watershed condition framework

Watershed Condition Framework

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

FS-977

May 2011


A Framework for Assessing and Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


• 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.


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.


• 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.


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.


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:


• 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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


touseprobability-baseddesignssuchasPACFISH/INFISHBiologicalOpinion(PIBO)EffectivenessMonitoringProgram(Kershneretal.2004)andNorthwestForestPlanMonitoring(Galloetal.2005,Reevesetal.2004),ortotakeadvantageofForestServiceaquaticstatusandtrendmonitoringapproachessuchasAquaticEcologicalUnitInventory.Ourgoalistohaveacomprehensivemonitoringeffortinplacewithin5years.

Wewouldintegratethemonitoringstrategyintotheagency’soverallwatershedandaquaticevaluationprogramanduseitinanadaptivemanagementfeedbacklooptomodifytheapproachasnecessary.


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.


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.



Forest Service

FS-977

May 2011

watershed condition framework

Documents