DOCSLIB.ORG

2008 Bitterroot Mountains Bear DNA Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2008 Bitterroot Mountains Bear DNA Survey Bitterroot Mountains Bear DNA and Camera Survey: 2008‐2009 December 2010 Christopher Servheen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, Mt 59812 [email protected] Fax: 406‐329‐3212 Rebecca Shoemaker, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, Mt 59812 [email protected] Bitterroot DNA Survey 2008‐2009 Final Report December 2010 BACKGROUND The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1975. At that time, the Bitterroot ecosystem was identified as an area containing grizzly bears (41 FR 31734). After further investigation, in 1996, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the best available scientific data indicated there was not a population of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem (USFWS 1996). The Service released a supplemental chapter to its 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan detailing specific efforts in the Bitterroot ecosystem needed to achieve recovery. Following the recommendations of this supplemental Recovery Plan chapter, the Service initiated an environmental impact analysis (EIS) to assess the feasibility of implementing recovery actions in the Bitterroot ecosystem. The Record of Decision (ROD) was released in November 2000, with the selected alternative being, “Restoration of grizzly bears as a nonessential experimental population with citizen management.” (USFWS 2000). The ROD was never funded however it remains valid. Until September 2007, it was widely accepted that there were no grizzly bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem. On September 3, 2007, a young male grizzly bear was mistakenly killed by a black bear hunter in the northern Bitterroot ecosystem of Idaho a few miles from the Idaho/Montana border. Using this bear’s unique genetic signature, we determined it originated in the Selkirk Ecosystem nearly 140 air miles away. After confirming the identity and origin of the grizzly bear, many questions were raised. For instance, does this single, male bear mean there is a population in the Bitterroot ecosystem or was he just a transient passing through? The Final EIS defined a population in the following way: “…verified evidence within the previous six years, consisting of photos within the area, verified tracks and/or sightings by reputable scientists or agency personnel, of at least two different female grizzly bears with young or one female seen with different litters in two different years in an area geographically distinct from other grizzly bear populations.” (USFWS 2000). The Endangered Species Act defines a 10(j) “non‐essential experimental” population as one that is “…wholly separate geographically from non‐ experimental populations of the same species.” To make an informed decision based on the best available science about whether the Bitterroot Ecosystem meets this definition and to 2 Bitterroot DNA Survey 2008‐2009 Final Report December 2010 document the presence of any other grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem; we surveyed the northern Bitterroots for grizzly bear presence using DNA barbed‐wire hair stations and motion‐ triggered digital cameras. STUDY AREA The study area in 2008 consisted of the northern Bitterroot Mountains between U.S. Highway 12 and Interstate 90 in areas in both Idaho and Montana (Figures 1, 2, 3). The effort was focused in National Forest lands near the Kelly Creek drainage, where the grizzly bear was killed in 2007. These forests included the Clearwater National Forest (ID), the St. Joe District of the Idaho Panhandle National Forest (ID) and the Lolo National Forest (MT). In 2009, we expanded our sampling effort to include 2 main study areas: 1) the Clark Fork Study Area, and 2) the Bitterroot Study Area (Figures 2, 3). The Clark Fork Study Area includes the northern Bitterroot Mountains of Montana south of the Clark Fork River between St. Regis and the Idaho/Montana state line. Our sites were primarily located on the Kootenai (MT) and Lolo (MT) National Forests with 2 sites on the Coeur d’Alene District of the Idaho Panhandle National Forest (ID). The Bitterroot Study Area in 2009 was a continuation of our 2008 sampling effort in the northern Bitterroot Mountains between the Idaho/Montana state line and US Hwy. 12 in Idaho. This study area is within the Clearwater National Forest (ID) and the St. Joe District of the Idaho Panhandle National Forest (ID). METHODS Sampling Strategy. In 2008, we placed as many hair stations as possible over the course of a short field season (July‐August). In doing so, ease of access (rock slides, snow banks, proximity to trails, etc.) influenced our site placement to allow us to put multiple sites out in a single day. We left these sites out for 1 sampling session (approximately 14 days), then removed them and re‐set them at a new location. 3 Bitterroot DNA Survey 2008‐2009 Final Report December 2010 In contrast, in 2009, we had two different sampling periods. We sampled the Clark Fork Study Area in the early season (May‐June) while we sampled the Bitterroot Study Area during July‐ August (Figure 2). In the Clark Fork Study Area, we used a similar approach to 2008 and placed the maximum number of sites possible out for 14 day sessions, then moved these to new locations for the next sampling session. In the Bitterroot Study Area, we attempted to reduce the overall quantity of sites while improving the quality of sites. We re‐visited areas that were successful in photographing multiple bears and collecting bear hair in 2008, placed sites in large areas that lacked roads and trails, and attempted to select locations that were “natural movement areas” for wide‐ranging mammals. These included confluences of major or multiple drainages (e.g., Canyon Creek x Little N. Fk. Clearwater) and major mountain saddles (e.g., Pole Mountain saddle). For these 2009 Bitterroot Study Area sites, we collected hair and re‐baited them every 2 weeks so that they were on the landscape at the same location for periods ranging from 2‐6 weeks. Site Selection. Our rationale for choosing sites was based on several factors. We consulted with local biologists, managers, and conservation officers from the Great Burn Study Group, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to locate promising areas. Other macro‐site selection factors included natural movement areas such as saddles, drainages, finger ridges, and confluences; relative levels of human access; and landscape scale wind movement patterns. Micro‐site selection was based on availability of bear foods, proximity to trail junctions, proximity to creek confluences, landscape heterogeneity, wind dispersal, and proximity to water sources. Specific site locations were chosen on the ground by field crews trained to identify good quality grizzly bear habitat, foods, bear sign, and movement areas. Individual sites were placed at least 500m from any road or developed site and at least 100m from any trail. Hair Collection. Collection of bear hair with barbed‐wire was based on protocols verified to be effective in snagging bear hair (see Woods et al. 1999, Kendall et al. 2009). At each station, 4 Bitterroot DNA Survey 2008‐2009 Final Report December 2010 sites consisted of a non‐reward lure pile encircled by barbed wire. Lure piles were composed of local organic matter such as rotten logs and moss and were piled approximately 1m high and 1m wide and doused with approximately 2 liters of non‐reward lure solution. The barbed‐wire was >2m from the lure pile on all sides and 45cm above the ground. A cloth soaked in lure was hung above the site to disperse the lure scent further. Motion triggered cameras were placed at as many sites as possible. We used Reconyx PC‐85 cameras because of their quick “trigger time” (time between a trigger event and photo being taken), long battery life, portability, and reliability. Because we had only 30 cameras, it was not possible to place cameras at all sites when more than 30 sites were out at a single time. We attempted to revisit sites every 14 days to collect hair samples and re‐bait or dismantle the site but this sampling session time varied from 12‐16 days depending on logistics and scheduling. Each barb was treated as a single sample and collected in its own coin envelope. Both the barb and the tweezers used to collect samples were burned after collecting each sample to avoid cross‐contamination. Trees used as part of the corral, the ground below the barbed‐wire, and the lure pile were also checked for hair. Genetic Analysis. All samples were transported to Wildlife Genetics International (WGI) in Nelson, B.C. by a USFWS employee under a CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) permit. Samples were visually inspected initially and then screened for species identification using a sequence‐based mtDNA test. In the event that grizzly bear samples were detected, individual ID would be established using a standardized set of 7 microsatellite markers that are highly variable in grizzly bear populations in the lower‐48 States. Error‐checking followed a standard protocol (Paetkau 2003). If grizzly bear samples were identified, WGI would use an assignment test to determine where the bear came from based on its unique genetic signature (Paetkau et al. 1995; Waser and Strobeck 1998; Paetkau et al. 2004). 5 Bitterroot DNA Survey 2008‐2009 Final Report December 2010 To assess the effectiveness of our 2009 Bitterroot Study Area sampling strategy, we genotyped a subset of black bear samples from sites to attempt to answer the following questions and inform future study designs: 1. For sites that were re‐baited, did we get different individuals in subsequent sessions or the same individual re‐visiting? 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Characterization of Ecoregions of Idaho
    1 0 . C o l u m b i a P l a t e a u 1 3 . C e n t r a l B a s i n a n d R a n g e Ecoregion 10 is an arid grassland and sagebrush steppe that is surrounded by moister, predominantly forested, mountainous ecoregions. It is Ecoregion 13 is internally-drained and composed of north-trending, fault-block ranges and intervening, drier basins. It is vast and includes parts underlain by thick basalt. In the east, where precipitation is greater, deep loess soils have been extensively cultivated for wheat. of Nevada, Utah, California, and Idaho. In Idaho, sagebrush grassland, saltbush–greasewood, mountain brush, and woodland occur; forests are absent unlike in the cooler, wetter, more rugged Ecoregion 19. Grazing is widespread. Cropland is less common than in Ecoregions 12 and 80. Ecoregions of Idaho The unforested hills and plateaus of the Dissected Loess Uplands ecoregion are cut by the canyons of Ecoregion 10l and are disjunct. 10f Pure grasslands dominate lower elevations. Mountain brush grows on higher, moister sites. Grazing and farming have eliminated The arid Shadscale-Dominated Saline Basins ecoregion is nearly flat, internally-drained, and has light-colored alkaline soils that are Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 52 regions Literature Cited: much of the original plant cover. Nevertheless, Ecoregion 10f is not as suited to farming as Ecoregions 10h and 10j because it has thinner soils.
    [Show full text]
  • 6800-Year Vegetation and Fire History in the Bitterroot Mountain Range Montana
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1995 6800-year vegetation and fire history in the Bitterroot Mountain Range Montana Anne Elizabeth Karsian The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Karsian, Anne Elizabeth, "6800-year vegetation and fire history in the Bitterroot Mountain Range Montana" (1995). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 6683. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/6683 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Anne- K a r s j a n i Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY TheM University ontana of Permission is granted by tlie author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that tliis material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and repoits. * * Please check "Yes'' or “No “ and provide signature Yes, I grant permission ..\1 No, I do not grant permission ----- Author’s Signature Date; ' n 1 Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with ^he author’s explicit consent. ■ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A 6800-YEAR VEGETATION AND FIRE HISTORY IN THE BITTERROOT MOUNTAIN RANGE, MONTANA By ANNE ELIZABETH KARSIAN Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSHY OF MONTANA Department of Forestry 1995 Approved by: t' z o Chairperson 7 ^ ^ ^ /.
    [Show full text]
  • Birding in the Missoula and Bitterroot Valleys
    Birding in the Missoula and Bitterroot Valleys Five Valleys and Bitterroot Audubon Society Chapters are grassroots volunteer organizations of Montana Audubon and the National Audubon Society. We promote understanding, respect, and enjoyment of birds and the natural world through education, habitat protection, and environmental advocacy. Five Valleys Bitterroot Audubon Society Audubon Society P.O. Box 8425 P.O. Box 326 Missoula, MT 59807 Hamilton, MT 59840 www.fvaudubon.org/ www.bitterrootaudubonorg/ Montana Audubon P.O. Box 595 Helena, MT 59624 406-443-3949 www.mtaudubon.org Status W Sp Su F Bird Species of West-central Montana (most vagrants excluded) _ Harlequin Duck B r r r Relative abundance in suitable habitat by season are: _ Long-tailed Duck t r r c - common to abundant, usually found on every visit in _ Surf Scoter t r r r moderate to large numbers _ White-winged Scoter t r r r u - uncommon, usually present in low numbers but may be _ Common Goldeneye B c c c c _ missed Barrow’s Goldeneye B u c c c _ o - occasional, seen only a few times during the season, not Bufflehead B o c u c _ Hooded Merganser B o c c c present in all suitable habitat _ Common Merganser B c c c c r - rare, one to low numbers occur but not every year _ Red-breasted Merganser t o o _ Status: Ruddy Duck B c c c _ Osprey B c c c B - Direct evidence of breeding _ Bald Eagle B c c c c b - Indirect evidence of breeding _ Northern Harrier B u c c c t - No evidence of breeding _ Sharp-shinned Hawk B u u u u _ Cooper’s Hawk B u u u u Season of occurrence: _ Northern Goshawk B u u u u W - Winter, mid-November to mid-February _ Swainson’s Hawk B u u u Sp - Spring, mid-February to mid-May _ Red-tailed Hawk B c c c c Su - Summer, mid-May to mid-August _ Ferruginous Hawk t r r r F - Fall, mid-August to mid-November _ Rough-legged Hawk t c c c _ Golden Eagle B u u u u This list follows the seventh edition of the AOU check-list.
    [Show full text]
  • Level IV Ecoregions of Montana
    DRAFT 2 Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by its Ecoregions of Montana probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999). These general purpose regions are critical for Second Edition structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same 116° 115° 114° 113° 112° 111° 110° 109° 108° 107° 106° 105° 104° geographical areas (Omernik and others, 2000). ° 49° The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified 49 BRITISH COLUMBIA 42d through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect ALBERTA SASKATCHEWAN 42k or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik, 1987, 1995). These 15d CANADA 15h 41b 42q 42n sa 17r ATE S phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. u F 41a 42l UNITED ST n l Plentywood a a 42n 42r 42m Scobey c th 42r o e The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of o a 42r K d R e i 42r 17r the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of k v a 41c e r Fresno 15h L 42i 42b 42d ecological regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY No. 17O t, WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1900 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SUKVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN IDAHO AND MONTANA FROM THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY TO THE CREST OF THE BITTERROOT MOUNTAINS BY RICHARD TJRQUHART GOODE WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1900 CONTENTS. Page. Letter of transmittal - _. .... _..._......_....--..,.. ........... 9 Instructions ...............................1...^.......................... 11 Boundary lines.-. ....--..........---.-.--..-.-..-............-.-.-..---- 15 Account of operations ...........................-._._........... .--. 18 Latitude, longitude, base line, azimuth, and triangulation _...__.._.._..___ 21 Latitude _...-. .--.---.-... -.....-..-..........._................ 21 Longitude.........---.-..-..-..-.....-..--.. ............. ....-.-. 23 Spokane base line................J......................__._._.. 25 Azimuth .__.---.--.-.-.....___.. _..--...__.__.__.. ._._........--. 25 Triangulation ................... __........._.'......._._._.....-- 29 Transit and stadia work.................................................. 40 Monuments _. ..;......____.._._.,_._._._....__,, ._.....__. ..-..... 47 The international boundary west of the summit of the Eocky Mountains, and the Mooyie Trail monument..............................._..... 58 Financial statement ................... °........................_.i........ 63 Index ..............J.....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Bitterroot National Forest-Administered Land
    Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Bitterroot National Forest-Administered Land Map of the Curlew Mine by Rick Schmidt in MBMG mineral property files Open-File Report MBMG 484 Phyllis A. Hargrave Catherine McDonald Michael D. Kerschen John J. Metesh Robert Wintergerst Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service-Region 1 Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Bitterroot National Forest-Administered Land Open-File Report MBMG 484 October 2003 Phyllis A. Hargrave Catherine McDonald Michael D. Kerschen John J. Metesh Robert Wintergerst Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service-Region 1 CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................1 1.1 Project Objectives ....................................................1 1.2 Abandoned and Inactive Mines Defined . 2 1.3 Health and Environmental Problems at Mines . 2 1.3.1 Acid Mine Drainage ...........................................3 1.3.2 Solubilities of Selected Metals ...................................3 1.3.3 The Use of pH and SC to Identify Problems . 5 1.4 Methodology ........................................................5 1.4.1 Data Sources .................................................5 1.4.2 Pre-Field Screening............................................6 1.4.3 Field Screening ...............................................7 1.4.4 Field Methods ................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Glacier National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado Glacier National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Glacier National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program ............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting .........................................................................................................................................................3 Glacial Setting ............................................................................................................................................................4 Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 9 Economic Resources..................................................................................................................................................9 Mining Issues..............................................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Experience the Nez Perce Trail
    Lolo, Montana, to the Big Hole National Battlefield, Montana, through the Bitterroot Valley Experience the Nez Perce Trail Bitterroot River © Jerry Bauer 1 The Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail Designated by Congress in 1986, the entire Nez Perce National Historic Trail stretches 1,170 miles from the Wallowa Valley of eastern Oregon to the plains of north-central Montana. This segment of the Nez Perce National Historic Trail from Lolo, Montana, to the Big Hole Battlefield, Montana through the Bitterroot Valley is one of eight available tours (complete list on page 35). These are available at Forest Service offices and other federal and local visitor centers along the route. As you travel this historic trail, you will see highway signs marking the official Auto Tour route. Each Mainstream Auto Tour route stays on all-weather roads passable for all types of vehicles. Adventurous and Rugged Routes are an alternative for those seeking the most authentic historic route. They are often on gravel or dirt roads, so plan ahead. Check weather and road conditions before embarking on your journey. Call 511 for road condition reports on major routes. For road condition information on Adventurous and Rugged routes inquire locally. 3 Experience the Nez Perce Trail How do I get there? Mainstream Traveler (Passable for all types of vehicles.) This Auto Tour begins at Fort Fizzle, 4.6 miles west of Lolo Montana. Lolo is located approximately 7 miles south For most travelers this will be the appropriate route. of Missoula, Montana. The roads are generally paved and won’t pose a challenge for typical cars, campers with trailers, and RVs.
    [Show full text]
  • Descriptions of the Level IV Ecoregions of Montana Second Edition
    DRAFT 2 Descriptions of the Level IV Ecoregions of Montana Second Edition 15. Northern Rockies 17. Middle Rockies (continued) 18. Wyoming Basin 15a The Grave Creek Range-Nine Mile Divide ecoregion is composed of northwest- open, wind-blown stands of nonmarketable subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and whitebark pine The Bitterroot-Frenchtown Valley ecoregion is sheltered from high winds and severe The Rattlesnake-Blackfoot-South Swan-Northern Garnet-Sapphire Mountains The Bighorn Basin lies in the rainshadow of the Beartooth Plateau. It includes some of sedimentary rock and are often alkaline and/or gypsiferous. The potential natural vegetation is southeast trending, forested mountains that are partially mantled by volcanic ash and occur. Subalpine fir, whitebark pine, mountain hemlock, and alpine larch forests are found in 17s weather by surrounding mountains. It is composed of floodplains, terraces, hills, fans, 17x ecoregion is forested and lies west of the Continental Divide. Ecoregion 17x is underlain 18b the driest places in Montana, and parts receive an average of only six inches of mostly sagebrush steppe and is distinct from that of the surrounding ecoregions. Most land is underlain by Precambrian argillite, argillaceous rocks, and quartzite. It is more rugged than the glacial cirques. Elevations range from about 6,000 to just over 10,600 feet and are sufficient to wildlife-rich wetlands, and riparian forests. Thick alluvial and lacustrine deposits are common; primarily by a heterogeneous mixture of Precambrian Belt formations but Tertiary-Cretaceous precipitation per year. Unleached, nearly white soils commonly occur. These were derived from used for grazing but some irrigated agriculture occurs, especially near the Yellowstone River.
    [Show full text]
  • Forests, Fuels and Fire in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho
    Forests, Fuels and Fire in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho JAMES R. HABECK Department of Botany, University of Montana, Missoula INTRODUCTION THE Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness (SBW) is a 1.2 million-acre (486,000 ha) forested tract located in northern Idaho and portions of adjacent western Montana (46°00' N, 1150 W, Fig. 1). This wilderness represents the largest roadless area' in conterminous United States classified under the Wilderness Act of 1964. It lies within portions of the Nez Perce, Bitterroot, Clearwater and Lolo National Forests (Northern Region, USDA Forest Service) which collectively provide control and management for this wilder­ ness. Two of the current wilderness management objectives in the Sel­ way-Bitterroot Wilderness are (1) the determination of the natural role of wildfires within the varied forest communities composing the wilderness, and (2) the determination of suitable means of returning to wildfire at least some of these natural functions (Habeck and Mutch, 1973). The successful pursuit of these management ob­ jectives requires the development of a detailed description of forest compositions and distributions as well as an assessment of organic fuel production and accumulations within different forest types. Wildfire is believed to have played a critical ecological role as a decomposer of organic matter in many of the northern Rocky Moun­ tain coniferous forests (Habeck, 1972, 1973; Habeck and Mutch, 305 JAMES R. HABECK 1150 00' Vi,. 1 M"p of 'he p,,,Ii, Northwe" ,nil loc."on 01 >he Selw,,·Bi"""'" Wild"fie" in northern Idaho and adjacent ,,·estern Montana. 306 FORESTS. FUELS. FIRE IN WILDERNESS 1973), and consequently an integral and natural process in these ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Overview -- Wildlife Subcommittee Report
    1 Northern Regional Overview Wildlife Species: Status, Risk, Opportunities, and References Fred Samson Wildlife Ecologist Northern Region Ecosystems Ecosystem Status National Review In 1999, a group of scientists representing major conservation organization conducted a detailed review of the conservation status of each North American ecosystem in order to develop priorities to conserve biodiversity including wildlife species (Ricketts et al. 1999). Each major ecosystem was placed within the Ecological hierarchy developed by Bailey (1996), and is essential the same as the ecological hierarchy the Forest Service is encouraged to use in the Draft Directives that implement the 2005 Planning Rule. The review conducted Ricketts et al. (1999) placed each North American Ecoregion into one of five categories. Category Description I. Globally outstanding Ecoregion requiring immediate protection of remaining habitat and extensive restoration. II. Regionally outstanding Ecoregion requiring immediate protection of Remaining habitat and extensive restoration. III. Globally or regionally outstanding Ecoregion that present rare Opportunities to conserve large blocks of habitat. IV. Bioregionally and nationally important ecoregions requiring protection of Remaining habitat and extensive restoration. V. Bioregionally and national important ecoregions requiring protection or representative habitat blocks and proper management elsewhere for biodiversity conservation. In addition, each ecoregions was identified in terms of condition as Critical, Endangered, Vulnerable, 2 Relatively Stable, and Relatively Intact. Within the Northern Region, ecoregions were identified by Ricketts et al. (1999) to fall into the following categories. I. Globally Outstanding/Critical Tallgrass prairie (North Dakota) II Regionally Outstanding/Endangered Shortgrass prairie (South Dakota) IV Bioregionally outstanding/Endangered Snake/Columbia Shrub steppe (Idaho) IV Bioregionally outstanding/Vulnerable North Central and South Central Rocky Mountain Forests (Montana and Idaho) V.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecoregions of Montana Second Edition
    DRAFT 2 Ecoregions of Montana Second Edition 116° 115° 114° 113° 112° 111° 110° 109° 108° 107° 106° 105° 104° 49° 49° BRITISH COLUMBIA 42d 42k ALBERTA CANADA SASKATCHEWAN 15d 41b 42q 42n 15h a s 17r NITED STATES u F 41a 42l U n l Plentywood a a 42n 42r 42m c t Scobey o h 42r e o a 42r K d R e i 42r 17r k v a 41c e r Fresno 15h L 42i 42b 42d K Reservoir o o Cut Bank N t e O n 41b 41b a S R i Rive a T r g Medicine 15t e Lake H Libby Shelby C Chinook D re Milk R 15q Havre ive A 42q ek r 42i Ma K r O 15l ias k R e i T ve e r A Lake r Malta 41a C Elwell y 15c d 15h n a 42j Kalispell S 42r g Glasgow i i uri R ver B o Conrad Wolf Point iss 43c 17r M ° 48° 15h 48 41d 43n e k 42r r 42r a 15l ive 43n L R 15o ri d 41b 42o ou 43c a ss e Teton River i 42r h 41e M t e 17r k a a l L Sidney F k Choteau ec 15k 15e 41b P 41c rt Fort Benton F o 15h Clar Polson 15o Thompson k F Mi or 43l ssour Falls k 15c 41d i River 42q r 43c e 15b iv R e 43l n Great Falls 42r to 17r s 15e i River w ur lo Fla o l thead Rive 41b s e r 41b is Jordan 43a Y 41b M M Superior 42q 43o 43n u s 15a s 15p e l 15a s 43n Glendive I h D 15c e A 43s l 15h l ° H R 47° 47 O i 43c 17r v 17r e 17x r 17p Lewistown Missoula 17aj 43s 43n 43a 43u 17t 43u 17al 17q 17q 16b 17x 17h 17w 43c 17al Helena White 17ak C Sulphur la 43e 43b rk 17v r Springs 43m e 17s 17x F v o i r Canyon Miles 43c R k t 17aj Ferry City 16e o 17q Harlowton Baker o 17h r Lake 43p r Roundup e t t 17ak Deer i ne River B wsto Lodge Yello Townsend 43p Hamilton 17am Musselshell River Forsyth 43t 17f Anaconda Boulder 17y 43p 43p
    [Show full text]