environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich 



the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources of the Nation " 



NEPA, however, created problems for those attempting in good faith to comply 

 with it and for those charged with administering it because the data did not, in many 

 situations, exist to permit a valid analysis or the selection of a "less damaging" 

 alternative action. '•'''^ A mere listing of species known to inhabit an area was not 

 enough. Data were needed regarding habitat requirements, species interactions and 

 basic life history so that ecologically sound trade-offs could be made and scientists 

 could predict the environmental impact of a given action both on-site and on a 

 cumulative basis. In recognition of the need for more comprehensive information, 

 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, lists two elements 

 that should be common to all environmental impact assessment methods:^ 



1. The environmental impact assessment should have the capability to quantify 

 the extent and status of various natural resource components and their 

 susceptibility to irreparable damage or loss. All physical, biological, economic, 

 and social parameters relevant to the change expected from a proposed action 

 should be addressed. 



2. The environmental impact assessment should objectively predict the quanti- 

 tative and qualitative short- and long-term changes in physical, chemical and 

 biological features associated with alternative ways of achieving the proposed 

 objective. The "goodness" or "badness" of each alternative is determined by the 

 decision-maker(s) and is not made a part of the assessment. 



As the environmental assessment has matured, the existing shortcomings have 

 been recognized and attempts are being made to remedy them via research. That 

 research is what this monograph is all about. In attempting to outline these research 

 needs, we will examine: (1) the legislative mandates that have created information 

 needs for the resource managers; (2) the efforts of agencies to comply with those 

 mandates by undertaking massive efforts to inventory and classify resources data; (3) 

 the analysis of the data from an ecological perspective (i.e., quantification of the 

 relationship between species and their habitats so that predictions can be made); and 

 (4) the treatment of the data in an assessment process where man's values are 

 incorporated into the decision-making process. 



Inventory and Assessment Legislation 



During the 1970s, Congress became increasingly concerned with the condition of 

 our nation's renewable resources and passed legislation requiring an inventory and 

 assessment of those resources.* Such legislation included the Forest and Rangeland 

 Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), the Federal Land Policy and 

 Management Act of 1976 (FLPM A), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 

 (NFMA), and the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA). 



The above four acts, respectively, affected the U.S. Forest Service (FS), Bureau of 

 Land Management (BLM), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and the Fish and 

 Wildlife Service (FWS). The FS and SCS had established inventory methodologies 

 which were functional rather than ecological systems and thus needed to be 

 broadened in scope. The FWS had a long history of inventory work with regard to 

 wetlands, but needed to develop a broader approach. The BLM's inventory 

 methodology has come about largely as a result of FLPM A. Each agency lacked the 

 inventory methodologies to fully meet its mandate. Moreover, their responsibilities 

 overlapped in some areas. Therefore, the FS, BLM, SCS, FWS, and the U.S. 

 Geological Survey (GS) have joined in a five-way interagency agreement to 

 cooperate in the development of classifications and inventories of major renewable 

 resources, including fish and wildlife. 



The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) generated other problems for the 

 scientists. Even the taxonomists found their data to be subject to question. "What is a 



241 



