6 SXftTE DOCUMtNTS COatCTWtl (V]ij3J)le MISSOURI RiVER WiLDLIFE StUDY HeltT»«. EASE RETURN Federal Aid to Fish & Wildlife Restoration Project FW-3-R Jobs 1-B & 1-C Prepared By: Kerry Constan & Dan Hook Ecological Services Division .i^ontana Department of Fish> Wildlife S Parks June 1981 l(fSUNCV25 ^\ JAN ■»^rni986 OCT 1 6 1991 r MONTANA STATE LIBRARY ' S 333 95 F2mm c 1 Constan Middle Missouri River wildlife study Fe TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 0864 00043549 8 Page ABSTRACT ^ GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 1 Location • . _ ■'- Physiography 3 Climate ^ Soils 5 Vegetation 5 History and Land Use H BIG GAME AND UPLAND GAME BIRD INVENTORY AND PLAN .... 14 INTRODUCTION 14 OBJECTIVES 15 TECHNIQUES 16 FINDINGS 17 Mule Deer 18 White-tailed Deer 27 Antelope 3 0 Bighorn Sheep 39 Elk 39 Other Animals 41 Sage Grouse 4 6 Sharp-tailed Grouse 54 Hungarian Partridge 59 Pheasant 62 Turkey 67 Waterfowl 67 Other Birds •, • 86 POTENTIAL AND EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 8 8 PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS 91 LITERATURE CITED 94 APPENDIX 95 Table LIST OF TABLES Page 1 Chouteau County land use and ownership 12 2 Mule deer winter surveys - Missouri River 19 3 Winter mule deer surveys - Marias River 20 4 Winter production ratio - mule deer 21 5 Number of deer harvested and hunters 21 6 Winter mule deer classification by hunting district 24 7 Total deer harvest from hunter questionnaires ... 24 8 Antelope classification ^1 9 Summer antelope surveys ;^^ 10 Antelope harvest ^^ 11 Beaver cache counts - Missouri River ^^ 12 Beaver cache counts - Marias River 42 13 Nongame species list ' ' ' ' Beaver cache counts - Missouri and Judith rivers . 4 5 14 47 15 Sage grouse strutting grounds 16 Fort Benton check station f' 17 Maximum numbers of male sage grouse 50 18 Sharptail dancing ground count 54 19 Maximum numbers of male sharp-tailed grouse .... 57 20 Hungarian partridge covey size, winters 61 Pheasant crowing route - Loma . . Vegetation types - pheasant crowin 2 3 Waterfowl surveys - Missouri River 24 Canada goose breeding ground surveys 21 Pheasant crowing route - Loma ^2 22 Vegetation types - pheasant crowing route 54 69 2 5 Canada goose production surveys "^0 26 ...^ . ' 27 Canada goose nest survey 28 ^^..- — ^ ... - 29 1979 Canada goose nest fate '^ 30 31 Chouteau County waterfowl harvest 7 0 Canada goose nest survey ^1 Canada goose breeding population survey /3 Canada goose nest fate for known fate nests .... 74 Canada goose egg success, successful nests .... 75 32 Frequency distribution of clutch sizes 75 3 3 Canada goose brood survey • ^^ 34 1979 nest material and nest site vegetation .... 77 35 1979 nest site vegetation height 78 36 Distance of nest site to water 78 37 Height of nest sites above water - 1979 79 38 Vegetation types of nest site islands 80 39 Number of islands and nests by frequency of nests . 81 40 Numbers nests and percent islands used 81 41 Nests and islands/river mile 82 42 Canada goose breeding population surveys 83 4 3 Duck and Canada goose reproduction data 8 5 44 Waterfowl harvest in Fergus County 85 45 White pelican survey - Missouri River 87 45 Great blue heron rookeries 87 11 APPENDIX TABLES Table Page 1 Waterfowl scientific names 95 2 Mule deer and white-tailed deer 96 3 Antelope observations 100 4 Bighorn sheep observations 103 5 Elk observations 104 6 Sage grouse observations 105 7 Sharp-tailed grouse observations 107 8 Hungarian partridge observations 109 9 Pheasant observations 110 10 Waterfowl observations Ill 111 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1 Map of middle Missouri River drainage in Montana. . 2 Soils map 3 Soils map 4 Vegetation map 5 Vegetation map 6 Chouteau County land use 1925 7 Chouteau County land use 1974 8 Study area divided into western and eastern segment 9 Mule deer winter range 10 Deer hunting districts 11 Mule deer winter ranges - severe and average . . . 12 Aerial survey of mule deer, Birch Creek 13 White-tailed deer distribution 14 Pronghorn antelope distribution 15 Antelope hunting districts 16 Summer antelope aerial survey ... 17 Antelope winter ranges - average and severe winters 18 Bighorn sheep critical winter range 19 Sage grouse distribution 20 Sage grouse winter range - average & severe winters 21 Sage grouse winter range 22 Sharp-tailed grouse distribution 23 Sharptail winter concentrations & dancing grounds . 24 Hungarian partridge distribution 25 Pheasant distribution 26 Primary pheasant concentrations 27 Canada goose nest distribution 28 Canada goose nest sites Page 2 6 7 8 9 12 13 15 18 22 25 26 29 32 34 36 37 40 48 51 52 55 58 60 63 66 72 84 APPENDIX FIGURES Fig. 1 Deer hunting districts within study area Page 112 IV ABSTRACT A fish and wildlife inventory and planning study was conducted along the middle Missouri River from 1 October 1975 through 1 Janu- ary 1980. Big game found in the study area include mule deer, white- tailed deer, antelope, elk and mountain sheep. Game birds present are sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, Hungarian partridge, ring- necked pheasants, turkeys and waterfowl. Yearlong observations of all species of game were recorded. Mule deer, antelope, mountain sheep and sage grouse winter ranges were delineated during average and extremely severe winters. Mule deer classification and winter range densities and summer antelope population surveys were made. Known sage grouse and sharp-tailed grouse breeding grounds were surveyed. Previously unknown sage grouse and sharp-tailed grouse breeding grounds were located and surveyed. Primary pheasant habi- tat was mapped, pheasant winter sex ratios were taken and Hungarian partridge winter covey size was recorded. Upland game bird and waterfowl brood data were collected. Canada goose breeding popu- lations and nest surveys were made. Harvest and production figures for some big game and game birds are presented. Other birds and mammals are discussed. State and federal land parcels important to wildlife are identified. Major existing and potential environmental problems affecting the wildlife resource are discussed. Major prob- lems are livestock overgrazing, brush eradication, weed eradication, oil and gas development and dam construction. GENERAL INTRODUCTION Fish and game resource planning has been, and continues to be, an important phase of the fish and game managers' work. How- ever, the constant pressure of day-to-day management consumes most of their time. The intensity of individual fish and game problems also varies from place to place in a management area. Consequently, managers have not been able to develop complete inventories of either wildlife or wildlife habitat in a common area. This project is a comprehensive inventory of the fish and game resources in the study area, from which plans for management of these resources can be formulated. This report consists of two sections: (1) Fisheries, and (2) Big Game and Upland Game Birds. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA Location The middle Missouri River project area is located in north- central Montana (Figure 1) . The western boundary of the study area originates at Morony Dam on the Missouri River approximately 8 miles northeast of Great Falls, Montana. The study area continues north- eastward, then southeastward and then eastward, following the course of the Missouri River for about 184 miles and taking in the Figure 1. Map of middle Missouri River drainage in Montana. adjacent river breaks and uplands. The eastern boundary ends in the vicinity of the Robinson Bridge crossing of the Missouri River . The Marias River from the north, including its tributary the Teton River, and the Judith River from the south are the principal tributaries entering the Missouri River in the study area. Other tributary drainages entering the Missouri River from the north in this area include: Little Sandy, Eagle, Chips, Birch, Bullwhacker and Cow creeks. Belt, Highwood, Shonkin, Arrow, Dog, Two Calf and Armells creeks enter from the south. The study area includes portions of Chouteau, Cascade, Fergus, Blaine and Phillips counties. Physiography The greater part of the study area lies in the glaciated por- tion of the Great Plains. It is characterized by broad, rolling- to-broken divides sloping gently toward the Missouri River. The Missouri River flows through a relatively deep valley varying from 500-1,000 feet below the average elevation of the adjacent plains. The soils are extremely unstable and erosion and tributary drain- age have produced highly dissected, rough terrain, resulting in spectacular, varied, and scenic badlands and breaks ranging from 2-10 miles in width immediately adjacent to the river valley along both sides of the Missouri River, and of lesser width along tribu- tary streams. This greatly eroded section of the region is com- monly known as the Missouri River Breaks (Department of the In- terior 1975) . Climate The climate is semi-arid. It is marked by wide seasonal fluc- tuations in precipitation and temperature, by recurring drought, a relatively short growing season, 120-135 days, and a high pro- portion of sunny days. Precipitation averages about 13.5 inches annually, and more than 70 percent occurs between March 1 and Sep- tember 1. About 7 inches of the annual total falls during the months of May, June and July. Summer temperatures are moderate, usually hot in the daytime and cool at night. Fall months are generally open and dry. Very little snow falls before October. Winters are cold, with light to moderate snowfall (about 40 inches) occurring over an average season. Low temperatures are frequently dispelled by moderating winds known as "chinooks." The Missouri River below Fort Benton is usually frozen over by December and does not thaw until April (Department of Interior 1975) . During the report period, the study area experienced two ex- tremely severe winters, 1977-78 and 1978-79. Since these winters had a major influence on wildlife, the following description of the two winters is presented. The winter of 1977-78 was one of the most severe in the past 100 years and it will be remembered pri- marily for its deep snow and length of time that this snow re- mained on the ground. The following weather data were obtained primarily from the data collected at the Roy 8NE , official U.S. Weather Bureau station, about 12 miles south of the eastern end of the study area (U.S. Dept. of Commerce 1977-78). Temperatures were not extremely severe; however, they were still below normal for four continuous months (November through February) . Snowfall commenced on November 19, 1977 and for the next 128 days (until March 27, 1978) snow was recorded covering the ground. Snow depths averaged about 6 inches in November and increased to 19 inches during the first two weeks of December. Snow levels dropped to 2 inches for 1 week and then increased to 20 inches on December 31. From December 31 through March 2 5 (85 days) , there were 20 or more inches of snow on the ground. From January 8 through March 21 (72 days) , there were 30 or more inches of snow on the ground. From January 27 through March 16 (49 days) , there were 36 inches or more and from February 11-20 (10 days) , there were 50 or more inches of snow on the ground. On February 19, the maximum snow depth of the winter, 56 inches, was recorded. The winter of 1978-79 was another severe winter, and accord- ing to the U.S. Weather Bureau, it was the first time since record keeping was started that Montana experienced two severe winters back-to-back. The following weather data were obtained primarily from the Roy 8NE, U.S. Weather Bureau station, U.S. Department of Commerce 1978-79. The 1978-79 winter started No- vember 9, 1978, 10 days earlier than the 1977-78 winter. It had much deeper snow depths in November and December than the 19 77-78 winter; however, during January, February and March the snow depths of the 1978-79 winter never reached the maximum depths or remained there for as long a period of time as they did in the 1977-78 winter. Snow depths during the 1978-79 winter reached 18 inches in November, increased to 26 inches by mid-December, dropped to 18 inches by December 31 and increased to 30 inches in January. In February, snow depths varied between 23 and 31 inches and by the second week of March they dropped to 10 inches. The major thrust of both winters was over about the same time, the third week in March; however, during the 1978-79 winter, below average temperatures and above average precipitation in April kept snow on the ground until April 25. The result was 167 con- tinuous days with snow recorded on the ground at Roy, while the 1977-78 winter had only 128 days. The 1978-79 winter recorded 20 or more inches of snow on the ground for 65 straight days, January 2 - March 7. Between January 23 and March 4, snow depths reached 29 or more inches on 30 days. Maximum snow depth was 31 inches, recorded on February 14, and it remained at that level for 11 straight days. Temperature averages were below normal for 4 months (November through February) in the 1978-79 winter, the same as 1977-78; however, the 1978-79 winter was colder each month, November through February, than the 1977-78 winter. Soils Seven soil associations (Figures 2 and 3) occur in the study area. The following is a brief description of each (Southard 1973) : BA - Badlands. Dominantly rough, gullied land along major streams, principally the Missouri River Breaks. They are used primarily for grazing. BSV - Bearpaw-Sprole-Vida Association. These are dark, moderately fine-textured soils on continental glacial till. The compact substratum in many places may re- strict root and water penetration. They are used pri- marily for grain and hay production. DJU - Danvers-Judith-Utica Association. These are dark, medium-textured soils underlain by gravel. They are used principally for small grain production. JS - Joplin-Scobey Association. These are soils on glacial till. They occur on the undulating glacial till plain of northern Montana and are used mainly for grain pro- duction . LP - Lismas-Pierre . These are clay soils over shale and the Pierre soils are deeper than the Lismas soils. They are used mainly for range. SBW - Spring Creek-Blaine-Woodhurs t Association. This asso- ciation is confined to the Bearpaw Mountains. It is associated with the igneous rocks that form the high- lands and is used for range and timber production. SC - Spring Creek-Cowood Association. This association is confined to the Highwood mountains and is used for small grain, range and timber production. Vegetation Payne (1973) describes six vegetative rangeland types in the study area (Figures 4 and 5) . They are the foothill grassland, northern grassland, Teton River-Judith Basin grassland, central grassland, Missouri Breaks scrub pine and undifferentiated stream and lake bottoms. The following is a brief description of each type. - (1 s o' i <^ ^ L J? ? > e ■S 10 T3 L c: L o n m a. m O- -> CD OD i/> o lo ^ ,11111 -> {D CD CO Q c/) Id (0 •H o CO CM 0) 3 cn •H ►4 +j w , M 3 ^ x: 7^ 'O « f 0 ' * f o \# o s "it •-H \ ^ +J 0) D C \ -H x; (0 -P .H -iH OJ CQ to Ti >-l \ Q C 3 ^4 • 2 0 •^ QJ !-j W •H \-H u o 4-) W tn a, w rtJ Ti s-i \ tn ij -H c Q) m c u rO > m -H 0 rH c E ^4 UJ w T! re W CU n en n3 Q -H en CM re m kJ CE •H 1 1 1 1 ID S 0 < t-D a, m w 0Q Q iJ l/l CVJ PJ UJ tr ui o CVJ cr UJ C71 UJ 00 E UJ UJ CD UJ in 04 •rH o CO u Id S c o •H ■p ta +1 0) (31 (U > (U 3 •H Cm 7' -^ 2 H in ^ rO Cd oo 00 OJ CJ \- \- \ y- 1 y- o 00 (U c c ■H -H 0- 0) 1 « XI « 3 ^ n £ 0 v 0) ■P to "O 4J a ■rH c 0 >i TI m n J3 E- 3 a; ^ E Q 1-1 1* w i« Z C 1 0) in (V U 0 U iH ra kl O -H <1) m u 4J U 4J > -0 u Ul ij m -H c ■H 4-1 DS in Lj r-4 • (U iH 3 ItJ U-l CP C « 0 M M-1 •p m U) C T3 n) ij ■H 0 C E- O S u o OJ LlI OJ CM UJ CM UJ O CM cr UJ CI UJ cr UJ UJ Oi o •r1 -P fl) ■P 0) (1) > in -l 0) i~ (U M a > :3 0) 2 ril tn u CM CM CE • UJ Di Cvj 10 cc 0) > to UJ o -a c CM cr 0) (1) UJ > CD Q) £ tn 1 0) UJ 00 0) C 5 (0 UJ -p c E -H UJ (U U) 0 cc (1) 3 UJ S 0) S-l 3 •H fa 25 I I Figure_12. Aerial survey of mule deer, Birch Creek, February 1979. 7 I (1 > / 1 « -r^^-. r 1 Mule deer habitat is affected by several major land use practices. These are livestock overgrazing, brush destruction, and weed eradication. Since winter range is key habitat, emphasis should be placed upon protecting these lands from the above- mentioned land use practices. The majority of mule deer winter range is public land managed by the BLM (largest amount of winter range involved), State and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range) . It should be the primary responsibility of these land managers to manage these lands in a manner which is beneficial to mule deer and other wildlife present. Public land agencies and other wildlife man- agers can determine what public lands are designated mule deer winter range used under average winter conditions by consulting Figure 11. A more detailed description can be obtained by con- sulting previous Job Progress Reports (Constan 1976 and 1977) . Land managers can determine which of their lands are used as mule deer winter range during severe winter conditions by check- ing Figure 11 and Constan 1978, and by examining the following list of public lands that are used as mule deer winter range under severe winter conditions: STATE - S 5,7,17,20,29, T22N, RISE; S 33,34, T23N, R16E; S 15,16,27,34, T22N, R16E; S 15,16,36, T21N, R16E; 516,19,20, T22N, R18E; S 36, T22N, R22E; S 16,36, T22N, R21E; S 36, T25N, R16E; S 16, T23N, R17E. BLM - S 20,21,22,25,26,27,28,35, T25N, R16E; S 19,20,28, 29,30,31,32,33, T25N, R17E; S 1,2,11,12,13,24, T24N, R16E; S 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,15,17,18,23,24, 25,26, T24N, R17E; S 4,5,7,8,9,19,20,21,29,30, T24N, R18E; S 1,3,4,5,8,9,10,12,13,14,17,18,20,21, 23,24,25, T23N, R17E; S 4,5,6,19,20,21,22,27,28, 29,30,33, T23N, R18E; S 8,20,32, T22N, R15E; S 5,29, T21N, R15E; S 15,21,22,28,31,32,33,34, T22N, R16E; S 3,4,9,10,11,13,14,21,22,23,24,25, 26,27,28,29,32,33,34,35, T21N, R16E; S6 , T20N, R17E; S 2,3,4,9,10,11, T20N, R16E; S 21,22,27,28, 29, T21N, R17E; S 19,20,22,23,26,27,29,30, T22N, R17E; S 1,2,9,10,11,12,15,19,20,21,22, T22N, R18E; S 26,27,34,35, T23N, R18E; S 29,31,32, T2 3N , R22E; S 2,4,5,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,19,20,23,24,25,28,29,30, 31,32,33,35, T22N, R22E; S 2,3,5,6,7,10,11, T21N, R22E; S 15,21,22,24,34,35, T22N, R2 IE . CMR - S 7,18,19, T22N, R2 3E . White-tailed Deer Western Segment Distribution White-tailed deer are the most limited in numbers and distri- bution of the three big game species found in the study area. 27 During the course of the project, only 146 whitetails were ob- lt7tt "^""""l ." presents the distribution of these observations and the general limits of whitetails. They are found along the and^'n';^h r°"^' ^' ''^ Missouri River from Fort Benton to Loma WM^-"^ ^ lower Teton and Marias River bottoms in the study area the loothillfo? ^h T^ "'^"^ '^" Highwood Creek bottom and xn the foothills of the Highwood and Bearpaw mountains. ciated^Si?rih°^^^''''^^'°" °^ habitat use shows this species asso- ciated with the riparian river bottoms of Cottonwood, willow, find wh?;;.!?? agricultural vegetation types. Winter observations find whitetails up on the grassland-sagebrush types on sidehills Ti.ll^ll^ °' '^^ "'"^" ^^^^'^"- °"^i"5 periods "^of deep snow with^ I Z^^^^'' ^K ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ bottoms and winte? along with mule deer in these areas. ^ Population Characteristics The white-tailed deer population showed a higher rate of ar^f ''spriL'5:9^r h'"" ^''''''l ^'^^ ^^^ "^^^^ ^'^ in the°ftudy does'(2fdee?) in 19?7?h'°"?-'°^"^ ^ "^^^° °' ''■' f^wns/lOO w?! on 5 ^ ;. ^^^^ ^"^^^ figure was 114 fawns/100 does, 1978 was 90 fawns/100 does, and 1979 figures show 75 fawns/100 does Whitetails have composed a small segment of the total deer cenrnfVh °H ^^^^^^f ''^ ' ^hey comprised approximateiri3 per- cent of the harvest from 1975 through 1977 and 7 percent of the harvest m district 471 (Table 5). At the 1979 Fort Benton check 26 deer' white-tailed deer was taken out of a tota! of Eastern Segment White-tailed deer are a minor component of the study area's tauna, and few observations were obtained during the entire studv Primary concentrations of the whitetails in the study area are "^^ found along the Missouri River from the Robinson Bridge upstream for about 6 miles and along the Judith River. Only an occasional sighting was made elsewhere. Along the rivers, whitetails are primarily found in the riverbottom habitat; however, some use is made of nearby rough, timbered breaks habitat. Th4 riverbottom vegetation type, which consists of large stands of willoSs and cottonwoods, numerous brush species, hay fields and a large variety of other riparian vegetation species, provides good habiSt lor wh?t^ ^^^^H r^ ^^';^^^ ^"^' ^°°^ ^^^it^ ^"^ proluctivity of the Tigely "^ ^^^ Missouri River was studied by Alien Not enough whitetails were observed within the studv ;,.«. TableSf \"'P°" ^""'°' ^° determine productivity (Appendix Table 2); however, winter classification of 175 whitetails was 28 o •H ■p :3 XI ■H S-l ■P U) ■H 13 5-1 0) 0) •a (U iH ■H m ■p I 0) +> •H J3 fO 0} u 3 cn •H 29 made south of the study area in Hunting District 417. Classifi- cation of these deer resulted in a ratio of 43 fawns per 100 adults. This low fawn/adult ratio can be attributed, at least in part, to the extremely severe winter. Deer were observed using haystacks as early as December 1, and dead fawns were ob- served around haystacks before the end of December. Most of the whitetail habitat along the Judith River is on private lands, whereas all the habitat along the Missouri River is within the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range. Live- stock tend to concentrate along riverbottoms , and the resulting overgrazing of the bottoms can harm whitetail habitat. Land use practices which destroy brush species in these bottoms are also very detrimental to whitetail habitat. All involved land mana- gers should take extra precautions to prevent wildlife habitat destruction on these riverbottom lands, as these are usually superior wildlife habitat. Antelope Western Segment Distribution Figure 14 presents the distribution of antelope observations A total of 711 antelope was observed during the course of the study. This species is generally found in small bands (10-20 animals) throughout the study area in the remaining native sage- brush-grassland areas. The antelope is one species that has un- doubtedly seen its numbers and range greatly reduced with the ad- vent and expansion of dryland agriculture. Seasonal vegetation use shows the importance of the native sagebrush and grassland types with some spring and fall use of small grain areas. Ante- lope are typically found in the plateau and coulee head areas during most of the year, with a movement into the river breaks during winter. The severe winter of 1977-78 found antelope con- centrated along the Missouri River and Teton River breaks near Fort Benton, the Arrow Creek breaks and the Birch Creek-Black Coulee breaks. Here antelope are found wintering along with mule deer, making particular use of the sagebrush sidehill and ridge habitat types. Population Characteristics Table 8 presents data on seasonal antelope classifications for the course of the study. The average population structure found was 11 percent bucks, 62 percent does and 26 percent fawns. This would primarily represent postwinter populations. Varying degrees of overwinter fawn mortality were noted each year. The relatively mild winter of 1975-76 showed only a small decline in the number of fawns/100 does. The severe winter of 1977-78, how- ever, recorded a 75 percent decline in the fawn/doe ratio. This severe winter caused high antelope mortalities in the study area. 30 c o •H -P u 0^ en C 00 ■H r- U a\ OiiH w J-i CD r- e r- e o^ 3 rH W tP C r~- ■H r- H a\ c Oi-H o en to m QJ w M VD iH r^ (0 o^ Cm H r- S-l o o CM o in in CN o o CM o 00 in in ^ O vo CM • • • CTi in r^ CN CN rH CO •^ ■^ o r-~ o 00 o CN o 00 • • • • . • iH in VD Q) 1X> r- o ro CN CN u u iH 1X> CN rH o 00 in Vj KD ^ 00 VD . • • -P • • ■ o 00 CN CO rH in CN in •a* c 0 •H -p (0 >J3 m CN 00 r- •^ rH iH rH 00 CN • ■ • :3 • • • ri IX) in Q. CT^ en 1— 1 m ■^ <-i 0 in m in 00 ro C7^ rn (N IX) CN n VD • • • ■ • • ^D r- r~- r- r^ in CN rH ■^ CN in iH o CM m ca 0) a. o 1 5. 0) > S-l 3 tn UJ rH 00 (0 cc •H ^^ Q) (0 UJ QJ 1^ 04 E 0 H (U ■P c UJ nj ID cc U Q) 1 UJ en VD 0) M 3 •H 0) > 0) w o > Q) < in 0) !-l CU > w c (T5 0) en ra J-l > 0) C Q) ■P C 0) o rH 0) +J c r- (1) •H |i4 37 Antelope winter ranges must be considered key habitat and the public lands that make up parts of these winter ranges must be classified as very important keys to these winter ranges. The following is a list of public lands that are antelope winter range under average winter conditions and under severe winter conditions: Winter Range - average winter conditions State - S 8,9,10,15,16,18,20, T22N, R19E; S 1,4,9,10,11, 12,13,14,15,16, T22N, R20E; S 36, T23N, R20E; S 16,20,21,22,27,28,29, T22N, R15E; S 16, T20N, R16E; S 36, T24N, R23E. BLM - S 24, T22N, R18E; S 9,18,19,20, T22N, R19E; S 20,21,27,28,34, T22N, R15E; S 22,28,32,33, T21N, R16E; S 3,4,5,8,9,17,18, T20N, R16E; S 30,31,32, T24N, R24E; S 25,26,35, T24N, R23E; S 6,7, T23N, R24E; S 1,2,11,12,14, T23N, R2 3E ; S 31, T23N, R21E; S 34,35, T23N, R20E; S 6,7, T22N, R21E; S 1,2,3,4,12,15, T22N, R20E. Winter Range - severe winter conditions State - S 15,16, T21N, R16E; S 34, T23N, R16E; S 1,2, T22N, R19E. BLM - S 17,22,26, T24N, R17E; S 4,5,7,8,9,17,18, T21N, R15E; S 3,10, T21N, R16E; S 34, T23N, R16E; S 33,34, T23N, R20E; S 6, T22N, R21E; S 17, T21N, R22E; S 14, T25N, R16E. CMR* - S 27,28, T22N, R23E; S 18,19,30, T22N, R24E; S 13,21,22,23,24, T2 2N, R2 3E. *CMR = Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range. Since the above-mentioned lands are critical to the survival of antelope, the involved land managers should key their land man- agement to protect and enhance this wildlife resource. The land use practice most detrimental to antelope on the study area is the destruction of sagebrush. Under no circum- stances should state or federal land managers allow sagebrush eradication on antelope range, especially winter ranges. Over- grazing is another land use practice that must be regulated on public lands, as it has a negative impact on antelope. Since antelope are a migratory big game animal, public land managers should avoid the construction of antelope-tight fences which prevent antelope from moving throughout their home range. This can be extremely important during severe winters when antelope may need to migrate longer distances to suitable wintering areas. 38 Bighorn Sheep Eastern Segment A small bighorn sheep herd is found in the eastern end of the study area and completely within the Charles M. Russell Wild- life Range. This small bighorn population has remained rela- tively stable during the study period, as the ewe population has varied between 8 and 11 and the rams have dropped from 2 to 1 (1 winter-killed in the 1977-78 winter) . Reproduction rates are high, as numerous lambs have been observed each summer; however, few lambs survive their first year. Only one lamb was recruited in 1977, one or two lambs in 1978 and two lambs in 1979. All lambs recruited were ewes. This bighorn population has not changed much since the major die-off during the winter of 1971-72 when the population dropped from at least 90 to 23. It is apparent that this sheep herd is barely holding on, and addi- tional research should be done to pin-point the causes preventing a population increase. Observations during the 4-year study (Constan 1976, 77, 78 and Appendix Table 4) show that these bighorns spend most of the year within approximately 3 square miles, N^ S 30, NJj S 29, N's S 28, S 20, SJj S 19, T22N, R23E. During a severe winter, these bighorns use only about 1 square mile of range, Figure 18, and not much more during an average winter. This bighorn habitat is being affected by several factors: (1) the rough breaks that comprise the bighorns' range appears to have a minimum quantity of vegetation, (2) the area used by the bighorns is quite small in size, (3) there is substantial competition between livestock and bighorns, and (4) elk are beginning to winter on the bighorn winter range, and elk will compete directly with bighorns (Con- stan 1972) . The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range is responsible for the management of these bighorns. Their management plans should include directives that will eliminate livestock grazing on bighorn range and closely monitor elk use on the bighorn winter range to protect the bighorns from excessive elk-bighorn competition . Elk Eastern Segment Throughout the 4-year study, only a few elk have been ob- served within the study area. These observations have been re- stricted to the extreme eastern end of the study area, and all observations were made within the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range (Constan 1976, 77, 78 and Appendix Table 5). 39 o c 0) 0) (1) c u u 0) c u •H +J ■H M U a (U tn c u 0 x; tji •H Figure 18. Bighorn sheep critical winter range under severe winter conditions . 40 The elk are found in the rough Missouri River Breaks and along the Missouri River bottom. The dense willow stands and Cottonwood groves in the riverbottom are used for cover and the nearby hay fields, bottoms and grass-covered hills are used for feeding. Several islands in the Missouri River, Two Calf Island being the most important, provide elk with maximum security, cover and food and are, therefore, important elk habitat. There appears to be a definite trend where these elk, which were only occasionally observed in the study area, are now es- tablished there on a yearlong basis. Numbers remain low, with about 20-30 elk present at any one time. The 1978-79 elk observations. Appendix Table 5, continue to show that some elk are wintering on the bighorn sheep winter range. Considering the plight of these bighorns (see section on bighorn sheep) , any elk use on the bighorn sheep winter range would be detrimental to the sheep. Elk management programs on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range should include plans to avoid any elk-bighorn competition for winter range. The CMR should also be managed in a manner to preclude livestock overgrazing of elk habitat in the riverbottom, on the islands or on any other elk winter range. Other Animals Western Segment Beaver The beaver (Castor canadensis) is one of the primary fur- bearers along the Missouri River and its tributaries. Other sought-after species would include mink, muskrat, bobcat, and coyote . Beaver are found associated with the cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation found on islands and river banks. For the most part, they occupy bank burrows; however, a few lodges are found in cut-off side channels. In these areas a few dams have also been observed. Tables 11 and 12 present beaver cache counts that have been flown on the Missouri River and Marias River. For the last 7 years, an average of 42.8 caches have been located from Great Falls to Coal Banks Landing on the Missouri River. The 1979 and 1954 surveys were quite similar, with only the Loma to Coal Banks reach down from 19 54. Coal Banks to PN Ferry averaged 15 caches for the 2 years surveyed. On the Marias River below Tiber Dam, an average of 33 caches was located for the 6 years surveyed. Most caches were found on the lower reach below Meissner Ranch. 41 Table 11. Beaver cache counts - Missouri River, Section 1954 1968 1969 1971 1972 1974 1976 1977 1979 Great Falls 9 7 6 4 5 Carter 14 7 6 3 4 Ft. Benton 28 18 15 15 7 Loma 35 36 23 21 17 Coal Banks PN Ferry Robinson Bridge 43 1 4 8 2 5 14 3 14 26 3 5 21 7 */ 23 41 41 7 Total 86 68 50 43 33 43 57 69 *not surveyed Table 12. Beaver cache counts - Marias River. Section 1968 1969 1971 1972 1975 1979 Loma 44 18 13 26 22 16 to Meissner Ranch to 4 3 9 22 14 7 Tiber Dam Total 48 21 22 48 36 23 42 Nongame Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, through its Nongame and Endangered Species Program, has designed a pri- ority rating system to identify key nongame species. The criteria for the rating system are species security level, public appeal and economic and ecological impact of species range expansion and/or increase in numbers. For the four counties (Cascade, Chou- teau, Fergus and Blaine) which are partially taken in by the middle Missouri River project, a list of 17 mammals, 3 reptiles and 2 amphibians was compiled for species with high positive or negative priority ratings. Table 13 presents this list of species and their ratings. Not all of these species may be in the project area, but the potential exists. Table 13. Nongame species list. Mamma 1 s Priority Rating Meriam shrew (Sorex merriami) 11.5 Dwarf shrew (Sorex nanus) 11.75 Preble shrew (Sorex preblei) 10.25 Long-legged bat (Myotis volans) 8.24 Townsend's bat (Plecotus townsendii) 6.25 Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 41.5 ' Least weasel (Mustela nivalis) 7.5 Wolverine (Gulo gulo) 20.0 Swift fox (Vulpes velox) 24.5 Wolf (Canis lupus) 27.5 ' Lynx (Lynx canadensis) 17.5 Mountain phenacomy (Phenacomys intermedius) 5.75 Sagebrush vole (Lagurus curtatus) 9.2 5 Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) 6.0 Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) -20.25 Desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni) 11.25 Mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttalli) 7.0 Reptiles Snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) 8.5 Plains hognose snake (Heterodon nasicus) 8.25 Spiny softshell turtle (Trionyx spiniferus) 7.5 Amphibians Spotted chorus frog (Pseudocris clarki) 4.0 Dokato toad (Bufo hemiophrys) 8.2 ''Endangered species 43 Eastern Segment Emphasis during the study was placed upon the coyote and beaver. Data were not obtained on other mammals or reptiles and amphibians. (The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks' nongame and endangered species program designed a priority rating system to identify key nongame species. A list of possible species that may be on the study area is presented in Table 13.) None of these species was observed during the study. Coyotes are plentiful throughout the study area, and they are the primary f urbearer-predator that hunters and trappers seek, as the price of their pelt remains high. Controversy con- tinues to surround the coyote, as some people want to protect them and other people want to eliminate them. Data obtained during the study clearly show that large numbers of coyotes (one local hunter took nearly 500 pelts in the 1978-79 winter) are being harvested, and coyote populations continue to remain at high levels. Hunters and trappers don't appear to be able to substantially affect the coyote population. The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks initiated two intensive research projects investigating coyotes in the Missouri River Breaks adjacent to this study area. One project studied the coyote and the other project focused on the coyote and its effect on mule deer fawns. Current results can be found in Montana Deer Studies , Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1976, 77, 78 and 79, Projects W-120-R-7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively . Beaver are primarily found along the Judith and Missouri rivers. The Missouri River islands, with their cottonwood-willow vegetation, are the primary habitat used by beaver, as over half the beaver caches counted were observed on islands (Table 14). Aerial beaver cache counts have been conducted along the Missouri River and Judith River by C . R. Watts, Montana Depart- ment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks' biologist, during the period 1976-79 (Table 14) . Numbers of beaver caches on both rivers declined in 1978 and 1979. The severe winters of 1977-78 and 1978-79 appear to have had a detrimental effect upon beaver, as dead beavers were observed after each winter. The major threat to beaver would be dam building on the Missouri River. Wherever a dam is erected, the resulting reser- voir would destroy beaver habitat. 44 Table 14. Beaver cache counts - Missouri and Judith rivers, 1974, 1976-1979. Location 1974 Missouri River Judith River- Stafford Ferry Stafford Ferry- Power Plant Power Plant-CMR CMR-Robinson Bridge Totals 12 (5) 6 (4) Caches Counted 1976 1977 1978 5 (4)* 6 (4) 8 (7) 6 (5) 5 (4) 12 (8) 6 (5) 3 (1) 11 (7) 5 (4) 1979 1 (0) 8 (5) 5 (4) 20 (7) 21(10) 18 (9) 20(10) 8 (4) 43(20) 41(26) 41(26) 39(22) 22(13) Judith River Hobson-Spring Cr. 12 Spring Cr.- Warm Springs Cr. 2 Warm Springs Cr.- Dry Wolf Cr. 9 Dry Wolf Cr.- Mouth _6_ Totals 29 21 11 _5 41 29 11 _5 54 16 10 _7 42 19 _6 36 *Nuinbers in parentheses are caches on islands 45 Sage Grouse Western Segment Distribution During the course of this study, 495 sage grouse were ob- served. The distribution of these observations is presented in Figure 19. The distribution of sage grouse in the study area is directly related to the availability of sagebrush habitat. Sage grouse are the most restricted in niombers and distribution of the upland game birds. This species, like the antelope, has seen the greatest reduction in its historic habitat with the advent of dryland small grain agriculture. The primary habitat for this species in the study area is found in the heads and divides between Birch Creek, Sand Creek and Black Coulee on the north side of the Missouri River. In this area, a native sagebrush-grassland vegetation type exists and supports a significant population. Throughout the rest of the study area, the sage grouse has been reduced to essentially remnant populations where sagebrush has been left by farming operations or has received a degree of protection by federal ownership. However, these areas are being continually reduced by land conversion programs. Reproducing populations exist on the lower Teton and Marias river breaks, the Rattlesnake Coulee drainage, the Missouri River Breaks near Virgelle, and the Arrow Creek drainage. Sage grouse have been reported southeast of Fort Benton along the Missouri Breaks. These populations, with the exception of Arrow Creek, are quite limited in numbers and available habitat. Habitat use data presented in 1977 showed the importance of coulee and riverbottom areas of sagebrush- grassland vegetation. A shift to small grain agricultural areas was found in late summer and early fall. During severe winter conditions these birds appear to make greater use of the steeper sagebrush breaks . Population Characteristics Five sage grouse strutting grounds were located during the spring of 1976 between Birch Creek and Black Coulee. Table 15 presents the maximum number of males observed on these grounds . The average number of males observed per ground was 2 3 in 1976, 15 in 1977, 15 in 1978, and 17 in 1979. Counts were not recorded for three grounds in 1979 due to poor conditions on the date of observations . Brood observations for the course of the study recorded an average of 5.3 young per brood in 1976, 3.8 in 1977, and 4.0 in 1978. The low figures of 1977 and 1978 are considered low due to limited observations. 46 Table 15. Sage grouse strutting grounds, Ground No. Mai es No. 1976 1977 1978 1979 Location 1 48 18 29 30 S 26, T26N, R16E 2 13 - 8 - S 9, T25N, R18E 3 16 15 - - s 35, T26N, R16E 4 25 18 16 - s 11, T25N, R17E 5 14 9 7 4 s 15, T25N, R17E — Table 16 presents data from the opening day upland game bird check station operated for 5 years at Fort Benton. As can be seen, sage grouse make up a small portion of the total harvest. The sage grouse season south of the Missouri and Marias rivers is closed. Table 16. Fort Benton check station, Year 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 Date 9/20 9/18 9/18 9/17 9/15 No. Hunters 86 46 81 103 85 Manhours 413 139 353 408 460 Sage Grouse .' No. 5 0 0 3 41 % 5 0 0 3 26 Sharptails No. 93 58 150 111 119 % 93 100 100 97 74 Total Birds 100 58 150 114 160 Hours/Bird 4.2 2.4 2.4 3.6 2.9 Birds/100 hunters 114 126 185 111 188 47 c o •H 4-> •H -P CO •H ■d (fl O u en 0) (0 en en 0) 3 •H fa 48 Eastern Segment Sage grouse and sagebrush are inseparable; thus, sage grouse habitat is the same as the sagebrush-grassland vegetation type. South of the Missouri River, sage grouse are mostly found east of a north-south line that extends through Winifred. There is a remnant population that occupies the west side of Arrow Creek and the "Big Sage" area between the mouths of Arrow Creek and the Judith River. North of the Missouri River, sage grouse are found throughout the heads of all major drainages wherever the sagebrush-grassland vegetation type occurs. Sage grouse dis- tribution was documented through observations made during the study (Constan 1976, 77, 78 and Appendix Table 6). Primary emphasis during the study was placed upon locating sage grouse wintering areas in the 1975-76 and 76-77 winters and wintering areas used under the severe winter conditions of the 1977-78 and 1978-79 winters. Data collected throughout the study delineated sage grouse winter ranges used under average winter conditions and under severe winter conditions (Figure 20), A February 19 and 20, 1979 helicopter survey of the Birch Creek drainage located numerous sage grouse wintering sites, and these findings are presented in Figure 21 to provide a more detailed delineation of these sites. During spring 19 79, several trips were made to census male sage grouse on their strutting grounds. Poor observation condi- tions and the earlier than usual movement of sage grouse off their grounds before daylight, probably caused by the unusually numerous raptors present, hindered the survey, and probably caused counts that were too low. Sage grouse were counted on 8 grounds and a total of 186 cocks was observed (Table 17) . This total was 6 percent lower than the total in 1978 and 22 percent less than the 1977 total. Even though the numbers of cocks counted in 1979 and 1978 were down from tlie 1977 count, the fall sage grouse populations of 1978 and 1979 appeared to be high, and at a higher level than the 1977 fall level. During the 1978 summer, 2 broods were observed averaging 3.5 juveniles per brood. Region 4 sage grouse brood data for 1978 had an average brood size of 5.6 juveniles per brood. Region 4 bird production ratios taken from fall wing analyses showed that in 1978 there were 197 juveniles per 100 adults. After 6 straight years of below-average production, the 1978 production was above the 17-year average of 19 3 juveniles. This substantiates the observation that fall sage grouse popu- lations in 1978 were higher than in 1977. Hunter harvest was also up in 1978, as hunter harvest questionnaire data estimated that 3,744 sage grouse were har- vested in Fergus County. Harvest figures for 1977 and 1976 were 3,620 and 5,140, respectively. Data are not available for the 1979 harvest; however, it appears that this harvest will be equal to or better than the 1978 harvest. 49 Table 17. Maximum numbers of male sage grouse observed on breed- ing grounds, Winifred area, springs 1974-79. Ground Designation & Location 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1 State S16, T22N, R19E 2 SIO, T22N, R19E 5 S 8, T22N, R19E 6 SI, T22N, R20E 7 Cutbank S33, T22N, R19E 8 S27, T22N, R19E 9 Taffy Cr S25, T22N, R19E 10 Knox Rdg S 8, T21N, R21E 11 Rose Cr S32, T21N, R19E 12 S21, T21N, R19E 14 Butcher S35&36 ,T21N,R19E 15 Suffolk S21, T20N, R19E AA S18, T22N, R21E CC SE'a S21, T23N, R20E DD SW^s S31, T24N, R24E NC \Vj 77 66 34 + 35 28 23 34 41 26 17 11 14 1 36 16 22 22 33 13 18 15 26 12 8 11 14 0* 0* 0* 0 7 NC 10 15 0 20 13+ 9 22 20 NC 18 4 82/ NC 18 24 , 211/ 0 12 NC 11 0 0 33+ 36 NC 7 NC 0 25 + 7 NC 45 0 23 15 NC NC 0 7 NC 0* 26 NC 0 1/ Underlined in year ground first found and counted 2/ Location of birds moved h mile north to S29, T21N, R19E 3/ Location of birds returned h mile south to original location - Sec 32, T21N, R19E NC Not Counted * Needs further inventory to make sure it is a permanent ground 50 ^^0' in Z CM Z Z z CM CM 00 CM CM O en 1— 1 H- 1 1- 1 c w o u H CM 1 ^- 1 H Ul iJ (l> c *j ■H c 3 ■H 3 01 1-1 (1) • 0) Q Ul in m > Z 3 X) > (1) u 0 C fl in u u 3 — -^ u u 0 J U (1) (U o tr D> tp CP c c nj CP (0 nj in c ^J t4 [/) S 2 UJ rO • CM U) (T u 0) -p c ■r4 CM s CM q: 0) S-1 dJ > 0) UJ m CM tr i^ OJ en UJ fl O M CM 0) cr > (0 UJ 1 C71 OJ CP 5. c (C ^-1 M UJ 0) 00 +J s c ■H > Q) UJ 05 r- :3 £ 0 M tP 0) UJ en CD (fl CC CO • o UJ (N in a Q) ^ 13 - Cn ■H fc L LEGEND I Sage grouse winter range /fJjT) Figure 21. Sage grouse winter range used during severe winter, As previously mentioned in Constan 1976, 77 and 78, the primary land use practice detrimental to sage grouse is sage- brush destruction. It is well documented that sage grouse can- not exist without sagebrush, yet every year more sagebrush is destroyed and the resulting sagebrush-free lands are planted to small grain agriculture, hay or grasses. The major sage grouse habitat east and northeast of Winifred is no exception. What was once a large block of sagebrush-grassland is now a grain agriculture with only small remnant blocks of sagebrush remain- ing. In order to protect sagebrush, at this time when massive amounts of privately owned sagebrush-covered land is being con- verted into grain production, more sagebrush must be protected on piiblic lands. Sagebrush on Bureau of Land Management land and on State lands must be protected and managed for its wild- life values. During this study, the following State and BLM lands have been identified as key lands for sage grouse, and therefore the sagebrush on these lands must be protected. These'*lands are separated into areas used by sage grouse for strutting grounds, winter ranges used under average winter con- ditions and winter ranges used under severe winter conditions. They are as follows: Strutting Grounds State -SI, T22N, R20E; S 10, T22N, R19E; S 16, T22N, R19E; S 36, T21N, R19E. BLM - S 8, T22N, R20E; SJjS 33, T22N, R19E; S 29 & 32, T21N, R19E. Winter Ranges - average winter conditions State - S 36, T21N, R19E; S 36, T23N, R19E; S 9,10,11, 15,16,21, T22N, R19E; S 25,26,27,28,33,34,35,36, T22N, R19E. BLM - S 31, T23N, R20E; S 18, T22N, R20E; S 19,30, T22N, R19E; S 5,21, T20N, R19E; S 31, T21N, R20E; S 29,30,31,32,33,35, T21N, R19E. Winter Ranges - severe winter conditions State - S 16, T25N, R17E; S 16, T23N, R17E; S 36, T25N, R16E; S 16, T21N, R15E; S 13,14,25,26, T22N, R21E; S 1, T22N, R20E; S 16, T2 IN , R19E . BLM - S 7,8,12,3,2, T2 3N , R22E; S 5,6, T23N, R23E; S 28,32, T21N, R16E; S 17, T21N, R15E; S 8,9, T22N, R15E; S 25, T23N, R21E; S 17,30, T22N, R19E; S 25, T22N, R18E; S 26, T23N, R20E; S 19,30, T22N, R22E; S 13,14, T22N, R21E; S 14,21,23,24,25, T25N, R16E; S 4,10,11,14,20,21,31,32,33, T25N, R17E; S 5,6,7,8,10,18,19, T24N, R17E; S 4,8,9,10,11, 14,15,21,23, T23N, R17E. CMR - Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range - S21, T22N, R23E. 53 Sage grouse are also adversely affected by livestock overgrazing and weed eradication programs. The Department of State Lands and the BLM should prevent these practices on the above-mentioned lands and any other lands used by sage grouse. Sharp-tailed Grouse Western Segment Distribution Sharp-tailed grouse observations totaled 1,087 for the period of this project. The distribution of these observations and spring dancing grounds are presented in Figure 22. The sharptails are the most abundant of the native grouse found in the study area. They are found throughout the study area where native grassland vegetation still exists. They are primarily associated with the river breaks and tributary coulees. Excellent populations are found in the foothill grasslands of the Highwood Mountains. Seasonal habitat use data show an association of this species with plateau and ridge grasslands during the spring, which correlates with breeding season activity. A movement toward creek bottom agricultural lands is indicated, which would follow with desiccation of upland vegetation during brood rearing. Fall and winter observations show use of agricultural lands and areas of deciduous cover on uplands and creek bottoms. Population Characteristics During the course of the project, seven sharptail dancing grounds (Table 18) were located and censused in the western seg- ment of the project. The average number of males per ground was 13.8 in 1976, 16.6 in 1977, 11.3 in 1978, and 14.7 in 1979. Sharptail brood observations found an average of 6.3 young per brood in 1976 and 6.5 in 1979. Table 18. Sharptail dancing ground count. No . of Males Locatioi Ground 1976 11 1977 24 1978 8 1979 9 n 1 Rowe Coulee S 3, T24N, RIOE 2 Spring Coulee 27 - - - S13, T2 3N, R 8E 3 O'Hanlon Coulee 10 8 - - S 8, T24N, RIOE 4 Rowe Bench 21 23 15 22 S30, T25N, RICE 5 Harwood Lake 30 - - - S 4, T23N, RUE 6 Brewer Road - 10 - - S 2, T25N, R16E 7 Teton Breaks 18 11 13 S20, T25N, R 9E 54 c o -H +) 3 ja •H -p to -rH 0) 01 3 O u •a f-i •H a. u (0 CO (N tN (1) 3 cn •rH P-l 55 Brown (1962-1967), in his study of the sharptail in the Highwood Mountains, found an average breeding cock density of 6 cocks per square mile and an average of 21.5 males per ground. Breeding season habitat consisted of areas with a minimum of 1 square mile of native grassland. He stressed the importance of standing herbaceous cover as a critical element of the breed- ing habitat. A direct relationship was found between increases in herbaceous cover and increases in numbers of breeding males; the reverse also being true. Shrub interspersion and topography had compensating roles. In 196 7, Brown found nest success to be 62 percent, with an average first clutch of 12.7 eggs. Hens (9) were found to nest an average of .68 miles from the breeding ground. Eastern Segment Sharp-tailed grouse are distributed throughout the study area (Constan 1976, 77, 78 and Appendix Table 7). They are found in all vegetation types; however, they are especially abundant where there is a combination of grassland, small grain agriculture and brushy cover. No distinct winter ranges were located; however, the highest winter observations of sharptails were plotted in Figure 23. In general, sharptails were found wintering in brushy draws adjacent to grain fields, sagebrush- grasslands with brushy draws and in the scrub pine breaks. During the study, 31 previously unknown sharptail breeding grounds were located (Table 19 and Figure 23) . Seventeen grounds were located in a grassland vegetation type, 6 in a sagebrush- grassland type and 8 in agriculture such as grain and hay fields. In the 1979 spring, male sharptail counts were made on their breeding grounds (Table 19). Data from 15 grounds surveyed in 1979 were comparable to 1978 data. Results indicated that highest counts of males were up on 8 grounds in 1979, down on 5 grounds and 2 were the same. A total of 180 males was observed in 1979 compared to 181 in 1978; however, a comparison of 1979 data to 1977 data shows a 47 percent decline. Region 4 sharp-tailed grouse production ratios computed from the fall wing analyses were 243 juveniles per 100 adults in 1978. This was above the 21-year average of 214 and an 88 per- cent increase over the 1977 ratio of 130. During the entire study, only two sharptail broods were observed - both in 1979 - and they averaged 8 juveniles per brood. Observations during the 1976 through 1979 hunting seasons indicated that sharptail population dropped significantly from 1976 through 1978 and then showed a dramatic increase in 1979. The 1979 population appeared to be the highest since the study began. The above observations are substantiated by the hunter harvest questionnaire estimates of the sharptail harvest in Fergus County. In 1978, the harvest was 6,322, down 34 percent from the 1977 harvest of 9,601 and down 43 percent from the 1976 harvest of 11,019. However, sharptails were very plentiful dur- ing the 1979 hunting season, and the 1979 harvest should show a significant increase. 56 Table 19. Maximum numbers of male sharp- tailed grouse observed on breeding grounds, springs 1976-79. Ground Designation and Location 1976 1977 1978 1979 ST-1 S 1 , T21N , R22E S 3 Nci/ 0 ST- 2 S33 , T22N , R2 3E 1^0/ 13 NC 6 A S15 , T20N , RISE 30 2/ NC 42 49 B S24 T20N , RISE 16 NC 0 0 C S16 , T20N , R16E 14 NC 14 17 D S 5 , T20N , R16E 16 NC 12 16 E S12 , T21N , RISE 3S NC 4 0 F EJj S34 , T22N , RISE 18 NC 5 14 G SB's S24 T22N , RISE 10 NC 0 8 H EJ3 S32 , T22N , RISE 31 NC NC 2 I NWa S18 T22N , R16E 12 NC NC 0 J SE^a S 9 T22N , R17E 24 22 NC 17 K he's S 6 T21N , R18E 13 NC 13 L SWs S27 T22N , R18E 3 NC 6 M sh S28 T22N , R18E 24 NC 0 N NE^ S 2 T21N R17E 18 IS 8 P NE^ S33, T22N R17E 18 11 13 R NE^a S 7 T22N R17E 3 NC 1 S SW^s S15, T21N R18E 18 IS 7 T Nh S 7, T22N R22E 4 NC 0 U SWs S 7, T22N R2 3E 7 NC 0 V SE?a S 3, T20N RISE 19 18 W SB's S12, T22N R16E 28 6 X NE^a S21, T21N, RISE 8 11 Y sw^ S14, T21N RISE S 10 Z SWJs S18, T21N R16E 3 3 AA NW^ S12, T20N RIGE^'^ NC 0 BB NVlh S19, T21N, R18E 7 CC NE^s S31, T21N, R18E 22 DD S16, T22N, R17E 11 EE S18, T21N, R16E 15 FF sw^a S21, T20N, R19E , 14 GG SEia S 1, T21N, RISE 11 1/ Not Counted = NC 2/ Underlined in year ground first found and counted 3/ Ground reported by Larry Schweitzer, pilot for Fish and Game surveys, who has observed activity on it for years. 57 IT) ^ rO OJ (NJ t- 1 1- (U m 3 O u o a w W 2: TJ X. c w a) c o O .H *" U -^^ W -H 6 0) -P ij m U -P nj +j en C V^ 1 •-H -P a CP S C \A C (1) fl •H M U x; U 0 c W C T-l 0 ro ifl U Q S UJ LlJ OJ CJ cr CO cr en C :3 o u en tn C ■rH u C (0 T3 \^ tn CJ CC c 0 •H -p m UJ CD S-l 4-> CC c i 10 e -H S-l &4 CM 0) fa C o ■H +) (0 +J c i u la 6 -H 04 66 Turkey Western Segment A new species was added to the study area with a turkey plant (1 cock, 14 hens) in the spring of 1978 by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The birds were released on the Pimperton Ranch approximately 4 miles below Fort Benton along the Missouri River. Sightings and reports of these birds have generally occurred within a 5-6 mile radius of the plant site. They are known to have crossed over to the lower Teton River bottom and have been reported along the Missouri River between Fort Benton and Loma . Young birds were reported to have been found near the mouth of Shonkin Creek the last two summers and 30 birds wintered at the Lundy Ranch in 1979-80. It appears that this plant has had some success and the population appears to be reproducing and increasing. Winter survival may depend on local supplemental care and feeding. Eastern Segment No turkeys were observed in the study area for the second consecutive year. Available data indicate that a small flock of turkeys does occasionally use the extreme eastern end of the study area, however. The past two extremely severe winters probably caused higher than average mortality to these turkeys, as turkeys in other parts of Fergus County experienced high mortality. Surveys in the new study area, which is adjacent to this study area, will provide more data on the status of these turkeys . Waterfowl Western Segment Waterfowl habitat in the western segment of the Missouri River project area is composed of two major types. The first is the aquatic habitat provided by the Teton, Marias and Missouri rivers. The second would be the upland lakes, potholes and stock ponds. Species common to the river system are the Canada goose, common merganser, common goldeneye, mallard, and pintail (Ap- pendix Table 1) . These species all make use of river systems for nesting and migratory purposes. Table 23 presents obser- vations of waterfowl on the Missouri River during late fall for 3 years. As can be seen, major concentrations can be found, particularly between Morony Dam and Fort Benton. 67 Table 23. Waterfowl surveys - Missouri River, Oct. Ducks 1976 Geese Dec. Ducks 1977 Geese Nov. 1979 Section Ducks Geese Moron y Dam 114 166 1,629 - 930 324 Carter 105 79 1,679 70 1,000 360 Ft. Benton 545 314 657 93 490 90 Loma 4 228 723 113 12 - Coal Banks 12 55 262 - 667 80 PN Ferry 12 122 * * Robinson Bri .dge Total 792 964 4,950 276 3,099 854 * Not surveyed (Ducks were mallards, common goldeneye, common merganser) Winter use of the Missouri River depends on the degree of freeze-up. The river begins freezing over on the lower reaches and proceeds upstream, depending on the degree and duration of the cold. During the mild winter of 1979-80, several thousand common goldeneyes over-wintered on the upper sections of the Missouri River when open water was available. However, during the previous two severe winters, there were few over-wintering waterfowl along the river since it was essentially frozen over all winter. Migratory concentrations along the river also occur during the spring. On March 16, 1979, 875 ducks and 141 Canada geese were observed on the Missouri River from Fort Benton to Virgelle. From Virgelle downstream the river was frozen over. The upland waterfowl habitat is represented by several permanent lakes in the northern foothills of the Highwood Moun- tains, and by semi-permanent and temporary potholes, stock ponds, etc. The springs of 1978 and 1979 were excellent water years for these upland areas, due to heavy snow packs and high precipi- tation. Many upland areas which had previously been without open water were dotted with small lakes and ponds. Waterfowl species found utilizing these areas were mallards, pintails, American 68 wigeon, lesser scaup, gadwalls, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, shove lers, and ruddy ducks. Canvasbacks and red-headed ducks were also observed on some of the larger ponds. These species utilized the open water not only for spring migration, but for nesting and brood rearing as well. Canada Geese Marias River Tables 24 and 25 present data on breeding ground and produc- tion surveys for Canada geese on the Marias River from Tiber Dam to the mouth. These data have been collected by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. For the 9-year period, the breeding population has averaged 103.4 birds, using pairs and singles as an index. Production averaged 95.3 young for the 4 years pre- sented. Time constraints prevented a ground nest survey on this reach of river, so data on nest success, nest production and habitat use are not available. However, it is known that these birds make similar use of islands for nesting sites and the gen- eral factors, such as length of nesting season, etc., would be the same as the Missouri River population. Table 24. Canada goose Tiber Dam to breeding mouth. gro und surveys - Marias River, Date Pairs Singles Groups Total 1971 21 12 14 67 1972 26 31 37 120 1973 40 26 17 123 1974 31 41 11 114 1975 33 25 7 98 1976 39 10 5 93 1977 66 40 3 175 1978 30 34 0 94 1979 57 26 20 160 Average 38.1 27.2 12.7 116 69 Table 25. Canada goose production surveys - Marias River, Tiber Dam to mouth. Date 1975 1977 1978 1979 Non- dult Young breeders Tota 32 55 0 87 63 121 0 184 37 102 6 145 34 103 12 149 Average 41.5 95.3 4.5 141.3 Waterfowl Harvest The 1977 and 1978 Chouteau County waterfowl harvest is pre- sented in Table 26. These data are taken from statewide waterfowl harvest surveys and would include the Teton, Marias, and Missouri River segments in the western study area. Table 26. Chouteau County waterfowl harvest, Goose Harvest 1977 1978 No. Hunters 1977 1978 341 551 Duck Harvest 3,611 2,706 277 498 302 377 Canada Geese-Missouri River Four years of Canada goose production data have now been collected on the Missouri River. In 1979, as in 1978, the river was surveyed from the Carter ferry to Robinson Bridge, a total of 16 3 miles. The 1976 survey was conducted from the Carter ferry to the mouth of the Marias River and from Coal Banks Land- ing to Robinson Bridge. In 1977, the survey was from the Carter ferry to the PN ferry. A total of 447 nests was located over the 4 years. Data on nest success, production, and nest site selection were reported on for each year in the 1976, 1977, and 1978 job progress reports. 70 An aerial survey on March 16, 1979 found 139 geese on the river between Fort Benton and Coal Banks Landing, The first hatching nest was observed on May 2, which, with backdating 28 days for incubation and allowing 1.5 days for each egg laid, gives a nest initiation date of March 27. Most of the nests were hatched off by May 23. The general nesting season on the Missouri River, therefore, runs approximately from mid-March through mid-May. Earlier spring weather and late or renesting attempts may extend the duration of the nesting season. During 1979, 152 nests were located, which was an increase from 127 nests in 1978. Figure 27 shows the distribution of nesting areas for 1979. Distribution maps for 1976, 1977 and 1978 are found in the respective progress reports. The fate of 118 nests (78 percent) was determined in 1979. The fate of the remaining 34 (22 percent) was undetermined due to the nests being washed out (5) by high water or simply not being relo- cated (29) during subsequent surveys. Table 27 presents a breakdown of the number of nests located per river section over the last 4 years. Increases from 1978 to 1979 were noted in the Fort Benton to Loma section and the Coal Banks to Robinson Bridge sections. The significant increase in the PN ferry to Robinson Bridge section is felt to reflect not only an actual increase in number of nests but also a more thorough survey in 1979. Table 27. Canada goose nest survey - Missouri River, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979. No. Nests Section 1976 1977 1978 1979 Average Carter 5 28 26 26 21.3 Fort Benton 30 34 40 44 37 Loma X 9 18 15 14 Coal Banks 18 40 31 38 31.8 PN Ferry 4 X 12 29 15 Robinson Br: Ldge Total 57 111 127 152 111.8 Not surveyed 71 c o •H +J XI -H 1-1 +J tn •rH 4-1 CO (D C (U CO O O tr (0 C (0 u 1^ u n •H 72 A breedin tion with the are presented served in 1979 (56 percent) b This figure is 152 nests. Fo 27 percent inc ing 20 percent g population survey was again conducted in conjunc- initial nest surveys. Data for the last 4 years in Table 28. A total of 569 Canada geese was ob- , with a potential breeding population of 317 irds, utilizing pairs and singles as an index. close to the number of birds (304) associated with r comparable river sections, this represents a rease in total spring population and a correspond- increase in nests from 1978 to 1979. Table 28. Canada goose breeding population survey - Missouri River, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979. Pairs Singles Groups Total Section 76 77 78 79 76 77 78 79 76 77 78 79 76 77 /8 Carter 30 28 28 37 7 8 - 1 15 25 16 18 82 89 72 Fort Benton 32 45 48 48 7 8 - 1 53 73 47 96 124 171 143 Loma X 16 23 15 X 25 2 - X 51 6 64 X 108 54 Coal Banks 23 46 38 43 6 2 1 1 83 39 29 24 135 133 106 PN Ferry 27 X 27 14 4 X 3 - 6 X 17 50 64 X 74 Robinson Bridge Total 112 135 164 157 24 43 6 3 157 188 115 252 405 501 449 X - Not surveyed 79 93 193 94 111 78 569 As in previous years, all nests were located on islands, and Canada geese' affinity for islands was again demonstrated. Canada geese populations associated with islands were high during the spring breeding surveys, with 91 percent of the 569 birds observed on or adjacent to islands. This compares to 90 percent in 1978, 75 per- cent in 1977, and 87 percent in 1976. Canada goose nest fate is presented in Table 29. For known- fate nests, the hatching success (one or more eggs hatched) was 85.6 percent. The hatching success was 66.6 percent in 1976, 86.5 percent in 1977, and 84 percent in 1978. Desertion accounted for 8.5 percent of the nests, and 5.9 percent of the nests were de- stroyed in 1979. The highest desertion rate recorded (Table 30) was 29.6 percent in 1976 and the lowest 7 percent in 1978. The rate of 73 Table 29. 1979 Canada goose nest fate, Fate No. Nests Percent Total Percent Known Fate Hatched Deserted Destroyed Subtotal Washed out Unknown 101 10 7 118 5 29 152 66.5 6.6 4.6 77.7 3. 3 19.1 85.6 8.5 5.9 Table 30. Canada goose nest fate for known fate nests, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. Fate 1976 Percent 1977 1978 1979 Hatched Deserted Destroyed 66.6 29.6 3.7 86.5 84.0 7.3 7.0 6.1 8.0 15.6 8.5 5.9 nests destroyed ranged from 3.7 percent in 1976 to 8 percent in 1978. This consistently high nesting success for the last 3 years would place this population among the most successful wild breeding populations in North America. It would indicate the high security level this population now enjoys. Egg success (Table 31) for known-fate nests was 94 percent in 1979, compared to 86 percent in 1978 and 95.2 percent in 1977. Egg fertility was 95 percent which was similar to 1978. Infer- tility accounted for 5 percent of the eggs and dead embryos only 1 percent. Dead embryos that were found either succijmbed during the first or last week of incubation. Table 32 presents the frequency distribution of clutch sizes for 1979. There was an average of 5.9 eggs per clutch, with 82 percent of the clutches having between 5 and 7 eggs. These figures compare to 5.9 and 83 percent in 1977, and 5.6 and 71 percent in 1978. The smallest successful nest contained 1 egg and the lar- gest 13 eggs over the last 4 years. 74 Table 31. Canada goose egg success, successful nests. Fate Hatched Deserted Destroyed Total No. Eggs 608 37 4 649 Percent 94 6 - 1 Deserted Eggs Frozen Infertile Dead Embryos 1 30 _6 37 95% egg fertility Table 32. Frequency distribution of clutch sizes/complete nests, Clutch Size No. Nests Percent No. Eggs 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 2 10 30 2 9 28 6 40 150 6 7 8 9 10 42 16 4 1 1 39 15 4 1 1 252 112 32 9 10 11 12 13 Total 1 1 1 109 1 1 1 11 12 13 647 Average clutch size - 5.94 75 Gosling production for known-fate nests (101) was 608 young, for an average production of 6,0 per successful nest. For the 34 nests of unknown fate, production was estimated by using 85.6 percent nest success, 94 percent egg success and average clutch size of 5.9 eggs. This results in an estimate of 161 goslings, for a total production of 769 young in 1979. Production was estimated to be 199, 524, and 555 in 1976, 1977 and 1978, re- spectively. Table 33 presents brood observations by river section for 1979. Table 33. Canada goose brood survey - 1979 - Missouri River, Section Adult Carter 18 Fort Benton 24 Loma 26 Coal Banks 22 PN Ferry - Robinson Bridge Young 48 52 67 50 Not Classified Total 50 66 76 143 72 Total 90 217 50 357 Tables 34, 35, 36 and 37 present data on 1979 nest sites. Litter was the predominant nest material, accounting for 88.8 per- cent of the nests. This is similar to 1977 (72 percent) and 1978 (86 percent) . Willow was the preferred nest site vegetation, with 61.2 per- cent of the nests being found in this type followed by Equisetum and Rosa spp. This high use of willow has been consistent over the last 4 years. Seventy-one and five-tenths percent of the nests were lo- cated in vegetation 4 feet or less in height compared to 84 per- cent in 1978. Fifty-eight and three-tenths percent of the nests were 6 feet or less above the river level at the time of the initial spring surveys, and 60.3 percent were within 20 feet of open water, with 18.5 percent more than 50 feet from the water. 76 Table 34. 1979 nest material and nest site vegetation. Nest No. Material ' Nest Litter 135 Yucca 1 Grass 4 Willow 1 Equisteum H Nestsite Vegetation No. Willow 93 Equisteum 15 Rosa spp. 14 Snowberry ' 7 Bare ground 7 v Yucca 1 Ragweed 1 Green ash 3 Litter 2 Sweet clover 2 Grass 4 Big sage 1 Cottonwood 2 Percent 88, .8 0. .7 2. .6 0. .7 7. .2 Percent 61 .2 9 .9 9 .2 4, .6 4, .6 0, .7 0. ,7 2. ,0 1. 3 1. 3 2. 6 0. 7 1. 3 77 Table 35. 1979 nest site vegetation height. Feet No. Nests % Nests 0-6 in 15 9.9 6in-lft 4 2.7 1 - 2 ft 22 14.6 2 - 3 ft 28 18.5 3 - 4 ft 39 25.8 4 - 5 ft 15 9.9 5 - 6 ft 12 7.9 6 - 7 ft 10 6.6 7 - 8 ft 8 - 9 ft 2 1.3 9 - 10 ft 3 2.0 > 10 ft 1 0.7 Table 36. Distance of nest site to water. Distance No. (feet) Nests Percent 0-5 27 17.9 6-10 32 21.2 11 - 20 32 21.2 21 - 50 32 21.2 51 -100 21 13.9 >100 7 4.6 Total 151 Table 37. Height of nest sites above water - 1979 No. Nests Percent Cumulative % 5 3.3 3.3 13 8.6 11.9 22 14.6 26.5 19 12.6 39.1 16 10.6 49.7 13 8.6 58.3 18 11.9 70.2 14 9.3 79.5 1 7 4.6 84.1 12 7.9 92.0 12 7.9 99.9 151 During the study, islands were the preferred nest site habitat for Canada geese, since all nests located were on islands. Very little breeding season activity was observed on shoreline areas, and when searches were conducted, no nests were ever located. While much greater survey effort was expended on islands, it is felt that a majority of nest sites (estimated minimum of 90%) were located. This is based on thorough searches of preferred habitat and comparisons of number of nests located with spring population figures. Table 38 presents data on general vegetation types of nest site islands. Willow was again the major island cover type of 41 (66%) of the 62 islands used as nest sites and accounts for 57% of the nests. Young cottonwood-willow was the second most important type, accounting for 16% of the islands used and 26% of the nests. This was similar to 1978 data. Multiple nesting, or nesting of more than one bird per island, is common on the Missouri River. True colonial nesting occurs only on one island, which has had between 11 and 12 nests over the last 4 years. In most situations where more than one nest per island 79 existed, the nests were either isolated by distance or visually by intervening terrain and/or vegetation. Table 39 presents the frequency of multiple nesting on islands for 1977, 1978, and 1979 For the last 3 years, 50% of the islands used as nest sites had only one nest (range 48-52%) . These islands only accounted for 19.8% of the total nests. In 1979, 49.4% of the nests were associated with islands which had between 2 and 5 nests. Table 38. Vegetation types of nest site islands. Cover Types No. Island/Percent No. Nests/Percent Gravel 7 11 Willow 41 66 87 57 Cottonwood-willow 10 16 39 26 Cottonwood-meadow Equisteum 3 5 11 62 152 Data on island availability and utilization are presented in Tables 40 and 41. In 1979, 62 (41%) of the 150 islands available were used as nest sites. This was up from the 50 (33%) islands used in 1978. Utilization of islands by river section ranged from 31% for the PN ferry to Robinson Bridge section, to 69% for Fort Benton to Loma . The average number of islands per mile was 0.93. The corresponding average number of nests per mile was 0.68 in 1977, 0.78 in 1978, and 0.93 in 1979. The sections of river from Carter to Loma had an above-average number of nests per mile, while other sections were below average. The availability of islands would account for some of this dif- ference by sections, but there appears to be a clear preference for certain river sections. 80 Table 39. Number of islands and nests by frequency of nests per island. 8 No. Nests/ No./% Islands No./% Nests island 1977 1978 1979 1977 1978 1979 1 21/48 26/52 31/50 21/19 26/20 31/20.4 2 10/23 9/18 12/19.4 20/18 18/14 24/15.8 3 4/9 5/10 5/8.1 12/10.8 15/12 15/9.9 4 1/2.2 1/2 4/6.5 4/3.6 4/3 16/10.5 5 4/9 4/8 4/6.5 20/18 20/16 20/13.2 6 2/4 2/3.2 12/9 12/7.9 7 2/4.5 2/3.2 14/12.6 14/9.2 8/6 8/5.3 9 1/2.2 9/8.1 10 11 1/2.2 11/9.9 12 2/4 1/1.6 24/19 12/7.9 Totals 44 50 62 111 127 152 Table 40. Numbers nests and percent islands used/river section Section .dge No. Islands/% 20/13 26/17 19/13 31/21 54/36 150 No. Nests/% 26/17 44/29 15/9.9 38/25 29/19.1 152 No . Islands Used/% Carter Fort Benton Loma Coal Banks PN Ferry Robinson Bri Total 9/45* 18/69 7/37 11/35 17/31 62 *% islands/section 2.5 nests/ island Table 41. Nests and islands/river mile Section Carter Fort Benton Loma Coal Banks PN Ferry Robinson Bridge Islands/ Miles Mile 18.2 1.1 18.6 1.4 19.8 .96 45.6 .68 60.8 .89 Nests/Mile 1977 1978 1979 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.4 .46 .91 .76 .88 .68 .83 - .20 .48 Total Average 163 mi 152 .93 111 127 152 .68 .78 .93 Based on survey data, the Canada goose population on this sec- tion of the Missouri River appears to be prospering under current conditions. Consistent population gains have been made over the last 4 years with an increasing and successful nesting effort. The low levels of predation and nest loss due to flooding indicate that river flow levels for the last 3 years have been beneficial for this species. Additional effort will be directed at documenting and measuring these flow levels and correlating these data to the biological information to obtain data for recommending optimum flow levels for Canada goose production. The management of flow levels is felt to be the critical factor in the maintenance of this population. The currently proposed hydroelectric dams at Fort Benton and Carter could have very adverse effects on this population. Besides the direct loss of nest sites by inundation, a change in seasonal flow regulation could impact downstream habitat which the data indicate is the most productive of any river section. This could result from changes in river hydrology which would eliminate pre- ferred island habitat, nest flooding, or dewatering of side chan- nels, thus allowing access to the islands by mammalian predators. 82 The designation of the Missouri River below Fort Benton as a Wild and Scenic River would appear to preclude this area from maior forms of development that would adversely impact the Canada qoose population. Since the geese are hatched by the Memorial Day weekend when recreational use of the river usually begins, human disturbance is not likely to be a problem. Eastern Segment Numerous ducks and Canada geese are present on the study area each spring, as they seek out nesting sites along the Missouri River, Judith River and on the many stock reservoirs found m the study area. Significant numbers of ducks and geese are raised each summer on the study area. Total freeze-up usually occurs by early December and at that time all the remaining waterfowl, except for a few ducks, migrate south for the winter. Migration of nonresident waterfowl through the study area is light, as the study area is not located on a major flyway. An aerial survey of the Canada goose breeding population was made on the lower 12 air miles of the Judith River on April 27, 1979 and on the Missouri River between Robinson Bridge and the PN Ferry on April 25, 1979. Five pairs, 11 singles and a group of 5 were observed on the Judith River (Table 42) . This total was down from the past 2 years. Fifty-seven pairs and 2 3 singles were observed on the Missouri River flight, and this total was significantly up from past years. Twenty-eight nests were also observed during the Missouri River flight (Figure 28) . A float trip was made down the Missouri River in May to gather data on Canada goose nests. These data are summarized in the Western Segments writeup. Table 42. Canada goose breeding population surveys, lower 12 air miles of Judith River. Canada Geese Observed Date Pairs 12 Singles 11 Groups 0 Total 4/26/77 35 5/4/78 14 9 0 37 4/27/79 5 11 5 26 83 a w o w u rO «3 (0 C (t! U 00 (N 4 2A, 2F II II 1 - II II 1 - Location S15, T21N, R18E S 1, T21N, R15E S of Winifred Moulton Hilger-Roy Denton NE to Wolf Cr. Bridge Hilger-Roy Suffolk Jet. Judith R. & Denton Highway S32, T21N, R15E S29, " S17, ■• S 5, " S 3, T22N, tl S34, T23N, R16E SIO, T22N, tl S15, 11 II S16, II It S21, II S34, II S 2, T21N, R16E S28, It tl S34, IT II S26, II S12, II S13, tl II SIO, T22N, R18E S25, T23N, R19E 2 Mi . NE o f Den S21, T22N, R23E S22, T23N, R18E S20, II II S27, It II S22, II S28, II II 11 It II S29, II tt II II S30, " 525, " RIVE 526, " 824, " ■I II •■ 96 le deer and white-tailed Appendix Table 2 (continued). Muie aeer anu wux.c: .c..^^ deer (as noted) observations - July 1978- June 1979. Date 2/20/79 Hunt Unit 2/19/79 680 No. Obs. 19 9 12 15 8 15 8 7 8 6 5 11 7 28 9 20 12 8 24 8 3 5 17 7 6 8 24 11 2 14 5 10 8 2 7 6 7 11 13 12 9 11 14 7 Classification Location lOA, 9F 8A, 2F llA, IF 13A, 2F 5A, 3F llA, 4F 6A, 2F 6A, IF 5A, 3F 5A, IF 3A, 2F 8A, 3F 4A, 3F 15A, 13F 6A, 3F 13A, 7F 8A, 4F 19A, 5F 6A, 2F 2A, IF 3A, 2F 12A, 5F 6A, IF 4A, 2F 7A, IF 17A, 7F 7A, 4F 8A, 6F 3A, 2F 7A, 3F 5A, 3F 2A 3A, 3F 5A, 2F 7A, 4F 8A, 5F BA, 3F 8A, 6F S24, T23N, R17E S13 II It S25 ft It II It tl S21 tt tt S20 II II S12 11 tt S 1 II II S 6 II R18E S 5 It It 11 II II S 4 It It II tl II S32, T24N tt S28 tt It S29 It tl S28 It 11 S17 11 tl S28, T25N II S19 II " S25 M R17E S30, T24N, R18E S25 II R17E S31 II R18E S 6, T23N It S36, T24N, R17E S23 It II S20 S21 tl S16 tl II S15 II tl II II tl S17 It II S18 M II S36, T25N, R16E S 7, T24N, R17E S 7 tt II S 8 11 M S 7 II II S31, T25N, R17E 97 Appendix Table 2 (continued) - Mule deer and white-tailed deer (as noted) observations - July 1978- June 197 9. Hunt No. Date Unit Obs. Classification Locai bion 2/20/79 680 14 6A, 8F S36, T25N, R16E II 11 4 3A, IF S31 II R17E II tl 7 5A, 2F S32 II 11 II " 3 3A S33 II II II 11 8 4A, 4F II II II II II 23 S31 II II •1 n 9 S32 II II II II 4 2A,~ 2F S31 II II II tt 21 12A, 9F S30 11 11 II If 8 4A, 4F S29 II II II II 5 4A, IF II M II II II 9 6A, 3F S28 II II II II 5 5A S29 II II II 11 15 llA, 4F S29 II II II II 4 4A S19 II 11 •1 II 3 lA, 2F 11 II 11 II 11 13 8A, 5F S30 II II II M 9 5A, 4F II II II II II 2 lA, IF S36 II R16E II II 12 8A, 4F S25 It 11 II ■I 13 7A, 6F II 11 II II ■1 6 4A, 2F S36 11 II II II 9 II II II II II 8 5A, 3F II II II II II 8 4A, 4F S35 11 II II " 21 14A, 7F II II II II II 3 lA, 2F II II II II 11 13 6A, 7F S26 11 II II II 5 3A, 2F tl 11 II II II 10 8A, 2F S22 11 II II II 25 17A, 8F S21 II M 11 tl 5 3A, 2F S27 11 II » II 8 4A, 4F II 11 II II 11 10 6A, 4F S28 II II II II 7 5A, 2F S20 II II II II 9 4A, 5F S28 II II II II 9 S22, T24N II II 11 5 3A, 2F S 1 II II II II 12 7A, 5F S 2 II II II 11 2 2A S12 II M II ■ 1 2 lA, IF S30, II R17E II II 15 lOA, 5F SIO, T23N, 11 II II 7 - S 9 tl II II II 3 lA, 2F S 8 II II 98 Appendix Table 2 (continued) . Mule deer and white-tailed deer (as noted) observations - July ly/B- June 1979. Date Hunt No, Unit Obs. Classification Location 2/20/79 680 2 2A S16, T23N, R17E " •• 18 13A, 5F S17 11 8A, 3F S 8 1/ A - Adults, B - Bucks, D - Does, F - Fawns 99 Appendix Table 3. Antelope observations, July 1978-June 1979, No. Date Obs. 3 Classification 3 yearling bucks Location 7/10/78 S13, T21N, R21E II 1 ID 1/ SIO II II 7/25/78 7 3D, 3F, IB S29, T20N, R19E II 20 lOD, lOF S31, T21N II II 3 3B S 5, T20N II II 9 7D, IF, IB S33, T21N 11 If 2 2D S 9, T22N II II 4 4B S34, T21N II II 13 7D, 6F S16 II II 11 12 6D, 5F, IB S28 II 11 II 2 ID, IF SIO, T2 0N, R19E II 8 2D, 5F, IB It " II II 3 3B S27 It II II 4 4B S34, T21N II II 3 ID, 2F S15 II II 11 1 IB S15, T22N II II 3 3D SIO II II n 2 2B SIO If H II 6 6B SIO tt II II 4 2D, IF, IB S 3 II 11 II 3 ID, 2F S15 II II II 10 4D, 6F S15, T21N II II 10 5D, 3F, 2B S35 II II II 4 ID, 2F, IB S24, T20N It n 3 ID, IF, IB II II II II 5 2D, 3F Sll, T22N It II 5 3D, 2F S14 II II 11 1 ID S25, T23N II II 10 5D, 5F S36 II II II 1 ID S13, T22N II II 5 3D, 2F S25, T21N It II 14 8D, 5F, IB tf II II II 14 9D, 5F S 7 II R2 0E II 8 4D, 4F 818 II II II 5 5B II 11 It II 7 4D, 3F S19 II II It 6 3D, 2F, IB S20 II It If 1 IB S 8 II II II 1 IB S22, T23N, R20E II 8 2D, 3F, 3B S29, T22N II II 4 3D, IF 11 II 11 II 6 2D, 4F S 7 II II ft 9 5D, 3F, IB S18 II II It 8 3D, 5F S29 II 11 It 4 2D, 2F II II tl ti 3 ID, 2F S31 II II 100 Appendix Table 3 (continued). Antelope observations, July 1978-June 1979. No. Date Obs. 8 Class ificatio 7/25/78 3D, 5F II 6 3D, 3F fl 2 ID, IF II 9 4D, 4F, IB n 16 9D, 6F, IB II 15 8D, 7F II 5 3D, 2F It 7 3D, 3F, IB Iff 4 2D, 2F ■1 9 6D, 2F, IB II 4 2D, 2F II 4 4B II 2 2B H 10 7D, 2F, IB M 3 2D, IF II 6 3D, 2F, IB II 35 18D, 14F, 3B II 9 4D, 4F, IB " 12 6D, 6F II 12 4D, 7F, IB II 4 3D, IF II 1 ID II 1 ID II 6 3D, 2F, IB II 10 4D, 5F, IB M 11 7D, 4F II 10 6D, 3F, IB II 12 9D, 2F, IB It 1 IB 7/31/78 11 6D, 5F II 21 9D, IIF, IB 11 18 8D, lOF 11 1 IB II 11 5D, 5F, IB II 4 3D, IF II 8 3D, IF, 4B II 6 6B II 17 IID, 6F ti 10 7D, 2F, IB II 19 12D, 6F, IB II 14 7D, 6F, IB II 11 9D, 2F II 4 2D, 2F II 6 2D, 3F, IB Location S31, T22N, R2 0E S 5, T21N tl II II II S 6 II II S 6, T2 0N, R2 0E S 5 If II S32, T21N II S 5, 11 T22N II II II SIO, T21N, R21E S 3 S 1 II R20E S13, T22N II S 3 " R21E S12 II R2 0E S 9, T21N, R21E S35, T23N, R2 0E S12, II T22N II 11 II S14 II II S 3, T21N 11 S28 II II S22, T23N 11 S24, T22N, R18E S 7, T2 0N tl S18 ft II S15, T21N tl S 4, T2 0N II S20, T21N II S20, T19N, R16E S 8, T22N, R16E S12 II R15E S13 S14 S15 II II If S 3, T21N S2 3 S2 5 S19 " R16E S30, T20N 101 Appendix Table 3 (continued). Antelope observations, July 1978-June 1979. No. Date Obs. Classification Location 7/31/78 10 6D, 4F S36, T20N, R15E It 8 3D, 4F, IB S29 II II II 10 6D, 3F, IB S26 tt 11 II 4 ID, 2F, IB S17, T19N, R15E II 6 4D, IF, IB S14 tl R14E II 15 6D, 8F, IB S23 II R15E II 21 9D, IIF, IB S33 It R14E 8/ 2/78 4 S 1, T22N, R19E 9/27/78 5 SEl/4 S30, T21N,R19E II 24 S 5, T21N, R2 0E II 15 S29, T22N II II 6 S29, T21N, R19E II 9 S36 II tt 10/ 5/78 5 It It II H 16 S30 II II tl 2 S29 tt tl 10/13/78 19 S 4 ir R21E tl 25 S32, T22N, R2 0E 11/ 7/78 64 S16 II tt It 17 S21 11 It 1/23/79 45 NEl/4 S6, T22N, R21E 1/26/79 150 S5, ( 5, 7, 8, 17 & 18, T21N, R15E (Ante; Lope using this area entire winter) II 60 S27,: 34,T23N, R16E (Antelope using this area all f all & winter) II 90 S2,3 ,10,11 ,T21N,R16E 2/16/79 90 S2,3 , T2 2N , R19E II 19 NWl/4 S4, T22N, R20E II 9 Sl/2 S33,34, T23N,R20E II 100 S28, T22N, R23E II 100 S13,T22N,R23E & S18, T22N, R24E 2/19/79 19 S21, T24N, R18E 2/20/79 64 S14, T25N, R16E 1 / D - Does, F - Fawns, B - Bucks 102 Appendix Table 4. Bighorn sheep observations, No. Date Obs. 5 Classification Location 7/10/78 3E, 2Li/ NWl/4 S28, T22N, R23E 7/11/78 15 9E, 6L S28 11 II 7/25/78 14 9E, 5L NWl/4 II II M 8/11/78 10 7E, 3L S28 II II 10/17/78 11 9E, 2L S19 II II 2/16/79 3 2E, IL NWl/4 S28 It 8 6E, IL, IR S19 11 M 4/25/79 12 9E, 2L, IR NWl/4 S2 8 6/ 4/79 9 5E, 2YE, 2NL II II If II 7/10/79 17 lOE, 7L II II II II 8/ 9/79 15 8E, 7L n II n n 8/20/79 17 HE, 6L n » II II 12/27/79 6 3E, 3L II II II II 2/ 6/80 13 8E, 4L, IR II II n n 1/ E - Ewes, YE ■ - Yearl ing Ewes , L - - Lamb, NL - New Lambs, R - Rams 103 Appendix Table 5. Elk observations. Date No. Obs. 1 Classification 8/11/78 Ic 10/17/78 2/16/79 II II 4 4 7 8 3C, 2C, 4C, 2c 3c IB 8/20/79 11/13/79 11/20/79 7 8 8 4C, 4C, It 2c, 3c, II IB IB II II 11/22/79 12/13/79 9 6 12 2B Location Two Calf Island, NWl/4 S27 &NE1/4 S28, T22N, R23E Same as above S19,20, T22N, R23E S2 3,2 4 Sll S23 S22 Two Calf Island, NWl/4 S27, T22N, R23E S23 II 11 II Two Calf Island, NWl/4 S27, T22N, R23E 1/ C - Cows, c - calves, B - Bulls 104 Appendix Table 6. Sage grouse observations, July 1978- June 1979 Nos. Date Obs. Classification Location 7/10/78 3 1 adult, 2 yn. S14, T21N, R20E 8/ 2/78 1 S23, T22N, R19E 8/10/78 6 1 adult, 5 yn . S 2, T21N, R18E 9/29/78 14 S20, T22N, R20E II 15 S16, T2 3N, R19E 10/ 3/78 2 M II It 10/ 5/78 25 S36, T21N, R19E 10/12/78 12 II II H 1/2 3/79 4 SE^S4, T22N, R20E 1/31/79 3 NE'3S30, T21N, R19E II 78 NJ3SI7 and NWaSlfi, T21N, R19E 2/16/79 Not counted lots S17 and 18 , T22N, of sign R19E if 12 S25 and 2 6 , T22N, R21E and S19 & 30 T22N, R22E II Not counted lots Missouri R . bottom, of sign S21, T22N, R23E 2/19/79 15 approx. S21, T2 3N, R17E H Sign S16, II M ■1 1 S 1, II II II 6 S25, T2 5N, R17E 2/20/79 Sign S15, T24N, It II Sign S17, II II II Sign S18, II II II 15 S19, fl tl II 11 S18, ft II II 4 S31, T25N, II II Sign S 7, T2 4N, It II 10 It 11 II II 4 S31, T25N, II II Sign S32&33," II II 20 S20, T25N, R17E II 4 S30, II II Sign S25, R16E II 15 S14, II II 150 S21, II II Sign S33, fl II 5 S30, T24N, R17E II Sign S3&4 , T2 3N tl II 100 + S9&10, " tt II 20 S8&9 II t tt II 23 S 8, II tl 4/25/79 23 2 3 males strut- ting ground S21, T20N, R19E II 7 7 males " S33, T22N, R19E » 6 6 males " S16, T22N, R19E II 19 19 males " SIO, II " 5/ 1/79 21 21 S32, T21N, It ■1 4 4 833, T22N, Tl 105 Appendix Table 6. (continued) Sage grouse observations, July 197i June 1979. Date Nos. Obs. 16 II 29 II 33 5/ 3/79 22 II 3 It 24 5/ 4/79 8 II 2 II 20 II 1 5/15/79 35 II 41 6/27/79 5 7/ 6/79 5 7/31/79 4 Cl£ jssif male 1 s cation strut- Location 16 S16, tt M ting q round 29 " SIO, It tt 33 II S 1, M R20E 22 If S21, T20N, R19E 3 If S33, T22N, II 24 tf S 8, T21N, R21E 8 II S33, T22N, R19E 2 It S16, It II 20 II SIO, II II 1 " S 8, II II 35 If S16, II It 41 ff SIO, tl II 1 adult / 4 yn. S 4, T21N, R19E 1 ti 1 4 II DY Ji jnction and Vic rinity 1 II 1 3 II S19, T21N, R19E 106 Appendix Table 7. Sharp-tailed grouse observations, June 1979. July 1978- Nos Date Obs 9/29/78 15 10/12/78 13 tl 11 II 10 10/16/78 3 12/15/78 16 It 5 M 17 1/ 5/79 17 1/18/79 42 1/31/79 5 4/27/79 49 II 17 II 16 11 18 II 11 II 10 II 11 II 14 II 8 II 6 II 1 II 17 II 11 II 13 II 8 II 11 II 6 tl 21 5/ 3/79 6 tf 8 11 15 If 21 5/ 4/79 7 tl 6 tf 13 5/15/79 6 II 14 II 22 II 7 II 12 II 4 II 2 II 15 ■1 7 II 3 It 12 Classification Location S15, T21N, R18E S27, T22N, R17E S 6, T21N, R18E S 1, T21N, R15E S26, TUN, R18E SIO, T22N, R16E S 6, T21N, R18E S26, tl It 5^3522, T20N, R15E SE!sS26, T21N, R18E 49 males danc- S15, T20N, R15E ing groiond 17 males ' S16, R16E 16 males ' S 5, tl II 18 males ' SE'3S3, R15E 11 males ' NE!aS21, T21N, ft 10 males ' SW!aS14, II II 11 males ' SE^sSl, II II 14 It 1 E^S34, T22N, 11 8 tl t SE'3S24, II tl 6 It t SE53S12, It R16E 1 II t NE'aS 7, II R17E 17 It t SEJjS 9, II It 11 II 1 S16, II II 13 It 1 NE?3S33, M II 8 II 1 NEJ3S2, T21N, It 11 It 1 NE'3S6 II R18E 6 II 1 SW%S27, T22N, tl 21 tt 1 NEJgS31, T21N, R18E 6 II 1 S33, T22N, R23E 8 II 1 S16, R17E 15 II t SJ5SI8, T18N, R14E 21 II 1 NJ5S27, II tl 7 It t 5^3315, T21N, R18E 6 II 1 NW!aS19, tl tl 13 II 1 NE^S 6, tt tl 6 SWaSlS, II tt 14 II 1 SWisS21, T20N, R19E 22 It 1 NEigS31, T21N, R18E 7 It t NW!3S19, " It 12 II 1 NE!sS33, T22N, R17E 4 tt 1 SE^S12, II R16E 2 It 1 E^S32, II R15E 15 It t SbS18, T21N, R16E 7 tt 1 SE^sSl, tl R15E 3 It 1 SW!3S18, n R16E 12 M 1 SE?3S3, T20N, R15E 107 Appendix Table 7. (continued) Sharp-tailed grouse observations, July 1978-June 1979. Nos . Date Obs . Classification Location 6/18/79 13 1 adult, 12 yn. NW!aS26, T21N, R16E 6/27/79 5 1 adult, 4 yn. S 16, T21N, R19E 108 Appendix Table 8. Hungarian partridge observations, July 1978- June 1979. Date Nos Obs 8/10/78 8/31/78 10/ 5/78 10/13/78 12/11/78 12/14/78 12/15/78 12/19/78 12/20/78 12/27/78 tt 1/ 4/79 1/ 5/79 1/10/79 1/12/79 1/18/79 1/23/79 1/26/79 6 8 16 7 10 25 10 8 12 6 3 12 24 36 45 15 71 11 28 17 5 C] Lassif ication adult, 5 yn . Location 1 S22, T21N, R18E 1 adult, 7 yn. W. of Lewistown S27, T21N, R19E S15, T21N, R20E 1 group S13, T21N, R19E 4 groups S. of Winifred 2 groups Denton 1 group S 2, T21N, R17E 2 groups Roy 1 group S13, T21N, R18E 1 group S12, 1 group S13, 3 groups Win if red-Hi Iger 3 groups H i 1 ge r- Lew i s town 5 groups Denton & vicinity 3 groups Winifred 10 groups Suffolk-Winifred 2 groups Lewis town- Den ton 3 groups N. of Denton 1 group NE of Winifred 1 group Denton 109 Appendix Table 9. Pheasant observations, July 1978-June 1979. Nos. Date Obs. Classif icati Lon yn. Location 8/ 2/78 8 1 female, 7 S26, T21N, R18E 8/10/78 4 1 female, 3 yn. S25, 8/16/78 7 1 female, 6 yn. S17, T21N, R17E 10/ 3/78 2 S18, T21N, R20E 10/ 5/78 2 S29, T21N, R19E 10/16/78 1 male S 1, T21N, R15E 12/11/78 5 5 males S13, T21N, R19E ■1 56 43 females, males 13 S. of Winifred 12/14/78 19 10 females, males 9 Denton 12/15/78 54 37 females, males 17 S. of Winifred 12/19/78 6 6 males NW52S28, T24N, R24E II 6 6 males S15, T24N, R24E 12/20/78 45 27 females, males 18 Win if red-Hi Iger 12/27/78 40 30 females, males 10 II II 1/ 4/79 43 27 females, males 16 Denton & vicinity 1/ 5/79 18 13 females, males 5 Winifred-Hilger 1/ 8/79 19 11 females, males 8 Hilger-Roy 1/10/79 36 22 females, males 14 S30, T21N, R17E II 37 29 females, males 8 Winifred-Suffolk 1/12/79 45 20 females, males 25 Denton 1/23/79 11 8 females, males 3 NE of Winifred 1/31/79 8 5 females, males 3 Winifred-Hilger II 17 17 females SW!aS23, T21N, R18E 2/27/79 9 8 females, male 1 Winifred-Hilger 7/27/79 10 1 female, 9 yn. Denton 110 Appendix Table 10. Water fowl observations, July 1978-June 1979. Sub Nos. Date Family Duck Obs. 64 Classification Location 7/10/78 10 broods: 10 adult , S 4, T21N, R21E 54 yn. II II 29 4 broods: 2 5 yn. 4 adult. S 9, T21N, R20E II II 16 3 broods : 13 yn. 3 adult , S24, T21N, R19E II II 14 2 broods : 12 yn. 2 adult. S30, T21N, R19E 7/25/78 Goose 9 1 brood : 7 yn . 2 adult, S13, II II 8/ 2/78 Duck 15 2 broods : 13 yn. 2 adult , S 2, T22N, It II II 29 4 broods : 25 yn. 4 adult , S 7, M R20E II II 10 2 broods : 8 yn. 2 adult. S 9, T21N, R20E 8/ 3/78 11 4 1 brood : 3 yn. 1 adult, E. o f Roy 8/ 9/78 ti 8 1 brood : 7 yn. 1 adult. II 4/25/79 Goose Aerial survey on Missouri River - see section on waterfowl for results 4/25/79 11 II M II Judd .th ■1 1 II 1 6/ 4/79 Duck 10 2 broods : 2adult, NE O f Winifred 8 yn. 6/12/79 " 141 25 broods: 116 yn. 6/12/79 Goose 18 3 broods: 12 yn. 6/14/79 Duck 172 23 broods: 149 yn. 6/18/79 Goose 31 5 broods: 20 yn. " Duck 6 8 13 broods : 55 yn . 6/27/79 " 203 35 broods: 168 yn. 6/28/79 " 25 5 broods: 20 yn. 7/ 2/79 " 39 7 broods: 32 yn . 7/ 6/79 " 34 6 broods: 2 8 yn. " Goose 2 8 5 broods: 19 yn. 7/17/79 Duck 65 9 broods: 56 yn. 2 5 adult, Dy Junction & vicinity 6 adult, " 23 adult, W. of Winifred 11 adult, SE of Winifred 13 adult, SE of Winifred 35 adult, Winifred & vicinity 5 adult, Robinson Bridge & vicinity 7 adult, Denton & vicinity 6 adult, Dy Junction & vicinity 9 adult, " 9 adult, S 9, T21N, R19E 111 ^///(n