Chapter 5 (part A) : Habitat Assessment And Physicochemical Parameters
You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page for more information about getting and using the free Acrobat Reader.
RBP Home | Table of Contents | Download the RBP | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D
- Download full PDF version of Chapter 5 (PDF, 2 MB)
This Chapter is divided into two parts: Part A (this file), and Part B
An evaluation of habitat quality is critical to any assessment of ecological integrity and should be performed at each site at the time of the biological sampling. In general, habitat and biological diversity in rivers are closely linked (Raven et al. 1998). In the truest sense, "habitat" incorporates all aspects of physical and chemical constituents along with the biotic interactions. In these protocols, the definition of "habitat" is narrowed to the quality of the instream and riparian habitat that influences the structure and function of the aquatic community in a stream. The presence of an altered habitat structure is considered one of the major stressors of aquatic systems (Karr et al. 1986). The presence of a degraded habitat can sometimes obscure investigations on the effects of toxicity and/or pollution. The assessments performed by many water resource agencies include a general description of the site, a physical characterization and water quality assessment, and a visual assessment of instream and riparian habitat quality. Some states (e.g., Idaho DEQ and Illinois EPA) include quantitative measurements of physical parameters in their habitat assessment. Together these data provide an integrated picture of several of the factors influencing the biological condition of a stream system. These assessments are not as comprehensive as needed to adequately identify all causes of impact. However, additional investigation into hydrological modification of water courses and drainage patterns can be conducted, once impairment is noted.
The habitat quality evaluation can be accomplished by characterizing selected physicochemical parameters in conjunction with a systematic assessment of physical structure. Through this approach, key features can be rated or scored to provide a useful assessment of habitat quality.
|5.1||PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND WATER QUALITY|
Both physical characteristics and water quality parameters are pertinent to characterization of the stream habitat. An example of the data sheet used to characterize the physical characteristics and water quality of a site is shown in Appendix A. The information required includes measurements of physical characterization and water quality made routinely to supplement biological surveys.
Physical characterization includes documentation of general land use, description of the stream origin and type, summary of the riparian vegetation features, and measurements of instream parameters such as width, depth, flow, and substrate. The water quality discussed in these protocols are in situ measurements of standard parameters that can be taken with a water quality instrument. These are generally instantaneous measurements taken at the time of the survey. Measurements of certain parameters, such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity, can be taken over a diurnal cycle and will require instrumentation that can be left in place for extended periods or collects water samples at periodic intervals for measurement. In addition, water samples may be desired to be collected for selected chemical analysis. These chemical samples are transported to an analytical laboratory for processing. The combination of this information (physical characterization and water quality) will provide insight as to the ability of the stream to support a healthy aquatic community, and to the presence of chemical and non-chemical stressors to the stream ecosystem. Information requested in this section (Appendix A-1, Form 1) is standard to many aquatic studies and allows for some comparison among sites. Additionally, conditions that may significantly affect aquatic biota are documented.
|5.1.1||Header Information (Station Identifier)|
The header information is identical on all data sheets and requires sufficient information to identify the station and location where the survey was conducted, date and time of survey, and the investigators responsible for the quality and integrity of the data. The stream name and river basin identify the watershed and tributary; the location of the station is described in the narrative to help identify access to the station for repeat visits. The rivermile (if applicable) and latitude/longitude are specific locational data for the station. The station number is a code assigned by the agency that will associate the sample and survey data with the station. The STORET number is assigned to each datapoint for inclusion in USEPA's STORET system. The stream class is a designation of the grouping of homogeneous characteristics from which assessments will be made. For instance, Ohio EPA uses ecoregions and size of stream, Florida DEP uses bioregions (aggregations of subecoregions), and Arizona DEQ uses elevation as a means to identify stream classes. Listing the agency and investigators assigns responsibility to the data collected from the station at a specific date and time. The reason for the survey is sometimes useful to an agency that conducts surveys for various programs and purposes.
Note the present weather conditions on the day of the survey and those immediately preceding the day of the survey. This information is important to interpret the effects of storm events on the sampling effort.
To complete this phase of the bioassessment, a photograph may be helpful in identifying station location and documenting habitat conditions. Any observations or data not requested but deemed important by the field observer should be recorded. A hand-drawn map is useful to illustrate major landmarks or features of the channel morphology or orientation, vegetative zones, buildings, etc. that might be used to aid in data interpretation.
Stream Subsystem: In regions where the perennial nature of streams is important, or where the tidal influence of streams will alter the structure and function of communities, this parameter should be noted.
Stream Type: Communities inhabiting coldwater streams are markedly different from those in warmwater streams, many states have established temperature criteria that differentiate these 2 stream types.
Stream Origin: Note the origination of the stream under study, if it is known. Examples are glacial, montane, swamp, and bog. As the size of the stream or river increases, a mixture of origins of tributaries is likely.
Collecting this information usually requires some effort initially for a station. However, subsequent surveys will most likely not require an in-depth research of this information.
Predominant Surrounding Land Use Type: Document the prevalent land-use type in the catchment of the station (noting any other land uses in the area which, although not predominant, may potentially affect water quality). Land use maps should be consulted to accurately document this information.
Local Watershed Nonpoint Source Pollution: This item refers to problems and potential problems in the watershed. Nonpoint source pollution is defined as diffuse agricultural and urban runoff. Other compromising factors in a watershed that may affect water quality include feedlots, constructed wetlands, septic systems, dams and impoundments, mine seepage, etc.
Local Watershed Erosion: The existing or potential detachment of soil within the local watershed (the portion of the watershed or catchment that directly affects the stream reach or station under study) and its movement into the stream is noted. Erosion can be rated through visual observation of watershed and stream characteristics (note any turbidity observed during water quality assessment below).
An acceptable riparian zone includes a buffer strip of a minimum of 18 m (Barton et al. 1985) from the stream on either side. The acceptable width of the riparian zone may also be variable depending on the size of the stream. Streams over 4 m in width may require larger riparian zones. The vegetation within the riparian zone is documented here as the dominant type and species, if known.
Instream features are measured or evaluated in the sampling reach and catchment as appropriate.
Estimated Reach Length: Measure or estimate the length of the sampling reach. This information is important if reaches of variable length are surveyed and assessed.
Estimated Stream Width (in meters, m): Estimate the distance from bank to bank at a transect representative of the stream width in the reach. If variable widths, use an average to find that which is representative for the given reach.
Sampling Reach Area (m2): Multiply the sampling reach length by the stream width to obtain a calculated surface area.
Estimated Stream Depth (m): Estimate the vertical distance from water surface to stream bottom at a representative depth (use instream habitat feature that is most common in reach) to obtain average depth.
Velocity: Measure the surface velocity in the thalweg of a representative run area. If measurement is not done, estimate the velocity as slow, moderate, or fast.
Canopy Cover: Note the general proportion of open to shaded area which best describes the amount of cover at the sampling reach or station. A densiometer may be used in place of visual estimation.
High Water Mark (m): Estimate the vertical distance from the bankfull margin of the stream bank to the peak overflow level, as indicated by debris hanging in riparian or floodplain vegetation, and deposition of silt or soil. In instances where bank overflow is rare, a high water mark may not be evident.
Proportion of Reach Represented by Stream Morphological Types: The proportion represented by riffles, runs, and pools should be noted to describe the morphological heterogeneity of the reach.
Channelized: Indicate whether or not the area around the sampling reach or station is channelized (e.g., straightening of stream, bridge abutments and road crossings, diversions, etc.).
Dam Present: Indicate the presence or absence of a dam upstream in the catchment or downstream of the sampling reach or station. If a dam is present, include specific information relating to alteration of flow.
|5.1.8||Large Woody Debris|
Large Woody Debris (LWD) density, defined and measured as described below, has been used in regional surveys (Shields et al. 1995) and intensive studies of degraded and restored streams (Shields et al. 1998). The method was developed for sand or sand-and-gravel bed streams in the Southeastern U.S. that are wadeable at baseflow, with water widths between 1 and 30 m (Cooper and Testa 1999).
Cooper and Testa's (1999) procedure involves measurements based on visual estimates taken by a wading observer. Only woody debris actually in contact with stream water is counted. Each woody debris formation with a surface area in the plane of the water surface >0.25 m2 is recorded. The estimated length and width of each formation is recorded on a form or marked directly onto a stream reach drawing. Estimates are made to the nearest 0.5 m , and formations with length or width less than 0.5 m are not counted. Recorded length is maximum width in the direction perpendicular to the length. Maximum actual length and width of a limb, log, or accumulation are not considered.
If only a portion of the log/limb is in contact with the water, only that portion in contact is measured. Root wads and logs/limbs in the water margin are counted if they contact the water, and are arbitrarily given a width of 0.5 m Lone individual limbs and logs are included in the determination if their diameter is 10 cm or larger (Keller and Swanson 1979, Ward and Aumen 1986). Accumulations of smaller limbs and logs are included if the formation total length or width is 0.5 m or larger. Standing trees and stumps within the stream are also recorded if their length and width exceed 0.5 m.
The length and width of each LWD formation are then multiplied, and the resulting products are summed to give the aquatic habitat area directly influenced. This area is then divided by the water surface area (km2 ) within the sampled reach (obtained by multiplying the average water surface width by reach length) to obtain LWD density. Density values of 103 to 104 m2/km2 have been reported for channelized and incised streams and on the order of 105 m2/km2 for non-incised streams (Shields et al. 1995 and 1998). This density is not an expression of the volume of LWD, but rather a measure of LWD influence on velocity, depth, and cover.
The general type and relative dominance of aquatic plants are documented in this section. Only an estimation of the extent of aquatic vegetation is made. Besides being an ecological assemblage that responds to perturbation, aquatic vegetation provides refugia and food for aquatic fauna. List the species of aquatic vegetation, if known.
Temperature (°C), Conductivity or "Specific Conductance" (µohms), Dissolved Oxygen (µg/L), pH, Turbidity: Measure and record values for each of the water quality parameters indicated, using the appropriate calibrated water quality instrument(s). Note the type of instrument and unit number used.
Water Odors: Note those odors described (or include any other odors not listed) that are associated with the water in the sampling area.
Water Surface Oils: Note the term that best describes the relative amount of any oils present on the water surface.
Turbidity: If turbidity is not measured directly, note the term which, based upon visual observation, best describes the amount of material suspended in the water column.
Sediment Odors: Disturb sediment in pool or other depositional areas and note any odors described (or include any other odors not listed) which are associated with sediment in the sampling reach.
Sediment Oils: Note the term which best describes the relative amount of any sediment oils observed in the sampling area.
Sediment Deposits: Note those deposits described (or include any other deposits not listed) that are present in the sampling reach. Also indicate whether the undersides of rocks not deeply embedded are black (which generally indicates low dissolved oxygen or anaerobic conditions).
Inorganic Substrate Components: Visually estimate the relative proportion of each of the 7 substrate/particle types listed that are present over the sampling reach.
Organic Substrate Components: Indicate relative abundance of each of the 3 substrate types listed.
|5.2||A VISUAL-BASED HABITAT ASSESSMENT|
Biological potential is limited by the quality of the physical habitat, forming the template within which biological communities develop (Southwood 1977). Thus, habitat assessment is defined as the evaluation of the structure of the surrounding physical habitat that influences the quality of the water resource and the condition of the resident aquatic community (Barbour et al. 1996a). For streams, an encompassing approach to assessing structure of the habitat includes an evaluation of the variety and quality of the substrate, channel morphology, bank structure, and riparian vegetation. Habitat parameters pertinent to the assessment of habitat quality include those that characterize the stream "micro scale" habitat (e.g., estimation of embeddeddness), the "macro scale" features (e.g., channel morphology), and the riparian and bank structure features that are most often influential in affecting the other parameters.
* It is helpful to copy field sheets onto water-resistant paper for use in wet weather conditions
Rosgen (1985, 1994) presented a stream and river classification system that is founded on the premise that dynamically-stable stream channels have a morphology that provides appropriate distribution of flow energy during storm events. Further, he identifies 8 major variables that affect the stability of channel morphology, but are not mutually independent: channel width, channel depth, flow velocity, discharge, channel slope, roughness of channel materials, sediment load and sediment particle size distribution. When streams have one of these characteristics altered, some of their capability to dissipate energy properly is lost (Leopold et al. 1964, Rosgen 1985) and will result in accelerated rates of channel erosion. Some of the habitat structural components that function to dissipate flow energy are:
- roughness of bed and bank materials
- presence of point bars (slope is an important characteristic)
- vegetative conditions of stream banks and the riparian zone
- condition of the floodplain (accessibility from bank, overflow, and size are important characteristics).
Measurement of these parameters or characteristics serve to stratify and place streams into distinct classifications. However, none of these habitat classification techniques attempt to differentiate the quality of the habitat and the ability of the habitat to support the optimal biological condition of the region. Much of our understanding of habitat relationships in streams has emerged from comparative studies that describe statistical relationships between habitat variables and abundance of biota (Hawkins et al. 1993). However, in response to the need to incorporate broader scale habitat assessments in water resource programs, 2 types of approaches for evaluating habitat structure have been developed. In the first, the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) of the USEPA and the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) of the USGS developed techniques that incorporate measurements of various features of the instream, channel, and bank morphology (Meador et al. 1993, Klemm and Lazorchak 1994). These techniques provide a relatively comprehensive characterization of the physical structure of the stream sampling reach and its surrounding floodplain. The second type was a more rapid and qualitative habitat assessment approach that was developed to describe the overall quality of the physical habitat (Ball 1982, Ohio EPA 1987, Plafkin et al. 1989, Barbour and Stribling 1991, Barbour and Stribling 1994, Rankin 1991, 1995). In this document, the more rapid visual-based approach is described. A cursory overview of the more quantitative approaches to characterizing the physical structure of the habitat is provided.
The habitat assessment matrix developed for the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) in Plafkin et al. (1989) were originally based on the Stream Classification Guidelines for Wisconsin developed by Ball (1982) and "Methods of Evaluating Stream, Riparian, and Biotic Conditions" developed by Platts et al. (1983). Barbour and Stribling (1991, 1994) modified the habitat assessment approach originally developed for the RBPs to include additional assessment parameters for high gradient streams and a more appropriate parameter set for low gradient streams (Appendix A-1, Forms 2,3). All parameters are evaluated and rated on a numerical scale of 0 to 20 (highest) for each sampling reach. The ratings are then totaled and compared to a reference condition to provide a final habitat ranking. Scores increase as habitat quality increases. To ensure consistency in the evaluation procedure, descriptions of the physical parameters and relative criteria are included in the rating form.
The Environmental Agency of Great Britain (Environment Agency of England and Wales, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and Environment and Heritage Service of Northern Ireland) have developed a River Habitat Survey (RHS) for characterizing the quality of their streams and rivers (Raven et al. 1998). The approach used in Great Britain is similar to the visual-based habitat assessment used in the US in that scores are assigned to ranges of conditions of various habitat parameters.
A biologist who is well versed in the ecology and zoogeography of the region can generally recognize optimal habitat structure as it relates to the biological community. The ability to accurately assess the quality of the physical habitat structure using a visual-based approach depends on several factors:
- the parameters selected to represent the various features of habitat structure need to be relevant and clearly defined
- a continuum of conditions for each parameter must exist that can be characterized from the optimum for the region or stream type under study to the poorest situation reflecting substantial alteration due to anthropogenic activities
- the judgement criteria for the attributes of each parameter should minimize subjectivity through either quantitative measurements or specific categorical choices
- the investigators are experienced in or adequately trained for stream assessments in the region under study (Hannaford et al. 1997)
- adequate documentation and ongoing training is maintained to evaluate and correct errors resulting in outliers and aberrant assessments.
Habitat evaluations are first made on instream habitat, followed by channel morphology, bank structural features, and riparian vegetation. Generally, a single, comprehensive assessment is made that incorporates features of the entire sampling reach as well as selected features of the catchment. Additional assessments may be made on neighboring reaches to provide a broader evaluation of habitat quality for the stream ecosystem. The actual habitat assessment process involves rating the 10 parameters as optimal, suboptimal, marginal, or poor based on the criteria included on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheets (Appendix A-1, Forms 2,3). Some state programs, such as Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (1996) and Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams Workgroup (MACS) (1996) have adapted this approach using somewhat fewer and different parameters.
Reference conditions are used to scale the assessment to the "best attainable" situation. This approach is critical to the assessment because stream characteristics will vary dramatically across different regions (Barbour and Stribling 1991). The ratio between the score for the test station and the score for the reference condition provides a percent comparability measure for each station. The station of interest is then classified on the basis of its similarity to expected conditions (reference condition), and its apparent potential to support an acceptable level of biological health. Use of a percent comparability evaluation allows for regional and stream-size differences which affect flow or velocity, substrate, and channel morphology. Some regions are characterized by streams having a low channel gradient, such as coastal plains or prairie regions.
Other habitat assessment approaches or a more rigorously quantitative approach to measuring the habitat parameters may be used (See Klemm and Lazorchak 1994, Kaufmann and Robison 1997, Meador et al. 1993). However, holistic and rapid assessment of a wide variety of habitat attributes along with other types of data is critical if physical measurements are to be used to best advantage in interpreting biological data. A more detailed discussion of the relationship between habitat quality and biological condition is presented in Chapter 10.
A generic habitat assessment approach based on visual observation can be separated into 2 basic approaches--one designed for high-gradient streams and one designed for low-gradient streams. High-gradient or riffle/run prevalent streams are those in moderate to high gradient landscapes. Natural high-gradient streams have substrates primarily composed of coarse sediment particles (i.e., gravel or larger) or frequent coarse particulate aggregations along stream reaches. Low-gradient or glide/pool prevalent streams are those in low to moderate gradient landscapes. Natural low-gradient streams have substrates of fine sediment or infrequent aggregations of more coarse (gravel or larger) sediment particles along stream reaches. The entire sampling reach is evaluated for each parameter. Descriptions of each parameter and its relevance to instream biota are presented in the following discussion. Parameters that are used only for high-gradient prevalent streams are marked with an "a"; those for low-gradient dominant streams, a "b". If a parameter is used for both stream types, it is not marked with a letter. A brief set of decision criteria is given for each parameter corresponding to each of the 4 categories reflecting a continuum of conditions on the field sheet (optimal, suboptimal, marginal, and poor). Refer to Appendix A-1, Forms 2 and 3, for a complete field assessment guide.
RBP Home | Table of Contents | Download the RBP | Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 Chapter 6 | Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D