summary of the classification results for this recent update will be 

 available in early 1988. 



PROJECT EVALUATIOH 



The wildlife river assessment has undergone and will continue to undergo 

 a considerable evolution following its conception. What started out as an 

 assessment of Montana's riparian wildlife habitat and species developed into 

 the beginnings of a statewide wildlife data base. 



The interagency approach to developing the original assessment units and 

 completing the data base questionnaire was a major success of the project. 

 This approach allowed all agencies involved in wildlife species and habitat 

 management to participate in the process. Conversion of the wildlife 

 database to DBASE III+ has facilitated statewide accessibility and use. With 

 the recent update, many types of incomplete or inaccurate data have been 

 corrected. 



Although agency maps and documents were available during the 

 questionnaire meetings the values assigned in the assessment were generally 

 subjective. The reliability of the species value could be greatly enhanced 

 with the addition of quantitative population estimates. 



In calculating the habitat value, analysis of the riparian zone was 

 accomplished through a subjective high to low ranking for riparian 

 characteristics. 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 assessment 

 process should be incorporated into the wildlife database. 



The variation in unit size and the habitat variability 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 solely on the 

 habitat variety, rather than habitat and species quality. Region 1, in 

 northwestern Montana and a region only slightly larger than Region 2, 

 contained nearly twice the number of river assessment units as Region 2. 

 Habitat condition and species values were rated over a narrower range of 

 habitat diversity. 



The harvest information in the recreation portion of the data base 

 applied to hunting districts rather than assessment units. Because these data 

 could not be consistently applied to each wildlife assessment unit, an effort 

 will be made in 1988 to correct this deficiency. Similarly, the 

 nonconsumptive recreation information will be evaluated and revised with more 

 quantitative information. 



11 



