United States Watershed Condition Department of …...Watershed Condition Framework 1 The U.S....
Transcript of United States Watershed Condition Department of …...Watershed Condition Framework 1 The U.S....
Watershed Condition Framework
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
FS-977
May 2011
Watershed Condition Framework
A Framework for Assessing and Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
FS-977
May 2011
“Restoration, for me, means managing forest lands first and foremost to protect our water resources while making our forests far more resilient to climate change. In many of our forests, restoration will also include efforts to improve or decommission roads, to replace and improve culverts, and to rehabilitate streams and wetlands. Restoration will also mean the rehabilitation of declining ecosystems.”
Tom VilsackSecretary, U.S. Department of AgricultureAugust 14, 2009
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communica-tion of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Cover photo: Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming by Andrea Davidson.
Watershed Condition Framework iii
Contributors
Watershed Condition Advisory Team Members (October 2010)
John Potyondy WashingtonOffice(WO),Watershed,Fish,Wildlife,AirandRarePlants(WFWARP),StreamSystemsTechnologyCenter
Ted Geier EasternRegion(R-9),RegionalOffice,RegionalHydrologist
Penny Luehring WO,WFWARP,WatershedImprovementProgramLeader
Mark Hudy WO,WFWARP,FishandAquaticEcologyUnit(FAEU)
Brett Roper WO,WFWARP,FAEU
Ron Dunlap WO,WFWARP,AssistantDirector,Watershed,Fish,andAir(retired)
Tom Doane EasternRegion,DeputyDirector,Air,Water,Lands,Soils,MineralsandEnvironmentalEngineering/Services
Greg Kujawa WO,ForestManagement
Paul T. Anderson WO,Engineering
Jaelith Hall-Rivera WO,FireandAviationManagement
Jim Keys WO,EcosystemManagementCoordination
Michael Ielmini WO,InvasiveSpeciesProgram
Ann Acheson WO,WFWARPAirProgram
Ray Thompson WO,ProgramandBudget
Bob Davis SouthwesternRegion(R-3),RegionalDirector’sRepresentative
Sharon Friedman RockyMountainRegion(R-2),StrategicPlanningDirector
Karl Dalla Rosa WO,StateandPrivateForestry(ForestStewardshipProgram)
Thomas Brown RockyMountainResearchStation
iv Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework v
Executive Summary
TheWatershedConditionFramework(WCF)isacompre-hensiveapproachforproactivelyimplementingintegratedrestorationonprioritywatershedsonnationalforestsandgrasslands.
TheWCFproposestoimprovethewaytheForestServiceap-proacheswatershedrestorationbytargetingtheimplementationofintegratedsuitesofactivitiesinthosewatershedsthathavebeenidentifiedasprioritiesforrestoration.TheWCFalsoes-tablishesanationallyconsistentreconnaissance-levelapproachforclassifyingwatershedcondition,usingacomprehensivesetof12indicatorsthataresurrogatevariablesrepresentingtheunderlyingecological,hydrological,andgeomorphicfunc-tionsandprocessesthataffectwatershedcondition.PrimaryemphasisisonaquaticandterrestrialprocessesandconditionsthatForestServicemanagementactivitiescaninfluence.Theapproachisdesignedtofosterintegratedecosystem-based
watershedassessments;targetprogramsofworkinwatershedsthathavebeenidentifiedforrestoration;enhancecommunica-tionandcoordinationwithexternalagenciesandpartners;andimprovenational-scalereportingandmonitoringofprogramaccomplishments.TheWCFprovidestheForestServicewithanoutcome-basedperformancemeasurefordocumentingimprovementtowatershedconditionatforest,regional,andnationalscales.
Why a Watershed Approach?
Watersheds are universal, well-defined areas that provide a common basis for discussion of water-
related resources and landscapes.
vi Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework vii
Executive Summary................................................................ v
Introduction............................................................................. 1
The Goals of Watershed Restoration.................................... 3
DefiningWatershedCondition................................................. 3
Watershed-ScaleRestoration.................................................... 4
The Six-Step Watershed Condition Framework.................. 5
RolesandResponsibilities........................................................ 6
Step A: Classify Watershed Condition................................. 9
Step B: Prioritize Watersheds for Restoration.................. 11
ForestServicePolicy,Direction,andGuidance..................... 11
ResourceValue....................................................................... 13
EstimatedCost........................................................................ 13
Step C: Develop Watershed Restoration Action Plans...... 15
EssentialProjectsandApprovalProcess................................ 15
Step D: Implement Integrated Projects.............................. 17
Step E: Track Restoration Accomplishments.................... 19
PerformanceTracking............................................................. 19
PerformanceMeasures............................................................ 19
Step F: Verify and Monitor Watershed Condition Class . 21
Tier1:VerifyingforPerformanceAccountability................. 21
Tier2:MonitoringWatershedandAquaticHabitat
Conditions............................................................................... 21
Literature Cited.................................................................... 23
Contents
viii Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 1
TheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA) Strategic Plan for FY 2010–2015targetstherestorationofwatershedandforesthealthasacoremanagementobjectiveofthenationalforestsandgrasslands.Toachievethisgoal,theForestService,anagencyofUSDA,isdirectedtorestoredegradedwatershedsbystrategicallyfocusinginvestmentsinwatershedimprove-mentprojectsandconservationpracticesatthelandscapeandwatershedscales.TheWatershedConditionFramework(WCF)
isacomprehensiveapproachforclassifyingwatershedcondi-tion,proactivelyimplementingintegratedrestorationinprioritywatershedsonnationalforestsandgrasslands,andtrackingandmonitoringoutcome-basedprogramaccomplishmentsforperformanceaccountability.
Ina2006reviewoftheForestServiceWatershedProgram,theOfficeofManagementandBudget(OMB)concludedthattheagencylackedanationallyconsistentapproachtoprioritizingwatershedsforimprovement(OMB2006).TheOMBalsonotedthatcurrentForestServicedirectionfortrackingwatershedconditionclass(FSM2521)wasvague,opentovariedinter-pretation,andinsufficienttoconsistentlyevaluatewatershedconditionortrackhowtheconditionchangesovertime.Toaddresstheseissues,theForestServiceformedaNationalWatershedConditionTeamandtaskeditwithdevelopingaconsistent,science-basedapproachtoclassifythecondition
ofallNationalForestSystem(NFS)watershedsandtodevelopoutcome-basedperformancemeasuresforwatershedrestoration.
ThewatershedconditionpolicygoaloftheForestServiceis“toprotectNationalForestSystemwatershedsbyimplementingpracticesdesignedtomaintainorimprovewatershedcondition,whichisthefoundationforsustainingecosystemsandtheproductionofrenewablenaturalresources,values,andbenefits”(FSM2520).SecretaryofAgricultureTomVilsackreempha-sizedthispolicyinhis“VisionfortheForestService,”whenhestatedthatrestoringwatershedandforesthealthwouldbetheprimarymanagementobjectiveoftheForestService(USDA2010).Tohelpimplementthisnewpolicyemphasis,theForestServicedevelopedtheWCF.
TheWCFprovidesaconsistentwaytoevaluatewatershedconditionatboththenationalandforestlevels.Watershedconditionassessmentsbyindividualnationalforestsarecriticalbecauselocalnationalforeststaffsaretheclosesttothegroundandbestunderstandexistingconditions.TheWCFconsistsofreconnaissance-levelassessmentsbyindividualnationalforests,implementationofintegratedimprovementactivitieswithinprioritywatersheds,validationandmonitoringofwatershedconditionclasschanges,andaggregationofprogramperfor-mancedatafornationalreporting.
Introduction
2 Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 3
The Goals of Watershed Restoration
Watershedsthatarefunctioningproperlyhavefiveimportantcharacteristics(Williamsetal.1997):
1. Theyprovideforhighbioticintegrity,whichincludes
habitatsthatsupportadaptiveanimalandplantcommunities
thatreflectnaturalprocesses.
2. Theyareresilientandrecoverrapidlyfromnaturaland
humandisturbances.
3. Theyexhibitahighdegreeofconnectivitylongitudinally
alongthestream,laterallyacrossthefloodplainandvalley
bottom,andverticallybetweensurfaceandsubsurfaceflows.
4. Theyprovideimportantecosystemservices,suchashigh-
qualitywater,therechargeofstreamsandaquifers,the
maintenanceofripariancommunities,andthemoderationof
climatevariabilityandchange.
5. Theymaintainlong-termsoilproductivity.
Watershed condition classification istheprocessofdescribingwatershedconditionintermsofdiscretecategories(orclasses)thatreflectthelevelofwatershedhealthorintegrity.Inthecontextofthisframework,watershedhealthandintegrityareconceptuallythesame(Regier1993):watershedswithhighintegrity areinanunimpaired conditioninwhichecosystemsshowlittleornoinfluencefromhumanactions(Lackey2001).
TheForestServiceManual(FSM)usesthreeclassestodescribewatershedcondition(USDAForestService2004a,FSM2521.1):
Class1watershedsexhibithighgeomorphic,hydrologic,and
bioticintegrityrelativetotheirnaturalpotentialcondition.
Class2watershedsexhibitmoderategeomorphic,hydrologic,
andbioticintegrityrelativetotheirnaturalpotentialcondition.
Class3watershedsexhibitlowgeomorphic,hydrologic,and
bioticintegrityrelativetotheirnaturalpotentialcondition.
TheFSMclassificationdefineswatershedconditionintermsof“geomorphic,hydrologicandbioticintegrity”relativeto“potentialnaturalcondition.”Inthiscontext,integrityrelatesdirectlytofunctionality.Geomorphicfunctionalityorintegritycanbedefinedintermsofattributessuchasslopestability,soilerosion,channelmorphology,andotherupslope,riparian,andaquatichabitatcharacteristics.Hydrologicfunctionalityorintegrityrelatesprimarilytoflow,sediment,andwater-qualityattributes.Biologicalfunctionalityorintegrityisdefinedbythecharacteristicsthatinfluencethediversityandabundance
ThewatershedconditiongoaloftheForestServiceis“toprotectNationalForestSystemwatershedsbyimplementingpracticesdesignedtomaintainorimprovewatershedcondi-tion”(FSM2520.2).TheWCFprovidesameanstoachievethisgoalby—
• Establishingasystematicprocessfordetermining
watershedconditionclassthatallnationalforestscanapply
consistently.
• Fosteringintegratedecosystem-basedapproachesfor
managingwatershedsandaquaticresources.
• StrengtheningtheeffectivenessoftheForestServiceto
maintainandrestoretheproductivityandresilienceofwa-
tershedsandtheirassociatedaquaticsystemsonNFSlands.
• Improvingtheinternaldialogamongdisciplinestofocus
andintegrateprogramsofworktoefficientlymaintainand
restorewatershedsandaquaticecosystems.
• Enablingacoordinatedandpriority-basedapproachfor
allocatingresourcestorestorewatersheds.
• Enhancingcoordinationwithexternalagenciesandpartners
inwatershedmanagementandaquaticspeciesrecoveryefforts.
• Improvingnational-scalereportingofwatershedcondition.
Defining Watershed Condition
Watershed conditionisthestateofthephysicalandbiologicalcharacteristicsandprocesseswithinawatershedthataffectthesoilandhydrologicfunctionssupportingaquaticecosystems.Watershedconditionreflectsarangeofvariabilityfromnaturalpristine(functioningproperly)todegraded(severelyalteredstateorimpaired).Watershedsthatarefunctioningproperlyhaveterrestrial,riparian,andaquaticecosystemsthatcapture,store,andreleasewater,sediment,wood,andnutrientswithintheirrangeofnaturalvariabilityfortheseprocesses.Whenwatershedsarefunctioningproperly,theycreateandsustainfunctionalterrestrial,riparian,aquatic,andwetlandhabitatsthatarecapableofsupportingdiversepopulationsofnativeaquatic-andriparian-dependentspecies.Ingeneral,thegreaterthedeparturefromthenaturalpristinestate,themoreimpairedthewatershedconditionislikelytobe.Watershedsthatarefunctioningproperlyarecommonlyreferredtoashealthywatersheds.
4 Watershed Condition Framework
ofaquaticspecies,terrestrialvegetation,andsoilproductivity.Ineachcase,integrityisevaluatedinthecontextofthenaturaldisturbanceregime,geoclimaticsetting,andotherimportantfactorswithinthecontextofawatershed.Thedefinitionencompassesbothaquaticandterrestrialcomponents,becausewaterqualityandaquatichabitatareinseparablyrelatedtotheintegrityand,therefore,thefunctionalityofuplandandriparianareaswithinawatershed.
Thethreewatershedconditionclassesaredirectlyrelatedtothedegreeorlevelofwatershedfunctionalityorintegrity:
Class1=FunctioningProperly.
Class2=FunctioningatRisk.
Class3=ImpairedFunction.
Inthisframework,wecharacterizeawatershedingoodcondi-tionasonethatisfunctioninginamannersimilartonaturalwildlandconditions(KarrandChu1999,Lackey2001).Thischaracterizationshouldnotbeinterpretedtomeanthatman-agedwatershedscannotbeingoodcondition.Awatershedisconsideredtobefunctioningproperlyifthephysicalattributesareappropriatetomaintainorimprovebiologicalintegrity.ThisconsiderationimpliesthataClass1watershedinproperlyfunctioningconditionhasminimalundesirablehumanimpactonnatural,physical,orbiologicalprocessesandisresilientandabletorecovertothedesiredconditionwhenorifdisturbedbylargenaturaldisturbancesorlandmanagementactivities(YountandNeimi1990).Bycontrast,aClass3watershedhasimpairedfunctionbecausesomephysical,hydrological,orbiologicalthresholdhasbeenexceeded.Substantialchangestothefactorsthatcausedthedegradedstatearecommonlyneededtosetthemonatrendortrajectoryofimprovingconditionsthatsustainphysical,hydrological,andbiologicalintegrity.
Definingspecificclassesforwatershedconditionisobviouslysubjectiveand,therefore,problematicforseveralreasons.First,watershedconditionisnotdirectlyobservable(Suter1993).Innature,nodistinctlinesseparateawatershedthatisfunctioningproperlyfromimpairedcondition,andeveryclassificationschemeisarbitrarytosomeextent.Second,watershedcondi-tionisamentalconstructthathasnumerousdefinitionsandinterpretationsinthescientificliterature(Lackey2001).Third,theattributesthatreflectthestateofawatershedarecontinu-allychangingbecauseofnaturaldisturbances(e.g.,wildfire,landslides,floods,insects,anddisease),naturalvariabilityofecologicalprocesses(e.g.,flowsandcyclesofenergy,nutri-ents,andwater),climatevariabilityandchange,andhumanmodifications.
Watershed-Scale Restoration
Themosteffectivewaytoapproachcomplexecologicalissuesistoconsiderthematthewatershedlevel,wherethefundamentalconnectionamongallcomponentsofthelandscapeisthenetworkofstreamsthatdefinesthewatershed(Heller2004,NationalResearchCouncil1999,Newbold2002,OggandKeith2002,Reidetal.1996,Sedelletal.2000,Smithetal.2005,Williamsetal.1997).Watershedsareeasilyidentifiedonmapsandontheground,andtheirboundariesdonotchangemuchovertime(Reidetal.1996).Watershedsarealsoreadilyrecognizedbylocalcommunitiesandresonatewithmembersofthepublicasalogicalwaytoaddressresourcemanagementissues.
Watershedsareintegralpartsofbroaderecosystemsandcanbeviewedandevaluatedatavarietyofspatialscales.BecausewatershedsarespatiallylocatedlandscapefeaturesuniformlymappedfortheentireUnitedStatesatmultiplescales,theyareidealfortrackingaccomplishmentsbothintermsofoutputs(acrestreatedontheground)andoutcomes(improvementinwatershedconditionclass).Toavoiddoublecounting,wereportaccomplishmentsandoutcomesbyeachwatershed’suniquehydrologicunitcode(HUC).Awatershed’sconditionclassintegratestheeffectofallactivitieswithinawatershed;therefore,watershedsprovideanidealmechanismforinterpretingthecumulativeeffectofamultitudeofmanagementactionsonsoilandhydrologicfunction.Finally,manyhydrologicandaquaticrestorationissuescanbeproperlyaddressedonlywithintheconfinesofwatershedboundaries.Watershedsprovideanexcellentbasisfordevelopingrestorationplansthatcantreatamultitudeofresourceproblemsinastructured,comprehensivemanner.
Manyterrestrialecologicalrestorationissuesarepoorlyaddressed,however,inawatershedcontext.Ecologicalrestorationinvolvesreplacinglostordamagedbiologicalelements(populations,species)andreestablishingecologicalprocesses(dispersal,succession)athistoricalrates.Ecologicalrestoration,becauseitdealswithvegetationandwildlifespeciescomposition,structure,pattern,anddiversity,maynotaffectsoilandhydrologicfunction.Consequently,ecologi-calrestorationandconditionareoftenbestevaluatedusingecologicalstratificationssuchasthosedepictedinthemapBailey’sEcoregionsandSubregionsoftheUnitedStates,PuertoRico,andtheU.S.VirginIslands(Bailey1995),ratherthanwatersheds.
Watershed Condition Framework 5
The Six-Step Watershed Condition Framework
Theprocessismorestrategic,betterintegrated,andmorelikelytocontributetolong-termchangeinwatershedconditionsthancurrentproject-levelimprovementactivitiesthatmaynotbecoordinatedattheforestlevel.TheWCFconsistsofaniterativeprocessinvolvingsixsteps(fig.1).
ThesixstepsoftheWCFare—
Step A: Classifytheconditionofall6th-levelwatershedsinthenationalforestbyusingexistingdatalayers,localknowledge,andprofessionaljudgment.
Step B: Prioritizewatershedsforrestoration:establishasmallsetofprioritywatershedsfortargetedimprovementequivalenttoa5-yearprogramofwork.
Step C: DevelopWatershedRestorationActionPlansthatidentifycomprehensiveproject-levelimprovementactivities.
Step D: Implementintegratedsuitesofprojectsinprioritywatersheds.
Step E: Trackrestorationaccomplishmentsforperformanceaccountability.
Step F: Verifyaccomplishmentofprojectactivitiesandmoni-torimprovementofwatershedandstreamconditions.
ThescopeoftheWCFisbroadanditencompassesmultipleresourceareas.TheForestServiceWatershedProgram,asdefinedbyOMBandtheForestServiceStrategicPlan,encompassesallForestServiceactivitiesthatcontributetoimprovedwatershedcondition(OMB2006,USDAForestService2004b),includingsoilandwaterimprovements,vegetationmanagement,reforestation,rangemanagement,wildlifeandfisheriesimprovements,roaddecommissioning,andotheractivities.Watershedrestorationreferstoactivitiesthatimprovetheconditionsofwatersheds,restoredegradedhabitats,andprovidelong-termprotectiontosoilsandaquaticandriparianresources.Allmanagementactivitiesthatinflu-encewatershedconditionhavearoletoplayinthiscontext.
TheWCFrepresentsaparadigmshiftinwatershedrestora-tionfortheForestService(BohnandKershner2002,Heller2004,Sedelletal.2000)inthatitprovidesaframeworktotreatwholewatershedswithanintegratedsetofwatershed-scalerestorationtreatments(table1).Workingwithentirewatershedsmakesitpossibletoreestablishthestructureandfunctionofanecosystemtoacloseapproximationofitsconditionbeforehumandisturbance(Williamsetal.1997).InthecontextoftheWCF,watershedrestorationisacomprehen-sive,long-termprogramtorestorewatershedhealth,riparianecosystems,fishhabitats,andsoilproductivity(Ziemer1997).
Table1.—Characteristics of the new paradigm proposed by this framework compared with the old paradigm for restoring aquatic- and riparian-dependent resources (Heller 2004).
New Paradigm (Watershed Condition Framework) Old Paradigm
1. The “best” watersheds are treated first. Highest priority treatments remove risk factors that may threaten the integrity of the watershed.
1. The “worst” watersheds are treated first. Highest priority is to create desired habitat conditions for stream segments/sites in the worst condition.
2. Efforts focus on a few priority watersheds. 2. Treatments tend to focus on stream segments or sites. They are scattered over several watersheds.
3. Watershed analysis precedes project work, identifies key processes, and prioritizes areas and associated treatment approaches that address “causes.”
3. Analysis is generally limited to the project scale and to addressing site-scale conditions. Treatments address “symptoms.”
4. A wide range of treatments are generally integrated at a watershed scale and sequenced based on an overall work plan.
4. A narrow range of treatments usually focuses on individual sites. They are not integrated at the watershed scale.
5. Suites of essential projects are completed in a watershed before work emphasis shifts to the next priority watershed.
5. Highest priority work is completed on individual areas or sites located in a number different watersheds.
6. Partnerships are an essential part of restoration. Skills and resources are strongly leveraged.
6. Partnerships are limited in number and scope. Skills and resources are only somewhat leveraged.
6 Watershed Condition Framework
Nationalforestunits,withregionalsupport,areprimarilyresponsibleforimplementingtheWCF.Forestsmustlinklocalprioritieswithregionalandnationalpriorities,implementprojects,andtrackcostsandchangestowatershedconditionclass.Regionsprovidevaluableoversighttoensureprogramconsistency.Nationalleadershipusestheassessmentinforma-tiongatheredduringtheWCFprocesstoestablishnationalpriorities,evaluateForestServiceprogramperformance,andcommunicateresultstointerestedstakeholdersandcustomers.
Roles and Responsibilities
ThefollowingrolesandresponsibilitiespertaintoWatershedConditionAssessment(FSM2521)andWatershedImprove-ment(FSM2522).
TheDirectoroftheWatershed,Fish,Wildlife,Air,andRarePlantsProgramStaff,WashingtonOffice(WO),hastheresponsibilityto—
• ConsultandcoordinatewithotherFederalagenciesto
developapproachesandguidanceforwatersheddelineation,
watershedassessment,andclassificationofwatershed
condition.
• Developcriteriaandstandardsforclassifyingwatershed
conditionfortheGovernmentPerformanceandResultsAct
(GPRA)assessment,forestplans,andprogramdevelopment.
• Developcriteriafordetermininganddisplayingwatershed
conditiontrendsfortheGPRAassessment,forestplans,and
programdevelopment.
• Usetheresultsofwatershedconditionanalysesforthe
GPRAassessmentandasabasisfordefiningneedsand
opportunitiesintheprogramalternatives.
• Developpolicyandprogramdirectionandassigntargetsfor
thewatershedimprovementprogram.
Regionalforestershavetheresponsibilityto—
• Developguidelinesandprocedures,basedonnational
criteriaandstandards,forestablishingprioritiesfor
assessingandmonitoringwatershedconditionsandtrends.
Ensurethatassessmentandmonitoringdataareavailablein
acorporatedatabase.Providetechnicalandadministrative
oversightoftheforestclassificationprocess.
• Determinehowwatershedconditionwillbeintegratedin
regional,forest,andprojectplanningprocesses.
Step A:Classify
Watershed Condition
Six-StepProcess
Step D:ImplementIntegrated Projects
Step B:Prioritize
Watersheds for Restoration
Step F:Monitor
and Verify
Step C:Develop
Watershed Restoration Action Plans
Step E:Track
Restoration Accomplishments
Figure1.—Conceptual diagram of the six-step watershed condition framework process.
Watershed Condition Framework 7
• WorkwithStates,tribes,andotherinterestedpartiesto
identifywatershedsasprioritiesforprotection,management,
andimprovement.
• Useeconomicandenvironmentalanalysestohelpidentify
opportunitiesforimprovingandmaintainingwatershed
conditions.
• Establishregionalpriorityguidelinesforwatershed
improvementprojects.
• Establishandmaintainacorporatedatabaseofwatershed
improvementneeds.
• Providetrainingforpersonnelinvolvedinwatershed
improvementplanning,projectimplementation,
maintenance,monitoring,andreviews.
Forestsupervisorshavetheresponsibilityto—
• Assess(classifywatershedcondition)andmonitor
watershedconditionsandtrendsandenterdataintoa
corporatedatabase.
• WorkwithStates,tribes,localgovernments,andother
interestedpartiestoidentifywatershedsasprioritiesfor
protectionandmanagementandforimprovement.
• Coordinatewatershedprioritiesandresourcemanagement
activitiesonNFSlandstoattainforestplangoalsand
objectivesforwatershedcondition.
• Cooperatewithotheragencies,groups,andindividuals
whoseplansorproposalsaffectwatershedconditionson
NFSlands.
• Maintainawatershedimprovementneedsinventoryina
corporatedatabase.
• Identifyprioritywatershedsforrestoration;developand
approveprescriptionsandplansforaforestwatershed
improvementprogram.Delegatethedevelopmentofdetailed
prescriptionsandplanstothedistrictrangerswhenexpertise
isavailableatthedistrictlevel.
• Ensurethatfundedwatershedconditionimprovement
projectsareaccomplishedandthattreatmentmeasuresare
implementedasprescribedandapproved.
EachofthesixsequentialstepsoftheWCFisdiscussedingreaterdetailinthisframework.TheintentofthisframeworkistoprovidesufficientguidanceforconsistentimplementationoftheWCFbynationalforests.
8 Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 9
Step A: Classify Watershed Condition
Watershedclassificationwilladheretothefollowingguidance:
• ForestswillfollowtheclassificationdirectionintheForest
Service Watershed Condition Technical Guide(USDA
ForestService2011).
• Allnationalforestswillclassify6th-levelHUCwatersheds
intooneofthreeForestServiceWatershedCondition
Classes(FSM2521.1):Class1—FunctioningProperly;
Class2—FunctioningatRisk;Class3—Functionally
Impaired.
• Aninterdisciplinaryteamwillclassifywatershedconditions.
Theclassificationprocessisofficebasedandrequires
approximately1weekforresourcespecialiststoassemble
necessaryinformationand1weekfortheinterdisciplinary
teamtoclassifyall6th-levelwatersheds.
• Classificationisrequiredforall6th-levelwatershedsthat
containanyNFSlands.
• Theclassificationwillusethe12corenationalindicators
(fig.2).
Watershed Condition Indicators(12-Indicator Model)
AquaticPhysical
(Weight = 30%)
1. Water Quality
1. Impaired Waters (303d Listed)
2. Water Quality Problems (Not Listed)
3. Aquatic Habitat
1. Habitat Fragmentation
2. Large Woody Debris
3. Channel Shape and Function
2. Water Quantity
1. Flow Characteristics
5. Riparian/Wetland Vegetation
1. Vegetation Condition
4. Aquatic Biota
1. Life Form Presence
2. Native Species
3. Exotic and/or Invasive Species
6. Roads & Trails
1. Open Road Density
2. Road Maintenance
3. Proximity to Water
4. Mass Wasting
8. Fire Regime or Wildfire
1. Fire Condition Class
or
2. Wildfire Effects
7. Soils
1. Soil Productivity
2. Soil Erosion
3. Soil Contamination
9. Forest Cover
1. Loss of Forest Cover
10. Rangeland Vegetation
1. Vegetation Condition
11. Terrestrial Invasive Species
1. Extent and Rate of Spread
12. Forest Health
1. Insects and Disease
2. Ozone
AquaticBiological
(Weight = 30%)
Terrestrial Physical
(Weight = 30%)
TerrestrialBiological
(Weight = 10%)
Figure2.—Core national watershed condition indicators and attributes.
10 Watershed Condition Framework
• ClassificationdatawillbestoredinthecorporateWatershed
ClassificationandAssessmentTrackingTool(WCATT)and
updatedannually.
• TheWOWatershed,Fish,Wildlife,Air,andRarePlants
ProgramStaffwillhaveprimaryresponsibilityfornational
technicaloversight,andmembersoftheWatershedCondi-
tionAdvisoryTeamwillassistthem.Thisoversightincludes
managingthechangeprocess,ensuringconsistencyamong
regions,andprovidingnationalGeographicInformation
Systemdataproductsandsoftwareforuseinclassification.
• Theregionalofficeswilloverseetheforestclassification
processes.Thisoversightincludesensuringconsistency
amongtheforestsintheregion,approvingtheuseof
forestmodificationstoattributesandtheoverrideoption,
coordinatingclassificationwithadjoiningregionsand
nationalforests,andconsultingwiththeWOwhen
significantmodificationsareapproved.
Watershed Condition Framework 11
Step B: Prioritize Watersheds for Restoration
UndertheWCF,thetaskofidentifyingwatershedsforrestora-tionislefttothediscretionofnationalforestswithinthebroadframeworkofnationaldirection,regionalemphasis,forestplandirection,resourcevalue,costs,localissues,needs,theamountofNFSlands,andopportunities.Selectingwatershedsforrestorationisadistinctprocessthattakesplaceafterwatershedclassification(StepA)hasbeencompleted.TheamountofNFSlandsandtheabilitytoeffectachangeinwatershedconditionareimportantconsiderationsinthepriority-settingprocess.
TheForestServicedoesnothavethecapabilitytoimprovetheconditionofeverywatershed.Theabilitytoimprovewatershedconditioniscontingentonmanyfactors,includingthepercentoftheForestService’sownership,ownershiplocationandpat-tern,sourceanddegreeofdisturbances,existingpartnerships,andotherfactors.Oneofthemostimportantfactorsisthesizeofthewatershed;thesmallerthewatershed,themorelikelyitwillbetoshowchangetowatershedconditions.Sixth-levelHUCwatersheds1werechosenspecificallyasthebasefortrackingimprovementtowatershedconditionbecausetheyare,onaverage,10,000to40,000acresinsize.Consequently,6th-levelwatershedsarethescaleusedforprioritywatersheds.
Forestsshouldidentifyanappropriatenumberofwatershedsformaintenanceorimprovementthatcorrespondtoareason-ableandachievableprogramofworkoverthenext5yearswithincurrentbudgetlevels.Prioritywatershedsarethedesignatedwatershedswhererestorationactivitieswillcon-centrateontheexplicitgoalofmaintainingorimprovingwatershedcondition.Thenumberofprioritywatershedswillvarybynationalforestbutisexpectedtorangefromonetofive,givencurrentfundinglevels.
Theidentificationofwatershedswilluseaninterdisciplinaryteamprocessthatincludesrepresentativesfromsoil,water,range,wildlifeandfish,engineering,vegetation,planning,fuels,andothersasappropriate.Theforestsupervisorneedstoapprovetheprioritywatershed.Forcasesinwhichoneormoreforestssharewatersheds,theaffectedforestsandregionswillneedtoworktogethertoensurethattheselectionofwatershedsiscoordinated.Theparticipationofpartners(local,State,tribal,
otherFederalagencies,andinterestgroups)inthewatershedprioritizationprocessisbothexpectedandhighlyencouraged.
Insummary,theprioritizationofwatershedsisaforest-basedinterdisciplinaryprocesswiththegoalofaligningwatershedrestorationworkwithbothinternalandexternalpriorities.Theidentificationofprioritywatershedsisbasedonthefollowing:
• Agencywatershedrestorationpoliciesandprioritiesthat
havebeenestablishedatotherscales,includingnational-and
regional-scalerestorationstrategies.
• Theimportanceofwaterandwatershedresources(resource
value),theurgencyofmanagementactiontoaddresscondi-
tionsandthreats,andeconomicconsiderations.
• AlignmentwithotherForestServicestrategicobjectivesand
priorities.
• AlignmentwiththestrategiesandprioritiesofotherFederal
andStateagencies,tribes,communityandcollaborative
efforts,nongovernmentalconservationorganizations,and
publicdesires.
Forest Service Policy, Direction, and Guidance
Allwatershedprioritizationoccurswithinthecontextofnational-,regional-,andforest-leveldecisionmaking.Thefollowingsectionsaddressdirectionforwatershedconditionforeachorganizationallevel.
National Direction NationaldirectionforwatershedconditioniscontainedintheUSDA Forest ServiceStrategic Plan for FY 2007–2012 (USDAForestService2007).Goal1isto“Restore,sustain,andenhancetheNation’sforestsandgrasslands”(USDAForestService2007).Objective1.5isto“Restoreandmaintainhealthywatershedsanddiversehabitats”(USDAForestService2007).
1InthecontextofWCF,thetermswatershedandhydrologic unitareusedsynonymously.Hydrologicunits,however,aretrulysynonymousonlywiththeclassicwatersheddefinitionwhentheirboundariesincludeallthesourceareacontributingsurfacewatertoasingledefinedoutletpoint.FortheintendedusesoftheWCF,thisdistinctionisrelativelyunimportant.Also,strictlyspeaking,6th-levelHUCsarecalledsubwatersheds.Weusethetermwatershedtoincludeawiderangeofwatershedsizes.
12 Watershed Condition Framework
Nationalpolicyistousewatershedconditionstohelpprioritizewatershedsandconsiderresourcefactors,risks,valuesandbenefits,economics,socialfactors,andpartnershipoppor-tunitieswhensettingpriorities(FSM2521.11b).Prioritiesforimprovingwatershedconditionareassignedinorderofdecreasingimportanceasfollows(FSM2522.03):
• Thoseposingmenacetolifeorpropertybecauseofflood
threatsorpossiblemudordebrisflows.
• Thoseneedingactiontomaintainwaterqualityorachieve
otherforestplangoalsandobjectives.
• Thosenotmeeting,orfacinganimminentthreatofnot
meeting,waterqualityrequirementsoftheforestplan.
AnnualVegetationandWatershedProgramdirectionprioritiesaretomaintainhigh-valuewatershedsandtoimprovedegradedwatersheds.Emphasisisonthefollowing(USDAForestService2009):
• Maintainingwatershedsthathaveimportantecologicalval-
ues,suchasthosewithdesignationsofOutstandingNatural
ResourceWaters,ClassA/BlueRibbonfisheries,ClassIAir
sheds,BiodiversityHotspots,etc.
• Improvingimpairedecosystems,suchasthosewithClean
WaterAct§303(d):listedwaters,threatenedorendangered
species,poorairquality,invasivespecies,ordegradedveg-
etationconditionsandthosewhereimprovementorrestora-
tionactivitiesarenecessarytomeetregulatoryrequirements
ormeetdesiredconditionobjectives.
TheFY2011ForestServiceProgramDirectionemphasizesconcentratingrestorationactivitiesinafewselectlocationstoshowmeaningfulimprovementtowatershedcondition.
“Theoverarchingpriorityforrestorationisontheimplementationofintegratedecosystemrestorationprojectsonpriority[targeted]watershedsatthehydrologicunitcode(HUC)6scale,withthegoalofimprovingthetargetedwatershed’sconditionclass.Priorityshouldbegiventoimplementingintegratedecosystemrestorationprojectsthatarecollaborativeandpartofanall-land,large-scaleconservationstrategy.RestorationeffortsaretofocusonrepairingimpairmentstothenaturaldiversityandecologicaldynamicsofNationalForestSystem(NFS)lands;providingecosystemservicesthatareimportanttothepublicincludingcleanandabundantwater,renewableenergyfrombiomass,restoredwildlife
andfishhabitat,forestproducts,andresilientforestsandrangelands;andstabilizingandcreatingjobs”(1417–1418).
Theintentofthenationaldirectionisto,firstandforemost,pro-tecthigh-valuewatershedsalreadyingoodcondition,maintaintheconditionofwatershedstokeepthemfrombecomingthreatenedand,then,improvethoseinanimpairedcondition.DecisionstodesignatehighlyalteredwatershedsasprioritywatershedsneedtobecarefullyconsideredbecausetheForestServicecouldinvestlargeamountsoffundingandresourcestryingtorepaironlyafew,badlyimpairedwatershedsthatmayneverrecover.Passiverestoration,allowingnaturalprocessestoreturntoawatershedbystoppingactivitiesthatcausedegradationorpreventrecovery,canbeacost-effectivesolu-tionforsomewatersheds.Anotherwaytomaintainwatershedconditionsistoinvestfundinginmaintenanceactivities,suchasimplementingbestmanagementpractices,maintainingroads,managingrangeallotment,orconductingotheractivitiestopreventfurtherdegradation(e.g.,keepaClass1watershedfromslippingintoClass2condition).Althoughmaintenanceisimportanttoprotectwatershedcondition,theForestServicecurrentlyhasnomechanismforcapturingthisbenefitintheperformanceaccountabilityprocess.ImplementingtheNationalBestManagementPracticesImplementationandEffectivenessMonitoringProgramisexpectedtoprovidetheForestServicewithapartialmechanismforcapturingthecostsandbenefitsofactionstakentomaintainwatershedcondition.
Regional Direction Eachregionhasspecificmanagementdirectionandemphasisareasthatpertaintoforestmanagementandwatershedcondi-tion.Eachnationalforestisadvisedtotieritsprioritiestoregionalguidance,asappropriate.Thefollowingexamplesfromtworegionsdemonstratedifferentapproachestowater-shedrestoration.
ThePacificNorthwestRegionusesthefollowingsetofkeyprinciplestoguidewatershedrestoration:
• Protect,restore,andenlargerefugeareas.
• Focusoneffectivetreatmentsinpriorityareas.
• Implementactivitiesrestoringecosystemprocessesand
naturaldisturbanceregimes.
• Learnthroughmonitoring,researching,andadaptive
management.
ThefocusoftheNorthernRegionIntegratedRestorationandProtectionStrategyistomanageanintegratedapproachforthefollowing:
Watershed Condition Framework 13
• Restoreandmaintainhigh-valuewatershedsinproperly
functioningcondition.
• Restoreandmaintainwildlifehabitats,includingrestoration
ofmoreresilientvegetationconditions,whereappropriate,
tomeetecologicalandsocialgoals.
• Protectpeople,structures,andcommunityinfrastructure
(roads,bridges,andpowercorridors)inandassociatedwith
thewildland-urbaninterface.
Forest Plan DirectionEachnationalforestimplementsrestorationdirectionfromitslandandresourcemanagementplan.Mostforestplansincludeestablishedprioritiesbasedonsomecombinationofwatershedconditionderivedfromwatershedanalysis,valuesatrisk,andthedegreetowhichknownimpactsandthreatscouldbefeasiblyandeffectivelyaddressedfromtechnical,legal,politi-cal,social,andeconomicperspectives,includingpartnershipopportunities.
Watershedrestorationdirectioninmanyforestplansappliesatalargerscale—the5th-levelHUC.Inthesecases,forestsmaywishtoselectall6th-levelwatershedswithinanimportant5th-levelwatershedastheirprioritizedwatersheds.
Resource Value
Thefollowingsimplerankingapproach(High,Moderate)isprovidedasanefficientwaytoestimatetherelativeresourcevalueofeachclassifiedwatershed.Forestsmayusemorecomprehensiveapproachesiftheywish(e.g.,Calkinetal.2007).Therapidassessmentproposedusedhereissimple,intendingtoratewatershedsinanefficientmannerusingavailableinformation.Theassessmentshouldtakenomorethan1day,andtheinterdisciplinaryteamofeachforestshouldtailortheassessmenttothecontextofthelocalecosystemsandpertinentresourceissues.
Inthisresourcevalueassessment,wedefineresourcevaluefromtheperspectiveofenvironmentalandecologicalvalueratherthanfromacommodityvalueviewpoint.Typically,watershedswiththehighestresourcevaluesshouldreceivethehighestpriorityforprotectionorimprovement.
Theproposedassessmentrequiresidentifyingtheresourcevaluesassociatedwiththespecialdesignationslistedbelow.Theforestinterdisciplinaryteamrateseachwatershed.
WatershedsmeetingatleastoneofthespecialdesignationsarerankedHigh;theothersareratedModerate.
• Designatedwilderness.
• Experimentalwatershedsandresearchnaturalareas.
• Designatedmunicipalwatersheds(source-waterprotection
areas).
• OutstandingResourceWatersorotherstatustoprotectwater
qualityorsupplies.
• Designatedprotectionareaorhabitatforaquaticthreatened
andendangeredspecies(e.g.,fish,amphibians,ormussels).
• BlueRibbonTroutStreamsorsimilarStateorother
designations.
• Wildandscenicrivers(designatedoreligiblestudy
segments)orotheruniquerecreationaluses.
• Forest-specifiedresourcevalueofauniquelocalcharacteristic.
Estimated Cost
Asimpleinterval-scalerankingprocessisproposedtoprovideacoarse-scaleestimateofthemagnitudeofcostsandotherinvestmentsthatwillbeneededtoimprovetheconditionofindividualwatersheds.Onecanthinkofthisprocessasasimpleeconomic-feasibilityrankingforpreliminaryplanningpurposes.Theintentistoensurethateconomicsisconsideredinestablishingpriorities.
Forestsneedtorecognizethatthisprocesswillnotbeapreciseestimateandshouldplantospendnomorethan1dayestimatingcostcategories.Thislackofprecisionisbecausetheactivitiesthatwillneedtobedonetoimprovewatershedconditionsareonlypartiallytopoorlyknownatthistime.Consequently,acoarse,qualitativeassessmentisappropriate.
Foreachwatershed,estimatethetotalcostofallinvestmentsandNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)consultationnecessarytomovethewatershedtoanimprovedconditionclass;considerwatershedsize,location,andthecomplexityandcostofanticipatedactivitiesandassignitoneofthefollowingfivecategories.Thisestimatewillonlybeusedtoinformprioritysetting.
CostCategory1 <$100,000CostCategory2 $100,000to$1millionCostCategory3 $1millionto$5millionCostCategory4 $5millionto$15millionCostCategory5 >$15million
14 Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 15
Step C: Develop Watershed Restoration Action Plans
Forprioritywatersheds,forestswilldevelopaWatershedRestorationActionPlanthatidentifiesspecificprojectsneces-sarytoimprovewatershedconditionclass.
Adetailedfieldassessmentisthebasisfortheactionplan.Theassessmentshoulddocumentspecificproblemsaffectingwatershedandecologicalconditions;identifyappropriateprojectsthataddresstheseproblems;proposeanimplementa-tionschedule;andprojectsequencing,potentialpartners,fundingsources,monitoring,andevaluation.
AtypicalWatershedRestorationActionPlanwouldincludethefollowingcategories:
1. ExecutiveSummary
a. WatershedName,HUC
b. GeneralLocation
c. WatershedArea
d. GeneralPhysiography
e. LandUse
f. KeyProblems
g. RestorationOpportunities/Priorities
2. WatershedCharacteristicsandConditions
a. GeneralContext/Overview
(1) Climate
(2) Hydrology
(3) Geomorphology
(4) Fisheries
(5) OtherResources
b. WatershedConditions
(1) Uplands/HillslopeConditions
(2) RiparianConditions
(3) InchannelHabitatConditions
3. RestorationGoals,Objectives,andOpportunities
a. GoalIdentificationandDesiredCondition
b. Objectives,ExistingandPost-ProjectWatershedConditionClass
c. Opportunities
d. SpecificProjectActivities(EssentialProjects)
e. Costs
f. TimelinesandProjectScheduling
g. Partners
4. RestorationProjectMonitoringandEvaluation
Acceptablewatershedassessmentmethodsmustbeusedtoanalyzewatershedconditionandmakerecommendationsforneededimprovements.Examplesofacceptedmethodsincludethefollowing:EcosystemAnalysisattheWatershedScale(RegionalEcosystemOffice1995),HydrologicConditionAnalysis(McCammonetal.1998),TotalMaximumDailyLoadassessments,andWatershedImprovementNeedsinventories.Forestsmayuseothermethods(BohnandKershner2002,Rosgen2006),providedtheassessmentmethodhassufficientinformationaboutwatershedfunctionandprocessestodeterminespecificproblemsandcurrentanddesiredwatershedconditions,andifitprovidesinformationthatcanbeusedtoidentifyrestorationactivities.
Thefield-basedwatershedconditionassessmentwillbedocu-mentedinaWatershedRestorationActionPlanthatsynthesizesproblems,actions,andtimelines.Identifyingessentialprojectsisaprimarygoal.
Essential Projects and Approval Process
Essentialprojectsareadiscreetgroupofconservationactionsandtreatmentsthatareimplementedasanintegratedsuiteofon-the-groundmanagementactivitiesfocusedprimarilyonrestoringwatershedhealthandtherebyimprovingwatershedconditionclass.Theymayincludepracticessuchassoilandwaterimprovement,fisheriesandaquaticresourcehabitatimprovement,aquaticorganismpassageimprovement,roaddecommissioning,roadmaintenance,upslopesurfaceerosioncontrol,reforestation,hazardousfuelreduction,restoringfire-adaptedecosystems,obtaininginstreamflows,negotiatingflowregimechangesbelowreservoirs,orotheractivitiesthatwhenimplemented,sustainorimproveawatershed’sconditionclass.
Essentialprojectseitherdirectlycorrectaproblem(e.g.,restoreanabandonedmine)orsubstantiallyreducerisktosoil,hydrologic,orriparianfunction(e.g.,invasiveweedtreatment,hazardousfuelsreduction,oroff-highwayvehicledamage
16 Watershed Condition Framework
prevention).Essentialprojectsmaybeindividualprojectsoragroupofprojectsthatcumulativelyrequireworkoractiontomaintainorimprovewatershedconditionclass.Awatershedwillgenerallyrequireasuiteofessentialprojectstomoveittoabetterconditionclass(e.g.,decommission5roads,upgrade15culverts,changeagrazingsystem,remove3checkdams,removehazardousfuelsfrom30acresofriparianarea,andrestorenativeriparianvegetation).
Essentialprojectsinaprioritywatershedtargetmultipleresourceissuesandarefundedfrommanyfundcodes.Federal,State,orotherpartnersinterestedinwatershedrestorationmayalsofinanceessentialprojects.
Althoughemphasisisonon-the-groundwork,essentialprojectscanalsoincludeplanningaspectsassociatedwithairqualityregulatoryactivitiesthatresultinimprovedwatershedcondition.
Becauseairqualityandwatershedconditionaredirectlylinked,forestshavetheabilitytoidentify“activeparticipationintheairregulatoryprocess”asanessentialprojectforthosewatershedsaffectedbyairpollution.Similartootheressentialprojects,creditwillbetakenwhenprojectsarecompleted,ratherthanwhenpositiveeffectsfullymanifestthemselves.
Aninterdisciplinaryteamidentifiesessentialprojects,andthentheappropriatelineofficerreviewsandconsiderstheprojectrecommendationsputforwardbytheinterdisciplinaryteam.ThewatershedisconsideredtohavemovedtoanimprovedconditionclassandreportedassuchwhenalloftheessentialprojectsnecessarytomoveawatershedtoanimprovedclassandidentifiedinaWatershedRestorationActionPlanarecompleted.
Watershed Condition Framework 17
Step D: Implement Integrated Projects
Treatingwholewatershedswithanintegratedsetofwatershed-scalerestorationtreatmentsisnotrivialmatter.Onaverage,acomplexintegratedwatershedrestorationprocess,fromwatershedanalysistoactionplancompletion,maytake5to6years,orlonger.
Theplanningphasealonemaytake3yearsormore.ThisphaseincludesmeetingNEPArequirementstoassessthepotentialenvironmentalconsequencesofthewatershedimprovementproject,evaluationofalternatives,andopportunityforpublicreviewandcomment.SignificanttimemaybeneededforfieldworkandanalysistosupporttheWatershedRestorationActionPlanfollowedbyprojectdesignforspecifictreatments.Theseplanningtasksmaycosthundredsofthousandsofdollarsforatypicalproject.
Tobetrulyeffective,mostwatershed-basedrestorationeffortsrequiretheinvolvementofpartners.Collaborationhasmanybenefits,butitmaybetime-consumingtoobtainthesupportofinterestedparties.
Onceplanningiscompleted,becauseofthenumerousprojectstypicallyincludedinaWatershedRestorationActionPlan,manyrestorationprojectscanbeexpectedtohavea3-yearorlongerimplementationphase.AwatershedisconsideredtohavemovedtoanimprovedconditionclassandisreportedassuchwhenalloftheessentialprojectsidentifiedinaWatershedRestorationActionPlanarecompleted.
18 Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 19
Step E: Track Restoration Accomplishments
Fortrackingrestorationaccomplishments,changestowatershedconditionwillmostlikelyresultfromplanned,activerestorationinprioritywatersheds.Achangeinwatershedconditionclassmay,however,occurforavarietyofotherreasons,andchangemayoccurinprioritizedorotherwatersheds,forexample,be-causeofmanagementactions,astheresultofnaturaldisturbances,orevenasaconsequenceofclimatechange.OtherfactorsthatcouldcauseachangetowatershedconditionsunrelatedtoprioritywatershedsmightincludeaStatewater-qualityagencydeclaringthatalistedwaterbodyisnowincompliancewithStatewater-qualitystandards,anegotiatedchangetotheflowregimeofareservoir,wildfires,naturaldisasters,orotherwatershedalteringactivities.Thedirectionofchangetoawatershed’sconditioncouldbepositiveornegativeandmayaffectpriorityorotherwatersheds.Thiscomplexityintroducesalevelofuncertaintyintothewatershedconditionclasstrackingprocess.Therefore,watershedconditionclasschangesneedtobecare-fullyinterpretedtounderstandthecausesofthosechanges.Theworkingassumptionisthatmostofthechangesreflectedinperformanceaccountabilitywillbedrivenbyactionsinprioritywatersheds.
TheWCATTtrackswatershedconditionclassforall6th-levelHUCwatersheds.WCATTisupdatedannuallybyforestsconcentratingonwatershedsknowntohaveexperiencedsignificantchange.Theconditionclassclassificationdata(numberofwatershedsineachclass)reportedinWCATTwillbeautomaticallyaccessedandreportedthroughthePerformanceAccountabilitySystem(PAS).
Essentialprojects,predeterminedinaWatershedRestorationActionPlan,counttowardchangingwatershedconditionclassupontheirsuccessfulcompletion.Improvementtowatershedconditionisrecordeduponprojectcompletionasapracticalmatterfullyrecognizingthatactualimprovementtowatershedandstreamconditionmaylagthecompletionofessentialprojectsbyyearsordecades.Whentheyhavecompletedallessentialprojectsinaprioritywatershed,forestswillremovethewatershedfromtheprioritylistandreplaceitwithanother.Atwo-tothree-personteamofresourcespecialists,designatedbytheforest-levellineofficer,willevaluatewatershedswhereessentialprojectshavebeencompletedtocertifythesatisfactorycompletionofworkintheprioritywatershed.
Performance Tracking
Restorationaccomplishmentwillbereportedinexistingcor-porateperformanceaccomplishmentdatabases.OptionsunderconsiderationincludetheWatershedImprovementTracking(WIT)System;theWildlife,Fish,andRarePlantManagementSystem(WFRP-MS);andthePerformanceAccountabilitySystem(PAS).
Ifselectedastherepositoryofwatershedaccomplishments,thesesystemswillneedtobemodified.Trackingcostsandaccomplishmentsandreportingimprovementtowatershedconditionclasswillbealong-termendeavor,andexistingbudgetstructuresbasedonsinglefiscalyearexpendituresandaccomplishmentreportingareillsuitedfortrackingmultiyearprojects.RefiningtheForestServicebudgetandperformancereportingsystemswilllikelybenecessarytotrackwatershedscalerestorationimplementedundertheWCF.Theinclusionofgeotaggingfeaturesishighlyeffectivefordemonstratingrestorationaccomplishment.
Performance Measures
TheForestServicewillneedtotrackbothoutcomeandoutputs(acrestreated).Theprimaryoutcomemeasureusedtotrackaccomplishmentswillbethenumberofwatershedconditionclassesthathavechangedinagivenyear.Notethatchangemaycomefromprioritywatershedsduetorestorationactionsorfromnonprioritywatershedsduetootherfactors.
Thefollowingperformancemeasureswillbeused:
CLS-I-WTRSHD NumberofwatershedswithinconditionclassI.
CLS-II-WTRSHD NumberofwatershedswithinconditionclassII.
CLS-III-WTRSHD NumberofwatershedswithinconditionclassIII.
WTRSHD-CLS-IMP-NUM Numberofwatershedsmovedtoanimprovedconditionclass.
20 Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 21
Step F: Verify and Monitor Watershed Condition Class
Weproposeatwo-tieredapproachtoverifyandmonitorwater-shedconditions.Tier1emphasizesverifyingforperformanceaccountability.Tier2emphasizesmonitoringlinkagesbetweenwatershedrestorationtreatmentsandtheeffecttheyhaveonaquatichabitatconditions.
Becauseofbudgetconstraints,emphasisintheneartermisonperformanceaccountability(Tier1).Overthelongterm,ourgoalistodevelopamonitoringapproachsystemthatcanlinkchangesinwatershedconditiononthelandscapetoimprovementtostreamchannelandaquatichabitatconditions(Tier2).Thislong-termgoalisconsistentwiththeChief’sarticulationintheFY2011ForestServiceBudgetJustificationthatthe“ForestServicewillestablishamonitoringprogramsothatinfiveyearstheAgencywillbeabletotuneandsupportitsrisk-basedapproachtoassessingandimprovingwatershedcondition”(ForestService,2010:7–8).
Tier 1: Verifying for Performance Accountability
Tier1verificationmonitoringconsistsofreviewingwatershedclassification(Dowatershedsappeartohavebeenproperlyclassified?Wasthecorrectprocessfollowedinevaluatingtheextenttowhichprescribedrestorationactions(essentialpro-jects)appeartohaveimprovedwatershedconditioncomparedwiththeindicatorsusedforclassification?Doesitseemreasonabletoconcludethattheessentialprojectsareofsufficientscopeandmagnitudetoactuallyimprovewatershedconditionclass?Doesthewatershednowclassifyasbeinginanimprovedconditionclass?).
ThefundamentalassumptionforperformanceaccountabilityisthatthecompletionofessentialprojectsidentifiedintheWatershedRestorationActionPlanresultsinimprovementinwatershedconditionclass.Asampleoftheprioritywatershedswillbeevaluatedannuallytodetermineiftheywerecorrectlyclassifiedandiftheirprescribedprojectscouldreasonablybejudgedtohaveimprovedactualwatershedconditioncomparedwiththeindicatorsusedforclassification.Ideally,completingasuiteofessentialprojectsshouldalterconditionsinthewater-shedsufficientlysothatifclassificationindicatorsareappliedtothewatershedafterprojectcompletion,thewatershedwillrateoutasbeinginanimprovedcategory.Afteraperiodof
time,thedatafromtheseannualevaluationscanbecompiledtoimproveprogramimplementation.Inaddition,theprogramreviewscanhelptoverifytherulesetusedtoclassifywater-shedconditionclasses,andtheycanbeusedtoassesswhetherornotclasseswereassignedinanappropriateandconsistentmanneracrosstheForestService.
TheWOwillevaluate,ataminimum,asampleofonewater-shedperregion.Wewillselectwatershedsthatwerereportedashavinghadalloftheessentialprojectscompletedandreportedastargetaccomplishmentsunderthenumberofwatershedsmovedtoanimprovedconditionclass(WTRSHD-CLS-IMP-NUM).ThecompositionofthereviewteamwillbedeterminedbytheWODirectoroftheWatershed,Fish,Wildlife,Air,andRarePlantsProgramStaffandincludesrepresentativesfromtheWatershedConditionAdvisoryTeam,ProgramandBudgetAnalysis,andStrategicPlanningandPerformanceAccount-abilityPrograms.Reviewsmaybefieldorofficebased.
Tier 2: Monitoring Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Conditions
Ourlong-termgoalneedstobeacomprehensivemonitoringapproachthatverifiesthehypothesisthatconcentratingactivi-tiesinprioritywatershedsresultsindemonstratedimprovementtostreamandaquatichabitatconditions.Inthecontextofperformanceaccountability,weneedtobeabletodemonstratethattheoutcomeofimprovedwatershedconditionactuallyhap-pensonthegroundandinstreamchannels.Establishingtheselinkagesbetweenuplandwatershedconditionandinstreamaquatichabitatimprovementhaslongbeenrecognizedasasignificantchallengeinthewatershedandaquaticsciences.
Intheory,watershedsthatareClass1,functioningproperly,areexpectedtohavebetterstreamconditionsthanwatershedsthatareClass3,functioningimpaired.Wecanuseavarietyofsamplingdesignstoverifythishypothesis,butwewillnotrecommendaspecificdesignatthistime.Watershedsthatweselecttomonitorindetailwouldhavetobestratifiedbywatershedconditionclass.Wewouldthenmonitorstreamhabitatandbiotaattheoutletofthewatershedstoseeifstreamconditionscorrelatewithconditionclasses.Opportunitiesmayarisebyorganizingthemonitoringatabroadscale,suchasForestServiceregionsornationalforests.Opportunitiesexist
22 Watershed Condition Framework
touseprobability-baseddesignssuchasPACFISH/INFISHBiologicalOpinion(PIBO)EffectivenessMonitoringProgram(Kershneretal.2004)andNorthwestForestPlanMonitoring(Galloetal.2005,Reevesetal.2004),ortotakeadvantageofForestServiceaquaticstatusandtrendmonitoringapproachessuchasAquaticEcologicalUnitInventory.Ourgoalistohaveacomprehensivemonitoringeffortinplacewithin5years.
Wewouldintegratethemonitoringstrategyintotheagency’soverallwatershedandaquaticevaluationprogramanduseitinanadaptivemanagementfeedbacklooptomodifytheapproachasnecessary.
Watershed Condition Framework 23
Literature Cited
Bailey,R.G.1995.DescriptionoftheecoregionsoftheUnitedStates.2nded.,rev.Misc.Publ.No.1391.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.
Bohn,B.A.;Kershner,J.L.2002.Establishingaquaticrestorationprioritiesusingawatershedapproach.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement.64:355–363.
Calkin,D.E.;Hyde,K.D.;Robichaud,P.R.etal.2007.Assessingpost-firevalues-at-riskwithanewcalculationtool.Gen.Tech.Rep.RMRS-GTR-205.FortCollins,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.32p.
Gallo,K.;Lanigan,S.H.;Eldred,P.etal.2005.Northwestforestplan—thefirst10years(1994–2003):preliminaryassessmentoftheconditionofwatersheds.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-647.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.133p.
Heller,D.2004.Aparadigmshiftinwatershedrestoration.ForumforResearchandExtensioninNaturalResources(FOREX),StreamlineWatershedManagementBulletin.8(1):21–23.
Karr,J.R.;Chu,L.W.1999.Restoringlifeinrunningrivers:betterbiologicalmonitoring.Washington,DC:IslandPress.206p.
Kershner,J.L.;Archer,E.K.;Coles-Ritchie,M.etal.2004.Guidetoeffectivemonitoringofaquaticandriparianresources.Gen.Tech.Rep.RMRS-GTR-121.U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,FortCollins,CO.
Lackey,R.T.2001.Values,policy,andecosystemhealth.Bioscience.51:437–443.
McCammon,B.J.;Rector,J.;andGebhardt,K.1998.Aframe-workforanalyzingthehydrologicconditionofwatersheds.BLMTech.Note405,BLM/RS/ST-98/004+7210.48p.
NationalResearchCouncil.1999.NewstrategiesforAmerica’swatersheds.Washington,DC:NationalAcademyPress,CommitteeonWatershedManagement.
Newbold,S.C.2002.Integratedmodelingforwatershedmanagement:multipleobjectivesandspatialeffects.JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation.38(2):341–353.
OfficeofManagementandBudget(OMB).2006.ForestServicewatershedprogramassessment.Washington,DC:OfficeofManagementandBudget.http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10003029.2006.html.(4August2010).
Ogg,C.W.;Keith,G.A.2002.NewFederalsupportforprioritywatershedmanagementneeds.JournaloftheAmericanWaterResourcesAssociation.38(2):577–586.
Reeves,G.H.;Hohler,D.B.;Larsen,D.P.etal.2004.EffectivenessmonitoringfortheaquaticandripariancomponentoftheNorthwestforestplan:conceptualframeworkandoptions.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-577.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.
Regier,H.A.1993.Thenotionofnaturalandculturalintegrity.In:Woodley,S.J.;Kay,J.J.;Francis,G.Ecologicalintegrityandthemanagementofecosystems.DelrayBeach,FL:St.LuciePress:3–18.
RegionalEcosystemOffice,RegionalInteragencyExecutiveCommittee.1995.Ecosystemanalysisatthewatershedscale:theFederalguideforwatershedanalysis.SectionsIandII,Version2.2.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestRegion.
Reid,L.M.;Ziemer,R.R.;Furniss,M.J.1996.WatershedanalysisonFederallandsofthePacificNorthwest.HumboldtInteragencyWatershedAnalysisCenterWorkshop,McKinleyville,CA.http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/rsl/projects/water/1WhatisWA.htm.(23August2010).
Rosgen,D.L.2006.Watershedassessmentofriverstabilityandsedimentsupply(WARSSS).FortCollins,CO:WildlandHydrologyBooks.www.epa.gov/warsss.(24August2010).
Sedell,J.;Sharpe,M.;Apple,D.D.etal.2000.WaterandtheForestService.FS-660.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.
24 Watershed Condition Framework
Smith,R.D.;Klimas,C.V.;Kleiss,B.A.2005.Awatershedassessmenttoolforevaluatingecologicalcondition,proposedimpacts,andrestorationpotentialatmultiplescales.SWWRPTechnicalNotesCollection,ERDCTNSWWRP-05-3.Vicksburg,MS:U.S.ArmyEngineerResearchandDevelopmentCenter.
Suter,G.W.1993.Critiqueofecosystemhealthconceptsandindexes.EnvironmentalToxicologyandChemistry.12:1533–1539.
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA).2010.StrategicplanFY2010–2015.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.50p.http://www.ocfo.usda.gov/usdasp/sp2010/sp2010.pdf.(4August2010).
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)ForestService.2011.ForestServicewatershedconditionclassificationtechnicalguide.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,Watershed,Fish,Wildlife,Air,andRarePlantsProgram.
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)ForestService.2004a.Watershedprotectionandmanagement.ForestServiceManual2520.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.44p.
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)ForestService.2004b.USDAForestServicestrategicplanforfiscalyears2004–2008.FS-810.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.32p.
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)ForestService.2007.USDAForestServicestrategicplanforfiscalyears2007–2012.FS-880.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService.32p.
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)ForestService.2009.FY2009finalprogramdirection,chapter14NationalForestSystems.ManagingforResultsWebpage.http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/results/xfst/local-resources/scripts/pullContent.php?directory=/results/pdb/Program%20Direction/FY%202009/&pagename=FY09%20Program%20Direction&category=budget&icon=budget.(14March2011).
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)ForestService.2010.FY2011President’sbudgetjustification.ManagingforResultsWebpage.http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/budget-2011/fy-2011-usfs-budget-justification.pdf.(14March2011).
U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)ForestService.2011.FY2011finalprogramdirection,chapter14NationalForestSystems.ManagingforResultsWebpage.http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/results/xfst/local-resources/scripts/pullContent.php?directory=/results/pdb/Program%20Direction/FY%202011/&pagename=FY11%20Program%20Direction&category=budget&icon=budget.(14March2011).
Williams,J.E.;Wood,C.A.;Dombeck,M.P.(eds).1997.Watershedrestoration:principlesandpractices.Bethesda,MD:AmericanFisheriesSociety:80–95.
Yount,J.D.;Niemi,G.J.1990.Recoveryofloticcommunitiesandecosystemsfromdisturbance—anarrativecasestudy.EnvironmentalManagement.14:547–570.
Ziemer,R.R.1997.Temporalandspatialscales.In:Williams,J.E.;Wood,C.A.;Dombeck,M.P.Watershedrestoration:principlesandpractices.Bethesda,MD:AmericanFisheriesSociety:80–95.
Watershed Condition Framework
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
FS-977
May 2011