be described before action is taken on the project. This necessitated a broadening not 

 only of the definition of wildlife but also of the understanding and description of 

 wildlife in relation to habitat. Other legislation that mandated better and broader 

 consideration of wildlife emerged in 1969 and the 1970s, for example, the National 

 Forest Management Act of 1976." the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

 1969,^ the Endangered Species Act of 1973,'' and the Forest and Rangeland 

 Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. ^ Still, the National Environmental 

 Policy Act of 1969' set the stage in terms of what had to be described and considered 

 in response to the new legislative mandates. That revolutionary concept now 

 embodied in law and associated regulations and tested in the courts makes it essential 

 that biologists be able to relate all species to habitat conditions and to predict species 

 response to habitat alterations. The task is enormous and perhaps one of the most 

 challenging ever to face professionals in wildlife biology and other areas of applied 

 ecology. 



MANAGEMENT NEEDS AND THE DATA BASE 



Sufficient data to accomplish this task are available for relatively few of the 

 vertebrate species in the United States. Research data on the relationships of species 

 to habitat continue to emerge, mostly in bits and pieces, and seemingly at an 

 increasing rate. But it will be many decades before a data base totally derived from 

 well-designed site-specific research is available in a form that is readily adaptable to 

 large scale planning. This problem is further aggravated by the fact that existing 

 information on species/ habitat relationships is scattered throughout the literature 

 and is not consistent as to research approach, analysis, or reporting. Existing and 

 emerging research data on species habitat relationships can be generally categorized 

 as fragments of information of varying quality from many locations that contribute, 

 like pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, to some usable understanding of selected species/ 

 habitat relationships. 



In short, it has become increasingly obvious that biologists should try to put 

 existing knowledge and theory into a framework that can be utilized in land-use 

 planning and in helping to meet legal mandates. That process requires the innovative 

 use of basic ecological principles in formulating systems for analyzing existing data. 

 When statistically sound results from replicated scientific studies are not available, 

 the opinions of qualified experts will have to continue to serve until the gaps in 

 knowledge, identified through the planning and evaluation process, are filled. 



WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 



The scientifically based art of wildlife population and habitat management in 

 land-use planning usually takes one of three forms: (1) featured species management,* 

 (2) species richness management,' or (3) some combination of the two (Figure 1 ). In 

 featured species management, the objective is production of selected species in 

 desired numbers in specified places and times. With species richness management, 

 the aim is to insure that a broad spectrum of species is maintained within a 

 geographic area of concern (Figure 2). 



Featured species management has been most commonly pursued by state and 

 federal agencies. The information needed to carry out the habitat manipulation 

 aspects was determined by studying the habitat requirements of the particular 

 featured species. As a result, much of the research on species habitat relationships 

 has focused on comparatively few species. This information was usually gathered by 

 studying how a species was related to its habitat in a particular place. 



Species richness management came more into vogue in state and federal land 

 management agencies with the advent of increasing environmental awareness and 

 resultant state and federal legislation. The vast number of wildlife species present or 

 potentially present in any area makes it impractical to study individually the 

 relationship of each species to its habitat. Probable advantages are to be gained in 



28 



