(page 6) 

 Literature Cited: 



Bader M. 2000a. Wilderness-Based Ecosystem Protection in the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States, 

 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol-2:99-iI0. 



Bader M. 2000b. Spatial needs of grizzly bears in the US Northern Rockies. Society for Conservation Biology 

 2000 Meeting, Missoula, MT. 



Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94- 

 108. 



Craighead, F.L., and E. Vyse. 1996. Brown/grizzly bear metapopulations. In: D. McCullough (Ed.) 

 Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation Management. Island Press, Washington DC and Covelo California. 

 Chapter 14: pp. 325-351. 



Gilpin, M.E., and M.E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: Processes of species extinction. In: M.E. Soule 

 (Ed.) Conservation Biology: the science of scarcity and diversity, pp 19-34. 



Hanski I. 1994. Patch-occupancy dynamics in fragmented landscapes. TREE 9:131-135. 



Hanski I A and Gilpin ME. 1997. Metapopulation Biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. San Diego: Academic 

 Press. 



Noss, R.F., and L.D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMS: preserving diversity at all scales. Environmental 

 Management 10:299-309. 



Noss, R.F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33:700-706. 



Noss, R.F. 1987. Protecting natural areas in fragmented landscapes. Natural Areas Journal 7:2-13. 



Noss, R.F. 1992. The Wildlands Project: land conservation sfrategy. Wild Earth (special issue): 10-25. 



Paetkau D., L. Waits, P. Clarkson, L. Craighead, E. Vyse, R. Ward, and C. Strobeck. 1997. Dramatic variation in 

 genetic diversity across the range of North American brown bears. 



Ruggiero LF, Hayward GD, and Squires JR. 1994. Viability analysis in biological evaluations: concepts of 

 population viability analysis, biological population, and ecological scale. Conservation Biology 8(2): 364-372. 



RESPONSE #6: 



Thank you for your thorough review and consideration of the information presented in the DEIS. We 

 appreciate your support of our cooperative efforts to consolidate ownership to protect large core areas of 

 wildlife habitat, and also the concerns you expressed about our proposed strategy of exchanging lands to 

 accomplish this. As you are aware from reviewing the DEIS, we have no practical alternative to land 

 exchanges if we hope to affect the future disposition of critically important wildlife habitat that is currently 

 owned by Plum Creek Timber Company on the BCWMA. The DEIS is an analysis of tradeoffs to be 

 considered by the decision-makers. According to the DEIS, choosing Alternative A (No Action) would set 

 the stage for possible future development of critical wildlife habitat currently owned by Plum Creek, which 

 would likely affect an association of herbivorous and predatory wildlife populations that are known to 

 range over some 500,000 acres. The proposed decision is based on FWP's assertion that the benefits to 

 wildlife communities in western /Montana, and to wildlife of regional and continental importance, are 

 overwhelmingly greater than those preserved by taking no action. Following are responses to specific 

 points raised in your letter, which should serve to clarify the analysis as presented in the DEIS. 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environmental Impact Statement 22 



