Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp 1091–1104 | Cite as

A Large-Scale, Multiagency Approach to Defining a Reference Network for Pacific Northwest Streams

  • Stephanie Miller
  • Peter Eldred
  • Ariel Muldoon
  • Kara Anlauf-Dunn
  • Charlie Stein
  • Shannon Hubler
  • Lesley Merrick
  • Nick Haxton
  • Chad Larson
  • Andrew Rehn
  • Peter Ode
  • Jake Vander Laan
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Reference site Minimally disturbed Aquatic Stream Monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Al-Chokhachy R, Roper BB, Archer EK (2010) Evaluating the status and trends of physical stream habitat in headwater streams within the Interior Columbia River and Upper Missouri River basins using an index approach. Trans Am Fish Soc 139(4):1041–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anlauf KJ, Jensen DW, Burnett KM, Steel EA, Christiansen K, Firman JC, Feist BE, Larsen DP (2011) Explaining spatial variability in stream habitat using both natural and management—influenced landscape predictors. Aquat Conserv 21:704–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey RG (1980) Description of the ecoregions of the United States. No. 1391. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bailey RC, Norris RH, Reynoldson TB (2004) Bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems: using the reference condition approach. Springer, New York, 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Cao Y, Hawkins CP, Olson J, Kosterman MA (2007) Modeling natural environmental gradients improves the accuracy and precision of diatom-based indicators. J N Am Benthol Soci 26(3):566–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cao Y, Hawkins CP (2011) The comparability of bioassessments: a review of conceptual and methodological issues. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:680–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collier KJ, Haigh A, Kelly J (2007) Coupling GIS and multivariate approached to reference site selection for wadable stream monitoring. Environ Monit Assess 127:29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Davies SP, Jackson SK (2006) The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecol Appl 16(4):1251–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Dose JJ, Roper BB (1994) Long-term changes in low flow channel widths within three Southern Umpqua Watersheds, Oregon. Water Resour Bull 30:993–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Hawkins CP, Olson J, Hill RA (2010) The reference condition: predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assessments. J N Am Benthol Soc 29(1):312–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herlihy AT, Paulsen SG, Van Sickle J, Stoddard JL, Hawkins CP, Yuan L (2008) Striving for consistency in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference condition approach on a continental scale. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:860–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes RM, Larsen DP, Omernik (1986) Regional reference sites: a method for assessing stream health potentials. Environ Manag 10:629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kondolf GM (2000) Assessing salmonid spawning gravel quality. Trans Am Fish Soc 129:262–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larsen DP, Kincaid TM, Jacobs SE, Urquhart NS (2001) Designs for evaluating local and regional scale trends. Bioscience 51:1069–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lisle TE (1989) Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal California. Water Resour Res 25(6):1303–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacDonald AJ, Cote D (2014) Temporal variability of benthic invertebrate communities at reference sites in eastern Newfoundland and its significance in long-term monitoring. J Freshw Ecol 29(2):201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Miller SA, Bartow A, Gisler M, Ward K, Young AS, Kaye TN (2011) Can an ecoregion serve as a seed transfer zone? Evidence from a common garden study with five native species. Restor Ecol 19(201):268–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Ode P, Rehn AC, May JT (2005) A quantitative tool for assessing the integrity of southern coastal California streams. Environ Manag 35:493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ode P, Rehn AC, Mazor PD, Schiff KC, Stein ED, May JT, Brown LR, Herbst DB, Gillett D, Lunde K, Hawkins CP (2016) Evaluating the adequacy of a reference site pool for ecological assessments in environmentally complex regions. Freshw Sci 35(1):237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oliveira RB, Baptista DF, Mugnai R, Castro CM, Hughes RM (2011) Towards rapid bioassessment of wadeable streams in Bazil: development of the Guapiaçu-Macau multimetric index (GMMI) based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Ecol Indic 11(6):1584–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Olsen J, Hawkins CP (2012) Predicting natural base-flow stream water chemistry in the western United States. Water Resour Res 48(2)Google Scholar
  30. Olsen J, Hawkins CP (2013) Developing site-specific nutrient criteria from empirical models. Freshw Sci 32(3): 719–740Google Scholar
  31. Olsen AR, Peck G (2008) Survey design and extent estimates for the Wadeable Streams Assessment. J N Am Benthol Soc 27(4):822–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Omernick JM (1987) Ecoregions of the counterminous United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Pardo MM, Gomez-Rodriguez C, Wasson JG, Owen R, van de Bund W, Kelly M, Bennet C, Birk S, Buffagni A, Erba S, Mengin N, Murray-Bligh J, Ofenboeck G (2012) The European reference condition concept to identify minimally impacted river ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 420:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Reeves GH, Williams JE, Burnett KM, Gallo K (2006) The aquatic conservation strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. Conserv Biol 20(2):319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reyonldson GH, Norris RH, Resh VH, Day KE, Rosenberg DM (2007) The reference condition: a comparision of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-qulaity impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 16(4):833–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SAS Institute (2011) Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  39. Seaber PR, Kapinos FP, Knapp GL (1987) Hyrdologic unit maps: US Geological Survey (USGS). Water Supply Paper 2294:63Google Scholar
  40. Snelder TH, Cattanéo F, Suren AM, Biggs BF (2004) Is the river environment classification an improved landscape-scale classification of rivers? J N Am Benthol Soc 23(3):580–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Hawkins CP, Johnson RK, Norris RH (2006) Setting expectations for the ecological condition of running waters: the concept of reference condition. Ecol Appl 16:1267–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stoddard JL, Herlihy AT, Peck DV, Hughes RM, Whittier TR, Tarquinio E (2008) A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:878–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trombulak SC, Frissell CA (2000) Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conserv Biol 14(1):18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whittier TR, Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Herlihy AT (2007) Selecting reference sites for stream biological assessments: Best professional judgment or objective criteria. J N Am Benthol Soc 26:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yates AG, Bailey RC (2010) Selecting objectively defined streams for bioassessment programs. Environ Monit Assess 170:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Miller
    • 1
  • Peter Eldred
    • 1
  • Ariel Muldoon
    • 2
  • Kara Anlauf-Dunn
    • 3
  • Charlie Stein
    • 3
  • Shannon Hubler
    • 4
  • Lesley Merrick
    • 4
  • Nick Haxton
    • 4
  • Chad Larson
    • 5
  • Andrew Rehn
    • 6
  • Peter Ode
    • 6
  • Jake Vander Laan
    • 7
  1. 1.Aquatic and Riparian Monitoring ProgramUS Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land ManagementCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.College of ForestryOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Fish and WildlifeState of OregonCorvallisUSA
  4. 4.Department of Environmental QualityState of OregonHillsboroUSA
  5. 5.Environmental Assessment ProgramWashington State Department of EcologyLaceyUSA
  6. 6.Aquatic Bioassessment LaboratoryCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeSacramentoUSA
  7. 7.Department of Watershed Sciences, Western Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems, and Ecology CenterUtah State UniversityLoganUSA

Personalised recommendations