The development of a generally acceptable system, however, has provided a 

 gaming board on which defined pieces may be manipulated to resolve problems 

 involving economics, politics, law, ecology, aesthetics, and philosophy. Until the 

 advent of such procedures as HEP and F&WHR in the 1970s, those interested in 

 wildlife seemingly could not participate as effectively as other interest groups in 

 land-use planning. With the development of such procedures, it has been easier for 

 land-use planners to consider wildlife values. 



HEP OR F«&VVHR — WHICH IS BEST? 



Which of these two general approaches to species habitat relationships analysis is 

 best depends on the type of analysis required and the objectives of management. 

 Close examination of the two approaches shows that rather than being radically 

 different, they are really two ways to achieve the same goal — improved ability to 

 predict wildlife response to potential alterations in habitat. 



HEP type approaches begin with the analysis of habitat for a single species. These 

 species may be the featured or indicator species described earlier. Species can be 

 selected, however, that might serve in land-use planning or the analysis of alternative 

 management actions as the indicator of the welfare of other species. 



The F&WHR system starts with a data base that describes the general habitat 

 requirements of all resident species; then, in one case,-* combines those into groups 

 based on similar habitat responses. This makes it possible to select an indicator 

 species for the group more rationally. Once an indicator species is selected, it is 

 necessary to develop a special and much more detailed write-up describing how the 

 habitat of this species can be measured in land-use planning and subsequent 

 management. 



Existing examples of this type of treatment for a featured or selected species 

 include Rocky Mountain mule deer {Odocoileus hemionus hemionus)' and Rocky 

 Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

 Washington^- and native trout (Salmo sp.) in the Great Basin of southeastern 

 Oregon." If the status of the featured species indicates management success, it is then 

 necessary to census the species periodically. 



HEP could be used to provide the habitat analysis mechanism when it is deemed 

 necessary to fully describe habitat relationships for a featured species. In fact, for 

 species featured under a F&WHR system, a special document must be prepared 

 describing habitat requirements for the species and a process for their evaluation by 

 procedures that have been very similar, conceptually if not yet procedurally, to the 

 habitat suitability indices produced by the HEP procedure. 



F& WH R and HEP were originally developed to serve different needs. Experience 

 has shown that managers and analysts end up needing both systems. Thus, F& WH R 

 and HEP, used in conjunction, play different but synergistic roles. 



Although some managers and practitioners have praised HEP and F&WHR, 

 others, primarily researchers, have validly criticized these operational systems 

 because available knowledge and ecological theory must be extrapolated and 

 recombined in untested waysto producethem. However, agencies are makingstrong 

 attempts to meet the requirements of the law, and HEP and F&WHR programs have 

 directed the attention of the wildlife research community to some of the major 

 problems that must be solved. Likewise, information required to improve the data 

 base and the theoretical foundation of these systems has been identified. 



MANAGEMENT DECISIONS MADE IN UNCERTAINTY 



The dilemma has been described in this way: 



The knowledge necessary to make a perfect analysis of the impacts of 

 potential courses of . . . management action on wildlife habitat does not 

 exist. It probably never will. But more knowledge is available than has 



33 



