Use of an area by specialized wildlife species was 

 evaluated separately because of the species' or 

 habitats' uniqueness. State listed species of special 

 concern and nongame and game wetland species were eval- 

 uated in this category (Flath 1984). Only vertebrate 

 species of special concern dependent on riparian areas 

 were included. These included: 



a) Waterfowl staging areas, low level feeding 

 flight paths, "prime wetlands" as described by 

 USFWS or MDFWP; 



b) Warm/hot springs open in winter and used by 

 winter/migrating waterfowl species; 



c) High gradient streams supporting breeding 

 harlequin ducks or amphibians of special con- 

 cern (Pacific giant salamander, Coeur d'Alene 

 salamander. Rough skinned newt, tailed frog); 



d) Sloughs, backwater areas supporting reptiles of 

 special concern (spiny softshell, snapping 

 turtle) ; 



e) Riparian areas supporting colonies (>5 pairs) 

 of double-crested cormorants, great blue 

 herons, American white pelican; 



f) Large nesting osprey population area (>1 active 

 nest per river mile; minimum 5 river miles); 



g) Cliffs occupied by or suitable for nesting 

 golden eagles; 



RECREATION VALUE 



The recreation criterion considered both consump- 

 tive and nonconsumptive uses within a unit. Consump- 

 tive value was determined by the hunting of big game, 

 small game, and waterfowl species; value was based on 

 hunting pressure and success. 



Three nonconsumptive recreation values based on 

 wildlife attributes and land characteristics were 

 evaluated: wildlife and habitat oriented uses; scien- 

 tific and educational value; and aesthetics. Wildlife 

 and habitat oriented uses included, but were not 

 limited to, bird watching; roadside wildlife watching; 

 collecting/identifying wildflowers, reptiles, 

 amphibians, and insects; wildlife/nature photography, 

 and artistry. The scientific/education value rated the 

 unit based on the uniqueness of plant and animal 

 communities present and the amount and regional signif- 

 icance of public use. Aesthetics of an area was the 

 third nonconsumptive value evaluated. The system es- 

 tablished by the MDFWP Fisheries Division was employed, 

 assigning an aesthetics value to each unit. 



