PROJECT EVALUATION 



The wildlife river assessment underwent a con- 

 siderable evolution following its conception, so the 

 project was evaluated throughout the process. What 

 started out as an assessment of Montana's riparian 

 wildlife habitat and species developed into the begin- 

 nings of a statewide wildlife database. The original 

 criteria for species value included a Class I 

 designation if a unit contained any threatened or 

 endangered species or any species of special or "high" 

 concern. As a result of the extensiveness of this 

 list, virtually all units would have received a Class I 

 species value. In the final guidelines, wildlife 

 diversity in a unit became the emphasis. Following the 

 shift to a more diversified approach, the overall 

 quality of the standards determining the species and 

 habitat values was considered good. 



The interagency approach to developing the original 

 assessment units and completing the database question- 

 naire was a major success of the project. This ap- 

 proach allowed all agencies involved in wildlife 

 species and habitat management to participate in the 

 process. Conversion of the wildlife river assessment 

 database to allow statewide accessibility is currently 

 heing undertaken. Once this task is accomplished, a 

 series of instructional workshops to familiarize 

 participating state and federal biologists with the 

 database, the river assessment rankings and the values 

 involved in determining those rankings should occur. 

 This familiarization should encourage use, determine 

 inaccurcicies in the entered data and lead to the 

 development of a more complete statewide database. 



Although agency maps and documents were available 

 during the questionnaire meetings the data contributed 

 to the assessment was generally subjective. The 

 reliability of the species value could be greatly 

 enhanced with the addition of quantitative population 

 estimates. The standardi?;atiori of liiethodol ogies across 

 the state and the determination of statewide data gaps 

 could be the end product of these population estimate 

 inclusions. In calculating the habitat value, analysis 

 of the riparian zone was accomplished through a 

 subjective high to low ranking for riparian condition, 

 diversity and structure. While the basic standards in 

 determining riparian habitat value are in place, the 

 need to quantify these values through a statewide 

 riparian zone inventory using aerial photos, field 

 analysis, more specific interviews and other methods is 

 a priority. A data quality rating system similar to 

 that used in the fisheries portion of the river 



17 



