Range relationships of elk and cattle on elk winter range, Crow Creek, Montana by Floyd Albert Gordon A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fish and Wildlife Management Montana State University © Copyright by Floyd Albert Gordon (1968) Abstract: A study of food habits, range distribution, forage utilization, and interspecific relations of elk and cattle was made in 1967-1968 on 50 square miles -of the Crow Creek drainage, Elkhorn Mountains, Montana which was used by elk in winter and cattle in summer. The history of past elk and cattle use of the area was described, A description of the physiography and vegetation was given. One vegetation zone, the Fescue-Wheat-grass Zone, was composed of four types: Juniper-Fescue-Whea'tgrass, Fescue- Wheatgrass, Sagebrush, and Aspen-Willow. During 10 aerial and 37 ground observation trips, 4,077 observations of individual elk in 266 separate groups on the study area were recorded. All elk recorded during winter were on the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone. Ninety percent remained through late winter and early spring. By mid-May in 1968 the majority of elk,had moved off this zone to the Douglas-fir Zone. During the same period in 1967 the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone received 100 percent of the elk use. Major concentrations of elk were noted: 130 animals north of Crow Creek, 175 south of Crow Creek, and 85 in the vicinity of Keating and Johnny Gulches. The majority of adult and yearling males were observed north of Crow Creek. Use of the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone by cattle was described. Elk food habits were determined by examination of 41 sites recently vacated by feeding elk. Forage availability was determined in March. The winter diet was made up of 72 percent grasses and 28 percent forbs. First use of new growth of forbs was noted during late May. Examination of 76 feeding sites recently vacated by cattle indicated that grasses made up 62 percent and forbs 38 percent of the summer diet. The forage species most. preferred by cattle were indicated. Two methods, use of agronomy cages and determination of percent of ungrazed grasses were used to determine forage and bunchgrass utilization, respectively on key elk winter ranges. Factors other than the influence of grazing animals apparently affected the values obtained by the use of agronomy cages, Agropyron spicatum made up a significant portion of elk and cattle diets. Under conditions of heavy snow cover elk were dependent on this grass. Results from measurements of bunchgrass utilization on areas used in common by both animals indicated two areas where potential or severe interspecific competition for Agropyron spicatum existed. Use on other areas did not appear excessive. (  RANGE RELATIONSHIPS OF ELK AND CATTLE ON ELK WINTER RANGE, CROW CREEK, MONTANA by FLOYD ALBERT GORDON A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fish and Wildlife Management Approved: HeadyM&j'or Department % /£?W_ Cl . Chairman5 Examining Committee C MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana December, 1968 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT ■ To the following, among others, the author wishes to express appreci­ ation for their contributions to this study: Dr. Don C . Quimby, Montana State University, who directed the study and aided in preparation of the manuscript; Mr. LeRoy Ellig, Mr. Joseph L. Egan, Mr. John H. Ormiston and other personnel of District Three, Montana Fish and Game Department, for field assistance and cooperation; Mr. John Antonich, District Ranger, and all personnel of Townsend Ranger District, Helena National Forest, for assistance and cooperation; Dr. W . E..Booth, Montana State University, for aid in verification of plant specimens and for critical reading of the manu­ script; Dr. Robert L. Eng and Dr. Richard J . Graham, Montana State Univer­ sity, for critical reading of the manuscript; my wife, Kathryn, for patience, encouragement, and assistance. During the study the author was supported by the Montana Fish and Game Department under Federal Aid Projects Nos. W-73-R-12, W-73-R-13, Ws73-R-14, and W-98-R-8 and W-98-R-9. " iv TABLE OP CONTENTS VITA.... . . . . . . ... ,.v..... . ACKNOWLEDGMENT... . . . . . . . . . . ..... . TABLE OF C O N T E N T S .. . . . . ___ _ LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . .1. L LIST OF, FIGURES....'.1.,. .... .. . . . . . . . ’ , ■ ■■ ■ ' ' ABSTRACT........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . -..I..,... INTRODUCTION....____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA... ...... METHODS.... . » » * ^ k » • % ♦ s, « * * 1 •» ••••■,• • • j» ♦, • '* • • • e.f • • »1 «, *k » * » • # 1# * • i t ' , ' • • ' ■ ' 1 ; Vegeta tion ...! .............. ........................................■......... .......... , .Distnbi(tion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ■»..«., .... ....\ ... Food Habits . . : . . . . ..v v i v . : . ' ; . U t i l i z a t i o n . . . . . » . . . v . .1.i« . . . . . . . . . . « . .1»......■• ■. . . . . . . . «.» • . • ' ' . ' VEGETATION... Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . l.. .. C   C. . ....... . "    .... .. !"#. #l   #!"l   .... . . • :  .$ C%. ............. . . . . . & %.. !''( C%.  ............... •___ ■ )*!%.l.. .. C   C%......... Doualas-fir Zone... . . . . . . . . . ..... Page il ill ’ iv vi • 'iii : : iIc :■ I . 3 . ' 5 • ' 5 5 6 ■6 9 9 9 13 13 13 16 16 17 ■" V/1 "I-:;.' AFM DISTRIBUTION AND RANGE USE.. Elk.... Cattle. 19 21 FOOD HABITS. . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . 28 Elk. . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . ... .... . ....... 28 Cattle... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 VTABLE OF CONTENTS Page (continued) UTILIZATION.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..... . 39 RANGE RELATIONSHIPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .... .... Tl7 APPENDIX.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 LITERATURE CITED 51 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Rage . I. CANOPY COVERAGES AND FREQUENCIES OF TAXA FOR GRASSES, FORBS AND LOW-GROWING SHRUBS ON THE FESCUE-WHEATGRASS ZONE AS DETERMINED BY MEASUREMENTS WITHIN TWENTY 2 X 5 DECIMETER PLOTS. ON EACH OF TWENTY-FIVE STANDS. . . . . . . . . . 10 I II. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF ELK ON THE FESCUE-WHEATGRASS ZONE AND ADJACENT DOUGLAS-FIR ZONE BY MONTHS AS DETERMINED DURING AERIAL OBSERVATIONS IN 1967 AND 1968. . . . 20 HI. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF ELK WITHIN THE FESGUE-WHEATGRASS ZONE BY MONTHS AS DETERMINED DURING GROUND OBSERVATION TRIPS IN 1967 AND 1 9 6 8 . . .. .... . . . . . . . . . 20 IV. PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF CATTLE BY SEASON AND/OR MONTH ON VEGETATION TYPES AND/OR SUBTYPES AS DETERMINED BY OBSERVATIONS DURING THE SUMMER OF 1967.......... ............... 24 V. STOCKING RATE ON PASTURES ONE, TWO AND FOUR OF THE NORTH CROW CATTLE ALLOTMENT UNDER THE REST-ROTATION GRAZING SYSTEM DURING THE SUMMER OF 1967........... ............■ 27 VI. FOOD HABITS OF ELK BY VEGETATION TYPE AND MONTH AS DE­ TERMINED FROM 9,312 INSTANCES OF USE ON 41 FEEDING SITES IN THE WINTER OF 1968 AND THE SPRING OF 1967...... .... 29 VII. FOOD HABITS OF CATTLE BY MONTH AS DETERMINED FROM 19,405 INSTANCES‘OF USE ON 76 FEEDING SITES IN THE SUMMER OF VIII. FOOD HABITS OF CATTLE BY VEGETATION TYPE OR SUBTYPE AS DETERMINED FROM 19,405 INSTANCES OF USE ON 76 FEEDING SITES IN THE SUMMER OF 1967................ . . . . . . . 36 IX. FORAGE UTILIZATION BY ELK DURING THE WINTER AND EARLY SPRING OF 1967 AMD 1968 AND SUBSEQUENT REGROWTH OF GRASSES PRIOR TO USE BY CATTLE ON AREAS A THROUGH G AS DETERMINED FROM PLACEMENT OF AGRONOMY CAGES. . . . . . . . . . . 40 X. GRASS AND FORB UTILIZATION BY CATTLE AS DETERMINED ON AREAS A THROUGH G BY THE PLACEMENT OF AGRONOMY CAGES DURING THE SUMMER OF 1967... ....... . . . . . . . . . . . .... 41 vii LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table Page XI. UTILIZATION OF (%(* %! C+, l.C !- $(.!. AND l.C  .'' AS DETERMINED BY THE UNGRAZED PLANT TECHNIOUE ON AREAS A THROUGH G DURING. 1967 AND 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 XII. PLANT SPECIES WITH LESS THAN ONE PERCENT AVERAGE CANOPY COVERAGE IN VEGETATION TYPES OR SUBTYPES AS DETERMINED BY MEASUREMENTS WITHIN 2 X 5 DECIMETER PLOTS ON EACH OF TWENTY-FIVE STANDS... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 ; ■ '.V viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Rage 1. Map of the Crow Creek Study Area. ............... . . . . . . . . . 4 2. An Agronomy Cage Placed on an Idaho Fescue Subtype North of South Fork Crow Creek.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Fescue-Wheatgrass Type (Bluebunch Wheatgrass Subtype) in the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone Near Jenkins Gulch. . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Fescue-Wheatgrass Type (Idaho Fescue-Rough Fescue Subtype) in the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone Near Jenkins Gulch.. . . . . . . . 14 5. Fescue-Wheatgrass Type (Idaho Fescue Subtype) in the Fescue Wheatgrass Zone Near Jenkins Gulch...-,.. . . . . . .... 15 6. Sagebrush Type, Foreground, and Aspen-Willow Type, Background, in the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone on Jenkins Gulch.... . . . . . . 15 7. Juniner-Fescue-Wheatgrass Type in the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone Near Jenkins Gulch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 18 8. Douglas-fir Zone as Represented by an Isolated Stand of Douglas-fir Near Jenkins Gulch....... .... . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Study Area Showing Areas of Concentration of Elk and Cattle on the North and South Crow Cattle Allotments...... . 22 ix ABSTRACT A study of food habits, range distribution, forage utilization, and interspecific relations of elk and cattle was made in 1967-1968 on 50 square miles -of the Crow Creek drainage, Elkhorn Mountains, Montana which was used by elk in winter and cattle in summer. The history of past elk and cattle use of the area was described, A description of the physio­ graphy and vegetation was given. One vegetation, zone, the Fescue-Wheat-. grass Zone, was composed of four types: Juniper-Fescue-Whea'tgr-ass, Fescue- Wheatgrass, Sagebrush,, and Aspen-Willow. During 10 aerial and 37 ground observation trips, 4,077 observations of individual elk in 266 separate groups on the study area were recorded. All elk recorded during winter were on the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone. Ninety percent remained through late winter and early spring. By mid-May in 1968 the majority of elk,had moved off this zone to the Douglas-fir Zone. During the same period in 1967 the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone received 100 percent of the elk use. Major concentrations of elk were noted: 130 animals north of Crow Creek, 175 south of Crow Creek, and 85 in the vicinity of Keating and Johnny Gulches. The majority of adult and yearling males were observed north of Crow Creek. Use of the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone by cattle was described. Elk food habits were determined by examination of 41 sites recently vacated by feeding elk. Forage availability was determined in March. The winter diet was made up of 72 percent grasses and 28 percent forbs. First use of new growth of forbs was noted during late May. Examination of 76 feeding sites recently vacated by cattle indicated that grasses made up 62 per­ cent and.forbs 38 percent of the summer diet. The forage species most, preferred by cattle were indicated. Two methods, use of agronomy cages and determination of percent of ungrazed grasses were used to determine forage and bunchgrass utilization, respectively, on key elk winter ranges. Factors other than the influence of grazing animals apparently affected the values obtained by the use of agronomy cages,.   /  0 made up a significant portion of elk and cattle diets. Under conditions of heavy snow cover elk were dependent on this grass. Results from measurements of bunchgrass utilization on areas used in.common by both animals indicated two areas where potential or severe interspecific competition for / /  0 existed. Use on other areas did not appear excessive. • ) INTRODUCTION The elk 1/ 2" 3 herd that winters on the Crow Creek drainage, Helena National Forest, West-central Montana, has been subject to controversy since.the initial stocking of elk on this area in 1939. In the early 1940’s range damage attributed to elk was re-. ported by certain ranchers on some areas adjacent to the forest boundary (Montana Fish and Game Department, 1941-1952)„ Most of the herd presently winters within the National Forest. Prior to the creation of Helena National Forest in 1906, Crow Creek drainage was'utilized as free range for livestock. By 1948 the Forest Service had stabilized cattle numbers at approximately 1,240 for four to four and one-half months in the spring and summer (USDA, Forest Service, 1921-1968), In the early 1960’s elk numbered about 400 head (Stevens, 1966). Controversy developed over the range relationships of elk and cattle within the National Forest. An investigation of these relationships by Stevens (1966) did not indicate significant interspecific competi­ tion on spring"and summer ranges but suggested that conditions which would increase cattle use on key elk wintering areas would be detri­ mental to elk. His study was primarily concerned with elk spring and summer ranges. In 1967 I began an intensive study of.elk winter range on National Forest land south of Crow Creek. Full time field studies were conducted during the summer of 1967 in conjunction with part time studies in the spring of 1967 and the winter of 1968. Supplementary data were col- -2- lected in autumn of 1967 and spring and summer of 1968. jectives.were the determination of seasonal food habits. The main oh-, forage utiliza­ tion, range distribution and interspecific relations of elk and cattle. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA The general physiography of the ElKhorn Mountains, West-central Montana, was reviewed by Stevens (1966). The study area (Figure I), located on the mountain’s southeast slope, eight miles west of Town­ send is confined to 50 square miles of rolling foothills within the Crow Creek drainage. Elevations range from 5,200 feet on Crow Creek to over 7,000 feet on the prominent ridges. The substratum, primarily sedimentary and volcanic in origin, is exposed as isolated rock out-. crops along ridges and valley sides. Several small granitic intrusions are located south of Crow Creek. . Klepper et a Z-. (1957) reported evidence of two Pleistocene glaciation stages. Average annual temperature at Towns end (elevation,.3,800 feet) is 43.1° F. .Normal annual precipitation is approximately 11 inches. Pre­ cipitation appears to be greater on the study area. Depth of snow varies with elevation. Southern slopes and ridges are generally bare during winter and spring. -4- Figure I. Map of the Crow Creek Study Area. (Modified from Stevens, 1966). METHODS Vegetation I obtained quantitative data on the canopy coverages and frequen­ cies of grassesj forbs and low-growing shrubs using the technique de­ scribed by Daubenmire (1959). Twenty 2 x 5 decimeter plots, five paces apart, along a line were considered a sample unit. Each sample unit was placed within a representative stand of a vegetation type or subtype. Within each plot percent canopy coverage of individual plant species was estimated according to the following classes: Class I = 0-5 percent; Class 2 = 5-25 percent; Class 3 = 25-50 percent; Class 4 = 50-75 percent; Class 5 = 75-95 percent; and Class 6 = 95-100 percent. The midpoints of each class were used to calculate the average percent canopy coverage for each taxon on all plots in a sample unit. Trees and tall shrubs were not quantitatively studied. Plant identi­ fication was verified by W. E. Booth. Scientific and common names follow Booth (1950) and Booth and Wright (1959). Distribution ' I systematically covered routes (Figure I) within the study area with a vehicle or by foot generally on a weekly basis. I served as the observer during each of ten flights over the area in a fixed-wing aircraft. Elk and cattle observed with the aid of a 15X spotting scope and/or 7X binocu­ lars were recorded as to numbers, time of observation, sex, age, behavior, and location relative to geographic areas, vegetation type, and slope exposure. —6— Aerial photographs and a topographic map were used to plot loca­ tions of animals<, Observations were between April I and June 17, 1967 and January 9 and April I, 1968 for elk and from June 10 to October 15, 1967 for cattle. Food Habits I determined the food habits of elk and cattle through examination of feeding sites recently vacated by feeding animals following the method of Cole (1956) and others. One bite on an individually rooted grass or forb stem, shrub leader, or bunchgrass plant was considered one instance of use. The aggregate percentage method described by Martin et czZ,■ (1946) was used to evaluate data. Instances of use for each food item was expressed as a percent of total use on each site. Percentages for all sites were averaged according to vegetation type or subtype and season of use. To help evaluate food preferences, the canopy coverage (availability) of each plant species was estimated within five or ten 2 x 5 decimeter plots spaced along a line transect on each of several selected feeding sites in March for elk and during all summer months for cattle. Availability was compared with usage values. Utilization I determined utilization of bunchgrass by two techniques: use of agronomy cages and the ungrazed plant method. The agronomy cages which were approximately four feet square (Figure 2) and similar to those=de- -7- Figure 2. An Agronomy Cage Placed on an Idaho Fescue Subtype Worth of South Fork Crow Creek. -8- scribed by Stevens (1966), were placed on key elk spring and winter ranges to protect the vegetation from grazing animals. Placement was prior to the use of the ranges by elk in winter and spring and by cattle in summer. Following seasonal use by the respective animals an equal number of o96 square foot plots were selected within and outside each agronomy cage. Vegetation on each plot was clipped at ground level, sub-divided into grasses and forbs, and allowed to air dry before being weighed in grams. Utilization was calculated by finding the difference between the average weights of the unprotected and protected vegetation and expressing this figure as a percent. Data obtained through the use of agronomy cages were supplemented by the ungrazed plant method. This method was also used on certain areas not sampled with the agronomy cages. It consisted of sampling 100 bunchgrass plants along a paced transect to find the percent of un- • grazed plants. A utilization chart .(Cole, 1963) was used to express, percent of grazed plants as percent utilization. / /  20 l2 #'""4 and l "/ were used as key species. VEGETATION The vegetation of the study area, described as part of the grass­ land formation by Daubenmire (1943), was represented by the Fescue- Wheatgrass Zone (Stevens, 1966). There is interfingering between this zone and the adjacent Douglas-fir Zone (Figure I) which typically occurs at higher elevations due to irregular terrain. Fescue-Wheatqrass Zone - The Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone is composed of four types: Juniper-. Fescue-Wheatgrass; Fescue-Wheatgrass; Sagebrush; and Aspen-Willow. The most prominent type south of Crow Creek is the Fescue-Wheatgrass Type. North of Crow Creek the Fescue-Wheatgrass and the Juniper-Fescue-Wheat- grass Types are important. Distribution of the Aspen-Willow Type is restricted. ■ Quantitative data on the vegetation characteristics for three of; the types are shown in Table I. ■ . l.. $. C   C%.5 The Fescue-Wheatgrass Type was sub-divided into three subtypes. These are apparently related to slope exposure' and soil moisture content.  /  6 This subtype (Figure 3), dominated by / /  0 (bluebunch wheatgrass), occurs on xeric southern ex- •? posures. It characteristically presents a bunchgrass appearance. l #!"# (Idaho fescue) shows local dominance on the upper slopes. 7/ / (Junegrass) and % " (Sandberg bluegrass) are other common grasses. .//   (tufted fleabane), /0 TABLE I„ CANOPY COVERAGES AND FREQUENCIES OF TAXA FOR GRASSES, FORBS AND LOW-GROWING SHRUBS ON THE FESCUE-WHEATGRAS'S ZONE AS DETERMINED BY MEASUREMENTS WITHIN TWENTY 2 X 5 DECIMETER PLOTS ON EACH OF TWENTY-FIVE STANDS. ' 'FSscue-Wheatgrass:TypS■ Sagebrush Aspen-Willow . Taxal/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass - Subtype ■ 5■Stands ■ Idaho Fescue- Rough Fescue Subtype ■• 4 Stands ..... Idaho Fescue • Subtype ■7 Stands ' Type 3 Stands ' 'Type 6 Stands GRASS AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS' / / 0 28/961/ 1/18 / /  28 7/43 11/66 7/40 - /0 0/ - - - 13/44 /9 spp. - 1/11 - - 2/6 .0 spp. - - - - 2/10 l " 20/65 36/100 48/99 8/43 - l "/ - 19/55 - 5/12 - 7/ /  8/74 1/30 5/59 2/13 — % " 7/46 - 1/9 - - % spp. - 3/34 - 9/57 68/100   0 2/11 - - -   spp.. - - - - ■ 1/8 Total Average Cover 65 67 65 31 87 FORBS  0:0 1/8 3/44 1/4 6/42 ' 8/47 /  1/6 2/14 1/2 3/23 - / / 1/13 5/55 3/37 - - //  - . 2/34 - — - / : - - - 2/13 - . /0 :/" . 5/41 1/8 1/18 - - / / 2/28 5/26 3/34 - -  80 5/45 ■ - 1/6 - TABLE I. (CONTINUED). , 'FesCuhrWheAtgrass Type Sagebrush ' Aspen-Willow Bluebunch' Idaho Fescue- Idaho ■ Type Tvoe Wheatgrass'■ Rough Fescue Fescue Subtype . Subtype Subtype ■ T ax a. 5 Stands . ■ 4 • Stands ■ 7 ■ Stands■ 3 Stands 6 Stands  /' 0" 1/5 ' . _ — _ : — - 1/3 10/38 - 0  — — - 1/7 — -" :0 _ 4/46 - - — - 0 1/9 - 1/11 - — .   5/48 2/19 5/39 - - l  - — - 1/7 1/7 0 :0 - 10/43 - - - '00 0 - 1/9 - - '   2/12 10/30 1/4 8/40 - , spp. - - - 7/28 , "0 3/17 1/20 - - - % spp. - 3/8 - - - 9: 0 - 2/19 - - - C90 spp. - 4/38 1/9 5/41 70/99 + 0 - - - 2/27 - + spp. - - - - 7/21 ;"  - 3/31 - - - Total Average Cover 22 63 17 30 103 SHRUBS 0 " 0 — - 33/77 %2": - 1/8 1/5 - Total Average Cover I I 33 TABLE I. (CONTINUE!)% Taxa Fescue-Wheatgrass Type' ''Sagebrush Aspen-Willow Bluebunch Wheatgrass Subtype 5 Stands Idaho Fescue- Rough Fescue Subtype 4 Stands Idaho. Fescue Subtype ,7 Stands Tvne ■ 3 Stands. Sfcs ■ 6 Stands Litter 54/97 49/73 34/96 75/100 79/96 Mosses 1/19 30/85 24/92 - — Soil 20/61 2/14 1/13 4/30 5/17 . Rock 11/88 3/33 6/53 — I/ Includes only those with more than one percent average canopy coverage for at least one vegetation type or subtype= 2/ Canopy coverage-mean percent of all plots covered by foliage. Frequency-mean percent occurrence among plots. X -13- :/" (fringed sagewort) s , Ctivapicabim4 '  / (silky- lupine) and /  (prairie miIkvetch) are important forks. !" l2 l2  6 This subtype (Figure 4) is preva­ lent on mesic northern exposures and certain drainage basins. l2 " is the dominant grass. l2 " (rough fescue) shows local dominance on the more mesic sites. Other common grasses are    0 and % spp. (bluegrasses). The uniform appearance of the vegetation is due to the luxuriant growth of abundant forks. The most prominent species are '  24 0 :0 (prairiesmoke),  0 (Mttentail)s    (rose pussytoes), / 4 -" 2:0 (southern shooting star), and C/920 spp, (dandelion). 0 2": (green rabbitbrush) is the only important shrub. !" l2  6 The dominant speciess l"4 gives a subdued bunchgrass appearance to this subtype (Figure 5) which commonly occurs on ridgetops. Other common grasses are  /  0 and 7 2< Average canopy coverage of forks is quite similar to that of the Bluebunch Wheatgrass Subtype and considerably less than in the Idaho Fes­ cue-Rough Fescue Subtype. Important forbs are . 2 4   +4 / 4 and /0 :" The only common shrub is 0 2":  .$ C%. This type (Figure 6), found primarily along stream drainages and on -14- Figure 3. Fescue-Wheatgrass Type (Bluebunch Wheatgrass Subtype) in the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone Near Jenkins Gulch. Figure 4. Fescue-Wheatgrass Type (Idaho Fescue-Rough Fescue Subtype) in the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone Near Jenkins Gulch. -15- Figure 5 Fescue-Wheatgrass Type (Idaho Fescue Subtype) in the Fescue- Wheatgrass Zone Near Jenkins Gulch. Figure 6. Sagebrush Type, Foreground, and Aspen-Willow Type, Background, in the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone on Jenkins Gulch. -16- protected slopes, is interspersed throughout the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone, 0' " (big sagebrush) is the dominant plant „ 0  (rubber rabbitbrush) is common on certain sites„ Important understory grasses include % spp„, l " and    0 '  4 0:0 (yarrow), C9 spp., and   (pale agoseris) are common forbs, %.* !''( C%. Most drainage bottoms and mesic sites are characterized by open or closed stands of %  0" (quaking aspen) and/or 9 spp. (willow) (Figure 6)„ Prominent understory shrubs include  0 (redshoot gooseberry) and-A./nus : (thin leaf alder). • % spp6 are the dominant grasses within and adjacent to stands of %  spp6 and 9 spp. 0 0 (mountain brome) is important on scattered sites. C90 spp. is the most common forb. )*!%.l.. $. C   C%. This type (Figure 7), dominated by )  &  0 (Rocky Moun-r tain juniper), normally occurs on xeric southern slopes. On some sites )   0 is found interspersed with %" 0= (Douglas-fir) and/or 0 "< There are isolated stands of % :9 (limber pine) and % " (antelope bitterbrush) in this type adjacent.to the south fork,of Crow Creek. The grass-forb understory appears to be a continuation of the Bluebunch Wheatgrass Subtype. -17- Douglas-fir Zone The Douglas-fIr Zone is represented on the study area by isolated stands of l" 0= (Figure 8) which vary in age. Most of the trees are on north-facing slopes at the upper limits of the Fescue- Wheatgrass Zone. —18- Figure 7. Juniper-Fescue-Wheatgrass Type in the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone Near Jenkins Gulch. Figure 8. Douglas-fir Zone as Represented by an Isolated Stand of Douglas-fir Near Jenkins Gulch. DISTRIBUTION AND RANOE USE Elk I recorded 4,077 observations of individual elk in 266 separate groups on the study area during 10 aerial and 37 ground observation trips. Aerial observations were used to determine percent distribution of elk within the Fescue-IJheatgrass and Douglas-fir Zones (Table II) . During the winter of 1968 all elk recorded were on the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone. A few animals were observed on the Douglas-fir Zone in late win­ ter and early spring. By mid-May the majority of elk had moved off the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone and were using snow-free openings within the Douglas-fir Zone„ During the same period the previous year continuous snow cover in the Douglas-fir.Zone apparently delayed the movement of elk from the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone, Distribution of elk within the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone as determined during ground observations is shown in Table III. During April, 1967, I observed a majority of elk on the Fescue-Wheatgrass Type. These observa­ tions may be biased because I was in the process of becoming familiar with the area but the fact that even greater concentrations of elk oc­ curred on this type during the winter months of 1968 suggests my obser­ vations for April were indicative of the types used. In May concentrations of elk on the Sagebrush Type were apparently related to the melting of snow and the.resulting availability of green grass. The Fescue-Wheatgrass Type, adjacent to the Douglas-fir Zone, was observed to have the greatest use by elk during June. -20- TABLE II0 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF ELK ON THE FESCUE-WHEATGRASS ZONE AND ADJACENT DOUGLAS-FIR ZONE BY MONTHS AS DETERMINED DURING AERIAL OBSERVATIONS IN 1967 AND 1968„ Year Month Number of Flights Fescue- Wheatgrass Zone Douglas- fir Zone Number Elk Observed 1967 May I' 100 - 187 1968 January 2 100 _ 686 February 2 ■ 100 - 533 March 2 90 10 537 April 2 92 8 460 May I 45 55 200 TABLE III0 PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF ELK WITHIN THE FESCUE-WHEATGRASS ■ ZONE BY MONTHS AS DETERMINED DURING GROUND.OBSERVATION TRIPS IN 19.67 AND 1968. ' Year Fescue- Wheatgrass Month Type Sage­ brush Type Aspen- Willow Type Juriiper- Fescue- Wheatgrass . Type Douglas-, - firi/ No. Elk Observed 1967 April 82 — - 6. 12 178 May 23 73 I 3 312 June 72 28 - - - 43 April-June 46 45 - 3 6 533 1968 January 94 — . — — 6 144 February 100 - - -. - 182 March January- 87 10 . 3 615 March 91 7 2 933 I/ Isolated stands within the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone.. -21- Elk were not evenly distributed over the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone. Major groups of concentration were noted (Figure 9). Approximately 130 animals, including 13 adult and 15 yearling males, wintered between Eagle Basin and Sagebrush Gulch north of Crow Creek. Sagebrush Gulch was used primarily during periods of heavy snow cover. Approximately 175 elk wintered south of Crow Creek. Following a storm in early January I observed the majority using the bared ridges on Big Mountain. In­ creasingly mild temperatures allowed a general movement to the head of Muddy Lake Creek. Extensive use was made of ridges and predominantly southern slopes. Approximately 85 head wintered in the vicinity of Keating and Johnnv Gulches adjacent to the southern forest boundary. A marked movement from Keating Gulch to Johnny Gulch during April, 1968, may have been partially related to disturbances created by extensive use of snowmobiles in the area. Few adult or yearling males were observed in either group south of Crow Creek. The lower limit of continuous show cover appeared.to coincide with the upper limit of elk distribution. At no time were elk observed more than one mile from a stand of Douglas-fIr. Cattle The study area was grazed from June 10 to October 15, 1967 by ap­ proximately 1,035 cattle. A rider was employed by the cattle associa­ tion to distribute the cattle evenly over the range. Areas of concentration are shown in Figure 9. The range had been divided into two cattle allotments: the North Crow and the South Crow (Figure 9). The South Crow Cattle Allotment, Figure 9. Study Area Showing Areas of Concentration of Elk and Cattle on the North and South Cattle Allotments. (Modified from Stevens, 1966.) -23- which, in general, was important winter and early spring elk range, was divided into spring and summer ranges for cattle by the Slim Sam "drift" fence. Six-hundred and five cows with calves and approximately eight bulls were placed on the spring range June 10 for about one month. Most used the Sagebrush and Juniper-Fescue-Wheatgrass Types and the Blue- bunch Wheatgrass Subtype (Table IV). Cool and cloudy weather allowed them to feed throughout the day. In mid-July a majority of animals was placed above Slim Sam "drift" fence on the summer range which lies primarily in the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone and extends into the Douglas-fir Zone. Maximum use was made of slopes in the cooler periods .of the day with cattle retiring to the Aspen-Willow Type during mid-day. Due to the availability of lush forbs and grasses most of the use in July occurred on the Aspen-Willow Type and. Idaho Fescue-Bough-Fescue Subtype. There was a significant increase .. in use-of the Bluebunch Wheatgrass Subtype in August. This change was ■ correlated with the drying of succulent forbs on the bottoms and north slopes. During September a pattern of use similar to that of August was ob­ served. In October a decrease in cattle use on the Idaho Fescue-Rough Fescue Subtype was noted with an accompanying increase in use of the Idaho Fescue and Bluebunch Wheatgrass Subtypes. The North Crow Allotment, located primarily within the Fescue- Wheatgrass Zone, ■ consists of six pastures managed under a rest-rotation system of grazing. Pastures one, two, and four, (Figure 9) used as winter TABLE IV, PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF CATTLE BY SEASON AND/OR MONTH ON VEGETATION TYPES AND/OR SUBTYPES AS DETERMINED BY OBSERVATIONS DURING THE SUMMER OF 1967, .. ' FescUe-Wheatgrass ZoAe ' ' ' ' ' Fescue- Juniper- Wheatgrass.'"' Sage- Aspen- Fescue- Type brush Willow Wheatgrass Douglas-■ .... I/ : • 3,/• ■ .Type • • . Type • ■ ■ ■ .'Type ■ fir kj . Percent SOUTH CROW ' "" : CATTLE' ALLOTMENT Spring Range: 433$/June 10_ Cows 31 - 3 30 i 33 2 54 July 10 Calves 34 - 3 27 2 33 358 44 Bulls ' 46 • - — 23 — 23 8 13 2 Total 33 - 3 28 2 33 I 804 Summer Range: July 10-31 Cows 7 26 11. 14 38 I 3 1,190 55 Calves 7 26 13 14 36 I 3 959 44 Bulls 15 • 8 ' 15 8 46 — 8 ... I3 I Total 7 26 12 14 37 I 3 2,162 August . Cows ■ 42 14 15 .. 2 27 - t 2,100 53 Calves 42 14 14 2 27 — ' t 1,845 46 Bulls 18 ■ 23 3 J5 51 — t 39 I Total 42 14 14 2 27 - t 3,984 September Cows 39 17 15 - 28 t I 818 53 Calves 41 16 14 - 28. t I 717 46 Bulls 45_ 35. 5 15 — 20 I Total 40 17 14. - 28 t I 1,555 October I- Cows 50 3 20 - : 26 I - 343 50 15 Calves 46 I 20 - 32 I - 340 49 Bulls''14'. — ■ 29 — 57 — — 7 I Total 48 2 20 — - 29 I 690 TABLE IV. (CONTINUED) ‘Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone Fescue-: • Wheatgrass Type .1/ 2/.■ 3/ Sage­ brush Type Aspen- . Willow Type Juniper- Fescue- Wheatgrass Type Douglas- , fir ■ ■' Percent NORTH CROW CATTLE ALLOTMENT June 10- Cows 34 11 8 34 12 I 894 52 October 15 Calves 31 9 7 39 12 I 803 47 Bulls 16 16 ' 8 48 • 12 _ • - 25 I Total 32 11 8 36 12 1,722 ’ 4/ Isolated stands within the Fescue- T-Jheatgrass Zone. >? t indicates that less than one percent were observed. 6/ Total number of cattle observations. I/ Bluebunch Wheatgrass Subtype. 2/ Idaho Fescue-Rough Fescue Subtype. 3/ Idaho Fescue Subtype. -26- and spring range by elk, were important to this study (Table V)„ On June 10, 1967 approximately 7 bulls and 429 cows with calves were placed on pastures one.and two= Cattle on pasture two were moved in.early July to pasture four for the remainder of the season. In August cattle on pasture one were removed. The majority of cows observed during the grazing season were.on slopes and ridges within the Fescue-Wheatgrass Type (Table IV), prime!-. pally on the Bluebunch Wheatgrass Subtype. Important use was also ob­ served on the Sagebrush Type, especially during the cool, rainy period of June when use on this type exceeded use on all, others = As .the.days became warmer use of those types other than the Aspen-Willow Type occurred only in the .early morning and late evening hours or on cool, cloudy days. -27- TABLE V. STOCKING RATE ON PASTURES ONE, TWO AND POUR OF THE NORTH CROW CATTLE ALLOTMENT UNDER THE REST-ROTATION GRAZING SYSTEM DURING THE SUMMER OF 1967. Pasture Period Stocking Rate I June 10 - August 10 234 cows 2 June 10 - July 10 195 cows— / 4 July 10 - October 15 195 cows— / 1/ Same animals for the periods indicated. FOOD HABITS Elk I recorded 9,312 instances of use on 41 feeding sites within the Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone during the winter of 1968 and spring of 1967 (Table VI). During winter all feeding sites were on the Fescue-Wheat-■ grass Type. Grasses constituted 72 percent, forbs 26 percent, and browse 2 percent of the diet. Three grasses,  /  04 l "" 4 and % spp. together made-up 66 percent of the diet. Among forbs, '  4 and /0 :" were significant items. In Janu­ ary   . 0 and '   were Used more extensively than other grasses or forbs, respectively, on thbse:sites where low-growing vegetation was covered by crusted snow., Use was on the previous year’s growth. l " was apparently preferred when available on ridgetops and where the snow lacked a hard crust. During February, as . compared to January, use on    0 decreased while use on % spp. increased. This was apparently related to increased availability of new growth of the latter which became available as the snow melted. l  " continued to-be an important item in the diet on ridgetops as did '   on snow covered slopes. In March major use of grasses and forbs was on new growth. Among the .grasses    0. continued to decline in importance as % spp., l "4 and 7  increased in relative abundance and use.- A decrease in snow cover was followed by a significant reduction,of '   in the diet. During the spring of 1967 when feeding sites were examined on the TABLE VI. FOOD HABITS OF ELK BY VEGETATION TYPE AND MONTH AS DETERMINED FROM 9,312 INSTANCES OF USE ON 41 FEEDING SITES .IN THE WINTER OF 1968 AND THE SPRING OF 1967. Fescue-VJheatgraAs ' •'•Type Fescue-Wheatgrass Type Sagebrush Type Jan, Feb. ■ March Total April May May Total 2/ Winter Spring 11 3/ 5 . •- 18 34. 2 2 3 7(2518)- (1279) (4503) (8300) ■ ■ (164) • (410) (438) ■(1012) % of % of %. Qf % of % of % of % of % of % of I / Diet Diet Diet Commun-- Diet Diet Diet Diet Diet ■ ■ Taxa- ity GRASS AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS 4/ / /  0 32 20 10 21 8 2 I 5 /9 spp. I - - - t - - - - .0 spp. - I - I I ' - - - - l !""@ 25 . 25 31 7 27 49 3 33 34 l / @) & I . t I I - 48 31 20 7/ / I I 9 I 4 - - - — % spp. 5 18 32 ^5/ 18 t 39 17 14  0 - - I *2.' A - - - - Unknown grasses — t * t t 2 I Total Grasses 64 66 83 72 . 57 92 84 73 FORBS  0:0 t I t A t - t I t /  - - t * t — t t t / / - - • 2 . * I - - - - //  - - - I - - - - - /0 :/" 4 7 3 I 5 - - - - / / 2 t t * I - - - - /   2 2 . I * 2 - - - - /0 spp. - - - • - - - 2 - I - 0 2/ - - - - - - - 2 I -" :/0 - - - - - - 3 6 3 TABLE VI.' (CONTINUED). Taxa Fescue-Wheatgrass Type. Fescue-Wheatgrass ■ • ■ Type>■■■•' Sagebrush Type Total Spring 7 (1012) Jan. . 11 (2518) Feb. . 5 (1279) March 18 (4503) Total Wint er 34 (8300) ' April 2 (164) . May 2 (410) May 3 (438) % of Diet % of. Diet % of % of Diet. Commun­ ity % o f . Diet % of Diet % of Diet % of Diet % of Diet ./   5 2 t t 2 - - - . — 0 /:00 - - 2 I I - - - - '  / 16 19 8 I 14 14 - - 7 C/  " t t t * t 16 - - 8 Unknown forbs t . t t "13 _3 ■ '_4 _-9- Total Forbs ■ 29 31 16 .26 43 8 13 .28 SHRUBS /20  ": / 5 t t * 2 - - - - C/"0 22 t ____t - I t - - — — Total Shrubs 5 t t 2 - ’ I/ Only taxa constituting at least one percent of the diet for at least one month and/or one percent of the canopy coverage in March are included. 2/ Number of feeding sites. 3/ Total instances of use. 4/ Percent of community as determined during measurements of canopy coverages in March, Ss/ t or * indicates values are less than one percent. -31- F es cue-Wheat gras s and Sagebrush Types the diet was made up of 7 3 percent grasses and 28 percent forbs. This correlates with the findings'of Stevens■(1966). Three grasses, l "A l2 2"/ and % spp. together composed 68 percent of the diet. During April l "#' apparently was the preferred plant species on the Fescue- Wheatgrass Type. A significant use of dry forbs on this type was re­ corded on one snow covered site in early April even though ridges and south slopes were relatively free of snow. The indicated minor use on % spp. was probably related to retarded "green up" due to a late spring and the limited number of feeding sites taken during the period. In May extensive use on the new growth of l "+ and % spp. was re­ corded on mesic sites within the Fescue-Wheatgrass Type. First use on I new growth of forbs was noted during late May. On the Sagebrush Type the grasses, l #!"!4 l "4 and % spp. were used extensively. Cattle- - ' I recorded 19,405 instances of use on 76 feeding sites during the sum­ mer of 1967. Food habits by month are shown in Table VII. Grasses made up 62 percent and forbs 38 percent of the total summer diet. The grasses,    0 and % spp. together made up 39 percent of the total seasonal diet. .   and C920 spp. were the forbs used most extensively.   0 and % spp., the two grasses utilized most in June were apparently preferred by cattle. C90 TABLE VII. FOOD HABITS OF CATTLE BY MONTH AS DETERMINED FROM 19,405 INSTANCES OF USE ON 76 FEEDING SITES IN THE SUMMER OF 1967. " June July August September June-September 8 Feeding 31 Feeding 23 Feeding 14 Feeding 76 Feeding Sltesn , ■ Sites Sites Sites Sites (2854)6/ (6976) - ' ' (6115) ' ' ' ' ' (3460) (19.405) % of % o f . % of % of % of % of % of % of % of ■ I/ ■ ■ Taxa-* Diet Commun- Diet Commun- Diet Commun- Diet Commun- Diet ' TtY ity ity ity GRASS AND GRASSLIKE' PLANTS / / 0 25 n i / 2 2 5 3 I * 8 / /  0 4„ , 2 17 12 26 15 40 22 22 /0 0/ B I I ™ * - 3 t /0 0 12 12 I < — - - - 3 /9 spp.' t * 2 3 2 I I * I l "" I 5 I 20 2 28 9 27 3 l "/ t 2 2 3 2 * - * I 7/ /   t I t 3 t I 3 3 I % " I I I 2 t I - A 2 % spp. 22 16 ' 29 25 13 8 5 .3 17   0 6 I t I t *: 6 A 3 Unknown grasses 2 - - t — CD — . I Total Grasses 73 56 50 67 62 FORBS " 0:0 t I t 5 t 2 I t / E t * 9 6 2. 2 - ' - 3 28 / - 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 — //  - - - I - I - A - 0 : - - t I. - t - t /0 :/" — 2 t I t I - 2 t / spp. - - t I t * t A t / / 0  t * 8 3 16 3 2 A 7 &/": - I ■ * ■ t ■ * - A t TABLE VII. (CONTINUED)„ June ■ July August September June-September 8 Feeding 31 Feeding 23 Feeding 14 Feeding 76 Feeding Sites Sites Sites Sites Sites (2854) (6976) (6115) (3460) (19.405) % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Diet Commun- Diet Commun- Diet Commun-- Diet Commun- Diet Taxa ity ity ity ity /  0" - — 2 2 I A - - I /:/ 2 2 t 3 t A - A I .//  # t I . I 2 17 7 27 5 11 .// spp. - t • - I t A t A t $ spp. - - 2 2 ' 4 3 - A 2 $/0 spp. - - - - I I - - t '00 //0 - - t I 3 A - - I '  /2 - I - 11 t 6 I 9 t (9/  / - — ■ - - t I I t t , "/0 - I . — * . - A - - - % spp. - - . t I t I - 2 t C/920 spp. ' 21 30 16 26 4 13 t 6 10 C/  " t * 2 * t A I A I C/:0 spp. - - t A 2 A I A I + spp. t * t 2 - A - - t Unknown forbs _1 - t - t - _2 - JL Total Forbs 24 41 50 . 35 38 SHRUBS /0 /" /0 - 2 . - * - - - - - 2":/ - I - I - I - I - C/"0 22 - - I — I 4 — Total Shrubs - - - . - - I/ Only .taxa constituting at ..least one per.cent * 1T TABLE X. (CONTINUED). Range a> Location R ^ ....- ■ • • September • IO-Oetober ■ 15 ■ ■ ■ .U n it . . . 2 7 700/500/29 3 4 300/300/ 0 D 6 200/100/50 I ™ o— — 2 7 700/700/ 0 3 4 600/400/33 5 6 200/300/ - 1 2 7 800/500/38 3 4 500/900/ - 5 6 400/400/ 0 1 2 — — — G 2 I - - 2 3 I 100/ 100/ 0 200/ 200/ 0 200/ 200/ 0 200/100/50 100/ 100/ 0 400/100/75 200/ 200/ 0 200/400/ - 1100/400/64 ■ •■•July■IO-Octob er 15 - ■ ■ ■Grasses . . . . . Forbs~ 400/400/ 0 300/200/33 700/700/ 0 0/ 0/ 0 600/100/83 1300/400/69 600/400/34 0/100/ - 600/500/17 200/200/ 0 500/200/60 400/200/50 600/200/67 300/100/67 800/500/37 100/100/ 0 500/200/60 . 600/100/83 600/800/ - . 400/500/ - 600/600/ 0 600/200/67 800/1000/- 600/200/67 600/200/67 '200/300/.-. ■ 100/100/ 0 300/100/66 100/200/ - 200/200/ 0 200/ 0/100 0/100/ - 600/200/67 400/100/75 I/.Indicates total year-long'forage production in pounds per acre. 2/ Pounds per acre within cage/pounds per acre outside cage/percent utilization. —43— divided between areas A, Bg and Cg were moved twice after initial place-. ment in July to provide an indication of cattle use on forage as the sum­ mer progressed„ In Table X it is apparent that utilization values vary considerably among the three one-month periods with no definite patterns of use being readily detected. The remaining 17 agronomy cages were used to provide data for the total summer utilization by cattle of grasses and forbs. Overall light use of grasses and forbs occurred on upper and middle slopes of areas A and B while heavy use occurred on lower slopes. This pattern of utiliza­ tion coincides with the known distribution of cattle. It disagrees, how­ ever , with values obtained monthly throughout the summer on the same areas. Data from areas C 9 E9 F9 and G gave variable results for the entire sum­ mer period when compared with known cattle distribution and with cattle food habits as they relate to the relative abundance of plant species. Factors other than the influence of grazing animals apparently affected the values obtained by the use of agronomy cages. The most obvious f'ac- . tor appears to be the difficulty in selecting suitable sites for placement of the cages for comparison with sites outside the cages. This is due to the heterogeneous nature of the vegetation. A large number of cages would minimize this, but the number of cages and time available during my study were limiting factors. The results from measurements of bunchgrass utilization on areas A through G during 1967 and 1968 are shown in Table XI, Approximately 50 percent was considered the allowable level of bunchgrass utilization on TABLE XI.. UTILIZATION H! (%(* %! C, l.C !- $(.*! AND l.C  .'' AS DETERMINED BY THE UNGRAZED PLANT TECHNIQUE ON AREAS A THROUGH G DURING.1967 AND 1968. ' ■ ’ 1967 ... ' ' ''' ' 1968 Range Location ....August'' ' '"September,. . 'October: ■ ''February Unit ■ Area ■■ On Slope• AGSP.....FESG ' ■ ■•; AGSP.... ■ 1AGSP ....FESG■ ....AGSP ■ AGSP ■ FEID Big A Upper 'Oi/ 0 0 4 5 7 Mountain Middle 0 0 0. - o2/ 0 0 Lower 0 9. 37 - X-7 X X B Upper 0 0 0 - 0 0 . 0 Middle 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 Lower 3 20 33 - X X X Jenkins C Upper 0 0 7 - 12 17 0 Ridge Middle 0 0 0 - 0 0 ™ Lower 0 0 32 - X X X Slim Sam D Upper 0 0 5 - 38 36 15 Point Lower 0 0 34 - X X X Jenkins E Middle 0 0 I - X X X Ridge Lower 0. 2 - 8 - X X X F Upper 0 0 0 - 5 3 4 Middle 0 0 8 8 X X X Lower 18 40 58 - X X X G Upper 0 0 0 - 4 . 15 8 !F Indicates total utilization in percent. 2/ X indicates inability to measure utilization due to snow coverage or breakage of mature grasses. -45- elk winter ranges (Cole3 1963). During the summer of 1967 little cattle use of  /  20 occurred on the upper and middle slopes. No measurements of l !" were undertaken during this period. Direct observation of cattle as well as data concerning their food habits indicated only minor use on this relatively abundant grass. On lower slopes, adjacent to bottoms used extensively by cattle, utilization, levels on    0 increased from light use in August to moderate or heavy use by October. The overall pattern of light utilization on ridge- tops and heavy utilization on the lower slopes corresponds to the known cattle distribution for this period. During the following winter and spring measurements of bunchgrass utilization were confined primarily to snowfree upper and middle slopes. Elk use through the winter of     0 and l " on such slopes was light on areas A 3 B 3 C3 F3 and G while moderate use of /   0 was recorded for the upper slopes of area D. During the winter and early spring of 1968 additional areas which showed heavy use by elk were sampled by the ungrazed plant method. Utili­ zation figures represent combined 1967-1968 cattle and elk use. On the upper north end of Big Mountain east of area B 3 use on    0 averaged 28 .percent (7-45) among eight transects. Utilization of l " averaged 20 percent (1-39) among five transects. On the upper end of Jenkins Ridge west of area F use on    0 as deter­ mined by four transects averaged 41 percent (25-50). A cattle bedding ground is located on this area. Two transects on the high ridge northwest -46- of Muddy Lake Creek indicated heSvy use of / ?   (78-80+). Most of this was considered Winter-elk use although salt was placed high on this ridge to aid in the distribution of cattle. The 6,900 foot ridge immediately south of the head of Muddy Lake Creek had utilization levels    /  0 ranging from 10 to 67 percent and averaging 31 per­ cent as determined by .six transects. On the south perimeter of■Eagle ■ i ,■ • - » Basin adjacent to a 7^000 foot ridge heavy use (80+) : .     0 as determined by use of two transects was found on south slopes and ridge- tops.adjacent to a salting area. Extensive use of the area by cattle was indicated by the large number of cattle droppings. There was heavy spring use.by elk on new growth of l C. On certain south slopes and ridges adjacent to Sagebrush Gulch use on /    averaged 47 percent (15-73) among three transects. RANGE RELATIONSHIPS Four conditions necessary for forage competition between big game and livestock have been described by Cole . (1958) and others as follows: (I) that both animals graze the same range, (2) that both animals use the same plants, (3) that the plant species used are important sources of forage for at least one of the animals, and (4) that important sources of forage are in limited supply or deteriorating in production. Utiliza­ tion of ranges or forage plants by big game and livestock need not occur during the same season for competition to exist. Forage availability during any one season may be related to use during a previous season (Blood, 1966). The Fescue-Wheatgrass Zone was grazed from December to May and from early June to mid-October by elk and cattle, respectively. Grasses con­ stituted approximately 73 percent of the winter elk diet and 62 percent of the summer cattle diet. Of the four grasses Used significantly by elk during the winter and/or spring (Table VI). only % spp.. and    0 were important in the summer diet of cattle (Table VII). % spp. made up approximately 17 percent of cattle and elk diets. . Each 1 animal used new growth of this grass rather than mature growth. Little interspecific competition for % spp. appeared to exist.    20 constituted 21 and 5 percent of the winter and spring diets of elk, respectively, and 22 percent of the summer cattle diet. Under conditions of heavy snow cover elk were dependent on this grass. Measurements taken on areas used extensively by elk and cattle indicated potential interspecific competition for    0 —48— on the ridge northwest of Muddy Lake Creek, Utilization was considered primarily elk use, however, the continued placement of salt high on the ridge may lead to increased cattle use and thus a significant degree of interspecific competition. Severe competition for    20 was indicated on Eagle Basin, Heavy utilization was a result of combined use by elk and cattle. Moderate use of    8 on other areas used in common was not believed significant. Any increase, however, in use by cattle may limit the available supply for elk. APPENDIX TABLE XII. PLANT SPECIES WITH LESS THAN ONE PERCENT AVERAGE CANOPY COVERAGE IN VEGETATION TYPES OR SUBTYPES AS DETERMINED BY MEASUREMENTS WITHIN 2 X 5 DECIMETER PLOTS ON EACH OF TWENTY-FIVE STANDS. ................. Bluebunch Idaho Fescue- Idaho Wheatgrass Rough Fescue Fescue Sagebrush Aspen-Willow Subtype Subtype Subtype Type Type Taxa 5 Stands■■ ■.....4 Stands.... &I & Stands• 3■Stands ■ 6 Stands GRASSES   X X - spp. FORBS 0 spp. X  spp. X X 0 spp. X X X . 0  X X X .0/ 00 X l " X 0 00 X X $" 0  0 X ! 0 X '8 " X C  " X X C:0 spp. X SHRUBS 0  X X .spp. X %  X C"0  X X X LITERATURE CITED Blood, D. A. 1966. Range relationships of elk and cattle in Riding Moun­ tain National Park, Manitoba. Can. Wildl. Serv., Wildl. Mgnit. Bull. Ser. I, No. 19. 62 pp. Booth, W, E. 1950. Flora of Montana, Part I, Conifers and Monocots. ■ Research Foundation at Montana State Coll., Bozeman. 232 pp. ______ and J. C.. Wright. 1959. Flora of Montana, Part II, Dicotyledons, Montana State Coll., Bozeman. 280 pp. Cole, G. F. 1956. The"pronghorn antelope - Its range use and food habits in Central Montana with special reference to alfalfa. Mont. Fish and Game Dept, and Mont, Agr„ Expt, Sta. Tech. Bull. 516. 63 pp. . 1958, Big game-livestock competition on Montana’s mountain rangelands, Mont, Wildl., April: 24-30. . 1963. Range survey guide. U. S. Dept, of the Interior, National Park Service. 22 pp. Daubenmire, R. F. 1943. Vegetational zonation in the Rocky Mountains. ■ Bot, Rev. 9(6): 325-393, . 1959, A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science 33(1): 43-64. Eustace, C. D. 1967. Elk-livestock relationships to the Madison-Wall Creek Game Range. UnpubI. Thesis (M.S.) Montana State Univ., Bozeman. .55 pp. Klepper, M. R,, R, A, Weeks, and E, T. Ruppel. 1957, Geology of the Southern Elkhorn Mountains, Jefferson and Broadwater Counties, Montana. U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 292. 82 pp. Martin, A. C., R. H. Gensch and C. P, Brown. 1946. Alternative methods in upland game bird food analysis. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 10(1): 8-12. Mont. Fish and Game Dept, 1941-52. Record of elk following their initial stocking in the Elkhorn Mountains. District Three, Montana, UnpubI. Typewritten. Stevens, D. R. 1966, Range relationships of elk and livestock, Crow Creek drainage, Montana. J, Wildl. Mgmt. 30(2): 349-363. ■ -52- U. S. D. A., Forest Service, 1921-68. Cattle grazing records: Crow Creek cattle allotments. Townsend District„ Helena National Forest. UnpubI. Typewritten. U. S. Dept. of Commerce Weather Bureau. 1967-68, Climatological data. Montana Monthly Summary. U. S. Government Printing Offices Washington, D. C. MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES III! IIII!illIII ill111CO 7 62 10 01:3831 O . Dsi GrCsSM Cc^>.1X