ABSTRACT
An expert system, PASSSFA, has been developed to help select the most appropriate variables for monitoring the effects of extensive land use activities, particularly forestry, on streams. PASSSFA was initially developed for headwater streams in the northwestern U.S. and Alaska, but the consistency of the underlying principles make it much more broadly applicable. The selection process is based on the designated beneficial uses of concern, the type of management activity, accessibility during high flows, frequency of sampling, and the costs for equipment, data collection, and sample analysis. A total of thirty potential monitoring variables are considered, and these were selected because of their sensitivity to land management activities and their effects on key designated uses. Problems in developing PASSSFA and the use of expert systems are discussed.
ABSTRACT
A series of workshops have provided extensive feedback on a recently published manual, Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska (Guidelines) (MacDonald et al., 1991). These workshops and other discussions have led to the identification of fourteen additional 'lessons' for monitoring. These lessons are concepts which either were not incorporated into the Guidelines, were not sufficiently emphasized, or which are needed to put the Guidelines in context. The topics include: monitoring as a continuum; defining objectives and hypotheses; peer review; uncertainty and risk; upslope vs. instream monitoring; photo sequences; scale considerations; data storage, data interpretation, and data base management; 'activities monitoring'; and personal commitment as a critical component in monitoring projects. Many of these lessons might appear self-evident, but our experience indicates that they are often ignored. Like the Guidelines, these lessons are widely applicable and should be explicitly recognized when formulating and conducting monitoring projects.
