REHABILITATION OF PRONGHORN 
HABITAT ON SURFACE MINES OF 
THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS 
by 
George Michael Zimmerman 
A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree 
of 
Master of Science 
in 
Range Science 
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 
Bozeman, Montana 
April, 1983 
P37Z 
Z (o5S ii 
Cop. 3 
APPROVAL 
of a professional paper submitted by 
George Michael Zimmerman 
This professional paper has been read by each member of 
the professional paper committee and has been found to be 
satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, 
citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is 
ready for submission to the College of Graduate Studies. 
Approved for the Major Department 
Date s Head, Major Department 
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies 
iii 
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE 
In presenting this paper in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for a master's degree at Montana State 
University, I agree that the Library shall make it available 
to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations 
from this paper are allowable without special permission, 
provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. 
Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction 
of this paper may be granted by my major professor, or in 
his/her absence, by the Director of Libraries when, in the 
opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for 
scholarly purposes. Any copying or use of the material in 
this paper for financial gain shall not be allowed without 
my written permission. 
V 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
I wish to express my appreciation to those who helped 
make my study at Montana State University a success. 
Special thanks are extended to Dr. M. Douglas Scott and Bill 
Schwarzkopf for their advice in development of the survey 
questionnaire. To Dr. John Taylor for his counseling 
throughout my graduate years, and critical review of the 
manuscript. To Dr. Steven Young and Dr. Carl Wambolt for 
their advice and direction. I wish to thank especially my 
parents and family for continuing support throughout my 
college years. 
vi 
i .. ■ . 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
VITA ................ . . . . . . . . . iv 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..... ........ ...... v 
TABLE OF CONTENTS       vi 
LIST OF TABLES ... ...........  viii 
LIST OF FIGURES . .... , . . ... . . . . . .. . . x 
ABSTRACT . . ........ . ... .... ... . xi 
1. INTRODUCTION .. . ................ 1 
2. PRONGHORN HABITAT ESSENTIALS . . . .... . . . . 7 
Food . ... . ... . ... . . ...... . . 8 
Water ........  ......... 12 
Cover . . . .     . . .  . . 13 
Juxtaposition of Habitat Components . . . . . . . 16 
Interspersion of Habitat Components . . . . ... ' 17 
Space   . 21 
Pronghorn Habitat Conclusions . . . ... . . . . 22 
3. PRONGHORN HABITAT REHABILITATION ON SURFACE 
MINED AREAS ................... 25 
Description of the Resources    . . 26 
Baseline Maps . . . ... ......... 26 
Species Inventories . .  ..... 26 
Habitat Inventories .   ..... 27 
Habitat Value and Use     27 
Establishment of the Post-mining Land Use .... 28 
Analysis of Impacts . . . . ... . ... . . . . 31 
Reclamation Objectives  . . ... . 32 
Topography   . .... 32 
Revegetation . .     ...... . 33 
Water Resources . . . . . . . . ... . , . . 35 
Mitigation of Negative Impacts .... . ..... 36 
Enhancement of the Resource .   37 
Management . . ... . . . . . ....  38 
Fencing    39 
Pronghorn Habitat Management in 
Conjunction with Livestock .......... AO 
Monitoring . . .     . . . ... . . . 41 
Rehabilitation Conclusions . .    . . 42 
Vll 
TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued 
Page 
4. THE STATUS OF PRONGHORN MANAGEMENT ON SURFACE 
COAL MINES OF THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS ..... 45 
Methods   . . . . . . ...... . . . 45 
Results and Discussion   . . 46 
Baseline Information .   48 
Selection of the Post-mining Land use .... 48 
Target Species    . 52 
Reclamation Techniques ..... . . ... . . 55 
Wildlife Management Practices . . .... . . 55 
Hunting Practices and Policies .... . . . . 58 
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS   62 
6. LITERATURE CITED .    .... 66 
7. APPENDICES . . . . . .. . . . . ; . . . . ... . . 74 
Appendix A . ..... .... . ......... 75 
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . .     . . 81 
Appendix C ..... . ... . . . .... . . . . 86 
viii 
LIST OF TABLES 
1. Total acres of lands impacted in the northern Great 
Plains. 
2. Cumulative acres of projected habitat losses to coal 
development in the northern Great Plains. 
3. Pronghorn habitat requirements for sagebrush-grassland 
communities. 7 
4. Pronghorn habitat suitability criteria and rating for 
sagebrush-grassland steppes. 
5. Wildlife questionnaire response from 56 surface coal 
mines in the western U. S. and Canada. 
6. Comparison between species occurring and baseline 
information collected at 50 surface coal mines 
throughout the northern Great Plains. 
7. Factors to cause 43 mines to choose wildlife as a major 
post-mining land use. 
8. Post-mining land uses associated with a wildlife and no 
wildlife land use at 50 surface coal mines within the 
northern Great Plains. 
9. Percent breakdown of those species targeted on 38 
surface coal mines throughout the northern Great Plains. 
10. Comparison between post-mining land uses, other than a 
wildife land use, and targeted game species associated 
with those land uses at 38 surface coal mine lands 
throughout the northern Great Plains. 
11. Major reclamation techniques employed at 43 surface coal 
mines throughout the northern Great Plains. 
12. Major wildlife management techniques employed at 43 
surface coal mines throughout the northern Great Plains. 
13. Hunting restrictions, other than normal state regula¬ 
tions, employed at 28 surface coal mines throughout the 
northern Great Plains. 
14. Percent breakdown of 28 surface coal mines, throughout 
the northern Great Plains, allowing hunting of species 
occurring, as opposed to species hunted. 
LIST OF TABLES--Continued 
15. Potential species for the revegetation of pronghorn 
habitat throughout the northern Great Plains. 
16. Titles of respondents to mail questionnaire. 
17. Education of respondents to mail questionnaire. 
18. Surface mine acreage of 50 mines surveyed throughout the 
western U.S. and Canada. 
X 
LIST OF FIGURES 
1. Past and present distribution of pronghorn in North 
America. 
2. Pronghorn habitat as associated with the northern Great 
Plains coal field. 
3. Changes in plant class utilization of the pronghorn diet 
with the seasons of the year. 
4. Questionnaire used to survey wildlife management 
practices at large surface mines in western North 
America. 
5. Schematic sketch of a "charco pit1' water catchment used 
to catch and retain waters from livestock and wildlife. 
6. Schematic plan for a water catchment designed for 
pronghorn use. 
7. Schematic plan for a reservoir with waters piped to a 
trough outside a fence. 
8. Schematic plan for a spring development with specifica¬ 
tions beneficial to livestock and wildlife. 
xi 
ABSTRACT 
Coal reserves underlie a significant proportion of 
pronghorn habitat within the northern Great Plains. 
Rehabilitation of that habitat is more likely to succeed 
with an understanding of antelope requirements and a 
reclamation plan to provide those needs. The essentials of 
pronghorn habitat are food, water, and cover, modified by 
juxtaposition and interspersion, with enough space to supply 
yearlong needs. The pronghorn choice and use of habitats 
and forage are governed by innate preferences, individual 
learned behavior and morphological and physiological 
constraints. Mitigation of negative impacts is accomplished 
through the manipulation of vegetational, topographic and 
water resources. Selection of plant spfecies for establish¬ 
ment is site-specific and is based upon the pronghorn forage* 
and cover use. Topography consists of rolling hills, not to 
exceed 30 percent. Any water source is acceptable, as long 
as suitable quantity and quality is available every one to 
four miles. Provided these habitat essentials are in 
acceptable juxtaposition, interspersion and spacial limits 
pronghorn should reinhabit the reclaimed site. To assess 
the present status of pronghorn habitat rehabilitation and 
management, a survey of surface mined lands throughout the 
northern Great Plains and western Canada was conducted. 
Rehabilitation planning for pronghorn was based on density, 
species movements, species lists and habitat resource 
information. • The majority of mines selected more than one 
post-mining land use and most were successful in choosing a 
land use compatible with the targeted species. Several 
associated target species always were selected. Slightly 
over 2/3 of those mines with pronghorn occurring targeted 
them. Reclamation and wildlife management techniques 
specifically directed at pronghorn were difficult to deter¬ 
mine. However, the majority of mines favored special seed 
mixtures, shaping of topography, and the exclusion of mining 
critical habitat and the relocation of mating or nesting 
grounds. Depredation due to over-enhancement of pronghorn 
habitat was never observed. Hunting was allowed on just 
over half of the mines. The protection of some pronghorn 
populations were evident when some mines restricted prong¬ 
horn hunting. Hunting restrictions were geared towards the 
idea of fair play and safety. . 
1 
INTRODUCTION 
In 1805 when the Lewis and Clark expedition saw the 
vast pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) herds, it is 
estimated there were 35,000,000 pronghorn in North America 
(Nelson 1925). The pronghorn's range in the early 
nineteenth century covered most of the Great Plains, as well 
as the high sagebrush plateaus and grassland valleys in the 
western states, parts of south-central Canada and northern 
Mexico (Nelson 1925 and Einarsen 1948). The pronghorn 
decreased rapidly as white men moved west across the North 
American continent (Bailey 1926, Baker 1958, Beer 1944, 
Buechner 1960, Forsyth 1942, Grinnell 1929, Leister 1932 and 
Ligon 1927). By the 1920's this ancestral range had been 
reduced considerably (Figure 1). Pronghorn decreased from 
35,000,000 to fewer than 20,000 in 75 years (Yoakum 1968). 
The basic reason was always the same, although caused in 
different ways -- market hunting, railroads, highways, 
livestock competition, homesteaders, changes in land 
pattern, poaching, agriculture, etc. The advancement of the 
white man's civilization directly and quickly decreased the 
herds by relentless year round shooting of herds for food 
and pleasure. White man continued to hold herds to a 
minimum by occupying their preferred habitats and not 
2 
Figure 1. Past and present distribution of pronghorn in 
North America. From Yoakum 1968. 
3 
allowing their numbers to regain former abundance. Since 
1924 pronghorn herds have increased over 1,000 percent. 
Yoakum (1968) attributes controlled hunting, return of 
historical range to habitat and accelerated wildlife manage¬ 
ment practices for the present population increase. 
Within the past 20 years another significant disturb¬ 
ance has taken place on the northern Great Plains: the 
surface mining of coal. The coal deposits of the northern 
Great Plains are an important source of energy. The amount 
of coal that can and will be mined is large and involves 
thousands of acres of public and privately owned lands. In 
the northern Great Plains there are 160 billion tons of coal 
less than 1,000 feet below the surface which are minable 
with current technology. Of this amount, 80;2 billion tons 
are surface minable. This represents about 37 percent of 
our Nation's total minable coal reserve by weight and about 
60 percent of the Nation's- surface minable coal (Northern 
Great Plains Resource Program 1975). A large proportion of 
this coal lies in thick "near-surface" beds that are readily 
adaptable to quick and relatively inexpensive surface mining 
methods. Of the 91.6 million acres making up the northern 
Great Plains, 2.6 million acres are underlain by strippable 
coal (Northern Great Plains Resource Program 1975). The 
projected total number of acres to be eventually impacted 
throughout the northern Great Plains is significant and is 
presented in Table 1. 
4 
Table 1. Total acres of lands impacted in the northern 
Great Plains (cumulative by years). From Northern 
Great Plains Resource Program 1975. 
1980 1985 2000 2020 
Mined land 
Plant facilities 
Ancillary Facilities 
5,500 
2,993 
19,409 
11,706 
100,795 
26,227 
82,518 
364,255 
26,227 
82,518 
Total 8,493 31,115 209,540 473,000 
Strippable coal underlies a significant proportion of 
pronghorn habitat within the northern Great Plains (Figure 
2). Consequently, the projected pronghorn habitat loss from 
coal development is found to be among the highest for any 
game species (Table 2). Pronghorn offer aesthetic as well as 
Table 2. Cumulative acres of projected habitat losses to 
coal development in the northern Great Plains. 
From Northern Great 1 Plains Resource Program 1975. 
Species 1980 1985 2000 
Deer, mule, and white-tail 6,141 24,346 91,523 
Pronghorn * 5,259 20,548 73,662 
Other big game 167 257 527 
Sage grouse 3,802 16,127 50,111 
Sharp-tailed grouse 5,309 20,018 75,813 
Hungarian partridge 4,887 18,974 69,784 
Ring-necked pheasant 3,381 12,771 52,833 
Turkey 826 1,976 10,509 
economic contributions to the coal mining industry. Scott 
and Terrel (1980) estimated that the net income per acre, 
based on the present pronghorn population and the projected 
5 
Figure 2. Pronghorn habitat as associated with the northern 
Great Plains coal field. (After the Northern 
Great Plains Resource Program 1975) 
6 
full cattle use of rangeland, could be increased by $0.52 
per year through the collection of a modest trespass fee. 
It has been projected that by the year 2000 participation in 
sport hunting will increase about 80 percent from the 1960 
level (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission 1962). 
The necessity for rehabilitation of suitable pronghorn 
habitat is evident. 
The objectives of this study are to (1) characterize 
pronghorn habitat by way of an extensive literature review, 
(2) develop recommendations towards planning for the 
mitigation of negative impacts on pronghorn habitat from the 
surface mining of coal, (3) attempt to identify the present 
status of pronghorn management and pronghorn habitat 
management and rehabilitation on large surface mined lands 
of the northern Great Plains. 
7 
PRONGHORN HABITAT ESSENTIALS 
Leopold (1948) suggested two sets of factors which 
determine the presence or absence of wild animals in any 
region. These are the breeding habits of the species and 
the environments available to the species. Pronghorn, like 
other wild animals, are closely governed in their choice and 
use of habitats and forage by innate preferences and learned 
behavior, as well as by morphological and physiological 
characteristics and constraints. Inasmuch as pronghorn 
behavior, characteristics and constraints are fixed and 
cannot be changed by any known management measures, an 
understanding of these evolved adaptations will allow 
management to be more effective. 
The requirements of pronghorn vary according to sex 
and age, season, and their physiological activities. The 
essentials of a pronghorn range are those minimum require¬ 
ments that must be available to each individual inhabiting 
that range. Certain of these essentials are in the nature 
of materials required to meet physiological demands. Other 
essentials are in the nature of pattern; that is, an 
arrangement of the materials that complies with their 
inherent limitations in the matter of cruising radii and 
saturation points (King 1938). Pyrah (1982) defined 
8 
pronghorn requirements as sustenance, security and comfort. 
King (1938) lumped comfort and security into shelter, which 
he defined as escape and thermal cover. The requirements of 
a pronghorn range may be thought of to include sustenance 
(food and water), security (escape cover), and comfort 
(thermal cover), modified by juxtaposition and interspersion 
of the components, with enough space to supply the animals' 
yearlong needs. 
Food 
Pronghorn utilize a wide variety of plant communities 
throughout the northern Great Plains. Consequently, it is 
hard to identify many plant species that universally are 
used as food. To further complicate matters, separate 
populations may show preferences for different forage 
species within the same region (Segerstrom 1977). As a 
result, generalizations concerning preferred forage species 
throughout the northern Great Plains can be misleading. 
Segerstrom (1977) examined 35 studies in an attempt to 
develop a rating system to rank the relative importance of 
forage species utilized by pronghorn within the northern 
Great Plains. Species in the shrub forage class most 
frequently cited as heavily utilized yearlong were silver 
sagebrush (Artemisia cana), big sagebrush (Artemisia 
tridentata), rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), 
9 
prairie rose (Rosa arkansana), and western snowberry 
(Symphoricarpos occidentalis). Forbs and halfshrubs most 
commonly used yearlong were fringed sagewort (Artemisia 
frigida), false buckwheat (Eriogonum effusum), alfalfa 
(Medicago sativa), yellow sweet-clover (Melilotus offici¬ 
nalis) i and scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea). The 
grasses and sedges with heavy yearlong utilization were 
western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), blue grama 
(Bouteloua gracilis), cheatgrass brome (Bromus tectorum), 
and sedges (Carex spp.). 
Salwasser (1980) points out that pronghorns are oppor¬ 
tunistic herbivores selecting the most palatable and 
succulent forage available at all seasons of the year 
(succulence, used in this context is defined as the water 
content of the plant). Several studies within the northern 
Great Plains have found this same trend (Bayless 1969, Cole 
1956, Couey 1946, Dirschl 1963 and Freeman 1971). These 
investigators found that during the spring, the bulk of the 
pronghorn diet consisted of succulent forbs (11-26%) and 
grasses (8-78%). As grasses began to lose succulence, forb 
use increased to 52 to 66 percent of the diet. The fall 
period was accompanied by a decrease in forb use and an 
increase in browse consumption. Browse dietary content 
ranged from 33 to 45 percent in the summer to 50 to 87 
percent in the fall. The winter accounted for the greatest 
browse use, mainly on sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), providing 
10 
a range of 77 to 98 percent of the diet. Figure 3 illus¬ 
trates a typical seasonal shift in plant class utilization. 
MONTHS 
Figure 3. Changes in plant class utilization of the 
pronghorn diet with the seasons of the year. 
From Beale and Scotter 1968. 
Various pronghorn food habit studies suggest that the 
pronghorns preference for certain forage species is the 
result of chemical entities (crude fiber or crude protein) 
in the food source. Dirschl (1963) noted that plants having 
the highest crude protein levels appeared to be preferred in 
all seasons. Preference, as opposed to palatability, refers 
to the actual selection among parts and species by the 
grazing animal. Heady (1964) found through a review of 
numerous experiments that preferences are determined through 
the animals' senses of taste, touch, sight and smell. 
Therefore, any characteristics of plants or plant 
11 
communities received by the animal must be through these 
senses.- The selection of food items by pronghorn will be 
the reaction to both previous experience and physiological 
needs (McClymont 1957). The fact that animals select 
herbage that is higher in digestible protein than the 
average of the total vegetation available may be merely an 
associative rather than a causative relationship due to the 
highly digestible nature of succulent vegetation. 
The use and importance of browse species, particularly 
sagebrush, has been noted in several studies (Beale and 
Smith 1970, Couey 1946, Mitchell and Smoliak 1971, Wentland 
1970, and Yoakum 1958). Sundstrom et al. (1973) reported 
that the states of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 
South Dakota and Wyoming support approximately 83 percent of 
all pronghorn. Over 900 rumen samples examined from these 
states averaged 64 percent browse, of which 73 percent was 
big sagebrush. Martinka (1967), reporting on the mortality 
of Montana pronghorns in a severe winter, suggested that 
malnutrition may have been related to a lack of sufficient 
quantities of sagebrush in the diet. Bayless (1969) also 
observed poor body condition and fawn mortality as a result 
of poor quality sagebrush in the diet. 
12 
Water 
It is common knowledge in the arid west that waterholes 
are focal points for many game species. As Ligon (1948) has 
expressed it, "in arid lands a common water supply is the 
magnet that attracts and holds heavy populations." 
It is generally recognized that pronghorn populations 
prefer, and may require, drinking water as a normal compo¬ 
nent of their habitat. In Texas, droughts brought about a 
reduction in vitality of pronghorn which resulted in de¬ 
creased fertility (Jones 1949). Benson (1956) considered 
the advent of water development in Saskatchewan to be 
associated with the spread of pronghorn there. 
The use of free standing water by pronghorn is the 
result of a combination of a number of factors. In 
Wyoming’s Red Desert, Sundstrom (1968) found the use of 
standing water to be related to the total monthly precipita¬ 
tion, evaporation, succulent vegetation, average tempera¬ 
ture, average maximum temperature, and the lactation status 
of does. Similarly Beale and Scotter (1968), in Utah, 
concluded that when forage was succulent, no drinking water 
was required and pronghorn used very little when it was 
available. During drought, however, pronghorn drank water 
regularly if it was available, and restricted their grazing 
close to water. 
13 
Water turnover rates, percent body water and flux are 
similar for pronghorn of the same sex, however, differences 
between sexes are prominent. Wesley et al. (1973) found the 
amount of water consumed for females and males average 99 
and 58 ml per kg body weight per day, respectively. Kautz 
(1942) observed does watering at least once a day, while 
bucks appeared to water much less frequently. 
Yoakum (1980) noted that pronghorn were observed using 
every type of water source available. Kautz (1942) found 
use of metal stock tanks, natural springs, earthen reser¬ 
voirs and puddles. During winter months, when free standing 
water is frozen, Bruns (1977) observed the use of snow as a 
substitute. 
Cover 
Leopold (1948) defines "cover" to mean vegetative or 
other shelter for game. As with other wild ungulates, cover 
is an essential component of pronghorn habitat. Cover 
functions both as thermal and escape protection. The fact 
that thermal and escape cover may have overlapping charac¬ 
teristics makes if difficult to separate each into distinct 
classifications. 
The use of thermal cover is directly related to the 
animal's attempt to maintain a favorable energy budget. 
Bruns (1977) examined the use of microhabitats by pronghorn 
14 
to minimize energy drain caused by heat loss and travel 
through deep snows. He believed that wind, not air tempera¬ 
ture or relative humidity, was the major reason pronghorn 
made microhabitat selections during the winter. They were 
observed using wind barriers such as creek and river banks, 
road fills and dikes, and the lee sides of sagebrush. 
Buechner (1950) explains that rolling hills are essential 
for pronghorn success. These are utilized for protection 
from cold north winds and blizzards during the winter and as 
fawning grounds in spring. On hot summer days, Amstrup 
(1978) reported pronghorn using various upland timber 
vegetation types as a source of shade. 
Cover is also used for the purpose of eluding preda¬ 
tors, including man. This is termed escape cover. Although 
the primary escape cover of the neonatal pronghorn is 
vegetal, it receives little use by adult animals. Special 
adaptations, such as visual sensitivity to distant motion 
and the ability to attain speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour 
(Einarsen 1948, McLean 1944 and Popowski 1959), allow the 
pronghorn to be affected little by predation within a plains 
environment. Kitchen (1974) suggests that in the past, 
wolves (Canis lupus) probably were the most important 
predators of the pronghorn. In an open land situation, the 
ability to detect distant group-hunting predators, to lower 
the probability of surprise, was apparently a trait selected 
for. Amstrup (1978) found consistent use of perennial 
15 
grassland vegetation types as bedding rather than feeding 
areas, evidently because of the unobstructed visual advan¬ 
tage. Therefore a rolling hill topography, providing a 
visual vantage point, and the. absence of vegetation ob¬ 
structing vision, enable adult pronghorns to take maximum 
advantage of evolved adaptations.. 
As the fawning season approaches, pregnant females 
separate from the main herd and look for a suitable fawning 
area. Rolling areas with a low growth of sagebrush are 
preferred (Mapston 1973). Groups of pregnant does commonly 
gather on the same fawning ground several weeks before 
actual fawning begins. While some fawns are dropped wher¬ 
ever the doe happens to be, other does seem to select 
specific birth sites. Favorite locations are small secluded 
basins covered with moderate stands of sagebrush from nine 
to eighteen inches high and surrounded by low hills 
(Einarsen 1948). Fitcher (1971) also observed a definite 
selection of intermediate sagebrush heights by gravid does. 
The low ground cover affords protection for kids and pro¬ 
vides ideal camouflage. Three to twelve hours following 
birth fawns can walk well and run short distances, though 
they are unsteady and can be caught easily (Kitchen 1974). 
The first week of a fawn's life is an inactive one and over 
80 percent of that time is spent hiding (Mapston 1973). 
Concealment is the fawn's only defense during the first few 
days and they instinctively lie unmoving and curled up 
16 
against the ground. Additional protection is provided for 
young fawns since they apparently have little scent and 
their coloration blends in with the surrounding vegetation. 
The fawns usually lie among several closely spaced sagebrush 
plants. 
Juxtaposition of Habitat Components 
Juxtaposition is the fourth of the habitat essentials. 
King (1938) defines it as the spatial distribution of all 
the species * requirements in relation to each other and in 
relation to the species' cruising radius. Even though all 
of the required food, water and cover may be present in 
sufficient quantity, they do not constitute a habitable 
range unless they are distributed in such a manner that 
every one of them occurs within the cruising radius of the 
pronghorn requiring them. /> 
Pronghorn daily movements or cruising radii vary with 
the season of the year, primarily as a result of preferred 
forage •availability and behavior patterns. Yoakum (1980) 
explains that during the spring and summer, daily movements 
are generally 1/16 to 1/2 mile as forage and water are 
usually plentiful. However, during the fall and winter, 
distances traveled daily are greater due to the mating 
season and the small quantity of desired forage available. 
17 
Average distances traveled during this time of year are 2 to 
6 miles per day. 
The juxtaposition of food, cover and water for the 
establishment of pronghorn territories and successful 
breeding is essential. Kitchen (1974) observed that terri¬ 
tories were placed in relation to locally abundant re¬ 
sources. Animals concentrated their use on specific parts 
of territories, and doe group sizes during rut were cor¬ 
related with available resources in concentrated areas. He 
also noted bucks with the most favorable concentration areas 
had more copulations than other males. 
Information regarding the optimal juxtaposition of 
food, cover and water within pronghorn habitat is lacking in 
the literature. The indistinct nature of pronghorn cover 
and the varied forage use make identification of the posi¬ 
tion of habitat components with respect to each other 
difficult. To fulfill the requirement of juxtaposition, a 
water source surrounded by adequate forage and a rolling 
topography will cause all essential components to fall 
within the pronghorn cruising radius. 
Interspersion of Habitat Components 
An inherent property in pronghorn that supersedes 
carrying capacity and determines the level to which popu¬ 
lations may rise on any area is saturation point. King 
18 
(1938) describes this as something within the species that 
determines and regulates the number of individuals of that 
species that shall occur on any area at any one time. 
The distribution of species' requirements in relation 
to saturation points is known as interspersion. King (1938) 
defines interspersion as the distribution over the entire 
range of all the food, water and cover in a manner that 
renders it possible for each unit of the range, as deter¬ 
mined by species' saturation point, to produce its share of 
the total maximum population. All of the necessary suste¬ 
nance and cover requirements in proper juxtaposition will 
insure habitable and productive ranges, but the fifth 
habitat essential of perfect interspersion must be provided 
if maximum populations are to be built up and maintained. 
Pronghorn are extremely territorial in nature, reflect¬ 
ing a variable home range among social orders. Pyrah (1982) 
explained their social organization and seasonal movements 
within the Yellow Water Triangle of Central Montana. The 
social order consists of does and fawns, territorial bucks, 
and bachelor bucks. As the winter begins, the total popula¬ 
tion congregates within a selected wintering area, with 
concentrations numbering 200 or more animals (Yoakum 1980). 
With the beginning of spring, the herd breaks up into doe 
bands of 6 to 8 animals; territorial bucks (dominant males) 
that range out and defend specific territories against other 
males; and bachelor (subdominant) males which occupy 
19 
undefended areas and wander throughout the range challenging 
dominant males. During this period, doe bands roam freely 
within defended territories and exhibit some territoriality 
with other doe bands. Wentland (1968) found home ranges for 
territorial males (1.54 square miles), >doe bands (4.46 
square miles) and bachelor herds (6.43 square miles) to be 
consistent with Pyrah’s findings. With the beginning of the 
fall rut, each defending male takes control of a doe band, 
guarding them from other males and not allowing does to roam 
outside of his defended territory. Following the fall rut 
the population begins to revert to its winter status and the 
cycle begins again. 
Preference for vegetation types varies with season. 
During the summer, in southeastern Montana, Amstrup (1978) 
found that eight of fourteen vegetation types were used at 
different intensities. Mixed shrub, perennial grassland, 
silver sagebrush and annual forb types were used in a 
greater proportion than random availability would indicate. 
During winter and early spring only three vegetation types 
were used, with big sagebrush accounting for 90 percent of 
that use. Cole (1956), Cole and Wilkins (1958) and Bayless 
(1969) have also reported such vegetational use patterns, 
indicating a need for a diversity of vegetation types. 
The component of water properly distributed throughout 
the pronghorn range aids in providing preferred pronghorn 
habitat. Rangelands maintaining high pronghorn numbers have 
20 
water available every 1 to 4 miles (Yoakum 1980). Animals 
can be found further than 5 miles from water; however, 
studies in Wyoming disclosed that 95 percent of over 12,000 
pronghorn were within a 3 to 4 mile radius of water 
(Sundstrom 1968). Herrig (1974) reported distance to water 
for all pronghorn observations in Oregon during summer 
months was less than 1 mile. 
The use of topography for cover indicates the need for 
a variable relief. Sundstrom (1968) noted typical pronghorn 
habitat in Wyoming's Red Desert to consist of rolling hills. 
Similarly in Alberta, Mitchell and Smoliak (1971) studied 
three areas, all with a characteristic physiography of 
strongly to moderately hilly plains. Other authors through¬ 
out the pronghorn's range have reported similar observations 
(Bayless 1969, Buechner 1950, Dirschl 1963, Hockley 1968, 
USDA 1974, Wallace 1940, Wentland 1968 and Yoakum 1974). 
Therefore a strongly to moderate hilly topography throughout 
the pronghorn range will meet the interspersion requirement 
for cover. 
Thus, it can be concluded that pronghorn exhibit an 
inherent nature to establish territories. The size of these 
territories and therefore the relative density of pronghorn 
in an area is a function of the combined effects of satu¬ 
ration point and interspersion of food, cover and water. 
21 
Space 
Space is the sixth and final component of the habitat 
essentials. Any one pronghorn herd will ordinarily cover a 
rather large range. On well populated ranges the area 
covered probably will overlap areas covered by other herds. 
The radius of an area covered by a pronghorn is variable 
between herds. Wallace (1940) cites Skinner (1922) in 
estimating the yearly radius of pronghorn in Montana. The 
maximum radius was found to be 39 miles with an average of 
16 miles. Yoakum (1980) described three herds in south- 
central Oregon with yearly area use ranging from 5 to 100 
square miles. 
The minimum area needed to maintain a population is 
dependent upon the tolerance of the species and is deter¬ 
mined by its saturation point. To attain the saturation 
point, proper juxtaposition and interspersion of habitat 
components must be present. Therefore an area exhibiting 
proper juxtaposition and interspersion will require less 
space to meet habitat requirements within the animals' 
cruising radius than an area not exhibiting such charac¬ 
teristics. Yoakum (1974) sums up area requirements by 
stating, 
"The size of the area needed is dependent upon a 
particular range having all of the approximate 
habitat requirements in sufficient quality and 
quantity for all seasons of the year and for every 
year." 
22 
Pronghorn Habitat Conclusions 
Choice and use of habitats and forage are governed by 
innate preferences, tradition, and individual learned 
behavior, as well as by morphological and physiological 
characteristics of pronghorn. A pronghorn range may be 
thought of in terms of food, water, cover, juxtaposition, 
interspersion, and space. Useful generalizations concerning 
pronghorn requirements over such an extensive area as the 
northern Great Plains are difficult. However, some gener¬ 
alizations can be made. Yoakum (1980) comprised a list of 
pronghorn requirements for sagebrush grassland communities 
based on abiotic and biotic factors (Table 3). 
Pronghorn are opportunistic animals. The selection and 
use of specific forage species is directly associated with 
their availability and succulence. A variety and diversity 
of vegetation to meet yearlong needs is needed by pronghorn. 
The only vegetation found to receive significant use 
throughout the pronghorn's range are several sagebrush 
species, which appear to be closely correlated with the 
pronghorn zone of maximum abundance (USDA Soil Conversation 
Service 1974). 
Water is a much needed essential of pronghorn habitat. 
The need for free standing water is related to forage water 
content and physiological activities. Pronghorn utilize 
every type of water source available. 
23 
Table 3. Pronghorn habitat requirements for sagebrush 
grassland communities. Adapted from Yoakum 
(1980). 
Habitat Factors Pronghorn Requirements 
1. Physiography Expansive area of not less than 25 
square miles, consisting of a low 
rolling terrain with slopes no greater 
than 30% and no major physical 
barriers. 
2. Climate Precipitation within the range of 
10-15” per year, with snow depths not 
to exceed 10-15" for prolonged 
periods. 
3. Water 1/4 to 1 gallon per animal per day, 
distributed every 1-4 miles. 
4. Vegetation Cover: 30-40% grass 
10-30% forbs 
5-30% shrubs 
Diversity: To consist of a mixture of 
cool and warm season 
species composed of 5 to 
10 species of grasses, 
10-50 species of fo,rbs and 
5-10 species of browse. 
Height: No higher than 24", 
perferably a mean of 15" 
Forage 
Production : Approximately 2 lbs. of 
air dry forage per animal 
per day. 
24 
The use of cover types varies with pronghorn sex and 
age. Adult pronghorn can effectively utilize unobstructed 
terrain as escape cover. For the protection of young fawns, 
females have specific vegetational and topographic prefer¬ 
ences for fawning grounds. Pronghorn take advantage of 
topographic and vegetational features as thermal cover to 
maintain favorable energy budgets. 
The final and less concrete essentials of pronghorn ; 
habitat are juxtaposition, interspersion and space. Juxta¬ 
position is related to cruising radius, interspersion to 
saturation point and space to habitat characteristics. The 
interaction of all these components is necessary in order 
that a range is acceptable for habitation. 
25 
PRONGHORN HABITAT REHABILITATION 
ON SURFACE MINED AREAS 
The most vital aspect in the rehabilitation of habitat 
is the planning process. Without such a process, 
reclamation would progress in a haphazard and unorganized 
fashion with little direction to meet reclamation 
objectives. The fact that each mine is unique as to soils, 
climate and method of mining dictates that reclamation plans 
be based on site-specific factors. Through the combined 
effort of mine engineers and reclamation specialists, an 
organized operational plan, including mining and reclamation 
activities, can be developed. Major topics in the planning 
process as proposed by Hinkle et al. (1981) are: description 
of the resources, analysis of impacts, establishment of 
post-mining land use and reclamation objectives, mitigation 
of negative impacts, enhancement of the resource, and 
monitoring and compliance. To this list I will add land 
management practices following establishment of a suitable 
vegetative cover. Reclamation efforts could provide the 
best wildlife habitat possible, but if management of the 
area is neglected, the effort and money expended on the 
project could be lost. 
26 
Description of the Resources 
The description of the resources is the basis for 
developing site-specific reclamation objectives. This 
should include baseline maps, species inventories, wildlife 
habitat inventories, and habitat value and habitat use 
determinations. Several methods, procedures, and sources of 
information suggested for gathering habitat data are 
discussed by Hinkle et al. (1981). 
Baseline Maps 
Baseline maps are invaluable in obtaining an overall 
perspective of the permitted area. They provide information 
such as land use or cover types, vegetation types, water and 
surrounding resources. 
Species Inventories 
The most basic baseline information needed is a species 
inventory, from the potential permit area and that adjacent 
land. Unless the reclaimed area is to be managed for an 
introduced species, the wildlife occurring on adjacent 
undisturbed land must be know. These populations will 
provide the animals to stock the reclaimed area. After the 
potential wildlife stocks for the reclamation area have been 
identified, target species for which habitats will be 
developed must be designated. Target species should be 
27 
considered in the plural. Several species that exhibit 
similar ecological requirements will be included in the 
target species group. Selection of target species and 
resultant decisions on habitat to be provided for them does 
not preclude use of the habitat by other, nontarget species. 
Target species serve only as a focal point, as habitat 
components to be provided on a particular area are deter¬ 
mined. Suitable conditions developed for target species 
will provide habitat for other wildlife commonly associated 
in the same biotic communities. For the purpose of this 
paper pronghorn has been selected as one species from a 
target species group where reclamation objectives, mitiga¬ 
tion measures and management have been related directly to 
pronghorn needs. 
Habitat Inventories 
Habitat inventories are for the purpose of character¬ 
izing cover types. They should include, within each land 
use/cover type, a complete analysis of the quality and 
quantity of vegetation, a topographic description including 
the degree of slopes and exposures, and water resource 
types. 
Habitat Value and Use 
The degree of impact on the pronghorn population will 
be most notable in the habitat value and use determination. 
28 
This provides knowledge about the type of habitat to be 
disturbed, such as, winter range, summer range, migration 
corridors, fawning grounds, feeding or bedding areas. 
Selection of forage species and use of cover features are 
also valuable behavioral considerations. 
After the inventories of habitat components have been 
completed, it is possible to assess the value of the area to 
pronghorn. Table 4 provides a method of rating the quality 
of pronghorn habitat within sagebrush-grassland steppes. 
Field data from inventories can be placed in the catagories 
and the summation of values provides the rating. The 
habitat can be classified as having low, medium and high 
value. If a low rating is noted, the system will denote the 
factor(s) responsible. Yoakum (1980) suggests the system 
could help document existing situations regarding whether 
the habitat is (1) presently in a condition to protect and 
maintain, or (2) in need of one or more factors to be 
manipulated or improved. 
Establishment of the Post-mining Land Use 
The choice of the postmining land use goal is an 
important decision and one that will determine to a great 
degree the reclamation methods that can be used. In only a 
few cases will the total mine permit be designated as a 
single postmine land use. Multiple use is generally the 
T
a
bl
e 
4.
 
P
r
o
n
gh
or
n 
ha
bi
ta
t 
s
u
it
ab
il
it
y 
c
r
it
er
ia
 
a
n
d 
r
a
t
in
g 
fo
r 
s
a
g
e
br
us
h-
gr
as
sl
an
d 
s
te
pp
es
. 
F
r
o
m
 
Y
o
a
ku
m 
(1
98
0)
. 
29 
m 
CM 
I 
m 
m 
m 
I m 
CO 
in 
o 
H i 
m 
io 
w H 
D
e
n
o
t
e
s
 
r
a
n
ge
 
o
f 
po
te
nt
ia
l 
r
a
ti
ng
. 
30 
case whether it be livestock - wildlife, recreation - 
wildlife, cropland - pastureland, residential - industrial, 
etc. Hinkle et al. (1981) have listed several possible 
post-mine land use categories. If the operator does not own 
the land, post-mining land use decisions must be made with 
due consideration of the desires of the landowner. Both 
parties should be aware that some post-mining land use 
practices are more compatible with pronghorn than others. 
Wise decisions at this time will minimize the long-term 
impact of mining. 
Pronghorn are flexible and will tolerate several land 
uses. Buechner (1960) suggests that the management of 
pronghorn is largely determined by land use, although it is 
also influenced by the productiveness of the land. He noted 
that within the Great Plains as their populations increased 
pronghorn interfered with the production of livestock and 
agricultural crops. Kimball (1980) explains that up to a 
point livestock can graze compatibly with wild ungulates. 
However when livestock are introduced in large numbers, they 
may overgraze the palatable vegetation or trample others to 
the point of excluding some species. Yoakum (1980) points 
out that cattle, horses and sheep are more dependent on 
grasses than are pronghorn. Domestic sheep consume more 
browse than cattle, but not as much as pronghorn. Conse¬ 
quently, significant competition between livestock and 
pronghorn would not be anticipated as long as all forage 
31 
classes are in adequate supply. When pronghorn were associ¬ 
ated with agricultural land uses, Cole and Wilkins (1958) 
found the animals to use rangeland more than cropland at all 
times of the year and few animals used the crop fields 
during the critical period from culm elongation to harvest. 
Under compatible livestock and wildlife management, 
Buechner (1960) related pronghorn management to agricultural 
land use. He concluded that (a) high rates of population 
increases were maintained, (b) most of the population 
mortality was diverted to hunting, (c) landowners were 
satisfied with the control of numbers and (d) an important 
source of recreation was provided. 
Analysis of Impacts 
Adequate evaluation of the potential impact of a 
particular mining activity requires consideration of site- 
specific factors and proposed mitigation practices. If 
suitable protective measures are taken, potentially damaging 
impacts can be avoided or substantially reduced in intensi¬ 
ty. Site-specific factors to consider when determining 
impacts are: the projected change in the pre-mine site; 
types and conditions of adjacent habitats; and extent and 
intensity of other related activities in the vicinity of the 
mining operation. An understanding of this potential change 
32 
is necessary to plan for effective mitigation and 
reclamation. 
Rehabilitation Objectives 
The primary objective of habitat rehabilitation for 
wildlife use is to provide suitable conditions so animals 
will colonize and inhabit previously disturbed land. 
Surface mining activity disturbs all components of habitat, 
so all requirements for food, cover, and water, and the 
positioning of these requirements, must be provided if the 
area is to produce wildlife. Rehabilitation restores these 
requirements through the manipulation of topography, vege¬ 
tation and water resources. Juxtaposition and interspersion 
of the components within the reclaimed site are placed 
according to the need of the species desired, in association 
with existing components on adjacent land. 
Topography 
The first reclamation objective is proper surface 
configuration. The land form of the reclaimed site will 
vary according to the amount of overburden available, the 
size of the. coal pit, rainfall, water table and wildlife 
needs. The land form most desirable for pronghorn habitat 
is an intermittent low rolling topography with slopes of 
less than 30 percent. Changes in elevation and topography 
33 
provide variation for viewing, hiding and resting. Amstrup 
(1978), on Montana - Wyoming coal lands, recorded 44 percent 
of all pronghorn observations were located on slopes of 5 
percent or less, while slopes of 6 to 10 percent and 11 to 
20 percent accounted for 32 and 17% of locations, respec¬ 
tively. 
Advantages of such a land form are: different exposures 
to the sun; various air or wind flows; a variety of plant 
habitats; and an elevation and topographic variety (Kerr 
1977). Different exposures to the sun will provide areas of 
varying humidity, and air and soil temperatures. A variety 
of air or wind flows will furnish thermal cover on the lee 
side of slopes during winter or spring blizzards. A variety 
of plant habitats offered by this particular land form will 
also increase diversity and offer more choice of habitat 
sites on uniform or flat areas. 
Revegetation 
Revegetation for the wildlife component of an ecosystem 
involves the manipulation and establishment of species to 
provide forage and escape and thermal cover. The number of 
plant communities that each species uses for feeding and for 
reproduction is a measure of that species' adaptability; the 
more communities used, the higher its adaptability (Thomas 
et al. 1976). 
34 
In providing habitat for pronghorn, it is necessary to 
determine the plant communities necessary for reproduction, 
feeding and cover. Baseline studies of cover typing, value 
and use should disclose this information. A review of the 
literature reveals that pronghorn utilize various plant 
communities within the northern Great Plains to differing 
degrees. The effect the loss of any single community type 
may have on a pronghorn population is unknown. 
The varied vegetation use by pronghorn throughout the 
northern Great Plains dictates a site-specific selection of 
plant species to be established. Selection of plant species 
for revegetation will depend primarily on what species are 
adapted to the local soils and environment (Frischknecht and 
Ferguson 1979) and, secondarily, post-mine land use. Brown 
et al. (1979) suggest that plant species should be adapted 
to the soil, precipitation, local temperature, elevation, 
slope, aspect, wind, fire risk, and invasion of weeds and 
animals. They also discuss interacting factors such as 
legal requirements, rehabilitation objectives, time and 
timing of seeding, species compatibility, mechanical 
limitations on planting, seed and seedling availability, 
maintenance after planting, and cost. 
Much controversy has developed over the use of native 
vs “naturalized" introduced species in mined land reclama¬ 
tion. Native species are adapted to existent climatic 
conditions, and in certain cases exhibit greater, more 
35 
sustained long-term productivity than adapted introduced 
species (Aldon 1976, McKell 1977). Furthermore, with the 
elimination of aggressive introduced species from a mixture, 
a greater diversity in species composition was established 
with a native mixture (Depuit et al. 1980). Therefore, in 
development of seeding mixtures, native species exhibit the 
more diverse established species composition conducive to 
good pronghorn habitat. However, compatible naturalized 
species could possibly enhance a site by providing greater 
diversity and extending the seasons of use. 
The importance of diversity cannot be emphasized 
enough, both vertically in vegetation structure, and hori¬ 
zontally in community types and species associated with such 
community types. Table 3 characterizes the vegetation of 
pronghorn habitat within a grassland - sagebrush community. 
Table 15 (Appendix A) lists a number of potential species 
for revegetation of diverse plant communities within the 
northern Great Plains. 
Water Resources 
During a five-year study of pronghorn on sagebrush - 
grasslands in Wyoming, Sundstrom (1968) observed them using 
every type of water source available. He noted that when 
water exceeded a pH of 9.25, they appeared to seek other 
sources. He also found little or no pronghorn use of water 
developments containing total dissolved solids in excess of 
36 
5,000 ppm. The maximum total dissolved solids recommended 
for big game is around 4,500 ppm (McKee and Wolf 1963). 
Yoakum (1980) recommends % to 1 gallon of free water per 
animal per day to be available, particularly during warm 
seasons. He also suggests water to be distributed every 1 
to 4 miles. 
Lands earmarked for rehabilitation provide the oppor¬ 
tunity for the development of water in previously dry areas. 
Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 (Appendix B) show schematic plans for 
reservoirs, water catchments and developed springs as 
possible water developments. 
Mitigation of Negative Impacts 
The coordination and consultation process, description 
of resources, analysis of impacts, and establishment of the 
post-mining land use goals and reclamation objectives 
provide the basis for determining the need for mitigation of 
negative impacts. In addition, other uses of the land, 
economics, technical constraints, biological feasibility, 
regulations and industry policies influence mitigative 
measures. The description of the resources establishes the 
baseline information which is needed to determine the 
potential impacts. The analysis of impacts predicts the 
expected changes (e.g. habitat loss, species displacement, 
etc.). The establishment of post-mining land use goals and 
37 
reclamation objectives lays out the proposed reestablishment 
of habitat. After these steps have been taken, plans to 
implement mitigative processes can be prepared by a coopera¬ 
tive effort between mine engineers and reclamation planners. 
The major part of this phase involves finalizing procedures 
for recontouring, soil ’redistributing, obtaining seeds and 
seedlings, planting methods, mulching, untangling red tape, 
etc. These activities have been discussed in detail in the 
reclamation literature (Brown et al. 1980, Depuit and 
Dollhopf 1978, Depuit et al. 1978, Depuit and Coenenberg 
1979, Depuit et al. 1980, Dollhopf et al. 1977, Dollhopf et 
al. 1981, Frischknecht and Ferguson 1979, Hodder 1977, 
Sindelar 1972, and Sindelar et al. 1973), so I will not 
elaborate further on the mechanics of providing the habitat 
components. 
Enhancement of the Resource 
Enhancement of pronghorn habitat is an important 
consideration during reclamation. The principle objective 
of mined land reclamation is to mitigate negative impacts, 
but the opportunity exists to provide components which not 
only make the mined area' suitable but also improve the 
adjacent habitat. For example, if a permanent water source 
can be provided in an arid area where water is the limiting 
factor on pronghorn distribution and abundance, the benefits 
38 
are obvious. Use of the rating system, described in the 
habitat value and use section of the planning process, can 
identify the limiting factors towards which enhancement 
efforts should be directed. 
Management 
Management by definition and implication infers that 
the manager directs, controls or handles a resource to 
accomplish some end or objective (Sharp 1981). A very 
important consideration during planning, and one that may 
have been neglected in the past, is the land management 
after habitat is provided. Land management following 
seeding and transplanting of plant species can be divided 
into short-term and long-term activities. 
Short-term management will most likely involve inten¬ 
sive protection from overgrazing and overuse while vegeta¬ 
tion components are developing. Techniques such as fencing 
for pronghorn, as well as livestock, to prevent overgrazing 
and vehicle collisions may have to be employed.. 
When plant communities are able to withstand normal 
grazing and wildlife use, long-term management can commence. 
By this time the bond may have been released, and surface 
activities may be under control of the landowner. Welfare 
of wildlife depends to a large extent on the unregulated 
activity of the landowner. If wildlife and other land uses 
39 
are adequately considered during planning, the reclaimed 
area should provide habitat conditions for wildlife 
compatible with the other uses. 
Fencing 
The fact that newly revegetated areas are often pre¬ 
ferred over surrounding rangeland leaves the potential for 
possible depredation. The habit of pronghorn often to 
congregate in large numbers compounds such a problem. 
Therefore, until vegetation becomes established, the area 
may need protection from the very species for which it is 
being developed. 
Restricting pronghorn from any particular area is a 
matter of constructing the proper fence. 
1. When possible, woven wire fences should be constructed 
to a height of at least 32 inches (USDA Soil Conserva¬ 
tion Service 1974). Pronghorn find these most difficult 
to cross (Rouse 1962). 
2. Barbed wire fences should be at least 45 inches high. 
Bear (1968) found pronghorn unable to jump fences 44 
inches in height. 
3. Barbed wire should be spaced no more than 11 inches 
apart. Rouse (1962) reported pronghorn movement through 
spacings greater than this. 
If in fact the associated post-mining land use requires 
fencing, long-term fencing management may be initiated 
following establishment of a permanent vegetative cover. 
Fences have been consistently recognized as barriers or 
obstacles to pronghorn (Martinka 1967 and Oakley 1973). 
40 
The USDI, Bureau of Land Management (1975) provides the 
following specifications for the construction of all fences 
on BLM administered public lands occupied by pronghorn: 
1. Net-wire fences are generally barriers; therefore * their 
construction on pronghorn ranges is discouraged. 
2. Barbed wire fences should be constructed to the follow¬ 
ing specifications: 
a. Bottom wire at least 16 inches (41 cm) from the 
ground. 
b. Next wire up lO^nches (25 cm). 
c. Next wire up 10 inches (25 cm). 
d. Bottom wire should be smooth wire, for pronghorn 
generally go under fences. Barbless wire minimize 
physical injuries. 
e. No stays between posts, as this provides for a less 
tight fence allowing easier passage. 
f. Important travelled pathways, migration routes, 
etc., should allow for low-height or lay down 
panels, or pass structures. 
g. Keep fences areas as large as possible, thereby 
providing an opportunity for pronghorn to obtain all 
the basic habitat requirements. 
Pronghorn Habitat Management in Conjunction with Livestock 
The management of rehabilitated surface-mined lands for 
combined livestock - wildlife use offers endless management 
alternatives. The intensity to which such a topic could be 
discussed is beyond the scope of this paper. However, to 
successfully maintain a permanent diverse vegetative cover 
on reclaimed mine land, proper livestock management is a 
necessity, and a few generalizations can be made. To 
accommodate such a need, Yoakum (1980) has set forth guide¬ 
lines for livestock grazing systems used in conjunction with 
pronghorn habitat. The following guidelines are recom¬ 
mended: 
41 
1. When allotting vegetation for pronghorn, the following 
forage needs will be provided: 
/ 
a. The right species and quantity of vegetation will be 
recognized as forage for pronghorn. This includes 
grasses, forbs, and shrubs as determined from 
on-site food habit studies. Special consideration 
will be given to key forb and shrub species. 
b. Forage will be reserved for a reasonable number of 
pronghorn. Reasonable numbers will be based upon: 
(1) the average herd population for the past 30 
years, (2) the average forage production for the 
past 15 years, and (3) management objectives for 
herd size determined by state wildlife agencies. 
c. When allotting forage, proper amounts will be 
proportioned for a reasonable number of animals for 
the area and season use. Special attention to be 
given to reserving sufficient quality forage for 
crucial or critical areas (i.e., fawning grounds, 
winter use areas, etc.). 
2. All water developments will have the quality and quanti¬ 
ty of water needed for the seasons the pronghorn are on 
the range. 
3. Fence construction will meet appropriate specifications. 
4. When grazing systems are designed with the concept of 
key plant species, preferred pronghorn forage species 
for forbs and shrubs will be included as key species. 
Monitoring 
The final item to consider during planning reclamation 
for pronghorn habitat is evaluation of the site for 
monitoring. Evaluations should not only be in terms of 
measurable habitat values, but also in terms of wildlife 
values. Kling (1977) suggests that if no part of the 
evaluation focuses on wildlife, the risk exists of being 
:< satisfied with results that indicate good habitat but tell 
i 
42 
us little about our main objective — producing wildlife. 
In order to assist future planning, studies should be 
t 
designed to provide results that indicate not only levels of 
pronghorn use but also help determine what is influencing 
the observed reactions. 
When monitoring pronghorn utilization of newly estab¬ 
lished or reestablished habitat, the seasonal movements of 
the herd must be considered when planning the monitoring 
period (Hinkle et al. 1981). For most accurate censusing 
Springer (1950) suggests the use of aerial surveys. They 
can be made yearlong and can cover larger areas with less 
effort than ground counts. 
Monitoring the success of the reestablishment of 
habitat components may be accomplished with the same methods 
used in assessing habitat value of the pre-mine condition 
(Table 4). Again, this system not only provides a habitat 
suitability rating but also identifies the potential factors 
causing the observed population changes. 
Rehabilitation Conclusions 
Successful rehabilitation of pronghorn habitat stems 
from a cooperative organized planning process between mine 
engineers and reclamation specialists. The collection of 
resource information provides the basis for which impacts 
are analyzed and post-mine land use decisions are made. 
43 
Provided a wildlife land use has been selected, target 
species are also chosen from this collection of information. 
Since the target species for this paper is the prong¬ 
horn, the first decision is to select post-mine land uses to 
be associated with the pronghorn. Several land uses are 
compatible with pronghorn. Provided proper management is 
applied, pronghorn can be successfully associated with 
livestock, croplands and/or pasturelands. 
Suitable mitigation of the negative impacts caused by 
mining is dependent upon specified manipulation of the 
habitat essentials. Reclamation variables manipulated in 
the rehabilitation of pronghorn habitat include topographic, 
vegetation and water resources. Surface configurations 
consist of gently rolling hills, not to exceed a slope of 
30 percent. Revegetation plans are designed to develop a 
diversity of plant communities to meet seasonal and nutri¬ 
tional needs. Food habit and habitat use information can 
aid in the selection of species for establishment. Natural¬ 
ized introduced species are discouraged; however, if they do 
not interfere with the establishment of permanent diverse 
plant communities, they could be an asset. Water resources 
must be maintained within acceptable quality and quantity. 
Total dissolved solids should not exceed 4,500 ppm, pH 
should not exceed 9.25 and % to 1 gallon of free water must 
be available per day, distributed every 1 to 4 miles. Given 
proper development of topography, vegetation and water 
44 
resources the habitat can be considered suitable for the 
reintroduction of pronghorn. 
Traditional wildlife management begins following the 
final seeding and establishment of the last water develop¬ 
ment. Fencing can either prohibit animals from possible 
depredation of newly revegetated areas, or provide easier 
negotiation through livestock fences. Mismanaged livestock 
in association with pronghorn can cause unneeded conflicts. 
Therefore, specific guidelines based on vegetation use, 
fencing and water should be followed as discussed 
previously. 
Monitoring and compliance is the final step in the 
adequate reclamation of pronghorn habitat. Evaluations 
should be in terms of wildlife and measurable habitat values 
in order to assist in future planning. 
45 
THE STATUS OF' PRONGHORN MANAGEMENT ON SURFACE 
COAL MINES OF THE NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS 
In the past the rehabilitation of surface mined lands 
was taken lightly. Much land was mined and abandoned or 
reclaimed with little concern for success. The attitude 
prevailed that mined lands were small, so could be consi¬ 
dered sacrifice areas. Recently, attitudes have changed 
towards the idea of reclaiming such land for future use. 
Intensive research to improve reclamation efforts is now in 
full swing. However, the reclamation of surface mined lands 
is still a new science, and little information on pronghorn 
habitat rehabilitation is obtainable from the literature. 
To assess the present status of pronghorn habitat 
rehabilitation on surface coal mined lands, a mail question¬ 
naire was designed. The objective of the questionnaire was 
to carry out a general wildlife survey, from which informa¬ 
tion pertaining to pronghorn habitat rehabilitation and 
management on surface coal mined lands could be extracted. 
Methods 
The questionnaire was developed by first designing a 
rough draft. The draft was tested on a mine to be later 
46 
surveyed. This test copy was completed by qualified company 
personnel. Suggestions for improvement were provided by the 
person completing the questionnaire. Figure 8 (Appendix C) 
shows the final product developed from these suggestions and 
used in the mail survey. Mailing procedures of using 
colored paper, enclosing a cover letter and a pre-addressed 
stamped envelope followed Filion's (1978) recommendations. 
The survey progressed in two mailing phases. On 
August 6, 1982 the first mailing was sent out. Fifty-six 
questionnaires were mailed. Following a six-week waiting 
period, 18 followup questionnaires were mailed to all 
non-responding mines. Table 5 shows the geographic area 
sampled. 
Results and Discussions . 
Response from the coal industry was excellent. Table 5 
shows the first mailing produced an overall return rate of 
70 percent, with 78 and 47 percent from the U. S. and 
Canada, respectively. Following the final mailing informa¬ 
tion for 51 mines had been returned, accumulating a return 
rate of 91 percent. The unacceptable completion of one 
questionnaire prohibited its compilation, therefore a net 
total of 50 surface coal mines were tallied. 
47 
e 
u 
Q) 
4-1 
CO 
0) 
rs 
0) 
J3 
4-> 
C 
•H 
CO 
<U 
e 
•H 
e 
cd 
o 
o 
<u 
a 
ca 
MH 
u 
3 
co 
VO 
uo 
6 
o 
n 
MH 
0) 
CO 
c 
O 
CU 
CO 
<D 
h 
a) 
•H 
cd 
C 
C 
o • 
•H cd 
4J T> 
co cd 
<D C 
3 cd 
cro 
0)73 
MH c 
•rl Cd 
cd 
03 
cd 
C 
cd 
o 
cd 
r—I 03 
cd cd 
JJ C 
o cd 
H O 
co 
cd 
CO 
CO 
S3 
cd co 
4J • 
O S3 
H 
*1 
VO 
m 
o\ 
co 
o 
r^. 
00 CM r** 
iH rH VO 
VO rH rH 
m m os 
uo 
CM 
CO CO 
ON CM 
r-. 
o 
uo 
o 
o 
CM 
CM 
ON VO vO UO CM O 
UO I-H rH C30 
CM O O 
O I I 
<f CM O 
UO 
O 
CO CO O 
r>» UO H ON N CO 
r"» o- 
CM 
CO 
00 
r^. 
ON 00 
VO VO 
00 
ON 
CO 
VO 
Q © © O 
•I H r—I O 
Zl rH 
. , vo 
JS ] CM H VO 
00 00 
00 
rH 
T) • he ta 8^ 
rH CO Ofl v-x c 
•iH • a •iH H SSS3 •H a) rH a) a) 
rH 4J •iH 4J i > 
•H cd cd cd : u 
• cd TJ H S u 3 
U0 s O a) CO 
T> p C T3 03 p p 
a) 4J a) C a) in rH 
rH CO rH 3 o rH 3 3) cd 
£> H •iH 4J 4J o •rl 4J 4J 4-1 
cd •iH cd a) 0) a) cd <D O o 
H Cn S 04 co s 04 H 
CM 
T) 
Q) 
4-> 
O 
cd 
4J 
c 
o 
0 
u 
<D 
1 
CO 
CM 
UO 
ON 
VO 
00 
O 
O 
VO 
ON 
<D 
6 
3 
4-> 
<U 
04 
a) 
4J 
cd 
JH 
c 
n 
4J 
Q) 
04 
48 
The titles and education of the respondents showed 
extreme variability, however, the majority of respondents 
exhibited some ecologically oriented background. A listing 
of titles and education are shown in Tables 16 and 17 
(Appendix A). 
A summary of mine surface area information is given in 
Table 18 (Appendix A). 
Baseline Information 
An attempt was made to associate the type of baseline 
information collected with the species present at mines. 
Table 6 indicates that most mines with pronghorn occurring 
chose to collect density, movements, habitat use and a 
species list. Fewer mines collected food habit information. 
Selection of the Post-Mining Land Use 
Forty-three or 86 percent of the 50 mines considered 
wildlife a major post-mining land use. Table 7 shows 
several reasons prompting the selection of wildlife as a 
major use. A chi square test at the 90 percent level 
indicated that the presence of biologists, employed by the 
companies, had no effect on the establishment of a wildlife 
post-mining land use. 
The majority of mines selected more than one compatible 
\ ■ . • • 
post-mining land use. Table 8 shows that when a wildlife 
post-mine land use was associated with other post-mining 
T
a
bl
e 
6.
 
Co
mp
ar
is
on
 
be
tw
ee
n 
s
pe
ci
es
 
o
c
c
u
r
r
in
g 
a
n
d 
ba
se
li
ne
 
in
fo
rm
at
io
n 
c
o
ll
ec
te
d 
a
t 
50
 
s
u
r
fa
ce
 
c
o
a
l 
m
in
es
 
t
hr
ou
gh
ou
t 
th
e 
n
o
r
t
he
rn
 
Gr
ea
t 
P
la
in
s.
 
49 
M - ^-N /^N /-N /*\ 
0) co vo sr CM is ON /-N O m 
43 rH .—I rH | OO 1 1 | | | rH ^4 00 | CM | 1 rH 
4-1 V-/ S/ S_^ V-/ V-/ V./ 
O 
* , vo m m O •—11 
0
 
0
 
o o o vo st m CM o m o O NO 
/*N ^-N 
0) CM CO | | | i i 1 1 1 CM i <r 1 00 I I 1 CM 
£ S-/ v-/ s-/ 
o 
S5 1 1 0
 
0
 
0
 0
 
0
 
o o o <—i O «—i 0
 
1 0
 
0
 
O rH 
4-1 \ o o o o o o O /s /—s /-N /*\ /"\ ^ O 
CO COHNOO o o o o O O —1 CM CM CM st O o o 
4-1 0) 00 ON ON H H rH rH H rH rH ON ON ON ON ON 00 O rH ON 
•H CO V—' 't Vw/ S-/ s-x w v-y s-/ w N-X W f—< 
-O D 
co CO CM ON CO ON CM uo CM CO CM CM m —i st sf CM rH 
SB st CM CO *-H st CM CM CM rH CM rH co 
£ 
o /-N ✓"S ^-N 
CO S \ O O o o O O O /s O \ /s /s O O /—S 
4-1 0) 4-1 CM <J- o o o o o o O CM O vo CM CM vO O O co 
CO 
g 
•H CO ON ON ON H H *H *H »—4 H Q\ H ON ON ON ON •—< rH 00 
O *H ^ v-/ v-/ '-Z s-/ v-/ ^ W w S/ v-/ V-/ N^ S^ v_/ 
w 
o 
<D tJ 
o. <r O M ON CM in CM CO CM cMvocom«tcM>tH co sr 
44 
£ 
CO st CO CO -H sr CM CM CM rH CM CO 
W 
<D ✓“N /*N 
a /-N /-N ✓"N O o o O /-\ /-> /s s-\ /-s O ^-N \ 
1 co CO CM co ON VO o o o o o CM st in uo CM st o CO 
<D 4-» IN rs oo oo NO 00 •—4 ^■4 H -4NNC0 00 vo 00 rH vo rs 
<D > £ N-> W s-/ s-/ V-/ ^ s/ s/ s/ s_/ VH VH 
CO 
cd 
O CJ 
X 8 U0 CO O 00 00 St CM CO CM CM vO rs CM CM 00 rH rH CM O 
PQ CO CM CO CM H CM CM CM CO 
/-N 
/~N /-s o o O /s /"s ✓-N /-> o /-s 
co vo ON m O O o o o oo CM m fs CM «t O rH 
’O in io vo oo N oo m rH rH »—i m m vo rs vo vo H r^. 
o W V-/ V—' v-/ W v-/ N^ N-/ N-/ w W VH S_/ 
o 
OH 00 00 00 ON *4- rH CO CM CM ON CM N O 00 vo CO st 
CM «—I CM 
. 
CM H H CM rH CM 
/*N /-N 
Jo /-s /-V /—N O o o O \ /s /—s \ /—\ O O /-s 
44 ON CM 00 00 co o o o o O vO CO CM m sr co o O CO 
•H rs rs oo rs oo 00 —4 H f-4 H N 00 ON oo m oo ^ rH 00 
CO v-/ \^y s-/ M/ S^ Vw/ W S*/ S-/ VH 
£ 
CO 00 CO CM Cs O St CM CO CM CM 00 ON st CM fs CM H CO St 
Q CO CM CO rH CO "—I CM CM CM co 
t>0 
£ /-N 
/^\ /-N /*S /*\ O /—» /~N 
M vO CM 00 <t O /-N /■s /—> \ O VO CM CM vO vO /—s /-N CM 
U ON vo r> H N 1—I ^ vo sr 't- »-• 'f m m CM S3- CM VO 00 
s N—/ ^ ^ N-« s/ s-/ s-/ s-x S-/ V-/ S-/ VH / 
o 
o 00 CM NO ON CM m CM CO CM CM o co vO vo cn m >-4 CO rH 
o <r co co r-* m CM CM CM rH CM 
0) (D 
4-1 CO oo 
u £ £ X) 
' 0) £ O •H 
(U < CO V4 U 
T3 £ toC 44 
a 4-i CD <D M <D 
"O <D £ U 43 03 CO £ > 
<0 <D O £ P. CD <D £ a o >N 
iH 43 tof U CD CD iH CO O T3 a) 
M *H £ 0) £ 43 0 4* *H £ U £ 
CD £ M £ CD £ O £ o too £ ex V4 & 
CO (D 4-1 O £ *H 43 >% toO CD 44 U *H £ £ O 
4) X) 1 .£ M £ U rH £ I 60 44 Vi rl 44 4H 
•H (D toO CD O 4-1 £ 4*J N rH I D. CO £ £ VH 
o O D £ to 43 £ toO O N H 60 M O ID toO M XI a) 
0) rH *H O O 4^ too £ £ £ •H £ £ £ toO H £ £ rH 44 
CU 3,0 H OH •H O O *H M 0 fj 4= £ O £ O •H £ 
00 £ 5 PH x w « X CJ « O W £ W 
■u 
£ 
a) 
o 
u 
<D 
a 
Ot
he
r 
ba
se
li
ne
 
in
fo
rm
at
io
n 
in
cl
ud
es
: 
pr
od
uc
ti
vi
ty
, 
a
ge
-s
ex
, 
o
bs
er
va
bi
li
ty
, 
ha
bi
ta
t 
ty
pi
ng
, 
ge
ne
ra
l 
kn
ow
le
dg
e 
o
f 
th
e 
a
r
e
a
,
 
a
n
d 
in
fo
rm
at
io
n 
t
ha
t 
w
a
s
 
c
o
ll
ec
te
d 
bu
t 
ty
pe
 
u
n
kn
ow
n.
 
50 
Table 7. Factors to cause 43 mines to choose wildlife 
as a major post-mining land use. 
# of 1 of 
Reasons Hines Mines 
Premining wildlife use of the area was 
documented by studies. 
37 86 
Required or encouraged by regulatory 
authorities. 
33 77 
Surrounding land is used by wildlife. 29 64 
Integration of prelaw mining into 
present mine area. 
3 7 
Personal commitment of staff. 3 7 
Reduced reclamation costs. 1 2 
T
a
b
l
e
 
8.
 
P
o
s
t
-
m
in
in
g 
l
a
n
d 
u
s
e
s
 
a
s
s
o
c
ia
te
d 
w
i
t
h
 
a
 
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
 
a
n
d 
n
o
 
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
 
l
a
n
d 
u
s
e
 
a
t
 
50
 
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
 
c
o
a
l
 
m
in
es
 
w
i
t
h
i
n
 
t
he
 
n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
 
G
r
e
a
t
 
P
la
in
s.
 
51 
o 
05 
G 
G 
cd 
to 
G 
•H 
P 
•H 
a i 
4J 
05 
O 
a . 
cd 
05 
cd 
a) ai 
m 05 
•H G 
r-H 
T3 M3 
«—• G 
•H cd 
^ rH 
to to 
G G 
•rH 
4J 
O 
rH 
G 
>rH 
a) a 
r-H I 
Q) 4J 
05 05 
O 
HJ a 
o 
G 'O 
<D 
J-l H-> 
o cd 
•rH 
d) o 
M-l 
•rH 
•rH <D 
>rG 4J 
to 
c ^ 
•H ,0 
4J 
O 
O a) 
rH TJ 
0) *H 
05 > 
•rH 
•fc.'G 
II 
O 
G 
O 
G 
-d 
<u 
n3 
G 
r-H 
O 
G 
•H 
05 
0) 
05 
G 
*G 
G 
cd 
VH 
CL) 
,G 
•u 
o 
*x 
52 
land uses a livestock use was selected 79 percent of the 
time. ■ The average acres of the mines with a wildlife land 
use was nearly 3 times larger than those without, 11,202 
acres as opposed to 3,629 acres. 
Target Species 
Thirty-eight of the 43 mines selecting wildlife as a 
major post-mining land use chose specific target species for 
which to direct reclamation efforts. Each of the 38 mines 
elected to target more than a single species, making target 
species groups. Table 9 shows; that mule deer was chosen 
most frequently as a target species at 32 mines, with 
pronghorn following at 22 mines. Of those mines with 
pronghorn, only slightly over 2/3 targeted them, indicating 
that at 1/3 of the mines with pronghorn, no specialized 
effort is being made for their habitat rehabilitation. 
An attempt was made to relate post-mining land uses, 
other than wildlife, with targeted species. Table 10 shows 
that most targeted species were compatible with the selected 
associated post-mining land uses. Pronghorn were found to 
be associated 100 percent of the time with livestock and 
only rarely with outdoor recreation, cropland and/or hay 
production. 
53 
Table 9. Percent breakdown of those species targeted on 
38 surface coal mines throughout the northern 
Great Plains. 
Species Occurring Targeted 
■N Targeted/ 
Occurring 
Mule deer 37 32 .86 
White-tailed deer 23 17 .74 
Pronghorn 32 22 .69 
Moose 8 5 .62 
Elk 11 7 .64 
Bighorn sheep 4 2 .50 
Mountain goat 1 1 1.00 
Cougar ( 3 1 .33 
Black bear 2 - 0 
Grizzly bear 2 - 0 
Small game 37 21 .57 
Ring-necked pheasant 16 10 .63 
Sharp-tailed grouse 22 17 .77 
Sage grouse 22 16 .73 
Forest grouse 8 8 1.00 
Hungarian partridge 20 15 .75 
Mourning dove 1 - 0 
Wild turkey 3 1 .33 
Waterfowl 28 18 .64 
T
a
bl
e 
10
. 
Co
mp
ar
is
on
 
be
tw
ee
n 
p
o
s
t
-
m
in
in
g 
la
nd
 
u
s
e
s
,
 
o
t
he
r 
t
ha
n 
a
 
w
il
dl
if
e 
la
nd
 
u
s
e
,
 
a
n
d 
t
a
r
ge
te
d 
ga
me
 
s
pe
ci
es
 
a
s
s
o
c
ia
te
d 
w
it
h 
t
ho
se
 
la
nd
 
u
s
e
s
 
a
t 
38
 
c
o
a
l 
s
u
r
fa
ce
 
m
in
e 
la
nd
s 
t
hr
ou
gh
ou
t 
th
e 
n
o
r
t
he
rn
 
Gr
ea
t 
P
la
in
s.
 
54 
. 
O
th
er
 
1 1 1 1 
o o o o O 
i i 
o o 
1 
o 
1 1 1 II 
o o o o o 
1 1 
o o 
1 
O 
O
u
td
oo
r 
R
e
c
re
a
ti
o
n
 
5 
(1
6)
 
3 
(1
8)
 
3 
(1
4)
 
3 
(6
0)
 ✓*™N 
SO 
00 
'—< 
VO 2 
(1
00
) 
1 
(1
00
) 
1 
(1
00
) 
6 
(2
9)
 
0 
-
 
3 
(1
5)
 
3 
(1
9)
 
6 
(7
5)
 
1 1 
o o 
1 
o 
I 
rH 4-> 
; 
£ rH £ 
•H 3 3 
4-1 •H B CO £ o a, 0) 3 M o till | i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO 3 3 TH 
33 •H 0) CO § > o o o o o 
0
 
0
 o o o o o o 
0
 
0
 o 
X) 0) o <0 $3 PS CJ Q 
' 
00 £ 1 
£ O 
•H •H 
c 4J /-N /N /-> 
•H o co in /—* OS O O r^. OS 
s CO 3 nemo i 1 1 1 i H m co vo i co | co i 33 3 S-/ w S^/ s-/ v-/ 4J O ' CO U \f VO H O o 0 0 o <r m vo H o O r-» 
O P4 
*d X) 
<0 £ 4J c0 /^\ /-N /•> /H ✓"S 3 iH OS 1 ✓“N o m o 
•H CU <—l to 1 1 1 1 1 CO CM VO | <3- I m 
a o S-/ N-/ W W S-X N-/ v-/ 
o M CO o VO 00 <-4 o o o o o co © in H o Os O Os 
< 
M (0 /-N r-s o o 
43 r-s CM O o o o /*N in 
a VOH | v} H m —i rH m i i i CM 1 1 1 
•H ^ ^ N—' W v^/ w 
H CM CM O CM H H H rH 1 0 0 0 2 o o o 
/-s /—\ /-s 
<0 /-> O /*\ /—\ O /—\ P-N O s-s 
00 00 CO o CO PH O CO O 00 CO O CO 
£ u-» —• i <3- i I i oo r-. oo —i cn vO 00 
c0 V-/ V./ N-/ V-/ w S-/ v-/ W 
Pi 
m os CM o co 
0
 
0
 o IN N vo co CM r-4 m CM CM H H rH •H rH 
f 
u 
£ 3 3 3 CO 00 
V4 3 3 X) 
0) 3 O •H 3 3 U u 
X) 43 00 4-1 
CO a. 4-i O. 3 M 
3 *3 3 3 •3 TO 3 
•H 3 3 O •3333 a to 
o rH 43 00 3 3 rH TO O 3 
(0 U *H c CO B 4*5 *H 3 M C rKl rH 
cx. 3 CO M £ TO O 3 O 0£ 3 M > 
CO 3 4J O £ *H 00 Cl U h •H 3 o 
XI 1 43 M 3 u £ 1 004 M *J «4H 
3 00 3 O 4-1 3 rH | a. TO 3 u 
3 4J C CO 43 £ 00 rH 00 M 3 3 00 3 3 
PH **H O O 00 3 3 3 £ 3 00 M £ PH 4-1 
3 43 >-i O rH •H O O B Tj 43 3 O 3 2d 3 
X & P X W « s CJ TO PS TO TO b 33 S S 
00 
a) 
•H 
o 
o 
a (0 
0) 43 <u 
00 
e iH 
4-1 0) 
00 
>-i 3 
TO 
<0 
13 ■H 
B 
<4-1 
o 
II 
th
e 
s
p
ec
ie
s.
 
55 
Reclamation Techniques 
Reclamation techniques directed specifically at prong¬ 
horn were difficult to identify, since target species groups 
were always the case. Important reclamation techniques for 
pronghorn may be: specially selected vegetation for estab¬ 
lishment, shaping of topography, development of water, and 
an adequate supply of space for yearlong needs. Table 11 
shows that the major reclamation techniques employed by the 
companies were: the development of specially selected seed 
mixtures, shaping of topography, and seedling transplants. 
Supplying adequate space for yearlong needs was considered 
less than any other technique. Excessive enhancement 
activities causing depredation by pronghorn was non¬ 
existent. A . 
Wildlife Management Practices 
Wildlife management practices were also difficult to 
relate with a single species. Practices of possible benefit 
to pronghorn could be fencing of newly revegetated areas, 
fencing of roads and the exclusion of mining critical 
habitat. Table 12 shows the primary wildlife management 
practices•employed by the companies were: the relocation of 
nesting or mating grounds, exclusion of mining critical 
habitat, the attempt to leave highwalls, and the fencing of 
newly revegetated areas. 
Table 11. Major reclamation techniques employed at 43 
surface coal mines throughout the northern 
Great Plains. 
Major Reclamation Techniques 
# of 
Mines 
% of 
Mines 
Special seed mixtures 37 86 
Seedling transplants 38 88 
Specifically shaped topography 37 . . 86 
Watering areas 28 65 
Provide space adequate for 
year round needs 27 62 
57 
Table 12. Major wildlife management techniques employed at 
43 surface coal mines throughout the northern 
Great Plains. 
Wildlife 
Management Techniques 
, # of 
Mines 
Z of 
Mines 
Exclusion of mining critical habitat 24 55 
Relocation of nesting and mating grounds 23 53 
Leaving highwalls 16 37 
Fencing of newly revegetated areas 14 32 
Wildlife transplants 10 23 
Fencing of roads 10 23 
Perches for raptors 9 20 
Establishment of rock outcrops 5 11 
Fencing of impoundments for nesting 
waterfowl 4 9 
Goose nesting islands 4 9 
Supplemental winter bird feeders 4 9 
Nesting boxes 3 6 
Establishment of travel corridors 1 2 
Fencing waste water ponds 1 2 
Establishment of escape routes 1 2 
Construction of transmission line to 
avoid bird contact 1 2 
None needed 5 11 
58 
Hunting Practices and Policies 
Since hunting is considered a major wildlife management 
practice, several questions on hunting practices and 
policies were included in the survey. These topics included 
the number of acres allowed for hunting, the game species on 
the property, the species hunted on the property, and 
hunting restrictions on the mine. 
The practice of permissible hunting was nearly evenly 
split, 56 percent of the mines allowed hunting. Of the 28 
mines allowing hunting, 50 percent decided the lessee would 
determine the hunting rights on leased surfaces, 75 percent 
were under hunting control by companies, and state or 
provincial agencies agreed on hunting privileges for 6 
percent. The number of acres on which hunting was allowed 
totaled 161,882. When compared to the total acres (350,593) 
under control by those mines allowing hunting, 54 percent of 
the land was closed, and only 31 percent of the total mine 
land surveyed had allowable hunting. 
Hunting restrictions other than normal. state regu¬ 
lations were in effect on 75 percent of the mines allowing 
hunting. Table 13 shows that no mines made any specific 
attempt . to 
regulate the harvest; most restrictions followed the idea of 
fair play and safety. Guides or trespass fees were never 
charged by the companies, and only two mines collected 
trespass fees by renters of surface leases. Every form of 
59 
Table 13. Hunting restrictions, other than normal state 
regulations, employed at 28 surface coal mines 
throughout the northern Great Plains. - 
# of % of 
Restrictions Mines Mines 
No hunting within a certain distance 
of active mining pit 16 76 
No hunting within a certain distance 
from buildings 10 48 
Number of days of permitted hunting 4 19 
Number of members in hunting party 4 19 
Number of hunters allowed to hunt 
area controlled 3 14 
Special permission granted 2 10 
Number of hunters per day 2 14 
No hunting on areas permitted 
for mining 1 5 
Access control in some areas of 
active mine 1 5 
No hunting during working days in 
active mining area 1 
60 
hunting equipment was allowed. High powered rifles and 
shotguns were the most common hunting equipment allowed (on 
82 and 86 percent of the mines permitting hunting, respec¬ 
tively). Interestingly enough, the least lethal, black 
powder rifles, bow and arrow, and crossbow, were allowed for 
use on fewer mines, 68, 79 and 7 percent, respectively. 
Mule deer were the most common game species, occurring 
on 96 percent of the mines, with pronghorn next at 72 
percent (Table 6). No pronghorn occurred on Canadian mines. 
Table 14 indicates that the majority of game species were 
allowed to be hunted. However, each game species was 
protected on at least one mine. Pronghorn were hunted only 
86 percent of the time they were present on permissible 
hunting areas. This type of restriction may be the result 
of an attempt to limit the yearly harvest at some mines. 
61 
Table 14. Percent breakdown of 28 surface coal mines, 
within the northern Great Plains, allowing 
hunting of those species occurring, as opposed 
to species hunted. 
Species Occurring Hunted 
Hunted/ 
Occurring 
Mule deer 35 23 .92 
White-tailed deer 14 11 .79 
Pronghorn 21 18 .86 
Moose 6 3 .50 
Elk 6 6 1.00 
Bighorn sheep 3 3 1.00 
Mountain goat 1 1 1.00 
Cougar 3 3 1.00 
Black bear 2 2 1.00 
Grizzly bear 2 2 1.00 
Small game 26 24 .92 
Ring-necked pheasant 12 10 .83 
Sharp-tailed grouse 14 14 1.00 
Sage grouse 17 13 .76 
Forest grouse 6 6 1.00 
Hungarian partridge 12 10 .83 
Mourning dove 1 1 1.00 
Wild turkey 2 1 .50 
Waterfowl 20 14 .70 
62 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
Coal reserves underlie a significant proportion of 
pronghorn habitat within the northern Great Plains. The 
amount of coal that can and will be mined is large and 
involves thousands of acres. Successful rehabilitation of 
pronghorn habitat can only be accomplished with a clear 
understanding of the species' needs and an organized recla¬ 
mation plan to provide those needs. 
As with other ungulates, the pronghorn choice and use 
of habitats and forage are governed by innate preferences 
and individual learned behavior, as well as by morphological 
and physiological constraints. The essentials of a prong- 
horn range may be thought of in terms of food, cover, water, 
juxtaposition, interspersion and space. 
The most vital part of habitat rehabilitation, is the 
planning process. Planning for rehabilitation should 
include: a description of the resources, analysis of poten¬ 
tial impacts, establishment of post-mining land use and 
reclamation objectives, procedures for mitigation of nega¬ 
tive impacts, enhancement of the resource, land management, 
and monitoring and compliance. The description of the 
resources provides information from which an analysis of 
impacts can be made. The analysis of impacts set the stage 
* 
63 
for the establishment of post-mining land use and reclama¬ 
tion objectives. These decisions eventually allow for the 
proper mitigation of negative impacts. Following habitat 
establishment, land management and monitoring maintain the 
proposed land use and gain information from which future 
planning can learn. 
The mitigation of negative impacts is accomplished 
through the manipulation of vegetational, topographic and 
water resources. The selection of vegetative species for 
establishment is site specific and is based upon the prong¬ 
horn regional forage and cover use. Rolling topography not 
to exceed slopes of 30 percent provides visual vantage 
points from which predators can be seen and fawns can be 
watched. The type of water resource is of little concern to 
pronghorn, as long as acceptable quantity and quality is 
available every 1 to 4 miles. Provided these habitat 
essentials are in acceptable juxtaposition, interspersion 
and spatial limits pronghorn should reinvade the reclaimed 
site. Monitoring can then account for success or failure in 
terms of measurable habitat values and pronghorn use. 
A questionnaire was sent to surface coal mines in the 
western U.S. and Canada in an attempt to assess the present 
status of pronghorn habitat rehabilitation and management. 
A 91 percent return rate indicated the concern for future 
wildlife resources. Only few wildlife biologists were 
employed by mining companies through the -northern Great 
64 
Plains. However, most respondents did hold some ecological 
background. Rehabilitation planning for pronghorn was based 
on density, species movements, species list and habitat use 
resource information. The one more piece of information 
that could aid in the development of seed mixtures is food 
habits, and it was collected at fewer mines. The majority 
of mines selected more than one post-mining land use and 
most were successful in choosing a land use compatible with 
the targeted species. The selection of several associated 
target species was always the case. Slightly over 2/3 of 
those mines with pronghorn occurring, targeted them. 
Reclamation and wildlife management techniques specifically 
directed at pronghorn were difficult to determine. However, 
the majority of the mines favored special seed mixtures, 
shaping of topography, the exclusion of mining critical 
habitat and the relocation of mating or nesting grounds. 
Fencing of roads and revegetated areas were also favored 
techniques. Depredation due to over-enhancement of prong¬ 
horn habitat was never observed. Hunting was allowed on 
just over half of the total mines. The lack of hunting 
pronghorn on some mines indicated the protection of prong¬ 
horn populations was evident. Hunting restrictions were 
geared towards the idea of fair play and safety, not game 
management. 
I believe that the mining industry is making a consci¬ 
entious effort to reclaim for pronghorn habitat. Only few 
65 
mines have employed game management activities such as 
fencing and the regulation of herd numbers. The selection 
of post-mining land uses is commendable; all mines chose 
uses compatible with pronghorn habitat. Realizing that the 
intensive reclamation of surface mines is a relatively new 
science, the future quality of pronghorn habitat rehabilita- 
• . \ 
tion is expected to improve. With a knowledge of the 
species’ needs, reflected in the reclamation plans, suitable 
pronghorn habitat can be successfully rehabilitated. 
66 
LITERATURE CITED 
67 
LITERATURE CITED 
Aldon, E. F. 1976. Seed sources, species selection and 
current research on species reclamation. In: 
Reclamation of Western Surface Mined Lands (ed. K. C. 
Vories) Ecology Consult. Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, 
pp. 99-101. 
Amstrup, S. C. 1968. Activities and habitat use of 
pronghorns on Montana-Wyoming coal lands. In: 
Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial Pronghorn Workshop. 
Jasper, Alberta, Canada, pp. 270-305. 
Bailey, V. 1926.^ A biological survey of North Dakota. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. North 
Amer. Fauna, No. 99. 226 p. 
Baker, R. H. 1958. The future of wildlife in northern 
Mexico - a problem in conservation education. North 
Amer. Wildl. Confer. Trans. 23:567-575. 
Bayless, S. R. 1969. Food habits, range use, and home 
range of pronghorn antelope in central Montana during 
winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 33(3):538-551. 
Beale, D. M. and G. W. Scotter. 1968. Seasonal forage use 
by pronghorn antelope in western Utah. Utah Science. 
26(1):3-16. 
Beale, D. M. and A. D. Smith. 1970. Forage use, water 
consumption, and productivity of pronghorn antelope in 
western Utah. J. Wildl. Manage. 39(3):570-582. 
Bear, G. D. 1968. Evaluation of structures placed in net 
wire fences to facilitate antelope movements. Antelope 
States Workshop Proceedings 3:15-21. 
Beer, J. 1944. Distribution and status of pronghorn in- 
Montana. J. Mammology. 25(1):43—46. 
Benson, W. A. 1956. A general view of the antelope in 
Saskatchewan. Federal-Province Wildlife Conference, 
Ottawa. 20(2):23-34. 
68 
Brown, G. A., G. P. Weber and L. E. Weisner. 1980. 
Revegetation of disturbed lands: guide to seed 
suppliers. Mt.* Agr. Exp. Sta. Capsule Info. Ser. 20. 
9 p. 
Brown, R. W. , K. H. Asay,,N. C. Frischnecht, and R. L. 
Hodder. 1979. User guide to vegetation. USDA Forest 
Service, General Technical Report INT-64. 18 p. 
Bruns, E. H. 1977. Winter behavior of pronghorns in 
relation to habitat. J. Wildl. Manage. 41(3):560-571. 
Buechner, H. K. 1960. Regulations of pronghorn numbers in 
relation to land use. Interstate Antelope Confer. 
Trans. 11:105-129. 
Buechner, H. K. 1950. Range ecology of the pronghorn on 
the Wichita mountains wildlife refuge. North Amer. 
Wildl. Conf. Trans. 15:627-643. 
Cole, G. F. 1956. The pronghorn antelope, its range use 
and food habits in central Montana with special refer¬ 
ence to alfalfa. Montana State College, Agr. Exp. 
Sta., Bozeman, Montana, Tech. Bulletin 516. 62 p. 
Cole, G. F and B. T. Wilkins. 1958. The pronghorn antelop 
- its range use and food habits in central Montana with 
special reference to wheat. Montana Fish and Game Dept 
Tech. Bulletin 2. 39 p. 
Couey, F. M. 1946. Antelope foods in southeastern Montana 
J. Wildl. Manage. 10(4):367. 
Depuit, E. J. and D. J. Dollhopf. 1978. Revegetation 
research on coal surface-mined lands at west Decker 
mine, Decker, Montana: Progress Report 1975. Mont. Agr 
Exp. Sta. Res. Report 133. 30 p. 
Depuit, E. J., J. G. Coenenberg and W. H. Willmuth. 1978. 
, Research on revegetation of surface mined lands at 
Colstrip, Montana: Progress Report 1975-1977. Mont. 
Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Report 127. 165 p. 
Depuit, E. J. and J. G. Coenenberg. 1979. Responses of 
revegetated coal strip mine spoils to variable fertili- 
zatiqn rates, longevity of fertilization program, and 
season of seeding. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Report 
150. 81 p. 
69 
Depuit, E. J., J. G. Coenenberg and C. L. Skilbred. 1980. 
Establishment of diverse native plant communities on 
coal surface-mined lands in Montana as influenced by 
seeding method, mixture and rate. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. 
Res. Report 163. 64 p. 
Dirschl, J. H. 1963. Food habits of pronghorn in 
Saskatchewan. J. Wildl. Manage. 27(1): 81 — 93. 
Dollhopf, D. J. , I. B. Jensen and R. L. Hodder. 1977. 
Effects of surface configuration in water pollution 
control on semi-arid mined lands. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. 
Research Report 114, Montana State University, Bozeman, 
Montana. 179 p. 
Dollhopf, D. J., J. D. Goering, C. J. Levine, B. J. Bauman, 
D. W. Hedberg and R. L. Hodder. 1981. Selective 
placement of strip mine overburden in Montana. Summary 
Report. Reclamation Res. Unit, Mont. Agr. Sta., Montana 
State University, Bozeman, Montana. 195 p. 
Einarsen, A. S. 1948. The pronghorn antelope and its 
management. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, 
D.C. 238 p. 
Fichter, E. 1971. On the bedding behavior of pronghorn 
fawns, p. 353-355. In: The Behavior of Ungulates and 
its Relation to Management. International Symposium, 
Alberta, Canada. 450 p. 
Filion, F. L. 1978. Increasing the effectiveness of mail 
surveys. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6(3):135-141. 
Forsyth, E. S. 1942. Our stocking experience in the 
Province of Saskatchewan. North Amer. Wildl. Confer. 
Trans. 7:152-161. 
Freeman, J. S. 1971 Pronghorn range use and relation to 
livestock in southeastern Montana. M. S. Thesis, 
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. 45 p. 
Frischknecht, N. C. and R. B. Ferguson. 1979. Revegetating 
processed oil shale and coal spoils on semi-arid lands. 
Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Provo, Utah. 
EPA-60017-79-068. 47 p. > 
Grinnell, G. B. 1929. Pronghorn antelope. J. Mammology. 
10(2):135-141. 
Heady, H. F. 1964. Palatability of herbage and animal 
preferences. J. Range Manage. 17:76-82. 
70 
Herrig, D. M. 1974. Use of range sites for pronghorns in 
southcentral Oregon. M. S. Thesis, Oregon State Univer¬ 
sity, Corvallis. 71 p. 
Hinkle, C. R., R. E. Ambrose and C. R. Wenzel. 1981. A 
handbook for meeting fish and wildlife information needs 
to surface mine coa,l - OSM Region V. FWS/OBS - 
79/48.3.5. 109 p. 
Hockley, M. 1968. Ten years of antelope management in the 
Gillette area of Wyoming. Antelope States Workshop 
Proceedings. 3:81-84. 
Hodder, R. L. 1977. Dry land techniques in the semi-arid 
west. Pages 217-223. In: J. L. Thames (ed.) 
Reclamation and use of disturbed land. University of 
Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 374 p. 
Jones, P. V. 1949. Experimental management of antelope. 
Texas Game, Fish and Oyster Commission, Austin Federal 
Aid Report, Series No. 3. 31 p. 
Kautz, L. G. 1942. Antelope Survey Report. 
Pittman-Robertson Project, Colorado Game and Fish 
Commission. 29 p. 
Kerr, R. 1977. Ideas about reclaiming western mined lands 
for wildlife. 69-73. In: Proc. Reclamation for Wild¬ 
life Habitat, Fort Collins, Colorado. 200 p. 
Kimball, T. L. 1980. Noncompetitive rangelands management 
for wild and domestic animals. Rangelands 2(1):24-45. 
King, R. T. 1938. The essentials of a wildlife range. 
Scientific Journal Series of the Roosevelt Wildlife 
Forest Experiment Station, New York State College of 
Forestry. 36:467-464. 
Kitchen, D. W. 1974. Social behavior and ecology of the 
pronghorn. -Wildlife Monographs, No. 38. 96 p. 
. \ . ' ' ' . . ' 
Kling, C. L. 1977. Reclamation planning for wildlife prior 
to mining. 167-176. In: Proc. Reclamation for Wildlife 
Habitat, Fort Collins, Colorado. 200 p. 
Leister, C. W. 1932. The pronghorn of North America. 
Bull.' New York Zoo. Soc. 35(6): 182-205. 
Leopold, A. 1948. Game management. Charles Scribners 
Sons, New York. 481 p. 
71 
Ligon, J. S. 1927. Wildlife of New Mexico, its 
conservation and management. Dept. Game and Fish, 
Santa Fe. 212 p. ^ 
Ligon, J. S. 1948. Upland game bird administration through 
intensive management, p. 90-97. Proceedings 28th Ann. 
Confer, of W. Assoc, of State Game and Fish Commission. 
520 p. 
Mapston, R. D. 1973. Fawning time. Montana Outdoors. 
May/June, 43-45. 
Martinka, C. J. 1967. Mortality of northern Montana 
pronghorns in a severe winter. J. Wildl. Manage. 
31(1):159-164. 
McClymont, G. L. 1957. Selectivity and intake in the 
grazing ruminent. p. 129-137. In: C. G. Code (ed.) 
Section 6: Alimentary Canal. Volume 1. Control of Food 
and Water Intake. Handbook of Physiology. American 
Physiological Society, Washington, D.C. 459 p. 
McKee, J. E. and H. W. Wolf. 1963. Water quality criteria. 
State Water Quality Control Board Sacramento, 
California. Publ. No. 3-4. 598 p. 
McKell, C. M. 1977. Establishment of native plants for the 
rehabilitation of Paraho processed oil shale in an arid 
environment, pp. 13-32. In: The Reclamation of 
Disturbed Arid Lands, (ed. R.' A. Wright), Univ. N.M. 
Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 340 p. 
McLean, D. D. 1944. The pronghorn antelope in California. 
California Fish and Game. 30(4):221-241. 
Mitchell, G and S. Smoliak. 1971. Pronghorn antelope range 
characteristics and food habits in Alberta. J. Wildl. 
Manage. 35 (2):238-250. 
Nelson, E. W. 1925. Status of the pronghorn antelope, 
1922-24.. USDA, Washington, D.C. Dept. Bull. No. 1346. 
64 p. 
Northern Great Plains Resource Program. 1975. Effects of 
coal development in the northern Great Plains. Denver, 
Colorado. 165 p. 
Oakley, C. 1973. The effects of livestock fencing on 
antelope. Wyoming Wildlife. 37(2):26-29. 
72 
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. 
Outdoor recreation for America. Gov. Print. Off., 
Washington, D.C. 246 p • 
Popowski, B. 1959. Hunting pronghorn antelope. The 
Stockpole Co., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 225 p. ' 
Pyrah, D. 1982. Personnel communications. Montana Fish, 
Wildlife and Parks, Lewistown, Montana. 
Rouse, C. H. 1962. Antelope and sheep fences. Inter. 
Antelope Confer. Trans. 13:45-47. 
Salwasser, H. 1980. Pronghorn antelope population and 
habitat management in northwestern Great Basin environ¬ 
ments. USDA, Forest Service, Pac. S.W. Region, San 
Francisco, California. 55 p. 
Scott, M. D. and T. L. Terrel. 1980. Pronghorn antelope 
management potential on mining industry lands, p. 
135-148. In: Proceedings 7th Biennial Pronghorn 
Antelope Workshop. Twin Falls, Idaho. 222 p. 
Segerstrom, T. 1977. Antelope Food Habits: Northern Great 
Plains Region. Western Interstate Commission for Higher 
Education. 17 p. 
Sharp, L. 1981. Management of seeded rangeland to maintain 
forage plants, p. 103-112. In: Proceedings of the 
Restoration of Range Wildlife Habitats Workshop. Twin 
Falls, Idaho. 375 p. 
Sindelar, B. W. 1972. Dryland sodding with native grasses 
for permanent erosion control. * Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. 
Res. Report 43. 160 p. 
Sindelar, B. W., R. L. Hodder and M. E. Majerus. 1973. 
• Surface mined land reclamation research in Montana. 
Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Report 40. 122 p. 
Skinner, M. P. 1922. The pronghorns. J. Mammology 
3(2):82-105. ■ 
Springer, L. M. 1950. Aerial census of interstate antelope 
herds of California, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon. 
14(3):295-298 
Sundstrom, C. C., W. G. Hepwroth and K. L. Diem. 1973. 
Abundance, distribution and food habits of pronghorn. 
Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. Bulletin 12, 61 p. 
73 
Sundstrom, C. C. 1968. Water consumption by pronghorn 
antelope and distribution related to water in Wyoming's 
Red Desert. Antelope States Workshop Proceedings 3:39-46 
Thomas, J. W. , R. J. Miller, H. Black, J. E. Rodick, and C. 
Maser. 1976. Guidelines for maintaining and enhancing 
wildlife habitat in forest management in the Blue 
Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Trans. 41st North 
Am. and Nat. Resour. Conf., Wildl. Manage. Inst., Wash., 
D.C. p. 452-476. 
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Habitat management 
for the American pronghorn. Bozeman, Montana. 6 p. 
USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1975. Manual 1737 - 
fencing. Washington, D.C. 17 p. 
v . '■ \ 
Wallace, H. S. 1940. Preliminary Antelope Survey. 
Colorado Game and Fish Dept. Pittman-Robertson Project. 
V. 1. 26 p. 
Wentland, H. J. 1968. Summer range habits of the pronghorn 
antelope in central Montana with special reference to 
proposed sagebrush control study plots. Antelope States 
Workshop Proceedings. 3:99-103. 
Wentland, H. J. 1970. Antelope food habits, range use and 
population study. Montana Fish and Game Dept., Final 
Report, Fed. Aid Proj. No. W-130-R-2, Job No. 1-7.2. 
11 p. 
Wesley, D. E., K. L. Knox, and J. G. Nagy. 1973. Energy 
metabolism of pronghorn antelope. J./Wildl. Manage. 
Yoakum, J. 1958. Seasonal food habits of the Oregon 
pronghorn antelope. Interstate Antelope Confer. Trans, 
p. 47. 
Yoakum, J. D. 1968. A review of the distribution and 
abundance of American pronghorn antelope. Antelope 
States Workshop Proceedings. 3:4-14. 
Yoakum, J. D. 1974. Pronghorn habitat requirements for 
sagebrush grasslands. Antelope States Workshop 
Proceedings. 6:16-25. 
Yoakum, J. D. 1980. Habitat management guides for the 
American pronghorn antelope. U. S. Dept, of the 
Interior, BLM Technical Note 347. 110 p. 
74 
APPENDICES 
75 
( 
APPENDIX A 
TABLES 
76 
Table 15. Potential species for the revegetation of 
pronghorn habitat throughout the northern 
Great Plains; 
Common Name Scientific Name 
Grasses and Grasslike Plants 
sandberg bluegrass 
prairie junegrass 
bluebunch wheatgrass 
western wheatgrass 
Indian ricegrass 
sand dropseed 
blue grama 
sand bluestem 
sideoats grama 
prairie sand reedgrass 
needle-and-thread grass 
green needle grass 
little bluestem 
threadleaf sedge 
Forbs 
scarlet globemallow 
yellow sweet clover 
alfalfa 
buckwheat 
fringed sagewort 
Lewis flax 
prairie clover 
common salsify 
cicer milkvetch 
purple prairie clover 
American vetch 
penstemon 
annual sunflower 
Poa sandbergii 
Koeleria cristata 
Agropyron spicatum 
Agropyron smithii 
Oryzopsis hymenoides 
Sporobolus crytandrus 
Bouteloua gracilis 
Andropogon hallii 
Bouteloua curtipendula 
Calamovilfa longifolia 
Stipa comata 
Stipa viridula 
Andropogon scoparius 
Carex filifolia 
Sphaeralcea coccinea 
Melilotus officinalis 
Medicago sativa 
Eriogonum sp. 
Artemisia frigida 
Linum lewisii 
Ratibida columnifera 
Tragopogon dubius 
Astragalus cicer 
Petalostemon purpurem 
Vicia americana 
Penstemon sp. 
Helianthus annus 
77 
Table 15. Continued 
Common Name Scientific Name 
Forbs - continued 
western yarrow 
groundsel 
fleabane 
Shrubs and Half-Shrubs 
big sagebrush 
silver sagebrush 
rubber rabbitbrush 
prairie rose 
western snowberry 
winterfat 
bitterbrush 
green rabbitbrush 
fourwing saltbrush 
bud sage 
Trees 
juniper 
ponderosa pine 
Achillea millefolium 
Senecio sp. 
Erigeron sp. 
Artemisia tridentata 
Artemisia cana 
Chrysothamnus nauseosus 
Rosa arkansana 
Symphoricarpos occidentalis 
Eurotia lanata 
Purshia tridentata 
Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus 
Atriplex canescens 
Artemesia spinescens 
Juniperus sp. 
Pinus ponderosa 
78 
Table 16. Titles of respondents to mail questionnaire. 
Respondent Titles 
Respondents 
# % 
Environmental Coordinator 4 12 
Environmental Engineer 3 9 
Reclamation Specialist 2 6 
Wildlife Biologist 1 3 
- Assistant Environmental Planner 2 6 
Wildlife Technician 1 3 
Wildlife & Vegetation Specialist 1 3 
Reclamation Supervisor 2 6 
Project Engineer 1 3 
Wildlife Coordinator 1 3 
Administrator of Environmental Services 1 3 
Environmental Specialist - 
Resource Biology 1 3 
Biologist - Environmental Services 1 3 
Environmental Specialist 1 3 
Geologist/Reclamation Supervisor 1 3 
Environmental Technician 1 3 
Senior Engineer 1 3 
Reclamation Manager 1 3 
Mine Engineer 1 3 
Assistant Office Manager 1 3 
Mine Manager 1 3 
Director of Wildlife 1 3 
Associate Environmental Specialist 1 3 
i 
79 
Table 17. Education of respondents to mail questionnaire. 
Respondent Education 
Respondents 
# % 
\ . - ; ■ 
Biology 3 9 
Range Management 3 9 
Wildlife Biology 3 9 
Wildlife and Fisheries Management 2 6 
Mining 2 6 y 
Natural Science 2 6 
Civil Engineering 2 6 
Zoology 1 3 
Landscape Architecture/Botany 1 3 
Mining Engineering 1 3 
Wildlife Sciences 1 3 
Resource Management/Forestry 1 3 
Environmental Biology 1 3 
Animal Science 1 3 
Botany 1 3 
Wildlife Biology/Civil Engineering 1 3 
Natural Resource Management 1 3 
Geology 1 3 
Biology/Botany/Agriculture 1 3 
Accounting 1 3 y 
80 
Table 18. Surface mine acreage of 50 mines surveyed 
throughout the western U.S. and Canada 
U.S. Canada Total 
Number of mines 39 11 50 
Total acres 322,725 184,371 507,096 
Average acres 8,275 16,761 10,142 
Largest (ac) 20,155 48,525 48,525 
Smallest (ac) 350 1,650 350 
APPENDIX B 
Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7. Schematic 
sketches of potential water 
developments for pronghorn habitat. 
(From Yoakum 1980). 
82 
Figure 4. Schematic sketch of a "charco pit" water 
catchment used to catch and retain waters 
for livestock and wildlife. 
83 
SITE LOCATED TO TAKE 
ADVANTAGE OF SLOPE FOR 
DRAINAGE. 
FENCE TO KEEP LIVESTOCK 
FROM DESTROYING APRON 
AND USING TANKS. 
SIDE VIEW 
BASIN 
Figure 5. Schematic plan for a water catchment designed 
for pronghorn use. 
84 
foes or brush planted for wi/c/Hfe cover 
Project sign 
\ rFence (note no gates) 
Reservoir-A \ Catering trough 
-Intermittent 
flow 
2* 
SJDF WW 
U.TS 
tJOTFi 
Install pipe at o depth 
Si/ted shut. 
not become 
Install cut-nff oppfoK. 
lb, i'he distance From, 
ihe water to the outside 
edge of embankment. 
(See note for jnstollah'on 
of pipe) 
/ 
Figure 6. Schematic plan for a reservoir with waters 
waters piped to a trough outside a fence. 
85 
DETAIL '/ 
AJ. T.S. 
Figure 7. Schematic plan for a spring development with 
specifications beneficial to livestock and 
wildlife. 
86 
APPENDIX C 
Wildlife questionnaire used to survey 
surface coal mines throughout the 
northern Great Plains. 
87 
1. Name of respondent  ___  
2. Professional title of respondent  
3. State or Province '    - 
4. What was your major field of study at your highest level of education? 
5. Are there any people classified as wildlife biologists above or below 
you in the company organization?  a. yes (how many?)  
b. no 
6. Name of operating mine area(s) __    
7. About how many acres are covered by the total mine area(s) listed 
(in #6) above? (This includes all company-leased and owned surface 
combined, and should also include lands that may not actually be mined 
that surround the active pit.) • . ■ . . 
8. What type of premining and/or post-mining wildlife information is 
being, or has been collected? (Check as many as apply.) 
  a. numbers of animals per acres (density) 
  b. food habits of the animals 
  c. movement timing and distances of the animals (seasonal or 
daily) 
__  d. list of species present on area 
  e. habitat use 
 f. information was collected but type of 
information is unknown 
 g. none 
 h. other (please specify)      
9. What game species occur on your area(s)? (Check as many as apply.) 
a. mule deer 
b. pronghorn antelope 
c. white-tailed deer 
d. moose 
e. ring-necked pheasant 
f. sharp-tailed grouse 
g. sage grouse 
h. forest grouse (ruffed, 
spruce, blue) 
i. hungarian (gray) partridge 
j. waterfowl 
k. small game animals (squirrel, 
rabbit) 
l. other (please specify)  
Figure 8. Questionnaire used to survey wildlife management 
practices at large surface mines in western North 
America. 
88 
10. Is hunting allowed on any property owned or leased by the mine 
company in your area(s)? 
  a. yes (continue to #11) 
  b. no (skip to #21) 
11. Who decides whether or not hunting access will be allowed on company- 
controlled lands? (Check all that apply.) 
  a. company personnel, for all lands 
  b. company personnel on owned surface only 
  c. lessee on leased surface 
  d. other (please specify)  
12. On about how many acres under the company's control is hunting 
allowed? 
13. What game species may be hunted on your area(s)? (please check all 
that apply) 
  a. mule deer  h. forest grouse (ruffed, 
  b. pronghorn antelope spruce, blue) 
   c. white-tailed deer   i. hungarian (gray) partridge 
  d. moose    j . waterfowl 
  e. ring-necked pheasant   k. small game animals (squirrel, 
  f. sharp-tailed grouse rabbit) 
 g. sage grouse  1. other (please specify)  
14. What type of hunting equipment is allowed? (Check as many as apply.) 
 a. high-powered rifles 
  b. shotgun (birdshot) 
  c. black powder rifles 
  d. bow and arrow 
  e. other (please specify)    .  
15. Are there any special hunting and access restrictions, other than 
normal state regulations? 
  a. yes (continue to #16) 
  b. no (skip to #21) 
Figure 8. Continued 
89 
16. Are any of the following restrictions employed? (Check as many as 
apply.) 
total number of animals killed per day or season 
number of animals killed per hunter per day or season 
no hunting within a certain distance from buildings 
no hunting within a certain distance from active mining pit 
other (please specify)  
17. Do you commonly require hunters to have a guide? 
  a. yes (continue to #18) 
  b. no (skip to #19) 
18. Are guides paid a fee? 
  a. yes 
 b. sometimes 
c. no 
19. Is there commonly a hunter trespass fee charged by the company? 
   a. yes 
b^. no 
20. Is there a hunter trespass fee charged by renters of surface leases? 
  a. yes 
 b. sometimes ’ ...... 
  c. no 
21. Is wildlife currently considered a major post-mining and reclamation 
land use? 
  a. yes (continue to #22) 
  b. no (skip to #28) 
22. What factors caused the company to choose wildlife management as a 
major post-mining land use? (Check all that apply.) 
  a. premining wildlife use of area(s) was documented by studies 
  b. surrounding land is used by wildlife 
 c. required or encouraged by regulatory authorities 
  d. income could be obtained from hunters in the future 
  e. other (please specify)  
Figure 8. Continued 
90 
23. Are there definite target wildlife species with respect to your 
reclamation program? 
  a. yes (continue to #24) 
  b. no (skip to #25) 
24. What are the target species? (Check as many as apply.) 
a. mule deer h. forest grouse (ruffed, 
b. pronghorn antelope spruce, blue) 
c. white-tailed deer i.- hungarian (gray) partridge 
d. moose j. waterfowl 
e. ring-necked pheasant k. small game animals (squirrel, 
f. sharp-tailed grouse rabbit) 
g- sage grouse 1. other (please specify) 
25. What major reclamation techniques are used for wildlife species? 
(Check as many as apply.) 
  a. special seed mixtures for wildlife used 
  b. seedling transplants for wildlife made (shrubs, trees) 
  c. topography shaped for wildlife 
  d. watering areas provided 
  e. provide space adequate for species’ needs year-round 
26. H$ve other types of wildlife management techniques been employed? 
(Check as many as apply.) 
  a. fencing newly revegetated areas to protect from depredation 
by wildlife 
  b. relocation of nesting or mating grounds 
  c. wildlife transplants onto property 
  d. exclusion of mining critical wildlife habitat 
  e. fencing roads to prevent wildlife-vehicle accidents 
  f. leaving highwalls for predatory bird habitat 
  g. none needed 
  h. other (please specify)  
27. About how many acres have been reclaimed as wildlife habitat to date 
on your mine area(s)?  
Figure 8. Continued 
91 
28. Do you have any fear that wildlife from your properties will damage 
your neighbor's crops or property? 
  a. yes 
 b. no 
29. Excluding the wildlife category, what is your major post-mining and 
reclamation land use? 
   a. range (livestock grazing) 
  b. timber production 
  c. cropland 
  d. hay production 
Figure 8. Continued 
e. residential-commercial 
development 
f. outdoor recreation 
g. other (please specify)