------- United States , ,Q A_nw r«r«c Environmental Protection uoMrmy oorps Agency °f Engineers ® Portland District U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District Appropriate Citation: Nadeau, T-L. 2011 Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Document No. EPA 910-R-11-002. Photo Credits Front cover (Top to Bottom, Left to Right): Rob Coulombe (2nd row), David Beugli (top row), Lindsey Webb (1st and 2nd in 3rd row), Russ Klassen (3rd in 3rd row), Tracie Nadeau (4th row) Inside collage (Clockwise from Upper Left): Gail Heine, Jess Jordan, Russ Klassen, Lindsey Webb, Randy Cameleo (Oregon hydrologic landscape map) Inside back cover collage (Clockwise from Upper Left): Jim Wigington, Blake Hatteberg, Lindsey Webb, Blake Hatteberg, Rob Coulombe, Nicole Peirce, Rob Coulombe (center) ------- Table of Contents PURPOSE iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii Section 1: Introduction 1 Background 2 Interim Version 2 Oregon Method Validation Study 2 Current Method: Changes from the Interim Version 3 Relevant Definitions 4 Considerations When Assessing Indicators of Streamflow 5 Spatial Variability 5 Reach Selection 6 Recent Precipitation 6 Ditches and Modified Natural Streams 7 Disturbed or Altered Streams 7 Section 2: Conducting Field Assessments 8 Suggested Field Equipment 8 General Guidance for Completing the Field Assessment Form 8 Observed Hydrology 9 Indicators of Streamflow Duration 10 Macroinvertebrate Indicators (1 - 3) 12 Additional Indicators (4 and 5) 13 Ancillary Information 14 Section 3: Drawing Conclusions 16 Appendix A: References Consulted 19 Appendix B: Streamflow Duration Field Assessment Form 27 Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- ------- PURPOSE The purpose of this manual and accompanying field assessment form is to guide natural resource professionals in evaluating the described indicators of stream flow to help distinguish between ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams. This method has been developed and tested for applicability across Oregon, from the humid west side of the Cascade Mountains to the semi-arid eastern two-thirds of the state. Section 1 contains an introduction to the method, including definitions of key terms, method development and validation, and sources of variability. Section 2 provides assessment guidance and describes the indicators. The final section describes how to draw conclusions based on the assessed indicators of flow. This method can be used to distinguish between perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, but is primarily designed to distinguish ephemeral streams from intermittent and perennial streams in a single site visit. It provides a scientifically supported, rapid assessment framework to support best professional judgment in a consistent, robust and repeatable way. While use of this method may inform a more robust stream assessment, it was specifically developed for the purpose of determining streamflow duration and does not provide a stand-alone assessment of stream function or condition. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This method has come together through the hard work of many people. The interim version, released in March 2009 and co-authored by Brian Topping (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; US EPA), myself, and Mike Turaski (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District; USAGE), was particularly improved by the critical review and input from participants in an initial, several day field verification workshop (September 2007): Scott Hoffman Black, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces Society); Kyle Blasch, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Arizona Water Science Center; Ken Fritz, USEPA Office of Research and Development (ORD); Jim Goudzwaard, USAGE Portland District; Sarina Jepsen, Xerces Society; Jess Jordan, Oregon Department of State Lands (ODSL); Periann Russell, North Carolina Division of Water Quality; Yvonne Vallette, USEPA Oregon Operations Office; Jim Wigington, USEPA ORD; and Molly Wood, USGS Idaho Water Science Center. Jess Jordan, Peter Ryan, Nicole Peirce, and Russ Klassen of ODSL also contributed critical review and assistance in field testing the interim version. A validation study, which we conducted in Oregon and provides the data-driven revisions resulting in this, the revised Oregon Method, owes all to a committed group of colleagues: Jim Wigington, Scott Leibowitz, Ken Fritz, Joe Ebersole, and Randy Cameleo, USEPA ORD; Rob Coulombe, Lindsey Webb, Blake Hatteberg, Shawn Majors, and Rachel LovellFord (CSS-Dynamac Corporation); Jess Jordan (currently USAGE Seattle District) and Mike Turaski variously collaborated, designed, implemented, analyzed or otherwise contributed to the study. Rob Coulombe and the Dynamac crew, with their extensive time in the field, have been particularly instrumental in improving the on-the-ground usability of the method. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Celeste Mazzacano and Scott Hoffman Black (Xerces Society) completed a literature review and synthesis identifying taxa and life stages of macroinvertebrates occurring in Oregon streams to identify the perennial indicators presented in Table 1, as well as produced the associated macroinvertebrate field guide. Chris Rombough (Rombough Biological) and Jess Jordan developed the herpetofauna water-dependent life history stages presented in Table 2. Shannon Hubler (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; DEQ) provided data from DEQ's statewide stream monitoring database. Several others have contributed helpful review and input along the way, including: Janine Castro, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Stephen Lancaster, Oregon State University (OSU), Dept. of Geosciences; Judith Li, OSU, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife; Mark Rains, University of South Florida, Dept. of Geology, as well as many practitioners who participated in training sessions on using the interim version held around the state. Photographs and figures are credited within the document. With many thanks to all, Tracie-Lynn Nadeau, USEPA Region 10, Oregon Operations Office, Portland, Oregon Nadeau.tracie@epa.gov Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Section 1: Introduction A stream* can be described as a channel containing flowing surface water including: • Stormflow - increased streamflow resulting from the relatively rapid runoff of precipitation from the land as interflow (rapid, unsaturated, subsurface flow), overland flow, or saturated flow from surface water tables close to the stream, or; • Baseflow - flow resulting from ground water entering the stream or sustained melt water from glaciers and snowmelt (observed during long gaps between rainfall events), or; • A combination of both stormflow and baseflow, and; • Contributions of discharge from upstream tributaries as stormflow or baseflow, if present. *Note: For the purposes of this method the descriptor 'stream' is attached to the channel, and applies regardless of whether flow dries up seasonally or otherwise. As a stream flows from its origin, water may be derived primarily from stormflow, baseflow, or some combination of the two. Streams typically continue to accumulate water from stormflow, baseflow and other tributaries as they flow downstream. As streams accumulate flow they commonly transition along a gradient from ephemeral to intermittent and perennial, but sometimes quickly transition from ephemeral to perennial in high gradient systems, or transition from perennial to ephemeral or to total cessation of surface flow. Often these changes are gradual and may not be obvious to the casual observer. There are, however, indicators of streamflow that collectively can be used to characterize the flow duration of a stream along a particular reach as ephemeral, intermittent or perennial. In this manual, duration encompasses the concept of the cumulative time period of flow over the course of a year, which may vary interannually with climate, groundwater withdrawal or streamflow diversion, and other water use patterns. This manual presents an indicator-based method for assessing streamflow duration in the state of Oregon. This method and accompanying assessment form are designed to assist the user in distinguishing between ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams throughout Oregon. Stream systems can be characterized by interactions among hydrologic, geomorphic (physical) and biological processes. These attributes, or dominant processes, vary along the length of a stream related to flow duration (Figure 1). To identify the indicators and distinguish ephemeral streams from intermittent streams or intermittent streams from perennial streams using the information presented in this manual, the evaluator should have experience making field observations in streams. Trans*. Opfrtitio-n FIGURE 1. Hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics in relation to drainage area (FISRWG 1998). Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Background Interim Version The interim version of this method was developed, in part, based on the experiences and progress of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality on their Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial Streams.'* The North Carolina Stream Identification Method (NC Method), a tool used to guide rapid assessment of intermittent and perennial streams, was developed and tested based on documented scientific principles in hydrology, geomorphology and biology. Version 1 of the method was implemented in 1998 after review from the academic and regulatory community. Since 1998, several major revisions have been made as experience and science advanced. The NC Method is viewed as an evolving document that will continue to change over time. Starting from that base, experts in relevant academic and professional fields were consulted in the development of the Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon (Oregon Method). A team of experts from the USEPA Region 10 Oregon Operations Office and Office of Research and Development, USAGE Portland District, USGS Idaho and Arizona Water Science Centers, Oregon Department of State Lands, and North Carolina Division of Water Quality conducted a one week field assessment of the method in the five major physiographic and climatic regions of Oregon. The field assessment compared the draft Oregon Method to known flow durations for headwater streams in the Coast Range, Willamette Valley Lowlands, Cascade Range, Great Basin, and the High Desert Plateau. In addition, several other efforts informed selection of appropriate indicators, identification of potential problems 1 Available at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/ documents/NC_Stream_ID_Manual.pdf in the field, and development of meaningful indicator descriptions and scoring, including: review of the scientific literature; beta-testing by the USAGE Portland District, USEPA Oregon Operations Office, and Oregon Department of State Lands; development of a Xerces Society report "Using Aquatic Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of Streamflow Duration;" external peer-review; and results of the first phase of a USEPA field validation study of the Oregon Method including more than 170 streams from both the humid and semi-arid sides of the Cascade Range. The resulting interim version of the Streamflow duration assessment method, which scores 21 geomorphic, hydrologic, and biologic stream attributes based on abundance and prominence, was released via joint USACE/USEPA/ODSL Public Notice in March 20092. Conclusions of Streamflow duration in the interim version are based on the additive score of the assessed stream attributes. The Oregon Method was made available as an interim version to allow practitioners such as stream ecologists, aquatic ecologists, hydrologists, and wetland scientists the opportunity to provide comment on their experiences using the method during the two- year field validation study of the method. Oregon Method Validation Study To meet our objectives of developing a rapid Streamflow duration assessment method that is consistent, robust, repeatable, and applicable across the state of Oregon, we undertook a two-year field validation study of the interim version of the Oregon Method. The study included 177 streams ranging across the hydrologic settings of Oregon, with an approximately equal distribution of streams from the humid west and semi-arid east side of the Cascade Range, and in the perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral classes. 2 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/ water/sdam/interim_sdam_oregon_march2009.pdf Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Study design maximized representation of a diversity of hydrologic landscapes, based on a hydrologic classification framework that includes indices of annual climate, seasonality, aquifer permeability, terrain, and soil permeability (Wigington et al. 2011, in review). The study addressed three primary questions: 1) Are these 21 stream attributes the most predictive indicators of streamflow?; 2) Does each indicator provide independent value to the determination of stream class?; and 3) Are there redundancies in the indicators which affect determination of stream class? To address these questions, the interim version of the Oregon Method was applied to the 177 study stream reaches over the course of three field seasons—two dry seasons and one wet season; in Oregon, where the delivery of precipitation is greatest during the winter months, these correspond to late summer/early fall and late spring, respectively. Supplemental data were also collected at each site, particularly for those indicators that were considered problematic. Results of the validation study found the interim, 21 indicator version of the method correctly determined known streamflow duration 62% of the time. Extensive data analyses revealed that several indicators appeared to have the strongest explanatory power in separating the perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream classes. Furthermore, several of the geomorphic indicators (seven of the 21 total indicators) correlated with each other, indicating that they were measuring the same thing. Results of the validation study are being published separately. Current Method: Changes from the Interim Version Analysis of data collected during the two-year validation study informed revisions to the Oregon Method, which resulted in a general model (method) across space and time, and maximized accuracy. The current method presented here relies on five indicators that are evaluated using a decision-tree, similar to using a dichotomous key. As with the interim version of the method (March 2009), the presence of certain vertebrate organisms that require the sustained presence of water for their growth and development are included as single indicators of an intermittent stream. The five-indicator method correctly determined known streamflow duration classes 78% of the time, compared with 62% of the time with the 21-indicator interim method. Accuracy rates for distinguishing between ephemeral and "at least intermittent" streams were 81% for the interim version and 92% for the current five indicator method. Thus, the current method presented is significantly more accurate than the interim version. Based on our own extensive observations and feedback consistently received from users, the interim version of the Oregon Method: • contained some subjective indicators that were difficult to consistently assess; and • overweighted geomorphic indicators, which in some situations (e.g. high slope) led to false conclusions because flow magnitude, rather than flow duration, was being scored. The current decision-tree method is based on stream attributes—four biological and one physical— that are measurable, rather than subjective, and does not include geomorphic indicators of flow. Furthermore, the current method appears to be more resilient to recent physical alterations or modifications to a stream. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Relevant Definitions As used by this method: Channel is an area that contains flowing water (continuously or not) that is confined by banks and a bed. Dry Channel is an area confined by banks and a bed that at times contains flowing water, but at the time of assessment does not contain flowing water (it may contain disconnected pools with no sign of connecting flow). Wet Channel is an area confined by banks and a bed that contains flowing water at the time of assessment (flow may be interstitial). Ephemeral Stream flows only in direct response to precipitation. Water typically flows only during and shortly after large precipitation events. An ephemeral stream may or may not have a well-defined channel, the streambed is always above the water table, and stormwater runoff is the primary source of water. An ephemeral stream typically lacks biological, hydrological and in some instances physical characteristics commonly associated with the continuous or intermittent conveyance of water. Ground water occurs at the subsurface under saturated conditions and contains water that is free to move under the influence of gravity, often horizontally to stream channels when a confining layer blocks downward percolation. Hyporheic Zone is the zone under and adjacent to the channel where stream water infiltrates, mixes with local and/or regional groundwater, and returns to the stream. The dimensions of the hyporheic zone are controlled by the distribution and characteristics of alluvial deposits and by hydraulic gradients between streams and local groundwater. It may be up to two to three feet deep in small streams, and is the site of both biological and chemical activity associated with stream function. Intermittent Stream is a channel that contains water for only part of the year, typically during winter and spring when the streambed may be below the water table and/or when snowmelt from surrounding uplands provides sustained flow. The channel may or may not be well-defined. The flow may vary greatly with stormwater runoff. An intermittent stream may lack the biological and hydrological characteristics commonly associated with the continuous conveyance of water. Normal Precipitation is defined as the 30-year average, provided by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center, computed at the end of each decade. These data are available as annual and monthly means. Perennial Stream contains water continuously during a year of normal rainfall, often with the streambed located below the water table for most of the year. Groundwater supplies the baseflow for perennial streams, but flow is also supplemented by stormwater runoff and snowmelt. A perennial stream exhibits the typical biological, hydrological, and physical characteristics commonly associated with the continuous conveyance of water. Stream Origin is the point where flow first appears on the land surface with enough force to disturb the substrate creating a lasting sign of flow. Stream origins are often wetlands, springs, seeps or headcuts. Swales can be wetlands or uplands (when assessed under the USAGE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual or appropriate Regional supplements) and primarily serve as a vegetated flow path occurring in a slight depression in the landscape but lacking differentiation between bed and bank. Swales often connect uplands to wetlands or streams, connect wetlands Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- together, or connect upstream and downstream reaches of small streams that flow through a colluvial fan or an abrupt change in grade. Thalweg is the deepest part of a stream channel and the last part of the stream to contain flowing water as a stream dries up. As used in this method, the thalweg comprises the "lowest flow" pathway and typically spans approximately 5 to 20% of the channel width. Water Table is the surface elevation of the saturated zone below which all interconnected voids are filled with water and at which the pressure is atmospheric, commonly identified as the top of the local (i.e., floodplain) or regional groundwater aquifer. Considerations When Assessing Indicators of Streamflow Spatial Variability Spatial variations in stream indicators occur within and among stream systems. Sources of variation between stream systems in Oregon are due primarily to physiographic province (geology and soils) and climate (seasonal patterns of precipitation, snowmelt, and evapotranspiration). For example, riffles and pools result from in-channel structures and these structures can vary between rocks and boulders in the mountains and roots and wood debris in the alluvial valleys. The method was designed to apply to all stream systems within the diverse hydrologic landscape regions of Oregon. A substantial amount of variability can also occur along the length of a given stream system. Common sources of variation within a stream system include: • Longitudinal changes in stream indicators related to increasing duration and volume of flow. As streams gain or lose Streamflow, the presence of indicators changes. • Longitudinal changes due to variables such as channel gradient and valley width, which affect physical processes and thus may directly or indirectly affect indicators. • Temporal variation of flow related to seasonal precipitation and evapotranspiration pattern. For instance, in western Oregon the strong seasonal rainfall pattern - several months of wet weather followed by several months of dry weather - supports the establishment of intermittent streams. Due to these long periods of rain many of the intermittent streams in Oregon carry 80 - 90% of the yearly discharge associated with a perennial stream of the same size. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- • Transitions in land use, for instance from commercial forest to pasture/grazing, from pasture grazing to cultivated farm, or cultivated farm to an urban setting. • The size of the stream; streams develop different channel dimensions due to differences in flow magnitude, landscape position, land use history, and other factors. Reach Selection This manual lays out a method for assessing indicators of streamflow duration. However, flow characteristics often vary along the length of a stream, resulting in gradual transitions in flow duration. Recognizing that in many streams flow duration exists on a continuum, choosing the reach on which to conduct an assessment can influence the resulting conclusion about flow duration. Assessments should be made for a representative reach, rather than at one point of a stream. A representative reach for stream assessments is equivalent to 35 - 40 channel widths of the stream (Peck et al. 2006). Reach length is measured along the thalweg. For narrow streams, the length of the assessment reach should be a minimum of 30 meters. If the assessment reach is near a culvert or road crossing, the assessment reach should begin a minimum of 10 meters from the culvert or road crossing feature. Assessments should begin by first walking the length of the channel, to the extent feasible, from the stream origin to the downstream confluence with a larger stream. This initial review of the site allows the evaluator to examine the overall form of the channel, landscape, and parent material, and variation within these attributes as the channel develops or disappears upstream and downstream. We recommend walking alongside, rather than in, the channel for the initial review to avoid unnecessary disturbance to the stream and maximize the opportunity to observe single indicator organisms (i.e. fish and herpetological species). Walking the channel also allows the assessor to observe characteristics of the watershed such as land use and sources of flow (e.g. stormwater pipes, springs, seeps, and upstream tributaries). Once these observations are made, the assessor can identify the areas along the stream channel where these various sources (stormflow, tributaries or groundwater) or sinks (alluvial fans, abrupt change in bed slope, etc.) of water may cause abrupt changes in flow duration. Similarly, the assessor can identify if the stream segment in question is generally uniform or might best be assessed as two or more distinct reaches. For some purposes (e.g. regulatory) the reach in question will often be predetermined by property ownership or proposed activities; the above process for assessing the stream should be followed to the extent possible, and if the reach in question is generally uniform one assessment is appropriate. If the reach in question is not uniform, two or more assessments are recommended to fully describe the changes along the reach. Regardless of the number of reaches assessed, decisions should be made in conjunction with best professional judgment to reach a conclusion on flow duration as ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial. Recent Precipitation The rate and duration of flow in stream channels is influenced by climate and by recent weather. Recent rainfall can influence the presence of indicators. Evaluators should note recent rainfall events on the assessment form, and consider the timing of field evaluations in assessing the applicability of individual indicators. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Ditches and Modified Natural Streams This method can be used, in combination with best professional judgment, to assess the flow duration of natural streams, modified natural streams, and ditches dug in wetlands or uplands. When assessing a reach that is a ditch or modified natural stream, it is important to walk the entire reach and locate the inflow point or origin as well as the downstream terminus of flow (most often a confluence with another channel). Similarly, any disturbance or modifications to the stream channel should be noted on the assessment form, especially if it affects applicability of assessment indicators. For highly modified streams, an alternative assessment method may be necessary to identify flow duration. Visiting the site multiple times or conducting hydrologic monitoring may also be necessary. For all assessments, disturbances or modifications to the stream or its catchment that may affect the presence of the streamflow duration indicators should be noted. Disturbed or Altered Streams Assessors should be alert for natural or human- induced disturbances that affect streamflow duration and/or the presence of indicators. Streamflow duration can be directly affected by flow diversions, urbanization and stormwater management, septic inflows, agricultural and irrigation practices, vegetation management, or other activities. The presence of indicators can be affected by changes in streamflow, and can also be affected by disturbances that may not substantially affect streamflow (for instance, grading, grazing, recent fire, beaver activity, riparian management, culvert installation, and bank stabilization). Such disturbances should be described in the "Notes" section of the field assessment form. Similarly, natural sources of variation should also be noted such as fractured bedrock, volcanic parent material, recent or large relic colluvial activity (landslides or debris flows), and drought or unusually high precipitation. Urbanized and impaired streams experiencing multiple stressors may be poor in biologic species, raising concerns about the effective application of this method in those situations given the importance of macroinvertebrate indicators in drawing conclusions. A recent query of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's statewide monitoring data of primarily perennial streams, which includes the most impaired streams in the state, indicated that of more than 2000 macroinvertebrate samples collected, all had at least one mayfly (Ephemeroptera) individual. Additionally, only 37 samples had less than 6 mayfly individuals; these low counts could be due to very high levels of disturbance or sampling error.3 Based on these data, the Oregon Method should be widely applicable across Oregon streams, except in extreme instances of disturbance. 3 Shannon Hubler, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, June 2011 Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Section 2: Conducting Field Assessments Suggested Field Equipment • This manual, associated assessment forms, and an all-weather notebook. • Macroinvertebrate and herpetological field guides (e.g. Macroinvertebrate s of the Pacific Northwest, Adams and Vaughan, 2003; Stream Insects of the Pacific Northwest, Edwards, 2008; Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia, Corkran and Thorns, 1996). • Hydrophytic plant identification guides (e.g. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington, Guard 1995; A Field Guide to Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwest Oregon, Cooke,1997) and current wetland indicator status list .4 • Global Positioning System (GPS) - used to identify the boundaries of the reach assessed. • Camera - used to photograph and document site features. • Clinometer - used to measure channel slope.5 • Tape measure • Kicknet or small net and tray - used to sample aquatic insects and amphibians. • Hand lens • Polarized sun glasses - for eliminating surface glare when looking for fish, amphibians, and macroinvertebrates. • Shovel, rock hammer, pick or other digging tool - to facilitate hydrological observations/ determination of hyporheic flow. 4 Available at: http://geo.usace.army. mil/wetland_plants/index.html 5 Channel slope can also be determined from topographic maps or surveys. General Guidance for Completing the Field Assessment Form The Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon relies upon the assessment of five indicators of flow duration and on the assessor's understanding of the site. As with wetland delineation, for best results we recommend that the method be applied during the growing season. As described in the Ditches and Modified Natural Streams section above, be aware that modifications to the site or areas upstream of the site may affect the presence of the indicators. Similarly, natural variation such as interannual variation in precipitation can affect the presence of the indicators used in this method. Therefore, it is important to accurately complete the entire field assessment form, including information for date, project, evaluator, waterway name and location, recent precipitation, observed hydrologic status, and channel width. If the stream does not have a defined channel (i.e., bed and banks are not apparent), estimate the width of the flow path and describe in the "Additional Notes" section. Any other relevant observations should also be recorded in the "Additional Notes" section of the form. These may include the local geology, runoff rates, hydrologic unit codes, evidence of stream modifications or hydrologic alterations upstream of the assessment area (e.g. dams, diversions, storm water discharge), and recent land clearing activities upstream. All pertinent observations should be recorded on the form, including a clear and repeatable way of identifying the boundaries of the reach being assessed and the reasons for choosing those boundaries. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Observed Hydrology Observed hydrology in the assessment reach informs determination of streamflow duration. The field evaluator should record hydrological observations describing percentage of assessment reach with surface flow, percentage of reach with any flow (surface or hyporheic), and number of pools in the reach in the designated area of the assessment form. STREAM REACH FLOW • Observe the stream for the entire length of the assessment reach. • Visually estimate the percentage of the reach length that has flowing surface water. • Estimate the percentage of the reach length that has flowing surface water or sub- surface (hyporheic) flow (see below). • If there is uncertainty about how to best characterize a particular assessment reach, specific observations should be described on the assessment form, using diagrams or pictures in support of observations. HYPORHEIC FLOW Because it occurs below the surface of the streambed, hyporheic flow is not easily observed. However, there are some observable signs of the presence of hyporheic flow, including: • Flowing surface water disappearing into alluvium deposits, and reappearing downstream. This is common when there is a large, recent alluvium deposit created by a downed log or other grade-control structure. • Water flowing out of the streambed (alluvium) and into isolated pools. • Flowing water below the surface of the streambed, observed by moving streambed rocks or digging a small hole in the streambed. At sites where the observed surface flow is less than 100%, look for evidence of hyporheic flow and use best professional judgment in entering observations on the data form. Figure 2 (A- D) provides examples of how to record hydrological observations. FIGURE 2, Examples of recording hydrological observations (R. Coulombe). 2A: Recorded Observation % of reach with surface flow = 70% % of reach with any flow = 70% isolated pools = 0 Flow upper reach boundary Flowing surf ace water in the upper 70% of reach Lower reach boundary 2B: Recorded Observation % of reach with surface flow = 80% % of reach with any flow = 100% isolated pools = 0 Flow) —f£—t f i—upper reach boundary Flowing surface water In upper 70% of reach Flowing surface water [n the lower 10% of reach Lower reach boundary Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Figure 2C: There is pooling (left photo) near the bottom of the study reach; surface water is flowing into this area, but there is none flowing out and there is no sign of flowing water below the pooled area (right photo), Recorded Observation % reach with surface flow = 90% (no observed surface flow along the lowest 10% of the reach) % reach with any flow =90% (there was no evidence ofhyporheic flow below the pooled area or immediately below the reach) Figure 2D: There is NO evidence of flowing water into or out of this long pool; yellow lines are the assessment reach boundaries, Recorded Observation % of reach with surface flow = 0% % of reach with any flow = 0% # of pools = 1 Observation comment - "One long stagnant pool covering most of the reach," Indicators of Streamflow Duration Identification of stream type is accomplished by evaluating five indicators of Streamflow duration, which are then considered sequentially using a decision-tree. Natural disturbances such as recent landslides and wildfires could mask the presence of some indicators. Similarly, human modifications to streams, such as toxic pollution or cement lined channels, could also preclude some indicators from forming. These situations should be explained in the "Notes" section of the assessment form. Indicator assessment is based on direct observation and should not include predictions of what could or should be present. Disturbances and modifications to the stream should be described in the "Notes" section of the assessment form and taken into consideration when drawing conclusions from the information collected. It is also important to explain the rationale behind conclusions reached, and when necessary that rationale should be supported with photos and other documentation of the reach condition and any disturbances or modifications that were taken into consideration. Stream reaches are categorized as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral on the basis of five indicators. To apply this method, all indicators should first be evaluated, and the field assessment form (Appendix B) completed. The indicators are then considered sequentially, similar to using a dichotomous key (see Drawing Conclusions). The answers to each step of the key determine the relevant indicator for the next step. Macro!nvertebrate Indicators (1 - 3) Many macroinvertebrates require the presence of water, and in many cases flowing water, for their growth and development. Such macroinvertebrates are good indicators of Streamflow duration because they require aquatic habitat to complete specific life stages. M Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- For example, clams cannot survive outside of water, in contrast to some stoneflies or alderflies that resist desiccation in some seasons of the year by burrowing into the hyporheic zone. Some macroinvertebrates can survive short periods of drying in damp soils below the surface, or in egg or larval stages resistant to drying. Others are quick to colonize temporary water and complete the aquatic portion of their life cycle during the wettest part of the year when sustained flows are most likely. The three macroinvertebrate indicators used here are assessed within the defined reach using a single search. The assessment for all three macroinvertebrate indicators requires a minimum 15 minute search time to sample the range of habitats present, including water under overhanging banks or roots, accumulations of organic debris (e.g. leaves), woody debris, and the substrate (pick up rocks and loose gravel, also look for empty clam shells washed up on the bank in the coarse sand). A kicknet or D-frame net and a hand lens are required to collect and identify specimens. Begin sampling at the most downstream point in the assessment reach and move upstream to each new sampling site. Place the kicknet perpendicular against the streambed and stir the substrate upstream of the net for a minimum of one minute, empty contents of the net into a white tray with fresh water for counting and identification. Many individuals will appear the same until seen against a contrasted color background, and some bivalves and other macroinvertebrates can be pea-sized or smaller. Sweeping grass and shrubs in the riparian zone immediately adjacent to the active channel with a funnel- shaped insect net may collect emergent aquatic insects such as stoneflies or caddisflies. Dry channels: The reach should first be walked to ascertain whether it is completely dry, or if areas of standing water where aquatic macroinvertebrates may collect remain. Focus the search on areas of likely refuge such as any remaining pools or areas of moist substrate for living macroinvertebrates, the sandy channel margins for mussel and aquatic snail shells, and under cobbles and other larger bed materials for caddisfly casings. Casings of emergent mayflies or stoneflies may be observed on dry cobbles or on stream-side vegetation. In summary, we recommend a methodology consistent to that recommended by the Xerces Society report on using aquatic macroinvertebrates as indicators of streamflow duration (Mazzacano and Black, 2008). SEARCHING IS COMPLETE WHEN: • at least 6 samples have been collected across the range of habitat types and 15 minutes of effort expended (not including specimen identification time), or; • all available habitat in the assessment reach has been completely searched in less than 15 minutes. In dry stream channels with little bed/bank representation and little habitat diversity, a search may be completed in less than 15 minutes. The 15 minute estimate for searching does not reflect time spent on identifying individuals, rather it is wholly focused on the searching and gathering effort. It is important to complete the search for macroinvertebrates, as described above, prior to indentifying taxa necessary to evaluate the three indicators. The data sheet includes an area for noting observed macroinvertebrates. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Notes: These indicators do not differentiate between live organisms and shells, casings, and exuviae (i.e., the external coverings of larvae and nymphs). In other words, mussel shells are treated the same as live mussels, and caddisfly cases are treated the same as live caddisflies (Figure 3). The assessment is based only on what is observed, not on what would be predicted to occur if the channel were wet, or in the absence of disturbances or modifications. Disturbances and modifications should be described in the "Notes" section of the data form and taken into account when drawing conclusions. Figure 3: Example of caddisfly casings of: A) the Limnephilidae family (photo: L, Webb), and B) abundant casings from an intermittent stream in the Ochoco Mountains, central Oregon (photo: J, Wigington), I. PRESENCE OF AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES Are there aquatic macroinvertebrates in the assessment reach? If at least one macroinvertebrate (or macroinvertebrate shell, casing, or exuviae) is present, the answer is "yes." * This indicator includes the range of macroinvertebrates typically associated with stream habitats including: Coleoptera (aquatic beetles), Diptera (true flies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Megaloptera (dobsonflies and alderflies), Mollusca (snails and clams), Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies), and Astacoidea (crayfish). Macroinvertebrates of the Pacific Northwest (Adams and Vaughan, 2003) and Stream Insects of the Pacific Northwest (Edwards, 2008) provide useful, compact field guides for general identification of several aquatic macroinvertebrate families found in Oregon streams. *Exception: If the ONLY macroinvertebrate present is Culicidae (mosquito) larvae/pupae, which is an ephemeral indicator taxon (Mazzacano and Black, 2008), the answer is "no." 2. PRESENCE OF 6 OR MORE EPHEMEROPTERA Are 6 or more individuals of the Order Ephemeroptera present in the assessment reach? If at least six Ephemeroptera are present, the answer is "yes." Ephemeroptera (mayflies) are present in many stream systems. Adults are short-lived and are commonly observed in swarms over streams. Immature mayflies are aquatic and have the following characteristics: Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- • Short and bristle-like antenna; • Four to nine pairs of leaf-like or fan-like gills usually visible along the sides of the abdomen; • Three (rarely two) long filaments at rear of abdomen. 3. PRESENCE OF PERENNIAL INDICATOR TAXA Are there perennial indicator taxa in the assessment reach? If at least one individual (or macroinvertebrate shell, casing, or exuviae) of such taxa is present, the answer is "yes." Certain macroinvertebrate taxa are associated with the prolonged presence of water. Based on a literature review and synthesis completed by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Mazzacano and Black, 2008)6, several taxa and lifestages of macroinvertebrates occurring in Oregon streams have been identified as "Perennial Indicators" (Table 1). Table 1: Perennial Indicator Taxa and Life Stages Any lifestage of: • Juga spp. (pluerocerid snail) • Margaritiferidae, Unionidae (freshwater mussels; less likely in small, high-gradient streams) Larvae/pupae of: • Philopotamidae (finger-net caddisfly) • Hydropsychidae (net-spinning caddisfly) • Rhyacophilidae (freeliving caddisfly) • Glossosomatidae (saddle case-maker caddisfly; especially in forested headwater streams) Nymphs of: • Pteronarcyidae (giant stonefly) • Perlidae(golden stonefly) Larvae of: • Elmidae (riffle beetle) • Psephenidae (water penny; especially in eastern Oregon) Larvae/nymphs of: • Gomphidae (clubtail dragonfly; especially in larger streams of eastern Oregon) • Cordulegastridae (biddies; especially in larger streams of eastern Oregon) 6 Available at: http://www.xerces. org/aquatic-invertebrates/ Additional Indicators (4 and 5) 4. WETLAND PLANTS IN OR NEAR STREAMBED Within the assessment channel, and within one-half channel width of the stream on either bank, are there plants with a wetland indicator status of FACW or OBL, or is there submerged aquatic vegetation present? If so, the answer is "yes." The USAGE wetland delineation procedure uses a plant species classification system which identifies hydrophytic plants. Likewise, the presence of hydrophytic plants can be used as an indicator of the duration of soil saturation in or near stream channels. Intermittent and perennial streams will often have obligate wetland (OBL) and facultative wetland (FACW) plants or submerged aquatic vegetation (S AV) growing in or immediately adjacent to the streambed. S AV grows completely underwater. To determine the wetland indicator status of a plant, consult the National Wetland Plant List (NWPL). The NWPL, formerly called the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands and last updated in 1993, is currently being revised by the USAGE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USEPA, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The release date of the final list will be published in the Federal Register. Until then, the draft NWPL can be accessed at: http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil/. The wetland plant indicator is assessed based on the single most hydrophytic wetland plant found in or within one-half channel width of the assessed reach, even if that plant is not a dominant species. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Notes: • Abundance and prevalence throughout the reach is not a factor in determining this indicator. • While it is sometimes most convenient to take plant samples off-site for identification at a later date, please note that several aquatic plant species are protected by state and federal laws. 5. SLOPE What is the 'straight line' slope, as measured with a clinometer, from the beginning of the reach to the end of the reach? Is it greater than or equal to 10.5%? To 16%? Channel slope is measured as percent slope between the lower and upper extent of the assessment reach. This is most easily accomplished by a two-person team, with one individual standing in the thalweg at the downstream extent of the reach and, using a clinometer, sighting a location at eye- level at the upper extent of the reach, (e.g. if team members are of the same height, one individual standing in the thalweg at the lower end of the reach would 'site' the eyes of the crew member standing in the thalweg at the upper end of the reach). This measurement requires direct line-of- site between the lower and upper ends of the reach. If direct line-of-site from the bottom to top of the reach is not possible, the slope of the longest representative portion of the reach should be 'line-of-site' evaluated. Note: This measurement is not necessarily the same as the 'average water-surface slope' which is often evaluated as part of stream ecological assessments including USEPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) (Peck et al., 2006) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Aquatic Inventory (Moore et al., 2006). Ancillary Information The presence of these features should be noted and briefly described, if applicable, as indicated on the assessment form. Riparian Corridor: Is there a distinct change in vegetation between the surrounding uplands and the riparian zone, or corridor, along the stream channel? Intermittent and perennial streams often support riparian areas that contrast markedly with adjacent upland plant communities. A distinct change in vegetation between the surrounding lands and the riparian area (top of bank and adjacent areas) may indicate the presence of seasonal moisture. Erosion and Deposition: Does the channel show evidence of fluvial erosion in the form of undercut banks, scour marks, channel downcutting, or other features of channel incision? Are there depositional features such as bars or recent deposits of materials in the stream channel? Undercut banks and scour marks are the most common signs of fluvial erosion for streams in a floodplain system. In steeper landscapes, channel downcutting and incision may occur. Alluvium may be deposited as sand silt, gravel and cobble. Sometimes there may be depositional features along the side of the channel or on the lee side of obstructions in the channel (e.g. in the hydraulic shadow of logs, boulders, etc.). Erosion and deposition processes differ between bedrock and alluvial channels; note if the streambed consists primarily of bedrock. Floodplain connectivity: Is there an active floodplain at the bankfull elevation? A floodplain is a level area near a stream channel, constructed by the stream and overflowed during moderate flow Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- events if there is still connectivity. An active floodplain (at current bankfull elevation, such that it is inundated on an approximate 2-year recurrence interval) shows characteristics such as drift lines, sediment and debris deposits on the surface or surrounding plants, or flattening of vegetation. The floodplain of incised streams may be restricted to within the channel itself and the previous floodplain (now a terrace) may be inundated rarely or infrequently, if at all. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Section 3: Drawing Conclusions Results of the five-indicator field evaluation, applied to the assessment decision-tree (Figure 4; also included on the field assessment form), are used to make a finding as to whether the assessed stream has perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral streamflow. In addition, the method indicates a stream is at least intermittent when either of the two following criteria, for the presence of fish or for the presence of specific herpetological species, is met. Single Indicator Criteria 1. One or more fish are found in the assessment reach.* Fish are an obvious indicator of flow presence and duration. Fluctuating water levels of intermittent and ephemeral streams provide unstable and stressful habitat conditions for some fish communities. However, the strongly seasonal precipitation pattern in Oregon means intermittent streams may flow continuously for several months; thus, some native fish species have evolved to use intermittent streams for significant portions of their lifespan (e.g. Wigington et al. 2006). When looking for fish, all available habitats should be searched, including pools, riffles, root clumps, and other obstructions. In small streams, the majority of fish species usually inhabit pools and runs. Also, fish will seek cover if disturbed, so we recommend checking several areas along the sampling reach, especially underneath undercut banks and other places likely to provide cover. *Exception: Non-native fish, with the exception of mosquito fish (Gambusia spp.) that has been placed as a vector control, are also included in the assessment. If Gambusia spp. is encountered as the only fish species present, its placement as a vector control at the site must be documented, along with an explanation of why the single indicator ('presence of fish') conclusion does not apply. 2. One or more individuals of an amphibian or snake life stage (adult, juvenile, larva, or eggs) identified as obligate or facultative wet (Table 2) are present in the assessment reach. Amphibians, by definition, are associated with aquatic habitats, and some amphibians require aquatic habitat for much or all of their lives. In Oregon, there are likewise three snake species that require aquatic habitat Figure 4: Decision tree for drawing conclusions from assessed indicators Are aquatic macro-invertebrates present? (Indicator 1) If Yes: Are 6 or more individuals of the Order Ephemeroptera present? (Indicator 2) If No: Are SAV, FACW, orOBL plants present? (Indicator 4) If Yes: Are perennial indicator taxa present? (Indicator 3) If No: INTERMITTENT If Yes: What is the slope? (Indicator 5) If No: EPHEMERAL If Yes: PERENNIAL If No: What is the slope? (Indicator 5) Slope < 10.5%: ] INTERMITTENT J Slope > 10.5%: EPHEMERAL J Slope < 16%: INTERMITTENT J Slope > 16% PERENNIAL J Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- for significant portions of their life cycle. This indicator focuses on the life history stages of salamanders, frogs, toads, and snake species that require aquatic habitat by indicating life history stages for these species as facultative (FAC), facultative wet (FACW), or obligate (OBL).7 7 The designations "FAC", "FACW", and "OBL" are based on a review of the scientific literature and current understanding of the life history stages of these herpetological species. This indicator is assessed using a minimum 20 minute search time, within one channel width from the top of both stream banks, to sample the range of habitats present This search can be conducted concurrently with the macroinvertebrate search (Indicators 1-3) for greatest efficiency. Various life stages of frogs and salamanders can be found under rocks, on stream banks and on the bottom of the stream channel. They may also appear in benthic samples. Using kicknets or smaller nets and light colored tubs for Species Common Name Water-Dependent Life Stages Eggs Larva / Tadpole Juve. Adult Aquatic Salamanders Ambystoma gracile Ambystoma macrodactylum Ambystoma tigrinum Taricha granulosa Dicamptodon cope/ Dicamptodon tenebrosus Rhyacotriton spp. Northwest Salamander Long-toed Salamander Tiger Salamander (rare) Roughskin Newt Cope's Giant Salamander Pacific Giant Salamander Torrent Salamanders (rare) OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL FACW FACW FACW FAC OBL OBL OBL FACW FACW FACW FAC OBL FACW OBL Frogs and Toads Ascaphus truei Spea intermontana Bufo boreas Bufo woodhousii Pseudacris regilla Rana aurora Rana boylii Rana cascadae Rana catesbeiana Rana pretiosa Rana luteiventris Tailed Frog Great Basin Spadefoot (Eastern Oregon) Western Toad Woodhouse's Toad (Eastern Oregonl Pacific Treefrog Red-Legged Frog Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Cascades Frog Bullfrog Oregon Spotted Frog Columbia Spotted Frog OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL FAC FAC FAC FACW FACW OBL FACW FACW OBL OBL OBL FAC FAC FAC FAC FACW OBL FACW FACW OBL OBL Snakes Thamnophis atratus Thamnophis elegans Thamnophis sirtalis Western Aquatic Garter Snake (SW Oregon) Wandering Garter Snake Common Garter Snake OBL FACW FACW OBL FACW FACW Table 2: Water-dependent life stages of amphibians and snakes of the Pacific Northwest, OBL - obligate, requires surface or hyporheic water; FACW - facultative wet, strong preference for surface or hyporheic water; FAC - facultative, uses but does not depend on surface or hyporheic water. These designations are based on a review of the scientific literature and current understanding of the life history stages of these herpetological species. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- specimen collection and identification is recommended. Certain frogs and tadpoles, as well as adult and larval salamanders typically inhabit the shallow, slower moving waters of stream pools and near the sides of banks. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (Corkran and Thorns, 1996) is a useful field guide for identifying amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Note: Vertebrates must be identified at the assessment site, and left at the site following identification. We recommend that a series of photos be taken of any species in question to allow further identification to be done off-site, if necessary. Please note that several animal species, including fish and amphibian species, are protected by state and federal laws. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS If the stream does not have a bed and banks, is covered with wetland plant species, and/or indicators cannot be assessed, it may be more appropriate to consider the reach as a swale, wetland, or upland. As discussed in the introductory sections, if the channel does not meet the decision-tree or single indicator criteria and the evaluator believes the channel to be perennial or intermittent, the evidence supporting this assertion should be clearly described on the assessment form. This may occur in highly polluted or recently manipulated streams; in those cases, the indicators that could potentially be there were it not for the pollution/ manipulation should be described in the "Additional Notes" section of the field form. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Appendix A: References Consulted Adams, J. and M. Vaughan, 2003. Macroinvertebrates of the Pacific Northwest: A Field Guide. The Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Adams, J., M. Vaughan and S.H. Black, 2004. Stream Bugs as Biomonitors: Guide to Pacific Northwest Macroinvertebrate Monitoring. The Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Adams, M.J. and R.B. Bury, 2002. The endemic headwater stream amphibians of the American Northwest: associations with environmental gradients in a large forested preserve. Global Ecology & Biogeography 11:169-178. Anderson, R. J., B.P Bledsoe and W.C. Hession, 2004. Width of streams and rivers in response to vegetation, bank material, and other factors. Journal of American Water Resources Association 40:1159-1172. Arp, C.D., M.N. Gooseff, M.A. Baker and W. Wurtsbaugh, 2006. Surface-water hydrodynamics and regimes of a small mountain stream-lake ecosystem. Journal of Hydrology 329:500- 513. Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder and J.B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water; Washington, D.C. Bencala, K.E., 2005. Hyporheic exchange flows. In: Anderson, M. and J.J. McDonnell (Eds). Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, Volume 3. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Benda, L., M.A. Hassan, M. Church, and C.L. May, 2005. Geomorphology of steepland headwaters: the transition from hillslopes to channels. Journal of American Water Resources Association 41:835-851. Bendix, J. and C.R. Hupp, 2000. Hydrological and Geomorphological Impacts on Riparian Plant Communities. Hydrological Processes 14:2977-2990. Beyer, P., 2006. Variability in channel form in a free-flowing dryland river. River Research and Applications 22:203-217. Biek, R., L.S. Mills and R.B. Bury, 2002. Terrestrial and stream amphibians across clearcut- forest interfaces in the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon. Northwest Science 76:129-140. Bohn, C.C. and J.G. King, 2000. Stream channel responses to streamflow diversion on small streams of the Snake River drainage, Idaho. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-20. Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 19p. Boulton, A. J., 2003. Parallels and contrasts in the effects of drought on stream macroinvertebrate assemblages. Freshwater Biology 48:1173-1185. Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil, 1999. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Third Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Bragg, O.M., A.R. Black, R.W Duck, and J.S. Rowan, 2005. Approaching the physical-biological interface in rivers: a review of methods for ecological evaluation of flow regimes. Progress in Physical Geography 29:4:506-531. Brostoff, W, R. Lichvar and S. Sprecher, 2001. Delineating Play as in the Arid Southwest a Literature Review. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDCTR-01-4),pp. 1-25. Brummer, C.J. and D.R. Montgomery, 2003. Downstream coarsening in headwater channels. Water Resources Research 39:ESG1-14. Bunn, S.E., M.C. Thorns, S.K. Hamilton and S.J. Capon, 2006. Flow variability in dryland rivers: boom, bust and the bits in between. River Res. Applic. 22:179-186. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Bury, R.B. andP.S. Corn, 1991. Sampling Methods for Amphibians in Streams in the Pacific Northwest. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-275. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2003. Special Issue on Headwater Streams. Volume 33. Carter, J.L. and S.V. Fend, 2001. Inter-annual changes in the benthic community structure of riffles and pools in reaches of contrasting gradient. Hydrobiologia 459:187-200. Cayan, D.R., K.T. Redmond and L.G. Riddle, 1999. ENSO and Hydrologic Extremes in the Western United States. Journal of Climate 12:2881-2893. Chadwick, M. A. and A.D. Huryn, 2007. Role of habitat in determining macroinvertebrate production in an intermittent-stream system. Freshwater Biology 52:2400-251. Chambers, J. C. and J.R. Miller, 2004. Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. Church, M., 2002. Geomorphic thresholds in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 41-.541-551. Cooke, S.S.,1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle WA. Corkran, C.C. and C.R. Thorns, 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, WA. Corn, PS. and R.B. Bury, 1989. Logging in western Oregon: responses of headwater habitats and stream amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management 29:39-57 Cummins, K.W. and M.A. Wilzbach, 2005. The inadequacy of the fish-bearing criterion for stream management. Aquatic Sciences 67:486-491. Dahm, C. N., M.A. Baker, D.I. Moore and J.R. Thibault, 2003. Coupled biogeochemical and hydrological responses of streams and rivers to drought. Freshwater Biology 48:1219-1231. Delucchi, C. M. and B.L. Peckarsky, 1989. Life history patterns of insects in an intermittent and a permanent stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8(4):308-321. Dieterich, M., 1992. Insect Community Composition and Physico-Chemical Processess in Summer-Dry Headwater Streams of Western Oregon. Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology, Oregon State University. Dietrich, M. and N.H. Anderson, 1995. Life cycles and food habits of mayflies and stoneflies from temporary streams in western Oregon. Freshwater Biology 34:47-60. Dietrich, M. and N.H. Anderson, 1997. Shredder-collector interactions in temporary streams of western Oregon. Freshwater Biology 38:387-393. Dietrich, M. and N.H. Anderson, 1998. Dynamics of abiotic parameters, solute removal and sediment retention in summer- dry headwater streams of western Oregon. Hydrobiologia 379:1-15. Dietrich, M. and N.H. Anderson, 2000. The invertebrate fauna of summer-dry streams in western Oregon. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie 147:273-295. Diller, L.V. and R.L. Wallace, 1999. Distribution and habitat of Ascaphus truei in streams on managed, young growth forests in North Coastal California. Journal of Herpetology 33:71-79. Dominick, D.S. and M.P O'Neill, 1998. Effects of Flow Augmentation on Stream Channel Morphology and Riparian Vegetation: Upper Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. Wetlands 18(4): 591-607. MStreamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Downing, D., T-L. Nadeau, and R. Kwok, 2007. Technical and scientific challenges in Implementing Rapanos"'Waters of the United States". Natural Resources & Environment 22(1): 42-45. Edwards, P., 2008. Stream insects of the Pacific Northwest. Portland State University, Portland OR. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. ,,Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS., NTIS No. AD A176 912. Erman, D.C. and V.M. Hawthorne, 1976. The quantitative importance of an intermittent stream in spawning of rainbow trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 105:675-681 Erman, D.C. and G.R. Leidy, 1974. Downstream movement of rainbow trout fry in a tributary of Sagehen Creek, under permanent and intermittent flow. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104:467-473. Findlay, S., 1995. Importance of surface- subsurface exchange in stream ecosystems: The hyporheic zone. Limnology and Oceanography 40(1): 159-164. FISRWG, 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal Inter agency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG; representing 15 U.S. Government agencies). GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A. 57.6/2:EN3/PT.653.ISBN-0- 934213-59-3. Revised 8/2001. Forest Science. 2007. Special Issue on Headwater Streams..53:2. Fraser, D.F, J.F Gilliam, M.P McGowan, C.M. Arcaro and PH. Guillozet, 1999. Habitat Quality in a Hostile River Corridor. Ecology 80(2):597-607. Fritz, K.M., J.M. Glime, J. Hriblian and J.L. Greenwod, 2008. Can bryophytes be used to characterize hydrologic permanence in forested headwater streams? Ecological Indicators doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.09.001 Fritz, K.M., B.R. Johnson and D.M. Walters, 2008. Physical indicators of hydrologic permanence in forested headwater streams. Journal of North American Benthological Society 27(3):690-704 Fritz, K.M., B.R. Johnson and D.M. Walters, 2006. Field Operations Manual for Assessing the Hydrologic Permanence and Ecological Condition of Headwater Streams. EPA/600/ R-06/126. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC. Glime, J.M., 2007. Bryophyte Ecology. Volume 1. Physiological Ecology. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Accessed on 10/10/07 at http://www.bryoecol.mtu.edu/. Gomi, T, R.C. Sidle, M.D. Bryant and R.D. Woodsinith, 2001. The characteristics of woody debris and sediment distribution in headwater streams, southeastern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31:1386-1399. Gomi, T, R.C. Sidle and J.S. Richardson, 2002. Understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater systems. BioScience 52:905-916. Gomi, T, R.C. Sidle, R.D. Woodsmith and M.D. Bryant, 2003. Characteristics of channel steps and reach morphology in headwater streams, southeast Alaska. Geomorphology 51:225-242. Graf, W L., 1988. Fluvial Processes in Dryland Rivers. Blackburn Press, Cadwell, NJ. Greenberg, J., K.F. Welch, 1998. Hydrologic Process Identification for Western Oregon. Report prepared for Boise Cascade Corporation. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Guard, J.B., 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon & Washington. Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, Washington. Halwas, K.L. and M. Church, 2002. Channel units in small, high gradient streams on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Geomorphology 43:243-256. Halwas, K. L., M.R. Church, S. John , 2005. Benthic assemblage variation among channel units in high gradient streams on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24(3):478-494. Hansen, WE, 2001. Identifying stream types and management implications. Forest Ecology and Management 143:39-46. Harvey, B.C., J.L. White and R.J. Nakamoto, 2005. Habitat-specific biomass, survival, and growth of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) during summer in a small coastal stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:650-658. Herlihy, A. T., WJ. Gerth, J. Li, Banks and L. Janel, 2005. Macroinvertebrate community response to natural and forest harvest gradients in western Oregon headwater streams. Freshwater Biology 50:905-919. Hoffman, R. and J. Dunham, 2007. Fish-movement ecology in high-gradient headwater streams: its relevance to fish passage restoration through stream culvert barriers. U.S. Geological Survey. OFR 2007-1140. Humphries, P. and D.S. Baldwin, 2003. Drought and aquatic ecosystems: an introduction. Freshwater Biology 48:1141-1146. Hunter, M.A., T. Quinn and M.P Hayes, 2005. Low flow spatial characteristics in forested headwater channels of southwest Washington. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:503-516. Istanbulluoglu, E., D.G. Tarboton, R.T. Pack and C. Luce, 2002. A probabilistic approach for channel initiation. Water Resources Research 38:12. Istanbulluoglu, E., D.G. Tarboton, R.T. Pack and C. Luce, 2003. A sediment transport model for incision of gullies on steep topography. Water Resources Research 39:4. Jackson, R.C. and C.A. Sturm, 2002. Woody debris and channel morphology in first- and second-order forested channels in Washington's coast ranges. Water Resources Research 38:9:1177. Jacobsen, D., R. Schultz and A. Encalada, 1997. Structure and diversity of stream invertebrate assemblages: the influence of temperature with altitude and latitude. Freshwater Biology 38:247-261. Jobson, H. E., 1996. Prediction of travel time and longitudinal dispersion in rivers and streams. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4013, 69 p. Journal of the American Water Resources Association Headwater Stream Symposium Special Issue. 2005. 41(2). Journal of the American Water Resources Association Featured Collection on Connectivity of Headwaters to Downstream Waters. 2007. 43(1). Lehmkuhl, D.M., 1971. Stoneflies (Plecoptera: Nemouridae) from temporary lentic habitats in Oregon. American Midland Naturalist 85:514-515. Leibowitz, S.G., PJ. Wigington, Jr., M.C. Rains and D.M. Downing, 2008. Non-navigable streams and adjacent wetlands: addressing science needs following the Supreme Court's Rapanos decision. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 6, doi: 10.1890/070068. Lenzi, M.A., L. Mao and F Comiti, 2006. Effective discharge for sediment transport in a mountain river: Computational approaches and geomorphic effectiveness. Journal of Hydrology 326:257-276. Leopold, L. B. andT. Maddock, Jr., 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some Physiographic Implications. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Leopold, L. B. and J.P. Miller, 1956. Ephemeral Streams-Hydraulic Factors and Their Relation to the Drainage Net. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-A. Leopold, L. B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Leopold, L. B., W. W. Emmett and R. M. Myrick, 1966. Channel and Hill slope Processes in a Semiarid Area, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 352-G: 193-243. Leopold, L. B. and M.G. Wolman, 1992. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY. Lichvar, R. and L. Dixon, 2007. Wetland Plants of Specialized Habitats in the Arid West. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, NH. http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/ technicalpublications-2007.html. Manning, J. C., 1997. Applied principles of hydrology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Marsh, I.E. and K.P. Timoney, 2005. How Long Must Northern Saxicolous Lichens Be Immersed To Form A Waterbody Trimline? Wetlands 25:2:495-499. May, C.L. and D.C. Lee, 2004. The relationship among in-channel sediment storage, pool depth, and summer survival of juvenile salmonids in Oregon Coastal Range streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:761-774. Mazzacano, C. and S.H. Black, 2008. Using Aquatic Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of Streamflow Duration. Report prepared by the Xerces Society for Macroinvertebrate Conservation. 33 pages. http://www. xerces.org/aquatic-invertebrate s/ Miller, D., C. Luce, and L. Benda, 2003. Time, space, and episodicity of physical disturbance in streams. Forest Ecology and Management 178:121-140. Montgomery, D.R., 1999. Process domains and the river continuum. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35:397-410. Montgomery, D.R. and WE. Dietrich, 1988. Where do channels begin? Nature 336:232-234. Montgomery, D.R. and WE. Dietrich, 1992. Channel initiation and the problem of landscape scale. Science 255:826-830. Montgomery, D.R. and L.H. MacDonald, 2002. Diagnostic approach to stream channel assessment and monitoring. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:1-16. Moody T. O. andW. Odem, 1999. Regional Relationships for Bankfull Stage in Natural Channels of Central and Southern Arizona. Final Report for the USDA Forest Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp. 1-37. Moore, K., K. Jones and J. Dambacher, 2006. Aquatics Inventory Project: Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys, Version 15.1. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Conservation Recovery Program. Mount, J.F.,1995. California Rivers and Streams. University of California Press, Berkley, CA. Morrice, J.A., H.M. Valett, C.N. Dahm and M.E. Campana, 1997. Alluvial characteristics, groundwater-surf ace water exchange and hydrological retention in headwater streams. Hydrological Process 11:253-67. Nadeau, T-L. and M.C. Rains, 2007. Hydrological Connectivity Between Headwater Streams and Downstream Waters: How Science Can Inform Policy. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:118-133. Nakamura, F, FJ. Swanson and S.M. Wondzell, 2000. Disturbance regimes of streams and riparian systems - a disturbance- cascade perspective. Hydrological Processes 14:2849-2860. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- NC Division of Water Quality, 2005. Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial streams, Version 3.1. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. Osterkamp, WR. and J.M. Friedman, 2000. The disparity between extreme rainfall events and rare floods - with emphasis on the semi-arid American West. Hydrological Processes 14:2817-2829. Palmquist, R., 2005. Type N stream demarcation study Phase I: Pilot Results (Final Report). Washington State Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Committee. Parsons, M., C.A. McLoughlin, M.W Rountree and K.H. Rogers, 2006. The biotic and abiotic legacy of a large infrequent flood disturbance in the Sabie River, South Africa. River Res. Applic. 22:187-201. Peck, D.V., A.T. Herlihy, B.H. Hill, R.M. Hughes, PR. Kaufmann, D.J. Klemm, J.M. Lazorchak, FH. McCormick, S.A. Peterson, PL. Ringold, T. Magee and M. R. Cappaert, 2006. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Surface Waters Western Pilot Study—field operations manual for wadeable streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/620/R-06/003, Washington, DC. Poff, N., O. LeRoy, D. Julian, D.M. Pepin and B.P Bledsoe, 2006. Placing Global Stream Flow Variability in Geographic and Geomorphic Contexts. River Res.Applic. 22:149-166. Poff, N., O. LeRoy, B.P. Bledsoe, C.O. Cuhaciyan, 2006. Hydrologic variation with land use across the contiguous United States: Geomorphic and ecological consequences for stream ecosystems. Geomorphology 79:264-285. Price, K., A. Suski, J. McGarvie, B. Beasley and J.S. Richardson, 2003. Communities of aquatic insects of old-growth clearcut coastal headwater streams of varying flow persistence. Can. J. For. Res. 33:141-1432. Progar, R.A. and A.R. Moldenke, 2002. Insect production from temporary and perennially flowing headwater streams in western Oregon. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 17:391-407. Reid, M.A. and R.W Ogden, 2006. Trend, variability or extreme event? The impact of long-term perspectives in river ecology. River Res. Applic. 22:167-177. Richardson, J.S., 2001. Life cycle phenology of common detritivores from a temperate rainforest stream. Hydrobiologia 455:87-95. Rieman, B., J. Dunham and J. Clayton, 2006. Emerging concepts for management of river ecosystems and challenges to applied integration of physical and biological sciences in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Intl. J. River Basin Management. 4:2:85-97. Robison, T.A. and J. Barry, 2001. Geomorphic survey of eastern Cascade streams before and after 1995-1996 floods. Forest Ecology and Management 143:57-64. Robison, E.G. and J. Runyon, 2006. Oregon Headwater Research Cooperative Characteristics of Streams at the end of Fish Use in Western Oregon: Final Report. Oregon Headwater Research Cooperative. http://www.headwatersresearch.org/. del Rosario, R.B. and VH. Resh, 2000. Invertebrates in intermittent and perennial streams: is the hyporheic zone a refuge from drying? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19(4):680-696. Sheldon, F and M.C. Thorns, 2006. Relationships between flow variability and macroinvertebrate assemblage composition: data from four Australian dryland rivers. River Res. Applic. 22:219-238. Simon, A. and M. Rinaldi, 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: The roles of excess transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response. Geomorphology 79:361-383. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Steele, C.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr. and J.G. MacCracken, 2002. Influence of forest age on densities of Cope's and Pacific giant salamanders. Northwest Science 76:347-352. Stoddard, M.A. and J.P. Hayes, 2005. The Influence of Forest Management on Headwater Stream Amphibians at Multiple Spatial Scales. Ecological Applications 15(3) 811-823. Svec, J.R., R.K. Kolka and J.W. Stringer, 2005. Defining perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral channels in Eastern Kentucky: Application to forestry best management practices. Forest Ecology and Management 214:170-182. Tabacchi, E., L. Lambs, H. Guilloy, A-M. Planty-Tabacchi, E. Muller and H. Decamps, 2000. Impacts of riparian vegetation on hydrological processes. Hydrological Processes 14:2959-2976. Topping, B.J.D., T-L. Nadeau and M.R. Turaski, 2009. Oregon Streamflow Duration Assessment Method, Interim Version. USEPA/USACE, http://www. epa.gov/regionlO/pdf/water/sdam/ interim_sdam_oregon_march2009.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division, 2001. Final Summary Report: Guidelines for Jurisdictional Determinations for Waters of the United States in the Arid Southwest. http://www.spl.usace. army.mil/regulatory/jd_guide.pdf. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook, http:// www.usace. army.mil/cw/cecwo/ reg/cwa_guide/cwa_guide.htm. United States Department of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife Service. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest R9 1988 and the 1993 Northwest Region 9 Supplement http://wetlands.fws.gov/plants.htm. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 6.0. G.W Hurt and L.M. Vasilas (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Wadable Streams Assessment. EPA 841-B-06-002. http://www. epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey. Uys, M.C. and J.H. O'Keeffe, 1997. Simple Words and Fuzzy Zones: Early Directions for Temporary River Research in South Africa. Environmental Management 21:4:517'-531. Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell and C.E. Gushing, 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37:130-136. Waterhouse, F.L., A.S. Harestad and PK. Ott, 2002. Use of small streams and forest gaps for breeding habitats by winter wrens in Coastal British Columbia. Northwest Science 76:335-346. Welsh, H.H., G.R. Hodgson and A.J. Lind, 2005. Ecogeography of the herpetofauna of a northern California watershed: linking species patterns to landscape processes. Ecography 28:521-536. Welsh, H.H. and A.J. Lind. 1998. Multiscale habitat relationships of stream amphibians in the Klamath-Siskiyou region of California and Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:581-602. Wigington, P.J., J.L. Ebersole, M.E. Colvin, S.G. Leibowitz, B. Miller, B. Hanson, H.R. Lavigne, D. White, J.P. Baker, M.R. Church, J.R. Brooks, M.A. Cairns and J.E. Compton, 2006. Coho salmon dependence on intermittent streams. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:513-518. Wigington, P.J., S.G. Leibowitz, R.L. Comeleo and J.L. Ebersole, 2011. Oregon Hydrologic Landscapes: a ClassificationFramework (in review) Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Wigington, P.J., T.J. Moser and D.R. Lindeman, 2005. Stream network expansion: a riparian water quality factor. Hydrological Processes 19:1715-1721. Winter, T.C., J.W. Harvey, O.L. Sur Franke and W.M. Alley, 1998. Groundwater and Surface Water: A Single Resource. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139. Wohl, E., 2006. Human impacts to mountain streams. Geomorphology 79: 217-248. Wolman, M.G. andL.B. Leopold, 1957. River Flood Plains: Some Observations On Their Formation. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-C. Wood, P.J., M.D. Agnew and G.E. Petts, 2000. Flow variations and macroinvertebrate community responses in a small groundwater-dominated stream in south-east England. Hydrological Processes 14:3133-3147. Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Appendix B: Streamflow Duration Field Assessment Form Project # / Name Assessor Address Date Waterway Name Reach Boundaries Coordinates at i_at. downstream end (ddd.mm.ss) Long. N W Precipitation w/in 48 hours (cm) Channel Width (m) D Disturbed Site / Difficult Situation (Describe in "Notes") % of reach w/observed surface flow_ Observed Hydrology % of reach w/any flow (surface or hyporheic). # of pools observed o 1 % .0 O Observed Wetland Plants (and indicator status): Observed Macroinvertebrates: Taxon Indicator Ephemer- # of Status optera? Individuals o '•5 1. Are aquatic macroinvertebrates present? Yes No 2. Are 6 or more individuals of the Order Ephemeroptera present? Yes No 3. Are perennial indicator taxa present? (refer to Table 1) Yes No 4. Are FACW, OBL, or SAV plants present? (Within y2 channel width) Yes No 5. What is the Slope? (In percent, measured for the valley, not the stream) c o '55 "o o O Are aquatic macroinvertebrates present? (Indicator 1) If Yes: Are 6 or more individuals of the Order Ephemeroptera present? (Indicator 2) If No: Are SAV, FACW, or OBL plants present? (Indicator4) If Yes: Are perennial indicator taxa present? (Indicator 3) If No: INTERMITTENT If Yes: What is the slope? (Indicator 5) If No: EPHEMERAL If Yes: PERENNIAL If No: What is the slope? (Indicator 5) Slope < 16%: INTERMITTENT >16%:\ LNNIAL J Slopes PERENNIAL Slope < 10.5%: INTERMITTENT D Slopes 10.5%: EPHEMERAL D Single Indicators: D Fish n Amphibians Finding: Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- Notes: single indicator conclusions, description of disturbances or modifications that may interfere with indicators, etc.) Difficult Situation: n Prolonged Abnormal Rainfall / Snowpack D Below Average O Above Average D Natural or Anthropogenic Disturbance n Other: Describe situation. For disturbed streams, note extent, type, and history of disturbance. Additional Notes: (sketch of site, description of photos, comments on hydrological observations, etc.) Attach additional sheets as necessary. Ancillary Information: D Riparian Corridor D Erosion and Deposition D Floodplain Connectivity Observed Amphibians, Snake, and Fish: Taxa Life History Stage Location Observed Number of Individuals Observed Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for Oregon November 2011 ------- ------- United States Environmental Protection Agency ------- |