Quality Assurance Project Plan: Fish Assemblage Assessment of the Lower

Des Plaines River

Effective Date: July 1, 2006

Center for Applied Bioassessment & Biocriteria

P.O. Box 21561

Columbus, OH 43221-0561

Submitted by:

Chris 0. Yoder, Principal Investigator & Project Manager

Approvals:

Brian J. Armitage, Director, CABB

Jo Lynn Traub, U.S. EPA, Region V Water Prog. Director

Lula Spruill, U.S. EPA, Region V Project Officer

Edward Hammer, U.S. EPA, Region V Technical Contact

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 2 of 36

Table of Contents

Group A: Project Management Elements

A.1: Title and Approval Page

1

A.2:

Table of Contents

2

A.3:

Distribution List

3

A.4: Project/Task Organization

4

A.5:

Problem Definition & Background

6

A.6:

Project Description

11

A.7:

Quality Objectives and Criteria

13

A.8:

Training and Certification

16

A.9:

Documents and Records

16

Group B: Data Generation and Acquisition Elements

B.1: Sampling Process and Design

20

B.2:

Sampling Methods

22

B.3: Sample Handling and Custody

27

B.4: Analytical Methods

28

B.5:B.6: Quality

Instrument/Equipment

Control

Testing,

Inspection, and Maintenance

28

B.7:

Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency

29

B.8:

Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables

29

B.9: Non-direct Measurements

29

B.10: Data Management

29

Group C: Assessment and Oversight Elements

C.1:

Assessments and Response Actions

29

C.2: Reports to Management

31

Group D: Data Validation and Usability Elements

D.1:

Data Review, Verification, and Validation

31

D.2:

Verification and Validation Methods

31

D.3:

Reconciliation with User Requirements

31

References?

32

Appendix 1: Methods for Assessing Habitat in Flowing Waters: Using the Qualitative

Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)

?

33

Appendix 2: Benthic Trawl Method (Herzog et al. 2005)

?

57

2

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 — June 25, 2006

Page 3 of 36

Group A: Project Management Elements

A.3:

Distribution List

The Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria proposes to assess the status and

composition of the fish assemblage in the lower Des Plaines River. This will be

accomplished by collecting new data from historical and new sites between Lockport and

the Kankakee River. The data will eventually be used by Region V, Illinois EPA, Illinois

DNR, and others to address multiple issues in the lower Des Plaines including use

attainability analyses (UAAs), thermal impacts, and the impacts of multiple chemical and

physical stressors. An initial list of interested contacts include:

Illinois EPA, Roy Smogor (Roy.Smogor@epa.state.il.us)

Illinois DNR, Steve Pescitelli (spescitelli@dnnnail.state.il.us)

We will add to the list as new participants are identified. In addition, the U.S. EPA,

Region V QA Project Manager, the Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria

Director, the U.S. EPA, Region V Technical Contact, and U.S. EPA, Office of Water,

National Biocriteria Program contact (OST-HECD) will also be included in the

distribution list as follows:

U.S..EPA, Region V, Project Officer, Lula Spruill (Spruill.Lula@epa.gov)

U.S. EPA, Region V Technical Contact, Ed Hammer (Hammer.Edward@epa.gov)

Center for Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria, Brian Armitage

(barmitage@rrohio.com)

A.4:

Project/Task Organization

All phases of the proposed study will be coordinated and conducted by the Center for

Applied Bioassessment and Biocriteria (CABB). Chris Yoder will serve as the principal

investigator and project coordinator. In this capacity he will provide the primary oversight

and management of all aspects of the project, including participating directly in the field

sampling and ensuring that all methods and procedures are followed. He will also be

directly responsible for maintenance of the QA Project Plan. CABB will assign a qualified

crew leader who will be responsible for all data collection activities. Two additional and

temporary field personnel will be assigned to assist this person with field work under the

direct supervision of the CABB project coordinator. A functional table of organization

appears in Figure 1.

Advice and assistance with the design of the proposed study has been sought and will

continue to be provided by the applicable state agencies, federal agencies, and

nongovernmental organizations. Each agency and organization will benefit from the data

and assessment produced by the proposed study. The states will benefit from the

development of a large river biological assessment tools, application of a standardized

3

---

Lula Spruill,

U.S. EPA — R5

Project Officer

Ed Hammer,

U.S. EPA — R5

Tech. Contact

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 4 of 36

protocol, and the resulting use of the data to calculate biocriteria. Users will benefit from

the baseline assessment information and how it relates to the implementation of tiered

aquatic life uses (TALUs) and biological criteria for non-wadeable rivers in Illinois and the

Midwest in general. The development and evaluation of TALUs is especially important to

understanding and resolving issues raised by the Lower Des Plaines use attainability

analysis (UAA).

Quality Assurance Project Plan: Functional Table of

Organization

[

Center for Applied

Bioassessment

&

Biocriteria

Brian J.

Armitage, Director

Chris Yoder, CABB

Principal Investigator/Project Manager

CABB Project Leader

Senior Scientist & Project Lead

Agencies & Stakeholders

Illinois EPA

Illinois DNR

CABB Field Technicians

UAA Study Group

Staff Scientists & Field Crew

Figure 1.

Functional table

of organization for project

implementation and

management.

A.5• Problem Definition and Background

The proposed study will utilize a standardized, pulsed direct current (D.C.) boat

electrofishing protocol as a means of assessing the structure, quality, attributes, and health

of the fish assemblage. This study will include the mainstem of the lower Des Plaines River

between Lockport to downstream from the Kankakee River. This river segment was the

subject of a recent use attainability analysis, which included analyses of historical fish

assemblage data (Hey and Associates 2003). At issue is the ongoing review of the Illinois

EPA designation of the Dresden and Brandon dam pools and segments, parts of which are

designated for secondary contact and indigenous aquatic life. In addition, the current

Illinois EPA temperature criteria are under review and this project should help to confirm

the list of Representative Aquatic Species that is being used in the development of revised

criteria.

4

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 5 of 36

Methods and procedures for sampling fish assemblages that have proven effective in many

areas of the U.S. will be used (Gammon 1973, 1976; Gammon et al. 1981; Hughes and

Gammon 1987; Ohio EPA

1989;

Lyons et al. 2001; Mebane et al. 2003; Emery et al.

2003). The principal focus of this study is on the fish assemblage and an accompanying

qualitative habitat assessment.

Biological Assessment of Non-Wadeable

Rivers

The Lower Des Plaines River qualifies as a non-wadeable river in terms of which biological

sampling methods are the most appropriate. While there is no single definition of a large,

non-wadeable river it generally includes those lotic systems that cannot be

adequately

nor

consistently

sampled with wadeable sampling protocols. The operational extent of wadeable

vs. non-wadeable

.

may also vary between organism groups; for example a river may be

wadeable for periphyton or quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling, but not for effective

fish sampling. Others'have used catchment area definitions; great rivers drain more than

10,000 mi2

of land area (Simon and Sanders 1999) and large rivers more than 1000 mi2

(Simon and Lyons 1995; Ohio EPA 1989). What can be agreed upon by most is that the

development of biological assessment tools, particularly those focused on assessments of

condition and status, has lagged behind the development of wadeable stream methods.

Table 1 depicts the range of fish sampling methods and equipment that Ohio EPA uses to

sample wadeable and non-wadeable streams and rivers (Table 1).

Biological assessments have been conducted in large, non-wadeable rivers of the U.S. since

the late 1940s. Most of the early efforts focused on the more easily measured biota of that

time period (i.e., macroinvertebrates, periphyton, plankton), the inclusion of the fish

assemblage being a rare and relatively recent addition. Single-gear assessments are even

more recent and include the pioneering work by Gammon (1973, 1976, 1980) and

Gammon et al. (1981) in Midwestern rivers, principally the Wabash River of Indiana.

Other efforts followed and most were associated with studies of thermal effluents in

response to Section 316[a] of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the 1970s and early 1980s. A

common frustration with these studies was the lack of a standardized approach to data

collection and the absence of a conceptual framework for analyzing the data and producing

meaningful and consistent assessments. The development of the IBI type approaches to

analyzing and assessing fish and other assemblage data in the early 1980s (Karr 1981; Karr

et al.

1986;

Fausch et al. 1984) provided the missing conceptual framework. Ohio EPA

(1987, 1989) developed fully standardized methods and an IBI for non-wadeable rivers and

used it to support the long term assessment of rivers (Yoder et al. 2005). This was followed

by the development of new approaches for non-wadeable rivers such as the Ohio River

(Simon and Emery 1999; Emery et al. 2003) and for Wisconsin rivers including the

Mississippi, Wisconsin, St. Croix, and Chippewa Rivers (Lyons et al. 2001). The

Wisconsin study showed the utility of the assessment end product, which is an improved

understanding of the ecological consequences of multiple human impacts (point and

nonpoint sources, hydromodifications, multiple stressors) in non-wadeable rivers and the

5

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower

Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 6 of 36

Table 1. Ohio EPA fish assemblage sampling methods for wadeable and non-wadeable

sites (after Yoder and Smith 1999).

Wading Methods

?

Boat Methods

Category

Small Streams

Other Streams

Small Rivers

?

Large Rivers

Great Rivers'

Lake Erie'

Waterbody

<1.0-10 mil

10.500 mi2

150-1000 mi2

1000.6000mi2

>6000 mi2

Size Dimen-

<0.3-0.5m depth 0.5-1.0m depth

>1.0m depth

>1.0m depth

>1.0 m

depth

sions:3

1-2m width

2-20m width

10

-

100m

width

>50m width

(Ohio River)

Platform:

Backpack;

Tow boat;

12-14' boat

14'-16' boat

18' boat

Bank set

Bank set

21' boat

Unit:

Battery/

Generator

Generator

Generator

Generator

Generator

Power

12v battery/

1750.2500W

2500-3500W

3500-5000W

5000/7500W

Source:

300-1750W alt.

alternator

alternator

alternator

alternator

Amperage

1.5-2A;

2-12A

4-15A

15-20A

15-20A

Output:

2-12A

Volts D.C.

100-200;

150-300;

500-1000

500-1000

500-1000

Output:

150-300

300-1000

Anode

Net ring

Net ring

Boom

Boom

Boom;

Location:

(Droppers)

(Droppers)

Spheres4

Sampling

Upstream

Upstream

Downstream

Downstream

Downstream;

Direction:

Downcurrent

Distance

0.15-0.20km

0.15-0.20km

0.5km

0.5km

0.5-1.0km

Sampled:

CPUEs

per 0.3km

per 0.3km

per 1.0km

per 1.0km

per 1.0km

Basis:

Time

Sampled

1800-3600 sec

1800-3600 sec

1600-3500 sec 1600-4500 sec

2000-3500

(Typical):6

Time of

Daylight

Daylight

Daylight

Daylight

Twilight/

Sampling:

Night

Great Rivers generally exceed 6000 square miles drainage area at the sampling site.

Lake Erie methods similar to great river methods (see Thoma 1999).

3

?

Maximum pool depth in small streams; sampling depth along shoreline in larger rivers.

4

?

Droppers are used in inland rivers and the Ohio R.; electrosphere design

is

used on Lake Erie only.

5

?

CPUE: catch per unit of effort.

6

?

Normal range sampling time may vary upwards due to factors such

as

cover and instream obstructions.

6

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 7 of 36

sequence in which they occur. Ohio is the only state in Region V that has developed and

applied TALUs to non-wadeable rivers (Table 2).

Biological

Criteria

Development

An important objective of this project is to contribute data to the development and use of

biological criteria in Illinois and on a regional basis, specifically for non-wadeable rivers.

Biological criteria are numeric values or narrative expressions that describe the biological

condition of an aquatic assemblage inhabiting the waters of a given designated use (U.S.

EPA 1990). Benchmarks for TALUs are developed with respect to reference condition

(least impacted), which is derived from assemblage data at least impacted reference sites

and/or by an expert derivation process. While the restoration of most U.S. waters to a

pristine state is not presently feasible, it is reasonable to base contemporary restoration

goals on regional reference conditions that describe the best attainable biological condition

and performance (Davis and Simon 1995). Principles for the successful development of

numeric biological criteria include developing a reference condition, a regional framework,

a characterization of the aquatic assemblage, and a habitat evaluation for specifically

defined aquatic ecotypes (e.g., large rivers, wadeable streams, headwater streams, wetlands,

lakes, etc.). Hey and Associates (2003) tested the possible application of TALUs in the

Table 2. Example of TALUs for non-wadeable rivers; numeric biological criteria for the

Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) that are applicable to boat electrofishing sites in

Ohio (Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-1).

Modified

Exceptional

Warmwater Warmwater Warmwater

Ecoregion

Habitat (MWH)' Habitat (WWH) Habitat (EWH)

HELP - Huron/Erie Lake Plain

20/22

34

48

EOLP - Erie/Ontario Lake Plain

24/30

40

48

IP - Interior Plateau

24/30

38

48

ECBP - E. Corn Belt Plains

24/30

42

48

WAP - W. Allegheny Plateau

24/30

40

48

1

MWH biocriteria for channelized/impounded sites.

7

---

Natural structural, functional, and taxonomic integrity is preserved.

Structure and function similar to natural community with some additional

taxa & biomass; no or incidental anomalies; sensitive non-native taxa may

be present; 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 through redundant attributes of the system.

NNW

proposed CWA protection

?

Moderate changes in structure due to replacement

of sensitive ubiquitous taxa by more tolerant taxa;

overall balanced distribution of all expected taxa;

ecosystem functions largely maintained.

3

Extreme changes in structure; wholesale changes in

taxonomic composition; extreme alterations from

normal densities; organism condition is often poor;

6

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 8 of 36

Lower Des Plaines River using the Ohio EPA system of designated aquatic life uses (Table

2). Ohio EPA has been a national leader in the development and use of biological criteria

and other Region V states are in the process of developing similar approaches.

A U.S. EPA working group established in 1999 developed a concept termed the Biological

Condition Gradient, which is intended to foster the consistent development of biological

assessment frameworks and biological criteria development across the U.S. This concept is

also intended to enhance communication, understanding, and visualization of biological

condition relative to the absolute gradient of possible biological quality from pristine to

extremely degraded (Figure 2). A challenge for developing biological criteria for non-

wadeable rivers is the apparent lack of reference analogs, at least compared to that which is

more commonly available for wadeable streams. As an alternative, using direct sampling

data combined with historical knowledge and reconstruction of historical assemblages by

expert analysis may be used as a partial substitute for directly measured reference condition

(Emery et al. 2003). The proposed study will contribute to this process on both a national

and regional basis.

Tiered Aquatic Life Use Conceptual Model: Draft Biological Tiers

(10/22 draft)

>,

C

E

C.)

E

O 7

a

O uj

0

O0

F

0

C0)

0

C

O

& propagation threshold

Sensitive taxa markedly diminished;

conspicuously unbalanced distribution of

major groups from that expected; organism

condition shows signs of physiological

stress; ecosystem function shows reduced

complexity and redundancy; increased

build up or export of unused materials.

anomalies may be frequent;

ecosystem functions are

extremely altered.

LOW

?Human

Disturbance Gradient

?

►

HIGH

Figure 2.

Tiered

aquatic life use

conceptual model

showing a biological

condition

gradient

and

descriptive

attributes of

tiers along a gradient of

quality and disturbance.

8

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 9 of 36

A.6:

Project Description

The study will entail boat electrofishing at approximately 20-25 locations in the Lower Des

Plaines River between Lockport to downstream from the Kankakee River (Figure 3). This

will

include using an intensive survey sampling design developed for non-wadeable rivers

(Yoder et al. 2005).

Habitat characteristics will be recorded using a modification of qualitative, observation

based methods (QHEI; Rankin 1989, 1995) under seasonal low flow conditions.

Attributes of habitat include substrate diversity and composition, degree of embeddedness,

cover types and amounts, classes of flow velocity, channel morphology, riparian condition

and composition, and pool and run-riffle depths. Gradient will be determined from USGS

7.5' topographic maps and water clarity will be measured with a secchi disk. Water quality

includes baseline field parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity.

This will determined at each sampling location with portable meters and will account for

the thermally affected areas by spatially stratifying the collection points within a sampling

site.

Data

Analyses

We expect to generate baseline data on the relative abundance and distribution of fishes in

the Lower Des Plaines River. This will include raw and summarized data comprised of

species enumerations, catch per unit of sampling effort (numbers and biomass), the

incidence and severity of external anomalies on fish by species, total lengths for special

interest and commercially and recreationally important species, basic field parameters such

as temperature, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen (D.O.), and a qualitative habitat

assessment. All of this information will be entered and stored in a relational database

managed by CABB and made available to project sponsors and participants. Specific data

that will be generated includes species relative abundance data by sampling location and

river reach. From this data spatial analyses of longitudinal patterns in fish assemblage

attributes (species richness, CPUE, special interest species, structural and functional guilds,

IBI scores) can be accomplished and related to major natural and human-influenced

changes and gradients.

A.7:

Quality Objectives and Criteria

An important goal of a bioassessment method is to employ methods and equipment which

are powerful enough to secure a sufficiently representative sample (accuracy), ensure

reproducibility (precision), do so with a reasonable effort, and minimize potential bias

induced by different operators thus making the results comparable. CABB uses large river

fish sampling methods adapted from Ohio EPA (1987, 1989) and as applied by Yoder et al.

(2005). This method has proven effective for fulfilling the TALU development and

implementation goals and will produce data and information that will be useful to the Lower

Des Plaines UAA process.

---

SA

4.1

Jt,INCTION

to?

3R1

cot.

LEMONT?

ROOTC. 0

iSitft

STRUT

.4:0-,Pakt

IOU

Ai*

),TNP,Zi

irC

LOCK S440

UV,

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 10 of 36

Figure 3.

Lower Des

Plaines

study

area showing

historical

chemical/physical sampling locations

(after Hey

and

Associates 2003).

10

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 11 of 36

Data

Attributes

The basic attributes of the data to be produced by the proposed study are counts and

weights of fish delineated either individually or in the aggregate by species. Species level

taxonomy is the minimum data quality objective and identifications to subspecies will be

determined when appropriate. Scientific nomenclature will follow that adopted by the

American Fisheries Society (AFS; Nelson et al. 2004). Regionally applicable ichthyology

texts with keys will be used. Information will also be recorded about the occurrence of

anomalies, diseases, and parasites that are observed externally on each fish that is weighed

and or counted following the methods used by Ohio EPA (1989) and further described by

Sanders et al. (1999). Qualitative habitat data will also be produced using a method similar

to that developed by Rankin (1989; Appendix 1) modified for application to non-wadeable

rivers.

Representativeness

Gammon (1973, 1976) assessed the representativeness of a standardized, pulsed D.C., large

river boat electrofishing technique similar to that proposed for use in this study. Gammon

determined that shoreline boat electrofishing over a distance of 500 meters sampling along

the shoreline with the greatest depth and most abundant cover, was the most effective

single

method for collecting a representative cross-section of the fish assemblage. Other studies

have likewise shown boat electrofishing to be the single most effective gear for obtaining fish

assemblage data in Midwestern streams (Funk 1958; Larimore 1961; Boccardy and Cooper

1963; Bayley et al. 1989), large rivers (Vincent 1971; Novotny and Priegel 1974; Hendricks et

al. 1980; Ohio EPA 1987), the Ohio River (Sanders 1992; Simon and Emery 1995; Simon

and Sanders 1999), and the Lake Erie shoreline (Thoma 1999). While boat electrofishing

does not collect all of the species present, it can collect more than 75-80% of the species

that are present and approximate their relative abundances if

it is done

correctly. This meets

the purposes and requirements for biological assessments and biological criteria in that

sufficiently representative data is produced to provide reliable signal about the health and

well-being of the resource without the need to accomplish an exhaustive faunal inventory.

The collection of relative abundance data includes the use of standardized sampling

procedures designed to produce a sufficiently representative sample of the fish assemblage at a

site with a reasonable expenditure of effort (i.e., 1-3 hours/site). As such this type of

assessment is distinguished from the much more resource intensive efforts using multiple

collection gear and those required to obtain estimates of population (standing crop) or a

complete inventory of all species present. The numerous and previously referenced large

river IBI development studies that followed Gammon's pioneering work have substantially

confirmed the utility and representativeness of the approach. Lyons et al. (2001) correctly

observed that single gear assessments might not be as useful for rare or single species issues

or for detailed fisheries management needs such as stock assessments of commercially or

recreationally important species. However, broad agreement between overall assemblage

condition assessments and the correspondence of suitable conditions for rare species and

fisheries goals has been demonstrated (Hughes and Gammon 1987; Yoder and Rankin

1995).

11

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 12 of 36

Precision and Accuracy

Ohio EPA (1987) extensively tested the reproducibility, accuracy, and precision of their

boat electrofishing sampling protocols in both wadeable streams and non-wadeable rivers.

Based on a combination of data analyses from specially designed methods testing studies

and the aggregate Ohio database, the reproducibility of an IBI score was determined to be

4 units out of a 12 to 60 scoring scale (Rankin and Yoder [1999] later revised the scoring

range, 0-60). Rankin and Yoder (1990) showed coefficient of variations (CV) were on the

order of 8-10% at least impacted and high quality sites. CVs increased at sites with lower

IBI scores, presumably due to the effect of stressors at increasingly impacted sites. Fore et

al. (1993) performed more extensive statistical analyses of the Ohio database and

determined that IBI scores were reproducible to an error margin of 2-3 units. Their power

analysis confirmed that the Ohio IBI was capable of distinguishing 6 discrete scoring

ranges that approximate the delineations of the IBI scale into the qualitative descriptions

of exceptional, good, fair, poor, and very poor. Angermier and Karr (1986) analyzed other

statistical properties of the IBI focusing on the extent of redundancy among metrics. The

results of their analysis showed that careful construction and derivation of an IBI following

the original guidance of Karr et al. (1986) should produce a robust and non-redundant set

of metrics.

Accuracy can also be examined in terms of the assessment produced by the subject method.

Biological assessments are viewed as a direct measure of the aquatic life protection goals of

the Clean Water Act (CWA) and State water quality standards (as opposed to the surrogate

assessment provided by chemical water quality criteria). This has given rise to the concept

and interest in biological criteria and adoption by U.S. EPA of a national program (U.S.

EPA 1990), methods (Barbour et al. 1997), and the development of formal

implementation procedures (U.S. EPA Aquatic Life Use Working Group). The issue at

stake here is the accuracy of the delineation of waters as impaired or unimpaired for CWA

purposes (e.g., TMDLs). Historically, States and U.S. EPA based these decisions on

chemical water quality data and comparison to State and national water quality criteria.

However, studies that compared the relative performance of chemical and biological data

and their respective abilities to detect impairment showed that biological data was far

superior in its ability to detect impairment and minimize type II assessment error (Rankin

and Yoder 1990b; Yoder and Rankin 1998). It is implicit in these studies that the better

standardized and calibrated the biological assessment method and assessment criteria, the

more able the method is to detect impairment and establish a relative degree of departure

from a baseline criterion.

Measurement Range and

Comparability

While there is no theoretical upper limit to many of the raw data parameters that comprise

the baseline data that will be produced by the proposed study, most have practically limited

expectations. The practical range of these parameters is dependent on the natural

attributes of the regional fish assemblage and the effectiveness of the sampling gear and

12

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 13 of 36

procedure. For example, in a warmwater river in Ohio we can expect boat electrofishing to

produce a sample of 20-30 species and several hundred fish among those species. In

exceptional quality rivers, the number of species might increase to more than 35-40 among

thousands of individuals. In the large cold water rivers of the western U.S., many fewer

species and individuals are usually collected. However, in terms of regional reference

condition and potential, the resulting biological assessment should rate the samples from

Ohio and the Western U.S. the same with respect to its similarity to or departure from a

regional reference condition. This is critical to establishing biological assessments that are

comparable across the U.S. Thus the derivation of reference condition is a critical step in

the bioassessment process and is one of the factors that influences comparability.

The resulting assessments and biological indices have discrete scoring ranges, within which

the raw data is stratified and compressed. For example, the original IBI and many of its

contemporary applications used a scoring range of 12-60, i.e., metric scores of 5, 3, and 1

are assigned to each of 12 metrics. Newly developed IBIs have employed a scoring range of

0-100 (e.g., Lyons et al. 2001; Mebane et al. 2003), which is intuitively more meaningful as

a theoretical scoring range and communication tool. The rigor, adequacy of the method,

development, and calibration ultimately determines the accuracy, precision, and

reproducibility of the index, its statistical rigor, and its resulting assessment.

Completeness

?

.

It is expected that all of the data collected by the proposed study will be used for one or

more purposes. Some data may not prove to be useful for the more quantitative aspects of

the planned analyses due to unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances. However, the

sampling protocols are designed to control the conditions under which sampling takes

place so as to minimize these occurrences.

A.& Training and Certification

The methods and protocols used in the proposed study require implementation by adequately

trained and skilled biologists. The crew leader must be well trained and experienced in all

aspects of conducting the sampling, making decisions that affect quality in the field, being

familiar with the study area, and knowing how to identify all species of fish that might be

encountered. This person must also be knowledgeable about safety procedures for boat

electrofishing and boat and water safety. Presently, there are no formal certification

requirements for such individuals except in a few instances. A biological assessment and

biological criteria certification offered by the Ohio EPA is one such example. The principal

investigator designed and instructed in the Ohio EPA certification course since its inception

in 1997. CABB field personnel assigned to this project will be directly supervised by the

principal investigator and will have been trained in an apprenticeship format. Of particular

importance will be training in the electrofishing procedure, use of the modified Qualitative

Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI), and the identification of external anomalies on fish. Each

will follow the procedures outlined in Ohio EPA (1989) and Rankin (1989).

13

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 14 of 36

There are some key "symptoms" of incomplete sampling that would lead to an under-estimate

of the fish assemblage. These are the time electrofished, the sampling results (i.e., are the

expected results obtained?), water clarity, conductivity, temperature, sampling distance, time of

day, and the electrofishing unit settings. All of this information is recorded for each sampling

site and each may yield information about a problem that could result in the later

disqualification of the data.

A.9: Documents and Records

The Quality Assurance Project Plan and all updates will be maintained by CABB and

provided to EPA and cooperating entities. A detailed plan of study will be developed with

the sampling team and used to guide the selection of sampling sites in the field during

reconnaissance and the initial sampling for each river survey.

Field

Data

Recording

Field data and observations will be recorded on water resistant data sheets (Figures 4 and

5). Fish assemblage data including species, numbers and weights by species, lengths for

selected species, external anomalies, chemical/physical data, site name and numeration,

sampling crew membership, time of day, time sampled, distance sampled, and

electrofishing unit settings and electrode configurations will be recorded on the fish

sampling data sheet (Figure 4). The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI), with

appropriate modifications for non-wadeable rivers, will also be completed at each site on a

habitat assessment data sheet (Figure 4). The crew leader will also maintain a field

activities log noting all circumstances related to field sampling, site access, weather, and

other relevant observations. Data sheets will be retained by CABB. Voucher specimens

will be collected to validate species identifications and where field identification is not

possible. They will be deposited at an appropriate regional institution where curation of

museum specimens is performed. As such they will provide a permanent record. These

vouchers serve to validate new species distribution records and for verification of

questionable field identifications. Each set of vouchers are labeled with the same location

data recorded on the field sheet and they are also denoted on the field sheet. We are

presently using the Ohio State University Museum of Biodiversity for depositing specimens

and voucher identifications.

All data will be entered into an electronic data format maintained and supported by

CABB. At this time we are using the Ohio ECOS data storage routine developed by Ohio

EPA. This system is presently supported in a FoxPro format, which is translatable to other

spreadsheet formats such as Access and Excel. The data analysis routines in Ohio ECOS

for calculation of summarized fish assemblage information and aggregate indices such as

the IBI and Modified Index of Well-Being (MIwb) will be modified appropriately in

concert with the data analysis and index development outputs of the proposed study.

14

---

SPECIES

# WEIGHED

ANOMALIES

lox

10X

lox

lox

10X

10X

lox

MBI

Number

Weighed

Vouchers

ri

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 15 of 36

Figure 4. Field data sheet

for

recording electrofishing collection data and for

entry into the Ohio

ECOS

database.

Midwest

Biodiversity

Institute

Crew Leader?

Boat Driver

•Field Crew:

Time of Day:

Page

River/Stream:

Location:

Date:

Sampler Type:

Secchl Disk

Time Fished:'

River Code:

Depth:

Color.

Total Seconds:

RM:

Data Source:

Temp (°C):

Observed Flow:

Distance:??

Settings: ?

Number of Entries:

Anomalies A-anchor \Norm; 8-black spot; p-leeches; D-deformities; E.eroded fins; F-fungus L-leston4 M-multiple DELT anomalies; .N-bend;

P-parasites; V-popeye; s-emaciated; wevirled

scales; T-tt mars; z-other!. [Heavy (H) or Light (L code may be combined Wth above codes]

Fish Data Sheet

Mixing Zone:

Revised 6/01)

Mass Weighing

Convention:

H

ilo

, 536

15

---

lox

lox

lox

lox

lox

10X

lox

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 16 of 36

Figure 4.

continued

(Revised 6/01)

16

---

Max 12

Max

Gradient

?

CHECK ONE OR CHECK 2 AND AVERAGE?

Riffle/Run

RUN DEPTH?

IIIFELE/ RUN SUBSTRATE

?

RIFFLE/RUN EMBEDDE DRESS

- MAX 50 [2]?

0-STABLE (e.g.,Cobbte, Boulder) f

2)?

NONE [2]

0 -

MAX 50[1]? STABLE (e.g.,Latge Gravel) PI

?

0 • LOW ( I)

?

[}UNSTABLE (Fint. Gravel, Sand) TO]?

0 MODERATE [0]

0- EXTENSIVE [-11

Max ID.

%GLIDE:

%RUN:

%POOL:

%R]FFLE

61

• 'Su

GRADIENT

am* ".oir i••?

(ft/rni):

ruwa1

P2

______DRAINAGE

se... nuyate

.

v.

abrl4s.

3

b.

AREA

t

II. OW

fsu.rni.) ?

RIFFLE DEPTH

13-

.

Best Areas ,10 crn [2]

0 .

Best Areas 5-10 till]

a-

Best Areas t< 5 cr.'

0-

NO RIFFLE [Metric.0]

COALMEN IS

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 17 of 36

Figure 5. Qualitative

habitat

evaluation index

(QHEI)

field sheet – page 1.

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Field Sheet QHEI Score:7

Station

Date:River

1] SUBSTRATE

?

Code:ID:.

?

?

(Check ONLY

Scorer:RM:

Two

?

SubstraleTYPE

?

Location:

Stream:Latitude:

BOXES;

?

?

Estimate

?

?b present

TYPE

?

POOL

RIFFLE?

POOL RIFFLE SUBSTRATE ORIGIN

O 0-BLDR SLI151,101

?

0-GRAvEL

iz?

Check ONE (OR 2 a AVERAGE)

00•Ig

elOuLD

(13)

? DO-SAND(61?

0 -LIMESTONE [71 SILT:

0t3 BOULDER

(9] _

?

0

ec ocig5)

?0 -TILLS [1]

tiCI•COBBLE (8)

DO

HARDPAN 14)

O [}MUCK (2)

0-4

or More (2)

0-3 or Less

(ol?0-SHALE (-1)

COMMENTS

?

CI-COAL FINES [-21__„___

2) INSTREAM COVER (Give each cover type a score of 0 to 3; s

ee

back for InsyuctionS)

(Structure)?

TYPE: t.,...re

kt1

That +w:-

?

dieck 2 and AVERAGE)

AMOUNT: (Check ONLY Oen at

Cover

UNDERCUT BANKS

(1)

.

POOLS-

70 cni (2)?

._,OXBOWS, SACkwATERS [1]?

0- EXTENSIVE 5 751 [I I I

,,.

,

OVERHANGING VEGETATION

[1]

.... ROOT WA

DS [1]?

„_.:AQUATIC tMCROPFMES[1]

0 - MODERATE 25-75% [7]

__WALLOWS (l N SLOW WATER)

[1]

?

__ BOULDERS

[1]

? •_LOGS OR WOODY DEBRIS [1] 0 - SPARSE 5

.25% [3]?

Max 20

ROOTstATS(1)

?

COMMENTS:?

?

?

0:NEARLY

ABSENT .: 59411

ifCHANNEL

MORPHOLOGY (Check ONLY One PER Category OR check 2 andAVEMGE )

SINUOSITY?

ct-vELopmf-pr

?

CHANNELIi_ATION

?

STABILITY

?

MCOIFICkrONSIOTHER

0- HIGH [4]?

0-EXCELLENT

[7] 0- NONE [6]?

a, HIGH [3)

?

O•

SNAGGING?

0-

IMPOUND..

0-

MODERATE [3]

a-

GOOD [5]?

0- RECOVERED [4)

0- MODERATE [2]

0-

RELOCATION

?

0- ISLANDS

O- LOW (2]?

0- FAIR [3]?

0- RECOVERING [3]

a- LOW [1]

?

0-

CANOPY REMOVAL 0

. LEVEED?

M3

X

26

O•

NONE [1]

?

0- POOR [1]?

D- RECENT OR NO?

-.?

0- DREDGING?

O• BANK SHAPII:G

RECOVERY [1] ,

?

O. ONE SIDE CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS

COMMENTS:

41 RIPARIAN

?

ZONE AND BANK EROSIONcneta0-

IMPOUNDED

t

t ONE box

[-

per

1

bank or dtteck 2 and AVERAGE

)

pat bank)

'.14

River Right Looking Downstream

RIPARIAN WIDTH?

FLOOD PLAIN DUALITY

(PAST tee Meter RIPARIAN)

?

BANK ERC SION

?

Riparian

L R (Per Bank)?

L R (Most Predomircint Per Bank) I It

?

L R (Per Bank)

?

?

]

0 El- VERY WIDE > 100m

(5]

C1 0-FOREST SWAmP [3]?

CI 0EONSERvATION TILLAGE [11

?

0 0-HONE/UTILE [3]

oa- WIDE ,. SOrn (.1] -?

CI 0SEIRLD OR OLD FIELD [2)?

0 O -URBAN OR INDUSTRIAL 0)

?

0 0

-MODERATE (2)

Oa- MODERATE 10-50m 13)

0 DRESIDEtITIAL,PARK.NEW

FIELD (11

a a •OPEN

PASTURE,ROWCROP (01 0 0 tHE,wY /SEVERE] ,

I

'la' •

6

`"

06

.

NARROW S-10 rn [21

?

0 0-FENCED PASTURE (11?

0 0

4eNING/CORSTRUCTION [o1

00-

VERY NARROW

,c5 rn[1]

conir,cnts:

o p

-

11O HE P31

NUMBER OF SUBSTRAI E TYPES:

(High Quality Only, Score 5 or >)

0.0CTRITUS(3)

? 0 -WETLANDS(0)

—

0

0

DART

0-SILT

Inc

12]AL[

CI ,HAROPAN [01

0

-SANDSTONE [D] EMBEDDED 0-EXTENSIVE (-21

0-RIP/RAP

[0] NESS:

(

-

MODERATE [-1)

0-LACUSTRINE [0]

Longitude-

SUBSTRATE OUALITY

Check ONE (OR 2 Et AVERAGE)

0.

SILTHEAVY 1;21

0-SILT MODERATE (-11 Substrate

0 -SILT NORMAL [0]

0 -SILT

FREELI

a-NORMAL [0]

0 NON E [1]

Max 20

Channel

s.poouGLIDE AND

MAX. DEPTH

(Check 1 ONLYI)

a-

Om [6]

0-

0.71m

[4]

0

. 0.4-0.7m 12]

0-

0.2

.

0.4w [1)

a- s

0.2m [PDOL.0]

RIFFLE/RUN QUALIFY

MORPHOLOGY

(Cheek 1 or 2 &AVERAGE)

0

-POOL WIDTH .> RIFFLE WIDTH (2)

O POOL WIDTH = RIFFLE WIDTH[1]

0-POOL

WIDTH < RIFFLE W. [0]

4mPour:0ED (-1)

COMMENTS:

CURRENT VELOCITY t POOLS

&

RIPPLES" t

(Check All That APPIY)

-

EDDIES(1)

?

0-TORRENTIAL(-1]

0 .

FAST11)

?

13.1HTERSTITIAL[-1]

-MODERATE [1)

?

0•INTERMITIENT[-2]

a-sLow?

a -VERY 6+57(1)

0-NONE

Pool!

Current

Modified ,

06/01/2005

17

---

Is Sampling Reach Representative of the Stream (YiN)

?

If Not, Explain:

Major Suspected Sources of

Impacts (Check

NI

That Apply}:

None t3

Let/Long (Beg):

Lat/Long (Mid):

Industrial a

WArrPII

AgC

Lat/Long End).

Livestock

Silviculture0

Lattiong(X-Loc).

Construction 0

Urban Runoff

q

CSOs

=====-

Gear •

?

Diswnce:?

Water Clarity:?

Water Stage:

?

:

Canopy?

Open

Suburban Impacts

a

First

Sampling Pass

0.1tning

q

Channelization

Riparian Removal

Gradient;

Aesthetic

.?Ratin

(1-tg)

Stream

Measurements:

Average?

Average?

Maximum

Av. Bankroll Bankroll Mean

WM?

Banktiill Max Flood prone Entrench.

Width

?

Depth

?

Depth

?

Width

?

Depth

?

Ratio

?

Cer■tn?

Area Width

?

Ratio

Landfills

Natural 0

Dams ID

0:her Hew

Akeration

Cthec,

Subjective

Rating

(1-1())

Q - Low, 0- Moderatom -High

eq

rj

(2)

ro

Yes/No

Stream Drawing:

Cro

Instructions for scoring the alternate cover metric: Each

cover type should receive a-score

of between 0 and 3, Where: 0 -

Cover type

,

absent 1 - Cover type present in very small

amounts or if more common of marginal quality; 2 - Cover type present in

moderate

amounts, but

not of highest quality ur in small amounts of highest quality: 3 - Cover ty pc

of highest quality in.moderate or greater amounts. Examples of highest quality include

very large boulders In deep or fast itater, large diameter logs that are stable, well developed

rootwads In deepifast water, or deep. well-defined, functional pools.

Is Stream Ephemeral

(eo pooh.

twit)

,

dry at

oily

damp spots)?

Is Maria wake upstream?

Is

HOw

There

Far:

?

eater Close

DOvalstreent?

Haw Far.?

-

Is Dry Channel Mushy Natural?

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 19 of 36

Reporting

A final report will be produced in accordance with the requirements of the cooperative

agreement detailed work plan and grant reporting requirements.

Group B: Data Generation and Acquisition

B.1:

Sampling Design Process

River locations will be sampled once or twice within a June 16 — October 15 seasonal index

period as river flow, water clarity, and weather conditions permit. General reaches and

sampling sites will be selected during a pre-survey planning. Specific sites will be selected

prior to the initial sampling run to include representative environmental conditions and

habitats available in the study area. These will match, when appropriate, historical

locations that were used in the UAA study.

A longitudinal design similar to that employed by Gammon (1976), Hughes and Gammon

(1987), Ohio EPA (Yoder and Smith 1999; Yoder et al. 2005), and Lyons et al. (2001) will

be employed. This consists of locating sites in proximity to major sources of potential

stress (major point sources, hydroelectric peaking facilities, tributary confluences), major

habitat types (free-flowing, impounded, tidal estuary), and spatially so that a longitudinal

profile of various fish assemblage attributes and indices can be analyzed and interpreted.

Such a design represents a stratified census of the mainstem river fish assemblage and

permits the demarcation of meaningful transitions that could influence the designation of

TALUs.

B.2:

Sampling Methods

Methods for the collection of fish will be based on appropriate modifications of those

established for boat electrofishing by Ohio EPA (1989). Fish sampling procedures will be

performed using boat-mounted pulsed D.C. electrofishing apparatus constructed by CABB.

In addition, experimental trawling will be attempted by using an 8' Herzog Armadillo

benthic trawl designed by the Missouri Department of Conservation (Herzog et al. 2005).

This apparatus and method has been proven effective for the collection of benthic fishes

that may not be amenable to collection by shoreline electrofishing. This method will be

applied to the deeper pools and impoundments of the study area (Appendix 2). We also

expect this experience to lead to more detailed methodological descriptions in future

QAPP revisions.

Sampling Site Selection

and Delineation

A stratified, intensive-based survey design (Yoder et al. 2005) will be used in the selection

of electrofishing sites. Individual sampling sites are located along the shoreline with the

most diverse habitat features in accordance with established methods (Gammon 1973,

1976; Ohio EPA 1989; Lyons et al. 2001). This is generally along the gradual outside

bends of large rivers, but this is not invariable. In free-flowing habitats, a portion of each

19

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 20 of 36

zone should include run-riffle habitat in addition to shoal and pool habitat as each is

available. Sampling distance will be measured with a GPS unit and/or a laser range finder.

When using the GPS unit each zone is measured by determining lineal distance using

intermediate waypoints to account for non-linear features of the river channel and the

sampling track. The sampling track will also be recorded and used as an indicator of the

thoroughness of the sampling at each site.

Sampling site locations are delineated using a GPS mechanism and indexed to

latitude/longitude and UTM coordinates at the beginning, mid-point, and terminus of

each zone and subzone if applicable. Sites will also delineated by river mile when such

maps are available. The boundaries of each boat electrofishing zone or subzone are marked

on stationary objects (e.g. trees, bridge piers, etc.) and fixed landmarks are geo-reference.d.

A detailed description of the river channel, habitat features, and sampling track is also

recorded on the QHEI data sheet. This enables accurate relocation of sites in the event

repeat visits are made. If the sampling zone is delineated in disjunct subzones, additional

demarcations will be made. A detailed description of the sampling location should also

include proximity to a fixed local landmark such as a bridge, road, discharge outfall,

railroad crossing, park, tributary, dam, etc. The field crew involved with the sampling is

noted on the field sheet with crew duties listed (boat driver, netters, primary

.

I.D., etc.).

Exact sampling locations are determined in the field and include a representative

proportion of reaches along the mainstem with respect to pollution sources, habitat

modifications (i.e., mostly impounded sections behind dams, reaches affected by water level

fluctuations below hydroelectric facilities), and relatively unmodified, free-flowing reaches.

Sampling

Procedure

A boat-rigged, pulsed D.C. electrofishing apparatus is the primary gear employed in this

study. This consists of a 16' john boat that is specifically constructed and modified for

electrofishing. Electric current is converted, controlled, and regulated by Smith-Root 5.0

GPP alternator-pulsator that produces up to 1000 volts DC at an effective range of 8-20

amperes depending on the relative conductivity. The pulse configuration consists of a fast

rise, slow decay wave that can be adjusted to 30, 60, or 120 Hz (pulses per second).

Generally, electrofishing is conducted at 120 Hz, depending on which selection is

producing the optimum combination of voltage and amperage output and most effectively

stunning fish. This is determined on a trial and error basis at the beginning of each boat

electrofishing zone and the settings will generally hold for all similar rivers and reaches.

The voltage range is selected based on what percentage of the power range produces the

highest amperage readings. Generally, the high range is used at conductivity readings less

than 50-100 ps/m2

and the low range is used at higher conductivities up to 1200 ps/m2.

Lower conductivities usually produce lower amperage outputs.

The electrode array consists of four 8-10' long cathodes (negative polarity; 1" diameter

flexible steel conduit) which are suspended from the bow and 4 anodes (positive polarity)

20

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 21 of 36

suspended from a retractable boom, the number used being dependent on the conductivity

of the water. Each anode consists of a 3/8" woven steel cable strand 4' in length that are

spaced equally on the boom cross member. Gangs of anodes can be added or detached as

conductivity conditions change; anodes are increased at low conductivity and reduced at

high conductivity. The anodes are suspended from a retractable boom that extends 2.75

meters in front of the bow. The width of the array is 0.9 meters. Anodes and cathodes are

replaced when they are lost, damaged, or become worn.

A boat electrofishing crew consists of a boat driver and two netters. Limited access to free-

flowing segments may necessitate launching at an upstream location and recovering at a

downstream location. Put-in and take-out sampling is conducted where navigational

barriers preclude contiguous navigation.

The accepted sampling procedure is to slowly and methodically maneuver the

electrofishing boat in a down current direction along the shoreline maneuvering in and

around submerged cover to advantageously position the netter(s) to pick up stunned and

immobilized fish. This may require frequent turning, backing, shifting between forward

and reverse, changing speed, etc. depending on current velocity and cover density and

variability. The driver's task is to maneuver the electrofishing boat in a manner that

positions the netters advantageously to pick up stunned and immobilized fish. The driver

also monitors and adjusts the 5.0 GPP pulsator to provide the maximum, yet safe

operational mode in terms of voltage range, pulse setting, and amperage. In areas with

extensive woody debris and submergent aquatic macrophytes, it is necessary to maneuver

the boat in and out of these "pockets" of habitat and wait for fish to appear within the

netters field of view. In moderately swift to fast current the procedure is to electrofish with

or slightly ahead of the current through the fast water sections and then return upstream to

more thoroughly sample the eddies and side edges of the faster water. It is often necessary

to pass over these swift water areas twice to ensure an adequate sample. Electrofishing

efficiency is enhanced by keeping the boat and electric field moving with or at a slightly

faster rate than the prevailing current velocity. Fish are usually oriented into the current

and must turn sideways or swim into the approaching electric field to escape. As such they

present an increased voltage gradient making the fish more susceptible to being

immobilized by the electric current. Sampling in an upstream direction is prohibited as

this compresses the electrical field towards the surface, which significantly diminishes

sampling effectiveness. Although sampling effort is measured by distance, the time fished

is an important indicator of adequate effort. Time fished can legitimately vary over the

same distance as dictated by cover and current conditions and the number of fish

encountered. In all cases, there is a minimum time that should be spent sampling each

zone regardless of the catch. In our experience this is generally in the range of 2000-2500

seconds for a 0.5 km site, but could range upwards to 3500 .

4000 seconds where there is

extensive instream cover and slack flows.

21

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 22 of 36

Safety features include easily accessible toggle switches on the pulsator unit and next to the

driver and a foot pedal switch operated by the primary netter. The netters wear jacket style

life preservers, rubber gloves, and all crew members wear chest waders. Netters are

required to wear polarized sunglasses to facilitate seeing stunned fish in the water during

each daytime boat electrofishing run. Boat nets with a 2.5m long handle and 7.62mm

Atlas mesh knodess netting are used to capture stunned fish as they are attracted to the

anode array and/or stunned. A concerted effort is made to capture every fish sighted by

both the netters and driver. Since the ability of the netters to see stunned and immobilized

fish is partly dependent on water clarity, sampling is conducted only during periods of

"normal" water clarity and flows. Periods of high turbidity and high flows are avoided due

to their negative influence on sampling efficiency. If high flow conditions prevail,

sampling will be delayed until flows and mater clarity return to seasonal, low flow norms.

Other potential hazards in the Lower Des Plaines include commercial barge traffic and

cable and line crossings. These will be dealt With by yielding to river traffic and commonly

accepted navigational rules.

General

Cautions Concerning

Field Conditions

Electrofishing should be conducted only during "normal" summer-fall water flow and clarity

conditions. What constitutes normal can vary considerably from region to region. Generally

normal water conditions in the Midwest occur during below annual average river flows.

Under these conditions the surface of the water generally will have a placid appearance.

Abnormally turbid conditions are to be avoided as are high water levels and elevated current

velocities. In addition to safety concerns, any of these conditions can adversely affect

sampling efficiency and may rule out data applicability for bioassessment purposes. Since the

ability of the netter to see and capture stunned fish is crucial, sampling should take place only

during periods of normal water clarity and flow. Floating debris such as twigs, tree limbs,

flotsam, and other trash are usually visible on the surface during elevated flow events. Such

conditions should be avoided and sampling delayed until the water returns to a "normal" flow

and clarity. High flows should also be avoided for obvious safety reasons in addition to the

reductions in sampling efficiency. Boat mounted methods are particularly susceptible as it

becomes more difficult to maneuver the boat into areas of cover and the fish assemblage is

locally displaced by the elevated flow events. It may take several days or even weeks for the

assemblage to return to their normal summer-fall distribution patterns. Thus sampling may

need to be delayed by a similar time period if necessary. Knowing this requires local

knowledge and a familiarity with flow gage readings and conditions. Generally, these

conditions coincide with low flow durations of approximately 80% or greater, i.e., flows that

are exceeded 80% of the time for the period of record. These statistics are available for most

Midwest rivers from the U.S. Geological Survey at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/.

Field.

Sample Processing Procedures

Captured fish are immediately placed in an on-board live well for processing. Water is

replaced regularly in warm weather to maintain adequate dissolved oxygen levels in the

water and to minimize mortality. Aeration will be provided to further minimize stress and

22

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 23 of 36

mortality. Special handling procedures may be necessary for species of special concern.

Fish not retained for voucher or other purposes are released back into the water after they

are identified to species, examined for external anomalies, weighed and, if necessary,

measured for total length. Every effort is made to minimize holding and handling times.

The majority of captured fish are identified to species in the field; however, any uncertainty

about the field identification of individual fish requires their preservation for later

laboratory identification. Fish are preserved for future identification in borax buffered

10% formalin and labeled by date, river or stream, and geographic identifier (e.g., river

mile). Large specimens (>50-100 mm) require visceral incision (lower right abdominal) to

permit proper preservation of internal spaces and organs. After an initial fixation period of

3-4 weeks, specimens are washed in plain water and then transferred to increasing dilutions

of non-denatured ethyl alcohol and water (35%, 50%) with a final solution of 70% ethyl

alcohol. This process takes approximately 4-5 weeks to complete. Identification is

performed to the species level at a minimum and it may be necessary to the sub-specifit

level in certain instances. Regional ichthyology keys are used. Assistance with the

verification of voucher specimens has been provided by The Ohio State University

Museum of Biodiversity (OSUMB). Representative fish voucher specimens are retained at

CABB for the purpose of confirming later identifications and at the OSUMB to serve as a

permanent record. Photographs may also used to record species occurrences, particularly

larger species that are not as easily preserved and stored. Photographs are maintained by

CABB in an archived electronic file.

The sample from each zone or subzone is processed by enumerating and recording weights

by species or by species age class when this is distinguished. Fish weighing less than 1000

grams are weighed to the nearest gram on a spring dial scale (1000 g x 2g) or a 1000 g hand

held spring scale. Fish weighing more than 1000 grams are weighed to the nearest 25

grams on a 12 kg spring dial scale (12 kg x 50 g) or a 50 kg hand held spring scale. Scales

are periodically checked with National Bureau of Standards check weights and adjusted

accordingly. Samples comprised of two or more distinct size classes of fish (e.g., y-o-y,

juveniles, and adults) are processed separately. These are recorded on the field data sheet

by designating an A (adult), B (1+ year), or Y (young-of-year) to the numeric species code.

For example, if both adult and juvenile white suckers occur in the same sample the adult

numbers and weights are recorded as family-species code 40-016A with juvenile numbers

and weights recorded as 40-016B. Although each is listed separately on the fish data sheet

they can be treated in the aggregate as a single sample of the same species in any

subsequent data analyses or as distinct size class entities. The data management programs

used by CABB are designed to calculate relative numbers and biomass data based on the

input of weighted subsamples. Total lengths may be recorded for important commercial,

recreational, ecological, and special interest species. Larval and/or post-larval fish

measuring less than 15-20 mm in length are generally not included in the data recording as

a matter of practice following the recommendations of Angermeier and Karr (1986).

23

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 24 of 36

The incidence of external anomalies is recorded following procedures outlined by Ohio

EPA (1989) and refinements made by Sanders et al. (1999). The frequency of DELT

anomalies (deformities, eroded fins and body parts, lesions, and tumors) is a good

indication of chronic stress caused by biological agents, intermittent stresses, and chemical

contaminants. The percentage of DELT anomalies is a metric that is included in most of

the large river fish assemblage IBIs that have been developed across the U.S.

A qualitative habitat assessment using an appropriate modification of the Qualitative

Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI; Ohio EPA 1989; Rankin 1989) is completed by the crew

leader at each 1.0 km site. The QHEI is a physical habitat index designed to provide an

empirical, qualitative evaluation of the lotic macrohabitat characteristics that are important

to fish assemblages. The QHEI was developed as a rapid assessment tool and in

recognition of the constraints associated with the practicalities of conducting a large-scale

monitoring program, i.e., the need for a rapid assessment tool that yields meaningful

information and which takes advantage of the knowledge and insights of experienced field

biologists who are conducting biological assessments. This index has been used widely

outside of Ohio and parallel habitat evaluation techniques are in widespread existence

throughout the U.S. The QHEI incorporates the types and quality substrate, the types and

amounts of instream cover, several characteristics of channel morphology, riparian zone

extent and quality, bank stability and condition, and pool-run-riffle quality and

characteristics. Slope or gradient is also factored into the QHEI score. We followed the

guidance and scoring procedures outlined in Ohio EPA (1989) and Rankin (1989) with

some minor modifications made during 2002 and 2003. A QHEI users guide appears in

Appendix 1. A QHEI habitat assessment form is completed by the crew leader for each 1.0

km site (see example in Figure 5).

Method

Performance

Evaluation

The principal investigator will be responsible for evaluating the performance of the

methods used in this project and for making decisions about appropriate modifications to

those described in this section. In some cases an evaluation will be made based on

preliminary data analyses conducted during the field sampling part of the project. In other

instances, the assessment of method performance will be a part of the data analysis

conducted following the field season. This latter information will be used to better

develop and refine the methods prior to their wider application to other rivers.

B.3: Sampling Handling and Custody

The principal sample product produced by this project will be completed field forms for

the boat electrofishing results and the qualitative habitat assessment. All completed field

data sheets are logged by the field crew leader to prevent loss and assure that all sites are

sampled according to the detailed plan of study. Data is then entered into the Ohio ECOS

data management system, which was developed by Ohio EPA for the purpose of storing

and analyzing fish relative abundance data. Data are entered in the format presented in

the field data sheet (Figures 4 and 5). Each data entry contains the basin-river code, date of

24

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 25 of 36

entry, GPS coordinates, river mile, and date of sampling. The data sheets are assembled in

a notebook along with site description sheets, maps of the sampling sites, the QHEI field

sheet, and the final study plan. Each entry is checked and initialed; any subsequent

changes that are made to the fish data sheets are also initialed and dated. After all data

have been entered into Ohio ECOS the entries are proofread by the data entry analyst for

accuracy. All corrections or updates are then entered into the database. The initialed data

sheets also serve as a chain-of-custody for the data collection process.

13.4: Analytical Methods

The principal analytical tools used in this project are those associated with data analysis

and the biological indices. This will be performed on personal computers using relational

databases such as FoxPro, Access, and Excel. CABB currently uses the data storage,

retrieval, and calculation routines available in the Ohio ECOS system developed and used

by Ohio EPA. Appropriate modifications to those routines have been made as an outcome

of the data analysis part of the project.

B.5:

Quality Control

Quality control of boat electrofishing includes monitoring the power output variables,

which is performed by the crew leader during the sampling. These output variables are

recorded on the field sheet and are described in more detail in B.2. Other important

measures of adequate effort include time electrofished and the effort made by the netters

to capture stunned and immobilized fish. There is an inherent degree of judgment

involved in the assessment of individual crew member performance and this will be

performed by the principal investigator. The quality of identifications made in the field

will be evaluated by the principal investigator and also based on the retention of voucher

specimens that will be verified independent of the field crew. Any samples that are

deemed unacceptable will either be repeated or denoted in the database. This latter

denotation may limit or disqualify the use of the data in some of the analyses and

computations that will be performed later.

B.6:

Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance

The electrofishing equipment is evaluated for performance during all phases of sampling as

described previously in B.2. All connections and switches must be in good condition to

ensure acceptable performance and are inspected several times each day by the sampling

crew. Malfunctioning and worn parts are replaced immediately. All engines undergo

maintenance as prescribed by the manufacturer for intensive use. Analytical field meters

used by the sampling crew are maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's

specifications.

B.7: Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency

The electrofishing equipment is calibrated to local water conditions at the beginning of

each sampling zone (see B.2). Field meters are calibrated in accordance with the

25

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 26 of 36

manufacturer's recommendations and specifications and in accordance with the

specifications in Table 3.

B.8: Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables

All supplies used in this project undergo an initial inspection for usability and suitability.

No chemical reagents or analytical sensitive supplies will be used in this project.

B.9:

Non-direct Measurements

We will make an effort to access historical information about the fish fauna of the study

rivers. This will be especially valuable in constructing the qualitative attributes of the

Biological Condition Gradient. Some expert judgment may be necessary to evaluate the

quality and accuracy of this information. It is unlikely that historical data will support the

analyses envisioned by this project and its use

will

likely be restricted to qualitative uses.

B.10: Data Management

CABB uses an adaptation of the Ohio ECOS data management system developed to store,

retrieve, and analyze biological and habitat assessment data and information. Fish

assemblage data are entered directly via the electronic data entry routine from the field

sheets (Figures 4 and 5). All dataentry codes follow those specified in Ohio EPA (1987)

•

and those added by CABB for non-Ohio fish species. All entries are proofread by the data

entry analyst and corrections are made in.the electronic database. All corrections are noted

and initialed by the data entry operator and confirmed by the project manager. Other

checks on data entry accuracy are made via the routine processing and analysis of the data.

The procedure for retaining and filing of data sheets and field notes was described in B.2.

Group C: Assessment and Oversight

C. Assessments and Response Actions

Due to the scope and experimental character of the project, much of the assessment and

oversight will be the responsibility of the principal investigator and the lead scientist for the

contractor. However, the stakeholder organizations will be afforded an opportunity to

make inspections and audits of the field sampling, the equipment, and the results. This

will be coordinated by the principal investigator.

26

---

Temperature

Check

against Check

prior +

1 EC of

NIST certified to beginning

NIST

thermo-

Thermometer of

survey meter

D.O.

Calibrate with Daily

prior to

saturated moist use;

check at

air; check with end

of day

0.0 D.O. std.

±0.5 mg/1

from 0.0

std.

10% of true

value of check

standard

Conductivity

Calibrate with

single point

standard; check

with standard in

range of samples.

Daily prior to

use; check Cali-

bration at end

of day.

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 27 of 36

Table 3. Field analytical instrument calibration specifications.

Calibration

Frequency

of

Acceptance

Corrective

Instrument

Activity

Calibration

Criteria

Action

Adjust or

replace

probe/meter

If D.O. exceeds

criteria prepare

fresh 0.0 std.,

clean probe,

change mem-

brane; recali-

brate; qualify

data.

If conductivity

exceeds criteria

prepare fresh

Standard and re-

Calibrate; qualify

data accordingly.

Secchi Disk

Check reading

with second

sampler.

10% of loca-

tions.

±0.2 meters

Check second

sampler readings

until agreement

is reached; qualify

data accordingly.

27

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 28 of 36

C.2: Reports to Management

The principal investigator will include a report on this project in the final grant report to

the U.S. EPA project officer with distribution to all parties listed in A.3. Recipients may

comment directly to the principal investigator or the EPA project officer.

Group D: Data Validation and Usability

DJ: Data Review, Validation, and Verification

Data acceptance will initially be evaluated in the field using the processes described in B.2

and B.5. However, later inspection of the data may also raise issues of acceptance such as

identification problems and issues. An attempt will be made to reconcile any

inconsistencies or issues prior to disqualifying data.

D.2:

Verification and Validation of Methods

Most of the raw data will be field validated in accordance with the processes described in

B.2, B.3, B.4, and B.10. Post-sampling validation will entail verification of identifications

made in the field and later in the laboratory.

Analyses have already been performed to determine the minimum sampling distance

required to generate data and information adequate for producing a consistent assessment

of the health and well-being of the fish assemblage (Gammon 1976; Yoder and Smith

1999). This entailed an analysis of the effect of increasing distance on assemblage

parameters such as species richness and catch per unit effort both in terms of fish numbers

and biomass. This was performed by sequentially adding data from 0.25 km subzones over

1.5 km long test zones and analyzing the effect of the cumulative addition of information

on selected assemblage attributes. The influence of time electrofished and variations in

physical parameters such as conductivity, temperature, and zone depths was also analyzed

by these studies.

D.3:

Reconciliation with User Requirements

The sampling and analytical approach used in this project are designed to provide the

opportunity to adjust and modify methods as appropriate to obtain results that meet the

project goals and objectives. The initial scoping and shakedown sampling produced the

data necessary to make adjustments, modifications, and refinements to the methods

described in B.2. Other changes and modifications may not be apparent until later during

the project and the data are more fully analyzed and discussed. These changes will be

documented in periodic reports and will include a detailed description of all data analyses

used.

28

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 29 of 36

References

Angermier, P.L. and J.R. Karr. 1986. Applying an index of biotic integrity based on

stream-fish communities: considerations in sampling and interpretation. N. Am. J.

Fish. Mgmt. 6: 418-427.

Bayley, P.B., Larimore, R.W., and Dowling, D.C. 1989. Electric seine as a fish-sampling

gear in streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 118: 447-453.

Blocksom, K.A. and J.E. Flotemersch. 2004. Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling

methods for non-wadeable streams. Env. Mon. Assess. (xxx): 1-20.

Boccardy, J.A. and E.L. Cooper. 1963. The use of rotenone and electrofishing in

surveying small streams. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 92: 307-310.

Emery, E. B., T. P. Simon, F. H. McCormick, P. A. Angermeier, J. E. DeShon, C. 0.

Yoder, R. E. Sanders, W. D. Pearson, G. D. Hickman, R. J. Reash, J. A. Thomas. 2003.

Development of a Multimetric Index for Assessing the Biological Condition of the

Ohio River. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 132:791-808.

Davis, W.S. and T.P. Simon. 1995. Biological criteria and assessment: tools for water

resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 415 pp.

Fausch, K. D., J. R. Karr, and P. R. Yant. 1984. Regional application of an index of biotic

integrity based on stream fish communities. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113: 39-55.

Fore, L.S., J.R. Karr, and L.L. Conquest. 1993. Statistical properties of an index of biotic

integrity used to evaluate water resources. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 51: 1077-

1087.

Funk, J.L. 1958. Relative efficiency and selectivity of gear used in the study of stream fish

populations. 23rd N.Am. Wildl. Conf. 23: 236-248.

Gammon, J.R., Spacie, A., Hamelink, J.L., and R.L. Kaesler. 1981. Role of electrofishing

in assessing environmental quality of the Wabash River, in Ecological assessments of

effluent impacts on communities of indigenous aquatic organisms, in Bates, J. M. and

Weber, C. I., Eds., ASTM STP 730, 307 pp.

Gammon, J.R. 1980. The use of community parameters derived from electrofishing catches

of river fish as indicators of environmental quality. pp. 335-363 in Seminar on water

29

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 — June 25, 2006

Page 30 of 36

quality management trade-offs (point source vs. diffuse source pollution). EPA-905/9-

80-009.

Gammon, J.R. 1976. The fish populations of the middle 340 km of the Wabash River,

Purdue Univ. Water Res. Research Cen. Tech. Rep. 86. 73 p.

Gammon, J.R. 1973. The effect of thermal inputs on the populations of fish and

macroinvertebrates in the Wabash River. Purdue Univ. Water Res. Research Cen.

Tech. Rep. 32. 106 pp.

Hendricks, M.L., C.H. Hocutt, and J.R. Stauffer. 1980. Monitoring of fish in lotic

habitats, pp. 205-231. in C.H. Hocutt and J.R. Stauffer (eds.). Biological Monitoring

of Fish. Heath, Lexington, MA.

Herzog, D.P., V.A. Barko, J.S. Scheibe, R.A. Hrabik, and D.E. Ostendorf. 2005. The

efficacy of a benthic trawl for sampling small-bodied fishes in large river systems. N.

Am. J. Fish. Mgmt. 25: 594-603.

Hey and Associates. 2003. Lower Des Plaines river use attainability analysis (draft).

Prepared for Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 8 chapters + appendices.

Hughes, R.M. and J.R. Gammon. 1987. Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and

water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 116: 196-209.

Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource

management. Ecological Applications 1(1): 66-84.

Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing

biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural

History Survey Special Publication 5: 28 pp.

Larimore, R.W. 1961. Fish populations and electrofishing success in a warmwater stream.

J. Wildl. Mgmt. 25(1): 1-12.

Lyons, John, R.R. Piette, and K.W. Niermeyer. 2001. Development, validation, and

application of a fish-based index of biotic integrity for Wisconsin's large warmwater

rivers. Trans. Amer. Fisheries Society: Vol. 130, No. 6, pp. 1077-1094.

Mebane, C.A., T.R. Maret, and R.M. Hughes. 2003. An index of biotic integrity (IBI) for

Pacific Northwest rivers. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 132: 239-261.

Midwest Biodiversity Institute. 1999. Application for a cooperative agreement between

the U.S Environmental Protection Agency and the Midwest Biodiversity Institute for

30

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 31 of 36

technical assistance, concept development and application, conferences, symposia,

training, and other activities on biological monitoring and assessment and biological

criteria issues. MBI, Columbus, OH. 11 pp.

Nelson,J.S. and 6 others. 2004. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United

States, Canada, and Mexico. Sixth Edition. American Fisheries Society Spec. Publ. 29.

386 pp.

Novotny, D.W. And G.R. Priegel. 1974. Electrofishing boats, improved designs, and

operational guidelines to increase the effectiveness of boom shockers. Wisc. DNR

Tech. Bull. No. 73, Madison, WI. 48 pp.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Biological criteria for the protection of

aquatic life. volume III: standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods

for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities, Division of Water Quality

Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Biological criteria for the protection of

aquatic life; volume II. users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface

waters, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section,

Columbus, Ohio.

Rankin, E.T. 1995. Habitat indices in water resource quality assessments, in W.S. Davis

and T.P. Simon (Eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource

Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 181-208.

Rankin, E.T. and C.O. Yoder. 1999. Adjustments to the Index of Biotic Integrity: a

summary of Ohio experiences and some suggested modifications, pp. 625-638.. in T.P.

Simon (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources

Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Sanders, R.S. 1992. Day versus night electrofishing catches from near-shore waters of the

Ohio and Muskingum Rivers. Ohio J. Sci. 92:

51-59.

Simon, T.P. and R.E. Sanders. 1999. Applying an index of biotic integrity based on great

river fish communities: considerations in sampling and interpretation, pp. 475-506.

in

T.P. Simon (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water

Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Simon, T.P. and E.B. Emery. 1995. Modification and assessment of an index of biotic

integrity to quantify water resource integrity in great rivers. Regulated Rivers Research.

and Management, 11: 283-298.

31

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 32 of 36

Simon, T.P. and J. Lyons. 1995. Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate

water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems, pp. 245-262. in W.S Davis and T.P.

Simon (eds.). Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning

and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Thoma, R.F. 1999. Biological monitoring and an index of biotic integrity for Lake Erie's

nearshore waters, pp. 417-462.

in

T.P. Simon (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and

Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca

Raton, FL.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995b. Biological criteria: technical guidance for

streams and small rivers. EPA 822-B-94-001, U. S. EPA, Office of Water (WH 4304),

Washington, D. C. 20460. 162 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Biological Criteria, national program

guidance for surface waters. U. S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,

Washington, D. C. EPA-440/5-90-004.

Vincent, R. 1971. River electrofishing and fish population estimates. Prog. Fish Cult.

33(3): 163-169.

Yoder, C.O. and 9 others. 2005. Changes in fish assemblage status in Ohio's non-

wadeable rivers and streams over two decades.

in

R. Hughes and J. Rinne (eds.).

Historical changes in fish assemblages of large rivers in the America's. American

Fisheries Society Symposium Series (in press).

Yoder, C.O. and M.A Smith. 1999. Using fish assemblages in a state biological assessment

and criteria program: essential concepts and considerations, pp. 17-56.

in

T.P. Simon

(ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using

Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1998. The role of biological indicators in a state water

quality management process. J. Env. Mon. Assess. 51(1-2): 61-88

Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological criteria program development and

implementation in Ohio, pp. 109-144. in W. Davis and T. Simon (eds.). Biological

Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making.

Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

32

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 — June 25, 2006

Page 33 of 36

Appendix 1

Methods for Assessing Habitat in Flowing Waters: Using the Qualitative

Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)

Edward T. Rankin

Midwest Biodiversity Institute

Center for Applied Bioassessment & Biocriteria

P.O. Box 21561

Columbus, OH 43221-0561

33

---

Methods for Assessing Habitat in Flowing Waters: Using

the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)

Introduction

This document summarizes the methodology for completing a general evaluation of macrohabitat, generally

done by the fish field crew leader while sampling each location using the Ohio EPA Site Description Sheet -

Fish (Appendix 1). This form is used to tabulate data and information for calculating the Qualitative Habitat

Evaluation Index (QHEI). The following guidance should be used when completing the site evaluation form.

Header/Geographical Information

Complete site identification information is critical to making field data useful. Figure 1 illustrates the

location information required for the QHEI.

•

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

and Use Assessment Field Sheet

?

.

QHEI

Score:

Stream & Location:

RM:

Date:

1

06

Scorers Full Name 8 Affiliation:

River Code:_?

_ __STORET

?

Lac/

ls—

?

/8_

locationu

Office twined

Figure I. Header of Ohio EPA QHEI Sheet

1)

Stream &

Location, River

Mile (RM), Date.

The official stream .name may be found in the

Gazetteer of Ohio Streams (Ohio DNR 2001) or on USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. If the stream is

unnamed, a name and stream code is assigned by the Ohio ECOS Database Coordinator. Usually the name

of a nearby landmark is used for the stream name. The River Mile (RM) designations used are found on 7.5

minute topo maps stored at the Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Lazarus Government Center, Front

Street (PEMSO RMI maps), one of five Ohio EPA District offices (maps for that district), and the Ohio EPA,

Ecological Assessment Section at Grove City. These maps should soon be available as Adobe PDF files. A

brief description of the sampling location should include proximity to a local landmark such as a bridge,

road, discharge outfall, railroad crossing, park, tributary, dam, etc.

2)

QHEI Scorers Full Name/Institution.

The full name of the person who filled out the sheet are

listed, along with the institution, company etc. QHEI information is to be completed someone who has

successfully completed the QHEI training (e.g., crew leader). Ohio EPA will track the level of qualifications

for each scorer. Level 2 QHEI practitioners have completed the two day training and successfully scored an

additional site in a manner similar to EPA staff; Level 3 practitioners have additional training and have

submitted three sites scored independently which will be verified as similar to EPA staff.

3)

River Code, STORET, and Lat/Long.

The River Code is Ohio EPA river code (PEMSO system)

and the STORET If is the official unique Station Identifier used to link all data collected at a given "site" or

"station" deemed to be similar for assessment purposes within a certain spatial area.

Habitat Characteristics: QHEI Metrics

The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) is a physical habitat index designed to provide an

empirical, quantified evaluation of the general lotic macrohabitat characteristics that are important to fish

communities. A detailed analysis of the development and use of the QHEI is available in Rankin (1989) and

Rankin (1995). The QHEI is composed of six principal metrics each of which are described below. The

maximum possible QHEI site score is 100. Each of the metrics are scored individually and then summed to

provide the total QHEI site score. This is completed at least once for each sampling site during each year of

sampling. An exception to this convention would be when substantial changes to the macrohabitat have

occurred between sampling passes. Standardized definitions for pool, run, and riffle habitats, for which a

34

---

Riffle and Run Habitats:

Riffle - areas of the stream with fast current velocity

and shallow depth; the water surface is visibly broken.

RIFFLE

Figure 2. Riffle cross-section.

Run -

areas of the stream that have a rapid,

non-turbulent flow; runs are deeper than

riffles with a faster current velocity than pools

and are generally located downstream from

riffles where the stream narrows; the stream

Figure 3. Run cross-section.

Figure 5. Glide cross-section.

variety of existing definitions and perceptions exist, are essential for accurately using the QHEI. For

consistency the following definitions are taken from Plats et al. (1983). It is recommended that this reference

also be consulted prior to scoring individual sites.

bed is often flat beneath a run and the water surface

is not visibly broken.

Pool and Glide Habitats:

Pool - an area of the stream with slow current

velocity and a depth greater than riffle and run

areas; the stream bed is often concave and stream

width frequently is the greatest; the water surface

slope is nearly zero.

Figure 4. Pool cross-section.

Glide - this is an area common to most

modified stream channels that do not have

distinguishable pool, run, and riffle habitats;

the current and flow is similar to that of a canal;

the water surface gradient is nearly zero. HINT:

These habitat types typically grade into one

another. For example a run gradually changes

into a pool. When measuring typical depths of

these features take measurements where the feature is clearly of that type, not where they are grading from

one type to another. The following is a description of each of the six QHEI metrics and the individual metric

components. Guidelines on how to score each is presented. Generally, metrics are ,

scored by checking boxes.

In certain cases the biologist completing the QHEI sheet may interpret a habitat characteristic as being

intermediate between the possible choices; in cases where this is allowed (denoted by the term "Double-

Checking") two boxes may be checked and their scores averaged.

Metric 1: Substrate (Figure 6).

This metric includes two components, substrate type' and substrate quality. Substrate type Check the two

most common substrate types in the stream reach. If one substrate type predominates (greater than

approximately 75- 80% of the bottom area OR what is clearly the most functionally predominant substrate)

then this substrate type should be checked twice.

DO NOT CHECK MORE THAN TWO BOXES.

Note

the category for artificial substrates. Spaces are provided to note the presence (by check marks, or estimates of

% if time allows) of all substrate types present in pools (includes pools and glides) and riffles (includes riffles

and runs) that each comprise sufficient quantity to support species that may commonly be associated with

We suggest that QHEI practitioners should conduct some pebble count assessments which help calibrate an

investigators ability to identify predominant substrates.

35

---

Check ONE

(Or 2 & average)

ORIGIN?

QUALITY

q

LIMESTONE [1] ' '?

q

HEAVY [-2]. •

q

CITILLS111

WETLANDS

'.;'

[0]

,

:.

'

?

SILT

q

q

NORMAL

MODERATE

101

1-1]

..

Subsrmte

•

.

q

q

SANDSTONE

HARDPAN [0]

[0]

''. ''•

?

?

D

E

•

0

q

-

FREED

EXTENSIVE

.

] :•

[-2]

q

RIPIRAP

. ?

[0]

-'

. t.,... []

MODERATE [-1)

Li LACUSTURINE

[0]

tu?

.

''C'D

NORMAL [0] : .

q

SHALE

I-11 '.:I...'.: •

?

q

NONE [1)

q

COAL

FINES (.2)

Enibd(1..dnoss

ItImieeva?

ase.st,

:•.!,;FA,

el

'

man •

pus.

Ysvoh: eq7cmae.1

!mew..

a

It?: a

00. • voi.

weiErb.r.r.n:

25- 5i

:holm -

'Lela

14e.

, 14 Arr.t

avntorto

vs*

4

2i a

4.r41,4,d i•

Figure 8. Illustration of example of degrees of pervasiveness of embeddedness

for this QHEI component.

that substrate type. This section must be filled out completely to permit future analyses of this metric. If there

are more than four or more high quality substrate types in the zone that are present in sufficient amounts (see

above) then check the appropriate box for number of best types. This metrics award points to those sites with

a diversity of high quality substrate types. Substrate origin refers to the parent material from which the

substrate type(s) originated. This can be double-checked if two origin types are common (e.g., tills &

limestone). See end of this section for some definitions.

11

SUBSTRATE

Check ONLYTwo substrate

TYPE BOXES:

estimate % or note every type present

BEST TYPES

?

POOL RIFFLE

OTHER TYPES

POOL RIFFLE

q

q

BLDR /SLABS [10]

?

0 0 HARDPANI41 I.

0

q

BOULDER [9] •

?

q q

DETRITUS 131-

q q

COBBLE [8]?

q

17]

MUCK 14 '

qq

GRAVEL 171?

q q

SILT [2]

q q

SAND [6] .

?

0 0 ARTIFICIAL [0]

q

q

BEDROCK [5]

.

?(SCOre natural stlbs-r-;4es: igno-e

NUMBER OF BEST

TYPES:

q

4

or more [2

1

sludge from pont-sourc.e-s)

Comments •

.

q

3 or less [0] ,

Figure 6. QHEI substrate metric.

Embeddedness

is the degree that cobble, gravel, and

boulder substrates are surrounded, impacted ;in, or

covered by fine materials (sand and silt). Substrates

should be considered embedded if >50% of surface

of the substrates are embedded in fine material.

Embedded substrates cannot be easily dislodged.

This also includes substrates that are concreted or

"armor-plated". Naturally sandy streams are not

considered embedded; however, a sand

predominated stream that is the result of

anthropogenic activities that have buried the

natural coarse substrates is considered embedded.

Figure 7. Side view of clearly un-embedded and embedded

substrates.

Substrate quality.

Substrate origin refers to the "parent" material that the stream substrate is derived from. Check ONE box

under the substrate origin column unless the parent material is from multiple sources (e.g., limestone and

tills).

This can be very difficult to

perceive. One help is to examine

fresh point bars and look at the

most common large materials

that have been recently moved.

According to Kappesser (1993),

for gravel-bed rivers, the median

of these large pieces should be

equivalent to the median of the

pieces on a riffle (based on a

Wolman pebble count). If the

riffles are finer than this, then

sediment is aggrading in the

reach and is evidence of

embedded conditions. In some

cases one can dig though the fine

surface materials and fine coarser

materials buried below. In this

metric we are estimating the

36

---

pervasiveness

of embedded conditions through-out a station. Boxes are checked for extensiveness (i.e.,

pervasiveness throughout the area of the sampling zone) of the embedded substrates as follows: Extensive — >

75% of site area, Moderate — 50.75%, Normal' — 25

.50%, None' — < 25%.

Silt Cover is the extent that substrates are covered by a silt layer (i.e., a 1 inch thick or obviously affecting

aquatic habitats). Silt cover differs from the embeddedness metric in that it only considers the fine silt size

particles whereas fine gravels, sands, and other fines are considered in assessing embedded conditions. Silt

Heavy means that nearly the entire stream bottom is layered with a deep covering of silt. (pool/glides and all

but the fastest areas of riffle/runs). Moderate means extensive covering by silts, but with some areas of

Silt Cov.n

cleaner substrate (e.g., riffles).

/4.N. Normal silt cover includes areas

where silt is deposited in small

amounts along the stream

margin or is present as a

"dusting" that appears to have

little functional significance. If

substrates are exceptionally clean

the Silt Free box should be

checked.

.

SJII,.. '

?

.

?

ii

Nu,st?

54 Vou

q

ue. ' .

?

.. .?

. Sat l's.ne ...: . .

.i4a/Vs,

t•,S

kni

61,1,11V1.?••

L+

it

...... 4 ”.....,,,...,iry ,

?. i:,•;!< A

tlItte. • F...■?

•

?. 5 :•:■:.• 0

tlt,o

••• • .poui AND

crst

VA:.

?

• .

F

oss up...,:

a.:k.i Pq uat ?

m.....4:09.0....., .

? •

Vojr.iy

•■■■•,S

.?. •?

Ina. kV. 101.$

.?•?•

,.. C.,o2,..(!•■}•sn h.ick.e.1.,Nsr,,m

larls...

!ri pa. ::,' ...upyi.Ya

'

lernes,...1:1.1

.

r‘sou,

Niva■slau•■•,4141.f....5!....A.,11s..4

Figure 9. Illustration

of

example of

degrees

of

pervasiveness

of silt

cover.

slabs)4.

c)

Cobble - stones from 64- 256 mm (2 1/2 - 10 in.) in diameter.

d) Gravel - mixture of rounded course material from 2-64 mm (1/12 - 2 1/2 in.) in diameter. Note the wide

range of sizes included under gravel. In the riffle metric we distinguish between large and fine gravels

e) Sand - materials 0.06 - 2.0 mm in diameter, gritty texture when rubbed between fingers.

0 Silt - 0.004 - 0.06 mm in diameter, generally this is fine material which feels "greasy" when rubbed between

fingers.

g)Hardpan - particles less than 0.004 mm in diameter, usually clay, which forms a dense, gummy surface that

is difficult to penetrate.

h) Marl - calcium carbonate; usually grayish-white; often contains fragments of mollusk shells.

i)

Detritus - dead, unconsolidated organic material covering the bottom which could include sticks, wood

and other partially or un-decayed coarse plant material.

j)

Muck - black, fine, flocculent, completely decomposed organic matter (does not include sewage sludge).

k) Artificial - substrates such as rock baskets, gabions, bricks, trash, concrete etc., placed in the stream for

reasons OTHER than habitat mitigation.

Sludge is defined as a thick layer of organic matter that is decidedly of human or animal origin. NOTE:

SLUDGE THAT ORIGINATES FROM POINT SOURCES IS NOT INCLUDED; THE SUBSTRATE

SCORE IS BASED ON THE UNDERLYING MATERIAL. This scenario is rare today and was done to

prevent underestimating stream habitat potential affect by discharges.

Substrate Metric Score: Although the sum of the individual metric scores can be greater than 20 the

maximum substrate core allowed for this metric is 20 points.

2

In some earlier training materials "normal" was described as "low" (e.g., see Figure 7).

3 In some earlier training materials "None" was described as "little-no" (e.g., see Figure 7).

4

A version

of the QHEI used in Maine distinguishes large boulders.

Substrate types are defined as:

a) Bedrock - solid rock forming

a continuous surface.

b)

Boulder - rounded stones

over 256 mm in diameter (10

in.) or large "slabs" more than

256 mm in length (Boulder

37

---

Example of stream with

heavily embedded substrates.

?

Example of

spongy deposits

of

fine

gravels and sands from recent

erosion

activities.

Substrate Origin Identification Tips:

•

Limestone: Often contains fossils, easily scratched with knife, usually bedrock or flat

boulders and cobbles

•

Tills: Sediments deposited by glaciers; particles often rounded. Can be carried into

non-glaciated areas

•

Wedands: Usually organic muck and detritus

•

Hardpan: Clay - smooth, usually slippery

•

Sandstone: Contains rounded fragment of sand "cemented" together

•

Rip/Rap: Artificial boulders

•

Lacustrine: Old lake bed sediments

•

Shale: "Claystone," sedimentary rock made of silt/clay, soft and cleaves easily

•

Coal Fines: Black fragments of coal, generally SE Ohio only

38

---

We suggest

that QHEI practitioners

gain some

experience in pebble count

procedures. Conducting

Wolman or Zig-Zag

pebble'

counts helps to improve the

ability to visually estimate

predominant substrate

sizes

and size categories.

•

Stream characterized

by cobble

and

boulder-size substrates.

39

---

Think

Functional!

2]

1NSTREAM COVER

clink;

Indica

t

2-Moderate

e

Presence 0

amounts,

to 3: 0-Absent;

but not

1-Very

of hihest

small amounts

qualti

.

o r

or

in

if

small

more

amounts

common

of

of

highestmarginal

?

AMOUNT

quality: 3-Highest quality M moderate or greater amounts (e.g., very (ar

g

ge boulders in deep or fast water, large?

Check ONE

(Or 2

&

ausraqe)

diamete:' log that is stable, well developed rootocad 'M deep / fast water, or deep, well.,derned, functional pools.?

0 EXTENSIVE >15% MI

UNDERCUT BANKS (1]

?

POOLS ›. 70cM 12)

?

OXBOW. BACKWATERS RI ,

q

MODERATE 25-75°

TWADS [1]

?

•AQUATIC MA CROPHYTES 11)

q

SPARSE 5-c

.

25% 13]

pcm_pgRs [1

1?

LOGS

cR WOODY DEBRIS VI 0 NEARLY ABSENT :q/6 [1],

Cover

Maxi/strum

20

ti

OVERHANGING VEGETATION 1)

SHALLOWS (IN

SLOW WATER) [1]

ROOTMATS [1]

Comments

Figure 10. Instream cover (structure) metric.

Metric 2: Instream Cover

(Figure 10).

This metric scores presence of

instream cover types and amount of

overall instream cover. Ohio EPA has

been phasing in an alternative scoring

system for this metric, but for this

2006, the total scoring still follows the

existing methods. The changes will be

discussed later.

Existing Scoring

Method:

Each cover type that is present in an

amount occurs in sufficient quantity

to support species that may commonly

be associated with the habitat type

P.quatic

should be scored.' Cover should not

Macrophyvac

be counted when it is in areas of the

emof gent

or submergent,41-7—

stream with insufficient depth (usually

not algae or algae

< 20 cm) to

make it useful. For

naat.s?

Cladophora)

example a logjam in 5 cm of water

contributes very little, if any cover,

and at low flow may be dry. Other

Root Wads:

Shallows: di,—

slow

water)

Oxbows.•<

Backwaters: •

Boulder>:

10

in:

ho.11d,',1,;

in slow,

shailov: water may.

not

?

functional. •

.

?

.

Cover Types:

Woody Debris, e----

Logs: •

Dkmp Pools:

> 70 cm

Overhanging

e

Vegetation:

•

direct overhang,

<

?

rt.?

.

not

.

— canopy

•

Root Mats:

fine, fibrous

Non-Fun:6mo(

U0.1wcut Bo*:

'WIG TGo Suaw,

Not liaSucts Eno,j1

Shrubs

Figure

11. Examples

of

major cover/structure

types measured

with QHEI.

cover types with limited function in shallow water include undercut banks and overhanging vegetation,

boulders, and rootwads. Under amount, one or two boxes may be checked. Extensive cover is that which is

present throughout the sampling area, generally greater than about 75% of the stream reach sampled. Cover

is moderate when it occurs over 25- 75% of the sampling area. Cover is sparse when it is present in less than

25% of the stream margins (sparse cover usually exists in one or more isolated patches). Cover is nearly

absent when no large patch of any type of cover exists anywhere in the sampling area. This situation is usually

Usual& In Rw■ordy Cnaly In Rocontl

?

Aix of a fl7+4

?

Hod..•AMC.*

Avaakt,y?

found in recently channelized

1.1.1e.d.l1

.

u..51

5 ,

tindotwO

?

Sononne

or RworWoo

?

?

Cowe

leri

Tip.?

o4S...ral

Cu-wr Ty,.

?

Afc

Coror in,.,

?

ii

Deop Pooh?

streams or other highly

ullr

414.4

Root

Wads

modified reaches (e.g. ship

11

11

\ I ''''.•

4',

Logs

I?

4

Aq. Plants

channels). If cover is thought to

I?

\ n <

?

be intermediate in amount

I

?

1

UC Banks

I

between two categories, check

I

.311:14

C)

Oxbow

two boxes and average their

I I:

scores. For wide streams cover

i

amount is estimated along the

swath of stream sampled (or

No Cover Sparse

Cover?

Moder:1r,, Cover

?

Extensive

Cover

that would be sampled) with an

electrofisher. In smaller streams

5

We

had mentioned a 5% rule of thumb for an amount threshold if biological experience is low - this would be as a

linear, not an areal amount.

Figure

12.

Illustration of the four

categories of cover

amounts.

40

---

(smaller wadeable and headwater streams) this generally covers most of the stream width. If a single type of

cover is extensive and others are absent or uncommon then the total is scored as moderate because of the low

diversity of types.

A desire to investigate and measure variation in amount and quality of individual cover types lead to a change

in scoring of this metric. Over the next year or so the existing scoring method (each cover type scored on an

presence/absence rating and a cumulative cover amount score) will be replaced with the following scoring

method that focuses on scoring each cover type on a gradient of amount and quality. Each cover type would

receive a score of 0-3 where:

0 - Absent;

1- Very small amounts or if more common of marginal quality;

2 - Moderate amounts, but not of highest quality or in small amounts of highest quality;

3 - Highest quality in moderate or greater amounts (e.g., very large boulders in deep or fast water,

large diameter logs that are stable, well developed rootwads in deep/fast water, or deep, well-defined,

functional pooh.

The cover ratings have been collected for about the last five years and an assessment of their relation to

biological measures will be used to adjust a final scoring for this metric. At present, continue scoring these as

present/absent and use the overall cover metric score. Cover types include: 1) undercut banks, 2)

overhanging vegetation, 3) shallows (in slow water)

6, 4) logs or woody debris, 5) deep pools (> 70 cm), 6)

oxbows, backwaters, or side, channels, 7) boulders, 8) aquatic macrophytes, and 9) rootwads (tree roots that

extend into stream). Do not check undercut banks AND rootwads unless undercut banks exist along with

rootwads as a major component. Although the theoretical maximum score is > 20 the maximum score

assigned for the QHEI for:the instrearnIcOver metric is limited to 20 points.

High quality rootwad in

deep, fast water.

Hizh aualitv

loss

and

woody debris

in

deeb

water.

Shallows are habitats that provide nursery areas for small fish.

41

---

Importance of

logs

and woody debris in large rivers.

Functional overhanging vegetation

43

---

b)

Development - This

refers to the developthent of

riffle/pool complexes. Poor means riffles are absent, or

if present, shallow with sand and fine gravel substrates,

pools, if present are shallow. Glide habitats, if

predominant, receive a Poor rating. Fair means riffles

are poorly developed or absent; however, pools are

more developed with greater variation in depth. Good

means better defined riffles present with larger

substrates (gravel, rubble or boulder); pools have

variation in depth and there is a distinct transition

between pools and riffles. Excellent means

development is similar to the Good category except the

following characteristics must be present: pools must

Metric 3: Channel Morphology (Figure 13)

This metric emphasizes the quality of the stream channel that relates to the creation and stability of

macrohabitat. It includes channel sinuosity (i.e. the degree to which the stream meanders), channel

development, channelization, and channel stability. One box under each should be checked unless

conditions are considered to be intermediate between two categories; in these cases check two boxes and

average their scores.

3] CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY

Check ONE in eath category

(Or 2 & average)

SINUOSITY DEVELOPMENT?

CHANNELIZATION?

STABILITY

q

HIGH [4] •?

• .:

q

EXCELLENT [7]

q

NONE

161 :?

' ' • ?

:

q

HIGH [3]

q

MODERATE

pi

q

GOOD [5) . . .,

q

RECOVERED

)4]?

- .:

q

MODERATE [2)

q

LOW [2] • .

q

FAIR [3]

?

'

q

RECOVERING

[3]

?0 LOW [1]

0

NONE

[1]

?

q

POOR [1]?

0 RECENT

OR

,

NO

RECOVERY

.?

.?.

[1]

Comments

Figure 13. Channel morphology metric.

a) Sinuosity - No sinuosity is a straight channel. Low sinuosity is a channel with only 1 or 2 poorly defined

outside bends in a sampling reach, or perhaps slight meandering within modified banks. Moderate sinuosity

is more than 2 outside bends, with at least one bend well defined. High sinuosity is more than 2 or 3 well

defined outside bends with deep areas outside and shallow areas inside. Sinuosity may be' more conceptually

described by the ratio of the stream distance between two points on the channel of a stream and the straight-

line distance between these same two points, taken from a topographic map. This metric measures the

formation of pools and increased habitat area as the primary "functions" of sinuosity as related to aquatic life.

Check one box or select two and average.

ScotScotiitg

rtileIiil .fol•pooliriffic deceloPment filet lie:

.Excellent

•?

.

Goo

Fai

.

Poor

•?

pc„,[

?

• >

1

in?

.

deep. teal

detioNI

0..I.0 n i

deep. %veil

defined

?

.

•

Saint

?

.

114)111 loll- •

allot,

Skillor... if

.ineliott .?

" •

Glide?

•

•

.

Not coot

; .

11K1n?

..

?

•

Not cent-

11KM?

•?.

Conpoon?

.

' ?

•?• ?•?

.

Piediniii;

oak

Riffle

rim.%

ls•efi

ilefined rif-

ties. laig■i

StibsIrdleS

beibied

•

ri (PCS,?• :

intge

sub-

unites?

.

•?

Poody

.

:

defined

tif•

ties (r ri f-

Iles

absent

Alx;ent

Of •

trim

sballins

tine

. ?:.

wbsindes.

R

?

I

•

.

••••••1).

?

nt?•?

.

:lop. well

dentist?

•

Drop. }toll

?

•

defined •

?

:

.1...b.e.o....;

Anent'

Allman

.

.

.?

.?

.

?

.

This nrmiccan he doinilt-

clio:kcl

For

iimaiion!. for -

..Qn■p

-

Ic •ivIier•:-

rinks

ar«xcal.ii ;ma pools no only file-ii leatlern lager., it, d.o.dc the ex‘ellein •

and the

fair box

rather than checking the good box i5

so ..o:crage to

keep

infort051iOn on the variance itimulity.. .?

. . •?.

have a maximum depth of >1 m and deep riffles

and runs (>0.5 m) must also be present. In

streams sampled with wading methods, a

sequence of riffles, runs, and pools must occur

more than once in a sampling zone. Check one

box or check two and average.

Note how

well defined (i.e.,

distinct) the

riffle and

pool are

in

this high quality headwater stream

pictured

on the left.

Also note the

large

tree in the riparian

44

---

A channelized stream

channel

starting to revert

towards more natural channel features.

c) Channelization - This refers to anthropogenic channel

modifications. Natural refers to no obvious direct moving or

alteration of the channel and a natural appearance. Recovered

refers to streams that have been channelized in the past, but which

have recovered most of their natural channel characteristics.

Recovering refers to channelized streams which are still in the

process of regaining their former, natural however, these habitats

are still degraded. This category also applies to those streams,

especially in the Huron/ Erie Lake Plain ecoregion (NW Ohio),

that were channelized long ago and have a riparian border of

mature trees, but still have Poor channel characteristics. Recent or

No Recovery refers to streams that were recently channelized or

those that show no significant recovery of habitats (e.g. drainage

ditches, grass lined or rock rip-rap banks, etc.). The specific type of

habitat modification is checked in the last two columns but not

scored.

Unstable

channel

features and low

stability.

d) Stability - This refers to

channel stability. Artificially

stable (concrete) stream channels receive a High score. Even though

they generally have a negative influence on fish assemblages, the

negative effects are related to features other than their stability.

Channels with.

Low stability are usually characterized by fine substrates

in riffles that often change location, have unstable and severely eroding

banks, and a high bedload that slowly creeps downstream. Sometimes

these unstable riffles form diagonally across the channel (see figure,

right). Channels with Moderate stability are those that appear to

maintain stable riffle/ pool and channel characteristics, but which

exhibit some symptoms of instability, e.g. high bedload, eroding or

false banks, or shows the effects of wide fluctuations in water level.

Channels with High stability have stable banks and substrates, and

little or no erosion and bedload. e) Modifications/Other - Check the

appropriate box if impounded, islands present, or leveed (these are not

included in the QHEI scoring) as well as the appropriate source of

habitat modifications. The maximum QHEI metric score for Channel

Morphology is 20 points.

45

---

4]

BANK

eivsr right

EROSION

fookitto dovmsrmin

AND

..•

0

R

...

EROSION .

•

q

NONE/LITTLE

131 '•

q q

MODERATE [2] . •

J3

q q

.HEAVYISEVERE

03 :

q

RIPARIAN ZONE

Check

RIPARIAN WIDTH

q

WIDE

>50rn

[4]

?

-•

q

MODERATE

10-50m [3]

q

NARROW

54Cim (21

q

VERY,NARROW

5m [1]

q

NONE

[01'

•

Comments

Severe hank erosion-

Metric 4: Riparian Zone and Bank Erosion (Figure 14)

This metric emphasizes the quality of the riparian buffer zone and quality of the floodplain vegetation. This

includes riparian zone width, floodplain quality, and extent of bank erosion. Each of the three components

requires scoring the left and right banks (looking downstream). The average of the left and right banks is

taken to derive the component value. One box per bank should be checked unless conditions are considered

to be intermediate between two categories; in these cases check two boxes and average their scores.

ONE in each category for

EACH BANK(Or 2 per bank & average)

6

0

FOREST,

FLOOD

SWAMP

PLAIN

[3]?

QUALITY ,

q

a

CONSERVATION

•

TILLAGE [1]

q q

SHRUB OR

OLD

.

FIELD [2] ,?

•

q q

URBAN OR INDUSTRIAL

[0]

q

q

RESIDENTIAL, PARK, NEW FIELD [1]

q

0

MINING CONSTRUCTION [0):

q

q

FENCED PASTURE

?

.?

•

Indicate predominant land use(s)

q

q

OPEN.

PASTURE, ROWCROP

[0]?

past 100tn tipanan. Ri arlan

Maximum

Figure 14.

Bank

erosion and

riparian

zone

'metric.

a)

Bank Erosion - A modified Streambank Soil Alteration Ratings

from Platts et al. (1983) is used here; check one box for each side

of the stream and average the scores. False banks are used in the

sense of Platts et al. (1983) to mean banks that are no longer

adjacent to the normal flow of the channel but have been moved

back into the floodplain most commonly as a result of livestock

trampling. 1) None - streambanks are stable and not being altered

by water flows or animals (e.g. livestock)

,

- Score 3. 2) Little -

streambanks are stable, but ,are being lightly altered along the

transect line; less than 25% of the streambank is receiving any

kind of stress, and if stress is being received it is very light; less

than 25% of the streambank is false, broken down or eroding -

Score 3. 3) Moderate - streambanks are receiving moderate

alteration along the transect line; at least '50 percent of the

streambank is in a natural stable condition; less than 50% of the streambank is false, broken down or

eroding; false banks are rated as altered - Score 2. 4) Heavy - streambanks have received major alterations

along the transect line; less than 50% of the streambank is in a stable condition; over 50% of the streambank

is false, broken down, or eroding - Score 1. 5)

Severe -

streambanks along the transect line are severely altered;

less than 25% of the streambank is in a stable condition; over 75% of the streambank is false, broken down,

or eroding - Score 1

b)

Riparian Width - This is the width of the riparian (stream side) vegetation. Width estimates are only done

for forest, shrub, swamp, and old field vegetation if it has woody components (e.g., willows). Old field refers

to a fairly mature successional field that has stable, woody plant growth; this generally does not include weedy

urban or industrial lots that often still have high runoff potential. Two boxes, one each for the left and right

bank (looking downstream), should be checked and then averaged.

c) Floodplain

Quality - The two most predominant floodplain quality types should be checked, one each for

the left and right banks (includes urban, residential, etc.), and then averaged. By floodplain we mean the

areas immediately outside of the riparian zone or greater than 100 meters from the stream, whichever is wider

on each side of the stream. The concept is to identify land uses that might deliver harmful runoff to the

stream. These are areas adjacent to the stream that can have direct runoff and erosion effects during normal

wet weather. This is considered a ground truthing exercise and we suggest those interested in estimating of

the effects of adjacent or riparian land uses use now well-developed GIS approaches. We do not limit it to the

riparian zone and it is much less encompassing than the stream basin.

The maximum score for Riparian Zone and Erosion metric is 10 points.

46

---

Estimating riparian zone

width.

Example of unrestricted

livestock access

and the formation of

"false"

banks.

47

---

E065

Figure 16. Typical locations of various current velocity

types in a stream.

Metric 5: Pool/Glide and Riffle-Run Quality (Figure 15)

This metric emphasizes the quality of the pool, glide and/or riffle-run habitats. This includes pool depth,

overall diversity of current velocities (in pools and riffles), pool morphology, riffle-run depth, riffle-run

substrate, and riffle-run substrate quality.

51

POOL GLIDE AND RIFFLE / RUN QUALITY

MAXIMUM DEPTH

?

CHANNEL WIDTH

Check ONE

(ONLY!)

?

Check ONE (Or

2& average)

q

> 1m [6]?

q

POOL WIDTH > RIFFLE WIDTH [2]

q

0.7•<1m [4]?

q

POOL WIDTH= RIFFLE WIDTH [1]

0

0A-0,7m

[2]?

q

?opt.

WIDTH >RIFFLE WIDTH [0]

q

0.2..

0.4rn [1]

9

72

,

m

[0]

Comments

Figure 15. Pool/glide and

riffle/run metric

CURRENT VELOCITY

Check ALL that apply

q

TORRENTIAL [4]

q

SLOW[1]..

q

VERY FAST [1] • .]

q

INTERSTITIAL [4]

0

Frth[1]?

INTERMITTENT [•2]1

121

.

MODERATE[1] 0 EDOIES

,

[1]?

-

Indicate for reach - pools and riffles.

Recreation Potential

Primary Contact

Secondary Contact

(circh,

we and cornrnirrt on Cock)

CuPrroeoal/t

Maximum

f2'

A) Pool/Glide Quality

1) Maximum depth of pool or glide; check one box only (Score 0 to 6). Pools or glides with maximum depths

of less than 20 cm are considered to have lost their function and the total metric is scored a 0. No other

characteristics need be scored in this case.

2) Current Types - check each current type that is

present in the stream (including riffles and runs; score

-2 to 4), definitions are: Torrential - extremely

turbulent and fast flow with large standing waves;

water surface is very broken with _no definable,

connected surface; usually limited to

gorges

and dam

spillway tailwaters. Very Fast - turbulent flow that

may make it difficult to stand and creates pulsating

effect again leg. Fast - mostly non-turbulent flow with

small standing waves in riffle/run areas; water surface

may be partially broken, but there is a visibly

connected surface. Fast current has sufficient energy to flow forcefully over objects. Sharp drop evident on

depth rod. Moderate - non-turbulent flow that is detectable and visible (i.e. floating objects are readily

transported downstream); water surface is visibly connected. With moderate current water flows around

rather than over objects. Little drop around depth rod. Slow - water flow is perceptible, but very sluggish.

Eddies - small areas of circular current motion usually formed in pools immediately downstream from riffle-

run areas. Interstitial - water flow that is perceptible only in the interstitial spaces between substrate particles

in riffle-run areas. Intermittent - no flow is evident anywhere leaving standing pools that are separated by dry

areas. The role of bank erosion in sediment delivery to streams is often underestimated. Higher gradient stream showing

typical locations of fast, moderate, and slow areas and eddies.

4) Morphology - Check Wide if pools are wider than

riffles, Equal if pools and riffles are the same width,

and Narrow if the riffles are wider than the pools

(Score 0 to 2, see Figure 17). If the morphology varies

throughout the site average the types. If the entire

stream area (including areas outside of the sampling

zone) is pool or riffle, then check riffle = pool.

Although the theoretical maximum score for the pool

metric is greater than 12 the maximum score assigned

for the QHEI for the Pool Quality metric is limited to

12 points.

Figure 17. Pool morphology metric categories.

48

---

Illustration of the

importance

of pool depth to

aquatic life

Estimating current velocity, Sharp drop from front to back of rod and boot

indicates fast

current velocities.

49

---

B) Riffle-Run Quality (Figure 18)

This entire metric is scored 0 if no riffles are present.

of riffle-Obligate species:. ,

?

:

?

Check ONE (Or

2 a average).

RIFFLE DEPTH

?

RUN DEPTH : RIFFLE'! RUN SUBSTRATE RIFFLE / RUN EMBEDDEDNESS

El BEST AREAS . 10c

.

ni [2]

q

MAXIMUM.

50cm

[2] El STABLE (e.g.., Cobble, Boulder] [2]` ' :

q

BESTAREAS B.10cni[1]

0 MAXIMUMcril

l

[1]

q

MOO. STABLE (e.g. L

arge

Grave ) [1] .:

?

0

tibi■t (2j ' -::

q

LOW [1]:

q

BEST AREAS

1 •

[rpillrIc=01<SCITI

f::,?

?

q

UNSTABLE (e.g., Fine

Gravoil,iSand)[0]:

0

MODERATE [0] '

RI

Le

n/

Comments?

El g.7ENIY - (-11

Maximum

8

Figure 18. Riffle-run metric.

1)Riffle - select one box that most closely describes the depth characteristics of the best riffle in the zone (Score

0 to 2). The best riffle is selected because we want to identify bottlenecks during harsh periods (e.g., drought).

Estimate depths in areas that are clearly riffle, not transitional between a riffle and a run. If the riffle is

generally less than 5 cm in depth, riffles are considered to have loss their function and the entire riffle metric

is scored a 0.

2)

Run

Depth -

select one box that most closely describes the depth characteristics of the runs (Score 0 to 2).

Estimate depth in areas that are clearly run, not transitional between a pool and a run or a riffle and a run.

3)

Riffle/Run Substrate Stability— select one box from each that best describes the substrate type and stability of

the riffle habitats (Score 0 to 2).

4) Riffle/Run

Embeddedness—

Embeddedness is the degree that cobble, gravel, and boulder substrates are

surrounded or covered by fine materialAsand, silt); here in the riffle/runs only. We consider substrates

embedded if >50% of surface of the substrates are embedded in fine material—these substrates cannot be

easily dislodged. This also includes substrates that are concreted.. Boxes are checked for pervasiveness of

(riffle/ run area of sampling zone) embedded substrates:

Extensive —

> 75% of stream area, Moderate — 50-

75%, Sparse — 25- 50%, Low — < 25%. The maximum score assigned for the QHEI for the Riffle/Run

Quality metric is 8 points.

Indicate for functional riffles; Bestest

areas must be large enough to support a population

ONO

RIFFLE

Inletric:01

50

---

Stream Gradient in

Feet per

!Alto -

10/1.13 ml

6.25 a:rill

Metric 6: Map Gradient

Local or map gradient is calculated .6]

GRADIENT

ft/mi) 0

VERY LOW LOW [2-4]

from USGS 7.5 minute topographic

DRAINAGE AREA

?

0 .MODERATE

maps by measuring the elevation drop

mi2) 0

HIGH - VERY HIGH

[19.6]

through the sampling area. This is done

Figure 19.

QHEI Stream gradient metric.

by measuring the stream length between

the first contour line upstream and the first contour line downstream of the sampling site and dividing the

distance by the contour interval. If the contour lines are closely "packed" a minimum distance of at least one

mile should be used. Some judgment may need to be exercised in certain anomalous areas (e.g. in the vicinity

of waterfalls, impounded areas, etc.) and this can be compared to an infield, visual estimate which is recorded

next to the gradient metric on

the front of the sheet Scoring

Stream Gradient

A - Stream Distance Betw%n

for ranges of stream gradient

L

Contour Linos

Contour Lines:

takes into account the varying

1.6

nn

influence of gradient with

Povation Drop Bet

stream size, preferably

QHEI Sito

Contour

10 feetLine§:

measured as drainage area in

square miles or stream width.

Gradient classifications (Table

V-4-3) were modified from

Trautman (p 139, 1981) and

Figure 20. Illustration of

methodology for determining stream gradient from topographic maps.

scores were assigned, by

stream size category, after examining scatter plots of IBI vs. natural log Of gradient in feet/mile (see Rankin

.•.

1989) Scores

are listed in Table 2. The maximum QHEI metric score',:for,Qradient is 10 points .;7

Table 2

Classification

of

stream

gradients for Ohio by

stream size. Modified from

Trautman (p 139,

1981). Scores

were

derived

from

plots of

IBI versus

stream

gradient for each stream size

category.

Strewn

Width

Drainage

Are a (sq

nn)

Gradient (feet

Vely Low

Low

Low-

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

High

High

Very Hinlil

-:.

,

<9.2

0 - 1.0

1.1 - 5.0

4

5.1 - 10.0

6

.10

I - 15.0

8

15.1 - 20

10

20.1 -30

10

30.1 - 40

S

4 8 - 9,2

9,2 - 41.6

: 0 - I 0

1: I - 3.0

3.1 - 6.0

6.1 - 12.0

12.1 - IS

15.1

-'30

30.1 - 40

2

4

6

10

10

"

8

'6

9.3 - 13.8

41.7 - 103.7

: 0 1.0

1.1 -

26

6

-

5.0

5.1 - 7.5

7.6 - 12

12.1 - 20

20.1 - 30

4

6

8

10

8

6

1 9 - 30.6

103.8.-

0 - 1.0

1.1 - 0

2.1 - 4.0

4.1 -

6.0

6.1 -

10

•10.1 -15

15.1 -25

622.9

4

6

8

10

10

8

6

>30.6

>

622.9

0 - 0.5

6

0 6 - 1.0

8

1.1 -

2.5

10

2.6 -4.0,

10

4.1 - 9

10

8

'Any site with a gradient greater

than the upper bound of the 'very high- gradient classification is assigned it

score 01'4.

---

5b) Riffle

Qualk,

0 to 4

0 to 2

-1 to 2

5a) Pool

Quality

6) Gradient

3) Max, Depth

b)Current

c)

Morphology

a) Depth

b)Substr

Stab:

c)

Substr Embri.

0 to 6?

12

-2 to it

0 to 2

2 to 10?

10

Additional Information/Back

QHEI Sheet

Table

2.

General narrative ranges assigned to

QHEI

scores. Ranges vary slightly in headwater

(5_, 20

sq mi) vs.

larger waters.

Narrative

•

Rating

QHEI Range

Headwaters

Larger Streams

Excellent

>

70

>

75

Good

55-

to 69

60

to 74

Fair

43 to 54

45 to 59

Poor

30 to 42

30 to 44

Very Poor

<

30

<

30

C

Computing the Total QHEI Score: To compute the

total QHEI score, add the components of each metric

to obtain the metric scores and then sum the metric

scores to obtain the total QHEI score. The QHEI

metric scores cannot exceed the Metric Maximum

Score indicated below.

Narrative ranges of QHEI scores

For communicating general habitat quality to the

public general narrative categories have been assigned

to QHEI scores. Habitat influences on aquatic life,

however, occur at multiple spatial scales and these

narrative ranges are general and not always definitely

predictable of aquatic assemblages are any given site.

QC

SCORING (Maximum = 100)

OHE)

?

Metric

?

Cornparenl

?

Metric

Metric

?

Component?

• Scoiing Range

Score

1)Substrate?

a) Type

?

0 to 21

?

20

h) Quahty

?

5 to 3

2)

Instream?

Type

?

0 to 10?

20

Cover

?

h) Amount

?1

lo 11

3)Channel

?

a) Sinuosity

?

Ito 4?

20

Morphologi

?

h) Development

?1

to 7

c) Channellzatton

?1

to 6

(I) Stability

?

I to 3

4)

Riparian Zone

?

a/ Width .

?

010 4?

10

b) Quality

?

0

.

to 3

c.) Bank Erosion

?

I (0 3

side of the Site Description Sheet. Several versions of the reverse of the QHEI sheet have been produced over

the past 10 years, but this description is based on the most recent revision of the Ohio EPA sheet (Figure 21).

Commen Er R.tov;

0011.7.

,

Iteacy:N

feCtal

ly(Iew of 5/ m^;

Peni•eatk.al

Ot; served Worrell, CiAa.,Sompfng 0bsereal5On Ounce 15 Access CF Ills;. VIE.

Citcft

&OITA?

Ej ISSUES?

• . Fl MEASUREMENTS

ravTp

1

CSO INPDES INDUSTRY

?

,;,iaK •.

HARDENED

/

URBAN IDIRT&GRME • Ithpth •

CONTAMINATED/ LANDFILL • •.,".•?. •

BMPs•cONSTRUCTION•SEDIMENT

LOGGING

BANK

I

I

EROSION

IRRIGATION

'I

SURFACE

I

COOLING

?

?

,0•3010,,,,"''

'wldUl

?

'

FALSE

WASH

BANK

Hp/

/MANURE/LAGOON

TILE

I

H 10 TABLE

?

..v+10

banktoIl

rANOAlas.

?

el•Pd)"

ACID

I

MINE I QUARRY

I

FLOW?

•'Noodprons wl0th

NATURAL

I

ViEl-LANO f STAGNANT : onion, n.?

•

PARK GOLF

I

LAWN( HOME?

iv?

e,

ATMOSPHERE I DATA PAUCITY

Stream Drawing:

A - Sampling Characteristics

1) Methods

Used -

A series of check boxes to record the type of sampling completed in the reach.

2) Distance -

Distance assessed for the QHEI and/or fish assessment.

3)

Stage -

Estimate of flow stage during assessment. Since some sites are sampled twice, a box is included for

each sampling effort.

4)

Clarity - Estimate of water clarity during assessment. Since some sites are sampled twice, a box is included

for each sampling effort. There are also two places to record Secchi depths, if taken.

5) Canopy - Estimate of average width of canopy

B. Aesthetics

1) Check all of the boxes that apply in terms of aesthetic characteristics of the site

•

B) AESTHETICS

q

NUISANCE ALGAE . •

0 INVASIVE IAACROPHYTES

CI EXCESS TURBIDITY • '

q

DISCOLORATION...'

CI

FOAL

,

'

I

SCUM?

''•

0 OIL SHEEN

0 TRASH :LITTER

0 NUISANCE CDC?

ossti-45% : •?

0 SLUDGE pposas

o

30

.

)..<551: • .

?

0 cosisouoyTFALL

q

lox-10x

?

CJ RECREATION?

Dem •

0 .iotc-CLO

.

SEO:?

•?

POOL

0 >10011,0.0ft •

Al SAMPLED REACH

CSecl, ALL that apply •

METHOD?

STAGE

0

q

:

BOAT :;

0

WAGE , •0

HIGH

G

q

L LINE:?G IP • '

0

DISTANCE

OTHER.

?

a

l

0 NolimiL0

rwRy

?

0

El

O:s

0.2

?

Krn

•

CLARITY'

0 0.20 Km,

0

q

0.12

OTHERKm

?

a?

0

a

70

cm! GTB

motars GSECCHIDEPTA

D

CANOPY III

?

ern

$S%- OPEN

DJ MAINTENANCE

PUBLIC PRIVATE

I

BOTH

1

NA

ACIIVE,HISTORIC

'BOTH (NA

YOUNG•SUCCESSION•OLD

SPRAY / SNAG REMOVED

MODIFIED

I

DIPPED OUT

1

NA

LEVEED I ONE SIDED

RELOCATED

!CUTOFFS

MOVING-BEDLOADSTABLE

ARMOURED I SLUMPS

ISLANDS

I

SCOURED

IMPOUNDEDI DESICCATED

FLOOD CONTROL I DRAINAGE

52

---

C. Recreation

1) Record whether there exists, within the area, greater than 100 ft

2

of water greater than three feet in depth.

This is used to estimate whether full body immersion is possible or likely.

D.

Maintenance

1) Record what types of stream maintenance activities or special features occur in the sampling zone. Some of

this information was previously on the front of the sheet and is used as an aid when determining aquatic life

uses (e.g., existing on ongoing channel maintenance).

E. Issues

1) Record various potential sources of impact that may occur in or near the site.

F.

Measurements

1) If some quantitative measurements of stream channel characteristics are collected they may be recorded

here. It is likely, however, that more detailed stream measurements (e.g., geomorphic assessment) will be

recorded on separate forms.

G) Stream Maps and Diagram

Stream maps for each site can be very important. The act of drawing a map usually helps to identify habitat

types scored with the QHEI. It can also help later samples identify sampling sites and determine whether

changes have occurred. The level of detail of the drawings will likely vary with the objective. For example,

sites assessed for 401 purposes should have as much detail as possible to help in later decisions of habitat

limitations or high potential. Two or three cross-sections of the stream can provide useful information on the

stream bank, stream bottom, stream channel, and floodplain characteristics.

53

---

QHEI Pool/Riffle Development Metric

ExcellentP ool/Riffle Development:

Pools - > 1 m Deep

Glides - Only Transitional Habitats

Runs - > 0.5 m Deep

Riffles - Deep, Large Substrates

Morphology - All Habitats Easily

Definable, Riffles Narrow and Deep,

Pools Wide with Deep and Shallow

Sections

Good Pool/Riffle Development:

Pools - > 0.7 m Deep

Glides - Mostly Transitional Habitats

Runs - Deep,b ut < 0.5 m

Riffles - Some Deep Areas, Large Substrates

(At Least Large Gravels)

Morphology - All Habitats Fairly Well Definable,

Riffles Typically Narrower Than Most Pools

Fair Pool/Riffle Development:

Pools - Show Some Depth

Variation

Glides - Common

Runs - Typically Absent

Riffles - Poorly Defined, Shallow

Morphology - HabitatT ypes Not

As Distinct, Glides Typically Difficult

to

Separate From Pools and Riffles

Poor Pool/Riffle Development:

Pools - Shallow if Present

Glides - Predominant

Runs - Absent

Riffles - Absent, Or if Present

Unstable and Shallow With Fine

Substrates

Morphology - Mostly Glide

Characteristics, Riffles Ephemeral

if Present

54

---

(Or 2 & average)

QUALITY

q

HEAVY [-2]

q

MODERATE.[-1]

q

NORMAL [0]

q

El EXTENSIVE

FREE [)

,

[-2]

-1

(1/4

,

0

MODERATE -1

"S0 NORMAL [0][ ]

q

NONE [1] ••

SILT

Substrate

Maximum

20

4]

BANK EROSION AND

River right looking downstream

U

q

R

NONE

EROSION

I

LITTLE [3]

D

q q

MODERATE [2]

?

q

q

q

HEAVY! SEVERE

11

/

q

Comments

RIPARIAN ZONE

Check

RIPARIAN WIDTH

q

R

?

.

WIDE

> 50m [4]

q

MODERATE 10-50m [3] •

q

NARROW 5-10m

[2]

q

VERY NARROW< 5m [1]-

q

NONE

[0]

?

•

Qualitative

and Use Assessment

Habitat Evaluation

Field SheetIndex

QHEI Score:

Stream & Location:

RM:Date: /

?

06

River

?Scorers

Code:---

?

---

Full

---

?

STORET

Name

#:

?

& Affiliation:

MAD

Lat

3

83

Long.:

- decirnall — ' — — — —

18— — — — —

Office verified

location

q

1] SUBSTRATE

Check

ONLY

Two substrate

TYPE BOXES;

estimate % or note every type present

BEST TYPES?

POOL RIFFLE

?

OTHER TYPES

POOL RIFFLE

q

q

BLDR

/SLABS [10]

?

q q

HARDPAN [4]

qqq

q

BOULDER

COBBLE

[8]

[9]

?

?

q

q q

q

?

DETRITUS

MUCK [2]

[3] ?

0 0 GRAVEL [7]

?

?

0 0 SILT [2]

qqq

q

SAND

BEDROCK

[6] ' '

?

[5].

?

?

,

?

?

ARTIFICIAL

(Score

q q

natural

[0]substrates; ?

ignore

NUMBER OF BEST TYPES:

q

4 or

more

[2]

sludge from point-sources)

Comments

q

3 or

less.[0]

Check ONE

ORIGIN

?

q

LIMESTONE [1]

q

TILLS [1]

q

WETLANDS [0]

q

HARDPAN [9]

q

SANDSTONE [0]

q

RIP/RAP,

[o]

q

LACUSTURINE [0]

q

SHALE. [-1]

q

COAL FINES [-2]

2]

quality;

1NSTREAM

3-Highest quality

COVER

in moderate

quality;

Indicate

2-Moderate

presence

or greater

0

amounts

amounts,

to 3: 0-Absent;

(e.g.,

but not

very

1-Very

of

large

highest

small

boulders

quality

amounts

in

or

deep

or

in

if

small

more

or fast

amounts

common

water,

of

largeof

highestmarginalCheck

?

ONE

AMOUNT

(Or 2 &

average)

diameter log that is stable, well developed rootwad in deep / fast water, or deep, well-defined, functional pools.

?

q

EXTENSIVE >75

%[11] '

UNDERCUT BANKS [1]

?

FOOLS > 70cm

[2] ____

OXBOWS, BACKWATERS [1] ,

q

MODERATE 25-75% [7]

OVERHANGING VEGETATION

,

?

[1]

ROOTVVADS

[1]

?

AQUATIC MACROPHYTES [1]

q

SPARSE

5-<25% [3]

SHALLOWS (IN SLOW WATER) [1]

?

BOULDERS [1]?

LOGS OR WOODY DEBRIS [1]

q

NEARLY ABSENT <5% [1]

?ROOTMATS

[1]

Cover

Comments?

Maximum

20

3]

CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY

Check

SINUOSITY DEVELOPM ENT

d

HIGH [4]

?

q

EXCELLENT

[7]

q

MODERATE [3]

q

GOOD [6]

O LOW [2] :•?

q

FAIR

[3]

q

NONE

[1]

?

q

POOR [1].,

Comments

ONE

in each category (Or 2 &

average)

CHANNELIZATION

?

STABILITY

q

NONE [6]

?

El

HIGH [3]

q

RECOVERED [4]?

q

MODERATE [2]

q

RECOVERING [3]

?

q

LOW [1]

q

RECENT OR NO RECOVERY [1]

Channel

Maximum

20

ONE in each category for

EACH BANK

(Or 2 per bank & average)

6 8

FOREST,

FLOOD

SWAMP

PLAIN

[3]

?

QUALITY

;?

CONSERVATION TILLAGE

q q

SHRUB OR OLD FIELD [2]?

j

q q

.URBAN

OR

INDUSTRIAL [0]

q

q

RESIDENTIAL PARK;

NEW FIELD [1]

q

0

q

.

nnimirlo CONSTRUCTION [0],

1:1

0:

.

FENdED PASTURE

[1]

?

Indicate predominant land use(s)

q q

OPEN PASTURE, FkOWCROP. [0]

?

past 100m riparian. Riparian

Maximum

10

5]

POOL / GLIDE AND RIFFLE / RUN QUALITY

MAXIMUM DEPTH

?

CHANNEL WIDTH

Check

ONE

(ONLY!)?

Check ONE (Or 2 &

average)

q

POOL WIDTH> RIFFLE WIDTH [2]

q

POOL WIDTH = RIFFLE WIDTH [1]

q

POOL

WIDTH >,RIFFLE WIDTH

[0]

CURRENT VELOCITY

Check ALL that apply

q

TORRENTIAL [-1]

q

SLOW

[1]

•

q

VERY FAST [1]

q

:INTERSTITIAL [-1]

q

FAST?

q

INTERMITTENT [-2].

q

MODERATE [1]

q

EDDIES [1]

Indicate for reach - pools and riffles.

Recreation Potential

Primary Contact

Secondary Contact

(circle one and comment on back)

Pool/

Current

Maximum

12

q

>

1rr•6I

`,1‘

q

0.7-<1ni[4]

q

0.4-<0.7m [2]:

0

0.2-.<0Am [1]

q

< 0.2m

[0]

Comments

Indicate for functional riffles; Best areas must be large enough to

support a population

of riffle-obligate species:

?

Check ONE (Or 2 &

average).

?

ONO RIFFLE [metric=0]

RUN DEPTH?

RIFFLE / RU N SUBSTRATE RIFFLE / RUN EMBEDDEDNESS

?

p

MAXIMUM

>

50cm [2]

q

STABLE (e.g.,

Cobble, Boulder)

[2] ,?

q

NONE

[2]

q

MAXIMUM < 50cm

[1]

q

MOD. STABLE (e.g., Large Gravel) [1]

?

q

LOW

[1]

?

0 UNSTABLE (e.g., Fine Gravel, Sand) [0]

?

q

MODERATE [0]

Riffle /

q

EXTENSIVE

r

-1-

1?

Run

-

Maximum

8

6]

GRADIENT (?

ft/mi)

q

VERY LOW -LOW [2-4]?

%POOL:(?

) %GLIDE:

C—)

Gradient

DRAINAGE AREA

?

q

MODERATE [6-10]

nip)

q

HIGH - VERY HIGH [10-6]

?

%RUN: (

?

)%RIFFLE:(

?

)

Maximum

10

EPA 452006/16/06

55

RIFFLE DEPTH

q

BEST AREAS > 10cm [2]

q

BEST AREAS

5-10cm [1]

q

BEST AREAS

[metric=0]<

5cm

Comments

---

F] MEASUREMENTS

:37 width

depth

max, depth

bankfull width

bankfull Tc depth

W/D ratio

tiankfull mak:depth

floodprone e.W.idth

entrench :ratio

Legacy Tree:

A]

SAMPLED

Check ALL

METHOD

q

BOAT

q

;WADE::

q

L. LINE

q

OTHER

DISTANCE

q

'0.5,1<M'.

q

0.2 Krrk

q

0:15,Kiii

q

0.12 Km

q

OTHER

meters

B] AESTHETICS

q

NUISANCE ALGAE,.:

q

INVASIVE NIACROPHYTES

q

EXCESS TURBIDITY

q

DISCOLORATION

-

FOAM /:SCUM

q

OIL-SHEEN

q

TRASH

.

/ LITTER

O

NUISANCE'ObOR

q

;SLUDGE-DEPOSITS

q

CSOs/SSOs/OUTFALLS

C]

RECREATION

AREA DEPTH

POOL:

q

>100ft2

q

>3ft

D] MAINTENANCE

PUBLIC / PRIVATE / BOTH / NA

ACTIVE / HISTORIC / BOTH / NA

YOUNG-SUCCESSION-OLD

SPRAY / SNAG / REMOVED

MODIFIED / DIPPED OUT / NA

LEVEED / ONE SIDED

RELOCATED/CUTOFFS

MOVING-BEDLOAD-STABLE

ARMOURED/SLUMPS

ISLANDS/SCOURED

IMPOUNDED! DESICCATED

FLOOD CONTROL / DRAINAGE

Circle some &

COMMENT?

El ISSUES

VVWTP / CSO / NPDES

I

INDUSTRY

.HARDENED / URBAN / DIRT&GRIME

CONTAMINATED / LANDFILL

BMPs-CONSTRUCTION-SEDIMENT

LOGGING / IRRIGATION COOLING

BANK! EROSION/SURFACE

FALSE BANK / MANURE / LAGOON

WASH H20 / TILE / H20 TABLE

ACID / MINE / QUARRY / FLOW

NATURAL! WETLAND! STAGNANT

PARK / GOLF

I

LAWN / HOME

ATMOSPHERE / DATA PAUCITY

REACH

that apply

1st -sample

STAGE

pass- 2nd

q

HIGH

q

0 UP

04\10RMAL

q

Mow

0 DRY

'0

q

Comment RE: Reach consistency/ Is

reach typical of steam?, Recreation/Observed - Inferred, Other/Sampling observations, Concerns, Access directions, etc.

1st --sample

CLARITY

pass-- 2nd

q

.< 20 crii

?

q

q

20-<40 cm

?

q

0 40-70'cm

?

q

D> 70

.

Onii CTIE$ .,;:

q

q

SECCHI DEPTH 0

CANOPY 1st

?

cm

q

>. 85%- OPEN

55%..05%?

, 2nd?

cm

q

30%=55%

D'10°A-<30%

q

<loviir cuisfgb

Stream Drawing:

56

---

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Lower Des Plaines River Fish Assemblage

Revision 1.0 - June 25, 2006

Page 35 of 36

Appendix 2

Experimental Benthic Trawling Method

---

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

25:594-603, 2005

Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2005

DOI: 10.1577/M03-157.1

[Article]

Efficacy of a Benthic Trawl for Sampling Small-Bodied Fishes

in Large River Systems

DAVID

P.

HERZOG* AND VALERIE

A.

BARKO

Missouri Department of Conservation, Open Rivers and Wetlands Field Station,

3815 East Jackson Boulevard, Jackson, Missouri 63755, USA

JOHN S. SCHEIBE

Department of Biology, Southeast Missouri State University,

Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701, USA

ROBERT

A.

HRABIK AND DAVID

E. OSTENDORF

Missouri Department of Conservation, Open Rivers and Wetlands Field Station,

3815 East Jackson Boulevard, Jackson, Missouri 63755, USA

Abstract.—We

conducted a study from 1998 to 2001 to determine the efficacy of a benthic trawl

designed to increase species detection and reduce the incidence of zero catches of small-bodied

fishes. We modified a standard two-seam slingshot balloon trawl by covering the entire trawl with

a small-mesh cover. After completing 281 hauls with the modified (Missouri) trawl, we discovered

that most fish passed through the body of the standard trawl and were captured in the cover.

Logistic regression indicated no noticeable effect of the cover on the catch entering the standard

portion of the modified trawl. However, some fishes (e.g., larval sturgeons

Scaphirhynchus

spp.

and pallid sturgeon

S. albus)

were exclusively captured in the small-mesh cover, while the catch

of small-bodied adult fish (e.g., chubs'Macrhybopsis spp.) was significantly improved by use of

the small-mesh cover design, The Missouri trawl significantly increased the number and species

of small-bodied fishes captured over previously used designs and is a useful method for sampling

the benthic fish community in moderate- to large-size river systems.

Trawling has been used to sample aquatic or-

ganisms in coastal marine systems (Matsushita and

Shida 2001), reservoirs (Michaletz et al. 1995),

and rivers (Dettmers et al. 2001). Trawl size and

design vary depending on the intended use. For

example, researchers often target an individual

-species and use a trawl that is known to capture

that group (Van Den Avyle et al. 1995; Pine 2000;

Madsen and Holst 2002). During many trawl sur-

veys, the loss of other species is unimportant and

at times, because of catch regulations, is consid-

ered beneficial (Kelley 1994). Therefore, many

trawl surveys use large-mesh trawls because they

tend to capture larger fish and reduce bycatch.

Large-mesh trawls also reduce drag while in tow

and are noted for fuel efficiency (Dickson 1962;

Naidu et al. 1987; Mous et al. 2002). In addition,

shape, configuration, and environmental factors

can also influence trawl catch (Glass and Wardle

1989; Kunjipalu et al. 1992; Chopin and Arimoto

1994; Kim and Wardle 1997; Godo and Walsh

* Corresponding author: david.herzog@mdc.mo.gov

Received August 15, 2003; accepted August 16, 2004

Published online May 13, 2005

1998; Dahm 2000; Ryer and 011a 2000; Matsushita

and Shida 2001). Furthermore, catch is affected by

trawl design components. For example, the cod

end (i.e., distal end) is where most of the trawl

catch is collected. Millar (1992) modeled trawl

selectivity based on total catch, which he deter-

mined was influenced by size and shape of the

mesh openings in the cod end. Therefore, the cod

end is often modified to capture a particular size

of organism (Lowry and Robertson 1996), al-

though many factors can affect catch entering the

cod end. For example, the escape of organisms

through the body of a trawl may result in variable

cod end retention (Dremiere et al. 1999; Polet

2000). The covered cod end method has been used

to determine efficacy of mesh cod ends (Madsen

and Holst 2002). However, the body of the trawl

also determines total catch. Therefore, the whole

catch of a trawl is determined by the sum of catch-

es made in the trawl components.

Trawl gear are probably the most commonly

used sampling gear in oceanic and estuarine hab-

itats but are only occasionally used in large rivers

(Hayes et al. 1996). Trawl gear have been used to

sample the Mississippi River, but techniques var-

58

---

TRAWLING BENTHIC FISHES IN LARGE RIVERS

?

595

ied among researchers (Pitlo 1992; Dettmers et al.

2001). From 1991 to 1997, we used a standard

two-seam balloon trawl to sample benthic fishes

for the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program

(LTRMP; Gutreuter et al. 1995). However, total

catch was often zero (D. Herzog, unpublished

data), and small benthic fishes (e.g., chubs

Mac-

rhybopsis

spp.) and larval or juvenile fishes (e.g.,

sturgeons

Scaphirhynchus

spp.) were not well rep-

resented in the total catch. Therefore, the objective

of this study was to design a trawl to increase

species detection while reducing the incidence of

zero catch and improving catch of small-bodied

fishes. To accomplish this, we modified a two-seam

slingshot balloon trawl-both the body and the cod

end-by use of a dual-mesh design (i.e., pass-

through technique). We covered the entire standard

trawl with small mesh to determine capture prob-

ability.

Study Site

This study was conducted in the unimpounded

section of the upper Mississippi River between

river kilometers (RK) 48.3 and 128.7 (see Herzog

2004). This reach is located between the Missouri

(RK314) and Ohio River (RIO) confluences, con-

tains few side channels, and has been channelized

for commercial navigation. Water surface eleva-

tions in this reach rise and fall annually by ap-

proximately 8 m. Channel maintenance structures

(e.g., wing dikes) occur throughout this reach, and

vast expanses of limestone rock (i.e., revetment)

cover much of the riverbank.

Methods

Sample sites were selected by use of a stratified

random design developed for the LTRMP (Gut-

reuter 1993; Gutreuter et al. 1995); subjectively

chosen fixed sites were also used. The study reach

was stratified into four physical habitat classes

(e.g., wing dike, main-channel border, side chan-

nel, and tributary; see Barko et al. 2004 for habitat

descriptions), which were delineated in a geo-

graphical information systems database (Owens

and Ruhser 1996). Each potential study site was

represented on a 50 X 50-m grid indexed by uni-

versal transverse mercator coordinates on 1989 in-

frared photos (e.g., basemap). Annual site loca-

tions (e.g., primary sites) were randomly chosen

within each physical habitat. If a stratified random

site was deemed unsafe due to snags or other con-

ditions, then a stratified random alternate site was

chosen. These sites were randomly chosen from

the 50 X 50-m grids and were located within 1

km2

of the center of the primary site. Subjectively

chosen sites were selected based on unique habitat

features within the study area (e.g., island tips and

gravel bars). Site selection for this study (1998-

2001) and for previous work that used another

trawl design (1991-1997) remained consistent

over time.

The modified trawl (hereafter referred to as the

Missouri trawl; Figure 1) was made of a two-seam

(i.e., standard) slingshot balloon trawl (Gutreuter

et al. 1995) completely covered with 4.76-mm,

heavy, delta-style mesh. Experiments involving

covered cod ends address the effect of capture in

the cod end of the net (Madsen and Hoist 2002).

However, we were also interested in the effect of

capture by the trawl body. Therefore, we modified

the standard approach to covering the cod end by

instead covering the entire net. The standard trawl

body was made of 1-mm-diameter nylon twine

with 19.05-mm bar mesh. Bar measure was the

. length measured from the beginning of a knot to

the beginning of an adjacent knot (Hayes et al:

1996). The headrope was 4.87 m long; four floats

(3.81 cm wide X 6.35 cm high) were spaced every

0.91 m along the headrope. The quoted approxi-

mate buoyancy of each float was 124.7 g. The

width of the standard trawl narrowed from 4.87 m

at the headrope to 0.91 m at the mid-section to

0.38'm at the cod end (Figure 2a). The standard

trawl's cod end was made of 1.67-m-long, 1.5-mm-

diameter nylon twine with 19.05-mm bar mesh and

was lined with 3.18-mm ace-style mesh. There-

fore, we added the same 3.18-mm mesh size to the

cover's cod end, which was 2.14 m long and 1.52

m wide. The footrope was 5.48 m long, and a 4.76-

mm-diameter chain was attached to it. The chain

helped the footrope maintain contact with the sub-

strate during conditions of heavy current, fast tow

speeds, or undulating bottom surfaces (e.g., sand

waves). The 4.76-mm-delta-mesh cover was at-

tached directly to the headrope of the standard

trawl by use of 1-mm-diameter nylon twine. The

cover was large enough to keep space between the

cover and the standard trawl, minimize influence

on the mesh of the standard trawl, and allow bal-

looning of the standard trawl (Figure 2b). The Mis-

souri trawl was attached to the boat with 30.48-

60.96-m towlines. Towline length was dependent

on water depth (i.e., deeper water required longer

towlines; Brabant and Nedelec 1979). In water

depths of 5 m or less, 30.48-m towlines were used,

whereas 60.96-m towlines were used in water

depths over 5 m and up to 10 m. Water depth during

each tow varied by less than 2 m and was moni-

---

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

25:594-603, 2005

© Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2005

DOI: 10.1577/M03-157.1

[Article]

Efficacy of a Benthic Trawl for Sampling Small-Bodied Fishes

in Large River Systems

DAVID

P.

HERZOG* AND VALERIE

A.

BARKO

Missouri Department of Conservation, Open Rivers and Wetlands Field Station,

3815 East Jackson Boulevard, Jackson, Missouri 63755, USA

JOHN S. SCHEIBE

Department of Biology, Southeast Missouri State University,

Cape Girardeau, Missouri 63701, USA

ROBERT A.

HRABIK AND DAVID

E. OSTENDORF

Missouri Department of Conservation, Open Rivers and Wetlands Field Station,

3815 East Jackson Boulevard, Jackson, Missouri 63755, USA

Abstract.—We

conducted a study from 1998 to 2001 to determine the efficacy of a benthic trawl

designed to increase species detection and reduce the incidence of zero catches of small-bodied

fishes. We modified a standard two-seam slingshot balloon trawl by covering the entire trawl with

a small-mesh cover. After completing 281 hauls with the modified (Missouri) trawl, we discovered

that most fish passed through the body of the standard trawl and were captured in the cover.

Logistic regression indicated no noticeable effect of the cover on the catch entering the standard

portion of the modified trawl. However, some fishes (e.g., larval sturgeons

Scaphirhynchus

spp.

and pallid sturgeon 5;

albus)

were exclusively captured in the small-mesh cover, while the catch

of small-bodied adult fish (e.k.,

chuls..

.kfacrhybopsis

spp.) was significantly improved by use of

the small-mesh cover design. The Missouri trawl significantly increased the number and species

of small-bodied fishes captured over previously used designs and is a useful method for sampling

the benthic fish community in moderate- to large-size river systems..

Trawling has been used to sample aquatic or-

ganisms in coastal marine systems (Matsushita and

Shida 2001), reservoirs (Michaletz et al. 1995),

and rivers (Dettmers et al. 2001). Trawl size and

design vary depending on the intended use. For

example, researchers often target an individual

species and use a trawl that is known to capture

that group (Van Den Avyle et al. 1995; Pine 2000;

Madsen and Holst 2002). During many trawl sur-

veys, the loss of other species is unimportant and

at times, because of catch regulations, is consid-

ered beneficial (Kelley 1994). Therefore, many

trawl surveys use large-mesh trawls because they

tend to capture larger fish and reduce bycatch.

Large-mesh trawls also reduce drag while in tow

and are noted for fuel efficiency (Dickson 1962;

Naidu et al. 1987; Mous et al. 2002). In addition,

shape, configuration, and environmental factors

can also influence trawl catch (Glass and Wardle

1989; Kunjipalu et al. 1992; Chopin and Arimoto

1994; Kim and Wardle 1997; Godo and Walsh

* Corresponding author: david.herzog@mdc.mo.gov

Received August 15, 2003; accepted August 16, 2004

Published online May 13, 2005

1998; Dahm 2000; Ryer and 011a 2000; Matsushita

and Shida 2001). Furthermore, catch is affected by

trawl design components. For example, the cod

end (i.e., distal end) is where most of the trawl

catch is collected. Millar (1992) modeled trawl

selectivity based on total catch, which he deter-

mined was influenced by size and shape of the

mesh openings in the cod end. Therefore, the cod

end is often modified to capture a particular size

of organism (Lowry and Robertson 1996), al-

though many factors can affect catch entering the

cod end. For example, the escape of organisms

through the body of a trawl may result in variable

cod end retention (Dremiere et al. 1999; Polet

2000). The covered cod end method has been used

to determine efficacy of mesh cod ends (Madsen

and Holst 2002). However, the body of the trawl

also determines total catch. Therefore, the whole

catch of a trawl is determined by the sum of catch-

es made in the trawl components.

Trawl gear are probably the most commonly

used sampling gear in oceanic and estuarine hab-

itats but are only occasionally used in large rivers

(Hayes et al. 1996). Trawl gear have been used to

sample the Mississippi River, but techniques var-

594

---

4.87 rn Headrope

(a)

0.38 m

TRAWLING BENTHIC FISHES IN LARGE RIVERS

?

597

?

p' =

loge(1

p–

p

?

(1)

1.67 m

where

p

is the cumulative probability of capturing

a fish of a given length or shorter. Thus, the linear

1.23 re

?

regression model had the form

?

1.67m

where

X

represents

=

fish

Po

length.

+

IXTransforming

?(2)the

linearized cumulative probabilities back to their

original form resulted in the logistic regression

model

e(30+131x)

E(Y) = 1 + ecao-FolxV

(3)

(b)

4.87 m Headrope

1.52 m

FIGURE

2.—Trawl designs for (a) a standard two-seam

balloon trawl (used to sample the upper Mississippi Riv-

er in 1991-1997) and (b) a modified (Missouri) trawl

(used for sampling in 1998-2001).

thula

and sturgeons, which were measured to fork

length (FL). All common and scientific names fol-

low Nelson et al. (2004). To compare abundances

of species captured in the standard portion and

cover of the Missouri trawl, we used chi-square

tests for equal proportions (Steel and Torrie 1980;

SAS Institute. 1988;

P 5_

0.05) because we as-

sumed that the cod end of the standard trawl was

nonselective for size.

Trawl effect on capture probability for fish of a

given length was assessed by use of logistic re-

gression (SAS Institute. 1988). Logistic regression

was used to characterize catch response of the stan-

dard trawl versus the cover rather than as a selec-

tivity prediction tool. The cumulative probability

of capturing a fish was linearized with the logit

transformation

With this formulation, the dependent axis was the

expected cumulative probability of capturing a fish

with a length of at least

X

cm, and varied from 0

to 1. The regression was performed four times.

Cumulative probability of capture was regressed

against length based on the 1998-2001 data, first

for the standard trawl portion and second for the

cover of the Missouri trawl. The maximum fish

length that passed through the trawl body to the

cover was 28 cm, and therefore this length was

used in the models. Hence, fish larger than 28 cm

were not represented and subsequently were not

used in the comparison between the cover and the

standard trawl portion. To determine the effect of

the cover, the cumulative probability of capture

was regressed against all fish lengths for the un-

modified standard trawl (1991-1997 data) and for

the standard trawl portion of the Missouri trawl

(1998-2001).

Species data from the standard trawl without the

cover (1991-1997) were compared to the Missouri

trawl data set (1998-2001). We estimated the rate

of species capture by randomly selecting 100 ob-

servations from both the 1991-1997 and 1998-

2001 data sets. The data were randomized by as-

signing a random number to each sample. The data

were then sorted by random number. The first sam-

ple listed was plotted by the number of species

captured in that sample or haul. We continued plot-

ting samples until 100 observations were reached.

A logarithmic trend line was used to plot each

"sample" for both trawls.

Results

Two-hundred eighty-one Missouri trawl hauls

were completed over the 4-year period from 1998

to 2001. We sampled at depths that ranged from

0.6 to 10 m; mean depth was 3.2 m. Water surface

3.65m

2.14m

---

598

HERZOG ET AL.

velocity ranged from 0.02 to 1.94 m/s, and the

mean was 0.81 m/s. Secchi disk transparency av-

eraged 28 cm and ranged from 2 to 61 cm. Sample

area substrates varied but were mostly comprised

of sand. We captured 3,217 fish (32 species) in the

standard trawl portion of the Missouri trawl and

10,549 fish (43 species; 77% of the total catch) in

the 4.76-mm-mesh cover. Chi-square tests indi-

cated that abundances of 18 of the 45 species cap-

tured were significantly higher (df = 1,

P

0.05)

in the cover than in the standard trawl portion.

However, shovelnose sturgeon

S. platorynchus

had

significantly higher abundance in the standard

trawl portion than in

,

the cover (Table 1). Five per-

cent of the hauls (15/281) had zero catch in both

the standard trawl portion and the cover. The stan-

dard trawl portion of the Missouri trawl had zero

catch in 21% (60/281) of the hauls, whereas the

cover had zero catch in 6% (18/281) of the hauls.

Larval sturgeons and pallid sturgeon were cap-

tured only in the cover of the Missouri trawl. Sev-

eral additional species were captured exclusively

in the cover (e.g., bullhead minnow, inland sil-

verside, Mississippi silvery minnow) or exclu-

sively in the standard trawl portion (e.g., shortnose

gar) and were represented by more than one oc-

currence (Table 1). The remaining species did not

have significantly different abundance in the stan-

dard trawl portion versus the cover of the Missouri

trawl. Sturgeon chub and larval sturgeons were

captured in the Missouri trawl but had not been

captured by Missouri Department of Conservation

Open Rivers Field Station researchers during

1991-1997, when the unmodified standard trawl

was used. Two-hundred eighteen standard trawl

hauls were completed over the 7-year period,

1991-1997. During 1991-1997, 2,966 fish repre-

senting 30 species were captured in the standard

trawl. Twenty-four percent of the hauls (52/218)

had zero catch.

All four logistic regression models were signif-

icant at the 0.05 level

(P -



0.0001) and explained

82.33% (standard trawl portion of Missouri trawl:

p =

0.5 + 0.08 • Length;

F1

,77 =

266.20), 90.27%

(standard trawl without cover:

p =

0.34 +

0.09 • Length;

F1,77

=

677.14), 91.51% (cover of

Missouri trawl, fish lengths up to 28 cm:

p

—0.82 + 0.41

.

Length;

F1,25 =

269.57), and

87.8% (standard trawl portion of Missouri trawl,

fish lengths up to 28 cm:

p =

—1.36 +

0.28 Length;

F1

2 5 =

180.56) of the variance in

cumulative capture probability (Figures 3, 4). Fish

larger than 28 cm were not captured in the cover

because they did not pass through the body of the

standard trawl portion. Therefore, regressions for

the cover and. the standard trawl portion were

based only on fish lengths up to 28 cm (Figure 3).

The slopes of the regression models for fish up to

28 cm differed markedly between the standard

trawl portion and cover; the regression for the cov-

er had a steeper slope (Figure 3). Use of the cover

resulted in greater probability of capture for fish

lengths up to 23 cm, and for fish longer than 15

cm the cumulative probability of capture ap-

proached 1.0 (Figure 3). The standard trawl por-

tion of the Missouri trawl accumulated captures at

a slower rate, and the cumulative probability of

capture approached 1.0 for fish longer than 26 cm.

The slopes of the regression models were similar

between the standard trawl portion of the Missouri

trawl (1998-2001) and the standard trawl without

the cover (1991-1997). Use of the cover did not

affect the cumulative capture probability of fish in

the standard trawl portion of the Missouri trawl

(Figure 4). Therefore, the cumulative probability

of capturing fish in, the standard trawl portion of

the Missouri trawl was the same as that of the

standard trawl without the cover.

Species detection was higher in the Missouri

trawl than in the unmodified standard trawl. Ran-

dom sampling

H

of the data indicated quicker re-

sponse time of species detection by use of the Mis-

souri trawl (Figure' 5). After eight samples, the

Missouri trawl captured 50% of the overall de-

tected species, whereas it took the standard trawl

56 samples to reach the same level of species de-

tection.

Discussion

Our data show that many small fishes passed

through the trawl body. Previous negligible catch

of small benthic fishes in the standard trawl (1991-

1997) was because of the trawl body. We used a

small-mesh cod end in the standard trawl for 7

years before implementing the Missouri trawl. We

detected fewer individuals and species in the stan-

dard trawl than in the Missouri trawl. Seventy-

seven percent of the total fish captured passed

through the standard trawl's mesh and failed to

reach the cod end of the standard trawl, including

young and larval fish (e.g., sturgeons) and smaller-

bodied adult species (e.g., chubs). The lack of sev-

eral historically common species (e.g., sturgeon

chub, sicklefin chub) in community samples during

1991-1997 was previously troublesome. Both fish

species were candidates for federal endangered

status during this study.

The standard trawl design did not effectively

---

TRAWLING BENTHIC FISHES IN LARGE RIVERS

?

599

TABLE

1.-Fish species captured by use of a modified two-seam balloon trawl (i.e., Missouri trawl) in the upper

Mississippi River during 1998-2001. Species abundances in the standard (std.) trawl portion and cover were compared

by use of the chi-square statistic. Species with significantly different abundances

(P

-5-

0.05) are denoted by asterisks.

Total catch

X

Family and species

Cover

Std. trawl

2

P

Acipenseridae

Pallid sturgeon

Scaphirhynchus albus

2

0

0

Shovelnose sturgeon

S. platcnynchus

22

83

35.44

<0.001 *

Larval sturgeon

Scaphirhynchus

spp.

26

0

0

Polyodontidae

Paddlefish

Polyodon spathula

181

24

120.24

<0.001*

Lepisosteidae

Shortnose gar

Lepisosteus platostomus

0

4

0

Clupeidae

Goldeye

Hiodon alosoides

22

8

6.53

<0.001*

Mooneye

H. tergisus

11

3

4.57

0.033*

Skipjack herring

Alosa chrysochloris

1

2

0.33

0.564

Gizzard shad

Dorosoma cepedianum

40

39

0.01

0.91

Threadfin shad

D. petenense

3

3

0

1.0

Cyprinidae

Grass carp

Ctenopharyngodon idella

7

1

4.5

0.033*

Red shiner

Cyprinella lutrensis

1

0

0

Blacktail shiner C.

venusta

1

0

0

Common carp

Cyprinus carpio

35

19

4.74

0.029*

Mississippi silvery minnow

Hybognathus nuchalis

2

0

0

Bighead carp

Hypophthalmichthys nobilis

39

6

24.2

<0.001*

Shoal chub

Macrhybopsis hyostoma

3,070

396

2,062.98

<0.00I*,

Sturgeon chub

M gelida

198

36

112.15

<0.001*

Sicklefin chub

M meeki

144

' 40

58.78

<0.001*

Silver chub

M storeriana

28

-?

5

16.03

<0.001*

Emerald shiner

Notropis atherinoides

26

1

23.15

<0.001 *

River shiner

N. blennius

1

0

0

Bigeye shiner N.

hoops

1

0

0

Silverband shiner N

shumardi

36

1

33.11

<0.001*

Channel shiner

N. wickliffi

893

91

653.66

<0.001*

Bluntnose minnow

Pimephales notatus

1

0

0

Bullhead minnow

P. vigilax

2

0

0

Catostomidae

River carpsucker

Carpiodes carpio

5

10

1.67

0.197

Blue sucker

Cycleptus elongatus

1

1

0

1.0

Black buffalo

Ictiobus niger

1

0

Shorthead redhorse

Moxostoma macrolepidotum

1

1

0

1.0

Ictaluridae

Yellow bullhead

Ameiurus natalis

1

0

0

Blue catfish

Ictalurus furcatus

602

347

68.52

<0.001*

Channel catfish

I. punctatus

4,376

1,762

1,113.23

<0.001*

Stonecat

Noturus flavus

12

3

5.4

<0.02*

Freckled madtom

N. nocturnus

4

2

0.67

0.414

Flathead catfish

Pylodictis olivaris

2

5

1.29

0.257

Atherinopsidae

Inland silverside

Menidia beryllina

2

0

0

Moronidae

White bass

Morone chrysops

5

4

0.111

0.739

Striped bass

M saxatilis

1

0

0

Centrarchidae

Bluegill

Lepomis macrochirus

2

2

0

1.0

Percidae

Logperch

Percina caprodes

1

0

0

River darter

P. shumardi

9

2

4.46

0.035*

Sauger

Sander canadensis

4

9

1.92

0.166

Sciaenidae

Freshwater drum

Aplodinotus grunniens

728

306

172.23

<0.001*

All species

10,549

3,217

5,93.8.65

<0.001*

---

— Standard trawl curve

Cover curve

♦

Standard trawl Obs,

•

Cover

Obs.

A.

0.8

600

HERZOG ET AL.

•

0 1 2 3 4 6 6 7

6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

length (cm)

FIGURE

3.—Results of the logistic regression plotting the cumulative probability of capture against fish length

for the standard trawl portion and cover of the

-

Missouri trawl (triangle = standard trawl, observed; circle = cover,

observed). Standard trawl and cover curves are indicated by solid lines.

0

2 0,6

0

?

— Standard trawl with

cover

curve

Standard trawl w/o cover curve

•

?

A Standard trawl with

cover

Obs.

.0

?

?

• Standard trawl wio cover Obs.

04 •

•

• A

o

0,2

•

0

A

0? 10?20?

30?40?50?60?

70

length (cm)

FIGURE

4.—Results of the logistic regression plotting the cumulative probability of capture against fish length

for the standard trawl without a cover (used to sample the upper Mississippi River in 1991-1997) and the standard

trawl portion of the Missouri trawl (used for sampling in 1998-2001) (triangle = standard trawl with cover, observed;

circle = standard trawl without cover, observed). Curves for standard trawls with and without a cover are indicated

by solid lines.

---

TRAWLING BENTHIC FISHES IN LARGE RIVERS

?

601

40

4.40

3

0

A n 25

20

.5

—?

.

1

0

10 *

I"

V

..

'T

I

II

O

5 t0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

BO 85 90 95 100

Number of samples

FIGURE

5.—Comparison of the rate of fish species captured after 100 samples by use of the unmodified standard

trawl (gray line) and the Missouri trawl (black line) in the unimpounded reach of the upper Mississippi River.

Solid lines represent cumulative numbers of fish species captured at selected sampling intervals.

4

z

capture small fish, and the design could have con-

tributed to escape through the trawl body because

the fish may have impinged against the mesh prior

to entering the cod end. Although the standard

trawl is generally funnel-shaped, the attack angle

of the trawl body may have caused the trawl to act

more like a sieve rather than as a funnel for di-

recting fish to the cod end. We speculate that fish

have a higher tendency to pass through the netting

when the attack angle is abrupt than when the angle

is gradual. Unfortunately, no studies on this sub-

ject have been published for freshwater systems,

and additional research should be conducted to

clarify this issue. However, trawling procedures

were consistent throughout the study for both

trawls (i.e., Missouri and standard). Therefore, any

changes to catch composition that occur through

use of the Missouri trawl should be attributed to

the cover.

When a trawl with a cover is used, mesh inter-

actions may affect the catch. Cover effects were

not identified when the cumulative capture prob-

abilities from the standard trawl portion of the

Missouri trawl (1998-2001) and the standard trawl

without the cover (1991-1997) were compared.

Cumulative capture probabilities were nearly iden-

tical across all length ranges. These results are

similar to findings of Madsen and Holst (2002),

who found no obvious masking effects caused by

a covered cod end on catch of a single species.

However, fish larger than the mesh cannot pass

through to the small mesh. This explains the sig-

nificantly higher abundance of shovelnose stur-

geon in the standard portion of the Missouri trawl.

A fish's shape, texture, behavioral response (e.g.,

predator avoidance), and size are important factors

in determining its susceptibility to fishing gear

(Pope et al. 1975). Shovelnose sturgeon are not

strong swimmers and use substrate appression to

maintain themselves in the current (Adams et al.

1997). Thus, this species is less likely to escape

an encounter with a bottom trawl. Conversely, lar-

val sturgeons pass through large mesh because of

their size and shape. Gunderson (1993) addressed

differences in trawl capture based on fish size and

ability to out-swim the trawl. Also, because of

habitats they occupy, some fish (e.g., pelagic spe-

cies) will not be captured by bottom trawling. All

18 species that were significantly more abundant

in the small-mesh cover than in the standard por-

tion of the Missouri trawl were either small or had

streamlined bodies.

Although there was no apparent effect of the

cover on cumulative probability of catch, there was

an effect on drag. The small-mesh cover of the

Missouri trawl increases the power required by the

motor to pull the trawl and requires substantially

more manpower to retrieve than does an unmod-

---

602

?

HERZOG ET AL.

ified standard trawl. In addition, the small-mesh

cover is susceptible to damage because it is on the

outside of the trawl. However, the utility of the

cover for community sampling outweighs any neg-

ative aspects like higher drag or maintenance, and

the cover may reduce catch mortality of small fish.

For example, although large-mesh trawls capture

larger fish, reduce drag, and allow for reduced by-

catch (Dickson 1962; Naidu et al. 1987), they may

injure or kill fish. Fish escapement through large-

mesh trawls may cause delayed mortality because

of the trauma of pass-through or impingement on

the trawl body (Chopin and Arimoto 1994). How-

ever, because there were two mesh sizes in the

Missouri trawl, smaller fish that passed through

the standard trawl portion remained separate from

large debris and larger fish. This design prevented

unnecessary damage to smaller fish by impinge-

ment on larger fish or debris. Matsushita and Shida

(2001) noted that separation of marine debris by

selective gear (i.e., bycatch exclusion window)

avoided much damage to the catch. This is ex-

tremely important when there is potential for en-

countering a federally endangered species (e.g.,

pallid sturgeon) while trawling. The Missouri.

trawl design improves small fish capture and de-.

creases the likelihood of delayed mortality caused

by capture stress.

When a single gear is used to sample a fish

community, it is important to address how many

species are being captured as well as the total num-

ber of individuals of each species. Many sampling

protocols are designed to capture species-specific

information by use of best methods and are effec-

tive tools for resource managers. However, a sam-

pling gear that is effective for multiple species and

diverse areas provides more utility per unit effort.

We have shown that the Missouri trawl is a prac-

tical method for sampling fish communities in dif-

ferent-size river systems. The advantages of this

trawl include low equipment cost, simple opera-

tion, and improved capture of fish species and

abundance in comparison to that of a two-seam

slingshot balloon trawl with a 19.05-mm-mesh

body and a 3.18-mm-mesh cod end. Researchers

continue to modify cod end specifications to study

and capture specific sizes of fish (Mous et al.

2002). The modifications are usually not associ-

ated with community sampling, but rather are used

to increase catch of large fish and reduce catch of

small or unwanted fish. Our study supports the idea

that the body of the trawl can affect capture as

much as or more than the cod end. This method-

ology will improve the effectiveness of benthic

fish community sampling in moderate to large river

systems.

Acknowledgments

We thank M. Petersen, J. Ridings, J. Crites, L.

Evans, W. Dunker, C. Beachum, and L. Conaway

for field assistance. We thank E. Peters, S. Delain,

M. Steuck, and A. Thompson for guiding us while

sampling in their states. M. Winston and J. Stan-

ovick provided information for data analysis and

gear comparison. S. Gutreuter provided significant

input into gear design. We thank A. Hendershott

for completing the pencil sketch of the Missouri

trawl and

J.

Vallaza,

M.

Roell, R. Strange, and J.

Holbrook for reviewing the manuscript. This proj-

ect was funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-

vice, Endangered Species Act, Section 6 Program,

Agreement Number E-1-37; the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers; the U.S. Geological Survey, Biolog-

ical Resources Division, Upper Midwest Environ-

mental Sciences Center through the Upper Mis-

sissippi River System Long Term Resource Mon-

itoring Program; and the Missouri Department of

Conservation.

References

Adams, S. R., G. R. Nrsons, J. J. Hoover, and K. J.

Killgore. 1997. Observations of swimming ability

in shovelnose sturgeon

(Scaphirhynchus platoryn-

chus).

Journal of Freshwater Ecology 12:631-633.

Barko, V. A., M. W. Palmer, D. P. Herzog, and B. S.

Ickes. 2004. Influential environmental gradients

and spatiotemporal patterns in fish assemblages in

the unimpounded upper Mississippi River. Ameri-

can Midland Naturalist 152(2):369-385.

Brabant,

J.

C., and C. Nedelec. 1979. Bottom trawls for

small-scale fishing. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper

189.

Chopin, F. S., and T. Arimoto. 1994. The condition of

fish escaping from fishing gears: a review. Fisheries

Research 21:315-327.

Dahm, E. 2000. Changes in length compositions of some

fish species as a consequence of alterations in the

ground gear of the GOV-trawl. Fisheries Research

49:39-50.

Dettmers, J. M., S. Gutreuter, D. H. Wahl, and D. A.

Soluk. 2001. Patterns and abundance in main chan-

nels of the upper Mississippi River system. Cana-

dian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:

933-942.

Dickson, W. 1962. Modern fishing gear of the world,

volume 2. Fishing News Books, Farnham, UK.

Dremiere, P., L. Fiorentini, G. Cosimi, I. Leonori, A.

Sala, and A. Spagnolo. 1999. Escapement from the

main body of the bottom trawl used for the Medi-

terranean international trawl survey (MEDITS).

Aquatic Living Resources 12:207-217.

Glass, C. W., and C. S. Wardle. 1989. Comparison of

---

TRAWLING BENTHIC FISHES IN LARGE RIVERS

?

603

the reactions of fish to a trawl gear at high and low

light intensities. Fisheries Research 7:249-266.

Godo,

0.

R., and S. J. Walsh. 1998. Escapement of fish

during bottom trawl sampling: implications for re-

source assessment. Fisheries Research 13:281-292.

Gunderson, D. R. 1993. Surveys of fisheries resources.

Wiley, New York.

Gutreuter, S. 1993. The need for spatially randomized

sampling of fishes in the Long Term Resource Mon-

itoring Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Environmental Management Technical Center,

Technical Report 92-T001, Onalaska, Wisconsin.

Gutreuter, S., R. W. Burkhardt, and K. Lubinski. 1995.

Long Term Resource Monitoring Program proce-

dures: fish monitoring. National Biological Service,

Environmental Management Technical Center,

Technical Report 95-P002-1, Onalaska, Wisconsin.

Hayes, D. B., C. P. Ferreri, and W. W. Taylor. 1996.

Active fish capture methods. Pages 193-220

in

B.

R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries tech-

niques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Herzog, D. P. 2004. Capture efficiency and habitat use

of sturgeon chub

(Macrhybopsis gelida)

and sick-

lefin chub

(Macrhybopsis meeki)

in the Mississippi

River. Master's thesis. Southeast Missouri State

University, Cape Girardeau.

Kelley, K. 1994. Fish behavior is key to reducing un-

wanted species. National Fisherman 74(4):1-30.

Kim, Y. H., and C. S. Wardle. 1997. Measuring bright-

ness contrast of fishing gear: the visual stimulus for

fish capture. Fisheries Research 34:151-164.

Kunjipalu, K. K., N. S. Pillai, M. R. Boopendranath, and

K. K. Rao. 1992. Effect of horizontal opening of

bottom trawl on fish catch. Fishery Technology 29:

91-94.

Lowry, N., and J. H. B. Robertson. 1996. The effect of

twine thickness on cod end selectivity of trawls for

haddock in the North Sea. Fisheries Research 26:

353-363.

Madsen, N., and R. Hoist. 2002. Assessment of the cov-

er effect in trawl cod end selectivity experiments.

Fisheries Research 56:289-301.

Matsushita, Y., and M. Shida. 2001. Comparison of

catches between selective and conventional otter

trawl for a coastal fishery. Reviews in Fisheries Sci-

ence 9:33-42.

Michaletz, P., J. Boxrucker, S. Hale, and J. R. Jackson.

1995. Comparison of four trawls for sampling ju-

venile shad. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management 15:918-923.

Millar, R. B. 1992. Estimating the size selectivity of

fishing gear by conditioning on the total catch. Jour-

nal of the American Statistical Association 87:962-

969.

Mous, P. J., W. L. T. van Densen, and M. A. M. Machiels.

2002. The effect of smaller mesh sizes on catching

larger fish with trawls. Fisheries Research 54:171-

179.

Naidu, R. M., S. V. S. Ramarao, G. Narayanappa, A. V.

V. Satyanarayana, J. Sitaramarao, and A. K. K. Nair.

1987. Effect of variation in mesh size on trawl ef-

ficiency. Fishery Technology 24:80-82.

Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinoza-Perez, L. T.

Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, and J. D. Wil-

liams. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes

from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Amer-

ican Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Be-

thesda, Maryland.

Owens, T., and J. J. Ruhser. 1996. Long Term Resource

Monitoring Program operating procedures: aquatic

database production. National Biological Service,

Environmental Management Technical Center, Re-

port 95-P008-6, Onalaska, Wisconsin..

Pine, W. E., III 2000. Comparison of two otter trawls

of different sizes for sampling black crappies. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:

819-821.

Pitlo, J. 1992. An evaluation of the effect of a change

in commercial harvest regulations on the channel

catfish populations inhabiting the upper Mississippi

River. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Fed-

eral Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, Project F-109-

R, Des Moines.

Polet, H. 2000. Cod end and whole trawl selectivity of

a shrimp beam trawl used in the North Sea. Fisheries

Research 48-.167-183.

Pope, J. A., A. R. Margetts, J. M. Hamley, and E. E

Akyuz. 1975. Manual of methods for fish stock as-

sessment, part3. Selectivity of fishing gear. FAO

Fisheries Technical Paper 41.

Ryer, C. H., and B. L. 011a. 2000. Avoidance of an

approaching net by juvenile walleye pollock

Ther-

agra chalcogramma

in the laboratory: the influence

of light intensity. Fisheries Research 45:195-199.

SAS Institute. 1998. SAS/STAT user's guide, release

6.03. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.

Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and

procedures of statistics, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill,

New York.

Van Den Avyle, M. J., J. Boxrucker, P. Michaletz, B.

Vondracek, and G. R. Ploskey. 1995. Comparison

of catch rate, length distribution, and precision of

six gears used to sample reservoir shad populations.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management

15:940-955.