Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition.

An important component of the biological assessment of stream condition is an evaluation of the direct or indirect effects of human activities or disturbances. The concept of a "reference condition" is increasingly used to describe the standard or benchmark against which current condition is compared. Many individual nations, and the European Union as a whole, have codified the concept of reference condition in legislation aimed at protecting and improving the ecological condition of streams. However, the phrase "reference condition" has many meanings in a variety of contexts. One of the primary purposes of this paper is to bring some consistency to the use of the term. We argue the need for a "reference condition" term that is reserved for referring to the "naturalness" of the biota (structure and function) and that naturalness implies the absence of significant human disturbance or alteration. To avoid the confusion that arises when alternative definitions of reference condition are used, we propose that the original concept of reference condition be preserved in this modified form of the term: "reference condition for biological integrity," or RC(BI). We further urge that these specific terms be used to refer to the concepts and methods used in individual bioassessments to characterize the expected condition to which current conditions are compared: "minimally disturbed condition" (MDC); "historical condition" (HC); "least disturbed condition" (LDC); and "best attainable condition" (BAC). We argue that each of these concepts can be narrowly defined, and each implies specific methods for estimating expectations. We also describe current methods by which these expectations are estimated including: the reference-site approach (condition at minimally or least-disturbed sites); best professional judgment; interpretation of historical condition; extrapolation of empirical models; and evaluation of ambient distributions. Because different assumptions about what constitutes reference condition will have important effects on the final classification of streams into condition classes, we urge that bioassessments be consistent in describing the definitions and methods used to set expectations.

[1]  Peter Davies,et al.  Development of a national river bioassessment system (AUSRIVAS) in Australia. , 2000 .

[2]  J. Karr,et al.  Restoring life in running waters : better biological monitoring , 1998 .

[3]  R. Hughes,et al.  ASSESSING RELATIVE RISKS TO AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS: A MID‐APPALACHIAN CASE STUDY 1 , 1999 .

[4]  Robert M. Hughes,et al.  Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region , 2001 .

[5]  Meeting the Goal of Biological Integrity in Water-Resource Programs in the US Environmental Protection Agency , 1994, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[6]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. , 2000 .

[7]  R. Norris,et al.  What is river health , 1999 .

[8]  J. Connell Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. , 1978, Science.

[9]  Susan K. Jackson,et al.  The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[10]  Robert C. Bailey,et al.  Biological assessment of freshwater ecosystems using a reference condition approach: comparing predicted and actual benthic invertebrate communities in Yukon streams , 1998 .

[11]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  The reference condition: problems and solutions. , 2000 .

[12]  R. Hughes,et al.  A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity , 1998 .

[13]  David P. Larsen,et al.  Comparing strengths of geographic and nongeographic classifications of stream benthic macroinvertebrates in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, USA , 2000, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[14]  David P. Larsen,et al.  Regional reference sites: a method for assessing stream potentials , 1986 .

[15]  T. Reynoldson,et al.  The Reference Condition: A Comparison of Multimetric and Multivariate Approaches to Assess Water-Quality Impairment Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates , 1997, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[16]  James R. Karr,et al.  Ecological perspective on water quality goals , 1981 .

[17]  Robert J. Steedman,et al.  Ecosystem Health as a Management Goal , 1994, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[18]  S. Fennessy,et al.  Review of: Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: Science, technology, and public policy: Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems-Science, Technology, and Public Policy, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC , 1993 .

[19]  J. Stoddard,et al.  Development and Evaluation of a Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) for Regionally Assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams , 2003, Environmental management.

[20]  Robert C. Bailey,et al.  The Reference Condition Approach , 2004 .

[21]  Wayne S. Davis,et al.  Biological assessment and criteria : tools for water resource planning and decision making , 1995 .

[22]  J. Karr Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities , 1981 .

[23]  David Gilvear,et al.  James R. Karr and Ellen W. Chu, Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring , 1999 .