tions between areas within sampling periods and between sampling periods within 

 areas. The population or occurrence changes must then be carefully interpreted to 

 assure that they reflect changes in habitat conditions rather than normal fluctuations 

 in population levels or distribution. The description of just what an indicator species 

 "indicates" must be accepted for the short term but somehow tested over the long 

 term. It is feared that such an approach will be expensive to carry out, perhaps 

 prohibitively so. 



MONITORING HABITAT CONDITIONS 



It seems much easier to inventory habitats, as categorized by plant communities 

 and successional stage or other acceptable descriptors, and to relate those invento- 

 ries to species. Such information might be obtained by making relatively minor 

 changes in the routine information collected in standard forest survey efforts. These 

 approaches are already being tested by USDA Forest Service forest inventory 

 personnel in the Paciflc Northwest and in the South. 



The data so collected can be manipulated in or used in conjunction with existing 

 linear programming models for considering alternatives for manipulation or alloca- 

 tions of timber and range resources. The USDA Forest Service's Timber RAM 

 (Resource Allocation Model) is an example of such a linear programming 

 model.3o." 



MONITORING OF INDICATOR SPECIES 



The regulations issued pursuant to the National Forest Management Act of 1976- 

 clearly require the use of the indicator species approach in monitoring wildlife 

 activities for National Forests. It is also likely that habitat inventory and analysis 

 based on species habitat relationships will be an additional means through which 

 the welfare of the entire spectrum of vertebrate wildlife species is considered in 

 Forest Service planning. Indicator species will probably be chosen primarily, as 

 directed by the National Forest Management Act of 1976- regulations, from those 

 endangered. The status of indicator species will probably reveal little beyond their 

 own numbers. Therefore, when they are chosen as indicators, they are probably the 

 same as those "featured"** or "selected""*"''* species alreadv provided for in the 

 F&WHR process. 



LAND-USE PLANNING 



Land-use plans and environmental impact statements using the F&WHR 

 approach have been praised by experienced reviewers as more comprehensive, better 

 formulated, and more responsive to the intent of the law than those developed before 

 this planning tool. The system has weaknesses, however. The information in the data 

 base ranges from the thorough, well-documented, and site-specific to the speculation 

 of knowledgeable biologists. Although many managers who deal continually with 

 decision making under conditions of uncertainty view this as quite normal, some 

 scientists are appalled by this state of affairs. 



Land-use planning is presently based on interpretation and extrapolation of 

 existing theory and data. Such an approach obviously involves an inherent danger of 

 human error. The entire F&WHR system has been called a working hypothesis."' 

 Research is already underway to test critical hypotheses and to improve the data base 

 by providing additional or site specific data. 



Most importantly, a system or framework for analysis exists that is acceptable to 

 most of the concerned publics and state and federal agencies. Any such system must 

 meet the bio-political test of acceptability if it is to be used successfully in land-use 

 planning and preparation of environmental impact statements. This does not imply 

 that arguments about resource allocations or management prescriptions are resolved 

 by the existence of an acceptable system for data organization and analysis. 



32 



