An Analysis of Potential Stream Fish and Fish Habitat Monitoring Procedures for the Inland Northwest: Annual Report 1999.

Spatial modeling of riparian state dynamics in eastern Oregon, USA by using discrete event simulation

“…In this way, the results of a fire dynamics model (for example) could be imported into the riparian model simply by reading from the appropriate database table; similarly, the table of simulation results from this model could readily be used in a simulation-based wildlife population viability analysis or to inform other model components. Because a primary motivation for modeling riparian dynamics is its implications for aquatic ecosystems, the most obvious of such extensions is a predictive model of fish abundance, distribution, or habitat quality (e.g., Peterson and Wollrab, 1999;Rieman et al, 1999).…”

On the Estimation of Detection Probabilities for Sampling Stream-Dwelling Fishes.

“…(Figure 1), with the majority of these in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho. Surveys were generally conducted to provide baseline data before the initiation of management activities, such as timber harvest or cattle grazing (Peterson and Wollrab 1999), or to collect reference data on natural or desired conditions (Overton et al 1995). Consequently, they represent a wide variety of stream types and habitats encountered in the Basin.…”

An approach to effectiveness monitoring of floodplain channel aquatic habitat: channel condition assessment

“…These procedures generally lacked the necessary repeatability and precision to detect important change, were difficult to transfer effectively among observers, and could be insensitive to anthropogenic effects (Poole et al, 1997). Peterson and Wollrab (1999) examined fish habitat inventory procedures in use by the USDA Forest Service in the intermountain Western United States and determined that procedures were subjective, biased, and inadequate for monitoring because these procedures could not reliably detect habitat change. Deficiencies included lack of consistency in measurement, inadequate QA/QC procedures, and bias in reach selection (Peterson and Wollrab, 1999).…”

“…Peterson and Wollrab (1999) examined fish habitat inventory procedures in use by the USDA Forest Service in the intermountain Western United States and determined that procedures were subjective, biased, and inadequate for monitoring because these procedures could not reliably detect habitat change. Deficiencies included lack of consistency in measurement, inadequate QA/QC procedures, and bias in reach selection (Peterson and Wollrab, 1999). Kaufmann et al (1999) analyzed precision of habitat survey methods used by EPA in EMAP in several hundred streams in Oregon and the mid Atlantic region between 1993 and 1996.…”