assessment process should be incorporated into the 

 wildlife database. 



The variation in unit size and the habitat vari- 

 ability within a unit lead to inconsistencies in the 

 final resource value determination. In Region 2, for 

 example, the entire length of several drainages were 

 lumped into one unit. Because of habitat variation 

 from the mouth of a stream to its headwaters, a single 

 unit accumulated considerable points based soley on the 

 habitat variety, rather than habitat and species 

 quality. Region 2 had the lowest number of river 

 assessment units (30 units), the highest percentage of 

 Class I final resource values (32 percent), and no 

 units with a Class IV designation. Region 1, in north- 

 western Montana and a region only slightly larger than 

 Region 2, had 87 river assessment units with unit 

 boundaries occurring along natural habitat changes. 

 Habitat condition and species values were rated over a 

 more narrow range of diversity. A lower overall rating 

 occurred as a result. Only 17 percent of Region 1 

 units were class I with 6% being Class IV. The 

 Region 1 breakdown more accurately reflected the state 

 averages. 



The recreation value criteria and standards con- 

 tinue to be the major breakdown in the present river 

 assessment system. In the consumptive recreation 

 evaluation, only hunting was included. The consumptive 

 recreation value was based on one year of mail survey 

 hunting information, with the evaluation of three 

 factors; pressure, success and non-resident use. With 

 the annual fluctuations in big game populations and 

 changes in hunting regulations, the potential bias 

 from one year of data are obvious. The nonconsumptive 

 value became the driving force behind the final 

 recreation value. To improve the recreation 

 assessment, standards added to the consumptive 

 recreation value could include an average of 5-10 years 

 of mail survey data, a subjective analysis of the 

 quality of the hunting experience and the determination 

 of public access and distance from a population center. 



Originally, the recreation value was considered 

 secondary to the species and habitat values and was to 

 be used only as a tie breaker in determining the final 

 resource value. In evaluating its use and effect on 

 the final classification, however, the recreation value 

 was used in determining 41 percent of the final values. 

 In 75 percent of those cases, it lowered the final 

 resource value. From this evaluation, it is obvious 

 the role of recreation went beyond a secondary value 

 and its structure needs to be reassessed. 



18 



