with mountainous wet meadows and ripariancorridors. Biologists describe declines in moosepopulations for unknown reasons. More recordsof moose occur west of the Continental Divide,with low numbers of moose occurring east of theDivide in small patches of suitable habitat. <strong>The</strong>anomaly to this was in the southeastern <strong>Hub</strong>,were there were notable moose populationsoccurring in the mountainous complex of theAbsarokas, Gallatins, and Madisons.Mountain goat populations were described by afew biologists as being in small, isolated, ruggedmountainous areas. Like bighorn, they weredescribed as occurring in areas of the <strong>Hub</strong> thatprovided high elevation alpine and sub-alpinecrest habitats in the summer, such as the BigBelt Mountains.Population and Economics<strong>The</strong> <strong>Hub</strong> is a region in transition. Within thisregion are four cities with more than 30,000residents: Butte, Bozeman, Helena, andMissoula. <strong>The</strong>se cities are connected by aninterstate and highway system that comprisea large parallelogram shape- Interstate 90connects Bozeman, Butte, and Missoula.Interstate 15 connects Helena to Butte, andHighway 200 connects Helena and Missoula.Much of the <strong>Hub</strong> is still dominated by anagricultural economy. Farmers grow dry landcrops of barley, hay, wheat and alfalfa, andranchers raise beef cattle and sheep. Ranchersoften graze cattle and sheep on public landallotments in the summer, bringing them tovalley-bottom winter range in the fall. Conflictoccurs when wild carnivores threaten livestockgrazing on public lands in the summer, or targetanimals concentrated on winter range. Conflictalso occurs with wild ungulates that competewith cattle and sheep for forage on winterrange. While records of carnivore depredationindicate that wolves and bears are a threatin some cases, biologists indicated that muchof the social intolerance appears to be moreculturally based.<strong>The</strong> communities surrounding the four citiesare experiencing high amounts of exurbandevelopment. Traditionally, private lands wereseries of ranches and large farms that comprised25a lot of open space. Under this scenario, landuse regulation was not as necessary sincehuman density was very low. Now, with rapidpopulation expansion, areas that were onceopen landscapes are being quickly subdivided,and the need for more organized, planneddevelopment to circumvent undue damage tonatural resources is increasingly recognized.Growth and land use policies may be one ofthe best tools to maintain wildlife connectivity,and avoid conflict between humans and wildlife(for instance, it may be wise not to place asubdivision in the path of a traditional corridorused by a herd of 5,000 elk). <strong>The</strong> social cultureof the <strong>Hub</strong> has been slow to accept growthmanagement. However, this is changing, withrecent efforts by city and county commissionersin Helena, Bozeman, and Missoula to adoptprogressive growth management plans andzoning.Transportation corridors also strongly affectwildlife connectivity in the <strong>Hub</strong>. Almost theentire <strong>Hub</strong> is affected by either Interstates 15 orWest side of Castle Mountains,photo by Grace Hammond
90, or Highways 200, 287, or 93. Improvementsin transportation mean easier access anddecreased commuter times to major cities,and thus facilitates exurban development intorural communities outside the four major cities.Increasingly, resource managers have to considerthe effects transportation systems have on theviability of wildlife populations.Priority Linkage AssessmentMethods<strong>The</strong> Interviews and Rating System<strong>The</strong> bulk of this assessment involves AmericanWildlands staff interviewing experts fromstate, tribal, and federal agencies, andindependent biologists within the region toidentify, catalog and prioritize linkage areas inthe regional corridor. In the <strong>Hub</strong> conservationarea, we selected 33 biological experts fromMontana Fish, <strong>Wildlife</strong> and Parks, the U.S.Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and <strong>Wildlife</strong>Service, the Confederated Salish and KootenaiTribes, Montana Department of Transportation,Idaho Transportation Department, Idaho Fishand Game, and four non-profit/independentcontractor experts with proven knowledgeof wide-ranging wildlife in the <strong>Hub</strong> corridor.American Wildlands gathered expert opinionsthat are based on scientific data, ratherthan more anecdotal traditional ecologicalknowledge. As wildlife connectivity in specificlinkage areas is further defined, we will broadenour queries to other knowledgeable people suchas landowners, highway maintenance workers,and commuters to learn more about specificwildlife movement.To ensure equal coverage of the area of interest,geographic distribution of experts’ “areas ofexpertise” were considered during the selectionof participants to promote a uniform samplingeffort of the study areas. Individual interviewswith experts were preferred although in fourcases, due to time restraints and the preferenceof the interviewees, interviews were conductedin small groups of two or three biologists.<strong>The</strong> PLA process collected data on a variety ofungulate and carnivore species, as well as a few26avian/small mammal species. While this doesnot include all wildlife living in the NorthernRocky Mountains, the species selected representa wide variety of habitat requirements, scalesof movement, and life history requirements.By collecting data on all these species, habitatrequirements and linkages of many functionallevels and scales were captured. This approachmaximizes the usefulness of this data collectioneffort to a wide variety of resource managementagencies, conservation organizations, andcommunities. Interviewees were questionedabout wide-ranging ungulates (such as deer andelk) and wide-ranging carnivores (such as grizzlybears, black bears, wolves, wolverine andlynx). Information was collected about otherspecies if appropriate. <strong>The</strong> connectivity lensshifts for each of these species. This assessmentconcentrates on the areas that overlap andare common for wide-ranging wildlife species.<strong>Area</strong>s with the highest ecological ratings usuallycorrespond to movements by multiple wildlifespecies in topographically important areas,such as riparian areas linking multiple mountainranges.<strong>The</strong> interviews followed a standardizedprocedure with one of the authors conductingthe interview and a second acting as recorderwith minimal participation; both made everyeffort not to influence the experts’ opinions orresponses. <strong>The</strong> purpose and procedure of theproject were described in detail. Experts wereasked to use previous professional and personalexperience in the field to answer questions.<strong>The</strong>y were encouraged to share as muchinformation as possible, but not to extrapolatebeyond their expertise. Each expert was given alarge map (~60x50 cm) of the study area (scale1 cm = 5 km) with vegetation, roads, cities, andpolitical boundaries demarcated and asked todelineate the area they considered their areaof expertise. Next, a series of standardizedquestions prompted the expert to 1) delineateimportant habitat linkages and 2) rate theecological quality (EQ) of each from 1 (lowquality) to 10 (high quality) while consideringa range of qualifications (e.g. seasonal,migration path, dispersal path) and species(e.g. forest carnivores, ungulates, migratory
- Page 5 and 6: Executive SummaryMaintaining the ec
- Page 7 and 8: Map 1. The Hub Conservation Area ma
- Page 9 and 10: Map 3. Major elk linkages identifie
- Page 12 and 13: Map 6. Major mule deer linkages ide
- Page 14 and 15: Map 8. Major wolf linkages identifi
- Page 16 and 17: Map 10. Major grizzly bear linkages
- Page 18 and 19: For information regarding contents
- Page 20 and 21: American Wildlands’ PriorityLinka
- Page 22 and 23: Georgetown Lake,photo by Grace Hamm
- Page 24 and 25: Beaverhead Mountains to the south,
- Page 28 and 29: irds). This step was repeated for c
- Page 30 and 31: Figure 4. Hierarchical breakdown of
- Page 32 and 33: sanitation and conflict issues betw
- Page 34 and 35: Literature ReviewThis review is mea
- Page 36 and 37: that this impediment is deleterious
- Page 38 and 39: may not provide functional connecti
- Page 40 and 41: available during dispersal, and new
- Page 43 and 44: and desert; this reflects overall a
- Page 45 and 46: Photo by Denver Bryanpopulations. L
- Page 47 and 48: Mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus)
- Page 49 and 50: GUIDE TO READINGPRIORITY LINKAGE AS
- Page 51 and 52: Absaroka to CraziesSpeciesGeographi
- Page 53 and 54: BangtailsSpeciesGeographic Boundary
- Page 55 and 56: Bear CreekSpeciesGeographic Boundar
- Page 58 and 59: Big BeltsSpeciesGeographic Boundary
- Page 60 and 61: to disease transmission between dom
- Page 62: sightings in the Birch Creek area.
- Page 65 and 66: Elk move within this linkage for wi
- Page 67: south of the linkage area.Wolverine
- Page 70 and 71: ange for about 200 elk, and the Spr
- Page 72: winter range is private land on the
- Page 75: e using the Little Belt Mountains,
- Page 78 and 79:
Front south along the Continental D
- Page 80 and 81:
Clinton to DrummondSpeciesGeographi
- Page 82 and 83:
There has been a settlement with At
- Page 84 and 85:
Mountain Goats: The highest density
- Page 86 and 87:
suspected in very low levels, even
- Page 88:
dispersal corridor for all of these
- Page 91 and 92:
the area. Hunting access in general
- Page 93 and 94:
with the Elkhorns.Wolverines are kn
- Page 96 and 97:
FleecerSpeciesGeographic BoundaryFl
- Page 98 and 99:
negotiated grazing agreements on th
- Page 100 and 101:
traffic volumes are increasing sign
- Page 102 and 103:
pack in the linkage. The large size
- Page 104 and 105:
Garnets to BouldersSpeciesGeographi
- Page 106 and 107:
105
- Page 108 and 109:
persistent spring snow and may be k
- Page 110 and 111:
Garnets. The Clark Fork River Corri
- Page 112 and 113:
Horseshoe HillsSpeciesGeographic Bo
- Page 114 and 115:
Hound CreekSpeciesGeographic Bounda
- Page 116 and 117:
Jefferson SloughSpeciesGeographic B
- Page 118 and 119:
117
- Page 120 and 121:
Willow packs moved here from the po
- Page 122:
the high potential for conflict wit
- Page 125 and 126:
the Castle Mountains south of Whets
- Page 127 and 128:
Lolo to TurahSpeciesGeographic Boun
- Page 129 and 130:
path; this could further fragment w
- Page 131 and 132:
Lost TrailSpeciesGeographic Boundar
- Page 133 and 134:
MacDonald Pass toFleecer/Mt. Haggin
- Page 135 and 136:
claims within the area and 75 are b
- Page 137 and 138:
Conservation ThreatsDevelopment cou
- Page 139 and 140:
MaxvilleSpeciesGeographic BoundaryT
- Page 141 and 142:
Norris HillSpeciesGeographic Bounda
- Page 143 and 144:
PipestoneSpeciesGeographic Boundary
- Page 145 and 146:
144
- Page 147 and 148:
persistent snow pack.Lynx: Boles Cr
- Page 149 and 150:
Potter BasinSpeciesGeographic Bound
- Page 151 and 152:
150
- Page 153 and 154:
Mountain goats exist in small pocke
- Page 155 and 156:
Rocky Mountain Front to Big BeltMou
- Page 157 and 158:
Disease between bighorn sheep and d
- Page 159 and 160:
the linkage, grizzly bear forage in
- Page 161 and 162:
influencing how wildlife connectivi
- Page 163 and 164:
Several bighorn sheep herds form am
- Page 165 and 166:
Silver StarSpeciesGeographic Bounda
- Page 167 and 168:
166
- Page 169 and 170:
controlled. In recent years, approx
- Page 171 and 172:
esulting from livestock depredation
- Page 173 and 174:
StickneySpeciesGeographic BoundaryT
- Page 175 and 176:
SulaSpeciesGeographic BoundaryThe S
- Page 177 and 178:
Tom Miner to Mill CreekSpeciesGeogr
- Page 179 and 180:
178
- Page 181 and 182:
development. Subdivision, fencing a
- Page 183 and 184:
Townsend from 1000 to 300 animals.
- Page 185 and 186:
These appear to be important for gr
- Page 187 and 188:
186
- Page 189 and 190:
Other existing packs include the Wo
- Page 191 and 192:
Creek and the Boulder River south o
- Page 193 and 194:
192
- Page 195 and 196:
Harestad A.S., and F.L. Bunnell. 19
- Page 197 and 198:
Trakhtenbrot, A. R. Nathan, G. Perr
- Page 199 and 200:
Appendix 1 (cont.).Table 1Mammals o
- Page 201 and 202:
Appendix 2 (cont.).Table 2Home Rang
- Page 203 and 204:
Appendix 3 (cont.).Table 3Migration
- Page 205 and 206:
Appendix 4 (cont.).Table 4Dispersal
- Page 207 and 208:
Appendix 5 (cont.).Studies Demonstr
- Page 209:
American Wildlands ~ Winter 2008