Meetings with wildlife biologists from the appropriate National Forests, 

 the Bureau of Land Management, and MDFWP were 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 and species values. 

 Answers were recorded on data forms. Biologists from different agencies 

 generally worked in small groups on the rivers in their management areas. 

 State, BLM and USFS wildlife maps and documents were used as needed during 

 the assessment process. 



Because wildlife 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 tributaries to a 

 main stem. The hydrologic unit, rather than river mile, became the primary 

 geographic reference point. 



Information requested on the questionnaire included a verbal description 

 of the river assessment unit and its location by hydrologic unit, MDFWP 

 region, state drainage number, water code, and the unit type (main stem, 

 basin or tributaries). Location of the lower and upper boundaries were 

 described verbally, legally, and by river mile. Additional location 

 description included the drainage to which the unit is a tributary, the river 

 mile and legal description of its confluence, and its location by county. To 

 insure accuracy and completeness, the coding of the location description was 

 completed by the river assessment staff. 



DATA AHALYSIS 



During the first year of the study, data from the questionnaire were 

 entered and analyzed using the MDFWP Region 1 Action Discovery Computer 

 System with DataStar and ReportStar software. DataStar was used to enter the 

 data gathered by the questionnaire. Reportstar was use to assign weights, 

 multiply these by the biologist values and to assign cutoff values. During 

 the next year of the Rivers Study, the entire wildlife data base was 

 converted to DBASE III+ along with the other Montana resource area data 

 bases. A DBASE III+ program was written to assign weight values, calculate 

 totals points and assign classification. 



REVIEW 



At the end of the first year (1985), the guidelines, questionnaire, 

 methods and results of the initial classification were reviewed by 

 cooperating resource experts and MDFWP game managers. Recommendations for 

 data base improvements were put off until the entire system was converted to 

 DBASE III+ in early 1987. 



During 1987, the entire data base and classifications were reviewed and 

 updated by MDFWP field biologists. The update reflected new species of 

 special concern distribution information collected by state's new Heritage 

 Program and recently compiled threatened and endangered species management 

 information put together by MDFWP. In addition, wildlife units were further 

 refined and missed areas were included. Given the greater programming 

 flexibility of DBASE III+, the classification program was also modified. A 



10 



