PACIFIC NORTHWEST RIVERS STUDY 

 MONTANA INVENTORY OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES 



The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks conducted 

 the wildlife study, with initial information gathered from more 

 than 40 wildlife biologists and land managers from DFWP, the U.S. 

 Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management. No attempts to 

 assess the wildlife value of river reaches or basins statewide 

 had been made before. 



Wildlife species' range and habitat are not strictly defined by 

 bodies of water, so individual river reaches were not rated. 

 Instead, 372 wildlife assessment units were created based on 

 river reaches and drainage basins. 



Wildlife value class for each unit was based on habitat value, 

 species value, and recreational value. Habitat value was 

 determined by specialized land use (such as designated refuges 

 and management areas) and habitat characteristics (such as 

 quality and diversity). Species value was determined by the 

 presence of threatened and endangered species, species of special 

 concern (such as harlequin ducks, colonial birds, and nesting 

 raptors), and the density of game and furbearer species. 

 Recreation value was determined by the presence of consumptive 

 and nonconsumpti ve recreational uses. 



Assessment units were assigned to one of four value classes 

 based on an average of habitat and species ratings, with 

 recreational value used as a tie-breaker. Eighteen percent (68 

 units) were rated as Class I (Outstanding value), 33 percent (121 

 units) were Class II (Substantial value), 31 percent (116 units) 

 were Class III (Moderate value), 11 percent (41) were Class IV 

 (Limited value), and 7 percent (26 units) were Class V (Unknown 

 value ) . 



The western part of the state (DFWP management regions 1,2,3 

 and 4) contained 82 percent of the Class I units, 74 percent of 

 the Class II units, and only 24 percent of the Class IV units. 

 Region 3 had the highest percentage of Class I units and Region 1 

 had the greatest number of Class II units. Regional comparisons 

 are not straightforward, however, because region size and other 

 factors vary widely. 



The percentages in each value class reflect two recent changes 

 made in the rating system following peer review. First, value 

 due to habitat conditions alone was increased. Previously, too 

 much weight had been placed on official designation, preventing 

 areas in excellent condition and having habitat diversity and 

 quality from obtaining a Class I rating. Second, weighting was 

 increased for units supporting a diversity and high density of 



1 - 



