Environmental Management

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 629–635 | Cite as

Regional reference sites: a method for assessing stream potentials

  • Robert M. Hughes
  • David P. Larsen
  • James M. Omernik


Field assessments of impacted streams require a control or at least an unbiased estimate of attainable conditions. Control sites, such as upstream/downstream or wilderness sites, have proven inadequate for assessing attainable ecological conditions where the control streams differ naturally from the impacted streams to a considerable degree or where different disturbances exist than those being studied. Relatively undisturbed reference sites with watersheds in areas having the same land-surface form, soil, potential natural vegetation, and land use as are predominant in large, relatively homogeneous regions are suggested as alternative control sites. These areas are considered typical of the region and therefore the sites also are considered typical of the region because their watersheds exhibit all the terrestrial variables that make that region a region. The logical basis for developing regional reference sites lies in the ability to group watersheds and common stream types into regions by integrating available maps of terrestrial variables that influence streams. Relatively undisturbed reference sites can be selected from typical areas of the regions and from transition zones where one or two of the terrestrial variables are not the predominant one(s) of the region. These reference sites are useful for estimating attainable conditions, for evaluating temporal and spatial changes in ecological integrity, for classifying attainable uses of streams, and for setting biological and environmental criteria.

Key words

Aquatic ecosystems Aquatic ecoregions Control sites Stream classification Land classification Water body standards 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Bailey, R. G. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions.Environmental Management 7:365–373.Google Scholar
  2. Brussock, P. P., A. V. Brown, J. C. Dixon. 1985. Channel form and stream ecosystem models.Water Resources Bulletin 21:859–866.Google Scholar
  3. Federal Register. 1982. Proposed water quality standards and public meetings. 47:49234–49252.Google Scholar
  4. Giattina, J. D. 1985. Watershed-aquatic habitat-aquatic biota interrelationships in a western Oregon river. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  5. Hall, J. D., M. L. Murphy, and R. S. Aho. 1978. An improved design for assessing impacts of watershed practices on small streams.Proceedings of the International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology 20:1359–1365.Google Scholar
  6. Hanski, I. 1982. Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis.Oikos 38:210–221.Google Scholar
  7. Hart, J. F. 1982. The highest form of the geographer's art.Annals of the Association of American Geographers 72:1–29.Google Scholar
  8. Hughes, R. M. 1985. Use of watershed characteristics to select control streams for estimating effects of metal mining wastes on extensively disturbed streams.Environmental Management 9:253–262.Google Scholar
  9. Hughes, R. M., and J. M. Omernik. 1983. An alternative for characterizing stream size. Pages 87–101in T. D. Fontaine III and S. M. Bartell (eds.), Dynamics of lotie ecosystems. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  10. Hynes, H. B. N. 1975. The stream and its valley.Proceedings of the International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology 19:1–15.Google Scholar
  11. Illies, J., and L. Botosaneanu. 1963. Problèmes et méthodes de la classification et de la zonation écologique des eaux courantes, considerées sûrtout du point de vue faunistique.Communications from the International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology 12:1–57.Google Scholar
  12. Jarman, R. 1984. The development of aquatic ecoregions in Oklahoma. PhD dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 196 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Karr, J. R., and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals.Environmental Management 5:55–68.Google Scholar
  14. Karr, J. R., R. C. Heidinger, and E. H. Helmer. 1985. Effects of chlorine and ammonia from wastewater treatment facilities on biotic integrity.Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 57:912–915.Google Scholar
  15. Larsen, D. P., R. M. Hughes, J. M. Omernik, D. R. Dudley, C. M. Rohm, T. R. Whittier, A. J. Kinney, and A. L. Gallant. 1986. The correspondence between spatial patterns in fish assemblages in Ohio streams and aquatic ecoregions.Environmental Management 10 (in press).Google Scholar
  16. Likens, G. E., and F. H. Bormann. 1974. Linkages between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.Bioscience 21:447–456.Google Scholar
  17. Marsh, P. C., and J. E. Luey. 1982. Oases for aquatic life in agricultural watersheds.Fisheries 7:16–24.Google Scholar
  18. Matthews, W. J. 1985. Distribution of midwestern fishes on multivariate environmental gradients, with emphasis onNotropis lutrensis.American Midland Naturalist 113:225–237.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, A. 1985. Technological thinking: its impact on environmental management.Environmental Management 9:179–190.Google Scholar
  20. Omernik, J. M. 1985. Aquatic ecoregions of the conterminous United States (text and map).Annals of the Association of American Geographers (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  21. Pennak, R. W. 1971. Toward a classification of lotic habitats.Hydrobiologia 38:321–334.Google Scholar
  22. Petak, W. 1980. Environmental planning and management: the need for an integrative perspective.Environmental Management 4:287–295.Google Scholar
  23. Pfleiger, W. L., M. A. Schene, and P. S. Haverland. 1981. Techniques for the classification of stream habitats, with examples of their application in defining the stream habitats of Missouri. Pages 362–368in N. B. Armantrout (ed.), Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  24. Richards, K. 1982. Rivers: form and process in alluvial channels. Methuen, New York, 358 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Rowe, J. S., and J. W. Sheard. 1981. Ecological land classification: a survey approach.Environmental Management 5:451–464.Google Scholar
  26. Shirazi, M. A. 1984. Land classification used to select abandoned hazardous waste study sites.Environmental Management 8:281–286.Google Scholar
  27. Trautman, M. B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio, 782 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Van Deusen, R. D. 1954. Maryland freshwater stream classification by watersheds.Contributions from the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory 106:1–30.Google Scholar
  29. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37:130–137.Google Scholar
  30. Warren, C. E. 1979. Toward classification and rationale for watershed management and stream protection. EPA-600/ 3-79-059. US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon, 143 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Hughes
    • 1
  • David P. Larsen
    • 2
  • James M. Omernik
    • 2
  1. 1.Northrop Services, Inc.CorvallisUSA
  2. 2.US Environmental Protection AgencyCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations