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.

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, soill 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.

No abstract

No abstract