Collaborative Management and 

Research in the Great Basin —

Examining the Issues and Developing 

a Framework for Action

United States Departmentof Agriculture / Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-204

February 2008
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and number.

Publishing Services

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Chambers, Jeanne C.; Devoe, Nora; Evenden, Angela, eds. 2008. Collaborative management and 

research in the Great Basin — examining the issues and developing a framework for action. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 66 p.

Abstract

The Great Basin is one of the most imperiled regions in the United States. Sustaining its ecosystems, 

resources, and human populations requires strong collaborative partnerships among the region’s research 

and management organizations. This GTR is the product of a workshop on “Collaborative Watershed 

Research and Management in the Great Basin” held in Reno, Nevada, November 28 through 30, 2006. 

It provides an overview and individual issues papers describing critical research and management issues 

facing the Great Basin. It also includes summaries of workshop sessions on (1) developing collaborative 

management and research programs and (2) devising mechanisms for organization and communication. 

Co-sponsors of the workshop included the University of Nevada, Reno, Desert Research Institute; Great 

Basin Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit; Utah State University; Agricultural Research Service; Bureau 

of Land Management; State of Nevada, Department of Wildlife and Game; USDA Forest Service, Region 4; 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; and U. S. Geological Survey. 

Keywords: Great Basin, environmental issues, collaboration, communication, research and management

Cover Photo by Nolan Preece.
Editor Bios

Jeanne C. Chambers, Research Ecologist, U. S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, 920 Valley Road, Reno, NV 89512 jchambers@fs.fed.us.

Nora Devoe, Regional Science Coordinator and Great Basin Cooperative 

Ecosystem Studies Unit Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State 

Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Reno, NV 89520 ndevoe@nv.blm.gov.

Angela Evenden, Research Coordinator and Great Basin Cooperative Ecosystem 

Studies Unit Coordinator, National Park Service, University of Nevada, 1000 Valley 

Road, MS 186, Reno, NV 89512 angela_evenden@nps.gov.

Collaborative Management and 

Research in the Great Basin —

Examining the Issues and 

Developing a Framework for Action

Jeanne C. Chambers, Nora Devoe, and 

Angela Evenden, editors

i

Contents

Page 

Introduction...................................................................................................1

Great Basin Issues Papers ..........................................................................8

Urbanization and Changing Land Use in the Great Basin .......................9

 Alicia Torregrosa and Nora Devoe

Public Perceptions of Land Management in the Great Basin ................14

 Susan Wilmot and Mark Brunson

Water Resources in the Great Basin......................................................20

 Jeanne C. Chambers

Energy Development in the Great Basin................................................24

 Nora Devoe

Climate Change and the Great Basin ....................................................29

 Jeanne C. Chambers

Fire and the Great Basin........................................................................33

 Jeanne C. Chambers

Invasive Plant Species and the Great Basin..........................................38

 Jeanne C. Chambers

Great Basin Wildlife Disease Concerns .................................................42

 Russ Mason

Great Basin Insect Outbreaks ...............................................................45

 Barbara Bentz, Diane Alston and Ted Evans

Great Basin Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems .....................................49

 Don Sada

Great Basin Sagebrush Ecosystems .....................................................53

 Jeanne C. Chambers

Great Basin Aspen Ecosystems.............................................................57

 Dale L. Bartos

Great Basin Rare and Vulnerable Species ............................................61

 Erica Fleishman

Author Contact Information ......................................................................65

iii

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 1

Introduction

The Great Basin is considered to be one of the most 

endangered ecoregions in the United States (Noss and 

others 1995, Wisdom and others 2005). The population 

is expanding at the highest rate in the nation, and major 

sociological and ecological changes are occurring across 

the region. These changes can be attributed to numerous 

interacting factors including urbanization, changing land 

use, climate change, limited water resources, altered 

fire regimes, invasive species, insects, and disease. The 

consequences have been large-scale vegetation type 

conversions, loss of watershed function, and degradation 

of stream, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems. Biodiversity 

has decreased, and a high number of species are at risk 

of extinction or extirpation. Ecosystem services such as 

water resources for agriculture and fish, habitat for aquatic 

and terrestrial plants and animals, forage and browse for 

native herbivores and livestock, and recreational opportunities are rapidly diminishing. These losses have had 

adverse social and economic impacts on urban, suburban, and rural areas. Managers across the Great Basin 

are increasingly challenged to maintain or improve the 

ecological condition of these systems and the services 

that they provide while meeting the needs of a growing 

number of user groups with diverse and often opposing 

interests.

Sustaining the ecosystems, resources, and human populations of the Great Basin will require strong collaborative 

partnerships among the major research and management 

organizations in the region. The first steps toward effective 

collaboration, as addressed in this report, are to clearly 

identify the research and management issues and develop 

the mechanisms for increasing collaboration among the 

many research and management entities in the Great 

Basin. This General Technical Report (GTR) contains 

information resulting from a workshop on Collaborative 

Watershed Management and Research that was held in 

Reno, Nevada, November 28 through 30, 2006.

The vision for the workshop and the efforts that have 

followed is multi-disciplinary, multi-organizational teams 

working together to develop solutions to critical ecological and socio-economic issues in the Great Basin using a 

collaborative management and research framework. Many 

excellent Great Basin collaborative research and management projects already exist. However, there are relatively few 

that are regional in scope and information sharing among 

the existing collaborations has been limited. A mechanism 

is needed for identifying and prioritizing regional issues, 

expanding upon existing efforts, facilitating new teams to 

address emerging issues, and sharing information among 

existing and new collaborative teams.

Although good progress has been made in understanding Great Basin ecosystems and in developing effective 

management techniques, many Great Basin issues are of 

such complexity and scale that many critical research and 

management issues still need attention. Researchers and 

managers alike need to address larger spatial scales and 

longer time scales than have typically been dealt with 

in the past. Collaborative projects need to be developed 

across administrative boundaries to address the underlying 

causes of undesirable ecosystem change. Specific areas 

that need research and management attention include:

! Science-based information and large-scale 

assessments of the interacting effects of the primary 

ecosystem drivers, such as urbanization, changing 

land use, climate change, fire, and invasive species, 

on Great Basin ecosystems (vegetation type conversion, watershed functioning, stream, riparian 

and aquatic systems, and biodiversity).

! Prediction and modeling of the rates and magnitude 

of change, areas affected, and future consequences.

Collaborative Management and Research 

in the Great Basin —

Examining the Issues and Developing 

a Framework for Action

Jeanne C. Chambers, Nora Devoe, and Angela Evenden, editors
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

! Management tools to address the ongoing and

predicted changes in Great Basin ecosystems such 

as methods for improving use of existing water 

resources; methods for the early detection and control 

of invasive species; and treatment and management 

options for restoring and maintaining ecosystems 

affected by altered fire regimes.

Close collaboration among managers and researchers 

is needed to identify and prioritize research and management issues and to develop effective collaborative efforts. 

Large-scale management “experiments” and ongoing 

adaptive management that involve the public and other 

partners are proven approaches for answering science 

questions and for developing widely accepted management techniques. Science information already serves as 

a basis for management planning efforts; meeting NEPA 

and regulatory requirements; and inventories, assessments, and trend monitoring. The majority of agencies 

and land managers recognize the critical need for sound 

scientific information to support management decisions. 

For example, on July 21, 2006, the director of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service communicated his vision for the 

future of the Service to all employees as including “A 

Service that is grounded in sound science where we articulate the strengths of that science and its confidence 

limits in making our decisions.” Increased management 

and research collaboration will ensure that accurate and 

reliable information is available to resource managers 

and decision makers.

Historically, both research and management activities in 

Great Basin ecosystems have been severely under-funded. 

Monitoring information, including precipitation and stream 

gauging data, is the sparsest in the nation. Additionally, the 

Great Basin is one of the few ecoregions in the nation that does 

not have a National Science Foundation sponsored LongTerm Ecological Research site. Research and management 

collaboration at the regional scale can be used to leverage 

limited funds, reduce overlap, and increase efficiency.

This technical report includes an overview of the critical 

research and management issues facing the Great Basin. 

It also includes a summary of the workshop’s sessions on 

(1) developing collaborative management and research 

programs and (2) devising mechanisms for organization 

and communication among collaborators. Issues papers 

on the many critical research and management problems 

within the region follow. It is hoped that the information 

contained in this technical report will serve as a first step 

in the process of developing more effective and largerscale collaborations in the Great Basin.

Overview of Great Basin Issues

The Great Basin is a large, semi-arid region that includes most of the state of Nevada and parts of California, 

Oregon, Idaho, and Utah. The focus of this technical 

report is on the Great Basin as defined by similar climatic and floristic relationships (fig. 1). The Region 

extends from the Sierra Nevada Range in California 

to the Wasatch Range in Utah, and from southeastern 

Oregon and Idaho to southern Nevada. The majority of 

the land (about 72 percent) is under federal management. 

Sparsely populated until recently, the Great Basin is 

undergoing major sociological and ecological changes. 

The human population is growing at one of the highest 

rates in the nation. In 1990, the population of the Great 

Basin was 2.9 million with 9.1 million ha (22.6 million 

acres) uninhabited (Torregrosa and Devoe, this volume). 

Figure 1—Map of the Great Basin as defined by similar 

climatic and floristic relationships.

Utah

California

Idaho

Nevada

Oregon

Ely

Reno

Elko

Boise

Burns

Las Vegas

Cedar City

Twin Falls

Idaho Falls

Klamath Falls

Salt Lake City

.

0 55 110 220 Miles
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 3

The population had grown to 4.9 million by 2004 with 

fewer than 1.2 million ha (3 million acres) uninhabited. 

Most individuals, 2.6 million, live in urban areas that are 

located at the base of watersheds on the periphery of the 

region and have populations greater than 50,000 (Salt 

Lake City, Ogden-Layton, Provo-Orem, Reno, Boise, 

Nampa, Logan, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Carson City, and 

Bend). From 1973 to 2000, these developed areas have 

increased in population by 43 percent. This rapid growth 

is overtaxing the infrastructure for the region’s limited 

water resources, increasing fire and wildlife problems at 

the wildland-urban interface, and increasing recreational 

pressure on the region’s wildlands. Managers are challenged to maintain sustainable ecosystems while considering the desires of a growing number of users. Public 

involvement in land management activities is increasing 

through the proliferation of advocacy groups.

The Great Basin is a cold desert characterized by limited 

water resources and periodic droughts (Wagner 2003). 

Precipitation is spatially and temporally variable and 

the distributions of species and ecosystems are greatly 

influenced by temperature and precipitation regimes. 

A high proportion of the year’s precipitation falls as 

winter snow, and spring snowmelt and runoff provide 

the necessary water resources to maintain stream and 

river channels that support reproduction and survival 

of riparian and aquatic species. Spring runoff, stored in 

reservoirs, provides much of the region’s water supply 

for irrigation, urban areas, and industry. Most of the Great 

Basin’s surface water resources are fully or over-allocated 

and there is increasing reliance on ground water sources 

(Wagner 2003). Federal, state, and local governments 

are challenged to provide water resources for expanding 

population while maintaining the integrity of wetland, 

riparian, and aquatic ecosystems.

Widespread degradation of Great Basin ecosystems 

has occurred since settlement of the region in the mid1800s. Land uses including road development, recreation, 

mining, energy development, agriculture, urbanization, 

and livestock production have caused widespread disturbance (Wisdom and others 2005). Energy development 

is currently one of the most significant causes of new 

disturbances within Great Basin ecosystems. The U.S. 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages increased energy 

production and energy infrastructure and, in Nevada 

alone, 25 additional power plants are in the planning 

stages. Oil and gas leasing is expanding throughout the 

Great Basin and wind and geothermal energy is being 

further developed in several states. Energy production, 

development, and use have significant environmental 

costs including air and water pollution, noise, and visual 

impacts. In addition, the infrastructure associated with 

energy production, power plants, roads, transmission 

lines, pipelines, and wells reduce wildlife habitat and 

habitat continuity and disrupt seasonal and annual wildlife 

migration.

Because the Great Basin is a semi-arid region, the changing climate is likely to have a greater influence than in more 

mesic regions. The Great Basin warmed by 0.6° to 1.1 °F 

(0.3° to 0.6 °C) in the last 100 years and is projected to 

warm by an additional 3 to 6 °F by the end of this century 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1998, Wagner 

2003). Precipitation increased 6-16 percent in the last 

50 years and is projected to continue to increase in the 

future (Baldwin and others 2003). However, snow pack 

has declined and the decreases in the Great Basin have 

been among the largest in the nation (Mote and others 

2005). Both the onset of spring and the timing of spring 

snowmelt-driven streamflow are now about 10 to15 days 

earlier than 50 years ago (Cayan and others 2001; Baldwin 

and others 2003; Stewart and others 2004). In the future, 

it is likely that spring peak flows will be reduced and 

arrive even earlier as more winter precipitation falls as 

rain. The frequency of droughts and floods is predicted 

to increase. These changes in flow regimes will result in 

management challenges related to water storage, channel maintenance, floods and droughts, pollutants, and 

biodiversity (Baldwin and others 2003). Water resources 

now used for hydropower, irrigation, riparian and aquatic 

habitat, and fisheries may all be negatively affected. The 

overall changes in climate may alter the structure and 

species composition of wildlands (Murphy and Weiss 

1992), increase the invasion potential of exotic species 

(Smith and others 2000; Ziska and others 2005), and 

result in longer fire seasons and larger fires (McKenzie 

and others 2004).

Past and present land uses, coupled with invasion of 

exotic species and altered fire regimes, are influencing 

many of the region’s ecosystems and resulting in largescale vegetation type conversions. In forested systems, 

a decrease in fire frequency due to fire exclusion has 

resulted in a shift in species composition from early-seral, 

shade intolerant species to late-seral shade tolerant species 

(Keane and others 2002). Shade intolerant species, such 

as aspen, that provide critical wildlife habitat are being 

out-competed and increases in vertical stand structure 

(fuel ladders) and biomass (fuel loads) are resulting in 

more severe fires. Sagebrush ecosystems, which dominate much of the Basin, have been identified as the most 

endangered ecosystem type in the United States (Center 

for Science, Economics and Environment 2002). In the 

pinyon-juniper woodland zone, decreased fire frequency 
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

due to fire exclusion, overgrazing through the mid1900s and climate change have facilitated expansion 

of pinyon and juniper trees into mid-upper elevation 

sagebrush ecosystems (Miller and others, in press). As 

stands mature and canopies close, understory sagebrush 

species are eliminated through tree competition and the 

risk of higher-severity crown fires increases. In arid and 

semi-arid shrublands and lower-elevation pinyon-juniper 

woodlands, an increase in annual invasive grasses, such as 

cheatgrass, coupled with higher fire frequencies, is resulting in progressive conversion to homogenous grasslands 

dominated by invaders (Brooks and Pyke 2001). In many 

low to mid-elevation sagebrush ecosystems, an annual 

grass fire cycle now exists and areas that burned every 

60 to 110 years in the past now burn as often as every 

5 years (Whisenant 1990). Annual grasses have begun to 

invade lower elevation salt desert shrublands and these 

ecosystems are now burning for the first time in history 

(Brooks and Pyke 2001). Nonnative forbs (for example, 

knapweeds, rush skeletonweed, yellow star thistle) are 

beginning to spread throughout the region with unknown 

consequences for native ecosystems and fire regimes. 

In many areas, there has been a loss of watershed functioning due to changes in erosion and sedimentation, 

biogeochemical cycling, and thermal regimes (albedo, 

and so forth.). Changes within the watersheds, coupled 

with water diversions, water extraction, and point and 

non-point source pollutants, have resulted in the degradation of wetlands and riparian and aquatic ecosystems 

(National Research Council 2001).

The Great Basin has a high proportion of endemic species that occur only within the region due to its unique 

geography (basins and ranges) and climatic history. 

Ecosystem degradation poses serious threats to the viability of many of these species. Populations of many 

sagebrush-associated species are currently in decline 

and approximately 20 percent of the ecosystem’s native 

flora and fauna are considered imperiled (Center for Science, Economics and Environment 2002). A recent risk 

assessment indicated that the sagebrush biome has 207 

species of concern – 133 plants, 11 reptiles and amphibians, and 63 birds and mammals (Rowland and others 

2005). Streams, springs, and their associated riparian and 

wetland ecosystems provide critical water sources and 

habitat in this semi-arid region and a high percentage 

of the species are strongly associated with these areas. 

Widespread habitat loss has occurred due to groundwater 

extraction, surface diversion of streams and rivers, and 

excessive use of riparian areas (National Research Council 

2001). Fifty nonnative fish taxa and several invertebrate 

species have been introduced in the region by the public 

or fishery management agencies (Sada and Vinyard 2002). 

Habitat modifications, coupled with the introduction of 

nonnative taxa, have caused the extinction of 16 endemic 

species, subspecies, or other distinctive populations (12 

fishes, three mollusks, and one aquatic insect) since the 

late 1800s (Sada and Vinyard 2002). Federal, state, and 

private land managers are increasingly concerned about 

the fate of Great Basin ecosystems and their associated 

species and they are actively seeking approaches to restore 

and maintain them.

Increasing human populations, land degradation, and 

climate change have increased the risk of both insect and 

disease outbreaks in native Great Basin ecosystems and 

species. These ecosystems are subject to periodic outbreaks of a variety of plant-feeding insects. The economic 

and ecological effects of such outbreaks are far-reaching, 

as intense and widespread insect herbivory can lead to 

complex changes in diverse ecosystem attributes, including plant community structure and dynamics, population 

levels of other animals (for example, insectivorous predators), and rates of nutrient cycling. The most prominent 

among insect outbreaks in Great Basin rangelands are 

grasshoppers and Mormon crickets (Orthoptera). In 

forested ecosystems, mountain pine beetles (Coleoptera: 

Curculionidae, Scolytinae) are causing increasing tree 

mortality. Climate change and warming temperatures, 

coupled with a recent drought, may also be responsible 

for tree mortality in pinion-juniper woodlands.

In the past decade, hosts of new (or newly recognized) 

diseases have been shown to be threats to wildlife, agricultural operations, and human health in both rural 

and urbanizing areas in the Great Basin (Chang and 

others 2003). These are in addition to the chronic challenges presented by tularemia (Friend 2006), salmonella 

(Daszak and others 2000), rabies (Krebs and others 2005), 

plague (Centers for Disease Control 2006), brucellosis

(McCorquodale and DiGiacomo 1985), anthrax, and 

clostridial diseases (Williams and others 2002). Addressing both the primary and secondary effects of these 

diseases, and difficulties in managing impacts across 

departmental and jurisdictional boundaries, represents 

one of the most significant challenges to fish and wildlife 

managers in the 21st century.

Framework for Collaboration

Effective research and management collaboration requires a framework for both coordination and 

communication among the many diverse research and 

management entities in the Great Basin. Breakout 

sessions at the Workshop on Collaborative Watershed 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 5

Management and Research were used to address two 

questions: (1) How do we develop collaborative management and research programs to address critical Great 

Basin issues? and (2) How do we devise mechanisms for 

organizing and communicating? This section synthesizes 

the results of the breakout sessions.

Purpose and Scope of Collaboration

There was consensus among the workshop participants 

that the overarching purpose of increasing collaboration 

was to maintain sustainable ecosystems and a healthy environment. It was agreed that addressing the many urgent 

issues facing the Great Basin requires active collaboration 

among research and management organizations in the 

region. It was also agreed that these collaborations need 

to be both multi-organizational and inter-disciplinary and 

include public participation. Primary outcomes of these 

collaborations were envisioned to include (1) data and 

information that can be used for science-based management by participating agencies, NGOs, and other partners 

and (2) an information clearing house to increase information sharing among researchers, managers, and the 

public. Another important outcome would be the ability 

to leverage limited funds, reduce overlap, and increase 

efficiency.

Galvanizing Issues

Workshop participants agreed that there was a need to 

identify galvanizing issues to provide vision, unifying 

themes, and common commitment. Major issues identified at the workshop included climate change, changing 

land use, waters resources, fire, and invasive species. It 

was suggested that once priority issues were determined, 

they would need to be translated into terms with which 

the public can identify. For example, drought is an issue 

that everyone relates to in the West. It was suggested that 

economic incentives or disincentives could be used for 

obtaining public support for issues related to drought, 

such as the costs of obtaining new water resources. There 

was agreement that any new collaborative efforts that are 

initiated should be linked to existing programs. Successful collaboration will require recognizing different levels 

of issues and solutions as well as the inter-connections 

among both issues and collaborative programs.

An Organizational Structure for Collaboration

Workshop participants discussed several approaches to 

developing an organizational structure for collaboration. 

All the approaches included an umbrella organization. 

The purpose of an umbrella organization would be to 

establish a single entity to identify common problems and 

vision, provide leadership commitment, identify and build 

upon successful collaborative efforts that are currently 

in place, facilitate the necessary research to provide for 

science-based management of Great Basin ecosystems, 

and develop metrics of success. The umbrella structure 

would also provide an information clearinghouse to increase communication among researchers and managers 

in the Great Basin. It would develop mechanisms to 

increase science translation and a public awareness strategy. A tiered organizational structure was envisioned 

in which the umbrella organization would build upon 

existing organizations and collaborative programs (like 

the Great Basin Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

and the Great Basin Restoration Initiative). It would 

promote complementary and comprehensive collaborations and provide cohesion among the smaller-scale 

efforts within the Great Basin. The collaborative program 

should provide a higher-level organization capable of 

crossing political and administrative boundaries. Existing agencies and institutions operating in a collaborative 

framework, regardless of their structure, should implement the program. It was suggested that components of 

such an umbrella organization could include an executive 

committee to focus priorities and ensure commitment, a 

science advisory group or coordinating committee, technical teams to address research and management needs, 

and an information clearing house that would include a 

searchable website of Great Basin research programs and 

scientific information.

Elements of an Effective Collaboration 

Program

The need for information packaging to market the idea 

of an umbrella organization was discussed. This packaging 

should clarify the geographic scope of the effort, prioritize 

issues and hot spots of concern, and illustrate the infrastructure available in these areas and the cross-linkages 

among groups. It should also demonstrate efficiency and 

cost-savings of increased collaboration and show that the 

new organization will not jeopardize funding for current 

research. The interests of all five states within the Great 

Basin should be acknowledged and, to that end, the Western 

Governor’s Association should be involved.

Many of the discussions focused on obtaining public 

support and funding. It was suggested that seeking broad 

support would be necessary to effectively address the 

existing issues. Non-federal sources could be used to 

pursue federal and state appropriations, but because 

federal budgets are extremely limited, requests should 

be for new funding. Congressional delegations should 
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

be approached at the same time with the same funding 

requests.

Several ideas were discussed to ensure effective collaboration. It was suggested that an effective collaborative program needed to be all inclusive. Research and 

management collaboration should be a requirement for 

funding, and the collaborative nature of the projects should 

be clearly addressed in the project goals and objectives. 

Every effort should be made to ensure communication 

among program activities and ground-based management 

needs through activities such as co-locating agency/entity 

offices and reaching out to those not near the project 

area. The public should be included throughout the process and project goals should have a public education 

component.

Communication and Data Management

Workshop participants agreed that a comprehensive 

communications plan should be developed as part of 

any collaboration framework. There was considerable 

interest in the idea of an information clearinghouse that 

would identify existing collaborative efforts and provide 

supporting information. It was suggested that the clearinghouse include an interactive, searchable website with 

the following components:

! A research catalog and database allowing easy access to work that is underway or has already been 

completed.

! A database of “experts” working on regional problems (Who is available to conduct research and in 

what areas of expertise?).

! Email lists and chat rooms for communication.

! A directory of information sources and links. 

Existing websites across organizations should be 

reviewed to determine how to best integrate and 

link them.

! A directory of information on available funding 

sources for research and projects.

! A data repository for safeguarding data. This 

should include metadata files of data availability 

with links to the data source and data managers 

contact information.

! Information for citizens on what is available, who 

to contact, and who is available for collaboration.

! Information on available science syntheses, links to existing bibliographies, and other relevant information.

Alternative communication venues for individuals and 

organizations without electronic access would need to be 

addressed in the communication plan. In addition, the 

communication plan should not only address the need to 

frame the issues and information in lay terms, but include 

higher level information such as scientific research data 

and results.

Successful collaboration requires a high level of interaction among managers, scientists, and other stakeholders. 

Suggested venues for interaction to enhance understanding and communication include:

! Workshops (such as the November 2006 Collaborative Research and Management Workshop and the 

Colorado Plateau Biennial Science Conference) that 

involve both researchers and managers.

! Details/work exchanges between organizations.

! Regularly scheduled meetings.

! Scientists working together with stakeholders.

! Citizen science opportunities (for example, Master 

Naturalist Program).

! Joint fact finding that involves inviting public and 

target audiences, which are often excluded from the 

scientific process, to participate in defining needs 

and framing the problems for study.

Education and Information

The need for a strong and user-friendly education/

extension component was discussed. Management agencies need to understand and use the mechanisms available for conducting research and management projects 

and for sharing existing data with research. Research 

organizations need to better understand the managementassociated opportunities that are available for research. 

Closer linkages between management and research are 

needed to improve science translation and application. 

Educational activities need to include both technology 

transfer and public education.

References

Baldwin, C. K., Wagner; F. H.; Lall, U. 2003. Water Resources. Pages 

79-112, in Wagner, F. H. (editor). Rocky Mountain/Great Basin 

Regional Climate-Change Assessment. Report of the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program. Utah State University, Logan, UT: 

IV 240pp.

Brooks, M. L.; Pyke D. A. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts 

of North America. In: Galley, K. M.; Wilson, T. P., eds. Proceedings 

of the Invasive Species Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control 

and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: the First 

National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management.; 

2000 November 27-December 1; San Diego, CA. Misc. Publ. No. 

11, Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 1-14.

Cayan, D. R.; Kammerdiener, S. A.; Dettinger, M. D.; Caprio, J. M.; 

Peterson, D. H. 2001. Changes in the onset of spring in the western United States. Bulletin American Meteorological Society. 82: 

399-415.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 7

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006. CDC Plague 

Home Page [Homepage of Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention], [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/

dvbid/plague/ [2007, July 17].

Center for Science, Economics and Environment. 2002. The 

state of the nation’s ecosystems: measuring the lands, waters 

and living resources of the United States. Cambridge, United 

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 288 p. Available: http://

www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/report.html, with 2005 updates 

[2007, July 17].

Chang, M.; Glynn M. K.; Groseclose, S. L. 2003. Endemic, notifiable, 

bioterrorism-related diseases, United States, 1992-1999. Emerging 

Infectious Diseases. 9(5): 556-564.

Daszak, P.; Cunningham, A. A.; Hyatt, A. D. 2000. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife: threats to biodiversity and human 

health. Science. 287(5452): 443-449.

Friend, M. 2006. Tularemia. Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1297. 68 p.

Keane, R. E.; Ryan, K. C.; Veblen, T. T.; Allen, C. D.; Logan, J.; 

Hawkes, B. 2002. Cascading effects of fire exclusion in Rocky 

Mountain ecosystems: a literature review. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRSGTR-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 14 p.

Krebs, J. W.; Mandel, E. J.; Swerdlow, D. L.; Rupprecht, C. E. 

2005. Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2004. 

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 

227(12): 1912-1913.

McCorquodale, S. M.; DiGiacomo, R. F. 1985. The role of wild North 

American ungulates in the epidemiology of bovine brucellosis: a 

review. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 21(4): 351-357.

McKenzie, D.; Gedalof, Z.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Mote, P. 2004. Climate 

change, wildfire and conservation. Conservation Biology. 18: 

890-902.

Mote, P. W.; Hamlet, A. F.; Clark, M. P.; Lettenmaier, D. P. 2005. 

Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin 

of the American Meteorological Society. 86: 39-49.

Miller, R. F.; Tausch, R. J.; McArthur, D. E.; Johnson, D.; Sanderson, 

S. C. [In Press]. Development of Post-Settlement Piñon-Juniper 

Woodlands in the Intermountain West: A regional perspective. 

Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-TBD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

Murphy, D. D.; Weiss, S. B. 1992. Effects of climate change on 

biological diversity in Western North America: Species losses and 

mechanisms. In: Peters, R. L.; Lovejoy, T. E., eds. Global warming and biological diversity, Castleton, NY: Hamilton Printing: 

Chapter 26.

National Research Council. 2001. Riparian areas: functions and 

strategies for management. National Academy Press. Washington, 

D.C. 444 p.

Noss, R. F.; LaRoe III; E. T; Scott., J. M. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and 

degradation. National Biological Service Biological Report 28, 

National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.

Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L. H.; Wisdom, M. J.; Meinke, C. W.; 

Schueck, L. 2005. Habitats for vertebrate species of concern. 

In: Wisdom, M. J.; Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L. H., eds. 2005. 

Habitat threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional 

assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: 

Alliance Communications Group, Allen Press: 163-204.

Sada, D. W.; Vinyard, G. L. 2002. Anthropogenic changes in biogeography 

of Great Basin aquatic biota. In: Hershler, R., Madsen, D.B., and Currey, D. Great Basin aquatic systems history. Smithsonian Contributions 

to the Earth Sciences No. 33: 277-293.

Stewart, I. T.; Cayan, D. R.; Dettinger, M. D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt timing in western North America under a ‘business as usual’ 

climate change scenario. Climate Change 62: 217-232.

Smith, S. D.; Huzman, T. E.; Zitzer, S. F.; Charlet, T. N.; Housman, 

D. C.; Coleman, J. S.; Fenstermaker, L. K.; Seeman, J. R.; and 

Nowak, R. S. 2000. Elevated CO2 increases productivity and invasive 

species success in an arid system. Nature. 408: 79-81.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Policy. 1998. 

Climate Change and Nevada. EPA 236-F-98-0070. (available for 

all states).

Wagner, F. H., ed. 2003. Preparing for a changing climate-the potential 

consequences of climate variability and change. Rocky Mountain/

Great Basin regional climate-change assessment. A report of the 

Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Regional Assessment Team for the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. Logan, UT: Utah State 

University. 240 p.

Williams, E. S.; Yuill, T.; Artois, M.; Fisher, J.; Haigh, S. A. 2002. 

Emerging infectious diseases in wildlife. Reviews in Science and 

Technology. 21(1): 139-157.

Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake 

River Plains: ecological and management implications. In: 

McArthur, E. D.; Romney, E. M.;Smith, S. D.; Tueller, P. T., comps. 

Proceedings – Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub Wisdom, 

M. J.; Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L. H. 2005. Habitat threats in the 

sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications 

Group, Allen Press.

Ziska, L. H.; Reeves III, J. B.; Blank, B. 2005. The impact of recent 

increases in atmospheric CO2 on biomass production and vegetative 

retention of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): implications for fire 

disturbance. Global Change Biology. 11:1325-1332.
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Great Basin Issues Papers

Clear identification of the research and management issues is a prerequisite for developing effecting collaborative efforts. The issues papers 

in this report examine major research and management issues in the Great 

Basin. The issues papers are meant to serve as stand-alone documents 

that can be used for a variety of educational and informational purposes. 

They include: urbanization and changing land use; public perceptions of 

land management; water resources; energy development; climate change; 

fire; invasive species; wildlife disease; insect outbreaks; riparian and 

aquatic ecosystems; sagebrush ecosystems; aspen ecosystems; and rare 

and vulnerable species. Information contained within each paper includes 

the issue (problem), the research and management needs (questions), 

the research programs addressing these needs, a list of the relevant & 

synthetic references/websites, and a list of the available strategic plans 

from the different agencies. Information sources used for developing the 

issues papers include past meetings on regional issues, agency planning 

documents, current literature and the WEB.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 9

The Great Basin is defined for this issue paper as the 

61.5 million ha (152 million acres) of land within 121 

Level 6 Hydrologic Units ringed by Salt Lake City to 

the east, Boise to the north, Reno to the west, and to the 

south, Las Vegas, which is outside the study boundary 

(fig. 1).

More than a century ago, John Wesley Powell failed 

to convince Congress to use watershed boundaries as 

administrative jurisdictions, leaving us the legacy of different analysis units for ecological and human systems. 

Statistics on demography, economic activity, property 

ownership, land use and resource use reported below 

are compiled from accounts at the state (Utah, Idaho, 

Oregon, California, and Nevada), county (only 42 of the 

88 Great Basin counties are entirely within the study area), 

and federal levels. Statistics from the U.S. Census are 

compiled by census block and aggregated to the “block 

group” level. The Great Basin region contains 827 block 

groups (fig. 2).

The Great Basin’s leading economic sectors are public 

land management, military activity, local government 

administration, mining, cattle and hay production, and 

oil and gas extraction (Soulard 2006). Although currently 

less significant, manufacturing and the service sectors 

related to tourism, recreation, and retirement communities are growing by around 20 percent per annum (U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 2006). The imprecision of this 

figure stems from the lack of congruence between federal 

analysis units (states) and the study area boundary.

Direct and indirect anthropogenic degradation of native 

ecosystems and the consequent reduction of beneficial 

services from these systems result from a combination of 

population increase, unsustainable consumption, technological intensity, and lack of effective resource planning.

Urbanization and Changing Land Use in the Great Basin

Alicia Torregrosa1 and Nora Devoe2

1

U.S. Geological Survey, Western Geographic Science Center, Menlo Park, CA 2

Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno, NV

Figure 1—The Great Basin as defined for this paper includes 

three floristic units—Northern Great Basin, Snake River Plain, and 

Southern Great Basin. Level 6 Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) are 

shown in red, urban areas in black. 
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Key Issues

Population expansion—Human population growth 

from immigration and births drives the expansion of 

housing, infrastructure, and commodity production and 

use. In 1990, the population of the region was 2.9 million with 9 million ha (22.6 million acres) uninhabited 

(zero population per km2/mile) (U.S. Census 2007b). 

By 2004, the population of the region had grown to 4.9 

million with less than 1.2 million ha (3 million acres) 

uninhabited. Of the 4.9 million people living in the 

Great Basin in 2004, 2.6 million lived in metropolitan 

areas with a population greater than 50,000 (Salt Lake 

City, Ogden-Layton, Provo-Orem, Reno, Boise, Nampa, 

Logan, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Carson City, and Bend). 

The largest rate of increase has been in the counties of 

Boise, ID, and Tooele, UT (123 percent), and the largest 

total population increases have occurred in Placer, CA 

(50,546), Utah, UT (49,877), Washoe, NV (45,000), and Salt 

Lake City, UT (41,000), counties (Geolytics 2007).

Clark County, which is just outside the study area, had a 

2004 population of 1.7 million and a rate of increase over 

the previous 15 years of 203 percent. The Great Basin 

is surrounded by areas of much more dense population 

than the region itself. Populations of the adjacent areas 

affect the Great Basin through use of common resources 

such as water, air, and wildlife, and through demand on 

west-wide infrastructure such as roads and air routes. 

The recreational qualities of the Great Basin are a large 

draw for visitors from adjacent states. Diverse activities, 

many with high direct and indirect impact such as golfing 

and all-terrain vehicle use, are increasing in popularity. 

Water demands from adjacent communities such as Las 

Vegas, with its burgeoning population, have potentially 

severe inter-basin consequences. The ecological impacts 

of population trends, and their synergistic interactions 

with socioeconomic trends, are not well understood.

Of the states partially within the Great Basin, projected 

population increases from 2000 to 2030 include 114 

percent for Nevada, 56.1 percent for Utah, 52.2 percent 

for Idaho, 41.3 percent for Oregon, and 37.1 percent for 

California. The national projected rate of increase for 

the same period is 29.2 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2007c).

Land use—To a large extent, property ownership 

determines land use. Seventy percent of the land 

(46 million-ha/114 million acres) in the Great Basin 

is public. The Department of Interior (DOI) manages 

34million ha (84 million acres) (51 percent). The Bureau 

of Land Management is the DOI unit responsible for the 

largest areas (31.6 million ha/78 million acres). At the 

federal level, regulations and mandates created through 

a complex system of political processes and legislative 

authority direct land management.

Federally administered lands are subject to a variety of 

uses. About 2.2 million ha (5.5 million acres) (3.6percent) 

have protection of natural resources as their primary 

use. Multiple-use mandates require agencies such as 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA 

Forest Service to provide for grazing, mineral extraction, 

motorized recreation, and other uses with potentially 

significant ecological costs. In Nevada, 69 percent of the 

BLM-administered land that is vegetated is under grazing 

allotments. For the Great Basin portions of California, 

81 percent of BLM-administered land is under grazing 

allotments. This does not mean that all of the land within 

allotments is actively grazed at any given time, but it does 

mean that the land is available for grazing.

Mineral extraction has a small footprint by comparison, 

but the local ecological effects can be extreme. Motorized recreation on public land has degraded specific 

locales and the affected area is expanding rapidly. Energy development on Great Basin public lands is also 

expanding rapidly. Perhaps the most extreme example 

of potential ecological consequences of public land use 

is the proposed nuclear waste repository on Department 

Figure 2—Census blocks of the Western United States and, 

in grey, the Great Basin as defined for this paper.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 11

of Energy land at Yucca Mountain, 145 km (90 miles) 

northwest of Las Vegas near the Great Basin perimeter. 

While a remote possibility, many people are concerned 

that leakage from the high-level radioactive waste to be 

stored on the site could devastate surrounding areas.

A related issue is the sale or exchange of public lands. 

The benefits of relinquishing small parcels of public 

lands surrounded by a large matrix of developing lands 

(to consolidate highly fragmented public lands) was a 

driving force behind the Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act 1998 (SNPLMA). This Act authorized 

the sale by auction of 20,000 ha (50,000 acres) of BLMadministered land around Las Vegas. Since SNPLMA 

was enacted, similar legislation has been passed or 

proposed for four Great Basin counties. These bills or 

laws make public land available for development, often 

while protecting other lands under special congressional 

designations, such as wilderness. How such legislative 

activity continues to unfold and the support it garners 

could influence the ecological integrity of public lands 

in the Great Basin.

An intricate mix of county and city general planning 

shapes private property use. The urban footprint (which 

does not include extra-urban development occurring 

outside incorporated municipal limits nor the infrastructure to maintain urban dwellers) covered 340,000 ha 

(840,000 acres) with 1.1 million households in 2000, 

growing to 1.7 million households in 2004. In 1997, 

USDA-NASS counted 42,000 farms with 3.7 million ha 

(9.1 million acres) of croplands in the region. Although 

not property owners per se, ranchers holding grazing allotments and water rights on federal lands are an influential 

constituency (USDA NASS 2005).

Sprawl—The most common development pattern has 

become rural sprawl (Hanson and Brown 2005). As telecommuting becomes a viable employment option, more 

people choose to live in more isolated areas within a few 

hours of urban centers. Housing units at the wildlandurban interface are vulnerable to hazards such as fires and 

flooding. Risk mitigation activities undertaken to protect 

these homes from fire, floods, and landslides compromise 

wildlife habitat. Expanding housing drives wildlife to 

more marginal habitats. The cost of sprawl is increasingly a burden to municipalities providing infrastructure 

such as roads, utilities, schools, and social services to the 

developments they approve. These costs have prompted 

formation of coalitions between “environmentalists” and 

“fiscal conservatives” to arrive at alternative development 

patterns.

Sprawl is also an issue of expanding cities and suburbs 

(Burchfield and others 2006). The Great Basin remains 

one of the least developed areas in the United States, but 

the trend is toward rapid development. In a study of the 

largely but not entirely overlapping Central Basin and 

Range ecoregion, the U.S. Geological Survey documented 

an expansion of developed areas of 43 percent between 

1973 and 2000, mostly along Interstates 80 and 15 and 

U.S. Highway 395 (Soulard 2006). The land converted 

to development was mostly grassland and shrubland – 

583 km2

 out of a total conversion of 649 km2, or 0.2 percent of the Central Basin and Range ecoregion. In 1999, 

the Nevada legislature passed measures for coordinated 

planning across jurisdictions for land use, air pollution, 

and transportation. However, statutes to modernize the 

1926 U.S. Department of Commerce State Zoning Act 

to allow local comprehensive planning requirements to 

include concerns regarding affordable housing, benefit 

versus cost of rural development, or environmental protection have not passed (Salkin 2002, Cobb 1998).

Economic development—Development is shaped in part 

by municipalities searching for increased tax revenue and 

individual wealth-seeking behavior. Revenue is generated 

from commodities derived from ranches, farms, extractive 

industries (hard rock mining, oil drilling), manufacture 

of consumer goods, and from services including tourism 

and recreation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007a).

Vehicular traffic—The impact of vehicular use ranges 

from physical and chemical disturbance in the immediate 

area to indirect long-term effects of expanding access 

to adjacent lands (Watts 2006). In 2001, for Nevada 

alone, 110 million liters (29 million gal) of gasoline 

were consumed for non-highway use and 3,577 million 

liters (945 million gal) for highway use. Over 9 million 

vehicle km (6 million mi) were traveled on 107,800 km 

(67,000 mi) of rural roads and 19.3 million km (12 million 

mi) were traveled on 20,900 km (13,000 mi) of urban 

roads and highways (U.S. Department of Transportation 

2001). Rural vehicle miles are increasing as rural sprawl 

accelerates (Hansen and Brown 2005).

Non-point source pollution—Pollution from agriculture 

has had the greatest impact on the quality of the Basin’s 

waters. Urban drainage systems also contribute nutrients, 

heavy metals, and organic loads to the non-point-source 

load. In addition, persistent organic pollutants, such as 

polyaromatic hydrocarbons and endocrine disrupters, are 

entering streams and water bodies through urban runoff 

and wastewater treatment plant discharges. To address 

these issues, Non-point Source Programs administered 

by the States are targeting the main pollutants of concern, 

principally heat, pH-altering substances, nutrients, salts, 

metals, and suspended solids. Increasing populations 
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

and increasingly affluent populations contribute greater 

pollutant loads, consume more energy and materials, and 

pave and fragment more open space as time goes on.

Management Challenges

The capacity of the Great Basin to sustain the diverse 

expectations and desires of both its occupants and its 

visitors will lessen without effective management from 

the primary caretakers, federal agencies, states, counties, 

and municipalities. Paradoxically, effective management 

will only be possible with the support of the minority 

private landowners, visitors, and the public. Creative collaboration, community involvement, and greater common 

knowledge of the risks associated with non-sustainable 

land use practices will be needed.

Research and 

Management Questions

Assessment, Modeling, and Prediction

What is the current extent of urban, suburban, and 

exurban development and what are the rates of change 

and trends for the future? What are the impacts of existing and projected development on the natural resources 

of the Great Basin?

What are the status and trends for the economic sectors 

in the Great Basin?

What are the impacts of roads on natural resources? 

What is the extent of off-road trails and where are they? 

How much and what type of vehicular use occurs on 

roadways and for what purposes? What is the impact 

of this use on the resources in the immediate and adjacent areas? What is the cumulative impact of vehicular 

traffic?

What is the relationship between demographic variables 

and environmentally sustainable values?

What are the future demographic trends? How do these 

relate to economic and land use trends?

What are the effects of current regulations and policies 

and how might they be improved?

What is the cumulative effect on natural resource sectors from urban/suburban/exurban development?

What are the relationships between the economic sectors 

in the Great Basin and the impact of activity to natural 

resources in these sectors?

Planning and Collaboration

What are the barriers to effective land use planning?

What is the nexus between local natural resources and 

national interests in those resources?

What strategies, in addition to those currently being implemented, such as conservation easements and 

public-private partnerships, can improve the ecological 

prognosis?

What are the existing social networks of stakeholders 

(agencies, academia, community groups, and special interest groups) and what mechanisms work best to engage 

in effective land use decision-making activities? What 

collaboration strategies are effective?

Existing Programs and Resources

U.S. Geological Survey, Land Cover Institute, Land 

Cover Trends Project. Geographic Status and Trends 

Reports to be produced every 5 years. A Central Great 

Basin and Range report was prepared in 2006 and will be 

augmented in 2007 with a report on the Northern Great 

Basin and Range. http://landcover.usgs.gov/index.php 

[2007, July 17]

DOI Secretary’s Cooperative Conservation Initiative 

provides matching funds to landowners and cooperators 

at state, tribal, and local levels to work collaboratively to 

manage natural resources. http://cooperativeconservation.

gov/ [2007, July 17]

Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project 

(SageSTEP), funded by the Joint Fire Sciences Program, 

is a multidisciplinary research effort that includes two 

social acceptability and stakeholder evaluation studies 

http://www.sagestep.org [2007, July 17]:

Assessing trade-offs and decision process by agency 

professionals and key stakeholder groups in the Great 

Basin, Mark Brunson and Jennifer Peterson, Utah State 

University http://www.sagestep.org/pdfs/tradeoffs.pdf 

[2007, July 17]

Social Acceptability of Alternative Management 

Practices, Bruce Shindler and Ryan Gordon, Oregon 

State University. http://www.sagestep.org/pdfs/progress/

citizen_survey_summary.pdf [2007, July 17]

1000 Friends of Oregon. This is a project funded by 

the Hewlett Foundation to work with ranchers, environmentalists, land use planners, and others. http://www.

friends.org/ [2007, July 17]
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 13

NatureServe Vista, a biodiversity land use planning 

software package with a growing community of users. 

http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/vista/overview.

jsp [2007, July 17]

Orton Family Foundation. http://www.orton.org/ [2007, 

July 17]

Smart Growth America. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.

org/ [2007, July 17]

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment/ Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/

en/index.aspx [2007, July 17]

Strategic Plans

General Plans are required of all municipalities receiving federal funding. In addition, state wildlife agencies 

are required to develop comprehensive wildlife resource 

plans, which usually include an identification of anthropogenic threats. Several branches of the U.S. military 

have a variety of strategic plans that affect Great Basin 

military lands: U.S. Army Environmental Center Strategic Plan for Environmental Support to Ranges and 

Munitions; Defense Environmental Restoration Program 

(DERP); Installation Restoration Program (IRP); and 

the Encroachment-Compatible Use Sustainability Plan. 

Several federal-agency strategic plans will also affect 

the Great Basin, such as that of the Federal Highway 

Administration, which provides aid to states to plan, 

construct, and improve the transportation network and 

that of the Federal Lands Highway Program, which funds 

access to public lands including Defense Access roads.

Land management agencies produce periodic plans for 

administrative units in the Great Basin, such as the forest plan for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and 

the Resource Management Plans of BLM field offices. 

These allocate lands among various uses and define the 

uses to which lands may be put.

References

Burchfield, M.; Overman H.G.; Puga, D.; Turner, M. A. 2006. Causes 

of Sprawl: A Portrait from Space. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 

121(2): 587-633.

Cobb, Rodney. 1998 “Toward Modern Statutes: A Survey of State 

Laws on Local Land-Use Planning.” Growing Smart Working 

Papers Vol. 2, American Planning Association.

Hansen, A.J.; Brown, D.G. 2005. Land-Use Change in Rural 

America: Rates, Drivers, and Consequences. Ecological Applications. 15(6): 1849-1850.

Geolytics, Inc. 2007. Census CD. 1980 Long Form and 1990 Long 

Form. East Brunswick, NJ. [Homepage Geolytics, Inc.], [Online]. Available: http://www.geolytics.com/USCensus,Census1980,Products.asp [2007, July 17].

Salkin, Patricia, Esq. 2002. From Euclid to Growing Smart: The 

Transformation of the American Local Land Use Ethic into Local 

Land Use and Environmental Controls. Pace Environmental Law 

Review. Vol 20, no. 109. Available: http://www.governmentlaw.

org/files/PELR-from_euclid_growing.pdf [2007, July 17].

Soulard, C. E. 2006. Land Cover Trends of the Central Basin and 

Range Ecoregion: Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. U.S. Department of Labor. 

[Homepage of U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics], [Online]. Available: http://www.bls.gov/ [2007, 

July 17].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007a. Economic Report Series 2002. [Homepages of the U.S. Census Bureau, [Online]. Available: p://www.

census.gov/econ/census02/ [2007, July 17].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007b. Census 2000, Summary File 3 (SF 3). 

[Homepage of the U.S. Census Bureau [Online]. Available: http://

www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html [2007, July 17].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2007c. Census 2000, Census of Population 

and Housing, Table 1: Interim Projections: Census 2000 and 

Projected 2030 State Population and Change: 2000 to 2030. 

[Homepage of the U.S. Census Bureau], [Online]. Available: 

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/PressTab1.xls) 

[2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. National Agricultural 

Statistical Service (NASS): United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Research and 

Development Division, Geospatial Information Branch.

U.S. Department of Transportation 2001. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2001, Publication No. FHWAPL-02-020 Washington D.C., 2001. Available: http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/ohim/hs01/index.htm [2007, July 17].

Watts, R. 2006. National Overview Road Metrics (NORM) Dataset. 

U.S. Geological Survey, Geographic Analysis and Monitoring 

Program, Fort Collins Science Center. Fort Collins, CO.
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

The Great Basin is undergoing significant landscape 

change due to an array of natural and anthropogenic 

factors. Land management strategies intended to address 

these problems will require landscape-scale solutions 

that can reduce, reverse, or mitigate ecosystem degradation while remaining economically feasible and socially 

acceptable. The latter criterion may be problematic, 

especially given ongoing rapid growth of the region’s 

human population.

Social acceptability is a characteristic of management 

actions and landscape conditions that results from citizens’ judgments about current or proposed situations as 

compared to possible alternatives (Brunson 1996). It 

becomes important to land management when citizens 

judge that existing practices or conditions are unacceptable 

and take steps they believe can shift conditions toward a 

more favorable alternative. These steps can take a variety 

of behaviors that affect land management decisions and 

activities, including changes in personal habits such as 

adopting minimum-impact recreation practices; support 

for advocacy groups; participation in public involvement 

processes or legal actions; or protest activities directed 

against agency property or personnel.

The above description highlights both the difficulties 

and benefits of accounting for social acceptability in land 

management. Acceptability can be hard to measure and 

to generalize, as there are many contextual factors that 

affect individual judgments (Shindler and others 2002). 

Knowledge about public views on natural resource management, however, can improve managers’ understanding of, and potential influence over, public support or 

resistance to land management activities.

Key Issues

In general, residents express strong support for ecosystem management across the United States and within the 

Intermountain West. In a study by Lybecker and others 

(2005) of public objectives for Intermountain forests 

and rangelands, residents ranked the protection of forest 

and grassland watersheds as one of the highest priorities 

of the Forest Service. Analysis by Bengston and others 

(2001) suggests that ecosystem management as a land 

management paradigm has become a non-controversial 

issue with widespread public acceptance nationwide.

A recent survey of residents in six Great Basin locations 

(Shindler and others 2007) found that citizens believe the 

most serious threats to healthy rangelands are development, invasive species, motorized recreation, overgrazing, 

and wildfire. Public acceptance is high for management 

actions intended to improve rangeland conditions, particularly the use of prescribed fire, grazing, and mechanical 

vegetation management treatments. However, survey 

respondents expressed considerable skepticism about 

the agencies’ ability to implement restoration practices 

in light of political pressures, budget constraints, and 

other factors that make management more difficult.

The critical issues associated with the social acceptability of management practices lie in the distinction 

between the goals of ecosystem management and actual 

actions. Not only is there concern about the ability of 

land managers to implement ecosystem management, but 

there is greater acceptance of ecosystem management in 

general than of specific restoration activities (Connelly 

and others 2002). A summary is provided below of 

studies assessing the social acceptability of specific 

management practices, including fire, livestock grazing, 

forestry, rare species, invasive species, wildlife disease, 

and riparian/stream restoration.

Fuels management—Common fuels management activities, such as prescribed fire, mechanical vegetation 

removal, and defensible space creation, are generally 

supported by citizens (Weible and others 2005; Delost 

2001). Abrams and Lowe (2005) synthesized existing 

research on the social acceptability of fire management 

in the Southwest and found that residents understood 

the role of fire, supported the use of prescribed fire as 

a management tool, and believed smoke is an acceptable outcome of fire management, even while they still 

expressed concerns about smoke and allowing wildfires 

to burn. Brunson and Shindler (2004) also found general 

Public Perceptions of Land Management in the Great Basin

Susan Wilmot and Mark Brunson

Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University, Logan, UT
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 15

support for prescribed fire, grazing, and mechanical treatment, although residents’ attitudes varied by location. 

Considering the state’s history of ranching, residents of 

Utah were more likely to support grazing, while Oregon 

residents who have more experience observing logging 

activities were more likely to support mechanical treatment. Vogt and others (2005) and Kneeshaw and others 

(2004) documented individual and situational factors that 

can influence residents’ views of wildfire management 

and practice acceptability. Support for fuels management was positively associated with a lack of concern 

over loss of scenery, belief in the controllability of forest 

fires, perceived property damage risk, and trust in agency 

ability to carry out specific actions.

Conversely, if a prescribed burn gets out of control or 

a similar incident occurs, the resulting loss of trust can 

make it more difficult for managers to implement fuels 

treatments near the affected location, even if citizens still 

support the use of such practices in general (Brunson and 

Evans 2005). Similarly, van Kooten and others (2006) 

found that one of the greatest factors contributing to deterioration in the relationships between Nevada ranchers 

and federal land managers was the character of experiences 

in the aftermath of a wildfire. The authors suggested that 

ranchers be offered incentives for taking steps to manage fuels in ways that can minimize catastrophic fires. 

A related issue may be whether agency policies can be 

adjusted to ease ranchers’ post-fire concerns.

Grazing management—Livestock grazing has long 

been a controversial issue for public land managers. 

Lybecker and others (2005) found that survey respondents from the Intermountain west (Arizona, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) 

were somewhat more likely to support multiple uses of 

national forests and grasslands than respondents from 

the rest of the United States. Brunson and Steel (1996) 

found geographic differences in social acceptability of 

federal range management practices as well. In particular, support for livestock grazing on public rangelands 

varied based on rural/urban background and core values. 

Respondents from eastern Oregon were more likely 

to support grazing than those from western Oregon or 

other more urbanized regions where livestock are not 

so frequently seen on public lands. Brunson and others 

(1996) also found rural/urban differences in attitudes 

among Utah residents about federal rangeland management practices. Huntsinger (2007) reported that a 1995 

survey of Nevada residents found no large differences 

in attitudes toward ranching between rural and urban 

residents, nor between longtime residents (>10 years) 

and more recent arrivals to the state; however, even then 

recent and urban residents were slightly less favorable 

toward traditional range management practices. Given 

the differences found in Oregon and Utah, and similar 

differences reported by Mitchell and others (1996) in 

Colorado, a continued influx of residents to the Great 

Basin from other regions may lead to a shift in public 

support away from traditional practices.

Forestry practices—While timber production in the 

Great Basin is minimal, managers employ silvicultural 

practices to achieve other goals such as forest health 

protection. Abrams and others (2005) found that active 

management of forested land was an acceptable practice 

for the majority of Oregon residents, especially if forests were unhealthy. Approval outweighed disapproval 

regardless of environmental or economic orientation, but 

economically oriented respondents were more willing to 

approve management interventions than environmentally 

oriented respondents. Scenic impacts can shape the acceptability of specific forest management practices (Shindler 

and others 2002, Ribe 2002). Brunson and Reiter (1996) 

found that two samples of Utah residents rated as acceptable the scenic impacts of recently thinned and group 

selection harvests, although they preferred the view of 

an unharvested old growth stand.

Rare and vulnerable species management—

Management for recovery of threatened and endangered 

species involves cooperation between the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service that is responsible for the plants and 

animals and the public land agencies that manage their 

habitats. Concerns about the acceptability of management can be directed at either side of the management 

equation. Although there is general support for species 

protection (Dunlap 2000), public support has not always 

translated into effective recovery (Czech and others 1998, 

Hadlock and Beckwith 2002). Barriers to acceptability 

include differing public values about species protection 

and the need for biological diversity, economic livelihood 

concerns, and fear of additional regulation (Hunter and 

Rinner 2004). Stankey and Shindler (2006) argued that 

the public is generally unaware of rare and little known 

species, leading to public resistance of management programs and poor social acceptability. However, a recent 

study of attitudes toward protection of the Utah prairie 

dog (Cynomys parvidens), a federally listed “threatened” 

species whose range extends into the southern Great 

Basin, found higher levels of knowledge about the species 

but lower levels of support for protection among rural 

respondents when compared to urban residents (Elmore 

2006). Most agricultural producers and southern Utah 

residents believed the species has a right to exist only 

on public land.
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Invasive species—While studies of attitudes toward 

invasive species control have yielded inconsistent results, public support for control practices is linked to 

individual beliefs about the ecological and economic 

impact of invasive species as well as the potential dangers of control options. Anderson and Wotring (2001) 

found strong public support for aggressive weed control 

to restore ecosystems, while Colton and Alpert (1998) 

found that most residents had a limited awareness of the 

concept of biological invasion and few thought weeds 

caused serious impacts or should be controlled. Czech 

and Krausman (1997) argued that non-native species 

were the biggest threat to native species survival, but 

that only two percent of the public agreed. In a survey of 

Southwest residents that compared the acceptability of 

chemical, mechanical, biological, and cultural controls 

for invasive rangeland plants, Tidwell (2005) found 

differences associated with both the method of control 

(cultural methods were generally most acceptable and 

herbicide use least acceptable) and with the location 

where control occurs. When occurring in protected areas 

as opposed to on multiple-use public lands, nearly twice 

as many respondents viewed chemical control as unacceptable, but there were no location-related differences 

in the acceptability of the other control approaches.

Riparian and stream management—As with invasive 

and rare species management, riparian and stream management often requires private landowner support and 

adoption of agency-proposed management practices. 

Riparian zones are important to residents (Novak 1997), 

but Skelton (2004) found that individual acceptance and 

implementation of riparian forest buffers is tied to positive attitudes toward government programs, poor water 

quality, and perceived outcome effectiveness of adopted 

practices.

Wildlife management—As with rare species protection, management of the wildlife species that inhabit 

public lands requires cooperation between state and 

federal wildlife agencies and the public land managers. Citizens’ concerns about wildlife management may 

be directed at both types of agencies, especially when 

dealing with controversial issues such as lethal control 

of animals. Americans generally support the use of lethal practices to manage the spread of wildlife diseases 

(Koval and Mertig 2004), protect public health (Reiter 

and others 1999), maintain healthy wildlife populations 

(Fulton and others 2004), and reduce predation on rare 

species (Messmer and others 1999). However, there is 

less public support for use of lethal methods to protect 

livestock against predation or crops and timber against 

herbivory by vertebrates (Reiter and others 1999). Hunter 

support for lethal measures to combat Chronic Wasting 

Disease increases as prevalence and human health risks 

increases (Needham and others 2004). Little is known 

about citizens’ attitudes toward potential responses to 

other wildlife health threats.

Management Challenges

Landscape-level management within the Great Basin 

will have a greater chance of success if land managers and decision makers understand the links between 

landscape change and ongoing social processes, as well 

as the factors that influence acceptance of proposed 

management activities by citizens and land managers. 

To achieve these goals, two key management challenges 

must be addressed. First, managers must recognize that 

social acceptability is a process rather than a final goal. 

Every proposed activity will have its own context that 

can shape citizens’ acceptance of specific management practices and plans. Repeated opportunities to 

examine resident values and attitudes about natural 

resource management need to be built into an adaptive 

management framework. Shindler and others (2002) 

provide more detailed information about addressing 

the challenges of social acceptability in landscape-level 

management. Second, education and outreach represent 

crucial steps toward improving the social acceptability 

of management practices. Shindler (2000) points out 

that for most people, landscape-level management is not 

a clear concept. Managers must go beyond attempts to 

“educate the public” and instead find appropriate outreach 

activities that directly address questions about risk and 

uncertainty. There are numerous ways to promote citizen 

understanding, but while unidirectional approaches such 

as public service advertisements, websites, and brochures 

may be more cost-efficient, citizens rate interactive outreach methods as more helpful (Toman and others 2006). 

Similarly, Shindler and others (2007) found that the most 

highly rated forms of agency-to-public communication 

were more interactive approaches (in other words, field 

tours, demonstration sites, and small workshops) that 

provide opportunities for discussing local conditions. 

Public involvement can improve trust-building among 

agencies and the public (Winter and others 2004; Simon 

and Dobra 2003), improve the effectiveness and efficiency 

of management strategies, and bring alternative natural resource perspectives to the table for discussion. However, 

public participation is only effective if citizens can see 

how their interactions with managers have influenced 

decisions (Shindler and others 2002).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 17

Research and 

Management Questions

In 2004, the USDA Forest Service (USDA Forest 

Service 2004; pp.7 through 11) developed a social science agenda containing five main objectives: 1) expand 

understanding of the human uses and values of natural 

resources and their implications for management; 2)

develop and deliver information on the relationships 

among social, economic, and ecological sustainability; 3) 

develop knowledge about the role of community-based 

collaboration in public land management; 4) expand 

understanding of the human role in, and response to, 

environmental change; and 5) expand understanding of 

the links between human diversity and natural resource 

use and management. Little of this has been accomplished 

in the context of Great Basin land management. Toman 

and others (2006) assessed the relative effectiveness of 

public education methods for influencing acceptance 

of fuels management proposals, but there is a need for 

similar studies for other management activities and for 

evaluations of specific programs. Many community-based 

collaborations have been studied over the past decade, but 

such activities have been conducted for only a fraction 

of agency land management proposals. Few studies have 

focused on land uses and values specific to the Great Basin 

(for example, pinyon nut harvesting), human responses 

to environmental change, or topics related to diversity in 

a region with a rapidly growing immigrant population, 

especially from Spanish-speaking nations.

Although numerous social science studies have explored topics that can illuminate the issues identified in 

this paper, few have focused on the Great Basin or on 

the ecosystem processes and practices that predominate 

in arid and semi-arid rangelands. Given that researchers 

frequently find geographic differences in public perceptions or attitudes (for example, Lybecker and others 2005, 

Brunson and Shindler 2004) regionally relevant studies 

are needed that can augment existing research, especially 

on restoration and other topics that have received little 

research attention. It is important to explore how individual, social, and contextual factors specific to Great 

Basin issues can influence acceptability.

Perhaps most critically, research must take into account the rapid population growth in the region and the 

influx of new residents who may be less familiar with 

management practices and environmental conditions 

found in the Great Basin. Particular attention should be 

paid to issues where controversy is most likely to occur, 

especially around the major urban centers of Salt Lake 

City, Boise, and Reno as well as in “New West” amenity 

communities such as Bend, OR, or Sun Valley, ID, where 

the costs of a loss in amenity value may be greatest 

and the willingness to oppose agency activities is high. 

Shindler and others (2007) reported differences between 

urban and rural respondents with respect to the perceived 

threats to rangelands, opinions about environmental and 

economic priorities, acceptance of specific management 

practices, support for local priorities, the role of science 

in decision-making, and levels of understanding about 

issues and landscape conditions.

Finally, management activities should be analyzed in 

their full ecosystem management contexts by simultaneously evaluating influences on social acceptability, 

economic cost, and ecological outcomes in order to help 

prioritize, and increase the success of, future landscape 

management and restoration activities.

Existing Programs and Resources

Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project (SageSTEP), funded by the Joint Fire Sciences Program, is a 

multidisciplinary research effort that includes two social 

acceptability and stakeholder evaluation studies http://

www.sagestep.org [2007, July 17]:

Assessing trade-offs and decision process by agency 

professionals and key stakeholder groups in the Great 

Basin, Mark Brunson and Jennifer Peterson, Utah State 

University. http://www.sagestep.org/pdfs/progress/

citizen_survey_summary.pdf [2007, July 26]

Public Priorities for Rangeland Management: A 

Regional Survey of Citizens in the Great Basin, Bruce 

Shindler, Ryan Gordon and Mark Brunson. http://www.

sagestep.org/pdfs/progress/citizen_survey_summary.pdf 

[2007, July 26]

Oregon State University, Graduate Certificate Program 

in Sustainable Natural Resources. Includes coursework in 

human dimensions of natural resource management. http://

www.cof.orst.edu/SNRcertificate/ [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Natural Resource Assessment and Analysis. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/analytics/ [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Social and Economic Values in Natural Resource 

Planning. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/value/ [2007, July 17]

U.S. Global Change Research Program offers decisionsupport resources for understanding human responses and 

contributions to global change. http://www.usgcrp.gov/

usgcrp/ProgramElements/human.htm [2007, July 17]
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Center of the American West, University of ColoradoBoulder. http://www.centerwest.org/ [2007, July 17]

University scientists in the Great Basin region with 

research expertise and experience in this topic region 

can be contacted at:

Oregon State University, Dept. of Forest Resources 

http://www.forestry.oregonstate.edu/cof/fr/socialscience.

php [2007, July 17]

University of Idaho, Dept. of Agricultural Economics 

and Rural Sociology http://www.ag.uidaho.edu/aers/ 

[2007, July 17]

University of Nevada-Reno, Dept. of Resource Economics http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/re/Research.asp [2007, 

July 17]

Utah State University, Dept. of Environment and Society http://www.cnr.usu.edu/departments/departments/

envs [2007, July 17]

Utah State University, Dept. of Sociology, Social 

Work and Anthropology http://www.usu.edu/sswa/ 

[2007, July 17]

References

Abrams, J.; Lowe, K. 2005. Public perceptions of forest restoration 

in the Southwest: A synthesis of selected literature and surveys. 

Flagstaff, AZ: Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona 

University. 15 p.

Abrams, J.; Kelly, E.; Shindler, B.; Wilton, J. 2005. Value orientation 

and forest management: the forest health debate. Environmental 

Management. 36(4): 495–505.

Anderson, B.; Wotring, K. 2001. Invasive plant management along 

wild rivers: are we stewards, guardians, or gardeners? International 

Journal of Wilderness. 7(1): 25–29.

Bengston, D.N.; Xu, G.; Fan, D.P. 2001. Attitudes toward ecosystem 

management in the United States, 1992-1998. Society and Natural 

Resources. 14(6): 471-487.

Brunson, M.W. 1996. A definition of “social acceptability” in ecosystem management. In: Brunson, M: Kruger, L.; Tyler, C.; Schroeder, 

S., tech. eds. Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: a workshop proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 7-16.

Brunson, M.W.; Evans, J. 2005. Badly burned? Effects of an escaped 

prescribed burn on social acceptability of wildland fuels treatments. 

Journal of Forestry. 103(3): 134-138.

Brunson, M.W.; Rasmussen, G.A.; Richardson, K.J. 1996. Acceptability of range practices and policies among general and ranching 

publics. In: West, N., ed. Proceedings, Fifth International Rangeland 

Congress, Vol. 1. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 

72-73.

Brunson, M.W.; Reiter, D.K. 1996. Effects of ecological information 

on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 46(1): 31-41.

Brunson, M.W.; Shindler, B.A. 2004. Geographic variation in social 

acceptability of wildland fuels management in the western U.S. 

Society and Natural Resources. 17(8):661-678.

Brunson, M.W.; Steel, B.S. 1996. Sources of variation in attitudes 

and beliefs about federal rangeland management. Journal of Range 

Management. 49(1): 69-75.

Colton, T.F.; Alpert, P. 1998. Lack of public awareness of biological 

invasions by plants. Natural Areas Journal. 18: 262-266.

Connelly, N.A.; Knuth, B.A.; Kay, D.L. 2002. Public support for 

ecosystem restoration in the Hudson River Valley, USA. Environmental Management. 29(4): 467-476.

Czech, B.; Krausman, P.R. 1997. Distribution and causation of species endangerment in the United States. Science. 

277(5329):1116-1117.

Czech, B.; Krausman, P.R.; Borhataria, R. 1998. Social construction, 

political power, and the allocation of benefits to endangered species. Conservation Biology. 12(5):1103-1112.

Delost, J. 2001. Public attitudes toward forest restoration methods in 

Arizona. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. 104 p. Thesis.

Dunlap, R. E.; Van Liere, K. D.; Mertig, A. G.; Jones, R. E. 2000. 

New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. 

Journal of Social Issues. 56(3): 425-442.

Elmore, R.D. 2006. Recovery of the Utah prairie dog: Public perception and cattle grazing as a management tool. Logan, UT: Utah 

State University. Dissertation.

Fulton, D. C.; Skerl, K.; Shank, E.M.; Lime, D.W. 2004. Beliefs and 

attitudes toward lethal management of deer in Cuyahoga Valley 

National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32(4): 1166-1176.

Hadlock, T. D.; Beckwith, J.A. 2002. Recommendations to improve 

recovery of endangered species in the United States. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 7(1): 37-53.

Huntsinger, L. 2007. Survey projects: Oregon and Nevada. Presented 

at the Malpai Borderlands Group Annual Science Conference, 

Douglas, AZ, Jan. 8, 2007.

Hunter, L. M.; Rinner, L. 2004. The association between environmental perspective and knowledge and concern with species diversity. 

Society and Natural Resources. 17(6): 517-532.

Kneeshaw, K.; Vaske, J.J.; Bright, A.D.; Absher, J.D. 2004. Situational 

influences of acceptable wildland fire management actions. Society 

& Natural Resources. 17(6): 477-489.

Koval, M.H.; Mertig, A.G. 2004. Attitudes of the Michigan public 

and wildlife agency personnel toward lethal wildlife management. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32:232-243.

Lybecker, D.L.; Shields, D.J.; Haefele, M. 2005. Survey responses 

from the Intermountain West: Are we achieving the public’s objectives for forests and rangelands? Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-160. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 35 p.

Messmer, T.A.; Brunson, M.W.; Reiter, D.; Hewitt, D.G. 1999. United 

States public attitudes regarding predators and their management to 

enhance avian recruitment. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27: 75-85.

Mitchell, J. E.; Wallace, G.N.; Wells, M.D. 1996. Visitor perceptions 

about cattle grazing on National Forest land. Journal of Range 

Management. 49(1): 81-86.

Needham, M.D.; Vaske, J.J.; Manfredo, M.J. 2004. Hunters’ behavior and acceptance of management actions related to chronic 

wasting disease in eight states. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 

9(3): 211-231.

Novak, K.M. 1997. The importance of xeroriparian habitat to single 

family residents in unincorporated Pima County. Tucson, AZ: 

University of Arizona. 97 p. Thesis.

Reiter, D.K.; Brunson, M.W.; Schmidt, R.H. 1999. Public attitudes 

toward wildlife damage management and policy. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 27: 746-758.

Ribe, R.G. 2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? 

The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. 

Environment and Behavior. 34(6):757-780.

Shindler, B. 2000. Landscape-level management - It’s all about context. 

Journal of Forestry. 98(12): 10-14.

Shindler, B.; Brunson, M.W.; Stankey, G.H. 2002. Social acceptability 

of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 19

Shindler, B.; Gordon, R.; Brunson, M. 2007. Public priorities for 

rangeland management: a regional survey of citizens in the Great 

Basin. Available: http://www.sagestep.org/pdfs/progress/citizen_survey_summary.pdf [2007, July 17].

Simon, C.A.; Dobra, J. 2003. Local government perspectives of federal 

land management in Nevada. Land Use Policy. 20: 275-290.

Skelton, P. D. 2004. Towards cleaner water: Understanding riparian 

forest buffer adoption in Nebraska. Lincoln, NB: University of 

Nebraska. Dissertation.

Stankey, G. H.; Shindler, B. 2006. Formation of social acceptability 

judgments and their implications for management of rare and littleknown species. Conservation Biology. 20(1): 28-37.

Tidwell, L.S. 2005. Information sources, willingness to volunteer, 

and attitudes toward invasive plants in the Southwestern United 

States. Logan, UT: Utah State University. Thesis.

Toman, E.; Shindler, B.; Brunson, M. 2006. Fire and fuel management 

communication strategies: Citizen evaluations of agency outreach 

programs. Society and Natural Resources. 19(4): 321-336.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. USDA Forest Service social science research agenda. [Homepage of USDA 

Forest Service], [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/research/

pdf/ssagenda.pdf [2007, July 17].

Vogt, C.A.; Winter, G.; Fried, J.S. 2005. Predicting homeowners’ 

approval of fuel management at the wildland-urban interface using the theory of reasoned action. Society & Natural Resources. 

18(4): 337-354.

van Kooten, G.C.; Thomsen, R.; Hobby, T.G.; Eagle, A.J. 2006. Social 

dilemmas and public range management in Nevada. Ecological 

Economics. 57(4): 709-723.

Weible, C.; Sabatier, P.; Nechodom, M. 2005. No sparks fly: Policy 

participants agree on thinning trees in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Journal 

of Forestry. 103(1): 5-9.

Winter, G.; Vogt, C.A.; McCaffrey, S. 2004. Examining social trust in 

fuels management strategies. Journal of Forestry. 102(6): 8-15.
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

The Great Basin Watershed covers 362,600 km 

(140,110mi2

) and extends from the Sierra Nevada Range 

in California to the Wasatch Range in Utah, and from 

southeastern Oregon to southern Nevada (NBC Weather 

Plus Website). The region is among the driest in the nation and depends largely on winter snowfall and spring 

runoff for its water supply. Precipitation may be as much 

as 127 cm (50 inches) in high mountains, but many lower 

elevation desert areas receive only about 13 to 18 cm (5 

to 7 inches) annually (State of Utah, Division of Water 

Resources webpage). Water supply can vary dramatically 

from year-to-year, and farms, cities, towns, and industries 

rely on the efficient use of reservoirs that capture spring 

snowmelt for distribution later in the year. When snow 

and rain are insufficient to fill reservoirs, farm yields 

are reduced, groundwater aquifers recede, and water 

restrictions can be imposed. Most of the region’s water 

resources are fully appropriated with irrigation accounting 

for over 70 percent of water use in Nevada and Utah. As 

the region’s population continues to grow, water is being 

converted from agricultural to urban use and groundwater 

sources are being used more extensively.

Key Issues

Population Growth—The human population in the 

Great Basin is growing at among the highest rates in the 

Nation (Nevada #1; Utah #4 in the last census). Most of 

this growth is occurring around the urban communities 

of Salt Lake City, Carson City, and Las Vegas, which are 

located in the adjacent Lower Colorado Regional Watershed. The amount of water used by the public has steadily 

increased since the mid 1980s. Nevada’s withdrawals 

for public supply have increased from 8 to 20 percent 

of total withdrawals (U.S. Geological Survey 1999) 

and growing urban areas are seeking additional water 

sources. One of the largest of these efforts is occurring 

in Nevada where the Southern Nevada Water Authority 

has proposed exporting groundwater from Clark, Lincoln, 

and White Pine counties to Las Vegas (Southern Nevada 

Water Authority 2007). A lack of scientific information 

on the effects of these types of large-scale water projects 

is resulting in public controversy and complicating the 

decision-making process (Meyers and others 2006).

Climate Change—Ongoing climate change will have 

significant effects on the timing and amount of available 

water in this arid to semi-arid region (Wagner 2003, 

CIRMOUNT Committee 2006). Under warming trends, 

a larger fraction of precipitation will come as rain, and 

the region’s snow packs will melt earlier, yielding higher 

winter and spring runoff rates and less summer runoff. 

Spring snowmelt is already occurring weeks earlier than 

in past decades and more precipitation falls as rain in 

much of the region. Continuation of these trends will 

result in increased winter floods in some basins, smaller 

warm-season reserves and rates of runoff, and warmer 

water temperatures in many of the region’s rivers and 

lakes. In summer, lower flows coupled with higher variability may negatively affect various water uses including 

hydropower, irrigation, fish, and recreation. In winter, 

hydropower production could increase to take advantage 

of increased winter streamflow. Areas with increasing 

dryness will exhibit a decrease in groundwater recharge, 

decreasing the longevity of groundwater resources.

Ecosystem Services—Water resources provide ecosystem services that include not only an adequate supply 

of high quality water, but habitat for a diverse array of 

plants and animals (National Research Council 2001). 

Floodplains and riparian corridors serve as filters and 

buffers for upland ecosystems and habitat for wildlife, 

and can help mitigate flood effects. Natural flow regimes 

are necessary for maintaining channel dynamics, groundwater regimes, and native vegetation. Recognition of 

the importance of these ecosystem services has led to a 

paradigm shift where concerns about how much water can 

be reliably withdrawn have changed to concerns about 

how much water needs to be left in the river to support 

multiple uses.

Water Storage and Water Deliver—Water storage and 

the ability to control the timing of water deliveries for 

Water Resources and the Great Basin

Jeanne C. Chambers

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Reno, NV
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 21

beneficiaries continue to be critical issues (NBC Weather 

Plus website). In these arid to semi-arid ecosystems, water 

storage depends largely on snowmelt and is highly variable 

among years. Extreme climatic events, such as drought 

and floods, make consistent water delivery difficult and 

compound water quality problems in key sub-watersheds 

of the Great Basin. Loss of wetlands and riparian zones 

along river corridors also has diminished water quality. 

Water in reservoirs and streams is directly consumed by 

evapotranspiration and transpiration from irrigated crops 

and pasture land, natural vegetation, and water surfaces. 

Long-term environmental impacts from regional-scale 

ground-water extraction are a major concern. Dewatering 

of open pit mines to allow deep mining has resulted in 

significant inter-basin water transfers in large areas of 

northeastern Nevada.

Water Diversion—Throughout the Basin, water diversions have significantly altered lake levels and stream 

flows negatively affecting sediment regimes and water 

quality, decreasing streamside vegetation, and damaging 

or destroying fisheries and wildlife habitat. Low-head 

dams serve as barriers to flow and reduce river connectivity, which affects fish migration.

Nonpoint source pollution—Pollution due to agriculture 

has had a large impact on the quality of the Basin’s water 

(NBC Weather Plus Website). Urban drainage systems 

also contribute nutrients, heavy metals and organic loads 

to the nonpoint source load. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs) and organic contaminants, are entering streams 

and water bodies through urban runoff and wastewater 

treatment plant discharges. To address these issues, 

Nonpoint Source Programs administered by the states 

are targeting the main pollutants of concern, principally 

temperature, pH, nutrients, salts, metals, and suspended 

solids (EPA 2007).

Development—Increased development along the region’s rivers and lakes has resulted in increased sediment 

and nutrient loads in downstream areas (NBC Weather 

Plus Website). Lake Tahoe in the eastern Sierra Nevada 

has had a progressive decrease in the lake’s clarity due 

to these factors. Programs to manage Lake Tahoe’s water 

quality by regulating development and preventing pollutants from reaching the lake are being implemented at 

the federal, state, and local levels. The 1997 Presidential 

Forum for Lake Tahoe and government partnerships such 

as Tahoe Regreen are working toward solutions to forest 

health issues on the Eastern Sierra frontal range.

Land use and land management activities—Human 

activities and natural disturbances in the watersheds 

affect both water quality and quantity. Over-grazing by 

livestock, mining, and roads can alter sediment regimes 

and negatively impact water quality. Vegetation type 

conversion can alter infiltration and runoff regimes and 

affect water supply.

Management Challenges

Federal, state, and local governments are challenged to 

respond to a number of surface and ground water threats 

in the Great Basin through such activities as:

! Watershed planning and management for water 

supply, water quality, and stream corridors.

! Management of total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs) of pollutants and persistent organic pollutants (POPs).

! Balancing urban growth and open space and agricultural land resources.

! Sustainable management of forest and rangeland 

resources for multiple uses.

! Increasing recreation opportunities while minimizing 

environmental impacts.

! Protection of biodiversity (for example, Cui-ui lake 

sucker and Lahonton Cutthroat Trout).

! Rehabilitation of unstable channels of major rivers 

and streams.

! Mitigation of impacts associated with development 

in flood plains of rivers and tributaries.

! Mitigation of river channel modifications and 

floodplain instability from diversion dams, channel 

straightening, and flood protection structures.

Research and

Management Questions

Water Resources and Uses

What are the predicted rates of population increase and 

water consumption?

How are the diverse hydrological cycles and amounts 

of water in various forms of storage changing as a result 

of climate change?

How will changes in mountain snow packs as a result 

of climate change affect rural community and urban water 

supplies in the future?

What are the flow regimes and amounts required to 

maintain channel processes and support riparian and 

aquatic ecosystems?

What are the flow regimes and amounts required to 

support sensitive, threatened, and endangered species?
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

What are the effects of land use and land management 

on water quality and quantity and riparian areas and 

aquatic systems?

Water Supply Options for the Future

How can we improve use of existing water resources 

through use efficiency, new methods, and alternative 

operation of river-reservoir systems?

How do we expand water supply through treatment 

and increased use of lower quality water?

What alternatives are there for water storage?

Predictive Tool

How can we better predict the year-to-year variability 

in water resources?

How do we improve predictions of outcomes of storage, release, withdrawal, and use of water?

How can we better predict the outcomes of our planning and policy decisions?

How do we predict water needs/benefits for ecosystems 

and the impacts on other uses?

Existing Programs and Resources

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Program. 

Includes the Cooperative Water Program, National 

Streamflow Information Program, National Water Quality Assessment Program, Toxic Substances Hydrology 

Program, Ground Water Resources Program, Hydrologic Research and Development, State Water Resources 

Research Institute Program, and Water Information Coordination Program. http://water.usgs.gov [2007, July 17]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Monitoring 

and Assessing Water Quality. 21 Mar. 2007. http://www.

epa.gov/owow/monitoring [2007, June 17]

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Snow 

Survey and Water Supply Forecasting. http://www.nrcs.

usda.gov/programs/snowsurvey [2007, June 17]

The National Institutes for Water Resources. These 

institutes are located in each of the 50 states and are 

charged with research that fosters (1) the education of 

students and entry of research scientists into water resources fields; (2) research on water and water-related 

areas; and (3) the dissemination of research results to 

water managers and the public. Institutes are expected 

to cooperate with other institutes and organization in the 

Region. Great Basin Institutes include:

Institute for Water and Watersheds. 2007. Oregon State 

University. http://water.oregonstate.edu [2007, July 17]

University of Idaho. Idaho Water Resources Research 

Institute. 5 Sept. 2005. http://www.iwrri.uidaho.edu 

[2007, July 17]

Desert Research Institute. Division of Hydrologic Sciences. http://www.dhs.dri.edu [2007, July 17]

Utah State University. Utah Center for Water Resources 

Research. 1 Mar. 2007. Utah State University. http://www.

engineering.usu.edu/uwrl/niwr [2007, July 17]

State Divisions of Water Resources.

Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2002. http://

www.idwr.state.id.us [2007, July 17]

State of Nevada. Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources. Division of Water Resources. State 

of Nevada. Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources. http://www.water.nv.gov [2007, July 17]

Oregon.gov. Water Resources Department. http://www.

wrd.state.or.us [2007, July 17]

Utah.Gov. Division of Water Resources. 2005. Utah.Gov. 

http://www.conservewater.utah.gov [2007, July 17]

Strategic Plans

State Water Plans are developed by each State’s Divisions of Water Resources (see above).

References

CIRMOUNT Committee. 2006. Mapping new terrain: climate change 

and America’s West. Report of the Consortium of Integrated Climate Research in Western Mountains (CIRMOUNT), Misc. Pub. 

PSW-MISC-77, Albany, CA, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 29 p.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality. [Homepage of the Environmental Protection 

Agency], [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/ [2007, July 22].

Meyers, T.; Burns, A.; Johnson, J. 2006. Point/Counterpoint: Nevada 

groundwater transfer: do we know enough to decide? Southwest 

Hydrologist. 5(3):14. Available: http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/

archive/V5_N3/dept-pointcounterpoint.pdf [2007, July 17].

National Research Council. 2001. Riparian areas: functions and 

strategies for management. National Academy Press. Washington, 

D.C. 444 p.

NBC Weather Plus. National Watersheds: Great Basin. 2007. [Homepage of NBC4], [Online]. Available: http://wrc.iewatershed.com/index.php?pagename=ow_regionalWatersheds_16 [2007, July 17].
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 23

Wagner, F. H., ed. 2003. Preparing for a changing climate- the potential 

consequences of climate variability and change. Rocky Mountain/

Great Basin regional climate-change assessment. A report of the 

Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Regional Assessment Team for the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. Utah State University, 

Logan, UT. 240 p.

Southern Nevada Water Authority. 2007. Resources Plan. [Homepage 

of Southern Nevada Water Authority], [Online]. Available: http://

www.snwa.com/html/wr_resource_plan.html [2007, July 17].

State of Utah 2007. Department of Natural Resources, Utah Division 

of Water Resources. Water Brochures. [Homepage of Utah Division of Water Resources], [Online]. Available: http://water.utah.

gov/Brochures/WIU_BROC.htm [2007, July 17].

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Nevada. USGS Fact Sheet 029-99. 

October 1999. 4 p.
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

International and National Context

The United States, with less than 5 percent of the 

world’s population, consumes 40 percent of the oil and 

23 percent of natural gas annual global production. 

Fluctuating and rising energy prices can be expected to 

continue with political instability in producing countries 

and intensifying supply competition from expanding 

Asian economies. The United States seeks to increase 

domestic energy production to maintain energy security 

and economic stability. The Energy Policy Act (2005) 

(EPACT) encourages enhanced energy production and 

energy infrastructure.

Much of EPACT is aimed specifically at federal lands 

and regulatory processes. This is significant to energy 

development in the Great Basin because more than 70 

percent of the Great Basin is federally administered. 

Eighty percent of the federal land in the region is managed by the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). The Department of Interior manages 

1/5 of the nation’s land, which is estimated to contain 

68 percent of U.S. oil and gas reserves and produce 7 

percent of the wind energy, one-half of the geothermal 

energy, and 17 percent of the hydropower generated in 

the United States (USDI-BLM 2005).

Various EPACT provisions facilitate the development 

of additional oil (including shale and tar sands), gas, coal 

(including coke and coke gas), nuclear, geothermal, wind, 

and solar energy (ICF International 2005) and the siting 

of related infrastructure. Facilitation includes subsidies, 

tax credits, accelerated depreciation, guaranteed loans, 

and increased research funding.

Regulatory facilitation includes streamlined licensing 

and expansion of the types of facilities that qualify for 

categorical exclusions from detailed environmental study 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (for 

example, Section 390 of EPACT). For example, categorical exclusions apply to projects in existing approved areas 

that affect pipelines in existing rights-of-way and areas 

of less than 2 ha (5 acres), as long as they do not affect 

wetlands, historic resources, or endangered species.

Energy Development in the Great Basin

Nora Devoe

Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno, NV 

EPACT addresses the reliability and efficiency of electricity distribution, with provisions for identifying, upgrading, developing, and permitting “national interest electric 

transmission corridors.” An energy corridor, which may 

include multiple pipelines (for example, oil, gas, hydrogen), 

electricity transmission lines, and related infrastructure 

such as access and maintenance roads, compressors, and 

pumping stations, has been proposed to traverse the Great 

Basin (USDI-BLM webpage 2007c).

Existing energy infrastructure

in the Great Basin

Existing energy infrastructure in the Great Basin includes natural gas, coal, hydro, biomass, solar and geothermal power stations, electricity transmission lines, and 

gas and oil pipelines. The density of large power plants 

(with a minimum net summer capacity of 100 megawatts) 

and transmission lines is low relative to other areas of 

the country (Energy Information Administration webpage 

2007a).

The BLM currently administers about 350 geothermal 

leases (55 of which are producing geothermal energy) 

including 34 power plants. In 2003, two new 49-megawatt 

(MW) geothermal power plants were licensed in 

California, the first such approvals in over 10 years. Two 

geothermal power plant expansions and one new 30-MW 

power plant were approved in Nevada.

Current developed energy source materials in the Great 

Basin includes one sizeable (greater than 4 million short 

tons annual production) underground coal mine in Utah 

(Utah Geological Survey webpage 2007). Historic and 

contemporary mine sites that include uranium are numerous in the Great Basin (Energy Information Administration webpage 2007b), but Great Basin uranium mines 

now appear in Nevada (1) and Utah (15). United States 

uranium production and prices have increased in the last 

2 years spurred by EPACT nuclear power provisions and 

other market factors.

The Great Basin hosts one of the nation’s three commercial disposal sites for low-level radioactive waste 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 25

located at Clive, UT, about 129 km (80 miles) west of 

Salt Lake City. This site receives about 99 percent of 

the nation’s class-A waste, over 50 percent of which is 

DOE-generated (GAO 2004). Over 60 million cubic feet 

of waste has been deposited at this site since it opened 

in 1988.

Major oil and gas production areas in eastern Utah, 

southwest Wyoming and central California surround 

the Great Basin. Oil fields developed in the Great Basin 

include areas in east-central Nevada and western and 

central Utah (USGS 1999, State of Utah webpage 2007b). 

The state of Nevada (State of Nevada 2007a) lists 13 

producing well fields, with many more in Utah.

Proposed Energy Infrastructure

Power plants and transmission lines—Twenty-five 

additional power plants are in various stages of planning 

in Nevada (State of Nevada webpage 2007b), including 

12 geothermal plants, six coal plants, one biomass, one 

solar, and one wind plant. Thirteen of these plants will 

have capacity less than 50 MW. California has many 

power plants under development, but none appears 

to be in the Great Basin portions of the state (State of 

California webpage 2007). Oregon has approved siting 

of two additional gas-fired plants in Klamath County 

(State of Oregon webpage 2007).

Idaho has a moratorium through April 2008 on permitting new coal-fired plants with capacity exceeding 249 

MW. The moratorium does not affect goal-gasification 

plants. Three coal-burning plants are under development 

(National Energy Technology Lab webpage 2007). A 

200-MW wind farm and right-of-way on public land 

in south-central Idaho was approved in August, 2006 

(USDI-BLM 2006). A 170-MW gas-fired plant and a small 

geothermal plant are under development. The Associated 

Press reported in the Idaho Statesman 2/8/07 that land 

was purchased along the Snake River for construction 

of a nuclear power plant, but no permitting has been 

initiated (Wind Energy News website 2007).

New construction (2) and expansion of existing coalburning plants (2) are underway in Utah. Utah is working with other western states to develop a high voltage 

transmission line to export its power to the higher-priced 

Nevada and California markets.

Oil and gas—The federal government has leased or offered for lease 92.7 million ha (229 million acres) of public 

and private land in 12 western states for oil and gas drilling, 

an area greater than the combined size of Colorado, New 

Mexico, and Arizona (Environmental Working Group 

webpage 2007). Approximately 15 million ha (36 million 

acres) of federal land were under lease for oil and gas 

in 2005, but only 5 million ha (12.5 million acres) had 

been drilled (USDI-BLM website 2007a). Clearly, with 

EPACT and market incentives, additional drilling and 

development can be expected on leased lands, particularly 

for natural gas.

The 2004 discovery of significant amounts of crude oil 

in Sevier County, central Utah, has raised considerable 

interest in exploration drilling throughout the region. 

Seismic testing, one of the early prospecting tools used 

by oil and gas companies, has become widespread in 

central Utah (Sanpete, Sevier, Beaver, and Iron counties) 

since the Covenant Field discovery. Industry has identified the central Nevada thrust belt as a prime area for oil 

development, with test drilling scheduled under a lease 

in White Pine County (Curlew Lake Resources website 

2007). Oil and gas leasing is expanding in Nevada (USDI 

BLM webpage 2007e) and throughout the Great Basin.

United States reserves of oil shale are estimated at 1.6 

trillion barrels, with Utah holding roughly 320 billion barrels. For tar sands, the U.S. estimate of measured reserves 

is 22.6 billion barrels, with 11 billion barrels of measured 

reserves in Utah (State of Utah webpage 2007a). These 

reserves lie immediately east of the Great Basin. A Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for 

large-scale commercial leasing of oil shale and tar sands is 

being developed (USDI-BLM website 2007b).

Nuclear Energy—The U.S. Department of Energy is 

building the nation’s first long-term geologic repository 

for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 

at Yucca Mountain on federally administered land about 

161 km (100 miles) northwest of Las Vegas. In July 

2006, the DOE agreed upon March 31, 2017 as the date 

to begin accepting waste. The licensing of this facility 

faces considerable opposition.

The Envirocare waste disposal facility in Clive (Tooele 

County), UT, has applied to accept classes B and C lowlevel radioactive waste (more radioactive than its current 

class-A license allows). Action is pending following the 

2005 close of a moratorium on this licensing. A proposal 

for a high-level waste facility in Skull Valley appears to 

be at a standstill.

Solar energy—Portions of California, Nevada, and 

Utah rank highest in direct-beam solar radiation in the 

USA, and potential for increased solar power production 

is good (Energy Information Administration webpage 

2007a). The Great Basin also presents significant potential 

for further development of wind and geothermal energy. 

The Great Basin states are actively promoting renewable 

energy.
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Geothermal energy—Nevada has large geothermal 

resources (Shevenell and Garside 2005) and is second 

only to California in geothermal electricity generation. 

The geologically active basin-and-range countries in 

southeastern Oregon, and the Cascades Mountains in 

western Oregon, are promising sites for geothermal energy 

development. Geothermal energy leasing is expanding 

in the Great Basin (USDI-BLM webpage 2007f). Since 

2001, the BLM has processed 200 geothermal lease applications, compared to 20 in the preceding 4 years.

Wind energy. In the same timeframe, the BLM issued 

more than 60 rights-of-way and permits for wind energy 

testing and development, quadrupling the number of authorizations nationwide. As a result of increased interest 

in wind energy development on public lands, the agency 

has prepared a programmatic environmental impact statement for wind energy (USDI-BLM website 2007d).

Key Issues

Energy production, development, and use have significant environmental costs, even when best practices 

and advanced technologies are employed. More energy 

infrastructure will mean more environmental impacts. 

Widely recognized costs are air and water pollution, 

noise, and visual impacts. Infrastructure associated with 

power plants and energy production, including roads, 

pipelines, transmission lines, and wells, reduce wildlife 

habitat and habitat continuity and disrupt seasonal and 

annual wildlife migration.

Perhaps less obvious environmental hazards include 

naturally generated radioactive materials brought to the 

surface by oil, gas, and mineral extraction (USGS 1999), 

which may be subsequently concentrated in waste streams 

by further processing. Nuclear power generation produces 

highly radioactive waste in addition to conventional 

hazardous materials. The potential disposal of nuclear 

waste on the edge of the Great Basin raises many health 

and safety issues in a region where nuclear power is not 

now commercially generated.

Power production requires large volumes of water 

under most technologies. As examples, oil shale operations require between one and three barrels of water per 

barrel of oil produced. A 500-MW coal power plant 

burns approximately 250 tons per hour of coal while 

using over 45.4 million liters (12 million gal) per hour 

of water for cooling and other process requirements (University of California 2007). More than 100 kg of fluids 

must be extracted, processed, and removed for each 

kW h of electricity generated from a facility relying on 

a geothermal reservoir with hot fluids. The low thermal 

efficiencies of geothermal power plants result in large 

requirements for cooling water – greater than five times 

that needed for a coal-fired plant. Geothermal fluids can 

contain as much as 250,000 mg/l total dissolved solids. 

Toxic substances, such as boron and ammonia, are often 

present in fluids (Layton and Morris 1980). The U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that thermoelectric 

generation accounts for approximately 514,816 million 

liters (136,000 million gal) per day (MGD) of freshwater 

withdrawals, ranking only slightly behind agricultural 

irrigation as the largest source of freshwater withdrawals 

in the United States. Power generation in the semi-arid 

Great Basin will increasingly compete with other water 

uses.

Management Challenges and Research Needs

Minimizing adverse impacts of energy production—

Off-site mitigation, the idea that a disturbance in one 

place can be off-set by an action in another, has become 

a popular notion in the face of intensive energy development in Wyoming and the Rocky Mountains. Off-site 

mitigation programs that successfully address spatial 

and temporal aspects of wildlife migration, as well as 

simple habitat requirements, are needed. Continued 

improvement of low-impact energy development, clean 

processing technologies, and solar and wind technologies 

are needed.

Cost-effective, early-warning environmental monitoring that alerts resource managers, elected officials, 

and the public to changes in air quality, water quality 

and quantity, habitat quality and connectivity, and other 

resource values in relation to energy development, production, and consumption are needed. Law and policy 

that strengthens environmental oversight before, during, 

and after permitting for energy development and production are needed to facilitate and require timely response 

to environmental degradation and to define mandatory 

mitigation or cessation of activity.

The most efficient damage mitigation is to reduce 

the energy consumption that drives development and 

production. With populations expanding at rates that 

far outstrip the national average, the Great Basin has 

a particular need to explore “smart development” 

options that include low-pollution, energy-efficient 

transportation, building design, and land and water 

use. Further examination of the social aspects of energy 

consumption and land and water use may elucidate 

pathways to reduced consumption.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 27

Existing Programs and Resources

The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative from the 

governors of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, 

and Washington is developing cap-and-trade limitations 

on greenhouse gas emissions.

Department of Energy/Office of Fossil Energy’s National 

Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL) has initiated 

integrated research and development (R&D) of technologies 

to reduce power plant water use and to minimize impacts 

of plant operations on water quality. http://www.netl.doe.

gov/about/index.html [2007, July 17]

The Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UC Santa Barbara, convened the First Western 

Forum on Energy and Water Sustainability, March 22-23, 

2007. http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/energy-water/

first_forum.htm [2007, July 17]

The United States Green Building Council’s Leadership 

in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) program 

recognizes low-impact siting and construction of residential and commercial facilities. http://www.usgbc.org/

LEED/ [2007, July 17]

Desert Research Institute (DRI). Two Great Basin research 

programs that address smart development and alternative 

futures are at the DRI (Reno and Las Vegas) and Utah State 

University. DRI also has programs in green energy, environmental monitoring, and ecosystem response to elevated 

CO2. http://www.dri.edu/ [2007, July 17]

The Great Basin Policy Research Institute at the University of Nevada-Reno conducts research on public policy 

related to energy, mining, and consumer behavior. http://

www.unr.edu/cla/polisci/faculty/faHerzik/eh_gbpri.asp 

[2007, July 17]

The Great Basin Center for Geothermal Energy at 

the University of Nevada-Reno conducts research on 

all aspects of geothermal energy. http://www.unr.edu/

Geothermal/ [2007, July 17]

The Wallace Stegner Center for Land, Resources and 

the Environment at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney 

College of Law examines law and policy related to environmental use and preservation. http://www.law.utah.

edu/stegner [2007, July 17]

Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation 

Taskforce, created by the 2001 Nevada Legislature, is 

a clearinghouse for information and a coordinator of 

renewable energy and energy conservation activities. 

http://www.nevadarenewables.org [2007, July 17]

The United States Geological Survey has research 

programs treating mineral resources, energy development, and environmental impacts in the Great Basin and 

throughout the west. www.usgs.gov [2007, July 17]

References

Curlew Lake Resources. 2007. Webpage of Curlew Lake Resources. 

Available: Curlew Lake Resources Webpage [2007, July 17].

Energy Information Administration. 2007a. Official Energy Statistics 

from the U.S. Government. [Homepage of the Energy Information Administration], [Online]. Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov 

[2007, July 17].

Energy Information Administration. 2007b. Official Energy Statistics 

from the U.S. Government, Domestic Uranium Production Reports. 

[Hompage of the Energy Information Administration], [Online]. 

Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/dupr.html 

[2007, July 17].

Energy Policy Act. 2005. Public Law 109-58-August 8, 2005.[Homepage of Department of Interior], [Online]. Available: http://www.doi.

gov/iepa/EnergyPolicyActof2005.pdf [2007, July 17].

Environmental Working Group. 2007. [Homepage of the Environmental Working Group], [Online]. Available: http://www.ewg.

org/ [2007, July 17].

ICF International. 2005. Impacts and implications of the 2005 U.S. 

Energy Policy Act. August 5, 2005. [Homepage of ICF International], [Online]. Available: http://www.icfi.com/Markets/Energy/

Energy-Act/default.asp [2007, July 17]

General Accounting Office. 2004. Low-Level Radioactive Waste. 

GAO-04-604.

Layton D.W.; Morris, W.F. 1980. Geothermal Power Production Accidental Fluid Releases, Waste Disposal and Water Use. Lawrence 

Livermore Laboratory, University of California. Unpublished Report. 31 p. Available: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.

biblio.jsp?osti_id=5113304&query_id= [2007, July 17].

National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2007. Information about fossil energy research by the U.S. Department of Energy. [Homepage 

of the National Technology Laboratory], [Online]. Available: http://

www.netl.doe.gov/about/index.html [2007, July 17].

Shevenell, L.; Garside, L.J. 2005. Nevada Geothermal Resources, 

Second Edition. Map. [Homepage of the Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno], [Online]. Available: 

http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/m1412.pdf [2007, July 17].

State of California. 2007. California Energy Commission. (2007, 

June 20 – last update). Recently On-Line, Approved, Current and 

Expected Power Plant Licensing Cases (peakers and non peakers). [Homepage of the California Energy Commission], [Online]. 

Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/02_SIMP_RONLN_

APRVD_CUR_EXP_PNP.PDF [2007, July 17].

State of Nevada. 2007a. Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources. 

(2007, July 9-last update). [Homepage Nevada Division of Minerals], 

[Online]. Available: http://minerals.state.nv.us/ [2007, July 17].

State of Nevada. 2007b. Proposed Generation Plants in Nevada. 

[Homepage of the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada], [Online]. 

Available: http://pucweb1.state.nv.us/PUCN/Electric/ProposedGen.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 [2007, July 17].

State of Oregon. 2007. Energy Facility Siting. Power Plants in 

Oregon. [Homepage of the Energy Facility Siting Program], 

[Online]. Available: http://oregon.gov/ENERGY/SITING/power.

shtml [2007, July 17].

State of Utah. 2007a. Governor’s Energy Policy. Oil Shale/Tar Sands.

[Homepage of the State of Utah, Governor’s Energy Policy], [Online]. Available: http://energy.utah.gov/energy/governors_priorities/

oil_shale_tar_sands.html [2007, July 17].
28 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

State of Utah. 2007b. Oil and gas well locator. [Homepage of Utah 

Automated Geographic Reference Center], [Online]. Available: 

http://atlas.utah.gov/oilgaswells2/viewer.htm [2007, July 17].

University of California, Santa Barbara. 2007. First Western Forum 

on Energy & Water Sustainability. [Homepage of the UCSB School 

of Environmental Science and Management], [Online]. Available: 

http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/energy-water/first_forum.htm 

[2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005.

(June 21-last update). News. Environmental study supports plans 

to facilitate wind energy development on public lands. [Homepage 

USDI Bureau of Land Management], [Online]. Available: http://

www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2005/pr050621_wind.

htm [2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2006. (August 16-last update). News. Bureau of Land Management Announces 

Final Approval of Wind Energy Project in Idaho. [Homepage USDI 

Bureau of Land Management], [Online]. Available: http://www.

blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2006/pr060815_windenergy-id.

htm [2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007a. 

Land and mineral records maintained by the BLM located under 

LR2000. [Homepage USDI Bureau of Land Management], [Online]. 

Available: http://www.blm.gov [2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007b. 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Programmatic EIS. [Homepages 

of the USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Leasing Program EIS Information Center, managed by the 

Argonne National Laboratory], [Online]. Available: http://ostseis.

anl.gov/ [2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007c. 

West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS. [Homepage of 

USDI-BLM West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS Information Center], [Online]. Available: http://corridoreis.anl.gov/ 

[2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007d. 

Wind Energy Development. Webpage of the USDA BLM Wind 

Energy Development Programmatic EIS Information Center, 

managed by the Argonne National Laboratory. [Homepage USDI 

Bureau of Land Management], [Online]. Available: http://windeis.

anl.gov/ [2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007e. 

Nevada State Office. Nevada BLM Oil and Gas Lease Sale Information. [Homepage of the Nevada State Office of the Bureau of 

Land Management], [Online]. Available: http://www.nv.blm.gov/

minerals/oil_and_gas/O&G_Sales_2006.htm [2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007f.

Nevada State Office. Geothermal Resources – Energy and Minerals Management on Public Lands in Nevada. [Homepage of the 

Nevada State Office of the Bureau of Land Management], [Online]. 

Available: http://www.nv.blm.gov/minerals/geothermal/index.htm 

[2007, July 17].

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in Produced Water and Oil Field Equipment- An 

Issue for the Energy Industry. Fact Sheet. FS-142-99 September 

1999. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0142-99/fs-0142-99.

pdf [2007, July 17].

Utah Geological Survey. 2007. Utah Energy and Mineral Statistics. 

[Homepage of Utah Geological Survey], [Online]. Available: http://

geology.utah.gov/sep/energydata/index.htm [2007, July 17].

Wind Energy News. 2007. Bureau of Land Management Announces 

Final Approval of Wind Energy Project in Idaho. [Homepage of 

Wind Energy News], [Online]. Available: http://windenergynews.

blogspot.com/2006/08/bureau-of-land-management-announces.

html [2007, July 17].

Additional Information on Energy 

Development

Anna, L.O.; Roberts, L.N.R.; Potter, C.J.; Charpentier, R.R.; Cook, 

T.; Klett, T.R.; Pollastro, R.M.; Schenk, C.J. 2005. Assessment of 

Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Eastern Great Basin 

Province, 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-2005-3053, 4 

p. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3053/ [ 2007, July 17].

Barker, C.E.; Fouch, T.D.; Grow, J.A.; Peterson, J.A. 1995. Western 

Great Basin Province (018). In: Gautier, D. L.; Dolton, G.L.; 

Takahashi, K.I.; Varnes, K.L., eds. 1995 National Assessment 

of United States Oil and Gas Resources--Results, Methodology, 

and Supporting Data: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 

DDS-30, Release 2, one CD-ROM. Available: http://certmapper.

cr.usgs.gov/data/noga95/prov18/text/prov18.pdf [2007, July 17].

Gautier, D.L.; Dolton, G.L.; Takahashi, K.I.; Varnes, K.L., eds. 1995, 

National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources—

Results, Methodology, and Supporting Data: U.S. Geological Survey 

Digital Data Series DDS-30, release 2, one CD-ROM.

Coal Utilization Research Council, Goals, Activities, and Accomplishments. [Homepages of Coal Utilization Research Council], 

[Online]. Available: http://www.coal.org/content/goals.htm [2007, 

July 17].

Energy Information Administration, Official Energy Statistics from 

the U.S. Government. [Hompage of the Energy Information Administration], [Online]. Available: http://www.eia.doe.gov [2007, 

July 17].

Peterson, J.A.; Grow, J.A. 1995. Eastern Great Basin Province (019). 

In: Gautier, D. L.; Dolton, G.L.; Takahashi K.I.; Varnes, K.L., eds. 

1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources–

Results, Methodology, and Supporting Data: U.S. Geological 

Survey Digital Data Series DDS-30, Release 2, one CD-ROM. 

Available: http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/noga95/prov19/text/

prov19.pdf [2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

Available: [Homepage of U.S. Department of Energy], [Online]. 

Available: http://www.eere.energy.gov/ [2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, Selected Key BLM Actions Related to the 

Energy Policy Act. [Homepage of Bureau of Land Management], 

[Online]. Available: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/

epca_chart.html [2007, July 17].

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. EPCA 

Phase II Inventory, EPCA Phase II Report. Scientific Inventory of 

Onshore Federal Lands’ Oil and Gas Resources and the Extent and 

Nature of Restrictions or Impediments to Their Development — 

Phase II Cumulative Inventory. December 15, 2006. [Homepage 

of the Bureau of Land Management], [Online]. Available: http://

www.blm.gov/epca/ [2007, July 17].

World Information Service on Energy. Uranium Project. [Homepage 

of World Information Service on Energy], [Online]. Available: 

http://www.WISE-uranium.org [2007, July 17].
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 29

Climate change is expected to have significant impacts 

on the Great Basin by the mid-21st century. The following provides an overview of past and projected climate 

change for the globe and for the region. For more detailed 

information, please see the list of references and recommended links.

Global Climate Change

There is scientific consensus on the key elements of 

climate change:

Earth has a natural greenhouse effect: Water vapor, 

carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases slow the loss of 

heat to space, making the planet warm enough to support 

life as we know it.

Amounts of almost all greenhouse gases are increasing 

as a result of human activities. Since 1750, atmospheric 

carbon dioxide has increased 32 percent and methane 

has increased 150 percent. In the absence of significant 

changes in human activities, atmospheric concentrations 

of greenhouse gases will continue to increase.

Earth’s surface has warmed about 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) since 

1900. This warming is most likely a consequence of the 

increase in greenhouse gases, but other factors cannot 

be completely ruled out. Most of the warming observed 

since 1950 is likely due to human activities. Other related 

changes, such as decreases in snow cover and ice extent, 

increases in global average sea level, and altered rainfall 

patterns, also have been observed.

Great Basin 20th Century Climate Change

The climate of the Great Basin has changed during the 

past 100 years. Observed 20th century changes include:

Region-wide warming of 0.3 to 0.6 °C (0.6° to 1.1 °F) 

in 100 years—This warming, while widespread, has varied 

across the region (Wagner 2003). Minimum temperatures 

have increased more than maximum temperatures and 

variability in interannual temperatures has declined. As 

a result, the probability of very warm years increased 

and very cold years declined.

Increase in precipitation across most of the Great 

Basin—Annual precipitation has increased from 6 to 16 

percent since the middle of the last century. Interannual 

variability in precipitation also has increased, with an 

increase in the probability of extreme high-precipitation 

years. This has been reflected in increases in streamflow 

across the region, especially in winter and spring (Baldwin 

and others 2003).

Decline in snowpack since about 1950—Trends in 

April 1 snow pack have been negative at most monitoring sites in the Great Basin. Elevation and mean winter 

temperature have a strong effect on snowpack with the 

warmest sites exhibiting the largest relative losses. In 

the warmer mountains, winter melt events have a strong 

negative effect on April 1 snow pack. Snow pack decline 

in the dry interior, which includes the Great Basin, has 

been among the largest observed, with the exception of 

central and southern Nevada (Mote and others 2005).

Earlier arrival of spring affecting streamflow and 

plant phenology—The timing of spring snowmelt-driven 

streamflow is now about 10 to 15 days earlier than in the 

mid-1900s, and there has been an increase in interannual 

variability in spring flow (Baldwin and others 2003, 

Stewart and others 2004). Phenological studies indicate 

that in much of the West, the average bloom-date is 

earlier for both purple lilac (2 days per decade based on 

data from 1957 to 1994) and honeysuckle (3.8 days per 

decade based on data from 1968 to 1994) (Cayan and 

others 2001).

Future Climate Change in the Great Basin

Projected warming for the West ranges from about 

2 to 5 °C (3.6 to 9 °F) over the next century (Cubashi 

and others 2001). Regional estimates for areas such as 

California indicate that the upper value may be as high 

as 7 °C (12.6 °F) for some areas (Dettinger 2005). The 

degree of change will depend on the increase in CO2 

by 2100 and will vary across the Great Basin due to the 

large differences in topography. Projected changes in 

precipitation in the West are inconsistent as to sign and 

the average changes are near zero (Cubashi and others 

Climate Change and the Great Basin

Jeanne C. Chambers

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Reno, NV
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

2001). The losses in snow pack observed to date are likely 

to continue and even accelerate with more rapid losses 

in milder climates and slower losses in high elevation 

areas (Mote and others 2005).

Overview of Climate Change Impacts

Water resources—A reasonable scenario for western 

stream flows is change in the current seasonal proportionality of flows: increased winter flow, reduced and 

earlier spring peaks, and reduced summer and fall flows. 

The change in absolute flows will depend on the actual 

increase in precipitation relative to the degree of warming 

and its effects on evapotranspiration. Most watersheds 

in the Great Basin exhibit high natural variability in 

unregulated streamflow (Hurd and others 1999) and this 

variability may increase. In summer, lower flows coupled 

with higher variability may negatively affect various water uses (hydropower, irrigation, fish, recreation, and so 

forth). In winter, hydropower production could increase 

to take advantage of increased winter streamflow.

Agriculture—Many crops will grow better with higher 

CO2 and a longer growing season before temperatures 

substantially increase, provided there is sufficient water. 

However, some weedy species and pests will have similar 

advantages. Low-value irrigation crops may have difficulty competing for less abundant irrigation water.

Native ecosystems—Similar to agricultural systems, 

growth of many native species (those with C3 photosynthetic pathways) is likely to increase provided there is 

sufficient water. Higher levels of CO2 increase production 

and water-use efficiency of C3 native grasses but may 

increase the invasibility of cheatgrass and other annual 

grasses (Smith and others 2000, Ziska and others 2005). 

Other invaders, including perennial forbs and woody 

species, may be similarly advantaged. Increased temperatures will likely extend fire seasons with more fires 

occurring earlier and later than is currently typical, and 

this will increase the total area burned in some regions 

(McKenzie and others 2004). If climate change increases 

the amplitude and duration of extreme fire weather, we 

can expect larger and more severe fires. In more arid parts 

of the Great Basin, the frequency and extent of fires is 

likely to be higher in years that promote the growth of fine 

fuels (high fall, winter and spring precipitation) and as a 

result of fuel accumulation during the previous growing 

season (Westerling and others 2006). Progressive invasion 

of cheatgrass, which has greater flammability and fire 

spread than natives, is likely to continue to increase fire 

frequency and extent (Link and others 2006). Continued 

expansion of pinyon-juniper species and increases in 

tree densities could result in an increase in high severity 

crown fires, especially under drying scenarios (Miller and 

others, in press). Infectious diseases and insect outbreaks 

could increase under several different warming scenarios 

(Logan 2006).

Biodiversity and species at risk—As temperatures 

increase, species shifts are likely to occur. Inhabitants 

of high elevation zones will likely experience shrinking 

habitats and local extinctions will probably increase 

(Wagner 2003) among mammalian, avian, and butterfly 

species (Murphy and Weiss 1992). If climate change favors 

invasive species, then certain native species are likely to 

be displaced. If the fire severity and burn area increase, 

shifts in the distribution and abundance of dominant plant 

species could occur that may also affect the habitat of 

some sensitive plant and animal species (McKenzie and 

others 2004). An increase in infectious disease and insect 

outbreaks also could place certain species at risk.

Winter sports—Warmer winter temperatures and increased winter precipitation are projected to delay the 

beginning of the winter sport season, shorten the length 

of the season, and increase the likelihood of rain during 

the season. The impacts will be greater for mid-elevation 

areas than for higher elevation areas.

Research and 

Management Questions

Research and management questions revolve around 

the need to improve our ability to accurately predict 

the effects of climate change on the environment and, 

consequently, on human and natural systems.

Social and economic

How do land use and climate change jointly affect 

social and economic dynamics?

How do the combined effects of land use and climate 

change affect ecosystem services, and the capacity of the 

landscape to support communities and economies?

What institutional options exist for improving the application of global-change science results in land use and 

water use decisions?

Water resources

How will the loss of snow pack and change in stream 

flows affect water resources?
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 31

How will the change in climate variability (duration of 

droughts; frequency and magnitude of extreme events) 

affect water management?

How will the loss of snowpack and change in stream 

flows affect aquatic and riparian ecosystems?

How will the increase in climate variability affect 

aquatic, riparian, and upland ecosystems?

Native ecosystems and species at risk

What are the past fire responses to long-term trends in 

temperature and drought?

How does climate variability between years and decades 

affect the frequency, severity, and extent of wildfire?

What are the relationships among elevation, climate 

change, and the responses of native species?

What are the relationships between climate change and 

invasion by non-native species?

How does climate variability affect colonization, migration, local population extinction, and range expansion of 

sensitive plant and animal species?

What are the relationships among climate change, 

infectious disease, and insect outbreaks?

Existing Programs and Resources

National efforts

NOAA Climate Program Office. http://www.climate.

noaa.gov [2007, July 17]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Climate Change 

Science. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html 

[2007, July 17]

U.S. Global Change Research Program http://www.

usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/default.php [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, U.S. Global Change Research 

in the USDA Forest Service. 21 Oct. 2007. http://www.

fs.fed.us/ne/global/fsgcrp/index.html [2007, July 17]

U.S. Geological Survey, Global Climate Change Research. http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/climate-change/index.html [2007, 

July 17]

U.S. Climate Change Science Program. http://www.

climatescience.gov [2007, July 17]

University of California, Santa Cruz, Department 

of Earth and Planetary Sciences. Paleoclimate and 

Climate Change Research Group. http://www.es.ucsc.

edu/~lcsloan/ [2007, July 17]

University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, U.S. National 

Phenological Network. 14 Mar. 2007. http://www.uwm.

edu/Dept/Geography/npn [2007, July 17]

Regional efforts

U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Surface Dynamics. Climate Change Science. 27 Mar. 2007. http://geochange.

er.usgs.gov/ [2007, July 17]

University of Washington, Joint Institute for the Study 

of the Atmosphere and the Ocean. Climate Impacts Group 

http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/ [2007, July 17]

Desert Research Institute, Division of Earth and Ecosystem 

Science. 2006. Nevada Desert FACE Facility. http://www.

dees.dri.edu/Projects/lynn_ndff.htm [2007, July 17]

National Environmental Observatory Network. Intermountain Regional Observatory Network. http://www.

neoninc.org/ [2007, July 17]

Consortium for Integrated Climate Research in Western 

Mountains http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/ [2007, 

July 17]

The Western Mountain Initiative – A Network of Mountain Protected Areas for Global Change Research. 8 Feb 

2007 http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.fme/wmi/

index.htm [2007, July 17]

References

Baldwin, C. K.; Wagner, F. H.; Lall, U. 2003. Water Resources. 

Pages 79-112, in Wagner, F. H. (editor). Rocky Mountain/Great 

Basin Regional Climate-Change Assessment. Report of the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program. Utah State University, Logan, 

UT: IV 240pp.

Cayan, D. R.; Kammerdiener, S. A.; Dettinger, M. D.; Caprio, J. M.; 

Peterson, D. H. 2001. Changes in the onset of spring in the western United States. Bulletin American Meteorological Society. 82: 

399-415.

Cubashi, U.; Meehl, G. A.; Boer, G. J. 2001. Projections of future 

climate change. Pages 525-582, In Houghton, J. T. et al. (editors). 

Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of the 

Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Dettinger, M. D. 2005. From climate-change spaghetti to climatechange distributions for 21st century California. San Fancisco 

Estuary and Watershed Science. 3: 1-14.

Hurd, B.; Leary, N.; Jones, R.; Smith, J. 1999. Relative regional 

vulnerability of water resources to climate change. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association. 35: 1399-1409.

Link, S. O.; Keeler, C. W.; Hill, R. W.; Hagen, E. 2006. Bromus 

tectorum cover mapping and fire risk. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 15: 113-119.

Logan, J. A. 2006. Climate change induced invasions by native and 

exotic pests. Extended Abstract, Keynote Address for the 17th 
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

USDA Interagency Research Forum on Gypsy Moth and Other 

Invasive Species, Annapolis, MD, 10-13 January 2006.

McKenzie, D.; Gedalof, Z.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Mote, P. 2004. Climate change, wildfire and conservation. Conservation Biology. 

18: 890-902.

Miller, R. F.; Tausch, R. J.; McArthur, D. E.; Johnson, D.; Sanderson, 

S. C. [In press]. Development of post-settlement piñon-juniper 

woodlands in the Intermountain West: A regional perspective. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-TBD. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Mote, P. W.; Hamlet, A. F.; Clark, M. P.; Lettenmaier, D. P. 2005. 

Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin 

of the American Meteorological Society. 86: 39-49.

Murphy, D. D.; Weiss, S. B. 1992. Effects of climate change on 

biological diversity in Western North America: Species losses and 

mechanisms. In: Peters, R. L.; Lovejoy, T. E., eds. Global warming and biological diversity, Castleton, NY: Hamilton Printing: 

Chapter 26.

Smith, S. D.; Huzman, T. E.; Zitzer, S. F.; Charlet, T. N.; Housman, D. 

C.; Coleman, J. S.; Fenstermaker, L. K.; Seeman, J. R.; Nowak, R. 

S. 2000. Elevated CO2 increases productivity and invasive species 

success in an arid system. Nature. 408: 79-81.

Stewart, I. T.; Cayan, D. R.; Dettinger, M. D. 2004. Changes in snowmelt timing in western North America under a ‘business as usual’ 

climate change scenario. Climate Change. 62: 217-232.

Wagner, F. H., ed. 2003. Preparing for a changing climate- the potential 

consequences of climate variability and change. Rocky Mountain/

Great Basin regional climate-change assessment. A report of the 

Rocky Mountain/Great Basin Regional Assessment Team for the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. Logan, UT: Utah State 

University. 240 p.

Westerling, A. L.; Hidalgo, H. G.; Cayan, D. R.; Swetnam, T. W. 2006. 

Warming and earlier spring increase U.S. forest wildfire activity. 

Science. 313(5789): 940-943.

Ziska, L. H.; Reeves III, J. B.; Blank, B. 2005. The impact of recent 

increases in atmospheric CO2 on biomass production and vegetative 

retention of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): implications for fire 

disturbance. Global Change Biology. 11:1325-1332.

Additional Information on 

Global Climate Change

Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, 

P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson C.A., eds. 2001. Climate change 

2001: The scientific basis. contribution of Working Group I to the 

Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). New York: Cambridge University Press. 944p.

National Research Council. 2002. Abrupt climate change: Inevitable 

surprises. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 200 p. plus 

appendices.

National Research Council. 2005. Radiative forcing of climate change: 

Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press. 190 p. plus appendices.

National Research Council (NRC). 2006. Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 Years. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press. 196p.

U.S. National Academy Committee on the Science of Climate Change. 

2001.Climate change science: An analysis of key questions. Washington, DC National Academy Press. Available: http://Newton.nap.

edu/html/climatechange/ [2007, July 17].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Policy. 1998. 

Climate Change and Nevada. EPA 236-F-98-007o. (Available for 

all states.)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 33

Fire regimes in Great Basin ecosystems have changed 

significantly since settlement of the region in the mid- to 

late 1800s. The following provides an overview of the 

nature and consequences of altered fire regimes, factors 

influencing the changes, and research and management 

questions that need to be addressed to maintain sustainable ecosystems. For more detailed information, please 

see the list of references and recommended links.

What are the consequences of 

altered fire regimes?

Major changes are occurring in Great Basin vegetation 

communities—(1) In forested systems, a decrease in fire 

frequency due largely to fire exclusion has resulted in a 

shift in species composition from early-seral, shade intolerant species to late-seral shade tolerant species. Increases 

in vertical stand structure (fuel ladders) and biomass 

(fuel loads) are resulting in more severe fires (Keane and 

others 2002). (2) In the pinyon-juniper woodland zone, 

decreased fire frequency due to fire exclusion, overgrazing through the mid-1900s, and climate change initially 

facilitated expansion and in-filling of pinyon and juniper 

trees. As stands mature and canopy closure occurs, the 

risk of higher-severity crown fires is increasing (Miller 

and others, in press). (3) In arid and semi-arid shrublands 

and lower-elevation pinyon-juniper woodlands, an increase in annual invasive grasses, coupled with higher 

fire frequencies, is resulting in progressive conversion 

of these ecosystem types to near homogenous grasslands 

dominated by invaders (Brooks and Pyke 2001).

Changes occurring in vegetation communities are 

decreasing biodiversity and placing species at risk—

Populations of many sagebrush-associated species are in 

decline, and approximately 20 percent of the ecosystem’s 

native flora and fauna are considered imperiled (Center 

for Science, Economics and Environment 2002). Fire 

exclusion in forests that historically experienced higher 

fire frequencies has resulted in increased landscape 

homogeneity and decreased patch diversity. Vegetation 

types that depend on more frequent and lower severity 

Fire and the Great Basin

Jeanne C. Chambers

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Reno, NV

fires are decreasing in abundance, as are the plant and 

animal species associated with these types (Keane and 

others 2002). Aspen is declining in many mixed-conifer 

forests, placing species dependent on aspen habitat at risk. 

DeByle (1985) documented over 134 bird and 55 mammal 

species that regularly use aspen forest. Similarly, in midelevation sagebrush ecosystems, expansion and in-filling 

of pinyon and juniper trees within the woodland zone is 

resulting in the progressive displacement of sagebrush 

and its associated species (Wisdom 2005). In mid- to low 

elevation sagebrush ecosystems, salt desert ecosystems, 

and lower elevation pinyon-juniper woodlands, progressive conversion to exotic annual grasslands is resulting 

in the widespread deterioration of these habitats.

Changes in vegetation communities and fire regimes 

are affecting watershed function—In forest systems, fire 

exclusion and transition to late-seral plant communities 

can result in greater soil water loss via evapotranspiration 

and snow ablation that causes decreased stream flows 

(Keane and others 2002). In more arid pinyon-juniper 

and sagebrush ecosystems, soil water storage is variable 

and may or may not be affected by fire depending on soil 

characteristics and precipitation regimes (Neary and others 2005). Increases in fire extent and severity can result in 

accelerated rates of soil erosion and sediment production 

depending on precipitation following the fire. Increased 

levels of suspended sediment and turbidity often have the 

largest effects on water quality after fire (Neary and others 

2005). Water temperatures can increase following fire due 

to removal of stream bank vegetation. This can increase 

biotic productivity and decrease levels of dissolved O2. 

These changes in water quality can negatively affect 

aquatic organisms including fish. Ultimately, impacts on 

watershed function can be detrimental to users of water 

(communities, agriculture, and industry) dependent on 

wildlands for water of adequate quantity and quality.

Changes in vegetation composition and structure are 

resulting in the loss of ecosystem services and straining 

the capacity of management agencies—There has been 

a loss of forage and browse, reducing carrying capacity 
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

for both livestock and wildlife, as a result of shrub and 

tree encroachment. Similar losses are occurring as a result 

of larger and more severe fires. For example, in 2006, 

500,000 ha (1.3 million acres) burned in Elko County, 

Nevada. This loss of habitat prompted the Department 

of Wildlife to release additional hunting permits and 

transplant animals (pronghorn antelope) out of the area. 

Large fires are resulting in increased fire suppression 

costs and emergency rehabilitation efforts with over $19 

million spent annually on the restoration of sagebrush 

ecosystems alone. Between 1998 and 2002, the BLM 

seeded an average of 1.3 million kilos (2.9 million lbs) 

of seed/year on burned areas. Despite this restoration, 

success is often unsatisfactory.

Wildland fires are emitting air pollutants that can be 

harmful to human health and welfare—The Federal Wildland Fire Policy (U.S. Department of the Interior – U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 1995) and the Clean Air Act as 

Amended 1990 (PL 101-549) established regulatory and 

management requirements for determining emissions and 

air quality impacts from both wildfires and prescribed 

fires. Smoke management and air quality programs are 

being implemented with support from research and land 

management agency programs. These programs directly 

affect use of prescribed fire in most fire dependent ecosystems within the West. Management of smoke from 

all burning rests with each state. This emphasizes the 

importance of interstate/intrastate coordination. Effective 

monitoring systems and predictive tools are necessary 

to facilitate fire management and to alert the public and 

air regulators of air quality threats.

Why are the changes occurring?

Climate has a major influence on fire frequency and 

severity, but effects vary for the different ecosystem 

types in the region—Drought or extreme fire weather 

results in more frequent and larger fires in both forests 

and shrublands (Keane and others 2002). High elevation 

subalpine forests are characterized by low frequency, 

high severity fires. Moister and cooler conditions in 

most years decrease fire frequency and allow woody fuel 

buildup. This results in high severity fires when climatic 

conditions are conducive to fires. Lower elevation forests, such as ponderosa pine forests (Pinus ponderosa), 

typically exhibit higher frequency, lower severity fires 

due to annual “drought” and higher levels of fine fuels. 

In arid to semi-arid shrublands, conditions that promote 

fine-fuel accumulation (wet falls, winters, and springs) or 

accumulation of fine fuels during the previous growing 

season increase fire probabilities (Westerling and others 

2003). Climate change and warmer temperatures during 

recent decades have resulted in longer fire seasons, and a 

drying trend may be contributing to more frequent periods 

of extreme fire weather (Westerling and others 2006).

Fire exclusion has influenced both forest and rangeland 

ecosystems, especially areas that burned more frequently 

in the past—Fire exclusion in forests has resulted in increased woody fuels primarily in mid-elevation forests 

with mixed-severity fire regimes and in lower elevation 

ponderosa pine forests with relatively high fire frequencies (Keane and others 2002, Schoennagel and others 

2004). Woody fuel accumulations, coupled with longer 

and warmer fire seasons, have resulted in larger and more 

severe fires in these forest types during recent decades. 

Increases in woody fuels in shrubland and woodland types 

are due not only to fire exclusion, but also to climate 

change and overgrazing by livestock, which disfavors 

herbaceous species (fine fuels) (Miller and others, in 

press). In many shrubland and woodland types, fuels are 

greater and fire frequency is higher on deeper soils and 

moister sites (Bauer 2006, Johnson and Miller 2006). In 

recent decades, fires on these sites also have tended to 

be larger and more severe than in the past. Vegetation 

types on shallow soils and harsher (arid or cold) sites with 

sparse fuels have always been characterized by longer 

fire return intervals and thus are relatively unaffected by 

fire exclusion.

Invasive alien plants are expanding throughout the 

region affecting fire frequency, size and severity—The 

most significant of these are fire-adapted annual grasses, 

such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), which increase 

fine fuels, have high flammability, and increase the rate 

of fire spread (Link and others 2006). In many parts of 

the region, an annual grass-fire cycle now exists in which 

fire return intervals have decreased from about 60 to 

110 years to as little as 3 to 5 years (Whisenant 1990). 

It is estimated that cheatgrass monocultures covered a 

minimum of almost 2 million ha (7,720 mi2

) or 5 percent 

in the 1990s (Bradley and Mustard 2005) – an additional 

15 million ha (57,900 mi2) have been estimated to be at 

high risk of cheatgrass invasion (Suring and others 2005). 

The invasion of cheatgrass into more arid salt desert 

ecosystem types is resulting in fires in ecosystems that 

did not burn previously (Brooks and Pyke 2001). More 

recently, weedy forbs, such as knapweeds (Centaurea 

spp.), are establishing and spreading through the region 

but their effects on fire regimes are poorly understood.

In the Great Basin area, human populations are growing 

at the highest rate in the nation increasing the risk of fire 

at the wildland urban interface—In the western United 

States, 38 percent of all new homes are constructed in the 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 35

wildland urban interface. Human activities such as arson 

or trash burning cause many interface fires, especially 

under weather conditions conducive to wildfire like low 

relative humidity, high temperatures, and high winds (for 

example, Keeley and others 1999). Homeowners in these 

areas expect fire protection, but access and water are 

often limited and fire fighting tactics differ considerably 

for wildfires versus structures. Fire prevention programs 

focused on outreach and education, reducing hazardous 

fuels, and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems adjacent 

to the wildland urban interface are being emphasized, 

but require collaboration among state, local, and federal 

agencies as well as homeowners.

Ongoing land uses and management treatments are 

influencing fire regimes—Increased access and human 

use of wildland ecosystems by humans have increased 

fire starts across the region. Roads, off-road vehicle and 

recreational use, and livestock grazing have increased the 

spread of flammable invasive grasses (Wisdom and others 2005). Overgrazing by livestock has decreased native 

herbaceous species and given a competitive advantage to 

non-native invaders such as cheatgrass and woody species. Management treatments designed to reduce woody 

biomass in past decades have met with varying success, 

especially on rangelands. The sagebrush or pinyon and juniper targeted for removal have reestablished or regrown, 

introduced species seeded onto the sites have decreased 

biodiversity, and non-native species have invaded treated 

areas. The resulting changes in vegetation composition 

have altered both fuel structure and fire regimes, often 

with unknown consequences for these ecosystems.

Research and 

Management Questions

What are the relationships of past and present weather 

and climate patterns to past and present fire regimes?

What are the effects of climate change on changes in 

stand structure and composition and the resultant fire 

regimes?

What are the relationships among fuel and fire management and carbon balance?

In which ecosystem types and to what degree have 

fuels increased with fire suppression?

Where are forest and rangeland restoration treatments 

appropriate and how will fire respond to fuel-reduction 

treatments in different types?

Where and when is the influence of short-term (in other 

words, seasonal and annual) climatic variation expected 

to override the effectiveness of fuels treatments?

What are the abiotic and biotic thresholds of ecosystem 

recovery from wildfires and fuels treatments?

What is the landscape composition and structure (in 

other words, patterns described by patch size, shape, and 

type) necessary to maintain critical habitat for both plants 

and animals and thus biotic diversity?

What is the disturbance regime (natural and anthropogenic) 

needed to maintain a desired landscape-mosaic structure?

What are the effects of both wildfire and fuels management on ecosystem resistance and susceptibility to 

non-native invaders?

What are the most effective treatments and management actions for restoring ecosystems affected by fire 

exclusion?

What are the most effective post-fire treatments and 

management actions for restoring ecosystems?

What are the effects of changes in fire regimes on 

watershed function?

What are the effects of the size, severity, and pattern of 

disturbance resulting from wildfire or fuels treatments on 

watershed function (erosion, water quality and quantity, 

and biotic organisms)?

What are the effects of fire on riparian ecosystems, 

stream channels, and aquatic habitat?

What are the relationships among fire characteristics, 

post-fire climatic events, watershed processes, and aquatic 

habitat?

What are the relationships among drought, fire severity, 

and watershed function?

What are the effects of fire rehabilitation treatments 

on watershed functioning?

What are the most effective monitoring systems for 

facilitating fire attack strategies and resource allocation 

decisions and for tracking fire, fire severity, and smoke 

concentrations and dispersion?

What are the most effective models and software tools 

for predicting smoke concentrations and dispersion based 

on fire characteristics and weather?

What are the most effective methods for determining the contribution of live vegetation consumption, 

masticated fuels combustion, and duff smoldering by 

fire to smoke generation and carbon emissions?
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Existing Programs and Resources

Joint Fire Sciences Program. An Interagency Research 

Partnership. http://www.firescience.gov [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Wildland Fire Research. http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/

research/programs-and-laboratories/ [2007, July 17]

Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project. http://

www.sagestep.org / [2007, July 17]

U.S. Geological Survey. Fire and Invasive Annual 

Grasses in Western Ecosystems Research Project. 21 July 

2004. http://www.werc.usgs.gov/fire/lv/fireandinvasives/

study_ecosystems.htm [2007 July 17]

National Fire Plan. Homepage. 29 Apr. 2007. http://

www.fireplan.gov/ [2007, July 17]

NOAA. National Weather Service: National Fire 

Weather Page. http://fire.boi.noaa.gov/ [2007, July 17]

National Interagency Fire Center. http://www.nifc.gov 

[2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service Fire and Aviation Management. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/ [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Center, Real 

Time Fire Weather and Smoke Forecasting for the Western 

United States. http://fireweather.info/ [2007, July 17]

Landfire (Landscape Fire and Resource Management 

Planning Tools Project). http://www.landfire.gov/index.

php [2007, July 17]

Systems for Environmental Management. Fire.org, 

Public Domain Software for the Wildland Fire Community. 2007. http://www.fire.org/ [2007, July 17]

Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Funded by the 

Joint Fire Sciences Program. http://jfsp.fortlewis.edu/ 

[2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Fire Effects Information System. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/index.html [2007, July 17]

Strategic Plans

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. 

Interim air quality policy on wildland and prescribed 

fires. http://www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/caa/fires.

pdf [2007, July 17]

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2006. 

Wildland fire and fuels research and development strategic 

plan: meeting the needs of the present, anticipating the 

needs of the future. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Research and Development. 

FS-854. 50 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/pdf/2006-

10-20-wildland-book.pdf [2007, July 17]

U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 2006. Protecting people and natural resources: a cohesive fuels treatment strategy. http://www.

forestsandrangelands.gov/ [2007, July 17]

Western Governors Association. 2006. A collaborative 

approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities 

and the environment. 10-year comprehensive strategy. 

Implementation Plan. http://www.forestsandrangelands.

gov/plan/documents/10-YearStrategyFinal_Dec2006.pdf 

[2007, July 17]

References

Bauer, J.M. 2006. Fire history and stand structure of a central Nevada 

pinyon-juniper woodland. M.S. thesis. Reno, NV: University of 

Nevada Reno. 142p. Thesis. Available: http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/

weisberg/John-Research.htm [2007, July 17].

Bradley, B. A.; Mustard, J. F. 2005. Identifying land cover variability 

distinct from land cover change: cheatgrass in the Great Basin. 

Remote Sensing of Environment. 94: 204-213.

Brooks, M. L.; Pyke D. A. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts 

of North America. In: Galley, K. M.; Wilson, T. P., eds. Proceedings 

of the Invasive Species Workshop: the Role of Fire in the Control 

and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: the First 

National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management.; 

2000 November 27-December 1; San Diego, CA. Misc. Publ. No. 

11, Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 1-14.

Center for Science, Economics and Environment. 2002. The state of 

the nation’s ecosystems: measuring the lands, waters and living 

resources of the United States. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 288 p. Available: http://www.heinzctr.org/

ecosystems/report.html, with 2005 updates [2007, July 17].

Debyle, N. V. 1985. Wildlife. In: DeByle, N.V. Winokur, R. P. eds. 

Aspen: ecology and management in the Western United States. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-119. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station: 135-152.

Johnson, D. D.; Miller, R. F. 2006. Structure and development of 

expanding western juniper woodlands as influenced by two topographic variables. Forest Ecology and Management. 229: 7-15.

Keeley, J. E.; Fotheringham, C. J.; Morais, M. 1999. Reexamining 

fire suppression impacts on brushland fire regimes. Science. 284: 

1829-1832.

Keane, R. E.; Ryan, K. C.; Veblen, T. T.; Allen, C. D.; Logan, J.; 

Hawkes, B. 2002. Cascading effects of fire exclusion in Rocky 

Mountain ecosystems: a literature review. Gen. Tech Rep. RMRSGTR-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 14 p.

Link, S. O.; Keeler, C. W.; Hill, R. W.; Hagen, E. 2006. Bromus 

tectorum cover mapping and fire risk. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 15: 113-119.

Miller, R. F.; Tausch, R. J.; McArthur, D. E.; Johnson, D.; Sanderson, 

S. C. [In Press]. Development of Post-Settlement Piñon-Juniper 

Woodlands in the Intermountain West: A regional perspective. Gen. 

Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-TBD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 37

Neary, D. G.; Ryan, K. C.; DeBano, L. F., eds. 2005. Wildland fire 

in ecosystems: effects of fire on soil and water. Gen. Tech Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-42-Vol. 4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250p.

Schoennagel, T.; Veblen T. T.; Romme, W. H. 2004. The interaction 

of fire, fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain forests. BioScience. 54: 661-671.

Suring, L. H.; Wisdom, M. J.; Tausch, R. J [and others]. 2005. 

Modeling threats to sagebrush and other shrubland communities. 

In: Wisdom, M. J.; Rowland M. M.; Suring, L. H., eds. Habitat 

threats in the sagebrush ecosystems: methods of regional assessment and application in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance 

Communications Group, Allen Press: 114-119.

U.S. Department of Interior –U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. 

Federal wildland fire management policy and program review. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho.

Westerling, A. L.; Gershunov, A.; Brown, T. J.; Cayan, D. R.; Dettinger, M. D. 2003. Climate and wildfire in the western United 

States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 84(5): 

595-604.

Westerling, A. L.; Hidalgo, H. G.; Cayan, D. R.; Swetnam, T. W. 2006. 

Warming and earlier spring increase U.S. forest wildfire activity. 

Science. 313(5789): 940-943.

Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake 

River Plains: ecological and management implications. In: McArthur, E. D.; Romney, E. M.;Smith, S. D.; Tueller, P. T., comps. 

Proceedings – Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off 

and other aspects of shrub biology and management. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-276. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Wisdom, M. J.; Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L. H. 2005. Habitat threats 

in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and 

applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications Group, Allen Press.

Ziska, L. H.; Reeves, III, J. B.; Blank, B. 2005. The impact of recent 

increases in atmospheric CO2 on biomass production and vegetative retention of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): Implications 

for fire disturbance.Global Change Biology. 11: 1325-1332.
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Invasive plant species have significantly affected Great 

Basin ecosystems. The following provides an overview of 

those effects and the consequences for native ecosystems 

and the services they provide. For more detailed information, please see the list of references and recommended 

links.

Great Basin plant communities have been altered by 

non-native plant species—Exotic annual grasses such 

as medusahead (Taenatherum caput-medusa), red brome 

(Bromus rubens), and especially cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum), are rapidly expanding throughout the region 

resulting in the widespread deterioration of mid- to low 

elevation sagebrush and salt desert ecosystems (Brooks 

and Pyke 2001). Exotic annual grasses have altered fire 

regimes in native communities by increasing fine fuels 

and the rate of fire spread (Link and others 2006). In many 

parts of the region, an annual grass-fire cycle now exists in 

which fire return intervals have decreased from about 60 

to 110 years to as little as 3 to 5 years (Whisenant 1990). 

It is estimated that cheatgrass monocultures covered a 

minimum of 2 million ha (7,720 mi2

) or 5 percent of the 

Great Basin in the 1990s (Bradley and Mustard 2005) - an 

additional 15 million ha (57,900 mi2

) have been estimated 

to be at high risk of cheatgrass invasion (Suring and 

others 2005). Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 can 

result in higher production and water-use efficiency of 

cheatgrass and may be increasing its invasibility (Smith 

and others 2000, Ziska and others 2005). In addition, 

resistance of native communities to invasion has been 

decreased by disturbances such as fire and depletion of 

native perennial grasses and forbs by livestock. Biomass 

and seed production of cheatgrass can increase 2 to 3 times 

following removal of perennial grasses and forbs, 2 to 

6 times after fire, but 10 to 30 times following removal 

and burning (Chambers and others 2006). 

Weedy forbs are rapidly spreading across many parts 

of the region. Squarrose knapweed (Centaureasquarrosa) 

affects 60,703 ha (150,000 acres) in at least 10 counties in Utah (Fosse, personal communication). Yellow 

starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) is currently concentrated in California where it occurs in every county and 

Invasive Plant Species and the Great Basin

Jeanne C. Chambers

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Reno, NV

infests nearly 4.86 million ha (12 million acres), but is 

increasingly found in the Great Basin (Murphy 2005). 

Rush skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea) is currently most 

abundant on the Snake River Plain, but has the potential to 

invade much of the Great Basin (Shaw and others 2005). 

These weedy forbs and several other species, including 

dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria) and thistles (Cirsium and 

Carduus spp), are most problematic in Wyoming and 

mountain big sagebrush communities. Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), a broadly distributed and 

highly invasive perennial herbaceous species, is invading 

wetland and riparian areas across the Great Basin (Boelk 

2005).

Non-native woody species of concern currently are 

limited primarily to saltcedar species (Tamarix spp.). This 

exotic shrub from Eurasia is a major threat to western 

riparian ecosystems. Saltcedar is capable of displacing 

or replacing native plant communities and altering both 

stream processes and watershed function (Dudley and 

DeLoach 2004).

Non-native plant species are having major effects on 

the biodiversity of the region—Higher fire frequencies 

and the ongoing expansion of annual grasses and weedy 

forbs such as knapweed are increasing landscape homogeneity and decreasing patch diversity across much of 

the Great Basin. Many of the shrubs that characterize 

these ecosystems, such as antelope bitterbrush (Purshia 

tridentata), big sagebrush (Artemisiatridentata spp.), and 

associated native understory grasses and forbs, are being 

progressively eliminated (West 1983).These changes are 

decreasing the quality and quantity of sagebrush habitat. 

Populations of many sagebrush-associated species are in 

decline and approximately 20 percent of the ecosystem’s 

native flora and fauna are considered imperiled (Center 

for Science, Economics and Environment 2002). A recent 

assessment of habitat threats in Great Basin ecosystems 

identified 207 species of conservation concern associated 

with sagebrush habitats including 133 plants, 11 reptiles 

and amphibians, and 63 birds and mammals (Rowland 

and others 2005). Species of particular concern include 

sage grouse (Centrocercus spp.) and pygmy rabbits 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 39

(Brachylagus idahoensis) (Knick and others 2003). One 

of the major risks to these species is continued habitat 

displacement by cheatgrass (Rowland and others 2005). 

Many of the weedy forbs expanding in the Great Basin 

exist in monocultures that exclude native vegetation 

and degrade wildlife habitat. Perennial pepperweed and 

Tamarisk may be contributing to the decline of many 

native plant and animal species associated with riparian 

areas (Young and others 1995, Dudley and DeLoach 

2004).

Invasive plant species are decreasing the capacity 

of native ecosystems to provide important ecosystem services—In addition to the loss of habitat and 

biodiversity, invasive plant species can impact local 

communities and agencies by decreasing watershed 

function and rangeland productivity and increasing 

fire frequency. Conversion of sagebrush ecosystems 

to annual grass or weedy forb dominance has altered 

watershed functioning. Soil and water losses have occurred where tap-rooted weeds such as knapweed and 

yellow starthistle have replaced native grasses. Surface 

water runoff and soil erosion were 56 and 192 percent 

higher, respectively, on spotted knapweed dominated 

rangeland compared to native bunchgrass dominated 

sites (Lacey and others 1989). Invasive annual grasses 

can effectively stabilize topsoil, but loss of vegetative cover following fires or other disturbances can 

increase overland flow and surface erosion (Knapp 

1996). Thus, conversion to annual grasses or weedy 

forbs can result in loss of soil nutrients, siltation of 

streams and rivers, and increased susceptibility to 

flooding (Knapp 1996). More frequent fires associated 

with cheatgrass invasion can result in increased costs 

for land management agencies and lost revenues for 

local communities. In 2006, 526,000 ha (1.3 million 

acres) burned in Elko County, Nevada, prompting the 

Department of Wildlife to release additional hunting 

permits and to transplant animals (pronghorn antelope) 

out of the area. These types of large fires are increasing emergency rehabilitation efforts across the region 

with over $19 million spent annually on restoration of 

sagebrush ecosystems (BLM internal report). Despite 

these efforts, areas with low precipitation remain 

extremely difficult to rehabilitate/restore after type 

conversion to annual weeds. Type conversion to annual 

grasses or weedy forbs decreases forage quality and 

availability for livestock. Local communities benefit 

from money spent for fire suppression, but can suffer 

from property loss associated with wildfires, health 

and safety risks due to smoke and particulate matter, 

and a loss of recreational value and income. 

Management Challenges

Prevention—Collaborative partnerships are needed to 

conduct species risk assessments, identify priority invasive 

species and areas at risk of invasion, and develop and implement prevention programs that include public education.

Early detection and rapid response—Collaborative 

partnerships are needed to develop methods for quickly 

and accurately detecting introductions of invasive species, for assessing if the introductions are in priority or 

high risk ecosystems, and for assembling rapid response 

teams that cross jurisdictional boundaries to respond to 

new introductions. 

Control and management—A comprehensive assessment of invasive species is needed to identify priority 

species and areas for program focus. An understanding 

of the mechanisms of invasive species expansion coupled 

with integrated control strategies (biological, cultural, 

chemical, and physical) are needed for effective management. Long-term monitoring programs are needed to 

evaluate changes in species distributions or abundances 

and the effects of control efforts.

Rehabilitation and restoration—Collaborative partnerships are needed to select native plant species that can 

establish and persist under competition from non-native 

invaders; develop an infrastructure for producing, purchasing, and warehousing seed supplies of native plants; 

and develop methods for reestablishing and maintaining 

native plant communities.

Research and 

Management Questions

What are the effects of climate change on species 

invasions?

What are the effects of land use (societal patterns and 

development patterns) on species invasions?

What are the rates of expansion of invasive plant species, types of management activities that increase invasion rates, and types of ecosystems where expansion is 

occurring most rapidly? 

What ecosystem properties/processes convey resistance 

or susceptibility to invasion?

What ecosystems are at greatest risk of invasion?

What attributes of invasive species allow successful 

invasion of the Great Basin?

What are the effects of invasive species on watershed 

function and water resources? 
40 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

What are the effects of invasive species on plant communities and biodiversity?

What are the effects of invasive species with different 

life forms, annual grasses, weedy forbs, and woody species on fire regimes?

Can changes in current management activities be 

used to decrease the rates of invasion sustain native and 

ecosystem?

What are the most appropriate scales and stages of 

invasion at which to target control activities?

What are the most effective methods or integrated 

methods for controlling priority invasive species?

What are the most effective methods for reestablishing 

native species while controlling invasive species?

What are the effects of efforts to control invasive species on native plant communities and biodiversity?

Existing Programs and Resources

USDA Agricultural Research Service. Exotic and 

Invasive Weeds Research Unit. 19 http://www.ars.usda.

gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=53-25-43-00 [2007, 

July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Great Basin Ecology Lab. http://www.ag.unr.edu/

gbem/ [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Shrub Sciences Lab 30 Aug. 2006. http://www.

fs.fed.us/rm/provo/ [2007, July 17]

USDI Bureau of Land Management Great Basin Restoration Initiative. http://www.fire.blm.gov/gbri/ [2007, 

July 17]

U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research 

Center. Invasive Species Research. 31 Oct. 2002. http://

www.werc.usgs.gov/invasivespecies/ [2007, July 17]

U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project: 30 June 2003. http://fresc.usgs.gov/research/

StudyDetail.asp?Study_ID=305 [2007, July 17]

The Nature Conservancy, Global Invasive Species Initiative (ISI). http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu [2007, July 17]

Plant Conservation Alliance. Alien Plant Working 

Group; Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas. Fact sheets, 

plant lists, and background information. http://www.nps.

gov/plants/alien/ [2007, July 17].

Center for Invasive Plant Management. Fighting weeds 

in the western United States. http://www.weedcenter.org/ 

[2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service. Fire Effects Information System. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2007, July 17] 

Provides up-to-date information about fire effects on 

animals and plants.

University of Montana, Missoula. Invaders Database 

System. Noxious weed lists, and weeds of the northwest 

United States. http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/ [2007, July 17]

Idaho Weed Control Association. http://idahoweedcontrol.org/ [2007, July 17]

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

PLANTS database. A good extensive database with noxious weed lists for all Great Basin states. http://plants.

usda.gov/ [2007, July 17] 

USDA National Agricultural Library. National Invasive 

Species Information Center. 2 May 2007. http://www.

invasivespeciesinfo.gov/index.shtml [2007, July 17] 

Invasive species information; covering Federal, State, 

local, and international sources. Southwest Exotic Plant 

Information Clearinghouse. http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/

research/projects/swepic/swepic.asp [2007, July 17]

U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center. 

Invasive Species Science. http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/

ISS/ [2007, July 17]

Strategic Plans

USDA Forest Service. 2004. National strategy and 

implementation plan for invasive species management. 

FS-805. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ftp/

invasives/documents/Final_National_Strategy_100804.

pdf [2007, July 17]

State of Idaho. 2005. Idaho’s Action Plan for Invasive 

Species. http://www.idl.idaho.gov/invasivespecies/invasive_species_resources/idaho_invasive_species_plan.

pdf [2007, July 17]

References

Boelk, D. A. 2005. Fact Sheet: Perennial pepperweed. Alien Plant 

Working Group. Weeds Gone Wild: Alien Plant Invaders of Natural 

Areas. [Webpage of the Alien Plant Working Group], [Online]. 

Available: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/lela1.htm [2007, 

July 17]. 

Bradley, B. A.; Mustard, J. F. 2005. Identifying land cover variability 

distinct from land cover change: cheatgrass in the Great Basin. 

Remote Sensing of Environment. 94: 204-213.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 41

Brooks, M. L.; Pyke, D. A. 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the 

deserts of North America. Pages 1-14. In: Galley, K. M.; Wilson, 

T. P., eds. Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: the 

Role of Fire in the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire 

Conference 2000: the First National Congress on Fire Ecology, 

Prevention, and Management.; 2000 November 27-December 1; 

San Diego, CA. Misc. Publ. No. 11, Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers 

Research Station: 1-14.

Bureau of Land Management. Internal Report. 

Center for Science, Economics and Environment. 2002. The state of 

the nation’s ecosystems: measuring the lands, waters and living 

resources of the United States. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 288 p. Available: http://www.heinzctr.org/

ecosystems/report.html, with 2005 updates [2007, July 17].

Chambers, J. C.; Roundy, B.A.; Blank, R. R.; Meyer, S. E.; Whittaker, 

A. 2006. What makes Great Basin sagebrush ecosystems invasible 

by Bromus tectorum? Ecological Monographs. 77:117-145.

Dudley, T. L.; DeLoach, C. J. 2004. Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) Endangered species and biological weed control- can they mix. Weed 

Technology. 18: 1542-1551.

Knapp, P. A. 1996. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) dominance in the 

Great Basin desert. Global Environmental Change. 6:37-52.

Knick, S. T.; Dobkin, D. S.; Rotenberry, J. T.; Schroeder, M. A.; 

Vander Haegen, W. Matthew; Van Riper III, C. 2003. Teetering on 

the edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna 

of sagebrush habitats. The Condor. 105: 611-634.

Lacey, J. R.; Marlow, C. B.; Lane, J. R. 1989. Influence of spotted 

knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on surface water runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technology. 3: 627-631.

Link, S. O.; Keeler, C. W.; Hill, R. W.; Hagen, E. 2006. Bromus 

tectorum cover mapping and fire risk. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 15:113-119.

Murphy, A. 2005. Fact Sheet: yellow starthistle. Alien Plant Working 

Group. Weeds Gone Wild: Alien Plant Invaders of Natural Areas. 

[Webpage of the Alien Plant Working Group], [Online]. Available: 

http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/ceso1.htm [2007, July 17].

Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L. H.; Wisdom, M. J.; Meinke, C. W.; 

Schueck, L. 2005. Habitats for vertebrate species of concern. In: 

Wisdom, M. J.; Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L. H., eds. 2005. Habitat 

threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance 

Communications Group, Allen Press: 163-204.

Shaw, N. L.; Lambert, S. M.; DeBolt, A. M.; Pellant, M. 2005. Increasing native forb seed supplies for the Great Basin. In: Dumroese, R. K.; 

Riley, L. E.; Landis, T. D., tech. coords. 2005. National proceedings: 

Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations—2004; 2004 July 

12–15; Charleston, NC; and 2004 July 26–29; Medford, OR. Proc. 

RMRS-P-35. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 94-102.

Smith, S. D.; Huzman, T. E.; Zitzer, S. F.; Charlet, T. N.; Housman, 

D. C.; Coleman, J. S.; Fenstermaker, L. K.; Seeman, J. R.; and 

Nowak, R. S. 2000. Elevated CO2 increases productivity and invasive species success in an arid system. Nature. 408: 79-81.

Suring, L. H.; Wisdom, M. J.; Tausch, R. J [and others]. 2005. 

Modeling threats to sagebrush and other shrubland communities. 

In: Wisdom, M. J.; Rowland M. M.; Suring, L. H., eds. Habitat 

threats in the sagebrush ecosystems: methods of regional assessment and application in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance 

Communications Group, Allen Press. 114-119.

West, N. E. 1983. Great Basin-Colorado Plateau sagebrush semi-desert. 

In: N. E. West, ed. Temperate deserts and semi-deserts. Amsterdam, 

The Netherlands: Elsevier Publishing Company: 331-349.

Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake 

River Plains: ecological and management implications. In: 

McArthur, E. D.; Romney, E. M.;Smith, S. D.; Tueller, P. T., comps. 

Proceedings – Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off 

and other aspects of shrub biology and management. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-276. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 4-10.

Young, J. A.; Turner, C. E.; James, L. F. 1995. Perennial pepperweed. 

Rangelands. 17: 121-123.

Ziska, L. H.; Reeves, J. B.; Blank, R.R. 2005. The impact of recent 

changes in atmospheric CO2 on biomass production and vegetative 

retention of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum): implications for fire 

disturbances. Global Change Biology. 11:1325-1332.
42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

In the Great Basin, wildlife diseases have always represented a significant challenge to wildlife managers, 

agricultural production, and human health and safety. 

One of the first priorities of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Division of Fish and Wildlife Services was 

Congressionally directed action to eradicate vectors for 

zoonotic disease, particularly rabies, in Nevada, Oregon, 

and Idaho in 1916 (Hawthorne 2004). Addressing disease 

as it affects the host of interests in these states, and identifying the prerequisite funding to respond proactively and 

effectively across departmental and jurisdictional boundaries, represents one of the most significant challenges 

to fish and wildlife managers in the 21st century.

Key Issues

Within the past decade, in addition to the chronic challenges presented by tularemia (Friend 2006), salmonella 

(Daszak and others 2000), rabies (Krebs and others 2005), 

plague (Centers for Disease Control 2006b), brucellosis

(McCorquodale and DiGiacomo 1985), anthrax, and 

clostridial diseases (Williams and others 2002b), a host 

of new (or newly recognized) diseases are now, or soon 

may be, threatening wildlife, agricultural operations, and 

human health in both rural and urbanizing areas (Chang 

and others 2003).

For terrestrial wildlife, diseases of concern include 

Pasturella (Callan and others 1991), Chronic Wasting 

Disease (Williams and others 2002a), Hantavirus (Calisher and others 2005, Calisher 1994), Avian Influenza 

H5N1 (Centers for Disease Control 2006a, Rappole and 

Hubalek 2006), and West Nile Virus (Clark and others 

2006). Some of these concerns, such as Pasturella impacts 

on bighorn sheep and West Nile Virus impacts on sage 

grouse, may represent critical limiting factors that complicate re-establishment and recovery efforts on behalf 

of these species. For aquatic species and amphibians, 

diseases of concern include Whirling Disease (Nehring 

and Walker 1996), Cytrid fungus (Daszak 1999), various 

cyprinid diseases (Hoole and others 2001) and viruses that 

infect important exotic beneficial species such as catfish 

Great Basin Wildlife Disease Concerns

Russ Mason

Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV

and black bass (for example, Plumb and Zilberg 1999). 

In addition to disease, per se, nutritional concerns that 

include selenium deficiencies and various micronutrient 

deficiencies are known or suspected causes of big game 

mortalities (for example, McKinney and others 2006) and 

may represent limiting factors in the re-establishment of 

native species such as bighorn sheep.

Management Challenges

Great Basin states often lack the financial resources 

and personnel to mount proactive disease and nutritional 

surveillance. This obviously limits the effectiveness of 

management attempts to devise and implement strategies that resolve or mitigate risks. In addition, because 

existing resources are almost always focused on known 

challenges (reflecting public concern, political pressure, and the availability of funding), little if any effort 

is devoted to diseases or nutritional issues that may 

become problems in the foreseeable future or have not 

yet captured popular attention. Even for those diseases, 

such as Chronic Wasting Disease, where resources are 

available and focused on surveillance (and to a lesser 

degree, management), surprisingly little is known about 

the actual impacts of disease processes on population size 

or demographics. At the regional and national level, there 

is little coordination among state and federal agencies in 

surveillance, reporting, and the development of public 

information capabilities so that the actual and potential 

risks of diseases is understood. As a result, effective 

management strategies are rarely implemented across 

jurisdictional boundaries, and efficient and consistent 

public information strategies are few. 

Highest Priority Research and 

Management Questions

Very little is known about the potential or actual hazards 

presented to wildlife by most zoonotic disease. Among the 

highest research priorities for Great Basin species, data 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 43

are needed on actual impacts of selenium deficiencies 

on big game and the actual risk of Pasteurella transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn. Similarly, 

although micronutrient deficiencies are suspected as 

causes of mortality in pronghorn and mule deer, little or 

no pertinent data have been collected. Coincident with 

these research needs, little is known about environmental 

(for example, climatic) or social (for example, bighorn 

population density) factors that may predispose animals 

to infection. 

Also of very high priority is research on the rangewide impacts of West Nile Virus on sage grouse. Data 

are needed on factors that may place grouse populations 

at relatively greater risk and management strategies 

are needed that could effectively and economically 

eliminate, reduce, or mitigate those risks. 

Existing Programs and Resources

Most Great Basin state agencies are developing 

wildlife health programs. For example, the Nevada 

Department of Wildlife and the Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game have, or are in the process of hiring, 

wildlife veterinarians and other specialists to develop 

proactive wildlife health programs. In most cases, funding from the federal government is being used to start 

these programs. Where federal funding is available, 

state veterinary laboratories are providing analytical 

services for diseases that have agricultural or human 

health implications. The U.S. Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Laboratory in Madison, WI, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture National Veterinary 

Services Laboratory in Ames, IA, the Southeastern 

Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study in Athens, GA, 

and university laboratories throughout the Great 

Basin and neighboring regions can and do provide 

diagnostic and testing capabilities for some diseases 

in some situations. At least in Nevada, sportsmen’s 

organizations such as the Reno Chapter of Nevada 

Bighorns Unlimited are providing funding to defray 

diagnostic and pathological examinations of certain 

species of concern when disease is suspected as a 

cause of mortality. Other programs include:

U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health 

Center. http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/ [2007, July 17]

Department of Health and Human Sciences. Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/ 

[2007, July 17]

Strategic Plans 

The Nevada Department of Wildlife, together with the 

Nevada Department of Agriculture and input from other 

constituencies, is developing a Wildlife Health Initiative. 

Other Great Basin states are attempting similar collaborations. In every case, there is a dynamic tension between 

the missions of the respective agencies. More broadly, the 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies is proposing 

implementation of a National Fish and Wildlife Health 

Initiative by a multi-disciplinary consortium of state, 

federal, university, tribal, corporate, and non-profit organizations dedicated to advancing the science, awareness, 

and cooperation related to all aspects of fish and wildlife 

health issues. The initiative will be a policy framework 

through which all interested parties may seek to minimize 

the negative impacts of disease issues involving fish and 

wildlife in the United States. 

References

Calisher, C. H. 1994. Medically important arboviruses of the 

United States and Canada. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 7(1): 

89-116.

Calisher, C. H.; Root, J. J.; Mills, J. N.; Rowe, J. E.; Reeder, S. A.; 

Jentes, E. S.; Wagoner, K.; Beaty, B. J. 2005. Epizootiology of Sin 

Nombre and El Moro Canyon hantaviruses, Southeastern Colorado, 

1995-2000. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 41(1): 1-11.

Callan, R. J.; Bunch, T. D.; Workman, G. W.; Mock, R. E. 1991. 

Development of pneumonia in desert bighorn sheep after exposure 

to a flock of exotic and domestic sheep. Journal of the American 

Veterinary Medical Association. 198(6): 1052-1056.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006a. Avian Influenza (Bird Flu). [Homepage of Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention], [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/ 

[2007, July 17].

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006b. CDC Plague 

Home Page. [Homepage of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/

plague/ [2007, July 17].

Chang, M.; Glynn, M. K.; Groseclose, S. L. 2003. Endemic, notifiable, 

bioterrorism-related diseases, United States, 1992-1999. Emerging 

Infectious Diseases. 9(5): 556-564.

Clark, L.; Hall, J.; McLean, R.; Dunbar, M.; Klenk, K.; Bowen, R.; 

Smeraski, C. A. 2006. Susceptibility of Greater Sage Grouse to 

experimental infection with West Nile Virus. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases. 42(1): 14-22.

Daszak, P. 1999. Emerging infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 5(6): 735-748.

Daszak, P.; Cunningham, A. A.; Hyatt, A. D. 2000. Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife: threats to biodiversity and human health. 

Science. 287(5452): 443-449. 

Friend, M. 2006. Tularemia. Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1297. 68 p.

Hawthorne, D. W. 2004. The history of federal and cooperative animal 

damage control. Sheep and Goat Research Journal. 19: 13-15.

Hoole, D.; Burke, D.; Burgess P.; Wellby, I. 2001. Disease of Carp 

and other cyprinid fishes. United Kingdom: Blackwell Science. 

264 p.
44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Krebs, J. W.; Mandel, E. J.; Swerdlow, D. L.; Rupprecht, C. E. 2005. 

Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2004. Journal of the 

American Veterinary Medical Association. 227(12): 1912-1913. 

McCorquodale, S. M.; DiGiacomo, R. F. 1985. The role of wild North 

American ungulates in the epidemiology of bovine brucellosis: a 

review. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 21(4): 351-357.

McKinney, T.; Smith, T. W.; deVos Jr., J. C. 2006. Evaluation of 

factors potentially influencing a desert bighorn sheep population. 

Wildlife Monographs. 164(1): 1-36. 

Nehring, R. B.; Walker, P. G. 1996. Whirling disease in the wild: the 

new reality in the Intermountain West. Fisheries. 21(6): 28-31.

Plumb, J. A.; Zilberg, D. 1999. The lethal dose of largemouth bass 

virus in juvenile largemouth bass and the comparative susceptibility 

of striped bass. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health. 11: 246-252.

Rappole, J. H.; Hubalek, Z. 2006. Birds and influenza H5N1 virus 

movement to and within North America. Emerging Infectious 

Diseases. 12(10): 1486-1492.

Williams, E. S.; Miller, M. W.; Kreeger, T. J.; Kahn, R.; Thorne, R.H. 

2002a. Chronic wasting disease of deer and elk: A review with 

recommendations for management. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66(3): 551-563. 

Williams, E. S.; Yuill, T.; Artois, M.; Fisher, J.; Haigh, S. A. 2002b. 

Emerging infectious diseases in wildlife. Reviews in Science and 

Technology. 21(1): 139-157.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 45

Outbreaks of native and exotic insects are important 

drivers of ecosystem dynamics in the Great Basin. The 

following provides an overview of range, forest, ornamental, and agricultural insect outbreaks occurring in the 

Great Basin and the associated management issues and 

research needs. For more detailed information, please 

see the list of references and recommended links.

The mosaic of mountains, plateaus, river drainages, 

and high-elevation meadows that comprise the semi-arid 

Great Basin support a wide diversity of native and exotic 

insect species. These insects often have very specific relationships with vegetation types. Great Basin vegetation 

includes conifer and hardwood species in the mountain 

and plateau regions, vast expanses of rangeland brush 

species (for example, big sagebrush [Artemisia tridentata], blackbrush [Coleogyne ramosissima], shadscale 

[Atriplex confertifolia], Mormon-tea [Ephedra spp.], 

greasewood [Sarcobatus vermiculatus]), agricultural 

crops, and ornamental plants. Native and exotic insects 

associated with these plant communities can be important 

drivers of ecosystem dynamics, but can also negatively 

impact local economies and ecological stability.

Key Issues

Range insects—Rangeland ecosystems throughout the 

world are subject to periodic outbreaks of a variety of 

plant-feeding insects. The ecological and economic effects of such outbreaks are far-reaching because intense 

and widespread herbivory can lead to complex changes 

in plant community structure and dynamics, population 

levels of other animals (for example, insectivorous predators), and rates of nutrient cycling (Watts and others 1989, 

Evans and Seastedt 1995). The most prominent insect 

outbreaks in the Great Basin involve grasshoppers and 

Mormon crickets (Orthoptera) (Sword 2005, Branson 

and others 2006). An epidemic of Mormon crickets in 

the past few years, especially in Nevada and Utah, has 

attracted widespread notice and concern among the 

Great Basin Insect Outbreaks 

Barbara Bentz1, Diane Alston2 and Ted Evans2

1

 USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Logan, UT 2

 Biology Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT

general public, with federal and state agencies devoting 

much effort and expense for control. Periodic outbreaks 

of beetles (for example, white grubs [Scarabaeida] and 

leaf beetles [Chyromelidae]), bugs (for example, black 

grass bugs [Miridae] and false chinch bugs (Lygaeidae)], 

and moths (for example, cutworms [Noctuidae], and a 

sagebrush defoliator, the Aroga moth [Aroga websteri 

Clark, Gelechiidae]) also occur on Great Basin rangelands 

(Watts and others 1989, Evans and Seastedt 1995). The 

Aroga Moth infested thousands of hectares of sagebrush 

stands in the Great Basin in the 1960s and early 1970s. 

It is again threatening extensive stands of sagebrush in 

Utah and Nevada. An outbreak of Aroga moth began in 

the summer of 2004 in northern Nevada (Brussard 2007). 

In 2005, the infestation had moved to central Nevada. In 

2006, areas in both northern and central Nevada experienced outbreaks, including new sites as well as sites that 

had been impacted in previous years. Climate is generally 

believed to play a key role in determining the timing of 

insect outbreaks on Great Basin rangelands, but the exact 

mechanisms are not well understood. Climate can have 

both direct effects on the metabolism of ectothermic insects and indirect effects on factors such as food quality 

and predation. 

Forest insects—Several species of bark beetles are 

currently active in mountainous regions along the eastern 

and western edges of the Great Basin. The Jeffrey pine 

beetle (Dendroctonus jeffreyi Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae), a monophagous herbivore of Jeffrey 

pine (Pinus jeffreyi), is currently at outbreak levels in 

many areas of western Nevada and eastern California. 

The mountain pine beetle (D. ponderosae) is active in 

high elevation pine ecosystems (for example, Pinus 

albicaulis and P. flexilis) scattered throughout the Great 

Basin and in sugar pine (P. lambertiana) stands in the 

Sierran foothills. Western pine beetle (D. brevicomis) 

is also found infesting ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa). 

Historical land-use management practices and climate 
46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

change are influencing recent increases in bark beetle 

activity. Mountain pine beetle activity in high elevation 

forests, in particular, is believed to have increased in direct 

response to warming temperatures (Logan and Powell 

2001). Similarly, spruce beetle population outbreaks in 

Engelmann spruce forests on the Wasatch Plateau in the 

past 10 years (Dymerski and others 2001) are correlated 

with periods of warm temperatures and increased insect 

development time (Hansen and others 2001). Drought, 

insects, and disease are responsible for vast areas of 

tree mortality in pinion-juniper woodlands in the Great 

Basin (Shaw and others 2005). Warming temperatures 

can positively affect lifecycle timing of herbivores such 

as the pinyon ips (Ips confusus) and pinyon pitch mass 

borer (Dioryctria ponderosae Lepidoptera: Pyrallidae), 

while moisture stress can increase tree susceptibility 

to insect colonization. Drought periods also increase 

the activity of the fir engraver (Scolytus ventralis) in 

white, red, and subalpine fir stands throughout the Great 

Basin. Several insect species in the Great Basin are 

associated with aspen die-off, including poplar borer 

(Saperda calcarata Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), bronze 

poplar borer (Agrilus liragus Coleoptera: Buprestidae), 

and the large aspen tortrix (Choristoneura conflictana

Lepidoptera:Tortricidae).

Ornamental insects—Ornamental landscapes are 

characterized by highly diverse non-native plant species grown in the lower elevations of the Great Basin. 

Herbivorous insect pests are predominantly exotic and 

new introductions to the region are on-going (Johnson and 

Lyon 1991). Several important forest insect pests have 

recently increased their presence in urban ornamental 

landscapes (Alston 2007, Cranshaw and Leatherman 

2007). Several species in the bark beetle genus Ips have 

become severe pests of ornamental conifers (I. pilifrons, 

I. pini, I. confusus, and I. paraconfusus) (Keyes 2006). 

The banded elm bark beetle, Scotytus schevyrewii, which 

was likely imported into the region in wooden packing 

material, is now infesting both native and introduced elm 

and other deciduous trees in the region (USDA Forest 

Service 2006). It is believed that many tree boring insects 

primarily attack trees that are already under stress from 

other factors (Furniss and Carolin 1977). It has been observed, however, that once an insect population becomes 

established in a localized area, a high number of host 

trees may become infested. It is probable that increasing temperature and drought conditions, especially in 

the spring and fall when supplemental irrigation is often 

not available, are affecting the success and dispersal of 

tree boring insects in urban areas (Alston 2007). In addition, the trend for warmer growing seasons increases the 

number of insect generations per year, thus contributing 

to higher insect densities and greater tree injury. 

Agricultural insects—Agricultural production areas 

tend to be dynamic with crop rotations across field 

sites and changes in cropping systems over time. Insect 

outbreaks tend to be localized, but can be regional and 

linked to outbreaks in natural systems. In the early 2000s, 

the army cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) infested 

rangeland, field, and forage crops in the Intermountain 

region (Worwood and Winger 2003). It was speculated 

that mild winters and early spring conditions contributed 

to the outbreaks. Recent outbreaks of curly top virus in 

tomato were vectored by the beet leafhopper (Circulifer 

tenellus, Homoptera: Cicadellidae) that uses weed hosts 

along foothills to move northward each spring. Availability of weed hosts has been implicated as a major factor in 

predicting the outbreak potential for the virus (Creamer 

and others 1996). Crop plants are intensely managed 

by humans, and therefore management practices play a 

major role in inciting insect outbreaks. Pesticides used by 

agriculture are known to affect insect populations through 

mechanisms such as pest resurgence, replacement, and 

resistance (Pedigo 2002).

Management Challenges

Climate change is likely to pose increasing challenges 

for understanding, predicting, and managing insect 

outbreaks within the Great Basin. Because insects are 

poikiolothermic, temperature shifts can have dramatic 

direct effects on insect population timing and survival. 

Shifts in moisture that affect host plant vigor will indirectly 

influence insect outbreaks. These direct and indirect effects of climate patterns on insect outbreaks are expected 

in all regions of the Great Basin, including range, forest, 

and agricultural production areas. Increasing human 

impacts on Great Basin ecosystems is also complicating 

the dynamics and management of insect outbreaks. For 

example, fire suppression and land-use management 

practices within the last century have altered the natural 

dynamics of many forested ecosystems and their insect 

populations. Additional knowledge is needed to identify 

the susceptibility of landscapes altered by climate change 

and humans, as well as optimal strategies for management 

of host plants and insects populations residing in these 

changed systems. 

Tools and information for directly manipulating economically important bark beetle populations and their 

habitats are available (Fettig and others 2007, Samman 

and others 2000). However, tools are not well developed 

for those native insects which infest tree species of little 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 47

commercial value (for example, juniper, pinyon pine, 

whitebark, and other high elevation 5-needle pines), 

although their ecological importance may be significant. 

Large-scale insecticide applications often have been used 

to reduce infestations of high-profile range insects such 

as Mormon crickets and grasshoppers. Key management 

challenges now include determining if and when such 

tactics are justified or desirable given long-term outcomes 

and consequences (for example, Zimmerman and others 

2004), and if and when other management tactics such 

as habitat manipulation may provide a better alternative 

(for example, Branson and others 2006).

Changes in the distributions of insects is a likely 

outcome of climate change. Introductions of exotic 

insects into the Great Basin, including those of regulatory concern, such as the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar, 

Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae), Japanese beetle (Popillia 

japonica, Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), and banded elm 

bark beetle may have all been consequences of human 

activity, but their establishment and spread in western 

North America may be linked to warmer summers and 

milder winters. As new exotic species insert themselves 

into the local ecology, domino and ripple effects are sure 

to be observed in the future. Impacts on native insects 

will include competition for niches and alterations to 

natural enemy-prey webs. 

Research and 

Management Questions

What are the key factors driving population dynamics 

of outbreak insect species?

Are the effects of climate change on insect outbreaks 

predictable?

How do insect outbreaks contribute to ecosystem 

function of Great Basin forest and rangelands?

What effects do insect outbreaks have on biodiversity?

Where, when, and how should insect outbreaks be 

muted or prevented through active management?

Can such management include non-chemical alternatives such as habitat manipulation?

Existing Programs and Plans

USDA ARS, Northern Plains Agricultural Research 

Lab, Pest Management Research Unit, Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Ecology and Management 

Project http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.

htm?modecode=54-36-05-10 [2007, July 17]

USDA APHIS, Grasshopper/Mormon Cricket, Emergency and Domestic Programs. http://www.aphis.usda.

gov/ppq/ispm/grasshopper/ [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. Forest Health Protection. National Website. Contains links 

to individual region webpages on Forest Health. http://

www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/regional_offices.html [2007, 

July 17]

USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Northern and Intermountain Region – Forest Health Protection. 

Insect and disease reports, management guides and aerial 

detection survey information. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1-r4/

spf/fhp/index.html [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Sustaining Alpine and Forest Ecosystems under 

Atmospheric and Terrestrial Disturbances Project. http://

www.fs.fed.us/rm/landscapes [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Biology, Ecology and Management of Western Bark 

Beetles. http://www.usu.edu/beetle [2007, July 17]

References

Alston, D. 2007. Ips bark beetles killing spruce and pine trees In

American Nurseryman, January, pg. 8.

Branson, D.H.; Joern, A.; Sword, G.A. 2006. Sustainable management 

of insect herbivores in grassland ecosystems: new perspectives in 

grasshopper control. BioScience. 56: 743-755.

Brussard, P. 2007. Personal communication, April 6, 2007.

Cranshaw, W.; Leatherman, D.A. 2007. Ips beetles. Colorado State 

University Extension publication no. 5.558. Available: http://www.

ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/insect/05558.html [2007, July 17].

Creamer, R.; Luque-Williams, M.; Howo, M. 1996. Epidemiology 

and incidence of beet curly top geminivirus in naturally infected 

weed hosts. Plant Disease. 80: 533-535.

Dymerski, A.D.; Anhold, J.A.; Munson, A.S. 2001. Spruce Beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis outbreak in Engelmann spruce in central Utah, 

1986-1998. Western North American Naturalist. 61: 19-24.

Evans, E. W.; Seastedt, T. R. 1995. Relations of phytophagous invertebrates 

and rangeland plants. In: Bedunah, D. J.; Sosebee, R. E., eds. Wildland Plants: Physiological Ecology and Developmental Morphology. 

Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 580-634.

Fettig, C.J.; Klepzig, K. D.; Billings, R.F.; Munson, A.S.; Nebeker, 

T.E.; Negron J.F.; Nowak, J. T. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation 

management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle 

infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United 

States. Forest Ecology and Management. 238: 24-53.

Furniss, R. L.; Carolin, V.M. 1977. Western forest insects. Misc. Publ. 

1339. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service: November. 383 p.

Hansen, E.M.; Bentz, B.J.; Turner D.L. 2001. Temperature-based 

model for predicting univoltine brood proportions in spruce 

beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). The Canadian Entomologist. 

133: 827-841.

Johnson, W. T.; Lyon, H. H. 1991. Insects that feed on trees and shrubs, 

2nd edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 560 p.
48 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Keyes, C. 2006. Ips engraver beetle. Utah Division of Forestry, Fire 

and State Lands, Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet. Available: http://

www.ffsl.utah.gov/ID/IpsengraverBeetle.pdf [2007, July 17].

Logan, J.A.; Powell, J.A. 2001. Ghost forests, global warming, and 

the mountain pine beetle. American Entomologist. 47: 160-173. 

Pedigo, L. P. 2002. Entomology and pest management, 4th edition. 

Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 742 p.

Samman, S.; Logan, J.; Bentz, B.;Chew, J.; Downing, M.; Eager, T.; 

Gibson, K.; Leatherman, D.; Livingston, L.; Munson, S.; Short, B.; 

Sorenson, W. 2000. Assessment and response to bark beetle outbreaks in the Rocky Mountain Area: Report to Congress from Forest 

Health Protection, Washington Office, Forest Service. Gen Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-62. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Available: 

http://www.usu.edu/beetle/documents/2000186_5Samman_Logan.

pdf [2007, July 17].

Shaw, J.D.; Steed, B.; DeBlander, L. 2005. Forest Inventory and 

analysis (FIA) annual inventory answers the question: What is 

happening to pinyon-juniper woodlands? Journal of Forestry. 

103: 280-285.

Sword, G.A. 2005. Local population density and the activation of 

movement in migratory band-forming Mormon crickets. Animal 

Behaviour. 69: 437-444.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Pest alert: 

Banded elm bark beetle, Scolytus schevyrewi. Rocky Mountain 

Region Forest Health Protection R2-PR-01-06. Available: http://

www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/palerts/banded_elm_beetle/beb.pdf [2007, 

July 17].

Watts, J.G.; Hewitt, G.B.; Huddleston, E.W.; Kinzer, H.G; Lavigne, 

R.J.; Ueckert, D.N. 1989. Rangeland Entomology. Second edition. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. Range Science 

Series No. 2.

Worwood, D; Winger, M. 2003. Army cutworm management decisions 

in alfalfa. Utah State University Extension publication. Available: 

http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/April_2003.

pdf [2007, July 17].

Zimmerman, K.M.; Lockwood, J.A.; Latchininsky, A.V. 2004. A spatial, Markovian model of rangeland grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acrididae) population dynamics: do long-term benefits justify suppression 

of infestations? Environmental Entomology. 33: 257-266.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 49

Most Great Basin riparian and aquatic ecosystems are 

associated with streams and springs that are comparatively 

small and isolated from one another because of the naturally arid climate. There are few rivers and lakes in the 

region. Surface waters and aquifers that support springs 

provide the only water available to humans and wildlife. 

Springs occur at all elevations, but most streams and lakes 

are in the mountains. Many issues affecting riparian and 

aquatic ecosystems are similar to those outlined in the 

Water Resources section, which focuses on water quantity 

and water use by humans. Issues involving riparian and 

aquatic systems are focused on environmental integrity, 

which is strongly related to goods and services provided 

by natural wetland ecosystems.

Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems

Great Basin riparian and aquatic ecosystems comprise 

only about 1 percent of the land surface—They are supported by the only surface water in the region and most 

are small and isolated from one another (Skudlarek 

2006, Sada and others 2001). Despite their small size, 

these ecosystems support most of the biodiversity in the 

region.

Streams and most springs are supported by mountain 

runoff—Streams are supported by mountain runoff and 

springs. Springs are supported by aquifers whose physical 

and chemical characteristics are influenced by geology, 

climate, and topography. Montane aquifers are generally small and local, while other aquifers are large and 

comprised of ancient water (Thomas and others 1996). 

Current stream processes have been influenced by past 

climate change—Because the Great Basin is a semi-arid 

region, it is highly susceptible to climate change. Paleoecological and geomorphic data for upland watersheds 

in the central Great Basin indicate that past climate 

changes have had significant effects on the response of 

current stream systems and riparian ecosystems to both 

human-caused and natural disturbances (Chambers and 

Miller 2004). This indicates that these systems are highly 

susceptible to future climate.

Great Basin Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystems

Don Sada

Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV

Most riparian and aquatic systems have been altered 

from historical conditions—The changes in riparian and 

aquatic system condition have resulted from altered discharge due to dams and diversions, excessive use by nonnative ungulates, road construction in valley bottoms, and 

invasions of non-native vegetation and aquatic animals. 

In areas prone to stream incision, these perturbations 

have increased the rate and magnitude of downcutting 

(Chambers and Miller 2004). In most aquatic and riparian communities, composition has been functionally 

altered from organisms that are intolerant of harsh and 

degraded conditions to organisms that tolerate pollution 

and harshness. In addition, the vast majority of springs 

have been seriously degraded by lower surface discharge 

caused by groundwater pumping and diversions and by 

non-native ungulate grazing (Sada and others 1992). 

Great Basin riparian and aquatic systems are characterized by high biological diversity—Many species are 

limited to single basins and specialized habitats. Diversions, excessive groundwater pumping, livestock use, and 

non-native species introduction have caused extinctions 

and decreased the abundance and distribution of many 

endemic species. This has justified formal listing of many 

fish and riparian plants as threatened or endangered by 

State and Federal governments. 

Key Issues

Land management/land use—The Great Basin is the 

driest region in the United States. Water is limited in 

quantity and distribution, and aquatic and riparian systems are typically small and the only source of water. 

As a consequence, human activity has concentrated in 

areas adjacent to springs, streams, and rivers resulting 

in degraded riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Riparian 

vegetation is now sparse at most springs and lower elevation streams because of excessive grazing by non-native 

ungulates and diversion of surface flow (Fleischner 1994). 

Changes in land and water management are needed to 

determine sustainable levels of human uses of aquatic 

and riparian systems, arrest their continued degradation, 
50 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

and restore their environmental integrity (Karr 1981; 

Shepard 1993; Skudlarek 2006). 

Expanding urbanization—Urban needs for clean water 

will exceed the amount that is available from proximate 

sources in the near future. The potential to increase supplies from surface waters is limited because rights to these 

waters are fully allocated (and often over allocated) to 

existing uses. Urban centers acquire water from distant, 

rural areas to meet current and future water needs. Los 

Angeles currently receives most of its drinking water 

from surface and ground waters in the Owens River 

basin (along the west side of the Great Basin), and Las 

Vegas and Reno are pursuing groundwater acquisitions 

from eastern and western Nevada, respectively. Water 

importation is unlikely to affect montane streams but 

likely to affect valley floor springs, which are dependent 

on local groundwater supplies. If not properly managed, 

increasing groundwater extraction and use will decrease 

spring discharge and further degrade spring-fed aquatic 

and riparian systems by reducing surface water quantity 

and quality. 

Diversions—Diversions (including dams, channelization, and spring boxes with pipes) have altered most Great 

Basin aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Portions of all 

Great Basin rivers have been impounded for flood control 

and agricultural and municipal uses. This has decreased 

the amount of flowing water; altered the frequency, 

duration, and magnitude of flood events; decreased 

riparian vegetation; and degraded aquatic communities 

by facilitating establishment of non-native species and 

aquatic communities that are pollution tolerant (Rood 

and others 2003). Diversions have also dried springs, 

streams, and rivers and altered morphology by armoring 

stream banks with gabions and other hard structures. As 

a consequence, Great Basin riparian and aquatic habitats 

have been reduced because there is less water available to 

maintain conditions that are necessary to support healthy 

communities. Management strategies are needed to ameliorate the ecological effects of diversions by mimicking 

the natural hydrograph, minimizing the quantity of water 

diverted, and restoring channelized reaches.

Non-native Species—Habitats associated with many 

Great Basin streams, rivers, and large springs support 

non-native animals (including aquarium and sport fishes, 

amphibians, crustaceans, and mollusks) and a diversity of 

non-native invasive plants. Diversity and distribution of 

non-native species is increasing. The number of non-native 

fish species in the Great Basin currently exceeds native 

species. Functional characteristics, trophic dynamics, and 

energy flow in these riparian and aquatic systems do not 

resemble historic healthy ecosystems. New technologies 

are needed to reduce the extent and abundance of nonnative species, prevent the establishment of new arrivals, 

and retain natural elements that characterize Great Basin 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

Unique Plants and Animals—Aquatic and riparian 

habitats in the Great Basin support a wide diversity of 

plants and animals that do not occur elsewhere. These 

include butterflies, dozens of plant species, and more 

than 200 types of aquatic animals. The distribution and 

abundance of these species has declined from historical 

conditions and many are extinct or are listed as threatened 

or endangered by Federal and State agencies (Sada and 

Vinyard 2002). Decline of these species has been caused 

primarily by habitat alteration (mostly groundwater 

use and surface water diversion) and interactions with 

non-native species (Miller 1961, Minckley and Deacon 

1968). Continued declines are likely to cause additional 

threatened or endangered listings that may conflict with 

future development of water resources.

Pollution—Point and non-point sources of pollution 

from nutrients, metals, sediment, elevated temperature, 

and total dissolved solids have degraded water quality in 

many Great Basin streams, rivers, wetlands, lakes, and reservoirs. In Nevada, this includes approximately 1,930 km 

(1,200miles) of stream, 30,350 ha (75,000 acres) of lakes 

and reservoirs, and 7,689 ha (19,000 acres) of wetlands 

(NDEP 2004). Approximately 402 km (250 miles) of 

impaired waters occur in the Great Basin portion of Utah 

(UDWQ 2004). Improving the conditions in these streams 

will increase their ecological integrity and the goods and 

services they provide to urban and rural economies. 

Climate change—Climate change will influence the 

quantity and timing of flows in streams and rivers and 

affect groundwater recharge and spring discharge. These 

changes are likely to further degrade aquatic and riparian 

systems in the Great Basin because of increased flood 

frequency, lower groundwater recharge rates, and the 

consequential increase in human demands for water. 

Ecosystem services—Healthy riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems provide services that include clean water 

for diverse aquatic communities, freshwater for human 

consumption, natural flood,and erosion control, and 

recreational opportunities that enhance the quality of 

life (Gregory and others 1991, Baron and others 2002). 

Improving the condition of Great Basin aquatic and riparian systems will help restore their ecological health and 

provide for increased ecosystem services. Restoration 

actions will partially mitigate the impact of increasing 

demands on these systems.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 51

Management Challenges

Federal, state, and local governments are challenged 

to respond to a number of threats to Great Basin aquatic 

and riparian resources through:

Sustainable management of water resources for 

multiple uses.

Increasing recreation opportunities while minimizing 

environmental impacts. 

Protection of aquatic and riparian biodiversity.

Rehabilitation of degraded and unstable river and 

stream channels and spring systems.

Mitigation of impacts associated with development in 

flood plains of rivers and tributaries.

Mitigation of river channel modifications and 

floodplain instability from diversion dams, channel 

straightening, and flood protection structures.

Research and 

Management Questions

Riparian and Aquatic System Use

What flow regimes and hydrographs are required to 

maintain channel processes and support the ecological 

integrity of riparian and aquatic ecosystems?

What are the flow regimes, quantities, and hydrographs 

required to support sensitive, threatened, and endangered 

species and prevent future listings?

What levels of human disturbance can be tolerated by 

rare aquatic and riparian species to prevent declines in 

their abundance and distribution?

What are the effects of incremental differences in land 

use and land management, water quality, and quantity, 

and on the ecological integrity of riparian and aquatic 

systems?

What are reference conditions for Great Basin aquatic 

and riparian systems?

Predictive tools

How can we better predict the response of aquatic and 

riparian resources to varying types and intensities of human use?

What are the best conceptual, spatial, and numeric 

models for integrating climate, surface and groundwater 

quantities, ecological constraints, and economics to assist 

decision makers in managing for sustainable riparian and 

aquatic ecosystems?

Existing Programs and Resources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A national 

program for monitoring stream condition in the Western 

U.S. 4 Jan. 2007. http://www.epa.gov/esd/land-sci/water/

streams.htm [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Great Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

for Restoring and Maintaining Watersheds and Riparian 

Ecosystems, Reno, NV. http://www.ag.unr.edu/gbem/ 

[2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Boise Aquatic Sciences Laboratory, Boise, ID. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/index.shtml [2007, July 

17]

USDA Forest Service, Stream Systems Technology 

Center, Fort Collins, CO. http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/ 

[2007, July 17]

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Riparian Service 

Team, Prineville, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/

nrst/index.php [2007, July 17]

USGS, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Co. 

http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/OurScience/ [2007, July 17

References

Baron, J.S.; Poff, N.L; Angermeier, P.L.; Dahm, C.N.; Gleick, P.H.; 

Hairston, Jr., N.G.; Jackson, R.B.; Johnston, C.A.; Richter, B.D.; 

Steinman, A.D. 2002. Meeting ecological and societal needs for 

freshwater. Ecological Applications. 12: 1247-1260.

Chambers, J.C.; Miller. J.R., eds. 2004. Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems – Ecology, Management and Restoration. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 303 p.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western 

North America. Conservation Biology. 8: 629-644.

Gregory, S.V.; Swanson, F.J.; McKee, W.A.; Cummins K.W. 1991. 

An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience. 41: 

540-551.

Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries. 6: 21-27.

Miller, R.R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American 

southwest. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts, 

and Letters. 46: 365-404.

Minckley, W.L.; Deacon, J.E. 1968. Southwestern fishes and the 

enigma of ‘endangered species’. Science. 199: 1424-1432.

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). 2004. Nevada’s 

2004 303(d) impaired waters list. Draft, December 2004. Caron 

City, NV: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau 

of Water Quality Planning. 
52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Rood, S.B.; Gourley, C.R.; Ammon, E.M.; Heki, L.G.; Klotz, J.R.; 

Morrison, M.L.; Mosley, D.; Scoppettone, G.; Swanson S.; Wagner, 

P.L. 2003. Flows for floodplain forests: a successful riparian restoration. Bioscience. 53: 647-656.

Sada, D.W.; Vinyard, G.L. 2002. Anthropogenic changes in historical 

biogeography of Great Basin aquatic biota. In: Hershler, R.; 

Madsen, D.B.; Currey, D., eds. Great Basin Aquatic Systems History. 

Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences No. 33: 277-295.

Sada, D.W.; Vinyard, G.L.; Hershler R. 1992. Environmental characteristics of small springs in northern Nevada (abstract). In: 

Hendrickson, D.A., ed. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council, 

Volumes XXII & XXIII. Page 76

Sada, D.W.; Williams, J.E.; Silvey, J.C.; Halford, A.; Ramakka, J.; 

Summers, P.; Lewis, L. 2001. Riparian area management. A guide 

to managing, restoring, and conserving springs in the western 

United States. Technical Reference 1737-17. Denver, CO: Bureau 

of Land Management. BLM/ST/ST-01/001+1737.

Shepard, W.D. 1993. Desert springs—both rare and endangered. 

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 3: 

351-359.

Skudlarek, E., ed. 2006 [Draft]. Nevada Wetlands Priority Conservation 

Plan. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Nevada Heritage Program, Carson City, Nevada. 

Thomas, J.M.; Welch, A.H.; Dettinger, M.D. 1996. Geochemistry 

and isotope hydrology of representative aquifers in the Great Basin region of Nevada, Utah, and adjacent states. U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1409-C.

Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). 2004. Utah’s 2004 303(d) 

impaired waters list. April, 2004, Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality. 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 53

Sagebrush ecosystems exhibit widespread degradation due to a variety of causes, including invasion by 

exotic plants, expansion of pinyon and juniper, altered 

fire regimes, excessive livestock grazing, urbanization 

and land development, conversion to agriculture, road 

development and use, mining, and energy development. 

These ecosystems have been identified as the most endangered in the United States with 20 percent of plant 

and animals associated with sagebrush ecosystems at risk 

of extirpation. Federal, state, and private land managers 

are increasingly concerned about the fate of sagebrush 

ecosystems and their associated species and are actively 

seeking approaches to restore and maintain them. 

Key Issues

Invasive alien plants are expanding throughout the 

region affecting plant community composition and disturbance regimes—The most significant of these are 

fire-adapted annual grasses, such as cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum) and medusahead (Taenatherum caput-medusa), 

that have resulted in an annual grass-fire cycle and are 

rapidly replacing sagebrush and salt desert ecosystems. 

It is estimated that cheatgrass dominated a minimum of 

2 million ha (7,720 mi2) or 5 percent of the Great Basin 

in the 1990s (Bradley and Mustard 2005) - an additional 

15 million ha (57,900 mi2) have been estimated to be at 

high risk of cheatgrass invasion within the next 30 years 

(Suring and others 2005). The expansion of invasive annual grasses across the region has increased fine fuels and 

the rate of fire spread, particularly in more arid Wyoming 

and basin big sagebrush ecosystems (Link and others 

2006). In many parts of the region, an annual grass-fire 

cycle now exists in which fire return intervals have decreased from about 60 to 110 years to as little as 3 to 5 

years (Whisenant 1990). More recently, noxious weedy 

forbs have spread across the Great Basin. Particularly 

problematic in Wyoming and mountain big sagebrush 

communities are squarrose knapweed (Centaurea squarrosa), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and rush 

skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea). Invasion by these 

Great Basin Sagebrush Ecosystems

Jeanne C. Chambers

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Reno, NV

species can result in monocultures or near monocultures that 

exclude native vegetation and degrade wildlife habitat. 

Woody fuels are increasing in many sagebrush ecosystems and are resulting in greater fire size and severity—

Pinyon and juniper are expanding into sagebrush ecosystems due to the cumulative effects of climate change, 

overgrazing, and fire exclusion. As the trees mature and 

canopy closure occurs, sagebrush and its associated 

species are progressively eliminated from the understory and the risk of high severity crown fires increases 

(Miller and others, in press). Depleted understories are 

susceptible to invasion by invasive annual grasses and 

weedy forbs. Mountain big sagebrush communities are 

most affected. 

The changes occurring are decreasing biodiversity 

and placing a high number of species at risk—Sagebrush 

ecosystems in the Great Basin are among the most diverse 

in number and endemism of native plant and animal 

species, but these species are not well studied. A recent 

assessment of habitat threats in Great Basin ecosystems 

identified 207 species of conservation concern associated 

with sagebrush habitats, including 133 plants, 11 reptiles 

and amphibians, and 63 birds and mammals (Rowland 

and others 2005). Most of these species occur within restricted ranges and require local assessments of ecosystem 

threats. Analyses of 40 more broadly distributed species 

showed that sagebrush communities comprised 41 percent 

of all habitat for these species. The greater sage grouse 

and the pygmy rabbit had the strongest associations with 

sagebrush. For these broadly distributed species, > 50 

percent of their habitat was at moderate to high risk of 

displacement by cheatgrass, and > 30 percent of their 

habitat was at high risk of displacement by pinyon and 

juniper. The loss of sagebrush habitat is increasing the 

risk of threatened and endangered species classification 

under the Endangered Species Act for several sagebrush 

obligate species. 

Excessive livestock grazing has played a significant 

role in altering the composition and structure of sagebrush ecosystems—In the late 1800s and early 1900s, an 
54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

estimated 26 million cattle and 20 million sheep were 

grazing on western rangelands (Wilkenson 1992). Excessive or inappropriate grazing and little or no management 

caused major changes in plant communities in less than 

10 to 15 years (Hull 1976). By the 1930s, grazing capacity had declined 60 to 90 percent from historical levels 

(McArdle 1936). In the 1940s and 1950s, animal numbers 

were 50 to 60 percent less than in the early 1900s and 

by the 1990s, were about 40 percent. In the Great Basin, 

excessive or inappropriate grazing has altered the relative proportions of shrubs, grasses, and forbs, increased 

opportunities for invasion and dominance of non-native 

grasses and forbs and, in some cases, caused an overall 

decline in site potential through loss of topsoil (Miller 

and Eddleman 2001). Declines in site condition often 

decrease the ability of soils to capture, store, and release 

water causing sites to become more arid and less productive. Excessive or inappropriate grazing also increases 

the potential of direct competition and interference with 

sagebrush obligate species such as sage grouse and pygmy 

rabbits.

Land rehabilitation/restoration treatments have affected 

large areas of the Great Basin—Due to rangeland deterioration and watershed problems, such as flooding and 

erosion, reseeding programs that focused on pasture 

grasses were initiated on Forest Reserves in the early 

1900s (Monsen 2005). In the late 1940s, widespread 

mechanical and chemical control of vegetation was 

initiated and by the mid-1990s, close to 1.2 million ha 

(4.9 million acres) had been treated on BLM lands alone 

(Miller and Eddleman 2001). Areas that had already lost 

most of the native grasses and forbs were plowed or 

chained and seeded to crested wheatgrass (Agropyron 

desertorum, A. cristatum, and A. sibericum). Many are 

now dominated by sagebrush with a crested wheatgrass 

understory. Communities with plant understories still in 

relatively good condition were often burned or sprayed 

with phenoxy herbicides (for example, 2, 4-D) to reduce 

sagebrush and increase native grasses. Areas with pinyon 

and juniper trees were typically chained and then seeded 

with crested wheatgrass and other introduced grasses. 

Recently, the focus of these efforts has been on restoring wildlife habitat and reducing fuel loads with fire and 

mechanical treatments. Although many of the same techniques are still used, there is greater emphasis on restoring 

native ecosystems and seeding native species although 

seed supplies limit these efforts (Shaw and others 2005). 

It is difficult to restore depleted understories, especially 

in areas where exotic annual grasses have invaded.

Climate change is evident already in sagebrush ecosystems and future changes are likely to be greater—

Temperatures increased 0.3 to 0.6 °C (0.6 ° to 1.1 °F) in 

the last 100 years, and are expected to increase another 

2 to 5 °C (3.6 to 9 °F) in the next 100 years. Snowmelt 

is occurring 10 to 15 days earlier than in the mid-1900s 

at most monitoring sites in the Great Basin and growing 

seasons have been similarly extended. As temperatures 

increase, species shifts are likely to occur. Increased 

temperatures have already extended the fire season with 

more fires occurring earlier and later than in the past 

and, in some areas, the total area burned has increased 

(McKenzie and others 2004). If climate change increases 

the amplitude and duration of extreme fire weather, 

larger and more severe fires are likely. Various pests and 

insect outbreaks could increase under several different 

warming scenarios. Projected changes in precipitation 

are inconsistent as to sign, and the average changes are 

near zero (Cubashi and others 2001). The effectiveness 

of future precipitation will depend on the actual increase 

in precipitation relative to the degree of warming and its 

effects on snowmelt and evapotranspiration.

Human population growth and changes in land use—

The human population in the Great Basin is growing 

at one of the highest rates in the nation. Much of this 

growth is occurring around urban population centers 

such as Salt Lake City, Reno, and Las Vegas, but the 

effects are widespread. Development in the wildland/

urban interface and construction of infrastructure to support the burgeoning population (energy developments 

like coal-fired power plants and transmission corridors, 

water extraction or diversion, and pipelines) is causing 

the loss of sagebrush habitat and placing species at risk. 

Increased access and use of wildland ecosystems near 

developments has increased fire starts (Keeley and others 1999). Roads and off-road vehicle and recreational 

use have increased the spread of invasive plant species 

across the region (Wisdom and others 2005). 

Management Challenges

The Great Basin has been the focus of relatively few 

large-scale research and management programs and is one 

of the few ecoregions that does not have a Long-Term 

Ecological Research Site. Basic resource information collected at appropriate scales is needed to evaluate alternative management options in the future and develop new 

and effect management strategies. Ground monitoring, 

remote sensing, GIS, and modeling platforms are needed 

to support these efforts.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 55

Methods are needed for assessing current ecological 

conditions and species status across the region—Information on the current ecological status (intact, at risk, 

threshold crossed) of sagebrush ecosystems and on the 

status of individual species is necessary for developing 

strategic plans and implementing management and restoration programs. 

Methods are needed for monitoring the types and rates of 

change occurring in sagebrush ecosystems—Information 

on the changes in vegetation, soils, and animals, as well 

as in climate, fire regimes, and invasive species is needed 

for effective adaptive management. 

Methods/tools are needed for predicting future effects of 

ecosystem stressors on sagebrush ecosystems—Predictive 

information is needed on the future effects of increases 

in human populations, climate change, fire and invasives 

that can be used to develop alternative scenarios and 

guide research and management programs.

Methods/tools are needed for prioritizing management 

activities and restoration treatments at site, watershed, and 

landscape scales—Prioritization requires information on the 

ecological status of sagebrush ecosystems and individual 

species, habitat and range requirements for species of concern, and abiotic and biotic conditions that cause irreversible 

changes in both plants and animal habitat. 

Methods/tools are needed for maintaining intact ecosystems, protecting ecosystems at risk, and restoring 

degraded ecosystems—Although many studies have 

been conducted on managing and restoring sagebrush 

ecosystems, information/tools are still lacking in several 

areas, including: 1) economic analysis tools to evaluate 

costs and benefits of alternative management strategies 

to both the resource and human populations, 2) seed 

supplies and establishment methods for native species; 

3) methods for controlling invasive species while reestablishing sagebrush communities.

Education programs are needed to build consensus for 

implementing necessary changes in management.

Research and 

Management Questions

There are still numerous research and management 

questions that remain to be answered about Great Basin 

ecosystems.

What are the effects of pinyon-juniper expansion on 

watershed function and water resources?

What are the effects of conversion to invasive annuals 

on watershed function and water resources?

How will climate change influence water resources in 

sagebrush ecosystems?

How will climate change influence fire regimes and 

expansion of invasive species?

What fire regimes are required to maintain the diverse 

sagebrush ecosystems of the Great Basin?

What are the abiotic and biotic thresholds that determine 

the recovery capacity of the diverse sagebrush ecosystems 

following disturbance or management treatments, and 

how can these be defined?

What are the effects of prescribed fire and fire surrogate treatments on watershed functioning and on the 

vegetation, soils, and animals that comprise sagebrush 

ecosystems?

What are the factors that make sagebrush ecosystems 

susceptible/resistant to invasion by nonnative species?

What are the rates of expansion of invasive plant species, types of activities that increase invasion rates, and 

types of ecosystems where expansion is occurring most 

rapidly?

Can changes in current management activities be used 

to decrease the rates of invasion?

What are the most appropriate scales and stages of 

invasion to target control activities?

What are the longer-term impacts of using herbicides 

to control invasive species?

What are the habitat requirements and spatial structures 

of populations, and what is the population biology of the 

endemic plant and animal species in the Great Basin?

What are the cause-effect relationships between pervasive 

land uses and population responses of species at risk?

How can we develop effective education/training programs for increasing public understanding management 

issues and building support for restoration projects?

How can we develop effective education/training 

programs on new technologies/strategies for agency 

personnel? 

Strategic Plans

Bureau of Land Management. National Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Conservation Strategy, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, November 2004. http://www.blm.gov/nhp/

spotlight/sage_grouse/docs/Sage-Grouse_Strategy.pdf 

[2007, July 17]
56 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

U.S. Geological Survey. Pike, D.A.; Pellant, M. 2002. 

Strategic Plan for the Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project. USGS/BRD/ITR 2002-0011. Information 

and Technology Report.

Research and Management Projects

Intermountain Regional Observatory Network (IRON). 

The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). 

http://www.neoninc.org/ [2007, July 17]

Integrated Weed Control and Restoration for the Great 

Basin Project. http://www.ag.unr.edu/ifafs/ [2007, July 

17]

The Nature Conservancy, Great Basin Regional Assessment Project, a compilation of the diversity, richness and 

status of native species, natural communities, and ecological 

systems present with the Great Basin Ecoregion.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Great Basin Ecology Lab. http://www.ag.unr.edu/

gbem/ [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. Shrub Sciences Lab. 30 Aug. 2006. http://www.

fs.fed.us/rm/provo/ [2007, July 17]

USDI Bureau of Land Management Great Basin Restoration Initiative. http://www.fire.blm.gov/gbri/ [2007, 

July 17]

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division 

and USDI Bureau of Land Management. SAGEMAP.12 

June 2004. A GIS database for sage grouse and sage steppe 

management in the Intermountain West. http://sagemap.

wr.usgs.gov [2007, July 17]

U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Coordinated Intermountain Restoration Project: 30 June 2003. http://fresc.usgs.gov/research/

StudyDetail.asp?Study_ID=305 [2007, July 17]

References

Bradley, B. A.; Mustard, J. F. 2005. Identifying land cover variability 

distinct from land cover change: cheatgrass in the Great Basin. 

Remote Sensing of Environment. 94: 204-213.

Cubashi, U.; Meehl, G. A.; Boer, G. J. 2001. Projections of future climate change. Pages 525-582. In: Houghton, J. T., et al. eds. Climate 

Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of the Working 

Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Hull, A. C., Jr. 1976. Rangeland use and management in the Mormon 

west. In: Symposium on Agriculture, Food and Man – Century of 

Progress. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Keeley, J. E.; Fotheringham C. J.; Morais M. 1999. Reexamining 

fire suppression impacts on brushland fire regimes. Science. 284: 

1829-1832.

Link, S. O.; Keeler, C. W.; Hill R. W.; Hagen, E. 2006. Bromus 

tectorum cover mapping and fire risk. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 15: 113-119.

McArdle, R. F. 1936. The whiteman’s toll. In: Wallace, H. A. Letter 

from the Secretary of Agriculture to the U.S. Senate. A Report 

on the Western Range. A Great but Neglected Resource. Senate 

Document 199: 81-116.

McKenzie, D.; Gedalof, Z. M.; Peterson, D. L.; Mote, P. 2004. Climate change, wildfire and conservation. Conservation Biology 

18: 890-902.

Miller, R. F.; Eddleman, L. L. 2001. Spatial and temporal changes of 

sage grouse habitat in the sagebrush biome. Corvallis, OR: Oregon 

State University, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 151.

Miller, R. F.; Tausch, R. J.; McArthur, D. E.; Johnson, D.; Sanderson, 

S. C. [In Press]. Development of Post-Settlement Piñon-Juniper 

Woodlands in the Intermountain West: A regional perspective. 

Gen. Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-TBD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 

Monsen, S. B. 2005. History of range and wildlife habitat restoration 

in the Intermountain West. In: Monsen, S. B.; Stevens, R.; Shaw, N. 

L. Restoring Western Rangelands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR136-vol. 1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 1-5.

Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L. H.; Wisdom, M. J.; Meinke, C. W.; 

Schueck, L. 2005. Habitats for vertebrate species of concern. In: 

Wisdom, M. J.; Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L. H., eds. 2005. Habitat 

threats in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance 

Communications Group, Allen Press: 163-204.

Shaw, N. L.; Lambert, S. M.; DeBolt, A. M.; Pellant, M. 2005. Increasing native forb seed supplies for the Great Basin. In: Dumroese, R. K.; 

Riley, L. E.; Landis, T. D., tech. coords. 2005. National proceedings: 

Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations – 2004; 2004 July 

12–15; Charleston, NC; and 2004 July 26–29; Medford, OR. Proc. 

RMRS-P-35. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 94-102.

Suring, L. H.; Wisdom, M. J.; Tausch, R. J [and others]. 2005. Modeling threats to sagebrush and other shrubland communities. In: 

Wisdom, M. J.; Rowland M. M.; Suring, L. H., eds. Habitat threats 

in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and 

application in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications Group, Allen Press. 114-119.

Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s 

Snake River Plains: ecological and management implications. 

In: McArthur, E. D.; Romney, E. M.;Smith, S. D.; Tueller, P. T., 

comps. Proceedings – Symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub 

die-off and other aspects of shrub biology and management. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 4-10.

Wilkenson, C. F. 1992. Crossing the next meridian. Land, water and 

the future of the West. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Wisdom, M. J.; Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L. H. 2005. Habitat threats 

in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment and 

applications in the Great Basin. Lawrence, KS: Alliance Communications Group, Allen Press. 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 57

The health of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) in 

the Great Basin is of growing concern. The following 

provides an overview of aspen decline and die-off in areas 

within and adjacent to the Great Basin and suggests possible directions for research and management. For more 

detailed information, please see the list of references and 

recommended links below.

Aspen Distribution and Value

Quaking aspen is widespread throughout North America 

and is found in the Rocky Mountains from Canada through 

the United States and into northern Mexico. In the western United States, aspen is most abundant in Colorado 

and Utah. In most of its western range, aspen is a midelevation, shade-intolerant species that is a relatively 

minor component of more widespread conifer forests. 

Aspen occurs in clones, which are a group of genetically 

similar stems originating from a seed that germinated some 

time in the past. These clones are perpetuated through 

vegetative reproduction.

Aspen does not occupy a large area of the west; however, it is a very important tree species on the landscape. 

It is one of the few broad-leaved hardwood trees in many 

western forests. Aspen is a valuable ecological component of many landscapes, occurring in pure forests as 

well as growing in association with many conifer and 

other hardwood species. While aspen provides desirable 

scenic value, the diversity of understory plants that occur in the filtered light under the aspen canopy supply 

critical wildlife habitat, valuable grazing resources, and 

protection for soil and water. Although aspen is a crucial 

component of many western landscapes, it may be even 

more valuable in the Great Basin Region where it is less 

common or extensive than elsewhere. The most current 

literature pertaining to aspen has been summarized by 

Shepperd and others (2006) for the Sierra Nevada area. 

Most of this information is applicable to Great Basin 

aspen.

Great Basin Aspen Ecosystems

Dale L. Bartos

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Logan, UT

Key Issues

Aspen thrives where somewhat regular and frequent 

disturbance promotes regeneration (DeByle and Winokur 

1985). Aspen generally sprouts profusely (up to 500,000 

stems per 0.4 ha or per 1 acre) following disturbance. 

These high numbers of aspen suckers typically self-thin 

following a negative exponential decay model, with 

most losses occurring in the first few years (Shepperd 

1993). Most root suckers arise on roots within 15.2 cm 

(6 inches) of the soil surface. Numerous issues related 

to the status of aspen in the Great Basin are unresolved. 

These include:

Decline—Successional processes in aspen communities 

result in replacement of aspen by more shade tolerant 

species. This process is disrupted by disturbance that 

resets the system to an earlier seral stage. Lack of regular 

disturbance has resulted in the deterioration of aspen in 

many areas of the west (Bartos and Campbell 1998a). 

This phenomenon is quite pronounced on the east side of 

the Great Basin, along the Wasatch Front in Utah and the 

adjacent Colorado Plateau, and extends across western 

Utah and Nevada. This decline of aspen has been a major 

concern of land managers for many years.

Die-off—The more recently reported aspen die-off 

differs from normal aspen vegetative succession in that 

mature trees die quickly within a year or two and no new 

sprouting occurs, indicating that the lateral roots may also 

be dead (fig. 1). If that is the case, then aspen will not 

re-occupy the site. Die-off seems to begin in epicenters 

and spread radically through an affected aspen stand. 

Stands on all topographic positions, moisture regimes, 

and soil types are affected and the phenomenon has been 

reported throughout the west from Arizona to Alberta. 

Die-off can affect one clone and leave adjacent clones 

untouched. Younger age classes and advanced regeneration are often not affected to the same extent as mature 

overstory trees in the same clone. Cytospora cankers, 

poplar borers (Saperda calcarata and Agrilus liragus), 
58 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

and other damage or stress agents are often associated 

with die-off epicenters; however, the possibility of a yetunknown invasive disease or insect cause still exists.

Aspen die-off has been reported for several years in 

Utah and Arizona, but only recently has become apparent 

in Colorado, where aerial surveys flown in 2006 indicate 

55,800 ha (138,000 acres) are affected. The apparent death 

of roots is disturbing, as aspen cannot resprout if roots 

are dead. Since this phenomenon has not been reported 

in the literature, we are unable to predict how long the 

die-back will persist or how much area will be affected. 

Current estimates are that approximately 10 percent of 

the aspen stands are at risk of elimination (fig. 2).

Climax aspen—Mueggler (1989) states that approximately a third of the aspen in the west would be considered 

“climax” or not successional. The die-off phenomena 

mentioned above is also occurring in this type of aspen 

and is prevalent in southern Utah (figs. 3 and 4).

This is not as rapid a progression as observed in Colorado, but it does raise major concerns about the functioning 

of aspen stands. There are similarities between what has 

been described as a quick die-off and what is occurring in 

what appears to be stable aspen elsewhere in the west.

Water—It has been speculated that late successional 

aspen (for example, conifer dominated) use more water 

than systems that are still dominated by aspen (Bartos 

and Campbell 1998b). If this holds true, then conifer 

encroachment may be causing increased water loss from 

these systems that would otherwise be available for ground 

water recharge or stream flow.

Figure 4—Same clone as in figure 3 the summer of 2002. 

Few living trees remain and no regeneration is present.

Figure 1—Die-off of aspen seen in western Colorado in 2006. 

Note gray area in top third of picture.

Figure 2—Die-off of mature aspen with sufficient 

regeneration to restore the stand.

Figure 3—Dying aspen clone in the summer of 1990 on 

Cedar Mountain, Utah. (Photo by James Bowns).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 59

Management Challenges

Die-off and decline of aspen are two specific issues 

that are currently of concern in the Rocky Mountains, 

including the Great Basin. Recently, public awareness of 

this issue has increased and considerable attention has 

been given in the press to the problem of aspen die-off. 

A most often asked question is “What can be done to 

limit the impact it might have on the landscape?”

There is a need for a multidisciplinary research effort to 

identify casual agents and environmental factors contributing to aspen die-off and determine whether pro-active 

management can reduce the risk of die-off caused by the 

loss of parent roots.

The USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station sponsored an Aspen Summit December 18 and 

19, 2006, in Salt Lake City, UT. This meeting brought 

together aspen experts and top land managers to discuss 

the die-off problem and to define a course of action. As 

an outcome of the Summit, this group has begun to detail 

a research program that will be a coordinated, multi-year 

effort involving ecologists, climatologists, pathologists, 

and silviculturists.

Research and 

Management Questions

Die-off

Are aspen roots really dead in affected stands? If so, 

what killed them?

What invasive insects and diseases are present in dead 

or dying trees?

Can die-off epicenters be associated with climatic 

conditions other than drought, for example snow pack, 

temperature extremes, and atmospheric gases?

Can die-off be predicted by stand age, growth rate, 

stocking, or other metrics?

Can establishing new sprout stands prevent or reduce 

mortality?

Is there any relationship between die-back and animal 

impacts such as browsing or barking of trees?

Decline, stable aspen, water yields

What are the ecological ramifications of declining or 

decadent aspen stands?

How can declining or decadent aspen stands be 

restored?

Do conifer dominated stands of aspen use more water 

than aspen dominated stands?

Is the die-off in stable aspen stands similar to what is 

happening in mixed aspen/conifer stands?

Existing Programs and Resources

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Aspen Restoration in the Western United States. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/aspen/ [2007, July 17]

An interdisciplinary research program has been initiated between the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) and Utah State University (USU) to better 

understand aspen die-off and decline, the ecological 

consequences of aspen conversion to conifer forests, and 

vegetation manipulation to restore aspen. http://www.

fs.fed.us/rm/aspen/ and http://extension.usu.edu/forestry/ 

[2007, July 17]

An “Aspen Alliance” (Center of Excellence) is being 

developed between RMRS and USU to address aspen 

issues that occur in the west including the Great Basin. 

http://extension.usu.edu/forestry/ and http://www.fs.fed.

us/rm/aspen/ [2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Congressional Briefing Paper on Aspen Die-off. 

http://www.aspensite.org/pdf/Die-off/aspen-die-off.pdf 

[2007, July 17]

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Aspen Die-Off Summit Meeting held in Salt 

Lake City, December 18 and 19, 2006. http://www.

aspensite.org/pdf/Die-off/Aspen-Summit-Summary.

pdf and http://www.aspensite.org/research_dieback.

htm [2007, July 17]

Aspen Delineation Project. http://www.aspensite.org/ 

[2007, July 17]

Utah State University, Forestry Extension, and USDA 

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Restoring the West Conference held at Utah State University in 

Logan, Utah, September 12 and 13, 2006. http://extension.

usu.edu/forestry/UtahForests/RTW2006/RTW2006.htm 

[2007, July 17]

Utah State University, Forestry Extension, Managing Aspen in Western Landscapes Conference 

2004. http://extension.usu.edu/forestry/UtahForests/

ForestTypes_04AspenConference.htm [2007, July 17]
60 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

References

Bartos, D. L.; Campbell Jr., R. B. 1998a. Decline of quaking aspen 

in the Interior West – Examples from Utah. Rangelands. 20(1): 

17-24.

Bartos, D. L.; Campbell Jr., R. B. 1998b. Water depletion and other 

ecosystem values forfeited when conifer forests displace aspen 

communities. In: Potts, D. F., ed. 1998 Proceedings of AWRA 

Specialty Conference, Rangeland Management and Water Resources. American Water Resource Association. Herndon, Virginia. 

TPS-98-1. 474 p.

DeByle, N. V.; Winokur, R. P., eds. 1985. Aspen: Ecology and management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-119. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 283 p.

Mueggler, W. F. 1989. Age distribution and reproduction of Intermountain aspen stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

4(2): 41-45.

Shepperd, W. D. 1993. The effects of harvesting activities on soil 

compaction, root damage, and suckering in Colorado aspen. Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 8(2): 62-66.

Shepperd, W. D.; Rogers, P. C.; Burton, D; Bartos, D. L. 2006. Ecology, 

biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra 

Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-178. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 122 p. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/

rmrs_gtr178.pdf [2007, July 17].
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 61

Many native species of plants and animals in the Great 

Basin have a restricted geographic distribution that reflects 

the region’s biogeographic history. Conservation of these 

species has become increasingly challenging in the face 

of changing environmental conditions and land management practices. This paper provides an overview of major 

stressors contributing to species’ rarity and vulnerability 

and discusses associated management challenges and 

research needs. For more detailed information, please 

see the list of references and recommended links.

As the climate of the Great Basin became warmer 

and drier after the Pleistocene, pronounced land-cover 

differences emerged between mountain ranges and the 

intervening valleys, with woodlands and riparian areas 

restricted primarily to higher elevations (Brown 1978, 

Wells 1983, Grayson 1993). There is substantial evidence 

that individual mountain ranges currently function as 

permeable but distinct islands of habitat for many taxa, 

such as terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and some mammals, for which resources in the arid valleys are scarce 

(McDonald and Brown 1992; Murphy and Weiss 1992; 

Skaggs and Boecklen 1996; Lawlor 1998). The isolation 

of valley aquatic systems (Sada and Vinyard 2002) and 

unconsolidated sand dunes (Pavlik 1989, Britten and Rust 

1996) similarly was exacerbated by long-term climate 

change. The specialized resource requirements and low 

mobility of many species, native or endemic to the Great 

Basin, limits their ability to adapt rapidly to natural and 

anthropogenic environmental change. Growth of human 

populations and supporting infrastructure in the Great 

Basin places additional demands on limited resources 

for these species, especially water, and creates artificial 

barriers to dispersal.

Contemporary changes in climate, fire regimes, and 

land-use patterns, and invasion of non-native species, pose 

threats to the viability of many species in the Great Basin 

that historically were widely distributed and abundant. 

As formerly-extensive stands of sagebrush (Artemesia 

tridentata ssp.) have become smaller and fragmented, 

numerous associated plants and animals have declined. 

Scientists, practitioners, and some local communities are 

collaborating to develop conservation strategies that may 

benefit multiple sagebrush-dependent species (Knick and 

others 2003, Wisdom and others 2005). These efforts 

may obviate the need to confer statutory protection on 

species such as the Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) (Rowland and others 2006), pygmy rabbit 

(Brachylagus idahoensis) (Rachlow and Svancara 2006), 

and the Great Basin population of the Columbia spotted 

frog (Rana luteiventris).

Key Issues

Interactions among major stressors, such as human 

population growth, increased demand for water diversion, 

and climate change, affect the probability that native and 

endemic species will persist in the Great Basin.

Climate change—Native species in the Great Basin 

are adapted to extreme and variable weather patterns on 

daily to decadal or longer time scales. The magnitude 

and speed of climatic changes anticipated by 2100 may 

exceed the plasticity of many species with respect to their 

phenology and patterns of resource use. Differences in 

plant phenology between low and high elevations may 

affect invertebrates, birds, and species with elevational 

migrations, as well as behavior of species that hibernate 

during the winter (Inouye and others 2000). Buildings 

and infrastructure further impede movement of native 

species (Hansen and others 2005, Vesk and Mac Nally 

2006). Many native animal species tend to avoid dispersing through urban and agricultural areas in favor 

of remnants or corridors of native vegetation (Atwood 

and others 2004). It is difficult to predict how plants and 

animals that currently inhabit the Great Basin will interact 

with species that may colonize the region in response to 

climate change (Hooper and others 2005).

Human settlement—Urbanization and the expanding 

wildland-urban interface are changing the current mosaic 

of land cover and land use in the western United States 

Great Basin Rare and Vulnerable Species

Erica Fleishman

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA
62 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

(Hansen and others 2005). Environmental changes include 

shifts in the distribution and composition of species, altered patterns of land cover, modified disturbance regimes, 

and perturbations to biogeochemical cycles (Dale and 

others 2005). Houses and roads can have ecologically 

deleterious effects many hundreds of meters from their 

specific location (Forman and Alexander 1998, Forman 

2000). Roads, ornamental vegetation, domestic animals, 

and recreational use can serve as conduits for non-native 

invasive species (Bock and others 1999, Odell and Knight 

2001). Development of urban areas and infrastructure 

has been hypothesized to have greater influence on biotic diversity and ecological processes than traditional 

extractive uses (Hansen and others 2005).

The probability of fire increases at the wildland–urban 

interface as people, homes, and other urban and suburban 

structures expand into areas of natural vegetation (Radeloff and others 2005, Vince and others 2005). Changes in 

the composition and structural complexity of the vegetation mosaic affect the distribution of animal species that 

may rely on different successional stages during their 

life cycle (Richards and others 1999, Saab and Powell 

2005).

Water diversion—The availability of water in the Great 

Basin limits human domestic activities, agriculture, 

extractive uses such as mining, and the distribution of 

native species (Shepard 1993). The viability of fish species in terminal wetlands is compromised by increasing 

levels of dissolved solids as upstream water is diverted. 

Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) 

are unlikely to persist in Walker Lake over the long term 

(Dickerson and Vinyard 1999) and viability of cui-ui 

(Chasmistes cujus) in Pyramid Lake depends heavily on 

water supplementation (Emlen and others 1993). Climate 

change and population growth are leading to diversion 

of water from rural to urban areas and to groundwater 

withdrawals – the ecological effects of which are largely 

unknown. Aquatic species that inhabit groundwater-fed 

springs may be at greatest risk (Minckley and Deacon 

1968, Sada and Vinyard 2002).

Status and trend of riparian systems—Even when 

water is not diverted, the condition of streams, stream 

beds, and riparian vegetation affects fish and aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, breeding birds, and other species 

of animals and plants (Eby and others 2003, Fleishman 

and others 2006). Nest success of songbirds tends to be 

higher in riparian areas without major anthropogenic 

impacts (Heltzel and Earnst 2006). Many permanent 

and ephemeral streams currently are deeply incised. 

Mechanisms of incision and the relative magnitude of their 

influence vary among locations and operate across time 

scales from years to millennia. Influences on incision are 

generally understood to be a combination of geomorphic 

and hydrologic processes, climate, and human land use 

(Chambers and Miller 2004).

Non-native invasive species—Extensive areas of native 

shrublands and grasslands in the Great Basin are being 

converted to virtual monocultures of invasive non-native 

species. Among the most invasive non-natives are cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and salt-cedar (Tamarix spp.). 

Cheatgrass tends to be most prevalent in basins, although 

it increasingly is colonizing higher elevations (Bradley 

and Mustard 2006). Salt-cedar is spreading rapidly along 

riparian corridors (Cleverly and others 1997, Sher and 

others 2000). Some native species of birds, including 

the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), can nest in salt-cedar. However, 

salt-cedar cannot serve as an ecological replacement for 

native trees and shrubs.

Cheatgrass-dominated systems are typically less complex than systems dominated by native plants. As a result, 

invasion of cheatgrass can affect the viability of birds and 

other species that are strongly influenced by vegetation 

structure and composition (Wiens and Rotenberry 1981, 

Rotenberry 1985). Because cheatgrass senesces earlier 

than many native perennial grasses, its value as a food 

source for native herbivores is low. Cheatgrass also is 

highly flammable, increasing the frequency and magnitude of fire and creating ecological conditions that can 

be exploited by other invasive non-native grasses and 

forbs.

Management Challenges 

and Research Needs

Diversity of resource needs and life history strategies—

Species of conservation concern in the Great Basin range 

from endemic dune beetles, springsnails, and forbs to 

resident large mammals and neotropical migrant birds. 

There is considerable variation in the spatial and temporal 

distribution of habitat for different species and taxonomic 

groups. Even within the same land-cover type, management actions intended to benefit one species inadvertently 

may harm other species of concern. Improved understanding of the natural and anthropogenic drivers of species 

distributions, and whether those drivers generalize within 

apparent functional groups, may help identify tradeoffs 

among alternative management approaches.

Restoration and reconstruction—Long-term viability 

of many rare and vulnerable species in the Great Basin 
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 63

depends on whether their habitat can be restored or 

reconstructed in portions of their historic range. Restoration refers to reestablishment of vegetation or ecological 

function at small scales. Reconstruction refers to extensive 

land-cover change to arrest declines in biotic diversity 

and ecological function. Either approach may consider 

both site-level factors and landscape-level allocation of 

effort. Little information exists on presettlement distributions of land cover and species across the Great Basin. 

When presettlement conditions are known, ecological or 

socioeconomic constraints may preclude a return to that 

state. Methods are needed to classify land-cover types 

and landscape features according to their potential for 

restoration or reconstruction. In particular, little is known 

about the effects of alternative water reallocation schemes 

on the status and restoration potential of springs, wet 

meadows, and riparian areas.

Alternative futures—Major land cover and land use 

changes are affecting ecological status and reconstruction potential across the Great Basin. Research is needed 

to examine interdependence among multiple land uses, 

vegetation structure, climate change trajectories, and 

management actions. An enhanced understanding of 

species responses to topography and vegetation may 

facilitate prediction of the impact of alternative landcover scenarios on the distribution of rare and vulnerable 

taxa.

Fire and fire surrogates—Prescribed fire and other types 

of fuels treatments have been proposed as tools to limit 

expansion of pinyon-juniper woodlands into sagebrush 

systems, restore native understory plants, and minimize 

the risk of fire at the wildland–urban interface. Little is 

known about the effects of ecological starting conditions 

on the outcome of small-scale and large-scale fire and 

fuels treatments. Further, relatively little is known about 

the response of rare and vulnerable species to implementation of prescribed fire and fire surrogates.

Surrogate measurements—There is a common assumption within the research and management communities 

that monitoring a limited number of species can serve 

as a surrogate measure of the distribution and response 

to environmental change of many species. Rarely has 

this hypothesis been subjected to rigorous conceptual 

and empirical evaluation. In the event that scientifically 

reliable, cost-effective surrogates can be identified for 

a given purpose, location, and time, additional research 

is needed to understand whether those relationships are 

spatially and temporally transferable.

Existing Programs and Resources

University of Nevada, Reno. Great Basin Ecology 

Laboratory, Great Basin Ecosystem Management Project. 

http://www.ag.unr.edu/gbem/aboutGbem.htm [2007, 

July 17]

Sagebrush Steppe Treatment Evaluation Project. 16 

Apr. 2007. http://www.sagestep.org / [2007, July 17]

Greater Sage-Grouse Range-Wide Issues Forum. http://

sagegrouse.ecr.gov/ [2007, July 17]

Utah State University, Sage-grouse Restoration Project. 

http://sgrp.usu.edu/htm/ [2007, July 17]

USGS Snake River Field Station, Great Basin Information Project. http://greatbasin.nbii.gov [2007, July 17]

USGS Snake River Field Station, Sagebrush and Grassland Ecosystem Map Assessment Project (SAGEMAP). 

http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/ [2007, July 17]

Nevada Natural Heritage Program. http://heritage.

nv.gov/index.htm [2007, July 17]

Wilburforce Foundation, Analysis and conservation 

prioritization of connectivity in Nevada.

Contact for information: Erica Fleishman, University 

of California, Santa Barbara.

Northern Arizona University, Center for Environmental 

Sciences and Education, Forest Ecosystem Restoration 

Analysis (ForestERA). http://www.forestera.nau.edu/ 

[2007, July 17]

Strategic Plans

Nevada Partners in Flight. Bird Conservation Plan. 

http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl-nv-10.pdf [2007, 

July 17]

Nevada Natural Heritage Program. Scorecard of 

Highest-Priority Conservation Sites for Nevada http://

heritage.nv.gov/scorecrd.htm [2007, July 17]

USDI Bureau of Land Management. National Strategy 

for Conserving Sage-Grouse on Public Lands. http://www.

blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/sage_grouse/ [2007, July 17]

References

Atwood, T. C.; Weeks, H. P.; Gehring, T. M. 2004. Spatial ecology 

of coyotes along a suburban-to-rural gradient. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 68:1000–1009.
64 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Bock, C. E.; Bock, J. E.; Bennett, B. C. 1999. Songbird abundance 

in grasslands at a suburban interface on the Colorado High Plains. 

Studies in Avian Biology. 19: 131–136.

Bradley, B. A.; Mustard, J. F. 2006. Characterizing the landscape 

dynamics of an invasive plant and risk of invasion using remote 

sensing. Ecological Applications. 16: 1132–1147.

Britten, H. B.; Rust, R. W. 1996. Population structure of a sand dune 

obligate beetle, Eusattus muricatus, and its implications for dune 

management. Conservation Biology. 10: 647–652.

Brown, J. 1978. The theory of insular biogeography and the distribution of boreal mammals and birds. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs. 

2: 209–228.

Chambers, J. C.; Miller, J. R. eds. 2004. Great Basin riparian ecosystems – ecology, management, and restoration. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C.

Cleverly, J. R.; Smith, S. D.; Sala, A.; Devitt, D. A. 1997. Invasive 

capacity of Tamarix ramosissima in a Mojave Desert floodplain: 

the role of drought. Oecologia. 111: 12–18.

Dale, V.; Archer. S.; Chang, M.; Ojima, D. 2005. Ecological impacts 

and mitigation strategies for rural land management. Ecological 

Applications. 15: 1879–1892.

Dickerson, B. R.; Vinyard, G. L. 1999. Effects of high levels of total 

dissolved solids in Walker Lake, Nevada, on survival and growth 

of Lahontan cutthroat trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society. 128: 507–515.

Eby, L. A.; Fagan, W. F.; Minckley, W. L. 2003. Variability and 

dynamics of a desert stream community. Ecological Applications. 

13: 1566–1579.

Emlen, J. M.; Strekal, T. A.; Buchanan, C. C. 1993. Probabalistic 

projections for recovery of the endangered cui-ui. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management. 13: 467–474.

Fleishman, E.; Murphy, D. D.; Sada, D. W. 2006. Effects of environmental heterogeneity and disturbance on the native and non-native 

flora of desert springs. Biological Invasions. 8: 1091–1101.

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.; Alexande, L. E. 1998. Roads and their major 

ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 

29:207–231.

Grayson, D. K. 1993. The desert’s past: a natural prehistory of the 

Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hansen, A. J.; Knight,R. L.; Marzluff, J. M.; Powell, S.; Brown, K.; 

Gude, P. H.; Jones, K. 2005. Effects of exurban development on 

biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological 

Applications. 15: 1893–1905.

Heltzel, J. M.; Earnst, S. L. 2006. Factors influencing nest success of 

songbirds in aspen and willow riparian areas in the Great Basin. 

The Condor. 108: 842–855.

Hooper, D. U.; Chapin, F. S., III; Ewel, J. J.; Hector, A.; Inchausti, P.; 

Lavorel, S.; Lawton, J. H.; Lodge, D. M.; Loreau, M.; Naeem, S.; 

Schmid, B.; Setala, H.; Symstad, A. J.; Vandermeer, J.; Wardle, D. A. 

2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus 

of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs. 75: 3–35.

Inouye, D. W.; Barr, B.; Armitage, K. B.; Inouye, B. D. 2000. Climate 

change is affecting altitudinal migrants and hibernating species. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United 

States of America. 97: 1630–1633.

Knick, S. T.; Dobkin, D. S.; Rotenberry, J. S.; Schroeder, M. A.; 

Vander Haegen, W.M.; Van Riper, C. III. 2003. Teetering on the 

edge or too late? Conservation and research issues for the avifauna 

of sagebrush habitats. The Condor. 105: 611–634.

Lawlor, T. E. 1998. Biogeography of Great Basin mammals: paradigm 

lost? Journal of Mammalogy. 79: 1111–1130.

McDonald, K. A.; Brown, J. H. 1992. Using montane mammals to 

model extinctions due to climate change. Conservation Biology. 

6: 409–415.

Minckley, W. L.; Deacon, J. E. 1968. Southwestern fishes and the 

enigma of ‘endangered species.’ Science. 159: 1424–1432.

Murphy, D. D.; Weiss, S. B. 1992. Effects of climate change on 

biological diversity in western North America: species losses and 

mechanisms. In: R.L. Peters and Lovejoy, T. E., editors. Global 

warming and biological diversity. Yale University Press, New 

Haven, Connecticut: 355-368.

Odell, E. A.; Knight, R. L. 2001. Songbird and medium sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin 

County Colorado. Conservation Biology. 15: 1–8.

Pavlik, B. M. 1989. Phytogeography of sand dunes in the Great Basin 

and Mojave Deserts. Journal of Biogeography. 16: 227–238.

Rachlow, J. L.; Svancara, L. K. 2006. Prioritizing habitat for surveys 

of an uncommon mammal: a modeling approach applied to pygmy 

rabbits. Journal of Mammalogy. 87: 827–833.

Radeloff, V. C.; Hammer, R. B.; Stewart, S. I.; Fried, J. S.; Holcomb, 

S. S.; McKeefry, J. F. 2005. The wildland–urban interface in the 

United States. Ecological Applications. 15: 799–805.

Richards, S. A.; Possingham, H. P.; Tizard, J. 1999. Optimal fire 

management for maintaining community diversity. Ecological 

Applications. 9:880–892.

Rotenberry, J. T. 1985. The role of habitat in avian community composition: physiognomy or floristics? Oecologia. 67: 213–217.

Rowland, M. M.; Wisdom, M. J.; Suring, L. H.; Meinke, C. W. 2006. 

Greater Sage-grouse as an umbrella species for sagebrush-associated 

vertebrates. Biological Conservation. 129: 323–335.

Saab, V. A.; Powell, D. W., eds. 2005. Fire and avian ecology in North 

America. Studies in Avian Biology No. 30.

Sada, D. W.; Vinyard, G. L. 2002. Anthropogenic changes in historical biogeography of Great Basin aquatic biota. In: Hershler, R.; 

Madsen, D. B.; Currey, D. editors. Great Basin aquatic systems 

history. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences No. 33: 

277-293.

Shepard, W. D. 1993. Desert springs—both rare and endangered. 

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 3: 

351–359.

Sher, A. A.; Marshall, D. L.; Gilbert, S.A. 2000. Competition between 

native Populus deltoides and invasive Tamarix ramosissima

and the implications for reestablishing flooding disturbance. 

Conservation Biology. 14: 1744–1754.

Skaggs, R. W.; Boecklen, W. J. 1996. Extinctions of montane mammals reconsidered: putting a global-warming scenario on ice. 

Biodiversity and Conservation. 5: 759–778.

Vesk, P.; Mac Nally, R. 2006. Changes in vegetation structure and 

distribution in rural landscapes: implications for biodiversity and 

ecosystem processes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 

112: 356–366.

Vince, S. W.; Duryea, M. L.; Macie, E. A.; Hermansen, L. A. 2005. 

Forests at the wildland–urban interface: conservation and management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Wells, P. V. 1983. Paleobiogeography of montane islands in the 

Great Basin since the last glaciopluvial. Ecological Monographs. 

53: 341–382.

Wiens, J. A.; Rotenberry, J. T. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of birds in shrubsteppe environments. Ecological 

Monographs. 51: 21–41.

Wisdom, M. J.; Rowland, M. M.; Suring, L.H. 2005. Habitat threats 

in the sagebrush ecosystem: methods of regional assessment 

and applications in the Great Basin. Alliance Communications 

Group, Lawrence, Kansas.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008 65

Diane Alston

Extension Entomology Specialist

Department of Biology

Utah State University

5305 Old Main Hill

Logan, UT 84322-5305

435-797-2516

dianea@biology.usu.edu

Dale L. Bartos

Research Ecologist

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

860 North 1200 East

Logan, UT 84321

435-755-3590

dbartos@fs.fed.us

Barbara Bentz

Research Entomologist

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

860 North 1200 East

Logan, UT 84321

435-755-3577

bbentz@fs.fed.us

Mark Brunson

Dept. Environment and Society

Utah State University

College of Natural Resources

Logan, UT 84322-5215

435-797-2458

Mark.Brunson@usu.edu

Jeanne C. Chambers

Research Ecologist 

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

920 Valley Road

Reno, NV 89512

775-784-5329

jchambers@fs.fed.us

Nora Devoe

Regional Science Coordinator

BLM Nevada State Office

1340 Financial Boulevard

Reno, NV 89520-7147

775-861-6546

ndevoe@nv.blm.gov

Author Contact Information 

Ted Evans

Project Leader

Utah Agricultural Exp. Station Research

Utah State University

4810 Old Main Hill

Logan, UT 84322-4810

435-797-2552

ewevans@biology.usu.edu

Erica Fleishman

National Center for Ecological

Analysis and Synthesis

735 State Street, Suite 300

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

805-892-2530

fleishman@nceas.ucsb.edu

Russ Mason

Game Division Chief

Nevada Department of Wildlife

1100 Valley Road

Reno, NV 59812

775-688-1529

rmason@ndow.org

Don Sada

Aquatic Ecologist

Desert Research Institute

2215 Raggio Parkway

Reno, NV 59812

775-673-7359

don.sada@dri.edu

Alicia Torregrosa

U.S. Geological Survey

Western Geographic Science Center

345 Middlefield Road

MS 531 Menlo Park, CA 94025

650-329-4091

atorregrosa@usgs.gov

Susan Wilmot

Dept. Environment and Society

Utah State University

College of Natural Resources

Logan, UT 84322-5215

slreid@cc.usu.edu
66 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204. 2008

Jeanne Chambers, Chair

Research Ecologist

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

920 Valley Road

Reno, NV 89512

Phone: (775) 784-5329

jchambers@fs.fed.us

Bob Alverts, Cochair

Science and Mgmt Consultant

14569 SW 130th Avenue

Tigard, OR 97224

Phone: (503) 639-0405

Cell: (503) 577-0202

balverts@teleport.com

Mike Auerbach

Executive Director

Desert Research Institute

2215 Ragio Parkway

Reno, NV 89512

(775) 673-7409

auerbach@dri.edu

Stuart Hardegree

Unit Leader

USDA Agricultural Research Service

800 Park Blvd

Plaza IV, Suite 105

Boise, ID 83712

Phone: (208) 422-0728

shardegr@nwrc.ars.usda.gov

Kate Kitchell

Deputy Center Director

USGS – FRESC

Cannery Mall Building

777 NW 9th Street, Suite 400

Corvallis, OR 97330

(541) 750-1033

kkitchell@usgs.gov

Workshop Planning Committee

James A. MacMahon

Director

Ecology Center

Utah State University

BNR 317, UMC 5305

Logan, UT 84322-5305

Phone: (435) 797-8151

jam@cc.usu.edu

Russ Mason

Game Division Chief

Nevada Department of Wildlife 

1100 Valley Road

Reno, NV 89512

(775) 688-1520

rmason@ndow.org

Rangesan Narayanan

Associate Dean

College of Agriculture Biotechnology & 

Natural Resources

Mail Stop 204, Fleishman Agriculture 216A

University of Nevada, Reno

Reno, NV 89512

(775) 784-1660

rang@cabnr.unr.edu

Mike Pellant

Director Great Basin Restoration Initiative

BLM Resource Services

1387 South Vinnell Way

Boise, ID 83709

Phone: (208) 373-3823

Mike_Pellant@blm.gov
Publishing Services Staff

Managing Editor · Lane Eskew

Page Composition & Printing · Nancy Chadwick

Editorial Assistant · Loa Collins

Contract Editor · Kristi Coughlon

Page Composition & Printing · Connie Lemos

Distribution · Richard Schneider

Online Publications & Graphics · Suzy Stephens


Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not 

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information 

and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the 

forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of 

National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and private 

organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, 

forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, 

community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use 

economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION