There are several critical features of the proposed monitoring framework (Table 4-10) that must be considered 

 in developing the logistics plan (e.g., Baker and Merritt 1 991 ) for data acquisition. These features require that 

 a large number of sites be visited across a broad geographic area in a relatively brief time period each year. 

 Table 4-10 also presents field logistics issues that must be addressed in the context of the constraints imposed 

 by the monitoring program. Considerable effort is required to locate and obtain permission from landowners 

 who must be contacted to access sampling sites. A considerable amount of lead time is also required to 

 apply for and obtain all required scientific collecting permits. This is because of the number of different states 

 included in the mid-Atlantic highlands region and the large number of sites that must be reviewed individually 

 for presence of protected species. As mentioned previously (Table 4-7), restrictions may be placed on 

 collecting at individual sites that harbor protected species. 



Based on experience from the MAHA study, it is feasible to implement the indicator as part of an even larger- 

 scale, long-term monitoring program under the proposed monitoring framework (Hughes 1993, Lazorchak et 

 al. 1998). Several field crews are required to accomplish all sampling within the required time period. The 

 location of sites in different states imposes certain constraints that must be considered in determining the 

 best source of personnel; if State personnel are used, they may be restricted to travel within their home state. 

 Use of State personnel has advantages including: 1) shortening the process for obtaining scientific permits, 

 and 2) providing more familiarity with staging areas, access points, landowners, streams, and fishes in the 

 region. A crew of 3 or 4 people can accomplish all collecting from a stream in less than 4 hours, and complete 

 all processing activities within a single day. A crew of this size can also obtain data for other indicators during 

 the same visit. During the MAHA study, crews obtained samples or data for 8 additional indicators during a 

 single site visit (Lazorchak et al. 1998). Four to five streams a week can be visited by a single crew, allowing 

 for one day of travel between sites that are not necessarily close together because of the random selection 

 process. Because of the level of technical expertise required (Table 4-8), the use of volunteers is not 

 recommended for the indicator unless they can be included on crews with other personnel having sufficient 

 technical background and experience. Additional training beyond basic instruction in collection procedures 

 includes safety training associated with electrofishing and a workshop on field identification of the regional 

 fish fauna. If State personnel are used, training may be less intensive, as they will be more familiar with basic 

 collecting procedures and may have more experience with the identification of fishes in the field. 



Several issues related to equipment and supplies (Table 4-1 0) should be considered in selecting the proposed 

 indicator for use in a monitoring program. For example, the random selection of sites with no regard for 

 location or ease of access will result in a number of sites located in remote areas of the mid-Atlantic highlands 

 region. Experience with the MAHA program revealed these sites were accessible only by 4-wheel drive 

 vehicles, by foot, or by a combination of the two. Sources and availability of leased 4-wheel drive vehicles are 

 usually limited in many areas, and a long lead time may be required to obtain appropriate vehicles. If State 

 or Federal personnel are used, appropriate government vehicles may be available. Accessing sites by foot 

 may affect the crew size (i.e., additional people may be required to transport all the required equipment), and 

 possibly even the choice of equipment based on its portability. The use of hazardous material (formalin, 

 gasoline) requires knowledge of and compliance with all regulations related to personal protection and transport. 

 Depending on the sampling scenario developed, this usage may involve additional training requirements and 

 purchase of appropriate shipping and packaging materials. 



Laboratory issues (Table 4-10) relate primarily to the selection of a qualified facility to confirm identifications 

 of voucher specimens and provide long-term archival of vouchers. A key constraint is the length of time that 

 may be required before results of confirmatory identifications are available. Confirmation may affect the time 

 required to complete validation of the data (Guideline 5) and report results for the indicator value. Under 

 most circumstances, the 9-month timeline specified in Table 4-10 should be achievable for the indicator. 



4-18 



