EPA 910/9-92-013
            United States
            Environmental Prou
            Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
            EnvifonmentalServices Division
                     July 1993^
            Region  10 In-stream Biological
            Monitoring  Handbook

            For Wadable Streams in the Pacific Northwest
                                  &           
-------
EPA Region 10                                                                       1993
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                   EPA REGION 10
                                     IN-STREAM
                             BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
                                     HANDBOOK
                      (for wadable streams in the Pacific Northwest)
                                          by

                                 Gretchen A. Hayslip(a) (ed.)
                 (a>U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 10
                           ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
                                   1200 Sixth Ave, ES-097
                                  Seattle, Washington 98101
                                          1993

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                      July 1993
                                    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the state Biologists who did the work that provided the basis of this
Handbook:
       Bill Clark

       Rick Hafele

       Rob Plotnikoft
       Idaho Division of Environmental Quality

       Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

       Washington Department of Ecology
I would also like to thank the members of the Region 10 Biological Assessment Workgroup and
others for their participation in the Workgroup and their assistance in the development of this
document:
Mike Barbour
Merlyn Brusven
Tim Burton
Larry Caton
Ken Dzinbal
Joseph Furnish
George Gibson
Jeffrey Hock
Bob Hughes
Phil Johnson
James Karr
Phil Kaufmann
Marcia Lagerloef
Phil Larsen
Jim Lazorchak
Mike Lohrey
Terry Maret
Alexander Milner
Wayne Minshall
Gerald Montgomery
Elbert Moore
Mike Mulvey
Mark Munn
Jim Omernik
Kerry Overton
Steve Ralph
Alan Smart
Karl Stein
Ian Waite
Don Zaroban
Tetra Tech
University of Idaho
U.S. Forest Service - Boise National Forest
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Department of Ecology
U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Salem
EPA - Washington, D.C.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc. - Corvallis
EPA - Region 8 - Denver
University of Washington - Institute for Environmental Studies
Oregon State University
EPA - Region 10
EPA - Office of Research  and Development (Corvallis)
EPA - Office of Research  and Development (Cincinnati)
U.S. Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Region
U.S. Geological Survey
University of Alaska - Environmental and Natural Resources Institute
Idaho State University
Soil Conservation Service (Liaison to EPA Region 10)
EPA - Region 10
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. Geological Survey
EPA - Office of Research  and Development (Corvallis)
U.S. Forest Service - Intermountain Research Station
Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
U.S. Forest Service - Mt. Hood National Forest
U.S. Forest Service - Pacific Northwest Region
U.S. Geological Survey
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality

-------
EPA Region 10                                                                                     July 1993
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This handbook provides a reference for those interested in conducting biological assessments of wadable streams in
EPA Region 10. It is intended as a supplement to the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) developed by EPA
(Plafkin et al., 1989).  To conduct a complete biological  assessment of a stream, it is recommended that
macroinvertebrate, fish, water column and habitat information be collected.  In the subsequent chapters this
document will describe the minimum level of data that needs to be collected, as well as methods for additional levels
of intensity,  for each category (macroinvertebrates, fish,  water column and physical habitat).

Please obtain a copy of the RBPs, available from EPA Region 10, before conducting biological assessments.  It is
important that you contact your state water quality agency, as they will be able to provide technical assistance and
coordination of bioassessment activities in your State.' Many state, local, tribal and federal land and resource
management agencies are interested in conducting biological assemblage assessments in the Pacific Northwest. This
document is an attempt to provide a consistent minimal  set of methods to facilitate information exchange and
interpretation. The objectives of the In-stream Biological Monitoring Handbook are to:

        •       Supplement the RBPs, showing how the Region 10 States and others have cooperated to adapt these
                protocols to the Northwest;

        •       Define the minimum components necessary to conduct a bioassessment  (and provide additional
                levels of resolution);

        •       Encourage consistency of sampling methods between States and others to facilitate sharing of data;

        •       List Region 10 biological assessment activities, including objectives and methods, and;

        •       Increase the amount and consistency of bioassessment activities by providing Regional methods.
                                                     111

-------
EPA Region 10                                                                     July 1993
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101	


                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.     INTRODUCTION	  1

      A.     OVERVIEW 	  1

      B.     BACKGROUND 	  3

II.    BIOLOGICAL MONITORING	  5

      A.     REFERENCE SITE SELECTION 	  5

      B.     HABITAT ASSESSMENT 	  7

             1.     WATER COLUMN PARAMETERS 	  7

             2.     PHYSICAL HABITAT STRUCTURE	  7

                   a.      Level I	  8

                          i.     Riffle/run prevalence (High
                               Gradient) 	  8

                          ii.    Glide/Pool Prevalence	 10

                   b.      Level II  	 12

      C.     MACROINVERTEBRATES	 15

             1.     Field and Laboratory Methods	 15

             2.     Data Analysis	 17

      D.     FISH  	 19

             1.     Field and Laboratory Methods	 19

             2.     Data Analysis	 20

III.    DATA MANAGEMENT	 23

IV.    QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL	 24

V.    SELECTED REGION 10 MONITORING ENTITIES	 28

      A.     IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 	 28

      B.     OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY	 31

                                           iv

-------
EPA Region 10                                                                July 1993
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
      C.     WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 	  35

      D.     ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION	  40

      E.     ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE - UNIVERSITY OF
            ALASKA  	  42

      F.     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 	  43

      G.     U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY	  46

      H.     U.S. FOREST SERVICE 	  49

      I.     U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT  	  50

APPENDICES	  51

      APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS	  52

      APPENDIX B. REFERENCES  	  54

      APPENDIX C. HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD SHEETS	  58

      APPENDIX D. MACROINVERTEBRATE KEYS/LITERATURE 	  65

      APPENDIX E. FISH KEYS/LITERATURE 	  74

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
July 1993
                                      LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES


Figure 1.       Assessing ecological integrity of surface waters	  1

Figure 2.       Uses of bioassessments 	  2

Figure 3.       Riparian Areas 	"

Table 1.        Physical Habitat Structure Parameters for High Gradient Streams	8

Table 2.        Physical Habitat Structure Parameters for Low Gradient Streams	  10

Table 3.        State field methods for macroinvertebrates	  17

Table 4.        Metrics used for analysis of macroinvertebrate data  	  18

Table 5.         State field methods for fish  	  20

Table 6.         Methods used for analysis of fish data  	  20

Table 7.         Scoring criteria/metrics for large western rivers (Hughes and Gammon, 1987)	  21

Table 8.         IBI for Depauperate Fish Assemblages	  21

Table 9.         Additional metrics for consideration in fish assemblage data analysis	  22

Table 10.       Components of a Quality Assurance Project Plan .	  24

Table 11.       Selected bioassessment activities in Idaho - by stream	  29

Table 12.       Selected bioassessment activities in Oregon - by stream	  34

Table 13.       Parameters, analysis methods, and detection limits of water quality data - Washington	  38

Table 14.       Selected bioassessment activities in Washington - by stream  	  39

Table 15.       Selected bioassessment activities in Alaska - by stream	  41

Table 16       Bioassessment activities in Alaska by UAA-ENRI	  42

Table 17.       Components of EMAP Physical Habitat  Protocols  	  44

Table 18.       Recent bioassessment activities of EPA-Corvallis 	  45

Table 19.       Main Components of U.S. Geological Survey NAWQA Study-Unit Investigations	  46


                                                      vi

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                          July 1993
                INTRODUCTION
        A.      OVERVIEW:

The Clean Water Act directs the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to develop programs that
evaluate, restore and maintain the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.

Biotic Integrity:

"a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of
organisms having species composition, diversity, and
functional organization comparable to that of natural
habitat of the region"
        (Karr and Dudley, 1981; Frey, 1977)
The States and EPA have implemented water
management programs primarily using chemical and
physical indicators, and more recently lexicological
indicators to protect water quality. These programs
have resulted in significant water quality
improvements in the past 20 years.

Water programs based on chemical and physical
variables alone are not sufficient to identify or address
all surface water problems. Ambient biological
assessments are important because they "directly
measure the condition of the resource at risk, detect
problems that other methods may miss or
underestimate, and provide a systematic process for
measuring progress resulting from the implementation
of water quality programs" (U.S. EPA, 1990a).
Ambient biological assessments do not replace
chemical, physical or toxicological methods, but are
intended as a supplement to more holistically assess
water resource quality (See Figure 1).
This handbook provides a reference for those
interested in conducting biological assessments of
wadable streams in EPA Region 10. It is intended as
a supplement to the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
(RBPs) developed by EPA (Plafkin, et al. 1989).

In 1986, EPA initiated a major study of the Agency's
surface water monitoring activities. The report
emphasized the restructuring of existing monitoring
programs to better address the Agency's priorities,
including nonpoint source impacts and documentation
of "environmental results" (U.S. EPA, 1987).

In 1989, EPA published the Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols (RBPs) as a rapid method to obtain and
interpret aquatic life data (Plafkin et at., 1989). The
RBPs are  a valuable tool for: developing aquatic
biological  criteria; evaluating the effectiveness of
nonpoint source control projects; site ranking for
planning and management purposes; and trend
monitoring . The RBPs were written at a national
level with  the acknowledgement that different regions
of the country would need to modify the protocols.
This handbook is intended as a modification  to the
RBPs so that they better address Northwest
conditions.
Figure 1.        Assessing ecological integrity of
                surface waters
                 ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY:
                   Physical integrity
                   Chemical integrity
                   Biological integrity
Physical /Chemical
Measures:
Water Quality (e.g.
Dissolved Oxygen, BOO,
temperature, metals,
nutrients, toxics, etc.)
Habitat StructureCe.g.
channel morphology,
substrate, riparian £
bank condition, etc.)
Toxicological
Tests:
(e.g. Effluent
toxicity tests
Receiving
water toxicity
tests)
Biological
Assessments:
(e.g. In-
stream
surveys of
macroinvert.
and fish)

-------
 EPA Region 10
 1200 Sixth Ave.
 Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
 Many state, local, tribal and federal land and resource
 management agencies are interested in conducting
 biological assessments in the Pacific Northwest. These
 protocols are an attempt to provide a consistent
 minimal set of methods to facilitate information
 exchange and interpretation.

 The protocols use fundamental assessment techniques
 to generate basic information on ambient physical,
 chemical, and biological conditions. RBPs have three
 major components:
        biological assessment offish assemblages,

        biological assessment of macroinvertebrate
        assemblages, plus

        assessment of habitat structure and water
        column chemistry.
The RBPs include three macroinvertebrate and two
fish protocols in addition to the assessment of habitat
structure and water column chemistry. The level of
assessment and level of effort varies between
protocols, and the choice of a given protocol should
depend on the specific objectives of the monitoring
activity. Multiple metrics are used to assess the
structure and function of these  biological communities.
These metrics define inherent diversity of biota and
identify biological potential of the resource at risk.

In the RBPs, a set of reference sites are selected to
represent biological potential based on the best
attainable habitat structure, water quality and
biological parameters for a specific ecoregion
(ecoregions are areas of relative ecosystem
homogeneity, or similar quality). Then an impaired (or
suspected) site is compared to the reference condition,
within the same ecoregion, to see if it supports a
comparable biological community. This handbook will
further describe assessment protocols  in chapter II
(Part B. Habitat Structure, Part C. Macroinvertebrates
and Part D. Fish).  Additional information will also be
provided, in Chapter II on the selection of reference
sites (Part A).
Some advantages of using biological assessments are:
they assess the condition of the biological component
of the ecosystem; they establish biological baseline
information; they integrate a variety of ecosystem
components (habitat structure, water quality, stream
biota); and they evaluate the status of biological
communities of direct interest to the public (Plafkin et
at., 1989). Figure 2. shows some of the uses of
bioassessments in water resource management.
                                                         Figure 2.  Uses of  bioassessments
               BIOASSESSMENTS
     PLANNING/
  LEG I SLAT ION/
  REGULAT I ON


   WATER QUALITY
  ASSESSMENT REPORT/
  PUBLIC EDUCATION
        DATA
   ANALYSIS
BIOLOGICAL
    CRITERIA
     NONPOINT  SOURCE ASSESSMENTS
        POINT SOURCE  ASSESSMENTS

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
        B.     BACKGROUND
EPA hosted a workshop in October 1990 to:
determine the extent of ongoing activities related to
biological assessments within the region; develop a
strategy for modifying the RBPs to meet Northwest
conditions, and; encourage the collection of biological
data for use in developing biological criteria and
evaluating nonpoint source (NPS) control projects.
Some recommendations from this workshop were:

        •       Refine ecoregions (define
               subregions);
        •       Tailor the RBPs to the Northwest
               condition;
        «       Modify the RBPs to be flexible
               enough to meet a range of needs and
               still allow for regional comparisons;
               and,
        •       Develop and implement a strategy for
               Quality Assurance/Quality Control
               (QA/QC).
Two workgroups were formed to follow up on the
recommendations of the 1990 meeting. One group
worked on a plan to modify the RBPs focusing on
wadable streams only. The other group developed a
strategy to refine ecoregions (define subregions) and
define criteria to set reference sites.

Then in October of 1991, a second Regional
Bioassessment meeting was held.  One of the
recommendations of this meeting was the
development of this Handbook. The Regional
Bioassessment Workgroup meets each fall to share
bioassessment methods used in Region 10,
emphasizing the evaluation of the usefulness of
current methods and changes needed to improve data
quality.  The purposes of this Handbook  are as
follows:
OBJECTIVES OF THE IN-STREAM BIOLOGICAL
MONITORING HANDBOOK:
•      Supplement the RBPs, showing how the Region
       10 States and others have cooperated to adapt
       these protocols to the Northwest;

•      Define the minimum components necessary to
       conduct a bioassessment (and provide
       additional levels of resolution);

•      Encourage consistency of sampling methods
       between States and others to facilitate sharing
       of data;

•      List Region 10 biological assessment activities,
       including objectives and methods, and;

•      Increase the amount and consistency of
       bioassessment activities by providing Regional
       methods.

To conduct a complete biological assessment of a
stream, it is recommended that macroinvertebrate,
fish, water column and habitat information be
collected.  In the subsequent chapters, we will  identify
what is the minimum level of data needed, as well as
methods for additional levels of intensity, for each
category.
        Please obtain a copy of the Rapid
        Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et
        al., 1989) and consult the relevant
        State water quality agency before
        conducting biological assessments in
        the Northwest.
Copies of the RBPs are available from the EPA
contact listed below. State contacts are listed in the
relevant State chapters.  It is important that you
contact the State water quality agency, as they will be
able to provide technical assistance and coordination
of bioassessment activities in your State.

-------
EPA Region 10                                                                             July 1993
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle. WA 98101	


The RBPs provide three macroinvertebrate, two fish
and one habitat structure assessment protocol.  Two
of these protocols (Benthic RBP I and Fish RBP IV)
are screening procedures to essentially compile
existing information. The focus of this handbook is
in-streain assessments, so these protocols will not be
discussed in this Handbook.

The specific components of any biological monitoring
effort will depend upon the objectives of your
assessment.  As examples of the role of biological
assessment in water quality management programs,
this handbook covers the activities occurring in each
of the Region  10 States, as well as several Federal
agencies.
 EPA CONTACT;
 NAME:       Gretchen  Hayslip
 PHONE:       (206)  553-1685
 ADDRESS:   EPA -  Region  10
               1200 Sixth  Ave.
               Seattle,  WA   98101

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                                                                    July 1993
        11.
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
A.     REFERENCE SITE SELECTION
In the RBP, a set of reference sites are selected to
represent biological potential based on the best
attainable watershed condition, habitat structure,
water quality and biological parameters for a specific
ecoregion. Then an impaired, or one suspected of
being impacted, is compared  to this reference
condition to see if it supports a biological community
comparable to that of the reference condition.

The reference condition establishes the basis for
making comparisons and for  detecting use
impairment.  Depending upon the objectives of your
bioassessment activity, the reference condition can be
defined on one of two scales.  One scale is site
specific, where the reference  condition is specifically
applicable to an individual waterbody.  Another scale
is ecoregional, where the reference condition is
applicable on an ecoregional  scale.

ECOREGIONS:
        Areas of relative ecosystem  homogeneity (or
        similar quality) defined by similarity of land
        form, soil, vegetation, hydrology, and general
        land use.

The assumption is that land characteristics determine
water characteristics. Ecoregions are hierarchical and
may be defined at various levels of resolution.

Some of the advantages of using ecoregions to
establish reference conditions are that results can be
used to: compare regional land/water patterns,
establish reasonable standards, predict effects of
management practices/controls, locate monitoring and
special study sites and extrapolate  site specific
information.
An ecoregion map has been developed for the Pacific
Northwest (Omernik and Gallant, 1986) and is
available from the EPA Region 10 office.  It has been
evaluated with reference site data (Whittier et at,
1987) and available fish assemblage data (Hughes et
at., 1987) and hi both cases was found to be a useful
means for classifying wadable streams and their biota.

In addition, the Oregon ecoregions have been
subregionalized (Clarke et at., 1991) and the Coast
Range ecoregion of Oregon and Washington is being
further subregionalized (Thiele and Omernik, 1992,
Draft).  Please contact either the EPA Region 10 or
relevant State agency contact for additional
information on subregionalization.

Reference sites must be selected with care because
the resultant database will be used as a benchmark
against which test sites will be compared. The
conditions at reference sites represent the best that is
presently achievable for similar streams of a particular
ecoregion.  Two primary criteria guide the selection of
reference sites (U.S.  EPA, 1992b):

        Minimal impact:  Sites that are not disturbed
        by human activities are ideal as reference
        sites.  However, human activity has altered
        much of the landscape, so truly undisturbed
        sites are available only rarely (if ever).
        Therefore a  criterion of minimal impact is
        used to guide selection from a suite of
        candidate .reference sites.

        Representativeness:  Reference sites must be
        representative of the waterbodies under
        investigation,i.e., those expected to be found
        in that region.
                                          A word of warning, the term reference condition is
                                          used because:

                                                  the use of a single reference site is not
                                                  recommended (even if you are developing a site
                                                  specific reference condition)

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                          July 1993
The overall goal in the characterization of the
reference condition from carefully selected reference
sites is to describe the biota that are optimal for the
area of interest Test sites can then be compared to
this benchmark to determine whether an impact exists.
The characteristics of appropriate reference sites will
vary among ecoregions and for different waterbody
and habitat types.

Below are some criteria for selection of reference sites
on wadable streams. These  criteria are  not all-
inclusive and additional information is available
concerning reference site selection. (Plafltin et al.,
1989; Hughes et al.,1986; and U.S.EPA,  1992b).
Additional criteria will depend upon your study
objectives.

Some Criteria for Selecting Perennial. Wadable
Stream Reference Sites:
•       Perennial flow
•       Wadable streams
•       Relatively unimpacted (minimal human
        disturbance to the watershed and stream
        system)
•       Relatively high heterogeneity of substrate
        materials (fines, gravel, cobbles, boulders)
•       Natural channel morphology (variety in
        channel width and depth; presences of pools,
        riffles, backwaters, glides as are typical of the
        region)
•       Natural hydrograph: flow patterns typical of
        the region.
•       Stable banks: includes banks generally
        covered with riparian vegetation with little
        evidence of bank erosion; undercut banks
        stabilized by root wads provide stable cover
        for aquatic biota.
•       Natural water color and odor
•       Relatively abundant and diverse algal (or
        aquatic plant), benthic macroinvertebrate and
        fish assemblages typical of that  region
•       Presence of animals that derive part of their
        support from aquatic ecosystems
•       Peer review - interdisciplinary team, including
        the research/academic community
•       Statistical analysis to define the range hi the
        number of reference sites needed
•       Land use stability (eg. Wilderness area)
One particularly problematic aspect about the use of
minimally impacted sites as references is what to do if
an area is extensively degraded. In this case there
may be no minimally impacted sites and even the least
impacted sites might indicate significant deterioration.
Many systems are altered through widespread timber
harvest, agriculture, grazing, channelization,
urbanization, construction of dams and highways and
other development activities.

Hughes et at. (1986,1990) cautioned that some
regions (or subregions, or stream types) may be so
disturbed that no, or few suitable reference sites exist
for them. In such cases, it is necessary to use some
reference sites from similar regions.  For example,
southwestern Washington is so intensively logged that
there are no catchments that are suitably undisturbed
to serve as reference sites.  Suitable reference sites do
exist in the neighboring mountainous, forested
subregion of the Oregon Coast Range.  In an
agricultural  region like the Willamette Valley, it may
be advisable to seek some reference sites at  the valley
margin (same ecoregion, but different subregion)
where riparian conditions are less disturbed  and
temperatures are slightly cooler than in mid-Valley
streams.  If we do not allow ourselves this option, we
run the risk of setting expectations unnecessarily low
in highly disturbed regions.

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
        B.     HABITAT ASSESSMENT
An evaluation of habitat structure is critical to
biological assessments.  The RBPs recommend that
habitat quality evaluation be accomplished by a
characterization of selected water column
physical/chemical parameters and a systematic habitat
assessment.  It is necessary to conduct a habitat
evaluation and water column characterization at every
biosurvey site. First, the water column assessment will
be discussed and then, the physical  habitat structure
assessment.
1.      WATER COLUMN PARAMETERS

To adequately address water quality problems it is
optimal to monitor the biota, the physical habitat
structure and the physical/chemical water quality of
the stream.  The list of four physical/chemical
variables listed below, is the minimum set that needs
to be measured at the same time that you collect
biological assessment data.

        1.       Temperature
        2.      Dissolved Oxygen
        3.       Conductivity
        4.      pH
You will need to measure and record the values for
these variables, using the appropriate calibrated water
quality instrument(s).  The water sample should be
taken from a midchannel pool or pocket near the
center of the reach of concern in order to avoid near-
shore contamination and to best represent the entire
reach.  It should be taken before proceeding with
biological or habitat sampling and upstream of the
sampler.

This information should be entered into the STORET
data management system (See Chapter III). The State
contact listed in Chapter IV will have additional
information on the type of instrument(s) used to
collect this  data.
Some other physical/chemical variables that may be
useful to measure, depending upon the objectives of
your study, include:

        1.      Turbidity
        2.      Total Suspended Solids
        3.      Alkalinity
        4.      Total hardness
        5.      Nitrate+nitrite
        6.      Total Phosphorus
        7.      Total persulfate nitrogen
        8.      Ammonia as Nitrogen
        9.      Biochemical Oxygen Demand

In addition, periphyton assessments may be useful for
biological monitoring, depending upon your study
objectives. Periphyton represents another trophic
level, exhibit a different range of sensitivities and will
often indicate effects only indirectly observed in the
benthic macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages
(Plafkin et aL, 1989). See Weitzel, 1979, for additional
information. Some periphyton analyses that you may
wish to consider are:

        1.      Chlorophyll .a
        2.      Ash free dry mass
        3.      Diversity indices
        4.      Taxa richness
        5.      Indicator guilds
                                                         2.
        PHYSICAL HABITAT STRUCTURE
Habitat assessments support the understanding of the
relationships between habitat quality and biological
conditions. Physical habitat quality is a major factor
influencing the biological condition of aquatic
communities.

This section of the handbook provides an alternative
to the habitat assessment described in the RBPs.  The
RBPs only contain one level of habitat assessment,
this handbook will present an alternative to that
method (Level I) as well as an additional level (Level
II) of habitat assessment.  EPA Region 10 believes
that the following physical habitat assessment
protocols are better suited to conditions in the
Northwest. They are based on the  experience of State
and Federal agencies, Universities, and others in the
Region.

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                          July 1993
a.
        Level I
The physical habitat structure assessment protocol is
intended to support biosurvey analysis. Level I is an
adaptation of die habitat assessment protocol
discussed in the RBP document.  The various habitat
parameters are weighted to emphasize those
parameters that are the most biologically significant.
Reference sites (see Ch. H, Part A) are used to
normalize the assessment to the "best attainable"
situation. The entire reach (of 40 wetted channel
widths or a minimum of 200 m) should be walked and
a minimum of 10 equidistant evaluations of structure
recorded.  These station evaluations should be
integrated to provide the reach assessment We stress
that such evaluations  only be done by thoroughly
trained and experienced stream ecologists who are
familiar with both macroinvertebrate and fish
assemblage ecology.  A more quantitative approach to
measuring certain habitat parameters may be used
(see Level II), depending upon your study objectives.

The importance of a holistic habitat assessment to
enhance the interpretation of biological data cannot  be
overemphasized. Since benthic macroinvertebrates
and fish are the focal points of the RBPs, habitat
parameters were chosen which are influential to the
development of both these assemblages (EA
Engineering, 1991), not to any particular species or
assemblage.

The gradient of streams is perhaps the most
influential factor in categorizing a waterbody, because
it is related to topography and land form, geological
formations and elevation, which in turn influence
vegetation patterns and land use. For Level I, two
protocols have been developed to conduct an holistic
habitat assessment: high gradient (riffle/run
prevalence) and low gradient (glide/pool prevalence).
These two protocols (and Habitat Assessment  Field
Sheets) are intended to provide guidance in assessing
habitat quality of these two different stream/river
types based on gradient (EA Engineering, 1991).

For both gradient categories the habitat parameters
are separated into three principal categories: primary,
secondary, and tertiary parameters. Primary
parameters for both gradient categories are those that
characterize the stream "microscale" habitat and have
the greatest influence on the structure of the  *
indigenous communities. They have the widest score
range (e.g. 0-20) to reflect their contribution to habitat
quality. Primary parameters are generally evaluated
within the same reach as are surveyed assemblages.
The secondary parameters (again for both gradient
categories) measure habitat such as channel shape and
range in value from 0-15. They are evaluated over a
larger stream area, primarily in an upstream direction
where conditions will have the greatest impact on the
community being studied.

For both gradient  categories, tertiary parameters
evaluate riparian and bank structure and they have a
score range of 0 -  10. They are evaluated over a
larger stream area, primarily in an upstream direction
where conditions will have the greatest impact on the
community being studied. Below is a discussion of the
parameters for the Level I high and low gradient
physical habitat structure assessments.  The actual
field sheets are included in the Appendix.

j.      Riffle/run prevalence (High
        Gradient)

The following figure (Table 1) shows the primary,
secondary and tertiary parameters for streams where
riffles and/or runs predominate, or would be expected
to predominate if the streams  were not impacted  by
human activities.  These streams are generally high
gradient.

Table 1.        Physical Habitat Structure
                Parameters for High Gradient
                Streams.
 RIFFLE/RUM PREVALENCE - HIGH GRADIENT;
 PRIMARY PARAMETERS;
    1.   BOTTOM SUBSTRATE -PERCENT FINES
         [fraction of substrate less than .25  inch
          (or 6.35nm) in diameter]
    2.   INSTREAM COVER (FISH)
    3.   EMBEDDEDNESS (RIFFLE)
    4.   VELOCITY/DEPTH -
 SECONDARY PARAMETERS;
    5.   CHANNEL SHAPE (WETTED CHANNEL)
         - dominant shape
         POOL/RIFFLE RATIO -  POOL LENGTH DIVIDED BY
         RIFFLE LENGTH
         WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (USING WETTED WIDTH)
 6.
 7.
 TERTIARY PARAMETERS;
    8.   BANK VEGETATION PROTECTION
    9.   LOWER BANK STABILITY
         DISRUPTIVE PRESSURES (ON STREAMBANK,
         IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO STREAM)
         ZONE OF  INFLUENCE -  WIDTH OF RIPARIAN
         VEGETATIVE ZONE - LEAST BUFFERED SIDE
10.
11.

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                       July 1993
PRIMARY PARAMETERS:

JL     BOTTOM SUBSTRATE - PERCENT
       FINES [fraction of substrate less .25 inch
       (6.35mm) in diameter]:
       This parameter is an ocular estimate of the
       percentage of bottom substrate that is fine
       materials.

2,     INSTREAM COVER (FISH):
       This parameter is an estimate of the
       percentage of the stream that provides stable
       fish habitat. For example, cobble, gravel,
       large woody debris and undercut banks all
       provide habitat for fish at some stage of their
       life cycle.

3,     EMBEDDEDNESS (RIFFLE):
       The degree to which boulders, rubble or
       gravel are surrounded by fine sediment [less
       than .25 inch (or 635 mm) in diameter]
       indicates suitability of the stream substrate as
       habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates and for
       fish spawning and egg incubation.

4,     VELOCITY/DEPTH:
       Velocity in conjunction with depth has a
       direct influence on benthic and fish
       assemblages. A greater variety of
       velocity/depth categories provide better
       habitat. This parameter breaks velocity/depth
       into four broad categories:  slow/deep;
       slow/shallow, fast/deep; and fast/shallow.
SECONDARY PARAMETERS:
5.      CHANNEL SHAPE (WETTED CHANNEL)
        - dominant shape:
        This parameter is a characterization of the
        dominant shape of the wetted stream channel.
        Trapezoidal channels are those where
        undercut banks and/or overhanging
        vegetation are dominant.  Inverse trapezoidal
        channels are those streams that are, or are
        fast becoming, wider and shallower and their
        banks are often unstable and eroding.
        Rectangular channels are intermediate
        between the above two shapes.
       POOL/RIFFLE RATIO - POOL LENGTH
       DIVIDED BY RIFFLE LENGTH:
       This parameter assumes that a stream with
       riffles and pools provide a more diverse
       habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates than
       a straight or uniform depth stream. This
       ratio is calculated by dividing the pool length
       by the riffle length. In some high gradient
       streams, classical riffles and pools are difficult
       to detect, being replaced by cascades and
       pocket water.

       WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (USING
       WETTED WIDTH):
       This parameter is the ratio of the wetted
       channel width divided by the wetted channel
       depth.
TERTIARY PARAMETERS;
8,     BANK VEGETATION PROTECTION:
       Bank soil is generally held in place by plant
       root systems.  An estimate of the density of
       bank vegetation covering the bank provides an
       indication of bank stability and potential
       instream sedimentation. Vegetation includes
       any type of vegetation whether or not it is
       native vegetation and/or in good (or bad)
       condition.

9,     LOWER BANK STABILITY:
       Lower bank stability is rated by observing
       existing or potential detachment of soil from
       the lower streambank and its potential
       movement into the stream (see Figure 3).
Figure 3.  Riparian  Areas.
                   ZONE OF  INFLUENCE

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                         July 1993
10.
DISRUPTIVE PRESSURES (ON STREAM
BANK. ADJACENT TO STREAM):
11.
ii.
Disruption of the vegetation on the lower
streambank, immediately adjacent to the
stream, is detrimental to stream ecosystems.
This parameter is an estimate of the amount
of plant biomass that remains in  the vegetated
area immediately adjacent to the stream (see
Figure 3).

ZONE OF INFLUENCE - WIDTH OF
RIPARIAN VEGETATIVE ZONE - LEAST
BUFFERED SIDE:
This parameter is an estimate of the width of
the area, adjacent to the stream,  that
influences the stream.  It looks at the width of
this zone and the extent of human influence
in this zone.
Glide/Pool Prevalence
The following figure (Table 2) shows the primary,
secondary and tertiary parameters for streams where
glides and/or pools predominate, or would be
expected to predominate if streams were not impacted
by human activities.  These streams are generally low
gradient and often occur in valleys.
PRIMARY PARAMETERS:
i.      POOL SUBSTRATE CHARACTERISTIC:
        This parameter is an ocular estimate of the
        substrate materials that make up the pool.
        Pools with a substrate of gravels and firm
        sands plus root mats and submerged
        vegetation are preferable.

2,      INSTREAM COVER (FISH):
        This parameter is an estimate of the
        percentage of the stream that provides stable
        fish habitat. For example, cobble, gravel,
        macrophytes, large woody debris and
        undercut banks all provide habitat for fish at
        some stage of their life cycle.

3.      POOL VARIABILITY:
        The more diverse the types of pools, the
        better the habitat.  This parameter measures
        the mix of deep, shallow, small and large
        pools.

4,      CANOPY COVER (SHADING):
        The amount of shading the stream receives is
        especially important in low gradient streams.
        A mixture of conditions where some areas of
        the water surface are fully exposed to sunlight
        and other areas are receiving various degrees
        of filtered light is optimal.
Table 2.        Physical Habitat Structure
               Parameters for Low Gradient
               Streams.
 GLIDE/POOL PREVALENCE -  IQU GRADIENT:
 PRIMARY PARAMETERS:
    1.   POOL SUBSTRATE
    2.   INSTREAM COVER (FISH)
    3.   POOL VARIABILITY
    4.   CANOPY COVER (SHADING)
 SECONDARY PARAMETERS;
   5.   CHANNEL SHAPE (WETTED CHANNEL)
        - dominant shape
   6.   CHANNEL SINUOSITY
   7.   WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (USING WETTED WIDTH)
 TERTIARY PARAMETERS;
   8.   BANK VEGETATION PROTECTION
   9.   LOWER BANK STABILITY
  10.   DISRUPTIVE PRESSURES (ON STREAMBANK,
        IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO STREAM)
  11.   ZONE OF INFLUENCE - WIDTH OF RIPARIAN
        VEGETATIVE ZONE - LEAST BUFFERED SIDE
                                                SECONDARY PARAMETERS;
                                                5.      CHANNEL SHAPE (WETTED CHANNEL)
                                                        - dominant shape:
                                                        This parameter is a characterization of the
                                                        dominant shape of the wetted stream channel
                                                        Trapezoidal channels are those where
                                                        undercut banks and/or overhanging
                                                        vegetation are dominant.  Inverse trapezoidal
                                                        channels are those streams that are, or are
                                                        fast becoming, wider and shallower and their
                                                        banks are often unstable and eroding.
                                                        Rectangular channels are intermediate
                                                        between the above two shapes.
                                                   10

-------
EPA Region 10                                                                                July 1993
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101	


6,     CHANNEL SINUOSITY:
       This parameter is a measure of the
       straightness (or conversely, the sinuosity) of
       the channel. It is a ratio calculated by
       dividing the instream channel length by the
       straight line distance.

r     WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (USING
       WETTED WIDTH):
       This parameter is the ratio of the wetted
       channel width divided by the wetted channel
       depth.

TERTIARY PARAMETERS:
8,     BANK VEGETATION PROTECTION:
       Bank soil  is generally held in place by plant
       root systems. An estimate of the density of
       bank vegetation covering the  bank provides an
       indication of bank stability and potential
       instream sedimentation.  Vegetation includes
       any type of vegetation whether or not it is
       native vegetation and/or in good (or bad)
       condition.

9,     LOWER BANK STABILITY:
       Lower bank stability is rated  by observing
       existing or potential detachment  of soil from
       the lower  streambank and its potential
       movement into the stream (see Figure 3).

ia    DISRUPTIVE PRESSURES (ON STREAM
       BANK. ADJACENT TO STREAM):
       Disruption of the vegetation on the lower
       streambank, immediately adjacent to the
       stream, is detrimental to stream  ecosystems.
       This parameter is an estimate of the amount
       of plant biomass that remains in the vegetated
       area immediately adjacent to the stream (see
       Figure 3).

JJL    ZONE OF INFLUENCE - WIDTH OF
       RIPARIAN VEGETATIVE  ZONE - LEAST
       BUFFERED SIDE:
       This parameter is an estimate of the width of
       the area, adjacent to the stream,  that
       influences the stream.  It looks at the width of
       this zone and the extent of human influence
       in this zone (see  Figure 3).
                                                  11

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                           July 1993
b.
Level II
Some of the States and Federal agencies in Region 10
also use more quantitative measures of physical
habitat structure. Habitat disruption is a major
component of nonpoint source impacts. Physical
habitat structure measures are used when a more
accurate assessment of habitat quality is needed than
can be obtained with the descriptive parameters listed
in Level I.

In addition, more quantitative measures are
sometimes necessary if your objectives are more
narrowly focused than assessing the ecological
integrity of streams.  For example, a number of
physical habitat structure parameters can be measured
to assess the stream habitat condition for  salmonid
spawning.  Salmonid spawning is of public concern
and is a beneficial use that is often protected in State
water quality standards.  However, this is  a case of
measuring  physical habitat structure parameters for a
specific species, not for the stream ecosystem as a
whole.

Below is a  list of physical habitat parameters that you
may want to consider measuring, depending upon the
objectives of your study. This list is by no means
exhaustive in terms of either parameters to be
measured or methods to measure the parameters
listed. The actual methods for measuring some of
these  parameters are explained in greater detail in
Kaufmann  and Robison, 1993, and Mulvey, et al.,
1992.  Contact your State for additional information,
concerning which parameters) and method(s) they
use.

An  important component of a Level II protocol is the
explicit definition of the reach location, its boundaries,
and the number, location, and procedures for
measurement. Use of a Global Positioning System
(GPS) is recommended to obtain the exact location of
your sampling reach. One recommendation for setting
the  length of your sampling reach is to define it
proportional to your stream width (approximately 40
times  the stream width)  and that measurements be
placed systematically to represent the entire  reach.
Discharge:
In medium and large streams, measure water depth
and velocity (@ 0.6 depth with electromagnetic flow
meter) at 15 (or a minimum of 10) equally spaced
intervals along one carefully chosen channel cross-
section. In very small streams, measure discharge
with a portable weir or time the filling of a bucket.
                                                  Maximum depth and wetted width:
                                                  These parameters should be measured at tightly
                                                  spaced intervals, which allows for calculation of
                                                  indices of channel structural complexity, objective
                                                  identification of channel units such as pools, and
                                                  quantification of residual pool depth, pool volume, and
                                                  stream volume.   One recommendation is to measure
                                                  these parameters at 100 equal intervals along the
                                                  reach length.
                                                  Stream gradient:
                                                  Gradient should be measured using a clinometer.  It
                                                  has been recommended that this parameter be
                                                  measured at 11 cross-sections placed at equal intervals
                                                  along the reach length.  Higher precision and finer
                                                  resolution gradient measurements can be obtained
                                                  using a water level or standard surveying equipment.
                                                  Embeddedness:
                                                  Substrate embeddedness is the portion of boulder and
                                                  cobble substrate (4.5-30 cm, 2-12 in) that is below the
                                                  plane of the stream bottom and embedded in fine
                                                  sediment (<. 63 mm, 0.25 in). The objective of this
                                                  measure is to quantify the percent embeddedness
                                                  within a defined area of stream bottom. ODEQ
                                                  (Mulvey et at., 1992) randomly selects four sites within
                                                  the study reach length for measuring embeddedness.
                                                  EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
                                                  Program (EMAP) is piloting protocols that evaluate a
                                                  systematic sampling of 5 particles across each of 11
                                                  systematic transects spread evenly over reaches 40
                                                  tunes their wetted width. This facilitates a reach
                                                  assessment rather than a riffle assessment.
                                                         Large woody debris:
                                                         The objective of this measurement is to count and
                                                         characterize Large Woody Debris (LWD) in the bank-
                                                         full stream channel at the sampling site.  It has been
                                                         recommended that you keep a running tally for the
                                                    12

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                  July 1993
entire reach length. LWD consists of single logs, log
jams, beaver dams, stumps, root wads, logging debris,
and other similar large woody material found in the
channel area that could be expected to be wetted
during annual or bi-annual high flows.
dominant, since it does not depend on the presence of
leaves. To measure this parameter a canopy
densiometer is usually used. One recommendation is
that this parameter be measured at eleven equal
intervals along the reach length.
 Residual pool depth:
 Residual pool depth (RPD) is an important
 component of fish habitat assessment  RPD is
 affected by stream flow, substrate, channel shape,
 stream sedimentation characteristics, and the impact
 of land use practices on stream habitat RPD
 measurements themselves are independent of flow and
 provide a robust indicator of pool volume. RPD is
 the difference in depth between the pool at its deepest
 point and at the downstream  tail or crest of the pool.
 RPD is calculated using measures of depth and wetted
 width.  EPA's EMAP recommends the RPD be
 calculated from the 100 systematic measures of width
 and depth.
 Solar energy inputs:
 Direct insolation is the main source of heat absorbed
 by most streams, and determines the daily and
 seasonal fluctuations in water temperatures. The
 Solar Pathfinder is an instrument that integrates the
 effects of azimuth, topography, shading vegetation, sun
 rise/sun set angles, latitude, time of year, and sun
 angle, to quantify stream insolation.  It is
 recommended that solar energy inputs be measured at
 eleven equally spaced intervals along the reach; fewer
 measurements are needed if they are overlapping.

 The Solar Pathfinder records the vegetation and
 topography contribution shade at any time, and
 documents the solar radiation input to the stream (at
 a given site) over the entire year, by month, or any
 other time frame of interest.
Riparian vegetation structure:
Observations to assess riparian vegetation apply to the
riparian area upstream 5 meters and downstream 5
meters from each of 11 equally spaced transects.
They include the visible area from the stream bank a
distance of 10m (30 ft.) shoreward from both the left
and right banks.  The riparian vegetation is then
conceptually divided into three layers: a canopy cover
(>5m high), an understory (0.5m to 5m high), and a
ground cover layer (<0.5m high).  The areal coverage
is then estimated for each of these layers. For
additional information, see Kaufmann and Robinson,
1993.
 Bank characteristics:
 The bank characteristics measured are the bank angle,
 the amount of incision, and the amount of undercut
 They should be assessed on the left and right banks at
 each of 11 equally spaced transects.  See Kaufmann
 and Robinson, 1993, and Platts et al., 1983, for
 additional information.
 Fish cover.
 Observations to assess fish cover apply to the channel
 area upstream 5 meters and downstream 5 meters
 from each of 11 equally spaced transects.  The four
 entry choices for areal cover of fish concealment are:
 absent or zero cover, sparse (<10%), moderate (10-
 40%), heavy (40-75%), and very heavy (>75%). See
 Kaufmann and Robinson, 1993, for additional
 information.
 Canopy closure:
 Canopy closure (the sky area containing vegetation) is
 different from Canopy density (the sky area blocked
 by vegetation).  Canopy closure can be constant
 throughout the season if fast-growing vegetation is not
                                                     13

-------
EPA Region 10                                                                                     July 1993
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101	.	


Riparian/channel disturbances:
Observations to assess riparian/channel disturbances
apply to the stream  and riparian area upstream 5
meters and downstream 5 meters from each of 11
equally spaced transects. At each of the of the 11
transects evaluate the presence/absence and the
proximity of 10 categories of human disturbance:

        1. Wall, dike, revetment, riprap
        2. Buildings
        3. Pavement
        4. Road/railroad
        5. Pipes (inlet/outlet)
        6. Landfill/trash
        7. Park/lawn
        8. Row crops
        9. Pasture/range
        10. Logging operations

 Evaluate and record separately the left and right sides
 of the channel and  banks.  For each of the 10
 categories, record whether the disturbance is on the
 streambank, close to the bank (within 10m), present
 but farther than 10m from the bank, or not present.
 See Kaufmann and Robison, 1993 for additional
 details.
                                                       14

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                           July 1993
        C.     MACROINVERTEBRATES
This handbook, as a supplement the RBPs, discusses
modifications to adapt the protocols to conditions in
the Northwest. These adaptations are based on the
experience of State and Federal agencies, Universities,
and others in the Region.  This handbook will
continue to evolve as more is learned about
conducting biological assessments using
macroinvertebrate assemblages in the Pacific
Northwest.

The benthic RBPs are based on the evaluation of
relatively few samples at a site and employ direct
sampling of natural substrates. The major differences
between benthic RBP II and III are the levels of
taxonomic identification required, field versus lab
subsample and field versus lab identification.
1.
Field and Laboratory Methods
The field methods for benthic RBP II and III provide
representative samples of macroinvertebrate fauna
from comparable habitat types.  RBP II and HI focus
on the riffle\run habitat type because it is the most
productive habitat available in stream systems and
includes many sensitive species of macroinvertebrates
(Plafkin et at., 1989).  However, EPA's EMAP
recommends taking samples from eleven equally
spaced transects along the reach and compositing
riffles or coarse substrates separately from pools or
fine sediments. This approach is recommended if an
overall reach assessment, versus a riffle assessment, is
desired.

Riffle areas with relatively fast currents and cobble
and gravel substrates generally provide the most
diverse assemblage. Riffles should be sampled using a
kick net (or D frame net) to collect from  an
approximately 1 m2 area. A recommended mesh size
for  the net is 500 micron (for either net).  A minimum
of two 1 m2  samples should be collected at each
station: one from an area of fast current velocity and
one from an area of slower velocity.
Sampling on a seasonal basis at the mid-point of each
season is recommended following the RBP methods
(either II or III) using a minimum of 100 foot sample
reaches.  However, if you are only able to sample
once a year, then the July-October tune period is
recommended. Sample reach selection is discussed in
Chapter 6 of the RBP.  Within each reach, at least 2
transects should be randomly selected (independent of
prior sampling). Then collect from the nearest riffle
and run at each transect and composite the sample
(for each transect).

The RBP II calls for subsampling to be conducted in
the field while RBP III prescribes laboratory
subsampling. The States in Region 10 have found that
they prefer subsampling in  the field in all cases even
when you are following RBP III by using more in-
depth laboratory identification. Some of the reasons
for this are:
•       Certain organisms  are easier to see, and pick,
        when they are alive (versus preserved);
•       Specimens are preserved in better condition
        with legs, gills and cerci intact, and;
•       It is less time consuming and therefore
        reduces costs.

The subsampling procedure consists of evenly
distributing the composite sample in a gridded pan
with  a light-colored  bottom while in the field. As grids
are randomly selected, all organisms within those grids
are removed, until a minimum of 100 organisms have
been selected from the sample.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) has developed an alternative subsampling
technique (Caton, 1991). This technique allows rapid
isolation of organisms within selected squares,
followed by transfer of subsamples to large pans for
complete sorting.  This procedure eliminates
investigator bias since all organisms within each
square are easily sorted (making anesthetic use
unnecessary) and effectively deals with heavy debris
load. For further information on this technique, either
refer to Caton, 1991 or call ODEQ.
                                                     15

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                          July 1993
Preliminary EMAP pilot results indicate that a greater
diversity of invertebrates is obtained by systematic
sampling of many small areas than by sampling a large
area in fewer riffles, given the same overall level of
effort.  Also, species-effort curves indicated continuous
increases, with inflections near three samples for 100
organism counts and near eight samples for 300
organism counts. Sampling probability indicates that
counting 100 individuals has only a 0.63 probability of
observing an organism that occurs at a 0.01 rate in the
sample. The probability increases to 0.95 if 300
organisms  are counted. Thus EMAP recommends an
eight sample-composite by habitat type and counting
300 organisms to ensure  a thorough assessment of the
reach, observation or rarer taxa, and minimization of
measurement variance.
any problematic taxa. The State contacts listed can
provide names of taxonomic experts for your
geographic area.

For detailed information on quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) procedures for field and laboratory
procedures, please see the following documents:

•       "Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory
        Methods for Evaluating the Biological
        Integrity of Surface Waters" (U.S. EPA,
        1990b)

•       "Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan
        Guidance for Bioassessment/Biomonitoring
        Programs" (U.S. EPA, 1992a).
 For both RBP II and III, taking field notes concerning
 the entire sample is recommended to obtain an
 indication of the presence and relative abundance of
 major groups and/or sensitive or rare organisms.

 It is also recommended that you keep the entire
 sample and do a laboratory subsample on 10% of all
 the samples collected. You then compare that to the
 results from a 100 organism field subsample.  Both
 subsamples would be identified in the lab.

 In RBP II, benthic analysis takes place in the field
 with taxonomic identification to the Family level by an
 expert. In addition, all organisms in the subsample
 should be classified according to Functional Feeding
 Group.  Functional Feeding Group classification can
 be done in the field using Cummins and Wilzbach
 (1985).

 The States in Region 10 all use RBP III with  the
 modification discussed earlier (subsampling in the
 field). For RBP III, taxonomic identification of the
 subsample takes place in the laboratory. All
 macroinvertebrates in the subsample are identified to
 the lowest possible taxonomic level (generally genus or
 species). In addition, Functional Feeding Group
 classifications  can be assigned to many aquatic insects
 using Merritt and Cummins (1984).

 It is highly recommended that you use RBP III, as it
provides much more useful information with relatively
little additional costs.  It is also important to retain
voucher specimens. It is recommended that you have
a taxonomic expert verify and make determinations on
Macroinvertebrate data are first entered on a field or
lab sheet and then into a computer. Idaho and
Oregon have developed PC programs that mirror their
field data sheets.  These PC programs can then be
loaded into the BIOS database. BIOS is EPA's
national database for biological data. For additional
information on BIOS, see Chapter III.

For a list of taxonomic keys that will be helpful for
identification of macroinvertebrates in the Northwest,
please refer to the Appendix. Clark (1991) has
developed an extensive literature list on the
identification and distribution of aquatic
macroinvertebrates.  If you need additional assistance
for taxonomic identification or Functional Feeding
Group classification, please contact the person listed
for the relevant State.  The States all have reference
collections of macroinvertebrates.

Below is a summary table of State sampling methods
for macroinvertebrates. This shows the methods being
used by IDEQ (Clark and Maret,  1993), ODEQ
(Mulvey et aL 1992) and Ecology (Plotnikoff,  1992). It
includes historical uses (marked with an "H")  as well
as current procedures (marked with an "X").
Discussion of the circumstances when each State
would use a particular method will be discussed under
the relevant State portions in Chapter IV.
                                                     16

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                    July 1993
Table 3.         State field methods for
                macroinvertebrates

GENERAL METHOD
Artificial Substrate



Disturbance Samplers




Other



SPECIFIC
• Native Rock
baskets
• Multiple plate
samplers
• Kick samples
• Sweep nets
• Surber
samplers
• Hess samplers
• Leaf Packs
• Selected Pick
• Light traps
STATE
ID

H

H
X
H

X
X

X
X
OR

X


X


X
X



UA

H

H
X
H

X


X

 H = Historical use only
 X = Current use
 2.
Data Analysis
 Integrated macroinvertebrate data analysis should be
 performed according to the procedure outlined in the
 RBPs. Briefly, a numerical value is calculated for
 each metric using raw numerical benthic
 macroinvertebrate data.  Calculated values are then
 compared to values derived from the  reference
 condition. Each metric is then assigned a score
 according to the comparability (percent similarity) of
 calculated and reference values. Scores for the eight
 metrics are  then totaled and compared to the total
 metric score for the reference data.  The percent
 comparison between the total scores provides a final
 evaluation of biological condition. Please consult the
 RBPs for a more detailed description of the data
 analysis procedures.
                                                 The eight metrics used in the RBPs are:

                                                   1.     Taxa Richness
                                                   2.     Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (modified)
                                                   3.     Ratio of Scrapers/Filtering Collectors
                                                         * [Ratio ojscrapers/(scrapers + filtering
                                                           collectors)]
                                                   4.     Ratio of EPT and Chironomid Abundances
                                                         *[Ratio of EPT/(Chironomid + EPT)]
                                                   5.     Percent Contribution of Dominant Taxon
                                                   6.     EPT Index
                                                   7.     Community Similarity Index
                                                   8.     Ratio of Shredders/Total
                                                                   Recommended alternative metric (see
                                                                   Barbour et al, 1992)
Metrics are all calculated using the same
macroinvertebrate sample. Each sample undergoes
taxonomic identification and enumeration, as well as a
determination of Functional Feeding Group. The
above eight metrics are described in detail in the RBP
document.

However, some of these metrics, especially the ratios.
are not well suited for the Pacific Northwest.  The
metrics marked with an asterisk are recommended
alternates.  In addition, there are other metrics that
may be calculated  using the same sample.  The States
in Region 10 are investigating a number of metrics in
order to determine their sensitivity to different
impacts.

The particular metrics that each State is currently
using and/or investigating will be covered  in the
relevant  State portions of Chapter IV.  In  addition,
any metrics that the State has found useful in
particular situations will also be discussed.  The
following table shows some of the many metrics
currently in use or under investigation by States in the
Pacific Northwest.
                                                       17

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
July 1993
Table 4.        Metrics used for analysis of
                macroinvertebrate data

Method
EPT/Chironomid ratio
EPT/Chironomid + EPT
EPT Index (#EPT taxa)
X EPT taxa
X Change in Total Taxa Richness
Total Taxa Richness
Chironomid Richness
Hydrop/Total Tricop
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (mod.)
Indicator Groups
Indicator Assemblage Index
Equit ability
Shannon-Weaver Diversity
X dominant taxa
Dominants in common
Index of Community Integrity
Community Loss Index
Jaccard Coefficient of Conrn.
Common Taxa Index
Chandler Biotic Score
X Shredders
X Filters
X Scrapers
Ratio Scrapers/Filt. Collectors
Scrapers/Scrapers + Filt. Coll.
Total Abundance = it/m,
State
ID
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OR
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
H
X
X
X

X






X
X

UA
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X



X
H

X

X

X
X

X
X

ID
RBPs?

Yes

Yes


Yes


Yes




Yes


Yes
Yes


Yes


Yes


 H -  Historical Use Only
 X -  Current Use
                                                       18

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
        D.     FISH
This handbook is a companion to the RBPs and
discusses some modifications to the protocols for fish
assemblage assessment in the Northwest.  States in the
Pacific Northwest have not had a great deal of
experience using the fish assemblage component of
the RBPs to date.  This handbook will continue to
evolve as more is learned about conducting biological
assessments using fish assemblages in the Pacific
Northwest.

In this handbook we will only discuss RBP V for fish,
as the other protocol (RBP IV) is a questionnaire of
fisheries experts to collect existing information.  RBP
V is an approach similar to the macroinvertebrate
protocol in  accuracy and effort, but it focuses on the
fish assemblage.

RBP V is based primarily on the  Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI), a fish assemblage  assessment approach
developed by Karr (1981).  Data analysis for wadable
streams in the Northwest will be discussed in section 2
of this chapter.
JL      Field and Laboratory Methods

RBP V (or the IBI) involves field evaluation of the
same water quality and habitat structure
characteristics (see Ch.4) as the macroinvertebrate
procedures (RBP II and III).  Electrofishing is the
sampling technique recommended for use with RBP
V.  However, depending upon your circumstances
other techniques may be better suited to your
objectives.  For example, seining may be more
efficient in simplified streams.  In addition, snorkeling
may be the best technique if it is likely that  you may
encounter an endangered species.

The sampling station should be representative of the
reach.  The length of the stream sampling unit should
be defined as a function of stream width. Thirty to
forty times the stream width, with a minimum of 200
meters, is the recommended sampling unit. Sampling
should not cease in the middle of a habitat unit, but
continue to its end, and the entire reach area in small
streams should be sampled. One pass removal is the
minimum level of effort required and is usually
sufficient.  In addition, it is recommended that block
nets be used on small streams.

The unit should be sampled once a year at a
minimum. The recommended tune of year for
sampling is summer (July/August).  It is important to
note in your field notes the ambient temperature and
weather conditions.

The RBP V (and the IBI) fish assemblage assessment
require that all fish species (and size classes) - not just
game fish - be collected. In addition to fish,
amphibian species may also be collected. Fish and
amphibians are to be identified to species level either
in the field  or the lab, depending upon the expertise
of the field crew. It is important to retain voucher
specimens.  It is recommended  that you have a
taxonomic expert verify and make determinations on
any problematic taxa. The State contacts listed can
provide names of taxonomic experts for your
geographic  area.

For detailed information on quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) procedures for field and laboratory
procedures, please see:

•       "Fish Field and Laboratory Methods for
        Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface
        Waters" (U.S. EPA, 1993)

•       "Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan
        Guidance for Bioassessment/ Biomonitoring
        Programs" (U.S. EPA,  1992a).
                                                          Fish data are first entered on a field/lab sheet and
                                                          then into a computer. Idaho has developed a PC
                                                          program that mirrors their field data sheets.  These
                                                          PC programs can then be loaded into the BIOS
                                                          database. BIOS is EPA's national database for
                                                          biological data. For additional information on BIOS,
                                                          contact the EPA Region 10 office.
                                                     19

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                           July 1993
Below is a summary table of State sampling methods
for fish.  It shows the methods being used by IDEQ,
ODEQ and Ecology.  Discussion of the circumstances
when each State would use a particular method will be
discussed under the relevant State portions of Chapter
IV.
Table 5.
       State field methods for fish
Method
Electrof ishing
Seine
Visual estimation (snorkeling)
State
ID
X

X
OR
X

X**
WA
X
X

 **  - Assisting  the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
 2.
Data Analysis
 Metrics are all calculated using the same fish
 assemblage sample.  Each sample undergoes
 taxonomic identification and enumeration.  The table
 below is a general description of the data analysis
 techniques being used by the States in the Pacific
 Northwest. Details on the particular data analysis
 procedures that each State is currently using and/or
 investigating will be covered in  detail in the relevant
 State portions of Chapter IV.
                                                 Table 6.        Methods used for analysis of fish
                                                                 data


Index of Biotic Integrity
Density - Standing Crops
Reproductive Success
Taxa Richness
Toxics burden
Nongame taxa
Fish Health/Condition
Assessment (Goede, 1989)
I
ID
X
X
X
X
X
X

itat«
OR
X

X
X
X
X
X
1
WA

H

H
X


                                                          H - Historical Use only
Data analysis for RBP V is based primarily on the
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), a fish assemblage
assessment approach developed by Karr (1981).
Although the IBI was developed primarily for eastern
and midwestern U.S. streams, it is a broadly-based
index firmly grounded in fish assemblage ecology
(Karr, 1981; Karr et al. 1986).  However, some of the
individual metrics are unsuitable  for Pacific Northwest
streams.

The RBPs discuss modifications to the IBI for large
western streams (vs. wadable streams)in the section
on the Willamette Pilot Study (Section 73).  Briefly,
five of the original 12 metrics from the IBI (Karr et
at, 1986) were found to be inappropriate for a large
western river.

These five metrics were modified (or substituted) and
a set of 12 metrics and scoring criteria were developed
as listed in the following table (Table 7).
                                                      20

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                          July 1993
Table 7.         Scoring criteria/metrics for large
                western rivers (Hughes and
                Gammon. 1987)
               IBI for Depauperate Fish
               Assemblages
METRIC
Number of Native Species
Number of Sculpin Species
Number of Native Minnow Species
Number of Sucker Species
Number of Intolerant species
X of Common Carp
X of Omnivores
X of Insectivores
X Catchable Salmon ids
Number of Individuals/km
X Introduced
X Anomalies
SCORING CRITERIA
5
>9
>2
>5
>1
>2
<1X
<25X
>40X
>9X
>99
<1X
<2X
3
5-9
3
3-5
1
1-2
1-9X
25 -SOX
20-40X
1-9 X
50-99
1-9X
2-5 X
1
<5
<1
<3
0
<1
>9 X
>50X
<20X
0 X
< 50
> 9%
> 5X
The above metrics and scoring criteria may also apply
to some wadable streams in the Pacific Northwest.  In
addition, an alternative IBI has been proposed for
depauperate fish assemblages (Robert M. Hughes,
pers. comm. 1992).  This alternative IBI (Table 8) is
recommended for wadable streams in the Pacific
Northwest.  It still needs additional field testing and
the scoring criteria or total scores must be refined by
ecoregion.  However, it still will provide useful
information and will continue to evolve as more is
learned about analysis of fish assemblage data in the
Pacific Northwest.
HETRIC
SPECIES RICHNESS t COMPOSITION
No. of native species
No. of native families
No. of sensitive species
No. of species/stocks of
special concern
X Exotics
TROPHIC COMPOSITION
X Omnivores
X Invertivores
X Top carnivores
INDIVIDUAL/POPULATION CHARACTER
Age/size classes
X Old growth
Catch per unit effortCX max.)
X Anomalies
SCORING CRITERIA
5

>3
>3
>2
2

0

<1
>35
>5

0+->2+
>5
33-67
<1
3

2
2
1
1

1-9

1-5
20-35
1-5

0+-2+
1-5
>67
1-4
1

<1
<1
0
0

>9

>5
<20
<1

0+
0
<33
>5
It is recommended that you investigate a number of
metrics. The States and others in Region 10 are
investigating a number of metrics for fish assemblage
assessment in order to determine their sensitivity to
different impacts. Table 9 lists a number of additional
metrics that States and others are using to  look at fish
assemblage data in the Pacific Northwest.
                                                     21

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
July 1993
Table 9.        Additional metrics for consideration
               in fish assemblage data analysis
METRIC
# of Fish Species
* of Salnonid Species
# of Non-Salmonid Species
# of Introduced Species
X Salmonid Individuals
Average Salmonid Length
Average Salmonid Weight
Density of Salmon ids/ 100 m2
X Hybrid Individuals
Salmonid Biomass
Fish Biomass
# of Benthic Insectivores
X Young of Year
X Young of Year Salmon ids
REFERENCE
Fisher. 1989
Fisher, 1989
Fisher, 1989
Fisher, 1989
Fisher, 1989
Fisher, 1989
Fisher. 1989
Fisher, 1989
Fisher. 1989
Fisher, 1989
Fisher, 1989
Chandler et al..
Chandler et al..
Chandler et al..











1993
1993
1993
                                                     22

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
        DATA MANAGEMENT
STATE CONTACT:
NAME:
PHONE:
ADDRESS :
Bill Bogue
(206) 553-1676
EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
EPA has developed a national biological data
management system known as BIOS. BIOS provides
a centralized system for storage of biological data in
addition to analytical tools for data analysis. The field
survey file component of BIOS provides a means of
storing, retrieving, and analyzing biosurvey data and
will process data on the distribution, abundance, and
physical condition of aquatic organisms, as well as
descriptions of their habitats.

Data stored in BIOS become part of a comprehensive
database that can be used as a reference, to refine
analysis techniques, or define ecological requirements
for aquatic populations.  BIOS is linked to EPA's
Water Quality Data System, STORET, allowing
association of biological and water chemistry data.

All data in BIOS are tied to specific sampling
locations. These are stored in  the system using
geographic station descriptors such as
latitude/longitude, drainage basin, State, county, and
ecoregion.  Each trip to a station can be characterized
by sample-specific information such as sample date
and time, and sample methods including descriptions
of sampling gear. Ambient conditions, such as
weather and water chemistry, can also be recorded.
Habitats are described by variables such as substrate
types, embeddedness, streambank stability and canopy
type.

The organisms collected in a field survey can be
counted either quantitatively or qualitatively, and
characterized by their age, size, life history and/or
condition. BIOS uses a numeric taxonomic scheme to
uniquely identify organisms to  the system.  This
taxonomic field is a coded list of aquatic and
terrestrial organisms that includes the scientific name,
a number that corresponds to the name and some
common names.  This file is managed by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for EPA,
with assistance from the Smithsonian Institution.

As assortment of analytical capabilities and output
formats are available with BIOS. Taxa can be listed
for a specific station or stations, using a variety of
formats.  Statistical methods commonly used by
biologists, such as diversity indices and community
structure analyses are supported. Data are also
accessible to STORET analysis and display software
tools, including mapping and graphics packages.  In
addition, BIOS data may be passed to the Statistical
Analysis System  (SAS) commercial software package
providing enhanced analytical and graphics
capabilities.

However, getting data into the STORET/BIOS
database environment can be time consuming.
STORET/BIOS data storage files require certain
fields and formats for the data to be properly
processed and stored by STORET/BIOS programs.
With the proliferation of PC's in the workplace,
Region 10 has found that many users have  entered or
are processing water quality data in either Lotus or
DBase formats so that they can enter, manipulate, and
view data more easily.

To promote easier entry of water quality and
biological data into STORET/BIOS, EPA wrote
conversion programs to read data from either Lotus
or DBase formats and reformat it to STORET or
BIOS storage formats. Please contact the EPA
Region 10 STORET/BIOS contact listed above to
obtain additional information on these conversion
programs.

In addition, each State has a State data management
system specifically tailored to their needs. All State
systems are linked to the BIOS/STORET system.
For  additional information on these systems, call your
State contact.
                                                     23

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
IV.     QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY
        CONTROL
For a more in-depth discussion, please obtain a copy
of "Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidance
for Bioassessment/Biomonitoring Programs"  (U.S.
EPA, 1992a). Table 10 lists the components of a
Quality Assurance (QA) project plan.
Table 10.        Components of a Quality Assurance
                Project Plan
2.       PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND
        RESPONSIBILITY
The organizational aspects of a project will provide a
framework for which projects are conducted (U.S.
EPA, 1992a).  A description of the organizational
structure and function can enhance project
performance and adherence to  QA/QC procedures.
The key individuals who are responsible for the
collection of valid data and the assessment of the data
analysis for precision and accuracy should be included
in the project organization description. These
individuals need to be identified by title, level of
expertise, plus a brief description of their
responsibilities.  It is especially important  to identify
the level of expertise of the individuals involved, when
your biological assessment activity relies on their
professional judgement.
   1.     Project Description
   2.     Project Organization and Responsibility
   3.     Quality Assurance Objectives for
          Measurement Data.
   4.     Laboratory Analytical Procedures
   5.     Field Sampling Procedures
   6.     Sample Custody
   7.     Calibration Procedures and Frequency
   8.     Preventive Maintenance
   9.     Data Reduction. Validation, and Reporting
   10.    Internal Quality Control Checks
   11.    Data Precision and Accuracy Procedures
   12.    Performance Audits, Systems Audits
   13.    Corrective Action
   14.    Quality Assurance Reports
 The following are specific recommendations for a
 Quality Assurance (QA) project plan for biological
 assessment activities.  These recommendations are not
 all inclusive of what is needed for a complete QA
 project plan for bioassessment.  They are highlights
 of what should be in a QA project plan for the
 collection of biological information.  These
 recommendations are based on the QA procedures
 already being used in Region 10 state programs.
 1.       PROJECT DESCRIPTION
 The project description should clearly outline the
 specific goals and objectives of the biological
 assessment activity.  It should also clearly describe
 how the project will be designed to obtain the data
 necessary to accomplish these goals.
 3.      QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES FOR
        MEASUREMENT DATA
 For each major measurement or value, the QA
 objectives listed below should be presented.

 ji.      Precision
 Precision is a measure of mutual agreement among
 individual measurements or enumerated values of the
 same property of a sample usually under
 demonstrated similar conditions (U.S. EPA, 1992a).

 Macroinvertebrates:
 It is recommended that at least ten percent of all
 stream sites sampled (or one sample per survey, which
 ever is greater) should have a duplicate  set of field
 samples collected. The result is duplicate samples
 from the same sample reach.

 In addition, at least ten percent of all composite
 samples collected (or one sample per survey, which
 ever is greater) should be resorted for an additional
 100 specimen sub-sample  from the original preserved
 composite sample.  The result is duplicate samples
 from the same composite.

 Fish:
 If fish are to be collected  by electrofishing, it is
 suggested  that you use a one-pass removal method.
 The entire sample unit  should be fished, applying
 equal effort to all areas. Fish should then be
 identified, counted and measured in the field.  It is
 recommended that at least ten percent of all stream
                                                      24

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                  July 1993
sites sampled (or one sample per survey, which ever is
greater) will have a duplicate set of field samples
collected.

Habitat and Water Chemistry:
At a minimum, water chemistry samples should
consist of grab samples taken at mid-channel for each
reach. It is recommended that at least ten percent of
all stream sites sampled (or one sample per survey,
which ever is greater) should have a duplicate set of
laboratory and field samples/observations taken.
 b.      Accuracy:
 Accuracy is the degree of agreement between a
 measured value and the true or expected value of the
 measured quality (U.S. EPA, 1992a).

 Macroinvertebrates:
 Each State maintains a macroinvertebrate voucher
 collection for each major basin or ecoregion that they
 have studied. This collection has a representative of
 each taxon and serves as a basin record and as a
 reference for checking identifications.  It is
 recommended  that you have a taxonomic expert verify
 and make determinations on any problematic taxa.
 The  State contacts listed in this Handbook can provide
 names of taxonomic experts and voucher collections
 for your geographic area.

 For any biological assessment, the senior aquatic
 entomologist for the project should  review all sample
 tally sheets for anomalous identifications. In addition,
 it is  recommended that ten percent  of your samples be
 reidentified and counted by the project's senior
 aquatic entomologist.
 Fish:
 The overall objective for taxonomic accuracy in fish
 species identification and enumerations for your
 project should be identified and quantified.
 Taxonomic accuracy should be determined by
 comparing field identification with the identification of
 voucher specimens brought back from the field and
 identified. It is important for you to retain voucher
 specimens. It is recommended that you have a
 taxonomic expert verify and make determinations on
 any problematic taxa. The State contacts listed in this
 Handbook can provide names of taxonomic experts
 for your geographic area.
c.      Completeness:
Completeness is defined as the percentage of
measurements made that are judged to be valid (U.S.
EPA, 1992a).

A suggested percent completeness objective for all
measurements (macroinvertebrates, fish, water
chemistry and physical habitat) is 90%. To achieve this
objective, 1-3 days will should be allowed per sample
stream reach. Within each sample stream reach, field
measurements should be made on a stream length
approximately 40 wetted channel widths, with a
minimum of 200m, for macroinvertebrate and fish
assemblages as well as physical habitat.

d.       Representativeness
Representativeness is the degree to which data
accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a
population, parameter variations at a sampling point,
or an environmental condition.  Representativeness of
a sample is  assured by random sampling of the target
assemblage  (Smith et al. 1988).  The sampling
program should be designed so  that the samples
collected are as representative as possible to  the
habitat or population being sampled and that a
sufficient number of samples is  collected (U.S. EPA,
1992a).

£.       Comparability
Comparability is a measure of the confidence with
which one data set can be compared to another.  It
cannot be described in quantitative terms, but must be
considered in designing the sampling plans, analytical
methodology, quality control, and data reporting (UJS.
EPA,  1992a).

Using consistent data forms and survey protocols will
maximize comparability.  This is especially important
in cases where comparability between States, or other
monitoring entities, is desirable (e.g. reference sites).
 4.       LABORATORY ANALYTICAL
         PROCEDURES
 Methods of sample and data analysis should be
 designated. For EPA-approved or standard methods,
 pertinent literature should be referenced.  For non-
 standard or modified method, detailed standard
 operating procedures should be provided which
 include methods for all sample preparation and
                                                     25

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                  July 1993
analytical procedures.  Each state uses a combination
of standard and non-standard methods, to obtain a
copy of these methods contact the relevant state
contact.
5.      FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURES
The field sampling procedures outline the steps to be
taken to assure the quality of the samples and sample
data. The following should be described:
        Selection of target assemblage
        Sampling methodology
        Habitat assessment methodology
        Details of preservation
        Use and calibration of instruments
        Replication and QC requirements
        Sampling site selection
 6.      SAMPLE CUSTODY
 The primary objective of the chain-of-custody
 procedure is to create a written record which can be
 used to trace the possession of the sample from the
 moment of collection through the entire data analysis
 (U.S. EPA,  1992a).
 7.      CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND
        FREQUENCY
 The purpose of calibration procedures is to assure
 that field and laboratory equipment is functioning
 optimally.
 8.       PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
 To ensure data of consistently high quality, a plan of
 routine inspection and preventative maintenance
 should be developed for all field and laboratory
 equipment and facilities. Manufacturer's instructions
 should be followed in the use and maintenance of the
 field gear. All nets should be inspected before each
 use for damage.  Electrofishers should be inspected
 daily before and  after use for proper and safe
 operation.


 9.       DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND
         REPORTING
 The purpose of this section of the QA project plan is
 to ensure good data by maintaining good data quality
throughout data reduction, transfer, storage, retrieval
and reporting.

£.      Macroinvertebrate Assemblaee Data
The senior aquatic entomologist for your project
should review all sample tally sheets for anomalous
identifications. The senior aquatic entomologist
should also check the specimens entered into the type
collection for accurate identification.  It is suggested
that ten percent of the samples will be reidentified
and counted by the senior aquatic entomologist or
other taxonomic expert.

b.      Fish Assemblage Data
When electrofishing is used,  all the fish captured
within each stream segment should be recorded on a
separate form listing the number of individuals and
their lengths for each species, at a minimum.  Forms
should be checked initially for recording errors and
general plausibility and consistency.

c.      Physical Habitat
Data should be recorded on physical  habitat field
 forms. Forms need to be checked initially for
 recording errors and general plausibility and
 consistency.

J.      Water Physical/Chemical Parameters
 Data should be recorded on field forms for
 conductivity, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, high
 water mark, discharge, and stream gradient at a
 minimum. The remainder of the parameters should be
 analyzed hi each  State's Laboratory (or a State
 certified laboratory) according to then- procedures.
 10.     INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
 All personnel participating in your biological
 assessment activity must be trained in the use and
 maintenance of aU sampling, gear.. Fish sampling
 operations must be conducted in accordance with all
 federal and state legal requirements associated with
 the collection of fish for scientific purposes.

 Appropriate collections permits must be obtained and
 carried by sampling crew at all times, and any
 restrictions regarding the use of specific types of
 sampling gear must be respected.
                                                      26

-------
EPA Region 10                                                                                  July 1993
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101	__	


11.     DATA PRECISION AND ACCURACY
        PROCEDURES
The purpose of this section is to present detailed plans
for data assessment procedures for your biological
assessment project.


12.     PERFORMANCE AUDITS, SYSTEMS
        AUDITS
Quality control checks on the procedures used by the
field samplers should be done periodically (beginning,
middle, end of each year) during the field season.
Any problems and the corrective actions must be
corrected immediately.


13.     CORRECTIVE ACTION
A corrective action program must have the capability
to discern errors at any point in the project
implementation process. An effective corrective
action scheme must be designed to identify problems,
tally the problems, trace the problems  to their source,
plan and implement measures to correct identified
problems, maintain documentation of the results of
the corrective process, and continue the process until
each problem is eliminated (U.S. EPA, 1992a).


14.     QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS
A formal report should be written to inform the
appropriate managers on the performance and
progress of your biological assessment  project
workplan.
                                                   27

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
V.      SELECTED REGION 10
        MONITORING ENTITIES
The following is a discussion of State and Federal
Agency biological assessment programs.  This list is by
no means all-inclusive.  There are a number of local,
Tribal, other State and Federal agencies plus
universities that are conducting biological assessments.
For more information on activities in your geographic
area, call either the relevant State or the EPA Region
10 contact.
Water quality monitoring in support of the
Antidegradation Agreement follows the "Coordinated
Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Program
for Idaho" (Clark, 1990). This program includes three
different kinds of monitoring:

1.      Beneficial use monitoring to assess the
        current status of instream uses;
2.      Best management practice (BMP)
        implementation and effectiveness monitoring
        to determine if BMPs are designed and
        implemented correctly and are effective at
        protecting instream uses; and
3.      Trend monitoring to assess long term
        chemical trends in water quality for major
        watersheds and hydrologic basins in the State.
        A.     IDAHO DIVISION OF
               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
STATE CONTACT:
NAME:
PHONE:
ADDRESS:
Bill Clark
(208) 334-5860
IDEQ
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, ID 83720
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is
the State agency primarily responsible for water
quality programs in Idaho. IDEQ's water quality
program has two major directions: antidegradation
and nonpoint source (NPS) control (under §319 of the
Clean Water Act).

In August 1988, an Antidegradation Agreement for
Idaho was finalized.  Under this agreement, IDEQ co-
sponsors Basin Area Meetings (BAM) every two years
to provide information on current status of water
quality and fish habitat, discuss current and future
nonpoint source activities, obtain public input, and
identify Stream Segments of Concern (SSOC's).
Another key provision of this agreement is the
establishment of a coordinated monitoring program.
This handbook is an effort to summarize the first two
types of monitoring (see above). For additional
information on chemical water quality trend
monitoring, please contact IDEQ.

Idaho has selected a standard collection period that is
from July 1st to October 15 for biological monitoring.

Three levels of monitoring intensity have been
developed for water quality monitoring hi support of
the Antidegradation Program. These three levels are:
                                                        BASIC:
                                                                An office compilation of easting monitoring
                                                                and beneficial use data.  This level also
                                                                includes BMP implementation monitoring.
RECONNAISSANCE:
  m     Field inventory and qualitative assessments of
        instream beneficial uses which is to be
        conducted on all SSOC.

  •     Reconnaissance level for habitat is similar to
        the RBP habitat assessment procedure. For
        macroinvertebrates, a kick net is used for
        reconnaissance studies. For this level the
        sample reach length is 100 meters.
                                                   28

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                          July 1993
INTENSIVE:
  •     Quantitative assessments of instream
        beneficial uses and BMP effectiveness
        including pollution source transport
        monitoring. These studies are usually 5-10
        year long  efforts.
  •     Intensive level habitat monitoring is
        quantitative for certain parameters specified
        in the Coordinated Monitoring Program
        (Clark, 1990). At the intensive level of study,
        a Hess sampler is used for macroinvertebrates
        and the Four step removal method (with
        measurement of length, weight, etc.) is used
        for fish.
IDEQ is putting together a series of protocols for
field staff.  If you would  like a copy of these protocols
contact IDEQ.

1.      Protocols for Assessment of Dissolved
        Oxygen, Fine Sediment, and Salmonid
        Embryo Survival in an Artificial Redd;
2.      Estimating Intergravel Salmonid Living Space
        Using the Cobble Embeddedness Sampling
        Procedure.
3.      Monitoring Stream Substrate  Stability, Pool
        Volumes, and Habitat Diversity.
4.      Protocols for Evaluation and Monitoring of
        Stream-Riparian Habitats Associated with
        Aquatic Communities in Rangeland Streams.
5.      Protocols for Assessment of Biotic Integrity
        (Macroinvertebrates) in Idaho Streams.
6.      Protocols for Assessment of Biotic Integrity-
        (Fish) in Idaho streams.
7.      Protocols for Conducting Use Attainability
        Assessments for Determining Beneficial Uses
        to be Designated on Idaho Stream Segments.
8.      Protocols for Classifying, Monitoring, and
        Evaluating Stream/Riparian Vegetation on
        Idaho Rangeland Streams.
Table 11 is a listing of selected Stream Segments of
Concern where IDEQ has conducted biological
assessments and/or habitat assessments.  This list is
current as of the time of this publication.  However, if
you are planning to conduct a bioassessment in Idaho
please call the State Contact listed, as there may be
planned activities in your area that are not reflected
on this list.
Table 11.        Selected bioassessment activities in
                Idaho - by stream
Uaterbody
Two Mouth Cr
Lower Cocolalla Cr
Fish Cr
Trapper Cr
Jim Ford Cr
Lolo Cr
Big Elk Cr
Little Elk Cr
Monumental Cr
E. Fk. Salmon Riv.
E. Fk. Salmon Riv.
Lake Cr
Johnson Cr
Cascade Res. (Boulder Ck)
Jump Cr
Jordan Cr
Louse Cr
Deep Cr
Jordan Cr
Squaw Cr
2nd Fk. Squaw Cr
Billingsley Cr
Big Wood R
Rock Cr
Little Wood River
Camas Cr
Cassia Cr
seg. *
1427
1443
1561
1432
1171
1173
1304
1304.1
775,774
935
936
932
940,941
884
673
673
660
912
649
696
698
384
481-483
487
512,511
531
438
Data
H-R, M-R, F-R
H-R, M-R, F-R
H-R, M-R, F-R
H-I, M-I, F-I, U
W, H-R, M-R, F-R
U, H-I, M-I, F-I
U. H-I, M-I, F-I
U, H-I, M-I. F-I
U, H-R, M-R, F-R
U, H-I. F-I, M-R
U, H-R, F-R, M-R
U, H-R, F-R, M-R
W, H-R, F-R, M-R
W, H-I, F-I, M-I
W, H-R, H-R, F-R
U, H-R, M-R, F-R
U, H-R, M-R, F-R
U, H-R, M-R, F-R
U, H-R, M-R, F-R
U, H-R, M-R, F-R
W, H-R, M-R, F-R
U, H-I, M-I, F-I
W, H-R, M-I, F-R
W, H-I, M-I, F-I
U, H-I, M-I, F-I
W, H-R, M-R, F-R
W, H-I, M-I, F-I
                                                      29

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
July 1993
   BIOASSESSMENTS (Table 11 - CONTINUED)
  Conducted by Idaho State Univ.* funded by DEQ
Water-body

Green Cr
Stinson Cr
Trapper Cr
Buck Cr
Cottonuood Cr
Goose(Upper) Cr
Rock (3rd fk) Cr
Rock (4th fk) Cr
Cottonwood Cr
Devil's Corral Cr
Dove Cr
Sand Springs Cr
Salmon Falls Cr
Vineyard Cr
Big Jack's Cr
Lake Fork
Little Jack Cr
Station Fork
Big Jack's Cr
Duncan Cr
Lower Trapper Cr
Mary's Cr
Sheep Cr
Shoshone Cr
Data

W, H, M-I, F-I
W, H
W, H, M-I. F-I
W.H, M-I, F-I
W.H, M-I, F-I
W.H
W.H, M-I. F-I
W.H
W.H, M-I, F-I
W.H, M-I. F-I
W.H, M-I, F-I
W, H, M-I, F-I
W, H, M-I, F-I
W.H, M-I. F-I
W.H. M-I, F-I
W.H
W.H, M-I, F-I
W, H, M-I, F-I
W, H, M-I, F-I
W, H
W, H, M-I, F-I
W, H, M-I, F-I
W, H, M-I. F-I
W, H, M-I, F-I
Long./Lat.

113°43'/ 42-15'
113-40'/ 42°15 '
114°08'/ 42-10'
115-25'/ 42"00'
113°40'/ 42°15'
114"15'/ 42°05'
114°15'/ 42°15'
114-15'/ 42°15'
116°05'/ 42°32'
114-20'/ 42°35'
114°55'/ 42°05'
114°50'/ 42°37'
114-50'/ 42-25'
114°20'/ 42°35'
116-02'/ 42-35'
113-02'/ 42°20'
116-00'/ 42°35'
113°00'/ 42°20'
116°02'/ 42°35'
116-00'/ 42°34'
114°03'/ 42"10'
115-55'/ 42-10'
115°45'/ 42-15
114°30'/ 42°02
*  See Robinson and Minshall,  1991
 W   = Water  chemistry data
 H-I = Habitat  - Intensive level
 H-R = Habitat  - Reconnaissance  level
 M-I = Macroinvertebrate Assemblage-Intensive level
 H-R = Macroinvertebrate Assemblage-Reconnaissance
       level
 F-I = Fish Assemblage - Intensive  level
 F-R = Fish Assemblage - Reconnaissance level
                                                      30

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                         July 1993
       B.      OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
STATE CONTACT:
NAME:
PHONE:
ADDRESS :
Rick Hafele
(503) 229-5983
ODEQ
1712 SW llth
Portland OR 97201
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) is the State agency primarily responsible for
water quality programs in Oregon.  ODEQ has a fixed
station ambient network for collection of water quality
(water chemistry) data.  For additional information on
this network, please contact ODEQ.

ODEQ has also developed a statewide biological
assessment and monitoring strategy.  Some of the
objectives of ODEQ's in-stream biological monitoring
effort are:

1.      Assess monitoring techniques and develop
        monitoring guidelines that will be effective
        throughout Oregon;
2.      Determine how sensitive different monitoring
        techniques are to Nonpoint Source  (NFS)
        pollution problems;
3.      Evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring
        techniques for different NFS problems
        (grazing, logging, agriculture, etc.);
4.      Collection of reference site data for setting
        biological criteria;
5.      Evaluate the usefulness of biomonitoring
        techniques in setting Total Maximum Daily
        Loads (TMDLs).

The in-stream bioassessment protocol used  by the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is an
integrated, comprehensive approach to water quality
monitoring that involves analyzing the stream habitat
condition, physical and chemical water parameters,
and the biological community. ODEQ protocols
(Mulvey et at. 1992) are for macroinvertebrates and
habitat assessment.
Effective periods for macroinvertebrate sampling in
Oregon include (* = primary sampling periods for
Oregon):

        Winter December, January, February.

       *Spring: March, April, May.

        Summer June, July, August.

       *Fall: September, October, November.
The ODEQ field protocols are a single habitat
assessment approach.  Four 0.18 square meter (2
square feet) kick samples are randomly selected in
each riffle site.  The four kick samples are composited
to make a single macroinvertebrate sample for the
site.

A 30 cm. wide D-shaped hoop net, with 500
micrometer mesh, is used.  Four sample sites are
randomly selected in the riffle. Substrate larger than
five centimeters is rubbed carefully by hand in front of
the net to dislodge any clinging macroinvertebrates.
After rubbing the substrate is placed outside of the
sample plot.

The remaining  fine substrate is thoroughly disturbed
to a depth  of five to ten centimeters with the hands or
feet.

All four samples are composited in the  sieve bucket.
Large organic material and rocks are rinsed, carefully
inspected for clinging  macroinvertebrates, and
removed. As much fine sediment as possible is
washed away.

The composite  sample can either be placed in a
labeled jar and preserved with 90% ethanol for later
sorting in the lab, or the sample can be sorted in the
field.  In either case, ODEQ uses laboratory
identification.

A duplicate set of field samples are collected on ten
 percent of all stream sites sampled, or one sample per
 survey, which ever is greater. The duplicate sample is
 from the same  sample reach. This is called a field
 quality assurance sample.  Field QA samples look at
 the natural variability within a riffle and ensures that
 the field sampling method is repeatable.
                                                     31

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                          July 1993
Ten percent of all composite samples collected, or one
sample per survey, which ever is greater, is resorted
for an additional 100 specimen sub-sample from the
original preserved composite sample. The result is
duplicate samples from the same composite. This is a
laboratory quality assurance sample. Lab QA samples
look at the variability inherent in the sub-sampling
procedure and insures that the sub-sampling method
is repeatable. The sample is identified as described
above.

The ODEQ laboratory maintains a macroinvertebrate
voucher  collection for each major basin or ecoregion
studied.  This collection has a representative of each
taxon and serves as a basin record and as a reference
for checking identifications.

The senior aquatic entomologist reviews all sample
tally sheets for anomalous identifications.  Ten percent
of the samples are reidentified and counted by a
senior aquatic entomologist independently of the first
identification.  The senior aquatic entomologist also
checks the specimens entered  into the type collection
for accurate identification.
 Habitat:
 The Oregon Stream Bioassessment Protocol includes
 twenty six habitat parameters. Eleven parameters are
 numerically scored at every site, and one additional
 parameter, Successional Stage, is used only at forested
 sites.  These scored parameters form the basis for
 comparing habitat quality between sampling sites.
 The remaining parameters and site sketch provide-
 supplemental descriptive information which is useful
 for site characterization.

 Habitat assessments consist of two groups of
 parameters; scored and descriptive.  The scored
 parameters, listed below, consist of 12 parameters
 each of which receives a numeric score based on
 specific criteria described in Mulvey  et aL, 1992.

 Descriptive habitat assessment:
 A rough sketch of the area surveyed is prepared
 during the habitat assessment on the back side of the
Rapid Bioassessment Field Data Sheet.  Included on
the sketch are the following:
        * General channel shape and landmarks.
        * Vegetative patterns.
        * Direction of flow.
        * Riffles and pools.
        * Residual Pool Depth monitoring sites.
        * Macroinvertebrate sampling areas.
        * Large Woody Debris.
        * Areas of erosion and deposition.
        * Canopy Closure and Solar Energy Input
        transects.
Scored habitat assessment:
The nature of the stream bottom substrate is an
important feature of the stream habitat. Substrate
embeddedness is the portion of boulder and cobble
substrate (4.5-30 cm, 2-12 in) that is below the plane
of the stream bottom and embedded in fine sediment
(<. 63 mm, 0.25 in). Substrate embeddedness is a
reliable surrogate measure of interstitial space habitat,
an important factor for juvenile salmonid survival
(Burton and Harvey, 1990).  It is also likely to be a
significant habitat characteristic for
macroinvertebrates.  Embeddedness can be
qualitatively, or it can be quantitatively measured (see
Mulvey et al.,  1992). Method selection is based on
site characteristics and the goals of the monitoring
project. The method chosen should be indicated on
the bioassessment  data sheet.

Large woodv debris (LWD) plays an important roll in
determining the physical characteristics of the stream
channel and in providing quality habitat for fish and
macroinvertebrates.  LWD can change in quality,
distribution and abundance over time due to natural
events such as fire, or due to land management
practices.

The objective  of this measurement is to count and
characterize LWD in the bank-full stream channel at
the sampling site.  LWD consists  of single logs, log
jams, beaver dams, stumps, root wads, logging debris,
and other similar large woody material found in the
channel area that could be expected to be wetted
during annual or bi-annual high flows.

The position of LWD is sketched on the site map, and
recorded on the data sheet the number of pieces of
LWD that are partially or mostly in the water (wet),
                                                      32

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
and LWD that is out of the water but within the bank-
full stream channel (dry).  The types of LWD are
differentiated as follows:

        Logs:  greater than three meters long and 30
        cm in diameter.
        Stumps / root wads:  at least 60 cm in
        diameter.
        Log jams:  three or more logs occurring
        together.
        Beaver dams.
        Other:  describe in the  notes.

The above minimum size restriction can be reduced in
smaller streams with less energy to move LWD.  The
idea is that the pieces inventoried are fairly stationary
features unlikely to be washed away by annual high
flows. Any variation from standard size restrictions  is
recorded on  the data sheet.

Residual pool depth CRPD) is an important
assessment of fish habitat. RPD is affected by stream
flow, substrate, channel shape, stream sedimentation
characteristics, and the impact of land use practices  on
stream habitat.  A change in RPD over time can be a
sensitive indicator of stream habitat deterioration or
improvement.

Direct insolation is the main source of heat absorbed
by most streams, and determines the daily and
seasonal fluctuations in water temperatures.  Water
temperature  and dissolved oxygen are water quality
limiting parameters in many systems.  Shading by
riparian vegetation and topographic features has the
most significant influence on the amount of solar
radiation that reaches the stream. The Solar
Pathfinder integrates the effects of azimuth,
topography, shading vegetation,  sun rise/sun set
angles, latitude, time of year,  and sun angle, to
quantify stream insolation.

The Solar Pathfinder records  the vegetation and
topography contribution to shade at any time, and
documents the solar radiation input to the stream (at
a given site)  over the entire year, by month, or any
other  time frame of interest.

Canopy closure, an important fish habitat parameter,
is the  amount of vegetation overhanging the stream
channel.  Canopy closure (the sky area containing
vegetation) is different from Canopy density (the sky
area blocked by vegetation).  Canopy closure can be
constant throughout the season  if fast-growing
vegetation is not dominant, since it does not depend
on the presence of leaves.  Canopy density can change
seasonally if the dominant riparian vegetation is
deciduous.

Temperature:  measured on-site with a thermometer
calibrated against an NBS certified thermometer.

Dissolved oxygen (P.O.):   Winkler titration.

Conductivity: Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI)
Model 33 salinity, conductivity, temperature meter.

pH:  Seargent Welch or Beckman pH meter.

Turbidity: visually assessed as clear, slight, moderate,
or opaque. Also any water color is noted.

Water Odors and Sediment Odors: noted as normal,
sewage, petroleum, chemical, t^S, or other.

Surface Oils: noted as none, slick, globs, flecks, or
other.

High Water Mark: The vertical distance from the
water's surface to the high water mark is estimated or
measured.

Discharge: Stream depth and velocity at a minimum of
ten cross-sectional points is measured using either a
Swoffer or Marsh-McBirney flow meter and a top-
setting rod.

Dams and Channel Modifications: The presence or
absence of any human-made dams or channel
alterations is noted.

Stream Gradient;  Sunto model PM clinometer.
Report as percent slope.
In addition, ODEQ has been working with Ecology
and EPA on a pilot project to subregionalize and
select reference sites for the Coast Range Ecoregion.
Both States are working to standardize their methods
to facilitate this effort.
                                                      33

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
July 1993
                                                          Table 12.       Selected bioassessment activities in
                                                                          Oregon - by stream
Table 12 is a listing of streams where ODEQ has
conducted biological assessments. This list is current
as of the time of this publication. However, if you are
planning a bioassessment in Oregon, please call the
State Contact listed, as there may be planned activities
in your area that are not reflected on this list.
Site/Uaterbody
Cottonwood Ck
(trib. to NF John Day)
Pine Creek (John Day Basin)
Utley Creek(SF John Day Basin)
Bear Creek(at Ht. Ave.)
Bear Creek (Valley View Rd)
Bear Creek (at Kirkland Rd)
Pudding River (at Hwy. 211)
Rickreal Ck (at Fir Villa Rd)
Rickreal Ck
(100 m.downstr. Dallas STP)
Rickreal Ck(Greenuood Rd)
S.F.Coquille (Powers City Pk)
SF Coquille (u/s Daphne Grove)
S.F. Coquille (u/s Broadbent)
M.F. Coquille (at Big Creek)
H.F. Coquille (at Slide Ck)
Rock Creek
M.F. Coquille (at Bear Ck)
NF Coquille (at Rock Prarie)
N.F. Coquille (Bennett Peak)
Middle Ck-Upper(Coqui lie R Bas)
Middle Ck-Mid. (Coquille R Bas)
Middle Ck-lowerCCoquille R Bas)
Bear Ck (Coquille R Basin)
Dry Ck-Upper(Coquille R Basin)
Dry Creek-Lower(Coquille R Bas)
River
Mile



22.4
19.9
0.9
22.5
11.7
9.7
4.9
46.0
30.0
11.5
7.7
15.0
0.5
26.0
23.0
10.3






Storet
Number



402105
402104
402728
402317
402782
402835
402781















Data
U. H. M
U, H, H
W. H. M
U, H M
W, H, M
U, H. M
W. H. M
U, H, M
U, H. M
U. H. M
W, H. M
U. H. M
U. H. M
U. H, M
U. H. M
W, H M
U. H, M
U. H. M
U, H. H
W, H. H
W, H. M
U, H, M
W, H, M
U, H. M
W, H, M
                                                           KEY:
                                                           W   = Water chemistry data
                                                           H   =  Habitat data
                                                           M   = Macroinvertebrate Assemblage data
                                                     34

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
        C.     WASHINGTON
               DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
STATE CONTACT:
NAME:
PHONE:
ADDRESS
Robert W. Plotnikoff
(206) 753-2830
: Ecology
Airdustrial Complex
Building 8
P.O. Box 47710
Olympia, WA 98504-7710
 Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) is the
 State agency primarily responsible for water quality
 programs in Washington.

 Objectives of the Ecoregion Bioassessment Pilot
 Project
 An ecoregion bioassessment project was initiated in
 Washington to evaluate the usefulness of a monitoring
 protocol to detect water resource impacts due to
 forest practices. The Timber/Fish/Wildlife Program
 (T/F/W) funded Phase I of the project, which
 concentrated on defining a reference condition for
 three ecoregions in the  state: Puget Lowlands,
 Cascades, and  Columbia Basin.  The planned second
 phase of this project will address streams that
 experience a gradient of forest practice impacts.

 Specific objectives for this pilot project included:
         1) provision of complete data sets for surface
         water  quality, benthic macroinvertebrates, and
         habitat in each ecoregion;
         2) definition of reference conditions for water
         quality, macroinvertebrates, and habitat on a
         seasonal basis; and
         3) description of a sampling and data analysis
         protocol for defining ecoregion reference
         conditions.
Bioassessment activities are currently being conducted
in remaining ecoregions of the state.  Additional
nonpoint source and land use impacts are addressed
such as agriculture and strip-mining.  Effects of point
source discharges can be measured directly with
biological assessment. It is Ecology's intent to
implement  a biomonitoring program that will allow for
establishing biocriteria and examine aquatic resource
trends.  The following description of biomonitoring
methodology represents Ecology's initial effort.
          MATERIALS AND METHODS

Site Selection Criteria

Reference site selection in each ecoregion was based
on historical physical habitat information and
professional judgement of regional biologists. Existing
physical habitat information was obtained from
ongoing stream surveys of the United States Forest
Service (USFS, 1990); Stuart McKenzie, USGS (pers.
comm., 1991), and the Timber/Fish/Wildlife Ambient
Monitoring Program (T/F/W-AMP) (Cupp, 1989;
Ralph, 1990; Ralph et al., 1991). Regional biologists
representing the United States Forest Service,
Washington State Department of Wildlife, and
Washington State Department of Fisheries were
surveyed  for suggestions of reference stream locations
within their respective management jurisdictions.

Candidate and Final Site Selection

A list of "candidate" reference sites was compiled
using existing quantified habitat information in
 addition to informed suggestions of the regional
biologists surveyed.  The criteria used for identifying
 potential candidate sites were:

 1.  availability of current or  historical  habitat
   '  information to expedite the screening process;
 2.  the drainage was mostly  contained within a single
     ecoregion;
 3.  reference site condition was as completely
     undisturbed by typical regional land use activities
     as possible;
 4.  potential site locations were situated on mid-order
     streams where forest practice activities elicit some
     of the  greatest impacts (an exception to this rule
     were Puget Lowland streams); and
 5.  year-round accessibility.
                                                       35

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                          July 1993
Final reference site selection in each of the ecoregions
focused on more detailed aspects of candidate
streams, including elevation, gradient, substrate size,
discharge, and broad spatial site locations within an
ecoregion.  Our ultimate goal was to select habitat
conditions that were most representative of each
ecoregion.  Reference site locations in this project are
listed in Table 14. A total of six stream reaches were
identified in each of three ecoregions. The six sites
were used as replicates to define baseline ecological
reference conditions.  On-site surveys were completed
for final identification of reference stations before
monitoring began.

Habitat Structure Survey

Reference stream reaches were 100 meters in length.
Reference site location considered physical habitat
characteristics that typified streams within  each
ecoregion.  The reference  stream reaches within each
ecoregion were typified by a heterogeneous set of
habitat  characters. These  physical habitat  characters
were reflective of natural stream conditions expected
in the ecoregion.

The habitat survey form used by the evaluator was
duplicated from the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
Document (Plafkin et al., 1989). Two evaluators
participated in habitat assessment at each stream
reach.  Habitat assessment was completed from
November 1990 to August 1991. Future use of
qualitative habitat assessment will be guided by a
scoring  form reflective of Pacific Northwest stream
conditions such as in this Handbook.  The modified -
assessment form is described earlier in this guidance
document.  Any qualitative habitat assessment is
limited  to detecting substantial  alterations  from
expected conditions. A permanent photographic
record was assembled for  reference sites during each
monthly visit.

Habitat Analysis

Habitat information for this pilot project was
summarized using notched box plots.  The purpose for
examining habitat score distributions was to provide a
measure of habitat score expectations for each
ecoregion.   Habitat scores were then partitioned into
primary, secondary, and tertiary components for
further  analysis of habitat-limiting regional features.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring

Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected during four
consecutive seasons from fall 1990 to summer 1991.
Sampling was completed at the midpoint of each
season (i.e. fall=November 1990, winter=February
1991, spring=May 1991, summer=August 1991).
Seasonal reference sampling for invertebrates was
essential in accounting for life cycle stage progression,
identifying the influence of natural seasonal
disturbance frequencies, and for direct comparison to
other project samples collected during the same
season. Months included within each season were as
follows: fall (October-December), winter (January-
March), spring (April-June), and summer (July-
September).

Field Sampling Equipment

Macroinvertebrate sampling methodology was adopted
from the U.S.  EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
(Plafkin et al., 1989).  A 1 square meter kick net was
used. The kick net was constructed  of nylon screen
mesh with 500 micron openings.  Two one-inch
wooden dowels were attached at opposite sides of the
net with plastic tie-downs strung through grommets
spaced at eight inch intervals along each side.  A
weighted cord was placed along the bottom edge of
the kick net to prevent organisms from passing under
the net. An important aspect regarding net mesh size
of the sampling apparatus is that it is a major
determinant of collection abundances (Storey et al.,
1991; Minshall, pers. comm., 1992).

Site Sampling  Methodology

Duplicate invertebrate samples were collected from
each reference stream reach.  Two transects were
randomly located within each 100-meter reference
reach.  Two random numbers were generated with a
hand-held calculator.

Each transect  within the reach was then sampled by
compositing material collected within the square
meter kick net from the closest riffle and closest run
either upstream or downstream of the transect
location. A "riffle" was identified by broken surface
water and a "run" was identified by unbroken
continuously moving surface water.  Thus the total
area sampled at each transect from  a stream reference
site was 2 square meters.  Composite samples were
first collected  from downstream portions of a reach,
                                                      36

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                         July 1993
working in an upstream direction.  Streams that are
not dominated by riffles will present greater difficulty
when locating the sampler under this project's
guidelines. It is suggested for future studies that the
investigator examine stream characteristics of a region
and consider a multihabitat sampling approach.
Duplicate samples were collected in order to eliminate
investigator bias through stream sampler placement,
and also to maximize the likelihood of collecting the
greatest variety of taxa.

Sub-Sampling Methodology

Each 2 square meter benthos sample was emptied into
a 24cm x 36cm  sub-sampling tray gridded with 6cm x
6cm squares. The benthic material was then evenly
spread over the bottom and benthic
macroinvertebrates were sub-sampled by randomly
selecting grid squares.  All invertebrates were
removed from one square at a time until at least one
hundred organisms were collected. A minimum of
two squares in the sub-sampling tray were picked
using a lighted hand-held magnifying glass
(magnification=5X). Organisms were placed into 250
ml Nalgene  jars with screw top lids. Field
preservative was 10% formalin diluted from a stock
solution of 37% formaldehyde. When field conditions
were unsuitable for  sub-sampling (i.e., heavy rain,
snow, high winds), kick net samples were placed in
double Ziploc  freezer bags. Formalin preservative
was added to the  inner freezer bag containing the
sample and a label with site, collection  date, transect
number, and preservative was placed in the dry space
between the first and second freezer bag. These
benthic collections were sub-sampled at a later date in
the laboratory using the same procedure. The
formalin preservative was replaced with 70% ethanol
for subsequent laboratory sorting and identification.
Field samples remained in 10% formalin preservative
for at least 4 weeks allowing thorough fixation of
organisms. Attention was given to the  Chironomidae
(midges) and Elmidae (riffle beetles) when picking -
insects in the laboratory. Taxa representing these
families tend to be easier to find in live samples.

Laboratory Equipment and Sample Processing

Sorting and identification of the benthic
macroinvertebrate samples were completed in the
laboratory with a Unitron* Dissecting Stereoscope
(magnification range: 7X-45X). Taxa were identified
to genus and sometimes species, where reasonably
possible. An exception to generic taxonomic
identification were the Chironomidae, Simuliidae,
Lumbriculidae, Naididae, families of Coleoptera,
Planariidae, and Hydracarina.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Analysis

Ordination: Detrended Correspondence Analysis and
TWINSPAN

The benthic macroinvertebrate data set was analyzed
using exploratory  statistical techniques.  Detrended
Correspondence Analysis (DCA) and TWINSPAN
(Two Way Indicator Species Analysis) were used for
data sets comprised of counts of individuals (Hill,
1979a;  Hill, 1979b; James and McCulloch, 1990).  A
Iog10(x+l) transformation was used because of the
difference in magnitude between some taxa
abundances (Zar, 1984). Otherwise, the ordination
analyses used with the macroinvertebrate datasets
would have weighted the more abundant taxa in favor
of the rarer taxa (Gauch, 1982).

Ecoregion differentiation by season was examined
from DCA results. The purpose was to determine
uniqueness of community assemblages within the three
ecoregions examined and to identify optimal biological
sampling seasons  for each ecoregion. TWINSPAN
was used to determine site associations within each
season and to identify distinct taxa associations.
These taxa associations were further examined for
relationships to other ecosystem components such as
habitat and surface water characteristics.  Consistent
associations between taxa and environmental variables
helped define "indicator assemblages".

Rapid  Bioasscssment Protocol Analysis

Rapid  Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) metrics  were
calculated based on macroinvertebrate datasets
identified to both the familial and generic taxonomic
levels (Plafkin et a/.,  1989).  The purpose for
comparison of metric information derived from family
level and generic  level identification was to evaluate
the most time-efficient and cost-effective approach in
applying the RBP's.
                                                      37

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                                                                     July 1993
Surface Water Monitoring
Physical and chemical surface water parameters were
characterized monthly in each ecoregion between
November 1990 and August 1991 (See Table 13).
Water samples were collected at the downstream
boundary of the 100m reference reach prior to
collecting the macroinvertebrate samples.   Water
samples collected each day were shipped within 24
hours to Ecology's Manchester Environmental
Laboratory.
Table 13.       Parameters, analysis methods, and
                detection limits of water quality data
                - Washington

                                           DETECTION
PARAMETER       HETHOO                         LIMITS
Temperature     Mercury-filled     ± O.r Centigrade*
                Thermometer
PH
Becknan pH
Instrument
t 0.2 pH units*
Conductivity    YSI  Conductivity       ± 2.5 /J*os/cm
                Meter, Null Indicator       at 25° C*
Dissolved
   Oxygen
YSI Membrane
Electrode, Model 57
    ± 0.2 mg/L*
Discharge       Swoffer  Flow Meter    t 20% of  total*

Turbidity       Nephelometric                   1 NTU

Alkalinity      Titrimetric            1 mg/L as CaC03

Hardness        EDTA Titrimetric      1 mg/L as Mg+Ca
Total Organic    Oohrtnan TOC
  Carbon        Analyzer
Ammonia-
Nitrogen
Automated Phenate
Method
      0.1 mg/L.

      0.01 mg/L
Ilitrate+Nitrite  Colorimetric, Automated     0.01 mg/L
-Nitrogen       Cadmium Reduction

Total           Colorimetric, Automated     0.01 mg/L
Phosphorus      Ascorbic Acid

Ortho-Phosphate  Colorimetric, Automated     0.01 mg/L
                Ascorbic Acid

Total           Digestion Technique   0.02 - 0.2 mg/L
Persulfate      EPA Method 353.2
Nitrogen	
* Field Parameter, value reflects  instrument error
rather than detection limit               	
Ecoreeional Surface Water Patterns
Physical and chemical variables from surface water
analysis were analyzed using Principal Components
Analysis (PGA). PCA uses multiple variable data sets
in constructing a multiple axis cloud of data points.
The number of axes corresponds to the number of
variables.  The first component is a line through the
cloud of points that represents the longest distance.
PCA 1 now represents variance among the water
quality variables and defines variable groups that may
be associated with regional conditions.  All variable
observations are located somewhere along this line
and explain contribution of each variable to total
variance. The parameters used in this ordination
analysis were not measured on the same scale (unit
and magnitude differences) and thus were analyzed by
using the correlation matrix (James and McCulloch,
1990). Interpretation  of surface water parameter
associations through ordination are made on the
assumption that natural linear or near-linear
relationships exist among some variables  (Ludwig and
Reynolds, 1988).  Principal components analysis is
useful when the objectives are in data reduction and
interpretation (Johnson and Wichern, 1988).
Quality Control/Quality Assurance Procedures

Habitat Assessment
Qualitative habitat scoring was replicated by two
evaluators at each reference site on a seasonal basis.
Individual differences in the cumulative habitat scores
were presumed to result  from evaluator unfamiliarity
with regional physical characteristics, evaluator
experience, and individual habitat metrics that are not
amenable to qualitative evaluation.  Scores were
compared between investigators  and justifications for
scoring decisions were discussed in order to make the
scoring exercise consistent between evaluators.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assessment
Duplicate macroinvertebrate samples were collected
from similar combinations of habitat types (riffle and
run) at each reference station. The location of
multiple reference stations within each ecoregion
satisfied statistical requirements  for sample
independence, which was necessary to address the
multivariate normal assumption  associated with
ordination analysis (Johnson and Wichern, 1988).
Lack of independent sampling with adequate reference
station replication may result in  weak inferences of an
ecoregion effect (Hurlbert, 1984).

Precision of replicate macroinvertebrate sampling was
determined at each reference reach by calculating the
                                                      38

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                          July 1993
coefficients of variation (equivalent to the % relative
standard deviation) for taxa richness in fall 1990 and
spring 1991 samples. Individual reference reach
coefficients of variation were partitioned by ecoregion
and the root mean square of these were calculated.
Distribution of the individual coefficients of variation
within an ecoregion indicate the necessity for: 1)
increased replication of macroinvertebrate samples at
a site, or 2) reduction of sampling effort to fewer
samples per site.  The root mean square of the
ecoregion coefficients of variation describes the
expectation of ecoregional replicability between stream
sites of similar physical condition (i.e. reference sites).
Surface Water Quality Assessment
Replication of surface water samples was achieved
through independent sampling of different streams
within the same ecoregion. Duplicate samples were
collected from one station in each of two ecoregions
every month in order to achieve ten percent
replication overall.  Stations were randomly chosen for
duplicate sampling within the two ecoregions; also, the
two ecoregions were never the same on consecutive
months.

Field instruments were used to take in situ
measurements for temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen,
and conductivity.  Calibration of the pH meter (Orion,
Model 250A) was carried out at each site before water
samples were collected.  The dissolved oxygen probe
(YSI, Model 57) was calibrated daily and at each
station before use.  Dissolved oxygen readings were
taken from the sample container following collection.
The conductivity meter (Beckman Solu Bridge,
Model RB5) was calibrated at a frequency of once per
month. Sample blanks of deionized water were also
analyzed periodically with reference station sample
sets in order to detect the presence of cross-
contamination.
Future Effort

Bioassessment sampling and data analysis has been
modified to address existing and forthcoming Agency
objectives. Cooperative monitoring between the
Department of Ecology and other State and Federal
Agencies may influence monitoring design to enhance
mutual benefits.  A strong biological assessment
program will evolve with new technology and
enhanced water resource protection.
In addition, Ecology has been working with ODEQ
and EPA (Office of Research and Development,
Corvallis, OR) on a pilot project to subregionalize and
select reference sites for the Coast Range Ecoregion.
Both States are working to standardize their methods
to facilitate this effort. Table 14 is a listing of streams
where Ecology has conducted biological assessments.
This list is current as of the time of this publication.
However, if you are planning to conduct a
bioassessment in Washington please call the State
Contact listed, as there may be planned activities in
your area that are not reflected on this list.
Table 14.       Selected bioassessment activities in
                Washington - by stream
Uaterbody
Bingham Creek
Snow Creek
Seabeck Creek
Deuatto Creek
Tahuya River
Toboton Creek
Hedrick Creek
Greenwater Riv.
American Riv.
Entiat Riv.
Trapper Creek
Mid. Fk. Teanaway R.
Naneun Creek
Untanum Creek
L. Klickitat Riv.
Cunnings Creek
M. Fk. Asotin Ck.
Spring Creek
Lair. /Long.
47°16'/ 123°20'
47°56'/ 122°53'
47°37' / 122-50'
47-31 '/ 122-57'
47-31 '/ 122-52'
46-50 '/ 122-29'
48-S3'/ 12T58'
47-07'/ 121-31'
46°58'/ 121-10'
47-54 '/ 120-22'
45'53'/ 122-00'
47-17'/ 120-57'
47-08'/ 120-28'
46-36' / 120*29'
45°51 '/ 120-47'
46-34 '/ 117-39'
46°14'/ 117-19'
47°45'/ 117-53'
Data
W, H, M
U, H. H
U, H, M
U, H. H
U. H, M
W. H. M
W, H. M
W, H. M
W, H, M
U. H, M
U, H. M
U, H, H
U. H, M
U, H, M
W, H, M
U, H, M
W. H, M
U, H, M
  KEY:
  W  = Water chemistry data
  H   = Habitat data
  M  = Macroinvertebrate Assemblage data
                                                      39

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
    D.  ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
        ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
STATE CONTACT:
NAME:
PHONE:
ADDRESS :
Jeffrey Hock
(907) 790-2169
ADEC - Juneau Env.
Analysis Laboratory
10107 Bentwood Pi.
Juneau, AK 99801
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC) is the State agency primarily responsible for
water quality programs in Alaska. ADEC has
initiated two projects to evaluate the RBPs for use in
Alaska, especially the southeast part of the state.

The first of these project is on Prince of Wales Island.
The objectives of the Prince of Wales study are to:

•   Validate the RBPs as useful tools in assessing
    stream water quality in Alaska;

•   Describe, through metric values, the biological
    condition of reference streams within the study
    region;

•   Assess current condition of streams on Prince of
    Wales Island using the RBPs;

•   Identify impaired water bodies which require
    further evaluation to characterize degree and
    sources of impairment, and;

•   Refine and adapt procedures for application in
    assessment of streams and rivers in conjunction
    with current nonpoint water quality assessment
    programs.
For the Prince of Wales project, 12 streams will be
characterized at each of three locations by stream
order, gradient, vegetation and soil characteristics and
source. Physical characteristics of the riparian zone,
in-stream features, substrate and water quality
parameters (pH, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen,
Turbidity) will be evaluated.

A qualitative assessment of abundance of aquatic biota
and a qualitative analysis of macrobenthic populations
will be conducted. Determinations of functional
feeding groups will be made.
A second study which will be conducted on Michael
Creek, Admiralty Island, in the Lake Florence
watershed will:

    •   Assess the effectiveness of Alaska's Forest
        Practices Act riparian buffers best
        management practices in meeting selected
        water quality standards;

    •   Assess the effectiveness of macroinvertebrates
        as an indicator of overall stream health.

The Lake Florence watershed project will monitor
water depth, temperature and turbidity using
automated datalogging equipments. In addition,
stations will be manually sampled for stream
discharge, temperature, turbidity, and benthic
invertebrates.

Benthic invertebrate community analysis will include
the calculation of community structure metrics (Taxa
richness; Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera
(EPT) Index, Pinkham-Pearson Community Similarity
Index) and community balance metrics (Family Biotic
Index; Percent Contribution of Dominant Family, and
Percent EPT/(EPT + Chironomidae).  Calculated
metric values determined for the downstream sample
stations will be compared to values obtained from
upstream reference for the Lake Florence watershed
project.
                                                     40

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                                                                                   July 1993
Both of the Prince of Wales Island and the Lake
Florence watershed projects will incorporate RBP
methodologies.  Milner and Oswood, 1991, have
developed a rapid bioassessment technique based
upon the RBPs and adapted using data streams hi the
Anchorage area. These techniques are now being
tested  in Southeastern Alaska on streams with forest
harvest activities in order to determine their
applicability in these areas.

In addition, AOEC has initiated discussions with  the
U.S. Forest Service (SE Alaska), National Marine
Fisheries Service, and the Alaska Department of  Fish
and Game to adopt a comment set of bioassessment
protocols amongst the various agencies.

Table  15 is a listing of streams where ADEC is
conducting biological  assessments. This list is current
as of the time of this publication. However, if you are
planning to conduct a bioassessment in Alaska, please
contact the State Contact listed, as there may be
planned activities in your area that are not reflected
on  this list.
Table 15.       Selected bioassessroent activities in
               Alaska - bv stream
Uaterbody
Black Sear Creek
Black Creek
Dog Salmon Creek
Election Creek
Kaus Creek
Michael Creek
Rush Creek
Port St. Nicholas Ck.
Shinaku Creek
Staney Creek
Steelhead Creek
Threenrile Creek Trib.
Unnamed Creek, Big
Salt Lake
Lat./Long.


55e20'55''N.132050'05"




55'26'N, 133°07'U
55°36'30«M, «3°09' 00"W
55"48'55"M, 133«Or'55»W

55"31 '45MN,132°59'55"W

Data
W, H, M
W, H. M
V. H, N
U, H. M
U, H. M
W, H, M
W, H, M
W, «, M
U, H. H
W, H, M
W, H, M
U, H. H
W, H, N
                                                           KEY:
                                                           W  = Water chemistry data
                                                           H  = Habitat data .
                                                           M  = Macroinvertebrate Assemblage data
                                                      41

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                            July 1993
    E. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL
       RESOURCES INSTITUTE -
       UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
  CONTACTI
  NAME:
  PHONE:
  ADDRESS:
Alexander Milner
 (907)  257-2720
ENRI - University
          of Alaska
707  A  Street
Anchorage,  AK 99501
The Environmental and Natural Resources Institute
(ENRI) of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, in
conjunction with the Institute of Arctic Biology of the
University of Alaska Fairbanks, has been investigating
the utility of the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
(RBPs) since 1988. The principle focus of the study
has been streams within the municipality of
Anchorage. ENRI has collected data from both
pristine and impaired streams.  The metrics that they
have found the most useful in detecting potential
water quality changes to date are: the number of EPT
genera; EPT/total individuals ratio; percent dominant
taxa, and; the Hilsenhoff biotic family index.

In one intensive study of Chester Creek within the
urbanized areas of Anchorage,  twelve stations were
established along the length of the Creek and the
above metrics calculated to ascertain if degradation
was likely due to non-point or point sources. Although
there was evidence of general non-point degradation
in a downstream direction it was evident that the
major source of contamination was from a tributary.
Interestingly, a major lake in the system caused a
marked improvement in the downstream water quality
as indicated by the bioassessment metrics.  ENRI has
found the application of the Microtox* bioassay to be
 of value in determining whether the contamination
 resides in the sediment or the water column and in
 the case of Chester Creek it appears to lie principally
in the sediments. ENRI has adapted the
bioassessment measures to produce a draft
bioassessment protocol that can be used by the
municipality of Anchorage personnel.

ENRI has also applied these techniques to other
geographical areas of the State including the Kenai
River, Rock Creek in Denali National Park, and a
number of streams in Cape Krustenstern National
Park. ENRI is also coordinating with the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation on a
study of the application of RBPs to evaluate buffer
strip effectiveness in a logged watershed in southeast
Alaska and of logged systems on Prince of Wales
Island (please see p.41-42 for more details).
                                                      Table 16       Bioassessment activities in Alaska by
                                                                    UAA-ENRI
Waterbody
Aufeis Creek
Deadman Creek
New Heart Creek
Rock Creek
Chester Creek
Campbell Creek
Crow Creek
Fish Creek
Ship Creek
Rabbit Creek
Meadow Creek
Peters Creek
Indian River
Fire Creek
Kenai River
La t. /Long.
67°40'H, 164010'W
67°42'N, 164°12'W
67°37H. 164008'W
64°45'30"N, 149°56'50"W
61°12'34"N, 149°55'25"U
61°7'28"N. 149°58'30«U
60°59'40"N, 149°4'30"W
61°12'27"N. 149°55'45"W
61e13'36"N, 149°53'45"W
61"4'25"N. 149°50 M5"W
61°18'45»Nt 149°34'30"W
61°24'45"N. 149°16'15"U

61°20M, 149030'W
60°30'N,150e30'-151°15W
Data
U, M
U. H
U, H
U, H
W. M
W. M
W. H
U, H
U, M
W. M
W, M
U, M
U, H
W, M
W, M
                                        KEY:
                                        W  = Water chemistry data
                                        M  = Macroinvertebrate Assemblage data
                                                  42

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                July 1993
    F.  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY
  NATIONAL CONTACT;
  NAME:        Steve  Paulsen
  PHONE:       (503)  430-4428
  ADDRESS:    EPA  -  ORD
                 200  SW  35th
                 Corvallis, OR  97333
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office
of Research and Development 
-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                       July 1993
EMAP in EPA Region 10:
In the 1990's, EMAP plans to begin monitoring
approximately 60-80 streams and rivers in EPA
Region 10 annually, returning to each site every fourth
year. Streams are randomly selected through use of a
grid to disperse the sites.  A set of 50-60 minimally-
disturbed reference sites will also be selected and 12-
15 monitored each year. The objective is to  assess the
status and long-term trends in biological integrity,
trophic state, and fishability of surface water with
known levels of confidence, and thereby extrapolate
results to all streams of the Region. Initial efforts will
focus on streams, but eventually similar numbers of
lakes will be monitored.

In preparation for the regional assessment, the
Corvallis Environmental Research Lab has initiated
pilots in Oregon. The focus  of the pilots for the next
three years (1992-1994) is to determine:

(1)  The necessary effort required to achieve robust
     species lists and proportional abundances of fish,
     amphibians, benthos, birds, and periphyton of
     wadeable streams;

(2)  Determine the effort necessary to characterize
     stream physical habitat with known levels of
     precision and accuracy, and from this information
     develop a rapid quantitative and semi-quantitative
     habitat sampling protocol suitable for the needs of
     EMAP;

(3)  Examine the responsiveness of various biological
     and habitat metrics to varying degrees of
     landscape and riparian disturbance; and,

(4)  Measure the replicate  precision of biological and
     habitat metrics obtained by rapid sampling of
     Oregon streams.

This work is being done through a cooperative
agreement with Oregon State University; additional
interagency agreements are being developed with the
U.S. BLM and U.S.GS to conduct pilot studies.

Table 17 outlines the components of the EMAP
Surface waters physical habitat protocols.  For more
information see Kaufmann and Robinson, 1993.
Table 17.       Components »f EMAP Physical
                Habitat Protocols
COMPONENT       DESCRIPTION
Thalueg Profile Measure maximum depth and netted
                width, classify habitat at 10-15
                equally spaced intervals between  each
                of 11 channel cross-sections

Uoody Debris    Between each of the channel cross
                sections,  record Large Woody debris
                timbers, estimated dimensions,  decay
                class, X of  piece under water,  and
                whether single or clustered.

Channel and Riparian Cross-Sections: a 11 cross-
section station placed at equal  intervals along each
reach length:
         Measure; bank height, undercut,  angle (with
         rod  and clinometer), gradient (clinometer),
         sinuosity (compass backsite),  riparian  canopy
         cover  (densiometer)

         Visually estimate*;  substrate size class  and
         embeddedness. Areal  cover class and type  of
         riparian vegetation  in canopy,  mid-layer  and
         ground cover.

         Observe & record*: fish cover types, human
         disturbances, presence of aquatic macrophytes
         and filamentous algae.

Valley  transect At  three valley cross-sections
                 (bottom, mid,  top of reach), estimate
                valley bottom elevation along 20
                meter transects outward from the left
                and right bank (perpendicular to the
                valley axis).

Discharge       In medium and large streams measure
                 water depth and velocity  (8 0.6 depth
                 with electromagnetic flow meter) at
                 15 equally-spaced intervals across
                 one carefully chosen channel cross
                 section.  In very small  stream,
                 measure discharge with  a  portable
	weir or time the filling  of a bucket.
* Substrate  size class and embeddedness are estimated.
Depth is measured for 5 particles taken 3 5 equally
spaced  points  on each cross-section. The cross  section
 is defined by  laying the surveyor's rod or tape to
span the wetted channel. Uoody debris is tallied over
the distance between each cross-section and the next
cross section  upstream. Riparian vegetation and human
disturbances are observed 5m upstream and 5m
downstream from the cross-section station.  They
 extend shoreward 10m from left  and  right banks. Fish
cover types, aquatic macrophytes, and algae are
 observed within channel 5m upstream and 5m downstream
 from the cross-section stations.  These  boundaries for
visual  observations are estimated by eye.
                                                        44

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                                                                                     July 1993
The Corvallis EPA lab has also computerized the
Oregon State University fish distribution data base on
a Geographic Information System (GIS) so that
ranges can be easily mapped and analyzed.

Table 18 is a listing of locations where EPA-Corvallis
has recently conducted biological assessments.  This
list is current as of the time of this publication.


Table 18.       Recent bioassessment activities of
                EPA-Corvallis
  Basin/Region (number of sites/streams)
                                          Data
  Willamette Valley   (16)

  Calapooia    (13)

  Willamette River    (26)

  Oregon Ecoregions   (99)

  Western Oregon (56, 20 habitat
                        structure only)
W. H,  H. F

W, H,  M, F

W, H,    F

W, H,  M. F *

W, H,  M, F**
  KEY:
  W  =  Water chemistry data
  H  =  Habitat data
  M  =  Macroinvertebrate Assemblage data
  F   = Fish Assemblage data
  *   = Also periphyton
  **  = Also riparian birds at 18 sites
                                                        45

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                        July 1993
    G.  U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Table 19.       Main Components of ILS. Geological
               Survey NAWQA Study-Unit
               Investigations
  BIOLOGISTS;
  CsntraX Columbia  Platsau:
  Mark  Munn        (206)   593-6530
  Upper  Snake River  Basin:
  Terry  Maret     (208)   334-1750
  Willamette  Basin:
  Ian Waite        (503)   231-2249
The National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
Program is a long-term program of the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) designed to describe the
status of, and trends in, the quality of the Nation's
surface and ground water resources and to provide an
understanding of the natural and human factors that
affect the quality of these resources (Hirsh e£ al. 1988,
Leahy et al. 1990).

The NAWQA Program is an integrated assessment of
water quality that incorporates physical, chemical and
biological components. The biological components of
NAWQA have broad objectives, reflecting an
emphasis on the development of an improved
understanding of relations among physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of streams as an integral
part of interpreting water quality status and trends.
The approach of NAWQA is to describe spatial and
temporal patterns in selected environmental settings,
and to develop and test hypotheses about the causes
of the observed patterns  (Gurtz, M.E., 1993).

The principal building blocks of the NAWQA
program are the study-unit investigations of hydrologic
systems that include parts of most river basins and
aquifer systems.  Study-unit investigations consist of
intensive assessment activity for 4 to 5 years, followed
by 5 years  of low-intensity assessment, and then
repeating the cycle.  The following are the NAWQA
study units in Washington, Oregon and Idaho.

Study units for the National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWOA) Program:
    •   Central Columbia Plateau
    •   Willamette Basin
    •   Upper Snake River Basin
    (1) Retrospective analysis;
    (2) Occurrence and distribution assessment;
    (3) Assessment of long-term trends and changes;
    (4) Source, transport, fate, and effect studies.
The retrospective analysis is an interpretation of
existing data in order to address NAWQA objectives
and to aid in the design of NAWQA studies.  The
primary objective of the occurrence and distribution
assessments is to characterize geographic and seasonal
distributions of water-quality conditions in relation to
major contaminant sources and background
conditions. Assessment of long-term trends and
changes in selected water quality characteristics will be
designed from the results of the retrospective analyses,
occurrence and distribution assessments and the
concurrent development of information on the
environmental framework.  Source, transport, fate and
effect studies are detailed case studies designed to
investigate causes and governing processes of water-
quality conditions and trends for specific situations
within the study units that have the greatest relevance
to characterizing and managing water quality.
BIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS;
Biological methods for describing status and trends in
the quality of surface-water resources must be well
integrated with physical and chemical approaches in a
common sampling design. Biological approaches most
appropriate for meeting NAWQA objectives include
ecological studies and tissue studies (Gurtz, M.E.,
1993).

Ecological Studies:
Three taxonomic groups (fish, invertebrates, and
algae) will be investigated because each responds
differently to natural or anthropogenic disturbances
due to differences in habitat food, mobility, physiology,
and life history. Use of a multiple community
approach adds additional power to the design;
agreement or lack thereof, among these sets of
community data can be very instructive.
                                                    46

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                                                                                   July 1993
For all NAWQA ecological studies, taxonomic
identifications are made to the lowest practicable
level, preferably species. The integrated NAWQA data
base of taxonomic identification coupled with physical
and chemical water quality characteristics will be
useful for a variety of biological community analyses
as well  as development of improved biological indices
or component metrics.

In NAWQA, habitat descriptions of channel, riparian,
and flood-plain features know to have important
structural influences on biological communities will
also be useful in explaining physical or chemical
characteristics of surface waters.  Habitat descriptors
in NAWQA follow a spatial hierarchy modified from
that of Frissell et at (1986), incorporating four spatial
scales-basin, stream segment, stream reach, and
habitat type.

At the  stream-segment scale, characteristics such as
segment slope, stream order, and channel sinuosity are
described using 7.5 minute topographic maps. Habitat
description at the stream-reach scale includes
classification of geomorphic channel units (e.g., pool,
riffle, or run). Channel features include stream types
for example, meandering, braided, channelized or
pool/riffle (Leopold and Wolman, 1957). Instream
cover (e.g. woody debris or undercut banks),
macrophyte cover, and channel-substrate characteristic
are also included. Characteristics of the riparian zone
such as riparian vegetation and bank stability are
important descriptors. Habitat-type descriptors
include physical variables, such as water depth, current
velocity, and substrate particle size, that are measured
concomitantly with the collection of biological
community samples (Gurtz, MJL, 1993).

Ecological studies in NAWQA are designed according
to the main components of NAWQA as shown in
Table 19.
 Retrospective Analysis of Biological Information:
 A review of existing biological information is an
 important part of the retrospective analysis in each
 study-unit investigation.  This activity contributes to
 the conceptual model of the natural and
 anthropogenic factors contributing to spatial and
 temporal patterns of water quality within and among
 study-units.
Reconnaissance:
Reconnaissance of candidate sampling locations is a
two-phase study activity. An initial reconnaissance of
a large number of sites is followed by a more intensive
on-site assessment of a subset of these sties. The
primary ecological information recorded hi the initial
reconnaissance includes the general habitat condition
of the streams, for example geomorphic channel units
(pool, riffle, run) channel features, bank stability, and
riparian vegetation.  Observations of local land use or
riparian disturbances, dominant channel substrates,
and apparent wadability are useful for comparison and
contrasting among candidate sites for the on-site
assessment.

The on-site assessment consists of a larger crew and
more time per site than the initial reconnaissance. In
addition to field measurements of stream discharge
and selected physical and chemical water-quality
constituents, suitability of different types of sampling
gear are evaluated, and initial efforts to describe the
occurrence and relative abundance of fish, benthic
invertebrates, and aquatic vegetation are accomplished
by field identification of specimens.  No samples are
collected for quantitative  processing.
 Occurrence and Distribution Assessment:
 Collections of biological communities (fish,
 invertebrates, and algae) are made at each fixed site,
 where physical and chemical characteristics are also
 assessed. Each collection represents a composite of
 samples distributed throughout a sampling reach, the
 length of which is defined at each sites by a
 combination of factors, including stream
 geomorphology and meander wavelength (Gurtz,
 M.E., 1993).

 The primary method for fish community sampling is
 electrofishing.  Electrofishing is supplemented in some
 cases by seining. Data recorded in the field include
 length and weight information and the presence of
 externally visible skin or subcutaneous disorders, or
 parasites.  Species identifications are made in the
 field, to the extent possible.

 For benthic invertebrates, three types of samples are
 collected.  A semi-quantitative sample is collected
 from the habitat expected to support the faunistically
 richest community within the reach. la most wadable
 streams, such habitats include riffles; however,
 samples in some streams may be collected from
                                                      47

-------
EPA Region 10                                                                                      July
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101	


woody snags or macrophyte beds.  A second semi-
quantitative sample is collected from a depositional
habitat. In addition, a qualitative sample is collected
that encompasses the variety of instream habitats
throughout the entire reach (Gurtz, M.E., 1993).

Habitat measurements in the field emphasize reach
characteristics such as bank stability, channel form and
substrate, geomorphic channel units and riparian wood
vegetation.  Physical characteristics such as water
depth, current velocity and substrate particle size are
also noted to document condition for each sample.

Sampling of biological communities will be conducted
during hydrologic and seasonal conditions that are
comparable among all sites within the study unit. At
a subset of the fixed sites in each study unit, intensive
ecological assessments are  conducted to provide
essential information on spatial and temporal
variability (Gurtz, M.E. 1993).


Assessment of Long Term  Trends and Changes:
At the intensively studied subset of fixed sites,
ecological studies will be conducted annually during a
3-year intensive phase.  Long-term changes will be
evaluated by comparing these discrete 3-year data sets
at 9 year intervals. To minimize the effects of some of
the natural sources of temporal variability, samples of
biological communities will be collected during a
similar range of seasonal and flow conditions each
year fore each site selected for multiple-year sampling.


Source. Transport. Fate and Effect Studies:
Intensive studies that examine the source, transport,
fate and effect of selected water-quality constituents
will be conducted to address specific cause- and effect-
questions and to help explain observed  spatial and
temporal patterns in physical, chemical and biological
water quality data.
                                                       48

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                         July 1993
    H.  U.S.  FOREST SERVICE
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has operated a
macroinvertebrate processing lab in Provo, Utah for
twenty years. Many USFS, as well as the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), offices in the western
United States have used the monitoring procedures
developed at this facility. These procedures included
using a modified surber sampler (net mesh 280 /im) in
riffle habitats following the procedures outlined in
Wingett and Mangum, 1979.

In 1992, this lab evolved Into the National Aquatic
Monitoring Center.  The primary direction for future
aquatic macroinvertebrate  monitoring is to improve
sample coordination between the USFS and the BLM
and with other federal and State agencies and to
continue to refine methods for assessing biological
integrity at local and regional levels.  The procedures
for future  aquatic macroinvertebrate monitoring will
be recommended by USFS and BLM and will be
geared toward Clean Water Act impairment level
determination.  The transition between past and any
future methods will be a gradual process.

In addition, all regions of the USFS have a Fish
Habitat Relationship (FHR) program and a FHR
Coordinator.

All anadromous fish USFS forests are involved in the-
FHR program.  They have done fish habitat typing on
500 stream miles in Idaho  - they plan to have all
USFS land streams done in 5 years.  The study
objective is to provide data on critical habitat for fish,
then track the fish through their life cycle, and finally
pair the fish  life cycle information with habitat typing
data.

Management Uses of Fish  Habitat Inventory Data
    •  Quantify Habitat on National Forests
    •  Limiting Factor Analysis
    •  Development of Desired  Future Condition
       (DFC)
    •  Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis
    •  Fish Habitat Relationships
    •  Monitoring Habitat Changes
Fish Habitat Inventory Parameters
       Aquatic habitat typing
       Channel morphology
       Large woody debris
       Substrate characteristics
       Riparian complex
       Fish distribution

    Habitat Typing:
    Stream channel descriptors utilized to understand
    the relationships between fish and habitat.Habitat
    typing provides a common basis for sampling,
    analysis, comparing and exchanging stream
    channel and stream habitat data.
                                                    49

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                                                                              July 1993
    I.   U.S. BUREAU OF LAND
        MANAGEMENT
  CONTACT;
  NAME:
  PHONE:
  ADDRESS:
Joseph Furnish
(503)  392-5608
U.S.  BLM
1717 Fabry Road  SE
Salem,  OR     97306
 In Oregon, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
 (BLM) has collected data on macroinvertebrates since
 1979 as part of its water quality biomonitoring
 program.  Over 600 samples have been collected and
 analyzed by U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Intermountain
 Region Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis Laboratory in
 Provo, Utah. For the past three years, the BLM has
 funded one position to compile and analyze these data
 which have been summarized in two technical reports
 (Furnish 1989, 1990). The BLM in Oregon and
 Washington will continue to rely upon analyses
 performed by the USFS Intermountain Region since
 an Interagency Agreement (LA) signed in 1992
 mandates  a joint USFS/BLM laboratory. The BLM
 has hired  an Assistant Program Manager for the
 laboratory which has been relocated in Logan, Utah.

 BLM has  also coordinated its biomonitoring program
 development efforts with Oregon, Washington, and
 other Federal agencies. This cooperation was
 mandated by two Memoranda of Agreement (MOA)
 signed during 1990 and 1991 with the Oregon
 Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and
 EPA respectively.  Collaboration between the BLM
 and DEQ has resulted  in joint meetings and training
 sessions to standardize  methods of collection and
 analysis and ensure the exchange of information.
The MOU with EPA has been given impetus by the
creation of the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) which will include the
BLM in its national monitoring program. The EPA
will provide funding for BLM in exchange for
assistance and coordination and data collection
performed by BLM personnel.  Full implementation
of the EMAP is expected by  1995.

The BLM has conducted stream habitat inventories in
anadromous fish districts in Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho. Fish habitat inventories have been conducted
on hundreds of stream miles in numerous coastal and
Columbia River drainages. The objectives of these
inventories are to provide data on critical anadromous
fish habitat and  determine factors limiting fish
production in selected drainages. Monitoring for
changes in habitat conditions and salmonid use has
also been conducted on  study drainages over the past
five to 12 years to assess the value of stream
rehabilitation and look at long-term trends. Stream
inventories and monitoring has been conducted using
the habitat typing technique  as well as by describing
substrate characteristics, large woody debris, riparian
condition, channel morphology, and fish use changes.
                                                    50

-------
EPA Region 10                                                                  My 1993
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101	
                                   APPENDICES
                                          51

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                        July 1993
    APPENDIX A.  DEFINITIONS
ALLOCHTHONOUS:
Derived from outside a system, such as leaves of
terrestrial plants that fall into a stream or river.

ANADROMOUS:
Moving from the sea to fresh water environment for
reproduction.

AQUATIC COMMUNITY:
An association of interacting biota in an aquatic
ecosystem.

ASSEMBLAGE:
A subset of the biota in an ecosystem (e.g., fish
assemblage, macroinvertebrate assemblage).

AUFWUCHS:
Complex assemblage of animals and plants living on
the surface of a submerged mineral or organic
substrate.

AUTOCHTHONOUS:
Derived from within a system, such as organic matter
in a stream resulting from photosynthesis by aquatic
plants.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs):
Methods, measures, or practices to prevent or reduce.
water pollution, including, but not limited  to structural
and nonstructal controls and operation and
maintenance procedures.  BMPs may be applied
before, during, or after pollution-producing activities
to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollution
into water bodies.

BIOASSAY:
A toxicity test hat uses selected organisms to
determine the acute or chronic effects of a chemical
pollutant or whole effluent.

BIOCRTTERIA:
See biological criteria.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT:
An evaluation of the biological condition of a
waterbody that uses biological surveys and other direct
measurements of resident biota in surface waters.

BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA:
Numeric values or narrative expressions that describe
the reference biological integrity of aquatic
assemblages inhabiting waters that have been given a
designated aquatic life use.

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY:
"A balanced, integrated, adaptive community of
organisms having species composition, diversity, and
functional organization comparable to that of natural
habitat of the region"  (Karr and Dudley, 1981)

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING:
The use of a biological entity as a detector and its
response as a measure to determine environmental
conditions. Toxicity test and biological surveys are
common biomonitoring methods.

BIOLOGICAL (OR BIOCHEMICAL) OXYGEN
DEMAND (BOD):
Amount of oxygen that can be taken up by nonliving
organic matter as it decomposes by aerobic
biochemical action.

BIOLOGICAL STANDARD:
A legally established State rule that includes a
designated biological use (goal) and biological criteria.

COBBLE:
Substrate particles 64-256 mm in diameter (also
referred to as rubble).

DESIGNATED USES:
Specified in water quality standards for each
waterbody or segment, whether or not they  are being
attained. For example, salmonid spawning,  primary
contact recreation, shellfish harvest.

DIVERSITY INDEX:
Numerical value derived from the number of
individuals (abundance) and the number of  taxa
present (richness).
                                                   52

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                July 1993
ECOREGION:
A relatively homogeneous area defined by similarity of
vegetation, land form, soil, geology, hydrology, and
land use.  Ecoregions help define designated use
classifications of specific waterbodies.

EMBEDDEDNESS:
The degree to which boulders, rubble, or gravel are
surrounded by fine sediment.

FUNCTIONAL GROUPS:
Groups of organisms that obtain energy in similar
ways.

GLIDE:
Slow, relatively shallow stream section with little or no
surface turbulence.

GRAVEL:
Substrate particles between 2 and 64 mm in diameter.

IMPACT:
A change in the chemical, physical or biological
quality or condition of a waterbody that is caused by
external forces.

IMPAIRMENT:
A detrimental effect on the biological integrity of a
waterbody caused by an impact that prevents
attainment of the designated use.

METRIC:
A descriptive measure; as used in this document, a
biological unit of measurement (i.e. number of taxa,
percent Ephemeroptera (an order of
macroinvertebrates), number of juvenile sahnonids,
etc)

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION:
Pollution from sources that cannot be defined as
discrete points, such as runnoff from areas of timber
harvest, agriculture and grazing.

POOL:
Portion of a stream with reduced current velocity,
often with deeper water than surrounding areas  and
with a smooth surface.
REDD:
Nest made in stream gravel, consisting of a depression
dug by a fish for egg deposition and associated gravel
mounds.

RIFFLE:
An area of the stream with relatively fast currents and
cobble/gravel substrate.

RUN:
Swiftly flowing stream reach with little surface
agitation.

SUBSTRATE:
The composition of the stream or river bottom
ranging from rocks to mud.

TOXICOLOGICAL
INDICATORS:
The effects of chemicals on laboratory organisms.
                                                    53

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA  98101
                                        July 1993
    APPENDIX  B.  REFERENCES
Barbour, M.T., J.L. Plafkin, 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. Env. Tox. and Chem.
    VoL 11: 437-449.

Burton, TA. 1991. Monitoring Stream Substrate
    Stability, Pool Volumes, and Habitat Diversity -
    Draft. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare,
    Div. of Environmental Quality. Boise, ID. 12pp.

Burton, TA., E. Cowley, G.W. Harvey, and B.
    Wicherski. 1991. Protocols for Evaluation and
    Monitoring of Stream/Riparian Habitats
    Associated with Aquatic Communities in
    Rangeland Streams - Draft. Idaho Department of
    Health and Welfare, Div. of Environmental
    Quality. Boise,  ID. 31pp.

Burton, TA, G.W. Harvey, and M.L. McHenry. 1990
    Protocols for Assessment of Dissolved Oxygen,
    Fine Sediment  and Salmonid Embryo Survival in
    an Artificial Redd. Idaho Department of Health
    and Welfare, Div. of Environmental Quality.
    Boise, ID. 25pp.

Burton, TA. and G.W. Harvey. 1990. Estimating
    Intergravel Salmonid Living Space Using the
    Cobble Embeddedness Sampling Procedure -
    Draft. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare,
    Div. of Environmental Quality. Boise, ID. 12pp.

Caton, L.W. 1991. Improved Subsampling Methods for
    the EPA "Rapid Bioassessment" Benthic
    Protocols. Bulletin of the North American
    Benthological Society. Fall 1991.

Chandler, G.L., T.  R. Maret and D.W. Zaroban,  1993.
    Protocols for Assessment of Biotic Integrity (Fish)
    in Idaho Streams - Draft. Idaho Department  of
    Health and Welfare, Div. of Environmental
    Quality. Boise,  ID.
Clark, W.H. 1990. Coordinated Nonpoint Source
    Water Quality Monitoring Program for Idaho.
    Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Div. of
    Environmental Quality. Boise, ID. 139pp.

Clark, W.H., 1991. Literature Pertaining to the
    Identification and Distribution of Aquatic
    Macroinvertebrates in the Western U.S. with
    Emphasis on Idaho. Idaho Department of Health
    and Welfare, Division of Env.  Quality. Boise, ID.
    56pp.

Clark, WJH. and TJR. Maret. 1993. Protocols for
    Assessment of Biotic Integrity
    (Macroinvertebrates) in Wadable Idaho Streams.
    Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Div. of
    Environmental Quality. Boise, ID. 55pp.

Clarke, S.E., D. White, and A.L. Schaedel. 1991.
    Oregon, USA, Ecological Regions and Subregions
    for Water Quality Management. Environ.
    Manage.(15)847-856.

Cowley, E.R., TA. Burton, and G.W. Harvey. 1992.
    Protocols for Classifying, Monitoring and
    Evaluating Stream/Riparian Vegetation on
    Rangeland Streams in Idaho - Draft. Idaho
    Department of Health and Welfare, Div.  of
    Environmental Quality. Boise, ID.

Cupp, C.E. 1989. Stream corridor  classification for
    forested lands of Washington. Hosey and
    Associates Engineering Co., Bellevue, WA. 46 pp.

Cummins, K.W. and MA. Wilzbach. 1985. Field
    Procedures for Analysis of Functional Feeding
  '  Groups of Stream Macroinvertebrates.
    Contribution 1611. Appalachian Environmental
    Laboratory, University of Maryland, Frostburg.

EA Engineering, 1991. Use of Habitat Assessment  in
    Evaluating Ecological Integrity: Issue Paper No. 4.
    Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, Office of Water.

Fisher, TJR. 1989. Applications  and Testing of Biotic
    Integrity in Northern and Central Idaho
    Headwater Streams. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Idaho.
    Moscow, ID. 180 pp.
                                                    54

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                  July 1993
Frey, F.E J. 1977. Biological Integrity of Water - An
    Historical Approach, pp. 127-140 in R.K.
    Ballentine and LJ. Guarraia (Coordinators) The
    Integrity of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency. Washington, D.C.

Frissell, CA., WJ. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D.
    Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for
    stream habitat classification: Viewing streams in a
    watershed context. Environ. Manage. 10:199-214.

Furnish, J. 1989. An Analysis of Macroinvertebrate,
    Trout  and Stream Survey Data from the Trout
    Creek Mountains of Southeastern Oregon. Bureau
    of Land Management, Vale District.

Furnish, J. 1990. DRAFT. An Analysis of Habitat
    Aquatic Macroinvertebrate and Trout Survey Data
    from the Burns, Prineville and Vale  Districts,
    Eastern Oregon. Bureau of Land Management,
    Vale District.

Gauch, H. Jr. 1982. Multivariate Analysis in
    Community Ecology. Cambridge University Press,
    New York.

Gurtz, M.E. 1993. In: Loeb, S.L. and Spacie, A^ eds.
    1993 (In press), Biological monitoring of
    freshwater ecosystems: Boca Ranton, Fla. Lewis
    Publishers.

Hill, M.O. 1979a. DECORANA:a FORTRAN
    program for detrended correspondence analysis
    and reciprocal averaging.  Cornell University,
    Ithaca, NY. 52 pp.

Hill, M.0.197%. TWINSPAN:a FORTRAN
    program for arranging  multivariate data in an
    ordered two-way table  by classification of the
    individual attributes. Cornell University, Ithaca,
    NY. 90 pp.

Hirsh, R.M., W.M. Alley and W.G. Wilber. 1988.
    Concepts for a National Water-Quality
    Assessment Program.  U.S. Geological Survey
    Circular 1021, 42p.

Hughes, R.M. et aL 1990. A regional framework for
    establishing recovery criteria. Environ. Manage.
    14:673-683.
Hughes, R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Omernik. 1986.
    Regional Reference Sites: a Method for Assessing
    Stream Potentials. Environ. Manage.(10)5:629-635.

Hughes, R.M. and J.R. Gammon. 1987.  Longitudinal
    changes in fish assemblages and water quality in
    the Willamette River, Oregon. Trans. Am. Fish.
    Soc. 116(2):196-209.

Hughes, R.M., E. Rexstad, and C.E. Bond. 1987. The
    Relationship of Aquatic Ecoregions, River
    Basins, and Physiographic Provinces to
    Ichthyogeographic Regions of Oregon. Copeia
    1987: 423-432,

Hurlbert, SXL 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design
    of ecological field experiments. Ecological
    Monographs. 54(2): 187-211.

James, F.C. and C.E.  McColloch. 1990. Multivariate
    analysis in ecology and systematics: panacea or
    pandora's box? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21: 129-
    166.

Johnson, RA. and D.W. Wichern. 1988. Applied
    Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 2nd Ed. Prentice-
    Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 607 pp.

Karr, J JL 1981 Assessment of biotic integrity using
    fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.

Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity, a long-neglected
    aspect of water resource management. Ecological
    Applications l(l):66-84.

Karr, JJL, and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological
  •  perspective on water quality goals. Environmental
    Management 5:55-68.

Karr, J.R., KJX Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, PJR. Yant,
    and LJ. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing Biological
    Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and Its
    Rationale. Special Publication 5. Illinois Natural
    History Survey.
                                                     55

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                 July 1993
Kaufmann, P.R. and G. Robison. 1993. Physical
    habitat assessment. Section 6 in D J. Klemm and
    J.M. Lazorchak (eds.) EMAP Surface Waters and
    Region 3 Regional-EMAP: 1993 pilot field
    operations and methods manual for streams. U.S.
    EPA., Office of Research and Development,
    Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
    Cincinnati, Ohio.

Leahy, P.P.,  J.S. Rosenshein and D.S. Knopman. 1990.
    Implementation plan for the National Water-
    Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological
    Survey Open-File Report 90-174: lOp.

Leopold, L.B. and M.G. Wolman. 1957. River channel
    patterns: braided, meandering, and straight. U.S.
    Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-B, p.
    39-85.

 Ludwig, JA. and J.F. Reynolds.  1988. Statistical
    ecology: a primer on methods and computing.
    John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 337 pp.

 McCormick, F. 1993. Fish indicator. Section 10 in D J.
    Klemm and J.M. Lazorchak (eds.). EMAP 1993
    pilot field operations and methods manual. U.S.
    EPA. Cinncinati, Ohio.

 McDonald,  L.H., A.W. Smart and R.C. Wissmar.
    1991. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate the
    Effects  of Forestry Activities on Streams in the
    Pacific Northwest and Alaska. U.S. EPA Region
     10. EPA/910/9-91-001

 Meehan, W.R. (editor). 1991. Influences of Forest and
    rangeland management on Salmonid Fishes and
     their habitats. American  Fisheries Society Special
     Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland.

 Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins, eds. 1984. An
     Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North
     America. Second edition. Kendall/Hunt
     Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa.

 Milner, A.M. and M.W. Oswood. 1991. A Rapid
     Bioassessment Technique to Evaluate the Water
     Quality of Streams within the Municipality of
     Anchorage. Preliminary  Draft Manual. Institute of
     Arctic  Biology, University of Alaska. Fairbanks,
     Alaska. 12pp.
Mulvey, M., L. Caton and R. Hafele. 1992. DRAFT
    Oregon Nonpoint Source Monitoring Protocols
    Stream Bioassessment Field Manual for
    Macroinvertebrates and Habitat Assessment.
    Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality, Portland,
    OR.

Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant 1986. Ecoregions of
    the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Environmental Research
    Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-86/003

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. U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Washington D.C. EPA-444/4-
    89-001.

Platts, W.S. et al. 1983. Methods for Evaluating
    Streams, Riparian and Biotic Conditions. General
    Tech. Rep. INT-138. U.S. Dep. Agric., U.S. Forest
    Serv., Ogden, Utah.

Plotnikoff, R.W. 1992. T/F/W Ecoregion
    Bioassessment Pilot Project Draft Report.
    Washington State Department of Ecology.
    Olympia, WA.

 Ralph, S.C. 1990. Timber/Fish/Wildlife Stream
    Ambient Monitoring Field Manual. Center for
     Streamside Studies, University of Washington,
     Seattle, WA. 73pp.

 Ralph, S.C. et al. 1991. Ambient Monitoring Project
     biennial progress report, 1989-1991. Center for
  -   Streamside Studies, University of Washington,
     Seattle, WA. 33pp.

 Robinson, C.T. and G.W. Minshall. 1991. Biological
     Metric Development for the Assessment of
     Nonpoint Pollution in  the Snake River Ecoregion
     of Southern Idaho. Idaho State Univ., Dept. of
     Biological Sciences, Pocatello, ID. 75pp.

 Storey, A.W., D.H.D.  Edward, and  P.Gazey. 1991.
     Surber and kick sampling: a comparison for the
     assessment of macroinvertebrate community
     structure in streams of south-western Australia.
     Hydrobiologia 211: 111-121.
                                                      56

-------
 EPA Region 10
 1200 Sixth Ave.
 Seattle, WA  98101
                                         July 1993
 Smith, F.S., S. Kulkarni, L.E. Myers, and MJ.
    Messner. 1988. Evaluating and present quality
    assurance data, in Principles of Environmental
    Sampling (L.H. Keith, ed.),  Ch.10, pp. 157-168.
    ACS Professional Reference Book, American
    Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.

 Thiele, SA. and J.M. Omernik. 1992. Draft Map of
    Ecological Subregions of Oregon and Washington
    Coast Range. EPA, Corvallis, OR.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Surface
    Water Monitoring:  a Framework for Change.
    Office of Water, Office of Policy, Planning, and
    Evaluation, VS. EPA, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a.
    Biological Criteria:  National Program Guidance
    for Surface Waters.  Office of Water Regulations
    and Standards, U.S. EPA, Washington D.C. EPA-
    440/5-90-004.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b.
    Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods
    for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface
    Waters. Environmental Monitoring Systems
    Laboratory. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-
    600/4-90/030.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a.
    Biological Criteria:  State Development and
    Implementation Efforts. Office of Water, U.S.
    EPA, Washington D.C. EPA-440/5-91-003.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b.
    Biological Criteria:  Guide to Technical Literature.
    Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington D.C.
    EPA-440/5-91-004.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991c.
    Biological Criteria:  Research and Regulation,
    Proceedings of a Symposium. Office of Water,
    U.S.  EPA, Washington D.C. EPA-440/5-91-005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992a.
    Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidance
    for Bioassessment/  Biomonitoring Programs.
    Office of Research and Development. U.S. EPA,
    Washington D.C. in press.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992b.
    DRAFT Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance
    for Streams. U.S. EPA, Office of Science and
    Technology, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993.
    Fish Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating
    the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters.
    Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory.
    U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/R-92/111.

 U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 1990.
    Integrated riparian evaluation guide. US.
    Department of Agriculture, Ogden, Utah. 102 pp.

Weitzel, R.L.(ed.). 1979. Methods and Measurements
    of Periphyton Communities. Special Technical
    Publication 690. American Society for Testing and
    Materials.

Whittier, T.R., R.M. Hughes, and D.P. Larsen. 1988.
    Correspondence between ecoregions and spatial
    patterns in Stream Ecosystems in Oregon. Can. J.
    Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45:1264-1278.

Wingett, R.W. and FA. Mangum. 1979. Biotic
    condition index: integrated biological, physical,
    and chemical stream parameters for management.
    USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region,
    Ogden, UT. 51p.

Zar, JJL 1984. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd Ed.
    Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewook Cliffs, NJ. 718 pp.
                                                   57

-------
EPA Region 10                                                        Jul*
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101                                    	_
   APPENDIX C. HABITAT
   ASSESSMENT FIELD SHEETS
                                    58

-------
EPA Region 10    HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET
1200 Sixth Ave.    RIFFLE/RUN PREVALENCE
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                July 1993
 .  BOTTOM SUBSTRATE - PERCENT FINES [fraction of substrate less .25 inch (6.35mm) in
   diameter]:	      	.	
Optimal

Less than 10% fines


16 - 20  	
Sub-Opt ima1


Between 10 - 20 %
fines

11 -15  	
Marginal

Between 20 - 50 X
fines.

6 - 10   	
Greater than 50
percent fines.
0 - 5
2.  INSTREAM COVER (FISH):
 Optimal

 Greater than 50% mix
 of cobble gravel,
 large woody debris,
 undercut banks, or
 other stable fish
 cover.
 16 - 20
sub-optimal


30 -  50 X mix of
cobble, gravel, or
other stable fish
cover. Adequate cover.
                           11 -15
Marginal

10 - 30 X mix of
cobble, gravel, or
other stable fish
cover. Cover
availability is less
than desirable.
                                                      6 -  10
Less than 10% cobble,
gravel or other stable
cover.  Lack of cover
is obvious.
                                                                                0 -  5
 3.  EMBEDDEDNESS (RIFFLE):
 Optimal


 Gravel, cobble and
 boulder particles are
 between 0 - 25X
 surrounded by fine
 sediment, [particles
 less than .25 inches
 (6.35mm))

 16 - 20  	
 sub-optimal


 Gravel,  cobble and
 boulder particles are
 between 25 - 50%
 surrounded by fine
 sediment.
 11  -15
 Optimal


 Slow/deep;
 slow/shallow;
 fast/deep;  and
 fast/shallow habitats
 all present.
 4.  VELOCITY/DEPTH:
 sub-Optimal


 Only 3 of the 4
 habitat categories
 present (missing
 riffles or runs score
 lower than missing
 pools).
 Marginal

 Gravel, cobble and
 boulder particles are
 between 50 - 75%
 surrounded by fine
 sediment.
                            6 - 10
 Poor

 Gravel,  cobble and
 boulder  particles are
 over 75% surrounded by
 fine sediment, or
 bottom is composed of
 sand, clay or bedrock.
                                                      0 - 5
 Marginal

 Only 2 of the 4
 habitat categories
 present (missing
 riffles or runs
 receive lower scores).
 Dominated by 1
 velocity/depth
 category.
  16 - 20
                            11 -15
                                                       6 - 10
                                                                                 0 -  5
                                                   59

-------
EPA Region 10    HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET
1200 Sixth Ave.    RIFFLE/RUN PREVALENCE
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                         July 1993
5.  CHANNEL SHAPE (WE'lTED CHANNEL) - dominant shape:
Optimal

Trapezoidal
        Sub-Optimal/Marginal

        Rectangular
               Poor

               Inverse trapezoidal
11 - 15
                                6 - 10
                                                                0 - 5
& POOL/RIFFLE RATIO - POOL LENGTH DIVIDED BY RIFFLE LENGTH:

optimal               Sub-optimal          Marginal              Poo
Ratio: 1-3. Variety
of habitat. Pattern of
sequence relatively
frequent.
 12 - 15
Ratio: 4-9. Less
frequent repeat
pattern.
                        8 - 11
Ratio: 10 - 20.
Infrequent riffle.
Ratio: >20.
Homogeneous habitat.
                                                                        0 - 3
 7.  WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (USING WETTED WIDTH):
 Optimal

 Lower bank width to
 depth ratio <7
 (Channel wetted width
 divided by depth).
 12 - 15
Sub-Optimal

Width to Depth ratio
8- 15.
                         8 - 11
 &  BANK VEGETATION PROTECTION:
 Optimal

 Over 90% of the
 streambank surfaces
 covered by vegetation.
 9 - 10
 sub-Optimal

 70 - 89X of the
 streambank surfaces
 covered by vegetation.
                         6 - 8
Marginal

Width to Depth ratio
15 - 25.
                                                 4.- 7
Poor

Width to Depth ratio
>25.
                                                                        0 - 3
 Marginal

 50 - 79 X of the
 streambank surfaces
 covered by vegetation.
                                                 3 - S
                                                                        POP!
 Less than SOX of the
 streambank surfaces
 covered by vegetation.
                                                                        0 - 2
                                             60

-------
EPA Region 10    HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET                            July 1993
1200 Sixth Ave.    RIFFLE/RUN PREVALENCE
Seattle, WA 98101	
9.  LOWER BANK STABILITY:
Optimal
                        Sub-Optimal          Marginal              "Poor
                       Moderately stable.          Moderately unstable.         Unstable. Many eroded
Lower bank stable. No       infrequent small areas       Moderate frequency and       areas. "Raw" areas
evidence of erosion or           ^.^ ^              size of erosional           frequent along
bank failure.             healed over.               areas.                   straight sections and
                                                                      bends.


9-10  	            6 - 8  _               3-5  	            0-2  	
10.   DISRUPTIVE PRESSURES (ON STREAMBANK, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO

      STREAM):	

optimal               sub-Optimal          Marginal             ^oor

                        Disruption evident but       Disruption obvious;         Disruption of
Vegetative disruption        ^ 2ffeetl-               some patches of bare        streambank vegetation
minimal or not             community vigor.           soil or closely            is very high.
evident. Almost all          Vegetative use is          cropped vegetation          Vegetation has been
potential plant             moderate 60 - 90X of        present. 30 - 60 X of       removed to less than
biomass at present          ^ potential plant         the potential plant         30 % of the potential
stage of development         biomass remains.           biomass remains.           plant biomass.
remains.
                        6 - 8 	              3 - 5   	            0 - 2
 9 - 10  	            6    	                     	
 11.    ZONE OF INFLUENCE - WIDTH OF RIPARIAN VEGETATIVE ZONE - LEAST
       BUFFERED SIDE: _ _

 optimal               sub-optimal         Marginal              Poor


 Ss '£•=..       HISS'"
 all.


 9-10                   6-8  _               3-5   -            0-2
                                            61

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET
GLIDE/POOL PREVALENCE
                                                                                            July 1993
1. POOL SUBSTRATE CHARACTERISTIC:
Optimal


Mixture of substrate
materials with gravel
and firm sand
prevalent; root mats
and submerged
vegetation common.

16 - 20  	
          Sub-Optimal

          Mixture of soft sand,
          mud, or clay; mud may
          be dominant; some root
          mats and submerged
          vegetation present.
          11 -15
Marginal

All  mud or clay or
channelized with sand
bottom; little or no
submerged vegetation.
                                     6-10
Poor

Hard-pan clay or
bedrock; no root mat
or submerged
vegetation.
                                                               0 - 5
2.  INSTREAM COVER (FISH):
 Optimal


 Greater than 50% mix
 of cobble gravel,
 large woody debris,
 undercut banks, or
 other stable fish
 cover.

 16 - 20  	
          Sub-Optimal


          30  - 50 % mix of
          cobble, gravel, or
          other stable fish
          cover. Adequate cover.
          11  -15
Marginal


10 - 30 % mix of
cobble, gravel, or
other stable fish
cover. Cover
availability is less
than desirable.

6 - 10  	
Poor

Less than 10% cobble,
gravel  or other stable
cover.  Lack of cover
is obvious.
                                                                0  - 5
 3.  POOL VARIABILITY:
 Optimal

 Even mix of deep,
 shallow, large and
 small pools.


 16 - 20  	
          Sub-Optimal

          Majority of pools
          large and deep very
          few shallow pools.


          11 -15 	
 Marginal

 Shallow pools much
 more prevalent than
 deep pools.
 6 -  10
 Poor

 Majority of pools
 small and shallow or
 pools absent.
                            0 - 5
 4.  CANOPY COVER (SHADING):
 Optimal

 A mixture of
 conditions where some
 areas of water surface
 are fully exposed to
 sunlight, and other
 areas are receiving
 various degrees of
 filtered light.

 16 - 20  	
           sub-Optimal


           Covered by sparse
           canopy; entire water
           surface receiving
           filtered light.
           11  -15
 Marginal

 Completely covered by
 dense canopy; water
 surface completely
 shaded OR nearly full
 sunlight reaching
 water surface. Shading
 limited to <3 hours
 per day.

 6 - 10   	
 Poor

 Lack of canopy, full
 sunlight reaching the
 water surface.
                                                                 0 - 5
                                                   62

-------
EPA Region 10     HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET
1200 Sixth Ave.     GLIDE/POOL PREVALENCE
Seattle, WA  98101
                                                             July 1993
5.  CHANNEL SHAPE (WLTl'ED CHANNEL) - dominant shape:
Optimal

Trapezoidal
        Sub-Optimal/Marginal

        Rectangular
                Poor

                Inverse trapezoidal
11 - 15
                                  6 - 10
                                                                   0 - 5
                                                                            7
6.  CHANNEL SINUOSITY:
Optimal
 Instream channel
 length 3 to 4 times
 the straight line
 distance.
Sub-Optimal


Instream channel
length 2 to 3 times
the straight line
distance.
                         8 - 11
Marginal


Instream channel
length 1 to 2 times
the straight line
distance.
                                                   4 - 7
 Optimal

 Lower bank width to
 depth ratio <7
 (Channel wetted width
 divided by depth).
Sub-Optimal

Width to Depth ratio
8- 15^.
                          8 - 11
                                                   Marginal
Width to Depth ratio
15 - 25.
                                                   4 - 7
 Optimal


 Over 90X of the
 streambank surfaces
 covered by vegetation.


 9 - 10 	
 sub-Optimal


 70 - 89% of the
 streambank surfaces
 covered by vegetation.


 6 - 8 	
 Marginal

 50 - 79 % of the
 streambank surfaces
 covered by vegetation.
 3 - 5
Poor

Channel straight;
channelized waterway.
                                                                            0 - 3
125.
                                                                            0 - 3
M - 13 	
8
BANK VEGETATION PROTECTION:
 Less than 50% of the
 streambank surfaces
 covered by vegetation.
                          0 - 2
                                               63

-------
EPA Region 10    HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET                                July 1993
1200 Sixth Ave.    GLIDE/POOL PREVALENCE
Seattle, WA 98101                                                            	
9. LOWER BANK STABILITY:
Optimal
                          Sub-Optimal          Marginal               Poor
     hank Arable  Mo        Moderately stable.           Moderately unstable.         Unstable. Many eroded
    ntof erSsionor        Infrequent small areas       Moderate frequency and       areas. "Raw" areas
  nTiurP                of erosion mostly           size of erosional            frequent along
bank failure.               ^^ over                apeas                     straight sections and
                                                                              bends.
9-10                     6-8 	                3-5   	             0-2
10.    DISRUPTIVE PRESSURES (ON STREAMBANK, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO
       STREAM):                                             _____
Optimal
                           sub-Optimal           Marginal               Poor
»   .. »!„„ H-o^^i-ion        Disruption evident but        Disruption obvious;           Disruption of
Vegetative disruption        ^ a£fecting               some patches of bare          streambank vegetation
minimal or not              conmunity vigor.             soil or closely              is very high.
^i«?i«i  nTSnt             Vegetative use  is            cropped vegetation           Vegetation has been
potential  plant             moderate  60 -  90% of         present. 30 - 60 % of         removed to less than
ci°To*ariP«?on!£ni-         the potential plant          the potential plant          30 X of the potential
stage of development         biomass remains.             biomass remains.             plant biomass.
rema i ns.

9-10                     6 - 8 	                3 ' 5   	              ° ' 2  	
11.    ZONE OF INFLUENCE - WIDTH OF RIPARIAN VEGETATIVE ZONE - LEAST
       BUFFERED SIDE:	.	

optimal                 sub-Optimal           Marginal               Poor

Width of riparian            Width of riparian zone        Width of  riparian zone        Little or no riparian
vegetative ztne (on           (each side) is at            (each side) is at            Y^et^1on *» *° ""
each SS iflt least        least 2 times the            least as  wide as the         JSlS-'toJH
4 times the width of          width of the stream.          stream. Human               (parking lots,
the stream? Human            Human activities have        activities have             clearcuts. lawns or
£lv?~hSTnot           i^cted this zone           impacted  the riparian        eg. pl«£dto the
impacted this zone at         only minimally.             zone a great deal.           edge of stream).
all.

9 . 10  	              6 - 8  	                3 - 5    	             0 -  2   	
                                                 64

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                               July 1993
    APPENDIX D.
    MACROINVERTEBRATE
    KEYS/LITERATURE
The majority of the information in this appendix
comes from Clark, 1991., Mulvey, et al. 1992., and
Plotnikoff, 1992.  See Clark, 1991., for a more
thorough set of references.
            GENERAL REFERENCES

Chu, H.F. 1949. How to know the immature insects.
    Wm.  C. Brown Co., Publ.  Iowa. 243 pp.

Clark, W.H. 1991. Literature pertaining to the
    identification and distribution of aquatic
    macroinvertebrates of the western U.S. with
    emphasis on Idaho. Idaho Dept. of Health and
    Welfare. Div.  of Environmental Quality, Boise,
    ID. 64 pp.

Edmondson, W.T. (ed.). 1959. Freshwater biology
    (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons, N.Y. 1248 pp.

Hafele, R. and S.  Roederer. 1987. An angler's guide
    to aquatic insects and their imitations. Johnson
    Books, Boulder, CO. 180 pp.

 Lehmkuhl, D.M. 1979.  How to know the aquatic
    insects. Wm. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, IA. 168 pp.

Thorp, J.H. and A.P. Covich (eds.). 1991. Ecology and
    classification of North American freshwater
    invertebrates. Academic Press, San Diego,
    California. 911 pp.

 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. 1990b.
    Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods
    for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface
    Waters. Environmental Monitoring Systems
    Laboratory. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-
    600/4-90/030.

 McCaffrety, W.P. 1981. Aquatic entomology.  Science
    Books, Boston, MA. 448 pp.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins (eds.). 1984. An
    introduction to the aquatic insects of North
    America (2nd ed.). Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co.,
    Dubuque, IA. 722 pp.

Parrish, F.K. 1975. Keys to water quality indicative
    organisms of the southeastern United States (2nd
    ed.). U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. 195 pp.

Pennak, R.W. 1978.  Freshwater invertebrates of the
    United States. (Second ed.). John Wiley and Sons,
    NY. 803 pp.

Pennak, R.W. 1989.  Freshwater invertebrates of the
    United States, Protozoa to Mollusca (3rd ed.).
    John Wiley and Sons,  NY. 628 pp.

Petersen, A. 1967. Larvae of insects: An introduction
    to Nearctic species. Parts I & II. Edwards
    Brothers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. 315 pp. and 416
    pp.

Schuh, R.T. (ed.). 1989. The Torre-Bueno Glossary of
    entomology. The New York Entomological
    Society and American Museum of Natural
    History.  New York, NY. 840 pp.

Stehr, F.W. (ed.) 1987. Immature insects.  Vol. 1.
    Kendall/Hunt Co., Dubuque, IA. 754 pp.

 Stehr, F.W. 1991. Immature insects. Vol. 2.
    Kendall/Hunt Co., Dubuque, IA. 975 pp.

 Usinger, R.L. (ed.) 1956.  Aquatic insects of
    California. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, CA.
    508pp.
                  TURBELLARIA

 Ball, I.R. 1969. An annotated checklist of the
     freshwater Tridadida of the Nearctic and
     Neotropical regions.  Can. Jour. Zool. 47:59-64.

 Kenk, R. 1972. Freshwater planarians (Turbellaria) of
     North America. Biota of freshwater ecosystems
     identification manual No. 1. U.S. EPA,
     Washington, D.C. 81 pp.

 Kenk, R. 1989. Revised list of the North American
     freshwater planarians (Platyhelminthes: Tridadida:
     Paludicola). Smith. Cont. Zool. 476:1-10.
                                                    65

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                        July 1993
                   ANNELIDA

General:
Klemm, D J. 1985. A guide to the Annelida
    (Polychaeta, Naidid and Tubifidd Oligochaeta,
    and Hirudinea) of North America.  Kendall/Hunt
    PubL Co., Dubuque, LA. 198 pp.

Oligochaeta:
Brinkhurst, R.0.1976. Aquatic Oligochaeta recorded
    from Canada and the St. Lawrence Great Lakes.
    Dept. of Fish, and the Environ., Institute of
    Ocean Sci., Victoria, B.C., 512-1230.

Brinkhurst, R.0.1986. Guide to the freshwater
    aquatic  microdrile oligochaetes of North America.
    Canadian  Spec. PubL Fisheries Aquatic ScL 84.
    Dept. Fish Oceans, Ottawa. 259 pp.
                   CRUSTACEA

General:
Fitzpatrick, J.F., Jr.  1983. How to know the
    freshwater Crustacea.  Wm. C. Brown Co. PubL,
    Dubuque, LA. 227 pp.
Ostracoda:
Delorme, L.D. 1970.  Freshwater ostracodes of
    Canada.  Part I. Subfamily Cypridinae.  Canadian
    Jour. Zool. 48:153-168, XII pis.

Delorme, LJD. 1970.  Freshwater ostracodes of
    Canada.  Part II. Subfamily Cypridopsinae and
    Herpetocypridinae, and family Cyclocyprinidae.
    Canadian Jour.  Zool. 48:253-266.

Delorme, L.D. 1970.  Freshwater ostracodes of
    Canada.  Part IV. Families Ilyocyprididae,
    Notodromadidae, Darwinulidae, Cytherideidae,
    and Entocytheridae. Canadian Jour.  ZooL
    48:1251-1259.

Delorme, L.D. 1971.  Freshwater ostracodes of
    Canada.  Part V. Families Limnocytheridae and
    Loxoconchidae.  Canadian Jour.  ZooL 49:43-64.

Dobbin, CN. 194L Freshwater Ostracoda from
    Washington and other western localities. Univ.
    WAPubL BioL 4(3):175246.
Ferguson, E., Jr. 1966.  Some freshwater ostracods
    from the western United States. Trans. Amer.
    Microso. Soc. 85 (2) :313-318.

Tressler, Wi. 1947.  A checklist of the known species
    of North American freshwater ostracods. Amer.
    MidL Natur. 38:698707.

Amphipoda:
Bousfield, E.L. 1958. Freshwater amphipod
    crustaceans of glaciated North America. Can.
    Field Nat. 72:55-113.

Holsinger, J.R. 1976. The freshwater amphipod
    crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America.
    Second printing.  EPA Water Pollution Control
    Research Series  18050 ELD05/72, Cincinnati,
    Ohio. 89 pp.

Decapoda:
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1976. Crayfishes (Astracidae) of
    North and Central America.  EPA Water
    Pollution Control Research Series 18050
    ELD05/72. Cincinnati, Ohio. 173pp.

Isopoda:
William, WJX 1976.  Freshwater Isopods (Aselludae)
    of North America.  EPA Water Pollution Control
    Research Series  18050 ELD05/72. Cincinnati,
    Ohio. 45pp.
                 HYDRACARINA

Bergstrom, D.W. 1953. Hydracarina from the Rocky
    Mountain region. Trans. Amer.  Microscop.
 -  Soc. 72:157-162.

Conroy, J.C. and G.GJE. Scudder. 1975. An
    annotated checklist of the water mites (Acari) of
  '  British Columbia. Syesis 8:305-310.

Cook, DJL 1974. Water mite genera and subgenera.
    Mem. Amer. Entomol. InsL, No. 21, viii + 860
    pp.

Marshall, R. 1943.  Hydracarina from California.  Part
    I. Trans.  Amer.  Microscop.  Soc 62(3):306-324.

Marshall, R. 1943.  Hydracarina from California.  Part
    H. Trans. Amer. Microscop. soc. 62(4):404-415.
                                                   66

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                        July 1993
                 COLLEMBOLA

Christiansen, K., and P. Bellinger. 1980-81.  The
    Collembola of North America north of the Rio
    Grande. Grinnell College.  Grinnell, IA. 1322 pp.

Scott, D.B. 1961. Collembola: pictorial keys to the
    Nearctic genera. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer.
    54:104-113.

Waltz, R.D., and W.P. McCafferty. 1979. Freshwater
    Springtails of North America. Research Bull. No.
    960. Purdue Univ. Agri. Exp. Station, W. Layfette,
    Ind. 32 pp.

Wilkey, R.F. 1959.  Preliminary list of the Collembola
    of California. Bull.  CA Dept. Agric. 48(4):222-224.

Wray, D.L., and G.F. Knowlton. 1956.  A preliminary
    list of Collembola of Idaho. Great Basin Natur.
                EPHEMEROPTERA

 Allen, R.K. 1955. Mayflies of Oregon. Department of
    Zoology, University of Utah. Master's Thesis.
    162p.

 Allen, R.K. 1963. A revision to the Genus
    Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae),
    VI.  The Sub Genus Seretella in North America.
    Annals of the Entomological Society of America.
    56:583-600.

 Allen, R.K., and G.F. Edmunds, Jr. 1959. A revision
    to the Genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera:
    Ephemerellidae), I. The Subgenus Timpanoga.
    The Canadian Entomologist. 91:51-58.

 Allen, R.K., and G.F. Edmunds, Jr. 1960. A revision
    to the Genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera:
    Ephemerellidae), II.  The Sub Genus Caudatella.
    Annals of the Entomological Society of America.
    54:603-612.
Allen, R.K., and G.F. Edmunds, Jr. 1961. A revision
    to the Genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera:
    Ephemerellidae), III.  The Sub Genus
    Attenuatella. Journal of the Kansas Entomological
    Society. 34:161-173.

Allen, R.K., and G.F. Edmunds, Jr. 1962. A revision
    to the Genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera:
    Ephemerellidae), IV.  The Sub Genus Dannella.
    Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society.
    35:332-338.

Allen, R.K., and G.F. Edmunds, Jr. 1962. A revision
    to the Genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera:
    Ephemerellidae), V. The Sub Genus Drunnella
    in North America. Miscellaneous Publications of
    the Entomological Society of America,  3:146-179.

Allen, R.K., and G.F. Edmunds, Jr. 1963. A revision
    to the Genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera:
    Ephemerellidae), VII. The Sub Genus
    Eurylophella. The Canadian Entomologist. 95:597-
    623.

Allen, R.K., and G.F. Edmunds, Jr. 1965. A revision
    to the Genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera:
    Ephemerellidae), VIII. The Sub Genus
    Ephemerella in North America. Miscellaneous
    Publications of the Entomological Society of
    America. 4:234-282.

 Allen, R.K. 1968. A new species and records of
    Ephemerella (Ephemerella) in Western North
    America (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae).
    Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society.
    41:557-567.

 Edmunds, G.F., Jr. 1959. Subgeneric Groups within
     the Mayfly Genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera:
     Ephemerellidae), Annals of the Entomological
     Society of America. 52:543-547.

 Edmunds, G.F., Jr. and R.K. Allen. 1964. The Rocky
     Mountain species of Epeorus (Iron) Eaton
     (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae). J. Kansas
     Entom. Soc. 37: 275-288.
                                                     67

-------
  EPA Region 10
  1200 Sixth Ave.
  Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
  Edmunds, G.F., Jr., S.L. Jensen, and L. Berner. 1976.
     The Mayflies of North and Central America.
     Univ. MM, St. Paul, MN. 330 pp.

  Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1970.  Key to genera of Wisconsin
     Plecoptera (Stonefly) nymphs, Ephemeroptera
     (Mayfly) nymphs, Trichoptera (Caddisfly) nymphs.
     Research Report No. 67, DepL Nat. Res.,
     Madison, Wisconsin. 68 pp.

  Jensen, S. 1966.  Mayflies of Idaho. Master's Thesis,
     Univ. UT., Salt Lake City, UT. 367 pp.

  Johnson, S.C. 1978. Larvae of Ephemerella inermis
     and E. infrequens (Ephemeroptera:
     Ephemerellidae). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist.
     54:19-25.

  Lehmkuhl, D.M., and N.H. Anderson. 1971.
     Contributions to the Biology and Taxonomy of
     Paraleptophlebia  of Oregon (Ephemeroptera:
     Leptophlebtidae). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist.
     47:85-93.

 Newell, R.L., and G.W. Minshall. 1978.  An annotated
     list of the aquatic insects of southeastern Idaho,
     Part III. Ephemeroptera. Great Basin Natur.
     36(1)55-58.

 Morihara, D.K., and W.P. McCafferty. 1979. The
     Baetis Larvae of North America
     (Ephemeroptera:Baetidae). Transactions of the
     American Ent-Soc. 105:139-221.

 Traver, J.R. 1933. Heptagenine mayflies of North
     America. J. New York Entom. Soc. 41:105-125.
                    ODONATA

Brown, C JJD. 1934. A preliminary list of Utah
    Odonata. Occ. Pap. Mus. ZooL, Univ. Michigan,
    291:1-17.

Canning, RA. and KM. Stuart. 1977. Dragonflies of
    British Columbia. British Columbia Provincial
    Museum Handbook Number 35. 254 pp.

Corbet, P.S.  1963. A biology of dragonflies.
    Quadrangle Books, Chicago. 247pp.
 Corbet, P.S., C. Longfield and N.W. Moore. 1960.
     Dragonflies.  Collins Clear-Type Press, London.
     260pp.

 Kennedy, C.H. 1915. Notes on the life history and
     ecology of the dragonflies (Odonata) of
     Washington and Oregon. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus.
     49(2107):259-345.

 Logan, E.R. 1967. The Odonata of Idaho. MS Thesis,
     UnivJD, Moscow, ID. 164pp.

 Molnar, D.R., and RJ. Lavigne. 1979.  Odonata of
     Wyoming.SM-37, Univ.WY, Agric.Expt.Sta. 142pp.
 Montgomery, B.E. 1968. The distribution of western
    Odonata. Proc. N. Central Branch Entomol.
    Soc. Amer. 23(2):126-136.

 Musser, RJ. 1962.  Dragonfly numphs of Utah
    (OdonataiAnisoptera). Univ. UT, BioL Ser.
    12(6):l-66.

 Needham, J.G. and MJ. Westfall, Jr. 1955.  A manual
    of the dragonflies of North America (Anisoptera).
    Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA.615pp.

 Paulson, D.R. 1970.  A list of the Odonata of
    Washington with additions to and deletions from
    the State list. Pan-Pac.  Entomol. 46(3):194-198.

 Paulson, D.R., and R.W. Garrison. 1977.  A list and
    new distributional records of Pacific Coast
    Odonata. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 53(2):147-160.

Walker, EM. 1953.  The Odonata of Canada and
    Alaska.  Volume I. Univ. Toronto Press,
    Toronto, Ontario. 292 pp.

Walker, EM. 1958.  The Odonata of Canada and
    Alaska.  Volume II. Univ. Toronto Press,
    Toronto, Ontario. 318 pp.

Walker, E.M. 1975.  The Odonata of Canada and
    Alaska.  Volume HI. Univ. Toronto Press,
    Toronto, Ontario. 307 pp.
                                                   68

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                         July 1993
                  PLECOPTERA

Baumann, R.W., A.R. Gaufin, and R.F. Surdick. 1977.
    The stoneflies (Plecoptera) of the Rocky
    Mountains, Memoirs Am. Entomol. Soc. No. 31.
    208pp.

Gaufin, A., A. Nebeker, and J. Sessions. 1966. The
    stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Utah. Univ. Utah Biol.
    Ser. 14:1-89.

Gaufin, A., W. Ricker, M. Miner, P. Milam, and R.
    Hays. 1972. The stoneflies (Plecoptera) of
    Montana. Trans. Am. Entomol Soc. 98:1-161.

Hoppe, G.N. 1938. Plecoptera of Washington. Univ.
    WA Publs. Biol. 4:139-174.

Jewett, S.G. 1959. The stoneflies the Pacific
    Northwest. Oregon State Monogr. Stud. Entomol.
    3:1-95

Jewett, S.G. 1960. The stoneflies (Plecoptera) of
    California.  Bull. Calif. Insect Surv.  6:122-177.

Nebeker, A. and A. Gaufin. 1966. New stoneflies from
    Idaho(Plecoptera). EntomoLNews 77(2):37-43.

Newell, R.L. and G.W. MinshaU. 1979.  Aquatic
    invertebrates of southeastern Idaho. Part I.
    Plecoptera(stoneflies). Jour. ID Acad. Sci.
    15(1):6-20.

Ricker, W.E. and G.G.E. Scudder. 1975. An annotated
    checklist of the Plecoptera (Insecta) of British
    Columbia. Syesis 8:333-348.

Stark, B.P. and A.R. Gaufin. 1976. The nearctic
    Genera of Perlidae (Plecoptera). Misc. Publ.
    Entom. Soc. Amer. 10(1): 1-80

Stark, B.P., S.W. Szczytko, and R.W. Baumann. 1986.
    North American stoneflies (Plecoptera):
    Systematics, distribution, and taxonomic
    references.  Great Basin Natur. 46(3):383-397.

Stewart, K.W. and B.P. Stark.  1988.  Nymphs of North
    American stonefly genera (Plecoptera).  Thomas
    Say Found. 12:1-461.
Szczytco, S.W. and K.W. Stewart. 1979. The Genus
    Isoperla (Plecoptera) of Western North America;
    holomorphoiogy and systematics, and a new
    Stonefly Genus Cascadoperla.
                  HEM1PTERA

Biggam, R.C. and MA. Brusven. 1989. Gerridae
    (water striders) of Idaho (Heteroptera).  Pan-Pac.
    Entomol. 65(2):259-274.

Harris, H.M., and W.E. Shull.  A preliminary list of
    Hemiptera of Idaho. IA State ColL Jour.  Sci.
    18(2):199-208.

Henry, T., and R. Froeschner,  eds. 1988.  Catalog of
    the Heteroptera, or true bugs, of Canada and the
    continental United States.  EJ. Brill, NY.

Menke, A.S., ed. 1978. The semiaquatic and aquatic
    Hemiptera of California. Bull. Calif. Insect Surv.
    No. 21.  Univ.  Calif.  Press, Berkeley. 166  pp.

Roemhild, G. 1976. Aquatic Heteroptera of Montana.
    Research Report No. 102. Montana Agricultural
    Experiment Station, Bozeman. 70  pp.

Slater, JA., and R.M. Baranowski. 1978.  How  to
    know the true bugs (Hemiptera-Heteroptera).
    Wm. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, IA. 256 pp.

Stonedahi; G.M., and J.D. Lattin. 1982. The Gerridae
    or waterstriders of Oregon and Washington.
    Tech. Bull. 144, Ag. Expt. Sta., Ore.  State
 -  Univ., Corvallis. 36 pp.

Stonedahi, G.M., and J.D. Lattin. 1986. The
    Corixidae of Oregon and Washington (Hemiptera:
    Heteroptera). Tech. Bull. 150, Ag. Expt.  Sta.,
    Ore. State Univ., Corvallis. 84 pp.

Zack, R.S. 1990.  Aquatic Heteroptera (Notonectidae
    and Macroveliidae) new to Washington and Idaho.
    Pan-Pac. Entomol. 66(2):168-169.
                                                     69

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                 July 1993
       MKKALOPTERA AMU NFIIROPTERA

Evans, E.D. 1972. A study of the Megaloptera of the
    Pacific Coastal region of the United States.  Ph.D.
    diss. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 210 pp.

Parfra, S.I. and A.B. Gurney. 1956.  The spongilla-
    flies, with special reference to those of the
    Western Hemisphere.  Proc.  U.S. Nat. Mus.
    105:421-529.

Tarter, D.C., WD. Watkins, M.L, Little, and J.T.
    Goodwin. 1976. New state records of fishflies
    (Megaloptera: Corydalidae).  Entomol. News
    87(7/8):223-228.

Townsend, L.H. 1935. Key to larvae of certain
    families and genera of Nearctic Neuroptera.
    Proc.  Entomol.  Soc.  Wash. 37:25-30.
                  CQLEOPTERA

 Anderson, R.D. 1962. The Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) of
     Utah: Keys, original citation, types, and Utah
     distribution. Great Basin Natur. 22:54-75.

 Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1968.  The beetles of the United
     States. (A manual for identification). Ann Arbor,
     Mich., Amer.  Entomol.  InsL 1112 pp.

 Brown, H.P. 1972. Aquatic dryopoid beetles
     (Coleoptera) of the United States: Biota of •-
     freshwater ecosystems identification manual No. 6.
     U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 82 pp.

 Brown, H.P. 1983. A catalog of the Coleoptera of
     America North of Mexico. Family. Psephenidae.
     Agric.  Handbook 529-41. U.S. Dept.  Agric,
     ARS, Washington, D.C 8 pp-

 Brown, H.P. 1983. A catalog of the Coleoptera of
     America North of Mexico. Family: Dryopidae.
     Agric.  Handbook 529-49. US. Dept. Agric.,
     ARS, Washington, D.C. 8 pp.

 Brown, H.P. 1983.  A catalog of the Coleoptera of
     America North of Mexico.  Family. Elmidae.
     Agric.  Handbook 529-50. U.S. Dept. Agric.,
     ARS, Washington, D.C. 23 pp.
Hatch, MM. 1953.  The beetles of the Pacific
    Northwest. Part I. Introduction and Adephaga.
    Univ.WA PubLBiol.Vol.16. 340 pp.

Hatch, M.H. 1965.  The beetles of the Pacific
    Northwest. Part IV. Macrodactyles, Palpicornes,
    and Heteromera. Univ.  WA Publ.  Biol. Vol.
    16. 268 pp.

Jaques, RE. 195L  How to know the beetles. Wm. C.
    Brown, PubL, Dubuque, Iowa. 372 pp.

Peterson, A. 1951.  Larvae of insects. Part II.
    Coleoptera, Diptera, Neuroptera, Siphonaptera,
    Mecoptera, Trichoptera.  Edwards Bros., Ann
    Arbor, MI. 416 pp.

Young, FJSI. 1969.  A checklist of the American
    Bidessini (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae, Hydroporinae),
    Smithsonian Cont.  Zool. 33:1-5.

Zack, R.S. 1989. First record of a dryopid
    (ColeopteraDryopidae) from Washington and
    notes  on the distribution of the family in the
    northwestern United States. Pan-Pac. Entomol.
    65(l):77-78.
                 TRICHOPTERA

Anderson, N.H. 1976. The distribution and biology of
    the Oregon Trichoptera.  Tech. Bull. 134.
    Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 152 pp.

Baumann, R.W., and J.D. Unzicker. 1981. Preliminary
    checklist of Utah caddisflies (Trichoptera).
  -  Encydia 58:25-29.

Denning, D.G. 1983. New and interesting Trichoptera
    from the western United States.  Pan-Pac.
    Entomol. 58:206-215.

 Herrmann, SJ., D.E. Ruiter, and J.D. Unzicker. 1986.
    Distribution and records of Colorado Trichoptera.
    Southwestern Natur. 31(4):421-457.

 Knowlton, G f. and F.C. Harmston. 1938.  Notes on
     Utah Plecoptera and Trichoptera.  Entomol.
     News. 49:284-286.
                                                     70

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                   July 1993
Newell, R.L. 1970. Checklist of some aquatic insects
    from Montana. Proc. Mont. Acad. Sci. 30:45-56.

Newell, R.L. 1971. Revisions to the checklist of
    Montana aquatic insects. Proc. Mont. Acad. Sci.
    31:69-72.

Newell, R.L. and G.W. Minshall. 1977. An annotated
    list of the aquatic insects of southeastern Idaho.
    Part II.Trichoptera.Great Basin Natur. 37:253-257.

Newell, R.L. and G.W. Minshall. 1979. Aquatic
    invertebrates of southeastern Idaho. Part II.
    Trichoptera(caddisflies). Jour.  Id. Acad. Sci.
    15(2):33-51.

Newell, R.L. and D.S. Potter. 1973. Distribution of
    some Montana caddisflies. Proc. Montana Acad.
    Sci. 33: 12-21.

 Nimmo, A.P.  and G.G.E. Scudder. 1978. An annotated
    checklist of the Trichoptera (Insecta)  of British
    Columbia. SYESIS 11:117-134.

 Roemhild, G. 1982.  The Trichoptera of Montana with
     distributional and ecological notes. NW Sci.
     56(1):8-13.

 Ross, H.H. 1947. Descriptions and records of North
     American Trichoptera with synoptic notes. Trans.
     Amer. Entomol. Soc. 73:125-168.

 Ross, H.H. 1949. Descriptions of western
     Limnephilidae.  Pan-Pac. Entomol. 25:119-128.

 Ross, H.H., and GJ. Spencer. 1952A preliminary list
     of Trichoptera of British Columbia. Proc. Ent.
     Soc. Brit. Col. 48:43-51.

 Ruiter, D.E.  and RJ. Lavigne. 1985. Distribution of
     Wyoming Trichoptera. SM47, Agri. Expt. Sta.,
     Univ. Wyoming, Laramie. 102 pp.

 Smith, S.D. 1965.Distributional and biological records
     of Idaho caddisflies (Trichoptera). EntomoL
     News 76:242-245.
Smith, S.D. 1968.  The Arctopsychinae of Idaho
    (Trichoptera:Hydropsychidae).  Pan-Pacific
    Entomol. 44(2):102-112.

Smith, S.D. 1968.  The Rhvacophila of the Salmon
    River drainage of Idaho with special reference to
    larvae. Ann.  EntomoLSoc. Amer. 61(3):655-674.

Smith, S.D. 1969.  Two new species of Idaho
    Trichoptera with distributional and taxonomic
    notes on other species. Jour.Kanas. Entomol. Soc.
    42(l):46-53.

Smith, S.D. 1971. Notes and new species of
    limnephilid caddisflies from Idaho (Trichoptera:
    Limnephilidae) Pan Pac.  Entomol. 47(3):184-188.
 Wiggins, G.B. 1977.  The larvae of the North
     American caddisfly genera. (Trichoptera) Univ. of
     Toronto Press. 401 pp.

 Wold, J.L. 1974. Systematics of the genus
     Rhyacophilia (Tricopteria: Rhyacophilidae) in
     western North America wit special reference to
     the immature stages. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State
     University, Corvallis, Oregon.
                      DIPTERA

 General:
 Cole, F.R., and E.I. Schlinger. 1969. The flies of
     western North America. Univ. of Calif.  Press,
     Berkeley. 693 pp.

 Curran, C.H. 1934. The families and genera of North
     American Diptera.  New York. 512 pp.

 Hayes, W.P. 1938. A bibliography of keys for the
     identification of immature insects. Part I.
     Diptera. Entomol. News. 49:246-251.

 Hayes, W.P. 1939. A bibliography of keys for the
     identification of immature insects. Part I.
     Diptera. Entomol. News. 50:5-10; 76-82.

  Johannsen, OA. 1969.  Aquatic Diptera - eggs, larvae,
      and pupae of Aquatic Hies. Entomol. Reprint.
      Specialists. Los Angeles, Calif.
                                                       71

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                July 1993
Malloch, J.R. 1917. A preliminary classification of
    Diptera, exclusive of Pupipara, based upon larval
    and pupal characters, with keys to imagines in
    certain families.  Part I. Bull. Illinois State Lab.
    Nat. Hist. 12:161-409.

McAlpine, J.R., ed. 1981. Manual of Nearctic Diptera
    Vol. 1. Canadian Government Publ. Centre, Hull,
    Quebec. 674 pp.

McAlpine, J.R., ed. 1987. Manual of Nearctic
    Diptera, Vol. 2. Canadian Government Publ.
    Centre, Hull, Quebec, pp. 675-1332.

McAlpine, J.R., ed. 1989. Manual of Nearctic
    Diptera, Vol 3. Canadian Government PubL
    Centre, Hull, Quebec, pp. 1333-1581.

Stone, A., et. al. 1965. A catalog of the Diptera of
    America north of Mexico. USDA, ARS,
    Washington, D.C. 16% pp.

Wiederholm, T. (ed.). 1983. Chironomidae of the
    Holartic region -  Keys and diagnoses. Part 1-
    Larvae. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement
    19:1-457.

Wiederholm, T. (ed.). 1986. Chironomidae of the
    Holartic region -  Keys and diagnoses. Part 2-
    Pupae. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement
    28:1-482.

Wiederholm, T. (ed.). 1989. Chironomidae of the
    Holartic region - Keys and diagnoses. Part 3-
    Adult males. Entomologica Scandinavica
    Supplement 34:1-4532.
                   MOLLUSCA

Baker, EC. 1945. The molluscan family Planorbidae.
    Urbana, IL. 530 pp.

Brandauer, N., and S.K. Wu. 1978.  Natural history
    inventory of Colorado 2. The Bivalvia of
    Colorado, Part 2. The freshwater mussels (Family
    Unionidae). Univ. CO Museum, Boulder, CO.
    pp.41-60.
Burch, JJB. 1972. Freshwater sphaeriacaean clams
    (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Biota
    of freshwater ecosystems identification manual
    No. 3. US. EPA, Washington, D.C. 31 pp.

Burch, J.B. 1973. Freshwater unionacean clams
    (Moflusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Biota
    of freshwater ecosystems identification manual
    No. 11. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 176 pp.

Burch, J.B. 1982. Freshwater snails (Mollusca:
    Gastropoda) of North America.
    EPA-600/3-82-026. U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
    294pp.

Chamberlin, R.V., and D.T. Jones. 1979.  A
    descriptive catalog of the Mollusca of Utah.  Bull.
    Univ. UT. 19:1-203.

Clarke, A.H. 1985.  The freshwater molluscs of
    Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences,
    National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

Henderson, J.  1924.  Mollusca of Colorado, Utah,
    Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.  Univ. CO
    Studies 13(2):65-223.Henderson, J. 1929.  The
    non-marine mollusca of Oregon and Washington.
    Univ. CO Studies 17:47-190.

Henderson, J.  1936.  Mollusca of Colorado, Utah,
    Montana, Idaho and Wyoming supplement.  Univ.
    CO Studies 23(2):81-145.

Henderson, J.  1936.  The non-marine mollusca of
    Oregon and Washington supplement.  Univ. CO
    Studies 23(4):251-280.

Ingram, WAI. 1948. The larger freshwater clams of
    California, Oregon, and Washington. Jour.
    EntomoL Zool. 40(4):72-92.

Taylor, D.W. 1975. Index and bibliography of late
    Cenozoic freshwater mollusca of western North
    America, Claude W. Hibbard Memoral Volume I:
    Pacific Marine Station, Univ. Pacific, Dillon
    Beach, CA. 384pp.

 Taylor, D.W. 1981. Freshwater mollusks of California:
    A distributional  checklist. California Fish and
     Game 67:140-163.
                                                    72

-------
EPA Region 10                                                                                       1993
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101	


Taylor, D.W. 1985. Evolution of freshwater drainages
    and mollusks in western North America, pp. 265-
    321. In: CJ. Smiley (ed.) Late Cenozoic History
    of the Pacific Northwest. American Association
    for the Advancement of Science Symposium.
    417pp.

Wu, S.K. 1978. Natural history inventory of Colorado
   '2. The Bivalvia of Colorado, Part 1. The fingernail
    and pill clams (Family Sphaeriidae). Univ. CO
    Museum, Boulder. 39 pp.
                                                      73

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                 July 1993
    APPENDIX E.  FISH
    KEYS/LITERATURE
Behnke, R J. 1992. Native trout of western North
    America. Amer. Fish. Soc. Mongraph 6, Amer.
    Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD. 275pp.

Bisson, PA. 1977. Occurrence of the shorthead
    sculpin, Cottus confusus, in a headwater tributary
    of Deschutes River, Washington, Northwest Sci.
    51(1)43-45.

Bond, C.E. 1963. Distribution and ecology of the
    freshwater sculpins, genus Cottus, in Oregon.
    PhD. thesis, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor. 185 pp.

Bond, C.E. 1973a. Occurrence of the reticulate
    sculpin, Cottus perplexus, in California, with
    distributional notes on Cottus gulosus in Oregon
    and Washington. Calif. Fish Gam 59(l):93-94.

 Bond, C.E. 1973b. Keys to Oregon Freshwater Fishes.
    Rev. ed. Oreg. Agric.  Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 58. 42
    pp.

 Bond, C.E. 1974. Endangered Plants and Animals of
    Oregon: Part 1, Fishes. Oreg. Agric. Exp. Stn.,
    Spec. Rep. 205. 9 pp.

 Bond, C.E. 1979. Biology  of Fishes. W.B. Saunders
    Company.

 Bond, C.E. and L.E. Bisbee. 1955. Records of tadpole
    madtom, Schilbeodes mollis, and the black
    bullhead, Ameiurus melas, from Oregon and
    Idaho. Copeia (1):56.

 Bond, C.E. et al. 1988. Habitat use of twenty-five
     common species of Oregon freshwater Fishes.
     EPA/600/J-88/552.

 Brown, CJ.D. 1971. Fishes of Montana. Bozeman: Big
     Sky Books, Mont. State Univ. 207pp.
Cavender, T.M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of
    the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Suckley),
    from the American Northwest. Calif. Fish Game.
    45(4):139-74.

Chandler, G.L., T.R. Maret and D.W. Zaroban. 1993.
    Protocols for Assessment of Biotic Integrity (Fish)
    in Idaho Streams. Idaho Department of Health
    and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality.
    Boise, ID.

Gray, R.H. and D.D. Dauble. 1977. Checklist and
    relative abundance of fish species from the
    Hanford reach of the Columbia River. Northwest
    Sci. 51(3):208-15.

Heard, W.R. et al. 1969. Distributions of fishes in
    fresh water of Katmai National Monument,
    Alaska and their zoogeographical implications.
    U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bur .of Commercial
    Fisheries.

 Hocutt, C. H. and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. (eds.) 1980.
    Biological Monitoring of Fish. Lexington Books.
    D.C. Heath and Co. Lexington, Mass. 416 pp.

 Hocutt, C. H. and E.O. Wiley. 1986. The
    zoogeography of North American freshwater
    fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New
    York.

 Hughes, R.M. and J.R. Gammon. 1987. Longitudinal
     changes in fish assemblages and water quality in
     the Willamette River, OR. Trans, of the Am. Fish.
     Soc. 116:196-209.

 Hughes, R.M et al. 1987. The Relationship of Aquatic
     Ecoregions, River Basins,  and Physiographic
     Provinces to the Ichthyogeographic Regions of
     Oregon. Copeia 2:423-432.

 Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using
     fish communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.

 Karr, et aL 1986. Assessing biological integrity in
     running waters: a method and its rationale. Nat.
     History Survey Spec. Pub. 5. Urbana IL.

 McConnell, RJ. et al. 1972. Key to field identification
     of anadromous juvenile salmonids in the Pacific
     Northwest. National Marine Fisheries Service.
                                                      74

-------
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
                                                                                                   July 1993
Miller, D.L. et al. 1988. Regional applications of an
    index of biotic integrity for use in water resource
    management.  Fisheries 13:12-20.

Morrow, J.E.  1980. Freshwater fishes of Alaska.
    Alaska Northwest Pub. Co.

Nehlsen, W., JJE. Williams, and JA. Uchatowich.
    1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads:  stocks at
    risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and
    Washington. Fisheries 16:4-21.

Neilsen, LA., and D.L. Johnson. 1983. Fisheries
    Techniques. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda,
    MD. 468 pp.

Reed, RJ. and C.E. Bond. 1967. Distribution of fishes
    in the tributaries of the lower Columbia River.
    Copeia 3:541-50.

Robins, C.R., et al. 1991. Common and Scientific
    Names of Fishes from the United States and
    Canada. American Fisheries Society, Special
    Publication 20, Bethesda, MD. 183 pp.

Schultz, L.P. 1936. Keys to the fishes of the American
    Northwest: a catalogue of the fishes of
    Washington, Oregon with distributional records
    and a bibliography. Pan-Pac. Res. Inst. 49:127-142;
    49:211-226.

Schultz, LJ*. 1948. Keys to the fishes of Washington,
    Oregon and closely adjoining regions. Univ. Wash.
    PubL Biol. 2:103-228.

Scott, W.B. and EJ. Grossman. 1973. Freshwater
    Fishes of Canada. Fish. Res. Board Can., Bull
    184. 966 pp.

Sigler, W f. and J.W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great
    Basin, a Natural History. University of Nevada
    Press, 425 pp.

Simpson, J.C., and R. Wallace. 1978. Fishes of Idaho.
    Moscow.  University Press of Idaho.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993.
    Fish Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating
    the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters.
    Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory.
    US. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/R-92/111.
Wilimovsky, NJ. 1954. List of the fishes of Alaska.
    Stanford Icthyol. Bull. 4:279-294.

Williams, J.E. et al. 1989. Fishes of North America:
    Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern.
    Fisheries: Vol. 14:2-20.

Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes
    of Washington. University of Washington Press,
    220pp.
                                                      75

-------