united State*
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Reeearch
Laboratory
Corvalfla OR 97333
July 1993
fteeeareh and Development
STREAM INDICATOR
AND DESIGN
WORKSHOP
Repository Material
Permanent Coitectior
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program
-------
EPA/600/R-93/138
July 1993
STREAM INDICATOR AND DESIGN WORKSHOP
July 1993
Project Officer
D.P. Larsen
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 07333
Editor
R.M. Hughes
ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 07333 Headquarters and Chemjca, Librarjes
EPA West Bldg Room 3340
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
Th« nmareh d«Kfibad In thl« raped hu bwt fcme^d by «w U.8. Envtoontiwntol
Fretoetien Ae*ney. 1W» doeumwt KM bMn prapMd tf «w EPA Environmental
RtMareh Uboratory In Cervalllt. Ontgen. «wough Contrad No. 68-C8-0006 to
ManTwh Envlronnwital Ttehnolegtet, he. fe HM bMn wblMMd to «M Aewwy't
MwrtJon of trmd*
ramM or eomnweW products dots not eonttut* •ndorwnwnt or
neommcnditon tor UM.
Repository Material
Permanent Collection
-------
NOTICE
The correct citation for this document is:
Hughes, R.M. (ed). 1993. Steam Indicator and Design Workshop. EPA/600/R-93/138. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. 84 pp.
The correct citation for an individual section is:
(ed). 1993. [Section title]. Pages In R.M. Hughes, ed. Stream Indicator
and Design Workshop. EPA/600/R-93/138. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Susan Christie for her editing and formatting expertise and Richard Sumner for his
critical review of an earlier draft of this report The U.S. EPA supported development of this report
through contract number 68-C8-0006 to ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., and through
cooperative agreement number CR818606 with Oregon State University.
-------
EDITORS FOR WORKING GROUPS
Birds and amphibians: Sandra Thiele, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333.
Fish: Frank McCormick, U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, 3411 Church
Street, Cincinnati, OH 45244.
Benthos: Phil Lewis, U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, 3411 Church
Street, Cincinnati, OH 45244.
Periphyton: Barry Rosen, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., U.S. EPA Environmental
Research Laboratory. 200 SW 35th Street. Corvallis. OR 97333.
Metabolism: Brian Hill, U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, 3411 Church
Street, Cincinnati, OH 45244.
Physical Habitat. Phil Kaufmann, Oregon State University, c/o U.S. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333.
Di
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pagt
Notice It
Acknowledgements ii
Editor* for Working Groups Hi
Ltel of Tables vi
Introduction 1
Regional Sessions 9
1. Are current ecological values appropriate for EMAP streams? 9
2. What stream classes or types should EMAP be sure to sample? 10
3. If used, how should reference sites be selected? 11
4. What Index periods are most appropriate? 12
Assemblage/Attribute Sessions -... 13
Bird Indicator Summary 13
Introduction 13
Characteristics of assemblages that could serve as Indicators 14
Applicability to temporary streams 17
Length of stream segment assessed IB
Field and lab expertise required 18
Possible assessment metrics and analyses 19
Herpetofauna 22
Introduction 22
Characteristics of assemblages that could serve as indicators 22
Applicability to temporary streams 26
Length of stream segment sampled 26
Field and lab expertise required 26
Possible assessment metrics and analyses 27
Fish 29
Introduction 29
Characteristics of assemblages that could serve as indicators 29
Applicability to temporary streams 34
Length of stream segment sampled 34
Field and lab expertise required 34
Possible assessment metrics and analyses 35
Macrolnvertebrates • 37
Introduction '< 37
Characteristics of assemblages that could serve as Indicators 37
Applicability to temporary streams 40
Length of stream segment sampled 40
Field and lab expertise required 41
Possible assessment metrics and analyses 42
rv
-------
Periphylon 43
introduction 43
Characteristics of assemblages that could serve as indicators 44
Applicability to temporary streams 49
Length of stream segment sampled 49
Field and lab expertise required 50
Possible assessment metrics and analyses 51
Metabolism 53
Introduction 53
Characteristics of attributes that could serve as Indicators 53
Applicability to temporary streams ' 57
Length of stream segment sampled 57
Field and lab expertise required 57
Possible assessment metrics and analyses 58
Physical Habitat 59
Introduction 59
Characteristics of attributes that coufd serve as indicators 59
Applicability to temporary streams €6
Length o1 stream segment sampled 66
Field and lab expertise required 67
Possible assessment metrics and analyses 67
Summary 70
References 72
Appendix A: Assemblage- and Region-Specific Evaluations of Amphibian
and Reptile Indicator Selection Criteria i. 82
-------
UST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Participants in the EMAP Stream Indicator and Design Workshop 3
2. Tolerance Rankings of Pacific Northwest Amphibians Ukely to be
Encountered in an Extensive Stream Survey 28
3. Microblal Metric Ratings by Criteria 52
4. Field Work Breakdown for Physical Habitat Monitoring .' 68
5. Summary of Assemblage Ratings by Criteria 71
vi
-------
INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Moni-
toring and Assessment Program for Surface Waters (EMAP-SW) is to estimate—regionally and
with known confidence—the status of, and trends in, indicators of the condition of U.S. lakes and
streams. Given this objective, ft is critical to document the process by which indicators are
developed, evaluated, and eventually selected for implementation. The process Includes tech-
nical workshops, examination of available databases, and local and regional pilot studies, all of
which are documented by publications and peer reviews. The purpose of this report is to record
the major conclusions reached in a workshop on stream indicators that was held in Cincinnati,
Ohio, on February 2S-2B, 1992.
The indicators that are eventually selected by EMAP-SW will form the foundation for the informa-
tion given to policy makers, aquatic scientists, and the public about the condition of lakes and
streams in the United States. Effective indicators must be relevant to regional and national
policies that ultimately determine the quality of lakes and streams, and they must be of sufficient
interest to directly or indirectly stimulate policy makers and managers to act. Of course, they
must also be ecologically relevant, scientifically credible, and related to biologically Important
characteristics of lakes and streams that are valued by the public.
We define an indicator as an ecological measurement, metric, or index that quantifies physical,
chemical, or biological condition, habitat, or stressors. Indicators of biological condition are, of
necessity, biological. We focus on biological indicators because we believe that they provide the
most cost-effective assessments of the multiple physical, chemical, and biological stressors of
streams and lakes. We are usually most interested in the biological components of lake and
stream ecosystems; our interest in physical and chemical habitat Is developed, as the word
•habitat* implies, from its effects on the biota. Also, because we are Interested in entire
ecosystems, we expect that most of our biological indicators will be developed at the community
or assemblage level, rather than at the genetic, population, or species level. However, H is the
quantifiable forms (e.g., species richness, % introduced species), not the assemblages, that we
call Indicators.
In addition to EMAP participants, several scientists from universities and federal and state
agencies were invited to participate in the workshop. Participants represented experience In the
•astern, central, and western United States for each of seven steam attributes for which we wish
-------
to develop indicators (birds, herptiles, fish, benthos, periphyton, metabolism, physical habitat
structure). From an initial list of 89 non-EMAP candidates, 24 were able to participate. In
addition, 8 scientists from the Cincinnati area and 17 from EMAP participated (Table 1).
On the first morning, participants received a brief overview of the EMAP-Surface Waters program.
In the afternoon, they broke Into three regional groups (west, central, east) to answer four
questions:
1. Are current ecological values appropriate for EMAP atreama? At present, EMAP-SW is
addressing biological integrity, trophic state, and fishability as the ecological values of lakes
and streams. We do not use "value* as an economic term. Rather, we are concerned with
the intrinsic worth ol the waterbody for its own sake, as well as with the broadly accepted
(though ill-defined) societal goal of clean, productive, and healthy waters. We define biologi-
cal integrity as the ability to support and maintain a balanced, Integrated, adaptive commu-
nity with a biological diversity, composition, and functional organization comparable to those
ol natural lakes and streams of the region (Prey. 1977; Karr and Dudley, 1981) at various
levels of biological, taxonomic, and ecological organization (Noss. 1990). Trophic state is
defined as the abundance or production of algae and macrophytes. By fishability, we mean
the degree to which fish can be caught and safely eaten by humans and wildlife. We recog-
nize that these three values may often be inharmonious; eutrophlc waters may have excep-
tional biological integrity or fishability, but biological Integrity and trophic state are often
sacrificed to improve fishability for humans.
2. What stream classes or type* should EMAP be sure to •ample? EMAP-SW currently
ensures that a range of stream sizes is Included for monitoring in all regions. Our concern In
tne workshop was to identify particular sizes or types of streams that are important, which a
probability design might miss, and to suggest methods of including them.
3. If uaed, how should reference »Hea be selected? EMAP-SW has proposed using mini-
mally disturbed regional reference sites as an objective way to estimate potential levels of
biological integrity and trophic condition. These reference sites are also useful for
developing, and evaluating the responsiveness of, potential indicators. However, their
selection and evaluation requires considerable map study and field reconnaissance, as wen
as additional monitoring resources. If the reference condition can be determined In some
other way. It could result In substantial savings.
-------
Table 1. Participants In the EMAP Stream Indicator and Dealgn Workshop
Berlin W. Anderson
201 South Palm Drive
Blythe, California 92225
Ph. 619-922-2541
Fx. 619-922-9581
Loren Bahls
Montana Dept. of Hearth & Environ. Sciences
Cogswell Bldg.
Helena, MT 59620
Ph. 406-444-5330
Fx. 406-444-1374
Mark B. Bain
New York Cooperative Fish & Wildlife
Research Unit
Fernow Hall. Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-3001
Ph. 607-255-2840
Fx. 607-255-1895
John Baker
Lockheed - ESC
980 Kelly Johnson Drive
Las Vegas. NV89119
Ph. 702-897-3253
Fx. 702-796-8367
Robert L. Beschta
College of Forestry
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
Ph. 603-737-4292
Fx. 503-737-2668
Frank Borsuch
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
Dixie Terminal Bldg.
Cincinnati. OH
Thomas L. Bon
Stroud Water Research Center
Academy of Natural Sciences
512 Spencer Road
Avondale.PA 19311
Ph. 215-268-2153
Fx. 215-268-0490
Jeff Brawn
Illinois Natural History Survey
607 East Peabody
Champaign, IL 61620
Ph. 217-244-5937
Fx. 217-333-4949
Sandra Brewer
Technology Applications Inc.
3411 Church St.
Cincinnati, OH 45244
Janalee P. Caldwell
Oklahoma Museum of Natural History and
Dept. of Zoology
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK 73019
Ph. 405-325-5022
Fx. 405-325-7771
Donald Charles
Patrick Center for Environmental Research
Academy of Natural Sciences
1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Ph. 215-299-1090
Fx. 215-299-1028
Gary Collins
USEPA
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268-1525
Ph. 513-569-7325
FAX 513-569-7115
Susan Cormier
USEPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45266-1525
Mary Jo Croonqulst
Arizona Game and Fish Dept
35325 North Stockton Hill Road
Kingman,AZ 86401
Ph. 602-692-7700, «(t 110
FX 602-692-1523
-------
Table 1. Participants In the EMAP Stream Indicator and Daalgn Workthop (continued)
Cliff Dahm
Department of Biology
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Ph. 505-277-2850
Fx. 505-277-0304
F. Bernard Daniel
USEPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Chris Faulkner
USEPA (WH-553)
401 M Street. SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ph. 202-260-6228
Fx. 202-260-7024
Joseph Freda
Environmental Resource Analysts
Route 2 Box 547
Notasufga. AL 36866
Ph. 205-257-4706
Joseph Furnish
Bureau of Land Management
17l7FabryRoad,SE
Salem, OR 97306
Ph. 503-375-5624
Fx. 503-375-5622
Stephen W. Golladay
Department of Zoology and Biological
Station
University of Oklahoma
HC-71 Box 205
Kingston, OK 73439
Ph. 405-564-2463
Fx, 204-564-2479
Martin E. Gurtz
Water Resources Division
U.S. Geological Survey
3916 Sunset Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Ph.919-571-4018
Fx. 919-571 -4041
Charles P. Hawkins
Watershed Science Unit
Utah State University
Logan, UT 64322-5250
Ph. 801-750-2280
Fx. 801-750-3798
Alan Heriihy
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Oregon State University
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Ph. 503-754-4442
Fx. 503-754-4716
Brian Hill
USEPA
3411 Church Street
Cincinnati, OH 45244
Ph.513-533-8114
Fx. 513-533-8181
Robert M. Hughes
ManTech Environmental
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Ph.503-754-4516
Fx. 503-754-4716
Mark R. Jennings
Department of Herpetology
California Academy of Sciences
1830 Sharon Avenue
Davis, Ca 95616
Ph. 916-753-2727
Fx 916-758-5672
Philip R. Kaufmann
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Oregon State University
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Ph. 503-7544451
Fx 503-754-4716
-------
Table 1. Participants In the EMAP Stream Indicator and Dealgn Workshop (continued)
Jim Lazorchak
USEPA
3411 Church Street
Newtown, OH 45244
Ph.513-533-6114
Fx. 513-533-8181
David R. Lena!
North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management
Water Quality Section
44-01 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Ph. 919-733-6946
Philip A. Lewis
USEPA
3411 Church Street
Cincinnati, OH 45244
Ph.513-533-8114
Fx. 513-533-8181
Frank H. McCormick
USEPA
3411 Church Street
Cincinnati. OH 45244
Ph.513-533-8114
Fx. 513-533-8181
Ben McFarland
USEPA
3411 Church Street
Cincinnati, OH 45244
Lythia Metzmeier
Division of Water
16 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
502-564.3410
G. Wayne Minshall
Department of Biological Sciences
Idaho Slate University
Box 6007
Pocatello, ID 83209
HPh. 208.236-2236
Fx. 206-236-4570
Steve Paulsen
Universrty of Nevada
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Ph. 503-754-4428
Fx. 503-754-4716
N. LeRoy Poff
Department of Zoology
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Ph. 301-405-6948
Fx. 301-314-9566
Edward Rankin
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
1685 West Belt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
Ph. 614-777-6264
Fx. 614-777-0975
Barry H. Rosen
ManTech Environmental
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Ph. 503-754-4666
Fx. 503-754-4335
Robert L Sinsabaugh
Biology Department
Clarkson Universrty
Potsdam, NY 13699
Ph. 315-268-3798
Fx. 315-266-6670
Mark Smtth
Technology Applications Inc.
9411 Church St.
Cincinnati, OH 45244
M. Kate Smith
USEPA
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Tibia 1. Participants in tha EMAP Stream Indicator and Design Workshop (continued)
Karl Stein
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Ph. 503-326-4091
Fx. 503-326-7166
R. Jan Stevenson
Department of Biology
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY 40292
Ph. 502-568-5938
Fx. 502-588-0725
Sandra Thiele
ManTech Environmental
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Ph. 503-754-4788
Fx. 503-754-4716
William Thoeny
Technology Applications Inc.
3411 Church St.
Cincinnati, OH 45244
Scott Urquhart
Department of Statistics
Oregon State University
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Ph. 503-754-4475
Fx. 503-754-4716
Thorn Whtttier
ManTech Environmental
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Ph. 503-754-4455
Fx. 503-754-4716
Roger Yeardley
Technology Applications Inc.
3411 Church St.
Cincinnati, OH 45244
Chris Yoder
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
1685 West Ben Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
Ph.614-777-6264
Fx. 614-777-0975
-------
4. What Index periods are most suitable? To conduct a cost-effective national survey,
EMAP-SW must limit sampling to a single season or Index period. The goal of EMAP is to
make regional estimates of biological condition and trends In that condition for populations
of streams. Year round sampling Is unnecessary for evaluating biological trends or unaccep-
table changes (as opposed to natural fluctuations) in biological condition. Seasonal samp-
ling, or multiple visits during an index period, effectively reduce the number of sites that can
be monitored given a fixed budget, which also reduces our ability to detect and interpret
regional patterns. Therefore, EMAP focuses Its sampling on a single period when temporal
variation Is minimal and anthropogenic perturbations are maximized, thereby Increasing the
precision and accuracy of the population cample.
During the next two days, five questions were answered in sessions of the candidate indicator
groups:
1. What characteristics of the assemblage could serve as Indicators? With this question,
we sought to determine the characteristics or variables that held the most promise for being
developed into indicators by EMAP-SW scientists. In answering this question, the groups
were also asked to evaluate a set ot 15 indicator criteria adapted from Olsen (1992}. The
criteria provided a consistent set of attributes by which the various assemblages could be
compared.
2. la the assemblage applicable to temporary atreams? Because most stream miles are
temporary (ephemeral, or Intermittent spatially, temporally, or both), we also considered how
useful a candidate indicator would be when there was no water. Our objective was to
assess whether the same indicator would be applicable In temporary and permanent
streams. This Is an important consideration in a national program where widespread
applicability is essential.
3. What should be the length of stream aaseaaed? The EMAP-SW sampling (site selection)
design produces a single point on a set of 100 to 800 streams per year. Although water
quality, and possibly those assemblages governed largely by water quality, can be
reasonably assessed at a point, we did not feel this was true of most assemblages or of
physical habitat quality. Thus, we wished to determine the •mount or distance of the stream
around the point that would produce a reliable Index sample. That is, If a different team were
to arrive at the same stream a day later, would It collect essentially the same taxa in the
-------
same proportions? Or, would differences In orienteering and habitat in the vicinity produce
markedly different samples? Another way of asking this question was: What level of samp-
ling effort would produce a list of taxa that did not change markedly with Increased sampling
at a site? For EMAP-SW. and in this document, a site Is the entire stream reach that Is
monitored. Within a site, samples may be taken at any number of stations (points, habitat
units, macrohabitats, or mlcrohabltats).
4. What field and laboratory expertise la required? We expect that field crews, In most
cases, will not have to be highly trained specialists. In considering this question, we
determined the level of training needed to sample all assemblages and to obtain high-quality
data. We also assessed the level of laboratory expertise needed to correctly and consis-
tently identify species and conduct analyses. Finally, we estimated the number of people
and work hours required to collect and process the sample.
5. What assessment metrics and analyses are appropriate? In answering this final question,
we wanted to list existing metrics, indices, and data analyses that were known, or expected,
to be capable of assessing biological condition or physical habitat quality. We also tried to
determine If those approaches were appropriate in various parts of the United States, or what
modifications might be necessary to make them so.
This report is an aggregation of the consensus responses by the groups to the nine questions. In
addition, the editor has added concluding remarks from the regional summaries of each of the
first five questions, and assemblage editors have expanded on particular questions that were
unevenly reported by the assemblage groups.
8
-------
REGIONAL SESSIONS
1. Are current ecological values appropriate for EMAP atreams?
East Region. This group maintained that the term ecological integrity would be preferable to
biological integrity, because the former term incorporates physical, chemical, and biological
Integrity, and includes the riparian zone. Also, habitat structure and water quality are important
management values in their own right. Some participants thought trophic state was not especially
pertinent to streams, because streams naturally become nutrient enriched along the stream
continuum rather than in a particular reach. Others fert that nutrient enrichment may be a more
appropriate value lor streams than trophic state. Ftehabilrty was considered likely to misrepresent
fish assemblage health to the public unless it is clearly defined to Include pathology and edibility.
The group suggested aesthetic character, but fell this value would be difficult to assess, despite
the ease of collecting data on conditions that are likely to change rapidly in the next few decades.
Central Region. The group stressed the importance of biological communities In evaluating the
ecological integrity of a stream. Participants also agreed that biological integrity was weakly
linked to water quality standards and regulations focusing on ftshablllty and swimmability. Dis-
cussion centered on whether trophic state was a useful value or whether, In a stream context, it
differed significantly from biological integrity. The group concluded that trophic state is largely a
lake feature and that biological integrity incorporates the effects of nutrient enrichment. Other
measures of water quality (turbidity, sedimentation, odor) would provide more useful information
and are of greater concern to the public. Though it may represent a value of concern in the
Clean Water Act, fishability by humans lacks a scientific basis and Is too subjective, according to
this group. The group viewed waterbody quality, or riparian and physical habitat quality, as more
quantifiable than fishablliry and believed that this value would Include Information about the
aesthetic qualities of a stream. The group also saw riparian and In-stream habitat as a valuable
resource.
West Region. Participants agreed that biological Integrity was a suitable value and recom-
mended that It Include stream and riparian components. The trophic state value engendered
much more discussion. This group proposed dropping trophic stale as a value, but including
aspects of It in the biological Integrity and waterbody character values. The terms eutrophJc.
mesotropft/c, and oligotrophic are inappropriate for *treams. The group Judged tophlc state to be
a historic artifact of the llmnologlcal precursors to stream ecology and not as Important a value for
-------
streams as the other values. However, trophic problems do arise when velocities slow or macro-
phyles grow; also, low productivity Is of concern to many fishery biologists. Although fishabillty is
of great public concern, it often conflicts with biological Integrity and lacks a scientific foundation.
This value was not warmly accepted by ecologists, who felt fisheries quality or fish assemblage
integrity, which would incorporate trophy fish, natural reproduction, and natives, would be pre-
ferred; but a change would require a major educational effort to enlighten those anglers who are
simply interested in catching and consuming fish. Habitat integrity was offered as a value. It
should include overall visual attractiveness of the waterbody and riparian area, sedimentation,
anthropogenic alteration, and degree of decoupling from the riparian zone.
Conclusions: In general, the three groups suggested that EMAP should:
1. Retain the biological integrity value for streams.
2. Add a habitat integrity value.
3. Drop the trophic state and fishability values for streams, but incorporate the critical
aspects of each (nutrient enrichment, development of filamentous mats and macrophyte
beds, algal blooms, fish tissue contamination) as measurements for assessing biological
and habitat integrity.
2. What stream classes or types should EMAP be sure to sample?
East Region. RF3 (the digitized USGS stream network) misses many small (temporary, spring,
low order) streams, so EMAP should pilot this issue regionally' We are likely to miss pristine
streams where they are rare, without additional effort to select them subjectively.
Central Region. The group listed no stream types in particular, but cautioned EMAP to remem-
ber that stream order classification does not work well In highly agricultural areas where
channelization, ditching, and tiling are prevalent
West Region. Spring creeks are very Important In the arid and semi-arid West, often serving as
refugla for rare or endangered species. They are poorly mapped and are themselves endangered
(particularly geothermal springs). Spatially and temporally intermittent streams share some of the
same characteristics. The grid should be augmented to ensure representation of all three types,
or other frames (state maps, remote Imagery) may be needed. The group also emphasized the
10
-------
need to sample both high and low gradient streams In all ecoregions and urged EMAP to sample
large rivers.
Conclusions: Based on these comments, the EMAP grid may need to be Intensified to locale a
sufficient number of spring and Intermittent streams, or we may need a list frame, as for large
nVers. Although such streams are of considerable Importance In the West, EMAP must decide H
they warrant additional effort in the eastern and central United States.
3. If used, how should reference sites be selected?
East Region. According to this group, many reference sites are needed, with a different set
sampled each year of the four-year cycle. Sites should be selected by ecoregion and stream
size; additional information on geology, soil type, and land use may be necessary where eco-
regions are too heterogeneous. Reference sites should lack physical alterations and represent
best management practices in their catchments, low chance of future perturbation, and riparian
Integrity. Sites with ongoing research, established databases, and especially healthy assem-
blages should also be sought.
Central Region. This group concluded that sites should be selected by their assemblage,
physical habitat, and riparian integrity, but did not specify criteria. They also stated that
professional judgement was Important, but did not expand upon this.
West Region. The participants concluded that reference sites were absolutely critical to EMAP
for assessing acceptable conditions (and desired future ones). Areas where pristine, least
disturbed, and best attainable sites may be located Include city water supply catchments, listed
blue ribbon streams, and various state and federal reserves (wilderness areas, parks, research
natural areas, etc.). The group cautioned that these areas may still be perturbed by fish stocking
or dams. A final suggestion was to mail a questionnaire to all district, state, and regional
biologists.
Conclusions: Apparently, current methods for reference site selection (Hughes et al., 1986) are
appropriate, with some modifications to represent all major stream classes depicted by the grid
sHes.
11
-------
4. What Index periods art moat appropriate?
The optimum time for Indexing most attributes was May and June, but this would be less than
optimal for fish. Base or low flow through leaf fall was also considered a suitable period for
Indexing all the aquatic attributes, but this would be an unsuitable index period for birds. Degree
days, latitudinal and elevations) gradients, peak runoff periods, and peak migratory periods must
also be considered regionally and locally.
S
Birds
Herptiles
Algae
Metabolism
Benthos
Fish
Chemical and physical habitat
Conclusions: Both fish and birds can be optimally sampled only during a very short index
period in much of the United States. If both are selected for sampling, however, several other
indicators can be optimally or appropriately sampled at the same time.
12
-------
ASSEMBLAGE/ATTRIBUTE SESSIONS
BIRD INDICATOR SUMMARY (Panelists: Jeff Brawn, Mary Jo Croonquist, Berlin Anderson, Bob
Hughes)
Introduction
Of the semi-aquatic vertebrates, birds most closely meet the criteria used in the selection of
EMAP response indicators. They also are more sensitive than purely aquatic assemblages to
riparian disturbances (Brooks et al., 1991). Birds have been a focus of public concern and
enjoyment; birdwatching and waterfowl hunting are major recreational activities contributing
millions of dollars to the national economy (Payne and DeQraaf, 1975). In addition, an Increasing
segment of the public has become aware of the serious decline In bird populations, particularly
waterfowl and neotropical migrants (Senner, 1986; Terborgh. 1989). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's Breeding Bird Survey shows that more than 70% of migrant species have declined in
the eastern United States since 1978. Radar tracking studies of migratory songbird flights over
the Gulf of Mexico reveal that the volume of birds In the 1980s was hall that In the 1960s
(Ackerman, 1992). The connection to the biointegrity value of EMAP is clear.
Bird assemblages reflect the condition of riparian areas. Riparian indicators are essential for
diagnosing the probable causes of stream condition, because they link the walerbody to the
catchment and offer a wider scale of spatial resolution than purely aquatic Indicators. The
EMAP-SW1991 Pilot demonstrated the value of including the riparian area in studies of lake
condition (Moors and O'Connor, 1992). Bird response data, along with physical habitat observa-
tions, indicated not only what habitat structure was available, but how It was used by birds.
Moors and O'Connor showed that percent of foliage gleaners, Insectivores, and neotropical
migrants were inversely related to the percent of ground gleaners, omnfvores, granlvores, and
level of disturbance. Pilot results also revealed that the percent of Intolerant riparian bird species
was strongly associated with the physical habitat quality of the riparian zone. Just as Croonquist
and Brooks (1991) found In an earlier study, as the Intensity of habitat alteration Increased, the
percent of neotropical migrant and intolerant species declined, whereas the percent of introduced
species increased along streams. For many of these reasons, birds have been suggested for
development as an indicator for an EMAP resource groups pavfd Bradford, U.S. EPA, Las
Vegas).
13
-------
Riparian indicators may have even more relevance to streams than to lakes. The physical habitat
and western region groups at this workshop stressed the importance of riparian areas to streams.
There is a smaller waterbody/rlparian area ratio in stream systems than in lake systems. Also,
birds and other semi-aquatic vertebrates remain an excellent source of information for intermittent
or ephemeral streams, which usually lack water and aquatic biota during a summer Index period.
One of the panel members, Mary Jo Croonquist, observed during her work In Pennsylvania that
there was no 'stream effect* on the bird assemblage in forested and undisturbed headwater
systems. However, in agricultural areas and in the arid southwest (Szaro, 1980), the riparian zone
does act as a concentrator of birds.
The general consensus of the bird indicator panel was that birds as Integrators of riparian condi-
tion would be a valuable indicator for streams because they capture the public interest and
operate at scales humans can understand. Larger rivers would present sampling challenges
similar to those that face other indicators.
Characteristics of assemblages that could eerve as indicator*
Not all birds are equally appropriate candidate indicators for streams. The focus most likely will
be on those with small breeding ranges, such as shorebirds, pigeons, cuckoos, swifts, humming-
birds, kingfishers, woodpeckers, and perching birds. More orders would become candidates for
rivers and lakes.
Societal Value: VERY HIGH. As stated earlier, birds have enormous societal value. Public
interest in birds is high, particularly since bird assemblages representing significant portions of
wetland, prairie, and forest ecosystems are declining.
Responsiveness: MODERATE. Avian response to various stressors is well documented. Bird
assemblage changes that occur with anthropogenic Impacts on a watershed scale have been
documented in recent studies with response guilds (Croonquist and Brooks, 1991). Terborgh
(1989) documented long-term trends in waterfowl numbers In Chesapeake Bay through the use of
National Audubon Society Christmas Bird Count data over a 30-year span. He showed declines
In dabbling and diving ducks linked to a decrease In underwater food plants, and a parallel
increase In the numbers of geese, which have adapted to foraging In farm fields. See also AsWns
et al. (1990) for a discussion of declines In migratory birds.
14
-------
Even though the direct response of bird assemblages to water quality is low, their value as an
Indicator lies in their great sensitivity to physical habitat alteration and land use changes In the
riparian area and in the watershed. Their responsiveness to pesticide use Is also high, though
difficult to trace or document. Finally, If their aquatic insect prey are extirpated or severely
reduced by stressors, bird populations are reduced.
There was some discussion of testing for tissue contamination In birds. Coordination with the
U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service's contaminants monitoring program would be necessary to share
data and to sample specific areas. Conducting nest searches to determine reproductive success
would be another test of avian responsiveness to stress. Birds may be present, but not breeding,
In habitats that are becoming degraded. However, both tssue contaminant work and nest
searches would require more intensive sampling than that planned for EMAP surveys.
Ease of Sampling- LOW. The panel suggested that the point count method (i.e., recording all
birds heard or seen at a series of timed stops) be employed by a two-member field crew. The
survey should begin one half hour before sunrise and continue until four hours after sunrise.
Though the sampling methodology is simple and the equipment needs are minimal, the high
degree of training required for the birding crew and the 8 work hours of sampling prompt the low
ranking.
Laboratory Ease: HIGH. Only data entry and analyses are needed; confirmations of recordings
(if taken) are likely only for very unusual species.
Measurement Stability: HIGH. Measurement error is minimized by training field crews to a 90%
accuracy using taped calls. Trained crew members record only what they can confidently iden-
tify. Any unrecognized call or sighting is listed as unknown (i.e., unknown duck or unknown
flycatcher). Having a tape-recorded record of the day's transect will help In corroborating field
Identifications. If taping the full transect is impractical, the tape recorder could be used to record
the unfamiliar calls and tongs.
Index Period Stability: MODERATE. Index periods will vary by region. Within • region, the Index
period will be chosen to correspond with the peak of avtan breeding activity. Measurement varia-
bility is lowest for birds that are calling within a territory. Doing surveys during breeding season
also limits the recording of transient migrants. Conducting the survey from south to north within a
region will compensate for latitudinal delays In nesting activities. An Index period of June should
15
-------
be acceptable for the northern half of the United States, using the south to north strategy, and
May-June will be appropriate for the southern half of the nation. Index period stability will be
lowest in alpine areas, where entry will depend upon snowmelt, and in arid areas, where water
may be limiting.
In many regions of the country, the breeding season Index period for birds may not coincide with
the index period chosen for other EMAP indicators—fish, for example. This may make bird
surveys too costly to conduct past the pilot stage. However, this topic is worthy of more
discussion before a July-August sampling period is finalized. In the regional discussions, all
Indicators but fish suggested a May-June index period. It Is true that there are advantages to
sampling In-stream organisms during low flow when the systems are most stressed. However, as
Dave Lena! stated during the discussion, "Good streams and bad streams can be indistinguish-
able when they both crash in late summer.'
AmonQ-Site/Amona-Year Variation: HIGH. The variability in observations between sites differing
in vegetative cover and habitat condition is greater than the variability in year-to-year observations
at a particular site. Species at a site are consistent among years, but population sizes may vary
markedly as discussed above.
Amona-Site/Within-Site Variation: HIGH. Variability among sampling points of different habitat
quality or character along a reach are both quite high, but compositing data from multiple
sampling points at a site (within-site variation) effectively reduces the within-site variation. Also,
habitat quality and character among sites is expected to be much greater than within sites.
Available Database: HIGH. Three long-term databases already exist for birds: (1) the National
Audubon Society Christmas Count established circa 1900, (2) the Breeding Bird Census, spon-
sored by the Audubon Society and established in 1946, and (3) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Breeding Bird Survey begun In 1965. Of the three, the Breeding Bird Survey with Its random,
single visit sampling scheme and nationwide scope, most closely approximates the EMAP frame-
work. Breeding Bird Survey volunteers cover a route 25 miles long along rural roads, stopping
•very one-half mile to record all birds seen and heard within three minutes. In 1977, volunteers
ran 1.832 routes In 48 states and in all the provinces of Canada (Bobbins et al., 1986; Terborgh,
1989). These databases are excellent for trend and variance analyses, although they are not
specific for surface waters.
16
-------
Expected Taxonomic Richness per Reach: MODERATE. About 2S-50 species; varies with region
and habitat.
Macrohabital Use: MODERATE. Several in the riparian zone, a few in the stream.
ftulld Information: HIGH. See "Possible assessment metrics and analyses,' page 16.
Diagnostic Power: MODERATE. High for habitat structure and terrestrial pesticides, low for water
quality.
Slonal/Noise Ratio: MODERATE. The emphasis of point count bird surveys is on territorial
passerine birds (singing males recorded during breeding season). Under normal conditions, the
variability in observations from year to year should be low. Territories will be reestablished yearly
in good habitat. However, the numbers of migrant birds do fluctuate from year to year depending
upon the severity of winter or early spring climatic conditions, or habitat conditions in wintering
areas. These population changes add variability to trends assessment.
Information/Cost ratio: MODERATE. A normal stream transect is likely to produce 25-50 species,
depending upon the region of the country and the local habitat diversity. Much published infor-
mation about bird species ecology and zoogeography Is available, meaning that when a species
Is identified, there is a large body of ancillary information about each species' niche and habitat to
aid in interpretation and analysis.
The information/cost ratio for bird survey data is moderate. Although costs for the degree of
training and the quality assurance effort may be relatively high, the tow cost of equipment and a
aimple sampling methodology compensate for these costs. The early morning sampling period
also allows time for bird crew members to assist with other field efforts In the afternoon.
Applicability to temporary atreams
HIGH. Bird surveys from riparian areas along intermittent and ephemeral streams would provide
Indicator data In areas where bvatream data may be lacking. The Indicator criteria discussed for
perennial atreams, such as societal value and responsiveness, would be similarly ranked for
temporary streams, except for the information/cost ratio, which would increase. If In-stream
17
-------
Indicator information is incomplete or unavailable due to a lack of water, riparian and semi-aquatic
vertebrate indicator information will be necessary to assess condition.
Length of stream segment assessed
HIGH. The point count method, or circular plot method, is appropriate for estimating bird assem-
blage composition in patchy habitats (Reynolds et al., 1980). Using this method, the crew walks
parallel to the streambank, stopping every 100 m for 5 or 6 minutes to observe, listen, and record*
all sightings and bird calls. The advantage over a transect technique is that a stationary observer
has less effect on bird activity and is more effective in detecting birds when not constantly
watching the path of travel, especially In rough, heavily vegetated terrain (Anderson and Ohmart,
1981). Should the water noise be too bud, the observer would walk farther from the bank. The
field crew could sample at 100-m intervals for 4 hours, or do 15 stations at 100-m intervals, or
sample the entire stream segment at 100-m intervals, depending upon its length. Allowing time
for recording and walking between stations, a crew would walk about 2 km during a 4-hour samp-
ling time. In areas of rough terrain, the distance would be shortened during the 4-hour sampling
window. Physical habitat information would be recorded at each stop, if habitat type changes
markedly within an observation circle at a station, bird type should be matched to habitat type.
Deciding on the most efficient sampling time per stop during a point count survey means striking
a balance between achieving the maximum number of detections without counting the same birds
more than once. Manuwal and Carey (1991) conducted pilot studies in the western Washington
Cascade Mountains to determine an optimum sampling time for point count surveys. They found
that detections Increased steadily until 8 minutes had elapsed, after which the number of
observations remained constant. Variable interstation distances were tested during the same
study. The results showed very tittie difference in the number of detections at interstation
distances of 150, 200. and 300 meters. The major consideration for optimum distance between
sampling points is that the distances match in scale bird territories and distribution across the
landscape.
Field and lab expertise required
HIGH.
18
-------
Crew: The ideal crew would have two members, both trained birders with a full range of hearing
acuity. From the experience of the lake survey field crew, only one skilled birder was necessary;
the second person recorded habitat observations. However, the trained birders were subject to
rigorous QA testing. They sampled side by side to determine If their detection skills were
identical. The panel believed that two skilled birders were preferable to one, lor QA reasons and
for double detection power; however, costs may preclude this option. They also discussed the
possibility of using a tape recorder during the survey as a cross reference for post-sampling
accuracy checks. We can probably manage with one trained birder and another nonbirding crew
member to do physical habitat measurements or other EMAP field tasks.
Training: Birders should be subject to rigorous training, working with tapes of bird calls. QA tests
will be given regularly, including tests lor measurement error and crew variability. Several dry
runs at representative stream sites will be necessary before each field season. Simultaneous tran-
sects run by crew members will ensure equivalent skills.
Labor Hours: 8 (2 persons x 4 hours each).
Gear: Binoculars, tape recorder, microphone, machetes, flagging, clipboards, bird tapes. A
parabolic recorder could be used for recording bird songs for quality control checks If costs are
not prohibitive.
Total Field and Lab Hours: 8 field hrs/slte. Training by a qualified trainer for at least 2 weeks for
4 persons, or 400 hours (5 persons X 80 hours); this would equal 100 hours for each of 4 crews.
The lake survey crews were trained during a month-long university ornithology course, which con-
centrated on bird songs and calls; It required over 100 hours. Training costs decline with more
crews. Assuming that a crew samples 30 sites, training hours would be at least 3/slte. Total
hours B 11 /site. This does not include reconnaissance or setting up of the sampling transect
Possible assessment metrics and analyses
1. Number of species
2. Number of detections/station
3. % neotropical migrants of total species
4. % exotic species of total species
5. Trophic guilds - carnivorous, herbivorous, omnivorous
19
-------
6. Foraging guilds — bark gleaner*, flycatchers, foliage gleaners, ground gleaners. Foraging
Information may be subdivided Into several categories, such as methods of search and
attack, foraging sites, type of food, and food handling strategies. Use of the various
categories depends upon the detail required to answer the research questions (Remsen and
Robinson, 1990).
7. Habitat specificity - forest interior, second growth, young serai stage, prairie, grassland,
pasture, water, wetland
Although there Is no bird assemblage index as advanced as Karr's Index of Biotlc Integrity for fish,
much work has been done with bird assemblages and guilds (Croonquist and Brooks, 1991;
Moors and O'Connor, 1992; Short and Bumham, 1982; Vemer, 1984). In fact, Root (1967) coined
the guild concept while working with bird assemblages. Brooks and associates have developed
response guilds using metrics based on a species' wetland dependency, habitat specificity, and
trophic level. In the metric scoring system, species that were more sensitive to habitat distur-
bance received high scores, whereas species unaffected or benefited by habitat disturbance
received low scores. Undisturbed habitats, then, should contain a greater percentage of birds
with high guild scores. Because their work seems most germane to EMAP bird assessments for
streams, It is summarized in the following five paragraphs.
Trophic Level: Top carnivores receive the highest score because they are assumed to be most
sensitive to habitat disturbance. Determination of trophic level is based on the species' overall
diet when it is a resident in the sampling region. Most species become somewhat insectivorous
for a short period when feeding young. These species would not be considered Insectivorous If
they revert back to another diet after nesting. The following list of trophic levels is ranked from
highest score to lowest (Croonquist and Brooks, 1991):
• Carnivore, specialist «= Insectivorous (e.g., flycatchers)
• Carnivore, generaltst » insects, small mammals (e.g., shrikes)
• Herbivore, specialist = fruits or nuts (e.g., acorn woodpecker)
• Herbivore, generalist « seed, nuts (e.g.. finches)
• Omnfvore & plants or animals (e.g., thrushes)
Foraging strategy: Where and how a species feeds should be based on that species' response
to riparian degradation. Scores should reflect the level of riparian disturbance for specific
impacts. For example, In the Northeast, a forested riparian zone is an undisturbed habitat and
20
-------
should provide a high percentage of canopy/foliage gleaners. A logging Impact would leave
foraging habitat for ground or shrub gleaners. Conversely, livestock grazing within a riparian
zone that maintains a canopy cover may Impact the ground or shrub gleaners but not the canopy
gleaners. Foraging guilds supplement the tophic guilds. If one foraging type Is absent from an
area where it Is expected, this absence suggests a problem. For example, ground gleaners
missing from a forest may suggest ground predators. The following foraging strategies are
ranked from highest to lowest score for undisturbed riparian areas of the Northeast:
• Canopy gleaners
• Bark gleaners
• Shrub gleaners
• Air, flycatchers
• Ground gleaners
Habitat specificity: For the purpose of EMAP, we are interested in determining the ecological
health of the stream system and surrounding riparian/upland landscape. With this in mind,
habitat specificity is scored similarly to foraging strategy in that the scores are based on presence
or absence of riparian degradation. Therefore, the highest scoring species should be those of the
least disturbed habitats. These scores are based on a disturbance gradient
• Undisturbed forest interior, forested and emergent wetlands
• Second growth, young serai stage; old fields; undisturbed lacustrine wetlands
• Undisturbed prairie grassland; partially disturbed lacustrine wetlands
• Pasture; agriculture; development
The use of muttimetric indices in analysis will be complemented by the use of multivariate statis-
tics, especially during the data exploration phase of analysis. A full range of analyses allows for
cross checking of one method against the other. Methods vary in their sensitivity as well as In
their ability to find ecologically relevant relationships at various scales. The analysis of data from
the EMAP-SW1991 pilot demonstrated the potential of an avtan Index of blotie Integrity. Though
the analyses varied in their ranking of moderately disturbed lakes, the guild analysis, species
richness, and principal components analysis all identified the highly Impacted sites.
21
-------
HERPETOFAUNA (Panelists: Janalee Caldwelt, Joe Freda, Mark Jennings, Sandy Thiele)
Introduction
Amphibians meet several criteria of a good response indicator (VJtt et a)., 1991). In some areas,
such as the forest streams of the Pacific Northwest, New England, and AppaJachia, amphibians
comprise the highest vertebrate biomass. Aquatic amphibians average 10 times the abundance
and 4 times the biomass of salmonids in Pacific Northwest streams (Bury et al., 1991); they also
represent the greatest biomass of vertebrate predators in the southern Appalachians (Hairston,
1987). In addition, they have become the focus of Increasing concern because of a loss of
biodiversity, with continuing reports of dramatic declines worldwide (Blaustein and Wake, 1990;
Phillips, 1990). Known causes for amphibian decline Include habitat destruction and predation
from introduced species of fish and frogs. Other possible causes Include Increased ultraviolet
radiation, pesticide poisoning, disease, and drought.
Amphibians, with their two-phase life history, serve as a link between aquatic and terrestrial
environments. Due to their highly permeable skin, they are extremely sensitive to both airborne
and walerbome contaminants. They are particularly stressed during the time of metamorphosis.
The dependence on littoral areas by larvae of some species and on riparian areas by adults make
amphibians vulnerable to shoreline habitat alteration in both lake and stream habitats.
Questions arise, however, when sampling procedures, indicator population variability, and inform-
ation gain versus cost of survey are considered. Can amphibian sampling be tailored to an
EMAP-style survey? The members of the herpetofauna indicator group kept these questions in
mind while considering the suitability of amphibians as indicators of stream condition. The panel
concluded that for certain regions of the country, and for headwater or Intermittent systems,
amphibians may provide information about ecosystem condition when other Indicator information
is poor or lacking.
Characteristic* of assemblages that could serve aa Indicator*
The panel concluded that amphibians and turtles were the candidates most likely to serve as
indicators of condition. Herpetofauna activity varies regionally and within regions depending
upon yearly temperature and precipitation fluctuations. Particular populations may vary
significantly from year to year, which poses difficulties for sampling within a prescribed index
22
-------
period (Jones, 1986; Pechmann et at., 1991). For these reasons, the group's attention turned to
regions of the country and particular habitats that have amphibian species with relatively stable
populations that are easily sampled. Aquatic turtles were chosen as possible Indicators for
sampling in larger streams and river systems. Appendix A lists major assemblages of Interest In
various regions of the country and ranks them according to 12 criteria. The following sections
summarize these criteria.
Societal Value: HIGH. Amphibians compose the bulk of vertebrate biomass in the forests of the
Pacific Northwest, Appalachia, and New England. They are attractive to children because they
are visible and easily captured, their mating songs are an early sign of spring, and their territorial
calls are a source of enjoyment on summer evenings. They are suffering serious declines,
nationally and internationally, even in seemingly undisturbed wilderness areas.
Responsiveness: HIGH. Amphibians are especially sensitive during their larval life stage to
riparian habitat, water quality, and Introduced species problems. Amphibians, during all life
stages, are very sensitive to both waterbome and airborne contaminants due to their highly
permeable skin. Metamorphosis is a stressful time for amphibians, when they are particularly
vulnerable to outside impacts. The dependence on littoral areas by larvae of some species and
on riparian areas by adults puts amphibians at risk from shoreline habitat alteration. Amphibians
have been used to show the effects of logging on old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest
(Com and Bury. 1989).
Ease of Sampling; LOW. Two-thirds of the sampling will be incidental to other types of sampling
(fish and macrobenthos). The riparian searches could also be combined with some other
sampling effort, such as birds. In addition, the index period is very flexible. Sampling will be
most cost effective If It Is conducted in conjunction with other Indicator work. The index period of
most amphibian assemblages is flexible enough to mesh with spring or summer surveys. During
riparian searches, field staff would search appropriate habitats, turning logs and recks, along a
corridor parallel to the stream channel. Larvae and aquatic adult amphibians could also routinely
be taken during macrelnvertebrate sampling, as well as during •lectrofishlng. Thus, amphibian
Indicator Information could be gained through the Incidental lake of the fish and macroinverte-
brate sampling: the riparian searches would be the only facet of field work that would require a
significant addition of time and effort, about 6 work hours.
23
-------
To minimize the amount of field expertise required for sampling, voucher specimens should bo
taken for later identification. For larvae, a 5% visual estimate will be sufficient; the larvae may be
placed directly in formalin. Training will be required for field staff to correctly preserve adult
specimens. Each animal must be humanely killed with chlorotohe or MS-222, Injected with forma-
lin, and laid out in formalin in a tray before being placed in storage containers. Aquatic turtles
should not be killed or preserved, but photographed for later identification and released.
Laboratory Ease: MODERATE. Identification of larvae and confirmation of adult voucher speci-
mens is estimated to require less than 2 hours/site.
Measurement Stability: MODERATE. Identification error should be low since the Individuals
caught may be identified later by professional taxonomists; however, collection is done by
searching, which involves moderate error. Targeting regions with stable populations for sampling
reduces detection error due to lower population variability, tf only collected along with fish and
benthos, measurement error may be high, especially in estimating proportionate abundance and
riparian species.
Index Period Stability: HIGH. Target populations are stable during the chosen index period.
Adult populations living in riparian areas are active and observable from early spring through
summer. Many taxa are long-lived and have low mobility, ensuring that year-to-year population
variability will be low.
Amono-Site/Amonq-Year Variability: MODERATE. The variability in observations between sites
differing in vegetative cover and habitat condition is greater than the variability In year-to-year
observations at a particular site. In target areas, populations of salamanders are stable from year
to year.
Amono-SHe/Wrthln-Slte Variability: MODERATE. Variability among sites Is also a function of the
variability In habitat quality. Wifhln-sKe variability is high at heterogeneous sttes, but this Is
countered by composite sampling along a transect
Available Database: LOW. Databases of limited spatial distribution are available that address the
autecology of particular populations: salamanders of the Appalachians and the Pacific Northwest;
turtles In the east, central and southern United States; frogs and toads, nationwide. However,
there Is a general lack of long-term census data (Pechmann et al., 1991). Much of the information
24
-------
on population declines is anecdotal or indicative of sites where historical populations once
occurred (Hayes and Jennings, 1986). This lack of baseline data on the sizes and natural fluctu-
ations of herpetofauna populations complicate efforts to distinguish declines resulting from human
activities (Pechmann et a!., 1991).
Expected Taxa Richness: LOW. During a study conducted in montane forested areas of the
Pacific Northwest, Bury and Com (1991) caught a mean of 42.6 amphibians per 10-m section of
23 headwater streams in uncut forests. Nine species of amphibians occur In this area near small
streams. However, three species dominated the sample: Pacific giant salamander, tailed frog,
and Olympic salamander.
fvlacrohabitat Use- HIGH. Depending upon life stage, both aquatic and riparian habitats are used
extensively: larvae of terrestrial species and aquatic species are found In both fast and slow
water in-stream; terrestrial adults are found under logs, rocks, and leaf litter In riparian areas.
Guild Information: LOW. See 'Possible assessment metrics and analyses," page 24.
piBanostic Power: MODERATE. The diagnostic power of amphibians Is high in target areas
such as the mid-Appalachians or Pacific Northwest, where stable, easily observed populations of
salamanders occur. H is also high in intermittent systems where in-stream data may be lacking.
Diagnostic power is low in areas where populations fluctuate or depend upon favorable weather
conditions.
Sional/Noise Ratio: HIGH for target populations mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
Salamanders are long-lived, have low mobility, and are active In forested montane habitats
throughout all but the coldest periods of the year. They are sensitive to disturbances in water
quality and habitat structure. Halrston (19B7) collected and compared long-term count
Information on pfethodontid salamanders In the mountains of North Carolina and found their
populations to be stable over a five-year period. Pond breeding species, on the other hand, are
subject to higher fluctuations in numbers due to changing seasonal weather conditions (Hairston,
1987).
InformationrCosl Ratio: MODERATE. The hformatton/cost ratio wfll be particularly high In
forested upland regions such as the Pacific Northwest and the Appalachians where salamander
communities form the bulk of the vertebrate biomass In riparian and aquatic habitats. Data on
25
-------
particular species habitat and feeding requirements Is available. Adding amphibian sampling to
fish and macroinvertebrate sampling will keep sampling costs low. However, In other areas of the
country where knowledge of amphibian autecology is low, the Information/cost ratio is low.
Applicability to temporary streams
HIGH. Salamanders, frogs, and toads form assemblages that would serve equally well for
Intermittent and ephemeral streams as for perennial streams. If fish are absent, salamanders and
anurans may be even more abundant In Intermittent streams than in perennial streams. Drying
and ponding of stream channels may also cause amphibians to leave the riparian areas and con-
centrate in hiding places within the stream channel.
Length of stream segment sampled
HIGH. For riparian searches, the questions of optimum corridor length and width and the number
of transects per stream segment should be answered during pilot efforts In various regions of the
country. However, a reasonable corridor would be 10 m wide and 100 m long; several short tran-
sects could be chosen systematically, if a longer reach were sampled. Samples from various
transects within a segment could be composited if habitats were recorded. The group also dis-
cussed the utility of sampling both sides of the stream bank. This would ensure that both the
inside and outside bends In the stream channel and banks of different aspect would be sampled.
Field and lab expertise required
'Field crew: LOW-MODERATE. Two persons could spend from one to four hours doing the ripar-
ian searches. Four hours would be the maximum time required for a transect in rough terrain.
The macroinvertebrate and fish collections from the site should be checked to Identify or preserve
samples. Collecting jars, ziplock bags, and formalin are the only additional gear necessary for
the amphibian work, since macroinvertebrate and fish crews will be taking amphibians as inciden-
tal catch. Where poisonous snakes reside, turning hooks and protective gloves are necessary.
Where turtles are used as indicators In larger streams and rivers, field crews would have to
expend more time and energy to bait and set fyke traps every 25 m. Ideally, traps should be left
overnight If fish are sampled with the same gear, no additional effort is needed. Photographs
would be required for species identifications.
26
-------
Field training: LOW. One to two days of training are sufficient for basic identification skills and
sampling methods If individuals are already schooled In biology.
Laboratory work: MODERATE. Voucher specimens would be sent to a recognized museum for
final identification. The longevity of the museum and Its natural history collections should be an
important factor in choosing a repository. Normally a herpetologist requires about two hours to
confirm identifications of voucher specimens. Large numbers of larvae, which are harder to
identify, would result in occasional higher costs per site for identification.
Total Field and Lab Hours per Site: Field (2-8); lab (2). Total hours = 10.
Possible assessment metrics and analyses
e Total individuals
e % anomalies of total
e Relative abundances of individuals
• Relative abundances of larvae versus adults
• Species richness
• % introduced species
• % intolerant species
• % tolerant species
• Reproductive guilds
• Feeding guilds
• Habitat guilds
Work with herpetofauna guilds is in the developmental stages. The rationale for the use of the
guild concept in environmental assessment can be found in a review article by Simberioff and
Dayan (1991).
Data Analysis and Estimate of Condition: Nonparametric statistics are normally used to analyze
herpetofauna data, tt Is likely thai a combination of multivariate anatyses as well as indices would
be used to assess the assemblage. Something similar to the Index of Biotic Integrity (181), used
for monitoring fish communities (Ken et al., 1986), could be developed for herpetofauna. The IBI
uses metrics simitar to those listed in Objective 9, but tt works best in areas with complex fish
communities. The situation for amphibian metrics may be analogous to using the IBI in areas
27
-------
with few fish species. In these areas, metrics are modified or other metrics are developed. If
there Is only a single sensitive spades, for example, the proportion of sensitive species can be
changed to percent of individuals as sensitive species (Karr et a!., 1986). Other measures for an
area of low species richness would focus on age dasses or reproductive success.
The panel assembled a list of taxa for the Pacific Northwest, assigning each species a number
score according to its tolerance or intolerance to habitat changes. For example, the tntolerants
received a 5, the common species a 3, and the exotics a 1 (Table 2).
Sites could be scored using a simple metric such as this. For example, the absence of true frogs
and toads from appropriate habitat, reflected in the site score, would indicate a problem. Such
an index could easily be refined by the addition of other metrics, such as relative abundance
measures, proportions of intolerants, exotics, and trophic groups.
Table 2. Tolerance Rankings of Pacific Northwest Amphibians Likely to be Encountered In
an Extensive Stream Survey
Taxon
Tailed frog
Olympic salamander
Pacific tree frog
Taricha
Ensatina, Dicamptodon
True frogs (flanas)
Toads (Pufo)
Bullfrog
African clawed frog
Occurrence/Trend
Old growth species
Old growth species
Relatively common
Common newt
Common salamanders
Common, but declining
Once common, but declining
Introduced, indicates change
Exotic, lives in highly
disturbed conditions .
Ranking
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2B
-------
FISH (Panelists: Mark Bain, John Baker, Susan Cormier, Chris Faulkner, Frank MeCormlek, Thorn
Whlttier, Roger Yeardley. Chris Yoder)
Introduction
Fish are the most purely aquatic of all vertebrate assemblages, they are of immense Interest to
the public (both fishermen and nonfishermen), and they are experiencing precipitous declines.
Because many species are relatively long-lived and mobile, fish are useful Indicators of mufti-year
and broad-scale environmental conditions. Fish assemblages contain species representing a
variety of trophic levels (omnrvores, herbivores, Invertivores, planktivores, plscivores) and they
tend to integrate changes In lower trophic levels, thereby reflecting overall ecosystem hearth.
Because they are at the top of the aquatic food chain and consumed by humans, they are Impor-
tant subjects for assessing bioaccumulation of toxics. Designated aquatic life uses, which along
with criteria form water quality standards, are frequently characterized In terms of fisheries
(coldwater. coolwater. warmwater, sport, forage, rough), and fishability is a goal of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
Their Importance to American society has led to the establishment of three professional associa-
tions (American Fisheries Society, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and
Desert Fishes Council) and eight professional journals (Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science, Cope/a, Environmental Biology of Fishes, Fisheries, Fishery Bulletin, North American
Journal of Fisheries Management, The Progressive Fish-Cutturist, and Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society). Because of the great professional interest in fishes, their declines as a result of
migration barriers, exploitation, toxics, habftat loss, and Introduced species have been recorded
and reported (Hughes and Noss. 1992; Miller et a!., 1989; Nehlsen at a!., 1991; Williams et el..
1989).
Characteristics of assemblages that could serve as Indicators
Initial discussion focused on the usefulness of fish as an Indicator of biological Integrity In
streams. The expertise of the participants was strongly skewed to centra! and eastern warmwater
systems, which were considered easier to describe for various metrics and muttfvariate compari-
sons because of their overall taxonomte richness. In that context, the group expressed strong
sentiment for emphasizing the Importance of using obligate fluvial taxa (e.g., perdds, eyprinids,
catostomids, and some lepomines) In whatever description of biological Integrity would be used.
29
-------
The feeling was that the lishable" species of public interest In warm waters were least sensitive to
perturbations. Size classification was regarded as important in that it generally reflects population
structure. As a rule, 25 mm was suggested as the lower cutoff for species-level description. The
group viewed larval taxonomy as too difficult and the temporal variation In larval abundance as
too uncertain to be practical for Including larval fish in EMAP.
Ohio EPA's experience with biomarkers indicated that two people need 3-5 hours/site for field
processing; additional lab time and expense Is also required. Biomarkers are considered by
some to be most appropriate as diagnostic Indicators, although genetic diversity in species
depauperate assemblages has proven to be a useful indicator of biological integrity (Nehlsen et
a!., 1991). Such an indicator would require collection of 100 individuals of a single species (Carl
Schreck, Oregon State University). Goede's Fish Hearth Index takes 1-5 hours and requires 20
fish of the same species and size. The group concluded that most biomarkers would be more
appropriate for more intensive studies than the initial EMAP stream surveys.
The participants made the following assumptions:
• The objectives of the sampling methods to be employed were directed at obtaining a
representative sample of the assemblage, not an inventory of the populations within ft
• Within a site, there was a probability that 10% of the species were likely to be missed by
electrofishing and seining methods.
• Measurement error would be minimized by preserving all specimens collected for museum
or laboratory identification. This would not be permitted nationally for protected species
and is unnecessary for easily identified and large fish, tt is also unwise for large sport fish.
• Sampling error, measurement error, and site variance would be smoothed by agglomerative
metrics or analyses by stream class. Certain murtimetric techniques may not be applicable
across all classes where some of the descriptive power may be lost The IBI must be
recalibrated tor headwater, mid-sized, wadeable, and beatable systems In most regions.
Muttrvariate analyses may have some subjectivity in the types of analyses and data chosen.
• Rare and transient species may be missed. This Is a matter of concern because they may
be sensitive to disturbances.
• 30
-------
Fish assemblages were ranked as follows.
Societal Value: HIGH. Over 30 million fishing licenses per year are Issued In the United States
and over $27 billion was spent on sport fishing In 1985, creating over 800,000 jobs (Sport Fishing
Institute, 1992). People are concerned about fish for food and recreation, and simply as visible
Indicators of the hearth of aquatic ecosystems. Fish kills remain a serious concern to the public
and natural resource agencies.
Responsiveness: HIGH. Different measures of fish assemblages are sensitive to both short-term
and chronic perturbations. The recovery of an assemblage may be fast that is. the assemblage
may be more resilient to disturbance than it is resistant. Thus, fish assemblages may be better
Indicators of long-term disturbance than of acute effects. Fishes are also sensitive to changes In
habitat structure, flow, and channel modifications, as well as to chemical changes (Judy et el.,
1984; Miller et al., 1989; Smith, 1971).
Sampling Ease: LOW. Sampling effort is largely a matter of stream size and habitat complexity.
For wadeable streams, the goal is to collect 90% of the species and age classes present, which
may require the use of seines and electrofishing in 100 to 1000 m of stream. This may take a
minimum of two people 1-5 hrs (mode of 8 work hours); at least one crew member should have a
degree in fishery biology and expertise in fish sampling (Plafkin et al., 1989).
Laboratory Ease: MODERATE. In streams with complex fish assemblages, or where field identifi-
cation of small fishes and some species is problematic, laboratory Identification is necessary.
Also, for quality assurance, a set of voucher specimens is needed. Both require a trained and
experienced ichthyologist and a suitably equipped laboratory. Laboratory processing, identifica-
tions, and cataloging require 4 hours per she for EMAP lakes (Karsten Hartel, Harvard Museum of
Comparative Zoology).
Measurement Stability: MEDIUM. This is Increased considerably by laboratory IdentHicatiorV
confirmation of species and by selecting an Index period when flows are relatively low and stable.
Field slan must be carefully trained in methods and level of effort (distance/habitats sampled,
thoroughness). Although absolute abundance errors can be high In fish sampling. EMAP will be
estimating only proportionate abundance and specie* richness.
31
-------
Index Period Stability: HIGH. The major sources of variability are climatic (severe drought flood)
or anthropogenic (spills). Using data from 1,335 sites sampled three times from 15 June to 15
October, Rankin and Yoder (1991) found coefficients of variation of < 10-12% In minimally dis-
turbed and highly toxic streams, but values of 30-40% in polluted streams and in those with poor
physical habitat They considered high variability during an Index period as Indicative of dis-
turbance.
Amona-Site/AmonQ-Year Variation: HIGH. Rankin and Yoder (1991) also reported IBI (index of
blotic Integrity) values of 12-60 among sites but only 48-58 and 12-24 at several sites sampled
over three years in minimally disturbed and highly disturbed streams, respectively.
Amena-Site/Wrthin-Site Variation: HIGH. This evaluation is based on the relatively high variance
among sites across the state of Ohio compared to that of sites 1-2 km apart along the same
stream. If sites in the same stream but distant from each other are similar, then wlthin-slte
variance should be relatively low. Preliminary pilot data from multiple sites in an ecoregion had
coefficients of variation around 20% for species richness and evenness.
Available Data: HIGH. There is a tremendous amount of autecologlcal data in theses and the
peer-reviewed literature, plus most states and major universities have long-standing lehthyological
museums. Many of the data are on paper files or untranslatable and inflexible computer files;
however, several major fish databases have been computerized (e.g., Massachusetts, Cornell.
Pennsylvania, Ohio EPA, University of Michigan, Illinois Natural History Survey, Wsconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma,
Colorado, Montana, Oregon State University). In addition, databases on fish assemblages exist
from long-term (> 20 yrs) studies of major rivers (e.g., Mississippi, Missouri. Illinois, Wabash,
Savannah, Colorado). Lastly, the American Fisheries Society publishes a list of common and
scientific names of fishes every 10 years (e.g. Robins et a!., 1991), ensuring that most taxonomlc
questions are resolved and all species collected on the continent are consistently named.
Taxonomlc Richness: LOW-MEDIUM. The group's expertise was with warmwater, speciose
assemblages. In most of the eastern United States, dominated by the Mississippi River fauna,
stream fish assemblages In wadeabte streams will be taxonomteally rich, especially In regions with
fluvial assemblages with predominantly sensitive taxa. Coldwater streams may gain species as
they become warmer. High gradient warmwater systems may behave like coldwater systems.
The relationships (and taxonomy) of some of the Gulf Coastal and Tennessee/Cumberland
32
-------
species are poorly understood. Regional museums will be useful In resolving taxonomlc issues
and regional scientists can offer better estimates of taxonomlc richness. Generally, wadeable
stream reaches in the United States support 0-40 fish species, with greatest richness In the
Mississippi and Mobile drainages; most one-degree quadrats in the western Untied States support
10 or fewer fish species, whereas 40-70 species are typical of eastern quadrats (McAllister el a!.,
1986).
Macrohabitat Use: HIGH. Fish occupy nearly all maerohabitats in permanent and In many inter-
mittent streams. Species autecology is described in a national atlas and numerous state fishes
books (e.g., Becker, 1983; Cross and Collins, 1975; Miller and Robtson, 1980; Minckley, 1973;
Moyle, 1976; Pflieger, 1975; Scotland Grossman. 1973; Smith, 1979; Trautman, 1981; Wydoski
and Whitney. 1979).
Guild Information: HIGH. Data are summarized in the books mentioned In the previous para-
graph for trophic, sensitivity, habitat, and reproductive guilds. Matthews and Heins (1987) Is an
additional useful guide for the ecology of North American stream fishes; Kan- el al. (1986) and
Fausch et al. (1990) offer considerable insight Into assemblage level assessments that make use
of guilds.
Diagnostic Power: HIGH. Based on species- and assemblage-level knowledge of fishes and their
responsiveness to the multitude of stressors affecting streams, fish should be highly diagnostic.
However, ft will be difficuft to diagnose single stressors because of the expected high frequency
of cumulative impacts.
Signal/Noise Ratio: HIGH. As long as measurement error Is controlled, the fish assemblage will
vary mostly as a result of flow fluctuations and anthropogenic disturbance. The data collected
should closely represent the actual assemblage, and fish are sensitive to multiple stressors (water
quality degradation, physical habitat degradation, flow regulation, migration barriers, harvest,
stocking). No other assemblage is likely to produce a signal from all these stressors.
Information/Cost: HIGH. Information about the Impacts of multiple stressors is high and the
costs of obtaining data are moderate.
-------
Applicability to temporary streams
LOW. Although temporary streams are unlikely to be wet during the summer low-flow period,
some channels may contain enduring pools that have resident fish; if present at all, however, fish
are probably transients in most intermittent and ephemeral streams. Tolerant species may
replace headwater species, especially as streams dry. If fish are sampled in a spring Index period
when temporary streams are more likely to be wet, pioneer species offish that reproduce In such
habitats are apt to be present Nonetheless, intermittent streams may be very Important to some
fishes; for instance. Erman and Hawthorne (1976) found that 39-47% of rainbow trout In a Sierra
stream spawned in an intermittent tributary, whereas • total of onty 10-15% spawned In several
permanent tributaries.
Length of stream segment sampled
HIGH. 150-560 m, or 3 riffle-pool sequences, or 40 stream widths. NAWQA recommends shorter
distances, but regional pilots are needed to determine appropriate lengths because of differences
in stream morphology and species richness. Human-made structures such as low-flow dams
would not change sampling regime or she and no alternate class sampling would be needed. If a
site does not meet EMAP sampling criteria, it would not be sampled. The group recommended
compositing samples from riffles, runs, and pools. However, it might be advisable to keep habitat
splits and do the compositing after sampling, at least in pilots.
Field and lab expertise required
Fiefd: HIGH. Two persons X 4 hr/site = 8 work hours.
Lab: MODERATE. One person X 4 hr/slte = 4 work hours.
Field Trafnina: LOW. One to two days.
Sampling Gear: HIGH (initially). Electrofishers, seines, dipnets.
Total Work Hours: 12/site.
34
-------
At leasl one field person should be a trained and experienced fish biologist; the lab person
should be a professional Ichthyologist. Unless a systematic random sampling design is Imple-
mented, more field biologists will be needed in wide, shallow rivers with complex habitats.
Ohio EPA preferred to sample wadeable streams by electrofishing with bank or float generator
gear. The group discussed other techniques, such as seining, also. The experience of Ohio EPA
and others suggests that variance among crews is greatly reduced when electrofishing is used,
along with prescribed sampling distance and time. The necessary power (weight) of the gear is
important because of the possibility of a long walk to the site. The group concluded that light
weight and high-power gear could be assembled to accommodate the EMAP design. Equipment
described by Mark Bain was considered as an alternative to the Ohio EPA unit.
Possible assessment metrics and analyses
Metrics could be based on number or percent of species or individuals.
Assemblage Composition
• Ordination score (based on species or metrics)
• Species richness
• Family richness
• Index of Biotic Integrity
Trophic Guilds
• Omnrvores
• Herbivores
• Invertivores
• PJscivores
Tolerance Guilds
• Intderants
• Sensitives
• Tolerants
35
-------
Habitat Guilds
• Benthics
• Water Column
• Headwater
• Riverine
Reproductive and Ltfe History Characteristics
• Nonguarding Ifthophils
• Juveniles or Young of Year
• Adults
e Introduced
• Total Catch
• Anomalies
• Temporal Variance
-------
MACROINVERTEBRATES (Panelists: Joseph Furnish, Marty Gurtz, Chuck Hawkins, Jim
Lazorchak, Dave Lenat. Phil Lewis, Wayne Minshall, Bill Thoeny).
Introduction
Macroinvertebrates are important members of the food web, and their well-being is reflected in
the well-being of the higher trophic groups such as fish. In addition, macroinvertebrates have a
long history of use as a bio-monitoring tool. Their value In bioassessments stimulated formation of
the Midwest Benthotogical Society, which has since become the North American Benthologlcal
Society. Benthos comprise a heterogeneous assemblage of animal taxa that Inhabit stream sub-
strates.
Benthic invertebrates are frequently used as environmental indicators of biological integrity
because (1) they are found in most aquatic habitats, (2) they are of a size that makes them easy
to collect. (3) they are very sensitive to a wide range of stressors (agricultural, domestic,
industrial, mining, etc.), (4) they have limited mobility and life cycles of a year or more, thus
reflecting conditions during the recent past, Including reactions to infrequently discharged
pollutants, (5) they retain toxic substances for relatively long periods of time due to 'biological
magnification," and (6) most can be identified to genus or species using existing taxonomic keys.
Few macroinvertebrale species are endangered, and getting a permit to sample would pose no
difficulties.
Knowledge of changes in the assemblage structure (abundance and composition) and function of
benthic macroinvertebrates helps to indicate water resource status and trends (Cummins end
Kiug, 1979; Plafkin el al., 1989). Different stressors produce different maerobenthlc assemblage
structure, function, or both (ArmHage, 187B; Hart and Fuller. 1974; Hilsenhoff. 1977; Metcalfe.
1989; Resh and Unzicker, 1975).
Characteristics of assemblages that could eerve as Indicators
The major taxonomic groups of freshwater macroinvertebrates include the aquatic Insects, anne-
Bds, motlusks, and crustaceans; all those collected while sampling streams will be Identified.
Societal Value: LOW. Societal interest in macrobenthos is limited to those few persons aware of
their importance as fish food.
37
-------
Responsiveness to Stress: MODERATE. Taxa throughout North America show a wide range of
tolerances. Many species are sensitive to both In-stream and riparian alterations. Benthos are
highfy responsive to changes in water quality, flow, and sedimentation, but show low to moderate
sensitivity to many changes in habitat structure, and their reaction to introduced species is
variable.
Sampling Ease: MODERATE. Quantitative sampling methods are available for all types of
aquatic habitats. Plafkin et al. (1969) estimate 1-2 hours for two people, or 4 work hours.
Laboratory Ease: LOW, The group estimated that 2-3 composite samples would be taken from
the site; each would require several hours to process.
Measurement Stability: MODERATE. This is a function of habitat heterogeneity, degree days,
sampling design, and data analyses. Collecting the samples at the same time (based on degree
days) and In the same habitat type each year would eliminate much of this variability. However,
there is generally more difference among riffles than among samples from the same riffle; this
Indicates a need for composite sampling. A number of studies on stream assemblages have
addressed the effects of physical microhabitat variability on the distribution of benthic
macrolnvertebrates (Cummins and Lauff, 1969; Haddock, 1977; Minshall and Minshall, 1977).
The 1992 and 1993 pilots will further investigate aspects of measurement error to determine the
necessary number of samples for both slow-water and fast-water composites.
Seasonality may be an even more significant factor than microhabitat variability because
taxonomic and feeding guilds change naturally in composition throughout the year in response to
emergence and reproductive cycles. These natural cycles may shift when influenced by pollution
impacts. Preliminary analysis of data from the West Virginia RARE project Indicates that varying
the summer sampling period by two or three weeks from one year to the next may have a sub-
stantial effect on numbers of Individuals and the taxa collected in the samples. There was,
however, little difference in Hilsenhof Biotlc Index (HBI) or Biological Integrity Index (Bit) scores
from one year to the next, even though different taxa were present.
Index Period Stability; MODERATE. The group suggested that streams could be sampled from
low to high elevations and from south to north, to help minimize differences resulting from degree
days. Panelists recommended sampling tile same site on the first and last days of the index
period to determine temporal variance and develop correction factors. Measuring degree days
38
-------
also would facilitate calibrations between a cool, wet year and a warm, dry year. Sampling
should not be scheduled when streams are dry or flooded, or »oon after floods, tf logistical
difficulties hinder crews from sampling In such a manner or If temperatures and flows change
rapidly in late spring, the Index period stability is reduced.
Amono-Stte/Among-YearVariation: HIGH. North Carolina biologists found that similar riffles In
the same stream yielded the seme benthic assemblage from year to year. As long as similar
habitats are sampled and no major disturbance occurs, among-year variation will be much less
than the variation that occurs among different sites.
Amono-S He Within-S tie Variation: MODERATE. For tome metrics (taxa richness, number of
Individuals) this would be high, but for indices (such as EPT, HBI, and Bll) H would be low for
most sites. Compositing samples should smooth this variation.
Available Databases: MODERATE. Many small, short-term databases are available. Studies
Incorporating multi-year and multi-site designs Include those of Utah State, Philadelphia Academy
of Natural Sciences, and North Caroline Department of Environmental Management.
Taxonomle Richness: HIGH. Although the taxonomy of some groups Is poor, nearly all can be
Identified to genus and many can be taken to species. We can expect to collect 10-30 taxa In
three Surber samples from most unpolluted streams In the Midwest. The number of taxa In a
single riffle sample in the Appalachians ranges from 10 to 35, but 65-95 can be taken If more
habitats are sampled (PJaTkin et al. 1989). Nutrient-poor headwater streams typically support
fewer taxa than larger, nutrient-rich streams.
MacrohabHat Use: HIGH. Any available substrate may provide suitable habitat for macroinverte-
brates, Including bottom sediment* (mud, tand, «fft, day, gravel], •ubmerged togs, debris,
stones, vascular plants, filamentous algae, etc. They occur In fast and slow water, Intermittent
streams and large rivers, and off-channel waters.
Guild Information: MODERATE. The toleranee/hlehe requirements of many taxa are unknown,
but our knowledge of them is increasing rapidly.
-------
Diagnostic Power: HIGH. Assuming a sufficient plot scale sampling design and quality
assurance in sampling, processing, identification, and data analysis, macrobenthos assemblages
are very useful in diagnosing stressors.
Slonal/Noise Ratio: MODERATE. As discussed above, macrobenthos demonstrate moderate
responsiveness and measurement end Index stabilities; therefore, their rating for signal/noise Is
estimated as moderate also.
Information/Cost Ratio: MODERATE. Up to 12 samples per reach were recommended for the
1992 pilot studies; these will be needed to assess the variability In assemblage structure between
samples in similar habitats and in different habitats. Some 1992 samples will be analyzed separ-
ately and composited by computer to determine the appropriate number of 1993 pilot samples
that should be composited in the field. Once that number Is determined, a 100-300 organism
subsample from composited Surber, grab, or kicknet samples will be used to characterize riffle,
pool, snag, or all three habitats of the stream reach. That is, eventually only 2-3 composite
samples per site will be processed in an estimated time of several hours each. Up to 4 field work
hours may be needed to collect and field process the composite samples.
The ecology of most common maeroinvertebrate taxa occurring In North America Is fairly well
documented in the literature, but the information must be assembled and integrated before being
useful to EMAP biologists. Practically nothing is known about the life history or ecology of
perhaps 10-20% of the taxa generally collected during stream surveys In the eastern United
States.
Applicability to temporary atreama
LOW. Intermittent and ephemeral streams would be sampled in the same way as the other
streams, during flow periods. If they lack water they would not be sampled.
Length of atream aeg merit sampled
HIGH. Riffles, runs, and pools should be sampled proportionately to their occurrence In a reach.
The number of samples should be sufficient to produce Index and metric variances <10% and
<20%, respectively. We suspect that 3-12 samples from pools, snags, and runs/riffles might be
adequate. Samples would be composited by habitat type and subsampled for Identification.
40
-------
Pilots should address the issues of quantitative versus qualitative sampling, number of habitats,
number of samples per habitat, mesh size, and number of individuals counted. These issues
should be determined by the number of samples needed to reach the point where variance flat-
tens. Multiple habitats must be sampled to detect changes in macrohabital About 10% of the
samples should be replicated as a QC activity.
Field and lab expertise required
MODERATE-HIGH. A two-person crew would require about 2 hours per reach for a total field time
of 4 work hours. These estimates are based on Surber or grab sampling In first* to third-order
streams in the Midwest. At least one person must be a professional biologist with training and
experience (three years preferred) in benthic sampling methods.
The group recommended the Surber type sampler or D-frame net for fast water and an Eckman
grab for sedimented pools in most wadeable streams. Artificial substrate samplers and drift net
samples would require two trips to the sampling station and would take additional time. Most
agreed that a suction type sampler is too cumbersome for routine sampling. A mesh size of
0.450 mm (No. 40) might improve precision.
The lab taxonomist must be capable of identifying aquatic macroinvertebrates to the genus or
species level to detect the kind of changes at the level of precision demanded by EMAP. Taxo-
nomic references and a high-quality dissecting scope are also necessary. Each cample will
require approximately 1-3 hours for sorting and 2-7 hours for identification under normal condi-
tions. Total lab time equals 3-10 hours/sample, or an average of 21 hours per site if 3 composite
samples are taken, and 14 hours if 2 composites are taken.
Field: MODERATE. 4 hours.
Field Training: LOW. One day.
Lab: HIGH. (7 hours per composite sample) 14 to 21 hours per site.
Total Work Hours/Site: HIGH. 18 to 25 hours.
41
-------
Possible assessment metric* and analysts
The** Include genus level HBI, Bll, species richness, percent EPT, and percent dominance. The
group felt that metrics based on assemblage similarity and assemblage loss would not be useful
because the reference sites are likely to be distant and support different taxa. Panelists thought
that multivariate analyses would be better in many ways than metrics, because they appear to be
more efficient in showing the relationship between the macroinvertebrate assemblage and partic-
ular stressors. These techniques should be compared during pilot studies.
42
-------
PERIPHYTON (Panelists: Loren Bahts, Donald Charles, Barry Rosen, R. Jan Stevenson, Gary
Collins, Ben McFarland, Lythia Metzmeier)
Introduction
Periphyton are atgae attached to substrates, and may Include bacteria, mlcrolnvertebrates, and
associated organic materials. Algae provide biomass tor many primary consumers, such as
macroinvertebrates and herbivorous fish. Periphyton are not the focus of public concern unless
the accumulation of organisms fs unsightly, produces taste and odor problems, or Impedes water
flow. In contrast to the lack of public concern about periphyton, they have been used extensively
In the analysis of water quality for several decades (Kolkwftz and Marsson, 1908; Lange-Bertalot,
1979, Patrick, 196B; Stevenson and Lowe, 1986; Watanabe et al., 1988). Periphyton have proven
useful for environmental assessments because they have rapid reproduction rales and short life
cycles, thus they respond quickly to perturbation (Stevenson et al., 1991). They also are In direct
contact with the water end are directly affected by water quality (Leelercq and Deplereux, 1987;
Round, 1991). Periphyton are collected by sampling methods that are rapid and easily quantifi-
able and data can be standardized into indices (VanLandingham, 1976; Watanabe et al., 1990).
Periphyton may also be sensitive to pollutants that other organisms tolerate relatively well
(Mundie, 1991; Willemsen et. al., 1990), and they cannot avoid pollutants because they are
immobile.
Periphyton assemblages reflect the water quality of a stream and to some extent, the riparian
cover, which limits light. Several studies on streams have Illustrated the usefulness of periphyton
in detecting nutrient disturbance (Stevenson, 1984; Stevenson et al., 1991; VanLandingham,
1976), acidity (Mulholland et al., 1986; Planas et al., 1989), turbidity (Chessman. 1986), metal
toxieity (Lampkin and Sommerfeld, 1982; Rushforth et al., 1981; Weltzet end Bates, 1081), urban
•term water (Willemsen el al., 1990), and several other environmental disturbances. These
studies Indicate that periphyton respond to a great variety of pollutants and can be used to
accurately diagnose the probable causes of degradation In a stream or river.
Periphyton are particularly relevant in the assessment of streams because they are often the base
of the food web. In small streams that do not support fish, perfphyton, along with macroinverte-
brales, add some corroborating evidence to an assessment. The two slate algaloglsts In our
group, Lythia Metzmeier from Kentucky and Loren Bahls from Montana, selected periphyton and
macrolnvertebrates as the most cost-effective groups to use for assessment of stream condition.
43
-------
The general consensus of the panel was that periphyton were potentially one of the best
indicators of stream condition because they were directly affected by many disturbances In the
catchment as well as instream chemical alterations. The available autecological information allow
periphyton to be used as a diagnostic tool, and rapid growth make this group responsive to
recent perturbations. In addition, simple field observations of macroalgae, such as bleaching of
periphyton, can be the first signal that a recent disturbance has occurred.
Characteristics of assemblages that could serve as Indicators
Estimates of Standing Crop
e Ash-free dry mass (AFOM)
• Chlorophylls
• Biovolume of cells
• Cell density
e Macroscopic assessment in field (moss, macrophytes, macroalgae)
Estimates of Species Composition
e Relative abundance and identification of diatoms, Including indicator taxa and species
richness
e Relative abundance and identification of soft-bodied algae (greens, blue-greens,
chrysophytes, reds, etc.)
• Relative abundance, identification, and conditions of macrophytes
Measures of standing crop are general Indicators of nutrient concentrations or toxicKy, however,
the group felt each measure has serious limitations for a program such as EMAP. Ash-free dry
mass (AFOM) of periphyton samples Includes microscopic heterotrophs and organic detritus as
well as algae; thus, ft is a poor measure of autotrophic standing crop. Chlorophyll-a was
dismissed because of the adaptability of organisms to various physical and chemical conditions
that would mask the signal from these organisms. For example, the same organism may have an
order of magnitude more chlorophyll under low light and nutrient rich conditions than under high
light and nutrient poor conditions (Rosen and Lowe, 1984). Other problems associated with
44
-------
chlorophyll* are high temporal variability and difficulty In Interpreting tends. The panel con-
sidered biovolume too elaborate and expensive for routine monitoring. Also, different classes of
algae have different sizes of cells and different proportions of internal structure occupied by
vacuoles. which introduces variation to measurements of biovolume. Quantitative estimates of
macrophyte standing crop (including vascular plants, macroalgae, mosses, liverworts, and ferns)
require considerable field effort, plus they involve many of the measurement problems discussed
for periphyton. Usually, more than one measure of standing crop is used as a ratio, such as
AFDM:chlorophyll-ti, but such ratios often only compound the problems of separate measures.
The panel, therefore, felt that species composition was preferable to standing crop for assessing
and detecting changes in waterbody quality that would not be obtained with physico-chemical
analysis or with other assemblages. Assessments of waterbody quality can be produced by
interpreting species compositions with autecological information. Autecological Information for as
many as 3,000 algae (VanLandingham, 1976), particularly diatoms, has been recorded In the
literature during the last century (Cleve, 1899; Hanna, 1933; Lowe. 1974; Patrick and Roberts,
1979; Rushforth et al., 1981; Stevenson et al., 1991). Periphyton data have been used to develop
Indices of pH. nutrient enrichment, salinity, organic enrichment sedimentation, and toxic pollution
(e.g., Descy, 1979; Sumlta and Watanabe, 1983). The physiological characteristics of algae
suggest that many other aspects of environmental quality could be determined through use of
periphyton species composition and autecologies.
Species composition was also considered the most useful aspect of the periphyton for assessing
biotie Integrity of streams. The great richness and level of microhabltat specialization of algal
species provide considerable material for quantitative analysis and metric and Index development
(Patrick, 1968).
Societal Value: LOW-MODERATE. Periphyton are rarely of public concern, although certain
species tend to accumulate and are considered unsightly, produce taste and odor problems,
Impede water flow, or cause fish kills because of oxygen depletion when the algae die. In some
waters, these effects can be of considerable concern to society, although the periphyton
themselves are not highly regarded.
Stressor Responsiveness: HIGH. Perlphylon are very sensitive to a number of stressors and the
response Is displayed by the loss of sensitive spedes and/or replacement or Increase In tolerant
species. Changes in species composition are due to differential species performance In different
45
-------
environmental conditions. One of the main reason* periphyton are responsive to stressors and
have good diagnostic capability is the large number of taxa in the assemblage that have known
ranges and tolerances.
Periphyton response to natural macrohabftat changes can be distinguished from anthropogenic
Impacts. For example, dearcutting and logging roads In a catchment will increase diatom
diversity and relative abundance of sediment-tolerant species, whereas steams without a canopy
simply have many light dependent algae and fewer shade-tolerant forms.
The periphyton assemblage is mostly non-motile and cannot avoid a particular stress. A chronic
stressor will affect the community composition and will be easily detected. The community will
integrate the effects of a stress over time since the last scouring event and will do a fair job of
Indicating brief periods of stress (day-month time scale).
The algal component of periphyton encompasses the major primary producers in most stream
systems and is often the base of the food web, making this group an inherently important compo-
nent of biological integrity. Periphyton can also give an accurate estimate of the biological
integrity of the system because several organisms are found only In dean water, whereas others
are pollution tolerant. A list of the taxa present and their proportionate abundance can be
analyzed using several indices to determine blotic integrity or diagnose specific stressors.
Ease of Quantitative Sampling: HIGH. Sampling time Is estimated as 2 work hours for composite
samples from slow, fast, and perhaps vegetation, habitats. The appropriate techniques can easily
be described and incorporated into a sampling protocol (Cattaneo and Roberge, 1991). To incor-
porate macrophyton in a quantitative sampling regime, a field form is needed to record percent
cover by the various components. Monitoring macrophyton would require additional training of
field personnel.
Laboratory Ease: LOW. Three composite samples (one each from pools, riffles/runs, and
vegetation) would require about 5-8 hours/sample to process, with an average of 5 hours.
Measurement Stability: MODERATE. The group considered measurement stability controllable if
sampling protocols are followed. Because different assemblages occupy pools, riffles, and runs,
and different types of substrates, the most accurate way to raise measurement stability would be
to collect only one type of habitat or to composite by habitat. Runs would be best and if
46
-------
possible, with current velocities of 10-20 em/sec. Riffles would be a close second choice and
pools would be the least desirable, although probably adequate If sampled at the edges. In any
collection, the current velocity should be recorded. However, single habitat sampling only
characterizes that habitat, not the reach. A systematic random sample Is preferred for EMAP
reach characterization, which Increases measurement error and noise. These can be smoothed
by separate composites of riffle/run, pool, and vegetation habitats.
|ndex Period Stability: MODERATE. The periphyton community develops after scouring of stream
substrata during freshets (Peterson and Stevenson, 1990). As temperature, nutrients, pH, and
dissolved solids change seasonally, the periphyton will also change. The use of relative abun-
dance and species auleeoJogies would alleviate most Index period stability issues. Although
natural succession may occur during the index period, organisms will be replaced by ecologically
similar organisms that provide equally useful Indication of aquatic condition.
Among-Site/Among-Year Variation: HIGH. The periphyton assemblage may change up to 30%
from year to year wfthin the spring-summer index period Patrick, 1968). Although this is a
substantial change in species, the inferred change based on indices Is much less variable. The
collective experience of the group indicated that differences among sites would be much greater
than the year-to-year variation at a site. Data exist from several years of studies that support
these conclusions (Chessman, 1986; Evenson et a!., 1981; Leclercq and Depiereux, 1987;
McCormick and Stevenson, 1992).
Amono-SfteWithin-Site Variation; MODERATE. As microorganisms, periphyton are sensitive to
microecological differences in current, substrate, light, and nutrients. However, composite
sampling by major habitat types smooths this variation. The presence of most species is a
function of water quality, with nlcrohabitat differences varying relative abundances slightly.
Available Databases: HIGH. Periphyton have been used for over 50 years In monitoring streams
avid rivers, and several reports are available that describe the taxa In these assemblages. In
addition, there are several databases that describe the known ranges of taxa along environmental
gradients, Including tihemtcaJ and physical features and pollution tolerance levels. Analyses of
variance components and historical assessments of streams and river quality are possible wtth
the many samples that have been collected by diatomlsts and archived In museums during the
last 90 years (e.g., Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, California Academy of Sciences).
47
-------
Taxonomic Richness: HIGH. For diatoms atone, 50 taxa In a 500-organism count are commonly
encountered in a sample counted for relative abundance. Additionally, 10-15 taxa present may
be son-body forms. Composite samples will Increase this number of periphyton species. In all
aquatic habitats, some periphyton will always be present and typically there Is greater taxonomlc
richness in the periphyton than fn the next higher trophic level.
Macrohabftats Occupied: HIGH. Periphyton exist in all macrohabits that have light, water, and
Inorganic nutrients available. To keep the information constant from site to site, it is Important
that samples from riffle/run and pool habitats not all be combined together, Instead they should
be kept as habitat-specific composites. Separate analysis of each habitat can triple lab and field
time and it is recommended that a pilot examine composite sampling issues.
Guild Information and Diagnostic Power HIGH. Algal microhabitat guilds are well understood,
but algae guilds based on trophic level or reproduction are inappropriate. Separate indices are
currently used that are sensitive to pH, flow rate, inorganic nutrients, organic enrichment, salinity,
temperature, toxic organics, metals, and siltation. These indices use the assemblage information
and existing autecological databases to diagnose these characteristics of the waterbody.
Using constrained ordination [canonical correspondence analysis (CCA)], the relationships
between measured physical and chemical variables and the algal distribution can be determined
(ter Braak and Prentice, 1988). In addition, CCA is used to produce more autecological infor-
mation for future Investigations and index development The muttivariate approach provides a
powerful means of maximizing ecological information obtained from periphyton assemblages.
Signal/Noise Ratio: HIGH. There is considerable guild information, taxonomic richness, and
diagnostic power in periphyton assemblages. Concerns about within-site variation are easily
mitigated by composite sampling.
Information/Cost Ratio: HIGH. The Initial cost of collecting a single periphyton sample is low
because little expertise Is needed and only 5-10 minutes per station Is required to take the
sample. Laboratory analysis is more Intensive and requires 1-3 hours per sample, depending on
several factors. An average time would be 3 hours per sample, although repeat samples could
take less time because the taxonomic expertise gained from one sample would facilitate Identi-
fication In replicates from the same site. The time for collecting and processing three composites
from each she is estimated as 8 hours. The information desired Is Identification of 500 organisms
48
-------
in each composite to the level of species or variety, and quantitative counts, which have been
emphasized by Palmer (1969), VanLandingham (1976), and several others. This Is Important for
this assemblage, because species of the same genera may have very different requirements and
tolerances. Several studies indicate that only the dominant species need to be identified, which
would greatly lessen the burden of an exhaustive taxonomic study for aach sample (Archibald,
1972; Schoeman, 1976; van Dam, 1982).
Identification to species allows the data to be manipulated in several existing Indices and analysis
using an autecologica! database. VanLandingham (1976) states that over 3,000 species have
autecological information in the literature, which can be built Into an autecologlcai database
appropriate for the periphyton in a region. The most detailed and current consensus on the
tolerance of diatoms was compiled by Leclercq and Maquet (1987) and Descy and Coste (1990).
Between 25 and 75 taxa may be encountered in a proportional count of 500 (relative abundance
method), which provides a wealth of ecological information for the cost involved in producing it.
Those taxa identified and examined for autecological information collectively describe and
diagnose the condition of a stream. Certain species or groups of species are key Indicators of
condition, such as the 20 species of diatoms identified by Lange-Bertalot (1979) as the most
pollution tolerant taxa world-wide. When a large percentage of the diatom flora is composed of
certain of these species, we can, for example, say that the stream has a BOD6 of > 22 mg Og/L
and the O2 saturation deficit is > 90%.
Applicability to temporary streams
HIGH. None of the information already provided is different for periphyton In Intermittent or
ephemeral streams. Periphyton are always present when streams are wet and as some streams
dry, the periphyton form dried crusts that can be analyzed from areas that are completely dry.
The assemblage Information Is conserved because one major group, the diatoms, have silica cell
walls that allow Identification of dead cells.
Length of dream segment sampled
UNCERTAIN (HIGH). Although only a few rocks may support • representative assemblage, with
hundreds of thousands of individuals, a pilot study b needed to adequately answer this question.
This study could also Include macrophyton. Spatial variability In population abundance, well
known for periphyton (Jonas, 1978; Pryfogle and Lowe, 1979), Is caused partly by substrata, flow
49
-------
(Stevenson, 1984), and light Intensify, but the use of specie* composition and composite samp-
ling from the same habitat may overcome this variability. During the pilot, each habitat should be
subsampled to determine the withln-habitat (I.e., riffle, run, or pool) variability and the number of
samples needed to adequately describe stream condition. This Information would be useful in
determining if It is essential to sample each habitat and If sampling different habitats Is compar-
able. During the Index period, onfy pools might be available or some streams may lack runs,
which would also make the information from this pilot study essential.
Field and lab expertise required
Field work hours: LOW. 1 person X 2 hr (periphyton); 1 person X 1 hr (macrophyton).
Field expertise: LOW. 1 hour training course (periphyton sampling); 2 day plant taxonomy and
training course (macrophyton).
Sampling gear LOW. Small knife, tooth brush, aluminum foil (for quantification of surface area),
3-4' PVC pipe with rubber seal, bottle brush, suction device, plastic petri dishes, small sheet of
Plexiglas to slide under petri dish, small enamel tray to composite samples, 4 oz. plastic collec-
tion Jars, and preservative (formalin, ethanol).
Laboratory expertise: HIGH. Master's degree with training in identification of diatoms to the
species level and soft algae to the genus level. Ability to use a microscope, prepare slides, and
enter data into a personal computer.
Work hours for identification: MODERATE. 2 hours/sample Initially (routine identifications); 1
hour/sample (difficult species Identifications/literature examined); 6-9 hours depending on the
number of composites. This Is an estimate, and most routine analysis, from counts to final metric
or Index, is usually completed in a 3-hour period. Initial time must be set aside to accumulate the
appropriate references and simple laboratory preparation. Another aspect of quality assurance
that is not time consuming but very important is photographic documentation of identifications.
Visits to appropriate museums are also advisable, with periodic taxonomic workshops for labora-
tory personnel. Slide storage is easy and archival.
Total Field and Lab Hours/Site (assuming 2 composite samples, periphyton onM: 8 hours. QA
subsamples would increase costs.
50
-------
Possible assessment metrics and analyses
periohvton Metrics: A combination of several metrics, which use the relative abundance of the
species in the assemblage, can be used to evaluate periphyton assemblage characteristics and
water related changes. Several new approaches, including muttivariate analysis, make periphyton
a better indicator than techniques that are more than 5 or 10 years old. The following examples
are presently used in evaluating the periphyton assemblages.
• FBI was developed by Lythia Metzmeier (Kentucky SOP, 1992) and fs currently used in
Kentucky water quality assessments. Metrics used to construct the Periphyton Bioassess-
ment Index include taxa richness, Shannon-Weaver diversity, diatom taxonomic Index,
relative abundance of sensitive species, and percent community similarity. Scores for each
metric range from 1 to 5 and these scores can then be translated into descriptive site
bioassessments such as poor, fair, good, or excellent
• The Pollution Tolerance Index, developed by Lange-Bertalot (1979), highlights organisms
that are sensitive to toxic substances.
• An index developed by Palmer (1969) ranks several genera, Including soft-bodied forms, by
their tolerance to organic pollution.
• The Haiobien Index was developed by Kolbe (1927) for salinity.
• Eutrophication Indices were developed by Smith (1966) and modified by Lowe (1974) for
discerning nutrient concentrations and humic contributions. The ratio of greens/blue-greens
Identified to genus is also used as an Indicator of ••Jtrophication.
• A Siltation index that examines the proportion end richness of Navicula and Nltzschia Is
currently used In Montana (Bahls et al., 1992). Another Index that Is sensitive to slttation
would add more eplpelic diatoms to this Index (a motile/nonmotile diatom ratio).
• An evenness metric based on the proportion of the assemblage represented by the
dominant taxon (Bahls et al., 1992).
61
-------
• Muftfvariate analyses, such as CCA and weighted averaging, are useful because they make
use of the ecological information in assemblages.
Macrophyton Metrics: Percent cover of. flowering macrophytes (to family), macroalgae (to
division and/or genus), mosses and Bverworts (to division/genus, only 10 genera are common),
ferns (to genus, 4 genera common), horsetails (1 genus, Equlsetum), quillwort (1 genus, boefes).
Metrics have not been developed for this group; however, certain species are known to cause
persistent problems such as clogging of waterways, and some taxonomic information may be
useful fn the future.
52
-------
METABOLISM (Panelists: Tom Bon, Cliff Dahm, Steve Golleday, Alan Heriihy, Brian Hill, Bob
Sinsabaugh)
Introduction
Ecosystems are complex, self-regulating, functional units, often described by rates and proc-
esses, such as energy flow or material cycling, which are mediated by the trophic structure of the
ecosystem. Such processes integrate the functioning of the entire community and are Important
components of two major concepts in stream ecology: the river continuum (Vannote et a!., 1980)
and resource spiraling (Newbold et a!., 1081). Heterotrophic microorganisms (bacteria and fungi)
are responsible for oxygen sags in streams and for much of the decomposition of organic matter
(leaves, twigs, fruit, algae, macrophytes) naturally deposited In them (Hynes, 1870; Peterson and
Cummins, 1974).
Process indicators are those metrics that measure energy flow and material transformation within
the ecosystem. Some commonly used process measures of stream ecosystems Include: benthic
community metabolism (both primary productivity and respiration), microbial community activity,
and nutrient spiralling. These measures are addressed in the following sections.
Characteristics of attributes that could serve as indicators
After grappling with numerous potential metabolic Indicators, Including primary production, com-
munity respiration, microbiaf enzyme activity, and nutrient uptake rates, the metabolism group
settled on sediment (benthic) respiration as the attribute most likely to succeed. The other candi-
date indicators were abandoned, given the one-time sampling constraint, for the following
reasons:
Primary production: Too variable for a one-time analysis, though there is a substantial database
for comparisons.
Microbiaf enzvmes: Interpretation Is too subjective, too sHe specific, and too variable.
Nutrient Uptake: Too site specific; too hard to understand complex interactions within hyporheic
zone.
-------
The group selected benthic respiration as the only indicator that could be used, with some
sampling constraints, on a one-time sampling basis (Bottand Kaplan, 1985; Hedln, 1990; Smith
et al.. 1985). The sampling constraints include sampling respiration only on fine-grained
sediments, and reporting respiration on a "per gram organic carbon* basis. These constraints
preclude the use of chambers, and compel the use of BOD-bottles or smaller equipment for
sampling. The proposed sampling system Involves 50-mL centrifuge tubes and measurement of
changes in dissolved oxygen (see methods section).
After selecting benthic respiration as the indicator of choice, the group re-evaluated the indicator
In light of its responsiveness to perturbations and possible metrics that could be derived from this
information. Panelists felt that benthic respiration was perturbation responsive; that is, ft would
show positive or negative deflections in response to specific stressors, with some uncertainty
arising from the fact that microbial communities are highly adaptive (Anderson et al., 1981; Barkay
and Pritchard, 1988). Acclimation to stressed conditions could mask responses to stressors.
However, this also could be an advantage, because it allows measurement of •pre-adaptation" to
major classes of pollutants (Bott and Rogenmusen, 1978; Freeman et al., 1990, also see 'Sub-
strate-Influenced Respiration,' Table 3).
Respiration relative to the amount of organic carbon available would yield an estimate of organic
carbon turnover, a metric that could be compared across sites and regions, and one that migfcit
be adjusted to temperature using known or derived Q10 relationships. The proposed method is
designed for headwater to mid-order streams, whose metabolism is primarily sediment-based.
The group maintained that the method could easily be adapted for larger rivers exhibiting respira-
tion that is more water-column based.
Despite the patchiness of substrate and organic matter distributions, panelists felt that pools
would yield consistently similar sediments from site to she and region to region. Pool sampling
also minimizes the problem of comparing perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, If
enduring pools remain in temporary streams.
The attributes recommended were:
• Sediment respiration (initial minus final sediment dissolved oxygen after 2 hours
incubation).
e Sediment organic matter (ash-free dry mass)
64
-------
• Microbial density counts (cells/g AFDM)
• Substrate-influenced respiration (tntial minus final dissolved oxygen of sediments spiked by
major classes of pollutants and then Incubated 2 hours).
Table 3. Microbial Metric Ratings by Criteria
CRITERIA
Societal value
Responsiveness
Sampling ease
Laboratory ease
Measurement stability
Index period stability
Among-site/Among-year
variability
Among-stte/Wrthin-slte
variability
Available databases
Taxonomic richness
Macrohabitats
Guild information
[pollutant response guilds]
Diagnostic power
Signal/Noise ratio
Info/Cost
Water
BOD
L
M
H
M
H
M
M
M
H
L
H
M
M
M
M
Sediment
Resp.
L
M
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
L
L
M
M
M
M
Sediment
OM
L
L
H
M
M
M
H
H
H
L
L
M
L
M
M
Substrate-
influenced
Resp.
L
H
H
M
M/H
M
H
H
L
L
L
M
M
H
M
Mean
L
M
H
M
M
M
H
H
M
L
L
M
M
M
M
Societal Value: LOW. There is vary little concern with stream metabolism, unless the system
becomes anerobtc and foul smelling.
Responsiveness: MODERATE. Bacteria are rtcponslve to toxics, but IMS so to physical habitat
alteration, flow, and spades Introductions and exploitation.
-------
Sampling Ease: MODERATE. About 4 work hours are needed to assemble and disassemble the
Incubation apparatus and collect sediments for laboratory analyses.
Laboratory Ease: MODERATE. We estimate 6 work hours will be needed, to be accomplished by
an entry-level microbiologisl
Measurement Stability: MODERATE. Measurement stability is increased by compositing sedi-
ment samples from multiple stations at a reach. Like most assemblages, scouring events will
disupt bacteria, but they reestablish once the organic sediments are redeposlted.
Index Period Stability; MODERATE. Periods of high temperature (summer) and organic deposi-
tion (autumn, late summer} will increase variance, but the major destabilizing factor during the
proposed spring index period is flooding.
AmonQ-Site/Ameng-Year Variation: HIGH. Microbes vary considerably among sites with differing
organic and toxic loads, but they are relatively insensitive to inter-annual climatic changes.
Amonq-Site/Within-Site Variation: HIGH. Although there are substantial differences In microbe
populations within a site, composite samples from deposftionat habitats will smooth within-sKe
variation. This allows discrimination of among-site differences.
Available Databases: MODERATE. Several long-term databases exist as a result of intensive site-
specific studies by academicians, however the number of sites studied is relatively small.
Expected Taxonomie Richness per Reach: LOW. Richness is not a concern for this assemblage.
Macrohabrtat Use: LOW. Although microbes occupy ail habitats, our focus is only on those In
deposition^, organic-rich areas (i.e.. fine sediments in pools).
Guild Information: MODERATE. Pollution response guilds have been identified for pesticides,
metals, petroleum, and sewage. However, less la known about tolerance, habitat structure, and
feeding guilds.
Diagnostic Power MODERATE. Microbes are differentially sensitive to different pollutants and
organic loads, which can be evaluated via substrate-Influenced respiration.
56
-------
Sional/Nloise Ratio: MODERATE. Although a pollutant signal may be strong, the signal for other
more common stressors may be quite noisy. Also, Ford (1989) and Schindler (1987) found that
process-level signals of stress were generally noisier than structure-level signals.
Information/Cost Ratio: MODERATE. The estimated cost of this candidate indicator Is the lowest
of those examined; however, it is only moderately responsive and stable, Incorporates little
taxonomic and macrohabitat information, and is often relatively noisy.
Applicability to temporary streams
LOW. Because of the emphasis on pool sampling, the methods are equally useable In perennial,
intermittent, and ephemeral streams; however, if residual pools are lacking, this assemblage is
Inapplicable to temporary streams.
Length of stream segment sampled
HIGH. If pools are small, multiple pools should be sampled and composited. In large pool-
dominated reaches, multiple samples within the pool should suffice. A pilot study is needed to
determine the number of small pools that should be sampled per reach, the number of samples
that should be taken from a pool when the reach is dominated by a single large pool, and the
distance apart the samples should be. The stream length sampled should be the same as the
rest of the biota to be consistent.
Field and lab expertise required
Field: MODERATE. Two persons are needed for 2 hours each to assemble and disassemble the
respiration apparatus and collect sediment samples. The apparatus must remain In place for 2
hours, but does not require attention during this tme.
Laboratory: MODERATE. Two persons are also'needed for 3 hours »ach In the laboratory to
count microbes, conduct BOD analyses, determine sediment organic mass, and measure
sediment-Influenced respiration.
Total Field and Lab Labor Hours: MODERATE. 10.
87
-------
Gear: Field work: sterile centrifuge tube*, pipettes/plpetteman, DO meter and probe, hand
vacuum pump, bucket, 1 mm sieve, SIR supplements, thermometer. Lab work: vacuum pump,
nucleopore fillers (Irgafan black), fluorescetn dlacetate, UV-fluorescence microscope with 1000X
objective, muffle furnace.
Possible assessment metrics and analyses
e Organic matter turnover rate (mg/day)
e Microblal density (cells/g ATOM)
e Substrate-influenced respiration rate (change in mg/day}
58
-------
PHYSICAL HABITAT (Panelists: R.L Beschta. P.R. Kaufmann, L Poff, E. Rankin, and K. Stein)
Introduction
Habitat in streams can be considered to include all the elements of the abiotic and biotic environ-
ment that influence and provide sustenance to organisms within the stream. Karr et al. (1983,
1986) have identified habitat structure, flow regime, energy source, chemical variables, and biotic
factors as the five principal factors that influence the biotic Integrity or ecological health of aquatic
ecosystems. Several authors and agencies have described physical habitat evaluation proce-
dures or provided review and guidance on setting up programs to measure physical habitat in
streams and streamside riparian zones (e.g., Platts et al., 1983; Plafkln et al., 1989; Rankin, 1989;
MacDonald et al.. 1991). In the context of physical habitat for EMAP's proposed national moni-
toring program for streams, we focus on habitat structure and flow regime. We also consider
energy sources (light, canopy, woody debris) and some biotic factors (riparian vegetation
influences, aquatic macrophytes, and attached algae) as part of the physical habitat.
Our consensus was that we could assess physical habitat during any season. In general, we
Identified this time as a low-flow season after leaf-out and not dosely following major flood events.
For most of the country, this is the summer season, although some regional differences are, likely
and should be examined. For example, late summer (August) might be appropriate for snowmett
systems in the Rocky Mountains, but spring might be more appropriate In parts of the arid
Southwest.
Characteristics of attributes that could serve as Indicators
Stream Classification Level: Stream physical habitat varies naturally, as do biological character-
istics; expectations differ even in the absence of anthropogenic disturbance. We recommended a
hierarchical classification, in which ecoregion is the highest level, for grouping streams according
to similar climate, topography; elevation, vegetation, temperature, hydrology, and aquatic geo-
chemistry. Ecoregion boundaries may need to be adjusted for zoogeographical reasons, but that
to mainly a biologically driven concern. Stream size to the second level of hierarchical classifica-
tion, and general gradient to the lowest level. Admittedly, there to acme overlap or correlation
among these stream attributes. Additional classification by valley landform might be necessary If
constrained and unconstrained reaches are not separated by the other three variables. Only
stream size would constitute statistical sampling strata. The purpose of steam size stratification
89
-------
would be to balance sampling effort relatively evenly across the range of stream sizes, rather than
In strict proportion to the length or number of stream segments of each size.
All three of the classification characteristics (ecoregion, size, and gradient) would be used In
analyzing and interpreting physical habitat measurements. Reference site and historical data
would probably be required to define expected habitat condition In the absence of disturbance,
and diagnostic analyses would be necessary to separate natural and anthropogenic disturbances.
Physical effects of natural and anthropogenic disturbances may be quite similar, and natural and
anthropogenic disturbances may interact to obscure the true causes of physical habitat changes.
At the classification level, only general quantification of stream size and gradient are desired, and
the information should probably be derived from maps. Stream segment size might best be clas-
sified in terms of topographic basin size, mean annual discharge, or stream order. There would
certainly be climatic, hydrologic and geologic differences that would make stream size compari-
son by any one parameter difficult across different ecoreglonal settings (Hughes and Omernlk,
1983). At the classification level, stream segment gradient obtained from 1:24,000 scale (or
1:100.000) would be adequate.
Stream Habitat Monitoring Level: Based on our experience, judgment, and reading of the litera-
ture, we identified seven stream physical habitat attributes that are biologically relevant and that
are typically changed by humans:
1. Channel/Riparian interaction
2. Stream size
3. Channel gradient
4. Habitat complexity and cover (including woody debris)
5. Channel substrate (including aquatic macrophytes)
6. Riparian vegetation
7. Anthropogenic alterations
Notice that stream size and channel gradient are also considered as stream classification varia-
bles. The monitoring level consists of more specific measurements made In the field. For exam-
ple, the change in size attributes, such as width or discharge relative to other streams within a
catchment size class, may be a response to anthropogenic perturbations. Local reach gradient
and Its spatial variability may differ substantially from that measured from a map used to roughly
60
-------
classify streams. The following paragraphs provide brief discussions of the seven general
physical habitat attributes and the approaches that might be used to Index them.
Channel/Riparian Interaction: Anthropogenic activities, including grazing, farming, flood control,
and urbanization, can result In the separation of streams from their flood plains and riparian
zones. The secondary effects on channel structure, riparian vegetation, and ephemeral aquatic
habitats can markedfy affect the biotic Integrity of stream ecosystems. Expectations for the
potential magnitude and extent of interaction of streams with the terrestrial environment differ for
streams according to the degree of valley constraint (see discussion of stream classification
variables). Possible metrics that might comprise an Index of channel/riparian interaction are:
• Channel sinuosity (obtained from remote imagery or high resolution maps).
• Channel incision (semi-quantitative measure of bank height of active channel).
• Channel morphometric complexity (index from calculation of spatial variability in channel
width and depth profile data).
Stream Size: Some aspects of stream size may be affected by anthropogenic activities and may
alter the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat. We recommend that the following stream size
variables be measured:
• Depth (mean, median, and spatial variability from long profile of approximately 100
systematic depth measurements at Intervals of 0.5 channel-widths along reach).
e Width (mean, median, and spatial variability from long profile of approximately 100 sequen-
tial wetted channel width measurements at Intervals of 0.5 channel-widths along reach).
e Discharge (field measurement of baseflow using current meter at one channel cross-
section; office calculation of estimated mean annual flow obtained from generalized runoff
data).
Channel Gradient Channel gradient Is a very Important determinant of the potential energy that
can be converted Into water velocity (Leopold el al., 1964). At a given gradient water velocity In
a stream Is determined by the discharge, channel cross-section area and shape, and channel
hydraulic roughness {Chow, 1959). It would be determined by field measurements over a whole
reach or 5 to 10 subcomponents of each study reach.
61
-------
Habitat Complexity and Cover Several stream characteristics do not fit neatly Into classic
hydrotogical measurements, but are extremely Important to the quality of the overall physical
habitat for aquatic life. Probable metrics include:
tvoe and distribution. Classification, coarse measurement (width and maximum
depth), and schematic mapping of study reaches Into channel-unit scale habitat types. In
higher gradient streams, the approach would be much like that of Bisson et a). (1981),
Including three fast water types (cascades, rapids, riffles), glides, pools identified by their
likely formative agents, marginal backwaters, and off-channel backwaters end sloughs.
• large woodv debris. Count estimated diameter and length, and position along study
reach. We define "large woody debris' as pieces larger than 10 cm In diameter and longer
than 0.5 m, but we include smaller pieces found in massive aggregations.
• Residual pools, channel complexity, hydraulic roughness. Estimates of residual pool (Usle,
1982, 1987) frequency and size distribution, and reach-scale indices of slackwater volume,
channel morphometric complexity, and hydraulic roughness can be quantitatively estimated
from simple and rapid systematic profiles of width and depth along stream reaches
(Kaufmann, 1986: O'Neill and Abrahams, 1984; Robison and Beschta, 1990; Stack, 1989).
Indices of morphometric and hydraulic complexity may be correlated with nutrient retentivity
and may also be Indicators of high-flow velocity cover In a stream reach (Kaufmann, 1986,
1987). Residual pool depths and volumes give an indication of habitat space during
extremely low flows (Lisle, 1987).
• In-channel cover. Abundance (spatial frequency) of various types of cover that could
provide fish concealment and macrobenthos substrate (undercut banks, overhanging
vegetation, aquatic macrophytes, large woody debris, boulders).
e Shading. The group recommended canopy densiometer (or possibly solar pathfinder)
measurements of percent shading cover at 10 stations. Notice that riparian vegetation
structure surveys at the same locations provide information on size and whether cover Is
broadleaf or coniferous.
Channel Substrate. Including Aouatlc Macrophvtes: Substrate is often cited as a major control on
the species composition of macroinvertebrate, perlphyton, and fish assemblages. Changes In
62
-------
substrate composition are often Indicative of catchment and stroamside disturbances that mobilize
sediment. The size of substrate also gives some indication of the magnitude of channel-forming
peak flows. We have Included aquatic maerovegetation because of its role as a substrate, but
perhaps more importantly, because Its presence may be a useful indication of water velocities
and trophic status.
• Areal cover. The panelists recommended rough schematic mapping of dominant substrate
size class. It could be done during the habitat classification pass up the stream reach).
• Size distribution. Systematic transects should be made to quantify substrate embedded-
ness and the distribution of particle sizes. We did not settle on a method; there are several.
and some are quite rapid.
• Aaualic macrophvtes and algae. At 10 channel/riparian habitat evaluation stations,
determine presence/absence of aquatic macrophytes (including moss), filamentous algal
mats or streamers, or slick rock substrates.
piparien Vegetation: The importance of riparian vegetation to channel structure, cover, shading,
nutrient inputs, large woody debris, and wildlife corridors, and as a buffer against anthropogenic
perturbations is well recognized. We recommend that riparian vegetation structure be measured
on study reaches. Measures at 10 systematically located stations along reaches might be
adequate. Measures should include the areal cover in three layers of vegetation (canopy, mid-
layer, and ground cover), should distinguish coniferous from deciduous vegetation, and should
identify whether vegetation is woody, herbaceous, or grass.
Anthropogenic Alterations: Anthropogenic alterations, structures, and other evidence of human
activities in the stream channel and Its riparian zone may In themselves serve as habitat quality
Indicators, and may also serve as diagnostic Indicators of anthropogenic stress.
e Channel disturbances. Note the abundance or extent of channel revetment, straightening,
tiling, ditching, snagging, channelization, bridges, culverts, trash (car bodies, grocery carts,
pavement blocks, etc.).
e Near-channel disturbances. Note the frequency or extent of buildings, roads, croplands,
livestock, logging, mining, landfills, effluent pipes, etc., In the near-channel riparian zone.
63
-------
Societal Value: MODERATE Habitat structure is generally the first stream quality perceived, and
Is subsequently hard to ignore. People appear to have very strong preferences with regard to
stream habitat However, the degree to which society's stream habitat preferences support blotic
Integrity appears to be highly dependent on the geographic setting. The preferred habitat quality
for open canopy, high-elevation, mountain meadow streams, for example, seems to approximate
the 'pristine* condition. When the pristine condition includes extremely dense vegetation, or the
•natural* channel condition Includes elements that interfere with comfort, fishing, or boating,
humans are inclined to "clean up* the stream and Its banks. Growing ecological sophistication
may lead many people to value stream habitat structure that is typical of natural stream environ-
ments. These habitat structural qualities may be valued tor their own sake, but also because they
support the type, abundance, and diversity of organisms that are found In pristine stream
environments.
Responsiveness: MODERATE, depends upon the stressor. For example, habitat structure would
be unresponsive to chemical inputs and exotic species, but responsive to riparian grazing or
•earth moving" associated with urbanization. Changes In habitat structure may be direct, as in
the case of channelization and bank revetment.
Sampling Ease: LOW. The physical habitat measurements described typically require 5-8 work
hours, but the time depends on the size and complexity of the stream, and whether the work is
done by one or two people. One person requires 4 to 6 hours; two persons 2.5 to 6 hours.
Laboratory Ease: HIGH. No material samples are brought out of the field. The only laboratory
requirements are data entry, verification, and analysis.
Measurement Stability: MODERATE, overall, but varies from low to high. When taken over
sufficient stream length (e.g., 40 channel widths), quantitative measurements like width, depth,
and residual pool size distributions are quite robust The more subjective visual estimates, like
riparian vegetation cover and habitat typing, are more variable .among observers.
Index Period Stability: HIGH. Except for discharge and habitat type classification (perceived
differently as flows change), physical habitat attributes are relatively stable over the time frame of
a summer Index period. The quantitative channel measures, such as multiple width and depth
measurements, also vary with flow, but robust, flow-independent residual pool calculations can be
based upon such measurements.
64
-------
Amono-Site Versus Amona-Vear Variation: MODERATE. In a homogeneous region with similar
degrees of anthropogenic habitat alteration, habitat structural variations at tingle sites may vary
moderately In relation to those among sites in the region. As physical habitat differences among
sites increase In a region, the between-year differences at single sites become comparatively less
Important.
Amono-SHe Versus Within-Site Variation: MODERATE. Within-stte variation can be reduced by
explicitly specifying an unbiased physical habfial sampling design on each stream reach, and by
insuring that the reaches are of adequate length to allow the measurements to Incorporate suffici-
ent variability. Just as with among-year variation, the Importance of wtthin-stte variation in relation
to among-slte differences depends upon the natural heterogeneity of the region and the range of
anthropogenic alteration of habitat structure encountered.
Available Databases: MODERATE. There is a large amount of physical habitat classification and
sediment size data. Some very good data sets exist for examining the utility of systematic,
quantitative channel structure measurements in several dozen streams.
Applicability to Temporary Streams: HIGH. Except perhaps tor traditional physical habitat typing,
virtually all the channel and riparian habitat structural measures can be applied to Intermittent and
ephemeral streams. Understandably, attributes like water depth and discharge may have values
of zero, but this itself is valuable information. Measurement of the presence of water and riparian
vegetation in large numbers of channels of sufficient length (e.g., 40 channel widths) may serve
as sensitive indicators of climatic change.
Diagnostic Power HIGH. Physical habitat Information directly serves a diagnostic role for blotic
indicators. Natural differences In physfceJ habitat must be used to define blotic expectation* in
the absence of human disturbances. Similarly, examination of trends or differences in physical
habitat Is essential to discriminating between chemical, thermal, blotic, and ether possible causes
of changes in biotte Integrity.
Sianal/Nolse Ratio: MODERATE As an overall suite of measures, habitat structure Incorporates
• tremendous amount of natural variability and there are many variables. Consequently, physical
habitat classification affectively reduce* noise In biological Indicators. Many type* of physical
habitat response to anthropogenic alteration are massive and obvious (e.g., direct channel altera-
tion and riparian vegetation removal). However, many art difficult to separate from natural varla-
65
-------
tion (e.g., substrate size), many physical habitat measures are imprecise and somewhat subjec-
tive, and data interpretation is also imprecise. Therefore, we estimate that overall signal/noise
ratio is moderate.
Information/Cost: MODERATE. From data collection to analysis, habitat structure information is
relatively inexpensive. Depending upon the physical/biological setting and the type of anthro-
pogenic stresses, however, the information content of various type* of physical habitat measure- _
merits may vary considerably. Some will be critically important in'defining biological expectations
or diagnosing probable causes of impairment; others may seem to be superfluous. The informa-
tion value may materialize If larger regional differences or anthopogenic stresses are encountered.
Work hours: MODERATE. See Sampling Ease, page 61. No laboratory costs other than data
entry, verification, and analysis.
Applicability to temporary streams
HIGH. For the most part, we felt that all the measures listed for perennial streams would be
appropriate for intermittent and ephemeral streams. It is still important to make such measure-
ments on dry and near-dry channels in order to characterize available habitat structure and quan-
tify changes over time that might result from such Influences as climate change and Irrigation t
withdrawal.
Length of stream segment sampled
HIGH. We caution that the segment design, in contrast to a basin design, is not optimal for dis-
cerning differences that occur along the stream size continuum. In addition, the segment design
Is not optimal for diagnosing probable causes of impairment if biotic condition is largely eon-
trolled by off-site Influences not detectable on maps, such as upstream or downstream refugla
that seed the study reach or dams that restrict flows or migrations.
The group believed that sample units of 30 to 50 times the average wetted channel width should
be adequate for characterizing fluvial features at the scale of macrohabKat (habitat features with
dimensions at least the magnitude of the channel width). We are aware of several fish assem-
blage studies from Oregon, Washington, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Maryland that tend to confirm this.
as do some analyses of channel morphology from wetter parts of Oregon and Alaska. However,
66
-------
we felt that the regional generality of this conclusion was somewhat of a guess, particularly In arid
settings where refugia might be very important. We fen that tt would be wise to confirm the "30 to
50 channel widths' assumption with additional literature search and analysis of data sets that in
several cases already exist.
Field and lab expertise required
LOW-MODERATE. Two field persons would be required for field work. The most efficient mix
would be one person with fluvial geomorphic and fish habitat experience and another with ripar-
ian vegetation experience. Except for the channel/riparian interaction Indicators, the measure-
ments could be simple and direct, so that field samplers would not have to be as highly qualified
as hydrologists or fluvial geomorphologists. For example, we fen that because many fish biolo-
gists and ecologists routinely make similar measurements, they would be able to make the pre-
scribed physical habitat measurements if given training and well-defined protocols.
Based upon our own field experiences, we estimated that the field work would at first require one
person for about 7 to B work hours, or two people working for 4 to 5 hours. After streamlining
techniques and gaining experience, one person could probably collect the data in 4-6 hours and
two people would need 3-4 hours. Some of the habitat typing, substrate measurements, and
riparian vegetation assessments might be counted as part of setting up the sampling schemes for
fish and macroinvertebrates In the reach, or during collection of habitat data for riparian birds.
According to the separate field activities, the breakdown would be as In Table 4.
Possible assessment metrics and analyses (see "Characteristics of attributes that could
serve as Indicators," page 59)
We did not Include the following categories of Information as physical habitat monitoring variables
under Objective 5. but panelists felt these related physical/chemical variables are necessary for
Interpretation and diagnosis In EMAP-SW.
• Water chemistry and temperature
• Flow regime. Flow regime attributes would have to be estimated primarily In the office or
laboratory from other Information sources in combination with field Information gathered
under separate headings. They Include the following:
67
-------
Table 4. Field Work Breakdown tor Physical Habitat Monitoring
2P
2P
1P
IP
(IP)
1P
1hr
0.5 hr
0.5 hr
1-2 hr
(1hr)
1 hr
Width-Depth profiles at a resolution of about 2 measurements per
channel-width of stream length. Residua) pool measurements, local
gradient (reach scale).
Channel cross section measurement
Stream discharge at cross section.
Classify and map major habitat types, measure substrate size and
embeddedness, count and estimate size of large woody debris.
Optional quantitative estimation of In-channel cover, shading, channel
disturbances, aquatic macrovegetation. plus qualitative habitat
evaluation (probably at 10 stations along study reach).
Riparian vegetation structure and human disturbance evaluation using
systematic sampling method (probably at 10 stations along study
reach).
TOTAL: 7 to 8 work hours (1 to 2 people, 4 to 5 hours elapsed)
Ultimately about 6 work hours (2 people, 3 hours)
- Hydrologic fleshiness. Ratio of peak flows to low flows; might be estimated from litera-
ture, landscape information from basin, and substrate and channel morphology data
collected on site.
- Lowest flows. Estimated from literature and generalized regional runoff information.
- Seasonal flow pattern. Estimated from generalized regional runoff information.
- Flow alterations. Upstream and downstream dams and diversions.
- Biological barriers and corridors. Information concerning the connectedness to other
waterbodies, hydraulic and chemical barriers, falls, lakes, temperature and shoalwater
barriers.
e Catchment land use/land cover. Include up-slope areas and the riparian corridor obtain
from remote sensing and county databases.
68
-------
i Riparian floral and taunal composition and ecological integrity. Though not absolutely
necessary in a streamlined aquatic monitoring program, given the riparian measurements
we recommended, we felt that EMAP should consider riparian corridors as a separate
resource class. We felt that sample units for these riparian areas would best be located
adjacent to the EMAP stream and river sample segments. We might most effectively define
the riparian corridor as the "valley bottom", the part of the landscape that is reworked by
the channel, the zone of bedload transport and deposition over time scales of centuries.
This part of the valley often has groundwater exchange with the river, important hyporheic
processes, and vegetation influenced by flooding and channel meandering. As a minimum,
four general attributes of valley bottoms should be assessed:
- Channel-valley interaction, indexed by sinuosity, flood frequency (evidence in
vegetation), and channel incision.
- Vegetation structure and composition.
- Wildlife (amphibians, birds, possibly mammals).
- Anthropogenic activities (human and livestock population density, land use, land cover,
road density, irrigation, channelization, canals, etc.).
69
-------
SUMMARY
Table 5 on the next page summarizes the results of the assemblage- or attribute-specific work
groups. Based on the independent assessments of the individual groups and review by EMAP
indicator leads, plus minimal editing, we rank the assemblages in order as follows, by total criteria
score: periphyton, fish, birds, amphibians, macrobenthos. and bacteria. Based on the most
critical criteria, the rankings are: fish, amphibians/periphyton, birds, and macrobenthos/bacteria.
These estimates are of course preliminary and subjective; they must await pilot studies for more
accurate estimates of several criteria. In addition, further review of the ratings may result in their
modification, especially when the six assemblages are compared in the field. It Is also possible
that other criteria for selecting indicators will be proposed, which could easily result In
considerably different selections. However, this workshop and the ratings that resulted from It
portray a process by which EMAP-Surface Waters can attempt to make relatively objective
selections of assemblages that appear most appropriate for monitoring and assessment.
70
-------
Table 5. Summary of Assemblage and Physical Habitat Ratings by Criteria1
Criterion
Societal value6
Responsiveness6
Sampling ease (rtrs)
Laboratory ease (nrs)
Measurement stability
Index period stability
Among-srte versus
emong-year variation6
Among-site versus
wfthirvsrte variation
Available databases
Applicability to
temporary streams
Taxonomie richness
Macrohabitat use
Guild information
Diagnostic power
Signal/noise ratio6
Informatiory/Cost6
Work hours
Total score
Total critical criteria
score
Bird
•
O
•(8)
• 0)e
•
O
•
•
•
•
005)
O
•
O
O
O
11
62
19
Amphibian
•
•
•(6)
• (2)
O
•
O
O
•
•
•(6)
•
•
O
•
O
8
54
21
Fish
•
•
• TO
0(4)
O
•
•
•
•
•
•(»)
•
•
•
•
•
12
64
25
Macrobenthos
•
0
0(4)
•OO
O
O
•
0
O
•
• (80)
•
O
•
O
O
18
50
15
Periphyton
•
•
• (2)
0(6)
O
•
•
O
•
•
• (120)
•
•
•
O
O
e
70
21
Bacteria
•
O
0(4)
0(6)
O
O
•
•
O
•
•(6}
•
O
0
O
O
10
44
15
Habitat
O
O
•(8)
• (0)
O
•
O
0
0
•
NA"
NAd
NA-
•
'0
O
e
NA"
NAd
• • tow (1); o • moderate (3); • « high (5).
Most critical criteria
Intensive field training
NA » not applicable
71
-------
REFERENCES
Ackerman, J. 1992. Tracking a river of bird*. Nature Conserv. 42:23-27.
Anderson. B.W., end R.D. Ohmart 1981. Comparisons of avion census results using variable
distance transect and variable circular plot techniques. Stud. Avian Biol. 6:186*192.
Anderson, J.P.E., R.A. Armstrong, and S.N. Smith. 1981. Methods to evaluate pesticide damage
to the blomass of the soil mlcroflora. Soft Biol. Biochem. 13:149-153.
Archibald, R.E.M. 1972. Diversity in some South African diatom associations and its relation to
water quality. Wafer Res. 6:1229-1238.
Amnitage, P.O. 1978. Downstream changes In the composition, numbers, and blomass of bottom
fauna in the Tees below Cow Green Reservoir and an unregulated tributary, Maize Beck, in
the first five years after impoundment Hydroblologia 58:145-156.
Askins, R.A.. J.F. Lynch, and R. Greenburg. 1990. Population declines In migratory birds In
Eastern North America. Current Ornithology. Vol. 7. D.M. Power, ed. Plenum Press, New
York.
Bahls, L, R. Bukantis, and S. Tralles. 1992. Benchmark biology of Montana reference streams.
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. Helena, MT.
Barkay. T., and H. Pritchard. 1988. Adaptation of aquatic microbial communities to pollutant
stress. Microbiol. Set. 5:165-169.
Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Bisson, PA, J.L. Nielsen, R.A. Palmason, and I.E. Grove. 1981. A system of naming habitat
types In small steams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonlds during low streamflow.
Pages 62-73 in N.B. Armantrout, ed. Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic Habitat Inventory
Information. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Blaustein, A.R., and D.B. Wake. 1990. Declining amphibian populations: a global phenomenon?
Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:203-204.
Bott, T.L.. and LA Kaplan. 1985. Bacterial blomass, metabolic state, and activity In stream
sediments: relation to environmental variables and multiple assay comparisons. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 50:508-522.
Bott, T.L, and K. Rogenmusen. 1978. Effects of No. 2 fuel on, Nigerian crude oil, and used
erankcase oil on attached algal communities: acute and chronic toxlcity of water soluble
constituents. Appt. Environ. Microbiol. 36:673-682.
Brooks, P.P., MJ. Croonquist, E.T. Sifva. J.E. Gallagher, and D.E. Arnold. 1991. Selection of
biological indicators for integrating assessments of wetland, stream and riparian habitats.
Pages 81-89 in Proc. Symp. Biological Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Bury, R.B., and P.S. Com. 1991. Sampling Methods for Amphibians in Stnams In the Pacific
Northwest General Technical Report PNW-GTR-275. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.
72
-------
Bury, R.B., P.O. Com, K.B. Aubry, F.F. Gilbert, and LLC. Jones. 1991. Aquatic amphibian
communities in Oregon and Washington. Pages 353-362 in LF. Rugglero, K.B. Aubry, A.B.
Care/, and M.H. Huff, coordinators. Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-Fir
Forests. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-285. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, OR.
Cattaneo, A., and G. Roberge. 1991. Efficiency of a brush sampler to measure periphyton in
•treams and lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aqual Sci. 48:1877-1881.
Chessman, B.C. 1986. Diatom flora of an Australian fiver system: spatial patterns and
environmental relationships. Freshwater Bio!. 16:805-819.
Chow.V.T. 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cleve, P.T. 1899. Fostglaciala bildnlngarnas klassrfikation pa grund at deras fosslla diatomaceer.
Pages 59-61 in N.O. Hoist, ed. Bidrag 111 kannedomen om fatersons ocr) Bottnlska Vikens
postglaciaJa geologi Sveriges Geol. Undersokning. C. No. 180.
Com, P.S., and R.B. Bury. 1989. Logging in western Oregon: responses of headwater habitats
and stream amphibians. Forest Ecol. Manage. 29:39-57.
Croonquist, M.J., end R.P. Brooks. 1991. Use of avlan and mammalian guilds as indicators of
cumulative impacts In riparian-wetland areas. Environ. Manage. 15:701-714.
Cross, F.B.. and J.T. Coflins. 1975. Fishes in Kansas. Museum of Natural History, University of
Kansas, Lawrence.
Cummins, K.W., and G.H. Lauff. 1069. The influence of substrate particle size on the micro-
distribution of stream macrobenthos. Hydrobiologia 34:145-181.
Cummins, K.W., and M.J. Klug. 1979. Feeding ecology of stream invertebrates. Ann. flev. Ecot.
Syst 10:147-172.
Oescy, J.P. 1979. A new approach to water quality estimation using diatoms. Nova Hedwigla
64:305-323.
Descy. J.P., and M. Coste. 1990. Utilisation ties diatomees benthiques par revaluation de la
quaJM des eaux coumnfes. Rapport Final Contract CEE B-71-23.
Erman, D.C., and V. M. Hawthorne. 1976. The quantitative Importance of an Intermittent stream
In the spawning of rainbow trout. Trans. Am. Fish. Soe. 105:675-681.
Evenson, W.E., S.R., Rushforth, J.D. Brotherson, and N. Fungladda. 1981. The effects of
selected physical and chemical factors on attached diatoms in the Uintah Basin of Utah,
USA Hydrobiologia 83:325-330.
Fausch. K.D.. J. Lyons, J.R. Karr, and Pi. Artgermeler. 1990. Fish communities as indicators of
environmental degradation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 6:123-144.
Ford, J. 1989. The effects of chemical stress on aquatic species composition and community
structure. Pages 99-144 In S.A. Levin, MA Harwell, J.R. Kelly, and K.D. Kimball, eds.
Ecoroxfco/opy: Problems and Approaches. Sprlnger-Verlag, New York.
73
-------
Freemen, C., MA Lock, J. Mancsen, and S.E. Jones. 1890. Inhibitory effects of high molecular
weight dissolved organic matter upon metabolic processes in btofflms from contrasting rivers
and streams. Freshwater Biol. 24:159-166.
Frey, D.G. 1977. Biological integrity of water—a historical approach. Pages 127-140 in R.K.
Ballentine and LJ. Guarria, eds. The Integrity ol Wafer. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Haddock. J.D. 1977. The effect of stream current vetodty on the habitat preference of a net-
spinning caddis fly larvae, Hydropsyche oslari. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 53:169-174.
Hairston, N.G., Sr. 1987. Community Ecology and Salamander Quids. Cambridge University
Press.
Hanna, G.D. 1933. Diatoms of the Florida peat deposits. Pages 1930-1932 In Florida State
Geological Survey 23rd-24th Annual Report
Hart, C.W.. Jr.. and S.LH. Fuller. 1974. Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic
Press, New York.
Hayes, M.P., and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species In western North America:
are bullfrogs (flana catesbiana) responsible? J. Herpetoi. 20(4}:490-509.
Hedin, L.O. 1990. Factors controlling community respiration in a woodland stream ecosystem.
Oikos 57:94-105.
Hilsenhoff, W.L 1977. Use of Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality of Streams. Technical Bulletin
100. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison.
Hughes, R.M., and R.F. Noss. 1992. Biological diversity and biological integrity: current
concerns for lakes and streams, fisheries 17:11-19.
Hughes. R.M., and J.M. Omemik. 1983. An alternative for characterizing stream size. Pages 87-
101 in T.D. Fontaine and S.M. Bartell, eds. Dynamics ofLotic Ecosystems. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Hughes. R.M., and 15 coauthors. 1993. Development of lake condition Indicators for EMAP-1991
Pilot Pages 7-90 In D.P. Larsen and S.J. Christie, eds. EMAP-Surface Waters 1991 Pilot
report EPA/620/R-93/003. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press, Toronto,
Ontario.
Jones, J.G. 1978. Spatial variation In epllithlc algae In a stony stream (Wiffin Beck) with special
reference to Coccones p/acanfu/a. Freshwater Blot. 6:539-546.
Jones, K.B. 1986. Amphibians and reptiles. In A.Y. Cooperrider. R.J. Boyd, S.L McCutloch, and
H.R. Stuart, eds. Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat Bureau of Land Management,
Denver. #024-011 -00170-1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
74
-------
Judy, R.D., P.N. Seeley, T.M. Murray, S.C. Svirsky, M.R. Whrfworth, L.S. Ischlnger. 1984. 1982
National Fisheries Survey, Volume 1. FWS/OBS-84/06. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, •
Washington, D.C.
Karr, J.R., and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environ.
Manege. 5:55-68.
Karr, J.R., P.L. Angermeier, and I.J. Schlosser. 1963. Habitat Structure and Fish Communities of
Warmwater Streams. EPA-600/D-83-094. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon.
Karr, J.R., D.D. Fausch, P.L Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and IJ. Schlosser. 1666. Assess/off Bio-
logical Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and te Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey
Special Publication No. 5. Champaign, Illinois.
Kairfmann, P.R. 1986. Channel Morphology and Hydraulic Characteristics of Torrent-Impacted
Forest Streams in the Oregon Coast Range, U.SA. Ph.D. Thesis. Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Kaufmann, P.R. 1987. Sleckwaler habitat In torrent-Impacted streams. Pages 407-408 in R.L.
Beschta, T. Blinn, G.E. Grant, FJ. Swanson, and G.E. Ice, eds. Erosion and Sedimentation In
the Pacific Rim. International Association of Hydrologic Science. Publication No. 165.
Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Kentucky Standard Operation Procedure Manual. 1992. Kentucky Depl of Water, Lexington.
Kolbe. R.W. 1927. Zur Okologie, Morphologic, und Systematik der Brackwasser-Diatomeen.
(The ecology, morphology, and systematic* of the brackish-water diatoms.) Pflanzen-
forschung. (Jena) 7:1-146.
Kolkwltz, R., end M. Marrson. 1908. Okologie der pflanzlichen aaprobien. Ber. Deutsche Bot
Ges. 26:505-519.
Lampkin, A.J., III, and M.R. Sommerfeld. 1982. Algal distribution in • (mail Intermittent stream
receiving acid mine-drainage. J. Phycot. 18:196-199.
Lange-Bertalot, H. 1979. Pollution tolerance as a criterion for water qualrly estimation. Nova
Hedwigia 64:285-304.
Leclercq, L., and E. Depiereux. 1987. Typologle des rMtres ollgotrophes du massif Ardennals
(Belgique) par ('analyse murtivartte de releves de diatomees benthlques. Hydroblologla
153:175-192.
Leclercq, L, and B. Mequet 1987. Deux nouvoaux Indices chimSque ef diatomique de qualtte
tfeau courante Application eu Samson ef a des affluents. Compamison wee tfautres Indices
chlmlques, btoconotiques et dlatomiques. Inst. Roy. Sc. Natur. Belg. Documents de travail
36.
Leopold, LB., G.M. Wolman, end J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes h Qeomorphology. W.H.
Freeman, San Francisco.
75
-------
Lisle, T.E. 1982. Effects of aggradation and degradation on riffle-pool morphology In natural
gravel channels, Northwestern California. Wafer flesour. Res. 18:1643-1651.
Lisle. T.E. 1987. Using 'Residual Depths' to Won/Tor Pool Depths Independently of Discharge.
Research Note PSW-394. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.
Lowe, R.L 1974. Environmental Requirements and Pollution Tolerances of Freshwater Diatoms.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects
of Forestry Activities on Streams In the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA/910/9-91 /001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle. Washington.
Manuwal, DA, and A.B. Carey. 1991. Methods for Measuring Populations of Small, Diurnal
Forest Birds. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-278. U.S. Forest Service, Portland,
Oregon.
Matthews, W.J., and D.C. Heins. 1987. Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American
Stream Fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
McAllister, D.C., S.P. Platania, F.W. Schueler, M.E. Baldwin, and D.S. Lee. 1986. Ichthyofaunal
patterns on a geographic grid. Pages 17-51 in C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, eds. The Zoo-
geography of North American Freshwater Fishes. Wiley & Sons, New York.
McCormick, P.V., and R.J. Stevenson. 1992. Mechanism of benthic algal succession In lotic
environments. Ecology 72:1835-1848.
Metcalfe, J.L. 1989. Biological water quality assessment of running waters based on macroinver-
tebrate communities: history and present status in Europe. Environ. Pollul 60:101-139.
Miller, R.J., and H.W. Robison. 1980. 7ne Fishes of Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University Press,
Stillwater.
Miller, R.R., J.D. Williams, and J.E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during
the past century. Fisheries 14:22-38.
Minckley, W.L 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Sims Printing, Phoenix.
Minshall, G.W., and J.N. Minshall. 1977. Microdistribution of benthie Invertebrates in a Rocky
Mountain (U.S.A.) stream. Hydrobiologia 55:231-249.
Moors, A., and R.J. O'Connor. 1992. Development of an Avian Index of Blotic Integrity from
Selected New England Lakes. Final Report for CR 818179-01-0. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Moyle,P.B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Pre«», Berkeley.
Mulholland, P.J., J.W. Elwood, and A.V. Palumbo. 1986. Effect of stream acidification on pert-
phyton composition, chlorophyll, and productivity. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic. Sd. 43:1846-1858.
76
-------
Mundie, J.H., K.S. Simpson, and C.J. Perrin. 1991. Responses of stream periphyton and benthic
Insects to increases in disserved inorganic phosphorus in a mesocosm. Can. J. Fish.
Aquatic. Sci. 48:2061-2072.
Nehlsen, W.. J.E. Williams, and JA Uchatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks
at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16:4-21.
Newbold, J.D., J.W. Elwood, R.V. O'Neill, and W. Van Winkle. 1981. Measuring nutrient spiralling
In streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat Scl. 38:860-863.
Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol.
4:355-364.
Olsen, A.R. (ed). 1992. The Indicator Development Strategy for the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. EPA/600/3-91/023. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvallis, OR.
O'Neill, M.P., and A.D. Abrahams. 1984. Objective identification of pools and riffles. Water
Resour. Res. 20:921-926.
Palmer, C.M. 1969. A composite rating of algae tolerating organic pollution. J. Phycol. 5:78-82.
Patrick, R. 1968. The structure of diatom communities in similar ecological conditions. Am. Nat
102:173-183.
Patrick, R., and N.A. Roberts. 1979. Diatom communities in the Middle Atlantic States, U.S.A.
Some factors that are important to their structure. Nova Hedwigia 64:265-283.
Payne, B.R., and R.M. DeGraaf. 1975. Economic values and recreational trends associated with
human enjoyment of nongame birds. Pages 6-10 In D.R. Smith, coord. Proceedings of
tne Symposium on Management of Forest and Range Habitats for Nongame Birds. Gen.
Tech. Report WO-1. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.
Pechmann, J.H.K., D.E. Scott, R.D. Semlitsch, J.P. Caldwell, LJ. Vrtt, and J.W. Gibbons. 1991.
Declining amphibian populations: the problem of separating human impacts from natural
fluctuations. Science 253:892-895.
Petersen, R.C., and K.W. Cummins. 1974. Leal processing In a woodland stream. Fmsnwafer
Biol. 4:343-368.
Peterson, C.G., and R.J. Stevenson. 1990. Post-spate development of eplllthlc algal communities
In different current environments. Can. J. BoL 68:2092-2102.
Pflieger. W.L 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson
City.
Phillips, K. 1990. Where have all fhe frogs and toads gone? fi/oscfence 40:422-424.
Plafkin, J.L, M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. flap/d B/oassess-
menf Protocols for Use to Streams and Rkers: Benthic Macrolnvertebrales and Fish.
EPA/444/4-89/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. D.C.
-------
Planat, D., L Laplerre, 6. Moreau, and M. Allard. 1989. Structural organization and species
composition of a tet'c periphyton community in response to experimental acidification.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat Sci. 46:827-635.
•Plaits, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian,
and Biotic Conditions. General Technical Report INT-138. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden,
Utah.
Prytogle, PA, and R.L. Lowe. 1979. Sampling and interpretation of eplllthlc lotic diatom
communities. Pages 77-89 in R.L. Weitzel, ed. Methods and Measurements of Periphyton
Communities: A Review. ASTM STP 690. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia.
RanKIn, E.T. 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEt): Rationale, Methods, and
Application. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus.
Rankin. E.T., and C.O. Yoder. 1991. The Nature of Sampling Variability In the Index of BioSc
Integrity (IBI) In Ohio Streams. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus.
Remsen, J.V., and S.K. Robinson. 1990. A classification scheme for foraging behavior of birds in
terrestrial habitats. Stud. Avian Biot. 13:144-160.
Resh, V.H., and J.O. Unzicker. 1975. Water quality monitoring and aquatic organisms: the
importance of species identification. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 47:9-19.
Reynolds, R.T., J.M. Scott, and R.A. Nussbaum. 1980. A variable circular-plot method for
estimating bird numbers. Condor 82:309-313.
Robbins, C.S., D. Bystrak, and P.M. Geissler. 1986. The Breeding Bird Survey: Its First Fifteen
Years, 1965-1979. Resource Publication 157. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
O.C.
Robins, C.R., and six coauthors. 1991. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United
States and Canada. Special Publication 20. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Robison, E.G., and R.L Beschta. 1990. Coarse woody debris and channel morphology inter-
actions for undisturbed streams in Southeast Alaska, U.S A Can. J. Fish. Aqua. Scl.
47(9):16B4-1693.
Root R-B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher. Ecol. Monogr.
37:317-350.
Rosen, B.H., and R.L Lowe. 1984. Physiological and ultrastnjctural responses of Cyclotella
meneghinlana (Bacillariophyta) to light intensity and nutrient limitation. J. Phycol.
20:173-183.
Round, F.E. 1991. Diatoms In river water-monitoring studies. J. Applied Phycol. 3:129-145.
Rushforth, S.R., J.D. Brotherson, N. Fungladda, and W.E. Evenson. 1981. The effects of
disserved heavy metals on attached diatoms In the Uintah Basin of Utah, U.S A
•Hydroblologla 83:313-323.
78
-------
Schindler, D.W. 1987. Detecting ecosystem responses to anthroppogenlc stress. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 44:6-25.
Schoeman, F.R. 1976. Diatom indicator groups In the assessment of water quality in the Juskei-
Crocodile river system (Transvaal, Republic of South Africa). J. Umnol. Soc. South. Mr.
2:21-24.
Scott. W.B.. and E.J. Grossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Senner, S.E. 1986. Federal research on migratory nongame birds: Is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service doing Its job? Am. Birds 40:413-417,
Short, H.L, and K.P. Burnham. 1982. Technique for Structuring Wildlife Guilds to Evaluate
Impacts on Wildlife Communities. Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 244. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Smith, C.L. 1985. The Inland Fishes of New York State. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany.
Smith, J.L., B.L. McNeal. and H.H. Cheng. 1985. Estimation of soil mterobial blomass: an
analysis of the respiratory response. Soil Biol. Biochem. 17:11-16.
Smith, P.W. 1971. Illinois Streams: A Classification Based on Their Fishes and An Analysis of
Factors Responsible tor Disappearance of rVatrVe Species. Biological Notes 76. Illinois
Natural History Survey.
Smith, P.W. 1979. The Fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Smith, R.L. 1966. Ecology and Field Biology. Harper and Row, New York.
Sport Fishing Institute. 1992. Compendium of Sport Fishing Statistics. Sport Fishing Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Stack, B.R. 1989. Factors Influencing Pool Morphology tn Oregon Coastal Streams. M.S. Thesis,
Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Stevenson, RJ. 1984. Epllithlc and epipelic diatoms In the Sandusky River, with emphasis on
species diversity and water pollution. Hydrobioiogla 114:161-175.
Stevenson, R.J., and R.L Lowe. 1986. Sampling and Interpretation of algal patterns for water
quality assessments. Pages 119-149 In B.G. (com, ad. Rationale for Sampling and Inter-
pretation of Ecological Data In the Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems. ASTM STP 894.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Stevenson, R.J., C.G. Peterson, D.B. Klrsehtel. C.C. King, and N.C. Tuchman. 1891. Density-
dependent growth, ecological strategies, and affects of nutrients and shading on benthlc
diatom succession In streams. J. Phycd. 27:59-69.
79
-------
Sumita, M.. and T. Watanabe. 1983. New general estimation of river pollution using new diatom
community index (NDCI) as biological indicators based on specific composition of epilithic
diatoms communities. Applied to Asano-gawa and Sal-gawa Rivers In Ishikawa Prefec-
ture. Jap. J. Umnol. 44:329-340.
Szaro, B.C. 1980. Factors influencing bird populations in southwestern riparian forests. Pages
403-418 In P.M. OeGraaf, ed. Management of Western Forests and Grasslands for
Nongame Birds. General Technical Report INT-66. U.S. Forest Service Interrnountaln
Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
Terborgh.J. 1989. When Have AJt the Birds Gone? Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey.
ter Braak, C.J.F., and I.C. Prentice. 1988. A theory of gradient analysts. Adv. Ecol. Res.
18:271-317.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus.
van Dam, H. 1982, On the use of measures of structure and diversity in applied diatom ecology.
Nova Hedwigia 73:97-115.
VanLandingham, S.L. 1976. Comparative evaluation of water quality on the St. Joseph River
(Michigan and Indiana, U.S.A.) by three methods of algal analysis. Hydroblologia
48:145-173.
Vannote. R.L.. G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Gushing. 1980. The river
continuum concept Can. J. Fish. AquaL Sd. 37:130-137.
Vemer, J. 1984. The guild concept applied to management of bird populations. Environ.
Manage. 8:1-14.
Vitt, L.J., J.P. Caldwell. H.M. Wilbur, and D.C. Smith. 1991. Viewpoint amphibians as harbingers
of decay. B/osc/ence40:418.
Watanabe, T., K. Asai, and A. Houki. 1988. Numerical water quality monitoring of organic pollu-
tion using diatom assemblages. Pages 123-141 in Proceedings of 9th Diatom Sympo-
sium. September 1986, Bristol, England. Frank 'Round Press.
Watanabe, T., A. Kazuml, and A. Houki. 1990. Numerical simulation of organic pollution in
flowing waters, pages 251-281 in P.N. Cheremisinoff, ed. Encyclopedia of Environmental
Control Technology. Volume 4. GuN Publishing Company, Houston, Texas.
Weitzel, R.L, and J.M. Bates. 1981. Assessment of effluent impacts through evaluation of
periphyton diatom community structure. Pages 142-165 in J.M. Bates and C.I. Weber,
eds. Ecological Assessments of Effluent Impacts on Communities of Indigenous Aquatic
Organisms. ASTM STP 730. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
Willemsen, G.D., H.F. Cast R.O.G. Franken and J.G.M. Cuppen. 1990. Urban storm water
discharges: effects upon communities of sessile diatoms and macro-invertebrates. Wafer
Scl. Techno!. 22:147-154.
80
-------
Williams, J.E., and seven coauthors. 19B9. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or
of special concern: 1989. Fisheries 14:2-20.
Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington
Press, Seattle.
81
-------
APPENDIX A
ASSEMBLAGE- AND REGION-SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS
OF AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE INDICATOR SELECTION CRITERIA
ASSEMBLAGE: Anurans - frogs and toads
REGION: X = East and Central, W = West
Responsiveness
Biointegrity
Ease of sampling
Measurement stability
Signal/noise ratio
Information/cost ratio
Available databases
Sampling methods
Taxonomic richness
Macrohabitats
Guild information
Diagnostic power
Among-site/Among-year
variation
Index period stability
High
X-W
X-W
X
W
X-W
X
X
W
X-W
Medium
W
W
W
X
W
Low
X
X-W
X
W
X
X-W
Comments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Comments:
1. Mobile, not dependent on streams.
2. Sampling methods could be improved.
3. Breed primarily in ponds, found In backwaters of streams.
4. First- to third-order streams east first- to fifth-order streams west
5. West - best diagnostic group of taxa we discussed; however, quickly disappearing from former
ranges.
82
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
ASSEMBLAGE: Turtles
REGION: X - Central, East, South; W • West
Responsiveness
Bioinlegrrty
Ease of sampling
Measurement stability
Signal/noise ratio
Information/cost ratio
Available databases
Sampling methods
Taxonomic richness
Macrohabitats
Guild information
Diagnostic power
Index period stability
Among-site/Among-year
variation
High
X-W
W
X-W
X
X-W
X
X-W
X-W
Medium
X-W
X-W
X
X-W
W
X-W
Low
W
Comments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Comments:
1. Responsive to tissue contamination; some species more responsive than others.
2. Turtle traps, 24-hour sets, low tech. «asy training.
3. Identification could be difficult, catch and photograph. ID easier In west.
4. East • third order and above; west - second order and above.
5. Not available.
63
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
ASSEMBLAGE: Salamanders
REGION: X - Eastern mountains, C • Eastern Coastal, W • Pacific Northwest
Responsiveness
Bibintegrity
Ease of sampling
Measurement stability
Signal/noise ratio
Information/cost ratio
Available databases
Sampling methods
Taxonomic richness
Macrohabitats
Guild information
Diagnostic power
Index period stability
Among-site/Among-year
variation
High
X-C-W
X-C-W
X-C-W
W
W
x-w
x-w
X-C-W
X
x-w
x-w
X-C-W
X-C-W
Medium
x-c
x-c
C
W
Low
C
C
C
C
Comments
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
Comments:
1. Responsive to physical habitat change, fish predation, acidity.
2. High population density, easily located.
3. Year-to-year stability in number of taxa, individual numbers variable.
4. Available literature on old growth studies.
5. First- to third-order streams, riparian areas, splash zones, waterfalls.
8. Jaeger - work on feeding guilds; Halrston • habitat and feeding guilds.
84
------- |