Un October 25, 1935, DlitiU nold o inootinfj to rcvitw and aiscuss the nature! 

 fecturos inventory rnups unu oats buse. The purjjose of the i.iectinc, was (1) to receive 

 fincil coi.ii.,e;nts on the list of sites and the value class assignments froi,; 

 partici jjuti nc agencies (particularly USPS and dLiD, (.2) to receive general cornnients 

 on stuay ut^sion, and (5) to oiscuss and prioritize additional tasks needed to 

 coiii|j|ete or expand the data base. Present were: Janet Johnson, USPS; Tciti Ring, 

 Larry Tnoi.,pson, anu IJancy Johnson, DflRC; Gael Cissell and Stev/art Allen, DPl.'P; Joan 

 jird, Stovc Shelley, ana ^ancy Gruike, The ilature Conservancy; Duane Hclr.ies, national 

 Park Service; ano Torn Pansky, L-PA, Gert '..,'i I I iai.is, official jLil contact, could not oe 

 present; ^ copy of the caiiputcr data base was sent to hirr, for coi.iinent but no coi.i.iients 

 were roc^iv^e. i-inutes of the meeting are included as Appendix L to tins roport. 



i'.appini. c f J ires 



As sites v/ere located, they were plotteo on a set of 1:100,000 LiLr, topographic 

 i-naps usin^ cclcreu signal dots: i^reen for botanical resources, red for geological or 

 hydrol Gvjicc^l feotures. Each site was given a unique nui.iber which was then lettered 

 on the a^jpropriattt signal aot. For each site, a aata entry foria (Table 3) was 

 cofiiplcte^ and assigned the Soi.ie cooe nur.iber as the site. 



Rati n., OT oitcs 



Staff liiej.iuers ratea sites cs soon cs they wurc ioentified. At the completion of 

 the r.iappirig effort, the ratings of all sites ioentifiod were reviewed and modifieG cS 

 neeoeo, oasuo on the findings of the study. Finv^lly, the coopt:rc.ti ng agency contacts 

 und technical aevisors were given an opportunity to review the ratings anc suggest 

 chan^Ob, Tht= maps und other cata were revieweo at a ,iioeting in Helena on October 25, 

 1965 (see /.|jpenaix L for minutes of meeting una a list of those attending). A color 

 code was usee to inoicate the final rating on the i.iaps. 



Data Auto..n^tien 



As part of Phuse II of this stuay, aata were entered from the data entry forms 

 (Table 5) into on autod.atyo data base on DilRC's Honeywell coi.iputer using the 

 Honeywell recoros processing software. The definitions of fields used in this data 

 base are presentee in Appendix M. This data base nas been converted to ASCII format 

 on 5 1/4-inch floppy disks, and also is entered in the Northwest Power Plannin^j 

 Council's tiata base in Portland. The data base contains approximately 1.3 megabytes 

 of information. 



PROJECT EVALU/\TIO!! 



The Montana uivers Stuay natural features inventory was tlie first c&iiprehensi v j 

 statewide effort to compile a data base of i nfoniiuTion on significant natural 

 features. Tlit^ process provicec a unique opportunity to gcther tn i s i nf or.iati en i ntv. 

 one central uaTo Oose anc to dGCU.',ient ;,iuch valu^;L)le unpublishec i nf or,,.aTion. 



The rostrietien of the study generally to tno area within 1000 feet of rivers is 

 artificial one uraitrary; impacts of hydroelectric dcvelopiaent coula occur .luch 

 farther froi.. tnti river channel. If tne study ..ill be used to evduate indivicual 

 hydroeliictric sit;,s, i.iore fitlu i nvostigations at inoivioual sites will be ruquir-;^d. 



