GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-160

1983

CHRIS MASER

JACK WARD THOMAS

PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
ABSTRACT

The need for a way by which rangeland managers can account for wildlife in land-use planning, in on-the-ground management actions,

and in preparation of environmental impact

statements is discussed. Principles of rangeland-wildlife interactions and management are

described along with management systems. The

Great Basin of southeastern Oregon was

selected as a well-defined area for which to

develop and display the rangeland-wildlife

management principles. This paper introduces

the 14-chapter series and outlines each briefly.

THE AUTHORS

CHRIS MASER is a research wildlife

biologist, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 Jefferson Way, Corvallis, Oregon 97331. JACK WARD THOMAS is

chief research wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Rt. 2 Box 2315, La Grande, Oregon 97850.
This publication is part of the series Wildlife

Habitats in Managed Rangelands-The Great

Basin of Southeastern Oregon. The series on

rangelands is adapted from “Wildlife Habitats

in Managed Forests-the Blue Mountains of

Oregon and Washington” (Thomas 19791, and

though parts of the series on rangelands resemble those on the forest, others are completely

new. The series provides range managers with

information on wildlife and its relationship to

habitat conditions in managed rangelands.

The setting for this series of papers is the

Great Basin of southeastern Oregon-the Basin

and Range and Owyhee Upland Provinces of

Franklin and Dyrness (1973) (fig. 1). The information is specific to the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon and is generally applicable to

the shrub-steppe areas of the Western United

States. The principles and processes described,

however, are generally applicable to all managed rangelands.

The series includes 14 separate publications.

Although each part is an independent treatment of a specific subject, when combined in the

sequence in which they appear on the inside

back cover, the individual parts will be as chapters in a book.

Figure 1 .-The physiographic and geological provinces of Oregon (after Franklin and Dyrness 1973).

The shaded portion is the area referred to in this report as the “Great Basin of southeastern Oregon.”

Wildlife Habitats in Managed RangelandsThe Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon is a

cooperative effort of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Forest and Range Experiment Station, and the

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, Oregon State Office.

Introduction

Until a few years ago, a rangeland manager’s

only concern with wildlife was with “predators”

and “big game.” The law neither recognized nor

required an accountability for wildlife. But

times, laws, public demands, and politics have

changed. Public rangelands are now considered

a prime supplier of livestock and recreation. In

fact, they are becoming ever more intensively

managed to meet the Nation’s burgeoning demands for minerals, water, recreation, grazing,

and wildlife. Rangeland managers are under increasing pressure to account for wildlife in management activities, particularly land-use planning. And wildlife means all species-not just

species that are hunted, or are esthetically

pleasing, or are classified as threatened or endangered. Specific responsibilities for protection and enhancement of wildlife habitats on

managed rangelands have been set forth by

Federal laws and other legislation. This series

of publications is designed to help managers

deal more effectively with these new responsibilities.

In turn, the managers are asking more and

tougher questions about how range management practices will affect wildlife. The response

of wildlife biologists too often varies from “Don’t

do it” to “We don’t know enough to give you an

answer.” Neither response helps a manager

make the necessary evaluations and decisions,

and to do nothing is seldom a realistic alternative-economically, politically, or biologically.

Although we probably will never have

enough knowledge to make a perfect analysis of

the impacts of rangeland management action

on wildlife habitat, more information is available than has been used. To be useful, however,

it must be organized to make sense biologically

and in terms of livestock management.

Past wildlife management in rangelands has

been considered from a limited viewpoint in

that single species or small numbers of species

have been studied and planned for. As a result,

wildlife biologists and range specialists have

been able to effectively evaluate the impacts of

management on only a few species of wildlife.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to professionals engaged in range research and management

is to organize knowledge and insights into

analytical tools and management strategies

that can be readily applied. We began by asking

a simple question. What do rangeland managers do that affects wildlife? They manage

habitat. Every decision a manager makes that

changes the landscape alters wildlife habitat.

Habitat is an entity that can be qualified and

quantified and for which a manager can be held

accountable. And because maintenance of appropriate habitat is the foundation of all

wildlife management, it is the key to organizing

the knowledge about wildlife so it can be used in

managing rangelands. We provide a framework

for planning that uses habitat as the key to

managing wildlife and thereby makes managers accountable for their actions.

The information presented is a reasonable

facsimile of the way managed rangelands and

wildlife interrelate. The series may be considered a working hypothesis. It is a place to

start-a way to derive responses to questions for

which there are no certain answers. As Taylor

(1956, p. xi) said: “no . . . book dealing with living creatures is in any sense final. The subject . . . is so fascinatingly complicated that no

contribution can be . . . more than a progress

report.”

Much of the Nation’s vast rangelands have

changed dramatically in the last 200 years.

They can no longer be considered wild because

they are now managed to produce multiple benefits, dominated by livestock production but including wildlife. Private lands, of course, are

managed to meet the owner’s objective-usually production of livestock. Management to enhance livestock production alters wildlife

habitat more than any other range management activity.

This series has three purposes: (1) to develop

a common understanding of wildlife habitats on

managed rangelands; (2) to provide a system for

predicting the impacts of range management

practices on wildlife; and (3) to show how the

system can be applied to a specific area-in this

case, the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon.
With the information provided, resource specialists can work together to assure the continued existence of most, if not all, wildlife

habitats in managed rangelands.

Livestock management and wildlife habitat

management are compatible on public rangelands, but only if the needs of wildlife are recognized and accounted for along with the needs of

livestock. Their compatibility can be realized

through a better understanding of plant and

animal communities, how they change over

time, and how they respond to livestock grazing

and vegetative manipulation.

By long-standing agreement, the manipulation of nonmigratory wildlife populations or

regulation of the harvest of such wildlife on federally managed land is the prerogative of the

States. Habitat management on public land is

the responsibility of the agencies assigned to

manage federally owned lands. Close cooperation is therefore required in setting and

achieving wildlife management goals because

management of wildlife on public lands is the

joint responsibility of both State and Federal

governments.

Wildlife as a Product

of Rangeland Management

Management of rangelands is the process of

controlling the environment to produce a mix of

desired products. That mix changes with time,

economic conditions, and capability of the land.

Congress, through laws, determines what these

products, including wildlife, on public lands

shall be (fig. 2). The “granddaddy” law of public

rangelands was the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act,

which directed the Secretary of the Interior to

preserve wildlife (Bean 1977). A number of laws

(fig. 2) specify or intimate that wildlife shall be

a product of Federal lands and that wildlife

shall be considered in every management decision. Other regulations result from agency and

court interpretations of these laws. Managers

of State lands and private landowners are influenced by applicable State laws.

Wildlife habitat, on most managed rangelands, has been a byproduct of management to

enhance production of livestock. As demands

have grown for the products of rangelands, it

has become obvious that such cliches as “good

range management is good wildlife management” will no longer suffice. Passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (U.S.

Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 91-190) required that the environmental effects and

trade-offs of any federally financed project must

be fully evaluated.

The Need

How is a public rangeland manager to balance demands for rangelands, including

wildlife, and still maintain a sustained yield of

livestock forage? How can managers account for

the needs of all wildlife? In seeking answers to

these questions, the wisdom of two of Commoner’s (1971) “laws” of ecology becomes

apparent-“everything is connected to everything else,” and “there is no such thing as a free

lunch.” Any action that alters vegetation has an

influence on wildlife habitat and, in turn, on

wildlife. If wildlife is of concern, goals for

wildhfe must be estabhshed and a11 management actions must be judged against those

goals. Rangeland managers must not be solely

livestock managers. They must take a more

holistic view.

The Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976 (U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public

Law 90-2743) requires that detailed and holistic

plans be prepared for the management of public

rangelands. Further, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (U.S. Laws, Statutes,

etc.; Public Law 91-190) requires that the environmental impacts and consequences of planned actions involving Federal funds be

examined and revealed. One of the weakest aspects of such planning has been the inability of

managers to predict the effects of management

alternatives on wildlife populations. This has

frequently resulted in criticism of land-use

plans and environmental impact statements by

the public, other agencies, and the courts.

2
Public Law No.

f

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Endangered Species Act of 1973

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act of 1974

93-378

Sikes Act

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

I

Taylor Grazing Act

Public Rangeland Improvement Act 94-514

I

Environmental analysis reports

25

I

caE

42&m c~

Land-use planning documents

8. I .-5

22s Environmental impact statements

I *

Land management coordination requifements

Figure 2.-Some major Federal laws and planning

requirements that influence wildlife habitat management on public lands (adapted from Thomas

1979).

General criticism of rangeland management

and land-use planning by conservationists and

wildlife biologists does little to help wildlife.

What will help are better techniques to predict

the consequences of management on wildlife,

whether good or bad. Managers need a conceptual framework that will enable them to: (1) account for habitat needs of all vertebrate

wildlife, (2) emphasize management of particular wildlife species, and (3) identify habitats

that require special attention. The greatest

challenge is to integrate existing information so

it can be readily used in resource planning.

Giles (1962, p. 404-405) described the problem

as follows:

Certainly, research is needed, but

while waiting, we need to work with

what we have. Work to be done is not

for the research staff, but the management team who sees the needs,

recognizes limitations, and can make

modifications to fit existing conditions. The “applied ecologist” needs

to start applying.

3
Development of a process to consider the impacts of management on wildlife is needed.

Land-use planning continues at full speed;

large-scale conversions of sagebrush-dominated rangelands to crested wheatgrass and

other species are being contemplated and implemented; and the demand for increased forage

production (that is, increased livestock grazing)

from public lands is incessant. Some say it is too

soon to undertake such a task, that there is too

little “hard” data. But there are really only two

choices-too soon or too late. The first is preferable. With intensified management of rangelands, impacts on wildlife are magnified. We

need to get on with the job.

Managers need more flexibility in applying

technical information to local situations. The

information is presented as a system to predict

the consequences of management alternatives

on wildlife, rather than as specific guidelines.

Thus, a manager has the ability to respond to

particular situations while being fully accountable for the impacts of such decisions on wildlife

habitat. Managers can survey alternatives,

make trade-offs, and account for those

decisions.

A Basic Assumption

A basic assumption about wildlife habitat in

rangelands managed for multiple use is that

management must be carried out in coordination with livestock management. On public

rangelands in the Great Basin of southeastern

Oregon, as in many other parts of North

America, livestock production is the dominant

land use. Large-scale alterations of wildlife

habitat usually result from the manipulation of

vegetation primarily to enhance livestock production. Management for livestock production,

therefore, is de facto wildlife management. The

degree to which it is good wildlife management

depends on how well habitat is manipulated to

achieve wildlife goals. These interrelationships

are shown in figure 3.

Large-scale wlldllfe goals must

be accomplished through

rangeland management

because

management for enhanced livestock

producton

. affects many acres

. is reiativeiy well fmanced

. dramatically affects w~ldiife h&tat

l has great impact on wildlife

whereas

management for wlldlafe habttat.

. affects relatwly few acres (however,

the acres affected are generally I”

“key* areas)

s has reiatwely Mtle finanong

l has relatwely small mfiuence

on wMife habitat fbut does lnfiuence

key habltat comp&ents I” localzed areas)

. has relatively small

tmoact on wtldlife (but could do

r&hmore wth b&rflnancmg)

Figure 3.-Large-scale management of wildlife

habitat must be mainly accomplished through range.

land management (adapted from Thomas 1979).

Wildlife habitat management may require

control of vegetation, but this is usually too expensive solely for wildlife purposes. There are

exceptions, however, such as the establishment

of special watering sources and protection of

particular habitats from livestock grazing.

Management practices undertaken to enhance

livestock production can cause dramatic

changes in wildlife habitat; these practices,

when correctly planned and executed, can be a

practical way to achieve wildlife habitat goals.

4
;

A wildlife biologist is normally responsible

for making the manager aware of the ramifications of proposed management activities on

wildlife habitats. A manager normally considers advice from many staff specialists and

selects a course of action. But it is the field range

specialist who actually manipulates the vegetation and alters habitat. It is therefore essential

that range managers, range specialists, and

wildlife biologists work closely together.

To paraphrase Giles (1962, p. 4061, it is time

to concede that the production of livestock has

more intense, widespread influence on wildlife

than any technique applied by a wildlife

biologist to enhance habitat. In one large-scale

manipulation of vegetation to enhance forage

production for livestock, a rangeland manager

can influence more habitat over a longer time

than a wildlife manager, acting alone with current levels of funding, can create in a decade.

Wildlife biologists, to be really effective, must

simultaneously realize the potential of these

rangeland manipulations to enhance forage for

livestock and must increase their effectiveness

in obtaining modifications in these practices to

make them the least damaging, or even to enhance wildlife habitat.

Principles of Rangeland-Wildlife

Management

Resource management professionals come

from varied backgrounds: range management,

ecology, geology, wildlife biology, fisheries biology, engineering, animal husbandry, and landscape architecture, to name a few. To work together, they need a common vocabulary and understanding of range management principles,

plant and animal ecology, and wildlife management. The relationship between terms used in

range and wildlife habitat management is

shown in figure 4. Touched on by Odum (19631,

Leopold (19331, and Hylander (19661, these definitions are mainly from Thomas (1979).

Habitat is the place where an animal finds

the required arrangement of food, cover, and

water to meet its biological needs. Each species

is adapted to a habitat niche or specific arrangement and amount of food, cover, and water. The

role a particular wildlife species plays in the environment is referred to as its ecological niche.

A plant community type is a unique combination of plants that occurs in particular locations under certain environmental influences.

The plant community type reflects the environmental influences of the site, such as soil, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall as they influence vegetation

(Daubenmire 1976).

Plant communities, as described in chapter 2

(Dealy et al. 1981), are defined in terms of dominant overstory and understory species of

climax vegetation. Several plant community

types may be included. A plant community

evolves through a general series of conditions

as it progresses from bare ground to climax

stage. This process is called succession, and the

various stages are known as successional

stages. But in rangeland communities in which

the vegetation is manipulated, singly or in combination, by fire, mechanical means, herbicides,

and ungulate grazing, succession is commonly

so radically modified that when a relatively

stable state is maintained by people or their

domestic animals it can be called a stage of disclimax (= disturbance climax) or anthrogenic

subclimax (= human generated) (Odum 1971).

In this series, these disclimax states are referred to as structural conditions.

Each combination of a plant community and

a successional stage or structural condition produces a unique set of habitat niches. The

wildlife supported by these habitat niches make

up the attendant animal community. The animals fill various ecological niches and, in turn,

influence the plant community. Individual

species may use a particular habitat on a seasonal or a yearlong basis. See also reviews of

Meslow and Wight (1975) and Thomas et al.

(1975).
I

I

I

Figure 4.-Relationship between terms used in forest

and wildlife habitat management (adapted from

Thomas 1979).
‘1 Some of the terms already discussed have

counterparts that are used primarily in range

management. It is important to understand

their relationship to the language of ecology

and wildlife biology.

A site is an area considered in terms of its environment, particularly as this determines the

type and quality of the vegetation the area can

support. Sites are qualitatively classified into

site types by their climate, soil, and vegetation.

Site type is roughly analogous to the plant

community.

Each site is occupied by one or more stands.

A stand is a plant community that has sufficient

uniformity of composition, size, density, age,

spatial arrangement, and condition to distinguish it from adjacent communities. Stands are

the common basis on which prescriptions to

manipulate vegetation are considered. The

stand condition can be described by measuring

these factors. Manipulation of vegetation alters

stand condition. When wildlife habitat is

considered, stand condition is roughly analogous to successional stage or structural condition because both reflect the composition and

structure of the stand.

i

The juxtaposition of plant communities, successional stages, or stand conditions within

communities produces edge. The area where

communities or successional stages overlap or

produce a distinct combination of plants or

structure is called the ecotone. Edges and their

ecotones are rich habitat for wildlife because

they have attributes of the edge itself plus those

of the adjoining communities or successional

stages (Leopold 1933). The influence of this

phenomenon on animal populations is called

edge effect.

Increasing the amount of edge increases

habitat richness, which is a measure of the

number of wildlife species resident within an

area. Interspersion is a measure of the degree

to which plant communities or successional

stages mix. An increase in interspersion increases the amount of edge. In turn, this may

increase diversity or the variety that exists in

plant and animal communities (Patton 1975).

Increased diversity in plant communities provides an increasing number of habitat niches

that, in turn, support more animal species. A

rangeland with a high degree of diversity of

communities and successional stages provides

habitat for a wide variety of wildlife (Odum

1971).

Increased diversity is thought to be related

to community stability. Stability is the ability

of a community to withstand catastrophe (Margalef 1969) or to return it to its original state

after severe alteration. Diversity is assumed to

provide flexibility to managers by insuring resilience to recover from disturbance to the “system.” Such a cause and effect is suspected but

has not been proved. Odum (1971, p. 256) stated:

If it can be shown that biotic diversity does indeed enhance physical

stability in the ecosystem, or is the

result of it, then we would have an

important guide for conservation

practice. . . . is variety only the spice

of life or is it a necessity for the long

life of the total ecosystem comprising

man and nature?

A rangeland ecosystem is a dynamic complex

of plant and animal communities, along with

the abiotic environment that comprises one

functioning whole. Any change in vegetative

structure or composition will favor some

wildlife species while adversely affecting

others. Such changes can affect the number and

type of wildlife species and their use of habitat.

Rangeland-Wildlife

Management Systems

Wildlife management is the scientifically

based art of skillfully controlling habitat to enhance conditions for a selected species or of

manipulating animal populations to achieve

other desired ends (fig. 5). The term “wildlife

management” implies the ability and managerial flexibility to control habitat factors or animal populations, or both (Giles 1971, Leopold

1933, Trippensee 1948).
Wildlife management on public rangelands

I I

is the art of

I

has two production ooals

Population

management:

manipulating

animal

populations

to achieve

desired

objectives

that is

primarily

I

State

responsibility

Habitat

management:

manipulating

habitat to

produce

species or

numbers of

individuals

I

that is

primarily

There are two general production goals in

wildlife management-management for species

richness (Evans 1974; Siderits 1975; USDA

Forest Service 1973,1975) and management for

featured species (Holbrook 1974, USDA Forest

Service 1971, Zeedyk and Hazel 1974) (fig. 6).

The goal of management for species richness

is to insure that most resident wildlife species

are maintained in viable numbers in the managed area (King 1966). Hence, all species are

important. Management for species richness

can be achieved by providing a broad spectrum

of habitat conditions; characteristic stages or

structural conditions of adequate size of each

plant community should be represented in the

Management for

species

richness

to maintain

the highest

possible number

of wildlife

species in

viable populations

Management for

featured

soecies

to produce

desired species

in the location

and numbers

necessary to

accomplish goals

I

that may be applied

singly

I I

simultaneously

1 c

Figure 5.-The art and goals of wildlife management

on public rangelands (adapted from Thomas 1979).

vegetative mosaic. It is therefore necessary to

have information on the habitat needs of each

species. This must then be incorporated into

guides to protect the integrity, stability, and diversity of the rangeland ecosystem. The result

should be a relatively stable and varied wildlife

population.

Under management for featured species, the

goal is to produce selected species in desired

numbers in specific locations. This can be

achieved by manipulating vegetation so the

limiting factors of food, cover, and water are

made less limiting for the desired species. These

may be game species, threatened or endangered

species, or species that have particular esthetic

value.
Production

Management for

species richness

Insure that all resident

species exist in viable

numbers. All species

are important.

Manipulate vegetation so

that characteristic

stages of each plant

community are represented

in the vegetative mosaic.

Figure 6.-Production goals in wildlife management

(adapted from Thomas 1979).

Management for featured species has also

been called “key-species management” or “indicator-species management” if the species

selected represents the habitat needs of several

species. If the species to be featured are carefully selected and their habitat needs vary

widely, then management for featured species

will also insure habitat diversity. The result can

be similar to management for species richness.

The two management systems can also be

simultaneously used to insure species richness

while favoring selected species in specific locations for particular purposes. For example,

management for species richness can be accomplished by providing an approximate mix of

successional stages or stand conditions (structural conditions) within each plant community.

Management for featured species can be accomplished by arranging stand size and successional stages to provide both cover and forage

for selected species.

Rangelands are managed-that is, the vegetational composition and structure are controlled-through one or a combination of the following: (1) shrubs are controlled by mechanical

means, herbicides, or fire; (2) controlled areas

Management for featured

species

Produce selected species

in desired numbers in

designated locations.

Production of selected

species is of prime

importance.

Manipulate habitat factors

so that limiting factors

are made less limiting.

are frequently seeded with grasses, forbs, and

shrubs palatable and nutritious for livestock;

and (3) grazing management, defined as

“

. . . manipulation of livestock grazing to accomplish a desired result” (Kothmann 1974, p.

36), is employed. Grazing management may

include deferred grazing or use of a grazing system that is defined as “a specialization of grazing management which defines systematically

recurring period of grazing and deferment for

two or more pastures or management units”

(Kothmann 1974, p. 36). Kothmann (1974) said

there are many possible combinations of the

four primary factors involved in any grazing

system (number of pastures, number of herds,

length of grazing periods, length of rest

periods); but other factors, such as season of use,

species of livestock, and class of livestock, must

also be taken into account. In addition, such

management involves livestock density and

distribution of grazing within pastures or management units, which can be influenced by fencing, location of drinking water, or herding.

9
There are many options available to achieve

the desired compositional and structural state

of vegetation under the constraints of what the

site can support, the availability of resources,

and limitations of law, regulation, or custom.

That the goals and objectives be clearly set and

the progress toward those goals be periodically

evaluated is of overriding importance. The

goals and objectives must encompass both livestock production and wildlife habitat. It is

essential that these goals and objectives be developed in conjunction with and cooperation

between user groups and resource specialists

and be stated in terms of vegetative condition

first and numbers of outputs, such as animal

unit months (AUM) of grazing or animal units

(AU), second.

The Setting

The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon falls

mainly into the Owyhee Upland physiographic

province and partly in the Basin and Range

physiographic province (Franklin and Dyrness

1973) (fig. 1). It includes portions of Malheur

and Harney Counties. The landscape is mostly

rolling plateau at 1 066 meters (3,500 ft) in elevation, but there are mountains, cliffs, and canyons. Annual precipitation ranges from 18 to 30

centimeters (7 to 12 inches) (Heady and Bartolome 1977).

The Great Basin rangelands in southeastern

Oregon support 28 plant communities dominated by grasses, shrubs, or trees. Trees vary

from conifers to deciduous and evergreen

hardwoods. Big sagebrush’ communities predominate, whereas tree-dominated and true

grassland communities constitute the least

common types. True grasslands occur as relict

meadows, relict stands of valley bottom bunchgrass, and relict subalpine bunchgrass types

(Dealy et al. 1981, Maser and Strickler 1978).

’ Scientific names are listed in the appendix

Tree-dominated communities occur primal

ily at elevations above the sagebrush steppe.

with the exception of low-elevation riparia

willow and cottonwood communities. Quakin

aspen is restricted primarily to mountain ripai

ian zones associated with streams, seeps

springs, ponds, lakes, or snowdrift sites. Wit

the exception of relict ponderosa pine and whit

fir, curlleaf mountainmahogany requires th

most moisture of the dry-land tree types in th

high desert mountains. Western juniper grow

immediately below the curlleaf mountain

mahogany and intermixes with it in transitiol

zones. These tree-dominated communities ar

adjacent to and above the shrub zones (Dealy e

al. 1981).

Big sagebrush, including several subspecies

dominates the shrub communities. Other sig

nificant tall shrub communities include blacl

greasewood, squaw apple, Bolander silve

sagebrush, and mountain silver sagebrush

Short shrub communities include shadscal’

saltbush, stiff sagebrush, low sagebrush, earl:

low sagebrush, black sagebrush, and cleftlea

sagebrush (Dealy et al. 1981).

The diversity of topography and plant corn

munities made the Great Basin of southeasterr

Oregon an ideal place to develop and test tht

range-wildlife management systems discussec

in this series of papers.

The land ownership in the Great Basin o

southeastern Oregon is shown in table 1. Tht

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) control:

the majority of the land (66 percent); 29 percen

is in private ownership.

Agriculture and grazing of domestic live

stock are the activities that dominate manage

ment of private land. Grazing of domestic live

stock is the dominant use on BLM-administerec

lands. In 1980,373 permittees ran 116,806 heat

of cattle and horses and 5,945 sheep composing

618,608 AUM on BLM lands (U.S. Departmen

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Managemenl

1981).

10
Table l-Land ownership in the Great Basin of

southeastern Oregon

Ownership

Bureau of Land

Hectares Acres Percent

Management 3025792 7,476,881 66

Other Federal 62506 154,456 1

State 174944 432,296 4

Private 1302875 3,219,467 29

Total 4 566 117 11,283,100 100

Livestock management was facilitated on

BLM lands in the Vale and Burns Districts from

1934 through 1981 by the following actions:

Vegetation was manipulated on 140 770 hectares (347,702 acres); crested wheatgrass was

seeded on 211 682 hectares (522,856 acres);

7 192 kilometers (4,469 mi) of fence was constructed; 477 cattle guards were installed; 1 611

kilometers (1,001 mi) of road was constructed to

move livestock; 1 286 kilometers (799 mi) of

water pipe was laid; 927 water storage tanks

were built; 2,119 reservoirs were constructed;

749 springs were developed; and 121 wells were

drilled (U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management 1981).

Extensive public ownership increases pressure from local governments for more intensive

livestock management that, in turn, increases

employment.

Livestock grazing has been relatively constant since the 1870’s (Maser and Strickler

1978). The livestock industry of the area is

strongly dependent on public rangelands, and it

seems likely that there will be increasing pressure on the public rangelands of southeastern

Oregon to provide red meat to sustain the local

economy.

At the same time, these rangelands are being

increasingly used for recreation. The number of

people hunting and fishing has continued to

grow. This results in more pressure to produce

and sustain large numbers of game animals.

The number of “rock hounds” has also increased. Such special use allocation will

heighten pressure from industry and the public

on managers of public rangelands to produce

more red meat on fewer hectares (acres) at less

cost to the livestock industry.

Increasing demands for more red meat,

wildlife, fish, recreation, wilderness, and water

from a finite land area inevitably lead to

conflicts. Careful, farsighted management is

necessary to obtain the desired wildlife and

wildlife-related recreational experiences from

such heavily managed rangelands.

The Following “Chapters”

The following 13 “chapters” in this series are

presented in a sequence designed to logically

develop certain principles and ideas. Chapter 2

(“Plant Communities and Their Importance to

Wildlife”) describes the major plant communities and examines the importance of their

structure and species composition to wildlife. It

establishes the basis for discussion of vegetation and habitats that occur in all the chapters

in this series.

Chapter 3, “The Relationship of Terrestrial

Vertebrates to the Plant Communities,” relates

all terrestrial vertebrate species known to occur

within the area to habitats associated by the

plant communites described in chapter 2 and to

subdivisions described by common structural

conditions within those plant communities. The

hypothesis is that each species is adapted to a

particular habitat, and the likelihood of occurrence can be predicted by the quantity and quality of that habitat. The purpose is to allow the

manager to deal simultaneously with all species

in land-use planning or in preparing environmental analyses.

Chapters 4 through 9 were prepared in recognition that some species receive more attention

than others in land-use planning and management. Or, as Orwell (1946, p. 112) put it: “All

animals are equal but some animals are more

equal than others.” Federal agencies, for example, are required by Iaw to pay particuIar attention to species designated as threatened or

endangered. More attention is also paid to

economically important species, such as game

species, species trapped for furs, or species considered particularly interesting or esthetically

pleasing. The chapters on native trout, ferruginous hawk, sage grouse, pronghorns, mule

deer, and bighorn sheep are examples of how

more extensive information can be provided for

featured species.

1 1
Chapters 10 through 13 discuss special and

unique habitats. Special habitats are biological

in nature and can be at least partially controlled

by the rangeland manager; they play a critical

role in the lives of many species. These habitats

include riparian zones and edges. Unique

habitats are geomorphic in nature, usually cannot be easily manipulated to the advantage of

wildlife, and are critical to certain species.

These habitats are geomorphic and edaphic

habitats and manmade habitats.

The chapter on management practices and

options demonstrates how a manager can use

management options to meet diverse wildlife

goals and, at the same time, provide grazing for

livestock. The message is that both wildlife and

livestock management objectives can be met if

the two are simultaneously derived and flexibility and careful planning are inherent in the

process.

Together, these 14 chapters are an example

of what can be done to provide the rangeland

manager with the information necessary to

fully consider wildlife in land-use planning, in

preparing environmental impact statements,

and in enhancing or protecting wildlife

habitats.

Acknowledgment

Ira D. (“Dave”) Luman, former biologist with

the Bureau of Land Management dedicated his

career to enhancement or protection of wildlife

habitats in the managed rangelands and forests

of Oregon. He was the moving force behind the

development of this series and worked diligently to insure the resources needed to develop, publish, and distribute this series.

Literature Cited

American Ornithologists’ Union.

1957. Check-list of North American birds. 691 1

Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, Md.

Bean, M. J.

1977. The evolution of national wildlife. 485 1

Council on Environmental Quality, Washingto]

D.C.

Bunnell, F. L.

1976. The myth of the omniscient forester. Fo

Chron. 52(3):X0-152.

Commoner, B.

1971. The closing circle: Nature, man, an

technology. 326 p. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Daubenmire, R.

1976. The use of vegetation in assessing the prc

ductivity of forest lands. Bot. Rev. 42(2X115-143

Dealy, J. Edward, Donavin A. Leckenby, and Dian

M. Concannon.

1981. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelandsthe Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: Plar

communities and their importance to wildlifi

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-120,66 1

Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Por

land, Oreg.

Evans, R. D.

1974. Wildlife habitat management program:

concept of diversity for the public forests of Mi:

souri. In. Timber-wildlife management syn

posium. J. P. Slusher and T. M. Hinckley, eds. MI

Acad. Sci. Occas. Pap. 3, p. 73-83. Columbia.

Franklin, Jerry F., and C. T. Dyrness.

1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon an

Washington. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rel

PNW-8, 417 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Rang

Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Garrison, G. A., J. M. Skovlin, C. E. Poulton, an

A. H. Winward.

1976. Northwest plant names and symbols fc

ecosystem inventory and analysis. USDA Fo

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-46,263 p. Pac. Nortl

west For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Giles, R. H., Jr.

1962. Timber-wildlife coordination concepts ft

eastern forests. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. RI

sour. Conf. Trans. 27:402-412.

Giles, R. H., Jr., Ed.

1971. Wildlife management techniques. 3d et

633 p. Wildl. Sot., Wildl. Techniques COI

Washington, D. C.

Heady, H. F., and J. Bartolome.

1977. The Vale rangeland rehabilitation progran

The desert repaired in southeastern Oregol

USDA For. Serv. Resour. Bull. PNW-70, 139

Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Por

land, Oreg.

Holbrook, H. L.

1974. A system for wildlife habitat managemel

of southern National Forests. Wildl. Sot. Bul

2(3):119-123.

1 2
I

Hylander, C. J.

1966. Wildlife communities from the tundra to the

tropics in North America. 342 p. Houghton Mifflin

Co., Boston, Mass.

King, R. T.

1966. Wildlife and man. N.Y. State Conserv.

20(6):8-11.

Kothmann, M. M., Ed.

1974. A glossary of terms used in range management. 2d ed. 36 p. Sot. Range Manage., Denver,

Cola.

Leopold, A.

1933. Game management. 481 p. Charles Scribner

Sons, New York.

Margalef, R.

1969. Diversity and stability: A practical proposal

and a model of interdependence. In Diversity and

stability in ecological systems. Brookhaven Symp.

Biol. 22, p. 25-37. Brookhaven Natl. Lab., Upton,

N.Y.

Maser, Chris, and Gerald S. Strickler.

1978. The sage vole, Lagurus curtatus, as an inhabitant of subalpine sheep fescue, Festuca ovina,

communities on Steens Mountain - an observation and interpretation. Northwest Sci. 52(3):

276-284.

Meslow, E. C., and H. W. Wight.

1975. Avifauna and succession in Douglas-fir

forests of the Pacific Northwest. In Proceedings of

the symposium on management of forests and

range habitats for nongame birds. D. R. Smith, ed.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-1, p. 266-

271. Washington, D. C.

Odum, E. P.

1963. Ecology. 152 p. Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston, Inc., New York.

Odum, E. P.

1971. Fundamentals of ecology. 3d ed. 574 p. W. B.

Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pa.

Orwell, G.

1946. Animal farm. 118 p. Harcourt, Brace, and

Co., Inc., New York.

Patton, D. R.

1975. A diversity index for quantifying habitat

“edge.” Wildl. Sot. Bull. 3(41:171-173.

Siderits, K.

1975. Forest diversity: An approach to forest

wildlife management. For. Chron. 51(3):1-5.

Taylor, Walter P., Ed.

1956. Preface. Zrz The deer of North America: The

white-tailed, mule and black-tailed deer, genus

Odocoileus, their history and management, p. ixxi. Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pa., and Wildl.

Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C.

Thomas, Jack Ward, Glenn L. Crouch, Roger S.

Bumstead, and Larry D. Bryant.

19’75. Silvicultural options and habitat values in

coniferous forest. In Proceedings of the symposium on management of forest and range

habitats for nongame birds. D. R. Smith, ed.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-1, p. 272-

287. Washington, D.C.

Thomas, Jack Ward, Tech. Ed.

1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: The

Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S.

Dep. Agric. Agric. Handb. 553, 512 p. U.S. Gov.

Print. Off., Washington, D.C.

Trippensee, R. E.

1948. Wildlife management: Upland game and

general principles. Vol. 1. 479 p. McGraw-Hill

Book Co., Inc., New York.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1971. Wildlife habitat management handbook,

Southern Region, FSH 2609.23R. 189 p. U.S. Dep.

Agric. For. Serv. Reg. 8, Atlanta, Ga.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1973. Wildlife habitat management guide for the

National Forests in Missouri. 42 p. Mark Twain

Natl. For., Rolla, MO. [In cooperation with the MO.

Dep. Conserv.]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

1975. Fisheries and wildlife habitat management

handbook, Ottawa, Hiawatha, and Huron-Manistee National Forests, Michigan, FSH 2609.23-R9.

U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Reg. 9, Milwaukee,

Wis.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.

1981. BLM facts --Oregon and Washington. 36 p.

U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Land Manage., Washington,

D.C.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 85-624. [H.R.

131381,

August 12, 1958. To amend the Act of March 10,

1934, to provide for more effective integration of a

f&h and wildlife conservation program with Federal water-resource developments, and for other

purposes. In its United States statutes at large.

1958. Vol. 72, p. 563. U.S. Gov. Print. Off.,

Washington, D.C., 1959. [16 U.S.C. sec. 661-664

(1959j.l

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 86-517. [H.R.

105721,

June 12,196O. An act to authorize and direct that

the National Forests be managed under principles

of multiple use and to produce a sustained yield of

products and services, and for other purposes. In

its United States statutes at large. 1960. Vol. 74,

p. 215. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D.C.,

1961.116 U.S.C. sec. 528-531(1976).1

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 91-135. [H.R.

113631,

December 5,1969. Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. In its United States statutes at

large. 1969. Vol. 83, p. 275. U.S. Gov. Print. Off.,

Washington, D.C., 1970. 116 U.S.C. sec. 688

(197Oj.1

1 3
U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 91-190.

1969. [S. 10751, Jan. 1, 1970. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. An act to establish a

national policy for the environment, to provide for

the establishment of a Council on Environmental

Quality, and for other purposes. In its United

States statutes at large. 1969. Vol. 83, p. 852856.

U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D.C., 1970.142

USC. sec. 4321, et seq. (19701.1

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 93-205. [S.

19831,

December 28, 1973. Endangered Species Act of

1973. In its United States statutes at large. 1973.

Vol. 87, p. 884. [16 U.S.C. sec. 668 (19761.1

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 93-378. IS.

22961,

August 17, 1974. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. An act to

provide for the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, to protect, develop, andenhance the productivity and other values of certain of the Nation’s lands and resources, and for other purposes.

In its United States statutes at large. 1974. Vol.

88, Part 1, p. 476-480. U.S. Gov. Print. Off.,

Washington, D.C., 1976. [16 U.S.C. sec. 1601

(19761.1

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 93-452. [HI

115371,

October 18,1974. An act to extend and expand thl

authority for carrying out conservation and re

habilitation programs on military reservation

and to authorize the implementation of such pro

grams on certain public lands. In its United State

statutes at large. 1974. Vol. 88, p. 1369. U.S. Gov

Print. Off., Washington, D.C., 1976. [16 U.S.C

sec. 670 (19761.1

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 90-2743.

1976. Oct. 21,1976. Federal Land Policy andMan

agement Act of 1976. [43 U.S.C. 1701 (note).]

Walker, E. P., F. Warnick, S. Hamlet, and others.

1975. Mammals of the world. 3d ed. 1,500 p. John

Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, Md.

Zeedyk, W. D., and R. B. Hazel.

1974. The southeastern featured species plan. II

Timber-wildlife management symposium. J. P

Slusher and T. M. Hinckley, eds. MO. Acad. Sci

Occas. Pap. 3, p. 58-62. Columbia.

1 4
Appendix

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES

Common name Scientific name

Bighorn sheep

Cattle

Domestic sheep

Horse

Mule deer

Pronghorn

Ferruginous hawk

Sage grouse

Big sagebrush

Black greasewood

Black sagebrush

Bolander silver sagebrush

Cleftleaf sagebrush

Early low sagebrush

Low sagebrush

Mountain silver sagebrush

Sagebrush

Shadscale saltbush

Squaw apple

Stiff sagebrush

Cottonwood

MAMMALS

Ovis canadensis

Bos taurus

Ovis aries

Equus caballus

Odocoileus hemionus

Antilocapra americana

BIRDS2

Buteo regalis

Centrocercus urophasianus

SHRUBS3

Artemisia tridentata

Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Artemisia nova

Artemisia cana subsp. bolanderi

Artemisia arbuscula subsp. thermopola

Artemisia longiloba

Artemisia arbuscula subsp. arbuscula

Artemisia cana subsp. viscidula

Artemisia sp.

Atriplex confertifolia

Peraphyllum ramosissimum

Artemisia rigida

TREES3

Populus sp.

Curlleaf mountainmahogany Cercocarpus ledifolius

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

Western juniper Juniper-us occidentalis

White fir Abies concolor

Willow Salk sp.

GRASS AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS3

Crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum or Agropyron desertorum

’ After Walker et al. (1975).

’ After American Ornithologists’ Union (1957).

” After Garrison et al. (1976).

15



Title

WILDLIFE HABITATS IN MANAGED RANGELANDS - THE

GREAT BASIN OF SOUTHEASTERN OREGON

Technical Editors

JACK WARD THOMAS, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service

CHRIS MASER, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management

Introduction

Plant Communities and Their

Importance to Wildlife

The Relationship of Terrestrial

Vertebrates to the Plant Communities

Native Trout

Ferruginous Hawk

Sage Grouse

Pronghorns

Mule Deer

Bighorn Sheep

Riparian Zones

Edges

Geomorphic and Edaphic Habitats

Manmade Habitats

Management Practices and Options

Now available

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-160

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-120

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-84

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-145

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-139

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-159

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-80

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-85

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-99

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-86
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple

use management of the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife,

and recreation. Through forestry research,

cooperation with the States and private forest

owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives - as directed by

Congress -to provide increasingly greater service

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an Equal

Opportunity Employer. Applicants for all Department

programs will be given equal consideration without

regard to age, race, color, sex, religion, or national

origin.

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station

809 N.E. Sixth Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208