Management Guidelines for Riparian Forests 



Field Procedures — Flathead Basin 

 Audit Sites 



With the approval of Don Potts and Bill 

 Ehinger, we assigned Kim Sherwood to accom- 

 pany the BMP audit teams in order to obtain 

 suggestions for revision of management infor- 

 mation on as many sites as possible. On each 

 site, the habitat types were identified by Kim 

 Sherwood who then read the pertinent pub- 

 lished management implications (Pfister and 

 others 1977) to the BMP audit team. The team 

 then provided feedback on the existing infor- 

 mation relative to observations in that unit. The 

 results were then summarized by habitat types 

 and later incorporated into the new riparian and 

 wedand classification for northwest Montana 

 (Boggs and others 1990). 



A second addition to the field audit proce- 

 dures was to ask the BMP audit team if pro- 

 posed criteria for determining width of the 

 Streamside Management Zone would have been 

 appropriate for the site. The proposed criteria 

 were ( 1 ) 25 foot minimum, (2) include adjacent 

 wetland, and (3) use a soil/slope formula. 



Results — Management Information 

 FOR Habitat Types 



Previously defined forest habitat types 

 (Pfister and others 1977) in the Streamside 

 Management Zone (SMZ) were recorded for 48 

 BMP audit sites. Table G-1 presents a sum- 

 mary of types observed on more than two sites. 



Nine habitat types were observed where 

 management information was discussed by the 

 audit teams on at least two sites. Summaries of 

 individual comments were made for each habi- 

 tat type. These were provided to the classifica- 

 tion team for incorporation with all other sources 

 of information in the management information 

 sections of the new wetiand/riparian classifica- 

 tion of northwestern Montana (Boggs and oth- 



ers 1990). For four of the types, the Flathead 

 management information was simply added to 

 previous information. (An example of the 

 ABLA/OPHO habitat type revision is shown in 

 Appendix D.) However, most of the CLUN 

 types were revised in the new classification to 

 split off the wet end of the types; comments 

 were incorporated into the new management 

 information sections of the new types. One type 

 (ABLA/LIJHI,MEFE) illustrated the difficulty 

 of getting to a wetland condition by using the 

 1977 key. The wetiand sites within the upper 

 subalpine would likely key to the new ABI- 

 LAS/STRAMP Abies lasiocarpa/Streptopus 

 amplexifolius habitat type in Boggs and others 

 (1990). For most of the types, the suggested 

 changes were for added information rather than 

 extensive changes. Discussions also revealed 

 that some organizations use the existing habitat 

 type management information much less than 

 others. 



Those types previously listed as wedands 

 (ABLA/CACA, ABLA/OPHO, PICEA/EQAR, 

 and THPL/OPHO) were confirmed to be obvi- 

 ous wedands by the field observations in all 

 areas. (See Table G-1.) The other types in 

 Table G-1 with the word "variable" indicated 

 were observed to include both wetiand and non- 

 wetland conditions within them. Two interpre- 

 tations are made for this observation. First, 

 these types may need revision to more clearly 

 separate them for wetiand characteristics; most 

 of this has been accomplished in the new clas- 

 sification in Boggs and others (1990). The sec- 

 ond interpretation is that transitional types in 

 bottomland situations often are found in a mo- 

 saic pattern with wedand pockets or stringers 

 reflecting microsites of slightly lower eleva- 

 tions. This cannot be handled by revising the 

 taxonomic classification. Rather, it requires the 

 field person to determine the pattern of types 

 present within a management unit and design 

 the activities to protect the aquatic resources. 



Page 92 



Flathead Basin Cooperative Program Final Report 



