A Large-Scale, Multiagency Approach to Defining a Reference Network for Pacific Northwest Streams
Aquatic monitoring programs vary widely in objectives and design. However, each program faces the unifying challenge of assessing conditions and quantifying reasonable expectations for measured indicators. A common approach for setting resource expectations is to define reference conditions that represent areas of least human disturbance or most natural state of a resource characterized by the range of natural variability across a region of interest. Identification of reference sites often relies heavily on professional judgment, resulting in varying and unrepeatable methods. Standardized methods for data collection, site characterization, and reference site selection facilitate greater cooperation among assessment programs and development of assessment tools that are readily shareable and comparable. We illustrate an example that can serve the broader global monitoring community on how to create a consistent and transparent reference network for multiple stream resource agencies. We provide a case study that offers a simple example of how reference sites can be used, at the landscape level, to link upslope management practices to a specific in-channel response. We found management practices, particularly areas with high road densities, have more fine sediments than areas with fewer roads. While this example uses data from only one of the partner agencies, if data were collected in a similar manner they can be combined and create a larger, more robust dataset. We hope that this starts a dialog regarding more standardized ways through inter-agency collaborations to evaluate data. Creating more consistency in physical and biological field protocols will increase the ability to share data.
KeywordsReference site Minimally disturbed Aquatic Stream Monitoring
We thank Chuck Hawkins and Scott Miller of the Utah State Western Monitoring Center and Aquatic Ecology Lab, and Sean Gordon of Portland State University, for constructive comments throughout the development of this manuscript, Raphael Mazor provided R code for PCA graphics, and Steve Wilcox constructed maps and performed reference final screening. This work was funded by the BLM, Forest Service (Regions 5 & 6), and the Environmental Protection agency through interagency support of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
- Bailey RG (1980) Description of the ecoregions of the United States. No. 1391. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Google Scholar
- Bailey RG, Avers PE, King T, McNab WH (eds). (1994) Ecoregions and subregions of the United States [map 1:7,500,000]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington. (With supplementary table of map unit descriptions)Google Scholar
- Baker M, Wiley M, Seelbach P, Carlson M (2003) A GIS model of subsurface water potential for aquatic resource inventory, assessment, and environmental management. Environ Manag 32:706Google Scholar
- Daigle P (2010) A summary of the environmental impacts of roads, management responses, and research gaps: a literature review. BC J Ecosyst Manag 10(3):65–89Google Scholar
- Davies PE, Wright JF, Sutcliffe DW, Furse MT (2000) Development of a national river bioassessment system (AUSRIVAS) in Australia. In Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Oxford, UK, on 16-18 September 1997. Freshwater Biological Association (FBA), p 113–124Google Scholar
- Furniss MJ, Roelofs TD, Yee CS (1991) Road construction and maintenance. In: Meehan WR (ed) Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, p 389–424Google Scholar
- Grant GE, Lewis SL, Swanson FJ, Cissel JH, Mcdonnell JJ (2008) Effects of forest practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for western Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
- McHenry ML, Morril DC, Currence E (1994) Spawning gravel quality, watershed characteristics and early life history survival of Coho Salmon and Steelhead in Five North Olympic Peninsula Watersheds. Washington State Department of Ecology, Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe, Port AngelesGoogle Scholar
- Miller S, Eldred P, Beloin R, Wilcox S, Raggon M, Andersen A, Gordon S, Muldoon A (2015) Northwest Forest Plan-the first 20 years (1994–2013): watershed condition. General Technical Report PNWGTR-932Google Scholar
- Olsen J, Hawkins CP (2012) Predicting natural base-flow stream water chemistry in the western United States. Water Resour Res 48(2)Google Scholar
- Olsen J, Hawkins CP (2013) Developing site-specific nutrient criteria from empirical models. Freshw Sci 32(3): 719–740Google Scholar
- Paulsen A, Mayio, Peck DV, Stoddard JL, Tarquino E, Holdsworth SM, Van Sickle J, Yuan LL, Hawkins CP, Herlihy AT, Kaufmann PR, Barbour MT, Larsen DP, Olsen AR (2008) Condition of stream ecosystems in the US: an overview of the first national assessment. J N Am Benthol Soc 27(4):812–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pollack MM, Beechie TJ, Imaki H (2012) Using reference conditions in ecosystem restoration: an example for riparian conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest. Ecosphere 3(11):98Google Scholar
- SAS Institute (2011) Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
- Seaber PR, Kapinos FP, Knapp GL (1987) Hyrdologic unit maps: US Geological Survey (USGS). Water Supply Paper 2294:63Google Scholar