Journal of the North American Benthological Society

Published by: North American Benthological Society

« previous article : next article »


Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(3):690-704. 2008
doi: 10.1899/07-117.1

Physical indicators of hydrologic permanence in forested headwater streams

Ken M. Fritz1, Brent R. Johnson2, David M. Walters3

National Exposure Research Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 USA

Abstract

Recent court cases have questioned whether all headwater streams are jurisdictional waters under the US Clean Water Act. Rapid field-based indicators of hydrologic permanence are needed for making jurisdictional determinations. Our study objectives were to: 1) identify physical characteristics of forested headwater streams that best distinguish perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral reaches and 2) assess the applicability of existing rapid field-based tools for classifying hydrologic permanence across a wide geographic range. We surveyed reach- and drainage-scale characteristics at 113 sites across 10 study forests in the US. Streams in 4 core forests (61 core sites) were sampled over 2 consecutive years and were used in model construction. Streams in 6 satellite forests (72 satellite sites) were used to validate the models over a broader geographic range. Discriminant function models successfully differentiated hydrologic permanence categories at core sites. Drainage area, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI), and the North Carolina Department of Water Quality Stream Classification Method (NCSC) were strongly correlated with the discriminant function that separated ephemeral from perennial and intermittent sites. Entrenchment ratio was the most consistent variable discriminating intermittent from perennial sites across the core forests. The models had mixed results when applied to the validation data set, but did classify correctly most intermittent and ephemeral sites. Classification trees were used to assess broad regional applicability of existing rapid field-based protocols and to identify important metrics. Scores from the Rapid Bioassessment Protocol Habitat Assessment, HHEI, and NCSC all clearly distinguished ephemeral from intermittent and perennial sites, but no differences were detected between intermittent and perennial sites across all sites. However, data from core sites do indicate that a suite of physical variables can be used successfully to identify hydrologic permanence at regional scales.

Received: September 17, 2007; Accepted: May 16, 2008

Keywords: jurisdictional waters, intermittent, ephemeral, perennial, temporary, rapid habitat assessments, hydrology, geomorphology



Literature Cited

Alexander, R. B., E. W. Boyer, R. A. Smith, G. E. Schwarz, and R. B. Moore. 2007. The role of headwater streams in downstream water quality. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:41–59..
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. 2nd edition. EPA/841/B/98–010. Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Benda, L., M. A. Hassan, M. Church, and C. L. May. 2005. Geomorphology of steepland headwaters: the transition from hillslopes to channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:835–851..
Bent, G. C. and P. A. Steeves. 2006. A revised logistic regression equation and an automated procedure for mapping the probability of a stream flowing perennially in Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5051. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Blasch, K. W., T. P A. Ferré, A. H. Christensen, and J. P. Hoffmann. 2002. New field method to determine streamflow timing using electrical resistance sensors. Vadose Zone Journal 1:289–299..
Boulton, A. J., F. Sheldon, M. C. Thoms, and E. H. Stanley. 2000. Problems and constraints in managing rivers with variable flow regimes. Pages. 415–430. in P. J. Boon, B. R. Davies, G. E. Petts (editors). Global perspectives on river conservation: science, policy and practice. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.
Burt, T. P. 1992. The hydrology of headwater catchments. Pages. 3–28. in P. Calow, G. E. Petts (editors). The rivers handbook. Volume 1..Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK.
Church, M. 2002. Geomorphic thresholds in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47:541–557.. CrossRef, CSA
Clausen, B. 1995. Discharge data collection and analysis strategies in low flow studies. Nordic Hydrology 26:191–204.. CSA
Comín, F. A. and W. D. Williams. 1994. Parched continents: our common future? Pages. 473–527. in R. Margalef (editor). Limnology now: a paradigm of planetary problems. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Constantz, J., D. Stonestrom, A. E. Stewart, R. Niswonger, and T. R. Smith. 2001. Analysis of streambed temperature in ephemeral stream channels to determine streamflow frequency and duration. Water Resources Research 37:317–328.. CrossRef, CSA
Craw, R. C. 1976. Streamside bryophyte zonation. New Zealand Journal of Botany 14:19–28..
Darby, S. E. and A. Simon. 1999. Incised river channels: processes, forms, engineering, and management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.
De'ath, G. and K. E. Fabricius. 2000. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81:3178–3192.. CSA
Downing, D. M., C. Winer, and L. D. Wood. 2003. Navigating through Clean Water Act jurisdiction: a legal review. Wetlands 23:475–493.. Abstract
Drummond, R. R. 1974. When is a stream a stream? Professional Geographer 26:34–37.. CrossRef
FCSPD (Fairfax County Stormwater Planning Division) 2003. Perennial stream field identification protocol. Stormwater Planning Division, Watershed Planning and Assessment Branch Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services, Fairfax, Virginia. (Available from: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/watersheds/ps_protocols.pdf).
Fritz, K. M. and W. K. Dodds. 2005. Harshness: characterisation of stream habitat over time and space. Marine and Freshwater Research 56:13–23.. CrossRef
Fritz, K. M., B. R. Johnson, and D. M. Walters. 2006. Field operations manual for assessing the hydrologic permanence and ecological condition of headwater streams. EPA 600/R-06/126. Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. (Available from: http://www.epa.gov/eerd/manual/headwater.htm).
Genereux, D. P., H. F. Hemond, and P. J. Mulholland. 1993. Spatial and temporal variability in streamflow generation on the West Fork of Walker Branch Watershed. Journal of Hydrology 142:137–166.. CrossRef, CSA
Gomi, T., R. C. Sidle, and J. S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater systems. BioScience 52:905–916.. Abstract, CSA
Gooderham, J. P R., L. A. Barmuta, and P. E. Davies. 2007. Upstream heterogeneous zones: small stream systems structured by a lack of competence? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26:365–374.. Abstract
Gordon, N. D., T. A. McMahon, and B. L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream hydrology: an introduction for ecologists. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.
Groffman, P. M., D. J. Bain, L. E. Band, K. T. Belt, G. S. Brush, J. M. Grove, R. V. Pouyat, I. C. Yesilonis, and W. C. Zipperer. 2003. Down by the riverside: urban riparian ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:315–321.. CSA
Gustard, A. 1992. Analysis of river regimes. Pages. 29–47. in P. Calow, G. E. Petts (editors). The rivers handbook. Volume 1..Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK.
Hack, J. T. and J. C. Goodlett. 1960. Geomorphology and forest ecology of a mountain region in the Central Appalachians. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 347. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. 5th edition. Prentice–Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Halwas, K. L. and M. Church. 2002. Channel units in small, high gradient streams on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Geomorphology 43:243–256.. CrossRef, CSA
Hedman, E. R. and W. R. Osterkamp. 1982. Streamflow characteristics related to channel geometry of streams in western United States. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2193. US Geological Survey, Alexandria, Virginia.
Higgins, D. A., A. R. Tiedmann, T. M. Quigley, and D. B. Marx. 1989. Streamflow characteristics of small watersheds in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 25:1131–1149..
Hunter, M. A., T. Quinn, and M. P. Hayes. 2005. Low flow spatial characteristics in forested headwater channels of southwest Washington. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:503–516.. CrossRef
Karels, T. J., A. A. Bryant, and D. S. Hik. 2004. Comparison of discriminant function and classification tree analyses for age classification in marmots. Oikos 105:575–587.. CrossRef
Leibowitz, S. G., P. J. Wigington, M. C. Rains, and D. M. Downing. 2008. The effects of non-navigable streams and adjacent wetlands on navigable waters: an approach for addressing information needs following the US Supreme Court's Rapanos and Carabell decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (in press).
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. Dover Publications, New York.
Lins, H. F. 1997. Regional streamflow regimes and hydroclimatology of the United States. Water Resources Research 33:1655–1667.. CrossRef, CSA
Lowe, W. H. and G. E. Likens. 2005. Moving headwater streams to the head of the class. BioScience 55:196–197.. Abstract
McMahon, T. A. and B. L. Finlayson. 2003. Droughts and anti-droughts: the low flow hydrology of Australian rivers. Freshwater Biology 48:1147–1160.. CrossRef
Mertes, L. A K. 2002. Remote sensing of riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47:799–816.. CrossRef, CSA
Meyer, J. L. and J. B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small streams. Pages. 295–317. in M. C. Press, N. J. Huntly, S. Levin (editors). Ecology: achievement and challenge. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
Montgomery, D. R. and J. M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 109:596–611.. CrossRef
Nadeau, T-L. and M. C. Rains. 2007. Hydrological connectivity between headwater streams and downstream waters: how science can inform policy. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:118–133..
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality) 1999. North Carolina Division of Water Quality stream classification method. Internal Guidance Manual. Version 2.0. Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. (Available from: DWQ Program Development Unit, Mail Service Center 1650, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650).
NCDWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality) 2005. Identification methods for the origins of intermittent and perennial streams. Version 3.1. Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. (Available from: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/documents/NC_Stream_ID_Manual.pdf).
OHEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency) 2002. Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary headwater habitat streams. Final Version 1.0. Division of Surface Water, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio. (Available from: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/wqs/headwaters/PHWHManual_2002_102402.pdf).
Paybins, K. S. 2003. Flow origin, drainage area, and hydrologic characteristics for headwater streams in the mountaintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia, 2000–01. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4300. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Poff, N. L. 1996. A hydrogeography of unregulated streams in the United States and an examination of scale-dependence in some hydrological descriptors. Freshwater Biology 36:71–91.. CrossRef, CSA
Rivenbark, B. L. and C. R. Jackson. 2004. Average discharge, perennial flow initiation, and channel initiation—small Southern Appalachian basins. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40:639–646.. CrossRef
Schumm, S. A. 1999. Causes and controls of channel incision. Pages. 19–33. in S. E. Darby, A. Simon (editors). Incised river channels: processes, forms, engineering, and management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 14:11–26.. CrossRef, CSA
Sparks, J., T. Hagman, D. Messer, and J. Townsend. 2003a. Eastern Kentucky stream assessment protocol: utility in making mitigation decisions. Aquatic Resources News: A Regulatory Newsletter 2/2:4–10..
Sparks, J., J. Townsend, T. Hagman, and D. Messer. 2003b. Stream assessment protocol for headwater streams in the Eastern Kentucky Coalfield Region. Aquatic Resources News: A Regulatory Newsletter 2/1:2–5..
Stanley, E. H., S. G. Fisher, and N. B. Grimm. 1997. Ecosystem expansion and contraction in streams. BioScience 47:427–435.. CrossRef, CSA
Stauffer, J. C. and R. M. Goldstein. 1997. Comparison of three qualitative habitat indices and their applicability to prairie streams. North American Journal of Fish Management 17:348–361.. CrossRef, CSA
Svec, J. R., R. K. Kolka, and J. W. Stringer. 2005. Defining perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral channels in eastern Kentucky: application to forestry best management practices. Forest Ecology and Management 214:170–182.. CrossRef
USEPA and USACE (US Environmental Protection Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers) 2007. Clean Water Act jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Joint Agency Memorandum (7 June 2007). US Environmental Protection Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. (Available from http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/RapanosGuidance6507.pdf).
Usery, E. L., M. P. Finn, D. J. Scheidt, S. Ruhl, T. Beard, and M. Bearden. 2004. Geospatial data resampling and resolution effects on watershed modeling: a case study using the agricultural non-point source pollution model. Journal of Geographic Systems 6:289–306.. CrossRef
Uys, M. C. and J. H. O'Keefe. 1997. Simple words and fuzzy zones: early directions for temporary river research in South Africa. Environmental Management 21:517–531.. CrossRef, PubMed
Vidon, P. G F. and A. R. Hill. 2004. Landscape controls on the hydrology of stream riparian zones. Journal of Hydrology 292:210–228.. CrossRef
Wharton, G. 1995. The channel-geometry method: guidelines and applications. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 20:649–660.. CrossRef, CSA
Wigington, P. J., T. J. Moser, and D. R. Lindeman. 2005. Stream network expansion: a riparian water quality factor. Hydrological Processes 19:1715–1721.. CrossRef
Williams, D. D. 2006. The biology of temporary waters. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Winter, T. C. 2007. The role of ground water in generating streamflow in headwater areas and in maintaining base flow. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:15–25..
Wolock, D. M., T. C. Winter, and G. McMahon. 2004. Delineation and evaluation of hydrologic-landscape regions in the United States using geographic information system tools and multivariate statistical analysis. Environmental Management 34/Supplement 1:S71–S88.. CrossRef, PubMed
Wu, S., J. Li, and G. H. Huang. 2007. Modeling the effects of elevation data resolution on the performance of topography-based watershed runoff simulation. Environmental Modelling and Software 22:1250–1260.. CrossRef

Fig. 1. Study area showing core and satellite forests.

Fig. 2. Discriminant function (canonical) scores based on dry physical variables for the 61 core study sites during 2003 (2003 core dry model) (A) and 2004 (2004 core dry model) (B) and the 44 satellite sites during 2005 (satellite dry model) (C). Overall Wilks' λ are 0.134, 0.101, and 0.048 for 2003, 2004, and 2005, respectively. Sites labeled as misclassified are those at which the models disagreed with our a priori field-based designations.

Fig. 3. Tree diagrams from classification trees (CART) for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (A), the North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Classification index (B), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) Habitat Assessment index (C) across hydrologic permanence categories of core and satellite sites. RBP scores are also shown for reference wadeable streams taken from the US EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The number of sites within each category (E = ephemeral, I = intermittent, P = perennial, and W = wadeable) is shown at each node. Cut values associated with explanatory variables are shown at bifurcations and the associated proportion of reduction in error (PRE) is in parentheses.

Fig. 4. Box plots comparing multimetric habitat scores for the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Headwater Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI; n = 113) (A), the North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Classification index (NCSC; n = 111) (B), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) Habitat Assessment index (n = 304) (C) across hydrologic permanence categories of core and satellite study sites. RBP scores also are shown for reference wadeable streams (193 sites) taken from the US EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. Dashed lines indicate habitat thresholds derived by associated state agencies to assist in delineating among stream classes. HHEI class 1 = ephemeral streams, class 2 = warm-water perennial and intermittent streams, and class 3 = cold-water perennial streams. Lines inside boxes are means, box ends are quartiles, whiskers show 2 SD, dots show scores >2 SD. Boxes with different lowercase letters are significantly different (p < 0.05, Tukey's post hoc test) within panels.

table

Table 1. Study locations, hydrologic landscape region (HLR) number (Wolock et al. 2004), study years, number of sites across permanence categories (E = ephemeral, I = intermittent, P = perennial), and annual and summer precipitation ranks for study years. Precipitation ranks (1 = wettest year or summer on record) were derived from nearby National Weather Service stations with daily records >50 y. na = not available (National Weather Service data incomplete), – = not applicable to study periods, * = core study forests.

table

Table 2. Physical variables measured in forested headwater streams. Wet variables were measures of water presence (during spring) and were used only to discriminate intermittent and perennial sites. Dry variable ranges are listed for all 113 study sites (except for ER [no values for New York sites], NCSCM, and RBPM [no values for New York ephemeral sites]), whereas wet variable ranges are listed only for the 89 intermittent and perennial sites.

table

Table 3. Tests of discriminant functions for classifying ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial headwater streams. % correct is the percentage of sites that were classified correctly by the model.

table

Table 4. Correlation coefficients (r) between canonical scores for the discriminant function models and physical variables. Variable abbreviations given in Table 2. Coefficients in bold are significant at p < 0.05. – = variable not in model.

1E-mail addresses:

2

3

 
BioOne is the product of innovative collaboration between scientific societies, libraries, academe and the private sector.
 
21 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036 • Phone 202.296.2296 • Fax 202.872.0884
 
Copyright © 2009 BioOne All rights reserved