GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-86

1979

CHRIS MASER

JACK WARD THOMAS

IRA DAVID LUMAN

RALPH ANDERSON

PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION

FOREST SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ABSTRACT

Manmade structures on rangelands provide specialized habitats for some species.

These habitats and how they function as

specialized habitat features are examined in

this publication. The relationships of the wildlife of the Great Basin to such structures are

detailed.

KEYWORDS: Wildlife habitat, range

management.

THE AUTHORS

CHRIS MASER is Wildlife Biologist,

United States Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, La Grande,

Oregon. JACK WARD THOMAS is Principal

Research Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station, La Grange, Oregon. IRA

DAVID LUMAN is Wildlife Biologist, United

States Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, Portland, Oregon.

RALPH ANDERSON is Biological Technician, USDA Forest Service, Bear Sleds Ranger

District, Wallowa, 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 Rangelands

- The 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

Manmade structures, such as buildings,

roads, bridges, rock walls, and wooden corrals

and fences have long been a part of western

rangelands. Although they were not built with

an idea of blending into their surroundings,

after being weathered and molded by the environment, these manmade intrusions become

part of the landscape. Few men living can

remember when they were not there. Such

structures, when obviously “old” or of a past

era, come to be considered as part of our

national heritage and are preserved for the consideration and enjoyment of the public.

The rustic individualism reflected by these

structures is captured by artists with brush

and camera. But little does an artist know of

the role the environment has played in molding

their character. True, the builder has left

behind the design of his labor, and weather and

age have blended both labor and design into its

surroundings. But, the sun and wind and rain

and snow are not alone in contributing to

making an abandoned homestead a thing of

rustic attractiveness. The generations of

plants and animals that live along each stretch

of road and fence, under each bridge, and in

and around each abandoned homestead add the

final touches of individualism.

Although man has seldom viewed his intrusions into the environment as habitats for wildlife, their value as wildlife habitat is slowly

being perceived. For example, Lustig (1976:4),

in his article “Living Fences. . .An Alternative,” put it this way:

Robert Frost’s poem ‘Mending

Fences’ popularized the old proverb

‘good fences make good neighbors.’

However, for today’s ecologically aware

populus [sic], a more appropriate statement might be ‘good fences bring good

neighbors.’ And so they do; both in urban and rural areas. . . . Any concerned

land owner can easily change an ecologically sterile boundary line or fence

row into a ‘mini’ wildlife sanctuary and

thereby maximize the species diversity

that he and his family can enjoy at their

very doorsteps.

Structures, such as fences, have the potential to become habitats for wildlife. They provide certain habitat features that allow species

to invade and to exist in areas that would be

otherwise unsuitable. This effect is particularly pronounced in the Great Basin where the

terrain is relatively gentle over vast expanses

and the structural diversity of the vegetation

is relatively simple.

In the wildlife sense, such structures may

be thought of as manmade habitats (Appendix

1). A land manager should consider this aspect

of old structures when decisions are made

about their future.

It is the purpose of this discussion to point

out wildlife habitat values of manmade structures in rangelands, and to make suggestions about how such habitat values may be

enhanced.

Abandoned Homesteads

Abandoned homesteads have been and are

being destroyed because of their ramshackle

condition, hazard to humans or livestock, and

other reasons. But, destruction of such historic

sites on public lands appears to contradict the

intent of the Historic Preservation Act (1966:

915) which states:

. . .That Congress finds and

declares-

(a) That the spirit and direction

of the Nation are founded upon and

reflected in its historic past;

(b) That the historical and

cultural foundations of the Nation

should be preserved as a living part of

our community life and development in

order to give a sense of orientation to

the American people;

(c) That, in the fact of everincreasing extensions of urban centers,

highways, and residental, commercial,

and industrial developments, the present governmental and nongovernmental historic preservation programs and

activities are inadequate to insure
future generations a genuine opportunity to appreciate and enjoy the rich

heritage of our Nation. . . .

Further, the National Environmental

Policy Act (1969, p. 852), under “Title 1,

Declaration of National Environmental

Policy,” states that:

(4) preserve important historic,

cultural, and natural aspects of our

heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports

diversity and variety of individual

choice. . . .

And destruction of homesteads is not in keeping with Bureau of Land Management policy

(United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management Manual 623 1).

The most obvious management interest in

abandoned homesteads is for their historical

and cultural value. But they also provide

wildlife habitat. Most abandoned homesteads

have four features that make them valuable as

habitat-buildings and associated structures,

introduced vegetation, a permanent source of

water, and a creation of diversity in an otherwise homogeneous habitat. Any or all of the

following features may be found around these

old homesteads: house and outbuildings, rock

or rail fences, irrigation ditches, root cellars,

primitive roads, culverts, ponds, springs,

wells, ornamental trees and shrubs, fruit trees,

refuse piles or pits, abandoned machinery, and

fenced grave sites.

BUILDINGS

Abandoned wooden buildings (fig. 1) serve

as habitat for a variety of animals (Bailey

1936, Orr 1954, Stebbins 1954, 1966). Lizards

and snakes use them for sunning, shade, and

shelter, as places to feed, and as reproductive

sites. Screech owls (Otus asio) use buildinginteriors for roosting and rearing young. Barn

swallows Hirundo rustica) nest inside

buildings (fig. 2), and cliff swallows Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) construct nests on the

outer walls. Common flickers (Coluptes

auratus) often peck holes through the outer

wall of “double-walled” buildings and nest in

the interspaces (fig. 3). These “cavities” are

secondarily inhabited by bats (Orr 1954), chipmunks (Eutamias spp.), deer mice (Peromyscus

maniculatus), woodrats (Neotoma SPP.L

American kestrels (Falco sparverius), and

starlings (Sturnus u&gun’s).

Bats use the interior of old buildings as

night roosts where they hangup while digesting their food; bats may also use them as sites

in which to hibernate (Barbour and Davis

1969, Orr 1954). Buildings which are located in

cool sites and have tarpaper siding may have

bats roosting under the tarpaper during the

day.

Figure 1 .-Abandoned wooden buildings

(homesteads) serve as habitat for a variety

of wildlife species. The introduced vegeta.

tion is particularly important to birds.

(Bureau of Land Management photograph)

Figure 2.-A barn swallow (Hirundo rustica)

nest on a beam inside an abandoned

wooden building. (Chris Maser photo.

graph)
Figure 3.-Common flickers (Colaptes

aoratus) often peck holes through the

outer wall of “double-walled” buildings

and nest in the interspaces. In this case,

the holes are in the wall under the overhang of the roof. These “cavities” are

secondarily inhabited by other species of

wildlife. (Chris Maser photograph)

Figure 4.-A deer mouse (Peromyscus

maniculafus) nest within the top of the

door casing of an abandoned homestead.

(Chris Maser photograph)

Larger animals, such as mountain cottontail rabbits LSyluilagus nuttalli), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), yellow-bellied

marmots (~urmota flauiuentris), long-tailed

weasels (Mustela frenata), striped skunks

Mephitis mephitis), spotted skunks (Spilogale

putorius), and badgers (Taxidea tams), live

under buildings, whereas deer mice (fig. 4) and

woodrats (fig. 5) frequent all stories. Even collapsed wooden buildings and piles of wooden

fence posts are used as shelter and as sites for

rearing young by lizards, snakes, mountain

cottontail rabbits, yellow-bellied marmots,

ground squirrels, woodrats, deer mice, long

tailed weasels, and others.

Abandoned wooden buildings are used as

hiding and thermal cover, and as sites for

reproduction, feeding, hibernation, sunning,

and as elevated lookouts by a variety of

wildlife. Buildings constructed of rock (fig. 6)

are more important than are wooden buildings

as habitat for lizards, snakes, and digging

rodents, such as ground squirrels and marmots, because they more closely simulate their

natural habitat.

Figure 5.-Bushy-tailed woodrat (Neofoma

Cinerea) nest in the attic of an abandoned

\ homestead. (Chris Maser photograph)

Figure 6.-Buildings constructed of rock are

important as habitat for lizards, snakes,

and digging rodents because .they more

closely simulate their natural habitat.

(Bureau of Land Management photograph)

3
The concentration of animals is, in turn,

attractive to predators. Predators frequently

found in association with abandoned buildings

include hawks, owls, long-tailed weasels,

badgers, coyotes (Cunis latruns), and bobcats

(Lynx rufus).

INTRODUCED VEGETATION

Homesteaders often planted shade and

fruit trees and shrubs. Many abandoned home

sites still have Lombardy poplars (Pop&s

nigru) (fig. 7), white poplars (Populus &a) (fig.

81, cottonwoods (Populus spp.), and black

locusts (Robinia pseudoacacia) growing around

them. These trees stand out in stark contrast

Figure 7.-The tall, narrow trees are Lombardy poplars (Populus nigra). They are not

self-producing. (Bureau of Land Management photograph)

Figure 8.- White poplars (Populus a&a) are

self.producing. Note the young trees in the

lower right corner. (Chris Maser photograph)

to a generally treeless landscape and are commonly used as perching sites and nesting locations for such birds as northern orioles Ucterus

galbula), western kingbirds (Tyrannus vertic&is), black-billed magpies (Pica pica) (fig. 91,

black-headed grosbeaks (Pheucticus melanocephalus), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis)

(fig. 10). ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis),

golden eagles (Aquilu chrysaetos), great

Figure 9.- Black:billed magpies (Pica pica) often perch

and nest in trees around

abandoned homesteads.

(Robert R. Kindschy

photograph)

Figure lo--Red-tailed hawks (Buteo

jamaicensis) are one of the raptors that

nest around abandoned homesteads.

(Robert R. Kindschy photograph)
horned owls (Bubo virginianus), long-eared

owls (Asio otus), and flickers (Marion and

Ryder 1975, Olendorff and Stoddart 1974,

Schnell 1968, Seibert et al. 1976, Smith et al.

1972, Snow 1974a, Woffinden 1975). Common

flickers excavate cavities in dead trees and in

dead limbs on live trees. The abandoned nestcavities are secondarily used by mountain

bluebirds (Sialia currucoides), western

bluebirds (Sialia mexicana), starlings, violetgreen swallows (Tachycineta thalassina),

American kestrels, and bats. In addition,

hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus) roost in the

foliage of these trees during their spring and

fall migrations (Bailey 1936, Constantine 1959,

1966). Many homesteads also have shrubs

around them-some introduced, some native.

Shrubs are used for nesting by such birds as

gray flycatchers (Empidonax wrightii), house

finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), and lazuli

buntings (Passerina amoena). The presence of

trees and shrubs greatly increases habitat

diversity. Trees are particularly important in

this regard (fig. 11).

Figure 11 .-The trees that were planted

around old homesteads are particularly important as habitat for nesting birds.

(Bureau of Land Management photograph

by M. Hurd)

WATER

Homesteads were normally located near a

source of permanent water, usually a spring,

stream, or river. Springs that were made into

reservoirs, but not maintained, often developed riparian and aquatic vegetation (fig. 12).

Some reservoirs contain fish and bullfrogs

(Rana catesbeiana). Western harvest mice

Figure 12.-Springs that were made into

reservoirs, but then were no longer maintained, often developed riparian and

aquatic vegetation. (Bureau of Land

Management photograph by Robert R.

Kindschy)

(Reithrodontomys megalotis) and montane

voles (Microtus montanus) may occupy the

marshy areas; and yellow warblers (Dendroica

petechia), short-eared owls (Asio fZammeus),

American avocets (Recuruirostra americana),

red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus),

killdeer (Charadrius uociferus), mallards (Anus

platyrhynchos) (fig. 13), cinnamon teal (Anus

cyanoptera), marsh hawks (Circus cyaneus)

(fig. 141, and other birds nest in and around the

riparian vegetation (Evans and Kerbs 1977,

Greenwell 1952). In addition, migratory waterfowl are frequent visitors during the spring

and fall.

Figure 13.-Mallards (Anus platyrhynchos)

can be found nesting in marshy areas surrounding homestead reservoirs that are no

longer maintained.

5
Figure 14.- Marsh hawks (Circus cyaneus)

also nest in marshy areas surrounding

homestead reservoirs that are no longer

maintained.

The presence of the water attracts many

animals. Tracks of California quail (I;ophortyx

californicus), rabbits, mule deer (Odocoileus

hemionus), pronghorns (An tilocapra

americana), coyotes, and bobcats are often

observed near water.

DIVERSITY

Buildings, trees, shrubs, and permanent

sources of water associated with abandoned

homesteads provide three essential habitat

components-food, water, and cover-in a relatively small area. This combination contrasts

dramatically with the surrounding, comparatively sterile, habitats (fig. 15). In so doing,

they add greatly to the diversity and richness

Figure 15.- Old homesteads contrast

dramatically with the surrounding, relatively homogeneous rangeland habitats.

(Bureau of Land Management photograph

by Robert R. Kindschy)

of an area. Abandoned homesites, then, provide habitat for species that would be otherwise scarce or absent in the locale. They also

act to concentrate a number of common

species.

Some habitat attributes created by abandoned homesteads are relatively unstable, and

time exacts a toll on many of them. Wooden

buildings are dismantled, vandalized, burned,

or gradually deteriorate. Some of the introduced vegetation, such as Lombardy poplar, is

not self-reproducing and gradually dies.

Diversity created by abandoned homesteads is long lasting but changes over time.

For example, vegetation, such as white poplar,

is self-perpetuating and can remain more or

less intact for over a century. The source of

water, however, preceded the homestead and

will outlast it (fig. 16). These abandoned works

of man, therefore, enhance the habitat for a

variety of species of wildlife for a time, allowing some to live in areas that otherwise would

be unsuitable.

Roads and Bridges

Unpaved roads are highly visible features

of managed rangelands; there are thousands of

miles of such roads in the Great Basin. The terrain crossed by some roads necessitates the

building of bridges. Although roads and

bridges improve or create habitat for some

species of wildlife, they degrade or destroy

habitat for others. This statement may also

apply to paved roads (Leedy 1975, Leedy et al.

1975).

ROADS

Although there are some positive effects of

roads on some wildlife species, in general, ’

roads have adverse effects on the broad spectrum of wildlife regardless of where or how

they are constructed (Oxley et al. 1974).

Adverse effects are compounded when roads

are built in or adjacent to riparian zones.

The positive habitat values of rangeland

roads lie primarily in their design and con6
____--- -.

---

1’

4

4

4

Figure 16.-Habitat diversity created by abandoned homesteads is long lasting and

changes over time. Ultimately, the source of water that preceded the homestead will

outlast it.

7
Figure 17.- Roadbanks and roadsides often enable a type of vegetation to become

established that differs from that of the surrounding country, creating habitat diversity and edge-effect.

struction. Roadbanks cut into uneven terrain

may require stabilization to prevent erosion,

but roadsides through even terrain seldom

need to be stabilized. Roadbanks and roadsides

often enable a type of vegetation to become

established that differs from that of the surrounding country, creating habitat diversity

and edge-effect (fig. 17).

Habitat changes may be produced by exposure of several soil horizons of different

textures, removal of top soil, piles of loose soil

and rock, creation of moister conditions in borrow ditches and pits, installation of culverts,

fertilization of cuts and fills, seeding raw

banks, etc. Such alterations are particularly

important as habitat where conditions are

created that did not previously exist and there

are wildlife species that can exploit them.

These areas are often “colonized” by

ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), pocket

mice (Perognathus spp.), kangaroo rats

(Dipodomys spp.), voles (Microtus spp.), rabbits, and hares (Lepus spp.) (Douglas and

Johnson 1972), and may act as routes of dispersal from one area to another by forming a

physical link of suitable habitat through otherwise uninhabitable terrain. For example, Getz

et al. (1978) wrote:

Roadsides that provide habitats different from those occurring in adjacent

areas are potential avenues of dispersal

for various groups of animals. In particular, this applies to those roadsides

that have dense grassy vegetation.

Such roadsides provide dispersal routes

for grassland species. . . .

A somewhat different set of circumstances

applies to minimum standard roads through

flat terrain in areas of the Great Basin. In this

case, a roadbed is often lower than the “bank”

because the debris (soil and rocks) is simply

pushed aside with a bulldozer, creating small

cuts and ridges along the road’s edge (figs. 18

and 19). Soil in these ridges is often better

drained and remains more friable than does

that of the surrounding flatlands, particularly

when much clay is present. The combination of

better drainage and greater friability allows

animals, such as kangaroo rats, which are

relatively poor diggers, to live in and disperse

along the soil ridges. This is especially important when the surrounding flatland soil is

saturated with water during the winter or

when it is too hard for them to dig through during the summer. Soil ridges often are nearly

free of perennial vegetation and are gradually

built up through additional soil deposits during road maintenance activities, thus providing a well-defined habitat.

At times, construction results in piles of

debris (soil, rocks, and brush) along a road. ’ These piles become inhabited by animals such

as ground squirrels, kangaroo rats, pocket

mice, harvest mice, deer mice, and sage voles

(Lagurus cur-tutus). Although the piles offer

elevated sites with better drainage and easier

digging, they are usually scattered in distribution and may take longer to be occupied. Most

of the debris piles seem to be unaffected by

8
road maintenance and gradually blend into the

surrounding landscape. As they become overgrown with vegetation, they gradually lose

their habitat-qualities for kangaroo rats, but

become better habitat for mice and voles.

Due to their scattered distribution, debris

piles appear to be less important as dispersal

routes than do the soil ridges.

Talus formations are mimicked by large

rock and boulder ridges and land-fills created

Figure 18.-Construction of minimum standard roads through flat terrain may create

small roadbanks, thereby adding to habitat

diversity. (Bureau of Land Management

photograph)

Figure 19.-Construction of minimum standard roads through flat terrain ay create

small ridges of soil. Soil in these“\idges is

often better drained and remains more

friable than does that of the surrounding

flatlands, making it good habitat for small

mammals, such as the Ord kangaroo rat

(Dipodomys ordi). (Chris Maser photograph)

Figure 20.- Road construction with a

bulldozer through rocky soil-especially

soil containing large rocks and boulderscreates a ridge strewn with large individual

rocks or clusters of big rocks. Mantled

ground squirrels (Spermophilus lateralis)

and yellow-bellied marmots (Marmota

flaviventris) are closely associated with

large rocks which serve as elevated lookouts, and large roadside rocks have

allowed both rodents to survive in and

disperse through otherwise unsuitable

habitats. (Chris Maser photograph)

during road construction. This type of roadside

talus, which may be inhabited by marmots,

ground squirrels, woodrats, mice, weasels, and r

other animals, is normally restricted in distribution. On the other hand, road construction

with a bulldozer through rocky soil-especially

soil containing large rocks and boulderscreates a ridge strewn with large individual

rocks or clusters of big rocks (fig. 20). These

talus-like rows of large rocks are used by

lizards, marmots, and mantled ground squir9
rels (Spermophilus lateralis). Mantled ground

squirrels and yellow-bellied marmots are

closely associated with large rocks which serve

as elevated lookouts, and large roadside rocks

have allowed both rodents to survive in and

disperse through otherwise unsuitable

habitats.

The occupancy of these roadside habitats

by reptiles and small mammals provides prey

for predators and food for scavengers. The

combination of animals and vehicular traffic

produces a situation where many animals are

killed by cars or by shooting from cars (Case

1978, Oxley et al. 1974). Consequently, there

seems to be a concentration of predators and

scavengers along such roads, including snakes,

hawks, owls, turkey vultures (Cathartes aura),

common crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common ravens (Coruus corm), black-billed

magpies, coyotes, and long-tailed weasels,

Where road construction and maintenance

creates ditches, water often collects and remains available to wildlife for varying periods

following rain storms. This frequently creates

areas where the vegetation receives greater

than normal moisture and in turn produces

more biomass that remains green longer. In

rare circumstances, the collection of water

within borrow pits and ditches forms areas

where aquatic or riparian zone vegetation may

be found. These more mesic conditions in a

typically xeric landscape contribute to diversity and are often attractive to wildlife for

water, food, and cover.

For the broad spectrum of wildlife, on the

other hand, roads largely destroy habitat and

often promote soil erosion (Kitchings et al.

1974), but their greatest long-term impact on

wildlife is increased human access and increased use of previously remote areas

(Albrecht and Smith 1977, Davey 1974,

Snyder et al. 1976). Greater vehicular access,

unless carefully managed, intensifies fishing,

hunting, and trapping pressures on animals,

such as Alvord cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki

subspecies), jackrabbits (fig. 2 1). ground squirrels, coyotes, badgers, bobcats (fig. 22), pronghorns, and mule deer.

Increased access also allows these pressures to be more evenly distributed. There is

Figure 21.- Black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus

californicus) are often hunted for sport; increased vehicular access into an area will

intensify the hunting pressures on this

species and on others. (Robert R. Kindschy photograph)

Figure 22.-Greater vehicular access,

unless carefully managed, intensifies trapping pressures on fur-bearing mammals,

such as the bobcat (Lynx rufus). (Robert R.

Kindschy photograph)

little doubt that access augments the potential

for enjoyment and exploitation of the wildlife

resource, but this can be good or bad depending on the wildlife management objective and

the intensity of the management, including enforcement of regulations. Improved access.

however, is seldom related to a wildlife management objective. The impacts on wildlife.

therefore, are apt to be negative.

Greater access also intensifies harassment

of species, such as the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianns), ferruginous hawk (Olendorff and Stoddart 1974, Snow 1974a). prairie

falcon (Falco mexicanus) (Parker 1973, Snow

10
1974b), Peregrine falcon (F&co peregrinus)-

listed as endangered-(Federal Register 1976,

Porter et al. 1973, Snow 1972), and the golden

eagle (Snow 1973). For example, Ellis et al.

(1969) documented a loss of 30 raptors along a

19-kilometer (12 mi) segment of a powerline.

Fourteen of the birds were golden eagles, and

most of the carcasses had bullet wounds. Mortality by shooting appears to occur most frequently when powerlines and roads are within

183 meters (600 ft) of each other.

BRIDGES

Although bridge construction alters the

habitat at the site, bridges may produce new

wildlife habitat-values, depending on the type

of bridge. Bridges of creosote-impregnated

wood exhibit little or no value as wildlife

habitat (fig. 23). Unimpregnated, wooden

bridges appear to have limited value to nesting

swallows and roosting bats, but these bridges

tend to vibrate. Traffic on such bridges is quite

noisy and creates dust. When wooden bridges

are abandoned, however, they become more

valuable as wildlife habitat. The creosote is

leached away over time and the absence of traffic reduces the disturbance to wildlife.

On the other hand, traffic over concrete

bridges (fig. 23) is relatively quiet when compared to that crossing wooden bridges. Concrete bridges do not allow dust to sift through,

and in addition produce shade, a cool microclimate, and simulate cliffs and caves. The concrete surface provides a structure which allows

barn swallows and cliff swallows to build their

nests on the suspension beams. Some species

of bats, such as little brown myotis (Myotis

Zucifugus), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis),

California myotis (Myotis californicus), big

brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), and pallid bats

(Antrozous pallidus), use the concrete surfaces

under bridges as night-roosts (Greenhall and

Paradiso 1968, Maser’, Orr 1954). When available, suitable cracks and crevices in the

concrete are used as day-roosts and sites for

rearing young by such species as the pallid bat

(Krutzsch 1946, Orr 1954, Storer 1931).

In addition, bridges-especially concrete

bridges-produce a cool microclimate that is

attractive to flying insects. Such insects, in

turn, provide a food source for the insectivorous birds and bats that are associated

with the bridges.

‘Maser. Chris. Unpublished data on file at the Puget

Sound Museum of Natural History. University of f’uget

Sound, Tacoma. Washington.

Figure 23 .-Bridges of creosote-impregnated wood exhibit little or no value as wildlife

habitat. They are noisy and dusty. Concrete bridges, on the other hand, are relatively quiet

and do not allow dust to sift through. In addition, they produce shade, a cool microclimate,

and simulate cliffs and caves. If a bridge (wooden or concrete) with well-established wildlife

use is to be replaced, it may be desirable to construct the new bridge alongside of the old

one, retaining the old bridge as wildlife habitat.

11
Rock Walls, Rock Jacks,

Rock Cribs, and

Sheepherder Monuments

Due to their mode of construction-essentially loose piles of large, irregular rocks-rock

walls, rock jacks, rock cribs, and sheepherder

monuments all simulate talus. These rock piles

are honey-combed with protected spaces which

provide shelter from the elements for a variety

of species. The spaces are sheltered from

winter winds thereby reducing the chill factor,

but on the other hand, these spaces are much

cooler than surrounding areas in summer.

Such spaces are used by a variety of prey

species-vertebrate and invertebrate-which

in turn are consumed by predators. The animal

biomass associated with these structures

seems to be much greater than in similar areas

lacking them (Sinclair et al. 1967).

ROCK WALLS

Walls constructed of rock, usually lava,

provide stable habitats for a variety of animals

(Lustig 1976, Sinclair et al. 1967) (fig. 24).

Lizards, such as western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) and side-blotched lizards

(Uta stansburiana); snakes, such as blue racers

(Coluber constrictor), gopher snakes (Pituophis

melanoleucus), and western rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis) (fig. 25); birds, such as rock wrens

(Salpinctes obsoletus), canyon wrens (Catherpes mexicanus), and Say’s phoebes (Sayornis

saya); and mammals, such as mountain cottontail rabbits, chipmunks, yellow-bellied marmots, ground squirrels, deer mice, canyon mice

(Peromyscus crinitus), woodrats, long-tailed

weasels, and skunks, all use rock walls for

feeding and for reproduction (Bailey 1936,

Burt and Grossenheider 1964, Maser [unpublished data12, Peterson 1961, Stebbins 1954,

1966). Some animals, such as lizards, snakes,

and ground squirrels, spend much time sunning themselves on the walls during the

spring, summer, and fall, and hibernate in or

beneath the walls during the winter. These,

‘See footnote 1.

Figure 24.- Rock walls, usually made of

lava, provide stable habitats for a variety of

animals. (Bureau of Land Management

photograph)

Figure 25.- The western rattlesnake

(Crotalus viridis) is a frequent inhabitant of

rock walls. (Bureau of Land Management

photograph by Grant Baugh)

and other animals, also depend upon the walls

as elevated lookouts.

ROCK JACKS

Rock jacks (fig. 26) are usually built so that

the rocks are initially elevated off of the

ground. When the supporting wooden structure deteriorates, the pile of rocks has a habitat

function similar to that of the rock cribs

discussed next. The distance above ground

determines which animals can seek shelter

1 2
Figure 26.-A rock jack is usually built so

that the rocks are initially elevated off of

the ground. (Chris Maser photograph)

beneath them. For example, a rock jack in

which the bottom rocks are 15 cm (6 in) above

the ground creates a large enough space for a

mountain cottontail, whereas a Townsend

ground squirrel (Spermophilus townsendi) can

utilize a space that is only 10 cm (4 in) high,

and a rattlesnake can use a 5-cm (2-m) space.

Rock jacks constructed with large rocks, 30

to 60 cm (12 to 34 in) in diameter, show greater

use by wildlife (reptiles, birds, and mammals)

than do those composed of rocks less than 30

cm (12 in).

Wildlife uses of rock jacks are varied; they

include: feeding, reproduction, escape, shade,

shelter from wind, sunning, perching, and lookouts. Since rock jacks are used to stabilize

fences, they are incorporated at varying intervals, usually 30 to 50 meters (98 to 164 ft) into

kilometers (miles) of livestock fence. As a

result, they form dispersal routes through

otherwise uninhabitable country for animals,

such as the desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida)

(fig. 27).

ROCK CRIBS

Rock cribs (figs. 28 and 29) offer essentially

the same function as wildlife habitat as do rock

jacks, but for a smaller variety of species.

Since rock cribs rest on the ground surface,

wildlife use is limited to those species that can

climb within or on top of the rocks. Cottontail

rabbits, for example, are largely eliminated as

Figure 27.-Since rock jacks are used to

stabilize fences, they are incorporated into

kilometers (miles) of livestock fence. As a

result, they form dispersal routes through

otherwise uninhabitable terrain. In this

case a desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida) is

inhabiting such a rock jack, as evidenced

by its nest. (Chris Maser photograph)

users of rock cribs, but lizards, snakes, woodrats, ground squirrels, and weasels have free

access to the security of a crib. As with rock

jacks, the size of the rocks used in construction

also determines which species can use a rock

crib. Albeit, small rocks, 15 to 20 cm (6 to 8 in)

in diameter, give an appearance of “neatness”

Figure 28.-A wooden rock crib, if con- ’ strutted with large rocks, has essentially

the same function as wildlife habitat as

does a rock jack. Since the rocks are not

initially elevated off of the ground, however, a few of the larger animals, such as

the mountain cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus nuttalli), may be excluded from

inhabiting wooden rock cribs. (Chris Maser

photograph)

1 3
Figure 29.-A wire rock crib can be used as

habitat by animals as large as Beiding

ground squirrels (Spermophilus beldingi).

Larger animals are excluded, however, by

the smaller-sized rocks used in these cribs

and by the diameter of the wire mesh.

(Chris Maser photograph)

Figure 31 .-Sheep-herder monuments consist of piles of rocks. (Bureau of Land Management photograph)

Figure 32.-Sheep-herder monuments are

often located on or near the tops of hills

and serve as perching sites for raptors,

such as golden eagles (Aquila chrysaelos).

(Bureau of Land Management photograph)

and are sometimes thought to be more esthetically pleasing, the “neatness” and “esthetics”

of a crib made with small rocks diminishes its

usefulness to wildlife (fig. 30).

Rock cribs are also used to stabilize fences

and may create routes of dispersal for some

species of wildlife.

Figure 30.-A “neat” or “esthetically pleas

ing” wire rock crib is made with small

rocks which lack the large spaces between

them, and a small.mesh wire is used to

contain the rocks. This combination of

construction materials can eliminate all

but the smaller animals, such as deer mice

(Peromyscus maniculafus) or desert

woodrats (Neotoma lepida), from using

such a rock crib as habitat. (Bureau of

Land Management photograph by A. K.

Majors)

SHEEPHERDER MONUMENTS

Sheepherder monuments (figs. 31 and 321,

which are more or less randomly distributed,

consist of piles of rocks. They serve essentially

1 4
the same habitat function for wildlife as do

rock jacks and rock cribs, but do not form

dispersal routes. Often located on hill Lops.

they serve as perching sites for raptors, such

as golden eagles.

Wooden Corrals and Fences

Wooden corrals (figs. 33 and 34). and fences

with wooden posts (fig. 35) appear to txxlong

largely Lo past decades. Most new ftlncf>s art’

constructed with steel posts.

Although often associated with old homesteads, wooden fences also may be isolated

from such sites. Those few that remain are

used by western fence lizards for sunning and

Figure 33.-Wooden corrals are used as

perches by many birds. (Chris Maser

photograph)

Figure 34.-In addition to providing perches

for birds, wood corrals can also provide

animals with shade and protection from

wind. (Chris Maser photograph)

Figure 35.-The wooden posts in this fence

can be used as perches by birds and as

shade by small, ground-dwelling animals

on hot, cloudless days. (Bureau of Land

Management photograph)

by chipmunks, raptors, shrikes (Lunius spp.).

and other birds as lookouts. In addition. shade

from these posts is sought by lizards. snakes.

small birds. and small mammals to escapr the

heat on hot cloudless days.

CIavities are often found in decaying fence

posts and are used by small caviL,v-nesting

birds such as hlurtbirds. house wrcbns (7’rocglotlvtcs tr~~~or~), swallows. chickadees iI’czrrl.s

spp.), and mammals such as hats. deer micr>.

and chipmunks. ‘I‘hesc sources of nesting sites

illlOW~d s0111c spccit:s to temporarily in\,ad(a

otheruisc unsuit.e1)1<, habitats. and a sptlcics’

Figure 36.-Fences frequently occur along

edges between vegetation of different

types or different structural conditions.

Fences, in this sense, created and/or maintain habitat diversity and often are particularly rich in wildlife. (Bureau of Land

Management photograph)
decline in such areas may be related to the

gradual loss of that habitat.

Fences frequently occur along edges between vegetation of various types or in different stages of development (fig. 36). As such,

they are of particular value to some species and

are often particularly rich in wildlife.

Powerlines

Powerlines have become common and,

perhaps, inevitable features of the landscape.

They have potential as wildlife habitat and

have other influences on wildlife. The impacts

of powerlines on wildlife depend on: (I) size of

lines, poles, and towers, (2) voltage of lines,

(3) location, size, and shape of rights-of-way,

and (4) the type of vegetation management

within rights-of-way.

POWERLINES, POLES, AND TOWERS

Raptors, such as golden eagles, red-tailed

hawks, and ferruginous hawks, use powerlines,

poles, and towers as sites for perching and

nesting (Gilmer and Wiehe 1977, Marion and

Ryder 1975, Olendorff 1972, Olendorff and

Stoddart 1974). In early years, small distribution lines, such as the Rural Electrification

Administration (REA) type, electrocuted

many raptors, especially golden eagles (Boeker

1974, Boeker and Nickerson 1975, Fitzner

1975, Harrison 1963, Olendorff 1972, Smith

and Murphy 1972, Snow 1973). In recent years,

however, powerlines, poles, and towers have

been modified not only to make lines safe for

raptors but also to adapt poles and towers as

sites for perching and for nesting (Miller et al.

1975, Nelson and Nelson 1977). Thus, in some

cases, it has been possible to turn a wildlife

liability into an asset.

In addition, many birds are killed when

they collide with towers and lines, particularly

small-diameter, closely spaced transmission

and secondary distribution lines (Anderson

1978. Anderson et al. 1975, Kemper 1964,

Krapu 1974, Scott et al. 1972, Stout and Cornwell 1976). Satisfactory solutions to this problem have yet to be found.

Extra high voltage power lines (500 KV+)

produce a corona effect-ozone production,

noise, and flashes of light. Although the

unusual olfactory, auditory, and visual stimuli

of the corona effect may be adverse to wildlife

(Kline 1971, Young 1973), such adversity has

not been conclusively proven (Goodwin 1975).

Extra high voltage power lines (500 KVS)

also produce electric and magnetic field effects.

These fields can induce voltages and currents

in plants and animals near such lines (Jack

Lee, personal communication, Miller and Kaufman 1978). But thus far, no adversity to

wildlife has been demonstrated by the electric

field effect (Bankoske et al. 1976).

RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Managed rights-of-way are beneficial to

some wildlife and detrimental to others. The

two primary features of rights-of-way that influence wildlife are alteration of existing

vegetation and increased human access via

roads.

In many areas, the most obvious feature of

a right-of-way is alteration of the habitat

within it. Tail vegetation, such as trees and

shrubs, are initially eliminated. Subsequent

management may maintain the vegetation in

the right-of-way in an earlier, lower structural

condition (fig. 37). If efforts are not made to

remove trees and shrubs as they reappear, the

site may return to its original condition. Thus,

plant species composition and diversity may

not be significantly affected over time (Ludwig

et al. 1977, Potter and Krenetsky 1967).

Where heavy shrub growth is removed or

trees are felled to clear a right-of-way, there

should be a corresponding increase in grasses

and forbs (Barney and Frishknecht 1974, Clary

1974, Erdman 1970, Ludwig et al. 1977).

Although increases may be related to an increased amount of sunlight and consequent

drying of the site (Jameson 1970), there is considerable annual variability in herbage production which is presumably a product of precipitation. If undisturbed, a site will progress by

stages back to its original structural condition

(Barney and Frishknecht 1974).

16
Figure 37.- In many areas, the most obvious feature of a right-of-way is alteration

of the habitat within it. Once established, subsequent management may maintain the vegetation in a right.of.way in an earlier, lower structural condition.

Powerline rights-of-way can be designed with irregular borders to enhance edge

effect and to make them as aesthetically pleasing as possible.

Right-of-way construction can either create

or deplete habitat diversity. For example, a

right-of-way through a small, isolated stand of

juniper will eliminate a locally rare habitat,

reduce contrast, eliminate edge, and thereby

reduce habitat diversity. Whereas a right-ofway through an extensive stand of juniper will

open up some of the stand, create a new structural condition, produce edge, and thereby increase habitat diversity.

Where diversity has been created by a

right-of-way, Anderson et al. (1977) found that

bird species diversity was correlated with the

width of the right-of-way. This was due to

habitat alteration of sufficient size to support

those species of birds that required either the

type of habitat created, or the edge-effect, or

both. There is some evidence to indicate that

mammals react to rights-of-way in a similar

fashion (Goodwin 1975, Schreiber and Graves

1977).

It is doubtful that maintenance of powerline rights-of-way in rangelands will require extensive manipulation of vegetation since most

plant communities are relatively low in structure. Where such manipulation is required,

however, application of herbicides is the treatment often used.

Application of herbicides to control

sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) in rights-of-way

adversely affects some species, such as

the sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), Brewer’s

sparrow (L!pizella brewed), and sage grouse

17
(Baker et al. 1976, Braun and Beck 1976,

Gabrielson and Jewett 1970, Klebenow 1969,

Schroeder and Sturges 1975). Treatment may

not only reduce local populations of sage

grouse (Klebenow 1970, Rogers 1964) but also

may detrimentally affect food supplies of

pronghorns and mule deer on the immediate

winter range (Cole 1956, Mart&a 1967, Smith

1959). Further, spraying rights-of-way for

shrub control may locally reduce or eliminate

forbs and arthropods that are important

sources of food for some species of wildlife,

such as leopard lizards (Crotaphytus wislireni),

blue racers, sage grouse, loggerhead shrikes

(Lank ludouicianus), northern grasshopper

mice (Onychomys leucogaster), and sage voles

(Martin 1970, Maser et al. 1974, Parker and

Pianka 1976, Peterson 1970, Tanner and

Krogh 1974). This, in turn, affects the food

supply of predators, such as gopher snakes and

burrowing owls (A thene cunicuiaria) (Marti

1974, Maser et al. 1971, Zarn 1974).

Maintenance of rights-of-way for

powerlines, however, usually involves only a

minor portion of the general area. While impacts on wildlife may be pronounced on the

areas treated, the overall effect may be quite

small.

The reduction of the vegetation from

shrubs, trees, or both to a grass-forb condition

will benefit species that are adapted to such

conditions, for example, the horned lark

(Eremophila alpestris). Rights-of-way will also

provide pronounced edges between woody

vegetation and largely herbaceous vegetation.

Edges, in turn, are indicative of some measure

of diversity in a rather homogeneous habitat.

Herbicides accomplish control of unwanted

vegetation without the soil disturbance

associated with mechanical methods of control. Further, because the dead plant material

is usually left in place to decay, the impact on

habitat structure is delayed and less severe.

The use of herbicides has been the subject

of recent controversy concerning potential

direct and indirect hazards to wildlife. Specific

hazards involving the use of chemicals range

from negligible (Bollen et al. 1970 and 1977.

Montgomery and Norris 1970) to acute poisoning (Norris 1974).

Although mechanical manipulation of

vegetation or the use of prescribed burning

have immediate, dramatic impacts on habitat

structure and may be used to accomplish the

same goals as herbicide treatments, they avoid

the controversy over herbicides.

Croplands

The purpose of this treatment is simply to

note that croplands occur in the midst of

managed rangelands (fig. 38). They are so different in ecological makeup that they require a

totally different management viewpoint.

Figure 38.-Croplands occurring amidst

managed rangelands are so different in

ecological make-up that they require a

totally different management viewpoint.

(Bureau of Land Management photograph

by Robert R. Kindschy)

De Loach (1971:225) said: IL. . .the objective

of agriculture is to encourage the growth of a

foreign organism, a crop, at a high density and

to suppress. . .organisms that might compete

with it. . . .” Kennedy (1968) suggested that

agriculture and conservation are no longer

compatible concepts and should be considered

separately.

“When man dug holes here and

there and planted a few seeds for his

food, ample diversity of species remained, but this resulted in small crop

yields both because of competition from

other plants (weeds) and because insects, birds, and mammals all took their

share of the crop” (Pimentel 1971:212).

18
In modern agricultural practice in North

.4merica, however, large fields are often

planted with a single-species. This specialization has resulted from the economic needs and

technology of a mechanized society and has

created a greatly simplified environment

(Pimentel 1971). Such monocultures are

basically unstable and lack the checks and

balances of a natural, diverse ecosystem. Agricultural crops, therefore, require constant

human care (such as cultivation) and control

(with insecticides, rodenticides, herbicides, or

all three) if a crop is to produce as desired.

Plant and animal communities that surround croplands exert a constant, often negative, influence on production. When native

plants and animals use agricultural crops as

habitat, they are normally termed pests; however, “Pests exist only in man’s own view of

nature and their existence results. . .from

his. . .resource management practices”

(Pimentel1971:211).

Small, diversified family farms were excellent habitat for wildlife. They provided

increased structural diversity, and therefore,

increased habitat diversity through a good mix

of food, cover, and water within surrounding,

rather homogeneous rangelands. The many

small, irregular fields with a variety of crops

created an abundance of structurally diverse

edges; and tillage offered a variety of soil textures for burrowing animals. Uncultivated

fence-rows and ditch banks provided strips

that not only acted as primary habitat for

some species but also provided travel lanes

between fields for other species. These situations were ideal for species, such as gopher

snakes, California quail, ring-necked pheasant

(Phasianus colchicus), voles, rabbits, weasels,

skunks, and foxes (Vulpes spp.).

Replacement of small farms by large farms

dependent on mechanization and specialized

crop monocultures caused a drastic decline in

wildlife habitats within and adjacent to croplands. And. because of the decreased crop

stability-increased crop vulnerability-resulting from the greatly simplified “agricultural

ecosystem, ” man is more and more inclined to

view native wildlife as actual or potential

“pests” to his crops.

The erratic economics of agriculture is considered to be the primary impetus behind increasing crop specialization in North America.

In addition, governmental influence on modern

agriculture, which has attempted to maintain

low-cost food production, has largely made the

small, diversified farm uneconomical. Consequently, most have disappeared. In turn, for

modern agriculture to survive economically,

modifications in farming strategies have been

necessary, and the following changes in land

use have resulted:

1. Increased specialization of farms (growing fewer crops in larger fields) caused

amalgamation of small, individual fields.

2 . Increased size of individual farms due to

large, specialized corporate farms replacing

small, diversified family farms.

3. Increased use of modern machinery that

is more easily and more economically operated

in large fields.

4. Increased clearing of fence rows to gain

more land for agriculture (Shrubb 1970, Van

Deusen 1978)-2.6 kilometers (1 mile) of fence

row may occupy .2 hectare (.5 acre) (Moore et

al. 1967).

5. Increased use of large, sprinkler irrigation systems that eliminate uncultivated irrigation ditches and their banks.

6. Replacement of uncultivated earthen

irrigation ditch banks with concrete.

7. Federal aid to farmers through the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service for various types of land “reclamation.”

Although these factors reduce habitat for

many species of wildlife within agricultural

lands (Allen et al. 19731. they also create

habitat for a few species, such as the exotic

ring-necked pheasant. For example, with specialization, came larger individual fields and,

therefore, extensive monocultures. The small,

diversified family farms have been replaced by

large, specialized corporate farms with modern

machinery that can only be utilized efficiently

and economically in large, single-product

fields.

19
From the foregoing discussion, it should be

recognized that where agricultural crops occur

in managed rangelands, they may be primarily

considered as being in conflict with most wildlife species. In some cases, these conflicts may

be severe, such as heavy grazing by deer on

hay crops or by rodent damage to grain crops.

But agricultural lands do provide habitats for

some game species that are particularly

adapted to agricultural conditions-such as

the exotic pheasant. In addition, some native

species, such as quail and cottontail rabbits,

may take advantage of edges created between

cropland and rangeland.

Management Tips

ABANDONED HOMESTEADS

When considering historical and wildlife

values, it is desirable to retain abandoned

homesteads, regardless of their age. Not only

do they add character and historical interest to

the landscape but they also add wildlife

habitat diversity. Although it may be uneconomical to maintain homesteads in a constant

state of repair, it costs nothing to allow these

habitats to remain-disintegrating slowly and

naturally (fig. 39).

Allowing homesteads to disintegrate

naturally is in keeping with the USDI Bureau

of Land Management Manual 1602-Basic

Guidance (1978 : 42C-42C3d I , under “Environmental Protection and Enhancement,”

which states that:

c. In all land use and program decisions, protection of natural and manmade elements in the environment

which have esthetic values of natural

beauty, harmony, variety or uniqueness

will be fully considered.

d. In all land use and program decisions, protection of natural and manmade elements in the environment

which contribute to the cultural heritage of human society, or to human

understanding of ecological processes,

will be fully considered.

Figure 39.-Although it may be uneconomical to maintain homesteads in a constant state of repair, it costs nothing to

allow these habitats to remain - disintegrating slowly and naturally. Once a homestead site has been established and the

introduced vegetation, such as trees and

shrubs, has become part of the landscape,

the site can be planned for and managed

as wildlife habitat. (Bureau of Land Man

agement photograph)

e. If there is no cost involved, ecological, esthetic or human interest

values will be protected or enhanced

through careful design and execution of

Bureau programs. If preservation or enhancement of these values would result

in loss of other resource values or increase in program costs, the long range

cost is compared to the long range

results. Great weight is given to preservation of a wholesome continually

productive environment for future

generations.

If maintenance of a wooden homestead is a

management objective, however, it would be a

good idea to refer to the overview article by

Rowe11 et al. (1977) on the preservation of log

cabins.

Once a homestead site has been established

and the introduced vegetation, such as trees

and shrubs, has become part of the landscape,

the site can be planned for and managed as

wildlife habitat. Moreover, use as wildlife

habitat can easily be perpetuated by scheduling the replanting of trees and shrubs to assure

maintenance of the habitat over time.
If livestock are to be grazed in the vicinity

of an abandoned homestead, it may be advisable to fence the livestock out of the

homestead site. Such action not only will

greatly prolong the site’s value but also will encourage and protect the development of relatively dense vegetation, enhancing the value of

the site as wildlife habitat.

It may be wise not to show the locations of

abandoned homesteads on tourist and recreational maps, thereby eliminating much potential disturbance and vandalism.

Finally, if a management plan includes the

alteration of an abandoned homestead, the site

should be examined by both a wildlife biologist

and a cultural resource specialist (USDI

Bureau of Land Management Manual 62311.

The value of these abandoned homesteads as

wildlife habitat should be added to their

historical value as reasons to continue their

existence.

ROADS

Banks, soil ridges, and talus-like formations created by road construction form significant wildlife habitats in areas where the

habitats that they mimic are naturally lacking.

When and where these manmade habitats harbor uncommon wildlife or wildlife of special

interest, they can be identified and managed as

habitats with planned perpetuation and enhancement. It may also be desirable, under

some circumstances, to purposefully create

and maintain one or more such habitats in

specific locations for specific species of

wildlife.

BRIDGES

When possible, bridges should be constructed of concrete, masonry, or rock rather

than wood; such bridges have the greatest

potential as wildlife habitat. For example, the

surface of the pillars and beams can be

roughened so swallows will have an easier time

attaching their nests and bats may gain a better purchase when roosting. Beams can have

built-in ledges or bolted on planks to form

nesting platforms for birds. Nesting boxes can

be installed under bridges to further increase

bird use. Bridges can also be designed with

deep “crevices” so that bats can raise their

young (fig. 40).

Figure 40.-Concrete bridges can be designed to enhance their potential as wildlife

habitat: (1) expanded beams for nest construction, (2) manmade crevice in which bats

can roost and rear young, (3) roughened concrete to aid nest construction by some

species of birds, (4) wooden plank to create a platform on which birds can nest, and

(5) bird boxes to enhance use by a variety of birds.

2 1
If a bridge with well-established wildlife

use is to be replaced, it may be desirable to construct the new bridge alongside of the old one,

retaining the old bridge as wildlife habitat (see

fig. 23). The new bridge can be constructed

with the above mentioned modifications to increase potential wildlife use. Thus, unusual

wildlife habitats can be increased and maintained over time.

ROCK WALLS, ROCK JACKS, ROCK CRIBS,

AND SHEEPHERDER MONUMENTS

If rock walls, rock jacks, rock cribs, and

sheepherder monuments are to be constructed,

wildlife values can be enhanced by using large

rocks, 30 to 60 cm (12 to 24 in) in diameter.

Wooden posts used in the construction of rock

jacks and wooden rock cribs are used as

perches by birds-particularly raptors (Marion

and Ryder 1975). Rock walls and wire rock

cribs, on the other hand, do not usually have

wooden posts as part of their structure; but

long wooden posts can be wired to a rock crib

or placed inside of a crib and held in place with

the rocks (fig. 41). Wooden posts can also be

wired to steel posts or interspersed with steel

posts along a fence, but they should be taller

Figure 41 .-Long wooden posts, but shorter

than these old telephone poles, can be

placed inside wire rock cribs and held in

place with the rocks. Such posts can be

used as perches by birds-particularly

raptors- which will add to a rock crib’s

value as wildlife habitat. (Chris Maser

photograph)

than the steel posts. Further, a wooden

crosspiece secured to the top of a wooden post

may enhance raptor use (fig. 42).

Wildlife use can be augmented by interspersing rock jacks on a fence stabilized

primarily by rock cribs and vice versa and by

the strategic placement of wooden perching

posts. Bird boxes attached to fences can provide additional nesting and roosting places for

birds and shelter for small mammals. The tops

of these boxes may represent roosting sites for

common nighthawks (Chordeiles minor) and

sunning places for lizards (fig. 43). These structures add cover and form dispersal routes for

some species of wildlife.

If a fence is to be removed, therefore,

established wildlife-habitat values can be retained over long periods by leaving the rock

structures intact.

WOODEN CORRALS AND FENCES WITH

WOODEN POSTS

Abandoned wooden corrals, if left intact,

will be used by wildlife for years as perches and

for shade.

If a fence with wooden posts is to be replaced by an all-steel fence, then some of the

wooden posts can be incorporated into the new

fence. If a fence is to be removed and not

replaced, however, then some of the wooden

posts could be left intact. In this way they will

continue to provide perches for raptors and

other birds and shade for small grounddwelling animals.

POWERLINES

Particular attention should be given to

planning powerline routes that will minimize

impacts on critical habitats, especially riparian

zones.

Closure and non-maintenance of all possible roads associated with powerlines may

contribute to the welfare of wildlife, but this

will reduce human-wiidlife contacts. On the

other hand, if roads must be open or maintained, then closure to other than official use

would be of some value to wildlife.

22
Figure 42.-Wooden posts can be interspaced along all-steel fences to enhance the

habitat for perching birds. In addition, if the wooden posts are taller than the steel posts

and have a wooden cross-piece secured to their tops, they may enhance use of the surrounding habitat by raptors.

Figure 43.-Bird boxes attached to fences

can provide additional nesting and

roosting places for birds and shelter for

small mammals. The tops of these boxes

may represent roosting sites for common

nighthawks (Chordeiles minor) and sun

ning places for lizards.

If a right-of-way goes through an extensive

area of similar habitat, such as a juniper

woodland, it may be advantageous to wildlife if

the right-of-way is made wide enough and of

such a configuration so as to maximize wildlife

diversity and to maintain self-sustaining populations of wildlife within its boundaries (see fig.

37). Conversely, a right-of-way that cannot be

diverted around but must go through scarce

habitat-habitat that occupies a small percent

of the surrounding landscape-should be kept

as narrow as possible.

When trees, such as juniper (Juniperus

spp.), are killed, cut down or chained, leaving

some dead, down woody debris will enhance

habitat diversity and, therefore, wildlife

species diversity (Maser and Gashwiler 1978).

Although all powerlines, poles, and towers

should be made safe for birds, when a raptor

nests within a tower in a way that a hazard is

created, the nest should be moved, intact, to a

new locality within the tower if possible and

should be securely fastened. This action will

remove the hazard and will allow the birds to

successfully rear their young (Wayne Elmore,

personal communication 19781. In addition,

construction of nesting platforms on powerline

towers has the potential of increasing raptor

nesting habitat and reproductive success.

With careful planning and land-use management, powerline rights-of-way have the

potential for creating wildlife habitats in

23
specific localities. They may be used not only

to increase habitat diversity but also to increase the populations of particular species of

wildlife.

CROPLANDS

Proposed cropland development within

managed rangeland should be evaluated for

potential wildlife conflicts prior to its installation. The initial plan should provide a full

analysis of those conflicts and how they are to

be resolved. Most cropland developments within rangelands will be detrimental to native

species because of the extreme alteration in

their habitats (fig. 44). And species that will

use such habitats are apt to become “pests.”

Agricultural activities may provide a niche

for exotic species, such as ring-necked

pheasants. Their welfare can be enhanced by

intentionally creating brush rows between

fields, natural areas along irrigation ditches,

etc.

Summary

Manmade structures, such as homesteads,

bridges, and rock walls, blend into the rangelands of the Great Basin with the passage of

time. They create habitat diversity in large expanses of otherwise relatively homogeneous

landscapes, thereby increasing the diversity of

wildlife (fig. 45). And they may be esthetically

pleasing.

Manmade structures, when obviously

“old” or of a past era, come to be considered as

part of our national heritage and by law may be

preserved for the reflective consideration and

enjoyment of the public. These structures,

when considered as habitat, also become part

of our natural heritage in that they bring man

closer to wildlife.

The importance of manmade structures as

habitats for wildlife is just being perceived in

land management. And it is possible, with

careful planning, to manage such structures

simultaneously for the enhancement and perpetuation of their cultural and their wildlife

values. In turn, this will provide greater enjoyment for the land owners-the public.

Figure 44.-Most cropland developments

within rangelands will be detrimental to

native species of wildlife because of the

extreme alteration in their habitats. As a

result, those wildlife species that will use

cropland habitats are apt to become

“pests.” (Bureau of Land Management

photograph by M. Hurd)

Figure 45.-Manmade structures, such as

homesteads, blend into the rangelands of

the Great Basin with the passage of time.

In so doing, they create habitat diversity in

large expanses of otherwise relatively ,.

homogeneous landscapes, thereby increasing the diversity of wildlife. Note: The

grassy area immediately above the house -

is a spring - the homestead’s water

supply. (Chris Maser photograph)

2 4
Literature Cited

Albrecht, Jean, and Diane Smith.

1977. Environmental effects of off-road

vehicles: A selected bibliography of publications in the University of Minnesota

Forestry Library. 9 p. Univ. Minn., St.

Paul.

Allen, Durward L. (Chairman), Daniel A.

Poole, Enrique Beltran, and others.

1973. Report of the committee on North

American wildlife policy. Wildl. Sot.

Bull. 1(2):73-92.

Anderson, Stanley H., Kathleen Mann, and

Herman H. Shugart, Jr.

1977. The effect of transmission-line corridors on bird populations. Am. Midl.

Nat. 97(1):216-221.

Anderson, William L.

1978. Waterfowl collisions with powerlines

at a coal-fired power plant. Wildl. Sot.

Bull. 6(2):77-83.

Anderson, W. L., S. S. Hunley, and J. W.

Seets.

1975. Waterfowl studies at Lake LangChris. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv., Urbana. 15 p.

Bailey, Vernon.

1936. The mammals and life zones of

Oregon. North Am. Fauna 55.416 p.

Baker, Maurice F. (Chairman), Robert L. Eng,

Jay S. Gashwiler, and others.

1976. Conservation committee report on

effects of alteration of sagebrush communities on the associated avifauna.

Wilson Bull. 88(1):165-171.

Bankoske, J. W., H. B. Graves, and G. W.

McKee.

1976. The effects of high voltage electric

fields on the growth and development of

plants and animals. Irz Proceedings of

the First National Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-way

Management, p. 112-123. R. Tillman, ed.

Miss. State Univ.

Barbour, Roger W., and Wayne H. Davis.

1969. Bats of America. 286 p. Univ. Press

of Kentucky, Lexington.

Barney, Milo C., and Neil C. Frishknecht.

1974. Vegetation changes following fire in

the pinyon-juniper type of west-central

Utah. J. Range Manage. 27(2):91-96.

Boeker, Erwin L.

1974. Status of golden eagle surveys in the

western states. Wildl. Sot. Bull.

2(2):46-49.

Boeker, Erwin L., and Paul R. Nicker-son.

1975. Raptor electrocutions. Wildl. Sot.

Bull. 3(2):79-81.

Bollen, W. B., K. C. Lu, and R. F. Tarrant.

1970. Effect of Zectran on microbial activity in a forest soil. USDA For. Serv. Res.

Note PNW-124, 11 p. Pac. Northwest

For. & Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Bollen, W. B., L. A. Norris, and K. L. Stowers.

1977. Effect of cacodylic acid and MSMA

on nitrogen transformations in forest

floor and soil. J. Environ. Qual. 6( 1): 1-3.

Braun, Claite, and Thomas D. I. Beck.

1976. Effects of sagebrush control on

distribution and abundance of sage

grouse. Colo. Div. Wild., Fed. Aid Wildl.

Restoration Proj. W-37-R, Work Plan 3,

Job 8a. Final Rep. p. 21-84.

Burt, William Henry, and Richard Philip

Grossenheider.

1964. A field guide to the mammals. 248 p.

Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

Case, Ronald M.

1978. Interstate highway road-killed

animals: a data source for biologists.

Wildl. Sot. Bull. 6( 1):8-13.

Clary, Warren P.

1974. Response of herbaceous vegetation

to felling of Aligator juniper. J. Range

Manage. 27(5):387-389.

Cole, Glen F.

1956. The pronghorn antelope: Its range

use and food habits in central Montana.

Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 516, 63 p.

Mont. State Coil., Bozeman.

Constantine, Denny G.

1959. Ecological observations on Lasiurine

bats in the North Bay area in California.

J. Mammal. 40(1):13-15.

Constantine, Denny G.

1966. Ecological observations on Lasiurine

bats in Iowa. J. Mammal. 47(1):34-41.

Davey, Stuart P.

1974. Off-road vehicles: On and off the

public lands. North Am. Wildl. Nat.

Resour. Conf. Trans. 39:367-375.

2 5
De Loach, C. J.

1071. The effect of habitat diversity on

predation. Proceedings Tall Timbers

Conference on Ecological Animal Control by Habitat Management. 2:223-241.

Douglas, C. L., and R. B. Johnson.

1972. Highways and their impact on the

wildlife of the pinyon-juniper-oak

woodland and grassland in north-central

Arizona. Ecol. Stud. Proj. N-900-255,

AFE 27901, Prescott Coll. Ecol. Surv.

109 p.

Ellis, D. II., D. G. Smith, and J. R. Murphy.

1969. Studies on raptor mortality in

western Utah. Great Basin Nat.

29(3):165-167.

Erdman, James A.

1970. Pinyon-juniper succession after fires

on residual soils of Mesa Verde, Colorado. Brigham Young Univ., Sci. Bull.

Biol. Ser. 11(2):1-24.

Evans, Keith E., and Roger R. Kerbs.

1977. Avian use of livestock watering

ponds in western South Dakota. USDA

For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-35, 11 p.

Rocky Mt. For. & Range Exp. Stn., Fort

Collins, Colo.

Federal Register.

1976. Endangered and threatened wildlife

and plants. Fed. Regist. 41(208):47180-

47198. Wednesday, Oct. 27.

Fitzner, Richard E.

1975. Owl mortality on fences and utility

lines. Raptor Res. 9(3/4):55-57.

Gabrielson, 1x-a N., and Stanley G. Jewett.

1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. 650

p. Dover Publ., Inc., New York.

Getz, Lowell L., Frederick R. Cole, and David

L. Gates.

1978. Interstate roadsides as dispersal

routes for Microtus pennsyluanicus. J.

Mammal. 59( 1):208-212.

Gilmer, David S., and John M. Wiehe.

1977. Nesting by ferruginous hawks and

other raptors on high voltage powerline

towers. The Prairie Nat. Q( l):l-10.

Goodwin, John G., Jr.

1975. Big game movement near a 500-kv

transmission line in northern Idaho.

Western Interstate Commission for

Higher Education and the Bonneville

Power Administration, Portland, Oreg.

56 p.

Greenhall, Arthur M., and John L. Paradiso.

1968. Bats and bat banding. Bur. Sport

Fish. and Wildl. Resour. Publ. 72.48 p.

Greenwell, Guy A.

1952. Farm ponds-their utilization by

wildlife. Farm Pond Study, Surveys and

Investigation Projects, Missouri 13-R-1,

1947, 23 p. Pittman-Robertson Program, Conserv. Comm. State of

Missouri.

Harrison, J.

1963. Heavy mortality of mute swans from

electrocution. Ann. Rep., The Waterfowl

Trust, 1961-1962, 14:164.

Jameson, Donald A.

1970. Jumper root competition reduces

basal area of blue grama. J. Range

Manage. 23(3):217-218.

Kemper, C. A.

1964. A tower for TV: 30,000 dead birds.

Audubon 66(2):86-90.

Kennedy, J. S.

1968. The motivation of integrated control.

J. Appl. Ecol. 5(2): 492-499.

Kitchings, J. T., H. H. Shugart, and J. D.

Story.

1974. Environmental impacts associated

with electric transmission lines. Environ. Sci. Div., U.S. Atomic Energy

Comm., Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., Oak

Ridge, Tenn. 96 p.

Klebenow, Donald A.

1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood

habitat in Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage.

33(3):649-662.

Klebenow, Donald A.

1970. Sage grouse versus sagebrush control in Idaho. J. Range Manage.

23(6):396-400.

Klein, David R.

1971. Reaction of reindeer to obstructions -’

and disturbances. Science 173(3995):

393-398.

Krapu, Gary L.

1974. Avian mortality from collisions with

overhead wires in North Dakota. Prairie

Nat. 6(1):1-6.

Krutzsch, Philip H.

1946. Some observations on the big brown

26
bat in San Diego County, California. J.

Mammal. 27(3):240-242.

Leedy, D. L.

1975. Highway-wildlife relationships, vol.

1, a state-of-the-art report. Fed. Highw.

Adm. Off. Res. & Dev. Rep. No. FHWARD-76-4,183 p. Washington, D.C.

Leedy, D. L., T. M. Franklin, and E. C.

Hekimian.

1975. Highway-wildlife relationships, vol.

2, an annotated bibliography. Fed.

Highw. Adm. Off. Res. & Dev. Rep. No.

FHWA-RD-76-5, 417 p. Washington,

D.C.

Ludwig, John A., Walter G. Whitford, Alan B.

Rodney, and Robert E. Grieve.

1977. An evaluation of transmission line

construction on pinyon-juniper

woodland and grassland communities in

New Mexico. J. Environ. Manage. 5(2):

127-137.

Lustig, Loren W.

1976. Living fences. . .an alternative. MD.

Conserv. 51(5):4-7.

Marion, Wayne R., and Ronald A. Ryder.

1975. Perch-site preferences of four diurnal

raptors in northeastern Colorado. Condor 77(3):350-352.

Marti, Carl D.

1974. Feeding ecology of four sympatric

owls. Condor 76(1):45-61.

Martin, Neil S.

1970. Sagebrush control related to habitat

and sage grouse occurrence. J. Wildl.

Manage. 34(2):313-320.

Martinka, C. J.

1967. Mortality of northern Montana

pronghorns in a severe winter. J. Wildl.

Manage. 31(1):159-164.

Maser, Chris, E. Wayne Hammer, and Stanley

H. Anderson.

1971. Food habits of the burrowing owl in

central Oregon. Northwest Sci. 45(l):

19-26.

Maser, Chris, E. Wayne Hammer, Cheri

Brown, Robert E. Lewis, Robert L. Rausch,

and Murray L. Johnson.

1974. The sage vole, Lagurus curtatus

(Cope 1868), in the Crooked River

National Grassland, Jefferson County,

Oregon. A contribution to its life history

and ecology. Saugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 22(3):193-222.

Maser, Chris, and Jay S. Gashwiler.

1978. Interrelationships of wildlife and

western juniper. In Proceedings of the

Western Jumper Ecology and Management workshop, p. 37-82. Robert E.

Martin, J. Edward Dealy, and David L.

Caraher, eds. USDA For. Serv., Pac.

Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn.,

Portland, Oreg.

Miller, D., E. L. Boeker, R. S. Thorsell, and R.

R. Olendorff.

1975. Suggested practices for raptor protection on powerlines. Edison Electric

Inst. 19 p.

Miller, Morton W., and Gary E. Kaufman.

1978. High voltage overhead. Environment 20( 1):6-15,32-36.

Montgomery, Marvin L., and Logan A. Norris.

1970. A preliminary evaluation of the

hazards of 2,4,5-T in the forest environment. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note

PNW-116, 11 p. Pac. Northwest For. &

Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Moore, N. W., M. D. Hooper, and B. N. K.

Davis.

1967. Hedges. I. Introduction and reconnaissance studies. J. Appl. Ecol. 4(l):

201-220.

Nelson, Morlan W., and Patricia Nelson.

1977. Power-lines and birds of prey. In

World Conference on Birds of Prey Proceedings, p. 228-242. R. D. Chancellor,

ed Inter. Council for Bird Preservation.

Norris, Logan A.

1974. The behavior and impact of organic

arsenical herbicides in the forest: Final

report on cooperative studies. Typescript Rep. on file at USDA For. Serv.,

Pac. Northwest For. & Range Exp. Stn.,

Corvallis, Oreg. 98 p.

Olendorff, Richard R.

1972. Eagles, sheep, and power-lines. Colo.

Outdoors 21(1):3-11.

Olendorff, Richard R., and John W. Stoddart,

Jr.

1974. The potential for management of

raptor populations in western grasslands. In Raptor Research Report

2:44-88. F. N. Hamerstrom, Jr., B. E.

27
Harrel, and R. R. Olendorff, eds.

Orr, Robert T.

1954. Natural history of the pallid bat,

Antrozous pallidus (LeConte). Proc.

Calif. Acad. Sci. 28(4):165-246.

Oxley, D. J., M. B. Fenton, and G. R. Carmody.

1974. The effects of roads on populations

of small mammals. J. Appl. Ecol. 11:

51-59.

Parker, Richard C.

1973. Prairies and people: A current look

at prairie falcon management and status

in Washington. Wash. Wildl. ‘25(3):

18-23.

Parker, William S., and Eric R. Pianka.

1976. Ecological observations on the

leopard lizard (Crotaphytus wislizeni) in

different parts of its range. Herpetologica 32(1):95-114.

Peterson, J. G.

1970. The food habits and summer distribution of juvenile sage grouse in central

Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 34(l):

147-155.

Peterson, Roger Tory.

1961. A field guide to western birds. 366 p.

Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

Pimentel, David.

1971. Population control in crop systems:

Monocultures and plant spatial patterns. Proceedings Tall Timbers Conference on Ecological Animal Control by

Habitat Management 2:209-220.

Porter, Richard D., Clayton M. White, and

Robert J. Erwin.

1973. The peregrine falcon in Utah, emphasizing ecology and competition with

the prairie falcon. Brigham Young

Univ., Sci. Bull. Biol. Ser. 18(l). 74 p.

Potter, Loren D., and John C. Krenetsky.

1967. Plant succession with released grazing on New Mexico rangelands. J.

Range Manage. 20(3):145-151.

Rogers, Glen E.

1964. Sage grouse investigations in Colorado. Colo. Game, Fish, Parks Dep.

Tech. Publ. 16. 132 p.

Rowell, R. M., J. M. Black, L. R. Gjovik, and

W. C. Feist.

1977. Protecting log cabins from decay.

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

FPL-11, 11 p. For. Products Lab.

Madison, Wis.

Schnell, Gary D.

1968. Differential habitat utilization by

wintering rough-legged and red-tailed

hawks. Condor 70(4):373-377.

Schreiber, R. Kent, and James H. Graves.

1977. Powerline corridors as possible barriers to the movements of small mammals. Am. Midl. Nat. 97(2):504-508.

Schroeder, Max H., and David L. Sturges.

1975. The effect on the Brewer’s sparrow

of spraying big sagebrush. J. Range

Manage. 28(4):294-297.

Scott, R. E., L. J. Roberts, and C. J. Cadbury.

1972. Bird deaths from powerlines at

Dungeness. Brit. Birds 65(7):273-285.

Seibert, Donald J., Robert J. Oakleaf, J.

Michael Laughlin, and Jerry L. Page.

1976. Nesting ecology of golden eagles in

Elko County, Nevada. U.S. Dep. Inter.

Bur. Land Manage., Tech. Note T-N

281, 17 p. Denver, Colo.

Shrubb, M.

1970. Birds and farming today. Bird Study

17(2):123-144.

Sinclair, Norman R., Lowell L. Getz, and

Frederick S. Bock.

1967. Influence of stone walls on the local

distribution of small mammals. Univ.

Conn. Occas. Pap. Biol. Sci. Series l(2):

43-62.

Smith, Arthur D.

1959. Adequacy of some important browse

species in overwintering of mule deer. J.

Range Manage. 12(1):8-13.

Smith, Dwight G., Charles R. Wilson, and

Herbert H. Frost.

1972. The biology of the American kestrel

in central Utah. Southwest. Nat. 17(l):

73-83.

Smith, Dwight G., and Joseph R. Murphy.

1972. Unusual causes of raptor mortality. ”

Raptor Res. 6(2):4-5.

Snow, Carol.

1972. American peregrine falcon, Falco

peregn’nus anatum, and Arctic per-egrine falcon, Falco peregrinus tundrius.

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

T-N-167, Habitat Manage. Ser. for Endangered Species Rep. No. 1, 35 p.

28
Denver, Colo. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Snow, Carol. Land Management.

1973. Golden eagle, Aquila chrysaetos.

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

T-N-239, Habitat Manage. Ser. for

Unique or Endangered Species, Rep. No.

7,52 p. Denver, Colo.

Snow, Carol.

1963. BLM Manual 6231 - Management

of Antiquities. Release 6-2, 6-3, 6-4,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management.

1974a. Ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis.

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

T-N-255, Habitat Manage. Ser. for

Unique or Endangered Species, Rep. No.

13, 23 p. Denver, Colo.

Snow, Carol.

1974b. Prairie falcon, Falco mexicanus.

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

T-N-240, Habitat Manage. Ser. for

Unique or Endangered Species, Rep. No.

8, 18 p. Denver, Colo.

Snyder, C. T., D. G. Frickel, R. F. Hadley, and

R. F. Miller.

1973. BLM Manual 1602 - Basic Guidance. Release l-832, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.

1966. Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

An act to establish a program for the

preservation of additional historic properties throughout the nation, and for

other purposes. Approved October 15,

1966. (Public Law 89-665; 80 STAT 915;

16 U.S.C. 470.) U.S. Gov. Print. Off.,

Washington, D.C.

1976. Effects of off-road vehicle use on the

hydrology and landscape of arid environments in central and southern California. 45 p. U.S. Geol. Surv., Denver,

Cola. Water-Resour. Investigations,

76-99.

Stebbins, Robert C.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.

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. Approved January 1, 1970.

(Public Law 91-190; 91 STAT 852; 42

U.S.C. 4321-4327.) U.S. Gov. Print. Off.,

Washington, D.C.

1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western

North America. 528 p. McGraw-Hill

Book Co., Inc., New York.

Stebbins, Robert C.

Van Deusen, James L.

1978. Shelterbelts on the Great Plains:

what’s happening? J. For. 76(3):160-161.

Woffinden, Neil D.

1966. A field guide to western reptiles and

amphibians. 279 p. Houghton Mifflin

Co., Boston.

Storer, Tracy I.

1931. A colony of Pacific pallid bats. J.

Mammal. 12( 1):244-247.

Stout, Jack I., and George W. Cornwell.

1976. Non-hunting mortality of fledged

North American waterfowl. J. Wildl.

Manage. 40(4):681-693.

Tanner, Wilmer W., and John E. Krogh.

1974. Ecology of the leopard lizard,

Crotaphytus wislizeni, at the Nevada

test site, Nye County, Nevada. Herpetologica 30(1):63-72.

1975. Ecology of the ferruginous hawk

(Buteo regalis) in central Utah: Population dynamics and nest site selection.

Ph.D. thesis. Brigham Young Univ.,

Provo, Utah. 102 p.

Young, L. B.

1973. Power over people. 216 p. Oxford

Univ. Press, New York.

Zarn, Mark.

1974. Burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia

hypugaea. U.S. Dept. Inter. Bur. Land

Manage., T-N-250, Habitat Manage.

Ser. for Unique or Endangered Species,

Rep. No. 11,25 p. Denver, Colo.

29

Appendix 1

Generalized response of terrestrial species of vertebrate wildlife to manmade habitats.

Legend: 0 = generally neutral response

- = generally negative response

+ = generally positive response

.

Common name

Amphibians

long-toed salamander

Great Basin spadefoot

western toad

Woodhouse toad

Pacific tree frog

spotted frog

leopard frog

bullfrog

Reptiles

collard lizard

leopard lizard

western fence lizard

sagebrush lizard

side-blotched lizard

desert horned lizard

short-horned lizard

western skink

western whiptail

rubber boa

yellow-bellied racer

striped whipsnake

gopher snake

common garter snake

wandering garter snake

western ground snake

night snake

western rattlesnake

Birds

common loon

red-necked grebe

\

1

horned grebe

Scientific name

Ambystoma macrodactylum

Scaphiopus intermontanus

Bufo boreas

Bufo woodhousei

Hyla regilla

Rana pretiosa

Rana pipiens

Rana catesbeiana

Crotaphytus collaris

Crotaphytus wislizeni

Sceloporus occidentalis

Sceloporus graciosus

Uta stansburiana

Phrynosoma platyrhinos

Phrynosoma douglassi

Eumeces skiltonianus

Cnemidophorus tigris

Charina bo ttae

Coluber constrictor

Masticophis taeniatus

Pituophis melanoleucus

Thamnophis sirtalis

Thamnophis elegans

Sonora semiannulata

Hypsiglena torquata

Cro talus viridis

Gavia immer

Podiceps grisegena

Podiceps auritus

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

0

0

-

0

0

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

0 +

- +

0 +

0 +

- +

0 0

0 0

0 0

- -

- -

- +

0 0

- +

- 0

- 0

- +

- +

- +

- +

- +

- +

- +

- +

- +

- +

- +

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

-

0

0

0

0

+

+

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

+

+

0

0

0

0 -

- -

- -

- -

- -

0 0

0 -

0 0

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

0 -

0 -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

0 0

0 0

0 0

3 1
Appendix 1 (continued)

Common name

eared grebe

western grebe

pied-billed grebe

white pelican

double-crested cormorant

great blue heron

green heron

cattle egret

common egret

black-crowned night heron

American bittern

least bittern

white-faced ibis

whistling swan

Canada goose

white-fronted goose

snow goose

Ross’ goose

mallard

gadwall

pintail

green-winged teal

blue-winged teal

cinnamon teal

American wigeon

northern shoveler

wood duck

redhead

ring-necked duck

canvasback

greater scaup

lesser scaup

common goldeneye

Barrow’s goldeneye

bufflehead

oldsquaw

King eider

ruddy duck

hooded merganser

Scientific name

Podiceps nigricollis

Aechmophorus occidentalis

Podilymbus podiceps

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Phalacrocorax au&us

Ardea herodias

Butorides virescens

Bubulcus ibis

Casmerodius albus

Nycticorax nycticorax

Botaurus lentiginosus

Ixobrychus exilis

Plegadis chihi

Olor columbianus

Branta canadensis

Anser albifrons

Chen caerulescens

Chen rossii

Anas platyrhynchos

Anas strepera

Anas acuta

A nas crecca

Anas discors

Anas cyanop tera

Anas americana

Anus clypeata

Aix sponsa

A ythya americana

Aythya collaris

A y thya valisineria

A ythya marila

Aythya affinis

Bucephala clang&

Bucephala islandica

Bucephala albeola

Clang&a hyemalis

Somateria spectabilis

Oxyura jamaicensis

Lophodytes cucullatus

32

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

0

-

0

-

-

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

-

-

0

0

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
Appendix 1 (continued)

Wildlife species

Common name

common merganser

red-breasted merganser

turkey vulture

goshawk

sharp-shinned hawk

Cooper’s hawk

red-tailed hawk

Swainson’s hawk

rough-legged hawk

ferruginous hawk

golden eagle

bald eagle

i

marsh hawk

osprey

prairie falcon

peregrine

merlin

American kestrel

blue grouse

ruffed grouse

sage grouse

California quail

mountain quail

chukar

gray partridge

ring-necked pheasant

sandhill crane

Virginia rail

sora

American coot

snowy plover

killdeer

mountain plover

common snipe

long-billed curlew

semi-palmated plover

spotted sandpiper

solitary sandpiper

greater yellowlegs

Scientific name

Mergus merganser

Mergus serrator

Cathartes aura

Accipiter gen tilis

Accipiter striatus

Accipiter cooperii

Buteo jamaicensis

Buteo swainsoni

Bu teo lagopus

Bu teo regalis

Aquila chrysaetos

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Circus cyaneus

Pandion haliaetus

Falco mexicanus

Falco peregrinus

Falco columbarius

Falco sparverius

Dendragapus obscurus

Bonasa umbellus

Centrocercus urophasianus

Lophortyx californicus

Oreortyx pictus

Alectoris chukar

Perdix perdix

Phasianus colchicus

Grus canadensis

Rallus limicola

Porzana Carolina

Fulica americana

Charadrius alexandrinus

Charadrius vociferus

Charadrius montanus

Capella gallinago

Numenius americanus

Charadrius semipalmatus

Actitis macularia

Tringa solitaria

Tringa melanoleuca

33

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

0

0

+

0

0

0

+

+

+

-

+

+

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

0

0

0

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

0

+

+

+

+

+

0

0

+

0

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

0

0

0

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

0

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

-

-

-

-

0

0

0

-

-

0

-

-

-

0

0

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
Appendix 1 (continued)

Common name

lesser yellowlegs

willet

pectoral sandpiper

Baird’s sandpiper

least sandpiper

western sandpiper

long-billed dowitcher

marbled godwi t

American avocet

black-necked stilt

Wilson’s phalarope

northern phalarope

herring gull

California gull

ring-billed gull

Franklin’s gull

Bonaparte’s gull

Forster’s tern

Caspian tern

black tern

rock dove

mourning dove

yellow-billed cuckoo

barn own

screech owl

flammulated owl

great horned owl

PYgmY owl

burrowing owl

long-eared owl

short-eared owl

saw-whet owl

poorwill

common nighthawk

black swift

Vaux’s swift

whitethroated swift

black-chinned hummingbird

Anna’s hummingbird

Scientific name

Tringa flavipes

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Calidris melanotos

Calidris bairdii

Calidris minutilla

Calidris mauri

Limnodromus scolopaceus

Limosa fedoa

Recurvirostra americana

Himantopus mexicanus

Steganopus tricolor

Lobipes lobatus

Larus thayeri

Larus californicus

Larus delawarensis

Larus pipixcan

Larus Philadelphia

Sterna forsteri

Hydroprogne caspia

Chlidonias niger

Columba livia

Zenaida macroura

Coccyzus americanus

Tyto alba

Otus asio

Otus flammeolus

Bubo virginianus

Glaucidium gnoma

Athene cunicularia

Asio otus

Asio flammeus

Aegolius acadicus

Phalaenop tilus nuttallii

Chordeiles minor

Cypseloides niger

Chaetura vauxi

Aeronautes saxatalis

Archilochus alexandri

Calypte anna

3 4

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0

0

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

0

0

i -

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

0

+

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
Appendix 1 (continued)

Common name

broad-tailed hummingbird

rufous hummingbird

calliope hummingbird

belted kingfisher

common flicker

Lewis’ woodpecker

yellow-bellied sapsucker

Williamson’s sapsucker

hairy woodpecker

downy woodpecker

white-headed woodpecker

eastern kingbird

western kingbird

ash-throated flycatcher

Say’s phoebe

willow flycatcher

Hammond’s flycatcher

gray flycatcher

western flycatcher

western wood pewee

olive-sided flycatcher

horned lark

violet-green swallow

tree swallow

bank swallow

rough-winged swallow

barn swallow

cliff swallow

gray jay

Steller’s jay

scrub jay

black-billed magpie

common raven

common crow

pinyon jay

Clark’s nutcracker

black-capped chickadee

mountain chickadee

bushtit

Scientific name

Selasphorus platycercus

Selasphorus rufus

Stellula calliope

Megaceryle alcyon

Colaptes auratus

Asyndesmus lewis

Sphyrapicus varius

Sphyrapicus thyroideus

Dendrocopos villosus

Dendrocopos pubescens

Dendrocopos albolarvatus

Tyrannus tyrannus

Tyrannus verticalis

Myiarchus cinerascens

Sayornis saya

Empidonax traillii

Empidonax hammondii

Empidonax wrightii

Empio?onax difficilis

Contopus sordidulus

Nu ttallornis borealis

Eremphila alpes tris

Tachycineta thalassina

Iridoprocne bicolor

Riparia riparia

Stelgidop teryx ru ficollis

IIiruno!o rus tica

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Perisoreus canadensis

Cyanocitta stelleri

Aphelocoma coerulescens

Pica pica

Corvus corax

Corvus brachyrhynchos

Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus

Nucifraga columbiana

Parus atricapillus

Parus gambeli

Psaltriparus minimus

35

+0

+0

+0

+-

+-

+-

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+-

+0

+ + + 0 + 0

+ +

+0

+0

+0

0+

+0

+0

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+0

+0

+0

+ +

+ +

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

000000000000+++00+000+00000000+++++00000000--0000000++00+0000000000000++0+000000000000000000000000000000000000+00000000000000 * 000---0---------------- ,, ----0000
Appendix 1 (continued)

Common name

white-breasted nuthatch

red-breasted nuthatch

brown creeper

Qper

house wren

winter wren

long-billed marsh wren

canyon wren

rock wren

gray catbird

brown thrasher

sage thrasher

American robin

varied thrush

hermit thrush

Swainson’s thrush

veery

western bluebird

mountain bluebird

Townsend’s solitaire

blue-gray gnatcatcher

water pipit

bohemian waxwing

cedar waxwing

northern shrike

loggerhead shrike

starling

solitary vireo

red-eyed vireo

warbling vireo

orange-crowned warbler

yellow warbler

yellow-rumped warbler

black- throated gray warbler

Townsend’s warbler

ovenbird

MacGillivray’s warbler

common yellowthroat

yellow-breasted chat

Scientific name

Sitta carolinensis

Sit ta canadensis

Certhia familiar+

Cinclus mexicanus

Troglodytes aedon

Troglodytes troglodytes

Telmatody tes palus tris

Catherpes mexicanus

Salpinctes obsoletus

Dumetella carolinensis

Toxos toma ru fum

Oreoscoptes montanus

Turdus migratorius

Ixoreus naevius

Catharus guttatus

Catharus ustulatus

Catharus fuscescens

Sialia mexicana

Sialia currucoides

Myadestes townsendi

Popioptila caerulea

Anthus spinoletta

Bombycilla garrulus

Born b ycilla cedrorum

Lanius excubitor

Lanius ludovicianus

Sturnus vulgaris

Vireo’solitarius

Vireo olivaceus

Vireo gilvus

Vermivora celata

Dendroica petechia

Dendroica coronata

Dendroica nigrescens

Dendroica townsendi

Seiurus aurocapillus

Oporornis tolmiei

Geothlypis trichas

Icteria virens

+ooooo

+ooooo

+ 0 0 0 0 0

++oooo

+++ooo

++oooo

+ooooo

+++ooo

+++ooo

+ooooo

+0000-

+o+oo-

+o+oo-

+0000-

+00000

+ooooo

+ooooo

+o++o-

+o++o-

+o+ooo

+o+ooo

+++oo-

+ooooo

+ 0 0 0 0 0

++++oo

++++oo

+oooo+

+ooooo

+ooooo

+ooooo

+ 0 0 0 0 o+

+ooooo

+o 0 0 0 0.

+ooooo

+ooooo

+ooooo

+ 0 0 0 0 0

+ooooo

+ooooo

36
Appendix 1 (continued)

Common name

Wilson’s warbler

American redstart

house sparrow

bobolink

western meadowlark

yellow-headed blackbird

red-winged blackbird

northern oriole

Brewer’s blackbird

brown-headed cowbird

western tanager

rose-breasted grosbeak

black-headed grosbeak

indigo bunting

lazuli bunting

evening grosbeak

purple finch

Cassin’s finch

house finch

common redpol

pine siskin

American goldfinch

lesser goldfinch

green-tailed towhee

rufous-sided towhee

Savannah sparrow

grasshopper sparrow

vesper sparrow

lark sparrow

sage sparrow

dark-eyed junco

tree sparrow

chipping sparrow

Brewer’s sparrow

whi tecrowned sparrow

golden-crowned sparrow

fox sparrow

Lincoln’s sparrow

song sparrow

Scientific name

Wilsonia pusilla

Setophaga ruticilla

Passer domesticus

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Sturnella neglecta

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Agelaius phoeniceus

Icterus galbula

Euphagus cyanocephalus

Molothrus ater

Piranga ludoviciana

Pheucticus ludovicianus

Pheucticus melanocephalus

Passerina cyanea

Passe&a amoena

Hesperiphona vespertina

Carpodacus purpureus

Carpodacus cassinii

Carpodacus mexicanus

Acanthis flammea

Spinus pinus

Spinus tris tis

Spinus psaltria

Chlorura chlorura

Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Passerculus sandwichensis

Ammodramus savannarum

Pooecetes gramineus

Chondestes grammacus

Amphispiza belli

Junco hyemalis

Spizella arborea

Spizella passerina

Spizella breweri

Zonotrichia leucophrys

Zonotrichia atricapilla

Passerella iliaca

Melospiza lincolnii

Melospiza melodia

37

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

0

0

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

0

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

+

0

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

0

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- ”

-

-

-

-

-
Appendix 1 (continued)

Wildlife species

Common name

Lapland longspur

snow bunting

Mammals

Malheur shrew

wandering shrew

Merriam shrew

little brown myotis

Yuma myotis

long-eared myotis

fringed myotis

long-legged myotis

California myotis

small-footed myotis

silver-haired bat

western pipistrelle

big brown bat

hoary bat

spotted bat

western big-eared bat

pallid bat

pygmy rabbit

mountain cottontail

white-tailed jackrabbit

black-tailed jackrabbit

least chipmunk

yellow-pine chipmunk

yellow-bellied marmot

antelope ground squirrel

Townsend ground squirrel

Richardson ground squirrel

Belding ground squirrel

mantled ground squirrel

Townsend pocket gopher

northern pocket gopher

little pocket mouse

Great Basin pocket mouse

dark kangaroo mouse

Ord kangaroo rat

Scientific name

Calcarius lapponicus

Plectrophenax nivalis

Sorex preblei

Sorex vagrans

Sorex merriami

Myotis lucifugus

Myotis yumanensis

Myotis evotis

Myotis thysanodes

Myotis volans

Myotis californicus

Myo tis lei bi

Lasionycteris noctivagans

Pipistrellus hesperus

Eptesicus fuscus

Lasiurus cinereus

Euderma maculata

Plecotus townsendi

An trorous pallidus

Sylvilagus idahoensis

Sylvilagus nuttalli

Lepus tow nsendi

Lepus californicus

Eutamias minimus

Eutamias amoenus

Marmo ta flaviven tris

Ammospermophilus leucurus

Spermophilus townsendi

Spermophilus richardsoni

Spermophilus beldingi

Spermophilus lateralis

Thomomys townsendi

Thomomys talpoides

Perognathus longimembris

Perognathus parvus

Microdipodops megacephalus

Dipodomys ordi

38

+ 0

+ 0

+ -

+ -

+ -

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ 0

0 0

+ +

+ +

+ -

+ -

+ -

+ -

+ -

+ -

+ -

0 -

+ -

+ -

+ -

+ +

+ +

+ +

0 -

+ -

0 -

+ +

+

+

0

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

+

0

0

+

+

+

0

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

+

0

0

+

+

+

0

+

+

+

+

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

0

0

-

-

-

-

0

+

+

-

+

-

0

-

-

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- ,,

-

0 _

-

-

-

-

-

-
Appendix 1 (continued)

Common name

chisel-toothed kangaroo rat

beaver

western harvest mouse

canyon mouse

deer mouse

northern grasshopper mouse

desert woodrat

bushy-tailed woodrat

montane vole

long-tailed vole

sage vole

muskrat

western jumping mouse

porcupine

coyote

red fox

kit fox

raccoon

long-tailed weasel

mink

badger

spotted skunk

striped skunk

river otter

cougar

bobcat

mule deer

pronghorn

bighorn sheep

Scientific name

Dipodomys microps

Castor canadensis

Reithrodontomys megalotis

Peromyscus crinitus

Peromyscus maniculatus

Onychomys leucogaster

Neo toma lepio!a

Neo toma cinerea

Microtus montanus

Microtus longicaudus

Lagurus curtatus

Ondatra zibethicus

Zapus princeps

Erethizon dorsatum

Canis latrans

Vulpes vulpes

Vulpes macrotis

Procyon lotor

Mustela frenata

Mustela vison

Taxidea taxus

Spilogale putorius

Mephitis mephitis

Lutra canadensis

Felis concolor

Lynx rufus

Odocoileus hemionus

Antilocapra americana

Ovis canadensis

++ooo-

- - oo--

+-+o+-

oo+o--

+-++o-

+-oo--

+-++o-

+-++o-

+-oo+-

+-oo+-

o++o--

- 0 0 0 0 -

+-oo-- +--()..--

+--()--

+-+++-

+-+++-

+-++--

+-++--

+-+o--

+-+++-

+-++--

+-++--

o-oo--

+-oo-- +--()---

+-----

- - - - - __

39