Management Practices 

and Options

FREDERICK C. HALL

PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION

FOREST SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Abstract

Management practices and options to provide 

habitat for wildlife in the Great Basin of southeastern 

Oregon deal with both vegetation treatment and

protection, livestock management, maintenance or

distribution of water developments, protection of 

wildlife areas through road closures or fencing, and 

direct manipulation of wildlife through hunting, trapping, or other means.

This chapter deals primarily with livestock

management in relationship to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. Included are discussions of ecological status 

(range condition), livestock management,

multiple-use options for each species featured in

previous chapters (trout, sage grouse, pronghorn,

mule deer, and bighorn sheep), and diversity.

Keywords: Wildlife habitat management, range

management, livestock, Oregon (Great Basin), Great 

Basin–Oregon, series (Great Basin habitats).

The Author

FREDERICK C. HALL is a regional ecologist, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Port land, Oregon 97208.
This publication is part of the series Wildlife 

Habitats in Managed Rangelands –The Great

Basin of Southeastern Oregon. The purpose of this 

series is to provide a range manager with the

necessary information on wildlife and its relationship 

to habitat conditions in managed rangelands to 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 and 

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 comp rehensive whole. Although 

each part is an independent treatment of a specific 

subject, when combined in sequence, the individual 

parts are as chapters in a book.

A list of the publications in the series 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 the United States Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
This publication reports research involving

pesticides. It does not contain recommendations 

for their use, nor does it imply that the uses 

discussed here have been registered. All uses of 

pesticides must be registered by appropriate State 

and/or Federal agencies before they can be

recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, 

domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or 

other wildlife–if they are not handled or applied 

properly. Use all pesticides selec tively and

carefully. Follow recommended practices for the 

disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide

containers.
Introduction

Management practices and options to provide 

habitat for wildlife in the Great Basin of southeastern 

Oregon deal with both vegetation treatment and

protection, livestock management, maintenance or

distribution of water developments, protection of

wildlife areas through road closures or fencing, and 

direct manipulation of wildlife through hunting, trapping, or other means.

The degree of emphasis given to wildlife objectives 

must be clearly defined. If wildlife are of major concern 

to managers, livestock grazing is used to help produce a 

desired habitat condition. More commonly, wildlife 

targets are among several objectives to be produced 

from the same land base under the multiple-use 

philosophy of land management. Tradeoffs must be 

made between maximum production of livestock and 

the best possible wildlife habitat conditions.

Objectives may be stated for individual wildlife

species (featured species management), for

maintenance of a diversity of species (species richness 

management), or for a combination of the two (Maser 

and Thomas 1983).

This chapter deals primarily with livestock

management in relation to wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Included are discussions of ecological status (range 

condition), livestock management, multiple-use options 

for each species featured in previous chapters (trout, 

sage grouse, pronghorn, mule deer, and bighorn

sheep1). The chapter concludes with a discussion of 

diversity.

Ecological Status

Ecological status compares vegetation currently on 

a site with the vegetation that would occur if there 

were no fire or livestock grazing. The Society for 

Range Management (Range Inventory Standardization 

Committee 1983) de1Common and scientific names are listed in the appendix.

fined ecological status as "the present state of

vegetation and soil protection of an ecological site in 

relation to the potential natural community." Close 

livestock grazing often causes current vegetation to be 

different from the PNC.

This concept is based on the PNC (potential natural 

community) that will occupy a specific site in the

absence of fire or livestock grazing. When livestock 

graze, they forage first on the more palatable plant 

species. If these plants are closely eaten during active 

growth, their ability to grow and reproduce is seriously 

reduced. They eventually die, which results in a change 

of species in the plant community and a general 

decrease in forage production (fig. 1). Such changes are 

called range trend; a change away from the PNC is 

termed "downward trend," which is usually caused by 

close graz ing; a change toward natural potential, called 

"upward trend," results when livestock are managed so 

that they graze in a way that allows adequate growth 

and reproduction of palatable plants (Range Inventory 

Standardization Committee 1983).

Figure 1.— Effects of livestock grazing on low sagebrush/wheatgrass plant community. Compare the potential natural 

plant community (left of fence) with the midseral stage (right of 

fence). Livestock overgrazed wheatgrass and caused it to decrease 

in density, which resulted in decreased herbage production.
.

The degree of change from the PNC is commonly 

identified by four condition classes: PNC, late seral, 

midseral, and early seral (Range Inventory

Standardization Committee 1983). Potential natural 

community occurs when there are no significant

changes caused by grazing. Late seral indicates that 

livestock have caused some change in the plant 

commu nity and some reduction in forage production. 

Midseral indicates a major change in the plant

community and low forage production. Early seral 

means that most of the palatable, native plants have 

been killed, forage production is very low, and

adjustment of livestock grazing may not be a feasible 

means for attaining an upward trend (Range

Inventory Standardization Committee 1983).

The Wyoming big sagebrush community is used 

here as an example of ecological status (fig. 2). Table 

1 lists some common plant species and their crown 

cover that might be expected within the four

condition classes. In PNC, bluebunch wheatgrass

clearly dominates the herbaceous layer under a

12-percent crown canopy of sagebrush. Forage

production averages about 600 lb/acre (672 kg/ha) per 

year, of

which wheatgrass contributes about two-thirds. 

Wheatgrass plants are the most palatable, and they 

decrease in number and vigor when they are closely 

grazed. Forage production also decreases. At the

same time, less palatable species, such as Sandberg's 

bluegrass and needle and thread grass, increase,

which changes the condition to late seral. With continued close grazing, even these less palatable plants 

are overused and begin decreasing as did wheatgrass. 

In the midseral condition, only vestiges of wheatgrass 

are present and forage production falls to one-third of 

the potential.

Figure 2.— Wyoming big sagebrush/wheatgrass community used 

as an example for ecological status.

2

Table 1—Ecological status classes in the Wyoming big sagebrush plant community1

1Based on Range Inventory Standardization Committee (1983) criteria: Potential natural community is 75 percent or more of the ecological site 

potential; late seral, 50-75 percent; midseral, 25-50 percent; and early seral, 0-25 percent.
Nearly all native, palatable species may eventually be 

killed, which would leave the introduced annual

cheatgrass brome as the primary forage producer in 

the early seral condition. In this plant community, the 

crown cover of sagebrush increases somewhat when 

the range trend is downward.

Sometimes the range manager's objective is to

graze livestock in a manner that maintains the PNC 

or fosters an upward range trend toward it. At other 

times, existing vegetation may be manipulated to 

increase production of livestock forage. If sagebrush 

is killed in the Wyoming big sagebrush type,

competition with grasses is reduced and forage

production increases from an average 600 lb/acre

(672 kg/ha) to about 1,100 lb/acre (1232 kg/ha).

Under natural conditions, fire commonly reduces

sagebrush.

Characteristics of

Livestock Management

Livestock management deals with grazing the

right kind of animals at the right place at the right 

time in the proper number. What is "right" depends 

on land management objectives (fig. 3).

Domestic livestock management directly affects 

wildlife habitat in two ways–the alteration of

vegetation to enhance livestock forage, and the

consumption of vegetation by livestock. Indirect

effects on wildlife are caused by fences and water 

developments used to distribute livestock. These

direct and indirect effects may

Figure 3. — One system of ranching in the Great Basin is a 

"cow-calf operation" where calves are sold in the fall after they 

are weaned. Distribution of cows with calves is influenced by 

water and by the thermal cover that may be provided by

juniper trees.

cause competition for forage, create social in teraction 

between livestock and wildlife, alter wildlife home 

ranges or territory through water development,

introduce hazards or change wildlife use by fencing, 

and increase harassment from humans by

roadbuilding. For a better understanding of livestock 

management, the following topics are discussed:

behavior of livestock, livestock grazing systems,

forage utilization, livestock distribution, and vegetation treatment to enhance livestock forage.

LIVESTOCK 

BEHAVIOR

Cattle ranching in the Great Basin usually

concentrates on one of two age classes of livestock: 

cows with calves or yearlings. A herd composed of 

cow-calf combinations is often characterized by poor 

livestock distribution over the range because the cow 

is unwilling to travel long distances with a calf at her 

side (fig. 3). This is particularly important when 

water is poorly distributed because the cow needs 

abundant water for milk production. Cows are often 

retained in the base herd 6 to 10 years. Such cows 

develop traditional patterns of grazing that may not 

provide good distribution. In general, cows scatter 

over the range best in the spring and fall when the 

weather is cooler and less energy is dissipated in 

movement.

3

In midseral and early seral conditions, cheatgrass 

brome is found in increasing abundance. Because it is 

an annual, yearly production is influenced mainly by 

growing conditions in the spring (Klemmedson and 

Smith 1964). High fluctuations in production are not 

conducive to sound ranch management. Therefore, 

crested or fairway crested wheatgrass, both perennial 

grasses, are commonly seeded after sagebrush is

controlled. Like the native wheatgrass, they can

produce 900 to 1,100 lb/acre (894 to 1232 kg/ha) of 

forage. Forage for wildlife, such as pronghorns, mule 

deer, and sage grouse, can be enhanced if adapted 

forbs are included.
Yearlings distribute themselves better across the 

range than cows with calves do. Because they are 

relatively young, they have little knowledge of the 

range and scatter to explore new and different

environments. The youth and vigor of yearling

induces them to travel farther from water and on 

steeper and rockier slopes than cows and calves

commonly do.

Cattle are primarily grass eaters, but they do

consume forbs and shrubs, such as bitterbrush and 

mountain-mahogany. Because they have only lower 

incisors and comparatively thick lips, they ordinarily 

graze no closer than 1 to 2 in (2.5 to 5 cm) from the 

ground.

Domestic sheep, when accompanied by a herder, 

can be distributed in almost any way the land

manager desires. They can be managed in open herds 

with a "once over" grazing system resulting in almost 

imperceptible use. Or they can be tightly herded with 

two or three passes over the same area resulting in 

very close use. The method of herding and degree of 

utilization is at the discretion of the land manager. In 

general, sheep prefer forbs and, because of their small 

mouths and thin lips, easily crop vegetation to within 

0.5 in (1.3 cm) of the ground. They can negotiate

steeper and rockier topography than cattle can.

Horses are the most selective feeders among 

livestock, whether wild or domesticated. Grass is

eaten almost exclusively, but most unevenly. Horses 

repeatedly graze the same grass plants and leave

adjacent ones untouched. With incisors in both upper 

and lower jaws, they easily crop vegetation to within 

0.5 in (1.3 cm) of the ground. This produces

extremely uneven grazing of grasses and kills certain 

grass plants and leaves others of the same species 

untouched. Horses distribute themselves well across 

available rangelands because they often move long 

distances from water to feeding areas.

GRAZING SYSTEMS (CATTLE AND SHEEP)

Livestock grazing systems are characterized by 

season, frequency, and intensity of use. Grazing 

intensity, often measured by how close to the ground 

(stubble height) vegetation is used, varies greatly and 

is hard for managers to regulate. The objective is to 

confine the right

animals in the right place at the right time in the 

proper numbers to attain the desired intensity of 

grazing that meets land management objectives.

Pastures are usually fenced and provided with water 

to accomplish grazing management objectives.

In the Great Basin of eastern Oregon, season of 

use is generally keyed to important forage plants,

such as bluebunch wheatgrass, and is related to the 

plant's phenological development. Early spring use

starts as grasses begin growth and terminates just 

before the boot stage of development. Early use lasts 

until seed maturity. Midseason starts when grasses 

are in the boot stage and continues to seed maturity. 

Late use occurs after seed maturity but when the

plants still have some green color. Fall use occurs 

after late use, generally during September and

October after grasses have lost color and are

essentially dormant. Season-long use generally runs 

from plant green-up (March or April) to dormancy 

(September to October), during which time livestock 

remain in the same pasture for the entire season.

Winter use occurs after fall use, from November to 

initia tion of spring growth.

These seasons of use affect plants physiologically 

in different ways. For example, early spring use,

when livestock are removed from the pasture at about 

the boot stage of grass development, does little

physiological damage to the grazed plants if there is 

enough soil moisture to allow plants to complete 

development through seed ripening.

On the other hand, midseason use, when grasses 

are grazed between the boot stage and seed ripening, 

has the potential of most serious physiological

damage, particularly if the grass is bitten off within 1 

to 2 in (2.5 to 5 cm) of the ground. In such cases, 

plants cannot maintain sufficient green leaves to

produce adequate energy and nutrient reserves. Most 

of the energy and nutrients stored from the previous 

season are used to grow leaves and seedstalks, which

cannot replace the expended energy when they are 

continuously grazed. Also, some nutrients must be 

stored in the root crowns for initiation of growth the 

next growing season. Close grazing not only reduces 

leaf surface but also prevents flowering, the

physiological trigger that transfers available nutrients 

to root

4
storage. Bluebunch wheatgrass can be killed in 3 to 5 

years if it is reduced to a 1 to 2 in (2.5 to 5 cm) 

stubble during this phenological stage. Winter use, 

even when plants are grazed to a 1 to 2 in stubble, 

seldom damages the plants physiologically. This

stubble provides little protection for crown of the

grass, however. Severe low temperatures with lack of 

snow cover can damage the plants. Grazing systems, 

therefore, have two objectives: to maintain or

enhance plant vigor that is governed by season and 

closeness of use and to produce an optimum amount 

of livestock gain that is accomplished by good

distribution of livestock and careful regulation of 

forage utilization.

Grazing systems vary in complexity, from

season-long grazing in a single pasture to highintensity, short duration, repeated grazing in five or 

more pastures (such as Savory's holistic management 

concept) (Walter 1984). The following discussion

applies to cattle and unherded sheep, but any of the 

grazing systems can be applied to herded sheep on 

unfenced rangeland. The number of pastures, and 

therefore the amount of fence and the number of 

water developments, depends on the grazing system 

used.

Season-long grazing requires one pasture and

enough water, generally within less than 3 mi (5.8 

km), to maintain the livestock for a grazing season. 

Livestock are introduced in the spring and removed 

in the fall. Distribution is attained by placement of 

salt and water, or herding. In areas where western 

juniper occurs, thermal cover (shade) can be almost 

as important as water for influencing livestock

distribution.

If livestock are not grazed season-long, they are 

most commonly moved (rotated) between two or

more pastures. Rotation grazing can be divided into 

three kinds: deferred, rest, and high-intensityfrequent rotation.

Deferred rotation means that an entire range area 

is grazed every year, but some parts are deferred 

from grazing during some portion of the growth

period of key forage species. In its simplest form, 

this is a two-unit system where pasture A is grazed 

early, during active growth in the spring and early 

summer and pasture B is deferred from use.

Sometime about midsummer, livestock are

transferred to pasture B for

late season use after forage plants have begun to 

mature: The next year, livestock graze early in 

pasture B and at midsummer are moved to pasture A.

Rest rotation requires that a certain proportion of 

the range area be rested completely from grazing for 

a whole year on a scheduled basis (fig. 4). In its 

simplest form, three pastures are required: pasture A 

is grazed during the first half of the season, livestock 

are moved to pasture B for the second half of the 

season, and pasture C is rested the entire grazing 

season. The next year, pasture B is grazed in the

spring of the year, pasture C is grazed in the fall of 

the year, and pasture A is completely rested. The

third year pasture C is grazed in the spring of the

year, pasture A in the fall of the year, and pasture B 

is rested.

A third system involves high-intensity, short

duration, repeated grazing developed by Savory

(holistic management concept) (Walter 1984).

Attention must focus on closeness of use, soil surface 

disturbance, and management objectives. "High

intensity" does not always mean close use. Instead it 

means high management intensity in which

livestock are moved when grazing on key vegetation 

and impacts on the soil surface reach the level

specified for the pasture. In its simplest form: pasture 

A is grazed in the spring until use standards are met. 

Then livestock are moved in sequence to pastures B, 

C, D, and E. The time to move livestock is de-' 

termined by the use level on key vegetation, degree of 

soil disturbance, and management objectives. Length 

of time in each pasture is governed by forage

production and soil surface conditions. After pasture 

A has regrown enough to provide sufficient forage, 

livestock may be returned to it and may be

subsequently rotated through the several pastures 

during the grazing season. Under this concept, most 

of the range area is grazed every year, often more 

than once. Intensity of use is adjusted according to 

physiological requirements of the plants and land

management objectives.

5
1st year: Pasture A is grazed from June 1 to August 15; pasture B, from August 15 to October 30;

pasture C is rested the entire year.

2nd year: B, grazed June 1 to August 15; C, grazed August 15 to October 30; A, rested entire year.

3rd year: C, grazed June 1 to August 15; A, grazed August 15 to October 30; B, rested entire year.

4th year: Repeat cycle, starting with A.

CLOSENESS OF FORAGE USE

Deferred rotation, rest rotation, and high intensityshort duration grazing systems have one thing in 

common-close use of vegetation in pastures being 

grazed. All systems concentrate livestock in a

relatively small tract where preferred grazing areas 

are quickly cropped to a stubble of 1 to 2 in (2.5 to 5 

cm). The animals must then graze farther from water 

in less preferred areas. Vegetation near water is

expected to be closely grazed. One objective of these 

systems is forced distribution of livestock so more of 

the total area can be grazed. Another objective is 

deferred use of plants on some portion of the area to 

restore their vigor.

This concentration of livestock and their close use 

of vegetation have impacts on wildlife; these impacts 

will be discussed later for each of the species

featured in previous chapters. Grazing by livestock 

can be advantageous or disadvantageous to wildlife 

depending on species and circumstances. For

example,

6

a 1 to 2 in (2.5 to 5 cm) stubble is roughly equivalent 

to bare ground for wildlife that nest and feed on the 

ground. On the other hand, seasonal grazing by 

livestock removes old grass called "rough" and

exposes regrowth of lush green grasses often heavily 

used by mule deer. A 6 in (15 cm) stubble may be as 

adequate as ungrazed bunchgrass for

ground-dwelling wildlife.

Close use of vegetation by livestock does more 

than influence wildlife and wildlife habitat. It can 

affect plant species composition and density of the 

herbaceous layer. Repeated, close use to 1- to 2-in 

(2.5 to 5 cm) stubble during the growing season

results in a decrease of bunchgrasses. This downward 

trend results in a midseral or an early seral condition 

characterized by dominance of the annual cheatgrass 

brome. On poor soils, the result may be essentially 

bare ground. But the midseral or even the early seral 

condition is not detrimental to all wildlife. For

example, figure 5 (Maser et al. 1984) suggests that a 

greater number of

Figure 4.—One system for grazing livestock is a three-pasture, rest-rotation program. Livestock are 

concentrated in one pasture (A) during the first half of the grazing season, then moved to a second 

pasture (B). The third pasture (C) is rested for the entire season. The next year, the sequence of 

pastures is rotated so that a new area is rested the entire year.
Figure 5.—Number of wildlife species oriented to esert-steppe 

structural conditions and the potential effect of intensive 

management (reproduced from Maser et al. 1984).

wildlife species both reproduce and feed when

annuals are dominant in the grass-forb, low shrub, 

tall shrub, tree, and tree/shrub structural conditions.

FENCES AND WATER

Livestock distribution is achieved primarily by 

means of fencing, water development, salt location, 

and maintenance of thermal cover where juniper or 

tall shrubs occur. Cattle will scatter over ranges with 

gentle topography when water is no farther than 2 mi 

(3.2 km) apart. In the Great Basin, natural water 

sources are seldom found this close together;

therefore, additional sources of water are often

developed. If wildlife enhancement is a management 

objective, these water sources should remain

available throughout the season. This may be

expensive if water is hauled or supplied by electric 

pump (fig. 6).

Figure 6.—Many water developments in the Great Basin are 

not natural. Well-placed water is the best means for obtaining 

good livestock distribution; however, these manmade water 

developments are of little benefit for wildlife if water is not 

maintained while wildlife are in the area. In this example, an 

electric pump would be needed to supply water. (Photograph 

courtesy of Chris Maser.)

Fencing is the primary means by which livestock 

are contained within a specified area. Fences have 

significant impacts on wildlife movement,

particularly pronghorns and bighorn sheep. A smooth 

wire at least 16 in (41 cm) above the ground and a 

top wire no higher than 36 in (92 cm) have the least 

impact on movement of pronghorns; for bighorn

sheep, a smooth wire 20 in (51 cm) above the ground 

and a top wire no higher than 39 in (100 cm) have 

the least impact. A general recommendation is a 

smooth bottom wire 20 in (51 cm) above the ground, 

a top barbed wire no higher than 36 in (92 cm), and a 

third barbed wire between the other two wires. If 

steel fenceposts are used, their tops should be painted 

white to enhance visibility. Making the fence

obvious is important in preventing collisions by wild 

ungulates and birds, such as sage grouse.

7
In many areas, soils are too stony and shallow to 

allow steel fenceposts to be easily driven into the

ground. Fences in such situations are commonly 

constructed from rockjacks or rockcairns (fig. 7). 

Such fences can provide habitat attributes for some 

wildlife species. For example, rockjacks can provide 

cover and dens for small animals, particularly with a 

4 to 6 in (10 to 15 cm) gap between the ground and 

the bottom of the rockjack. Rocks greater than 12 in 

(31 cm) in diameter provide large enough crevasses 

for several species of wildlife (Maser et al. 1979).

VEGETATION TREATMENT

When land is managed primarily for livestock 

production, the principal reason for manipulating 

vegetation is to increase forage for livestock. In the 

Great Basin, this often entails killing or removing 

shrubs, trees, or both to reduce competition with 

grass. Where sites are in the late seral or the PNC 

condition, control of woody species allows native 

grasses and forbs more nutrients, moisture, and

sunlight. With these nutrients, they will be more 

productive and will provide additional forage for 

livestock.

When such sites are in the midseral or the early 

seral condition, not enough bunchgrasses remain to

provide adequate forage, so the area is often seeded 

to crested or fairway crested wheatgrass. On a

Wyoming big sagebrush site dominated by

sagebrush, for example, the midseral condition may 

produce only 200 lb/acre (224 kg/ha) of forage in the 

form of cheatgrass brome and Sandberg's bluegrass. 

With shrub control and successful seeding of crested 

wheatgrass, forage production can be increased to 

900 to 1,100 lb/acre (1010 to 1235 kg/ha).

The method of vegetation manipulation influences 

structure and dominance of plants after treatment. For 

example, burning, whether natural or prescribed, not 

only kills woody plants but also eliminates their

structure from the stand. It may enhance habitat for a 

number of wildlife species. Mule deer and

pronghorns often select recently burned areas for

feeding (Leckenby et al. 1982, Kindschy et al. 1982). 

On the other hand, chemical control of shrubs has 

two significantly different after

8

Figure 7.-Fences are the second most important means for 

controlling livestock. On soils too shallow to support steel 

fenceposts, rockjacks are used for stability.

effects. First, the dead shrubs remain, and they often 

retain the shrub structure that does not enhance the 

areas for such species as the horned lark and bighorn 

sheep. Second, chemicals that kill the shrubs, such as 

2,4-D, also kill forbs. Forbs are part of the staple diet 

for sage grouse (Call and Maser 1985) and

pronghorns (Kindschy et al. 1982). Mechanical

treatment of woody vegetation. has intermediate

effects on wildlife . For example, chaining changes 

the structure from tree/shrub or shrub to grassland but 

leaves residue on the ground that creates microhabitat 

for small animals (Maser et al. 1979).

The consideration of edges by managers when

they are planning treatments to vegetation can have 

important ramifications for wildlife (Thomas et al. 

1979). In general, some treatment of large,

homogeneous tracts is advantageous to wildlife, such 

as mule deer (Leckenby et al. 1982) and pronghorns 

(Kindschy et al. 1982) (fig. 8). On the other hand, 

heterogeneous vegetative complexes composed of

natural grassland, low shrub, tall shrub, and

tree/shrub communities may already be close to

optimum in terms of habitat diversity and wildlife. 

Manipulation of vegetation could cause

simplification of vegetative structure and thus reduce 

diversity (fig. 9).
Figure 8.—In some plant communities, such as Wyoming big 

sagebrush, herbage production for livestock can be greatly 

increased by seeding crested wheatgrass after sagebrush is 

controlled. Interspersion of revegetated tracts in a

homogeneous tract of sagebrush can enhance wildlife habitat by 

creating edges and introducing different stand structure and 

thus increasing wildlife diversity.

Figure 9.—An area with good natural diversity of plant

communities: quaking aspen, meadow, Wyoming big

sagebrush, and low sagebrush ridges. Revegetation on the hills 

adjacent to the aspen and meadow might increase herbage 

production but might not enhance vegetation diversity to the 

advantage of wildlife.

It is not possible to deal with all wildlife species of 

the Great Basin here; however, the wildlife species 

featured in other chapters in this series are discussed in 

relation to livestock management. This discussion

shows how wildlife can be considered in relation to

management of livestock grazing.

Featured Species and Grazing

Habitat characteristics have been summarized from 

the chapters in this series that deal with the following 

species: native trout (Bowers et al. 1979), sage grouse 

(Call and Maser 1985), pronghorns (Kindschy et al. 

1982), mule deer (Leckenby et al. 1982), and bighorn 

sheep (Van Dyke et al. 1983).

NATIVE TROUT

Livestock impacts on native trout occur primarily in 

riparian areas. Optimum habitat for native trout has the 

following characteristics: water temperatures less than 

70°F (21°C), stable streambanks, minimum

sedimentation, and adequate instream or streambank 

cover. Streamside vegetation is particularly important as 

it provides shade that reduces water temperature,

produces leaves that fall into the stream for primary and 

secondary reducers, both of which are food for trout, 

and provides habitat for other insects that can be eaten 

by trout. In addition, abundant streambank vegetation 

reduces erosion and thus minimizes siltation over

spawning gravel. Instream cover, such as boulders, is 

also important, but overhanging vegetation along the 

streambanks more than 2 ft (0.6 m) above the water can 

effectively replace instream cover (fig. 10).

Figure 10.—Stream edge in the riparian area healing from past 

heavy use by livestock. In many cases, light to moderate use, 

such as leaving a 4 in (10 cm) stubble, is compatible with 

enhancement of the riparian vegetation. (Photograph courtesy 

of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.)

9
Livestock use in riparian areas can affect trout 

habitat in several ways. As cattle travel to and from 

water, they can break overhanging streambanks that 

partially shade the stream. Close cropping of forbs 

and grasses by cattle reduces vegetation along the

streambank, and often prevents or eliminates woody 

vegetation that can provide shade to the stream

system. Some studies, in the Great Basin area and 

elsewhere, have demonstrated a twofold to threefold 

increase in trout biomass, with livestock use

controlled enough to permit banks to build an

overhang and woody vegetation to colonize and grow 

along the streambank (Bowers et al. 1979).

Intensity of livestock use is apparently the key to 

maintaining or enhancing native trout habitat. When 

vegetation is grazed to a 1 to 2 in (2.5 to 5 cm) 

stubble for extended periods, establishment and 

growth of woody vegetation are inhibited and

overhanging banks do not develop. Such stubble

heights are common in deferred and rest rotation 

grazing systems because livestock are grazed in 

sufficient numbers to force use away from the

riparian areas onto less palatable dryland forage.

Light to moderate livestock use, leaving a 4 to 6 in 

(10 to 15 cm) stubble, appears compatible with protection of the riparian area and native trout habitat.

SAGE GROUSE

Sage grouse depend almost entirely on areas

dominated by sagebrush for habitat. They prefer level 

to low, rolling topography with slopes generally less 

than 30 percent. Some sage grouse migrate from 

lower to higher elevations after forbs develop, though 

they remain mainly in sagebrush-dominated areas. 

Their movements are strongly influenced by the

availability of free water; they therefore have strong 

affinities for riparian areas. Breeding occurs in the 

spring on open areas called leks (fig. 11). These areas 

are characterized by bare or relatively bare ground 

and range in size from 10 to 100 acres (4 to 40 ha). 

Leks are usually adjacent to nesting and

brood-rearing habitat.

Figure 11.—Sage grouse strutting on a lek. The lek

characteristically has little or no sagebrush and is in early 

seral to midseral community. It is usually adjacent to nesting 

areas where sagebrush is essential. (Photograph courtesy of 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.)

Optimum nesting habitat is characterized by 20 to 

40 percent crown cover of sagebrush ranging from 7 

to 30 in (18 to 77 cm) tall. A dense understory of 

herbaceous vegetation is important; a late seral

condition or PNC is near optimum habitat. Close

early grazing by livestock is a disadvantage to sage 

grouse because it reduces cover and availability of 

forbs important as food during the nesting and

brood-rearing seasons.

Brood rearing occurs in sagebrush but requires 

only 8 to 14 percent crown cover of shrubs shorter 

than those preferred for nesting habitat. Low

sagebrush types are commonly used during brood

rearing; an interspersion of openings is considered 

advantageous. Sage grouse move away from

snow-covered areas to lower elevations to spend the 

winter, during which time they feed almost

exclusively on sagebrush leaves. Sage grouse seem to 

prefer low sagebrush, but when this species is

covered with snow they will feed on taller sagebrush 

species. Sagebrush canopy cover exceeding 15

percent characterizes the best sage grouse winter

ranges.

Local knowledge of sage grouse behavior is

essential in developing land management plans.

Grouse have strong tendencies to use the same lek 

year after year and the same nesting and

brood-rearing areas. Almost any vegeta10
PRONGHORNS

Pronghorns prefer level to gently rolling topography as habitat. Large bodies of water, escarpments, mountains, canyons, and tall shrub or

forest areas are barriers to their movements. They 

require water with a pH less than 9.25 and less than 

4,500 p/m of solids. Optimum habitat is about 50 

percent crown cover of plants, a significant portion in 

herbaceous vegetation (fig. 12). They avoid sagebrush 

areas where the shrubs exceed 20 in (51 cm) in 

height. Because they are primarily forb eaters, the

midseral condition seems optimum. Pronghorns 

effectively use crested wheatgrass seedings if forbs 

have been seeded.

tion treatment within 2 mi (3.2 km) of a lek can have 

detrimental effects on sage grouse welfare.

Therefore, the land manager should determine the 

location of all leks that are to be maintained as part of 

the management plan.

This does not, however, preclude some manipulation of vegetation within occupied sage grouse 

ranges. For example, sage grouse will use areas with 

sagebrush below the preferred 20 to 40 percent crown 

cover. Some treatment of sagebrush, such as reducing 

cover from 40 to 20 percent, may not seriously

degrade habitat. Indeed, it might provide for more 

herbaceous food plants. Sagebrush control in areas 

with less than 20 percent shrub cover is generally 

considered detrimental. Treatment of sagebrush 

might be confined to a few of the most productive 

sites for livestock forage and adequate stands be left 

between treated areas.

New leks might be developed by removing

sagebrush, provided they are adjacent to good nesting 

and brood-rearing habitat. Sagebrush can be removed 

from 10 to 100 acre (4 to 40 ha) tracts on sites in 

midseral and early seral conditions that would

provide minimum ground vegetation. These leks can 

be made additionally attractive if free water is

provided nearby.

Intensity of livestock use can affect the success of 

sage grouse nesting and brood rearing. Nesting

requires both sagebrush cover and herbaceous plants. 

Therefore, grazing to a 1 to 2 in (2.5 to 5 cm) stubble 

during these activities is detrimental. Such close

grazing will result in significant use of spring forbs 

by livestock; these forbs are a key element in the 

grouse diet. If management of sage grouse is an

objective, the land manager might consider grazing 

livestock to leave a 4 to 6 in (10 to 15 cm) stubble. 

This will provide some cover and also provide

sufficient forbs for spring use by nesting and

brood-rearing grouse.

When vegetation in sage grouse habitat is treated, 

special concern should be directed toward use of 

chemicals, such as 2,4-D. Chemicals kill sagebrush 

and thus eliminate sagebrush forage for the grouse 

and reduce hiding cover. In addition, and, perhaps 

equally important, these same chemicals may kill the 

forbs that are essential in the spring and early summer diet of sage grouse.

Figure 12.—Pronghorns prefer areas with little or no shrub 

cover and a high proportion of forbs in the herbaceous

vegetation. Optimum ecological status is midseral to late seral. 

Grass seeding can enhance pronghorn habitat if forbs are 

seeded in the mixture. (Photograph courtesy of Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife)

A high diversity in plant species composition

seems attractive to pronghorns. Extensive tracts of 

homogeneous shrubland, such as 3,000 + acres (1215 

+ ha) of Wyoming big sagebrush, are not optimum 

pronghorn habitat. Habitat can be enhanced by

manipulation of vegetation. For example, controlling 

sagebrush or western juniper on areas less than 1,000 

acres (405 ha), and generally, no more than one-third 

the home range of pronghorns, can be beneficial. In 

treatment of vegetation, the manager should

remember that chemicals may kill desired forbs. Fire 

can be an effective means of

11
manipulating vegetation to benefit pronghorns. Fire 

can be prescribed to result in less than 100 percent 

kill of sagebrush, and it stimulates forbs and

enhances palatability of forage. Pronghorns have

been observed seeking out burned areas for feeding 

(Kindschy et al. 1982).

Fencing can be detrimental to pronghorns.

Because pronghorns do not commonly jump, the

lower wire of a fence should be high enough to 

permit them to crawl under it. A smooth wire 16 in 

(41 cm) above the ground is acceptable. The fence 

should have no stays, and white-topped fenceposts 

will make the fence more visible to pronghorns.

Water developments to enhance livestock

distribution can be of significant advantage to

pronghorns if they are available when pronghorns 

occupy the area.

Moderate cattle grazing seems complementary to 

pronghorns because cows, preferring grasses, leave 

the forbs for the pronghorn: (Kindschy et al. 1982). 

Cattle grazing must be controlled if close use of forbs 

is to be avoided. Some direct competition occurs 

between domestic sheep and pronghorns because

both species feed primarily on forbs. If pronghorn 

welfare is a primary concern, sheep should not be 

grazed. If sheep are to be grazed, the closeness of use 

should be limited to assure that appropriate amounts 

of forbs remain for the pronghorns. Although close 

livestock use seems to be detrimental (that is, a 1 to 2 

in (2.5 to 5 cm) stubble), moderate livestock use that 

leaves a 4 to 6 in (10 to 15 cm) stubble, may be 

complementary to both livestock and pronghorn

welfare. Sufficient winter forage should remain for 

the pronghorns after livestock grazing. Some moderate use may make grasses the pronghorns eat more 

palatable by removing old rough grass.

MULE DEER

Mule deer use traditional home ranges whether

they are migratory, or are year-round residents. For 

this reason, management relating to mule deer should 

consider subpopulation areas of about 11,500 acres 

(4656 ha). Two kinds of social groups are common: 

does with fawns, and males. Five habitat attributes 

are

important: (1) thermal cover, (2) hiding cover, (3) 

forage areas (4) fawning habitat, and (5)

fawn-rearing habitat. Thermal cover is provided by 

woody vegetation over 5 ft (1.5 m) tall, with crown 

cover exceeding 50 percent in tracts at least 2 to 5 

acres (0.8 to 2.0 ha). Hiding cover is defined as 

vegetation greater than 24 in (61 cm) tall that can 

hide 90 percent of a bedded deer at 150 ft (46 m) or 

less (fig. 13). Tracts should be at least 600 to 1,200 ft 

(183 to 366 m) in diameter, which equals 6 to 25 

acres (2.5 to 10 ha). Forage areas are defined as tracts 

where the structure of the vegetation does not meet 

thermal or hiding cover criteria but does produce

forage. Because mule deer have affinities for edges, 

forage areas should be less than 1,200 ft (366 m) 

across. Deer and cattle compete for forage; however, 

moderate cattle use, which removes rough grass, can 

enhance these areas for deer.

Figure 13.—Mule deer in hiding cover—shrubs tall and dense 

enough to hide 90 percent of a bedded deer at 150 ft (45.7 m). 

They have affinity for edges in landscapes with a variety of 

plant communities and structural conditions. (Photograph 

courtesy of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.)

Fawning habitat is characterized by shrubs greater 

than 28 in (72 cm) tall and with more than 40 percent 

crown cover, is within 160 ft (50 m) of tree cover, has 

succulent forage, is 5 to 25 acres (2 to 10 ha) in size, 

and is close to water–within 2000 ft (610 m). This 

description suggests that riparian areas are optimum 

habitat. Fawn-rearing habitat is similar to fawning 

habitat; however, it is desirable to have larger tracts of 

land with more diverse,

12

plant communities. The optimum diversity of mule 

deer habitat is 55 percent in forage area, 20 percent in 

hiding cover, 10 percent in thermal cover, 10 percent 

in fawn-rearing habitat, and 5 percent in fawning 

habitat. Thermal cover is thought to be a critical 

component. If adjustments in cover are desired,

thermal cover should be increased at the expense of 

other cover.

Intensity of livestock use can be adjusted to

enhance production of forage for mule deer.

Moderate use by cattle will remove rough grass and 

afford deer the opportunity to forage on regrowth or 

spring growth of grasses protruding above the rough. 

Livestock grazing should be regulated to ensure only 

light use of forbs and browse. Close livestock use, 

which causes a downward range trend, can be 

detrimental to mule deer range.

BIGHORN SHEEP

Bighorn sheep are very traditional in their

occupation of specific ranges, are slow to pioneer 

new habitats, and are extremely sensitive to

disturbance. They prefer remote, rugged, steep

terrain with open plant communities that are low in 

structure. Keen vision is their primary mechanism for 

detecting danger. They shun forest stands and areas 

with shrubs more than 2 ft (0.6 m) tall. Key habitat 

components

Figure 14.-Bighorn sheep 3n a near ideal setting of a forage 

area, escape cover, and terrain that significantly limits easy 

travel by other large animals. They are socially sensitive to 

domestic livestock and often leave areas grazed by cattle. 

(Photograph courtesy of Walter A. Van Dyke.)

Presence of escape terrain regulates use of other 

areas. Such escape terrain is composed of cliffs, 

rimrock or outcroppings, bluffs, and topographic 

features most other animals have difficulty

negotiating. Thermal protection is often provided by 

topography and elevation. Bighorn sheep also obtain 

thermal regulation by bedding in windy or

wind-protected areas depending on the circumstances. 

Forage areas are relatively open with low vegetation, 

no farther than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from escape terrain 

and within 1 mi (1.6 km) of water. Shrubs are mostly 

less than 2 ft (0.6 m) tall with less than 25 percent 

crown cover. Lambing areas are traditional; they

occur in rugged, precipitous, remote terrain with

adequate forage and water. In general, they exceed 5 

acres (2 ha) in size. Intrusion by people and

competing animals is detrimental. Fresh water with a 

reasonably low pH is important. Water in summer is 

of particular value.

13

are open forage areas, escape terrain, water, thermal 

protection, and traditional lambing and rutting areas 

(fig. 14).

In treatment of vegetation to enhance mule deer

habitat, current vegetative conditions must be

considered. Variable topography and a variety of

plant communities creating a mosaic of edges, forage 

areas, and cover enhance mule deer habitat. Extensive 

tracts of homogeneous vegetation, such as Wyoming 

big sagebrush, can be significantly improved for mule 

deer habitat by vegetation treatment; as much as 55 

percent of an area can be treated to remove or reduce 

sagebrush to create forage areas. The key is to select 

the sites best suited for forage production. Then other 

characteristics of habitat should be considered such as 

maintain ing widths less than 1,200 ft (366 m) across 

treated areas, maximizing edges, and providing for 

sufficient thermal cover. Water should be kept

available to mule deer when they are on the area.
Because bighorn sheep are primarily grass eaters, 

they compete directly with cattle for forage. They 

will sometimes leave areas grazed by livestock

because of their sensitivity to this competition. For 

enhanced conditions for bighorn sheep, livestock

should not be grazed with bighorn sheep; if they are 

grazed, use should be adjusted to leave sufficient 

forage for sheep.

Fences are important in controlling livestock, but 

they may hinder movement of bighorn sheep.

Recommended fence construction is a smooth wire 

20 in (51 cm) off the ground with a top barbed wire 

no higher than 39 in (100 cm) above the ground.

Transmittal of diseases between bighorn sheep,

cattle, and particularly domestic sheep, sometimes is 

a problem. Waterholes and salt grounds should not 

be used by domestic livestock when bighorn sheep 

are in the area.

Human intrusion into bighorn sheep territory is 

most detrimental. The sheep have abandoned good 

habitat because of their low tolerance for humans. 

Therefore, management should provide for control of 

people.

These constraints on bighorn sheep habitat seem to 

imply that no management activities should be

carried out on ranges occupied by bighorn sheep.

This is not necessarily true. For example, forage areas 

adjacent to escape terrain and available water may be 

improved by shrub control. Grasses and forbs can be 

seeded on ranges depleted of perennial grasses. Water 

sources can be developed to enhance bighorn sheep 

range. In general, these improvements should be

fenced to exclude livestock if bighorn sheep habitat is 

to be enhanced to its fullest. If cattle are to graze in 

bighorn sheep range, they must be carefully

controlled as to season and intensity of use to avoid 

social interaction and forage competition with

bighorn sheep.

Management for

Species Richness

So far, livestock management has been discussed 

as it affects several featured species. An alternative 

or additional wildlife objective is species richness 

management, in which habitat is manipulated to

ensure that all native species remain in viable

numbers in the area under management (Maser and 

Thomas 1983).

Diversity was thoroughly discussed in the chapter 

of this series on edges (Thomas et al. 1979), which 

dealt with interspersion, inherent and induced edges, 

species richness, size of habitat blocks, and contrast 

in structure of plant communities. Tract management 

for species richness is based on habitat blocks averaging about 200 acres (81 ha) in size.

The land manager commonly must strike a balance 

between meeting species richness goals and

optimizing habitat for one or several featured species 

(fig. 15). For example, optimum mule deer habitat 

has 55 percent of the land in forage areas that is in the 

grass-forb structural condition (Leckenby et al.

1982). For optimum habitat for pronghorns, only 33 

percent of the area need be in a grass-forb structural 

condition (Kindschy et al. 1982), whereas for sage 

grouse habitat only 2 percent of the land area need be 

in a grass-forb structural condition (Call and Maser 

1985). Clearly, the land manager cannot manipulate 

vegetation so as to maximize habitat conditions for 

mule deer, pronghorns, and sage grouse on the same 

tract of land. Similarly, the manager cannot maximize 

species richness and the habitat conditions for a 

featured species on the same tract at the same time.

The land manager must deal with the in teraction 

of livestock and wildlife. Livestock, with their

attendant use of forage, compete directly with some 

species of wildlife for forage; they create adverse

effects for some wildlife through social interactions 

or produce a complementary situation for some

wildlife species, depending on the intensity of

livestock grazing and the season of use. Properly 

done, livestock grazing can enhance mule deer

habitat, whereas livestock presence can be an intolerable intrusion on bighorn sheep ranges.

14
Figure 15.—Diversity in plant communities and stand structure 

provides for a variety of wildlife habitats and therefore 

enhances wildlife species richness. Species richness may be 

enhanced by vegetation treatment in areas with large expanses 

of homogeneous vegetation. In this case, the best grass growing 

area has been seeded to crested wheatgrass to create habitat for 

horned larks, a forage area for pronghorns, and edges for mule 

deer. (Photograph courtesy of Chris Maser.)

Practices for the simultaneous management of

livestock and wildlife in the Great Basin constitute a 

complex series of tradeoffs involving biology,

economics, legal requirements, and social pressures. 

At least for the present, livestock grazing is the

dominant use of the lands in question. The task for 

the manager, then, is to determine how best to

manage livestock and manipulate vegetation in a 

cost-effective manner for enhanced livestock

production, and at the same time provide a minimum 

detrimental impact on wildlife or, if possible, enhance 

wildlife habitat. Even if livestock grazing were

excluded from public lands in the Great Basin, the 

resulting circumstances would not provide optimum 

habitat conditions for featured species or ideal

conditions for species richness. For example, very 

large tracts of climax sagebrush is not optimum 

habitat for most wildlife species in the Great Basin of 

southeastern Oregon (Maser et al. 1984). The land 

manager has a myriad of opportunities and constraints 

to consider when formulating management objectives 

and alternatives. In general, no matter what the

manager does or does not do, the habitat of some 

species of wildlife will be enhanced and that of others 

diminished. It is the clear intent of the law under 

which public land managers operate (see Maser and 

Thomas 1983) that these effects be considered and

evaluated when management decisions are made. The 

chapters in this series provide the means to deal with 

wildlife in the managed rangelands of southeast

Oregon.

Literature Cited

Bowers, Wayne, Bill Hosford, Art Oakley, and Carl Bond. 1979.

Native trout. In Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands: The Great 

Basin of southeastern Oregon. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-84, 16 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range. Exp. Stn., Portland, 

Oreg.

Call, Mayo W., and Chris Maser. 1985. Sage grouse. In Wildlife 

habitats in managed rangelands: The Great Basin of southeastern 

Oregon. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-187, 30 p. Pac. 

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

Kindschy, Robert R., Charles Sundstrom, James

D. Yoakum. 1982. Pronghorns. In Wildlife habitats in managed 

rangelands: The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. USDA For. 

Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-145, 18 p. Pac. Northwest For. And 

Range. Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Klemmedson, J. O., and J. G. Smith. 1964. Cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum L.). Bot. Rev. 1964 (April-June):226-262.

Leckenby, Donavin A., Dennis P. Sheehy, Carl H.

Nellis, Richard J. Scherzinger, and others.

1982. Mule deer. In Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands: The 

Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-139, 40 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range. Exp. Stn., 

Portland, Oreg.

Maser, Chris, J. Michael Geist, Diane M. Concannon, Ralph Anderson, Burrell Lovell.

1979. Geomorphic and edaphic habitats. In Wildlife habitats in 

managed rangelands: The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. 

USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-99, 84 p. Pac. Northwest For. 

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

Maser, Chris, and Jack Ward Thomas. 1983. Introduction. In

Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands: The Great Basin of 

southeastern Oregon. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-160, 

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

Maser, Chris, Jack Ward Thomas, Ralph G. Anderson. 1984. The 

relationship of terrestrial vertebrates to plant communities and 

structural conditions. Part I. In Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands: The Great Basins of southeastern Oregon. USDA For. Serv. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-172, 25 p. Pac. Northwest For. and Range. 

Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

15
Range Inventory Standardization Committee. 1983.

Guidelines and terminology for range inventories and 

monitoring. Report of the Range In ventory Standardization 

Committee, Society for Range Management, Denver, Colo. 

13 p.

Thomas, Jack Ward, Chris Maser, and Jon E. Rodiek. 

1979. Edges. In Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands: 

The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. USDA For. Serv. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-85, 17 p. Pac. Northwest For. and 

Range. Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Van Dyke, Walter A., Alan Sands, Jim Yoakum, Allan 

Polenz, and James Blaisdell. 1983.

Bighorn sheep. In Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands: 

The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon. USDA For. Serv. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-159, 37 p. Pac. Northwest For. and 

Range. Exp. Stn., Portland, Oreg.

Walter, J. 1984. Rangeland revolutionary: an interview with 

Allan Savory. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 39(4):235-240.

16
17

Appendix

COMMON 

AND 

SCIENTIFIC 

NAMES

Common name Scientific name

PLANTS

Bitterbrush .......................................Purshia tridentata

Bluebunch wheatgrass ..................... Agropyron spicatum

Cheatgrass brome ........................... Bromus tectorum

Crested wheatgrass ........................ Agropyron desertorum

Fairway crested wheatgrass ............... Agropyron cristatum

Low sagebrush .................................Artemisia arbuscula arbuscula

Mountain-mahogany ........................ Cercocarpus ledifolius

Needle and thread grass .................. Stipa comata

Quaking aspen .................................Populus termuloides

Sagebrush .......................................Artemisia spp.

Sandberg's bluegrass ........................Poa sandbergii

Western juniper .............................. Juniperus occidentalis

Wheatgrass .................................... Agropyron spp.

Wyoming big sagebrush .....................Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis

ANIMALS

Bighorn sheep................................. Ovis canadensis

Cow ................................................... Bos taurus

Domestic sheep .............................. Ovis aries

Horned lark .................................... Eremophila alpestris

Horse............................................. Equus cabalus

Mule deer ....................................... Odocoileus hemionus

Native trout .................................... Salmo spp.

Pronghorn .......................................Antilocarpra americana

Sage grouse.................................... Centrocercus urophasianus
WILDLIFE HABITATS IN MANAGED RANGELANDS

THE GREAT BASIN OF SOUTHEASTERN OREGON

Technical Editors

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

Forest Service

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

Bureau of Land Management

Title

Introduction........................................................................ Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-160

Plant Communities and Their................................................ Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-120

Importance to Wildlife

The Relationship of Terrestrial................................................ Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- 172, Part I

Vertebrates to the Plant

Communities . . . Text

The Relationship of Terrestrial................................................ Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-172, Part II

Vertebrates to the Plant

Communities . . . Appendices

Native Trout........................................................................ Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-84

Sage Grouse..................................................................... Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-187

Pronghorns........................................................................ Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-145

Mule Deer........................................................................... Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-139

Bighorn Sheep..................................................................... Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-159

Riparian Zones.....................................................................Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-80

Edges.............................................................................. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-85

Geomorphic and Edaphic Habitats.......................................... Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-99

Manmade Habitats............................................................... Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-86

Management Practices and Options....................................... Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-189
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of 

the Nation's forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry 

research, cooperation with the States and private forest 

owners, and management of the National Forests and 

National Grasslands, it strives - as directed by Congress -

to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an Equal 

Opportunity Employer. Applicants for all Department 

programs will be given equal consideration without regard 

to age, race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW 1st Ave.

PO. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208