GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-172

PART1 OF 2 1984

CHRIS MASER

JACK WARD THOMAS

RALPH G.ANDERSON

PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION

FOREST SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ABSTRACT

The relationships of terrestrial vertebrates

to plant communities, structural conditions,

and special habitats in the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon are described. The importance

of habitat components to wildlife and the predictability of management activities on wildlife

are examined in terms of managed rangelands.

The paper does not provide guidelines but

rather shows a method of determining the consequences of potential management actions.

The series of relationships discussed in Part 1

are given in the appendices that are in a companion publication, General Technical Report

PNW-172, Part 2.

THE AUTHORS

CHRIS MASER is Research Wildlife

Biologist, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Corvallis, Oregon. JACK WARD THOMAS is Chief Research

Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, La Grande, Oregon.

RALPH G. ANDERSON is Biological Technician, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Joseph, Oregon.
This publication is part of the series Wildlife

Habitats in Managed Rangelands-The Great

Basin of Southeastern Oregon. The purpose of

the series is to provide a range manager with

the necessary information on wildlife and its

relationship to habitat conditions in managed

rangelands in order that the manager may

make fully informed decisions.

The information in this series 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 purpose of the series is to provide specific information for a particular area but in doing so to

develop a process for considering the welfare

of wildlife when range management decisions

are made.

The series is composed of 14 separate publications designed to form a comprehensive

whole. Although each part will be an independent treatment of a specific subject, when combined in sequence, the individual parts will be

as chapters in a book.

Individual parts will be printed as they become available. In this way the information will

be more quickly available to potential users.

This means, however, that the sequence of

printing will not be in the same order as the

final organization of the separates into a comprehensive whole.

A list of the publications in the series, their

current availability, and their final organization is shown on the inside back cover of this

publication.

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

cooperative effort of the USDA Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, and United States Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Introduction

The Federal rangeland manager must account for the impacts-whether good or bad-of

management activities on all species of wildlife.

The legal challenges, reviews, and court opinions that have emerged from conflicts over

management of Federal rangeland have raised

questions for which the land manager has had

inadequate answers.

“Wildlife” has assumed a broader meaning

in the last decade. No longer is wildlife defined

by most land managers in terms of game species

or confined to a relatively few species of special

interest. The increasing recognition of ecological principles-everything is connected to everything else, and there is no such thing as a

“free lunch” (Commoner 1971)---makes it mandatory that managers take a more holistic view

of the system that they manage (Likens and

Bormann 1972, McKell 1975, Maser and

Thomas 1978, Odum 1969). For example, which

species of wildlife will be adversely influenced,

which benefited, and which unaffected by range

management activities? What is the degree of

impact on those species? How will the influences vary over time? Which negative impacts

are irreversible and which can be reduced by

appropriate management activity? Which

species are especially sensitive to habitat

change and how will they respond to habitat

alterations? Which species are threatened and

endangered and how will they be influenced?

Our purpose is to show how the range manager can deal with these problems in range

management planning. The system described

is designed to handle a large volume of technical

information about wildlife and their habitats

in a way that makes sense to the range manager. The approach was adapted from the work

of Thomas et al. (1979) that, along with the

contributions of Patton (1978), forms the basis

for the Wildlife Habitats Relationships program of the USDA Forest Service. This national

program will provide the approach and data

base for the consideration of wildlife habitat in

land-use planning on the National Forests. It

is our intent to demonstrate the applicability

of the technique and the approach to planning

efforts on managed rangelands.

The first task was to assemble all pertinent

data for the 341 species of vertebrates in the

Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. The

amount of data varied from extensive for some

species to almost nothing for others. This presented two problems-what to do when information was inadequate and how to present

information on a large number of species without overwhelming the manager with detail.

The second task was to weigh the impacts of

range management activities on wildlife. There

are basically two ways to consider wildlife in

rangeland planning and management (Call

1978). The more traditional way is to develop

management plans for one or several species of

prime interest. But this does not take into account the habitat needs of all species. The approach used here is to consider habitat as the

prime determinant of wildlife welfare and to

associate wildlife with habitat condition.

Wildlife habitats also had to be identified in

such a way that they could be considered simultaneously with range management for livestock. This was done by equating plant communities and their structural conditions with

habitats for wildlife. (These structural conditions are: grass-forb - low shrub - tall shrub -

tree + tree/shrub. As a plant community progresses from the grass-forb condition through the

tree/shrub condition, the cumulative effect of

the existing plant species’ growth forms increases the structural diversity of the plant

community or condition. For example, a grass

+ a forb condition has a certain diversity of

structure, but a grass + a forb + a shrub + a

tree obviously has a far greater diversity of

structure. Since this structural diversity is

measurable, both qualitatively and quantitatively, we use the term structural condition.)

Previous applications of this approach have

used plant communities and successional stages

as the primary habitat classification (Thomas

et al. 1979, Verner and Boss 1980). These efforts

dealt primarily with forested areas where succession is better understood, more predictable,

and more obvious than in rangeland conditions.

Within rangeland plant communities, however,

there is an array of structural conditions that

are recognizable and can be interpreted as a
habitat condition. We therefore used structural

conditions by plant community as the descriptor

of habitats. These structural conditions are the

result of the natural growth and development

of plant communities, as altered by management activities such as controlling brush, grazing with domestic livestock and wild ungulates,

fencing, maintenance of grazing systems, planting or seeding trees or grass, and thinning forest

stands. The plant community was accepted as

an integrator of all environmental variables on

the site (Daubenmire 1975, 1976; Feldhamer

1979; Sauer and Uresk 1976). By associating

individual wildlife species and groups of species

with plant communities and an array of structural conditions (fig. 11, the rangeland manager

can translate standard range inventories into

information on wildlife habitats.

Only enough information is presented in this

paper (Part 1) to describe the principles and

procedures on which the wildlife relationships

for the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon are

based. Ecological information for all terrestrial

vertebrates is included in the appendices that

form Part 2 of General Technical Report PNW172. This companion publication is primarily

of interest to persons working in the geographical area described. Those who need the appendices should refer to the following:

Maser, Chris; Thomas, Jack Ward; Anderson,

Ralph G. Wildlife habitats in managed

rangelands-the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: the relationship of terrestrial vertebrates to plant communities

and structural condition. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-172, part 2 of 2 parts. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and

Range Experiment Station; 1984. 237 p.

Copies may be obtained from either of the

following:

Oregon State Office USDA Forest Service

Bureau of Land Pacific Northwest

Management Forest & Range

P.O. Box 2965 Experiment

Portland, OR 97208 Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208

I I

I

Rangeland planning and management involves:

I

Livestock

management

I

which uses

Site types and

range conditions

which uses

Plant communities and

structural conditions

I which produce I

~

Niches

which support

/Illlllr17mynlIll.

I

which can be

I I

I

Common ground for livestock-wildlife planning

I

I 4

Figure 1 .-Plant communities and their structural

conditions can be a common ground for livestockwildlife planning.

Plant Community Descriptions

The starting point for describing the plant

communities was the classification of the

ecosystems of the Great Basin in southeastern

Oregon by Dealy et al. (1981). This classification required some modification to bring it in

line with other systems already in use by rangeland managers. Because most wildlife respond

more to vegetative structure than to plant

species composition (Black 1968, Larrison and

Johnson 1973, Maser and Thomas 1978, Olson

2
1974, Rotenberry and Wiens 1980, Tester and

Marshall 1961, Turcek 19721, structurally similar ecosystems were grouped and others were

divided or identified as structurally distinct and

important wildlife habitats. In other words,

ability of plant ecologists to differentiate between plant communities exceeds the present

ability of wildlife biologists to detect differences

in animal communities. When no demonstrated

differences existed in animal communities between structurally similar plant communities,

the communities were combined.

The modifications described in figure 2 show

the relationship between the ecosystems described by Kuchler (1964) and Dealy et al.

(1981).

Wildlife Habitat Relationships

Wildlife habitats and their structural conditions have unique environmental conditions

that are ecologically important as habitat

niches for wildlife species (fig. 3). The habitat

niches are a product of the plant community,

its structural conditions, and other environmental factors-including soil type, moisture

regime, microclimate, slope aspect, elevation,

and temperature. The complex interactions of

site and plant community structure could be

dissected and the more precise influence of each

on the animal community determined. If such

information existed, it would probably be too

complex to use readily. The plant community

type, however, can be considered an integrator

of the many factors interacting on the site.

Wildlife species are individually adapted to

combinations of plant community and structural condition for feeding, or reproduction, or

both. These wildlife-habitat relationships provide the basic information from which the informational displays (tables, figures, and companion appendices) were developed. Depending on

their requirements, rangeland managers and

planners can extract information at four levels

of detail. The amount of detail increases with

each level:

Level 1. The relationship of animal life

forms for feeding and reproduction to plant communities and plant community structural conditions. Life forms are groups of wildlife species

that exhibit similar habitat requirements for

both feeding and reproduction.

Level 2. The relationship of individual

species for feeding and reproduction to plant

communities and plant community structural

conditions.

Level 3. A summary of the available biological data for each species.

Level 4. Selected references on habitat relationships for each species. Examination of

these references and their bibliographies can

provide the user with more detailed data and

additional sources of information.

The information on each species in level 2

has been used to develop a relative measure of

vulnerability of each species to habitat manipulation. This is another source of information for

the manager’s use.

The informational displays were constructed

from: (1) the literature, (2) interpretation and

extrapolation of information in that literature,

(3) 3 years of fieldwork in the area, and (4) a

consensus of cooperating wildlife biologists. In

all cases, in our judgment, the best available

information was used. If the literature was specific to the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon

and, in our opinion, contained the required information, it was used. If the literature was not

specific to the area or habitat condition, it was

adapted as appropriate. In the absence of published information or field data, the relationship of the species to habitat was determined

by consensus of the consulting biologists. Data

for the most intensively studied species were,

naturally, more voluminous and detailed than

for relatively obscure species. As new information becomes available, it can be added to the

system.

3
Natural vegetation as Communities ofthe Great Basin in southdescribed by Kuchler eastern Oregon as described by Dealy et al.

(1964) (1981)

37 Mountainmahoganyoak shrub (similar

position-not equal)

No provision

55 Sagebrush steppe

(withjuniper)

55 Sagebrush steppe

40 Salthush-greas~~wooc1)o(~

No provision

52 Alpine meadows and

barren (similar-not

equal)

No provision

Curlleafmountainmahogany/mountain big

sagebrushbunchgrass

Curlleafmountainmahoganyimountain

snowberry/grass

Curlleafmountainmahoganyipinegrass

Curlleaf mountainmahogany/Idaho fescue

Curlleaf mountainmahogany/bearded

bluebunch wheatgrass - Idaho fescue

Squaw applelbunchgrass

Western juniper/big sagebrush/bearded

bluebunch wheatgrass

Western juniper/big sagebrush/Idaho fescue

Basin big sagebrushibunchgrass

Wyoming big sagebrush/bunchgrass

Mountain big sagebrushlbunchgrass

Threetip sagebrushibunchgrass

Bolander silver sagebrushibunchgrass

Mountain silver sagebrushibunchgrass

Subalpine big sagebrushibunchgrass

Stiff sagebrushibunchgrass

Low sagebrushlbunchgrass

Cleftleafsagebrush/bunchgrass

Early low sagebrush bunchgrass

Black sagebrushibunchgrass

Black greasewoodigrass

Shadscale saltbushbunchgrass

Riparian

Permanently wet meadows

Seasonally wet meadows

Quaking aspen/mountain big sagebrush

Quaking aspen/grass

Subalpine bunchgrass

No provision

Plant communities as used here to

describe animal habitats

Curlleaf mountainmahogany/shrub

Curlleafmountainmahoganyipinegrass

Curlleafmountainmahogany/

bunchgrass

Squaw applelbunchgrass

Juniperisagebrushibunchgrass

Tall sagebrushlbunchgrass

Low sagebrushbunchgrass

Black greasewoodgrass

Shadscale saltbush/bunchgrass

Riparian

Permanently wet meadows

Seasonally wet meadows

Quaking aspen/mountain big

sagebrush/bunchgrass

Quaking aspen/grass

Subalpine bunchgrass

Crested wheatgrass (seeded)

’ Scientific names are given in appendix 14.

Figure 2.-Relationships between plant communities described in this chapter and two other

plant classification systems.

4
Structural conditions

Vegetation height

Canopy closure

Canopy volume

Plant diversity

Structural diversity

Forage production

Browse production

Animal diversity

Grass-forb

.

.

.

.*

.

. . . . .

.

l

Low shrub

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . . .

.*

Figure 3.-Generalized structural conditions of

range and related environmental variables. The

number of dots do not reflect relative values, but a

range from 0 = least to 0 0 0 0 0 = most.

Level 1: Life Form Association

With Plant Communities

And Successional Stages

The large number of wildlife species present

in most areas makes it difficult for the land

manager to account for them in the land-use

planning process. In the case of the Great Basin

this number was reduced from 341 species (appendix 1, Part 2) to 16 life forms (table 1, this

paper). The relationship of the species to their

habitats is the basis for grouping them into life

forms. This life form concept was adapted by

Thomas et al. (1979) from Haapanen’s (1965)

division of birds of the Finnish forests into

groups based on specific combinations of habitat

requirements for reproduction and feeding. The

concept was expanded to include all terrestrial

vertebrates. The species are also listed

phylogenetically by their common and scientific

names in appendix 1 and alphabetically by computer codes in appendix 2.

Grouping species by life forms is distinctly

different from the usual grouping of species by

morphological characteristics. It enables the

rangeland manager to evaluate the response of

wildlife to habitat much more readily than if

each species were considered individually. If

this concept is applicable in land-use planning,

new and different life forms will most likely be

developed. They can be changed as needed to

fit the circumstances. This concept can be used

to satisfy the planning requirements of the regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Land

Tall shrub

. . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . .

. . .

. . . .

l . . . .

. . .

Tree/shrub

. . . . .

. . . . .

.*...

.*.

. . . . .

.

. . .

l ...*

Policy and Management Act (U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc., Public Law 94-579, 1976) and to the

National Forest Management Act (U.S. Laws,

Statutes, etc., Public Law 94-588, 1976), which

requires management by “indicator species”

and requires identification of the wildlife where

welfare is reflected by the welfare of the

indicator.

The relationship of vertebrate life forms to

plant communities and structural conditions is

shown in appendix 3, to overstory and understory in table 2, and is summarized by overstory

in appendix 4. Seventy-two of the 341 species

that occur in the Great Basin of southeastern

Oregon do not appear in this listing or in subsequent discussions. Seventy bird species either

migrate through or are incidental in the Great

Basin of southeastern Oregon. The bullfrog and

the spotted frog, the only species in life form 1,

have also been omitted as they are semiterrestrial. The 70 bird species and the 2 mammals

excluded are listed in appendix 5.

Life form 7 is used as an example of how the

system works. The species in life form 7 feed

in shrubs, trees, or air, and reproduce in shrubs.

In the Great Basin in southeastern Oregon, the

life form contains 29 species.

Much useful information can be derived from

the following data sets. Table 2, for example,

shows that: (1) life form 7 is strongly associated

with shrub-dominated communities, (2) some

shrub-dominated communities, such as juniper/

sagebrushibunchgrass, curlleaf mountainmahogany/shrub, quaking aspenlbunchgrass,

5
Table l-Life form descriptions

1 in water in water 2 bullfrog

2 in water on ground, in shrubs

an&or trees

6 long-toed salamander, western toad,

Pacific treefrog

3 on ground around water

or on floating or

emergent vegetation

in water, on ground, in

shrubs and trees

4 4 common garter snake, killdeer

4 in cliffs, caves, rims,

and/or t,alus

on ground or in air western fence lizard, common raven,

spotted skunk

5 on ground without

specific water, cliff, rim,

or talus association

on ground

3 3

4 5 short-horned lizard, northernjunco,

mule deer

6 on ground in shrubs, trees, or air 4 common nighthawk, orangecrowned warbler

7 in shrubs on ground, in water or

air

2 9

5

3

10

1 3

American robin, Swainson’s thrush,

chippingsparrow

8

9

in shrubs in shrubs, trees, or air yellow-billed cuckoo, bushtit

primarily in deciduous

trees

in shrubs, trees, or air house finch

10 primarily in conifers

in trees

in shrubs, trees, or air pinyonjay, Townsend’s warbler

11 on ground, in shrubs,

trees, or air

sharp-shinned hawk, American crow

1 2

1 3

on very thick branches on ground or in water 6

9

great blue heron, golden eagle

excavates own hole in on ground, in shrubs,

a tree trees, or air

common flicker, Williamson’s

sapsucker

1 4 in a hole made by

another species or

naturally occurring

on ground, in water, or

air

2 5 American kestrel, mountain

bluebird

1 5 underground burrow on or underground 3 2 burrowing owl, kit fox

1 6 underground burrow in water, on ground, or

in air

9 bankswallow, muskrat

Total species 275

’ Species assignment to life form is based on predominant habitat-use patterns.

6
Table 2-Relative degree of use of plant communities and structural conditions by wildlife species in

life form 7 (source: appendix 3)

R-reproduction

F-feeding

Structural conditions

B.G. -bare ground

Ann. - annuals

Bunch. -native bunchgrass

Plant community

grass-forb low shrub

r

rj 5 g

cd c a

tall shrub 1 tree

I

crested wheatgrass R 0 0 0

(seeded) F 1 1 1 These plant communities do not achieve a

habitat form like that characterized by these

R 0 0 0 structural conditions.

subalpine bunchgrass F 1 1 1

R 3 3 0

permanently wet meadows F 10 8 1

R 3 3 0

seasonally wet meadows F 10 8 0

shadscale saltbush/ R 0 0 0 0 0

bunchgrass F 9 4 1 6 4

R

low sagebrushlbunchgrass I >F

4 0 0 0 0

14 5 2 8 6

/

R 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

black greasewoodlgrass F 12 5 2 9 6 12 9

R 18 3 0 6 3 18 14

tall sagebrushibunchgrass F 21 5 2 12 10 21 18

R

I F

2 0 0 1 1 2 2

squaw appleibunchgrass 1 5 4 1 11 8 15 12 /

curlleafmountninmahoganyi R 4 0 0 1 1 4 4 2 2

bunchgrass F 19 6 2 13 10 19 16 1 4 1 2

..-

curlleaf mountainmahoganyi R 4 0 0 1 1 4 4 2 2

pinegrass F 19 6 2 - 13 10 - 1 9 16. 1 4 1 2

juniper/sagebrush/ R 18 2 0 4 2 1 7 1 3 11 7 1 8 1 4

bunchgrass F 25 -8 2 , 15 11 2 5 2 0 1 9 1 5 - 2 5 2 1

curlleafmountainmahoganyi R 14 0 0 2 2 1 3 1 1 7 4 1 3 10

shrub F 2 6 8 L 15 11 2 6 2 1 2 0 1 6 2 6 2 2

R 19 3 0 4 1 19 11 14 7 1 8 11 ---__ __

quaking aspenlgrass F 2 4 9 2 14 10 2 4 1 7 2 0

-_-~

1 4 2 4 1 8

quaking aspen/mountain R 25 3 0 6 3 2 5 1 7 1 5 8 2 4 1 7

big sagebrush/bunchgrass F 2 8 9 2 15 11 2 8 2 1 2 2 1 6 2 8 2 2

R 2 3 3 0 4 1

riparian F 2 5 10 3 14 10.

7
quaking aspen/mountain big sagebrush, and riparian, are disproportionately important, and

(3) the tall shrub, tree, and tree/shrub structural conditions are critical. Reproductive and

feeding orientation to plant community types

and plant community structural conditions can

be determined for the entire life form.

By examining the relationship of the life

form to plant communities and their structural

conditions, the rangeland manager can judge

the impact of range mangement practices on

the life form (Reynolds and Trost 1979, 1980,

1981; Rogers and Hedlund 1980). This is done

by determining the importance (expressed by

the number of species) of a particular structural

condition of a community. The impact of a contemplated management action is determined by

comparing the two numbers for the structural

conditions involved.

Consider, for instance, the importance of the

juniperlsagebrushibunchgrass community in

the tree/shrub/annuals structural condition. Of

the 29 species in the life form, 25 feed and 18

reproduce there. Suppose a manager is contemplating two courses of action on a particular

area: (1) removing the trees and shrubs to enhance forage production for domestic and wild

ungulates, thereby altering the vegetative condition to the grass-forb stage or (2) encourage

the replacement of the annual vegetation with

mature bunchgrasses. What are the consequences of each alternative to life form 7?

Reduction to the grass-forb structural condition would reduce to 0 the number of species

reproducing and to 2 the number finding feeding habitat. This extremely adverse impact

would continue for about lo-20 years after initial regeneration of the juniper and sagebrush.

At that time, the stand would enter the structural condition (tall shrub with bunchgrasses)

where 20 species feed and 13 reproduce. Full

recovery of the habitat for life form 7 would not

occur until the stand was about 40-60 years old

and had returned to the tree/shrub/annuals

structural condition.

A decision to allow the stand to progress from

the tree/shrub/annuals structural condition to

the treeishrublbunchgrass state would have a

small negative effect on the life form because

21 species feed and 14 species reproduce there.

Obviously, if the manager considered factors

such as the percentage of the area affected, the

distribution of plant communities and structural conditions, and anticipated changes over

time, a more sophisticated analysis could be

made. But the same basic comparisons would

be used.

The displays in appendix 3 can be used to

predict the response of animal life to all alterations in the plant community, whether artificial or natural. Such alterations could result

from natural phenomena, such as fire, insect

infestation, or windstorm, or from management

activities like seeding, planting, herbicide

treatment, or fertilization.

Any of these actions would change the structural condition to another state-usually a

more simplified one (table 3) (Mack 1981,

Rickard and Cline 1980, Thomas et al. 1979).

For example, planting trees introduces another

vegetative layer and adds diversity, but wildfire

removes trees and shrubs and simplifies the

vegetative structure. Because wildlife is mainly

a product of the vegetative structure of a community and not the age of the vegetation, it is

possible to predict the effect of various manipulations of vegetation on wildlife.

Level 2: Relationship of Species

To Plant Communities

And Structural Conditions

The responses of vertebrate life forms to

plant communities and structural conditions

can be generalized. But the response of each

species within a life form varies because of

specific habitat requirements. Level 2 shows

orientation to plant community and structural

conditions for each species. Species are grouped

by life form to facilitate comparison with information in level 1. The primary orientation to

plant communities by species within life forms

is illustrated for life form 7 in table 4. Similar

information for all life forms is in appendix 6.

Information on species orientation to structural

conditions is illustrated in table 5; complete information for all life forms is in appendix 7.

8
Table 3-Anticipated changes in range-community structural conditions due to management action

Management action Grass-forb Low shrub Tall shrub Tree Tree/shrub

Weed control

Brush control:

Chemical

Mechanical

Biological

Tree control:

Chain and doze

Clearcutting

Shelterwood

Thin

Salvage

Debris disposal

Controlled burn:

Cold

Hot

Seeding and planting:

Grasses and forbs

Shrubs

Trees

Fertilization

Mechanical soil treatment:

Pitting

Contouring

Water:

Water spreading

Drainage

Water development

Grazing:

Cattle

Horses

Sheep

Goats

4

4

4 * * - -

4 4 4

4 4 4

4 4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4 - 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

- -

*

-

* * - -

0 0 0

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

* * * *

4 4 - -

4

4

4

*

4

0 00 - -

0

0 0

- -

-0 4 4 - 4

4) 4 4 - 4

* increased structural diversity;

N decreased structural diversity;

4 * increases or decreases structural diversity depending upon type and/or level of application;

- no effect on structural diversity;

(blank space) not a viable practice.

9
Table &Orientation of wildlife species in life form 7 to plant communities (source: appendix 6)

Letter

code

Species

l -Primary(=i40%)

reproduction and feeding

0 -Secondary (< 40% )

reproduction and feeding

R-Primary (~40%)

reproduction only

r - Secondary (< 40%)

reproduction only

F -Primary (>4Oo/r

feeding only

f - Secondary (< 40% )

feeding only

BIRDS R F

BUST green heron

BUIB cattle egret

NYNY black-crowned night heron

BUSW Swainson’s hawk

STCAL calliope hummingbird

CAAN Anna’s hummingbird

TYTY eastern kingbird

EMTR willow flycatcher

EMWR gray flycatcher

APCO scrub jay

PIPI black-billed magpie

DUCA gray catbird

TORV brown thrasher

ORMO sage thrasher

TUMI American robin

CAUS Swainson’s thrush

PACAE blue-gray gnatcatcher

LALU loggerhead shrike

AGPH red-winged blackbird

EUCY Brewer’s blackbird

MOAT brown-headed cowbird

PAAMO lazuli bunting

CAPS lesser goldfinch

PICH green-tailed towhee

PIER rufous-sided towhee

AMBE sage sparrow

SPPA chipping sparrow

SPBRE Brewer’s sparrow

NEMEL song sparrow

0 1 1

f F F 0 0 0 0 3 5

F F 0 l 8 8 3 5

f f f F F . f F F l F . . . 5 10

F F . b b l . 5 7

F F b 8 8 8 l 5 7

f f 0 fFFo.eo.6 8

F F F F F F F F F . . . 3 12

F F F l F l l l l l l F 7 12

F F f f l f l l . . F F . 6 10

F F F F F F F . . . . l 8 l l 8 9 16

f fFFFFFFeo.3 9

f . F . F F F l . F . . 6 11

FFoFff.*f.f4 7

F F f FFFF.**3 9

f f l f F FFF.o.4 8

efff*FF*F3 6

F F . . F F F . . F F . 5 12

l .FíFFo F F F F F . . l 6 14

f . . F F F l F F F . F . . . 7 14

f b l F F F . F F F . F l . . 7 14

f f f f fF*ea3 4

fFFFFe.o.4 8

F F F l l l l F l F . f 6 11

f f f 0 FFF..*.*6 9

.f.fff..f.fb5

fFFFF..e.*5 9

.f.fff.Ff.f45

F . F b F F F . F F . 4 11

Total ROO 330 4 1 18 2 4 4 18 14 19 2 5 2 3

F 1 1 10 10 9 14 12 21 15 19 19 25 2 6 24 2 8 25

1 0
Table &--Orientation of wildlife species in life form 7 to structural conditions (source: appendix 7)

Letter

code

Species

Structural conditions

Grass- Low Tall

forb shrub shrub

Tree ’

shrub

l -Primary ( 2 40%‘) r -Secondary (< 40%‘)

reproduction and feeding

0 -Secondary (<c 40%)

reproduction and feeding

R-Primary(z40%)

reproduction only

reproduction only

F -Primary (240%)

feedingonly

f - Secondary ( < 40% )

feeding only

BUST green heron

BUIB cattle egret

NYNY black-crowned night heron

BUSW Swainson’s hawk

STCAL calhope hummingbird

CAAN Anna’s hummingbird

TYTY eastern kingbird

EMTR willow flycatcher

EMWR gray flycatcher

APCO scrub jay

PIP1 black-billed magpie

DUCA gray catbird

TORV brown thrasher

ORMO sage thrasher

TUMI American robin

CAUS Swainson’s thrush

PACAE blue-gray gnatcatcher

LALU loggerhead shrike

AGPH red-winged blackbird

EUCY Brewer’s blackbird

MOAT brown-headedcowbird

PAAMO lazuli bunting

CAPS lesser goldfinch

PICH green-tailed towhee

PIER rufous-sided towhee

AMBE sage sparrow

SPPA chipping sparrow

SPBRE Brewer’s sparrow

NEMEL song sparrow

BIRDS R F

F F F F

F

F F F F

F F

F

F

F F

F F F F

F F

F F

F

l

l

l

F f

F F

l

b

b

F F

b 0

l l

b b

l

.

l

l

b

b

b

b

l

b

b

b

l

b

l

b

F

b

b

b

b

l

b

b

b

b

.

b

b

F

b

b

l

b

b

l

b

b

b

b

b

l

b

b

b

.

b

b

b

b

b

a

b

b

b

l

b

F

b

f

.

F

b

b

.

l

b

F

F

F

b

F

b

F

b

b

F

b

f

l

F

b

.

l

F

F

F

.

F

R R

b

.

l

b

.

l

l

b

b

b

l

b

b

.

b

b

b

b

l

.

l

F

.

l

.

b

0

b

R

.

F

b

b

l

b

0.

.

b

b

b

.

l

b

F

b

.

b

l

0

l

3 4

3 4

3 3

6 1 0

3 5

3 4

3 7

6 8

6 6

4 6

6 1 0

4 6

4 6

4 4

6 8

4 6

6 6

5 8

5 5

5 5

7 7

4 6

2 8

6 6

6 6

4 6

6 6

6 8

4 4

Total R 0 300 6 3 0 2 7 2 0 0 1 6 9 1 28 21

F 0 10 3 0 1 6 1 2 0 2 8 2 1 0 2 2 1 6 0 2 8 2 2

11
The use of plant communities and structural

conditions by a particular species can be determined from appendices 6 and 7. Table 4 contains information on the orientation of species

to plant communities for feeding and reproduction. Table 5 shows the use of structural

conditions by each species. The two sets of information must be considered in tandem-one before the other. For example, the willow

flycatcher shows orientation to the community

for feeding only (table 4). This means that information on reproduction in table 5 should be

disregarded for the willow flycatcher in the

juniper/sagebrush/bunchgrass community.

Wildlife obviously have habitat requirements other than plant community and structural condition. Orientations to special habitat

components are shown for all life forms in appendix 8. Orientation of species to artificial

habitats is discussed by Maser et al. (197913)

and association with geomorphic and edaphic

habitats by Maser et al. (1979a). The importance of these special and unique habitat components, as reflected by the number of wildlife

species using them, is shown in figure 4.

Additional information may be derived from

appendices 6 and ‘7. The total number of species

oriented to each plant community and structural condition for feeding and reproduction

was used to produce appendix 3 and table 2,

which demonstrate the orientation of the life

form. In other words, to develop the information

on life form (level 1) the information for individual species in level 2 must first be completed.

The information in level 2 has a variety of

uses. For example, the importance of each community and structural condition can be

evaluated in terms of its ability to provide

habitat for different species. In each planning

scenario, the rangeland manager can examine

the impact of proposed management actions on

wildlife-individual species or all wildlife. The

information can also be used to determine the

role of plant communities as habitat for featured species or for rare and endangered

species.

River, creek, stream v////////////d,9x

Lake, reservoir, ponds e:9z

Marsh, bog, swamp m95

S$&ing, slow-moving mtil,

Fast, running water B,zl

m Reproduction a Feeding

Cliffs

Caves m‘Oo

Talus l!!B!!$i::

Lava flows k l 10

, 0

Sand dunes q E::

Playas /!ygj&,,,

Edaphic habitats b,f

Abandoned

homesteads

Roads and bridges !g.::: r $l&.&L~ 7.>

Rockwalls, jacks, @106

cribs, and monuments s 8

Wood corrals and

fences

gp’;”

Powerlines t2.i.i . . . . . . . . $$$$$$$$63

Croplands 1! . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > . . . . . . . . . .

:.:~.:.~~.:.:~~~~~~~~, ” I ,, :.x.:.:.A..V.~.~ ..A...... . $ . . . . . .., A. I 3

Nurnh, 0, .,w(‘,o. 0

’ Source: appendix 8.

’ Source: Maser et al. 197913.

’ Source: Maser et al. 1979a.

Figure 4.--Number of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife

species using special and unique habitats.

1 2
Reproduction zi Feeding

crested wheatgrass 16

(seeded)

subalpine bunchgrass

permanently wet meadows

seasonally wet meadows

shadscale saltbush/

bunchgrass

low sagebrush/bunchgrass

black greasewoodlgrass

tall sagebrush/hunchgrass

squaw apple/bunchgrass

curlleaf mountainmahogany/

bunchgrass

curlleaf mountain mahogany/

pinegrass

juniper/sagebrush/bunchgrass

46

curlleaf mountainmahoganyl

shrub P

quaking aspen/grass

quaking aspen/mountain

big sagebrush

riparian

Number of Wildlife Species 0 40

Figure S.-Number of wildlife species oriented to

desert-steppe plant communities for feeding and reproduction (source: appendix 6).

13
Some rangeland communities obviously produce more species of wildlife than others (fig.

5). The tall sagebrushibunchgrass, juniper/

sagebrushibunchgrass, and riparian communities in the Great Basin of southeastern

Oregon-those communities most affected by

range management when enhancing forage production for domestic and wild ungulates-are

also the most productive in terms of wildlife.

Figure 6 shows that the more complex structural conditions (tall shrub, tree, or tree/shrub)

in the juniperisagebrushlbunchgrass community are important to more species than are the

simpler structural conditions (grass-forb and

low shrub). Habitat for reproduction is also

more restrictive than habitat for feeding. A

similar display for all plant communities is

shown in appendix 9.

Using the same data, the rangeland manager

can predict the response of individual species

to alterations in a structural condition. For

example, a series of shrub and tree removal

operations might be planned in an extensive

area covered by the tree/shrub structural condition of the juniperisagebrushbunchgrass plant

community. The intentions of the operation are

to remove most of the tree and shrub canopy

and to increase the density and biomass of the

bunchgrasses and forbs. What wildlife species

are likely to be affected? In an actual analysis,

the information on each species in each life form

would be examined (appendices 5 and 6 1. As

an example, consider the data for life form 7

(table 4). Of the 29 species in life form 7, 18

(see table 4 for species’ names) have a primary

association with thejuniper/sagebrush/bunehgrass plant community for both feeding and

reproduction. In addition, seven species have a

primary association and one has a secondary

association for feeding only.

In this situation, what effect would removal

of most of the tall shrubs and mature juniper

cover have on those species? Removal or killing

of the shrubs and trees would put those areas

into the grass-forb structural condition. Table

5 shows that 14 of the 18 species are primarily

associated with the tree/shrub/bunchgrass

structural condition for both feeding and reproduction as are six of the seven showing primary

orientation for feeding only. One species shows

primary association to the plant community for

both feeding and reproduction but only feeds in

the tree/shrub/bunchgrass structural condition

and reproduces in the tree/shrub/annuals structural condition. It can be concluded that such

action will reduce habitat for those species by

approximately 35 percent for at least 40-50

years-the time required for the stand to regenerate and reach a structural condition suitable

for reoccupancy.

At the same time, some species would benefit

from the early structural conditions that follow

tree and shrub removal. Table 5 (or appendix

7) shows that two species (red-winged blackbird

and Brewer’s blackbird) would find primary

nesting and feeding habitat in the changed condition and four species (cattle egret, Swainson’s

hawk, calliope hummingbird, and Anna’a hummingbird) would feed in such conditions. These

species would gradually drop out as conditions

changed back toward the original state and the

original species that occupied the site might be

expected to reappear.

As another example, consider the

generalized relationship of wildlife in the Great

Basin of southeastern Oregon to structural conditions of rangeland communities (fig. 7). This

shows why many people are concerned about

the effects of intensive range management to

improve domestic and wild ungulate grazing on

wildlife diversity and on the welfare of species

that are narrowly adapted to certain structural

conditions, particularly tall shrub, low shrub,

tree, and tree/shrub (Baker et al. 1976, Maser

and Gashwiler 1978).

1 4
160

8C

Plant community: juniper/sagebrush/bunchgrass

mReproduction lzzl Feeding

Grass-forb Low shrub Tall shrub Tree

--lTree/shrub

Structural condition

Figure 6.-Number of wildlife species associated

with structural conditions in the juniper/sagebrush/

bunchgrass community (source: appendix 9).

Only a few uses of such data have been illustrated. There are as many others as there are

specific management questions, and new applications are being found as managers begin to

use this system.

Level 3: Summary of Biological

Data by Species

Level 3 is a one-line summary of key information on each species. Some of the information

was derived from the appendices and some from

literature reviews. Other information was

drawn from the experience of wildlife biologists.

Details for each species are presented in appendix 8. Eleven species from the 29 in life form

7 are shown here as an example (table 6).

1 5
Table 6-Key information on species in life form 7 (source: appendix 8)

Reproduction orientations

LV, 0 Primary (>40% 1

m, o Secondary (~40%)

Feeding orientations L -Low

~.~~~, . Primary (>40%) M - Medium

m> o Secondary (~40% ) H - High Activity/seasonal occurrence

BUST 7 green heron 3-6; avg. 4-5

NYNY 7 black-crowned L colonial nester

night heron

3-6

BUSW 7 Swainson’s hawk M 2-4

STCAL 7 calliope L

hummingbird

2

aspen 3.8 ha

TYTY 7 eastern kingbird L 3-5 (9.3 ac) /pr.

EMTR 7 willow flycatcher M 3-4

EMWR 7 gray flycatcher M 3-4

PIP1 7 black-billed 6-9

magpie

juniper 1.9-3.4

halpr., aspen 2.3

ha (5.6 ac) /pr.

TUMI 7 American robin M 3-5

EUCY 7 Brewer’s blackbird M 4-6

MOAT 7 brown-headed M

cowbird

4-6

-

*Positive (+), negative (-), or neutral (0) net ha1 at

associations (see chapter 13, Manmade Habitats,

for fuller descriptions).

1 6
Minimum habitat required/

pair or population

ac - acres

ha - hectares

Plant community groups (habitat) Special habitats

Riparian

I

l 0 l

I

l 0

n 8 l 8 n

0.4to4.0ha(l-lOac)/ 0 l l l l 0

colony n m q n l l n m l q

nesting home range 1 pair

per 6.7 km’

breeding density: ~0.8 halpr

-juniper; 1.3 halpr - p.

nine: 2.5 ha/m - asnen

l l l 0 l l 0 0 +

q 00mm80mmmmmm n m 0 0 0

l l l l l l 0 0 0

n n m n l n l DclD00

l l l l l l l 0 0 0

00m0mmmmmm8 m 0 0 0

l l l l 0 0 0

n m8mmmmmmmm mmm000

breeding density: ~0.8 haipr

-juniper; 1.3 haipr - p.

pine; 2.5 halpr - aspen

l l eeeee 0

n mm8mmmmmmm n n 0 0 cl

l l l l l l l l l l 0 0 +

n mmmmmmm8mmmmmm n mmn00

n n

l l l l 0 0 0

cl n 8mmmm 8 n cl Cl 0

l l l l l l l l 0 0 0

n mmmmmmmmmmmmm8 n 0 0 n

l l l l l l l l l 0 0 0

0 n n n n n n n n n n n n n m n m 0 0 0

1 7
200

160

120

80

40

0

qReproduction lzl Feeding

s

w

E;1 rl

Grass-forb Low shrub Tall shrub Tree Tree/shrub

Structural condition

Figure 7.-Number of wildlife species oriented to

desert-steppe structural conditions and the potential

effect of intensive management (source: appendix 7).

18
Level 4: Selected References

If the information displayed so far is not sufficient, additional sources may be consulted.

The most appropriate references, in our opinion,

for each species are listed in appendix 10, illustrated here by table 7 for 11 species selected

from life form 7. If the user, after consulting

the sources suggested, still does not have suf&

cient information, the literature cited sections

of these sources may provide useful leads.

Versatillity Index

Each wildlife species exhibits a different degree of versatility (adaptability) in the number

of plant communities and structural conditions

it can use for feeding and reproduction. The

sensitivity of each species to habitat change is

directly related to that versatility. The most

versatile species are the least sensitive to

habitat manipulation; the least versatile are

the most sensitive.

Data in appendices 6 and 7 (illustrated by

tables 4 and 5) were used to develop a versatility

score (V score) for each species. The V scores

can be used to rate the versatility of individual

species. Collectively, the scores also provide an

index to the relative versatility of all resident

wildlife species. Remember, the versatility

index is meaningful only for the particular area

and conditions for which it is derived. Do not

try to make comparisons between different

areas and conditions; i.e., do not compare the

indices derived for the Blue Mountains of Oregon (Thomas et al. 1979) to those derived for

the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon.

The V score for each species is derived by

determining the total number of plant communities and the total number of structural

conditions to which the species show primary

orientation for feeding and reproduction:

v = cc, + S,) + (Cf + S,);

where V is the versatility score, C, is the

number of communities used by the species for

reproduction, S, is the number of structural

conditions used for reproduction, Cr is the

number of communities used for feeding, and

Sf is the number of structural conditions used

for feeding.

Table 7Celected references for species in life

form 7 (source: appendix 10)

Common name References

Green heron Kushlan 1976

Black-crowned

night heron

Allen and Mangels

1938-39, Hoffman and

Prince 1975, Nickel1

1966, Wolford and Boag

1971

Swainson’s hawk

Calliope

hummingbird

Eastern kingbird

Willow flycatcher

Gray flycatcher

Black-billed magpie

American robin

Brewer’s blackbird

Brown-headed

cowbird

Dunkle 1977, Fitzner

1978,Olendortf1972

Calder 1971,1973

Dick and Rising 1965,

Hespenheide 1964,

Morehouse and Brewer

1968

Aldrich 1955, King

1955, Robbins 1974

Johnson 1963, Lavers

1975, Russell and

Woodbury 1941

Bock and Lepthien

1975, Brown 1957,

Erpino 1968, Jones

1960

Farner 1949, Henny

1972, James and

Shugart 1974

Hansen and Carter

1963, Horn 1968,

Stepney 1975, Williams

1952

Friedmann 1963, Hill

1976, Payne 1976

1 9
V scores for all wildlife species in the Great

Basin of southeastern Oregon are shown in appendix 11 and illustrated here by table 8. The

V score for each species can be used to derive

a V score for the life form as a whole as illustrated in table 9 and shown for all life forms in

appendix 12. These scores reflect the versatility

of species only in the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. It is possible for a nationally common and very versatile species to have a low V

score in a particular area because suitable

habitat is limited.

Potentially rare or threatened species are

identified in appendix 13 (illustrated by table

10). These species were identified by Dyrness

et al. (1975), Arbib (1978), and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries

and Wildlife (1973) among others. More complete data on rare, threatened, and endangered

species are given in appendix 13.

A Data Base For Planners

The informational displays presented here

are a data base from which the rangeland manager may draw information at various levels.

The system has been tested in preparation of

land-use plans, environmental impact statements, and environmental analysis reports. It

has enabled the users to produce better, more

comprehensive, and more accurate results in

less time.

Table 8- Versatility rating for wildlife species in life form 7 (source: appendix 11)

Letter

code Species

BUST green heron 1 3 4 1 4 5 9

NYNY black-crowned night heron 3 3 6 5 3 8 1 4

BUSW Swainson’s hawk 5 6 11 10 10 20 3 1

STCAL calliope hummingbird 5 3 8 7 5 12 2 0

TYTY eastern kingbird 6 3 9 8 7 15 2 4

EMTR willow flycatcher 3 6 9 12 8 20 2 9

EMWR gray flycatcher 7 6 13 12 6 18 3 1

PIPI black-billed magpie 9 6 15 15 10 25 4 0

TUMI American robin 3 6 9 9 8 17 2 6

EUCY Brewer’s blackbird 7 15 12 14 5 19 3 1

MOAT brown-headed cowbird 7 7 1 4 14 7 21 3 5

BIRDS

Reproductive

orientation

Feeding

orientation

14) (5) (6)

Plant community/structural condition

versatility rating

Low Medium High

20
The information system presented in this

chapter is best suited for use in broad-scale

land-use planning. The smaller the area and

the greater the detail of the plan, the less likely

these data are to predict results accurately. The

general predictive ability should hold, but the

inherent biological variability is more apt to

become noticeable as size of the area diminishes.

If this information base is applied without

proper interpretation, qualification, and sensitivity to individual conditions, the results will

be less accurate. It is not intended to replace

the trained and experienced wildlife biologist;

rather, it is a tool for use by the wildlife

biologist.

Table g--Life form versatility rating for life form 7 (source: appendix 12)

7 29 9 to 40 (29) 24.5 High

i See table 1 for life form descriptions.

2 The total number of species in life form.

3 Refers to the range of versatility scores for the lowest scoring species to the highest

scoring species within the life form.

* Versatility ratings: “low” = 12.0-17.6, “medium” = 17.7-23.4, “high” = 23529.0.

2 1
Table lO--Some species in southeastern Oregon are of special interest because of their potentially

threatened or endangered status (source: appendix 13)

Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

CRC0 4 collared lizard X

CRVI 5 western rattlesnake SI x

NYNY 7 black-crowned night heron X

BOLE 3 American bittern SI X

SOPR 16 Malheur shrew R R

VUMA 15 kit fox T T T E

E - Endangered

P - Peripheral

R - Rare

SI - Species of special

interest

SU - Status undetermined

T - Threatened

U - Unique

X - Occurs on list

2 3

(a) ’

5 6

(a,b,dl

7 8

i The following references were used, respectively, as sources for the 6 status classification columns.

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1979)

2a Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (1977)

2b Shay (1973)

3 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (1973)

4 Dyrness et al. (1975)

5a Storm (1966)

5b Marshall (1969)

5c Olterman and Verts (1972)

6 Arbib (1978)

22
Literature Cited

Aldrich, John W.

1955. Habits and habitat differences in two races

of Traill’s flycatcher. Wilson Bull. 658-11.

Allen, Robert P., and Frederick P. Mangels.

1938-39. Studies of the nesting behavior of the

black-crowned night heron. Linnaean SOC. N.Y.

Proc. 50, 51:1-28.

Arbib, Robert.

1978. The blue list for 1979. Am. Birds 32(6):1106-

1113.

Baker, M. F., R. L. Eng , J. S. Gashwiler, M. H.

Schroeder, and C. E. Braun.

1976. Conservation committee report on effects of

alteration of sagebrush communities on the associated avifauna. Wilson Bull. 88(1):165-171.

Black, H. L.

1968. Populations of small rodents in relation to

grazing by cattle on foothill rangelands. M.S.

thesis. Univ. Utah, Salt Lake City. 56 p.

Bock, Carl E., and Larry W. Lepthien.

1975. Distribution and abundance of the blackbilled magpie (Pica pica) in North America. Great

Basin Nat. 35(3):269-272.

Brown, Robert Lee.

1957. The population ecology of the magpie in

western Montana. M.S. thesis. Univ. Mont., Missoula. 60 p.

Calder, William A.

1971. Temperature relationships and nesting of

the calliope hummingbird. Condor 73(3):314-321.

Calder, William A.

1973. Microhabitat selection during nesting of

hummingbirds in the Rocky Mountains. Ecology

54(1):127-134.

Call, Mayo W.

1978. Nesting habitats and surveying techniques

for common western raptors. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur.

Land Manage. Tech. Note 316, 115 p. Denver,

Cola.

Commoner, B.

1971. The closing circle. 326 p. Alfred A. Knopf,

New York.

Daubenmire, R.

1975. An analysis of structural and functional

characters along a steppe-forest catena. Northwest Sci. 49(3):122-140.

Daubenmire, R.

1976. The use of vegetation in assessing the productivity of forest lands. Bot. Rev. 42(2):115-143.

Dealy, J. E., D. A. Leckenby, and D. M. Concannon.

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

communities and their importance to wildlife.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-120,67 p.

Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Dick, James A., and James D. Rising.

1965. A comparison of foods eaten by eastern

kingbirds and western kingbirds in Kansas. Kans.

Ornithol. Sot. Bull. 16(4):23-24.

Dunkle, Sidney W.

1977. Swainson’s hawks on the Laramie Plains,

Wyoming. Auk 94(1):65-71.

Dyrness, C. T., J. F. Franklin, C. Maser, S. A. Cook,

D. Hall, and G. Faxon.

1975. Research natural area needs in the Pacific

Northwest. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-38, 231 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range

Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Erpino, M. J.

1968. Nest-related activities of black-billed magpies. Condor 70:154-165.

Farner, Donald S.

1949. Age groups and longevity in the American

robin: Comments, further discussion, and certain

revisions. Wilson Bull. 61(2):68-81.

Feldhamer, George A.

1979. Vegetative and edaphic factors affecting

abundance and distribution of small mammals in

southeast Oregon. Great Basin Nat. 39(3):

207-218.

Fitzner, R. E.

1978. Behavioral ecology of the Swainson’s hawk

(Buteo swainsoni) in southeastern Washington.

Ph.D. thesis. Wash. State Univ., Pullman. 194 p.

Friedmann, H.

1963. Host relations of the parasitic cowbirds. U.S.

Nat. Mus. Bull. 233, U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Wash.,

D.C. 276 p.

Haapanen, Antti.

1965. Bird fauna of the Finnish forests in relation

to forest succession, II. Annu. 2001. Fenn. 3:

176-200.

Hansen, Edward L., and Bernie E. Carter.

1963. A nesting study of Brewer’s blackbirds in

Klamath County, Oregon. Mm-relet 44(2):18-21.

Henny, Charles J.

1972. An analysis of the population dynamics of

selected avian species, with special reference to

changes during the modern pesticide era. U.S.

Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Bur. Sport Fish.

and Wildl. F&s. Rep. 1, 99 p.

Hespenheide, Henry A.

1964. Competition and the genus Tyrannus. Wilson Bull. 76(3):265-281.

Hill, Richard A.

1976. Host-parasite relationships of the brownheaded cowbird in a prairie habitat of west-central

Kansas. Wilson Bull. 88(4):555-565.

Hoffman, Robert D., and Harold H. Prince.

1975. Vegetative structure and nest distribution

in a black-crowned night heron heronry. JackPine Warbler 53(3):95-99.

Horn, Henry S.

1968. The adaptive significance of colonial nesting

the Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus

zanocephalus). Ecology 49(4):682-694.

James, Frances C., and H. H. Shugart, Jr.

1974. The phenology of the nesting season of the

American robin (Turdus migratorius) in the

United States. Condor 76(2):159-168.

2 3
Johnson, Ned K.

1963. Biosystematics of sibling species of flycatchers in the Empidonax hammondii-oberholseriwrightii complex. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 66(2):

79-238.

Jones, R. E.

1960. Activities of the magpie during the breeding

period in southern Idaho. Northwest Sci. 34:18-25.

King, James R.

1955. Notes on the life history of Trail& flycatcher

(Empidonax trailii) in southeastern Washington.

Auk 72(2):148-173.

Kiichler, A. W.

1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. New York. American Geographical Society. 154 p. plus maps.

Kushlan, James A.

1976. Feeding behavior of North American

herons. Auk 93(1):86-94.

Larrison, Earl J., and Donald R. Johnson.

1973. Density changes and habitat affinities of

rodents of shadscale and sagebrush associations.

Great Basin Nat. 33(4):255-264.

Lavers, Norman.

1975. The status of the gray flycatcher in

Washington State. West. Birds 6(1):25-27.

Likens, G. E., and F. H. Bormann.

1972. Nutrient cycling in ecosystems. In Ecosystems structure and function, edited by J. A. Wiens.

p. 25-67.31st Biol. Colloquim, Oreg. State Univ.,

Corvallis.

McKell, C. M.

1975. Shrubs-a neglected resource of arid lands.

Science 187:803-809.

Mack, Richard N.

1981. Invasion ofBromus tectorum L. into western

North America: an ecological chronicle. Agroecosystems. 7(1981):145-165.

Marshall, D. B.

1969. Endangered plants and animals of Oregon.

III. Birds. Oreg. State Univ. Spec. Rep. 278, 23 p.

Corvallis.

Maser, Chris, and Jay S. Gashwiler.

1978. Interrelationships of wildlife and western

juniper. In Proceedings of the western juniper

ecology and management workshop, edited by

Robert E. Martin, J. Edward Dealy, and David

Caraher. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW74. p. 37-82. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp.

Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Maser, Chris, and Jack Ward Thomas.

1978. Ecosystems, habitats, wildlife and management. In Proceedings of the workshop on nongame

bird habitat management in coniferous forests of

the western United States, R. M. DeGraaf, Tech.

Coord. p. l-4. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-64. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp.

Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Maser, Chris, J. Michael Geist, Diane M. Concannon,

Ralph Anderson, and Burrell Lovell.

1979a. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands-the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon:

Geomorphic and edaphic habitats. USDA For.

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-99, 84 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Maser, Chris, Jack Ward Thomas, Ira David Luman,

and Ralph Anderson.

1979b. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands-the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon:

Manmade habitats. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-86, 40 p. Pac. Northwest For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Morehouse, E. I;., and R. Brewer.

1968. Feeding of nestling and fledgling kingbirds.

Auk 85~44-54.

Nickell, Walter P.

1966. The nesting of the black-crowned night

heron and its associates. Jack-Pine Warbler 44(3):

130-139.

Odum, E. P.

1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 146:262-270.

Olendorff, Richard R.

1972. The large birds of prey of the Pawnee National Grassland: Nesting habits and productivity, 1969-1971. U.S. Intl. Biol. Program, Grassland Biome Tech. Rep. 151, 59 p. Nat. Resour.

Ecol. Lab., Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins.

Olson, R. A.

1974. Bird populations in relation to changes in

land use in Curlew Valley, Idaho and Utah. M.S.

thesis. Idaho State Univ., Pocatello. 40 p.

Olterman, James H., and B. J. Verts.

1972. Endangered plants and animals of Oregon:

IV. Mammals. Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Rep. 364,

47 p. Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

1977. Oregon’s threatened or endangered wildlife.

13 p. mimeograph.

Patton, D. R.

1978. Run wild: A storage and retrieval system

for wildlife habitat information. USDA For. Serv.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-51, 8 p. Rocky Mt. For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

Payne, R. B.

1976. The clutch size and numbers of eggs of

brown-headed cowbirds: Effect of latitude and

breeding season. Condor 78:123-129.

Reynolds, Timothy D., and Charles H. Trost.

1979. The effect of crested wheatgrass plantings

on wildlife on the Idaho National Engineering

Laboratory site. Zn The Mitigation Symposium:

A National Workshop on Mitigating Losses of

Fish and Wildlife Habitats, Gustav A. Swanson

(Tech. Coord.). p. 665-666. USDA For. Serv. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-65. Rocky Mt. Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo.

24
Reynolds, Timothy D., and Charles H. Trost.

1980. The response of native vertebrate populations to crested wheatgrass planting and grazing

by sheep. J. Range Manage. 33(2):122-125.

Reynolds, Timothy D., and Charles H. Trost.

1981. Grazing, crested wheatgrass, and bird populations in southeastern Idaho. Northwest Sci.

55(3):225-234.

Rickard, W. II., and J. F. Cline.

1980. Wheatgrass communities: effect of plowing

on species composition and productivity. Northwest Sci. 54(3):216-221.

Robbins, Sam.

1974. The willow and alder flycatchers in Wisconsin: A preliminary description of summer range.

Passenger Pigeon 36(4):147-X2.

Rogers, L. E., and J. D. Hedlund.

1980. A comparison of small mammal populations

occupying three distinct shrub-steppe communities in eastern Oregon. Northwest Sci.

54(3):183-186.

Rotenberry, John T., and John A. Wiens.

1980. Habitat structure, patchiness, and avian

communities in North American steppe vegetation: a multivariate analysis. Ecology 61(5):

1228-1250.

Russell, Henry N., Jr., and Angus M. Woodbury.

1941. Nesting of the gray flycatcher. Auk 58(l):

28-37.

Sauer, Ronald H., and Daniel W. Uresk.

1976. Phenology of steppe plants in wet and dry

years. Northwest Sci. 50(3):133-139.

Shay, Ron.

1973. Oregon’s rare or endangered wildlife. Oreg.

State Game Comm. Bull., Jan.:3-8. Portland.

Stepney, Philip H. R.

1975. Wintering distribution of Brewer’s

blackbird: Historical aspect, recent changes, and

fluctuations. Bird Banding 46(2):106-125.

Storm, Robert M.

1966. Endangered plants and animals of Oregon,

II. Amphibians and reptiles. Oreg. State Univ.

Agric. Exp. Stn., Spec. Rep. 206, 12 p. Corvallis.

Tester, J. R., and W. H. Marshall.

1961. A study of certain plant and animal interrelations on a native prairie in northwestern Minnesota. Univ. Minn. Mus. Nat. Hist. Occas. Pap.

8:1-51.

Thomas, J. W., R. J. Miller, C. Maser, R. G. Anderson,

and B. E. Carter.

1979. Plant communities and successional stages.

In Wildlife habitats in managed forests---the Blue

Mountains of Oregon and Washington, edited by

Jack Ward Thomas. p. 23-39. USDA For. Serv.

Agric. Handb. No. 553. Washington, D.C.

Turcek, F. J.

1972. Birds and mammals in successions of terrestrial ecosystems. Yamashina Inst. Omithol.

Misc. Rep. 6 No. 516 (No. 37/38):401-409.

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

Fisheries and Wildlife.

1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States.

“Red Book” Resour. Publ. 114, 289 p. Off. Endangered Species and Intl. Act., Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

1979. Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants: republication of the list of species. Fed.

Regist. 44(12) (Jan. 17):3636-3654.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc., Public Law 94-579.

1976. Federal Land Policy and Management Act

of 1976. An act to establish public land policy; to

establish guidelines for its administration; to provide for the management, protection, development, and enhancement of the public lands; and

for other purposes. Oct. 21, 1976. (Public Law 94-

579; 90 STAT. 2743; 2743-2794) U.S. Gov. Print.

Off., Washington, D.C.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc., Public Law 94-588.

1976. National Forest Management Act of 1976.

In United States code congressional and administrative news. Oct. 1976. (Public Law 94-588 [S.

30911) 94th Congress, 2d Session, 1976. Vol. 2, p.

2949-2963. West Publ. Co., St. Paul, Minn. [19761

116 U.S.C. Sec. 1600(1976).1

Verner, J., and A. S. Boss, Tech. Coords.

1980. California wildlife and their habitats: Western Sierra Nevada. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PSW-37, 439 p. Pac. Southwest For. and

Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif.

Williams, L.

1952. Breeding behavior of the Brewer blackbird.

Condor 54:3-47.

Wolford, J. W., and D. A. Boag.

1971. Distribution and biology of black-crowned

night herons in Alberta. Can. Field-Nat. 85(l):

13-19.

25

Title

Introduction

WILDLIFE HABITATS IN MANAGED RANGELANDS-THE

GREAT BASIN OF SOUTHEASTERN OREGON

Technical Editors

JACK WARD THOMAS, US. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service

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

Bureau of Land Management

Plant Communities and Their

Importance to Wildlife

The Relationship of Terrestrial

Vertebrates to the Plant

Communities . . . Text

The Relationship of Terrestrial

Vertebrates to the Plant

Communities . . . Appendices

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-172, Part I

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-172, Part II

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

319 SW. Pine St.

PO. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208