Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 77, Issue 3, pp 265–291

Development of a Provisional Physical Habitat Index for Maryland Freshwater Streams

  • Lenwood W. HallJr.
  • Raymond P. MorganII
  • Elgin S. Perry
  • Anita Waltz


Provisional physical habitat indices were developed and validatedfor Maryland Coastal and Non-Coastal Plain streams using variables (commonly called metrics) that best discriminated reference and degraded conditions based on biological, chemicaland land use data from the 1994–97 Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS). These habitat indices contained variables that described structural, hydrological, vegetative and aesthetic components of stream habitat. Variables with the best discriminatory power for Coastal Plain streams were: instream habitat, velocity/depth diversity, pool/glide/eddy quality, embeddedness, maximum depth and aesthetic rating. Physical habitat variables with the best discriminatory power for Non-Coastal Plain sites were: instream habitat, velocity/depth diversity, riffle/run quality, embeddedness, number of rootwads and aesthetic rating. The overall classification efficiency forindex validation was 76% for both indices pooled over both strata. Scaled physical habitat index values (0–100) for bothstrata identified nearly twice as many good sites (31%) as very poor sites (16%). More than half the Maryland sites werein the poor to fair range (53%).

Chesapeake Bay watershed freshwater streams physical habitat index 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Angermeier, P. L., and J. R. Karr.: 1984, 'Relationships between woody debris and fish habitat in a small warmwater stream', Transact. Amer. Fish. Soc. 113, 716–726.Google Scholar
  2. Argent, D. G. and P. A. Flebbe.: 1999, 'Fine sediment effects on brook trout eggs in laboratory streams', Fis. Res. 39, 253–262.Google Scholar
  3. Ashton, W. D.: 1972. The Logit Transformation. Griffin Press. London.Google Scholar
  4. Barbour, M. T. and J. B. Stribling.: 1991, 'Use of Habitat Assessment in Evaluating the Biological Integrity to Stream Communities. Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 440/5-91-005, Washington, District of Columbia.Google Scholar
  5. Binns, N. A.: 1979, 'A Habitat Quality Index for Wyoming Trout Streams', Fisheries Research Report, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, D. W.: 1988, 'Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of large salmonids', Transact. Amer. Fish. Soc. 117, 1–20.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, D. R.: 1970, Analysis of Binary Data. Chapman and Hall Press, London.Google Scholar
  8. Gordon, N. D., McMahon, T. A. and Finlayson, B. L.: 1992, Stream Hydrology: An Introduction for Ecologists. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  9. Gorman, O. 1T. and Karr, J. R.: 1978, 'Habitat structure and stream fish communities', Ecology 59, 507–515.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, L. W. Jr., Morgan II, R. P., Perry, E. S. and Waltz, A.: 1999, Development of a provisional physical habitat index for Maryland freshwater streams. Final report CBWP-MANTA-EA-99-12. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  11. Haro, R. J. and Brusven, M. A.: 1994, 'Effects of cobble embeddedness on the microdistribution of the sculpin Cottis beldingi and its stonefly prey', Great Basin Natural. 54, 64–70.Google Scholar
  12. Hildrew, A. G.: 1998, 'Physical Habitat and Benthic Ecology of Streams and Rivers', in: G. Breschko and J. Helesic (eds), Advances in River Bottom Ecology. Bachhuys Publisher, Leiden, The Netherlands. p. 13–22.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes, R. M., Kaufmann, P. R., Herlihy, A. T., Kincaid, T. M., Reynolds, L. and Larsen, D. P.: 1998, 'A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity', Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55, 1681–1631.Google Scholar
  14. Karr, J. R.: 1981, 'Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities', Fisheries 6, 21–27.Google Scholar
  15. Kazyak, P. F.: 1997, 'Maryland Biological Stream Survey Sampling Manual', Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  16. Lenat, D. R. and Crawford, K.: 1994, 'Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams', Hydrobiologia 294, 185–199.Google Scholar
  17. Maddock, I.: 1999, 'The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health', Freshw. Biol. 41, 373–391.Google Scholar
  18. Minns, C. K., Carins, V.W., Randell, R. G. and Moore, J. E.: 1994, 'An index of biotic integrity (IBI) for fish assemblages in the littorial zone of Great Lakes areas of concern', Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55, 1804–1822.Google Scholar
  19. Omernik, J. M.: 1987, 'Ecoregions of the conterminous United States', Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geogr. 77, 118–125.Google Scholar
  20. Plakfin, J. L., Barbour, M. T., Porter, K. D., Gross, S. K. and Hughes, R. M.: 1989, 'Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-440/4-89/001, Washington, District of Columbia.Google Scholar
  21. Platts, W. S.: 1976, 'Validity of Methodologies to Document Stream Environments for Evaluating Fishery Conditions', in: Instream Flow Needs Procedures, Volume Two. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. p. 267–284Google Scholar
  22. Platts,W. S., Megahan,W. F. and Minshall, G.W.: 1983, 'Methods for Evaluation of Stream Riparian and Biotic Conditions', General Technical Report INT-138, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.Google Scholar
  23. Platts, W. S., Torguemada, R. J., Henry, M. L. and Graham, C. K.: 1989, 'Changes in salmonid spawning and rearing from increased delivery of fine sediment to the South Fork Salmon River, Idaho', Transact. Amer. Fish. Soc. 118, 227–283.Google Scholar
  24. Rankin, E. T.: 1989, The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI); Rationale, Methods and Application, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  25. 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, Flordia. pp. 181–208.Google Scholar
  26. Reger, J.: 1995, Memorandum from J. Reger, Maryland Geological Survey, Environmental Geology and Minerals Resources, to J. Perdue, A. Raspberry, and E. Bradley. Digital Files and Metadata for Draft Physiographic Map of Maryland, July 14, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. Roth, N. E., Southerland, M. T., Mercurio, G., Chaillou, J. C., Kazyak, P. F., Stranko, S. S., Prochaska, A., Heimbuch, D. G. and Seibel, J. C.: 1999, State of the Streams: 1995-1997 Maryland Biological Stream Survey Results, CBWP-MANTA-EA-99-6, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  28. Roth, N. E., Southerland, M. T., Weisberg, S. B., Chaillou, J., Kazyak, P. F., Stranko, S., Klauda, R. J., Hall, L. W. Jr. and Morgan, R. P. II.: 1998, 'Development and evaluation of a fish index of biotic integrity for Maryland freshwater streams', Environ. Monit. Assess. 51, 89–106.Google Scholar
  29. Roussas, G. G.: 1973, A First Course in Mathematical Statistics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  30. Sheldon, A. L. and Meffe, G. K.: 1995, 'Path analysis of collective properties and habitat relationships of fish assemblages in coastal plain streams', Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52, 23–33.Google Scholar
  31. Simon, T. P.: 1999, 'Introduction: Biological Integrity and the Use of Ecological Health Concepts for Application to Water Resource Characterization', in: T. P. Simon (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability of Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 2–16.Google Scholar
  32. Stribling, J. B., White, J. S. Jessup, B. J., Boward, D. and Hurd, M.: 1998, Development of a Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Maryland Streams, Report. Tetra Tech Incorporated, Owings, Maryland.Google Scholar
  33. Trautman, M. B.: 1981, The Fishes of Ohio, (2 Ed.) Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  34. Van Deusen, R. D.: 1954, Maryland Freshwater Stream Classifications by Watersheds, State of Maryland, Board of Natural Resources, Department of Research and Education, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland.Google Scholar
  35. Wang, L., Lyons, J. and Kanehl, P.: 1998, 'Development and evaluation of a habitat rating system for low gradient Wisconsin streams', Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 18, 775–785.Google Scholar
  36. Yoder, C. O. and Smith, M. A.: 1999, 'Using Fish Assemblages in a State Biological Assessment and Critical Program: Essential Concepts and Considerations', in: T. P. Simon (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 17–56.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lenwood W. HallJr.
    • 1
  • Raymond P. MorganII
    • 2
  • Elgin S. Perry
    • 3
  • Anita Waltz
    • 2
  1. 1.Agricultural Experiment Station, Wye Research and Education CenterUniversity of MarylandQueenstownU.S.A
  2. 2.Center for Environmental Science, Appalachian LaboratoryUniversity of MarylandFrostburgU.S.A
  3. 3.HuntingtownU.S.A

Personalised recommendations