriptors of spatial elements and configuration can be used to clarify patterns and processes in

ecosystems, especially when used in concert with

site-specific nonspatial variables. Iterative testing and

fine-tuning of potential suites of disturbance indicators

will help managers and researchers balance between conciseness (for logistical concerns of implementation) and

capturing processes that drive ecosystem function. 

A set of range condition indicators has been developed (Pellant et al. 2000), and is being field-tested at

selected locations across the western United States.

Similarly, Hann et al. (in press) derived a variable to estimate disturbance departure from the historical landscape

mosaic and succession-disturbance regimes produced by

the cumulative effects of livestock grazing, timber management, invasions of exotic plants, agricultural conversions, and other human activities across broad areas.

Levels of the variable reflect the composite degree of

coarse-scale change in patch size, composition, and

arrangement; timing and severity of tree die-off due to

pest and pathogens; timing and intensity of ungulate grazing; composition of native versus non-native vegetation;

and human activities and presence.

Riparian Areas

i. [M] In riparian systems, for purposes of prioritization, do point- or reach-specific management efforts (e.g.,

bank stabilization, eradication of exotic plants, change in

grazing system) produce levels of restoration that vary

across watersheds?

A fairly extensive literature exists regarding the

distribution and interrelationships of aquatic biodiversity (e.g., fish, invertebrates) and physical habitats at the

scale of stream reaches and individual habitat units.

However, much less is known about the large-scale

relationships and processes that influence structure,

composition, and persistence of populations and communities. Thus, effective conservation and restoration

of aquatic resources depend on a better understanding

of the spatial and temporal distribution of habitats necessary to sustain functioning systems (Lee et al. 1997).

Variables used to index restoration should reflect function and process in geomorphology, hydrology, vegetation, and resident animals (Figure 2). Meta-analysis

(Fernandez-Duque and Valeggia 1994) or preliminary

sampling could be used as a screen to determine which

environmental factors may strongly influence restoration success. Subsequently, point-specific restoration

should be implemented in differing levels of the factor

at numerous replicates within a watershed. Once patterns in effectiveness of restoration can be established,

future restoration may focus on areas providing the

greatest improvement in aquatic function. 

42 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
Wildlife

i. [H - M] Given that the region and the world are

experiencing a relatively rapid period of climate

change, what are the effects on stenotopic species, particularly temperature-sensitive species? Can population

extirpations be predictably modeled? Are distributional

ranges of species migrating up hillslopes and to more

northerly latitudes? For species vulnerable to high temperatures or large fluctuations in temperature, are populations experiencing losses at the southern edges of

the range or at lower elevations? 

Although climatic changes must be viewed from the

perspective of several temporal scales to adequately

assess trend, mounting climatological data suggest that

rapid shifts in climate (e.g., temperature, precipitation,

seasonality) are occurring in the United States and across

the globe (Schneider 1990, Kittel et al. 1997). A reasonable body of theory has been put forward to predict biological responses to changes in climate (e.g., Peters and

Darling 1985, McDonald and Brown 1992, Murphy and

Weiss 1992), although few predictions have been tested

across broad spatial scales. Under presumed increases in

temperature, populations are predicted to move up in elevation or latitude, or to be experience local extirpations

when migration upslope or to more northern habitats is

not possible. For aquatic habitats, high temperatures may

result in at least temporary loss of water bodies, although

water levels in the Basin can also be affected by drought.

As an example, Beever (1999) re-visited sites of historically recorded pika populations in the hydrographic Great

Basin, and found that more than one-fourth of the populations have suffered apparent extirpation during the latter

part of the 20th century. Furthermore, most extirpations

occurred at the lowest-elevation sites, although habitat

area and proximity to roads also appeared to contribute to

greater extinction risk. Finally, especially for less vagile

species such as the meadow vole and northern pocket

gopher, edges of species’ ranges deserve conservation

attention if management is to provide evolutionary and

migratory potential for the future.

ii. [M - H] For which vertebrate and invertebrate

species do trends in habitat (Boyce et al. 1994, Hann 

et al. 1997, Marcot et al. 1997) not predict trends of

population density? 

Generally, vertebrate species with large home

ranges are most severely affected by habitat loss and

fragmentation (Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991).

Assessment of terrestrial species for ICBEMP primarily

analyzed dynamics at broad spatial scales and relied on

the assumption (i.e., working hypothesis) that amount,

distribution, and trend of habitat reflect true population

size, distribution, and trend of species at broad and finer

scales (Marcot et al. 1997). However, many species will

respond to changes in habitat at much finer spatial

scales, depending on local biotic and abiotic conditions as

well as on life-history characteristics of individual

species. For example, significant road-kill mortality, nest

parasitism, demography, population genetics, interspecific

interactions, and disturbance dynamics are factors that can

produce nonlinear relationships between habitat area and

a species’ distribution or abundance. Furthermore,

broad-scale analyses of vegetation, by definition, cannot

detect changes in finer-grained attributes of vegetation

and habitat substrates. Early identification of species

whose trends are not easily modeled by broad-scale

changes in habitat may help avert future listing of threatened and endangered species. Wisdom et al. (2000) list

173 vertebrate species of conservation concern, based on

extensive literature surveys and expert reviews of fauna in

the Basin, which may be used as a starting point for

future research on species at risk. This question can be

investigated by incorporating existing information on sensitive species with replicated surveys in given habitat

types to determine which species have incidence functions suggestive of finer-scaled habitat needs. (See also

discussion on Bayesian belief models in the “Terrestrial

Species” section of the Background.)

Fisheries

i. [H] As human settlement and demand for water in

the Basin continues to increase, is there an upper limit

on water diversion, above which the connection of

streamside habitats to the water table is altered to the

point that riparian vegetation no longer performs ecosystem functions (e.g., flood attenuation, sediment holding)?

Most recent controversy over land use in the western

United States relates either directly (e.g., water supply,

public health and recreation, road construction) or indirectly (e.g., special-status riparian obligates) to the hydrologic system. Water is a limited resource in the semiarid portions of the Basin, and its scarcity becomes

more pronounced with increasing amounts of water allocated to human uses. Although many aquatic species in

the semi-arid portions of the Basin possess physiological and behavioral traits adaptive for periodically low

flows, human use of water has altered both the mean

and the magnitude of variation in discharge. In addition

to the effects on the functionality of riparian vegetation,

the effects of reduced flows should also be assessed

with respect to riparian-obligate vertebrates and invertebrates, geomorphological processes, and upland habitats.

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 43
In some cases, a range of conditions will provide a more

robust trigger for initiating management response than

will a single threshold. Hydrologists, landscape 

ecologists, aquatic biologists, and geomorphologists can

collectively address how various uses of water affect

hydrologic characteristics such as stream temperature,

turbidity, sedimentation, and channel roughness across

the landscape (especially at the federal-private interface). Understanding how watersheds respond to incrementally increasing human use of water is critical for

water quality planning and credibly defending policy in

cases of litigation.

ii. [M - H] What are the effects of different 

recreational uses of habitats (e.g., camping, fishing,

hunting, mountain biking, off-highway vehicles,

motorized boating)? 

To manage and restore recreational areas, it is

important to understand which aspects (e.g., camping

adjacent to riparian areas) and intensities of recreation

use are causing impacts (Stankey et al. 1985). Although

studies on each recreational use have been performed

individually and for some ecosystem attributes, ecologists do not know how these uses combine synergistically or how they affect ecological processes. This

question is especially amenable to input from social 

scientists, to integrate recreational, aesthetic, and

resource values into analyses. 

Soils

Research questions regarding monitoring of soils are

found in other sections of this Plan, in particular in the

Restoration section. An additional question follows below.

i. [H] What are the effects of disturbances such as

fire and livestock grazing on nutrient availability and

its relationship to plant invasions? How do they change

following restoration? 

Nutrient dynamics are increasingly recognized as

a determinant of system response to disturbance.

Understanding how rates of nitrogen deposition vary

across the Basin is an important first step to address

this question.

Testing Assumptions

One function of monitoring and analysis is to provide

tests of stated assumptions made by the Science Advisory

Group (USDA and USDI 2000a). Assumptions are necessary to complete the vast array of broad-scale analyses

included in the Assessment (Quigley and Arbelbide

1997). Stating assumptions clearly communicates what

elements are known and unknown (e.g., Corn 1994), and

provides an excellent mechanism for the fine-tuning of

management, a central tenet of adaptive management

(Holling 1978). Some assumptions that may merit verification on DOI-administered lands include the following:

i. [H] Is “the influence of management direction

and the function of riparian areas ... essentially the

same in forested and range areas” (USDA and USDI

2000b: 16-10)?

ii. [H] Is “the status and trends of salmonids and

their habitats ... the most representative indicators of

the responses in aquatic ecosystems related to federal

land management” (USDA and USDI 2000b:16-16)?

Alternatively, which aquatic species or assemblages

best reflect health, integrity or resiliency of aquatic

ecosystems in lower-elevation systems?

For the latter question, multivariate approaches to

analyzing stream faunas are most likely to prove useful,

including techniques such as PCA, cluster analysis, and

reciprocal averaging. Intensity, scale, and methods of

sampling also need to be outlined to ensure ability to

apply conclusions at larger scales. In December 1999,

the Interagency Salmon Science Team identified roads

and road type, geomorphology, land use type, and the

distribution of age classes of upland and riparian vegetation as potential metrics.

iii. [H] Are levels of activities other than grazing

unlikely to strongly influence riparian condition?

Alternatively stated, is the assumption that “future riparian condition is viewed as the result of current condition,

grazing levels, and riparian management direction that

may influence grazing or other activity within the buffer

but not the magnitude of that other activity” valid

(emphasis added; USDA and USDI 2000b:16-16)? For

example, does the amount of hiking, horseback riding,

mountain biking, camping, or use of roads along streams

affect stream condition?

iv. [H] To what degree do the soil property and 

climate indicators used in ICBEMP modeling of rangeland health predict conditions of structure, composition,

and function of communities at the site level? What 

factors cause greatest departure from predictions 

suggested by indicators?

The soil indicators used include erodibility by

water (K factor), erodibility by wind (wind erodibility

group), salinity, sodicity, and shrink-swell potential;

climate indicators include three levels of annual 

precipitation, <9.8 in., 9.8-11.8 in., and >11.8 in. 

44 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
(< 25 cm, 25-30 cm, and > 30 cm). On-site validation

or ground-truthing is needed.

Habitats and Species at Risk

Habitats at Risk

Expansion of western juniper. i. [H] AD.MGMTWhat is

the relationship of wildlife populations to the (physical)

structure of juniper habitats and recovery from fire?

Ecosystem processes occur very differently

between open (i.e., containing shrub and herb layers)

and closed (i.e., no shrub or herb layers) stands of

juniper. Bird diversity appears to exhibit a bell-shaped

response to increasing density of junipers (R. Miller,

personal communication, January 2001), such that

mid-successional stages form an important component

of the landscape mosaic. The relationships between

fauna and a) density and canopy cover of western

juniper; b) understory composition; and c) vegetation

structure are not well defined. Additional investigations

of responses of wildlife populations to western juniper

expansion and control would be useful (Hann et al.

1997). Prescribed fire is one of several techniques that

managers can use to actively manage overall density or

demographic parameters of juniper stands.

ii. [H] AD.MGMT What are the thresholds that constrain successional pathways? For example, to what

degree must loss of ladder fuels (i.e., range of cover

of shrubs and forbs) occur before only mechanical

treatments are useful in reducing juniper density?

Similarly, what density of cheatgrass precludes the

use of fire as a management tool?

Please see section entitled “Effects of invasive plants

on native vegetation” for background information (p. 35).

iii. [M - H, varying by location] AD.MGMT There is a

need to establish a solid fire history and reconstruct the

distribution of pre-EuroAmerican settlement stands.

Because historical conditions are known only at

broad scales, data are often lacking to justify site-specific management actions that are challenged by various

user groups (R. Miller, personal communication,

January 2001). The goal is to determine fire frequencies

and the mosaic of different successional stages in

juniper-inhabited areas, especially areas with competing

demands for resources. Although periodic fires occurring naturally often limit expansion of western juniper,

recent (< 25 ybp) establishment of juniper stands has

occurred even in research areas not influenced by fire

suppression or livestock grazing (Soulé and Knapp 2000).

iv. [M] AD.MGMT To what extent are hydrological

processes affected by increased juniper densities or by

restoration treatments to decrease juniper cover? How

does this differ across soil types associated with different

levels of precipitation?

Western juniper has expanded most extensively

into mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush, quaking

aspen, and riparian communities. Especially at high

densities, juniper trees intercept precipitation, and thus

restrict precipitation input to the soil surface. At sites

where western juniper is accompanied by only sparse

understory vegetation, juniper has been implicated in

reduced rates of infiltration and increased runoff and

erosion. Nonetheless, most hydrological research on

juniper has been performed in the southwestern United

States, and more research is needed to clarify the role

of western juniper in hydrological processes. Belsky

(1996) challenged assertions that expansion of juniper

has detrimental effects on streamflow, soil properties,

and wildlife habitat. Tree growth in juniper results from

nonlinear interactions between summer temperature,

which oscillates with centennial-level frequency, and

winter precipitation, which is dominated by shorter

period, decadal-scale oscillations (Graumlich 1993).

Thus, varying levels of precipitation will affect both

tree growth and physical interactions between rain and

soil. How surface and sub-surface hydrological regimes

are affected by other changes in vegetation (e.g.,

increased density of sagebrush, reduction of bunchgrasses) and associated restoration also merits investigation.

Other Habitats at Risk. See questions on

ephemeral wetlands and spring areas, which are relatively rare landscape elements that are relied upon by

numerous wildlife species and are increasingly utilized

by humans in semi-arid portions of the Basin. Other

special habitat types that may be locally or regionally

important to biotic integrity include caves, cliffs, talus,

montane shrubs, and tree snags. 

Sage-scrub habitats are one of three habitat types

that have undergone the greatest extent of change in

recent decades, and restoration efforts are complicated

by low and variable amounts of precipitation in

sage-scrub habitats. Sage grouse are increasingly used

as a model to describe trends in sagebrush-steppe habitats and other sage-obligate species. Three sample questions about grouse are listed below, but also see questions in the Landscape Ecology section under the

Restoration heading for a broad-scale perspective.

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 45
i. [H] What is the relationship between disturbance

regime and structure, composition, and function of vegetation in sage grouse habitat?

Sage grouse have evolved in semi-arid habitats that

were periodically disturbed by factors such as volcanism, drought, fire, and floods, such that a mosaic of

conditions existed across the landscape. For example,

although effects of livestock grazing on numerous

aspects of semi-arid vegetation are known, several

details of the relationship can be clarified: a) how historic and current livestock grazing practices combine to

affect vegetative structure, composition, and function;

b) how other disturbances (e.g., exotic plants, mowing,

prescribed fire) modify response of vegetation to grazing; and c) how response varies across the landscape. 

Disturbance of lekking areas can lead to reduced

reproductive success in sage grouse and other communally breeding species. Although other factors are

involved, areas nearest population centers and major

roadways tend to receive greatest use, and thus may

also be predicted to experience higher levels of disturbance. Other potential disturbances that need further

research to elucidate their effects on sagebrush obligates include oil and gas development (fragmentation,

roads, noise, lights, etc.), fire regimes, and hunting.

Intrinsic measures of habitat quality (e.g., composition

and cover of native grasses and forbs, abundance of

exotic annuals, shrub canopy height, abundance of key

arthropods) should be included as covariates when

assessing human influences on population trend.

ii. [H] In turn, how do demographic parameters of

sage grouse and other sagebrush-obligates vary with

vegetative characteristics (cover, species richness and

diversity, production) across the region?

Again, some work has been done that relates fitness of individuals of sagebrush-obligate species with

the amount of canopy cover, abundance of key forbs

and bunchgrasses, arthropod abundance, sagebrush

height, and other factors. Following females throughout

the rearing process is essential to understanding fitness.

An integrative approach that also simultaneously measures soil characteristics, invertebrate (especially ant)

abundance, and perhaps small-mammal abundance may

give insight into the mechanisms driving the response.

iii. [M-H] If nesting and lekking areas can be discriminated from randomly selected non-used sagebrush

areas in each of several sagebrush types (using variables

such as soil compaction, soil type, and shrub-forb-grass

ratios in discriminant analyses), is re-seeding or prescribed burning of altered habitats a viable means to

mimic conditions at nesting areas? In other words, to

what extent do grouse and other sagebrush-obligates use

restored lands for nesting and other functions?

Species at Risk

General themes. i. [H] For those species 

apparently negatively affected by high road densities,

under what conditions do road closures improve habitat conditions and population trends of TESPC

species (e.g., grizzly bears, wolves)? Does this effect

vary across taxa (i.e., mammals vs. upland plants vs.

aquatic species)?

Roads occupy only about 2% of the Basin’s area,

although the area affected ecologically by roads is considerably larger (Forman 2000, Trombulak and Frissell

2000). Furthermore, because 39% of the Basin’s roads

occur in watersheds highly susceptible to erosion and

sediment transport, water quality and hydrologic function in many streams have declined substantially

(Wisdom et al. 2000). Roads often facilitate the spread

of exotic weeds, reduce and fragment native habitats,

serve as a barrier to many less-vagile species, and

increase human disturbance by providing access (Noss

and Cooperrider 1994, Forman and Alexander 1998,

Trombulak and Frissell 2000). In rangelands, road construction has facilitated the expansion of woody species

through indirectly assisting fire suppression (as fuel

breaks) and livestock grazing (Hessburg et al. 1999).

ii. [H] What are the status, trend, and connectivity

of populations of nongame fishes? Is current richness

and community structure influenced by streamside vegetative cover, degree of downcutting, water temperature,

or some combination of these factors? In which ways

should management of fine-scale and regional aquatic

endemics differ from broad-scale efforts to create habitat conditions necessary to restore key salmonids (7

species; Figure 4)?

Twenty-two of the 47 special-status fishes in the

planning area occur in the Great Basin and Klamath Basin

areas (USDA and USDI 2000a), and these and other listed

species are affected on DOI-administered lands most

strongly by several factors. These factors include water

withdrawal or diversion; loss of connectivity and consequent disruption of metapopulation structure; degradation of habitat due to excessive livestock grazing,

urbanization, and upstream silvicultural practices; and

introduction of 55 non-native fish species (USDA and

USDI 2000a). Data on distribution, life history, habitat

relationships, and responses to various types of disturbance are generally lacking for most narrow endemics,

46 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
thus hindering understanding necessary for their management and conservation (Lee et al. 1997). For those species

with sufficiently large population sizes, manipulative

lab experiments may help refine understanding of their

physiological tolerances and biotic relationships. For

example, which mechanisms are these fishes most likely

to use during drought conditions?

iii. [H] To determine areas needed for viable populations: 1) What is the minimum patch size used by

threatened, endangered, sensitive, and candidate

species for different life stages or functions (e.g., feeding, breeding, nesting)? 2) What are the range and frequency of dispersal distances moved by individuals of

the species (via migration in animals or seed dispersal

in plants), and how do natural and human-created barriers to dispersal affect these distances? If they are

vastly different from suspected historic range of dispersal distances, does establishment of corridors improve

connectivity among populations? 3) What effect do

other conditions (e.g., sex ratios, mating system, age

class distribution) have on Ne (Nunney 1993)? 4) For

particularly endangered species, are captive breeding

programs, translocations, or other management strategies useful for increasing probability of persistence?

(See question (ii.) of Landscape Ecology, under

Restoration, for background information.)

iv. [H] What life-history, behavioral, morphological, or physiological characteristics of species predispose them to higher vulnerability to uncharacteristic

disturbance?

Potential characteristics include low dispersal

capability, intrinsic rarity, large body size, high degree

of habitat specificity, low amount of behavioral plasticity, low fecundity, long generation times, and stenotopicity (possessing narrow tolerance ranges). Clearly,

importance of individual factors will vary across taxa.

However, research addressing this question may help

predict which species will become endangered in the

future. The 173 terrestrial species of conservation concern listed by Wisdom et al. (2000) provide one starting point for generating hypotheses about species’ vulnerability to disturbance.

v. [M - H] Which species on public lands are most

and least commensal with conditions associated with

human settlement (e.g., feral dogs and cats, increased

trail use)?

Although the Basin contains only six major human

population centers, hundreds of communities dot the

Basin landscape. Furthermore, improvements in transportation have effectively spread the sphere of influence

of human settlements, and population growth in the

Basin is predicted to be above the national average

(Hann et al. 1997). Understanding the degree of commensalism with humans for non-charismatic species

will determine appropriate buffer widths and help refine

patch occupancy models for each investigated species.

Especially within taxonomic groups, it may be possible

to lump species into categories of commensalism.

USFWS high-priority species or groups and

their management needs, Regions 1 and 6 (USFWS

1998). i. [H] What are the status of upland shrubsteppe species and what common and species-specific

influences are causing their declines? Additionally,

what determines quality of nesting habitat, what are

minimum area re-quirements, and what range of densities is needed for “source” populations? For species

with limited dispersal distances, what are the population status and evolutionary distinctiveness of 

geographically disjunct populations? 

It remains unclear how widespread alterations to

vegetation composition and structure may affect species

such as ground squirrels and their predators, loggerhead

shrikes, Brewer’s sparrows, sage sparrows, long-billed

curlews, and upland sandpipers (Hann et al. 1997). In

the Columbia Plateau of eastern Oregon and

Washington, 16 landbird species have exhibited significant declines in population trends during recent

(1980–1998) and/or long-term time periods

(1966–1998) (Altman and Holmes 2000). One approach

to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy

shrub-steppe communities and populations is to monitor

and manage for focal species that are highly associated

with important ecosystem attributes or conditions

(Altman and Holmes 2000, Vander Haegen et al. 2000).

For landbirds, critical attributes can include soil type

(for several species), cover of native bunchgrasses (for

grasshopper sparrows), interspersion of tall shrubs with

canopy openings (for loggerhead shrikes), and sagebrush cover (Brewer’s sparrow) or height (sage thrasher) (Altman and Holmes 2000, Vander Haegen et al.

2000). Ideally, demographic data collected from multiple sites over several years can be used to assess trends

and potential mechanisms of decline or expansion. This

information should ultimately help shape grazing activities, land acquisition, recreational uses, and other land

uses in interior shrub-steppe habitats.

ii. [H] For westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat

trout species, what are the fine-scale distribution, 

population sizes and trends, genetic distinctiveness (as

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 47
it relates to evolutionary and ecological significance;

Waples 1991) for definable populations? Furthermore,

how reproductively isolated is each population from

other populations, subspecies and species, what is the

distribution of habitat quality in which they reside, 

and what constitutes viable populations under the 

precautionary principle? 

Using the populational (as opposed to the typological) focus, within-species or within-subspecies

variability is equally or more important than differences

among species and subspecies (Meffe and Carroll

1994). Connectivity in Basin streams has been drastically

reduced from historic conditions, and many populations

are more isolated. Concerns about hybridization and

genetic swamping exist for several subspecies. Disagreement exists among fishery biologists about the

evolutionary uniqueness of different populations and

which differences merit distinct management.

iii. [M] What are the effects of human disturbance,

fragmentation, and contaminants (through carrion feeding) on reproductive success, movement, and viability of

wolverines, martens, and fishers? At what scale do populations exhibit genetic similarity and how does the

availability of movement corridors affect this?

Viable populations of wolverines are believed to

occur in the contiguous United States only in Idaho,

Montana, and Wyoming, and threats to persistence,

including overall human encroachment and habitat fragmentation due to development and logging, are occurring at ever-increasing rates (Buskirk et al. 1994, Lyon

et al. 1994). Because these species occur at low densities, are primarily nocturnal, have inconspicuous mating

behavior, leave little sign, and shun human activity,

much remains to be learned of even their basic biology

(Zielinski and Kucera 1995). Martens and fishers, other

forest carnivores whose populations are similarly difficult to monitor, require relatively large habitat patches

and sufficient prey base to persist. Genetic differentiation among populations and its connection to various

landscape characteristics merits further study. 

Salmon issues [Interagency Salmon Science

Team, BLM, 12/1999]. i. [H] How do different management and restoration activities affect the extent,

duration, magnitude, and frequency of peak-flow events

in streams across different geophysical provinces?

Because change in the structure and composition of

riparian vegetation is a likely mechanism for any

changes in flow regime, vegetation should be monitored

before and after changes in management (e.g., system

of livestock grazing) are implemented. The existence of

time lags in recovery from disturbance (Kondolf 1993)

and potentially confounding factors underscore the

importance of longer-term investigation.

ii. [H] To what degree and with what variability do

different instream restoration techniques produce

desired habitat conditions?

Addressing this question constitutes effectiveness

monitoring, one of four types of monitoring used in the

ICBEMP to meet management objectives and evaluate

management practices. Spatial and temporal replication

are crucial to understanding variability in streams characterized by pulse flows. Management efforts must recognize the importance of key processes and the biophysical and ecological contexts within which restoration occurs. Specific management actions that should be

treated as experiments for restoring salmonid stocks

include removal of (nonnative) brook trout, alteration of

grazing system, habitat improvement (e.g., increased

tree cover, channel modifications), reduction of negative influence of steelhead on other species (especially

in hatcheries), control of predation by terns and cormorants, and removal or alteration of dam structures.

iii. [M] What is the range of survivorship values

between life stages for salmon and trout species inhabiting waters of varying habitat condition (excellent,

good, fair, poor)? How does the relationship between

survival and habitat condition change as the scale of

examination increases?

Understanding the effects of habitat condition on

salmon and trout survival would allow the estimation of

population levels under various management alternatives. Stage-transition models could produce life tables

for each species, given survivorship values from egg to

sac fry, sac fry to emergent fry, emergent fry to parr,

and parr to smolt stages. Scale of investigation addresses the effects of connectivity, edge effects, and

within-watershed dynamics, and therefore is an important element for the ‘step-down’ process.

iv. [M] What effects do spring livestock grazing

and recreational fishing (i.e., trampling by cattle or

anglers) have on salmon and trout redds?

This research would investigate direct trampling of

eggs, indirect mortality of eggs resulting from sedimentation of graveled areas, and how these activities affect

trends in returning adults. Control treatments are essential

to remove confounding effects of interannual variation.

Once grazing and recreational activities are quantified

48 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
objectively, fish biologists can address this question

through sampling within and across watersheds.

v. [M] What effect do logging trucks on non-paved

roads have on water quality and salmonid reproductive

success? Can roadside structures be used to attenuate

energy of runoff without compromising travel?

Although road-derived sediment is known to

directly affect salmon survival, details of extent and

mechanisms of sediment transfer could be better understood to guide management. Structures to minimize

road impacts that are inexpensive and persist through

time with little to no maintenance would be a welcome

tool in the effort to improve water quality of streams.

Hydrologists are perhaps best equipped to describe the

effects of roads on water quality, while fishery biologists can best assess responses of salmonids. Engineers

(particularly hydrological or structural) may assist in

design of cost-effective, efficient structures. Because

roads exert strong influence directly and indirectly on

aquatic habitats, it is crucial that their effects be minimized in the short term, while more permanent solutions

are crafted for the long-term. Some studies suggest that

road closures minimize some elements of erosion, but the

extent to which this is true depends on soil type, precipitation levels, aspect, slope gradient, and other factors.

Research issues not captured in above research

questions, for national wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries. There are 25 national wildlife refuges (NWRs) and

12 national fish hatcheries (NFHs) within the Basin.

Research issues are summarized from USFWS (1998).

i. [H] What TESPC species occur on or adjacent to

NWRs in the Basin, what are their status and trend, and

which factors most strongly influence their distribution

spatially and temporally (i.e., seasonally and across

years)? 

Example of species include Washington ground

squirrel, microchiropteran bats (e.g., spotted bat), Ord’s

kangaroo rat, northern grasshopper mouse, tiger salamander, northern leopard frog, cinnamon teal, blue-winged

teal, burrowing owl, bald eagle, long-billed curlew, snowy

plover, sagebrush lizard, Ute Lady’s tresses, numerous

mollusks, and suckers. Examples of factors influencing

distribution include presence of introduced species (e.g.,

predators, com-petitors, prey-base modifiers); livestock

grazing; chemical contamination; degree of soil disturbance; water quality or quantity; insect abundance; fire

regime; habitat conversion or alteration; and recreational

use (hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, horseback riding,

birdwatching). At many refuges in the region, distributions of imperiled species are poorly known, as is the

effectiveness of different restoration strategies. In both the

short and long term, spatially explicit data on vegetation,

soils, roads, hydrology, and recreational use, combined

with meta-analyses, can facilitate the determination of

important factors in species’ distributions and trends over

time. Once factors are suspected to affect distribution,

manipulative studies (translocations, re-introductions, or

alterations of density) may be used to test hypotheses.

ii. [H] What are the landscape-level responses of

ecosystems to management-driven changes in disturbance regimes (e.g., removal of livestock grazing, imposition of prescribed fire, increased wapiti herbivory,

reduction of ‘pest’ insects)? 

Although small-scale response to managementinduced alterations of disturbance regime is beginning

to be understood, how such changes affect systems at

landscape scales is less well understood. Potential 

variables of interest include trends in soils, vegetation

composition (e.g., exotic plants, perennial native grasses)

and structure, riparian condition, pronghorn antelope,

bats, and sage grouse. Experimental design for fire and

grazing, for example, would compare replicated and 

interspersed samples (blocked by habitat type, if 

necessary) in areas grazed by livestock, areas receiving

prescribed fire, and areas experiencing neither (i.e., no

grazing and naturally occurring fire).

iii. [M] In hatchery settings, what type of diet 

produces fish most similar to ‘wild-type’ individuals,

with respect to appearance, behavior, and body 

composition?

Diet is known to contribute to reproductive 

success in fishes (Dunham et al. 2000) and other taxa. In

the Interior Columbia Basin, concern exists that

hatchery-raised steelhead may delay smoltification, resulting in potential interactions (e.g., predation, displacement,

competition for food) between residual steelhead and listed species. Although both morphological (fish length and

growth rate) and physiological factors may affect the

onset of seaward migration, an integrative model that

predicts the parr-smolt transformation has not been

developed. Whereas many possible methods to manipulate growth in hatchery fish exist, most of these methods are not feasible for a production facility.

Manipulation of feeding strategies during rearing may

result in changes in growth that minimize steelhead

residualism. Although little is known about the prevalence of disease in many hatchery-raised fish, disease is

commonly a mechanism by which diet affects survival

and reproduction.

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 49
Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all participants from the

June 1999 meeting that outlined the need for this

research strategy and agreed upon the five research

themes. Participants included Sandy Boyce from the

USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research

Station, Mike Borman from the Oregon State

University Rangeland Resources Department, and Bob

Alverts, Mike Crouse, Geoff Middaugh, Clif Fanning,

Dave Pacioretty, Mike Pellant, and Sherm Karl from the

Bureau of Land Management. We also extend thanks to

those who have provided feedback or critical review of

the document, including R. Bruce Bury, Research

Zoologist, Ruth Jacobs, Information Specialist, Miranda

Ruth, Student Assistant, USGS; Jeanne C. Chambers,

Research Ecologist, USDA Forest Service; John

Crawford, Professor, Oregon State University; Bob

Alverts, OR-WA Research and Monitoring Coordinator;

Sieling Chang, Rick Demmer, Fire Ecologist, Melanie

Miller, Fire Ecologist, Don L. Smith, and John

Swanson, Bureau of Land Management; as well as

Miles Henstrom, Mike Wisdom, and Steve Wondzell of

the ICBEMP Science Advisory Group, Becky

Gravenmier, ICBEMP Science Coordinator, and

Thomas M. Quigley, ICBEMP Science Advisory Group

Lead.

50 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
LITERATURE CITED

Adams, M.J. 1999. Correlated factors in amphibian

decline: exotic species and habitat change in western Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management

63:1162–1171. 

Adams, M.J. 2000. Pond permanence and the effects

of exotic vertebrates on anurans. Ecological

Applications 10:559–568.

Allan, D., D. Erickson, and J. Fay. 1997. The influence

of catchment land use on stream integrity across

multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology

37:149–161.

Altman, B., and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation strategy

for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of eastern

Oregon and Washington. Prepared for OregonWashington Partners in Flight. American Bird

Conservancy, Boring, Oregon. 

Archer, S., and F.E. Smeins. 1991. Ecosystem-level

processes. Pages 109–140 in R.K. Heitschmidt and

J.W. Stuth, editors. Grazing management: an ecological perspective. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Asher, J. 1994. Crushing the wilderness spirit: alien

plant invasions. Unpublished report, U.S. Department

of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon

State Office, Portland, Oregon.

Axelrod, D.I. 1960. The evolution of flowering plants.

Pages 227–305 in S. Tax, editor. The evolution of

life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 

Barry, R.G., and R.J. Chorley. 1982. Atmosphere,

weather, and climate, 4th ed. Methuen, London,

England. 

Bates, J., R. Miller, and T. Svjecar. 1994. Understory

plant succession following cutting of western

juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) woodland on

Steens Mountain, Oregon. Pages 25–34 in

Management of Great Basin rangelands, Annual

Report, 1994; Special Report 935. Oregon State

University, Agricultural Experiment Station; U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research

Service, Corvallis, Oregon.

Bazazz, F.A. 1986. Life history of colonizing plants:

some demographic, genetic, and physiological features. Pages 96–110 in H.A. Mooney and J.A.

Drake, editors. Ecology of biological invasions of

North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New

York, New York.

Beever, E.A. 1999. Species- and community-level

responses to disturbance imposed by feral horse

grazing and other management practices. Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.

Beever, E.A., and P.F. Brussard. 2000. Examining ecological consequences of feral horse grazing using

exclosures. Western North American Naturalist

60:236–254.

Beever, E.A., R.J. Tausch, and P.F. Brussard.

Characterizing grazing disturbance in semi-arid

ecosystems across broad spatial scales using ecosystem components. Ecological Applications (in press).

Behnke, R.J., and R.F. Raleigh. 1978. Grazing and the

riparian zone: impact and management perspectives. Pages 184–189 in Strategies for protection

and management of floodplain wetlands and other

riparian ecosystems. U.S.D.A.- Forest Service

General Technical Report RM-28. Rocky Mountain

Research Station, Denver, Colorado. 

Belnap, J. 1990. Microbiotic crusts: their role in past

and present ecosystems. Park Science 10:3–4.

Belnap, J. 1993. Recovery rates of cryptobiotic crusts:

inoculant use and assessment methods. Great Basin

Naturalist 53:89–95.

Belnap, J. 1994. Potential role of cryptobiotic soil

crusts in semi-arid rangelands. Pages 179–185 in

S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen, editors.

Proceedings: ecology and management of annual

rangelands, 18–21 May 1992, Boise, Idaho.

U.S.D.A.- Forest Service General Technical Report

INT-313. Intermountain Research Station, Ogden,

Utah. 

Belnap, J., and J.S. Gardner. 1993. Soil microstructure

in soils of the Colorado Plateau: the role of the

cyanobacterium Microcoleus vaginatus. Great

Basin Naturalist 53:40–47.

Belsky, A.J. 1996. Viewpoint: western juniper expansion: is it a threat to arid northwestern ecosystems?

Journal of Range Management 49:53–59.

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey

of livestock influences on stream and riparian

ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of

Soil & Water Conservation 54:419–431.

Bendell, J.F. 1974. Effects of fire on birds and mammals. Pages 73–138 in T.T. Kozlowski and C.E.

Ahlgren, editors. Fire and ecosystems. Academic

Press, New York, New York.

Beukema, S.J., and W.A. Kurz. 1995. Vegetation

dynamics development tool user’s guide, version

2.0 beta. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver,

British Columbia, Canada.

Beymer, R.J., and J.M. Klopatek. 1992. Effects of grazing on cryptogamic crusts in pinyon-juniper woodlands in Grand Canyon National Park. American

Midland Naturalist 127:139–148.

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 51
Bich, B.S., J.L. Butler, and C.A. Schmidt. 1995. Effects

of differential livestock use on key plant species

and rodent populations within selected Oryzopsis

hymenoides-Hilaria jamesii communities of Glen

Canyon National Recreation Area. Southwestern

Naturalist 40:281–287.

Bisson, P.A., G.H. Reeves, R.E. Bilby, and R.J.

Naiman. 1997. Watershed management and desired

future conditions. Pages 447–474 in D.J. Stouder,

P.A. Bisson, and R.J. Naiman, editors. Pacific

salmon and their ecosystems: status and future

options. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York. 

Bock, C.E., and J.H. Bock. 1993. Cover of perennial

grasses in southeastern Arizona in relation to livestock grazing. Conservation Biology 7:371–377.

Boyce, M.S., J.S. Meyer, and L. Irwin. 1994.

Habitat-based PVA for the northern spotted owl. In

D.J. Fletcher and B.J.F. Manly, editors. Statistics in

ecology and environmental monitoring. University of

Otago Press, Dunedid, New Zealand. Otago

Conference Series, volume 2 [not paginated]. 

Bozek, M.A., and M.K. Young. 1994. Fish mortality

resulting from delayed effects of fire in the Greater

Yellowstone Ecosystem. Great Basin Naturalist

54:91–95. 

Bradley, A.F. 1986. Bromus tectorum. In W.C. Fischer,

compiler. The fire effects information system [data

base; not paginated]. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station, Intermountain Fire Sciences

Laboratory, Missoula, Montana.

Brady, N.C. 1974. Nature and property of soils, 8th ed.

Macmillan, New York, New York.

Branson, F.A. 1985. Vegetation changes on western

rangeland. Range Monograph No. 2. Society for

Range Management, Denver, Colorado. 

Britton, C.M., and M.H. Ralphs. 1979. Use of fire as a

management tool in sagebrush ecosystems. Pages

101–109 in The sagebrush ecosystem: a symposium.

Logan, Utah.

Brotherson, J.D., S.R. Rushforth, and J.R. Johansen.

1983. Effects of long-term grazing on cryptogam

crust cover in Navajo National Monument, Arizona.

Journal of Range Management 35:579–581.

Brown, J.H., and A. Kodric-Brown. 1977. Turnover

rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration

on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449.

Brunner, R.D., and T.W. Clark. 1997. A practice-based

approach to ecosystem management. Conservation

Biology 11:48–58.

Bull, E.L. 1977. Specialized habitat requirements of

birds: snag management, old growth, and riparian

habitat. Proceedings: nongame management in

forests of the western United States, 7–9 February

1977, Portland, Oregon. 

Burgman, M.A., S. Ferson, and H.R. Akçakaya. 1993.

Risk assessment in conservation biology. Chapman

and Hall, New York, New York. 

Burt, W.H. 1980. A field guide to the mammals: North

America north of Mexico. Peterson field guide series

No. 5. Houghton Mifflin, New York, New York.

Bury, R.B., and J.A. Whelan. 1984. Ecology and management of the bullfrog. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Resource Publication 155.

Buskirk, S.W., A. Harestad, M. Raphael, and R.A. Powell,

editors. 1994. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology

and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca,

New York. 

Cardina, J., G.A. Johnshon, and D.H. Sparrow. 1997.

The nature and consequence of weed spatial distribution. Weed Science 45:364–373.

Caughley, G. 1974. Bias in aerial survey. Journal of

Wildlife Management 38:921–933.

Chamberlain, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991.

Timber harvest, silviculture and watershed process.

Pages 181–206 in W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences

of forest and rangeland management on salmonid

fishes and their habitat. Special Publication 19.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Chambers, J. C., K. Farleigh, R. J. Tausch, J. R. Miller,

D. Germanoski, D. Martin, and C. Nowak. 1998.

Understanding long- and short-term changes in

vegetation and geomorphic processes: the key to

riparian restoration. Pages 101–110 in D.F. Potts,

editor. Proceedings: Rangeland Management and

Water Resources. American Water Resources

Association and Society for Range Management,

1998 May 27–29, Reno, Nevada.

Chapin III, F.S., M.S. Torn, and M. Tateno. 1996.

Principles of ecosystem sustainability. American

Naturalist 148:1016–1037.

Clausnitzer, D. 2000. Hydric soils in eastern Oregon

temporary pools. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State

University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Cohen, J. 1977. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press, New York, New York. 

Collopy, M.W., and J.P. Smith. 1995. National status

and trends report: the Pacific Northwest. U.S.

Department of Interior, National Biological

Service, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science

Center, Corvallis, Oregon. Draft.

Connor, E.F., and D. Simberloff. 1986. Competition,

scientific method, and null models in ecology.

American Scientist 74:155–162.

52 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
Corn, P.S. 1994. What we know and don’t know about

amphibian declines in the West. Pages 59–67 in W.

Covington and L. DeBano, technical coordinators.

Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an

ecological approach to land management.

U.S.D.A.- Forest Service General Technical Report

RM-247. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Coughenour, M.B. 2000. Ecosystem modeling of the

Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range: executive summary. Pages 125–131 in F.J. Singer and K.A.

Schoenecker, compilers. Managers’ summary - ecological studies of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse

Range, 1992–1997. U.S. Geological Survey,

Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, Fort

Collins, Colorado. 

Crane, K.K., M.A. Smith, and D. Reynolds. 1997. Habitat

selection patterns of feral horses in southcentral

Wyoming. Journal of Range Management

50:374–380.

Crowder, M.J., and D.J. Hand. 1990. Analysis of repeated

measures. Chapman and Hall, London, England.

Cruz, R, D. Ganskopp, and M. Vavra. 1998. Modeling

habitat preferences of cattle on eastern Oregon

Rangelands. Pages 49–56 in Eastern Oregon

Agricultural Research Center Annual Report,

Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report

991. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

D’Antonio, C.M, and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological

invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle,

and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics 23:63–87.

Daily, G.C., editor. 1997. Nature’s services: societal

dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press,

Covelo, California. 

Daily, G.C., P.A. Matson, and P.M. Vitousek. 1997.

Ecosystem services supplied by soil. Pages

113–132 in G.C. Daily, editor. Nature’s services:

societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island

Press, Covelo, California. 

Danin, A., and D.H. Yaalon. 1980. Trapping of silt and

clay by lichens and bryophytes in the desert environment of the Dead Sea region. In Bat Sheva seminar

on approaches and methods in paleoclimatic research

with emphasis on aridic areas. Jerusalem, Israel. 

Davis, M.A., J.P. Grime, and K. Thompson. 2000.

Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general

theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology

88:528–534.

Dickerson, B.R. 1997. The effects of high temperature

and high levels of dissolved solids on the growth

and survival of Lahontan cutthroat trout,

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi. M.S. Thesis,

University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.

Dobler, F.C., J. Eby, C. Perry, S. Richardson, and M.

Vander Haegen. 1996. Status of Washington’s

shrub-steppe ecosystem: extent, ownership, and

wildlife/vegetation relationships. Research report,

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Olympia, Washington. 

Dufrène, M., and P. Legendre. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible

asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs

67:345–366.

Dunham, J.B., B.R. Dickerson, E. Beever, R.D.

Duncan, and G.L. Vinyard. 2000. Effects of food

limitation and emigration on self-thinning in experimental minnow cohorts. Journal of Animal

Ecology 69:1–9.

Eddleman, L.E., R.F. Miller, P.M. Miller, and P.L.

Dysart. 1994. Western juniper woodlands (of the

Pacific Northwest): science assessment. URL

accessed. 

Eldridge, D.J., and R.S.B. Greene. 1994. Microbiotic

soil crusts: a review of their roles in soil and ecological processes in the rangelands of Australia.

Australian Journal of Soil Research 32:389–415.

Evans, R.D., and J.R. Ehleringer. 1993. A break in the

nitrogen cycle in aridlands? Evidence from delta

15N of soils. Oecologia 94:314–317. 

Fahnestock, J.T., and J.K. Detling. 1999. The influence

of herbivory on plant cover and species composition in the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range,

USA. Plant Ecology 144:145–157.

Fahrig, L. 1998. When does fragmentation of breeding

habitat affect population survival? Ecological

Modelling 105:273–292.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation.

1989. Federal manual for identifying and delineating

jurisdictional wetlands. Cooperative technical publication. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation

Service, Washington, D.C. 

Fernandez-Duque, E., and C. Valeggia. 1994.

Meta-analysis: a valuable tool in conservation

research. Conservation Biology 8:555–561.

Fisher, R.N., and H.B. Shaffer. 1996. The decline of

amphibians in California’s Great Central Valley.

Conservation Biology 10:1387–1397.

Flather, C.H., S.J. Brady, and D.B. Inkley. 1992. Regional

habitat appraisals of wildlife communities: a landInformation and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 53
scape-level evaluation of a resource planning

model using avian distribution data. Landscape

Ecology 7:137–147.

Flather, C.H., K.R. Wilson, D.J. Dean, and W.C.

McComb. 1997. Identifying gaps in conservation networks: of indicators and uncertainty in geographicbased analyses. Ecological Applications 7:531–542.

Flather, C.H., and C.H. Sieg. 2000. Applicability of

Montreal Process Criterion 1 - conservation of biological diversity - to rangeland sustainability.

International Journal of Sustainable Development

and World Ecology 7:81–96. 

Fleming, R.A. 1999. Statistical advantages in, and characteristics of, data from long-term research. The

Forestry Chronicle 75:487–489.

Forman, R.T.T. 2000. Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States.

Conservation Biology 14:31–35.

Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and

their major ecological effects. Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics 29:207–231.

Frewig-Runyon, L. 1995. Importance and dependency

of the livestock industry on federal lands in the

Columbia River Basin, 1995. Unpublished ICBEMP

draft report, Boise, Idaho.

Fritts, S.H., E.E. Bangs, and J.F. Gore. 1994. The relationship of wolf recovery to habitat conservation

and biodiversity in the northwestern United States.

Landscape and Urban Planning 28:23–32.

Geiser, L.H., C.C. Derr, and K.L. Dillman. 1994. Air

quality monitoring on the Tongass National Forest:

methods and baselines using lichens.

U.S.D.A.-Forest Service Technical Bulletin

R10-TB-46. Alaska Region, Anchorage, Alaska.

Ginsberg, H.S. 1993. Invertebrate monitoring in the

National Park System. Final report of a workshop:

1992 April 22–24. Technical report NPS-93/02,

National Park Service Coastal Research Center

University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode

Island. 

Graetz, R.D., and D.J. Tongway. 1986. Influence of

grazing management on vegetation, soil structure

and nutrient distribution and the infiltration of

applied rainfall in a semi-arid chenopod shrubland.

Australian Journal of Ecology 11:347–360.

Graumlich, L.J. 1993. A 1000-year record of temperature and precipitation in the Sierra Nevada.

Quaternary Research 39:249–255.

Green, R.H. 1993. Application of repeated measures

designs in environmental impact and monitoring

studies. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:81–98.

Grayson, D.K. 1993. The desert’s past: a natural prehistory of the Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington, D.C.

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W.

Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of

riparian zones. BioScience 41:540–551.

Haig, S.M., D.W. Mehlman, and L.W. Oring. 1998.

Avian movements and wetland connectivity in

landscape conservation. Conservation Biology

12:749–758.

Hamer, K. C., and J.K. Hill. 2000. Scale-dependent

effects of habitat disturbance on species richness in

tropical forests. Conservation Biology

14:1435–1440.

Hamlett, J.M., R. Horton, and N.A.C. Cressie. 1986.

Resistant and exploratory techniques for use in

semivariogram analyses. Soil Science Society of

America Journal 50:868–875. 

Hamlin, R.A. 1996. Conservation genetics of remnant

springsnail, Pyrgulopsis wongi, populations in

desert valleys of California and Nevada. M.S.

Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada.

Hann, W.J., J.L. Jones., M.G. Karl, P.F. Hessburg, R.E.

Keane, D.G. Long, J.P. Menakis, C.H. McNicoll,

S.G. Leonard, R.A. Gravenmier, and B.G. Smith.

1997. Landscape dynamics of the Basin. Pages

337–1055 in T.M. Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide,

technical editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin

and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins.

U.S.D.A.-Forest Service General Technical Report

PNW-405. Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Portland, Oregon. 

Hann, W.J., M.J. Wisdom, and M.M. Rowland.

Disturbance departure and fragmentation of natural

systems in the Interior Columbia Basin. U.S.D.A.-

Forest Service Research Paper RP-545. Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon (in

press).

Hanski, I., and M. Gilpin. 1991. Single species

metapopulation dynamics: concepts, models, and

observations. Biological Journal of the Linnean

Society 42:3–16.

Harper, K.T., and J.R. Marble. 1988. A role for non-vascular plants in management of arid and semi-arid

rangelands. Pages 135–169 in P.T. Tueller, editor.

Vegetation science applications for rangeland

analysis and management. Academic Publishers,

Boston, Massachusetts. 

Harper, K.T., and R.L. Pendleton. 1993. Cyanobacteria

and cyanolichens: can they enhance availability of

essential minerals for higher plants? Great Basin

Naturalist 53:59–72.

54 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island 

bio-geographic theory and the preservation of 

biotic diversity. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, Illinois. 

Hastings, J.R., and R.M. Turner. 1985. The changing

mile: an ecological study of vegetation change with

time in the lower mile of an arid and semi-arid

region. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

Haugen, J. 1993. Proceedings of the western juniper

forum; [Date of meeting unknown]; Bend,

Oregon. Unpublished ICBEMP document, 

Walla Walla, Washington.

Hayek, L.C., and M.A. Buzas. 1997. Surveying 

natural populations. Columbia University Press,

New York, New York.

Hayes, M.P., and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid

frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana) responsible? Journal of

Herpetology 20:490–509.

Haynes, R.W., and A.L. Horne. 1997. Economic assessment of the Basin. Pages 1715–1869 in T.M.

Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide, technical editors. 1997.

An assessment of ecosystem components in the

Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the

Klamath and Great Basins. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service

General Technical Report PNW-405. Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Heinemeyer, K.S., and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology

and management: a literature review and adaptive

management strategy. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service

Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 

Hemstrom, M., T. Spies, C. Palmer, R. Kiester, J. Teply,

P. McDonald, and R. Warbington. 1999. Late-successional and old-growth forest effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan.

U.S.D.A.-Forest Service General Technical Report

PNW-438. Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Portland, Oregon. 

Herbel, C.H. 1979. Utilization of grass- and shrublands

of the southwestern United States. Pages 161–203

in B.H. Walker, editor. Management of semi-arid

ecosystems. Elsevier, New York, New York. 

Hessburg, P.F., B.G. Smith, B.G. Smith, S.D. Kreiter,

C.A. Miller, R.B. Salter, C.H. McNicoll, and W. J.

Hann. 1999. Historical and current forest and range

landscapes in the interior Columbia River Basin and

portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Part I:

Linking vegetation patterns and landscape vulnerability to potential insect and pathogen disturbances.

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-458, U.S.D.A.-

Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Portland, Oregon. 

Hilborn, R., and S.C. Stearns. 1982. On inference in

ecology and evolutionary biology: the problem of

multiple causes. Acta Biotheoretica 31:145–164.

Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment

and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York,

New York. 

Holt, S.J., and L.M. Talbot. 1978. New principles for

the conservation of wild living resources. Wildlife

Monographs 59. 

Huggins, R.M. 1993. A robust approach to the analysis

of repeated measures. Biometrics 49:715–720.

Hulbert, L.C. 1955. Ecological studies of Bromus tectorum and other annual bromegrasses. Ecological

Monographs 25:181–213.

Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design

of ecological field experiments. Ecological

Monographs 54:187–211.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1975. The stream and its valley.

Verhandlungen, Internationale Vereinigung für

Theoretische und Augewandte Limnologie 19:1–15.

(INFISH), Inland Native Fish Strategy. 1995.

Environmental Assessment: decision Notice and

Finding of No Significant Impact. Interim Strategies

for managing fish-producing watersheds in eastern

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana

and portions of Nevada. [Place of publication

unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific

Northwest Regions. [irregular pagination].

Jardine, J.T., and C.L. Forsling. 1922. Range and cattle

management during drought. U.S. Department of

Agriculture Bulletin 1031, Washington, D.C.

Jeffries, D.L., and J.M. Klopatec. 1987. Effects of grazing in the vegetation of the blackbrush association.

Journal of Range Management 40:390–392.

Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1985. Pre-1900 overharvest of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii): the inducement for bullfrog (Rana

catesbiana) introduction. Herpetologica 41:94–103. 

Johansen, J.R. 1986. Importance of cryptogamic soil

crusts to arid rangelands: implications for

short-duration grazing. Pages 58–64 in J.

Tiedeman, editor. Short-duration grazing.

Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. 

Johnsen, T.N. 1962. One-seed juniper invasion of northern Arizona grasslands. Ecological Monographs

32:187–207.

Johnson, D.H. 1999. The insignificance of statistical

significance testing. Journal of Wildlife

Management 63:763–772.

Johnson, G.D., and G.P. Patil. 1998. Quantitative multiresolution characterization of landscape patterns for

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 55
assessing the status of ecosystem health in watershed

management areas. Ecosystem Health 4:177–187.

Jones, J.A., F.J. Swanson, B.C. Wemple, and K.U.

Snyder. 2000a. Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14:76–85.

Jones, K. B., D.T. Heggem, T.G. Wade, A.C. Neale,

D.W. Ebert, M.S. Nash, M.H. Mehaffey, K.A.

Hermann, A.R. Selle, S. Augustine, I.A. Goodman,

J. Pedersen, D. Bolgrien, J.M. Viger, D. Chiang,

C.J. Lin, Y. Zhong, J. Baker, and R.D. Van

Remortel. 2000b. Assessing landscape condition

relative to water resources in the western United

States: a strategic approach. Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment 64:227–245. 

Kauffman, J.B., and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock

impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside

management implications ... a review. Journal of

Range Management 37:430–438

Kepner, W.G., C.J. Watts, C.M. Edmonds, J.K. Maingi,

S.E. Marsh, G. Luna. 2000. A landscape approach

for detecting and evaluating change in a semi-arid

environment. Environmental Monitoring &

Assessment 64:179–195.

Kiesecker, J.M., and A.R. Blaustein. 1995. Synergism

between UV-B radiation and a pathogen magnifies

amphibian embryo mortality in nature. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America 92:11049–11052.

Kim, K.H., and W.P. Miller. 1996. Effect of rainfall

electrolyte concentration and slope on infiltration

and erosion. Soil Technology 9:173–185.

Kindschy, R.R. 1994. Pristine vegetation of the Jordan

Crater kipukas: 1978–91. Pages 85–88 in S.B.

Monsen, and S.G. Kitchen, compilers. Proceedings

- ecology and management of annual rangelands.

General Technical Report INT-313,

U.S.D.A.-Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

Kingsolver, J.G., and D.W. Schemske. 1991. Path

analysis of selection. Trends in Ecology and

Evolution 6: 276–280.

Kittel, T.G.F., J.A. Royle, C. Daly, N.A. Rosenbloom,

W.P. Gibson, H.H. Fisher, D.S. Schimel, L.M.

Berliner, and VEMAP2 Participants. 1997. A gridded historical (1895–1993) bioclimate dataset for

the conterminous United States. In Proceedings of

the 10th Conference on Applied Climatology,

20–24 October 1997, Reno, Nevada. American

Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts. 

Knapp, P.A. 1989. Natural recovery of compacted soils in

semi-arid Montana. Physical Geography 10:165–175.

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

breeding passerine birds. Conservation Biology

9:1059–1071.

Knick, S.T., and J.T. Rotenberry. 2000. Ghosts of habitats past: contribution of landscape change to current habitats used by shrubland birds. Ecology

81:220–227.

Kondolf, G.M. 1993. Lag in stream channel adjustment

to livestock exclosure, White Mountains,

California. Restoration Ecology 1:226–230.

Külköylüoglu, O., and G.L. Vinyard. 2000. Distribution

and ecology of freshwater Ostracoda (Crustacea)

collected from springs of Nevada, Idaho, and

Oregon: a preliminary study. Western North

American Naturalist 60:291–303.

Larsen, R. 1996. Survival and transport of fecal

pathogens in grazed watersheds. In M. George,

technical coordinator. Livestock management in

grazed watersheds: a review of practices that protect

water quality. University of California, Agricultural

Issues Center, Davis, California. 42 pgs.

Laufer, J.R., and P.T. Jenkins. 1989. Historical and present status of the grey wolf in the Cascade

Mountains of Washington. The Northwest

Environmental Journal 5:313–327.

Laycock, W.A. 1994. Implications of grazing v. no

grazing on today’s rangelands. Pages 250–280 in

M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper, editors.

Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in

the West. Society for Range Management, Denver,

Colorado. 

Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, and

J.E. Williams. 1997. Broadscale assessment of 

aquatic species and habitats. Pages 1057–1496 in

T.M. Quigley and S.J. Arbelbide, technical editors.

1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the

Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath

and Great Basins. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service General

Technical Report PNW-405. Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Lehmkuhl, J.F., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1991. Forest fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest and its potential

effects on wildlife. Pages 35–46 in L.F. Ruggiero,

K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff, technical

coordinators. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service

General Technical Report RM-285. Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Leonard, S.G., R. Rosentreter, and M.G. Karl. 1995.

Microbiotic crusts: ecological roles and implica56 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
tions for rangeland management. Unpublished

ICBEMP report, Boise, Idaho. 

Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R.

McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of

Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society,

Seattle, Washington.

Lidicker, W.Z.J. 1991. In defense of a multifactor perspective in population ecology. Journal of

Mammalogy 72:631–635.

Lindenmayer, D.B., and H.A. Nix. 1993. Ecological

principles for the design of wildlife corridors.

Conservation Biology 7:327–630.

Lubchenco, J., A.M. Olson, L.B. Brubaker, S.R.

Carpenter, M.M. Holland, S.P. Hubbell, S.A. Levin,

J.A. MacMahon, P.A. Matson, J.M. Melillo, H.A.

Mooney, C.H. Peterson, H.R. Pulliam, L.A. Real,

P.J. Regal, and P.G. Risser. 1991. The sustainable

biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda.

Ecology 72:371–412.

Ludwig, B., J. Boiffin, J. Chadoeuf, and A.V. Auzet.

1995. Hydrological structure and erosion damage

caused by concentrated flow in cultivated catchments. Catena 25:227–252.

Lyon, L.J., K.B. Aubry, W.J. Zielinski, S.W. Buskirk,

and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. The scientific basis for

conserving forest carnivores: considerations for

management. Pages 128–137 in L.F. Ruggiero,

K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J.

Zielinski, editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher,

lynx, and wolverine in the western United States.

U.S.D.A.-Forest Service General Technical Report

RM-254. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Mack, R.N. 1981. Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into

western North America: an ecological chronicle.

Agro-Ecosystems 7:145–165.

Mack, R.N. 1986. Alien plant invasion into the

Intermountain West: a case history. Pages 191–213

in H.A. Mooney and J.A. Drake, editors. Ecology

of biological invasions of North America and

Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.

Mack, R.N., and J.N. Thompson. 1982. Evolution in

steppe with few large, hooved mammals. American

Naturalist 119:757–773.

MacMahon, J.A. 1980. Ecosystems over time: succession and other types of change. In R. Waring, editor. Forests: fresh perspectives from ecosystem

analyses. Proceedings of the Oregon State

University Biological Colloquium, 26–27 April

1979. Corvallis, Oregon.

Marble, J.R. and K.T. Harper. 1989. Effect of timing

and grazing on soil-surface cryptogamic communities in a Great Basin low-shrub desert: a preliminary report. Great Basin Naturalist 49:104–107.

Marcot, B.G., M.A. Castellano, J.A. Christy, L.K.

Croft, J.F. Lehmkuhl, R.H. Naney, R.E.

Rosentreter, R.E. Sandquist, and E. Zieroth. 1997.

Terrestrial ecology assessment. Pages 1497–713 in

T.M. Quigley, and S.J. Arbelbide, technical editors.

An assessment of ecosystem components in the

Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the

Klamath and Great Basins. U.S.D.A.-Forest

Service General Technical Report PNW-405.

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland,

Oregon.

Marlette, G.M., and J.E. Anderson. 1986. Seed banks

and propagule dispersal in crested-wheatgrass

stands. Journal of Applied Ecology 23:161–175.

Martell, A.M. 1983. Changes in small mammal communities after logging in north-central Ontario.

Canadian Journal of Zoology 61:970–980.

Martens, E., D. Palmquist, and J.A. Young. 1994.

Temperature profiles for germination of cheatgrass

versus native perennial bunchgrasses. Pages

238–243 in Monsen, S.B. and S.G. Kitchen, compilers. Proceedings-ecology and management of

annual rangelands. 18–21 May 1992; Boise, Idaho.

U.S.D.A.-Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station General Technical Report INT-313, Ogden,

Utah.

McDonald, K.A., and J.H. Brown. 1992. Using montane mammals to model extinctions due to global

change. Conservation Biology 6:409–415. 

McInnis, M.L. 1985. Ecological relationships among

feral horses, cattle, and pronghorn in southeastern

Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State

University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

McMahon, T.E. and D.S. deCalista. 1990. Effects of

fire on fish and wildlife. Pages 233–250 in J.D.

Walstad, S.R. Radosevich, and D.V. Sandberg, editors. Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific

Northwest forests. Oregon State University Press,

Corvallis, Oregon. 

Meffe, G.K., and R.C. Carroll. 1994. The species in

conservation. Pages 50–77 in G.K. Meffe and R.C.

Carroll, editors. Principles of conservation biology.

Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Meyer, S.E. 1986. The ecology of gypsophile endemism

in the eastern Mojave Desert. Ecology

67:1303–1313.

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 57
Miles, T.G., and M.G. Karl. 1995. Introduced forage

grasses in the interior Columbia basin: science

assessment. Unpublished ICBEMP report, Walla

Walla, Washington.

Miller, J., D. Germanoski, K. Waltman, R. Tausch, and

J. Chambers. 2001. Influence of late Holocene

processes and landforms on modern channel

dynamics in upland watersheds of central Nevada.

Geomorphology 38:373–391.

Miller, R. 1980. The ecology of feral horses in

Wyoming’s Red Desert. Ph.D. Dissertation,

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Miller, R.F., and R.A. Rose. 1995. Historic expansion of

Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 55:37–45.

Miller, R.F., T.J. Svejcar, and N.E. West. 1994.

Implications of livestock grazing in the

Intermountain sagebrush region: plant composition.

Pages 101–146 in M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and

R.D. Pieper, editors. Ecological implications of

livestock herbivory in the West. Society for Range

Management, Denver, Colorado.

Miller, R.F., and P.E. Wigand. 1994. Holocene changes

in semi-arid pinyon-juniper woodlands. BioScience

44:465–474.

Moody, M.E., and R.N. Mack. 1988. Controlling the

spread of plant invasions: the importance of nascent foci. Journal of Applied Ecology

25:1009–1021.

Moreno, C.E., and G. Halffter. 2000. Assessing the

completeness of bat biodiversity inventories using

species accumulation curves. Journal of Applied

Ecology 37:149–158.

Morgan, P., G.H. Aplet, J.B. Haufler, H.C. Humphries,

M.M. Moore, and W.D. Wilson. 1994. Historical

range of variability: a useful tool for evaluating

ecosystem change. Pages 87–111 in N. Sampson

and D.L. Adams, editors. Assessing forest ecosystem health in the inland west. New York: Food

Products Press.

Moyle, P.B. 1986. Fish introductions into North

America: patterns and ecological impact. Pages

27–43 in H. Mooney and J. Drake, editors. Ecology

of biological invasions of North America and

Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. 

Mulder, B.S., and C.J. Palmer. 1999. Introduction to

effectiveness monitoring. Pages 1–20 in B.S.

Mulder, B.R. Noon, T.A. Spies, M.G. Raphael, C.J.

Palmer, A.R. Olsen, G.H. Reeves, and H.H. Welsh,

technical coordinators. The strategy and design of

the effectiveness monitoring program for the

Northwest Forest Plan. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service

General Technical Report PNW-437. Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Murphy, D.D., and S.B. Weiss. 1992. Effects of climate

change on biological diversity in western North

America: species losses and mechanisms. Pages

355–368 in R.L. Peters and T.E. Lovejoy, editors.

Global warming and biological diversity. Yale

University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Nabhan, G.P., and S.L. Buchmann. 1997. Services provided by pollinators. Pages 133–150 in G.C. Daily,

editor. Nature’s services: societal dependence on

natural ecosystems. Island Press, Covelo, California. 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1974.

Rehabilitation of western coal lands. J.B.

Lippencott, Boston, Massachusetts.

National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland health -

new methods to classify, inventory, and monitor

rangelands. National Academy Press,

Washington, D.C.

Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991.

Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk

from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington.

Fisheries 16(2):4–21.

Newmark, W.D. 1987. A land-bridge island perspective

on mammalian extinctions in western North

American parks. Nature 325:430–432.

Noon, B.R. 1999. Scientific framework for effectiveness monitoring of the Northwest Forest Plan.

Pages 49–68 in B.S. Mulder, B.R. Noon, T.A.

Spies, M.G. Raphael, C.J. Palmer, A.R. Olsen,

G.H. Reeves, and H.H. Welsh, Technical

Coordinators. The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest

Forest Plan. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service General

Technical Report PNW-437. Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Noon, B.R., T.A. Spies, and M.G. Raphael. 1999.

Conceptual basis for designing an effectiveness

monitoring program. Pages 21–48 in B.S. Mulder,

B.R. Noon, T.A. Spies, M.G. Raphael, C.J. Palmer,

A.R. Olsen, G.H. Reeves, and H.H. Welsh,

Technical Coordinators. The strategy and design of

the effectiveness monitoring program for the

Northwest Forest Plan. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service

General Technical Report PNW-437. Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity:

a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology

4:355–364.

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s

legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. Island

Press, Covelo, California.

58 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
Noss, R.F., and B. Csuti. 1994. Habitat fragmentation.

Pages 237–264 in G.K. Meffe and C.R. Carroll,

editors. Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer

Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Noss, R.F., and L.D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks,

and MUMs: preserving diversity at all scales.

Environmental Management 10:299–309.

Nunney, L. 1993. The influence of mating system and

overlapping generations on effective population

size. Evolution 47:1329–1341. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1993. Juniper

woodland management: an application of the fish

and wildlife habitat mitigation policy. Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat

Conservation Division, Portland, Oregon.

Osmond, C.B., L.F. Pitelka, and G.M. Hidy, editors. 1990.

Plant biology of the Basin and Range. Ecological

Studies 80. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.

(PACFISH) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. 1994. Draft Environmental

Assessment. Interim strategies for managing

anadromous fish-producing watersheds on Federal

lands in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho,

and portions of California. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. [irregular pagination].

Pagel, J.E. 1995. American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). In Status of species–Columbia River

basin. Unpublished report. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 

Parmenter, R.R., J.A. MacMahon, M.E. Waaland, M.M.

Stuebe, P. Landres, and C.M. Crisafuli. 1985.

Reclamation of surface coal mines in western

Wyoming for wildlife habitat: a preliminary analysis.

Reclamation and Revegetation Research 4:93–115.

Paschke, M.W., T. McClendon, and E.F. Redente. 2000.

Nitrogen availability and old-field succession in a

shortgrass steppe. Ecosystems 3:144–158.

Patton, T.M., W.A. Hubert, and F.J. Rahel. 2000. Effort

needed to estimate species richness in small streams

on the Great Plains in Wyoming. North American

Journal of Fisheries Management 20:394–398.

Pellant, M. 1996. Cheatgrass: the invader that won the

west. Unpublished ICBEMP report, Boise, Idaho.

Pellant, M. 1999. Fuels management in the Snake River

Birds of Prey National Conservation Area (NCA).

Presentation, Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems: identifying issues and seeking practical solutions; Snake

River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area

Workshop. Boise, Idaho.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick.

2000. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health,

version 3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management, National Science and

Technology Center, Technical Reference

TR-1734-6, Denver, Colorado.

Perry, D.A., and M.P. Amaranthus. 1997. Disturbance,

recovery, and stability. Pages 31–56 in K.A. Kohm

and J.F. Franklin, editors. Creating a forestry for the

21st century: the science of ecosystem management.

Island Press, Covelo, California. 

Peterman, R.M. 1990. Statistical power analysis can

improve fisheries research and management.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science

47:2–15.

Peters, R.L., and J.D.S. Darling. 1985. The greenhouse

effect and nature reserves. BioScience 35:707–717.

Peterson, D.L., and V.T. Parker, editors. 1998.

Ecological scale: theory and applications.

Columbia University Press, New York, New York. 

Pimentel, D., J. Allen, A. Beers, L. Guinand, A. Hawkins,

R. Linder, P. McLaughlin, B. Meer, D. Musonda, D.

Perdue, S. Poisson, R. Salazar, S. Siebert, and K.

Stoner. 1993. Soil erosion and agricultural productivity. Pages 277–292 in D. Pimentel, editor, World soil

erosion and conservation. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, England. 

Pimm, S.L., H.L. Jones, and J. Diamond. 1988. On the

risk of extinction. American Naturalist 132:757–785.

Platts, W.S. 1979. Livestock grazing and riparian/stream

ecosystems. Pages 39–45 in Proceedings of the

Forum on Grazing and Riparian/Stream

Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc.

Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. Pages 389–424 in

Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Plissner, J.H., L.W. Oring, and S.M. Haig. 2000. Space

use of killdeer at a Great Basin breeding area.

Journal of Wildlife Management 64:421–429.

Postel, S., and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. Pages 195–214 in G.C. Daily, editor.

Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural

ecosystems. Island Press, Covelo, California.

Power, M.E., D. Tilman, J.A. Estes, B.A. Merge, W.J.

Bond, L.S. Mills, G. Daily, J.C. Castilla, J.

Lubchenco, and R.T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in

the quest for keystones. BioScience 46:609–620.

Pyke, D. A. and S.J. Novak. 1994. Cheatgrass demography – Establishment attributes, recruitment, ecotypes, and genetic variability. Pages 12–21 in S.B.

Monsen and S.G. Kitchen (compilers). Proceedings

– ecology and management of annual rangelands;

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 59
18–21 May 1992; Boise ID. U.S.D.A-Forest

Service General Technical Report INT-313.

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Quigley, T.M., R.W. Haynes, and R.T. Graham, technical editors. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment

for ecosystem management in the interior

Columbia basin. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service General

Technical Report PNW-382. Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Quigley, T.M., and S.J. Arbelbide, technical editors.

1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in

the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the

Klamath and Great Basins. U.S.D.A.-Forest

Service General Technical Report PNW-405.

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland,

Oregon. 4 vols.

Raedeke, K., editor. 1989. Streamside management:

riparian wildlife and forestry interactions.

Contribution 59, Institute of Forest Resources,

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Raphael, M.G., M.J. Wisdom, M.M. Rowland, R.S.

Holthausen, B.C. Wales, B.G. Marcot, and T.D.

Rich. 2001. Status and trends of habitats of terrestrial vertebrates in relation to land management in

the interior Columbia river basin. Forest Ecology

and Management 55:1–25.

Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson,

and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant units of

anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest.

Pages 334–349 in J. Nielson, editor. Evolution and

the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in

population conservation. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Reiner, R.J., and P.J. Urness. 1982. Effect of grazing

horses managed as manipulators of big game winter range. Journal of Range Management

35:567–571.

Rice, P.M. 1994. Exotic plant species of the Columbia

Basin. Unpublished ICBEMP report, Walla Walla,

Washington.

Rich, T. 1980. Nest placement in sage thrashers, sage

sparrows, and Brewer’s sparrows. Wilson Bulletin

92:362–368.

Richards, R.T., J.C. Chambers, and C. Ross. 1998. Use

of native plants on federal lands: policy and practice. Journal of Range Management 51:625–632.

Richardson, D.H.S. 1992. Pollution monitoring with

lichens: naturalist’s handbook. Richmond

Publishing, Slough, England.

Richardson, E. 1980. BLM’s billion-dollar checkerboard: managing the O&C lands. Forest History

Society, Santa Cruz, California.

Rosentreter, R. 1986. Compositional patterns within a

rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus) community of the

Idaho Snake River plain. Pages 273–277 in E.D.

McArthur and B.L. Welch, compilers.

Proceedings: symposium on the biology of

Artemisia and Chrysothamnus, 9–13 July 1984.

Provo, UT. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service General

Technical Report INT-200. Intermountain

Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Rosentreter, R. 1995. Lichens. Unpublished ICBEMP

report, Boise, Idaho.

Rosgen, D.L. 1985. A stream classification system.

Pages 91–95 in Riparian ecosystems and their management. First North American Riparian

Conference. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service General

Technical Report RM-120. Rocky Mountain

Research Station, Denver, Colorado.

Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers.

Catena 22:169–199.

Roth, A.H., and J.F. Jackson. 1987. The effect of pool

size on recruitment of predatory insects and on

mortality in a larval anuran. Herpetologica

43:224–232.

Rubega, M.A., and J.A. Robinson. 1996. Water salinization and shorebirds: emerging issues.

International Wader Studies 9:45–54.

Russell, K.R., D.H. Van Lear, and D.C. Guynn, Jr.

1999. Prescribed fire effects on herpetofauna: a

review and management implications. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 27:374–384.

Saab, V.A., and T.D. Rich. 1997. Large-scale conservation

assessment for neotropical migratory land birds in the

Interior Columbia River Basin. U.S.D.A.-Forest

Service General Technical Report PNW-399. Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Salwasser, H., C. Schonewald-Cox, and R. Baker. 1987.

The role of interagency cooperation in managing for

viable populations. Pages 159–173 in M. Soulé, editor. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge

University Press, New York, New York.

Samson, F.B., and F.L. Knopf. 1993. Managing biological diversity. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:509–514.

Samways, M.J. 1993. A spatial and process subregional

framework for insect and biodiversity conservation

research and management. Pages 1–27 in K.J.

Gaston K.J. Gaston, T.R. New, and MJ. Samway,

editors. Perspectives on insect conservation.

Intercept Limited, Andover, Hants, England. 

60 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991.

Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation:

a review. Conservation Biology 5:18–32.

Schaefer, J.A., C.M. Bergman, and S.N. Luttich. 2000.

Site fidelity of female caribou at multiple spatial

scales. Landscape Ecology 15:731–739.

Schlosser, I.J. 1995. Dispersal, boundary processes, and

trophic-level interactions in streams adjacent to

beaver ponds. Ecology 76:908–925.

Schneider, S.H. 1990. The greenhouse effect: science

and policy. Science 10:771–781. 

Schulz, T.T., and W.C. Leininger. 1991. Nongame wildlife

communities in grazed and ungrazed montane riparian sites. Great Basin Naturalist 51:286–292.

Seyfried, M.S. 1991. Infiltration patterns from simulated rainfall on a semi-arid rangeland soil. Soil

Science Society of America Journal 55:1726–1734. 

Shaw, N.L., and M.R. Haferkamp. 1994. Spiny hopsage seed germination and seedling establishment. Pages 252–256 in S.B. Monsen and S.G.

Kitchen, compilers. Proceedings - ecology and

management of annual rangelands; 18–21 May

1992; Boise, ID. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service

General Technical Report INT-313. Intermountain

Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Short, J., and B. Turner. 1994. A test of the vegetation

mosaic hypothesis: a hypothesis to explain the

decline and extinction of Australian mammals.

Conservation Biology 8:439–449. 

Smith, J.K., editor. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems:

effects of fire on fauna. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service

General Technical Report RMRS-42. Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah

Snyder, J.M., and L.H. Wullstein. 1973. The role of

desert cryptograms in nitrogen fixation. American

Midland Naturalist 90:257–265. 

Soulé, M.E., and K.A. Kohm. 1989. Research priorities

for conservation biology. Critical Issues Series No. 1.

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Soulé, M.E., and L.S. Mills. 1998. No need to isolate

genetics. Science 282:1658–1659.

Soule, P.T., and P.A. Knapp. 2000. Juniperus occidentalis

(western juniper) establishment history on two 

minimally disturbed research natural areas in central

Oregon. Western North American Naturalist

60:26–33.

Stankey, G.H., D.N. Cole, R.C. Lucas, M.E. Petersen, and

S. Frissell. 1985. The limits of acceptable change

(LAC) system for wilderness planning. U.S.D.A.-

Forest Service General Technical Report INT-176.

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Steenhof, K., M.N. Kochert, L.B. Carpenter, and R.N.

Lehman. 1999. Long-term prairie falcon population

changes in relation to prey abundance, weather,

land uses, and habitat conditions. Condor

101:28–41.

Svejcar, T., and R. Tausch. 1991. Anaho Island,

Nevada: a relict area dominated by annual invader

species. Rangelands 13:322–236.

Swanson, F.J., and C.T. Dyrness. 1975. Impact of

clear-cutting and road construction on soil erosion

by landslides in the western Cascade Range,

Oregon. Geology 3:393–396.

Taylor, B.L., and T. Gerodette. 1993. The uses of statistical power in conservation biology: the vaquita

and northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology

4:489–500.

Taylor, B.L., P.R. Wade, D.P. DeMaster, and J. Barlow.

2000. Incorporating uncertainty into management

models for marine mammals. Conservation Biology

14:1243–1252.

Thomas, J.W., technical editor. 1979. Wildlife habitats in

managed forests of the Blue Mountains of Oregon

and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, with U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, and the Wildlife

Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

Thornton, K.W., G.E. Saul, and D.E. Hyatt. 1994.

Environmental monitoring and assessment program

assessment framework. Environmental Protection

Agency Report EPA/620/R-94/016. Office of

Research and Development, Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment Program, Research and

Assessment Center, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina.

Toft, C., and P. Shea. 1983. Detecting community-wide

patterns: estimating power strengthens statistical

inference. American Naturalist 122:618–625.

Torok, K., T. Szili-Kovacs, M. Halassy, T. Toth, Z.

Hayek, M.W. Paschke, and L.J. Wardell. 2000.

Immobilization of soil nitrogen as a possible

method for the restoration of sandy grassland.

Applied Vegetation Science 3:7–14.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of

ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic

communities. Conservation Biology 14:18–30. 

Turner, M.G. 1987. Effects of grazing by feral horses,

clipping, trampling, and burning on a Georgia salt

marsh. Estuaries 10:54–60.

Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of

pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics 20:171–197.

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 61
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S.

Department of the Interior (USDI). 2000a. Interior

Columbia Basin Supplemental Draft Environmental

Impact Statement. Vol. 1. BLM/OR/WA/PT00/019+1792. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, U.S. Department of Inteior, Bureau of Land

Managment, Portland, Oregon (irregular pagination).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S.

Department of the Interior (USDI). 2000b. Interior

Columbia Basin Supplemental Draft Environmental

Impact Statement. Vol. 2. BLM/OR/WA/PT00/019+1792. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, U.S. Department of Inteior, Bureau of Land

Managment, Portland, Oregon (irregular pagination).

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of

Land Management (BLM). 1993. Riparian area

management: process for assessing proper functioning condition. Technical Reference TR 1737–9.

Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land

Management (BLM). 1994. Riparian area management: process for assessing proper functioning condition for lentic riparian-wetland areas. Technical

Reference TR 1737–11. Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of

Land Management (BLM). 1999. Research needs

for salmon. Presented at Interagency Salmon

Science Team meeting, Seattle, Washington (7–8

December 1999). 

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land

Management (BLM). 2000. FY 2002 science priorities, current as of July 24, 2000. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Region 1 Bureau

information (research) needs (BINs). Pacific

Region regional office, Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. Species-at-Risk

Program: high-priority species or groups and their

management needs. Attachment 1 of Species at

Risk Pre-Proposal Package (FY 2001), pages 4–5

and 16–19: Region 1 and Region 6 nominations.

Valentine, K.A. 1947. Distance from water as a factor

in grazing capacity of rangeland. Journal of

Forestry 45:749–754.

Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing management. Academic

Press, New York, New York.

Vallentine, J.F., and A.R. Stevens. 1994. Use of livestock

to control cheatgrass - a review. Pages 202–206 in

S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen, compilers.

Proceedings - ecology and management of annual

rangelands, 18–21 May 1992, Boise, ID. U.S.D.A.-

Forest Service General Technical Report INT-313.

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Van Dorp, D. and P.F.M. Opdam. 1987. Effects of patch

size, isolation, and regional abundance on forest

bird communities. Landscape Ecology 1:59–73.

Vander Haegen, W.M., F.C. Dobler, and D.J. Pierce.

2000. Shrubsteppe bird response to habitat and

landscape variables in eastern Washington, U.S.A.

Conservation Biology 14:1145–1160.

Vavra, M., and D. Ganskopp. 1998. Grazing behavior in

ungulates: current concepts and future challenges.

Annals of Arid Zones 37:319–335.

Vavra, M., W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper, editors.

1994. Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West. Society for Range

Management, Denver, Colorado.

Verts, B.J., and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of

Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley,

California. 

Vogel, C.A., and K.P. Reese. 1995. Mountain quail status

report: a preliminary document to a conservation

assessment for mountain quail. Unpublished report,

Idaho Interagency Conservation/Prelisting Effort.

Vora, R.S. 1997. Developing programs to monitor

ecosystem health and effectiveness of management

practices on Lakes States National Forests, USA.

Biological Conservation 80:289–302.

Wales, B.C. 2001. Effects of insects, disease, fire, grazing,

and their management on terrestrial riparian vertebrates and habitat. Northwest Science 75:119-127.

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable

resources. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York,

New York.

Waples, R.S. 1991. Definition of “species” under the

Endangered Species Act: application to Pacific

salmon. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS

F/NWC-194. National Marine Fisheries Service,

Seattle, Washington.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995.

Washington state recovery plan for the sage grouse.

Game Division, Olympia, Washington. 

Watanabe, M.E. 1994. Pollination worries rise as honey

bees decline. Science 265:1170.

Weltz, N., M.K. Wood, and E.E. Parker. 1989. Flash

grazing and trampling effects on infiltration rates

and sediment yield on a selected New Mexico

range site. Journal of Arid Environments

16:95–100. 

West, N.E. 1990. Structure and function of soil microphytic crusts in wildland ecosystems of arid and

semi-arid regions. Advanced Ecological Research

20:179–223.

West, N.E. 1993. Biodiversity of rangelands. Journal of

Range Management 46:2–13.

62 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003
West, N.E., and J.A. Young. 2000. Intermountain valleys and lower mountain slopes. Pages 255–284 in

M.G. Barbour and W.D. Billings, editors. North

American terrestrial vegetation, 2nd ed. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

Wester, D.B. 1992. Viewpoint: replication, randomization, and statistics in range research. Journal of

Range Management 45:285–290.

Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on

Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and management implications. Pages 4–10 in E.S. McArthur,

R.M. Romney, S.D. Smith, and P.T. Tueller, editors.

Proceedings: symposium on cheatgrass invasion,

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

management. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service General

Technical Report INT-276. Intermountain Research

Station, Ogden, Utah.

Wicklow-Howard, M.C., and J. Kaltenecker. 1994.

Fungi from the Owyhee region of southern Idaho

and eastern Oregon. ICBEMP contract report prepared for the Eastside Ecosystem Management

Project, Boise, Idaho. 

Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and

the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology

77:1211–1214.

Wilcox, B.P., and M.K. Wood. 1989. Factors influencing interrill erosion from semi-arid slopes in New

Mexico (USA). Journal of Range Management

42:66–70.

Williams, J.D. 1993. Influence of microphytic crusts on

selected soil physical and hydrologic properties in the

Hartnet Draw, Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. Ph.D.

Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 

Williams, J.D. 1994. Microbiotic crusts: a review.

Unpublished ICBEMP report, Boise, Idaho.

Williams, J.E., C.A. Wood, and M.P. Dombeck, editors.

1997. Watershed restoration: principles and practices.

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S.

Contreres-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. NavarroMendoza, D.E. McAllister, and J.E. Deacon. 1989.

Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or

of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2–20.

Williams, O.B. 1977. Reproductive wastage in rangeland plants, with particular reference to the role of

mammals. Pages 227–248 in Proceedings, 2nd

U.S.-Australia Rangeland Panel. The impact of herbivores on arid and semi-arid rangelands. Perth,

Western Australia, Australia.

Wilson, D.E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book

of North American mammals. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Winter, B.D., and R.M. Hughes. 1995. American

Fisheries Society draft position statement on 

biodiversity. Fisheries 20(4):20–25.

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis,

V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M.

Rowland, W.J. Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000.

Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in

the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and

management implications. U.S.D.A-Forest Service

General Technical Report PNW-485. Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Wissmar, R.C., J.E. Smith, B.A. McIntosh, H.W. Li,

G.H. Reeves, and L.A. Brown. 1994. Ecological

health of river basins in forested regions of eastern

Oregon and Washington. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service

General Technical Report PNW-326. Pacific

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Wolfe, M.J., Jr. 1980. Feral horse demography: a preliminary report. Journal of Range Management

33:354–360.

Wootton, J.T. 1994. Predicting direct and indirect

effects: an integrated approach using experiments

and path analysis. Ecology 75:151–165.

Young, J.A., and R.A. Evans. 1978. Population dynamics

after wildfires in sagebrush grasslands. Journal of

Range Management 31:283–289.

Young, J.A., and R.A. Evans. 1981. Demography and

fire history of a western juniper stand. Journal of

Range Management 34:501–506.

Zaghmut, O.M.F., and W.A. Torello. 1992. Restoration

of regeneration potential of long-term cultures of

red fescue Festuca rubra L. by elevated sucrose

levels. Plant Cell Reports 11:142–145.

Zielinski, W.J., and T.E. Kucera, technical editors.

1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection.

U.S.D.A.-Forest Service General Technical Report

PSW-157. Pacific Southwest Research Station,

Albany, California. 

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 63

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 65

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Research needs identified by Department of Interior management agencies for the Interior Columbia River,

Snake River, Klamath, and northern Great Basins, and sections of the Research Plan (Part 2) that address each need.

Bolded sections address the specified need in greatest depth. Research needs for natural resources have not yet been

received from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Page numbers Identified as priority in Plan that Research Need need for Fiscal Year(s) address need Agency*

Rangeland Health and Restoration 1996–2002 28-30; 33-37 BLM

Aquatic and riparian systems 1997– 2002 35; 38-40; 42;43;45 BLM

Prescribed fire 2001, 2002 29; 45; 49 BLM

Wild horse and burro management 1997-2002 31 BLM

Invasive plant issues 1996–2002 28; 29-30; 31; 35; 42 BLM

Declining and at-risk species 2001, 2002 30; 33; 38; 43; 45-46 BLM

Water quality and hydrological issues 2001, 2002 30; 38; 40; 46; 48 BLM

National Landscape Conservation System 2002 33 BLM

Effects of western juniper expansion 1997–1999 45 BLM

Vegetation Diversity Project 1996–1999 28-29; 33; 35; 42-43; 46 BLM

Paired Ecosystems (PE) Project: effects of climate change 1996 43 BLM

Re-GAP: GAP analysis regional land cover mapping 2002 33 BLM; USFWS

Improving management of fish, wildlife and habitats on 1995–2002 28; 35; 36; 49 USFWS

National Wildlife Refuges

Production, management, and restoration of native fishes and other 1995–2002 30; 35; 38-40; 43; 44; 46-49 USFWS

aquatic species

Analysis of the effect of physical and chemical environments on fish 1995–2002 38; 40; 43; 46; 48 USFWS

and wildlife

Status of listed, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species 1995–2002 30; 33-35** USFWS

and their habitats

Management and restoration of terrestrial species and their ecosystems 1995–2002 29-30; 49 USFWS

Watershed-scale management of natural and anthropogenic factors that 2001–2002 38; 40 BOR

contribute to reduced water quality or quantity (e.g., sediment 

deposition in reservoirs) ["Ecology of western reservoirs"]

Diurnal and chronic long-term effects of water quality in Upper Klamath 1997–2002 30; 38; 40; 43 BOR

Lake on early life cycle stages of endangered catostomid suckers

Habitat value of wetlands constructed for water treatment 1997–2002 BOR

GIS analysis of sensitive species populations 1997–2002 46 BOR

Effects of visitor use on sensitive species 1997–2002 33; 40; 43; 46; 48 NPS

Fishery and aquatic ecosystem research needs 1997–2002 35; 38-40; 42-43; 46-48 NPS

A systems approach to management of noxious weeds 1997–2002 28; 29-30; 31; 35; 42 NPS

Large mammal ecology (including predator-prey) 1997–2002 30; 33; 43; 46-47; 49 NPS

Status and trends of species at risk, and implications of species declines 1997–2002 30; 33; 38; 43; 45-46 NPS

Livestock grazing impacts on natural systems in National Parks 1997–2002 28; 30; 33; 35-37; 38-40 NPS

Effects of air pollutants on Park resources 1997–2002 40 NPS

Visitor use and natural resource impacts at heavily visited National Parks 1997–2002 33; 40; 43; 46; 48 NPS

Restoration of ecosystems in National Parks 1997–2002 33-37 NPS

Effects of boundaries on ecological systems 1997–2002 33 NPS

Wildlife diseases 1997–2002 49 NPS

Inventory & develop monitoring protocols for resources in desert ecosystems 1997–2002 44 NPS

* Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), National Park Service (NPS).

**see 49 for specific organisms and threats.
66 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003

Appendix B 

Allocation of scientist FTEs to address all questions in this research program with the Interior Columbia Basin

and Snake River Plateau, by category.

Assumptions:

• Each scientist can manage 3-5 major projects simultaneously, 6-10 smaller projects, or an intermediate number

of a combination of major and minor projects. In addition, a Scientist can participate in more projects if projects are collaborative and the scientist is not the PI for the project.

• Although many questions are framed as large, integrative questions, in some cases it may be necessary to

address questions in intermediate steps. Thus, smaller projects that provide sufficient statistical power and

appropriate spatial domain can be used to test hypotheses and validate causal relationships. Results are thus

corroborated with continued investigation over time. This perspective fosters long-term research, which is sorely needed for high-priority issues of natural resource management. 

• Although only scientists are listed in this Appendix, budgets should accommodate sufficient staff (e.g., GIS

programmers, field technicians, data managers) to address questions in a scientifically robust manner. If this

assumption is not met, then the number of scientists must be scaled back accordingly.

• The number of projects investigated and the level to which they are addressed will depend upon available funding, such that all questions may not be addressed.

• Although no scientist is assumed to work solely on Research Program projects, their duties would be dominated by this work. Otherwise, a greater number of scientists would be needed.

• The designation “‡” denotes the scientist(s) that would be most appropriate to coordinate research within

each category. 

Number of support staff scientists and other researchers as needed to address each research category:

Title (specialization) Level of expertise needed; #FTE No. of projects

A. Project Administration

1 Project Leader GS-14; 1.0

1 GIS Specialist GS-11; 1.0

1 Data Manager/Statistician GS-9; 1.0

1 Information Specialist GS-9; 1.0

1 Administrative Assistant GS-5; 1.0

1. Rangeland Health

1 Range (Plant) Ecologist‡ GS-12; 1.0 5 collaborating roles

1-2 Soil Scientists‡ GS-13; 1.5 2 major, 3 collaborating roles

1-2 Vertebrate Biologists GS-13; 1.5 3 major, 1 collaborating role

1 Landscape Ecologist GS-13; 0.5 2 collaborating roles

1-2 Fire Ecologists GS-13; 1.5 2 large, 1 collaborating role

Collaboration by an Entomologist, GS-12; 0.1 each 1 collaborating role

Plant Physiologist, and Mammalogist 

2. Restoration

2 Aquatic Ecologists‡ GS-13/14; 1.5 7 major roles

1-2 Restoration Ecologists‡ GS-13/14; 1.0 4 major roles

1-2 Landscape Ecologist GS-13; 1.0 3 major, 3 collaborating roles

2 Ecologists GS-12; 1.5 5 major, 1 collaborating role

1-2 Soil Scientists GS-12; 1.5 5 major, 2 collaborating roles
Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 67

1 Vertebrate Biologist GS-12; 0.75 3 major, 1 collaborating role

1 Hydrologist GS-12; 0.5 2 major, 1 collaborating role

1 Range Ecologist GS-12; 0.5 2 major, 1 collaborating role

Collaboration by a Plant Physiologist/ GS-12; 0.1 each

Ecologist (2m, 1c) and a Theoretical 

Modeler (1m, 1c)

3. Aquatic-terrestrial interface

2-3 Aquatic Ecologists‡ GS-13/14; 2.5 4 large roles

1 Landscape Ecologist GS-12; 0.5 2 major roles

1 Hydrologist GS-12; 0.5 2 major roles

1 Theoretical Modeler GS-12; 0.5 2 major roles

Collaboration by an Invertebrate GS-12; 0.1 each 1 collaborating role

Ecologist and a Vertebrate Ecologist

4. Development of monitoring and implementation protocols for adaptive management

1 Ecologist‡ GS-13/14; 1.0 2 major, 2 collaborating roles

1 Aquatic Ecologist GS-12; 0.75 3 major, 1 collaborating role

1 Soil Scientist GS-12; 0.5 2 major, 2 collaborating roles

1 Landscape Ecologist GS-12/13; 0.5 2 major, 1 collaborating role

1 Vertebrate Biologist GS-12; 0.5 2 major roles

1 Hydrologist GS-12; 0.5 2 major, 1 collaborating role

1 Plant Physiologist GS-12; 0.5 2 major roles

1 Sociologist GS-12; 0.5 several collaborating roles

1 Theoretical Modeler GS-12/13; 0.25 1 major role

5. Species and habitats at risk

4 Vertebrate Ecologists‡ GS-13/14; 1.0; GS-12/13; 3.0 12 major roles

2 Aquatic Biologists‡ GS-13/14; 1.0; GS-12/13; 1.0 4 major roles

1 Hydrologist GS-12; 0.5 3 major roles

1 Plant Physiologist GS-12; 0.5 3 major roles

1 Soil Scientist GS-12; 0.5 5 collaborating roles

1 Theoretical Modeler GS-12; 0.5 2 major roles

1 Restoration Ecologist GS-12; 0.5 2 major roles

1 Landscape Ecologist GS-12; 0.5 1 major, 1 collaborating role

1 Sociologist GS-12; 0.5 several collaborating roles

1 Fire Ecologist GS-12; 0.25 1 major role 

1 Ecologist GS-12; 0.25 3 collaborating roles
68 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003

APPENDIX C

Estimated personnel needs (in FTEs) for each of five research categories over a ten-year period. 

Fiscal year FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Total

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Person 

Years

Project year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Administration

Project leader 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0

GIS Specialist 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0

Data Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0

Information Specialist 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0

Rangeland health

Research Scientists (GS-13) 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.5 35.0

Research Scientists (GS-12) 2.3 2.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 13.0

Technicians (field and lab) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 72.0

Secretaries (GS-5) 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 10.0

Restoration

Research Scientists (GS-13) 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.5 35.0

Research Scientists (GS-12) 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 49.0

Technicians (field and lab) 15.8 15.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 11.3 11.3 9.8 11.3 126.0

Secretaries (GS-5) 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 10.0

Aquatic-terrestrial interface

Research Scientists (GS-13) 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 30.0

Research Scientists (GS-12) 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 18.0

Technicians (field and lab) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 72.0

Secretaries (GS-5) 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 10.0

Monitoring/adaptive management

Research Scientists (GS-13) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0

Research Scientists (GS-12) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 40.0

Technicians (field and lab) 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 0.0 75.0

Secretaries (GS-5) 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 10.0

Species and habitats at risk

Research Scientists (GS-13) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 20.0

Research Scientists (GS-12) 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 80.0

Technicians (field and lab) 19.5 19.5 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 10.5 10.5 150.0

Secretaries (GS-5) 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 15.0

Total FTEs across all research categories

Research Scientists (GS-13) 16.5 16.5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 12.0 12.0 9.5 11.5 130.0

Research Scientists (GS-12) 25.7 25.7 20.1 20.1 20.1 20.1 18.8 18.8 15.3 15.3 200.0

Technicians 59.6 59.6 52.1 52.1 52.1 52.1 50.6 50.6 44.6 21.8 495.0

Secretarial support 3.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 8.0 55.0
Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 69

APPENDIX D

Summary of estimated costs (in 1,000s of U.S. dollars) for completion of a 10-year study of Department of the

Interior aridlands in the Interior Columbia River, Snake River, Klamath, and northern Great Basins. Totals listed

pertain to a comprehensive research program that addresses all questions in this research Plan; costs would be

accordingly reduced if only a portion of the questions were addressed.

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Totals

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (1,000s of $)

Personnel

Administration 299 317 336 356 366 387 398 420 432 456 3767

Project Leader 103 109 116 123 126 134 137 145 149 157

GIS Specialist 61 65 69 73 75 79 81 86 88 93

Data Manager 51 54 57 60 62 66 67 71 73 77

Information Specialist 51 54 57 60 62 66 67 71 73 77

Administrative Assistant 33 35 38 40 41 43 44 47 48 51

Research Scientists (GS-13) 1440 1528 1276 1352 1388 1469 1393 1472 1197 1531 14046

Research Scientists (GS-12) 1886 2002 1660 1758 1805 1910 1835 1940 1621 1712 18129

Technicians 2667 2826 2624 2778 2854 3022 3010 3186 2880 1483 27330

Secretarial support 134 261 277 293 301 319 327 346 355 546 3161

Travel

Commercial 20 20 20 20 20 20 25 25 25 30 225

Vehicles (30) 90 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 110 1384

Meals and lodging 80 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 90 1170

Equipment and supplies 150 150 75 80 85 90 95 95 95 60 975

Printing and publications 13 17 17 17 20 17 17 17 20 25 180

Yearly Totals 6779 7394 6559 6927 7113 7507 7372 7774 6897 6043 70366

Assumptions:

1) Cost-of-living increases amount to 2.70% per annum.

2) Benefits add an additional 34% to all personnel costs.

3) Salaries incorporate a 7.68% locality payment.

4) Projects are assumed to begin in FY 2003, with all staff at Step 1.

5) All employees receive maximum step increases (e.g., no turnover in positions, no step freezes). 

6) Each scientist requires 3 Field Technicians for 3-4 months per year, and maintains 1 Technician for data entry during the year.
70 Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003

Common name Scientific name 

Vertebrates

Amphibians/Reptiles

black-collared lizard Crotaphytus insularis 

bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

horned lizards Phrynosoma spp. 

longnose leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii 

northern leopard frog Rana pipiens 

sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus 

tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum 

whiptail lizards Cnemidophorus spp. 

Birds 

American robin Turdus migratorius 

bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

blue-winged teal Anas discors 

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri 

brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater 

burrowing owl Athene cunicularia 

cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera 

Columbian sharp- Pedioecetes (Tympanuchus) phasianellus 

tailed grouse columbianus

grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 

gray flycatcher Empidonax wrightii 

house wren Troglodytes aedon 

loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

long-billed curlew Numenius americanus 

marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus 

mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides 

northern flicker Colaptes auratus 

northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina 

peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus 

sage sparrow Amphispiza belli 

sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus 

sandhill crane Grus canadensis 

sharp-tailed grouse Pedioecetes phasianellus 

snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus 

upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 

whooping crane Grus americana 

Fish 

brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis

bull trout Salvelinus confluentus

chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss^

salmonids Salmonidae

steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss^

suckers Catostomidae

Yellowstone cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri 

Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi 

Mammals 

American pika Ochotona princeps 

beaver Castor canadensis 

caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou 

deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 

fisher Martes pennanti 

grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis

ground squirrel Spermophilus spp. 

horse Equus caballus 

marten Martes americana 

meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus 

microchiropteran bats Microchiroptera 

moose Alces alces 

mule deer Odocoileus hemionus 

northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucogaster 

northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides 

Ord’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii 

pronghorn antelope Antilocapra americana 

pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis 

sagebrush vole Lemmiscus curtatus 

spotted bat Euderma maculatum 

wapiti (elk) Cervus elaphus 

Washington ground squirrel Spermophilus washingtoni 

white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

wolverine Gulo gulo 

Common name Scientific name 

Invertebrates

springsnails Hydrobiidae 

thatch-building ants Formica spp. 

zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha 

Plants 

alder Alnus spp. 

cheatgrass Bromus tectorum 

cordgrasses Spartina spp. 

cottonwood Populus spp. 

crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum 

dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica 

diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa 

juniper Juniperus spp. 

leafy spurge Euphorbia esula * 

lodgepole pine Pinus contorta 

low sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula 

medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae 

mountain big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa 

purple loosestrife Lycopodium sabinifolium or 

Lythrum salicaria 

quaking aspen Populus tremuloides 

rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea or Lygodesmia juncea 

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 

sagebrush Artemisia spp. 

saltcedar, tamarisk Tamarix spp. 

Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda 

spotted knapweed Centaurea biebersteinii or 

Centaurea melitensis 

Ute lady’s tresses Spiranthes diluvialis 

western juniper Juniperus occidentalis 

whitetop Cardaria draba 

willow Salix spp. 

Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis

*USDA, NRCS, 2001. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.1 (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, 

Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4990 USA.

^Source: Common and Scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada.

APPENDIX E

List of taxa mentioned in the plan, listed in alphbetical order of common names. Retrieved February 20,

2002, from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System on-line database, http://www.itis/usda.gov.
Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/IT-2002-0003 71

June 2002 Information and Technology Report

Research Plan for Lands Administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior

in the Columbia Basin and Snake River Plateau

David A. Pyke and Erik A. Beever

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey USGS/BRD/ITR2002-0003

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

Prepared as part of an interagency agreement between USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science

Center and the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office.

Release unlimited. Available from the national Technical Information Service, 

5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (1-800-553-6847 or 

703-487-4650). Available to registered users from the Defense Technical 

Information Center, Attn: Help Desk, 8722 Kingman Road, Suite 0994, 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218 (1800-225-3842 or 703-767-9050)

This document presents a long-term research strategy to address current and future research needs for

management of semiarid ecosystems administered by the Department of the Interior in the northern

portion of the Intermountain West, including the Snake River Plateau, as well as the Klamath,

Columbia, and northern Great Basins. The plan focuses particularly on semiarid rangelands and their

associated streams, riparian areas and wetlands. These range from juniper woodlands at the higher 

elevations and precipitation zones to the lower elevation and drier sagebrush grasslands and salt desert

shrublands. The five categories of research emphasis consist of restoration, rangeland health, aquaticterrestrial connections, development of monitoring and evaluation protocols, and species and habitats

at risk. The ultimate goal of the research strategy is to provide ideas for integrating emerging scientific

understanding into future management by maintaining and restoring long-term ecosystem health and

ecological integrity, by providing consistent management over the long term, by restoring and maintaining habitats for plant and animal species, and by supporting economic and social needs of people.

Great Basin, Intermountain West, Restoration, Rangeland health, Aquatic, 

Riparian, Wetland ecosystems, Terrestrial ecosystems, Fire, Cheatgrass, 

Sagebrush, Juniper woodlands, Salt desert shrub, Species at risk, Monitoring. To be determined

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL
USGS – Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem 

Science Center and Oregon State University

Production Staff

Editor Caryn M. Davis

Editorial Assistant Leah Rosin

Designer Sandra L. Arbogast

Technical Information Specialist Ruth W. Jacobs

NOTE: The mention of trade names does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government.
U.S. Department of Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources.This responsibility includes fostering the

sound use of our lands and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife and biological diversity; preserving

the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the

enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and

works to ensure that their development is in the best interest of all our people by encouraging stewardship

and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian

reservation communities.