and IV recreation value were 101 to 164, 67 to 100, 51 

 to 66 and 15 to 50, respectively. 



METHODS 



DATA COLLECTION 



Montana selected a questionnaire and interview 

 approach for obtaining the river assessment 

 information. The questionnaire provided a standardized 

 system to evaluate wildlife values associated with 

 rivers and a means to document response (Appendix A). 

 The questionnaire also lent some objectivity to the 

 assessment process and facilitated computerization of 

 the information collected. 



A meeting of wildlife biologists from the appro- 

 priate National Forests, the Bureau of Land Management, 

 and the MDFWP was held in each of the seven MDFWP 

 regions. At each meeting, the biologists answered a 

 questionnaire for each river assessment unit concerning 

 location and habitat, species, and recreation values. 

 Answers were recorded on a data form. Biologists from 

 different agencies generally worked in small groups on 

 rivers in their management area. Although state wild- 

 life maps, BLM maps, and USFS maps and documents were 

 utilized during the assessment process, many ratings 

 were subjective. Questions were answered using a 

 presence or absence determination or a rating from 1 to 

 3 in all criteria, instead of population estimates or 

 quantitative habitat measurements. 



Prior to the meetings, MDFWP biologists were con- 

 tacted to determine the boundaries of the wildlife 

 assessment units. River mile indices listing all the 

 waterways in the appropriate regions were used to 

 determine unit size and boundaries. Units usually were 

 limited to one drainage and its tributaries and did not 

 combine drainages with similar habitat and species use. 

 In some cases, the initial boundaries were used in the 

 assessment process. In most cases, however, new 

 boundaries were established after biologists reviewed 

 the questionnaires and considered the time and 

 repetition required for each assessment. Because wild- 

 life use is not restricted by the presence of water, 

 strict river and stream reaches were too narrow in 

 their definition to describe a river assessment unit. 

 Therefore, units were defined as a main stem, a stream 

 or river basin (including its tributaries) or the trib- 

 utaries to a main stem. The hydrologic unit, rather 

 than river mile, became the primary geographic 

 reference point. 



14 



