Northwest Rivers Study

.vent Guidelines: Montana

State of Idaho
State of Montana
State of Oregon
State of Washington

NW Indian Tribes

USDA Forest Service
USDI Bureau of

Land Management
USDI Fish and

Wildlife Service
NW Power Planning

Council
Bonneville Power

Administration

Wildlife

Updated January 1988

■^^..:'%

'^'^'fWS STO»-<

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

3.,,llJIIIIJil|
3 0864 0016 3218 4

PACIFIC NORTHVEST RIVERS STODY
WILDLIFE GUIDELIMES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

INTRODUCTION 1

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 2

VALUE CLASSES 2

CRITERIA 2

HABITAT VALUE 2

SPECIES VALUE 3

RECREATIONAL VALUE 3

STANDARDS 4

OVERVIEW 4

HABITAT VALUE 4

Specialized Land Designations 4

Riparian Habitat Quality 5

Final Habitat Value Calculation 5

SPECIES VALUE 6

Threatened and Endangered Species 6

Species of Special Concern and Specialized Wildlife Habitats. . 7

Game and Furbearer Species 8

Final Species Value Calculation 9

Final Resource Value Classification 9

METHODS 9

DATA COLLECTION 9

DATA ANALYSIS 10

REVIEW 10

PROJECT EVALUATION 11

USE CONSIDERATIONS 12

PARTICIPANTS 12

LITERATURE CITED 15

PACIFIC NORTHVEST RIVERS STDDY

Method for Assessing the Significance of River Segments
and Systems for Wildlife Resources in Montana

January 1988

LEAD AGENCY

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

SENIOR RESOURCE EXPERT AND STAFF

John Mundinger, Senior Resource Expert
Gael N. Bissell, Project Wildlife Biologist
Janet Decker-Hess, Project Staff

COOPERATING RESOURCE EXPERTS

Larry Thompson, Natural Resource Information System

Ray Hoem, Bureau of Land Management

Don Bartschi, U.S. Forest Service

Alex Hoar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Carol Taylor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

INTRODUCTION

The Pacific Northwest Rivers Study was initiated in February 1985 to
assess the significance of river segments and drainage basins for a variety
of fish, wildlife, natural, recreational and cultural resource values. The
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) was designated to take
the lead in assessing the value of rivers for wildlife in the state of
Montana.

This report summarizes the methods used to assess the wildlife resources
in Montana. It describes how river assessment units were developed, what
criteria were used to determine the value of the units, and what standards
were used to apply the criteria. The guidelines also present the methods used
to collect, analyze, and review the necessary data. Evaluation and potential
uses of the data base are also discussed.

The assessment guidelines have changed considerably from those outlined
by Graham (1985). The original approach to the wildlife assessment involved
either wildlife habitats and species exclusively associated with riparian
areas or regionally important big game species. As the assessment process
evolved, the approach shifted from a riparian dominant species to a more
inclusive, diversified wildlife database. Although riparian zone species and
habitat continued to play a primary role in the analysis, species diversity
and overall habitat condition played an equally important role.

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION

Current wildlife values were based on two criteria: species and habitat
values. Habitat values included the occurrence of specially designated lands
and the quality of riparian habitat within each assessment unit. The species
criteria considered the occurrence of habitats important to threatened and
endangered species and species of special interest or concern. The species
value also reflected the relative abundance and diversity of game and
furbearer species.

Data on recreational values of wildlife resources were also collected for
each assessment unit. Information included both consumptive and
nonconsumptive wildlife uses. Consumptive values were based on the results of
big game harvest telephone survey conducted by MDFWP each year.
Nonconsumptive values were based on subjective evaluation of each assessment
unit's aesthetics, scientific and educational value, and degree of
nonconsumptive wildlife uses.

Due to the difficulty in applying the harvest information (compiled for
only one year by hunting district) to each river assessment unit, the
consumptive wildlife value was not considered sufficiently accurate to rank
assessment units. Review of the nonconsumptive wildlife information indicated
it also was too subjective for determining the final recreational value.
Therefore, the use of recreation value in the final rankings was postponed
until these data could be further improved and verified (see Section on
Project Evaluation).

VALUE CLASSES

Each river assessment unit in Montana was assigned to one of the
following four value classes to denote its value for wildlife:

I - Outstanding wildlife resource
II - Substantial wildlife resource
III - Moderate wildlife resource
IV - Limited wildlife resource

V - Unclassified wildlife resource

CRITERIA

HABITAT VALUE

Habitat criteria for each river assessment unit were designed to
recognize specially designated lands and to evaluate riparian habitat
quality. Specially designated wildlife lands included Wild and Scenic River
corridors, National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries, State
Wildlife Management Areas, Waterfowl Production Areas, Nature Conservancy
Preserves, Conservation Easements and U.S. Forest Service (USES) and Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) Research Natural Areas.

Five riparian characteristics were evaluated for habitat quality. These
characteristics included the condition of the riparian zone; the amount of

mature forests, wetlands and island habitats; and the structural/vegetative
diversity of cover types.

SPECIES VALUE

The species value emphasized three species categories: 1. critical
habitat for recovery of threatened or endangered species; 2. specially
designated wildlife habitats or habitats important to species of special
interest or concern in Montana; and 3. game and furbearer species
populations and/or critical habitats within the assessment unit.

Federal or state listed threatened and endangered species included the
gray or rocky mountain timber wolf, grizzly bear, bald eagle, whooping crane,
peregrine falcon, and black-footed ferret. The mountain caribou was not
officially designated as a threatened or endangered species in Montana and,
therefore, was excluded from the assessment process.

The second species category addressed vertebrate species of special
concern and specialized wildlife habitats considered unique and/or rare.
Emphases were placed on those species or habitat associated with the riparian
zone. The list was derived from Montana's list of Species of Special Interest
or Concern (Flath 1984) or the Montana Natural Heritage Program's current
list of Animal Species of Special Concern (Montana Natural Heritage Program
1987). Specialized habitats such as warm springs, waterfowl staging areas,
and great blue heron rookeries were recommended by resource cooperators.

The game and furbearing species value utilized information gathered on
the relative abundance or habitat quality for 15 game and 6 furbearing
species. Maps prepared by MDFWP personnel in 1978 and updated in the early
1980's which indicated critical and seasonal ranges of most game species were
used in assigning most game species values. No distribution or habitat maps
were available for furbearers.

RECREATION VALUE

As previously mentioned under Category Description, the recreational
value was not used in the 1987 assignment of final value classifications.
Pending an update in this portion of the data base in 1988, a recreational
value stressing both consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife values will be
added.

The consumptive wildlife data collected in 1985 was based on 1983 harvest
statistics from the DFWP's annual telephone harvest survey. Statistics were
collected for four big game species or groups--deer (combined white-tailed
and mule deer), elk, black bear, and antelope. Three values assessed by
hunting district were modified from the hunter survey and applied to each
river assessment unit. These values included: total hunting pressure (hunter
days), hunter success (percent successful hunters), and percent non-resident
hunting pressure (percent of total pressure). Nonconsumptive values were
obtained by participants' evaluation of three criteria: nonconsumptive
wildlife/habitat oriented use (local, regional, statewide, national),
scientific/educational value, and aesthetics.

STANDARDS

OVERVIEW

Standards to rate each criterion were based on a point system. Weights
or points were first assigned to each criteria (e.g. to wetlands, bald
eagles, or elk) based on each criterion's association with riparian zones and
its relative importance or rarity. For example, more weight was given to
white-tailed deer because of their association with riparian habitat than to
mountain goat. In addition, more weight was assigned to river otter because
of its relative rarity than to beaver. These weighted values were then
multiplied by a value factor assigned by the biologists. Weight factors
multiplied by the values were summed for the category to yield a total number
of points scored for each category.

HABITAT VALUE

Specialized Land Designations

Weights for each specialized land designation were based on the
protection afforded by a designation from hydroelectric development and the
reasons for the land designation. Lands designated primarily for their
wildlife or riparian attributes were given the highest points (Table 1).
These included Wild & Scenic Rivers, National Wildlife Refuges, Waterfowl
Protection Areas, and state wildlife management areas. Nature Conservancy
Preserves were also assigned a significant weighting because they are
purchased and managed to preserve biological communities. Fewer points were
awarded USFS and BLM Research Natural Areas, National Fish Hatcheries and
conservation easements.

References used to locate specially designated lands include a MDFWP
publication on Department lands (MDFWP 1986), contacts with wildlife refuge
managers and Nature Conservancy personnel, and contacts with state and
federal biologists during the data collection phase.

Table 1. Weights assigned specially designated lands.

Land Use Assigned Weight

■ Wild and Scenic Rivers 25
• National Wildlife Refuge 10

■ National Fish Hatchery 5

■ Wildlife Management Areas 10
' Waterfowl Production Areas 10

■ Nature Conservancy Preserves 15

■ Conservation Easements 5

■ Research Natural Areas 5

■ Other (variable) 5

For each one of these designated lands, biologists assigned a either a
value of 0 (absent) or 1 (present).

Riparian Habitat Quality

Points were awarded for five habitat quality attributes. For each of
these habitat characteristics, the biologists could assign a rating of high
(3 points), moderate (2 points) or low (1 point). All five factors were
equally weighted (5 points) except if a 3 was assigned for condition,
wetlands, or vegetative diversity. In these situations, 10 additional bonus
points were awarded. The following attributes were evaluated:

1. Condition of the Riparian Zone;

High - Riparian zone is in excellent condition, minimally
impacted by land uses such as roads, agriculture grazing,
subdivisions. Riparian zone retains nearly all of its natural
vegetation characteristics and wildlife values;

Moderate - Riparian zone is moderately affected by land uses (as
described above) but retains significant amount of inherent
natural vegetation characteristics and wildlife values;
impacted areas have potential to be rehabilitated;

Low - Riparian zone is highly affected by land uses; only
remnant patches or blocks of natural vegetation exist and only
limited opportunity for vegetative rehabilitation.

2. Amount of Mature Forests;

High - Numerous large tracts (>150 ac) or continuous bordering
(>30 ft. wide) of mature deciduous or coniferous forest (e.g.
gallery forests);

Moderate - occasional large tracts (<150 ac) or intermittent
bordering (<30 ft.) of mature deciduous or coniferous forest;

Low - Little or no forest development along riparian zone.

3. Amount of Wetlands;

High - Oxbow lakes, sloughs, backwater areas or other signifi-
cant wetland types common along water course (characteristic
of large meandering rivers);

Moderate - Occasional oxbow lakes, ponds, sloughs, backwater
areas, or seeps;

Low - Few to no significant wetland areas associated with water
course(s) .

4. Amount of Islands;

High - Many (characteristic of braided rivers/streams);
Moderate - Occasional to several islands;
Low - Few to no islands.

5. Vegetative Structure/Diversity;

High - Riparian zone vegetation well-developed and characterized

by a wide variety of vegetation types and structural types

appropriate for its size and configuration;
Moderate - Riparian zone less well-developed due to land uses

or natural characteristics; has moderate variety of vegetation

and structural types;

Low - Riparian zone dominated by few to one major vegetation
type (e.g. crops, pasture, range) or is unvegetated (urban,
industrial situations).

Final Habitat Value Calculation

Cutoff values for class assignments were made for both specialized land
designations and habitat quality; the highest classification for the 2
categories was used for the final habitat rating. Cutoff values were assigned
as follows:

Land

Points
30

Habitat Quality Points

ClassI

>=

>=70

Class II

>=

20

>=55

Class III

>=

10

> 40

Class IV

<

10

<=40

SPECIES VALUE

Threatened and Endangered Species

Each threatened or endangered species was assigned weight values of 13
points. However, biologists could rate the occurrence of the species or its
critical habitat with a value of 0 (species absent), 1 (species present but
assessment unit does not contain habitat essential for recovery), or, in some
cases, 2 (assessment unit contains habitat essential for recovery).

For bald eagles, a 1 indicated wintering or migrating concentration area
and a 2 indicated current nesting use. An additional 20 bonus points were
awarded for bald eagle nesting sites because of this species dependence on
riparian habitat. Bald eagle nesting and winter information was obtained from
Natural Heritage Program (MNHP 1987) and contacts with MDFWP endangered
species biologists.

For the grizzly bear, a rating of 2 represented management areas or
situations 1 and 2 as established by the respective National Forests for the
Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide ecosystems. For the Cabinet-Yaak
ecosystem, the area delineated in the MDFWP Grizzly Bear Environmental Impact
Statement (Dood et al. 1986) was used to determine a 2 rating. A rating of 1
represented other management situations or fringe areas felt to be important
for grizzly bear recovery.

Areas supporting recently reintroduced or breeding peregrine falcons
(Flath pers. comm. 1987) received a 2. Areas with historic peregrine eyries
received a 1. Because of the current controversy over wolf recovery in
Montana, only currently occupied habitat which is being managed for wolf
recovery received a rating of 1. At present, this area constitutes only the
North Fork of the Flathead.

Whooping crane habitat was limited to those migration stopover areas
occasionally used in eastern Montana. These areas earned a rating of 1.
Similarly, habitats identified for the potential reintroduction of black-
footed ferrets received a rating of 1 (Clark et al. 1987).

Species of Special Concern and
Specialized Wildlife Use Areas

Weights for species of special concern and specialized wildlife use areas
depended on the relative uniqueness or rarity of the category. Value
assignments were either a 0 (absent) or 1 (present). Weights were assigned as
follows (Table 2):

Table 2. Weights assigned species of special concern and
specialized wildlife use areas.

Species of Special Concern or

Special Wildlife Use Area Weight

1. Waterfowl staging areas,
low level feeding flight

paths, "prime wetlands" ; 9

2. Warm/hot springs open
in winter and used by
winter/migrating waterfowl species; 9

3. High gradient streams supporting

breeding harlequin ducks; 12

4. Habitats supporting amphibians of
special concern (Pacific giant
salamander, Coeur d'Alene salamander,
rough skinned newt, tailed frog); 12

5. Habitats supporting reptiles of special
concern (spiny softshell, snapping
turtle, milk snake, plains hognose

snake); 12

6. Colonial bird nesting sites (>5 pairs
of double-crested cormorants, great

blue herons, American white pelicans); 9

7. Large nesting osprey population area
(>1 active nest per river mile;

minimum 5 river miles); 12

8. Habitats occupied by nesting golden
eagles; 12

9. High density raptor nesting or winter
concentration area (nocturnal
and/or diurnal raptors);

10. Habitat supporting either mountain
or piping plovers;

12

Information on the distribution of species of special concern was
gathered primarily from the Montana Heritage Program (MNHP 1987), the state's
nongame wildlife program (Flath, pers. comm. 1987), and field biologists.

Gane and Furbearer Species Value

Each of the game or furbearer species was assigned a weighting from 2-4
depending on its statewide management significance and its association with
riparian areas (Table 3). High concern species included white-tail deer,
elk, moose, black bear, and river otter. Weights for all game and furbearing
species were assigned as follows:

Table 3. Game species importance values.

Species

Weight

Species

Weight

White-tail

4

River Otter

4

Mule deer

4

Beaver

3

Elk

4

Bobcat

2

Antelope

2

Lynx

2

Bighorn sheep

3

Marten

2

Moose

4

Turkey

3

Black bear

4

Mountain grouse

2

Mountain lion

2

Pheasant

2

Sharp-tail

2

Canada goose

3

Sage grouse

2

Wolverine

2

Mountain goat

2

Other

2

These weighted values were multiplied by the importance value (game
species) or habitat suitability rating (furbearing species) assigned by the
biologists as follows:

^^'

Importance
Value

V

^'

V 2

51/

Reason

Indicates unit supports large
populations and/or contains highly
critical habitat (e.g. winter range)
for a significant population.

Indicates a unit contains habitats
of moderate importance to the species
and/or supports moderate populations.

>

V"

i^ 1 Indicates a unit contains some value

on a seasonal basis or it supports
low or occasional populations.

For furbearer species, the ratings were defined by habitat suitability as
follows :

Habitat
Suitability Reason

^f

Indicates a unit has excellent habitat
quality and is able to support a high
population density.

Indicates a unit has moderate habitat
quality or supports a moderate population
density.

Indicates a unit has patchy or marginal
habitat for the species or supports a
low population density.

Final Species Value Calculation

Species weights multiplied by biologist ratings were summed to obtain
total points for each of the 3 species categories. Based on point
distributions and subjective evaluations, cutoff values were then assigned to
each category to give each river assessment unit Class I, II, III, and IV
species value. The highest of the 3 species values became the final species
value for the river assessment unit.

Final Resource Value Classification

With only 2 exceptions, the final resource value for the assessment unit
became the average of the final habitat and species values rounded upwards.
One exception occurred if the habitat value equaled Class I and the species
value equaled Class II. In this case, the final resource value became Class
II rather than Class I. Similarly, if the final species value was Class IV
and the final habitat value Class III, the final resource value became Class
IV. These corrections were made because of the greater amount of information
and reliability found in the species part of the assessment process and a
bias towards over-rating riparian habitat quality.

METHODS

DATA COLLECTION

Montana selected a questionnaire and interview approach for obtaining the
river assessment information. The questionnaire provided a standardized
system to evaluate wildlife values associated with rivers and a means to
document response (Appendix A). The questionnaire also lent some objectivity
to the assessment process and facilitated computerization of the information
collected.

Meetings with wildlife biologists from the appropriate National Forests,
the Bureau of Land Management, and MDFWP were held in each of the seven MDFWP
regions. At each meeting, the biologists answered a questionnaire for each
river assessment unit concerning location and habitat and species values.
Answers were recorded on data forms. Biologists from different agencies
generally worked in small groups on the rivers in their management areas.
State, BLM and USFS wildlife maps and documents were used as needed during
the assessment process.

Because wildlife use is not restricted by the presence of water, strict
river and stream reaches were too narrow in their definition to describe a
river assessment unit. Therefore, units were defined as a main stem, a
stream or river basin (including its tributaries) or the tributaries to a
main stem. The hydrologic unit, rather than river mile, became the primary
geographic reference point.

Information requested on the questionnaire included a verbal description
of the river assessment unit and its location by hydrologic unit, MDFWP
region, state drainage number, water code, and the unit type (main stem,
basin or tributaries). Location of the lower and upper boundaries were
described verbally, legally, and by river mile. Additional location
description included the drainage to which the unit is a tributary, the river
mile and legal description of its confluence, and its location by county. To
insure accuracy and completeness, the coding of the location description was
completed by the river assessment staff.

DATA AHALYSIS

During the first year of the study, data from the questionnaire were
entered and analyzed using the MDFWP Region 1 Action Discovery Computer
System with DataStar and ReportStar software. DataStar was used to enter the
data gathered by the questionnaire. Reportstar was use to assign weights,
multiply these by the biologist values and to assign cutoff values. During
the next year of the Rivers Study, the entire wildlife data base was
converted to DBASE III+ along with the other Montana resource area data
bases. A DBASE III+ program was written to assign weight values, calculate
totals points and assign classification.

REVIEW

At the end of the first year (1985), the guidelines, questionnaire,
methods and results of the initial classification were reviewed by
cooperating resource experts and MDFWP game managers. Recommendations for
data base improvements were put off until the entire system was converted to
DBASE III+ in early 1987.

During 1987, the entire data base and classifications were reviewed and
updated by MDFWP field biologists. The update reflected new species of
special concern distribution information collected by state's new Heritage
Program and recently compiled threatened and endangered species management
information put together by MDFWP. In addition, wildlife units were further
refined and missed areas were included. Given the greater programming
flexibility of DBASE III+, the classification program was also modified. A

10

summary of the classification results for this recent update will be
available in early 1988.

PROJECT EVALUATIOH

The wildlife river assessment has undergone and will continue to undergo
a considerable evolution following its conception. What started out as an
assessment of Montana's riparian wildlife habitat and species developed into
the beginnings of a statewide wildlife data base.

The interagency approach to developing the original assessment units and
completing the data base questionnaire was a major success of the project.
This approach allowed all agencies involved in wildlife species and habitat
management to participate in the process. Conversion of the wildlife
database to DBASE III+ has facilitated statewide accessibility and use. With
the recent update, many types of incomplete or inaccurate data have been
corrected.

Although agency maps and documents were available during the
questionnaire meetings the values assigned in the assessment were generally
subjective. The reliability of the species value could be greatly enhanced
with the addition of quantitative population estimates.

In calculating the habitat value, analysis of the riparian zone was
accomplished through a subjective high to low ranking for riparian
characteristics. While the basic standards in determining riparian habitat
value are in place, the need to quantify these values through a statewide
riparian zone inventory using aerial photos, field analysis, more specific
interviews and other methods is a priority. A data quality rating system
similar to that used in the fisheries portion of the river assessment
process should be incorporated into the wildlife database.

The variation in unit size and the habitat variability within a unit lead
to inconsistencies in the final resource value determination. In Region 2,
for example, the entire length of several drainages were lumped into one
unit. Because of habitat variation from the mouth of a stream to its
headwaters, a single unit accumulated considerable points based solely on the
habitat variety, rather than habitat and species quality. Region 1, in
northwestern Montana and a region only slightly larger than Region 2,
contained nearly twice the number of river assessment units as Region 2.
Habitat condition and species values were rated over a narrower range of
habitat diversity.

The harvest information in the recreation portion of the data base
applied to hunting districts rather than assessment units. Because these data
could not be consistently applied to each wildlife assessment unit, an effort
will be made in 1988 to correct this deficiency. Similarly, the
nonconsumptive recreation information will be evaluated and revised with more
quantitative information.

11

USE CONSIDERATIONS

The potential uses of the wildlife river assessment database are limited
only by the wildlife biologists, resource planners, and wildlife and land
managers who could benefit from the system. Their use of the system as a
planning tool and their involvement in updating and expanding the database
will determine its future use. Although the data base and the final resource
values can be used in the planning process, it should not be considered
suitable for the siting of facilities or solely determine major changes in
land use. It can, however, serve as a valuable tool for assessing overall
quality of species diversity and densities and overall habitat considerations
on a relative scale.

For example, the database could be used to provide information on
wildlife values by watershed for planning species management and timber
harvest or other activities within that drainage. The database could also aid
in determining habitat protection and land acquisition needs. Units with
habitat ratings of Class I could be included in a potential list of lands
needing formal land protection.

Wildlife resource values can now be compared across the state. Locations
of potential habitat for threatened and endangered species and species of
special concern, relative species densities, and critical habitats for
particular species can be accessed through the database. With the wildlife
data base, collected data will now endure personnel changes and file
rearrangement.

The use of the data base will continue to expand and become more reliable
as more quantitative data are entered, unit size between regions becomes more
consistent and habitat variability within a single unit is reduced.

PARTICIPANTS

Two levels of participation occurred in the wildlife river assessment
project. The Wildlife Task Group Force consisted of cooperating wildlife
experts from federal and state agencies to oversee assessment activities and
provide their input to the senior resource expert and staff. Specifically,
these individuals reviewed the Rivers Study Manual and proposed value
classes, criteria, and standards; were invited to participate in all progress
meetings; and provided input into the determination of the final
classification system. Participants on the Wildlife River Assessment Task
Force were listed on the first page of these guidelines.

The other level of participation occurred by the biologists from MDFWP,
US Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management involved in providing the
data for the wildlife assessment. These individuals were sent the
preliminary final resource values for each unit in their area with the
opportunity for review. Participants are listed by their agency affiliation
and meeting locations are in parentheses.

12

Region 1

(Kalispell. Libby)

Kootenai National Forest Montana Dept. of FW&P

Al Christensen Jim Cross

Reed Kuennen Jerry Brown

Don Godtel Shawn Riley

Bill Pomeroy Bruce Campbell

Alan Bratkovich Dan Casey

Gary Altman Marilyn Wood

Bruce Haflich

Ron Williams Flathead National Forest

Eric Heinz Bob Hensler

Tom Holland

Lolo National Forest Tom Wittinger

Jerry Diebert Bruce Hird

Vernon LaFontain

Region 2

(Missoula)
Bitterroot National Forest Montana Dept. of FW&P
John Ormiston John Firebaugh

Dale Hoth Kurt Alt

Bob Henderson
Lolo National Forest Lyn Nielsen

Mike Hillis

Jerry Deibert Bureau of Land Management

David McCleerey
Deerlodge National Forest John Prange

Mike Paterne
Karen Wilson

Region 3

(Wall Creek Game Range)
Deerlodge National Forest Montana Dept. of FW & P

Tina Crump Joel Petersen

Howard Chrest
Gallatin National Forest Mike Frisina

Jerry Light (attended R-5) Jeff Herbert
Keith Giezentanner Graham Taylor

Tom Puchlerz Jon Swenson

Terri Grotzinger

Bureau of Land Management
Jack Jones
Beaverland National Forest Ted Wenzel

Mike Rath Lewis Myers

Jerald Berry

Helena National Forest
Carl Frounfelker

13

Region 4

(Great Falls)
Lewis and Clark National Forest Montana Dept. FW & P
Roger Evans Jim Mitchell

Louis Young Dick Bucsis

Kerry Constan
Bureau of Land Management Frank Feist

Tad Day John McCarthy

Larry Eichhorn Gary Olson

Bob Watts

Region 5

(Billings)
Gallatin National Forest
Jerry Light

Lewis and Clark National Forest
Wayne Butz

Montana Dept. FW & P

Charlie Eustace
Shawn Stewart
Claire Simmone
Tom Butts

Custer National Forest
John Edwards

Bureau of Land Management
Steve Seth

Region 6

(Malta)
Bureau of Land Management
Mike Fisher
Chris Hoff
Dwain Prellwitz
John Grensten

Montana Dept. of FW & P
Harold Wentland
Al Rosgaard
Harvey Nyberg
Ron Stoneberg

Region 7

(Miles City)

Custer National Forest
John Edwards

Bureau of Land Management
Mark Gorges
Gerry Gill
Dan Bricco

Montana Dept. of FW & P
Neil Martin
Bemie Hildebrand
Gary Hammond
Steve Knapp
Heidi Youmans

14

LITERATURE CITED

Clark, T., J. Grensten, M. Gorges, R. Crete, and J. Gill. 1987. Analysis

of Black-footed ferret translocation sites in Montana. Prairie Nat.

19(1) :43-56.

Dood, A., R. Brannon, and R. Mace. 1986. Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement on the Grizzly Bear in Northwest Montana. Mt. Dept. Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks. Helena, Mt. 366 pp.

Flath, D.L. 198A. Vertebrate species of special concern. MT. Dept. Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. 74 pp.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1986. Lands Controlled by

the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks as of July 1, 1986.
Mt. Dept. Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Helena, Montana. 42 pp.

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 1987. Animal Species of Special Concern.
Montana State Library, Helena, Montana.

15

DOE/BP-968
April 1988
300