Principle – Ecological integrity is maintained.

Criterion – Native species diversity is maintained.

Indicator – Original Wording: Changes in the distribution and abundance of aquatic fauna. Final Wording: Assessment of changes in the distribution and abundance of native aquatic fauna.

Box B: Definition

In this context, aquatic fauna refers to fish (catadromous and anadromous) and aquatic invertebrates. In order to operationalize this definition, selected species, indicator-species, or indices will need to be developed.

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences:

This indicator applies to all landowners who have water bodies on their tenures.

Box E: Overlap.

CCFM 1.2.1 (Number of known forest-dependent species classified as extinct, threatened, endangered, rare or vulnerable relative to the total number of known forest-dependent species.)

CCFM 3.1.3 (Water quality as measured by water chemistry, turbidity, etc.)

CIFOR 2.4.5 (Population sizes and demographic structures of selected species do not show significant changes, and demographically and ecologically critical life-cycle stages continue to be represented.)

Notes: Aquatic integrity issues are best analyzed on a watershed level. The study area scale best approximates this watershed level.

Notes: This indicator is diagnostic of current conditions

Notes: Aquatic fauna interact in complex way with the structure, function and composition of aquatic systems. The distribution and abundance refers, however, primarily to composition.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

CCFM notes that "most aquatic organisms are sensitive to changes in the temperature, chemical composition and particulate matter in water bodies. These factors can be affected by the discharge of municipal wastes, atmospheric pollutants, industrial effluents, and pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural activities. Specific impacts from forest harvesting activities include increased water temperatures, eutrophication, siltation of river gravels, and reduced oxygen levels. A few species of aquatic fauna benefit from these changes, but most are negatively impacted. For fish populations, the recovery of riparian vegetation is important in mitigating water temperature and sedimentation factors. Invertebrate species that form the basis of aquatic food chains also are sensitive to the physical and chemical alterations in streams caused by sedimentation and changes in riparian vegetation." (p. 51-52).

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

Aquatic fauna are important ecosystem components and play a role in nutrient cycles, energy cycles and other vital ecosystem processes. Further, there is great social and economic interests in many species of aquatic fauna, especially fishes. However the viability of fishes are tied to other aquatic fauna as part of the food chain. Aquatic fauna, particularly invertebrates, are bell-weathers of the overall ecological condition of a watershed. Consequently, assessment of aquatic condition provides an initial warning of overall ecological health.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

A variety of well established measurement methods can be used to assess the status of this indicator with many of these measures are commonly practiced. These measures include:

1. Fish abundance and distribution surveys for species of concern or keystone (e.g., anadromous fish, fish at risk);
2. Fish abundance and distribution surveys for game species (e.g., trout, anadromous fish);
3. Aquatic invertebrate surveys for abundance and distribution;
4. A comprehensive metric for aquatic integrity;
5. Habitat assessments

Fish abundance and distribution surveys for species of concern and game species are commonly conducted by resource management agencies and are required in many jurisdictions. These surveys use a variety of different measurement strategies from electroshocking techniques to snorkel surveys. Selection of the appropriate method varies based on purpose and species of concern. As these types of assessments are commonly done, long term data sources may be available and trend analysis be conducted.

Aquatic invertebrate monitoring, particularly indicator species approaches, have also been widely used. A variety of standard methods have been developed to conduct this type of research. A potential weaknesses of these approaches is in the selection of indicator species or the compilation of results and interpretation of meaning to distribution and abundance surveys. In response, a series of metrics or indicies have been developed.

The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), developed in 1981 by Karr has been modified and tested in a wide variety of locations. IBI is a robust, comprehensive, multi-scale and sensitive measurement of aquatic integrity that is relatively cost effective to assess and includes an examination of both the elements and processes of biological integrity. IBI is based on a "judgement of ecological health on a range of attributes of biotic communities" (Karr, 1993). IBI has normally been focused on benthic macro-invertebrates although has been adapted to freshwater molluscs.

The final method, most commonly used, are habitat assessments. Standard fish habitat and hydrological assessments that measure such aspects as substrate type, water depth, velocity, spatial and temporal complexity of physical habitat and other measures have been developed. In British Columbia, the Forest Practices Code Fish Habitat Assessment Program (FHAP) is one such integrated habitat monitoring system. Habitat assessment is not the primary focus of this indicator as these elements are addressed further in other indicators.

Box L: Data Required:

Data sources include:

1. Maps or distributional (presence/abundance) data on fish species;
2. Maps or distributional (presence/abundance) data on aquatic invertebrates; or
3. Fish habitat/watershed condition assessments.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

Data sources include:

• USDA-FS. 1997. Upper Columbia Basin Draft Environmenal Impact Statement. Vol. 1.
• Danehy, B. 1998. Boise Cascade Aquatic Biologist. Pers. Comm.
• USDA-FS. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan for Boise National Forest.
• Boise Cascade Bull Trout Surveys. B. Danehy.

Box N: Example Results:

In the Boise test area, most land tenures (notably Boise Cascade, Boise National Forest, and Idaho State Department of Lands) are conducting aquatic fauna assessments particularly with respect to species of concern: salmonids and Bull Trout. Locally, much information on changes in historical distributions and numbers of individuals is available in such summary documents as the

Upper Columbia Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement of 1997and related ICBEMP documents, and the draft and EIS associated with the Boise National Forest. Many of these assessments have been conducted only on watersheds of known concern.

For federal land managers, specifically the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, there is an extensive history of fish habitat and fish assessments. Notable among these initiatives are the pacific anadromous fisheries strategy (PACFISH) and the inland native fish strategy (INFISH). These initiatives have resulted in legal obligations that land managers must meet to address fisheries concerns. Historical and current distributions of salmonids in the Upper Columbia River Basin are one means of tracking the status of this indicator. This data is available at a larger scale in the ICBEMP Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Boise Cascade has been conducting or cooperating on selective initiatives with respect to aquatic fauna. While fish habitat assessments are the norm, in 1994, an assessment for Bull Trout presence/absence was conducted on three watersheds. Some of these results are presented here in map form. Further studies are being planned to expand these assessments into new watersheds and to repeat assessments to improve the data quality (Danehy, 1998).

Boise Cascade is branching out into aquatic invertebrate studies that will focus on the most critical issue of stream sedimentation. In a cooperative effort, Boise Cascade is developing an invertebrate index of sedimentation to examine aquatic faunal distribution on the Upper Boise River.

Indicator Summary

Aquatic fauna distribution and abundance are relatively accessible for anadromous fish and for some native trout species. A more detailed assessment would consist of a trend analysis, by watershed or sub-drainage, in the study area for given species. Other aquatic faunal studies, particularly indicies of aquatic integrity have not been conducted on a significant enough scale to merit analysis yet. These measures show the most promise in reporting on this indicator.

Example:  BOISE CASCADE 's BULL TROUT MAP

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

Aquatic ecosystem quality is an issue of concern throughout North America. While there are numerous contributing factors affecting aquatic integrity, there is substantial research documenting the effects of forest activities on aquatic integrity. Fish habitat assessments are typically the least expensive monitoring programs but they are indirect measures of aquatic health. Locally there is great emphasis on salmonid and bull trout assessments, especially on those that are considered endangered, threatened or are of special concern. The costs of fish population measures are only partially borne by forest managers but the cost of implementing standards to protect fish may be considerable. Overall metrics or indicies of aquatic integrity such as the Index of Biotic Integrity are relatively cost effective measures. These metrics are reliable and valid measurement techniques that can be used to make conclusions regarding the status of this indicator.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value:

The information value for this indicator is high with value changing by measurement technique. Individual species distribution studies give the lowest quality data while indicies of overall aquatic integrity give the best data. Data quality can be improved by causal studies that attempt to correlate the distribution and abundance of aquatic fauna with respect to forest practices.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Accepted.

The strengths of this indicator are the readily available data for some aspects of this indicator and robust indicies for comprehensive assessment. The weaknesses are associated with the need for extensive monitoring and measurement in order to make overall, causal assessments of the effects of forest management on aquatic faunal distribution.

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

Yes. Assessment of changes in the distribution and abundance of native aquatic fauna.

• Burton, Timothy A. 1998. Fisheries Program Leader, Boise National Forest. Personal communication. June 29, 1998.
• Danehy, B. 1998. Boise Cascade Aquatic Biologist. Pers. Comm.
• Karr, J. R. 1993. Measuring Biological Integrity: Lessons from Streams. In, S.Woodley, J. Kay and G. Francis. 1993. Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems. St. Lucie Press.
• Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries. Vol. 6:21-27.
• Meehan, W.R.(ed.). 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, Maryland. 751 p.
• Rinne, J.N. 1993. Declining Southwestern Aquatic Habitats and Fishes: Are they Sustainable? In Covington, W.W. and Debano, L.F., Technical Coordinators. 1994. Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-247. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), Environmental Assessment Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact: interim strategies for managing fish producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana and portions of Nevada, Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Environment assessment for the implementation of interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watershed in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and portions of California. (PACFISH)
• USDA-FS. 1990. Appendices of the EIS for the Boise National Forest Plan. Intermountain Region.
• Upper Columbia Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 1997. USDA, Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Boise, Idaho. Vol. 1. Various paging.