3. The capability to prescribe land use designs for various wildlife communities 

 based on predictive capabilities. 



4. Predictive capabilities for dealing with effects on wildlife and habitats. 



5. Understanding the minimum survival requirements of wildlife species, popula- 

 tions, and communities at all stages of their life cycles. 



6. New methods, and improvement of existing methods for rapid transfer of 

 information in a form readily understood and accepted by users. 



The need for administrators to predict the impact of a given action or series of 

 actions is exemplified by the consultation requirements of Section 7 of ES A, and by 

 NEPA. They must know in advance if any action "is likely to have" an impact on a 

 species or its critical habitat. Thus a clear need exists for predictive capability. It is 

 also clear that our research effort must be expanded in the areas we have listed in 

 order to meet the six objectives stated by Sanderson et al.^ 



In addition, NEPA and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 require a 

 greater knowledge of wildlife, both game and nongame species. Thus, one would 

 expect that research on the nongame species which addresses Sanderson et al.'s six 

 objectives would increase and prove productive. 



The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 provides for the mitigation of 

 losses in fish and wildlife habitat caused by Federal water-development projects. 

 How does one determine what was lost and what it will require to mitigate that loss? 

 Much research has been sponsored and conducted by the FWS to develop techniques 

 to answer these questions. The Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) used by the 

 FWS has promise," but other systems are and will likely continue to be developed. 

 This is another fertile area for research. For example. Adaptive Environmental 

 Assessment (AEA), discussed by HoUing in this monograph, is one approach that is 

 being used.^'' 



Another positive feature of modeling is that it encourages the interdisciplinary 

 approach to research. In the process, scientists including biologists, ecologists, 

 physiologists, biometricians, physicists, chemists, economists, sociologists, psychol- 

 ogists, agronomists, foresters, range scientists, administrators, and planners are 

 drawn together. 



Consideration of Values and Attitudes 



Little is known about the attitudes of the various publics toward wildlife. 

 However, the need for more information in this area is attracting the attention of the 

 Federal agencies and researchers. Kellert,-' for example, is currently conducting a 

 study of "Public Attitudes Toward Critical Wildlife and Natural Habitat Issues." 

 Hopefully his work and that of Hendee^- and Trefethen^^ will provide wildlife and 

 fishery professionals with some insight toward wildlife. It is becoming increasingly 

 apparent that if wildlife is to compete successfully for public support in the context of 

 resource allocation issues, wildlife professionals must be able to influence public 

 attitudes with factual, understandable information. 



Research efforts in this area present, in fact mandate, an opportunity for 

 interdisciplinary research. Few, if any, fish and wildlife professionals are trained in 

 sociology and psychology. The reverse is true for sociologists and psychologists. 



Economic Approaches 



Thus far we have discussed various approaches, including species-populations, 

 communities, habitat, and environmental values, to "valuate" fish and wildlife for 

 environmental assessment purposes. Another approach is to consider the economic 

 "value" of fish and wildlife. If fish and wildlife, traditionally viewed as non- 

 commodity items, are going to compete successfully in a commodity-oriented 

 society, then the research effort devoted to developing new economic methodologies 

 and valuation procedures must be expanded. 2'* Environmental legislation, like the 

 FWCA, has created an opportunity, indeed a critical need, for a method of 



245 



