**[A Plan for]{.smallcaps}**

**[Coordinated All-Bird Monitoring]{.smallcaps}**

**[in Montana]{.smallcaps}**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.1173611111111112in" height="2.375in"}

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="2.625in" height="1.6743055555555555in"}

Version 3.0

March 25, 2005

*Prepared for the Montana CBM Steering Committee by:*

> Jock Young\*, Anna Noson, Amy Cilimburg, Richard Hutto -- Avian
> Science Center

Daniel Casey -- American Bird Conservancy

\* Corresponding author: Jock Young

Avian Science Center

University of Montana

Missoula, MT 59812

406-243-6499

> jock.young@mso.umt.edu

*Online version: http://biology.umt.edu/landbird/cbm/*

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Endorsements from
Partners..................\...\...\...\...\..............................\...............\....
2

Executive
Summary....................................................................................
3

Introduction

The Development of Montana's CBM
Plan................................................ 6

Why Monitor
Birds?..............................................................................
6

The Need for Coordinated Statewide Bird Monitoring
.................................. 7

Goals and Objectives for a Montana CBM Program
.................................\... 8

Summary of Existing Bird Monitoring Projects in
Montana\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 9

Long-term trend monitoring to determine issues and species of
concern................... 16

Survey
objectives................................................................................
16

Program
elements..................................................................................
17

*1a) Landbird Monitoring
Program*........................................................... 18

*1b) Riparian-specific LBMP Program*
...................................................... 19

*2) Breeding Bird
Survey*........................................................................
21

*3) Diurnal
Raptors*...............................................................................
22

*4) Aquatic Bird
Program*........................................................................
22

*4a. Discrete
sites*........................................................................
23

*4b. Dispersed
sites*......................................................................
24

*5) Waterfowl
Monitoring*.....................................................................\....
25

*6) Nocturnal
Species*............................................................................
25

*7) Upland Game Bird
Species*.................................................................
25

*8) Species Specific
Surveys*...................................................................
26

*9) Shorebird Migration
Monitoring..*..........................................................
26

Effectiveness monitoring of specific management
activities*..*.................................... 27

*1) Forest thinning & fuels reduction projects in dry-forest habitat
types*.............. 28

*2. Effects of coal-bed methane development on grassland & sagebrush
birds*.... 30

*3) Maintaining the integrity of cottonwood riparian ecosystems*
....................... 32

*4) High quality habitat & effects of land-use practices in sagebrush
communities*.. 33

*5) Resource and landscape needs of early, post-fire bird
communities*.............. 35

*6) Old-growth associated birds and the integrity of mesic,
old-growth*................ 38

Additional Monitoring Needs and
Strategies........................................................ 40

Proposed Action Plan
.......................................................................................
42

Implementation Steps and Timetable
.................................................................. 45

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................\...
45

Literature
Cited................................................................................................
46

Appendix I. Native bird species regularly breeding in Montana, with
survey techniques

necessary for adequate monitoring coverage.
............................................. 51

Appendix II. Inventory of existing point count transects in Montana by
Quarter Latilong...56

Appendix III. Sample of dispersed wetlands in
Montana...........................................57

Appendix IV. Aquatic Site Descriptions..................
http://biology.umt.edu/landbird/wetlands/

**ENDORSEMENTS FROM POTENTIAL PARTNERS**

The undersigned endorse the Montana Coordinated Bird Monitoring Plan as
outlined herein. Bird monitoring is to be conducted by the partners with
oversight by a Montana Coordinated Bird Monitoring Steering Committee.
By signing, the agencies and organizations represented below will take
reasonable and prudent steps to ensure that the program is implemented
and that it remains viable in the long-term.

\-\-\-- *endorsements here, after final revision* \-\-\--

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for USDA,
Forest Service

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for USDI,
Bureau of Land Management

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for USDI,
Fish and Wildlife Service

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for USDI,
National Park Service

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for Montana
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for USGS,
Biological Resources Division

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for Bureau of
Indian Affairs

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for
Individual Tribes

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for American
Bird Conservancy

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for Montana
Audubon

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for The
Nature Conservancy

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for Montana
Natural Heritage Program

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for Montana
Dept. of Environmental Quality

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for Montana
Dept. of Transportation

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for USDA
Natural Resource Conservation Service

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for Bureau of
Reclamation

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for Plum
Creek Timber Company

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for PPL
Montana

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ for Joint
Ventures

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

Numerous legal mandates and conservation initiatives include monitoring
as an essential component of the adaptive management process. Natural
resource managers recognize the need for a monitoring program designed
to serve as an "early-warning" system that identifies declining species
and causes of declines in a proactive manner before management and
conservation options become limited. Unfortunately, most land management
agencies have not yet achieved the level or kind of monitoring needed to
be able to assess the ecological effects of their land use practices.

With good reason, birds have emerged as one of the most effective
biological monitoring tools available for this type of evaluation. No
other vertebrate group is as visible or as cost effective to monitor; no
other can have as large a proportion of its members simultaneously
surveyed using simple techniques; and no other holds as much public
appeal. Monitoring a diverse assemblage of species with differing
habitat requirements such as birds is a relatively cost-effective means
for gathering information on the overall health of many ecosystems in
Montana.

Now, after years of concerted effort on the part of many dedicated
individuals, we have a plan to develop and implement a comprehensive
statewide bird monitoring program that will serve the needs of federal
agencies, tribal agencies, state agencies, private industry, and
non-governmental organizations. This document represents a roadmap of
how numerous partners might work collaboratively in order to reap the
scientific and financial benefits associated with such a plan -- one
that eliminates the need for any one entity to have to design and
conduct meaningful monitoring activities independently.

Montana's Coordinated Bird Monitoring (CBM) Plan is designed to be part
of a national CBM effort that is currently being developed by managers
and bird monitoring specialists to improve the success of bird
monitoring programs and make the information available to all partners.
This approach focuses on: identifying the overarching goals of the
program and the specific objectives that underlie these goals;
determining strategies and study design necessary to achieve these
goals; choosing survey methods and estimating needed sample sizes;
securing commitments (financial and otherwise) from interested partners;
storing monitoring data in permanent, widely available data
repositories; and using effective methods for communicating results to
decision-makers and the public-at-large. Coordinated bird monitoring is
intended as a feedback system that can provide a scientific basis for
adaptive management and conservation planning.

The overarching goals for the proposed Coordinated All-Bird Monitoring
(CBM) Program are to document population trends and habitat associations
of Montana's birds and to understand the effects of land management
activities. The specific objectives are, therefore:

1\) to integrate existing bird monitoring efforts in Montana;

2\) to provide long-term trend data to identify species of concern and
management issues needing further study;

3\) to provide basic habitat association data for most bird species (by
vegetation cover type);

4\) to conduct effectiveness monitoring of specific management
activities that are designated by the Montana CBM steering committee as
being especially timely or relevant; and

5\) to maintain a high-quality data archive and facilitate the easy
access to all results (and most data) by all partners.

Monitoring data generated through a region-wide, comprehensive, credible
process will increase support for funding and protection initiatives,
encourage participation by cooperators, allow for prioritization of
conservation activities, and ultimately improve conservation of bird
populations.

Specifically, this CBM program will provide:

*An Information network for adaptive management --* Coordination can
provide the necessary network for all partners to learn what information
is available, how it can be used to inform management, and what new
information needs to be collected. This includes electronic data storage
and access.

*The Integration of existing bird monitoring efforts --* The integration
of existing monitoring efforts is one of the main motivating factors for
developing Coordinated Bird Monitoring efforts at the state and regional
scales. The integration of ongoing work into widely accessible databases
will allow resources to be more effectively allocated to obtain needed
information, and the pooling of data from a variety of projects to
provide a more powerful overall view of bird conservation effectiveness.

*The ability to implement recommended protocols --* A CBM program allows
access to national expertise on the most accurate and efficient methods
for monitoring a variety of bird species and encourages full cooperation
with surrounding jurisdictions in order to implement appropriate and
consistent protocols.

Monitoring can and should be much more than the effort to track
population trends; it can be a proactive effort to understand the
effects of human activities on bird populations. It should be an
integral part of the adaptive management process. The dual focus of the
CBM plan is to produce short-term results on habitat relationships and
management effects as well as long-term population trend data. This
allows for a more refined study of issues of immediate management
concern.

Long-term monitoring of birds in Montana is one of the primary goals of
the Coordinated Bird Monitoring Plan. Most land use activities are not
monitored, so a well-distributed ongoing monitoring program that is set
up irrespective of any particular activity could be a useful tool in
exposing cumulative management effects. Collecting habitat data at all
monitoring points is another way we can move beyond the limits
associated with monitoring programs (e.g. BBS) that are built entirely
around the generation of long-term trend data. Habitat data allows a
wealth of information to be obtained on bird-habitat relationships as
well as suggesting potential management issues. This information can
then be used to anticipate potential impacts of management activities
that alter the availability and distribution of habitat.

Monitoring the wide diversity of bird species occurring in Montana
requires a number of different survey methods appropriate to the
habitats and behavior or each species group. Survey methods for each
element of the long-term monitoring program will follow the national
recommendations of panels of experts. The many bird species that are
reliant on wetlands for breeding and migration habitat must be
specifically targeted and surveyed with methods appropriate for the each
species. Montana's aquatic bird monitoring will help to clarify the
distribution of wetland-dependent species, as well as to monitor their
populations in relation to the amount and suitability of the state's
wetland resources to these species. Aquatic bird monitoring will be
conducted at a combination of discrete wetlands known to support high
concentrations of aquatic focal species, and randomly selected wetlands
to adequately monitor more dispersed species. We are compiling an
inventory of all wetland sites in Montana with known or suspected
breeding populations of priority species. We intend that this program
will include a citizen science component, with volunteer networks being
used as appropriate.

The incorporation of management-effects monitoring can follow the model
of the successful Landbird Monitoring Program (LBMP), which conducts
such studies on an alternate-year basis. This has proven to be an
excellent way to get important information to managers and partners in
the short term, and this element of the LBMP program has been
appreciated by national monitoring experts and is often recommended for
other monitoring programs across the country. The power of this program
to generate statistically meaningful data is directly linked with the
commitment to maintain a large field crew during the alternate years.

An essential step will be to prioritize management issues within
different geographic regions and habitat types. Ongoing discussions with
habitat managers and wildlife biologists throughout Montana in recent
years have provided some consensus on the major bird conservation and
management issues that a bird monitoring program should address. To
continue this discussion, we introduce six examples that have been
identified as pressing regional concerns at the time of this document's
preparation. The actual projects chosen will be put together based on
intra-agency pressures and funding opportunities that can't always be
anticipated.

1\. Forest thinning and fuels reduction projects in dry-forest habitat
types

2\. Effects of coal-bed methane development on grassland and sagebrush
bird species

3\. Maintaining the integrity of cottonwood riparian ecosystems

4\. High quality habitat and effects of land-use practices in sagebrush
bird communities

5\. Resource and landscape needs of stand-replacement fire-dependent
bird communities

6\. Old-growth associated bird species and the integrity of mesic,
old-growth ecosystems

To implement a Coordinated Bird Monitoring plan in Montana, we propose a
division-of-labor approach that shares the burden of implementation
among the program partners. An important step is deciding which of the
participating organizations will take responsibility for each component
of the plan. To facilitate further discussion of the implementation
process, we provide here a preliminary list of the program elements, the
potential lead agency/organization for a given element, and current
status of its implementation.

An essential aspect of any monitoring program is the ability to get
results into the hands of participating partners and managers as quickly
as possible, and in an understandable and usable form. One of the more
exciting aspects of this plan will involve the directed pursuit of
information relevant to managers, and the continuing development of
innovative ways to synthesize and disseminate these results, through
reports, published papers, workshops, and a web interface. We look
forward to all partners working together to help make these goals a
reality.

**INTRODUCTION**

**The Development of Montana's Coordinated Bird Monitoring Plan**

Montana's Coordinated Bird Monitoring (CBM) Plan is designed to be part
of a national CBM effort that is currently being developed by managers
and bird monitoring specialists to improve the success of bird
monitoring programs and make the information available to all partners
(see [http://amap.wr.usgs.gov](http://amap.wr.usgs.gov/)). The model
from which this all-bird coordination effort is derived is a
long-standing program implemented by the Flyway Councils for tracking
waterfowl throughout the nation to set management and harvest strategies
(see [www.pacificflyway.gov](http://www.pacificflyway.gov/)). As with
the waterfowl model, coordinated all-bird monitoring is intended as a
feedback system that can provide a scientific basis for adaptive
management and conservation planning.

At this time, CBM plans are being developed at state, regional, and
continental scales. Each plan describes existing monitoring programs and
then identifies needed improvements and new programs using the following
approach: 1) identify the overarching goals of the program and the
specific objectives that underlie these goals; 2) determine strategies
and study design necessary to achieve these goals; 3) secure commitments
(financial and otherwise) from interested partners; and 4) implement the
program.

Several projects are in already in progress at the continental level
that will help implement monitoring recommendations at the State,
Province, or Regional level. For example, a system for conducting peer
reviews of survey protocols is currently being developed, data
repositories are being constructed, and rapid habitat survey methods are
being designed. The Montana Plan is designed to use these resources and
to support the continental programs, where appropriate.

The Avian Science Center has taken the lead to develop this CBM plan,
stemming from our involvement with the Landbird Monitoring Program
(LBMP), other monitoring efforts, and the Western Working Group of
Partner's in Flight. In Montana, there exists a strong interest in
collaboration within State and Federal agencies and amongst the academic
and conservation communities, and their ideas have and will continue to
be incorporated into this plan. This draft will next be reviewed by the
Montana CBM steering committee (active members in the Montana Bird
Conservation Partnership) during the spring of 2005. These ideas and
comments will be cross-walked with recommendations generated from the
State Comprehensive Wildlife Comprehensive Plan being written by T.O.
Smith of MTFWP. We will then seek buy-in from agencies and organizations
and commence implementation beginning in 2006.

**Why Monitor Birds?**

The most compelling reason for monitoring wildlife, including birds, is
to determine whether human societies are living in a sustainable manner
(Greenwood et al. 1993, Hutto and Young 2002). Most land management
agencies allow a variety of activities to be conducted on their lands,
but these activities occur within the overriding legal constraint that
species, ecosystems, and processes be maintained on the landscape. In
fact, the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy
Act, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
Endangered Species Act, and various state laws require that the public
land management agencies not operate in a way that threatens the
viability of native wildlife populations.

Many bird species are declining, or suspected to be declining, in
Montana and throughout the Intermountain West (Sauer et al. 1997).
Unless declines are halted, some species will eventually need increased
expenditure for protection and management, or even listing under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), a measure that is generally considered a
last resort in species protection. Nearly all natural resource managers
therefore recognize the need for a monitoring program designed to serve
as an "early-warning" system that identifies declining species and
causes of declines in a proactive manner before management and
conservation options become limited.

Unfortunately, most land management agencies have not yet achieved the
level or kind of monitoring needed to be able to assess the ecological
effects of their land use practices. Even conservation organizations
have been criticized recently (Christensen 2003) for not assessing the
effects of their own conservation and restoration actions through some
sort of monitoring activity. For both agencies and conservation
organizations "\...it is far easier to measure what you do and call it
success than it is to take a hard look at whether you actually made a
difference" (Christensen 2003).

The best way to determine if the integrity of ecosystems is threatened
is by monitoring some indicator of ecological integrity. Birds have
often been proposed as meaningful indicators of ecosystem health (e.g.,
Morrison 1986, Croonquist and Brooks 1991). The bird community in a
landscape reflects an integration of a broad array of ecosystem
conditions, including water quality, productivity, vegetation structure
and composition, and landscape integrity (U.S. EPA. 2002.). The
cumulative effects of alterations to these ecosystem conditions are
difficult to predict in any other way than through integrators such as
birds (Harris 1988). Given this broad context for monitoring, birds can
then be appreciated as an effective monitoring tool to determine if we
are living sustainably, and if not, how we might operate in a more
sustainable fashion (Hutto and Young 2002). Moreover, no other
vertebrate group is as visible or as cost effective to monitor; no other
can have as large a proportion of its members simultaneously surveyed
using simple techniques; and no other holds as much public appeal (Hutto
1998, 2004; Mac Nally et al. 2004).

Monitoring a diverse assemblage of species with differing habitat
requirements such as birds is a relatively cost-effective means for
gathering information on the overall health of many ecosystems in
Montana.

**The Need for a Coordinated All-Bird Monitoring Program**

In light of the social, political, and economic factors that influence
funding of conservation efforts, it is essential that programs are
cost-effective, provide the highest-quality data, and receive long-term
commitments (Carlson and Schmiegelow 2002). Monitoring data generated
through a region-wide, comprehensive, credible process will increase
support for funding and protection initiatives, encourage participation
by cooperators, allow for prioritization of conservation activities, and
ultimately improve conservation of bird populations. A coordinated bird
monitoring program also helps agencies meet the intent of the January
10, 2001, Presidential Executive Order 13186 regarding new
responsibilities that federal agencies now have to cooperate in the
protection of migratory birds and their habitats (see
<http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos/eo13186.html>).

Specifically, this CBM program will provide:

*An Information network for adaptive management --* Good management
decisions require the best information attainable. Information comes
from a variety of sources, and these sources are not always readily
available. Coordination can provide the necessary network for all
partners to learn what information is available, how it can be used to
inform management, and what new information needs to be collected. All
of our efforts to collect new information are strengthened if there is
coordination and standardization at the planning, implementation, and
information-sharing stages. The network also needs to be able to respond
to new information needs in a way that best facilitates adaptive
management.

*The Integration of existing bird monitoring efforts -* In Montana, many
groups and agencies monitor various bird species. The integration of
existing monitoring efforts is one of the main motivating factors for
developing Coordinated Bird Monitoring efforts at the state, regional,
and continental scales. The integration of ongoing work into widely
accessible databases will allow:

-   Management agencies to determine whether similar work has already
    been done;

-   Resources to be more effectively allocated to obtain information
    that is still lacking;

-   Information from local efforts to be put to broader use than that
    intended by the scope of a smaller, local project;

-   Pooling of data from a variety of projects to provide a more
    powerful overall view of bird conservation effectiveness.

*The ability to implement recommended protocols --* Monitoring programs
are continually being initiated, critiqued and revised, allowing experts
to determine the most accurate and efficient methods for monitoring a
variety of bird species. National working groups collect this
information and make recommendations for standard protocols to be
followed in monitoring different species groups (e.g. songbirds,
raptors, shorebirds, etc.). A CBM program allows access to this
information for everyone wishing to monitor birds, and encourages full
cooperation with surrounding jurisdictions in order to implement
appropriate and consistent protocols.

*Electronic data storage and information sharing* -- A useful
information network requires access to all information by all partners.
Data from inventory and monitoring surveys in Montana are stored at the
Natural Heritage Program, the Avian Science Center, the US Forest
Service Fauna Database, and various shelves and personal computers
around the state. It is not necessary that all data be stored in the
same place, but it is important that someone needing information can go
to one source and find out what is available and where it can be found.

**Goals and Objectives for the Montana CBM Program:**

The overarching goals for the proposed coordinated bird monitoring
program are to document population trends and to understand effects of
land management activities.

The specific objectives are, therefore:

1\) to integrate existing bird monitoring efforts in Montana;

2\) to provide long-term trend data to identify species of concern and
management issues needing further study;

3\) to provide basic habitat association data for most bird species (by
vegetation cover type);

4\) to conduct effectiveness monitoring of specific management
activities that are designated by the Montana CBM steering committee as
being especially timely or relevant; and

5\) to maintain a high-quality data archive and facilitate the easy
access to all results (and most data) by all partners.

**SUMMARY OF EXISTING BIRD MONITORING PROJECTS IN MONTANA**

In order to clarify the needs associated with a coordinated statewide
monitoring program, we are assessing how to involve existing bird
monitoring efforts in Montana that have the potential to provide quality
long-term monitoring data.

Many of these projects will continue as they are and some should be
encouraged to expand. Others may have been inconsistent over time and
need to be reviewed for possible renewal and support with new expertise
and funds. All need to be coordinated so that the entire bird-monitoring
community may access the data (or at least the results).

The following information has been garnered from the database of MTFWP
(Steve Carson) and inquiries initiated by the Avian Science Center. We
are continuing to gather more information on monitoring surveys and the
potential they hold for continuation, collaboration, and data sharing.

**Landbird Monitoring Program (LBMP)**

Primary Contacts: Jock Young, Amy Cilimburg, Anna Noson -- ASC

URL: <http://www.avianscience.org/research_landbird.htm>

The Landbird Monitoring Program has run point counts in Montana (and
Northern Idaho) since 1994. This began as a program of the US Forest
Service Northern Region, with Potlatch Timber Company as an initial
partner and what is now the Avian Science Center at the University of
Montana as the coordinator. The LBMP now consists of Region 1 of the
Forest Service and Potlatch Timber Co, together with other partners in
Montana: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), Glacier National Park (GNP), and Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MTFWP).

The LBMP survey design consists of geographically stratified transects
with randomly located start points, each visited once during any given
survey year. Each transect generally involves 10 point counts, each 10
minutes long. The LBMP benefits from carefully screened, paid
technicians, a week-long training session, and in-field follow-up.

Approximately 600 transects were monitored yearly from 1994-1996;
approximately 300 transects have been run on a biennial schedule
beginning in 1998. These are primarily on USFS, BLM, and CSKT lands in
western Montana. In 2002, the LBMP added 63 transects in southeastern
Montana on the Custer National Forest and surrounding BLM and private
lands. During 2003 and 2004, with State Wildlife Grant funds, the ASC
and surveyed 53 new random transects throughout north-central and
northeastern Montana. In 2004, Glacier National Park began point count
surveys to fit within the LBMP protocol.

The incorporation of management-effects studies on an alternate-year
basis was initiated by the LBMP in 1996 (studies include forest
thinning, dry forest restoration, and high-elevation willow riparian
grazing effects).

***LBMP Riparian specific surveys*:**

In 2002, the LBMP began developing a targeted survey program for
deciduous riparian habitats. Preliminary efforts included two years of
intensive bird surveys along \> 500 mi Madison/Missouri River Complex
funded by PP&L MT and the BLM. Sampling protocols were developed and
tested, and bird data was used to develop habitat relationship models
that will identify critical areas of habitat along these rivers and
predict changes in focal species populations with changes in habitat
availability and structure. To expand this program statewide, the ASC
and the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) assessed the availability of
deciduous riparian forest habitat along all major rivers (4^th^ order or
larger streams) in the State. Potential sites were ground-truthed in
2004 and will be surveyed starting in 2005 in cooperation with MTFWP.

For all the LBMP data, the Avian Science Center maintains the database
(available on the ASC web site) and is in the process of upgrading to a
web-available SQL database structure.

**Breeding Bird Survey**

Primary Contact: Dan Sullivan (MT); Keith Pardiek (National)

URL: <http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/>

The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), a roadside survey designed to monitor
population trends of land birds, was initiated in 1966 by the Patuxent
Wildlife Research, which at present is part of the U.S. Geological
Survey, Biological Resources Division. It is the only large-scale
monitoring effort with that length of operation, and most analyses and
discussions of bird population declines are based on these data. Trend
estimates for more than 420 bird species and all raw data are currently
available via the BBS web site.

Each survey route is 24.5 miles long with 50 stops spaced at 0.5-mile
intervals. At each stop, a 3-minute point count is conducted. During the
count, every bird seen within a 0.25-mile radius or heard is recorded.
Surveys start one-half hour before local sunrise and take about 5 hours
to complete. Over 4100 survey routes are located across the continental
U.S. and Canada.

In Montana, the BBS began in 1968 with 11 routes and now consists of 56
official and 9 non-random routes throughout the state.

**Natural Heritage Program Grassland Bird Count**

Primary Contact: John Carlson -- BLM, Paul Hendricks -- MNHP

These point counts were established on grasslands in northern Valley
County (primarily BLM lands) to access grazing treatments. These are
randomly selected (stratified by soil layer to identify grassland type)
off-road transects consisting of 3 points each. Project duration to date
is 2001-2005, and it is unclear if they will continue. MNHP maintains
the Access database.

**MTFWP Kootenai River Mitigation point counts**

Contact person: Dwight Bergeron -- MTFWP

**MTFWP Raptor Surveys**

Primary contact: Ryan Rauscher, MTFWP URL:
[http://fwp.state.mt.us](http://fwp.state.mt.us/)

Montana State Fish Wildlife and Parks coordinates 46 long-term Raptor
Survey Routes across the state. These were initiated in 1979 to monitor
long-term population trends for resident breeding raptor species.
Forty-six driving routes are surveyed each year between May 15 and June
5, many of which are routes run by citizen volunteers. An extensive data
analysis is currently being done on the 26 years of data collected to
date and should be completed by June 2005. Results of this analysis will
be posted on the MTFWP web page. Presently, volunteer coordination is
done by MTFWP; they are seeking funds to cover coordination of field
efforts and compilation and analysis of data collected.

**MTFWP Bald Eagle Surveys**

Primary Contact: Kristi DuBois -- MTFWP URL:
[http://fwp.state.mt.us](http://fwp.state.mt.us/)

Approximately 200-220 of the over 300 known Bald Eagle nests in Montana
are monitored yearly as required by the Endangered Species Act. This is
a collaborative effort organized by Kristi DuBois of MTFWP, and she
maintains the database (SQL). These surveys will continue in some format
once Bald Eagles are officially delisted and a monitoring plan is in
place (required for at least 5 years post delisting). There is also an
ongoing small mid-winter Bald Eagle survey (4 routes) that is part of
national effort to obtain resident population estimations. Rob Hazlewood
(FWS) presently holds the Montana data, though the project was recently
transferred to Sarah LaMarr of the BLM.

**USFS Goshawk Surveys**

Primary Contact: Skip Kowalski?

The Forest Service has periodically searched for and monitored the nests
of Northern Goshawks on USFS lands. A Region-wide effort to locate
goshawks will begin in 2005 and may continue as a monitoring program.
Individual forest data needs to be combined (and data sharing worked out
with the USFS Fauna database).

**Raptor View Research Institute**

Primary contact: Rob Domenech URL:
[http://www.raptorview.org](http://www.raptorview.org/)

This non-profit research and education organization runs fall migration
raptor point counts and bands raptors on Rogers Pass, MT. Counts began
in 2002, with an emphasis on Golden Eagles. RVRI plans to increase their
exploratory effort to locate viable spring and fall migration point
count and banding sites in west-central Montana in order to gather
information on raptor movements and migratory ecology. During the spring
of 2005, they will initiate a Swainson's Hawk nesting and productivity
study in the valleys around Missoula.

**Hawk Watch International**

Primary Contact: Jeff Smith URL:
<http://www.hawkwatch.org/migration/migration.php>

HawkWatch International (HWI) runs the Bridger Mountains Raptor
Migration Project in southwestern MT on the Gallatin National Forest.
HWI began fall migration counts at this site in 1991, with standardized,
single-site counts commencing in 1992. This ongoing effort monitors
long-term trends in populations of raptors using this northern portion
of the Rocky Mountain Flyway. The count now occurs on the ridge above
Bridger Bowl Ski Area, \~ 25 miles northeast of Bozeman. The flyway is
noted for the largest concentration of Golden Eagles in the lower 48
states, with peak eagle activity in mid-October. Seventeen additional
species also may be seen each season, with Sharp-shinned Hawks,
Cooper\'s Hawks, Red-tailed Hawks, Bald Eagles, and American Kestrels
among the most commonly seen species. The project runs from 27 August to
31 October each year. HWI maintains the database: 1999 -- 2003 data from
all their sites are presently available from their website.

HWI has also run a Rogers Pass spring raptor migration study, an effort
to monitor long-term trends in populations of raptors, primarily Golden
Eagles, using this northern portion of the Rocky Mountain Flyway. Fred
and Cathy Tilly have conducted annual counts during March and have
recorded 14 species of migratory raptors at the site, with Golden and
Bald Eagles typically comprise 93-96% of the count. This survey has not
been completed since 2002, and its future is uncertain.

**Owl Research Institute**

Primary Contact: Denver Holt URL:
<http://www.owlinstitute.org/research.html>

The Owl Research Institute monitors Long-eared Owls yearly, with
repeated visit to known roosting and breeding sites throughout western
Montana, but especially in the areas around the Mission and Missoula
Valleys. Begun in the winter of 1986, the Long-eared Owl project is an
ongoing effort to document their complete life history in western
Montana. Almost 1,000 Long-eared Owls have been banded, and recapturing
provides data on such topics as communal roosting, migration and mating
habits. ORI also inventories numerous owl species throughout
west-central Montana.

**Flammulated Owl Surveys**

Primary Contact: Avian Science Center, or USFS Region One

The Forest Service has haphazardly searched for Flammulated Owls on USFS
lands. A Region-wide effort to understand Flammulated Owl distribution
will occur in 2005. Individual forest data needs to be combined (and
data sharing worked out with the USFS Fauna database).

**Common Loon Surveys**

Primary Contact: Gael Bissell (MTFWP), co-coordinator with Jane
Ingebretson (USFS)

These are annual breeding loon surveys run by volunteers (agency
individuals and the general public) to determine trends in abundance and
nest success. Formal surveys began in 1993 (incidental data prior to
this). In May all lakes known or suspected to have breeding Common Loons
are checked for presence / absence (180 lakes, approximately 50 in
Glacier National Park). The third week of July a full count is
undertaken (adults and young). Data are entered on web and stored in a
SQL database (FWPwild) with a shape file of lake territories in a
separate database (housed with Natural Heritage Program).

**Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey**

Primary Contact: Jim Hansen - MTFWP, Jim Volzer -- USFWS?

URL: <http://centralflyway.org/Surveys_and_Estimates.html#largescale>

Each May and June, the Canadian Wildlife Service and the USFWS survey
breeding waterfowl from the north-central U.S. through Canada and
Alaska. Survey biologists estimate numbers and species from airplanes
flown along transects. A portion of the transects are then surveyed from
the ground by biologists who census all waterfowl. The ground census
corrects for birds not counted by the aerial team. This survey is the
most extensive wildlife survey in the world, and its results are a major
factor used in setting annual duck-hunting regulations. Excellent survey
data exist in the form of graphs for mallards, gadwall, American wigeon,
green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, northern shoveler, northern
pintail, redhead, canvasback, and scaup.

Procedures followed in conducting this survey are described in the
Standard Operating Procedures for Aerial Breeding Ground Surveys in
North America, Section III, revised 1987, 2003 revision pending. The
survey design for Montana included 11 air/ground comparison segments
comprising 5.7% of the total 193 segments flown.

In Montana, aerial surveys are completed for the northeast 2/3 of the
state (BCR 11 and, less intensely, BCR 17). For the Waterfowl Breeding
Population & Habitat Survey, raw bird data and GIS information can be
retrieved from <http://mbirdims.fws.gov/nbii/>.

**Mid-Winter Waterfowl Survey**

Primary Contact: Jim Hansen URL:
<http://www.fws.gov/birddata/databases/mwi/mwidb.html>

This survey was first conducted in 1935 and is the oldest operational
survey still being conducted annually. It is currently conducted during
the first week of January when waterfowl are concentrated to a high
degree. The survey identifies winter waterfowl distribution and habitat
use throughout the United States. The survey also provides estimates of
the size of goose and swan populations and tracks population trends of
duck species that nest outside of breeding survey areas

The Mid-winter Survey is conducted primarily by fixed-wing aircraft,
although some states use helicopters and/or conduct counts from
automobile or boat in certain areas. The Mid-winter Survey is known as a
"cruise" survey, in that specific sampling procedures are not defined.
Instead, an aerial crew determines the best and most practical means to
conduct a complete count of all waterfowl within a predefined unit area.
The exact means of coverage may vary from year to year.

**Waterbird Colony Monitoring**

Primary Contact: USFWS biologists, Allison Puchniak, and others

URL: <http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/cwb/>

The Waterbird Conservation for the Americas initiative, of which North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan is one product, has identified the
need to establish a Waterbird Monitoring Partnership. The goal of the
Waterbird Monitoring Partnership is to develop a continental network of
collaborators who agree to and implement comparable population
monitoring techniques and contribute to a centrally managed waterbird
database. This continent-wide waterbird monitoring partnership is being
coordinated by the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center\'s Monitoring
Program. 

Most data in Montana are collected on National Wildlife Refuges. Four
known American White Pelican colonies also monitored. MTFWP has been
expanding recent inventories.

Nationally recommended protocols (and other information) can be
downloaded at <http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/cwb/manual/>.

**Marsh Bird Monitoring**

Primary Contact: Courtney Conway

URL: <http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/waterbirds/marshbirds.cfm>

Marsh birds are generally secretive and must be surveyed with special
techniques, usually involving playbacks. Secretive marsh birds in
Montana include American Bittern, Pied-billed Grebe, Virginia Rail,
Sora, and the occasional Yellow Rail.

The National Marsh Bird Monitoring Program was created in 1999 to
standardize marsh bird survey methodology across the nation so that a
variety of parameters could be evaluated (Conway and Gibbs 2005).
Montana participation is currently limited to Bowdoin NWR (Fritz
Prellwitz), Medicine Lake NWR (Beth Madden), CSKT (Janene Lichtenberg),
and Waterfowl Production Areas in northeastern Montana (Allison
Puchniak).

**Shorebird Monitoring**

Primary Contacts: Steve Martin, Fritz Prellwitz

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN):
<http://www.manomet.org/WHSRN/>

International Shorebird Survey (ISS):
<http://www.shorebirdworld.org/template.php?g=13&c=11>

Western Shorebird Survey (WSS): <http://wss.wr.usgs.gov/index.html>

Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring (PRISM):

<http://wss.wr.usgs.gov/data/document_main.html>

Several international programs exist at present to survey shorebirds
during migration. The International Shorebird Survey (ISS) was started
in 1974 by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (Howe et al.
2000). Sites are visited every 10 days by volunteers during spring and
fall. The ISS data files contain results from more than 80,000 surveys
of approximately 1,200 sites widely distributed across the Western
Hemisphere. About 1,300 surveys are added each year. ISS data helped
spark the formation of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
(WHSRN) and have been used to identify new WHSRN candidates.

The Western Shorebird Survey (WSS) was initiated in 2000 by the US Fish
and Wildlife Survey and the US Geological Survey to enhance shorebird
monitoring during the non-breeding period, especially in the western
United States. The goal of the WSS is to monitor numbers of shorebirds
at major stop-over sites, with specific survey areas being chosen to
include the most heavily used areas at each site and any areas that are
of special interest to local managers. The WSS cooperates, and shares
data, with the International Shorebird Survey (ISS) which has been
collecting information on shorebird numbers in the eastern and central
United States for many years. At present, more than 100 sites are being
evaluated for inclusion in the program.

Until recently the design of these shorebird monitoring programs did not
allow for a sensitive statistical analysis. A new initiative called the
Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring (PRISM) is
underway to coordinate and expand on existing shorebird survey efforts,
including the ISS, the Western Shorebird Survey and the Canadian
Maritimes Shorebird Survey. The individual programs will continue but we
hope to standardize approaches to site selection and data collection,
develop a common data base, and increase efficiency by having each
program take on certain responsibilities for the group. The closer
coordination and expanded survey effort will increase the power of
statistical analyses and more clearly define shorebird conservation
issues on a continental scale.

**Harlequin Duck Surveys**

Primary Contacts: Steve Gniadek -- Glacier National Park,

> Wendy Clark Maples -- Lewis & Clark National Forest

Harlequin Ducks have been surveyed at various times and places in
Montana by Glacier National Park, the U.S. Forest Service, and the
Montana Natural Heritage Program.

A new working group first met in March 2005. They discussed Harlequin
monitoring and research, specifically the development of standard
protocols for surveys and the establishment of a central database for
research and monitoring results. All previous data will first be
gathered, and an assessment made of the most appropriate coordinated
strategies for monitoring in the future. They are also interested in
such things as producing a training video and/or PowerPoint program on
Harlequin identification and survey techniques.

**Upland Game bird Surveys**

Primary Contact: Rick Northrup -- MTFWP

We need more information on existing efforts, especially for Sage Grouse
and Sharp-tailed Grouse lek counts (see below for Sage Grouse).

**Sage Grouse "Adopt-A-Lek" program**

Primary Contact: Ben Deeble, National Wildlife Federation

Trained citizens have been used for the past 5 years to gather
population data on sage-grouse leks in Montana, Wyoming and Nevada NWF's
\"Adopt-A-Lek\" Program. Citizens volunteer their time for training and
field work overseen by NWF and agency staff. They are trained to use
appropriate sage-grouse survey protocols for the respective state using
GPS units, data forms, topographic maps and other equipment. Most
regions do not possess the capacity to obtain replicate counts on a
majority of their known sage grouse leks. The objectives of Adopt-A-Lek
are to efficiently supplement population and baseline habitat data for
agencies to assist in determining grouse distribution and populations,
to collect baseline habitat information. In some cases this project
allows agencies to task their professional staff with more technical
aspects of grouse research and management. In 2004 ninety volunteers
were fielded.

**Mourning Dove Call-Count Survey**

Primary Contact: Jim Hansen

URL: 2004 status report at
<http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/status04/Dove.pdf>

The Mourning Dove Call-Count Survey was developed to provide an index to
population size and to detect annual changes in mourning dove breeding
populations in the U.S. There are 28 (?) routes in Montana (over 1000
nationwide). Each call-count route is usually located on secondary roads
and has 20 listening stations spaced at 1-mile intervals. At each stop,
the number of doves heard calling and the number seen are recorded. The
number of doves seen while driving between stops is also noted. The
survey has been conducted since 1966. The resulting estimates of
relative abundance and population trends comprise the principal
information used in the annual setting of mourning dove hunting seasons.

**Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS)** **Program**

Primary contact: Institute for Bird Populations, Danielle Kaschube or
David DeSante

URL: <http://www.birdpop.org/maps.htm>

The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program was
created by the Institute for Bird Populations in 1989 to assess and
monitor the vital rates and population dynamics of North American
landbirds in order to provide critical conservation and management
information on their populations. The MAPS Program utilizes
constant-effort mist netting and banding at a continent-wide network of
monitoring stations staffed by both biologists and trained volunteers.
In Montana there are 12 banding stations. Six are run by IBP, two by
MTFWP, two by the Bitterroot National Forest, one by the Lee Metcalf
NWR, one by WREN (in collaboration with the Avian Science Center - see
<http://www.avianscience.org/research_wrenbanding.htm>). All data is
sent to IBP for storage and dissemination.

*In the following sections, we detail the CBM plans, as developed to
date, for the two main monitoring components: Long-term Monitoring and
Management Effects Monitoring.*

# LONG-TERM MONITORING 

Conceptually, coordinated bird monitoring can be divided into long-term
and short-term objectives. Long-term monitoring implemented at the state
level can be combined with nearby states or can be part of a continental
program to obtain population trend estimates. Short-term surveys are
intended to address specific management issues that need to be resolved
at a relatively large geographic scale, often involving multiple species
and habitats. Management issues, survey objectives, methods, roles and
responsibilities, and recommendations for implementation will be
developed during plan revisions.

Long-term monitoring of birds in Montana is one of the primary goals of
the Coordinated Bird Monitoring Plan. Most land use activities are not
monitored, so a well-distributed ongoing monitoring program that is set
up irrespective of any particular activity could be a useful tool in
exposing cumulative management effects. In fact, long-term monitoring of
population trends is essential because: 1) the effects of human activity
outside the management area may affect species that reside part-time
within the management area, such as land-use patterns in Mexico could
affecting populations of bird species that breed in Montana; and 2) bird
populations may be declining due to interactions among multiple factors,
which could not be predicted based on single-effect studies. The only
way to expose such problems would be through long-term monitoring of the
actual population trends. This information could then be incorporated in
the planning process for future activities.

Collecting habitat data at all monitoring points is another way we can
move beyond the limits associated with monitoring programs (e.g. BBS)
that are built entirely around the generation of long-term trend data.
Long-term monitoring can in fact be integral to an overall program
addressing management information needs. Habitat data allows a wealth of
information to be obtained on bird-habitat relationships as well as
suggesting potential management issues (Hutto and Young 1999, Young and
Hutto 2002). Habitat relationship information is essential for
predicting where species are likely to occur, and consequently what
habitats are critical for maintaining species populations. This
information can be used to anticipate potential impacts of management
activities that alter the availability and distribution of habitat.
Long-term monitoring thus provides the "pilot" data that fuels all of
our hypotheses about management effects.

## Survey Objectives

*What species to monitor?* Identifying species at risk requires
information on all species regularly found in Montana, and information
must be collected throughout Montana. Appendix 1 provides the full
species list, along with the recommended monitoring protocol(s) for each
species (summarized in Table 1). The list was prepared using the general
criterion that we should monitor species we would try to conserve if we
knew they were declining. It totals 230 species, which includes all game
and nongame species that breed regularly in Montana, but it does not
include introduced species or species that are at the very edge of their
range in Montana.

However, it may not be necessary to monitor every single bird species.
It is not cost-effective to undertake special surveys to monitor species
that are not of concern, especially when there are many other taxa with
equally important species that are not monitored at all.

*Quantitative Objectives*: For all species groups, we use the accuracy
target for trends proposed by Bart et al. (2004) -- building on earlier
work by Butcher et al. (1993) -- of 80% power to detect a 50% decline,
occurring during no more than 20 years, using a significance level of
0.10, and incorporating effects of potential bias. For many nongame
species, estimating trends solely for Montana with sufficient precision
is probably not feasible (Bart et al. 2004). Instead, information from
Montana will need to be combined with information from surrounding
states to achieve targets for a larger proportion of each species'
entire range. Cooperation across state lines will be encouraged by using
Bird Conservation Regions for planning (see next section).

**Ecoregional stratification of the State**

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="2.125in"
height="1.3520833333333333in"}When designing a state-wide program such
as CBM, it is often useful to plan surveys in relation to known
differences in ecological communities across the state, and to also use
these communities as templates for collaboration across state lines. In
this plan, we use Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) for our ecoregion
designations. These regions were designated by the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (NABCI), which was formed as an international
forum for coordination of conservation efforts of existing major bird
initiatives (i.e., landbirds, waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds). One
goal of NABCI is to increase the effectiveness of, and coordination
between, existing and new bird conservation programs. As a recommended
framework for coordinated bird management, NABCI adopted and mapped
ecological units called Bird Conservation Regions (see
<http://www.nabci-us.org/bcrs.html>). BCRs are ecologically distinct
regions with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management
issues. Montana is covered by three BCRs (see map, right; Northern
Rockies, BCR-10; Prairie Potholes, BCR-11; and Badlands and Prairies,
BCR 17).

## Program Elements

Monitoring the wide diversity of bird species occurring in Montana
requires a number of different survey methods appropriate to the
habitats and behavior or each species group. Survey methods for each
element of the long-term monitoring program will follow the national
recommendations of a panel of experts at the continental level who have
evaluated which methods best estimate long-term trends in population
size. Some species of concern will need to have special sampling efforts
focused on them. These recommended methods are listed in Appendix I for
each species and summarized in the following table.

**Table 1.** Number of species that would be monitored by each major
survey method. Some species are counted under more than one method (see
Appendix I). Ranges in numbers are due to uncertainty whether or not
some methods will work best for particular species.

  ---------------------------------------- -------------- ---------------
  **Survey Method**                        **Season**     **\# Species**

  Point counts for landbirds               Breeding       147-165

  Diurnal Raptor surveys                   Breeding       8-11

  Area surveys for aquatic birds           Breeding       41-46

  Colony counts                            Breeding       13-15

  Aerial surveys for waterfowl             Breeding       15-18

  Nocturnal surveys                        Breeding       10-12

  Species-specific surveys                 Breeding       18-28

  Migration monitoring (shorebirds)        Migration      14-20
  ---------------------------------------- -------------- ---------------

**1a. Landbird Monitoring Program (LBMP)**

*Existing Surveys:* Current partners and survey efforts for the
geographically stratified transects of the LBMP in Montana are
summarized in the following table, and the distribution of these
transects is shown in the subsequent map:

**[Sponsoring Organization Transects]{.underline}**

U.S. Forest Service 268

Bureau of Land Management 57

Montana FWP (SWG) 55

Conf. Salish-Kootenai Tribes 26

[Glacier National Park 25]{.underline}

**Total 431 transects**

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.696527777777778in"
height="3.879861111111111in"}

*Sampling Plans:* The majority of breeding bird species in Montana can
be monitored using standard point-count survey techniques (generally
"landbirds"). These will be monitored throughout Montana by continuing
the expansion of the Landbird Monitoring Program. The sampling design
will involve a combination of geographically stratified and
habitat-targeted monitoring points to distribute the monitoring effort
across Montana, while also adequately sampling all habitats. The LBMP is
currently under review to determine the most efficient combination of
geographically stratified and habitat-based monitoring surveys, as well
as the feasibility of increasing the number of off-road transects. This
review will help inform the larger CBM efforts.

To stratify monitoring geographically, at least one transect will be
located within each quarter latilong in the state not already containing
a BBS route, in order to complement the BBS and provide latilong atlas
data (Lenard et al. 2003). Although they will be random with respect to
habitat, the transect locations may need to emphasize public ownership
to improve access and reduce sampling of agricultural areas, as well as
to better meet the needs of partner agencies. There are currently 27
quarter-latilongs in Montana that do not have transects (Appendix II).

Survey protocols established for the LBMP
(<http://www.avianscience.org/research_landbird.htm>) will be used on
all of these transects. Sampling designs will also be similar (pending
review), with long-term monitoring transects surveyed every two years.

*Needed Information:* Our most important need is better collaboration
with Montana Tribes. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have
been a partner since 1996, but other Tribal lands in Montana can be seen
as obvious gaps in our geographic coverage (see map, previous page).
Inviting all individual Tribes into our network of partners will make a
stronger and more comprehensive program for all elements of this CBM
plan. Surveys on tribal lands could be conducted by Tribal members,
Reservation biologists, or ASC employees.

*Project Management:* Coordination will continue to be provided by the
Avian Science Center for all elements of the LBMP. We have found that it
works well to use primarily seasonal technicians who are hired by
participating partners but then trained and supervised in the field by
Avian Science Center personnel. It may also be useful for the ASC to
hire technicians directly, to have more flexible "rovers." All
information will be entered into a central database through a web
interface maintained at the Avian Science Center. Access to raw data,
data analyses, and data summaries will occur primarily through the same
map-based web portal, as well as hard-copy annual reports.

**Habitat-based surveys:**

Many bird species can be monitored by point counts, but will not be
covered sufficiently by this random placement of transects because these
species are restricted to rare habitats. To achieve better coverage of
these rarer species we will need to establish new transects in
landscapes or habitats not adequately covered by the random transects
established above. The exact distribution needed will depend on the
final allocation of the geographically stratified points, but we will
have a target sample size of 100 pts in each PIF priority habitat (these
targets may be shared with adjoining states in the relevant BCR as these
areas implement broader monitoring). In the eastern part of the state,
one targeted transect per latilong will be established in landscapes not
well covered by random selections, such as high quality native grassland
or sagebrush, and various riparian types (see next section). In the
western part of the state, the increased topographic diversity will
require two targeted transects per latilong, to emphasize lowland
landscapes, including sagebrush, grassland, agriculture, and
under-represented forest lands such as ponderosa pine or cedar (perhaps
also alpine areas, if possible). We anticipate that this will require
about 60-70 new transects. This effort can incorporate existing
point-count efforts in specific habitats, such as grassland surveys
being run by the Montana Natural Heritage Program and the National
Wildlife Refuges. We need to be made aware of other such efforts.

**1b. Riparian-specific LBMP Program**

Riparian habitats are a high priority for habitat-based bird surveys
because they support a high diversity of birds, are poorly sampled by
random transects, and are especially threatened by habitat loss and
degradation. Species restricted to riparian habitats pose special
challenges to monitoring. A monitoring program specifically designed to
efficiently survey these habitats is necessary, and we therefore
consider this as a separate element in the CBM plan.

*Survey Objectives:* The main objective is to adequately monitor
population trends of all riparian-associated bird species that are not
sufficiently covered by our geographically stratified transects. Data
from the Madison/Missouri efforts and additional pilot work in 2005 will
help determine needed sample sizes. At this time our main objective is
cottonwood bottomland habitats, but we want to eventually do additional
work on smaller streams dominated by willow and other shrubs, as well as
hardwood draws in eastern Montana.

*Existing Surveys:* The Avian Science Center has recently been working
with PPL Montana and the BLM to implement a riparian-based monitoring
protocol on a 541-mi Madison/Missouri project area. We randomly located
30 transects (each within a geographically stratified river reach), and
surveyed these in 2003. We discovered that riparian habitat is
sporadically located and therefore not sufficiently targeted using this
design. We found it necessary to delineate patches of riparian habitat
using aerial photos or DOQs (unless adequate GIS layers are already
available, which is rare for riparian habitats). A new sample of sites
was selected from these target patches and surveyed in 2004. We
recommend a similar site selection plan for other major rivers in the
state.

*Sampling Plan:* Many of the factors influencing riparian birds operate
at large spatial scales (e.g. habitat availability and configuration,
landscape context). In order to analyze the influence of these effects,
we will be using a watershed-based sampling design (4^th^ code
hydrologic units) where watersheds are randomly selected within each BCR
(Figure 2). Excluding the Madison/Missouri project, a total of 18
watersheds have been selected for monitoring (Table 2). Additional
watersheds may be added or prioritized to dovetail this effort with the
Montana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan and to expand survey
efforts. To most efficiently target riparian forest, surveys will be
limited to watersheds with large rivers (4th order or greater) that have
sufficient riparian habitat. In future years, we can efficiently expand
the survey effort to additional riparian habitats within each selected
watershed.

Figure 2. Map of watersheds sampled in Madison/Missouri Project, and
additional selected watershed for monitoring within each BCR in Montana

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="5.873611111111111in"
height="4.232638888888889in"}

Table 2. Watersheds (4^th^ code HUC's) selected for riparian forest
habitat monitoring (this list will be finalized after 2005 field season)

  -------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------
  BCR            Watershed Name                                  

  10             Beaverhead                                      

  10             Bitterroot                                      

  10             Blackfoot                                       

  17             Judith                                          

  11             Lower Milk                                      

  17             Lower Musselshell                               

  17             Lower Powder                                    

  17             Lower Tongue                                    

  17             Lower Yellowstone                               

  11             Marias                                          

  10             Middle Clark Fork                               

  10             North Fork Flathead                             

  10             Smith                                           

  10             South fork Flathead                             

  11             Teton                                           

  10             Two Medicine                                    

  10             Upper Yellowstone                               

  17             Upper Yellowstone-Lake Basin                    
  -------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------

Riparian forests occur discontinuously along waterways in linear bands
of highly variable size. The standard Landbird Monitoring Program
protocol of 10 sample points per transect is not an ideal method for
surveying this habitat type, because it does not permit sampling smaller
patches (\<1km in length) that represent much of the available riparian
forest habitat. Therefore, sites will be selected following sampling
protocols designed to sample habitat patches. Within each selected
watershed, 15 riparian forest patches will be randomly chosen. For each
patch, we will overlay a 150m x 150 m grid parallel to the main axis of
the riparian patch, with a potential point count location in the center
of each grid cell. All potential point locations within each patch will
be surveyed (1-8 points/patch).

*Needed Information:* We need more information on past river surveys,
their sampling protocols, and whether they could be repeated as part of
the overall design. We need inventories of navigable river reaches and
all public access points. We need to make sure we are very clear on the
rules (both legal and cultural) regarding stream access. If we plan to
use private property (important for unbiased sampling, but tricky
because long-term access can not be assured), we will need ownership
records and a coordinated system for contacting landowners (so they are
not called by multiple people looking for different kinds of surveys or
conservation opportunities, etc.).

*Project Management:* Coordination will continue to be provided by the
Avian Science Center as part of the Landbird Monitoring Program.

### 2. Breeding Bird Survey

The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) uses point counts, but the specific
protocols are different from those used in the LBMP (3 minute counts, 50
stops, ¼-mile intervals). We are not using the BBS methodology for the
statewide landbird surveys, because of concerns about count duration,
hurried pace, lack of vegetation data, and reliance on untrained
observers. Instead we will be complementing the BBS by placing new
transects in quarter-latilongs that do *not* have BBS routes, in order
to maximize our geographical coverage of the state (Appendix II).
Currently, the BBS provides at least marginally adequate coverage for
about 25-35 of the more common priority bird species in Montana, and
50-60 non-priority species. Coverage of all of these species will be
expanded by the point-count projects outlined in this CBM plan.

*Project Management:* The BBS system will remain as it is in Montana
(with 56 official and 9 non-random routes). However, partners should
make a commitment to full participation in the BBS program, and should
work to ensure that all established BBS runs are consistently run so
that we avoid the kinds of gaps that have occurred in the past. If we
can not find enough highly skilled volunteers, agencies should allow
their biologists time to run routes (if they are not already doing so).
We will also explore ways to train observers for species identification
skills as well as more rigid adherence to protocols, in cooperation with
ideas on these subjects being discussed and implemented at the National
level.

The BBS and LBMP surveys can be analyzed separately to provide
corroboration for each other, or it may be possible to increase the
strength of the overall CBM program by using the BBS data for the state
in combination with the LBMP and other data (Sauer 1999).

### 3. Diurnal Raptor Monitoring 

*Existing Surveys:* Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks currently
coordinates 46 long-term Raptor Survey Routes across the state. These
are essentially point count methodologies set up similarly to the BBS,
but surveys are done at a different time of day with observers focused
on a specific set of species. This is an excellent program that should
be continued.

*Needed Information:* An extensive data analysis is currently being done
on the 26 years of data collected to date and should be completed by
June 2005. Results of this analysis will be posted on the MTFWP web
page. This will help determine if existing monitoring efforts are
adequate for surveying each species. Monitoring needs for forest
*Accipiters* will also need to be reviewed.

Long-lived species with sparse populations may require more intensive
monitoring efforts to detect changes in abundance, such as direct
measures of nest occupancy and fledging success. These species include
Bald Eagles, Peregrine Falcons, Ferruginous Hawk, Northern Goshawk, and
Golden Eagle. Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons are already being
monitored by MTFWP and USFWS, respectively.

*Project Management:* Presently volunteer coordination is done by MTFWP;
they are seeking funds to cover coordination of field efforts and
compilation and analysis of data collected.

### 4. Aquatic Bird Program

*Survey Objectives:* A large number of bird species of conservation
priority are highly reliant on wetlands for breeding and migration
habitat. These are highly discrete sites that must be specifically
targeted and searched with methods appropriate for the each species.
Montana's aquatic bird monitoring program will 1) help to clarify the
distribution of wetland-dependent species, and 2) monitor their
populations in relation to the amount and suitability of the state's
wetland resources to these species.

*Existing Surveys:* There have been very few extensive surveys of the
distribution of single species in Montana (e.g. Rauscher 2000), or
inventories of all wetlands across any significant portion of the state
(e.g. Reichel 1996, Feigley 1997). Good regional trend data are not
currently available for most shorebirds and waterbirds in Montana (or
anywhere else), although several local efforts have produced important
survey data for some sites (e.g., Benton, Bowdoin, and Medicine Lake
National Wildlife Refuges).

*Sampling Plan:* The program will follow the design recommendations of
the national Coordinated Bird Monitoring (CBM) committees. By following
their approach, Montana's survey data can be stepped up to inform
regional efforts. The final Coordinated Bird Monitoring model for
Montana will require the joint efforts of many partners to ensure that
such surveys are well designed to complement historic and ongoing survey
efforts at these key sites.

Aquatic bird monitoring will be conducted at a combination of discrete
wetlands known to support high concentrations of aquatic focal species
and at randomly selected wetlands to adequately monitor more dispersed
species (Table 3). Collectively, aquatic species require a variety of
specialized survey techniques. All relevant surveys will be conducted at
both "discrete" and "dispersed" sites; however, sampling designs for the
discrete sites, which are often large and complex, will often need to be
site specific.

Table 3. List of aquatic focal species targeted by discrete and
dispersed site surveys.

  ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
  **Discrete**                    **Dispersed**

  Western Grebe                   Pied-billed Grebe

  Clark's Grebe                   Horned Grebe

  Eared Grebe                     Anas and Aythya ducks

  American White Pelican          American Bittern

  Black-crowned Night-Heron       Virginia Rail

  White-faced Ibis                Sora

  Black-necked Stilt              American Avocet

  Franklin's Gull                 Wilson's Phalarope

  Caspian Tern                    Black Tern

  Forster's Tern                  Common Tern

                                  Transient Shorebirds
  ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

**4a. Discrete Sites**

For many wetland bird species, a large percentage of their populations
can be surveyed by concentrating on a limited number of wetland
complexes. These include birds that nest in colonies (e.g. pelicans,
terns, herons, etc.) and species that prefer to breed in large wetland
complexes (e.g., Western Grebe, Forster's Tern, etc.).

To adequately monitor focal species with geographically concentrated
colonies and other aquatic focal species restricted to large wetland
complexes, which are not likely to be covered in random samples, annual
intensive surveys at all known sites supporting substantial numbers of
each species are necessary. We are compiling an inventory of all wetland
sites in Montana with known or suspected breeding populations of
priority species. The results of this effort are presented in Appendix
IV. We have identified 50-60 key sites in the state that should be
surveyed thoroughly on an annual basis for the species listed in the
left column above (other species will also be recorded, of course).
Specifically, these aquatic site assessments describe the sites that
need to be included in statewide surveys, the most important areas
within these sites, existing survey efforts, and recommended
site-specific survey methods for species of interest driven by the
timing of breeding events, known relationships to water level
fluctuations, and site topology.

*Needed Information:* Our inventory of sites that should be regularly
monitored is not complete (Appendix IV). We need local experts to help
extend the list and fill in the information for each, so we can identify
information already available and gaps in data that need to be filled
and design site specific methods for species of interest that complement
historic and ongoing survey efforts. ASC has agreed to take the lead in
completing these assessments.

*Project Management:* Because many of the key colony sites in Montana
occur on publicly-owned wetlands managed by agencies with permanent or
seasonal staff, our focus should be on outreach and development of the
resources and impetus necessary to have the relevant partner agency
(e.g. USFWS) conduct or fund the surveys on a site by site basis, using
local volunteers wherever possible. The ASC and the Montana Natural
Heritage Program (MNHP) will collaborate in forming a centralized data
management. MNHP already performs this function for at least historic
element occurrence (distribution) data for many of these species at
these sites.

Volunteer networks will be used as appropriate, especially for the
checks of known locations of priority species. The Rocky Mountain Bird
Observatory has implemented a Colony Watch program in Colorado which
maintains a register of volunteers who each survey one or more colonies
on an annual basis. We believe this approach has merit, but the density
and distribution of qualified birders in Montana might preclude a
comprehensive program of this type at this time. Because most of the
sites we have identified for preliminary consideration have also been
identified as candidates for state Important Bird Area designation,
Montana Audubon should play a key role in the development of a volunteer
work force for these surveys.

**4b. Dispersed Sites**

Many other wetland bird species are dispersed among smaller as well as
larger wetlands, and a large percentage of their populations would not
be surveyed at the priority wetland sites. To clarify the distribution
of these wetland-dependent species, as well as to monitor their
populations in relation to the amount and suitability of the State's
wetland resources, surveys will be conducted regularly at randomly
selected wetlands. Researchers have been working on stratified
approaches to wetland inventories (e.g. Skagen et al. 2003). To get a
representative sample of the more dispersed wetland species, we have
begun to select a stratified (by type and size) random sample of
wetlands across the state. We will select random subsets of wetlands
from each of 4 categories: marshes, lakes \<30 ac, lakes 30-640 ac, and
lakes \>640 ac in size. Eventual sample size will be 120 sites (30
each), distributed evenly across the state. An example of this selection
process is shown in Appendix III.

We will follow national standardized survey protocol guidelines,
although consistent and comparable methods are still needed for many
non-colonial aquatic birds. For efficiency, all of the techniques we use
will be performed on the same visit to each wetland. Site visits will be
timed to represent the peak of the nesting season for the broadest range
of species, and also the time period when water levels are highest (June
throughout most of Montana). Preferably two visits will be made to each
wetland surveyed, once during the first half of the month, and once
during the second half, with the visits at least 2 weeks apart. This
will require a tradeoff with the number of sites that can be monitored.

### *Project Management:* Surveys will be coordinated in a statewide networking effort that includes all agencies in the state with an interest in wetland bird surveys, on order to maximize existing monitoring efforts and determine how best to meet additional monitoring needs through a combination of technicians and volunteers. The Montana Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Program (MTDEQ) may wish to help with this effort.

### 5. Waterfowl Monitoring

*Existing Surveys:* In Montana, aerial surveys are completed for the
northeast 2/3 of the state (BCR 11 and, less intensely, BCR 17) as part
of the Waterfowl Breeding Population & Habitat Survey.

*Needed Information:* Populations in western Montana (BCR 10) may be
sufficiently monitored by wetland area searches and riparian point
counts (especially if river-running surveys are included).
Cavity-nesting ducks might be covered by wetland area searches if we
target the appropriate forested lakes (along with Red-necked Grebes and
Common Loons), or they may be better surveyed on their wintering
grounds.

*Project Management:* MTFWP, USFWS, as currently operated.

### 6. Nocturnal Surveys

*Sampling Plans:* We will use the Bird Studies Canada protocol, which
involves 10 stops placed 1 mi apart (for most owls; Flammulated Owl
surveys occur \~500m) and which relies on a combination of passive
listening and callback techniques. Monitoring points will be located
within appropriate habitats and stratified geographically using
latilongs. Sites will be selected from among the point count transects
and positioned by overlaying and extending the already existing
transects.

These surveys need to be conducted during two parts of the season,
March/April for most owls, which may begin breeding in February or even
January, and May/June for Flammulated Owl and Common Poorwill. The
latter are essentially single-species surveys that may be managed
separately.

*Project Management:* These surveys will be conducted as a citizen
science effort in combination with the efforts of hired point counters,
and may be coordinated by Montana Audubon, the Avian Science Center, the
Owl Research Institute, or a collaboration between any of these.

### 7. Upland Game Bird Surveys

*Needed Information*: We need to confirm that monitoring efforts will be
adequate for Sage Grouse and Sharp-tailed Grouse, and that the necessary
coordination is in place to assure consistency in those programs and
information sharing. Networking with the Western Agencies Sage and
Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee, as well as individual
stakeholders, will be important.

We may also want to consider a plan to monitor forest grouse (especially
Blue Grouse, a species of concern).

*Project Management*: MTFWP? Depends on species. Sage Grouse probably
separate.

### 8. Species-Specific Surveys

*Survey Objectives:* Appendix I lists 18-28 species that may require
special efforts to monitor. We may decide not to monitor some of these,
especially if there is no reason for concern for a particular species.
However, many of these species are of high concern and will need to be
covered. Within-state trends will probably not be possible for these
species (and many others).

*Existing Surveys:* Common Loon, Bald Eagle, and the endangered species
are already covered.

*Sampling Plans:* We will borrow from existing state (and in some cases
trial) protocols (e.g. OR/WA and CO) for some special species,
especially Black Swift and Harlequin Duck. Sites will be identified and
surveyed on an annual basis. Secretive marsh birds will be addressed by
expanding participation in the National Marsh Bird Monitoring Program.
For other species (e.g. Sage Grouse, Burrowing Owl, Mountain Plover),
there are already monitoring networks being established. These will need
to be evaluated and expanded as necessary. We recommend undertaking some
of these surveys as a citizen science effort coordinated by the Montana
Natural Heritage Program, the American Bird Conservancy, and Montana
Audubon.

### 9. Shorebird Migration

*Survey Objectives:* The goal of the shorebird surveys is to produce
good estimates of the average number of shorebirds present during the
migration period for each focal species. Because of the fluidity of
migratory pathways and schedule, it is doubtful that population trends
can be measured.

*Existing Surveys:* Benton Lake and Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuges,
Montana's two WHSRN sites (<http://www.manomet.org/WHSRN/sites.php>), as
well as Medicine Lake NWR currently participate in the Western Shorebird
Survey. Shorebird monitoring also occurs at the Stone Container ponds
near Missoula (not listed on the WSS web site).

*Sampling Plans:* Shorebird monitoring can be conducted at the same
wetland sites as the rest of our aquatic bird program (Appendix III and
IV). We have taken transient shorebirds into consideration when
selecting sites. However, these surveys need to be done at different
times of the year (depending on the protocol, several visits in the fall
and sometimes in the spring as well). We are discussing ways to
coordinate field technicians so that they can perform a variety of such
time-specific surveys while being employed for several months, if not
year-round (by MTFWP or ASC). Monitoring Manual:

<http://testweb-pwrc.er.usgs.gov/monmanual/techniques/shorebirdsnonbreedingsites.htm>

*Needed Information:* We need to choose focal species based on
continental concern and abundance in Montana. We need to include
shorebird information in aquatic site assessments (Appendix IV), and
determine which species will need to be monitored at dispersed sites.

We will work with the Program for Regional and International Shorebird
Monitoring (PRISM; <http://wss.wr.usgs.gov/data/document_main.html>) to
determine the best sampling design and protocols for monitoring migrant
shorebirds in Montana.

*Project Management:* Existing sites can continue to be surveyed with
the coordination of the Western Shorebird Survey, but they might not be
able to coordinate the number of sites we want to monitor in Montana.
MTFWP or ASC will probably have to contribute.

**Effectiveness monitoring of specific management activities**

Monitoring can and should be much more than the effort to track
population trends; it can be a proactive effort to understand the
effects of human activities on bird populations (Hutto 1998; IAFWA
2004). It should be an integral part of the adaptive management process.
The dual focus of the CBM plan is to produce short-term results on
habitat relationships and management effects as well as long-term
population trend data. This allows for a more refined study of issues of
immediate management concern.

This has been successfully achieved in the existing Landbird Monitoring
Program (LBMP). The incorporation of management-effects studies on an
alternate-year basis was initiated by the LBMP in 1996, and this has
proven to be an excellent way to get important information to managers
and partners in the short term. This element of the LBMP program has
been appreciated by national monitoring experts and is often recommended
for other monitoring programs across the country (Bart 2005). The number
of true replicate plots that have been associated with a typical
alternate-year study for the LBMP is also noteworthy. Because the
coordination and funding remains in place from the years in which
permanent transects are surveyed, we can efficiently survey a large
number of sites across the region. Even with each National Forest hiring
only a single seasonal field worker, the entire monitoring crew is large
enough to allow us to work with numbers of replicate sites that are
greater than all but one of 95 studies published in various ecological,
ornithological and conservation journals over the past 25 years
(Sallabanks et al. 2000). Thus, the power of this program to generate
statistically meaningful data is directly linked with the commitment to
maintain a large field crew during the alternate years.

We recommend that the Montana CBM program also adopt this approach. The
logistics of coordinating such studies among numerous partners may seem
daunting, but the benefits of working it out are well worth it. The
alternate-year design is not essential, but it helps keep the annual
costs consistent so that agencies can better anticipate budgetary needs.
An essential step will be to prioritize issues within different
geographic regions and habitat types. It is not necessary for all
partners to participate in every project. We expect that all partners
will participate in the long-term monitoring program, although perhaps
not in all components of it, depending on the suites of bird species
under their management. Specific management issues are less likely to
apply to all partners. However, the strength and usefulness of the
projects for each partner are increased by the greater participation of
all partners. Subcommittees or individual partners may commit to take
responsibility for coordinating specific projects.

Ongoing discussions with habitat managers and wildlife biologists
throughout Montana in recent years have provided some consensus on the
major bird conservation and management issues that a bird monitoring
program should address. In this proposal we discuss six examples that
have been identified as pressing regional concerns at the time of this
document's preparation. We are not suggesting that we should be limited
in any way to this list of examples. Projects will be put together based
on intra-agency pressures and funding opportunities that cannot always
be anticipated. However, the specification of high-priority monitoring
needs can sometimes make such opportunities happen. The six examples
are:

1\. Forest thinning and fuels reduction projects in dry-forest habitat
types

2\. Effects of coal-bed methane development on grassland and sagebrush
bird species

3\. Maintaining the integrity of cottonwood riparian ecosystems

4\. High quality habitat and effects of land-use practices in sagebrush
bird communities

5\. Resource and landscape needs of stand-replacement fire-dependent
bird communities

6\. Old-growth associated bird species and the integrity of mesic,
old-growth ecosystems

*Needed Information:* The nature of the management issues is discussed
in more detail below. We still need to clarify our precise objectives
for each project. This is part of an ongoing process we are trying to
encourage to allow managers and biologists to work more closely together
to understand the needs of both. Innovative ideas for achieving this
goal are welcome. Clarifying the specific information needs of managers
is a key element of adaptive management. We may not be able to specify
the other details of these projects until we see what issues we will
have the opportunity to pursue.

**1. Forest Thinning and Fuels-Reduction Projects in Dry Forest Habitat
Types**

Dry forest habitat types composed primarily of some combination of
ponderosa pine (*Pinus ponderosa*) and Douglas-fir (*Pseudotsuga
menziesii*) are distributed widely throughout Montana except for the
northeastern portion of the state, and are found at lower to middle
elevations on both public and private lands. Prior to European
settlement, fire intervals in the dry forest types of Montana ranged
from 5-45 yrs, depending on elevation, local climate, and the extent of
fire initiation by Native Americans (Fischer and Bradley 1987, Arno
2000). These frequent fires were usually of low intensity and promoted a
forest structure of open, uneven-aged stands dominated by large
ponderosa pines by selectively killing the more fire-sensitive young
Douglas-fir. Understory development was dominated by grass species with
shrub undergrowth generally sparse (Arno et al. 1997). Stands of large
ponderosa pine historically dominated most dry forest sites in western
Montana. It should be noted, however, that it is still not known how
much variation existed in tree densities and fire regimes on these sites
(Baker and Ehle 2001).

Human intervention in the form of fire suppression has had a dramatic
effect on existing vegetation, allowing forest succession to progress
unimpeded toward climax vegetation on many of these dry-forest sites.
The absence of fire has permitted relatively shade-tolerant and
fire-vulnerable Douglas-fir and grand fir (*Abies grandis*) to become a
significant portion of the species composition (Fischer and Bradley
1987). Douglas-fir regeneration in the understory has created a fire
ladder, greatly increasing the potential of stand-replacement crown
fires (Fischer and Bradley 1987; Saab and Rich 1997).

Active treatment of ponderosa pine forests to reverse historical trends
is a recent phenomenon. From 1997 to 1998, the area treated with logging
and understory burning increased in Forest Service Region One from
approximately 18,000 to 24,000 ha. Under one tentative plan (probably
already obsolete), the area to be treated with both logging and
understory burning was to rise to 70,000 ha annually in Region One, with
an additional 30,000 ha to undergo solely mechanical treatment.
Approximately half of the estimated 1.7 million dry-forest ha on USFS
land in Montana would be treated to restore historic conditions during a
20-yr cycle.

The forest fire seasons of 2000 and 2002, when millions of acres burned
throughout the western United States, have greatly increased the
perception that we need active management of dry forests and virtually
assured increased funding for such activities (US Office of the
President 2002). The new Healthy Forest Restoration Act requires
significant thinning and other actions on all Forests within the Region.
It is becoming ever more critical to assess the effects of these
projects on the forest ecosystems.

The dry-forest restoration study conducted by the Northern Region
Landbird Monitoring Program in 2001 and 2003 was intended to address the
question of whether restoration efforts were biologically effective.
However, the exact prescriptions for fuels reduction treatments to be
conducted on the ground will continue to evolve. As managers and
biologists become aware of what types of treatments they are working
with the most, effectiveness-monitoring studies need to be planned
accordingly. Also, we need to pay close attention to the habitat types
in which the treatments are being performed. If fuels reduction
treatments occur in the more mesic forests, which historically had
stand-replacement or mixed fire regimes (Arno 2000), then a different
set of bird species will be affected, probably including species that
are more sensitive to the changes.

*Monitoring Objectives:* The goal of this type of project would be to
collect and develop information on avian species response to guide
management of dry forests in Region One and the West. By combining
survey efforts across the multiple ownerships throughout Montana, we can
gain important insight into the health of dry forests, identify
universal and site-specific features to guide restoration, and identify
the most effective techniques for active land management and the
conservation of avian habitats. Specific objectives would be to: 1)
compare the effects on bird populations of dry-forest restoration
treatments and the naturally-caused low to moderate severity fires they
are intended to mimic; 2) determine the relationship of vegetation
structure and plant species composition to bird populations within and
among untreated, treated, and naturally-burned sites; and 3) compare
vegetation structure, components, and plant species composition among
treatment types.

*Focal Species:*

[Blue Grouse](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtblgr.htm)

[Flammulated
Owl](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtflow.htm)

[Lewis\'s
Woodpecker](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtlewo.htm)

[Hammond\'s
Flycatcher](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mthafl.htm)

Cassin\'s Vireo

[Chipping
Sparrow](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtchsp.htm)

[Cassin\'s
Finch](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtcafi.htm)

[Red
Crossbill](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtrecr.htm)

Pygmy Nuthatch

*Other species of lower concern that may be affected by this issue:*

Red-breasted Nuthatch

Northern Flicker

White-breasted Nuthatch

Western Wood-Pewee

Hermit Thrush

Western Tanager

Pine Siskin

Hairy Woodpecker

Mountain Chickadee

Species closely associated with old forest stages and snags, such as the
Lewis\'s Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker, Olive-sided Flycatcher,
Flammulated Owl, White-breasted Nuthatch, and Williamson\'s Sapsucker
are believed to have decreased because of the reduction of old forest
stages. Some bird species commonly found in more moist coniferous
habitats, including Townsend\'s Warbler, Hammond\'s Flycatcher, and
Ruby-crowned Kinglet, have likely increased in dry forests due to
increases in tree density and tree cover strata. The Chipping Sparrow, a
relatively common yet consistently declining species throughout the
American West, is likely to benefit from restoration efforts that open
up forest structure.

*Study Areas:* Thinning and/or fuels reduction treatments are being
conducted or planned throughout Montana, although appropriate habitats
occur more often in the southern half of the state. This is an important
issue for the USFS, BLM, State Lands, Tribes, and numerous private
landowners. Coordination with agency and timber industry biologists and
managers throughout the state to identify potential study sites where
future treatments are planned is critical.

The Avian Science Center recently monitored birds on treated and
soon-to-be treated stands on USFS lands, and was able to find nine sites
on each national Forest west of the Continental Divide. Additional
stands of ponderosa pine potentially requiring treatment have recently
been mapped in the Bitterroot Valley by the USFS, Dan Casey, and John
Haufler.

*Sampling Plan:* We will need presence/absence data from comparative
studies of treated and control sites, and from sites before and after
restoration. Sites in each treatment type will be selected at random
(within the target landscape and subject to logistic constraints). Up to
five points will be placed in each site, and these points will be
visited three times during the course of the breeding season, as
recommended for habitat-comparison studies (Drapeau et al. 1999, Huff et
al. 2000). The points will be off-road, if possible, although the stand
itself will usually be next to a road.

The standard point-count survey sampling protocol (Ralph et al. 1995)
will be used to estimate relative avian abundance. These protocols will
primarily be geared toward songbirds although more specific techniques
developed for nocturnal species (forest owls and nightjars) and cavity
nesters (woodpeckers) also are encouraged. Standardized guidelines have
recently been adopted for nocturnal owl monitoring in North America
(Takats et al. 2001) and are the method of choice for owls surveys
conducted under the Montana framework.

*Information needed:*

-   Continue to work with USFS and BLM biologists and regional program
    leaders to establish a coordinated network of monitoring sites

-   Determine areas where significant acreages will be treated in the
    near future.

-   What types of silvicultural prescriptions will be used? If it is
    site-specific, will there be a small set of standard treatment
    options that we can group for our study design?

-   In what habitat types will the treatments be performed? If
    fuels-reduction treatments occur in the more mesic forests, which
    historically had stand-replacement or mixed fire regimes, then a
    different set of bird species will be affected, probably including
    species that are more sensitive to the changes. If stands will be
    treated in mixed-conifer or more mesic habitat types, then we will
    need to analyze these as separate categories.

-   Will treatments be planned far enough in advance for us to survey
    the sites before treatment as well as after? Otherwise, we will have
    to rely on comparisons between treated stands and nearby similar
    stands that have not yet been treated.

**2. Effects of coal-bed methane development on grassland and sagebrush
bird species**

Coal Bed Methane (CBM; not to be confused with "Coordinated Bird
Monitoring") is natural gas formed when plant material is converted into
coal and therefore occurs naturally in large quantities in the seams in
un-mined coal beds. Pressure from overlying rock and surrounding water
keep CBM molecularly bonded to the surface of the coal. Coal seams are
usually saturated with water, and during production, this water is
pumped to the ground surface to lower the pressure in the coal-bed
reservoir and stimulate the release of methane from the coal.

During the past ten years, CBM production increased dramatically and now
represents a significant new source of natural gas for many Western
states. The Powder River Basin in eastern Wyoming and southeastern
Montana is currently the fastest growing basin for CBM development. The
huge coal deposits contain enormous amounts of methane gas, and the low
drilling costs, short completion time, and relatively good quality of
water coupled with inexpensive water management (i.e. surface discharge)
encourages development. CBM has been produced in the Powder River Basin
of Montana since April 1999. Total production estimates for the entire
Powder River Basin range from 90,000 to 180,000 wells (Sexton 2002). If
demand for natural gas increases significantly through the next few
decades as expected, coal-bed gas will continue to be an important
regional source of natural gas.

*Management Issues:* Oil and gas developments may cause a range of
adverse effects. Disturbances created by excavations, roads, facilities,
equipment, human activity, and noise physically eliminate some habitat,
impair the effectiveness of a larger area of otherwise suitable habitat,
and may introduce or attract abnormally high numbers of competitive or
predatory organisms. The significance of the impact to wildlife depends
on the amount and intensity of the disturbance, the specific locations
and arrangements of the disturbance, and the ecological importance of
the habitats affected. Small, isolated disturbances within non-limiting
habitats may be of minor consequence within most ecosystems. However,
larger-scale developments within habitats that limit the abundance and
productivity of wildlife are a significant concern to managers because
such impacts cannot be relieved or absorbed by surrounding, unaltered
habitats.

Much of the CBM activities would occur in the relatively undisturbed
native short grass prairie of eastern Montana, resulting in both direct
and indirect impacts on wildlife. Those impacts would be localized
around CBM exploration and production sites and proportional to the
level of activity at a particular location. Direct habitat loss and
direct and indirect impacts because of habitat disruption and wildlife
disturbance caused by roads and utility corridors would cause the bulk
of the impacts on wildlife. Indirect impacts of road development and use
during exploration and production on wildlife and wildlife habitat
include biological effects, such as displacement and stress, habitat
fragmentation, abandonment of habitat features, physiological penalties
from unnecessary energy expenditure in response to vehicles, and other
effects related to changes in hunting opportunity (Trombulak and
Frissell 2000). Overhead power lines constructed for production wells
pose problems for a variety of wildlife species. Raptors and other
species of birds occasionally collide with power lines, especially
during periods of relatively poor visibility.

Coal-bed methane development is an emerging concern for sage-grouse.
Although development is fairly recent (most activity since 1997),
preliminary observations indicate that 1) there are fewer males/lek when
leks are \<0.4 km of a well than outside this zone; 2) sage-grouse
populations associated with leks within 0.4 km of a power line show
slower rates of growth than those farther away; and 3) sage-grouse
numbers are consistently lower in areas \<1.6 km from a coal-bed methane
facility. A total of 1,210 km² of habitat will be lost outright when the
field is fully developed (Braun et al. 2002). In Wyoming, successful
hens in a natural gas field nested farther from roads than did
unsuccessful hens (Lyon and Anderson 2003). Power lines not only
increase habitat fragmentation but also provide perches for avian
predators of sage-grouse.

*Focal Species:*

Ferruginous Hawk

Swainson's Hawk

Greater Sage-Grouse

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Short-eared Owl

Loggerhead Shrike

Brewer\'s Sparrow

Lark Sparrow

Lark Bunting

Grasshopper Sparrow

Chestnut-collared Longspur

*Other species of lower concern that may be affected by this issue:*

Golden Eagle

Prairie Falcon

Upland Sandpiper

Say\'s Phoebe

Eastern Kingbird

Horned Lark

Rock Wren

Mountain Bluebird

Vesper Sparrow

Savannah Sparrow

Western Meadowlark

Brown-headed Cowbird

*Study Areas:* Although the clear emphasis is on the Powder River Basin,
there are other areas in Montana under exploration, such as Bozeman
Pass. We will need to work closely with people who are keeping track of
where new development is likely to occur, so that we can begin bird
surveys prior to such activity. We should also be coordinating with the
various monitoring plans that the energy companies are developing (or
already have in place). It may be possible (or even necessary) to
coordinate our Montana surveys with similar efforts likely to be
occurring in Wyoming and Colorado.

**3. Maintaining the integrity of cottonwood riparian ecosystems:**

Cottonwood forests can be found in the floodplain of all the major
rivers of the state and many of their tributaries. Mature stands are
dominated by cottonwood, with a well-developed canopy. The dominant tree
species are generally black cottonwood (*Populus trichocarpa*) dominant
in western Montana, plains cottonwood (*P. deltoides*) in the east
(1900-3600 feet), and narrowleaf cottonwood (*P. angustifolia*) in the
headwater reaches of southwestern Montana (above 3100-6700 feet). In
ungrazed or lightly grazed areas, the shrub layer can be nearly
continuous. Generally, this habitat is naturally fragmented or linear in
nature, with bands of mature trees interspersed with open areas of
riparian shrub or flood-influenced areas of grasses/forbs. In natural
flow regimes, there is a mix of age structures corresponding to
different flood events and periods of regeneration. Lower elevation
reaches with low gradients typically have braided river channels, which
add further complexity to the habitat structure. The Montana Gap model
predicts there are just under 200,000 ha of \"Broadleaf Riparian\"
habitat in the state, or about 0.5% of the land base (Redmond et al.
1998), and \<40,000 ha of \"Mixed Broadleaf & Conifer Riparian\" forest.
In most of the major river valleys, there have been significant declines
in the extent of this habitat, primarily due to agricultural conversion.

Riparian habitats, and those dominated by deciduous trees in particular,
are known to support the highest diversity of breeding birds of any
habitats in the western U.S. In addition to being important breeding
areas for birds, riparian habitat patches are particularly important as
stopover sites for birds needing to replenish their fuel supplies during
migration. Differences in vegetation structure and composition within
riparian habitats may affect the quality and availability of food
resources for migrants, as well as their vulnerability to predation. At
least 134 (55%) of Montana\'s 245 species of breeding birds use riparian
forests during all or part of the year.

These habitats are so critical to so many bird species, are so poorly
sampled by random transects, and are in such critical condition due to
habitat loss and degradation, that they are considered a top priority
for bird monitoring in Montana. Generally, degradation has resulted
either through interruption or alteration of natural flood processes or
through direct removal of vegetation via grazing, clearing, or logging
(Rood and Mahony 1995, Scott et al. 1997). Changes in flow regimes can
have a profound effect on the mix of seral stages present along river
reaches, as cottonwoods require flooding and silt deposition for
germination. In many cases where the seasonal pattern of high flows has
been removed or stabilized, there is a threat of inadequate recruitment
to replace older trees as they die. In the most extreme examples of flow
alteration, dewatering on the one hand, and inundation through damming
on the other, all riparian habitat values can be lost (Scott et al.
1997).

These anthropogenic stressors can have negative effects on wildlife
populations (Miller et al. 2003, Scott et al. 2003). For example, as
human development increased in riparian areas of Colorado, riparian
areas tended to have fewer native trees and shrubs, and these areas
supported fewer species of breeding birds (Miller et al. 2003).
Likewise, Scott et al. (2003) found that bird diversity was negatively
correlated with grazing intensity along the Upper Missouri River in
Montana.

Grazing occurs on both public and private lands along most river systems
throughout the West and has been a primary land-use since the mid-1800s.
However, the economic benefit of livestock production has made
management of riparian habitat a source of contention throughout the
West. Because both land managers and the general public are increasingly
cognizant of the importance of biological diversity and ecological
processes sustained by riparian systems, information is needed to
provide guidance to landowners and managers seeking to minimize negative
effects of grazing and maximize results of conservation efforts.

*Focal Species:*

[Hooded
Merganser](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mthome.htm)

[Bald Eagle](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtbaea.htm)
 

[Ruffed
Grouse](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtrugr.htm)

[Black-billed
Cuckoo](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtbbcu.htm)

[Yellow-billed
Cuckoo](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtybcu.htm)

[Eastern
Screech-owl](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mteaso.htm) 

[Western
Screech-owl](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtweso.htm) 

[Downy
Woodpecker](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtdowo.htm) 

[Lewis\'s
Woodpecker](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtlewo.htm) 

[Red-headed
Woodpecker](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtrhwo.htm)

[Least
Flycatcher](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtlefl.htm)

[Veery](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtveer.htm) 

[Warbling
Vireo](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtwavi.htm)

[Red-eyed
Vireo](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtrevi.htm)

[American
Redstart](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtamre.htm)

[Ovenbird](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtoven.htm)

[Orchard
Oriole](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtoror.htm)

*Other species of lower concern that may be affected by this issue:*

Mourning Dove

Northern Flicker

Western Wood-Pewee

Eastern Kingbird

Tree Swallow

Black-capped Chickadee

House Wren

American Robin

Cedar Waxwing

Gray Catbird

Yellow Warbler

Black-headed Grosbeak

Song Sparrow

Bullock's Oriole

Brown-headed Cowbird

American Goldfinch

**4. Identification of Quality Habitat and Effects of Land-Use Practices
in Sagebrush Communities**

Sagebrush steppe is widely recognized as one of the most imperiled
ecosystems in the United States (e.g. Noss et al. 1995). Within the
Interior Columbia River Basin, for example, sagebrush and bunchgrass
cover types experienced greater losses (30.5% decrease in area) than any
other habitat and will probably continue to decline with the cumulative
impacts of present land uses (Saab and Rich 1997). Large-scale changes
in land use, including the introduction of grazing, conversion to
agriculture, and use of fire, chemical and mechanical means to remove
sagebrush cover, have severely altered the distribution and condition of
Montana\'s sagebrush shrublands. Invasion of weeds and losses to
development have had further impacts on sagebrush habitat. Combinations
of these factors, notably heavy grazing, removal of native grasses, and
planting/invasion of non-native vegetation, have altered this habitat in
ways which have affected its suitability for nesting birds, many of
which are sagebrush obligates (Paige and Ritter 1999). The Greater Sage
Grouse has received recent widespread attention due to declines and
proposals that the species should be protected under the Endangered
Species Act. Population trends for most shrubsteppe obligate species are
negative. More information is needed about causes of the long-term
declines in shrubsteppe species.

Montana has (at least) two different geographic zones where sagebrush is
an important component of the landscape. In southwestern Montana
(especially Beaverhead County), an extension of the Great Basin produces
dense, and often tall, sagebrush stands that provide high-quality
habitat for such sagebrush-obligate bird species as the Sage Thrasher,
and potentially even some small populations of Sage Sparrow and Gray
Flycatcher. In eastern Montana (especially the central and southeastern
sections), there are vast landscapes containing sagebrush, although in
much of this area it is a scattered component of sagebrush steppe and
grassland matrices, and the shrub cover is relatively sparse. Sage
Grouse, Brewer's Sparrow, and Loggerhead Shrikes are common here, but
Sage Thrashers are restricted to a few pockets with dense sagebrush
stands (e.g. in Phillips and Carbon Counties).

The predominant sage species in the state is basin big sage, although
Wyoming big sage, mountain big sage, and black sage, or rubber
rabbitbrush can be co-dominant. Redmond et al. (1998) estimated that
there are over 2 million ha of sagebrush shrubland, and over 500,000 ha
of xeric shrub-grassland associations (shrubsteppe) in the state.
Associated grasses typically include bluebunch wheatgrass, blue gramma,
bluestem, needle-and-thread, and western wheatgrass (Redmond et al.
1998).

Managers are concerned about the large-scale loss of sagebrush habitat
and, specifically, about the loss of tall stands of sagebrush, which are
important for several species and may take as much as 30 years to
recover (Wambolt et al. 2001). Resource managers thus need information
on short-term and long-term effects of management practices such as fire
and of post-fire restoration efforts on bird communities. Estimates are
needed for abundance and productivity of sagebrush birds in (a) burned
and unburned areas, (b) restoration projects and untreated areas, (c)
different vegetation structures affected by livestock grazing, and (d) a
variety of untreated sites thought to vary in habitat quality.

Guidelines have been generated for the conservation and management of
the Greater Sage-Grouse (Barrett et al. 2000), but effects on other
birds are largely unknown and guidelines have yet to be developed. We
need to test the assumption that sagebrush habitat managed in a way
suitable to sustained Sage Grouse populations will supply adequate
habitat for other priority bird species in sagebrush. This includes
block size, canopy cover, heterogeneity, and landscape context of
sagebrush habitat. Due to the lack of data on Sage Thrashers in Montana,
steps should be taken to gather baseline information on habitat use,
quality and amount of big sagebrush habitat, and a fine scale systematic
survey of breeding birds.

*Focal Species:* Population declines the Greater Sage-Grouse have
received the most recent attention. Sharp-tailed Grouse have also
sustained a long-term decline. Declines likely are not restricted to
these species, as Great Basin-wide trends for most shrub-steppe obligate
species are negative (Knick et al. 2003). Several species of sagebrush
obligates occur in Montana, including Greater Sage-Grouse, Sage
Thrasher, and Brewer's Sparrow.

+------------------------+----------+---------------+-----------------+
| **Focal Species**      | **Area** | **Prefers     | *               |
|                        |          | some trees or | *Distribution** |
|                        | **Dep.** | other edge    |                 |
|                        |          | habitats**    | **in Montana**  |
+------------------------+----------+---------------+-----------------+
| Ferruginous Hawk       | x        | Yes           | W, E            |
+------------------------+----------+---------------+-----------------+
| Greater Sage-Grouse    | x        | No            | W, E            |
+------------------------+----------+---------------+-----------------+
| Sharp-tailed Grouse    |          | Yes           | E               |
+------------------------+----------+---------------+-----------------+
| Common Poorwill        |          | Yes           | E               |
+------------------------+----------+---------------+-----------------+
| Loggerhead Shrike      | x        | Yes           | W, E            |
+------------------------+----------+---------------+-----------------+
| Sage Thrasher          | x        | No            | W               |
+------------------------+----------+---------------+-----------------+
| Green-tailed Towhee    |          | Yes           | S               |
+------------------------+----------+---------------+-----------------+
| Brewer\'s Sparrow      |          | No            | W, E            |
+------------------------+----------+---------------+-----------------+

  

*Other species of lower concern that may be affected by this issue:*

Prairie Falcon

Say\'s Phoebe

Horned Lark

Lark Sparrow

Vesper Sparrow

Lark Bunting

Western Meadowlark

*Study Areas:* Specific sites will depend on study objectives and always
should be coordinated with existing monitoring efforts. Before selecting
study areas, we recommend that contacts be made with local resource
managers and area biologists to determine the nature and whereabouts of
any ongoing work with shrubsteppe birds.

**5. Resource and landscape needs of stand-replacement fire-dependent
bird communities**

The combination of dry summers, dry forests, and numerous lightning
strikes in the northern Rockies has resulted in a historical landscape
dominated by fire. Fire regimes in different habitat types vary
depending on moisture, fuel buildup, and the consequent frequency of
fires (Arno 2000). Stand-replacement fires occurr in more mesic forest
habitat types, which were less likely to dry out enough to burn even in
the driest years. For mid- to high-elevation forest types within this
region (e.g., Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and subalpine fir), the
predominant fire regime was one of infrequent, intense,
stand-replacement fires, rather than one of frequent, low-intensity,
understory burns (Fischer and Bradley 1987). These forests were more
likely to achieve older age classes and to accumulate large amounts of
dead and live woody fuels, not burning until sufficient fuels and
conditions produced a crown fire.

Stand-replacement fires kill most if not all of the trees in a forest,
but leave most of the dead trees standing. They therefore create
well-defined fragments of early successional-forest dominated by
standing-dead trees. The nearly annual occurrence of wildfire at some
point in a larger landscape has served as the environmental backdrop
against which our native wildlife species have evolved. A number of
native species are dependent on wildfires or wildfire-created habitats
and are nearly restricted in their distribution to such conditions. The
importance of stand-replacement fires in this forest system is beginning
to make the maintenance of such fires a high priority in land management
agencies, especially since policy during the past 70 years has
encouraged widespread fire suppression and post-fire salvage logging.
The high density of standing dead trees (snags) that remain after
stand-replacement fires ---conditions that are hard, if not impossible,
to replicate without fires---makes this a unique habitat for birds.

These sites provide nesting opportunities for many primary and secondary
cavity nesters, and timber drillers are attracted by the abundant beetle
larvae. Ideal conditions for woodpeckers occur only within a narrow
window of time after a fire (the first 2-6 years). More than a dozen
bird species (especially woodpeckers) are more abundant in recently
burned forest than in any other natural vegetation type, and one---the
Black-backed Woodpecker---is nearly restricted in its habitat
distribution to such patches (Hutto 1995). The Black-backed Woodpecker
is a species of special management concern for this very reason, and
makes it a focal point for potential conflict between meeting its needs
and conducting post-fire salvage activities. Providing suitable
conditions for the Black-backed Woodpecker and other fire-dependent
species in the face of other management needs is perhaps one of the most
important issues facing post-fire forest management today.

When fires do occur, there is a high likelihood that the trees will be
quickly \"salvaged,\" because of the perception that the forest has been
destroyed and the dead wood will go to waste. Salvage-logging removes
the very element that makes this habitat a uniquely productive resource
for many bird species. Post-fire salvage logging may make some patches
unsuitable by reducing nest sites and food resources (Caton 1996,
Hitchcox 1996, Hejl unpublished data). Data on reproductive success of
Mountain Bluebirds in unlogged and salvage-logged post-fire forests
(Hitchcox 1996) suggest that both abundance and nest success may be
lower in salvage-logged areas. Nesting success of Northern Flickers was
also significantly lower in salvage-logged areas. House Wrens were three
times less abundant in salvage-logged plots, but their nest success was
no different (Hitchcox 1996).

*Focal Species:*

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- -------------- ------ ------------------ -------- ------ ----------
  **Species**                                                              **Area\   **Canopy:**\          **Understory:**\                   **Large\
                                                                           Dep.**    Open    Closed        Patchy    Open                     Snags**
                                                                                                           Closed                             

  [Lewis\'s                                                                .         x              .      .                  .        x      x
  Woodpecker](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtlewo.htm)                                                                      

  [Three-toed                                                              x         .              x      .                  .        .      x
  Woodpecker](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtttwo.htm)                                                                      

  [Black-backed                                                            x         .              x      .                  .        .      x
  Woodpecker](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtbbwo.htm)                                                                      

  [Olive-sided                                                             .         x              .      x                  .        .      .
  Flycatcher](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtosfl.htm)                                                                      

  [Townsend\'s                                                             .         x              .      .                  x        .      .
  Solitaire](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mttoso.htm)                                                                       
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- -------------- ------ ------------------ -------- ------ ----------

*Other species of lower concern that may be affected by this issue:*

Hairy Woodpecker

Clark's Nutcracker

Red-breasted Nuthatch

Mountain Bluebird

American Robin

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Western Tanager

Chipping Sparrow

Dark-eyed Junco

Cassin's Finch

Pine Siskin

*Survey Objectives:* We have demonstrated that unique bird communities
occur in standing-dead forest stands following fire (Hutto 1995), but we
have not been able to sample these areas sufficiently with our random
monitoring transects. Most importantly, sensitive bird species such as
the Black-backed Woodpecker are not adequately studied by our program
thus far. It would be very advantageous for forest managers to take the
opportunity presented by the numerous recent wildfires to collect the
extensive data necessary to properly manage for this species (and other
fire-associated species such as the Three-toed Woodpecker and
Olive-sided Flycatcher). This could readily be accomplished through a
combination of point count and playbacks surveys.

Recent evidence indicates that fire severity, as well as pre-fire forest
conditions, significantly affects the bird community (Smucker et al. in
press). More research needs to be conducted on the effects of stand
structure, patch size, and stand isolation on the use of burned forest
patches by various bird species. Mitigation, timber salvage, and
restoration efforts need to be based on a solid understanding of the
extent to which local and landscape conditions determine the suitability
of a given patch to potential occupants. Geographically extensive
wildfires in the Northern Rockies offer a unique opportunity for
designing studies to develop critical information for the long-term
persistence of species associated with fire-maintained ecosystems. The
extensive nature of recent fires allows for replicated research at
multiple spatial scales necessary to evaluate fire effects at a broad
geographic scale including: influence of fire effects, surrounding
landscapes, and pre-fire management on colonization of a burn; effects
of past management on fire behavior and subsequent changes in avian
habitats; effects of post-fire salvage logging and other post-fire
treatments; and responses of Sensitive Species to different burn
conditions.

More research needs to be done on the effects of stand structure and
stand isolation on the use of burned patches by various species.
Mitigation and restoration efforts need to be based on a solid
understanding of the extent to which local and landscape conditions
determine the suitability of a given patch to potential occupants. To
manage effectively for wildlife that benefit from the effects of fire,
managers need to be able to predict two things: (1) which currently
unburned locations are likely to produce the greatest benefit if the
opportunity for the introduction of prescribed fire presents itself; and
(2) which burned locations are likely to produce the greatest benefit
*after* a wildfire has burned, so that post-fire management (e.g.,
salvage logging) can be conducted in those locations and in a manner
that least compromises the ecological benefits of fire to wildlife.
Accordingly, scientists must inform managers about whether they should
focus their attention on the landscape context of a particular burn, the
local conditions that burned, or some combination of the two to be
successful in predicting the suitability of a site to various wildlife
species.

*Study Areas:* The numerous fires of 2000 - 2003 in western Montana
provide a unique opportunity for "quasi-experimentation" because of a
great variety of pre- and post-fire fuel reduction prescriptions that
have already been applied or that will be applied across public lands on
the Lolo National Forest near Missoula, Montana, and because of the
nearness of Glacier National Park where there is, at the other extreme,
an absence of such management treatments. The bird species that are most
restricted to burned forests colonize in the first few years following a
fire event, and remain there for only 4-10 years (Kotliar et al. 2002).
Thus, the opportunities to learn more about the consequences of
infrequent disturbance events and post-disturbance land-use activities
are not only rare themselves, but also limited in duration. \[Since this
was first written, the window of opportunity for studying the 2000-2003
fires may be closing. However, it is more than likely that new
opportunities will emerge in the coming years.\]

The Avian Science Center at the University of Montana is already working
in collaboration with, and has acquired GIS data layers from, the USFS,
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Plum Creek Timber, and
Glacier National Park. We are in a good position to capitalize on the
special opportunity that the proximity of the fires of 2003 provides us
to learn more about conditions required by the Black-backed Woodpecker,
a sensitive species in the USFS Northern Region.

*Habitat variables:* Presently, we know very little about the precise
local-level conditions associated with the occurrence of Black-backed
Woodpeckers in burned forests, and we know nothing about the
landscape-level context associated with their occurrence. It appears
from very limited study that Black-backed Woodpeckers tend to nest in
dense stands of relatively small-diameter trees (Hitchcox 1996) and that
nest trees tend to be larger in diameter than expected on the basis of
randomly chosen trees (Caton 1996, Hitchcox 1996). Past land use history
may affect the suitability of a given site not only to organisms that
occupy the site immediately after harvest, but also to organisms that
might find the site suitable *only after the site burns at some point
later in time.* We have no information on how pre-fire conditions and
management actions affect post-fire suitability to those species that
most depend on recently burned forests, even though prominent biologists
(e.g., Franklin et al. 2000) have suggested that biological legacies
passed from pre-disturbance to post-disturbance communities provide a
key toward understanding the composition and development of
post-disturbance communities. Post-fire management activities at the
local scale (e.g., salvage logging) may also affect the suitability of a
burned forest site to wildlife species (Kotliar et al 2002). Clearly, if
some species seem to depend on (be restricted in their habitat
distribution to) post-fire forests, we need to better understand whether
and how post-fire salvaging activity affects the suitability of such
forests to them. Our CBM project will be designed to tease apart these
possible influences so that we can better predict locations of
importance to post-fire specialists.

**6. Old-growth associated bird species and the integrity of mesic,
old-growth ecosystems**

Most of the moist Douglas-fir and grand fir forests in western Montana
are characterized by a mixed-severity or stand-replacement fire regime,
with mean fire intervals ranging from 70 - 250 years (Arno 2000).
Therefore, all stands are subject to eventual disturbance that returns
them to early-successional stages. Under this scenario, the development
of old-growth stands is a matter of chance. Not all forest stands are
equally likely to be burned, however. Climate and topography are very
important in determining the likelihood of burning. Late-seral forests
are more common in the more mesic cedar-hemlock zone where fires are
very infrequent. Topography affects moisture retention, ignition
sources, and fire spread. Some areas will be more likely to escape fire
for long enough to become old growth.

Old growth remains one of the dominant management issues that USFS deals
with, especially in northwestern Montana. Old growth continues to be a
major appeal and lawsuit issue that centers on population trends for OG
associated species. Late-seral forest stands may or may not be allocated
under the forest plan to be managed as old growth or "replacement old
growth." Treatments are often proposed in those stands that are thought
to maintain old growth characteristics, and thereby the effectiveness of
the stand as wildlife habitat. It would be important to have studies,
perhaps even with before and after data, on bird use to understand
whether such treatments maintain old-growth biological characteristics
or not. This becomes even more of an issue as silviculturists and
biologists from adjacent districts apply different prescriptions, with
both claiming that their prescriptions maintain biologically effective
old-growth conditions.

*Focal Species:*

Brown Creeper, Winter Wren, [Northern
Goshawk](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtnogo.htm),
Pileated Woodpecker, and probably Golden-crowned Kinglet and are
associated with old-growth forest to varying degrees. In fact, most
species that rely on mature coniferous forests are probably more common
in the older age classes. The following species are likely to be
benefited by increased area and integrity of mesic, old-growth forest
ecosystems:

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- ---------- ---------- -------------- ----- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **Species**                                                              **Area\   **Closed   **Old\     **Patchy             **Large\   **Large\   **Large\
                                                                           Dep.**    Canopy**   Growth**   Understory**         Snags**    Trees**    Logs**

  [Northern                                                                x         .x         x          .                    .          x          .
  Goshawk](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtnogo.htm)                                                                                 

  [Vaux\'s                                                                 .         .          x                         ..    x                     x
  Swift](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtvasw.htm)                                                                                   

  [Williamson\'s                                                           .         ..         .                                          x          x
  Sapsucker](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtwisa.htm)                                                                               

  [Three-toed                                                                                   x                               x                     
  Woodpecker](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtttwo.htm)                                                                              

  [Pileated                                                                x                    x          .                    x          x          x
  Woodpecker](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtpiwo.htm)                                                                              

  [Hammond\'s                                                                        x          x          x                                          
  Flycatcher](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mthafl.htm)                                                                              

  [Chestnut-backed                                                                   .x                    .                    x          x          
  Chickadee](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtcbch.htm)                                                                               

  [Brown                                                                   x         .x         x                               x          x          .
  Creeper](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtbrcr.htm)                                                                                 

  [Winter Wren](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtwiwr.htm) x         .x         x          x                    x          x          x

  [Golden-crowned                                                                    .x         x                                          .x         
  Kinglet](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtgcki.htm)                                                                                 

  Hermit Thrush                                                                                            x                                          

  [Varied                                                                  x         .          x                               .          .          .
  Thrush](http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtvath.htm)                                                                                  

  Townsend's Warbler                                                                 x                                                                
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- ---------- ---------- -------------- ----- ---------- ---------- ----------

*Study Areas:* Mesic, old-growth forests occur mostly in the
northwestern corner of Montana, and are most likely to be an issue of
particular concern in that area. U.S. Forest Service lands and Glacier
National Park contain most of the potential study sites, although state
lands also contain some old growth. Any survey program to monitor birds
in old-growth forests would be more powerful if conducted in
collaboration with neighboring forests in northern Idaho. The Northern
Region Landbird Monitoring Program would be most appropriate to lead
this effort.

**ADDITIONAL MONITORING NEEDS and STRATEGIES**

**Demographic Monitoring**

At present, this plan emphasizes the acquisition of broad-scale
abundance data that can then be used to expose habitat association
patterns or apparent land-use effects. Point counts and other monitoring
techniques that provide only an index of abundance do not provide
estimates of reproduction, survival, or population growth, and,
therefore, are often criticized (e.g., DeSante and Rosenberg 1998).
While such demographic estimates can be very important and are lacking
from point-based abundance data, this plan emphasizes abundance data for
the following reasons:

First, while it has become axiomatic in the bird-habitat relationships
literature to note that indices of abundance or density do not
necessarily reflect the breeding success of a bird species in different
habitats (e.g., Van Horne 1983, Vickery et al. 1992, Brawn and Robinson
1996), it appears that relative abundance really is an adequate
indicator in the majority of cases (Bock and Jones 2004). Further
research is needed to elucidate when this may not hold, research
potentially conducted by specific University or Agency led studies, or
even alternate-year work as determined by the CBM Steering Committee.

Second, measuring demographic parameters (e.g., nest success, survival,
etc.) is very expensive and often geographically limited in scope, and
it is arguably most useful to specific situations or species where an
understanding of such parameters is critical to decision making. Thus,
there are obvious trade-offs in knowledge gained, spatial and temporal
inference, and cost.

Third, in comparison to a more detailed understanding of local
populations, sampling broadly across the entire state provides an
approximation of habitat relationships and population trends for a suite
of ecologically diverse species. This type of information is difficult
to attain with demographic studies. We do recommend, however, that
estimated abundance patterns from point-based data (whether trends or
management effects) should be supplemented with mechanistic studies
based on demographic data to confirm probable explanations for.

There are a handful of ongoing long-term nest monitoring studies in
Montana that hopefully will continue; we are aware of studies involving
loons (Bissell 2002), ducks (e.g. Ball et al. 1995), and bald eagles
(see above). Other demographic studies in Montana (with a scope that
could be useful for continued monitoring) have included: Ensign 1983,
Tewksbury et al. 1998, Hansen and Rotella 2002, Dieni and Jones 2003,
and continuing work by David Naugle and his students and Richard Hutto
and his students at the University of Montana.

One other program for demographic monitoring with study areas in Montana
is the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program
(DeSante et al 1999). This program has the potential to provide some
regional indices of productivity and survival over a broad area,
although it would need to be greatly expanded to achieve reliable
demographic indices for even a limited number of species.

**Migration Monitoring**

Another monitoring need outside the scope of this plan includes birds
migrating through Montana. Not all birds found in Montana actually breed
here, and yet they still use habitats and resources provided herein. Of
special importance are the vast numbers of birds that breed in boreal
and arctic Canada.

Most of the species that migrate through Montana are traveling to remote
breeding grounds where it would be very difficult to monitor them during
the breeding season. As many of these species also winter in Latin
America, their passage through the United States may provide the best
opportunities for monitoring their populations. Considering the broad
swath of territory within Montana, the state has some responsibility to
help in the continental effort to monitor these species.

A more direct reason for monitoring migrants in Montana is that habitat
along migration routes can be just as crucial to the survival of a
species as good breeding or wintering habitat. Land management decisions
in Montana can therefore play a major role in the population trends of
bird species that do not even breed here. While it would be difficult to
connect population changes with management of stopover habitats in
Montana, it is still possible to quantify the effects of such management
by special techniques such as blood lipid analysis. This would be
considered research and is beyond the current scope of this proposal.

Current monitoring of migrant birds in Montana is mostly limited to two
raptor migration observation areas and several efforts at monitoring
transient shorebirds, most notably at the two Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Research Network (WHSRN) sites in Montana (Benton Lake and
Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuges). We strongly encourage expansion of
these efforts.

While we are not providing detailed migration monitoring plans here, we
recommend that Montana partners work toward participation in the
emerging North American Migration Monitoring Network. This network, now
recognized by Partners and Flight's Monitoring Working Group and the
North American Bird Conservation Initiative, is working to coordinate
the efforts of individual monitoring stations and regional bird
monitoring efforts. This network will strive to increase our
understanding of the entire life history of migrants as well as
facilitate cooperation on international conservation efforts. It will
bring benefits such as: increased sample sizes, collaboration,
centralization of data storage and analysis, standardization of methods,
and enhanced funding opportunities due to common focus. The North
American Migration Monitoring Network will make broad-scale analyses of
habitat use patterns, stopover ecology, and migratory connectivity much
more feasible. The reality for a migration monitoring network to
contribute to identification and conservation of important stopover
habitats in each region continues to grow. Standardized methods have
been developed for counting birds on migration (Hussell and Ralph
1998).  These methods, which involve a combination of standardized
banding, and standardized daily counts, are now in use at a chain of
stations all across southern Canada and the northern U.S. \-- the
Canadian Migration Monitoring Network
(<http://www.bsc-eoc.org/national/cmmn.html>)\-- providing us much
needed baseline data on population trends of northern breeding birds.

**Winter Monitoring**

Relatively few bird species remain in Montana throughout the winter
season, but this can be a critical time in the population cycle for the
ones that do, especially for some species (e.g. Sharp-tailed Grouse)
that seem to have more specialized habitat needs in winter than in
summer. The expense and logistics of winter field work, however,
especially in the snow-covered backcountry, will likely continue to make
this an unmet need. Unfortunately, the Christmas Bird Count will
probably remain the only program attempting to monitor wintering birds
in Montana for some time to come.

# PROPOSED ACTION PLAN 

To implement a Coordinated Bird Monitoring plan in Montana, we propose a
division-of-labor approach that shares the burden of implementation
among the program partners. An important step is deciding which of the
participating organizations will take responsibility for each component
of the plan. To facilitate further discussion of the implementation
process, we provide here a preliminary list of the program elements, the
potential lead agency/organization for a given element, and current
status of its implementation (Table 4, below and next page).

Coordination of all plan elements will need to be centralized, and we
recommend that this be done through the Avian Science Center. The role
of the Avian Science Center would be to provide a data network that
accommodates queries from partners, to help partners identify gaps in
monitoring coverage, and where possible, provide additional labor to
implement the monitoring work. Technical oversight on the Avian Science
Center's work will be provided through USGS Snake River Field Station,
the University of Montana, and through the formal peer-review process
involved in the publication process.

An essential aspect of any monitoring program is the ability to get
results into the hands of participating partners and managers as quickly
as possible, and in an understandable and usable form. One of the more
exciting aspects of this plan will involve the directed pursuit of
information relevant to managers, and the continuing development of
innovative ways to synthesize and disseminate these results, through
reports, published papers, workshops, and a web interface. We look
forward to all partners working together to help make these goals a
reality.

Table 4: Summary of Coordinated All-Bird Monitoring Program primary
long-term elements, agency / organization(s) offering to be the lead in
implementation, funding mechanism, and current status. CBM Plan Steering
Committee members and others please help to fill in and modify this
table during their review.

+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| **C        | **Agency    | **Funding   | **Current status of        |
| oordinated | /**         | mechanism** | implementation**           |
| All-Bird   |             |             |                            |
| Monitoring | **Orga      |             | **(as of summer 2005)**    |
| Program    | nization(s) |             |                            |
| element**  | to take     |             |                            |
|            | lead in     |             |                            |
|            | imple       |             |                            |
|            | mentation** |             |                            |
+============+=============+=============+============================+
| Landbird   | ASC         | Federal     | Primarily in place         |
| Monitoring |             | agencies    | (even-year schedule). Need |
| Program    |             | (USFS,      | commitment from BLM,       |
|            |             | BLM),       | MTFWP, and others.         |
| (point     |             | MTFWP,      |                            |
| counts)    |             | MNHP, CSKT, | Need to work with          |
|            |             | Plum Creek, | additional Tribes          |
|            |             | TNC         |                            |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Riparia    | ASC         | MTFWP,      | Pilot program in 2005      |
| n-specific |             | PPL-MT,     | (MTFWP)                    |
|            |             |             |                            |
| Landbird   |             |             | PPL-MT committed to some   |
| Monitoring |             |             | ongoing work on            |
| Program    |             |             | Madison/Missouri           |
|            |             |             |                            |
| (point     |             |             |                            |
| counts)    |             |             |                            |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| BBS point  | Volunteers  | None        | On-going. More effort      |
| counts     | (many       |             | needed to insure complete  |
|            | within      |             | coverage.                  |
|            | agencies)   |             |                            |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Diurnal    | MTFWP,      | MTFWP,      | On-going. Data sharing     |
| raptor     |             | USFWS       | improvements?              |
| monitoring | USFWS       |             |                            |
|            | (Falcon)    |             |                            |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Aquatic    | ASC         | MTFWP?      | Little in place. Need      |
| bird       |             |             | commitments to establish   |
| monitoring | Audubon?    | MTDEQ?      | program. Need to build up  |
| -          |             |             | shorebird portion.         |
|            |             |             |                            |
| Dispersed  |             |             |                            |
| sites      |             |             |                            |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Aquatic    | ASC         | MTFWP?      | Misc. efforts at NWRs;     |
| bird       |             | USFWS       | coordination needed with   |
| monitoring | Audubon?    |             | aerial surveys for         |
|            |             | Volunteers  | waterfowl monitoring; need |
| Discrete   |             | thru        | to build up shorebird      |
| sites      |             | Audubon?    | portion                    |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Waterfowl  | USFWS,      | State       | On-going and               |
| monitoring | MTFWP       | funds,      | well-implemented in NE 2/3 |
|            |             | hunting     | of Montana. Need to add    |
|            |             | licenses    | western component          |
|            |             |             |                            |
|            |             |             | Possible data sharing      |
|            |             |             | improvements?              |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Upland     | MTFWP?      | State       | Some elements implemented, |
| game bird  | Depends on  | funds,      | but would benefit from     |
| monitoring | species     | hunting     | add. funds to cover        |
|            |             | licenses    | additional species (spruce |
|            |             | (??)        | and blue grouse)           |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Raptor     | HWI, RVRI,  | Non-profit  | On-going at Roger's Pass   |
| migration  | USFWS       | efforts     | and Bridger Mountains      |
| monitoring |             |             |                            |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Nocturnal  | ASC? ORI?   | USFS,       | ORI for Long-eared Owls is |
| Surveys    |             | MTFWP, ORI, | implemented; USFS has      |
|            |             | ABC,        | pilot Flammulated Owl -    |
|            |             | Volunteers  | need commitment for        |
|            |             | thru        | continuation after 2005.   |
|            |             | Audubon?    |                            |
|            |             |             | Needs expansion to other   |
|            |             |             | species.                   |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Migrant    | MTFWP??     | MTFWP?      | Ongoing at major Wildlife  |
| shorebird  |             | USFWS?      | Refuges only               |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Black      | ABC         | volunteer   | A few recent surveys       |
| Swift      |             |             |                            |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+
| Harlequin  | MN          | ??          | Working group formed       |
| Duck       | HP,USFS,GNP |             |                            |
+------------+-------------+-------------+----------------------------+

***Program Coordination and Administration***

It is our firm belief that we must invest in the continuing development
of ways to make the program and the resulting data as useful as
possible. Too many monitoring data collection efforts over the years
have produced notebooks full of data that may or may not be still
sitting on somebody's shelf. We are anticipating that the budget for
this plan will a significant percent of funds (perhaps 50%) allocated to
program coordination and administration. To understand the need for this
amount, it is important for all partners to be aware of the scope of
what we are envisioning in this plan, and to realize that an effective
monitoring program is much more than a lot of seasonal technicians
counting birds. It requires personnel to plan monitoring projects; hire,
train, and supervise technicians; clean and manage the data; summarize
and analyze the data in useful and scientifically appropriate ways; and
make the data and analyses available to all through reports, published
papers, GIS maps, workshops, and a web interface. Specifically, the
following list demonstrates the range of administrative and research
tasks that we feel should be accomplished (by the Avian Science Center
or other CBM partners) to get the most benefit out of a CBM program:

-   plan and implement field surveys sufficient for monitoring of all
    priority bird species in Montana. This includes (a) hiring
    technically and physically competent field technicians; (b) revising
    field manuals and data forms and developing new or enhancing
    existing teaching/training materials; (c) training field
    technicians; (d) supervising field crew during the field season;
    and (e) supervising the entry, cleaning, and transfer of field data
    for analysis

-   in collaboration with partners, develop alternate-year, focused
    monitoring proposals to monitor potential impacts of forest and
    rangeland management activities on birds and bird habitats.

-   provide yearly summaries of tasks performed and birds detected;

-   manage data from all participating projects;

-   provide access to raw data for all partners;

-   summarize and analyze data in useful and scientifically appropriate
    ways;

-   construct and maintain a map-based, interactive interface on the web
    that is tailored to facilitate access and use by Montana partners;

-   provide a quantitative description of the distributions of bird
    species across the major vegetation types;

-   provide syntheses and updates on our current understanding of the
    status, distribution, and habitat-use patterns of each bird species;

-   provide GIS maps of habitat-based distributions based on existing
    monitoring and habitat relationships data for species that are
    common enough to generate reliable information;

-   provide analyses and implications of habitat-specific data and
    management effects from "alternate" year sites;

-   organize workshops for biologists and managers to explain how to
    make best use of data from the program;

-   provide scientific syntheses of management effects on birds for
    natural resource planning;

-   consult with all partners on continuing needs for support of
    management decisions;

-   produce formal publications related to important results as they
    become apparent.

**IMPLEMENTATION STEPS AND TIMETABLE**

-   March 3, 2005 -- State Wildlife Society Meeting:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Review draft CBM plan, gather feedback, and answer questions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Spring 2005

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Partners review draft CBM plan and help revise and expand it as
    necessary

-   Partners individually discuss needs, responsibilities, and
    commitments with Avian Science Center

-   ASC confirms financial agreement with University of Montana's grants
    office (to facilitate transfer of funds and to allow for a reduced
    overhead cost rate).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Summer 2005

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Field visits to on-going monitoring projects to better assess
    integration potential.

-   Peer review processes will be initiated by the ASC, and by any
    partners who also wish to do so.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   September 2005

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Meeting of CBM steering committee to discuss strategy for final
    buy-in of all partners committing to the CBM program.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fall 2005, winter 2006

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Plan activities for pilot year (2006) of the coordinated field
    effort.

**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:**

Funding for preparation of this plan was provided in part by grants from
the USFS (special thanks to Skip Kowalski), USGS (special thanks to Jon
Bart), and Montana FWP (special thanks to Heidi Youmans), and Great
Basin Bird Observatory (Elizabeth Ammon).

We thank Skip Kowalski for his support of the USFS Landbird Monitoring
Program and Rob Fletcher for his work with the Madison/Missouri River
Project.

Comments and discussions have been ongoing with members of the Montana
Bird Conservation Partnership and Partners in Flight. Beth Madden and
Stephanie Jones also offered specific comments on an earlier version of
this plan.

**LITERATURE CITED:**

Arno, S. F. 2000. Fire regimes in western forest ecosystems. In: J. K.
Brown and J. K. Smith, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire
on flora and fuel. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.
RMRS-GTR-42-vol.2. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station: 97-120

Arno, S. F., H. Y. Smith, and M. A. Krebs. 1997. Old-growth ponderosa
pine and western larch stand structure: influences of pre-1900 fires and
fire exclusion. USDA For. Serv. Res Pap. INT-495.

Baker, W. L., and D. Ehle. 2001. Uncertainty in surface-fire history:
the case of ponderosa pine forests in the western United States.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 1205-1226.

Ball, I.J., R.L. Eng, and S.K. Ball. 1995. Population density and
productivity of ducks of large grassland tracts in northcentral Montana.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 23: 767-773.

Bart, J. 2005. Monitoring the abundance of bird populations. Auk 122:
15-25.

Bart, J., K.P. Burnham, E.A. Dunn, C. Frances and C.J. Ralph. 2004.
Goals and strategies for estimating trends in landbird abundance.
Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 611-626.

Barrett, H., E. G. Campbell, S. Ellis, J. Hanf, R. Masinton, J. Pollet,
T. Rich, J. Rose, J. Sadowski, F. Taylor, P. Teensma, J. Dillon, D.
Zalunardo, B. Bales, W. Van Dyke, and N. Pustis. 2000. Greater
Sage-grouse and sagebrush-steppe ecosystems: Management guidelines.
Interagency Planning Report;
http://www.or.blm.gov/Resources/Birds/SageGrouse/Sage-GrouseReport.pdf.

Bissell, G. 2002. Second annual common loon report. Montana Fish,
Wildlife and Parks. 9 pp. plus appendices.

Bock, C. E., and Z. F. Jones. 2004. Avian habitat evaluation: should
counting birds count? *Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:*
403--410.

Braun, C. E., O. O. Oedekoven, and C. L. Aldridge. 2002. Oil and gas
development in western North America: effects on sagebrush steppe
avifauna with particular emphasis on Sage Grouse. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 67:337-349.

Online at <http://www.uppergreen.org/library/docs/NAmConf_Braun.pdf>

Brawn, J.D., and S.K. Robinson. 1996. Source-sink population dynamics
may complicate interpretation of long-term census data. Ecology 77:
3-12.

Butcher, G. S., B. G. Peterjohn, and C. J. Ralph. 1993. Overview of
national bird population monitoring programs and databases. Pages
192-203 in D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel, editors. Status and management
of Neotropical migratory birds: Proceedings of the 1992 Partners in
Flight National Training Workshop, 21-25 September, Estes Park,
Colorado. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station General Technical Report RM-229.

Carlson, Matthew, and Fiona Schmiegelow. 2002. Cost-effective sampling
design applied to large-scale monitoring of boreal birds. Conservation
Ecology 6(2): 11. \[online\] URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art11

Casey, D. 2000. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan Montana
Version 1.0. Montana Partners in Flight, Montana Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, Kalispell. Online at:
<http://biology.dbs.umt.edu/landbird/mbcp/mtpif/mtpif.htm>

Caton, E. L. 1996. Effects of fire and salvage logging on the
cavity-nesting bird community in northwestern Montana. Ph.D. Thesis,
Univ. Montana, Missoula, MT, 115 pp.

Christensen, J. 2003. Auditing conservation in an age of accountability.
Conservation in Practice 4: 12-19.

Conway, C. J., and J. P. Gibbs. 2005. Effectiveness of call-broadcast
surveys for monitoring marsh birds. Auk 122:26-35.

Croonquist, M.J., and R.P. Brooks 1991. Use of avian and mammalian
guilds as indicators of cumulative impacts in riparian-wetland areas.
Environmental Management 15:701-714.

Desante, D. F., and D. K. Rosenberg. 1998. What do we need to monitor in
order to manage landbirds? Pages 93--106 *in* J. M. Marzluff and R.
Sallabanks, editors. Avian conservation: research and management.
Island, Covello, California, USA.

DeSante, D. F., D. R. O\' Grady, and P. Pyle. 1999. Measures of
productivity and survival derived from standardized mist-netting are
consistent with observed population changes. Bird Study 46:-S188.

Dieni, J.S., and S.L. Jones. 2003. Grassland songbird nest site
selection patterns in northcentral Montana. Wilson Bulletin 115:
388-396.

Drapeau, P., A. Leduc, and R. McNeil. 1999. Refining the use of point
counts at the scale of individual points in studies of bird-habitat
relationships. Journal of Avian Biology 30: 367--382.

Ensign, J.T. 1983. Nest site selection, productivity, and food habits of
Ferruginous Hawks in southeastern Montana. M.Sc. thesis, Montana State
University, Bozeman, Montana.

Feigley, H. P. 1997. Colonial nesting bird survey on the Bureau of Land
Management Lewistown District: 1996. Unpublished report to the Bureau of
Land Management. 23pp. plus appendix.

Fischer, W. C. and A. F. Bradley. 1987. Fire ecology of western Montana
forest types. Intermountain Research Station. United States Forest
Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-223. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest
Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Franklin, J. F., D. Lindenmayer, J. A. MacMahon, A. McKee, J. Magnuson,
D. A. Perry, R. Waide, and D. Foster. 2000. Threads of continuity.
Conservation Biology in Practice 1:8-16.

Greenwood, J.J.D., S.R. Baillie, H.Q.P. Crick, J.H. Marchant, and W.J.
Peach. 1993. Integrated population monitoring: detecting the effects of
diverse changes. Pages 267-342 in R.W. Furness and J.J.D. Greenwood,
editors. Birds as monitors of environmental change. Chapman and Hall,
London, United Kingdom.

Hansen, A. J., and J. J. Rotella. 2002. Biophysical factors, land use,
and species viability in and around nature reserves. Conservation
Biology 16:1112-1122.

Harris, L. D. 1988. The nature of cumulative impacts on biotic diversity
of wetland vertebrates. Environmental Management 12: 675-693.

Hitchcox, S. M. 1996. Abundance and nesting success of cavity-nesting
birds in unlogged and salvage-logged burned forest in northwestern
Montana. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula, 89 pp.

Howe, M. A., P. H. Geissler, and B. A. Harrington. 1989. Population
trends of North American shorebirds based on the International Shorebird
Survey. Biol. Conserv. 49:185-199.

Howe, Marshall, Jon Bart, Stephen Brown, Chris Elphick, Robert Gill,
Brian Harrington, Catherine Hickey, Guy Morrison, Susan Skagen, and Nils
Warnock, eds. 2000. A Comprehensive Monitoring Program for North
American Shorebirds. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.
http://www.Manomet.org/USSCP/files.htm

Huff, M. H., K. A. Bettinger, H. L. Ferguson, M. J. Brown, and B.
Altman. 2000. A habitat-based point-count protocol for terrestrial
birds, emphasizing Washington and Oregon. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-501. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest
Research Station.

Hussell, D.J.T. and C.J. Ralph. 1998. Recommended methods for monitoring
bird populations by counting and capture of migrants. Online at:
<http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/wildlife/birdmon/pif/migmon.html>

Or download at:
[http://www.bsc-eoc.org/download/Hussell-Ralph%20migmon.pdf](http://www.bsc-eoc.org/download/Hussell-Ralph migmon.pdf)

Hutto, R. L. 1995. The composition of bird communities following
stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer
forests. Conservation Biology 9:1041-1058.

Hutto, R. L. 1998. Using landbirds as an indicator species group. Pp.
75-92 in Avian conservation: research and management, edited by J. M.
Marzluff and R. Sallabanks, Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Hutto, R. L. 2004. Northern Region Landbird Monitoring Program: a
program designed to monitor more than long-term population trends. USDA
For.Serv.Gen.Tech.Rep. PSW-GTR-191:xx-xx.

Hutto, R. L., and J. S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds
in the northern region. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report
RMRS-GTR-32.

Hutto, R. L. and J. S. Young. 2002. Regional landbird monitoring:
perspectives from the Northern Rocky Mountains. Wildlife Society
bulletin 30:738-750.

IAFWA (International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). 2004.
Monitoring Avian Conservation: Rationale, Design, and Coordination.
Report of the Coordinated Bird Monitoring Working Group. Online at:
<http://www.iafwa.org/>

Knick, S. T., D. S. Dobkin, J. T. Rotenberry, M. A. Schroeder, W. M.
Vander Haegen, and C. Van Riper III. 2003. Teetering on the edge or too
late? Conservation and research issues for avifauna of sagebrush
habitats. Condor 105:611 --634.

Kotliar, N. B., S. J. Hejl, R. L. Hutto, V. A. Saab, C. P. Melcher, and
M. E. McFadzen. 2002. Effects of fire and post-fire salvage logging on
avian communities in conifer-dominated forests of the western United
States. Studies in Avian Biology 25:49-64.

Lenard, S., J. Carlson, J. Ellis, C. Jones, and C. Tilly. 2003. P. D.
Skaar\'s Montana Bird Distribution, 6th Edition. Montana Audubon,
Helena, Montana. vi + 144 pp.

Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts
on Sage Grouse nest initiation and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin
31:486-491.

Mac Nally, R., M. Ellis, and G. Barrett. 2004. Avian biodiversity
monitoring in Australian rangelands. Austral Ecology 29:93-99.

Miller, J. R., J. A. Wiens, N. T. Hobbs, and D. M Theobald. 2003.
Effects of human settlement on bird communities in lowland riparian
areas of Colorado (USA). Ecological Applications 13:1041-1059.

Morrison, M.L. 1986. Bird populations as indicators of environmental
change. Current Ornithology 3:429-451.

Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered
ecosystems of the United States: A preliminary assessment of loss and
degradation. USDI National Biological Service, Biological Report 28.

Paige, C. and S. A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing
sagebrush habitats for bird communities. Partners in Flight Western
Working Group, Boise, ID.

Ralph, C. J., S. Droege, J. R. Sauer. 1995. Managing and monitoring
birds using point counts: standards and applications. Pages 161--168
*in* C. J. Ralph, J. R. Sauer, and S. Droege, editors. Monitoring bird
populations by point counts. United States Forest Service General
Technical Report PSW-GTR-149.

Rauscher, Ryan L., 2000. A Survey of Black Terns in Montana. A final
report to the Bureau of Land Management, Billings. Montana Dept. of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman. 36p.

Redmond, R.L., M.M. Hart, J.C. Winne, W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, Z.
Ma, C.M. Tobalske, M.M. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, T.P. Tady, F.B.
Fisher, and S.W. Running. 1998. The Montana Gap Analysis Project: final
report. Unpub. Report. Montana cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Univ.
of Montana, Missoula. 136p.

Reichel, J. D. 1996. Preliminary colonial nesting bird survey of the
Bureau of Land Management Lewistown District: 1995. Montana Natural
Heritage Program, Helena. 97 pp.

Rood, S.B., and J. M. Mahoney. 1995. River Damming and Riparian
Cottonwoods along the Marias River, Montana. Rivers 5: 195-207.

Saab, V. A., and T. D. Rich. 1997. Large-scale conservation assessment
for neotropical migratory land birds in the Interior Columbia River
Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-399. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Sallabanks, R., E. B. Arnett, and J. M. Marzluff. 2000. An evaluation of
research on the effects of timber harvest on bird populations. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 28:1144-1155.

Sauer, J. R. 1999. Combining information from monitoring programs:
Complications associated with indices and geographic scale.
[in]{.underline} Bonney, Rick, David N. Pashley, Robert Cooper, and
Larry Niles, eds. 1999. Strategies for Bird Conservation: The Partners
in Flight Planning Process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
\<http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay\>.  

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B. G. Peterjohn.
1997. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis.
Version 96.4. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD;
http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs96.html

Scott, M.L., G.T. Auble, and J.M. Friedman. 1997. Flood dependency of
cottonwood establishment along the Missouri River, Montana, USA.
Ecological Applications 7: 677-690.

Scott, M. L., S. K. Skagen, and M. F. Merigliano. 2003. Relating
geomorphic change and grazing to avian communities in riparian forests.
Conservation Biology 17:284-296.

Sexton, Erin K. 2002. Land-use in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem:
the potential disturbance resulting from coalbed methane production in
the East Kootenay coalfields of southeastern British Columbia. MS
Thesis. University of Montana, Missoula.

Smucker, Kristina M., Richard L. Hutto, and Brian M. Steele. In Press.
Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance of fire severity
and time since fire. Ecological Applications.

Takats, D. L., C. M. Francis, G. L. Holroyd, J. R. Duncan, K. M. Mazur,
R. J. Cannings, W. Harris, D. Holt. 2001. Guidelines for Nocturnal Owl
Monitoring in North America. Beaverhill Bird Observatory and Bird
Studies Canada, Edmonton, Alberta.

Tewksbury, J. J., S. J. Hejl, and T. E. Martin. 1998. Breeding
productivity does not decline with increasing fragmentation in a western
landscape. Ecology 79:2890-2903.

Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects
of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology
14:18-30.

U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Biological
Assessment Methods

for Birds. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-

02-023.

U.S. Office of the President. 2002. Healthy Forests: An Initiative for
Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthyforests/

Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat
quality. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 893-901.

Vickery, P. D., M. L. Hunter, Jr., and J. Wells, V. 1992. Is density an
indicator of breeding success? Auk 109:706-710.

Wambolt, C. L., K. S. Walhof, and M. R. Frisina. 2001. Recovery of big
sagebrush communities after burning in south-western Montana. Journal of
Environmental Management 61:243-252.

Young, J. S., and R. L. Hutto. 2002. Use of regional-scale exploratory
studies to determine bird-habitat relationships. Pages 107--119 *in* J.
M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. L. Morrison, J. B. Haufler, M. G. Raphael,
W. A. Wall, and F. B. Samson, editors. Predicting species occurrences:
issues of accuracy and scale. Island, Covello, California, USA.

**APPENDIX I.** Native bird species regularly breeding in Montana, with
survey techniques necessary for adequate monitoring coverage.

+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                  | *    | *    | *    | **Co | **No | **   | **S  |
|                  | *Poi | *Diu | *Wet | lony | ctur | Aeri | peci |
|                  | nt** | rnal | land | coun | n.** | al** | essp |
|                  |      | R    | a    | ts** |      |      | ecif |
|                  | **   | apto | rea- |      | **s  | **S  | ic** |
|                  | coun | rs** | sear |      | urve | urve |      |
|                  | ts** |      | ch** |      | ys** | ys** | **s  |
|                  |      |      |      |      |      |      | urve |
|                  |      |      |      |      |      |      | ys** |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Common Loon      |      |      | X    |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Pied-billed      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Grebe            |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Horned Grebe     |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Red-necked Grebe |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Eared Grebe      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Western Grebe    |      |      | X    |      |      | ?    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Clark\'s Grebe   |      |      | X    |      |      | ?    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Amer. White      |      |      |      | X    |      | X    |      |
| Pelican          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Double-crest.    |      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
| Cormorant        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American Bittern |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Great Blue Heron | ?    |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Black-cr.        |      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
| Night-Heron      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| White-faced Ibis |      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Turkey Vulture   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Canada Goose     | X    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Trumpeter Swan   |      |      |      |      |      | X    | ?    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Wood Duck        | ?    |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Gadwall          | ?    |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American Wigeon  | ?    |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Mallard          | X    |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Blue-winged Teal |      |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Cinnamon Teal    |      |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Northern         | ?    |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
| Shoveler         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Northern Pintail | ?    |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Green-winged     |      |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
| Teal             |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Canvasback       |      |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Redhead          |      |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Ring-necked Duck |      |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Lesser Scaup     |      |      | X    |      |      | X    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Harlequin Duck   |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Bufflehead       |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Common Goldeneye |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Barrow\'s        |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Goldeneye        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Hooded Merganser |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Common Merganser | X    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Ruddy Duck       |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Osprey           |      | ?    | ?    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Bald Eagle       |      | X    | ?    |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Northern Harrier |      | X    | ?    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Sharp-shinned    |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
| Hawk             |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Cooper\'s Hawk   |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Northern Goshawk |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Swainson\'s Hawk | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Red-tailed Hawk  | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Ferruginous Hawk | ?    | X    |      |      |      |      | ?    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Golden Eagle     | ?    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American Kestrel | X    | ?    |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Merlin           | X    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                  | *    | *    | *    | **Co | **No | **   | **S  |
|                  | *Poi | *Diu | *Wet | lony | ctur | Aeri | peci |
|                  | nt** | rnal | land | coun | n.** | al** | essp |
|                  |      | R    | a    | ts** |      |      | ecif |
|                  | **   | apto | rea- |      | **s  | **S  | ic** |
|                  | coun | rs** | sear |      | urve | urve |      |
|                  | ts** |      | ch** |      | ys** | ys** | **s  |
|                  |      |      |      |      |      |      | urve |
|                  |      |      |      |      |      |      | ys** |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Peregrine Falcon |      | ?    |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Prairie Falcon   | ?    | X    |      |      |      |      | ?    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Ruffed Grouse    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Greater          |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
| Sage-Grouse      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Spruce Grouse    | ?    |      |      |      |      |      | ?    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Wh.-tailed       |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
| Ptarmigan        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Blue Grouse      | ?    |      |      |      |      |      | ?    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Sharp-tailed     | ?    |      |      |      |      |      | ?    |
| Grouse           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Virginia Rail    |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Sora             |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American Coot    | ?    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Sandhill Crane   | X    |      |      |      |      | ?    |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Piping Plover    |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Killdeer         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Mountain Plover  |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Black-necked     |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Stilt            |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American Avocet  |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Willet           | X    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Spotted          | X    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Sandpiper        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Upland Sandpiper | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Long-billed      | ?    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Curlew           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Marbled Godwit   | ?    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Wilson\'s Snipe  | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Wilson\'s        |      |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Phalarope        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Franklin\'s Gull |      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Ring-billed Gull |      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| California Gull  |      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Caspian Tern     |      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Common Tern      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Forster\'s Tern  |      |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Least Tern       |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Black Tern       |      |      | X    | X    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Mourning Dove    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Black-billed     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Cuckoo           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Yellow-billed    |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
| Cuckoo           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Flammulated Owl  |      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Western          |      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |
| Screech-Owl      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Eastern          |      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |
| Screech-Owl      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Great Horned Owl |      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Northern         | ?    |      |      |      | ?    |      |      |
| Pygmy-Owl        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Burrowing Owl    |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Barred Owl       |      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Great Gray Owl   |      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Long-eared Owl   |      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Short-eared Owl  |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Boreal Owl       |      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| N. Saw-whet Owl  |      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Common Nighthawk | ?    |      |      |      | ?    |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Common Poorwill  |      |      |      |      | X    |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Black Swift      |      |      |      |      |      |      | X    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Chimney Swift    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Vaux\'s Swift    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                  | *    | *    | *    | **Co | **No | **   | **S  |
|                  | *Poi | *Diu | *Wet | lony | ctur | Aeri | peci |
|                  | nt** | rnal | land | coun | n.** | al** | essp |
|                  |      | R    | a    | ts** |      |      | ecif |
|                  | **   | apto | rea- |      | **s  | **S  | ic** |
|                  | coun | rs** | sear |      | urve | urve |      |
|                  | ts** |      | ch** |      | ys** | ys** | **s  |
|                  |      |      |      |      |      |      | urve |
|                  |      |      |      |      |      |      | ys** |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| White-throated   | X    |      |      | X    |      |      |      |
| Swift            |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Bl.-chinned      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Hummingbird      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Calliope         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Hummingbird      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Rufous           | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Hummingbird      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Belted           | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Kingfisher       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Lewis\'s         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Woodpecker       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Red-headed       | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Woodpecker       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Williamson       | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Sapsucker        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Red-naped        | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Sapsucker        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Downy Woodpecker | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Hairy Woodpecker | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Three-toed       | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Woodpecker       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Bl.-backed       | X    |      |      |      |      |      | ?    |
| Woodpecker       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Northern Flicker | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Pileated         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Woodpecker       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Olive-sided      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Flycatcher       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Western          | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Wood-Pewee       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Willow           | X    |      | ?    |      |      |      |      |
| Flycatcher       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Least Flycatcher | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Hammond\'s       | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Flycatcher       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Dusky Flycatcher | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Cordilleran      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Flycatcher       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Say\'s Phoebe    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Cassin\'s        | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Kingbird         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Western Kingbird | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Eastern Kingbird | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Loggerhead       | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Shrike           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Plumbeous Vireo  | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Cassin\'s Vireo  | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Warbling Vireo   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Red-eyed Vireo   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Gray Jay         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Steller\'s Jay   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Pinyon Jay       | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Clark\'s         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Nutcracker       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Black-billed     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Magpie           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American Crow    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Common Raven     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Horned Lark      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Tree Swallow     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Violet-green     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Swallow          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| N. Rough-winged  | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Swallow          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Bank Swallow     | X    |      |      | ?    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Cliff Swallow    | X    |      |      | ?    |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Barn Swallow     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Black-capped     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Chickadee        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Mountain         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Chickadee        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Boreal Chickadee | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Chest.-backed    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Chickadee        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Red-breasted     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Nuthatch         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| White-breasted   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Nuthatch         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Pygmy Nuthatch   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                  | *    | *    | *    | **Co | **No | **   | **S  |
|                  | *Poi | *Diu | *Wet | lony | ctur | Aeri | peci |
|                  | nt** | rnal | land | coun | n.** | al** | essp |
|                  |      | R    | a    | ts** |      |      | ecif |
|                  | **   | apto | rea- |      | **s  | **S  | ic** |
|                  | coun | rs** | sear |      | urve | urve |      |
|                  | ts** |      | ch** |      | ys** | ys** | **s  |
|                  |      |      |      |      |      |      | urve |
|                  |      |      |      |      |      |      | ys** |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Brown Creeper    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Rock Wren        | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Canyon Wren      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| House Wren       | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Winter Wren      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Marsh Wren       | X    |      | ?    |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American Dipper  | ?    |      |      |      |      |      | ?    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Golden-crowned   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Kinglet          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Ruby-crowned     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Kinglet          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Eastern Bluebird | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Western Bluebird | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Mountain         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Bluebird         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Townsend\'s      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Solitaire        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Veery            | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Swainson\'s      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Thrush           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Hermit Thrush    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American Robin   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Varied Thrush    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Gray Catbird     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Sage Thrasher    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Brown Thrasher   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American Pipit   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Sprague\'s Pipit | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Cedar Waxwing    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Orange-crowned   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Warbler          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Nashville        | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Warbler          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Yellow Warbler   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Yellow-rumped    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Warbler          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Townsend\'s      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Warbler          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Redstart         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Ovenbird         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Northern         | X    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Waterthrush      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| MacGillivray's   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Warbler          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Common           | X    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Yellowthroat     |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Wilson\'s        | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Warbler          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Yellow-breasted  | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Chat             |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Western Tanager  | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Green-tailed     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Towhee           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Spotted Towhee   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Chipping Sparrow | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Clay-colored     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Sparrow          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Brewer\'s        | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Sparrow          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Field Sparrow    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Vesper Sparrow   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Lark Sparrow     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Lark Bunting     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Savannah Sparrow | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Baird\'s Sparrow | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Grasshopper      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Sparrow          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Le Conte\'s      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Sparrow          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Fox Sparrow      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Song Sparrow     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                  | *    | *    | *    | **Co | **No | **   | **S  |
|                  | *Poi | *Diu | *Wet | lony | ctur | Aeri | peci |
|                  | nt** | rnal | land | coun | n.** | al** | essp |
|                  |      | R    | a    | ts** |      |      | ecif |
|                  | **   | apto | rea- |      | **s  | **S  | ic** |
|                  | coun | rs** | sear |      | urve | urve |      |
|                  | ts** |      | ch** |      | ys** | ys** | **s  |
|                  |      |      |      |      |      |      | urve |
|                  |      |      |      |      |      |      | ys** |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Lincoln\'s       | X    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Sparrow          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| White-crowned    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Sparrow          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Dark-eyed Junco  | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| McCown\'s        | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Longspur         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Chest.-collared  | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Longspur         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Black-headed     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Grosbeak         |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Lazuli Bunting   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Bobolink         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Red-winged       | X    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Blackbird        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Western          | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Meadowlark       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Yellow-headed    | X    |      | X    |      |      |      |      |
| Blackbird        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Brewer\'s        | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Blackbird        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Common Grackle   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Brown-headed     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Cowbird          |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Orchard Oriole   | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Bullock\'s       | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Oriole           |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Baltimore Oriole | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Gray-crowned     | X    |      |      |      |      |      | ?    |
| Rosy-Finch       |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Black Rosy-Finch | X    |      |      |      |      |      | ?    |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Pine Grosbeak    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Cassin\'s Finch  | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Red Crossbill    | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| White-winged     | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Crossbill        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Pine Siskin      | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| American         | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Goldfinch        |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Evening Grosbeak | X    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **TOTALS**       | **1  | *    | *    | **   | **   | **   | **   |
|                  | 47-1 | *8 - | *41- | 13 - | 10 - | 15 - | 18 - |
|                  | 65** | 11** | 46** | 15** | 12** | 18** | 28** |
+------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

**APPENDIX II**. Inventory of existing point count transects in Montana
by Quarter Latilong (QLL). LBMP = Landbird Monitoring Program; BBS =
Breeding Bird Survey

  --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------
  **QLL**   **LBMP**   **BBS**   **QLL**   **LBMP**   **BBS**   **QLL**   **LBMP**   **BBS**   **QLL**   **LBMP**   **BBS**

  **1A**    8          .         **12D**   1          .         **24B**   .          .         **36B**   2          1

  **1B**    10         .         **13A**   2          1         **24C**   .          .         **36C**   2          .

  **1C**    2          .         **13B**   7          1         **24D**   .          1         **36D**   2          .

  **1D**    4          1         **13C**   2          .         **25A**   4          1         **37A**   6          .

  **2A**    5          .         **13D**   4          1         **25B**   5          1         **37B**   5          .

  **2B**    5          .         **14A**   7          .         **25D**   6          .         **37C**   3          1

  **2C**    9          .         **14B**   7          2         **26A**   6          1         **37D**   1          .

  **2D**    2          1         **14C**   5          .         **26B**   2          .         **38A**   4          1

  **3A**    .          .         **14D**   10         1         **26C**   11         1         **38B**   1          .

  **3B**    .          1         **15A**   7          .         **26D**   2          .         **38C**   1          .

  **3C**    2          .         **15B**   2          .         **27A**   3          1         **38D**   5          .

  **3D**    2          .         **15C**   6          1         **27B**   5          .         **39A**   3          1

  **4A**    .          .         **15D**   3          .         **27C**   2          .         **39B**   5          .

  **4B**    .          1         **16A**   4          .         **27D**   7          .         **39C**   4          .

  **4C**    1          .         **16B**   1          .         **28A**   6          .         **39D**   .          .

  **4D**    .          .         **16C**   6          .         **28B**   7          .         **40A**   3          .

  **5A**    .          1         **16D**   2          1         **28C**   9          1         **40B**   1          1

  **5B**    1          .         **17A**   1          .         **28D**   3          .         **40C**   2          .

  **5C**    1          .         **17B**   1          .         **29A**   8          .         **40D**   9          .

  **5D**    1          .         **17C**   1          .         **29B**   6          .         **41A**   1          1

  **6A**    1          .         **17D**   1          1         **29C**   2          .         **41B**   1          .

  **6B**    1          .         **18A**   .          1         **29D**   4          1         **41C**   5          .

  **6C**    1          .         **18B**   1          .         **30A**   .          .         **41D**   3          .

  **6D**    .          1         **18C**   3          .         **30B**   2          .         **42A**   1          .

  **7A**    1          .         **18D**   1          .         **30C**   .          1         **42B**   .          .

  **7B**    1          .         **19A**   1          .         **30D**   1          .         **42C**              1

  **7C**    1          .         **19B**   .          1         **31A**   1          .         **42D**   .          .

  **7D**    .          1         **19C**   1          .         **31B**   .          1         **43A**   .          .

  **8A**    .          .         **19D**   1          .         **31C**   1          .         **43B**   2          1

  **8B**    1          .         **20A**   1          .         **31D**   1          .         **43C**   5          .

  **8C**    .          1         **20B**   1          .         **32A**   1          .         **43D**   6          .

  **8D**    1          .         **20C**   .          1         **32B**   .          1         **44A**   2          .

  **9A**    1          .         **20D**   1          .         **32C**   1          .         **44B**   1          1

  **9B**    1          .         **21A**   .          .         **32D**   1          .         **44C**   3          .

  **9C**    .          1         **21B**   .          .         **33A**   .          .         **44D**   1          .

  **9D**    1          .         **21C**   1          .         **33B**   .          .         **45A**   2          .

  **10A**   1          .         **21D**   .          1         **33C**   .          1         **45B**   5          .

  **10B**   1          .         **22A**   .          1         **33D**   1          .         **45C**   3          .

  **10C**   1          .         **22B**   1          .         **34A**   .          .         **45D**   1          1

  **10D**   .          1         **22C**   .          .         **34B**   .          1         **46A**   1          1

  **11A**   1          .         **22D**   .          .         **34C**   1          .         **46B**   3          1

  **11B**   1          .         **23A**   1          1         **34D**   1          .         **47A**   2          1

  **11C**   1          1         **23B**   .          .         **35A**   .          .         **47B**   4          .

  **11D**   1          .         **23C**   .          .         **35B**   .          .         **48B**   11         1

  **12A**   1          1         **23D**   .          .         **35C**   .          .         **49B**   1          .

  **12B**   1          .         **24A**   .          .         **35D**   2          1                              

  **12C**   .          .                                        **36A**   7          1                              
  --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------

# Appendix III: Dispersed Wetland Sites for Aquatic Bird monitoring

The following wetlands have been selected for bird monitoring. This may
not be the final selection list, but it does illustrate the process. It
also includes some Discrete sites (eg. Fort Peck Res.) that should
probably be dropped from this list.

+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| # | B  | ### Wetland Site      | Po    | \    | \>640 | Inte      |
| # | CR |                       | thole | <640 | ac    | rmountain |
| # |    |                       |       | ac   |       |           |
| # |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
|   |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| Q |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| L |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| L |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Hoskins Lake          |       |      |       | x         |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Okago Lake            |       |      |       | x         |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Lake Kookanusa        |       |      | x     |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Othorp Lake           |       |      |       | x         |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Lower Stillwater Lake |       | x    |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Boyle Lake            |       |      |       | x         |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Slide Lake, GNP       |       |      |       | x         |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Lake Sherburne        |       |      |       | x         |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Border Lakes at       | x     |      |       |           |
| B |    | 113012'               |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Hungry Horse          |       |      | x     |           |
| C |    | Reservoir S. End      |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 11 | Sharp Lake on         |       | x    |       |           |
| A |    | Blackfeet Res         |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 11 | Billstad Road Ponds,  | x     |      |       |           |
| B |    | 34 mi N Cutbank       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 11 | Unnamed pothole end   | x     |      |       |           |
| B |    | of Red River Rd       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 5 | 11 | Ponds, 15 mile coulee | x     |      |       |           |
| A |    | 28 mi E of Kevin      |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 5 | 11 | Pothole +             | x     |      |       |           |
| A |    | Danielson/Causeway    |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 7 | 11 | Sprinkle Coulee       |       | x    |       |           |
| A |    | Reservoir             |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 7 | 11 | Stock ponds + 232 &   |       | x    |       |           |
| B |    | Willow Cr. Rd.        |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 7 | 11 | Pond on Rd 42 NE of   | x     |      |       |           |
| B |    | Lohman                |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 8 | 11 | Weygand Reservoir 21  |       | x    |       |           |
| A |    | m N of Zurich         |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 8 | 11 | Threemile Reservoir   |       | x    |       |           |
| C |    | 20 mi E of Harlem     |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 8 | 11 | Weigand Reservoir     |       | x    |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 9 | 11 | Martin or Horseshoe   |       | x    |       |           |
| A |    | Lake W of Loring      |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 9 | 11 | Austin Lake 5 mi S of | x     |      |       |           |
| A |    | Whitewater            |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 11 | Small res., off Olson |       | x    |       |           |
| 0 |    | Spring Road           |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 11 | Ponds @ + Creek Rd &  |       | x    |       |           |
| 0 |    | Maxness Rd            |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 11 | Stock ponds on Mooner |       | x    |       |           |
| 0 |    | Coulee                |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 11 | Todd Lakes            |       | x    |       |           |
| 1 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 11 | Pothole E. of North   | x     |      |       |           |
| 2 |    | Star Rd.              |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 11 | Flat and Round L. 2   | x     |      |       |           |
| 2 |    | mi N of Westby        |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Mission Reservoir     |       | x    |       |           |
| 4 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Kicking Horse         |       |      | x     |           |
| 4 |    | Reservoir             |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Spotted Bear L.       |       |      |       | x         |
| 5 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Evans Lake            |       |      |       | x         |
| 5 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Jones Lake            |       |      |       | x         |
| 5 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Gibson Reservoir      |       |      | x     |           |
| 6 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Anderson Lake (W of   |       |      | x     |           |
| 6 |    | Augusta)              |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 11 | Pond along tracks     | x     |      |       |           |
| 7 |    | just east Sun R.      |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 10 | Pond at + Knapstad &  |       | x    |       |           |
| 7 |    | Leistiko Rd.          |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 17 | Harwood Lake          |       |      | x     |           |
| 8 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 17 | Ponds on Mud Spring   |       | x    |       |           |
| 8 |    | Coulee                |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 11 | Pond,spur rd E of Rd  | x     |      |       |           |
| 9 |    | 236 SE of Eagleton    |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 1 | 17 | Stock Pond NW of      |       | x    |       |           |
| 9 |    | Winifred              |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 11 | Main L, UL Bend NWR   | x     |      |       |           |
| 0 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 17 | Little Bear Lake near |       | x    |       |           |
| 0 |    | War Horse NWR         |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 11 | Lake PR 19            | x     |      |       |           |
| 1 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 11 | Archie Reservoir      |       | x    |       |           |
| 1 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 11 | Buckley Lake          |       | x    |       |           |
| 1 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 17 | Krieder Res.          |       | x    |       |           |
| 1 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 11 | Fort Peck Res.at Fort |       |      | x     |           |
| 2 |    | Peck Proj.            |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 17 | Fort Peck Lake at     |       |      | x     |           |
| 2 |    | Rock Cr. Access       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 17 | Ponds off NWR 815 Rd  |       | x    |       |           |
| 2 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 17 | Ponds @ + Rock Cr. Rd |       | x    |       |           |
| 2 |    | & Hwy 24              |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 17 | 2 ponds E of McQuire  | x     |      |       |           |
| 3 |    | Cr., e. Dry Arm       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 17 | Fox Lake (WMA)        | x     |      |       |           |
| 4 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 17 | Pond on LoneTree Cr.  | x     |      |       |           |
| 4 |    | Off Rd 131            |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Twin Lakes            |       |      |       | x         |
| 5 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | High Lake             |       |      |       | x         |
| 5 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Browns Lake           |       |      |       | x         |
| 6 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Stewart Lake          |       |      |       | x         |
| 6 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Fred Burr Lake        |       |      |       | x         |
| 6 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Nevada Lake           |       |      |       | x         |
| 7 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Whitetail Res.        |       |      | x     |           |
| 7 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Stoyanoff Lake        |       | x    |       |           |
| 8 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Pond on Whitetail     |       | x    |       |           |
| 8 |    | Deer Cr.              |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Lebo Lake             |       | x    |       |           |
| 9 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 10 | Pond on Antelope      |       | x    |       |           |
| 9 |    | Creek                 |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 2 | 17 | Pond on Big Elk Creek | x     |      |       |           |
| 9 |    | = 3 mi S. of 2 .      |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 17 | Ackley Lake           | x     |      |       |           |
| 0 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 17 | Petrolia Lake         |       | x    |       |           |
| 1 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 17 | Ponds on Hanson       |       | x    |       |           |
| 2 |    | Coulee                |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 17 | Needle Butte Res.     |       | x    |       |           |
| 3 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 17 | Sunday Creek          |       | x    |       |           |
| 3 |    | Reservoir             |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 17 | Donley's Reservoir    |       | x    |       |           |
| 3 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 17 | Hay Creek Res.        |       | x    |       |           |
| 3 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 17 | Pond @ Ash            | x     |      |       |           |
| 5 |    | Creek,Baldwin Leland  |       |      |       |           |
| A |    | Rd.                   |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 17 | Pond on Mid Fk Cabin  | x     |      |       |           |
| 5 |    | Cr N. of Baker        |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Skinner Lake          |       |      |       | x         |
| 6 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Pond off Big Hole R 6 |       |      | x     |           |
| 6 |    | mi. N of Skinner      |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Delmoe Lake           |       |      |       | x         |
| 7 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Ruby River Res.       |       |      | x     |           |
| 7 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| D |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Harrison Lk (Willow   |       |      | x     |           |
| 8 |    | Cr. Res.)             |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Axolotl Lakes S. of   |       |      | x     |           |
| 8 |    | Virginia City         |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Ennis Lake            |       |      | x     |           |
| 8 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Fairy Lake            |       |      |       | x         |
| 9 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 3 | 10 | Mystic Lake           |       |      | x     |           |
| 9 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Goose Lake            |       |      |       | x         |
| 0 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Huckleberry Lake      |       |      | x     |           |
| 0 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 17 | Rattlesnake Res.      |       | x    |       |           |
| 1 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Res on Anita Dam Rd   | x     |      |       |           |
| 1 |    | SE of Balentine       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 17 | Tongue River Res.     |       |      | x     |           |
| 3 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| C |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 17 | Ponds on Little       |       | x    |       |           |
| 4 |    | Pumpkin Cr. Rd.       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Clark Canyon Res.     |       |      | x     |           |
| 6 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Lima Reservoir        |       |      | x     |           |
| 6 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Elk Lake              |       |      |       | x         |
| 7 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| A |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Upper Red Rock Lake   |       |      |       | x         |
| 7 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Madison arm Hebgen L. |       |      |       | x         |
| 7 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Coffin Lake           |       |      |       | x         |
| 7 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Nelson Lake           |       |      |       | x         |
| 8 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
| 4 | 10 | Painted Rocks L.      |       |      |       | x         |
| 8 |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
| B |    |                       |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+
|   |    | Totals by wetland     | 21    | 34   | 19    | 25        |
|   |    | type:                 |       |      |       |           |
+---+----+-----------------------+-------+------+-------+-----------+