United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA 843-S-12-003
STREAM ASSESSMENT
AND MITIGATION PROTOCOLS,
A REVIEW OF COMMONALITIES
AND DIFFERENCES
May 2010
-------
STREAM ASSESSMENT
AND MITIGATION PROTOCOLS
A REVIEW OF COMMONALITIES
AND DIFFERENCES
May 4, 2010
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, D.C.
Prepared by:
Nutter & Associates, Inc.
360 Hawthorne Lane
Athens, Georgia 30606
-------
A CKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was funded wholly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds under contract number GS-OOF-0032M. Invaluable
team oversight was provided by Brian Topping, USEPA Project Officer; Palmer Hough and
Dr. Trade Nadeau, USEPA; Will Harman, Michael C. Baker Corporation; and Richard Starr,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Tony Greco, Nutter & Associates, assisted with research,
and additional support was provided by Toney Ott, USEPA, Greg Melia, North Carolina
Department of the Environment and Natural Resources, and George Athanasakes, Stantec,
during compilation of nationwide regional curves. Despite the guidance and assistance
from this group, any errors or omissions remain solely the responsibility of the author.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. This document is not a regulation or rule and does not impose
any binding requirements on USEPA, any other federal or state agency, or the public.
Appropriate Citation:
Somerville, D.E. 2010. Stream Assessment and Mitigation Protocols: A Review of
Commonalities and Differences, May 4, 2010, Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (Contract No. GS-OOF-
0032M). Washington, D.C. Document No. EPA 843-S-12-003.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PARTI
LIST OF TABLES I - iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I - vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT I-3
2.1 Definitions of Terms I - 3
3.0 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT I - 5
4.0 BACKGROUND 1-10
4.1 Objectives for Stream Assessment I -10
4.2 Components of Stream Assessment I -11
4.3 Reference Conditions I -12
4.4 Considerations for an Effective Assessment Protocol I-13
4.5 Stream Condition and Function I -14
5.0 METHODS 1-21
6.0 RESULTS I - 22
6.1 Geographic Distribution of Reviewed Protocols I - 22
6.2 Non-Regulatory Stream Assessment Protocols I - 22
6.3 Regulatory Stream Mitigation Protocols I - 36
6.3.1 Federal Compensatory Stream Mitigation Information. I - 36
7.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS I - 54
REFERENCES I - 56
APPENDIX A. Hydraulic Regional Curves for Selected Areas of the United States
PART II REVIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE STREAM ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION
PROTOCOLS
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Commonly recommended considerations for monitoring parameters and
protocols 1-13
Table 2. Description of primary stream and riparian functions affecting system
dynamics I -15
Table 3. Description of primary stream and riparian functions affecting hydrologic
balance 1-16
Table 4. Description of primary stream and riparian functions affecting sediment
processes and character I -17
Table 5. Description of primary stream and riparian functions affecting biological
support I -18
Table 6. Description of primary stream and riparian functions affecting chemical
processes and pathways I -19
Table 7. Interrelationships of primary stream and riparian functions I - 20
Table 8. General applicability of representative non-regulatory stream assessment
protocols I -23
Table 9. Individual parameters included in stream assessment protocols I - 26
Table 10. Stream and riparian zone functions addressed by representative non-regulatory
stream assessment protocols I - 31
Table 11. Summary of parameters included in representative non-regulatory stream
assessment protocols I -33
Table 12. General applicability of representative regulatory stream mitigation
protocols I -37
Table 13. Stream and riparian zone functions addressed by representative regulatory
stream mitigation protocols I - 38
Table 14. Summary of parameters included in representative regulatory stream mitigation
protocols I -39
Table 15. Summary of stream assessment, monitoring, and mitigation guidance available
from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Districts nationwide I - 41
l-iv
-------
Table 16. Comparison of adverse impact factors among U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Standard Operating Procedures based on the Charleston District SOP for
evaluating proposed impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404 regulatory
authorization I -45
Table 17. Comparison of compensatory mitigation factors among U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Standard Operating Procedures based on the Charleston District
SOP for evaluating proposed mitigation actions to compensate for adverse
impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404 regulatory authorization I - 48
l-v
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Various stream assessment and stream mitigation protocols in use by federal and state
agencies nationwide were compiled and evaluated to determine the degree to which they
presented unique, comprehensive procedures to assess primary stream and riparian
functions. Thirty two of these protocols were selected for more detailed review in order to
identify specific stream and riparian functions or conditions assessed, parameters
measured, assessment results obtained, intensity of effort and training needed, use and
source of reference condition information, and other factors potentially instructive to parties
seeking to review, initiate, or modify stream assessment programs.
Approximately 70 unique stream assessment parameters are included as components in
one or more of the 32 protocols reviewed for this report. However, the compilation of
individual parameters within each of the 32 protocols varies widely. Approximately one-
quarter of the 70 parameters appear in fewer than 10% of protocols reviewed. Conversely,
only 8 parameters appear in at least half of the protocols reviewed. The 8 common
parameters include stream discharge, channel habitat units (bed forms), sinuosity, substrate
particle size, bank stability / dominant bank substrate, riparian canopy cover, water
temperature, and benthic macroinvertebrates. Only channel habitat units (bed forms) and
substrate particle size appear as metrics in at least two-thirds of the protocols reviewed.
Indicators of primary stream and riparian functions are not equally represented in most of
the stream assessment and stream mitigation protocols reviewed. Three primary functions
affecting the hydrologic balance of stream and riparian ecosystems are the least well
represented by assessment variables, despite that these functions arguably exert the most
influence on the overall functioning of lotic ecosystems.
Future revisions to existing protocols or initiatives to develop new protocols may be best
served by incorporating considerations of stream and riparian functions early in the process.
By first framing the suite of functions desired to be represented, extraneous assessment
parameters can be omitted or considered optional, and the allocation of resources
necessary to perform the assessment and manage the resulting data will remain as efficient
as possible.
Bankfull regional curves and indicators of biotic integrity (fish and/or benthic
macroinvertebrates) are becoming more and more common throughout the country.
However, these tools are often under utilized because their existence is poorly advertised.
Any stream restoration project, whether undertaken expressly for compensatory mitigation
purposes or not, will likely require some level of regulatory agency authorization. Thus, it is
incumbent on those agencies to collectively identify, incorporate, and advertise the
existence and utility of stream assessment and restoration design tools compiled by other
parties. The complete breadth of stream assessment and restoration research and practical
field experience must be better shared in order to maximize the likelihood of implementing
physically stable, biologically productive, and ecologically beneficial stream restoration and
mitigation projects.
l-vi
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Bernhardt et al. (2005) estimate that at least $1 billion has been spent annually on stream
restoration projects in the continental United States since 1990. However, after compiling
and analyzing the records of over 37,000 stream restoration projects conducted in the
United States since 1990 for the National River Restoration Science Synthesis, Bernhardt et
al. (2005) concluded that assessing the progress of these efforts either nationwide or
regionally is not possible with the reporting information currently available. Only 10% of
these project records contain any data documenting site assessment or monitoring
(Bernhardt et al., 2005). Thus, despite thousands of projects on the ground, the vast
majority of stream restoration projects appear to have been implemented with unclear
objectives and insufficient monitoring.
A suite of standardized methods and/or procedures to assess the condition of streams is
necessary for regulatory authorities and management entities to ensure that stream
restoration efforts are being conducted and monitored using the most resolute, unbiased,
and comprehensive information possible. Objective, repeatable stream assessments are
necessary in order to define contemporary reference stream conditions and performance
standards, and to track the development of stream restoration projects towards clearly
stated success criteria. Although stream restoration may be undertaken to satisfy a variety
of regulatory or non-regulatory objectives, such projects initiated to satisfy the
compensatory mitigation requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) must
be aimed at replacing the aquatic resource functions lost as a result of the permitted activity
(33 CFR 332.3(a); 40 CFR 230.93). Furthermore, performance standards based on
objective and verifiable stream ecosystem attributes must be used to evaluate whether the
project is providing the expected functions (33 CFR 332.5; 40 CFR230.95).
This report provides a review of 32 stream assessment protocols and mitigation guidance
documents in use by various federal and state government agencies nationwide. It
identifies stream functions or conditions assessed, parameters or attributes measured,
assessment results obtained, intensity of effort and training needed, use and source of
reference condition information, and other factors potentially instructive to parties seeking to
review, initiate, or modify stream assessment programs.
A similar compendium of stream assessment methods was presented by Somerville and
Pruitt (2004) in support of the National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan released by the
George W. Bush Administration on December 26, 2002. Whereas, Somerville and Pruitt
(2004) focused exclusively on assessment methods for physical stream habitat and
identified attributes that the authors felt were most applicable to the CWA, Section 404
regulatory program, the present compendium is neither limited to any single component of
the stream ecosystem, nor does it overtly assign judgment to the protocols' utility for any
single regulatory or non-regulatory objective.
This report is not a comprehensive review of every stream assessment tool, but rather a
representative compilation that highlights the range of methods used across the country,
their commonalities, and differences. Nor is it a compilation and review of biological
assessment programs in use by states and tribes as part of water quality standards
1-1
-------
programs. Criteria for inclusion in this review included, but was not necessarily limited to,
the following:
• Verifiable contemporary use of the assessment or mitigation protocol by one or more
state or federal agencies, or procedures that have formed the basis for such protocols
by March 2010;
• Inclusion of multiple assessment attributes as indicators of multiple stream functions;
• Emphasis on objective stream attributes based on actual measurement or estimation in
the field;
• Reliance upon, or inclusion of a hierarchical phase that requires, site specific
assessment undertaken at a stream-reach scale, because it is at this scale that most
stream restoration projects are focused.
In general, stream mitigation protocols and guidance documents are both fewer in number
and narrower in scope than stream assessment protocols. This is likely due at least in part
to the fact that stream mitigation protocols are all aimed at addressing the same general set
of objectives and standards (i.e. those required by the requirements and regulations of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). In contrast, stream assessment protocols may be
designed to target any number of regulatory or non-regulatory objectives, and the resulting
variability in form, scope, and output of these protocols is greater.
In many cases, a single stream assessment or mitigation protocol has been adopted or
modified by numerous entities in multiple locations nationwide. In such instances, this
report attempts to focus on the original procedure and simply references others that have
adapted it to local conditions elsewhere. Specific inclusion or omission of any individual
method, protocol, or guidance document was a choice solely attributable to the author and
does not constitute blanket endorsement or disapproval of such procedures by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
I-2
-------
2.0 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT
In lieu of reading this report from beginning to end, users may elect to proceed immediately
to the summary tables that outline commonalities among the 32 stream assessment and
mitigation protocols reviewed herein, especially tables 8-14. These tables summarize the
more detailed reviews of the protocols themselves and also identify the respective stream
assessment parameters that differentiate them. Collectively, the tables also permit the user
to quickly identify representative assessment or mitigation protocols based either on regions
of the country, specific parameters assessed or categories thereof, or primary stream and
riparian functions for which those parameters are indicative. In any event, the reader is
encouraged to first review Sections 2.0 and 3.0 to understand the terminology and
organizational underpinnings of the individual protocol reviews that form the basis upon
which the summary tables were developed.
2.1 Definitions of Terms. The following terms are used repeatedly in this report, and in
this context refer to the concepts or meanings provided below.
Condition: In this report, the definition of condition when used in the context of stream
condition is borrowed from the implementing regulations for Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), which is itself based on an oft cited definition of biological integrity from Karr
and Dudley (1981):
"The relative ability of an aquatic resource to support and maintain a
community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and
functional organization comparable to reference aquatic resources in the
region" (33 CFR 332.2; 40 CFR 230.92).
Function: Federal and state regulatory requirements provide the incentive for a significant
proportion of the total number of stream restoration projects undertaken each year in the
United States. The federal Endangered Species Act and CWA 404 program each has
significant provisions requiring stream restoration and/or management, and numerous
states, counties, and municipalities nationwide have statutory provisions encouraging or
requiring stream and riparian zone restoration and management. For example, Sudduth et
al. (2007) found that approximately one-half of all stream restoration projects in four
southeastern states were implemented for compensatory mitigation of a CWA 404 permit.
The implementing regulations for the CWA 404 program define functions as:
"the physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur in ecosystems,"
(33 CFR 332.2; 40 CFR 230.92)
This definition is especially critical because the level of compensatory mitigation that is
determined to be required during the CWA 404 permit review process is to be based on
what is practicable and capable of compensating for the aquatic resource functions that will
be lost as a result of the permitted activity (33 CFR 332.3; 40 CFR 230.93).
I-3
-------
Functional Capacity: The term functional capacity is defined in the USAGE implementing
regulations and the CWA 404(b)(1) Guidelines as the degree to which an area of aquatic
resource performs a specific function.
Index: An index is a numerical combination of parameters, variables, or attributes that are
aggregated to represent either an indicator of function or stream condition.
Indicator: An indicator is a characteristic or feature of a stream ecosystem that can be
numerically represented based on actual measurements of field conditions, which then
represents the relative degree to which that ecosystem may be performing a particular
function.
Method: In this report, a method is defined as a series of actions, typically presented in a
recommended sequential order, for documenting a particular parameter or indicator.
Parameter: A parameter (syn. attribute; element; metric; variable) is a specific stream,
riparian, or watershed feature that is measured in the field or evaluated using remote
sensing techniques, assessment of topographic maps, etc. and which can either individually
or collectively be used to detect change in an indicator.
Protocol: This report reserves the term protocol (syn. procedure) to represent a defined set
of methods compiled to assess or document the condition of stream ecosystems or
fundamental components thereof (e.g., fish community, macroinvertebrate community,
morphological condition).
Reference Conditions: Unless otherwise noted, the term reference conditions in this report
represents the least-disturbed physical, chemical and biological conditions across a
population of streams and includes an estimate of natural variability. Reference conditions
are thereby best represented as a range of least-disturbed conditions exemplified by
streams throughout a defined geographic area within which there is a minimal range of
variability among the overriding macro-scale influences on stream structure and function
(e.g. geology, soils, climate, gradient, elevation, etc.). However, some stream assessment
and mitigation protocols define reference condition based on a single site-specific stream or
stream reach, in which case reference conditions consist of a more limited number of
measurements from that site-specific comparison, and the natural variability among similarly
situated local or regional aquatic resources is not accounted for.
-------
3.0 ORGANIZA TION OF THIS REPORT
Part I of this report introduces terminology and the organization of the individual stream
assessment and mitigation protocol reviews provided. It also provides a brief introduction to
the assessment of stream conditions, identifies common objectives and components of
assessment protocols, and explains especially relevant concepts embodied in this report
(e.g. reference conditions). Part I concludes with a discussion of the commonalities and
differences among the reviewed protocols and includes a number of tables that summarize
many of their salient features. These tables are intended to facilitate the user's search for
existing stream assessment and mitigation protocols of interest based on desired target
elements of stream ecosystems (e.g. regional location, stream geomorphology, physical
stream habitat, biological communities, etc.).
Part II of this report consists of individual summaries of 32 selected stream assessment and
mitigation protocols in use by various federal, state, and local government agencies
nationwide. The reviews are structured according to a standardized template developed for
this project, as follows:
Name (Catalog No.). This is the name of the protocol or procedure and a unique whole
number assigned to it simply to aid in the organization of this report. The sequential
ordering of the protocols begins with those designed to be applicable nationwide, and then
proceeds in chronological order of the ten regions of USEPA.
Primary Author/Agency. Self-explanatory.
Electronic Resource. If the documentation for the protocol or procedure is available
electronically on the internet, the URL link to the page where the document may be
downloaded is provided.
Intended Use/Purpose. This entry identifies the original intent for development of the
protocol or procedure. In some cases, the original intent for designing the protocol may be
its only practicable use, but others may be well suited for additional objectives. The review
entry for Intended Use/Purpose generally includes one or more of the following:
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment. For this report, regulatory protocols are
considered only those developed or used to support regulatory decisions pursuant to
Section 404 of the CWA or similar state or regional "dredge and fill" laws that
regulate physical adverse impacts to jurisdictional lotic waters. Thus, protocols
designed for ambient monitoring undertaken to support State 305(b) Reports or
development of total maximum daily loads are considered non-regulatory condition
assessments in this report, even though these efforts are in fact directly related to
regulation. Another example of non-regulatory condition assessment protocols
would be those aimed at documenting stream response to land or watershed
management activities.
1-5
-------
Regulatory Assessment («law or regulation»). This category of Intended
Use/Purpose is restricted to protocols associated with either the CWA 404 or similar
state laws regulating dredge and fill activities in streams and rivers. Assessment
and monitoring protocols for dredge and fill regulatory programs must typically
consider a suite of programmatic and/or administrative elements in addition to purely
technical ones. In consideration of these differences, such protocols are identified
independent of others assessment procedures and are in fact clustered as a
separate group in Part II of this report (Catalog Nos. 26-32). Parenthetical entries
identify the specific law or laws for which the protocol was originally compiled to
support.
Compensatory Mitigation Protocol. Compensatory mitigation protocols are those
that programmatically define the compensatory mitigation credits necessary to
compensate for authorized impacts to similar resources elsewhere. They are also
typically used to estimate the number of mitigation credits capable of being
generated by proposed mitigative actions. A single regulatory protocol may include
both an assessment of condition and mitigation credits, but not all of them do.
Inventory. Stream assessment protocols that are intended primarily as inventories
do not necessarily require an evaluation or ranking of stream condition based on
value judgments (i.e. this stream is in "better condition" than that one). Instead,
inventories may simply document the stream's state of being. Thus, there may be
no need for comparison among regional resources, and consequently no imperative
to document or consult reference conditions perse.
Ambient Monitoring. Unlike an inventory, which may not necessarily be repeated on
a regular schedule or perhaps even not at all, ambient monitoring programs typically
return to the same monitoring stations or watersheds on a regular cycle. Ambient
monitoring programs also typically frame assessment of stream condition on regional
reference conditions, and monitoring methods themselves may be more apt to
consider objectives related to time-series statistical data analysis.
Target Resource Type. Target resource type identifies the type or classification of linear,
aquatic feature for which the assessment protocol was ideally developed. Sampling
protocols differ for wadeable streams versus non-wadeable streams. Similarly, some
methods and sampling tools developed for larger wadeable streams may not be applicable
for the smallest headwater streams in the drainage network.
Scale/Unit of Assessment. Most of the stream assessment and mitigation protocols
included here are based on field data collected from the stream-reach scale. A stream
reach can theoretically be any length of one's choosing. However, many stream
assessment protocols base the minimum assessment reach length on a multiplier of either
channel wetted width or channel bankfull-width. Others simply clarify that the targeted
reach must be homogenous in character based on gradient, valley type, or other factors.
Geographic Applicability. There is a wide variability among stream ecosystems nationwide
due to variations in climate, geology, gradient, land use history, and numerous additional
macro-scale influences on stream structure and ecology. Assessment protocols or
components thereof developed in one region may or may not be applicable for use in
1-6
-------
another. This entry identifies the specific region in which the protocol was developed. This
review makes no overt attempt to evaluate the potential utility of assessment or mitigation
protocols outside of the geographic area for which the author or authors of the protocol
based their work.
General Level of Effort. This is a subjective evaluation of the relative ease with which a
complete assessment can be executed using the target protocol. Factors considered to
rate the general level of effort include the overall complexity of the protocol, the level of
instructional detail provided, the likely expertise necessary to yield high quality results, and
the time necessary to conduct the protocol. Some of these factors are noted by the authors
of the protocols themselves, but others are left open to judgment.
Ratings are limited to Easy, Moderate, or Intensive. An easy level of effort may require only
semi-quantitative estimates or selections from checklists or categories provided, and may
take only a couple hours or less to execute in the field. Intensive assessments may entail
complete quantitative characterization of the stream's morphology, physical habitat, and
biota (e.g. fish, macroinvertebrates, etc.), and would likely take a team of two or more an
entire day or more to complete in the field. A moderate level of effort is reserved for
assessment protocols intermediate between these two extremes, and there are clearly
ranges of effort embedded within any one of these categorical levels of effort.
Assessment Parameters. This section lists the specific parameters included in the
assessment protocol. If the assessment protocol includes a categorical characterization of
some element of the stream or riparian corridor via a checklist or narrative description, this
may not be reflected in these lists, and would instead be referenced in the protocol
Description/Summary. Likewise, if an index is required to be evaluated in the field (e.g. the
physical habitat assessment component of the USEPA rapid bioassessment protocols
(Barbouret al., 1999)), the index itself is referenced, but generally not each of the individual
parameters used to tally the index. For ease of comparing one protocol to others, the
assessment parameters are listed under the following categorical headings: Channel/Valley
Morphology, Physical Habitat, Water Quality, Biology, and Other.
Resolution. Resolution refers to the potential accuracy and precision of data produced as a
result of the assessment protocol and can include any one or more of the following:
Qualitative, Semi-Quantitative, and Quantitative. Qualitative assessment data includes
narrative descriptions or categorical checklists where one category is not necessarily
deemed any more or less beneficial or important than another (e.g. dominant vegetative
species in the riparian zone). Semi-quantitative assessment data may be produced as a
result of selections made from ordinal or ranked classes or scales, where for example one
condition class is considered more beneficial than another class. Many rapid, visual-based
habitat assessment indices are considered semi-quantitative in this review. Quantitative
assessments ideally provide the most robust and accurate data, while also minimizing
potential observer bias. For example, measures or estimates conducted at defined
locations along a stream reach (i.e. transects) are considered quantitative measures.
-------
Output. This entry characterizes the type of information that results from use of the
assessment protocol, which can generally include one or more of the following:
Condition Assessment The assessment results in a numerical representation of the
relative ability of a stream to support and maintain a community of organisms having
a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to
reference aquatic resources in the region (33 CFR 332.2; 40 CFR 230.92).
Generally, a Condition Assessment includes at least a fundamental evaluation of
physio-chemical conditions in the stream, as well as aquatic biota, physical habitat,
and geomorphic components of the stream and riparian zone.
Index (e.g. numeric score). An index is a numerical value based on one or more
components of an ecosystem that represents the condition of that ecosystem. Thus,
indices must incorporate some value judgments, either based on quantitative
reference data or professional opinion, in order to provide context for the meaning of
the index itself. Numerical indices are often correlated with a narrative description of
these values. For example, a score in the range of 16 to 20 out of a maximum score
of 20 may be considered representative of "optimal" conditions.
Qualitative Description. Assessment protocols that are based solely on qualitative
descriptions have not been intentionally included in this review for previously cited
concerns regarding subjectivity and precision. None the less, even assessment
protocols based primarily on quantitative data often include narrative descriptions to
provide further insight into the condition of the stream, its riparian zone, and/or its
watershed, or to otherwise convey observations made in the field that data and/or
data sheets fail to portray clearly.
Raw data. Many assessment protocols included in this review result in raw,
quantitative data. However, some protocols also aggregate portions of this data into
one or more indices.
Programmatic or Regulatory Support Information. Many protocols in use by dredge
and fill regulatory programs utilize the results of assessment protocols to support
regulatory decisions, such as mitigation requirements based on unit-length or area,
compensatory mitigation ratios, or unitless mitigation credits.
Reference. This entry identifies the manner in which the target protocol designates
reference conditions. In some cases, protocols do not specifically clarify the manner in
which reference conditions should be defined, or they may not address reference conditions
at all (e.g. protocols intended as tools for conducting inventories). In such cases, the
Reference entry is noted as Not Applicable (N/A).
Internal reference conditions are sometimes "built in" to a protocol when that protocol
results in an index representing stream condition (i.e. an index that is already calibrated to
existing local or regional reference data). In contrast, site specific or project specific
reference conditions are identified as Measured External Reference. Finally, some
protocols assume a reference condition based on the knowledge and experience of the
practitioner using the protocol, and these are labeled as Best Professional Judgment.
-------
CWQC. Specific recommended practices for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
may include training, auditing, repeat site visits, and cross-checking data entry. This review
cites only explicit reference to QA/QC by the author(s) of the protocol. Other factors that
may enhance QA/QC, including clearly detailed instructions for executing a protocol,
sample field data sheets, and minimizing the use of subjective decision making.
Description/Summary. A narrative description of the protocol is provided in the
Description/Summary that includes objectives and/or limitations stated by the author(s), if
applicable. The protocol summaries do not provide enough information to execute the
protocol, but should aid the identification of specific protocols that the user wishes to
investigate further.
Expertise Required. Specific expertise required or recommended by the author(s) of the
protocol.
Time Necessary to Conduct Assessment. Approximate amount of time necessary to fully
execute the protocol in the field, if so noted by the author(s).
Seasonally. Time of year during which the protocol should be undertaken, if so noted by
the author(s).
Related Procedures/References. Most stream assessment protocols include bibliographies
citing the original sources of specific methods that have been included or modified as part of
the protocol. This section in each protocol review is not intended to replicate these
bibliographies. Instead, it highlights the most pertinent related documents that enhance the
clarity of the program for which the protocol was developed, provide critical supporting
information or data upon which the protocol was based, or that share significant
components of the protocol under review.
Other/Notes. Any pertinent observations concerning the protocol that are not captured in
the above sections of the review may be included here.
-------
4.0 BACKGROUND
4.1 Objectives for Stream Assessment. Stream assessments may be undertaken to
satisfy any number of regulatory or non-regulatory objectives. Assessments may be
inventories of stream condition or biological populations aimed at supporting management
policies or practices. They may be implemented to classify different resources into groups
for allocation of resources, policy, regulatory, or educational purposes. Stream
assessments may also be used to document conditions pursuant to regulatory permitting
programs, such as Section 404 of the CWA, or other statutory provisions (e.g. federal
Endangered Species Act).
Compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to federally jurisdictional waters is a
fundamental component of the CWA 404 regulatory program, which regulates the discharge
of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States. Consistent with the
mitigation policies outlined in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR
1508.20) and the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230), mitigation is defined as
the establishment, restoration (re-establishment and rehabilitation), enhancement, or in
exceptional circumstances, preservation, of aquatic resources undertaken expressly for the
purpose of compensating for authorized impacts to similar resources elsewhere.
A perceived lack of accountability for compensatory mitigation, as well as poor data
collection and availability have been among the most consistent criticisms of the
compensatory mitigation program (Zedler and Weller, 1990; NRC, 2001; ELI, 2004;
Bernhardt et al., 2005). There has also been considerable debate regarding which specific
features or processes of stream ecosystems should be monitored for restoration projects,
how to actually measure them in the field, and how to assess the resulting data (Nagle,
2007). There are now hundreds of methods and procedures designed to assess or
catalogue a variety of physical and biological attributes of stream ecosystems (see reviews
in Bain etal., 1999; Johnson etal.,2001; NRCS, 2001, 2007; Somerville and Pruitt, 2004;
Stolnack et al., 2005). Paulsen et al. (2008) observe that biological stream assessment
field protocols and assessment tools have become so well developed and accessible that
unique protocols and condition indices are now often developed by federal, state, and local
government agencies and private organizations for each new study. This profusion of
assessment methods and protocols may only exacerbate long-standing criticism citing the
lack of consistent assessment standards which limits the transferability of data between
parties or programs (Diamond et al; 1996; 1998).
However, since the 2008 Final Mitigation Rule (73 FR 70:19594-19705), USAGE
regulations and the CWA 404(b)(1) Guidelines have required that applicants for CWA 404
permits provide a detailed mitigation plan. That plan must explain the mitigation site
selection process, provide baseline ecological information for both the proposed mitigation
site and the proposed impact site, describe the mitigation work plan, outline a long-term
monitoring plan based on objective and verifiable performance standards, and identify a
management plan that ensures long-term stewardship of the mitigation site. For proposed
stream mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan must also include planform geometry
and channel form (i.e. cross-sectional dimensions).
1-10
-------
4.2 Components of Stream Assessment. Objective, quantifiable, and reproducible
assessments of stream condition are required in order to collect the long-term data
necessary to measure the benefits of stream restoration projects, to allow society to assess
the effectiveness of the CWA 404 program, to inform future policy and management
decisions, and to ultimately improve on our efforts to intervene with targeted activities for
the ecological benefit of stream ecosystems (NRC, 2001; Somerville and Pruitt, 2004;
Paulsen et al., 2008). USAGE regulations and the CWA 404(b)(1) Guidelines require
objective and verifiable ecological performance standards for compensatory mitigation
projects that are based on measures of functional capacity, hydrology, or other aquatic
resource characteristics, and/or comparisons to reference resources of similar type and
landscape setting (33 CFR 332.5; 40 CFR 230.95).
The use of biological monitoring data to reflect ambient environmental conditions has
gained widespread acceptance. In 1998, USEPA made it a national priority for state and
tribal water quality standards programs to adopt biocriteria to better protect aquatic life in all
waters where biological assessments methods were available (USEPA, 1998). The 2002
National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan specifically requested that the signatory federal
agencies evaluate the effectiveness of using biological indicators as tools for assessing
mitigation efforts, and the 2008 Final Mitigation Rule cited the agencies' collective ambitions
to move towards using functional and condition assessments.
Whereas biological variables tend to be seasonally variable, sometimes labor intensive, and
often require specialized expertise to sample properly, physical stream features are
relatively stable over short time frames in all but the most perturbed stream environments,
are relatively easy to measure in the field, and provide a tangible resource for decision
making, management, and restoration plans (Johnson et al., 2001; Roper et al., 2002).
Habitat assessment indices are nearly ubiquitous in stream condition assessment
procedures undertaken as part of ambient monitoring programs. However, these
assessment indices are often only visual-based, subjective inventories of physical and/or
stream habitat features. USEPA (2002) reports that 30 U.S. States fail to include any form
of quantitative measurements in the habitat assessment component of their biological
assessment programs, and Fritz et al. (2006) posit that there is not a universally accepted
index or procedure to rate the condition of stream physical habitat.
While the habitat assessment component of the USEPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
(Barbouret al., 1999), or slight variants thereof, is arguably the most common rapid visual-
based habitat assessment index used as part of bioassessment programs, Asmus et al.
(2009) argue that measures of physical channel stability instead of stream habitat would
better compliment biological stream assessments. Benefits for measures of channel
stability cited by the authors include an enhanced capacity to select reference conditions
and better documentation of baseline conditions from which changes over time may be
monitored (Asmus et al., 2009).
1-11
-------
Water quality parameters commonly incorporated into stream assessment and mitigation
protocols include in-situ physiochemical parameters, such as temperature, dissolved
oxygen, pH, turbidity, and conductivity, as well as analytical parameters. The specific
analytes targeted may include common nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus), total
suspended solids, and any number of additional analytes of local or regional importance.
However, like geomorphology, the inclusion of water chemistry components in stream
assessment protocols varies considerably.
4.3 Reference Conditions. Reference conditions provide the context with which the
condition or outcome of any observation or measurement can be compared to other similar
observations. Consequently, the proper documentation of reference conditions is vital to
any program seeking to assess changes to natural resources over time.
Most ambient stream monitoring programs utilize the concept of least disturbed conditions.
Such an approach accepts the fact that all (or most) aquatic resources have been adversely
impacted to some degree overtime, even by influences beyond watershed borders (e.g. as
a result of acid rain), making so-called pristine conditions impractical. Even streams that
appear superficially intact (e.g., well developed riparian zone; no obvious physical channel
instability) can remain in a state of biological recovery for many decades following
anthropogenic activities in the watershed (Harding et al., 1998). Thus, a multi-faceted
evaluation of reference conditions, based on biological, chemical, and physical /
geomorphological characteristics measured in similarly situated streams throughout a
defined region or watershed, is desired in lieu of relying on any single characteristic of
stream ecosystems.
While physical stream restoration designs have often been based on channel
characteristics measured at a single reference site, the use of reference reach databases
and composite data sets are becoming more popular. In addition, regional hydraulic
geometry relationships (regional curves) are becoming more commonly available tools to
aid stream channel restoration design and planning. Regional curves are statistical
relationships of the bankfull channel discharge and dimensions (area, width, and mean
depth) as a function of the stream's drainage area. When such relationships are
determined for multiple streams with varying watershed sizes within a defined geographic
area, empirically derived regression equations can be developed and used to assist the
design of stream restoration projects in the region for which the regional curves are valid.
Similarly, ambient stream monitoring programs are more commonly adopting the principal of
reference conditions based on multiple sites within a watershed or ecoregion in lieu of a
single site-specific reference. Restricting the geographic range of these multiple sites to a
single ecoregion, watershed, or other defined geographic area within which there is a
minimal range of variability of overriding influences on stream structure and function
minimizes the natural variability captured by the reference sites. Within even a single
ecoregion, additional stratification of reference sites based on such factors as watershed
size or channel gradient may further refine and narrow the range of variation among
reference streams, and thereby strengthen the utility of the reference data as a basis for
restoration design and/or performance standards. In any event, the use of multiple
reference sites defines a range of reference conditions in lieu of reliance upon data from a
single reference site that may or may not reflect conditions near the median of the natural
variability expressed throughout an ecoregion.
1-12
-------
4.4 Considerations for an Effective Assessment Protocol. The selection of
parameters to be included in an assessment protocol is as critical to the effectiveness of
that protocol as the methods recommended to measure them in the field. Idealized
requirements for effective monitoring and assessment parameters and protocols have been
outlined by numerous authors, and Table 1 outlines some consistent recommendations.
It has become common practice to regionalize biological assessment indices, such as
indices of biologic integrity, based on ecoregions, physiographic regions, or other spatial
boundaries. Similarly, regional curves are typically aggregated into regions with similar
rainfall/runoff relationships. Such regionalization must also be considered during the design
or selection of stream assessment protocols. Due to the morphological, hydrological, and
biological differences exhibited in stream systems as one moves longitudinally from the
headwaters through perennial mid-order channels to non-wadeable high-order channels,
the methods used to evaluate those parameters may not be applicable throughout the
Table 1. Criteria for monitoring parameters and protocols [Sources: ITFM, 1995; Poole
etal., 1997; Johnson etal, 2001; Oakley etal., 2003; McKay et al., Draft 2009].
Relevance
/ascription
Monitoring protocols must be driven by the specific questions to be addressed. The
relevance of the parameters included in the protocol should be directly related to the
objectives. They should be well grounded in scientific theory and accurately reflect or
support the true measure of environmental condition for which they are proposed to
represent.
Sensitivity/Resolution
Monitoring protocols intended to assess temporal changes during the maturation of a
restoration site are of little utility if the specific parameters being monitored are not
sensitive to the anticipated changes in stream conditions over the monitoring period.
Similarly, monitoring parameters must be capable of differentiating the natural range of
conditions among streams within a given geographic area.
Repeatability
Monitoring parameters and the methods used to measure them must minimize observer
bias and sampling error. Different sampling crews should be able to obtain comparable
data. It is likewise critically important that land managers and decision makers have
assurances that data collected on the same site over extended periods is consistent,
unbiased, and accurate. Monitoring parameters should consequently be objective and
quantifiable, and they should be capable of being directly observed and/or measured in
the field. Nominal and ordinal scale variables should be minimized, especially if the same
variables could be measured quantitatively without requiring unreasonable expenditures
of time or money. Detailed, standardized descriptions of sampling methods should be
included as much as possible.
Comparability/
Transferability
The data that results from a monitoring protocol should be capable of meeting the QA/QC
requirements of other programs and/or agencies. These data must also be capable of
being understood by scientists, stake holders, managers, and decision makers alike. This
not only makes monitoring of natural environments more cost effective, but it also
expands the spatial coverage of assessed resources, allowing broader inferences to be
reached. Many of the characteristics discussed above for repeatability likewise support
comparability and transferability.
Operationally Efficient
Monitoring methods must be capable of being accurately and effectively measured in the
field within logical time, labor, and budgetary constraints. That is, the recommended
parameters and methods must be cost-effective.
1-13
-------
drainage network. Further, a stream assessment protocol developed in more temperate
regions of the country may not be directly applicable to more arid regions without
regionalization of assessment parameters and/or methods.
Focusing attention on a defined set of primary stream functions may be the most logical
way to approach the development of standardized assessment protocols. In recognition of
the differing physical, chemical, and biological conditions to be expected throughout a
drainage network, as well as climatic and geologic variability across the country, focusing
on indicators of functions rather than parameters or methods perse may yield the highest
possible level of consistency and transferability of stream assessment data between
regions.
4.5 Stream Condition and Function. USEPA's Science Advisory Board defines condition
assessment as a characterization of the health or condition of an entire population or
ecosystem based on a suite of measures evaluated and reported in combination (USEPA
SAB, 2000). However, function connotes a process integrating time, whereas condition
might more traditionally refer to a manner or state of being reflected at a "snapshot" in time.
The term functional assessment may be defined as the measurement of one or more
individual ecosystem processes (e.g. primary production) that would suggest the need to
account for temporal change and would not necessarily be synonymous with SAB's
definition of condition assessment. Measuring multiple ecosystem functions (vis a vis
processes) over time may demand a considerable expenditure of resources that is likely
beyond the scope of many stream assessment programs. This is in large part why the
identification and use of appropriate indicators, from which function is inferred, is such a
fundamental first step in the development of "functional assessment" procedures (Smith et
al., 1995; Fischenich, 2006). In this way, assessing function essentially becomes an
assessment of condition with a built in inference of processes occurring over time to
produce that observed result.
Fischenich (2006) notes that specific functions for stream and riparian corridors have yet to
be defined in a manner generally agreed upon and suitable as a basis for which
management and policy decisions can be made. In an effort to fill this need for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Ecosystem Restoration and Urban Flood Damage
Reduction programs, an international committee of scientists, engineers, and practitioners
defined 15 key stream and riparian zone functions aggregated into five categories
(Fischenich, 2006) and included indicators and field measurements useful to document
each function (Tables 2-6).
Fischenich (2006) further outlines the interrelationships of each function to one another by
defining which functions would be affected either directly or indirectly as a result of
perturbations to any single other function (Table 7). For example, an alteration to the
hydrodynamic character of a stream (function #6) either directly or indirectly affects all other
functions, whereas changes to stream habitat (function #11) affects only three other
functions. In this way, Fischenich (2006) not only provides a relative hierarchy defining the
influence of each function on other stream processes, but he also presents a means to
evaluate the capacity of existing stream assessment and mitigation protocols to provide
effective inference into the complete suite of functions for stream ecosystems.
1-14
-------
Table 2. Description of primary stream and riparian functions affecting system dynamics
(Fischenich, 2006).
| Functions | Description | Indicators | Measurements |
1
2
3
Maintain
stream
evolution
processes
Energy
management
processes
Provide for
riparian
succession
• Necessary process to
maintain appropriate
energy levels in the
system.
• Promotes normally
occurring change
necessary to maintain
diversity and succession.
• Provides for genetic
variability and species
diversity of biotic
communities.
• Spatial and temporal
variability in cross
section, grade, and
resistance allows for
conversion between
potential energy and
kinetic energy through
changes in physical
features, hydraulic
characteristics, and
sediment transport
processes.
• Provides habitat,
generates heat,
oxygenates flows.
• Changes in vegetation
structure and age
promote diversity and
ecological vigor by
initiating change, which is
important to long-term
adaptation of ecosystems
• Zones of mature riparian
vegetation are necessary
for system stability, LWD
recruitment, and nutrient
cycling.
Systemic changes to channel
cross-section, planform, or
grade.
Magnitude, frequency, and
duration of flow changes.
Bed armoring or sorting.
Evidence of bed erosion or
deposition.
Bank erosion.
Diverse riparian vegetation and
aquatic biota.
Presence of pioneer vegetation
species.
Stream stability.
Changes in the composition of
the aquatic community.
Changes in physical stream
features, such as width,
depth, slope, and bed and/or
bank roughness.
Changes in flow state or
condition.
Erosion/deposition pattern
change.
Alternate and diverse reach
classifications (riffle, pool,
run).
Watershed disturbance
patterns.
Changes in terrestrial and
aquatic biota
Presence of pioneer species.
Diversity of vegetation.
Varied age classes.
New sediment deposition and
active erosion.
Stability assessment
techniques that quantify bed
and bank stability.
Channel evolution model stage
and change.
Rates of change of channel
geometry parameters.
Time-series aerial photo
analysis of stream pattern.
Quantity, densities, ages,
types, % cover of different
vegetation.
Abundance and distribution of
pioneer species, as well as
rate of succession.
Flood history polygons
(exceedance intervals).
Other disturbance process
measures (e.g., fire).
Determine energy grade line
and hydraulic grade line and
compare with bed slope at
different flows.
Quantify variability in physical
stream features or hydraulic
features along the channel
and compare to reference
channels.
Measure channel/floodplain
constrictions.
Measures of species diversity,
composition, age, and
structure.
Riparian zone width.
Seedling distribution.
LWD recruitment rate.
(Reproduced with permission of the author)
1-15
-------
Table 3. Description of primary stream and riparian functions affecting hydrologic balance
(Fischenich, 2006).
| Functions | Description | Indicators | Measurements |
4
5
6
Surface Water
storage
processes
Maintain surface
/ subsurface
water
connections and
processes
General
hydrodynamic
balance
• Provides temporary water
storage during high flows.
• Regulates discharge and
replenishes soil moisture.
• Provides pathways for
fish and
macroinvertebrate
movement.
• Provides low-velocity
habitats.
• Maintains base flow and
soil moisture.
• Provides contact time for
biogeochemical
processes.
• Provides bi-directional
flow pathways from open
channel to subsurface
soils.
• Allows exchange of
chemicals, nutrients, and
water.
• Moderates low and high
in-channel flows. ..
Provides habitat and
pathways for organisms.
• Maintains subsurface
capacity to store water for
long durations.
• Maintains base flow,
seasonal flow, and soil
moisture.
• -Rivers have a unique
hydrologic signature
important in ensuring
proper flow conditions at
the appropriate seasons
for support of the biotic
environment.
Presence of perennial
floodplain topographic
features, such as floodplain
lakes, ponds, oxbows,
wetlands, and sloughs.
Riparian wetlands,
depressions, and
microtopographic changes in
active floodplain.
Presence of floodplain
spawning fishes. Presence
of macroinvertebrate and
amphibian indicator species.
Watershed % impervious
surface
Riparian debris patterns.
Detrital accumulations.
Invertebrates found in the
hyporheic zone under
floodplains.
Presence of floodplain
topographic features that
connect the channel to
groundwater recharge areas
by free-draining soils.
Occurrence of flows sufficient
to allow connection.
Presence of layers of silt or
organics in soil profile.
Moist soil conditions,
hydrophytic vegetation.
Adjacent wetlands, hydricsoil
indicators.
Groundwater elevation
fluctuations.
Watershed % impervious
surface.
Presence of an active
floodplain.
Associated wetlands.
Redoximorphic features and
other indicators of hydric
soils.
Hydrophytic vegetation, drift
line, and sediment deposits
at appropriate elevations.
Backwater computations.
Hydrologic routing models.
Stream entrenchment surveys.
Rating curves.
Floodplain species spawning
success. Topographic
surveys.
Infiltration rates, compaction
surveys.
Gage and well records.
Flux in groundwater levels.
Stream baseflow.
Hyporheic macroinvertebrate
distribution, density, and
diversity.
Complexity of microtopography.
Isotope dating.
Soil porosity.
Water chemistry profiles.
Temperature recording.
Texture, structure, moisture,
redox, and porosity of
adjacent soils.
Flow duration analyses.
Rating curves.
Spawning success.
(Reproduced with permission of the author)
1-16
-------
Table 4. Description of primary stream and riparian functions affecting sediment processes
and character (Fischenich, 2006).
Functions | Description ~j Indicators j Measurements |
7
8
9
Sediment
continuity
Maintain
substrates and
structural
processes
Quality and
quantity of
sediments
• Provides for
appropriate erosion,
transport, and
deposition processes.
• Maintains substrate
sorting and armoring
capabilities.
• Provides for the
establishment and
succession of aquatic
and riparian habitats
• Important part of
nutrient cycling and
water quality
maintenance
• Stream channels and
riparian zones provide
substrates and
structural architecture
to support diverse
habitats and biotic
communities
• Complex habitats
naturally attenuate the
effects of irregular
disturbance processes
such as fire and floods.
• Organisms often
evolve under specific
sediment regimes and
these must be
preserved for the
ecological health of the
system.
• Sediment yield and
character are primary
variables in
determining the
physical character of
the system
Bed sediment character.
Evidence of recent channel or
floodplain sediment and detrital
deposits.
Recent bed or bank erosion.
Channel planform, section, or
grade changes.
Active bars.
Changes in supply, erosion and
deposition patterns.
Diversity in aquatic and riparian
biota.
Watershed disturbance patterns.
Composition and diversity of
macroinvertebrates.
Changes in magnitude, duration,
or frequency of flow.
Presence and health of
indigenous biota.
Distribution, abundance, health
and diversity of biota.
Relative complexity of substrates.
Structural complexity and
distribution.
Abundance and distribution of
large woody debris.
Habitat diversity and complexity.
Population trends of indicator
species.
Disturbance history.
Change in banks, pools, and bars
acceptable relative to other
similar streams.
Distribution, abundance, health,
and diversity of biota. Presence
of indicator species.
Bed material sediment loads
and gradations.
Suspended sediment load
assessments.
Stability assessment
techniques.
Temporal changes in channel
geometry.
Sediment yield measures.
Sediment transport modeling
and/or incipient motion
analysis.
Lower bank angle surveys.
Stream bed core sampling.
Presence, composition,
frequency, and distribution of
physical characteristics such
as pools, riffles, bedforms,
specific depths and
velocities, cover and
substrate features, riparian
corridor widths, etc.
Aquatic and riparian habitat
assessment methods such
as PHABSIM, RCHARC,
RBPS, HEP, IBIs.
Distribution and frequency of
key physical parameters.
Riparian and in-channel woody
debris surveys.
Aquatic macrophyte surveys.
Periphyton samples.
Stream substrate composition.
Soil compaction, displacement,
or erosion.
Detrital mass surveys.
Bacterial counts.
Fungal surveys.
Fire and flood history mapping.
Sediment grain size
distribution.
Embeddedness.
Sediment yield.
Bedload.
Suspended sediment load.
Sediment concentration.
Secchi depth.
Armor layer size and
thickness.
Depth to bedrock.
Sediment mineralogy.
Macroinvertebrate surveys.
Redd counts.
(Reproduced with permission of the author)
1-17
-------
Table 5. Description of primary stream and riparian functions affecting biological support
(Fischenich, 2006).
10
Functions
Support
biological
communities
and processes
Description
Provides for diverse
assemblages of native
species.
Maintains natural
predator/prey relationships.
Maintains healthy
physiological conditions of
biotic communities.
Maintains genetic diversity.
Maintains age class and
life form structures.
Provides for natural
reproduction and long-term
biotic persistence.
Indicators
Changes in population trends.
Changes in health or condition of
individuals or populations.
Abnormal behaviors.
Unbalanced predator/prey
communities.
Changes in growth or reproduction.
Unbalanced age class or life form
structures.
Unusual species occurrence
outside of normal ranges or
preferred habitats.
Presence of non-native species.
Hybridization.
Measurements
Population and individual growth
rates and condition factors.
Disease histories, bacterial and
viral profiles.
Species diversity and other IBIs.
Species assemblages relative to
reference conditions.
Viability analyses.
Population surveys, including
density, age-class structure, life-
form composition, etc.
Bioassays.
Stomach content analyses.
Genetic testing and mapping.
Species distribution relative to
Reference.
11
Provide
necessary
aquatic and
riparian habitats
Produces and sustains
habitats to support
vigorous aquatic and
riparian biotic communities.
Provides for basic food, air,
light, water and shelter
needs of dependant
species.
Provides habitats suitable
for reproduction.
Supports migration and
staging areas.
Provides key temporal
habitats during periods of
population stress.
Presence/absence/complexity of
habitat features.
Presence/absence/health of key
indicator species, and native,
non-native, surrogate, or
invasive species.
Observations of surrogate signs:
remains, nests, dens, trails,
feces, fur, prints, etc.
Evidence of predator/ prey or
reproductive, cooperative, or
social behaviors.
Presence of critical microhabitat
features.
Distribution, diversity, and quality
of habitats throughout species
ranges and over time.
Secure recruitment pathways.
Disease, extreme population
fluctuations.
Measures from Rapid Stream
Assessment Procedure, or other
habitat modeling such as
RCHARC, PHABSIM, HEP.
Comparison of biotic counts to
reference Indices of Biotic
Integrity (IBI).
Composition, structure, extent,
variability, diversity, abundance
of habitat features, key indicator
species, native, non-native,
surrogate, or invasive species
relative to reference conditions.
Habitat suitability, complexity, and
diversity measures/models.
Limiting habitat factor surveys.
Refugia network mapping.
Terrestrial and aquatic temperature
studies.
Corridor connectivity assessment.
Habitat fragmentation surveys.
12
Maintain trophic
structure and
processes
Promotes growth and
reproduction of biotic
communities across trophic
scales.
Maintains contact time for
biotic and abiotic energy
processes.
Maintains equilibrium
between primary
autotrophs and primary
microbial heterotrophs.
Supports food chain
dynamics to convert energy
to biomass.
Supports characteristic
patterns of energy cascade
and pooling.
Provides nutrient levels
capable of sustaining
indigenous biologic
communities.
Presence/ absence of producers
and consumers.
Evidence of periphyton growth on
substrate.
Evidence of detrital shredding and
decomposition.
Presence/absence of a balance
and variety of nutrients and
organisms to convert carbon,
nitrogen, and/or phosphorus
between forms.
Presence/absence/abundance of
snags, previous season's
plants, leaf litter, detritus.
Evidence of detrital shredding and
decomposition.
Organic horizon and organic layers
in soil.
Presence/absence/abundance of
native, non-native, and invasive
indicator species.
Aquatic and riparian vegetation
density.
Periphyton biovolume.
Density, composition, and biomass
of invertebrate consumers,
diversity indices, and other IBIs.
Measure of N:P ratios in water.
Diversity and composition of
stream biota.
Measure of primary productivity.
Measure of detritus production,
CPOM, FPOM, DOM.
Measure of large woody debris
frequency and density.
Comparison of above- and
belowground biomass R/S ratio.
Biomass production of stream
dependant species.
Biomass profile.
(Reproduced with permission of the author)
1-18
-------
Table 6. Description of primary stream and riparian functions affecting chemical processes
and pathways (Fischenich, 2006).
| Functions | Description | Indicators | Measurements |
13
14
15
Maintain water
and soil quality
Maintain
chemical
processes and
nutrient cycles
Maintain
landscape
pathways
• Water quality parameters
are directly tied to support
of biologic community.
• Riparian communities
trap, retain, and remove
particulate and dissolved
constituents of surface
and overland flow,
improving water quality.
• Regulates chemical and
nutrient cycles.
• Controls pathogens and
viruses.
• Maintains chemistry and
equilibrium conducive to
reproduction, behavior,
development and
sustainability of a diverse
aquatic ecosystem.
• Supports important
chemical processes and
nutrient cycles.
• Provides for complex
chemical reactions to
maintain equilibrium and
supply required elements
to biota.
• Provides for acquisition,
breakdown, storage,
conversion, and
transformation of nutrients
within recurrent patterns.
• Maintains longitudinal and
latitudinal connectivity to
allow for biotic and abiotic
energy process pathways.
• Serves as barriers,
corridors, or buffers to plant
and animal migration.
• Provides source and sink
areas for maintaining
population equilibrium of
plant and animal species.
Watershed conditions and
disturbance features.
Stream order.
Presence/absence/ abundance
of key indicator biota.
Presence/absence of trophic
indicators.
Abnormal forms or behaviors;
unusual mortalities of
indicator species.
Plant, fish, and invertebrate
density, diversity,
distribution, and health.
Wetland and riparian aerial and
positional changes.
Geology and soils - availability
of a range of surface textures
and areas for reactions.
Presence/ absence of riparian
sediment deposits.
Density, diversity, and
distribution of microbial,
fungal, and invertebrate
communities.
Presence of seasonal debris in
riparian area.
Presence/ absence of indicator
species and their health.
Presence/absence of
photosynthesis, fecal matter,
biofilms, and decomposition
products.
Presence/absence of
particulates on vegetation.
Riparian vegetation composition
and vigor.
Changes in algae, periphyton,
or macrophyte communities.
Changes in trophic indicators.
Presence of animal trails along
corridor.
Observations of migratory
species use.
Flood tolerance of vegetation
species on floodplains.
Presence/absence of key
indicator species in portions
of the adjacent landscape.
Recent deposits of sediments
and detrital matter in the
riparian corridor.
Distribution, density, diversity,
and age class composition of
riparian vegetation.
Accumulation of species during
high stress periods.
Conventional water quality
measures (e.g., D.O., pH,
conductivity, turbidity, IDS,
salinity, temperature,
suspended sediment).
Bacterial counts.
Metals and trace element
sampling.
Nutrient (N, P) tests.
Examination of soil profiles.
Soil profile elemental
composition surveys.
Rates of sediment deposition in
channel and riparian
corridor.
Detrital mass surveys.
Large woody debris counts.
Infiltration rates.
Compaction, displacement, and
erosion surveys.
Bacterial counts.
Trace element sampling.
Nutrient (N, P) tests.
COM levels.
BOD(CBOD&NBOD)and
DOC.
Stable carbon isotope analyses
- identify energy pathways.
Cell counts, ATP concentration,
respiration rates, uptake of
labeled substances.
Water and soil buffer capacity.
Complexation.
Redox potential.
Ion exchange capacity.
Adsorption capacity.
Dissolution/precipitation rates.
Decomposition rates.
Plant growth rates, biomass
production.
Relative scale of stream to
riparian corridor as a function
of stream order or slope.
Width, density, and composition
of riparian vegetation
community.
Frequency and duration of
floodplain inundation.
Migratory bird surveys.
Measures of sediment
deposition and detrital flux in
the riparian corridor.
Migration barrier surveys.
Genetic analyses.
Canopy cover measurements of
various life forms.
Temperature.
(Reproduced with permission of the author)
1-19
-------
Table 7. Interrelationships of primary stream and riparian functions (Fischenich, 2006).
Stream Function Grouped by Category
Functions Directly
Affected
Functions Indirectly
Affected
System Dynamics
1.
2.
3.
Stream Evolution Processes
Energy Management
Riparian Succession
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 11, 13,
14, 15
1,3,4,6,7,8,9, 11
1,2,4,6,7, 11, 14, 15
10, 12
--
10, 12
Hydrologic Balance
4.
5.
6.
Surface Water Storage Processes
Surface/Subsurface Water Exchange
Hydrodynamic Character
2,5,6,7, 11, 13, 14, 15
3,6, 11, 13
1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9, 10, 11,
13, 14, 15
1,3,8,9, 10, 12
4, 10, 12, 15
12
Sediment Processes and Character
7.
8.
9.
Sediment Continuity
Substrate and Structural Processes
Quality and Quantity of Sediments
2,3,4,8,9, 10, 11, 13
1,2,5,6,7,8, 11
1,2,3,5,7,8, 11
6, 12, 14
3, 10, 12, 13
6, 10, 12, 15
Biological Support
10.
11.
12.
Biological Communities and Processes
Necessary Habitats for all Life Cycles
Trophic Structures and Processes
3, 11, 12, 13, 14
10, 12, 15
10, 13, 14
5,6,8,9, 14, 15
--
9
Chemical Processes and Pathways
13.
14.
15.
Water and Soil Quality
Chemical Processes and Nutrient Cycles
Landscape Pathways
9, 10, 12, 14
9, 10, 12
10, 11, 12, 14
3
2
2
(Reproduced with permission of the author.)
I-20
-------
5.0 METHODS
Selection criteria for the 32 stream assessment and mitigation protocols reviewed in Part II
of this report limited candidate protocols to those designed for trained professionals having
at least a fundamental understanding of the structure and function of lotic waters. This was
not intended to diminish the utility of monitoring tools designed for volunteer groups, nor
was it meant to discredit or trivialize the dedication of such groups, the diligence with which
they undertake their efforts, or the utility of their results. Instead, focus was placed on
assessment methods aimed at professional users in recognition that such methods are
potentially less subjective, often have a greater reliance on quantitative data, and target
more technical components of these ecosystems that should be prerequisite to design and
implementation of stream restoration projects.
Internet-based searches for information concerning stream monitoring, assessment,
restoration, and mitigation form the basis of information presented herein. These searches
concentrated on respective state water programs devoted to biological assessment,
watershed planning, and water quality certification (CWA Section 401). Similar searches
were conducted at numerous federal agency web sites, including, but not limited to each of
the 38 USAGE District offices nationwide, U.S. Department of Agriculture (e.g. U.S. Forest
Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service), and U.S. Department of Interior (e.g.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management). There was no overt effort
during compilation of this report to directly contact all monitoring or assessment program
representatives at any state or federal agency.
Previously cited reviews of stream monitoring and assessment procedures provided a
baseline literature review from which additional methods were also screened (e.g. Bain et
al., 1999; Johnson etal., 2001; NRCS, 2001, 2007; Somerville and Pruitt, 2004; Stolnacket
al., 2005).
1-21
-------
6.0 RESULTS
6.1 Geographic Distribution of Reviewed Protocols. Stream assessment, monitoring,
and mitigation approaches have developed at different rates in various regions of the
country, which has in turn contributed to an inconsistent distribution of unique assessment
and mitigation protocols in use nationwide. This may be attributable to a number of regional
differences, including but not necessarily limited to climatic variability, population density,
cultural traditions, the presence of marquee aquatic organisms (e.g. salmon in the Pacific
Northwest), and other factors influencing public and private sector priorities and resources
historically allocated to stream and riparian ecosystems research and regulation.
Furthermore, in many instances a single stream assessment or mitigation protocol has been
either modified or even adopted without revision for use outside of the geographic area in
which it was originally designed and/or tested. In such instances, this report attempts to
focus on the original procedure and simply references others that have adopted or modified
it for local conditions elsewhere. For protocols designed with national applicability in mind
(e.g. USEPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols), all or portions of the protocol are typically
intended by the authors to be regionally calibrated to local conditions. However, in some
cases it is not apparent that this has been done. In other instances, a protocol framework is
adopted, and it is only the scoring of various indices within that framework that is modified.
The USAGE Charleston District Standard Operating Procedure for Compensatory Mitigation
(USAGE Charleston District, 2002) is an example of a stream mitigation protocol that has
been adopted and modified by numerous other regulatory entities.
Every effort was made to include unique, representative protocols from each region of the
country. However, the protocols ultimately selected for review in this report are not spatially
distributed evenly. Seven of the 25 non-regulatory protocols have nationwide applicability
and were originally designed, published, and/or supported by USEPA, the U.S. Geologic
Survey (USGS), or the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Almost one-half of the remaining non-
regulatory protocols reviewed in this report were designed with a focus on stream conditions
in the northwestern United States (USEPA Region 10 and parts of Regions 8 and 9). A
secondary concentration of protocols reviewed herein comes from states adjacent to the
Great Lakes (USEPA Region 5), and the remainder are widely scattered from throughout
the rest of country. Interestingly, while the Southeastern United States (USEPA Region 4)
is generally under represented among the non-regulatory assessment protocols reviewed in
this report, over half of the regulatory mitigation protocols come from this region.
6.2 Non-Regulatory Stream Assessment Protocols. Non-regulatory stream assessment
protocols reviewed in this report include five protocols compiled or supported by the
USEPA, five by USFS, one by USGS, and 14 additional protocols compiled by various
agencies in 11 states (Table 8). The overwhelming majority of these protocols were
developed for use in wadeable streams, although at least five of them may be used in
intermittent and/or ephemeral streams. In half of the cases (12 of the 25 non-regulatory
protocols reviewed), the potential utility of the assessment protocol in non-perennial
streams is not specifically addressed by the author(s) (Table 8).
Approximately 70 unique stream assessment parameters are included as components in
one or more of the 32 protocols reviewed for this report (Table 9). However, the compilation
I-22
-------
Table 8. General applicability of representative non-regulatory stream assessment protocols.
Geographic
Applicability
Target Resource Type
Title/ Author
(E)phemeral,
State/ USEPA (l)ntermittent,
Territory Region(s) or (P)erennial
Description
Programmatic Intended | Overall Level of
Use / Purpose 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
Streams and Wadeable Rivers - USEPA
(Barbouretal., 1999)
Revised Methods for Characterizing
Stream Habitat in the National Water
Quality Assessment Program - USGS
(Fitzpatricketal., 1998)
Field Operations Manual for Assessing the
Hydrologic Permanence and Ecological
Condition of Headwater Streams - USEPA
(Fritz etal., 2006)
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP), Physical
Habitat Characterization - USEPA
(Kaufmann and Robison, 1998)
Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian,
and Biotic Conditions - USFS (Platts et al.,
1983)
Wadeable Stream Assessment: Field
Operations Manual - USEPA (USEPA,
2004; 2006)
Watershed Assessment of River Stability
and Sediment Supply - Rosgen (2007) /
USEPA
Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol
Handbooks - Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources (Kline et al., 2003; rev. 2004)
A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater
Wadeable Streams in Maryland -
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (Paul et al., 2002)
Nationwide
Nationwide
Forested
temperate
regions
Nationwide
Nationwide
Nationwide
Nationwide
VT
MD
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
1
3
--
--
E, I, P
--
--
P
--
--
--
Wadeable streams
Wadeable and Non-
Wadeable streams
Headwater streams (< 1
mile2 drainage area)
Wadeable streams
Wadeable streams
Wadeable perennial
streams, generally
1 st -3rd order
All streams
Wadeable streams
Wadeable streams
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment; Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Inventory; Ambient
Monitoring
Inventory; Ambient
Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment; Ambient
Monitoring
Inventory; Ambient
Monitoring
Ambient Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment; Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment; Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment
Easy to Intensive
Moderate to Intensive
Moderate to Intensive
Moderate
Intensive
Intensive
Intensive
Moderate to Intensive
Easy
I-23
-------
Table 8. General applicability of representative non-regulatory stream assessment protocols (continued).
Title/ Author
Geographic
Applicability
(E)phemeral,
State/ USEPA (l)ntermittent,
Territory Region(s) or (P)erennial
Target Resource Type
Description
Programmatic Intended
Use / Purpose 1
Overall Level of
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Physical Habitat and Water Chemistry
Assessment Protocol for Wadeable
Streams Monitoring Sites - Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (2002)
Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary
headwater habitat streams - Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (2002)
The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index
(QHEI): Rationale, Methods, and
Application - Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Rankin, 1989; OEPA,
2006)
Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in
Wisconsin Streams - USFS (Simonson et
al. (1393)
Physical Habitat of Aquatic Ecosystems -
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (2007)
Subjective Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats -
Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks
(2004)
Effectiveness monitoring for streams and
riparian areas: sampling protocol for
stream channel attributes - USFS (Heitke
etal.,2008)
R1/R4 (Northern /Intermountain Regions)
Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory
Procedures Handbook - USFS (Overton et
al., 1997)
Effectiveness monitoring for streams and
riparian areas within the Pacific
Northwest: stream channel methods for
core attributes - USFS (2004)
MN
OH
OH
Wl
TX
KS
WA, OR, ID,
wMT, neNV,
nwWY
All or parts
of ID, MT,
ND, NV, OR,
SD, UT, WA,
WY, eCA
WA, OR, ID,
wMT, neNV,
nwWY, nCA
5
5
5
5
6
7
8,9, 10
8,9, 10
8,9, 10
--
E, I, P
P
P
I, P
E, I, P
--
P
--
Wadeable streams
Headwater streams (< 1
mile2 drainage area)
All streams, but strength
of correlation with fish IBI
is weaker in headwaters
and low-order perennial
streams.
Wadeable streams
Wadeable and non-
wadeable streams,
including intermittent
streams with pools
All streams
Wadeable streams
Blue-line streams on
USGS 1:24,000
topographic maps
Wadeable streams
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment (WQ
Standards); Ambient
Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment (WQ
Standards); Inventory
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment (WQ
Standards); Ambient
Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment; Ambient
Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment (WQ
Standards); Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment; Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Inventory; Ambient
Monitoring
Inventory
Inventory; Ambient
Monitoring
Moderate
Easy to Moderate
Easy
Moderate
Easy to Moderate
Easy
Moderate to Intensive
Moderate to Intensive
Moderate
I-24
-------
Table 8. General applicability of representative non-regulatory stream assessment protocols (continued).
Title/ Author
Geographic
Applicability
(E)phemeral,
State/ USEPA (l)ntermittent,
Territory Region(s) or (P)erennial
Target Resource Type
Description
Programmatic Intended
Use / Purpose 1
Overall Level of
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Manual of Procedures for Sampling
Surface Waters - Arizona Department for
Environmental Quality (2005)
Stream Condition Inventory (SCI)
Technical Guide - USFS Region 5 (Frazier
etal.,2005)
Idaho Small Stream Ecological
Assessment Framework - Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality
(Grafeetal. (2002a)
Idaho River Ecological Assessment
Framework - Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (Grafe et al.
(2002b)
Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program
Field Manual for Streams - Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality
(2007)
Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys -
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Moore etal., 2008)
Stream Inventory Handbook: Level I & II -
USFS Region 6 (2009)
AZ
CA
ID
ID
ID
OR
OR, WA
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
--
P
--
P
--
(I), P
E, I, P
Wadeable streams
Wadeable perennial
streams
Wadeable streams
(generally <5th order;
wetted width <15 feet at
baseflow)
Non-wadeable streams
(generally >5th order;
wetted width >15 feet at
baseflow)
Wadeable streams
Streams
Wadeable streams
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment; Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Inventory; Ambient
Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment; Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment; Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Non-Regulatory Condition
Assessment; Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Inventory; Ambient
Monitoring
Inventory; Ambient
Monitoring
Intensive
Intensive
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate to Intensive
Moderate to Intensive
Intensive
See Programmatic Intended Use / Purpose category definitions in Section 3.0.
Overall Level of Effort. This entry considers only the amount of time reported by the author(s) necessary to complete an assessment. Thus, if even a single parameter is
measured in the field using very detailed procedures, an otherwise rapid protocol may take a great deal of time to complete.
I-25
-------
Table 9. Individual parameters included in stream assessment and mitigation protocols.
Non-Regulatory Stream Assessment Protocols
Catalog Number
Regulatory Stream
Mitigation Protocols
Catalog Number
essment Parameter / Me
8 9 10 11 121314 15 16l718 19 2021 22 232425
26 27289 30 31 32
Macro-Scale Morphology & Watershed Parameters
Stream type classification
22
24
14
Stream evolutionary stage
14
Valley type / confinement
12
Stream order
25
32
Watershed area
28
32
14
Watershed drainage density
Elevation
13
16
Evidence of channel alteration
25
16
57
Riparian disturbance / land use
38
44
14
Watershed disturbance (e.g. percent
impervious surfaces, dominant surrounding
land use)
25
24
29
Stream Reach-Scale Morphology Parameters
Stream discharge
50
»»»»»»
56
29
Flow velocity
16
16
14
Water surface gradient
16
20
Channel cross-sectional dimensions
31
28
43
Wetted channel width
44
48
29
Depth
31
40
Bankfull width
44
52
14
Bankfull depth
34
40
14
Floodprone area width
22
24
14
I-26
-------
Table 9. Individual parameters included in stream assessment and mitigation protocols (continued).
Longitudinal profile (geomorphology survey)
Channel gradient
Channel habitat units / bed forms:
Measured / quantified
Estimated, inventoried, or tallied
Maximum pool depth
Quantified pool description (e.g. percent pool,
residual pool depth, maximum pool depth,
pool substrate, etc.)
Pool formative features
Sinuosity
Meander wavelength
Full planform survey (radius of curvature,
meander belt width, etc.)
Substrate particle size:
Distribution (measured)
Dominance (estimated)
Depth to bedrock
Depth to groundwater
Rapid Geomorphic Assessment Index
Pfankuch
Bank stability / dominant bank substrate
Bank height
Bank height ratio (BHR)
19
47
75
44
31
16
31
9
53
16
16
88
47
59
3
3
3
6
56
13
6
»
»
»
•
»
»
•
•
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
•
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
•
•
»
»
•
»
»
»
•
»
•
»
•
»
•
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
»
•
»
•
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
16
52
80
52
28
20
40
12
56
16
12
96
52
64
4
4
4
8
56
16
8
•
»
•
•
»
»
•
»
•
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
•
•
•
»
»
»
»
»
•
29
29
57
14
43
0
0
0
43
14
29
57
29
43
0
0
0
0
57
0
0
I-27
-------
Table 9. Individual parameters included in stream assessment and mitigation protocols (continued).
Bank erodability index
Bank angle
Bank undercut distance / percentage
In-Stream Physical Habitat Parameters
, t ,. i . . .
Bank vegetative cover/protection
Streambed sediment moisture content
Embeddedness
Sediment deposition (visually estimated)
„ / i . A A v, •
Aquatic macrophytic vegetation:
Percent cover
Speciation
Habitat Assessment Index:
Measured
Estimated (rapid, visual-based)
Riparian Zone Parameters
D. , .
Measured (e.g. densiometer)
Estimated
Solar radiation on water surface
Riparian community type
D- • 'Mb.
6
28
25
A~7
41
3
38
13
A~7
16
16
3
28
6
22
cn
34
25
6
38
Ł4
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
•
•
•
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
•
»
•
•
•
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
•
•
»
•
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
•
»
•
•
•
•
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
•
»
•
•
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
•
»
•
•
»
»
»
»
8
36
32
/ID
40
4
36
4
CC
20
20
4
32
8
24
C/1
44
20
8
40
/in
»
•
•
•
•
.
•
»
»
»
•
»
•
•
»
»
»
0
0
0
/1O
43
0
43
43
-I/I
0
0
0
14
0
14
/1O
0
43
0
29
/10
1-28
-------
Table 9. Individual parameters included in stream assessment and mitigation protocols (continued).
Riparian species dominance
Measured (e.g. basal area, stem density, etc.)
Estimated
Water Quality Parameters
rv i j ......
-P ,
Conductivity
PH
Turbidity
Redox
Alkalinity / Acid neutralizing capacity
Analytical
Suspended sediment load
Bedload
Aquatic Biota Parameters
Q ... . . .
Pich
Periphyton /Algae
Bryophytes
Amphibians / salamanders
Mussels
Diatoms
28
9
19
O/l
CO
47
25
25
3
13
16
3
3
CO
A'\
9
3
25
3
6
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
•
•
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
•
»
»
»
•
•
•
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
•
.
»
»
»
»
*
*
*
»
•
•
»
•
»
»
»
•
•
•
»
•
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
28
8
20
OC
C/1
52
28
28
4
16
20
4
4
CO
,1/1
12
4
28
4
8
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
*
»
29
14
14
on
'\A
29
14
14
0
0
0
0
0
CT
OQ
0
0
14
0
0
I-29
-------
of individual parameters within each of the 32 protocols varies widely. Approximately one-
quarter of the 70 parameters listed in Table 9 appear in fewer than 10% of the protocols
reviewed. Conversely, only 8 parameters appear in at least half of the protocols reviewed,
including stream discharge, channel habitat units (bed forms), sinuosity, substrate particle
size, bank stability / dominant bank substrate , riparian canopy cover, water temperature,
and benthic macroinvertebrates (Table 9). Only channel habitat units (bed forms) and
substrate particle size appear as metrics in at least two-thirds of all protocols reviewed.
Repeating this analysis among only the 25 non-regulatory stream assessment protocols
adds four additional parameters (12 total) that are components in at least half of the
protocols, including bankfull width, channel gradient, large woody debris, and conductivity
(Table 9).
Existing stream assessment protocols also differ in their incorporation of applicable
indicators and measures for the 15 primary stream and riparian functions outlined by
Fischenich (2006). Stream functions related to sediment processes and character are the
most well represented functions among the non-regulatory stream assessment protocols
reviewed in this report (Table 10). Primary stream and riparian functions related to system
dynamics, biological support, and chemical processes and pathways are represented
approximately equally, while functions related to the hydrologic balance are the least well
represented (Table 10). The latter observation is especially noteworthy considering that two
of the three functions that exert the most influence on the overall functioning of lotic
ecosystems are hydrologic balance functions: surface water storage processes and
hydrodynamic character (Fischenich, 2006) (Table 7).
Only one of the 25 non-regulatory stream assessment protocols includes assessment
parameters that Fischenich (2006) considered either indicators or measures indicative of all
15 primary stream functions (Table 10). That protocol, "A Manual of Procedures for
Sampling Surface Waters" from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
was designed by the ADEQ Hydrologic Support and Assessment Section for the collection
and management of surface water data and related environmental information for all
surface water sample collections performed by ADEQ personnel, ADEQ contractors,
environmental organizations, private companies and corporations, and educators (ADEQ,
2005). It is reviewed in this report as Catalog No. 19.
The above referenced protocol from ADEQ is also one of the two non-regulatory protocols
containing metrics with the greatest "Degree of Coverage" among all of the four main
assessment parameter categorical headings used in this report (i.e. Channel/Valley
Morphology, Physical Habitat, Water Quality, and Biology) (Table 11). The other protocol is
the Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program Field Manual for Streams, compiled by the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ, 2007), which is reviewed herein as
Catalog No. 23. The "Degree of Coverage" rankings in Table 11, which range from 0 to 5,
consider both the absolute number of assessment parameters per category (Table 9), as
well as the degree to which those parameters are based on objective versus subjective
estimates or measures in the protocol. Quantitative, objective measures are given more
weight and score higher. Thus, a particular protocol may include many metrics covering a
given category, but can still score low in that category if those metrics are all simply visual
estimates.
I-30
-------
Table 10. Primary stream and riparian zone functions addressed by representative non-
regulatory stream assessment protocols.
Title / Author
Primary Stream and Riparian Zone Functions
Sediment Chemical
Processes Processes
System Hydrologic & Biological &
Dynamics Balance Character Support Pathways
1ol1 1 12 13l4l5
"I
2
A
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
(Barbouretal., 1999)
Revised Methods for Characterizing Stream
Habitat in the National Water Quality
Assessment Program - USGS (Fitzpatrick et
al., 1998)
Field Operations Manual for Assessing the
Hydrologic Permanence and Ecological
Condition of Headwater Streams - USEPA
(Fritz et al., 2006)
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP), Physical Habitat
Characterization - USEPA (Kaufmann and
Robison, 1998)
Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and
Biotic Conditions - USFS (Platts et al., 1983)
Wadeable Stream Assessment: Field
Operations Manual - USEPA (USEPA, 2004;
2006)
Watershed Assessment of River Stability and
Sediment Supply (WARSSS) - Rosgen
(2007)/USEPA
Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol
Handbooks - Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources (Kline et al., 2003; rev. 2004)
A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater
Wadeable Streams in Maryland - Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (Paul et al.,
2002)
Physical Habitat and Water Chemistry
Assessment Protocol for Wadeable Streams
Monitoring Sites - Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (2002)
Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's Primary
Headwater Habitat Streams - Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (2002)
The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index
(QHEI): Rationale, Methods, and Application -
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Rankin, 1989; OEPA, 2006)
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
•
•
»
»
1-31
-------
Table 10. Primary stream and riparian zone functions addressed by representative non-
regulatory stream assessment protocols (continued).
'itle / Author
Primary Stream and Riparian Zone Functions 1
Sediment Chemical
Processes Processes
System Hydrologic & Biological &
Dynamics Balance Character Support Pathways
1 'lolllIl2|l3|l4|l5
13
14
15
1 A
17
1 Q
1 Q
9n
21
22
23
24
25
Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in
Wisconsin Streams - USFS (Simonson et al.
(1993)
Physical Habitat of Aquatic Ecosystems -
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(2007)
Subjective Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats -
Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks (2004)
Effectiveness monitoring for streams and
channel attributes - USFS (Heitke et al., 2008)
R1/R4 (Northern /Intermountain Regions) Fish
and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory
Procedures Handbook - USFS (Overton et al.,
1997)
Effectiveness monitoring for streams and
riparian areas within the Pacific Northwest:
stream channel methods for core attributes -
USFS (2004)
A Manual of Procedures for Sampling Surface
Environmental Quality (2005)
Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Technical
Guide - USFS Region 5 (Frazier et al., 2005)
Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment
Framework - Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (Grafe et al. (2002a)
Idaho River Ecological Assessment
Framework - Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (Grafe et al. (2002b)
Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program Field
Manual for Streams - Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (2007)
Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys - Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Moore et al.,
2008)
Stream Inventory Handbook: Level I & II -
USFS Region 6 (2009)
•
»
•
•
•
»
•
•
»
•
•
»
•
•
»
•
•
»
•
»
•
•
»
•
»
•
•
•
»
•
•
»
•
•
•
•
•
•
»
»
•
•
•
•
»
•
•
»
•
•
•
»
»
•
•
•
•
»
»
•
•
•
•
•
»
»
•
•
•
»
»
•
•
•
»
•
1 Stream functions are based on Fischenich (2006) which is summarized in Tables 2 thru 6. Inclusion of any given function in this
table may be the result of either qualitative or quantitative consideration of applicable indicators.
I-32
-------
Table 11. Summary of parameters included in representative non-regulatory stream assessment protocols.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
Streams and Wadeable Rivers - USEPA
(Barbouretal., 1999)
Revised Methods for Characterizing Stream
Habitat in the National Water Quality
Assessment Program - USGS (Fitzpatrick et
al., 1998)
Field Operations Manual for Assessing the
Hydrologic Permanence and Ecological
Condition of Headwater Streams - USEPA
(Fritzetal.,2006)
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP), Physical Habitat
Characterization - USEPA (Kaufmann and
Robison, 1998)
Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and
Biotic Conditions - USFS (Platts et al., 1983)
Wadeable Stream Assessment: Field
Operations Manual - USEPA (USEPA, 2004;
2006)
Watershed Assessment of River Stability and
Sediment Supply - Rosgen (2007) / USEPA
Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol
Handbooks - Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources (Kline et al., 2003; rev. 2004)
A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater
Wadeable Streams in Maryland - Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (Paul et al.,
2002)
1
5
3
3
5
3
5
3-5
1
Quantitative
Quantitative
Semi-
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Semi-
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Visual
based
index
Data;
Index
Data
Data
Data
Data
Data;
Index
Data;
Visual
based
index
Check
lists;
Visual
based
index
2
5
3
5
5
4
1
3
2
Quantitative
Quantitative
Semi-
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Semi-
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Visual
based
index
Data
Data
Data
Data
Data'
Visual
based
index
Data
Data;
Visual
based
index
Check
lists;
Visual
based
index
3
0
2
5
0
5
1
0
0
Quantitative
N/A
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
N/A
N/A
Data
N/A
Data
Data
Data
Data
Data
N/A
N/A
5
3
2-4
1
5
3
0
0
0
Quantitative
Quantitative
Semi-
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
Semi-
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data
Data
Data
Data
Data
Data
N/A
N/A
N/A
I-33
-------
Table 11. Summary of parameters included in representative non-regulatory stream assessment protocols (continued).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Physical Habitat and Water Chemistry
Assessment Protocol for Wadeable Streams
Monitoring Sites - Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (2002)
Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's Primary
Headwater Habitat Streams - Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (2002)
The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index
(QHEI): Rationale, Methods, and Application -
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Rankin, 1989; OEPA, 2006)
Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in
Wisconsin Streams - USFS (Simonson etal.
(1993)
Physical Habitat of Aquatic Ecosystems -
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(2007)
Subjective Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats -
Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks (2004)
Effectiveness monitoring for streams and
riparian areas: sampling protocol for stream
channel attributes - USFS (Heitke et al., 2008)
R1/R4 (Northern /Intermountain Regions) Fish
and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory
Procedures Handbook - USFS (Overton et al.,
1997)
3
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
Semi-
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Data;
Index
Visual
based
index
Visual
based
index
Data;
Index
Data;
Index
Visual
based
index
Data
Check
lists
4
1
2
4
3
1
3
3
Semi-
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Semi-
Quantitative
or
Quantitative
Semi-
Quantitative
or
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Data;
Index
Visual
based
index
Visual
based
index
Data;
Index
Data;
Index
Visual
based
index
Data
Check
lists
with
limited
data
4
0-3
0
3
3
1
1
1
Quantitative
N/A tn
Quantitative
N/A
Quantitative
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Data
Data
N/A
Data
Data
Visual
based
index
Data
Data
0
0^
0
0
1
1
3
3
N/A
N/A to
Semi-
Quantitative
or
Quantitative
N/A
N/A
Semi-
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
N/A
Data-
Index
N/A
N/A
Data
Visual
based
index
Data
Data
(fish)
I-34
-------
Table 11. Summary of parameters included in representative non-regulatory stream assessment protocols (continued).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Effectiveness monitoring for streams and
riparian areas within the Pacific Northwest:
stream channel methods for core attributes -
USFS (2004)
A Manual of Procedures for Sampling Surface
Waters - Arizona Department for
Environmental Quality (2005)
Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Technical
Guide - USFS Region 5 (Frazier et al., 2005)
Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment
Framework - Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (Grafe et al. (2002a)
Idaho River Ecological Assessment Framework
- Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
(Grafe etal. (2002b)
Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program Field
Manual for Streams - Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (2007)
Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys - Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Moore et al.,
2008)
Stream Inventory Handbook: Level I & II -
USFS Region 6 (2009)
3
5
4
0
0
3
4
5
Quantitative
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
Quantitative
N/A
N/A
Quantitative
Semi-
Quantitative
Quantitative
Data
Data;
Index
Data
N/A
N/A
Data
Data;
Data
3
5
4
1
0
5
5
5
Quantitative
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
N/A
Semi-
Quantitative
to
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Data
Data;
Index
Data
Visual
based
index
N/A
Data'
Visual
index
Data
Data
1
3
1
0
5
3
1
1
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
N/A
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Data
Data
Data
N/A
Data"
Data
Data
Data
3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Quantitative
Data
Data;
Index
Data
Data'
Index
Data'
Data;
Data
Data
1 The relative degree to which the procedure includes parameters addressing a given category of stream and riparian ecosystem assessment components:
0 = No parameters are included in the protocol.
1 = The number of parameters is very limited and/or they are only subjectively estimated.
3 = A modest number of parameters are included, and/or their documentation may include subjective (qualitative) or quantitative (objective) measures or estimates.
5 = There are multiple parameters included, and they are documented using mostly direct, objective (quantitative) measures.
I-35
-------
A number of additional non-regulatory protocols scored very high in three of the four
categories, but failed to score even modestly in the remaining category (Table 11).
Examples include Methods of Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and Biotic Conditions (Platts et
al., 1983) (Catalog No. 5), the Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide for USFS
Region 5 (Frazier et al., 2005) (Catalog No. 20), the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife's Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys (Moore et al., 2008) (Catalog No. 24), and
the USFS Region 6 Stream Inventory Handbook: Level I & II (USFS Region 6, 2009)
(Catalog No. 25). Each of these four protocols includes very few assessment parameters
intended to document water quality, and they all consequently scored very low in the Water
Quality parameter category.
6.3 Regulatory Stream Mitigation Protocols. Seven regulatory stream mitigation
protocols were included for review in this report, including six unique protocols compiled by
the USAGE, often in cooperation with other state and federal agencies, and one by the
State of Kentucky (Table 12). Additional USAGE stream mitigation protocols, effectively
similar in structure and content as those actually reviewed, will be addressed in a
subsequent section of this report. Six of the seven regulatory stream mitigation protocols
reviewed herein specifically note that they are suitable for use in ephemeral and/or
intermittent streams. The remaining protocol neither explicitly includes nor excludes such
channels (Table 12).
The average number of individual assessment parameters required by the regulatory
stream mitigation protocols is approximately 40% fewer than the corresponding average
among the non-regulatory stream assessment protocols (Table 9). Whereas 12 individual
assessment parameters are common to at least 50% of non-regulatory assessment
protocols, only 5 parameters are similarly common among regulatory mitigation protocols:
evidence of channel alteration, channel habitat units / bed forms, substrate particle size,
bank stability / dominant bank substrate, and benthic macroinvertebrates (Table 9).
In contrast to the non-regulatory stream assessment protocols reviewed, stream functions
related to system dynamics and sediment processes and character are the most well
represented functions among the regulatory stream mitigation protocols (Table 13).
Biological support functions and chemical processes and pathways functions were also
relatively well represented. However, like the non-regulatory protocols, functions related to
the hydrologic balance are the least well represented (Table 13). In comparison to non-
regulatory stream assessment protocols, each of the regulatory stream mitigation protocols
under represents at least one, and often more than one, of the four assessment parameter
categories summarized in Table 14.
6.3.1 Federal Compensatory Stream Mitigation Information. The USAGE and the
USEPA co-administer the CWA Section 404 regulatory program. In this capacity, the
USAGE issues permits, consistent with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, to applicants
seeking to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. and determines
appropriate compensatory mitigation for proposed impacts, consistent with the 2008 Final
Compensatory Mitigation Rule and all applicable national guidance. Although all 38 USAGE
Districts nationwide abide by these nationwide guidance documents and procedures, some
I-36
-------
Table 12. General applicability of representative regulatory stream mitigation protocols.
Geographic
Applicability
Catalog
Number
Title / Author
State /
Territory
USEPA
Region(s)
(E)phemeral,
(l)ntermittent, or
(P)erennial
Target Resource Type
Programmatic
Intended Use /
;ription Purpose
Description
Overall Level
of Effort1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Functional Assessment Approach
for High Gradient Streams -
USAGE Huntington District (2007)
West Virginia Stream and Wetland
Valuation Metric - West Virginia
Interagency Review Team (2010)
Unified Stream Methodology -
USAGE Norfolk District & Virginia
DEQ (2007)
Standard Operating Procedure:
Compensatory Mitigation - USAGE
Charleston District (USAGE, 2002)
Draft Stream Relocation/Mitigation
Guidelines - Kentucky Division of
Water (2007)
Stream Assessment Protocol for
Headwater Streams in the Eastern
Kentucky Coalfield Region -
USAGE Louisville District (Sparks
etal., 2003a;b)
Stream Mitigation Guidelines -
USAGE Wilmington District (2003)
WV
WV
VA
SC
KY
Eastern
Kentucky
NC
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
E, I, P
E, I, P
E, I, P
I, P
I, P
I, P
--
Headwater streams
(ephemeral, intermittent
and low-order
perennial)
All streams
Wadeable streams
Intermittent and
perennial streams and
riparian zones
Wadeable streams
Headwater streams
(< 3-5 mile2 drainage
area)
Non-tidal streams
Regulatory
Assessment
Regulatory
Assessment;
Compensatory
Mitigation Protocol
Regulatory
Assessment;
Compensatory
Mitigation Protocol
Regulatory
Assessment;
Compensatory
Mitigation Protocol
Regulatory
Assessment;
Compensatory
Mitigation Protocol
Regulatory
Assessment;
Compensatory
Mitigation Protocol
Regulatory
Assessment;
Compensatory
Mitigation Protocol
Easy
Easy to
Moderate
Easy
Easy to
Moderate
Moderate to
Intensive
Easy to
Moderate
Easy to
Moderate
Overall Level of Effort. This entry considers only the amount of time reported by the author(s) necessary to complete an assessment. Thus, if even a single parameter is
measured in the field using very detailed procedures, an otherwise rapid protocol may take a great deal of time to complete.
I-37
-------
Table 13. Primary stream and riparian zone functions addressed by representative
regulatory stream mitigation protocols.
Primary Stream and Riparian Zone Functions
System
Dynamics
Hydrologic
Balance
Sediment
Processes
&
Character
Biological
Support
Chemical
Processes
Pathways
"itle / Autho
10 11 12 13 14 15
^==
26
97
28
29
30
•31
•39
Functional Assessment Approach for High
Gradient Streams - USAGE Huntington District
(2007)
West Virginia Stream and Wetland Valuation
Team (2010)
Unified Stream Methodology - USAGE Norfolk
District & Virginia DEQ (2007)
Standard Operating Procedure:
Compensatory Mitigation - USAGE Charleston
District (USAGE, 2002)
Draft Stream Relocation/Mitigation Guidelines
- Kentucky Division of Water (2007)
Stream Assessment Protocol for Headwater
Streams in the Eastern Kentucky Coalfield
Region - USAGE Louisville District (Sparks et
al., 2003a;b)
Stream Mitigation Guidelines - USAGE
Wilmington District (2003)
4
4
•
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
==
4
=
4
4
=
4
4
=
4
4
j=:
4
4
=j
4
4
I-38
-------
Table 14. Summary of parameters included in representative regulatory stream mitigation protocols.
n
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Functional Assessment Approach
for High Gradient Streams -
USAGE Huntington District (2007)
West Virginia Stream and Wetland
Valuation Metric- West Virginia
Interagency Review Team (2010)
Unified Stream Methodology -
USAGE Norfolk District & Virginia
DEQ (2007)
Standard Operating Procedure:
Compensatory Mitigation -
USAGE Charleston District
(USAGE, 2002)
Draft Stream Relocation/Mitigation
Guidelines - Kentucky Division of
Water (2007)
Stream Assessment Protocol for
Headwater Streams in the Eastern
Kentucky Coalfield Region -
USAGE Louisville District (Sparks
etal., 2003a;b)
Stream Mitigation Guidelines -
USAGE Wilmington District (2003)
1
1
1
1-3
5
0
2
Qualitative to
Semi-
Quantitative
Quantitative
Qualitative to
Semi-
Quantitative
Varies
Quantitative
N/A
Qualitative to
Semi-
Quantitative
Visual
based
index
Visual
based
index
Visual
based
index
Data
Data
N/A
Visual
based
index
•
1
2
1
1-2
2
2
2
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Quantitative
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Varies
Quantitative
Semi-
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Visual
based
index
Visual
based
index
Visual
based
index
Data
Data
Visual
based
index
Visual
based
index
0
3
0
0-3
0
1
1
N/A
Quantitative
N/A
Varies
N/A
Quantitative
Qualitative
N/A
Data'
Index
N/A
Data
N/A
Data
Visual
based
index
1
0-3
0
0-5
0-5
0-3
3
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Varies
N/A
Varies
Varies
Varies
Qualitative
to Semi-
Quantitative
Visual
based
index
Data; Index
N/A
Data
Data; Index
Data; Index
Data;
Visual
based
index;
Index
1 The relative degree to which the procedure includes parameters addressing a given category of stream and riparian ecosystem assessment components:
0 = No parameters are included in the protocol.
1 = The number of parameters is very limited and/or they are only subjectively estimated.
3 = A modest number of parameters are included, and/or their documentation may include subjective (qualitative) or quantitative (objective) measures or estimates.
5 = There are multiple parameters included, and they are documented using mostly direct, objective (quantitative) measures.
I-39
-------
Districts working either alone or in concert with state agencies and/or local or regional
offices of federal agency partners, have compiled procedures and guidance documents
specific to local conditions and priorities.
Despite that both the USAGE and USEPA are arguably the two federal agencies most
closely aligned with stream mitigation and restoration in the U.S. due to their fundamental
roles in the CWA 404 regulatory process, neither agency has made it a priority to make
locally applicable stream restoration or mitigation information widely available to stream
restoration practitioners. It is not uncommon for internet sites maintained by both USAGE
Districts and USEPA Regional offices to under represent locally or regionally applicable
guidance, data, and/or tools and procedures that would benefit the quality and sustainability
of stream restoration and mitigation projects within a given region.
In some cases, such information may include physical or biological regional reference data
that could be used to evaluate baseline conditions, establish success criteria or
performance standards, or lend inference into desirable monitoring parameters. Local or
regional hydraulic curves are often lacking from these agencies' web sites despite the utility
of these data during the design and even the regulatory review of stream restoration
projects. In some instances these tools are compiled by universities, State agencies, and
even other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest
Service, or the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. By failing to compile
important local resources and making them widely available to stream restoration
practitioners, the federal agencies may be unwittingly fostering the compilation and
presentation of stream restoration and mitigation projects that fail to utilize the best science
presently available to design and implement ecologically successful, self sustaining
projects.
Table 15 presents the stream mitigation and/or restoration information available on each
USAGE District's web site in March 2010. Almost two-thirds of the USAGE Districts
nationwide have no locally specific stream assessment, restoration, mitigation, or
monitoring information on their internet sites (Table 15). However, where more than one
District shares jurisdiction in a given State, the same local information may be found on
more than one District's web site. For example, the "Missouri Stream Mitigation Method" is
used by three different USAGE Districts who share jurisdiction in the State of Missouri.
There are a total of 12 individual stream mitigation protocol guidance documents
represented on ten of the 38 USAGE District web sites. Eight of these 12 stream mitigation
protocol guidance documents are based on a standard operating procedure (SOP) for
mitigation developed by the USAGE Charleston District (reviewed herein as Catalog No.
29).
I-40
-------
Table 15. Summary of stream assessment, monitoring, and mitigation guidance available
from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District websites nationwide.
Alaska
Albuquerque
Baltimore
Buffalo
Charleston
Chicago
Detroit
Fort Worth
Galveston
Honolulu
Huntington
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Little Rock
Los Angeles
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
See table footnote 1 .
See table footnote 1 & 2. "Maryland Compensatory Mitigation
Guidance (1994)" is wetland centric.
See table footnote 1 .
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Compensatory Mitigation
- reviewed in this report
Checklist / Outline recommends Michigan DNR "Qualitative
Biological and Habitat Survey Protocols for Wadeable Streams
and Rivers," NAWQA Habitat Assessment procedures, and
QHEI.
State of Michigan has Wetland Mitigation Guidelines, but no
reference to stream mitigation.
See table footnote 2.
See table footnote 2.
See table footnote 1 .
Functional Assessment Approach for High Gradient Streams:
West Virginia - reviewed in this report
Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP);
Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM); the
applicability of either method to streams is largely unclear.
Missouri Stream Mitigation Method (SOP) and Kansas Stream
Mitigation Guidance (SOP) - both based on USAGE Charleston
SOP.
Charleston SOP for wetlands; Little Rock District Stream
Method (based on USAGE Charleston SOP) for streams
See table footnote 1 & 2.
1-41
-------
Table 15. Summary of stream assessment, monitoring, and mitigation guidance available
from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District websites nationwide (continued).
Louisville
Memphis
Mobile
Nashville
New England
New Orleans
New York
Norfolk
Omaha
Philadelphia
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Stream Assessment Protocol for Headwater Streams in the
Eastern Kentucky Coalfield Region;
State of Kentucky has "Draft Stream Relocation/Mitigation
Guidelines," (October 2007), and "Illinois Stream Mitigation
Guidelines" are available in draft form since May 2009, but
neither are referenced on the USAGE Louisville District web
site.
See table footnote 2.
Missouri Stream Mitigation Method (SOP) - based on USAGE
Charleston SOP
April 9, 2010 Public Notice: Illinois Stream Mitigation Method
(SOP) - based on USAGE Charleston SOP
State of Tennessee has "Stream Mitigation Guidelines," (July
2004), but these are not referenced on the USAGE Memphis
District web site despite that the USAGE is listed as a
cooperating party.
Compensatory Stream Mitigation Standard Operating
Procedures and Guidelines (SOP) - based on USAGE
Charleston SOP
State of Tennessee has "Stream Mitigation Guidelines," (July
2004), but these are not referenced on the USAGE Nashville
District web site despite that the USAGE is listed as a
cooperating party.
The "Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment Handbooks" are
not referenced on the USAGE New England District web site.
See table footnote 1 .
See table footnote 1 .
Unified Stream Methodology - reviewed in this report.
Montana Stream Mitigation Process (SOP) - based on USAGE
Charleston SOP.
Compensatory Mitigation Guidelines for Wyoming - (Checklist /
Outline)
See table footnote 1 .
I-42
-------
Table 15. Summary of stream assessment, monitoring, and mitigation guidance available
from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District websites nationwide (continued).
District J-EOOZOZS-E
Pittsburgh
Portland
Rock Island
Sacramento
San Francisco
Savannah
Seattle
St. Louis
St. Paul
Tulsa
Vicksburg
Walla Walla
Wilmington
y
/
y
y
y
/
/
/
y
y
y
/
/
y
/
/
^•^[•WtK^H II
See table footnote 1 & 2.
See table footnote 1 & 2.
Standard Operating Procedure for Calculating Compensatory
Mitigation Requirements for Adverse Impacts to Wetlands, Open
Waters, and/or Streams (SOP) - based on USAGE Charleston
SOP.
See table footnote 2.
Missouri Stream Mitigation Method (SOP) - based on USAGE
Charleston SOP
April 9, 2010 Public Notice: Illinois Stream Mitigation Method
(SOP) - based on USAGE Charleston SOP
See table footnote 1 .
See table footnote 1 .
See table footnote 1 .
See table footnote 2.
Stream Mitigation Guidelines - reviewed in this report
"Checklist / Outline" guidance documents generally summarize the material comprising a complete mitigation plan
as outlined in federal guidance and/or regulations.
Applicable federal guidance includes the 2008 Final Mitigation Rule and USAGE Regulatory Guidance Letter
08-03: Mitigation Monitoring Requirements.
I-43
-------
The above referenced eight SOP's share many common technical elements, as well as
programmatic elements specific to the CWA 404 regulatory program. Each of these
mitigation guidance documents utilizes a set of matrices from which ordinal numeric values
are selected based on specific conditions of the proposed impact or mitigation site and the
correspondence of those conditions with descriptions provided in the SOP. Each matrix
typically includes a suite of parameters, some of which may be rooted in technical
considerations related to or inferring stream condition, while others are strictly
programmatic. The sum of values from each parameter is then multiplied by a unit of
measure (typically linear feet) to obtain mitigation requirements for stream impacts or
mitigation credits for proposed stream mitigation activities.
Despite the similarities among these mitigation SOP's, the values assignable per parameter
and the resulting summation of all respective parameters is considerably variable. The
potential minimum mitigation requirements obtainable using the adverse impact matrices of
these mitigation SOP's ranges from 0.4 to 0.95 credits per linear-foot of impact, while the
maximum mitigation requirements range upwards of 5.6 to 9.4 credits per linear-foot of
impact (Table 16). The disparity among SOP values is even greater for matrices evaluating
proposed mitigation actions. The potential minimum number of mitigation credits allotted by
using the mitigation SOP's ranges from 0.45 to 1.83 per linear-foot of stream, while the
maximum number of mitigation credits ranges from 6.88 to 19.2 credits per linear-foot of
stream (Table 17). However, given the regional variability in stream resources, impact
stressors, and compensation practices across the country, some variability among
conceptually similar mitigation SOP's is not unwarranted.
I-44
-------
Table 16. Comparison of adverse impact factors among U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Operating Procedures
based on the Charleston District SOP for evaluating proposed impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404
regulatory authorization.
USAGE District
Guidance
Document(s)
Dates(s)
Charleston
Standard Operating Procedures:
Compensatory Mitigation (SOP)
Sept 2002
Kansas City1
Kansas Stream Mitigation Guidance
(SOP)
Dec 2009
Little Rock
Little Rock District Stream Method
(SOP)
March 2008
Adverse Impact Min, Max Min, Max Min, Max
Factors Description Credits Description Credits Description Credits
Lost Stream Type
Priority
Area/Category
Existing Condition
Duration of Impact
Dominant Impact
Cumulative Impact
/ Scaling Factor
Two categories: (1)
Intermittent, 1st order, &2nd
order streams; (2) All other
streams.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Ordinal scale based on
categorical descriptions of
channel stability, biological
communities, and
anthropogenic disturbance.
Three categories: (1)
Seasonal,; (2) 0-1 year; (3)
Greater than 1 year.
Nine impact types with
successively greater adverse
impact on stream systems.
Cumulative impact factor =
0.005 x total linear feet of
stream impact.
Total Adverse Impact Credits per Linear Foot
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.61
0.8
0.5
1.5
0.3
2.5
?
5.6
Three categories: (1)
Ephemeral/intermittent without
permanent pools; (2)
Intermittent with permanent
pools; (3) Perennial.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Three categories based on
entrenchment ratio, width:depth
ratio, width of the riparian area,
and/or the score of the Stream
Habitat Evaluation index from
Kansas Department of Wildlife
and Parks.
Three categories: (1)
Temporary (<12 months); (2)
Short-term (evident >1 year, but
<2 years); (3) Permanent.
Ten impact types with
successively greater adverse
impact on stream systems.
Prorated scaling factor based
on linear length of stream
impact = 0.4 per 1 ,000 liner feet
of stream impact.
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0.7
0.8
0.8
5.0
0.3
2.5
?
9.4
Three categories: (1)
Ephemeral; (2) Intermittent; (3)
Perennial.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Three categories based on
categorical descriptions of
channel stability, biological
communities, buffer width, and
anthropogenic disturbance.
Three categories: (1)
Temporary (<6 months); (2)
Recurrent; (3) Permanent.
Nine impact types with
successively greater adverse
impact on stream systems.
Prorated scaling factor based
on linear length of stream
impact = 0.1 per 500 liner feet
of stream impact.
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.3
2.5
?
6.0
Also utilizes the Missouri Stream Mitigation Method
I-45
-------
Table 16. Comparison of adverse impact factors among U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Operating Procedures
based on the Charleston District SOP for evaluating proposed impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404
regulatory authorization (continued).
USAGE District
Guidance
Document(s)
Dates(s)
Adverse Impact
Factors
Memphis
Missouri Stream Mitigation
Method (SOP)
Feb 2007
Mobile
Compensatory Stream Mitigation Standard
Operating Procedures and Guidelines
(SOP)
March 2009
Omaha
Montana Stream Mitigation
Process (SOP)
Feb 2005
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Lost Stream Type
Priority
Area/Category
Existing Condition
Duration of Impact
Dominant Impact
Cumulative Impact
/ Scaling Factor
Three categories: (1) Ephemeral;
(2) Intermittent; (3) Perennial.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Three categories representing
the "stability and functional state"
of the stream, based on
entrenchment ratio and
width:depth ratio, and width of
the riparian area.
Three categories: (1) Temporary
(<6 months); (2) Recurrent; (3)
Permanent.
Nine impact types with
successively greater adverse
impact on stream systems.
Prorated scaling factor based on
linear length of stream impact =
0.1 per 500 liner feet of stream
impact.
Total Adverse Impact Credits per Linear Foot
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.3
2.5
?
6.0
Three categories: (1) Intermittent;
(2) 1st and 2nd order perennial;
(3) >2nd order perennial.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Three categories of stream
stability based on descriptions and
pictures of channel evolutionary
processes [Although the scoring
worksheet contains three
categories, the SOP text includes
five, and terminology between
worksheet and text is
inconsistent].
Three categories: (1) Temporary
(<6 months); (2) Recurrent; (3)
Permanent.
Nine impact types with
successively greater adverse
impact on stream systems.
Prorated scaling factor based on
linear length of stream impact =
0.1 per 500 liner feet of stream
impact.
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.3
2.5
?
6.0
Four categories: (1)
Ephemeral; (2) Intermittent;
(3) >2nd order perennial; (4)
1st and 2nd order perennial.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Three categories based on
categorical descriptions of
channel stability, biological
communities, and
anthropogenic disturbance.
Three categories: (1)
Temporary (<1 year); (2)
Short-term (1-2 years); (3)
Permanent (>2 years).
Nine impact types with
successively greater adverse
impact on stream systems.
Cumulative impact factor =
0.005 x total linear feet of
stream impact.
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.5
0.8
0.6
1.5
0.3
2.5
?
5.7
I-46
-------
Table 16. Comparison of adverse impact factors among U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Operating Procedures
based on the Charleston District SOP for evaluating proposed impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404
regulatory authorization (continued).
USAGE District
Guidance
Document(s)
Dates(s)
Adverse Impact
Factors
Savannah
March 2004
St. Louis
Missouri Stream Mitigation Method (SOP)
Feb 2007
St. Louis & Memphis1
Illinois Stream Mitigation Guidance
(SOP)
March 2010
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Lost Stream Type
Priority
Area/Category
Existing Condition
Duration of Impact
Dominant Impact
Cumulative Impact
/ Scaling Factor
Three categories: (1) Intermittent;
(2) perennial >15 feet wide; (3)
perennial <15 feet wide.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Three categories based on
entrenchment ratio, biological
communities, channel substrate,
and/or bank erosion.
Three categories: (1) Temporary
(<1 year); (2) Recurrent; (3)
Permanent (>1 year).
Nine impact types with
successively greater adverse
impact on stream systems.
Prorated scaling factor based on
linear length of stream impact =
0.4 per 1 ,000 liner feet of stream
impact.
Total Mitigation Credits per Linear Foot
0.1
0.5
0.25
0.05
0.05
0
0.95
0.8
1.5
1.0
0.2
3.0
?
6.5
See summary under the Memphis District.
Three categories: (1)
Ephemeral/intermittent; (2)
Intermittent with seasonal
pools; (3) Perennial.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Three categories based on
categorical descriptions of
channel stability, biological
communities, water quality,
and anthropogenic
disturbance. Also includes a
Biological Stream Rating
criteria from the Illinois
Department of Natural
Resources.
Three categories: (1)
Temporary (<3 months); (2)
Short term (<2 years); (3)
Permanent (> 2 years).
Nine impact types with
successively greater adverse
impact on stream systems.
Cumulative impact factor =
0.003 x total linear feet of
stream impact.
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.05
0
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.3
2.5
?
5.6
1 Six-month testing period beginning April 9, 2010.
I-47
-------
Table 17. Comparison of compensatory mitigation factors among U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Operating
Procedures based on the Charleston District SOP for evaluating proposed mitigation actions to compensate for
adverse impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404 regulatory authorization.
USAGE District
Guidance
Document(s)
Dates(s)
Mitigation
Factors
Charleston
Standard Operating Procedures:
Compensatory Mitigation (SOP)
Kansas City
Little Rock
Kansas Stream Mitigation Guidance (SOP) Little Rock District Stream Method (SOP)
Sept 2002
Dec 2009
March 2008
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Net
Improvement/
Net Benefit
Priority Area/
Category
Control / Site
Protection
Credit Schedule
/ Construction
Timing
Kind/
Stream Type
Location
Ordinal scale based on categorical
descriptions of mitigation actions,
mostly rooted in Rosgen "Priority
1-4 restoration" classes.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Four categories describing the
mechanism of protection for the
mitigation site.
Five categories describing the
timing of mitigation activities
relative to impact activities.
Categorical stream type based on
stream order: (1) In-kind =
mitigation stream is same order as
impact stream; (2) Out-of-kind = 1
or 2 stream orders different.
Three categories based on relative
location of mitigation site to the
impact site (Note: up to five
categories for banks).
0.7
0.05
0.05
0
0
0
3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
Five categories based on categorical
descriptions of mitigation actions.
Three categories based on ecological,
social, cultural or economic value.
Two categories describing the
mechanism of protection for the
mitigation site.
Three categories describing the timing
of mitigation activities relative to impact
activities.
Six categories: (1)
Ephemeral/intermittent without pools;
(2) Intermittent with permanent pools;
and (3i) Perennial <1 5 ft wide; (3ii)
perennial 15-30 ft wide; (3iii) perennial
30-50 ft wide; and (3iv) perennial >50 ft
wide.
n/a
0.1
0.05
0.1
0
0.2
n/a
3.5
4.0
0.4
0.3
1.0
n/a
Seven categories based on
categorical descriptions of
mitigation actions.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Two categories describing the
mechanism of protection for the
mitigation site.
Three categories describing the
timing of mitigation activities
relative to impact activities.
Six categories: (1) Ephemeral; (2)
Intermittent; (3i) Perennial <15 ft
wide; (3ii) perennial 15-30 ft wide;
(3iii) perennial 30-50 ft wide; and
(3iv) perennial >50 ft wide.
n/a
0.1
0.05
0.1
0
0.05
n/a
3.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
1.0
n/a
I-48
-------
Table 17. Comparison of compensatory mitigation factors among U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Operating
Procedures based on the Charleston District SOP for evaluating proposed mitigation actions to compensate for
adverse impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404 regulatory authorization (continued).
USAGE District
Guidance
Document(s)
Dates(s)
Mitigation
Factors
Charleston
Kansas City
Little Rock
Standard Operating Procedures:
Compensatory Mitigation (SOP)
Kansas Stream Mitigation Guidance (SOP) Little Rock District Stream Method (SOP)
Sept 2002
Dec 2009
March 2008
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits I
Riparian Buffer1
(preservation,
enhancement,
or restoration)
Existing
Condition
Monitoring &
Contingency
Strearnbank
Stability
Instream
Habitat
Mitigation
Factor
Separate matrix that considers
proposed buffer width, proportion
of buffer planted, additional credit
for buffers on both sides of the
stream, stream type, control,
timing, and proximity to the
impacted site.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total Mitigation Credits per Linear Foot
0.15
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.95
3.375
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.28
Separate matrix that considers
proposed buffer width, proportion of
buffer planted, additional credit for
buffers on both sides of the stream or
additional improvements, temporal lag,
stream type, control, priority area, and
degree of monitoring.
Three categories based on
entrenchment ratio, width:depth ratio,
width of the riparian area, and/or the
score of the Stream Habitat Evaluation
index from Kansas Department of
Wildlife and Parks.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.45
3.05
0.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.7
Separate matrix that considers
proposed buffer width, proportion
of buffer planted, additional credit
for buffers on both sides of the
stream or livestock fencing,
temporal lag, stream type, priority
area, degree of monitoring, and
timing.
Three categories representing the
"stability and functional state" of
the stream, based on
entrenchment ratio and
width:depth ratio, and width of the
riparian area.
Three levels of monitoring rigor,
including triggers for remedial or
corrective actions.
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.25
0
0.05
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.6
7.24
0.4
0.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
13.7
Riparian buffer credit min, max values assume buffers on both sides of the mitigated stream reach.
I-49
-------
Table 17. Comparison of compensatory mitigation factors among U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Operating
Procedures based on the Charleston District SOP for evaluating proposed mitigation actions to compensate for
adverse impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404 regulatory authorization (continued).
USAGE Memphis
District
Guidance Missouri Stream Mitigation Method (SOP)
Document(s)
Mobile
Compensatory Stream Mitigation Standard
operating Procedures and Guidelines (SOP)
Omaha
Montana Stream Mitigation Process (SOP)
Dates(s)
Mitigation
Factors
Feb 2007
March 2009
Feb 2005
Description
Max, Min
Credits
Description
Max, Min
Credits
Description
Max, Min
Credits
Net
Improvement/
Net Benefit
Priority
Area/Category
Control / Site
Protection
Credit
Schedule /
Construction
Timing
Kind/
Stream Type
Location
Riparian
Buffer1
(preservation,
enhancement,
or restoration)
Four categories based on
categorical descriptions of
mitigation actions.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Two categories describing the
mechanism of protection for the
mitigation site.
Three categories describing the
timing of mitigation activities
relative to impact activities.
Six categories: (1) Ephemeral;
(2) Intermittent; (3i) Perennial
<1 5 ft wide; (3ii) perennial 15-
30 ft wide; (3iii) perennial 30-50
ft wide; and (3iv) perennial >50
ft wide.
n/a
Separate matrix that considers
proposed buffer width,
proportion of buffer planted,
additional buffer improvements,
temporal lag, stream type,
priority area, degree of
monitoring, and timing.
0.1
0.05
0.1
0
0.05
n/a
0.1
3.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
1.0
n/a
11.3
Four categories based on
categorical descriptions of mitigation
actions, mostly rooted in Rosgen
"Priority 1-4 restoration" classes.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
n/a
n/a
Six categories: (1) Intermittent; (2)
1st or 2nd order perennial; (3i) >2nd
order perennial <15 ft wide; (3ii)
perennial 15-30 ft wide; (3iii)
perennial 30-50 ft wide; and (3iv)
perennial >50 ft wide.
n/a
Separate matrix that considers
proposed buffer width, proportion of
buffer planted, additional credit for
buffers on both sides of the stream,
stream type, priority area, and
timing.
0.1
0.05
n/a
n/a
0.05
n/a
0.4
3.5
0.4
n/a
n/a
1.0
n/a
5.9
Three categories based on
categorical descriptions of
mitigation actions.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Five categories describing the
mechanism of protection for the
mitigation site.
Five categories describing the
timing of mitigation activities
relative to impact activities.
Categorical stream type based on
stream order: (1) Same order as
impact stream; (2) Within 1 order
of impact stream; (3) 2 orders of
impact stream.
Three categories based on
relative location of mitigation site
to the impact site: (1) On-site; (2)
Off-site; (3) Outside of watershed.
Separate matrix that considers
proposed buffer width, proportion
of buffer planted, control, timing,
stream type, location, and
adjustments based on whether
one or both sides of the stream
are buffered.
1.2
0.05
0.03
0
0
0
0.1
2.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
3.38
I-50
-------
Table 17. Comparison of compensatory mitigation factors among U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Operating
Procedures based on the Charleston District SOP for evaluating proposed mitigation actions to compensate for
adverse impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404 regulatory authorization (continued).
USAGE Memphis
District
Guidance Missouri Stream Mitigation Method (SOP)
Document(s)
Mobile
Compensatory Stream Mitigation Standard
operating Procedures and Guidelines (SOP)
Omaha
Montana Stream Mitigation Process (SOP)
Dates(s)
Mitigation
Factors
Feb 2007
March 2009
Feb 2005
Description
Max, Min
Credits
Description
Max, Min
Credits
Description
Max, Min
Credits
Existing
Condition
Monitoring &
Contingency
Streambank
Stability
Hahitat
Mitigation
Factor
Three categories representing
the "stability and functional
state" of the stream, based on
entrenchment ratio and
width:depth ratio, and width of
the riparian area.
Three levels of monitoring rigor,
including triggers for remedial
or corrective actions.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total Mitigation Credits per Linear Foot
0
0.05
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.45
0.4
0.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
17.8
Two categories of stream stability
based on descriptions and pictures
of channel evolutionary processes
[The SOP text terminology is
inconsistent with the scoring
worksheet].
n/a
Two categories of bank stability
based on descriptive summaries of
streambank features [Bank Erosion
Hazard Index is referenced as an
option].
Four classes of instream habitat /
concealment structures based on
the number of cover types present
[differentiated between high gradient
and low gradient streams].
n/a
0.05
n/a
0.2
0.1
n/a
0.65
0.4
n/a
0.4
0.35
n/a
11.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.38
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.88
Riparian buffer credit min, max values assume buffers on both sides of the mitigated stream reach.
1-51
-------
Table 17. Comparison of compensatory mitigation factors among U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Operating
Procedures based on the Charleston District SOP for evaluating proposed mitigation actions to compensate for
adverse impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404 regulatory authorization (continued).
USAGE
District
Guidance
Document(s)
Dates(s)
Mitigation
Factors
Savannah
March 2004
St. Louis
Missouri Stream Mitigation Method
(SOP)
St. Louis & Memphis i
Illinois Stream Mitigation Guidance (SOP)
Feb 2007
March 2010
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Net
Improvement/
Net Benefit
Priority
Area/Category
Control / Site
Protection
Credit
Schedule /
Construction
Timing
Kind/
Stream Type
Location
Riparian
Buffer1
(preservation,
enhancement,
or restoration)
Existing
Condition
Five categories based on
categorical descriptions of
mitigation actions, mostly based
on Rosgen "Priority 1-4
restoration" classes.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Three categories describing the
mechanism of protection for the
mitigation site.
Three categories describing the
timing of mitigation activities
relative to impact activities.
n/a
n/a
Separate matrix that considers
proposed buffer width,
proportion of buffer planted,
additional credit for buffers on
both sides of the stream, priority
area, control, degree of
monitoring, and timing.
n/a
1.0
0.05
0.1
0
n/a
n/a
0.2
n/a
8.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
n/a
n/a
8.2
n/a
See summary under the Memphis District.
Four categories based on
categorical descriptions of
mitigation actions.
Three categories based on
ecological, social, cultural or
economic value.
Two categories describing the
mechanism of protection for the
mitigation site.
Three categories describing the
timing of mitigation activities
relative to impact activities.
n/a
n/a
Separate matrix that considers
proposed buffer width,
proportion of buffer planted,
additional credit for buffers on
both sides of the stream,
priority area, degree of
monitoring, control, temporal
lag, timing, and USAGE
discretionary adjustment
factors.
n/a
1.0
0.05
0.1
0
n/a
n/a
0.125
n/a
3.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
n/a
n/a
8.55
n/a
I-52
-------
Table 17. Comparison of compensatory mitigation factors among U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Standard Operating
Procedures based on the Charleston District SOP for evaluating proposed mitigation actions to compensate for
adverse impacts subject to Clean Water Act, Section 404 regulatory authorization (continued).
USAGE
District
Guidance
Document(s)
Dates(s)
Mitigation
Factors
Savannah
March 2004
St. Louis
Missouri Stream Mitigation Method
(SOP)
St. Louis & Memphis i
Illinois Stream Mitigation Guidance (SOP)
Feb 2007
March 2010
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Description
Min, Max
Credits
Monitoring &
Contingency
Streambank
Stability
Instream
Habitat
Mitigation
Factor
Four levels of monitoring rigor,
including triggers for remedial or
corrective actions.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total Mitigation Credits per Linear Foot
,
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.35
1.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
19.2
Three levels of monitoring to be
determined by the reviewing
USAGE District.
n/a
n/a
Discretionary adjustment
factors utilized by the reviewing
USAGE District based on
watershed needs, best
available science, public
interest comments, and
resource agency input.
0.05
n/a
n/a
0.5
1.83
^^=^^=
0.5
n/a
n/a
1.0
14.65
1 Riparian buffer credit min, max values assume buffers on both sides of the mitigated stream reach.
2 Six-month testing period beginning April 9, 2010.
I-53
-------
7.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
There remains a significant lack of standardization of assessment parameters or metrics
included in stream assessment and mitigation protocols. The specific compilation of
individual parameters within each of the 32 protocols reviewed in this report varies widely,
and only eight out of the 70 cumulative assessment parameters are common to even half of
the protocols. In addition, approximately one-quarter of the cumulative assessment
parameters are uncommon to even 10% of the protocols reviewed.
The degree to which stream assessment and mitigation protocols incorporate assessment
parameters aimed at fully documenting channel morphology, physical habitat, water quality,
and biological communities is as varied as the specific parameters themselves.
Approximately 40% of the non-regulatory assessment protocols reviewed herein fail to
include any assessment parameters or metrics addressing at least one of the above
referenced assessment parameter categories. In these situations, it is most often water
quality or biological parameters that are not included. Stream mitigation protocols
developed for regulatory purposes also tend to most often omit water quality and biological
parameters, but these protocols also regularly under represent channel morphology and
physical habitat in so far as even these categories of parameters tend to rely more on
subjective estimates.
Ambient stream monitoring protocols generally include more quantitative measures of
addressing all assessment parameter categories, especially physical habitat. In addition,
many of the data intensive assessment methods aimed at assessing physical habitat,
especially fish habitat, have significant cross-over implications for geomorphological
channel design (e.g., channel habitat units (bed forms), pool formative elements,
quantitative pool features, etc.). Representatives from state and federal monitoring
programs not typically associated with the CWA 404 regulatory program should be
encouraged to participate in compilation or revision of mitigation protocols and guidance
documents. For example, both the USGS and USFS possess a great deal of practical
stream assessment and monitoring experience and their input could prove especially useful.
However, even where a multitude of assessment parameters is included as part of a stream
assessment protocol, there is no guarantee that all or most of the primary stream and
riparian functions will be represented. Future revisions to existing protocols or initiatives to
develop new protocols may be best served by incorporating considerations of stream and
riparian functions early in the process. By first framing the suite of functions desired to be
represented, extraneous assessment parameters can be omitted or considered optional,
and the allocation of resources necessary to perform the assessment and manage the
resulting data will remain as efficient as possible.
Recommendations:
1. Assemble interagency teams incorporating multiple disciplines and backgrounds
when devising or revising stream assessment and mitigation protocols. Include
representatives of agencies that have extensive experience in monitoring and
assessment, but not typically engaged in CWA 404 regulatory activities.
I-54
-------
2. Incorporate considerations of stream and riparian zone functions early in the process
in order to focus on those assessment parameters representing primary stream and
riparian zone functions that can be evaluated objectively and repeatedly by disparate
parties. Such focus may also minimize the addition of non-essential monitoring or
assessment metrics, or otherwise make them optional.
Even when critically valuable stream assessment or restoration design tools exist within a
given region, they are often overlooked by practitioners because their existence is not
widely known. As previously noted, the 2002 National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan
specifically called for the signatory federal agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of using
biological indicators as tools for assessing compensatory mitigation efforts. Most states
have in fact developed regionally specific indicators of stream biological integrity based on
one or more biological guilds (e.g. fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, periphyton, etc.). While
the incorporation of such tools into the federal CWA 404 compensatory mitigation program
is not yet widespread, it is encouraging to note that recent and on-going updates and
revisions of some federal regulatory mitigation guidelines are including or even building
upon such resources (e.g. 2009 USAGE Savannah District mitigation banking guidelines;
2009 Draft Illinois Stream Mitigation Guidance; 2003 USAGE Louisville District Stream
Assessment Protocol for Headwater Streams in the Eastern Kentucky Coalfield Region).
Similarly, more and more state and federal agencies, academic institutions, and private
practitioners are compiling and publishing bankfull (a.k.a. hydraulic) regional curves.
However, despite that these resources exist in many parts of the country (Appendix A), in
most cases they are not incorporated or even referenced in stream restoration or mitigation
guidance documents, rules, regulations, or web sites widely available to practitioners and
natural resources managers.
Because any stream restoration project, whether undertaken expressly for compensatory
mitigation purposes or not, will likely require some level of regulatory agency authorization,
it is incumbent on those agencies to collectively identify, incorporate, and advertise the
existence and utility of stream assessment and restoration design tools compiled by other
parties. Such tools may include, but are not necessarily limited to, biological condition
indices and bankfull regional curves. The complete breadth of stream assessment and
restoration research and practical field experience must be better shared among all parties
in order to maximize the likelihood of implementing physically stable, biologically productive,
and ecologically beneficial stream restoration and mitigation projects.
Recommendations:
3. Establish one or more central internet repositories for stream assessment,
mitigation, and monitoring information to be made available to regulators,
practitioners, and the other interested parties. This internet portal could be a
regional university, a USAGE District, a USEPA Region, or any other entity. The
web master should be clearly noted in order to allow other state and federal
agencies, universities, or practitioners to submit new or revised tools or guidance
documents for listing. Such information may include regional IBI's, benthic IBI's,
regional curves, etc.
1-55
-------
REFERENCES
ADEQ. 2005. A Manual of Procedures for Sampling Surface Waters, L. Lawson (ed.),
Arizona Department for Environmental Quality, Hydrologic Support and Assessment
Section. Phoenix, AZ.
Asmus, B., J.A. Magner, B. Vondracek, and J. Perry. 2009. Physical integrity: the missing
link in biological monitoring and TMDLs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
159:443-463.
Bain, M.B., T.C. Hughes, and K.K. Arend. 1999. Trends in methods for assessing
freshwater habitats. Fisheries 24(4): 16-21.
Barbour, MT. 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. EPA841-B-99-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Bernhardt, E.S. M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Baranas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S.
Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat, S.G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B.
Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G.M. Kondolf, P.S. Lake, R. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K.
O'Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river
restoration efforts. Science 308: 636-637.
Diamond, J.M, M.T. Barbour, and J.B. Stribling. 1996. Characterizing and comparing
bioassessment methods and their results: a perspective. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 15(4): 713-727.
Diamond, J.M, J.B. Stribling, and C. Yoder. 1998. Determining comparability of
bioassessment methods and their results. Proc. of the 1998 National Monitoring
Conference, National Water Quality Monitoring Council, Reno, NV.
ELI. 2004. Measuring mitigation: A review of the science for compensatory mitigation
performance standards. Environmental Law Institute. Washington, D.C.
Fischenich, J.C. 2006. Functional objectives for stream restoration. ERDC TN-EMRRP SR-
52. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
MS.
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. USEPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Frazier, J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish,
B.P. Staab. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Technical Guide. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA.
I-56
-------
Harding, J.S., E.F. Benfield, P.V. Bolstad, G.S. Helfman, and E.B.D. Jones, III. 1998.
Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proc. of the National Academy of
Sciences 95: 14,843-14,847.
ITFM. 1995. "The Nationwide Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United
States." Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, Water
Information Coordination Program. Washington, D.C.
Johnson, D.H., N. Pimman, E. Wilder, J.A. Silver, R.W. Plotnikoff, B.C. Mason, K.K. Jones,
P. Roger, T.A. O'Neil, and C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon
Habitat in the Pacific Northwest: Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for
Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,
and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals.
Environmental Management 5:55-68.
McKay, S.K., B.A. Pruitt, M. Harberg, A.P. Covich, M.A. Kenney, and J.C. Fischenich. Draft
2009. "Metric development for environmental benefits analysis." EBA Technical
Notes Collection. ERDC TN-EMRRP-EBA-xx-x, U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Moore, K., K. Jones, J. Dambacher, C. Stein, et al. 2008. Aquatic Inventories Project:
Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys, Version 17.1, May 2008. Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife, Aquatic Inventories Project, Conservation and Recovery
Program, Corvallis, OR.
Nagle, G. 2007. Evaluating 'natural channel design' stream projects. Hydrological
Processes 21: 2539-2545.
NRC. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. National
Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
NRCS. 2001. Stream Corridor Inventory and Assessment Techniques: A guide to site,
project, and landscape approaches suitable for local conservation programs.
Watershed Science Institute Technical Report, USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
NRCS. 2007. Stream Corridor Inventory and Assessment Techniques. Tech. Suppl. 3A,
National Eng Handbook, Part 654, Stream Restoration Design.
Oakley, K.L., L.P. Thomas, and S.G. Fancy. Guidelines for long-term monitoring protocols.
2003. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31 (4): 1000-1003.
I-57
-------
Paulsen, S.G., A. Mayio, D.V. Peck, J.L. Stoddard, E. Tarquinio, S.M. Holdsworth, J. Van
Sickle, L.L. Yuan, C.P. Hawkins, AT. Herlihy, P.R. Kaufmann, M.T. Barbour, D.P.
Larsen, and A.R. Olsen. 2008. Condition of stream ecosystems in the U.S.: an
overview of the first national assessment. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 27(4): 812-821.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for Evaluating Stream,
Riparian, and Biotic Conditions. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-138, Ogden, UT. 70 pp.
Poole, G.C., C.A. Frissell, and S.C. Ralph. 1997. In-stream habitat unit classification:
Inadequacies for monitoring and some consequences for management. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association 33(4): 879-896.
Roper, B.B., J.L. Kershner, E. Archer, R.Henderson, and N. Bouwes. 2002. An evaluation of
physical stream habitat attributes used to monitor streams. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 38(6): 1637-1646.
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing
wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and
functional indices, Tech. Rpt. WRP-DE-9, USAGE Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.,
Somerville, D.E. and B.A. Pruitt. 2004. Physical Stream Assessment: A Review of Selected
Protocols for Use in the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program. September 2004,
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds, Wetlands Division (Order No. 3W-0503-NATX). Washington, D.C.
Stolnack, S.A., M.D. Bryant, and R.C. Wissmar. 2005. A Review of Protocols for Monitoring
Streams and Juvenile Fish in Forested Regions of the PNW. USFS Pacific
Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-625.
Sudduth, E.B., J.L. Meyer, and E.S. Bernhardt. 2007. Stream restoration practices in the
Southeastern United States. Restoration Ecology 15(3): 572-583.
USAGE, Charleston District. 2002. Standard Operating Procedure: Compensatory
Mitigation. RD-SOP-02-01, September 19, 2002. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Charleston District, Charleston, SC.
USEPA. 1998. Water quality criteria and standards plan - Priorities for the future. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, EPA-822-R-98-003, Washington,
D.C.
USEPA SAB. 2002. "A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition: An
SAB Report," T.F. Young and S. Sanzone (eds), EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, Washington, D.C.
I-58
-------
USFS Region 6. 2009. Stream Inventory Handbook: Level I & II, Version 2.9. U.S. Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Region 6.
Zedler, J.B. and M.W. Weller. 1990. Overview and future research, pgs. 405-413. In J.A.
Kuslerand M.E. Kentula (eds), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the
Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
I-59
-------
APPENDIXA
Hydraulic Regional Curves
for Selected Areas of the United States
NOTE: Not all of the following references have been subject to the same level of
independent review. In addition to investigations published in peer reviewed literature, this
list also includes works undertaken pursuant to university degree programs and specific
restoration projects undertaken by both the private and public sector. Moreover, some
references are the result of symposia, workshops, etc., and information contained therein
may have had little review outside of the individual document's collaborators.
ALABAMA
Metcalf, C. 2005. Alabama riparian reference reach and regional curve study. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Panama City Fisheries Resource Office. Panama City, FL.
http://www.fws.gov/panamacitv/programs/pfw-proiects/
FWS%20Final%20Alabama%20Regional%20Curve%20Report.pdf
ARIZONA
Moody, T. and W. Odem. 1999. Regional relationships of bankfull stage in central and
southern Arizona, in D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy (eds), Wildland Hydrology,
American Water Resources Association Specialty Conference Proceedings, June
20-July2, 1999: Bozeman, Mont, TPS-99-3, 536 p.
Moody, T., M. Wirtanen, and S.N. Yard. 2003. Regional Relationships for Bankfull Stage in
Natural Channels of the Arid Southwest, Natural Channel Design, Inc. Flagstaff, AZ.
38 p. http://www.naturalchanneldesign.com/NCD%20Reports.htm
CALIFORNIA
Dunne, T.D. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company, NY.818 p.
COLORADO
Elliot, J.G. and K.D. Cartier. 1986. Hydraulic geometry and streamflow of channels in the
Piceance Basin, Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties, Colorado. U.S. Geological
Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4118.
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri854118
Yochum, S. 2003. Regional Bankfull Characteristics for the Lower Willow Creek Stream
Restoration, USDA NRCS Northern Plains Engineering Team, Lakewood, CO. 22 p.
http://www.willowcreede.org/floodcontrol/WillowCreekRegionalBankfullCharacteristic
s.pdf
A-1
-------
FLORIDA
Metcalf, C. 2004. Regional Channel Characteristics for Maintaining Natural Fluvial
Geomorphology in Florida Streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City
Fisheries Resource Office. Panama City, FL. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-
center/Completed Proi/Summarv EMO/FDOT BD470 final.pdf
Metcalf, C.K., S.D. Wilkerson, and W.A. Harman. 2009. Bankfull regional curves for north
and northwest Florida streams. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 45(5): 1260-1272.
GEORGIA
Pruitt, B.A. 2001. Hydrologic and soil conditions across hydrogeomorphic settings. PhD
dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 223.p.
http://www.libs.uga.edu/science/
IDAHO
Emmet, W.W. 1975. The channels and waters of the Upper Salmon River area, Idaho. U.S.
Geologic Survey, Professional Paper 870-A. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 116 p.
KANSAS
Emmert, B.A. 2004. Regional curve development for Kansas. In J.L. D'Ambrosio (ed).
Proceedings Self-Sustaining Solutions for Streams, Wetlands, and Watersheds, 12-
15, September 2004. St. Paul, Minnesota. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Ml. http://asae.frymulti.com/conference.asp?confid=sww2004
KENTUCKY
Mater, B.D., A.C. Parola, Jr., C. Hansen, and M.S. Jones. 2009. Geomorphic
Characteristics of Streams in the Western Kentucky Coal Field Physiographic
Region of Kentucky. Final Report prepared by University of Louisville, Stream
Institute for the Kentucky Division of Water, Frankfort, KY.
http://www.water.ky.gov/permitting/wqcert/
Parola, A.C., Jr., K. Skinner, A.L. Wood-Curini, W.S. Vesely, C, Hansen, and M.S. Jones.
2005. Bankfull Characteristics of Select Streams in the Four Rivers and Upper
Cumberland River Basin Management Units. Final Report prepared by University of
Louisville, Stream Institute for the Kentucky Division of Water, Frankfort, KY.
http://www.water.ky.gov/permitting/wgcert/
Parola, A.C., Jr., W.S. Vesely, A.L. Wood-Curini, D.J. Hagerty, M.N. French, O.K.
Thaemert, and M.S. Jones. 2005. Geomorphic Characteristics of Streams in the
Mississippi Embayment Physiographic Region of Kentucky. Final Report prepared
by University of Louisville, Stream Institute for the Kentucky Division of Water,
Frankfort, KY. http://www.water.ky.gov/permitting/wgcert/
A-2
-------
Parola, A.C., Jr., W.S. Vesely, M.A. Croasdaile, C. Hansen, and M.S. Jones. 2007.
Geomorphic Characteristics of Streams in the Bluegrass Physiographic Region of
Kentucky. Final Report prepared by University of Louisville, Stream Institute for the
Kentucky Division of Water, Frankfort, KY.
http://www.water.kv.gov/permittina/wqcert/
Pruitt, B.A., W.L. Nutter, and W.B. Ainslie. 1999. Estimating flood frequency in gaged and
ungaged watersheds, In K.J. Hatcher (ed.) Proceedings of the 1999 Georgia Water
Resources Conference, March 30-31, 1999, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
http://www.gwri.gatech.edu/uploads/proceedings/1999/PruittB-99.pdf
Vesely, W.S., A.C. Parola, Jr., C. Hansen, and M.S. Jones. 2008. Geomorphic
Characteristics of Streams in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field Physiographic Region
of Kentucky. Final Report prepared by University of Louisville, Stream Institute for
the Kentucky Division of Water, Frankfort, KY.
http://www.water.ky.gov/permitting/wgcert/
MAINE
Dudley, R.W. 2004. Hydraulic geometry relations for rivers in coastal and central Maine:
U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report: 2004-5042, 30 p.
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/sir/2004/5042/
MARYLAND
Chaplin, J.J. 2005. Development of regional curves relating bankfull-channel geometry and
discharge to drainage area for streams in Pennsylvania and selected areas of
Maryland, U.S. Geologic Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5147.
Cinotto, P.J. 2003. Development of regional curves of bankfull-channel geometry and
discharge for streams in non-urban Piedmont Physiographic Province, Pennsylvania
and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-
4014, 27 p. http://pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/wrir03-4014.pdf
Doheny, E.J., and G.T. Fisher. 2007. Hydraulic geometry characteristics of continuous-
record streamflow-gaging stations on four urban watersheds along the main stem of
Gwynns Falls, Baltimore County and Baltimore City, Maryland: U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5190, 24 p.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5190/
Keaton, J.N., T. Messinger, and E.J. Doheny. 2005. Development and analysis of regional
curves for streams in the non-urban valley and Ridge physiographic provinces,
Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Report
2005-5076, 116 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5076/sir05 5076.pdf
Krstolic, J.L., and J.J. Chaplin. 2007. Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non-urban,
non-tidal Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S.
A-3
-------
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5162, 48 p.
http://pubs.usqs.gov/sir/2007/5162/pdf/SIR2007-5162.pdf
McCandless, T.L., and R.A. Everett. 2002. Maryland stream survey: bankfull discharge and
channel characteristics of streams in the Piedmont hydrologic region: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland, CBFO-S02-01, 163 p.
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebav/pdf/Piedmont.pdf
McCandless, T.L. and R.A. Everett. 2003. Maryland stream survey: bankfull discharge and
channel characteristics of streams in the Allegheny Plateau and the Valley and
Ridge hydrologic region: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland, CBFO-
S03-01, 92 p. http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebav/pdf/plateauweb.pdf
McCandless, T.L. 2003. Maryland stream survey: bankfull discharge and channel
characteristics of streams in the Coastal Plain hydrologic region: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland, CBFO-S03-02, 89 p.
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebav/pdf/plain.pdf
Miller, K.F. 2003. Assessment of channel geometry data through May 2003 in the mid-
Atlantic highlands of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-388, 22 p.
White, K.E. 2001. Regional curve development and selection of a references reach in the
non-urban lowland sections of the piedmont physiographic province, Pennsylvania
and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-
4146, 20 p. http://pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/wrir01-4146.pdf
MASSACHUSETTES
Bent, G.C., and A.M. Waite. (In review). Methods for estimating bankfull channel geometry
and discharge for streams in Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2008-XXXX, XX p.
MICHIGAN
Mistak, J.L. and D.A. Stille. 2008. Regional hydraulic geometry curve for the Upper
Menominee River, Fisheries Technical Report 2008-1, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing, Ml. http://www.michigan.goV/deg/0,1607,7-135-
3313 3684 41228-141575-.00.html
Rachol, C.M. and K. Boley-Morse. 2009. Estimated Bankfull Discharge for Selected
Michigan Rivers and Regional Hydraulic Geometry Curves for Estimating Bankfull
Characteristics in Southern Michigan Rivers. U.S. Geologic Survey, Scientific
Investigations Report 2009-5133, 300 pp.
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/sir/sir20095133
A-4
-------
MINNESOTA
Padmanabhan, G. and B.H. Johnson. 2010. Regional Dimensionless Rating Curves to
Estimate Design Flows and Stages. Journal of Spatial Hydrology 10(1):41-75.
http://www.spatialhvdroloav.com/iournal/papersping2010/Regional%20Dimensionles
s%20Rating%20Curves.pdf
MONTANA
Lawlor, S.M. 2004. Determination of Channel-Morphology Characteristics, Bankfull
Discharge, and Various Design-Peak Discharges in Western Montana. U.S.
Geologic Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5263, Reston, VA.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5263/
NEW ENGLAND
Bent, G.C., 2006, Equations for estimating bankfull-channel geometry and discharge for
streams in the northeastern United States, In Proceedings of the Joint Federal
Interagency Conference, 3rd Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference
and 8th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-6,
2006. http://pubs.usgs.gov/misc/FISC 1947-2006/pdf/1st-7thFISCs-
CD/8thFISC/8thFISC.pdf
NEW MEXICO
Jackson, F. 1994. Documenting channel condition in New Mexico. Stream Notes Special
Summer Issue 1994, Stream Systems Technology Center, U.S. Forest Service, Fort
Collins, CO. pg 3-5.
Moody, T., M. Wirtanen, and S.N. Yard. 2003. Regional Relationships for Bankfull Stage in
Natural Channels of the Arid Southwest, Natural Channel Design, Inc. Flagstaff, AZ.
38 p. http://www.naturalchanneldesign.com/NCD%20Reports.htm
NEW YORK
Baldigo, B. 2004. Regionalization of channel geomorphology characteristics for streams of
New York State, excluding Long Island: U.S. Geological Survey, New York Water
Science Center. http://ny.water.usgs.gov/proiects/summaries/2457-A29-1.html
Bent, G.C. 2006. Equations for estimating bankfull-channel geometry and discharge for
streams in the northeastern United States: Proceedings of the Joint Federal
Interagency Conference, Book of Abstracts, 3rd Federal Interagency Hydrologic
Modeling Conference and 8th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference,
Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006, 314 p.
Miller, S.J., and D. Davis. 2003. Optimizing Catskill Mountain regional bankfull discharge
and hydraulic geometry relationships: Proceedings of the American Water
Resources Association, 2003 International Congress, Watershed management for
water supply systems, New York City, N.Y., June 29-July 2, 2003, 10 p.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/watershed/pdf/smp.pdf
A-5
-------
Mulvihill, C.I., A.G. Ernst, and B.P. Baldigo. 2005. Regionalized equations for bankfull
discharge and channel characteristics of streams in New York state: hydrologic
region 6 in the southern tier of New York: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2005-5100, 21 p.
http://nv.water.usqs.gov/pubs/wri/sirQ55100/sir2005-51 OO.pdf
Mulvihill, C.I., A.G. Ernst, and B.P. Baldigo. 2006. Regionalized equations for bankfull-
discharge and channel characteristics of streams in New York State: hydrologic
region 7 in western New York: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2006-5075, 14 p. http://nv.water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/sir065075/sir2006-
5075.pdf
Mulvihill, C.I., A. Filopowicz, A. Coleman, and B.P. Baldigo. 2007. Regionalized equations
for bankfull discharge and channel characteristics of streams in New York State—
hydrologic regions 1 and 2 in the Adirondack region of northern New York: U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5189, 18 p.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5189/
Mulvihill, C.I. and B.P. Baldigo. 2007. Regionalized equations for bankfull-discharge and
channel characteristics of streams in New York State—hydrologic region 3 east of
the Hudson River: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-
5227, 15 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5227/pdf/SIR2007-5227.pdf
Powell, R.O., S.J. Miller, B.E. Westergard, C.I. Mulvihill, B.P. Baldigo, A.S. Gallagher, and
R.R. Starr. 2004. Guidelines for surveying bankfull channel geometry and developing
regional hydraulic-geometry relations for streams of New York State: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 03-092, 20 p.
http://nv.water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/of03092/of03-092.pdf
Westergard, B.E., C.I. Mulvihill, A.G. Ernst, and B.P. Baldigo. 2005. Regional equations for
bankfull discharge and channel characteristics of stream in New York State -
hydrologic region 5 in central New York: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2004-5247, 16p. http://nv.water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/sir045247/
NORTH CAROLINA
Doll, B.A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton, and D.A. Bidelspach. 2003. Hydraulic
geometry relationships for rural North Carolina Coastal Plain streams, NC Stream
Restoration Institute, Report to NC Division of Water Quality for 319 Grant Project
No. EW20011, 11 pp.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wgg/srp/techresources.html
Doll, B.A., D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E. Smith,
and J. Spooner. 2002. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams
throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 38(3): 641-651.
A-6
-------
Harman, W.H., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R.
Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North
Carolina streams, in D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy (eds) Proc. Wildland Hydrology
Symposium, June 30-July 2, 1999, Bozeman, MT. American Water Resources
Association.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/srp/techresources.html
Harman, W.H., D.E. Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, M.A. Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D.
Jennings, D. Clinton, and J. Patterson. 2000. Bankkfull regional curves for North
Carolina mountain streams, Pgs 185-190 in D.L. Kane (ed) Proc. AWRA Conference
on Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage, AK.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wgg/srp/techresources.html
Sweet, W.V., and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships and
recurrence for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 39(4): 861-871.
NORTH DAKOTA
Padmanabhan, G. and B.H. Johnson. 2010. Regional Dimensionless Rating Curves to
Estimate Design Flows and Stages. Journal of Spatial Hydrology 10(1):41-75.
http://www.spatialhvdrologv.com/iournal/papersping2010/Regional%20Dimensionles
s%20Rating%20Curves.pdf
OHIO
Chang, T.J., Y.Y. Fang, H. Wu, and D.E. Mecklenburg. 2004. Bankfull channel dimensions
in southeast Ohio, in Proceedings of the Self-Sustaining Solutions for Streams,
Wetlands, and Watersheds Conference, American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
September 2004: 9 p.
Sherwood, J.M., and C.A. Huitger. 2005. Bankfull characteristics of Ohio streams and their
relation to peak streamflows: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2005-5153, 38 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5153/pdf/Bankfull book.pdf
OKLAHOMA
Dutnell, R.C. 2010. Development of Bankfull Discharge and Channel Geometry
Relationships for Natural Channel Design in Oklahoma Using a Fluvial Geomorphic
Approach, Masters Thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. 95 p.
http://www.riverman-engineering.com/index files/Page473.htm
OREGON
Kuck, T.D. 2000. Regional Hydraulic Geometry Curves of the South Umpqua Area in
Southwestern Oregon. Stream Notes, January 2000, Stream Systems Technology
Center, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO.
http://stream.fs.fed.us/news/streamnt/pdf/SN 1 OO.pdf
A-7
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
Chaplin, J.J. 2005. Development of regional curves relating bankfull-channel geometry and
discharge to drainage area for streams in Pennsylvania and selected areas of
Maryland, U.S. Geologic Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5147.
Cinotto, P.J. 2003. Development of regional curves of bankfull-channel geometry and
discharge for streams in non-urban Piedmont Physiographic Province, Pennsylvania
and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-
4014, 27 p. http://pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/wrir03-4014.pdf
Miller, K.F. 2003. Assessment of channel geometry data through May 2003 in the mid-
Atlantic highlands of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-388, 22 p.
White, K.E. 2001. Regional curve development and selection of a references reach in the
non-urban lowland sections of the piedmont physiographic province, Pennsylvania
and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-
4146, 20 p. http://pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/wrir01-4146.pdf
SOUTH CAROLINA
Arcadis. 2004. "Development of South Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curves."
Presented at the 2004 NC SRI Southeastern Regional Conference on Stream
Restoration. June 21-24, 2004, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/sri/2QQ4 conference/pdf files/mcintyre.pdf
TENNESSEE
Babbit, G.S. 2005. "Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry of Streams Draining the Southwestern
Appalachians of Tennessee." Master'sThesis, University of Tennessee. Knoxville,
TN.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/36180144 Bankfull hydraulic geometry of
streams draining the Southwestern Appalachians of Tennessee electronic res
ource
Smith, D. and L. Turrini-Smith. 1999. Western Tennessee fluvial geomorphic regional
curves: Report to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Water
Management Division, August 31, 1999. Atlanta, GA.
VERMONT
VDEC. 2006. Vermont regional hydraulic geometry curves. Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation, River Management Program, January 2006, 4 p.
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterg/rivers/htm/rv geoassess.htm
VIRGINIA
Austin, S.H. 2006. Hydraulic geometry equations and coefficients, Virginia Department of
Forestry web site, http://www.dof.virginia.gov/wg/ref-streams-hvd-geo-coeff.shtml
A-8
-------
Keaton, J.N., T. Messinger, and E.J. Doheny.2005. Development and analysis of regional
curves for streams in the non-urban valley and Ridge physiographic provinces,
Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Report
2005-5076, 116 p. http://pubs.usqs.gov/sir/2005/5076/sir05 5076.pdf
Krstolic, J.L. and J.J. Chaplin. 2007. Bankfull regional curves for streams in the non-urban,
non-tidal Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland: U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5162, 48 p.
http://pubs.usqs.gov/sir/2007/5162/pdf/SIR2007-5162.pdf
Lotspeich, R.R. 2009. Regional Curves of Bankfull Channel Geometry for Non-Urban
Streams in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5206, 51 p.
pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5206/pdf/sir2009-5206.pdf
Miller, K.F. 2003. Assessment of channel geometry data through May 2003 in the mid-
Atlantic highlands of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-388, 22 p.
WEST VIRGINIA
Keaton, J.N., T. Messinger, and E.J. Doheny. 2005. Development and analysis of regional
curves for streams in the non-urban valley and ridge physiographic provinces,
Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Report
2005-5076, 116 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5076/sir05 5076.pdf
Messinger, T. and J.B. Wiley. 2004. Regional relations in bankfull channel characteristics
determined from flow measurements at selected stream-gaging stations in West
Virginia, 1911-2002: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report
03-4276, 43 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034276/
Messinger, T. 2009. Regional curves for bankfull channel characteristics in the Appalachian
Plateaus, West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2009-5242, 43 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5242/
Miller, K.F. 2003. Assessment of channel geometry data through May 2003 in the mid-
Atlantic highlands of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-388, 22 p.
WYOMING
Dunne, T.D. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company, NY.818p.
A-9
-------
NATIONWIDE RESOURCES
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Water
Management Center. 2004. Regional hydraulic geometry curves database:
http://wmc.ar.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/HHSWR/Geomorphic/index.html
A-10
-------
Part II
Reviews of Representative Stream Assessment
and Mitigation Protocols
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
Dbkf Bankfull depth
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
est Estimate
CIS Geographic Information System
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
max Maximum
min Minimum
QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control
O/E Observed:Expected ratio
opt Optional
RBP Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Barbour et al., 1999)
REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
TSS Total dissolved solids
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USGS U.S. Geologic Survey
Wbkf Bankfull width
Wfpa Flood prone width
-------
LIST OF PROTOCOL REVIEWS
1. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency II -1
2. Revised Methods for Characterizing Stream Habitat in the National Water
Quality Assessment Program, U.S. Geologic Survey II - 3
3. Field Operations Manual for Assessing the Hydrologic Permanence and
Ecological Condition of Headwater Streams, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency II -5
4. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), Physical
Habitat Characterization, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency II -7
5. Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and Biotic Conditions, U.S. Forest
Service II -10
6. Wadeable Streams Assessment: Field Operations Manual, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency II -12
7. Watershed Assessment of River Stability & Sediment Supply (WARSSS),
Rosgen/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency II -16
8. Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol Handbooks, Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources 11-18
9. A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable Streams in Maryland,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources II -21
10. Physical Habitat and Water Chemistry Assessment Protocol for Wadeable
Streams Monitoring, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency II -24
11. Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary headwater habitat streams, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency II -26
12. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI), Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency II -29
13. Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in Wisconsin Streams, U.S. Forest
Service 11-31
14. Physical Habitat of Aquatic Ecosystems, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality II -33
15. Subjective Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats, Kansas Department of Wildlife &
Parks II-35
-------
16. Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas: sampling protocol
for stream channel attributes, AREMP & PACFISH/INFISH (PIBO) II -37
17. R1/R4 (Northern and Intermountain Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat
Standard Inventory Procedures Handbook, U.S. Forest Service II -39
18. Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas within the Pacific
Northwest: stream channel methods for core attributes, AREMP &
PACFISH/INFISH (PIBO) 11-41
19. A Manual of Procedures for Sampling Surface Waters, Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality II - 43
20. Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Technical Guide, U.S. Forest Service II - 46
21. Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment Framework, Idaho Department
of Environmental Quality II - 48
22. Idaho River Ecological Assessment Framework, Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality II - 51
23. Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program Field Manual for Streams, Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality II - 54
24. Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife II-56
25. Stream Inventory Handbook: Levels I & II, U.S. Forest Service II - 58
26. Functional Assessment Approach for High Gradient Streams: West Virginia,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District II - 60
27. West Virginia Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric, West Virginia
Interagency Review Team II - 62
28. [Virginia] Unified Stream Methodology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Norfolk District and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality II - 65
29. Standard Operating Procedure: Compensatory Mitigation, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Charleston District II - 67
30. [Kentucky] Draft Stream Relocation/Mitigation Guidelines, Kentucky Division
of Water II-69
31. Stream Assessment Protocol for Headwater Streams in the Eastern
Kentucky Coalfield Region, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District II - 71
32. Stream Mitigation Guidelines [NC], U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District II - 73
- iv
-------
1
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Intended
Use/Purpose
Target
Resource
Type
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
Geographic
Applicability
General
and Wadeable Rivers
USEPA
wm
\
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. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
http://:www.epa.qov/owow/monitorinq/rbp/
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Wadeable Streams
Stream reach, 100 meters
Nationwide
Varies based on the specific components of the protocol that are employed:
Easy (rapid)
Moderate, or
Intensive (1 day± in the field by a trained or experienced crew of 2 or more persons).
Habitat Assessment Index (based on visual observation)
Channel/Valley Channel alteration (H, L)1; frequency of riffles or bends (H); sinuosity (L); pool
Morphology: substrate characterization (L); Velocity/depth combinations (H); pool variability
bank stability (H, L).
(L);
Physical Habitat: Epifaunal substrate/available cover (H, L); embeddedness (H); sediment deposition
(H, L); channel flow status (H, L); bank vegetative protection (H, L); riparian zone
width (H, L).
Assessment
Parameters
Water Quality:
Biology:
Other: - -
1 H = applicable in high gradient streams; L = applicable in low gradient streams.
Additional Assessment Parameters
Channel/Valley - -
Morphology:
Physical Habitat: Stream velocity; stream depth; canopy cover class; woody debris tally; substrate
particle size classes (est.);predominant riparian vegetation type; dominant aquatic
vegetation type and species.
Water Quality: Temperature, specific conductivity; dissolved oxygen; pH; turbidity; water odors
(classes); surface oils (classes); sediment odors (classes).
Biology: Periphyton (quantitative protocols for single habitat and multi-habitat provided and
field-based rapid periphyton survey protocol described); benthic macroinvertebrates
(single habitat and multi-habitat protocols provided); fish.
Other: Predominant surrounding land use.
1 Qualitative (descriptive);
1 Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.) ~ mostly applicable to physical habitat assessment;
1 Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate) ~ mostly applicable to biological assessment(s).
1-1
-------
Condition Assessment ~ once data analyses and regional relationships have been developed.
Index (e.g. numeric score) ~ physical habitat;
Raw data ~ biological data.
Barbour et al. (1999) stress that regional reference conditions should be used to scale the assessment to
the 'best attainable conditions' for synoptic surveys or those for monitoring trends over time. However,
the authors also state that site-specific reference conditions may be better suited to assess specific
sources of stream impact.
The RBP stresses that practitioners should be trained in the assessment procedure and work in teams in
order to minimize observer bias. Specific QA/QC measures for both field sampling and laboratory
analysis (if applicable) are provided for each main chapter in the RBP manual (e.g. benthic
macroinvertebrates, fish, etc).
The primary purpose of the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers
(RBP) is "to describe a practical technical reference for conducting cost-effective biological assessments
of lotic ecosystems," (Barbour et al., 1 999). The author advocate integrated assessments of stream
condition that incorporate physical habitat, water quality, and biological measures, such as periphyton,
benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish.
The RBP stream habitat assessment is a visual-based rapid assessment that relies upon visual
I 1 cnaractenzations OT ten stream Teatures in oraer to categorize tne quality OT tnose Teatures as eitner poor,
1 marginal, suboptimal, or optimal. The range of quality from poor to optimal is further defined on a point
1 scale from 0 to 20 for each stream habitat parameter assessed. Thus, the maximum point score for the
1 RBP habitat assessment is 200. Quality descriptions are outlined on the field data sheets and further
1 stream habitat parameters used in the assessment based on whether the stream has a high gradient and
1 therefore dominated by riffle/run habitat types and coarse substrate, or a low gradient dominated by
1 glide/pool habitats and typically finer substrates.
1 Barbour et al. (1999) also outline biological data analysis techniques, discuss the integration of physical
1 habitat data and biological data, and suggest methods of reporting and graphically summarizing RBP
1 data. Numerous data forms are provided, and examples of concepts and ideas are illustrated with real
1 data from around the country. Step by step field procedures are suggested and equipment lists provided.
Expertise |||||
1 Barbour et al. (1999) describe the general RBP habitat assessment, as reviewed herein, as a Level I
1 approach that takes approximately 15-20 minutes in the field. However, the authors also suggest that
^WRPPI^ffj^l
^^2
more quantitative and less ambiguous measures of stream habitat parameters, such as USEPA EMAP
methods (Kaufmann and Robison, 1997), result in considerably greater precision.
Periphyton: Late summer or early fall;
Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Depends on program objectives.
Fish: Mid to late summer.
Physical Habitat: Not stated.
Kaufmann, P.R., and E.G. Robison. 1998. Physical Habitat Characterization, Section 7 in J.M. Lazorchak
et al. (eds). EMAP- Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological
Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
The RBP has become a defining framework for biological assessment programs in many U.S. States.
The RBP Habitat Assessment Index in particular is an especially common component of other local or
regional stream assessment protocols.
Barbour et al (1 999) stress that implementation of the RBP is enhanced by developing empirical
relationships between habitat quality and biological conditions within specific geographic regions.
-2
-------
1 " '
^^M
\
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Use/Purpose
Target
Resource
Revised Methods for Characterizing Stream Habitat in the II
National Water Quality Assessment Program 1 ISjUjlijfjJljjfl
II 1
U.S. Geologic Survey
Fitzpatrick, FA, I.R. Waite, P.J. D'Arconte, M.R. Meador, M.A. Maupin, and M.E. Gurtz. 1998. Revised
Methods for Characterizing Stream Habitat in the National Water Quality Assessment Program.
U.S. Geologic Survey, WRI Report 98-4052, Raleigh, NC. 67 pp.
http://pubs.usqs.gov/wri/wri984052/
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Wadeable and non-wadeable streams.
1
K^J.Ji Al L • ' 1 1\\[\ M
Stream reach, 20Xthe mean wetted channel width (Wadeable streams: minimum 150 meters, maximum
300 meters; Non-wadeable streams: minimum 500 meters, maximum 1 ,000 meters).
Fitzpatrick et al. (1998) also present procedures for collecting and analyzing data at basin and channel
segment scales via GIS, topographic mapping, and aerial photography.
Nationwide.
II 1
1 Moderate to Intensive.
1
Channel/Valley Stream discharge; water surface gradient; water depth; flow velocity; wetted channel
Morphology: width; channel habitat units [bed forms]; sinuosity; channel gradient; bankfull stage;
(optional) bank angle; bank height; bank stability index (based on bank angle, bank vegetative
cover, bank height, & dominant bank substrate); cross-sectional channel dimensions;
substrate particle size analysis (est. required; pebble counts, optional).
Physical Habitat: In-stream cover (type and percent-cover); bank vegetative cover; embeddedness;
I 1 riparian vegetative cover (densiometer).
•^•^MM! Water Quality: - -
^^^^ffl
Biology: Riparian vegetation stem density, basal area, & speciation (via point-centered
quarter method, optional).
Other: Stream order; watershed area; cumulative perennial stream length; drainage density;
basin length; drainage shape (ratio of drainage area and the square of the basin
length); basin relief; basin relief ratio (ratio of basin relief and basin length); entire
stream gradient (ratio of difference between elevation at 85% and 10% of stream
length and the stream length between these two points); dominant riparian land use.
Qualitative (descriptive);
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.); and
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Raw data
1 N/A (The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the condition
b|||||jjlJBH of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
-3
-------
MM
I
QA/QC
1
Revised Methods for Characterizing Stream Habitat in the II 1
National Water Quality Assessment Program II ISj||jjjjjJ|jjB
Not stated.
The goal of the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is to assess status and trends in
water quality nationwide and to develop an understanding of the major factors influencing observed
conditions and trends. Stream habitat assessments are conducted as part of the NAWQA Program in
order measure habitat characteristics essential in describing and interpreting water chemistry and
biological conditions (Fitzpatrick et al., 1 998). These procedures allow for appropriate habitat descriptions
and standardization of measurement techniques to facilitate unbiased evaluations of habitat influences on
stream conditions at local, regional, and national scales (Fitzpatrick et al., 1998).
The Revised Methods for NAWQA stream habitat characterizations integrate data at four spatial scales: 1)
basin (watershed); 2) segment; 3) reach; and 4) microhabitat. Basin and segment-scale assessments are
undertaken using GIS, topographic maps, aerial photographs, etc. A stream segment is defined in the
NAWQA program as "a length of stream that is relatively homogeneous with respect to physical, chemical,
and biological properties," and may be over several kilometers long (Fitzpatrick et al., 1998). Watershed
size, climate and ootential runoff characteristics, and land use are determined at the basin-scale, while
1 stream gradient, sinuosity, and water management features are measured at the segment-scale. A
MH computer program called "Basinsoft" has been developed by USGS to quantify a number of basin
1 llH characteristics using GIS (Harvey and Eash, 1996). The stream reach scale is most commonly at issue for
I ^^1 restoration and mitigation projects, and the remainder of this summary will focus primarily on stream reach
II
Expertise
Required
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Seasonality
Related
Procedures/
References
Other/Notes
scale aspects of the NAWQA Revised Methods.
Reach-scale data is collected in the field from 1 1 systematically placed, equally-spaced transects (channel
cross-sections); the spacing of which is based on stream width. The Revised Methods includes
quantitative, semi-quantitative, and qualitative metrics. Specific methods for measuring or estimating
reach-scale data are provided, and numerous illustrative graphs and figures are used to clarify concepts
and instructions. There are additional sampling procedures for optional parameters, as noted in the
Assessment Parameters section above.
Data forms are provided for recording basin, segment, and reach scale data, although it is acknowledged
that some may need revision to meet local needs. The Revised Methods manual also includes a
suggested data management hierarchy that is available on the internet, which can be imported into a
variety of commercial spreadsheet and database software applications. Data analysis is described, and
specific statistical procedures that can be utilized to identify relationships among habitat variables and/or
relationships among habitat variables and biological components of the stream system are recommended.
Not stated.
Not stated.
Not stated.
Harvey, C.A. and D.A. Eash. 1996. Description, instructions, and verification for Basinsoft, a computer
program to quantify drainage-basin characteristics, U.S. Geologic Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 95-4287. 25 pp.
1
-4
-------
•
1
1
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Intended
Use/Purpose
Target
Resource
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
Geographic
Applicability
General
Level of
II 1
Field Operations Manual for Assessing the Hydrologic Permanence II
and Ecological Condition of Headwater Streams II B^ll
U.S. EPA
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, D.C.
http://www.epa.qov/eerd/manual/headwater.htm
Inventory; Ambient Monitoring.
Headwater streams (ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial) with a drainage area less than 1 square mile.
Stream reach, 40x the channel width (-30 meters), absent of any tributary confluence
Forested, temperate regions (study sites were located in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, New Hampshire,
New York, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia).
Intensive
Stream discharge; water depth; flow velocity; wetted channel width; channel gradient;
„. . ... .. categorical channel habitat units (erosional habitats vs. depositional habitats);
.. h| sinuosity (no. of complete meanders in sample reach); bankfull width; bankfull depth;
orp o ogy. f|ooc|prone area wj,-|m; depth to bedrock; depth to groundwater; streambed sediment
1 moisture content; substrate particle size classes.
Ejli Physical Habitat: Riparian vegetative cover (densiometer).
| Water Quality: Temperature; conductivity; oH; dissolved oxyqen.
R. | Bryophytes (qualitative or quantitative); algae (qualitative or quantitative); benthic
10 °9y' invertebrates (quantitative); amphibians (semi-quantitative).
Other: --
Qualitative (descriptive; categorical),
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.), and
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimates).
Raw data
Reference
IN/M ^ i lie uujeuuve ui me meuiuu ui piuueuuie is nui piebenieu in me uuiuexi ui utMiimiy me UUIIUHIUII
of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
Not stated.
1-5
-------
Field Operations Manual for Assessing the Hydrologic Permanence
and Ecological Condition of Headwater Streams •fll
The "Field Operations Manual for Assessing the Hydrologic Permanence and Ecological Condition of
Headwater Streams" provides a compilation of methods useful to characterize headwater streams. The
Manual does not present information allowing the user to immediately assess the condition of any given
headwater stream (i.e. there is no reference condition or index provided for any particular geographic
region). Instead, the Manual provides an assemblage of recommended methods and/or tools potentially
useful to undertake an exercise aimed at developing a regional reference database. It does however
include a section outlining considerations for field sampling design, including minimum sample size,
hypothesis testing, and even a brief introduction to BACI study designs (before/after control/impact). The
Manual also provides conceptual backgrounds explaining the purpose and relevance of each suggested
parameter.
MJIJjjjjijIjfl Stnrlv <5ite<5 iisprl fnr tpstinn th<= mpthnrl<5 innliirlprl in th<= Manual were limiterl tn hasin areas rnnsistent with
Hi
[•fjOjTj^Ti^^^^^^H
References
the "Primary Headwater Habitat Streams" protocol of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA,
2002), and the methods for some parameters included in the Manual are adapted from OEPA (2002).
Instructions for each step are well defined, including photographs and/or diagrams. Materials lists and
literature references for each step of each method are included following each section of the report.
Recommended field data sheets are provided.
Alternative sampling methods are provided for documenting many stream parameters based on the type of
equipment available (e.g. stream discharge; flow velocity; channel slope; etc.).
Not stated. However, proposed sampling, sorting, data reduction, and analysis of biological community
assemblages should only be undertaken by persons with appropriate levels of expertise and training.
Not stated.
Time of year is critical when sampling headwater streams, because precipitation and evapotranspiration
can have such profound influences on stream flow. Ideally, sampling would be conducted during both the
wettest and driest times of the year to capture the extreme limits of variability in physical conditions.
However, if only one field sampling visit is possible, sampling should be conducted during a Spring index
period when stream flow is greatest and most aquatic organisms can be collected.
OEPA. 2002. Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's Primary Headwater Headwater Habitat Streams, Final
Version 1.0. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH.
http://www.epa.ohio.qov/dsw/wqs/headwaters/index.aspx
Although the authors note that land use change within a stream's watershed and the habitat degradation
that may result is considered by some authors to be the greatest threat to streams and their biological
| mjn|||jm^| comrnunjtjes ^ere is no parameter included in the Manual to estimate or otherwise document land cover
1 or land uses within a watershed of interest.
-------
1
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Intended
Use/Purpose
Target
Resource
Type
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
of Effort
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), II
Physical Habitat Characterization m±m^| Ł••• ^^jj II
Kaufmann, P.R. and E.G. Robison. 1998. Physical Habitat Characterization, Section 7 in J.M. Lazorchak,
D.J. Klemm, and D.V. Peck (eds), Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program- Surface
Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Wadeable
Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/620/R-94/004F, Washington, D.C.
http://www.epa.qov/emap/html/pubs/docs/qroupdocs/surfwatr/field/ws abs.html
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
Ambient Monitoring
Wadeable Streams
Stream reach, 40X low flow wetted width (minimum 150 meters)
Nationwide
Moderate
Stream discharge; water depth; channel habitat units [bed forms]; pool formative
Channel /Valley features; wetted channel width; channel gradient; bankfull width; bankfull height; bank
Morphology height; bank angle; substrate particle size classes (est.); embeddedness (est.); bank
undercut distance.
y ' ' Woody debris tally; areal cover class of fish concealment structures (est.); aerial cover
I class (est.) ot aquatic macrophytes and tilamentous algae; riparian vegetative cover
(densiometer); relative aerial cover class (est.) and type (e.g. woody trees) of riparian
vegetation in canopy, mid-layer, and ground cover.
water uuanty i emperature; conquctivity; aciq neutralizing capacity; qissoiveq organic caroon;
nutrients; turbidity; total suspended solids; color; major cations and anions.
Biology - -
Other Observation of human disturbance and proximity to stream channel.
Qualitative (descriptive);
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Raw data.
However, Kaufmann et al. (1999) provide detailed procedures that can be used to calculate metrics related
to stream reach and riparian habitat quality using EMAP PHC field data.
N/A (The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the condition
of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
Kaufmann et al. (1999) discuss the precision associated with EMAP Physical Habitat Characterization
measurements and metrics based on extensive field trials in Oregon and the Mid-Atlantic region.
-7
-------
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP),
Physical Habitat Characterization
Description/
Summary
The USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is a research program aimed at
developing the tools necessary to monitor and assess the status and trends of national ecological
resources. EMAP protocols have been used to assess the regional condition of wadeable streams in the
Pacific Northwest, the Mid-Atlantic, the greater 12-State western U.S., and the central U.S. They also
served as the basis for the Wadeable Streams Assessment (USEPA, 2006), which was a nationwide State
and Federal agency collaborative effort to statistically summarize the condition of the Nation's streams.
The EMAP Physical Habitat Characterization (PHC) is one component of the broader EMAP protocols,
which also include: water chemistry, stream discharge, periphyton, sediment community metabolism,
sediment toxicity, benthic macroinvertebrates, aquatic vertebrates, fish tissue contaminants, and rapid
habitat and visual stream assessments (Lazorchak et al. 1998).
There are four broad components of EMAP PHC: 1) stream discharge; 2) thalweg profile; 3) large woody
debris tally; and 4) channel and riparian characterization. The target stream reach is divided into 10
equally spaced segments with cross-sections established at each union for a total of 11 cross-sections; the
first being established at the downstream end of the reach. Stream discharge is measured at a single
carefully selected cross-section following methods in Kaufmann (1998). The thalweg profile is a
longitudinal survey of depth, channel habitat units, and presence of soft/small sediment at predetermined
intervals based on channel width. The woody debris tally is recorded in each of the 10 reach segments
between the cross-sections. Channel and riparian characterization includes measures and/or visual
estimation of channel dimensions, substrate, fish cover, bank characteristics, riparian vegetation structure,
and evidence of human disturbance. These measures are obtained at each of the 11 cross-sections.
The EMAP PHC provides very detailed step-by-step instructions for laying out the sample reach and
describes what to measure, how to measure, and in what sequence to measure all of the EMAP PHC
components. Channel habitat unit classes are defined for the thalweg profile, large woody debris is
defined and various "influence zones" are illustrated for the debris tally, and precise descriptions are
provided for the whole suite of channel and riparian characterization variables. Comprehensive data forms
are provided, and the EMAP PHC provides a list of equipment and supplies necessary to execute the
characterization.
Finally, the EMAP PHC recommends notation and data entry features and styles to facilitate quantitative
statistical assessment and series analysis of the data following methods in Kaufmann et al. (1999).
Kaufmann (draft 2001) revised the EMAP PHC as part of a Western Pilot Study Field Operations Manual
for Wadeable Streams (Peck et al., Unpublished 2001 Draft). The Western Pilot PHC includes a number
of procedural modifications for collecting data on substrate particle size, in-stream fish cover, human
influence, and thalweg channel habitat classification. There are also three new PHC metrics in the
Western Pilot: 1) size and proximity of large, old riparian trees and occurrence of invasive plant species in
the riparian area; 2) degree of geomorphic channel constraint; and 3) evidence of major floods or debris
torrents.
None specified, but the authors stress that the EMAP PHC field methods are easily learned.
Seasonal ity
1.5 to 3.5 hours in the field for a two-person crew
The EMAP PHC field procedures are most efficiently applied during low flow conditions during the
vegetative growing season, but they may be applied during other seasons and higher stream flows.
-8
-------
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP),
Physical Habitat Characterization
Cuffney, T.F, M.E. Gurtz, and M.R. Meador. 1993. Methods for Collecting Benthic Invertebrate Samples as
Part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 93-406, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Kaufmann, P.R. Unpublished 2001 Draft. Physical Habitat Characterization, Section 7 In D.V. Peck, J.M.
Lazorchak, and D.J. Klemm (eds). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Surface
Waters: Western Pilot Study Field Operations for Wadeable Streams. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA/xxx/x-xx/xxx, April 2001. Washington, D.C.
Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying Physical Habitat
in Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/620/R-99/003, Washington, D.C.
Lazorchak, J.M., D.J. Klemm, and D.V. Peck (eds). 1998., Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program- Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition
of Wadeable Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/620/R-94/004F, Washington,
D.C.
USEPA. 2006. Draft Wadeable Stream Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA-841-B-06-002, Washington, D.C.
Other/Notes
EMAP procedures for sampling benthic maroinvertebrates are based on the USEPA Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols, but sampling equipment has been modified to allow a single field investigator to conduct the
sampling, as recommended by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment Program
(Cuffney et al., 1993).
EMAP Aquatic Vertebrate sampling procedures for fish and amphibians utilize the same stream cross-
sectional transects as other EMAP procedures. Aquatic vertebrate sampling in wadeable streams utilizes
a backpack electro-shocker and block nets or seines. Collection time is based on transect width and
should take place for not less than 45 minutes, but no longer than 3 hours.
-9
-------
Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and Biotic Conditions
Prima
Autho
Agenr
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and
Biotic Conditions. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
General Technical Report INT-138, Ogden, UT. 70 pp.
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/29138
Intenc—
Use/Purp'
Targe
Resource
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Wadeable Streams
Stream reach of unspecified length.
Nationwide
General Level
Moderate to Intensive.
Channel / Valley
Morphology:
Stream discharge; water depth; channel habitat units [bed forms]; percent pool;
percent riffle; pool formative features; channel gradient; channel elevation; sinuosity;
bank angle; physical bank stability; channel cross-sectional dimensions; stream
width; substrate particle size classes (est.); embeddedness (est.); bank undercut
distance; vegetative bank stability.
Assessment
Parameters
Physical Habitat: Woody debris tally; pool quality; in-stream vegetative cover; solar radiation on water
surface; riparian vegetative cover type; vegetation overhanging water surface.
Water Quality: - -
Biology: Vegetation use by animals (est.); herbage production and utilization; fish (numerous
sampling methods described); benthic macroinvertebrates (numerous sampling
methods described).
Other: Stream order.
Primarily quantitative (actual measurement or estimate) with some semi-quantitative components.
Raw data
N/A
(The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the condition
of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
An analysis of the accuracy and precision of most of the assessment variables is provided based on time
series graphical interpretation of habitat estimates over a 2 to 15 year period in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada
relative to the true value of the respective variable. Precision was similarly rated based on confidence
intervals obtained for each habitat measurement.
11-10
-------
1 Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and Biotic Conditions
1
1 Platts et al. (1983) set out to propose a "valid, objective, quantitative, repeatable procedure that will
provide accurate evaluation of the stream and its biotic communities under any set of conditions."
1 Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and Biotic Conditions presents standardized techniques for
1 macroinvertebrate assemblages.
1 Platts et al. (1983) stress transect-based methods for physical stream characterization, whereby channel
I 1 and riparian zone cross-sections (transects) are established from which one or more ohvsical stream and
1 riparian zone attributes are inventoried as they intersect each transect.
1 The authors do not suggest any means of aggregating data collected using these
1 specific evaluation of stream condition.
MMJMpfl Not stated
methods into any
IE: ^^^^^^^^^H
Seasonally ^^^J ^
1 Many of the recommended methods in Platts et al. (1983) have been modified and/or incorporated for use
1 in other stream monitoring and assessment protocols in the two decades since the this manual was
published.
9
-11
-------
Wadeable Stream Assessment: Field Operations Manual
U.S. EPA
USEPA. 2004a. Wadeable Streams Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA-841-B-04-004. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2006. Wadeable Stream Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams. EPA-841-
B-06-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
http://www.epa.qov/owow/monitorinq/wsa/wsa fulldocument.pdf
Ambient Monitoring
Wadeable streams; generally 1st thru 3rd order streams (excluding intermittent and ephemeral streams)
Stream reach, 40X the channel width, absent of any tributary confluence or impoundment.
Nationwide
Intense (1 day± in the field by a trained or experienced crew of 2 or more persons)
Assessment
Parameters
„. . ... .. Stream discharge; channel gradient; channel sinuosity; channel cross-sectional
aMne . |3 ey dimensions; bank height; bank angle; channel habitat units [aka bed forms]; wetted
*"' channel width; substrate particle size classes (est.); bank undercut distance;.
Physical Habitat: Woody debris tally; areal cover class offish concealment structures (est.);
embeddedness (est.); riparian vegetative cover (densiometer) and type in canopy,
mid-layer, and ground cover; rapid visual-based habitat assessment (RBP).
Water Quality: - -
Biology: Benthic macroinvertebrates.
Other: Presence of anthropogenic disturbance within 10 meters of streambanks.
Resolution
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.): Most of methods included are quantitative, except for the
rapid habitat assessment and some other estimates of metrics in lieu of actual measurements.
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate): According to the authors, systematic spatial sampling
design for physical habitat measurements collected from channel cross sections scales the sample reach
and resolution in proportion to stream size and allows for statistical and series analyses of the data.
1-12
-------
Wadeable Stream Assessment: Field Operations Manual
Output
Index (e.g.
numeric score):
Qualitative
Description:
Raw data:
Rapid visual-based habitat assessment (RBP habitat assessment); macroinvertebrate
IBI; macroinvertebrate O/E index; relative bed stability index; riparian disturbance
index.
Most of the Field Operation Manual's methods result in raw data and/or field data
sheets. Appendix A of USEPA (2006) and Kaufmann et al. (1999) summarize data
assessment and formulation of various indices.
Reference
Internal [See Appendix A of USEPA (2006)].
Reference conditions for the Wadeable Streams Assessment were defined using data for nine (9)
chemical and physical parameters to identify teasf disturbed conditions per ecoregion. Those nine
parameters included total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chloride, sulfate, acid-neutralizing capacity, turbidity,
in-stream fish habitat complexity, percent fine substrate, and a riparian disturbance index. Benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages present at those reference sites were then used to develop the condition
indices introduced below.
A comprehensive training program that included practice field sampling was instituted prior to data
collection activities for the Wadeable Streams Assessment. Each field crew was subsequently audited,
and 10% of sample sites were revisited to assess data quality.
Comprehensive step-by-step instructions are provided for every step of every field data method proposed.
Data forms, recommended guidelines for documenting field data, and comprehensive materials and
equipment lists are provided. Instructions for equipment calibration, maintenance, and storage are
included. A flow chart illustrating a recommended general sequence of sampling activities per team
member is provided, and text further describes logistics and work flow. The Field Operations Manual
(USEPA, 2004a) does not itself include any information about data analysis, but recommended methods
are outlined in related documents (Appendix A of USEPA (2006) and Kaufmann et al. (1999)).
This document describes procedures for collecting data, samples, and information in the field about biotic
assemblages and environmental attributes of stream ecosystems that have been used to assess stream
conditions over large geographic areas as part of a collaborative State and Federal assessment of the
condition of wadeable streams nationwide. The procedures presented in this manual are based on
standard USEPA methods used for the EMAP and REMAP studies. Methods of analysis are summarized
in Appendix A of USEPA (2006), and more detailed information on many of the specific indicators used in
the Wadeable Streams Assessment is located in Kaufmann et al. (1999). None of these documents by
themselves provide a template from which the ecological condition of a given stream in the field can be
assessed relative to other streams within a given ecoregion by practitioners who are not associated with
USEPA or its partners in the Wadeable Stream Assessment project.
Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages for the Wadeable Streams Assessment were evaluated using a
multimetric macroinvertebrate index of biotic condition and a predictive model of taxonomic composition.
This model uses a set of least disturbed sites and variables related to natural gradients (e.g. elevation,
stream size, stream gradient, latitude, longitude, etc.) to define a taxonomic composition that would be
expected in the absence of anthropogenic stressors. The number of expected taxa actually observed at a
site is compared to the total number of expected taxa as an Observed:Expected ratio (O/E index). This
O/E model was initially developed in Europe and Australia (River Invertebrate Prediction and
Classification System, RIVPACS), but is reportedly becoming more commonly used in the U.S.
(continued on next page)
-13
-------
Wadeable Stream Assessment: Field Operations Manual
Physical habitat data was used to define four condition indicators: streambed excess fine sediment, in-
steam habitat cover complexity, riparian vegetation, and riparian human disturbance. Streambed excess
fine sediment was assessed using a Relative Bed Stability (RBS) index (Faustini, 2008; Kaufman et al.,
2008; 2009), which is a ratio of the median stream reach or riffle particle size diameter divided by the
critical bed particle diameter based on streambed sheer stress at bankfull flows. In-stream fish habitat
cover complexity was based on a measure that sums the amount of instream habitat within one (1) meter
of the water surface (Kaufmann et al., 1999). The cover and complexity of riparian vegetation was based
on visual estimates of areal vegetative cover and type of vegetation in three strata: canopy, mid-layer,
and ground cover (Kaufmann et al., 1999). A Riparian Disturbance Index was used to determine the
extent of riparian human disturbance. This index is based on the presence of eleven specific forms of
human activities inventoried at 22 separate locations along the sample stream reach, which are weighted
according to their proximity to the stream channel (Kaufmann et al. (1999).
In addition to field methodology, there is additional information on data-management, safety and health,
and other logistical aspects integrated into the methods and overall operational scenario. Specific
analytical water chemistry laboratory protocols and benthic macroinvertberate laboratory protocols are
provided in USEPA (2004b) and USEPA (2004c), respectively.
Not stated. However, proposed sampling, sorting, data reduction, and analysis of biological community
assemblages should only be undertaken by persons with appropriate levels of expertise and training.
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Field sampling = 1 day; 2 to 3 persons
Stream sampling for the Wadeable Streams Assessment survey was conducted during a summer index
period between 2000 and 2004.
Related
Procedures/
References
I
Faustini, J. M. P.R. Kaufmann, and D.P. Larsen. 2008. Using a Relative Bed Stability Index to define
reference conditions for assessing anthropogenic sedimentation, American Geophysical Union, Fall
Meeting 2008.
Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying physical habitat
in wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-99/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Kaufmann, P.R., and E.G. Robison. 1998. Physical habitat characterization, Section 7 in J.M. Lazorchak
et al., (eds.), Environmental monitoring and assessment program surface waters, field operations and
methods for measuring the ecological condition of wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Kaufmann, P.R., J.M. Faustini, D.P. Larsen, and M.A. Shirazi. 2008. A roughness-corrected index of
relative bed stability for regional stream surveys. Geomorphology 99: 150-170.
Lazorchak, J.M., D.J. Klemm, and D.V. Peck. 1998. Environmental monitoring and assessment program
surface waters, field operations and methods for measuring the ecological condition of wadeable
streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Kaufmann, P.R., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Faustini. 2009. Bed stability and sedimentation associated with
human disturbances in Pacific Northwest streams. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 45(2): 434-459.
-14
-------
Wadeable Stream Assessment: Field Operations Manual
Related
Procedures/
References
(continued)
Peck, D.V., J.M. Lazorchak, and D.J. Klemm (editors). Unpublished 2001 draft. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program -Surface Waters: Western Pilot Study Field Operations Manual for
Wadeable Streams. EPA/XXX/X-XX/XXXX. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2004b. Wadeable Stream Assessment: Benthic Laboratory Methods. EPA841- B-04-007. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2004c. National Wadeable Stream Assessment: Water Chemistry Laboratory Manual. EPA841-
Development, Washington, DC.
1-15
-------
1
1
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Intended
Use/Purpose
Resource
Type
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
Assessment
Parameters
Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply
Rosgen, D. 2007. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Wildland
Hydrology. Fort Collins, CO. 193 pp.
http://www.epa.qov/warsss/
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment (of sediment supply and channel stability);
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Not stated.
Three-phases: I) Watershed-level reconnaissance;
II) Watershed-level inventory;
III) Stream reaches, specific hillslopes, etc.
Nationwide.
Intensive (1 day± in the field by a trained or experienced crew of 2 or more persons)
Morphology: dimensions vs drainage area); bankfull width & depth; radius of curvature; bank
height; bank height ratio; cross-sectional channel dimensions; entrenchment ratio;
floodprone area width; maximum depth; sinuosity; longitudinal profile; meander length;
meander belt width; valley slope; modified Pfankuch channel stability index; bank
alteration; percent of channel blockage (including woody debris, structures, etc.);
substrate particle size (pebble count); water surface slope; channel habitat units [bed
forms]; pool length & spacing; pool length:riffle width ratio; channel evolutionary stage.
Physical Habitat: Percent altered riparian vegetation; length of channel with altered riparian vegetation.
Water Quality: Suspended sediment load & bedload [measured using methods in Edwards and
Glysson(1999)].
Biology: Riparian species composition and percent coverage per strata.
Other: Stream order; watershed area; watershed land use.
Qualitative (descriptive);
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Condition Assessment (of sediment supply and channel stability);
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Raw data.
Regional reference conditions required, but not built-in to the assessment.
Not stated.
1-16
-------
Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply
(WARSSS)
The Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS) was developed by Dave
Rosgen with the support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). USEPA has developed
an internet-based assessment tool using WARSS, which is the principle source of this review.
WARSSS utilizes a three-phase approach to assess both suspended and bedload sediment in rivers and
streams. Collectively, execution of all three phases of WARSSS may take numerous months and include
a multitude of data intensive field investigations and analyses. Results of the assessment can be used to
evaluate known or suspected sediment problems, develop sediment remediation and management
components of watershed plans, develop sediment TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads), and other uses.
Phase I is a Reconnaissance Level Assessment (RLA) that utilizes remote sensing data, published maps,
and existing watershed data (e.g. topographic maps, recent and historical aerial photographs, land
use/cover and soils maps) to provide a rapid, qualitative assessment of potential sediment sources
throughout a watershed.
Phase II of the WARSSS is a Rapid Resource Inventory for Sediment & Stability Consequence (RRISSC).
The RRISSC phase requires analysis of the type and extent of land uses, the erosion potential of the
landscape and channel, and the relationship of potential sediment sources to hillslope, hydrologic and
channel processes beginning with target areas identified during the Phase I RLA. A step-by-step risk
rating system using a series of worksheets, tables, and relationships of key erosional/depositional process
variables is utilized to identify low, moderate, and high risk conditions. The final summary of potential
sediment and stream channel stability risk identifies specific areas and stream reaches that may need
either mitigation and/or more detailed assessment.
The Phase III Prediction Level Assessment (PLA) relies largely on field measurements and is the most
detailed level of assessment intended for areas identified as high-risk in the RRISSC. During the PLA,
reference conditions are used to determine departure from natural rates of sediment and/or natural
channel stability. The PLA analysis ultimately provides data to facilitate the design of well-targeted, site-
specific and process-specific management prescriptions. Effectiveness monitoring is critical to compare
predicted and observed values and can also be used to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation.
The USEPA internet site for WARSSS includes step-by-step instructions for each element of each phase
of the assessment, including worksheets, tables, figures, graphs, etc. Background information is provided
to familiarize the reader with water quality and biological effects of excessive sediment in rivers and
streams. Three case studies are also provided, along with numerous links to additional resources, a
glossary, and a considerable bibliography.
WARSSS is described as requiring expert judgment that is best undertaken by technical personnel very
familiar with sediment sources, processes, and effects.
Time
Necessai, __
Conduct
Assessment
Seasonal!
Three-phases: I) >1 day, depending on the size of the watershed being evaluated;
II) >1 week, depending on the size of the watershed being evaluated;
III) >1 month, depending on the size of the watershed being evaluated.
Not stated.
Relate
Procedure
Reference:
Other/Notes
Edwards, T.K. and G.D. Glysson. 1999. Field Methods for Measurement of Fluvial Sediment, Techniques
of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 3, Chapter 2, U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA.
1-17
-------
[Vermont] Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol Handbooks
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Kline, M., C. Alexander, S. Pomeroy, S. Jaquith, G. Springston, B. Cahoon, and L. Becker. Various Dates
(2003, rev. 2004). Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol Handbooks. Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources, Waterbury, VT. www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers.htm
ise/rurpose
Target
Resource
Type
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterg/rivers/htm/rv qeoassesspro.htm
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
Inventory;
I Ambient Monitoring.
Wadeable Streams
Varies: stream reach to watershed scales
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
Vermont
Easy (rapid);
Moderate;
Intensive (1 day± in the field by a trained or experienced crew of 2 or more persons).
Assessment
Parameters
Channel/Valley Channel hydraulic geometry (plan, pattern, and profile); stream classification; bank
Morphology: slope & bank materials; substrate particle size; rapid geomorphic assessment.
nu . , L, . ., , Woody debris tally; rapid visual-based habitat assessment (RBP); riparian buffer
rnysica nauitat. . ...
3 width.
Water Quality: - -
Biology: - -
Other: Watershed land use/land cover; river corridor land use).
Qualitative (descriptive);
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.); and
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Semi-quantitative indices representing various geomorphic or physical habitat components;
Qualitative Descriptions; and
Raw, quantitative data.
1-18
-------
1
[Vermont] Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol Handbooks E9
Internal: Hydraulic geometry relationships (i.e. regional curves) have been developed and continue to be
refined, based on data submitted by users of the Protocols. The Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation has a reference reach program that collects data on geomorphic reference streams
statewide, and reports containing reference data from Vermont and other regions by stream type have
been drafted.
•HJUJjUJJlfl 1 External: Reference stream type must be identified in Phase 1. The reference stream type is defined as
1
me iiciiuicii biieam type mai wuuiu exibi m me aus>enue ui ciiiiiiiupuyeiiiu unanyes LU me uiiemnei,
floodplain, and/or watershed. Reference stream type is often based primarily on characteristics of the
valley, geology, and climate. Verification and refinement of the reference stream type is made by
observing sediment and hydrologic characteristics, as well as channel, floodplain, and terrace land forms
during Phases 2 and 3.
The Protocols stress that users should establish a quality assurance (QA) program for each phase of
assessment. It further outlines three key components of a good QA program and provides detailed
descriptions and recommendations for each: training, data review, and use of a data management system.
The purpose of the Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols is to provide a method for gathering
scientifically sound information that can be used for watershed planning and detailed characterization of
riparian and in-stream habitat, stream-related erosion, and flood hazards. The Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources (VANR) designed the series of three protocol handbooks to consolidate what had traditionally
been distinct river and watershed assessment and resource management programs. Collectively,
execution of all phases of the Protocols result in an exhaustive, comprehensive documentation of physical
and geomorphic attributes of a stream and its watershed.
IThe Protocols are predicated on a geomorphic stream classification system that VANR developed based
on Schumm (1977), Rosgen (1994; 1996), and Montgomery and Buffington (1997) that can be used to
generally characterize: 1) the relationship of the stream with its floodplain; 2) the respective roles of bed
form, relative channel depth, and stream gradient in sediment transport processes; 3) the size and quantity
of sediment in transport; 4) the boundary resistance of the stream bed and banks; and 5) hydrologic runoff
characteristics. VANR also developed a channel evolution model adapted from Schumm et al. (1984),
Rosgen (1996), and Thorne et al. (1997). Both the classification and the channel evolution model help to
frame a "sensitivity rating" that represents a stream's potential rate of change in response to either
watershed or local disturbance. Parameters used to rate sensitivity include: 1) erodibility of channel
1 1 uuuiiuciiy nidiei idib, ^.j seunneiii cinu nuvv leyinieb ^vuiuine cinu IUMUII uiiciiciuieiisiius;, o; uui nil leniei n
1 (valley width/channel width); and 4) stage of channel evolution (degree of departure from reference stream
[E ^^^^H type conditions).
1 1 After first intrnrlnninn fluvial nenmnrnhin nrnresses innhirlinn sediment transnnrt nhannel evolution etn
1
the Protocols provide three separate, but interrelated approaches for assessing geomorphic and physical
habitat conditions of stream reaches and watersheds. Phase 1 is based on remote sensing and very
limited, reconnaissance-level, field visits where valley types are identified and geologic conditions
investigated to identify provisional stream types. Departure from reference conditions can be postulated
based on watershed and stream corridor land use and channel or floodplain modifications. Phase 1
assessments are useful to help prioritize stream reaches for potential Phase 2 assessment, and they also
serve as cataloguing databases where the results of Phase 2 and 3 assessments can be entered and
tracked on a watershed scale over time.
Phase 2 assessments include channel and floodplain cross-sections and stream substrate
characterization, all of which is used to identify existing stream type and on-going channel adjustment
processes. Qualitative field evaluations of erosion and depositional processes, changes in channel and
floodplain geometry, and riparian land use/land cover are used to assess stream geomorphic condition,
physical habitat, adjustment processes, reach sensitivity (described previously), and stage of channel
evolution. Rapid Habitat Assessment (RHA) and Rapid Geomorphic Assessment (RGA) index values are
Continued on next page
11-19
-------
Summary
(continued)
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
[Vermont] Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocol Handbooks
| |
also calculated in Phase 2. The RHA is the 10-metric habitat assessment index included as part of the
U.S. EPA rapid bioassessment protocols (Barbour et al., 1999). The RGA is based on assessment of 4 to
6 categorical or ordinal metrics that are summed to result in a single index score. Field data sheets and
computer database tools have been developed to facilitate Phase 2 data reduction and reporting. The
Phase 2 assessment is ideal for identifying stream reaches for protection and restoration projects and the
completion of more intensive Phase 3 surveys.
Like Phase 2 assessments, Phase 3 assessments are also completed on a stream reach or sub-reach
scale. Phase 3 assessments include the use of field survey equipment and other accurate measuring
devices and methods to quantify measurements of channel dimension, pattern, profile, and sediments.
These are typically undertaken to support requirements for design and implementation of restoration
projects. The VANR also uses Phase 3 assessment protocols to develop reference tools (such as regional
hydraulic geometry curves). Spreadsheet and database tools have been developed to facilitate Phase 3
data reduction and reporting.
Appendices in the Handbooks provide field data forms, database recommendations and instructions,
technical information, and detailed techniques and methods for various components of stream geomorphic
assessment.
Technical training is required; Field assistance from VANR specialists is offered on an as available basis.
Varies Phase 1: based on size of watershed and level of detail;
Phase 2: 1 to 2 days per mile of stream length;
Phase 3: 3 to 4 days.
Not stated.
1 Barbour, MT. J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocls 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.
1 Montgomery, D., and J. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach Morphology in Mountain Drainage Basins.
Geological Society of America Bulletin; v. 109; no. 5; pp 596-611.
Rosgen, D.L 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena: 22 169-199.
1 Rosgen D.L. 1996. Applied Fluvial Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
1 Schumm, S.A. 1969. River Metamorphosis. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, vol. 95, 255-273.
Schumm, S.A. 1977. The Fluvial System. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
1 Schumm, S.A., M.D. Harvey, and C.C. Watson. 1984. Incised Channels Morphology, Dynamics, and
Control. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO.
1 Thorne, C.R., R.D. Hey, and M.D. Newson. 1997. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology for River Engineering
and Management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.
Other/Notes
II-20
-------
A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable Streams in
Maryland
Primary
Author/
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Paul, M.J, J.B. Stribling, R.J. Klauda, P.P. Kazyak, M.T. Southerland, and N.E. Roth. 2002. A Physical
Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable Streams in Maryland. CBWP-MANTA-EA-03-4,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division,
Annapolis, MD. 150 pp.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/mbss/mbss pubs.html#technical
Intended
Use/Purpose:
Target
Resource
Type:
Scale/Unit of
Assessment:
Geographic
Applicability:
General Level
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Wadeable Streams
Stream reach of unspecified length.
Maryland
Easy
Assessment
Parameters:
Coastal Plain:
Channel/Valley
Morphology:
Physical Habitat:
Water Quality:
Biology:
Other:
Piedmont:
Channel/Valley
Morphology:
Physical Habitat:
Water Quality:
Biology:
Other:
Bank stability.
In-stream wood; in-stream habitat quality (percent of habitat types present: riffle,
run/glide, deep pools, shallow pools, undercut banks, and overhanging cover);
epibenthic substrate; shading.
Remoteness (distance to a road).
Bank stability.
In-stream wood; in-stream habitat quality; epibenthic substrate; shading;
embeddedness; riffle quality.
Remoteness (distance to a road).
continued on next page
11-21
-------
Assessment
Parameters:
(continued)
A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable Streams in
Maryland
Blue Ridqe, Ridqe and Valley, and Appalachian Plateau:
Channel/Valley ... . . .....
.. . , ' Bankstabihty
Morphology: 3
Physical Habitat: Epibenthic substrate; shading; riparian width.
Water Quality: - -
Biology: - -
Other: Remoteness (distance to a road).
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
•••••••ll 1 Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate)
Output:
Reference:
QA/QC:
I
Index (e.g. numeric score) ~ Physical Habitat Index
Internal (e.g. Index calibrated to existing local or regional reference data)
Not stated.
TU H/II-IMD ou • ivt i coui\ • ^ ^ if ,4 f ,4 t t ,j -t •
1 procedure for analyzing physical habitat data into an index capable of predicting biological stream
1 conditions in Maryland. It is specifically reviewed in this report to illustrate a method of calibrating
1 physical stream assessment data with regional biological stream conditions to develop a physical stream
1 assessment protocol with significant independent utility as a tool to predict biological conditions. The PHI
1 has been subsequently modified by MDNR as a physical habitat assessment component for the
1 Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) sampling protocols (MDNR, 2007).
1 MDNR developed PHI as a multi-metric physical habitat index capable of discriminating reference stream
1 conditions from degraded stream conditions in Maryland. This work updates and revises a provisional
1 PHI developed by MDNR in 1999 (Hall et al., 1999). The PHI was developed by using biological,
1 chemical, land use, and physical stream habitat data that had been collected throughout the State of
1 Maryland from 1994-2000 using methods described in Roth et al. (1999). Streams were classified based
on physiographic setting, and selected criteria were used to represent reference and degraded stream
Description/
Summary:
conditions (principally land use). Biological data was specifically avoided during selection of reference
sites in order to independently assess the discriminatory efficiency of the PHI and avoid the circularity
caused by including biological data in a tool to predict biological conditions. Candidate stream habitat
1 conditions. The most discriminating and least redundant metrics were then assembled into a final
1 revised PHI (Paul et al., 2002). Different PHI metrics are used for each of three stream classes based on
1 physiography (see Assessment Parameters above).
1 Some PHI metrics are recorded as counts, measurements, or estimates made in the field, while others
1 are rated using standardized MBSS rating methods. Still others are simple presence/absence
1 observations. The method used for collecting data in the field for each metric differs based according to
guidance provided in MDNR (2007).
1 Paul et al. (2002) tested sediment texture and relative bed stability (ratio of the median sediment particle
1 diameter to that diameter moved during channel forming flows (Kaufmann et al., 1999)) in 30 streams (15
1 Piedmont and 15 Coastal Plain) as potential additional metrics that could predict biological integrity for
1 the PHI. While both of these metrics had significant correlations with a benthic IBI, the sample streams
1 lacked the data necessary to compute the PHI and evaluate, whether they could improve discriminatory
1 or predictive value of the PHI.
1 MDNR (2007) states that only persons who have received MBSS training and have demonstrated
Required:
II ,
(jiunuiei iuy (jei lui inn ly IVIDOO (jnybiudi nduiidi dbbebbiiiei lib biiuuiu uunuuui
assessments.
IVIDOO (JliyblUdl lldUlldl
1-22
-------
A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable Streams in
Maryland
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Not stated.
MDNR (2007) states that most MBSS physical habitat assessment information is collected during the
Summer index period (March 1 to April 30). However, a number of important measures are rated during
the Spring index period (June 1 to September 30).
Related
Procedures/
References:
Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Division, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.. EPA/620/R-99/003.
MDNR. 2007. Maryland Biological Stream Survey: Sampling Manual Field Protocols. Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division, CBWP-MANTA-
EA-07-01, Annapolis, MD.
Roth, N.E., M.T. Southerland, G. Mercuric, J.C. Chaillou, P.P. Kazyak, S.S. Stranko, A.P. Prochaska,
D.G. Heimbuch, and J.C. Seibel. 1999. State of the Streams: 1995-1997 Maryland Biological Stream
Survey Results. Prepared by Versar, Inc., Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., and Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. CBWP-MANTA-
EA-99-6.
J
Paul et al. (2002) report that the final PHIs were unrelated to watershed area and had an overall
discrimination efficiency of 80%. The PHI's were also significantly correlated with indices of biotic
integrity for both benthic macroinvertebrates (BIBI) and fish (FIBI). However, the strength of these
correlations varied across physiographic regions and even river basins within physiographic regions.
I-23
-------
Physical Habitat and Water Chemistry Assessment Protocol for
Wadeable Streams Monitoring Sites
Primary
Author/
Agency
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MPCA. 2002. Physical Habitat and Water Chemistry Assessment Protocol for Wadeable Streams
Monitoring Sites. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Biological Monitoring Program,
December 2002, St. Paul, MN.
Electrot
Resoun
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/biomonitoring/bio-streams-fish.htm l#sops
Intended
Use/Purpose
Target
Resoun
Ambient Monitoring;
WQ Standards.
Wadeable streams
Assessment
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
of Effort
Stream reach, 35X mean stream width (minimum 150 meters, maximum 500 meters)
Minnesota
Moderate.
Assessment
Parameters
Channel/Valley
Morphology:
Physical Habitat:
Water Quality:
Biology:
Stream discharge; water depth; mean distance between stream meanders (aka
meander wavelength); mean distance between riffles;
Depth of fines + water (fines >2 mm diameter); embeddedness (to nearest 25%);
dominant substrate class (est.); percent algae (est.); percent-cover offish
concealment structures; percent-cover of streambank with exposed soil; total number
of channel habitat units (riffles, pools, runs, bends, and log jams); riparian vegetative
cover (densiometer); riparian buffer width.
Air temperature; water temperature; conductivity; dissolved oxygen; turbidity; pH;
transparency; total phosphorus; total suspended solids; ammonia; nitrite-nitrate.
Other: Dominant riparian land use
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Index (e.g. numeric score) ~ Stream Habitat Assessment (MPCA, 2007).
Raw data.
N/A (The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the condition
of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
Inexperienced field crew members must receive training. Requisite self-checks whereby field crew
personnel cross-reference data collected by other crew members; crew leaders must periodically verify
that crew members are adhering to protocol.
I-24
-------
Physical Habitat and Water Chemistry Assessment Protocol for
Wadeable Streams Monitoring Sites
| |
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Biological Monitoring Program developed the Physical
1 Habitat and Water Chemistry Assessment Protocol for Wadeable Stream Monitoring Sites to support
1 assessment of water quality and development of biological criteria for Minnesota streams. These
1 procedures are also applicable for EMAP stations and sites suspected of being impacted by a source of
1 pollution.
1 Quantitative stream habitat data is collected using a transect-point method modified from "Guidelines for
1 evaluating fish habitat in Wisconsin streams" (Simonson et al., 1993). Thirteen equally spaced transects
1 are established perpendicular to stream flow in the sample reach, and measurements or observations of
1 habitat features are recorded from 0.3 m x 0.3 m quadrats set at four equally spaced points (1/5, 2/5, 3/5,
1 and 4/5 of wetted stream width) and the channel thalweg along each transect. Key habitat features
Description/
Summary
B^^^w
I
Assessment Parameters above).
Data forms are provided and must be filled out individually for each transect. A single Station Features
data sheet records the length and location (spacing) of major morphological and habitat features within
the sample reach, including riffles, runs, pools, meander bends, islands, log jams, beaver dams, and
other such features that may affect channel morphology, such as bridges, culverts, dams, and tributaries.
MPCA also has a Stream Habitat Assessment (SHA) protocol (MPCA, 2007) based on the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency's Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) (Rankin, 1989). The
SHA assigns scores for many of the stream metrics assessed during the Physical Habitat and Water
Chemistry Assessment Protocol (MPCA, 2002) based on aggregate classes of potential results for each
metric. The SHA adds a few additional metrics (e.g. surrounding land use within 2-3 square miles of
assessment reach) and uses ratios of some existing metrics in order to assign scores (e.g. maximum
thalweg depth: shallowest thalweg depth, pool width: riffle width). The maximum SHA score is 100.
Field technicians must have at least one year of college education and coursework in environmental
and/or biological science. Field crew leaders must be a professional aquatic biologist with a minimum of
a Bachelor of Science degree in aquatic biology or closely related specialization, and six months field
experience sampling physical stream habitat.
Time |
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Related
Procedures/
References
Not stated.
Summer index period: mid-June thru mid-September
MPCA. 2007. Stream Habitat Assessment Protocol for Stream Monitoring Sites. Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Biological Monitoring Program, March 2007, St. Paul, MN.
MPCA. 2009. Reconnaissance Procedures for Initial Visit to Stream Monitoring Sites. Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Biological Monitoring Program, February 2009, St. Paul, MN.
Rankin, E.T. 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods, and
Application. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality Planning &
Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section. Columbus, OH. 73 pp.
Simonson, T.D., J. Lyons, and P.O. Kanehl. 1993. Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in Wisconsin
Streams. Gen. Tech. Rpt NC-164, USFS North Central Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN. 36
nn
Other/Notes
The MPCA Protocol provides a good example of a semi-quantitative physical stream assessment
protocol used in a biological monitoring program.
I-25
-------
Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary headwater habitat II
1
1
Primary
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
II 1
HMpMl 1 OEPA. 2002a. Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary headwater habitat streams, Version 1 .0, July
2002. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio
ES
Intended
Use/Purpose
Target
Resource
Type
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
Geographic
http://www.epa.ohio.qov/dsw/wqs/headwaters/index.aspx
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
Ambient Monitoring
Headwater streams with a drainage area less than 1 square mile
(ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial)
Stream reach, 200 feet, or shorter if necessary to avoid channel confluences
Ohio
1 Easy to Moderate
HV^mphjllll A three-tiered protocol is presented with corresponding levels of effort 1 ) Rapid habitat evaluation
1 referred to as the Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI); and two levels of biological assessment,
1 2) Family-level taxonomic identification; and 3) Genus-species level taxonomic identification.
Assessment
Parameters
Reference
1 QA/QC
Channel/Valley Bankfull width; channel substrate composition
Morphology: categories); maximum pool depth.
(selected from nine possible
Water Quality: Temperature; pH; conductivity; dissolved oxygen.
Biology: Fish; salamanders; benthic macroinvertebrates (as necessary).
Other: Floodplain land use; development pressure.
Dependent on which of three-tier level of assessment is undertaken:
Qualitative (descriptive)
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.)
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate)
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Qualitative Description;
Raw data; and
Programmatic or Regulatory Support Information (WQ standards)
Internal (e.g. Index calibrated to existing local or regional reference data)
Not stated.
11-26
-------
Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary headwater habitat
streams
Description/
Summary
The Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's Primary Headwater Habitat Streams is intended to promote
standardized assessment of actual and expected biological conditions in primary headwater habitat
(PHWH) streams in Ohio. The methods outlined in the Manual are designed solely to statistically
differentiate among three designated uses of PHWH streams in Ohio, as defined in State water quality
standards:
Class III PHWH Stream (cool-cold water adapted native fauna);
Class II PHWH Stream (warm water adapted native fauna);
Class I PHWH Stream (ephemeral stream, normally dry channel).
Chemical, biological, and physical habitat evaluations were conducted in PHWH streams throughout
Ohio to assess seasonal trends in benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage. Statistical analysis is
provided in OEPA (2002b; 2002c; 2002d).
The Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI) is a rapid habitat evaluation tool based on three
physical measurements found to be highly correlated with biological measures of PHWH stream quality
in Ohio: i) channel substrate composition; ii) maximum pool depth; and iii) average bankfull width
(OEPA, 2002d). The HHEI rapid assessment tool is most predictive when "modified" channels are
separated from natural channels having little or no evidence of channel modification. Specific methods
are presented for each of the above referenced parameters. Index scores are compared to categories
defining each of the above referenced classes of PHWH Streams.
All PHWH evaluations also include assessment of riparian zone and floodplain quality (i.e. width and
land use), flow regime, sinuosity, and gradient, although none of these factors are included in the
calculation of the HHEI score. All of these parameters are simply categorical check-boxes.
If the HHEI assessment is questionable, or additional support for the designated use category
determined using the HHEI is desired, one can conduct a Headwater Macroinvertebrate Field Evaluation
Index (HMFEI) and a rapid bioassessment of vertebrates (salamanders) using one of two tiers of effort
presented in the Manual. Specific sampling protocols for each are dutifully referenced. If watershed size
is greater than 1.0 square mile or natural deep pools are greater than 40 cm regardless of watershed
size, a Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) evaluation should be completed (Rankin, 1989).
Data forms and detailed instructions are provided. There is also a suggested step-by-step procedure for
executing an entire assessment, and there is a decision making flowchart to determine appropriate
PHWH stream class using the HHEI.
Expei
Requir
Not stated.
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Seasonality
Varies; dependent on which of three-tier level of assessment is undertaken.
June to September is optimal for biological component(s) of the assessment
I-27
-------
Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary headwater habitat
streams
Related
Procedures/
References
OEPA. 2002b. Technical support document for Ohio's primary headwater streams: fish and amphibian
assemblages. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus,
Ohio.
OEPA. 2002c. Technical support document of Ohio's primary headwater streams benthic:
macroinvertebrate assemblage. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface
Water, Columbus, Ohio.
OEPA. 2002d. Ohio EPA Primary Headwater Habitat Initiative Data Compendium, 1999-2000 Habitat,
Chemistry, and Stream Morphology Data. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of
Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio.
Rankin, E. 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): Rational, methods, and applications.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio.
An attempt to relate Rosgen stream class with PHWH stream class was inconclusive; attributed by the
authors to most likely be because the Rosgen system was not calibrated to the small watershed size
(<1.0 square mile) of PHWH streams (OEPAc, 2002).
II-28
-------
The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale,
Methods, and Application
Primary
Author/
Agency
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
OEPA. 2006. Methods for Assessing Habitat in Flowing Waters: Using the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation
Index (QHEI). OEPA Technical Bulletin EAS/2006-06-1, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Surface Water, Ecological Assessment Section. Columbus, OH. 26 pp.
Rankin, E.T. 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods, and
Application. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality Planning &
Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section. Columbus, OH. 73 pp.
Resource
http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/bioassess/BioCriteriaProtAqLife.aspx
Intended
Use/Purpose
Ambient Monitoring;
WQ Standards.
Target
Resource
Type
Wadeable and non-wadeable streams, although correlations with a fish IBI in Ohio has been found to be
weaker in small streams.
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
Stream reach of unspecified length.
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
of Effort
Ohio.
However, its use is reported to now include some adjacent states.
Easy (rapid)
Channel/Valley Sinuosity (categorical classes); presence/absence or recovery state following
Morphology: channelization; channel stability; bank stability; channel gradient; substrate (type/size
class, origin, & quality); predominance and development of riffle/pool complexes;
pool/glide and riffle/run quality (max pool or glide depth, riffle width & depth, run
depth, riffle/run substrate size class, riffle/run embeddedness, flow velocity class).
Physical Habitat: In-stream cover (type and percent-cover class); riparian buffer width; floodplain cover
type.
Water Quality: - -
Biology: - -
Other: Watershed area.
Qualitative (descriptive);
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.).
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Qualitative Description.
II-29
-------
The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale,
Methods, and Application
I
Reference
N/A (The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the condition
of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
Description/
Summary
Rankin (1989) stresses that regular training is a necessity to minimize bias and ensure comparability of
assessments among field biologists. Field data sheet headers require that survey crew members
indicate their level of QHEI training. At least one crew member must have completed OEPA QHEI
training (OEPA, 2006).
The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) is an index of macro-habitat quality intended to assess
stream habitat that is generally accepted to influence fish communities and which is also important to
other aquatic life (Rankin, 1989). It was designed as a measure that would require a minimal amount of
time and with a minimum of field measurements, but also relies upon experienced field biologists to
execute the evaluation within acceptable ranges of accuracy and precision.
The QHEI is based on emergent properties of habitat (e.g. sinuosity, pool/riffle development) rather than
the individual metrics that shape these properties (e.g. current velocity, depth, substrate size, etc.). A
field data sheet, modified in OEPA (2006), provides qualitative condition descriptors for 1 to 7 variables
under each of six stream properties. The field surveyor matches the condition description for each
variable with observed conditions in the field and checks the appropriate box. Each box includes an
affiliated point score. Point scores are totaled for each metric to provide subtotals related to the above
six stream properties. The sum of all metric subtotals provides the total QHEI score, which has a
maximum of 100. More detailed definitions of terms used on the field data sheet, including broader
descriptions and illustrations or drawings of each variable, are provided by OEPA (2006).
The QHEI was found to be significantly different among Ohio ecoregions and significantly correlated with
fish IBI (Rankin, 1989). However, the correlation with the fish IBI was weaker in wadeable and
headwater streams relative to larger channels requiring boat access. Rankin (1989) suggests that due to
the inherent interconnectedness of smaller channels with their watersheds and riparian zones,
disturbances outside of the stream channel itself may exert a more prominent impact on the biological
community, thus affecting IBI more than QHEI and thereby adversely affecting the correlation of the two.
Rankin (1989) also notes that general basin characteristics and overall habitat quality exert a greater
influence on fish communities than does site specific habitat, such as that assessed using the QHEI.
Thus, he concludes, the QHEI (or any other site specific habitat measure) is not inclusive enough to be
an absolute site specific predictor offish communities without further consideration of basin-wide or
reach-wide influences on stream biota (Rankin, 1989).
Not stated.
Nece
Conduc
Assessment
Seasona1'
Not stated.
Not stated.
Related
Procedur
References
Other/Notes
Ohio EPA. 1989. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume III. Standardized biological
field sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH.
II-30
-------
1
II
— I
1 Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in Wisconsin Streams II HECfl
1 1 II Ml
1
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Intended
Use/Purpose
Target
Resource
Type
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
Assessment
Parameters
USFS
Simonson, T.D., J. Lyons, and P.O. Kanehl. 1993. Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in Wisconsin
Streams. Gen. Tech. Rpt NC-164, USFS North Central Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN. 36 pp.
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/10228
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Perennial wadeable streams (ideally >1.5m wide with watersheds >13km2)
Stream reach, 35X low flow wetted width (minimum 100 meters)
Wisconsin
Moderate.
Channel / Valley Stream discharge; stage; velocity; wetted width; water depth; channel gradient; mean
Morphology: distance between bends (aka meander wave length); length and spacing of channel
habitat units (aka bed forms); percent substrate particle size classes (est.).
and types offish concealment structures; riparian buffer width; canopy cover
(densiometer).
Biology: - -
Other: Stream order; riparian land use; watershed area.
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
bl^jjLijijjjfl I Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Subjective Index (e.g. numeric score);
Qualitative Description;
Programmatic or Regulatory Support Information
1 Not stated. However, the River Fish Habitat Rating (FHR) index was internally calibrated to the
••••••Ijfl 1 Wisconsin fish IBI.
Not stated.
1-31
-------
Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in Wisconsin Streams I BtCj
Simonson et al. (1 993) recommend that habitat data be collected using the basic framework of the
transect method suggested by Platts et al. (1983), where sampling is based on transects spaced two
times the mean wetted stream width throughout the sample reach, for a total of at least 18 sample
transects per reach. Accuracy of sampling small streams (<10m wide) is not compromised by sampling
transects spaced every three times the mean wetted width, but the authors do not recommend any fewer
than 18 transects on larger channels (Simonson et al., 1993).
Stream habitat characteristics are measured or estimated from one or more locations relative to each
transect: 1) within a specified distance above and below the transect, 2) along the transect (e.g., 5m total
belt width), or 3) at positions along the transect line, typically four equally spaced positions across the
and the authors also report the accuracy and precision of each method based on their own analysis of
1 survey results.
1 1 Simonson et al. (1993') orovide field data sheets and also discuss data manaaement and analysis. The
Expertise
Required:
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Seasonality
authors also present Fish Habitat Rating (FHR) indices based on actual field measurements as a means
to compare habitat surveys by rating the physical habitat of streams and rivers to support diverse,
healthy fish communities. Two different FHR indices are presented one for streams less than 10 meters
wide, and a second for rivers 10 to 50 meters wide. The Stream FHR is based on seven selected
variables or ratios that are rated poor, fair, good, or excellent based on reference conditions provided in
the Guidelines: 1) riparian buffer width, 2) bank erosion, 3) pool area, 4) width/depth ratio, 5) riffle-to-riffle
ratio or bend-to-bend ratio (average distance between riffles or bends divided by average stream width),
6) percent fine sediment, and 7) cover for fish. Points are allocated to each quality category and then
summed to obtain a total Stream FHR index. The River FHR is based on five selected variables or
ratios, including bank stability, maximum thalweg depth, riffle-to-riffle ratio or bend-to-bend ratio, percent
rocky substrate, and cover for fish.
Not stated.
2 to 4 hours.
Baseflow conditions, ideally during Summer.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and
Biotic Conditions. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
General Technical Report INT-138, Ogden, UT. 70 pp.
1 The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources "Guidelines for Evaluating Habitat of Wadeable
1 1 Streams closely mirrors Simonson etal. (1993).
-32
-------
^^u
Physical Habitat of Aquatic Ecosystems (Texas)
Catalog No. 1 A
Author/
Agency
Electron^
Resource
Intended
Use/Purpose
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
TCEQ. 2007. Physical Habitat of Aquatic Ecosystems, Chapter 9 in Surface Water Quality Monitoring
Procedures, Vol. 2: Methods for Collecting and Analyzing Biological Assemblage and Habitat
Data. RG-416, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Monitoring Operations Division,
June 2007.
http://www.tceg.state.tx.us/comm exec/forms pubs/pubs/rq/rq-416/index.html
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring;
WQ Standards.
Wadeable and Non-wadeable streams.
This habitat assessment procedure may be used unmodified in non-flowing streams if water is present in
pools covering >50 percent of the sample reach (-intermittent with pools).
Assessm
Wadeable Streams: Stream reach, 40x average stream width; not less than 150m and not more 500m
(avoiding significant tributary confluences, bridge crossings, etc.)
Non-wadeable Streams: Stream reach encompassing one full meander; not less than 500m and not
more than 1km (avoiding significant tributary confluences, bridge crossings, etc.)
Geogra
Applicability
General Level
Texas
Easy to Moderate
Channel / Valley
Morphology:
Assessment
Parameters
Stream discharge; wetted channel width; water depth; channel flow status; channel
habitat units [aka bed forms]; maximum pool width; maximum pool depth; maximum
pool length; number of riffles; number of flow obstructions; percent bank erosion
(est.); dominant substrate particle size class (est.); percent of substrate that is
gravel or larger (> 2mm) (est.); channel gradient; bank angle; number and definition
of stream bends.
Physical Habitat: Percent-cover and type of vegetation on stream banks and in riparian zone; percent
canopy cover (densiometer); riparian buffer width; percent and type of in-stream
cover; ordinal est. of algae and macrophyte percent-cover.
Water Quality: Temperature, pH; dissolved oxygen; specific conductance; salinity.
Biology: - -
Other: Stream order; watershed area; categorical riparian zone aesthetics.
Semi-quantitative
Output
Index (e.g. numeric score)- Habitat Quality Index
Internal to the Habitat Quality Index.
II-33
-------
Physical Habitat of Aquatic Ecosystems (Texas)
I I
I I
Completion of an annual self-audit report (administrative and record keeping); an annual technical
systems audit, both in the field and laboratory; and TCEQ approval of a Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Biological voucher specimens and use of specific taxonomic keys are required.
1 TCEQ uses habitat data collected according to these methods, in conjunction with fish and benthic
1 macroinvertebrate community surveys, to provide a holistic evaluation of the health of stream biological
assemblages and to develop future indices of aquatic life use. Fish (TCEQ, 2007, Ch. 3) are sampled
1 using both electrofishing and seining, and data is evaluated using a regionalized fish IBI for Texas
Description/
Summary
following USEPA RBP protocols (Barbour et al., 1999) and assessed as a benthic IBI. In-situ
physiochemical water quality is monitored according to TCEQ (2008, Ch. 3).
Samolina is conducted from 5 to 1 1 channel cross-sections eauallv soaced throughout the reach. Part I
1 1 of the assessment utilizes Stream Physical Characteristics Worksheets to record in-stream channel
1 measurements, stream morphology, and riparian environment attributes for each transect or for the
1 entire reach, following methods generally derived from USEPA EMAP protocols (Kaufmann and
1 Robison, 1998). These measurements and estimates are averaged and summarized to complete the
Summary of Physical Characteristics of Water Body in Part II. Then in Part III, a Habitat Quality Index
1 (HQI) is calculated based on the values summarized in Part II.
Expertise
Required
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Training is offered by TCEQ, and required of all monitoring participants periodically. However, the
regularity of requisite training is not specified.
Not stated.
1 1 The TCEQ Physical Habitat procedures are intended to be conducted as part of biological assessments,
Seasonality
Related
Procedures/
References
Other/Notes
and those assessments should be undertaken during the index period between March 15 and October
15. If only one assessment can be undertaken at a monitoring station, biological data should be
collected between July 1 and September 30.
Barbour, MT. J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocls 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.
Kaufmann, P.R. and E.G. Robison. 1998. Physical Habitat Characterization, Section 7 in J.M. Lazorchak,
D.J. Klemm, and D.V. Peck (eds), Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-
Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of
Wadeable Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/620/R-94/004F, Washington,
D.C.
Linam, G.W., L.J. Kleinsasser, and K.B. Mayes. 2002. Regionalization of the Index of Biotic Integrity for
Texas Streams. River Studies Report No. 17., Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin,
Texas.
TCEQ. 2008. Surface Water Quality Monitoring Procedures, Vol. 1 : Physical and Chemical Monitoring
Methods. RG-415, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning
Division, October 2008.
-34
-------
[Kansas] Subjective Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats
Primary
Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks
KDWP. 2004. Subjective Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats. Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks,
Environmental Services Section, revised 2004. Topeka, KS.
http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/Other-Services/Environmental-Reviews/Aguatic-Field-Habitat-
Evaluations
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Streams: Ephemeral, Intermittent, or Perennial
Assessi
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
of Effor*
Not stated.
Kansas
Easy (rapid)
Channel/Valley Channel modification; sinuosity (via map); percent of historical floodplain available of
Morphology: inundation; dominant substrate class; number of substrate types; poohriffle
sequencing; bank erosion.
Physical Habitat: embeddedness (class est.); in-stream cover types and percent cover (aka fish
concealment structures); canopy cover (est.); percent of historical floodplain covered
by native vegetation.
Water Quality: Condition classes based on professional judgment: dissolved oxygen / biochemical
oxygen demand; nutrient enrichment; pesticides; turbidity; temperature; other.
Biology: Fish community characteristics (professional judgment); benthic invertebrates
(dominant taxa); freshwater mussels (presence/absence); amphibians
(presence/absence); other aquatic vertebrates (presence/absence).
Other: Stream type (ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial); floodplain land use classes;
watershed land use classes.
Qualitative (descriptive);
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.).
Index (e.g. numeric score)
Best Professional Judgment
Not stated.
1-35
-------
Description/
Summary
[Kansas] Subjective Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats
1
The Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks (KDWP), Subjective Evaluation of Aquatic Habitats utilizes a
four groups of individual parameters that are scored and then summed to provide a total stream habitat
index (R-value). The R-value index is in turn associated with four overall stream habitat condition
classes: excellent, good, fair, and poor.
The number of points possible varies among the groups, from 50 points for the Physical Habitat Key to
15 points each for both the Biological Component Key and the Water Quality Component key. Each
oarameter within each arouo is scored based on Qualitative, cateaorical. ranked conditions or classes as
1 described in the document and outlined on the field data sheet. The Water Quality Component Key and
the Biological Component Key, which includes a fish community parameter and a benthic invertebrate
1 parameter, as well as a presence/absence of freshwater mussels, amphibians and other aquatic
1 vertebrates, are not to be included in the final R-value rating if the stream is dry or inadequate water is
1 present.
Expertise
Required
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Seasonality
Related
Procedures/
References
Not stated.
Not stated.
Not stated.
i i ne u.b. Army uorps OT bngmeers, Kansas uty District uran Kansas btream Mitigation uuiaance,
1 Crev. December 31 . 2009'! utilizes the KDWP R-value stream habitat index as one factor for determinina
Other/Notes
the "Existing Condition" of streams either proposed to be impacted or to be used for compensatory
• mitigation as part OT uean water Act, bection 4U4 permit applications. I ne uran K.ansas btream
1 Mitigation Guidance" is a standard operating procedure modeled after the USAGE Charleston District
1 SOP reviewed herein.
II-36
-------
[PIBO] Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas: sampling
protocol for stream channel attributes
U.S. Forest Service
Heitke, J.D., E.J. Archer, D.D. Dugaw, B.A. Bouwes, E.A. Archer, R.C. Henderson, and J.L Kershner.
2008. Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas: sampling protocol for stream
channel attributes. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring
Program, Multi-federal Agency Monitoring Program; Logan, UT. Unpublished paper on file at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/bioloqv/fishecoloqy/emp.
http://www.fs.fed.us/bioloqv/fishecoloqy/emp
Inventory
Wadeable Streams
Scale
Assessment
Geographic
Applicability
al Level
Stream reach, minimum length of 20X bankfull width based on width classes (525 feet min length)
Interior Columbia River basin ~ Washington, Oregon, and most of Idaho, as well as western Montana,
northeastern Nevada, and northwestern Wyoming
Moderate to Intensive
Assessment
Parameters
Channel/Valley Channel gradient; bankfull width; bankfull depth; width/depth ratio; entrenchment
Morphology: ratio; reach length & valley length [allows for calculation of sinuosity]; substrate
particle size (pebble counts); pool length & residual pool depth; undercut depth;
bank type; bank material; bank angle; bank stability.
Physical Habitat: Woody debris tally; percent surface fines on pool tails.
Water Quality: Conductivity; alkalinity
Biology: Benthic macroinvertebrates.
Other: - -
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate)
Output
QA/QC
Raw data
N/A (The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the condition
of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
Not stated.
1-37
-------
[PIBO] Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas: sampling
protocol for stream channel attributes
The primary objective of the PACFISH/INFISH (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Program is to determine
whether priority biological and physical attributes, processes, and functions of riparian and aquatic
systems are being degraded, maintained, or restored on federally managed lands within the interior
Columbia River basin. This document describes the standardized methods that PIBO compiled following
ten years of use, evaluation, and peer review, as well as a set of summary statistics for each attribute.
The PIBO Effectiveness Monitoring protocols utilize transect-based methods for measuring physical
habitat and geomorphic metrics. Stepwise instructions are thorough and include illustrative figures for
clarification. Although many of the methods reported for specific metrics are modifications of methods
proposed by others (e.g. Platts et al, 1987), the PIBO Effectiveness Monitoring protocols have typically
further refined such methods to reduce bias and increase measurement precision. There is also a
section devoted to explaining a proper method to photo-document the sample reach.
Equipment lists, field data forms, decontamination procedures, and data management is discussed.
There are also alternative sampling methods provided for sampling stream reaches affected by beaver.
Not stated.
Time
Necess
Conduct
Not stated.
Seasonal!
Not stated.
Henderson, R.C.; E.K. Archer, B.A. Bouwes, M.S. Coles-Ritchie, and J.L. Kershner. 2005.
PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO): Effectiveness Monitoring Program seven-year
status report 1998 through 2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 pp.
Kershner, J.L., E.K. Archer, M. Coles-Ritchie, E.R. Cowley, R.C. Henderson, K. Kratz, C.M. Quimby,
D.L. Turner, L.C. Ulmer, M.R. Vision. 2004. Guide to effective monitoring of aquatic and riparian
resources. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-121. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, Fort Collins, CO.
Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S. Jensen, G. W. Lienkaemper,
G.W. Minshall, S.P. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, J.R. Sedell, and J.S. Tuhy. 1987. Methods for
Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Applications to Management. U.S. Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT-221. 177 pp.
USFS. 2004. Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas within the Pacific Northwest:
stream channel methods for core attributes. Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring
Program (AREMP) & PACFISH/INFISH (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Program, Multi-
Federal Agency Monitoring Programs. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Unpublished paper available at: http://www.reo.qov/monitorinq/reports/watershed-reports-
publications.shtml
II-38
-------
•
1
•^^•K
[l^c
UtjU^I
Assume*
•PPIRHH
||||B
HEBE
1 Assessment
Parameters
H
»..
U.S. Forest Service
Overton, C.K., S.P. Wollrab, B.C. Roberts, and M.A. Radko. 1997. R1/R4 (Northern and Intermountain
Regions) fish and fish habitat standard inventory procedures handbook. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-GTR-346. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Odgen, UT. 80pp.
httD://www.fs.fed.us/rm/Dubs int/int qtr346.odf
Inventory
Perennial streams identifiable on U.S. Geologic Survey 1:24,000 topographic quad maps
Stream reach of unspecified length that is defined by confluences or changes in classified reach type
(i.e. Montgomery and Buffington (1993) valley segments).
Northern Region (R1) and Intermountain Region (R4) of the USFS, which includes all or parts of WA,
OR, ID, MT, ND, SD, WY, UT, NV, east-central CA]
Three sampling schemes are presented with corresponding levels of effort ranging from Level I (least
intensive) to Level III (most intensive).
Channel/Valley Stream discharge; classification of stream reach type as A, B, or C (synonymous
Morphology: with Montgomery and Buffington's (1993) valley segments); Rosgen stream
classification; channel gradient; valley confinement; bankfull width and depth
(optional); percent undercut banks; channel habitat units [aka bed forms] and
lengths; wetted channel width, average water depth; average maximum depth of
pocket pools; maximum pool depth; pool crest depth; substrate particle size class
(est. or pebble count); percent surface fine sediment (<6mm); bank stability
(classes); woody debris tally; riparian community type classification.
Physical Habitat: Woody debris tally; riparian community type classification.
Water Quality: Temperature.
Biology: Fish abundance.
Other: - -
Qualitative (descriptive; categorical),
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.), and
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimates).
Raw data / data sheets
N/A (The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the
condition of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
II-39
-------
1 R1/R4 (Northern /Intermountain Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat
1 Standard Inventory Procedures Handbook
1
1
includes exercises both in the field and in the office entering data. It is also recommended that field
crews break every 2 to 3 hours and review field data sheets for missing data, illegible entries,
misplaced decimal points, etc. Data forms and equipment lists are provided.
Most morphological and physical habitat metrics required in the Standard Inventory Procedures are
undertaken using visual estimation methods or selected from standardized lists of types or classes.
These metrics are therefore primarily qualitative or semi-quantitative. For example, a detailed,
hierarchical channel habitat type classification (aka bed forms) is provided in tabular form, explained in
the text, and illustrated with photographs and diagrams. This classification and attendant metrics to
further characterize habitat types (e.g. pool depth, pool crest depth, step pool total, etc.) provide the
primary focus of the physical and morphological component of the Standard Inventory Procedures.
Relative fish abundance by species and size/age class is determined using the direct enumeration
snorkeling technique of Thurow (1994), and is the primary quantitative component of the Standard
Inventory Procedures.
The final 15 to 30 minutes of the field survey should be spent writing a narrative description of the site,
including observed land management activities, natural limitations to fish migration, sediment sources
and other site observations that might not be captured by field sampling.
Sample metrics were specifically selected, in part, for the ease with which inexperienced field
technicians could be taught the sampling methods, resulting in reasonable expectations for accurate,
consistent data.
Field sampling = 1 day, 2 to 3 persons
Methods are designed for sampling fish and fish habitat at stream baseflow, thus after peak snowmelt.
However, caution needs to be taken to avoid sampling streams during spring and summer runs of
spawning chinook salmon- a listed endangered species. Where fish surveys will be conducted,
sampling should occur in July and August.
Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response
and assessment of channel condition. Report TFW-SI-110-93-002, Timber/Fish/Wildlife
Agreement, Washington, 96 pp.
Thurow, R.F. 1994. Underwater methods for study of salmonids in the Intermountain West. Gen. Tech.
Rpt. INT-GTR-307, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 30 pp.
II-40
-------
1
s
Electronic
Resource
Use/Purpose
Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas within the
Pacific Northwest: stream channel methods for core attributes II ISjjljjj||lj|B
U.S. Forest Service
USFS. 2004. Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas within the Pacific Northwest.
stream channel methods for core attributes. Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring
Program (AREMP) & PACFISH/INFISH (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Program, Multi-
Federal Agency Monitoring Programs. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Unpublished paper available at' httpV/www reo aov/monitorina/reDorts/watershed-reDorts-
publications.shtml
i
httD://www.reo.aov/monitorina/reDorts/watershed-reDorts-Dublications.shtml
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Wadeable Streams
MMMMHfl 1 Stream reach, 20X bankfull width based on width classes (minimum 525 feet)
Washington, Oregon, and most of Idaho, as well as western Montana, northeastern Nevada,
MHMWHMH 1 northwestern Wyoming, and northern California (-interior Columbia River watershed, plus areas west of
UjjjjljŁjjjl||j^| the Cascade Mountains).
Moderate
Channel/Valley Bankfull width; water surface slope; substrate particle size; pool length & residual
Morphology: pool depth.
Physical Habitat: Woody debris tally; percent surface fines on pool tails.
Output
R.forence
QA/QC
II 1
Biology: Benthic macroinvertebrates.
Other: - -
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate)
Raw data
N/A (The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the
condition of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
Not stated.
1-41
-------
Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas within the
Pacific Northwest: stream channel methods for core attributes
The Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP) is a multi-federal agency
monitoring program to assess the condition of watersheds within the Northwest Forest Plan area
(federally managed lands "west of the Cascades"). The primary objective of the PACFISH/INFISH
(PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Program is to determine whether priority biological and physical
attributes, processes, and functions of riparian and aquatic systems are being degraded, maintained, or
restored on federally managed lands within the interior Columbia River basin. This document describes
the standardized methods that AREMP and PIBO compiled following ten years of use, evaluation, and
peer review for a set of core stream channel attributes.
The Core Attributes methods utilize transect-based methods for measuring physical habitat and
geomorphic metrics. Stepwise instructions are thorough and include illustrative figures for clarification.
This is, however, simply a collection of recommended metrics. There is no discussion of data
management, QA/QC, data analysis, or any other component typical of a condition assessment
procedure. The intent of this document is to simply identify the core metrics shared by the AREMP and
PIBO long-term monitoring programs.
Not stated.
Time
Necess
Conduct
Not stated.
Seasonal!
Related
Procedures/
References
Not stated.
Heitke, J.D., E.J. Archer, D.D. Dugaw, B.A. Bouwes, E.A. Archer, R.C. Henderson, and J.L Kershner.
2008. Effectiveness monitoring for streams and riparian areas: sampling protocol for stream
channel attributes. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring
Program, Multi-federal Agency Monitoring Program; Logan, UT. Unpublished paper on file at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/bioloqv/fishecoloqy/emp.
Henderson, R.C.; E.K. Archer, B.A. Bouwes, M.S. Coles-Ritchie, and J.L. Kershner. 2005.
PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO): Effectiveness Monitoring Program seven-year
status report 1998 through 2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-162. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p.
Kershner, J.L., E.K. Archer, M. Coles-Ritchie, E.R. Cowley, R.C. Henderson, K. Kratz, C.M. Quimby,
D.L. Turner, L.C. Ulmer, M.R. Vision. 2004. Guide to effective monitoring of aquatic and
riparian resources. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-121. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
Other/Notes
I-42
-------
1
A Manual of Procedures for Sampling Surface Waters [Arizona] || BO
II 1
1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^H Ari^nrn Rpmrtrnpnt fnr Fnvirnnmpnt'il Oi nlitv
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Intended
Use/Purpose
H^CT*TO
[l^K
H^^^^^l
ADEQ. 2005. A Manual of Procedures for Sampling Surface Waters, L. Lawson (ed.), Arizona
Department for Environmental Quality, Hydrologic Support and Assessment Section. Phoenix, AZ.
http://www.azdeq.qov/environ/water/assessment/download/samplinq.pdf
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Wadeable Streams
1^1
1 Stream reach, 20-30X bankfull width or two complete meander lengths (minimum 100 meters "for large
1 streams")
HUHHRU
MMMWlWil Arizona
MjjMmiiUjllll Intensive (1 day± in the field by a trained or experienced crew of 2 or more persons)
I Assessment
Parameters:
Channel/Valley Stream discharge; stream type classification (Rosgen, 1996); stream type
Morphology: evolutionary stage; longitudinal channel profile; channel cross-section (bankfull
cross-sectional area, bankfull width, bankfull depth; floodprone width); bank
height ratio (Rosgen, 2001a); bank erodibility hazard index (Rosgen, 1996;
2001 b); substrate particle size (pebble count in riffles, pools, and zig-zag & sieve
sample); channel habitat units (aka bed forms); near bank stress; channel pattern
/ planform (sinuosity, belt width, radius of curvature, meander wave length);
entrenchment ratio; sediment competence; pool facet slope analysis; Pfankuch
channel stability (modified from Pfankuch (1975).
Physical Habitat. Linear habitat complexity index (based on run+glide, riffle, and pool lengths),
Habitat Assessment Index; Proper Functioning Condition for riparian wetlands
(Prichard et al., 1998); riparian percent canopy gaps (densiometer); riparian
vegetative community type.
Water Quality: Dissolved oxygen; specific conductivity; pH; temperature; turbidity; redox;
bacteria.
Biology: Benthic macroinvertebrates; diatoms; percent cover of algae & aquatic
macrophytes; riparian vegetation percent cover per strata (trees, shrubs, ground
cover) (est.); dominant trees per size class.
Other: Potential sources of non-point source pollution.
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
[Condition Assessment;
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Raw data.
I-43
-------
Description/
Summary
I
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Seasonality
ii
A Manual of Procedures for Sampling Surface Waters [Arizona] 1 BBJ1
N/A (The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the
condition of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
Not stated.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of
Surface Waters is an exhaustive collection of very specific methods, protocols, administrative policies,
and QA/QC considerations that covers all facets Arizona's surface water sampling program. Section 1
outlines Pre-Trip Administrative Activities, including safety procedures and data forms, while Section 2
describes Equipment Calibration and Cleaning Procedures. Section 3 addresses Field Procedures and
is divided into three parts. Part A covers Basic Field Procedures and details activities directly involved
in collecting field data for water quality, bacteria, macroinvertebrates and algae. Part B,
Geomorphology Procedures, describes activities that assess the physical properties of stream
channels. Part C, Habitat Assessments Procedures, describes the methods used to collect and assess
habitat and the biological condition of wadeable streams. Section 4 of the Manual addresses Post-Trip
Procedures, and Section 5 discusses Data Management. Finally, Section 6 provides Supporting
Material as an appendix to the Manual.
Biological components of the ADEQ Manual include bacteria, macroinvertebrates, and diatoms. ADEQ
has developed benthic IBI's for cold-water streams (above 5,000 feet elevation) and warm-water
streams (below 5,000 feet elevation). Macroinvertebrate sampling is to be conducted in perennial
streams only. Formulas to calculate IBI's are provided.
The Geomorphology Procedures in Part B of Section 3 are based on or derived from Rosgen (1996)
and many measures and interpretive ratios are taken directly from various Rosgen publications.
Numerous charts, tables, graphs, and illustrations taken from Rosgen training course materials are also
provided in the manual, and surveying methods from Harrelson et al. (1994) are referenced and
summarized. Most of the geomorphology parameters specified in the ADEQ Manual result in raw
quantitative data, although there are numerous commonly used interpretive ratios and indices based on
these data.
The Habitat Assessment procedures provided in Part C of Section 3 are intended to aid the
interpretation of benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessments. There are field data sheets provided in
Part C for water chemistry, discharge, field observations about hydrology, biology, and general
condition of the stream reach, as well as non-point source observations, the ADEQ Habitat Assessment
Index, and riparian community assessment. The Habitat Assessment Index is based on USEPA RBP
(Barbour et al., 1999) and USEPA EMAP protocols for rapid habitat assessment (Lazorchak et al.,
1998).
Not stated.
Not stated.
Macroinvertebrate sampling should occur in baseflow conditions following winter runoff; generally April-
May for desert streams and May-June for mountain streams
-44
-------
1 A Manual of Procedures for Sampling Surface Waters [Arizona]
Related
Procedures/
References
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. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Harrelson, CC., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. General Technical Report RM-245, U.S. Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Lazorchak, J.M., AT Herlihy, and J. Green. 1998. Raid habitat and Visual Stream Assessments,
Section 14 in J.M. Lazorchak et al. (Eds) EMAP- Surface Waters: Field Operations and
Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F,
U.S. Environmental protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Moody, T.O. and W. Odem. 1999. Regional relationships for bankfull stage in natural channels of
Central and Southern Arizona. Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM by
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
Pfankuch, D.J. 1975. Stream reach invenotry and channel stability evaluation: A watershed
management procedure. U.S. Forest Service Northern Region, R1 -75-002.
Pri chard
Rosgen,
Rosgen,
Rosgen,
D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, B. Mitchell, and J.
Staats. 1998. Riparian area management: A user guide to assessing Proper Functioning
Condition and the supporting science fo lotic areas. Technical Reference 1737-15,
BLM/RS/ST-98/001+1737, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.
D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
D.L. 2001 a. A stream channel stability assessment methodology, pgs 11-18 to II-26 in
Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, March 25-29,
2001, Reno, NV.
D.L. 2001 b. A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate, pgs II-9 to 11-17 in
Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, March 25-29,
2001, Reno, NV.
Moody and Odem (1999) compiled regional hydraulic curves for Arizona and New Mexico.
I-45
-------
^^u
Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Technical Guide
U.S. Forest Service
Frazier, J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. Staab.
2005. Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/publications/water resources/sci/techquide-v5-08-2005-a.pdf
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Wadeable perennial streams with channel gradients <10%.
The SCI Technical Guide adds that some SCI methods are applicable to intermittent streams, but
others are not.
Stream reach (recommended minimum length is 500 meters; 100 meter reach is acceptable if neither
large woody debris nor pools are key attributes)
California
Intensive (1 day± in the field by a trained or experienced crew of 2 or more persons)
Assessment
Parameters
Channel/Valley Channel cross-sectional dimensions; width:depth ratio; entrenchment; water surface
Morphology: gradient; bank stability (percent cover of vegetation, rock, downed wood, or other
erosion resistant material); bank angle; substrate particle size distribution; bankfull
stage; number and length of channel habitat units [aka bed forms]; residual pool
depth; streamshore water depth; pool sediment ~ V*w (optional).
Physical Habitat: Woody debris tally; pool tail surface fine sediment; stream shading (solar
insolation);.
Water Quality: Temperature; conductivity; total alkalinity.
Biology: Macroinvertebrates; aquatic fauna (herptofauna and fish).
Other: - -
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Raw data
The Technical Guide refers to regional reference streams for which inventories using SCI can provide
useful comparison to non-reference conditions. However, the protocol itself does not result in a
"condition index" that is based on an internal calibration to these reference streams.
However, Appendix A of the Technical Guide presents a brief analysis of SCI data comparing
conditions between a priori classification of reference and non-reference streams throughout USFS
Region 5.
II-46
-------
1 Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Technical Guide
Description/
Summary
| |
All crew members must complete both introductory and refresher training sessions that include a
combination of classroom and field exercises. All field data is to be checked by the crew leader while
still in the field to ensure that all data sheets are legible and complete. Specific QA/QC documentation
forms are provided to track QA/QC measures, including training documentation, field survey checklists,
field oversight, and data entry.
The purpose of the USFS Pacific Southwest Region Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) is to collect
intensive and repeatable data from stream reaches to document existing conditions and make reliable
comparisons over time within or between stream reaches. It is designed to assess effectiveness of
management actions on streams and to document temporal changes in stream conditions of
unmanaged watersheds.
The protocol stresses quantifiable, objective measurements of 17 core attributes and one optional
attribute, but also adds that still additional optional attributes related to specific biota or stream
characteristics may be needed to meet local inventory and monitoring objectives. Collecting SCI data
in the field is accomplished using a multiple-pass sequence throughout the sample stream reach. The
• sample protocol provided in tne i ecnnicai uuide is oased on a tour-pass sequence, wnere some ot tne
1 above referenced attributes are measured and documented during each successive pass. Sample
1 procedures for some specific attributes that could require potentially heavy or cumbersome equipment
1 are described using more simplistic methods to ease transport into remote sample locations. One
1 example includes the use of line levels and stadia rods in lieu of heavy tripods and a total station or
1 automated level for channel surveying. Recommended sequential sample methods are described,
1 including specific task instructions, necessary equipment, and data forms for each pass.
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Not stated, but refer to training requirements in QA/QC above.
The Technical Guide suggests that up to 2-3 days could be required to initially establish and survey a
sample reach, depending on travel time and crew experience. An undefined, but shorter amount of
time is necessary to re-sample the same reach.
The optional V*w pool sediment attribute is acknowledged to be a very intensive inventory, and is in fact
• uueu as lequiiiny i-o uays LU bdiii(jie uniy mis cumuuie, uepeiiuiny un ledun lenyin.
Related
Procedures/
References
Other/Notes
Not stated.
Applicable references are provided for each of the 18 stream inventory attributes described in the
Technical Guide.
II 1
1-47
-------
1
1
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Intended
Use/Purpose
[l^C
UtjU^I
Assess^
Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment Framework || VŁfll
II 1
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Grafe, C.S. (ed.). 2002a. Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated
Approach. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Boise, Idaho.
http://www.deq.idaho.qov/water/data reports/surface water/monitorinq/publications.cfm
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Wadeable streams (generally <5th order; wetted width <15 feet at baseflow)
Not stated (see IDEQ, 2007).
1
1 Idaho
•jjl Moderate
Channel/Valley Substrate particle size analysis (i.e. number of Wolman size classes); channel
Morphology: shape (undercut).
Physical Habitat: In-stream cover; woody debris tally; percent fines less than 2mm in wetted stream
width; embeddedness; percent bank cover; percent canopy cover; disruptive
EiSjjjijjjijiU^jUfl riparian zones); zone of influence (riparian zone width).
Water Quality: - -
-
Output
Biology: Macroinvertebrates; fish.
Other: - -
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Condition Assessment;
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Raw data.
Internal.
Not stated (see IDEQ, 2007).
11-48
-------
I Description/
Summary
•
Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment Framework 1 m^Mm
The Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment Framework describes the development and integration
of three multimetric indexes that the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) uses to assess
aquatic life use support for small Idaho streams. The indexes were developed based on rapid
bioassessment concepts developed by USEPA (Barbour et al. 1999). Specific feld sampling protocols
are described in IDEQ (2007). IDEQ uses different monitoring and assessment protocols depending on
water body size, and has developed a three-parameter index to distinguish "small streams" from
"rivers." These parameters include stream order, average width at base flow, and average depth at
base flow. Generally, streams that are less than fifth order, less than 15 feet in average base flow
wetted width, and less than an average of 0.4 meters deep at base flow are considered small streams
by IDEQ. Grafe (2002b) discusses aquatic life use support protocols for use on Idaho rivers.
The Stream Macroinvertebrate Index (SMI) uses nine benthic macroinvertebrate metrics to calculate
uniquely referenced index values for each of three different Idaho bioregions (Northern Mountains,
Central and Southern Mountains, and Basins). These individual metrics include: total taxa,
Ephemeroptera taxa, Plecoptera taxa, Trichoptera taxa, percent Plecoptera, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index,
percent five dominant taxa scraper taxa and clinger taxa Jessup and Gerritsen (2002) describe the
development of the SMI in detail.
The Stream Fish Index (SFI) utilizes two different sets of metrics to characterize water quality condition
for montane-forested and desert basin-rangeland classifications. The rangeland metrics include:
percent cold water individuals, Jaccard's community similarity coefficient, percent omnivores and
herbivores, percent cyprinids as longnose dace, percent offish with certain abnormalities (deformities,
eroded fins, lesions, and tumors), and catch per unit effort. The metrics in the forested classification are
comprised of: number of cold water native species, percent cold water individuals, percent sensitive
native individuals, number of sculpin age classes (unless sample is comprised solely of salmonids),
number of salmonid age classes, and catch per unit effort. Mebane (2002) describes the development
of the SFI in detail.
The Stream Habitat Index (SHI) is calibrated to Idaho ecoregions and utilizes ten habitat measures that
statistically had the highest correlation with either human disturbance or biological condition. Fore and
Bollman (2002) describe the development of the SHI in detail.
Each of the above referenced three index scores are adjusted to a common scale using a 1, 2, 3
scoring system, and then averaged to provide a single score representing stream ecological condition.
Not stated (see IDEQ, 2007).
Not stated (see IDEQ, 2007).
Not stated (see IDEQ, 2007).
II-49
-------
Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment Framework
Related
Procedures/
References
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. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Fore, L. and W. Bollman. 2002. Stream habitat index. Chapter 5, In C.S. Grafe (ed). Idaho Small
Stream Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated Approach. Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho.
Grafe, C.S. (ed). 2002b. Idaho River Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated Approach.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho.
IDEQ. 2007. Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program Field Manual for Streams. Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program Technical Advisory
Committee. Boise, Idaho.
Jessup, B. and J. Gerritsen. 2002. Stream macroinvertebrate index. Chapter 3, In C.S. Grafe (ed).
Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated Approach. Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho.
Mebane, C.A. 2002. Stream fish index. Chapter 4, In C.S. Grafe (ed). Idaho Small Stream Ecological
Assessment Framework: An Integrated Approach. Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality. Boise, Idaho.
II-50
-------
1
1
1
Primary
Idaho River Ecological Assessment Framework mt&M
II 1
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
MMBlfl 1 Grafe, C.S. (ed). 2002b. Idaho River Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated Approach.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho.
1 http://www.deq.idaho.qov/water/data reports/surface water/monitorinq/publications.cfm
||j^» •
1 Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
mMMlilll^l Inventory;
•••lljjjjjl^l Ambient Monitoring.
•^^•rc]
[l^K
H^S^^^I
Scale/Unit of
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
of Effort
Assessment
Parameters
Non-wadeable rivers (>fifth order,
depth at base flow )
Not stated (see IDEQ 2007)
Idaho
>15 feet in average base flow wetted width, and >0.4 meters average
Not stated.
Channel/Valley - -
Morphology:
Physical Habitat: - -
Water Quality: Temperature; dissolved oxygen; biochemical oxygen demand; pH; total solids;
ammonia + nitrate nitrogen; total phosphorus; fecal coliform.
• Biology: Macromvertebrates; fish; diatoms.
Reference
t'
Other: - -
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Condition Assessment;
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Raw data.
Internal.
Not stated (see IDEQ, 2007).
1-51
-------
Idaho River Ecological Assessment Framework
Description/
Summary
The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) uses biological indicators, physicochemical
data and numeric water quality criteria to assess aquatic life use support for rivers. The Idaho River
Ecological Assessment Framework describes the development and integration of the River
Macroinvertebrate Index (RMI), River Fish Index (RFI), and River Diatom Index (RDI) that IDEQ uses to
assess cold water aquatic life use support determinations in Idaho rivers. The River Physicochemical
Index (RPI), another interpretive tool, is also discussed.
IDEQ uses different monitoring and assessment protocols depending on water body size, and has
developed a three-parameter index to distinguish "small streams" from "rivers." These parameters
include stream order, average width at base flow, and average depth at base flow. Generally, streams
that are at least fifth order, greater than 15 feet in average base flow wetted width, and greater than an
average of 0.4 meters deep at base flow are considered rivers by IDEQ. Grafe (2002a) discusses
aquatic life use support protocols for use on small Idaho streams.
The River Macroinvertebrate Index (RMI) is a multimetric index consisting of five macroinvertebrate
metrics: taxa richness, EPT richness, percent dominance, percent Elmidae (riffle beetles), and percent
predators. This macroinvertebrate index is basically a variation of the framework designed for small
streams (Jessup and Gerritsen, 2002) and is applicable to Idaho rivers throughout the state. Royer and
Mebane (2002) raise some interesting considerations applicable to identifying biological reference
conditions for 0 large rivers.
The River Fish Index (RFI) is a quantitative fish index applicable to cold water rivers of the i
Columbia River basin (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming). The index is comprised
of the following metrics: number of cold water native species, number of sculpin age classes or percent
sculpin (data dependent), percent sensitive native individuals, percent cold water individuals, percent
tolerant individuals, number of non-indigenous species, number of selected salmonid age classes,
number of cold water individuals per minute of electrofishing, percent carp (if carp introduced), and
anomalies. Mebane (2002) describes the RFI in detail.
The River Diatom Index (RDI) consists of seven attributes of relative abundance including percent:
sensitive to disturbance, very tolerant of disturbance, nitrogen heterotrophs, polysaprobic, requiring
high oxygen, very motile, and deformed valves. The RDI also includes two measures of taxon richness:
eutrophic and alkaliphilic species. The index significantly correlated with measures of human
disturbance at the site and at the level of the catchment. Fore and Grafe (2002) describe the RDI in
detail.
The River Physicochemical Index (RPI) is based on the Oregon Water Quality Index (Cude, 1998;
2001). This index has been tested and used extensively in Oregon to assess water quality conditions.
The RPI consists of eight water quality parameters:. Sub-index scores for each variable are calculated
using complex regressions for data that falls within a set range for each of the variables and threshold
scores for data outside of that range (Cude, 1998). The individual sub-indexes are then averaged to
give a single index value. Brandt (2002) describes the applicability of the Oregon Water Quality Index
to Idaho rivers.
IDEQ integrates the RMI, RDI, and RFI index scores using a rating and averaging approach. Index
scores are adjusted to a common scale using a 1, 2, 3 scoring system. The converted scores are then
averaged to provide a single score. The RPI is not integrated in the averaging process, but may
provide additional information in interpreting physicochemical data.
Not stated (see IDEQ, 2007).
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Not stated (see IDEQ, 2007).
Not stated (see IDEQ, 2007).
1-52
-------
Idaho River Ecological Assessment Framework
Relat
Procedures/
References
Brandt, D. 2002. River physiochemcial index. Chapter 6, In C.S. Grafe (ed.) Idaho River Ecological
Assessment Framework: An Integrated Approach. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality;
Boise, Idaho.
Cude, C.G. 1998. Oregon water quality index: a tool for evaluating water quality management
effectiveness. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Laboratory Division, Water
Quality Monitoring Section. Portland, OR. 20 pp.
Cude, C.G. 2001. Oregon water quality index: a tool for evaluating water quality management
effectiveness. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(1):125-137.
Fore, L.S. and C.S. Grafe. 2002. River diatom index. Chapter 5, In C.S. Grafe (ed.) Idaho River
Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated Approach. Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality; Boise, Idaho.
Grafe, C.S. (ed.). 2002a. Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated
Approach. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Boise, Idaho.
Jessup, B. and J. Gerritsen. 2002. Stream macroinvertebrate index. Chapter 3, In C.S. Grafe (ed).
Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated Approach. Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho.
Mebane, C.A. 2002. River fish index. Chapter 4, In C.S. Grafe (ed.) Idaho River Ecological Assessment
Framework: An Integrated Approach. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Boise,
Idaho.
Royer, T.V. and C.A. Mebane. 2002. River macroinvertebrtae index. Chapter 3, In C.S. Grafe (ed.)
Idaho River Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated Approach. Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality; Boise, Idaho.
Other/Notes
II-53
-------
Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program Field Manual for
Streams
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
IDEQ. 2007. Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program Field Manual for Streams. Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program Technical Advisory
Committee. Boise, Idaho.
http://www.dea.idaho.gov/water/data reports/surface water/monitorinq/overview.cfm#beneficial
ise/rurpose
Target
Resource
Type
Non-Regulatory Condition Assessment;
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Wadeable streams
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
Stream reach, SOX bankfull width (minimum 100 meters)
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
of Eff
Idaho
Moderate;
Intensive (1 day± in the field by a trained or experienced crew of 2 or more persons)
Stream discharge; width/depth ratio (wetted and bankfull dimensions);
Channel/Valley entrenchment ratio; sinuosity; channel habitat units [aka bed forms]; elevation;
Morphology: channel gradient; bank angle; bank undercut distance; substrate particle size
distribution (pebble counts); Rosgen channel classification.
Physical Habitat: Woody debris tally; shade/canopy cover (densiometer); bank cover and stability
(percent cover of vegetation, rock, downed wood, or other erosion resistant
material); Pool Quality Index (pool length, substrate, overhead cover, submerged
cover, percentage of undercut banks, maximum pool depth, maximum pool width,
and depth at pool tail out); rapid habitat assessment (modfiied from Hayslip, 1993).
Water Quality: Temperature; specific conductivity; bacteria (E. coli).
Biology:
Macroinvertebrate assemblages; periphyton assemblages; fish assemblages;
amphibians.
Other: Stream order.
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Raw data (Grafe et al. (2002) describe data analysis and interpretation of BURP data.
I-54
-------
1 Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program Field Manual for
Streams
1 1
N/A (The objective of the BURP Field Manual itself does not address reference conditions per se.)
1 Grafe (2002a; 2002b) describes the development and integration of various condition indexes that
••JUJjjjjjjfl 1 IDEQ uses to assess aquatic life use support for Idaho streams and rivers, and these indexes have
^^1 been developed and calibrated based UH internal reference data from eithei Idaho ecoregions ui
1 bioregions, as applicable.
^^^^^^^^1 IDEQ ensures quality BURP data by providing centralized training for BURP crews, annual BURP
^H rvinr/^jp^fnr ^npvc;h'ipc; strict fHhQrQn^Q t" thQ FiQM Mfiniifil consistent crew supervision ^"mpilfiti"n
1 and adherence to annual work plans, conducting comprehensive annual field audits, and following a
1 quality assurance plan that addresses such issues as data handling, voucher specimens, and
1 equipment calibration.
1 The Idaho Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP) conducts stream monitoring activities to
^1 support assessments of biological assemblages and physical habitat structure, which in turn supports
^^1 ^H nh-ar-antoriv-atinn nf inrliwirli i-al ctro-am integrity -anrl tho tnt-al quality nf IH-ahn'c \«/-atorc Tho Rl IRP FiolH
1 Manual is presented consistent with the four phases of BURP field activities: (1) Planning; (2) Preparing
HJPJBMMJJI 1 for field activities; (3) Field sampling, including detailed protocol descriptions; and (4) Follow-up and
MHiiillliifl
Required
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
The field sampling protocols, which are generally transect based, are presented
sequence for performing monitoring activities.
Not stated
in a recommended
™.
June to September
Grafe, C.S. (ed.). 2002a. Idaho Small Stream Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated
Approach. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Boise, Idaho.
Grafe, C.S. (ed.). 2002b. Idaho River Ecological Assessment Framework: An Integrated Approach.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality; Boise, Idaho.
Hpfij|jffi3l 1 Grafe, C. S., M. Mclntyre, C. Mebane and D. Mosier. 2002. Water Body Assessment Guidance (Second
••JUJjjjjjUjfl Edition). Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Boise, ID.
Hayslip, G.A. (ed.). 1993. Region 10 in-stream biological monitoring handbook for wadeable streams in
the Pacific Northwest. EPA 910/9-92-013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.
Seattle, WA.
1-55
-------
1
1
1
Primary
Author/
Agency
Intended
Use/Purpose
Target
Resource
IJrTiT^I
Assessment
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
[t^^^^^^^^^^H
Assessment
Parameters
Reference
1
QA/QC
Aquatic Inventories Project Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys W^&M
II \
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Moore, K., K. Jones, J. Dambacher, C. Stein, etal. 2008. Aquatic Inventories Project: Methods for
Stream Habitat Surveys, Version 17.1, May 2008. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Aquatic Inventories Project, Conservation and Recovery Program, Corvallis, OR.
htto: //www. science. oreaonstate.edu/~madsenl/TIESNA2009/Habitat protocol. odf
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring.
Streams (No further clarification provided. However, there are procedural references specific to dry
channels, suggesting that intermittent streams may also be inventoried using these methods).
Stream reach of unspecified length that is defined based on confluences with named tributaries,
changes in valley and channel form, major changes in vegetation type, or changes in land use or
ownership. Appendices suggest that the sample stream reach should be 1000 meters.
Oregon
Moderate;
Intensive (1 day± in the field by a trained or experienced crew of 2 or more persons)
Channel/Valley Stream discharge; water surface gradient; length, wetted width, and sub-type of
Morphology: each channel habitat unit [aka bed forms]; maximum pool depth; pool crest depth;
substrate particle size classes (est.); boulder count (greater than 0.5 m average
diameter located within or at margins of bankfull channel); percent active eroding
banks (est.); percent undercut banks (est.); elevation; categorical valley type based
on valley width index (ratio of the active channel width to the valley width); bankfull
width; channel height above bankfull depth; floodprone width; terrace height (height
from the streambed to the top of the first terrace above the floodprone height);
terrace width; riparian zone gradient.
Physical Habitat: Woody debris tally; channel shade (via clinometer); general riparian community
structure (size class and type)
Water Quality: Temperature.
Biology: Fish; amphibians; riparian vegetation (belt transect 5m x 30m perpendicular to each
side of the stream): percent-cover trees (est.), percent-cover shrubs (est.), percent
cover herbaceous layer (est.); tree count (stem density) per size class.
Other: Stream order; drainage density; watershed area; watershed land use.
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Raw data.
N/A (The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the
condition of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
Not stated.
11-56
-------
Description/
Summary
Aquatic Inventories Project Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys
| |
The Aquatic Inventories Project is designed to provide quantitative information on habitat condition for
streams throughout Oregon. The Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys systematically identifies and
quantifies valley and stream geomorphic features, resulting in a matrix of measurements and spatial
relationships that can be generalized into frequently occurring valley and channel types.
The Methods procedure requires completion of five (5) data sheets: 1) Stream Reach, 2) Unit-1, 3) Unit-
2, 4) Wood, and 5) Riparian. Most channel morphology and physical habitat parameters are measured
or estimated at either every channel habitat unit or every nth channel habitat unit, where n<1 0.
1 Channel habitat units (aka bed forms) are themselves classified in the field according to defined sub-
1 types that share relatively homogeneous bed form, flow characteristics, and water surface slope. For
1 example, six sub-types of pools are defined in the Methods.
1 Data forms and instructions/guidelines for estimating or measuring each parameter are provided.
Bi
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Seasonality
Related
Procedures/
References
Other/Notes
Field work consistent with the Methods for Stream Habitat Surveys is intended to be carried out by a
crew of two persons.
Not stated.
Not stated.
1-57
-------
1 Stream Inventory Handbook: Level 1 & II
II II 1
1
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Intended
Use/Purpose
Target
Resource
U S Forest Service
USFS. 2009. Stream Inventory Handbook: Level 1 & II, Version 2.9. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region, Region 6.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/water/fhr/sida/handbook/Stream-lnv-2009.pdf
Inventory;
Ambient Monitoring
Wadeable streams (ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial)
B I
1 Watershed; and/or
1 Stream reach: A reach is a relatively homogeneous section of stream containing attributes of common
Assessment
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
cnaracter. i ne recommenced minimum lengtn tor an reacnes is u.o mnes. AM rimes (tast water) must
be treated as "measured riffles" in any reach less than 0.5-mile long.
Oregon and Washington
Intensive (1 day± in the field by a trained or experienced crew of 2 or more persons)
Channel/Valley Stream discharge; length, wetted width, maximum depth, and average depth of
Morphology: each channel habitat unit [aka bed forms]; pool crest depth; pool forming feature
(opt.); Rosgen stream type; valley form (opt.); thalweg length (longitudinal profile);
bankfull width; average and maximum bankfull depth; floodprone area width; bank
stability; substrate particle size classes (est.); particle size distribution (pebble
count); mapped valley width; mapped channel length; mapped valley length;
mapped channel gradient; measured channel gradient (opt.); mapped sinuosity;
elevation (min/max).
piŁŁjjjjjjUŁj^fl Physical Habitat: Woody debris tally; inner riparian zone width (average width along both banks
m^ from bankfull to a distinct change in vegetation); successional class of riparian
1 ^^^^1 venetatinn Chaserl nn venetative h/ne anrl .qi7p nla.q.qV rlnminant nver.qtnrv R,
Resolution
u pu
understory riparian species.
Water Quality: Long-term thermograph (mid-June to late September).
Biology: Fish; amphibians.
Other: Stream order (opt.); watershed area.
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate)
N/A (The objective of the method or procedure is not presented in the context of defining the
condition of a resource. However, it may be used to identify or establish reference conditions.)
II-58
-------
Stream Inventory Handbook: Level I & II
I I
QA/QC
QA/QC requirements are detailed and extensive for each of four phases of implementation of a
monitoring program using the USFS Region 6 Stream Inventory Handbook: (1) Program Administration,
(2) Pre-lnventory Training, (3) Field Inventory Training; and (4) Post-Inventory Training. There is both
regional and national forest-level training required that includes the Handbook protocols themselves,
map and aerial photograph interpretation, equipment use and maintenance, taxonomic identification of
fish and amphibians, data management, data entry, data analysis, and report writing. Each national
forest must also establish a "test reach" for forest-level training.
Description/
Summary
The USFS Region 6 Stream Inventory Handbook: Level I & II is designed on a hierarchical scale. Level
I is the basic in-office procedure which identifies standard attributes of the watershed/stream to be
analyzed. Level II is an extensive stream channel, riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat condition and
biotic inventory conducted on a watershed scale. The Level II inventory includes both requisite core
attributes that are necessary to evaluate the condition of the stream and optional attributes. It has been
reviewed and is compatible with similar aquatic inventories developed by state agencies, specifically
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) in
Washington State. It has been developed as the aquatic companion to the USFS Integrated Resource
Inventory, and is comparable with other USFS stream inventories developed in Regions 1, 4, and 5. It
contains the "Core Data Standards" developed by an interagency team for implementation of the
Northwest Forest Plan.
There are two (2) forms to be completed during the Level I in-office inventory and seven (7) to be
completed in the field during Level II inventory. Existing information about the stream and watershed to
be inventoried is compiled in Level I including existing maps, historic land use and/or aerial
photographs, remote sensing data, and previous inventories and/or investigations. Preliminary study
stream reaches are also identified in Level I based on changes in mapped valley width, mapped
channel gradient, mapped sinuosity, or streamflow inferred by the confluence of large tributaries.
All Level II inventory parameters, except stream discharge and particle size distribution, are measured
in at least ten (10) pools (scour, plunge, & dam) and ten (10) fast water riffles (turbulent & non-
turbulent) in the reach. Channel habitat unit lengths must be measured in every habitat unit throughout
the sample reach. The Handbook provides very detailed instructions for measuring each parameter
and includes detailed field data sheets.
See QA/QC above.
Not stated.
Related
Procedures/
References
Other/Notes
Minimum baseflow conditions.
II-59
-------
1
1
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Intended
Use/Purpose
Target
Resource
Type
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
Assessment
Parameters
Functional Assessment Approach for High Gradient Streams:
Wo^t Virninin K^JAJ^^ ,m*±A ^^^4
U S Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District
utH
•
USAGE Huntington District. 2007. Functional Assessment Approach for High Gradient Streams: West
Virginia. June 2007, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, Huntington, WV.
http://www.lrh.usace.armv.mil/permits/
Regulatory Assessment (Clean Water Act, Section 404);
Compensatory Mitigation Protocol
Headwater Streams: Ephemeral, Intermittent, & Low-order Perennial
Characterized by high gradient (channel slope ranges from 4% to 10%), low sinuosity, with
common to many step pools (Rosgen type A, Aa, or Aa+ streams)
Stream reach of unspecified length.
West Virginia
Easy (rapid)
Channel/Valley Watershed gradient; categorical channel alteration; channel gradient & number of
Morphology: step pools; substrate particle size (est.).
Physical Habitat' Woody debris tally
Water Quality: - -
Biology: Percent-cover trees; percent-cover shrubs; percent-cover herbaceous layer;
Number of native species in upper-most vegetative strata.
Other: Watershed land use/ land cover (est.); percent-cover soil detritus.
Qualitative (descriptive; categorical);
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.).
Condition Assessment;
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Programmatic or Regulatory Support Information.
Internal, but based on "field observations, professional judgment, published literature," and similar
assessment indicators from other regions and ecosystems
1 Not stated. However, the documentation indicates that no field studies have been conducted
1 specifically to calibrate the metrics or indicators used in the Approach.
II-60
-------
d Functional Assessment Approach for High Gradient Streams:
West Virginia
I El
i i
The "Functional Assessment Approach for High Gradient Streams: West Virginia" is considered by the
1 USAGE, Huntington District to be an interim approach that involves a visual evaluation of the physical
1 and biological structure of the assessment site. The assessment itself uses a set of eleven (11) metrics
Description/
Summary
represent indicators of four (4) defined functions: hydrology, biogeochemical cycling, plant community
functions, and wildlife habitat. Each function is described in the documentation, and rationale for
including the subset of metrics used to generate an indicator score for each function, scaled from zero
to 1.0. is also provided.
I 1 The Approach documentation specifies that "decisions about how to use the numbers [output] are a
1 matter of policy," and are not specified in the document.
1
II
Time
Conduct
Assessment
•
Not stated.
Not stated.
Not stated.
None.
References
Other/Notes
1
The organizational presentation of the Approach document and the structure of the specific model
equations that represent each function are very similar to those commonly used in regional guidebooks
for hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional assessment of wetlands.
In early 2010, the IFAA was reportedly in the process of being significantly revised by the USAGE
Engineer Research and Development Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
11-61
-------
^^u
West Virginia Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric
Primary
Author/
West Virginia Interagency Review Team
West Virginia Interagency Review Team. 2010. West Virginia Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric,
Version 1.1. March 2010. USAGE Huntington District, USAGE Pittsburgh District, USEPA, USFWS,
USDA NRCS, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, and West Virginia Division of
Natural Resources.
http://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/permits/
Use/Purp
Target
Regulatory Assessment (Clean Water Act, Section 404);
Compensatory Mitigation Protocol.
Wadeable Streams: Ephemeral, Intermittent, or Perennial
Geographic
Applicability
al Level
Not stated.
However, the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling protocol upon which the West Virginia Stream
Condition Index is based utilizes a sample stream reach of 100 meters.
West Virginia
Moderate
Assessment
Parameters
Channel/Valley Channel alteration (H, L)1; frequency of riffles or bends (H); sinuosity (L); bank
Morphology: stability (H, L); pool substrate characterization (L); Velocity/depth combinations
(H); pool variability (L).
Physical Habitat: Epifaunal substrate/available cover (H, L); embeddedness (H); sediment
deposition (H, L); channel flow status (H, L); bank vegetative protection (H, L);
riparian zone width (H, L).
Water Quality: Specific conductivity; pH; dissolved oxygen.
Biology Benthic macroinvertebrates.
Other: - -
1 All Channel/Valley Morphology and Physical Habitat parameters listed above are included as part
of the USEPA RBP stream habitat assessment index. H = applicable in high gradient streams;
L = applicable in low gradient streams.
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Condition Assessment;
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Programmatic or Regulatory Support Information.
Reference
Internal (e.g. Index calibrated to existing local or regional reference data).
Not stated.
II-62
-------
West Virginia Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric
Description/
Summary
Exper
Requ
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Seasonality
The West Virginia Stream and Wetland Metric Valuation (SWMV) was developed to provide regulatory
agencies in West Virginia with an assessment method suitable to consistently evaluate proposed
impacts tojurisdictional streams and wetlands considering all forms of compensatory mitigation,
including mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, and permittee responsible mitigation. Only the
stream component of SWMV will be addressed here.
The SWMV synthesizes correlations derived from multiple established individual assessment
methodologies, including the stream habitat assessment component of the USEPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols (Barbour et al., 1999), the West Virginia Stream Condition Index (Barbour et
al., 2000), and a water quality data sheet utilized by the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection. The SWMV utilizes these data to generate an index ranging from 0 to 1.0 to represent the
physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the stream being assessed.
The RBP stream habitat assessment is a visual-based rapid assessment that relies upon visual
characterizations of ten stream features in order to categorize the quality of those features as either
poor, marginal, suboptimal, or optimal. The range of quality from poor to optimal is further defined on
a point scale from 0 to 20 for each stream habitat parameter assessed. A few stream habitat
parameters used in the assessment vary based on whether the stream has a high gradient and
therefore dominated by riffle/run habitat types and coarse substrate, or a low gradient dominated by
glide/pool habitats and typically finer substrates. The water quality parameters of concern in the
SWMV include pH, specific conductivity, and dissolved oxygen. Both the physical habitat assessment
and the water quality data are required for ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams. The West
Virginia Stream Condition Index (WVSCI) is based on six (6) biological metrics calculated from benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages collected using the WVDEP Save Our Streams protocol (WVDEP,
2010), and is to be included only on intermittent or perennial streams.
The SWMV includes a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that automates the calculation of both sub-indices
for each of the indicators (physical, chemical, and biological), as well as the overall condition index.
The user enters data for each indicator in the designated portion of the spreadsheet, including the 10
individual parameter scores of the RBP stream habitat assessment (physical indicators), measured
water quality data for pH, specific conductivity, and dissolved oxygen (chemical indicators), and the
WVSCI index score (biological indicator). The spreadsheet aggregates the subindices into an overall
condition index ranging from 0 (poor condition) to 1.0 (best condition). All calculations are internal to
the spreadsheet, and cannot be modified by the user.
Data may be entered not only for the stream proposed to be impacted, but also for the proposed
mitigation site. Additionally, inferences may be drawn to anticipate conditions in the mitigation stream
five-years from the date of mitigation. The difference in index score between existing conditions at the
mitigation site and anticipated conditions forms the basis upon which determinations of the necessary
mitigation stream length may be drawn. There are also considerations built into the spreadsheet to
account for anticipated temporal loss of ecosystem functions (i.e. time to maturity of a mitigation site).
Not stated.
Not stated.
Not stated.
Barbour et al. (2000) found no distinct differentiation based seasonality of data used to develop the
WVSCI, which was collected from May to September between 1996 and 1997. However, the authors
opined that narrowing the collection period to a range from late spring to early summer would reduce
variability and thereby improve the assessments.
II-63
-------
West Virginia Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric
Related
Procedures/
References
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. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Barbour, M.T., J. Burton, and J. Gerritsen. 2000. A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia
Wadeable Streams. March 28, 2000 (revised July 21, 2000). EPA 68-C7-0014. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Environmental Services Division and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water.
WVDEP. 2010. West Virginia Save Our Streams. West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Water and Waste Management,
http://www. wvdep.org/item.cfm?ssid=11&ss1id=202.
The stream portion of the Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric is anticipated to be superceded by
completion of a Comprehensive Stream Assessment Methodology being developed by the USAGE
Engineer Research and Development Center.
II-64
-------
1 1 II
Unified Stream Methodology BU
1 1 II HM|
^^3 ^^B
^J«^^^^M
i
3
•
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,
January 2007
Resource
http://www.nao.usace.armv.mil/technical%20services/Requlatorv%20branch/USM.asp
1 1 Rfinulatnrv Assessment fClean Water Ant Sentinn 404' Virninia Water Prntentinn Permit PrnnramV
Use/Purpose
Type
Compensatory Mitigation Protocol.
Wadeable streams: Ephemeral, Intermittent, or Perennial.
Stream reach defined by changes in channel condition, riparian buffer, in-stream habitat, or channel
alteration.
NjttjM4flfil 1 Virginia
General Level
RJ4i^» "-"^
Assessment
Parameters
Wadeable perennial or intermittent streams - Reach Condition Index (based on visual observation):
Channel / Valley Channel condition (cross-sectional channel stability; preponderance of sediment
Morphology: deposition; vegetative bank coverage; bank erosion); Channel alteration
(preponderance of anthropogenic channel disturbance, such as channelization, rip-
rap road crossings etc )
Physical Habitat: Riparian buffers (canopy coverage; number of well represented vegetative strata);
in-stream habitat (percent coverage of in-stream habitat, including substrate size
Water Quality: - -
Biology: - -
Other: - -
1 Qualitative (descriptive);
bl^jjLijijjjfl I Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.)
1
Subjective Index (e.g. numeric score);
Qualitative Description;
Programmatic or Regulatory Support Information
Measured External Reference Required (e.g. site specific / project specific reference).
Not stated.
11-65
-------
Unified Stream Methodology
| |
The Unified Stream Methodology (USM) provides a rapid method to assess stream compensatory
1 mitigation requirements for proposed projects seeking authorization to impact jurisdictional streams, as
1 well as the number of credits generated by proposed mitigation projects. The first step in USM is to
1 define the exiting condition of the proposed project stream by calculating a Reach Condition Index
1 (RCI). The RCI is based on condition indices of four factors, each of which is scored according to
1 categorical or ordinal descriptions provided: (1) Channel condition (based on channel evolutionary
1 stage; morphological response following perturbation); (2) Riparian buffer (weighted average percent
cover of various vegetative cover types within 1 00 feet of stream reach); (3) In-stream habitat (relative
1 quantity and variety of natural physical structures in the stream that provide habitat for aquatic
1 organisms); and (4) Channel alteration (direct impacts to the stream as a result of anthropogenic
1 activities). Descriptions provided in the USM of each parameter and condition class thereof are
1 augmented with color photographs representing each condition class.
Description/
Summary
Scoring of the Channel condition factor of the RCI is weighted 2X any other single factor to reflect the
importance of physical stability on overall channel condition. Scores for each of the above referenced
four factors are summed and then divided by five (5) to obtain the RCI. The RCI is then multiplied by a
1 linear length of stream impact in order to determine the compensation requirements necessary to offset
1 proposed impacts.
1 The number of mitigation credits allocated to proposed mitigation measures is based on categorical
1 descriptions of mitigation activities described in the USM. Restoration measures are defined consistent
1 with Rosgen (1997), and receive the greatest mitigation credit per unit stream length. Stream
1 enhancement activities and riparian buffer improvements are likewise described and allocated
1 corresponding credits. Additional "adjustment factors" can be used to further augment mitigation credit
1 generation if certain "exceptional or site specific circumstances" warrant. These include the presence
1 of or benefits to rare, threatened or endangered species or their habitats; livestock exclusion fencing;
1 and watershed preservation.
1 Expertise
Required
Uiuiifl
Assessment
I^M ^^^1
References
Not stated.
Not stated.
Not stated.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Pgs 12-22 in S.S.Y.
Wang, E.J. Langendoen and F.D. Shields, Jr. (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on
Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision., University of Mississippi, Oxford,
MS.
1 KJiijT^nKM^^H
II-66
-------
^^u
USAGE Charleston District, Standard Operating Procedure:
Compensatory Mitigation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District
USAGE, Charleston District. 2002. Standard Operating Procedure: Compensatory Mitigation. RD-SOP-
02-01, September 19, 2002. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, Charleston,
SC. [NOTE: the Charleston SOP is currently being updated, as of February 2010].
http://www.sac.usace.army.mil/?action=mitigation.home
Regulatory Assessment (Clean Water Act, Section 404);
Compensatory Mitigation Protocol
Intermittent Streams;
Perennial Streams; and
Riparian Zones
Stream reach of unspecified length
South Carolina
Assessment
Parameters
Varies; The SOP refers to other guidance for assessment and monitoring methods.
Varies, but may include:
Channel/Valley Stream discharge; channel cross-sections & longitudinal profiles [dimension,
Morphology: pattern and profile]; measures of channel and streambank stability (methods
undefined); substrate and sediment characteristics (undefined).
Physical Habitat: - -
Water Quality: Temperature; dissolved oxygen; turbidity.
Biology: As applicable: Fish; benthic macroinvertebrates; riparian vegetation.
Other: - -
Qualitative (descriptive; categorical);
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.); and/or
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate).
Programmatic or Regulatory Support Information
Measured External Reference Required (e.g. site specific / project specific reference)
Reference is not necessarily required to place the project stream into regional context based on
physical or biological condition, but rather to suggest specific design and/or success criteria for
proposed mitigation projects.
Not stated.
I-67
-------
USAGE Charleston District, Standard Operating Procedure:
Compensatory Mitigation
I I
Description/
Summary
Exper
Requ
The Charleston SOP provides a basic written framework to improve predictability and consistency in the
development, review, and approval of compensatory mitigation plans submitted as part of the CWA 404
regulatory program within the USAGE Charleston District. While the SOP does not provide stream
restoration design criteria, it repeatedly references Rosgen methods (Rosgen, 1996) and allocates
mitigation credits based in part on the "priority level" of restoration as described in Rosgen (1996). The
SOP refers to the use of an external reference site from which design criteria and success standards
may be drawn, and refers to Rosgen (1996), the Federal Stream Restoration Working Group (1998),
NRCS (1996), and the North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute at North Carolina State University for
stream restoration methods and tools. The Charleston SOP also refers to Harrelson et al. (1994) for
appropriate stream surveying procedures.
Proposed stream mitigation plans must include, among other programmatic elements, surveys of
baseline conditions and post-construction conditions; measurable and quantifiable success criteria; and
a monitoring plan (5-year minimum) that encompasses both physical and biological metrics. The SOP
refers to Rosgen (1996) and the Federal Stream Restoration Working Group (1998) for specific stream
monitoring methods.
The Charleston SOP states that the goal of compensatory mitigation shall be the restoration and
maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters by replacing
unavoidably lost wetland or stream functions as close as possible to the impact site. However, the SOP
is mostly an administrative tool for allocating mitigation credits and outlining programmatic requirements
for mitigation projects. It utilizes a set of matrices to determine the number of mitigation credits
necessary to compensate for proposed adverse impacts to aquatic resources, and a second set of
similar matrices to estimate the number of mitigation credits generated by a proposed mitigation plan.
Each matrix includes a number of factors that are scored independently and then summed to reach a
per unit mitigation credit lost or gained. This per unit value is then multiplied by the linear length of
stream either impacted or restored (enhanced) to determine a total number of mitigation credits lost or
generated, respectively. Most evaluative factors are scored categorically according to condition classes
defined in the SOP itself. Some are conceptually rooted in ecological or functional condition of the
resources (e.g. Existing Condition of the resource to be impacted; Net Improvement at a mitigation
site), while others address programmatic priorities of the CWA 404 regulatory program and/or value
judgments of the agency or agencies that play a role in its administration (e.g. Lost Type or Dominant
Impact of the resource to be impacted; Control or Location of the proposed mitigation site).
Not stated.
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Not stated.
Not stated.
Related
Procedures/
References
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration;
Principles, Processes, and Practices. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
Harrelson, CC., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. General Technical Report RM-245, U.S. Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
NRCS. 1996. Streambank and shoreline protection. In Engineering field handbook, Part 650, Chapter
16, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service .
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
II-68
-------
[Kentucky] Draft Stream Relocation/Mitigation Guidelines
r
Primary
Author/
Agency
Kentucky Division of Water
KDOW. 2007. Draft Stream Relocation/Mitigation Guidelines, revised October 15, 2007. Kentucky
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Water, Frankfort, KY.
Electronic
Resource
Intent
Use/Purp
http://www.water.ky.gov/permitting/wqcert/
Regulatory Assessment (Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification);
Compensatory Mitigation Protocol.
Wadeable Streams: Intermittent and Perennial
Stream reach of unspecified length
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
Kentucky
Assessment
Parameters
Moderate to Intensive (1 day± in the field by a trained or experienced crew of 2 or more persons)
Channel/Valley Bankfull stream discharge; Level II stream type (Rosgen, 1996); dimensionless
Morphology: critical shear stress & shear stress values; longitudinal channel profile (bankfull
water surface elevation, channel gradient, valley gradient, pool and riffle gradient);
planform (sinuosity, belt width, radius of curvature, meander wave length,
floodprone area width); channel cross-sections (channel width & depth in riffles &
pools, bankfull cross-sectional area, bankfull width, wetted perimeter,
entrenchment ratio, hydraulic radius; floodprone area); substrate particle size
(pebble count & sieve sample); riffle:pool ratio & placement.
Physical Habitat: - -
Water Quality: - -
Biology: Determined on a case-by-case basis.
Other: Watershed area.
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.);
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate)
Condition Assessment;
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Raw data.
Measured External Reference Required (Site specific).
II-69
-------
[Kentucky] Draft Stream Relocation/Mitigation Guidelines
The Draft Stream Relocation/Mitigation Guidelines from the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW)
provides detailed guidance on mitigation requirements and monitoring and assessment requirements
for stream relocations and mitigation projects in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Mitigation
requirements themselves are based on ratios, dependent on the type of mitigation actions proposed.
For example, stream enhancement measures will require a greater linear stream length of mitigation
relative to stream restoration activities used to mitigate equivalent impacts.
Although monitoring and assessment requirements are generally provided in outline form, the
requirements themselves are discussed in detail, and suitable methods are referenced. Requisite data
to support stream relocation or mitigation projects include longitudinal channel profiles for the impact
reach, reference stream segment, and post-construction channel. Planform information must also be
presented for both the reference stream segment and post-construction channel. Channel cross-
sections must be collected from meander bends and straight reaches of the channel in both the
reference stream segment and post-construction channel. The Guidelines refer to Harrelson et al.
(1994) for appropriate stream surveying procedures.
Requisite monitoring parameters are clearly indicated in the Guidelines and include most of the above
referenced parameters, in addition to riparian vegetation (density, percent cover, and dominance) and
the rapid stream Habitat Assessment Index from the USEPA RBP (Barbour et al., 1999). Tentative
habitat criteria relating the RBP Habitat Assessment Index to biological conditions for each of
Kentucky's ecoregions has been compiled, and is presented in Chapter 6 of KDOW (2002). When
biological monitoring is required for stream relocation or mitigation projects, standard methods in
KDOW (2002) must be followed.
Not stated.
Not stated.
Not stated.
Related
Procedures/
References
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. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Harrelson, CC., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. General Technical Report RM-245, U.S. Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
KDOW. 2002. Methods for Assessing Biological Integrity of Surface Waters. July 2002. Kentucky
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Division of Water, Frankfort, KY.
Other/Notes
I
The above KDOW referenced web site also includes links to documents reporting regional bankfull
channel characteristics (aka hydraulic regional curves) for each ecoregion in Kentucky. Some of these
documents also include stream channel morphological data collected from select designated KDOW
biological reference streams and conclude with a discussion on how the regional relationships may be
used during stream assessment and restoration design.
-70
-------
Stream Assessment Protocol for Headwater Streams in the
Eastern Kentucky Coalfield Region (eKY Protocol)
Primary
Author/
Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District [based in large part on work by Kentucky Division of
Water]
Sparks, E.J., J. Townsend, T. Hagman, and D. Messer. 2003a. Stream Assessment Protocol for
Headwater Streams in the Eastern Kentucky Coalfield Region. Aquatic Resource News: A
Regulatory Newsletter 2(1), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources,
Alexandria, VA.
Sparks, E.J., I.E. Hagman, D. Messer, and J.M. Townsend. 2003b. Eastern Kentucky Stream
Assessment Protocol: Utility in Making Mitigation Decisions. Aquatic Resource News: A
Regulatory Newsletter 2(2), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources,
Alexandria, VA.
Resource
Intent
Use/Purp
Target
Resource
Type
Scale/Unit of
Assessment
http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Paqes/aqua news.aspx
See also Pond and McMurray (2002), http://www.water.kv.qov/sw/swmonitor/sop/
Regulatory Assessment (Clean Water Act, Section 404);
Compensatory Mitigation Protocol.
Headwater Streams, either intermittent or perennial ~ 1st and 2nd order streams with a drainage area of
generally <3 to 5 square miles [actual reference and test sites used to develop the Macroinvertebrate
Bioassessment Index (MBI) ranged from 0.25 to 3.5 square miles]
Stream reach, 100-meters
Geographic
Applicability
General Level
Eastern Kentucky Coalfield Region, including portions of three Level III ecoregions: Southwestern
Appalachians, 68; Central Appalachians, 69; and Western Allegheny Plateau, 70.
Easy to Moderate - The eKY Protocol utilizes both biotic and abiotic indices to reach an "Ecological
Integrity Index," but allows for only the abiotic factors to be evaluated in the absence of comparable
biotic data or when there is less time available for assessment (e.g. preliminary site visit).
Channel/Valley - -
Morphology:
Physical Habitat: Riparian zone width; embeddedness; rapid visual-based habitat assessment
(RBP).
Water Quality: Conductivity.
Biology: Benthic macroinvertebrates (optional).
Other: - -
Sparks et al. (2003a)
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.)
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate)
Pond and McMurrav (2002)
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.)
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate)
Condition Assessment;
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Programmatic or Regulatory Support Information.
1-71
-------
1 Stream Assessment Protocol for Headwater Streams in the
1 Eastern Kentucky Coalfield Region (eKY Protocol)
1
Internal (e.g. Index calibrated to existing local or regional reference data); based on Pond and
McMurray (2002) a priori classification of sites as representative of least disturbed conditions in the
region during compilation of the MBI.
Not stated.
1 Sparks et al. (2003a) utilized the Eastern Kentucky macroinvertebrate biological index (MBI) compiled
1 by the Kentucky Division of Water (Pond and McMurray, 2002) to develop the eKY Protocol specifically
1 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District in its administration of Section 404 of the Clean
1 Water Act (CWA). Physical habitat metrics collected by Pond and McMurray (2002) during the
1 development of the bioassessment index were mostly transect-based estimates, but not completely
1 quantitative measurements. Three of these metrics, plus one water quality metric, collectively
differentiated a prior reference and test sites with 98% accuracy: percent embeddedness, canopy
1 cover, conductivity, and rapid habitat assessment score (Pond and McMurray, 2002). Pond and
1 McMurray (2002) also evaluated a family-level MBI (F-MBI) and found a strong relationship between
1 the F-MBI and the original genus level MBI.
1 Recommendations for using the eKY Protocol include three components: characterization, assessment,
1 and analysis (Sparks et al., 2003a). Characterization includes a checklist specific to the CWA 404
1 Description/
Summary
program for documenting potential consequences of a proposed dredge and fill project on the aquatic
environment and describes the physical characteristics of the headwater stream ecosystem and
^^^^^^^^^H surrounding landscape, assessment involves calculation ui tne tcoiogicai integrity index itn; lui uum
exiting conditions and anticipated post-project conditions. Analysis includes utilization of the
1 assessment results to evaluate the proposed project under the CWA404(b)(1) Guidelines and to help
1 define potential compensatory mitigation needs, if applicable.
1 Sparks et al. (2003b) provide examples of how the eKY Protocol is used to evaluate projects in the
1 CWA 404 regulatory program, including how assessment results are used to determine mitigation
1 ratios. Ell spreadsheet calculators and mitigation ratio calculators are available on the USAGE,
1 Louisville District web site, including spreadsheets developed to account for the temporal loss of
1 ecosystem functions between project site impact and implementation of mitigation. Although these
1 examples do not specifically illustrate the protocol's application in designing mitigation projects, Sparks
1 et al. (2003b) stress that such projects should be designed using "sound principles of fluvial
geomorphology... based on [project specific] reference reaches."
ISpi
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
E^Ł mj^i
Not stated.
Not stated.
Most robust level of assessment is ideally based on macroinvertebrates sampled during the spring
index period (mid-February to late-May).
1 Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for
Related
Procedures/
References
edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Streams of the Eastern Coalfield Region, Kentucky. Kentucky Division of Water, Water Quality
Branch, Frankfort, KY. 56 pp.
-72
-------
Stream Mitigation Guidelines [NC]
r
Primary
Author/
Agency
Electronic
Resource
Intent
Use/Purp
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
USAGE. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
Wilmington, NC.
http://www.saw.usace.armv.mil/wetlands/Mitiqation/stream mitiqation.html
Regulatory Assessment (USAGE CWA Section 404; NCDWQ CWA Section 401);
Compensatory Mitigation Protocol
Non-tidal Streams
Stream reach of unspecified length
North Carolina
Easy (rapid);
Moderate.
Assessment
Parameters
Stream Quality Assessment index (based on visual observation):
Channel/Valley Entrenchment; presence of adjacent floodplain; sinuosity; evidence of channel
Morphology: incision or widening; presence of major bank failures; presence of flow /
persistence of pools; evidence of human alteration; rooting depth and density on
banks; dominant substrate size class and diversity of size classes; riffle and pool
abundance, depth and frequency.
Physical Habitat: Riparian buffer width; presence of groundwater discharge; presence of adjacent
wetlands; sediment input; in-stream habitat complexity; canopy coverage;
embeddedness.
Water Quality: Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges.
Biology: Invertebrates' abundance, taxa richness, and sensitivity; types of amphibians
present; fish abundance and taxa diversity; wildlife use of stream and riparian
zone.
Other: Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production.
Qualitative (descriptive)
Semi-Quantitative (ordinal scale, rank, etc.)
Quantitative (actual measurement or estimate)
Condition Assessment;
Index (e.g. numeric score);
Qualitative Description;
Raw data
Programmatic or Regulatory Support Information
I-73
-------
Stream Mitigation Guidelines [NC]
Reference
Condition assessment for large streams is based on ecoregional data collected by the NCDWQ
bioassessment program. Site specific physical and morphological data is required from an external site
specific reference stream reach.
Post-construction benthic macroinvertebrate sampling must also include a sample station upstream of
the mitigation stream section (NCDWQ, 2001). In some cases, one of NCDWQ's regional biological
reference stations will also be required for monitoring.
Description/
Summary
NCDWQ has specific requirements for the development of a quality assurance plan for benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling that must be first coordinated with NCDWQ. The QA plan must include
standard operating procedures that clearly demonstrate the ability of those involved with collection,
taxonomic analyses, and reporting of results (NCDWQ, 2001).
Although the USAGE Wilmington District bases stream mitigation requirements for CWA 404 permits on
ratios, the integration of stream assessment information, tools, and guidance from various State and
Federal sources that are included in the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (and directly referenced on the
USAGE Wilmington District's web site) warrants its inclusion in this review.
Final compensatory mitigation requirements for streams in the USAGE Wilmington District consist of
mitigation ratios that are generally based on the existing stream channel conditions and four levels or
types of mitigation activities described in the Guidance. These categorical levels vary by the proposed
mitigation actions' degree of complexity and include geomorphic stream channel considerations,
biological considerations, and water quality (chemical) considerations.
Existing stream conditions for large streams and rivers (wetted width >4 meters) are assessed based
on bioclassification criteria and rating protocols developed for some of the major ecoregions in North
Carolina by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). These criteria themselves are
based primarily on benthic macroinvertebrates community composition, but habitat quality and fish
community conditions are also used to assess quality conditions for large streams and rivers. There
are five (5) stream quality condition classes based on these criteria.
The condition of small perennial streams (wetted width <3 meters) is assessed using a Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet that provides an index based on scores from observations of 23 metrics
apportioned into four categories: (1) physical conditions, (2) channel stability, (3) habitat, and (4)
biology.
Monitoring requirements in the USAGE Wilmington District recommend stream dimension, pattern, and
profile surveying using methods from Harrelson et al. (1994). Additional requisite monitoring elements
are based on the type and spatial extent of mitigation activities conducted, but may include biological
sampling (NCDWQ, 2001), channel stability analysis, and/or riparian vegetation survival and growth.
Specific evaluation criteria for mitigation sites are provided.
Not stated.
Time
Necessary to
Conduct
Assessment
Not stated.
Seasonality
NCDWQ (2001) recommends that benthic macroinvertebrate samples be collected during the summer
(June - September) for mitigation projects in the mountain and piedmont ecoregions (including the
Sand Hills), but during the winter (January - March) for mitigation projects in coastal plain swamp
streams.
I-74
-------
Stream Mitigation Guidelines [NC]
Doll, B.A., G.L Grabow, K.R. Hall, J. Halley, W.A. Harman, G.D. Jennings, and D.E. Wise. 2003.
Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook. NC Stream Restoration Institute,
NC State University, http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/srp/guidebook.html
Harrelson, CC., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. General Technical Report RM-245, U.S. Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
NCDWQ. 2001. Interim, Internal Technical Guide: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for
Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
401/Wetlands Unit. December, 2001, Raleigh, NC.
Appendices to the Stream Mitigation Guidelines include hydraulic regional curves for North Carolina, as
well as a fact sheet describing "Application of the Rosgen Stream Classification System to North
Carolina." Links to the internet sites of North Carolina state agencies involved in stream assessment,
monitoring, and mitigation are provided.
North Carolina State University maintains a Stream Restoration Program (NCSRP) consisting largely of
faculty of the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, as well as North Carolina Sea
Grant and off-campus Extension faculty. The goal of NCSRP is to improve water quality and aquatic
ecology through research, demonstration projects, and education/training. Among the many technical
resources compiled by NCSRP, Doll et al. (2003) compiled a handbook on natural channel design for
stream restoration that is available on the NCSRP web site.
I-75
------- |