United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Water Division
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Surface Water Branch
October 1993
Monitoring Protocols to
Evaluate Water Quality
Effects of Grazing
Management on Western
Rangeland Streams
-------
MONITORING PROTOCOLS TO EVALUATE WATER
QUALITY EFFECTS OF GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON
WESTERN RANGELAND STREAMS
by
Stephen B. Bauer
Pocket Water
Boise, Idaho
and
Timothy A. Burton
Boise National Forest
Boise, Idaho
Idaho Water Resources Research Institute
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Submitted to:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
-------
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the many individuals who have helped us with their
research, ideas, and moral support. Ervin Cowley contributed the material on
stream reconnaissance in the appendices. Our former associates with Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality - Bill Clark, Don Zaroban, Mike Mclntyre, and
Terry Maret - shared methods in progress and provided ready access to data and
literature. Karl Gebhardt provided descriptions of stream classification criteria.
We appreciate the reviewers who provided valuable comments and suggestions on
the draft - Charles Rumburg, Wayne Davis, Glen Chen, Gretchen Hayslip, Fred
Blatt, Bill Clark, James Dobrowolski, Tim Bozorth, Phil Johnson, Lee McDonald,
and Eric Janes. Thanks to Joan Meitl for technical editing and contributing a
much needed organization to the document. Illustrations were prepared by John
Ybarra of Writer's Press Service and Ginny Clark, Eagle Rock Studios. We
appreciate the assistance of Environmental Protection Agency staff in providing
guidance and financial support.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Grazing as a nonpoint source activity 1
The Clean Water Act and Costal Zone Management 2
References 6
II. Impacts of grazing on water quality and beneficial uses 7
Effects of grazing on the water column 8
Grazing impacts on the watershed 11
Grazing impacts on the riparian zone 11
Sahnonid requirements 13
References 16
HI. Monitoring plan procedure 19
Overview of monitoring steps 19
Identify issues and concerns 21
Stratify and classify stream reaches 21
Conduct reconnaissance 23
Establish specific goals and objectives 27
Select parameters and monitoring design 30
Select monitoring sites 34
Identify reference areas 35
Study plan 37
Conduct first year of monitoring 39
Review and revise plan 39
Reassess assumptions and objectives and modify plan 39
References 40
IV. Stream stratification, reconnaissance, and classification 42
Basic evaluation and stream stratification 42
Stream reconnaissance and classification 43
Locating monitoring sites 46
References 49
V. Evaluation/recommendation of monitoring methods.... 50
Evaluation of methods 50
Recommended protocols 61
References 65
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
VI. Monitoring protocols
A. Stream temperature and shade 66
Parameter list... 66
Overview 66
Definitions.. -.-67
Data collection and analysis ......67
Equipment list...... 75
References .....76
B. Nutrients 77
Parameter list..................... 77
Overview ....77
Definitions 78
Data collection procedure 78
Data analysis ..........79
References .....80
C. Bacterial indicators 81
Parameter list........... 81
Overview ...81
Definitions.. 82
Data collection methods ..82
Data analysis , .........83
References 84
D. Stream channel morphology 86
Parameter list 86
Overview .....86
Definitions 87
Data collection methods 90
Data analysis ......93
Equipment list.. 94
References.... 95
E. Streambank stability 96
Parameter list.... ...96
Overview 96
Definitions......... ..96
Data collection methods ....98
Data analysis 104
Equipment list 105
References .......106
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
F. Substrate fine sediment 108
Parameter list 108
Overview „ 108
Pebble counting - data collection 109
Data analysis and interpretation 110
Grid method - data collection 113
Data analysis and interpretation 113
Equipment list 114
References 117
G. Pool quality 119
Parameter list 119
Overview 119
Definitions 119
Data collection methods 120
Data analysis 122
Equipment list 126
References 127
H. Streamside vegetation 129
Parameter list 129
Overview 129
Definitions 130
Data collection - green line methods 131
Vegetation composition 131
Woody species regeneration 134
Data analysis - green line and woody species regeneration 137
Data collection - vegetation utilization 138
Data analysis - vegetation utilization 138
Equipment list 141
References ..142
I. Establishing permanent photo points 145
Overview 145
Definitions 145
Data collection procedure 145
Data analysis 146
Equipment list 146
References 148
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
Jo Biomonitoring: benthic macroinvertebrates 149
Introduction 149
Overview ....149
Data collection 150
Field and laboratory procedures .151
Data analysis 153
References 156
K. Biomonitoring: fish community 158
Introduction 158
Overview 159
Data Collection 159
References 164
Glossary 165
Literature cited ....170
lices.. 180
VI TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
TABLES
Table 1.1 Average forage condition of rangelands, by land
ownership 2
Table 1.2 Steps in developing the monitoring program 4
Table 2.1 Potential effects of grazing on aquatic and riparian
resources 7
Table 2.2 Critical habitat requirements for salmonids and
contributing factors 14
Table 3.1 Steps in developing the monitoring program -20
Table 3.2 Sample monitoring plan goals and objectives 21
Table 3.3 Stream classification hierarchy .....22
Table 3.4 Potential water quality parameters/limiting factors
identified through field reconnaissance 24
Table 3.5 Bear Valley Creek, An example in monitoring design 31
Table 3.6 Considerations for selection of reference sites 36
Table 3.7 Study plan outline 38
Table 5.1 Riparian Monitoring: Sample frequency,
collection time, equipment, lab costs, and expertise 55
Table 5.2 Riparian Monitoring: Estimate of precision, accuracy,
natural variability, sampling conditions, and complexity 58
Table 5.3 Advantages and disadvantages of selected riparian monitoring
methods 62
Table 6.1 Temperature criteria for selected species 68
Table 6.2 Vegetative canopy density survey 70
Table 6.3 Thermal input using solar pathfinder 73
Table 6.4 Recommended nutrients parameters for general stream
assessment 79
Table 6.5 Channel morphology survey 92
Table 6.6 Streambank monitoring form 102
Table 6.7 Undercut/overhanging bank monitoring form 103
Table 6.8 Pebble count for particle size distribution 115
Table 6.9 Surface fine sediment field form 116
Table 6.10 Pool quality index field form 125
Table 6.11 Riparian green line vegetation field form 133
Table 6.12 Woody species regeneration field form 135
Table 6.13 Herbage stubble height field form 140
Table 6.14 Physical habitat structure parameters 151
Table 6.15 Metrics recommended in Bioassessment Protocols 153
Table 6.16 Metrics for macroinvertebrate community analysis 155
Table 6.17 Fish metrics for evaluating stream health 162
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Vll
-------
FIGURES
Figure 4.1 Detailed monitoring site and cross-channel
transect map .....:*:................................ 47
Figure 6.1 Concave spherical densiometer, model C 69
Figure 6.2 Use of spherical densiometer..................... 69
Figure 6.3 Location of densiometer for measuring canopy density .............71
Figure 6.4 Comparison of three channel cross sections: stable banks,
false banks, and degraded condition ....89
Figure 6.5 Channel profile cross section showing measurement
points.................... 91
Figure 6.6 Stream channel bank stability and cover indicators ........98
Figure 6.7 Channel cover: undercut banks and overhanging
vegetation[[[ 99
Figure 6.8 Cumulative frequency diagram for Wolman pebble count 112
Figure 6.9 Grid for measuring percent surface fine sediment .............114
Figure 6.10 High quality pool compared to low quality pool...... 123
Figure 6.11 Residual pool depth. ...................124
Figure 6.12 Location of the green line............... .....132
Figure 6.13 Woody species age classes .....136
Figure 6.14 Vegetation profile board 147
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This document describes a monitoring system to assess grazing impacts on
water quality in streams of the western United States. The protocols were
developed to assess water quality improvement resulting from stream restoration
projects funded under the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 and the Coastal
Zone Management Act as amended in 1990. A companion document addressing
upland monitoring methods will also be published (Bedell and Buckhouse, 1993.
Monitoring primer for rangeland watershed).
The monitoring methods were selected for application by natural resource
professionals typically involved in these projects. This includes resource
professionals with backgrounds in soils, range, hydrology, fisheries biology, and
water quality. Projects are often implemented by state water quality agencies, Soil
Conservation Districts, USDA Soil Conservation Service, USDA Forest Service,
USDI Bureau of Land Management, tribes, and other state and federal entities.
A goal for this project is to describe methods that are easy to use and cost-
effective. This is achieved by using methods that reduce sample frequency,
minimize the need for specialized equipment, and reduce costly laboratory
analyses. The document focuses primarily on attributes of the stream channel,
stream bank, and streamside vegetation of wadable streams which are impacted by
grazing and are important to support aquatic life. These characteristics are
sampled during the low flow conditions in the summer when streams can be
waded. The methods require relatively inexpensive equipment compared to
standard water chemistry analysis techniques. Implementation of these methods
requires building and training an interdisciplinary monitoring team.
GRAZING AS A NONPOINT SOURCE ACTIVITY
Livestock grazing is an important industry on state, private, and federal
rangelands in the western United States. States which comprise much of the
western rangelands include Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The USDI
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) authorized use of 13.5 million Animal Unit
Months (AUM) on approximately 167 million acres in 1991 (USDI BLM, 1992) and
the USDA Forest Service authorized use of 7.6 million AUMs on 49 million acres in
1992 (USDA FS, 1993). Two hundred nine million acres of private land are
classified as rangeland in the western states (USDA SCS, 1989).
In the West, livestock are attracted to riparian areas, those areas adjacent to
streams and rivers, because of succulent forage, accessibility, shade, a reliable
water supply, and a microclimate more favorable than that of the surrounding
terrain (Skovlin, 1984). Riparian areas constitute important sources of livestock
forage; one acre of meadow has the potential grazing capacity equal to 10 to 15
INTRODUCTION 1
-------
acres of surrounding forested range. In the Pacific Northwest, riparian meadows
often cover only 1 to 2 percent of the summer range area, but provide about 20
percent of the summer forage (Clary and Webster, 1990). In some areas, 80 percent
of the forage consumed may come from these meadows (Kauffman and Krueger,
1984).
Livestock impacts, through excessive grazing and trampling, affect stream
habitats by reducing or eliminating riparian vegetation, changing streambank and
channel morphology, and increasing stream sediment transport (Clary and
Webster, 1990).
Average forage conditions of rangelands, primarily uplands, have been
estimated for some rangelands. These percentages are shown in Table 1.1.
Riparian condition is not consistently reported by management agencies; however
streamside areas typically receive 20 to 30 percent greater use than adjacent
upland ranges (Platts, 1991). The accelerated use of streamside areas combined
with the percent of rangelands reported in fair and poor forage conditions provides
some indication of the potential widespread effects of grazing.
Table 1.1. Average forage condition of rangelands, by land ownership
Nonfederal lands: 2% excellent, 29% good, 47% fair, 13% poor, and 9%
other (SCS, 1989).
BLM lands: 5% excellent, 31% good, 36% fair, 15% poor, and 13%
unclassified (BLM, 1992),
The dimensions of nonpoint source impacts from grazing is not well
documented. State nonpoint source reports provided to EPA usually combine
stream miles affected by grazing in a general category with agriculture. This
makes inventory of stream miles affected solely by rangeland difficult to assess. In
the 1989 report to Congress, states listed 2,000 waterbody segments that were
impaired by rangeland activities (EPA, 1992). Most range-related problems were
reported from Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, and Arizona.
THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
The goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." In
1987, Section 319 was added to the CWA to provide additional emphasis on
preventing and correcting nonpoint source pollution problems. Section 319 places
the primary responsibility for controlling nonpoint source pollution on the states.
As a result of Section 319 states have completed an assessment of waters impacted
by nonpoint source activities and developed nonpoint source management
programs. Annual grants are awarded to states by EPA to implement nonpoint
source controls and develop watershed restoration projects to meet the goal of the
CWA.
2 INTRODUCTION
-------
Historically, water quality programs have focused on methods to evaluate
the chemical integrity of water, in relation to some standard which assures support
of beneficial uses. Criteria are typically based on toxicity tests made in the
laboratory. This approach has been limited in its usefulness. Karr (1991) noted
that, "Although perception of biological degradation stimulated current state and
federal legislation on the quality of water resources, that biological focus was lost
in the search for easily measured physical and chemical surrogates." Overgrazing
impacts fisheries habitat which precludes achievement of the Clean Water Act
objectives to maintain the biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
EPA has increased emphasis on biocriteria and biomonitoring. States are
expected to adopt narrative biological criteria into state water quality standards by
1993. Biological criteria incorporate the concept of biological integrity which is
defined as:
a the condition of the aquatic community inhabiting the unimpaired
waterbodies of a specific habitat as measured by community structure
and function'' (EPA, 1990).
EPA recommends that states accomplish development of biological criteria
through resource inventory, identification of reference areas with desirable
conditions, and comparison of waterbodies to these reference areas (Gibson, 1991).
The monitoring system described in this report incorporates these ideas by using
reference areas to define project and monitoring objectives.
The 1990 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act require coastal
states to develop programs to protect their coastal watersheds from non-point
source pollution. In contrast to the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone
Management Act requires state programs which contain enforceable policies and
mechanisms to implement nonpoint source pollution management measures. EPA
has issued the document, Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources
of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal WatersT which includes guidelines with which
State programs must conform in order to receive implementation funding from
EPA (EPA, 1993).
ORGANIZATION AND USE OF THE GUIDELINES
Section II of this report describes the impacts of grazing on the stream
ecosystem. A critical step in developing a monitoring program is to establish the
relationship between the nonpoint source activity, livestock grazing, and the effect
on beneficial uses. Section n summarizes information on the potential effects of
grazing on the stream/riparian ecosystem and its relationship to beneficial uses.
Cold water biota, specifically salmonids, are often the most sensitive indicator of
impacts from western rangelands and are emphasized in this review. An
understanding of potential grazing effects provides a basis for selecting monitoring
parameters.
INTRODUCTION 3
-------
Section III describes the recommended steps for developing a monitoring
plan (summarized in Table 1.2). Initially, resource concerns are identified. Stream
reach stratification and classification are conducted. Field reconnaissance then
provides an assessment of existing conditions and additional information to refine
initial assumptions regarding the effect of grazing on water quality.
Table 1.2. Steps in developing the monitoring program
Identify issues and concerns.
Stratify and classify stream reaches.
Conduct reconnaissance: assess existing conditions and refine water quality
issues.
Establish specific goals and objectives.
Select parameters and monitoring design.
Select representative monitoring and reference sites.
Conduct first year of pilot project monitoring.
Keassess assumptions and objectives and modify the monitoring plan.
Reference area monitoring is recommended as the preferred method for
defining the benchmark condition and site-specific objectives. The monitoring
program is reassessed and modified based on first year or pilot project monitoring.
Section IV describes the process for stream stratification, reconnaissance,
and classification. This section describes a process to stratify stream reaches using
geomorphology (stream type), dominant soils, and riparian vegetation
communities. The stratification provides a template for selecting representative
monitoring sites and reference areas. The stratification and classification
procedure is based on methods described in the Integrated Riparian Evaluation
Guide (USFS, 1992) and modified by Idaho Department of Health and Welfare,
Division of Environmental Quality, for their Agricultural Nonpoint Source Program
(Cowley, 1992). The field reconnaissance also provides an evaluation of the
existing stream habitat condition. This procedure requires an interdisciplinary
team with skills in riparian plant identification, fisheries habitat assessment,
stream type classification, and soils classification.
Section V contains an evaluation of monitoring methods. Monitoring
methods commonly used to assess the effects of grazing on water quality were
evaluated for their use in a monitoring program. The methods were evaluated on
the basis of sample frequency, time needed for sample collection, equipment
4 INTRODUCTION
-------
required, cost of laboratory analysis, expertise required, technique precision and
accuracy, natural variability, preferred flow/site condition, and ease of use. Based
on this evaluation, a set of methods which are relatively easy to use and cost-
effective is recommended. The advantages and disadvantages of using these
methods are also described in this section.
Section VI contains a description of the recommended monitoring protocols
or methods. Each description includes an overview describing the rationale for
application and use of the method. Data collection and analysis procedures are
described in detail. Forms for recording data and a list of equipment needed for
each protocol are provided. Individual monitoring protocols are written to stand
alone. However, it is important to use the process described in Section IV, or one
similar, to stratify and classify stream reaches prior to selecting monitoring sites.
INTRODUCTION
-------
REFERENCES
Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1990. Riparian grazing guidelines for the intermountain region.
Rangelands 12(4): 209-212.
Cowley, E.R. 1992. Protocols for classifying, monitoring, and evaluating stream/riparian
vegetation on Idaho rangeland streams. Id. Dept. Health and Welfare, Div. Env.
Quality, Boise, ID.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. Biological criteria: National program guidance for
surface waters. Office of Water, Regulations, and Standards, EPA-440/5-90-004, Wa.,
DC.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Managing nonpoint source pollution. Office of Water,
U.S. EPA, EPA-506/9-90, Wa., D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance specifying management measures for
source of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, 840-B-92-
002, Wa., DC.
Gibson, G.R. 1991. Draft procedures for initiating narrative biological criteria. Office of
Water,EPA, Wa., DC lOp.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management.
Ecological Applications 1(1): 63-84.
Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and
streamside management implications-A review. J. Range Management. 37:430-438.
Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. Am. Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:389-423.
Skovlin, J.M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: A review of
knowledge, p. 10001-1103. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management.
Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Summary report: 1987 national resource inventory.
Statistical Bulletin # 790, U.S. Gov. Printing Office 1989-718-608.
USDA Forest Service. 1993. Grazing statistical summary, FY 1992. USDA Forest Service,
Range Management, U.S. G.P.O.:1993-341-697/72003.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide. USDA Forest Service,
Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Public land statistics 1991. USDI-BLM,
BLM/SC/PT-92/011+1165.
6 INTRODUCTION
-------
H. IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND
BENEFICIAL USES
Livestock grazing has the potential to cause detrimental effects on the
beneficial uses of water. Nonpoint source effects fall into three categories: 1) a
change in the chemical, physical, and bacteriological characteristics of water; 2)
modification of habitat by changes to the stream channel and vegetation; and 3)
changes to stream flow patterns.
Monitoring should focus on those factors which limit the beneficial uses in
the watershed. A successful monitoring program identifies site-specific impacts
and targets those parameters that provide a linkage between the effect of grazing
and the resulting impact on the beneficial use. This section briefly reviews the
impacts of grazing on the watershed, the riparian zone, and the beneficial uses of
water. The maintenance of cold water biota, especially salmonid fisheries, is an
important objective of resource managers. Salmonid habitat requirements and the
impacts of grazing on salmonid habitat are specifically addressed.
Livestock grazing affects the watershed and especially the stream corridor.
Grazing has potentially detrimental effects on the stream banks, water column,
aquatic life, stream channel, and riparian vegetation. Table 2.1 summarizes the
potential effects of livestock grazing on each of these resources.
Table 2.1. Potential effects of grazing on aquatic and riparian resources
(Platts, 1989)
Water Column
1. Withdrawal of stream flowto irrigate grazing lands.
2 Drainage of wet meadows or lowering of the groundwater table to
facilitate grazing access,
3. Pollutants (e,g., sediments) in return water from grazed pasture lands.
4. Change in magnitude and timing of organic and inorganic energy inputs
to the stream (i.e., solar radiation, debris, nutrients). :
5. Increase in fecal contamination.
6. Change in water column channel morphology, such as an increase in
stream width anddecrease in stream depth, including reduction of
streamshore water depth. ?
7. Change in timing and magnitude of stream flow events from change in
watershed vegetative cover.
8. Increase in stream temperature.
Stream Ranks
1. Shearing or sloughing of stream bank soils by hoof or head action.
IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL USES
-------
2. Water, ice, and wind erosion of exposed stream bank and channel soils
because of loss of vegetation cover.
3. Elimination or loss of stream bank vegetation.
4. Reduction of the quality or and quantity of stream bank undercuts,
5. Increasing stream bank angle which increases water width and decreases
water depth.
Stream Channel
1. Change in channel morphology.
2. Altered stream sediment transport processes.
Riparian Vegetation
1. Change in plant species composition (e.g., brush to grass to forbs).
2, Reduction of floodplain and stream bank vegetation, including vegetation
hanging over or entering the water column,
3. Decrease in plant vigor.
4. Changes in timing and amount of organic energy leaving the riparian
zone.
5. Elimination of riparian plant communities (i.e., lowering of the water
table allowing xeric plants to replace riparian plants).
EFFECTS OF GRAZING ON THE WATER COLUMN
Nutrients
Nutrients in animal wastes may stimulate algae and aquatic plant growth.
Moderate aquatic plant growth provides a food base for the aquatic community,
living space for invertebrates, and hiding cover for fish. At excessive levels,
aquatic plant growth may contribute to low dissolved oxygen levels during night-
time respiration which may be detrimental to beneficial uses. The concentration of
disssolved oxygen is also affected by temperature. At higher temperatures, the
concentration of dissolved oxygen decreases.
Nutrients can be measured in many forms, but a useful set of parameters
includes nitrate-nitrogen, total phosphorus, and soluble phosphorus. Ammonia
may be considered useful if animal wastes are particularly concentrated.
Nutrient impacts vary considerably in study results. Specific site conditions
such as precipitation, runoff, vegetation cover, grazing density, proximity to the
stream, and period of use affect the results.
Nutrient effects are usually expressed in combination with other changes to
the system. Aquatic plant growth is favored in shallow, wide channels where fine
sediments provide a rooting medium and a reduced canopy allows additional solar
8 IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL USES
-------
radiation. Downstream impacts from nutrients are important when the receiving
water is a lake or reservoir.
The decision to evaluate nutrient concentrations depends on the sensitivity
of the beneficial uses of water. Nutrient monitoring should also be a primary
consideration for streams that empty into lakes or impoundments.
Nutrients stimulate algal and aquatic plant growth at very low
concentrations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends total
phosphates not to exceed 50 ug/1 (micrograms per liter) for a stream at the point
where it enters a lake or reservoir, and a maximum of 100 ug/1 for other streams
(EPA, 1989). It is generally recommended that concentrations of nitrate not exceed
300 ug/1.
Nutrient enrichment is a function primarily of waste concentration and
opportunity for its runoff into the stream. Schepers and Francis (1982) found
increases in nutrients in a cow-calf pasture in Nebraska; nitrates increased 45
percent and total phosphorus increased 37 percent. Nutrient levels were
correlated primarily with grazing density (Schepers et al., 1982).
The risk of nutrient enrichment is low in arid rangelands where animal
wastes are distributed and runoff is comparatively light. Studies by the
Agricultural Research Service and Bureau of Land Management found little
evidence of nutrient enrichment from unconfined livestock grazing in Reynolds
Creek, an arid watershed in southern Idaho (ARS, 1983).
Nutrient loss is minimal where the streamside pasture remains in good
condition. Vegetation buffers the stream from direct waste input and assimilates
the nutrients into plant tissue. Gary et al. (1983) evaluated the effects on a small
stream in central Colorado of spring cattle grazing on pastures. Manure recovered
within 3 meter strips on each side of the stream accounted for 4 percent to 6
percent of the total expected manure production. Nitrate nitrogen did not increase
significantly and ammonia increased significantly only once. Although the authors
document direct stream deposition, nutrient increase was limited because the
pastures were in good condition and grazed only moderately in the spring.
Nutrient concentrations were low in a continuously grazed unimproved
pasture in a humid site in east-central Ohio (Owens et al., 1989). An earlier study
on the same site, using only summer grazing, showed that nutrients did not
increase significantly (Owens et al., 1983).
Dixon et al. (1983) examined chemical and bacteriological loss from a cow-
calf wintering area in southern Idaho; the area was irrigated and return flows
entered the stream. The concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff was a
fraction of that observed from cattle feedlots. The authors concluded that the loss
of nutrients was small.
IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL USES
-------
Bacteria
Bacteria from the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals are indicators of
fecal contamination and the presence of microbial pathogens. Most state water
quality standards use fecal coliform bacteria (FC) as the indicator for determining
suitability of the water for recreational use and as a domestic water supply.
Studies have shown that livestock grazing increases fecal coliform counts
over background (Doran and Linn, 1979; Gary et al., 1983; Tiedeman, 1987).
Bacterial counts increase after cattle are turned in and may remain high after
cattle are removed (Stephenson and Street, 1978; Jawson et al., 1982).
The primary mechanism for bacterial contamination appears to be direct
deposition of fecal material in the stream or transport of fecal material to the
stream via overland flow (Miner, 1992). In arid rangelands, bacterial
contamination may be minimal. Coliform bacteria stayed within a few feet of the
manure on a dry Utah rangeland (Buckhouse and Gifford, 1976). On rangeland
sites in Reynolds Creek in southwestern Idaho, geometric mean values did not
exceed 50/100 ml. (ARS, 1983,).
Once bacteria reaches a stream, bottom sediment may act as a reservoir.
When manure was deliberately added to the stream, most of the organisms, 90
percent or more, settled to the stream bottom (Sherer et al., 1988). Resuspension of
sediments may increase bacterial numbers (Stephenson and Rychert, 1982).
Sherer et al. (1988) reported that deliberate stream disturbance, by raking the
stream bottom, resuspended sediment and increased bacterial counts.
Resuspension also occurs when stream flow increases or when animals walk
through streams.
Some additional considerations for monitoring design are provided by Bohn
and Buckhouse (1985). Coliform populations exhibit daily and seasonal cycles
which may influence results. As a result, individual samples represent only the
status at the time of sampling. Coliforms may survive in feces for long periods, up
to a year, and coliform concentrations increase with storm and runoff events.
Wildlife also contribute to bacterial numbers which may influence results. Finally,
coliforms may not be satisfactory indicators since they may die off while pathogens
remain viable.
Baxter-Potter and Gilliland (1988) made the following conclusions from a
literature review of bacterial pollution from agricultural lands. Like other
researchers they found the proximity of fecal contamination to the watercourse is
significant. If the bacteria can not be transported by overland flow, their
contribution to pollution will be minor. They found increased discharge during
storms may increase bacterial densities. Other factors, including temperature,
wildlife activity, fecal deposit age, and channel and bank storage, affect bacterial
densities in runoff.
10 IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL USES
-------
GRAZING IMPACTS ON THE WATERSHED
Livestock grazing affects watershed properties by alteration of plant cover
and by soil compaction from the physical action of animal hooves. Reductions in
the vegetation cover may in turn increase the impact of raindrops, decrease soil
organic matter and soil aggregates, increase surface crusts, and decrease water
infiltration rates. These effects may cause increased runoff, reduced soil water
content, and increased erosion (Blackburn, 1983).
The hydrologic impacts of grazing intensity are related primarily to
infiltration and runoff. An extensive review of studies relating grazing intensity to
infiltration rates (Gifford and Hawkins, 1978) showed that there is an influence of
grazing on infiltration rates including light/moderate intensities; there is also a
distinct impact from heavy grazing which is statistically different from that of
light/moderate grazing. Runoff and sediment yield decreased with reduced grazing
in a long term study of grazed and ungrazed areas (Lusby, 1979). Over the first 12
year period, elimination of grazing resulted in a 25% reduction of runoff,
accompanied by a simultaneous reduction in sediment yield of approximately 35%.
In the subsequent seven year period, ungrazed areas yielded 60% of runoff and
37% of sediment produced under the original grazing program.
The stream channel, stream banks, and beneficial uses of water are
impacted by these hydrologic effects. Increased runoff increases upland sheet and
rill erosion, resulting in stream sedimentation. Increased peak runoff also
increases stream energy for bank erosion, downcutting, and gully formation.
Reductions in water infiltration and storage reduce the magnitude and duration of
low flows. Decreased discharge from storage during the summer reduces habitat
space and water quality for maintaining the aquatic community during this critical
period.
GRAZING IMPACTS ON THE RIPARIAN ZONE
Riparian zones are often grazed more heavily than upland zones because
they have flatter terrain, water, shade, and more succulent vegetation. Livestock
grazing can affect the riparian environment by changing, reducing, or eliminating
riparian areas through channel widening, channel aggrading, or lowering of the
water table. Generally, in grazed areas, stream channels contain more fine
sediment, streambanks are more unstable, banks are less undercut, and summer
water temperatures are higher than streams in ungrazed areas. These conditions
result in reduced salmonid populations (Platts, 1991).
Temperature and canopy
Temperature increases in streams when grazing reduces canopy or
overhanging bank vegetation, contributes to channel widening and shallowing, or
reduces summer low flows. In western North America, streams that have lost
their vegetation or have had a change in riparian plant forms (e.g., from brush to
IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL USES 11
-------
grass) are often too warm in the summer to support salmonid populations. Platts
(1991) speculates that increases in temperature due to reduced streamside
vegetation could partially explain the gradual shift from salmonids to nongame
fish in many western streams.
Binns (1979) found that maximum summer temperature was one of nine
parameters in a habitat quality index that explained 96% of the variation in trout
standing crop in Wyoming streams. Platts and Nelson (1989) found a high
correlation between thermal input and salmonid biomass in the Great Basin; in the
Rocky Mountains the relationship was not significant.
Streams can also be too cold for successful trout survival. If temperature
falls low enough, anchor ice can form on the bottom of the stream. Streams with
little or no vegetative canopy are very susceptible to the formation of anchor ice
(Platts, 1991). Vegetative cover also helps moderate winter temperatures reducing
heat loss from the earth.
Stream channels
Stream channels and stream flow determine the living space available for
salmonids. Stream channels altered by grazing become wider and shallower,
reducing salmonid living space. Several papers have related salmonid abundance
to water width, depth, pools, and stream flow (Marcus et al., 1990; Binns, 1979).
Kozel and Hubert (1989) found that width-to-depth ratios, average stream width,
and level of late summer stream flow were highly correlated with trout biomass.
Stream depth explained most of the variation in trout biomass in headwater
streams in central Arizona (Rhine and Medina, 1988). In the Wyoming habitat
quality index, annual stream flow variation was highly correlated to trout biomass
(Binns, 1979).
Channel downcutting caused by riparian degradation lowers local water
tables and reduces the volume of base stream flow during the critical summer
period. Such reductions in low flow increase annual stream flow variation.
Sedimentation can also reduce the amount of salmonid habitat. Sediment in
grazed watersheds is derived from upland and streambank erosion. Fine sediment
fills the interstitial spaces between coarser particles and fills in pools, reducing
available habitat for fish and aquatic invertebrates. Although these impacts have
been documented, it is difficult to establish quantitative criteria (Chapman and
McLeod, 1987) and the relationship between sediment and salmonids is difficult to
define (Everest et al., 1987).
Stream banks and streamside vegetation
Streambank stability is directly related to the quality of streamside
vegetation. During high water, streamside vegetation protects the banks from
erosion, reducing water velocity along the stream edge, and causing stream
12 IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL USES
-------
sediments to settle out.
Platts (1991) has summarized the importance of streamside vegetation in
providing cover and maintaining streambank stability. Trees provide shade and
streambank stability becausevof their large size and massive root systems. Trees
that fall into or across streams create high-quality pools and contribute to channel
stability. Brush protects the streambank from water erosion and its low
overhanging height adds cover that is used by fish. Grasses form the vegetative
mats and sod banks that reduce surface erosion and mass wasting of stream banks.
As well-sodded banks gradually erode, they create the undercuts important to
salmonids as hiding cover. Root systems of grasses and other plants trap sediment
to help rebuild damaged banks.
When animals graze directly on streambanks, mass wasting from trampling,
hoof slide, and streambank collapse causes soil to move directly into the stream.
Excessive grazing on streamside vegetation reduces the ability of vegetation to
protect streambanks and trap sediments.
The effect of grazing on streambanks depends on site conditions,
management practices, and interaction with other factors. Kauffman et al. (1983)
found that late-season grazing increased bank erosion relative to ungrazed areas.
Platts (1981) documented stream bank and stream channel damage where sheep
were concentrated in a riparian zone. Riparian vegetation, streambanks, and
stream channel conditions unproved when grazing was prohibited in an exclosure
(Platts and Nelson, 1985).
Other factors may also reduce streambank stability. Buckhouse (1986) lists
studies where bank damage was attributed to high runoff flows and ice flows in
addition to grazing. In Meadow Creek, season-long grazing was associated with
bank sloughing, but bank damage was also attributed to severe ice floes
(Buckhouse, 1986).
SALMONID REQUIREMENTS
Salmonids, including trout, salmon, and chars, require high quality waters
and therefore serve as good indicators of quality aquatic environments. The water
quality and habitat requirements of salmonids, shown in Table 2.2, may be altered
by livestock grazing. Salmonids require low temperatures, high dissolved oxygen
concentrations, clean substrates, sufficient water depth and velocity, and hiding
and escape cover.
Trout are particularly sensitive to temperature when spawning, with
recommended temperatures in the range of 5 - 14° C. Optimum temperatures for
rearing are in the 14-16 °C range. Salmonids are placed in life-threatening
conditions when temperatures exceed 23-25 °C. Most state water quality
standards specify temperature criteria less than these extremes for protection of
cold water biota.
IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL USES 13
-------
Table 2.2. Critical habitat requirements for salmonids and contributing
factors (based on Bjomu and Reiser, 1991)
Adult migration
• Stream temperature - streamside shading, stream width, width/depth
ratio, stream flow
• Dissolved oxygen - temperature, BOD, nutrients, stream flow
• Turbidity - surface and stream bank erosion
• Stream flow - dewatering, width/depth ratio, stream width
Spawning
• Stream flow - dewatering, width/depth ratio, stream width
* Stream temperature - streamside shading, stream width, width/depth
ratio, stream flow
» Spawning habitat quantity - pool/riffle ratio, gradient, substrate
• Water depth and velocity - depth, velocity, stream flow
• Substrate - surface fines, substrate composition
• Cover - overhanging vegetation, undercut bank, submerged cover (i.e.
vegetation, logs, and rocks), water depth, turbulence
Incubation
* Substrate - surface and depth fines, substrate composition
* Intragravei oxygen - temperature, BOD, nutrients, stream flow
* Stream temperature - streamside shading, stream width, width/depth
ratio, stream flow
and adults)
Stream temperature - streamside shading, stream width, width/depth
ratio, stream flow
Dissolved oxygen - temperature,. BOD, nutrients, stream flow
Turbidity - surface and stream bank erosion . •
Productivity - nutrients, primary and secondary production (food),
energy inputs (sunlight and detritus)
Living space - stream flow, stream width, width/depth ratio, gradient,
velocity, instream and riparian cover
Cover - water depth, water turbulence, large particle substrate,
undercut banks, overhanging riparian vegetation, woody debris,
aquatic vegetation
14 IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL USES
-------
Low dissolved oxygen concentrations affect growth, food conversion
efficiency, swimming performance, and survival. Incubation of embryos and
emergence to fry are the most sensitive stages. Recommended levels for successful
incubation are at or near saturation with temporary reductions in dissolved oxygen
no lower than 5 mg/1 (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991).
High turbidity reduces sight feeding and growth and interferes with
migration. Salmonid sight feeding is impaired at turbidities in the range of 25-70
NTU. Salmonids will migrate in water of higher turbidity; however, they avoid
such waters for rearing and feeding (Lloyd et al., 1987). Recommended levels to
protect salmonids is 50 NTU, measured instantaneously, or 25 NTU, measured
over a ten day period (Harvey, 1989).
Clean substrates are important habitat components because salmonids build
nests (redds) in gravel and cobble substrate. Clean substrates are required to
provide dissolved oxygen to the embryo, remove metabolic wastes, and allow
alevins (fry) to emerge from the redd. Sediment from erosion reduces the survival
of embryos.
During spawning, salmonids also need adequate cover for escape and hiding.
This cover is provided by overhanging vegetation, undercut banks, submerged
vegetation, submerged objects such as logs and rocks, attached floating debris,
deep water, turbulence, and turbidity.
Stream flow is also important, because it determines the amount of
spawning area available by regulating the area covered by water and the velocity
and depth of water over the gravel beds. Preferred water depth and velocity have
been established for many species. Grazing management practices often alter the
hydrologic regime by increasing peak flows and decreasing base flows. These
changes decrease the amount of habitat available for salmonids at critical times in
their life cycle.
Streams with a diversity of habitats support high salmonids populations.
Living space for salmonids is a function of stream flow, channel morphology,
gradient, and instream and riparian cover. Habitat diversity is created by deep
pools with structures such as boulders, sunken logs, and root wads, and by
undercut banks with overhanging vegetation. Channels with high sinuosity and a
variety of pools, runs, and riffles also contribute to diversity.
IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALTTY AND BENEFICIAL USES 15
-------
REFERENCES
Agricultural Research Service. 1983. Volume II - Comprehensive report,
ARS/BLM cooperative studies, Reynolds Creek Watershed. USDA
Agricultural Watershed Service, Boise, Idaho.
Baxter-Potter, W. and M.W. Giililand. 1988. Bacterial pollution in runoff from
agricultural lands. J. Environ. Qua!., 17(1) 27-34.
Binns, N.A. 1979. A habitat quality index for Wyoming trout streams. Fish.
Research Monograph Series, Wy. Game and Fish Dept., Cheyenne, WY.
Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in
streams. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83-138.
Blackburn, W.H. 1983. Livestock grazing impacts on watersheds. Rangelands,
5(3) 123-125.
Bohn, C.C. and J.C. Buckhouse. 1985. Coliforms as an indicator of water quality
in wildland streams. J. of Water and Soil Cons., 40(1) 95-97.
Buckhouse, J.C. and G.F. Gifford. 1976. Water quality implications of cattle
grazing on a semiarid watershed in southeastern Utah. J. of Range
Management, 29 (2) 109-113.
Buckhouse, J.C. 1986. Riparian response to various grazing systems and to
periodic ice floes. In: Grazing research at northern latitudes, Olafur
Gudmundssons ed., 79-86.
Chapman, D.W. and K.P. McLeod. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment
in the northern Rockies ecoregion. Final report, EPA contract no. 68-01-
6986, U.S. EPA, Seattle, WA.
Dixon, J.E. G.R. Stephenson, A.J. Lingg, D.V. Naylor, and D.D. Hinman. 1983.
Comparison of runoff quality from cattle feeding on winter pastures. Trans.
Am. Soc. Ag. Eng Engineers, 1146-1149.
Doran J.W. and D.M. Linn. 1979. Bacteriological quality of runoff water from
pastureland. Applied Env. Microbio., 37: 985-991.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Biological criteria: National program
guidance for surface waters. Office of Water, Regulations, and Standards,
EPA-440/5-90-004, Wa., DC.
Everest, F.H., R.L. Beschta, J.C. Scrivener, K.V. Koski. J.R. Sedell, and C.J.
Cedarholm. 1987. Fine sediment and salmonid production: A paradox. In:
E.G. Salo and T.W. Gundy, eds., Streamside Management: Forestry and
16 IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL USES
-------
-Fishery Interactions, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA. 98-142.
Gary, H.L., S.R. Johnson, S.L. Ponce. 1983. Cattle grazing impact in a Colorado
Front range stream. J. Soil and Water Cons., 38(2) 124-128.
Gifford, G.F. and R.H. Hawkins. 1978. Hydrologic impact of grazing on infiltration:
A critical review. Water Resources Research, 14(2) 305-313.
Harvey, G.W. 1989. Technical review of sediment criteria. Id. Dept. of Health and
Welfare, Div. of Environ. Quality, Boise, ID.
Jawson, M.D., L.F. Elliot, KE. Saxton, D.H. Fortier. 1982. The effect of cattle
grazing on indicator bacteria in runoff from a Pacific Northwest watershed.
J. Environ. Qual., 11:621-627.
Kauffman, J.B, W.C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Impacts of cattle on
streambanks hi northeastern Oregon. J. of Range Management, 36(6) 683-
685.
Kozel, S.J., W.A. Hubert, and M. Parsons. 1989. Habitat features and trout
abundance relative to gradient in some Wyoming streams. Northwest
Science, 63(4), 175-181.
Lloyd, D.S., J.P. Koenings and J.D. LaPerriere. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh
waters of Alaska. N. Am. J. of Fisheries Management 7(1): 18-33.
Lusby, G.C. 1979. Effects of grazing and sediment yield from desert rangeland at
Badger Wash in western Colorado, 1953-1973. USGS Water Supply Paper
1532-1.
Marcus, M.D., M.K. Young, L.E. Noel, and BA. Mullan. 1990. Salmonid-habitat
relationships in the western United States: A review and indexed
bibliography. Rocky Mt. Range and Exp. Station, USDA Forest Service,
Gen. Tech. Report RM-188, Fort Collins, CO. 84 p.
Miner, J.R., Buckhouse, J.C, and J-A. Moore. 1992. Will a water trough reduce
the amount of time hay-fed livestock spend in the stream (and therefore
improve water quality)? Rangelands, 14(1) 35-38.
Owens, L.B., W.M. Edwards, and R.W. Van Keuren. 1983. Surface runoff water
quality comparisons between unimproved pasture and woodland. J.
Environ. Qua!., 12(4) 518-522.
Owens, L.B., W.M. Edwards, and R.W. Van Keuren. 1989. Sediment and nutrient
losses from an unimproved, all-year grazed watershed. J. Environ. Qual.,
18(2) 232-238.
Platts, W.S. 1981. Sheep and streams. Rangelands, 3(4),158-160.
IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENERCIAL USES 17
-------
Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985. Streamside and upland vegetation use by
cattle. Rangelands, 7:5-7.
Platts, W.S. 1989. Compatibility of livestock grazing strategies with fisheries, 103-
110. In: Gresswell, R.E., Barton, B.A., Kershner, J.L. eds. Practical
approaches to riparian resource management: an educational workshop,
USDI BLM, Billings, MT.
Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1989. Stream canopy and its relationship to
salmonid biomass in the Intel-mountain West. N. Am. J. of Fisheries
Management, 9, 446-457.
Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock Grazing. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 19: 389-423.
Rinne, J.N. and A.L. Medina. 1988. Factors influencing salmonid populations in
six headwater streams, central Arizona, USA. Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol., 35(3-
4), 515-532.
Schepers, J.S. and D.D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from
grazing land in Nebraska: Influence of grazing livestock. J. Environ. Qual.,
11(3) 351-354.
Schepers, J.S., B.L. Hackes, and D.D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of
runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: II. contributing factors. J. Environ.
Qual., 11(3) 355-359.
Sherer, B.M., J.R. Miner, J.A. Moore, and J.C. Buckhouse. 1988. Resuspending
organisms for a rangeland stream bottom. Am. Soc. Ag. Engineers, 0001-
2351/88/3104-1217, 1217-1222.
Stephenson, G.R. and L.V. Street. 1978. Bacterial variations in streams from a
southwest Idaho rangeland watershed. J. Env. Qual., 7(1) 150-157.
Tiedeman, A.R., D.A. Higgins, T.M. Quigley, H.R. Sanderson, and D.B. Marx. 1987.
Responses of fecal coliform in streamwater to four grazing strategies. J.
Range Management, 40: 322-329.
18 IMPACTS OF GRAZING ON WATER QUALITY AND BENEFICIAL USES
-------
. MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
The following section provides an overview of monitoring plan development
and a discussion of the types of monitoring strategies that can be used. Each step
in developing a monitoring plan is then described.
OVERVIEW OF MONITORING STEPS
A watershed project is initially proposed to correct a perceived or
documented water quality problem. Water quality problems should be defined in
terms of measurable stream variables or stream attributes. Monitoring needs to
detect changes due to management separate from changes attributed to natural
variability. The object of monitoring planning and design is to select those key
variables at representative sites that are expected to respond to management.
Selection of key variables involves a sorting process, based on the watershed
project objectives and considering the realistic constraints of monitoring.
The development of a monitoring plan includes compiling existing
information and gathering data from a field reconnaissance to focus the scope of
monitoring. These questions should be considered throughout the planning
process.
» What are the issues and concerns that started the project?
« What are the beneficial uses of water in the stream? {Waterbodies
have designated beneficial uses. These are listed in the .state water
quality standards.)
« What are the potential limiting factors for the sensitive beneficial
uses?
• Are these limiting factors influenced by grazing and/or other nonpoint
source activities in the drainage?
» "What is currently known about the existing stream condition?
• What additional information is needed to make an assessment of
existing stream condition and cause and effect?
• Of the potential stream/riparian variables, which key variables are
expected to respond to project management?
* What are the monitoring project constraints in terms of budget,
personnel availability, expertise, site conditions, and other factors?
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 19
-------
The planning steps shown in Table 3.1 comprise a process of gathering and
evaluating cursory information to assist in answering these questions and then
designing a responsive monitoring program. A discussion of each of these steps
follows.
Table 3.1. Steps in developing the monitoring program
1. Identify issues and concerns.
2. Stratify and classify stream reaches (initial classification).
3, Conduct reconnaissance: Assess existing conditions, refine water quality
issues, and complete stream classification.
4. Establish specific goals and objectives.
5. Select parameters and monitoring design.
6. Select representative monitoring and reference sites.
7. Conduct first year or pilot project monitoring.
8. Reassess assumptions and objectives and modify monitoring plan.
20 MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
IDENTIFY ISSUES AND
Water quality issues and concerns are formulated with program managers,
project sponsors, cooperating agencies, and interested public. The status of the
beneficial uses is a primary issue. The stream may be unsuitable for swimming or
the fishery may have declined. Designated benificial uses for a particular water
body are listed with a state's water quality standards. Issues may also include an
analysis of the resources available to conduct monitoring, such as budget,
personnel, equipment, and laboratory costs.
General project goals are formulated. These goals provide the framework for
organizing and reviewing existing data and selecting the approach for conducting
the field reconnaissance. Project goals should include an identification of the
geographic area of interest, the beneficial uses of concern, and the impact of
grazing on the beneficial uses. These assumptions will be evaluated in the field
and as part of the first year of monitoring.
A goal is considered the overall aim or endpoint of the project. Objectives
are a subset of project goals; one goal may have multiple objectives. Project goals
may be expressed qualitatively, but objectives are expressed in quantitative terms.
Examples of goal and objective statements are presented in Table 3.2. The general
issues and concerns provide the sideboards for stratifying stream reaches and
collecting additional information.
Table 3.2. Sample monitoring plan goals and objectives
Goal: Improve water quality to support cold water fisheries.
Objective: Increase riparian vegetation to assure that average daily
temperature remains below 19° C during the summer.
Goal: Improve streambank cover and stability to decrease hank
erosion,
Objective: Increase vegetative cover on streambanks so that 80-90% of the
banks are rated as covered and stable.
Specific objectives for monitoring are formulated based on a comparison of
the existing condition to the expected condition. The potential for the project to
influence measurable stream attributes within a reasonable time frame is
assessed.
STRATIFY AND CLASSIFY STREAM REACHES
Physical, chemical, and biological attributes of streams vary between
watersheds because of differences in climate, hydrology, geology, landform,
vegetation, and soils. Streams vary along their length as changes occur in
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 21
-------
gradient, channel substrate, sinuosity, stream size, and riparian vegetation.
Stream types described by classification systems exhibit differential response to a
given management activity. The ability to predict a response is an important
objective of stream classification. Classification allows identification of
representative monitoring sites and reference stations.
Streams are classified in two stages following the methods described in the
Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). The initial
classification is an office procedure that uses existing information - aerial
photographs, topographic maps, soil surveys - to identify stream reaches. This
initial stream stratification provides a basis for organizing collection of data during
the reconnaissance phase. Field data collected during reconnaissance is used to
adjust reach boundaries and complete the stream classification.
Stream reaches are classified on the basis of three criteria - soils/parent
geology, dominant riparian vegetation, and stream type (Table 3.3). Stream types
are classified by measurable morphological features as described by Rosgen (1993)
and summarized in Appendix B. An alternative stream classification system based
on geomorphology is described by Montgomery and Buffington (1993).
The Rosgen classification system results in a designation (A, B, C etc.) that
describes stream channel morphology. For example, a C3 stream type is a low-
gradient meadow stream with high sinuosity and a predominantly cobble substrate
and an Al stream type is an entrenched stream with low sinuosity and a bedrock
substrate. The stream type classification can be used to identify potential
reference areas with a similar morphology.
Soil type and riparian vegetation communities are the other components of
stream reach classification. Soil family mapping units from a soil survey are used
to delineate major differences in soil capability. Riparian vegetation is identified
by community type. Community types are named on the basis of the dominant
overstory species and the dominant or most characteristic undergrowth species.
Soil type, riparian community type, and Rosgen stream type provide a useful
method to stratify streams for the purpose of locating monitoring stations.
Stream reaches can be divided further into subreaches based on land use or
land ownership. These subreaches distinguish the differences in administration
and management that will affect project implementation. Monitoring sites are
located within selected subreaches based on project objectives.
22 MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
Table 3.3. Stream classification hierarchy
TRIBUTARY
I. STREAM REACH
Soils/parent Geology
Dominant riparian community
Rosgen stream type
gradient
sinuosity
channel width/depth ratio
dominant particle size
valley bottom type
II. SUB-REACH
Land ownership
Land use
III. MONITORING SITE
Hydraulic pattern
slow water - pools and glides
fast water - riffles and runs
CONDUCT RECONNAISSANCE; EVALUATE EXISTING CONDITION AND
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL LIMITING FACTORS
Field reconnaissance completes identification of stream reaches and
identifies riparian communities. The field reconnaissance also provides a
qualitative evaluation of the existing stream condition and a determination of
possible causes and effects of water quality degradation. The objective of this
phase is to identify those factors which are thought to limit the beneficial uses.
Limiting factors are stream attributes which prevent the full attainment of the
beneficial uses. For example, high summertime temperatures, lack of suitable
spawning gravel, or lack of pools and hiding cover may limit fish populations.
Potential limiting factors are evaluated in the field by qualitative
measurements and professional judgement. Table 3.4 lists potential limiting
factors and describes the reconnaissance evaluation techniques. Each stream
attribute is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 23
-------
Table 3.4. Potential water quality parameters/limiting factors identified
through field reconnaissance
Water Quality/Riparian Parameter
Water Column
1. Temperature
2. Shade
3. Nutrients
4. Fecal contamination
5. Flow modifications
Stream, Cfrannel/Streambanks
6. Streainbank stability
7. Bank undercut
8. Overhanging Vegetation
9. Channel morphology
10. Pool quality
11. Substrate sedimentation
Veetation
12. Plant species composition
13. Woody species health
14. Streaxnside utilization.
Biological Assessment
15. Macroinvertebrate community
16. Fish community
Reconnaissance Evaluation
Indirect from vegetative shade and
width/depth relationship.
Ocular estimate of canopy cover.
Ocular estimate of algae/aquatic plant
growth.
Observation of fecal material in and near
the stream channel.
Width/depth measurements,
observation of dewatered channels.
Estimates of cover and stability.
Estimate of bank undercut.
Estimate of vegetative overhang.
Measured bankfull and water surface
width/depths. ;
Estimate of % of pools, pool depth, or pool
quality rating.
Estimates of substrate composition
(percent sand, gravel, cobble, etc.)
Ocular estimate of embeddedness.
Identification of riparian community
types.
Observation of woody species age classes.
Ocular estimate of utilization near
streambanks.
EPA rapid bioassessment protocols, RBP
lorH.
EPA rapid bioassessment protocols, RBP
IV or RBP V (qualitative sample).
24
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
Water column
During reconnaissance, temperature, nutrients, and bacterial impacts are
evaluated indirectly by observation of stream conditions. This evaluation can be
improved by including a limited number of grab samples. Temperature conditions
are evaluated by observation of the amount of stream surface area exposed to solar
radiation. Wide and shallow streams with little shading would be expected to
experience high summer temperatures. Maximum registering thermometers can
be used during a reconnaissance to better assess high temperatures before deciding
whether to monitor temperature with recording thermographs.
The potential for bacterial contamination is assessed by observation of fecal
material within the stream channel and adjacent riparian area. Fecal matter can
enter the stream during a runoff event. Grab samples can provide additional
information for assessment of fecal colifonn bacteria. Results of the grab samples
are evaluated by relating the time of collection to recent livestock use in the area.
Algal/aquatic plant growth is stimulated by low concentrations of nutrients.
Potential nutrient input is assessed at the reconnaissance level by observation of
livestock wastes within the stream channel. Grab samples for nutrients can be
collected to provide additional information. Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrate +
Nitrite will generally provide sufficient information. Nutrient concentrations are
determined by laboratory analysis of a water sample. Because nutrients are
quickly cycled within a system, grab samples collected during low flows may be of
limited value.
Stream channel and stream bank condition
Alteration of stream banks and stream channels are the most widespread
impacts from grazing. These changes can be caused by direct livestock activity or
by alterations in the watershed from grazing. Grazing on the uplands may alter
the supply of sediment and the flow regime causing readjustment in channel shape
and scouring and deposition of sediment.
Overgrazing in the riparian zone may contribute to bank instability and
reduce bank cover, causing an increase in bank erosion. Stream channel shape
adjusts to these impacts by widening and becoming more shallow or the channel
downcuts, lowering the water table and reducing the extent of the riparian zone.
Sediment from upland and channel erosion also changes stream bottom
composition and increases the percentage of fines. Available habitat space
decreases as the stream is altered from a narrow and deep channel to a wide and
shallow channel.
The critical attributes to consider include channel morphology, streambank
stability, vegetative overhang, streambank undercutting, substrate sedimentation,
and pool quality. Streambank undercuts and overhanging vegetation provide
protective cover, shade for temperature control, and a supply of terrestrial insects
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 25
-------
as food for fish. Determining percent of the streambank that is stable, covered by
vegetation, undercut, or has overhanging vegetation is done by ocular estimates,
pacing, or measurements at representative locations.
Substrate composition provides information on in-stream hiding cover,
quality of spawning substrate, and production of insects. Ocular estimates are
made of substrate composition and embeddedness. Pebble counts, which are
relatively quick and easy, may be used to improve estimates of substrate
composition.
Stream channel morphology is usually measured by establishing permanent
cross sections. Channel characteristics evaluated at each cross section include
bankfull width and depth, low flow width and depth, width/depth ratio, and cross
sectional area. Estimates are also made of the occurrence of pools and rating of
pool quality.
Streambank vegetation
Streambank vegetation provides cover for fish, shades the stream to
maintain temperature, and provides habitat for terrestrial insects utilized by fish.
Streamside vegetation is the primary tool available to the manager to stabilize
stream banks and restore natural channel features. The roots of riparian plants,
such as willow and sedge, hold the soil together to resist erosion. The vegetative
mat along the stream traps sediment during high water to build banks and
increase plant production and vigor.
The three areas of concern include vegetative composition, woody species
regeneration, and vegetative utilization. Vegetative composition is evaluated by
sampling community type composition along the "green line." The green line is the
area adjacent to the stream where more or less continuous cover of perennial
vegetation is encountered (USFS, 1992). The length of each vegetation community
type encountered along the green line is tallied and the community composition is
compared to the potential natural community composition.
Woody species regeneration is evaluated on those riparian sites that are
suited to growth of woody species. Overgrazing reduces regeneration by cropping
sprouts and young plants and results in a plant community dominated by a few
older or dying plants. Woody species regeneration is evaluated along the green line
transect by tallying the number of plants that occur in age classes: sprout, young,
early mature, late mature. Age class is determined by counting the number of
stems. The method of counting stems is modified depending on the species of
woody plant.
Measuring vegetation utilization along the stream bank provides
information on the linkage between grazing and protection of stream banks. A
residual amount of vegetation is needed at the end of the growing season to protect
streambanks during high flows in the spring. Herbage utilization can be measured
26 MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
using a number of methods familiar to the range specialist such as measured or
estimated stubble height along a transect or biomass, as determined from a grazed
and ungrazed area.
Biological assessment
A biological evaluation is a direct measure of macroinvertebrate and fish
communities. These communities reflect the quality of the stream environment
over time by integrating the effects of the water quality and habitat factors.
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities are good indicators of localized conditions
and respond fairly rapidly to changes in the environment. Fish are indicators of
long-term effects and broad habitat conditions because they are long-lived and
mobile.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) can supplement the aquatic habitat
parameters by providing an estimate of the health of the aquatic community
(Plafkin et al., 1989). Protocol I is a screening assessment which uses field
identification of benthic macroinvertebrates to the order/family level. Impairment
is indicated by the absence of pollution sensitive taxa such as stoneflies, mayflies,
and caddisflies; the dominance of pollution-tolerant groups; or overall low
abundance and taxa richness. Protocol II is a more intensive assessment using
kick net samples. Subsamples are sorted and counted, allowing for the use of
additional metrics and the Index of Biotic Integrity.
A reconnaissance level survey of the fish community can be made using one-
pass snorkeling or electrofishing. Fish are identified to the species level; classified
as adult, juvenile, or young of the year; and counted. This level of effort provides
information on relative abundance of fish species and status of natural
reproduction. This data can be used to calculate the Index of Biotic Integrity
described in protocol V (Plafkin et al., 1989).
The field reconnaissance will provide some answers as well as raise
additional questions about the initial assumptions of the cause and effect of
pollution. Additional inventories or a pilot water quality study may be needed to
answer these questions before completing a study design. The first year of
monitoring can be considered a pilot study, with revision of the study design based
on the initial data set.
ESTABLISH SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The identification of potential water quality limiting factors provides the
basis for development of monitoring objectives. It is important to evaluate which of
these factors result primarily from grazing and will respond to project
implementation before developing project goals and objectives.
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 27
-------
Monitoring objectives are developed by:
1. Identifying the existing condition and potential limiting factors,
2. Determining if grazing is the causative agent and whether the proposed
project will reduce the limiting factor;
3. Determining survey limitations; and
4. Identifying the desired condition for key variables.
During the initial planning stage, the existing condition and potential
limiting factors are evaluated through review of existing data and field
reconnaissance. Limiting factors include both direct factors, such as temperature,
and indirect factors. Streamside vegetation has an indirect influence on
temperature through the reduction in stream shading. Most of these issues are
interrelated; streamside vegetation provides shade and cover, water filtering
effects for overland flow, and root strength to protect bank stability. In considering
monitoring objectives, it is important to consider the overlap among variables. The
scope of monitoring should be limited to a few key variables that will provide the
most information.
The impacts of other nonpoint source activities and natural conditions
should also be evaluated. Are other nonpoint source activities causing an observed
impact? Do upstream pollution sources influence water quality to the extent they
mask any improvement from the grazing project?
It may not be possible to account for the effects of upstream sources on water
column or stream channel parameters in the monitoring program. For example, an
upstream source of sediment may control substrate composition and pool depth in
the study reach. Instead of monitoring substrate sedimentation and pool filling,
more useful data might be obtained by monitoring a parameter which responds
directly to localized improvement, such as streambank characteristics. There is no
simple method to sort out impacts from different nonpoint sources, but awareness
of multiple sources can prevent collection of meaningless data.
Water quality projects depend primarily on changes in grazing management
to improve watershed condition and restore stream channel stability. Strategies
for protecting or restoring riparian areas may incorporate 1) utilization of riparian
pastures, 2) fencing or herding livestock out of riparian areas to allow streambanks
to recover, 3) controlling the timing of grazing to protect streambanks or coincide
with the physiological needs of the target plant species, 4) adding more rest to the
grazing cycle, 5) limiting grazing intensity to maintain riparian species
composition and vigor, 6) changing the kind of livestock from cattle to sheep, 7)
moving livestock from the allotment once target livestock utilization levels for
herbaceous and woody vegetation are reached, and 8) permanently excluding
livestock from riparian areas at risk while grazing adjacent uplands, when there is
no other practical way to protect these areas (Chancy et al., 1991).
28 MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
Project strategies should be considered when selecting monitoring sites,
establishing duration of monitoring to correspond to the expected recovery period,
and selecting monitoring variables that will be responsive to the project. The
ability to detect change in the stream/riparian attributes will influence project
objectives.
Practical problems may exclude certain monitoring objectives. For instance,
road conditions can prevent access during high flows. In this case, flow dependent
parameters, such as suspended sediment, turbidity, and nutrients, will not be
useful unless automatic samplers are used. Field evaluations may require
expertise that is not available. An individual with biological experience is needed
to use Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for macroinvertebrates because this method
includes field identification to family or generic levels. An adequate budget is
needed to cover laboratory costs, equipment purchase, and personnel time. These
practical considerations may eliminate inclusion of certain water quality objectives
because they can not be effectively evaluated.
Establishing monitoring objectives also requires an identification of the
desired condition. The desired condition may be defined in terms of established
water quality criteria, site-specific reference areas, regional reference conditions,
or a combination of these methods.
Recommended water quality criteria have been identified for some of the
limiting factors Listed in Table 3.4.: temperature thresholds for warm water and
cold water fish, fecal coliform bacteria limits for recreational use of water, and
advisory limits for nutrients in streams based on eutrophication (EPA, 1986).
Criteria for temperature and fecal bacteria have been adopted in state water
quality standards and are useful in establishing project objectives. Numerical
standards for nutrients in streams have generally not been adopted.
For the majority of stream bank and channel factors listed in Table 3.4,
state numerical water quality standards have not been adopted. Narrative
standards which address limiting factors qualitatively may apply. Setting
objectives for these factors can be based on a comparison of parameters in the
project area to site-specific or regional reference sites. When site-specific reference
areas are used, the measurable objectives are based on similarity indices.
When site-specific reference sites can not be located for the project, the
objectives may be based on a range of desired conditions determined from a
number of reference sites. This process is one method used in USDA Forest
Service planning to establish the Desired Future Condition (DFC) of aquatic
habitat. Potential stream conditions are determined by completing inventories of
streams that are considered unimpacted by human activity. The mean and
numeric range of conditions from these areas are used as the benchmark in
developing objectives for the project area.
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 29
-------
AND MONITORING DESIGN
Grazing, other nonpoint source activities and natural processes affect the
riparian ecosystem in a complex manner. Different procedures to measure these
effects have been developed and continue to evolve as professionals apply the
methods under various field conditions.
A number of factors must be considered when choosing monitoring
parameters. These are discussed below. An overall monitoring design must also be
specified. The alternative designs are presented later in this section.
Considerations when selecting parameters
Many traditional water column parameters may be influenced by grazing,
but these parameters are flow dependent, and hence difficult to sample under
conditions typically encountered in range lands. Automatic samplers are an
alternative, but are rarely used by management agencies due to cost, vandalism,
and maintenance requirements.
The preferred parameters are those that are measured at low frequency
during the summer base flow period. These parameters reflect the condition of the
stream and riparian area as a result of the yearly cycle of runoff, stream channel
response, vegetative growth, and nonpoint source impacts. Because of low flows
and high temperatures, summer is considered a critical period for cold water biota.
Many agencies either have in-house methods or are in the process of
developing methods. This document is not intended to take the place of other
agency protocols, but to describe a set of tools that may be useful in documenting
water quality impacts and improvements.
During planning, the recommended sample frequency, estimated collection
time, laboratory process cost, specialized equipment needs, and expertise needed
for each parameter is evaluated. Generally, methods which depend on observed
ratings require experienced professionals to make the necessary judgement calls.
When considering a method, the ease of data collection should be balanced against
the ability to detect change, given the method's precision and accuracy. Riparian
systems exhibit high natural variability, which affects an ability to detect
treatment differences. The example in Table 3.5 will clarify necessary planning
considerations.
30 MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
Table 3.5. Bear Valley Creek; An example in monitoring design
Background: Bear Valley Creek is located in the headwaters of the Middle Fork
Salmon River on the Boise National Forest in Idaho. A portion of the creek is located in a
wilderness area. This high elevation valley is mostly forested with meadows along the
streams. These meadows provide summer forage for cattle.
The low gradient streams in Bear Valley have the potential to provide ideal spawning
and rearing conditions for spring chinook salmon. The decline of salmon in the drainage has
been attributed to downstream impacts on migration and to poor habitat conditions related to
grazing, mining, and logging impacts. A dredge mining operation historically contributed
massive sediment loads to the stream, but this area has been stabilized to reduce sediment
inputs. Logging road networks are minimal and future timber harvests has been designed to
result in a net decrease in sediment through road stabilization and road closures. Grazing in
the meadows adjacent to the stream channels is thought to be the current major impact.
Existing condition/ limiting factor analysis: To determine habitat factors
contributing to the decline of salmon, fish densities and habitat conditions were measured in
Bear Valley Creek and nearby unimpacted streams. It was determined that spawning and
rearing habitat quality had been significantly reduced by large amounts of fine sand. The
bedload sediment was filling pools and altering stream substrates. This impaired egg
incubation and rearing of fry and juveniles. Survival of young salmon in Bear Valley Creek
was only one tenth of survival in the reference areas and substrate percent fine sediment was
two to four times greater than in the reference streams.
Analysis of impacts: Habitat variables were measured at numerous impacted and
unimpacted stream reaches to evaluate cause and effect. Both within and outside the
wilderness area, stream reaches associated with cattle grazing were correlated to habitat
degradation. Habitat quality was reduced by bank destabilization from shearing and
sloughing and changes in riparian plant species composition; On the average, stable
streambanks were observed half as often as in unimpacted reference streams, and substrate
fine sediment was higher in unstable reaches. Unimpacted reference streambanks had
higher densities of hydric plant communities than impacted streambanks. Trailing and
trampling altered plant species composition and reduced the amount of deep-rooted hydric
vegetation. The plant species alteration likely weakened the streambanks leading to
eventual collapse and slumping into the stream. Such erosion increased fine sediments
instream.
Desired'Future Condition: Data from unimpacted reference streams provided
information to develop project goals and monitoring objectives. Desired future condition was
defined in terms of riparian vegetative composition, substrate fine sediment, and bank
stability and cover. Grazing management has been modified to include riparian pastures,
corridor fencing, herding to modify livestock distribution, and changes in season of use.
Parameter selection: Direct streambank modification was determined to be the
primary detrimental effect;of grazing. Bank stability and cover were selected as the key
parameters. Numerous stations were randomly established to monitor stream bank stability
and cover before, during, and after the grazing season. Prior to grazing, bank stability/cover
ratings are established for 50 meters on each streambank at each station. Ratings are made
in increments of 0.5 meters. Subsequent ratings, three per season, are made in direct
comparison to the initial rating. This is very sensitive measure of change due to grazing and
an effective management tool.
Other parameters measured at selected stations include forage utilization adjacent to
stream banks, Green Line vegetative composition, and woody species regeneration. Idaho
Fish and Game monitors redd numbers, juvenile survival, and surface fine sediment. These
additional parameters provide information for ongoing evaluation of cause, effect and
improvement in the beneficial uses.
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 31
-------
Monitoring design
Monitoring design is discussed briefly below. See McDonald et al. (1991) for
a brief review of statistical considerations in nonpoint source water quality
monitoring. More extensive review of experimental design and data analysis is
provided in texts on statistics (Conover, 1980; Gilbert, 1987; Green, 1979; Stednick
1991, Ward et al. 1990, Zar, 1984).
Monitoring design refers to the overall strategy for locating stations and
developing the approach to data analysis and interpretation. Common water
quality monitoring designs include Reference Area, Paired Watershed, Above and
Below, and Before and After.
The following discussion of each type of monitoring design describes factors
to be considered in the selection process. A monitoring design may depend on a
particular design or may incorporate a combination of these approaches.
For the evaluation of grazing impacts, the Reference Area Design is the
preferred approach. The EPA Nonpoint Source Manager's Guide recommends
comparative monitoring of project stations to reference sites as the most effective
design for detecting treatment effects (Coffey and Smolen, 1991).
Reference areas are stream reaches that contain habitat of sufficient quality
to maintain biological integrity. Biological integrity has been defined as:
The condition of the aquatic community inhabiting the unimpaired
waterbodies of a specified habitat as measured by community structure and
function (EPA, 1990).
The reference area design can be used when suitable reference sites for the
project area can be located. Reference areas provide a control for determining
background effects related to weather and hydrologic events. The reference area
can also be used to develop objectives for the project watershed by providing data
to describe the potential desired condition.
Identifying reference sites is not a simple task on rangelands that have been
historically used for grazing. The reference site may have experienced some level
of impact, but still represents a habitat that supports an aquatic community in
good to excellent condition. In practice, reference sites are chosen that reflect the
least impacted conditions possible.
Reference areas may be incorporated into the study as site-specific reference
sites or as reference sites that describe the regional reference condition. Site-
specific reference sites are identified within the same drainage or nearby
drainage and will be sampled at the same time as the study site. This accounts for
variability due to factors other than grazing. Storms, drought, temperature
32 MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
extremes, ice flows, and wildlife activity are examples of variables, in addition to
grazing, that can affect water quality. Although no perfect match exists, monitoring
reference sites will help distinguish the impacts of grazing from other impacts.
The second approach for identifying reference conditions utilizes regional
reference sites. A regional framework provides boundaries around areas where
environmental conditions are relatively homogenous as compared with other areas
(Gallant et al., 1989). A map for assessing surface waters using this approach,
Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States (Omernik, 1987) was based on land
surface form, potential natural vegetation, soils, land use, and other environmental
factors. Multi-state maps showing greater detail are available at a scale of
1:2,500,000 (Omernik and Gallant, 1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1987c, 1988). These
ecoregional frameworks have been used for regional biocriteria in Ohio's water
quality program and for regional lake management in Minnesota (Gallant et al.,
1989).
Western states are in the process of evaluating or developing ecoregional
reference sites as the basis for biological criteria (EPA, 1991a). The delineation of
ecoregions and subregions, identification of reference sites, and collection of
associated physical and chemical data provide a data base for defining local
reference conditions. In some ecoregions, the area may be so impacted that no or
few suitable reference sites exist (Hughes et al., 1990). In these cases, reference
areas from similar sites in other regions may need to be considered.
Desired Future Condition (DFC) is a procedure similar to ecoregional
references. This approach is being used by the USDA Forest Service in land
management planning. The DFC for a habitat parameter is based on measured
data from reference sites in unimpacted areas or from research which defines
habitat quality requirements. The DFC is similar to Potential Natural Community
of Climax Community used in most ecological classification systems. These terms
all refer to what is an successionally advanced or reachable condition.
Typically many reference areas are used to describe the range of conditions.
The desired future condition identified for management purposes is not equivalent
to a reference site. The reference sites are used as benchmarks to identify the
natural potential on which the DFC is based. As an objective, the DFC may be
identified as some percentage of the reference site that meets the biological
requirements and objectives. Since there have been extensive efforts to define
DFC in western national forests, this information may be a valuable reference for
defining objectives for selected parameters in a project area.
An advantage of the reference area design is that it provides information for
establishing measurable project objectives on a site-specific or regional basis.
Management goals and objectives are based on achieving conditions similar to the
reference area or some percentage of the reference area. The data may be analyzed
using a similarity index or the percent of the project parameter that is similar to
the reference site.
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 3 3
-------
The Paired Watershed Design involves monitoring two comparable
watersheds over time; one watershed receives treatment and the other does not. In
evaluating agricultural watershed projects, Spooner et al. (1985) suggested that
paired watershed designs have the greatest potential for documenting
improvements from Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation because you
can account for meteorologic and hydrologic variability.
EPA recommended the paired watershed strategy for projects participating
in the National NPS Monitoring Program (EPA, 1991b). These studies measured
primarily water column parameters, such as nutrients and suspended sediment,
which are flow dependent and require frequent samples to account for the high
variability. The paired watershed design may be appropriate where the primary
objectives focus on water column parameters. However, monitoring high flows is
usually infeasible unless automatic samplers are used.
Above and Below design involves sampling a stream upstream and
downstream from a nonpoint source activity. This design is useful where there is a
distinct boundary between the upstream and downstream segment or above and
below the entry of a tributary. This design works better with water column
parameters rather than habitat parameters. Sampling should encompass the
runoff period when pollutants enter the stream. This design is usually not
effective for rangeland watersheds since land use activity is rarely defined by
distinct segment boundaries, pollutant entry during runoff tends to mask any
upstream - downstream differences, and access is often difficult during high flow
periods.
Before and After Design is characterized by monitoring of sites prior to
project implementation and for some period of time after implementation. The
design can be applied to both water column and habitat parameters. Climatic and
hydrologic variables are not accounted for by this approach, so long periods of
monitoring before and after project implementation are needed to detect changes
(Spooner et al., 1985).
SELECT MONITORING SITES
Stream reaches are identified on the basis of stream type and riparian
community type. The number of unique stream reaches that will be monitored is
determined and representative monitoring sites are established within those
reaches. Monitoring sites selected should be representative of the composition of
macro-habitats (riffle/run/pool) that occur within the stream reach. The stream
reach classification provides a basis for identifying comparable reference reaches or
regional reference conditions.
Monitoring sites are designated differently for water column and stream
channel parameters. The monitoring site is a single point where a grab sample is
collected or a cross section from which depth-integrated samples are collected for
water column parameters. For stream channel and streambank parameters, a
34 MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
monitoring site consists of a representative stream reach divided into multiple
transects. The transects provide a means of collecting replicates for stream
channel and stream bank parameters.
Selection of monitoring sites is a function of objectives, monitoring design,
access, and budgets. Stream classification provides a systematic way to identify
stream reaches which are expected to respond to management in a similar manner.
The recommended sampling strategy uses a modification of the stratified-
systematic approach to divide the stream into non-overlapping strata, each strata
being the stream reach or subreach (Gilbert, 1987). Systematic sampling results in
measurements according to a spatial pattern of equidistant intervals along the
stream channel. Since individual strata, the stream reaches, are often too large in
practice, the suggested approach is to select a representative monitoring site
within the reach based on hydraulic characteristics.
The stream is divided into designated stream reaches on the basis of natural
features (morphology, soils, community type) and into sub-reaches on the basis of
land use. Within a designated reach, there is a characteristic pattern of hydraulic
units: fast water (riffles and runs) and slow water (pools and glides). Sampling
within the reach occurs in proportion to these units since changing velocity and
depth affects many stream channel parameters. To select a representative reach,
the occurrence of fast and slow waters in the stream reach is mapped and the
proportion of fast and slow waters is calculated. A representative reach is selected
that has a similar riffle to pool pattern as that calculated for the stream reach.
The length of stream reach and the number of transects recommended for
sampling depends on site variability and desired precision. The recommended
reach length is in multiples of the bankfull width, from 20 to 40 times the bankfull
width. Idaho protocols for monitoring riparian vegetation (Cowley, 1992)
recommend a mim-mirm of 20 times the bankfull width or a minimum of 360 feet,
using ten channel cross sections. Ten cross sections may be adequate to detect
change in channel parameters.
Once sampling is initiated, the investigator may need to evaluate whether
the data are sufficient to determine statistical significance. The five interacting
factors assessed are sample size, variability, level of significance, power, and
minimum detectable effect (MacDonald et al., 1991).
If more data are needed to detect change, additional transects may be added
upstream at the same spacing or at intervals between transects. For some
parameters, the number of samples for statistical tests may be increased by
increasing the intensity of sampling on existing transects.
IDENTIFY REFERENCE AREAS
Site-specific reference areas are selected to be comparable to the project
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 35
-------
monitoring sites and to represent minimally disturbed conditions. Regional
reference sites are selected using two primary criteria. These criteria are also
useful in considering site-specific reference areas (Hayslip, ed. 1992).
Least or minimal impact: Sites that are not disturbed by human activities
are ideal as reference sites. Human activity has altered much of the
landscape, so truly undisturbed sites are available only rarely. Therefore, a
criteria of least or minimal impact should guide selections from a suite of
candidate reference sites.
Representativeness: Reference sites must be representative of the
waterbodies under consideration.
Variables used to classify the monitoring site can be used to measure the
representativeness of the reference site. Reference sites should be comparable by
general classification criteria, including soils/geology, stream morphology, and
riparian vegetation. Specific criteria include:
Valley bottom type
Stream size class
Gradient
Sinuosity
Channel width/depth ratio
Channel particle size class
Channel entrenchment
Riparian community type
Dominant soil family
Reference sites should represent minimally disturbed conditions for the
parameters that will be evaluated for grazing impacts. Candidates for reference
sites are selected by consulting land ownership records, land use maps, and local
experts about the degree of disturbance in the watershed. Riparian areas where
livestock have been excluded to allow recovery should be sought. Candidate sites
are examined through field reconnaissance to determine their value as reference
sites. Assumptions regarding minimal disturbance and physical and biological
integrity of the riparian area are evaluated. Some guidance criteria for selection of
reference areas are listed in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6. Considerations for selection of reference sites (from Hayslip,
1992)
• Perennial flow.
• Similar stream size class as study site.
• Relatively unimpacted: minimal human disturbance to the watershed
and stream system.
• Substrate materials representative of undisturbed stream type.
36 MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
• Natural channel morphology: variety in channel width and depth,
presence of pools, riffles, and runs typical of streams in the area.
• Natural hydrograph: flow patterns typical of the region.
• Stable banks: banks covered with vegetation, little evidence of bank
erosion, and undercut banks stabilized by roots typical of the stream
type.
• Natural color and odor.
• Relatively abundant and diverse algae, benthic macroinvertebrates,
and fish assemblages.
• Land use stability: consistent land use management over tune.
• Interdisciplinary team selection of reference site.
STUDY PLAN
A detailed study plan is an excellent communication device because it
provides information to coworkers regarding their role in the overall project;
communicates to managers and interest groups how monitoring will measure the
desired outcomes; and displays the resource needs and commitments of the project
(Table 3.7). The study plan can also illustrate tradeoffs between costs and
information gained.
The introduction should clearly describe the project, monitoring start-up and
ending dates, monitoring approach, and methods to provide feedback for mid-
course corrections when needed. Background information on natural resources in
the watershed and an evaluation of previous studies and preliminary
investigations are described. The roles of participating agencies, project
participants, and interest groups are discussed.
Goals and objectives based on the limiting factors for beneficial uses are
listed. The reason for suspecting these limiting factors and the rationale of the
monitoring design are discussed. Sampling design details include monitoring
parameters, monitoring periods, monitoring sites, and the rationale for these
decisions. Data collection methods are described in detail, including the
assumptions and limitations of the methods. Resources needed to carry out the
program are listed by personnel, equipment, laboratory support, and estimated
budget.
Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures should be
incorporated into each step of the monitoring program. Quality assurance
objectives are described by five attributes - precision, accuracy, data completeness,
data representativeness, and data comparability (EPA, 1992). Precision and
accuracy are commonly understood measurement attributes. Precision can be
estimated by examination of variability between replicate samples. Estimates of
accuracy for field measurements are more difficult to make since the population
true value is rarely known. The other three descriptors are more subjective
evaluations of data quality. Completeness is defined as the percentage of
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 37
-------
measurements made that are judged to be valid. Representativeness is the degree
to which data accurately represents a characteristic of a population or
environmental condition. Comparability is a measure of the confidence with which
one data set can be compared to another. Requirements for quality assurance
project plans should be obtained from the local EPA regional office.
For each parameter category, the methods for data reduction, analysis, and
interpretation are described. Data reduction refers to the office procedures needed
to transcribe data from field sheets to computer or paper files. Analysis and
interpretation may refer to water quality criteria, desired future condition
analysis, or use of similarity indices. The report format, expected delivery dates,
reviewers, and audience for the report are described. Preparing a monitoring
study plan assures the investigator will do a thorough job and anticipate problems
and scheduling conflicts.
Table 3.7. Study plan outline
I. Introduction and Background
A. Project overview and purpose
B. Review existing information
C. Project organization, responsibility, and participating agencies
II. Goals and Objectives
A. Issue identification; identify limiting factors
B. Project goals (repeat for each goal)
1, Monitoring objective
2. Summary of monitoring technique
III. Study Approach
A. Overall monitoring strategy; identify design and type of
monitoring
B. Sampling design
1. Design rationale
2. Station location description
3. Station location maps
4. Parameters, frequency, duration
5. Monitoring schedule
IV. Data Collection Methods
A. Monitoring procedures
1. Sampling procedures (including QC checks)
2. Calibration procedures and preventative maintenance
3. Analytical methods (including QC checks)
4. Provide reference to methods manuals or fully describe any
modifications
38 MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
B. Discuss assumptions and limitations
C. Describe quality assurance objectives
L. Precision and accuracy
2. Data representativeness
3. Data comparability
4. Data completeness
D. Data forms
E. Resource needs - personnel time, laboratory costs, equipment, etc.
V, Data Reduction and Analysis
A. Describe data documentation and reduction
B. Data analysis and basis of interpretation, e.g. use of water quality,
criteria, desired condition, analysis, or similarity indices
C. Report format and schedule
CONDUCT FIRST YEAR OF MONITORING
The first year of monitoring is used to test the monitoring design and
establish baseline conditions. Practical considerations, such as sample frequency,
access to monitoring sites, and application of protocols, are evaluated. Sample size
is evaluated to determine if differences can be detected. Data can also be used to
better define project objectives, in terms of baseline condition or in comparison to
reference areas. First year monitoring can be used to describe objectives
quantitatively.
PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION
The study plan should be reevaluated periodically. Data should be reviewed
at the end of each sampling season to evaluate the adequacy of the study plan.
This evaluation provides an opportunity to determine which parameters are
effective and sensitive to detecting change. Parameters that exhibit high
variability may need to be deleted since their ability to detect change is limited.
The study plan should specify plan review and revision to assure that this vital
step is accomplished.
REASSESS ASSUMPTIONS AND OBJECTIVES AND MODIFY PLAN
Assumptions made during planning about monitoring sites, parameter
utility, natural variability, grazing impacts, or other factors are evaluated using the
first season of monitoring data. Precision can be evaluated and replication
increased where needed or other methods adopted. Adjustments are made in the
monitoring program to assure that it stays on target; parameters that have proven
effective are retained and parameters that are ineffective are dropped or modified
to increase their utility.
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 39
-------
REFERENCES
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian
areas. EPA, Denver, CO.
Coffey, S.W. and Smolen, M.D. 1991. The nonpoint source manager's guide to water
quality monitoring. NCSU Water Quality Group, North Carolina State Univ.,
Raleigh, NC. EPA Grant No.T-9010662-03.
Cowley, E.R. 1992. Protocols for classifying, monitoring, and evaluating stream/riparian
vegetation on Idaho rangeland streams. Id. Dept. Health Welfare, Div. Environ.
Qual., Boise, ID.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality criteria for water. Office of Water,
Regulations, and Standards, EPA 440/5-86-001, Wa., DC.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Biological criteria: National program guidance
for surface waters. Office of Water, Regulations, and Standards, EPA-440/5-90-
004, Wa., D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a. Watershed monitoring and reporting for section
319 national monitoring program projects. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds. Wa., D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. Biological criteria: State development and
implementation efforts. Office of Water, Wa., D.C. EPA-440/5-91-003.
Environmentl Protection Agency. 1992. Generic quality assurance pilot project plan
guidance for bioassessment/biomonitoring programs. Office of Research and
Development. U.S. EPA, Wa. DC. in press.
Gallant, A.L., T.R. Whittier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omernik, and R. Hughes. 1989.
Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources. Environmental
Research Laboratory, EPA/600/3-89/060, EPA, Corvallis, OR.
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van
Norstrand Reinhold Company, New York City, NY.
Hayslip, GA., editor. 1992. EPA Region 10 in-stream biological monitoring handbook for
wadable streams in the Pacific Northwest - Draft. EPA Reg. 10, Seattle, WA, 56 p.
Hughes, R.M. et al. 1990. A regional framework for establishing recovery criteria.
Environ. Management, 14:673-683.
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate
effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Region
10, EPA, EPA 910/9-91-001, Seattle, WA. 166 p.
40 MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE
-------
Montgomery, D.R., J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, a prediction of channel
response and assment of channel condition. Report TFW-SH10-93-002.
Washington State, timber, fish and wildlife Dept. Natural Resources, Olympia, Wa.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of American
Geographers 77:118-125.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1986. Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest. Map (scale
1:2,500,00). EPA/600/3-86/033. EPA, Environ. Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1987a. Ecoregions of the South Central States. Map
(scale 1:2,500,00). EPA/600/D-87/315. EPA, Environ. Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1987b. Ecoregions of the Southwest States. Map (scale
1:2,500,00). EPA/600/D-87/316. U.S. EPA, Environ. Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1987c. Ecoregions of the West Central States. Map
(scale 1:2,500,00). EPA/600/D-87/317. EPA, Environ. Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1988. Ecoregions of the Upper Midwest States. Map
(scale 1:2,500,00). EPA/600/3-88/037. EPA, Environ. Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
56 p.
Padgett, W.G., A.P. Youngblood, and A.H. Winward. 1989. Riparian community type
classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. Intermountain Region, R4-Ecol-89-
01, USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT. 191 p.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, KD. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers; benthic macroinvertebrates
and fish. EPA-444/4-89-001. EPA, Wa., B.C.
Rosgen, D.L. 1993 (Draft) A classification of natural rivers. Submitted to Catena,
Germany.
Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, S.A. Dressing, M.D. Smolen, F.J. Humenik. 1985. Appropriate
designs for documenting water quality improvements from agricultural NPS control
programs. In: Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA 440/5-85-001. p. 30-
34.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Integrated riparian evaluation guide. USDA Forest Service,
Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT.
MONITORING PLAN PROCEDURE 41
-------
IV. STREAM STRATIFICATION, RECONNAISSANCE,
AND CLASSIFICATION
The planning procedures for developing a monitoring program were outlined
in the previous chapter. Step II of the planning process - stratification and
classification of stream reaches - and step III - the field reconnaissance - are
necessary preliminary steps to monitoring site selection. These activities are
essential for developing an understanding of the conditions, both natural and man-
made, that occur in the area of concern. Subsequent planning and monitoring are
based on information collected during these steps.
This chapter describes the process of stratification, reconnaissance, and
classification of riparian areas. It involves three steps: initial evaluation, field
reconnaissance, and monitoring site selection.
The initial evaluation is a compilation of existing information and
stratification of the stream and its associated riparian area. The reconnaissance
is a field inventory used to refine the basic data and gather additional data needed
to classify a stream and its riparian area. It is also used to identify potential
locations for the final monitoring sites. The monitoring sites which are eventually
selected will provide site-specific data for evaluating the effectiveness of best
management practices, trend of habitat factors, and status of beneficial uses.
All streams are not equal. Streams vary in size, velocity, geomorphology,
erosion/deposition, vegetation, and other factors according to position in the
landscape. A monitoring strategy requires stratifying or dividing the stream into
reaches based on natural features, land use, and sampling requirements. The final
monitoring site is selected within a reach that represents and reflects conditions
and changes along a segment of a stream.
Factors such as geology, landfonn, soils, stream gradient, stream order,
stream flow, land use, land ownership, and elevation are used to define the location
of monitoring sites. Sites are also chosen as reference or control sites and may be
used to establish objectives and evaluate results of management.
BASIC EVALUATION AND STREAM STRATIFICATION
The first data collection effort involves a compilation of existing information
and stratification of the stream. It is usually done in the office using maps, aerial
photos, existing data, and information from other agencies (e.g., state fish and
wildlife management agencies, USDI Geological Survey, state water quality
management agencies, universities, USDA Soil Conservation Service). This
information provides the basis for the initial delineation of streams into reaches
having similar characteristics, allowing streams and riparian areas to be classified.
42 STRATIFICATION. RECONNAISSANCE, AND CLASSIFICATION
-------
Factors to be considered:
1. Stream gradient is determined from topographic maps.by plotting
elevations in relation to distance and is expressed as a percentage. Breaks
along the stream are usually made at all distinct changes in gradient.
Minimum gradient breaks are less than 2%, 2 to 3.9%, and 4% or more.
Appendix B contains critical gradient breaks for stream typing.
2; Stream order changes usually provide breaks along a stream. Order
change usually represents a change in the hydrologic characteristics of the
stream.
3 ;i Sinuosity is the ratio of the length of the /streamdivided by the length of
the valley bottom. It is usually obtained by carefully measuring the length of
the stream and the valley bottom on topographic maps. Sinuosity breaks are <
1:2,1:2 to 1:4, arid > 1,4:
4. Soil family and geology are usually closely related and may be used to
further subdivide streams; Soil surveys and/or geologic maps provide this
information.
5. Valley bottom^ f^rpestarei defined from topographic map^ described in
Appendix B, and are logical breaking points along a stream.
6. Other: featiires^ such as vegetation; land useVland b^^ diversions,
culverts; and i^ dtherjpbserva-ble features, may be
used to define reaches. Key information on topographic maps and the forms is
shown in Appendix -A£
7, Information sources should be listed on the form shown in Appendix A.
STREAM RECONNAISSANCE AND CLASSIFICATION
The next step involves the reconnaissance, a field inventory of existing
conditions. It provides information needed to delineate stream reach breaks,
classify stream segments, locate final monitoring sites, and provide information to
determine the present condition of the stream and riparian area. Other factors
affecting water quality are also recorded.
It is critical that an interdisciplinary team, which usually includes a plant
specialist, fishery biologist, hydrologist, soil scientist, and other specialists as
appropriate, conducts the reconnaissance level inventory. Few individuals are
expert in evaluating all components of the reconnaissance inventory and the
classification.
Classification is the interpretation of data collected and includes information
STRATIFICATION, RECONNAISSANCE, AND CLASSIFICATION 43
-------
about the dominant soil family, stream type (Rosgen, 1993), and the existing
dominant riparian community. Classification systems used by the USDA Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and USDA Soil Conservation Service are
available. This classification procedure is based on the Integrated Riparian
Evaluation Guide (USFS, 1992). The document Procedures for Ecological Site
Inventory - with Special Reference to Riparian - wetland sites, prepared for the
USDA Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Soil Conservation Service, is
also available (BLM, 1992).
L Review in detail the information obtained during the basic evaluation for
each reach. Provide each team member a map containing the reach
boundaries, important features, and other information (soil survey data, water
quality data, vegetation information, stream features, diversions) that will
assist with the reconnaissance inventory. Team members should have
adequate copies of maps and aerial photos.
2. Determine the intensity of data collection for the stream appropriate to
the resource values, public interest, and anticipated intensive monitoring
sites. Three levels of effort suggested in the Integrated Riparian Evaluation
Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992) are a single ocular estimate, an estimate
from a single representative segment, or an estimate from multiple segments.
Single Ocular Estimate: A single estimate is recorded for each
element on the Stream .Habitat data sheet for each reach. This is
done by the appropriate team members walking the entire stream,
keeping mental or written notes, and making average estimate for
each element the end of the reach (see Appendix C. Instructions for
evaluating each element are included with the sample data sheet.)
(USFS, 1992).
Make notes of problems and issues of concern (i.e. severe streambank
erosion, tributaries, irrigation return flows, good habitat conditions).
Note the location on a map.
The single ocular estimate is the least intensive and least-costly
alternative for data collection. It has the lowest replicability between
observers and does not provide adequate information to understand
the spatial variability of the various habitat attributes within the
reach. It provides information on conditions of one reach compared to
other reaches (USFS, 1992).
Representative Segment Estimate: The team walks the entire
length of the reach and selects a segment that best represents the
reach. Select a starting point at random and estimate stream
attributes for five contiguous habitat units or one meander cycle (a
meander cycle is usually 5 to 7 times the bankfull width), whichever is
greater.
44 STRATIFICATION. RECONNAISSANCE, AND CLASSIFICATION
-------
Data for each habitat unit are entered on to the Stream Habitat Data
Sheet (Appendix C). The final monitoring site may be selected and
used to describe the riparian vegetation, soil family, and stream
channel type. Note the location of the final monitoring site on the
map (USFS, 1992).
Note on the Field Data Sheets any problems and issues of concern
(i.e., severe streambank erosion, tributaries, irrigation return flows,
good habitat conditions! Note the location on a map.
This method provides limited information concerning the spacial
variability of the various habitat attributes. It is assumed that the
final monitoring site selected provides a good representation of the
stream reach.
Multiple Segment Estimate: Five noncontiguous stream segments
are sampled within a reach. Fewer stream segments may be used for
short (less than 3,000 feet) stream reaches. The starting point for
each sample segment is predetermined on a map or aerial photo prior
to walking the length of the reach. Each sampled segment will be at
least one meander cycle long or five contiguous habitat units. Habitat
attributes are recorded for each habitat unit within the segment
(USFS, 1992).
Note on the Field Data Sheets any problems and issues of concern
(i.e., severe streambank erosion, tributaries, irrigation return flows,
good habitat conditions). Note the location on a map.
3. Walk the entire length of each reach, with each team member providing
the information for which they are responsible. If a reach needs to be divided
as a result of information obtained on the ground, each team member must be
given the information and a new reach designated. A Riparian Classification
and Stream Habitat Data Sheet will be completed for each reach (see
Appendix C).
4. Identify and record dominant riparian community types. Determine the
appropriate riparian community using an accepted classification system (see
Appendix D).
5. Use accepted soil survey procedures to determine dominant soil families
along the stream. Order 2 soil surveys, which classify soils to the levels of
association, usually provide sufficient detail for classification. This
information is often available from the land management agency.
STRATIFICATION, RECONNAISSANCE, AND CLASSIFICATION 45
-------
6. Record required information on both the Riparian Classification and
Stream Habitat Field Data Sheet. Record the reach classification: reach
number, dominant soil family, stream type, and dominant vegetation
community.
7. Photograph stream channel, green line vegetation, channel alterations,
erosion problems, or other factors contributing to the condition of the stream.
Care must be taken to note the photograph location, direction, date, and other
important information. The location should be plotted on the map.
8. Evaluate all of the information collected for the stream, and determine the
factors .limiting water quality (pollution), the sources of the pollution
(streambanks, irrigation return flows, roads, mining), and the apparent cause
of the pollution (livestock grazing, irrigation, road maintenance, road
construction, urban runoff).
LOCATING MONITORING SITES
1. The initial evaluation and reconnaissance should provide sufficient
information on which to base monitoring site selection. When selecting
monitoring reaches, consider the pollutants impacting the stream, Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented, potential reaction to
management, major pollution sources, stream hydrologic functions, and
resource values. . .
2. Walk the entire length of the selected reach, recording the location and
length of all slow water (pools and glides) and fast water (riffles and runs).
Record only pools whose width equals or exceeds about half the average
streambankfull width, - - .. . . ,.: ' .
3. Determine average density of fast water and slow water habitat types by
adding the total length of each habitat, and dividing each by the total stream
reach length. If, for example, 200 feet of slow water are measured in a total
stream distance of 1,000 feet, the density equals 200/1000, or 0.2 per foot.
4. Select a monitoring site that has a similar slow water and fast water
density as the overall reach sample. The reach length should either be equal
to or greater than 20 times the bankfull width of the stream or 360 feet,
whichever is greater. Thus, a stream 25 feet wide would have a reach of at
least 25 X 20, or 500 feet If the bankroll width is 15 feet, 15 X 20 is 300 feet,
360 feet will be used.
46 STRATIFICATION. RECONNAISSANCE, AND CLASSIFICATION
-------
s&\ WI '*» o V*
dkiTLp^t
^^^,5
^»rt»
"va
1
Figure 4.1 Detailed monitoring site and cross-channel transect map.
STRATIFICATION. RECONNAISSANCE, AND CLASSIFICATION
47
-------
5. Place a witness marker (e.g., a steel post, marked fence post, or
permanently marked tree) at the downstream starting point on the monitoring
site and at a point ten feet upstream from the monitoring site marker. Then
place a cross-channel transect marker stake for the study site on either side of
the stream and above the high water level,
6. Place 22 transect stakes (two for each cross-channel transect) on each side
of the stream equidistant from the marker to the upper end of the monitoring
site. The 11 pairs of stakes should be above the high water (bankroll) level of
the stream and oriented so the line connecting them is roughly perpendicular
to the stream thalweg at the high water level. If a monitoring site equals
1,000 feet, for example, the 11 cross-channel transects would be at 100 foot
intervals along the channel thalweg. Put a witness marker, similar to the site
marker, ten feet upstream from the eleventh cross-channel transect marker
and on the right side to help relocate the monitoring site should the
downstream marker be removed or destroyed.
7. Mark each cross-channel transect stake with fluorescent paint, bright
colored caps, and/or flagging to simplify relocation. It is also helpful to
identify each transect by attaching a numbered metal tag to each cross-
channel transect marker on the right side of the stream.
Record all numbered transects for future reference. If stakes are lost after
initial installation, relocate and replace them by using the previously
established (and recorded) spacing. Thus, it is important to record the location
of the monitoring site marker, transect locations, and spacing in the field
notes. Record the information on the Permanent Monitoring Site Location
Data form. Provide a location map with enough information so the monitoring
site may be relocated. Prepare a detailed map of the cross-channel transect
location (Figure 4.1). Secondary transect markers are suggested on streams
that are very unstable. Document any changes. (Note: Global Positioning
System technology is a useful way to precisely locate a monitoring site. With
many state and federal agencies now using this system, latitude/longitude
data are important considerations for monitoring site location.)
After establishing and describing the monitoring site, monitoring involves
collecting baseline and trend data over time. According to Coffey et al. (1991),
baseline monitoring before implementation of nonpoint source controls is usually
required to show causality. They suggest at least two years of pre-implementation
monitoring of parameters strongly tied to stream flow, such as chemical
constituents, to calibrate the site to the reference condition. Less time is needed
with parameters that integrate temporal variability, such as physical habitat,
rnacroinvertebrates, and fish.
48 STRATIFICATION. RECONNAISSANCE, AND CLASSIFICATION
-------
REFERENCES
Coffey, S.W. and M.D. Smolen, 1991. The nonpoint source manager's guide to
water quality monitoring. NCSU Water Quality Group, North Carolina
State Univ., Raleigh, NC. EPA Grant No. T-9010662-03.
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring.
Van Norstrand Reinhold Company, New York City, NY.
Rosgen, D.L. 1993. (Draft) A classification of natural rivers. Submitted to Catena,
Germany.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Integrated riparian evaluation guide. USDA Forest
Service, Intel-mountain Region, Ogden, UT.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Procedures for ecological site inventory
- with special reference to riparian - wetland sites. BLM Technical
Reference TR 1737-7.
STRATIFICATION. RECONNAISSANCE, AND CLASSIFICATION 49
-------
V. EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION OF
MONITORING METHODS
Methods for monitoring the effects of grazing come from many disciplines:
water quality, hydrology, botany, fisheries biology, range science, and others. Each
of these disciplines has a set of measurement tools which are used within that
specialty. In evaluating a grazing management project, the investigator may
choose to use the monitoring tools of any of these disciplines.
The monitoring methods included in this report are intended for use by
professionals involved in watershed restoration and evaluation projects. These
professionals include water quality specialists, soil conservationists, range
scientists, hydrologists, biologists, and other specialists with state and federal
agencies. Many agencies have their own procedure manuals and technical guides
for stream and riparian measurements which incorporate these methods or some
variation of these methods.
In determining which monitoring methods to include in this report, we
evaluated only those methods that are commonly used to assess the major impacts
of grazing on water quality and beneficial uses. Uplands are critical to the overall
health of the riparian corridor and water quality. Methods are available to measure
the impact of grazing in these areas and have not been included in this document.
(A companion document for monitoring uplands is being prepared under contract
to EPA.)
The different methods were evaluated on the basis of their practical
application to a monitoring program. The selection criteria included sampling
frequency, collection time, equipment, lab costs, and expertise. Each of the
selection criteria is discussed below. This discussion is followed by tables which
include ecosystem attributes, methods of measuring change in these attributes,
and an evaluation of each method against the stated criteria. The recommended
protocols are then described, along with their advantages and disadvantages. A
detailed discussion of each protocol follows this section.
EVALUATION OF METHODS
The most commonly used monitoring procedures are evaluated on the basis
of their practical application to a monitoring program. Monitoring methods
commonly used for evaluating the impacts of grazing on water quality are listed in
Tables 5.1 and 5.2, organized by stream/riparian attribute, parameter, and
protocol. An attribute is a general stream or upland characteristic that may be
measured in several ways. The parameter is the physical variable that is
measured and the protocol is the specific procedure for measuring the parameter.
For example, vegetative shade is a stream attribute and is evaluated by canopy
density and thermal input parameters. Canopy density is measured using a
protocol described in Platts et al., (1987).
50 EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION OF MONITORING METHODS
-------
Table 5.1 provides information for each protocol on sample frequency, time
needed for sample collection, equipment required, cost of laboratory analysis, and
expertise required. A discussion of each of these categories follows.
Sample frequency: Sample collection frequency depends on the expected
variation of the parameter over time. Parameters that fluctuate daily or
seasonally must be sampled frequently in order to determine the mean and range.
Temperature, for example, exhibits daily and seasonal cycles and can only be
measured accurately by installing a continuous recorder. Suspended and bedload
sediment are difficult to sample since they must be measured during high flow,
either from spring runoff or a storm event. These events cannot be incorporated
into a monitoring schedule. In addition, access to sites during these events is often
limited.
Most water column parameters, such as sediment and nutrients, are
measured as concentrations. These parameters are flow dependent since they
increase or decrease with changes in runoff. Sampling these water quality
parameters requires a large number of samples to define the mean and range.
Small flashy streams, typical of rangeland watersheds, are very difficult to sample
unless continuous samplers are used.
Stream channel and stream bank attributes are typically described by one
measurement during summer base flows. The stream channel has been shaped by
streamside and watershed management and the effects of high stream flows.
Biological evaluations are also typically carried out during the summer low flow
period. To fully describe fish and macroinvertebrate populations, seasonal
sampling is recommended.
Table 5.1 lists a typical minimum sample frequency to provide a general
comparison among parameters. Monitoring frequency is a major contributor to the
cost of a monitoring program. Water chemistry monitoring, which requires
frequent samples, increases personnel and laboratory costs. By contrast,
monitoring riparian attributes during the summer low flow period requires a
concentrated effort for a short duration and therefore is less expensive overall.
Collection time: Table 5.1 lists the estimated time for an experienced
sampler to collect samples. These estimates do not include travel time to the site.
When the method calls for a cross-section transect, the time estimate is based on
ten transects per site.
Equipment needed: Only the primary equipment needed to conduct the
procedure are listed in the table. Most riparian parameter measurements require
only a measuring tape, survey rod, and level. It is assumed that nutrient and
bacteria samples will be processed by an EPA certified laboratory, so laboratory
equipment is not included.
Laboratory costs: Estimated laboratory costs are shown on a per sample
EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION OF MONITORING METHODS 51
-------
basis. Most habitat parameter analysis is completed in the field so no laboratory
costs are incurred for these methods.
Expertises The expertise needed to perform a procedure is an important
consideration in planning a monitoring program. This is not a limiting factor since
most monitoring techniques can be readily learned. A riparian evaluation is best
carried out by an interdisciplinary team that includes several disciplines: fisheries
biology, hydrology, botany, geology, soils, and range management.
Expertise is listed for both field and data analysis. The primary disciplines
needed for data analysis and interpretation are listed in the tables. Not all listed
experts are needed, but an individual should acquire some background in the listed
discipline to perform the procedure. For example, water quality specialists often
learn the hydrologic techniques associated with channel classification and
sediment particle size analysis.
Precision and accuracy: Precision denotes the degree of agreement
between repeated measurements collected under the same conditions. For water
chemistry parameters, precision can be estimated by calculating the relative range
or standard deviation of replicate samples. A measurement with a small variance
has high precision. For field measurements, precision is a measure of the ability of
an observer to repeatedly produce the same answer. A method has high precision
and reproducibility when the potential for observer error is low. Methods which
include subjective ratings or observer decisions have the potential for low
precision.
Accuracy is the degree of agreement between the measured value and the
true value. For water quality samples, accuracy can be estimated by measuring
the recovery of spiked samples. Spiked samples are samples which contain a
known concentration. Accuracy is determined by comparing the results of the
laboratory analysis of this sample with the known concentration. For field
measurements, the true population value is not known; therefore it is not possible
to routinely estimate accuracy.
Precision and accuracy were rated for several riparian variables in Platts et
al. (1983). Precision was rated by evaluating the confidence intervals. A
confidence interval less than 5% rated excellent, 5 to 10% rated good, 11 to 20%
rated fair, and over 21% rated poor. Accuracy was subjectively evaluated from
excellent to poor by comparison to yearly time trends.
The ratings in the table are derived from Platts et al. (1983) or by
subjectively comparing the protocols to the methods described in that document.
Standard Methods provides precision and bias estimates for most water column
parameters (APHA, 1992). Bias is the reciprocal of accuracy; bias measures the
average departure of estimates from the true value.
Natural variability: Natural variability is another major component of
52 EVALUATION/REDCOMMENDATION OF MONITORING METHODS
-------
variance to consider when designing a monitoring program. If natural variability
exceeds the expected improvement in a stream attribute due to the project, then
the improvement will not be detected. Table 5.2 provides a rating of both spatial
and temporal variability. Variability over time refers both to seasonal and yearly
variation. Variability over space is evaluated by a stream reach scale.
Preferred flow/site condition: For most stream/riparian attributes the
target period for monitoring is the summer low flow period when access is not a
problem. However, water column parameters often need to be sampled at all
stages of the hydrograph. In the case of high flows, access to streams and
availability of stream crossings for sample collection is often limiting. Table 5.2
lists the usual field conditions or stream stage at which monitoring is conducted.
Complexity (Ease Rating): The complexity of the procedure influences
the likelihood of its use in monitoring programs. Procedures which are less
complex will be more broadly accepted by field staff. Results based on complex
procedures, which are difficult to explain and describe, may not be used by
managers and decision makers. The rating in the table incorporates these
considerations and the need for specialized expertise. For example, the Green Line
Procedure is rated a "3" since it requires a knowledge of community types and
plant identification.
The primary references which provide a description of the protocols
evaluated in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 are listed below. For more information about
protocols not recommended in this report, please refer to these documents.
APHA (American Public Health Association). 1992. Standard
methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18th ed., American
Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. A comprehensive reference
for physical, chemical, microbiological, and biological methods.
Bonham, C.D, 1989, Measurements for terrestrial vegetation, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, This book describes measurements of
vegetation, such as herbage and browse utilization, applicable to
streamside vegetation.
Cook, C.W. and J. Stubbendieck. 1986, Range Research; Basic
Principles and Techniques. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 317
p. A comprehensive reference for vegetative measurements.
Plafkin, J.L. et al. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in
streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, EPA/444/4-89-001, This document describes the rapid
bioassessment protocol (RPB) procedures used as a basic tool by
most states. Individual state water quality agencies should be
consulted regarding state or regional modifications to these
methods. Protocol I and II are qualitative macroinvertebrate
EVALUATION/REDCOMMENDATION OF MONITORING METHODS 53
-------
methods applicable to reconnaissance surveys. Protocol III, for
macroinverteforates, and Protocol V, for fish communities, are semi-
quantitative procedures appropriate for project assessment. Protocol
IV is a questionaire approach for obtaining information on the
fisheries community,
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for
evaluating stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-138.
USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT. 70 p. This methods manual was
revised and expanded by the 1987 document listed below, but also
contains some unique material.
Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P. Cuplin,
S. Jensen, G.W. Lienkaemper, G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monson, R.L. Nelson, J.R.
Sedell, J.S. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with
applications to management. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-221. USDA Forest Service,
Ogden, UT. 177 p. This is a primary reference document that contains
descriptions of several methods for vegetation, classification,
riparian soils classification, water column measurements,
streambanks, benthic invertebrates, and riparian planting guides.
Skille, J. and J. King. 1989. Proposed cobble embeddedness sampling
procedure. Unpublished paper available from the USDA Forest Service,
Intel-mount. Res. Sta. Boise, ID,, 11 p. There are many qualitative and
quantitative methods in use to estimate cobble embeddedness.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Integrated riparian evaluation guide.
USDA Forest Service, Intermount. Region, Ogden, UT, 6.1 p. This guide
describes three intensity levels of riparian evaluation and brief
description of several monitoring methods.
Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material.
Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 35(6): 951-956. This reference descibes a
commonly used procedure for measuring stream substrate material,
and is referred to as "Wolman pebble count".
54 EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION OF MONITORING METHODS
-------
Table 5.1. Riparian Monitoring: Minimum sample frequency, estimated collection time, equipment needed, lab costs, and expertise.
ATTRIBUTE
PARAMETER/
PROTOCOL
I. WATER COLUMN
a. Temperature
b. Shade
c. Nutrients
d. Fecal Bacteria
II. STREAM CHANNEL/
STREAMBANK
a. Channel Morphology
b. Streambank Stability
Min/Max Thermometers
Recording Thermograph
Canopy Density/
Densiometer
Platts et al. (1987)
Solar Heat Input/
Solar Pathfinder
Platts et al. (1987)
T. Phosphorus, T Nitrates
Standard Methods
APHA (1990)
Fecal Coliform, Fecal Strep.
Standard Methods
APHA (1990)
Channel Cross Section
Rod and Level or
Sag Tape Methods
Platts et al. (1987)
Width/Depth ratio
Platts (1983) - 3 point method
Streambank Soil Alteration
and Stability Rating (at
transect)
Platts etal. (1987)
FREQUENCY
(times/year)
6- 10 during
summer
Continous
during
summer
1
1
(Twice/mo, or
stream flow
dependent)
(Twice/mo, or
more depends
on objective)
1
1
1
COLLECTION
: TIME ,
(hours/site)
<1
1-2
2-4
4-8
<1
<1
4-8
2-4
1-2
EQUIPMENT
Min/Max
Thermometers
Recording
Thermograph
Densiometer
Solar
Pathfinder
Grab samples
or automatic
samplers
Grab
samples
Rod and
level
Tape and
rod
Tape
LAB COSTS
(Vsample)
None
None
None
None
$30 - $50
per sample
$10 -$20
per sample
None
None
None
EXPERTISE
Field/
Data Analysis
F: Technician
A: Fisheries/
Hydrology
F: Technician
A: Fisheries/
Hydrology
F: Technician
A: Fisheries/
Hydrology
F: Technician
A: Fisheries/
Hydrology
F: Technician
A: Fisheries/
Hydrology
F: Technician
A: Water
Quality
F: Technician
A: Hydrology
F: Technician
A: Technician
F: Technician
A: Fisheries/
Hydrology
-------
ON
Table 5.1. Page 2
ATTRIBUTE
c. Substrate Sedimentation
d. Pool Quality
e. Vegetative Overhang
f. Streambank Undercut
PARAMETER/
PROTOCOL
Streambank Cover and Stability
Rating (bank length)
USDA-FS (1992)
Panicle Size Distribution-
Percent Fines
Pebble Count
(Wolman, 1954)
Percent Surface Fines
Grid Method
(See Section 6)
Cobble Embeddedness
Skills and King (1989)
Pool Quality Rating
Plattsetal. (1983, 1987)
Pool Quality Rating
USDA-FS (1992)
Vegetative Overhang
(at transect)
Plattsetal. (1987)
Vegetative Overhang
(bank length)
USDA-FS (1992)
Streambank Undercut
(at transect)
Plattsetal. (1987)
Streambank Undercut
(bank length)
USDA-FS (1992)
FREQUENCY
(times/year)
'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
COLLECTION
TIME
(hours/site)
1-2
1
2-4
4-8
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
EQUIPMENT
LAB COSTS
(Vsample)
Tape or rod
Rulers
Metal or
plexiglass grid
Hoop and scale
Measuring rod
Measuring rod
Measuring rod
Measuring rod
tape
Measuring rod
Measuring rod
tape
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
EXPERTISE
Reid/
Data Analysis
F: Technician
A: Hydrology/
Fisheries
F: Technician
A: Hydrology/
Fisheries
F: Technician
A: Hydrology/
Fisheries
F: Technician
A: Hydrology/
Fisheries
F: Fisheries
A: Fisheries
F: Fisheries
A: Fisheries
F: Technician
A: Hydrology/
Fisheries
F: Technician
A: Hydrology/
Fisheries
F: Technician
A: Hydrology/
Fisheries
F: Technician
A: Hydrology/
Fisheries
1
-------
Table 5.1. Page 3
ATTRIBUTE
1 III. STREAMBANK
VEGETATION
a. Vegetative Composition
b. Woody Species
Regeneration
c. Vegetative
Utilization
IV. BIOLOGICAL
EVALUATION
a. Macroinvertebrate
b. Fish Communities
PARAMETER/
PROTOCOL
Green Line Survey
USDA-FS (1992)
Woody Species Regeneration
USDA-FS (1992)
Herbage Stubble Height
transect
Cook & Stubbendieck (1986)
Herbage Biomass Utilization
Cage method
Cook & Stubbendieck (1986)
Woody Species Utilization
Twig count
Cook & Stubbendieck (1986)
Macroinvertebrate
Community
EPA (1989) protocol III
Fish Communities
EPA (1989) protocol V
FREQUENCY
(times/year)
1
1
1-3 depending
on objective
1-3 depending
on objective
1
1 (or seasonal)
1 (or seasonal)
COLLECTION
TIME
(hours/site)
1-2
1-4
1
1-2
< 1
1-3
1-5
EQUIPMENT
Measuring tape
Measuring tape
and 2 meter rod
Pacing or
measuring tape
Cage, hoop,
clippers,
weighing scales
2 meter rod
Sampler, sieve,
alcohol
Electroflshing
unit, nets,
weighing scales
LAB COSTS
(I/sample)
EXPERTISE
Field/
Data Analysis
None
None
None
None
None
$50 - $75
per sample
None
F: Botany
A: Botany/
Fisheries
F:Technician
A:Botany/Range
Fisheries
F:Botany/Range
A:Botany/Range
F:Technician
A:Botany/Range
FrTechnician
A:Botany/Range
F:Technician
A:Entomology
F: Fisheries
A: Fisheries
-------
Table 5.2. Riparian Monitoring: Estimate of precision, accuracy, natural variability, sampling conditions, and complexity
ATTRIBUTE
PARAMETER/
PROTOCOL
PRECISION/
ACCURACY
I. WATER COLUMN
a. Temperature
b. Shade
c. Nutrients
d. Fecal Bacteria
II. STREAM CHANNEL/
STREAMBANK
a. Channel Morphology
b. Streambank Stability
Min/Max Thermometers
Recording Thermograph
Canopy Density/
Densiometer
Plattsetal. (1987)
Solar Heat Input/
Solar Pathfinder
Plattsetal. (1987)
T. Phosphorus, T. Nitrates
Standard Methods
APHA(1990)
Fecal Coliform, Fecal Strep.
Standard Methods
APHA (1990)
Channel Cross Section
Rod and Level or
Sag Tape Method
Plattsetal. (1987)
Width/Depth ratio
Platts( 1983) -3 point
method
Streambank Soil Alteration
and Stability Rating (at
transect)
Plattsetal. (1987)
P:Good
A: Fair
P: Excellent
A: Excellent
P:Good
A: Good
P:Good
A: Good
P. Good
A: Good
P:Good
A: Good
P: Excellent
A: Good
P:Good
A: Good
P: Fair - Good
A: Poor - Fair
NATURAL
VARIABILITY
Space: Low
Time: High
Space: Low
Time: High
Space: Low-Med
Time: High
Space: Low-Med
Time: High
Space: Low
Time: High
Space: Medium
Time: High
Space: High
Time: Low
Space: High
Time: High
Space: High
Time: Low
PREFERRED
FLOW/SITE
CONDITION
COMMENTS
COMPLEXITY
(EASE RATING)
Low flow
Low flow
Low flow
Low flow
Depending
on objecive.
High and
low flow.
Low - high
flow
Low flow
Low flow
Low flow
Good for initial
evaluation.
Provides a complete
data
record.
Applies to streams
with woodsy
vegetation.
Limited to small and
medium
streams.
How dependent -
requires frequent
samples to
adequately sample
the mean.
Flow dependent
when associated w/
bottom sediments.
Bankfull level may
be difficult to locate.
Usually requires a
computer program
for analysis.
Water width and
depth vary
within season.
Soil alteration is
false, broken down,
or eroding bank.
Bank stability rates
bank protective cover.
I
1
2
3
2
2
3
1
2
-------
I
o
Table 5.2. Page 2
ATTRIBUTE
c. Substrate Sedimentation
d. Pool Quality
e. Vegetative Overhang
f. Streambank Undercut
PARAMETER;
PROTOCOL
Streambank Cover and
Stability
Rating (bank length)
USDA-FS (1992)
Particle Size Distribution -
Percent Fines
Pebble Count
Wolman(1954)
Percent Surface Fines
Grid Method
(See Section 6)
Cobble Embeddednes
Skilleft King (1989)
Pool Quality Rating
Platts etal. (1983.1987)
Pool Quality Rating
USDA-FS (1992)
Vegetative Overhang
(at transect)
Platts et al. (1987)
Vegetative Overhang
(bank length)
USDA-FS (1992)
Streambank Undercut
(at transect)
Platts Hal. (1987)
PRECISION/
ACCURACY
P:Good
A: Unknown
P:Good
A: Unknown
PrGood
A: Unknown
P:Good
A: Unknown
P:Good
A: Unknown
P:Good
A: Unknown
P:Fair
A: Fair
PrGood
A: Good
P:Fair
A: Fair
NATURAL
VARIABILITY
Space: High
Time: Low
Space: High
Time: High
Space: High
Time: High
Space: High
Time: High
Space: High
Time: Low
Space: High
Time: Low
Space: High
Time: Low
Space: High
Time: Low
Space: Medium
Time: Low
PREFERRED
FLOW/SITE
CONDITION
Low flows
Low flows
Low flows
Low flows
Low -
moderate
flows
Low -
moderate
flows
Low flows
Low flows
Low flows
COMMENTS
Uses simplified
rating of cover and
stability.
Estimates percent
of substrate surface
area covered by
fines.
Requires numerous
plots to assess
spatial variability.
Use is limiterd by
high variability.
Rates pool quality
according to depth
and cover.
Rates pool quality
on depth, substrate,
and cover
Measures length of
overhang at each
point transect.
Measures length of
overhang at each
point transect.
Measures depth of
undercut at each
point transect.
COMPLEXITY
(EASE RATING)
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
I
o
o
8
Ui
-------
Table 5.2. Page 3
ATTRIBUTE
III. STREAMBANK
VEGETATION
a. Vegetation Composition
b. Woody Species
Regeneration
c. Vegetation Utilization
IV. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
a. Macroinvertebrate
b. Fish Community
PARAMETER/
PROTOCOL
Streambank Undercut
(bank length)
USDA-FS (1992)
Green Line Survey
USDA-FS (1992)
Woody Species
Regeneration
USDA-FS (1992)
Herbage Stubble Height
transect
Cook & Stubbendieck (1986)
Herbage Biomass Utilization
Cage Method
Cook & Stubbendieck (1986)
Woody Species Utilization
Twig count
Cook & Stubbendieck (1986)
Macroinvertebrate
Community
Plafkin, J.L. et al (1989) Protocol III
Fish Communities
Plafkin, J.L. et al (1989) Protocol V
PRECISION/
ACCURACY
P:Good
A: Good
P:Good
A: Good
P:Good
A: Good
P:Good
A: Good
P:Fair
A: Good
P:Fair
A: Fair
P:Good
A: Good
P: Fair-Good
A: Fair-Good
NATURAL
VARIABILITY
PREFERRED
FLOW/SITE
CONDITION
COMMENTS
COMPLEXITY
(EASE RATING)
Space: Medium
Time: Low
Space: High
Time: Low
Space: High
Time: Low
Space: High
Time: Medium
Space: High
Time: Low
Space: High
Time: Medium
Space: Medium
Time: Medium
Space: Medium
Time: Medium
Low flows
Low flows
Low flows
Grazing
season
access
Grazing
season
access
After grazing
Low flows
Low flows
Measures length
of bank with
undercuts.
Measures length
of vegetation
community types.
Measures number
of woody plants
by age class.
Measured on top
of bank after
grazing & plant
growth
Compares grazed
plot to ungrazed
plot.
Measures percent
of twigs browsed.
RBP protocols are
being locally
refined by States.
RBP protocols are
being locally
refined by States.
1
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
-------
RECOMMENDED PROTOCOLS
A subset of the parameters evaluated in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 is recommended
for evaluation of water quality improvement projects. These parameters and
protocols are listed in Table 5.3 and are recommended because precise/accurate
data can be obtained within the practical constraints of monitoring. The
advantages and disadvantages of these methods are also described in Table 5.3.
The protocols are described in detail in Section 6 and were selected with the
following criteria in mind:
Minimum sample frequency
Minimum specialized equipment
Minimum lab costs
Reduced personnel time
Sample during accessible periods
Methods are easily used and taught
Most stream channel, streambank, and streamside vegetation parameters
are sampled only once per year and this provides adequate data for project
evaluation. This reduction in personnel costs and travel time is a significant
advantage over traditional water quality monitoring. Access is good during
summer base flow, which is the target sample period for most of these parameters.
Many of these methods require only a measuring tape and rod, so equipment
costs are relatively low. Other specialized equipment, such as the densiometer or
solar pathfinder, are relatively inexpensive compared to meters used for water
quality monitoring. Inexpensive recording thermographs are now available and
are a convenient way to evaluate temperature.
The knowledge and skills needed to complete the protocols vary considerably
by procedure. The monitoring program is best completed by an interdisciplinary
team with a mix of expertise. However, many of the methods can be readily
learned.
Much of the data analysis for riparian monitoring is completed in the field,
which reduces data analysis costs. Nutrient and bacterial samples require
laboratory analysis, but the cost per sample for these analyses is relatively low.
Macroinvertebrate analyses may require laboratory processing depending on the
available expertise and the protocol used.
EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION OF MONITORING METHODS 61
-------
Table 5.3. Advantages and disadvantages of selected riparian monitoring methods
ATTRIBUTE
STREAM
TEMPERATURE
AND SHADE
1 . Maximum water
temperature
Shade
NUTRIENTS
PARAMETER/
PROTOCOL
Min/Max Thermometers
Recording Thermographs
2. Vegetative Canopy
Densi ty/Densiometer
Plattsital(1987)
3. Thermal input/
Solar Pathfinder™
Platts et aL (1987)
1. Total Phosphorus
2. Total Nitrates +
Nitrates
Standard Methods
APHA (1990)
ADVANTAGES
Data for maximum temperature
collected at low flows.
Low equipment cost.
High precision.
Quick and easy method for
problem identification.
No special expertise needed.
New models can be set to record
for entire summer.
Requires only two trips for
installation and pick up.
Excellent precision and Accuracy.
Can be installed by technicians.
Samples are collected at low flow
stage. Frequency: once/year.
Low equipment cost. Good
precision and accuracy.
Data can be collected during any
month to estimate thermal units
for the entice critical period.
Frequency: once/year.
Low equipment cost.
Good precision and accuracy.
Measures shade and thermal input
directly.
Data are directly applicable to
temperature models.
Familiar water quality attribute
of concern f or cutrophi cation.
DISADVANTAGES
Requires repeated trips to the site
compared to a recording
thermogaph.
Less accurate than thermographs
for year to year comparisons.
Does not detect changes due to
high temporal variability.
Equipment costs for
thermographs has historically
been high.
(Some new models are
inexpensive.)
Collection time: Moderate.
Limited to streams with woody
vegetation.
Measures canopyt, not thermal
input..
Collection time:
Moderate.
Use of the solar pathfinder is
not readily understood.
Thermal units are not as
simple as temperature and
shade to explain.
Flow dependent attribute which
requires frequent samples to
estimate the mean. May be
difficult to relate to identify
sources.
Collection time: Moderate
High temporal variability.
Requires lab analysis:
$30 - $50 per sample.
62
EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION OF MONITORING METHODS
-------
Table 53. Page 2
ATTRIBUTE
PARAMETER/
PROTOCOL
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
BACTERIAL
INDICATORS
1. Fecal Coliform
2. Fecal Streptococcus
3. Colifonn/Strep. Ratios
Standard Methods
APHA (1990)
No special field equipment
needed. Water quality criteria
have been adopted by states for
data analysis. Samples are
collected at low flows to evaluate
criteria for swimming and
wading.
Requires frequent samples to
estimate the mean.
Sample frequency increases
collection time.
High temporal variability.
Low - Med. precision.
Requires lab analysis:
$10-$20 per sample.
STREAM CHANNEL
MORPHOLOGY
1. Water/channel depth
2. Water/channel width
3. Width to depth ratios
Leveled Tape and Rod
Protocol described in
Section 6.
Channel cross sections are
evaluated at low flows.
Frequency: once/year.
Collection time is low for leveled
tape and rod method.
Simple graphical analysis does
not require computer software.
Equipment costs: Low.
Good precision and accuracy.
Low temporal
variability.
Bankfull level may be difficult
to identify.
Leveled tape and rod method
may be less precise than rod and
level or sag-tape methods.
STREAMBANK
STABILITY
MEASURES
1. Streambank stability
2. Streambank cover
3. Undercut Streambank
4. Overhanging vegetation
5. Streambank Livestock
utilization
Protocol described in
Section 6.
Data can be collected at low
flows.
Frequency: once/year.
Collection time: Low.
Low equipment cost
Simple rating systems are easy to
use.
Modifications of previous rating
methods decrease observer error
and increases precision.
Bank condition ratings are based
on ocular evaluations and are
therefore subject to observer
bias.
SUBSTRATE FINE
SEDIMENT
1. Substrate average
particle size - DSO
Pebble Count
(Wolman, 1954)
Data is collected at low flow.
Frequency: once/year.
Collection time: Low.
No special equipment needed and
easy to use.
Good precision.
Pebble counts provide a simple
method for evaluating surface
fines given high spatial variability.
Surface fines have high natural
temporal variability.
2. Percent substrate fine
sediment
Grid Method described in
Section 6.
Data is collected at low flow.
Frequency: once/year.
Low equipment cost.
High precision.
Allows assessment of
microhabitats - useful for
macroin vertebrate and
embeddedness assessments.
Surface fines have high natural
temporal variability.
Collection time is higher for the
grid method than for pebble
counts, but less than cobble
embeddedness methods.
EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION OF MONITORING METHODS
63
-------
Table 5.3. Page 3
ATTRIBUTE
POOL QUALITY
PARAMETER/
PROTOCOL
1. Pool quality rating
2. Pool condition
USDA-FS (1992)
ADVANTAGES
Data collected at low flow.
Frequency: once/year.
Collection time: Low.
Low equipment cost.
Modification of previous rating
methods to include substrate in
the rating system.
Easy to describe to users.
DISADVANTAGES
Subjective rating system
requires fishery expertise.
STREAMSIDE
VEGETATION
1. Vegetative composition
(greenline survey)
USDA-FS (1992)
Frequency: once/year.
Collection time: Low - Med.
No specialized equipment.
A sensitive indicator of adverse
livestock grazing impacts on
streams.
Requires professional skills to
identify plants and community
types.
Complex to describe to
users.
2. Woody Species
Regeneration (age class)
USDA-FS (1992)
Frequency: once/year.
No specialized equipment..
A sensitive indicator of recovery
following management change.
Collection time: moderate to
high.
Location of measurement may
shift over time as recovery
3. Vegetative utilization
(stubble height)
Transect method described
in Section 6. After Cook &
Stubbendieck (1986)
Frequency: once/year after
grazing season. (More frequently
for management purposes.)
No specialized quipment.
Easy to measure.
Requires botany/range skills to
identify plants.
High spatial variability.
BIOLOGICAL
EVALUATION
1. Macroinvertebrate
Community
Protocol HI
Plafkin, J.L. et al. (1989)
Data is collected at low flow.
Frequency: 1 - 3 times a year.
An indicator of the biological
integrity of the stream. Integrates
impacts over time.
Note: Protocol I & II are
qualitative methods and therefore
not included.
Specialized equipment needed.
Requires entomology skills in
field; identification is used.
Otherwise requires lab
identification.
Lab costs: $50 - $75 per
sample
2. Fish Communities
Protocol V
Plafkin, J.L. etal. (1989)
Data is collected at low flow.
Frequency: once/year.
Direct measure of the beneficial
uses of the stream.
Note: Protocol IV is a
questionaire - not applicable to
project evaluation.
Collection time: high.
Equipment cost: high.
Other factors such as climate
and harvest influence
observations.
Requires professional fisheries
expertise in the field.
64
EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION OF MONITORING METHODS
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. 1992. Standard methods for the examination
of water and wastewater, 18th ed., American Public Health Association,
Washington, D.C.
Cook, C.W. and J. Stubbendieck. 1986. Range Research; Basic Principles and
Techniques. Society for Range Management. Denver, CO.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes, 1989.
Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA, Office of Water, EPA/444/4-89-001.
Platts, WS. 1983. Vegetation requirements for fisheries habitats. In: S.B. Monsen
and N. Shaw, compilers. Managing intermt. rangelands-improvement of
range and wildlife habitats. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-157.
Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S. Jensen,
G.W. Lienkaemper, G.W Minshall, S.B. Monson, R.L. Nelson, J.R. Sedell,
J.S. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications
to management. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-221. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT.
Skille, J. and J. King. 1989. Proposed cobble embeddedness sampling procedure.
Unpublished paper available from the USDA Forest Service, Intermount.
Res. Sta. Boise, ID.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Integrated riparian evaluation guide. USDA Forest
Service, Intermount. Region, Ogden, UT.
Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Trans. Am.
Geophys. Union 35(6): 951-956.
EVALUATION/RECOMMENDATION OF MONITORING METHODS 65
-------
VI. MONITORING PROTOCOLS
A. STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE
PARAMETER LIST
Parameters associated with this monitoring procedure include:
1. Maximum water temperature
2. Vegetative canopy density
3. Thermal input
OVERVIEW
The amount of sunlight entering a stream determines, to a large extent, the
rate of water warming. Water temperatures vary normally each day and season of
the year. Temperatures which exceed the optimum for salmonids reduce growth
rates and adversely affect survival. The upper optimum temperature limit for
most salmonids is 13 to 16°C (Bjomn and Reiser, 1991). Feeding rates decrease
with temperatures over 16.7°C (Binns, 1979).
Temperature regimes altered by livestock grazing result from changes in the
amount of thermal energy entering the stream system. Loss of riparian vegetation
and increases in channel cross section length increase the water surface exposed to
sunlight. Warming of the stream, especially during periods of low flow, can be
large and abrupt. Even short duration high temperatures can decimate salmonids
if they exceed the lethal limits which range from about 23 to 29°C. Detecting such
abrupt, short periods of warming requires frequent temperature measurements
throughout the warm season, usually from July through September.
Thermal input from solar radiation has been negatively correlated with
salmonid biomass in the western United States (Binns 1979, Platts and Nelson
1989). The data in the latter study were derived from 17 study areas in Idaho,
Nevada, and Utah. Thermal input was highly and negatively correlated to amount
of streaniside vegetative canopy (-.86). Influences of grazing were evaluated at
these sites on range and meadow lands. The difference in canopy density and
thermal input on grazed versus ungrazed sites was significant at p=.10. On
average, canopy density was 60% higher and thermal input 12% lower on ungrazed
streams as compared with the grazed sites. At some sites protected from livestock
grazing, increased streamside canopy density could be measured over time. The
rate of recovery was slow at other sites with no detectable change in 4 years.
66 MONITORING PROTOCOLS - STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE
-------
DEFINITIONS
Vegetation canopy coven The area of the sky over the stream channel
bracketed by vegetation (Platts et al; 1987, page 58).
Vegetation canopy density: The amount of sky (or sunlight) over the
stream channel blocked by vegetation (Platts et al; 1987, page 58).
Thermal input: The amount of solar energy (in BTU's/ft^/day) striking the
water surface.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Temperature - data collection
Thermographs: Temperature data is collected by using waterproof
recording thermographs. With the use of computer chips to record data, the cost of
these units is decreasing. Data can be easily downloaded to spreadsheet software
to decrease data analysis time. The recording thermographs provide a complete
temperature record for year to year or station comparisons.
Min-Max thermometers: Temperature can also be evaluated using
inexpensive minimum-maximum or maximum-registering thermometers. These
thermometers are particularly useful for an initial evaluation of temperature
problems. However frequent trips are required to collect data and fewer data
points are recorded that allow statistical comparisons.
Temperature - data analysis
Temperature data are evaluated by comparison to State Water Quality
Standards for cold water or warm water biota. Procedures are available to develop
site-specific criteria for sensitive species (Guidance for Evaluating and
Recommending Temperature Regimes to Protect Fish. Armour, 1991).
EPA Water Quality Criteria for Water (EPA, 1986) specify two upper limiting
temperatures for summgr based on the important sensitive species found at a
location. States use these procedures to specify criteria in water quality standards.
1. Maximum criteria. One limit is a maximum temperature for short term
exposures. This criterion is derived from laboratory tests at temperatures that
result in 50% mortality. A 2°C safety factor is deducted from the Lethal Limit.
2. Maximum weekly average temperature. This limit is based on growth
as it affects the long-term health of a population. The EPA criteria are derived
from a formula using the optimum temperature for growth with a factor to
STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE - MONITORING PROTOCOLS 67
-------
estimate the zero net growth. The factor used is one-third of the difference
between the upper lethal temperature minus the optimum temperature.
These criteria are derived from applying equations to laboratory data and
may not account for the magnitude of temperature variation in the natural
environment. Hokanson et al. (1977) suggested more conservative criteria than
EPA criteria based on their work on fluctuating temperatures; they recommend a
weekly average temperature for rainbow trout of 17°C and a maximum thermal
criterion of 23°C.
Table 6.1. Temperature criteria (°C) for selected species. Maximum
weekly average temperatures for growth and short-term maxima for
survival of juveniles and adults during the summer (EPA, 1986)
Species Weekly Average Maxima
Brook Trout 19 24
Coho Salmon 18 24
Northern Pike 28 30
Rainbow Trout 19 24
Sockeye Salmon 18 22
Vegetation canopy - data collection
Vegetative canopy density is estimated using a modified concave spherical
densiometer as described in detail by Platts et al., (1987). The densiometer
consists of a concave mirror surface with etched grid that reflects vegetation and
other obstructions to sunlight over the stream surface (Figure 6.1). The grid is
modified by enclosing 17 grid intersections with tape (Figure 6.2).
On stream orders 1 through 4, readings are taken at four points along the
line transect: 1) at the left streainbank; 2) right streambank, and from the center
of the stream facing; 3) upstream and facing; 4) downstream (Figure 6.3). The
sum of intersections blocked by vegetation or other obstructions is added together
from the four readings and multiplied by 1.5 to estimate percent canopy density. A
correction is applied for rounding error; 1% is deducted from scores between 30 and
60%, and 2 percent is deducted from scores over 66%.
For stream orders 5-7, the same procedure is used except eight readings are
taken across the transect. Two additional readings, one facing upstream and
one downstream, are taken at the quarter and three-quarter interval along the
transect (Figure 6.3). The eight recordings are totaled and multiplied by 0.75 to
obtain percent canopy density. The correction for rounding error is applied: 1%
68 MONITORING PROTOCOLS - STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE
-------
deducted from scores between 30 and 65%, and 2% from scores over 66%. No
deduction is made for scores between 0 and 29%. The user is referred to Platts et
al. (1987), pages 58 through 60, for details on this technique.
Data collected using the canopy densiometer are recorded on the field data
sheet shown in Table 6.2.
Figure 6.1. The concave spherical densiometer, Model C
Figure 6-2. Use of spherical densiometer showing placement of head
reflection and 17 points of observation (From Platts et al., 1987)
Head reflection
top line crosses
top of head
Bubble leveled"
STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE - MONITORING PROTOCOLS
69
-------
Table 6.2. Vegetative canopy density survey
STREAM NAME:
DATE:_
INVESTIGATORS:
.STREAM REACH DESCRIPTION.
Transect
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Left Bank
mnnbcr
(
-------
Figure 6.3. Location of densiometer for measuring canopy density. Four
readings are used in stream orders 1-4 and eight readings in stream
orders over 4.
Stream order 1-4
•••• - ••' ?:\&;&**Z!*Q
. : - ••:;?•. --:££ci&23&&i*»
. -:•.-•.*<• .&r.y-X&-ff&H
Stream order 5 - 7
Canopy density- data analysis
Use the field form in Table 6.2 to total and average percent canopy density
for the measurements made on all transects. The canopy density condition can
STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE - MONITORING PROTOCOLS
71
-------
then be estimated by comparing these measurements with like measurements at
ungrazed or lightly grazed reference sites. Such comparisons require that the
reference site(s) be located on streams of similar order and of similar soils. The
stream width is strongly influenced by these variables, as are the potential natural
streamside vegetation communities.
Thermal input - data collection
Thermal input is a function of the percent of stream surface shaded, the
average stream width, the orientation of the stream relative to the angle of
sunlight, and the vertical angle of the sun's rays as influenced by latitude, time of
day, and time of year. Thermal input estimated from all of these variables is easily
measured using the Solar Pathfinder as described by Platts et al. (1987). This
instrument integrates all of the above effects, including shade from streamside
vegetation, to estimate influences of solar radiation. All effects of vegetation are
permanently recorded and the percentage of sunlight at any time of day and time
of year is obtained immediately at the time of measurement. The Solar Pathfinder
records all obstacles providing shade and these can be compared with future
measurement of shade to document change.
Details for recording percent of average monthly total radiation and
conversion to thermal energy input to the surface are explained in the directions
that accompany this instrument. The method for monitoring a specific reach of
stream requires following these steps using Table 6.3.
1. Determine the percentage of solar radiation using the Solar Pathfinder at the midpoint
in the stream at each transect
2. Determine the width of the stream at each transect
3. Average the percent solar radiation for all transects to obtain transect averages. These
values then go into the calculation of total thermal input as described below.
72
MONITORING PROTOCOLS - STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE
-------
Table 6.3. Thermal input using Solar Pathfinder
STREAM NAME:_
DATE:
INVESTIGATOR:.
MONTH:
.STREAM REACH DESCRIPTION
Transect
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Left half
of transect
(% solar
radiation)
Right half
of transect
<% solar
radiation)
•Center of
stream
<% solar
radiation)
Average
* solar
radiation
Mean dally solar
energy for the month
times % solar
radiation
{BTUs/FtVday
Total all transects
•Stream
width
(Ft)
Transect
spacing
(Ft.)
Total thermal input
for transect : ;:
interval
A*BxC
1
• This location applies only If the stream width is greater than two times the height of the streamside canopy vegetation.
STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE - MONITORING PROTOCOLS
73
-------
Thermal input - data analysis
The input temperature or average maximum temperature at the upstream
end of the reach should be measured using average daily maximum/minimum
thermometer readings, or average maximums obtained from a recording
thermometer.
Use the data in Table 6.3 and the tables which accompany the Solar
Pathfinder to calculate total thermal input into the stream reach during the
warmest month of the year (usually mid July to mid August), and the percent of
the water surface shaded during that same time period (target time period).
It is necessary to know the discharge of the stream and average water width
during the target time period. Discharge can be obtained from any gaging
station(s) in the study stream reach or measured as with a current meter. Water
widths should be measured at all transects in the monitoring site and averaged to
derive the mean water width for the segment. If the reach evaluated receives
substantial volumes of inflowing water, widths and discharge may have to be made
at several stations throughout the reach to obtain reasonable averages.
Calculate temperature increase for the reach using a temperature model
such as SSTEMP which is explained in detail in Platts (1990, pages IV-32 to IV-
47). This program receives the above described inputs and produces estimates of
minimum, mean, and maximum daily water temperatures at some specified
distance downstream. Because it calculates temperature changes resulting from
the amount of shading and water width, it can be used to predict water
temperature changes under improved riparian conditions. Such temperatures in
relation to the habitat requirements for salmonids provide a very direct
assessment of beneficial use support.
Data from the survey can be used to determine the total thermal energy
striking the water surface as influenced by vegetation canopy and water surface
exposed area. Data can then be used to estimate increase in temperature over a
reach of stream. Data interpretation evaluates the extent canopy shading and
channel width contribute to warming and if such warming exceeds desirable
temperature ranges for salmonids. If temperatures are limiting salmonid
productivity, the calculations can be used to estimate how much reduced exposure
(increased shading/width reduction) is needed to obtain desired temperature
regimes.
74 MONITORING PROTOCOLS - STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE
-------
EQUIPMENT LIST
The following equipment is needed for this monitoring procedure.
.1. Canopy densiometer (canopy coyer/density)
2. Waders
3, Measuring tape (widths)
4 Forms- Tables 6.2 & 6.3r Pathfinder charts
5. Solar Pathfinder {thermal input)
6. Clip board
STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE-MONITORING PROTOCOLS 75
-------
REFERENCES
Armour, C.L.. 1991. Guidance for evaluating and recommending temperature
regimes to protect fish. Instream flow information paper 27. Biol. Report
90(22). USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv., Fort Collins, CO
Binns, N. A. 1979. A habitat quality index for Wyoming trout streams. Monogr.
Ser., Fish. Res. Rep. 2. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish
Department.
Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in
streams: Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes
and their habitat. William R. Meehan, Ed. American Fisheries Society
Special Publication 19. pp 83-138.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality criteria for water regulations.
Office of Water, regulations and Standards, EPA 440/5-86-001, EPA, Wa. DC.
Hokanson, K.E., C.E. Kleiner, and T.W. Thorslund. 1977. Effects of constant
temperatures and diel temperature fluctuations on specific growth and
mortality rates and yield of juvenile rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. J. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 34: 639-648.
Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by
livestock: A guidance and reference document for biologists. Nevada
Department of Wildlife.
Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S. Jensen,
G.W. Lienkaemper, G.W Minshall, S.B. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, J.R. Sedell,
and J.S. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with
applications to management. Gen. Tech. Report INT-221. USDA, Forest
Service, Intel-mountain Research Station. Ogden UT.
Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1989. Stream canopy and its relationship to
salmonid biomass in the Intermountain West. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management, Vol 9, pp 446-457.
7 6 MONITORING PROTOCOLS - STREAM TEMPERATURE AND SHADE
-------
B. NUTRIENTS
PARAMETER LIST
Recommended parameters include:
.1. Total Phosphorus
2. Total Nitrite plus Nitrate
OVERVIEW
Nutrients from livestock wastes may stimulate excess algal and aquatic
plant growth. During low flow periods these plant growths may contribute to
nighttime oxygen depletion in streams; however, the primary concern is for
eutrophication of downstream lakes and reservoirs.
The impact of grazing on nutrient enrichment is a function of livestock
waste concentration and opportunity for runoff of waste into the receiving stream.
Nutrient enrichment from unconfined livestock grazing in arid watersheds may be
minimal (ARS, 1983). Opportunity for nutrient runoff increases with streamside
pastures, but several studies have shown no significant increase in nutrient
concentrations (Owens et al., 1983; Gary et al.t 1983; Dixon et al., 1983). The
greatest opportunity for nutrient enrichment is likely associated with runoff from
stream-side confined animal feeding operations.
Phosphorus and nitrogen are the major growth-limiting nutrients.
Phosphorus occurs in surface waters almost solely as phosphates. Total
phosphorus provides a good measure of the phosphorus in the stream since it
includes orthophosphate in solution as well as phosphates associated with the
suspended material. Dissolved ortho-phosphate is considered a better measure
of biologically available phosphorus since it only includes unbound phosphate
forms.
Nitrogen occurs as nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, and organic nitrogen in surface
waters. AD these forms of nitrogen, as well as nitrogen gas (N2), are biochemically
interconvertible (APHA, 1992). Total oxidized nitrogen is the sum of nitrite and
nitrate. Measuring this form, total NO2 plus NO3, measures most of the nitrogen
available in surface waters. Ammonia and organic nitrogen are of importance only
where there is a concentrated source of livestock wastes. Ammonia and organic
nitrogen are measured by the Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) procedure.
National criteria have not been set for nutrients because of the differing
sensitivity of waterbodies for eutrophication. General guidance provides that total
phosphates as phosphorus should not exceed 50 ug/L in any stream at the point
where it enters a lake or reservoir. For streams which do not discharge directly
NUTRIENTS 77
-------
into lakes or impoundments, a maximum of 100 ug/L is recommended (EPA, 1986).
It is generally recommended that concentrations of nitrate should be less than 300
ug/L to prevent nuisance algal growths.
DEFINITIONS
Total phosphorus: Phosphorus as P determined by eolorimetry after
digestion of organic matter in an unfiltered sample.
Dissolved ortho-phosphates Ortho-phosphate as P determined from a
field-filtered sample; considered a measure of the biologically available
phosphorus.
Total Nitrite plus Nitrate: The oxidized form of nitrogen, NO£ plus NO3,
determined from the whole sample.
DATA CQT.TECTTQN PROCEDURE
Parameters: It is recommended that samples be routinely analyzed only
for total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrite plus nitrate (N0£ plus NO3). Ortho-
phosphate may provide the best measure of bio-available phosphorus; however,
measuring this form requires field-filtration and analysis within 24 hours, since a
preservative is not used. Measuring total phosphorus is sufficient for most studies
and does not have these additional sampling constraints.
Total NO 2 plus N03 provides an adequate measure of nitrogen for most
surface waters. Ammonia is usually low in comparison to nitrates. TKN measures
the organic component, so this parameter fluctuates with the amount of suspended
material in the sample. Ammonia and TKN should only be sampled where the
effect of concentrated livestock wastes on enrichment is a key issue.
Sample collection: Samples should be representative of the entire stream
flow. A depth-integrating sampler, such as the US DH-48, can be used to collect a
cross-composite sample. When a depth-integrating sampler is not used, the sample
should be collected at several points across the stream, e.g., at three equidistant
points across the channel. Samples are collected in glass or disposable
polyethylene plastic containers and are preserved for TP and nitrates by addition
of sulfuric acid to pH less than two. Refer to Standard Methods (APHA, 1992) or
the analytical lab for details of sample preservation and holding times.
Nutrient parameters are influenced by discharge and suspended solids.
Samples are collected in relation to the stream discharge to calculate nutrient
loading from the watershed. A large number of samples is needed to adequately
represent all stages of the hydrograph. A more feasible objective is to sample
nutrients only during the low summer flow periods when they are available for
plant uptake. This reduces the temporal variability but misses the watershed
loading period.
78
NUTRIENTS
-------
DATA ANALYSIS
Samples should be submitted to a certified laboratory to assure data quality.
Analysis methods are described in Standard Methods (APHA, 1992). Commonly
used methods, preservative, and suggested criteria are listed in Table 6.4 (EPA,
1979).
Table 6.4. Recommended nutrient parameters for general stream
assessment
Parameter
Method of Analysis and Criteria
Preservation
T. Phosphorus as P
Dissolved Ortho-
phosphate as P
T. Nitrite + Nitrate
asN
Persulfate digestion procedure.
Suggested criteria - 100 ug/L
Field filtered: Direct colorimetry.
Suggested criteria -100 ug/L
Cadmium reduction method.
Criteria - 300 ug/L
Sulfuric Acid
Field filtration
4°C
Sulfuric Acid
Data can be analyzed by comparison to criteria suggested by EPA or as
recommended by the state water quality agency for nutrient sensitive waters.
Mean values can also be compared to values from reference watersheds if parallel
data sets are collected.
NUTRIENTS
79
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association. 1992. Standard methods for the examination
of water and wastewater. 18th. ed. APHA, Wa. DC.
Agricultural Research Service. 1983. Volume II - Comprehensive report,
ARS/BLM cooperative studies, Reynolds Creek Watershed. USDA
Agricultural Watershed Service, Boise, Idaho.
Dixon, J.E. G.R. Stephenson, A.J. Lingg, D.V. Naylor, and D.D. Hinman. 1983.
Comparison of runoff quality from cattle feeding on winter pastures. Trans.
Am. Soc. Ag. Engineers, 1146-1149.
Environmental Protection Agency 1979. Methods of chemical analysis of water
and wastes. EPA-600/4-79/200, EPA, DC 296 p.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality criteria for water. Office of
Water, Regulations, and Standards, EPA 440/5-86-001, EPA, Wa. DC.
Gary, H.L., S.R. Johnson, S.L. Ponce. 1983. Cattle grazing impact in a Colorado
Front range stream. J. Soil and Water Cons., 38(2) 124-128.
Owens, L.B., W.M. Edwards, and R.W. Van Keuren. 1983. Surface runoff water
quality comparisons between unimproved pasture and woodland. J.
Environ. Qual., 12(4) 518-522.
NUTRIENTS
-------
C. BACTERIAL INDICATORS
PARAMETER LIST
Parameters used as bacterial indicators include:
1. Fecal coliform bacteria
2. Fecal streptococcus bacteria
3. Fecal coliform/streptococcus ratio
OVERVIEW
Fecal coliform (FC) and fecal streptococcus (FS) bacteria are indicators of
fecal contamination from warm-blooded animals. Fecal coliform criteria are
specified in state water quality standards to assess the suitability of surface water
for recreational and domestic use. For water quality studies, these bacteria also
provide a method for detecting the entry of livestock wastes into surface water and
are useful for general comparison between stations.
Bacterial contamination results primarily from direct deposition of fecal
material into the stream or when this material reaches the stream from overland
flow (Miner et al., 1992). Bacterial numbers increase when cattle are turned into a
pasture and the numbers may remain high for some time after cattle are removed
(Stephenson and Street, 1978; Jawson et al., 1982). Once bacteria enter the stream
the majority of the bacteria settle to the bottom. The bottom sediment acts as a
reservoir for fecal coliforms; bacteria are resuspended when bottom sediments are
disturbed through increased turbulence or animal movement (Sherer et al., 1988).
Survival time is increased when these bacteria are associated with sediment; half-
lives from 11 to 30 days for FC and 9 to 17 days for FS (Sherer et al., 1992). In
arid rangelands bacterial contamination may be minimal due to the limited
overland runoff (Buckhouse and Gifford, 1976; ARS, 1983).
Ratios of FC/FS have been used as indicators of the relative source of
bacteria in a stream (Geldreich, 1976; Baxter-Potter and Gilliland, 1988). A ratio
greater than four is considered indicative of human fecal contamination, whereas a
ratio of less than 0.7 suggests contamination by nonhuman sources. However,
routine use of the FC/FS ratio may no longer be advisable. Variable survival rates
of different species of FS have been observed leading to erratic ratios (Sherer et al.,
1992; APHA, 1992), and the KF membrane filter procedure for FS has a high false-
positive rate (APHA, 1992). The requirements for using the FC/FS may also be
difficult to meet in routine monitoring. These requirements include: 1)
contamination is recent, collected within 24 hours of stream travel time from the
source; 2) FS counts greater than 100/100 ml; and 3) collected within a pH range of
BACTERIAL INDICATORS 81
-------
4.0 to 9.0 (Tiedemann et al., 1988). The most recent edition of Standard Methods
(APHA, 1992, pp. 9-70) concludes that the use of the FC/FS ratio is generally not
recommended. The problem of false positives may be overcome by using more
specific media for streptococcus species.
DEFINITIONS
The coliform group consists of several genera of bacteria belonging to the
family Enterobacteriaceae, the bacteria being defined by the method of detection
(APHA, 1992).
Total coliform: All aerobic and facultative anaerobic, gram-negative,
nonspore-forming, rod-shaped bacteria that ferment lactose with gas and acid
formation within 24 hours at 35°C. Includes Escherichia coli, Klebsiella,
Enterobacter, and others.
Fecal coliform: Bacteria as defined above with the exception of using an
elevated incubation temperature of 44.5°C which separates bacteria of fecal origin
(primarily E. coli) from bacteria derived from non-fecal sources.
Fecal streptococcus: Group of species of the genus Streptocccus, such as S.
faecalis, S. faecium, S. avium, S. bovis, S. eqiinus, and S. gallinarum. All have
been isolated from the feces of warm-blooded animals.
DATA nOT J.ECTION PROCEDURES
Samples for bacterial examination are collected in bottles that have been
cleaned, rinsed, and sterilized or collected in pre-sterilized plastic bags. Samples
are taken from a surface stream by holding the bottle near its base and plunging it,
neck downward, below the surface. The bottle is turned into the current to collect
the sample or, when there is no current, by pushing the bottle forward to create an
artificial current. These precautions prevent contamination by the investigator.
Samples are kept below 10°C in an ice chest during transport and should be
processed within eight hours, with a maximum interval to processing of 24 hours
(APHA, 1992).
Study design considerations: Populations of indicator bacteria in
wildland streams fluctuate wildly in response to common environmental changes
(Bohn and Buckhouse, 1985). Bacterial numbers exhibit high temporal and spatial
variability. Coliforms usually increase throughout the day peaking in the evening.
Coliform counts also increase dramatically in response to storm and runoff events.
Fecal coliforms survive for long periods in cow feces (up to a year), so that bacterial
numbers may be influenced by past activities. Bottom sediments are a significant
reservoir for fecal coliforms that may be resuspended by streamflow or animal
disturbance. Wildlife, including mammals and waterfowl, are a source of coliforms
in addition to livestock. These factors must be taken into account when designing
studies and interpreting results.
82 BACTERIAL INDICATORS
-------
Sample collection frequency is an important consideration, given the high
temporal variability. If comparison to recreational use standards is a high priority,
then sample frequency needs to satisfy the minimum sample number (e.g. five
samples taken over a 30 day period for calculation of means). State standards also
have a single sample standard that could be used for data interpretation.
However, calculation of means or trends for yearly comparison would require a
high sample frequency. These samples would need to be taken only during the
season specified for protection of this use; usually this is the summer period when
streams are used for swimming and wading.
Where rangelands are remote from population centers, comparison to
standards for recreational use may be a lower priority. A more generic purpose for
bacterial samples is to assess the entry of livestock waste into a waterbody; for this
purpose a less rigorous sample frequency would suffice.
DATA ANALYSIS
The standard test for coliform bacteria is carried out using the membrane
filter or the multiple-tube fermentation MPN technique described in Standard
Methods (APHA, 1992). The membrane filter technique is used most often because
a large number of samples can be processed and numerical results are obtained
more rapidly than with the multiple-tube procedure. The membrane filter
technique is limited by waters with high suspended sediment in which case the
multiple-tube technique is used. State and regional health laboratories are usually
set up to run MPN tests since domestic water supplies are routinely tested for fecal
coliform.
Fecal coliform bacteria are evaluated against state water quality standards
for the protection of recreational uses. Most state water quality standards follow
the EPA Redbook recommendations for criteria using fecal coliform bacteria (EPA,
1976). The revised EPA Water Quality Criteria (EPA, 1986) recommends use of E.
coli and enterococci as public health indicators, but most states have not changed
bacterial tests. Local state water quality standards should be checked to
determine requirements for sample frequency and test procedures.
If characterization of bacterial source is a priority, then FC/FS ratios could
be considered. However, the precautions described in Standard Methods (APHA,
1992) and other sources (Tiedemann et al., 1988; Geldreich, 1976) in collecting,
analyzing, and interpreting data should be followed. In surface waters it is often
difficult to satisfy the requirement of recent fecal contamination since streams
integrate bacterial pollution over time. Therefore, samples routinely fall into the
FC/FS ratio (0.7 to 3.0) that characterizes aging fecal pollution which is of little
value.
BACTERIAL INDICATORS 83
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1992. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. 18th ed. APHA, Wa., DC.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS). 1983. Volume II - Comprehensive report,
ARS/BLM cooperative studies, Reynolds Creek Watershed. USDA
Agricultural Watershed Service, Boise, Idaho.
Baxter-Potter, W. and M.W. Gilliland. 1988. Bacterial pollution in runoff from
agricultural lands. J. Environ. Qual., 17(1) 27-34.
Bohn, C.C. and J.C. Buckhouse. 1985. Coliforms as an indicator of water quality
in wildland streams. J. Soil and Water Cons. 40(1): 95-97.
Buckhouse, J.C. and G.F. Gifford. 1976. Water quality implications of cattle
grazing on a semiarid watershed in southeastern Utah. J. of Range
Management, 29 <2) 109-113.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for water. Office of
Water, Regulations, and Standards, EPA, Wa. DC.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality criteria for water. Office of
Water, Regulations, and Standards, EPA 440/5-86-001, Wa. DC.
Geldreich, E.E. 1976. Fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus density relationships
in waste discharges and receiving waters. Grit. Rev. Environ. Control. 6:
349-369.
Jawson, M.D., L.F. Elliot, KE. Saxton, and D.H. Fortier. 1982. The effect of cattle
grazing on indicator bacteria in runoff from a Pacific Northwest watershed.
J. Environ. Qual. 11: 621-627.
Miner, J.R., Buckhouse, J.C, and J.A. Moore. 1992. Will a water trough reduce
the amount of time hay-fed livestock spend in the stream (and therefore
improve water quality)? Rangelands, 14(1) 35-38.
Sherer, B.M., J.R. Miner, J.A. Moore, and J.C. Buckhouse. 1988. Resuspending
organisms for a rangeland stream bottom. Am. Soc. Ag. Engineers, 0001-
2351/88/3104-1217,1217-1222.
Sherer, B.M., J.R. Miner, J.A. Moore, and J.C. Buckhouse. 1992. Indicator
bacterial survival in stream sediments. J. Environ. Qual. 21:591-595.
Stephenson, G.R. and L.V. Street. 1978. Bacterial variations in streams from a
southwest Idaho rangeland watershed. J. Environ. Quality, 7(1) 150-157.
84 BACTERIAL INDICATORS
-------
Stephenson, G.R. and R.C. Rychert. 1982. Bottom sediment: A reservoir of
Escherichia coli in rangeland streams. J. of Range Management, 35(1) 119-
123.
Tiedeman, A.R., D.A. Higgins, T.M. Quigley, H.R. Sanderson, and D.B. Marx.
1987. Responses of fecal coliform in streamwater to four grazing strategies.
J. Range Management, 40: 322-329.
BACTERIAL INDICATORS 85
-------
D. STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
PARAMETER LIST
Parameters associated with this monitoring procedure include:
1. Water/channel depth
2. Water/channel width
3. The ratio of water/channel width to depth
OVERVIEW
Several studies have related salmonid abundance to water width, water
depth, pool volume, and streamflow (Hynes, 1970; Marcus et al., 1990; Binns,
1979). These factors influence fish abundance as they affect total space for rearing.
Water depth can also provide hiding cover when in excess of 1.5 feet (Wesche,
1980).
The cross section of a stream channel provides information valuable for
determining total space available for fish and the annual variability of this space
related to streamflow and channel morphology. Such measures for both low and
bankfull flow levels in the stream provide an estimate of the annual variation in
rearing space which, as reported by Binns (1979), strongly influences salmonid
production.
Riparian areas overgrazed by livestock often have artificially reduced
salmonid living space caused by stream channel widening (Platts & Nelson, 1989a;
Platts, 1989; Lloyd, 1986). This alteration proceeds from narrow and deep channel
structure in natural condition to wide and shallow channels in impaired condition.
Changes in channel morphology as they affect living space for fish are best
represented by a simple estimate of the average width and depth of the stream or
channel, factors which also estimate the average cross sectional area of the
channel.
Channel downcutting caused by riparian degradation can lower local water
tables and reduce the volume of base flow available in dry seasons and periods of
drought. Riparian vegetation has been linked to the water-holding capacity of
streamside aquifers (Platts, 1990). As aquifers lose their capacity to hold and
slowly deliver water to the stream, the difference between the high and low
discharge rates increases dramatically. Thus, water width and depth estimates at
low flow discharge compared with the same at high streamflow rate can be used to
monitor recovery of base flow conditions in improving riparian conditions.
86
STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
-------
Streamflow is a function of stream width, depth, gradient, wetted perimeter
and channel roughness (BOR, 1981). If gradient and roughness are assumed to be
constant at varying discharge levels, the stream width and average depth are
directly proportional to streamflow. Using this technique, low flow and bankfull
stream width and depth are measured on each of the transects. The channel
measures are averaged for all transects at the monitoring site. A cross section is
drawn which represents the average profile for the channel and depicts the
average available pool volume.
Streams with narrow, deep profiles provide more efficient conduits for
streamflow so that salmonid living space is less variable between high and low
discharges. Such channels usually have greater pool volume and provide greater
amounts of space at low streamflow. Thus the morphology of the channel cross
section determines to a large degree the amount of rearing space and quality of
cover for fish.
Figure 6.4 illustrates the morphology of a stream channel with high and low
streamflows of 50 cubic feet per second (CFS) and 10 CFS respectively. Example 1
is a stable, narrow, deep meandering stream channel with numerous undercut
banks and considerable pool volume. Example 2 is the same channel with altered
and false banks resulting from slumping. It is in degraded condition where
undercut banks have been lost to bank breakdown and stream width has been
increased significantly. Example 3 is the same channel further degraded where the
sediments from previously slumped banks now fill pools, banks are bare, and
resultant sedimentation effects have increased channel width and decreased
channel depth.
DEFINITIONS
Width to depth ratio: The ratio of water width to average water depth is a
good indicator of channel cross section shape. As streams become wider and
shallower, this ratio increases dramatically. As shown in Figure 6.4, the
width/depth ratio increases with channel degradation. Note that for deep, narrow
channels as in Example 1, the ratio is lower at bankfull flow than at low flow. This
reflects the effect of underbank scour which can cause a channel to widen at lower
stages of flow while maintaining a narrower width at the bankfull level.
Bankfull channel: The bankfull channel contains the momentary
maximum peak flow, one which occurs several days in a year and is often related to
the 1.5 year recurrence interval discharge. Indicators of bankfull streamflow level
are any one or combinations of the following. For well-confined stream channels,
that is, stream channels where the lateral movement is restricted:
The limit of sod forming vegetation on the margins of the
channel.
STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
87
-------
The ceiling of well-defined, overhanging streambanks.
The upper limit of stream channel scour below which perennial
vegetation does not occur.
For poorly confined, or unconfined stream channels, it is the point on the
channel margin where streamflow just begins to flow onto the first terrace or
floodplain.
Low flow channel: This is the channel below the water surface level
during the annual period of low flow (usually late summer). The low flow level in
the cross section is often the water surface at the time of sampling in mid to late
summer. The flow at this time is often low enough to expose gravel/sand bars. The
low flow channel is sometimes evidenced by a distinct channel impression between
the inner-berm bars.
° ° STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
-------
EXAMPLE 1. STABLE CHANNEL
At Bankfull discharge (50 CFS):
Width = 5.0
Depth = 2.5
Width/depth = 2.0
At Low flow discharge (10 CFS):
Width = 5.2
Depth =1.4
Width/depth = 3.7
Streambanks and
channel in good
condition
Horizontal: 1' = 5'
Vertical: 1' = 5'
EXAMPLE 2. FALSE BANKS
At Bankfull discharge (50 CFS):
Width =15.6
Depth = 1.2
Width/depth =13.0
At Low flow discharge (10 CFS):
Width = 6.5
Depth =1.1
Width/depth = 5.9
EXAMPLE 3. DEGRADED
At Bankfull discharge (50 CFS):
Width =16.7
Depth = 0.9
Width/depth =18.7
At Low flow discharge (10 CFS):
Width = 7.2
Depth = 0.6
Width/depth =12.2
Horizontal 1' = 10'
Vertical 1' = 2.5'
Horizontal 1' = r
Vertical 1: = 1.5'
Stream channel
widens and
shallows in
response to
deteriorating
upland and/or
riparian
conditions
Stream channel
very wide and
shallow; stream
moves back and
forth In channel
until stabilized by
vegetation
Figure 6.4. Comparison of three channel cross sections: stable banks, false banks, and
degraded condition
STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOQY
89
-------
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The average low and bankfull width and depth of the channel are measured
using a standard measuring rod and tape. Measurements are made on the stream
channel cross section. Data are collected at each of the staked transects in the
monitoring site. Stakes on both banks are individually marked to identify each
transect number. Transects are placed at equal intervals of approximately one to
two times bankfull channel width distance apart. Using this design, the
monitoring site stream reach evaluated should be at least 20 times the bankfull
width of the channel. This reach should contain a representation of the
predominant habitat types including two or more pools characteristic of the
system. The following steps describe measuring channel morphology variables
(Figure 6.5).
1. Extend a measuring tape from the left bank stake (left side looking
upstream) to the right bank stake.
2. Use a carpenter's level, Abney, or other leveling device to level the
measuring tape (for large streams, a surveying level will be required to make
these measurements). Since either the right or left stake may be lower than
its opposite stake, it is useful to bring along a three to four foot long piece of
rebar to drive into the ground adjacent to the lowest stake, and tie-off the
measuring tape to this stake when leveling. After leveling the tape, take
depth readings with the rod of the distance from the leveled tape to the
ground. Record depth measurements at slope breaks in the hed on the cross
section.
3. The locations of high and low flow shorelines must be noted in the
profile survey. If profiles are made at the time of low streamflow, simply
identify the present shorelines in the profile survey. If not, a visit back, to the
site during both high and low flow discharge can determine such locations.
Simply walk along one side of the stream, and measure the horizontal distance
from the stakes on that side to the shoreline of the stream. Those distances
can then be noted on plots of the channel profile to obtain average widths and
depths.
4. If site visits cannot be made during high streamflow, indicators of
bankfull flow can be used to estimate locations of high flow in the channel.
At each cross-channel transect:
Complete the cross section survey and record data in the format presented
in Table 6.5.
90 STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
-------
Rebar
Stake
; Water surface
Figure 6.5. Channel profile cross section for width and depth measurements at bankfull
and low flow
STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
91
-------
Table 6.5. Channel morphology survey
STREAM NAME:.
DATE:
TRANSECT NO
ELEVATION OF DATUM (is used):
LOCATION OF DATUM (if used): _
HABITAT TYPES IN TRANSECT: -
INVESTIGATORS:
.OF
TOTAL TRANSECTS
POINT
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DISTANCE FROM LEFT STAKE
FEETOR M
ELEVATION, OR DEPTH
FEETOR M
NOTES & IDENTIFICATION
OF HIGH AND LOW FLOW
H = high, L= low
COMMENTS
92
STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
-------
DATA ANALYSIS
Data from the survey can be used to determine the maximum depth, average
depth, and ratio of width to maximum depth (or mean depth) for both low flow and
bankfull levels. The elevation data are recorded in relation to the two stakes at
either end of the transect. Because the locations of those stakes are permanently
fixed on the bank, changes in channel morphology can be detected over time in
relation to the elevations of the stakes. Thus, for monitoring purposes, it is
important to measure depth relative to the two fixed elevations.
Data are then analyzed as follows:
1. On a graph paper plot each channel profile using the data from the
field sheets. Scales in the vertical dimension can be exaggerated to increase
the sensitivity of depth estimates. Show the locations of high and low flow by
drawing horizontal lines representing the respective water surfaces.
2, Measure water width (W) at low flow and bankfull flow directly on
the graph paper.
' ? f' / ; J'
3. Calculate the cross-sectional area from the water surface to the
ground level. Divide by the width to obtain the average depth.
4. .Determine the mean channel characteristics for the monitoring site
by averaging the water widths and average water depths, for all transects in
the monitoring site.
To rate the condition of a degraded channel, divide the average width by
the average depth (width/depth ratio), and compare the this value to a
reference channel using the same ratio.
STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY 93
-------
EQUIPMENT LIST
Measuring rod - surveying rod or equivalent (at least 10 foot
length)
2. Waders
3. Map of site
4. Field data forms
5. Measuring tapes
6. Clip board
94 STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
-------
REFERENCES
Binns, N. A, 1979. A habitat quality index for Wyoming trout streams. Monogr.
Ser., Fish. Res. Rep. 2. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish
Department.
Chow, V.T. 1964. Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
San Francisco, CA.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. University of Ibronto Press,
Ontario, Canada.
Lloyd, J.R. 1986. COWFISH: Habitat capability model. USDA Forest Service,
Northern Region Fish and Wildlife Staff, Fish Habitat Relationship
Program, Missoula, Montana.
Marcus, M.D., M.K Young, L.E. Noel, and BA. Mullan. 1990. Salmonid-habitat
relationships in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep, RM-188. Fort
Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station.
Platts, W.S. 1974. Geomorphic and aquatic conditions influencing salmonids and
stream classification - with application to ecosystem management. USDA
SEAM Program, Billings MT.
Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by
livestock. A guidance and reference document for biologists. Nevada
Department of Wildlife.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating
stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-138. USDA,
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Ogden, UT.
Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S. Jensen,
G.W. Ldenkaemper, G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, J.R. Sedell,
and J.S. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with
applications to management. Gen. Tech. Report INT-221. USDA Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden UT.
USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Water Measurement Manual. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Denver, CO.
Wesche, T.A. 1980. The WRRI trout cover rating method: Development and
application. Water Resources Series No. 78. Water Resources Research
Institute, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
95
-------
E. STREAMBANK STABILITY
PARAMETER LIST
Monitoring parameters associated with this protocol are:
1. Streambank stability
2. Streambank cover
3. Undercut Streambank
4. Streambank overhanging vegetation
OVERVIEW
Removal of streambank/riparian vegetation along with mechanical bank
damage reduces the structural stability of the stream channel with several
resultant negative impacts to fish productivity (Platts, 1990; Platts and Nelson,
1989). Reduction in bank cover related to overhanging vegetation, root vegetation,
and undercut bank is correlated to reductions in fish production (Wesche, 1980;
Binns, 1979; Sullivan et al., 1987). Streambank destabilization and resultant
erosion can increase substrate embeddedness (Shepard, 1989; Nelson et al., in
press; Hawkins et al., 1983). Increases in substrate embeddedness impair food
production and block refugia for young trout (Rinne, 1990).
Parameters for monitoring livestock grazing effects on the stream channel
should include bank stability to assess erosion and sedimentation as well as
changes in channel morphology that reduce fisheries rearing space and cover.
Bank stability is linked to cover factors that resist the forces of stream erosion.
Cover may include deeply rooted bank vegetation, rocks, logs, and other resistant
materials.
Fish use Streambank areas in small streams for the protective cover they
provide. Stable and covered banks control water velocities, provide shade for
temperature control, and supply terrestrial foods needed to support salmonids
(Platts, 1990, p 1-24). Habitat cover provided by undercut banks and overhanging
vegetation is estimated by a technique suggested by Lloyd (1986).
96 STREAMBANK STABILITY
-------
DEFINITIONS:
Streambank stability: Banks are unstable if they show indications of any
of the following features (see Figure 6.6):
BREAKDOWN (obvious blocks of bank broken away and lying adjacent
to the bank breakage).
SLUMPING or FALSE bank (bank has obviously slipped down, cracks
may or may not be obvious, but the slump feature is obvious).
FRACTURE (a crack is visibly obvious on the bank indicating that the
block of bank is about to slump or move into the stream).
VERTICAL AND ERODING (The bank is mostly uncovered as defined
below and the bank angle is steeper than 80 degrees from the
horizontal).
Otherwise, banks are stable.
Streambank cover: Banks are covered if they show any of the following
features:
Perennial vegetation ground cover is greater than 50 percent.
Roots of vegetation cover more than 50 percent of the bank (deeply rooted
, plants such as willows and sedges provide such root cover).
At least 50 percent of the bank surfaces are protected by rocks of cobble
"'•• size or larger. ,
At least 50 percent of the bank surfaces are protected by logs of four inch
diameter or larger.
Otherwise, banks are considered uncovered.
Undercut bank: An undercut bank is defined as that bank which has been
cut by the stream so that a protrusion of the upper portion of the bank overhangs
the water surface. The water level does not influence this reading.
Overhanging vegetation: That bank with vegetation which protrudes
over the water surface. Vegetation is within 12 inches vertically above the water
surface.
STREAMBANK STABILITY 97
-------
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
Streambank stability
Streambank stability is estimated using a simplified modification of Platts,
Megahan, and Minshall (1983, p. 13). The modification allows for measuring bank
stability in a more objective fashion. This measure can be made rapidly without
any specialized equipment. The lengths of banks on both sides of the stream
throughout the entire linear distance of the representative reach are measured and
proportioned into four stability classes as follows:
1. Mostly covered and stable (non-erosional). Streambanks are OVER
50% COVERED as defined above. Streambanks are STABLE as defined above.
Banks associated with gravel bars having perennial vegetation above the scour
line are in this category.
2. Mostly covered and unstable (vulnerable). Streambanks are OVER
50% COVERED as defined above. Streambanks are UNSTABLE as defined above.
Such banks are typical of "false banks" observed in meadows where breakdown,
slumping, and/or fracture show instability yet vegetative cover is abundant.
3. Mostly uncovered and stable (vulnerable). Streambanks are less
than 50% COVERED as defined above. Streambanks are STABLE as defined
above. Uncovered, stable banks are typical of streamsides trampled by
concentrations of cattle. Such trampling flattens the bank so that slumping and
breakdown do not occur even though vegetative cover is significantly reduced or
eliminated.
4. Mostly uncovered and unstable (erosional). Streambanks are less
than 50% COVERED as defined above. They are also UNSTABLE as defined
above. These are bare eroding Streambanks and include ALL banks mostly
uncovered which are at a steep angle to the water surface.
The streambank must be envisioned as that part of the channel which would
be most susceptible to erosion during high water events if vegetation were
removed; therefore it represents the steeper-sloped sides of the stream channel.
Bank cover is generally viewed at the vegetative greenline located below the
bankfull level but above any natural undercutting bank scour (above the scour
line). Using a measuring tape, measuring rod, or measuring wheel, record the
length of streambank on both sides of stream in the representative reach
represented by each of the stability classes.
OR
yo STREAMBANK STABILITY
-------
Figure 6.6. Stream channel stability and cover indicators
Covered and stable
Covered and unstable
Uncovered and stable
Uncovered and unstable
STREAMS ANK STABILITY
99
-------
Because streambank parameters can change during the livestock grazing
period, the data form facilitates recording changes observed over the season or
from season to season. Grazing intensity should not be sufficient to cause a
seasonal change equal to or greater than natural streambank building processes.
In many cases, more than 10 to 15% reduction in the amount of stable or covered
streambank over the course of a grazing season may exceed the rate of natural
streambank building and contribute to declining trends in bank condition.
Locating streambanks
Streambanks are defined by morphological features of the stream channel.
They are created by the forces of streamflow acting upon the resistance of the
channel to erosion. Streamflow forces are greatest at high flow and it has been
shown that channel shapes are closely linked to the rate of annual flood flow. Each
year the stream reaches a stage which scours the streambed. A scour feature can
easily be recognized, because perennial vegetation grows mostly above the
streambed eroded during the annual flood. Below this scour line, erosion is mostly
a natural phenomenon. Banks form above the scour line where vegetation, roots,
rocks, and other forms of resistance counter the flow energy. Use the following
guidelines to locate banks for evaluation.
Locate the scour line in the stream reach. The scour line is at some
elevation above the current water line. It can be located by examining
features in the channel. The ceiling of undercut banks, the limit of sod
forming vegetation, and the limit of perennial vegetation all clearly demark
the scour line level.
'View the scour line level along the entire length of the stream reach.
The bank is that portion of the channel margin above the scour line at the
steepest angle to the water surface.
On gravel and sand bars, the bank is often defined by the limit of sod or
perennial vegetation, or by an indentation in the bar (local steepened area)
just above the scour line. That small indentation or lip is the bank as defined
in this procedure.
When the bank is not present due to excessive bar deposition or to
streamside trampling the bank is classified "stable but uncovered."
100 STREAMBANK STABILITY
-------
Undercut banks or overhanging vegetation:
Using a measuring tape, measuring rod, or measuring wheel record the
length of streambank on both sides of stream in the reach represented by undercut
bank or overhanging vegetation. Use Table 6.7 to record overhanging vegetation
and undercut banks. The same principles with respect to observed changes in
bank stability over a single grazing season apply to undercut banks and
overhanging vegetation as discussed above.
Overhanging vegetation
| Undercut
.Stream channel
Figure 6.7. Channel coven undercut banks and overhanging vegetation
(After CJ. Hunter 1991)
STREAMBANK STABILITY
101
-------
Table 6.6. Streambank monitoring form
Station name: — •
Drainage: — Investigators):.
NOTE: Start at downstream left stake, proceed on that bank to upstream stake. Cross stream and proceed from
directly opposite the upstream stake to directly opposite the downstream stake.
Units:
Metric
.English
Left bank Vegetation:
Right bank Vegetation
Photo #'s: .,
Hvdric
Hvdric
Non-hvdric
Non-hvdric
BANK
LOCATION
Lower left stake
Total left side
Upper right stake
Total right side
Utilization:
Initial Date:
0%
LENGTH OF BAN1
Date:
C IN EACH CLASS
Date:
Date:
Bank classes: CS = Covered/Stable CU = Covered/Unstable
US = Uncovered/ stable UU = Uncovered/Unstable
102
STREAMBANK STABILITY
-------
Table 6.7. Undercut/overhanging bank monitoring form
Station name: ______
Drainage: Investigators):
NOTE: Start at downstream left stake, proceed on that bank to upstream stake. Cross stream and proceed from dire
tly opposite the upstream stake to directly opposite the downstream stake.
Units:
.Metric
.English
Left bank Vegetation:
Right bank Vegetation
.Hydric
_Non-hydric
_Hydric
_Non-hydric
Photo #'s:
BANK
LOCATION
Lower left stake
Total left side
Upoer right stake
Total right side
Utilization:
Initial Date:
0%
LENGTH OF BAN]
Date:
KIN EACH CLASS
Date:
Date:
Bank classes: UB = Undercut bank OV = Overhanging vegetation
STREAMBANK STABILITY
103
-------
DATA ANALYSIS
The composition of the streambank relative to each of the four bank
condition classes is calculated and reported as percent of each class. Thus each
class percentage is calculated as follows:
CL% = (LC/L) X 100
where: CL% = percent in any class (classes are CS, CU, US, UU
as defined above).
LC = length of bank in that class.
L = total length of bank evaluated.
During the grazing season, a change in the composition of any class can be
measured using this equation. However, it is often more meaningful to represent
the composition of just two parameters, total stable and total covered, thus:
%stable = (CS + US)/L X 100
where: CS = length of bank covered and stable
US = length of bank uncovered and stable
L = total length of bank evaluated
and:
%covered = (CS + CU)/L X 100
where: CS = length of bank covered and stable
CU = length of bank covered and unstable
L = total length of bank evaluated
These equations, representing the percentage of change by linear
composition along the streambank, apply also to lengths of undercut and
overhanging vegetation.
Similarity between the present and reference condition is calculated as the
sum of the percentage of composition in common in each condition class. A
reference site must be located and measured for purposes of comparison. The
average condition of several reference sites could also be used in this scenario.
The calculation of similarity for bank cover is:
%S = [%Cr - (%Cr-%Ct)]/%Cr X 100
where: %S = Percent similarity or condition
%Cr= Percent covered at the reference
%Ct= Percent covered at the treatment
104 STREAMBANK ESTABILITY
-------
Substituting percent bank stability for percent bank cover, the same
equation would apply to rating streambank stability in relation to reference (or
potential) conditions.
Undercut bank and overhanging vegetation: The amount of undercut
bank is also a percentage of the total length of streambanks. The calculation of
similarity is:
%S = [%Ur - (%Ur-%Ut)]/%Ur X 100
Where: %S = Percent similarity or condition
%Ur= Percent undercut bank + overhanging
vegetation at the reference
%Ut= Percent undercut bank + overhanging
vegetation at the treatment
Note that percent similarity may exceed 100 when undercut bank plus
overhanging vegetation at the treatment exceeds the reference site(s).
EQUIPMENT LIST
1. Steel rebar stakes, at least 4 per site
2. Waders
3. Map of stream segment
4. Field forms
5. Clipboard/notebook
6. Measuring tape, rod, or wheel to measure bank lengths
STREAMBANK STABILITY 105
-------
REFERENCES
Binns, N. A. 1979. A habitat quality index for Wyoming trout streams. Monogr.
'Ser., Fish. Res. Rep. 2. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish
Department.
Hawkins, C.P., M.L. Murphy, N.J. Anderson,. 1983. Density of fish and
salamanders in relation to riparian canopy and physical habitat in streams
of the northwestern United States. Can. Journal Fish. Aquat. Sci.
40(8):1173-1186.
Lloyd, J.R. 1986. COWFISH: Habitat capability model. USDA Forest Service,
Northern Region Fish and Wildlife Staff, Fish Habitat Relationship
Program, Missoula, Montana.
Nelson, R.L., W.S. Platts, D.P. Larsen, and S.E. Jensen. 1990. Distribution and
habitat relationships of native and introduced trout in relation to geology
and geomorphology in the North Fork Humboldt River drainage,
northeastern Nevada. Publication in draft.
Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by
livestock: A guidance and reference document for biologists. Nevada
Department of Wildlife.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating
stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-138. USDA
Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Ogden, UT.
Platts, W.S., and R.L. Nelson. 1989. Characteristics of riparian plant communities
and streambanks with respect to grazing in northeastern Utah. Paper
presented at: Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management - An
Educational Workshop. Billings, MT.
Rinne, J.N. 1990. The utility of stream habitat and biota for identifying potential
conflicting forest land uses: Montane riparian areas. Forest Ecology and
Management, 33/34: 363-383.
Shepard, B. 1989. Evaluation of the USDA "COWFISH" model for assessing
livestock impacts on fisheries in the Beaverhead National Forest. Paper
presented at: Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management: An
Educational Workshop. Billings, MT.
Sullivan, K, T.E. Lisle, A.C. Dolloff, and others, 1987. Stream channels: The link
between forests and fishes. In: E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, editors.
Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions. University of
Washington, Seattle, WA. pp 40-97.
106 STREAMBANK STABILITY
-------
Wesche, T.A. 1980. The WRRI trout cover rating method: Development and
application. Water Resources Series No. 78. Water Resources Research
Institute, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
STREAMBANK STABILITY 107
-------
F. SUBSTRATE FINE SEDIMENT
PARAMETER LIST
Parameters associated with this monitoring procedure include:
1. Percent substrate fine sediment
2. Substrate average particle size - D50
OVERVIEW
Streambank destabilization and resultant erosion can increase the amount
of fine sediment on stream substrates (Shepard, 1989; Nelson et al., in press;
Hawkins et al., 1983). Increased bedload sediment often originates from
overgrazing by cattle (Platts, 1990). Such increases in substrate sedimentation
have been known to impair aquatic food production and block refugia for young
trout (Rinne, 1990). Salmonid survival at early life stages has been directly linked
to the amount of surface fines in the substrate (Rich et al., 1992). Juvenile
salmonids are dependent on clean substrate as cover, especially for over-winter
survival. If this habitat is not available, they must either find other suitable
habitat by migrating from the stream reach or find replacement habitat (Bustard
and Narver, 1975a; Bustard and Narver, 1975b; Hillman, Griffith and Platts,
1986; Rieman and Apperson, 1989).
Fine sediments in streams move either in suspension in the streamflow or
are bounced along the bottom (bedload). The size of the particle and the amount of
energy in the stream determine which mode of transport will occur within a stream
reach. Substrate problems for salmonids generally occur within stream reaches
having low energy and higher concentration of coarse fines such as sand. In such
cases, bedload is significant and often greater than suspended load. Small meadow
streams dominated by smaller particles such as silt and fine sand often have
enough energy to suspend these particles, but the materials return to the bed at
obstructions and channel bends, infiltrate the cleaner spawning substrates, and
block oxyge;i delivery to developing salmonid embryos.
The proportion of fine sediments on the substrate surface of a stream
provides a good estimate of substrate habitat quality for salmonids. Fines that
reduce embryo survival and impede emergence have been commonly defined as
particles less than 6.4 mm (Torquemada and Platts, 1988; Bjornn and Reiser,
1991). The percent of the surface area occupied by fine sediments can be
effectively estimated using plot grids or by particle counting on pace transects.
The latter method is called pebble counting and was originally described by
Wolman (1954). The plot method allows for examining numerous points on the
substrate of the stream in a short period of time, but only measures percent of the
area in fines. Pebble counting also allows for examining numerous points on the
108 SUBSTRATE FINE SEDIMENT
-------
substrate of the stream, but requires longer time to collect the samples. At each
sampling point the observer must remove a particle from the stream and measure
its diameter. Pebble counting provides an estimate of the percent of the substrate
occupied by all particle classes, and not just percent fines. The substrate size
distribution is important for determining the stability of the substrate and
therefore the cause of reduced substrate quality or reduced pool volume.
Pebble counting and plot grid estimates only measure the areal or surface
composition. Other techniques, such as cobble embeddedness, and substrate coring
(Platts, Megahan, and Minshall, 1983), have been used to estimate the volumetric
effects of sedimentation. These techniques are more time consuming than surface
techniques. Because substrate sedimentation is highly variable in space over the
stream bottom, numerous samples are required to adequately estimate the mean
or describe differences between stations. At least one hundred individual samples
are often required in pebble counting to adequately represent this measurement.
Such intensity of sampling using cobble embeddedness measurement techniques,
or depth coring would be prohibitive due to the time and cost of retrieving samples.
The techniques presented here are assumed to be good surrogates for depth fines
and embeddedness. Correlations between estimates are often observed at
individual stations. Some coring and embeddedness estimations could be made to
develop the desired correlation, but it is recommended that monitoring be focused
on surface fines techniques because of their cost effectiveness.
Ocular methods for estimating surface fines and embeddedness have been
tested by Torquemada and Platts (1988). While these techniques can provide a
reasonable estimate, they require observer judgement and observer bias could be
significant. This potential bias is probably inappropriate for purposes of time
trend monitoring and multiple site comparisons. Therefore we do not recommend
application of ocular methods for monitoring.
PEBBLE COUNTING
Data Collection Methods
Sampling is conducted on each of the cross-channel transects at the station
to estimate the overall particle size distribution within the stream reach. This
approach averages across all habitat types (pool, riffle, run) encountered in the
sample reach and is indicative of general rearing habitat quality. An alternative
procedure would be to locate sample transects for surface fine sediments to target
specific habitat units and improve precision. Specific habitats that have been used
include pool tail outs and low gradient riffles. These alternative procedures should
be developed in consultation with a fisheries biologist familiar with the drainage.
At each transect, particles are selected from the substrate and measured to count
the number of pebbles in each of several size classes. The data are recorded on the
form in Table 6.8 which displays the standard substrate size classes used. The
numbers of pebbles collected in size classes less than 6 mm determine the percent
of fine sediments in the system.
SUBSTRATE FINE SEDIMENT 109
-------
Pace Methods; At each transect, the pebble count begins at bankfull stage
on one bank and proceeds to the same stage on the other side of the stream. The
observer paces across the transect and collects samples one step at a time. At each
step, the observer reaches down to the tip of the boot and with the index finger
extended, selects the first particle touched by the extended finger. In cold water
conditions, use arm-pit length gloves. Look across and not down while taking a
step and selecting the pebble so as not to bias the sample. The pebble selected
should be that first touched by the center of the finger. If the side of the finger
touches a pebble in interspaces between particles, the sample should be taken from
below the interspace.
Each particle is recorded as a tally in one of the size classes on Table 6.8. To
determine which class the pebble should be in, measure the length of the
intermediate diameter of the particle. The intermediate diameter is found by
observing first the longest diameter, and then the shortest diameter of the particle.
The intermediate diameter should be found perpendicular to these axes. Think of
the intermediate diameter as that axis which would allow the particle to fall
through a sieve as it was agitated on the upper sieve surface. Particles too small to
measure less than .1 inch, are classed as either sand or silt/clay. If the fine
particles observed at that location do not feel grainy to the touch, record as
silt/clay. Fine particles thinly coating the surfaces of larger gravels, pebbles, and
boulders are NOT counted in the tally. Fines should have a depth of at least 1 inch
to count as bed material.
Fixed Interval Method: For particles that cannot be picked-up from the
stream bed (big rocks, armored pebbles, deep water) the tape line fixed interval
sampling procedure is suggested. Extend a measuring tape between the two
stakes on the transect. At fixed intervals along the tape line, usually 10 to 20 per
transect, examine the substrate and estimate the particle size class at each
location. A six inch square plexiglass plate fixed to a wood box frame makes a good
substrate viewer. The box deflects agitation on the water surface and the
plexiglass permits improved visual observation of the bottom. Particles sizes are
estimated according to the intermediate diameter as observed from above. An 18
inch ruler is often used to measure the diameter of large particles. Particles in
deep water are estimated by comparing their diameters to the observers known
boot length. Selecting particles underneath the fixed interval on the measuring
tape can be unbiased if the observer uses a rod to select the particle for
measurement. At the appropriate location on the tape, extend the rod vertically
down to the substrate. Avoid looking at the substrate until the rod touches ground.
Then using the viewer, examine the particle directly beneath the center of the base
of the rod. Record the particle size class as above.
DATA ANALYSIS AND
The tallies for each particle size class are summed and a cumulative
distribution determined. In other words, the cumulative percent finer than each
110
SUBSTRATE FINE SEDIMENT
-------
class is calculated. The graph in Figure 6.8 represents the cumulative distribution
from the data in the example below. The graph is constructed as follows:
1. The X axis represents cumulative percent of particle sizes up to
100%.
2. The Y axis is particle size in millimeters and is on a logarithmic
scale.
3. Samples are partitioned into size classes on the field data form. The
smallest size class is silt/clay which is distinguished from sand by the non-
grainy texture. The next class is sand, from 1 to 2.5 mm. The next class
defines the limit for fines which has a maximum size of 6 mm. Size classes
up to 6 mm are used to calculate the percent of fine sediments.
4. Each size class represented in the pebble count survey is plotted on
the graph according to its cumulative proportion of the total sample size.
Thus, if 100 pebbles are obtained in a typical survey, and 25 of them are
silt/clay, then 25 percent of the tdtal sample is smaller than silt/clay. If 10
pebbles in the survey are sand, then 25 plus 10 percent = 35 percent of the
sample is smaller than sand.
From the cumulative frequency graph, the size of particles, smaller
than the value corresponding to a frequency of occurrence can be determined.
In Figure 6.8, the particle size for which 50 percent of all measured particles
are smaller is 11 mm. The median particle size (D50) allows an assessment of
average substrate size over time which is an indicator of substrate stability.
Stable systems have larger D50's depending on the watershed parent geology.
SUBSTRATE FINE SEDIMENT
-------
-------
GRID METHOD
Data CoEection Method
Pebble counting can, in some cases, underestimate surface fine sediment
composition. Because particles are selected from above the bed, fines located in
interstitial spaces between larger particles can be missed. The grid method of
measuring the aerial composition of surface fines can be used as an alternative
method to avoid this bias. The area of fines on a known area can be estimated
using a procedure similar to dot counting area on a map.
Three sampling grids are located on each transect in the monitoring site
(Figure 6.9). The grids can be placed at three equidistant locations along the
transect or placed using random numbers. For random placement, location of the
plot on the transect is determined by generating random numbers between the
transect endpoints and centering the grid at those points on the transect. At each
sampling point, the percent of the grid area in fines is estimated. Fine sediments
are defined as that fraction of substrate less than 6 mm in diameter. Intersections
in the grid directly over areas of fine sediment are counted. A small piece of
plexiglass can be used to break the surface turbulence to aid in viewing the grid
intersections. Various sized frames have been used to define the grid. A 22 inch by
22 inch frame with 2 inch squares provides 144 intersections for assessment of
surface fine sediments. Tally the total number of intersections over fine sediments
and record the data on the form in Table 6.9.
Subsequent monitoring requires revisiting the same transects and plots as
previously established. At each transect, the location of the previously sampled
plots must be relocated. Make sure the measuring tape is always extended from
the right bank, looking upstream, to the left bank so that zero distance is at the
right stake.
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Percent surface fines collected using the plot data are simply averaged over
all plots sampled. The percent fines on any one plot is equal to the number of
intersections counted over fines divided by the total number of intersections on the
grid.
I 1-2
SUBSTOATE FINE SEDIMENT * 1J
-------
Figure 6.9. Grid for measuring percent surface fine sediment
EQUIPMENT LIST
1. Hip or chest waders
2. Arm length rubber gloves (pebble counting in cold water)
3. Measuring tape, tag line, or equivalent (plot grid method)
4. Sampling grid (plot grid method)
5. Data forms
6. Programmable hand calculator or table to obtain random numbers for
plot location (plot grid method)
7. Ruler or scale (pebble counting)
114
SUBSTRATE FINE SEDIMENT
-------
Table 6.8. Pebble count for particle size distribution
Stream/riparian reach name:
Date: Examiners:
TRANSECT #
SIZE
CLASS
Silt/day
<.l in.
(<2.5 mm)
*.l-.25in.
(2.5-6 mm)
.2S-.6 in.
(6-15 mm)
.6-1.25 in.
(15-31 mm)
1.25-2.5 in.
(31-64 mm)
2.5-5 in.
(64-128 mm)
5-10 in
(128-256 mm)
10-20 in.
(256-512 mm)
20-40 in
(512-1024 mm)
40-80 in.
(1024-2048 mm)
80-160 in.
(2048-4096 mm)
ITEM
COUNT
TOTALS
TOT
1
%
TOT
%
CUM
TRANSECT #
ITEM
COUNT
TOTALS
TOT
f
%
TOT
*
CUM
TRANSECT #
ITEM
COUNT
TOTALS
TOT
*
%
TOT
%
CUM
Note: Tot # - Number of particles in size class
% Tot - Percentage of particles in size class
% Cum - Cumulative percent finer than size class
* % Fines - Cumulative percent less than 6 mm size class
SUBSTRATE FINE SEDIMENT
115
-------
Table 6.9. Surface fine sediment
Stream/riparian reach name:
Date: Examiners:_
Total number of intersections in plot grid:_
SELECTED
TRANSECT
NTTMRFR
PLOT # AND LOCATION - fine sediment / distance
1
FS*
(#)
FS*
(%)
Dist*
2
FS*
(#)
FS*
(%)
Dist*
3
FS*
(#)
FS*
(%)
Dist*
AVERAGE FOR
EACH TRANSECT
FS*
(#)
FS*
(% fines)
FS # - number of intersections over fine sediment (<6 mm)
FS % - percent fine sediments
Dist - record the distance from the right stake (looking upstream) to the center of
the plot, to aid in relocating plots.
116
SUBSTRATE FINE SEDIMENT
-------
REFERENCES
Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83-138.
Bustard, D. R. and D. W. Narver. 1975a. Aspects of winter ecology of juvenile
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salino Gardineri).
J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32(5):667-680.
Bustard, D. R. and D. W. Narver. 1975b. Preferences of juvenile coho salmon
(Oncorhvnchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) relative to
simulated alteration of winter habitat. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32(5):681-
687.
Hawkins, C.P., M.L. Murphy, N.J. Anderson,. 1983. Density of fish and
salamanders in relation to riparian canopy and physical habitat in streams
of the north-western United States. Can. Journal Fish. Aquat. Sci.
40(8):1173-1186.
Hillman, T. W., J. S. Griffith, and W. S. Platts. 1986. The effects of sediment on
summer and winter habitat selection by juvenile chinook salmon in an Idaho
stream. Unpublished Report. Idaho State Univ., Dept. of Biological
Sciences. Pocatello, Idaho.
Nelson, R.L., W.S. Platts, D.P. Larsen, and S.E. Jensen. 1990. Distribution and
habitat relationships of native and introduced trout in relation to geology
and geomorphology in the North Fork Humboldt River drainage,
northeastern Nevada. Publication in draft.
Platts, W.S. 1989. Compatibility of livestock grazing strategies with fisheries.
Paper presented at: Practical approaches to Riparian Resource
Management: An educational workshop. Billings, MT. p 103-110.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall, 1983. Methods for evaluating
stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. General Technical Report INT-138.
Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station.
Rich, BA., R.J. Scully, and C.E. Petrosky. 1992. Idaho habitat/natural production
monitoring, Part I. General monitoring subproject annual report.
Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.
Rieman, B. E., and K. A. Apperson. 1989. Status and analysis of salmonid
fisheries westslope cutthroat trout synopsis and analysis of fishery
information, Idaho Fish and Game Project F-73-R-11, Subproject No. n, Job
No. 1.
SUBSTRATE FINE SEDIMENT 117
-------
Rinne, J.N. 1990. The utility of stream habitat and biota for identifying potential
conflicting forest land uses: Montane riparian areas. Forest Ecology and
Management, 33/34: 363-383.
Shepard, B. 1989. Evaluation of "the USDA Forest Service "COWFISH" model for
assessing livestock impacts on fisheries in the Beaverhead National Forest.
Paper presented at: Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource
Management: An Educational Workshop. Billings, MT.
Torquemada, R.J., and W.S. Platts. 1988. A comparison of sediment monitoring
techniques of potential use in sediment/fish relationships. Final Report to
Idaho Fish and Game Department, Boise, ID.
Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material: American
Geophysical Union Transactions, 35: 951-956.
1 1 R
110 SUBSTRATE FINE SEDIMENT
-------
G. POOL QUALITY
PARAMETER LIST
Parameters associated -with this monitoring procedure include:
1. Pool quality
2. Pool condition l
OVERVIEW
Fish abundance is related to the diversity of habitats and number and
quality of in-stream pools in stream environments (Kozel and Hubert, 1989a;
Moore and Gregory, 1989). Pool filling and de-stabilization as a result of
sedimentation of the substrate can alter habitat structure and diversity important
to fish (Lisle, 1987).
Detecting pool changes within the channel, especially a decrease of habitat
diversity and quality over periods of increasing substrate sedimentation, provides a
means of monitoring beneficial use impairment in streams used for rearing
salmonids. Changes in habitat diversity are often associated with adverse impacts
to key rearing habitats or pools. Pool quality is largely a function of the amount of
cover available in slow velocity waters. Fish depend heavily on cover for refuge
and security. Survival and health of aquatic communities can be determined by
pool quality, when cover in low velocity waters is limited.
DEFINITIONS
i Pools have these characteristics (Platts, Megahan, and Minshall,
1983; Bisson et aL, 1982):
Beduced water velocity
Water depth is greater than surrounding areas
The water surface gradient allow flow is often near zero
The bed is often concave in shape and forms a depression in the profile of
the stream's thalweg
Pools are formed by features of the stream that cause local deepening of
the channel. Deepening results from lateral constrictions in flow or by sharp
drops in the water surface profile. Examples include:
POOL QUALITY 119
-------
Plunge pool, created by water passing over or through a complete or
nearly complete channel obstruction, scouring out a basin below. They are
often associated with large debris and are usually macro-habitat.
Dammed pools, impounded upstream of a complete or nearly
complete channel blockage caused by log jams, beavers, rockslides, boulders,
etc. They are usually macro-habitat.
A meander or comer pool is a lateral scour pool resulting from a
sudden shift in channel direction and occurs along the ©uteurves of channel
meanders. These are usually maero-habitat.
Backwaters caused by- an eddy along the channel margin or by back-
flooding upstream from an obstruction such as large woody debris, boulders or
root wads. These are usually micro-habitat.
•- • • Trenches or slot-like depressions formed usually in bedrock
channels in long linear shapes. These are usually micro-habitat
•..-•• Lateral scour around local obstructions such as wing deflectors,
boulders, or individual logs. These are usually micro-habitat.
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
A survey such as that suggested by Hankin and Reeves (1988) is
recommended for assessing quality of pools in a reach of stream. Following is a
brief summary of the data collection steps.
1. The observer proceeds along 'the-.length of £he,stream-channel sequentially
identifying and classifying the stream channel into different habitat types
based on geomorphic and flow characteristics.
2. All pools encountered during the reach survey are evaluated. At each pool,
.fill out a data sheet characterizing pool quality (Table :-6.10).:- 'The following
factors are assessed in the survey: ; ••• • :.'.•.• -.^•^r.'.-r.i/. :.'•;.' ••••.•••. ;•'
a. Depth: Depth is defined as residual pool depth -or mammum depth of the
pool minus pool spill-put depth (Figure 6.11), Record a single digit code for the
depth as follows: - '- '•-'••-.•. •-••; ,:',.•;:--:-.-.•:-...- •••••'->.:,.•;•:.;.,'-..•.•,.-.-..•- .-••• .;.
Depth < ,5 feet, code s 0. '
' Depth>.5 and <:1.5 feet, code = .1.
Depth > 1.5 feet, code-s 2.
120 POOL QUALITY
-------
b. Substrate: Record the substrate code as follows:
Dominated by gravel size material or smaller-
(< 2.5 inches) then code = 0;
Dominated by cobble sizeii'material -
(> 2.5 inches and < 10 inches) tJiencbde-1.
Dominated by boulder size material-
(> 10 inches) then code = 2.!
c. Overhead cover: Record the code for overhead cover (OC) created by
terrestrial vegetation or turbulence.
If OC < 10 percent of surface area of pool, then
code - 0.
If OC is between 10 and 25 percent of the surface
area, code -1.
If OC > 25 percent of the surface area, code = 2.
d. Submerged cover: Record the code for submerged cover (SC) created by
large organic debris, small woody debris, and other forms below or on the
water surface.
If SC < 10 percent of surface area of the pool, then
code=0. " •:"--:: • •-•":,; ' ••'.'.'.'' ': -... '"'•'.
If SC is between 10 and 25 percent of the surface
area, code = 1.
If SC > 25 percent of the surface area, code = 2.
e. Bank cover: Record the code for bank cover (BC) created by undercuts in
the bank, stumps, large roots, and other along the pool margins.
If BC < 25 percent of the total bank length along
the pool, then code - 0,
If BC is between 25 and 50 percent of the total bank
length, then code = 1.
If BC > 50 percent of the total bank length, then ?
code SB 2.
The quality for the pool is then determined by summing the codes over all
five factors (Figure 6.10). For example, a pool received these ratings: depth = 2,
substrate = 0, overhead = 2, submerged = 0, and bank = 1. The pool complexity
equals: 2 + 0 + 2 + 0 + 1 = 5. Pool quality ratings range between 0 and 10 with low
values indicating low quality.
POOLQUALTTY
-------
DATA ANALYSIS
Pool quality index: The pool quality index is a value between 0 and 10,
with 10 highest complexity (quality) and 0 lowest quality, as defined above. It is
the average of pool quality ratings over all pools evaluated. This is a qualitative
rating. The subjectiveness of the rating can be minimized by measuring depth,
length of undercut bank, length and width of overhanging vegetation and other
cover components of the pool. An individual pool can be identified with a marked
stake and measurements recorded by pool number. Photographs of individual
pools help to assess changes in quality over time.
Pool condition index: A condition index can be derived by comparing the
similarity of pool complexity at an impacted site with an unimpacted or lightly
impacted reference site. The similarity index is:
%S = IPQr - (PQr-PQt)]/PQrX 100
Where: %S= Percent similarity or condition
PQr = Pool complexity at the reference
PQt = Pool complexity at the impacted
site •-' • -"-• •..' • • . -v ;.•-'• - :••,-,' .••.•• •
122 POOL QUALITY
-------
High quality pool
Overhead cover
A
Substrate cover
Submerged cover
Low quality pool
Figure 6.10. High quality pool compared to poor quality pool
(After C J. Hunter 1991)
POOL QUALITY
123
-------
Water surface
Residual datum
Residual pool volume
Fines volume
Figure 6.11. Residual pool depths, maximum depth minus pool tail out
depth
124
POOL QUALITY
-------
Table 6.10. Pool quality index field form
POOL COVER
TYPE
HABITAT UNIT*
DEPTH
SUBSTRATE
OVERHEAD
SUBMERGED
BANKS
TOTAL FOR
HABITAT UNIT
POOL NUMBER
1
2
CODES: 1: Depth: <
I
-is
2: Substrate: ;j
: - - c
-\
:3: Overhead cover <
: . _ : .:^ : - : ;]
. - . - •- ..-..- --«
4: Submerged cover
t
-4
:
+,
:5: Bank coven 1
4
-+
.3
4
5
C5 feet, code =0
wtween .5 and U feet, o
»13feet,code=2:
rravel size material (< 2.f
»bble size material (25 •
WJP lifer size material (>1
c 10 percent of the surfac
LO - 25 percent of the sari
» 25 percent of the surfac
large organic debris, snu
he water surface
c 10 percent of the surfac
0-25 percent of the surJ
» 25 percent of the surfac
Jndercuts in the bank, stt
: 25 percent of the length
J5 - 50 percent of the ban
> 50 percent of the bank 1
6
7
8
9
10
TOTAL
ode= 1
inches), code = 0
10 inches), code = 1
0 inches), code = 2
e of the pool, code = 0
ace area, code=:l
e area, code = 2
ill woody debris, and other forms below or on
e of the pool, code = 0
[ace area, code = 1
e area, code = 2
imps, large roots, and other along the pool margins
of the bank, code= 0
k length, code = 1
length, code =2
POOL QUALITY
125
-------
EQUIPMENT LIST
1. Measuring rod - surveying rod or equivalent (at least 10 foot
length)
2. Waders
3. Map of reach, preferably topographic, scale 1:24,000 or larger
4. Field forms
5. Habitat type keys
6. Clipboard/notebook
7. Measuring tapes
126 POOL QUALITY
-------
REFERENCES
Bisson, P.A., J.L. Nielson, R.A. Palmason, and L.E. Grove. 1982. N.B.
Armantrout, (ed). Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory
information. Pp. 62-73. Proceedings of symposium held Oct. 28-30, 1981,
Portland, Oregon. Western Division, American Fisheries Society.
Fraley, J. J. and B. B, Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status
of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and
river system, Montana. Northwest Science, Vol. 63, No. 4. pp 133-143.
Gorman, 0. T. and J. R. Karr. 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish
communities. Ecology 59(3). pp 507-515.
Hankin, D.G., and G.H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total
habitat area in small streams based on visual estimation methods. Can.
Journal Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45:834-844.
Hunt, R. L. 1969. Effects of habitat alteration on production, standing crops, and
yield of brook trout in Lawrence Creek, Wisconsin.
Kozel, S.J. and WA Hubert. 1989a. Factors influencing the abundance of brook
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in forested mountain streams. Journal Fresh.
Ecology, 5(1):113-122.
Kozel, S.J. and WA. Hubert. 1989b. Testing of habitat assessment models for
small trout streams in the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:458-464.
Kozel, S.J., WA. Hubert, and M.G. Parsons. 1989. Habitat features and trout
abundance relative to gradient in some Wyoming streams. Northwest
Science, 63(4):175-182.
Lanka, R.P., WA. Hubert, and TA. Wesche. 1987. Relations of geomorphology to
stream habitat and trout standing stock in small Rocky Mountain streams.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:21-28.
Lisle, T. E. 1982. Effects of aggradation and degradation on riffle-pool morphology
in natural gravel channels, northwestern California. Water Resources
Research 18: 1643-1651.
Marcus, M.D., M.K Young, L.E. Noel, and BA. Mullan. 1990. Salmonid-habitat
relationships in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep, RM-188. Fort
Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station.
Moore M.S. and S.V. Gregory. 1989. Geomorphic and riparian influences on the
POOL QUALITY 127
-------
distribution and abundance of salmonids in a Cascade mountain stream.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. MinshalL 1983. Methods for evaluating
stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. USDA Forest Service, General
Technical Report INT-138, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Ogden, UT. 70p.
Sullivan, K, T.E. Lisle, A.C. Dolloff, and others, 1987. Stream channels: The link
between forests and fishes. In: E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, editors.
Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions. University of
Washington, Seattle, WA. pp 40-97.
Wilzbach, MA. 1989. How tight is the linkage between trees and trout? USDA
Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110.
128
POOL QUALITY
-------
H. STREAMSroE VEGETATION
PARAMETER LIST
Parameters associated ^with this monitoring procedure include:
1. Vegetation composition (Green Line)
2. Woody species regeneration (age class)
3. Vegetative utilization (herbage stubble height;
OVERVIEW
Removal of riparian vegetation reduces habitat quality, resulting in negative
impacts to fish productivity (Platts and Nelson, 1989). Reduction in bank cover
related to overhanging vegetation, root vegetation, and undercut bank has been
correlated to reduced fish production (Wesche, 1980; Binns, 1979; Sullivan et al.,
1987).
Because riparian areas are usually grazed more heavily than adjacent
uplands, overgrazing can lead to elimination of the more desirable, deep-rooted
hydric plants (Platts and Nelson, 1985; Platts, 1990). Cattle feed on herbaceous
riparian plants, browse shrubs, and trample valuable species thereby reducing
their vigor and dominance on a site (Platts, 1990). Though changes are usually
slow and go unnoticed, the long-term effect is often significant. Altered systems
are eventually exposed to a large streamflow event, resulting in adverse
modification of the channel and aquatic habitats.
A very common vegetative conversion resulting from livestock grazing in
riparian zones is the replacement of natural grasses with Kentucky bluegrass
(Platts, 1990). Also common is tile conversion of native willow shrubs to grasses
and forbs. Sedges and willows provide optimum stream habitat conditions because
deep roots provide excellent bank stability and underbank cover, and the dense
above-ground biomass often provides excellent overhead cover.
Streams which provide the best conditions for fish are those with dense,
vigorous, and diverse riparian vegetation (Platts, 1991). Dense vegetation provides
shade, energy (nutrients and food), and erosion resistance. Good plant vigor
assures longevity of the plant community and resilience in times of stress.
Diversity of plant communities creates complexity in aquatic habitats. As shrubs
are added to grass-dominated riparian zones, their roots greatly increase cover
quality and the shrubs contribute leaf litter that diversifies the food base. Trees
added to shrub/grass riparian zones increase the amounts of wood, as roots or
fallen limbs and trunks, that provide cover and complexity to the aquatic system.
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION 129
-------
Utilization is tradionally described as a percent of forage removed. A
problem with this method is the difficulty of evaluating or visualizing something
that has already been removed. Basing proper use on plant residue or stubble
height may be preferable because the amount of herbaceous plant residue left has
the greatest impact on plant health and soil and watershed protection (Valentine,
1990). Measuring the stuble height of herbaceous vegetation at the end of the
grazing and growing season is an easy, rapid method of determining if sufficient
herbaceous biomass remains to sustain desirable plant communities, maintain
plant vigor, provide for a functioning flood plain, and protect the streambank.
Clary and Webster (1989) suggest that going into winter, a herbage stubble height
of four to six inches is enough vegetative biomass on the Green Line and floodplain
to protect streambanks and flood plain functions. A site-specific stubble height
objective will depend on the charateristics of the individual species and the
sensitivity of the resource.
To estimate streamside vegetation conversion, the Green Line and woody
species regeneration methods of monitoring are used, as documented in USDA
Forest Service (1992) and Cowley (1992). A recent BLM publication provides a
detailed monitoring protocol for Green Line riparian-wetland monitoring (USDI
Bureau of Land Management, 1993.) Monitoring plant residue using stubble height
is described in detail in Cowley (1992).
DEFINITIONS
Ecological succession or plant succession: The process of vegetational
development in which plant communities progress from a lower to a higher
ecological status.
Potential natural community; The combination of plant species that
would result if ecological succession was completed without interruption.
Ecological status: The degree of similarity or comparison between current
vegetation and the Potential Natural Community for the site.
Green Line: The first perennial vegetation above the stable low water line
of a stream or water body.
Utilization: The amount of vegetation removed by a grazing animal,
expressed as a percentage of the vegetation or a level such as light, moderate, or
heavy.
Woody species: Plant species classified as shrubs and trees.
130 STREAMSIDE VEGETATION
-------
DATA CQ7J JCfiTION - GREEN LINE METHODS
Vegetation Composition
The Green Line method provides an estimate of the composition of
vegetation along the edge of the stream or waterbody. Measurement in this
location within the riparian area provides indication of the effect of grazing on
stream habitat. The procedure requires identifying each vegetation community
type along the Green Line adjacent to the stream (Figure 6.12). Community types
are an aggregation of all plant communities with similar structure and floristic
composition. A sample listing of community types and plant identification keys are
listed in the Reference section. The user should obtain the key(s) most applicable
to the monitoring site location.
Use the Field Data Sheet in Table 6.11 to record data in the Green Line
survey as follows:
1. Extend a measuring tape along the Green Lone starting at the head
stake in the monitoring reach. Make recordings along the entire study reach
then cross the stream and do the same along the opposite bank.
2. Measure and record the length of each community type
encountered. Record to a resolution of one foot.
3. Compute the total number of feet (or meters) of each community
type along the Green lone. Determine the composition of each community by
dividing its total length by the total Green Line length evaluated.
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION 131
-------
T*-
POPR
Figure 6.12. Location of the Green Line in relation to the water's edge and
to sandbars. Community types shown on left bank only.
132
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION
-------
Table 6.11. Riparian Green Line vegetation field form
Stream/riparian reach name: Date:
Drainage:
Photo#:
Examiners:
Location: _
RIPARIAN GREEN LINE COMMUNITY TYPES
TRANSECT DATA
COMMUNITY
TYPE
TOTAL FEET:
DISTANCES Fee
*!-.:
.2
3
4
5
6
t or Meters
7
8
9
10
TOTAL
NOTES
,
•
..
"Transect number (rrcord length downstream of the indicated number) ;
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION
133
-------
Woody Species Regeneration
A good indicator of vegetation trends along the Green Line is the
composition of woody species age classes. Regeneration of woody species can be
reduced by heavy browsing on young age class woody plants. A high amount of
sprouts or young plants indicates an upward trend in shrub-dominated riparian
types.
This monitoring method is applicable to areas with shrubs or shrub
potential. The Green Line adjacent to the stream is where regeneration of woody
plants is most likely to occur. Woody species along the Green Line are counted and
placed in one of five age classes defined by the number of stems on each plant as
follows Figure 6.13):
Number of Stems Age Class
Number of stems = 1 Sprout
Number of stems = 2 to 10 Young
Number of stems > 10, > 1/2 of plant alive Mature
Number of stems > 10, < 1/2 of plant alive Decadent
Number of stems > 1, no stems are alive Dead
Note: This system does not apply to sandbar willow (Salix exigua) and
cottonwood species. For these, count the total number of live sprouts as
young. They grow in single stems.
Use the field data form shown in Table 6.12 to record woody species age
classes as follows.
1. Begin at the head or marker transect in the monitoring stream
reach and proceed along the Green Line as described in the previous method.
The method requires using a six foot pole with the center of the pole clearly
marked.
2. Walk along the Green Line holding the center of the six foot pole
directly over and perpendicular to the greenline. Record the numbers of
woody plants and their age classes located under the pole. Three feet of the
pole will be extended to either side of the Green Line.
3. Total the number of each species of shrub in each age class
encountered in the survey. Record the composition of each age class by
dividing the number in that class by the total number of stems counted.
Record the composition of each species by dividing the number of that species
by the total number of stems counted.
134 STREAMSIDE VEGETATION
-------
Table 6.12. Woody species regeneration field form
Stream/riparian reach name:
Drainage: —
Examiners:
Location: —
Date:
Photo*:
GREENLINE WOODY SPECIES AGE CLASS DATA
SPECIES
TOTAL
NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
Seed/sprout
Young/sap
Mature
Decadent
Dead
Total
NOTES -'•'•-.;.:.', : :-'•"'"•': - • - •:::"•. :' ^Y-/
"'•' """": ": ": '":'- " • •":.'••••••; • '• ."'.;';. " -'" "'••-". " '' " ' • • '•'-":; :•:• "' .•'.,'...' . -.' ' . ',•• .
••-.''•.•: -'".'- • — :•••"' • • .
1 '•'•-.'_.. - ' . .'> • ; :
'*.'.--:.•'.-•'-''.- • •,','•'••'
STREAMSmE VEGETATION
135
-------
Seed/sprout
Mature
Decadent
Figure 6.13. Woody species age classes.
Dead
136
STREAMSmE VEGETATION
-------
REGENERATION
Vegetation status is defined as the similarity of composition between current
Green Line vegetation and the potential vegetation or the desired future condition
(USDA, 1992). The vegetation condition of the reference site or sites should be at
or near the potential natural community condition (PNC). If so, the ecological
status will reflect the similarity between the study site and the PNC. If the
condition of the reference site is below PNC, then similarity is referred to as the
Resource Value Rating. Even if the reference site is below PNC, such sites may be
at or near a "desired future condition." In this case, the Resource Value Rating will
reflect the similarity between the study site and the desired future condition.
The following method is used to determine percent similarity:
1. Determine the composition of vegetation ;(or woody age classes) on
the Green Lines of both the study site and the reference site(s). Express in
percent as described above.
2. Determine the composition amount in common between study and
reference site(s).
3. Total composition amount in common.
The following examples serve to demonstrate the technique:
Example 1. Vegetation Resource Value Rating or Ecological Status
Vegetation Desired
nnfTiTTHiTlitY T\ltvrn*
Type Condition
orPNC(%)
Booth wfflowCSABO) 35
.Water sedge(CANE) 45
Blue grass(POPR) 10
Booth willow/bluegrass 10
Treatment
Site (%)
5
10
65 ::' .••";'•*•"*
20
Amount
in
Common
5
10
10
10
Tbtals
100
Similarity = 35%
100
35
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION
137
-------
Example 2. Woody Species Resource Value Rating
Woody
Species
Age
Class
Sprouts
Young
Mature
Decadent
Dead
Desired
Future
Condition
or PNC (%)
40
30
15
10
5
Treatment
Site (%)
5
10
25
35
25
Amount
in
Common
5
10
15
10
5
Totals 100
100
45
Similarity =45%
VEGETATION UTILIZATION - HERBAGE STUBBT.F
Measuring the amount of stubble left on the plants at the end of the grazing
season is easy and rapid. Such measurements reflect the amount of grazing use
taking place as well as any regrowth on plants, if use ends before the growing
season ends.
The following describes the method for estimating average stubble height in
the study reach. Use Table 6.13 to record data as follows:
1. Extend a measuring tape along the Green Line beginning at the
head stake, as described for vegetation composition. Divide the Green Line
length on each side of the stream by 50 to determine the spacing of samples on
the Green Line. If the length on one side of the stream is 100 meters, stubble
height will be measured every 2 meters along the tape.
2. Measure the heights of herbaceous vegetation including forbs,
grasses, and grass-like plants at each of the 50 locations on each side of the
stream. Do not include woody species.
3. Measure the height of the perennial herbaceous vegetation nearest
the point on the tape. If there is no perennial hebaceous vegetation at the
transect point, select the closest perennial herbaceous plant within a 180* arc
in front of the observer and one half the distance to the next sampling point.
Eecord "no vegetation" if it does not exist. Record all readings by species and
height.
138
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION
-------
4. Record the total vegetation height, divided by the number of sample
points for each species, to obtain the average stubble height by species. Then
average the stubble height for all species to obtain an overall average.
The method described above is based on upland species which often occur in
tufts and individual stems. In a meadow situation, the plant density is often too
great to efficiently record individual stems and it may not be possible to identify
individual plants (Warren Clary, personal communication 1993). In these
situations, an alternative method is to record average stubble height classes by
transect segment, such as by each 10 cm length. Stubble height is not recorded by
species.
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION
139
-------
Table 6.13. Herbage stubble height field form
Stream/riparian reach name: ———————
Drainage: — —
Date: •
Photo #:•
Examiners:
DISTANCE
ON TAPE
TOTAL:
STUBBLI
CT*
5 HEIGHT
Inches
DISTANCE
ON TAPE
TOTAL:
COMMUNITY TYPE AVERAGE STUBBLE HEIGHT
STUBBLJ
CT*
E HEIGHT
Inches
OVERALL AVERAGE STUBBLE
HEIGHT =
•CT - Community type
140
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION
-------
EQUIPMENT LIST
1. Measuring tapes (suggest minimum of 100 meters or 300 feet)
2. Waders
3. Six foot pole marked in the center
4, Field forms
5. Vegetation and community type keys
6. Clipboard
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION 141
-------
REFERENCES
Binns, N. A. 1979. A habitat quality index for Wyoming trout streams. Monogr.
Ser., Fish. Res. Rep. 2. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish
Department.
Brunsfeld, S.J. and F.D. Johnson. 1985. Field guide to the willows of eastcentral
Idaho. Forest, Bulletin Number 39, Wildlife and Range Exp. Station, U. of
Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Clary, W.P., B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the
Intel-mountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-263. Ogden, Utah: USDA
Forest Service, Intel-mountain Research Station.
Cowley, E.R. 1992. Protocols for classifying, monitoring, and evaluating
stream/riparian vegetation on Idaho rangeland streams. Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. Water Quality
Monitoring Protocols - Report No. 8.
Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal. 1986. Intel-mountain flora, vascular
plants of the intermountain west, U.S.A. Volumes 1 through 6, The New
York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
Hansen, P.L., S.W Chadde, and R.D. Pfister. 1988. Riparian dominance types of
Montana, Misc. Pub. No. 49. Montana Riparian Assoc., U. of Montana,
Missoula, MT.
Hansen, P., K Boggs, R. Pfister, and J. Joy. 1991. Classification and management
for riparian and wetland sites in Montana (draft version 1). Montana
Riparian Assoc., U. of Montana, Missoula, MT.
Herman, F.J. 1970. Manual of the carices of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado
basin. Agricultural handbook No. 374. USDA Forest Service, Washington,
DC.
Herman, F.J. 1975. Manual of the rushes (Juncus spp.) of the Rocky Mountains
and Colorado basin. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Report RN-18, Rocky
Mt. Forest and Range Exp. Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Hitchcock, A.S. 1971. Manual of the grasses of the United States, Vol. 1 and 2
(2nd. edition), Dover Pub., New York, NY.
Hitchcock, L.C. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. U. of
Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
142 STREAMSffiE VEGETATION
-------
Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1977. Vascular
plants of the Pacific Northwest, volumes I-V. U. of Washington Press,
Seattle, WA.
Kovalchik, B.L. 1987. Riparian zone associations, Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont,
and Winema National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP-279-87. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.
Kovalchik, B.L. W.E. Hopkins, and S.J. Brunsfeld. 1988. Major indicator shrubs
and herbs in riparian zones on national forests of central Oregon, R6-ECOL-
TP-005-88. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.
Manning, M.E. and W.G. Padgett. 1992. Riparian community type classification
for the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada and eastern
California (Draft). USDA Forest Service, Intel-mountain Station, Ogden, UT.
Padget, W.G., A.P. Youngblood, and A.H. Winward. 1989. Riparian community
type classification of Utah and southeastern Idaho. USDA Forest Service,
Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT.
Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by
livestock. A guidance and reference document for biologists. Nevada
Department of Wildlife.
Platts W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In, Influences of forest and rangeland
management on salmonid fishes and their habitat, edited by W.R. Meehan,
pp 389-423. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda,
MD.
Platts W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985. Streamside and upland vegetation use by
cattle. Rangelands Vol 7 (1): pp 5-10.
Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1989. Stream canopy and its relationship to
salmonid biomass in the Intermountain West. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management, Vol 9, pp 446-457.
Sullivan K, T.E. Lisle, and A.C. Dolloff, and others. 1987. Stream channels: The
link between forests and fishes. In, E.O. Salo and T.W. Gundy, editors.
Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions. University of
Washington, Seattle, WA. pp 40-97.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Integrated riparian evaluation guide. Technical
Riparian Work Group Report, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah.
Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing management. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA.
533p.
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION 143
-------
Wesche T.A. 1980. The WRRI trout cover rating method: Development and
application. Water Resources Series No. 78. Water Resources Research
Institute, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY.
STREAMSIDE VEGETATION
-------
I. ESTABLISHING PERMANENT PHOTO POINTS
OVERVIEW
Photographs provide an excellent visual representation of conditions at a
given point in time. Photographs supplement data collection at a monitoring site,
and provide a minimum monitoring effort at other sites where data can not be
collected. Photography, however, does not provide sufficient data alone to evaluate
objectives. Rather photographs indicate only an upward, downward, or static
trend in woody vegetation (Meyers, 1987) and streambank stability and cover.
Recovery of vegetation can be extremely rapid where streams carry substantial
loads of silt during high flows. However, initial vegetation "expression," obvious in
photographs, should not be confused with vegetation "succession" required for
stream ecosystem health (Elmore and Beschta, 1987).
Photography is easy and inexpensive, but still requires careful planning to
provide meaningful information on condition and trends. Consistency is necessary
to assure that photographs taken over time are comparable. The photo point
procedure should describe use of the same camera, lens, film type, tripod height,
and light conditions. Vertical and horizontal landmarks should be permanent,
metal stakes or fenceposts, to assure the same photo can be repeated by different
observers over time. The photo point locations need to anticipate growth of
riparian vegetation and potential for obscuring future views.
DEFINITIONS
Profile board: The profile board is one-third meter by 2.5 meter plywood
board marked in 0.5 meter intervals of alternating black and white (Figure 6.14).
DATA COT JJgfiTTON PROCEDURE
Meyers (1987) described a procedure for determining trends in woody
riparian plants using a profile board and photographs. This method can be
adapted to establish permanent photo points at stream channel cross-sections for
detecting changes in streambank cover, stability, and riparian vegetation recovery.
1. Site selection and establishment
On monitoring sites, take photographs upstream and downstream at the
first and last cross-channel transects (See Figure 4.1). Take the photos from the
side of the stream that most effectively shows the important characteristics. A
profile board placed 50 feet from the photo point, within three feet of the water's
edge, provides a comparative reference for change over time.
Select photo points at other sites to illustrate particular problems,
management solutions, or as a reference location for photo points. Place a
ESTABLISHING PHOTO POINTS
145
-------
permanent marker, such as a steel post or rebar, at the camera location. Locate a
second marker where the profile board will be located.
Include permanent landmarks such as ridge lines in the photo to assure that
the scene can be relocated by'a different observer. A clipboard or chalkboard can
be placed in the photograph with date, time, and station location. Document photo
points and post and rebar locations in detail. Record locations on 7° minute
quadrangle and aerial photos. Include prints in the documentation which can be
taken in the field by subsequent observers.
fkl
2. Kodachrome slide film (or equivalent) is recommended because the dyes
in it are more stable than other types and the photos retain the true colors longer
(Jones, 1992). Slides are valuable for use in slide presentations for groups. High
quality prints made from the slides can be used in files and for other needs.
A neutral gray card (18 percent gray) may be used to help identify the photo
point in the picture and obtain true colors from film processing. Gray ranging from
15 to 25 percent is acceptable.
DATA ANALYSIS
Photo points are intended to supplement more quantitative monitoring
methods. Slides can be compared over time to detect changes in streambank and
riparian condition.
Meyers (1987) describes methods to calculate vertical foliar cover for woody
riparian species using the profile board and photographs. This document should
be consulted for additional description of the methods.
EQUIPMENT LIST
The following equipment is needed for this monitoring procedure.
1. Camera, film, and tripod
2. Vegetation profile board
3. Permanent stakes
4. Measuring tape and clip board
146
ESTABLISHING PHOTO POINTS
-------
(30.48 cm)
8'3"
(2.5 m)|
h
19.7"
I (0.5m)
J
YV
.75"
(1.90cm)
r
Figure 6.14. Vegetation profile board
ESTABLISHING PHOTO POINTS
147
-------
REFERENCES
Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: Perceptions in management.
Rangelands 9(6) 260-265.
Meyers, L.H. 1987. Montana BLM riparian inventory and monitoring, Riparian
Technical Bulletin No. 1., BLM-MT-PT-88-001-4410, Billings, MT.
148
ESTABLISHING PHOTO POINTS
-------
J. BIOMONITORING: BENTfflC MACROINVERTEBRATES
INTRODUCTION
Macroinvertebrate communities are useful for monitoring biological
integrity of streams since they function as integrators of pollution over time and
are a direct measure of beneficial uses (aquatic life support). There has been an
increase in use of macroinvertebrates as water quality indicators due to
development of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) and improved methods of
data analysis using biotic indices and multiple metrics.
A detailed description of biomonitoring protocols is beyond the scope of this
document; therefore, this section will refer to macroinvertebrate procedures that
are currently available and may be useful for assessing biotic integrity of streams
influenced by grazing activities.
OVERVIEW
Few specific studies have evaluated grazing impacts on aquatic
macroinvertebrates. Rinne (1988) reported increased densities and biomass of
more tolerant forms of macroinvertebrates in grazed reaches when compared to
areas where livestock had been excluded. However, the study design did not allow
separation of livestock impacts from linear changes in stream habitat and
therefore the results were not conclusive. Intensive grazing, which opened the
riparian canopy and decreased shade, increased periphyton and shifted the benthic
fauna to more tolerant forms (Quinn et al., 1992). Benthic communities in grazed
areas may be expected to respond to sediment and nutrients in a manner similar to
other nonpoint source activities. Sediment from agricultural runoff (Lenat, 1981),
logging operations and residential development (Lemly, 1982), and road
construction (Lenat, 1984) altered benthic macroinvertebrate communities;
generally, density of intolerant species decreased and tolerant species increased.
Adams (1992) demonstrated reductions in biological conditions using Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol HI due to sediment impacts from poor logging practices.
Burton (1993) found Percent EPT and Percent Peltoperlidae decreased, and
percent Chironimidae increased due to deposited fine sediments from forest roads.
Other studies have found that rapid recolonization and recovery of
macroinvertebrates occurred following episodic sediment inputs (Debray and
Lockwood, 1990).
EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) (Plafkin et al., 1989) are being
used to assess regional and watershed-wide biological integrity. The RBP protocol
for invertebrates uses quantitative kick samples in riffles which are composited
into one sample. For specific project evaluation, quantitative methods using
replicated samples may be needed to detect change. Kerans, Karr, and Ahlstedt
(1992) compared qualitative and quantitative sampling methods. They found that
replicated, quantitative sampling in riffle and pool habitats, using a variety of
biological attributes, provided the strongest assessment of biological condition.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES 149
-------
These findings suggest that the multiple metric approach used in the Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols can be used successfully to detect change with some
modification. To improve statistical power replicate samples should be collected
rather than compositing the sample. Robison and Minshall (1992) found that
quantitative samples using the modified Hess sampler were as fast as kick samples
and were an improvement in providing additional information on the
macroinvertebrate community.
The RBP protocols describe three levels of monitoring. RBP I and II are
rapid qualitative evaluations of impairment using field identification to family
level. These protocols are appropriate levels of biological monitoring for
reconnaissance, but are not quantitative enough for the detection of trends over
time needed for project evaluation.
RBP III is a more rigorous bioassessment technique which involves
systematic field collection and lab analysis to the lowest taxonomic level (generally
genus or species). Multiple metrics are used to assess the structure and function of
the benthic macroinvertebrate community. The project site is compared to control
stations or a set of regional reference sites which represent the biological potential.
RBP protocols use a qualitative rating of habitat conditions to assist data
interpretation. These rating systems can be used to supplement habitat
characteristics that are not otherwise measured quantitatively.
Biological monitoring methods are currently undergoing rapid change. The
methods outlined below are based on the Region 10 In-Stream Biological
Monitoring Handbook (Hayslip, 1993). The handbook is a supplement to the Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols (Plaflrin et al., 1989) and discusses adaptations based on
experience of State and Federal agencies, Universities, and others in the Pacific
Northwest. These adaptations should generally be applicable to western streams;
however, other regions are likewise evaluating and revising monitoring protocols.
Monitoring coordinators with state water quality agencies or regional EPA offices
should be contacted to obtain the most recent recommendations on protocols and
availability of regional reference stations.
DATA COLLECTION
Habitat Description
The evaluation of habitat used in the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols is an
integral part of data interpretation. The habitat assessment is used for evaluating
both macroinvertebrate and fish protocols. The rating sheet is easy to complete in
the field and provides a qualitative but comprehensive habitat evaluation. These
habitat elements can be measured quantitatively as described in previous protocols
- Stream Channel Morphology, Streambank Stability, Substrate Fine Sediment,
Pool Quality annd Streamside Vegetation.
EPA Region X has modified the physical habitat assessment for application
to streams in the Northwest (Hayslip, 1993). A separate assessment procedure has
150 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
-------
been developed for high gradient (riffle/run prevalence) and low gradient
(glide/pool prevalence) streams. The parameters for high gradient streams are
shown in Table 6.14 as an example. A copy of the Region X Handbook (Hayslip
1993) can be obtained to view the rating system.
Table 6.14. Physical habitat structure parameters for high gradient
streams (Hayslip, 1993)
Primary Parameters:
\ •>. \ \ . .% :'•-•-•
1. Bottom substrate - percent fines ;
2. Instream cover (fish)
3. Embeddedness (riffle)
4. Velocity/depth
Secondary Parameters:
5. Channel shape (wetted channel)
6. Pool/riffle ratio
7. "Width to depth ratio (using wetted width)
-- N ^ ; x, s ^ v
Tertiary Parameters: 0^
8. Y Bank vegetation protection
9. ; Lower bank stability
" 10. :X Disruptive pressures (on streambank, immediately adjacent to
x" "s ^ "stream) % XN
N •* (.X_x-^ xx v x
11, Zone of influence-width of riparian vegetation zone.
•vS X, s^ V x \ "•
X NXV W.N -\N s S ^ ^ ^ v -.S V S -.
FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
A. Survey design
Survey design will depend on objectives, site characteristics, project
treatment schedule and duration, and availability of reference stations. Discussion
of biomonitoring survey design and statistical considerations are contained in Resh
and McElravy, page 159-194 (1993) and the EPA macroinvertebrate methods
manual (EPA, 1990). The Bioassessment Issue Papers (EA Engineeering, 1991)
provide a useful discussion of habitat selection, subsampling, seasonality, and use
of habitat assessment and regional reference sites.
L Before-After/Control Site-Impact Site. This is a basic study design that
incorporates sampling the project site and a control site or reference stream before
and after the project. Where feasible, a local reference site should be sampled with
the same methods and frequency as the project site. Where adequate local
reference sites are not available, the data should be compared to regional reference
conditions.
BENTH1CMACROINVERTEBRATES 151
-------
2. Sampling frequency. Macroinvertebrate populations vary seasonally
due to natural life cycles and in response to environmental change such as
temperature and streamflow. Sampling on a seasonal basis is often recommended
to identify these cycles, but this may be cost prohibitive. For single season
sampling, the period from July-October is recommended (Hayslip, 1993).
B. Field Procedures
L Habitat selection. RBP III focuses on the riffle/run habitat type
because it is the most productive habitat available in stream systems and includes
many sensitive species (Plafkin et al., 1989). Other investigators recommend
stratification of stream sampling into riffle and pool habitats (Kerans, Karr, and
Ahlstedt, 1992; EPA, 1993). Riffle/run habitats should be selected at a minimum
to standardize collection methods and assure comparison between sites.
2. Number of replicates. Composite samples of multiple kick samples
are used in the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols to characterize biological condition.
For statistical comparison of project and reference stations, individual replicate
samples should be collected. Three to five replicate samples are often used for
quantitative studies (Resh and McElravy, 1993). The Idaho Protocol document
suggests a minimum of three replicates (Clark and Maret, 1993).
3. Sampling device. Kick samples used in the Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols provide a semi-quantitative sample. Surber or Hess samples are used to
collect replicate quantitative samples. Recommended mesh size for samplers is
usually 500 micron (Clark and Maret, 1993; Mulvey, Caton and Hafele, 1992).
Detailed descriptions of these samplers and their operation are provided in
Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological
Integrity of Surface Waters (EPA, 1990).
4. Subsampling. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols recommend a
subsample containing a minimum of 100 organisms. The EPA Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program recommends that in minimum of 300
organisms be counted (EPA, 1993). Field subsampling provides several
advantages. Organisms are easier to see and sort when they are alive, specimens
are preserved in better condition when presorted from debris, and presorting is less
time-consuming and therefore cost-effective (Hayslip, 1993).
Subsampling consists of evenly distributing the sample in a gridded pan
with a light-colored bottom. As grids are randomly selected, all organisms within
those grids are removed, until a minimum of 100 organisms have been selected.
Once a grid is selected, the grid is completely picked to avoid bias in selecting only
the most obvious specimens.
Caton (1991) has developed an unproved method of sub-sampling using a
gridded sieve. The sieve provides a distinct isolation of random sub-samples. The
selected sub-sample from the grid is placed in a separate pan from which the
sample can be easily picked.
152 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
-------
DATA ANALYSIS
L Taxonomic identification. All macroinvertebrates in the sub-sample
are identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level in the laboratory, generally
genus and species. Because of the diversity of species in benthic samples, it is best
to have the identifications completed by an experienced taxonomist. State
monitoring coordinators should be contacted for a list of qualified specialists.
2. Metrics. The Rapid Bioassessment Protocols describe (Plafkin et al.,
1989) the use of multiple community metrics to evaluate biological condition.
Benthic community health is described by a variety of metrics which measure
community structure, community balance, and functional feeding groups. Each
metric is assigned a score based on the percent similarity to the reference station.
Individual metric scores are totaled and compared to the total metric score for the
reference station to provide an overall evaluation of biological condition.
Eight community metrics (Table 6.15) were originally included in the 1989
RBP protocols document. These metrics are being tested for their utility and
application in different regions. With the current effort at testing and evaluation
of metrics, the use of any set of metrics should be used cautiously.
Table 6.15. Metrics recommended in the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
(Plafkin et al., 1989)
Structure Metrics
Taxa richness
Ephemeroptera/PlecopterayTrichoptera index (EPT index)
Community similarity indices
Community Balance Metrics
Hilsenhoffbiotic index (modified)
Percent contribution of dominant taxon
Ratio of EPT and Chironomid abundance
Functional Feeding Group Metrics
Ratio of scrapers/filtering collectors
Ratio of shredders/total
Barbour et al. (1992) evaluated the RBP and other metrics for redundancy
and variability among reference streams using data from Kentucky, Oregon, and
Colorado. Since the data contained several data sets from western streams, the
conclusions should be useful. Of the eight original RBP metrics they recommended
retaining four of the RBP metrics and recommended modifications of two others.
Taxa Richness and EPT Index were considered useful measures of community
structure. The EPT Index is a relative measure of the presence of pollution-
sensitive macroinvertebrate groups and was recommended for most assessments.
The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index was retained without modification as a measure of
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES 153
-------
community balance. Shredders/Total exhibited high variability, but was
recommended to be retained based on results of other analysis. The metric Ratio of
Scrapers/Filterers was modified by adjusting it to a percentage. They suggested
EPT/Chironomidae be replaced by another metric such as
Hydropyschidae/Trichoptera. The Pinkham and Pearson index was recommended
as the most appropriate measure of community similarity. A revised list of metrics
based on this analysis is shown in Table 6.16.
Metrics will continue to be tested for application in different regions and to
be sensitive to various environmental stressors. The investigator should contact
state monitoring coordinators or EPA regional offices to stay current with
recommendations for macroinvertebrate community analysis.
154 BENTH1C MACROINVERTEBRATES
-------
Table 6.16. Metrics proposed for macroinvertebrate community analysis
(Barbour et al., 1992)
Metric
Taxa Richness
EFT Taxa Index
Pinkham-Pearson index
Quantitative Similarity Index
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
(modified)
Percent Dominant Taxa
Dominants in common
%
Hydropyschidae/Trichoptera
% Scrapers/(Scrapers +
Filterers)
% Shredders/Total
Quantitative Similarity Index
for Functional Feeding Groups
Description
Community Structure Metrics
Total number of distinct taxa. Generally richness is increased with
improved water quality and substrate diversity.
Total number of distinct taxa within the generally pollution-sensitive
insect orders - Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera.
This is a community similarity index which incorporates abundance and
composition information.
The index compares two communities in terms of presence or absence of
taxa, also taking relative abundance into accounts.
Community Balance Metrics
The HBI index summaries pollution tolerance to organic and sediment
pollution. Pollution tolerance values range from 0 to 10 with 0 indicating
the least tolerance (Hilsenhoff, 1987). Modified to include nonarthropod
taxa (Plafkin et al., 1989).
A simple measure of redundancy and evenness. Assumes that an
abundance of a single taxon reflects an impaired community.
Dominants in common for five most abundant taxa. Measures the
similarity to reference station based on five most abundant taxa.
Measures the relative contribution of the generally mild pollution
tollerant family, Hydropsychidae, to total Trichoptera.
Functional Feeding Groups
Percentage of invertebrates classified as scrapers to total of scrapers plus
filterers. Reflects the balance of the riffle/run community food base.
Percentage of shredder abundance to the combined total number of
organisms. Measures the relative abundance of shredders which are
sensitive to riparian zone impacts.
Compares two communities in terms of presence or absence of functional
feeding groups.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
155
-------
REFERENCES
Adams, T. 0. 1992. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of silvicultural
best management practices on harvested sites in South Carolina.
Dissertation, Clemson Univ. Forest Resources. Clemson, SC.
Barbour, M.T., J.L. Piafkin, B.P. Bradley, C.G. Graves, and R.W. Wisseman. 1992.
Evaluation of EPA's rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: metric redundancy
and variability among reference stream sites. Environ. Tbx. Chem. 11: 437-
449.
Burton. T. 1993. Draft report. Evaluating the effectiveness of forestry best
management practices using rapid bioassessment procedures: Silver Creek,
Boise National Forest, Boise, ID.
Clark, W.H. and T.R. Maret. 1993. Protocols for assessment of biotic integrity
(macroinvertebrates) for wadable Idaho streams. Id. Dept. Health and
Welfare, Div. of Environ. Quality, Boise, ID. 54 p.
Debray, L.D. and JA. Lockwood. 1990. Effects of sediment and flow regime on the
aquatic insects of & high mountain stream. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management, 5: 241-250.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 1991. Bioassessment issue papers.
(Prepared for EPA Office of Water, Wa. D.C.) Sparks, MD.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory
methods for evaluating biological integrity of surface waters. EPA/600/4-
90/030, EPA, Office of Research and Development, Wa., D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Environmental monitoring and
assessment program, 1993 pilot field operations and methods manual,
streams. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Hayslip, G.A. (editor). 1993. EPA Region 10 in-stream biological monitoring
handbook. EPA, Seattle, WA,
Kerans, B.L., J.R. Karr, and S.A. Ahlstedt. 1992. Aquatic invertebrate
assemblages: Spatial and temporal diffemces among sampling protocols.
J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 11(4): 377-390.
Lemly, A.D. 1982. Modification of benthic insect communities in polluted streams:
Combined effects of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Hydrobiologia,
87: 229-245.
156 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
-------
Lenat, D.R. 1984. Agriculture find stream water quality: A biological evaluation of
erosion control practices. Eviron. Management, 8(4): 333-344.
Lenat, D.R., D.L. Penrose, and K.W. Eagleson. 1981. Variable effects of sediment
addition on stream benthos. Hydrobiologia, 79:187-194.
Mulvey, M., L. Caton, and Rick Hafele. 1992. (Draft) Oregon nonpoint source
monitoring protocols and stream bioassessment field manual for
macroinvertebrates and habitat assessment. Oregon Dept. of Environ.
Quality Laboratory, Portland, OR.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989.
Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA, Wa., D.C. EPA-444/4-89-001.
Quinn, J.M., R.B. Williamson, R.K Smith and M.L. Vickers. 1992. Effects of
riparian grazing and channelisation on streams in Southland, New Zealand.
2. Benthic invertebrates. New Zealand J. of Marine and Freshwater
Research, 26: 259-273.
Resh, V.H. and E.P. McElravy. 1993. Contemporary quantitative approaches to
biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Rosenberg, D.M. and
V.H. Resh (editors). Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic
macroinvertebrates, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.
Rinne, J. 1988. Effects of livestock grazing exclosure on aquatic
macroinvertebrates in a montane stream, New Mexico. Great Basin
Naturalist 48(2): 146-153.
Robison, C.T. and G.W. Minshall. 1992. Refinement of biological metrics in the
development of'biological criteria for regional biomonitoring and assessment
of small streams in Idaho, 1991-1992, final report. Idaho State Univ.,
Pocatello, ID.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES 157
-------
K. BIOMONITORING: FISH COMMUNITY
INTRODUCTION
Water quality and habitat parameters assess the cause and effect linkage
between grazing and its effect on fish as a beneficial use. Monitoring the fish
community provides a direct measure of beneficial use support.
Fish communities are good indicators of long-term effects and broad habitat
conditions because they are relatively long-lived and mobile (Karr et al., 1986).
These characteristics also present some challenges for using fish in project
evaluation. Stream fish use different habitats at various life stages and may
migrate long distances. The fish population at any location is therefore influenced
by activities throughout the stream length. In comparison to macroinvertebrates,
fish communities are affected directly by fishing pressure and fishery management
activities and may recover more slowly in response to water quality improvements.
Fisheries monitoring is often aimed at the population level. Game fish
populations are evaluated in terms of relative abundance, weight-length
relationships, condition, age, and growth. Assessment of biological integrity is
directed more broadly at aquatic community structure and function (EPA, 1990) of
the fish community including both game and non-game species. EPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol V (Plafkin et al., 1989) assesses stream fish communities
using the ecological approach described by the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Karr
1981, Karr et al., 1986): The IBI compares observed attributes (metrics) of the fish
community with the attributes expected for a similar reference stream. The
metrics address species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish
abundance and condition.
The IBI was developed primarily for eastern and mid-western streams, so
use of this method requires adaptation to the western fish fauna. The ecological
requirements of fish species need to be evaluated in relation to trophic guild and
tolerance to pollution. Professional judgement of an aquatic ecologist or fish
biologist familiar with IBI is needed to choose the most appropriate population or
community element that is representative of each metric in setting the scoring
criteria (Plafkin et al., 1989). Cold water streams are characterized by a
depauperate fish assemblage which requires modification of the IBI. Adaption of
the IBI to cold water streams is in a development phase, and no concensus list of
metrics or scoring criteria is currently available.
Given the current status of IBI for western streams, no definitive
recommendation can be made for its use in assessing grazing impacts at this time.
Some suggested modifications to IBI metrics which are applicable to western
streams are summarized below. Individual metrics, combined with traditional fish
population techniques, may be used to gain information on the status of the fish
community. Certainly, information on the fish community will add to the weight-
158 BIOMONTTORING: FISH COMMUNITY
-------
of-evidence approach in evaluating water quality change. As with the
macroinvertebrate methods, monitoring coordinators with state water quality
agencies should be contacted for recent developments in bioassessment protocols
applicable in the ecoregion.
OVERVIEW
Improper grazing affects cold water fisheries by increases in stream
temperature, reduction of vegetative cover and streambank stability, increase of
fine sediment in spawning and rearing habitat, and reduction of fish food
organisms (see Section II). Changes to stream and riparian habitats are well
documented; however, studies which measured fish populations are less conclusive.
Fish population response was often inconclusive in studies reviewed by Platts
(1991) due to the high variation in fish population estimates, lack of pre-grazing
data, or lack of comparable controls.
With Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP V), the fish community is
evaluated by collecting a representative sample of all fish species and size classes
in the designated stream reach. Generally a single pass using electrofishing gear
is used to evaluate community composition. For fish population estimates a
multiple pass method using block nets is required. Snorkeling may be used to
collect this information where sensitive or endangered species occur. Species
identification and enumeration are completed in the field. A trained fishery
biologist should be involved in the project to assist in gear selection and species
identification.
DATA COTJ/ECTION
1. Habitat Description. The RBP Protocol uses the same habitat
assessment for fish as for macroinvertebrates (See Table 6.14). The habitat
elements can be measured quantitatively as described in previous protocols -
Stream Channel Morphology, Streambank Stability, Substrate Fine Sediment, Pool
Quality and Streamside Vegetation.
2. Site Selection. Monitoring sites should include habitat types
representative of the reach and should encompass several riffle-pool sequences.
Generally, the monitoring sites (described in Section IV) established for the other
riparian parameters can be used. A sufficient reach length is needed to obtain a
representative sample. Recommendations for appropriate reach length vary; 20
times the bankfull width with a minimum of 100 meters (Chandler, Maret and
Zaroban, 1993), thirty to forty times the bankfull width with a minimum of 200
meters, and 300 meters (Angermeier and Karr, 1986). Reach lengths and habitat
units should be comparable to reference locations to facilitate data analysis.
Monitoring for fish community metrics is generally completed during the
stable low flow period in mid-summer. This period generally avoids spawning
migrations and seasonal movement offish. However, the sample period needs to be
adjusted to the life history of target species in the watershed and may vary
BIOMONTTORING: FISH COMMUNITY 159
-------
between resident and anadromous species.
3. Sampling methods. Fish collection needs to be coordinated closely with
the state fish and game agency. State agencies require collection permits which
usually specify gear types and sampling periods. Although electrofishing is a
standard procedure, it may not be allowed in waters which contain threatened or
endangered species. In these waters enumeration of fish species and lengths can
be obtained by snorkeling techniques. Electrofishing methods are described in
EPA Fish Field and Laboratory Methods (EPA, 1993).
Level of effort in the field depends on the data analyis to be performed.
Single pass removal using electrofishing is sufficient to obtain a representative
sample of relative abundance for calculating IBI metrics. The three pass removal
method is a minimum effort if fish population estimates are also desired (Zippin,
1956).
Underwater visual estimates using snorkel techniques are used to count
fish and estimate lengths when fish can not be collected directly (Griffith, 1981;
Helfman, 1983). In small streams an observer moves slowly upstream and
searches hiding cover created by organic debris, undercut banks, boulders, pools,
etc. for fish. In larger streams, pairs of observers may be needed. In streams too
deep for upstream snorkeling, teams of observers float down a habitat unit and
count fish in their designated lane.
4. Sample processing. All fish captured are counted and identified to
species in the field. Additional information on selected fish species may be
obtained by recording total length and weight. Young of the year age classes
should be enumerated since this provides important information on reproductive
success.
C. Data Analysis
The IBI uses twelve biological metrics to assess integrity based on the fish
community's taxonomic and trophic composition and the abundance and condition
of fish (Karr et al., 1986). Hughes and Gammon (1987) modified five of the
original twelve metrics in applying the IBI to a large western river, the
Williamette River in Oregon. These adjustments are useful in evaluations of large
rivers, but may not be applicable to small rangeland streams. An alternative IBI
for fish communities with low species richness typical of the Northwest has been
proposed (Hayslip, 1993), but this alternative has not been evaluated.
Robinson and Minshall (1992) tested twenty metrics for application in small
streams in two ecoregions in southern Idaho, the Snake River Plain and the
Northern Basin and Range. Stream sites were established in upland and lowland
areas and designated as relatively unimpacted and impacted. Six metrics were
found useful in detecting a shift from relatively intolerant salmonid-based systems
to tolerant non-salmonid communities. These metrics include Number of
Salmonidae Taxa, Number of Tolerant Taxa, Percent Salmonidae, Salmonidae
160 BIOMONTTORING: FISH COMMUNITY
-------
Biomass, Tolerant Species Density, and Salmonidae Condition Index.
The State of Idaho has incorporated these six metrics into their biotic
assessment protocol for fish (Maret, Chandler and Zaroban, 1993). The protocol
identifies trophic guilds, pollution tolerance, and origin status (native or
introduced) for species in the state. The proposed list of metrics is listed in Table
6.17. These metrics have not been thoroughly evaluated for use in a biotic index,
but, they do provide a starting point for consideration of metrics that may be useful
in western streams.
Monitoring the fish community provides valuable information for evaluation
of biotic integrity. Data can be collected fairly easily in the field under the
direction of an experienced fishery biologist. However, it is important to analyze
the fish response carefully in the context of multiple environmental and biological
factors in the watershed to avoid erroneous conclusions about grazing impacts.
BIOMONTTORING: FISH COMMUNITY 161
-------
Table 6.17. Fish metrics proposed for evaluating stream health in Idaho
streams (Maret, Chandler, and Zaroban, 1993). Those marked by an (*) are
recommended to assess the biotic integrity of cold water streams.
Metric
Total number of
species
* Number of native
species
Number of introduced
species
* Number of salmonid
species
* Number of
intolerant species
% Introduced species
* Jaccard Coefficient
% Carnivores
% Omnivores
" % Insectivores
Description
Specie® Richness and Composition
Total number offish species will theoretically decrease with increasing
degradation. Number of speeiea may increase in degraded waters as
habitat becomes available for tolerant introduced species.
Total number of native species decreases in degraded waters.
!nd trod weed species often occur more frequently in degraded waters.
Number of salmonid species decreases in degraded waters.
Intolerant species are sensitive to pollution and decrease in degraded
waters.
Percent of introduced species in relation to the total number of species
collected. As degradation occurs native species are often replaced by
introduced species.
Measures the degree of similarity in species composition between two
stations. Described in Flafkin et al. (1989).
Trophic Composition
Number of top carnivores in relation to the total number of species in the
sample. Number of carnivores decreases in degraded waters.
Number of omnivores in relation to the total number of species in the
sample. Omnivores increase in the fish community in degraded waters.
Number of insectivores in relation to the total number of species in the
sample. Insectivores generally decrease in the fish community in degraded
waters.
162
BIOMONITORING: FISH COMMUNITY
-------
Table 6.17. Page 2
* % Salmonids
Density (#/ha)
* Total fish biomass
(Kg/ha)
* Salmonid density
(#/ha)
* Salmonid biomass
(Kg/ha)
Fish per unit of
effort (#/min.)
* %YOY salmonids
% Anomolies
Salmonid condition factor
Abundance and Density
Proportion of the total number offish counted that are salmonids. This
metric will decrease with increasing degradation.
Total density in the habitat sampled. Interpreted separately for tolerant
and intolerant species.
Total fish biomass in the habitat sampled. Interpreted separately for
tolerant and intolerant species.
Number of salmonids per unit of area. Number of salmonids decreases in
degraded waters.
Salmonid biomass per unit of habitat sampled.
Fish captured per unit of time sampled. A relative measure of abundance.
Condition and Age Structure
Proportion of Young of the Year salmonids in the sample. This metric
provides information on salmonid spawning success.
Proportion offish in the sample with external lesions, tumors, parasites
and fin erosion. Percent anomolies increases in polluted waters.
Comparison of weight and length in an individual, (w/l>) *10,000 where w
is weight in grams, and 1 is length in milometer Condition factor
decreases in degraded waters in comparison to reference stations.
BIOMONITOR1NG: FISH COMMUNITY
163
-------
REFERENCES
Angermeier, P.L. and J.R. Karr 1986. Applying an index of biotic integrity based
on stream-fish communities: Considerations in sampling and interpretation.
N. Am. Journal of Fisheries Management 6:418-429.
Chandler, G.L., Maret, T.R. and D.W. Zaroban. 1993. Protocols for assessment of
biotic integrity (fish) in Idaho streams. Id. Dept. Health and Welfare, Boise,
ID.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. Biological criteria, national program
guidance for surface waters. EPA-440/5-90-004. Office of Water,
Regulations, and Standards, Wa. D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Fish field and laboratory methods for
evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters. EPA/600/R-92/111.
Office of Research and Development, Wa. D.C.
Hayslip, G.A. (editor). 1993. EPA Region 10 in-stream biological monitoring
handbook. EPA, Seattle, WA.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries
6(6): 21-31.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986.
Assessing biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale.
Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication 5, Champaign, IL.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989.
Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA, Wa., D.C. EPA-444/4-89-001.
Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 19:389-423.
Robison, C.T. and G.W. MinshalL 1992. Refinement of biological metrics in the
development of biological criteria for regional biomonitoring and assessment
of small streams in Idaho, 1991-1992, final report. Idaho State Univ.,
Pocatello, ID.
164 BIOMONITORING: FISH COMMUNITY
-------
GLOSSARY
Accuracy. The degree of agreement between the measured value and the true value.
Aggradation. Deposition in one place of material eroded from another. Aggradation raises the
elevation of streambeds, flood plains, and the bottoms of other water bodies.
Animal Unit Month. Amount of feed or forage required by one animal-unit grazing on a pasture
for one month. An animal-unit is one mature (454-kg) cow or the equivalent of other
animals, based on an average daily forage consumption of 12 kg of dry matter.
Attribute. A single element (velocity, depth, cover, etc.) of the habitat or environment in which a
fish or other aquatic species or population may live or occur.
Bankfull channel. The bankfull channel contains the momentary maximum peak flow; one which
occurs several days in a year and is often related to the 1.5 year recurrence interval
discharge.
Bankfull width. The cross-section width of the bankfull channel, typically identified as the upper
limit of stream channel scour below which perennial vegetation does not occur.
Beneficial uses. Uses of water which typically include aquatic life (warm water and cold water
biota), recreation (primary and secondary contact), water supply (agricultural, domestic,
and industrial), wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. Designated uses are those uses defined in
state water quality standards for each waterbody.
Bias. Bias is the reciprocal of accuracy; bias measures the average departure of estimates from the
true value.
Biocriteria. Numerical values or narrative expressions in water quality standards that describe
the biological integrity of aquatic communities.
Cobble embeddedness. The degree to which cobbles are surrounded or covered by fine sediment
(sand or silt), usually expressed as a percentage.
Community type. An abstract grouping of all communities (stands) based on floristic and
structural similarities in both overstory and undergrouth layers.
Confinement. The relationship of a channel to the valley walls or terrace. It describes how
restrictive the valley's walls are in limiting the channel's lateral movement (meandering).
Cross-channel transect. A permanently marked linear plot across a stream channel that is
perpendicular to the thalweg of a stream. The transect is marked on either side of the
stream and above the bankfull level.
Desired Future Condition (DFC). The resource condition or site-specific objectives, based on the
resource values wanted. The DFC must be based on the potential of the site to produce that
resource value or condition.
Dissolved ortho-phosphate. Ortho-phosphate as P determined from a field-filtered sample;
considered a measure of the biologically available phosphorus.
Ecological status. The degree of similarity or comparison between current vegetation and the
potential natural community (PNC) for the site.
GLOSSARY 165
-------
Ecoregion. Regional ecosystems desribed by causal characteristics including climate, mineral
availability (sois and geology), vegetation, and physiography.
Ecological succession or plant succession. The process of vegetational development in which
plant communities progress from a lower to a higher ecological status.
Entrenchment. The relation of the channel to the valley flat or floodplain, i.e., downcutting,
incising.
Eutropbication. The process of over-fertilization of a body of water by nutrients that produce
more organic matter than the self-purification processes can overcome.
Fecal coliform. Bacteria as defined above with the exception of using an elevated incubation
temperature of 44.5°C which separates bacteria of fecal origin (primarily E. coli) from
bacteria derived from non-fecal sources.
Fecal streptococcus. Group of species of the genus Streptocccus, such as S. faecalis, S. faecium,
S. avium, S. bovis, S. egiinus, and S. gallinarum. All give a positive reaction with
Lancefield's Group D antisera.
Forage. The part of the vegetation that is available and acceptable for animal consumption,
usually herbaceous and shrub species.
Goal. The overall aim or endpoint of the project.
Green Line. The first perennial vegetation above the stable low water line of a stream or water
body.
Habitat attribute. An element used to describe a habitat unit, i.e. length, bankfull depth,
substrate size, streambank conditions.
Habitat unit. A run, riffle, pool, or glide along a stream.
Hydric soiL A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to
develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic
vegetation.
Intermontane. Stream within a forested mountainous area.
Left bank. The left hand side of the stream looking downstream.
Low flow channel. This is the channel below the water surface level during the annual period of
low flow (usually late summer). The low flow level in the cross section is often the water
surface at the time of sampling in mid to late summer. The flow at this time is often low
enough to expose gravel/sand bars. The low flow channel is sometimes evidenced by a
distinct channel impression between the inner-berm bars.
Macroinvertebrates. Refers to organisms that inhabit the bottom substrates (sediments, debris,
logs, macrophytes, etc.) of freshwater habitats for at least part of their life cycle and
generally are retained by mesh sizes between 200-500 microns.
Monitoring site. A site within a stream reach selected to represent the sub-area for collecting
detailed water quality data (i.e., vegetation, water chemistry, temperature, dissolved
oxygen).
166 GLOSSARY
-------
Overhanging vegetation. Live plants (graminoids, forbs, shrubs, and trees) that extend over the
stream at least 12 inches from the bank and within 12 inches of the water's surface at
stable low flow.
Objective. A subset of project goals. Objectives are expressed in quantitative terms.
Parameter. Any constant, with variable values, used as a referent for determining other
variables. For purposes of this report, parameter refers to a feature of the ecosystem which
can be measured or evaluated.
Plant Succession. The process of vegetational development in which plant communities progress
from a lower to a higher ecological status.
Pool. Pools as defined in the literature (Platts, Megahan, and Minshall, 1983; and Bisson et
al., 1982), have these characteristics:
An area of the stream that has reduced water velocity.
Water depth is deeper than surrounding areas.
The water surface gradient at low flow is often near zero.
The bed is often concave in shape and forms a depression in the profile of the
stream's thalweg.
Pools are formed by features of the stream that cause local deepening of the
channel. This results from lateral constrictions in flow or by sharp drops in the
water surface profile.
Potential Natural Community (PNC). The combination of plant species that would result if
ecological succession were completed without interruption.
Precision. Denoted the agreement between the numerical values of two or more measurements on
the same homogeneous sample made under the same conditions. The term is used to
describe the reproducibility of the measurement or method.
Primary forage. Vegetation preferred by grazing animals.
Primary succession. The initial establishment of vegetation on bare surfaces not previously
vegetated, such as -a recently deposited point bar.
Protocol. A system of methods. For the purpose of this report, a protocol is a defined procedure or
procedures for measuring change in an ecosystem parameter.
Right bank. The right hand side of the stream looking downstream.
Resource Value Rating (RVR). The degree of similarity of the existing resource conditions
(vegetation, habitat, streambanks, etc.) to the future desired condition.
Representative reach. A portion of a stream that contains characteristics similar to a larger
segment that it represents.
Riparian area. Geographically delineable area with distinctive resource values and
characteristics that are comprised of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems.
GLOSSARY 167
-------
Riverine. Relating to or resembling a river or stream.
Salmonid. Any species offish from the family Salmonidae.
Secondary succession. The sequence or progression of plant communities from a disturbed state
or condition (e.g. fire, livestock grazing, flooding, ice, drought) toward the potential natural
community.
Sinuosity. The ratio of the channel length to the valley length.
Stratification or stratified stream segment. A portion of a stream that is relatively
homogeneous based on geomorphology, stream flow, geology, and sinuosity. It is frequently
bounded by significant tributaries, diversions, reservoirs, etc.
Streambank cover. Banks are covered if they show any of the following features:
Perennial vegetation ground cover is greater than 50%.
Roots of vegetation cover more than 50% of the bank (deep rooted plants such as
willows and sedges provide such root cover).
At least 50% of the bank surfaces are protected by rocks of cobble size or larger.
At least 50% of the bank surfaces are protected by logs of 4 inch diameter or larger.
Streambank stability. Banks are stable if they do not show indications of any of the following
features (see Figure 6.6):
BREAKDOWN (obvious blocks of bank broken away and lying adjacent to the bank
breakage).
SLUMPING or FALSE bank (bank has obviously slipped down, cracks may or may
not be obvious, but the slump feature is obvious).
FRACTURE (a crack is visibly obvious on the bank indicating that the block of bank
is about to slump or move into the stream).
VERTICAL AND ERODING (The bank is mostly uncovered as defined below and
the bank angle is steeper than SO degrees from the horizontal).
Stream meander cycle. One full cycle of typical hydraulic (habitat) units (i.e., one pool and one
riffle/glide). A stream meander cycle is usually over a stream distance that is 5 to 7 times
the bankroll width.
Stream order. A system of ranking a stream and its tributaries from the headwaters to its mouth.
The ranking is expressed as a number from 1 to 7.
Stream reach. A designated section of a stream at which monitoring is conducted and hydrologic
and/or fishery predictions are made.
Stream segment. A distance of stream that is at least 1 stream meander cycle in length.
Stream type. A stream classification system based on a combination of stream entrenchment,
sinuosity, gradient, width/depth ratio, confinement, and soil/land/form.
168 GLOSSARY
-------
Substrate embeddedness. See cobble embeddedness.
Thalweg. A line connecting the deepest parts of a stream.
Thermal input. The amount of solar energy (in BTLTs/Ft^/day) striking the water surface.
Total colifonn. All aerobic and facultative anaerobic, gram-negative, nonspore-forming, rod-
shaped bacteria that ferment lactose with gas and acid formation within 24 h. at 35°C.
Includes Escherichia coli, KLebsiella, Enterobacter, and others.
Total Nitrite plus Nitrate. The inorganic oxidized form of nitrogen, NO£ plus NOs, determined
from the whole sample.
Total Ejeldahl Nitrogen (TEN). A measure of organic nitrogen defined by the analytical method;
includes nitrogen bound in organic compounds and ammonia.
Total phosphorus. Phosphorus as P determined by colorimetry after digestion of organic matter
in an unfiltered sample.
Undercut bank. An undercut bank is defined as follows: that bank which has been cut by the
stream so that a protrusion of the upper portion of the bank overhangs the water surface.
The water level does not influence this reading.
Utilization. The amount (expressed as a percentage or level, light, moderate, heavy, or severe) of
vegetation removed by a grazing animal, including but not limited to elk, deer, moose,
antelope, cattle, sheep, horses, and goats.
Vegetative canopy cover. The area of the sky over the stream channel bracketed by vegetation
(Platts et al; 1987).
Vegetative canopy density. The amount of sky (or sunlight) over the stream channel blocked by
vegetation (Platts et al., 1987).
Width to depth ratio. The ratio of water width to average water depth.
Witness marker. A steel post, marked fence post or tree, mound of rocks, or other appropriate
device used to monument for relocating permanent photo points or cross-channel transects.
Woody species. Plant species classified as shrubs or trees.
GLOSSARY
169
-------
LITERATURE CITED
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater, 18th ed., American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
Armour, C.L. 1977. Effects of deteriorated range streams on trout. USDI Bureau of Land
Management, Boise, Idaho.
Armour, C.L.. 1991. Guidance for evaluating and recommending temperature regimes to protect
fish. Instream flow information paper 27. Biol. Report 90(22). USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv.,
Fort Collins, CO.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS). 1983. Volume II - Comprehensive report, ARS/BLM
cooperative studies, Reynolds Creek Watershed. USDA Agricultural Watershed Service,
Boise, Idaho.
Baxter-Potter, W. and M.W. GilMland. 1988. Bacterial pollution in runoff from agricultural lands.
J. Environ. Qual, 17(1) 27-34.
Bedell, T.E. editor. 1991. Watershed management guide for the interior Northwest. Oregon State
University Extension Service, EM 8436, CorvalMs, OR.
Behnke, R. J. and M. Zara. 1976. Biology and management of threatened and endangered western
trouts. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-28.
Binns, N A 1979. A habitat quality index for Wyoming trout streams. Fish. Research Monograph
Series, Wy. Game and Fish Dept., Cheyenne, WY.
Bisson, PA., J.L. Nielsen, RA Palmason, and L.E. Grove. 1982. A system of naming habitat types
in small streams with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low stream flow.
IJV N.B. Armantrout, (ed) Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory
information. Pp. 62-73. Proceedings of symposium held Oct. 28-30, 1981, Portland,
Oregon. Western Division, American Fisheries Society.
Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83-138.
Blackburn, W.H. 1983. Livestock grazing impacts on watersheds. Rangelands, 5(3) 123-125.
Bohn, C.C. and J.C. Buckhouse. 1985. Coliforms as an indicator of water quality in wildland
streams. J. of Water and Soil Cons., 40(1) 95-97.
Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
NY.
Brunsfeld, S.J. and F.D. Johnson. 1985. Field guide to the willows of eastcentral Idaho. Forest,
Bulletin Number 39, Wildlife and Range Exp. Station, U. of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Buckhouse, J.C. and G.F. Gifford. 1976. Water quality implications of cattle grazing on a semiarid
watershed in southeastern Utah. J. of Range Management, 29 (2) 109-113.
Buckhouse, J.C. 1986. Riparian response to various grazing systems and to periodic ice floes. In:
Grazing Research at Northern Latitudes, Olafur Gudmundsson, ed., 79-86.
170 LITERATURE CITED
-------
Bustard, D. R. and D. W. Narver. 1975a. Aspects of winter ecology of juvenile coho salmon
(Oncorhvnchus Kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo Gardineri). J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
32(5):667-680.
Bustard, D. R. and D. W. Narver. 1975b. Preferences of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhvnchus
kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdnerj,) relative to simulated alteration of winter
habitat. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32(5):681-687.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. EPA,
Denver, CO.
Chapman, D.W. and K.P. McLeod. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment in the northern
Rockies ecoregion. Final report, EPA contract no. 68-01-6986, EPA, Seattle, WA.
Chow, V.T. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, San Francisco,
CA.
Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1990. Riparian grazing guidelines for the intermountain region.
Rangelands 12(4): 209-212.
Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the intermountain
region. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-263, USDA Forest Service, Int. Research Station, Ogden, UT.
Coffey, S.W. and Smolen, M.D. 1991. The nonpoint source manager's guide to water quality
monitoring. NCSU Water Quality Group, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC. EPA
Grant No. T-9010662-03.
Cook, C.W. and J. Stubbendieck. 1986. Range research; Basic principles and techniques. Society
for Range Management, Denver, CO. 317 p.
Cowley, E.R. 1992. Protocols for classifying, monitoring, and evaluating stream/riparian
vegetation on Idaho rangeland streams. Id. Dept. Health and Welfare, Div. Environ.
Quality, Boise, ID.
Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, J.L. Reveal. 1986. Intermountain flora, vascular plants of the
intermountain West, U.SA. Volumes 1 through 6, The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx,
NY.
Dixon, J.E. G.R. Stephenson, A.J. Lingg, D.V. Naylor, and D.D. Hinman. 1983. Comparison of
runoff quality from cattle feeding on winter pastures. Trans. Am. Society Ag. Eng., 1146-
1149.
Duff, DA. 1983. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big Creek, Utah. In: Menke, J.W.
editor. Proc., workshop on livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin.
May 3 - 5,1977, Sparks, Nv. p.129 -142.
Environmental Protection Agency 1976. Quality criteria for water. Office of Water, Regulations,
and Standards, Wa. DC.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Methods of chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA-
600/4-79/200, Wa.,DC 296 p.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality criteria for water. Office of Water, Regulations,
and Standards, EPA 440/5-86-001, Wa., DC.
LITERATURE CITED 171
-------
Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and
rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. Office of Water, EPA/444/4-89—001.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Biological criteria: National program guidance for surface
waters. Office of Water, Regulations, and Standards, EPA-440/5-90-004, Wa., DC.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a. Watershed monitoring and reporting for section 319
national monitoring program projects. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. U.S.
EPA, Wa., DC.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. Biological criteria: state development and
implementation efforts. Office of Water, Wa., D.C. EPA-440/5-91-003. Basin. Univ. of Cal.,
Ag.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance specifying management measures for source of
nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. Office of Water, 840-B-92-002, Wa., DC.
Everest, F.H., R.L. Beschta, J.C. Scrivener, K.V. Koski. J.R. Sedell, and C.J. Cedarholm. 1987.
Fine sediment and salmcnid production: A paradox. In: E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, eds.,
Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions, Univ. Washington, Seattle,
WA. 98-142.
Fraley, J. J. and B. B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull
trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and river system, Montana. Northwest
Science, Vol. 63, No. 4. pp 133-143.
Gallant, A.L., T.R. Whittier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omernik, and R. Hughes. 1989. Regionalization as
a tool for managing environmental resources. Environmental Research Laboratory,
EPA/600/3-89/060, EPA, Corvallis, OR.
Gary, H.L., S.R. Johnson, S.L. Ponce. 1983. Cattle grazing impact in a Colorado front range
stream. J. Soil and Water Cons.,38(2) 124-128.
Gebhardt, K, S. Leonard, G. Staidl, D. Prichard. 1990. Riparian and wetland classification review.
Technical Reference 1737-5, BLM Service Center, Denver, CO.
Geldreich, E.E. 1976. Fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus density relationships in waste
discharges and receiving waters. Grit. Rev. Environ. Control. 6: 349-369.
Gibson, G.R. 1991. Draft procedures for initiating narrative biological criteria. Office of Water,
Wa. DC.
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van Norstrand
Reinhold Company, New York City, NY.
Gorman, O. T. and J. R. Karr. 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish communities. Ecology
59(3). pp. 507-515.
Hankin, D.G. and G. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in
small streams based on visual estimation methods. Can. Journal Fish Aquat. Sri. 45: 834-
844.
Hansen, P.L., S.W. Chadde, and R.D. Pfister. 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana, Misc.
172 LITERATURE CITED
-------
Pub. No. 49. Montana Riparian Assoc., U. of Montana, Missoula, MT.
Hansen, P., K. Boggs, R. Pfister, J. Joy. 1991. Classification and management of riparian and
wetland sites in Montana, Draft Version 1. Montana Riparian Assoc., Univ. of Montana,
Missoula, MT.
Harvey, G.W. 1989. Technical review of sediment criteria. Id. Dept. of Health and Welfare, Div. of
Environ. Quality, Boise, ID.
Hawkins, C.P., M.L. Murphy, N.J. Anderson,. 1983. Density offish and salamanders in relation to
riparian canopy and physical habitat in streams of the northwestern United States. Can.
Journal Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40(8):1173-1186.
Hayslip, GA., editor. 1992. EPA Region 10 in-stream biological monitoring handbook for wadable
streams in the Pacific Northwest - Draft. EPA, Reg. 10, Seattle, WA, 56 p.
Herman, F.J. 1970. Manual of the carices of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado basin.
Agricultural handbook No. 374. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Herman, F.J. 1975. Manual of the rushes (Juncus spp.) of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado
basin. USDA, Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RN-18, Rocky Mt. Forest and Exp. Station,
Fort Collins, CO.
Hillman, T. W., J. S. Griffith, and W. S. Platts. 1986. The effects of sediment on summer and
winter habitat selection by juvenile chinook salmon in an Idaho stream. Unpublished
Report. Idaho State Univ., Dept. of Biological Sciences. Pocatello, Idaho.
Hitchcock, A.S. 1971. Manual of the grasses of the United States, Vol. 1 and 2 (2nd. edition),
Dover Pub., New York, NY.
Hitchcock, L.C. and a. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. U. of Washington Press,
Seattle, WA.
Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1977. Vascular plants of the
Pacific Northwest, volumes I-V. U. of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Hokanson, K.E., C.E. Kleiner, and T.W. Thorslund. 1977. Effects of constant temperatures and
diel temperature fluctuations on specific growth and mortality rates and yield of juvenile
rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 34: 639-648.
Holscher, C. and E. Woolford, E. 1953. Forage utilization by cattle in the northern Great Plains
Range. U.S. Dept. of Ag. Circular 918.
Hughes, R.M. et al. 1990. A regional framework for establishing recovery criteria. Environ.
Manage., 14:673-683.
Hunter, C J., 1991. Better trout habitat; A guide to stream restoration and management. Island
Press, Wa. D.C., p320.
Hunt, R. L. 1969. Effects of habitat alteration on production, standing crops, and yield of brook
trout in Lawrence Creek, Wisconsin.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto Press, Ontario,
Canada.
LITERATURE CITED 173
-------
Jawson, M.D., L.F. Elliot, K.E. Saxton, D.H. Fortier. 1982. The effect of cattle grazing on
indicator bacteria in runoff from a Pacific Northwest watershed. J. Environ. Qual., 11:621-
627.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management.
Ecological Applications, 1(1), 63-84.
Kauffman, J.B, W.C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Impacts of cattle on streambanks in
northeastern Oregon. J. of Range Management, 36(6) 683-685.
Kauffman,J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside
management implications-A review. J. Range Management 37:430-438.
Kovalchik, B.L. 1987. Riparian zone associations, Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema
National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP-279-87. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,
Portland, OR.
Kovalchik, B.L. W.E. Hopkins, and S.J. Brunsfeld. 1988. Major indicator shrubs and herbs in
riparian zones on national forests of central Oregon, R6-ECOL-TP-005-88. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.
Kozel, S.J. and W A Hubert. 1989. Factors influencing the abundance of brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis) in forested mountain stream. Journal Fresh. Ecology, 5(1): 113-122.
Kozel, S.J., WA Hubert, and M. Parsons. 1989a. Habitat features and trout abundance relative to
gradient in some Wyoming streams. Northwest Science, 63(4), 175-181.
Kozel, S.J. and WA. Hubert. 1989b. Testing of habitat assessment models for small trout streams
in the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. N. Am. J. of Fisheries Management 9:458-
464.
I.nnkn, R.P., WA. Hubert, and TA Wesche. 1987. Relations of geomorphology to stream habitat
and trout standing stock in small Rocky Mountain streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.,116:21-
28.
Lisle, T. E. 1982. Effects of aggradation and degradation on riffle-pool morphology in natural
gravel channels, north-western California. Water Resources Research 18: 1643-1651.
Lloyd, J.R. 1986. COWFISH: Habitat capability model. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region
Fish and Wildlife Staff, Fish Habitat Relationship Program, Missoula, Montana.
Lloyd, D.S., J.P. Koenings and J.D. LaPerriere. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of
Alaska. N. Am. J. of Fisheries Management 7(1): 18-33.
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects
of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA Region X, 910/9-
91-001, Seattle, WA
Manning, M.E. and W.G. Padgett. 1992. Riparian community type classification for the Humbolt
and Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada and Eastern California (Draft). USDA Forest Service,
Intel-mountain Station, Ogden, UT.
Marcus, M.D., M.K Young, L.E. Noel, and BA. Mullan. 1990. Salmonid-habitat relationships in
174 LITERATURE CITED
-------
the western United States: A review and indexed bibliography. Rocky Mt. Range and Exp.
Station, USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-188, Fort Collins, CO.
Marcuson, P.E. 1977. The effect of cattle grazing on brown trout in Rock Creek, Montana.
Montana Dept. of Fish and Game, Special Report, Project F-20-R-21,ll-a, Helena, MT.
Meehan, W.R. and W.S. Platts. 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environment. J. of Soil &
Water Cons., 33(6),274-278.
Miner, J.R., Buckhouse, J.C, and J A. Moore. 1992. Will a water trough reduce the amount of time
hay-fed livestock spend in the stream (and therefore improve water quality)? Rangelands,
14(1) 35-38.
Moore M.S. and S.V. Gregory. 1989. Geomorphic and riparian influences on the distribution and
abundance of salmonids in a Cascade mountain stream. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.
Rep. PSW-110.
Nelson, R.L., W.S. Platts, D.P. Larsen, and S.E. Jensen. 1990. Distribution and habitat
relationships of native and introduced trout in relation to geology and geomorphology in the
North Fork Humboldt River drainage, northeastern Nevada. Publication in draft.
Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosytems.
N. Am. J. of Fisheries Management, 11, 72-82.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of American
Geographers 77:118-125.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1986. Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest. Map (scale
1:2,500,00). EPA/600/3-86/033. EPA, Environ. Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1987a. Ecoregions of the South Central States. Map (scale
1:2,500,00). EPA/600/D-87/315. EPA, Environ. Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1987b. Ecoregions of the Southwest States. Map (scale
1:2,500,00). EPA/600/D-87/316. EPA, Environ. Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1987c. Ecoregions of the West Central States. Map (scale
1:2,500,00). EPA/600/D-87/317. EPA, Environ. Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1988. Ecoregions of the Upper Midwest States. Map (scale
1:2,500,00). EPA/600/3-88/037. EPA, Environ. Research Lab., Corvallis, OR.
Owens, L.B., W.M. Edwards, and R.W. Van Keuren. 1983. Surface runoff water quality
comparisons between unimproved pasture and woodland. J. Environ. Qual., 12(4) 518-522.
Owens, L.B., W.M. Edwards, and R.W. Van Keuren. 1989. Sediment and nutrient losses from an
unimproved, all-year grazed watershed. J. Environ. Qua!., 18(2) 232-238.
Padgett, W.G., A.P. Youngblood, and A.H. Winward. 1989. Riparian community type classification
of Utah and southeastern Idaho. Intel-mountain Region, R4-Ecol-89-01, USDA Forest
Service, Ogden, UT.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams and rivers; benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA-444/4-89-
LTrERATURE CITED 175
-------
001. EPA,Wa.,D.C.
Platts, W.S. 1974. Geomorphic and aquatic conditions influencing salmonids and stream
classification - with application to ecosystem management. USDA, SEAM Program,
Billings MT.
Platts, W.S. 1979. Livestock grazing and riparian-stream ecosystems-an overview. In: Cope, O.B.
editor. Proc. grazing and riparian-stream ecosystems forum, Trout Unlimited, Vienna, VA.
39-45.
Platts, W.S. 1981a. Effects of livestock grazing. Influence of Forest and Rangeland Management
on Anadromous Fish Habitat in Western North America, Pac. NW Range Exp. Station,
USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-124.
Platts, W.S. 1981b. Sheep and streams. Rangelands, 3(4), 158-160.
Platts, W.S. 1983. Vegetation requirements for fisheries habitats. In: S.B. Monsen and N. Shaw,
compilers. Managing intermt. rangelands-improvement of range and wildlife habitats.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-157.
Platts, W.S., W. F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream, riparian,
and biotic conditions. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-138. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT.
Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985a. Streamside and upland vegetation use by cattle.
Rangelands, 7:5-7.
Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985b. Impacts of rest-rotation grazing on stream banks in forested
watersheds in Idaho: N. Am. J. of Fish. Manage., 5, 547-556.
Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985c. Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing
and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. J. of Soil and Water Cons., 40(4),
374-379.
Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J. L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S. Jensen, G.W.
Lienkaemper, G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monson, R.L. Nekon, J.R. Sedell, J.S. Tuhy. 1987.
Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. Gen. Tech.
Rpt. INT-221. USDA Forest Service, Ogden UT.
Platts, W.S. 1989. Compatibility of livestock grazing strategies with fisheries, 103-110. In:
Gresswell, R.E., Barton, BA., Kershner, J.L. eds. Practical Approaches to riparian resource
management: An educational workshop, U.S. BLM, Billings, MT.
Platts, W.S., and R.L. Nelson. 1989. Characteristics of riparian plant communities and
streambanks with respect to grazing in northeastern Utah. Paper presented at: Practical
approaches to riparian resource management - An educational workshop. Billings, MT.
Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1989a. Stream canopy and its relationship to salmonid biomass in
the intermountain West. N. Am. J. of Fisheries Management, 9, 446-457.
Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by livestock. Nevada
Dept. of Wildlife.
Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 389-423.
Rahel, F.J. and WA. Hubert. 1991. Fish assemblages and habitat gradients in a Rocky Mountain-
176 LITERATURE CITED
-------
Great Plains stream: Biotic zonation and additive patterns of community change. Trans, of
Am. Fish. Society 120:319-332.
Rich, B.A., R.J. Scully, and C.E. Petrosky. 1992. Idaho habitat/natural production monitoring,
Part I. General monitoring subprpject annual report. Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, Oregon.
Rieman, B. E., and K A. Apperson. 1989. Status and Analysis of Salmonid Fisheries Westslope
Cutthroat Trout Synopsis and Analysis of Fishery Information, Idaho Fish and Game
Project F-73-R-11, Subproject No. II, Job No. 1.
Rinne, J.N. and A.L. Medina. 1988. Factors influencing salmonid populations in six headwater
streams, cental Arizona, USA. Pol. Arch. Hydrobiol., 35(3-4), 515-532.
Rinne, J.N. 1990. The utility of stream habitat and biota for identifying potential conflicting forest
land uses: Montane riparian areas. Forest Ecology and Management, 33/34: 363-383.
Rosgen, D.L. 1993 (Draft) A classification of natural rivers. Submitted to Catena, Germany.
Schepers, J.S. and D.D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in
Nebraska: Influence of grazing livestock. J. Environ. Qua!., 11(3) 351-354.
Schepers, J.S., B.L. Hackes, and D.D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from
grazing land in Nebraska: II. contributing factors. J. Environ. Qua!., 11(3) 355-359.
Shepard, B. 1989. Evaluation of the USDA Forest Service "COWFISH" model for assessing
livestock impacts on fisheries in the Beaverhead National Forest. Paper presented at:
Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management: An Educational Workshop.
Billings, MT.
Sherer, B.M., J.R. Miner, JA. Moore, and J.C. Buckhouse. 1988. Resuspending organisms for a
rangeland stream bottom. Am. Soc. Ag. Engineers, 0001-2351/88/3104-1217,1217-1222.
Sherer, B.M., J.R. Miner, JA Moore, and J.C. Buckhouse. 1992. Indicator bacterial survival in
stream sediments. J. Environ. Qua! 21:591-595.
Skille, J. and J. King. 1989. Proposed cobble embeddedness sampling procedure. Unpublished
paper available from the USDA Forest Service, Intermount. Research Station, Boise ID.
Skovlin, J.M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: A review of knowledge.
p. 10001-1103. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. Westview Press,
Boulder, CO.
Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, S A Dressing, M.D. Smolen, F.J. Humenik. 1985. Appropriate designs for
documenting water quality improvements from agricultural NPS control programs. In:
Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA 440/5-85-001. p. 30-34.
Stephenson, G.R. and L.V. Street. 1978. Bacterial variations in streams from a southwest Idaho
rangeland watershed. J. Environ. Quality, 7(1) 150-157.
Stephenson, G.R. and R.C. Rychert. 1982. Bottom sediment: a reservoir of Escherichia coli in
rangeland streams. J. of Range Management, 35(1) 119-123.
Sullivan, K, T.E. Lisle, A.C. Dolloff, et al. 1987. Stream channels: The link between forests and
LITERATURE CITED 177
-------
fishes. In: E.G. Salo and T.W. Cundy, editors. Streamside management: Forestry and
fishery interactions. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. pp 40-97.
Tiedeman, A.R., DA. Higgins, T.M. Quigley, H.R. Sanderson, and D,B. Marx. 1987. Responses of
fecal coliform in streamwater to four grazing strategies. J. Range Manage., 40: 322-329.
Torquemada, R.J., and W.S. Piatts. 1988. A comparison of sediment monitoring techniques of
potential use in sediment/fish relationships. Final Report to Idaho Fish and Game
Department, Boise, ID.
USDA Agricultural Research Service. 1983. Volume II - Comprehensive report, ARS/BLM
cooperative studies, Reynolds Creek Watershed. USDA Agricultural Watershed Service,
Boise, Idaho.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide. USDA Forest Service,
Intel-mountain Region, Ogden, UT.
USDA Forest Service. 1993. Grazing statistical summary, FY 1992.USDA Forest Service, Range
Management, U.S. G.P.O.:1993-341-697/72003.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1976. National Range Handbook, as amended. USDA, Soil
Cons. Service, Wa. DC.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Summary report: 1987 national resource inventory.
Statistical Bulletin # 790, U.S. Gov. Printing Office 1989-718-608.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1974. The effects of livestock grazing on wildlife, watershed,
recreation, and other resource values in Nevada. USDI BLM, Wa. DC.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Procedures for BLM ecological site inventory - with
special reference to riparian - wetland sites. BLM Technical Reference TR 1737-7.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1990. National Range Handbook. BLM Manual Handbook H-
4410-1, BLM, Wa. DC.
USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1992. Public land statistics 1991. USDI-BLM,
BLM/SC/PT-92/0114-1165.
USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 1981. Water Measurement Manual.U.S. Government Printing
Office, Denver.
Valiela, D. and P.H. Whitfield. 1989. Monitoring strategies to determine compliance with water
quality objectives. Water Resources Bulletin, 25(1), 63-69.
VanVelson, R. 1979. Effects of livestock grazing upon rainbow trout in Otter Creek, NE. In: Cope,
O.B. editor. Proc. grazing and riparian-stream ecosystems forum, Trout Unlimited, Vienna,
VA. 53-55.
Wesche, TA. 1980. The WRRI trout cover rating method: Development and application. Water
Resources Series No. 78. Water Resources Research Institute, University of Wyoming,
Laramie, WY.
Whitfield, P.H. 1988. Goals and data collection designs for water quality monitoring. Water
178 LITERATURE CITED
-------
Resources Bulletin, 24(4), 775-780.
Wilzbach, MA. 1989. How tight is the linkage between trees and trout? USDA Forest Service
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110.
Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union,
35(6): 951-956.
LITERATURE CITED
179
-------
APPENDIX A
INITIAL EVALUATION
1. Basic Information Data Sheet
2. Instructions for the Basic Information Data Sheet
3. Review of Existing Data
4. Instructions for Existing Data Listing
-------
1. BASIC INFORMATION DATA SHEET
Stream Name:
Sub-Area:
Maps:
Date:
EPA No.
Photos:
Information Collected by:
Agency:
Geomorphic Setting:
Stream Order:
Gradient:
Valley Bottom Type:
Aspect:
Elevation: Upper
Sinuosity:
Lower:
Entrenchment:
Dominant Substrate:
Stream Type (Rosgen):
Size: Length
Landform: —
(Miles or Feet) Area
(Acres)
Geology and Soils:
Geologic Parent Material:
Soil Mapping Units:
Mapping Unit Nos.:
Soil Family Name:
Dominant Vegetation:
Conifer Deciduous Shrub Herbaceous/Graminoid Non-vegetated
Dominant Land Use(s):
Comments:
A- 1
-------
2. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BASIC INFORMATION DATA SHEET
Stream Name: Name of the stream or stream segment described.
Date: Date information collected.
EPA No.: EPA Stream Reach Number based hydrologic units.
Stream Segment Length: The length in miles of the stream segment described on the data sheet.
Area Size: Riparian area size associated with the stream reach.
Quad(s): List the U.S.G.S. topographic maps used.
Aerial Photo(s): List the aerial photos used.
Information Collected By: List the individual(S) collecting the data.
Agency: List agency responsible for data.
Stream Order: The stream order for the reach described.
Gradient: The gradient of the stream segment described, obtain the information from topographic maps.
Valley Bottom Type: The valley bottom type described in Appendix B.
Aspect: The general aspect of the stream reach described.
Elevation: The upper and lower elevation of the stream reach.
Entrenchment: The degree to which the stream is confined to the stream channel, see Appendix B.
Sinuosity: The stream channel length divided by the valley bottom length.
Dominant Substrate: The stream bed substrate inferred from existing information, e.g. soil survey, stream surveys.
Stream Type: The Rosgen stream type as described in Appendix B. Usually must be completed after the
Reconnaissance level inventory.
Parent Material: List the major parent materials that effect the stream.
Landform: Provide the land form from the soil survey or describe the land form.
Soil Mapping Units: List the dominant soil mapping unit for the riparian areas.
Soil Family Name: List the name of the soil family.
Dominant Vegetation: Mark the apparent dominant vegetation along the stream.
Dominant Land Use: Describe the major land use activities affecting water quality.
A-2
-------
3. REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA
Stream Name:. _ EPA Stream Reach No.
Compiled by: ______ Date:
Maps and Aerial Photos Available:
Name Type & Scale
Fish and Macroinvertebrates:
Soils and Vegetation:
Stream Row and Other Stream Parameters:
Other
Water Quality (Chemical & Physical):
Report Name Source Location
A-3
-------
4. INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXISTING DATA LISTING
Stream Name: Provide the name of the stream segment basic information listed.
EPA No.: EPA Stream Reach Number based on the hydrologic region.
Compiled by: Provide the name(s) of the individuals compiling the data.
Date: Date of data compilation.
Type: List the type of map and/or aerial photos, i.e. orthophoto, topographic.
Scale: Provide the scale of the map or aerial photo, i.e. 1" = 1 mile, 1:20,000.
Source: List the agency that produced the report.
Location: List the Location of the report or data.
Existing resource information is important to assist in assessing water quality. It can save
duplication of effort, provide baseline data, and guide future inventory and monitoring efforts.
This form provides a listing of various types of existing inventory and monitoring data, source
of the information, and the location of the data.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL - CLASSIFICATION
1. Valley Bottom Type
2. Stream Channel Classification Definitions
3. Summary of delineative criteria for broad-level classification.
4. Longitudinal, cross-sectional and plan views of major stream types.
5. Meander width ratio (belt width/bankful width) by stream type categories.
6. Illustrative guide showing cross-sectional configuration, composition, and
delineative criteria of major stream types.
7. Key to classification of natural rivers.
8. Examples and calculations of channel entrenchment.
9. Management interpretations of various stream types.
10. Definitions of aquatic community habitat types.
11. Suggested riparian plant identification keys and riparian community type
guides.
Note: Items 2 through 9 are taken directly from the most recent stream channel classification by
David Rosgen (1993). The reader is referred to this publication for use of the stream
classification.
Rosgen, D.L. 1993. A classification of natural rivers. [In Review] Catena, Germany.
-------
1. VALLEY BOTTOM TYPE *
VALLEY FORM:
U-Shape
1000
V-Shape
2000
Trough-Like
3000
Flat Bottom
4000
Box Canyon
5000
VALLEY BOTTOM GRADIENT:
VALLEY BOTTOM WIDTH:
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
< 2%
2-4%
>4-6%
>6 - 8%
>8%
100
200
300
400
500
Very Narrow
Narrow
Moderate
Broad
Very Broad
< 10 rn
10 -30m
30- 100m
100 - 300m
>300 m
10
20
30
40
50
VALLEY SIDE SLOPES:
Low
Moderate
Steep
< 30% 1
30 - 60% 2
> 60% 3
From USDA Forest Service (1992)
Example:
Flat Bottom (4000), Low Gradient (200). Narrow Valley (20), and Low Side Slopes (1)
Typical Code 4221
B- 1
-------
2. STREAM CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS
Entrenchment-the ratio of the flood zone width, at two times the bankfull depth, divided by the
bankfull width. Measurements are made on site.
Gradient—the percent slope of the water surface. Measurements may be made from topographic
maps or on site.
Sinuosity—the stream channel length divided by the valley length. Measured from a topographic
map or on site.
Width/Depth (W/D) Ratio-the bankfull width divided by the bankfull depth. Measurement is made
on site.
Dominant substrate—the size of most of the bottom particles or material in a stream bed. Substrate
in the stream is estimated or measured using a Wolman pebble count. Measurements or estimates
are made in the field.
Confinement-the amount of lateral movement a stream channel can make as a result of geologic
structures such as valley walls or terraces.
B-2
-------
Table 2. Summary of delineative criteria for broad-level classification.
Stream
Type
Ae+
A
B
C
D
DA
B
K
°
General
Description
Very steep, deeply entrenched .debrtf transport
streams.
Steep, entrenched, cascading, step/pool streams.
High energy/debris transport associated with
depositions! soils. Very stable if bedrock or
boulder dominated channel.
Moderately entrenched, moderate gradient, riffle
dominated channel, with Infrequently spsced
pools. Very stable plan and profile. Stable banks.
Low gradient, meandering, point-bar, riffle/pool,
alluvial channels with broad, well defined
floodplalns
Braided channel with longitudinal and transverse
bars. Very wide channel with eroding banks.
Anastomosing (multiple channels) narrow and
deep with expansive well vegetated floodplaln and
associated wetlands. Very gontle relief with highly
variable sinuosities, stable streambanks.
taw gradient, meandering riffle/pool stream with
low width/depth ratio and little deposition. Very
efficient and stable. High meander width ratio.
Entrenched meandering riffle/pool channel on low
gradients with high width/depth ratio.
Entrenched "gulley" sUp/pool and low width/depth
ratio on moderate gradients.
Entrenchment
Ratio
<1.4
<1.4
1.4
to
2.2
>2.2
n/a
>4.0
>2.2
12
>12
>40
<40
<12
<12
<12
Sinuosity
1.0
to
1.1
1.0
to
1.2
>1.2
<1.4
n/a
variable
>1.5
>1.4
>1.2
Slope
>.10
.04
to
.10
.02
to
.039
<.02
<.04
<.006
<.02
<.02
.02
to
.039
j
LandfbraVSolls/Features
Very high reUef. Erosions!, bedrock or depositions!
features; debris flow potontlal. Deeply entrenched streams.
Vertical steps with/deep scour pools; waterfalls.
High relief. Eroslonal or depositions] and bedrock forms.
Entrenched and confined stream! with cascading reaches.
Frequently spaced, deep pools to associated step-pool bed
morphology.
Moderate relief, oolluvlal deposition and/or residual soils.
Moderate entrenchment and W/D ratio. Narrow, gently
sloping valley*. Rapids predominate w/oocaslonal pools.
Broad valleys w/tenraces, In association with floodplalns,
alluvial soils. Slightly entrenched with well-defined
meandering channel. Rime-pool bed morphology.
Broad valleys with alluvial and oolluvial fans. Glacial
debris and depositions! features. Active lateral adjustment,
w/abuodaace of sediment supply.
Broad, low-gradient valleys with line alluvium and/or
lacustrine soils, Anastomosed (multiple channel) geologic
control creating fine deposition w/well-vegetated ban that
are laterally stable) with broad wetland floodplalns.
Broad valley/meadows. Alluvial materials with floodplaln.
Highly slnuoua with stable, well vegetated banks. Riffle-
pool morphology with very low width/depth ratio.
Entrenched in highly weathered material. Gentle gradients,
with a high W/D ratio. Meandering, laterally unstable with
high bank-erosion rates. Riffle-pool morphology.
Gulley, stop-pool morphology w/moderato slopes and low
W/D ratio. Narrow valleys, or deeply Incised In alluvial or I
colluvial materials; I.e., fans or deltas. Unstable, with grade 1
control problems and high bank erosion rales. |
n
t
m
-------
FLOOD'-PROHE AREA — — — —
BAMKFUL.lt STAGE
DOMINANT
SLOPE
RANGE
Figure 1. Longitudinal, cross-sectional and plan views of major stream types.
-------
STREAM TYPE
D
B&G
PLAN VIEW
CROSS-
SECTION
VIEW
#&!•
-»\
AVERAGE
VALUES
1.5
1.1
3.7
5.3
RANGE
1-3
1-2
2-8
2-10
4-20 20-40
Figure 3. Meander width ratio (belt wldth/bankfull width) by stream type categories.
-------
Dominant
B«d
MaUrUI
•EDROCK
B
D
DA
2
MULDER
COBBLE
4
CflAVEL
' •!# v<5TJflf?&: £
;-':.-:V.';-;-.Vt.'>--J;'-.-,.'«V;
5
SAIIO
«O
t
CO
SN.T/CLAV
ENTRH
1.4-2.2
>2.2
N/A
>2.2
>2.2
SIN.
1.1-1.6
W/D
>40
<40
SLOPE
.04-.099
.02-.039
<.02
<.02
<.005
<.02
<.02
.02-.039
Figure 4. Illustrative guide showing cross-sectional configuration, composition
and delineative criteria of major stream types.
-------
r
SINGLE THREAD CHANNELS
)(
MULTIPLE CHANNELS
'Entrenchment
Width/Depth
}
1
1 (^
*(
!
!
f
ENTRENCHED («i.4J
LOWW/0(«!J) J j
-. . T .
T
^ (MOD. ENTRENCHED (1.4-l.lQ (^
T T
f
SLIGHTLY EHTRENCHED (.1.7)
T
MOO.- HIGH ^v r y0nrn.TcWm bia ^\ /"VERY LOW wm^v r
Wrt)(»«J) J ^ MOOERAieWID |>iq J ^ ^jj J ^
T T
f
f
HOD.- HIGH
T
;
)(
\
VERY HIGH
W/DMO)
f
1
-N /Tow-
_J \!±L
r
u
•Sinuosity
1
Bedrock
15
'C Boulders
u
13
5 Cobble
"w
§ Gravel
CO
U Sand
Slliyciay
MWOMIY w*
MODERATE
SINUOSITY (.1.1)
T
• ~s
A
©
^•""»
F
N /" VERY HIGH X f
I SINUOSITY I
L H»> J V
HIGH
SINUOSITY H4
®
T
«——>
E
LT I
Slop* Rang* I I Slop* Rang* I I Slop* Rang*
Slop* Rang*
Slop* Rang*
n: ZL J
Slop* Ring*
0.02-
0.039
0001-
0.02
ffi
|A1a» [
j A2a*|
j A3*»|
| A
-------
ENTRENCHED
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO 1.0 - 1.4
STREAM TYPE
STREAM TYPE
STREAM TYPE
** G
MODERATELY
ENTRENCHED
ENTRENCHMENf RATIO 1.41 - 2.2
STREAM
B
STREAM TYPE
B
^ f. k. ^•••
'
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO
FLOOD-PRONE WIDTH
BANKFULL ^
SLIGHTLY
ENTRENCHED
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO 2.2 +
STREAM TYPE
c
STREAM TYPE
D
1 .'•"." • •'•. 'j .'• •'•' '•'. "• •;.' . •' • '
STREAM TYPE
E
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO - FLOOD-PRONE WIDTH
BANKFULL WIDTH
FLOOD-PRONE WIDTH • WATER LEVEL
O 2 X MAX. DEPTH
oo
m
Figure 6. Examples and calculations of channel entrenchment.
-------
Table 3. Management interpretations of various stream types.
| Stream
Tn»
Al
A2
AS
A4
A5
AS
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B6
B6
Cl
C2
C3
04
C5
C6
D3
D4
D5
D6
BA4
DAS
DA6
£3
£4
£5
E6
Fl
F2
F3
F4
FB
F6
Gl
G2
G3
G4
G6
G6
Sensitivity
to
Disturbance1
very tow
very low
very high
extreme
extreme
high
very low
very low
low
moderate
moderate
moderate
low
low
moderate
very high
very high
very high
very high
'my high
very high
high
moderate
moderate
moderate
high
very high
very high
very high
low
low
moderate
extreme
very high
very high
low
moderate
very high
extreme
very high
Becovery
Potential*
excellent
excellent
very poor
very poor
very poor
poor
oy^ll^Pt
excellent
•"••Pfnt
excellent
excellent
excellent
very good
very good
good
good
fair
m___1
gOOU
poor
poor
poor
poor
good
good
good
good
good
good
good
fair
fair
poor
poor
poor
fair
good
fair
poor
very poor
very poor
poor
Sediment
Supply1
very low
very low
very high
very high
very high
high
very low
very low
low
moderate
moderate
moderate
very low
low
moderate
hjgh
very high
high
very high
very high
very high
high
very low
low
very low
low
moderate
moderate
low
low
moderate
very high
very high
very high
high
low
moderate
very high
very high
very high
high
Streambaak
Erotion
Potential
very low
very tow
high
very high
very high
high
very tow
very tow
low
low
moderate
tow
tow
tow
moderate
very high
very high
high
very high
very high
very high
high
low
tow
very tow
moderate
high
high
moderate
moderate
moderate
very high
very high
very high
very high
tow
moderate
very high
very high
very high
high
Vegetation
Controlling
Influence*
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible j
negligible 1
negligible 1
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
very high
very high
very high
very high
moderate H
moderate II
moderate II
moderate
very high
very high
very high
very high
very high
very high
very high
low
low
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
ow
aw
ugh
ligh
ugh
ligh
in streamflow magnitude and timing and/or sediment increase*.
1 Assumes natural iecovery once cause of instability is corrected.
* Includes suspended and bedload from channel derived sources and/or from stream adjacent slopes.
4 Vegetation that influences width/depth ratio-stability.
B-9
-------
10. DEFINITIONS OF AQUATIC COMMUNITY HABITAT TYPES
A habitat type as used here is a unit of stream having a unique structure and function important to fish. There
are two subdivisions of habitat types: Macro- and Micro- habitat types. Micro-habitats are distinct units of
the stream whose length is less than one channel width and whose width is less than one-half channel width.
All distinct units larger than this are considered macro-habitats.
The definitions were derived from: Western Division, American Fisheries Society (1985), Platts, Megahan, and
Minshall, 1983, and Bisson and others (1981). These are sources frequently cited for habitat definition and
characterization.
I. POOL
An area of the stream that has reduced water velocity
Water depth is deeper than surrounding areas
The water surface gradient at low flow is often near zero
The bed is often concave in shape and forms a depression in the thalweg profile
Pools are formed by features of the stream that cause local deepening of the channel. This
results from lateral constrictions in flow or by sharp drops in the water surface profile. They
include:
Plunge pool created by water passing over or through a complete or nearly complete
channel obstruction, scouring out a basin below. They are often associated with
large debris and are usually macro-habitat
Dammed pools impounded upstream of a complete or nearly complete channel
blockage caused by log jams, beavers, rockslides, boulders, etc. They are usually
macro-habitat
A meander or comer pool is a lateral scour pool resulting from a sudden shift in
channel direction and occurs along the outcurves of channel meanders. These are
usually macro-habitat.
Backwaters caused by an eddy along the channel margin or by back-flooding
upstream form an obstruction such as large woody debris, boulders, root wads, etc. -
usually micro-habitat
Trenches or slot-like depressions formed usually in bedrock channels in long linear
shapes - usually micro-habitat
Lateral scour around local obstructions such as wing deflectors, boulders, individual
logs, etc - usually micro-habitat
II. RIFFLE
Water flows faster than surrounding stream area
Water is shallower than surrounding stream « 20 cm or .6 ft in depth)
Water surface is agitated relative to the surrounding stream
Water surface gradient is steeper than the surrounding stream
There are three types of riffles:
B- 10
-------
Low gradient: Water is shallow « 20 cm or .6 ft deep), water velocity is moderate
at 20-50 cm/sec, water surface gradient is less than 4% and water flows mostly on
gravel or cobble substrate.
Rapids: Water is swiftly flowing (> 50 cm/sec), turbulence is considerable, water
surface gradient is greater than 4%, and substrate is mostly boulders or cobbles.
Cascades: A series of steps or small waterfalls associated with bedrock or boulders.
There is considerable water surface gradient, and small plunge pools may be
associated with the type.
III. GLIDE
Too shallow to be pool ( < 30 cm deep, and too slow to be a run « 20 cm/sec)
Water surface gradient is nearly zero
No pronounced turbulence on the water surface
Substrate is typically gravel and cobble
As micro-habitat, glides usually occur at the downstream transition between pools and riffles. As
macro-habitat, glides occur in long, low gradient stream reaches with stable banks and no large flow
obstructions.
IV. RUN
Too deep to be a riffle ( > 30 cm deep), and too fast to be a pool ( > 20 cm/sec)
No pronounced water surface agitation
The slope of the water surface is roughly parallel to the overall stream reach gradient
Substrate is typically gravel and cobble
Glides are micro-habitats that usually occur at the downstream transition between pools and riffles
and along the length of gradual channel constrictions where deepening is not associated with bed
scour or bed depressions.
V. POCKET WATERS
An area of stream forming a series of small pools surrounded by swiftly flowing water
The small pools form behind boulders, rubble, or logs and create shallow habitats where fish
feed and rest away from faster waters surrounding the pockets
Distinguished from riffles by the prevalence of small pools associated with the type
B- 11
-------
11. SUGGESTED RIPARIAN PLANT IDENTIFICATION KEYS
AND RIPARIAN COMMUNITY TYPE GUIDES
Brunsfeld, S.J. and F.D. Johnson. 1985. Field guide to the willows of east-central Idaho. Forest, Bulletin
Number 39, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Moscow, ID.
Cronquist, A., A.M. Holmgren, N.L. Holmgren, and J.L. Reveal. 1986. Intermountain flora, vascular plants of
the intermountain west, U.S.A. Volumes 1 through 6. The New York Botanical Garden. Bronx, NY.
Hansen, P.L., S.W. Chadde, and R.D. Pfister. 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Miscellaneous
Publication No. 49. Montana Riparian Association. University of Montana. Missoula, MT.
Hansen, P., K. Boggs, R. Pfister, and J. Joy. 1991. Classification and management for riparian and wetland
sites in Montana (draft version 1). Montana riparian Association. Montana Forest and Conservation
Experiment Station. School of Forestry. University of Montana. Missoula, MT.
Herman, F.J. 1970. Manual of the carices of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado basin. Agricultural Handbook
No. 374. USDA, Forest Service. Washington, DC.
Herman, F.J. 1975. Manual of the rushes (Juncus spp.) of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado basin. USDA,
Forest Service. General Technical Report RN-18. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. Fort Collins, CO.
Hitchcock, A.S. 1971. Manual of the grasses of the United States, Volumes one and (second edition) two.
Dover Publications, Inc. New York City, NY.
Hitchcock, L.C. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the pacific northwest. University of Washington Press.
Seattle, WA.
Hitchcock, C.L., A Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1977. Vascular plants of the pacific
northwest, volumes I - V. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA.
Kovalchik, B.L. 1987. Riparian zone associations, Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forest.
R6-ECOL-TP-279-87. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.
Kovalchik, B.L., W.E. Hopkins, and S.J. Brunsfeld. 1988. Major indicator shrubs and herbs in riparian zones on
national forests of central Oregon. R6-ECOL-TP-005-88. USDA, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest
Region. Portland, OR.
Manning, M.E. and W.G. Padgett. 1992. Riparian Community Type Classification for the Humbold and Toiyabe
National Forests, Nevada and Eastern California (Draft). USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Station.
Ecology and and Classification Program. Ogden, UT.
Padgett, W.G., A.P. Youngblood, and A.H.'Winward. 1989. Riparian community type classification of Utah
and southeastern Idaho. USDA, Forest Service. Intermountain Region. Ogden, UT.
Youngblood, A.P., W.G. Padgett, and A.H. Winward. 1985. Riparian community type classification of eastern
Idaho-western Wyoming. R4-ECOL-85-01. USDA, Forest Service. Intermountain Region. Ogden, UT.
B- 12
-------
APPENDIX C
RECONNAISSANCE
1. Field Data Sheet - Reconnaissance - Riparian Classification
2. Instruction for Preparing Reconnaissance - Riparian Classification
3. Field Data Sheet - Reconnaissance - Habitat
4. Instructions for Reconnaissance - Habitat
-------
1. RECONNAISSANCE - RIPARIAN CLASSIFICATION
Stream Name: —— Sub-Area: __________ Date:
A9ency: ___ EPA No.: —
Map Name: ___ _— Examiner(s): .
Stream and Valley Bottom Classification:
Valley Bottom Type: _ Gradient: ___________Aspect:
Elevation: Upper ——_______ Lower - Middle
Complex Size: Length • Width ______________ Area
Confinement: _____ Sinuosity: Stream Type: -
SOILS
Dominant Soil Family(ies) % Sub-araa Compaction
_________—_______ __ SI / Md / Sv
__ _____________ .—_____ SI / Md / Sv
—_____—_—_ SI / Md / Sv
VEGETATION DESCRIPTION: DOMINANCE BY COMMUNITY TYPES
Community Type % Sub-area Potential Community Type
ADJACENT (non-riparian) VEGETATION (looking down stream)
Left ——— Right —
GREEN LINE (Hydric Vegetation) _____—_——_-_—% PHOTO ID:
BEAVER No. Active Dams — No. Inactive Dams _ Other
LAND USE ACTIVITIES AND ESTIMATED INFLUENCE ON RIPARIAN AREA
Livestock Irrig. Cropland Dry Cropland Mining Timber Roads Recreation ORV Other
Stream/Riparian Classification:
C-2
-------
2. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING RECONNAISSANCE -
RIPARIAN CLASSIFICATION
Stream Name: Provide the name of the stream segment being classified.
Sub-area: Provide the name and/or number for the complex. An individual form should be completed for each sub-
area described on the Basic Information Data Sheet and other sub-areas defined during the reconnaissance
inventory.
Date: Date data is collected.
Agency: List the agency responsible for the classification.
EPA No.: List the EPA Stream Reach Number.
Examiner(s): List the names of the individuals obtaining the data.
Map Name: Provide the name(s) of the USGS topographic map or other map being used.
Valley Bottom Type: Valley bottom type for the sub-area. (See page B-1)
Gradient: Stream gradient for the specific sub-area.
Aspect: General aspect of the sub-area.
Elevation: Provide the upper, middle (if needed), and lower elevation of the sub-area.
Complex Size: The size of the sub-area (riparian zone); length in miles, width in miles, and the area in acres.
Confinement: How restrictive the valley walls or river terraces are to lateral movement (meander) by a stream
channel. Use the following descriptions:
Confined - Stream channel lateral movement is controlled by valley walls or terraces.
Moderately Confined - Stream channel lateral movement is occasionally deflected by valley walls or
terraces.
Uneonfined - Stream channel is not controlled by valley walls or terraces.
Sinuosity: The ratio of the channel length divided by the valley bottom length.
Stream Type: Rosgen stream type and stream size (see Appendix B).
Dominant Soil Family: List the dominant soil family(ies) in the Sub-area.
Percent of Area: Estimate the percentage (to the nearest 5 percent) of the area for each dominant soil family on
the riparian area.
Compaction: Estimate the soil compaction resulting from land use activities for each soil family.
Community Type: List the dominant riparian communities on the stream associated riparian area. Use the Riparian
Vegetation Inventory form to determine Riparian Community Type (see Appendix B).
% Sub-area: The percentage (to the nearest 5 percent) sub-area for each community type.
Potential Community Type: The name of the potential natural community.
Adjacent Vegetation: List the adjacent upland plant community for each bank, left and right (looking down
stream).
Green Line: Estimate the percentage of the total green line (both banks) contain desirable hydric vegetation.
Beaver: Record the number of active beaver dams, inactive beaver dams, and other information concerning beaver
activity in the Sub-area.
Land Use Activities: Circle the land use activities influencing the stream and riparian area. Estimate the relative
influence; high, medium, or low.
Stream/Riparian Classification: The classification consists of the sub-area number, dominant soil family, stream
type (Rosgen), and dominant vegetation community.
C-3
-------
Stream Name: _
Stream Reach No.:
Agency:
3. RECONNAISSANCE - HABITAT
_________________ Sub-area: ______________
Date:
Observer(s):
Page
of
HABITAT UNIT
Length
Bankfull Width
Bankfull Depth
Low Flow Width
Low Flow Depth
Maximum Low Flow Depth
Flood Zone Width
Tailout Depth (Pool only)
Substrate (%) •'•::::::V'C:":< ' - >;:>'
Sand/Silt (> 0.1")
Gravel (0.1 to 2.5")
Cobble ( 2.5 to 10')
Boulder « 10")
Bedrock
Cobble Embeddedness (%)
Stream Banks
Covered/Stable
Uncovered/Stable
Covered/Unstable
Uncovered/Unstable
Bank Slope > 135°
Habitat
Undercut Bank
Overhanging Vegetation
Canopy Density
Pool Complexity (Pools only)
Large Woody Debris (LWD)
Total of Length of Habitat Units: Pools
Riffles
Runs
Glides
C-4
-------
4. INSTRUCTIONS FOR RECONNAISSANCE - HABITAT
Stream Name: List the steam segment name inventoried.
Sub-Area: Provide the number or name of the sub-area described in the inventory.
Date: Date of the inventory.
EPA Stream Reach No.: List the EPA stream reach number.
Agency: Provide the name of the agency responsible for the inventory.
Observer: Provide the names of the individuals completing the inventory.
Page of : The current page out of all of pages of data for the sub-area.
INSTRUCTIONS COMMON TO ALL ELEMENTS
Reconnaissance inventory may be completed at various intensities from a single ocular estimate to sampling at least
five stream segments in each sub-area. Inventory a sufficient number of habitat types to characterize the stream
segment.
Habitat Unit: List the habitat type evaluated: Pool (PL), riffle (RF), run (RN), or glide (GD). Number each habitat type
consecutively for each sub-area, i.e. PL1, PL2, RF1, RF2, RF3.
Length: Measured along the thalweg.
Bankfull Width: Measured at a specific point that is representative of the average width of the habitat unit.
Bankfull Depth: The maximum water depth at the bankfull level at the same location as the bankfull width.
Low Row Width: The average width of the existing water level (stable low flow) for the habitat unit.
Low Row Depth: Measure riffles, runs, and glides at the average width transect at 1 /4, 112. and 3/4 the width of the
existing water level. Measure pools along a cross-section at a midpoint between the pool tailout and the maximum
depth. Add the three depths and divide by four (to compensate for the *0' depth measurement).
Rood Zone Width: The waters width at two times the bankfull depth.
Maximum Low-Row Depth: The maximum depth of the habitat unit.
Tailout Depth: The maximum depth of the pool tailout. This will give an indication of the residual pool depth.
Substrate Size: Estimate substrate composition using a Wolman Pebble Count or visual estimate.
Cobble Embeddedness: A visual estimate of cobble embeddedness of .the substrate of the habitat unit. Only estimate
the tailout for pool habitats. Cobble embeddedness is the percentage of cobbles embedded in sand or silt.
Bank Conditions: The percent of the length of the streambank (both banks) for the following classes:.
Covered and Stable INon-srosional). OVER 50 percent of the streambank surfaces are covered by vegetation
in vigorous condition, or the banks are OVER 50 percent covered by materials (large cobble, boulders, or
anchored rock) that prevent bank erosion. Streambanks are stable; that is, they DO NOT SHOW indications
of alteration such as breakdown, erosion, tension cracking, shearing, or slumping.
Covered and Unstable (Vulnerable). OVER 50 percent of the streambank surfaces are covered by vegetation
in vigorous condition, or the banks are OVER 50 percent covered by materials that prevent bank erosion.
Streambanks are unstable; that is, they DO SHOW indications of alteration such as breakdown, erosion,
tension cracking, shearing, or slumping. Banks showing present erosion must be vertical or near-vertical in
form.
Uncovered and Stable (Vulnerable). LESS THAN 50 percent of the streambank surfaces are covered by
C-5
-------
vegetation in vigorous condition, or the banks are LESS THAN 50 percent covered by materials that do not
allow bank erosion. Streambanks are stable; that is, they DO NOT SHOW indications of alteration such as
breakdown, erosion, tension cracking, shearing, or slumping. Such banks are bare, but they are not slumping
or at a vertical or near-vertical bank angle.
Uncovtnd and Unstable (Eroding). LESS THAN 50 percent of the streambank surfaces are covered by
vegetation in vigorous condition, or the banks are LESS THAN 50 percent covered by materials that do not
allow bank erosion. Streambanks are unstable; that is, they DO SHOW indications of alteration such as
breakdown, erosion, tension cracking, shearing, or slumping.
Bank Slope: The percentage of the length of both banks having a slope of 135 ° or greater is considered gently sloping
banks. The water surface is 180°. The slope of the bank above the bankfull depth.
Undercut Bank: An estimate of the length of bank that is under cut. The undercut must be at least 12 inches and
within 6 inches of the waters surface. Determine the length for both banks.
Overhanging Vegetation: The percentage of the length of both Streambanks having overhanging live vegetation within
12 inches of the water surface and at least 12 inch over the water.
Canopy Density: Estimate the canopy cover using a spherical densiometer or ocular estimate.
Pool Complexity Index: Pool complexity index is a total of the codes (ranges from 0 to 10) for the following factors:
Depth: The depth deepest part of the pool less the depth of the tailout (residual pool depth).
Substrate: The dominant substrate in the pool.
Overhead Cover: The percent of the pool surface covered by overhead vegetation of turbulence.
Submerged Coven The percent of the pool covered with large organic debris, small woody debris, or other
cover at or below the water surface.
Bank Cover The percentage of the streambank (both banks) covered with stumps, roots, or other debris on
the bank providing cover.
Depth
< 0.5*
0.5- 1.5*
> 1.5'
Value
0
1
2
Substrate
< 2.5'
2.5-10"
> 10"
Value
0
1
2
Overhead
Cover
< 10%
10-25%
>25%
Value
0
1
2
Submerged
Cover
< 10%
10-25%
> 25%
Value
0
1
2
Bank
Cover
< 25%
25 - 50%
> 50%
Value
0
1
2
Large Woody Debris (LWD): Woody debris with a length of 9 feet or 2/3 the bankfull width and at least 4 inches
in diameter and within the bankfull channel unit. Record as follows:
No LWD present
LWD present with some channel
influence
0
2
LWD present, but infrequent
LWD extensive with a major influence in
channel characteristics
1
3
Total Length of Habitat Units: Measure or estimate total length (percentage or measured) for each of the habitat units
within the sub-area, i.e. pool 50%, riffles 20%, runs 30%.
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
RIPARIAN VEGETATION INVENTORY
1. Riparian Vegetation Inventory
2. Instructions for Riparian Vegetation Inventory
-------
RIPARIAN VEGETATION INVENTORY
Stream Name:
EPA No.:
Sub-area:
Observer:
Date:
Plant Name
Canopy
Density (%)
Plant Name
Canopy
Density (%)
GRASS & QRASSLIKE
Total Grass & Grasslike
FORBS
Total Forbs
SHRUBS
Total Shrubs
TREES
Total Trees
Riparian Community Type:
Potential Natual Community:
Classification Key Used:
D- 1
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR RIPARIAN VEGETATION INVENTORY
The Riparian Vegetation Inventory form provides a list of some of the important riparian plant
species found in Idaho. It provides a convenient method for recording information.
1. Determine the important riparian vegetation communities within the sub-area from
maps, aerial photos, or soil survey information.
2. Mark or list all plant species present within the community.
3. Estimate or measure the percent canopy cover for each plant species.
4. Determine the appropriate riparian community type, riparian association, or habitat
type from the references listed below for each important plant community.
5. List the key or source used to determine the appropriate riparian community
description. If the type is not found, describe the riparian community.
6. Describe the potential natural community (PNC) for the classified community. Most
of the descriptions are listed in the description of the community types in the
publications listed below.
Riparian Community Type Keys:
Padgett, W.G., A.P. Youngblood, and A.M.
Win ward. 1989. Riparian Community Type
Classification of Utah and Southeastern
Idaho. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain
Region, R4-Ecol-89-01. Ogden, UT.
Manning, M.E. and W.G. Padgett. 1992.
Riparian Community Type Classification for
the Humbolt and Toiybe National Forests,
Nevada and Eastern California (Draft). USDA,
Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Ogden,
UT.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. 1992. Integrated Riparian Evaluation
Guide, Appendix I. Intermountain Region.
Ogden, UT.
Hansen, P., K. Boggs, R. Pfister, and J. Joy.
1991. Classification and Management of
Riparian and Wetland Sites in Montana (Draft
Version 1). Montana Riparian Association,
Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment
Station, School of Forestry, University of
Montana. Missoula, MT.
Cooper, S.V., K.E. Neiman, R. Steel, and
D.W. Roberts. 1987. Forest Habitat Types of
Northern Idaho: A Second Approximation.
USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Station,
General Technical Report, INT-236. Ogden,
UT.
D-2
'U.S. Government Printing Office: 1995— 690-854
------- |