|
Data Information and Reporting for Indicator D.b.
|
|
|
Article Content
|
 |
|
|
Oregon Indicator of Sustainable Forest Management D.b.
Biological integrity of forest streams
Forestry Program for Oregon Strategy D:
Indicator D.b. is one of three indicators that will measure progress towards achieving Forestry Program for Oregon Strategy D: Protect, maintain, and enhance soil and water resources of Oregon's forests.
|
Quick Links -
Other Indicators for
Stategy D Reporting
________
|
Desired Trend
Index of biotic integrity values in forested Oregon watersheds are stable or improving.
|
| At-a-Glance: Condition, Trend, and Information |
|
| Condition: | Trend: | Information: |
|
|
|
|
|
Mixed or Fair
|
Uncertain
|
Partial
|
|
| Why is this indicator important? |
|
Protecting and enhancing native aquatic biological communities is very important to Oregonians, and forms the basis for many water quality standards. Although water quality and habitat indicators are important for understanding watershed health, biological indicators are direct measures of biological integrity. Evaluating the status and trends of biological assemblages is useful because of their sensitivity to management activities, the availability of data, and their importance as a direct measure of ecological integrity.
Macroinvertebrates are an important component of stream ecosystems. They actively link the bottom of the food chain (bacteria, algae, and riparian inputs) to the top of the food chain (fishes and amphibians). Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to a wide range of human-caused stressors, such as organic pollution, increased stream temperature, habitat alteration, and increased suspended, and bedded sediment. Monitoring changes in macroinvertebrates relative to minimally impaired reference streams provides insights into stream conditions and watershed health that chemical water quality alone cannot provide.
|
| What does this indicator tell us about sustainable forest management? |
|
Condition:
Mixed or Fair
|
The index measuring overall biological condition shows just over half of the sampled forested sites in Oregon in conditions equivalent to, or increased compared to reference conditions and approximately one-quarter of sites in considerably decreased conditions.
At the hydrologic unit, biological conditions were highest on forested sites in the Willamette, Middle Columbia, and Lower Columbia. Overall biological conditions in the North Coast were intermediate compared to the other hydrologic units assessed. The South Coast showed the lowest overall biological conditions.
Within the three western Oregon hydrologic units where condition was assessed by ownership class, overall biological condition was closer to reference conditions on private industrial and federally owned forest sites. Private non-industrial sites showed the lowest overall biological condition.
Private non-industrial sites, which are more likely to be intermixed with other land uses, should perhaps be the highest priority for closer future study. (Hubler, et. al., 2009)
|
Trend:
Uncertain
| Trend data for biological integrity of forest streams are not available. Current data can provide a baseline for future systematic sampling needed to establish trends. A long-term, random sampling design is recommended.
|
Information:
Partial
| Most of the biological condition data were collected on a single site visit. The data do not represent the daily, seasonal, or annual variability of the conditions at a location. It is a snapshot of one period in time and its associated disturbances, natural and anthropogenic. However, when aggregated with hundreds of other sites to describe a larger spatial scale, some of the daily, seasonal and yearly variability is represented by using the site results as a sample that describes the larger spatial scale.
These data also represent conditions primarily during the summer months and may not be representative of conditions throughout the year. While the data distribution was fairly comprehensive on forest lands across the state, a more rigorous probabilistic sampling is recommended for better landscape and trend assessments. There may be biases associated with geography, land use, or other factors that influence the generalization of the results. (Hubler)
|
|
| Types of information produced by this indicator |
|
This indicator will produce information in tabular, graphical, and map formats that integrates complex biological data into a single number that, together with reference condition information, indicates the degree of biological alteration or quality of a given water body.
|
| Map:Site Locations for Water Quality (OWQI) and Macroinvertebrate (Bugs) Samples |
|
Figure 1
Printable [JPG] map
|
| Reporting Units |
|
Table 1: Reporting Units (state and 3rd-field HUCs) and whether or not ownership was assessed.
Reporting Unit
|
Biological
|
Ownership
|
| Oregon |
|
|
| North Coast |
|
|
| South Coast |
|
|
| Willamette |
|
|
| Lower Columbia |
| |
| Middle Columbia |
| |
| Lower Snake |
| |
| Deschutes |
| |
| John Day |
| |
Klamath
|
No forest sites
|
Oregon Closed Basins
|
No forest sites
|
Middle Snake/Boise
|
No forest sites
|
Middle Snake/Powder
|
No forest sites
|
|
| Report: Conditions of Macroinvertebrate Assemblages |
|
Conditions of macroinvertebrate assemblages for three biological indices on forested sites across Oregon and percent of forest lands in various condition classes. Summary results were not determined for hydrologic units or ownership classes with a sample size less than 20. (Hubler et al., 2009)
| Fine Sediment Stress | PREDATOR | Temperature Stress |
| 0 - 10 percent | Least disturbed | <16 degrees C |
| 11 - 20 percent | Enriched | 16.0 - 17.9 degrees C |
| 21 - 30 percent | Moderately disturbed | 18.0 - 19.9 degrees C |
| >30 percent | Most disturbed | = or < 20 degrees C |
 | | Not assessed | |
Oregon
|
Oregon
|
Federal
|
State
|
Private
Industrial
|
Private
Non-Industrial
|
| Sample Size (Total=1025) |
1025
|
623
|
69
|
171
|
80
|
| Fine Sediment Stress | | | | | |
0-10 |
69
|
77
|
71
|
56
|
44
|
11-20 |
21
|
17
|
17
|
29
|
30
|
21-30 |
7
|
4
|
6
|
9
|
23
|
> 30 |
3
|
2
|
6
|
6
|
4
|
| PREDATOR O/E | | | | | |
Least Disturbed |
53
|
55
|
51
|
58
|
35
|
Enriched |
3
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
Moderately Disturbed |
16
|
17
|
12
|
13
|
18
|
Most Disturbed |
24
|
20
|
35
|
25
|
44
|
Not Assessed |
3
|
5
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
| Temperature Stress | | | | | |
<16 |
32
|
42
|
28
|
15
|
10
|
16.0-17.9 |
30
|
27
|
43
|
35
|
23
|
18.0-19.9 |
24
|
20
|
26
|
36
|
34
|
>=20 |
14
|
12
|
3
|
14
|
34
|
___________________________________________________________________________________
North Coast
|
North Coast
|
Federal
|
State
|
Private
Industrial
|
Private
Non-Industrial
|
| Sample Size |
230
|
68
|
46
|
57
|
24
|
| Fine Sediment Stress | | | | | |
0-10 |
63
|
69
|
87
|
49
|
46
|
11-20 |
24
|
24
|
7
|
32
|
29
|
21-30 |
10
|
7
|
2
|
14
|
25
|
> 30 |
3
|
0
|
4
|
5
|
0
|
| PREDATOR O/E | | | | | |
Least Disturbed |
59
|
69
|
54
|
61
|
38
|
Enriched |
3
|
3
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
Moderately Disturbed |
13
|
12
|
11
|
14
|
17
|
Most Disturbed |
26
|
16
|
33
|
23
|
42
|
Not Assessed |
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
| Temperature Stress | | | | | |
<16 |
14
|
12
|
37
|
12
|
0
|
16.0-17.9 |
38
|
43
|
43
|
32
|
29
|
18.0-19.9 |
36
|
38
|
17
|
40
|
16
|
>=20 |
12
|
7
|
2
|
16
|
17
|
___________________________________________________________________________________
South Coast
|
South Coast
|
Federal
|
State
|
Private
Industrial
|
Private
Non-Industrial
|
| Sample Size |
289
|
167
|
12
|
71
|
24
|
| Fine Sediment Stress | | | | | |
0-10 |
67
|
81
|
--
|
55
|
33
|
11-20 |
22
|
16
|
--
|
27
|
38
|
21-30 |
6
|
1
|
--
|
11
|
21
|
> 30 |
4
|
2
|
--
|
7
|
8
|
| PREDATOR O/E | | | | | |
Least Disturbed |
42
|
45
|
--
|
42
|
29
|
Enriched |
2
|
1
|
--
|
4
|
4
|
Moderately Disturbed |
15
|
18
|
--
|
15
|
8
|
Most Disturbed |
33
|
25
|
--
|
37
|
58
|
Not Assessed |
8
|
11
|
--
|
1
|
0
|
| Temperature Stress | | | | | |
<16 |
26
|
37
|
--
|
13
|
13
|
16.0-17.9 |
28
|
29
|
--
|
32
|
13
|
18.0-19.9 |
28
|
22
|
--
|
34
|
33
|
>=20 |
18
|
12
|
--
|
21
|
42
|
___________________________________________________________________________________
Willamette
|
Willamette
|
Federal
|
State
|
Private
Industrial
|
Private
Non-Industrial
|
| Sample Size |
216
|
145
|
9
|
29
|
15
|
| Fine Sediment Stress | | | | | |
0-10 |
82
|
92
|
--
|
69
|
--
|
11-20 |
14
|
8
|
--
|
28
|
--
|
21-30 |
2
|
1
|
--
|
0
|
--
|
> 30 |
1
|
0
|
--
|
3
|
--
|
| PREDATOR O/E | | | | | |
Least Disturbed |
42
|
45
|
--
|
42
|
29
|
Enriched |
2
|
1
|
--
|
4
|
4
|
Moderately Disturbed |
15
|
18
|
--
|
15
|
8
|
Most Disturbed |
33
|
25
|
--
|
37
|
58
|
Not Assessed |
8
|
11
|
--
|
1
|
0
|
| Temperature Stress | | | | | |
<16 |
26
|
37
|
--
|
13
|
13
|
16.0-17.9 |
28
|
29
|
--
|
32
|
13
|
18.0-19.9 |
28
|
22
|
--
|
34
|
33
|
>=20 |
18
|
12
|
--
|
21
|
42
|
___________________________________________________________________________________
Lower Columbia Middle Columbia
|
Lower Columbia
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
Middle Columbia
|
| | | | | |
| Sample Size |
42
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
31
|
| | | | | |
| Fine Sediment Stress | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
0-10 |
81
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
90
|
| | | | | |
11-20 |
12
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
6
|
| | | | | |
21-30 |
5
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
3
|
| | | | | |
> 30 |
2
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
0
|
| | | | | |
| PREDATOR O/E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Least Disturbed |
62
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
68
|
| | | | | |
Enriched |
2
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
3
|
| | | | | |
Moderately Disturbed |
14
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
16
|
| | | | | |
Most Disturbed |
17
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
10
|
| | | | | |
Not Assessed |
5
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
3
|
| | | | | |
| Temperature Stress | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
<16 |
64
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
71
|
| | | | | |
16.0-17.9 |
19
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
16
|
| | | | | |
18.0-19.9 |
14
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
6
|
| | | | | |
>=20 |
2
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
6
|
| | | | | |
___________________________________________________________________________________
Lower Snake Deschutes
|
Lower Snake
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
Deschutes
|
| | | | | |
| Sample Size |
31
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
52
|
| | | | | |
| Fine Sediment Stress | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
0-10 |
68
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
44
|
| | | | | |
11-20 |
26
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
35
|
| | | | | |
21-30 |
6
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
17
|
| | | | | |
> 30 |
0
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
4
|
| | | | | |
| PREDATOR O/E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Least Disturbed |
42
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
48
|
| | | | | |
Enriched |
3
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
2
|
| | | | | |
Moderately Disturbed |
29
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
23
|
| | | | | |
Most Disturbed |
26
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
27
|
| | | | | |
Not Assessed |
0
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
0
|
| | | | | |
| Temperature Stress | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
<16 |
42
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
17
|
| | | | | |
16.0-17.9 |
23
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
27
|
| | | | | |
18.0-19.9 |
6
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
19
|
| | | | | |
>=20 |
29
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
37
|
| | | | | |
___________________________________________________________________________________
John Day
|
John Day
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
| Sample Size |
90
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
| Fine Sediment Stress | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
0-10 |
62
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
11-20 |
28
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
21-30 |
6
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
> 30 |
4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
| PREDATOR O/E | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Least Disturbed |
56
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
Enriched |
6
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
Moderately Disturbed |
17
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
Most Disturbed |
22
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
Not Assessed |
0
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
| Temperature Stress | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
<16 |
37
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
16.0-17.9 |
19
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
18.0-19.9 |
28
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
>=20 |
17
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
|
| | | | | |
___________________________________________________________________________________
|
| Reports and References for Indicator D.b. |
|
-
Indicator D.b. Tables and Figures [PDF; 7 pages; 2749 KB]
-
Cude, C. (Undated). "The Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) - A Communicator of Water Quality Information". Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Portland, Oregon. 6 p. [PDF; 1529 KB]
-
Hubler, S., S. Miller, L. Merrick, R. Leferink, A. Borisenko. 2009. High Level Indicators of Oregon's Forested Streams. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Division, Hillsboro, Oregon. 77 p. [PDF; 2582 KB]
-
Mrazik, S. 2008. Oregon Water Quality Index Summary Report: Water Years 1998-2007. Oregon Deparmtent of Environmental Quality, Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Division. Hillsboro, Oregon. DEQ09-LAB-008. 14 p. [PDF; 484 KB]
-
Hubler, S. 2008. PREDATOR: Development and Use of RIVPACS-type macroinvertebrate models to assess the biotic condition of wadeable Oregon streams. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Laborary Division, Watershed Assessment Section. Hillsboro, Oregon. DEQ08-LAB-0048-TR. 52 p. [PDF; 899 KB]
-
Huff, D., S. Hubler, Y. Pan, and D. Drake. 2008. Detecting Shifts in Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Requirements: Implicating Causes of Impairment in Streams. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Laboratory and Environmental Assessment Division, Watershed Assessment Section. Hillsboro, Oregon. 36 p. [PDF; 715 KB]
|
| Evaluation by the Oregon Roundtable on Sustainable Forests on this indicator |
|
|
| Metrics and Data Sources |
|
|
Metric
|
Data Source
|
| For macro invertebrates (mostly aquatic insects) and vertebrates (fish and aquatic amphibians): Species richness, Percent alien species, Percent cool water individuals, Percent anadromous individuals, Percent coldwater species, Number of tolerant individuals, Number of native coldwater species and individuals and Number of size classes. | Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, and Oregon State University
|
|
| Related State, National, or International Indicators |
|
-
Montreal Process: Criterion 4—Conservation and Maintenance of Soil and Water Resources: 2003 Indicator 23: Percent of water bodies in forest areas (e.g. stream kilometres, lake hectares) with significant variance of biological diversity from the historic range of variability; and 2010 Indicator 21: Area and percent of water bodies, or stream length, in forest areas with significant change in physical, chemical or biological properties from reference conditions
-
European Union, Water Framework Directive: Status of fish assemblages in the European Union
-
USEPA, EMAP: Status of aquatic vertebrate and macroinvertebrate assemblages in the streams and rivers of the mid-Atlantic and western conterminous states
-
USEPA, Office of Water: Status and trends in aquatic vertebrate and macroinvertebrate assemblages in the streams and rivers of the USA states
-
Oregon Benchmarks: Environment--79: Percent of streams with (a) increasing and (b) decreasing water quality trends and (c) good to excellent condition
-
Environmental Indicators for the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: Index of Biotic Integrity
-
Oregon State of the Environment Report: Trends in the health of stream communities using an index comparing invertebrate populations to those expected in healthy aquatic habitats; the percentage of wild, native fish populations, including
salmon, that are classified as healthy
-
California DFG: Status and trends of aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages in California streams
-
Iowa DNR: Status and trends of aquatic vertebrate and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Iowa streams and rivers
-
Kentucky DEP: Status and trends of aquatic vertebrate and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Kentucky streams
-
Maryland DNR: Status and trends of aquatic vertebrate assemblages in Maryland streams
-
Ohio EPA: Status and trends of aquatic vertebrate and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Ohio streams and rivers
-
Texas DWP: Status and trends of aquatic vertebrate and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Texas streams
-
Vermont DEC: Status and trends of aquatic vertebrate assemblages in Vermont streams
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|