PB82-189648
A Review of Aquatic Habitat Assessment Methods
(U.S.) Corvallis Environmental Research Lab., OR
March 1982
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
EPA-600/3-82-002
PB82-1896U9
A REVIEW OF AQUATIC HABITAT
ASSESSMENT METHODS
by
Gerald S. Schuytema
Freshwater Division
Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Con/all is, Oregon 97333
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AMD DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A^EilCY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97333
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing]
1. REPORT NO
EPA-600/3-82-002
ORD Report
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
1 8 9 6 u 8
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A Review of Aquatic Habitat Assessment Methods
5 REPORT DATE
March 1982
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
Gerald S. Schuytema
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NC
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Develooment
U.S. Environmental Protection Aaency
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
same
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
inhouse 12-79 to 12-81
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/02
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
Approximately 30 aquatic habitat assessment techniques were summarized and compared
to provide information to watershed and nonpoint pollution control nananors. f1ost
methods have been developed by Federal or state agencies and have had r-reatest appli-
cation in the western United States. They are classified accordinn to a number of
mutually interacting catenories such as impact assessment, inventory and general
descriotion, salmonid or non-salmonid streams, particular fish species orientation.
channel stability, transect, and biotic indices. Many of the methods have dev.:iooed
indices or numerical values which can be used for comparisons or evaluation. Sub-
stantial effort is noino into the develooment of habitat evaluation procedures (HEP)
by the U.S. Fish and Hildlife Service, techniques desinned for assessing proiect
impacts oriented toward a particular species of interest. Parameters most freauently
considered in the reviewed methods included flow, temperature, water surface width,
turbidity, gradient, velocity, depth, bank stability measures, bottom size distribu-
tion, siltation, cover, pool size, attached beoetation, fish and invertebrate types,
riparian zone venetation and shade, and obstructions such as waterfalls, dams, and
culverts. Hhile many methods are similarly based on such parameters as substrate,
cover, flow, depth, and stream and floodplain morphology, the ultimate choice of metho:
depends on geographical location, stream type, investigator expertise, and project no?
17
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b 1CENTI = IERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c COSATI Field/Group
8 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
J19 SECURITY CLASS (Tilts Report!
unclassified
21 MO 3F PAGES
20 SECURITv CLASS I This page)
unclassified
22 PRICE
S°A Form 2220-1 (Rev. .1-77) <=q£./ious
is CBSOt_£~£
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
Approximately 30 aquatic habitat assessment techniques were summarized
and compared to provide information to watershed and nonpoint pollution
control managers. Most methods have been developed by Federal or state
agencies and have had greatest application in the western United States. They
are classified according to a number of mutually interacting categories such
as impact assessment, inventory and general description, salmonid or non-
salmonid streams, particular fish species orientation, channel stability,
transect, and biotic indices. Many of the methods have developed indices or
numerical values which can be used for comparisons or evaluation. Substantial
effort is going into the development of habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, techniques designed for assessing project
impacts oriented toward a particular species of interest. Parameters most
frequently considered in the reviewed methods included flow, temperature,
water surface width, turbidity, gradient, velocity, depth, bank stability
measures, bottom size distribution, siltation, cover, pool size, attached
vegetation, fish and invertebrate types, riparian zone vegetation and shade,
and obstructions such as waterfalls, dams, and culverts. While many methods
are similarly based on such parameters as substrate, cover, flow, depth, and
stream and floodplain morphology, the ultimate choice of methods for any
purpose including nonpoint source pollution evaluation depends on geographical
location, stream type, investigator expertise, economics, and precise project
goals.
Work was initiated in December 1979 and completed in December 1981.
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Acknowledgement vi
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 4
3. Recommendations 5
4. Method Classification and Parameters 6
5. Assessment Techniques 15
Salmonid Stream Methods 15
Channel Stability Group 15
Transect Group 16
Diverse Method Group 17
Predictive Model Group 18
Riparian Zone Group 19
Photographic Technique Group 19
Salmonid/Non-Salmonid Stream Methods 20
Diverse Method Group 20
Incremental Flow Group 21
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Group 22
Non-Salmonid Stream Methods 23
Supplemental Methods 24
6. Discussion 26
References 29
Preceding page Hank
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The constructive comments of K. W. Malueg throughout this study and the
efforts of many Federal and state researchers and administrators who supplied
information and advice about habitat assessment techniques in their areas are
gratefully acknowledged.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Habitat assessment has long been recognized by natural resource agencies
as an essential task in the management and preservation of fish and wildlife.
The need by managers for detailed habitat inventory data for fish and other
species to describe critical habitats for the benefit of these species has
been aptly expressed by Jahn (1978). Water quality agencies are now beginning
to realize that measuring the physical and chemical characteristics of the
water column is insufficient to predict the biological condition of a stream
system because of changes that can also occur in the quality of the physical
environment from land use impacts.
Flow regime, water quality, habitat structure, and energy source are the
most important variables affecting this biological integrity (Karr and Dudley,
1981). For instance, fluctuating water levels, storm events, available light,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, suspended and dissolved materials, physical
structure as reported by bottom type and channel configuration, and cover are
all important interacting factors which influence the presence and distribu-
tion of invertebrates and fish. Activities such as urbanization, agriculture,
silviculture, mining, construction, land disposal, and hydrologic modifi-
cations often have severe impacts upon physical habitat quality. Ischinger
(1979) emphasized the importance of inventorying and identifying aquatic
habitats in nonpoint source (NPS) management and characterized NPS pollution
as the most pervasive and ubiquitous water quality problem in North America.
Habitat has been most simply defined as the place where an organism lives
(Odum, 1971) or, in broader terms, as the relatively well defined places
having sufficient resources of energy and matter providing necessary minimum
life requirements (Davis, 1960). The relationships of habitat terminology
concepts to natural resource management have been summarized by Coulombe
(1978). The concept that habitat is crucial to organizing knowledge about
wildlife so it can be used by forest managers (Thomas, 1979) can also be
applied to the stream environment. Habitat is critical to organizing
knowledge about aquatic life so it can be used by watershed managers.
Aquatic habitat assessment is closely related to the concept of stream
classification. The parameters proposed in several classification schemes
(Table 1) are those used in many habitat assessment techniques. Platts (1980)
called attention to the lack of a workable system for classifying fish habitat
and to the importance of developing such a system. Other studies have
-------
TABLE 1. HABITAT PARAMETERS IN SEVERAL STREAM CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES
Classification Scheme
Habitat Parameters
Remarks
Ricker, 1934
Pennak, 1971, 1978
Persoone, 1979
Width, depth, substrate,
temperature, velocity, dissolved
gasses and solids, plants, and
animals
Width, flow, velocity, substrate
temperature (summer and winter),
turbidity, total dissolved
inorganic and organic matter,
hardness, dissolved oxygen,
rooted aquatics, streamside
vegetation
Width, slope, hardness,
substrate, temperature
Ontario streams
Broad applications
in USA and world
Western Europe
emphasized the importance of certain habitat parameters. For instance, Gorman
and Karr (1978) correlated habitat complexity with fish species diversity
using depth, bottom type and current. Depth, width, and elevation were found
by Platts (1976) to be very important in controlling fish species density and
composition.
There are few compilations of the diverse and scattered literature on
aquatic habitat assessment. Hall and Knight (1981) reviewed the natural
variability of stream salmonid populations with respect to models that quanti-
tatively describe habitat quality. Wydoski and Duff (1978) compiled 390
references on stream habitat improvement, but included only a few on habitat
assessment. A more complete effort by Marker et al. (1980) resulted in an
excellent review and bibliography on the background and development of many
assessment techniques, and included classification, information storage and
retrieval, and inventory and evaluation procedures for both terrestrial and
aquatic environments.
Approximately 30 methods, many interrelated, were located in a literature
base formed in large measure by state and Federal agency reports. While these
methods can generally be divided into categories based on stream type
(salmonid or non-salmonid), purpose (impact assessment and general inventory),
or technical approach, actual differences between many are slight. This
-------
compilation will help water quality investigators and natural resource
managers unfamiliar wi'th aquatic habitat assessment techniques become aware of
methodology sources and of what appear to be current trends in method develop-
ment. It will also aid in deciding what techniques might best fit project
goals.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The development of habitat assessment procedures has progressed from
simple surveys, many designed for inventory, and from simple index type rating
systems to more complex, often species-oriented systems, frequently assisted
by computerized information storage and retrieval. This increased development
is a reflection of the recognition of the importance and usefulness of aquatic
habitat in stream baseline and impact assessment. Many governmental agencies
are presently developing techniques applicable to their own needs. The trend
in method development is toward systems that recognize habitat potential as
valuable. Comparing a stream's condition to its own potential is a large step
forward in understanding perturbation effects. Much development is also going
into techniques for mitigation determination.
A universal habitat assessment technique is probably not realistic
because of the diversity of watershed and stream types, but a number of
methods (Dunham and Collotzi, 1975; Collotzi and Dunham, 1977; Rickert et al_. ,
1978; Stalnaker, 1978; Sternberg, 1978; USFWS, 1980b; 0. Fajen, pers. comm.)
have the potential, with regional adaptations, to be used over wide areas and
should be considered when choosing a technique. The development of a tech-
nique applicable only to a certain type of pollutant or impact is also
probably impractical, but the selection of a method which objectively measures
the impact upon a stream parameter of interest can De useful. The development
of methodology applicable to other than salmonid streams would be of great
benefit to lowland watershed and resource managers.
Diverse interests and goals in different Federal and state agencies
concerned with the enforcement of water quality standards, detection and
documentation of pollution, protection of the natural environment, and manage-
ment of natural resources has led naturally to the development of different
types or views of habitat assessment techniques. Increased cooperation
between agencies and increased awareness of new techniques can do much to
promote the use and improvement of habitat technology. The ultimate choice of
an aquatic habitat method, however, may hinge upon a complex of economics,
available expertise, and project goals.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
While the ultimate choice of a method depends on expertise, resources and
project goals, methods which evaluate streams with regard to their own poten-
tial are more ecologically sound.
A most important requirement for any method is the need for field valida-
tion. It is only in this way that the ability of different methods to produce
similar results can be determined. Individual methods need to be evaluated
for reproducibility and range of test conditions.
Where resources are limited, a method based on visual stream analysis
(Duff and Cooper, 1976, rev. 1978) may be the best choice.
Methods such as Rickert et al_. (1978), Dunham and Collotzi (1975), and
Eiserman et al. (1975), which evaluate physical structure in addition to other
factors particularly related to fish spawning, residency, and migration should
be considered when selecting a general purpose technique.
The Habitat Evaluation Procedures (USFWS, 1980b) should be considered for
large projects where there is a concern for particular species.
Incremental flow methodology (Stalnaker, 1978, 1979a, 1979b) should be
considered when habitat concerns are strongly linked to demonstrating the
impact of flow regimes on fish habitat potential.
Supplemental methods such as those proposed by Crouse et al. (1981),
Shirazi and Seim (1979), and Lotspeich and Everest (1981) should be considered
when there is a particular interest in the relationships of salmonids and the
stream bottom.
Most method development has been concerned with salmonid-type streams.
Further development should concentrate on what criteria are necessary for
non-salmonid stream assessment.
Cooperation should continue between concerned agencies and investigators
to promote the improvement of assessment technology.
Measurement of physical habitat should not be an end in itself. In
stream evaluation, habitat is but one variable among many which affect the
biological integrity of a system.
-------
SECTION 4
METHOD CLASSIFICATION AND PARAMETERS
Many of the reviewed techniques are still under development, several are
represented by a series of reports or publications and some are unpublished
(Table 2). Federal agencies (U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Soil Conservation Service) have
been responsible for the majority of methods with state agencies (Department
of Fish, Game, Conservation, Natural Resources, Wildlife) and interagency
groups accounting for the remainder. Primary emphasis on method development
has been in the West.
The methods can be classified into a variety of groups depending upon
their intended purposes, stream types and technical approaches. These groups
are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as a given method can be represented
in several categories or be applicable to a number of situations. For
instance, while most of the methods (25) appear to be used in salmonid
streams, six are also used in non-salmonid waters but even these have been
derived from salmonid type methods.
The methods can also be categorized according to purpose. Impact assess-
ment techniques are used primarily to evaluate the impact of water and land
resource development projects, construction and alterations due to human
activity, differing flow regimes, and pollution. General description or
inventory methods are primarily used for fisheries, water and land use
planning and management, habitat research, baseline data inventories, and
environmental statements.
Some of the salmonid stream methods are based in part on the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation. This
methodology was developed by Pfankuch (1975) to systemize evaluations of the
resistive capacity of mountain stream channels to bed and bank material
detachment and to produce information on stream reaction to changes in flow or
sediment production. Adding factors related specifically to aquatic organism
habitat allows this approach to be used as a habitat assessment technique.
Target species or species-oriented type methods applicable to both
salmonid and non-salmonid streams are designed for the assessment of habitat
of a particular species or group of species. The approach is narrower and
more species-oriented than other method types. It seems to have been used
only by Federal agencies for impact assessment type evaluations. Some of the
methods just described can also contain index and transect aspects. Index or
numerical values facilitate comparisons or judgments between stations or
locations, all major method groups contain some index producing techniques.
-------
TABLE 2 PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF HABITAT ASSESSMENT METHODS
Reference
or
Communication
(1) Duff and Cooper,
1976, rev 1978
Applicable
Stream
Type1 Location
S Western
States
Reported
Use
General
Inventory
Principal Feature and Comments
Based on channel stability
methodology (Pfankuch, 1975) Uses
ocular survey techniques or more
detailed transect sampling. Can be
used on three levels of of effort.
Ocular techniques can survey 1.6 km
of stream in 1.5 hr.
(2) Duff, USBLM, Utah
Western General Based on channel stability methodo-
States Inventory logy. Data collected within .16 km
segments at 1.6 km intervals.
Methods not finalized. Survey costs
$51/km, 1.4 km/person day.
(3) Rickert et a_K , 1978
Oregon Impact Based on modified channel stability
Assessment methodology in addition to habitat
factors of particular concern to
salmonies. Developed in assessment
of non-point stream erosion problems.
Authors believe methods have wide
use potential.
(4) Washington Dept.
Ecology, Olympia
Washington Impact Uses Oregon's modification of
Assessment channel stability methodology in
addition to photographic technique.
Also evaluates wildlife habitat in
canopy and streamside zones
Emphasizes protection of streamside
management zones.
(5) Coffin, 1979
Nevada General Based on channel stability
Inventory methodology in addition to transect
techniques of Dunham and Collotzi
(1975).
(6) N H. Newhouse,
Kootenai National
Forest, Montana
Montana General Based on channel stability
Inventory methodology and habitat measurements.
Uses point system to rank by para-
meters. Emphasizes resident and
spawning fish habitat suitability.
(7) Cooper, 1979
Idaho, Impact Based on channel stability
Wyoming Assessment methodology Used primarily to
predict grazing effects on stream
banks and channels.
(8) Herrington and
Dunham, 1967
Western General Emphasizes features of pools,
States Inventory riffles, bottom composition, and
riparian vegetation. Early develoo-
ment of transect sampling techniques.
(9) U S. Forest Service,
1969
Montana, General Designed to evaluate conditions
Idaho Inventory limiting fish production An early
version of Duff and Cooper (1976)
without channel stability methodo-
logy.
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Reference
or
Communication
Applicable
Stream
Type1
Location
Reported
Use
Principal Feature and Comments
(10) Dunham and Collotzl,
1975
Western General Enlargement of Herrington and
States Inventory Dunham (1967) emphasizing computer
storage and data manipulation.
Uses transect sampling and deter-
mines an index value of optimum
habitat. Authors indicate that
inclusion of additional variables
may allow use in non-salmonid
waters.
(11) Collotzi and Dunham,
1977, U.S. Forest
Service, Ogden, Utah
Western General Uses transect system of Dunham and
States Inventory Collotzi (1975) to form basis of
General Aquatic Wildlife System
(GAWS) Includes stream and lake
analysis, habitat typing and
component analysis, statistic and
data inventory. Non-salmonid fish
will eventually be included.
(12) Parsons, 1979
Oregon General Emphasizes spawning gravel, degree
Inventory of flow retardation and stages of
successional vegetation in riparian
zone.
(13) Oregon State Game
Commission et al. ,
1970
Oregon General Measures general physical and
Inventory biological parameters in 0 4 km
long survey units. A simple method
still in limited use.
(14) Eiserman et al_.,
1975
Wyoming Impact Water chemistry and stream channel
Assessment features are rated numerically.
These scores are calculated into a
habitat value of 1-10 with an
accompanying adjective rating.
(15) U.S. Forest Service, S
Juneau, Alaska
Alaska " General These techniques being tested in
Inventory Alaska are based on five levels of
and Impact intensity, three for inventory of
Assessment resources and two for impact
assessment Data needs include
fishery resource descriptions,
physical and biological information,
and baseline information on
unmanipulated habitat.
(16) Binns, 1978; Binns
and Eiserman, 1979
Wyoming Impact This is a complex system designed
Assessment to quantify transect stream habitat
with a Habitat Quality Index (HQI)
predictive model. The model predicts
standing crop, evaluates habitat in
standard habitat units and compares
habitat loss or gain.
(17) Nicnelson ana Hafele,
1978
Oregon General Regression models describe relation-
Inventory ships between stream habitat and
infaunal rearing potential at low
flows and predicts amount of habitat
at any flow. Stresses need for
testing.
-------
Table 2 (continued)
Reference Applicable
or Stream
Communication Type1
(13) Riparian Habitat S
Subcommittee, 1979
Reported
Location Use Principal Feature and Comments
Washington, General An interagency effort to evaluate
Idaho Inventory riparian ecosystems. Percentage of
evaluated features are compared to
optimum habitat conditions
Recommend optimum features.
(19) Greentree and
Aldrich, 1976
S California General
Inventory
This unconventional approach to
trout habitat assessment uses
aerial photography. Authors report
high degree of correlation with
actual conditions, can assess about
25 km/person day.
(20) Seehorn, 1970
S, NS Georgia, General
Virginia, Inventory
So Carolina
Designed to evaluate trout waters
but appears applicable to headwater
bass streams. An index value is
given for both present and potential
conditions.
(21) U.S. Soil Conservation S, NS
Service, 1977
Impact Develops guidelines for protection
Assessment of stream habitat by scoring various
factors. These scores are modified
by an importance factor and con-
verted to a final grade of 1-10.
A use rating is also determined
primarily designed for channel
projects.
(22) 0. Fajen, Missouri
Dept. Conservation,
Columbia
S, NS Missouri Project This method, still under develop-
Assessment ment, rates various stream factors
on a scale of 1-10. Evaluated
factors are intended to be free
from subjective judgment.
(23) Sternberg, 1978
S, NS Minnesota General Designed to determine the best
Inventory fishery management procedures.
Surveys are in two phases: 1)
surveying the entire stream, and
2) collecting detailed information
on flow, watershed, physical/
chemical, and biological factors
(24) Stalnaker, 1978, 1979a, S, NS
1979b
Widespread Impact
Assessment
Designed to demonstrate the impact
of any given flow regime on fish
habitat potential. Uses computer
simulation and increased flow
methodology. Sampling done in
transects. Method oriented to a
particular species of interest.
-------
Table 2. (continued)
Reference
or
Communication
Applicable
Stream
Type1
Location
Reported
Use
Principal Feature and Comments
(25) U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, 1976; Raleigh,
1978, USFWS, 1980a,
Western Energy Land
Use Team, Ft. Collins,
Colorado
S, NS Widespread Impact Methods represent Habitat Evaluation
Assessment Procedure (HEP) which results in
a quantitative index value for
assessing habitat. Early methods,
still in use, are based on a score
developed from capacity of habitat
to meet requirements of 10 repre-
sentative species. Later develop-
ments include use of a habitat
suitability index where selected
parameters are measured and
compared with habitat require-
ments as indicated by response
curves. A very sophisticated
system requiring high degree of
expertise, most valuable for larger
projects.
(26) U.S Soil Conservation NS Kansas Impact
Service, 1978 Assessment
Rates physical, chemical, and bio-
logical habitat attributes on a
score of 1-10. These values are
used to compute an average habitat
value which can be converted into
habitat units
(27) Kansas Fish and
Game Commission
NS Kansas Impact Designed to evaluate Kansas bridge
Assessment projects. Rates chemical and bio-
logical features on scores of 1-5
or 1-10 which are combined to obtain
total habitat score. Undergoing
revision. An example of an inexpen-
sive procedure.
S = Salmonid, N = Non-Salmonid.
10
-------
Transect methods are based upon sampling a transect across the stream in
contrast to a stream reach of particular length. Only Federal agencies seem
to have emphasized this type of approach.
The major habitat parameters and related factors used or evaluated In the
various methods are grouped In Table 3. The groups (surrounding area,
riparian zone, general descriptors, stream banks, stream bottom, fish habitat,
limiting factors, and biology) are each presented with a percentage indicating
the relative number of reviewed methods using the parameters within a group.
Individual parameters are ranked and listed according to predominance of use.
Habitat parameters associated with surrounding stream areas are charac-
terized by topographical and geographical features and land use of the
surrounding and upstream areas. A more closely associated area, the riparian
zone, gives primary importance to vegetative type, shading effect, and stream-
side cover. Most of the methods used a large variety of descriptive terms to
characterize habitat. Some of the more important include flow, temperature,
width, velocity, gradient, turbidity, and depth.
Stream banks are considered important. The parameters here are mostly
those used in the USFS channel stability methodology. Bank stability, a
related term, is preferred in non-channel stablity oriented methods. Sub-
strate size distribution is an important stream bottom parameter.
Many of the methods stress various aspects of fish habitat, with instream
cover and the number and size of pools ranking highest. Obstructions to fish
migration, are primarily characterized by culverts, dams, and debris piles.
Non-physical factors associated with habitat analysis include features such as
attached algae and macrophytes, fish species, size, weight, and abundance.
Many of the methods were designed using English measurements. These
units were converted into the metric (SI) system where practicable; an equiva-
lent was added in parentheses when a conversion might change an author's
intent.
11
-------
Table 3. Habitat parameters and related factors used or evaluated in various types of assessment methods
Salmonid-Type Streams
\o
cn
rH
Ol
CX
a.
3 5
00 00
•o r* i/>
Habitat Parameters
Surrounding Area (3G%)2
surrounding land use
topography /geography
upstream land use
historical land use
flood plain condition
urbanization
Riparian Zone (78%)z
vegetation species/type
percent shade
s t reams i do cover
vegetation size
vegetation density
width of /one
ungulate grazing/damage
flood plain 'width
vegetation successions!
stage
General Descriptors (100%)z
flow
water temperature
water surface width
co 1 or/turb i d i ty/ transparency
gradient
velocity
average depth
air temperature
channel width
length of segment
elevation
C en
10 rH
l«- .
V- >
3 01
a (-
rH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ZJ
•
r— rs. -fc>
ID ro C to IA
-U 00! OJ
Ul *l +» rH 1.
a) a> o
c c E li-
es . -r- 10
01 e t- -c .
ai E i- c i/i
(- O 01 3 .
o ej i a :»
o
co en rH
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
XXX
X X
X
X X
and Collotzi 1975
g
to
c
3
O
rH
rH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TJ cn
c r» r»
10 I— en
cn rH
•r- rH
N «A
•PEC
0 10 0
•— .C IA
r- C U
O 3 IO
u o a.
3 3
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
• m
ai r-.
u cn
••- rH
>
i.
03 10 r—
1/1 J* ID
IA
<-> to /)
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
- 11
=J E
/D t-
OJ 01
C IA
^ LU
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•D
c
10
in
C *J
c re
O] cn r> TJ -rj
r- o en c c 10
-cn wr** toco tor**
co rH x en r- cn
f- rH C Cn 01 rH
cn c c o rH cu
rH
IA
C
C
r-
m
S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
§1D - IA C- .C
•r- E r— 01 *J U
t- 0 01 r- C 1-
OJ 1O U if 01 oi I-
VI O.J3 U 4- 01 TJ
r- >r- 3 «r«- U) t. r-
U C£ Ul Z £ C3 «
r5 S S
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
Salmon id/Non- Salmon id Non- Salmon id
Type Streams Type Streams
o
cn
rH
c
i.
o
cu
01
1/1
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ID
en
r- t.
cn 01
rH g ,/>
•i- "00 TJ
ui u CO CO Ol in c
c 3 r. r> rH-< c 10
O O Ol Ol OO O
O Ul • rH rH -r** O -C
m IA to cn IA •
f- » M- C 0) t- l>-rH r- ^6
•r-i^sZOt- 0) Cn *r- Li.E
OCnOOf^rH^ O O
4/lrH».O to Ol i/) inu
C . C C a Ul r- 10
• OI4-)f- r— Cn^OI .CQlAtJJ
uii-*«->ciai iar^Li.r— UIP^CE
• aitoaip Pcninto .enioa
31/>U-OU) t/lrHZ)Oe 3rH2r£C9
rH
-------
Table 3 (continued)
Salmon id/Non-Salmonid Non-Salmon id
Salraonid-Type Streams Type Streams Type Streams
Habitat Parameters
pool/riffle ratio
stream order
stdijc/ level
stream length
channel type/configuration
tributaries/tributary of
sinuosity
pollution sources
bottom compos ition--fjeneral
valley bottom width
valley type/configuration
weather
drainage area
wjtershcd type
water source(s)
water use
percent channelized
stream area
direction of flow
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'
XXX XXX XX X
XXXXXXX X
XX X XXX XX
X X X X X X X
XX XX
X XX XX
X X X X X
X XX
XXX X
XXX
XXX
XX X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
26 27
X
X X
X
X
Stream Dai.ks (57%)z
bank stability
land form slope
mass wasting
dubris jam potential
vegetative bank protection
channel capacity
bank rock content
obstructions
cutting
deposition
percent erosion/bare soil
height banks
percent damage
percent grazing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Stream Bottom (86%)2
bottom size distribution
si Itation/scdimentation
consol ula lion/
particle packing
rock angularity
brightness
scour i ng/depo; i t ion
imbeddudnuss
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X X
XXX X XX
.
(continued)
-------
Table 3 (continued)
Habitat Parameters
percent channel movement
rouijhness coefficient
Fish Habitat (75%)2
instrcam cover
pool length/width
pools no /percent
riffle width
spawning gravel
abundance/volume
pool depth
pool area
spawning gravel quality
riffle depth
riffles percent
spawning gravel size
runs percent
nursery habitat
riffle velocity
runs width
runs depth
runs velocity
Biology (86%)2
attached algae/macrophytes
fish species
invertebrate type/species
invertebrate abundance/rank
fisli abundance
fish size/weight
invertebrate diversity
Obstructions (43%)2
culverts
beaver dams/dams
waterfalls
debris piles/slides
log jams
channelization
dredging
impoundments
levies/dikes
riprap
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
234
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Salmon id- Type Streams
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
X
XX XXX
XX XX X
X X
X X X X
XX X
XXX
X
X
X
X X
XX XXX
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
Salmoni d/Non-Salmonid Non-Salmon id
Type Streams Type Streams
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25'
XXX XXX
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X XX X
XXX X XX X X
XX X
X XX
X X XX
X X
X
X
X XX
X X
X XX
X
X
X
X
26 27
t
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 Reference 25 Carly IICP methodology (Form 3-1101) assessed habitat according to its worth for fish.
can vary depending upon species ot interest Example here is from draft cutthroat trout guidelines
2 Maximum percent of methods using parameters in each habitat parameter group
Parameters used in later HEP Methodology
-------
SECTION 5
ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
SALMONID STREAM METHODS
Channel Stability Group
Channel stability methods, those based in large part on USFS Stream Reach
Inventory Techniques (Pfankuch, 1975), are designed for cold water western
streams. This basic technique evaluates 15 physical parameters on a numerical
scale in major stream divisions of upper banks, lower banks, and bottom.
Total scores are then expressed as poor, fair, good, or excellent. In aquatic
habitat analysis, factors relating specifically to fish habitat are added to
supplement the physical factors. Two stream bottom parameters, rock angular-
ity and brightness (Table 3), were considered by Sachet (1977) to be inade-
quate estimators of bedload movement in areas of volcanic or sedimentary
bedrock. The original parameters were developed for granitic rock where
angular fragments with a high reflectance indicate polishing and crumbling
caused by movement of bottom materials.
Duff and Cooper (1976, rev. 1978) designed a technique usable on three
levels depending upon objectives and priorities. Level 3, a minimum survey,
is based upon obtaining background data and conducting an ocular or primarily
observational survey upon representative reaches. Level 2, an extensive field
survey, includes Level 3 analyses and adds transect sampling. Level 1, an
intensive field survey, includes the first two levels, the collection of
sufficient data for an 80% confidence level, fish and benthic fauna measure-
ments, and permanent transect marking.
The transect analysis basically involves establishing stream stations at
1 mile (1.6 km) intervals. Five transects are then established at 100 ft.
(30.5 km) intervals upstream from each station. Measurements across each
transect include a variety of parameters (Table 3). The data are analyzed
with regard to factors considered absolutely essential for maximum fish
production and more easily improved with stream management projects. A
percent of optimum habitat is also calculated. The ocular survey technique,
Level 3, is considered to be a quick alternative to transect sampling as 1
mile (1.6 km) of stream can be surveyed in 1.5 hr. The evaluated parameters
are not as extensive or detailed as those in the transect survey, but do
include the USFS stability analyses (Pfankuch, 1975).
D. Duff (Utah State Office, USBLM, Salt Lake City, pers. comm.) proposed
methods designed to provide a standard analytical procedure for habitat
assessment. Site specific data (Table 3) were collected within 0.1 mile (.16
km) long segments established at 1 (1.6 km) intervals. Procedures for esti-
mating costs and manpower are also included.
15
-------
Rickert et al. (1978) in an assessment of erosion problems modified
Pfankuch's (1975) technique by using three categories of stable, moderately
stable, and unstable for Oregon mountain and lowland streams. Habitat factors
of specific concern to salmonids are also evaluated and include spawning area
conditions, bottom rearing area conditions, and barriers to upstream fish
passage. Two major objectives of this methodology are the formation of a
procedure that can be used throughout the country and the development of
technically sound information describing the effects of land management
activities.
The Washington Department of Ecology (D. Hobbs, pers. comtn.) uses
Oregon's techniques (Rickert et a_L , 1978) in addition to supplemental fish
and wildlife data to evaluate aquatic habitats in western streamside manage-
ment zones. A management zone is defined as an area, varying from 25 (7.6 m)
to 50 (15.2 m) feet wide, adjacent to natural waters where specific attention
must be given to water quality protection measures. A wildlife habitat rating
for birds, animals, and amphibians in canopy, subcanopy, ground, stream edge,
and stream channel areas are used in addition to the aquatic features tabu-
lated in Table 3. The evaluation of each zone also includes a series of three
photographs.
Nevada stream inventories combine two methods (Coffin, 1979). Habitat
inventory analysis is by the transect method of Dunham and Collotzi (1975),
reviewed in another section, while stream and channel stability is evaluated
using the method of Pfankuch (1975). The data are coded for later storage,
retrieval and manipulation.
H. Newhouse (Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana, pers. comm.)
developed a habitat assessment technique to objectively stratify habitat from
a suitability standpoint. Pool habitat, instream cover, stream side cover,
food abundance, and channel stability are considered key parameters in assess-
ing resident fish habitat suitability. Instream cover, channel stability, and
species habitat are the key parameters for assessing spawning habitat suit-
ability. Each parameter is subdivided into levels, each with a point value.
The sum of these values results in one of five ranks ranging from unsuitable
to very high suitability.
Cooper (1979) described a technique to evaluate and predict ungulate
grazing effects on stream banks and channel stability in some northern Idaho
and Wyoming streams. Mass wasting, bank vegetation, bank rock content, and
bank cutting provide good measures of damage. Such grazing damage can reduce
streamside cover and increase the release of smothering sediment.
Transect Group
The U.S. Forest Service (1969) developed an early version of the transect
method of Duff and Cooper (1976), already mentioned, but without the channel
stability techniques of Pfankuch (1975). While it includes a listing of warm
water fish of the area, emphasis is primarily on salmonid habitat require-
ments.
16
-------
Another early step in the development of transect sample techniques for
western streams is represented by Herrington and Dunham (1967). Measurements
(Table 3) are taken at five transects established at each sample point at
right angles to stream flow. Dunham and Collotzi (1975) enlarged upon this
technique and recorded habitat features in a manner designed for easy computer
storage and later recall and manipulation. This latter version also includes
a procedure to determine a habitat percent of optimum value. The authors
indicated that while the transect methods as applied were biased toward cold
water species, the possible inclusion of additional variables would make them
usable in warm water habitats.
A computerized wildlife management information system now undergoing
updating and revision will soon be included in a Regional Aquatic Handbook by
the U.S. Forest Service (Collotzi and Dunham, 1978; D. Dunham, U.S. Forest
Service, Intermountain region, Ogden, Utah, pers. comm.). Known as the
General Aquatic Wildlife System (GAWS), the system includes elements of stream
analysis, lake and reservoir analysis, macroinvertebrate analysis, stratifica-
tion criteria, and data management programs. Habitat typings and ratings,
habitat component analysis, statistical measures, data inventory, and summa-
tion programs can be provided by the computer to provide a basis for assess-
ments of present conditions and planning. The field inventory procedure is
essentially the transect technique of Dunham and Collotzi (1975). Warm water
fish lists have been included in the proposed system as a first step in the
eventual adaptation to both warm and cold water streams.
An extensive field survey technique was designed to provide a basic
inventory for land and resource management planning in the Siuslaw National
Forest in Oregon (Parsons, 1979). Sampling is conducted in sections defined
as transects, but unlike a line across the stream, these transects are 100 ft.
(30.5 m) sections of stream which extend 50 ft. (15.2 m) upstream and 50 ft.
downstream from midpoints set at 0.5 mile (0.8 km) intervals. This method
emphasizes a different approach to usual inventory techniques in several of
these categories. Special attention is given to evaluating the quality of
salmonid spawning gravel. A roughness coefficient, "N", is used to estimate
the degree of flow retardation due to banks, bottom, and obstructions. Six
stages of successional vegetation in the riparian zone are recognized.
Barriers to fish passage are examined in detail and special data forms are
used for cases of logjams, landslide, culverts, and falls.
Diverse Method Group
Several methods which do not fit readily into the other categories in
this section demonstrate a wide range of complexity and purpose. The first, a
simple general inventory method, still in limited use, was developed about 10
years ago by four cooperating state and Federal agencies (Oregon State Game
Commission et aj. , 1970). It recommends that survey units be 0.25 miles (0.4
km) long and emphasizes the inventory of width, turbidity, extent of gravel
and pools, cover, fish species and abundance, and limiting factors.
17
-------
Guidelines for the inventory and evaluation of cold water Wyoming streams
with flows < 5000 cfs (508,000 m3/hr) were developed by Eiserman e_t a\_.
(1975). Their method for impact assessment also includes rating systems for
terrestrial habitat, aesthetics and recreation. Sampling location is based on
the division of the stream into reaches of different habitat diversity. Water
chemistry features and stream channel features are rated from 1 to 10. These
scores are converted into a habitat value from 1 to 10 which has an accompany-
ing rating of poor, fair, good, or excellent. Low scores indicate a limiting
feature which then may possibly be improved.
The first three levels of a multi-level technique being tested by the
U.S. Forest Service (W. Sheridan, Juneau, pers. comm.) in Alaska are designed
for inventory purposes. The first level is designed to provide only the most
general description of fishery resources through an office-based technique.
The second level is an inventory of known physical and biological information
with placement of the information in a central file for later use. The third
level is a field survey designed to provide baseline information on unmanipu-
lated habitat. Needs for quantitative data are minimal while qualitative
needs are at a maximum.
The remaining two levels are designed for impact assessment. Level four
is a basic survey intended where a non-natural alteration of fish habitat has
been predicted. Needs for qualitative data are minimal, while quantitative
needs are at a maximum. This level is intended for an area programmed for
major land use activities. The fifth or final level, an implementation
survey, is the most intensive and is to provide information needed to
coordinate final site-specific needs for resource uses.
Predictive Model Group
Binns and Eiserman (1979) developed a system to quantify Wyoming trout
stream habitat in response to the need for non-monetary evaluation of fishery
resources. Multiple regression analyses of various habitat parameters and
trout standing crop resulted in the formation of a Habitat Quality Index (HQI)
predictive model. Attributes having the closest relationship to trout stand-
ing crop were late summer stream flows, annual stream flow variation, water
velocity, cover, stream width, eroding stream banks, stream substrate,
nitrate, and maximum summer stream temperature. These are rated into five
categories from 0 (worst) to 4 (best). The model explained 96% of the varia-
tion in trout standing crop (R = 0.983), suggesting a close relationship
between trout stocks and HQI predictions.
Potential uses of the HOI method include a prediction of trout standing
crop, an evaluation of trout habitat in terms of standard habitat units (HU =
the amount of habitat quality required to produce an increase of 1 kg/ha in
trout standing crop) and a comparison of habitat loss or gain at proposed
project sites (Binns, 1978).
Nickelson and Hafele (1978) are developing regression models in Oregon to
describe the relationship between stream habitat and salmonid rearing poten-
tial during low flow and to predict the amount of habitat at any given flow.
18
-------
Two cutthroat trout models explained 87-91% of the variation in standing crop
and are based on transect-measured depth, velocity, cover, and substrate. The
models are based on a Habitat Quality Rating (HQR .) derived from the product
of a cover value, a velocity preference factor, and the wetted area of the
section. The steelhead trout model is based upon a Habitat Quality Rating
(HQR . ) derived from the product of a cover value, a depth and velocity value,
and a value for the wetted area. The authors stressed the need for testing
the models.
Riparian Zone Group
An interagency effort outlined a procedure to evaluate riparian eco-
systems and to establish recommendations for managing fish and wildlife (Rip.
Hab. Subcomm. 1979). Shaded stream surface, stream bank stability, and
streambed sedimentation are used to evaluate fish habitat and other parameters
related to wildlife. Optimum features are: 1) between 60 to 100% of the
stream should be shaded from June to September from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., 2) 80%
or more of the total lineal bank distance should be in a stable condition, and
3) no more than 15% of the streambed should be covered by inorganic sediment.
Photographic Technique Group
An unconventional approach to habitat assessment (Greentree and Aldrich,
1976) used aerial photography to evaluate trout habitat in a northern
California stream. Photo-interpretation tests showed a high correlation
between actual habitat conditions and normal color photographs. Changes in
vegetation were easily detected, but poor accuracy was obtained for depth
estimation. Shade was evaluated by using shadow length measurements and solar
formulas. Rubble, rocks, and gravel stream bottoms were identified in most
instances at 1:1584 scale; fine and coarse rubble types were more easily
identified at a 1:600 scale.
19
-------
SALMONID/NON-SALMONID STREAM METHODS
Diverse Method Group
Seehorn (1970) designed a procedure for judging the relative quality of
trout waters in National Forest streams in Georgia, Virginia, and South
Carolina; it also appeared applicable to headwater bass streams in northern
Georgia. Streams are given three grades for both present and potential condi-
tions, with each grade given a score of 1 to 10. A biological grade is based
on the stream's capacity to provide native trout fishing; a use grade is based
on fishing pressure and actual use; and an overall grade is based on the first
two grades.
Recognizing that channel modification projects can result in environ-
mental change, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1977) developed guidelines
for the protection and enhancement of the stream environment. A biological
index is obtained by rating various stream features (Table 3) on a scale from
1 to 10. Water chemistry and pollution are considered to be overriding
limiting factors if severe enough to affect fish life. Sediment deposits are
not rated since it is felt the rating of the pool/riffle ratios, width,
acreage, and turbidity will reflect sediment effects. The scores are then
multiplied by an importance factor to obtain individual stream feature scores.
The scores are summed and divided by the total of the importance factor to
obtain a final grade of 1 to 10. A grade of five or less indicates a stream
with a low biological value. A use rating, a judgment based on fishing and
related factors, is obtained by considering fish resources, access, ownership,
fishing pressure and success.
A technique being developed by 0. Fajen, Missouri Department of Fish ana
Game, Columbia, Missouri (pers. comm.) also rates a series of stream features
on a scale of 1 to 10 (Table 3). Scores obtained for these features are not
totaled in the belief that it is more useful to concentrate on those which
indicate specific problems. The evaluated factors are intended to be free of
subjective judgment and to take into account the deviation which might be
expected in a particular stream. For instance, the stream bed condition
factor emphasizes the stability of material and thus is as applicable to a
sand/silt bottom stream as one dominated by gravel and boulders.
Sternberg (1978) developed methodology to provide necessary information
for the determination of the best fishery management procedures in all types
of Minnesota streams. A standard comprehensive format is used even though
some of the information may not apply in all cases. Surveys are designed for
use in two phases. A Phase I survey consists of walking or boating the entire
stream and recording pertinent data. A Phase II survey consists of collecting
20
-------
detailed information on location and flow characteristics, watershed descrip-
tion and use, and general information on physical, biological, and fishery
characteristics (Table 3). An additional form is provided for a summary of
the stream survey and is divided into data pertaining to the entire stream and
data representative of each similar reach. The stream is also classified
according to the fish species for which it is best suited.
Incremental Flow Group
Some methods orientated toward various relationships between a selected
species and its environment are based on instream flow. Waters (1976)
stressed the need of stream resource managers to determine the relationship
between flow and various fish habitat parameters to evaluate the effects of
present -or proposed projects. He described a technique using transect
measurements and a computer to express the relationship between streamflow and
trout feeding, spawning, resting and cover areas. Stalnaker and Arnette
(1976) intensively reviewed methods for determining instream flow needs for
fish and other aquatic life and stressed the need for more research on target
fish species at all life stages, refinement of large river measuring
techniques and research on which all life stages are most vulnerable to flow
fluctuations.
Most development and refinement of instream flow methodologies as related
to impact assessment came after the formation of the Cooperative Instream Flow
Service Group, a cooperative venture of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
other governmental agencies. Hayden (1978) reviewed the background of the
group and provided an overview of their activities. The Instream Flow Group
incremental methodology has been applied or will be used on a large number of
streams across the country (Coop. Instream Flow Ser. Group, 1979b) and has
been described in detail by Stalnaker (1978, 1979a, 1979b).
The incremental flow method is intended to be used as a decision making
tool and is designed to demonstrate the impact of any given flow regime on
fish habitat potential. Basically it consists of a number of steps: 1)
measurement of stream transects for velocity, depth, substrate, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and fish standing crop; 2) hydraulic simulation of desired
stream reaches; 3) application of habitat evaluation criteria for each species
or life stage of interest; and 4) calculation of a weighted usable area by
life stage of each species for each desired flow or channel condition.
Several computer programs are used which can predict depth, velocity,
width, and stage for different discharges. A stream reach simulation is used
based on transects divided into subsections; each subsection is treated essen-
tially as a channel with mean depth and velocity calculated for all desired
discharges. The simulation takes the form of a multidimensional matrix of the
calculated surface area of a stream having different combinations of depth,
velocity, substrate, and cover.
A composite probability of use can be determined from individual prob-
ability of curves as part of the application of habitat criteria for each life
21
-------
stage on species of interest, for instance, the composite probability between
depth and velocity or between depth, velocity, and substrate. The weighted
usable area (WUA) is a habitat index defined as the total surface area with a
certain combination of hydraulic conditions multiplied by the composite use
for the combined condition. The WUA roughly equates marginal habitat area to
an equivalent area of preferred habitat. Habitat-discharge relationships can
be plotted to assist in identifying critical time periods and limiting habitat
availability for given life stages or species.
A recent expansion of the incremental flow methodology has incorporated
cover into the model as a flow-related variable (Coop. Instream Flow Service
Group, 1979a, 1980). Both overhead and instream cover are recognized. The
construction and application of probability use curves have been explained by
Bovee and Cochnauer (1977).
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Group
Another type of target species method is based upon the formation of a
quantitative index value for assessing habitat conditions. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, primarily the Western Energy and Land Use Team at Ft.
Collins, Colorado, has been developing a set of Habitat Evaluation Procedures
(HEP) for about the past five years in response to the need for standardized
quantitative methods (Raleigh, 1978).
Sparrowe and Sparrowe (1978) and Harker et aJL (1980) traced the develop-
ment, of concepts that went into the formation of the HEP procedures through
early rating systems (Hamor, 1970; Daniel and Lamaire, 1974), utilization of
computer technology (Whitaker and McCuen, 1976) and the development of line
charts graphically representing and rating wildlife characteristics (Whitaker
et aj. , 1976). The "Missouri System" of terrestrial habitat assessment
(Daniel and Lamaire, 1974) was modified into the Ecological Planning and
Evaluation Procedures (Hickman, 1974 cited in Harker et al_. 1980). These
procedures were further refined into HEP Form 3-1101 (USFWS, 1976). These
early procedures which are still in use in many areas were designed to provide
a uniform nationwide method for determining impacts on fish and wildlife from
water development projects. In practice, ten representative species that
depend to some degree on the habitat under evaluation are selected at each
sample site. The capability of the habitat to meet the requirements of these
species is rated on a scale of 1 to 10 for each species. The sample site
values for each habitat type are averaged to obtain a habitat type unit value.
This unit value can be multiplied by the area of a particular habitat to
obtain the number of habitat units for each habitat type. Project impacts can
be analyzed by comparing "with" and "without" conditions of a particular
project.
Sparrowe and Sparrowe (1978) reviewed the use of the Form 3-1101 HEP in
wildlife habitat evaluation and cited the development of a prototype handbook
by Flood et al_. in 1977 ("A Handbook for Habitat Evaluation Procedures" USFWS
Res. Pub. 132) containing a measurable, standard set of habitat characteris-
tics to be used in evaluations.
22
-------
Raleigh (1978) and Schamberger and Farmer (1978) discussed further
modifications and refinements of the HEP leading to the development of a
habitat suitability index (HSI). Habitat parameters significant in the
distribution and abundance of fish within an ecoregion are scored by the use
of response curves constructed by life stage. The response curves illustrate
the relationship between a suitability index and a habitat parameter. Selec-
ted habitat parameters are then measured in the field and compared with habi-
tat requirements as indicated by the response curves. The HSI can then be
obtained by combining suitability indices for all evaluated species. Multipli-
cation of the HSI by the total area results in a habitat unit (HU) score which
can be used in computing habitat losses or comparisons.
Draft guidelines for determining HSI values for cutthroat trout (USFWS,
Western Energy and Land Use Team, Ft. Collins, Colorado, pers. comm.) illus-
trate the type and range of habitat parameters which can be employed. Physi-
cal habitat and life stage parameters are rated on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0 based
on the degree to which the parameter meets the habitat requirements of the
fish in question (Table 3). Habitat suitability stream and lake models are
available from the Western Energy and Land Use Team for over 20 species of
fish (rainbow trout and warm water species) from the South Atlantic, Great
Lakes, and Texas-Gulf areas. A number of reservoir models are available for
four USFWS regions. Models are also available for a large variety of mammals,
birds, waterfowl, and including some for amphibians and turtles.
Revisions in the HEP have resulted in several recent publications. These
discuss the justification for habitat based technique and the conceptual
approach to habitat assessment (USFWS, 1980a), refine the HEP procedure and
discuss how the conceptual approach can be implemented (USFWS, 1980b), provide
guidelines for the development of habitat suitability index models (USFWS,
1981) and describe the means for determining the extent of human uses of
wildlife and the dollar value of their uses (USFWS, 1980c). The new Habitat
Evaluation Procedures 102 ESM (USFWS, 1980b) emphasize two major changes in
methodology since the 1976 HEP version (USFWS, 1976). These are determining
HSI values using documented models and the analysis of individual evaluation
species rather than habitat types. Selection of these species can be
approached in two ways, selection of those with a high public interest or
economic value, or selection of those that will provide a broader ecological
perspective of the area. Project goals will determine the choice. Aquatic
handbooks are presently being developed for a number of aquatic ecoregions and
will supplement HEP procedures by presenting regional habitat requirements for
selected species.
The new HEP (USFWS, 1980b) are detailed and include discussion and guide-
lines to the following subjects: applicability of HEP, cost estimation,
defining the study area, selecting evaluation species, calculating total
habitat area, calculation of habitat suitability index, using habitat units in
habitat assessment, trade-off analyses, compensation analyses, and sampling.
NON-SALMONID STREAM METHODS
Two procedures are used in Kansas for non-salmonid stream project impact
evaluation. The first method (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1978) rates
23
-------
various physical, chemical, and biological attributes of the habitat on a
score of 1 to 10. The average values obtained for each of these three groups
are used to compute an average habitat value which can also be converted into
habitat units. Biological features were based upon the presence of both fish
and macroinvertebrates (Table 3). Three evaluations are conducted to fully
demonstrate the impact of watershed projects: present, future (15 yr) with
the proposed project, and future without the proposed project.
The second method (K. Brunson, Kansas Dept. of Fish and Game, Pratt,
Kansas, pers. comm.) designed originally to evaluate Kansas Department of
Transportion bridge projects uses a somewhat similar rating scheme. Various
physical, chemical, and biological habitat features (Table 3) are rated from 0
to 1 or 0 to 5. Total group scores are summed to obtain a total habitat
score. This method is undergoing revision and is a good example of simple
procedures that can be used when there are few resources available for
extended surveys (K. Brunson, pers. comm.).
SUPPLEMENTAL METHODS
These methods emphasize or concentrate on only a part of the habitat,
i.e., substrate, and might be appropriate as part of a broader survey or
which, with more development, may have greater application in the under-
standing of the relationships between aquatic stream habitat and watershed
activities.
Substrate Score correlates highly with geometric mean particle size and
fish production and has good potential for assessing the quality of salmonid
spawning and rearing habitat (Grouse et aj. 1981). In this technique the size
of the first and second dominant materials, the degree of embeddedness of the
largest material, and the size of the embedding material are assigned numbers
depending upon their in-category rank. The sum of the scores for the four
categories represent an index directly related to suitability for aquatic
life. Lower scores represent poor habitat suitability for benthic inverte-
brates and vice versa. Lotspeich (1978) emphasized the rapidity of the
Substrate Score technique and suggested adding observations of grain shape and
grain roundness.
Two other streambed evaluation techniques helpful to biologists in
evaluating the biological significance of the physical environment were also
described by Lotspeich (1978). The first technique involves constructing a
size-percent accumulation graph from stream gravels dry sieved according the
the Udden-Wentworth scale to determine median grain size and a sorting coeffi-
cient. The resultant curves allow biologically significant inferences to be
drawn about the substrate and the stream's nature. For instance, although a
sediment at one location might be coarser than at another, it still may not be
a desirable habitat for fish or macroinvertebrates because of small pores and
Tow permeability due to poor sorting. While potential productivity appears to
increase as grain size increases with good sorting, it is not necessarily true
that the coarser a sediment the higher its productivity.
24
-------
The second technique estimates the efficiency with which a gravel sub-
strate sample yields water by gravity flow. Gravels yielding a large amount
of water in a short time have a high pore space efficiency, implying large
pores, minimal fine grains and high permeability. Such sediments would be
representative of an environment allowing sufficient space for movement,
reareation, and waste removal.
Shirazi et a_L (1979) proposed two measures in a monitoring program to
assess the possible impact of silvicultural activities on salmonid spawning
habitat: the geometric mean diameter (dg) of the spawning gravel and the
total area of spawning gravel in a given reach. The dg has been recommended
as a standard measure for substrate characterization in fisheries work by
Platts et a_K (1979) who found that it relates well to permeability, porosity,
and embryo survival.
Salmonid habitat has been suggested as providing meaningful indications
of watershed characteristics because of the capacity of the substrate to
integrate many aspects of climate, vegetation, soil type, land form and human
activities (Shirazi and Seim, 1979). An assessment of the quality and
quantity of spawning gravels could be made using embryo survival estimates of
80% or more, 80-50%, 50-25%, and 25% or less to rate corresponding dg cate-
gories of > 15, 15.25 - 10.75 mm, 10.75 to 7.0 mm, and 7.0 mm.
Lotspeich and Everest (1981) proposed using the ratio of the geometric
mean diameter and sorting coefficient as a measure of the quality of riffle
gravels for salmonid reproduction. Preliminary relationships between index
numbers and survival-to-emergence salmonid alevins indicate that the fredle
index (fx = dg/S ) is responsive to slight changes in gravel composition,
survival, and variation in intragravel habitat requirements.
25
-------
SECTION 6
DISCUSSION
This review represents the status of assessment methodology at a point in
time and will quickly become outdated as new methods develop and older ones
are revised. It should be emphasized that the grouping of the reviewed
methods as expressed here is but one way of examining them; other logical
arrangements may become apparent with further additions and refinements to the
methodology. It is difficult to classify the reviewed methods entirely on the
basis of the type of parameters used (Table 3). The purpose for which a
method was intended or the basic philosophy of its development seem to be more
important in determining its place in some sort of classification scheme.
The methods were classified on the basis of stream type (salmonid, non-
salmonid, or both combined) primarily to allow potential users to become aware
of methodology currently used in their own area of interest. There is little
upon which to differentiate these methods, however, based on the type of
parameters examined (Table 3). In fact, a method used for non-salmonid
habitat was developed for salmonid streams (USSCS, 1978). Some differences
between these methods which do appear are: 1) less emphasis on surrounding
area, riparian zone, stream banks, and fish-habitat related parameters in
salmonid streams, 2) less emphasis on stream banks by combination methods than
salmonid stream methods, and 3) less emphasis on chemical parameters by
salmonid stream methods.
Validation is one of the most important aspects confronting management's
decision on assessment technique selection. The difficulty of duplicating the
results of subjective systems such as Daniel and Lamaire (1974) has been
expressed by Whitaker et al. (1976). Whelan et aJL (1979) emphasized the lack
of comparative studies to determine if different methods provide similar
results using the same data base. They evaluated three wildlife assessment
techniques using deer, wild turkey, and squirrel data and obtained consider-
able variation in the results. Whelan et a_L (1979) also believed that the
system that incorporates the best available data and that is the least sub-
jective should be the most accurate, but that the question of accuracy will
not be resolved until enough systems have been compared and sufficient repli-
cated validations made. While their investigations concerned wildlife assess-
ment methods, their argument is no less valid for aquatic systems.
Cairns (1981) emphasized that the development of a predictive capacity
and a means of validating the accuracy of predictions are most important in
biological monitoring of aquatic ecosystems. Similarly, the ability to pre-
dict and validate the results of habitat alteration is also very important.
26
-------
The highly developed HEP (USFWS, 1980b), a system concerned with habitat
potential is designed for all stream situations, but requires high levels of
expertise both in the field and in data analysis and awaits the development of
regional handbooks to become fully operational. It is also applicable only to
selected species of interest. Schamberger (1979) emphasized that these pro-
cedures provide an objective and quantitative estimate of the value of fish
and wildlife resources. Habitat quality and quantity are integrated into a
single index value or habitat unit which can be used in comparisons between
sites or ideal conditions.
Farmer (1978) believed that while the methods are not perfect, they
provide an objective tool for assessing the effects of water resource develop-
ment. Hickman and McMahon (1979) suggested they could be used for endangered
species management by evaluating impacts of reservoir construction to
endangered species management by evaluating impacts of reservoir construction
to endangered fish habitat prior to impoundment and comparing the rating to
predicted post impoundment results. Identification of impacted parameters
could result in project modifications. The procedures would also be of help
in selecting potential release sites for endangered species. Harker et al.
(1980) considered these methods as the probable state-of-the-art in terms of
their approach in developing criteria indicating the relationship between the
proportions of different habitats and their relative contribution toward
meeting species requirements.
Trial et alI. (1980) found that while HEP was useful for planning and
mitigation for large projects, they were less valuable for small or short-term
projects. Trial and Stanley (1980) applied HEP using HSI values based on both
physical measurements and the ratio of observed to maximum populations in the
East Branch of Presque Isle Stream in Maine and found the values of little use
in predicting populations if they were based on inadequate information.
Stalnaker (1979a) believed that there is evidence pointing to the
validity and utility of the Instream Flow Group methodology on trout and
salmon streams. Validation of this method was started on various types of
streams in Wyoming, Iowa, and Oregon (Coop. Instream Flow Group, 1979b).
Many of the methods result in the development of an index value. Daniel
and Lamaire (1974) have expressed the advantages of such values in providing a
total resource rating and a basis for determining mitigation needs. The use
of such a system also simplifies comparisons between stations, areas of
different times.
A number of methods result in a rating of 1 to 10 or 0 to 1 (Seehorn,
1970; Eiserman et a_K , 1975; Soil Conservation Service, 1977, 1978). Others
result in a Habitat Quality Index (HQI) (Binns and Eiserman, 1979), Weighted
Usable Area (WUA) (Stalnaker, 1978, 1979a, 1979b), or Habitat Suitability
Index (HSI) (USFWS, 1980a). Many of these values can be converted to habitat
units, an area rating which can easily be used for comparative purposes.
Dunham and Collotzi (1975) cautioned that while habitat ratings were appeal-
ing, they do not consider productivity levels, stream access, angling success
and similar factors.
27
-------
The results of a survey by the author (40 state agencies, pers. comm.)
indicate that very few state agencies have developed or used a habitat assess-
ment technique specifically for non-point source pollution investigations,
even though a majority of those queried did acknowledge the desirability of
such techniques. The States of Oregon and Washington both use techniques
based on channel stability (Pfankuch, 1975) with additional biotic variables
(Rickert et a\. , 1978; Washington Dept. Ecology, pers. comm.). The State of
Wisconsin uses a biotic index developed by Hilsenhoff (1977) for NFS investi-
gations; this system, however, is not based on physical parameters. North
Carolina (Lenat et al. , 1979) uses a similar non-physical stream assessment
system based on a modification of Hilsenhoff (1977). South Dakota (Glover,
1975) used the method of Herrington and Dunham (1967) to inventory trout
habitats in watersheds affected by road and railroad construction, timber
management, agricultural practices, mining, and flood control projects.
Methods are currently being revised within the Bureau of Land Management
with the suggestion that it may be advantageous to use handbooks that would
provide guidelines and options for information gathering, leaving the choice
of the most suitable method up to the biologist. Discussions are also
continuing between this agency, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife concerning an agreement to use the same inven-
tory procedures (N. Armantrout, USBLM, Portland, Oregon, pers. comm.).
Vannote et al_. (1980) proposed that physical variables within a river
system are present in a continuous gradient and that community structure and
function adjust to changes in a number of geomorphic, physical, and biotic
variables. Therefore, for an assessment technique to be effective for
comparative purposes, it may be necessary to use it in stream reaches that are
at the same level of response to these variables.
28
-------
REFERENCES
Binns, N. A. 1978. Evaluation of habitat quality in Wyoming trout streams.
p. 221-242. In: Classification, Inventory, and Analysis of Fish and
Wildlife Habitat. Proc. Nat. Symp. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser. , FWS/
OBS-78/76.
Binns, N. A. and F. M. Eiserman. 1979. Quantification of fluvial trout
habitat in Wyoming. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 108:215-228.
Bovee, K. D. and T. Cochnauer. 1977. Development and evaluation of weighted
criteria, probability-of-use curves for instream flow assessments: U.S.
Fish and Wildl. Ser., FWS/OBS-77/63.
Cairns, J. 1981. Biological monitoring. Part VI - Future Needs. Water Res.
15:941-952.
Coffin, P. 0. 1979. Nevada cooperative stream inventory project. Aquatic
habitat and biological surveys 1978. Nevada Dept. Fish and Game. 33 p.
Collotzi, A. W. and D. K. Dunham. 1978. Inventory and display of aquatic
habitat. p. 533-542. In: Classification, Inventory, and Analysis of
Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Proc. Nat. Symp., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser.,
FWS/OBS-78/76.
Cooper, J. L. 1979. A technique for evaluating and predicting the impact of
grazing on stream channels. App. C. p. 28-44. In: Riparian Habitat
Subcommittee of the Oregon/Washington Interagency Wildlife Committee.
Managing Riparian Ecosystems (Zones) for Fish and Wildlife in Eastern
Oregon and eastern Washington.
Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group. 1979a. The IFG incremental methodo-
logy. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser., FWS/OBS-79/27. p. 3-6.
Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group. 1979b. Methodology use going
nationwide. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser., Water and Energy and Land Use
Team. Instream Flow Briefs, No. 7, p. 1, 5.
Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group. 1980. Interim method for incorporat-
ing cover in the PHABSIM model. U.S. Dept. Interior Western Energy and
Land Use Team. Instream Flow Briefs, No. 8, p. 1.
Coulombe, H. N. 1978. Summary remarks. p. 593-604. I.n: Classification.
Inventory, and Analysis of Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Proc. Nat. Symp.,
U.S. Fish and Wildl Ser., FWS/OBS-78/76.
29
-------
Grouse, M. R., C. A. Callahan, K. W. Malueg, and S. E. Dominguez. 1981.
Effects of fine sediments on growth of juvenile coho salmon in laboratory
streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 110:281-286.
Daniel, C. and R. Lamaire. 1974. Evaluating effects of water resource
developments on wildlife habitat. Wildlife Sci. Bull. 2:114-118.
Davis, J. H. 1960. Proposals concerning the concept of habitat and a
classification of types. Ecology 41:537-541.
Duff, D. A. and J. L. Cooper. 1976. Techniques for conducting stream habitat
survey on national resource land. U.S. Bur. of Land Manage. Technical
Note T/N 283. 72 pp. (Revision March 1978, 73 p.).
Dunham, D. K. and A. W. Collotzi. 1975. The transect method of stream
habitat inventory. U.S. For. Serv. Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah.
98 p.
Eiserman, F. , G. Dern, and J. Doyle. 1975. Cold water stream handbook for
Wyoming. U.S. Soil Conserv. Serv. and Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. ,
Cheyenne, Wyoming. 38 p.
Farmer, A. H. 1978. The habitat evaluation procedure. p. 407-419. In:
Classification, Inventory, and Analysis of Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
Proc. Nat. Symp., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser., FWS/OBS-78/76.
Glover, R. D. 1975. Black Hills watershed inventories, 1969-74. South
Dakota. Dingell-Johnson Proj. F-15-R-10. Study No. V. Job N. 14.
Compl. Reprt. 21 p.
Gorman, 0. T. and J. R. Karr. 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish
communities. Ecology 59:507-515.
Greentree, W. J. and R. C. Aldrich. 1976. Evaluating stream trout habitat on
large-scale aerial color photographs. U.S. For. Ser., Research Paper
PSW-123/1976. 21 p.
Hall, J. D. and N. J. Knight. 1981. Natural variation in abundance of
salmonid populations in streams and its implications for design of impact
studies. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. Proj. Summ. EPA-600/S3-84-021.
(NTIS P8 81-163 214).
Hamor, W. H. 1970. Guide for evaluating the impact of water and related land
resource development projects on fish and wildlife habitat. U.S. Soil
Conserv. Ser., Lincoln, Nebraska. 26 p. (Rev. 1973).
Harker, D. F. , G. Gigante, and S. Brazinski. 1980. Evaluation of fish and
wildlife habitats: A selected bibliography. Kentucky Nat. Preserves
Comm., Frankfort, Kentucky. 57 p.
Hayden, B. 1978. Federal instream flow group. P. 33-38. In: Proceedings
Instream Use Seminar. Calif. Dept. Water Resources, Calif. Dept. Fish
and Game, State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento. 96 p.
30
-------
Herrington, R. B. and. D. K. Dunham. 1967. A technique for sampling general
fish habitat characteristics of streams. U.S. For. Ser. Res. Paper
INT-41. 12 p.
Hickman, T. J. and T. E. McMahon. 1979. Aquatic habitat evaluation — A
possible tool in endangered species management. U.S. Fish and Wildl.
Ser., Ft. Collins, Colorado. Presented Desert Fishes Council Ann.
Meeting Nov. 1979. Death Valley, California.
Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1977. Use of arthropods to evaluate water quality of
streams. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Resources. Tech. Bull. No. 100. 16 p.
Ischinger, L. S. 1979. Nonpoint source pollution. Fisheries 4:50-52.
Jahn, L. R. 1978. Habitat data needs for managing wildlife. Pp. 5-12. ^n:
Classifiction, Inventory, and Analysis of Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
Proc. Nat. Symp., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser., FWS/OBS-78/76.
Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality
goals. Environ. Manag. 5:55-68.
Lenat, D. R., D. L. Penrose, and K. W. Eagleson. 1979. Biological evaluation
of non-point source pollutants in North Carolina streams and rivers.
North Carolina Dept. Nat. Resources and Community Development. Biol.
Series 102. 168 p.
Lotspeich, F. B. 1978. Biological significance of fluvial processes in the
lotic environment. Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, Con/all is, Oregon. CERL-042. 24 p.
Lotspeich, F. R. and F. H. Everest. 1981. A new method for reporting and
interpreting textural composition of spawning gravels. U.S. For. Ser.,
Research Note PNW-369, 11 p.
Nickelson, T. E. and R. E. Hafele. 1978. Streamflow requirements of
salmonids. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wild., Portland. Project AFS-62. 26 p.
Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. 3rd ed. W. B. Saunders,
Philadelphia. 574 p.
Oregon State Game Commission, Fish Commission of Oregon, U.S. Forest Service
and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1970. Physical and biological
stream survey field book.
Parsons, M. 1979. Stream assessment procedures and guidelines. Siuslaw
National Forest, U.S. For. Ser., Pacific N.W. Region. 14 p.
Pennak, R. W. 1971. Toward a classification of lotic habitats. Hydrobio-
logia 38:321-334.
31
-------
Pennak, R. W. 1978. The dilemma of stream classification. Pp. 59-66. In:
Classification, inventory, and Analysis of Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
Proc. Nat. Symp., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser., FWS/OBS-78/76.
Persoone, G. 1979. Proposal for a biotypological classification of water-
courses in the European communities, p. 7-1 -- 7-32. In: James A. and
A. Evison, eds. Biological Indicators of Water Quality. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Pfankuch, D. J. 1975. Stream reach inventory and channel stability evalua-
tion. U.S. For. Ser., Northern Region, Missoula, Mont. 26 p.
Platts, W. S. 1976. Validity of methodologies to document stream environ-
ments for evaluating fishery conditions. p. 267-284. In: Am. Fish.
Soc. Proc. Symp. and Specialty Conference on Instream Flow Needs. Vol.
2. Boise, Idaho.
Platts, W. S. 1980. A plea for fishery habitat classification. Fisheries
5:2-6.
Platts, W. S., M. A. Shirazi, and J. H. Lewis. 1979. Sediment particle sizes
used by salmon for spawning with the methods for evaluation. U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency. Ecological Research Series EPA-600/3-79-043. 33
P-
Raleigh, R. F. 1978. Habitat evaluation procedure for aquatic assessments.
Pp. 131-137. lr\: W. T. Mason, ed. Methods for the assessment and
prediction of mineral mining impacts on aquatic communities: A review
and analysis. Workshop proceedings. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser., FWS/
OBS-78/30.
Ricker, W. E. 1934. An ecological classification of certain Ontario streams.
Univ. Toronto Studies, Biol. Series 37:1-114.
Rickert, D. A., G. L. Beach, J. E. Jackson, D. M. Anderson, H. H. Halen, and E.
Suwijn. 1978. Oregon's procedure for assessing the impacts of land
management activities on erosion related non-point source problems.
Oregon Dept. Environmental Quality, Portland. 219 p.
Riparian Habitat Subcommittee of the Oregon/Washington Interagency Wildlife
Committee. 1979. Managing riparian ecosystems (zones) for fish and
wildlife in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. 44 p.
Sachet, J. A. 1977. A channel stability inventory for two streams on the
eastern 'slopes of the Coast Range, Oregon. Dept. Geography, Oregon State
University. 92 p.
Schamberger, M. 1979. Habitat evaluation. Water spectrum 11:25-34.
Schamberger, M. and A. Farmer. 1978. The habitat evaluation procedures:
Their application in project planning and impact evaluation. Trans. N.
Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 43:274-283.
32
-------
Seehorn, M. F. 1970.. A survey procedure for evaluating stream fisheries.
Proc. SE. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 24:308-315.
Shirazi, M. A., D. H. Lewis, and W. K. Seim. 1979. Monitoring spawning
gravel in managed forested watersheds. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency.
Ecological Research Series EPA-600/3-79-014. 14 p.
Shirazi, M. A. and W. K. Seim. 1979. A streams system evaluation - an
emphasis on spawning habitat for salmonids. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency.
Ecological Research Series EPA-600/3-79-109. 37 p.
Sparrowe, R. D. and B. F. Sparrowe. 1978. Use of critical parameters for
evaluating wildlife habitat, p. 385-405. In: Classification, Inven-
tory, and Analysis of Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Proc. Nat. Symp., U.S.
Fish and Wildl. Serv., FWS/OBS-78/76.
Stalnaker, C. B. 1978. The IFG incremental methodology for physical stream
habitat evaluation, p. 126-135. Ly. Samuel, D. E., J. R. Stauffer, C.
H. Hocutt, and W. T. Mason, eds. Surface Mining and Fish/Wildlife Needs
in the Eastern United States. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser., FWS/OBS-78/81.
Stalnaker, C. B. 1979a. The use of habitat structure preferenda for estab-
lishing flow regimes necessary for maintenance of fish habitat. p.
321-337. In: Ward, J. V. and J. A. Stratford, eds. The Ecology of
Regulated Streams. Plenum Press, New York.
Stalnaker, C. B. 1979b. Stream habitat and its physical attributes as
influenced by water and land management, p. 145-169. In: James, L. D. ,
ed. Proceed. Workshop Index Construction for Use in High Mountain Water-
shed Management. Utah State Univ., Office of Water Research and
Technology, U.S. Dept. Interior. General Series UWRL/G-79/01.
Stalnaker, C. B. and J. L. Arnette. 1976. Methodologies for determining
instream flows for fish and other aquatic life. P. 89-138. In:
Stalnaker, C. B. and J. L. Arnette, eds. Methodologies for the Determi-
nation of Stream Resource Flow Requirements: An Assessment. Prepared
for U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser. by Utah State Univ.
Sternberg, R. B. 1978. Minnesota Stream Survey Manual. Minnesota Dept. Nat.
Resources. Sp. Publ. 120. 45 pp.
Thomas, J. W. ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests. U.S. For.
Ser. Agric. Handbook No. 553. 512 p.
Trial, J. G. and J. G. Stanley. 1980. Testing habitat suitability models for
use with habitat evaluation procedures on Presque Isle Stream, (Maine).
Maine Coop. Fish. Res. Unit. Univ. of Maine. 22 p.
Trial, J. G. , L. M. Demion, and J. G. Stanley. 1980. The dual matrix and
other environmental assessment methods. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Ser.,
FWS/OBS-80/32. 46 p.
33
-------
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. Habitat evaluation procedures. Div.
Ecol. Ser. 30 p.' (NTIS PB-258 254).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980a. Habitat as a basis for environmenal
assessment. Div. of Ecol. Ser. 101 ESM. n.p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980b. Habitat evaluation procedures. Div.
of Ecol. Ser. 102 ESM n.p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife .Service. 1980c. Human use and economic evaluation.
Div. of Ecol. Ser. 104 ESM. n.p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Standards for the development of
habitat suitability index models. Div. of Ecol. Ser. 103 ESM. n.p.
U.S. Forest Service. 1969. Stream habitat survey and analysis. Chapter 600.
Wildlife Surveys Handbook. FSH 2609.21 RI. U.S. Forest Service, Region
I, Missoula, Montana.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Environmental conservation in channel
design, installation, and maintenance, p. 7-1 -- 7-33. In: Design of
Open Channels. Tech. Release No. 25.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Fish and wildlife procedures for P.L.
566 watershed projects and RC and D measures in Kansas. Salina, Kansas.
25 p.
Vannote, R. L. , G. W. Marshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E.
Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
37:130-137.
Waters, B. D. 1976. A methodology for evaluating the effects of different
streamflows on salmonid habitat. p. 254-283. In: Am. Fish. Soc. Proc.
Symp. and Specialty Conference on Instream Flow Needs. Vol. 2. Boise,
Idaho.
Whelan, J. B. , A. R. Tipton, J. F. Williamson, P. R. Johanson, J. P. McClure,
and N. D. Cost. 1979. A comparison of three systems for evaluating
forest wildlife habitat. Trans. N. Am. Wild!. Nat. Resourc. Conf. 44:
392-403.
Whitaker, G. A. and R. H. McCuen. 1976. A proposed methodology for assessing
the quality of wildlife habitat. Ecol. Modeling 2:251-272.
Whitaker, G. A., E. R. Roach, and R. H. McCuen. 1976. Inventorying habitats
and rating their value for wildlife species. Proc. S.E. Assoc. Fish.
Wildl. Agencies 30:590-601.
Wydoski, R. S. and D. A. Duff. 1978. Indexed bibliography on stream habitat
improvement. U.S. Bur. of Land Manage. Technical Note T/N 322. 35 p.
34
------- |