Tech
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
NOTES
5
September 2008
Michael T. Barbour, Steven A. Dressing, and Donald W. Meals. 2008.
Using biological and habitat monitoring data to plan watershed projects.
Tech Notes 5, September 2008. Developed for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA, 16 p. Available online at https://
www.epa.gov/poiiuted-runoff-nonpoint-source-poiiution/nonpoint-source-
monitoring-technical-notes.
Through the National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program (NNPSMP),
states monitor and evaluate a subset of watershed projects funded by the
Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Control Program.
The program has two major objectives:
1. To scientifically evaluate the effectiveness of watershed technologies
designed to control nonpoint source pollution
2. To improve our understanding of nonpoint source pollution
NNPSMP Tech Notes is a series of publications that shares this unique
research and monitoring effort. It offers guidance on data collection,
implementation of pollution control technologies, and monitoring design,
as well as case studies that illustrate principles in action.
Using Biological and Habitat Monitoring
Data to Plan Watershed Projects
Introduction
The goal of this Tech Note is to explore and promote the use of biological and habitat
data in watershed planning and evaluation. The status and condition of resident aquatic
biota are important to water quality assessment programs and to the overall goals of
protecting and restoring surface waters. This document is not intended to provide
complete instruction in the process of biomonitoring but rather to provide a foundation
for understanding the important roles that biological and habitat information can play
in watershed planning and management. The material provides information so that
knowledgeable individuals and groups can work with professionals to develop effective
biological/habitat monitoring efforts to help achieve the goals of their watershed project.
1.0 Overview of Watershed Planning Process
The watershed planning process used in this Tech Note can be organized into six major
steps (USEPA2005):
1. Build partnerships
2. Characterize the watershed to identify problems
3. Set goals and identify solutions
4. Design the implementation program
5. Implement the watershed plan
6. Measure progress and make adjustments
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has expanded on these basic
planning steps and identified nine necessary elements of any watershed project using
Clean Water Act section 319 funds to address nonpoint source (NPS) isssues, TMDLs
1
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 2008
Tech
(Total Maximum Daily Loads), and watershed-based plans in support of TMDLs
(USEPA2003):
1. An identification of the causes and sources that will need to be controlled to
achieve the load reductions and other watershed goals identified in the watershed-
based plan;
2. An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures to be
implemented;
3. A description of the NPS management measures (BMPs) that will be implemented
to achieve the estimated load reductions and achieve other watershed goals of the
plan;
4. An estimate of the cost and amounts of technical and financial assistance needed
and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement the plan;
5. An information/education component to help achieve project goals;
6. An expeditious schedule for implementing the management measures in the plan;
7. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS
management measures or other control actions are being implemented;
8. A set of criteria for determining whether loading reductions and substantial
progress are being achieved over time and, if not, the criteria for determining
whether the plan or NPS TMDL needs to be revised; and
9. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation
efforts over time, measured against the criteria established for the project.
Understanding the interrelationships among the physical, chemical, biological, and habitat
characteristics of water resources and the management and use of land in the watershed is
essential to fully restoring and protecting water quality For example, a narrow focus on
reducing chemical and physical pollutant loads in response to a watershed management
plan, without recognition of the roles these pollutants play as ecological stressors could
result in only partial success where load reduction targets are met but water quality goals
as measured by biological and habitat criteria are not achieved. It is the fundamental
linkage of physical, chemical, and biological dimensions of watersheds and water resources
that forms the basis for much of the discussion that follows.
2.0 Overview of Biological and Habitat
Monitoring
Biological data have been used for many years by state and local water quality agencies to
evaluate the ecological health of aquatic ecosystems. This approach uses biological surveys
and other direct measurements of resident aquatic biota to assess surface water conditions
(Gibson et al. 1996). During surveys, data are generally collected on the physical habitat
and specific biological assemblages such as plants, fish, and benthic macroinvertebrates.
2
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 200S _
Tech^ypj^
The status and condition of resident aquatic biota are key indicators of water quality and
can provide information that is distinct from momentary
measurements of physical or chemical variables. Because the
aquatic biota are continuously exposed to cumulative and
multiple environmental factors in the environment, they
reflect the overall condition of the waterbody and associated
watershed. The character of the resident aquatic biota is the
ultimate proof of attainment of designated aquatic life use
support. For watershed planning, biological indicators and
associated data are useful for ecological risk assessments
relevant to management decisions related to correcting
existing and preventing future problems.
The physical habitat represents the set of environmental conditions and constraints
that supports or limits a biological community and includes such features as the
geomorphology of the waterbody, the riparian zone, physical and chemical constituents
dissolved or suspended in the water, and substrate and refugia for aquatic organisms.
Measuring the components of the physical habitat is important to understanding and
interpreting biological data because habitat is a major influence on what kind of organisms
can inhabit the system.
Several questions can be addressed with comprehensive biological and physical habitat data:
1. What is the condition of the aquatic resource?
2. Is the resource impaired or degraded?
3. If there is a problem, what are the stressors?
4. What is the biological potential upon mitigation or restoration?
2.1 Relationship Among Biological, Physical, and Chemical
Monitoring
The concept of ecological integrity embraces the
combination of biological, physical, and chemical
integrity. These three broad components of an ecosystem
are inseparable in understanding the functioning of a
healthy waterbody. The condition of the aquatic biological
community reflects the exposure to, frequency, and duration
of single or cumulative stressors in the ecosystem. In
watershed planning, ecological attributes of the biological
community can be considered response indicators of the
multitude of stressors.
g\CAL //V7-£.
<^°V \
Chemical Physical
Integrity Integrity
Biological
Integrity
3
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 2008
Tech
Natural structural, functional, and
taxonomlc integrity is preserved.
Structure & function similar to natural
community with some additional taxa
& biomass ecosystem level functions
are fully maintained.
Evident changes in structure due to
loss of some rare native taxa; shifts in
relative abundance; ecosystem level
functions fully maintained.
Moderate changes in structure due to
replacement of sensitive ubiquitous
taxa by more tolerant taxa; ecosystem
funcitons largely maintained.
Sensitive taxa markedly diminished;
conspicuously unbalanced distribution
of major taxonomic groups; ecosystem
function shows reduced complexity &
redundancy.
Extreme changes in structure and
ecosystem function; wholesale
changes in taxonomic composition;
extreme alterations from normal
densities.
Watershed, habitat, flow
regime and water chemistry
as naturally occurs.
Figure 1. Biological condition gradient (BCG).
In a water body, a biological condition gradient (BCG) can be visualized that responds
to a gradient of stressors (Figure 1). The horizontal axis represents exposure to any
combination of stressors that affects the ecosystem; the response of a suitable biological
indicator is used to track the overall biological condition, represented by the vertical
axis. Anywhere along the BCG a condition can be identified based on specific ecological
attributes that reflects the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the waterbody.
Because of this, watershed planning should encompass all three monitoring domains—
biological, physical, and chemical.
The concept of the BCG is the underpinning to effectively implement biological and
habitat assessments into watershed planning. Appropriate bioassessment adheres to basic
critical technical elements that are addressed during design, methods development, and
data interpretation (Barbour and Yoder 2007) (see Figure 2).
2.2 Elements of Survey Design for Bioassessment
The first five elements in Figure 2 comprise components of survey design. Bioassessments
are best conducted under established and tested index periods. This optimizes the collection
of information from an aquatic community that transitions through spawning, nursery,
and emergence functions. Although perturbations in a watershed can occur at any time
of the year, interpretation of biological data from index periods provides evidence of the
4
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 2008 _j_ ^
severity of those perturbations. Watershed planning needs to
incorporate an adequate spatial coverage of sites from which
the biological and habitat measurements are taken. Over-
extrapolating from too few sites in a watershed is a serious
flaw in the design. Classification frameworks separate natural
distinctions between waterbody types (Barbour et al. 1999),
e.g., warmwater or coldwater streams; headwater streams,
wadeable streams, nonwadeable streams, and large/great rivers,
etc. Depending on the types of waterbody in your watershed,
expectations for biological endpoints will vary. Ideally, BCGs
are developed for each type of waterbody to most effectively
define biological expectations. These expectations are the
reference conditions critical to a survey and assessment design.
Appropriate reference conditions are formulated based on non-
biological criteria but that correspond to the higher biological
condition levels on a BCG.
2.3 Methods Development of a Bioassessment Program
Sample collection methods should be appropriate for the waterbody type and region of the
country. The Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) provide details on methods for the
various assemblages (Barbour et al. 1999). Taxonomic resolution, i.e., the identification
to family vs. genus vs. species, is key to a bioassessment program. While biological
impairment can sometimes be detected by identifying organisms only to the family level,
often the value of biological data for a causal analysis is diminished unless genus/species
information is available. How the samples are processed—in the field or in the lab—can
be critical to the quality of the data. The proper quality control checks need to be in place
to ensure confidence in the results. An effective and efficient data management system
for maintaining the data cannot be underestimated, as many condition assessments are
hampered by improper and inadequate data management procedures.
2.4 Elements of Data Interpretation and Reporting
Understanding the pertinent ecological attributes of the biological assemblage is key to a
bioassessment program and constitutes the foundation of the BCG. These attributes are
often equated to biological metrics as a means of summarizing raw data into meaningful
endpoints. Multiple metrics can be used to aggregate and convey the information
available regarding the elements and processes of aquatic communities (Barbour et
al. 1999) and address four primary categories: (1) richness measures for diversity or
variety of the assemblage; (2) composition measures for identity and dominance of
species present; (3) tolerance measures that characterize sensitivity to perturbation;
Key Technical Elements
1. Index period
Design
2. Spatial coverage
3. Natural classification
4. Criteria for reference sites
_ 5. Reference conditions
6. Taxonomic Resolution
"O
o
.c
7. Sample collection
0)
11. Biological endpoints
'km
Q.
i_
12. Diagnostic capability
0)
¦*->
_c
13. Professional review
Figure 2. Critical elements of a
bioassessment program.
5
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 200S _
Tech^ypj^
and (4) trophic or habit measures for information on feeding strategies. These metrics
and ecological attributes can be aggregated into multimetric indices (e.g., Karr's Index
ofBiotic Integrity [IBI], see Karr et al. 1986) or into a predictive model, such as the
River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System [RIVPACS] where the observed
taxonomic representation in a sample is compared to a calculated expected value. Barbour
et al. (1999) present a more detailed discussion of these two approaches. Using ecological
attributes or endpoints that provide diagnostic capability assists in identifying the causes
ot impairment. This capability is referred to as using biological response signatures that
are associated to individual or multiple stressors (Yoder and Rankin 1995). Finally, any
bioassessment program is strengthened if a professional review of the methods, calibration
of endpoints, procedures for analysis and interpretation is conducted. The most robust
review is from independent technical experts knowledgeable in bioassessment approaches
and their application in water resource programs.
The use of physical habitat information in an integrated report is useful for aiding in the
interpretation of the biology (Barbour and Stribling 1994). Because the habitat is the
foundation for the structure and function of the aquatic community, treating the habitat
data as a dependent variable is a useful technique. In addition, the habitat itself is a function
of landuse, and habitat metrics or variables serve as response indicators in assessment.
3.0 Opportunities to Use Biological and Habitat
Data in Watershed Project Planning
3.1 Building Partnerships
Biological and habitat data can be used effectively to build
partnerships because they allow individuals to visualize problems
better than can be done in many cases using chemical and physical
data alone. While people may find it difficult to appreciate the
significance of high nutrient levels, depressed dissolved oxygen
concentrations, or elevated water temperatures, they can easily
understand declining fishing success, depletion of prized fish species,
fish advisories caused by mercury contamination, or outright fish
kills. Rallying people around a cause requires that they understand
the issues, and biological and habitat data can contribute much in
that regard as evidenced by the role volunteer monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates
has played in increasing community involvement in local water quality issues.
In addition to increasing awareness of local water quality problems, biological and habitat
data can be important in setting project goals and indicators of progress. The Chesapeake
Source: fieldandstreamblog.com
6
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 2008 _j_ ^
Bay Program, for example, reports Bay health to the general public using three data types:
fish and shellfish populations, habitats and lower food web, and chemical/physical water
quality variables (CBP 2008).
3.2 Characterizing Watersheds
Use of biological indicators to understand resource condition. The interpretation of
biological data is grounded in the understanding of the condition of the resource that is
expected under unperturbed or minimally disturbed scenarios—a condition termed as
reference condition. Typically, a reference condition is regional and not local, so that natural
variability in biological communities can be incorporated into the characterization of
reference (Barbour et al. 1999). Once a reference condition is established, a best attainable
condition can be described. This condition reflects the balance between a regional
reference condition that may be outside of a watershed of interest and the best attainable
condition given the level and intensity of land use modification and effectiveness of
implemented or proposed BMPs to offset the influence of stressors. Understanding
the connection between established reference conditions and selected indicators is an
important component of using biological information. For example, a diverse warmwater
fish fauna might be expected to occur in natural Midwestern streams. Any loss of species
or reduced abundance of native species would be a deviation from this reference condition.
From these scientific underpinnings, biological indicators can be used to determine the
status and condition of the water resource.
Use of biological and habitat measures to identify causes and sources of problems
in the watershed. Biosurvey techniques are best used for detecting aquatic life
impairments and for assessing their relative severity. Once an impairment is detected,
however, additional ecological data, such as chemical, hydrogeomorphology, land use,
and perhaps ambient and/or whole effluent toxicity testing are helpful to identify the
causative agent and its source, and to implement appropriate mitigation (USEPA 1991).
The identification of stressors causing the problem indicated by ecological condition
requires detective work, and the several types of data needed for a good analysis are not
always available (USEPA 2000). The availability of rigorous biological data is useful in
stressor identification because many biological response signatures are known (Yoder and
Rankin 1995). For example, the benthic assemblage becomes dominated by filter feeders
in nutrient rich waters; exposure to sublethal doses of toxic trace metals is known to
cause lesions and tumors on fish. Teasing out specific stressors is a process of elimination
and weight-of-evidence (see Figure 3). Sometimes, it is an iterative process whereby one
stressor is eliminated and the data are re-evaluated. In all cases, having biological data
enhances the evaluation and determination of actual problems and diagnosing those
problems in watersheds.
7
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 200S _
Tech^ypj^
Detect or Suspect Biological Impairment
Stressor Identification
LIST CANDIDATE CAUSES
ZE
ANALYZE CAUSES
CHARACTERIZE CAUSES
EUMNATE
MANAGEMENT ACTION:
Eliminate or Control Causes;
Monitor Results
V
Biological Condition Restored or Protected
Figure 3. Stressor identification process.
USEPA's Causal Analysis/Diagnosis
Decision Information System (CADDIS) is
an online application based on the stressor
identification process depicted in Figure 3.
An online Guide organizes the process
into five steps (USEPA2008). If probable
causes of identified water quality problems
can be identified with a high degree of
confidence using this process, then the
next steps may include allocating the
contributions of different sources of the
cause and developing and implementing
management options. Accurate and
defensible identification of the cause is
the key that directs management efforts
toward finding solutions that have the best
chance for improving biological condition.
Physical habitat data from an appropriate
spatial design are useful to determine
if there has been any habitat alteration
within the watershed, and particularly
upstream or upriver from noted
perturbations. The structure of the
physical habitat (as an aquatic organism sees the
habitat) is critical for maintaining refugia, nursery
and spawning areas, feeding regimes, etc., which, in
turn, are required to maintain a stable ecosystem. As
habitat degrades, direct effects from runoff, erosion,
and sedimentation can be compounded and escalated
as the streams/rivers flow downstream. Where
physical habitat quality at a test site is similar to that
of a reference, detected impacts can be attributed to
water quality factors (i.e., chemical contamination) or
other stressors (Barbour et al. 1999).
Stressor Identification Training Modules
Two stressor identification modules originally developed as part
of USEPA's 2003 National Biocriteria Workshop are available
online at www.epa.gov/waterscience/biocriteria/modules/.
The SI 101 course contains several presentations on the
principles of the stressor identification process and a case
study: www.epa.gov/waterscience/biocriteria/modules/#sil01.
Use of biological and habitat data to identify information gaps. Biological and habitat
surveys are often used as screening tools to identify the need for more intensive data
gathering to fill information gaps regarding watershed condition. Depending on the
sampling design, biological surveys can be planned to occur as an initial data gathering
technique or to target areas where other types of data suggest a problem exists. For
8
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 2008 _j_ ^
example, if fish sampling reveals the presence of lesions or tumors indicative of metals
pollution, investigators can then explore potential metals sources and measure metals
levels in the watershed. Having a robust data set of ecological information provides a true
characterization of the condition of the surface waters within a watershed.
3.3 Setting Goals and Identifying Solutions
As discussed above, a reference condition can be used to set the best attainable condition
for the watershed. When anchored to a BCG, the reference condition can be used for a
benchmark of biological potential and for restoration goals. Values for ecological attributes
associated with this condition can also be used to set both overall and intermediate project
goals. The range of the biological condition gradient can be subdivided into categories
corresponding to various levels of impairment. Priorities can be set on mitigation plans
and BMPs, based on the severity of impact, or the best likelihood for restoration and
recovery. For state and tribal programs having tiered aquatic life uses that correspond
to the BCG as a foundation, identifying attainment of designated uses and potential
solutions to portions of the watershed in non-attainment can follow a prescriptive process
with biological condition as the ultimate arbiter of recovery.
Goals for land treatment and pollutant source control could be based at least in part
on results of a stressor identification process that leads to identification of causes and
potential sources of pollution or degradation in the watershed. If sufficient research
has been done to form relationships between stressors and biological indicators, it may
be possible to develop project goals that incorporate these relationships. For example,
a sub-objective to protect the number of native fish species could be set based on the
relationship to sedimentation and benthic oxygen depletion. Implementation of BMPs
would then be directed to reducing sedimentation from upstream erosion and increasing
benthic dissolved oxygen levels to the point where native species respond sufficiently for
measurable improvement of water quality and achievement of the sub-objective.
3.4 Designing the Implementation Program
Implementation of land treatment in watersheds typically involves an identification of
the BMPs to be implemented based on the problems being addressed or prevented, BMP
locations, implementation mechanisms, and an implementation schedule. BMP selection
and design are driven by the need to achieve water quality and land treatment objectives set
for the project. Again, knowledge of linkages among biological indicators, habitat indicators,
and stressors is essential to selecting and designing BMPs that will get the job done. Stressor
identification leads to a better understanding of the causes and sources of problems measured
with biological indicators, making it more likely that BMPs can be targeted to the sources
and activities at those sources that must be controlled to solve the problem. This formal
9
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 200S _
Tech^ypj^
approach to identifying causes and sources can also help to identify causal relationships that
are otherwise not immediately apparent and prevent biases in the planning effort.
Research has demonstrated many links between land management and ecological
conditions in a water body Habitat degradation, for example, can result from land
disturbance in a watershed; an increase in stream nutrient levels may dramatically alter the
character and type of macroinvertebrate community Ecological condition is also known
to be affected by invasive exotic species or removal of riparian zone vegetation. These
known or probable linkages can be helpful to frame the discussion regarding the BMP
implementation plan. Much is unknown at this time about the subtle relationships among
stressors and biological and habitat indicators, however, so it is prudent to consider the
full range of potential stressors whenever developing a BMP implementation plan. Such a
process is used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) to develop a Resource Management System, which is a combination
of conservation practices and resource management activities for the treatment of all
identified resource concerns for soil, water, air, plants, animals, and humans that meets
or exceeds the quality criteria in the FOTG (Field Office Technical Guide) for resource
sustainability (USDA 2007).
To illustrate, a screening level analysis using a biological survey may reveal obvious and
possibly some subtle problems in a stream system. Data may show that fish assemblages
are lacking in diversity or numbers, and a closer look at species richness and abundance
metrics indicates potential siltation, habitat alteration, or even toxicity problems in the
watershed. In this case, multiple stressors of both a chemical and physical nature are
probable causal agents. The Stressor Identification Process is implemented to ascertain
the most appropriate mitigation measures. With these multiple stressors, it could be
that BMPs are selected that stabilize the riparian area, provide improved habitat, and
reduce discharge of toxic materials to the stream without addressing the need to provide
a better flow regime, with the end result being a healthier watershed, but one that still
fails to support a fish community normally expected in such a watershed. Monitoring
the effectiveness of BMPs is crucial to detect whether prescribed recovery is occurring,
and in this particular watershed, additional investigation is needed to determine why an
improvement in the fish assemblage is not attained.
Delineation of critical areas based on biological and habitat data is similar to the process
based on chemical/physical monitoring data in that a reasonable starting point is to
assume that the portion of the watershed draining into the area where impacts are
detected contains the critical areas. Critical area delineation is further refined based on
other important factors such as lag time, source magnitude, and the potential for improved
management at suspected sources. When considering biological communities, however,
it is also very important to consider the health of the source population for recolonization
10
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 200S _
Tech^ypj^
and recovery. If only a portion of the watershed is impaired, then it is likely to recover
more rapidly than in a watershed that is completely disturbed, and colonization from
outside of the watershed is the primary source.
4.0 What to Consider When Selecting and
Implementing Biological/Habitat Data
Collection
• Understand waterbody classification/types and take advantage of classification
systems developed in your area (where available). It is important to determine the
types of waterbodies in your watershed and how different waterbody types relate to
different biological expectations and therefore different endpoints.
• Take advantage of reference condition work developed for your area. It is
unlikely that you will have a sufficient range of conditions to truly develop
reference conditions in your watershed. Consult with your state environmental
agency for information on their biomonitoring program.
• Make use of state-specific or eco-regionally refined indices whenever possible.
These are typically more appropriate and provide more information than broad-
scale or general indices from a textbook. The more regionally refined your data
collection and assessment approach can be, the more useful your data will be to
your watershed project.
• Fully understand what the biological indicators you are using mean and what
they do not mean, and, therefore, what they can and cannot do. Some metrics,
for example are designed to look at sediment-related issues, while others may be
more responsive to chemical stressors.
• Select and use methods that are appropriate to the biological indices you have
chosen. If you are using a state-developed index, failure to use similar methods,
equipment, and taxonomic resolution will result in data that are not comparable.
• Be sure to collect a core set of physical, chemical, and habitat data to
complement your biological data. Such data may be critical to identifying
stressors and determining sources of impairment. To the extent that similar data
are also being collected by states or other organizations in your area using similar
methods, your data will be more comparable and enhance interpretation.
11
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 2008 _j_ ^
5.0 Examples of Use of Biological and Habitat
Data in a Watershed Project Planning
Process
Example 1 Sometimes, habitat and biological data alone are sufficient to
both characterize a problem and suggest the solution. In the Upper Grand Ronde
Basin (Oregon), loss of spawning habitat and elevated stream temperatures
(due to loss of riparian vegetation) caused a decline in trout populations over
the past 30 years, leading to a National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
(NNPSMP) project aimed at restoration of the fishery. Biological surveys and
habitat assessments were used to design restoration efforts focused directly on
the stream and riparian zone. Riparian fencing, channel reintroduction to an
historic wet meadow meander pattern, extensive riparian planting, and creation of
off-channel pond habitats were successful in restoring both temperature regimes
and trout population (Whitney and Hafele 2006). Investigators also concluded
that livestock exclusion by itself was not enough to recover sensitive aquatic life if
stream channel and habitat conditions remained degraded.
The Vermont Rapid Habitat Assessment
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources is developing a new process-based rapid habitat assessment (RHA) that links the
processes that form and maintain physical river habitat with processes that support the life cycle requirements of aquatic
plants, macroinvertebrates, and fish. The RHA protocol has been developed with the ultimate goal of linking the assessment of
physical and biological components in flowing waters.
The RHA includes eight physical habitat attributes—Woody Debris Cover, Bed Substrate Cover, Scour and Depositional
Features, Channel Morphology, Hydrologic Characteristics, Connectivity, River Banks, and Riparian Area. Indicator data are
collected to score each parameter, and then a final score is produced to investigate deviations from an expected reference
condition. The RHA has been stratified by stream types that include riffle-pool (dune-ripple), step-pool (cascade, bedrock),
plane bed, and braided (alluvial fan) to account for expected differences in physical processes and the associated reference
habitat condition.
When added to the Agency's Stream Geomorphic Assessment protocols, the RHA will permit scientists to look at the health of
rivers and streams based on a joint assessment of geomorphic condition and physical habitat quality at spatial and temporal
scales previously looked at in very few analyses. Such information can be used for a variety of applications such as identifying
opportunities for restoration and protection projects, supporting biomonitoring data to establish causation, and guiding river
corridor planning.
Following field testing and pilot studies conducted in 2007, the RHA is expected to be released in spring, 2008.
http://www.vtwa terquali ty. org/ri vers.h tm
12
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 200S _
Tech^ypj^
Example 2 In other cases, however, habitat and biological data by themselves
may not be enough to guide successful restoration if other factors play a role
in causing the problem. The Waukegan River (Illinois) NNPSMP project
documented biological impairment with fish, macro invertebrate, and habitat
surveys, as well as visual observations of eroding streambanks and high storm
flows. The project sought to restore the fishery through a combination of
biotechnical streambank stabilization measures and in-stream structures such as
lunkers and improved pool and riffle sequences. Although habitat improvements
were clearly documented and some small early improvements in fish numbers
and several biological indices were noted, the project did not achieve the hoped-
for improvements in the fish community (White et al. 2003). Project staff
attributed this shortfall to a failure to address extremes in flow regime from the
highly urbanized watershed or to other pollutants such as toxics that were not
revealed in habitat and biological surveys. The project would have benefited
from a more complete stressor identification process. This outcome illustrates
the importance of combining both habitat/biological and physical/chemical
data to develop a full understanding of the problem as the basis for designing a
successful treatment plan.
Example 3 Biological data should be integrated with other data when
identifying causes of impairment. Human activities such as mining, logging,
agriculture, and residential development have degraded biological conditions in
many streams of West Virginia. Using benthic macroinvertebrates as biological
indicators of stream health, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) identified streams across the state that do not meet aquatic
life use designations: these streams are considered to be biologically impaired.
TMDLs are required for all streams that are classified as biologically impaired,
and the TMDL process mandates that stressors to the biological community
are identified so that pollutants can be controlled within each watershed. Using
EPA's stressor identification guidance (USEPA2000) to identify and rank
physical, chemical, and biological stressors that may have impaired the aquatic
community in Clear Fork of Coal River, candidate causes were identified.
Watershed characteristics such as land use and soils, plus point-source inventories,
site observations, and other lines of evidence were included in these analyses to
help identify stressor sources. The strongest inferences were when the biological
predictive model agreed with watershed-exclusive observations of stressor
measures.
13
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 2008 _j_ ^
Definitions
Assemblage - an association of interacting populations of organisms in a given
waterbody, for example, fish assemblage or a benthic macroinvertebrate
Benthic macroinvertebrates - animals without backbones, living in or on the
sediments, of a size large enough to be seen by the unaided eye and which can
be retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve (28 meshes per inch, 0.595 mm
openings). Also referred to as benthos, infauna, or macrobenthos.
Bioassessment - a survey and evaluation of the condition of the aquatic resource
using organisms.
Community - the aggregate of assemblages that inhabit an ecosystem. In this
case, the aquatic community includes benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, algae,
plankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, etc.
Ecological Integrity - the condition of an unimpaired ecosystem as measured by
combined chemical, physical (including habitat), and biological attributes.
Habitat - all aspects of physical and chemical constituents that support aquatic life.
Index Period - A consistent seasonal time frame for sampling that minimizes
between-year variability while optimizing accessibility of the target assemblages
and maximizes efficiency of sampling crews and gear. Ideally, the optimal
index period corresponds to recruitment cycles of the organisms (based on
reproduction, emergence, growth, and migration patterns).
Multmetric Index - data structure that combines indicators, or metrics, into a
single value. Each metric is tested and calibrated to a scale and transformed
into a unitless score prior to being aggregated into a multimetric index. Both an
index, and metrics, are useful in assessing and diagnosing ecological condition.
Reference Conditions - the set of selected measurements or conditions of
unimpaired or minimally impaired waterbodies characteristic of a waterbody
type in a region.
RIVPACS - a predictive method developed for use in the United Kingdom
to assess water quality using a comparison of observed biological species
distributions to those expected to occur based on a model derived from
reference data.
Stressors - physical, chemical, and biological factors that adversely affect aquatic
organisms.
assemblage
14
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 200S _
Tech^ypj^
Additional Resources
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI)
http://www. uwsp. edu/cnr/research /gshepard/History/History. htm
(accessed February 13, 2008)
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/ibi-hist.html
(accessed February 13, 2008)
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioassess/BioCriteriaProtAqLife.html
(accessed February 13, 2008)
Volunteer monitoring
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/voluiiteer/
References
Barbour, M.T. and C.O. Yoder. 2007. (Final Draft) Critical Technical Elements of a
Bioassessment Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science
and Technology, Washington, D.C. (number not available).
Barbour, M.T. andJ.B. Stribling. 1994. A technique for assessing stream habitat structure.
In Proceedings of Riparian Ecosystems in the Humid U.S.: Functions and Values. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. 15-18 March, 1993, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 156-178.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, andJ.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton,
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/(accessed February 12, 2008)
CBP. 2008. Bay trends and indicators, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annanpolis, MD
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators.htm (accessed February 12, 2008)
Gibson, G.R., M.T. Barbour, J.B. Stribling, J. Gerritsen, andJ.R. Karr. 1996. Biological
criteria: Technical guidancefor streams and small rivers (revised edition). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D. C.
EPA 822-B-96-001.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and Its Rationale. Special
Publication 5. Illinois Natural History Survey.
15
-------
National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program
September 2008 _j_ ^
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2007. Title 180—Conservation Planning and
Application.
http://policy.nrcs.usda.gov (accessed September 24, 2007)
U.S. EPA. 1991. Technical support document for water quality based toxics control.
EPA 505-2-90-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2000. Stressor identification guidance document, EPA/822/B-00/025,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
http://iuiuiu.epa.gov/iuaterscience/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.pdf
(accessed February 11, 2008)
USEPA. 2003. Supplemental guidelines for the award of section 319 nonpoint source grants
to states and territories in FY 2003.
http://iuiuiu.epa.gov/oiuoiu/nps/ciuact.html (accessed March 6, 2008)
USEPA. 2005. Handbook for developing watershed plans to restore and protect our
waters - DRAFT. EPA 841-B-05-005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC, 414 pp.
USEPA. 2008. Step-by-step guide introduction. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/caddis/step.cfm?step=14 (accessed February 11, 2008)
White, B., J. Beardsely, J. Rodsater, and L. Duong. 2003. Biological and physical
monitoring of Waukegan River restoration efforts in biotechnical bank protection and
pool/riffle creation - annual report May 31, 2003. Illinois Department of Natural
Resources, Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL.
Whitney, L. and R. Hafele. 2006. Stream Restoration and Fish in Oregon's Upper Grand
Ronde River System. NWQEP Notes. The NCSU Water Quality Group Newsletter
http://iuiuiu5. bae. ncsu. edu/programs/extension/iuqg/issues/notesl23.pdf
(accessed March 6, 2008)
Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological response signatures and the area of
degradation value: New tools for interpreting multimetric data. Pages 263-286 in
W.S. Davis and T.P Simon (editors). Biological assessment and criteria: Toolsfor water
resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
No. 123.
16
------- |