From a research-needs standpoint, it is desirable to cite the potential assessment 

 criteria Hsted by the FWS:' 



1. The assessment method should document and display data in a manner which 

 allows decision-makers to compare present conditions with future options and 

 alternatives. 



2. The assessment method should have predictive capabilities amenable to 

 documentation of changes in both quantity and quality of fish and wildlife 

 resources over time. It is not enough to document existing resources; the 

 assessment method must be able to project changes in the resource base which 

 occur naturally or as the result of implementation of a proposed action by man. 



3. The assessment method must be practical to implement. Data availability, 

 time, and monetary constraints must be considered in the practical application 

 of any method. 



4. The assessment method must be sensitive enough to identify differing types and 

 magnitudes of impacts ranging from enhancement to no impact, some loss, or 

 to total loss of the resource. 



5. The assessment method should generate data with biological validity, but in 

 units readily understood by both the public and decision-makers. These data 

 should be amenable to integration with data from other disciplines, such as 

 socioeconomic analyses. 



6. The assessment method should be complete and self-contained yet capable of 

 being improved through the incorporation of new knowledge and techniques 

 as the state-of-the-art advances. 



The important point is that the approach should be suited to the kind of need, i.e., 

 the analysis to be done rather than the data determines the approach used for the 

 assessment. Depending upon the complexity of the problem and the magnitude of the 

 impacts, the assessment may be performed via an analysis of energy flow, population 

 estimation, habitat quality, habitat potential or a combination thereof.^''* 



From a standpoint of the decision-maker and the long-term status of the resources, 

 the use of habitat potential, or carrying capacity, offers the following advantages: 

 numbers of species and individuals may change for unpredictable reasons, but 

 habitat potential remains relatively unchanged and the time scale for predictions can 

 come close to matching the time span over which impacts will occur. However, 

 measures of carrying capacity are difficult to obtain and should only be used where 

 they meet the need. 



As a result of the need to integrate information and to make predictions based 

 upon "limited" information, the science of modeling has developed. Like any 

 panacea, modeling has its flaws. We have all heard the old adage, "garbage in = 

 garbage out." However, the better the data, the better the results.'^ Thus, one can 

 look at the development of a model as a tool for identifying gaps in our knowledge. 

 As the modeling technique becomes more refined, it is apparent that inventories 

 alone will not provide the necessary data to refine the model. 



Through the use of models to integrate, where necessary, this broad array of 

 information, scientists will begin to feel more comfortable extrapolating beyond 

 their data to predict the likely impact of a given perturbation on a species specific or 

 community-wide basis. According to Sanderson et al.:'^ "The basic goal in wildlife 

 research is an information base on animals and their habitats that will allow 

 prediction of effects of changes in animal-habitat relationships." 



In line with this goal, they list the following six objectives for wildlife, including 

 fishery, research: 



1. Knowledge ofthebiology of species and ecosystems to accumulate a long-term 

 data base on wildlife habitats and communities on a national scale. 



2. Development of deductive formulation of specific research needs based on an 

 understanding of biological processes, and utilizing long-term data on wildlife 

 habitats and communities. 



244 



