and positive habitat changes, identify favorable options, and estimate the amount 

 and cost of corrective action needed. As a result, future on-the-ground wildlife 

 management efforts should be more effective. 



The habitat assessment component, PATREC, appears to satisfy most or all of the 

 expectations of wildlife field personnel for habitat assessment methodologies.* 

 WILDMIS, on the whole, appears to meet at least some of the goals and objectives 

 for research needs in wildlife indentified by Sanderson et al.' Experience with 

 WILDMIS to this point has revealed three additional needs that, if met, would 

 further increase potential management effectiveness. The first is a need for wildlife 

 management cost and benefit analysts — those persons who have the skills to identify 

 habitat management inputs, measure all of the outputs and evaluate them together. 

 Another is the need for a permanent, broad spectrum training institute that can 

 provide practicing biologists effective instruction and follow-up consultation on 

 newly developed ways of doing business (especially computer-based procedures). 

 Sources of valuable new technologies are not limited to any particular type of 

 agency, institution or organizational unit. But, there is presently no formal provision 

 for consolidating and disseminating those advancements on a large or dependable 

 scale. Scientific literature is only partially adequate. Finally, a central facility where 

 newly created data banks could be deposited and withdrawn could save agencies a 

 substantial amount of time and money by reducing duplication of effort. 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 



W. K. Seitz, S. R. Amend, D. R. Dietz, R. W. Streeter and G. L. Williams all have 

 contributed to the content of this paper through technical input, review of the 

 manuscript and fostering the basic ideas presented. B. A. Klein typed the manuscript. 

 To each of these persons 1 extend my thanks. 



REFERENCES 



1. Russell, K.R., G.L. Williams, B.A. Hughes, and D.S. Walsworth. 1980. 

 WILDMIS — A wildlife mitigation and management planning system — 

 demonstrated on oil shale development. Colorado Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, 

 Colorado State Univ. Ft. Collins, Colo. 152 pp. 



2. Kling, C.L. 1980. Pattern recognition for habitat evaluation. M.S. Thesis, 

 Colorado State Univ. Ft. Collins, Colo. 240 pp. 



3. Hughes, B.A. 1978. Factorsaffecting wildlife mitigation choices in the oil shale 

 region. M.S. Thesis, Colorado State Univ. Ft. Collins, Colo. 199 pp. 



4. Williams, G.L. , B.A. Hughesand K.R. Russell. 1980. RANKER— A computer 

 program for ranking priorities among wildlife species. Colorado Coop. Wildl. 

 Res. Unit, Colorado State Univ. Ft. Collins, Colo. 28 pp. 



5. Williams, G.L., K.R. Russell, and W.K. Seitz. 1977. Pattern recognition as a 

 tool in the ecological analysis of habitat, pp. 521-531 In Classification, 

 inventory, and analysis of fish and wildlife habitat. Proc. of a national 

 symposium. Phoenix. FWS/OBS-78/76. Office of Biological Services, Fish 

 and Wildlife Service, USDI. Washington, D.C. 



6. Amend. S.R. 1980. An interim report on habitat assessment methodologies as 

 viewed by the field. Prepared for the Colorado Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, 

 Colorado State Univ., and Western Energy and Land Use Team, Office of 

 Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI. Fort Collins, Colo. 15 

 pp. 



7. Sanderson, G.C., E.D. Abies, R.D. Sparrowe, J.R. Grieb, L.D. Harris, and 

 A.N. Moen. 1979. Research needs in wildlife. Trans. Forty fourth N. Amer. 

 Wildl. and Nat. Resour. ConL Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, 

 D.C. 



182 



