One of the principal advantages of PATREC in an impact assessment application 

 is that it limits the wildlife baseline data collection effort to only those species of 

 interest. The accumulation of large volumes of data of uncertain usefulness can thus 

 be avoided. 



In the process of constructing a PATREC questionnaire (also called a PATREC 

 model), it will probably become evident that even the most experienced biologist 

 does not fully know what environmental conditions present in what ranges of 

 amounts are associated with the highest and lowest population densities for the 

 species in question. This points to a potential need for a specific habitat requirements 

 research effort. 



No serious attempt has been made to use PATREC for fisheries habitat analyses, 

 though it does appear that the concept could be applied there as well. Also there has 

 been no rigorous effort made to incorporate data on environmental contaminant 

 levels into a PATREC model. However, there is nothing inherent in the procedure 

 that would preclude this, given that, applicable data exist for high and low popula- 

 tion conditions. 



Cost-of -Management A nalysis - MAN ALT 



Estimating the full array of costs required to complete a wildlife management 

 action is a task that probably no wildlife manager relishes. Estimating all related 

 costs for all possible management actions applicable to a particular animal species, 

 and then for a number of species, is an appalling prospect to nearly all managers. 

 Consequently, management actions may often be selected with less than critical 

 considerations of (a) all available options; (b) the likely increase in production (if 

 any) stemming from the action; or (c) the benefit; cost ratio of each option. 



The MANALT (MANagement ALTernatives) system was created to help offset 

 those deficiencies in the management planning process. Specifically, it is predicated 

 on the assumption that managers would make use of output information if it were 

 iTiore conveniently available. 



MANALT was created as a tool for estimating the costs of favorable habitat 

 changes. It is a basic wildlife management and budget plan stored in a computer, 

 readily available through an interactive terminal with copies of output immediately 

 available at the press of a button. Any value stored in the program that is incorpo- 

 rated into any calculation can be changed to one preferred by the person using the 

 program at the time. 



The principal output of the MANALT program is a cost effectiveness summary 

 (Figure 4). It displays the total project cost, total increase in wildlife production 

 (either population or harvest) over the entire benefit life of the management action(s) 

 being evaluated, the cost per unit produced (added to the population or harvest) and 

 a cost efficiency index. 



The cost efficiency index is probably the only feature unique to MANALT. The 

 purpose of the index is to allow the manager to rank two or more management action 

 options under consideration. The index provides a measure of the cost per unit 

 produced, in combination with the probability (O.Ol-I.O) that the yield prescribed 

 will actually be attained. The probability value is subjective, but requires the manager 

 to think about whether he or she is certain (p = 1.0) to get the results as scheduled, or 

 whether he or she might get something less for the dollars invested. Hazards to total 

 success could include heavy rains or sustained drought following treatment, fire, very 

 high winter mortality, unexpected changes in harvest regulations, or other unfore- 

 seen events. The index is a simple but quantified allowance for Murphy's law 

 (whatever can go wrong, will) and provides a safeguard against overly optimistic 

 yields expected from mitigating actions. As yield rate estimates decline, probability 

 of success values would normally be raised for a specific management action. The 

 higher the cost efficiency index value, the higher the cost effectiveness of the man- 

 agement action. 



179 



