EPA-600/3-83-006
February 1983
PB83-167650
HABITAT PRESERVATION FOR MIDWEST STREAM PISHES:
PRINCIPLES mO GUIDELINES
James R. Karr, Louis Toth, and Gaylc D. Garman
Department of Ecology, Ethology and Evolution
University of Illinois
Charapaigri, Illinois 61820
Contract ::o. 807677
Project Officer
Gerald S, Schuytema
Freshwater Division
Corvall.is Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
ENVIRONXENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. EKV1 RONKEjJFAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OREGON S7H31
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pteair read IturuttioKt«« the remte ttfore
1. REPORT NO, a.
EPA-800/3-83-006
3, RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
PB 83-1676SQ
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Habitat Preservation for Midwest Streaia Fishes-Principle
and Guidelines
5„ REPORT DATE
; February 1533
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
f. AUTHOWSl
James R. Karr, Louis A. Toth, and Gale D. Garman
B. PERf ORM:*G ORGANIZATION REPORT %0.
9. FEHEQRMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AOORCSS
Department of Ecology, Ethology and Evolution
University of Illinois
Champaign, IL 61820
10, PROOBAJME ALIMENT NO,
11, CONTRACT,-GAAVT NO,
Contract No* S07677
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AMD ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Corvallis, OR 97331
13. TYPE OP ftCfORT AND PERIOD CCVERID
1«. SCCMSSM'ta AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/02
15, SUPCLCMfNI AKY NOTES
10. AOSTPACT
The degradation of running water resources is at least partly due to a lack of
understanding of the physical and biological dynamics of stream and river ecosystems
and to the lack of a comprehensive, integrated approach to watershed nanagemRnt*, The
report outlines such an approach, reviews physical and biological dynamics and pre-
sents a set of habitat preservation guidelines for maintaining ecological integrity,
with emphasis on warm-water fish connunities. Also presented are programs dealing
with water resource problems in agricultural areas, with suggested institutional
approaches for halting and reversing stream and river degradation.
»?, KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
». DESCRIPTORS
b.lDEMT«FI£«S'OPC^ ENDED TE*MS
COSATI 1 IcM Gtoup
18. DISTftiaUtiON STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SFXuRiTr CLASS tfhiSlifpvrt,
Unclassified
21. W. Of PACES
132
20, SECURITY CVAia mis pcxtl
Unclassified
22, PRICE
EPA Fo»-» 2220-1 4-3T) pbevious ttiTtomtt •}
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
Natural and nan-Induced events (e.g., changes in land-use and
channel modifications) exert major effects on biotic components of
streams and rivers. Historically, nan's efforts to reverse water
resource degradation have emphasized physical and chemical attributes of
water (water quality) while ignoring other factors that determine the
quality of a water resource system. One of the most neglected
components of water resource quality in stream ecosystems Is physical
habitat. Indeed, concern for in-streaa/ near-stream physical habitat is
aa critical to restoring a fishery as is water quality. Among the
primary man-induced stresses on fish communities (sedimentation,
nutrient enrichment, navigation, impoundments and levees, toxic
substances, consumption of water, altered hydrological regimes,
introduction of exotics), most have major impacts on physical habitat
conditions. Continuation of present policies yields little chance for
cospltsnea with society's mandate for preserving biotic Integrity, an
explicit objective of water resource legislation. Unless present
activities related to aquatic systems are changed, x..\e trend toward
declining fish resources In moat rivers will continue until only a few
tolerant species with minimal aesthetic, recreational or food value
remain.
The progressive degradation of running water resources is at least
partly due to a lack of understanding of the physical and biological
dynamics of stream an-! river ecosystens and to the lack of a
comprehensive, integrated approach to watershed managsnent. In this
report we outline such an approach, review physical and biological
dynamics and present a set or habitat preservation guidelines for
maintaining ecological integrity, with eaphasis on warmwater fish
communities. Me also analyse present programs dealing with water
resource problems in agricultural areas and suggest institutional
approaches for halting and reversing stream and river degradation in
these regions.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. 807677 by
the University of Illinois under the sponsorship of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from
October 1980 to December 1981 and was completed as of 24 December 1981.
iii
-------
PREFACE
The surface waters of the United Status absorbed effluents as well
as other impacts of a developing society for several centuries before
signs of degradation could no longer be ignored. A "dilution is the
solution to pollution" approach to waste disposal prevailed and typ-
ically resulted in grossly polluted vjter and associated losses of
aquatic resources (particularly fish). By the mid-twentieth century,
early legislative efforts were initiated to halt and perhaps reverse
this ominous trend.
A proliferation of programs to iuprove water quality ensued with
decisions regarding management of ruaaing water resources being made by
engineers and dealing with effluent control. The primary approach was
to restore the chemical quality of water; it was presumed that improve-
ments in biological quality would folJow close at hand. In many cases,
streams were viewed as conduits for tfce transport of water and water
development schemes rarely included assessments of biological impacts.
Many even denied the fundamental biological nature of aquatic systems
and/or their complex interrelationships with terrestrial watersheds. As
a result, habitat quality and Lhus biotic integrity continued to decline
in many areas despite massive expenditures of funds. Ironically, man's
"technological" solutions to water resource problems sometimes contrib-
uted to declines in hiotic integrity (e.g., chlorine toxicity in the
effluent of sewage treatment plants).
Individual water resource problens have traditionally been dealt
with in a fragmented manner by groups )c agencies with narrow water-use
interests or concerns. Program plannfrs typically lacked the disci-
plinary breadth to consider the full array of ecosystem functions and
needs. As a result of these uncoordinated efforts and reliance on
technological control measures, integral features of naturally function-
ing stream ecosystems are destroyed. Hence, desirable effect:, of
specific water programs may precipitate negative secondary impacts.
Minimal incremental improvement in biotic integrity often follows
effluent control because physical habitat quality irt streams and rivers
is being degraded simultaneously by structural solutions to control
agricultural nonpoint sources and channel alterations for navigation,
flood control, and drainage.
In recent years, knowledge of the influences of biological dynamics
have increased and a cadre of spokesmen have become more articulate at
communicating the significance of those dynamics. The result is
emergence of a more integrative perspective on goals for management of
running water resources. In this report we focus upon the role of
habitat structure as a determinant of biotic integrity.
iv
-------
Our goal is to provide a aeries of guidelines and recommendations
that can be used to insure the preservation of physical habitat. The
development of these guidelines and reaorsaendations depends on a solid
foundation in several disciplines. Most importantly, the preservation
of suitable habitat* requires identification of the major habitat
components. This requires knowledge of both biological dynamics and
hydrological conditions that produce specific physical habitat
characteristics. Hence, we outline both the biologieal and hydrological
background to our recommendations. Me believe that biologists should no
more ignore the hydrological underpinnings of the stream ecosystem than
should engineers and hydrologists ignore the biological foundations.
The primary emphasis of our guidelines and recommendations is on
physical habitat characteristics that are necessary to preserve or
restore fish faunal integrity in warmwater streams and rivers of the
Midwest. In formulating these guidelines we have conducted a
comprehensive review of ecological literature dealing with relationships
between physical parameters and stream fish ecsnmunities. Although
warmwater streams are our primary focus, we have included relevant
supportive data from coldwater* syste®3.
While effects of various types of habitat alterations provide part
of the foundation for our guidelines, it is r.ot our intent to develop a
laundry list of ways that man impacts the integrity of physical habitat.
In fact, intricacies of some water resource problems, particularly those
relating to impoundments by high and low head dams, are not treated in
detail. Rather, we deal with ecological consequences of impacts,
emphasizing ways that negative aspects of those inpants can be
minimized, as well as pointing out which impacts and practices are
unacceptable. As a result, wa believe that our guidelines and
recommendations are adaptable to most warmwater stream environments.
Our report is organised into the following major components:
1. History and Background of the Problem
In this section we trace the historical roots of the crisis 'n
habitat quality in warmwater streams. V'e examine fish faunas of several
major nidweatern basins and characterize specific factors that have
produced changes in fish resources.
2. Guidelines and Recosaendations for Protection of Physical Habitat
in Warmwater Streams
In this section we outline guidelines to protect habitat
characteristics of streams and rivers. In particular, we detail
specific physical habitat attributes that roust be maintained to preserve
biotic integrity. Me also discuss mitigation measures to insure the
protection of important habitat characteristics when watershed
modifications are initiated, as well as methods to restore previously
altered streams. Finally, we describe comprehensive planning efforts,
v
-------
including suggestions regarding more effective institutional
arrangements and policies that are necessary to protect strea®
ecosystems.
3. Development of Stream Habitat
This section outlines briefly the hydrological principles
associated with the development of physical habitat in streams and
rivers. An understanding of these hydrological processes is essential
to comprehensive planning programs.
1. Biological Foundations for Habitat Protection
Since our primary concern is biotic Integrity of streams and
rivers, this section forms the central core of the background material.
He discuss the most important relationships between physical habitat
attributes and biotic integrity in flowing water systems, with special
emphasis on fishes.
5. Annotated Bibliography
This annotated bibliography includes references that we found most
useful in our search of the literature on the subject.
6. Appendix
Throu& out the report we refer to fish species by common name only.
In Appendix X we provide a list of the scientific naaes of those
species. Appendix II lists the fishes of the Illinois River, their food
habits, present population status, and population trends since the
nid-19th century.
vi
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT - lit
PREFACE iv
CONTENTS . vii
FIGURES ix
TABLES x
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
WATER RESOURCE QUALITY (A) 3
MAN'S INFLUENCE ON STREAM HABITAT (B) t
CHANGES IN THE MIDWEST PISH FAUNA (C) 8
EXISTING WATER RESOURCE PROGRAMS Iff AGRICULTURAL
REGIONS (G) 19
2. PRINCIPLES, GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIOHS ................. 21
PRESERVATION OF PHYSICAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS (D) 21
General Principles and Guidelines 21
Major Habitat Divisions 21
Riparian Environments 22
Inst.ream Cover 23
Substrate ...» 23
Pluvial Characteristics Z'4
Watershed Management 24
WATERSHED MODIFICATION AND STREAM RENOVATION
GUIDELINES (E.F) 25
General Principles and Guidelines 25
General Recommendations 25
Flood Prevention, Drainage, and Erosion Control 26
Navigation and Bridge Construction 30
Establishing Bank Vegetation 31
Structural Solutions to Habitat Improvement 32
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE .. 35
General Prineiples 35
Regulations 36
Technical Assistance 36
Cost Sharing Programs 36
Low Interest Loans 37
Tax Incentives 37
CrOHS Compliance 37
Selective Applications 38
Classified Streams 38
Miscellaneous 38
Model Legislation 39
Summary 39
EXPECTED BENEFITS 40
vii
-------
3. DEVELOPMENT OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAM CHANNELS . «I1
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS AND WATER-SEDIMENT
DISCHARGE (H) 41
Temporal Variation 111 Plow ...., H2
Sediment Load 43
WATER SEDIMENT DISCHARGE AND CHANNEL STRUCTURE (I) *3
Hydraulic Adjustments W
Sediment Transport Dynamics ...
Channel. Geometry 15
Channel Pattern 48
RIPARIAN ENVIRONMENT AND CHANNEL DYNAMICS (J) H6
STREAM HABITAT MODIFICATIONS (K) «9
SUMMARY .51
4. BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF HABITAT PROTECTION 52
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION OF FISHES IN STREAMS AND RIVERS (L) 52
PISH HABITAT TOES (M) 5H
PHYSICAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS (N) 59
Cover 59
Substrate 62
Fluvial Characteristics 66
HABITAT MODIFICATIONS (0) 71
Small Stream Environments 71
River Environments 73
SUMMARY 75
REFERENCES 77
APPENDICES 112
viii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Conceptual model showing th#» primary variables (and their
Interactions) external and internal to the stream that
govern the integrity of an aquatic biota. (From Karr
1981.) 2
2 Prioary variables that affect the structural and functional
integrity of an aquatic biota. (Modified from Karr and
Dudley 1931.) 2
3 Population trends for the fishes of the Mausje® and Illinois
Rivers sines about 1850. (DEC-Decreaoing; INC-Increasingj
STA-Stable; INT-IntroOuced; EXT-Extirpated)
!J Numbers of decreasing and/or extirpated species by food
habits groups for the Maumee sort IIItnola River*.
(INV-Invertivores; INV-PI5C-Invert!vors-Pisalvore;
OHN-Oinnlvire; HERB-Herbivore; PLK-Pianktlvore) 16
5 Detailed conceptual isodel of the interaction of terrestrial
environment, land-water interface and in-sftream factors
that govern the characteristics of fish coaaunibies of
warmwater streams 53
6 Fish-habitat associations in a small Illinois stream. Note
some species are typically found in transition zones
between major habitat divisions. (Adapted from
Schlosser 1981) 55
7 Diagrammatic representation of major habitats associated
with large river environments 56
8 Relationships between aaallaouth bass density and amount
of coarse gravel to cobble substrates found in sections
of the Maquoketa River, Iowa, 1978. (Adapted from
Paragamian 1981) 64
xx
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Ecological effects of alterations of headwater streams
(excluding creation of small impoundments) 7
2 Classification system used in assessaent of the Illinois
River fish fauna .............
3 General characteristics of predominantly forested running
water ecosystems of eastern North America. (Modified
from Cunrains 1975.) 10
'4 General characteristics of natural forested CCinslna 197>0
and modified (Karr and Dudley 1981) headwater streams in
eastern North America 12
5 Summary of selected characteristics of the Ha*zsee and
Illinois River systens '«
6 Clearing and snagging guidelines for reducing flood danaga
in small watersheds. (Modified froa McConnsll
¦ et al. I960) .....27
7 Suggested bank slopes for stream banks with different soil
textures. (From Klinijenan and Bradley 1976.) 3-1
8 larger fishes from the Upper Mississippi River that use
aide-channels or extra-channel habitats (i.e., sloughs,
side streams, and baekwater ponds and lakes) as spawning,
nursery and/or wintering areas. (From Vanderford I960.) 3?
9 Differences in fish community habitats along the upper
Mississippi River, (From Bills et al. 1979.) 53
10 Standing crop of dominant fishes in snag and snagless
sections of the Middle Pabius River, Missouri. (Adapted
from Hickman 1975.) 60
x
-------
Number
Page
11 Frequency of occurrence of selected fish species In H
samples from low-gradient, prairie streams and high-
gradient woodland sireaas in Iowa. (From Menzei
and Fierstine 1976.) 68
12 Eleotrofishing capture rate (No,/hr) of young-of-the-year
carp and white sucker in prairie and woodland streams in
Iowa <197^— 1975). (Froa Menzei and Pierstine 1976.) ... 68
13 Sample biorsass of fish captured from natural and
channelized sections of the Luxapalila (Arnar et al,
1976) and Olentangy (Griswold et al. 1973) Rivera. .... 7M
14 Dominant fish species (based upon the number of fish
caught) in nature' and channelized sections of the
Olentangy (Griswol*. et al. 1978) and Luxapalila
(Arner et al. 1976) Rivers 76
15 Number of resident and transient fish speeiea captured in
natural and channelized sections of the Luxapalila River
(1973-1976). (Fran Arner et al. 1970.) 76
XX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Any attempt, to integrate material from a variety of fields depends
on numerous collaborators. The Project Officer <.n our Cooperative
Agreement, Mr. Gerald Sehuytema, Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory, has been especially helpful In assisting us to track A
and Interpret numerous important but difficult to obtain references. In
addition, the following persons responded to our requests for
information on the role of physical habitat in affecting fish
communities of warawater streams:
0. FaJen, Missouri Dept. of Cons.; T. Finger, U. of Missouri,
Columbia; D. Hansen, S. Dakota Dept. of Wildlife, Parka, and Forestry;
D. King3ley, Indiana Dept. of Nat. Res.; J. Kitehell,
U, of Wise.-Madison; J. Klingbiel, Wise. Dept. of Nat. Res.! S. Lackey,
USFWS; G. McCandlesn, Illinois Dept. of Cons.} *?, Nimnalty, 0. of North
Carolina, Charlotte? L. Page, Illinois Natural History Survey; V.
Paragamian, Iowa Cons. Comm.? D. Parsons, USFWS; S. Hoss, u. of S.
Mississippi; J. Scott, U. S. Amy Corps of Bng.f.
P. Smith, Illinois Natural History Survey*, R. Spark3. Illinois Natural
Hi3tory Survey; 3. Tonn, U. of Wise., Madison; H. Valiant, Manitoba
Dept. of Hat. Re3.; M. Vanderford, USFWS; G. Wege; USFWS.
To these persons, and to the many others who have contribated to
our understanding of physical habitat of war™water streams through their
writings or discussion in person, we extend our thanks.
xii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The characteristics of waterways are altered by natural and
man-induced muses. Araang man-induced occurrences, changes in land-use
and channel modifications exert major effects on waterways and their
biotic components. Historically, decisions to alter land-use or channel
characteristics have been made on the basis of their local short-term
impact rather than within the context of integrative, basin-level
analyses. Regrettably, even local impacts have not been adequately
assessed. In nmt cases, physical and chemical attributes of water are
narrowly emphasized while other important determinants of water resource
quality are neglected. As a result, running water resources have been,
and continue to be, degraded.
One of the most neglected components of water resource quality in
stream ecosystems is physical habitat. While the role of physical
habitat m a determinant of biotle integrity Is the primary focus of
this report, it is Important to view this factor In a wider framework
(Fig. 1). The attributes of a running water eco3y3t« are determined
by characteristics of the terrestrial environracn- of the watershed. The
physical structure of stream channels and the flow regime that they
support reflect the climate of the system as well as the topography,
parent material, and land-use of the basin, ^hese Interact to produce
the surface and groundwater characterijtics and dynamics of the
watershed. The ripirian environment plays a "tsajor role In mitigating
these influences at the land-water interface. Within the stream itself,
five major sets of variables interact to affect biotic integrity
(Fig. 2); water quality, flow regime, physical habitat, energy source,
and biotic interact *.ons-
Historically, of the five factors that afftet biotic integrity,
only water quality, and to a lesser extent, flow regime, have been of
concern to wat- •• iiiali.ty managers. We hope this report will reverse
th&t trend by • • •ing attention to and outlining the Importance of
physical habit-V Treatment of water quality degradation without
addressing phy.-. < habitat degradation will not result in attainment of
legislative mtr;-.tm on water resources.
Specifically, our objectives are to outline: 1. The importance of
physical character!sties as dwterainants of fish community attributes in
stream ecosystems 5 2, how changes in physical characteristics affect
fish faunas; and 3. guidline:; and recommendations to halt and reverse
the degradation of physical habitat. We hope this report will be of use
to a variety of water resource planners and managers ant that it will
result in a more integrative approach to the mnr^eraent of water
resource systems.
1
-------
EXTERNAL
Weather/
Climate
Terrestrial
Environment/
Land Use
I
Biotic
Habitat ^Interactions
Quality
Integrity
of
~Aquatic
•~Biota
Figure 1. Conceptual r-.odel showing the primary variables (arid their
interactions) external ai;d internal to tue stream that
govern the integrity of an aquatic biota (From Karr 1381a)
BIOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY OF
AQUATIC BIOTA
Figure 2. Primary variables that affect the structural and functional
integrity of an aquatic biota (Modified from Karr and Dudley
1981)
2
-------
WATER RESOURCE QUALITY
The passage of the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (PL 92-500) stimulated many efforts to improve water quality
through establisliment and enforcement of criteria and standards for
specific contaminants. The use of these criteria has Veen attacked on
numerous grounds (Thurston et al. 1979). For example, they have not
taken into account naturally occurring geographic variation of contaminants
(e.g.»copper, zinc) or considered the synergistic and antagonistic effects
of numerous contaminants; nor have they considered sublethal effects (e.g.,
reproduction, growth, behavior) of most contaminants. In addition,
monitoring water quality parameters, such as nutrients, pesticides,
dissolved oxygen, temperature, and heavy metals often misses short-term
events and long-term patterns (e.g., shifting age structure of fish
populations) that may be critical to assessment of biotic impacts. In
addition, procedures for establishment of criteria have often involved
inadequate or inappropriate controls or experimental conditions. For
these and other reasons, the primary dependence on a cheraical-contaainants
approach is of limited value in attaining biotic integrity in running
water ecosystems (Gosz 1980).
An additional disadvantage of this narrowly defined water quality
approach is that several key determinants of biotic integrity are not
evaluated (Karr and Dudley 1981, Karr 1931a). Chemical monitoring
misses many of the man-induced perturbations that impair use. For example,
flow alterations and physical habitat degradation, are not detected in
chemical sampling.
This narrow focus developed because of inadequacies of early water
resource legislation (PL 92-500). Although congressional hearings leading
to passage of the law clearly indicate the intent to focus on biotic
integri ty, as drafted, the law emphasizes physical-clseaical parameters
and water quality. With passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217)
a wore comprehensive definition of pollution cacte into existence; pollution
was defined as "the maniuade or man-induced alteration of the ehcaical,
physical, biological, and radiological integrii/ o£ water." Despite this
refinement, regulatory agencies have been slow to replace the classical
approach (uniform standards focusing on contaminant levels) with a more
sophisticated and environmentally sound approach.
More effective water resource management requires integrative planning
and coordination at the basin level. The many agencies and individuals
involved in activities that affect water resource quality must coordinate
their efforts more effectively. This involves developaent of more
meaningful and less oppressive regulations whenever possible. It also
involves each element in society participating in a spirit of responsibility
and cooperation to protect the values of land-water ecosystems. The specific
values to be protected vary with site and local needs. Nationally, we cannot
afford continuing degradation of specific values (e.g., biotic integrity).
The holistic perspective of ecosystems (and the values derived from them)
as integrated systems of land-water-biota-human must be adopted by society
at large.
3
-------
MAN'S INFLUENCE OH STREAM HABITAT
Human population increases combined with technological impacts
during the last 100 years have been instrumental in degradation of water
resources. In midwestern North America, agriculture, urbanization,
industrial development, navigation, hydroelectric development, and
recreation have all had significant impacts on the physical attributes
of lotle environments. Impacts of modifications such as dredging and
dam construction on stream habitats are obvious, while others are more
indirect. Urbanization, for example, alters watershed hydrology which
affects stream habitat conditions by disrupting flow dynamics and
channel equilibrium.
The complex interactions that have resulted in water resource
degradation and attendant changes in fish faunas are illustrated by
perturbations stemming from historical changes in agricultural ecology
(Cox and Atkins 1979). The conversion to intensive agriculture has been
particularly important in changing running water- resources in the
Midwest; indeed, it was probably the first major encroachment on inland
waters (Cairns 1970).
Early settlers were limited, for the most part, to raising
livestock and small plots of crops on naturally well-drained land that
could be cleared of trees or prairie grassm (Lariraore and Stith 1963)•
With the development of improved Tanning techniques and equifaent (e.g.,
the steel plow), more land was cleared and fields expanded. Ditches
were dug by individual farmers to orain marshy areas. Crop rotation,
fallow land, and manure were used to replenish soil nutrients removed by
crops and erosion.
In Illinois, the Farm Drainage Act of 1879 promoted the formation
of drainage districts that allowed farmers to work together on drainage
projects covering large areas (Larimers and Smith 1963). By 1920, 70?
of the Illinois counties studied by Lariraore and Smith had undergone
drainage improvements. Bottomlands along rivers and streams were
cleared of trees, ditches were dug, and underground tiles installed to
lower the water table and accelerate groundwater flow to natural
streams. In some places tiles resulted in burying what were originally
surface water courses (Lariraore and Smith 1963). Dredging and
straightening of existing streams also increased the rate of drainage.
Drainage impacts combined with environmental modifications associated
with the initial tilling and draining of the prairie in the early 1800s
had draoatie effects on stream environments. By the late 1800s many
streams that were originally deep, narrow and of continuous clear, oool
flow had become wide, shallow and widely fluctuating in discharge as a
result of changing land-use (Menzel and Fiarstine 1976). (see Section 3
for a discussion of the hydrologioal causes and consequences of these
alterations.) In fact, changes in water flow regimes in streams
combined with modifications of soil structure (resulting from clearing
and cultivation) altered the dynamics of the entire ecosystem.
4
-------
Overall, the development of legal (Farm Drainage Act of 1879),
institutional (soil and water conservation districts), and technological
(farm implements, pesticides, fertilizer) innovations speeded the shift
to more Intensive cultivation. Vigorous hybrids and improved varieties
along with the use of herbicides and pesticides have, by increasing
production, also led to reduced concern about natural soil fertility.
"Soil-bullding" crop rotations have been abandoned in r»at areas and
replaced by high-Income crops that deplete nutrients in one year rather
than over the course of a oulttyear crop rotation (USDft 1981). Wheat,
oorn, and later, soybeans became the leading crops becausa they were
marketable on a large scale.
With agriculture depending less, in the short-term, on natural
fertility for sustained yields, and growing world markets in the 1970s,
even marginal and poor lands are being cleared and cultivated. Farmers
now more than ever put every available acre into production, often
resulting In abandonment of conservation practices (Karr 1981a) and
accelerated erosion rates.
In fact, erosion has once again become a serious p-obiem. While
the technology of agriculture has changed tremendously alnce the 1930s,
the administration of Federal erosion-control programs continues to be
carried out in ouch the .same context as it was during the Depression,
especially in terns of short-term, benefit/cost relations to the farmer,
the landowner, and society at large (IJSDA 1931, Karr 1). In 1979,
Rupert Cutler, then assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture, nade the
observation that "after 10 years of conservation effort.!, soil erosion
is now worsa than during the Dust Bowl days™ (Risser 1981). Rain and
melting snow continue to wash tons of soil from fields. Much of that
soil ends up in streams, rivers, and lakes, impeding the flow of water
and destroying essential habitat for fish and other wildlife. In
addition to sediment, livestock waste and chemical pollutants
(nutrients, herbicides, and pesticides) carried by the soli also find
their way into water systecis.
With sediments from erodlws clogging stream channels, dredging and
rechannelization efforts have Increased. Perpetual channelization of
large rivers is also necessary to keep channels open for navigation.
Part of the demand for navigable rivers lies in the need for barges to
mov3 grain and other products cheaply to ports. Thus,
agriculture-related Impacts, Including drainage, erosion and
sedimentation, nutrient enrichment, pesticide runoff, snd altered
hydrology, have clearly had a profound effect on water resources in
streams and rivers.
Along the continuum fro*, headwater streams to large rivers relative
Impacts of various perturbations change. Modifications due to
agriculture sesn to have their greatest direct effect on headwater
streams. In addition to being subject to extensive channelization and
removal of near-stream vegetation, headwater areas are the primary sites
of sediment inputs fros the land surface (Karr and Schlouser 1978).
5
-------
Sine® these areas are Important spanning and nursery grounds for
commercial and sport species that spend their adult life In lakes or
large rivers (Karr and Gorman 1975), sodificafcions of headwater streams
have wide-ranging as well as local tspacts, (Also see p. 52),
In addition to channelization, hydroelectric, flood control, and
recreational activities have direct and indirect effects on the
hydrology and physical structure of large river environments. The most
significant recent changes to the natural resources of the upper
Mississippi River appear to be associated with navigation (Vanderford
1980), As early a3 1824, the Federal Government authorized removal of
snags, shoals, and sandbars, excavation of rook In several rapids, and
closing off of meander sloughs and backwaters in an effort to confine
flow to the main channel. By 1878, a 1,5 ft. (1.5 ra) deep channel was
authorized and wan Increased to 6 ft (2 m) in 1907 and 9 ft (3 ra) in
1930. The last of the 9 ft (3m) channels was completed in .1963 with
the opening of the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock.
Before the 9 ft (3 m) channel, the **iver bottoms v/ero primarily
wooded l3landa with numerous deep wetlands, lakes, and ponis scattered
through wooded areas. The creation of a series of locks and dams and
associated impoundments abruptly changed the .-Iver bottom. Instead of
a complex mosaic of habitats with widely fluctuating water levels, a
series of navigation pools with relatively stable water levels was
created. Navigation pools generally have three distinct zones: (1) an
upstream zone much as it was before impoundment but with more stable
water levels, (2) mid-impoundment ar»a with flooded islands, oxbows, and
other habitats, often with extensive sarsh development, and (3)
downstream areas with deep open water that precludes marsh development.
These changes resulted in the replacement of a natural river system
that fostered fast-water fishery resources with an artificial pool
system fpvoring a lake-type fishery. The slowed current affected
spawning and nursery areas both directly and indirectly (e.g., through
silt deposition). In addition, sedimentation destroyed many backwater
areas. Overall, the navigation program on large rivers has affected
fishery resources by modifying habitats as well as preventing migration
among areas in the river system. Many species, such as skipjack
herring, paddlefish, American eel, Alabama shad, shovelnose sturgeon,
blue sucker, blue catfish, and lake sturgeon have been especially
affected by these modifications and now occur in relatively low numbers
(Carlander 1954).
The combined impacts of agriculture, urbanisation, and navigation
have resulted in massive degradation of physical habitat as well as
water quality. Treatment of rater quality degradation without
addressing physical habitat degradation will not result in attainment of
the legislative mandates on water resources. As Is suaaarised in Table
1, alteration of physical habitat in streams creates a cascade of
changes in numerous factors that reduce biottc integrity. We discuss
many of these impacts and methods for reducing their negative effects
throughout this report. ,
-------
TABLE 1. ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ALTERATIONS OF HEADWATER STREAMS
(EXCLUDING CREATION OF SMALL IMPOUH DMKNTS)
Water Quality Effects
Increased suspended solids
Increased turbidity
Altered diurnal "DO" cycle
Increased nutrients (especially soluble}
Expanded temperature extremes
Flow Regime Effects
Increased flow velocity
Alteration in flow extremes
(Both magnitude and frequency)
Reduced diversity of flow conditions
(Mo protected sites)
Habitat Quality Effects
Decreased sinuosity
Reduced habitat area due to shortened channel
Decreased stability of substrate and banks due to erosion
and sedimentation
Uniform water depth
Reduced habitat heterogeneity
Decreased in- and near-stream cover
Energy Dynamics Effects
Decreased coarse particulate organic matter input
Increased algal production
Shifts in invertebrate guilds
(e.g. + scraper, + shredders)
Shifts in fish guilds
Biotic Effects
Altered production (1 & 2 ) dynamics
Altered decomposition dynamics
Disruption of seasonal rhythms
Shifts in species composition
Shifts in relative abundances
Increased frequency of hybrids
Downstream Effects
Flooding and low-flow extremes
Sedimentation
Shifts in nutrient and organic inputs
Shifts in biotic communities
(e.g., fish communities are altered faeeaus-s ofj
a. local water, habitat, food availability
b. modifications of headwater spawning and nursery areas
c. modified competition and prestation dynamics
7
-------
CHANGES IN THE MIDWEST FISH FAUNA
Changes In watershed hydrology and channel structure have had a
profound effect on fishes of Midwestern streams. Following Karr and
Dudley (1978) we determined the current status and population trends
(since about 1850) for each species in the Illinois River system and
classed then according to food habits and typical stream size (Table 2).
Like Karr and Dudley (1978) working on the Mau-iee liver system in Ohio
and Indiana, wo assume that population trends since 1850 primarily
reflect influences of man. A species was classed as decreasing if
either or both of the following conditions were tme: (1) The geographic
extent of the species in the watershed has declined significantly, or
(2) the average abundance of the species in suitable habitat is lower
now than in the past. The extreme in this case is extirpation
Cextinction). At the other end of the spectrin are introductions of
exotics and species that have increased in abundance.
The quality of information upon vhich the present status and
population trends are based is marginal at best. Consequently, we use
only a few general categories in our classification. Some subjectivity
exists in this type of analysis due to the qualitative nature of the
data base and because precisely equivalent information from both river
systems is not available. However, in both river systems a significant
amount of information is available to doci^ent major trends. We feel
that classification errors are minimal and not likely bo affect
significantly the general conclusions.
Detailed knowledge of fish habitat requirements is not yet
available. Thus, the iapacts of nan's activities on stream habitats can
not yet be precisely related to changes in fish comunities. However,
study of food habit3 are relatively advanced, so changes in the food
base can be used as a reasonable first approximation for habitat
quality. The value of interpreting changing abundances of individual
spec!es by trophic status lies in the interpretation of changes which
result from modifications in the entire watershed. The diverse
functional roles of fishes makes then ideal organises for study of
biotlc integrity In aquatic eoosysteas (Karr 1981b).
According to the stream continuum hypothesis (Cummins 197*1, 1975,
Vannote et al. 1980), headwater streams in eastern North America are
primarily heterotrophic and have coarse particulate organic -latter from
terrestrial environments as their major energy source (Table 3) •
Primary production in the stream is generally low. Median-sized rivers
are autotrophic with considerable primary production and fine
particulate organic matter as energy sources. Large rivers tend to be
sore heterotrophic with the major energy source coming from upstream
areas as exported fine particulates. Under this hypothesis, the
changing energy ba3e affects the stream fauna. Invertivore fishes
should dominate in headwaters, invertivores and pisclvores should
dominate In medium-sized streams, and planktivcres should dominate in
larger rivers.
8
-------
TABIJE 2. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM USED IK ASSESSMENT OF THE ILLINOIS RIVER FISH FAUNA
Distribution - Stress SIes Category
1. Heaiwatesi - Streas order* 1-3< generally less than 8 to 10 n vide> average discharge
generally lew than 5 ens.
2. Hid-Rivar - Stress orders 4-8 i about SO to 35 ¦ wldei average iischaife 5 to ISO cam.
3. larga River - Stream orders 7 and abever greater than 35 a vider average diselier«s
ijcmr»rslly exceeds 150 cms.
food Hahlt»
1. Invortivore - foofl pioHcoinantly (>75») Invertebrates.
2. icvej-tivore/Piacivcre - food s nixture of invertebrate* and fiohr relative proportions often
a function or age,
3. ?lanktivore - food dominated by microorganisms extracted frera the water coluatn.
4. Cenivora - two or more major («2S% each) food types eoneunod.
5. Hartlvora - feed laaatly by scraping al*ariaw:ily to stocking and escape frora ponds.
E - Lost. Species whose nuabers have been so drastically reduced they are considered extirpated
or extremely rare.
^Current abundant* and population trends are based upon work of TrauLnan and nio colleagues (cited in
Ksnr and Dudley 19781 for the Kiunee, and work by staff associated with the Illinois Natural History
Survey {Hills et al. 1966, Sparks 1917» Smith 1979, Ssnierson I9a0) for tho Illinois River.
-------
TABLE 3. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PREDOMINANTLY FORESTED RUNNING WATER ECOSYSTEMS OF EASTERN
NORTH AMERICA (MODIFIED FROM CUMMINS 1975)
Primary energy
Production
Light and temperature
Trophic status of dominant
Stream size
source
(trophic) state*
regimes
Insects
Pish
Small
Coarse particulate Heterotrophic
Heavily shaded
Shredders
Invertivores
headwatrr
organic matter
streams
(CPOM) from the
P/R<1
Stable temperatures
Collectors
terrestrial
environment
*
Little primary
production
Medium-
Fine particulate
Autotrophic
Little shading
Collectors
Invertivores
sized
organic matter
streams
C'POM), mostly
P/R»l
Scrapers
Piscivores
Daily
(grazers)
Considerable
te-iperature
primary
variation high
production
Large
Ffcm from
He terotrophic
Little shading
Collectors
Planktivores
rivers
upstream
P/R<1
Stable temperatures
carnivores
*A stream is autotrophic if instream photosynthesis exceeds the respiratory requirement of organisms
living in the area (that is, P/R>1). It is heterotrophic if importation of organic material from
upstream areas or the land surface is necessary (that is, P/R<1)„
-------
Shifts In land-use and other activities of man alter theae patterns
(Table ft; see also Karr and Dudley 1978, 1931» Schlosser 198la,b),
Modified headwaters, for example, support more opportunistic
Invertivores. in addition, migrants to headwaters from downstream areas
shift from a dominance by Invertivores and pisclvores to ennivorea and
herbivores,
Before embarking on analysis of the Illinois fliver system, we
gurssiarize the najor results of t-ie Maumee Rive" study (Karr and Dudley
1978). Seventeen species have been extirpated from the Maumee during
the past century and an additional 25 species have declined in
abundance. In contrast, 11 species were introduced, and 10 have
increased. Populations of an additional 3^ species have remained
relatively stable. Overall, have declined while half as many (22?)
have been introduced or Increased in abundance. The remainder (35?)
have stable populations.
Trophic structure of the Maumee liver fisn fauna shifted most In
medium-sized rivers. Nine invertivore/piscivcre species (Including
ganefish such as northern pike, walleye, and soallfflouth hnaa) declined
In abundance since 1850. Deteriorating water quality 33 well as
destruction of headwater spawning habitat were cited 03 reasons for the
declines. Changing conditions in headwater streams impacted fish fcot'j
locally (in headwaters) and in substantial portions of downstream areas.
Karr and Dudley (1978) suggested that functional alterations in streams
were particularly disruptive to the fish community because reduced
populations of top predators removed natural checks on forage fish.
Among the species extirpated during the pant century, four were
headwater invertivores requiring clear water and in most cases clean
gravel for successful breeding. Two additional headwater species, tho
central nudainnow (an omnivore) and pirate perch (an invert!vore)
require well-vegetated, slow moving streams and marshy area.i that
probably disappeared as a result of widespread drainage programs (Smith
1979). Thus, headwater "specialists" seem to ba especially susceptible
to extirpation.
Among the 10 native species with increasing populations in the
Haunee, three are opportunistic at lower trophic levels - gizzard shad,
quillback and bigmouth buffalo. The Increase In theae species, in
conjunction with the introduction of carp and goldfish, shifted the
system away from dominance by insaetivore-pisoivorea toward dominance by
omnivorea. Snail impoundments may have been instrumental in the success
of these introduct. ,>ns as well as the increase in native omnivore
populations. The consequent shift in mldriver species composition to
dominance by planktivores and carnivores has resulted in different types
of fish moving Into headwaters to feed and/or reproduce.
11
-------
TABLE 4. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NATURAL FORESTED (CUMMINS 1974)
AND MODIFIED (KARR AMD DUDLEY 1981} HEADWATER STREAMS IN
EASTERN NORTH AMERICA.
PacicMtflr of interest
Hatural
Modified
Water quality
Light and temperature
Dissolved oxygen
Suspended solids
concontcat ion
Dissolved iona
Klow regitse
Flood ©vents
Low flow*
Habitat atrvvture
Pools, riffles* and
racewayn
Sed i£Beni*tion
Heavily shaded
Stable temperatures
Relatively stable
Low to very low
Generally low
tkvnpened hydrograpH
Moderately severe only
in dry yeir&
Substrata sorting ar.d
water depth distribution
complex both along and
across stream channel
.Minor
Open to sunlight
Very high sumener temperature
Highly variable
Mighty variable
High, especially for P dad it
Hydrograph peaks sharp and
severe
Mc^*jrateiy severe e&ch y«ar
in late sunder and early
fa Hi cxt'cua 1> sever# in
dry y«iarc
Reduced and/or destroyed
by channel maintenance
activities
fte}or problco with largr*
sedimer.t ir.;
-------
In our analysis of the Illinois River, we sought to answer the
following questions: Do the trends observed in the Illinois River
parallel those of the Mauraae? If not, how do they differ? What
ecological or other factors are responsible for the differences?
Before answering those questions, we summarize the general
characteristics of the two watersheds (Table 5). The larger size of the
Illinois River watershed accounts for its higher flow and richer fish
fauna. The distribution of fishes among the three major size-classes of
streans shows that 70S of the increased species richness in the Illinois
is due to additional large river species, and is probably a result of
the greater lengtn of river in that size-class. Headwater and mldriver
regions each account for only 15% of the increase i.1 species richness.
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF MAQH1E AND ILLINOIS
RIVER SYSTEMS.
River
(Area Van 5
Flow
3
m /sec
Number of Fish Speciea
Total IW MR LR
Maimee
Illinois
17,000
72,300
" 34.0
632.8
96
131
36
41
m
52
13
38
The number (and percent) of species extirpated in the Illinois
River is below that of the Maumee River. Two possible explanations are
likely: (1) In the Maumee a species was classed as extirpated if lost
fron the watershed or "extreme!/ rare". In analysis of the Illinois
River only missing species are classed as ext<-oated. This leads to an
overestimate of extirpation in the Maumee rel-iMve to the Illinois.
(2) In the Illinois River many species persist only in small isolated
areas cf the watershed (see distributional nips tn Smith 1979). Perhaps
the larger size of the Illinois waterahe< -md its more eoaplex
topography provides isolated refuge are* • Li-at have been minimally
disturbed by man.
Species with decreasing populations (Pig. 3) are more common in
all regions of the Illinois than the Maumee vs. 27? for all river
regions combined, respectively). The Maumee River had few species with
decreasing populations in large river areas when compared to the
Illinois, mainly because the Maumee fauna contains relatively few large
river species. However, the Maumee River biota also has not been
subject to any habitat modifications comparable to the impact of the
Chicago sewage diversion (Mills et al. 1966, Sparks 1977) or activities
associated with maintenance of the Illinois River as a navigable
waterway. As in the Maumee, declines by headwater species are likely
13
-------
20
10
HEADWATERS
§
is tn
E 5
3 C
<0 =
2 H
2
MlCRI VER
CO 10
y
u
tii
a
u_
O
q:
lu
^ 80
13 6o
Z
40
20
20
-
_
LARGE RIVER
10
_
J~l
VZC
^ m
ir-Tl rm
TOTAL
DEC INC STA INT EX1
Figure 3, Population trends for'the fishes of the Mauiiee and Illinois
Rivers since about 1850. (liEC-Deereasing; INC-Increasing;
STA-Stable; INT-Introduced; EXr-Extirpated)
14
-------
due to changes in land-use (primarily agriculture) and channel
alteration impacts, such as those associated with drainage.
The trophic status of the declining species also provides some
Insight into the ecological reasons associated with changing
populations. Declining headwater species represent a broad spectrin of
trophic groups in both watersheds (Fig. 1). However, in midriver and
large river areas only invertivores and/or invertivore-piscivoro3 have
declined in the Maumae. In contrast, declining species in the Illinoi3
River include species in all major trophic groups (Fig- 4).
Poor condition of fish In the main channel Illinois River Indicates
that there are additional causes for the declines. The weight/length
ratio of Illinois fish seems to have declined suggesting, along with
other data (Sparks 1977, pers. cormaun.), that food supplies are
limited. In addition, the high frequency of tumors, eroded fins, and
other anomalies suggests that a toxioCs) problem also exists.
Fewer species in the Illinois liver show increasing populations
than in the Hauinee. Indeed, even carp (normally considered tolerant)
have declined in the Illinois to the point wuere a major commercial
fishery has disappeared.
Thus, it is likely that several additional human influences in the
Illinois River watershed account for its greater fish faunal changes
relative to the Maumae. Agricultural impacts (siltation and drainage)
have had major effects in both areas. However, the Lake Michigan
diversion and associated toxics as wall as the maintenance of a
navigation channel and degradation of floodplain lakes have magnified
the disruption of the fish fauna of the Illinois Siver. Together these
disruptions have exceeded the natural resiliency of the river ecosystem,
Although no similar comprehensive analyses are available from other
major midwestern river systems, several smaller watersheds have been
studied in some detail. We repeat the primary conclusions of those
efforts to demonstrate that the Maunee and Illinois livers are not
atypical.
Larimore and Smith (1963) examined 60 years of collection records
on the fishes of Champaign County, Illinois. They shwed extirpations
of the following '"ish: speckled chub, bigeye chub, bullhead minnow,
blacknose shiner, bigeys shiner, pugnose minnow, smallmouth buffalo, and
bluntnose darter. In addition, extirpation of seven other species -
bigjaouth buffalo, black buffalo, pallid shiner, slender madtom, spotted
aunfish, and slough darter - was almost certain. Seven other species in
Champaign County declined, including black crappie, orangespotted
sunfish, black bullhead, and grass pickerel (Larlaore and Smith 1963).
Overall, the disappearance of native fish froa Illinois can be traced to
the following factors: slltatlcn, drainage, dedication during drought,
species interactions, pollution, impoundments, and thermal changes
(Smith 1971).
15
-------
20
16
12
8
4
Kf\
LJ
-------
In the upper Des Moines Biver basin In Iowa, eleven apesles have
been extirpated, primarily as a consequence of conversion to Intensive
agriculture (Menzel and Fierstine 1976). Moat of the extirpated species
(e.g.i silver lamprey, grass pickerel, blacknose shiner, brook
silverside) require clear water, stable substrates, and permanent flow.
Other changes in the fish fauna of the upper Des MoJnea Hiver include a
reduction in species richness and striking increase tn carp abundance.
At present, refuges in sone headwater areas and especially in high
gradient areas downstream of low gradient streams serve as sources of
reeolonist3. If these areas are disturbed or migration routes are
blocked, another round of shifts in the fish fauna can be expeoted
(Menzal and Fierstine 1976).
As in Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa., the fish fauna of Kansas has
been subjected to a series of changes catastrophic to the more
into!errnt species (Cross and Collins 1975). Six species of fish
disappeared from Kansas streams since the advent of intensive land- and
water-use. Two species were apparently lost tn the lust Bowl drought of
the 1930*s - the bigeye chub and the pugnose ninnow. The pronounced
loss of many species has continued with recent declines by horn>head
chub, Topeka shiner, cernnon shiner, soallmouth hags and saucer. The
cause of these declines by Kansas fishes is similar to that in other
nidwestern states (agriculture). However1, impoundments and uncontrolled
consumption of water in the face of lower annual rainfall are also
important in the prairie regions of Kansas.
Thus, since 1850 overall impacts of man on fish communities of
warmwater streans have been significant. The factors with greatest
impact seem to be:
agriculture - changing land-use and resultant drainage, erosion
sedimentation, and nutrient enrichment,
navigation - naintenance of navigation locks and channels in
large rivers,
impoundments and levees
toxics - from urban, Industrial, and agricultural sources.
consumption of water
Introduction of exotica
Moat of theas (except toxics and exotics) have aajor impacts on
physical habitat conditions although habitat has received relatively
less attention than toxic impacts. Agriculture has clearly had the
broadest impact* Urban and industrial development influences are
typically more localized, but their Impacts on those sx.aH areas ?re
generally mora intense. In addition, large urban and industrial areas
may have more widespread effects, such as in the case of sewage
diversion from the Chicago metropolitan area into the Illinois River.
17
-------
It is difficult to develop an extensive set of general principles
from these analyses, but several conclusions seem clear:
1. Several human activities have major impact on fish faunas (pp. 4
2. These include both extirpations and numerous species with
declining abundances (p. 13).
3. Other species have increased in abundance, especially species
more tolerant of habitat degradation and with more generalized
food habits (p. 15; Karr 1981b).
Jj. Trophic structure of communities is markedly altered (pp. 15-16),
5. As watershed size increases, the number of extinctions declines
This Is probably related to the relative availability and
persistence of isolated refuges in larger watersheds (p. 13).
6. Because of extensive migration of fish among river reaches,
the range and magnitude of local impacts on fish communities
may be vastly extended (pp. 6 and 52).
7, In areas with combined agricultural, industrial and urban
perturbations, the aquatic system is devastated and there is
very little chance for recovery with continuation of those
impacts (p. 17).
8, The degree of recovery possible depends on the degree of
disruption. Unless present activities related to aquatic
systems are changed, the trend toward declining fish resources
in in;>31 rivers will continue until only a few tolerant species
with minimal aesthetic, recreation, and food value remain
(pp. 4-1?),
18
-------
EXISTING WATER RESOURCE PROGRAMS IM AGRICULTURAL REGIONS
Although stream habitat degradation results from a number of human
activities, agriculture, either directly or indirectly, impacts the
largest portion of oidwestern streams. Several ongoing agricultural
programs have been used to address water resource problems but have been
largely ineffective in reversing trends toward degradation. In this
section we outline what we feel are shortcomings of these programs in
regard to water resource management and conservation (Karr 1981a).
SCS Conservation Para Plana. This Soil Conservation Service program
coupled with 3,000 locally organised soil and water conservation
districts has been the central core of soil and water conservation
programs for over four decades. Unfortunately, these efforts have been
hindered by several major weaknesses including: (a) emphasis on land
drainage and increased resources, (b) ineffective enforcement of
legislation even in sages of abusive use of land and water resources,
due to delegation of regulatory powers to local districts, (c) voluntary
programs allowing landowners to accept or reject any or all portions of
specific plana. Thus, components that have production-oriented values
may be implemented along with those that have some cosmetic value while
the more important conservation components can be ignored. It Is ever,
possible for a conservation practice with expansive government
"cost-sharing" to be abandoned or removed a year after installation.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) plays the primary role in
carrying out federal programs Involving price-supports, commodity loans,
target prices, set asides, conservation cost-sharing, and related fans
programs. However, leas than half of the money in the cost-sharing
program—$190 million for fiscal year 1977—wan used for measures
primarily oriented toward conserving the nation's topsoil; most went for
improving crop yields (GAO 1977).
Small Watershed (FL-556) Plans, Like In the SCS Conservation Program
mentioned above, local sponsors have final authority over what each plan
contains. Emphasis on short-tera economic gain results in high
cost-sharing (90+S) for drainage and flood control and much lower
cost-sharing (50%) for fish, wildlife, and recreation benefits
Resources Conservation Act of 1977. The growth of soil and water
conservation mandates for ffSDA and especially SCS created a
decentralized conservation program with at least 11 individual legal
activities (USDA 1980a). These, combined with a plethora of local
districts aid a variety of state programs, have operated without a
general review. As a result, Congress passed the Resources Conservation
Act (RCA) of 1977 to take a fresh look at these programs and their value
to the future of soil, water, and other resources In the U.S.
Although the overall thrust of first draft RCA documents perpetuated
production oriented objectives without really coming to grips with
present and future resource problens, a recent draft proposes more
19
-------
effective programs to halt and reverse soil and water degradation.
Clearly, the drafters of XCA. documents recognize that maintenance of
the status quo will result in progressive d«cay of soil and water
resources, including disasterous consequences for the biota of running
waters. Vigilance will be required to insuri; that the excellent intent
of the RCA process is not reoriented as happened following the initial
crisis of thedustbowl era.
Food and Agriculture Act3. An additional weakness of ongoing approaches
is the failure to Impleaent programs that ire enacted and
well-conceived. The food Act of 1970 required farmers to participate in
a set-aside program to be eligible for crop loans, purchases, and
payments. Similar provisions in the Pood and Agriculture Act of 197?
called on farmers to devote set-aside acreage to approved conservation
uses. However, uncertain market conditions li'-'it set-aside programs to
one year instead of long-terra contracts. The 1973 Agriculture and
Consumer Protection Act provided the Secretary of Agi lculture with
authority to write raultiyear set-aside contracts with payments for
vegetative cover. That authority was never U3ed.
Rural Clean Water Program. This program like so many others (e.g., 208
plans; Xarr and Dudley 1981) is dominated by the assumption that control
of soil erosion will solve water quality problems and result in improved
biotic integrity.
Summary of Program Weaknesses. In short, soil and water conservation
programs have been less successful than their designers had hoped. The
diversity of complicated, competitive, and even contradictory, programs
is certainly one factor responsible for many failures. But the problem
is deeper than that of too much legislation and too many prograas. The
deflection of programs froi primary objectives (such as SCS and A5C8
emphasis on production and drainage rather than soil and water
conservation) illustrate a critical problem not envisioned in enabling
legislation.
An admirable objective ni^ht be to bring each parcel of land into
productivity at a leval that Is related to its potential in an effort
to prevent abuse of laud and water as well as wetland
environments. We oust give uore explicit attention to maintaining and
expanding productive capacity over the long run and doing so in a
broader social context (USDA 1981). Tradeoffs oust be found between
operating at maximum production in the short run, with severe
environmental degradation, and sustained, long-run production with
environmental enhancement.
20
-------
SECTION 2
PRINCIPLES, GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. PRESERVATION OF PHYSICAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS
ft. General Principles and Quidellnes
1. Physical characteristics of streams and rivers are ultimately
determined by watershed characteristics and natural fluvial
processes.
2. The water-sediment discharge regime is the proximate determinant
of key interrelationships among physical characteristics of
streams and rivers,
3. Thjse conpiex interrelationships fora the basis of habitat
structure and stability which, in turn, are important determinants
of ecological integrity in strea.ua and rivers.
B. Major Habitat Divisions
1. Principles and Guidelines
a. Natural fluvial processes lead to the development of distinct
hsbltat types with characteristic physical and chemical
attributes that vary with discharge.
b. Excessive sediment loads obliterate the distinction between
pools, riffles, and raceways and are largely responsible for the
degradation of side- and extra-channel habitats,
c. Pish species are associated to various degrees with these
habitat types.
d. Pools are particularly critical for maintaining populations of
sport fishes aid top predators, and provide inportant refuges
for many other species during low flow periods.
e. Riffles and raceways ace Indispensable to apccias that are
adapted to faster flowing and shallower water conditions and
also serve as nursery areas for many pool species. Riffles are
also a primary site of aquatic invertebrate production (a major
component of fish food chains).
f. Side- and extra-channel habitats (i.e., sloughs, side streams,
and backwater lakes and ponds) ate invaluable feeding, spawning,
rearing, and overwintering areas for riverine fishes.
21
-------
g. The absence of one or more habitat; types will almost assuredly
result in the absence of some fish species and adversely affect
populations of many others.
2, leeamnendations
a. A fundamental requirement for maintaining fish community
integrity in streams and rivers is the preservation of all
natural habitat divisions that normally occur within the
hydrologic and physiographic constraints in the watershed. This
must include pools, riffles, and raceways, as well as side- and
extra-channel habitats and their connections to main river
channels.
b. To preserve the full complement of habitats, dynamic features of
running water ecosystems must be maintained. Disruption of
natural channel pattern (especially meandering) and water-sediment
discharge regimes must be minimized except in special cases such
as protection of dwellings, roads, and bridges.
C. Riparian Environments
1*. Principles and Guidelines
a. Hearatream vegetation plays a particularJ.y critical role i.
regulating water temperatures and channel morphology,
stabilizing streaa banks, trapping eroding sediment from the
land surface, providing cover for fish. Nearstream vegetation
also serves" as a nutrient and energy source for instream
invertebrate populations, and nabitat for terrestrial
invertebrates (an important fish food source).
2. Recommendations
a. The importance of riparian vegetation to ecological integrity in
stream ecosystems aust he reflected more clearly in water and
land nanageaent policies, programs, and practices (Jahn 1978).
b. The essential functions of nearstream vegetation can be
maintained with a vegetated buffer strip at least 25 n wide on
each side of small, low to medium gradient streams (Brazier and
Brown 1973, Sroderson 1977, Mewbold et al. 1900). For large
rivers and mountain streams with staep banks {e.g., greater than
60?), a 70 n strip on each side of the watercourse is
reeoflsaended.
c. Buffer strips should generally be laft in an undisturbed,
natural state but maintenance of open forest stands say be
permissible to accommodate flood regimes in urban streams
(Nunnally and Keller 1979) or prevent damage to bridges and
other river structures with inadequate clearance (Morris et al.
-------
D. Instrean Cover
1. Principles and Guidelines
a* Instream cover features are important to fish because they
provide spawning sites, protection from current or predators, or
hiding places from which predators ambu3h prey. They also
support important food resources and lead to changes in streaa
morphology that Increase habitat diversity.
b. Extensive instream cover Is essential in streaas and rivere
where viable sport and commercial fish populations are desired,
including connected extra-channel reaches and habitats that
provide spawning, rearing, and/or overwinterlan areas,
2, Recommenda t ions
a, Instream cover structures such as logs or large boulders should
also be maintained to provide habitat diversity in selected
reaches of streams and rivers with unstable substrate.
b. In all other streams and rivers, some instreaa cover should bj
preserved to enhance fish species diversity and productivity.
However, the amount of instream cover that is to be maintained
In these channels should be weighed against potential conflicts
with other stream uses {e.g., flood control and drainage),
E. Substrate
1. Principles and Guidelines
a. Substrate sorting and diversity along and across stream channels
has a major Influence on warm water stream fish communities.
b. Stream substrates provide spawning sites, cover, and food
producing areas.
c. Siltation is one of the most pervasive threats to ecological,
integrity in streams and rivers.
2, Recommendations
a. Natural substrate diversity and sorting must be preserved.
b. Pluvial attributes and processes leading to particle-size
sorting and cleansing of substrates must be maintained.
e. Effective watershed conservation measures must be implemented to
prevent excessive sediment inputs to stream channels.
23
-------
F. Pluvial Characteristics
1. Principles and Guidelines
a. Spatial and/or temporal variability in a number of highly
correlated fluvial characteristics, including stream size,
gradient, current Velocity, depth, and discharge exert a major
influence on the structure of stream fish communities.
b. Severe floods and droughts especially have major destablilizing
effects on stream fish coonunities.
2. Recommendations
a. Diversity in depth and current velocity must be preserved by
maintaining stream size and gradient and channel morphology and
pattern.
b. Increases in the extent and/or severity of discharge variability
must be prevented by Maintaining hydrologic characteristics of
watersheds in as near a natural state as possible.
G. Watershed Management
1. Principles and Guidelines
a. The five major sets of variables that influence biotic integrity
in streams and rivers (i.e., water quality, habitat structure,
discharge regime, energy source, and biotic interactions) are
directly or indirectly controlled by watershed characteristics,
particularly those relating to land-uae and the type and amount
of vegetative cover,
b. Many running water fish populations depend upon different
reaches of a drainage basin for various life history functions
or as refuges during both normal and severe environmental
conditions (Griswold et al. 1973).
c. Demands of modern society generally do not allow restoration or
preservation of natural conditions throughout entire watersheds
(Odum 1969, Karr and Dudley 1961).
*
d. A system of protected stream reaches serves as refuges during
severe environmental conditions as well as important
. colonization reservoirs for the entire watershed (Luey and
Adelman 1980).
e. Maintenance of ecological integrity in stream ecosystems
requires on integrative view of the entire water resource
system.
24
-------
2, Recommendations
a, A primary objective of aquatic resource management must be to
preserve the integrity of entire watersheds.
b, A compromise solution to opposing societal objectives should
involve preservation of selected reaches of watersheds in their
natural state while implementing to the greatest extent-possible
sound land and rater conservation methods as well as mitigation
techniques in other areas.
c, Preserved areas in each watershed must include representative
reaches of streams of all sizes and environmental conditions and
must be protected from Impacts that originate In modified
regions of the watershed.
II- WATERSHED MODIFICATION AND STREAM RENOVATION GUIDELINES
A. General Principles and Guidelines
1. Stream and/or watershed modifications have major local, as
well as wide-ranging impacts on water quality, habitat
structure, discharge regime, energy source, and biotic
interactions. These changes typically lead to degradation of
biotic resources in running water ecosystems.
2. Although stream and/or watershed modifications are incompatibie
with the national mandate for preserving the integrity of our*
water resources, features of natural watersheds will continue
to be modified to facilitate drainage of agricultural lands,
flood control, navigations, and road and bridge construction.
B. General Recommendations
1. Effective soil and rater conservation practices must be
implemented in disturbed watersheds to (1) maintain a hydrologic
balance in the watershed and (2) keep sediments and nutrients
from destroying stream and river habitats (including extra-channel
habitats).
2. All construction activities must include precautiona. / measures
to minimize transport of dislodged sediment (especially from the
land to running waters),
3* Any action that affects stream habitat must be considered
in light of other local and regional activities.'
1. Extensive straightening, widening, or deepening of channels should
be unequivocally prohibited. Short-reach channel modifications
not exeeecing 500 m nay be acceptable on a limited basis (e.g.,
for bridge construction and maintenance), providing adequate
nitigatio.i measures are taken to protect aquatic resources before,
25
-------
during, and after the alterations. Cumulative modifications on
any stream should not exceed Z5% of the channel length.
5- At least some entire headwater atrearas should be preserved in
their natural state in all stream systems. Decisions regarding
which streams or reaohe:t should be based upon the degree of
potential- land and water-use impacts and within the framework of
a comprehensive watershed management plan.
6. All stream work should be planned to avoid damaging critical
spawning and rearing areas and tines of fishes.
7. Mitigation techniques including in-stream habitat improvement
devices should be implemented when ecological recovery from pas;
modifications is unlikely due to permanent loss or degradation of
habitat.
C. Flood Prevention, Drainage, and Erosion Control
1. Principles and Guidelines
a. Flooding is a natural phenomenon.
b. A number of factors may lead to increased flood- and drainage-
related problems.
c. Floodplain zoning is not universally feasible.
d. Attempts to engineer new channels that speed the flow of water
downstream have catastrophic effects on stream and river
ecosystems.
e. Land-use conversions and other watershed modifications alter
hydrologic regimes. These changes disrupt stream equilibrium
and often lead to an extendsJ readjustment period during which
considerable streambank erosion may occur.
2. Recommendations
a. Efforts to control flooding should involve eareful floodplain
zoning where practical.
b. The first step in any flood prevention, drainage, or erosion
control program should be to identify the cau os, Including
consideration of land-use conversions and/or native watershed
modifications that have disrupted stream equilibria and Jed to
stream bank erosion (Table 6J ¦
e. Where major flood damage is caused by stream blockages,
selective clearing and snagging operations should be
implemented. However, these activities, especially bank
26
-------
TABLE 6. CLEARING AND SNAGGING GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING FLOOD DAMAGE IN
SMALL WATERSHEDS (MODIFIED FROM KCCC'JNELL ET AL. 1900}
I. Materials to fa* reaoved from tbm channeli
A. Log j«wI. SeMV! only those log accumulation* vhit ofstruct flosrt to a
degree that canilu in ciqm f learnponding or nxxtimom, deposition.
B. Other lugs.
1, Affixed lag*. laolatcd or (tingle logs not fee disturbed if they
iri caLvdJoJ, jawed, rooted, or vatcrloq-;®d ill the channel or the
floodplain 1 are not 3tlbj«ct to displaces?*-, i Of current, ani are not
presently blowing flows. Generally, eee»4;4od Io-jr that are r»r.tllol
to the channel do not cause blockage problems and should not t< removed.
Affixed logs that ore trapping debris to t2ws extent that could result
in significant flooding or sed Lien tat ion xt-my bo scaoved. This say not
be the best biology, but is 3 reasonable ttspromire oeonq vj; -._ js societal
objectives,
2. Tree logs. All lags that are not rooted, cnebedded, jaraned <-r -•rtlcicn: Iv
waterlogged to resist aoveoont by currents imy iw ranovod frou tna channel.
C. Hooted treas, tto rooted trees, vhether slivu ,ir deal, should be cut unless:
1, They ara lr.'ning over the channel at an greater than 1.' dug-ens off
vertical and they are dead or dying or hav* severetv undercut or dasaaqet"
root syst«ai» cr a*e ralyii? upon adjace.-.t v*.aet«t A iox suppor- .mi (_t
appears they will fall into thu channel vitjtut one year and c.-ear,.- a
blockage to flows: or
2. Their removal frno the doodplain is reqairt-a to secure access !cr equipment
to a point whore a significant blockage as been selected for r.isoval.
D. Small debris accumulation. Small. debris i:c3j itioni should l.v left
undisturbed unless they are collected are -¦ .J a I1..7 or blockage that should
be removed,
E. iedinsnta and soils. Major sediaent piu®4 in ¦-•»» channel nay hu removed if
they are presently blocking the channel te > Jrgree that results in
ponding and dispersed overland il w thrown.-. pourly dulined ot .ion ex talent
cfcsr.r.o 1 * ami, in the opinion of appropriate experts, will no: fc>e removed
by natural rivor force* after logs and ot«r ubstructiens Slave twn
removed,
II. Work Procedure* and r-iuifcxnt to 8« Used
A. log removal. First consideration will be given- to the use of hand
operated equipment to remove log accuaulatt^-ns. When use of hand
operated equipment is infcasiole, the follc-wir.q restrictions and guidelines
should bo observed:
1. Water-based equipment (o.q., a crane or wirstei raounted on a saal!, shallow
draft barge or other vessel) should ho use-i for removing material frfra
the 8t roans. A snail crawler tractor vi til '¦inch or sitrilar eipjjfnent nay be
used to reoove debris fron »he channel to selected disposal points.
27
-------
TABLE 6, (CONTINUED)
2* When it can &# demonstrated that stream conditions are inadequate
for thfi use of water-based equirssent! the smallest feasible «(Ui|»aat
with 'tracking systems that minimise ground «JistyrbAH'i« should be used.
Larger oquij-nraent way be employed f ro« non-wooded areas where cables
could b© stretcnod down to the cnonn«i to drag out materials to
r^joved.
3. Access routes for equipment should be selected to nlninize disturbance
to existing floodplam vegetation, particularly m th« riparian aofiC.
Equipment should be selected which rcqu*r^:i little or no tree reaoval
to maneuver in forested araas.
B. Rooted trc*33. Who t fur r dead or alive* rooted trees selected for removal
shall be cut well above the bjsu, leaving the atuap and toots
undisturbed. Procedures for ronoving the filled portion will b« the
sassa aa for other logs.
C. Log disposal—-general. All loqsj or trees designated for rensoval fre©
the screaas or £ ioodway shall renoved *ar secured in such a car-ner
as to preclude thwir re-entry into the channel by tloodvators.
Ccneially, they should be transported we] 1 away from the channel and
flood-way and positioned parallel to the 4tre*a channel no as to
reduce flood flow impediment, Where large nirabera of logs are
r*aov*d at on* location (e.g., log , burning may fee the best
disposal technique. Burial of reaoved na tonal u.iould not be alleged.
D* Sediment blockages*
1. Access routes for cguiyment should b*» sokctcJ to minimise disturbance
to existing floodplaizv vegetation, particularly in the ripariaa zone.
2% Xatorial disposal and necoc.'&aiy tree removal should be limited to one
dido of the original channel at any given location,
3, To the tvaximiun, extent possible, excavating tf^ipoent aliouid bi»
employed in the channnl bed to avoid J mage to Lv.r.kj ana vegetative
cover.
4, Where toasibli?, excavated materials should b# rcssovod from the fZoodpiain.
if floodplain disposal ir* the only feasible alternative* r-pail should
be placod on the highest practical elevation anJ no naterlal should be
placed in any tributary or distributary channels w*tich provide t«*r
ingress and egress of waters to and from the fleodplain.
5, No continuous spoil pile should be created. It is suggested that no
pile exceed fifty {!>oi feet an length or width and a gap of equal
or gr*»ated length should be loft between adj.icont ftpoil piles~
S. Spoil piles* slimld be constructed as high **s sod I snout properties allow,
7, Ihj placement of spoil around tne bases of nature trees should ?*o
avoided where possible.
III. Reclamation Heasutefi. Ml disturbed areas should be r##«eded or replanted
with plant species that will stabilize soils and benefit wildlife.
28
-------
clearing and excavation, should only be allowed at specific
locations where significant blockages occur. Furthermore,
clearing to provide access to the stream should be minimized.
d. Stream and/or watershed renovation programs may be necessary in
severely modified watersheds,
a. Accelerated erosion on the land surface requires an intensive
watershed reclamation program emphasizing reestabl ishme.it of
vegetative cover (Federal Mater Pollution Control Administration
1970).
f. Stream renovation programs should be Judiciously implemented to
improve flow efficiency and promote bank stability in streams
that are in the process of readjusting to man-induced changes in
watershed hydrology. Channel straightening and changes in
gradient must be avoided} but a channel can be "re-designed" so
that It is adjusted to the discharge It is expected to convey,
g. Extensive streanbank modifications should be discouraged but
bank shaping can be effectively employed to improve flow
efficiency, keep the bankfull discharge within the channel, and
minimize bank erosion. Bank shaping should only be uaed to
facilitate stream channel adjustments to modified discharge
characteristics. In curved reaches cross-sectional areas itay
need to be enlarged to keep the bankfuil discharge within the
channel and reduce tea scour along concave banks, Thi3 can be
accomplished by shaping the channel so that outside banks of
meander bendu have nteeper slopes than the inside banks.. This
mimics natural channels and promotes deposition of sediment
alorsf the inside bank (Keller and Hoffman 1977) rather than
between bends where excessive sedimentation can lead to
backwater effects. An inclination of 3s1 or less on inside
banks and 2tl or steeper on outside banks can be used as a
general guideline {Table ?), hut the type and texture of
material comprising channel banks is a major factor governing
the choice of an erosion resistent bank slope (Klingeraan and
Bradley 1976), Proper alignment of otrea.nbanks is also of
critical importance in maintaining flow efficiency and
preventing erosion. Extrerae local channel constrictions and
expansions should be avoided. Alignment at bends should be
smooth and gradual with an entry angle less than 15-25 degrees
(Klingeman and Bradley 1975). Along straight reaches, emphasis
should be placed upon reshaping false points and other bank
irregularities.
29
-------
TABLE T. SUGGESTED BANK SLOPES FOR STREAM BANKS WITH DIFFERENT
SOIL TEXTURES (from Klingeman and Bradley 1975.)
Soil Texture
Bank Slope (horizontal: vertical)
Heavy clay
Median-textured
Sand, gravel, cobbles
1.25 - 2: 1
1.50 - 2s 1
2 - Hi 1
h. Stabilization of disturbed and/or eroding sfcreambanks can
usually be accomplished by "natural" seans: that Is, by
establishing vegetative cover on streambanks and employing sound
land management in the watershed.
1. Structural methods of erosion control such as riprap, revetment,
retards, and jetties should generally only be used to facilitate
and/or supplement vegetative bank stabilization.
1), Navigation and Bridge Construction
1, Principles and Guidelines
a. Periodic dredging is necessary to maintain navigation channels
in large rivers.
b. Minor stream modifications are required for bridge construction.
2. Recommendations
a. Better land management practices should be implemented to reduce
the nsid for navigational dredging,
b. Dredging operations should Include use of silt curtains or
turbidity barriers (IDOC 1921)¦. Overdepth navigational drcoging
should be restricted,
c. Fish habitat must be protected during spoil disposal. Open
water disposal should be prohibited.
d. Recommendations developed by the Great River Environmental
Action Teams t and II concerning navigational modifications of
rivers should be adhered to (Vanderford 1980).
e. Recommendations developed by the Dept. of Transportation for
reducing environmental impacts of bridge and culvert
installation should be adhered to (FHWA 1979, Shen et al.
1981). Open-bottom culverts are preferable. All culverts
30
-------
should be designed to prevent downstream bed or bank erosion and
allow fish passage during low and high flows (TuOC 1981).
E» Establishing Bank Vegetation
1. Principles and Guidelines
a. The effectiveness of bank vegetation varies with size and slope
of the stream, frequency and duration of floods, climate,
productivity and inherent erodlbillty of the soil materials
along the stream edge, texture and transport rates of bed
material, and land use (Parsons 1063), Vegetation is perhaps
moat effective in preventing atreambank erosion in smaller
streams with moderate to low width/depth ratios,
b. Factors to consider in choosing vegetation for stabilizing the
face of stream banks include its strength, resilience, vigor,
root system development, initial growth rate, ability to
reproduce, and resistence to disease and insects (Parsons 1963,
Klingeman and Bradley 197o).
2, Recommendations
a. Techniques to insure vegetative growth on a planted slope
include addition of topsoil on sandy or gravelly slopes,
cultivation, fertilization, and mulching,
b. Temporary auxiliary protection nay be needed, particularly on
lower pot tlons of banks when flooding may hinder or prevent
establishment of a vegetative lining. On small streams with
stable beds, 15 to *45 cm thick brush aat3 provide effective
temporary bank protection as well aa a dense mulch for
developing vegetation (IDOC 1981}.
c. Quick establishment of graasy vegetation provides a good
soil-binding matrix ard may facilitate development of stable
overtones which provide fish cover (White and Brynildson 1967).
Brush and otner types of vegetation take longer to become
establisheds but provide a larger buffer zone between flowing
water and the soil surface. Soody vegetation also provides
shade whi^h is extremely important in small warawater streams.
Hence, establishment of brush and large woody vegetation should
accompany or immediately follow grass plantings. Effective
mixtures of woody and herbaceous vegetation should include dense
stands of shrubs or shade tolerant grasses in a leas dense stand
of trees. Isolated, bush vegetation is undesirable because it
may obstruct flow and cause destructive water velocities in its
immediate vicinity (Parsons 1963). Willows ( Sallx ) appear to
be the most amenable and effective tree species for protecting
banks of saall streams. T'ney are easy to establish from
cuttings, thrive in wet soils, and with periodic basal pruning
31
-------
produce a continuous "root: re ve taient" that affords more than
adequate streambank protection as well as abundant fish cover
(White and Brynildson 1957). Although the value of willow
leaves and twigs in trophic-energetic relationships in streams
is net sufficiently known to recommend its widespread
propagation along disturbed channels, this potential drawback
can be avoided by mixed-tree plantings,
d. Management after treatment is a key to vegetative streambank
stabilization (Lines et al. 1978). Well-vegetated buffer
strips must be free from cultivation or excessive use by
livestock on both the bank slope ar.d top of the bank to prevent
surface runoff on adjacent land from causing sheet or rill
erosion on the face of the bank,
e. Other means of bank protection may be required when excessive
toe scaur is not amenable to vegetative stabilization-
Combination of vegetative and structural stabilization can
sometimes be implemented to treat critical areas without serious
environmental consequences.
F. Structural Solutions to Ha >itat Improvement
1. Principles and Guidelines
a. Structures created to benefit aquatic organisms often do not
function well because they arf> not carefully oatched to the
physical and biological dynamics of the stream.
b. Careful evaluation of the needs of each stream as an individual
dynamic system creates habitat conditions that are both
long-lasting and a positive benefit to the aquatic biota.
c. Biologists, hydrolagists, and engineers must cooperate in
evaluating the needs of the streaa in question from both
biological and physical dynamics perspectives.
d. The overall effect of habitat improvement devices is to increase
habitat diversity, whether by directly providing shelter, or by
altering flow, channel morphology or substrate composition
(Swales and Q'Hara 1980).
2. leconmendations
a. Considerable care should be exercised In the selection of
structural solutions to habitat problems.
b. Submerged log and brush shelters can provide cover if they are
securely fastened to the streambank and positioned to avoid
obstructions or damning the flow.
32
-------
Judicious! placement of large rocks within a stream channel is
probably the simplest and most stable ir.-strea.is device for
Improving fish habitat. Large rock can increase habitat
diversity by diverting the flow {Calhoun 1966), as well as
provide nesting areas and cover (Patterson 1976, Griswold et al.
1978).
Low daas of rock or logs are one ray of recreating pool and
riffle habitats and increasing the diversity of flow conditions
and substrate types. However, it is important to make the dam
small enough so that it is drowned out at high discharges, and,
hence, allows fish passage during migration periods.
Current deflectors, another means of altering channel
morphology, guide flow through a constricted channel leading to
higher current velocities, removal of deposited sediment, and
increased thalweg depths. The stream bed eventually forms a
pool and, downstream of this a riffle. Alteration of deflectors
from one bank to the other conducts the current on a sinuous
path resembling natural channel flow.
The nsost conraon structural cethod for stabilizing a severely
eroding streaabask is to amor it with rock riprap. Riprap must
be wide enough to insure that it is tied into stable banks and
low enough to adcv. ately protect the- lower banks and toe slope.
Adverse aesthetic effects can be minimised by initially
riprappir.g only those areas that are highly susceptible to
erosion and later addfng supplemental stone to locations where
scour is evident (Vun-.ally 1973). Application of soil to riprap
foilowe 1 by seeding promotes rapid establishment of vegetative
cover. Submerged riprap appears to benefit fish by providing
cover/ spawning sites, and substrate for food resources *
(Pattjraon 1976).
/'
The use of refcar is and Jetties to facilitate establishment of a
vegetative lining has also been successful. However, these
structures should only be used on medium to large rivers where
(1) they are necessary to prevent undermining of roads or
bridges and (2) potentially erosive flows will not be directed
toward opposite streambanks. Jetties are built perpendicular to
the flow and upstream of an eroding bank so that alack water is
created at the erosive area. Jetties have proven to be
particularly compatible with high density plantings of woody
vegetation (Lines et al. 1978). Retards are built parallel to
an eroding bank and function by deflecting the flow. Deep seour
holes are coononly created near both Jetties and retards and
appear to provide excellent fish habitat, especially during low
flow periods (Kitten and Bulkley 1975).
Where adequate land drainage or flood control cannot be attained
by stream renovation, levees, pilot channels, and floodways
should be considered.
33
-------
i. Levees eari be effective in preventing periodic inundation of
land adjacent to water courses. However, planners should keep
in mind the importance of that inundation as a natural
phenomenon, essential for maintaining Motto integrity in some
environments (especially large river - wetland ecosystems).
Moreover, levees may lead to bank erosion and channel scour
within the protected area, as well as increased upstream and
downstream flooding. These probleas can be minimized by
including a portion of the floodpiain between the levee and
stream channel (IDOC 1981) or by restricting but not eliminating
overSank Flows (e.g., with notcnes or culverts), thereby
preserving the integrity of critical floodpiain habitats.
J. Pilot channels (Keller 1f75) are undisturbed, natural streams
that are contained within a larger, man-englneerea,
flood-control channel while floodways are auxiliary, high-flow
channels that carry floodwatera around a protected area (IDOC
1981). The high-flow channel is generally straight and is
designed to remain dry until the water stage in the natural
channel reaches a predetermined level. Beyond this stage, flood
waters are carried in the floodway until it joins the main
channel downstream. Although pilot channels and floodways
appear to be fairly good corapronise solutions, they are still
relatively new and untested innovations. Therefore, they should
only be Implemented after careful evaluations are made on a case
by case basis regarding their potential utility and
environmental impacts. More detailed information on the use of
levees, pilot channels, and fJoodvays, can be found in USDA
(1971, 1975, and 1977) and IDOC (1981).
k. Recent attempts to mitigate the isspact of structures (dikss)
used for bank stabilization and navigation purposes in large
rivers have the objective of reducing permanent land accretions
behind the structures and, thus, encroachment upon the flood
carrying capacity of the river and elimination of fish and
wildlife habitat diversity (Burke and Robinson 1966). For
example, "notches" can be cut in existing dikes to allow water
to flow through the structure and develop side-channels and
submerged sand bars. Lowering the height of newly installed
dikes is effective in producing a deep hole Immediately behind
the structure and a submerged bar further downstream. Rootless
structures are another design improvement. These are dikes that
are constructed perpendicular to the flow without being tied to
the bank thus allowing water to flow between the structure and
the bank and leading to the developcent of snail sand bars
downstream. Preliminary observations indicate that a nunher of
large river fishes such as flathead catfish, freshwater drum,
and blue sucker appear to prefer the fast water provided by
these structural modifications. During lew flow periods fish
concentrate In the deep scour holes near the structures, and the
shallow sand bars provide nursery areas for young fish.
34
-------
1. Where large river environscnts have been modified by navigation
dams, fish latitat can be improved by artificial opening or
closing of side channels that lead to backwater areas (Fremling '
et al. 1976* Nielsen efc al. 1978, Fremling et al. 1979,
Claflin and Rada 1979). However, all possible effects of these
modifications must be thoroughly evaluated before
implementation. .For example, by increasing Inflows of fresh,
oxygenated water into the backwaters, the opening of new side
channels can Increase overwintering habitat as well as open
previously stagnant areas. On ths negative aide, the increased
Inflow of water and accompanying sediment may destroy-weed beds
that serve as Important spawning, nursery, and feeding areas for
nsuny riverine fish species. Similarly, while artificial closing
of side channels nay decrease transport of sediment into
backwaters and improve the hydraulic efficiency of the main
channel, they may cause severe oxygen depletion problems in
cutoff areas. In most cases, the negative effects of aide
channel openings or closings can be avoided if they are
strategically located, but channel modifications should be
avoided when the existing backwater fishery shows no signs of
degradation,
re. A detailed review of common stream habitat Improvement devices
and techniques can be found in White and Brynildson (1967) and
Swales and O'Hara (1980). .
III. INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOB AGRICULTURE
Since agriculture impacts the largest portion of midwestern
streams and since we call attention to weaknesses in several
existing programs In an early section of this report, we feel
compelled to call attention to programs that have been suggested
to circumvent present problems.
A. General Principles
1. Innovative solutions must reconcile the financial viability
of fanning and fanners with the need for more enlightened
management of water resources.
2. Since it is not possible to maximize several goals simultaneously,
a careful integration of societal objectives can only be
accomplished through cooperation of all sepnents of society.
3« A more efficient, conservation minded approach might merge
price support, conservation cost sharing, and related USDA
programs with EPA nonpoint pollution programs. Each program
preserves farmland (soil) while improving water quality} in
combination their benefits increase even more (see specific
suggestions below).
-------
B. Regulations
1. Although It Is desirable to avoid regulation, the fact remains
that some farmers abuse their soil and adjacent waters under a
purely voluntary program,
2. One or two abusers of the resource can produce major damage
despite sincere efforts of their neighbors.
3« Regulation phased in over a period of years (less than one
decade) seems the beat approach with, society at_.large__shariag....
the »co3tu"of regulatdry ieasurei with the landowner,
1, Both positive (e.g., cost sharing and tag incentives)
and negative (e.g., fines for excess erosion) incentives
could be included in regulatory programs.
5. Violations might carry a double penalty with the abuser
paying a fine In adultiori to repayment of cost-sharing funds
and technical-assistance costs.
6. Land owners that follow sound conservation practice need not
fear regulation; abusers of soil and water resources should
fear regulation.
C. Technical Assistance
1. Federal and state supported conservation programs night reorder
their technical assistance to conservation objectives from present
programs dominated by production-oriented objectives.
2. The technical base of these programs might be expanded to
include a broader background by Incorporating a aider array
of natural resource objectives. Policy decisions must he
more broadly based for the long-terra betterment or American
Society.
3. With this expanded breadth, land management plans would be
agreements between society (through its governmental organization)
and individuals or groups of landowners to implement programs
necessary to protect 3oil and water resources aa well as insure
long-term production of food and finer.
0. Cost Sharing Programs
1. Under cost-sharing programs society agrees to pay part of
the cost of Implementing conservation practices.
2. These programs may involve short-tens net loos to the landowner
but long-tern gain to society through their positive impact on
soil and/or water conservation.
36
-------
3. Required maintenance agreements (see cross-compliance below), as
well as transfer of agreements to new owners (i.e., should land be
sold), might be included,
E. Low interest Loans
1. Availability of low interest, federally-subsidized loans, either
general lt>aits for normal operations or loans to allow implemen-
tation of conservation practices, might be tied to « mandatory,
comprehensive, conservation program.
F. Tax Incentives
1, In a positive sense, a tax law could be designed to give farmers a
tax break if they reduce their erosion losses and other impacts on
water resources to reasonable levels (e.g., below T levels).
Alternatively, a, flat rate (price) per ton of soil saved per year
might be used, but only farmers on problem lands should receive
this benefit.
2. U (fortunately, positive stimuli are likely to be insufficient to
attain societal objectives regarding land and water resource
conservation. Thus, a substantial negative tax might be levied on
property owners >«lien erosion levels on their land has an adverse
impact on water resources.
3- A system ot export taxes might also be developed to provide funds
to mitigate resource degradation resulting from higher production.
4. The existing tax structure for use of reservoir and stream water
cou id be reformed to more precisely reflect the real value ol
these resources. At least some of the proceeds of these taxes
could be used to control erosion, protect stream corridors, and
otherwise enhance water resources.
5. The tax code could be modified to allow investment credits for
conservation programs (with long-term contracts) and heavier
taxation for land developments that degrade water resources (e.g.,
wetland drainage, ground-, .iter contamination, stream dewatering).
G. Cross Compliance
1. Federal and state subsidy programs (commodity price supports),
low-interest loans, cost-sharing, and crop insurance) could be
coupled with soil and water conservation efforts such that
attainment of specific conservation goals is a precondition for
eligibility.
37
-------
H. Selective Application
1. Since funds for water resource Improvement will always be
United» those funds ahouii be targeted where they do the nost
good for society. Not all farmers are entitled to these funds
Just like all faraera are not eligible for disaster relief
In any year.
2. Selective application involves protection of all factors,
Including physical habitat parameters, that are necessary for
preservation of biotio integrity in running water ecosystems.
I. Classified Streams
1. The practise of setting aside areas for protection is well
established. Unique natural areas or historical sites have
long been protected from development to enhrice their long-term
value to society. . .
2. Since headwater streams play an especially important role in
determining water resource quality throughout watersheds,
set-aside programs might emphasize a classified headwater
approach.
3. Implementation mechanisms night include long-term leases or
outright purchase, invoking the power of eminent domain
where water resource conservation is particularly critical,
J. Miscellaneous
1. The "Green Ticket" progran of the National Association of
Conservation Districts includes many of the advantages of
programs described here as they improve the long-term
profitability of American agriculture while implementing needed
conservation measures.
2. These programs should be concentrated on land where treatment of
the smallest possible area (at the lowest economic cost), yields
the greatest benefit to society.
3. Resource conservation programsshodd include strong incentives
and be coupled with stronger state and local leadership involving
all segaents of society.
4. Our long-terra interests require more effective protection of
land-based resources with judicious enforcement of a palatable
legal and regulatory program.
5. Without a program that accomplishes the above objectives, we face
catastrophic declines in food and fiber production, as well as
irreparable degradation of land and water resources.
38
-------
K. Model Legislation
Tha United States is not the only country trying to resolve water
resource problems. The major Venezuelan law relating to soil
md water resources--'"Ley Porestal de Sue]os y Aguaa", and
regulations promulgated after Its passage are, at least in part,
model legislation for protection of these resources in the United
States. The law calls for development of a soil classification
system based on slopes, level of erosion, soil fertility, and
climatic factors. This system is to be used to maintain the
physical integrity as well as productive capacity of soil3. It
allows the Ministry of Agriculture to enforce these principles
on private land, at the expense of the owner. It also empowers
the Ministry to provide technical and financial assistance to
landowners when that is in the beat Interest of tho3o concerned.
The Venezuelan agencies responsible for drafting of that law
were clearly aware of the principles involved in protection of ,
the many resources associated with the land. For exanmle, to
reduce erosion and soil deterioration, the regulations promulgated
after passage of the law make rather detailed provisions for
protection of soils. Slopes of 0-151 are suitable for cultivation
of all classes of crops, but, to protect the soil, it is atill
necessary to control erosion. Slopes of 10-35$ are only suitable
for establishment of carefully cultivated annuals and perennials.
Slopes in excess of 35)6 are suitable only for establishment of
selected crops like coffee and perennial fruits. Slopes
in excess of 10? must be sowed perpendicular to the slope.
Slopes of '15~25J oust have grass terraces at least 1.5m wide at
Maximum distances of 30m apart along the slope. On slopes of
25-35$, grass terraces must be at least 3.5 k wide with distances
no greater than 10 n between terraces. Further, activities involving
destruction of vegetation on land in the public domain as well
as on private property can only be undertaken with prior
authorization of the Ministry of Agriculture.
L. Summary
A more effective program to protect the physical habitat of warawaber
streams is both possible and practical. It should begin with
judicious enforcement of a palatable legal and regulatory
program. A mare effective system is essential if we are to avoid
catastrophic declines in food and fiber production, as wsll as
irreparable degradation of land and water resources. A more
enlightened program must be based on:
1. Sound taowledge of the dynamics of interacting soil
and water resource systemsj
2. The effects of human activities on these systems;
3. A governnsentally funded program of technical assistance
39
-------
to deliver this knowledge;
An array of Incentive prograaa to Insure selective
application of that technical assistance, and
S» A background of regulatory aeghaniaais that can be
applied when voluntary and Incentive programs are not successful.
IV. EXPECTED SraiEFITS
A wore integrative approach ta the maintenance of physical habitat
characteristics in vranawater streauj can fce expected to reverse the
trend toward degradation of water resources through;
a. Improved water quality and quantity.
b. Improved fishery systems and other aspects of blotis Integrity,
Including terrestrial wildlife associated with riparian
environments.
c. More effective and efficient processing of natural and
man-induced organic Inputs to running waters,
d. Spin off advantagea to soil conservation.
e. Reduced sedimentation of channels and reservoirs from land and
channel sources.
f. Decreased cost of channel construction an* saintenance
activities.
g. Reduced downstreaa flooding.
h. More intensive agriculture with reduced effects on aquatic
ecosystems when land raanag«:ent systems are not feasible.
i. Increased recreational opportunities.
J, More cost effective attainment of legislative mandates for water
resource systems.
40
-------
SECTION" 3
DEVELOPMENT OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAM CHANNELS
For many years decisions on the management of running water
resources were made by hydraulic engineers on the basis of hydrological
processes. In recent years knowledge of the Influences of biological
dynamics have increased and a cadre of spokesman have become asore
articulate at communicating the significance of those dynamics. The
result is mergence of a more integrative perspective on goals for
management of running water resources. In this section we discuss the
determinants of physical habitat in a natural stream channel. In
sect!* • k we outline the role that this habitat plays in determining the
biolOe>- -al conn unities of a stream.
Our intent is not an exhaustive treatment of watershed hydrology, a
task that would require volumes. Rather.we hope this short synthesis
will serve as an introduction for those who are unfamiliar with the role
of hydrology in natural drainage systems. More substantial
presentations of this background naterial ar-j available in the ell* •*
literature (particularly Leopold, et al. 1964, Dunne and Leopold .978,
huede 1980).
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS A!© WATER-S5DIMEHT DISCHARGE
The physical structure of streaa channels reflects the geology,
geomorphology, biology, cliaate, and hydrology of a drainage basin
(Schumn 1971). Drainage patterns and channel configurations are
ultimately constrained by the nature of the parent material
(particularly its resistance to erosion) and historical factors such as
glsciation, uplift, and faulting (Marzolf 1978), but are largely shaped
by water-sediment discharge regimes.
Hydro]ogle development of streaa channels Is nediatel by climate
(particularly precipitation patterns), topography, soil properties,
land-use, and vegetative cover (Dunne and Leopold 1978). Interactions
among these factors determine t'rn primary source of stream flow which,
in turn, influences a number of drainage and channel characteristics.
Ir, arid and semi-arid regions and watersheds that have been disturbed by
intensive agriculture or urbanization, a large part of the annual
precipitation budget is delivered to stream channels as surface runoff
during storm events. In huaid regions with deep, permeable,
well-drained soils, nost rainfall penetrates the soil and reaches stream
channels primarily through subsurface flow.
By regulating the infiltration rapacity of soils, the type and
amount of vegetative cover and hence, land-use, often exert primary
control over relative rates of surface runoff and groundwater inflow.
Forest soils, for example, may absorb 50 times as much water as
oultivated fields and pastures (Auten 1933). Lower water absorption by
41
-------
field soils is partially due to compaction of bare surface soil and
sealing of soil pores during rainfall (Lowderrnilk 1930). The porosity
of forest soil is preserved by the protective covering of leaf litter
and by the granular soil structure that results from high humus content
(USDA 19^0). The presence of vegetation and litter Bay also
mechanically petard runoff by reducing the velocity of surface movement!
thus, more tine"Is allowed for infiltration (Musgrava and Free 1936)»
Infiltration and water-holding capacities of soils are also Influenced
by the extensiveness of plant root systems (USDA 1910).
Temporal Variation in Plow
Due to prevailing rainfall patterns over the continental United
States, discharge regimes of most warmwater drainages are typically
characterized by sustained normal or high flows during winter and spring
and relatively low flows in summer and early fall. However, due to the
stochastic nature of precipitation events, this overall pattern"nay be
highly variable within seasons as well as between years.
Discharge variability in stream channels Is also influenced by the
primary source of flow. Headwater streams with groundwater flow have
relatively constant and permanent discharge, while runoff-fed streams
have highly variable flow (Horowitz 1978). Discharge variability
decreases In downstream sections but seasonal extremes are still common
(Matthews and Hill 1980).
As discussed above, the source of stream flow and associated
discharge variability is determined by watershed (particularly
vegetative) characteristics. During heavy rainsf a proportion of the
water that falls upon watersheds with deep soils that are covered with
vegetation or a mat of litter is added to the groundwater supply and
rarely reaches stream channels in time to add to the crest of floods.
Henoe, although the relative amount of precipitation that penetrates the
soil surface varies with the timing, frequency, and type of rainfall
event, flood hydrographs are generally dampened in well-vegetated
watersheds by reduced surface runoff.
Despite higher evapotranspiration losses (Dunne and Leopold 1975),
low flows are also less extreme in well-vegetated (particularly
forested) watersheds. This is primarily due to infiltration and
groundwater storage of precipitation and its subsequent prolonged
release to stream channels (Bode 1920, Zon 1927). Low flows are-also
moderated by lowe« evaporative losses from the water surface in stream
channels with extensive nearstreaa vegetation.
42
-------
Sediment Load
Factors that affect sediment movement from the land surface to
stream channels include climate, drainage area, soils, geology,
topography, vegetation, and land-use (Dendy and Bolton 1976, Dunne and
Leopold 1978). However, vegetation may assume overriding importance, ao
that the denser the vegetative cover the lower the rate of erosion
(Dunne and Leopold 1973). Vegetation reduces transport of sediment from
the land surface to stream channels in two ways. First, vegetative
cover reduces dislodgement of soli particles by dispersing the energy of
raindrop impact and by the soil binding forces of its root masses
(Copeland 1963). Secondly, by retarding overland flow, vegetation
reduces sheet and rill erosion and promotes deposition of eroded
sediment before it reaches stream channels (Kao 1980).
Sediment discharge in streams is also influenced by bed and bank
erosion, particularly during high flow periods. The magnitude of
channel erralon can vary significantly within as wall as between
watersheds (Dudley and Karr 1973). The outside banks of bends,
particularly sharp bends, are the nost likely place for erosion to
occur, but strong scouring currents may be directed toward banks that
p.re opposite channel bars and irregular bank lines (Klir.geroan and
Bradley 1976). Instream structures such as fallen trees and log jams
may also cause channel erosion by deflecting the flow toward the banks
(Sachet 1977, Hunnally and Keller 1979).
WATER-SEDIMENT DISCHARGE AND CHANNEL STRUCTURE
Although clearly mediated by characteristics of the drainage basin,
the energy flux associated with discharge of water and aedlment controls
the development of rrost surface stream channels {Curry 1976). As water
flows through the system It is transformed from potential energy to
kinetic energy. Most of thi3 kinetic energy is dissipated as heat along
the channel boundaries (Mackin 1913); but the remaining portion forms
the stream network by carving channels through erosion and
transportation of sediment. In accordance with the second law of
thermodynamics, the most probable distribution of energy expenditure
within geomorphic systems is one in which entropy is maximized (Leopold
and Langbein 1962). Expansion of this principle suggests that all
aspects of a drainage system, including variability among the hydraulic
parameters (Langbein 1964, Yang 1971a, Stall and Yang 1972, Cherkauer
1973), as well as the development of pools and riffles (Yang 1971b),
various channel patterns (Langbein and Leopold 1966, Yang 1971a,o) and
even the form of the stream network (Yang 1971a), represent adjustments
of the rate of energy expenditure within hydrologic and geologic
constraints. The end result Is the evolution of a "dynamic equilibrium"
characterized by a stream channel morphology that efficiently
distributes the energy flux required by the basin's water-sediment
discharge regime.
43
-------
The evolution of a dynamic equilibrium in streams occurs within an
"open™ system in which there is a continuous inflow and outflow of
materials. Streams in equilibrium adjust to variation in discharge and
sediment concentration, while maintaining their form and profile. These
adjustments are made primarily by the hydraulic variables (i.e., depth,
velocity, and wetted perimeter) but may Include minor changes in bed
form. Although channel morphology remains stable under thase
conditions, it is important to recognize that these parameters are
shaded by long-terra water-sediment discharge characteristics of the
watershed. -
Hydraulic Adjustments
At a given cross-section, width, mean depth and mean velocity of
flowing water generally increase with an increase in discharge {Leopold,
et al. 1961). However, the manner of hydraulic adjustment is
constrained by channel geometry. In narrow channels, wetted perimeter
changes very little with increased discharge, but velocity and depth
increase. In wide channels, the rate of increase by the wetted
perimeter is large, while velocity and depth change only slightly.
Velocity distribution also varies with different width-to-depth ratios.
In narrow and deep cross-sections, high velocities extend closer toward
the sides of the channel than in broad, shallow sections. Moreover, in
narrow, deep channels, velocities close to the sides are aa high or
higher than those close to the bottom, whereas in wide, ahallow
channels, velocities are higher on the bottom (Lsiie 1937).
By altering flow insistence (Langbein 1961? Simons and Richardson
1966), changes in bed configuration play a major role in hydraulic
adjustments to variation in water-sediment discharge (Heede 1930) and
thus represent an important maehanism by which streams maintain an
equilibrium (Leopold, Hainan, Miller 1961). Changes in bad
configuration ®aj range from subtle modifications of dunes and bars to
channel scour and fill.
Sediment Transport Pynamlos
By facilitating hydraulic adjustments while maintaining a balance
between channel erosion and deposition, sediment transport dynamics play
a pivotal role in stream equilibrium. Sediment transport rates are
primarily a function of water discharge and slope, and vary among
particle sizes- (Lane 1955a). Sfereaa sediment loads consist of two
fractions (Dunne and Leopold 1978). Suspended load or wash load is made
up of fine sediment grains that are lifted up and carried for long
distances within the main thread of flow. Larger sediment particles
that are rolled or dragged along the bottom constitute bed load.
Differences In the sediment transport capacity of these fractions
combined with spatial variation in stream gradient (see below) result in
natural substrate sorting and heterogeneity in stream channels.
44
-------
Differences between sediment; transport capacity and actual sediment
load lead to nonuniform flow of sedixent and an imbalance between
deposition and scour (Lane 1955b). Vhe accumulation of fine sediments
in stream channels la dependent upon the magnitude of preceding storm
and associated runoff events, groundwater and throughflow contributions,
and especially the relative timing of aedlment and water discharge peaks
(Costa 1977). Irf snail drainage basins peak sediment concentrations
usually occur before peak discharge (Oragoun and Miller 1966* Guy ISS^),
Consequently, small channels are cleared of fine sediment. However, if
rainfall la of low intensity and runoff anounts are snail, water and
sediment concentration peaks can occur together {Vanoni 1975) and result
in accumulations of silt and clay deposits as discharge returns to
normal levels.
Substrate characteristics of stream channels change with seasonal
variation in flow (deMarch 1976). Except for deposifcior.al areas,
substrates are generally cleansed of fine particles by spring high
flows? however, aa discharge decreases during summer, substrates become
covered with silt and sand. Sediment transport during summer months is
also hindered by a reduction in viscosity as water temperatures increase
(Colby 19&'0.
Channel Geometry
Channel width is primarily determined by the long-term discharge
regime of the watershed, and in particular, the magnitude and frequency
of high flow events (Wolman and Miller I960), However, it is also
affected by the nature of the sediment load. Like bed fill and scour,
an equilibrium exists between bank erosion and deposition of sediment
transported by the channel (Shuram 1971, Einstein 1972). Streams with
coarse sediment loads are generally wider and have more erosive banks
than channels with relatively high suspended sediment loads and banks
composed of high percentages of silt and clay CHeede 1900). Similarly,
where tributaries introduce large suspended sediment loads, channel
width decreases in the receiving stream; when large sand loads are
introduced, channel width increases.
Channel slope is relatively stable In streams at equilibrium, but
is also regulated by water-sediment discharge. As discharge increases
downstream, slope generally decreases so that the longitudinal profile
of a river is concave. However, this decrease in slope is also related
to a decrease in sediment partiule-siae (SehusHt 1971, Leopold, et al.
196!0» Streams adjust their slope to maintain a nendeposit and nonscour
channel and the gradient required for transport, decreases with a
decrease in sediment particle-size and/or load (Maokin *1948T Yang
1971c).
45
-------
Variation In channel alope also occurs along streams in the form of
alternating sequences of pools and riffles, that are consistently spaced
between five and seven channel widths apart (Leopold, et al. 196'I,
Keller and Melhorn 1978), Pools and riffles are commonlyfound in_all
streams in which the bed Material is larger than coarse sand, but are
moat highly developed in medium-gradient gravel bed streams. Within a
given reach, a riffle is characterized by greater than average
steepness, while a pool has leas than the average 3lope (Langbein and
Leopold 1966).
.fhe^d8velapBent-'©f^rtl,fie3"«d^fW01*^appeara^WWglw with" the
formation of asymmetric shoals which slope alternately toward one bank
and then toward the other (Keller 1972). This causes a convergence and
divergence of flow that leads to scouring of the incipient pool and
deposition on the incipient riffle below. Deposition leads to a steeper
slope and hence a higher velocity gradient on the incipient riffle.
Once the difference in velocity gradient between a pool and adjacent
riffle is established, differences in pressure between sediment grains
depresses the bed surface at the pool and raises it at the riffle to
form a ccncave-convex profile (Yang 1971b). Differences in velocity
gradient also lead to sorting of sediment grains such that l«irge gravels
collect at riffles and finer materials are deposited in pools. As the
processes of dispersion and sorting continue, the difference between the
water surface slope of a riffle and that of its adjacent pool increases.
Despite the prejenoe of these zones of erosion and deposition,
substrates in channels with pools and riffles are more stable than
equivalent channels with uniform cross-sections. During low rr.d medium
flow conditions, unit stream power, tho product of water surface slope
and velocity and hence a measure of sediment transport capability, is
23 - 26? lower in a stream seRoer.t with pools and riffles than in a
comparable channel without pools and riffles (Stall and Yang 1972).
However, the hydraulic differences between riffles and pools that lead
to this i-eduction in unit stream power are highly dependent upon flow
conditions. As discharge Increases, water surface slope In pools
increases while water surface slope in riffles decreases. A threshold
is eventually crossBd where the bottom velocity of pools exceeds that of
riffles (Keller 1971). Beyond this point unit stream power does not
appear to be affected by pools and riffles, but the velocity reversal
during these high channel forming flows leads to the scouring of pools
and deposition of coarse material on riffles. Hence, pools scour at
high flow, and fill at low flow, whereas, riffles fill at high flow and
scour at low flow (Munnally and Keller 1979).
Channel Pattern
Channel pattern also Influences hydraulic characteristics of
streams. Increased sinuosity (the ratio of total length of stream along
its meandering course to downvalley distance), for example, leads to
greater variation in depth and current velocity (Zinsner and lachirann
1976). Long, straight reaches are rare In unmodified streams and even
46
-------
where a channel la relatively straight, the thalweg or lino of maximum
depth wanders back and forth from one bank to the other. As noted
above, this is due to the presence of asymmetric shoals, which In
addition to leading to, development of riffles and pools,-are also
Important in the formation of meanders. In meandering streaas, pools
are found at the aone of greatest curvature opposite point bars, and
riffles are located at inflection points between adjacent bends. The
depth of pools opposite point bars is inversely related to the radius of
curvature of the bend (Heeds 1980}« Radius of ciirvature and aeander
length are hl|hl^_opcr.elat.ed-»it»h-ishannel-width, whfllFtbe amplitude of
a meander loop appears to be determined by the resistenco of the stream
banks to erosion (Leopold, et al. 1964). Sinuosity tends to increase
in downstream reaches (Stall and Yang 1972).
Vigorous crosscurrents near the bed in a bend can transport
considerable quantities of bed material toward the convex banks and
appear to be at least partly responsible for point bar formation. The
highest velocity in a meandering reach tends to be located near the
concave bank just downstream from the axis of the bend. This slight
lack of congruence of streamline curvature with bank curvature leads to
a tendency for the locus of point bar deposition to occur downstream
from the axis of the bend. Because of this, river curves tend to move
downvalley over tine. They aiso tend to migrate laterally as the stream
erodes its channel on the outside bends and deposits on inside point
bars. Due to added flow reaistence introduced by the curve, less energy
is available for sediment transport (Ntmnally 1973). As a result there
is little or no net change in sediment discharge through the reach. In
fast, in Meandering sections with pools and riffles, sediment transport
may be over 20? lower than in straight channels CKarr and Qoraan 1975).
The dynamic character of natural meandering rivers often results in
the formation of temporary side channels that are separated from the
main channel by & snail island (£1113 et al. 1979). Side channel
habitats may range from fast-flowing riverine types to those with nearly
static waters. Sediment deposition during high river stagfj-s coupled
with encroachment of island and mainland vegetation ultimately results
in a balance batween the formation and elimination of side channel
habitats (Simons et al. 1975).
A braided channel pattern tends to develop in streams and rivers
with high sediment loads and easily eroded banks. Streams with erodible
bank materials have high width to depth ratios and as a result,
insufficient velocities to carry a large sediment load. Hence, part if
the sediment {particularly the coarser fractions) is deposited as a
central bar(a 5 that diverts the flow through smaller but steeper
channels. Since these channels are more capable of maintaining a
balance between sediment inflow and outflow, they tend to be more st?ble
under these conditions than a single wide and shallow channel.
4?
-------
RIPARIAN ENVIRONMENT AND CHANNEL DYNAMICS
Stroambank vegetation affects both channel morphology and hydraulic
characteristics by (1) reducing the effective size of the channel (2)
increasing hydraulic resistance and (3) increasing the resistence of
banks to erosion (Nunnally 1979). Becausj of the greater resistence of
vegetated banks, vegetated channels tend to be narrower and have steopar
slopes than non-vegetated channels. Vegetation stabilizes streanbanks
by (1) binding soils (2) reducing water velocities at the soil surface
(3) inducing deposition of sediment and (4) acting as a buffer against
transported debris (Parsons 19.-3, Nunnally *nd Keller 1979)- Trees ana
brush afford more orotcctlon to streasbanks than short or low-lying
vegetation (Klingeraan and Bradley l976). Grasses are nosfc effective
during the growing season and when they are young, sturdy, and
resilient.
By altering water flows and sediment transport dynamics, inputs of
large organic matter from the riparian environrcer.t may also have
significant effects on stream channel structure. For example, in
sand-bettea streams, deep holes are comreanly scoured near fallen trees
and other large woody debris, creating relatively permanent pools in an
otherwise uniform and unstable habitat {Hickman 1975, Mendelson 1975).
In high gradient, bedrock streams, habitat diversity is enhanced by
pools and waterfalls that are formed by entrainroent of sediment behind
debris dams (Trlska and Cromack 1979f Bilby and Likens 1
-------
Wetlands and riparian floodplalns al30 affect lotlc envlronnents;
however, their degree of influence la cooplex and lr.rgely determined by
the extent, tlalng, frequency, and duration of water exchange between
these ecosystems and the adjacent streara or river (Kibby 1978).
Overbank flew la a natural process which builds Doodplain features such
as natural levees and supplies water to adjacent lowlands which serve as
a storage site for excess runoff (^funr.ally and Keller 1979). During
flood events water velocities are greatly reduced in floodplalns and
wetlands relative to the main river channel. As a resilt, there can be
considerable deposition of sediment and attached clie-oicals and nutrients
In these areas. Alluvial floodplalns act as sinks for a number of
potential contanlnants, Including pesticides, nitrogen, phosphorus, and
sewage (Kuen2ler et al. 1977, Wharton and Srlnson 1978, Karr 1980).
They also 3ervo as a temporary storage and processing area for organic
matter and debris (Merrltt and Lawson 1978). During flooding,
accumulated organic material is washed back into streams so that river3
with riverine wetlands tend to carry more organic matter than those
without wetlands (Kucnzler et al. 1977, Brown et al. 1975).
STREAM HABITAT MODIFICATIONS
An understanding of the complex relationships via interactions
involved in the development and maintenance of stream habitat structure
and dynamics is necessary to fully comprehend the impact of continuing
watershed modifications by man. By disrupting stream equilibrium,
land-use modifications and/or direct alterations of channels comaonly
result in marked changes in the structure and stability of stream
habitats. These effects are further compounded by interrelationships
among stream habitat components.
Negative impacts of changing land-use primarily involve
modifications of watershed hydrology and are perhaps most severe in
snail stream environments. Clearing of vegetative cover, for example,
reduces soil infiltration rates, and thereby leads to increased runoffs
higher peak flows, and mors frequent flooding (Hornbeck et al. 1970).
Changes- in channel width, depth, sinuosity and meander wavelength are
generally required to compensate for these hydrologic changes. Hen.e, a
long period of marked channel instability with considerable bank erosion
and lateral shifting occurs before equilibrium is restored (Schumiu
1971). Since higher spring runoff leads to decreased soil moisture
storage, the extent and severity of summer and fall low flow periods is
also enhanced. In some streams (e.g., where sediment loads are low),
increased discharge associated with higher runoff results in channel
downgrading and lowering of the water table (Behnke and Raleigh 1973).
Effects of land-use changes are compounded by removal of nearstream
vegetation. Elimination of nearstream vegetation destabilizes
sfcrearabanks, and together with higher discharge, l#ads to increased
channel erosion (Patrlc 1975, Nunnally 1978). In the absence of a
vegetated, nearstream buffer strip, increased runoff results in large
losses of sediment (Karr and Schlosser 1978) and nutrients (Likens et
49
-------
al. 1970) frco the terrestrial to aquatic component of watersheds.
Nutrient enrichment, coupled with increased solar input and higher water
temperatures (caused by a lack of near-stream canopy)(Brown and Krygier
1970), commonly results in choking algal blooas (Likens ct al. 1970)
that drastically alter stream habitat characteristics during low flew
poriods in summer and fall (Karr and Dudley 1981) -
In addition to vegetative removal associated with extensive
land-use changes (including grazing), nearstream vegetation is commonly
cleared to facilitate small stream channel modifications in drainage,
flood control, and bank stabilization projects. Of the various methods
employed to achieve these purposes, extensive widening, deepening,
and/or straightening of stream channels have the most severe
environmental impacts. The Immediate effect of these channelization
activities Is destruction of the equilibrium that had evolved in the
watershed (Nunnally 1978). Channel dredging, for example, effectively
lowers the local base level of tributaries ana thereby initiates a cycle
of erosion in those streams (Nunn.illy and Keller 1979)- Straightening a
channel has the hydraulic effect of increasing the slope, which the
stream accomodates by increasing channel width through bank erosion.
Attainment of a new equilibrium requires a wider and shallower channel
and results in a permanent loss of habitat complexity (i.e., pool-riffle
development). Straightened streams have remained atraighter, wider, and
shallower than natural, meandering streams for 60 to 80 years following
channelization (El3er 1963, Zinner and Bachraann 1976). When channel
widening is prevented by bank stabilization measures, the straightened
stream adjusts by bed scour. This either leads to bed armoring or
uniform channels with unstable substrates.
Effects of straightening, deepening, or widening v^ry with, as well
as modify, discharge regimes. Since- the resulting uniform ohannel
satisfies only one set of discharges, altered streams tend to undergo
bank erosion during high flows and deposition during low flows. Duriru;
runoff events, the magnitude of peak discharge is greatly increased in
altered streams (Campbell et al. *972) since larger quantities of water
are shunted at a faster rate from the land surface into and through the
straightened ciiannel. Higher peak flows and associated sediment loads
may also increase the flood hazard in downstream reaches (Henegar and
Harmon 1971). Low flows are also accentuated in modified watersheds due
to altered channel morphology and/or reduced groundwater storage during
runoff events {Vfyrick 1968). Channelized sections of streams commonly
dry up completely during summer droughts while unchannelized areas
retain discontinuous pools (Gorman and Karr 1978, Oriswold et al.
1978).
In large rivers, channel straightening and dredging are conducted
for both flood control and navigation purposes, and have the same
effects on physical characteristics of these environments as in small
streams. These include (1) increased turbidity and siltation,
(2) creation of an unstable environment characterized by shifting sand
substrates, wide water-level and associated physico-chemical
50
-------
fluctuations, and considerable bank erosion, and (S) a permanent
reduction in habitat structure and coaplextiy (Congdon 1971). Channel
straightening has also resulted in a trenendous reduction in river
lengths {over 50$ in sons drainages)(Congdon 1971, Funk and Robinson
197*0.
The physical integrity of larce rivers is also significantly
altered by bank stabilisation and navigation structures (i.e., levees,
dikes, locks, and dams). Hydraulia characteristic? of wain "FVVfil*
channels are particularly affected as levees and dikes constriot flow
while locks and dams create a lacustrine environment. Moreover, by
restricting flow to main river channels, levees, dikes, and wing dams
have resulted in & significant loss of extra-channel habitats {Ellis et
al. 1979, Vanderford 1980) and severing of the protective coupling with
wetlands and floodplains.
The physical environment of large streams and rivers is also
altered by modifications affecting tributary-streams. Increased
flooding {Henegar and Harmon 1971 > and siltatlon (Vanderford 1980), for
example, are primarily due to higher inputs of ssdiaant and runoff from
modified watersheds upstream.
SUMMARY
As this section clearly demonstrates, attributes of straara channels
are determined by complex hydro]ogic processes originating on the land
and proceeding from headwaters to downstr'erni reaches. Modifications of
these processes and dynamics on the land, at the land-water interface,
or within stream channels profoundly affects physical habitat structure
In running watnr ecosystems.
51
-------
SECTION ft
BIOLOGICAL F0O.1DATIOIIS 0? HABITAT PROTECTION'
Characteristics of blotlc cooaunltles In wer«water streams are
determined by Interactions of a rauititude of factors Internal and
external to the atreaa (Fig. 5| simplified veralona 81van in rigs. J
*Hfl" ZT, A3 noted in the fntrnrfnciion, the us* of water quality
attributes as surrogates for measurement of blotlc integrity is a long
established approach. In this report w* demonstrate the importance of
other determinants (especially physical habitat characteristics) of
biotic integrity. This section provides a brief review of literature on
this subject, including many detailed examples. First, we outline
general distributional patterns along headwater to large river
gradients. Second, we describe the major habitat types that are
iaportanc to stream fishes. Third, in a series of brief sections we
discus3 the Importance of cover, substrate, and fluvial characteristics
to fishes. Finally, ve review impacts of modifications to the physical
environment of stream ecosystems in relation to their effects on biotic
integrity.
GEMERAL DISTRIBUTION OF FISHES Iff STREAMS AND RIVERS
Since the pioneering work of She!ford (1911), nurseroua studies have
demonstrated that fish ceemunities vary along the continuum frora
headwater streams to large rivers (Button and Oduin 19'<5, Huet 1959*
Kuehne l?62, Hinckley 1953, Sheldon 1968, Harrel et al. 1967, Whiteside
and McJJatt 197?, Tracer and Rogers 1973, Gorman and Karr 1978, Horowitz
1978, Evans and Noble 1979, Platts 1979, Baker and Pass 1931, Schlos-jer
1981a,b). Although sott.3 species exhibit longitudinal zonation patterns
suggesting adaptation to habitat conditions correlated wilh atreaa size,
others are broadly distributed and can be found in small stream* to
large rivers.
Distributions of stream fishes may also vary over time and/or with
changing environmental conditions. For example, in spring, many
warawater fishes migrate from rivers into headwater streams to spawn
(Larimore et al. 1959, Rail 1972, Hubbs et al. 1977, Karr and Dudley
1973» Tcth et al. 1931). Their young may remain in these small streams
for a year or sore before moving downstream to a receiving river where
they spend most of their adult life. .Other species migrate into
tributary streams during fall and spring but reproduce in downstrean
rivers in sumer (Mendelson 1975, Toth et al. 1981). Some lotic fi3h
populations say actually be composed of both sedentary and mobile groups
depending upon the relative suitability of local habitats, particularly
during changing environmental conditions {Funk 1957, Fagen 1962, Harima
and Hundy 1975, Karr and Dudley 1981), Species requiring specific
habitat conditions m&y undergo extensive aoveaents to nvlntcin that
association in unstable or fluctuating environments. Populations may be
highly sedentary when their habitats are relatively stable or the
species is adapted to a wide range of conditions.
52
-------
EXTERNAL ! LAMB-WATER ' WTERHAL
I INTERFACE I
Figure 5. Detailed conceptual model of the interaction of terrestrial environment,
land-water interface and in-stream factors"that govern the characteristics
of fish communities of varswater streams.
-------
Theae distribution patterns clearly indicate that raanagement or
lotio fish populations may transcend boundaries of stream reaches.
Hence, preservation of fish connunity integrity requires an integrative
view of the entire stream network.
FISH HABITAT TYPES
Fish .1 pedes In stream and fivers arc associated to various
degrees with distinct habitat types. Theoe habitufca forwprinaril* as »
caauit^of-mtura! proowswarfsee stction 37, and thair
characteristic physioal and cheaical attributes vary considerably with
discharge. Like their general distribution patterns, the habitat in
which a streaa fish species is foun^i may change with age, sex,
reproductive state, geographic area, and/or fluctuating environmental
conditions.
Pools, riffles, and raceways are the primary habitat divisions for
fishes in small to medium-sized streams (Fig. 6; see also Trautsan
1957, Pfliegar *975, Smith 1979, Schlosser IfSla). Hiffiea are areas of
relatively swift current velocity and shallow depth while pools
characteristically have deep water and slow current. Raceways have
intermediate, and typically more uniform depth and rate of flow.
Although stream fishes tend to bo ecologically and norpholoelcal.ly
speclallzed for exploiting a particular habitat typa (Cat?: 1979), a on 3
degree of plasticity is conmcn.
In addition to these aaln channel habitats, large river
environments have a diverse array of other habinat fcype3 (Fig. 7) that
are of critical importance to riverine fl3hes. Side-channel and
extra-channel habitats, for example, provide feeding, spawning, nursery,
and overwintering areas for many riverine fish species (Table 6? Schramm
and Lewis 197*4, Funk and Robinson 1974, Vanderford 1920). Due to the
dynaialc nature of river ecosystems, side- and extra-channel haWiats are
continually created and destroyed by fluvial processes. However, under
natural equilibrium conditions, a nosaic of these habitats, including
side-channels, sloughs, and backwater lakes and ponds is maintained in
association with the main channel. The diversity of envlronnental
conditions along the transition from aide-channels to backwater lakes is
reflected by the different fish species that utilize these habitats
(Table 9).
Side channels are departures frora the nain channel and main channel
border, through which there is current during, normal river stage. They
may range from fast-flowing, sandy bottom channels to sluggish, silt
bottoa streams that wind through marshy areas. Many commercial species
utilize side channels throughout the year, while others use those areas
as rearing and overwintering habitat.
54
-------
u*
POOL
RACEWAY
Redfin shiner
Spoifin shiner
Hornyheod chub
Stonecat
Creek chub
^ ./>rrr.'y-
Greenside darter
Fonlail do|ie;r
Ram bow dartfr
Orangethrfcc' darter
Stonerolier
Green sunfish
Longeor sunfish
Bluegill
Rock boss
Smallmouth bass Striped shiner
Yellow bullhead
White sucker
Golden redhorse
Hog sucker
Johnny darter
Eluntnose minnow
Figure 6, Fish-habitat associations in a small Illinois stream. Koto that sqnve
species are typically towid in transition zones between major habitat
divisions {Adapted from Schiosser 1981)
-------
Figure 7. Diagrammatic representation of major habitats associated with
large river environments.
56
-------
TABLE 8. LARGER FISHES FROM THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER THAT USE
SIDE-CHANNELS OR EXTRA-CHANNEL HABITATS (i.e., SLOUGHS,
SIDE STREAMS, AND BACKWATER LAKES AND PONDS ) AS SPAWNING,
Sloughs and side streams include relatively narrow branches or
offshoots of other bodies of water, and characteristically have iuud
bottons, abundant submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, and little
or no current at normal water stage. Many sloughs and aide streams are
Tomer side channels that have been cut off by sedimentation. Although
a few species are found in this habitat throughout the year, others
depend on sloughs and aide streams primarily for spawning and nursery
areas.
Backwater lakes and ponda have little or no flow, relatively
shallow depths, and a thick bottorc layer of silt, sand, and decaying
organic matter. A diverse array of fishes, including commercial and
sport species, utilize these areas. Deeper regions provide
overwintering areas and emergent beds of aquatic vegetation are used as
spawning habitat during high, spring flows.
Other riverine habitats, such as sandbars, 3hoals, mudflats, and
seasonally flooded bottomland hardwood forests, meadows, and prairies
are also utilized on a limited basis ;».s spawning, rearing and feeding
areas for selected species.
To maintain fish diversity and productivity in lotic ecosystems all
main channel and extra-channel habitats must be preserved.
Species
Walleye
Sauger
Northern pitce
Largemouth bass
Snallnouth ba33
White lass
Rock bass
Crappie
Blueftill
Yellow perch
Channel catfish
Bullhead
Freshwater drun
Sturgeon
Paddlefish
Bowrin
Carp
Sedhorse
Largemouth buffalo
Sjiallnsouth buffalo
Goldeye
Gizzard shad
Car
American eel
-------
TABLE 9. DIFFERENCES IN FISH COMMUNITY STRUCTURE ACCOMPANYING SUCCESSIONAL CHANGES InISIDE-CHANNEL
HABITATS ALONG THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER. PERCENTAGES ARE BASED UPON THE frOTAL NUMBER,
OF FISH CAUGHT (ELECT IVJi'lSiliriG) IW EACH SIDE-CHANNEL (PROPS ELLIS ET AL. 197S
Side Channel
Buzstard
Orton-Fabius
Cottonwood
Plow Conditions
Dominant Species
Unique Species
Riverintj
Carp (30%)
Gizzard shad (25.8%)
Emerald i.hiner (12%)
Skipjack herring.
Black bullhead,
Blue catfish
Riverine at high river
stage, little f low-
thrcugh during
normal or low river
stayer.
Carp (37.2%)
Gizzard shad (17.1%)
Bluegill (7.8%)
River shiner,
Stonecafc
Lake-like
No flow-
through at normal
or low riv r stages
Gizzard sh
Bluegill (
Carp (15.
White crij
O
Bowfin, Hi
carpsuckei
Warmowth
d (30.7%)
7.7%)
)
(11.5%)
> iio
hf in
Species Group
2
Game fish
Panfish3
Catfish ^
Predatory Rgugh fish
Forage fish
tough fish
2.6*
9.5
2.6
3.2
3S.4
42.G
2,8%
19.7
3.5
3.7
24.3
46.1
1. Only captured in indicated side-channel
2. Northern pike, Largemoutli bass, Smallmouth bass, Walleye, Sauger
3. White bass and all eentrarchids other than black basses
4. Shortnose gar, Longnoso gar, Bowfin
5. All minnow species, Gizzard shad, Shijjjack harring
5.1*
33.3
1.4
2.6
36.0
21.6
-------
PHYSICAL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS
Preferences exhibited by fish species for apecific habitat types,
-ae-woll os fchair 4iaferlfcu«4«n 4n rlvr aya*«nar r*fVe«%
suitability of a conplox or physical, chemical, and blolosJcal factors.
That is, fish spec'.as assess a particular habitat or reach of stream in
a multivariate way. Physical cnaracteristics of lotlc environments are
of major significance in these assessments. Biotlc variation along
headwater to oouth gradients, for example, coincide with changes in the
diversity of physical habitat parameters (Gorman and Ksrr 1978, Horowitz
1978, Platts 1979, Vannote ot al. 1980, Schlosser 198(a). Slmilarily,
decreased habitat diversity na> account for soao of tie decline In fish
species diversity Tram the eastern to western region of the central
plains (Cross 1970), Segments of these stream systems which extend into
the Rocky Mountains retain diversified habitat as well as some species
of fishes that were prevalent on the eastern fringt of the prairie
region but absent from intervening areas.
Although fish species diversity is generally beat correlated with
multidimensional habitat diversity (Gorman and Karr 19753)» individual
physical parameters may, at times or for some species, assume overriding
importance. Recognizing that the influence of physical factors on a
fish species or oomnunity may vary with the chemical regime, time of the
year, and/or complement of species present (e.g., through competition or
predation effects), the following relationships between physical
parameters and lotic fishes are critical coapooMftta of ecological
Integrity in stream and river ecosystems.
Cover
Cover in lotto environments nay be divided Into t.-ra rather
ill-defined classes1 instream and nearstream cover# Tnstream cover
includes undercut banks, tree roots, large rocks, logs,'brush, and
aquatic vascular plants, while neirstrean cover refers to an array of
factors such aa vegetation type, angular cover density, and other
characteristics of the riparian environment.
A cosson attribute of instreara cover features is that they tend to
attract and concentrate fish. Functionally, they are important to fish
because they provide spawning sites, protection from current or
predators, or hiding places from which predators ambush prey; or because
they support important food resources or lead to changes in stream
morphology that increase habitat diversity (Marzolf 1975, see also
Section 3).
The importance of cover has been most Intensively investigated in
coldwater streams where, for example, the relative amount of various
forms of cover nay largely account for spatial variation in brook trout
density (Hunt 1971> and ateelhead and cutthroat trout standing crop
(Klckelaon and Hafsle 1978). In warawater streams, lnstream cover has
similar, "out perhaps, broader impacts on fish communities. In the
59
-------
Missouri River, the standing crop of all fish was 25$ higher, and that
of catehablc-size fish C1J higher, In a section with snags relative to a
conparable aaotlon without instreaa cover CHlctoan 1975). Sooe striking
differences in coaaunity structure were also observed (Table 10). In a
small Illinois stream, fish bicaass was 4.8 to 9.1 times higher in a
section vrlth instreaa cover relativu to an adjacent saction that was
oleared of all cover features (P. L, Angemeier, Univ. of Illinois,
unpublished, Karr and Dudley 1981). Fish species diversity nay also be
higher in sections of streams with instreain cover (Sheldon 1968).
Instrean cover is particularly important to many plscivores since
these features provide hiding places fron which they ambush their prey.
Large creek chubs, for example, tend to concentrate in pools with
undercut banks and/or large rocks or submerged logs (Fraser and Sise
1980), and the presence of snallmouth bass In 3mall streams appears to
be restricted to areas with large cover structures (Paraeamian 1980).
Sinilarlly, valleys rind its European counterpart, the pikeperch, are
restricted to river habitats with low light levelu (a function of depth,
overhead cover, and turbidity)(Kitchell cu al, 1977). Helfaan (1979,
1981) argued that fish in shaded habitats are able to see fish in sunlit
surroundings better, and at greater distances, than vice versa.
However, he found that .-snail fish species are as likely to be found in
shaded areas as larger predators, suggesting that such areas may also
afford prey speclea protection from predation.
TABLE 10. STANDING CROP OF DOMINANT FISHES IN SNAG AND SNAGLESS
SECTION'S OF THE KIDDLE FABIUS RIVER, MISSOURI
(Adapted from Hickman 1975)
% of total standing crop
Speclas
Snag
Snagl-jss
Carp
24.3
23.6
17.9
12.2
7.6
3*4
3.4
1.5
20. n
Smallmouth bass
Bullhead2
River carpsuaker
Channel flatfish
Redhorse
Green sunfish
Freshwater drum
20.3
12.7
?6.7
2.7
1.6
1.3
3.8
1. Includes Shorthead and Golden redhorso
2. Includes Yellow and Black bullhead
so
-------
Inatreara cover also provides refuge from tho rigors of the
environment. Many fish that occupy regions with swift current spend a
large proportion of their time behind large roeka or boulder* (Cucuntns
1972). In fact sorae benthlc riffle species occur within tho interstices
of loosely consolidated gravel and cobbles (Hynea 1970, Stagaan and
Hinokley 1959, Toth 1978). Permanent and stable cover structures offer
similar refuge for pool and raceway inhabiting fishes during elevated
flows. By providing shade, Inatreaa structures also Moderate water
temperatures (Hieicaan 1975).
Aquatic waorophyte beds perhaps best illustrate the diverse roles
of instrcam cover. For exampla, although pi soIvorea oooaonly lurk In
aquatic vegetation, the interior of dense beds provides refuge for staa]1
prey species. Aquatic plants also serve as spawning and feeding areas
for a number of stream fishes. In f »ct, the degree of association with
aquatic vegetation forms the basis of resource partitioning in some
stream communities (Baker and Ross 1981, S.T. Ross, University of
Southern Mississippi, pers. communication), Beds of aquatic plants
also increase habitat diversity by constricting flows and leading to
increased scouring, deepening of pools, and undercutting of banks (Hunt
1979).
In streams and rivers with unstable substrates, Instream cover
structures are particularly important to fish because they lead to
increased habitat diversity {e.g., by scouring pools, see Section 3) and
provide substrate for as much as 90% of the macroinvertefcrate bicnaas
(Marzolf 1978, Wharton and Brinson 1978). Wood debris also provides
critical substrate for invertebrate populations in high gradient,
bedrock streams (Triska and Cromaek 1979).
One of the most important functions of lnatream cover in headwater
streams is its role in trapping terrestrial litter. Inputs of
terrestrial organic matter we a primary energy source for-the biota of
lotic environments (Fisher and Likens 1973, Cummins 197'l). Efficient
utilization of this organic natter is dependent upon its retention in
headwater areas in the fors of leaf p&eka and debris dams (Reice 1974,
Bilby and Likens 1§00). Leaf packs form on the upstream sides of large
rocks, tree branches, or other obstructions. Debris dans trap larger
accumulations of litter and form when a piece of large woody material,
such as a tree branch, becoaes lodged in the stream channel. These
accumulations of leaf litter and other coarse terrestrial debris are
colonized by "shredding™ invertebrates and thereby converted to fine
particulate organic matter. Some of the fine particulate organic natter
is deposited behind debris dams while the rest is transported
downstream. In either case it serves as the principle source of energy
for another group of invertebrate ooiisuaers (collectors). In
intermediate sized rivers, autochthonous organic production by algae and
aquatic macrophytes may provide an additional source of energy for
aquatic food webs, and ether invertebrate functional groups (scrapers
and grazers) become dominant. In large rivers, high turbidity tends to
limit autochthonous production and fine particulate organic natter
inputs fron upstream again forms the base of the food chain.
61
-------
Since aquatic Invertebrates are a primary rood source of many lotlc
fishes (Trautman 1957, Pflieger 1975, Smith 1979), the role that Inputs
of terrestrial litter and debris plays In trophic-energetic
relationships in streams and rivers constitutes one of the most
important ways that nearatrean cover arreeta fish coaaunitles.
Nearstream vegetation also supports terrestrial Insect prey (Meehan et
al, 1977) and Is clearly the source of most Instreara cover, Including
underout banks (which are stabilized by vegetative root systems).
Moreover, nearstreara vegetation that extends over and close to the water
surface (e.g., tree Hubs and branches) provides overhead cover ouch
like Instreara structures.
Another particularly important function of nearstream vegetation in
headwater reaches Is the stability that it lends to these small stream
ecosystems. By stabilizing 3treambanlcs, intercepting eroding sediment
from the adjacent land surface, moderating water temperatures, and
limiting growths of choking algal blooms and aquatic reacrophytes (see
Section 3), nearstreara vegetation is largely responsible for maintaining
the physical integrity of small stream channels over a wide range of
environmental conditions. This stability in the physical environment 3s
reflected by its biological components, particularly the fish fauna.
The importance of nearstreara vegetation is beet illustrated in modified
streams where forested raaches provide critical refuges for fishes
during severe environmental conditions (Karr and Gorman 1975). Fish
communities in forested regions of modified streams also contain
permanent residents and tend to be mora stable throughout the year than
areas with little or no woody riparian vegetation.
Although the importance of in- and nearstreara cover to biotlc
integrity is clear, potential conflicts with other stream U3e3 (e.g.,
flood control or drainage) necessitates establishment of priorities
regarding the type and amount of cover to be maintained. Foremost
consideration must be given to preservation of nearstream vegetation,
particularly in headwater reaches but also in larger streams and rivers,
because its contribution to ecosystem structure and function is critical
to ecological integrity. Extensive instreara cover is required in
streams, including spawning and rearing areas, where viable sport and
commercial fish populations are desired. Instreaat cover is also needad
to provide habitat diversity in streams and rivers with unstable
substrates or high gradients. In all other streams and rivers, variable
amounts (depending upon conflicts with other stream uses) of instream
cover should be preserved to enhance fish species diversity and
productivity.
Substrate
Various types of substrate and their degree of sorting along and
across stream channels influence characteristics of lotie fish
oocin unities in a number of ways. For example, in headwater streams,
effects of drought on fish communities are moderated by the water
retaining capacity of impervious bedrock and clay substrates (Larinore
62
-------
ot al. 1959. Evans and TJoblo 1979). However, sorting cf alluvial
substrate particles is of broader significance in warmwater stream,
whore fish spocles diversity increases with an Increase In substrate
diversity (Oorman and Karr 1978). Individual fish species, as wall a*
different sex and age classes of the saao jpedes (Minn 1958), tend to
be found in association with a specific size-range if substrate
particles (Trnutaan 1957, Pflieger 1975, Smith 1979). The proportion of
gravel and cobble substrates, for example, is an excellent predictor of
smallmouth bass abundance in small rivers (Fig, 8; Paragamlar. 1980,
1981).
The actual valuo of a particular substrate type or size to a given
fish species may be related to cov»r, spawning, or feeding. As
Indicated above, sons fish species find shelter froo the current and/or
predators behind rocks or within ereviecs in the substrate (Cummins
1972, Toth 1978). Successful spawning by many species is dependent upon
appropriate substrata for egg deposition and development. Among
aalfflonids, survivorship during embryo to alevin emergence stages Is
directly related to the geometric mean diameter of the spawning
substrate (Shirazi and Seim 1979). Such detailed relationships have not
been described for warawater fishes, but .rigid preferences for either
rock, gravel, or sand substrates segregate a number of species (Trautman
1957, Pflieger 1975, Smith 1979) and determine their distribution and
relative abundance in streams with different physiographies.
In addition to the importance of substrate as cover, fish
associations with particular substrate types during the non-breeding
season are largely a result of feeding relationships. These involve
morphological adaptations of fish as well as the distribution of their
invertebrate prey. Mouths of benthic fishes, for exaraple, are adapted
for exploiting food resources associated with different substrates.
Hence, many suckers feed in soft (e.g., silt covered) bottoms while
stonerollers scrape the surfaces of rocks. Morphological
characteristics that are seemingly unrelated to feeding may also be
involved. Slight differences in body flexibility and scale size, for
example, correlates with the fartall darter's ability to exploit prey
within smaller substrates than the rainbow darter (Toth 1978).
The distribution and relative abundance of invertebrates among
different substrate types also plays a major role in fish-substrate
associations, including those involving fish species that depend upon
benthic invertebrates for food but do not directly feed off the bottom.
Significant, differences in invertebrate community structure and
production are found within different substrates (Tarzwell 1937, Bynes
1970) and are largely due to the diversity, sorting, and physical
stability of particle sizes*
63
-------
% Of Samples Containing Coarse Grave!
To Cobble Substrates
Figure 8. Relationships between smallmouth bass density and amount of
coarse gravel to cobble substrates fo'und in sections of the
Maquoketa River, Iowa, 1978 (Adapted from Paragamian 1981)
64
-------
Changes ir. substrata characteristics due* to seasonally varying flow
conditions le*d to associated chan3ca In ir,vcrtatr«t* eoaaunity
structure (deHarc'n 197£), During spring, hfgh current velocities result
in w#ll-sorfced particle sizws and the nisi ber or invertebrate species
associated with each nubstrate type is highly correlated with habitat
heterogeneity (l.i., particlo size distribution). As current velocities
decreaso during sa-sner nontho, slit and sand arc deposited in tho
Interstices of doarser substrates. Habitat heterogeneity Is gradually
reduced and invartcbuat*. »j»*oie9-rlc*in«33 lsuure edi*r~eISled wi th
sorting of substrates than mean particle oixe.
The kinds of invertebrates associated with each substrata type are
influenced by physical characteristics of the habitat (deMarch 1976)•
Since sand is highly unstable, only invertebrates with similar
hydrologlcal properties are consistently found in this habitat. Silt is -
fairly .'.table at a range of low current velocities but the density and
diversify of organisms that can live in silt substrates Is severely
limited by a lack of interstitial spaces.
Boulder substrates possess unique temporal stability and in
contrast to other substrate types have a greater affect on water flows
than vice versa. Moreover, in winter, turbulence produced within
boulder habitats keeps them open while other habitats freeze solid.
Hence, invertebrate speejes diversity in boulder habitats is
consistently high and includes long-lived species as well as ephemeral
type3 that are found associated with other substrates.
Habitats with substrates finer than bowlders but coarser than sand
are fairly stable over varying flow conditions but are subject to silt
and sand encroachment during depositions! periods. Seasonal succession
of species is typical of the invertebrate fauna associated with these
substrates (Grant sad Mackay 196?).
The contribution of substrate diversity to ecological integrity in
streams and rivers must be preserved. Natural substrate diversity and
sorting cars only be maintained by preventing excessive sedimentation.
This requires effective measures to eheck sediment inputs. A Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration (1968) advisory eoncaittee on
water quality indicated that waters normally containing 80 to 100 uig/J
suspended solids are unlikely to support good freshwater fisheries.
Integral components of fluvial processes, including natural stream
raorohology and flow characteristics, must also be maintained, since
these parameters are responsible for partiole-size sorting and cleansing
of substrates.
65
-------
Fluvial Chsraotgrlatics
A nirtbon of highly correlated habitat attributes, including stream
size and gradient, current velocity, depth, and discharge are discussed
under this heading. Sn*tlal and temporal variability in these
parameters exerts a major influence on the ntructurs of atreaa fish
coca unities. Available habitat space, Tor example, is linked to stream
size and is partially responsible for faunal changes along headwater to
south gradients (Stielford 19'1, Burton and Odin 1915, Kuehno 1962,
Harrel efc al. -1f6?, Sheldon 1968, tvans- and ffobls 1979, Baker and-toss
1981i Schlosoor 198lt)» Many species of oentrarehids and oatostoalds
require fairly large pools and do not appear* in streams until they ore
large enough to provide these conditions (Burton and Odun 1915, Kuehne
1962, Pa^agamian 1980). Sheldon (1968) found that faunal changes ever a
pool-riffle spectrum duplicated those from the headwaters to riwnstreaa
areas, with depth accounting for 66$ of the variance in species
diversity. Evans and Noble (1979) also found species diversity to be
highly correlated with depth, but indicated that species richness waa
influenced hy interactions among a number of environmental correlates
along the longitudinal gradient. Pool area may account for over 50? of
the variation in brook trout density (Hunt 1971), and pool voluae
explained about 9^? of the variation in standing crop of Juvenile coho
salmon (Nickel:.on and Hafele 1978), In the latter study, depth and
current velocity were also significant factors in models relating
habitat quality to variations in standing crop of steel.head and
cutthroat trout. High water velocities my reduce the effective depth
of pool 3 becauae fish are not able to occupy the entire water column
(Sheldon 1563).
Gorman and Karr {1978) demonstrated that fish species diversity In
headwater streams increases with both current and depth diversity. This
indicates that different species occupy habitats with different depths
or current velocities. Major changes in those parameters tend to ocsur -
simultaneously in the form of pools, riffles, and raceways. Many fish
species segregate along this gradient much m thay do longitudinally.
However, more subtle differences in depth and current velocity may also
be Important in apatial partitioning (Wallace 1972, "mart and Gee 1979,
Matthews 1980, Sohloaser 1981a), and contribute to high species
diversity. For example, segregation among many stream cyprlnlds appears
to be largely based upon their vertical position in the water column and
is believed to be important in reducing competition for food (Mundalson
1975, Baker and Ross 1981). Spatial differences in depth and current
velocity also segregate different sexes as well as juveniles and adults
of the same species (Winn 1953, Harlcia and Mundy 197Srart and Geo
1979). Juvenile fish generally occur in riffles, shallow pools,
raceways, or along stream margins, and are rarely found in deep pools.
In fact, recruitment rates in saall streams are dependent upon the
availability of these rearing areas (Schlosser 1981a).
66
-------
Gradient also Influence.*} the distribution and diversity or atrear
fishes. Hoeutt and Stauffer (1975) round significant nae.ative
correlations between gradient and fish species rlchnesi (r=-,90) and
diversity (r=-.875 in a Maryland streaa. Spades richness increased
with a decease in gradient from headwater to downstream stations but
deoreased-wlth-en-ebrupte—ifrerease-in-gredient—trr-the-tcwur-reacheirTjf"
the stream. Along Furo^ean streams, fish faunnl zones appear to be
deternlnod largely by gradient (Huet 1959) such that, within a given
blogeographical area, rivers or stretches of rivers of llko breadth,
dapth, and slopa bend to have similar biological characteristics.
However, Burton and Odun (19^) pointed out that i» r.oober of
environnental factors, including tenperaturo, oxygon concentration,
current, and habitat type are correlated with slope. The/ found that
headwater speclea richness was higher In low gradient streams than in
steep mountain streams where headwater species appear to be
physiologically adapted to a narrow range of environmental conditions.
Headwater species in streams with les3 altitude change tend to be more
generalized and, as a result, have a broader longitudinal distribution.
Creek chub, for example, is a typical headwater and broad-ranging
species in prairie stress; but it is not found In th'i headwaters of
mountain streams where 3peales such as brook trout deninate over a
rather United range of temperature conditions. Discontinuities in the
longitudinal distribution of a few species, including binoknose dare,
northern hog sucker, and amallmouth baas, were also linked to abrupt
changes in gradient. Menzel and Flerstlne (1976) compared low gradient
O.Bm/tei) prairie streams with moderate to high gradient (0.7 5 to
2.I8m/km) woodland atreams and found fish species richness and diversity
to be higher in the woodland streams. In addition to having a higher
gradient the woodland streams also had mors developed pools and riffles,
and therefore, greater depth and current diversity. Significant
positive correlations occurred between gradient and fish Monass
diversity (r=0.66) and gradient and number and biomass of smallmouth
bass and redhorse (r=0.65 to 0,87 ). In contrast, the biciaa3s of
cyprlnida was negatively correlated with gradi'tit (rr-0.77). Major
differences in spe ies composition were also observed in the t
-------
TABLE 11. PREQUEHCT? Of OCCURRENCE CP SELECTED FISH SPECIES IN
N SAMPLES FROM LCW-GRAOISST PRAIRIE ST?SAMS AND
HIGH-GRARIEST WOCDLAND STREAMS II IOWA (From Men:el
and Fie:aline 19'6•>
Type of Stream
Prairie (Ha12) Woodland (N*36>
Northern pike
58-3
5.6
Sickcrnouth alnrow
e.3
77.8
River carpsucker
25.0
83.3
Quillbaek
58.3
91.7
Highfin carpslcker
16.T
06.1
Northern Hogsjcker
Hi.7
88.9
Blgneuth buffalo
Hi.7
2.8
Silver redhorse
16.7
63.9
Golden redho»3e
50.0
97.2
Shorthead redhorse
66.7
100.0
Snallmouth teas
33.3
m.?.
Fantail darter
0.0
52.8
Johnny darter
03-3
27.8
Blackside darter
91.7
36.1
TABLE 12. SLECTR0FIS3ISG CAPTURE SATKS (NO.'HR) OF YOUNG-OF-THS-TSAR
CARP AND VHTTE SUCKER IS PRAIRIE AND WOODLAND STREAMS I*!
IOWA < 1971-1975) (Frew «e.iz«l and Flerstine i?"S.)
July Aug-is*.-s
-------
greater niche or habitat specialization (Slobodkin and Sanders 1969);
121 temporal constancy allows licroaaoJ trophic complexity ("enge and
Sutherland 1976) which nay regulate diversity through prcdatlon; and (3>
greater variability increases extermination rafss which will therefore
be greatest io ioterwtttftpt hoa
-------
Lariiore ct al. (195*}) investigated effect3 of a sovere drought on
fish in a naall Illinois ati-eam and found that the amount of reduction
of suitable aquatic habitat varied according to local conditions along
the stream's length. Water levels were lowest in silt-bottoaed, low
gradient reaches that flowed through intensively cultivated land, while
deep-pooi3~persl3tc:1--lTT--a-rel8tl'relT~frlgh gratHrcnfc-r-nooded secMon-thwt—
flowed over rn impervious clay and bedrock substrate. Mortality was r.ot
particularly high aaong fish trapped in Isolated pools during ttie juwer
nonths, but inoreaaod in the fall when tenperaturea fluctuated
fui mjyin HuwyiY^w-sirouMiii 'Uiu 'wi iri'fyt niii «p»u'i
-------
Although season*! variation In discharge la coamon In warmwater
stream ecosystems, prolonged low or high flow periods are presented by
buffering characteristics of natural watersheds. In view of the effects
of severe floods and droughts on fish communities, key hydrologic
components oust be preservedin at least scaa regions or watersheds, to
maintain as stable flow3 as possible.
HABIIAT-HO&IMCATJQNa
Effects of oodifloations of watershed hydrology and channel
atruet«-e on biotlc integrity provide further evidence of the importance
of physical habitat parameters in lotic ecosystems. Much of the loss of
biotlc integrity in streams and rivers is attributable to man-caused
degradation of thesa physical habitat attributes.
Snail Stream Environments
As suggested by previously described fish-habitat associations,
reduced habitat complexity (i.e., pool-riffle development) typically
results in a significant loss of fish species richness (North et al.
1974, King and Carlander 1976, Qrlswold et al. 1978). Elimination of
deep pool habitats, for example, conns only results in loss of gams fish
populations. However, fish biomaas nay remain the sine or even increase
with a reduction in habitat diversity and/or elimination of a habitat
type since densities of species that are wore adapted to the altered
conditions conraoniy increase. In modified agricultural watersheds,
these compensatory changes in fish community structure typically involve
shifts to dominance by species with more generalized food (I.e.,
omnivores) and/or habits' rsqwtremants (Karr Md Dudlay 1978, Schlosser
1981b). For ixareple, when riffle habitats are eliminated by channel
straightening, loss of darter biomass is generally mora than compensated
for by increased blonans of bluntnose minnow in the new, wide, and
shallow stream channel (Totii el; al. 1981).
Loss of biotio integrity in small streams is- also linked to
modifications of specific habitat parameters. The absence of instream
brush piles, for example, may account for lower fish biooass in small
stream reaches where the source of these cover structures (i.e.,
nearstream vegetation), as well as the environment favoring their
retention, has been destroyed by channelization (King and Carlander
1f76)» » ish food supplies are also affected since brush piles support
dense aquatic macroinvertebrate populations and removal of nearstream
vegetation reduces inputs of terrestrial insaots {Lynch et al. 1977).
Although direct substrate {.Iterations (e.g., dredging) have major
effects on fish populations CBianchl and Marcoux 1975) and nay be
particularly devastating during spawning periods, indirect modifications
of substrates havo had mere severe impacts on biotlc integrity in the
long-term. For example, a shift from sand-gravel-rubble to
predominantly sand-silt substrates has led to increasing dominance by
71
-------
bluntnoso minnow, sand shiner, and spotfln shiner In a nunber of Iowa
stream fish communities, and also contributed to the extirpation of a
fantall darter population (King 1973)* In fact, siltation of substrates
has been ono of the major factors responsible for decreasing quality of
fisheries throughout the United States (Karr and Sehlosser 1978). This
is due primarily to effects on reproduction, but other negative impacts
of siltation, such as reduced benthlc invertebrate production and
•Uai nation of cover^ are also significant (see Sorensen at al. 1977
JUfcLHffloy «t ai. Wf^fffrwirtwsrjT
The coabined effects of modifications of watershed hydrology and
physical characteristics of stream channels lead to marked teopora.
Instability In fish conn unities (Menzel and Fierstinc 1976, Gornan and
Karr 1978, Toth et al. 1981, Sehlosser 1981b). In fact, this
Instability is perhaps the most symptomatic measure of degradation in
small streams that have been stripped of their natural buffering
capacity by the creation of uniform channels arid elimination of
nearstreara 'egetation. Associated with these conditions are drastic
shifts In habitat suitability, including large fluctuations in
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and rater levels, choking algal blooms,
nnd persistent erosion and siltation (Karr and Dudley 198") that lead to
frequent short- and long-range movements by fish populations. These
conditions contribute to the demise of soaa populations (Toth et al.
1982).
Stream and watershed modifications also have a najor impact on
natural headwater ecosystem structure and function (Karr and Dudley
1973). As a result of frequent algal bloons and reduced inputs of
terrestrial organic matter accompanying the removal of nearstreara
vegetation, disturbed headwater streams undergo a fundamental shift in
energy flow and associated change from a heterotrophic to autotrophic
community (Karr and Dudley 1973, Geilroth and Marzolf 1978).
Invertebrate shredders are commonly replaced by collectors, while the
fish fauna typically shifts to dominance by omnivorous taxa that are
capable of exploiting rich growths of algae, during the summer and fall
raonths. for example, modified headwater streams commonly serve as
feeding areas for gizzard shad, and young carp and, qulllback.
Modifications of headwater ecosystems also affect biotlc integrity
in downstream reaches. Luey and Adelman {1980) compared the fish fauna
of three streams with different degrees of upstream drainage development
and found that average species diversity was significantly greater and
mean bioiass of fish was two times higher in downstream reaches of the
least developed stream. Alterations of headwater spawning and rearing
areas have led to a decline of a number of riverine fish populations,
Including northern pike, smalliaouth bass, and walleye (Trautman and
Oartman 1971)• Late spawning species such as walleye are particularly
affected by altered flow regimes stemming from agricultural drainage
Improvements since reduced flows in late spring regularly trap fry in
upstream reaches that are subject to complete dewaterlng during simmer
months (H. Valiant, Manitoba Department of natural Resources, pers.
72
-------
commun.). Meanwhile, modifications of headwater streams have increased
their value ns feeding and nursery areas for carp, quill back, aad
gizzard shad and thereby contributed to increasing populations of these
species in largo rivers (Karr and Dudley 1978). Downstream coonunities
may also be affected by higher organlo loadings and biological oxygen
denand as unprocessed Utter is transported from modified headwater
reaches (Marzoif 1978). Conversion of coarse organic matter to fine
particulate organic matter is inefficient in uniform, unobstructed
channels (Karr"and Dudley 1978, Bilby and Likens 1980) and unstable sand
oc silt.substrate* -19 W created ey stream md watershed*
modifications.
Impacts of snail stream and watershed modifications indicate that
several measures must be taken to preserve or restore ecological
Integrity In these environments. First, effective soil and water
conservation practices m»st be implemented to maintain (1)a hydrologic
balance in the watershed and (2) keep sediments and nutrients out of
stream channels. Historically, the major focus of land-use programs in
agricultural areas has emphasized the latter with little recognition of
the significance of shifting hydrologic regimes. A vegetated,
nearstreaa buffer strip is essential to trap eroding sediment froa the
land surface and to maintain stable, naturally functioning biological
communities in stream channels. Extensive straightening, widening, or
deepening of channels should be unequivocally prohibited to preserve
stream equilibrium and habitat complexity. Snort-reach channel
modifications not exceeding 500 n tsay be permitted on a limited basis
(e.g., for bridge construction and maintenance), providing adequate
mitigation measures are taken to protect aquatic resources before,
during, and after the alterations. In addition, to compensate for any
loss of biotio integrity incurred as a result of these modifications,
stream improvement measures should be Implemented in other sections of
the altered stream or in comparable streams in the watershed.
Cumulative nodificationa on any single stream should not exceed 25* of
the channel length. When feasible, stream restoration programs should
be implemented in stream channels where past modifications have severely
impaired ecological integrity. Finally, in view of their contribution
to downstream biotic integrity, at least a few entire headwater- streams
should be preserved in their natural state in all drainage systems.
Decisions regarding which streams should be partly based upon the degree
of potential land and water-use impacts and within the framework of a
comprehensive watershed management plan.
River Environments
Modifications of the physical environment may have an even more
significant Impact on fish communities In large rivers than in small
streams. For example, although 30 years had elapsed since tn» channel
was modified, the standing crop of fish in a straightened section of the
Charlton Hiver (Missouri) was S3? less than in an adjacent unmodified
section (Congdon 1971). The straightened region also had eight fewer
fish species. Fish samples frcm modified sections of the Olentangy
73
-------
River, Ohio (Griswold et al. 1978) and Luxapalila River,
Alabama-Mississippi (Arner <*t al. 1976) indicate that, in addition to
consistently supporting loner fish standing crops (Table 13),
straightened Motions of largo rivers have markedly different fish
oopmunity structure than uruaodified seotions (Table IM). The deoline in
gaae fish populations, for example, is particularly striking. Moreover,
aany fish that are captured in straightened sections are actually
transients that are enroute to oore stable (i.e., unmodified) habitats
(Table 15| Hansen 1971* Arner et al* 1976).
TABLE 13. SAMPLE SIOMASS OF FISH CAPTURED FROM NATURAL AND
CHANNELIZED SECTIONS OP THE LUXAPALILA (From Arner et al.
1976) MID OLSNTANGY (Fran Griswold et al. 1978) RIVERS,
Average Capture Rate
Natural Channelized
Luxapalila River3' 793.7 g/nat day 221,k g/net day
2
Olentangy River 2,028.7 g/nin. 1,533-6 g/min.
1. Based upon hoop net samples (1973-1976)
2. Based upon eleetrofishing samples (1971-1976)
Elimination of instream cover may also have more detrimental
effects on biofcie integrity in large rivers than in small streams. Snag
removal, for example, has contributed to a serious decline in catfish
fisheries in the Missouri River (Funk and Robinson 197*0. Moreover, the
standing crop of all fish has been estimated to be 25? less, and that of
oatchatle-size fish §1$ less, in sections of the river without snags
relative to areas with instream cover structures (Hickman 1975).
Removal of saags also results in a severe reduction in fish food
resources (Hansen 1971, Arner et al. 1976), since most of the aquatic
invertebrate production in large, unstable-bottom rivers is associated
with these structures.
74
-------
Although bank stabilization and navigation structures (i.e.,
levees, dikes, \0ek3 and dams) have major effects on the physical
environment of main river channels (particularly flow characteristics),
biotio integrity appears to be more adversely affected by impacts of
these modifications on extra-channel habitats. Dikes and wing dams, for
example, have severely reduced the number and quality of backwater and
sido channel habitats on the Missouri River ana thereby contributed to
declines in walleye, aauger, orappio, aunfiah, and black baaa
populations (funk and Robinson ..19.11), Loss, of e.x^ra-channel habitats
due to installations of levees ana dikes and cf-aonellzation has also
been linked to a decline In riverine rish species lrt IBS uppiP"
Mississippi River (Ellis et al, 1979. Vanderford 1980).
As In snail stream environments and because of the severe impacts
of channel straightening on ecological Integrity, we recommend that
these river modifications be stopped. Moreover, attempts should be
made, at least In small rivers, to restore characteristics of the
physical environment (particularly pool and riffle habitats) that have
been destroyed by these activities. It also is clear that actions must
be taken bo prevent continuing degradation and loss of extra-channel
habitats. This includes implementation of land conservation practices
to reduce excessive sediment inputs from upstream, preventative measures
to control siltatlon during dredging and spoil disposal operations, and
employment of mitigation techniques for existing and planned navigation
and bank stabilization efforts. Finally, at.tenpt3 should be nade to
maintain instream cover structures in at least selected reaches.
SUMMARY
A number of physical attributes of stream ecosystems, including
major habitat divisions as well as specific components such as cover,
substrate, and fluvial characteristics, are primary determinants of
biotls integrity. Man-induced modifications of these parameters alter
characteristics of fish communities, often leading to their degradation.
Preservation of ecological integrity in streams and rivers requires an
integrative viev of all factors.
75
-------
TABLE 11. -DOMINANT FISH SPECIES (BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF FISH
CA'JGHT) Ifl NATURAL AND CHANNELIZED SECTIONS OF THE GLENTAKGY
(froa Criswold et al. 1979) AMD L'JXAPALILA (Froo Arner
et al. 1976) RIVERS.
Olentangy River1
Natural Channelized
d
-------
REFERENCES
Code letters at the end of each bibliographic entry refer to the
soetion(s} (see Table of Contents} in which the reference was cited.
Arncr, 0, K., H. R. Hoblnette, J. B. Fraaler, and M. Gray. 1976.
Effects of channelization of the Luxap ili.la River on fish, aquatic
invertebrates, water quality, and furbearer.i. U. S. Pish and
Wildlife Service, PHS/QBS-16-G8. 5flp. 0
R5n pares stream habitat conditions and relative populations of
plankton, d«oroinvert«brateB, fish, and aanaals itr-xrild
channelized, newly channelized and unchannellzed
segments of the Luxapalila River, Aiabama-Mlsalsalppi.
Significantly more fish specie were captured In the
unchannellzed segment. Major differences In fish
speclea composition also occurred. The newly channelized
sesnent appeared to be dominated by transient species.
Auten, J.T. 1933- Porosity and water absorption of forest soils.
J. ftgric. Res. 16s 997-1014. H
Shows that, porosity and water absorption rates are higher in
old growth forest soils than in open, cultivated soils.
Baker, J. A. and S. T. Ro3s. 1981» Spatial and temporal resource
utilization by southeastern eyprinids. Copeia 1931: 178-189. l,,fj
Shows strtam 3ize, water column position, and vegetation affinity
to bo important in habitat segregation among eight minnow species.
Behnke, R. J. and B. F. Raleigh. 1975. Crazing and the riparian
zones impact and management perspectives. Pages 263-267 in
Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands
and Other Riparian Ecosystems. Syrap. Proc., USD A, Forest Service,
Washington, D. C., GfB-WO-12, K
Describes stream habitat changes associated with overgrazing of
riparian vegetation. Gives management suggestions for resolving
conflicts concerning use of riparian/stream ecosystems by
doaestic livestock.
77
-------
Blanuhi, D. R. and R. Marcoux. 1975. The physical and biological
effects of ohysical alteration on Montana trout atresias and
their political implications. Pages 50-59 ir. R. V. Corning,
R. F. Raleigh, G. D. Schuder, Sr., and A. Hood (eds.)
Strean Modification Symp., Harrisonburg, Va. 0
Demonstrates pronounced differences in brown trout numbers and
relative biooass in stream reaches with different degrees of
stroaabank alterations.
BUby> h> Et. andfi, E. Likens. . idfio... Jopor.tanc# of. organlo debri*-
da»8 in the structure and function of stream ecosystems.
Ecology 61s 1107-1113. J.V.O
Describes the form and function of organic debris dams In
forested streams. Debris dam removal resulted in major changes in
streaa habitat structure (i.e., elimination of pools and
waterfalls) as veil as a two-fold Increase In total carbon
export from the study area.
Bode, I. T, 1920. The relation of the smaller forest areas In
non-forested regions to evaporation and movement, of soil water,
Proc. Iowa Acad, Sci. 27: 137-157. H
Measured evaporation rates and soil moisture content of surface
and subsurface layirs of forested and open area soils. Found
that even small forested areas are t.ble to prolong the movement
of water through the soil profile.
Brazier, J, It, and G. W. Brown, 1973. Buffer strips for stream
temperature controls. Oregon St, 'Univ., Forest Research Lab.,
Corvallis, Oregon, Research Paper 15. 9 pp. 3,J
Relationships between angular canopy density, canopy height,
channel width and discharge, and water temperature were studied
to determine effective widths of buffer strips. For small
streams, maximum shading ability corresponded with 80 ft (25 ra)
wide buffer strips.
Broderoon, J. K» 1977. Sizing buffer strips for maintaining water
quality. M.S. Thesis, Ur.iv. of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, D
78
-------
Brown, 0. W. and J. T. Krygier. 1970. Effects of clear-cutting on
streaa temperature. Water Resour. Res. 6: 1133-11*
Conparos diurnal and naxiavm monthly temperatures of a stream
before and after clear cutting; also compares eleurcut area to
patch cut area.
Brown, S.» M. M. Brlnson, and A. E. Lugo. 1978. Structure and
function of riparian wetlands. Pages 17-31 in Strategies for
Protection and Management of Floodplaln Wetlands and Other Riparian
Bcosystwrar symp. vroerruSDA,-T6TO5t-wvrai7
Washington, D. " C., CBf-MO-IZ." J
Describes functions and geemorphology of riparian ecosystems.
Bulkley, R. V., T». W. Bachmann, K. D. Carlandor, !I. L. Fiersttne,
L. B. King, 3. W. Hcnzftl, A * L » Wit ten , and D ¦ W. Z ljruner •
1976. Warmwater stream alteration in Iowa: extent, effects on
fish, and fish food, and evaluation of stream improvement
structures (Summary-Report) 0. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
FWS/QBS-7&-16. 39 PP. E
Summary report of a study on stream alterations in Iowa, For
details sea King and Carlander (1976), Henzel and Fierit'.ne (1976),
Zinsser and Gachroann (1976), and Mitten and Bulkley (1975).
Burgess, 3. A. and J. R. Bider. 1930. Effects of stream habitat
improvements on invertebrate-,, trout populations, and mink
. activity. J. Wildl. Manage. UHi 871-880. F
Reports increases in aquatic insect, crayfish, and trout
production with installations of Mall dams, cover, and other
channel improvements.
Burke, T. D. and J. W. Robinson. 1979. River structure
modifications to provide habitat diversity. Pages 556-561 in
The Mitigation Symposium: A National Workshop on Mitigating Losses
of Fish and Wildlife Habitats. USDft, Rocky Mtn. Forest and
Range Exp. Sta., G7R-RM-65. F
Describes structural modifications that are uaed for mitigating
effects of navigation dikes on the Missouri liver.
Burton, G. W. and E. P. Odura. 19^5. The distribution of stream
fish in the vicinity of Mountain Lako, Virginia.
Ecology 26: 182-19'J. L.N
79
-------
Describee conditions of temperature, a treats size, altitude, p3,
and gradient that seen to detcrwine the distribution of fiah
in mountain in streams.
Cairns, J. Jr. 1978. the modifications of inland waters. Pages
1*6-161 in H. P. Brofcaw (ed.). Hildlifa and Aeerica. Council
on Envir. Quality, U. S. Govt. Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.B
CalMoun, A. 1*)66. Habitat protection and i»pcQ*«n.eafc* Ew» W
#» Caitwun (W1.) iniawa Fisheries Management. California
Sept. Fiah and Game, P
Promotes the use of large rocks for atreaa restoration, citing
thslr stability as an advantage over other instreaa devices.
Campbell, K. L-, S. Kumar, and H. P. Johnson. 1972. Streaa
straightening effects on flood runoff characteristics. Trans,
Amer. See, Agr. Eng. 15: 91-98. K
Studied flood runoff in straightened and unmodified sections of
the Boyer River in western Iowa. Results indicate that
straightening and diking of natural streams increases the
magnitude of the peak discharge, significantly shortens the time
base of the discharge hydrograph, and reduces the time of travel
of the flood wave down the river,
Carlander, H. 3. 195*5« History of fish and fishing la the Upper
Mississippi River. Upper1 Miss. River Conservation
Committee, 96 pp. B
Carlander, K. D. 1969, 1977. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology.
Vols. I, II. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Towa. 752 pp.,
S31 pp. B
Cherkauer, 0, s. 1973. Minimization of power expenditure in a
riffle-pool alluvial channel. Mater Rcsour. Res.
9s 1613-1628. H
Claflin* T. R. and R. G. Rada. 1979. A field test of the
regression simulation model in Fountain City Bay and a study of
the effects of diverting water into Upper Fountain City Bay,
Wisconsin. Final Report to Great River Environmental Action Tea®,
Contract No. DACW37-77-C-013&. F
80
-------
Reports on effects of diverting wst-r into h baeicwater region of
the upper Mississippi Fiver.
Colby, B. R. 1961. Discharge af sands and sear velocity relatlonshi
in sand-bed streams.
-------
Cross, P. B. and J. T. Collins. 1)75. fishes In Ksn-a«.
R. P. Johnston (ed,), Univ. of Kansas Publications, Musern of
Mat. Hist., Lawrence, Kansas. 18"> pp. C
C'jalni, K. W. 1972. What is a r'ver?- Zoological description.
Pages 13-52 In R. T. Oglesby, C. A. Carlson, J,
MoCann (eds.). Pi*er Ecology and Man. Acadealc Press,
Maw York, N. f. N
Gives art overview of zooiogl' a} coaponents of running waters and
dtaoribas adaptation* that waH« uinlti to 1!w tn varreus
types of s&raaa habitats.
Cuaaina, K. ti. 1971. Structure and function of stream «cosyst#»s.
Bioscience 2«i 631-6*1. C, .
Describes anergilie relationships In woodland atreans.
Cummins, K. W. 1TT5. The ecology of running waters: theory and
practice. Pages 227-293 m Free. Sandusky liver Basin Syntp,,
Inter. Ref. Group. Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use
Activities. C
Curry, R. R. 1976, Watershed form and proces.u the elegant balance.
Coevolution Quart. 1976/77: 1*1-21 - H
Describes anercry flow tliroufi an Integrated watershed system with
emphasis on the relation be^.^en morphology of the nystcra (e.g.,
slope, vegetation, channel 3 ape, rainfall, drainage, soil
stability, etc.) and energy flux. Indicates that perturbations
in the watershed will ultimately decrease the long-term
productivity of the system.
deMaroh, B. 0. E. 1976. Spatial and temporal patterns In
macrobenthic stream diversity. J. Fish. !*ss, Sd» -Can.
33: 1261-1270. M,I
Found dirtinct Invertebrate f?una associated witn silt, sand, and
boulder substrate. Suggests that temporal changes in the fauna
are related to the stability and sorting of substrates.
Bendy, F. E- and G. C, Bolton. 1976. Sediment yield - runoff -
drainage area relationships in the United States. J. Soil Water
Cons, 31: 26>i;266. H
82
-------
Sragoun, F. J. and C. R. Miller. 1966. Sedlnent "haraeteristica of
two .mall agricultural vaterahsds. Trans. ASAE 9: 66-70. I
Dudley, D. R. and J. R. Karr. 1978. Reconciling str«anbank orosion
control vit!rwatew~ quaTitirgoal ST"PIles 1O1-T05 in J. Morrison
(ed.)f Enviroatontil Iropnct of l.cnd Use on Water Quality; Final
Report on the Black Creek Project (Suppl. Comments).
U. S. Bnvironaentnl Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois.
B? A-905/9-7 7-007-t>. i,H
Describes problems connected with streawbank erMicn and its
control. Indicates that water resource degradation in agricultural
watersheds is as much due to poor physical stream environments as
any specific pollutant. Suggests guidelines for
strearebank erosion control.
Dunne, T. and L. 1. Leopold, 1978. Hater In environmental planning.
W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. H,I
Good general reference on watershed hydrology,
EinsVoin, H- A. 1972. Sedimentation (suspended solids). Pages
309-318 in H. T. Oglesby, C. A. Carlson, and J, A. McCann
(eds.) River Ecology and Man, Academic Press. Washington D.C. I
Ellis, J. M., G. B. Farabee, and J. B. Reynolds. 1979. Fish
communities in three ouccessionai stages of side channels in the
Upper Mississippi River. Trans. Mo. Acad, Sol. 13: 15-20,
Examined fish communities in three side-channel habitats along the
upper Mississippi River, Found narked changes in fish community
structure associated with successlonal changes in side-channel
habitat conditions (I.e., from riverine to lacustrine).
Diversity of tiiese extra-channel hebitats was deemed necessary to
sustain the integrity of the riverine eccsysterc.
Elser, ft. 1, 1968. Fish populations of a trout stream In relation to
major habitat zones and channel alterations. Trans. Am, Pish.
Soc. 97: 389-397. K
Conpare3 stream morphology and relative abundance and bioraaaa of
fish (mainly trout) in altered and unaltered sections of a Montana
stream. Estimated that stream alterations (straightening) resulted
in a 12f loss in trout numbers and a 19? loss in trout bloraass.
83
-------
Evans, J.W, and R. L. Hoble. 1979. The longitudinal distribution of
fishes In an east Texas stream. Am. Midi. Nat. 101; 333-3^3.
L,N
Saapled flrat- through fourth-order strearas In an undisturbed east
Texas watershed. Found gradual changes In structure of fish
coramunities along the longitudinal continuum. Indicated that fish
opeoles diversity was highly correlated with depth while species
richness depended upon a number of environmental paraoeters
sssoolated-with longitudinal position. ~ "" "
Fagen, 0. F. 1962. Influence of stream stability on homing behavior
of .two smallmouth bass populations. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soe,
91: 3W-319. L,N
Suggests that home range of smallmouth baas Is usually one pool
but in some instances may comprise several pools as much as one
half mile apart. Extent of movement, appeared to be a function of
pool stability (particularly relating to siltation) during changing
discharge conditions.
Federal Highway Administration. 1979. Restoration of fish
habitat in relocated streams. 8. S. Department of Transporation.
Washington, D. C. FHKA-IP-79-3. 5
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1968. Water Quality
Criteria. Natl. Tech. Advisory Corraittee Report. Washington,
0. C. 234 pp. N
Sets a turbidity limit of 50 JTU for warmwater streams, 10 JTU
for coidwater streams, and a suspended solids range of 25"to
80 rcg/l for maintenance of good to moderate fisheries.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1970. Industrial waste
guide on logging practices. U. S. Dept. of Interior.
Slorthweat Regional Office. Washington, 1). C. '10 pp. E
Fisher, S. 0. and G.E. Likens. 1973- Energy flow in Bear Brook,
Hew Hampshire; an integrative approach to stream ecosystem
metaboliora. Ecol. Monogr. -'43; 121-139. X
84
-------
Fraser, D. ?. and r. E. Si3e. 1980. Observations cn stream nlnnows
In a ratchy environment: k test of a theory of habitat
distribution. Ecology 61: 790-797, K
Provides avldnnce that pool selectivity by creek chub ti related
to the amount of cover. Also discusses relationships between
population density and distribution* of.«dulfe-and- jofWlilB ci-T»iil<
chu$ ma MackjeafiJkeft.
Prtaling, C. R., 0. P. HcCcnvllle, D. N. NJMsen, and R. H. Vose.
1976. The Weaver Bottoms: A field model for the rehabilitation
of backwater areas of th«» I'ppor Mississippi River by modification
of standard channel maintenance practices. Report submitted
to !J. S. Amy Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, Contract
DACW37-75-C-019'!. 307 pp. F
Relates changes in a backwater marsh area of the upper Mississippi
River to lock and dam construction and other modifications on the
main river channel. Suggests ways of mitigating these changes.
Fraraling, C. R., D. R. McConville, D. N. Wielsen, R. !!. Vose,
and R. A. Faber. 1979. The feasibility and environmental
effects of opening side channels In five areas of the Upper
Mississippi River, Report to the GREAT-I by Winona State College
and St. Mary's College. 853 PP* F
Funk, J. L. 1957. Movement of stream fishes tn Missouri.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 35: 39-57. L
Details differences in the frequency and extent of movement by
various stream fishes.
Funk, J, L. and J. W. Robinson. 1971. Changes in the channel of
the lower Missouri River and effects on fish and wildlife.
Missouri Dept. Conserv., Aquatic Series 11, -Jefferson City,
Missouri, 52 pp. K,M,0
Relates changes in the fishery of the Missouri River between
1879 and 1972 to various channel modifications. Lake sturgeon,
blue catfish, paddlefish, orappie, sunfish, blackbass, and sauger
populations have declined dramatically while carp and channel
catfish have increased in abundance.
85
-------
Gatz, A. J. Jr. 1979. Ecological rsorphology of freshwater stream
fi3hoa. Tulane Studies in Zoo], and Pot. 21: 91-121. M
Celroth, J. V. and G. R. Marzolf. 197S. Primary production and
leaf-litttr decomposition in natural and channelized portions
of a Kansas stream. Am. HidJ. Nat. 99| 238-2*3. 0
Channelized sections had higher^water tenperature®, contained no
natural l»»f-paok»t~an
-------
Channelization typically resulted In a los3 of abundance,
diversity and/or blranass of both fish and ra^croinvertebrates.
However, in sone cases changes in ''ish species composition led to
higher densities and bionass in channelited areas. G1 r.iard *had,
quill back, stonorollers, and other minnows, for exaaple, appeared
to be particularly adapted to habitat provided by channelization.
Mitigation structures (I.e., artificial pools and riffles)
in channelized sections resulted in marrolnvertebrate production
and relative abundance, standing crop, and fltneaa of flahajt
approximating I hat of natural areas. However, the diversity of
both fish and macroinvertebrates was intermediate tc natural and
utuaitigated channelized areas, Indicating some loss of stability
and niche availability.
Guy, H. P. 196M. An analysis of so.se stora-period variables effecting
stream sediment transport. Prof. Paper U. S. Geol.
Survey, Washington, D. G. I
Hall, C. A. "»972. Migration and metabolism in a temperate streaa
ecosystem. Ecology 53s 58'(-6o'l. L,M
Hansen, D. R. 1971. St.rean channelization effects on fishes and
bottom fauna In the Little Sioux River, Iowa. Page3 29-51 in
S. Schneberger and L. Funk (sds.), Stream Channelizaticn:
A Symposium. North Central Div. km. Fish, Soo, Spec. Publ.
No. 2. 0
Found higher total numbers and bioraas3 of macroinvertebrates on
artificial substrates in a channelized section relative to an
unehaonelized section. Suggests that the presence of fish in
the channelized section depends largely on movement into or
through the section frora other areas.
Ilarimn, H. and P. 1. Mundy, 19ft. Diversity indices applied to the
fish biofacies of a small stream. Trans. Aiwr. Fish Soc. 103:
!i57-Wl. L,N
Doacribea temporal habitat shifts and changes in coassunity
structure of fishes in a small stream.
Barrel, R.C., B. J. Davis, and T. C. Dorris. 1967. Stream order
and species diversity of fishes in an intermittent Oklahoma stream.
Am. Midi. Nat. 78: 4-28-36. L,N
87
-------
Suggests that increased fish species diversity with stream order
was duo to an increaso in available habitat and a decrease in
envlronaental fluctuations.
Harrell, H. L. 1978. Fespcnse of the Devil's Elver (Texas) fish
community to flooding. Copeia 1978: 60-68. S
Sampled fish before and after a flash flood in a desert stream.
Although species diversity wa3 lower after the flood the six
dominant fish species remained the sane. Suggests that continued
or Increased docinance by a few species Is typical of naturally
stressful environments.
Haede, B. H. 1980. Stream dynamics; an overview for land management.
General Technical Report RM-72. Rocky Mountain Forest and flange
Experimental Station. U. S. Forest Service. Ft. Collins,
Colorado. I
Good general reference on fluvial processes and dynamics.
Helfman, G, S. 1979. Fish attraction to floating objects in lakes.
Pages 49-57 in D. L. Johnson and R. A. Stein (eels.) Response
of Fish to Habitat Structure in Standing Water. North Central_01v
, Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. No, 6. H
Observed that prey as well as predator speoies tended to hover
under experimental floats. Suggested that shade may afford
protection or concealment because of the relative ability of an
observer to see an object in a shaded area as compared with a
shaded observer's ability to s-je an object in the surrounding
sunlit ares.
Helfman, G. S, The advantage to fishes of hovering in shade.
Copela 1931: 392-100. N
88
-------
Henegar, D. L. and K. W. Harmon. t*»71. A review of references to
channelisation and its environmental impact. Pages 79-83 in
E. Schnebergar and J. L. Funk (eds.), Stream Channelization; A
Sympoalim. North Central Division, Are. Fish. Soc. Sp«c.
Publ. Nunber 2, pp. 79-83- K
Categorizes impacts of channelization.
Hioknan, G. D. 1975. Value of instreaa cower to the fish populations
of Middle Fabius Hiver, Missouri. Aquatic Series Mo. 1H.
Missouri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.
7 pp. J,N,0
Compares abundance, bionass, and relative size of fish collected
in river sections with and without snags. The standing crop of
fish was considerably higher In sections with snags. Snags Mere
important in providing cover and leading to scouring of pools.
Kill? L. G. and W. J, Matchews. 1903. Temperature selection by the
darters, Etheostaaa specksbile and Etheostoma radlosum (Pisces:
Percidae). " Am. Midi. Nat. IClls 412-1)5. N
Found that orangethroat darter exhibits active temperature
selection and pointed out that this species occupies thermally
stable spring runs wheraas" the orangebelly darter probably makes
little use of temperature as a cue- for habitat selection and Is
found in habitats with widely fluctuating temperatures.
Hocutt, C. H. and J. R. Stauffer. 1975. Influence of gradient on
the distribution of fishes In Conowingo Creek, Maryland and
Pennsylvania. Chesapeake ,5c 1. 16: 1 ^3— i^7. N
Found that gradient was the parameter that nosfc influenced the
distribution of species. °oth nunber of finh species and
diversity of species showed, significant negative correlations
•with gradient,
Hornbeck, J, V., R. S. Pierce, and C. A. Federer. 1970.
Streenflow changes after forest clearing in New England.
Water Hesour. Res. 6: 1121132. K
Found that as a result of nearly eliminating transpiration and
reducing canopy interception losses, stream flow increased greatly
during the two years after forest clearing.
8 e
-------
Horowitz, a. J, 1978, Temporal variability patterns and the
distributional patterns of stream fishas. FcoJ.. Monogr. '48s
307-321. H,L,M
Relates flab species richness patterns In streams and rivers to
discharge variability. In general, species richness Increased
with a decrease in discharge variability. Maxlmim species richness
typically occurred in the most downstream stream order and the
replacement rate was lowest In the roost variable sections
and rivers.
Hubbs, C., R. a. Miller, R, J. Edwards, W. Thompson, S. Karah,
G. P. Garrett, 0. L. Powell, T). J. Morris, and 1. W. Zerr.
1977. Pishes Inhabiting the Rio Grande, Texas and Mexico, between
El Paso and Pecos confluence. Pages 91-97 In Importance,
Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitatt A symposium.
USDA, Forest Service, GTR-RM-43. L
Huot, M. 1959. Profiles and biology of western European streams as
related to fish management. Trans, km. Fish Soc. 88:
155-163. L,N
Studied headwater to mouth fish faunal stones along European
streams. Concludes that stream width ar.d gradient are the most
Important determinants of longitudinal sanation patterns.
Hunt, R. L. 1971. Responses of a brook trout population to habitat,
development in Lawrence Creek. Wise. Dept. Mat. Res., Madiaen,
Wisconsin. Tech. Bull, No. 18. F,N
Details changes in a brook trout population after installation
of a series of bank covers and current deflectors.
Hunt, R. L. 1979- Removal of woody streambank vegetation to improve
trout habitat. Wise. Dent. Nat. Resources; Madison, Wisconsin.
Tech. Bull. Ho. 115.
-------
Jahn, L. R. 1978. Values of riparian habitats to natural ecosystems
Pages 157-160 in Strategies for Protection and Management of
Floodplaln Wetland3 and Other Riparian Ecosystems. Syap. Proc.,
USDA, Forest Service, Washington, D. C., GTR-VO-12. D,J
Emphasizes the Importance of riparian vegetation In maintaining
fcho productivity of stream communities.
Kao, D. T. 1980. Determination of sediment filtration efficiency cf
grass media. In Vol. Ij Sediment Filtration Efficiency of
Continuous Crass Media. Univ. of Kentucky Water Resources
Research Inst., Res. Report No. 12^. H4 pp. H
Describes function of grass filters In retarding flow and acting
as a sediment trap.
Karr, .1, R. 1980. Buffer strips, resources and agricultural
development in the Ouanare-Masparro region of Venezuela,
CIDIAT, Merida, Venezuela. 103 pp. J
Reviews functions of nearstream vegetated buffer strips and
evaluates their potential value in various agricultural areas In
Venezuela. Also discusses legislation pertaining to the
protection of land and water resources in that country,
Karr, <1. R. 19&1e. An integrated approach to management of land
resources. From: R. T., Dumke, G. V. Burger, and J, R.
March (ed3). 1931. Wildlife Management on Private Lands.
Wisconsin Chapt., The Wildlife Society, Madison, Wisconsin.
In pre33. A,5,G,L
Reviews current trends in land, water, and associated resources
in intensive agricultural regions of North America. Suggests
ways of improving the effectiveness of various programs
concerned with the conservation of these resources.
Karr, J. R» 1?Blb, Assessment of biotic integrity using fish
communities. Fisheries 6s 21-27. C
Proposes an ecologically based system for evaluating the
biotic integrity of a stream ecosystem using f ishea. A set of
species composition and trophic structure metrics are the
central core of the system.
91
-------
Karr, J, R. and D. H. Dudley. 1978, Biological integrity of
a headwater stream: Evidence of degradation, prospects for
recovery. ?age3,,3s25-,in-J-»"-Moppi8on-'(«K,0
Discusses interrelationships between nearatream vegetation,
channel morphology, and water quality in natural and modified
watersheds.
Keller, E. A. 1971. Araal sorting of bed load material; the
hypotheses of velocity reversal. Geol. Soc. Araer. Bull. 82s
753-756. I
92
-------
Kallar, i» A. 1972, Development oF alluvial stream channelsi A
five-stage model. Geol, Soc. finer, lull. 83s 1531-1536. t
Describes transitional Htage3 in the progression from straight
to meandering stream channels, including aspects of pool and
riffle development.
Keller, E. A. 1975. Channelizations A search for a better way.
Geology 3: 246-2^8. E
Discusses constraints imposed by channelization on 3trearn
channel stability and equilibrium.¦1 Proposes using "pilot"
channels as an alternative to channelization fop flood control.
Keller, E, A. 1978. Pools, riffles, and channelization. Environ.
Geol. 2: 119-T'f. ?
Deraonstrated that natural channel features such as converging
and diverging flows, point bars, and scour areas oould be produced
by manipulating slopes of channel banks.
Keller, E. A. and E. K. Hoffnan. 1977. Urban atreams: Sonsual
blight or aaenity? J. So'.l and Mater Cons, 32: 237-2^0. £
Discusses channel restoration practices for "urban"streams,
Keller, li. A. and W. N. Keltorn. 1978. Rhythmic spacing and origin
of pools and riffles. 3ull. Geol. Soc. ft nor. 89; 723-730. X
Keller, E. A. and F. J, Swanson. 1979. Effects of large organic
natt;rinl on channel form and fluvial processes. Earth Surface
Processes 361-330. J
Contrants effects of large organic debris on channel structure
in low gradient streams and mountain streams. In lovi gradient
streams, »iabrls dams led to local channel scour and widening, the
formation of mid-channel bars, and backwater effects. In steep
mountain streams, sediment was deposited behind channel
obstructions while plunge pools developed inmedlately downstream.
Kern-Kansen, V. and F. H. Dawson. 1978. The standing crop of
aquatic plants of lowland streams in Denmark and the
inter-relatlons'nips of nutrients in plants, sediment and water.
Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Council on Aquat. Weeds. J
93
-------
Klbby, H. V. 1978. Effects of wetlands on w^tor quality. Pages
289-298 in Strategies for Protection and Manageaent or Floodplain
Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems. Symp. Proc, USDA,
Porest Service, Washington, D. C., OH-WO-12. J
Discusses relationships between floodplain wetland- and river
channels.
King, L. R. 1973. Coiaparison of the distribution of minnows and
darters collected in 19^7 and 1972 in Boone County, I~w*. Proc.
Iowa Acad. Sci 80s 133-135. 0
Pound that despite significant habitat loss due to channelization
and other activities by man, the dominant species in a number of
Iowa streams have remained the same. However, water
temperature and substrate alterations due to channelization and
lake construction appear to have led to the extirpation of a
fantail darter population.
King, L. R. and K. F. Carlander. 1976. A study of the effects of
stream channelization and bank stabilization on warswatar sport
fish in Iowa; Subproject Mo. 3. S021 effects of short-reach
channelization on fishes and fish food organisms in central Iowa
warnwater streams. U. S. Pish and "Midlife Service
FWS/OBS-76-13. 0
Studied effects of "re-channelization"* of short stream reaches
(i.e., 0.5 tan) for bridge construction. Recently channelized
reaches tended in be shallower, wider, and had fewer pools and
brush cover than areas above and below. The reduction in brush
piles was particularly significant since they provided important
substrate for invertebrates. Fish species richness was also low
in modified reaches.
Kitcheli, J. F., M. G. Johnson. C. K. Minns, X. 1. Loftus
1.. Greig, and C. H. Oliver. 1977. Percld habitat: the river
analogy. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 31s 1936 1940. N
Klingeman, P. C. anu J. B. Bradley. 1976. Willamette River Basin
atreambank stabilization by natural ceans. Oregon St. Univ.
Water Resources Research Inst., Corvallls, Oregon. 238 pp. E,J
Discusses various aspects or natural means of streaabank
protection - physical shaping of fcWfe tank, vegetative manageaent,
and land management adjacent to ihe stream and Its applicability
ill large river environments.
94
-------
Ruchnc, R. A. 19&2. A classification of streams, illustrated by fiah
distribution in an master.1 Kentucky creel:. Ecology 43s
608-G11. l,m
Describes changes in fish species richness along a stream order
gradient. Suggests that the relation between a .ipecles
and the range of orders it occupies reflects adaptation to
local conditions.
Xuenrler, E. J., P. J. Mulhoiland, L. A. Ruley, and R. P.
Sniffen. 1977. Water quality in Worth Carolina coastal plain
streans and effects of channelisation. V'?.ter Resources Res.
Inst., Univ. of North Carolina, Raleigh, V. C., Rept.
Ho. 127.. 160 pp. J
Kushlan, J. A. 1976. Environmental stability and fish community
diversity. Ecology 57*. 821-825. H
Studied effects of variation in the annual yet-dry cycle on the
fish community of an Evergladga marsh. Found 3hifts in the
co™unity to dominance by large carnivores at the expense of small
omnivores during years when water levels remained relatively
stable. Suggests that under fluctuating conditions, the
predictable cycle of water loss limits the number and kinds of
fish to those capable of repopulating the marsh after dry periods.
Under stabilized water conditions, large fish predators appsar
to exert major control over fish community structure.
Lake, J, 1978. Text of sp&?ch presented to Purdue Nenpotnt Source
Pollution Conaittee, Stewart Cente", Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana, Beeeober* 1, 1973. Published by National
Association of Conservation Districts, Washington, D.C.
5 PP. G
Lane, E. W. 1937. Stable channels in erodlble material.
Am. Soc. Civil Eng , Trans. 63: 123-142. 1
Discusses relationships between v%:ocity distribution and
bed and bank erosion and deposition.
95
-------
Lane, E. W. 1955a. The importance of fluvial oorphulogy in hydraulic
engineering. An. Sac. Civil Eng. Proc., Hydraulic Dlv. 81;
7*5-' to 715-17. I
Lane, E. W. 1955b. Design of stable channels. Trans. ASCS 120:
1231-1279. I
Langbeln. W. B._ 1961. Geometry of river channels. J. Hydraul. Dlv.
ASCE 90(Hy2): 301-312. 1
Discusses energy dynamics of rivers with emphasis on ho* the
system accomodates changes in discharge.
Langbeln, W. B. and L. B. Leopold. 1966. River meanders - Theory
of minimum variance. U. S. Ceol. Surv. Prof. Paper
U22-H. I
Discusses the energetic basis of acander foraation. Provides
evidence that meandering reaches are core stable than straight
reaches.
Larlmore, R. L., W. F. Childers, ;>nd C. Heckrotte. 1959.
Destruction ?nd rc-establistaent of stream fish and invertebrates
affected by drought. Trans. Am, Fish, See. 88: 261-235. L,W
Indicated that fish populations arc capable of withstanding
droughts as long as water conditions In at least sone regions of
the stream do not reach lethal levels. After complete devatering,
21 of the 29 fish species that had regularly occurred In the creek
recolonized it within two weeks after heavy spring rains broke the
drought. Lists factors determining the rate of reinvasicn.
LarLuore, W. R. and P. V. Snith. 1963. The Fishes of Cnaxpalgn
County, Illinois as affected by 60 ye?.ra of stream changes. Til.
Nat. Hist. Sur. Bull. 28; 299-332. B,C
Leopold, B. and Vi. B. Langbeln. 1962. The concept of entropy 5n
landscape evolution. U.S. Ceol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 500-A. T
Leopold. L. 3., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 19o1. fluvial
Processes in Geomorpholcgy. Freenan Press, San Francisco,
California. 522 pp. H,I
Good general reference on hydrology and geooorphology.
96
-------
Likens, G. E., F. H. Bonaann, M. M. Johnson, T). Vi. Fi3her, and
R. S. Pierce *Q?0. Ejects of forest cutting and herbicide
treatment on nutrient budgets in the Hubbard Brook
watershed-ecosystem, Ecological Monographs, 40: 23-6?. K
Included anions the effects of deforestation were najor increases
In water discharge, streaa channel erosion, water tenp«rature,
and export of dissolved inorganic substances. Increased nitrate
concentrations were particularly significant and together with
higher water temperatures and sol&r Inputs resulted in dense
algal blooms during swmer months. Other effects Included tho
eliaination of debris dams and lowering of strezrewater pH.
Lines. I. L., Jr., J. P. Carlson., and R. ft. Cortheil. 1973.
Repairing flood-damaged streams in the Pacific Northwest. pages
195-200 in Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplaln
Wetlands and other Riparian Ecosystees. Syap. Proc., USf>A,
Forest Service, Washington, D. C., GTR-WO-12. E
Discusses streambank stabilization guidelines and practices that
are presently being used In Oregon and Washington. These
include; revegetatlon with fnut-crowing shrubs, grasses,
legumes, and willows; uf! of jetties; and 'Mlntenance of buffer
strips. Also describe? corebInations of structural and
vegetative practices.
Lowdervllk, W. C. 1930. Influcr.ce of fore?t litter on runoff,
percolation, rind erosion. J. Forestry 23; H
Lucy, J. B. and I. R. ftdelsan. 19^0. Downstream natural area.i as
refuges for fish In drainage-development watersheds. Trans.
Aa. Fish. Soc. 109: 532-335. D,0
Conpared downstream fish fauna of three stren-ns with vtrying
degrees of upstreaa drainage development (Including ciianvel
alterations). Fowd that downstream impacts of drainage
development are less severs than impacts within n\-»dif
-------
Lynch, J. A., E. S. Corbett, and R. Moopea. 1977. Inplicatlons
of forest management practices on the aquatic enviroanent.
Fi3herlfes 2: 16-22. 0
Good general review of the effects of forestry on streams.
Mackin, J. H. 1918. Concept of the graded river. Bull. Geol. Soc.
Amer. 59: *463-512. I
Discusses relationships between water-sedlmmt discharge and
stream channel equilibrium
Marzolf. G. R. 1978. The potential effects of clearing and snagging
on streaa ecosystems. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.,
Washington, D. C. FWS/ORS-73/1U. H,W,0
Discusses the hydrolosical and biological effects of clearing and
snagging, particularly in regard to functional aspects of stream
ecosystems.
Matthews, W. J. 1980. Critical current speeds and microhabitat una by
Percinr- ro.moke and Etneostona flabellare (Percidae). ASB
Bulletin 27:"U9. N
Matthews, W. J. and L. 0. H?li. 19?0. Habitat partitioning in the
fish cocnunity of a southwestern river. Southwestern Hat.
25i 51-66. N
Examines ^lici-Dhabitats of four do.-ilr.ant fish species during an
annual wet-dry cycle in a central Qklaho-aa river. Patterns ef
habitat ti3age by these fish reflected dispersal and segregation
during relatively nild environr.antal conditions and convergence
to slailar ulcrohabitato when conditions were rigorous.
Matthews, W. J. and J. 5. Maness, 1?79« Critical therxal mxl-sa,
oxrger, tolfranc«3 and success of cyprlnld fishes In a southwestern
river. An. Midi. Sit. 102 : 37*4-377. N
Relates population dynamics of four nlnnow species during drought
conditions to their temperature and dissolved oxygen tolerances
in laboratory tests.
96
-------
McConnell, C. A.. D. S. Parsons, 1. L. Montgoaery, and W. L-
Gainer. 1980. Stream renovation alternative.-.; the Wolf River
story. J. Soli and Water Cons. 35s 17-20. E
Provides guidelines for minimizing biological impacts during
clearing and snagging operations.
Meehan, H. R., F. J. Swanson, and J. R. Sedell. 1977. Influence:
of riparian vegetation on aquatic ecosystems with particular
reference to salmonid fishes and their food supply. Pages
137-115 in Importance! Preservation and Management of Riparian
Hp.bitat: A Symposiua. USDA, Forest Service, CTR-RX-HJ. N
Mendelson, J, 1975. Feeding relationships among species of Hotropis
(Places: Cyprinidac) in a Wisconsin streaa. Ecological Honogr.
C5s 199-230. J,L,H
Describes spatial distributions -od food habits of fcir species
of minnows. Suggests that adaptations that allow these fishes to
live ir. particular regions of a pool and to fe«d on whatever prey
Is available In that microhabitat a.-e inportan- in emitting
their coexistence.
Kcnge, 3. A., and J. P. Sutherland, 1976. Soecies diversity
gradients: Synthesis of the roles of predav. i-in, competition and
tmpornl heterogeneity, African Naturalist 1".0: 351-359. N
Menzel, **. W. and H. L. Flcrstlne. 1976. A study of the effects o
streaa channelization and hank stabilization on warawater sport
fi3h in Iowa: "ubproject Mo. 5t Sifccts cf lonn-reach streaa
channelizstlon on distribution and ."ibun.1a-.ee of fishes.
U. S. Fish and Wlldl. Scrv., FWS/JBS-76-15. e,C»K,0
Saaplcd fish from channelized and ^channel I zprt prr.irle and
-./oo.-llar.j streams, Araong the various habitat features studied,
gradient was found to be rxjst useful for explaining ths
distribution and abundance of fishes. The primary effect of
channelization was a reduction in community diversity and
stability. Channelized areas appear to act as travel corridors
between favorable reaches of habitat and are of lover value as
breading and nursery areas for many species. Indicated that
downstrea-a high gradient reaches provide a high quality sport
fishii.jf resource, serve as refugia for fishes that aro intolera.it
of prairie stream conditions, and aay also contribute to
rscruitaent of prairie stream stocks.
•XJ
-------
Merritt, R. W. and D. L. Larson. 1978. Leaf litter processing In
floodplain and stream coasnunittea. Pages 93-'05 In Strategies
for Protection ar.d Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other
Riparian Ecosystems. USDA, Forest Service. Washington,
0. C.t GTR-W0-12. J
Hills, B., W. C. Starrett, and F. C. Bellroao. 1966. Man's
effect on the fish and wildlife of the Illinois River. Illinois
Nat. Hist. Surv, Biol. Notes No. 57. 22 pp. C
Hinckley, W. L. 1963- The ecology of a spring stream, Doe Fun,
Meade County, Kentucky. Wildl Honogr. 11. 12# pp. L
Morris, L. A., ft. V. MoHitor, K. J. Johnson, and A. Leaf.
1978. Forest nanagessenfc of VIcodplain sites in the northeastern
United States. Pages 23o-?M? in Strategies for Protection and
Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems.
Symp. Proc., USDA, Forest Service, Washington, D. C-,
GTR-WO-12. D
Foreat nar.ogsaent Is suggested as a suitable use for regulated
floodplain lands (I.e., thos* lands used for flood control).
Muncy, R. J., G. J. Atchison, R. V. Buikley, P. V. Mcnxcl, L. (3
P«rry, an.l R. C- Sixraeri'elt. 1979. Effects of st\??«ndod solids
and sidimcnts on reproduction and e.i-1 y life of vramwaier ''ir.h:
a re/lew. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon. EFA-600/3-79-0«2. 101 pp. 0
Musgrave, 0. K. and S. R. Free. 1936. Some factors which modify
the rate and total amount of infiltration af field soils. J.
Amer. Soc. Agronomy 28: 727-739. H
plsci.ssea 1nporta-.ee of vegetation to infiltration capacity
of soils.
Hewbold, J. D., D. C. Eraati, and X. B. Roby. 1950. Effects of
looking on aero Invertebrates in Mtreaas with ?,i<1 without buffer
strips. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sol. 37: 1076-1085. D
Suggests that buffer strips of 30 n or wider were effective In
preventing major impacts of loggins on henthic
macro invertebrates.
100
-------
Nickelson, T. E. and R. E. HaTele. 1978. ?treamflow requirements
of salsonlds. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wild\-, Ann. ProJ. Rep.,
Fish Res. ProJ: AFS-62. N,0
Relates various habitat parameters, including pool volvroe, cover,
velocity, and wetted area, to standing crop of steelhead 3nd
cutthroat trout and Juvenile coho salmon.
Nielsen, D. N., R. N. Vose, C. R. Freoling, and D. R. McConville.
19?8. Phase I study of the Veaver-Belvidcre area of the Upper
Mississippi River. Report to the GREAT-I by Winona State CoJlego
and St. Mary's College. 225 pp. F
North, R. M., A. S. Johnson, H. 0. Hilleatad, P. A. 3. Maxell,
and S. C. Parker. 197>«. Survey of economic-woologic impacts of
snail watershed develpnnnt. Tech. Ccap. Rep. ERC 0971. Inst.
Nat. Res. Univ. of Georgia, Athena, Ga. 0
Compared fish and riacrobenthos in channeliznd and uncharmeltxed
streams In the Georgia Piedncit. Fish production in the
channelized stream, which had been modified olght years earlier,
was similar to that of the unchanneliied sti'e.vn. However, species
coapoaltion was nnrkedly different In the i\n> :
-------
Odua, E. P. 1969. the strategy of ecosy.^t^.ra devclopoent.
Science 16M: 262-270, 0
Paloinpis, A. A. 1958. Responses of sorae minnows to flood and drought
conditions in an intermittent stream. Iowa State J. Sci, 32:
5^7-561. N
Suggests that survival of fish populations in streaas is possible
during droughts and floods because favorable conditlor.j persist in
limited habitats. These "stream havens" Include smzltributary
streams (e.g., during floods) and Isolated pools during droughts.
P&ragaeian, V. L. 1580. Population dynamics o*" saallmouth bass In the
Maquoketa River and other Iowa streams. Fed. Aid to Fish
Restoration Coopl. Sep. No. 602. Stream Fisheries Invest.
ProJ. No. F-89-R, 66 pp. N
Found habitat sele .ivity aaong a number of small river and
stream fishes. Sral lr.outh ban.i density and standing stock were
significantly correlated with the proportion of coarse gravel and
cobble substrate in saall rivers. However, in snail tributary
strens ana)'.mouth bass were restricted more by wale- depth and
availability of windfalls for cover than bottom type.
Paragaman, V.',. 10Bl. Sone habitat characteristics that affect
abundance aid winter survival cf jmall")Outh bass in the Kaquyketa
River, Iowa. Pages ^5-53 in l. A. Krvnholr (ed.) Warawatcr
Streams Sysposiurs. Southern Division Anerican Fishe-les
Society. M
Parsons, h. A. 1963- Vegetative control of ?treanbank erosion.
P%i*es 1 ?0-36 in Proc. Federal Interagency Sedimentation Cenf.,
::S0A-ARS, Washington, 0. C., Misc. ?ubl. 970. S,J
Gives a mwbor of valuaMe nDggestlons regarding the use of
vegetation far alreanbank protection.
Patrlo, J. H. 1975. Tinber harvest as an agent of forest r.trean
channel modification. Tn R. V. Corning, S. F. Raleigh,
G. D. Schuder, Sr., and A. Wood (eds.) Stream Modification
Syap., Harrisonburg, Va, K
102
-------
Patterson, D. V. 1976. Evaluation of habitats resulting fro®
streanbank protection projects In Siskiyou and Mendocino counties,
California. Paper presented at 7th Ann. Joint Conf. Western
Sect. Wildl. Soc. and Calif.-Nevada Chapt. An. Fish. Soc.,
Fresno, California. E,P
Pfileger, V. L. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Ho. Dept. of Cons.
3^3 PP. K,N
Platts, W. s. 1979. Relationships asaong stream order, fish
populations, and aquatic geoaorphology in an Idaho river drainage.
Fisheries U: 5-9. L,M
Falce, S. R. 197^. Environmental patchiness and the breakdown of leaf
litter In a woodland streaa. Ecology 55: 1271-'282. N,0
Rlsssr, J. 19S1. A renewed threat of soil erosion; it's worse than
the Dust Bowl. Smithsonian 11; 120-131• 5
Sachet, J. A. 1977. A channel stability Inventory for two stream on
the eastern jlopes of the coast range, Oregon. M.S. Thesis.
D«?pt, of Geography, Oregon State Univ. Corvallls Ore. H
S"Person, ."5. c. !'jd.) 1980. Projected effects of Increased
diversion of Lake Michigan water on the f»nvlron.nt*nt of the
Illinois River valley. Report for the CMc.no "iatHct, 'J• S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Prepared by Illinois Natural Wirtcory
Survey, Havana and Urbana, Illinois. C-
Schlosser, I. J. 1981a. Fish co.-naunity structure and function alor.g
two habitat gradients in a headwater strc.iT. Manuscript s^taiittcl
to Ecology. C,L»N
Discusses structure of warmwater strean firth communities along
two gradients: upstream to downs'-re asi <"\nd riffle to
pool. Combines kncwledgo of habitat structure and volume, with
food availability in space and tiae to discuss recruitment
dynar..' cs and growth patterns in stream fishes along tha two
gradients. Both the stream continuira hypotheses and nonequilibtiin
conditions created by seasonal and between year variation in
rainfall refines are important determinants of fish coiisraunity
attributes.
103
-------
Schlosser, I. J. 1901b. Fish community organization In natural and
notified headwater streams. Manuscript submitted to Can. .J.
Fish, and Aquat. Sci. C,L,0
Two streams (one natural and one highly modified) are compared.
Physical habitat attributes, food resource availability, and fish
assemblages vere studied. Concludes that stream notification In
headwater areas hav
-------
Shen, H.W., S. A. Schuma, J.D. Nelson, D.O. Oochri-g, M.M. Skinner,
and G.L. Smith. 19S1. Methods for assessment of stream-related
hazards to highways and bridges. Federal Highway Administration ,
Washington, D.C. Rept. No. FHWA/RD-8O/16O. 241 pp.
Shirazl, M. A. and W. K. Sein. 1979.. A stream systems evaluation -
an emphasis on spawning habitat for salmonids. S.
Environmental.Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
EPA-600/3-V9-109• N
Siaons, D. B. and E. V. Richardson. 1966. Resistance to flow ir.
alluvial channels. U. S. Gcol. Surv. Frof. Paper U22-J.
51 pp. I
Siraonn, D- B., P.F. Lagasse, Y.H. Chen, and S. A. Schunra. 1975.
The River Envlronrient; A reference docunent. Colorado State Univ.,
Fort Collins. I
Slobodlcln, I. B. and H. L. Sanders. 1969. On the contribution
of environmental predictability to species diver?'ty. Pagen
8?-95 in Diversity and Stability in Ecological Systems.
Brookhaven National Laboratory. Upton, New York. M
Smart, ">!. J. and J. H. Gee. 197". Coexistence ar.d reicurcc
partitioning in two species of darters (Percidaei,
Etheostona nigrum and Percln^ ^jtculati. Car.. J. Zoologv 57;
2061-207 iT K
Describes food and habitat segregation by different age groups,
Including seasonal distribution patterns.
Sraith, P. W. 1971. Illinois streams: A classification bns^d on their
fishes and an analysis of factors responsible for disappearance
of native species. Illinois Natural History Survey, Biological
Notes 76. I1* pp. C
Sraith, P. W. 1979. The Fishes of Illinois. Univ. «f 111. Press,
Urbar.a, III. 313 pp. C,N
Soransen, D. L.f M. M. McCarthy, K. J. Middlebrooks, D. n.
Porcella. 1977. Suspended and dissolved solids effects on
freshwater biotas a review. Ecological Research Series, 'J. S.
Environmental Protection Agsncy, Corvallis, Orcgcn.
EPA-600/3-77-0%2. 0
105
-------
Sparks, R. E. 1977. Environmental Inventory and assessment of
navigation poolj 2'A, 25, and 26, upper Mississippi and lower
Illinois rivers: an olectrofishing survsy of the Illinois River.
Special Rapt. No. 5, Water Hesources Center, Univ. of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois. C
Stall, J. B. and C. T. Yang. 1972. Hydraulic geoseiry and low
streaa flow regimen. Univ. of Illinois Water Res. Ctr., Res.
Rept. Ho. 5«. I
Describes a hierarchy of levels through which a stream system oan
adjust its potential energy expenditure. Suggests that the "law of
least time rate of energy expenditure" governs fluvial processes.
Starrett, Vf. C. 1951. Scrae factors affecting the abundance of
minnows in the Des Hoines River, lorfa. Ecology 32: 13-27. M
Relates discharge characteristics to recruitment and population
dyr,aral23 of ainnow3. Indicates that reproductive success is
dependent upon the timing of fclRfc flow.i relative to the spawning
periods of various spades. Also suggests that the maount of
space available flur'ng the low water stages and the extent to
which this spac» is occupied by ninnows an-J possibly other species
may control to a considerable extent the success of reproduction
each year. Thus, floods may have a beneficial effect by thinning
populations «id providing space for young fish.
Stejpnan, J, L. and V. L. Mincklty. 1959. Occurrence of threa
species of fishes in interstices of gra.'el in an area of
subsurface flew. Copeia 1959: 3^1. *1
Found slender roadtcj, fantail Sorter and bonded soul pin in the
interstices of loosely constituted gravel.
Swales, S. and K. O'Hara. 1900. Instream habitat r'sproveient devices
and their use in freshwater fisheries management. J. Environ.
M?nai;o. 10: >67-179. F
Hevievs stream habitat improvement devices.
?arzw9ll, C. M. 1937. Experimental o-rider.ee on tho value of trout
Mtraam improvement in Michigan. Trans. Aner. Fish. Society
16: 177-187. H
106
-------
Thurston, R. V., R. C. Russo, C. M. Fetterolf, Jr., T. A. Edaall,
and Y. M. Baber, Jr. (eds.), 1979. A review of the EPA Red
Book: Quality Criteria fcr Water. Water Quality Section, American
Fisheries Soc. Bethesda, Md. 313 pp. A
foth, L. A. 1978. Rosource partitioning between two species of
darters, Etfteostoma oaeruleims and Etheostoaa flabeltare. M. S.
Thesis. Northern ininoia'lfniv., Dotal b, 111. "133 PP. N
fjiscusses food and habitat segregation by rainbow arid fantail
barters in a saall atresia.
Toth, L. A., 0. R. Dudley, J. R, Karr, and 0. T. Gorman. V)B2.
Natural and man-induced variability In a "ilverjaw alr.ncw
(Erleyrat>a buccata) population. Aaerican Midland Natural 1st.
In Press. 0
Relates population dynamics to r.tream habitat conditions and
modifications.
Toth, L. A., J. R, Xnr**, 0. T. Oorrann, and 0. 1. >j
-------
Trautaan, M. B. 1957. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University
Press, Columbus, Ohio. M,M
Trautman, M. B. and 0. K. Gartaan. 197^. Re-evaluation of the
effects of man-nade modifications or Gordon Creek between 1387
and 1973 and especially as regards to its fish fauna. Ohio J.
Sci. 71: 162-173- 0
Triska, F. J. and K. Cronaok, Jr. 1979. The role of wood debris in
forests and streams. In R. H. Waring Ced.) Forests: Fresh
Perspectives from Ecosystem Analysis. Proc. 10th Ann. Biol.
Colloq., Oregon St. Univ., Corvallls, Oregon. J,N
Depicts wood debris as playing a major role in directing water
flow and sediment storage. Discusses the value of wood debris as
habitat for stream coomunities and as a long-terra nutrient source.
Recomaends that maintenance of wood d*brl3 should be included
in management programs.
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 19^0. Influences of vegetation r-.i
watershed treatment on runoff, silting, and stream flow. US3A,
Washington, D. C., Misc. Pub]. He. 397, 80 pp. SI
Describes relationships between vegetative cover and
watershed hydrology,
U. S. . ep.irt-:ent of Agriculture. 1980. Appraisal 1990: Soil ar.d
Water Resources Conservation Act. Review Draft. Part I,
Part II, Sutnary, Program Report and Enviroaientil Iwp^ct
Statement. USPA, Washington, D. C. 1 vols. 0
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 156i. A Time to Choose
Sumary Report on the structure of Agriculture. 'ISDA,
Washington, D.C. 8,C
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1971. Planning and design of open
channels. Pages 1-17 (Ch. 7) In Channel Design, Installation,
and Maintenance. Technical Release No, 25, USDA, SCS.
Washington, "j. C. E
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Engineering Field Manual for
Conservation Practices. E
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1977,1979(atacndod). National Handbook
of Conservation Practices. E
108
-------
Vanderford, M. J. '[ed.). 190C. Fish and wildlife work group I,
final report to the Great River Environmental Action Team T.
Vol. 5a. 336 pp. B,D,K,M,0
Documents modifications of the upper Mississippi River since the
early 1800's and describes aquatic habitat resulting froc. lock
and dam construction and dredging. Presents guldellnas
and recommendations for preserving fishery resources.
Vannote, K. L., U. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell,
and C. E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuun concept. Can, J.
Fish Aquat. Sci. '37: 130-137. C,N
Suggests that the physical structure of -iverj coupled with the
hydrologic cycle result in consistent pattern? or cc-rcunity
structure and function and organic matter dynamics and processing
along the longitudinal gradient. Hypothesize that the biological
organization In rivers conforcs structurally and runctloni?Ty to
kinetic energy dissipation patterns of the physical system.
Vanonl, V. A. 1975. Sedimentation Engineering, aid. Soc. Civil
Eng., New York, M. Y. I
Wallace, D. C. '97?. The ecology of the silver.'.™ minnow,
Frl nyr.b.i toccata (Cope). Am. Midi. N'at. 87: '72-190. V
Describes detailed fcabltit preferences of silverj*w and bluntnosc
minnow. The two species exhibit 3ubtle differences In current and
decth distribution.
Viharton, C. H. and M. M.Brinson. 1978. Characteristics of
So.itheast-rn River Systems. Pages 32-'!0 1:. Strategics for
Protection and Manap.caent o^ Floodplaln Wetlands and Othvr
Ripa.Man Eoosyste-is. Symp. Proceedings. 'JS2A, Forest "*rvice
GTR-WC-12. J,N
Focuses on the importance of floodplains to b'ctlc food chains and
water quality characteristics cf risers, discusses the value of
floodplaln sloughs, backwaters, and pools, tributary streams, and
headwater swaraps in nesting specific habitat requirements of fish
and Invertebrates.
White, R. J. and 0. M. Brynildoon. 1967. Guidelines for management
of trout stream habitat in Wisconsin. Wise. Dept. Nat. Res.,
Tech. Bull. No. 39, 61 pp. E,F.N
109
-------
Discusses methods and devices for improving in- and nearstr^an
habitat.
Whiteside, B. C. and R. H. McVatt. 1972. Fish species diversity in
relation to stream order and physlcochenical conditions in the Plun
Creek drainage basin. An. Midi. Vat. 88: 90-101. L,M
Suggests that the general increase tn species with increasing
stream order was due to addition of new stable habitats. The
lower order streans were subject to drying up during frequently
ocourring periods of low rainfall and are r«populated by species
Trow higher orders.
Winn, H. E. 1958. Comparative reproductive behavior and ecology of
fourteen species of darters (Pisces: Pcreirtae). Ecol. Moncgr.
28s 155-191. M
Describes seasonal, interspecific, and intranpecific habitat
differences In darters.
Wittcn, 1. L. and R. V. Bulkley. 1975. A study of the effects of
stream channelization and bank stabilization on varnwat T sport
fish In Iowa: Subprojcct No. 2. A study of the impact of ailected
bank stabilization st^uctura.s on gsxe fish and associated
organisms. 'J. 3. Fish and Wildl. Scrv., Washington, n. C.
FKS/OLS-76-12. S
Found that bank stabilization struvtu.-e3 such as -et«rds ar.i
j«ttles had raeasurable Impacts on stream habitat .ind Jnverl2brat^s
but little apparent affect on local game-fish populations. In
fact, deep scour holes produced by these structures were
beneficial to some species.
Wolffian, M. G. and J. ?. Miller. 1960. Magnitude and frequency of
forces in geoflorphic processes. J. Geology $8: 5Q-7U. I
Wyrlck, H. 1968. u. S. Ceological Survey statement for inter-agency
stream disturbance jyrapnsiua. Pages UU-&5 in T>. W. Hobir.son
and A. D. C.erv lg (eds.) Proc. Inter-agency Strean Disturbance
Sywp^lvn. Charleston, W. Va. K
UO
-------
T-.di C. T. 1971a. Potential energy and strewn morphology.
Water Reaour. Bos. 7; 3'>-322. I
Discusses stream channel equilibria relative to potential
energy expendIturo.
Yang, C.T. 1971b. Formation of riffles and poola. Vater Resour.
Res. 7: 1567-IS?'?. I
Gives a {totalled description of riffle and pool foroation.
Tang, C. T. 1971c. On river meanders. J. Hydrology 13i
231-253. I
Examlnea the hydro!ogy of a natural stream and tho processes by
which it adjusts to maintain equilibrulm. Lists water discharge,
valley slope, s-vUment concentration, and geological
characteristics as independent variables and channel slope and
channet geometry as the dependent variables Involved In channel
adjustnent.
timer, 0. W. »nJ R, W. B^chrtam, 1^76. A ntudy of the effects of
stream channelization and hank stabilization on wirmwater sport
fls>h In Tow-.; TabjiroJect >lo. '*. The effects of long-roach
channelization on habit-it and < nvertebror.e drift In s«r-><» Iowa
strc.ms. Fish and WlUll!> 3ervl: channel during low flow3.
Mor»ov^r, sr, ie»1 ty and volatility tn iJopfh and current velocity
did not approach natural level3 !-. channelized streams even ,»rte»«
20 to bO years of recovery.
Zon, R. 1927. rorests and -..'alir In the light of s-Me.itlfle
investigation. Final lepc-rt N.>t. Waterways Com. 1912,
6 2nd Congress, ?rd session. Senatorial Doc. '*69, 1C6 pp. H
DIs.-usssj the relation of forests to watershed hydrology.
Ill
-------
Al'FEHiiXX J
LIST OF C0M*50fJ AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES O!* ,*OX FISHES MEOT1CJ4ED IN TEXT
PETRQMYZONTIDAE
Silver Lanprey - Ichtliyamy^on unicuspis
ACIPF.NSERIDAE
Lake Sturgeon - Acipenscr falvcscons
Shovelnosc Sturgeon - Scaphirhynchus; platorynchus
POl-YDONTIDAE
Piiddlcf ir»h - Poly den spothula
l>i hi. ii I I mm n—» ima n
LEPISOSTEIDAE
Lonfisosn Car - Lcpisosteus or.sous
Shortnosc Gar - L. pjatos'tcpus
AmiDAE
Bowfin - Ani_a c.ilva
ANCUILLlPAt
Ar.erican f< 1 - An-~|u: I1.> ro-.itr.ita
CI-UriDAK
Skipjack Herring - Mosu chry.ochloris
Alabama Sharl - A. aj:ii?ar_-»c
Ciz:a:\l Sh.i:< - Dor".:; or a c(.;-ei;.wum
HICDONIDAK
Gol.icyc - !iiodr>n a\£s;->uU'S
s/.L",o:;n'A?:
Cisco - Corooiiu:; .«rtC£*.i_i
Coho Saltwn - Cfictn hv.ichtis kisutch
Cutthroat "Irout - Sajr0 clV;J.*;
RairJbov (Stoelhead! Trout - S. .riirdfi«>_ri
Brook Trout - Salvelirms fontir.alxs
UMBRIDAE
Central Modminnow - Unbra limi
ESOCIDA£
Grass Pickerel - Esox americanus
Northern Pike - E. lucius
112
-------
Appendix I (continued - page 2)
CVPRIN1DAC
Goldfish - Cras.sius auratus
Carp - Cyprinus carpio
Speck l«>d Chub »• Kvbops 1 s aestival is
Bigeye Chub - H_. anblops
Ilameyhrad Chub - Nwjoiaia blguttatus
Pallid Shiner - Notropis anuiis
Emerald Shiner - N. at-herinoides
Blacknose Shiner - H, heterolepis
Bigeye Shiner - N. loops
Conwon Shiner - K. cornutns
Pugnose Minnow - N. emiliae
Spot fin Shiner - N. spilopterus
Sand Shiner - N. strawincus
Red fin Shiner - X. nmbrat il ts
Topeka Shiner - K. toj*«ka
Black tail Shiner - M. vc mistus
River SHinci - i£. Mc.-.nius
Ghost Shiner - N. b'-ichanar.i
Striped Shiner - S. chrysowpha 1 u.-~.
Suckerrouth Minnow - Mionacobius nin!:i 1i
Bluatr.osc: Mitir.ow - Pimci-hal.'S rot-ituf.
Pul U eiid Minnow - P. vini lax
Blacki.oi-c D.ice - Khinichthys jtra'.ulus
Creek Chub - Scaotilus atrenaejlatns
Cc>tr,i!ion St.onorollcr - Canoostor.* anoinaium
CATCnTC'i ID/.r
Whitf» Sucker - Catertonus cosrersoni_
Blue Tucker - Cyc lfptur, ^xor,.'3tus
Smallm,3»uh Buffalo - let iobus bun.tlur;
Blgir.ou>.h Puffalo - . cypri r,<;l I us
Ulue.t Buffalo - 1_. r.t-M
River Carp'.ueker - C.irpi&doi carpio
Qdillback - C. cyprinu:;
llighf in Carpsuckei - C. ve i l far
Northern Hogsuckcr - liypcntcli in nigricans
Blackt<«il Kcdhors*? - floxestoma poccilurttti
Golden Red horse - X. orytnrurur;
Shorthead Redhorse - M. Biacrolepidotun
Silver Redhorse - It. anisnruri
113
-------
Appendix I {continued - page 3)
ICTALURIDAE
Channel Catfish - letalurus punctatus
Blue Catfish - I. furcatus
Black Bullhead - I. r.clas
Yellow Bullhead - I. natalis
Flathead Catfish - Pylodictis olivaris
Slender Madtom - Noturus exi'lis
Stonecat - K. flayus
APIIREDOOERIDAE
Pirate Perch - Aphrcdoderus nayanun
ATHF.RINIDAE
Brook Silvorside - Labiderthcs siccuius
PERC1CHTHYIEAE
White Bass - Moron? chrysops
CEHTRAKCHIDAE
Hock Bar.s - Anbloplitcs rup*»stris
Blucgill ix.'pomis rtaerochirus
Green SunTis!* - L. cyanei Lus
ljar Suncish - V. r.'calot is
Waraouth Sunfinh - L. anlosus
Spotted Sunfirh - L, punctatus
Largemcath Bar.s - Kicropto, us sal:toidcs
Smalinouth russ - K. dolo.?'eui
Black Crappic - Por-axis nigtom.'.cul.itur.
White Crappic - P. annularis
PERCIDAE
Gicenside Darter - Kthocstoira ble'ir.eides
Painbow Darter - F. cao.-i:lcn:n
Fanta.il Darter - F. flabel lare
Orangabelly Dar to*- - E. radios^
Johnny Darter - E. niurum
Orangcthroat Darter - E. spoctahilc
B] untr.ooo Darter - £. chlorosoniL-n
Slough Darter - E. nracile
Yellow P«rch - Perca flavescens
Blackside Darter - P. nmculata
Sauger - Stizostedion sanadense
Walleye - S. vitreun
Pikepcrch - S. lucioperea
SCIAE71IDAE
Freshwater Drum - Aplodinotus grur.r.icns
114
-------
APPENDIX IX. A3 UN DAI ICE t POPULATION TRVAWS, ANT* ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF FISHES OF THE
ILLINOIS KIVKH BASIH, NOTE - KKY AT LUU OF TABLK FOR SUPERSCRIPTS.
Kipjl jticn Tyj»ic*l
?M*lrtltVi» VfC»hJ :«£nrc it 14-us. rood ^
AHjfeldr.'o* SJs uw ¦ jm rl
Sil.cr L;-iprc/ - £. :n;c• r•¦; tr, t :;C D KX-LN P
Anrt 1C4R brvok Lc^rv/ * t<* I :fn>ttv* H 0 HW-KK Pi
AC Iff.',.!
^ts.ciwu^ -A ; tj t i._.r » f «j'» v«<--• vi.n I: L* (J* ir»tf
J!sMV.-ii»o>c '1'i'i
r^f.vu^.T!; ae
i^viJi'j fi«« - 1« n tj I j
ft O L* 2ft*
pi
urnc-si:.:;)*!.
;foitcJ ;;»r - hssizumx ocuLxti^ « d km !/»•
lur i;.o*.c •; »r - I.. • WC C U-K* I/i
si.or* ^ .u '.ar • i . i 1 it. •"pj'i r- l>-KH !/•»
C.tr - L. ^ • 1-* • uA *
,VU tUAt
btwf trt « Ami j ;.i«v< U!iC D H«* 1/P
ArrjiLii^Ar
/i.r ktjn cvl - Ar*ft 11 "¦ a Wl U L* P
Cm*:
Oicc«ir
-------
Appendix II (continued - page 2)
Current Population Typical
kclativfr Trend Sine* Strew Food
AlAKirfanco* i»I>0 Size6 K«blt>
SALKGKXDAE
Circa - Coregonns artcJii
Rainbow Trout - galpo jdiusaoi 1
G5KEKXDM?
Srsclt - Osncrus wnzdzx
EX Ex
Sporadic Introductions
Introduced
Lake ~Lfi
Lako-iJi
Pi
I/*
I/F
VM&RiDAE
Central Kuvlninnow - Umbra 1 isfri
ESOCIL'AE
Craiia Pickerel - Eoox anericamia
Northern Pike - E. lucias
CVPRWtDAE
Coldtibh - Cra¦;^urdtus
Southern ftalLel iy Dace - H'oxinua orythcoqastor UNC
Carp - Cyprifius carpifr
Craus Carp - Ct^nOf.haryn'?*j*km vk-ll.i
Ui lvc?r j.iv# Niwtuw - kncyrJ^i IaiccjI.i *
Stiver Chjb - H'/Lct^is utorvrwm*
SffcCfclcd Chub - H. .>estiv.*I in
Gravel Clmb » H, M-fnit/Gt at*
tturnvyhvzd Chith - Hococai;* hirjuttatiJu
Galdun Shiner - l*ctv£uawus_ gtyftlcucas
I2nt%iruld «• riot r^ is dthrerinoidcfi
Qlackr.gstj Shiner - H. hutmalrpig
Airjcye SlHtior - I*.
Ccwboti iihintr* - 14. coriwLiis
Pwjnostf Minnow * rl. cr.iliac- >
S(x)Uail Sliinqr If. lniHi.nnim*
ftauyfucti Shiner - IU ^uU'iju^
Spot fin Shiner - M." ypiicpfcerus
S«ml Shiner - M, strap incur?*
Sedfin Shiner - N. unhrnti, lis;
«:i»iiivr - »," t uV
Hivei allium - H. blymiluu
Ghost Shiner - li. lucn.noni
uwc
s
wc
D
uuc
D
e
(Intro,| I
•r mc
D
vc
flntro.) D
K
{Intro.IF
ujic
i>
U»C
P
owe
&
EX
Lx
e
U
c
D
vc
D
H
D
Jrt
D
UKC
D
R
D
VC
S
tINC
D
bite
D
A
S
t*
s
i:x
EX
trNJ
D
mc
D
KR-HW
m
m
m
y.k-ui,
Ui-MR
MR-UW
La
utt
m
LR-MR
m
Mh-HW
iiW
hk
LK-MR
KB -
m< iw
Uk'lttf
IIW
Lakti-KR
MI'-Lfc
m
Oan
Z/9
I/P
Herb
G»n
Herb
I.->v
Inv
Inv
7
Imv
rxxA
Im*
iMn
Irv
:i v
liw
Inv
In*
In*
In*
Inv
t
Inv
7
-------
Appendix II. (continued - nags J)
ironcolor Shiner - tl.
Striged Shiner - M. chrysccct/nnlus
Bigzaouth Shiner - r;. dorsiii-j
ReJ Shiner - 29, lutronjia
Silvnrband Shiner - fi. shtwdrdi
K'*uqnathtt& nuchaills
Suckcmoutu Minnow - Phcrnjicobima rr.lrjbiiis
&lrlrieitua
Black &vff&l© - 1* nijr
Jlor Litem Mogiiuckcsr - ilyj'ismtaliuff ni^rienng
River &jdiiors? - Maxostorrsa carlnalua
Golden Bed horse - R. *?rr*r.rijf :cn
JhorLht^d KeiJhorse - M. macrolepidotum
Greater ftctihorse - [3. vaI• j¦<:ii*nr.i-^i
Silver k*vl!;orse - jjU. atiisurufli
Black Itedhorse - H» duMuesnei
Currant
F-eiativc ^
Abundance
Population
Trend Since
1B&0
Typical
Site"
rood
HaMtl
ISliC
€
vc
vc
UMC
R
Ti
ft
EK
VC
c
A
VC
C
UtJC
h
c.
IMC
S
D
1
1
S
D
0
D
Ex
D
0
S
1
r>
D
i
s
D
HW
HW-.MR
ir-f-.'in
tr«r-Mft
tfc
llW-Ut
HR
HW-K.fi
HW
Kft
fLH-irW
IM-M*
KM
HK-!,*
i!M
I'M
::p-nw
j;w
Inv
fnv
Can
Inv
?
?
Ow*
Inv
Itorb
Kerb
Inv
0*»
lam
(MU>
Inv
Herb
Herb
vc
p
F.
&
R
r
c
i;
c
vc
n
UNC
n
c
use
Ex
K
B
&
b
D
D
D
S
I)
s
s
I
fi
b
S)
D
S
Ex
t>
S
mt-m*
IiW
iw
itv~ym
Lh-M^
Lfi-Kfc
LR-KB
LJl-HK
M.k-!'yr
-k*
KH
H%
KH
lilt
KH
Inv
Inv
Inv
*nrf
Inv
riA»k
Inv
Onn
Crv.
-------
Appendix XX (continued - page 4)
XCTAUmi 0A£
Channel Catfish - Ictalurus pgnctatus
Whit* Catfish - I. cafutl
Blue Catfish - JL. turcjtut
Blajrfc Bullhead - JU n«? *lis
Brown Bullhead - notrjlojug
Flathead Cathead - FyloJictis Qlivaris
Slender Hadto;s - Notu rus cxilis
Stcnec.it - N. flv/uu
Tadj^Gle Hadtos - N. gyrinus
Krseklcd {^dtcai - !I. noctumus
CYmscowriDAS
Sanded KiilifisH - Pundulurt diafihonus
fUf>ck-%tripe Topcinnov - r. notatur*
3toi hca'I Tcpfflinriow - F. di spar
00 POLCUIIDAE
HCsqjitoSifh - S«>»faurch - Pcrcopriisi ortiscccnaycus
M»Hfl£DOU£RIf>AE
Pirate Vorch - ArhrcdoJorus s
-------
Appendix II (continued - page 5)
COTTIDAE
Mottled sculpln - Cottias balrdi
liar.dcd Sculpin - C. c«trolinag
PERCI CHTtiYI DAS
hid to S«*s« - Itaronc chry^ops
Yellow Bass - tu misilssi r
CEifTttttCH U*E
Rock 6ass - fcabt^ailtes
Bluc7i.ll - jLCpo;a>'j aacsochiyus
Green St;nfish - U cvj; vl
Crurtjcspottcd Suftfiah - U huaiHg
JUnWcar £wi€izi% - J-. j l»i
insert Surtli&U - L. giliUu.stis
^cJny 1 }*
¦
Wu^tvra Sand iMTtcX - temacrjytn elgfa
KuJ iartvr -
iuinbov Da. tru* - H, c.i'-rul'un
Ikw* Darter - E» oxilo
fantjzl Latter - I. fI ->bo 11 ate
Leant Uurtt:t - K. ;?iic»or*<-rca
Jebrny fc. uij«£4^
^irasj jutnr^il Dartur - l . i U>
Is iur.c Hoarier - £. tlilr'?!''i-'I-'ft1
&ii4»u jt, U.ir*.ui' - n. nr^clifi
da.vJd Darter - E. w.jle
Vcllow frrcti - rare* f l-wnsc-mft
Lwjfcrch Uartcr *• Porclna caprodoa
Current Population Typical
Relative Trftnd Si net Stream
AbunJjnc«a Itt$D 1050C
rood
tub itsd
H
K
itw
IIW
lev
X/»
LR
U*-L»ke
i/v
I/P'
c
c
vc
<:
R
U(C
R
UHC
K
EX
C
c
C"
c
B
S
s
E>
8
D
St-or«4ic Intro.
D
D
EX
{Intro.) 5-1*
D
U
D
MR
HP,
III#
KW-XR
HW-KW
KK-iW
Hft-HW
KR-HW
m
m
LP-MR
MH
l,R,HR
!.R,K21
1/P
1/9
1/9
l/f
1/P
l/f
Inv
I/P
?
In*
1/9
I/*
!/»'
1/*
Ux Ex MH-LK Inv
UHC D LH-Ml Inv
C D HW-HR Inv
tx EX KR-HW Inv
me D HW-MR Inv
U 0 HW Xnv
vc D Kli-lfM Inv
VC i» JiW Inv
UtIC D 5IK-LS Inv
R S Htf-Ut Inv
R |> HW-LR IRV
u:ic d uitm t/p
UNC t> KR-HW Inv
-------
/"n'sndix II (continued -- page 6)
Dlackiide Carter - P, nuirulata
sie.i.lorlu!jil Baxter - v, -J.- >:.< rixtAia
Kiver ttortnr - V. ahonordi
S&J'jktf - Stitor;'tV;H6n ^m-idcria
W^lleyu - ij. vlt * vurt
Current
Kel«.iv# ^
Abundance
Population.
Trend Slr.co
laso*
Typic&l
Stream
iS50C
UMC
use
It
it
St
mi
mH
KH-M
KH
rood
K*bit»d
Itiv
Dw
Ift't
l/p
!/«¦
SCIAEtHMil
'vt Inotes crunnten*
KR-m
1/P
mi
c
o
^current reiativo abundances) front Allison And Noihc» 1«175
h **• Abundant* ft »-j tuuauroii* «v iu b*i usually arm of the dominant secies*
VC - Very cecworw A specie* which is readily catch tbie, uoually In lard unu&lly in w.deAAU! t.> laf'jc numbers.
Ittt - Unccnvfton. A species securing raLhor rugulArly in collect ontla.
EK - LOiX, Species whose nurlivrr^ hjve bt.cn so drastically
reduced they arc conaidexed extiriaied or extremely rare.
£kni r'.o ot if«C*#raiti«n
7QCrii^xai fatra, habitat a:id food habits dfttu, K.irt «nd Jmdlny 19?|i
-jivor«
V * 1'iavivoic
------- |