United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range

Experiment Station

Fort Collins

Colorado 80526

General Technical

Report RM-GTR-298

Conserving Biodiversity on

Native Rangelands:

Symposium Proceedings

August 17, 1995

Fort Robinson State Park, Nebraska
Uresk, Daniel W.; Greg L. Schenbeck; James T. O'Rourke, tech coords. 1996. Conserving biodiversity on 

native rangelands: symposium proceedings; August 17,1995; Fort Robinson State Park, Nebraska. Gen-, 

era1 Technical Report RM-GTR-298. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 38 p. 

Abstract: These proceedings are the result of a symposium, "Conserving biodiversity on native rangelands" held on August 17, 

1995 in Fort Robinson State Park, NE. The purpose of this 

symposium was to provide a forum to discuss how elements of 

rangeland biodiversity are being conserved today. We asked, 

"How resilient and sustainable are rangeland systems to the 

increasing demands of a growing human population and to 

extended periods of drought?" Key programs and issues, identified by a program committee, were addressed by researchers and 

managers. Their papers provide research results, management 

findings, and describe management programs currently used to 

conserve rangeland biodiversity. 

Keywords: biodiversity, rangeland, sustainability, drought, 

conservation 

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

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

Please send the publication title and number. 

Telephone (970) 498-1719 

DG message R.Schneider:S28A 

FAX (970) 498-1660 

E-mail /s=r.schneider/oul =s28a@mhs-fswa.attmail.com 

Mailing Address 

Publications Distribution 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station 

3825 E. Mulberry Street 

Fort Collins, CO 80524 

Editor's note: To deliver symposium proceedings to readers as quickly as possible, manuscripts did not 

undergo full editing. Views expressed in each paper are those of the author and not necessarily those of the 

sponsoring organizations or the USDA Forest Service. Trade names are used for the information and convenience of the reader and do not imply endorsement or preferential treatment by the sponsoring organizations or the USDA Forest Service. 
USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report RM-GTR-298 

September 1997 

Conserving Biodiversity on Native Rangelands: 

Symposium Proceedings 

August 17,1995 

Fort Robinson State Park, Nebraska 

Technical Coordinators: 

Dr. Daniel W. Uresk, Project Leader 

USDA Forest Service 

Center for Great Plains Ecosystem Research 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 

Rapid City, South Dakota 

Greg L. Schenbeck, Northern Plains Wildlife Coordinator 

USDA Forest Service 

Chadron, Nebraska 

Dr. James T. O'Rourke, Professor 

Department of Agriculture and Industrial Technology 

Chadron State College 

Chadron, Nebraska 

Sponsors: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 

Nebraska National Forest 

Chadron State College, Department of Agriculture and Industrial Technology 

Central Mountains and Plains Section of The Wildlife Society 

Nebraska Chapter of The Wildlife Society 

Contents 

Page 

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

A Neotropical Migratory Bird Prioritization for National Forests 

and Grasslands .............................................................................................................. 3 

Dick Roth and Richard Peterson 

Greater Prairie Chicken Nesting Habitat, Sheyenne National 

Grassland, North Dakota ............................................................................................. 13 

Clinton McCarthy, Tim Pella, Greg Link, and Mark Rumble 

Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Status and Future Conservation Planning .............................. 19 

Daniel W. Mulhern and Craig J. Knowles 

The Role of Fire in Managing for Biological Diversity on Native 

Rangelands of the Northern Great Plains .................................................................. 31 

Carolyn Hull Sieg 

Introduction

Rangelands embody biological diversity of profound ecological and social significance, yet it is the

biological diversity of forests and wetlands that has

been the focus of research by scientists and concern

by the public. Recently, a broad array of people, from

ecologists and biologists to ranchers and recreationists,

have begun to realize the importance of rangeland

conservation and biological diversity. Although these

groups may not always share a common vision of

rangelands, they share a common interest in the land

that will foster a better understanding and appreciation of the value of diverse and healthy rangelands.

Ranchers have long practiced conservation of rangeland biological diversity. Most recognize the importance of both warm and cool season grasses to round

out their forage programs, and many have noticed

that in some years one grass will do poorly while

another will thrive, thus balancing the production.

Ranchers depend on native grasses coming back on

their own after drought or a bad grasshopper year;

some species will return quicker than others. Looking

toward the future, ranchers manage their grass for a

diverse rangeland community, not a monotypic one.

This is conservation of rangeland biological diversity

at the grass roots level.

Together, scientists and rangeland managers are

traveling to new levels of conservation of rangeland

biodiversity, but the journey has some formidable

challenges. Herbivory, fire, drought, and other natural events and processes historically shaped rangeland biodiversity and ecological processes long before human action. However, human influence on

the range has complicated and interrupted many

naturally occurring mechanisms. The use and control

of fire has altered its frequency and intensity. The

pattern, frequency, and intensity of herbivory by

large animals has been modified by the conversion

from free-ranging bison and other large ungulates to

confined domestic livestock and a proliferation of

livestock water developments. Cultivation has fragmented and isolated rangelands and often natural

processes no longer function. An insidious challenge

to rangeland biodiversity is the invasion of exotic

plants into native range often at the expense of native

biota.

The purpose of this symposium was to provide a

forum to discuss how elements of rangeland

biodiversity are being conserved today. We asked,

“How resilient and sustainable are rangeland systems to the increasing demands of a growing human

population and to extended periods of drought?”

One way to begin answering this question is to look

at our successes and failures in conserving all parts

of rangeland systems. Key programs and issues,

identified by a program committee, were addressed

by researchers and managers. Their papers, which

have received statistical and peer review, are presented here and provide research results, management findings, and describe management programs

currently used to conserve rangeland biodiversity.

The paper “Gap Analysis in the Great Plains: A

Large-Scale Geographic Strategy for Conservation

of Biodiversity” by Dennis Jelinski, Michael Jennings,

and James Merchant was withdrawn by the authors

before publication of this workshop proceedings.

This symposium was held concurrently with the

Annual Meeting of the Central Mountains and Plains

Section of The Wildlife Society. We thank the organizers of that event for suggesting this symposium. Thanks

are also extended for the well-attended field trip to

review northern swift fox management in southwestern South Dakota that concluded the workshop.

A Neotropical Migratory Bird Prioritization for

National Forests and Grasslands

Dick Roth1 and Richard Peterson2

Abstract.-The Rocky Mountain Region of the USDA Forest

Service provides nesting habitat for 146 species of neotropical

migratory birds. Interactive, prioritization databases were developed for each National Forest and National Grassland in the

Region to assist land managers in making informed decisions

about resource allocations. The data was processed using

Paradox software. This paper summarizes the uses and application of the database for the Oglala and Ft. Pierre National

Grasslands.

score (IA) was modified for our use to include a rank

based upon the percentage of the area under consideration which meets breeding habitat requirements

for a given species.

METHODS

We used data provided by Colorado Bird Observatory and ranked according to the Partners-In-Flight

(PIF) ranking scheme for initial prioritization of

neotropical migratory birds (NTMBs). The approach

ranks species by their relative susceptibility to extinction (Carter and Barker 1993, Hunter et al. 1993).

There are many factors that contribute to extinction

probability. The PIF prioritization scheme uses seven

criteria as the most important in gauging a species

susceptibility to extirpation or extinction: 1) importance of area of consideration (IA), (percentage of a

species range that is within a state or geographic area

under consideration); 2) global abundance (GA); 3)

the degree of threat to the species’ persistence on the

breeding ground (TB); 4) the degree of threat to

species’ persistence on the wintering ground (TW); 5)

breeding distribution (BD); 6) extent of wintering

distribution (WD); 7) population trend in area of

consideration (PT); based upon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. Each of

the seven criteria is weighted equally. An individual

species is assigned a score in each of the seven categories ranging from one (low concern) to five (high

concern). Each species is ranked according to the

average of the seven scores. The importance of area

Uncertainty values are assigned to each species in

conjunction withvalues assigned for threats to breeding (TBU) and wintering (TWU), and population

trend (PTU). These uncertainty values reflect the

extent of the available information for each of the

associated criteria. They indicate the extent and location of gaps in our knowledge of neotropical migrant

biology. These values help us differentiate between

species withdefinite management concerns and those

requiring additional monitoring or research in order

to more clearly reflect their status.

Several criteria were modified for the Oglala and

Ft. Pierre National Grasslands. Population trend (PT)

and Population trend uncertainty scores were determined from USFWS Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) for

the lo-year and 26-year scores. Data from physiorgraphic region 39 (Missouri Plateau-Unglaciated)

were used for both grasslands. Other population

trend data more specific to the area under considerationcanbe used for these criteria if available. Threats

to breeding habitat (TB) and Threats to breeding

habitat uncertainty (TBU) criteria provided by PIF

were used (Carter and Barker 1993). Additionally,

known local threats were also considered such as

reduction of prairie dog towns as a threat to burrowing owl habitat. In this case, a TB score of 5 was used

because loss of prairie dog towns would result in

eliminationof burrowing owl habitat (Peterson 1994).

1 NTMB Program Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mtn. Region, 1 920 Valley Dr., Pueblo, CO. 81008.

2P.O. Box 118 Wewela, SD. 57578.

Several methods have been developed to determine priorities for community based conservation

(Millsap et al. 1990, Master 1991, Reed 1992). The

technique developed by Partners in Flight is essentially one that ranks individual species first, and

secondarily ranks habitats based on individual species scores grouped by habitat preference. This ranking can then be used to develop and justify community based conservation programs. The determina3
tion of breeding occurrence and habitat preference of

neotropical migratory landbirds on the Oglala and

Ft. Pierre Grasslands was made using local expertise.

The habitat types and conditions developed for

the Grasslands and assigned to each species have

three levels:

1) Appropriate habitat contains six major

breeding bird habitat types. They include

trees/woodlands, shrubs/shrublands,

grass/grasslands, edge-tree/grass-shrub/

grass, wetlands and special topographic

structure.

2) Suitable habitat, in general, additional conditions are needed for appropriate habitat to be suitable breeding habitat for a

given species. For grasslands, additional

conditions could be related to a given

height and density of grasses or forbs. For

trees/woodland habitat, additional conditions could include deciduous trees,

cavities or a multi-layered canopy.

3) Special conditions includes topographic

structures such as cliffs and cutbanks, but

also includes features such as riparian

areas and prairie dog towns.

These habitat categories enable development of

habitat ranking based on a species’ use of a wide

variety of habitat types and variables.

Coding used for habitats and special features is as

follows:

Habitats T-(t)rees/woodlands, coni(f)erous,

(d)ediduous, (o)ld growth, m(u)ltilayer

canopy, and

(c)avities.

E-(e)dge, tree-grass/shrub-grass.

S-(s)hrubs, (b)ig sagebrush, (2) thorny

shrubs-esp. plum,

G-(g)rass/grasslands-open areas-esp.

s(h)ort and/or sparse, t(a)ll and/or

de(n)se, mi(x)ed/mid.

W-(w)etlands/(w)ater-(1)riparian, (m)arsh/

tall emergent, (3) wet meadow-tall

grass/short emergent.

Specials s(P)ecial-top/structure-(4)cliffs/

caves/ledges and cutbanks, (5)buildings/

bridges/chimneys and bird houses, (6)islands/bare shores.

s(p)ecial-other-(7)prairie dog towns, (i.e.

burrows/bare ground/short grass and

associated prey), forest fire locations-

(B)urned areas, esp. large with tall

snags, (9) cropland-esp alfalfa, (O)old

crow/magpie nests.

The mix of numbers and letters used in the coding

may appear to be confusing; however, familiarization with the application of those codes as displayed

in the habitat columns of the accompanying tables

reveals that they provide a logical fit.

RESULTS

The Oglala and Ft. Pierre National Grasslands

support 79 and 68 species of neotropical migratory

landbirds which regularly nest there, or a combined

total of 84 regular nesters. These are listed in Appendix 1 and 2 along with all associated prioritization

scores for the seven criteria and some of the associated uncertainty scores. Species with R10 or R26

ranks of 3.00 or greater should be given high priority

for management considerations (Thompson et al.

1993). Analysis of the data reveals that 18 of the 84

species have a R10 or R26 rank of 3.00 or greater

(Appendix 1 and 2). The R10 and R26rank scores

along with importance of area, threats to breeding

and breeding distribution scores help to provide a

framework for setting management priorities. As an

illustration, the chestnut-collard longspur has high

R10 and R26 rank scores but has an importance of

area (IA) score of only 3.00.

Consequently, other species with higher IA scores

should be given higher management priority. The

two top ranked species on both grasslands (burrowing owl and ferruginous hawk) have a preference for

short-grass prairie and prairie dog towns. Other species on these two grassland have a preference for tall

and mixed-grass prairie. Consequently, management

of the National Grassland units for a diversity of

heights and would provide habitat for both species.

The database contains scores for each criterion,

for each species, for each unit where they are likely to

occur. It is important that the data for each unit be

analyzed separately for more specific insights into

the top priority species and habitat for each unit. For

4
example, what is the importance of the habitat on the

unit being analyzed for a given species. What are the

threats to that habitat? What is the status and trend of

that habitat?

This prioritization system reveals that the highest

ranked habitat on the Oglala National Grassland is

big sagebrush and that is based on one species (table

1). The next highest ranked habitat is short and

mixed-grass prairie and prairie dog towns respectively. These habitats support six and four high prior-

.

ity ( = > 3) species respectively. Edge habitat and

riparian habitat are both important because of the

diversity of species that they support. These values

are based upon the relative susceptibility to extinction of species found in each habitat. Information on

species as presented in table 2 should also be considered along with the habitat information when weighing the consequences of management actions.

A total of 12 species from the Oglala National

Grassland have a R26 Rank of 3.00 or greater. Brewer’s

Sparrow is the species in big sagebrush habitat which

causes the high habitat rank in table 1. The rank of 1

for importance of area score (IA) indicates that only a

small portion of the Oglala National Grassland provides suitable breeding habitat for Brewer’s Sparrows. The two top-ranked species use prairie dog

towns and the top five species also short to mixed

grass prairie habitats.Therefore, the highest priority

habitats for NTMBs on the Oglala National Grassland

should be those that support these species.

Table 1. Habitat association scores for the Oglala National Grassland based on R26 species ranks.

Habitat <3 <3 to 2 cl .QQ # Species Average score Total score

Short/Mix Grass 6 1 1 8 3.08 24.71

Prairie Dog Towns 4 2 1 7 2.94 20.57

Mix/tall Grass 2 7 9 2.81 29.00

Trees Deciduous 2 8 2 12 2.48 29.71

Shrub Big Sage 1 1 3.14 3.14

Shrub Dense 5 5 2.60 13.00

Edge 1 15 7 23 2.32 53.41

Water/marsh 7 4 11 2.18 24.00

Riparian 2 15 5 22 2.36 51.99

Table 2. Species on the Oglala National Grassland with 10R10 or R26 =>3.00.

Species Hab IA AB TB BD RIO R26

Burrowing Owl

Long-billed Curlew

Chestnut-collared Longspur

Lark Bunting

Ferruginous Hawk

Black-billed Cuckoo

Bobolink*

Brewer’s Sparrow

Loggerhead Shrike

Dickcissel*

Great Crested Flycatcher

Prairie Falcon

Gh7 5 4 5 3 3.57 3.86

Gxh7 5 3 3 4 3.86 3.71

Gxh 3 3 3 4 3.29 3.57

Gxhs 5 2 3 4 3.29 3.43

Gxht7 3 4 4 3 3.29 3.29

Tds12 2 3 4 3 3.29 3.14

Ga39 1 2 4 3 3.14 3.14

Sb 1 2 4 3 3.00 3.14

Es2 3 3 4 2 3.00 3.14

Ga9 1 2 4 3 2.86 3.00

Tdcl 1 2 4 3 3.00 3.00

Gxh47 4 3 3 3 3.14 3.00

* Species found in the area but not confirmed nester on National Grassland.
Similar analysis of the data for the Ft Pierre National Grassland reveals somewhat different results

(table 3). Ft Pierre is in a higher precipitation area and

has taller grasses and more deciduous trees than the

Oglala National Grassland. Bird species diversity is

greater across habitat types than on the Oglala National Grassland and mixed/tall grass habitat higher

priority. The burrowing owl is the highest ranked

species on both units (table 4). Dickcissel , bobolink,

grasshopper sparrow, northern harrier and upland

sandpiper had higher prioritization scores on the Ft.

Pierre National Grassland. Management of prairie

dog towns and short grass habitat should have some

priority on Ft. Pierre, but management for mixed to

tall grass habitat is of higher priority based on this

analysis.

Table 3. Habitat association scores for the Ft. Pierre National Grassland based on R26 species ranks.

Habitat >3 >3 to 2 >1.99 # Species Average score Total score

Short/Mix Grass 5 1 1 7 3.06 21.43

Prairie Dog Towns 3 2 1 6 2.81 16.86

Mix/Tall Grass 5 5 10 3.13 31.29

Trees Deciduous 2 9 2 13 2.50 32.58

Shrub Dense 1 5 6 2.26 13.57

Edge 1 9 7 17 1.98 33.70

Water/marsh 1 8 5 14 2.01 28.13

Riparian 3 14 5 22 2.39 52.58

Table 4. Species on Ft. Pierre National Grassland with RIO or R26 scores > 3.00.

Species Hab IA TB BD AB R10 R26

Burrowing Owl Gh7

Baird’s Sparrow*(Historic) Gx3

Chestnut-collared Longspur Gxh

Dickcissel Ga9

Ferruginous Hawk Gxht7

Lark Bunting Gxhs

Bobolink Ga39

Long-billed Curlew* Gxh7

Bell’s Vireo* Sn12

Black-billed Cuckoo Tdsl2

Grasshopper Sparrow Gxa

Great Chrested Flycatcher* Tdcl

Loggerhead Shrike Es2

Northern Harrier Gasm

Sprague’s Pipit*(historic) Gxa

Upland Sandpiper Gx

4

4

3

2

4

2

2

3

3

3

2

2

3

3

3

3

5

5

3

3

4

3

3

4

4

4

2

4

4

3

5

2

3

5

3

5 3.57 3.86

0 3.86 3.71

3 3.29 3.57

5 3.29 3.43

4 3.43 3.43

5 3.29 3.43

3 3.29 3.29

1 3.43 3.29

1 3.14 3.14

2 3.29 3.14

5 2.57 3.00

1 3.00 3.00

2 2.86 3.00

5 3.00 3.00

0 3.00 3.00

5 3.14 3.00

* Species found in the area but not confirmed nester on National Grassland.

6
CONCLUSIONS

The PIF species ranking system is a helpful tool in

establishing priorities for Neotropical Migratory Bird

species and habitat based management efforts for

those species. It should not replace human judgment

or additional information which might be important

in setting resource priorities. Refinement of the PIF

data as was done on the Oglala and Ft. Pierre National Grasslands with local expertise increases the

utility value of the system. Only a few analysis examples were given here. However, an endless variety

of queries can be used to tease additional information

from the data.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge Greg Schenbeck, Wildlife Management Biologist for the Nebraska National Forest

for providing information and suggestions to make

this report possible.

LITERATURE CITED

Carter, Michael F. and Keith Barker., 1993. An Interactive

Database for Setting Conservation Priorities for Western Neotropical Migrants. Pages 120-144 in . Finch and

Stangel, eds. Status and Management o , NTMB. f USDA.

Forest Service, General Technical Report RM 229.

Hunter, William C., David N. Pashley, and Ronald E.F.

Escano. 1993. Neotropical Migrator Landbird y Species

and Their Habitats of Special Concern Within the Southeast Region. Pages 159-171 in . Finch an dStangel, eds. ,

Status and Management of NTMB. USDA. Forest Service, General Technical Report. RM 229.

Master, L., 1991 Assessing threats and setting priorities for

conservation. Cons. Biol. 5.559-563.

Millsap, B.A., J.A. Gore, D.E. Runde, and S.I. Cerulean.

1990. Setting priorities for the conservation of fish and

wildlife species in Florida. Wildl. Monogr. 111.

Peterson, Richard A. 1994. Nebraska National Fores Neo-t 

tropical Migran t Landbird Conservation Priorities.

Unpubl. Rep . USDA Forest Service , Chadron. NE. 38pp.

Reed, Michael., 1992. A system for ranking conservation

priorities for neotropical migrant birds based on relative susceptibility to extinction. Pp. 524-536. in Ecology

and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds.

(J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnston, eds.). Washington

and London, Smithsonian Institute . 

Thompson, Frank R., Stephen J. Lewis, Janet Green and

David Ewert. 1993. Status of NTM Landbirds in the

Midwest: Identifying Species of Management concern.

Pp. 145-153. in (Finchand Stang el (ed .). Status and

Management of NTMB. USDA Forest Service, General

Technical Report RM 229.

7
Appendix 1. Prioritization scores for the Neotropical Migratory Landbirds of the Oglala National Grasslands.

Species Hab AB TB TBU TW BD IA PT26 PTU26 PT10 PTU10 R10 R26

American Goldfinch

American Kestrel

American Robin

Barn Swallow

Belted Kingfisher

Black-billed Cuckoo

Black-headed Grosbeak

Blue Grosbeak

Bobolink

Brewer’s Blackbird

Brewer’s Sparrow

Brown-headed Cowbird

Burrowing Owl

Cedar Waxwing

Chestnut-collared Longspur

Chipping Sparrow

Cliff Swallow

Common Nighthawk

Common Poorwill

Common Yellowthroat

Cooper’s Hawk

Dickcissel

Eastern Bluebird

Eastern Kingbird

Eastern Phoebe

Ferruginous Hawk

Golden Eagle

Grasshopper Sparrow

Gray Catbird

Great Crested Flycatcher

Horned Lark

House Wren

Indigo Bunting

Killdeer

Lark Bunting

Lark Sparrow

Lazuli Bunting

Loggerhead Shrike

Long-billed Curlew

Long-eared Owl

Tdes1

Ec8

Ethw

Pgw5

W4

Tds12

Tdsl

Sn2

Ga39

Es29

Sb

Egsm

Gh7

Ts

Gxh

Efs

Pw45

Eh

Ef4

Wmsl

To1

Ga9

Ec85

E

Td15

Gxht7

Et47

Gxa

Sn12

Tdcl

Gh7

Tc15

Tdsl

Gh67

Gxhs

E

Tsl

Es2

Gxh7

Efo0

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1 .00

4.00

2.00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

3.00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

2.00

1 .00

2.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

1 .00

5.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

1 .00

4.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

4.00

1 .00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

2.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

5.00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1 .00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

4.00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

1 .00

1 .00

2.00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

4.00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

3.00

1 .00

1 .00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

1 .00

1 .00

3.00

1 .00

4.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

4.00

1 .00

2.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

5.00

5.00

1 .00

3.00

3.00

1 .00

5.00

2.00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

3.00

1 .00

3.00

5.00

4.00

2.00

1 .00

5.00

2.00

1 .00

5.00

5.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

5.00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

1 .00

4.00

3.00

2.00

4.00

5.00

3.00

5.00

1 .00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

5.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1 .00

3.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

1 .00 3.00

3.00 2.00 3.00 1.43

1 .00 2.00 3.00 1.71

2.00 4.00 3.00 1.57

1 .00 5.00 1 .00 1.86

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00

3.00 4.00 3.00 3.29

3.00 2.00 2.00 2.57

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.43

2.00 5.00 2.00 3.14

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.29

1 .00 4.00 3.00 3.00

I .00 1 .00 1 .00 1.71

3.00 2.00 3.00 3.57

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00

3.00 2.00 3.00 3.29

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.29

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.43

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.71

3.00 5.00 2.00 2.29

4.00 3.00 5.00 2.29

1 .00 4.00 3.00 2.86

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.43

3.00 1 .00 I .00 2.00

4.00 3.00 5.00 2.57

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.29

3.00 2.00 3.00 2.57

1 .00 2.00 3.00 2.43

2.00 2.00 3.00 2.43

4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00

2.00 2.00 3.00 1.71

1 .00 1 .00 2.00 1.29

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.29

1 .00 5.00 1 .00 2.29

2.00 3.00 3.00 3.29

3.00 1 .00 2.00 2.29

3.00 2.00 3.00 2.57

3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00

3.00 5.00 1 .00 3.86

5.00 3.00 5.00 2.14

1.57

1.57

1.29

1.29

2.14

3.14

2.57

2.57 

3.14

2.29

3.14

I .71

3.86

2.14

3.57

2.29

2.00

2.29

2.71

2.14

2.29

3.00

2.43

2.14

2.57

3.29

2.86

2.86

2.71

3.00

1.71

1.29

2.29

2.14

3.43

2.57

2.86

3.14

3.71

2.14

8
Appendix 1 (Continued).

Species Hab AB TB

~~~_

TBU TW BD IA PT26 PTU26 PT10 PTU10 R10 R26

Marsh Wren Wm 2.00 4.00 2.00

Merlin E f0 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mountain Bluebird Ec85 2.00 3.00 3.00

Mourning Dove Ew 1 .00 1 .00 1 .00

N. Rough-winged Swallow Pw4 3.00 3.00 3.00

Northern Flicker Ec8 1 .00 2.00 1 .00

Northern Harrier Gasm 3.00 4.00 3.00

Northern Mockingbird Eds12 1 .00 2.00 2.00

Northern Oriole Tdsl 2.00 3.00 3.00

Orchard Oriole Tdsl 3.00 3.00 3.00

Oven bird Tu 2.00 4.00 4.00

Pine Siskin Tfe 1 .00 2.00 3.00

Prairie Falcon Gxh47 3.00 3.00 3.00

Red-eyed Vireo Tdul 1 .00 4.00 4.00

Red-tailed Hawk Etg 1 .00 2.00 2.00

Red-winged Blackbird Wms1 1 .00 2.00 1 .00

Rock Wren P4 3.00 2.00 2.00

Rufous-sided Towhee Sn 1 .00 3.00 4.00

Say’s Phoebe G45 3.00 2.00 3.00

Sharp-shinned Hawk Tfo 3.00 3.00 2.00

Short-eared Owl Gasm 3.00 4.00 4.00

Swainson’s Hawk Gxt9 3.00 2.00 2.00

Tree Swallow Ec1 5 2.00 4.00 3.00

Turkey Vulture E4 1 .00 2.00 4.00

Upland Sandpiper Gx 3.00 2.00 3.00

Vesper Sparrow Gxs 3.00 3.00 4.00

Violet-green Swallow Efc4 2.00 3.00 3.00

Warbling Vireo Td1 2.00 3.00 4.00

Western Kingbird E 1 .00 1 .00 2.00

Western Meadowlark Gx7 1.00 2.00 2.00

Western Tanager Tf 2.00 3.00 4.00

Western Wood-Pewee T 2.00 3.00 4.00

White-throated Swift P4 3.00 2.00 3.00

Willow Flycatcher Sn122 3.00 4.00 3.00

Yellow Warbler Tds1 1.00 4.00 3.00

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Tds12 3.00 4.00 3.00

Yellow-breasted Chat Sn12 2.00 3.00 3.00

Yellow-headed Blackbird Wm 3.00 4.00 2.00

Yellow-rumped Warbler Tf 1 .00 2.00 2.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

1 .00

4.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

4.00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

2.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

2.00

1 .00

1.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

1 .00

2.00

4.00

1 .00

5.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

5.00

1 .00

4.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

5.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

1.000

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

3.00

5.00

1.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.71 2.71

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.86 2.86

2.00 3.00 3.00 2.57 2.71

1.00 3.00 3.00 1.71 1.43 

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.43 2.57 

2.00 3.00 3.00 1.57 1.71 

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.86 2.86 

4.00 3.00 4.00 1.71 1.71 

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.43 2.43 

2.00 4.00 3.00 2.86 2.57 

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.86 2.86 

4.00 3.00 4.00 1.71 1.71 

3.00 4.00 3.00 3.14 3.00 

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.29 2.29 

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.14 2.14 

2.00 4.00 3.00 1.71 1.71 

2.00 4.00 3.00 2.71 2.71 

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.29 2.29 

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.71 2.71

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.14 2.14 

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.71 2.43 

1 .00 2.00 3.00 2.86 2.86 

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.29 2.14 

2.00 4.00 3.00 2.14 1.86 

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.86

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.57 2.57

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.57 2.57

1.00 4.00 3.00 2.57 2.71 

1.00 1.00 2.00 2.14 2.14

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.43 2.43 

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.57 2.57 

2.00 1 .00 1.00 2.43 2.57 

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.43 2.43 

5.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.86 

3.00 2.00 3.00 1.86 1.86 

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.86 2.71 

3.00 1.00 1.00 2.29 2.57 

3.00 4.00 3.00 3.14 2.86

4.00 3.00 4.00 1.71 1.29
Appendix 2. Prioritization scores for the Neotropical Migratory Landbirds of the Ft. Pierre National Grasslands.

Species Hab AB TB TBU TW BD IA PT26 PTU26 PT10 PTU10 R10 R26

American Goldfinch

American Kestrel

American Robin

Baird’s Sparrow(historic)

Bank Swallow

Barn Swallow

Bell’s Vireo

Belted Kingfisher

Black-billed Cuckoo

Black-headed Grosbeak

Blue Grosbeak

Bobolink

Brown-headed Cowbird

Burrowing Owl

Cedar Waxwing

Chestnut-collared Longspur

Chipping Sparrow

Cliff Swallow

Common Nighthawk

Common Yellowthroat

Dickcissel

Eastern Bluebird

Eastern Kingbird

Eastern Phoebe

Ferruginous Hawk

Grasshopper Sparrow

Gray Catbird

Great Crested Flycatcher

Horned Lark

House Wren

Indigo Bunting

Killdeer

Lark Bunting

Lark Sparrow

Least Flycatcher

Tdes1

Ec8

Ethw

Gx3

Pw4

Pgw5

Sn12

w 4

Tds12

Tds1

Sn2

Ga39

Egsm

Gh7

Ts

Gxh

Efs

Pw45

Eh

Wms1

Ga9

Ec85

E

Td15

Gxht7

Gxa

Sn12

Tdc1

Gh7

Tc15

Tds1

Gh67

Gxhs

E

Td1

1.00

1.00

1.00

4.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

4.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

5.00

3.00

1.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

1.00

5.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

1.00

4.00

4.00

2.00

4.00

4.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

4.00

4.00

1.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

1.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

5.00

1.00

2.00

1.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

2.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

1.00

3.00

2.00

4.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

5.00

1.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

2.00

4.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

1.00

1 .00

3.00

1.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

1 .00

1.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

3.00

5.00

5.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

1.00

5.00

2.00

5.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

4.00

5.00

1.00

1.00

5.00

2.00

1.00

5.00

5.00

2.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.00

4.00

2.00

1.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

4.00

5.00

1.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

3.00 2.00 3.00 1.43 1.57

1.00 2.00 3.00 1.86 1.71 

2.00 4.00 3.00 1.57 1.29

3.00 5.00 2.00 3.86 3.71 

3.00 2.00 2.00 2.14 2.14 

1.00 5.00 1.00 1.86 1.29 

4.00 3.00 4.00 3.14 3.14

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.14 

3.00 4.00 3.00 3.29 3.14 

3.00 2.00 2.00 2.43 2.43 

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.43 2.57 

2.00 5.00 2.00 3.29 3.29 

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.71 1.71 

3.00 2.00 3.00 3.57 3.86 

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.14 2.29 

3.00 2.00 3.00 3.29 3.57 

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.43 2.29 

3.00 5.00 2.00 2.29 2.14 

1.00 4.00 3.00 3.29 3.43 

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.43 2.43 

3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.14 

4.00 3.00 5.00 2.57 2.57 

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.43 3.43 

1.00 2.00 3.00 2.57 3.00 

2.00 2.00 3.00 2.29 2.57 

4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 

2.00 2.00 3.00 1.71 1.71 

1.00 1.00 2.00 1.29 1.29 

4.00 3.00 4.00 2.29 2.29 

1.00 5.00 1.00 2.29 2.14 

2.00 3.00 3.00 3.29 3.43 

3.00 1.00 2.00 2.14 2.43 

3.00 2.00 3.00 2.71 2.86 ii

1010
Appendix 2 (Continued).

Species Hab AB TB TBU TW BD IA PT26 PTU2 6 PT10 PTU10 R10 R26

Loggerhead Shrike

Long-billed Curlew

Long-eared Owl

Marsh Wren

Mourning Dove

N. Rough-winged Swallow

Northern Flicker

Northern Harrier

Northern Mockingbird

Northern Oriole

Orchard Oriole

Red-eyed Vireo

Red-tailed Hawk

Red-winged Blackbird

Rock Wren

Rufous-sided Towhee

Savannah Sparrow

Say’s Phoebe

Short-eared Owl

Sprague’s Pipit (historic)

Swainson’s Hawk

Tree Swallow

Turkey Vulture (no nest?)

Upland Sandpiper

Vesper Sparrow

Warbling Vireo

Western Kingbird

Western Meadowlark

Willow Flycatcher

Yellow Warbler

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Yellow-breasted Chat

Yellow-headed Blackbird

Es2

Gxh7

Efo0

Wm

Ew

Pw4

Ec8

Gasm

Eds12

Tdsl

Tdsl

Tdul

Etg

Wms1

P4

Sn

Gx3

G45

Gasm

Gxa

Gxt9

Ec1 5

E4

Gx

Gxs

Td1

E

Gx7

Sn12

Tdsl

Tds12

Sn12

Wm

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

1 .00

3.00

1 .00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

3.00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

3.00

1 .00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

1 .00

3.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

1 .00

3.00

1.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

2.00

3.00

5.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

1.00

2.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1 .00

3.00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

2.00

1 .00

2.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

1 .00

2.00

1 .00

4.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

4.00

1 .00

3.00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

1 .00

2.00

1 .00

4.00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

3.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

1 .00

4.00

2.00

2.00

5.00

1 .00

2.00

3.00

1 .00

5.00

3.00

1 .00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

5.00

0.00

5.00

1 .00

1 .00

5.00

1 .00

2.00

3.00

5.00

1 .00

2.00

1 .00

1 .00

2.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

1 .00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

5.00

3.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

4.00

5.00

1.00

3.00

3.00

2.00

2.00

3.00

2.00

3.00 2.00 2.00 2.86 3.00

3.00 5.00 1.00 3.43 3.29

5.00 3.00 5.00 2.14 2.14

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.57 2.57

1 .00 3.00 3.00 1.71 1.43

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.43 2.57

2.00 3.00 3.00 1.57 1.71

3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

4.00 3.00 4.00 1.71 1.71

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.43 2.43

2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.71

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.29 2.29

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.14 2.14

2.00 4.00 3.00 1.86 1.86

2.00 4.00 3.00 2.57 2.57

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.29 2.29

1.00 5.00 1.00 2.71 2.71

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.43 2.43

3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.71

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

1.00 2.00 3.00 2.86 2.86

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.14 2.00

2.00 4.00 3.00 1.71 1.43

3.00 3.00 3.00 3.74 3.00

3.00 4.00 3.00 2.43 2.43

1.00 4.00 3.00 2.71 2.86

1.00 1.00 2.00 2.14 2.14

3.00 3.00 3.00 2.43 2.43

5.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.86

3.00 2.00 3.00 1.86 1.86

3.00 3.00 4.00 2.71 2.43

3.00 1.00 1.00 2.14 2.43

3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.71

11

Greater Prairie Chicken Nesting Habitat,

Sheyenne National Grassland, North Dakota

Clinton McCarthy1, Tim Pella2, Greg Link3, and Mark A. Rumble44

Abstract.-Greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido

pinnatus) populations and habitats have declined dramatically

in the Great Plains. The Sheyenne National Grassland (SNG)

has the largest population of greater prairie chickens in North

Dakota, but this population has declined over the past 15

years. Lack of nesting habitat has been identified as a significant factor contributing to the decline in greater prairie chicken

populations throughout their range. We used the Habitat

Suitability Index (HSI) model for greater prairie chickens to

evaluate the nesting habitat conditions on the SNG. This

population of greater prairie chickens appears to sustain itself

on the brink of extirpation by nesting in the few areas that

provide nesting cover and in private alfalfa fields. Encroachment of woody plants into the SNG, changes in private landuse patterns, removal of forage by domestic livestock contribute to the low suitability of the SNG for nesting by greater

prairie chickens.

INTRODUCTION

The Sheyenne National Grassland (SNG) is approximately 28,745 ha of federally administered prairie in southeastern North Dakota. Within its administrative boundary there are an additional 25,910 ha

of interspersed private cropland and prairie. The

SNG contains the largest population of greater prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) in the

state of North Dakota (Kobriger et al. 1987). Greater

prairie chickens are not native to the SNG, but are

considered a naturalized immigrant in North Dakota (Johnson and Knue 1989). Prairie chickens apparently moved into North Dakota from the north1 Wildlife biologist, Custer National Forest, Billings, MT; Biological Technician, Custer National Forest, Lisbon, ND; Wildlife Biologist,

North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Jamestown, ND; and Research Wildlife Biologist, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Rapid City, SD 57701.

2 Rt. 2 Box 57, Coopertown, ND 58425.

3 North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Spiritwood Field

Station, Rt. I, Box 224, Jamestown, ND 58407.

4 Research Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526.

central part of the United States during the EuroAmerican settlement in the 1870’s and 1880’s (Johnson

and Knue 1989, Evans 1968). Greater prairie chicken

populations and their habitats (native tall grass prairie) have declined to a small fraction of their historical

range (Hjertaas et al. 1993, Samson and Knopf 1994).

Thus, the population of greater prairie chickens on the

SNG has both regional and national importance.

Numbers of prairie chickens on the SNG increased

from the early 1960’s through the early 1980’s (Kobriger

et al. 1987). Since then, prairie chicken numbers on the

SNG have declined from a high of 410 males in 1983 to

a low of 84 males in 1994 (Kobriger et al. 1987, unpubl.

data, Sheyenne National Grassland, Lisbon, ND). State

and federal natural resource management agencies,

and conservation groups are concerned that management of the SNG may be contributing to the decline in

the greater prairie chicken population. Lack of suitable nesting habitat has been identified as the most

significant factor limiting populations of greater prairie chickens across their range (Kirsch 1974, Westemeir

1973) and in North Dakota (Svedarsky 1979).

Habitat suitability index (HSI) models are an accepted method for quantifying species’ habitats as

numerical index (Schamberger et al. 1982) . Biological

and habitat information are synthesized to formulate

index values between zero (unsuitable) and one (optimum) for habitat requisites considered important to

a species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980). We

conducted HSI analyses to assess habitat conditions

for greater prairie chickens on the SNG at three scales:

1) the western portion of the SNG and adjacent private lands, 2) the Durler/Venlo Management unit, and

3) areas 51.6 km of the 14 active booming grounds.

METHODS

The HSI model for greater prairie chickens (Prose

1985) identifies two habitat components, nesting cover

and winter food, as the most important habitat com13
ponents for prairie chickens. The HSI for nesting

cover is based on grassland vegetation height/density (expressed as visual obstruction measurements

on a pole, Robe1 et al. 1970) for nesting cover in the

spring (figure 1).

We mapped the lowland, midland, and upland

grassland vegetation types (Manske and Barker 1987)

on 1:24,000 aerial photos of the SNG. Most nesting by

greater prairie chickens on the SNG occurs within 1.6

km of leks (Newell et al. 1987). The Custer National

Forest Land Management Plan (U.S. Forest Service,

Custer National Forest, Billings, MT, 1986) requires

that nesting habitat for prairie grouse be assessed

within 1.6 km of leks. During October and November, 1994, we estimated height/density of vegetation

in these vegetation types from 81 transects within 1.6

km of greater prairie chicken leks in the northern and

western portion of the SNG. At each of 10 stations on

each transect, we recorded the height that vegetation

obstructed 100 percent of a pole (VOR) marked in 0.5

dm increments when viewed from four directions (at

90” azimuths) at a distance of 4 m and a height of 1 m

from the pole (Robelet al. 1970). VORs were averaged

for each station and the average among stations was

used to estimate transect VORs. We placed six

transects in upland vegetation, 51 transects in midland vegetation and 26 transects in lowland vegetation. Data from these transects were used as VOR

estimates in the mapped vegetation polygons they

were collected in. For all other mapped vegetation

PI 0.8

0

>

VOR in dm

Figure 1. Relationship between average 100 percent obstruction of

pole (VOR) marked in 0.5 dm increments and next cover

suitability index for greater prairie chickens (from Prose 1985).

polygons, these VOR data served as calibrations for

ocular estimates of five VOR classes (0 - 0.50 dm, 0.51

- 1.0 dm, 1.01 - 1.5 dm, 1.51 - 2.0 dm, and >2.0 dm)

during field reconnaissance. Maps of vegetation and

VOR class assignments were transferred to 1:24,000

U.S. Geological Survey maps and the area of each

vegetation was planimetered for use in the HSI estimates.

HSI for nesting cover is estimated in three steps

(Prose 1985). First, a suitability index is estimated

from the midpoint of the VOR classes of each vegetation type i (S&J. Second, the percent of area providing equivalent optimal nesting habitat (EONH) is

calculated using:

where n = total number of vegetation types, and

N = percent of the area in vegetation type i. Third,

HSI for nest cover is calculated from:

HsI =(0.735 * EONH) - 21.4 - 37

Characteristics of vegetation and winter snow

accumulation influence the structure of vegetation in

the spring for nesting by greater prairie chickens.

VOR measurement collected in the fall decrease prior

to spring nesting. This decrease is proportional to the

height of vegetation and for the range of VOR 0.5 - 2.0

dm varies from 7-40 percent in mixed grass prairie (G.

Schenbeck pers. commun., Nebraska National Forest, Chadron, NE). Over winter VOR losses on the

SNG are probably different, but data are lacking. We

selected 15 percent over-winter VOR losses to estimate spring nesting cover based on fall VOR estimates because the VORs for the SNG are near the

lower end of the range.

Western SNG Analysis

The western part of the SNG includes most of the

prairie chicken leks. This area included 3433 ha of

private land and 8984 ha of SNG administered lands.

We calculated the HSI for this analysis unit to show

estimated contributions to the HSI for prairie chickens from adjacent private lands. VOR class informa14
tion was available for only 5738 ha (64 percent) of the

SNG lands in this analysis unit. We assumed the

mapped VOR classes were representative of the remaining of the western SNG and used these data for

HSI calculations in this analysis unit. For private

lands in the western SNG analysis unit we assumed:

1) CRP land had VOR class > 2.0 dm; 2) hay and alfalfa

had VOR cover classes <0.5 dm because of mowing

approximately the third week of June that destroys

existing nests and most young hatched birds; and

3) grazed pasture had VOR cover class 0.51-1.0 dm.

Durler/Venlo Management Unit

The Durler/Venlo management unit includes 3645

ha in nine range management allotments in the western SNG. The Durler/Venlo unit is a subset of the

prairie chicken range in the western portion of the

SNG. It includes the larger leks, highest prairie chicken

numbers, and the greatest number of prairie chicken

leks not shared by sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus

phasianellus jamesi). Most of the Durler/Venlo management unit is< 1.6 km from a prairie chicken lek.

This portion of SNG has complete vegetation classification and mapping.

We excluded vegetation communities that were

not available for nesting by greater prairie chickens

from the HSI for the Durler/Venlo management unit.

This HSI analysis presents a complete picture of the

nesting habitat for this area. We assigned vegetation

types to mapped polygons using the dominant vegetation community in the polygons. Within these

polygons, vegetation communities not capable of

producing 1.5 dm VOR measurements or that are

usually flooded (Manske and Barker 1987, Newell et

al. 1987) were considered unavailable for nesting by

greater prairie chickens. The area in each polygon

assigned to a VOR class did not include unsuitable

areas. For example, lowland vegetation communities

dominated by species such as Carex lanulosa were

considered unavailable because in most years the

ground is flooded. Upland vegetation communities

dominated by species such as Boutelou gracilis were

considered unavailable for prairie chicken nesting

because they are not capable of producing at least 1.5

dm VOR in most years.

Area Surrounding 14 Active Leks

The area within 1.6 km of active leks includes

most of the nesting habitat of greater prairie chickens.

This scale of analysis allowed us to evaluate HSI for

areas of known greater prairie chicken occurrences.

This level of analysis included the area surrounding

active greater prairie chicken leks and we expected

HSI from this analysis should equal or exceed the

HSI's from the blocks of SNG that included areas

> 1.6 km from leks and unused areas.

Western Sheyenne National Grassland

The 12,445 ha in the western SNG had 24 percent

EONH (table 1), less than the minimum considered

necessary for the HSI to be greater than zero using fall

VOR estimates. When over-winter VOR losses were

included, the EONH in the spring declined to 21

percent, with an HSI remaining zero.

Durler/Venlo Management Unit

EONH in the Durler/Venlo unit was lower that

the western SNG. EONH was reduced by eliminating the lowlands that are usually flooded in the

spring from the HSI calculations. The net result was

12 percent fall EONH and 9 percent EONH in the

spring. The subsequent HSI for the Durler/Venlo unit

was also zero.

Table 1. Percent equivalent optimal nesting habitat and nesting HSI

for three analysis areas with and without winter VOR loss on

the Sheyenne National Grassland.

Analysis area

Percent Percent EONH with

EONH1 HSI overwinter VOR loss HSI

Western SNG 23.8 0 19.8 0

Durler/Venlo 11.7 0 9.3 0

-

<1 .6 km leks 25.7 0 21.1 0

1EONH = equivalent optimum

model by Prose 1985).

nesting habitat as defined in HSI

15
Area Surrounding 14 Active Leks

The area within 1.6 km of the 14 active leks had a

larger EONH (26 percent) in the fall than the other

analysis units. However, the nesting HSI was zero for

this area as well. Four of the lek areas provided

sufficient EONH for HSI’s greater than zero. However HSI estimates for spring showed that only two of

these leks still provided sufficient EONH for HSI’s

greater than zero.

cover for nesting in upland communities was attributed to heavy livestock utilization (Newell 1987).

Historically, upland communities were likely tall grass

prairie (Burgess 1964), but currently have limited

capacity to provide nesting cover because they are

dominated by short cool season and warm season

grasses such as Kentucky bluegrass and blue grama.

DISCUSSION

Nesting HSI

Our data suggests that nesting cover limits greater

prairie chicken populations on the SNG. HSI’s were

zero for all the analysis units we compared. Four leks

had sufficient nesting cover in the surrounding 1.6

km for HSI’s greater than zero based on the fall

measurements. HSI for these lek areas were less than

0.2 Only two leks had HSI’s greater than zero for the

area within 1.6 km from leks after over winter VOR

losses were considered. HSI’s for these two leks were

<0.1

The HSI model (Prose 1985) assumes that optimum nesting habitat conditions exist when 80 percent of the area supports herbaceous vegetation with

a VOR of 2 - 3 dm. However, lingering populations of

greater prairie chickens can exist in areas with 10-15

percent permanent grassland (Hamerstrom et al. 1957,

Prose 1985). Topfer et al. (1990) considers a spring

population of 200 birds (100 males) as a minimum

number to insure perpetuation of the population.

Greater prairie chickens probably persist on the SNG

because natural variation provides small limited areas with adequate nesting cover. These areas exist at

the lowland/midland community interface, in lowlands during drought years, and in limited quantity

surrounding some leks. Limited nesting also occurs

in alfalfa on private lands (Newell 1987). Small populations, such as the greater prairie chicken on the

SNG, are highly susceptible to extinction due to

catastrophic natural events (Ruggiero et al. 1994).

VOR measurements in grassland vegetation that

are 2 to 3 dm are considered optimal nest cover for

greater prairie chickens (Prose 1985). VOR measurements > 1.5 dm provide SI,,, >0.7. Only 16 percent

of the western SNG was in the VOR class > 1.5 dm. In

the Durler/Venlo management unit, only 7 percent of

the suitable nesting area provided vegetation > 1.5

dm. For areas (1.6 km of leks, only 14 percent of the

area had vegetation in the >1.5 dm VOR classes.

Suitable nesting cover for prairie chickens may increase during drought years because lowlands that

are usually flooded are drier and usable for nesting

by hens.

Robustness of Analyses to Assumptions

Because the HSI in our evaluation were based on

ocular estimates of VOR classes, we conducted analyses to estimate HSI for systematic errors in estimating

the VOR classes. If we over estimated the VOR classes

(e.g.,VOR was actually lower), then HSI would decline further. Because, the lower limit on HSI is zero,

our conclusion of limited nesting habitat remained

unchanged.

If we systematically underestimated VOR classes

by one class (0.5 dm), HSI for the Western SNG

Most of the nesting habitat for greater prairie increased to 0.1 for fall VOR estimates and remained

chickens in the SNG is the midland community type zero for estimates of spring nesting cover. HSI in the

in the humocky sandhills (Manske and Barker 1981, Durler/Venlo unit remained zero for both spring and

Manske and Barker 1987). Switchgrass (Panicum fall VOR estimates. HSI for the areas around active

virgatum) communities found on the toe slopes sur- leks increased to 0.3 for fall VOR estimates, but derounding lowland meadows provide the primary clined to 0.1 for spring estimates of nesting cover.

prairie chicken nesting cover on the SNG (Manske Because the area surrounding leks included lowand Barker 1987, Newell 1987). Although lowlands lands that are flooded in most years, the HSI was

are not considered suitable for nesting in most years, probably lower. None-the-less, analyses that assume

the lowland/midland interface is used for nesting by we underestimated nesting cover, still show that

prairie chickens (Newell 1987). The lack of adequate nesting habitat is limited on the SNG.

16
The VOR estimates we used for the 3433 ha

private lands in western SNG analysis unit were

made subjectively post hoc. Because, these post hoc

estimates of private land VOR may have influenced

the HSI, we conducted an analysis that would present

the best possible HSI for this analysis unit. HSI for the

western SNG was recalculated assigning all private

lands with suitable vegetation types (hay and alfalfa,

pastures, and CRP) for nesting, a SIvon of 1.0 (this

analysis does not change the HSI for nest cover on

lands managed by the SNG). The resulting HSI for

nest cover increased for the western SNG analysis

unit to 0.33. This HSI represents the upper limit for

the western SNG analysis unit, but it is not realistic.

Most of the area considered to have SI,,, of 1.0 are

grazed or mowed annually. Hay and alfalfa is usually

cut by the third week of June, destroying existing

nests and young broods unable to escape the mowers. Only the 251 ha of CRP in the analysis unit

maintained its structural integrity throughout the

nesting and brood rearing periods. None-the-less,

this analysis still indicated that regional nesting habitat for greater prairie chickens is limited in the vicinity of the SNG.

Contributing Factors

The encroachment of woody and exotic plant

species, changes in adjacent agricultural/land use

changes, and livestock grazing practices are three

human induced factors that directly or and indirectly

influence nesting cover for prairie chickens on the

SNG. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), willow

(Salix spp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)

have encroached into prairie reducing nesting cover

on the SNG (Kobriger et al. 1987, Jensen 1992). Leafy

spurge (Euphorbia esula) has expanded from 7 percent

to over 17 percent of the SNG since 1985 (unpubl.

data, SNG). Encroachment of woody plants reduces

and fragments suitable nesting, brood rearing and

roosting cover (Svedarsky 1979); provides travel corridors and perch sites for predators (Burhnerkempe

et al. (1984) and creates habitat more suitable for

closely related sharp-tailed grouse (Prose 1987).

Agricultural development on private lands adjacent to the SNG over the past 10-15 years shows that

remnant prairie habitats on private lands have been

largely converted to croplands (unpubl. data, Nat.

Res. Conserv. Serv., Lisbon, ND). Our analysis of the

western SNG unit, showed that most of the suitable

nesting habitat on private lands was Conservation

Reserve Program comprising 250 ha in the analysis

unit. No privately owed parcels of native prairie were

identified in our analysis of the western SNG.

Grazing by livestock is the predominant use of

the SNG. Livestock stocking rates have fluctuated

between 50,000 and 60,000 AUMs over the past 10 - 15

years on the SNG. However, the size of livestock has

increased approximately 40 percent during a comparable period (L. Potts, pers. commun., SNG, Lisbon,

ND). These heavier animals require approximately

30 percent more forage (National Research Council

1984) than the standard AUM established for a 454 kg

animal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

L. Potts, B. Braun, K. Hansen, S. Schumacher, and

G. Foli assisted with data collection. D. Uresk and C.

Sieg reviewed earlier drafts of this manuscript. R.

King provided statistical review.

LITERATURE CITED

Burgess, R. L. 1964. Ninety years of vegetational change in

a township in southeastern North Dakota. Proc. North

Dakota Acad. Sci. 18:84-94.

Burhnerkempe, J. E.; Edwards, W. R.; Vance, D. R.;

Westemeir, R. L. 1984. Effects of residual vegetation on

prairie chicken nest placement and success. Wildl. Soc.

Bull. 12:382-386.

Evans, K. E. 1968. Characteristics and habitat requirements of the greater prairie chicken and sharp-tailed

grouse: a review of the literature. Cons. Res. Rep. No.

12. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32 p.

Hamerstrom, F. N. Jr; Mattsen, 0. E.; Hamerstrom, F.

1957. A guide to prairie chicken management. Tech.

Bull. 15. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Conservation Department. 128 p.

Hjertaas, H; et al. 1993. National recovery plan for the

greater prairie chicken. Renewable Rep. No. 5, Ottawa,

Ontario: Canadian Wildlife Federation. 18 p.

Jensen, W. F. 1992. Historical review of prairie chicken

management on the Sheyenne National Grassland.

Unpublished Report. Bismarck, ND: North Dakota

Game and Fish Department. 15p.

Johnson, M. D.; Knue, J. 1989. Pinneated grouse. In: Feathers from the prairie. Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Game

and Fish Department: 97-122.

17
Kirsch, L. M. 1974. Habitat management considerations

for prairie chickens. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2:124-129.

Kobriger, G. D.; Vollind, D. I?; McNeill, M. E.; Higgins, K.

F. 1987. Prairie chicken populations of the Sheyenne

Delta North Dakota 1961-1987. pp. l-7. In: A. J. Bjugstad,

tech. coord. Prairie Chickens on the Sheyenne National

Grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-159. Fort Collins, CO:

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 73 p.

Manske, L. L.; Barker, W. T. 1981. The prairie grouse on the

Sheyenne National Grasslands. Unpublished Report.

Fargo, ND: North Dakota State Univ. 238 p.

Newell, J. A. 1987. Nesting and brood rearing ecology of

the greater prairie chicken in the Sheyenne National

Grasslands, North Dakota. Boseman, MT: Montana

State University. 111 p. M. S. thesis.

Manske, L. L.; Barker, W. T. 1987. Habitat Usage by prairie

grouse on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. pp. 8-20.

In: A. J. Bjugstad, tech. coord. Prairie Chickens on the

Sheyenne National Grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM159. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

73 p. National Research Council. 1984. Nutrition requirements

for beef cattle, sixth revised edition. Washington, D. C.:

National Academy Press. 90 p.

Newell, J. A.; Toepfer. J. E.; Rumble; M. A. 1987. Summer

brood rearing ecology of the greater prairie chicken on

the Sheyenne National Grasslands. pp. 24-31. In: A. J.

Bjugstad, tech. coord. Prairie Chickens on the Sheyenne

National Grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-159. Fort

Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 73 p.

Prose, B. L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: greater

prairie chicken (multiple levels of resolution). Biol. Rep.

82 (10.102). Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 33 p.

Prose, B. L. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: plains

sharp-tailed grouse. Biol. Rep. 82(10.142). Fort Collins,

CO: U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service. 31 p.

Robel, L. J.; Briggs, J. N; Dayton, A. D.; Hulbert, L. C. 1970.

Relationships between visual obstruction measurements

and weight of grassland vegetation. J. Range Manage.

23:295-297.

Ruggiero, L. F.; Hayward, G. D.; Squires, J. R. 1994. Viability analysis in biological evaluations: concepts of population viability analysis, biological population and ecological scale. Conserv. Biol. 8:364-372.

Toepfer, J. E.; Eng, R. L.; Anderson, R. K. 1990. Translocation of prairie grouse: what have we learned? Trans. N.

Amer. Nat. Resour. Conf. 55:569-579.

Samson, F.; Knopf, F. 1994. Prairie conservation in North

America. Bioscience 44:418-421.

Shamberger, M. A.; Farmer, A. H.; Terrell, J. W. 1982.

Habitat suitability index models: introduction. FWSI

OBS-82/10. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Western Energy and

Land Use Team. 2 p.

Svedarsky, W. D. 1979. Spring and summer ecology of

female greater prairie chickens in northwestern Minnesota. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota.

166 p. Ph. D. dissertation.

Westemeir, R. L. 1973. Prescribed burning in grassland

management for prairie chickens in Illinois. In: Proceeding, 12th annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. June 8-9, 1972. Lubbock, TX. Tallahassee, FL: Tall

Timbers Research Station; 12:317-338.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat as the basis

for environmental assessment. Ecol. Serv. Man. 101,

Release 4-80. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services.

18
Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Status and

Future Conservation Planning

Daniel W. Mulhern1

and Craig J. Knowles2

Abstract.-The black-tailed prairie dog is one of five prairie dog

species estimated to have once occupied up to 100 million ha

or more in North America. The area occupied by black-tailed

prairie dogs has declined to approximately 2% of its former

range. Conversion of habitat to other land uses and widespread

prairie dog eradication efforts combined with sylvatic plague,

Yersinia pestis, have caused significant reductions. Although,

the species itself is not in imminent jeopardy of extinction, its

unique ecosystem is jeopardized by continuing fragmentation

and isolation.

INTRODUCTION

The black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus

Ord, is the most widespread and abundant of five

species of prairie dog in North America. Two species,

the Utah prairie dog, C. parvidens J.A. Allen and the

Mexican prairie dog, C. mexicanus, are currently listed

as threatened and endangered, respectively, under

the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The two other

widespread species are the white-tailed prairie dog,

C. leucurus Merriam and the Gunnison’s prairie dog,

C. gunnisoni Baird.

The black-tailed prairie dog is native to the short

and midgrass prairies of North America. Its historic

range stretches from southern Canada to northern

Mexico and includes portions of Arizona, Colorado,

Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North

Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (Hall and Kelson 1959). The eastern boundary

of prairie dog range is approximately the western

edge of the zone of tallgrass prairie, from which

prairie dogs are ecologically excluded. The western

boundary of this species is roughly the Rocky Mountains. Its range is contiguous with, but generally does

not overlap, ranges of other prairie dog species.

1

Fish & Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Manhattan, KS. 2FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants, Boulder, MT.

With the exception of Arizona, from which it has

been extirpated, the species still occurs in all the states

(including Canada and Mexico) within its historic

range. Yet, widespread reductions have occurred in

population numbers and occupied areas throughout

this broad range. Historic evidence suggests that the

total area occupied by all species of prairie dogs may

have declined by as much as 98% during the first half

of this century (Miller et al. 1994).

We sent letters of inquiry to state and federal

conservation and land management agencies and

consulted published reports. This information was

augmented by telephone interviews with individuals knowledgeable about prairie dog management.

The area surveyed included all states within the

original range of the black-tailed prairie dog. Although responses were received from all states and

agencies queried, the quality of survey information

varied. Therefore, this report is a picture of prairie

dogs in the mid-1980s rather than an accurate assessment of 1995 populations.

Prairie dog abundance and distribution is probably better documented at present than at any previous time due to improved mapping techniques and

greater interest in prairie dogs by land management

agencies. Yet, prairie dog occupied acreage can still

only be grossly estimated. A primary factor contributing to this uncertainty is that much of the mapping

effort is temporally distributed over a decade or more

and there is no method available to assess prairie dog

abundance over a broad area within a short span of

time. Typically, prairie dog populations change substantially within a few years due to the threats discussed below and to climatic factors and prairie dog

reproductive ecology. Another factor contributing to

errors in determining prairie dog abundance is a lack

of information from private and state lands.

19
THREATS TO THE PRAIRIE DOG

A number of causes have been identified or proposed to account for the reductions in the acreage

occupied by black-tailed and other prairie dog species. We believe that four areas of threat warrant

further discussion: 1) loss of habitat due to conversion of prairie to other land uses; 2) intentional poisoning or other eradication or control efforts, primarily prompted by the livestock industry; 3) shooting

for recreation or as a control effort; and 4) sylvatic

plague, Yersinia pestis.

Clark (1979) reported that in some years prairie dogs

were intentionally poisoned on more than 8 million

ha in the United States. During the early 1980s, 185,600

ha of prairie dogs were eradicated on the Pine Ridge

Indian Reservation in South Dakota (Hanson 1988;

Sharps 1988). In 1986 and 1987, a South Dakota blacktailed prairie dog complex of 110,000 ha was destroyed, eliminating the largest remaining complex

in the United States (Tschetter 1988).

LOSS OF PRAIRIE

Prairie dominated by blue grama, Bouteloua gracilis (H.B.K.) Lag. ex Griffiths, and buffalograss, Buchloe

dactylides (Nutt.) Engelm., possibly due to its relatively flat topography, is among the first grassland

converted to.agriculture (Dinsmore 1983). As a result,

Graul (1980) noted that as much as 45% of this prairie

type has been lost to other land uses. Reductions in all

shortgrass and midgrass prairies is expected to be

similar or possibly greater in some midgrass regions

where precipitation may be more suitable for agriculture. Although National Grassland acreage in the

northcentral region of the Forest Service represents

only about 5% of that agency’s land base, it also

represents the majority of the native prairie remaining in this region of North and South Dakota (Knowles

and Knowles 1994).

Virtually every federal land management agency

has been involved in this effort. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service used compound 1080 until its ban in

1972. In 1976, this agency approved the use of zinc

phosphide as a prairie dog control agent, hoping to

avoid secondary poisoning of nontarget species while

maintaining its prairie dog poisoning program. It is

estimated that permitting activities by both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service account for the annual poisoning of 80,000 ha of prairie dogs in the

United States (Captive Breeding Specialist Group

1992). Much of this effort occurs on federally-owned

and managed land, despite the fact that less than 5%

of the United States beef weight is produced on these

lands (United States General Accounting Office 1988).

Most poisoning on federal land is due to private land

concerns, not necessarily federal forage concerns.

Currently, with the exception of some areas of the

northwestern portion of the black-tailed prairie dog’s

range, conversion of prairie to agricultural cropland

has lessened. This is because much of the arable land

is already in cultivation or has been converted to nonnative grasses for forage. Municipal and industrial

development probably account for most of the present

losses to native prairies in the United States. While

these losses are minor compared with those that

occurred during settlement of this country, they continue to reduce habitat availability for prairie dogs

and other species.

The legal designation indicating the regulatory

status of the black-tailed prairie dog varies among the

10 states in which it still occurs. In four states the

species is designated a legal agricultural pest, with

some level of either state or local mandatory controls

in effect. This includes statewide legislation mandating control of prairie dogs in Wyoming. In Colorado,

Kansas, and South Dakota, state legislation allows

counties or townships to mandate controls on landowners. In 1995, Nebraska repealed their long-standing legislation that mandated statewide control,

thereby joining the states of Montana, New Mexico,

North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas, where control

is not mandatory but assistance may be provided to

landowners who believe they have a prairie dog

population problem that requires control.

ERADICATION OR CONTROL EFFORTS PRAIRIE DOG SHOOTING

Eradication efforts have been carried out against

prairie dogs on a very large scale, affecting several

million ha of land (Anderson et al. 1986; Bell 1921).

Shooting of prairie dogs, either for recreation or

to reduce or control their numbers, is widespread

across the range of all species in the United States.

2 0
The impact this activity has on overall populations

remains unclear, but preliminary monitoring results

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Montana indicate that some level of shooting might impact the growth and expansion of prairie dog colonies (Reading et al. 1989). Fox and Knowles (1995)

suggested that persistent unregulated shooting over

a broad area of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation

in Montana might have significantly influenced prairie dog populations. However, they further concluded that it would require approximately one recreational day of shooting for every 6 ha of prairie dogs

to result in such an impact. This level of shooting

pressure is unlikely over the hundreds of thousands

of ha of currently occupied range.

SYLVATIC PLAGUE

Prairie dogs have coexisted with a variety of

predators for many centuries on the plains and have

adapted means of persisting in spite of this predation. However, a more recent threat has arrived to

which the prairie dog has no adaptive protection. A

flea-borne bacterium, the sylvatic plague, was introduced into North America just before the turn of the

century. First discovered in black-tailed prairie dogs

in Texas in the 1940s (Cully 1989), small rodents such

as prairie dogs apparently have no natural immunity

to the plague, which now occurs virtually throughout the range of the black-tailed prairie dog.

The impacts of plague are more adverse than just

the killing of many individuals. The plague persists in

a colony resulting in a longer population recovery

time than is common in colonies that have been

poisoned (figure 1). Four years following impact,

plague-killed colonies on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge had recovered to only

40%, while poisoned colonies had recovered to over

90% (Knowles 1986). Knowles and Knowles (1994)

suggested that prairie dogs have survived the introduction of this disease simply due to their large,

highly dispersed populations. Further reductions in

these populations could make prairie dogs much

more susceptible to local or regional extirpations due

to the plague.

Poison and Plague

Impact and Recovery

Population Index

1401

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2

Year

- Poison + Plague

Figure 1. Comparison of prairie dog population recovery at the Rocky Mountain

Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge following plague and at two colonies

following control with zinc phosphlde (Knowles 1986).

21
HISTORIC AND CURRENT STATUS Table 1. Historic (pre-1920) and recent (post-1980) estimates of

total area (ha) occupied by black-tailed prairie dogs in the

United States.

Rangewide State Historic Recent % Chancre

Seton (1929) estimated that in the early part of this

century, there may have been 5 billion prairie dogs in

North America. Around that time, prairie dog colonies were estimated to occupy 40 million to 100

million ha of prairie in North America, but by 1960

this area was reduced to approximately 600,000 ha

(Anderson et al. 1986; Marsh 1984). These estimates

result in the often-cited figure of a 98% decline in

population among the five species of prairie dog. So,

while the black-tailed prairie dog still occurs in all but

one of the states in its historic range, significant

reductions in its total colony area have taken place

rangewide.

AZ

c o

KS

MT

NE

NM2

ND

OK

SD

TX

11

2,833,000

810,000

595,000

extirpated -100

4,838,460

85,000

711,000

23,000,000

18,845 -98

35,545 -94

24,415 11

201,220 -96

8,500 -90

3,850 11

100,000 -86

12,145 -99.9

82,590 -75

United 40,000,000 to

States 100.000.000

550,000 -98 to -99

1 Reliable data unavailable for analysis.

2Includesblack-tailed and Gunnison 's prairie dogs.

PRAIRIE DOG STATUS IN EACH STATE

Current status information was solicited from

state and federal agencies and from tribal authorities

in all eleven states in the historic range of the blacktailed prairie dog (table 1). The following summary

provides updated status and population data for

those states.

Arizona

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Duane

L. Shroufe, Director, in litt. 1995) confirms that the

black-tailed prairie dog, in the form of the Arizona

subspecies C. ludovicianus arizonensis, is extirpated

from the state. However, it still occurs nearby in

Mexico and New Mexico. Arizona still supports

populations of Gunnison’s prairie dogs.

than 810 ha of prairie dogs (FWS, in litt.). The Rocky

Mountain Arsenal NWR (FWS, in litt.) prairie dog

population declined from 1,850 ha to 100 ha between

1988 and 1989, due to plague. Burnett (1918) estimated that three combined species of prairie dog

occupied 5,665,720 ha in Colorado in the early 1900s.

Based on geographic distribution of black-tailed,

white-tailed, and Gunnison’s prairie dogs in the state,

it may be assumed that black-tailed prairie dogs

accounted for approximately half this figure. There is

no reliable estimate of the total area occupied by

black-tailed prairie dogs statewide at this time.

Kansas

Colorado

On the Comanche and Pawnee National Grasslands, the Forest Service (in litt.) currently estimates

a total of 2,455 ha of active prairie dogs, compared

with 910 ha from 1978 to 1980 (Schenbeck 1982). This

represents more than a doubling in area, but also

represents only 0.5% of the area available on these

public lands. Bent’s Old Fort National Historic Site

contains 325 ha of black-tailed prairie dogs (NPS, in

litt.). Fort Carson and surrounding private lands

contain approximately 1,620 ha, Pinyon Canyon less

The National Park Service (in litt.) reports approximately 16 ha of prairie dogs at the Fort Larned

National Historic Site. On the Cimarron National

Grassland, the Forest Service (in litt.) currently estimates 440 ha of active prairie dog colonies compared

with 20 ha estimated from 1978 to 1980 (Schenbeck

1982). This represents more than a twenty-fold increase on this 44,000-ha area, yet still only 1% of the

total area of the Grassland. Both Lee and Henderson

(1988) and Powell and Robe1 (1994) reported that

selected counties had reductions of 84% since the

beginning of the century (Lantz 1903, cited in Lee and

Henderson 1988). A survey completed in 1992
(Vanderfoof et al. 1994) estimates 18,845 ha of prairie

dogs in Kansas, just over 2% of the 810,000 ha estimated by Lantz (1903) some 90 years ago.

Montana

Flath and Clark (1986) estimated that black-tailed

prairie dogs occupied 595,000 ha of land in Montana

from 1908 to 1914. Estimated prairie dog occupied

area by the early 1980s had declined to 50,600 ha

(Flath and Clark 1986) and subsequent estimates

show further declines in prairie dogs (40,500 ha,

Campbell 1986; 35,545 ha, FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants 1995). This most recent estimate indicates a

statewide reduction in occupied area of approximately 94% since the early 1900s.

Nebraska

On the Oglala National Grassland and Nebraska

National Forest, the Forest Service (in litt.) currently

estimates 105 ha of active prairie dog colonies, compared with 145 ha estimated from 1978 to 1980

(Schenbeck 1982). Current estimates represent 1.4%

of land available. In 1973, prairie dog occupied area in

Nebraska was estimated at 6,075 ha (Lock 1973). By

1982, this figure had increased to an estimated 32,400

ha (Frank Andelt, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, cited in FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants

1995). By 1989, prairie dogs statewide occupied approximately 24,415 ha (Kevin Church, Nebraska Game

and Parks Commission, in litt.). Plague and increased

eradication efforts, resulting from state legislation

mandating prairie dog control, have reduced this

figure significantly since the 1980s, with less than

0.22% of the Nebraska landscape currently occupied

by the species (FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants 1995).

Historic estimates are unavailable.

New Mexico

The BLM (in litt.) reports that prairie dogs may be

extirpated from several sites, with only 140 ha remaining on BLM land in the state. The White Sands

Missile Range (Department of Army, in litt.) contains

just over 300 ha of prairie dogs. Around 1919 the area

in New Mexico occupied by prairie dogs, both

Gunnison’s and black-tailed (including C. l.

arizonensis), was approximately 4,838,460 ha, but was

estimated to have been reduced to 201,220 ha by 1980

(Hubbards and Schmitt 1984). This is a 96% reduction. Hubbards and Schmitt (1984) further estimated

that the range of the black-tailed prairie dog in New

Mexico has been reduced by one-fourth, primarily

from the range of arizonensis.

North Dakota

Theodore Roosevelt National Park reportedly

contains less than 360 ha of prairie dogs (NPS, in litt.),

approximately 1% of the total Park land area. There

are believed to be currently 2,690 ha of prairie dogs on

the 660,435 ha of Custer National Forest in North and

South Dakota (Forest Service, in litt.). This represents

0.4% prairie dog occupancy of these lands. The Forest

management plan calls for an occupancy level at or

around 2,225 ha. The North Dakota Game and Fish

Department (in litt.) reports approximately 8,300 ha

of prairie dogs statewide, which may be a reduction

of 90% or more from historic levels. In 1992, only six

complexes of over 400 ha were identified.

Oklahoma

The Department of the Army (in litt.) has no

current estimate of prairie dog areas on Fort Sill, but

report that they have declined markedly in the past

10 years. Shackford et al. (1990) reported a statewide

estimate of 3,850 ha in 1967, increasing by 93% to

7,440 ha in 1989.

South Dakota

On the Buffalo Gap and Fort Pierre National

Grasslands, the Forest Service (in litt.) estimates 3,025

ha of active prairie dog colonies and an additional

2,600 ha of colonies are subject to periodic rodenticide treatments. This compares to 17,600 ha estimated from 1978 to 1980 (Schenbeck1982). The 500,285

ha Black Hills National Forest and Custer and Elk

Mountain Ranger Districts currently support 53 ha of

prairie dogs. In the early 1920s there may have been

711,000 ha of prairie dogs statewide (FaunaWest

Wildlife Consultants 1995). The South Dakota Animal Damage Control office currently estimates 80,000

to 100,000 ha of active prairie dog colonies in the state;

the Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates 65,000 ha of

these on tribal lands (Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, in

litt.). These estimates suggest at least an 86% decline

in prairie dog occupied area across the state. Bad-
lands and Wind Cave National Parks currently contain 1,660 and 3,085 ha of prairie dogs, respectively

(NPS, in litt.). These numbers represent 2 and 4 %

respectively, of the area available on these public

lands.

Texas

There were an estimated 31,385 ha of prairie dogs

in northwest Texas in 1973 (Cheatham 1973). In 1991,

there were at least 12,145 ha of prairie dogs estimated

in Texas (Peggy Horner, Texas Parks and Wildlife, in

litt.). Comparing this with a statewide historic estimate of 23,000,000 ha (Merriam 1902) results in a

decline of over 99% in this century.

Wyoming

On Thunder Basin National Grassland, the Forest Service (in litt.) currently estimates 1,500 ha of

active prairie dog colonies, with an additional 4,900

ha subject to periodic rodenticide treatment. Colony

area for the period 1978 to 1980 was reported to be

2,550 ha (Schenbeck 1982). These numbers represent

0.6% of this 231,500 ha public grassland area. Devil’s

Tower National Monument contains approximately

16 ha of black-tailed prairie dogs (NPS, in litt.); 3% of

the area available. Black-tailed prairie dogs in Wyoming may have increased in abundance near the turn

of the century as a result of sheep and cattle grazing,

with an estimated 53,650 ha by 1971 (Clark 1973).

However, Campbell and Clark (1981) estimated a

75% reduction in prairie dog occupied areas since

1915. Current estimates indicate between 53,000 and

82,590 ha statewide (Wyoming Game and Fish Department, cited in FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants

1995).

SUMMARY OF PRAIRIE DOG

STATUS IN EACH STATE

FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants (1995) attempted

to estimate the amount of land area within the range

of the black-tailed prairie dog that is currently occupied by the species. They included seven Great Plains

states in their analysis and concluded that the states

have less than a 1% occupancy of land surface within

the species’ range. The states included in this assessment and the percent of prairie dog occupancy within

available area are Colorado (0.35%), Kansas (0.14%),

Montana (0.17%), Nebraska (0.22%), North Dakota

(0.17%), South Dakota (0.80%), and Wyoming (0.60 to

0.88%).

While these individual state accounts do not represent an exhaustive rangewide status review, they

unfortunately provide the best information available. Significant reductions in occupied area have

and continue to occur throughout the species’ range;

losses in some places exceeded 95%. Although the

species still occurs in all but one state in its historic

range, the eastern boundary of this distribution may

be receding to the west. Figures indicate that there

may be more than 550,000 ha of occupied black-tailed

prairie dog range remaining in the United States,

which is consistent with the estimate of 600,000 ha

(Marsh 1984) cited previously. Over half the known

prairie dog acreage in the central and northern Great

Plains occurs on private land, almost 30% is on Indian

reservations, and about 6% each occurs on Forest

Service and Bureau of Land Management property

(figure 2, FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants 1995).

Neither Park Service nor Fish and Wildlife Service

lands support significant acreage of any prairie dog

species.

There is a need to develop a standardized survey

technique for assessing prairie dog status. Presently,

two methods are commonly employed and both

involve mapping of individual prairie dog colonies

either by ground reconnaissance or from aerial photo

interpretation. Both methods are time consuming

and expensive, making it unreasonable to expect a

survey of over 500,000 ha of prairie dog colonies on

the Great Plains within a short time period. Prairie

dog colonies represent clumped patches on a broad

landscape and there already exist nonmapping techniques that might be capable of statistical sampling of

this distribution (Marcum and Loftsgaarden 1980). A

statistical approach to monitoring prairie dog colony

acreage may be a more appropriate technique than

trying to map all prairie dog colonies.

PRAIRIE DOGS AND LIVESTOCK

Efforts to eradicate the prairie dog by the livestock and agricultural industry have existed for most

of this century. Merriam (1902) estimated that prairie

dogs caused a 50 to 75% reduction in range productivity. Taylor and Loftfield (1924) concluded that the

prairie dog is”one of the most injurious rodents of the

24
NPS, FWS, Ott

Reservations (30.0%)

BLM

Private/State (55.0%)

Figure 2. Distribution of black-tailed prairie dog colonies by land ownership in seven states in the northern

and central Great Plains.

southwest and plains regions,” and results in “the

removal of vegetation in its entirety from the vicinity.” Reports such as these were largely responsible

for the escalating effort by range managers on the

Great Plains to eradicate the prairie dog.

The conflict between the livestock industry and

the prairie dog will likely not end easily or quickly,

despite reports that prairie dog foraging does not

significantly affect weight gain of cattle (O"Meilia et

al. 1982; Hansen and Gold 1977). Others have reported the beneficial effects of prairie dogs on longterm range condition, including increased plant species diversity, richness, and overall plant production

in prairie dog colonies (Archer et al. 1987; Uresk and

Bjugstad 1983; Bonham and Lerwick 1976; Gold 1976).

Uresk (1985) demonstrated that up to four years

following prairie dog control, plant production was

not increased whether the range was grazed or

ungrazed by cattle.

Conversely, Hanson and Gold (1977) reported

dietary overlap between cattle and prairie dogs, suggesting there may be some competition for the same

species of forage plants. An estimation of true competition would be dependent on a variety of factors,

including density of prairie dogs, stocking rate of

cattle, ground cover, forage species present, and others (Uresk and Paulson 1988). Collins et al. (1984)

reported that the annual cost of prairie dog poisoning

was higher than the annual value of the forage gained

by these measures. This issue requires more study,

with input from both sides of the debate.

PRAIRIE DOGS AND BIODIVERSITY

The prairie dog, an integral component of the

shortgrass prairie biotic community, is capable of

transforming its own landscape and creating habitat

alterations on a scale surpassed only by humans on

the Great Plains. The ecosystem that is maintained by

the prairie dog is valuable to many other species, with

over 100 species of vertebrate wildlife reportedly

using prairie dog colonies as habitat (Sharps and

Uresk 1990; Clark et al. 1989; Reading et al. 1989).

While few of these species are critically dependent on

prairie dogs for all their life requisites, the increased

biodiversity associated with prairie dog colonies indicates the importance of this habitat. Agnew et al.

(1986) reported greater avian densities and species

richness on prairie dog colonies. Also, numerous

researchers have documented the preferential feeding of wild and domestic ungulates on prairie dog

colonies (Coppock et al. 1983; Detling and Whicker

1987; Knowles 1986; Krueger 1986; Wydeven and

Dahlgren 1985).

25
A number of rare and declining species are associated with prairie dogs and the habitat they provide.

The black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripe s Audubon

and Bachman, 1851, is considered a true prairie dog

obligate because it requires the prairie dog ecosystem

for its survival. As one of the most endangered mammals in North America, this species has come to

symbolize the decline in native grassland biodiversity.

At least two species that are candidates for listing

under the Endangered Species Act are also associated

to a lesser degree with prairie dogs. The mountain

plover, Charadrius montanu Townsend, 1837, and the s 

swift fox, Vulpes velox Say, 1823, are attracted to the

vegetative changes and possibly increased food availability in prairie dog colonies. The association of

other species that are either declining or vulnerable

indicate the problems facing this habitat.

CONSERVATION EFFORTS

Prairie dogs are managed either directly or indirectly within the survey area by at least six federal

agencies, 11 state wildlife departments, state agriculture departments, departments of state lands, and

numerous weed and pest districts, counties and private landowners. Prairie dog management goals and

objectives vary significantly among these entities.

Even management within agencies but between areas varies significantly. This variation can range from

total protection of prairie dogs to a legal mandate to

exterminate. All states have simultaneously classified

the prairie dog as a pest and as wildlife, often with

opposing management goals. Federal policy regarding prairie dogs has been inconsistent over time and

across geographic regions. The legal mechanisms

responsible for the decline of prairie dogs during this

century are still intact. Restoration of the prairie dog

ecosystem may not be possible without major changes

in management policy.

At least two federal agencies have taken the initiative to begin to address the problems associated

with declining prairie dog occupied areas and to

involve other interested parties. The Forest Service

initiated a working group comprised of various federal land and resource agencies throughout the northern states in the Great Plains, involving the Bureau of

Land Management, Park Service, Bureau of Indian

Affairs, and Fish and Wildlife Service. The function of

this group is to encourage development of conservation assessments and strategies for the species across

broad landscapes.

In January 1995, the Fish and Wildlife Service

convened a meeting of federal, state, and nongovernmental entities to discuss problems facing the shortgrass prairie ecosystem, including the prairie dog as

a focal species. Consensus recommendations were: 1)

Fish and Wildlife Service will develop conservation

strategies to keep prairie species from becoming listed

under the Endangered Species Act and to recover

declining species before a listing occurs; and 2) work

with the Western Governor’s Association to investigate ways to coordinate and communicate with all

involved parties on prairie issues. The Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that prairie dog management

remains within the jurisdiction of the various state

and federal land management agencies. Therefore,

this agency is particularly interested in participating

in cooperative agreements with other agencies so

that the prairie dog may be managed as a wildlife

species rather than simply controlled as a pest.

The black-tailed prairie dog does not appear to be

in danger of becoming extinct in the foreseeable

future, given current management. However, the

additional negative impacts resulting from habitat

fragmentation (Wilcox and Murphy 1985) could seriously impact the ability of some prairie dog populations to persist or become re-established. Habitat

fragmentation adversely quickly affects highly specialized species (Miller et al. 1994) and the myriad of

species associated with prairie dog colonies recover

from habitat or population losses at different rates.

This could result in a significant disruption of the

ecosystem overall functioning, further delaying its

recovery. Such effects are already evident for the

endangered black-footed ferret. The future recovery

or extinction of this species is inextricably entwined

with the decisions resource managers make today

regarding the conservation of the prairie dog ecosystem.

Management of the black-tailed prairie dog must

give greater consideration to developing an abundance and distribution of prairie dogs that will ensure long-term population persistence of associated
species. As a minimum, we believe that broad areas of

suitable grasslands should have from 1 to 3% of the

area occupied by prairie dogs. Federally-owned lands

should assume a greater share of this responsibility,

with a goal of from 5 to 10% occupancy by prairie

dogs. Maintaining this level of occupancy may allow

resource managers to determine what actually constitutes a functioning prairie dog ecosystem, so attempts may be made to preserve this system into the

future.

We would like to thank Hank Fischer, Defenders

of Wildlife and Greg Schenbeck, USDA Forest Service, for proposing this paper. Defenders of Wildlife

contributed financially to this project and Mike Roy

and Lisa Hallenbeck, National Wildlife Federation,

wrote and sent letters of inquiry to state and federal

agencies. We would also like to thank the many

people who responded to our letters of inquiry and

who took the time to answer questions during the

telephone interviews. We also thank Larry Shanks,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for his support in

locating sources of information and in gathering

status data.

LITERATURE CITED

Agnew, W.,D.W. Uresk, and R.M. Hansen. 1986. Flora and

fauna associated with prairie dog colonies and adjacent

mixed-grass prairie in western South Dakota. J. Range

Manage. 39:135-139.

Anderson, E., S.C. Forrest, T.W. Clark, and L. Richardson.

1986. Paleo-biology, biogeography, and systematics of

the black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes Audubon and

Bachman (1851). Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs 8:11-

62

Archer, S. M.G. Garrett, and J.K Detling. 1987. Rates of

vegetation change associated with prairie dog grazing

in North American mixed-grass prairie. Vegetatio 72:159-

166

Bell, W.R. 1921. Death to the rodents. U.S. Dept. of Agric.

Yearbook 1920:421-438.

Bonham, C.D. and A. Lerwick. 1976. Vegetation changes

induced by prairie dogs on shortgrass range. J. Range

Manage. 29:221-225.

Burnett, W.L. 1918. Rodents of Colorado in their economic

relation. Office of State Entomology, Colorado Agric.

Coll., Fort Collins, CO. Circ. 25:1-31.

Campbell, T.M. III. 1989. Prairie dog colony location surveys and black-footed ferret searches in Montana. Pages

l-12 in T.W. Clark, D. Hinckley, and T. Rich, eds., The

prairie dog ecosystem: managing for biological diversity. MT BLM Wildlife Technical Bull. No. 2.

Campbell, T.M. III and T.W. Clark. 1981. Colony characteristics and vertebrate associates of white-tailed and blacktailed prairie dogs in Wyoming. Amer. Mid. Nat. 105:269-

276.

Captive Breeding Specialist Group. 1992. Black-footed

ferret recovery plan review, Washington, DC, 22-24

July. Captive Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley,

MN. 43 pp.

Cheatham, L.K. 1973. Censusing prairie dog colonies using aerial photographs. Pages 77-88 in R.L. Linder and

C.N. Hillman, eds. Black-footed ferret and prairie dog

workshop. SD State Univ., Brookings, SD.

Clark, T.W. 1973. Prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets in

Wyoming. Pages 88-101 in R.L. Linder and C.N. Hillman,

eds. Black-footed ferret and prairie dog workshop. SD

State Univ., Brookings, SD.

Clark, T.W. 1979. The hard life of the prairie dog. National

Geographic 156(2):270-281.

Clark, T.W., D. Hinckley, and T. Rich, eds. 1989. The

prairie dog ecosystem: managing for biological diversity. MT BLM Wildlife Technical Bull. No. 2.

Collins, A.R., J.P. Workman, and D.W. Uresk. 1984. An

economic analysis of black-tailed prairie dog control. J.

Range Manage. 37:358-361.

Coppock, D.L., J.K. Detling, J.E. Ellis, and M.I. Dyer. 1983.

l Plant herbivore interactions in a mixed grass prairie. I.

Effects of black-tailed prairie dogs on intraseasonal

aboveground plant biomass and nutrient dynamics

and plant species diversity. Oecologia 56:1-9.

Cully, J.F., Jr. 1989. Plague in prairie dog ecosystems:

importance for black-footed ferret management. In T.W.

Clark, D. Hinckley, and T. Rich, eds., The prairie dog

ecosystem: managing for biological diversity. MT BLM

Wildlife Technical Bull. No. 2.

Detling, J.K. and A.D. Whicker. 1988. A control of ecosystem processes by prairie dogs and other grassland

herbivores. Pages 23-29 in Eighth Great Plains Wildlife

Damage Control Workshop Proceedings, Rapid City,

SD. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Dinsmore, J.J. 1983. Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus).

Pages 185-196 in Armbruster, J.S., ed. Impacts of coal

surface mining on 25 migratory birds of high federal

interest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-83/35/

27
FaunaWest Wildlife Consultants. 1995. A summary of

black-tailed prairie dog abundance and distribution on

the central and northern Great Plains. Report prepared

for Defenders of Wildlife, Missoula, MT. 46 pp. + app.

Flath, D.L. and T.W. Clark. 1986. Historic status of blackfooted ferret habitat in Montana. Great Basin Nat. Mem.

8:63-71.

Fox, M. and C. Knowles. 1995. Economic and ecological

evaluation of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation fish

and wildlife program. Poster presentation at MT Chapter of TWS, 31 Jan-l Feb, 1995, Billings, MT.

Gold, I.K. 1976. Effects of black-tailed prairie dog mounds

on shortgrass vegetation. M.S. Thesis, CO State Univ.,

Fort Collins, CO. 39 pp.

Graul, W.D. 1980. Grassland management practices and

bird communities. Pages 38-47 in DeGraff, R.M., Technical Coordinator. Management of western forests and

grasslands for nongame birds. U.S. Forest Service. GTR

INT-86.

Hall, E.R. and K.R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North

America. Ronald Press, New York, NY.

Hanson, R. 1988. A Chronology of prairie dog control

operations and related developments in South Dakota.

Pages 121-122 in Eighth Great Plains Wildlife Damage

Control Workshop Proceedings, Rapid City, SD. U.S.

Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Hanson, R.M. and I.K. Gold. 1977. Black-tailed prairie

dogs, desert cottontails and cattle trophic relations on

shortgrass range. J. Range Manage. 30:210-214.

Hubbard, J.P. and C.G. Schmitt. 1984. The black-footed

ferret in New Mexico. Endangered Species Program,

Dept. of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM.

Knowles, C.J. 1986. Some relationships of black-tailed

prairie dogs to livestockgrazing. Great Basin Nat. 46:198-

203.

Knowles, C.J. and P.R. Knowles. 1994. A review of blacktailed prairie dog literature in relation to rangelands

administered by the Custer National Forest. U.S. Forest

Service. 61 pp.

Krueger, K. 1986. Feeding relationships among bison,

pronghorn, and prairie dogs: an experimental analysis.

Ecology 67:760-770.

Lantz, D.E. 1903. Destroying prairie dogs and pocket

gophers. KS State Agric. College Bull. No. 116.

Lee, C.D. and R.F. Henderson. 1988. Kansas attitudes on

prairie dog control. Pages 162-165 in Ninth Great Plains

Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proc.

Lock, R.A. 1973. Status of the black-footed ferret and

black-tailed prairie dog in Nebraska. Pages 44-46 in

R.L. Linder and C.N. Hillman, eds. Black-footed ferret

and prairie dog workshop. SD State Univ., Brookings,

SD.

Marcum, C.L. and D.O. Loftsgaarden. 1980. Anonmapping

technique for studying habitat preferences. J. Wildl.

Manage. 44:963-968.

Marsh, R.E. 1984. Ground squirrels, prairie dogs and marmots as pests on rangeland. Pages 195-208 in Proceedings of the conference for organization and practice of

vertebrate pest control, Hampshire, England. Plant

Protection Division, Fernherst, England.

Merriam, C.H. 1902. The prairie dog of the Great Plains.

Pages 257-270 in Yearbook of the U.S. Dept. of Agric.

1901. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington,

DC.

Miller, B., G. Ceballos, and R. Reading. 1994. The prairie

dog and biotic diversity. Conservation Biology 8(3):677-

681

O'Meilia, M.E., F.L. Knopf, and J.C. Lewis. 1982. Some

consequences of competition between prairie dogs and

beef cattle. J. Range Manage. 35:580-585.

Powell, K.L. and R.J. Robel. 1994. Size and location of

black-tailed prairie dog towns in Meade and Gray

Counties, Kansas. Trans. KS Acad. Sci. 97:44-49.

Reading, R.P., J.J. Grenston, S.R. Beissinger, and T.W.

Clark. 1989. Attributes of black-tailed prairie dog colonies in north-central Montana, with management recommendations for the conservation of biodiversity.

Pages 13-28 in T.W. Clark, D. Hinckley, and T. Rich,

eds., The prairie dog ecosystem: managing for biological diversity. MT BLM Wildlife Technical Bull. No. 2.

Schenbeck, G.L. 1982. Management of black-tailed prairie

dogs on the National Grasslands. Pages 207-217 in Fifth

Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proc.

Seton, E.T. 1929. Lives of game animals. Doubleday, Dovan,

and Co., Inc., Garden City, NY. 949 pp.

Shackford, J.S., J.D. Tyler, and L.L. Choate. 1990. A survey

of the black-tailed prairie dog in Oklahoma. Final report submitted to OK Dept. of Wildlife Conservation.

Cameron Univ., Lawton, OK. 18 pp.

Sharps, J.C. 1988. Politics, prairie dogs, and the sportsman.

Pages 117-118 in Eighth Great Plains Wildlife Damage

Control Workshop Proceedings, Rapid City, SD. U.S.

Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Sharps, J.C. and D.W. Uresk. 1990. Ecological review of

black-tailed prairie dogs and associated species in western South Dakota. Great Basin Nat. 50:339-345.

Taylor, W.P. and J.V.G. Loftfield. 1924. Damage to range

grasses by the Zuni prairie dog. U.S. Agric. Bull. 1227.

Tschetter, B.J. 1988. Estimates of South Dakota prairie dog

acreages, 1987. Report No. 88.01. SD Dept. of Game,

Fish and Parks, Pierre, SD.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. More emphasis

needed on declining and overstocked grazing allotments. GAO/RCED-88-80. Washington, DC.

28
Uresk, D.W. 1985. Effects of controlling black-tailed prairie dogs on plant production. J. Range Manage. 38:466-

468.

Uresk, D.W. and A.J. Bjugstad. 1983. Prairie dogs as ecosystem regulators on the northern high plains. Pages

91-94 in Seventh North American Prairie Conference

Proceedings, Southwest Missouri State Univ., Springfield, MO.

Uresk, D.W. and D.D. Paulson. 1988. Estimated carrying

capacity for cattle competing with prairie dogs and

forage utilization in western South Dakota. Pages 387-

390 in Symposium on Management of Amphibians,

Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America. Flagstaff, AZ.

Vanderhoof, J.L., R.J. Robel, and K.E. Kemp. 1994. Numbers and extent of black-tailed prairie dog towns in

Kansas. Trans. KS Acad. Sci. 97:36-43.

Wilcox, B.A. and D.D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. Amer.

Nat. 125:879-887.

Wydeven, A.P. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1985. Ungulate habitat

relationships in Wind Cave National Park. J. Wildl.

Manage. 49:805-813.

29

The Role of Fire in Managing

for Biological Diversity on Native Rangelands

of the Northern Great Plains

Carolyn Hull Sieg1

Abstract.-A strategy for using fire to manage for biological

diversity on native rangelands in the Northern Great Plains

incorporates an understanding of its past frequency, timing and

intensity. Historically, lightning and humans were the major fire

setters, and the role of fire varied both in space and time. A

burning regime that includes fires at various intervals, seasons

and intensities, including midsummer burns, should be reinstated. However, burning to enhance rare systems and species

and to discourage exotic species is also needed. The goal is to

base plans on an understanding of historic processes and

ecosystem interactions, and resist techniques that rely on

unexamined conventions.

“A common thread runs through the many definitions of biological diversity: variety of life and its

processes in a given area” (Salwasser 1990). A management strategy for conserving biological diversity

of any natural ecosystem must focus on saving all the

components, including the structure, composition

(including genetic diversity), and processes that characterize these systems (Kaufmann et al. 1994). Biological diversity is more than just the identifiable

parts; it also includes the symbioses and synergisms

that make nature work (Salwasser 1990).

The importance of disturbances in shaping native

communities has recently received more attention.

Ecosystems are dynamic entities whose patterns and

processes are shaped and sustained on the landscape

by successional processes and by abiotic disturbances

such as fire, drought, and wind. To sustain these

ecosystems, processes that characterize the variability found in native ecosystems should be present and

1

Research Wildlife Biologist, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rapid City, SD.

functioning, and management activities should conserve or restore historic disturbance patterns

(Kaufmann et al. 1994). This paper describes a strategy for managing biological diversity of rangelands

on the Northern Great Plains. The approach is based

on restoring historical disturbance processes given

the significantly altered landscape patterns of today.

Plant nomenclature follows Great Plains Flora Association (1986) (table 1).

SETTING

The Northern Great Plains region includes North

Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, plus the eastern

portions of Montana and Wyoming, and extends

northward into Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The climate of the region is characterized by an

increase in precipitation and humidity and a decrease in periodic droughts during the summer from

west to east (Risser 1990). This climate range influences not only the potential native vegetation but

also the fire regime and effects. The shortgrass prairie

on the Western and Southern portions of the region

is the most arid type; the mixed-grass prairie occurs in

the midsection of the region; and the tallgrass prairie

on the Eastern edge receives the most precipitation

(Risser et al. 1981).

The variation in precipitation across the region

greatly influences the growth and expansion of woody

plants. In the most Western portion of the region, big

sagebrush occupies uplands; in the absence of fire it

persists or expands (Wright and Bailey 1982). In the

remainder of the shortgrass and mixed-grass portions of the region, woody plants are restricted to

areas of increased elevation, such as the Black Hills, or

to areas of increased moisture such as riparian zones,

draws, and north-facing slopes. Escarpments, ridges,

and outcrops in the Western portion support ponderosa pine and Rocky Mountain juniper (Wells 1965).

31
Table 1. Common and scientific names used in this report.

Nomenclature follows GreatPlains Flora Association (

Common name Scientific name

Graminoids

big bluestem

smooth brome

cheatgrass

Japanese brome

buffalo grass

threadleaf sedge

sand dropseed

green needlegrass

Forbs

leafy spurge

western prairie fringed orchid

Shrubs and trees

sagebrush

dwarf sagebrush

big sagebrush

green ash

Rocky Mountain juniper

Eastern red cedar

cactus

ponderosa pine

plains cottonwood

aspen

chokecherry

bur oak

willows

snowberry

Andropogon gerardii

Bromus inermis

Bromus tectorum

Bromus japonicus

Buchloe dactyloides

Carex filifolia

Sporobolus cryptandrus

Stipa viridula

Euphorbia esula

Platanthera praeclara

Artemisia spp.

Artemisia cana

Artemisia tridentata

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Juniperus scopulorum

Juniperus virginianus

Opuntia spp.

Pinus ponderosa

Populus deltoides

Populus tremuloides

Prunus virginiana

Quercus macrocarpa

Salix spp.

Symphoricarpos occidentalis

Woody draws (narrow woodlands occurring in

ravines) are examples of communities in more arid

portions of the region that are restricted to sites with

greater soil moisture. The most common woody plants

in these draws are green ash and chokecherry. Riparian zones along streams and rivers support plains

cottonwood, willows, and dwarf sagebrush (Severson

and Boldt 1978). These woodlands may also expand

in the absence of fire, but the expansion is restricted

to sites with adequate moisture and the expansion

rate is slower than in the tallgrass region. Further,

many deciduous species, such as chokecherry and

willows, sprout vigorously following burning (Wright

and Bailey 1982). Only very frequent fires (i.e., every

1 to 5 years) would favor grasses over these species.

In contrast to more arid portions of the region,

mesic prairies in the Northern, Eastern and Southeastern portions of the region are characterized by

precipitation amounts high enough to support the

expansion of woody plants onto uplands. It is in these

areas that frequent fires slow the expansionof woody

plants on uplands (Bragg and Hulbert 1976). In the

Northern portion of the region, aspen replaces ponderosa pine on outcrops and expands into the Canadian prairies (Wright and Bailey 1982). Eastern red

cedar replaces Rocky Mountain juniper in the Southeastern part of the region where it readily expands

onto uplands (Gehring and Bragg 1992). In the eastern tallgrass prairies, woody species, such as willows

and bur oak, invade grasslands, and only frequent

fires slow their expansion (Anderson 1990). Plains

cottonwood and willow dominate floodplains in the

more mesic portions of the Northern Great Plains;

green ash and bur oak are common on higher terraces

along major rivers (Johnson et al. 1976).

In addition to climatic factors, herbivores also

influence the region’s vegetation and fire regimes.

However, it is difficult to distinguish the particular

influence each force has on vegetation (Henderson

and Statz 1995). Fire is often associated with periodic

drought, and fire and grazing are sometimes interrelated. For example, recently burned grasslands often

attract grazers; yet, heavily grazed areas usually resist fire until dead litter reaccumulates (Steuter et al.

1990, Vinton et al. 1993). Therefore, the influences of

grazing and drought must be a part of a discussion of

historical fire effects (Henderson and Statz 1995).

FIRE HISTORY

An understanding of the frequency, timing, and

intensities of past fires is necessary before fire can be

incorporated into a strategy to conserve prairie systems. Based on data from adjoining ponderosa pine

forests, which indicated that fire frequency varied

from 2 to 25 years, Wright and Bailey (1982) estimate

that on level-to-rolling topography, a fire frequency

of 5 to 10 years in the Northern Great Plains is

reasonable. On topography more dissected with

breaks and rivers, they estimate a fire frequency of 20

to 30 years. Wendtland and Dodd (1992) agree with

this range, based on their examination of historical

documents and fire records from the Scotts Bluff

National Monument area in northwestern Nebraska.

Dendrochronology data in the Devils Tower region

northwest of the Black Hills reveal that before 1770

the mean interval between fires was 27 years; from

1770 to 1900 the fire return interval was 14 years

(Fisher et al. 1987). Brown and Sieg (1996) report a

mean fire frequency in the south-central Black Hills

of 16 years for the period 1388 to 1918.

32
In the more mesic portions of the Northern Great

Plains, the average fire return interval was shorter.

Collins and Gibson (1990) estimate a frequency of

every 1 to 5 years in the tallgrass portions of this

region. In northcentral Nebraska, the fire return interval averaged 3.5 years between 1851 and 1900

(Bragg 1985).

Historically, the major ignition sources for prairie

fires were lightning and American Indians. Lightning was, and is, an important ignition source in the

Northern Great Plains. In northwestern South Dakota, lightning-set fires occur an average of 6 to 25

times per year, and most commonly occur in July and

August (Higgins 1984); fewer occur in April, May,

June, and September. Wendtland and Dodd (1992)

note that of 10 fires described in historical documents

between 1824 and 1934, and of 26 fires officially

recorded between 1934 and 1969 in the Scotts Bluff

National Monument area, over 70 percent occurred

in July and August.

Higgins’ (1986) review of 300 historical accounts

written between 1673 and 1920 reveals that fires

accidentally or intentionally set by American Indians

were common in the Northern Great Plains. He found

that although Indians set fires in nearly every month

of the year, April, September and October were their

peak fire-setting times. The majority of the 97 fires

described were scattered, single events of short duration and small extent; only 10 fires burned longer

than 1 day.

American Indians had many uses for fire. These

included attracting and herding wild animals, signaling threats and warnings, improving pasturage, masking and eliminating personal signs at camps and

along trails, and for pleasure, warfare and ceremonies (Higgins 1986). During their 10,000-year occupation of this region, the timing of fires set by American

Indians did not mirror lightning-set fires; therefore,

these Indian-set fires can be considered additive to

lightning fires (Higgins 1986).

A combination of periodic droughts, high temperatures and strong winds in the region provide the

components necessary for fire spread (Collins 1990).

The end result of the erratic climate, flammable fuels,

topographic relief and other factors, such as grazing

animals, was that the role of fire was not constant in

time or space (Anderson 1990).

With the arrival of non-native settlers came fire

suppression policies and, in many areas, a shift in the

timing of fires. Near Devils Tower, Wyoming, after

1900, the fire return interval increased to every 42

years, versus less than every 27 years previously

(Fisher et al. 1987). In the south-central Black Hills,

Brown and Sieg (1996) record a 104-year fire-free

period in ponderosa pine stands between 1890 and

1994, and note that most of past fire s occurred late in

the growing season or after growth had ceased for the

year. Higgins (1984) suggests that the recent extent

and spread of lightning fires has been modified by

cultural features such as roads; further, the fire regime has also been altered by differing patterns of

grazing animals (first bison, then cattle). In contrast to

the late summer ignitions that commonly burned

before 1935 near Scotts Bluff, Nebraska, the 46 fires

recorded since 1935 dramatically shifted to spring

occurrences (Wendtland and Dodd 1992). Lengthening the interval between fires, shifting from summer

to early spring burning, and/or reducing fire intensity by prescribing cooler fires may alter species composition to favor fire-intolerant species (Wendtland

and Dodd 1992) such as cactus and non-sprouting

woody species like sagebrush (Wright and Bailey

1982).

DEVELOPING A FIRE MANAGEMENT

STRATEGY TO CONSERVE DIVERSITY

The fire strategy most likely to manage diversity

on native rangelands of the Northern Great Plains is

based on two premises: 1) processes that mimic, as

much as possible, the variability found in native

ecosystems should be present and functioning; and

2) management activities should conserve or restore

historical disturbance patterns (Kaufmann et al. 1994).

This management strategy should reflect the differing roles that fire historically played in the various

portions of the region. However, this strategy must

also address the fundamental changes that have occurred in the landscape such as drastically different

landscape patterns imposed by species changes and

management unit boundaries.

Wendtland and Dodd (1992) recommend a scenario that mimics the presettlement fire history. For

the Scotts Bluff, Nebraska area, they infer this strategy including high intensity summer fires on a return

interval of 5 to 30 years. Shifting burning programs

from all spring or fall burns to include some midsummer burns should favor some species not enhanced by spring or fall burns (Howe 1994). For

33
example, an April fire burns early foliage critical for

root production of cool-season plants, leaving lateseason plants unscathed; an August fire burns the

largely inactive foliage of cool-season species, while

consuming foliage and reproductive stems of warmseason species (Howe 1994). However, historically,

fires occurring after fuels have cured in the fall or in

the early spring before green-up may have been

more significant than summer fires. High fuel moisture in July and August and concurrent slow rates of

spread result in a smaller area being burned by an

individual fire, compared to those fires occurring

when fuels are cured in the fall (Steuter 1988). Given

the highly variable fire regime in the past, burns of

varying intensities at differing seasons are appropriate. Further, the interval between fires should be

varied to best restore fire disturbance patterns of the

Northern Great Plains. The strategy should avoid a

uniformity in timing of burns or in intervals between

burns that artificially simplifies what was probably a

more complex system (Howe 1994).

SPECIAL HABITATS AND

SENSITIVE SPECIES

Reinstituting a fire regime based on historical

processes that includes burning at varying intervals

and in differing seasons is the first step in developing

a strategy for using fire to manage biological diversity

on native rangelands in this region. The second step

involves assessing the direct and indirect impacts of

fire on special habitats and sensitive species. Special

habitats are native biological communities or ecosystems that are rare, unique, or highly productive elements of regional landscapes (Salwasser 1990). Sensitive species include those native species currently in

danger of extinction or those whose population trends

are negatively affected by human actions (Salwasser

1990). The burning strategy should also consider the

potentially different historical fire disturbance regimes in these sensitive ecosystems, minimize potential negative influences of fire, and maximize conditions favorable to the expansion of these systems and

species.

The special habitats in the Northern Great Plains

(wetlands, lowlands, and riparian areas) contain high

numbers of listed vulnerable species (Finch 1992,

Finch and Ruggiero 1993). Although each of these

habitats constitutes a relatively small percentage of

the total land area, each contributes disproportionately to the diversity of native rangelands in this

region (Finch and Ruggiero 1993). If sensitive communities such as these occur within a management

unit, burning programs should be examined relative

to their impacts on these habitats. The range in frequency, timing, and intensity of burns suitable to

upland habitats may not provide optimum conditions for sustaining these distinctive systems.

Wetlands, lowlands, and riparian woodlands in

this region are examples of communities that, because of higher moisture, likely burned less frequently

than uplands. Riparian zones throughout the region,

and woody draws in the more arid portions, tend to

be green throughout most of the growing season,

have higher relative humidities than adjacent grasslands, and often have running water or moist soils

that slow the spread of fire into these communities. In

most years, prairie fires would skip over or only burn

lightly through these narrow woodlands (Severson

and Boldt 1978). However, the narrow configuration

and close contact of these woodlands with flammable

grassland fuels suggest that historically they were

exposed to a high number of grassland fires. Fire

inevitably entered these woodlands, especially in dry

years on hot and windy days.

Given that the species composition in woody

draws includes a number of deciduous species, such

as snowberry and chokecherry, that sprout following

burning (Wright and Bailey 1982), and that several

woody species establish best in mineral soils, fire

probably functioned as a regeneration mechanism in

these systems. Further, since these communities stay

green longer than uplands, fires probably burned

late in the growing season when there were adequate

levels of cured, fine fuel. Repeated, annual fires,

especially during droughts, tend to favor the growth

of grasses over woody plants (Wright and Bailey

1982). Fires occurring infrequently when plants are

dormant, followed by high precipitation, may enhance woody plant growth (Wright and Bailey 1982,

Sieg 1991). If the goal is to regenerate woody plants in

woody draws and/or to mimic historical fires, prescriptions should be set to achieve high intensities

(Sieg 1996).

Rocky Mountain juniper woodlands are an example of a relatively uncommon community in the

Western portion of the Northern Great Plains that

rarely burned. In this region, Rocky Mountain juniper grows best on steep barren slopes (Noble 1990)

where the sparse understory vegetation is rarely
adequate to sustain a fire. In areas where fine fuels are

sufficient to carry a fire, the high volatile oil content

of the foliage combined with Rocky Mountain

juniper’s inability to sprout following topkilling, results in high mortality rates (Wright and Bailey 1982).

Threatened or endangered species are examples

of sensitive species whose needs cannot be ignored.

Because they are the first species to drop out of

ecosystems, they are considered the weakest link in

the conservation of native biological diversity (Finch

and Ruggiero 1993). Providing habitats in an appropriate spatial and temporal arrangement is necessary

to maintain viable populations of sensitive species.

Thus, vegetation management is a major tool for

maintaining and restoring biodiversity, and for

delisting or avoiding listing of threatened and endangered species (Kaufmann et al. 1994).

Adjusting fire management programs to meet the

needs of threatened and endangered species requires

an understanding of the role of fire in the long-term

sustainability of the ecosystems supporting these

species, and in the life history and habitat needs of

individual species. For example, the western prairie

fringed orchid is a federally listed threatened plant

species associated with swales (low-lying often wet

land) of the tallgrass prairie (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1989). Although the tallgrass prairie is prone

to burn every 1 to 5 years (Collins and Gibson 1990),

it is unlikely that swales supporting orchids burned

as often, especially during years when they were

flooded. Vogl(l969) describes a “quasi-equilibrium”

of a Wisconsin lowland maintained by floods during

wet periods and fires during droughts. Lowlands

supporting orchid populations likely burned throughout the growing season during prolonged droughts;

however, fires that occur when orchids are actively

growing are apt to injure or kill them. Since fall

burning allows orchids to complete their life cycle,

and dry conditions and lightning are inclined to

occur late in the growing season, fall fires are a better

choice than spring burning to sustain orchid populations and their associated habitat (Bjugstad-Porter

1993).

MANAGE INTRODUCED SPECIES

The introduction of exotic species to new environments without their associated parasites and pests

may be humankind’s greatest environmental manipulation (Young and Evans 1976). Many invasive

exotic species have characteristics that enable them to

vigorously compete with native plants and to exploit

disturbed areas (Parker et al. 1993). In addition to

reviewing impacts of existing non-native species and

preventing the introduction of new ones (Kaufmann

et al. 1994), management plans should address how

to manage these species; fire is a useful tool in this

arena. Problem species include those purposely

planted, such as smooth brome, and a variety of

species accidentally introduced, such as cheatgrass,

Japanese brome, and leafy spurge (Lym 1991).

Although burning is not a panacea for discouraging introduced species, with careful planning it can

be a useful tool, especially if native species are not

adversely affected. Burning at a time when plants are

most vulnerable is useful for suppressing undesirable species. For example, burning in mid-or late

May, when smooth brome tillers are either elongating or heading, reduces tiller density of smooth brome

by 50 percent when compared to unburned plots in

Nebraska (Willson 1992). Burning in May also enhances production of flowering culms of some native

warm-season grasses such as big bluestem (Willson

1992). However, burning is not a cure-all for reducing persistent species such as smooth brome, and the

outcome is strongly dependent on other factors such

as climate and precipitation patterns. Subsequent

burning in Pipestone, Minnesota failed to significantly reduce smooth tiller density (Willson and

Stubbendieck 1996).

In addition to killing or injuring individual exotic

plants, burning can be used to make the habitat less

conducive to a species expansion. Spring burning in

western South Dakota killed Japanese brome seedlings for one growing season, and by reducing litter

accumulations, decreased future germination rates

(Whisenant and Uresk 1990). In this case, spring

burning was detrimental to the production of one

native species, green needlegrass; enhanced production of two others, buffalo grass and sand dropseed;

and did not change the production of a fourth,

threadleaf sedge (Whisenant and Uresk 1990).

A combination of burning and other management tools may be valuable in managing invasive

species. For example, picloram plus 2,4-D applied in

the fall followed by spring burning reduced the stem

density and germination rates of leafy spurge in

North Dakota more than any other treatment tested

(Wolters et al. 1994). The key to success in managing

invasive species is to begin treatment before expan35
sive spread occurs and to focus as much as possible on

the invaded ecosystem rather than on the invader

(Hobbs and Humphries 1995).

SUMMARY

A strategy for using fire to manage native biological diversity on rangelands in the Northern Great

Plains should consider natural disturbance patterns.

Fires historically occurred as often as every 1 to 5

years in the more mesic portions of the region, but

less frequently in areas of rough topography and in

lowlands. Lightning, a major ignition source in this

region, caused fires most often in July and August.

American Indians accidentally or intentionally set

fires in nearly every month of the year; however, the

greatest number were set in April, September, and

October. The end result of the erratic climate, fuels,

topographic relief and factors such as grazing animals, was that the role of fire was not constant in time

or space.

Reinstituting a fire regime based on historical

processes, including burning at varying intervals (to

reflect climatic patterns) and in differing seasons, is

the first step in developing a strategy for using fire to

manage for biological diversity on native rangelands

in this region. Including mid-summer burns, rather

than concentrating all prescribed burning in the spring

and fall, would better mimic natural disturbance

patterns. The second step involves adjusting fire

regimes to best sustain special habitats, such as wetlands and riparian zones, and sensitive species, especially threatened and endangered ones. Third, fire

prescriptions should be planned so that burning does

not enhance the spread of invasive species. The overall goal is to base the fire management strategy on an

understanding of historic processes and ecosystem

interactions, and resist techniques that rely on

unexamined conventions (Howe 1994).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. Kenneth F. Higgins, National Biological Service, South Dakota Cooperative Unit, Brookings; Dr.

Allen Steuter, The Nature Conservancy, Niobrara

Valley Preserve, Johnstown, NE; and Kate Cannon,

Superintendent, Jewel Cave National Monument,

Custer, SD provided comments helpful in revising an

earlier draft of this paper.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, Roger C. 1990. The historic role of fire in the

North American grassland. In: Fire in N orth American

Tallgrass Prairies. Collins, Scott L; Wallace, Linda L.,

eds. Norman, OK: Univ. Oklahoma Press. 8-18.

Bjugstad-Porter, Rochelle. 1993. The w estern prairie

fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara): it’s response to

burning and associated mycorrhizal fungi. Laramie,

WY: University of Wyoming. 116 p. M.S. thesis.

Bragg, Thomas B. 1985. A preliminary fire history of the

oak/pine forest of northcentral Nebraska. In: Proc. 95th

Ann. Meet. Nebr. Acad. Sci., Lincoln, NE: Nebraska

Wesleyan University. 8.

Bragg, Thomas B.; Hulbert, Lloyd C. 1976. Woody plant

invasion of unburned Kansas bluestem prairie. Journal

of Range Management. 29:19-24.

Brown, Peter M. and Carolyn Hull Sieg. 1996. Fire history

in interior ponderosa pine communities of the Black

Hills, South Dakota. International Journal of Wildland

Fire. 6:97-105.

Collins, Scott L. 1990. Introduction: fire as a natural disturbance in tallgrass prairie ecosystems. In: Fire in North

American Tallgrass Prairies. Collins, Scott L; Wallace,

Linda L., eds. Norman, OK: Univ. Oklahoma Press. 3-7.

Collins, Scott L.; Gibson, David J. 1990. Effects of fire on

community structure in tallgrass and mixed-grass prairie. In: Fire in North American Tallgrass Prairies. Collins,

Scott L; Wallace, Linda L., eds. Norman, OK: Univ.

Oklahoma Press. 81-98.

Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species of terrestrial vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-215. Fort Collins, CO:

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

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 38 pp.

Finch, Deborah M.; Ruggiero, Leonard F. 1993. Wildlife

habitats and biological diversity in the Rocky Mountains and Northern Great Plains. Natural Areas Journal.

13:191-203.

Fisher, R.F.; Jenkins, M.J.; Fischer, William F. 1987. Fire

and the prairie-forest mosaic of Devils Tower National

Monument. American Midland Naturalist . 117:250-257.

Gehring, Janet L; Bragg, Thomas B. 1992. Changes in

prairie vegetation under eastern red cedar (Juniperus

virginiana L.) in an eastern Nebraska bluestem prairie.

American Midland Naturalist . 128:209-217.

36
Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great

Plains. Lawrence, KS: Univ. Press of Kansas. 1392 pp.

Henderson, Richard A.; Statz, Sandra H. 1995. Bibliography of fire effects and related literature applicable to

the ecosystems and species of Wisconsin. Technical

Bulletin No. 187, Department of Natural Resources,

Madison. 56 pp.

Higgins, Kenneth F. 1984. Lightning fires in North Dakota

grasslands and in pine-savanna lands of South Dakota

and Montana. Journal of Range Management. 37:100-

103.

Higgins, Kenneth F. 1986. Interpretation and compendium of historical fire accounts in the Northern Great

Plains. Res. Pub. 161. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 39 pp.

Hobbs, Richard J.; Humphries, Stella E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of

plant invasions. Conservation Biology. 9:761-770.

Howe, Henry F. 1994. Managing species diversity in

tallgrass prairie: assumptions and implications. Conservation Biology. 8:691-704.

Johnson, W. Carter; Burgess, Robert L.; Keammerer, Warren R. 1976. Forest overstory vegetation and environment on the Missouri River floodplain in North Dakota.

Ecological Monograph. 46:59-84.

Kaufmann, Merrill R.; Graham, Russell T.; Boyce, Douglas

A., Jr. [et al.]. 1994. An ecological basis for ecosystem

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-246. Fort Collins,

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

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

22 pp.

Lym, Rodney G. 1991. Economic impact, classification,

distribution, and ecology of leafy spurge. In: Noxious

Range Weeds. James, Lynn F.; Evans, John 0.; Ralphs,

Michael H.; Child, R. Dennis, eds. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press. 169-181.

Noble, Daniel L. 1990. Juniperus scopulorum Sarg. Rocky

Mountain juniper. In: Silvics of North America, Vol. 1.

Agric. Handb. 654. Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara

H., Tech. Coords. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 116-126.

Parker, Ingrid M.; Mertens, Shoshana K.; Schemske, Douglas W. 1993. Distribution of seven native and two

exotic plants in a tallgrass prairie in southeastern Wisconsin: the importance of human disturbance. American Midland Naturalist. 130:43-55.

Risser, Paul G. 1990. Landscape processes and the vegetation of the North American grassland. In: Fire in North

American Tallgrass Prairies. Collins, Scott L; Wallace,

Linda L., eds. Norman, OK: Univ. Oklahoma Press.

133-146.

Risser, P.G.; Birney, E.C.; Blocker, H.D. [et al.]. 1981. The

true prairie ecosystem. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson

Ross.

Salwasser, Hal. 1990. Conserving biological diversity: a

perspective on scope and approaches. Forest Ecology

and Management. 35:79-90.

Severson, Kieth E.; Boldt, Charles E. 1978. Cattle, wildlife,

and riparian habitats in the western Dakotas. In: Management and use of Northern Plains rangeland Regional Rangeland Symposium; 1978 Feb. 27-28; Bismarck, ND: North Dakota State University. 91-103.

Sieg, Carolyn Hull. 1991. Ecology of bur oak woodlands in

the foothills of the Black Hills, South Dakota. Lubbock,

TX: Texas Tech University. 185 p. Ph.D. Thesis.

Sieg, Carolyn Hull. 1996. The role of prescribed burning in

regenerating Quercus macrocarpa and associated woody

plants in stringer woodlands in the Black Hills, South

Dakota. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 6:21-29.

Steuter, A.A. 1988. Restoring a mixed prairie process: the

fire-bison grazing interaction. Bulletin of the Ecological

Society of America. 69:308.

Steuter, Allen A.; Grygiel, C.E.; Biondini, M.E. 1990. A

synthesis approach to research and management planning: the conceptual development and implementation. Natural Areas Journal. 10:61-68.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and

threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for Platanthera leucophaea (eastern prairie

fringed orchid) and Platanthera praeclara (western prairie fringed orchid). Federal Register 54:39857-39862.

Vinton, Mary Ann; Hartnett, David C.; Finck, Elmer J.;

Briggs, John M. 1993. Interactive effects of fire, bison

(Bison bison) grazing and plant community composition

in tallgrass prairie. American Midland Naturalist. 129:10-

18.

Vogl, Richard J. 1969. One hundred and thirty years of

plant succession in a southeastern Wisconsin lowland.

Ecology. 50-248-255.

Wells, Philip V. 1965. Scarp woodlands, transported grassland soils, and concept of grassland climate in the Great

Plains region. Science. 148:246-249.

Wendtland, Kyle J.; Dodd, Jerrold L. 1992. The fire history

of Scotts Bluff National Monument. In: Proceedings of

the 12th North American Prairie Conference; Smith,

Daryl D.; Jacobs, Carol A., eds. 1990, August 5-9; Cedar

Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa. 141-143.

Whisenant, Steven G; Uresk, Daniel W. 1990. Spring burning Japanese brome in a western wheatgrass community. Journal of Range Management. 43:205-208.

Willson, Gary D. 1992. Morphological characteristics of

smooth brome used to determine a prescribed burn

date. In: Proceedings of the 12th North American Prairie Conference; Smith, Daryl D.; Jacobs, Carol A., eds.

1990, August 5-9; Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern Iowa. 113-116.

Willson, Gary D.; Stubbendieck, James. 1996. Suppression

of smooth brome by Atrazine, mowing and fire. The

Prairie Naturalist. 28:13-20.

3 7
Wolters, Gale L.; Sieg, Carolyn Hull; Bjugstad, Ardell J.;

Gartner, F. Robert. 1994. Herbicide and fire effects on

leafy spurge density and seed germination. Res. Note

RM-526. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 5 pp.

Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire Ecology.

New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 pp.

Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1976. Responses of

weed populations to human manipulations of the natural environment. Weed Science. 24:186-190.

38 *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1997-576-562/65076
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination 

in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs and marital or familial status. (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 the USDA Office 

of Communications at (202) 720-2791 (voice) or (800) 855-1234 (TDD). 

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, US. Department of 

Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, or call (800) 245-6340 (voice) or (800) 855-1234 

(TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. 

Printed on @ recycled paper 
Rocky 

Mountains 

southwest 

Great 

Plains 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station 

The Rocky Mountain Station is one of seven 

regional experiment stations, plus the Forest 

Products Laboratory and the Washington Office 

Staff, that make up the Forest Service research 

organization. 

RESEARCH FOCUS 

Research programs at the Rocky Mountain 

Station are coordinated with area universities and 

with other institutions. Many studies are 

conducted on a cooperative basis to accelerate 

solutions to problems involving range, water, 

wildlife and fish habitat, human and community 

development, timber, recreation, protection, and 

multiresource evaluation. 

RESEARCH LOCATIONS 

Research Work Units of the Rocky Mountain 

Station are operated in cooperation with 

universities in the following cities: 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Flagstaff, Arizona 

Fort Collins, Colorado* 

Laramie, Wyoming 

Lincoln, Nebraska 

Rapid City, South Dakota 

'Station Headquarters: 240 W. Prospect Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80526