F2SBW
1975

SARPY BASIN WILDLIFE ECOLOGY STUDY

Peter R. Martin

Planning Ecologist STATE DnCUMENT^ '

Environment and Information Division

OCT 1 4

February 1975 MONTANA STATt <

1515 E. 6ti.
HELENA, MON'

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
sponsored by CORMORANT CORPORATION

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

3 0864 1002 2777 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Tables iii

List of Fi gures i v

I. Introduction

1 1 . Procedures

III. Study Area ;

Location ;

Physiography and CI imate ;

Edaphic Characteristics i

Vegetation Characteristics i

Ponderosa Pine Type t

Big Sagebrush Type i

Grass 1 and Type i

Creek Bottom Type i

Agricultural Type t

IV. Wil dl i fe Ecology '.'. '.'.'. '.'.'.'.'.'.V.\ i

Mul e Deer n

Distribution n

Seasonal Use of Soil Associations .* n

Seasonal Use of Vegetation Types 13

Seasonal Use of Slope \ ]4

Seasonal Use of Exposure .* 15

Population Characteristics 16

Pronghorn Angelope 18

Di stri buti on !!.*.'!!!.*.*!.' 18

Seasonal Use of Soil Associations 18

Seasonal Use of Vegetation Types '. 20

Seasonal Use of Slope 21

Seasonal Use of Exposure 22

Population Characteristics 23

Prairie Grouse ' ' ' " 24

Distribution 25

Use of Soil Associations \ 25

Population Characteristics .'* 25

Ring-necked Pheasants 28

White- tailed Deer 28

Merri am ' s Turkey 28

V. Questi onnai re Resul ts 29

Possible Effects of Development 29

Wildlife History 37

Mule Deer 37

Whi te- tai 1 ed Deer 37

Pronghorn Antelope 45

Sage Grouse 45

Sharp-tailed Grouse \\\ 47

Ring-necked Pheasants 47

i

Page

Rabbits 47

Mice 47

Coyotes 47

VI. Summary 53

Literature Cited 55

Appendix 56

11

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Seasonal distribution of mule deer by soil association 13

2. Seasonal use of vegetation types by mule deer 14

3. Seasonal slope usage by mule deer 15

4. Seasonal distribution of mule deer according to exposure 16

5. Mule deer population characteristics in the Sarpy Creek

drainage 17

6. Seasonal distribution of antelope by soil association 20

7. Seasonal use of vegetation types by antelope 21

8. Seasonal slope usage by antelope 22

9. Seasonal distribution of antelope by exposure 23

10. Antelope population characteristics in the Sarpy Creek

drainage 24

11. Sharptail dancing ground distribution by soil association 27

12. Prairie grouse breeding ground data 27

13. Ring-necked pheasant crowing count survey data 28

14. Historical antelope population characteristics in the

Sarpy Creek vicinity 45

Appendix

15. A brief description of the soils series found in the Sarpy

Creek drainage 56

16. Location of prairie grouse breeding grounds and male birds

attending 57

17. Population levels of selected species in the Sarpy Creek

study area, 1900-1990 58

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

''^■g^'^e Page

1. Sarpy Basin wildlife ecology study area 3

2. General soil associations found in the Sarpy Creek drainage! 5

3. Ponderosa pine vegetation type 6

4 . Big sagebrush vegetation type .'.'.".'.*.'.*.*.'.'.'.'.".* 7

5. Grassland vegetation type with Westmoreland spoils bank

in background g

6. Creek bottom vegetation type with railroad fillin

background ig

7. Mule deer observations in the Sarpy Creek study area 12

8. Pronghorn antelope observations in the Sarpy Creek study

area ]9

9. Prairie grouse breeding grounds, pheasant crow count

routes and turkey observations in the Sarpy Creek

study area 26

10. "Do you feel coal development will adversely affect

wildlife?" ; 30

11. "What level of coal development do you favor?" 31

12. "Do you feel reclamation of strip-mined land is possible 33

in your area?"

13. "Do you allow hunting on your land?" 35

14. "What do you feel is the greatest threat to wildlife

in your area?" 36

15. Mule deer population levels (1900-1990) determined by

questionnaire 33

16. Mule deer harvest statistics 39

17. Mule Deer and white-tailed deer production statistics..".*.'!,* 40

18. White-tailed deer population levels (1900-1990) determined

by questionnaire 41

19. White-tailed deer harvest statistics !!!!!!!!!! 42

20. Pronghorn antelope population levels (1900-1990)

determined by questionnaire 43

21. Antelope harvest statistics !!!!! 44

22. Sage grouse population levels (1900-1990) determined

by questionnaire 46

23. Sharptail population levels (1900-1990) determinedby

questionnaire 48

24. Ring-necked pheasant population levels (1900-1990)

determined by questionnaire 49

25. Rabbit population levels (1900-1990) determined by

questionnaire 50

26. Mice population levels (1900-1990) determined by

questionnaire 51

27. Coyote population levels (1900-1990) determined by

questionnaire 52

iv

*

SARPY HASIN WILDLIFE ECOLOGY STUDY

I. INTRODUCTION

Strip mining of coal in the Fort Union formation has been proposed as
a partial solution to the "energy crisis." This mining, along with associ-
ated energy conversion plants, transmission lines, and related facilities,
is causing much concern, not only in Montana and the other producer states
but the entire nation as well. The debate over the proposed Col strip
plants, which are less than 25 miles east of Sarpy Creek, is the first
manifestation of this concern.

Many people are proposing that strip mining of coal for export only
be allowed. Indeed, the official position of the state of Montana is,
"...Montana people and their government would assent to the leasing of coal
only if its combustion or conversion will take place near the nation's high
energy demand areas. Consequently, both the lease terms and the character-
istics of the coal deposits chosen for lease should dictate that the coal
will be burned or converted at load centers."

Strip mining is currently taking place at the Westmoreland Mine
located within the Sarpy Creek drainage. With the operation of this mine
and the opening of others seemingly imminent in the area, the Sarpy Basin
Wildlife Ecology Study was initiated in September 1973, with the following
objectives:

(1) To determine the impact of existing and future surface mining
operations on wildlife resources in the area.

(2) To ensure that fish and wildlife habitat values receive full
recognition in any surface reclamation efforts that follow
surface mining operations.

(3) To investigate possible modifications, additions or innovations
in the surface mining reclamation processes to avoid unnecessary
loss of wildlife habitat and develop techniques and procedures
to enhance habitat through reclamation.

II. PROCEDURES

During the first year of this study, emphasis was placed on becoming
familiar with physical aspects, vegetational composition, history of key
wildlife species, and population characteristics of the various wildlife
species of the study area. Soils information was obtained from the Soil
Conservation Service offices of Big Horn, Rosebud and Treasure Counties.
Vegetation types were determined through aerial and vehicular observations.
These types are comparable to those described by Knapp (1972) in a similar
area.

Population characteristics of key wildlife species were obtained via
personal observations from low-level aerial flights and vehicular surveys
within the study area. At each observation, animals were classified as
to sex and age. Vegetation type or subtype, class of slope, and exposure
were noted and location was recorded to the nearest quarter section,

A questionnaire was distributed to farmers and ranchers who live or
own land within the study area. Its primary purpose was to obtain a
historical picture of various wildlife species from the resident's view-
point. A few questions on the possible effects of strip mining and the
potential for reclamation were included. Further information on wildlife
history was obtained from records in the Department of Fish and Game office
in Miles City.

III. STUDY AREA

Location

Sarpy Creek drainage is located in southeastern Montana approximately
18 airline miles northeast of Hardin, 57 airline miles southwest of Miles
City, 65 airline miles east of Billings and 65 airline miles north of
Sheridan, Wyoming.

Sarpy Creek (Figure 1) extends from its headwaters in the northeast
corner of Big Horn County, through Treasure County, to its confluence with
the Yellowstone River approximately 7 river miles east of the community of
Hysham. The north boundary of the study area is Interstate Highway 94 and
the remaining boundaries are the divides shared with surrounding drainages.
These are Tullock Creek on the west and southwest. Rosebud Creek on the
southeast and Armells and Reservation Creeks on the east.

Physiography and Climate

Elevation ranges from 4820 feet in the Little Wolf Mountains along
the southeast boundary to about 2650 feet at the intersection of Sarpy Creek
and Interstate 94.

Average annual precipitation is 10 to 14 inches over much of the area
with 14 to 20 inches normal at higher elevations in the southern portion
and along the Armells Creek divide (Jackson 1971). The average length
of the frost-free season is approximately 130 days in the north and ranges
to around 105 days in the southern portions (Caprio 1965).

Summers are generally hot and dry while winters are moderately cold
and dry. At Hysham (elevation 2650 feet), temperatures range from an
average of 18.6°F in January to 72.8°F in July. Precipitation averages
11.2 inches per year, with February the driest (0.4 inches) month and June
the wettest (2.6 inches) month (Moshier and Fielder 1967). At Busby (eleva-
tion 3500 feet), which is about 10 miles south of the studv area, a similar
pattern exists with average temperatures ranging from 17.5°F in January to
70.5OF in July. Average annual precipitation is 12.6 inches with February
the driest month at 0.4 inches and June the wettest at 2.5 inches
(Dightman 1972).

-2-

Figure 1. Sarpy Basin wildlife ecology study area.

-3-

Edaphic Characteristics

There are six general soil associations (Figure 2) found within the
drainage area. These are grouped into three major headings:

(1) Soils of high terraces, which include the Wanetta-Hesper
association.

(2) Soils of rolling to hilly uplands on clay shale, which include
the Pierre-Li smas association.

(3) Soils of rolling to rough, broken uplands on soft shale which
include the Flasher-Bainville association in Treasure County
and the Nelson-Alice association in Big Horn County, the Bain-
ville-Midway association in Treasure County and the Thedalund-
Midway association in Big Horn County. The Wayden - Regent -
shale outcrop association and the Wibaux - Thedalund - Spearman
association are also in this grouping. Complete details of all
these soil associations are reported by Moshier and Fielder
(1967) and Meshnick et al . (1972). Brief topography, surface
runoff and vegetative descriptions from these surveys are in-
cluded in Table 15 (appendix).

Vegetation Characteristics

Five vegetation types have been identified in the Sarpy Creek drain-
age. Four of these represent native vegetation and include the ponderosa
pine, big sagebrush, grassland and creek bottom types. The fifth, agri-
cultural, represents human influence in the form of introduced monocultures.
All types have been divided into two or more subtypes. No quantitative
analysis has been done at this time.

Ponderosa Pine Type

All areas where ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) occurs are included
in this type. It represents the most diversified of the types (Figure 3)
and includes five subtypes:

(1 ) Ponderosa pine

(2) Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)

(3) Grassland

(4) Rhus (Rhus trilobata)

(5) Juniper (Juniperus soopulonan)

These subtypes were determined by the dominant shrub in the understory
except for the ponderosa pine subtype which had no understory development
and the grassland subtype which had no shrub development.

Big Sagebrush Type

This type is defined as those areas in which big sagebrush was the
dominant overstory species (Figure 4). There are two subtypes: big sage-
brush and grassland. The grassland subtype occurred as small patches of
open grass surrounded by sagebrush.

-4-

Figure 2. General soil associations found in the Sarpy Creek drainage.

-5-

Figure 3. Ponderosa pine vegetation type.

-6-

Figure 4. Big sagebrush vegetation type.

-7-

Grassland Type

This type also has two subtypes, grassland and big sagebrush, and
it is the antithesis of the previous type (Figure 5). It is defined as
those areas where grass is the dominant species and sagebrush occurs only
in isolated patches.

Creek Bottom Type

This type is confined to the Sarpy Creek bottom area (Figure 6)
and the bottoms of the larger side drainages. It has two subtypes,
Cottonwood and shrub, determined by the status of plains cottonwood
(Populus deltoides) trees in the area.

Agricultural Type

This type was arbitrarily separated from the other types and classi-
fied into three subtypes based on the predominant adjacent type. The
three subtypes are:

(1 ) Ponderosa pine

(2) Sagebrush-grassland

(3) Creek bottom

-8-

Figure 5. Grassland vegetation type with Westmoreland spoils bank
in background.

-9-

Mule deer (Odoaoileus hemionus) , pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra
cmep-loana) , and sharp- tailed grouse (Pediocetes phasianellus ) are the
most common game species in the Sarpy Creek area. Merriam's turkey
(Meleagvis gallopavo merriami) occur in the southern portion of the area.
White-tailed deer (Odoaoileus virginiana) and ring-necked pheasants
(Phasianus aolahiaus) are found primarily along the Sarpy Creek bottom.
Sage grouse ( Centra oerous urophasianus) and gray partridge (Perdix perdix)
also occur in the area.

Mule Deer

A total of 531 mule deer in 92 observations, both ground and air,
was sighted from December 1973 through November 1974 in the Sarpy Creek
area. Observations were not spread evenly throughout the year. Con-
sequently, some seasonal data are lacking.

Distribution

Individual observations of mule deer are shown in Figure 7. Mule
deer seem to be evenly distributed throughout the study area. The
relatively small number of observations and the incomplete coverage of
the area, both in time and space, preclude any attempt at drawing con-
clusions regarding seasonal movement. Dusek and McCann (1974) suggest
that mule deer in the Bull Mountains, an area somewhat similar to the
Sarpy Creek area, are nonmigratory.

Seasonal Use of Soil Associations

Plotted mule deer observations overlaid on the general soils map
allowed the tabulation of the data presented in Table 1. The Bainvi lie-
Mi dw ay /The da lund- Midway Association (B/T-M) showed the most usage in all
seasons. It had 78 percent of all deer observed, compared to 7 percent
for the Pierre-Lismas, Wayden-Regent and Flasher-Bainville/Nelson-Al ice
Associations (F-B/N-A).

Winter: The B/T-M soils contained 86 percent of all mule deer
observed and 79 percent of the observations. This may indicate a
preference for this soil type. Statistical analysis involving a com-
parison of the relative areas of the different soil types to their use
by deer, to be performed at a later date, should shed some light on
this matter. The F-B/N-A association was second with 8 percent of the
deer and 16 percent of the observations.

Spring: Again the B/T-M association had the most usage with 81
percent of the deer observed and 69 percent of the observations. This
was a slight decline from winter. The Wayden-Regent association was
second with 19 percent of the observations and 12 percent of the deer.

Fall: This season showed the most diversity, with observations in
all associations. The B/T-M association was dominant with 67 percent of
the observations and 69 percent of the deer. The Pierre-Lismas association
was second with 11 percent of the observations and 12 percent of the deer.

LEGEND
Permanent stream
Intermittent stream ^

Paved road

Unpaved road

County line

Study area _..

Mule deer distributio

Winter

Spring

Fall

Figure 7. Mule deer observations in the Sarpy Creek study area.

-12-

Table 1. Seasonal distribution of mule deer by soil association.

Soil

nSSOCl a 1 1 On

Winter

Spring

\ lO-\ CC J

Fall

//IK 1 DO ^

Total

/ 7Q A CO ^

Soil Association
Narne^/

1

6-2

4-3

4-2

Wanetta-Hesper (T)

2

-

11-12

8-7

Pierre-Lismas (T)

3

16-8

6-4

9-7

10-7

Flasher-Bainvine(T)/
Nelson-Alice (B)

4

79-86

69-81

67-69

70-78

Bainvi lie-Midway (T)/
Thedal und-Midway(B)

5

19-12

9-9

9-7

Wayden- Regent (B)

6

2-tr4/

1-tr

Wibaux-Thedalund-

Spearman (B)

1/ Number of observations - total mule deer observed

2/ Percent of observations

1/ Percent of mule deer observed

5/ tr - trace, a value <■ 0.5 percent

5/ (T) - Treasure County; (B) - Big Horn County

Seasonal Use of Vegetation Types

Overall, the ponderosa pine type showed the most usage with 40 percent
of all observations and 50 percent of all deer observed (Table 2). This
type was most heavily used in winter and spring when group sizes were largest.
Ponderosa pine, big sage-grass and Rhus-grass subtypes had 15 percent, 12
percent and 12 percent, respectively, of the mule deer observed. The creek
bottom type had 32 percent of the observations and 24 percent of the mule
deer observed, while the agricultural type had 17 percent of the observations
and 15 percent of the mule deer.

Winter: The ponderosa pine type, with 89 percent of mule deer observed,
was used most heavily (Table 2). The ponderosa pine subtype had the highest
percentage of observations (39 percent), but the Rhus-grass subtype had the
highest numbers of deer (42 percent). The ease of sighting deer in this
relatively open subtype may have biased this result. Knapp (1972) reported
skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata) and big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)
to be equally important in the winter diet of mule deer with each making
up 24 percent of seasonal diet.

-13-

Spring: The ponderosa pine type was again dominant with 70 percent
of the mule deer observed, with use of the big sage-grass, its major sub-
type, at 32 percent. The big sage-grassland type had 16 percent.

Fall: A dramatic switch in usage was noticed in this time period.
Ponderosa pine fell off to only 8 percent usage while the creek bottom
type increased from only 2 percent in both winter and spring to 58 per-
cent. Use of the agricultural type also showed a large increase to 27
percent. This may reflect a movement of deer within their home range to
the mesic bottoms and usage of new growth in winter wheat fields.

Table 2. Seasonal use of vegetation types by mule deer.

Winter '73-
(18-132)1/

'74 Spring '74
(25-184)

Fall '74
(49-215)

Total
(92-531)

Ponderosa Pine

832/-891/

64-70

12-8

40-50

Big Sage-Grassland

6-2

12-16

2-2

5-7

Grassland

12-6

4-6

5-5

Creekbottom

6-2

4-2

55-58

32-24

Agricultural

6-8

8-6

27-27

17-15

(P.Pine
c(Big Sage-Grass
SZ ( Rhus-Grass
. (Grassland

(Juniper

39-27
6-4
22-42
17-15

24-17
24-32
4-4
8-14
4-4

8-6
4-2

19-15
8-12
5-12
8-9
1-1

1/ Number of deer observations - total deer observed

Percent of observations
3/ Percent of deer observed

Seasonal Use of Slope

During winter, steep slopes were most important (Table 3), with flat
areas least important. Usage ranged from 66 percent of mule deer observed
on steep slopes to 4 percent on the flats. Spring usage was relatively
even between areas with any slope (29, 33 and 34 percent for gentle, medium
and steep, respectively) and flat areas were unimportant (4 percent of mule
deer observed). Fall usage was the opposite of winter with flat areas re-
ceiving 68 percent of mule deer usage, while medium and steep slopes combined
contained only 10 percent of the observations. This pattern corroborates the
movement suggested earlier, i.e., from higher elevations in winter and spring
to lower elevations in the fall.

-14-

Table 3. Seasonal slope usage by mule deer.

Slope

Winter
(17-116)1/

Spring
(20-141)

Fall
(49-215)

Total
(86-472)

Flat

I22/.43/

5-4

67-68

42-33

Gentle

18-11

40-29

16-22

22-21

Medium

29-19

30-33

8-4

17-17

Steep

41-66

25-34

8-6

19-29

1/ Number of observations - total mule deer observed

^/ Percent of observations

2/ Percent of mule deer observed

Seasonal Use of Exposure

Winter: Use of south, southeast and east slopes accounted for 63
percent of all mule deer observed, with north and northwest slopes having
33 percent (Table 4). One might expect southwest and west slopes to have
at least some usage. Perhaps the mild winter, with a distinct absence of
snow cover, had something to do with this pattern.

Spring: Southwest and west exposure usage increased to 41 percent
of deer observed during this time period, and south, southeast and east
exposure usage declined to 48 percent. Northerly exposure usage declined
from 33 percent in winter to 16 percent in spring. Spring weather was
cold and wet.

Fall: Because of their highly convoluted nature and many resultant
microclimates, creek bottoms were classified as flat lands. The utiliza-
tion of creek bottoms during fall was again evidenced with 68 percent of mule
deer observed falling into the flat land category. The remaining observa-
tions were generally quite dispersed with southwest exposures receiving
14 percent of the usage.

-15-

Table 4. Seasonal distribution of mule deer according to exposure.

F V r\ i*\ c 1 1
t.A(JUbur c

Winter' 73-

'74 Spring '74

(90-1^1 \

\L.\J~ \ H \ j

Fall '74

Total

V OD-HO / J

M

n

iq2/ i/i3/

1 U-o

D-D

c

1 c~o

ins

1 u— o

7

/ -D

1 0- 1 H

t — £

\ J- 1 o

u

n

OO-O/

D-D

19 1 A
1 1 1

NE

8-7

5-3

NW

12-19

2-trl/

4-5

SE

12-27

20-26

7-15

SW

5-4

8-14

6-5

Flat

12-4

5-4

67-68

42-33

1/ Number of observations - total mule deer observed

7/ Percent of observations

^/ Percent of mule deer observed

4/ tr - trace, or <" 0.5 percent

Population Characteristics

Observations indicate that fawns per 100 doe ratios (Table 5) dropped
slightly from the fall of 1973 (86) to the winter of 73-74 (82). This com-
pares with 47 and 39 fawns per 100 does in the same fall and winter for the
Bull Mountains (Dusek and McCann 1974) and 84 fawns per 100 does in the
Missouri Breaks in 1963 (Mackie 1970). Knapp (1972) reported 62 fawns per
100 does in the winter of 1970-71 in the Fort Howes Ranger District of the
Custer National Forest. The ratio dropped to 77 in the fall of 1974 in the
Sarpy Creek area. Eustace (1974) reported 70 and 43 fawns per 100 does
in hunting districts 720 and 722. Sarpy Creek is the boundary line between
these two districts. The fawn per 100 doe ratio for the entire Montana
Fish and Game Department administrative region 7 was 88:100 in 1973.

Fawns per 100 adults showed a decline from the fall of 1973 to the
fall of 1974, with 62 and 59, respectively. The fawn per 100 adult ratio
for region 7 in 1973 was 65:100 (Eustace 1974). The percentage of adult

-16-

Table 5. Mule deer population characteristics in the Sarpy Creek drainage.

Season

Bucks

Does

Fawns

Unci .

Total

Fawns :
100 Does

Fawns :
100 Adults

Bucks :
100 Does

Does :
100 Deer

Winter
Dec. '73-

Feb.

'74

12

44

36

302/
103/

132

81.8

54.5

27.3

43.1

Fall
Sep. '74-

Nov.

'74

31

104

80

215

76.9

59.3

29.8

48.4

Fal 1 ' 73i/

8

21

18

47

85.7

62.1

38.1

44.7

r, y Based on observations by Stephen J. Knapp, environmental planning ecologist, Montana Department of
Fish and Game
2J Unclassified by sex or age
3/ Unclassified adults

does in the fall populations increased from 44.7 in 1973 to 48.4 in 1974,
while the ratio of bucks per 100 does decreased from 38.1 in 1973 to 29.8
in 1974.

The small sample sizes recorded for the fall and winter 1973-74
periods and one year's data are not sufficient for determining trends.
It can be stated that fawn per doe ratios are hovering at the upper fair to
lower good range (Eustace 1974) and compare favorably with other areas in
eastern Montana. The Sarpy Creek area appears to have a healthier popula-
tion than immediately surrounding areas.

Pronghorn Antelope

During 1974, 323 antelope were counted in 48 observations. Again,
some seasonal data were not included because of a very small sample size.

Distribution

Seasonal antelope observations are shown in Figure 8. There appears
to be a major concentration in the area west of Sarpy Creek opposite the
Horse Creek drainage. Several observations were grouped east of Sarpy
Creek just south of Interstate 94. No long range seasonal movement is
evident.

Seasonal Use of Soil Associations

Three soil associations received the major share of the combined
seasonal usage (Table 6): the Bainville-Midway/Thedal und-Midway (B/T-M)
Association (56 percent of antelope observations and 55 percent of antelope
observed); the Flasher-Bainville/Nelson-Alice (F-B/N-A) association (32 and
24 percent, respectively); and the Pierre-Lismas (P-L) association (10 and
18 percent, respectively).

Spring: The B/T-M association had 68 percent of the antelope ob-
served, while the F-B/N-A association had 19 percent. They had 60 and 32
percent of the observations, respectively.

Summer: Percentages of antelope observed were evenly distributed
between the three major associations with 36 percent for F-B/N-A, 34 per-
cent for P-L and 30 percent for B/T-M associations. This represents a
decrease in B/T-M and a large increase in P-L soils.

Fall: Observations on B/T-M soils increased to 52 percent of the
total, while P-L and F-B/N-A decreased to 25 percent and 24 percent,
respectively.

-18-

lEGEND

Permanen* stream -vw ^

Intermittent stream ..-<-' ^

Paved road *

Unpaved road

County line

Study area
Antelope distribution

Winter

Spring

Summer

Fall

Sharldin
SCALE

Figure 8. Pronghorn antelope observations in the Sarpy Creek study area.

-19-

Table 6. Seasonal distribution of antelope by soil association.

Soil Spring Summer Fall Total Soil Association
Association (25-140)1/ (12-56) (12-149) (49-345) Namej/

1 42/-93/ . _ 2-4 Wanetta-Hesper (T)

2 4-4 17-34 17-25 10-18 Pierre-Lismas (T)

3 32-19 42-36 33-24 35-24 Flasher-Bainvi 1 le (T)/

Nelson-Alice (B)

4 60-68 41-30 50-52 53-55 Bainville-Midway (T)/

Thedal und-Midway (B)

5 - - _ _ Wayden-Regent (B)

6 - - - Wibaux-Thedal und-

Spearman (B)

1/ Number of observations - total antelope observed

7/ Percent of observations

2/ Percent of antelope observed

4/ (T) - Treasure County; (B) - Big Horn County

Seasonal Use of Vegetation Types

The combined data show that the big sage-grassland and grassland types
were most important to antelope (Table 7). The big sage-grassland type
had the highest percentage of antelope with 49 percent, while the grassland
type had the most observations with 52 percent. Agricultural and ponderosa
pine types received very little to moderate usage while the creek bottom
type had no recorded observations.

Spring: The grassland type was the recipient of most of the antelope
usage, with 64 percent of the observations and 69 percent of the antelope
observed. The big sage-grassland type was second in both categories, with
29 percent and 24 percent, respectively. The agricultural type usage was
7 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

Summer: A trend was established with usage in the big sage-grassland
type increasing to 38 percent of the observations and 54 percent of the
antelope observed. Usage decreased in the grassland type to 62 percent and
46 percent, respectively. No observations were recorded in the other veqet<
tive types.

-20-

Fall: The trend established in summer continued with usage in the
big sage-grassland type increasing further to 58 percent of the observations
and 73 percent of the antelrpe. The grassland type usage decreased to 17
percent and 5 percent, respectively, and was replaced in importance by the
agricultural type with 17 percent and 16 percent, respectively. The ponderosa
pine type also received some usage, making fall the season of widest diversi-
fication.

Table 7. Seasonal use of vegetation types by antelope.

Spring '74
(28-146)1/

Summer ' 74
( 8-28)

Fall '74
(12-149)

Total
(48-323)

Ponderosa Pine

8-5

2-3

Big Sage-Grassland 29i/-24l/

38-54

58-73

38-49

Grassland

64-69

62-46

17-5

52-38

Creek Bottom

Agricultural

7-7

17-16

8-10

1/ Number of observations - total observed

Percent of observations
y Percent of antelope observed

Seasonal Use of Slope

Gentle and medium slopes accounted for 85 percent of antelope observa-
tions and 92 percent of the antelope observed (Table 8). Steep and flat
lands had 7 and 2 percent of the antelope observed. The relatively small
use of flat lands, normally preferred by antelope, is due to the paucity of
that land form in the area and the apparent avoidance of the flat creek
bottoms by antelope.

Spring: During spring use was spread throughout the area, ranging
from a low of 4 percent of observations on flat land to 54 percent on medium
slopes. Percentage of antelope observed followed a similar pattern, ranging
from 3 percent on flat land to 65 percent on medium slopes.

Summer: Usage of medium slopes increased to 75 percent of observations

and 89 percent of antelope observed. Flat and gentle slopes, each with 13

percent of the observations, had 4 percent and 7 percent of the antelope ob-
served, respectively.

-21-

Fall: Each of two categories had 50 percent of the antelope observa-
tions. Seventy percent of observed antelope were on gentle slopes, while
30 percent were on medium slopes.

Table 8. Seasonal slope usage by antelope.

Slope

Spring
(28-146)1/

Summer
( 8-28)

Fall

(12-149)

Total
(48-323)

Flat

42/-33/

13-4

4-2

Gentle

25-17

13-7

50-70

29-41

Medi urn

54-65

75-89

50-30

56-51

Steep

18-15

10-7

1/ Number of observations - total antelope observed

7/ Percent of observations

y Percent of antelope observed

Seasonal Use of Exposure

Spring: Use of southerly exposures amounted to 50 percent of all
observations and 57 percent of all antelope observed (Table 9). The
northerly exposures accounted for 15 percent of observations and 14 percent
of antelope observed. Western exposures had 29 percent of all the antelope
observed, while eastern exposures had 27 percent.

Summer: Northern exposures increased in importance to 51 percent of
antelope observations and 71 percent of all antelope observed. Western
exposures had 25 percent of antelope observed, while eastern exposures had
35 percent.

Fall: Use of northerly exposures remained above that of southerly ex-
posures, with 45 percent and 5 percent of antelope observed, respectively.
Easterly exposure usage came to the fore with 75 percent of the observations
and 61 percent of the antelope observed.

-22-

Table 9. Seasonal distribution of antelope by exposure.

Spring Summer Fall Total

Exposure (28-146)1/ ( 8-28) (12-149) (48-323)

N

Il2/-103/

13-25

-

8-7

S

32-32

13-11

-

21-16

E

18-9

-

33-46

19-25

U

14-18

8-3

10-10

NE

4-4

25-21

17-10

10-9

NW

13-25

17-35

6-18

SE

7-14

25-14

25-5

15-10

SW

11-n

6-5

Flat

4-3

13-4

4-2

1/ Number of observations - total antelope observed
\j Percent of observations
Percent of antelope observed

Population Characteristics

The only two seasons in which antelope are easily placed in age and
sex categories are summer and fall. Observations from these two seasons
are shown in Table 10. Antelope production appears to be quite poor, 59
fawns per 100 does in summer and it gets worse, declining to 38 fawns per
100 does by fall. Dusek and McCann (1974) reported 31 fawns per 100 does
in the Bull Mountains. Fawns per 100 does in Region 7 in 1973 were 93:100
(Wentland 1974). The last year in which the Sarpy Creek area was surveyed
by the Montana Department of Fish and Game was 1972. That year fawns per
100 doe ratios for hunting districts 720 and 722 were 40 fawns per 100
does in 720 and 65:100 in 722 (Wentland 1974).

Fawns per 100 adult ratios declined from 44 to 28 from summer to fall.
Buck numbers in the population remained stable at 35 per 100 does. In
1972 there were 31 fawns per 100 adults and 29 bucks per 100 does in district
720. There were 52 fawns per 100 adults and 24 bucks per 100 does in dis-
trict 722 (Wentland 1974). In the Bull Mountains there were 24 fawns per
100 adults and 27 bucks per 100 does in 1973 (Dusek and McCann 1974).

-23-

This area appears to have relatively poor antelope populations, but
that is not surprising because of the lack of large areas of relatively
flat land covered with sagebrush. It does seem to be slightly better than
the Bull Mountains.

Table 10. Antelope population characteristics in the Sarpy Creek drainage.

Fawns: Fawns: Bucks Does:
100 100 100 100
Bucks Does Fawns Unci . Total Does Adul ts Does Antelope

Summer '74 10 29 11 - 56 58.6 43.6 34.5 51.7

Fall '74 30 86 33 - 149 38.4 28.4 34.9 57.7

Prairie Grouse

During March and April 1974, sixteen sharptail dancing grounds were
located within or near the study area. A total of 203 male birds was ob-
served on dancing grounds. Three sage grouse strutting grounds were found
with a total of 35 adult males attending.

-24-

Distribution

Sharptail dancing grounds located in 1974 are shown in Figure 9.
These grounds seem to be more prevalent in the southern portion of the study
area. An attempt will be made to locate every dancing ground in the coming
year. Sage grouse strutting grounds are all within a 3-mile radius centered
just west of Sarpy Creek about midway between the Horse Creek and Burnt
Creek roads.

Use of Soil Associations

Dancing grounds were located in three of the six soil associations.
The highest number of grounds, eight, was located in the Bainvil le-Midway/
Thedalund-Midway association (Table 11). It also had the highest number of
adult males per ground, 13.1. The Flasher-Bainville/Nelson-Alice association
had 5 grounds with 12,0 birds per ground. The only other association with
sharptails was the Wibaux-Thedal und-Spearman association with 3 grounds and
12. 7 birds per ground.

All three sage grouse strutting grounds were in the Bainvil le-Midway/
Thedalund-Midway association. There were 11.7 males per ground.

Population Characteristics

Breeding population information (numbers of male birds on grounds) is
summarized in Table 12. Numbers of birds on individual grounds is presented
in Appendix Table 16. The average number of male birds per sharptail dancing
grounds (12.7) is below that reported for grounds in Region 7 in 1973 (17.2),
but above that reported for the Colstrip route (9.8) which is just east of
the study area (Wallestad 1974). Numbers of sage grouse males per strutting
ground (11.7) were considerably below levels reported for other regions of
southeastern Montana (43.2) in 1973. This reinforces the impression that
this area is not prime sage grouse habitat.

Only four sharptail broods were observed during this reporting period,
a total of 13 juveniles with 4 hens. This is 3.25 young per brood, and
is substantially below the 6.7 young per brood recorded in Region 7 in 1973
(Wallestad 1974). This sample size is too small for reliable conclusions,
but the low figure could be the result of adverse spring weather. No sage
grouse broods were observed.

-25-

Intermittent stream
Paved road

Unpaved road

County line
Study area
Breeding grounds

Sage grouse

Shorptai) o

Pheasant routes ^

Turkey obs. o

Figure 9. Prain'e grouse breeding grounds, pheasant crow count routes
and turkey observations in the Sarpy Creek study area.

-26-

Table 11. Sharptail dancing ground distribution by soil association.

Male Birds

Male Birds/
Ground

Soil Association

1.

Wanetta-Hesper (T)i/

2.

-

-

Pierre-Lismas (T)

3. 5

60

12.0

Flasher-Bainville (T)/
Nelson-Alice (B)

4. 8

105

13.1

Bainville-Midway (T)/
Thedal und-Midway (B)

5.

Wayden-Regent (B)

6. 3

38

12.7

Wibaux-Thedal und-Spearman (B)

V T - Treasure County; B -

Big Horn County

Table 12.

Prairie grouse breeding ground data.

Species

Sharptail
Grouse

Hunting
Di s tri ct

Number of
Grounds

Male Birds/
Birds Ground

720
722

7
9

63 13.3
110 12.2

Study Area

16

203 12.7

Sage
Grouse

720
722

2
1

19 9.5
16 16.0

Study Area

3

35 11.7

-27-

Ring-necked Pheasants

Pheasant crowing count surveys were conducted in the Sarpy Creek study
area during March and April. Similar surveys in the surrounding drainages
were also conducted. These routes are shown in Figure 9. There were an
average of 13.3 calls per two minute stop in the Sarpy Creek area (Table 13).
This compares with an average of 4.7 in the surrounding areas. The area of
highest pheasant numbers, lower Sarpy Creek with 27.7 calls per stop, has
been regularly surveyed by the Montana Department of Fish and Game since
1967. Its average for the previous 7 years was 23.4 calls per stop
(Wallestad 1974).

Table 13. Ring-necked pheasant crowing count survey data.

Route

Length

Number of Calls

Calls/Stop

*Lower Sarpy Creek

20

554

27.7

*Upper Sarpy Creek

16

127

7.9

Lower Tullock Creek

15

70

4.7

Upper Tullock Creek

14

149

10.7

Armells Creek

21

56

2.7

Yellowstone River

23

87

3.8

*Beaver Creek

10

18

1.8

*East Bear Creek

5

49

9.8

*E. F. Sarpy Creek

7

24

3.4

Reservation Creek

16

59

3.7

*Sarpy Study Area

58

772

13.3

Surrounding Area

89

421

4.7

Total

147

1193

8.1

White- tailed Deer

White-tailed deer have been observed in the Sarpy Creek bottom. Some
ranchers have indicated that whitetail numbers are increasing; however,
not enough observations were made during the last year to permit any data
analysis.

Merriam's Turkey

In 1957, 2 tom and 15 hen turkeys were released in the Sarpy Creek
area. During this past winter, 43 turkeys, 8 of which were toms, were re-
ported on the East Fork Sarpy Creek (Figure 9). Five toms and eight hens
were seen in April on the ridge south of East Fork and one tom was seen north
of East Fork. Wallestad (1974) reports a long-term average of 7.2 young per
brood for turkeys in southeastern Montana.

-28-

V. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

A questionnaire was di'^tributed to the ranchers and farm people who
live or own land within the Sarpy Creek study area. Each returnee is
generally limited in expertise to his or her own lands and observations of
wildlife obtained in conjunction with normal daily activities. Although
wildlife observations were not their primary interest, it is felt by the
author that the results of this questionnaire fairly represent the consensus
view of farmers and ranchers in the area, and are a representative barometer
of the general wildlife trends. Discussion of the questionnaire is handled
in two sections, "Possible Effects of Development" and "Wildlife History."
A total of 268 questionnaires was handed out to 120 family units, and 63,
representing 40 family units, were returned. This amounts to a 33.3 per-
cent return for family units and 23.5 percent return for individuals.

Possible Effects oi Development

The first question was, "Do you feel coal development will adversely
affect wildlife?" Seventy-eight percent responded "yes," while only 17
percent said "no" (Figure 10). Five percent were undecided or gave no
response. Those who said yes had some of the following comments: "More
people will mean more poaching. . .with more people comes more activity and^
greater hunting pressure, legal and otherwise. .. the mine itself won't, it's
the people that come with it. ..the railroad and its 5-foot fence, noise
from equipment and all the people. . .wildlife can't survive on huge mounds
of nonvegetated land... it already has... a heavy influx of people and
activity scares off wildlife as well as kills many of the animals and birds -

cars, poachers, etc the people who work at the mines do more damage than

any equipment. . .when land and plants are disturbed, animals and birds have
to go into foreign territory for food and cover away from noise and people.
They encroach on other wildlife territory, putting additional need on that
land for food and forage." Those who said no had some of the following
comments: "Not if proper reclamation is done. . .wildl ife populations have
always fluctuated up and down anyway... if the wildlife balance is maintained,
surrounding cover and reclamation should retain sufficient habi tat. . .not in
a large area, it might right where the coal is being mined... not unless it
spreads and takes in a great deal of land... it is and always has been we
humans that destroy ourselves and everything else..."

From these comments it is obvious that the residents as a whole feel
the wildlife populations will suffer mainly from the increased number of
people in the area and that the mining itself is secondary.

The second question was, "What level of coal development do you favor?"
Four choices were included: high, moderate, low and none (Figure 11).
Sixty-five percent of those responding favored low or no coal development
and 27 percent favored moderate development. Not one person indicated a
preference for high development. Eight percent made no response. Some
comments made were: "Only if there must be mining to support the energy
demand, just enough for Montana.. .let's go slow and see what changes occur...
there should be more regulation, fewer companies and not so many places
torn up... the coal is not really needed that much and they are probably
going to send it to another country anyway. . .when it is gone, there is no

-29-

100

78

u 50

17

YES NO NO MAYBE

RESPONSE

Figure 10. "Do you feel coal development will adversely affect wildlife?

-30-

100

z

kU

U50

38

27

27

8

HIGH LOW NONE NO

MODERATE RESPONSE

Figure 11. "What level of coal development do you favor?"

-31-

more what about generations to come?... I feel we should only mine what is
absolutely necessary to prevent disaster. It should be saved for a poss ble
TrHH'"? '"°'^^,^'"P°!:^3"t future use. ..I don't believe the shonage^?s
fl •! claim... mine coal for our immediate needs and ship it

to where t is needed for power. Do not burn it in Montana... we don't need
transmission lines and gasification plants cluttering our Big Sky what
rZL'J ,^^^^^^°.help the country, but not more than necessary so arge
companies can't just use it to make large profits..."

Analysis of this question shows that the people of the area are willinq
national and state needs.

Question three was, "Do you feel the reclamation of strip-mined land
n-Lf^n' your area?" Forty-four percent thought that reclamation was

indeed possible. Thirty-seven percent said no, while sixteen percent were
undecided (Figure 12). Some comments of those who believe reclama1?on T
possib e were: If properly contoured. Mother Nature will heal the scars
'J^7JX'.r/:.^^^^^^^^^^^ topsoil,_don't leave the steep"

highly improbable that there will be a return to premining days for man'or

thl^;;i ^^^^ "'V '^'"^■P '^^■"^■"g reclamation laws,

f the coal companies are forced to, if not they won't bother. . .much of th(

•H^.-r^PJ^^^.*'^^ topsoil all over to a depth of 6 inches or more.

; for mar
imation 1

iLh"^ ^u^,^.aM.eb are rorcea to, it not they won't bother. . .much of the

Ifft ,T ^?^- 'I ''^''u"'' P'"^ ""^ '^"^ ^ ^^'^^ "iiJch will be better

^ "^ecl aimed., there is no question about it being suitable for
reclamation... anything is possible with enough money..."

Some comments from those who believe that reclamation is not possible
were: There is not enough topsoil and too little water.. .it will take too
long and much money to get the land back to a usable state... the soil is
.h^lfMlif"^ badly.. .the soil is shallow and some of those

shale hills won't grow anything for years, as any gravel pit will prove
there can never be the same amount and quality of trees and undercover that
IS being destroyed... no one has a right to form a Sahara or worse the

aesJhet^cai?i%7p1ir ''''' '"^^J^^ Q^^^est damage that is noi reclaimed,
aesthetically the land can never be the same... if you don't have water vou
huJ Ln^''' anything... they will be able to level a?,d grade thHpo^l banks
but man cannot do in a few years what it took nature thousands to do there
IS no way it can be made as productive as it was before. .. thin topsoil" low
u'ni^ke'li.'"'''''"'' '""^ questionable groundwater all Sake it

The nearly even division of opinion on this subject reflects the small
amount of factual information available. No one knows if reclamation is
possible or not. What is reclamation? The renewed growth of pine ??ees
various shrubs and native grasses or is it Russian thistles, al falfa^sweet
clover and introduced grasses with no trees or shrubs? "<*'i^«>. sweet

The fourth question was, "Do you allow hunting on your land?" This
question IS a barometer of the degree of frustration the ranchers and
farmers feel toward coal development and the influx of people as well as

-32-

100

u

06

lU
Q.

50-

44

37

16

YES NO NO MAYBE

RESPONSE

Figure 12. "Do you feel reclamation of strip-mined land is possible
in your area?"

-33-

their concern for what they think (and probably rightly so) are decreasing
wildlife populations. Using only one response per family unit, 65 percent
indicated they either alloweJ no hunting or hunting with some limitations
(Figure 13). Thirty-five percent allow unrestricted hunting. Some comments
were: "No vehicles. . .no alcohol and no driving in fields. . .only those who
have hunted here before. . .have until this year, now there is nothing left
to hunt... too many hunters see game and begin shooting regardless of what
else they might hit. ..by permission only. . .people have no respect for land-
owners' rights. . .there is very little wildlife left in this area... not since
Montana Power's influx of people pollution. . .no bird hunting. . .what game is
there we want left there. ..too many hunters have no respect for the land,
the wildlife or the landowner."

Question number five was, "What do you feel is the greatest threat to
wildlife in your area?" As expected, a large variety of answers was given
for this question. People in general received the most blame, gathering 37
percent of the responses (Figure 14). Predators (coyotes, foxes, skunks,
etc.) were blamed in 29 percent of the responses, followed by hunters and
hunting regulations with 19 percent. Poachers were specifically mentioned
by 8 percent and poor weather and loss of habitat had 4 and 3 percent,
respectively. Even high meat prices were blamed by one individual.

Question six, a follow-up to number five, was, "What do you think the
Department of Fish and Game can do to remedy this situation?" It provided
some serious as well as enlightening suggestions. "Nothing- too many drunks
with guns... hire more wardens. . .have shorter seasons and provide coyote
control ... get ranchers to leave corners and protect habitat by fencing,
develop more open water sources. . .oppose any gasification plants, coal field
generation plants, especially in the best deer and turkey habitat. . .have
more concern for personal property. Cooperate with landowners and do not
assume all rights to determine permitting hunters to run at large on private
or leased lands. Producing game for others to kill is competitive to live-
stock producers' livelihood. We don't want pay, only consideration, good
will and respect. .. get rid of coyotes, foxes and skunks and close this area
to hunting (at least one deer only) for a great number of years. . .probably
nothing. .. restrict the population increase to urban areas and establish
stricter game 1 aws. .. increase the number of game wardens in the mining and
surrounding area. .. reinstate the use of 1080, . .strict laws concerning coal
mining, ship the coal and pollution some place else and make Montana Power
Company understand that this is our state too... help in fighting construction
of additional mine-mouth generating plants. . .inform incoming people of their
responsibility in protecting as much wildlife as possible. . .no more roads,
no rampaging on snowmobiles, no hunting for a few years and reclamation of
all lands. . .eliminate open seasons on female deer. . .better public relations
between the Fish and Game Department, public, ranchers and farmers. . .patrol
the area more for poachers. .. lobby against policies and projects which will
harm wildlife populations. Issue stiff penalties against poachers and give
poachers bad publicity in papers, TV and radio... let the ranchers take care
of coyotes that bother them, ..limit the number of licenses sold on all wild-
life., .control coyotes, raccoons and skunks. . .enforce present laws to the
limit, punish poachers and trespassers and do not allow pollution of streams
and dams."

-34-

100

Of

35

40

25

YES NO
UMITED

Figure 13. "Do you allow hunting on your land?"

-35-

PEOPLE » COAL
DEVELOPEMENT

PREDATORS

HUNTING
REGULATIONS

HUNTERS

POACHERS

WEATHER

LOSS OF
HABITAT

MEAT PRICES

10

8

37

29

25 50
PERCENT

Figure 14. "What do you feel is the greatest threat to wildlife
your area?"

■36-

Wildlife History

The second portion of the questionnaire called on the residents to
make a subjective assessment of population levels for selected wildlife
species, including mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, sage
grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, pheasants, mice, rabbits and coyotes (Canis
latrans). The ratings ranged from excellent or high levels to terrible or
very low levels and were assigned a number on a 1 to 5 scale. All responses
were arbitrarily separated into two groups. Those who responded to the
time frames earlier than 1931 were called "old timers" and those responding
only in later years were called "newcomers." Results are included in Appendix
Table 17.

Mule Deer

Mule deer populations seem to have reached a low during the 1920's
and a peak in the 1950's (Figure 15). This corresponds with population
fluctuations of the Missouri Breaks deer reported by Mackie (1970), A
relatively stable population existed during the latter portion of the 1960's.
The residents report a very sharp drop occurring between 1972 and 1973.
They expect a slight increase in levels in 1975 but predict generally lower
populations, approaching the low levels recorded in the 20's, extending into
the 1980's. Old timers and newcomers generally agreed about this.

Mule deer harvest statistics (Figure 16) indicate a peak occurred in
the late 50 's and early 60 's in southeastern Montana, followed by a low
which bottomed out in 1967. Statistics for Hunting Districts 720 and 722,
which include Sarpy Creek, reflect the climb from 1967 and a possible peak
in 1971. The area is also included in old Hunting District 72 which gives
information back to 1956, the first year for which such statistics are
available. Fawn per 100 adult ratios from 1960 to 1973 are shown in Figure
17. This shows that production levels were lowest in 1961 and 1965 and
highest in the early 1970's for southeastern Montana. They show peak pro-
duction in the period of 1968 to 1970 in the area including Sarpy Creek,
followed by quite drastic reductions, especially in District 722, the area
in which the Colstrip facilities are located. Production in the Sarpy Creek
area appears to be above its surrounding environs.

White- tailed Deer

White-tailed deer were generally absent from the area in the early years
of settlement. Since 1941 whitetails have been extending their range over
much of eastern Montana (Mussehl and Howell 1971). This pattern is reflected
in Figure 18 with a peak reached in the 1950's. Residents report a slight
decline from that time, probably continuing on into the future. Old timers
and newcomers disagreed on the change from 1971 to 1972 and in the future,
1975.

Harvest statistics (Figure 19) show almost yearly fluctuations of large
magnitude with numbers generally up over all of Region 7. Old Hunting
District 72 showed lows in 1956, 1959, 1962 and a prolonged low stretching
from 1967 to 1969. Peak years were 1960 and 1966 with an upward trend es-
tablished since 1970. In the immediate areas of Sarpy Creek, 722 peaked in

-37-

Figure 15. Mule deer population levels (1900-1990) determined by
questionnaire.

Figure 17. Mule deer and white-tailed deer production statistics.

/

I

o

1960

C

C

r

Figure 16. Mule deer harvest statistics.

Figure 17. Mule deer and white-tailed deer production statistics.

I

o

1960

c

c

I

a
o

O 9

0)

Figure 18. White-tailed deer population levels (1900-1990)
determined by questionnaire.

"Old Timers" A A

"New Comers" o o

J_L.

1910 20

30 40 50 60 70 80
Ti me

Figure 19. White-tailed deer harvest statistics.

500-

I

> 300h
<

X

100-

Region 7 o-

Old Unit 72

Unit 720 ^

Unit 722

(xlO)

I I I I

1956

60

J I I L

65

J L

J L

75

c

c

Figure 20. Pronghorn antelope population levels (1900-1990)
determined by questionnaire.

I

CO

I

>

5 3

3

a
o

"Old Timers" A A

"New Comers" o o

■ ■ ■ '

1910 20 30

40 50
Ti me

60 70 80

Figure 21. Antelope harvest statistics.

1970 and has declined since, while 720 has shown the exact opposite trend
Production of whitetails in southeastern Montana (Figure 17) indicates a
steadily increasing population, with lows occurring in 1961, 1966 and 1969
Peak production years were 1968 and 1973.

Pronqhorn Antelope

Figure 20 shows that antelope numbers were very low to around 1940
Peak numbers occurred either in the 50' s (newcomers' opinion) or in the
60's (old timers' opinion). Mussehl and Howell (1971) report that antelope
were abundant in Montana as late as 1896, dwindling during the period of
settlement and increasing from around 11,000 in 1937 to 75,000 in 1965.

Harvest statistics reported since 1956 (Figure 21) indicate a low in
the late 50's and again from 1966 to 1968. Peak harvests occurred in 1956,
1964 and 1972. Old area 72 follows the same trend. Hunting Districts 720
and 722 have maintained relatively stable, if low, harvests. Production
statistics gathered every 3 years since 1963 are shown for Hunting Districts
720 and 722 in Table 14. Fawns per 100 does was highest in 1963 and lowest
in 1972 in both areas. Fawns per 100 adults follow the same downward trend.

Table 14. Historical antelope population characteristics in the Sarpy Creek
vicinity.V

Year

Fawns/ 100
720

Femal es

Fawns/ 100 Adults

Males/100

Females

722

720

722

720

722

1963

75

103

60

75

25

38

1966

54

85

43

67

26

28

1969

79

86

56

65

39

32

1972

40

65

31

52

29

24

Average

62

85

48

65

30

31

1/ Taken from Wentland (1974).

Sage Grouse

The old timers report very high population numbers of sage grouse in
the early 1900's (Figure 22). Populations declined continuously to the
1970's. Since then the old timers say the population has stabilized, while
newcomers indicate an increased reduction rate after 1971. Apparently by
the mid-1 930 's an estimated 50 percent decrease had occurred in the bird's
original habitat (Mussehl and Howell 1971).

-45-

Figure 22. Sage grouse population levels (1900-1990) determined
by questionnaire.

Production of sage grouse in southeastern Montana has ranged from 4.4
young per brood to 5.8 young per brood with an average of 4.9 since 1963
(Wallestad 1974).

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Sharptail numbers were also very high in the early days of settlement
(Figure 23). They have apparently remained stable since the early 1940's
with old timers reporting a slight decline and recovery while newcomers
thought an increase followed by a slight decline occurred up to the late
1960's. Since 1971 sharptail numbers have apparently declined at a drastic
rate.

Young per brood has ranged from 5.8 to 8.8, with an average of 6.7 in
southeastern Montana (Wallestad 1974).

Ring-necked Pheasant

Figure 24 shows a dramatic increase in pheasant populations between
the 1920's and 30's, reaching a peak in the 1950's or early 60's. Sharp
declines apparently occurred between 1971 and 1973. Future populations
will continue to dwindle in the consensus of opinion of the residents.
Mussehl and Howell (1971) report that pheasants were abundant in some por-
tions of the state, and that the Yellowstone River valley was a source for
transplanting birds in the 1940's.

Young per brood ranged from 5.2 to 8.5, with a 10-year averaae of 6.8
in southeastern Montana (Wallestad 1974).

Rabbits

The questionnaire returns indicate that rabbit numbers peaked in the
1920's with a secondary peak occurring in the 1950's (Figure 25). The popula-
tions have apparently declined since then. Newcomers indicate a population
increase from 1973 to 1974 with both groups predicting future population
increases.

Mice

Populations of mice have remained stable in the moderate- to-high range
(Figure 26). Newcomers indicate a population increase since 1971, while the
old timers believe mice populations have decreased.

Coyotes

Coyote populations were apparently stable in the early years of settle-
ment, ranging at the upper moderate- to-high level. With the advent of large
scale poisoning programs, population levels decreased, reaching bottom in
the 1950's (Figure 27). Population levels began to increase as coyotes,
known to be very intelligent, apparently were learning to avoid the poisons.
When 1080 and other poisons were banned in the early 1970 's, the coyote
population, already increasing, skyrocketed. Both groups apparently believe
that the population peak has been reached, as they predicted lower levels
for 1975 and the 1980' s.

-47-

Figure 23. Sharptail population levels (1900-1990) determined by
questionnaire.

• *

Figure 24. Ring-necked pheasant population levels (1900-1990)
determined by questionnaire.

I

I

>

c

o

3

a
o

"Old Timers" A A

"New Comers" o o

1910 20 30

40 50
Ti me

60 70 80

Figure 25.

Rabbit population levels (1900-1990) detennined by
questionnaire.

r

0)

>

o 3

Figure 26. Mice population levels (1900-1990) determined by
questionnaire.

cn
I

D

a
o

"Old Timers" A A

"New Comers" o o

0 1910 20 30

40 50
Ti me

60 70 80

Figure 27. Coyote population levels (1900-1990) determined by
questionnaire.

I

cn
ro
I

>

c
o

D

a
o

Q.

"Old Timers" A A

"New Comers" o o

1910 20

30

40

50 60

70

' ' '

80

Ti me

c

It is interesting to note that the old timers believe there are more
coyotes now than in the early days (1900-1920) and the newcomers feel that
there were more coyotes in the 1930's than at present. These discrepancies
can be accounted for because some of the individuals allow emotionalism
to cloud their assessment of true population levels. It is for this reason
that all of the population levels reported here are not considered as exact,
but only as general approximations.

VI. SUMMARY

During the first year of the Sarpy Basin Wildlife Ecology Study, some
important baseline data were gathered. General climatic conditions were
outlined. Six general soil associations were mapped and five vegetation
types with a total of fourteen subtypes were qualitatively described. Dis-
tribution, seasonal use of soil associations, vegetational types, slopes
and exposures, and population characteristics were discussed for the important
game species in the area. A questionnaire distributed to residents of the
area revealed their opinions on several coal development related subjects,
as well as their solutions to some of the problems associated with the
effects of coal development on wildlife. A brief history of selected wild-
life species was presented with information gathered from area residents
and Montana Fish and Game Department records.

A few observations and tentative conclusions resulting from the first
year of study follow:

1. The Bainville-Midway/Thedalund-Midway soil association may be the
most important concerning mule deer, pronghorn antelope and prairie grouse,
especially sage grouse.

2. The ponderosa pine type and subtype appear to be most important to
mule deer while the big sage-grassland type is most important to antelope.

3. Mule deer seem to utilize creek bottoms almost exclusively during
the fall months. This movement to the lower elevations could be caused by
xeric conditions prevalent on the ridges and plateaus after a hot and dry
summer.

4. The Sarpy Creek area appears to have a healthy mule deer population
at least comparable to most populations in other portions of eastern Montana
and much better than some.

5. Antelope populations are poor, compared to other areas in southeastern
Montana, probably due to a lack of the proper habitat.

6. The area appears to have excellent potential for sharptail popula-
tions and very little for sage grouse.

7. Pheasants seem to occur primarily in the lower half of the drainage.

8. The residents overwhelmingly feel that coal development, primarily
through increased human population levels, will adversely affect wildlife

-53-

populations. Nearly two-thirds prefer low or no coal development, and in
any case, for export only.

Recommendations most often mentioned to improve or maintain the lot of
wildlife in the area were for more cooperation between farmers and ranchers
and the Department of Fish and Game, more game wardens, stricter hunting
regulations, increased control of predators (primarily coyotes), and restric-
tion of coal development, especially mine-mouth plants.

-54

Literature Cited

Caprio, J. M. 1965. Average length of frost- free season. Coop. Ext.
Service, Mont. St. College, Bozeman. Folder No. 83.

Dightman, R. A. 1972. Climate, Big Horn County. Unpublished. Big Horn
County Area, Montana, Soil Survey, p. 1062-1064.

Dusek, G. L. and S. A. McCann. 1974. Bull Mountains coal field study.
Mont. Dept. of Fish and Game and Consolidation Coal Co., Prog. Rept.
76 pp.

Eustace, C. D. 1974. Big game survey and inventory (deer). Job Prog.
Rept. Mont. Fish and Game Dept. Unpubl. 11 pp.

Jackson, P. V. 1971. Montana rangeland resource program. Coop. Ext.
Service, Mont. St. Univ., Bozeman. 56 pp.

Knapp, S. J. 1972. Range use of mule deer prior to initiation of rest-
rotation grazing for cattle on the Fort Howes Ranger District, Custer
National Forest, Montana. Mont. St. Univ., Bozeman. Unpubl. Thesis
(M.S.). 50 pp.

Mackie, R. J. 1970. Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk and
cattle in the Missouri River Breaks, Montana. Wildl. Mono. No. 20.
79 pp.

Meshnick, J. C. , J. H. Smith, G. 6. Laverne, R. F. Peterson, D. H. Gentz

and R. Smith. 1972. Big Horn County area, Montana soil survey. U. S.
Dept. Agric. S.C.S. and U. S. Dept. Int. B.I. A. in coop, with Mont.
Agric. Exp. Sta. Unpubl. 1086 pp.

Moshier, R. L. and A. G. Fielder. 1967. Soil survey Treasure County,
Montana. U. S. Dept. Agric. S.S.C. in coop, with Mont. Agric. Exp.
Sta. 173 pp.

Mussehl, T. W. and F. W. Howell. 1971. Game management in Montana. Mont.
Fish and Game Dept. 238 pp.

Wallestad, R. 1974. Upland game bird surveys and inventory. Job Prog.
Rept. Unpubl. Mont. Dept. of Fish & Game. 13 pp.

Wentland, H. 1974. Big game survey and inventory (antelope). Job Prog.
Rept. Unpubl. Mont. Dept. of Fish & Game. 18 pp.

-55-

Appendix

Table 15. A brief description of the soils series found in the Sarpy Creek drainage.

Surface

Series Countyl/ Topography Drainage Vegetationj/

Wanetta

Treasure

Level to sloping terraces

Good

Short & mid grasses

Hesper

Treasure

Rolling, eroded uplands

Good

Ag sp; Ag sm; Ar tr

Pi erre

Treasure

Rolling, eroded uplands

Good

Ag sp; Ag sm; Ar tr

Lismas

Treasure

Rolling to hilly or strongly dissected

Excessive

Ag sm; St vi ; Bo gr;

uplands

Ar tr;Sa ve

Fl asher

Treasure

Rolling to strongly rolling or hilly.

Excessive

Ca lo; St vi ; Or hy

eroded uplands

Bainville

Treasure

Crests of ridges and hills

Excessive

Brush & trees; short.

mid & tall grasses

Thedalund

Big

Horn

Undulating to very steep hills

Medi urn

Ag sm; St vi ; Bo cu;
Ar tr

Mi dway

Big

Horn-Treasure

Rolling to steep, broken, eroded
uplands

Excessive

Ag sp; Ag sm; Bo gr;
Ar ca4; Ar tr; Rh tr
Gu sa; Bo cu

Nelson

Big

Horn

Undulating and rolling hills & ridges

Medi um

Ca lo; Ag sp; Ar ca4;
Yu gl

M n ce

Big

Horn

Moderately steep & rolling valleys

5 1 OW

Ca lo; Bo cu; Bo gr;
An sc; Eriog; Ambro

Wayden

Big

Horn

Sloping or rolling to very steep hills
& ridges

Medi um

Ag sp; Ag sm; Gu sa;
Ps ar

Regent

Big

Horn

Gently undulating to hilly ridges &
plains

Slow

Ag sm; Ag tr; Da in;
Fe id; Ch na

Wibaux

Big

Horn

Undulating to very steep uplands

Rapid

Ag sp; St vi ; Ar fr;
Gu sa; Ch na

Spearman

Big

Horn

Undulating & rolling plains

Medi um

St vi ; Ag sm; Ar tr;

1/ Source of information by county: Treasure - Moshier, R. L. and A. G. Fielder. 1967, Soil survey of

Treasure County, Montana. 173 pp.
Big Horn - Meshnick, J. C. , et al . 1972. Unpubl . Soil survey of
Big Horn County, Montana. 1086 pp.
2/ Plant abbreviations from Anon. 1969. Coded plant list for the state of Montana. Montana Fish and

Game Dept. 93 pp.

C

Appendix

Table 16. Location of prairie grouse breeding grounds and male birds

attending.

Date Hunting Male
Species Location Located Dist. Method!/ Birds

1 .

Sharp- tailed grouse

TIN,

R36E,

S24

4/16/74

720

A

6

2.

II

TIN,

R36E,

S36

4/16/74

720

A

20

3.

II

T2N,

R36E,

S 3

4/23/74

720

V

6

4.

11

T2N,

R36E,

SIO

4/23/74

720

V

15

5.

11

T2N,

R37E,

S30

3/29/74

720

V

16

6.

II

T3N,

R36E,

SIO

4/ 1/74

720

V

14

7.

II

T3N,

R37E,

S18

4/ 9/74

720

A

16

8.

II

TIN,

R37E,

S25

3/26/74

722

V

12

9.

II

TIN,

R38E,

S27

3/26/74

722

F

9

10.

II

TIN,

R38E,

S31

3/26/74

722

V

7

11.

II

TIN,

R38E,

S36

3/26/74

722

V

15

12.

II

T2N,

R37E,

S23

3/27/74

722

A

13

13.

II

T2N,

R38E,

S29

3/27/74

722

A

12

14.

II

T3N,

R37E,

S 1

3/27/74

722

A

16

15.

II

T4N,

R38E,

S31

3/27/74

722

A

10

16.

II

T5N,

R37E,

S27

3/27/74

722

A

16

17.

Sage grouse

T2N,

R36E,

SI 2

4/ 9/74

720

A

16

18.

II

T3N,

R37E,

S 8

4/ 9/74

720

A

3

19.

II

T3N,

R37E,

S27

3/25/74

722

V

16

V A = Airplane, V = Vehicle, F = Foot

-57-

Appendix
Table 17.

Population levels of selected species in the Sarpy Creek study area 1900-1990.1/

I

cn

00

I

Mule
Deer

White-
tailed
Deer

Antelope

Sage
Grouse

Sharp-
tailed
Grouse

Pheasant

Rabbits

Mice

Covotes„ .

U. 1.

N.C.

O.T.

N.C.

O.T.

N.C.

O.T.

N.C.

O.T.

N

C.

0

.T.

N.C.

O.T.

N.C.

0

.T.

N

c

■ ^ a

O.T.

N.Ci/

1900

-1920

3.71

-

5.40

-

4.67

-

1.17

-

1 .00

4

00

-

2.33

-

2

.20

2.20

-

1921

-1930

4.00

5.14

-

4.88

-

1.40

-

1.27

3

80

-

1.89

-

2

.00

2.25

-

1931

-1940

3.20

3.50

4.78

5.00

4.38

4.80

2.18

3.00

1 .82

2.

60

2

60

2.17

2.25

2.33

2

43

2

67

2.60

1.40

1941

-1950

2.36

2.27

4.44

4.14

3.67

3.80

2.67

2.67

2.67

2.

36

2

64

2.50

2.56

2.80

2

43

2.

60

3.00

2.91

1951

-1960

1.91

1.68

3.67

3.42

3.10

2.33

3.33

3.00

3.00

2.

19

2

36

2.33

3.00

2.35

2

57

2.

54

3.73

3.58

1961

-1970

2.55

2.28

3.82

3.59

3.00

3.57

3.83

3.36

2.83

2.

79

2.

18

2.70

3.44

2.69

2

33

2.

40

3.18

2.81

1971

c. Ob

C. Do

3. 91

3. 80

3. 20

2.68

4.08

3.64

3.08

2.

86

2.

45

2.74

3.78

3.27

2.

33

2.

48

2.91

2.33

1972

2.82

2.74

3.73

3.95

3.20

3.03

4.08

3.59

2.83

3.

29

2.

27

3.29

3.89

3.56

2.

44

2.

32

2.42

2.09

1973

2.91

3.34

3.70

4.04

3.10

2.97

4.08

3.81

3.08

3.

73

2.

45

3.59

3.89

3.79

2.

44

2.

20

2.00

1.61

1974

3.09

3.50

3.89

4.03

3.10

3.14

4.08

4.09

3.25

3.

97

2.

82

3.59

4.09

3.61

2.

67

2.

31

1.67

1.50

1975

2.80

3. 37

3.25

4.15

2.83

3.17

3.67

4.00

3.00

4.

06

2.

67

3.72

3.67

3.44

2.

67

2.

23

2.00

1 .74

1981-

1990

3.88

4.33

3.69

4.40

4.

43

4.19

3.60

2.

33

2.18

1/ Based on the following scale: 1 - Excellent or very high; 2 - Good or high; 3 - Moderate;

4 - Poor or low; 5 - Scarce or very low.
2/ O.T. = "Old Timers," N.C. = "Newcomers"

c

J

J

J