EPA 841-B-00-008

                            September 2000
                         Watershed Analysis
                         and Management (WAN)
                         Guide for Tribes
September 200(
                   '-"'" '"""-icv-"^*' _J^fl^
                                 EPA Watershed
                                 Analysis and
                                 Management Project


The Watershed Approach provides a unique and effective way to assess the environment,
identify problems, establish priorities for preservation or restoration, and implement

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPAs) Office of "Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds (OWOW) and the American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) have
collaborated on a joint project to develop a comprehensive "Watershed Analysis and
Management (WAM) methodology that addresses Tribal and State watershed management
issues. The objective is to produce a customer-tailored watershed analysis and management
framework that includes geographic-specific analytical assessment methods and application
techniques for addressing a wide range of environmental issues. The goal is to develop
a well-defined process that recognizes the explicit objectives of multiple stakeholders and
results in watershed management plans that reflect cultural values and consider economic
impacts and critical environmental resources.  Typical problems addressed by the WAM
approach include the impact of timber operations on erosion, water quality, and fish
habitat and the impacts of various land use plans on pollutant runoff.

While each watershed area is unique and has a distinctive set of issues, a consistent
approach can be used to ensure credible and defensible evaluations. The WAM approach
utilizes five steps that can be applied to  all watersheds: Scoping (identify issues and
stakeholders); Watershed Assessment (acquire  and analyze data); Synthesis (integrate results
of the assessment); Management Solutions (develop options for improving conditions); and
Adaptive Management (monitor conditions and modify plans).

The WAM process is also sufficiently flexible to accommodate varying levels of community
participation, technical assessment, and management plan development. This guide
outlines two general levels of watershed assessment. A Level 1 assessment involves specific
guidelines, tools, and methods to characterize  watershed conditions based primarily on
existing information. This level of analysis provides a rapid means to assess a watershed and
establish priorities. For example, a Level 1  assessment would be an effective -way to address
Unified Watershed Assessments (UWAs) under the Clean Water Action Plan. A Level 2
assessment utilizes more quantitative tools and methods involving the acquisition of field
data and use of detailed scientific analyses.  This level of assessment would be utilized
for the comprehensive analysis of a watershed where major economic or environmental

issues are at stake, such as TMDLs. The Watershed Assessment is divided into
a series of technical modules (Community Resources, Aquatic Life, "Water Quality,
Historical Conditions, Hydrology, Channel, Erosion, and Vegetation) that can be used
independently and modified as necessary to meet the specific goals of the Tribe, State,
or local community.

The WAM project has been funded by a system development grant, under OWOW,
with the Pacific Watershed Institute, concurrent with pilot applications of the approach,
through AIEO grants, by tribes representing different ecological environments, project
objectives, and regulatory issues.  The four Tribes are the Penobscot Nation (Maine), the
Prairie Band of the Potawatomi (Kansas), the White Mountain Apache Tribe (Arizona),
and the Quinault Indian Nation  (Washington). Each Tribal pilot is implementing a
WAM process that addresses issues within its watershed at a level of analysis appropriate
to their needs and the available resources. The development of the WAM system and
pilot applications began in 1997  and will be completed in 2000. A related effort
using a Watershed Approach to TMDLs is being undertaken with, the Navajo Nation
in Window Rock, Arizona.

The WAM team assisted in development and training for the Clean Water Action Plan,
UWA Nationwide Tribal Workshops held in 1999. The WAM team also participated in
watershed information transfer through National  Conferences and Workshops ranging
from Tribal environmental planning through community level Smart Growth issues.
Plans for. 2000 and beyond include training workshops, participation in watershed
leadership and mentoring programs, additional community and Tribal applications, and
information transfer through participation in related conferences and workshops. The
Tribal pilots are a continuing key resource for all WAM efforts.

For additional information contact Martin Brossman at the EPA (202) 260-7023 or

Contributors to this guide include (in alphabetical order):
Dr. Mike Barbour
Jean Caldwell
Dr. Shulin Chen
Tarnmis Coffin
Jim Currie
Cygnia Freeland
Karen Welch

Layout and Graphics: 4 Point Design
Joanne Greenberg
Christy Parker Nock
Dr. Patricia Olson
Tom Ostrom
Dave Somers
E. Steven Toth
Curt Veldhuisen
This project was funded by a generous grant from the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.  Martin Brossman was invaluable in
providing guidance and encouragement on the project. The tribal pilot projects involving
the Penobscot Indian Nation (Maine), Potawatomi Tribe (Kansas), White Mountain
Apache Tribe (Arizona), and Quinault Indian Nation (Washington) provided excellent
examples for applying watershed analysis in different regions of the country and using
different approaches. These pilot projects were funded by a generous grant from the EPA's
American Indian Environmental Office.

This guide is patterned after a number of watershed analysis methods developed in the
Pacific Northwest. These efforts to promote watershed analysis have been an invaluable
source of information for this guide and include the Washington State methodology
developed for the Washington Forest Practices Board; the federal guide for watershed
analysis produced by the Regional Ecosystem Office; and the Oregon watershed assessment
manual created for the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board.
For more information on the WAM Guide and/or the Pacific Watershed Institute please
                                          Dave Somers
E. Steven Toth                             Pacific Watershed Institute
321 30th Avenue                ,.          24406 132nd Street Southeast
Seatde, WA 98122                         Monroe, WA 98272
206-860-7480                             306-794-8927
thomtoth@nwlink.com                     somers@dsomers.seanet.com


Table of Contents
The Watershed Analysis and Management Process
   Step 1: Scoping
   Step 2: Watershed Assessment
   Step 3: Synthesis
   Step 4: Management Solutions
   Step 5: Adaptive Management

Technical Modules

   Community Resources
   Aquatic Life
   Water Quality
   Historical Conditions



 Acronym List
 BIA        Bureau of Indian Affairs
 BOD       Biochemical oxygen demand
 BLM       Bureau of Land Management
 BMP       Best management practice
 Cf S        cubic feet per second
 CWA       Clean Water Act
 DO        Dissolved oxygen
 EPA       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 ESA       Endangered Species Act
 FEM A     Federal Emergency Management Agency
 GIS        Geographic Information System
 HUC       Hydrologic Unit Code
 I AC        Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
 IFIM       Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
 NCASI     National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement
 NMFS     National Marine Fisheries Service
 NOAA     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 NPDES    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
 NRCS     U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
 NWI       National Wetland Inventory
 PAHs      Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
 PCBs      Polychlorinated biphenyls
 QA/QC     Quality assurance/quality control
 RCRA     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 RIEC       Regional Interagency Executive Committee
 RUSLE     Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
 SCS       U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
 TIA        Total impervious area
 TMDL      Total Maximum Daily Load
 TSS        Total suspended solids
 USAGE     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
 USDA      U.S. Department of Agriculture
 USD!       U.S. Department of the Interior
 USFS      U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
 USFWS    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 USGS      U.S. Geological Survey
WAM       Watershed Analysis and Management
WEPP     Water Erosion Prediction Procedure
WFPB     Washington Forest Practices Board




           "Go slowly.  Respect and listen to the streams and the land.
                           They will tell you what to do."
           -Bernice Endfield, White Mountain Apache Tribal elder
Box1. WhatisWAM?
Native Americans have distinctive cultural and spiritual connections to the land.  The
collective wisdom of elders and ancestors has allowed them to carefully use and manage
                            the land for centuries.  Unfortunately, discussions of land
                            management and development have often neglected or
                            forgotten their perspective. Many landscapes have been
                            altered and often do not ade-
                            quately support resources impor-
                            tant to tribes. These resources
                            are a vital part of tribal culture
                            and need to be considered more
                            directly. The "Watershed Analysis
   The WAM process is
   a well-defined, yet
   flexible method to
   credibly examine and
   develop solutions to
   watershed problems."
Box 2. WAM objectives
and Management (WAM) process oudined in this guide is one
tool that can be used to heal and restore the bonds between the
community and the land.

"WAM offers tribes a framework to identify key environmental
issues and develop effective management solutions that protect
and restore valued resources (Boxes 1 and 2). The "WAM
process uses an ecosystem approach in
which information from various scientific
disciplines is collected to comprehensively
evaluate water-related resources within a
watershed (Figure 1). The assessment
generally relies on readily available
environmental information from maps,
reports, and existing databases. Com-
bining modern watershed assessment
techniques with indigenous knowledge
produces valuable insights about historical
conditions, resource trends, and restora-
tion opportunities (Box 3).  Credible and
effective management plans are developed
based on the comprehensive assessment.
      Characterize current and historical
      watershed conditions
     -Evaluate the cumulative effects of
      land management
      Improve protection of community
      Promote management options that
      protect watershed resources
      Develop effective restoration projects
      Design watershed-specific monitoring
                                            Figure 1. A watershed approach focuses on addressing
                                            water resource issues by river basins
WAM is a flexible process that can be
adapted to address a broad range of local

Box 3. Use of indigenous knowledge
   The Penobscot Nation, Maine
   Place names in the Penobscot language often correspond to landscape characteristics. Ancient place
   names offer clues about the nature and extent of the glacial deposits that once lined the shores
   before the gravel and sand were dug away to build roads. -Place names help describe the waterfalls
   and rapids that have since been dynamited or flooded by hydropower dams. Place names in'this
   watershed may also be Useful for identifying historical locations of salmon spawning streams, valued
   plant communities, and important spiritual sites.          '

   The White Mountain Apache Tribe, Arizona
   The WAM project manager worked closely with tribal elders and high school students on the
   reservation to identify and restore native plants and animals at important cultural sites in the Cibecue
   Creek watershed. Cultural advisors conducted field trips to identify vegetation historically present
   along streams, springs, and wetlands, and the tribal fisheries program collaborated on the examination
   of fish populations.                         ,
             issues and watershed conditions (Box 4).  WAM can also incorporate and enhance exist-
             ing tribal environmental programs to use funds and personnel most efficiendy.  Millions
             of dollars are spent to evaluate aquatic resources, conduct monitoring programs, and
             develop restoration plans, yet these projects are rarely considered collectively. The tools
             provided in die WAM process help ensure that high quality information is collected to
             develop and prioritize projects that will effectively improve the heahh of die ecosystem
             and die community.
             Watershed management is a long-term process diat requires a strong commitment. The
             benefits include not only the restoration of the environment, but also healing of the
             community. A watershed is more than just a place — it represents a community with
             important ideas and values about using and protecting their environment.

               Box 4. Examples of issues that can be addressed by WAM
                 Clean, safe drinking water
                 Condition of aquatic ecosystems
                 Point and non-point source pollution on a watershed scale
                 Land management effects on endangered.and threatened species
                 Environmental impact statements
                 Beneficial use-based water quality standards
                 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans to address water quality impairment

 WAM Design
The WAM design incorporates the following elements:

•   Involvement of the local community.
•   A focus on valued watershed and cultural resources.
•   Integration of existing environmental programs.
•   A comprehensive ecosystem approach.
•   Practical and cost-effective assessment tools.
•   Credible, interdisciplinary scientific methods.
•   Emphasis on long-term commitment to watershed management.

Ecosystem Approach	

The WAM process uses an ecosystem approach to better understand watershed conditions
and the ecological processes that influence them. An ecosystem approach emphasizes the
workings and interactions of the ecosystem resources, such as, fish, water quality, and
community resources, and processes, such as, hydrology, erosion, and vegetation growth.
This approach contrasts with traditional environmental assessments that emphasize the
understanding of individual components or interactions between a small number of

The WAM process considers key ecosystem components and the interactions among
physical and biological processes (Figure 2).  Important connections among watershed
components can be evaluated using the findings of the watershed assessment.

WAM Participation	

The WAM team is optimally led by tribal and community representatives who have interest
in watershed issues.  Environmental professionals are helpful to implement the assessment
and carefully evaluate issues in a credible and defensible manner. Tribal elders and other
long-time residents can provide local knowledge about changes in watershed conditions.
Larger and more complicated assessments may also use a facilitator to ensure effective and
organized discussion in a neutral atmosphere.

Ultimately, community-wide involvement in the WAM process is important to make long-
term changes in watershed management, but each tribe will need to determine the best


Figure 2.  Key ecosystem components
                           TO STREAM
 Qj Cattle Grazing Cattle grazing is one of many land
      use activities that can be culturally and economically
 imporrant to local communities. Grazing can impact natural
 vegetation, erosion rates, and water quality.

 Q| Physical Setting Soils from various bedrock materi-
      als have different erosion potentials and support differ-
 ent types of vegetation.                  ,

 El Climate "Weather patterns and intensity of rainfall are
      factors driving erosion processes and affecting vegeta-
 tion patterns.                           ,

 JQ Topography Slopes ate a significant factor influenc-
      ing erosion and accessibility for grazing and timber
 harvest. Slope aspect is also important in determining vege-
 tation patterns.

 fH Vegetation Type Vegetation communities provide
      many .economic resources (e.g.; timber) and cultural
 resources (e.g., medicinal plants). Reduced vegetative-cover „
 or a change in species composition can lead to increased lev-
 els of soE erosion.  ,               ,         *,  "

 §31 Riparian Zones Riparian'zones are a critical compo-
      nent of the watershed, providing habitat and ecological
 functions (e.g., sediment buffer'strip, stream shading, and
 nutrient input to streams).

 fjj Water Quality Water quality conditions dictate the ;
      type and status of aquatic life.. Sediment from elevated "
- erosion levels can eliminate habitat and introduce other pol-
 lutants to the "water column.  Increased water temperatures
 can degrade habitat for aquatic species.   > "' -   *~  ~'

 ^J Aquatic Life Pish are often ikey ecological, cultural,,
      and economic resource. Aquatic species are also good'
 indicators of watershed ecosystem health. Impacts through-"
 out the;watershed are reflected in aquatic habitat conditions.

 fm Stream Channel  The stream channel is a-dynamic
      feature of the watershed with conditions that are
 defined by a combination of natural physical characteristics.
• Land-use impacts (e.g., dams, channel dredging* or straight-  '
 ening) and natural events- (e.g., floods),can significantly   , .
 degrade channel conditions, reducing or eliminating aquatic "
 habitat Changes in sediment delivery can modify the com-*
 position of the stream bed.  Loss of streamslde vegetation can
 increase bank erosion.         ' '

pathway.  For example, the development of watershed partnerships may occur in several
stages (Box 5). Creating partnerships to reach consensus and protect valued resources
takes time.

Box 5. The Prairie Band of the Potawatomi partnership approach
   The Prairie Band of the Potawatomi first identified watershed concerns in Big Soldier
   Creek using internal staff and consultation with tribal members. Partnerships with
   the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) NaturaJ Resources Conservation Service
   (NRCS), Kansas State University, Haskell Indian Nations University, and Royal Valley'
   High School allowed the tribe to characterize watershed conditions and initiate
   streambank stabilization projects.

   Since the watershed area is much larger than the reservation and because of
   ''checkerboard" ownership within the reservation, a broader program of public
   outreach was initiated. A watershed working group was established with the larger
   community to-create"a comprehensive" resource management plan.  Building these
   partnerships will allow access to more resources, improve coordination, and develop
   support and cooperation from tribal.members, private citizens, and public agencies.
WAM Time-frames and Resource Needs
The time-frame and resources needed for the WAM process are related to the objectives
for conducting the analysis.  General planning may require only a few weeks or months.
Environmental impact statements or TMDL plans, however, may require months or years
to complete.  The actual time and costs of initiating and completing the WAM process
will vary depending on the following factors:
   Size of the watershed.
   Availability of staff and resources.
   Amount and accessibility of existing data and information.
   Complexity of the ecological and management conditions in the watershed.
   Amount of work needed to have confidence in the assessment.

                         Levels of Assessment
                         Level 1 assessment

                         Level 1 assessment relies primarily on existing information such as natural resource
                         maps and past environmental reports.  Level 1 assessment is a broad-based information
                         gathering effort that can reveal important insights about watershed functions and
                         interactions.  Level 1 assessment is qualitative and may result in lower levels of certainty
                         or confidence in the assessment results.

                         Level 2 assessment
Box 6. Logic tracking
                         In Level 2 assessment, experienced analysts utilize more data collection, quantitative
                         assessment tools, field surveys, and computer-based models to provide a higher level of
                         certainty or confidence in the assessment results. A Level 2 assessment requires more
                         time and resources than does a Level 1 assessment and may follow a Level 1 assessment
                         when results are indeterminate or vague.

                         Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The intent of the quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC) procedures embedded in the WAM
process is to reduce potential errors in the watershed
assessment, ensure the effectiveness of management
solutions, and provide repeatability and accountability.
Seven elements for meeting QA/QC objectives are
    Logic tracking refers to the documentation of the
    thought process, decisions, and results of each,
    step of WAM. There are a number of tools in WAM
    to assist in logic tracking:

    • Lists of critical questions.
    • Forms provided in each module to document
      vital information.
    • Map and data requirements in reports.
    • Review of key watershed issues.

    Logic tracking also provides quantitative and quali-
    tative information that can be used to determine the
    certainty or confidence level of the assessment
    results. Assessment methods, data sources, data
    quality, assumptions of the assessment, and limita-
    tions of the results are all documented.
1.  Joint technical and policy discussion of key
   watershed issues.
2.  Credible scientific assessment methods.
3.  Explicit treatment of uncertainty.
4.  Identification of key assumptions.
5.  Logic tracking to achieve accountability (Box 6).
6.  Direct link between watershed assessment and
   management solutions.
7- Adaptive management feedback through


 WAM Process
Figure 3. WAM five-step process
                             In the Scoping step, the
                             tribe •will determine the issues
                             to be addressed through the
                             WAM project. The Scoping
                             process also determines how
                             the community will
participate in the project. Community-wide participation
is desirable as it provides greater input on watershed issues
and helps ensure that effective management changes will be

Watershed Assessment

            A set of technical modules provides guidance
            for assessing the major ecological components
            of a watershed in a structured and coordinated
            manner (Box 7). Collectively, the modules are
designed to provide a holistic view of the watershed system.
The products from these modules are designed to provide
compatible information for use in Synthesis.
The WAM approach consists of five steps that lead the "WAM team through issue
definition, assessment, management planning, and monitoring (Figure 3).  This guide
is intended to be a basic reference for collecting important
watershed information. For more detailed analyses, the
document lists possible approaches and provides additional
technical references. In many situations, it may be infeasible
or undesirable to conduct all steps and analyses described
in this document. The WAM process should be adapted
to integrate existing environmental programs and address
priorities unique to each tribe.
     Determine watershed issues
     and project goals
     Evaluate community participation
     Determine scope of assessment
                                                                           SteP 2
     Apply technical modules
     Promote interaction among
   Combine information from modules
   Summarize key findings
              Step 4
    Develop management options
    Create management plan
              Step 5    .

    Monitor watershed conditions
    Evaluate management plan

   Box 7. Technical modules
      Resource modules identify important resources and
      determine their sensitivity to changes in environmental
            •  Community Resources
            •  Aquatic Life
            •  Water Quality
            •  Historical Conditions

      Process modules evaluate the effects of land uses or
      management practices on the environment:
            •  Hydrology
            •  Channel
            •  Erosion
            •  Vegetation
                        participants to look beyond their
                        in individual modules.

          ^\.'   -  __x£?'     The objective of Syn-
           -•*' *r  "%".!*•.
                              thesis is to combine
                              knowledge gained
                              about individual com-
      ponents of the watershed into a comprehensive
      understanding of watershed issues.  Synthesis
      focuses the assessment on the interactions among
      land use activities, watershed processes, and
      resource conditions.

      Synthesis is an interdisciplinary exercise and
      may include both technical analysts and tribal
      and other community representatives who
      participated in Scoping. Synthesis requires
respective areas of expertise and the analyses conducted
                        Synthesis results in a number of products designed to take the information generated from
                        the technical modules and create an understanding of the watershed as a system—in other
                        words, to develop the "watershed story." These products document the risks to watershed
                        resources and form the foundation for developing management solutions.

                        Management Solutions
                                         In the Management Solutions step, the information generated through
                                         Watershed Assessment and Synthesis is used to develop specific
                                         management options, monitoring needs, and restoration priorities. A
                                         management plan is developed with a number of management options
                                         to provide flexibility for implementation by the community.
                        Adaptive Management
                                   The uncertainties in our understanding of natural ecosystems and in
                                   the effectiveness of management practices require the use of Adaptive
                                   Management. Adaptive Management is the process by which new

information about the health of the watershed is incorporated into the management
plan. The Adaptive Management section provides guidelines for developing research and
monitoring programs to address gaps in information and to measure the effectiveness of
management activities.

                             Penobscot Indian Nation WAM Case Study
                            The Penobscot Indian Nation faces problems with fish passage, fish habitat, and water
                            quality in the Penobscot River Basin.  Fish consumption advisories interfere with treaty
                            reserved fishing rights.  Dams and point source discharges are known to affect tribal
                            resources, and non-point sources of pollution need to be investigated.

                            Why We Used WAM	

                            The tribe chose to participate in WAM because we knew that an ecosystem approach is
                            the only way to begin addressing cumulative impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. We also
                            chose to use WAM to develop the basis for defensible and scientifically credible tribal
                            water quality standards.
   Box 8. Penobscot Nation WAM summary
                WAM steps
Used in Penobscot WAM
      1.  Scoping
           Identify stakeholders               No, internal only
           Collect background information      Yes
           Develop critical questions           Yes
      2.  Watershed Assessment
           Resource modules
              Community Resources         Yes, Level 1
              Water Quality                 Yes, Level 1
              Aquatic Life                   Yes, Level 1
              Historical Conditions           No
           Process modules
              Channel             '         Yes, modified
              Vegetation                    No
              Erosion                      No
              Hydrology                    No
      3.  Synthesis                          Yes
      4.  Management Solutions              No, future step
      5.  Adaptive Management               No, future step
Our Application of WAM	___

The Penobscot WAM only used the first
three steps of the five-step process to
cover an entire river basin. WAM is not
usually applied to such a large geographic
area. Ours was a Level 1 characterization
because we chose to rely on data from
existing projects and because we modified
the Scoping and Watershed Assessment
steps to complete die project with existing
staff (Box 8).

Step 1: Scoping

We chose to rely on internal stakeholders
in the tribal community radier than
involving external groups. It was necessary
to clarify tribal concerns and examine
the condition of tribal resources before
opening the planning process to odier

groups. We had concerns about what the term "stakeholder" meant in terms of tribal
sovereignty and preferred the term "cooperators." Obtaining background information on
the condition of the resources in the Penobscot River Basin is a large and almost endless
task. Developing maps to show this information was the most time-consuming part of
the WAM project. Following the WAM guidance, we stated our project goals in the form
of four questions:

• What documentation exists for tribal beneficial uses of water resources within the
  Penobscot River Basin?
• What data are available on die condition of these resources?
• What data are available on the watershed processes that may affect these resources?
• What data are available on the human activities that may affect these resources?

Step 2: Watershed Assessment

We proceeded to characterize the state of knowledge  of tribal beneficial uses, water quality,
and fisheries resources, rather than conduct a full assessment using technical modules. A
watershed assessment is not complete if it focuses on watershed resources alone. We found
that it would be necessary to examine at least one watershed process, so we adapted the
Channel module for our use and added a consulting geologist to our team. This turned out
to be one of the most valuable aspects of the entire project.

Step 3: Synthesis

Synthesis was the most interesting part of initial results in the form of WAM. The four
members of the assessment team came together to share initial  results in the form of
maps and to answer each other's questions. We made new connections among watershed
resources and geological processes that affect them. For example, we learned that glacial
deposits of suitable "home rocks" for adult salmon are located in the part of the river
that Atlantic salmon can no longer reach due to removal offish passage by hydroelectric
projects. We also learned that certain glacial deposits (eskers) were associated with
groundwater inflows that provide cold water refugia for salmon. We learned diat much
geological information is contained in Penobscot language place names.
  Introduction                                                                                                  11


 The challenges we faced in our WAM project mainly related to our unfamiliarity with
 "WAM as a planning process. We found it to be more complex and involved than
 anticipated, and we took steps to simplify and tailor the process to fit our needs.  It was
 necessary to scale back our expectations and settle for a characterization of watershed
 conditions rather than an analysis of cumulative impacts.  Initially, we thought WAM
 could be done with one staff person before we learned that a team approach was
 necessary. It was a challenge to ask specialists to work together cooperatively in a
 different manner than they were accustomed to.  Dedicating staff time to long-range
 planning when daily projects needed attention was challenging but proved to be of great
 value.  We had to find a balance  between meeting our own planning needs and fulfilling
 our responsibility as a pilot project.  Mapping took far more time than anticipated and
 became the main focus of the project.


We gained a great deal from participating in the WAM pilot project.  It gave us the
opportunity to conduct long-term planning and complete base maps that we had needed
for quite some time. The interdisciplinary process yielded valuable insights.  WAM
was made flexible enough to accommodate our needs yet remained rigorous enough
to ask us to examine aspects of the watershed that we had not identified as a priority.
Participating in WAM compelled us to find a geologist to work with, and she added a
great deal to our planning and learning process.

The Watershed Analysis
and Management Process




 This portion of the guide describes the methods and tools for implementing the WAM
 process. The guide is written primarily for environmental professionals who wish to
 implement a WAM process.
 The "WAM process comprises five general steps (Figure 1).
 Detailed guidance on conducting each step is provided in the
 five corresponding sections of this manual. The following
 paragraphs provide an overview of how WAM can be used
 to meet tribal watershed management objectives. The five
 steps of the WAM process provide a logical progression
 for conducting an assessment with community involvement,
 defensible scientific analysis, and credible management,
 monitoring, and restoration plans to address watershed
 impacts. The WAM process also allows sufficient flexibility
 to accommodate varying levels of community participation,
 technical assessment, and management plan development.
 Box 1 lists definitions for some commonly used terms in the
 WAM guide.

 While this guide advocates a structured and comprehensive
 approach to watershed assessment, it is important to
 recognize that watershed-based management is an iterative
 process that requires an ongoing effort of assessment,
 planning,  monitoring, and communication.  Environmental
 programs initiated by tribes or agencies that address one
 or more of these steps may already exist.  WAM can help
 to evaluate and refine these programs to most effectively
 address watershed-scale problems. Resource management
 information will need to be collected and analyzed over
 the long term to provide a sufficient understanding of
watershed conditions. It may also take many years of
 building partnerships to create and implement a watershed
 management plan for land within and outside of reservation
                                                              Figure 1. WAM five-step process
 Determine watershed issues
 and project goals
 Evaluate community participation
 Determine scope of assessment
           Step 2   )
 Apply technical modules
 Promote interaction among

       (^ Step3 J)
Combine information from modules
Summarize key findings
          Step 4
Develop management options
Create, management plan
Monitor watershed conditions
Evaluate management plan

                              Box 1. Definitions for terms commonly used in the WAM guide
                                  •  Community resource: an environmental asset that has important cultural, eco-
                                    nomic, or spiritual value for the people of the region (e.g.,  medicinal herbs, drinking
                                    water, agricultural land, fish, wildlife).
                                  •  Delivery potential: the likelihood that a hazardous input will-be transported to a
                                    community resource.
                                  •  Hazardous input: any element of the ecosystem that can affect a community
                                    resource (e.g., sediment, nutrients, heat).
                                  •  Resource sensitivity: the responsiveness or susceptibility of the environmental
                                    asset to hazardous inputs.
                                  •  Watershed process: a natural system of interactions in the environment (e.g., water
                                    movement, erosion, nutrient cycling).
                                                       The primary purpose of Scoping is to help determine
                                                       the specific goals of the WAM process. Ideally,
                                                       the tribe together with community representatives will
                                                       decide on the "WAM objectives.  Effective changes in
                                                       watershed management usually cannot happen without broad
                                                       community involvement and support. The challenges of
                                                       community participation, however, may necessitate a phased
                            WAM approach that allows for background data collection and more communication
                            time to better address inevitable issues of jurisdiction, overlapping authorities, and risk

                            The Scoping section provides guidance on choosing the appropriate scope and level
                            of detail for the Watershed Assessment, with consideration of financial and personnel
                            resources. The Scoping section provides examples of common watershed  issues, the
                            technical modules that typically relate to each issue, and the critical questions within each
                            module that may be applicable. This information can be used to focus die assessment on
                            specific parts of the ecosystem.  Consultation among die tribe, community representatives,
                            and the technical team is encouraged to make sure that as the number of modules
                            or critical questions is reduced, the interdisciplinary and comprehensive aspect of the
                            assessment is not significantly diminished.

The Scoping section also discusses important project and information management needs.
The WAM process generates a great deal of information that can be valuable when
considered in a long-term management framework. It is important to create a process
for consistently collecting, storing, and displaying watershed data through tools such as
computer databases and geographic information system (GIS) map layers so that results can
be summarized and communicated effectively.
             The Watershed Assessment section provides guidance on managing an
             interdisciplinary technical team and conducting the assessment. The
             Technical Modules section consists of eight modules that provide methods
for evaluating various aspects of the ecosystem.  The Community Resources, Aquatic
Life, Water Quality, and Historical Conditions modules address the current and historical
distribution and condition of important resources in the watershed.  The Hydrology,
Channel, Erosion, and Vegetation modules address the physical and ecological setting of
the watershed and the effects of land use practices over time.
Separating the assessment into technical modules provides a structured approach to
ecosystem analysis and the flexibility to focus on critical watershed resources and processes.
Critical questions within each technical module provide additional flexibility to refine
the analysis and use only the applicable tools and methods. A table at the beginning
of each module lists the critical questions along with the kinds of methods or tools
available to answer the critical question.  Depending on the objectives of the analysis, some
modules or critical questions may not be necessary to complete a watershed assessment.
Alternatively, modules may be combined
into one analysis effort (Box 2).               Box 2. Combining modules
The methods and tools described in each
technical module are divided into two
categories: Level 1 and Level 2 assessment.
Any combination of Level 1 and 2
assessment can be conducted depending
on the objectives of the assessment.
Level 1 methods and tools rely on existing
information to summarize and evaluate
the current state of knowledge about the
 Combining tools and methods from multiple mod-
 ules can provide an efficient and effective assess-
 ment process. The following combination of mod-
, uJes may be desirable:
 • Community Resources/Historical Conditions
 • Erosion/Channel
 • Channef/Aquatic Life
 • Hydrology/Channel

   Box 3. Potential objectives of a Level 1 assessment
                                    watershed (Box 3). These methods and tools
                                    are described in each module as a series
                                    of steps to provide useful products and a
                                    comprehensive assessment.  This "cookbook"
                                    approach can be helpful for users who have
                                    limited resources or limited experience with
                                    watershed-scale assessments. Level 1 assessments
generally require a few weeks of work for each module, but the actual time will depend
on factors such as the •watershed size and availability of data.  Box 4 provides examples of
the products of a Level 1 assessment.
       • Summarize general watershed characteristics
       • Describe key watershed issues
       • Identify important gaps in information
       • Prioritize further assessment or monitoring needs
Box 4. Summary of possible Level 1 technical module products
   Resource Modules
   Community Resources
   •  Location of community resources
   •  Map of community resource sensitivities
   •  Ecological needs of each resource
   •  Land use impacts on each resource

   Aquatic Life
   •  Map of species distribution
   •  Assessment of habitat conditions
   •  Map of habitat sensitivities

   Water Quality
   •  Location of beneficial uses
   •  Applicable water quality criteria and standards
   •  Potential sources of pollutants
   •  Map of water quality sensitivities

   Historical Conditions
   •  Historical timeline
   •  Trends in resource conditions
   •  Map of historical sites
                         Process Modules
                         •  Climate summary      ,   '
                         •  Characterization of runoff processes
                         •  Characterization of stream runoff
                         •  Potential larid use impacts (dams, dikes, urban and rural
                            development, irrigation, and grazing)

                         •  Map of stream network
                         •  Channel classification (stream channel .gradient and'confine-
                            ment, sinuosity, or other physical features)
                         •  Map of channel types                             ',
                            Summary of land use impacts

                         •  Summary of geology and soils
                         ,•  Relationship between land use practices and erosion
                         •  Map of erosion hazards

                         •  Map of vegetation communities, riparian areas, and wetlands
                         •  List of threatened and endangered plant species
                         •  Summary of historical changes in vegetation and land use

                                          Box 5. Potential objectives of a Level 2 assessment
 The Level 2 methods and tools are more technical and typically require experienced
 analysts (Box 5). The Level 2 section of each module provides a "menu" of approaches
 that includes for each approach a general description, guidance on its appropriate use,
 and technical references for more detailed
 information.  The purpose of the Level 2
 section is to provide a  list of options for a
 detailed watershed assessment rather dian
 specific directions on how to implement
 the approach. A Level 2 assessment
 often requires field surveys and a time
 frame of several months to complete.
                                              • Supplement existing watershecTdata to test hypotheses
                                              • Establish cause-and-effect relationships among manage-
                                               ment activities and watershed conditions
                                              * Delineate specific areas that require special management
                                              • Establish monitoring requirements and criteria
                                              • Identify cost-effective restoration projects
 The methods also require a good deal
 of professional judgement to evaluate the applicability of the tools, understand the
 limitations of the methods, analyze the data, and objectively interpret the results.
 Box 6. Icons
        ' Water Quality
                                                          While the modules are
                                                          separated to provide more
                                                          flexibility in the
                                                          discussion and shared data
                                                          collection among
                                                          technical modules is an
                                                          important component of
                                                          die assessment (Box 6).
The Synthesis step provides a formal setting for integrating information on various
aspects of the ecosystem into a holistic understanding, but integration also occurs
during the Watershed Assessment. A great deal of interaction among technical module
analysts is necessary to furdier understanding of complex, interconnected ecosystem
This icon appears in the
margins of the technical •
modules to highlight parts of
the assessment for which
information exchange and
consultation with other mod-
ule analysts may be helpful.
                     The Syndiesis section describes a process to integrate the results
                     of the Watershed Assessment and to summarize important
                     findings.  Synthesis provides an opportunity for formal

interaction among different scientific disciplines to provide a more comprehensive
picture of the watershed. This part of the WAM process can also provide an
opportunity for interaction between technical and non-technical participants to improve
understanding of watershed conditions and potential interactions among land uses,
watershed processes, and community resources. In addition, Synthesis may be used to
help evaluate risks to important resources.
Management Solutions
               The Management Solutions section provides guidance on integrating
               technical information about watershed concerns into an accessible
               format that can be used to evaluate and develop management options
               and to create a management plan. Management options may include
changes in land use activities, implementation of monitoring plans, or development of
restoration plans.  The development of management options is generally more effective
with community-wide participation, but a tribe and local, state, or federal agencies may
have the ability to implement some management options on their own.
Adaptive Management
                                       Box 7. Monitoring objectives
            The Adaptive Management section describes the role of research
            and monitoring in addressing gaps in information and ensuring the
 ^^IWr    effectiveness of management solutions (Box 7). The uncertainties
            in our understanding of
natural systems and in the effectiveness
of management actions require the use
of adaptive management. Guidance
is provided to identify specific
objectives for new scientific research
or development of monitoring plans.
This information can be invaluable
for developing defensible, long-term
watershed management plans.
                                             Implementation: Evaluate whether
                                             management plan was properly
                                             Effectiveness: Examine whether
                                             the proposed changes resulted in
                                             desired effects
                                             Validation: Confirm assumptions,
                                             evaluate predictions, and research

Step i: Scoping


Through, the Scoping process, the tribe defines the direction of the assessment and
determines who will participate in the WAM process. Scoping will help organize leadership
for the Watershed Assessment and clarify project management needs. Tribes can use the
Scoping process to determine both short- and long-term project goals by evaluating the
complexity of watershed issues, community participation, staff availability, and financial
resources. Starting slowly and simply with basic watershed information can help build a
strong foundation for further assessment and watershed improvements.

This section describes various issues that need to be considered in Scoping. The first step
is an internal Scoping process to help the tribe determine WAM objectives. The tribal
objectives can then be evaluated in the context of other community needs to help prio'ritize
watershed issues and identify project goals. Scoping is by nature  an iterative process that
may require revisiting certain decisions or considering new issues. Thus, the order in which
the issues are considered is less important than the fact that they are explicitly discussed.
Scoping Process
Step Chart
The objectives of the Scoping step are as follows:

•  To identify leadership for the "WAM process.
•  To determine key watershed issues.
•  To establish WAM project goals.
•  To evaluate community participation.
•  To determine staff and funding needs.
•  To determine which modules and level of
   assessment address the project goals.
                                                                    Determine tribal WAM goals
Plan and conduct Scoping meeting
     Refine final scope of
    Watershed Assessment
Step 1. Determine tribal WAM goals
Identify leadership for the WAM process
The decision to broadly examine water-related resources can be initiated by any number
of people. The leadership for the process may come from one individual or a larger

                        group or committee. A tribal council may be the authority for ultimately approving the
                        WAM process, but the environmental program director will often be responsible for project
                        management. It will be important to determine the lines of responsibility and' authority
                        for managing the project.
                                   process can be an informal project involving just a few people or a more
                        intricate process that includes many committees and various interest groups.  If a larger
                        WAM process is being initiated, it will important to identify staff and funding resources to
                        ensure an effective management process.  A project leader may be needed to organize and
                        manage the three main groups responsible for conducting the WAM project:
Box 1. Choosing WAM project goals
   Smaller, less intensive efforts'to evaluate watershed conditions can
   yield important insights about watershed functions and interactions.
   This type of assessment can help meet a variety of goals:

   •    Educating the local community about key watershed issues.
   •    Summarizing current information on watershed conditions.
   •    Identifying important gaps in knowledge.
   •    Organizing and prioritizing future actions.
   •    Conducting pilot projects for monitoring and restoration. ~"

   Involving the local community may be particularly important when
   conducting WAM with limited resources. Staff can often be
   supplemented with help from tribal members, local citizens, and  "
   professionals at county, state, or federal agencies.

   Larger, more intensive WAM efforts can provide a more rigorous
   evaluation to identify cause-and-effect relationships in watershed
   conditions using science-based assessments. More detailed
   assessments can help meet goals such as the following:
                                                     jt    ''
   •   Educating and engaging varied interest groups in the watershed.
   •   Evaluating and supplementing existing watershed information,
   •   Identifying specific areas that require special management.
   •   Establishing watershed-specific standards for improved management.
   •   Planning cost-effective monitoring and restoration projects. "

   Larger assessments will require more financial and staff resources
  to manage the process.  Soliciting funds from various state and
  federal grants may be an important part of this process.
•   Scoping participants.
•   Watershed Assessment team members.
•   Watershed management team members.

Identify watershed issues and WAM
project goals
A WAM project is typically initiated in
response to a general watershed-scale issue,
such as the listing of an endangered species
or water quality impairment. The tribe
should define these issues as specifically
as possible to determine reasonable project
goals. Both short- and long-term goals for
die WAM process may need to be discussed
(Box 1).

The following questions may help guide the
discovery of watershed issues:

•   What are die important resources
    within the community?
•   Where are these resources located in the
•   What are the potential land use impacts
    to these resources?

The watershed issues identified may be recorded in Form SCI (Figure 1). Table 1 provides
examples of possible watershed issues by land use.
The determination of WAlvl project goals is an iterative process. The issues and goals
identified in this step may need to be redefined if the tribe chooses to open the process to

 Figure 1. Sample Form SC1. List of watershed issues
         Watershed Issue
                        Affected Resources
                                                                                  Potential Causes
 1.  Fish can no longer be eaten
    because of high levels of
                   Bass, salmon, trout
                   Food and cultural resources
                   important to tribes
                   Community recreation
                Pulp and paper mill effluent
                Stormwater runoff
                Naturally high mercury levels
 2.  Bank erosion and channel
    entrenchment limit land
    productivity and degrade water
                   Loss of farmland
                   Damage to county road
                   Loss of tribal cultural sites
                   Loss of forested floodplain
                   Reduction in stream habitat
              • Larger floods due to urbanization
              • Inadequate forested buffers along
              • Dikes and dredging
              • Historical channel straightening
Table 1. Examples of possible watershed issues
        Land Use
                              Aquatic Resources
                                                .Water Quality
Fish migrate into drainage ditches-where     During spring rains, herbicides run
dissolved oxygen levels are too low to sup-   off fields into nearby creek, increas-
port fry emergence.                       ing dissolved nitrogen levels.

New development requires that a formerly    Surface water runoff during spring
unconfined channel be taken underground.   thaw deposits sediment and road
                                       salt into nearby tributary.
Increased forest road development and'
increased culvert placement reduce fish
passage for endangered fish.
Deforested watershed contributes
sediment to channel.
Mine tailings with arsenic and other heavy   - Heavy metals concentrations exceed
metals contaminate important trout habitat,    water quality criteria in streams.

Dense concentrations of cattle disturb sen-    Nutrient loading from animals have
sitive springs and amphibian habitats.        increased algal blooms in slow-mov-
                                       ing waters.

                            the larger community or if available resources (time, staff, funding) will be insufficient
                            to meet the goals. These issues are revisited at the end of the Scoping process (Step 3).
                            Identify assessment area and scale
                            The "WAM methodology can be applied to any size area and at various scales,
                            depending on the objectives identified. "Watersheds are a convenient unit of area for
                            water-related concerns since they typically define the area that can influence riverine
                            ecosystems. Some areas of the United States such as the arid Southwest or the
                            limestone-dominated parts of the Southeast may not have easily defined topographic
                            boundaries, so other assessment boundaries may be necessary (Box 2).
Box 2.  Hydrologic unit codes and watershed boundaries
   Hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are commonly used by state and  '
   federal agencies for defining watersheds at various scales. Most watershed data from agency reports and web sites
   are organized by HUG. While HUCs may represent scales that are useful for natural resource management, they
   often do not coincide with the topographic boundaries of the watershed. Where possible, the topographic boundary ,
   of the watershed, rather than administrative boundaries, should be used to define the assessment area.

   HUCs are based on a four-level classification system that divides the United States into successively smaller
   hydrologic units. Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique HUC consisting of two to eight digits based on
   the four classification levels. The NRCS, together with other state and federal agencies, has further delineated
   fifth- and sixth-level watersheds in many states. HUCs for these additional watershed levels consist of 11 and 14
   digits, respectively, and represent a scale of a few hundred to tens of square miles. Fifth- and sixth-level HUCs are >
   generally a good scale for WAM projects.
   Example of HUCs from South Carolina (Bower et at. 1999)
    Unit Level
   Unit Name
  Hydrologic '
Unit Area (mi2)


Accounting Unit
Cataloging Unit
  (Sub-basin)  •
South Atlantic Gulf



    ' 731

030501   ,



 Defining the appropriate scale at which to conduct the assessment can be a difficult issue
 to address. Site-specific land use practices may be considered and evaluated as part of the
 Watershed Assessment; however,  conducting an assessment at this scale (typically a map
 or a photo scale of 1:5,000 or smaller) is typically not feasible or desirable given time and
 cost constraints. A larger scale such as 1:50,000 or 1:100,000 may be more economical for
 addressing larger watershed issues such as regional planning but may lack the resolution
 necessary to recommend effective management and protection strategies for addressing
 local issues within the watershed. A scale between  1:15,000 and 1:30,000 often provides
 cost-effective coverage and meaningful results that can be translated to site-specific
 projects. It should be emphasized, though, that even at this scale further work will
 inevitably be required to address problems at the site level. "Whatever scale is used, map
 products should use a consistent scale to aid comparisons and allow for map overlays.

 Identify assessment team
 The assessment team comprises environmental professionals who will use the technical
 modules or other methods to assess the watershed. As  the issues to be addressed in
 the Watershed Assessment begin to  crystallize, it may be helpful to start thinking about
 members to participate on the assessment team. The team may be composed of tribal
 natural resource department staff, or for more complex issues, such as those addressed in a
 Level 2 assessment, specialists may be used. (Table 2). The assessment team membership
will be reevaluated during the Scoping meeting.

 Table 2. Types of specialists to consult for a Level 2 assessment
    Community Resources
    Aquatic Life
    Water Quality

    Historical Conditions

 Tribal Historian, Anthropologist, or Archaeologist
• Aquatic or Wildlife Biologist
 Aquatic Ecologist, Environmental Engineer,
 Aquatic Biologist, Water Chemist, or Hydrologist
 Tribal Historian, or Librarian
 Hydrologist or Environmental Engineer
 Geomorphologist, Hydrologist, or Geologist
 Geologist, Geotechnical Specialist, Soil Scientist,
 or Geomorphologist
 'Ecologist or Botanist

                Create an information management system
                Documenting the decision-making processes, storing map data, cataloging information,
                and sharing information are key components of WAM QA/QC. The following tools can
                be used to facilitate information management:

                •  GIS to store map data and generate maps.
                •  Computer databases to store information generated in the Scoping process and
                  Watershed Assessment.
                •  Electronic mail to easily communicate with Scoping participants and assessment and
                  management team members.

                Depending on the size of the watershed and complexity of watershed issues, it may be
                helpful to choose one person whose main responsibility is to manage the storage and
                flow of information.

                Consider resource  needs and funding
                The time frame and resource needs for conducting the WAM process will depend on
                the watershed issues and project goals identified and on the scale of the assessment.
                The "WAM process is designed with two levels of assessment that can be used to
                evaluate watershed issues in a few months to several years, but the actual time and costs
                associated with the project will vary depending on the following factors:

                •  Size of the watershed.
                •  Availability of staff and resources.
                •  Amount and accessibility of existing data and information.
                •  Complexity of the ecological and management conditions in the watershed.
                •  Amount of work needed to achieve acceptable levels of confidence in the assessment.
Box 3. Potential funding needs
   Funding should be considered for
   the following project elements:
   •  Project management.
   *  Technical assistance.
   •  Assessment materials.
   •  Document production.
   •  Field monitoring equipment.
   •  GIS support.
      outlines a framework for evaluating environmental
problems and developing effective management solutions
that should increase opportunities for funding (Box 3).
Involving the local community, understanding ecological
processes, and using defensible, science-based assessment are
important elements for many state and federal grants.  Tribes
may also choose to rely on in-kind support from public
agencies or citizen groups through cooperative projects, cost-
share programs, or technical assistance, rather than seeking
additional grants (Box 4).

 Box 4. Using cooperators to support WAM
    Example from the Quinault River watershed
    The Quinault Indian Nation in Washington used a number of cooperators from federal and
    tribal agencies to complete a watershed assessment for the Quinault River watershed.
    Representatives from the USGS, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Olympic National Park,
    Olympic National Forest, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission served as team members and.provided technical assistance.

    Example from the Cibecue Creek watershed
    The White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona were able to work together with local
    ranchers to protect springs in the Cibecue Creek watershed and streams important to
    the tribe. The tribe hired members of the local livestock association to construct fencing
    around restoration areas. The investment of time and money by locaf community members,
    will help to ensure the long-term success of these projects.
 The CatalogofFederal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection (U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency [EPA] 1999) lists a variety of federal monetary grants with contacts
 and internet sites to obtain further information. It also provides a list of publications and
 private, non-profit organizations that may provide additional sources of funding.

 Evaluate community participation
 The tribe will need to evaluate the role of the non-tribal community in the WAM
 process (Box 5). Issues such as multiple jurisdictions within the watershed, multiple
 landowners, and distrust among tribal and non-tribal community members and state and
 federal agencies will present obstacles to full community participation. Understanding the
 relationships among community members will play a critical role in structuring the WAM
 process and determining who to include at various stages.

 Broad representation will create a more powerful analysis that can effectively improve
 community resources. Cooperators such as local, state, and federal agencies may be able
 to provide staff and other valuable resources to strengthen .the assessment. If the results
 of the WAM process are to  influence regulatory decisions, support applications for public
 funding, or have credibility in the affected communities, full community participation
 is desirable.

                Box 5. Citizen involvement, Flagstaff, Arizona
                  The City of Flagstaff needed to update its growth management guide. The city brought together the
                  USDA Forest Service (USFS), the State Land Department (which managed properties within the
                  city boundaries), and the National Park Service (which was slated to expand its boundaries), The
                  initial issue on the table was the interface of open space and urban areas. 'Through' discussion,
                  however, other issues arose, such as the migration of elk and other large animals across highways
                  and through residential areas, development pressures/and floodplain protection.

                  Although local, state, and federal agencies did much of the preliminary work, the group.quickly
                  opened the process to community participation. Participation was encouraged from city and county
                  representatives, the Native American population, the Sierra Club, Northern Arizona University, and
                  the citizens of Flagstaff. As the group grew and opinions were shared, the actual goals of the
                  group evolved, incorporating a more complete set of concerns from the community.

                  Adapted from EPA (1997)
                       Ideally, the Scoping participants will consist of tribal members and tribal natural
                       resources staff together with community representatives.  Potential scoping participants
                       include the following (EPA 1997):

                       •  Offices  of tribal governments
                             - Natural resources department
                             - Cultural resources department
                             - Community education department
                       •  Tribal members
                       •  Private companies and landowners whose livelihoods depend on watershed resources
                             - Farmers and ranchers
                             - Fishermen
                             - Timber companies
                             - Developers
                             - Fishing and hunting guides
                             - Utility companies
                       •  Offices  of local, state, and federal governments
                             - Local watershed organizations and conservation districts
                             - State and county departments of environmental protection

 •  Organizations that use the watershed or are concerned with watershed or land use
      - Water recreation organizations
      - Public health organizations
      - Community economic development organizations
      - Environmental groups

 Step 2.  Plan and conduct scoping meeting

 The objectives of the Scoping meeting are to 1) provide an open forum for community
 input, 2) prioritize watershed issues, and 3) determine WAM project goals. The focus of
 the Scoping meeting should be sharing information and generating ideas to help create a
 more neutral and cooperative atmosphere.

 Prepare for Scoping meeting

 Collect background material
 Maps, individually or in atlases, and other basic watershed information are readily
 available from map stores, university libraries, natural resource agencies, and the
 internet. The EPA's "Surf Your Watershed" website (http://www.epa.gov/surf) is a
 good place to  start collecting maps and other watershed information. The NRCS
 (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/TechRes.htmI) and the USGS (http://mapping.usgs.gov)
 are also good sources for maps and other landscape information.

 The following materials are helpful for Scoping and should be prepared prior to the

 •  Base map.  A topographic or GIS map with watershed boundaries, administrative
   locations (township boundaries, towns, highways, or other sites to help orient people),
   and larger waterbodies (streams, lakes, wedand complexes).
 •  Land use map. A large-scale map that generally identifies the locations of various land
   uses in the watershed.  Land zoning maps may be a useful source for this information.
 •  Land ownership map. A map that shows the general ownership pattern. A simple
   map that differentiates between public and private lands may be sufficient.
 •  Ecoregion map. A map that shows areas with relatively uniform ecological systems
   (Box 6).

                       •  Environmental maps.  Other readily available maps of vegetation communities,
                          wedands, geology, soils, or precipitation may be useful.
                       •  Watershed resources map. A map that generally shows die location of important
                          community resources such as swimming areas, drinking water sources, and critical fish
                          and wildlife habitat. This map can be refined during the Scoping meeting to capture
                          all important community resources.
                       •  Environmental reports. General reports on past and present environmental
                          characteristics such as water quality, aquatic habitat, water use, flooding history,
                          climate patterns, erosion, wetlands, or vegetation are often available from
                          environmental impact statements, hydroelectric dam licensing reports, and other
                          watershed assessments.
                       •  Photographs.  Standard and aerial photographs are often useful for illustrating various
                          watershed conditions or issues.
                  Box 6. Ecoregions
                   Ecoregions are defined as areas with a relatively uniform pattern of terrestrial and aquatic
                   ecological systems.  Delineation of ecoregions can help resource managers better understand
                   regional relationships of climate, topography, geology, soils, and vegetation that influence
                   aquatic habitats. Ecoregions can be an effective aid for inventorying and assessing  „
                   environmental resources, setting resource management goals, and developing biological criteria
                   and water quality standards. Omernik and Bailey (1997) provide a good discussion of the
                   differences between ecoregions, watersheds, and hydrologic units.

                   Two similar approaches to ecoregion mapping from the EPA (Omernick 1995) and the USF§
                   (Bailey 1987, 1995a, 1995b) are readily available. For a description of the EPA's approach  '
                   to ecoregion mapping consult the website at http://www.epa.gov/ceisweb1/ceishome/atlas/
                   bioindicators/ecoregtons_of_the_united_states.html.  Level jll and IV mapping will be most ,
                   useful for WAM. For information on the USFS approach to ecoregion mapping, consult  /
                   the publication "Ecological subregions of the United States" (http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/
                   ecoregions/ecoregions.html). Ecoregion mapping at the section or subsection scale will be
                   most useful for WAM. This report also has an extensive bibliography with maps and other
                   information on landscape characteristics organized by region.
                        Organize meeting logistics
                        Depending on die scale and amount of community participation for the Scoping
                        meeting, die following preparations may need to be made:

  •  Select a convenient time and location. An evening meeting may be necessary to
    get fiill community participation.  A neutral meeting place such, as a school or
    community center may be preferable to tribal or other government agency offices.
  •  Develop an agenda. A list of discussion topics and a schedule should be provided
    prior to the meeting. Try to solicit speakers from various agencies and interest groups
    to share information and discuss projects being conducted in the watershed.
  •  Prepare meeting notices and invitations. The Scoping meeting can be advertised
    in local newspapers, newsletters, or other public forums. Invitations to community
    groups or individuals may also be sent out along with an information packet. The
    information packet could include one or more of the following items:
       - A general watershed map.
       - A summary of watershed issues.
       - A synopsis of the WAM process.
       - A meeting agenda.
       - A questionnaire about community concerns.
 •  Promote focused discussion. It will be important to clearly define objectives for
    the meeting and encourage sharing of ideas and opinions by asking questions and
    checking for consensus. A facilitator may be useful to help mediate discussions and
    stay on schedule.
 •  Record ideas  and minutes for meeting. Two people will often be needed to help
    record ideas on a flip chart and to summarize the minutes of the meeting. For
    less formal meetings, volunteers from the Scoping participants may be used to help
    record this information.

 The following sources provide more information on conducting such meetings:

 •  Leadership Skills: Developing Volunteers for Organizational Success (Morrison 1994).
 •  Solving Community Problems by Consensus (Carpenter 1990).
 •  The "Know Your Watershed" website (http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW).

 Conduct Scoping meeting

 Prioritize key watershed issues
 One crucial output from Scoping is identification of key watershed issues concerning
 human activities that may be impacting a community resource. The watershed issues
 should outline the perceived connections between human land use, the response in
 watershed conditions, and community resource impacts.

Scoping                 .

                       Visually displaying the location of community resources and areas of concern can be a
                       useful organizational and learning tool for Scoping participants. To promote interaction
                       and discussion, participants can be asked to draw locations of community resources
                       directly onto a land use map. Alternatively, the land use and watershed resource
                       locations can be combined on one map or placed on clear mylar to allow for map
                       overlays. Any other readily available information on die watershed can also be used
                       in a map overlay fashion to illustrate connections between landscape and resource

                       The tribal community may have already determined dieir key watershed issues (Step 1)
                       and at this stage can share diem with the larger watershed community. Community
                       participants may identify new issues  or emphasize different aspects of issues that will
                       require changing or broadening "WAM project goals.

                       Establish WAM project goals
                       A number of topics need to be considered as the Scoping group starts to  establish WAM
                       project goals. The tribe may want to share their project goals (Step 1)  and solicit input
                       from the community on the objectives and approach of the proposed WAM project.
                       The tribe will have likely discussed die following issues internally but may need to
                       review them with the Scoping participants:

                       •  Group organization.
                       •  Scope of assessment.
                       •  Assessment level of detail.
                       •  Staff and other available resources.
                       •  Assessment team composition.
                       •  Information management.
                       •  Funding and other support.
                       •  Schedule.

                       Tribal project goals may be expanded or refined based on community responses.
                       Discovering funding or partnership opportunities may expand the scope of the
                       Watershed Assessment and allow the WAM project to meet broad community goals.
                       Once the WAM-project goals are finalized, record them on Form SC2 (Figure 2).

 Figure 2. Sample Form SC2. WAM project goals
Project Goal Level
Document tribal cultural sites in the watershed.
Document historical and current distribution of fish.
Create digital maps showing stream classes, irrigation diversions,
dams, and water quality impairment.
Create an inventory of culturally significant plants used by the tribe.
Summarize current knowledge of watershed conditions and
available documentation.
Increase communication between the tribe and other community
members and education opportunities.
Evaluate the effectiveness of stream restoration projects over the
past five years.
Evaluate the impacts of forestry, agriculture, and urbanization on
fish habitat conditions.
Examine the potential causes of increases in the frequency and
size of floods.
Create a watershed management plan with multiple options for
changing land use practices and restoration projects.
Create a TMDL plan for streams that do not attain the water
temperature standard.
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 2
Level 2
Level 2
Level 2
Step 3. Refine final scope of watershed assessment

Scoping participants should review the key watershed issues and project goals with the
assessment team or technical advisors. This discussion will help to ensure that the
"Watershed Assessment will meet the proposed project goals. The technical advisors
should comment on the following questions:

•  Which modules are needed to address the key watershed issues?
•  Which critical questions need to be addressed by the Watershed Assessment?
•  Where  are Level 1 methods sufficient to meet project goals?'
•  Where  are Level 2 methods necessary to meet project goals?
•  Are there sufficient resources available to conduct the assessment?

                             •  What is a realistic schedule to complete the Watershed Assessment?
                             •  What issues will require long-term data collection?

                             A useful tool for outlining the watershed issues and assessment needs is the creation
                             of conceptual models. Figure 3 is a conceptual model illustrating components of the
                             ecosystem that would need to be considered to evaluate impacts of catde grazing. Each
                             component of the model has an associated technical module to illustrate the potential
                             scope of the assessment. Within the technical modules, critical questions are provided
                             that can be used to further refine the scope of the assessment.  Table 3 lists some ,
                             common watershed issues  and die modules and associated critical questions that address
                             each issue.

                             Technical advisors may want to discuss hypotheses about watershed processes and
                             resource impacts. The process of generating hypotheses is discussed in more detail in the
                             Watershed Assessment section. These hypotheses may also help in determining the scope
                             and level of assessment necessary to meet project goals.  Hypotheses related to issues
                             identified in Figure 3 might include the  following:

                             •  Grazing on highly credible soil contributes the majority of sediment to streams.
                             •  Natural soil erosion causes high turbidity measurements.
                             •  Grazing has altered vegetation communities and increased stream temperatures.
                             •  Erosion from grazing is only a problem on steep slopes near streams.
                             •  Floods are responsible for increased bank erosion.
                             •  Grazing has significandy increased bank erosion and altered aquatic habitat.

                             If significant changes are proposed in the scope of the Watershed Assessment, it may be
                             necessary to review the issues with all Scoping participants. Any changes in die project
                             goals should be reflected on Form SC2.
 gage                                                                                                    Scoping

 Figure 3.  Conceptual model for evaluating grazing impacts

  ••  Cattle Grazing (Community Resources module):  Cattle grazing is
       one of many land use activities that can be culturally and
 economically important to local communities. The goal of
 watershed assessment is to ensure that these activities are
 conducted in a manner that can be sustained and that does         ••
 not negatively impact the ecosystem.
  ••j  Physical Setting (Erosion module): Identifica-
       tion of soils and parent material is essential to
 understanding erosion processes. Soils from various
 bedrock materials have different erosion potentials and
 support different types of vegetation.

  fM  Climate (Hydrology module): Consideration
       must be given to weather patterns and intensity
 of rainfall as factors driving erosion processes and
 affecting vegetation patterns.

  mm  Topography (Hydrology module): Slopes are a
  ^^  significant factor influencing erosion and accessi-
 bility for grazing. Slope aspect is also important in deter-
 mining vegetation patterns.
  __  Vegetation Type (Vegetation module): Information on
  •*  current and historical conditions of vegetative cover can be
 critical to understanding system capacity (e.g., grazing intensity) and
 changes over time due to historical uses (e.g., reduced forage). Reduced
 vegetative cover or a change in species composition can lead to increased levels
 of soil erosion.
 fjl  Riparian Zones (Vegetation and Aquatic Life modules): Riparian zones are a critical
       component of the watershed, providing habitat and ecological functions (e.g., sediment buffer
 strip, stream shading, and nutrient input to streams).

 R|  Water Quality (Water Quality module):  Water quality conditions dictate the type and status of aquatic life.
       Sediment from elevated erosion levels can eliminate habitat, warm water to critical levels, and introduce
 other pollutants to the water column.

 Mj  Aquatic Life (Aquatic Life module): Fish are often a key ecological, cultural, and economic resource.
       Aquatic species are also good indicators of watershed ecosystem health. Impacts throughout the watershed
 are reflected in aquatic habitat conditions.

 H  Stream Channel (Channel module): The stream channel is a dynamic feature of the watershed with condi-
       tions that are defined by a combination of natural physical characteristics. Changes is sediment delivery can
 modify the composition of the stream bed, and loss of streamside vegetation can increase bank erosion.

            Table 3. Examples of watershed issues and applicable modules and critical questions
                  Watershed Issues
                                                                                     Critical Questions*


                                          Historical Conditions
                        HI: What is the seasonal variability in streamflow?
                        H7: What are the potential land-use impacts to hydrologic
                        processes in the watershed?
                        C2: How do climate and the frequency, magnitude, duration,
                        and timing of floods affect channel conditions?
                        HC2: What are the natural setting and disturbance regimes in
                        the watershed?
                  Drinking water
Water Quality

Community Resources
WQ2: What water quality parameters do> not meet the standard
and for what time period?
H6: For which beneficial uses is water primarily used in the
watershed, and are surface water or groundwater withdrawals
CR4: What processes or land-use activities may be impacting
community resources?
                                          Community Resources
                                          Aquatic Life

V4: Does existing upland, riparian, or wetland vegetation differ
substantially from historical conditions?
V6: What are the important functions of riparian vegetation
relative to watershed processes?
CR2: Where are community resources located?
A3: What are the requirements of various life history stages of
the aquatic species?
H5: What water control structures are present in the watershed?
C5: How and where have changes in riparian vegetation
influenced channel conditions?
                 Algae blooms/
Water Quality
Aquatic Life
WQ7: What causes excessive algae growth or eutrophication?
AS: What connections can be made between past and present
human activities and current habitat conditions?
                 Water temperature
Water Quality

Aquatic Life

WQ2: What water quality parameters do not meet the standard
and for what time period?
A3: What are the requirements of various life history stages of
the aquatic species?
V6: What are the important functions of riparian vegetation
relative to watershed processes?
                 Loss of medicinal/
                 food plants
Community Resources

CR2: Where are community resources located?
CR4: What processes or land-use activities may be impacting
community resources?
V1: What are the primary vegetation categories that exist in
upland areas?
V4: Does existing upland, riparian, or wetland vegetation differ
substantially from historical conditions?
               * H1 = Module and critical question number
                 Modules:  A = Aquatic Life
                           C = Channel
                           CR = Community Resources
               E = Erosion
               H = Hydrology
               HC = Historical Conditions
                  V = Vegetation
                  WQ = Water Quality

Table 3. (continued)
     Watershed Issues
                                                                         Critical Questions*
     Wetlands functions
     and values


Aquatic Life

Community Resources
H3: What are the roles of groundwater and natural storage
features in the watershed?
V3: What are the primary vegetation categories that exist in
wetland areas?
V7: What are important functions of wetland vegetation
relative to watershed processes?
A3: What are the requirements of various life history stages of
the aquatic species?:
CR2: Where are community resources located?
     Bank erosion


                              Water Quality
                        E10: How significant a sediment source is streambank
                        erosion, and how have erosion rates changed over time?
                        H1: What is the seasonal variability in streamflow?
                        V6: What are the important functions of riparian vegetation
                        relative to watershed processes?
                        C1: How does the physical setting of the watershed influence
                        channel morphology?
                        C3: How and where has the behavior of the channel changed
                        over time?
                        WQ9: What conditions lead to excessive turbidity?
     Fish consumption
Aquatic Life

Water Quality
A2: What are the distribution, relative abundance, population
status, and population trends of the aquatic species?
WQ5: What causes fish consumption advisories?

                              Aquatic Life

                              Historical Conditions
                        H5: What water control structures are present in the watershed?
                        C10: How does the presence and management of dams and
                        levees affect channel conditions?:
                        AS: What connections can be made between past and present
                        human activities and current habitat conditions?
                        HC3: Where and when have landscape changes occurred in
                       .the watershed?
     Threatened or
     endangered aquatic
Aquatic Life




A5: What connections can be made between past and present
human activities-and current habitat conditions?
A2: What are the distribution, relative abundance, population
status, and population trends of the aquatic species?
C11: What is the potential for change in channel conditions
based on geomorphic characteristics?
El 2: What are the primary sources of sediment delivery to
V6: What are the important functions of riparian vegetation,
relative to watershed processes?
H6: For which beneficial uses is water primarily used in the
watershed, and are surface water or groundwater withdrawals
     H1 = Module and critical question number
     Modules:  A = Aquatic Life
                C = Channel
                CR = Community Resources
               E = Erosion
               H = Hydrology
               HC = Historical Conditions
                   V = Vegetation
                   WQ = Water Quality

                            Bailey, R. G. 1987.  Mapping ecoregions to manage land. Pp 82-85 in: 1987 Yearbook
                                   of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

                            Bailey, R. G. 1995a.  Ecosystem geography. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.

                            Bailey, R. G. 1995b.  Descriptions of the ecoregions of the United States,
                                   second edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Miscellaneous
                                   Publication No. 1391, Washington, D.C.

                            Bower, D. E., C. Lowry, Jr., M. A. Lowery,  and N. M. Hurley, Jr. 1999.
                                   Development of a 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code numbering system
                                   for South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources  Investigations
                                   Report 99-4015, Reston, Virginia.

                            Carpenter,S. 1990.  Solving community problems by consensus. Program for
                                   Community Solving, Washington D.C.

                            Morrison, E. K.  1994. Leadership skills: Developing volunteers for organizational
                                   success.  Fisher Books, Tucson, Arizona.

                            Omernik, J. M.  1995. Ecoregions: A spatial framework for environmental
                                   management. Pp. 49-62 in: W. Davis andT. Simon (eds.). Biological assessment
                                   and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis
                                   Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

                            Omernik, J. M., and R. G. Bailey. 1997. Distinguishing between watersheds
                                   and ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
page                                                                                                 Scoping

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Community-based environmental
        protection: A resource book for protecting ecosystems and communities. EPA
        230-B-96-003, Washington, DC.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Catalog of federal funding sources
        for watershed protection, second edition. EPA 841-B-99-003, Office of Water
        (4503F), Washington, D.C.

                       Form SC1.  List of watershed issues
                            Watershed Issue
Affected Resources
Potential Causes

         Form SC2. WAM project goals
                                   Project Goal
      -  Scoping


> Step 2: Watershed


The Watershed Assessment step relies on an
interdisciplinary scientific approach to gather
information about ecosystem processes, resource
conditions, and historical changes due to the
cumulative effects of management practices.  Various
aspects of the ecosystem are evaluated using a series of
technical modules that provide guidance on analyzing
watershed conditions (Box  1). Each technical module
contains a description of methods and tools that can be
customized to address the watershed issues and project
goals identified in Scoping.
                                                        Box 1. Technical modules
                                                          Resource modules identify important
                                                          resources'and determine resource sensitivi-
                                                          ties to changes in environmental conditions:
                                                          > •  Community Resources
                                                           •  Aquatic Life
                                                           •  Water Quality
                                                           «  Historical Conditions
                                                          „ Process mo'dules identify impacts caused by
                                                           land uses or management practices:
                                                           •  Hydrology
                                                           •  Channel
                                                           •  Erosion  >
                                                           •  Vegetation
Watershed Assessment Process
Step Chart
                                                                 Conduct assessment using
                                                                    technical modules
The objectives of the Watershed Assessment
step are as follows:

•  To define the type of technical analyses
   necessary to meet WAM project goals.
•  To conduct defensible, science-based assessment
   at a watershed scale.
•  To promote interaction among scientific
•  To identify connections among ecosystem
   processes, resource conditions, and human
•  To effectively summarize watershed conditions, land management influences, and
   information gaps.
                                                             Conduct assessment team orientation
                                                                Conduct pre-Synthesis meeting

V  //
                         Step 1. Conduct assessment team orientation

                         The composition of the assessment team -will depend on the scope of the Watershed
                         Assessment. A team leader is always important to coordinate logistics and to manage the
                         assessment team.  The team leader should make sure that assessment team members are
                         acquainted with the watershed (e.g., by distributing maps used in Scoping) and with the
                         WAM process (e.g., by providing copies of the WAM guide or a technical module). The
                         team leader will also be responsible for producing the Watershed Assessment report. Table 1
                         provides a list of materials that are typically necessary for a Level  1 assessment.
Table 1. Typical Level 1 assessment information needs

USGS topographic maps
Watershed base map
Land use map
Ecoreglon summary
Geology maps
Soils map
Slope class map Of GIS available)
Aerial photos
Rsh habitat surveys
Channel modification information
Mean annual precipitation data
USGS stream gage data
Existing vegetation maps
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps
Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) floodplain map
Water quality data and reports
305 (b) list of state waterbodies
303 (d) list of state waterbodies
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings
or state endangered species
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permit compliance data
- •
' •



• -



" •


, •
• „ ,



• "

„" -



< •
, •
' '

• '

• *

• -

• ,

• '
, *
• ,

„ f
, •

• -



- •
V /"
' '
> .' •
», ' '
' '

, /
< \
< ,
f ,

•• ' .

- -.

> '
, •"
' " •,„
, " •


The team leader should organize an initial meeting of the assessment team to do the

•  Introduce team members.
•  Distribute a team contact list.
•  Clarify assessment objectives and hypotheses (Box 2).
•  Identify sources and availability of watershed data, aerial photos, maps, and
   environmental reports.
•  Assign responsibilities  for data collection and analysis (Box 3).
•  Discuss assessment product requirements such as maps and reports.
•  Establish assessment schedule.
•  Note travel issues, such as gate keys, permission for access, and safety.
•  Conduct a field tour of the watershed.
 Box 2. Generating hypotheses
 Generating hypotheses is a vital part of any scientific assessment Hypotheses can help to determine
 the required scope of assessment and to focus data collection and analysis on specific objectives. A
 hypothesis is defined as an assumption that needs verification or proof.  Hypotheses are clearly defined
 statements that can be evaluated during the Watershed Assessment. Data from the assessment can
 then be used to support or disprove the hypotheses. Often, further data collection and evaluation of
 competing hypotheses are necessary following the initial Watershed Assessment.

 Using a hypothesis to guide the watershed assessment
Grazing has increased the amount of fine sediment on the'streambed due to
soil compaction and trampling of the streambank.
 Level 1 Assessment:  The Erosion module identifies soil types.that are most susceptible to
                      disturbance from grazing. The Channel modute maps bank disturbanceyfrom
                      aerial photos. The Aquatic Life module analyzes stream survey data on the"
                      percentage of fine sediment in streams.

 Level 2 Assessment:  The'Erosion module quantifies erosion from different land management
            ,  ,       practices on various soil types. The Channel module quantifies bank erosion
                      using field surveys and.predicts sediment transport capacity-of streams. The
                      Aquatic Life module identifies potential fish spawning sites and measures fine
                      sediment in streambed.

Box 3. Emphasizing an interdisciplinary approach
  Many of the tasks conducted by individual analysts during the
  Watershed Assessment will generate useful information for other
  people on the assessment team. Sharing this information'during
  the assessment will improve each module's evaluation and prepare
  the team for a productive Synthesis session. Within each technical
  module, arrow icons like the one shown below identify opportunities
  for sharing information with other module analysts. Data, prelimi-
  nary conclusions, and other ideas can be shared using email, infor-
  mation-sharing software, fax, or telephone.
  During the team orientation, it will be help-
  ful to delineate sub-basins together so that
  areas of special interest can be analyzed at
  a similar scale. The assessment team
  should also discuss opportunities for joint
  data collection (e.g., stream surveys to col-
  lect data for the Water Quality, Aquatic Life,
  Channel, and Hydrology modules).
Water Quality
 Issues such as financial resources
 and assessment team participation
 will typically be addressed during
 the Scoping process, but as the
 assessment objectives are clarified,
 a reevaluation with Scoping
 participants may be useful.

 Step 2. Conduct assessment
 using technical modules

 Each module analyst should review
 the appropriate technical module
 and customize the methodology as
' necessary to address the specific
 •watershed issues and project goals
 identified during Scoping. The
 technical modules are located in the
 third section of this guide.
                  The assessment team leader should periodically monitor the progress of the Watershed
                  Assessment. The team leader may need to ensure that information sources are being shared
                  and dialogue and interaction are occurring among team members. If GIS is being relied
                  upon for analyses or map production, the team leader should coordinate regularly with the
                  GIS specialist(s) to ensure a smooth and efficient transfer of information.

                  Step  3. Conduct pre-Synthesis assessment team meeting

                  A meeting of the assessment team prior to beginning the more formal Synthesis process is
                  usually helpful to accomplish the following:

                  • Discuss interim findings and conclusions.
                  • Refine hypotheses based on shared information.
                  • Identify further assessment work needed.
                  • Review schedule and objectives.

Technical module analysts should be prepared with preliminary maps, tables, and graphs to
summarize their findings. Preparing this material prior to Synthesis helps to organize the
assessment results and identify gaps in information. Most of the material can also be used
during Synthesis and in the module reports.



Step 3: Synthesis


The Synthesis step of the "WAM process provides an opportunity for interaction among
the module analysts to provide a more comprehensive picture of the watershed. These
discussions often lead to new insights about important watershed processes and the
status of community resources.
Synthesis Process
Step Chart
                                                                  Identify connections between land use
                                                                   practices and resource impairment
 The objectives of the Synthesis step are as follows:

 •  To share information generated from each
   technical module.
 •  To identify important interactions among land
   uses, watershed processes, and community
 •  To summarize key watershed issues to be
   addressed in the Management Solutions step.
 •  To determine potential future actions for
   key watershed issues (e.g., Level 2 analysis,
   management practices, restoration plans, and
   monitoring plans).

Step 1. Prepare for the Synthesis process

The Synthesis process is organized and facilitated by
the assessment team  leader. The module analysts
are the primary participants, but other community
members may also be interested in following the
process. The team leader will need to notify
potential participants and schedule Synthesis meetings. Synthesis meetings may last
from two days to a few weeks, depending on the complexity of watershed issues and the
                                                                    Produce Watershed Assessment report

scope of the assessment. If more than two to three days will be required to complete            ^P
the Synthesis process, it is advisable to spread out die meetings over two to three weeks.         W
A break between Synthesis sessions is not only important to maintain the focus of the           ^p
participants, but it also allows for follow-up work to address questions raised during            ^
Synthesis or to fine-tune the assessment.                                                    A
At the Synthesis meetings, the assessment team members should be prepared to present         ^
the results of their respective modules along with appropriate maps and forms. The
checklist provided in Box 1 summarizes the important products from each module.             ^
Depending on the scope of the assessment, some of these products may not have been          ^f
created. Ideally, the analysts would have a draft of their module reports prepared to            Wv
document that all necessary work has been completed and to help focus on information         ^t
needs of or linkages with other modules.  Completion of maps and forms will help make        ^
the Synthesis meetings effective and efficient.                                               ^fc
A number of general Synthesis questions  that may need to be addressed by each module         ^
are presented in Box 2. These questions illustrate the types of issues addressed by the
Synthesis process and may not be appropriate for all watershed assessments.                    ^

Step 2. Present Watershed Assessment results                                        9
If some Synthesis participants are unfamiliar with the WAM process, the team leader           A
should orient participants on the purpose of the Watershed Assessment, the issues              ^fc
identified in Scoping that were investigated by the assessment team, and the role of            A
Synthesis meetings in the "WAM process.                                                   ^
The first day of Synthesis meetings is typically devoted to presentations of information         ^
gathered by the assessment team.  Presentations should be tailored to the knowledge            9
and experience  of the participants in the Synthesis meeting (Box 3). After each                V
presentation, additional time will typically be required to discuss the findings and              ^)
consider information from other module analysts. The total time for each module             A
presentation and discussion should be no more than one hour so that all the                   A
presentations can be completed in a day.                                                    A
                                                                        c,   ,

Box 1. A checklist of module products needed for Synthesis
 Community Resources
 Aquatic Life
 Water Quality
 Historical Conditions
 D Map CR1. Community resources
 D Form CR1. Categorization of community resources
 D Form CR2. Trends in community resource conditions

 Q Map A1. Aquatic species distribution
 D Map A2. Aquatic habitat distribution
 D Map A3. Aquatic habitat conditions
 D Form A1. Summary of hypotheses

 D Map WQ1. Water quality impairments
 D Form WQ1. Summary of water quality conditions

 D Map HC1. Historical sites
 D Form HC1. Historical timeline
 D Form HC2. Trends in watershed  resource conditions

 D Map H1. Water control structures
 D Form H1. General watershed characteristics
 O Form H2. Summary of hydrologic issues by sub-basin

 D Map C1. Channel segments
 IU Map C2. Geomorphic channel types
 D Form C1. Historical channel changes
 D Form C2. Geomorphic channel type characteristics

 D Map E1. Land types
 D Form E1. Summary of erosion observations
 D Form E2. Summary of land type characteristics

 D Map V1. Upland vegetation
 IU Map V2. Riparian/wetland vegetation
 D Map V3. Land use practices that  affect vegetation
n Form V1. Vegetation category summary

Box 2. Synthesis questions
Community Resources
•  What are the ecological needs of community resources relative to hydrology, erosion, stream conditions,
   vegetation, and water quality?

Aquatic Life
•  What are the habitat requirements of aquatic life in the watershed?
•  How is aquatic life affected by interactions among erosion, hydrology, riparian function, water quality,
   and stream channel processes?
•  How is the distribution of aquatic species influenced by natural conditions?

Water Quality
•  How have resources in the watershed been affected by pollutants?
•  How do natural conditions in the watershed influence water quality in various waterbodies?
•  How do natural conditions in the watershed influence the transport and fate of pollutants in the
•  How have land use practices influenced water quality conditions in the watershed?  ~              ^

Historical Conditions                                        '        '~i"                    "
•  When have land use/management changes altered watershed conditions?

Hydrology                                                                     ,
•  How do climate, geology,  and topography influence surface and sub-surface water flow through the
•  How has land use altered the flow of water through the watershed?
•  How have alterations in the flow of water influenced conditions for resources?

Channel                                    „                          ,
•  How do watershed climate, geology, and topography influence runoff, sediment transport, and aquatic
   habitat conditions?                     t                  ,                  ,      '       "  ~
•  How do channel conditions influence physical and biological processes in-the streams?'
                                         *                   "          *  ^   "     ~     ~      •>:
Erosion                                                                       I    *,   '
•  How do the climate, geology, and topography of the natural landscape influence sediment generation
   and transport in the watershed?                      >             '              '  ,
•  How do land use activities change the frequency and magnitude of erosion at a watershed'scaie?  •
•  How have alterations in the flow of water influenced conditions for-resources?  f    _,       --  •

•  How have vegetation communities changed over time, and what has caused these changes?
•  What riparian and wetland functions are important for protecting aquatic habitat, water quality, or other ,
   community resources?                                ,

 Box 3. Assessment team presentations
     Each module analyst should present the following information: -
    '• Module objectives and critical questions.              *
     • A brief description of materials and methods.
    "• A summary of results using maps, figures, and tables.
     • A discussion of the findings and the relationship to other modules.
 Step 3. Identify connections between land use practices and resource
 After the first day of assessment team
 presentations, the Synthesis meetings
 should focus on outlining the linkages
 between modules and summarizing
 watershed issues. Depending on the
 complexity of watershed issues, the amount
 of available information, and the size of the
 watershed, this step may require from one
 to several days to complete.

 Oudining potential connections among
 land use practices, watershed processes,  and
 community resources can be approached
 from a number of angles. In a Level 1
 assessment, starting with a resource is
 typically a good way to begin developing
 potential explanations or hypotheses for
 impairment (Box 4).  Information from
 various modules can provide insight on  the
 potential for delivery of hazardous inputs
 or the influence of natural conditions on
 the state of the resource.  The Synthesis
 group should work together in developing
various hypotheses and identifying the
most promising hypodieses as  watershed
Box 4. An example of identifying connections between
an impaired resource and land-use practices
  Step 1. identify Impaired Beneficial Resource
  One of the critical issues in the Penobscot River basin, Maine, is a fish
  'consumption advisory due to contamination with mercury, dioxin, and
  PCBs. Fish are an important cultural resource for the Penobscot Indian
  , Nation, and angling is-an important recreational activity for the entire
  watershed community:

  Step 2. Identify Potential Sources of Impairment
  Potential sources of these pollutants include discharge of wastewater
  from paper mills, contaminated sediments in the PenobscotRiver, aero-
  sol deposition from industrial smokestacks,,and naturally occurring mer-
  cury-bearing rocks.

  Step 3. Identify Relevant Watershed Processes and Data Needs
  Water chemistry data are important for identifying potential point source
  discharges. Stream sediment composition, pollutant load, and transport
  characteristics are important data to determine the significance of this
  source of pollutants. Geology information may also be crucial for identi-
  ,fying potential natural sources of mercury.  Since fluctuating water levels
  'allow mercury to be methylated and thus susceptible to uptake by bio-
 " logical organisms, information on changes in streamflow and dam oper-
  'ations may also be.important.

  Step 4. Identify Promising Hypotheses and Information Gaps
  Point source discharges of pollutants from wastewater and smokestacks
  are the most likely sources of impairment. Little information  exists on
  contaminated sediments and the potential for biological uptake, but this
  is potentially an important source. A review of geologic data revealed
  that rocks in the area contain minimal amounts of mercury,

                           Hypotheses should be scrutinized based on the following:

                           • An evaluation of plausible alternatives.
                           • Existence of supporting scientific data.
                           • Different lines of supporting evidence.
                           • The ability of factors to amplify or attenuate an effect.

                           Evaluating hypotheses will help to identify gaps in knowledge, increase confidence in
                           cause-and-effect relationships, and prioritize future actions.

                           The Synthesis group may find that in some cases it is easier to develop hypotheses
                           around a landscape sensitivity or land management practice.  Landscape sensititivities
                           might include a landform that is particularly susceptible to erosion or a vegetation
                           community that is easily disturbed.  Land management practices that are consistently
                           causing problems can also be the focus of a hypothesis.  For example, forest road
                           construction within 100 feet of streams may consistently cause sedimentation problems,
                           or stormwater discharge into shallow lakes may cause an increase in algae bloom size
                           and duration.

                           Step 4. Summarize watershed issues
Box 5. Organizing watershed issue, example
from the Penobscot River basin, Maine
Watershed issues can be categorized in three general ways: 1) by community resource,
2) by hazardous input (e.g., pollutant), or 3) by land use practice (Box 5). Categorizing
watershed issues is a subjective process, but it is important to provide detailed
information on the issues in a form that the Scoping participants and the management
                            team can understand and use to make decisions. The
                            following details should be provided for each issue:
  The Penobscot River Basin has a number of benefi-
  cial resources impacted by point source discharge
  of pollutants such as PCBs, dioxin, and mercury
  (Box 4). The issue of mercury loading is sufficiently
  complex and different from the other pollutant issues
  to merit consideration on its own. While impairment
  of resources was the focus of initial discussions, the
  watershed issues in this case were more logically
  organized according to the hazardous inputs:
  1) PCBs and dioxin, and 2) mercury.
                            •  The management activities potentially, causing
                            •  The location of hazardous inputs.
                            •  The location of sensitive resources.
                            •  The mechanism of impairment.
                            •  Data and other evidence to support conclusions.

                            At this point, it will be helpful to review the issues
                            identified during Scoping in light of the Watershed

 Assessment and the discussion of hypotheses. Based on this discussion, general
 watershed issues identified during Scoping may need modification to better reflect
 current knowledge or to highlight specific concerns. New watershed issues may also be
                                 Box 6. Information to include in Form S1. Summary of watershed issues
 Form Si provides a template
 for summarizing important
 watershed issues
 (Box 6, Figure 1). Form SI
 is one of the primary products
 of the Synthesis process and
 will be a key element of
 the last two WAM steps:
 Management Solutions and
 Adaptive Management. The
 following paragraphs describe
 each element of Form SI in
 further detail.
Watershed Issue:
Situation Summary:
 Community Resource, Hazardous input, or Land Use
 	..	ft	._	t___	?	,.
 Sub-basin, Stream Segment, Waterbody, or Landform
 (reference maps and figures as necessary)
 	—,—,	*... .„_,	•»> 	...<-..  ,, , .:	  h 	
 Input from Watershed, Time Frame, Watershed Proc-
 ess, Hazard Location, Management Activity, Delivery
 Conditions," Sensitive Resource Location, Channel
 and Resource Effects
 Level 2 Assessment, Management Changes, Restora-
 tion Plan, or Monitoring Plan

 Supporting Data,'Criteriafor Resource Sensitivity,
- Deliven/Potential, Confidence in Assessment
 Watershed Issue: The community resource, hazardous input, or land use practice that
is the focus of the issue should be clearly identified.

Location:  The area affected by the particular watershed issue should be referenced
as specifically as possible. The location may be as large as the entire watershed or a
sub-basin or as specific as one stream segment or landform.  Reference appropriate maps
to help people who are unfamiliar
with the watershed or who did not
participate in the assessment.

Situation Summary: The situation
summary describes the watershed
problem in a simple and structured
fashion (Box 7). The basic elements
of the situation summary are provided
in Box 6 and are illustrated in Box 8.
      Box 7. Developing situation summaries
      Development of situation summaries can be a time-consuming
      process that requires focused writing and editing. While these
      summaries rely on information from several different modules, it
      may be desfrable to have one individual or group of individuals
      produce initial drafts of the situation summaries outside of the
      Synthesis meetings. Rather than spending the entire group's
      time describing each watershed issue in detail, the Synthesis
      meetings can then be more effectively used to critique and
      modify the draft situation summaries.
Recommendations: The quality of data available for the Watershed Assessment,
the assessment scale or level of detail, and the confidence in conclusions drawn

                            Figure 1. Sample Form S1. Summary of watershed issues
                              Watershed Issue: Soil Erosion
                              Location:  Erosion Units 1 and 2 (Map E1) in the Bear Creek and Crazy Creek sub-basins.
                              Situation Summary:
                              Soil erosion is a problem in Erosion Units 1 and 2 due to disturbance of erodible soils from
                              1) road construction, 2) rerouting of water drainage from paved surfaces, 3) compaction of
                              soil from grazing, and 4) natural erosional processes (weathering, soil creep, dry ravel,
                              bank erosion).  Sediment delivery to streams generally occurs within 75 feet of waterbodies.
                              Most of the problems occur in low-gradient, moderately-incised streams  in loess deposits
                              (Channel Type 8). The accumulation of fine particles affects fish and aquatic plants by
                              1) reducing egg to fry survival for fish by cementing gravel and reducing  the flow of oxygen,
                              and 2) preventing the growth of snake reeds, which are an important tribal resource for
                              basket-weaving and traditional medicine.
                              1. Work with rural residential and forest landowners to develop options for reducing
                                sediment delivery from gravel roads.
                              2. Work with the County Land Development and Engineering department to improve
                                current and future water drainage structures and storm runoff detention.
                              3. Develop grazing management plan to reduce streambank trampling and to revegetate
                                riparian  corridors.
                              4. Conduct a Level 2 assessment to better quantify the sources of erosion.
                              5. Monitor the percentage of fine sediment before and after implementation of BMPs.
                              Field observations, anecdotal information, and stream surveys provide evidence for the
                              erosion problems in these two land types.  Gant et al. (1999) and unpublished tribal and
                              county reports provide more detailed examples of problems. While a high level of fine
                              particles probably existed naturally in streams running through these loess deposits, land
                              management practices have visibly increased their volume. A level of 30% fines or higher
                              was considered a problem based on habitat requirements for fish. A high level of
                              confidence exists in identifying the causes for erosion because of its broad documentation.
                              A Level 2 assessment, however, would help to quantify each source of erosion and thus
                              help in prioritizing and justifying management solutions.

 Box 8. Sample situation summary
Input from Watershed
Time Frame
Watershed Process
Hazard Location
Management Activity
Delivery Conditions
Channel Effects
Sensitive Resource Location
Resource Effects
Fine sediment
from past and potential future
soil erosion in
Erosion Units 1 and 2
due to 1) disturbance of erodible soils from road construction,
2) rerouting of water drainage from paved surfaces, 3) com-
paction of soil from cattle grazing, and 4) natural erosional
processes (weathering, soil creep, dry ravef, bank erosion)
within 75 feet of streams and wetlands has caused and/or
could cause
accumulation of fine particles
within Jow-gradient, moderately-incised channel types in loess
"deposits (Channel Type 8)
that can 1 ) reduce egg to fry survival for fish by cementing
gravel and reducing the flow of oxygen and 2) prevent the
, growth of snake reeds, which are an important tribal resource
for basket-weaving and traditional medicine.
from the assessment will all influence potential
recommendations (Box 9). The intent of making
recommendations is to provide guidance for future
steps, rather than to develop specific management
solutions. Management solution development will
occur in the next step of the WAM process.

Justification: Providing evidence for conclusions
from the Watershed Assessment is one of the
most important exercises in the Synthesis process.
Sources of data or other evidence should be
referenced to support the situation summary. The
standards or criteria used to rate landscape hazards,
resource sensitivities, and delivery potentials should
be clearly described. Finally, confidence in the
assessment and conclusions should be discussed. A
High/Moderate/Low rating can be used to assess
confidence,  but the summary should also provide
explanations for each rating (Box 10).
Box 9. Confidence in recommendations
    Lack of quality data or confidence in the
    assessment results should lead to further
    study in the form of a Level 2 assessment or
    longer-term monitoring.. Strong evidence for
    cause-and-effect relationships are required
    to recommend management changes or
Box 10. Confidence summaries
   , Rating confidence in the assessment and
    conclusions should be based on the following:
    • The availability of information.
    • The quality of information,
   , • The ability to analyze and interpret the data.
    • The lack of-alternative explanations.

                       Step 5. Produce Watershed Assessment report
     Box 11.
The assessment team leader will be responsible for producing an overall Watershed
Assessment report. The format for this report is flexible, but the report should
provide easily accessible information to community members. In most cases, a
concise report will be more effective in communicating watershed issues than will
a complex technical document with extensive data. Striking a balance between the
need to communicate effectively with a potentially diverse audience and the need to
                                        provide scientific documentation to support
                                        conclusions is one of the greatest challenges
                                        in creating a useful Watershed Assessment
Example outline for a Watershed Assessment
        I.   Introduction
            A.  Purpose/objective of assessment
            B.  List of sponsors and participants
            C.  Watershed issues
            D.  Regulatory or policy issues
        II.   Description of Watershed
            A.  Location, size, ownership, and land uses
            B.  Topography, geology, soils
            C.  Climate
            D.  Streams, sub-basins, waterbodies', -'
            E.  Vegetation                       ,  •
            F.  Historical land uses and disturbances,
        III.  Summary of Watershed Assessment
            A.  Watershed story
            B.  Summary of issues
            C.  Recommendations
            D.  Research and monitoring needs    , : ,
            E.  Confidence in assessment
            F.  Quality assurance and control"-
        IV.  Technical Module Reports
            A.  Community Resources
            B.  Aquatic Life
            C.  Water Quality
            D.  Historical Conditions:
            E.  Hydrology
            F  Channel
            G.  Erosion
            H.  Vegetation                 ,
                                        While each module analyst should have
                                        a short report on assessment results, the
                                        team leader must synthesize this information
                                        to provide a comprehensive picture of
                                        watershed conditions. This comprehensive
                                        picture can be effectively presented as the
                                        watershed story, a narrative that describes
                                        historical conditions and evaluates the effects
                                        of changes over time. The format of
                                        the Watershed Assessment report is flexible,
                                        but the report should describe important
                                        results and conclusions in a succinct manner
                                        (Box 11). The maps, tables, and forms
                                        produced in each module are designed to
                                        provide concise summaries of results as well
                                        as logic tracking for quality assurance and

Form 81. Summary of watershed issues
 Watershed Issue:
 Situation Summary:


Step 4: Management


The goal of the Management Solutions step is to create a watershed management plan to
address the issues identified during Scoping, "Watershed Assessment, and Synthesis.  The
management plan will describe multiple management solutions to provide flexibility in
the implementation of watershed improvements (Box 1).
                                                          Box 1. Watershed management planning
                                                          in Nantucket, Massachusetts
Management solutions for addressing watershed issues or
problems can take many forms:

•  Changes in land use (e.g., land use planning or zoning).
•  Changes in management practices (e.g., Best
   Management Practices  [BMPs]).
•  Monitoring programs.
•  Educational programs.
•  Restoration plans.
•  Regulatory changes (e.g., tribal water quality standards
   and criteria).

The type of management solutions developed through
the WAM process will depend largely on the scale and
level of assessment. A Level 1 assessment provides a
general characterization of the watershed that may be
useful for land use planning, identifying monitoring
needs,  or developing educational programs. This level of
information is typically not detailed enough to evaluate
or suggest specific prescriptive actions. A Level 2
assessment can provide more site-specific information that
can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of management
practices, identify restoration opportunities, or establish
resource-based water quality standards.
Using information generated during the Scoping, Watershed Assessment, and Synthesis
steps, the WAM approach can provide a strong link between community values, scientific
information, and the development of practical and effective management solutions.
                                                             in response to a variety of threats to Nan-
                                                             tuckefs water supply, the Nantucket Land
                                                             Council, a private, non-profit organization,
                                                             commissioned the development of a water
                                                             resource management plan. Twelve water
                                                             resource protection areas were delineated as
                                                             part of the plan and designated for priority
                                                             protection. Among these areas were well-
                                                             head protection areas for the island's two
                                                             principal public water supply wells, a larger
                                                             aquifer protection area designated as a
                                                             source of future water supplies, and the
                                                             drainage areas for-coastal and freshwater
                                                             •ponds.  The designated areas were protected
                                                             by a combination of regulatory and non-regu-
                                                             latory measures, including zoning districts
                                                             that regulated land use, subdivision and wet-
                                                             lands regulations, on-going water quality
                                                            . monitoring, and public education campaigns '
                                                             discussing the residential use of lawn fertil-
                                                             izer and household chemicals.
                                                             Adapted from EPA (1995a) '

Reports and forms from the Watershed Assessment and Synthesis processes are used to
identify resource needs, the effects of current and past management, and the success or
failure of past practices. With broad community participation and support, the technical
information can be used to suggest effective management changes to protect and enhance
the valued resources identified during the Scoping process.

Watershed management plans should be integrated with existing programs and tailored to
the needs of the community and the unique character of the watershed.  Ideally, multiple
programs and solutions will be developed as part of the management plan to provide
flexibility in the implementation of watershed improvements.  Existing projects and
programs such as water quality monitoring or stream restoration should be considered
elements of a comprehensive watershed approach to management solutions.

This section describes the steps to develop a watershed management plan.  Examples of
management objectives and solutions are provided.  Information on watershed restoration
is described, and possible sources of funding are identified. Information on developing
monitoring programs can be found in the next section, Adaptive Management.
Management Solutions Process
Step Chart
The objectives of the Management
Solutions step are as follows:

• To use information from previous
  steps to develop management
  objectives and options.
• To create a watershed management
• To develop incentives for
  implementation of management
                                                 Assemble management team
Evaluate Watershed Assessment
   and Synthesis products
     Develop management
      Create watershed
      management plan

Step 1. Assemble management team

The management team will be responsible for setting management objectives and
developing a set of options for each objective. Deciding who will participate on
the management team depends upon the number of people involved in the WAM
process. In most cases, representatives from tribes and the community will make up the
majority of the team. If effective changes are expected from this process, it is vital to
include representatives from all interested parties who might be affected by the proposed
management changes. If a small number of people are involved in the WAM process, it
may be possible to .include all participants in the management team.

A combination of people with land management, technical, and policy backgrounds
is ideal to identify and evaluate options for changes in management practices and
watershed programs.  At least a few individuals who participated in the "Watershed
Assessment should be a part of the management team to provide background
information and help resolve technical questions. Land managers, policy-level people,
and other cooperators from Scoping can be integral for developing educational programs
or evaluating regulatory changes.

Step 2. Evaluate Watershed Assessment and Synthesis products

Before management objectives and solutions can be written, it is important to
understand the results of the Watershed Assessment and the summaries of watershed
issues that were produced in Synthesis (Form SI).  The summaries of watershed issues
may provide sufficient detail for establishing objectives and solutions, but often  a more
comprehensive understanding of watershed issues is necessary.  If the management
team is identified ahead of time, it may be helpful for members to attend the
Synthesis meetings. Another option is for the assessment team to provide a summary
presentation to the management team.  A field review of die watershed or specific areas
of concern may also be warranted to provide further information for developing effective
management solutions.

Step 3. Develop management solutions

The summaries of watershed issues (Form SI) from Synthesis provide a list of watershed
concerns that may require specific management solutions. The team should develop a
management objective for each issue. A set of specific solutions can then be written

              to address each objective.  Multiple options are encouraged for each objective to provide
              flexibility for implementation by community members (Box 2).  The objectives and
              solutions should be recorded on Form Ml (Figure 1). The rationale for each solution
              should also be recorded for future reference. Rationale may be based on local data,
              technical and management expertise, or scientific literature.

Box 2. Management planning in the Klamath River basin, Oregon
     Physical obstructions, habitat destruction, and pollutants have severely degraded art important tribal
     and commercial salmon and trout fishery in the Klamath RiverTOregon. The long-range restoration
     plan was developed using a sequence of goals, objectives, policies, and priority projects. Examples
     of goals, objectives, and policies from this program are provided below/.

     Goal:      Restore by 2006 the biological productivity of the basin in order to provide for viable
                commercial and recreational ocean fisheries and in-river tribal and recreational fisheries.
     Objective:  Protect stream and riparian habitat from potential damage' caused by timber harvesting
                and related activities.
     Policies: • Improve timber harvest practices through local workshops; develop habitat protection
                and management standards for agency endorsement; and create a fish habitat database,
              • Evaluate current timber harvest practices by developing an index of habitat integrity;
                incorporating fish habitat and population data into state~water quality assessments; and
                monitoring recovery of habitat in logged watersheds.
              • Promote necessary changes in regulations,-including state forest practice rules, USFS
                policies in land management plans, and BMPs.
              • Anticipate potential problems by requesting additional state monitoring prog'rams; "
                modifying state and federal rules to protect erodible soils; and giving priority to protection
                of unimpaired salmon habitat.                 ' „ ' '                      ~

     Adapted from Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (1991)       t
             Land management options
             Table 1 provides examples of management objectives and options to minimize aquatic
             impacts from various land uses.  The key to effective aquatic resource protection often
             is to use several types of aquatic management practices in concert with education and,
             as necessary, regulation (EPA 1995a). A single type of management practice is seldom
             sufficient to solve watershed-scale problems.  A number of sources are available that
             provide ideas and guidance on the use of various management solutions:

Figure 1. Sample Form M1. Summary of management options
Erosion from gravel

wastewater delivery
to the Massassaqua

Decline in population
of and access to
medicinal herbs

Pollutants in drinking

Management Objective
Minimize delivery of
eroded sediment to

Minimize delivery of
dairy farm waste to
streams during floods

Restore natural prairie
and riparian vegetation

Identify trends in drinking
water quality

Management Solutions
1 . Install additional culverts.
2. Grass-seed road cut and fill
3. Voluntary traffic manage-
ment plan.
1 . Create additional waste
storage ponds.
2. Relocate waste storage
ponds outside of 1 00-year
3. Establish vegetated biofiltra-
tion drainage features.
1 . Initiate educational program
on value of riparian buffers.
2. Establish pilot projects for
vegetation restoration.
3. Develop agreements with
private landowners to gain
access to medicinal plant
1 . Expand existing water qual-
ity monitoring program with
three additional stations.
2. Conduct statistical analysis
and produce a summary
report for water quality data
from past 10 years of moni-
Cost Estimate
1. $20,000
2. $5,000
3. $1,000

1 . $200,000
2. $75,000
3. $20,000

1 . $5,000
2. $35,000
3. $1,000

1. $12,000
2. $10,000

Past use of road improve-
ment plans has been effec-
tive at substantially reduc-
ing sediment delivery to
The watershed assess-
ment identified the close
proximity of waste storage
facilities to streams as the
primary factor causing ele-
vated fecal coliform levels
in the river.
The watershed assess-
ment indicated that natural
prairie and riparian com-
munities could be re-estab-
lished through the use of
buffers and restoration

Water quality data have
been collected at a few
locations, but no summary
or evaluation of trends has
been completed.

  —  EPA (1984) describes the factors and available research relevant to selecting
     appropriate pesticide BMPs.
  -  The National Agricultural Library (http://warp.nal.usda.gov) offers a bibliography
     of over 300 citations on evaluation of agricultural BMPs from the AGRICOLA
     database. The NRCS also provides the National Handbook of Conservation
     Practices (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov) to provide established standards for
     commonly used practices to protect natural resources.

Table 1. Examples of management options and solutions
   Land-use Issue
       Management Objectives
            Management Options
  Confined Animal     •  Design and implement systems that collect;
  Facilities (small        solids, reduce contaminant concentrations,
  units)                 and reduce runoff to minimize delivery of
                      •  Reduce groundwater pollutant loading^
                      •  Manage stored runoff and accumulated
                        solids through an appropriate waste utiliza-
                        tion system.
                                           Waste storage ponds
                                           Waste storage structure
                                           Waste treatment lagoons
                                           Filter strips
                                           Grassed waterways
                                           Constructed wetlands
                                           Heavy use area protection
                                           Lined waterways/outlets
                                           Roof management systems
                                           Composting facilities
Establish Streamside Management Areas
(SMAs) along surface waters with appro-
priate widths and harvest restrictions to;
    1. maintain a natural temperature
    2. provide bank stability;;
    3. minimize delivery of sediments
     and nutrients to streams;
    4. provide trees for a sustainable
     source of large woody debris  '  '
     needed for channel structure
     and aquatic species habitat; and  ••
    5. minimize wind damage.
Specify BMPs to  minimize erosion.   '
Develop Road Management Plans.
SMAs can vary greaily in wjdthtdepending on
site-specific factors '(e.g., slope, class of water-
course, type of soil and vegetation, and practice).
Minimize disturbance in SMA from heavy machi-
nery that could expose the mineral soil of the
forest floor.
Locate landings, sawmills, and roads outside
the SMA.
Establish buffers for pesticide and fertilizer
application to limit entry into surface waters.
Prevent excessive amounts of slash and small
organic debris from entering the waterbody.
Apply harvesting restrictions in the SMA to
maintain its integrity.
  Agricultural Land     •  Minimize the delivery of sediment from
                        agricultural lands to surface waters.
                      •  Design and implement a combination of
                        management practices to settle fine-
                        grained solids and associated pollutants
                        to minimize delivery to;sfreams;
   Adapted from EPA (1992a)
                                            Conservation cover on land retired from production
                                            Conservation cropping sequence
                                           ' Conservation tillage    >          ''-"'."'
                                            Contour farming                 ,
                                            Cover andjjreen manure crop  ~' >
                                            Plantings on erodible or eroding areas   <  *     r~
                                            Leave crop residue to provide protection from  *- -
                                           ' erosion                          ,         *
                                            Delayed seed bed preparation
                                            Field border or other filter strip
                                            Grassed waterways        '   '     ,  ^ ,   ,;,
                                            Grasses and legumes in rotation       *'  '
                                            Sediment basins
                                            Field strip-cropping               i
                                            Wetland and riparian zone protection

   -  Local NRCS offices often have Field Office Technical Guides at the county level
       for watershed-specific information.

 • Urban
   -  Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (1990) lists non-point source
       control techniques for urban areas.
   -  EPA (1994) describes institutional strategies for developing, revising, and
       implementing runoff control programs in urbanized communities.
   -  EPA (1990) provides information on  targeting and prioritizing BMPs in urban
 • Forestry
   -   EPA (1993a, 1993b) provide a synopsis of BMPs used to mitigate impacts on
       water quality caused by forestry operations.

 • Wetlands
   -   EPA (1996) is a guide to stormwater BMPs for protecting wetlands in urban areas,
       but many practices would also be applicable in other settings.

 • Coastal Waters
   —   EPA (1992a) describes appropriate management measures and management
       practices for each major category of non-point source pollution (agriculture,
       forestry, urban, etc.).

 Restoration approaches
 Understanding the relationships among physical, chemical, and biological watershed
 processes is critical for determining where and what type of habitat restoration will be
 effective for improving stream quality and supporting valued resources. Since most
 restoration projects are relatively expensive, the longevity and cost-effectiveness of the
 project must be objectively evaluated.

 Stream restoration can be categorized by three general approaches (EPA 1995b):

 1.  Upland techniques generally involve BMPs that control non-point source inputs
    from the watershed (e.g., erosion and runoff control, reforestation, restoration of
    native plant communities, wetland restoration).

                            2.  Riparian techniques are applied out of the channel in the riparian corridor
                                (e.g., reestablishment of vegetative canopy, increasing width of riparian corridor,
                                restrictive fencing).
                            3.  In-stream techniques are applied directly in the stream channel (e.g., channel
                                realignment to restore geometry, meander pattern, substrate composition, structural
                                complexity, or streambank stability).

                            In-stream restoration practices often need to be accompanied by techniques in the
                            riparian area and the surrounding watershed. For example, restoring a stream may not
                            only involve reconfiguring the channel form, reestablishing riffles, and stabilizing stream
                            banks, but will also require planting riparian vegetation and controlling excess sediment
                            and chemical loading in the watershed. Details about specific restoration practices
                            are beyond the scope of this guide; however, Table 2 provides examples of techniques
                            relevant to various watershed issues.

                            The following sources provide further information on restoration strategies and

                            •  Streams
                               — The Restoration of Rivers and Streams: Theories and Experience (Gore 1985).
                               — Better Trout Habitat: A Guide to Stream Restoration and Management
                                 (Hunter 1991).
                               — A Classification of 'Natural Rivers (Rosgen 1994).
                               — Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality (EPA 1995b).

                            •  Riparian Corridors
                               — Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes and Practices (Federal Interagency
                                 Stream Restoration Working Group 1998).
                               — A Citizen's Streambank Restoration Handbook (Izaak Walton League 1995).

                            •  Wetlands
                               —  Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems (Brooks et al.  1992).
                               —  Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science (Kusler and
                                  Kentula 1990).
page                                                                                               Management
     8                                                                                               Solutions

Table 2. Examples of restoration techniques for various watershed issues
         Watershed issue
    Altered Stream Morphology
    High Streamflows
    Low Streamflows >
    Biological Integrity
    .Toxicity'  -
                                                 Restoration Technique
  In-stream structures (e.g., logs, boulders)
  Bank protection
  Promote riparian vegetation growth
                                     Reduce sediment delivery
                                     Restore wetlands'
                                     Stabilize banks            *   '
                                     Modify operations of water diversion structures
  Restore natural stream meanders and complexity
  Increase substrate roughness
  Promote riparian vegetation growth
  Restore wetlands
  Reduce impervious area
                                   • Reduce water withdrawals
                                   • Restore native riparian vegetatior^
                                   • In-stream structures (e.g., logs, boulders)
                                   • Increase channel jdepth with machinery
                                   • Stabilize banks
                                   * Reduce sediment delivery *
                                   * Restore native riparian vegetation
• In-stream structures (e.g., logs, boulders)
• Remove passage barriers (e.g.,~diversions, culverts)
• Reduce sediment delivery
• Dredging               .•
  Capping material
  Restore wetlands for filtering",
  Promote riparian vegetation growth
  In-stream structures (e.g., logs, boulders)
 „ Reduce water withdrawals    *   „
Step 4. Create watershed management plan

The management options detailed in Form Ml will generally require review and prioriti-
zation by a group of community members larger than the management team alone. This
group will need to evaluate management options to ensure that they are feasible and
can be implemented.  The management solutions approved will be incorporated into
the final watershed management plan (Box 3).  A schedule for the implementation and
completion of management actions is an important part of the watersed management
plan. Options should be prioritized for implementation as financial resources or

                             more data become
                             available. Prioriti-
                             zation will have to
                             balance the effec-
                             tiveness of various
                             measures with the
                             cost of implemen-
                      Box 3. Key elements of a watershed management plan
                               Clearly defined, management objectives
                               Range of management options
                               Prioritization of management solutions
                               Description of rationale and uncertainties
                               Cost estimates and funding mechanisms'
                               Schedule for implementation and completion
Box 4. Cooperation and incentives in a tribal context
Incentives for implementation
It may be difficult to reach consensus on some management solutions. Management
solutions may benefit society as a whole but may not provide an economic benefit to the
individual or organization responsible for implementing them. The limited understand-
                                       ing of ecosystems may lead to uncertainties
                                       about the results of the assessment. Com-
                                       munity members may also disagree about the
                                       risk to important resources posed by manage-
                                       ment practices. Some may argue for the least
                                       costly methods, others for the most effective
                                       methods, regardless of cost. It will be impor-
                                       tant to consider incentives for participation
                                       and voluntary, rather than regulatory, imple-
                                       mentation of BMPs (Box 4). Table 5 sum-
                                       marizes potential incentives to consider in a
                                       watershed management plan.
    Most discussion of management on tribal lands will involve pen-
    sonal communication with a land manager, private landowner, or
    tribal government representative.  Cooperative projects, cost-
    share programs, and technical assistance will probably be the
    most commonly used incentives. Community meetings and dis-
    cussions with the tribal government (e.g., the Tribal Council) will
    generally be more productive than will regulatory mechanisms.

    The White Mountain Apache tribe in Arizona was able to educate
    local ranchers about the need to protect springs and streams
    important to the tribe. The tribe hired members of the local live-
    stock association to construct fencing around  restoration areas.
    The investment of time and money by local community members
    will help to ensure the long-term success of these projects.
                                       Funding is usually the greatest limitation
                                       to watershed management improvements,
                                       but well-organized plans using the WAM,
approach should be eligible for many types of private and public grants.  With a little
effort, sources of money can be pooled to implement a watershed management plan.
The following references are helpful for procuring funds:

•  EPA (1999) presents information on 52 federal funding sources (grants and loans)
   that may be used to fund a variety of watershed protection projects. The
   information on funding sources is organized into categories, including coastal waters,

   conservation, economic development, education, environmental justice, fisheries,
   forestry, Indian tribes, mining, pollution prevention, and wetlands.
•  EPA (1992b) describes particularly effective state and local non-point source programs
   and methods used to fund them.

Table 3. Incentives for implementing management solutions
Type of Incentive or
Motivational Factor
Technical assistance
Tax advantages
S \ f' ''
Cost sharing
Regulatory incentives
Direct purchase of sensi-
tive or problem areas
! ^ ^
t •*
Non-regulatory site
^ s
Community pressure
Direct regulation of land , „
< use activities
Adapted from EPA (1995a)
Description of Key Factors
Programs that target and tailor the message to key audiences are most
effective in causing change. Technical education about operation and ben-
efits of controls may be necessary.
Through one-on-one interaction with landowners, the professional staff can
recommend appropriate BMPslor various sites. Assistance with on-site
* engineering or agronomic work may be needed during the implementation
'' of managementiSolufions.
Federal, state, or tocal taxing authorities can make changes-to reward indi-
vidtfals who implement managementsolutrons.
<* "A ^
Direct payment to individuals who implement management solutions has v
,been effective where the.cosfcshare rate is high enough to elicit widespread
i- participation.
' A regulatory system can be established that conditions the receipt of bene-
fits on meeting certain requirements or goals.
The purchase of land for preservation, such as community-owned green-
belts or critical wildHfe habitat, can be managed by groups such as the
• Nature Conservancy, Costs are generally high, but direct purchase pro-
vides effective protection. , ' r ~-
A site visit by staff of local or state agencies can be educational and pro-
vide an incentive for voluntary implementation of management solutions.
•rr 1 1 -I --in^ -r i, i • „ , i ' , , , - n ..„,<- ^ ' ^ .
If a community values the use of certain management solutions, land own-
ers arid managers are more likely to implement them.
/ '- >
-Regulatory programs that are simple, direct, and easy to enforce are quite
effective. Such programs can regulate land use (through zoning ordinan-
ces) or the kind and extent of activity allowed (e.g., pesticide application
rates), or they can set performance standards for a land activity (such as
' retention of the first inch of runoff from urban property).

                           Brooks, R. P., S. E. Gwin, C. C. Holland, A. D. Sherman, and J. C. Sifneos.  1992.
                                  Restoration of aquatic ecosystems.  In: M. E. Kentula, and A. J. Hairston,
                                  (eds.). An approach to improving decision-making in wetland restoration
                                  and creation.  NAS Report.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
                                  Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

                           Federal Interagency Stream Restoration "Working Group. 1998. Stream corridor
                                  restoration: principles, processes and practices. U.S. Environmental Protection
                                  Agency, EPA 841-R-98-900, Washington, D.C.

                           Gore, J. A. (ed.). 1985. The restoration of rivers and streams: theories and experience.
                                  Butterworth, Stoneham, Massachusetts.

                           Hunter, C. J.  1991- Better trout habitat: a guide to stream restoration and
                                  management. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

                           Izaak Walton League.  1995.  A citizen's streambank restoration handbook. Izaak
                                  Walton League of America, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

                           Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force.  1991. Long range plan for the Klamath
                                  River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program. U.S. Fish and
                                  Wildlife Service, Klamath River Fishery Resource Office, Yreka, California.

                           Kusler, J. A., and M.E. Kentula (eds.).  1990. Wetland creation and restoration: the
                                  status of the science. Island  Press, Washington, D.C.

                           Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCG). 1990. A current
                                  assessment of urban best management practices.  MWCG, Washington D.C.

                           Rosgen, D. L.  1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
pagf                                                                                            Management
    12                                                                                           Solutions

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1984. Best management practices
        for agricultural nonpoint source control: IV. Pesticides. EPA 841-S-84-107,
        Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1990. Urban targeting and BMP
        selection: an information and guidance manual for state nonpoint source
        program staff engineers and managers.  EPA 841-B-90-111, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1992a.  Guidance specifying
        management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. EPA
        840-B-92-002, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1992b.  State and local funding of
        nonpoint source control programs.  EPA 841-R-92-003 Office of Water,
        Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1993a. Summary of current state
        nonpoint source control practices for forestry. EPA 841-S-93-001, Washington,

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1993b. Water quality effects and
        nonpoint source control for forestry: an annotated bibliography. EPA
        841-B-93-005, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1994. Developing successful runoff
        control programs for urbanized areas. EPA 841-K-94-003, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1995a. Watershed protection: a project
        focus.  EPA 841-R-95-003,  Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
        Protection Division, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995b. Ecological restoration: a tool to
        manage stream quality. EPA 841-F-95-007, Washington, D.C.
  Solutions                                                       •                                   	"-J3

                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Protecting natural wetlands — a
                              guide to stormwater best management practices. EPA-843-B-96-001, Office of
                              Water, Washington, D.C.

                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Catalog of federal funding
                              sources for watershed protection. EPA 841-B-99-003, Office of Water (4503F),
                              Washington, D.C.

Form M1. Summary of management options
                     Management Objective
Management Solutions
Cost Estimate


 &"& VV frfr &$ $&f ^^ ££••+ "^ is, <«N *. -^V" i

\4f/.*f *  ****<* * ** W '**'^J«' ^'**» '*«'

^ ^^^.-W^-^!,, *-^-^> -^rx^-te^  *•

  *>, -r- * S *f
                   V step 5: Adaptive


Adaptive management is the process by which new information about the health of the
watershed is incorporated into the watershed management plan.  Adaptive management
is a challenging blend of scientific research, monitoring, and practical management that
allows for experimentation and provides the opportunity to "learn by doing." It is a
necessary and useful tool because of the uncertainty about how ecosystems function and
how management affects ecosystems. Adaptive management requires explicit consideration
of hypotheses about ecosystem structure and function, defined management goals and
actions, and anticipated ecosystem response (Jensen et al.  1996).

The results of this process are essential to validate the "Watershed Assessment, to ensure
that ecosystem relationships were considered adequately in Synthesis, and to show that
management solutions have been implemented and are effective at achieving watershed
Adaptive Management Process
Step Chart
The objectives of the Adaptive
Management step are as follows:

• To create a system to monitor
  changes in the watershed.
• To evalute trends using
  monitoring data.
• To modify the watershed
  management plan as necessary.
                                                     Develop adaptive
                                                     management plan
Evaluate monitoring
                                                     Adjust watershed
                                                     management plan

                         Step 1.  Develop adaptive management plan
                        The adaptive management plan will define the process for monitoring watershed
                        conditions and, when necessary, modifying the watershed management plan (Box 1). The
                        design of the adaptive management plan is best accomplished in cooperation with policy-
                                                                     level personnel with the authority to make
                                                                     a commitment of resources and technical
                                                                     personnel who can help identify scientific
                                                                     issues and evaluate monitoring data.
Box 1.  Key elements of the adaptive management plan
     Monitoring objectives
     Information needs
     Available financial, technical, and human resources
     Process for evaluating monitoring results and changing
     watershed management plan
     Data management process
     Process for communicating results of watershed
     management actions
Box 2. Adaptive management in Oyster Creek, Texas
                                            The adaptive management group should
                                            clearly define the objectives and timelines
                                            for watershed monitoring. Using
                                            information from the Watershed
                                            Assessment and Management Solutions
                                            processes, identify gaps in knowledge
about \vatershed conditions and management activities. Prioritize the information needs so
that resources can be allocated to the most important issues.  Step 2 provides more detail
                                                 on the type of monitoring to consider
                                                 and resources for designing and
                                                 implementing monitoring programs.
   The Brazos River Authority in Texas is an example of how a long-term com-
   mitment to an adaptable watershed management process can achieve sub-
   stantial progress.  In the Oyster Creek watershed, data collected by volun- -
   teers suggested that industrial discharge was impacting water quality. After
   two years, industry came to better understand how they were affecting
   water quality. Similarly, the volunteers learned that other non-point source
   pollution would have to be addressed to solve the problems. -      "     -

   Industry re-engineered their discharge system to remedy the situation when
   they realized that the data were good and that other causes would be eval-
   uated and addressed. As a result, the partnership has continued to grow,
   with industry supporting the volunteers with chemical supplies and monitor-
   ing kits. In addition, they are funding a constructed wetlands pilot project.
   A key to the success of this watershed management effort has been keep-
   Ing the community aware of progress as it is made in the watershed and
   acknowledging the successes that occur.

   Adapted from EPA (1997a)
                                                                   Watershed management plans that
                                                                   rely on adaptive management require
                                                                   a long-term commitment of resources
                                                                   to ensure success (Box 2). Financial,
                                                                   technical, and other human resources
                                                                   need to be outlined, along with the
                                                                   specific responsibilities of each party.

                                                                   The adaptive management group
                                                                   should also consider establishing
                                                                   criteria for modifying the watershed
                                                                   management plan based on
                                                                   monitoring results (Box 3). Separate
                                                                   criteria will be needed for each

   Box 3. Examples of criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of
   a watershed management plan
Watershed Issue
Stream Temperature
Fine Sediment
Fish Passage
Bull Trout
• All streams shall meet state temperature standards
in 1 0 years:
Class B-18°C
Class C - 22°C
• Complete review of stream classes to ensure,con-
sistency with beneficial use in 2 years
• 50% reduction in road sediment delivery to Bear
Creek and Crazy Creek sub-basins in 5 years „
• 25% reduction in road sediment delivery to alt other
sub-basins in 5 years
• 90% of dams and diversions will have fish passage
' structures in 5 years ~
• 80% of irrigation diversions will have fish screens in
2 years, and 1 00% will in 5 years
• Increase spawning population by 10% after 1 0 years
/• ^
resource of concern, for example, water quality, water quantity, and aquatic life.
Consideration should be given to evaluating implementation and effectiveness at site-
specific and watershed scales. Describing the expected detail and quality of monitoring data
will allow the community to have confidence in the monitoring results and the need for
changes in the watershed management plan.

Data management and the communication of results are also important considerations
during the planning process. A great deal of data'can be generated from a monitoring
program.  Managing these data so that they can be effectively analyzed and summarized
is critical for maintaining interest and reporting progress on the watershed management

It will be important to highlight trends and effectively communicate successes to the            tf}
community. Consider how the group wants to promote the watershed management effort.      A
The following strategies can help to educate and promote better watershed management:        A
•  Demonstration sites.
•  Watershed tours.                                                                      ^^
•  Community workshops.                                                                ^r
•  Information campaigns.                                                                ^)
•  Brochures.                                                                            0
•  "Website.                                                                             0
•  Interpretive signs.                                                                     git
•  Student projects.                                                                      ^^

Step 2. Monitor                                                                         "
Three types of monitoring may be needed to meet management objectives and to evaluate       ^P
management practices:                                                                    V
1.  Implementation monitoring (also called compliance monitoring) to determine            A
    whether standards and guidelines are being properly followed.                             gfe
2.  Effectiveness monitoring to determine whether the implementation of management       ^
    solutions is achieving desired objectives.
3.  Validation monitoring to determine whether the predicted results occurred and
    whether assumptions about the watershed and management system were correct            ^^
    (includes trend and baseline monitoring).                                               ^P
Further detail on designing and implementing monitoring programs can be found in the        ^}
following documents:                                                                     4k
•  General         .                                                                     ^
   — Inventory and Monitoring Coordination: Guidelines for the Use of Aerial Photography in
     Monitoring (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 1991).                                ^^
   — Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring (Gilbert 1987).                 ™
•  Forestry                                                                              ^P
   — Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific       0
     Northwest and Alaska (MacDonald et al. 1991).                                           k

   —  Evaluating the Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices in Meeting Water
      Quality Goals or Standards (EPA 1994).
   -  Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating and Reporting the Implementation ofNonpoint
      Source Control Measures: II. Forestry (EPA 1997c).

•  Agriculture
   —  Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating and Reporting the Implementation ofNonpoint
      Source Control Measures: I. Agriculture (EPA 1997b).
   —  Monitoring and Evaluation of Agriculture and Rural Development Projects (Casley and
      Lury 1982).

•  Urban
   —  Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating and Reporting the Implementation ofNonpoint
      Source Control Measures: III. Urban Sources (EPA 1997d)
   —  Environmental Indicators to Assess Stormwater Control Programs and Practices (Clayton
      and Brown 1996).

Step 3.  Evaluate monitoring results

It is beyond the scope of this guide to provide detailed information on statistical analyses,
but other issues such as criteria for establishing trends and making changes in management
should be established prior to the evaluation of results (Box 3). These standards and
criteria may heed to be modified based on resulting data.

Step 4.  Adjust watershed management plan

A process for incorporating new information into the watershed management plan should
be outlined in the adaptive management plan.  Specific time frames for reevaluation
and adjustment in the watershed management plan should be established. Reevaluation
of the management plan will likely occur at 2-, 5-, or 10-year intervals to allow for
implementation and monitoring of projects and programs. Standards for applying new
information may need to discussed by policy representatives.

                           Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  1991.  Inventory and monitoring coordination:           ^P
                                  guidelines for the use of aerial photography in monitoring. BLM, Technical            ^p
                                  Report TR 1734-1, Washington, D.C.                                              0
                           Casley, D. J., and D. A. Lury. 1982.  Monitoring and evaluation of agriculture and rural         A
                                  development projects.  The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.       A

                           Clayton and Brown. 1996. Environmental indicators to assess stormwater control
                                  programs and practices. Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Springs,               ^^
                                  Maryland.                                                                       9
                           Gilbert, R. O. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van         £
                                  Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York.                                           A
                          Jensen, M. E., P. Bourgeron, R. Everett, and I. Goodman. 1996.  Ecosystem management:       A
                                  a landscape ecology perspective. Water Resources Bulletin 32(2):203-216.

                           MacDonald, L. H., A. W. Smart, and R. C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines
                                  to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and
                                  Alaska. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/910/9-9-001, Washington,

                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994.  Evaluating die effectiveness of
                                  forestry best management practices in meeting water quality goals or standards.
                                  U.S. EPA 841-B-94-005, Washington, D.C.

                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997a. Top 10 watershed lessons learned.
                                  EPA 840-F-97-001, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997b. Techniques for tracking, evaluating
                                  and reporting the implementation of nonpoint source control measures: I.
                                  Agriculture.  EPA 841-B-97-010, Washington, D.C.
,£?&:.                                                                                            Adaptive
     6                                                                                          Management

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997c. Techniques for tracking, evaluating
        and reporting the implementation of nonpoint source control measures: II.
        Forestry. EPA 841-B-97-009, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997d. Techniques for tracking, evaluating
        and reporting the implementation of nonpoint source control measures: III. Urban
        Sources. EPA 841 -B-97-011, Washington, D.C.
  Adaptive                                                                                            page
 Management                                                                                               ~



                       Technical Modules

 f •**

1 r ^
 **. <* •?*"*•

                                      t?  Jw»
         1* luw1 SB Hfirsmr-iit a. ««au.!«-MJ,ft
•"^.Sv ^
i,"^ j.  >


^f * f ;?-r •*,
        > Community Resources

                 •^ a  s -


 Background and Objectives
                                              "For,communities to grow, they must protect the underlying
                                                      natural systems on which they,are built,"
                                            EPA (1997$       \, '   ' -   '     -     ,        ,
Tribal and non-tribal communities often exist within the same -watershed boundaries.
Although they possess different cultural heritages and often different relationships to
the land, both types of communities
are concerned about the natural
environment in which they live. It is
the goal of this module to identify the
natural resources valued by both tribal
and non-tribal communities in order
to gain a better understanding of which resources will require protection.

The Level 1  Community Resources assessment provides a structure for all communities
to identify and evaluate their valued natural resources in the watershed.  The assessment,
however, can be divided to examine tribal and non-tribal community resources separately.
The Level 2 assessment documents the importance of community resources, provides
the rationale for protecting those resources, and supports the prioritization and
implementation of management solutions.

The wishes of the individual tribes regarding the treatment of information about their
cultural resources are paramount and to be respected. In many cases tribes will have severe
reservations  or be opposed to revealing specific information regarding traditional uses,
ceremonies,  and practices. This module is designed to be flexible and may be modified as
necessary to  respect the needs of all communities.

                        Community Resources Module Reference Table
             Critical Questions
   Level 1
   Level 2
What resources in the water-
shed are significant to the
Where arc community
resources located?
What is the scasonality of the
community resource use?
What processes or land use
activities maybe impacting
community resources?
How have community
resource conditions changed
through time?
• Anecdotal information
• Community survey
• Anecdotal information
• Watershed base map
• Natural resource maps
• Anecdotal information
• Anecdotal information
• Land use maps
• Anecdotal information
B Collect and summarize existing
• Collect and summarize existing
' ° Collect and summarize existing '
information '
« Collect and summarize existing
• Collect and summarize existing
• Detailed interviews
• Work with tribal historian or
anthropologist ,
,• Community use analysis
• Economic analysis
• Detailed interviews
• Field work
e Community use analysis
• Work with tribal historian or
, anthropologist
* Detailed interviews
0 Field work
_ » Detailed interviews
° Held work *
° Community use analysis '- ,

  Level 1 Assessment
 Step Chart
 Data Requirements
 •  Watershed base map
 •  USGS topographic maps
 •  Land use map

                                                                    Identify and categorize community
                                                                     Identify locations of community
                                                                    Identify seasonality of resource use
                                                                   Identify trends in resource conditions
                                                                        and possible impacts
                                                                   Produce Community Resources report
•  Form CR1. Categorization of community resources
•  Form CR2. Trends in community resource conditions
•  Map CR1. Community resources
•  Community Resources report


The primary objectives of the Community Resources
assessment are as follows:

•  To identify valued community resources.
•  To identify locations of community resources.
•  To evaluate changes in resource conditions through time.

Step  1. Identify and categorize community resources
Through interviews with tribal elders and other community members, identify resources
that have significance or value to the community.  Many of the important community
resources will have been identified during Scoping. Resources could include an animal
species that has spiritual value to the tribe or cabins from the early 1800s that document
history of pioneer life in the watershed. Tribal elders may be especially helpful in
identifying uses of natural resources in the watershed.  Once a list of resources is
generated, categorize them by resource use (Box 1) and record the information in
Form CR1 (Figure 1).

               Box 1.  Community resource categories
               •   Spiritual: resources that are important to a religious belief system
               •   Ceremonial: resources used in tribal ceremonies
               •   Lodging: materials used in the construction of living or meeting houses
               •   Natural beauty: resources that possess aesthetic value (e.g., a scenic lookout, a waterfall, or a wetland)
               •   Recreation: places and resources used for entertainment
               •   Historical: sites that possess historical significance
               •   Subsistence: resources used to provide food
               •   Economic: resources important for community employment and revenue
               EPA(1997b)                .                         *                      /  "
Figure 1. Sample Form CR1. Categorization of community resources
Rocky Ford
Off Road
Vehicle trails


















                          Step 2. Identify locations of community resources
                          Determining the location of community resources within the watershed is a critical step in
                          evaluating possible land management impacts to these resources (Box 2) . Exact locations of
                          resources need not be identified if the goal is to preserve sensitive information; however, it
                          is important diat all resource locations be identified in some way. Identifying the presence
                          of sensitive tribal resources in a broad area or with coded symbols can maintain the security
                          of important sites.

           Box 2. Sources of information on community resource locations
     Local Town Hall, County Office, or Planning Board
      • Local land use maps that show whether land is used for housing, commercial
        enterprises, agriculture, or open space
      • Tax maps that show public or private ownership of land
      • Flood insurance maps

     State Environmental Agency
      • Wetland delineation maps
    •• • Watershed maps that show the waterbodies, wetlands, and other components of
        the watershed
      • Land use maps
      • Aerial photos
      • Aquifer delineation maps

     State Conservation or Land Acquisition Group
      * Land use maps~
                      '3                ""                                     *
     State Wildlife and Fisheries Department or Department of Natural Resources
      * Maps of state and local recreation areas
      • Maps showing the distribution of different plants and animals throughout the state,
        including rare and endangered species, non-native species, and critical habitat

     Federal Government
    •  * .Maps showing natural features of all parts of the United States (USGS)
      • Maps of coastlines and ocean waters (The National Ocesfnic and Atmospheric
       Administration [NOAA])      '                 "             :
   -   • Maps of floodways and flood hazard areas (FEMA) »
    EPA(1997a)  „*-'""
To create Map CR1, add the locations of community resources to a base map of the
watershed (Figure 2). Topographic maps that cover the watershed area can also be used.
The community resources map can be a rough schematic or a more detailed map using
GIS technology.

Figure 2. Sample Map CR1. Community resources
Step 3. Identify seasonality of resource use

Natural community resources are often available only at specific times of the year (Box 3).
For example, berries are gathered during the summer, and deer and elk are hunted during
the fall. Understanding the seasonality of resource use provides a greater opportunity to
connect land use impacts to community resource conditions.

Step 4. identify trends in resource conditions and possible impacts

An important and easily available source of information on community resource condition
trends is interviews widi individuals who have lived in the community for many years.
Information on conditions or trends, such as bad smelling drinking water or an obvious
decrease in fish populations, can be obtained from elders or from historical documents on
community life.  Another important source of information is state or federal restrictions on
using community resources.  Examples include restrictions on fish or water consumption,
the federal listing of an endangered wildlife species, or the classification of a parcel of
land as critical habitat.

 Use the information collected to
 identify trends in resource conditions
 and summarize the trends in Form
 CR2 (Figure 3).

 For each resource, also identify land
 use impacts on resource conditions.
 While many of the potential land
 use impacts will have been identified
 during the Scoping process,  further
 investigation can help to refine the
 connection between  land uses and
 resource conditions.  The sources of
 resource impairment should also be
 recorded in Form CR2.
Box 3.  Seasonably of resource use
    Quileute Annual Cycle
    (approx. dates)         Sol Due Watershed Activities
  •  January

  '  "March



   Shaffer etaf. (1995)'
 •  Hunting small mammals:
   land otter and beaver
 «  Steelhead fishing'
 •  Root digging: ferns
 •  Skunk cabbage
 •  Camas
 «  Salmon thimfaleberry
 •'  Horsetail sprouts
 •  Bird hunting
 •  Cedarbark
 •  Spring (chinook) salmon
 •  Blueback (sockeye) salmon
• Labrador tea and herbs
Figure 3. Sample Form CR2. Trends in community resource conditions
Air Quality
• Increased smog
during weekends
• Decrease in native
plant species in
local park
• Decrease in acreage
• Loss of plant diversity
• Decreased populations
• Loss of adequate
Sources of Impairment
.• Increased traffic
• Increased
recreational use
• Road construction
• Agriculture
• Peat harvesting
• Urban development
• Grazing contributing
sediment to prime
spawning habitat
Related Modules

• Vegetation
• Vegetation
• Erosion
• Channel
• Vegetation
• Hydrology
• Water Quality
• Aquatic Life

                    Step 5. Produce Community Resources report

                    The Community Resources report should summarize the location and use of important
                    community resources and discuss possible impacts to and trends in resource conditions.
                    Elements of this report include the following:

                    1.  Description of Community Resources
                        •   Community cultural story (Box 4)
                        •   General location and use of community resources
                        •   Changes in resource use and conditions over time

                    2.  Summary of Results
                        •   Conclusions
                        •   Map CR1. Community resources
                        •   Form CR1. Categorization of community resources
                        •   Form CR2. Trends in community resource conditions

                    3.  Sources of Information
                        •   Mediods
                        •    References
                        •   Assumptions
                        •    Confidence in the assessment
                        •    Further information needs

   Box 4. Quinault cultural story excerpt
   The major residential community of the watershed is the fishing village of Taholah situated at
   the mouth of the Quinault River. A 1780 census from the Native American Almanac reports
 ,  a population of 1,500 for the QuinauJt tribe. Lewis and Clark visited the Columbia region in
   1805 - they list the Qui ni ilts (Quinault} at 1,000 with 60 lodges (Storm et al. 1990). In 1870
   the Quinault Agency reported 130 Quinaults, by 1888 the population had dropped to 95. It
   is very difficult to estimate the size of the Quinault tribe forthe'pe/iod before the catastrophic
   events and epidemics in the later portion of the  1700s and succeeding outbreaks in the mid-
   1800s.... The diseases virtually wiped out the old way of life by decimating the Quinault proper
   from around 1,000 in the 1700s to about 100 in  1885.

 >  The indigenous populations of the Quinault watershed traditionally harvested a wide variety
   of fish, shellfish, waterfowl, plants, trees and marine animals for subsistence and cultural
   purposes., In addition, the Quinaults maintained an extensive regional trading system.
   they were semi-nomadic, but settled along the riverbanks to harvest and process the
   seasonal runs of salmon. Inland trails connected many of the villages and tribes throughout
   the Olympic Peninsula. Although harvesting methods have changed and the'tribe has a
 ,  ?,?JH^wnat diversified economy today, natural resources continue to provide food, security,-
   cultural identity, and significant sources of income for tribal members.  Resources, including
^lahd, were plentiful-and to be,shared by all/          ,r .

   The Quinault people are principally riverine oriented; hence the development of th<§ cedar.-and
-  occasionally spruce, dug-out canoe for transportation. A special adaptation for the Quinault
   River was the shovel-nosed canoe. The double bow allowed the canoe to slide over logjams
  much easier than the regular models. They also constructed large ocean-going canoes for
,, travel along the Pacific Ocean coastline. The modes of transportation have changed; skiffs,
  jet sleds, large ocean-going boats and modified,canoes are now used, but the waterways
  continue to provide important thoroughfares.                      "         ,  -  ~~
"<.>•,?>,,                ', ,tic      '••;,<"    "'*       ',      ~   ~~  ""  "•'""
'  Quinault Indian Nation (1999)         ,                      _,        '  '

                            Level 2 Assessment
                           The purpose of the Level 2 Community Resources assessment is to collect additional           |fe
                           information on the importance of the resources identified in the Level 1 assessment.            ^
                           Resources in the watershed might have cultural significance, or they might support
                           the economy or quality of life in the community. Documenting the importance of
                           community resources will provide the rationale for protecting those resources and              ™
                           will support prioritization and implementation of management solutions. A useful             ^^
                           source of information on evaluating the benefits provided by community resources is           9
                           Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting Ecosystems           9
                           and Communities (EPA 1997a).                                                           £

                           Cultural Importance of Community Resources	       A

                           Describing the cultural significance of watershed resources will help the community            ^
                           to better document their cultural heritage, understand their relationship to the natural          "
                           environment, and communicate with others about preserving valued resources. The           ^
                           following methods can be used to collect information on the cultural significance of           ™
                           community resources:                                                                    ^F
                           •  Perform personal interviews with tribal elders and other community members.              ^
                           •  Perform fieldwork to locate community resources.                                        4fe
                           •  Work with a historian, anthropologist, or archaeologist familiar with the region.              ^

                           Topics that could be addressed include the following:

                           •  Describe traditional uses of resources, such as plants, fish, and wildlife for food or           ^»
                              waterways for transportation. In addition to existing resources, consider resources            9
                              that have been degraded or lost. One way to summarize traditional uses of plants is          ^
                              in an ethnobotany chart (Box 5).                                             '           (£
                           •  Provide additional detail on the spiritual or historical significance of locations in             ^K
                              the watershed.                                                                         fv
                           •  In addition to identifying the importance of specific resources and locations,                ^^
                              describing tribal songs, art, and stories and documenting migratory patterns and
                              movement to reservations will improve the community's understanding of the tribes         '"
                              cultural heritage.                                                                       ™
page                                                                                              Community        t
    •J 0                                                                                            Resources          -

   Box 5. Sample ethnobotany chart
Scientific Name
Pyrus fusca
Rhamnus purshiana
Ribes divaricatum
Ribes laxiflorum
Rosa nutkana
Rubus laciniatus
Rubus leucodermis
Rubus parvitiorus
, Rubus spectabilis
Rubus ursinus
Rumex obtusifolius
Sagittaria latifolia
Salicornia spp.
i r
Salix hookeriana
Sambucus caerulla
Sambucus racemosa
Satureja douglasii
Scfrpus acutus
Shepherdia canadensis
Sphagnum spp.
Spiraea menziesii
Stachys mexicana
Quinault Indian Nation
Common Name
western crabapple
common gooseberry
trailing black currant
Nootka rose or rose
evergreen blackberry
, black cap
trailing blackberry
bitter dock
wapato, Indian potato,
or arrow leaf
glasswort -
Hooker willow
blue elderberry-
red elderberry
Indian tea
'hardstem bulrush
sphagnum moss
Menzies' spirea
hedge nettle
Quinault Name
_ kwi'tsaniti
, xwixwi'nil
klw'e'mwus, le'imk's

xe'e'nis, hi'?inis
k'wklaxnix, k*wela
k'lotmantx', kalu'm '
- '
Common Uses
berries for food and medicine — eyewash, arthritis
and internal disorders -
purgative and laxative
food source — cakes
food — berries eaten immediately or dried
food supplement for soups and stews and medicine
for sore eyes
food — eaten immediately or dried
berries — eaten immediately or dried
food and elderberry storage (leaves)
berries for food, medicine for labor pains, cleaning
wounds, and associated with blueback runs
food — berries
menstrual medicine
food — the tubers are similar to the potato
food supplement for stew, soup, or salads (salt
string or twine for fish lures and plugs and harpoon
elk whistle and emetic tea '
food, food preservative, and emetic tea
medicinal — cold remedy
material for packsacks and basket construction
the berry whipped into a foam is an excellent des- "
sert supplement
cleaning sponge
string to'roast clams
food — the nectar of the plant
i ' *.

                           Economic Importance of Community Resources
                          Another way to establish the importance of community resources is to identify, and
                          if possible to quantify, their contribution to the local economy. The economic value
                          of community resources is most obvious when the community's economy is based on
                          agriculture or on the extraction of natural resources, such as fish, shellfish, trees, coal,
                          and oil. Other ways that natural resources can contribute to a community's economy
                          include the following:

                          •  Natural areas can be important for recreation-based businesses that attract tourists,
                             anglers, hunters, birdwatchers, and hikers.
                          •  Lakes, parks, and preserves can enhance property values.
                          •  Wedands, forested areas, and floodplains can provide natural flood water storage and
                             water filtration, reducing the need for capital projects to replace these functions, such as
                             levees and seawalls or water treatment plants.

                          Table 1 lists possible indicators and sources of information for documenting the economic
                          value of community resources.

                          Importance of Community Resources for Quality of Life	

                          Natural resources can also contribute to a community's quality of life, although this type
                          of resource value is more difficult to quantify than economic value. Examples of benefits
                          that can be provided by natural resources include the following:

                          •  Natural beauty.
                          •  Human health and safety.
                          •  Recreation.
                          •  Sense of community.
                          •  Educational value.

                          Table 2 lists possible sources of information for documenting the importance of
                          community resources for quality of life.
page                                                                                             Community
     •]2                                                                                           Resources

Table 1. Information sources for assessing the linkages between natural resources and
the local economy
   dependence of
   local tax revenues
   on ecosystems
           Sample Indicators
                                                                                     Possible Sources of Information
 Annual revenue from fees for use of parks and
   Local parks and recreation department, local revenue department
   Assess             •  Annual revenues from and/or employment in
   dependence of          local outdoor recreational businesses (e.g., boat
   local economy on        rentals, nature tour guides, birdwatching, and
   nature-based            cross-country skiing centers)
   recreation           •  Annual number of fishing or hunting licenses
                         , issued in the county
                       •  Annual number of "activity days" for various
                          categories of outdoor recreation'(e.g., fishing,
                                                Local merchants
                                                Local chamber of commerce
                                                State fish and wildlife department

                                                State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (contact state
                                                tourism and recreation agency)
                                                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Survey of Fishing,
                                                Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, published every six years
                                                Local chamber of commerce              ,*-
   Assess need for
   clean water for
   Industrial use
 Use of water by food processors, breweries, etc.
                                                Local water authority
                                                Local chamber of commerce
                                                Local business leaders or representatives of relevant companies
   Assess impact of      •  Relative cost of otherwise similar houses located
   ecosystem health        near and several blocks away from a local park
   on residential         •  Qualitative indicator based on home buyer and   ,
   property values          realtor opinions on premium paid for properties
                          located near environmental amenities (e.g.,
                          clean rivers, parks)
                                                Local registry of deeds
                                                Survey of recent home buyers in the area
                                                Local realtors
   Assess trends in      * Urban Sprawl Index: rate of conversion of open
   commercial and         land to suburban/urban development       <
   residential      ,      • Percentage of building permits in downtown/
   development           urban core vs. non-urban or suburban areas
                                                Municipal/county/state land use planning offices
                                                Local building and permits office
   Assess local
   dependence on
   "extractive" natural
 Revenues of local forest products industry  '
 relative to revenue in all industries
 Employment in local forest products industry
 relative to employment in all industries
                         Revenues of local commercial fishery relative to
                         revenue in all industries    ,  -
                         Employment in local commercial fishery relative.
                         to employment in all industries
1  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County
  Business Patterns, phone; (301) 457-4100
1  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
•  Regional Economic Information System, phone: (202) 606-9900
•- USFS, Forest Statistics, by state

 , U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County
  Business Patterns, phone: (301) 457-4100
_  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
  Regional Economic Information System, phone: (202) 606-9900
  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the U.S. Department of
  Commerce maintains county-level data on landings and value of catch
  Local chamber of commerce
  sustainabiiity of
  local resource-
  based industries

  EPA (1997a)
Ratio of the amount health, and diversity of
timber/egrawth to timber cut
Stability in numbers of juvenile and yourig-of-
year in fish population over time
  USFS, Forest Statistics, by state
  NMFS data (see above)

      Table 2. Information sources for assessing the linkages between natural resources and local quality of life
          Overall Assessment
      Sample Indicators
  Possible Sources of Information
         importance of
         ecosystem to local
Number of school field trips to
natural areas
Number of visitors to local
arboretum, bird sanctuary, or state
and national parks
  Local schoolteachers
  Management office of relevant
  organization (e.g., arboretum)
         Assess flood control
         services provided by
         local wetlands
Qualitative indicator based on
flooding history of area with
wetlands and similar areas where
wetlands have been lost to
• Newspaper archives
• Local land use officials
• Local emergency management
          dependence of town
          on local surface and
Percentage of household water
supply from local sources*
  Local public works department
  Regional water supply authority
         Assess availability of
         land for recreation
Acres of land/open space available
for recreation per 1,000 people in
the community
  Local land use officials
  Local or.state parks and recreation
          Characterize level of
          recreational activity
          dependent upon
          EPA (1997a)
Annual number of "activity days" •"
for various categories of outdoor
recreation (e.g., rafting and
kayaking, fishing, hunting, and
visitor days to local resorts and
Trends in beach closures or fishing
Fate and effects of sanitary waste
and refuse on ecosystems
  USFWS, National Survey of Fishing,
  Hunting, and Wildlife Associated -
  Recreation, published every six
  years* ""  :  ,
  State Comprehensive Outdoor
  Recreation Piansf contact state
  tourism and recreation agency
  County or municipal records iof'
  sanitary treatment and waste
  removal from recreation site

Quinault Indian Nation.  1999. Quinault watershed analysis:  cultural module (DRAFT).
        Quinault Indian Nation, Taholah, Washington.

ShafTer, J. A., B. Warner, and J. Powell.  1995. Sol Due Pilot watershed analysis: Cultural
        module. Olympic National Forest, Olympia, Washington.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1997a. Community-based environmental
        protection:  A resource book for protecting ecosystems and communities.
        EPA 230-B-96-003, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1997b. Cultural ecosystem stories: A
       guide to preparing natural resource case studies (DRAFT). EPA, American Indian
       Office, Washington, D.C.

Form CR1. Categorization of community resources
Resource   Site*

 Identify locations on Map CR1. Community resources

Form CR2.Trends in community resource conditions
                               Sources of Impairment
                                         Related Modules

                                         ' / fW^Sf v^/vy
•J 8                                                                                                               Resources

           > Aquatic life
S* tuf £ V-.-& #^v


 Background and Objectives
 Streams, lakes, and wetlands provide habitat for cold and warm water fish, amphibians,
 and the species on which they depend. The Aquatic Life module provides a procedure
 for evaluating the needs of valued aquatic species and the condition of stream, lake, and
 wetland habitats. In this module, the term valued aquatic species refers to a single species,
 several species, or a functional group or guild of species that were identified for assessment
 during Scoping.  The assessment is designed to determine how the flows of water, heat,
 pollutants, and other stream inputs are affecting the habitat and other needs of valued

 For a Level 1 assessment the analyst collects and summarizes existing information on the
 population status, distribution, and ecological needs of the species. This information is
 then used to develop working hypotheses regarding how the species and habitat in the
 watershed have been impacted. Using existing habitat data, habitat in the watershed is
 evaluated based on the species' ecological needs. The results of the habitat evaluation are
 used to support or disprove the working hypotheses or to identify the need for further
 data collection and assessment.

The module also provides information on methodologies that can be used for a Level 2
assessment. While Level 1 assessment relies primarily on existing information, Level 2
assessment is used when more extensive data collection and analyses are needed.
Aquatic Life

Aquatic Life Module Reference Table
   Critical Questions
                                                         Level 1
    Level 2
What are the valued
aquatic species that are
present in the watershed?

"What are the distribution,
relative abundance,
population status, and
population trends of the
aquatic species?
What are the
requirements of various
life history stages of the
aquatic species?

What ate the habitat
conditions for the aquatic

What connections can be
made between past and
present human activities
and current habitat

• Information on species
and distribution

• Historical and current
population estimates
and species distribution

• Scientific literature
• Regional information
and regional models

• Scientific literature
• Existing habitat survey

• Historical information
on watershed
• "Current information on
watershed conditions
• Aerial photos

• Consult watershed and
species experts
• Evaluate existing
• Investigate watershed
• Consult management
agencies, watershed
experts, and species
• Collect existing regional
* Identify the habitat , , '
requirements (by life
stage, season, etc.) _, , ..
* Consult with species

' ,
* Develop descriptions of
current habitat
• Develop and apply
evaluation criteria
* Summarize watershed
•" Consult watershed -
• Analyze aerial photos t , ,
• Evaluate existing habitat
survey information>

• Collect watershed-
specific information
• Population modeling
• Bioassessment methods

• Instream Flow
Incremental >
Methodology or habitat
suitability indices
analysis *
•" Suitability criteria
development ,
• "Regional models
• Collect watershed-
specific information
• Modeling

• Modeling
• Expert system

' „
" - ' ' '

     Overlap exists between Level 1 and Level 2 methods. Often, the difference consists of the level of effort

     expected or whether existing information is used or the collection of new information is needed. Most

     Level 2 methods incorporate actions that are identified here as Level 1 methods (for example, consulting

     watershed or species experts).
                                                                                    Aquatic Life

 Level 1 Assessment
 Step Chart
 Data Requirements
 •  Map of streams, lakes, and wetlands within the watershed.
 •  Land use map or recent aerial photos.
 •  Information on the population status, population trends,
   and distribution of the aquatic species. Sources for this
   information include agency records, species distribution
   maps, basin management plans, stock management
   plans, historical and current population assessments, and
   endangered species assessments and descriptions.
 •  Information on aquatic habitat conditions from state and
   federal agency records and existing habitat surveys.
 •  Information on dams, diversions, stream channelization,
   and alteration of lakes or wedands. Much of this
   information may be historical.
 •  Information on existing or proposed listings under the
   ESA or under state endangered species laws.
 •  Professional opinions and information from resource
   professionals with expertise in the region, the watershed,
   or the aquatic species.
 •  Scientific literature on species' ecological needs.


•  FormAl. Summary of hypotheses
•  MapAl. Aquatic species distribution
•  Map A2. Aquatic habitat distribution
•  Map A3. Aquatic habitat conditions
•  Aquatic Life report
                                                                           Collect aquatic species and
                                                                              habitat information
   Summarize aquatic species
    population information
  Summarize ecological needs
      of aquatic species
Develop habitat evaluation criteria
Evaluate current habitat conditions
    Reevaluate hypotheses
Aquatic Life


Step 1. Collect aquatic species and habitat information

Collect available historical and current information on the valued species from federal,
tribal, state, and local agencies and other community members. The information
requirements are summarized in the Data Requirements section, above. Tracking
down available information can be a time-consuming part of the process.  Information
gathering should also include interviews with agency biologists and any other individuals
with expertise in either the assessment area or the aquatic species.

Step 2. Summarize aquatic species population information

Summarize the information from Step 1  focusing on the population status of the aquatic
species and its distribution. Also summarize any available information about trends in
population or distribution.  The amount of detail for each of these topics may vary.
Population information may be available only for an area larger than the watershed in
question (e.g., a river basin or multi-state area) or may be very detailed (e.g., years of creel
census information for a particular lake). Information may also be anecdotal (e.g., great
declines in the range of a given species over the last 150  years).  It may be that consulting
watershed experts will yield the best information available.

At this point it may be useful to create Map Al, the distribution map for the aquatic
species under study.  It may also assist other analysts to have this map.

Step 3. Summarize ecological needs of aquatic species

Using information that was gathered in Step 1, summarize descriptively or in a table
the important life history patterns of the aquatic species and the species' ecological
needs during each life stage (Box 1).  This information,  together with the distribution
information, will help in determining the areas of the watershed that are important
for different life history requirements or times of year. The information on life
history requirements will also contribute to the development of hypotheses and habitat
evaluation criteria. Examples  of life stages include spawning, incubation, rearing, adult,
and in- and out-migration. Requirements should be represented by factors that are
measurable (e.g., water temperature) rather than those that, while important, are less
likely to be measurable (e.g., genetic diversity).

                                                                      Aquatic Life

Box 1. Life history preferences for stream-resident brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
    Life stage
      Habitat preferences
  Winter habitat
  Summer habitat
 0.1 - 3" gravej, redd sizes
       ?          ,
 No flood flows (causes redd
 scouring) or fine sediment
> inputs (smothers eggs)  „

'Pools with cover, interstitial
-spaces in cobble/gravel
_ substrates,         „  ,

 Water temperatures 10°C -
 19°C, adequate food (primarily
 irisects, some fish), escape
, cover
September - November
                                                         Water temperatures < 4°C
                                                         Water temperatures > 4°C
  Meehan (1991), Stoltz and Schnelt (1991\
 Step 4. Develop working hypotheses

 Summarize important historical events and specific situations of concern
 Using historical information and management plans, summarize past events and current
 situations in the watershed that are likely to have had an impact on either the population
 of the aquatic species or on habitat conditions. Summaries can be in text or table format.
 Following are examples of events or situations that could affect species or habitats:

 •  Historical presence or absence of a species  (such as beaver) in a watershed.
 •  Historical introduction of an exotic species and subsequent interactions between native
   and introduced species.
 •  Past management actions such as hatchery operations or stocking programs.
 •  Disturbance events such as land clearing, dam construction, alteration of lakes or
   wedands, floods, or fires that may have contributed to current habitat conditions.

Also consider situations such as changes in inputs of heat (e.g., loss of stream shading),
sediment (e.g., landslides), streamflow (e.g., dams or diversions), and riparian conditions
 (e-g-> grazing, land clearing).  Consultation with other analysts at this stage may be very
                                                              Water Quality
Aquatic Life

Water Quality
Develop working hypotheses about impacts on aquatic species and habitats
Using the information collected and summarized in the previous steps, develop working
hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationships between historical actions or current
situations, a change in inputs to the aquatic system, and potential impacts on the aquatic
species or its habitat.

It is not expected that enough information will be available to allow statistical testing of
hypotheses in the scientific sense. Rather, the process of developing hypotheses is used
to focus the assessment process and facilitate discussions. Communication among the
Aquatic Life, Channel, Vegetation, and Water Quality analysts is essential to incorporate
findings collected for one module into the assessment of another (e.g., water quality
information as a habitat parameter), to identify data gaps, and to refine hypotheses.

A suggested format for summarizing working hypotheses is provided as Form Al.
Examples of general hypotheses are provided in Figure  1; the analyst should be able to
generate more specific hypotheses than those shown.

Step 5. Develop habitat evaluation criteria

Generate a table of proposed habitat evaluation criteria based on the life history
requirements of the aquatic species. Because of the importance of conclusions that will
be developed using the criteria, community members and watershed experts should
participate in criteria development whenever possible.  This will provide a chance for
feedback on variables used and the critical values selected.
                 Habitat evaluation criteria are defined in this module as characteristics of the environment
                 in which an organism lives that can serve as effective indices of habitat condition and
                 indicators of human-caused change. Criteria should be quantitative if possible. General
                 categories of habitat criteria include the following:

                 •  Floodplain characteristics.
                 •  Riparian characteristics.
                 •  Streambank characteristics.
                 •  Stream channel, lake, and wetland characteristics.
                 •  Streambed substrates.
                 •  In-stream wood debris.
                 •  Habitat quantity.
                 •  Water quantity and quality.
                                                                                         Aquatic Life

 Figure 1. Sample Form A1. Summary of hypotheses
Stream-dwelling fish
or amphibians
Stream-dwelling fish
or amphibians
Stream-dwelling fish
or amphibians
A native trout
Brook trout
Beaver River
Trout Creek
Prairie Creek
Deer Creek
Spring Creek
Beavers were common
in the watershed prior
to settlement and are
uncommon now.
A severe fire burned
the sub-basin in 1977.
Riparian trees were
removed along the
mainstem (1960-1975);
current riparian
vegetation is pasture
Stocking of brook trout
was widespread in the
late 19th and early 20th
centuries. Brook trout
are established and will
displace native trout.
Past management has
relied on hatchery
stocking. Current goals
protect naturally
spawning populations.
Pool, backwater, and wetland habitats formerly
created and maintained by beavers may be less
common now than they were in the past. This may
have had the following impacts on the aquatic
species... (depending on the species preference
for or dependence on these habitats)
Sediment or wood debris may have entered the
stream channel, increasing sediment load and
changing channel conditions. This may have had
the following impacts on the aquatic species...
(depending on the species preference for or
dependence on the channel conditions that result
from these inputs)
Changes in the riparian vegetation may have
caused water temperature changes, changes in
in-stream habitat conditions, or stream channel
shifts. This may have had the following
impacts on the aquatic species... (depending on
the species water temperature preferences or
tolerances and habitat requirements)
The distribution of native trout may cover a
smaller area now. This may have had the following
impacts on the aquatic species... (impacts
could include population numbers, breeding
opportunities, higher fishing pressure, etc.)
Because the management goal now supports
natural spawning, the condition of the spawning
areas may be critical for maintaining population
numbers. Stream survey information indicates
the following about conditions of spawning
habitat... This may have had the following impacts
on the aquatic species... (depending on the
species preference for or dependence on these
Source (include
watershed expert
as appropriate)
Historical records
Agency records
Aerial photos
Historical records
Basin management
  Identify regional criteria or develop literature-based criteria
  For some species, appropriate habitat criteria and associated survey methods may
  already have been developed by management agencies. If regionally appropriate habitat
  evaluation criteria cannot be located for the aquatic species, criteria should be developed
  based on scientific literature and consultation with regional managers and biologists
  (Box 2). Interviews with watershed or species experts will provide valuable information.
Aquatic Life

            Bovee (1986) presents an excellent discussion of methods
            to develop habitat suitability criteria using watershed experts'
            opinions and scientific literature for situations in which collection
            of additional field data is not possible.
Box 2. Guidance for developing habitat evaluation criteria               Habitat criteria have been
                                                                     summarized for many species by
                                                                     the USFWS and the USGS
                                                                     Biological Resources Division based
                                                                     on investigations presented in the
                                                                     scientific literature (Box 3). These
                                                                     documents can suggest both
                   appropriate criteria for consideration and a starting point for determining  regionally
                   appropriate values and ratings in discussion with watershed experts.

                                                       Box 3. Sources of habitat suitability models
                   The example provided in Box 4
                   illustrates how habitat evaluation
                   criteria can be developed based on
                   scientific literature. Both critical
                   thinking and common sense will
                   be necessary during this process.
                   The goal is to identify a small
                   number of appropriate criteria for
                   each life stage of the aquatic
                   species.  Too many criteria can
                   confuse the assessment. Focus
                   should remain on those criteria that watershed experts agree are important to specific
                   life stages and for which information has been collected. Criteria should also be
                                                            measurable to allow comparison among sub-
                                                            basins (e.g., stream shading and average tree
                                                            height would be more useful than would
                                                            a general description of riparian function).
                                                            The criteria should help to illustrate where
                                                            land use and human interaction with the
                                                            landscape have the potential  to change habitat
                                                            conditions or alter population  status.
                                                                 Information on habitat suitability models can
                                                                 be obtained from regional offices of the USGS
                                                                 Biological Resources Division, particularly
                                                                 the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center,
                                                                5 Fort Collins, Colorado (www.mesc.usgs.gov).
                                                                ;The regional office in Lafayette, Louisiana
                                                                 (National Wetlands Research Center) may
                                                                 also have some documents available online
Box 5. Development of human disturbance criteria
  In a watershed with a mix of agricultural, urban, and suburban land
  uses, the identified issues are delivery of sediment and increased
  runoff to the stream during winter storms and fragmentation of   -
  the riparian corridor by roads, pipelines, and powerlines. Aerial
  photos can be used to make a count of road stream crossings
  per mile, which will indicate the number of delivery points for
  sediment and runoff and the relative amount of disturbance in
  the riparian corridor. Specific criteria for evaluating the level of  ,
  human disturbance can be developed by comparing the number of
  road stream crossings per mile with regional values or by making
  comparisons across sub-basins or land use categories
  May et a/. (1997)
                                                           Develop human disturbance criteria
                                                           In addition to the evaluation criteria for
                                                           specific habitat conditions, it might be
                                                           appropriate to use an index of human
                                                           disturbance, such as road density or
                                                           percentage impervious surface (Box 5).
                                                                                           Aquatic Life

  Box 4. Development of habitat evaluation criteria based on scientific literature
   Stuber et al. (1982) provide the following information on habitat conditions for largemouth bass (Micmpterus
   salmoides) in rivers.
    Life stage
Good habitat
Moderate habitat
   Poor habitat
   Adult, juvenile, fry   Dissolved oxygen
   Adult, juvenile

   Adult, juvenile

   Adult, juvenile

   Adult, juvenile



Turbidity (suspended  *

Percentage pool habitat
Percentage cover in ~

Summer water

Water temperature   •  ^
Water temperature
  > 8 mg/JL


   > 60%


  24 -30°C



 < 1.66 ppt
   4 - 8 mg/L

  25-100 ppm
     < 4 mg/L

    > 100 ppm

      < 20%


<10°Cand >30°C


     > 4 ppt
  * Moderate values are listed here if provided by Stuber et al. (1982),
   Using the habitat conditions table for largemouth bass^ habitat evaluation criteria could be developed for
   discussion with watershed experts.  For example, dissolved oxygen criteria could be developed fairly simply.
   Levels greater than 8 mg/L could be rated "good," levels between 4 and 8 mg/L "moderate," and levels less
   than 4 mg/L "poor." For two other parameters, percentage pool habitat and summer water temperature, the
   "good" and "poor ranges could be easily defined, but the question of how to assign a "moderate">rating might
   require more discussion. A "moderate" rating for percentage pool habitat could be assigned to the 30 - 50% "
   range, and a "moderate" rating for summer watertemperatures could be assigned to the 15:5 - 23.5°C range,
   (assuming typical summer water temperatures are not less than 15°C).            -           „   -   - „
Step 6.  Evaluate current habitat conditions

Use the information collected in Step 1 and the criteria developed in Step 5 to evaluate
the current habitat conditions in the watershed. For each stream reach, lake, wedand, or
sub-basin for which information is available, habitat is evaluated for the species or life stage
that occurs there. The evaluation can also group species as appropriate or analyze groups
of stream reaches, lakes, or wetlands where a particular species or life stage is important
(e.g., spawning areas). In addition, the question of access into and out of particular
 Aquatic Life

                         habitats should be evaluated as necessary (considering both in- and out-migration, as
                         appropriate).  The analyst should focus both on typical habitats and habitats of special
                         concern. Describing overall conditions is as important as, or more important than,
                         describing unique or uncommon situations.

                         Compile a summary of available data on habitat conditions and apply the habitat
                         evaluation criteria. An example of a format that could be used to summarize data is
                         provided in Figure 2.

                         Several criteria for a particular stream reach might fall into the "moderate" category.
                         "While it may be fairly straightforward to look at the criteria in the "poor" category
                         and hypothesize connections between human-caused inputs and stream processes, the
Figure 2. Sample habitat data summary form

Reach ID


Pool Characteristics

Percent pool Percent cover
habitat Rating in pools Rating

Substrate Characteristics
Rating Sub- Rating for
Dominant for spawning/ dominant spawning/
substrate adult habitat substrate adult habitat

Sample ID

Reach ID
was taken

Water Quality Characteristics

Dissolved Turbidity Salinity Additional
oxygen (NTU), (ppt), parameter,
(mg/L), Rating Rating Rating Rating

Water Temperature Characteristics
Summer water
temperatures Incubation period
p C) water temperatures
(mean, range) Rating (°C)(mean, range) Rating


Aquatic Life

  meaning of the "moderate" ratings can be less clear. Values that fall into a moderate range
  may indicate that conditions are changing from poor to good or from good to poor. The
  analyst can look for supporting evidence from other parameters in similar categories, such
  as other indicators of riparian condition or of in-stream habitat quality.

  There may be situations in which only general information, not specific data, is available
  for a parameter considered important by the analyst or the watershed experts. In that
  situation, professional judgments can be made and indicated as such in the report.  In
  addition, data gaps that were identified should be noted.

  Habitat information should be evaluated critically. Habitat surveys are a snapshot of
  dynamic aquatic and riparian systems. Data may have been inconsistendy collected, and
 sampling protocols will tend to change over time. Also, data may not be summarized in
 a manner helpful to the analyst. For example, data collected between two access points
 may cover several channel types.  Events occurring after a survey (e.g., a flood) may
 have left the habitat in a different condition than data indicate.  Collaboration between
 analysts will be the best source of information to assess these situations.

 Step 7. Reevaluate hypotheses

 Using the results of the habitat evaluation, reevaluate the working hypotheses developed
 in Step 4 (Box 6). Determine whether the information collected on current habitat
 conditions supports the hypotheses or indicates that the hypotheses should be revised.
 Also identify any hypotheses for which further data collection or input from other
 analysts will be needed. The hypotheses will be discussed with the other analysts during

 Step 8. Produce Aquatic Life report

 Produce maps
At least two and possibly three maps will be generated from the assessment. Map Al will
 present species distribution. An option is to also present historical distribution if it will
 contribute to the Synthesis  discussions.

Maps A2 and A3 will present habitat distribution and a summary of habitat conditions.
The habitat distribution and condition information could also be combined on one map,
depending on the amount of information to be presented. The information included
Water Quality
Aquatic Life

           Box 6. Sample reevaluations of hypotheses using conclusions from habitat evaluation
              Hypothetical example 1

              Shading levels are good in three of five sub-basins in the Little Pine watershed. The hypothesis is
              that, for the other two sub-basins, summer water temperatures may be less than optimal and may
              be limiting fish population numbers. Comparing available water temperature data and habitat criteria,
              it appears that summer water temperatures are higher than preferable but not lethal in the two sub-
              basins. No fish population or distribution data were available. Given that the hypothesis cannot be
              proved or disproved with existing information, the analyst then states the suspected problem: Shading
              levels are less than optimal in the two sub-basins, with possible negative impactsto fish habitat qr  .
              populations from high water temperatures. This would then generate the following .question for other
              analysts during Synthesis: Are stream shading levels in the two sub-basins likely to be increasing,
              decreasing, or staying the same? What effects might this have on future water temperatures?

              Hypothetical example 2

              Bullfrogs, an introduced non-native species, are now-present throughout the Bull Run watershed. >
              Because  it is well known that bullfrogs are very successful predators on native frogs, the following -
              hypothesis was developed: Native frogs are now rarer than in the past and may only exist above
              barriers to bullfrogs. Native frog distribution information for the watershed shows that native frogs
              are in fact rare, except in one stream system where bullfrogs have been excluded. The analyst then
              revises the hypothesis by adding the idea that the small stream system should be identified as refugia
              for the native frogs.             -                                      ',"',"-
                       on the maps will vary with the aquatic species, its specific habitat requirements, and
                       the geomorphology of the -watershed. Examples of information that could be presented  .
                       include the following:

                       •  Spawning habitat, rearing habitat, adult habitat, and juvenile habitat (there may be
                          "important/primary" and "less important/secondary" categories).
                       •  Critical habitat (e.g., location of refugia or the only occurrence of a habitat type in
                          the watershed).
                       •  "Important/primary" habitat that is in degraded condition or in very good condition.
                       •  Areas where habitat is in "naturally poor" condition (e.g., due to geology or soils).
                       •  Areas where in- or out-migration is blocked.
                       •  Dams, diversions, or irrigation withdrawals.
                       •  Other topics of concern identified by the analyst (e.g., water quality problems).

                       Not all topics on this list will necessarily be presented on all maps. Whether one or two
                       maps are needed to present the summary of habitat condition will depend on the number
Aquatic Life

 of aquatic species and the complexity of the situation. Often cartographic requirements
 that limit the amount of information easily included on a single map will prevail. Maps
 can be separated by concerns for a particular species, concerns during a specific time of
 year (such as winter, summer, or spawning periods), or other appropriate concerns.  It may
 be helpful to present the channel segmentation and classification on one of these maps to
 assist in the development of hypotheses regarding channel and habitat responses to inputs
 such as sediment, water, and vegetation.
 Produce report
 Produce a report summarizing information gathered and evaluation results. Critical
 questions should be kept in mind while developing the report. The report should include
 the following elements:

 •  A description of the valued aquatic species, their population statuses and trends, and
   their current distribution.
 •  A table summarizing life history requirements, which will be helpful for other analysts
   during Synthesis.
 •  A description of the historical abundance of and use of the watershed by the aquatic
 •  A description of the habitat evaluation criteria and the sources and methods used to
   develop the criteria.
 •  A summary of current habitat conditions within the watershed.  Descriptions can be
   separated based on channel type, species or life stage,  or sub-basin.
 •  A discussion of the hypotheses developed and evaluated.
 •  Identification of data gaps.
 •  A summary of the level of confidence in the assessment and in the various conclusions
   that have been reached (Box 7).

The report could also identify areas that may be critical habitat for a particular life stage,
reaches with water quality concerns, reaches of high-quality habitat or of degraded habitat,
and obstructions and blockages to migratory species or life stages. Comparisons could
also be made between current conditions and descriptions of reference conditions for the
particular ecoregion, if they are available.
AquaticLife                                                                                            '	-..o.

                      Box 7. Sample summaries of confidence in the assessment
                          Confidence is high in amphibian distribution information in the wetlands of the Bog Creek
                          sub-basin because of recent extensive baseline surveys.

                          Confidence is low to moderate for assessment of habitat conditions for brook trout in the
                          Big Pine Creek sub-basin.  No habitat-surveys have been performed, and the assessment
                          was made using aerial photos.

                          Confidence is low regarding issues about water temperature for, small lakes in the Ruby
                          Valley watershed. No water temperature data were available, although watershed experts
                          expressed concern about the potential for high summer water temperatures.
Aquatic Life

 Level 2 Assessment
 This section presents a selection of Level 2 assessment tools for aquatic species and
 aquatic habitat. Some methods allow the analyst to study the species of concern (or
 group of species) directly by assessing population size or species associations. Odiers
 use a measure of habitat availability or quality to assess ecosystem health or impacts
 from land use. Other methods incorporate approaches  from population modeling and
 ecosystem theory.

 This list of methods is not exhaustive. The analyst will need to consult with experts to
 determine whether a particular method is appropriate for the area under analysis and the
 topic of investigation.

 Some of the methods presented below are fairly simple,  while others require more time
 and resources. The analyst should consider whether extensive analysis is warranted
 by the magnitude of the problem under study and is feasible with the resources and
 information available. It is possible that a simpler approach will generate results with
 sufficient confidence to  develop conclusions and policy recommendations. It should also
 be recognized that the science of ecosystem analysis is evolving,  and tools  and methods
 are continually under development.

 Use of Aquatic Habitat Models	

 Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM)

The IFIM was developed by the USFWS to allow predictions of habitat quantity
and quality for various aquatic species in riverine environments  (Bovee 1982). It was
developed for use in water allocation negotiations and operation of controlled rivers.
Modeling is based on a combination of hydraulic factors measured in the river and
general habitat preferences offish species and life stages.

The strength  of this approach is that it allows a quantitative estimate of gains and losses
in fish habitat as flows incrementally change.  One difficulty is that it can  be expensive
to collect the  physical measurements and fish observations needed to generate a good
quality model.
AquaticLife                                                                                            	-

                           Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI)

                           The USFWS has also developed a series of descriptive models called HSIs for many species,
                           including many fish and other aquatic-dependent species. The HSIs are developed from
                           research literature and expert reviews and are intended to aid in identifying important
                           habitat variables. They are hypotheses of species-habitat relationships, and users are
                           expected to recognize that the veracity of model predictions will vary between places and
                           will depend on the extent of the database for individual variables (Stuber et al. 1982; Terrell
                           et al. 1982). This assessment tool can also be used in a Level 1 assessment.

                           The strength of these models is that they provide a quantitative index of habitat quality.
                           They also present good summaries of what is known about the habitat requirements and
                           preferences of a particular species. The analyst can then compare this information with
                           the specific situation under analysis, choose the factors that are important, and devise
                           the appropriate analysis approach. HSIs are different from the "expert system" approach
                           outlined below because they require a higher level of expertise.

                           Use of an Expert System	\	____^_

                           Expert systems are designed to allow a less-experienced analyst access to the thinking and
                           experience of those with greater expertise on the topic under consideration. They can
                           be a series of questions posed to a group  of experts, a dichotomous key, or a computer
                           program. The strength of this approach  is that the experience of experts can be accessed in
                           a structured format.  One problem with  this approach is that it lends itself to a "cookbook"
                           analysis, which might neglect an important  habitat situation that was not addressed.

                           An example of an expert system is presented in MacDonald  et al. (1991). They present an
                           expert system that, through a series of questions, allows the investigator to generate a list
                           of physical and biological parameters to be used in the design of water quality monitoring
                           to investigate impacts from land use practices.  An example of a dichotomous key for
                           determining limiting factors for coho salmon freshwater life stages is presented by Reeves
                           et al. (1989). This approach relies on field data for habitat parameters as well as estimates
                           of adult escapement needs (see limiting factors discussion in the "Use of an Ecosystem
                           Approach" section, below).
     ~\ 6                                                                                           Aquatic Life


 Use of Bioassessment Methods         	

 Bioassessment methods vary widely, although all generally use measures of population
 size or makeup (e.g., number of species) to assess ecosystem health and response to land
 use activities. Examples include a simple presence/absence study for a single species and
 investigations of predator-prey relationships or other trophic-level interactions (Hauer and
 Lambert 1996). Multi-species sampling for fish and macroinvertebrates is also used to
 develop comparisons of population or habitat conditions within regions (Plafkin et al.
 1989, Karr 1991).

 Strengths of this approach include the fact that the aquatic species itself—rather than an
 indicator such as habitat conditions or water quality—is under study. Also, regional values
 for fish and macroinvertebrate species assemblages have been generated for many states or
 ecoregions (e.g., Kerans and Karr  1994).  Difficulties with this approach include potentially
 high costs in time and resources and difficulty in finding reference sites to define good
 habitat conditions with which to compare the area under study.

 Use of Population Model Predictions . .	

 The topic of population modeling is too large to address in this module; however, existing
 information on population status  and trends for the aquatic species of concern will  always
 be useful to the analyst. In addition, incorporation of population model predictions may
 also be considered by the analyst.  The analyst should be informed about model strengths
 and weaknesses as well as the limits of both  the data used in model development and the
 range of model predictions.

 Use of an Ecosystem Approach	^	

 Watershed analysis is itself an approach that takes an integrated view of ecosystem processes
 and biological responses. Scientists have developed  other methods or approaches that
 incorporate aspects of watershed analysis, such as assessment of watershed processes, with
 approaches drawn from ecosystem theory. A recent example, presented by Lestelle et al.
 (1996), uses salmon as an indicator species for ecosystem health.  Like watershed analysis,
 this type of method works  to integrate watershed processes, population dynamics and the
 effect of management actions. Another ecosystem approach is a "limiting factor analysis,"
which attempts to identify which habitat component constrains or limits the size of a
  Aquatic Life                                                                                           	-------17

                      population. An example of a limiting factor analysis method is presented by Reeves et al.
                      (1989) and discussed in the "Use of an Expert System" section, above. Like population
                      modeling, the topic of integrating ecosystem approaches and watershed analysis is too
                      large to address in the module.

                      A strength of an ecosystem approach is that it builds on past research and integrates many
                      of the dynamic factors that limit populations. One difficulty with this type of approach is
                      that information requirements and analysis may become very complex.
Aquatic Life

Bovee, K. D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the Instream Flow
        Incremental Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper #12. U.S. Fish and
        Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/26, Washington D.C.

Bovee, K. D. 1986. Development and evaluation of habitat suitability criteria for use
        on the Instream' Flow Incremental Methodology. U.S. Department of the Interior
        Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Service, OCLC No. 15021448,
        Washington, D.C.

Hauer, F. R., and G. A. Lambert (eds.).  1996. Methods in stream ecology. Academic
        Press, San Diego, California.

Karr, J. R.  1991.  Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resources
        management. Ecological Applications l(l):66-84.

Kerans, B. L., and J. R. Karr.  1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers
        of the Tennessee Valley. Ecological Applications 4(4):768-785.

Lestelle, L. C., L. E. Mobrand, J. A. Lichatowich, andT. S. Vogel.  1996. Applied
        ecosystem analysis - a primer. Ecosystem diagnosis and treatment (EDT).
        Bonneville Power Administration, BPA/2753A/1996, Portland, Oregon.

May, C. W, E. B. Welch, R. R. Horner, J. R.  Karr, and W. Mar. 1997. Quality
        indices for urbanization effects on Puget Sound lowland streams. Washington
        Department of Ecology, Publication 98-04, Water Resources Series, Technical
        Report # 154, Olympia,Washington.

MacDonald L. H., A. W. Smart, and R. C. Wissmar.  1991. Monitoring guidelines
        to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest
        and Alaska. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/910/9-91-001,
        Seattle, Washington.
Aquatic Life                                                                                                  -\ g

                            Meehan, W. H. (ed.). 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid
                                    fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19,
                                    Bethesda, Maryland.

                            Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes.
                                    1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers; benthic,
                                    macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/440/
                                    4-89/001, "Washington, D.C.

                            Reeves, G. H., E H. Everest, and T. E. Nickelson.  1989. Identification of physical
                                    habitats limiting die production of coho salmon in western Oregon and
                                    Washington.  U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical
                                    Report PNW-GTR-245, Corvallis,  Oregon.

                            Stoltz, J., and J. Schnell (eds.). 1991.  Trout. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

                            Stuber, R.J., G. Gebhart, and O. E. Maughn.  1982. Habitat suitability index
                                    models: largemouth bass. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.16,
                                    Ft. Collins, Colorado.

                            Terrell, J. W., T. E. McMahon, P. D. Inskip, R. F. Raleigh, and K.L. Williamson.
                                    1982. Habitat suitability index models: Appendix A. Guidelines for riverine and
                                    lacustrine applications offish HSI models with habitat evaluation procedures.
                                    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.A, Washington D.C.
     20                                                                                          Aquatic Life

Form A1. Summary of hypotheses
 Source (include
watershed expert
 as appropriate)
Aquatic Life


Aquatic Life


H •«' **«<
> Water Quality
            mjwt rfV 'W "•t'V^
                   if *t-*^ w;


Background and Objectives
 The goal of the Water Quality assessment is to evaluate the status of specific waterbodies
 as reflected by various water quality parameters related to the health of community
 resources (Figure 1).  The evaluation process will not only aid in identifying existing
 water quality problems but will also identify the possible sources that may have caused
 the problems and suggest changes in management practices or restoration possibilities.
   Figure 1. Water quality assessment
Beneficial Uses

Natural an
Use Distu
Watershed Processes
Source Input
Water Energy
Nutrients • Pathogens

d Land
and Restoration

   Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) and
   Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) (1995)
 Level 1 Water Quality assessment is a screening process that characterizes the status of
 water quality in the watershed and identifies potential sources of impacts. The assessment
 can also identify which waterbodies are at risk and where more in-depth assessment is
 needed to address specific pollution problems.

 Level 2 Water Quality assessment can be conducted for stream segments or waterbodies
 that have been identified as impaired by the Level 1 assessment or that are on the State

Water Quality

303(d) list. Level 2 assessment provides detailed examination of pollution sources and
a complete description of water quality problems. Targeted stream sampling plans may
be developed to pinpoint pollution sources and provide quantitative information on die
degree of impact from a specific source. Level 2 assessment is also helpful when a higher
level of certainty is required, such as when developing TMDLs or restoration strategies.
                                                                        Water Quality

  Water Quality Module Reference Table
    Critical Questions
   Level 1
   Level 2
What arc the beneficial uses
of water resources?
What water quality parame-
ters have not met the
standard and for what time
How much difference exists
between current water qual-
ity and reference conditions?
What causes temperature
What causes fish consump-
tion advisories?
What causes fish kills?
_ What causes excessive algae
growth or eutrophication?
^ • State, tribal, and local documenta-
• 303d list
• EPA, state, and tribal standards
• Monitoring data
• Additional information required
for modeling
• Map and other description of the
reference conditions
•303d list
•' • EPA, state, and tribal standards
• Monitoring data
•303d list
• Change in water and land use
• NPDES data
• Weather data
• Flow data
• Aerial photos of riparian conditions
• Stream characterizations
• Water quality data, especially
_ P_CBs, metals, and Organic com-
• Reports of previous advisories
• NPDES data , „
• Fish tissue analysis results
• Benthic sediments and pathogens
• DO, temperature
• Chemical spills, and mining
• Fish species
• Stream characteristics
• Nutrient concentrations
• Flow data
• NPDES data
• 303d list
• Land uses
• Data on nitrogen and phosphorus
: concentrations:
• Temperature
• Turbidity '
• Flow ,
• Chorophyil-a
• Solar radiation
• Survey community members
• Interview government agencies
• Compare the available data to
• Trend analysis
™ • Summarize and'compare availa-
ble data -„ ' >>
• Describe the reference condi-
• Survey various users
• Identify possible point and non-
point sources
• Identify diversions and new
water uses
• Identify land use change and any
abnormal climate conditions
• Identify possible point and
nonpoint sources
• Interview-water users
• Compare water quality data to
available standard for the fish
• Identify potential pollutant
sources affecting fish survival
• Examine data for excessive
nutrient concentration and
aquatic weeds
• Identify potential nutrient
• Statistical analysis
• Modeling
• Additional monitoring
• Toxicity test
• Field surveys
• Monitoring
• Stream classification
• Mixing and heat balance cal-
• Computer simulations
• loxicity analysis -
• Bioaccumulation analysis
• Computer simulation for
dynamics of DO, tempera-
ture, pH, and algae
• Predict primary productivity
• Computer simulations
Water Quality

              Water Quality Module Reference Table (continued)
Critical Questions
   Level 1
   Level 2
What can cause beach or swim-
ming area closures and other
pathogen problems?

What conditions lead to exces-
sive turbidity?

What causes foul odors?

What adverse impacts on wet-
lands might have resulted from
water quality impairments?
What are the other possible
major sources causing water
quality problems?

• Data from Health Depart-
• Beach locations
• .Livestock facilities and septic
• Plow data
• Hydrological data
• Pathogen attenuation rates
• Land use and soil type data
• Urban construction sites
• Road data
• Agricultural practices
• Wind data
• Hydrological data
• Watershed characteristics
• NPDESdata
• Industrial facilities
• Livestock production facilities'
• Water surface change
• DQ
• Flow rate
• Volatile compound >
• Data on sediments, nutrients,
and toxic chemicals
• Water balance
• Water temperature
• Change in water salinity
• Acid mine drainage
• Chemical spills
• Irrigation return flows
• Landfill sites
• Connection to storm sewer :
• Leaking underground storage
• Atmospheric deposition
• Acid rain
• Groundwater
• Monitoring data>
* Identify potential pathogen
sources of agricultural and
urban origin. *

* Identify sources s"uch as indus-
trial processes, wetlands, waste-
water treatment plants,"failed
septic systems

• Mapping historical and exist-
ing wedand areas
• Evaluate changes in vegetation
sensitive to water quality
• Identify locations of the poten-
tial sources ' f f

• Pathogen die- off and trans-
port calculation
• Computer simulations
' "
• Erosion and sediment deliv-
ery models
• WEPP,RUSLE and other
computer simulation models

* Calculate volatilization rate
* Identify odorous substances
f /
•' •• f
'"' ,
• Modeling and computer
• Additional water analysis for
toxic substances
• Pathway analysis '
* Additional monitoring
•„ Modeling and computer '
simulation „ '
• Examine land fill records *
• Check irrigation flow quality
~ - ' '

" <
                                                                             Water Quality

  Background and Objectives
 Step Chart
 Data Requirements and Sources
 Data requirements                                             fi

 The following is a brief list of the data required to begin the         r
 Water Quality assessment. Some of the maps and data may not be   jjjj
 available for a given watershed or may not be necessary depending   5
 on the scope of water quality issues.                                I

 •  USGS topographic map of the watershed (1:24,000 scale).        |
 •  GIS stream layer (if available).                                  3
 •  Copies of existing water quality data and reports.                 $
 •  305 (b) list reports and inventories of state waterbodies.           |
 •  303(d) list of state waterbodies not in compliance with the        ^
   Water Pollution  Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act           |
   [CWA]).                                                      *
 •  NPDES permit compliance data for point source discharges.      ^
Data sources
                                                                           Define scope of assessment
Select parameters and assemble data
 Identify Indicators of impairment
                                                                          Produce Water Quality report
There are numerous sources of water quality data currently
available, and access to the web has gready facilitated the
distribution of information (Tables 1 and 2).  Water quality
information may be accessed in different forms, such as raw data, databases, and reports.
Reports and databases generally prove to be better sources than simple raw data. Reports
offer the advantage that previous synthesis and analysis efforts have been made. Details
on how the data were collected may also be provided.  Most commercial databases are
compiled based on the original data collected with QA/QC protocols. Although raw data
may be available locally, it will most likely need to be processed before analysis.
 Water Quality

Table 1. Internet sources for water quality information
Web site
EPA Surf Your Watershed
EPA Unified Watershed Assessments
EPA and NRCS Clean Water Action Plan
USGS Water Resources Data
USGS National Water Quality Assessment
USGS National Mapping Program
Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators
NRCS National Resources Inventory
Web address
'. nawqa_home.html
http://www.asiwpca.org s -
• Location of watershed
* Assessment of watershed health
• State and tribal Unified Watershed
Assessments and contacts
•, EPA regulated facilities and pollutant
" 'discharges
« Links to.community groups
• .Links to and descriptions, of federal
programs for collecting water quality
information • , ,
• Links to federal, state, and private
sites with environmental data and other
•" Large national database of water quality
• a information*
• Links to water flow, water quality, and
climate data, ^ - *
-• Describes the status and trends in the ~
quality of the nation's groundwater and
i surface water resources ^
*, Contains topographic maps, spatial data,
1 > and/emote 'sensing data * ~ ,.
• Links to state water-quality programs
• Statistically-based sample of land use
and natural resource conditions and
, trends on non-fe.deral lands in the U/iited -
^ States
                          •  Form. WQ1. Summary of water quality conditions
                          •  Map WQ1. Water quality impairments
                          •  Water Quality report

                          The objectives of the Water Quality assessment are as follows:
                          •  To identify the beneficial and cultural uses of water resources.
                                                                                                Water Quality

Table 2.  Local sources of water quality information
Data Source
State 303(d) and 305(b)
Section 31 4 and 31 9
State and local soil
conservation districts
State and tribal health
University libraries
• 303(d) reports list water quality impaired waterbodies and
parameters exceeding standards.
• 305(b) reports characterize general water quality
conditions and programs to restore and protect waters.
• Section 31 4 lists indicate the water quality status of public
lakes, including point and non-point source pollution
• Section 319 lists were created in 1989 and characterize
water quality problems in coastal areas.
• Expertise and information-may be available on the effects
of agricultural practices such as grazing, irrigation, and
waste management. -
• "Expertise and information may be available on drinking
water, septic tanks, and community health.
• Unpublished reports, dissertations, and theses may be
available in science and engineering libraries.
•  To summarize water quality parameters related to the resource uses.
•  To assess the trends and status of important water quality parameters.
•  To identify sources of water quality impacts.

Step 1. Define scope of assessment

Identify the key personnel and assign responsibilities for the Water Quality assessment
team. Team members may be from within the lead tribal organization or may consist of
external community members or experts.

A preliminary plan of action should be developed that succinctly defines the assessment
objectives.  The stream segments or sub-basins to be assessed, general time-frame for
completion, anticipated data collection problems, and responsibilities for final products
should all be discussed. Collecting, analyzing, and reporting water quality data that have
very litde or no impact on the Water Quality assessment can waste a significant amount
of time.
Step 2. identify beneficial and cultural water uses

Identify all legally defined beneficial uses and other potential beneficial uses (e.g., cultural)
of the water resources within the watershed. The beneficial use of each stream segment

 Water Quality

Table 3. Examples of beneficial uses and related
water quality parameters
                                                                    should be identified from the mouth of the
                                                                    mainstem upstream to the tributaries. A
                                                                    list of federally recognized beneficial uses is
                                                                    shown in Table 3. Beneficial uses should be
                                                                    listed in Form WQl.

                                                                    After determining the beneficial uses
                                                                    currently assigned to each stream segment
                                                                    in the watershed, the Water Quality
                                                                    assessment team can begin to discuss
                                                                    whether these designations make sense
                                                                    given the team's knowledge of the
                                                                    watershed. The key questions in Box 1  are
                                                                    a useful guide to ensure that all relevant
                                                                    issues are addressed during this step.

                                                                   The CWA directed states to establish water
                                                                   quality standards related to the intended
                                                                   uses (or beneficial uses) of surface waters.
                                                                   Some states have completed beneficial' use
                                                                   status and attainability assessments for
                                                                   various rivers. The beneficial uses outlined
                                                                   in the CWA do not include cultural
                                                                   or ceremonial water uses, but the CWA
                       does allow flexibility in identifying new uses or biota categories. The analyst
                       should coordinate with the Community Resources and Historical Conditions analysts
                       to identify potential beneficial
Beneficial use categories
Fish and wildlife
Public water supply
EPA (1994)
Key pollutant parameters
Toxic chemicals
Toxic chemicals
Toxic chemicals
TSS/sediment yield
Turbidity (aesthetics and
   Historical     uses of cultural significance.
     Conditions   Establishing new beneficial uses
                 will often require supporting
                 documentation of the following:

                 •  Historical use.
                 •  Locations of cultural
                 •  Cultural use protection
                                                          Box 1. Key questions for beneficial use identification
                                                                Where are the surface waters, lakes, ponds,
                                                                estuaries, groundwater aquifers, wetlands, etc.?,
                                                                What are the current identified beneficial uses?
                                                                What are the historical beneficial uses?
                                                                    ?*•"*>                         f     f
                                                                What are the key parameters related to the
                                                                beneficial  uses?
                                                                Were any of the beneficial use changes caused
                                                               . by water quality?
                                                                                               Water Quality

Step 3. Select parameters and assemble data

Select water quality parameters
Based on the identified beneficial and cultural uses, determine which water quality
parameters will need to be evaluated. Tables 4 and 5 list parameters that typically need to
be evaluated for a variety of beneficial uses; the importance of each parameter for each use
is rated High, Moderate, or Low.

The parameters for which data are most commonly required are as follows:

•  Temperature.
•  Total suspended solids (TSS).
•  Dissolved oxygen (DO).
•  pH (acidity).
•  Nutrients (e.g.,  nitrogen and phosphorus).
•  Pathogens (e.g., fecal coliforms).
•  Pesticides.
•  Metals (e.g., cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc).
•  Other toxic chemicals.
•  Biological conditions.

More extensive definitions of these parameters can be found in introductory water quality
texts. The relationships between parameters and community resources are briefly described
in the following sections.

Elevated stream temperatures can stress and cause behavioral changes in fish populations
and other biota.  Warmer water temperatures can change aquatic community assemblages,
reduce growth rates, and increase disease.

Although land use impacts generally elevate stream temperatures, vegetation removal may
cause cooler water  temperatures during the winter. Cooler winter water temperatures may
reduce growth offish and can also cause the formation of anchor ice that smothers aquatic
life in the stream substrate.

Temperature can also affect a number of other important water quality parameters.
Gas solubility decreases with increasing temperature, resulting in generally lower DO
 Water Quality                          •                                                                         9

Table 4. Parameter selection for water quality assessment in relation to water uses

Temps nature
Suspended Solids
Total dissolved solids
Chlorophyll a
Total organic carbon
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand
Oil and Hydrocarbons
Organic Solvents
Fecal Conforms
Total Coliforms

c o)
3 C
P ~
m E



(0 c ;- .S g po> o S 3t3 o £ a>
{Tea ±= _i S o. ro ±: w Q.Q. U.Q. a.
M , H
M ' _ MM
H L H ' „ - M H H L
L M H' M M H H ,
L ' L
M ' ML

H ' ,

, L L H L L ' "H
L L ' L H
H M ~ M L H1 H
L, M M M H L
L L -
M L " \
"L L L L M
L L , f ' , , *
L L , , , L H
- L
L :
- > „ f * ^ ^ L
H H " •;'•;'' ' •
H L „" ' ' ' ',''>"'
H L M ( ,'_/,, H '
Chapman (1996) , ,' ~
Water Quality

Table 5. Parameter selection for water quality assessment in relation to additional water uses

Suspended Solids
' Turbidity
- Conductivity
Dissolved Oxygen
, Ammonia
Total organic carbon
Chemical oxygen demand
Biochemical oxygen demand
Calcium „ -
- Chloride
* Arsenic/Selenium
Oil and Hydrocarbons
Organic Solvents
Fecal Conforms ,
Q. ^

' M
" , M '
L "'
, L



H '

(0 o

" M
L ._
L '

"• M
, L


M .




a. o
II i!
                      concentrations and reaeration rates. With temperature increases, chemical and biochemical
                      reaction rates typically increase markedly and mineral solubility increases.  Most organisms
                      have distinct temperature ranges within which they can reproduce and compete effectively.

                       Total stisf ended solids (TSS)
                      TSS are defined as the particles in the water column that are larger than 2 microns
                      in diameter.  In streams, the majority of TSS are fine sediments or algae.  Laboratory
                      procedures for measuring TSS involve time-consuming processes of filtering, drying,
                      cooling, and weighing. Because TSS can be related to  the turbidity of the water, turbidity
                      is used in many cases to evaluate the concentration of fine particulate material suspended
                      in the water column.  Turbidity can be quickly measured by determining light transmission
                      in water.

                      Sediment may direcdy affect fish by causing gill abrasion or fin rot. Sediment can
                      indirecdy impact aquatic biota by reducing habitat through blanketing of fish spawning
                      and feeding areas, by eliminating sensitive food organisms, or by reducing sunlight
                      penetration to aquatic plants, thereby impairing photosynthesis.

                      Suspended sediment also decreases recreational values, adds to the mechanical wear of
                      water supply pumps and distribution systems, and adds to treatment costs for water
                      supplies. Suspended sediment may also provide a mechanism for transport of pesticides
                      or other toxic compounds.

                      Dissolved oxygen (DO)
                      DO is defined as the amount of oxygen dissolved in water. The presence of oxygen  is
                      of fundamental importance in maintaining aquatic life and the aesthetic quality of waters.
                      Low DO concentrations may harm fish and aquatic biota.  Fish tolerance of low DO
                      levels varies by species, growth cycle, acclimation time, and temperature. Cold water fish
                      (e.g., salmon and trout) require higher DO concentrations than do warm water fish and
                      biota. The preferred DO level for trout is generally greater than 5 mg/L. Rough fish
                      such as  carp and catfish can survive at oxygen levels as  low as 2 mg/L and also tolerate
                      warmer water.
                      pH (acidity)
                      pH represents the concentration of hydrogen ions in water and thus indicates .the acidity of
                      the water. As water becomes more basic, pH increases; as water becomes more acidic, pH
 12                                                                                           Water Quality

 decreases.  pH affects the reaction and equilibrium relationships of many chemicals.  Many-
 biological systems function only in relatively narrow pH ranges (typically 6.5 to 8.5). Fish
 and other aquatic species prefer a pH near neutral (7) but can withstand a pH in the range
 of about 6 to 8.5. Low pH in water inhibits enzymatic activity in aquatic organisms. The
 toxicity of many compounds can also be altered if the pH is changed. The solubility of
 many metals, as well as other compounds, is affected by pH, resulting in increased toxicity
 in the lower pH range.

 Nutrients—-phosphorus and nitrogen
 Both phosphorus and nitrogen are essential nutrients for the growth of aquatic vegetation.
 Phosphorus is essential for the growth of algae and other aquatic organisms. Serious
 problems such as algae blooms and fish kills have resulted when  excess phosphorus exists
 in the aquatic environment.

 Nitrogen is a complex element that can exist in seven states of oxidation. From a
 water quality standpoint, the nitrogen-containing compounds that are of most interest are
 organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate, and nitrogen gas. Table 6 summarizes the generally
 reported forms of nitrogen.

  Table 6. Summary of nitrogen forms
Total Nitrogen
Total Inorganic
Total Organic
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrogen Nitrate " Ammonia
Readily available for aquatic plant growth
Dissolved ' Particulate
Must undergo microbiat degradation
- • to become available
Nutrient enrichment of surface waters may cause excessive algae and aquatic plant growth.
This creates large diurnal oxygen fluctuations due to excessive DO production during
daylight hours followed by excessive consumption of oxygen (mainly through plant die-
off) when photosynthesis is not occurring. Seasonal die-off of vegetation due to frost
may also create large oxygen demands and suffocate fish and aquatic organisms. Physical
impediments to fishing and boating and operation of water supply facilities can also be
affected when vegetation becomes so overgrown that leaves and roots clog motors and
 Water Quality

                      intakes. Nitrate contaminants in drinking water significantly above the drinking water
                      standard (10 mg/L) may cause methemoglobinemia (a blood disease) in infants and have
                      forced closure of several water supplies.  High ammonia concentrations in water are also
                      toxic to fish and cause an odor problem.

                      Pathogenic bacteria, protozoa, and viruses include infectious agents and disease-producing
                      organisms normally associated with human and animal wastes.  Waterborne pathogens
                      can be transmitted to humans or animals through drinking water supplies, direct contact
                      recreation, or consumption of contaminated shellfish.  Bacterial pathogens of concern
                      include V. cholerae, Salmonellae, and Shigella.  Pathogenic protozoan eggs and cysts have
                      been linked to Giardia lambia and Entamoeba histolytica (amoebic dysentery).  Viruses
                      ingested from water can lead to diseases such as hepatitis (Thomann and Mueller 1987).

                      Detection methods for pathogenic bacteria are severely limited because of the difficulty in
                      isolating a small number of cells. Consequendy, in spite of problems establishing direct
                      correlations, coliform groups can serve as indicators of pathogens.  Fecal coliform bacteria
                      behave similarly to common enteric pathogens, and a close relationship exists between the
                      growth and survival of fecal coliform and both Salmonella and Shigella.

                      Relationships between the total coliform bacteria group and pathogens are not considered
                      to be quantitative. Because of die occurrence and interference of nonfecal bacteria and
                      their differential resistance to chlorination, more accurate approaches involving the fecal
                      coliform and fecal Streptococci groups are required.

                      Pesticides are most commonly used in agricultural applications for the control of weeds and
                      pest organisms. The presence of these substances in water is troublesome because they are
                      toxic to most aquatic organisms and many are known or suspected carcinogens.  Potential
                      impairments from pesticides include damage to aquatic fauna and concerns for human
                      health (contamination of domestic water supply or fishery). Concentration levels rather
                      than overall  loadings are most important. Contamination of groundwater by organic
                      chemicals can occur through leaching.

                      Heavy metals are a group of elemental pollutants including arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
                      copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc.  Industries such as electroplating, battery
                      manufacturing, mining, smelting, and refining have been identified as potential sources of

14                                                                                           Water Quality

 heavy metals. Metals may enter surface waters either dissolved in runoff or attached to
 sediment or organic materials. Metals can also enter groundwater through soil infiltration.

 Metals can have toxic effects on humans, fish, wildlife, and microorganisms. Since metals
 do not readily decay, their persistence in the environment is a problem potentially
 contributing to long-term habitat and public water supply degradation. A principal
 concern about metals in surface water is  their entry into the food chain at relatively  low
 concentrations and their bioaccumulation over time to toxic levels.  High concentrations
 of arsenic can cause dermal and nervous  system toxicity effects; high concentrations of
 cadmium can cause kidney effects; and high concentrations  of chromium have been linked
 to liver and kidney effects. Lead can result in central nervous system damage and kidney
 effects and is also highly toxic to infants  and pregnant women. High concentrations of
 mercury can cause central nervous system disorders and kidney effects; high concentrations
 of selenium have gastrointestinal effects;  and high concentrations of silver can cause skin

 Other toxic chemicals
 Thousands of industrial and petroleum processing chemicals such as plasticizers, solvents,
 waxes, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
 make up the final group of toxic substances. Alkyl phthalates, chlorinated benzenes, PCBs,
 and PAHs are broad subcategories in this group.  Some chemicals are carcinogenic direcdy
 to humans, while others affect fish, aquatic organisms, or plants within the water column
 or in the benthic sediment layer..

 Biological conditions
 Because water quality problems often manifest themselves in terms offish or organism
 health, many states and the EPA are  promoting data collection on fish and benthic
 organism communities while conducting water quality assessments. "While biological data
 are generally considered to be indicators of water  quality radier than specific parameters,
 it may be cost-effective to compile this data and water quality data simultaneously. The
 biological data may be critical in associating pollutant concentrations with long-term
 detrimental effects. However, a great deal of uncertainty exists when interpreting this
 type of data.

Assemble water quality data
Assemble all of the relevant water quality data available for the watershed.  It is very
 important to keep the assessment objectives in mind to keep the team focused. Try to
 avoid collecting information outside  the scope of the project.

 Water Quality                                                                                            	"15

                             Identify data, deficiencies
                             Problems exist when comparing data sets collected by different entities. For example, the
                             data may have been collected using different methodologies and QA/QC protocols or at
                             different times and locations. To facilitate the combination of data from various sources,
                             team members will need to become familiar with the designation of stream segments and
                             waterbodies within their watershed.

                             An important part of creating the database will be judging the validity of the
                             data. Laboratory errors, data translation errors, improper chain of custody procedures,
                             and several other independent sources of error can affect results. Undoubtedly, data
                             interpretations will need to be made, but they should be made carefully by experienced

                             Step 4. Identify water quality standards and criteria

                             Identify existing water quality standards and criteria applicable to the waterbodies and
                             stream segments being assessed. Water quality standards are laws or regulations adopted
                             by states and tribes to enhance water quality and to protect public health and welfare.
                             Water quality  standards provide the foundation for accomplishing two of the principal
                             goals of the CWA: 1) to restore and maintain die chemical, physical, and biological
                             integrity of the nation's waters,  and 2) where attainable, to achieve water quality that
                             promotes protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
                             recreation in and on the water (EPA 1999).

                             A water quality standard consists of three elements: 1) the designated beneficial use or
                             uses of a waterbody or segment of a waterbody, 2) the water quality criteria necessary
                             to protect the  use or uses of that particular waterbody, and 3) an antidegradation policy.
                             Water quality  criteria describe the quality of water that will support a designated use and
                             may be expressed as either quantitative limits or a qualitative description. In practice,
                             criteria are set at levels that will protect the most sensitive  of uses, such as human health
                             or aquatic life. An antidegradation policy ensures that water quality improvements are
                             conserved, maintained, and protected (EPA 1999).

                             Water quality  criteria can be obtained from a wide range of sources:

                             •  EPA criteria.
                             •  State water quality criteria.

      16                                                                                             Water Quality

•  Site-specific criteria based on scientific studies.
•  Agency guidelines.

Table 7 is an example of EPA water quality criteria. The term biota is fairly comprehensive,
so there may be scientifically justifiable reasons for requiring more or less stringent
criteria for a particular species than those shown in the table.  Table 8  provides regional
reference values for natural water quality derived from 57 stations constituting the National
Hydrologic  Benchmark Network.

Not all criteria have been translated into state or local laws; however, some agencies develop
policy based on criteria. A tribe or local health department, for example, may regulate
beach closures based on fecal coliform criteria without a specific water quality standard.
 Table 7. EPA water quality criteria for DO concentrations (mg/L)
" Cold water biota
Period Early Life Stages Other Life Stages
30-day mean NA 6.5
7-day mean 9.6 (6.5)* NA -
7-day minimum ' NA 5.0 "
1 -day minimum " 8.0 (5.0) 4.0
Warm water biota
Early Life Stages
„ NA
5.0 '
Other Life Stages
, 3.0
* Applies to species that have early life stages exposed directly to water column.
Novotny and Olem (1994) ' • ' ,- ' "
Table 8.  Regional reference values for regional natural water quality
BOD (mg/L)
Nitrate (mg/L)
To.tal Phosphorus (mg/L)
Total coliforms (MPN/100 ml)
Novotny and Olem (1994)

0.01-0.02 ,

" 10-50
Great Plains
' 0.1-0:2



Water Quality

                      Step 5. Identify indicators of impairment

                      Water quality impairment is typically defined as the exceedence of criteria, but other
                      indicators of problems, such as fish kills, algae blooms, and localized epidemics, should
                      also be examined. For each waterbody or stream segment, record potential indicators of
                      impairment on Form WQ1 .

                      Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the precise combination of water
                      quality indicators necessary to accurately assess watershed conditions (EPA and USFWS
                      1984, Heaney 1989, Greeley-Polhemus Group 1991).  Snodgrass et al. (1993) present a
                      sub-basin framework for managing environmental quality where flooding, erosion, surface
                      water quality, groundwater (quality and quantity), natural features (wetlands), aquatic
                      communities, recreation,  aesthetics (water, valleyland), terrestrial (wildlife, woodlots), and
                      receiving waterbody issues are examined.  Each category could be further divided to
                      coincide with the available data if additional clarification were needed. The EPA (1996a)
                      identified 1 8 environmental water quality indicators to meet five national environmental
                      goals. These indicators reflect the requirements of both the CWA and the Safe Drinking
                      Water Act.  However,  many of the indicators comprise multiple parameters whose relative
                      significance has yet to be  established.

                      The EPA (1995a) used environmental indicators to judge the effectiveness of stormwater
                      management efforts. The indicators were selected from categories such as  1) water quality,
                      2) physical  and hydrological, 3) biological, 4) whole watershed, 5) social, 6) programmatic,
                      and 7) site-specific compliance.  Unfortunately, monitoring many of these indicators would
                      be cost-prohibitive.

                      Biological indicators have received considerable attention in recent years as potential
                      markers of watershed health. However, interpreting the results of bioassessment studies
                      can be difficult.  Organism populations and community structures can vary considerably
                      according to season and site, making it difficult to interpret fluctuations.

                      Step 6. Analyze water  quality data

                      Analyze the water quality data obtained in Step 1 and compare the data with the standards
                      and criteria identified in Step 2 to assess whedier the existing water quality can support the
                      beneficial and cultural uses identified in Step 3.  In some cases, evaluation of exceedences
                      may only require comparison of monitoring data to established standards and criteria. In
18                                                                                            Water Quality

more complicated watersheds, the assessment team might have to evaluate the quality of
the data, perform statistical analyses, or suggest possible standards or criteria. The major
tasks of this step are illustrated in Figure 2. The key questions listed in Box 2 will help
guide the Water Quality assessment team during the data analysis phase.
           Figure 2.
      Major tasks in water
      quality data analysis

   Prioritize waterbodies and
       stream segments
    Determine locations and    j
   frequencies of exceedence

   Compare water quality data
'   with reference conditions
     Evaluate indicators of
    water quality conditions
       Summarize water
       quality problems
Level 1 assessment involves basic statistical analyses
to describe the central tendency and spread of water
quality data. The mean or median describes the
central tendency of the sample, while the standard
deviation or interquartile range measures the spread
of data from the mean.  Analysts can refer to several
documents for more detailed descriptions of statistical
procedures (Gilbert 1987, MacDonald et al. 1991,
EPA 1997a).

Prioritize waterbodies and stream segments
Decide which waterbodies or stream segments require
more detailed water quality evaluations. Contact
other members of the assessment team, such as the
Aquatic Life or Channel analyst to identify critical
areas.  Reports that summarize water quality data and
concerns, such as the state 305 (b) reports, can also
help to focus the assessment.
Aquatic Life
Box 2. Key questions for water quality data analysis
   • In what sequence should the waterbodies be analyzed?
   • How were the standards set up,,(e.g., based on monthly or weekly,mean concentration)?
   • -Is the water quality data format consistent with the standard?
   • What water quality parameters have not met the standard and for how long?
   • What beneficial uses are not supported in the waterbody?
   • What are relevant background or reference conditions for the waterbodies of interest?
   • How different is the existing water quality from the reference conditions?
 Water Quality

                           Determine locations and frequencies of exceedences
                           Review water quality data to identify exceedences of water quality criteria. Water quality
                           problems can also be identified by referencing water quality—related information such as
                           reports on fish kills, state 303 (d) reports, and other reported violations of water quality
            *  Resources
            Aquatic Life
The strength and rigor of the quality control should be considered in determining -whether
or not the exceedence data are conclusive.  EPA standards for monitoring should be
considered in reviewing the information (EPA 1996b). If monitoring data are inconclusive
or suspect because of quality control, care should be exercised in inferring water quality

Compare water quality data with reference conditions
Another approach for confirming water quality problems is to compare water quality-
data to reference conditions, which represent the natural state prior to significant human
disturbance. Reference conditions can be identified in watershed areas with minimal
human influence.  Another option is to use historical data to identify past reference
conditions.  Data on reference conditions can be extremely valuable in the analysis process
to determine the degree of watershed deterioration and the feasibility of maintaining
certain beneficial uses. The reference condition approach is particularly useful when water
quality standards are not available.

Evaluate indicators of water quality conditions
Using the information on indicators of water quality collected in Step 5, consider whether
water quality standards and criteria are sufficient to protect community resources.  Identify
waterbodies where qualitative indicators such as fish kills, "swimmer's itch," unpleasant
odors, or fish consumption advisories suggest impairment of community resources.
Consult with the Community Resources analyst to help incorporate observations from the
local community.

Biological monitoring programs may provide useful information for identifying habitat
alterations, the cumulative effects of pollutants, and the biological integrity of aquatic
communities. A change in the abundance of organisms or in community composition
may indicate problems not revealed by more conventional water chemistry monitoring.
Consult with the Aquatic Life analyst about the status and trends of aquatic populations.
                                                                        Water Quality

 Summarize water quality problems
 Summarize the water quality problems in Form WQl and the Water Quality report.
 The analysis of water quality exceedences, reference conditions, and impairment indicators
 should provide the evidence to document water quality problems. Impaired stream
 segments or other waterbodies should be highlighted on Map WQl.

 Water quality data may not be available or may have significant gaps for many of the
 parameters.  Major gaps in water quality data (e.g., inadequate coverage, infrequent
 measurements, lack of reliability) should be identified in the Water Quality report.
 Insufficient standards or criteria to evaluate water quality should also be highlighted.

 Step 7. Identify potential pollution sources

 Identify the potential sources of the water quality problems found in the watershed. The
 information can be used as either a basis for further assessment or as a reference for
 management plans. The general tasks involved in this step are illustrated
 in Figure 3.  Box 3 lists key questions that should be considered during
 this step. Concluding that a waterbody is at risk from a particular practice
 often requires explicit evaluation of the hazardous inputs, the transport of
 pollutants, and delivery to sensitive resources in a Level 2 assessment.
       Figure 3.
 Major tasks in pollution
  source identification
      Box 3. Key questions for pollution source identification
           What are the potential sources of sediment, water, heat,
           chemicals, pathogens, nutrients, etc.?
           What is the fate of pollutants upon entry to the stream?
           What is the potential for chemical change, dilution or other
           transformation effects?            •               '
           What is the potential for delivery via rurioff, infiltration, or
           atmospheric transport to sensitive segments? "
           What is the evidence for cause-and-effect linkages?
                                                                                Identify possible sources
Identify pathways of each
   pollutant identified
Identify possible sources
Develop a list of all possible sources that relate to the water quality impairment, including
both point sources and non-point sources. A number of resources may be useful in this
part of assessment:
 Water Quality

                       •  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) site data. Under the RCRA, the
                         EPA evaluates hazardous waste sites for corrective action. Information may be available
                         on toxic sources and risks to resources.

                       •  NPDES permit data.  State agencies are commonly responsible for implementation
                         of point source discharge permitting under the CWA.  Under this authority, states
                         provide permits to pollutant dischargers based upon a review of receiving water
                         assimilation capacity, loading, and other considerations.

                       •  Stormwater evaluations.  County and city governments commonly conduct analyses
                         of stormwater and associated effects on water quality.  This information may indicate
                         pollutant loadings of toxic and non-toxic substances.

                       •  Health department studies and sanitary surveys. Health departments (state and
                         county level) commonly evaluate water quality impacts, including the impacts on
                         shellfish beds, groundwater, and surface water.

                       •  State recreational studies. State recreation agencies commonly evaluate site qualities
                         with respect to human use potential, as well as the condition offish and wildlife

                       •  Species evaluations by the USFWS and state resource agencies. Habitat
                         conservation plans and other analyses evaluating habitat and impacting land practices
                         may be on file.
                       • Section 319 studies (under the CVK\).  These may include evaluations of water
                         quality problems, inventories, etc.

                       • Resource agency studies. Local, state, and federal agencies that regulate land
                         disturbing activities often have information on land use and potential water quality
                         problems.  The NRCS commonly funds conservation districts to evaluate water quality
                         problems specific to agricultural lands.  The BLM and USFS often have data on timber
                         sales, grazing allotments, and mining claims that may impact water quality.

                       Identify pathways of each pollutant identified
                       Identify the relationship between pollution sources and the water quality problems. A
                       pathway diagram is a useful tool to show the potential links between the source of
                       generation and water quality (Figures 4 - 8 in the "Level 2 Assessment" section). The
                       diagram is a simple way to crystallize the strategy for the assessment and narrow it down
                       to manageable dimensions.
 22                                                                                          Water Quality

 The identification of pathways should be based upon knowledge of pollutant-generating
 activities, the transport of pollutants, and die location of water quality problems. The
 Level 2 assessment provides more detailed information on identifying pollutant pathways.

 StepS. Produce Water Quality report

 The Water Quality report should summarize water quality conditions, indicators of
 impairment, and connections between pollutant sources and resource impairment.
 Highlighting assumptions, gaps in data, and scientific uncertainty in  the Water Quality
 report will be important to  evaluate the confidence in the assessment.

 The report will typically include the following components:

 •  Summary of available water quality data.
 •  Applicable water quality standards and criteria.
 •  Community resources dependent on water quality.
 •  Exceedences of criteria and standards.
 •  Indicators of impairment.
 •  Potential  sources of impairment.
 •  Conclusions of the assessment.
 •  Future monitoring and research needs.
 •  Confidence in the assessment.
Water Quality                                                                                         	

                      Level 2 Assessment
                      This section provides a general overview of methods and tools that can be used in a Level 2
                      Water Quality assessment. It is not comprehensive and by no means represents a complete
                      procedure. Sources that provide more detailed information on assessment methods are
                      noted throughout this section.

                      Level 2 assessment can be complicated by the fact that water quality parameters are often
                      interrelated. Unlike more visible indicators of watershed health, water quality problems
                      often manifest themselves through symptoms that may occur miles downstream of the
                      actual problem.  For example, eutrophication problems, caused by excessive phytoplankton
                      growth, require sufficient nutrients, temperature, light, and time. Problems with excessive
                      nutrient inputs upstream may not become evident until after water flows into a lake, where
                      sediments setde, allowing additional light penetration, the water temperature increases, and
                      the algae has time to grow.  Investigating the lake for the source of nutrients may prove to
                      be futile because they were transported from upstream sources. This complexity may make
                      characterization or identification of water quality problems very difficult.

                      Level 2 assessment for water quality can be quite complicated and requires interaction with
                      several of the other module analysts, patricularly the Hydrology, Aquatic Life, and Erosion
                      analysts. Pathway analysis requires knowledge of water chemistry and environmental
                      science. Use of complicated mathematical models requires knowledge of both water quality
                      and computer modeling, and extensive training and experience may be necessary to use
                      computer simulation packages.  In addition, Level 2 assessment may require extensive field
                      data collection at specific locations throughout the watershed.  Thus, estimates of the time
                      and resources required for assessment need to take into account these elements.

                      This section focuses on methods and quantitative tools for estimating pollutant loading
                      from various sources.  The methods and tools are divided into four categories:

                      •  Analysis of mixing and dilution.
                      •  Loading tables.
                      •  Parameter-specific pathway analysis.
                      •  Computer simulations.
 24                                                                                          Water Quality

 Analysis of Mixing and Dilution
 A mixing and dilution calculation is the most widely used method for evaluating the
 impact of a pollutant discharge on a receiving waterbody. The pollutant from a particular
 source is typically diluted after being discharged. The impact of the discharge can be
 evaluated by determining the pollutant concentration in the receiving waterbody after
 mixing. Conversely, if an elevated pollutant concentration is measured and a source can
 be identified, then the amount of discharge from the source can be back-calculated. The
 equation used for these purposes is as follows:


         Where:   Cf = pollutant concentration after mixing.
                  Cj and C2 = pollutant concentrations in the source and the receiving
                  water before mixing, respectively.
                  Qj and Q2 = flow rates of the source and the receiving water,

 For a lake or a pond without appreciable water exchange, the mixing equation can be
 written as follows:
        Where: V: and V2 = volumes of the source and the receiving water, respectively.

The resulting pollutant concentration assumes complete mixing of the pollutant and
the receiving waterbody. This generally will not occur until some distance downstream.
Within the initial dilution zone, concentrations may be considerably higher. The length
of the mixing zone can be quite variable depending on stream characteristics and
possible density or thermal stratification between the pollutant and the natural stream.
Several methods for determining the mixing zone length can be found in the literature.
These range from relatively simple rule-of-thumb approaches to computer models
such as CORMIX. Analytical solutions can be found for river mixing in references
such as Thomann and Mueller (1987) and Martin and McCutcheon (1999). Martin
and McCutcheon (1999) also present more in-deptli theoretical discussions concerning
mixing in streams and lakes.
Water Quality                                                                                           	on

                       Loading Tables
When detailed information is not available or time and resources are not adequate to
do modeling, proper use of loading tables allows quick estimations of pollutants from a
particular source or land use. Loading tables give unit pollutant loading rates. Examples
include soil erosion per acre of land, atmospheric deposition per square foot of surface
area, and solids product rate per foot of curb length in cities. Table 9 illustrates some
approximate loading rates for different land uses in Washington State.  Other sources
for unit loading values include McElroy et al. (1976), Thomann and Mueller (1987),
and Chandler (1993). Novotny and Chesters (1981) include approximations for nutrient
export based on geographic regions of the United States and land use.  The values
are given in terms of concentration, so approximations for runoff must also be made
Table 9. Unit loads of pollutants (kg/ha/yr) from different land uses


5 .S
c •!=
g w
E —
o ,S
o >••
L. (/)

£ TJ
O £
840 56
1020 63
3.0 2.0 - 7.1
3.3 3.5 - 12
n.a. 0.33-1.1
0.67 0.45
15 2.2-15
2.7 0.9-4.0
* Exact values are given where available;
1.1 -5.6

. 3.8
3.4 - 4.5
ranges are


0.03 - 0.08
, 0;01 - 0.06
0.1 - 3.0

• £
, 3
, 340
0.003 : 0.01 5
0.02 - 0.04


0.01 - 0.03
0.01 -0.03
0.02 - 0.03
0.02 - 0.45
, ,

, n.a. , •
1.7 *

Adapted from Homer era/. (1986) ) , "'
                                                                       Water Quality

 Parameter-Specific Pathway Analysis
 Many equations or methods have been developed to analyze the relationship between
 different forms or phases of pollutants. Pathway analysis explores the relationship
 between different forms of a pollutant based on the physical or chemical processes
 of transformation.  Knowledge of these relationships will improve identification and
 evaluation of pollutant sources. The pathway analysis conducted in a Level 1 assessment
 (Step 7) is often qualitative, aiming at source identification.  Pathway analysis conducted
 in a Level 2 assessment is more quantitative, aiming at identification of the degree of
 impact from one or more possible sources.


 The relationship between water temperature and the factors controlling it is well
 understood and amenable to quantitative prediction. The temperature of a waterbody
 can be determined by calculating the heat balance between the waterbody and the
 surrounding environment. Major controlling factors include solar radiation, geographical
 location, elevation,  groundwater interaction, shading, and seasonal weather conditions
 such as rain and wind.

 Land use activities that affect discharge, streamside vegetation cover, and channel
 morphology all exert variable influences on temperature in different climates. With other
 factors held constant, streams with lower discharge are more susceptible to temperature
 increases during the summer and decreases during the winter. Reduction of base flows also
 causes increased seasonal temperature extremes because groundwater commonly warms
 streams in winter and cools them in summer.

 The reduction of stream surface shading by the removal of riparian vegetation can
 significantly affect temperature, depending upon elevation, stream hydrology, and
 groundwater/surface water interaction. Riparian grazing can also aggravate seasonal water
 temperature extremes by reducing base flows via channel incision or soil compaction.
 Restoration of riparian soils and vegetation through improved range management is one
 of the most effective management tools available for increasing summer base flows.

Increases in channel widda caused by high levels of sediment delivery or loss of bank
stability also exacerbate water temperature extremes in winter and summer. In summer,
Water Quality

           _   .
vegetation of a given height is less effective in shading wider channels. Wider and
shallower channels also have a greater heat load under a fixed energy budget because of
the increase in the stream surface area.
Temperature modeling can be conducted in two ways. The first deals with mixing of
water that has different temperatures, and die second is based on the heat balance of
a control waterbody.  The mixing equation presented in die "Analysis of Mixing and
Dilution" section, can be used in temperature calculations by substituting temperature
(T) for concentration (C). This approach is generally used to estimate temperature
impacts from point sources. The heat balance approach, on the other hand, is used
widely in computer modeling for evaluating non-point sources. A good example can be
found in the QUAL2E user's guide (EPA 1995b).

Total suspended solids (TSS)
The major sources of TSS include sediment, algae growth in the waterbodies, and point
source discharges. The sediment resulting from agricultural and urban runoff and from
streambanks can be estimated using methods provided in the Erosion module. TSS
caused by algae growth can be related to die nutrient concentration and productivity of
the waterbody. Direct discharge from point sources can be estimated from the NPDES
permit data, which are maintained by state agencies. TSS in a waterbody is additive;
the concentration of the TSS in a waterbody is the summation of the mass of TSS from
different sources divided by the volume of the waterbody.  Some portion of the suspended
solids will setde.
Dissolved oxygen (DO)

The major DO sources include photosynthesis and reaeration (Figure 4).  Cool
temperature, rapid aeration, and relatively low biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) may
increase DO. Respiration of photosynthetic organisms, decay of organic matter in the
water column, and benthic oxygen demand decrease DO. Introduction of organic matter
from both point and non-point sources to streams can increase BOD and decrease DO.
Photosynthetic contributions of oxygen occur only during daylight hours and are quite
seasonal. The primary contributors are algae. Highly eutrophic waters may range in DO
concentration from supersaturated during hot, sunny days to anaerobic at night.
                                                                     Water Quality

                                                       Figure 4. A simplified pathway of DO
                                                                due to BOD
In mountainous environments, streams possess little
vulnerability to low DO because fine organic debris
is generally sparse and reaeration of flowing water is
more than sufficient to maintain high levels of DO.
Low DO is more likely when the following conditions
are present:

•  Very slow-moving, low-gradient, warm streams
   with low discharge (i.e., low reaeration rates).
•  Heavy inputs of fine organic debris to low-flow
   streams, causing a large BOD or high
   concentrations of organics.
•  Warm,  eutrophic streams, where high rates
   of photosynthesis and respiration cause diurnal
   fluctuations in DO (consuming oxygen without
   reaeration). These conditions are similar to those
   associated with lake eutrophication.
Large BOD is quite often localized to short reaches where organic material accumulates.
A second source of BOD demand is the growth of attached organisms, such as the
filamentous bacteria often released in wastewater discharges.

In general, risk determination should be based on high organic loading to slow moving
streams with limited reaeration potential.  Streams subject to warming as a result of low
natural flow, water withdrawals, and loss of riparian shade are especially susceptible.

The saturation potential of oxygen depends on the water temperature, the atmospheric
pressure, and the salinity. For fresh water at sea level, the DO saturation concentration in
mg/L can be expressed as a function of temperature (American Public Health Association
                                                                                       generation by
   = -139.34411 +
                     1.575701 E5
6.652308 E7
                                                        1.2438 E10
8.621949 Ell
       Where: T = temperature in degrees Kelvin (°C + 273.15).
               Cs = DO saturation (mg/L)
Water Quality

                       Degradation of pollutants often reduces the DO concentration below the saturation
                       value. The oxidation of carbonaceous substances often causes reduced oxygen levels
                       downstream of point sources. Municipal waste increases BOD, so wastewater treatment
                       plants are a common starting point for this type of analysis. A common tool for
                       predicting DO concentrations under various flow conditions is the Streeter-Phelps
                       Equation. This equation is essentially a balance between DO consumption due to BOD
                       expression and stream reaeration. According to Thomann and Mueller (1987), the DO
                       balance equation can be written as follows:
X                X
                                                                           L0 - (cs- c0 ) exp^
                              Where: IQ = reaeration coefficient.
                                      IQ = effective deoxygenation rate.
                                      Kr = BOD loss rate.
                                      x = distance downstream of point source.
                                      U = average water column velocity.
                                      L0 = BOD concentration at the outfall.
                                      c0 = DO concentration at the outfall.
                                      cs = saturation concentration of oxygen.
                       pH modeling involves describing the hydrogen ion balance in water. The natural pH
                       balance of a waterbody can be affected by industrial effluents and atmospheric deposition
                       of acid-forming substances (i.e., acid rain).  Changes in pH can indicate the presence of
                       certain effluents, particularly when continuously measured and recorded.  Daily variations
                       in pH can be caused by photosynthesis and the respiration cycle of algae in eutrophic
                       water. The rapid growth of algae on a clear day can consume a significant amount of
                       carbon dioxide from the water and increase the pH.  During the night, however, the
                       respiration of algae produces excessive carbon dioxide, which lowers the pH.


                       In a natural environment, nitrogen undergoes biological and non-biological
                       transformations according to the nitrogen cycle (Figure 5). The major non-biological
 30                                                                     '                    Water Quality

 processes involve phase transformations such as volatilization, adsorption, and

 sedimentation. The biological transformation involves the following:

 1.  Uptake of ammonia and nitrate by plants and micro-organisms to form organic

 2.  Fixation of nitrogen gas by plants and bacteria to produce organic nitrogen.

 3.  Ammonification of organic nitrogen to produce ammonia during decomposition of
     organic matter.

 4.  Oxidation of ammonia to nitrite and nitrate under aerobic conditions.

 5.  Bacterial reduction of nitrate to nitrous oxide and molecular nitrogen under

     anaerobic conditions through denitriflcation.

        Figure 5. Nitrogen cycle
              residue sink
         Sawyer and McCarty (1978)
Ammonia is highly soluble in water and occurs naturally in waterbodies from

the breakdown of nitrogenous organics.  Discharges from industrial and municipal

wastewater treatment facilities are the most common non-natural sources of ammonia.

Ammonia can also result from atmospheric deposition.
Water Quality

                      In aqueous solution, ammonia occurs in two forms, the un-ionized form (NH3) and the
                      ionized form (NH4). The un-ionized form of ammonia is toxic to aquatic life. The
                      ionized ammonia can be adsorbed onto colloidal particles, suspended sediments, and bed
                      sediments. Most reports refer to the concentration of total ammonia nitrogen, which is
                      the summation of the two forms:

                                             NH3 + NH4 = Total Ammonia Nitrogen

                      The equilibrium between the two forms is determined by pH; the higher the pH,
                      the more un-ionized ammonia and the higher the toxicity. Unpolluted waters generally
                      contain a small amount of ammonia, usually < 0.1 mg/L as nitrogen. Total ammonia
                      concentrations measured in surface waters are typically less than 0.2 mg/L but may reach
                      2-3 mg/L. A higher concentration could be an indication of organic pollution such as
                      domestic sewage, industrial waste, or fertilizer runoff.  Natural seasonal fluctuations also
                      occur as a result of the death and decay of aquatic organisms, particularly phytoplankton
                      and bacteria in nutritionally rich waters.  High ammonia concentrations may also be
                      found in the bottom of lakes  that have become anoxic.

                      Nitrate is an essential nutrient for aquatic plants, and seasonal fluctuations can be caused
                      by plant growth and decay. Under aerobic conditions, ammonia can be biologically
                      oxidized to nitrite and then to nitrate by a group of bacteria called nitrifiers.
                      Under anaerobic conditions with the presence of organic carbon, nitrate can also be
                      reduced to nitrite and then to nitrogen gas. As nitrite is an intermediate product,
                      nitrite concentration in natural waterbodies is usually quite low. Natural sources of
                      nitrate to surface water include igneous rocks and plant and animal debris. Natural
                      concentrations, which seldom exceed 0.1 mg/L, may be increased by municipal and
                      industrial wastewaters, including leachates from waste disposal sites and sanitary landfills.
                      In rural and suburban areas, the use of inorganic nitrate fertilizers can be a significant
                      source. Concentrations in excess of 5 rng/L usually indicate pollution by human and
                      animal waste or fertilizer runoff.

                      Nitrate is very mobile in soil because of its negative charge. The leaching of nitrate
                      to groundwater can cause groundwater impairments. Increasing groundwater nitrate
                      concentrations in many agricultural regions have been attributed to fertilizer application
                      and animal waste.
32                                                                                          Water Quality

 Surface water impairments from nitrogen include eutrophication and toxicity from
 nitrites, nitrates, and ammonia. Nitrites and ammonia are directly toxic to fish while
 nitrates and phosphates affect fish indirectly. High nitrate and phosphate concentrations
 are associated with stream eutrophication.  Algae blooms and die profusion of other
 aquatic plants may directly kill fish when vegetation dies and deoxygenation occurs.
 Blooms and massive growth of other aquatic plants are possible when nitrate content in
 the presence of other essential nutrients exceeds 0.5 mg/L.

 Most nitrogen transformation processes are evaluated using computer models because of
 the complexity of the nitrogen cycle caused by the many interactions. The computer
 simulation models are summarized in a later section.

                                    Weathering of
                                  phosphate rooks
                                                      ' Phosphate
                                                     fertiteer source
Natural sources of phosphorus are mainly derived from the weathering of
phosphorus-bearing rocks and the decomposition of organic matter.  Domestic
wastewater (particularly wastewater containing detergents), industrial effluents, and
fertilizer runoff contribute
    ,      til-     c         Figure 6. Phosphorus cycle
to elevated levels in surface
waters. Major pathways of
phosphorus transformation
include plant uptake,
fertilization, and residue
decomposition (Figure 6).
Unlike nitrogen, phosphorus
is not particularly mobile
in soils, and phosphate ions
do not leach readily.
Phosphorus is held tightly
by a complex union with
clay and soil particulates
and organic matter.  Most
phosphorus is removed from
soils either by crop uptake or
by soil erosion.
 •Removed from
cycle by harvesting
Water Quality

                       Phosphorus is rarely found in high concentrations in fresh water as it is actively uptaken
                       by plants. As a result, there can be considerable seasonal fluctuations in surface water
                       concentrations. In most natural surface waters, phosphorus concentrations range from
                       0.005 to 0.020 mg/L. Concentrations as high as 200 mg/L can be found in some
                       enclosed saline waters (Chapman 1996).

                       Most phosphorus-related water resource problems result from excessive annual loading.
                       However, if the water resource flushes seasonally, only the phosphorus loading
                       immediately preceding algae bloom periods may be of concern. For instance, runoff from
                       row cropland or suburban developments may be the major phosphorus loading source
                       on an annual basis, but these may be less important than wastewater treatment plant
                       contributions to algae bloom conditions during the summer and early fall.

                       Phytoplankton growth can be simulated using the following equation:

                                                     G  = G
                               Where: G = growth rate based on nutrient limitation.
                                      Gmax = temperature corrected maximum growth rate.
                                      x = nutrient concentration.
                                      Ks = half saturation constant for nutrient-limited growth.


                       Bacteria and viruses originate from runoff from livestock areas (Edwards et al. 1997),
                       bottom sediments (Sherer et al. 1988), wildlife (Weiskel et al. 1996), bacterial
                       populations resident in the soil (Crane et al. 1983), septic systems (Weiskel et al. 1996),
                       rural municipalities (Farrel-Poe et al. 1997), and runoff from urban areas (Schillinger
                       and Gannon 1985). Pathogens are largely carried to waterbodies by runoff or sediment
                       transport. Viruses depend heavily on adsorption to sediment particles, while bacteria
                       may be transported to waterbodies by various mechanisms, including infiltration, surface
                       runoff, and adsorption. Pathogens may enter separate storm sewers from leaking sanitary
                       sewers, cross-connections with sanitary sewers, malfunctioning septic tanks, and animal
 34                                                                                          Water Quality

 Tools used in water quality assessment for pathogens are models for predicting pathogen
 die-off and transport.  Among the factors affecting survival of pathogens are pH, predation
 by soil microflora, temperature, presence of sediment, sunlight, and organic matter.
 Tables 10 and 11 present information on some factors that impact pathogen survival.

 Table 10. Factors that affect survival of enteric bacteria and viruses in soil
.. Predation by soil microfiora
Moisture content •
Organic matter
EPA (1977) and Novotny and Olem
Type of pathogen
Bacteria and viruses
Bacteria and viruses „
Bacteria arid viruses
Bacteria and viruses
(1994) '
Shorter survival in acidic soils (pH 3-5) than
' in neutral and calcareous soils
Insufficient data
Increased survival in sterile soil
Insufficient data
Longer_survival in moist soils and during -
periods of higher rainfall
-Longer survival at lower temperatures
Shorter survival at the soil surface -
Longer survival or regrowth of bacteria when
sufficient amounts of organic matter are
present ~

The major sources of pesticides and insecticides
include agriculture, combined sewer outfalls,
urban runoff, and runoff from rural residential
areas. Insecticides include organochlorine,
organophosphorus, and carbamate chemicals.
Organochlorine compounds, such as DDT,
dieldrin, aldrin, heptachlor, and lindane can  '
persist in soils and aquatic environments for
many years (Figure 7).  For example, DDT
has frequently been detected 10 years after its
Table 11. Survival of selected pathogens in soils
  Ascaris ova
  Entamoeba histolytica cysts
  Hookworm larvae
  Salmonella      -
  Salmonella typhi
  Tubercle bacilli
  Novotny and Olem (1994)
Survival time
  (in days)
   up to 7  "
 -   42
More than 200
Water Quality

                   Figure 7. Pathways for pesticide and organic compound transformation and transport
                            Water quality—related pesticide modeling includes calculations and simulations of
                            pesticide adsorption, decay, and transport.  The oxygen status of soils and sediments has
                            a pronounced effect on the microbial breakdown of organochlorine pesticides.  In soils
                            and sediments, DDT is rapidly converted to TDE (DDD) under anaerobic conditions.
                            Several organochlorine pesticides, including heptachlor, lindane, and endrin, have been
                            shown to degrade in soils to compounds of lower toxicity and reduced insecticidal activity.
                            Herbicides are less ubiquitous than are organochlorine insecticides. Such compounds as
                            s-triazines, picloram, monouron, and 2,4,5-T often persist in soils for as much as a year
                            following application.

                            Downward movement of agriculturally applied chemicals into soil layers and groundwater
                            is controlled by soil type, chemistry, pesticide composition, and climatic factors. The
                            leachability of a compound from soils depends primarily on the degree of adsorption of
                            the chemicals on soil particles. Models are also available to evaluate leaching potential
                            (i.e., downward mobility) of organic chemicals.  Further information on models to
                            analyze pesticide movement are provided in the "Computer simulations" section.

                            Toxic metals and organic pollutants

                            Toxic metals and organic pollutants can be a serious water quality problem within
                            a watershed. "While numerous sources exist for these  pollutants (Table 12), most of
Water Quality

 Table 12. Sources of toxic metals and organic pollutants
  Carbon tetrachloride
  1 >1 -dichloroethylene
  1,1,1 -trichloroethane
 Natural geology, pesticide residue, industrial waste, smelting
 Natural geology, mining, smelting
 .Lead pipes, lead-based solder'" -                 t                          *
 Air and water discharge from paint paper/and vinyl chloride producers, natural geology
, Petroleum fuel leaks, industrial chemical solvents, Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, paints, and plastics
- Cleaning-agents, industrial wastes from coolant manufacturers
 Insecticides, moth balls, air deodorizers                            „•-__'
 Plastic, dye, perfume, and paint manufacturers               ~                        <  -
 Food wrapping and synthetic fiber manufacturers
 Pesticide, paint, wax and varnish, paint stripper,,and metal degreaser producers, dry cleaning wastes
 Surface water containing organic matter treated with chlorine  '                     "
 the toxic substances get into waterbodies and aquifers through point source discharges
 and stormwater runoff. Modeling the fate and transport of these substances requires
 knowledge of the chemical and physical characteristics of each particular substance
 (Figures 7 and 8).  Computer simulation software packages are available for such
Figure 8. Pathways for transformation and transport of heavy metals
 Water Quality

                        Computer Simulations
                        Mathematical models for water quality assessment should be selected based on their
                        intended uses and the conditions specific to the waterbody. A number of water
                        quality models have been developed for general uses.  The complexity of these models
                        ranges from relatively simple spreadsheet-based pollutant loading models to extremely
                        intricate, three-dimensional, finite-element models.  Historically, many models focused
                        on nutrients, DO, temperature, and BOD problems. Today, however, computer codes
                        capable of handling metals and dissolved constituents are also being introduced.  Tables
                        13 and 14 summarize the main features of several existing watershed simulation models
                        that are generally available to die public.  Detailed descriptions of these models can be
                        obtained from other sources (EPA 1997b, Deliman et al. 1999). Tables 13 and 14 are not
                        intended to be comprehensive and do not list models developed by private individuals or
                        companies.  Many of these models are proprietary or extremely expensive to purchase.

                        All water quality models are approximations of mathematical or empirical relationships.
                        Consequendy, it is very important that users understand the basic limitations or
                        constraints introduced by the approximations. A great deal of expertise in running and
                        interpreting model results is needed.  Models can be shown to produce a widely varying
                        range of outputs depending on the selection of coefficients and other assumptions.
                        Proper calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis require experience. The validity
                        of the results may be drawn into question by inexperienced modelers. Used properly,
                        models are powerful tools that can be used to help design water quality monitoring
                        programs and evaluate remediation scenarios.  However, improperly used models will
                        ultimately lead to inconclusive or erroneous results and  may cost more time and resources
                        than diey save.
 38                                                                                           Water Quality

Table 13. Capabilities of water quality models

H=High> H
L=l:ow - Y
M = Medium
EPA (1997b)

Tetra Tech
William & Mary
= No
= Yes








Y .

W 0

^ D


SS .

• D

Range of applications
E §
ffl >» 'S
11 1
£ O co -
N ,

, Y

, Y
N ' '

_C '

H ,

H. ,
. ,H "















Water Quality

         Table 14. Overview of water quality models
           Watershed-scale loading models
            Simple methods
            EPA Screening
            Simple Method
            Regression Method
            FHA Model
            Watershed Management. Model

            Field-scale loading methods

            Receiving water models
           Mid-range methods „

           Urban Catchment Model
           Automated Q-llludas
           Integrated modeling systems
           LWMM                :
           BASINS          ' ,
           Detailed models

            EPA (1997b)
Steady-state water quality    Dynamic waterquality    Mixing zone models
EPA Screening
Tidal Prism Model
                                                      Water Quality

American Public Health Association. 1985. Standard methods for the examination
        of water and waste water, 16th edition. American Public Health Association,
        Washington, D.C.

Buffo, J. 1979. Water pollution control early warning system. Section 1, Non-point
        source loading estimates. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO),

Chandler, R. D. 1993. Modeling and nonpoint source pollution loading estimates in
        surface water management. Thesis, M.S.E., University of Washington, Seattle.

Chapman, D. 1996. Water quality assessments: A guide to the use of biota, sediments,
        and water in environmental monitoring. E & FN Spon., New York, New York.

Crane, S. R., J. A. Moore, M. E. Grismer, and J. R. Miner. 1983. Bacterial pollution from
        agricultural sources: A review. Trans. ASAE 26:858-866, 872.

Deliman, P. N., R. H. Click, and C. E. Ruiz. 1999. Review of watershed water
        quality models.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
        Technical Report W-99-1, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Edwards, D. R., B. T. Larson, andT. T. Lim. 1997. Nutrient and bacteria content
        of runoff from simulated grazed pasture. Presented at the 1997 ASAE Annual
        Meeting, Paper No. 97-2055, St. Joseph, Michigan.

Farrell-Poe, K. L., A. Y.  Ranjha, and S. Ramalingam. 1997. Bacterial contributions by
        rural municipalities in  agricultural watersheds. Trans. ASAE 40(1):97-101.

Gilbert, R. O. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van Nostrand
        Reinhold, New York, New York.

Greeley-Polhemus Group. 1991. Economic and environmental considerations for
        incremental cost analysis in mitigation planning. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
        Institute for Water Resources, IWR Report 91-R-l, Washington, D.C.

Water Quality                                                                                         	41

                           Heaney, J. P. 1989. Cost effectiveness and urban storm-water quality criteria. In: L.
                                   Roesner, B. Urbonas, and M. Sonnen (eds.)- Design of urban runoff quality
                                   controls. ASCE, New York, New York.
                           Horner, R., B. W. Mar, L. E. Reinelt, J. S.. Rickey, and J. M. Lee. 1986. Design
                                   of monitoring programs for determination of ecological change resulting from
                                   nonpoint source water pollution in Washington State. University of "Washington,
                                   Department of Civil Engineering, Seattle, Washington.

                           MacDonald, L. H., A. W. Smart,  and R. C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to
                                   evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and
                                  Alaska. U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, EPA-910/9-91-001, Washington,

                           Martin, J. L., and S. C. McCutcheon. 1999. Hydrodynamics and transport for water
                                   quality modeling. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

                           McElroy, A. D., S. Y. Chiu, J. W.  Nebgen, A. Aleti, and E W. Bennett. 1976.
                                  Loading functions for assessment of water pollution from nonpoint sources.
                                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Midwest Research Institute, EPA-600/2-
                                  76-151, Kansas City, Missouri.

                           Novotny, V., and G. Chesters. 1981.  Handbook of nonpoint pollution. Van Nostrand
                                  Reinhold, New York, New York.

                           Novotny, V., and H. Olem. 1994. Water quality: Prevention, identification, and
                                  management of diffuse pollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York.

                           Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986. Nonpoint source pollution. Puget Sound
                                  Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington.

                           Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) and Intergovernmental Advisory
                                  Committee (IAC). 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale: federal
                                  guide for watershed analysis, version 2.2. Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland,
     42                                                                                        Water Quality

 Sawyer, C. N., and P. L. McCarty. 1978. Chemistry for environmental engineering.
        McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York.

 Schillinger, J. E., and J. J. Gannon., 1985. Bacterial adsorption and suspended particles
        in urban stormwater. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation

 Sherer, B. M., J. R. Miner, J. A. Moore, and J. C. Buckhouse. 1988. Resuspending
        organisms from a rangeland stream bottom. Trans. ASAE 31(4):1217-1222.

 Snodgrass, W, D. E. Maunder, K. Schiefer, and K. C. Whistler. 1993. Tools for
        evaluating environmental quality, water quality and water quantity issues. In: W.
        James (ed.). New techniques for modeling the management of stormwater quality
        impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

 Thomann, R. V., and J. A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of surface water quality modeling
        and control. Harper & Row, New York, New York.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977. Stanley W. Zison. Water quality
        assessment: A screening method for nondesignated 208 areas. EPA, EPA-600/6-
        77/023, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Water quality handbook. EPA,
        Office of Water, EPA-823-B-94-005a, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995a. Environmental indicators to assess
        the effectiveness of municipal and industrial stormwater control programs. Draft.
        EPA, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995b. QUAL2E Windows interface
        user's guide. EPA, Office of Water, EPA-823-B-95-003, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996a. Environmental indicators of water
        quality in the United States. EPA, Office of Water, EPA-841-R-96-002, EPA,
        Washington, D.C.
Water Quality                                                                                       	"

                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996b. The volunteer monitor's guide to
                                  quality assurance project plans. EPA, EPA-84l-B-96-003m, Washington, D.C.

                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997a. Monitoring guidance for
                                  determining the effectiveness of nonpoint source control. EPA, Office of "Water,
                                  EPA-841-B-96-004, Washington, D.C.

                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997b. Compendium of tools for
                                  watershed assessment andTMDL development. EPA, EPA-841-B-97-006,
                                  Washington, D.C.

                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Introduction to water quality
                                  standards. EPA, Office of Water, EPA-823-F-99-020, Washington, D.C.

                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                  (USFWS). 1984.  1982 national fisheries survey. EPA and USFWS, Washington,

                          Weiskel, P. K., B. L. Howes, and G. R. Heufelder. 1996. Coliform contamination of
                                  a coastal embayment: sources and transport pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol.
     44                                                                                     Water Quality

Form WQ1. Summary of water quality conditions
Parameters of
Indicators of
Notes (data sources,
 land use hazards)
"Water Quality

                                                                                                 Water Quality

                      •> Historical Conditions
                                                           *•*    ***
            * ^ x ^  ^ •€»

IV  •**
                                                        fr t  fcVY i
                                                 #  ^flf*
            ^ Fj" m, ™^ .JH. *"3^ J ™ m, ^~" %c" wf  iS
    -Her 3M& *) i-ftf1"
                    ,^, IS dry Hfcjy^ TJ.1J. ^ rf
                               T*  •* JrS-


 Background and Objectives
 Understanding the history and location of natural disturbances (e.g., fires and droughts)
 and human disturbances (e.g., dam construction and human setdement patterns)
 provides valuable information about past and current conditions of the watershed. The
 Historical Conditions module summarizes information on past watershed disturbances
 and on watershed conditions prior to disturbance.

 The Level 1 approach relies on existing documents (e.g., maps, surveys, tribal documents,
 and research papers) as the primary source of historical information.  The increased
 assessment time in the Level 2 approach allows for a more in-depth assessment of
 historical information or personal interviews with tribal elders and community members.
 Both the Level 1 and Level 2 approaches summarize the collected information in a
 timeline, a map, and a historical narrative.

                          Historical Conditions Module Reference Table
           Critical Questions
   Level 1
   Level 2
What land use/management
changes have occurred within
the watershed since European
What arc the natural setting
and disturbance regimes in the
Where and when have land-
scape changes occurred in the
• Historical watershed „ * Collect and summarize existing
information: information
— Land surveys
— Settlement patterns
— Tribal documents
— State and federal reports'-
• Historical watershed
information: • Collect and summarize existing
— Land surveys information
— Vegetation surveys
— Climate data
— Fire records
• Anecdotal information • Collect and summarize existing
• Historical watershed , information -
— Land surveys (
— Vegetation surveys
— Fire records ( =
• Develop survey/questionnaire
• Conduct interviews
• Develop survey/questionnaire
• Conduct interviews
• Conduct interviews

 Level 1  Assessment
 Step Chart
 Data Requirements
 *  Historical watershed information
'•  Topographic map of watershed
 •  Aerial photos

   Form HCl. Historical timeline
   Form HC2. Trends in watershed resource conditions
   Map HCl. Historical sites
   Historical Conditions report
   Summarize historical conditions
                                                                 Produce Historical Conditions report
The objectives of the Historical Conditions module are as

•  To collect historical documents on the settlement and use of
   the watershed.
•  To identify past human and natural disturbances in the
•  To provide a historical context for the use and alteration of
   watershed resources.

Step 1. Collect historical watershed information

The first step is to decide where to look for historical
watershed information. Box 1 lists possible sources, and Box 2
lists places to start looking for documents on the history of the
watershed.  Consult the tribal council, tribal elders, and other
Box 1. Sources of historical information
   •• Old books and maps
     - Explorers diaries and sketches
     T Historical accounts,
   •. Public land surveys
   • Tribal treaties and other documents
   • Tribal elders
   • Landscape photographs
   • Aerial photographs
   ?' City plans
   • Local and state history books
   • 'Newspaper accounts   '
   • Scientific journals
   • Published oral histories

      Aquatic Life
long-time community residents for
valuable anecdotal information
about watershed conditions and
uses. Also, consult with, the
Community Resources, Aquatic
Life, Vegetation, Hydrology, and
Channel analysts to share
                                                           Box 2. Locations of historical information
Tribal archives
Historical museums
City archives
Local libraries
State, county, and federal agencies
Universities and tribal colleges
Local historical societies
                      The analyst should gather
                      information about historical development and changes to the landscape (e.g., dam
                      construction, irrigation, settlement patterns, land use). It is also helpful to get
                      information about climatic events and large natural disturbances (e.g., floods, hurricanes,
                      fires, droughts, windstorms, earthquakes, insect outbreaks).

                      Step 2. Summarize historical conditions

                      Identify major historical events on timeline
                      An effective way to summarize historical events is in a timeline format. Figure 1
                      illustrates a general timeline approach. The detail of the timeline will vary depending
                                                                             on the amount of historical
Figure 1. Sample Form HC1. Historical timeline                                 documentation available and
                                                                             the size of the watershed. It
                                                                             may be possible to extrapolate
                                                                             regional information to make
                                                                             assumptions about historical
                                                                             land use and disturbance.
                                                                             Organizing the information
                                                                             as a timeline enables readers
                                                                             to quickly understand the
                                                                             timing of important events
                                                                             that have affected watershed
                                                                             conditions. Whatever format
                                                                             is used for the timeline, label
                                                                             it Form HC1.
Historical Event
First eastern brook and rainbow trout stocked in Kootenai
Early attempts at dike construction
Channel alteration from log drives in tributaries
Lake Creek Dam in operation
Moyie Dam in operation
Sturgeon declines, commercial fishing stopped
Cominco Fertilizer Plant
Non-selective kill from gas bubble disease, 1 7 miles from dam
Adapted from Sasich et al. (1999)

 Summarize trends in resource conditions
 From the information presented in the timeline, trends in resource conditions may
 be identified, and connections between land use practices and resource trends can be
 hypothesized.  From the Kootenai timeline (Figure 1), trends in resource conditions can
 be connected to specific land use practices, such as dike construction, log drives, and dam
 operation.  Information on watershed changes can be listed in Form HC2 (Figure 2).
 Consult with die Community Resources, Aquatic Life, and Water Quality analysts for a
 complete list of resources.
 Figure 2. Sample Form HC2. Trends in watershed resource conditions
Wetland habitat
Water quality
• Declining numbers found
in Kootenai and tributaries
• Decreasing numbers of wetlands
• Higher quantities of chemicals
in water
• Channel alteration
• Impacts from dams
• Dike construction
• Dam operations
• Industrial effluent
• Mines
  Adapted from Sasich etal. (1999)

Write watershed historical narrative
The watershed historical narrative pulls together the information collected on historical
watershed conditions and natural and human disturbances. Beginning from the earliest
information available, tie together the history of water quality, aquatic life, land use
impacts, channel alterations, and settlement patterns. A sample watershed historical
narrative is provided in Box 3.

Map historical sites and landscape disturbances
Once the historical information is summarized, it may be useful to map the locations
of historical sites and disturbances (Map HCl). If the watershed is large, break it into
sub-basins to get a finer resolution.
 Aquatic Life
Water Quality

Box 3. Watershed historical narrative from Quinault Watershed Analysis
       The Upper Quinault River Valley remained geographically isolated until exploration by the Gillman
       Expedition in 1889. The first Euroamerican settlers arrived in the Cook/Elk and Quinault Lake [areas] in
       1889, and practiced subsistence farming and grazing. By 1897, homesteaders had occupied most of the
       suitable bottom lands around Lake Quinault and as far upstream as the confluence of the North and East
       Forks of the Quinault River. Present day settlement is concentrated in the Neifton and Amanda park areas
       near Quinault Lake and in the unincorporated village of Taholah, located at the mouth of the Quinault River.

       Timber harvesting, fishing and tourism have been the promine'nt economic influences in the Quinault River
       watershed. Logging began in 1916, when cedar was salvaged from the "Neilton Burn". By 1924 the advent
       of railroad logging made large-scale commercial timber harvesting viable in the Cook/Elk and Quinault-
       River [areas]. Exterisive road construction and subsequent timber harvesting occurred between 1950 and
       1980. Although the level of old growth harvesting has declined in recent years, second growth forest
       management and related forestry activities such as cedar-salvage and gathering of special forest products
       will continue to play an important role in the local and regional economy.               '    -,.  '
                              , •    -                        ''   -"„             '- > /        f'
       Quinault Indian Nation (1999)                                           ,*,'<'
                       Types of information to be placed on Map HC1 include the following:

                       •  Dams and diversions.
                       •  Water quality impacts (e.g., toxic spill, algal bloom).
                       •  Channel modifications (e.g., dikes, channel straightening).
                       •  Historical fishing sites.
                       •  Historical wetlands and floodplains.
                       •  Historical sites.
                       •  Fires.

                       Step 3. Produce Historical Conditions report

                       The Historical Conditions report should include the watershed historical narrative, the
                       map of historical sites (Map HC1), and the forms showing a historical timeline and
                       resource trends (Forms HC1 and HC2). A possible outline for the report is provided
                       in Box 4.

 Box 4. Sample outline for Historical Conditions report
   A. Historical Watershed Narrative
       1. Watershed resources at time of European settlement
         a. Native American use
         b. Vegetation
         c. Presence and abundance offish and wildlife species
         d. Stream habitat
         e. Natural disturbance patterns
      2. Historical settlement, land use, and resource management patterns
         a. Settlement patterns and development: rural and urban
         b. Roads
         c, Dikes
         d. Logging practices
         e. Agriculture
         f. Urbanization
       , g. Grazing
         h. Mining
    *  "  i. Water use, diversions
         j. Fisheries exploitation
         k. Changes in disturbance patterns
   B. Summaries of Historical Conditions
      1. Form HC1. Historical timeline  ,"
      2. Form HC2. Trends in watershed resource conditions
      3. Map HC1. Historical sites

   C. Conclusions
    ' ' 1. Summary of watershed conditions and change  ,,
      2. Conclusions about historical conditions that are currently
      „   impacting community resources

   D. Sources of information                     ,

   Adapted from Watershed Professionals Network (1999)   ' '

                      Level 2 Assessment
                      The Level 2 assessment is similar to the Level 1 assessment, but more time and resources
                      may allow for more extensive information collecting activities, such as the following:

                      •  Sending out a questionnaire to community members.
                      •  Conducting personal interviews.
                      •  Working with a local historian or university anthropology department.

 Quinault Indian Nation. 1999. Quinault Watershed Analysis. Quinault Indian Nation,
        Taholah, Washington.

 Sasich, J., P. Olsen, andj. Smith. 1999. Kootenai River watershed assessment. Final
        report prepared for the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.

 Watershed Professionals Network. 1999.  Oregon watershed assessment of aquatic
        resources manual. Draft report prepared for the Governors Watershed
        Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon.

                             Form HC1. Historical timeline
Historical Event

Form HC2. Trends in watershed resource conditions


^V /*» \^y, ^--n
m> / * v* <•  *>^f /**"*> ^ \. **^,
                     >•  Hvdrology


  Background and Objectives
 The purpose of the Hydrology module is to characterize the hydrologic regime of the
 watershed and assess its susceptibility to alterations from land and water use practices.
 When hydrologic processes are altered, the stream system responds by changing physical
 parameters, such as channel configuration. These changes may in turn impact chemical
 parameters and ultimately the aquatic ecosystem.

 The degree to which hydrologic processes are affected by land and water use depends
 on the location, extent, timing, and type of activity. Watershed activities can potentially
 cause changes in the magnitude and timing of both peak flows and low flows. Some
 activities (e.g., temporary roads, low levels of timber harvest, and seasonal irrigation
 withdrawals) cause short-lived alterations to the hydrologic regime, while other activities
 (e.g., dams,  urbanization, and channelization) cause fairly permanent changes in the
 watershed and thus to the hydrologic regime.

 Hydrologic processes are complex, involving  myriad interactions that are difficult to
 quantify.  The list of hydrologic concerns generated in the Scoping process will provide
 direction to the assessment. In addition, seven critical questions are posed to help focus
 the assessment. The Hydrology Module Reference Table indicates the critical questions
 that may be addressed in the initial Level 1 assessment and options for further Level 2
 analyses. This module provides detailed steps for Level 1 assessment and a general
 discussion of options for Level 2 assessment.

 Level 1 assessment characterizes the hydrology and climate of the watershed and screens
 for potential land and water use impacts. Characterization refers to gathering and
 organizing existing data into a qualitative description of conditions. The Level 1
 assessment does not produce definitive or quantitative results; however, the screening does
 provide justification and focus for future Level 2 assessment.

               Hydrology Module Reference Table
Critical Questions
   Level 1
   Level 2
What Is the seasonal variabil-
ity in strcamflow?
What is the climatic setting of
the watershed?
What are the roles of ground-
water and natural storage fea-
tures in the watershed?
What are the active runoff
generating processes?
What water control structures
arc present in the watershed?
For which beneficial uses is
water primarily used in the
watershed, and are surface
water or groundwatcr with-
drawals prominent?
What are the potential land
use impacts to hydrologic
processes in the watershed?
• Representative streamflow
• Representative climate data
• Topographic maps
• Watershed characteristics
• Hydrogeologic maps and aqui-
fer descriptions
• Vegetation module maps
• Topographic maps
• Watershed characteristics
• Historical Conditions module,
• Aerial photos
• Topographic maps
• Land use map
• Topographic maps
• Aerial photos
• Percentage of watershed occu-
pied fay each land use
• Vegetation coverage
• Hydrologic soil information
• Percentage impervious area
• Tabulate and graph flow data
• Summarize peak and low flow
• Tabulate and graph precipitation
• Summarize storm patterns
• Locate storage features in the
watershed: snowpack, lakes, wet-
• Define groundwater areas
• Describe runoff processes
• Locate reservoirs, lakes, diver-
sions, dams
• Characterize extent of draining *
and ditching and other hydro- '
modifications „
• Identify types of water uses and
typical withdrawals in the water-
• Determine periods of high water
• Screen for potential impacts
• Ungaged streamflow analysis
• Frequency analysis (flood and
low flow)
• • Flow duration curves
• Storm analysis
• Trend analysis
• Double mass analysis
• Hydrograph separation
; • Characterize surficial aquifers
• Storm analysis
• Watershed hydrologic models
~ =: • Deregulate streamflow records
• Reservoir routing models
• Reservoir operation models
• Watershed hydrologic models
• Water rights analysis
• Consumptive use estimates
• Water balance calculations
• Network/allocation models
• 3D groundwater models
~ "* Empirical relationships
' • Regional relationships and
models * '
* Storm hydrograph techniques
• Continuous hydrologic models *

 Level 1 Assessment
 Step Chart
 Data Requirements
                                                    Summarize the role of groundwater and
                                                       other natural storage features
Map of the watershed showing topography  |.
and stream network. USGS or equivalent   i|
topographic quadrangle maps at a           If
1:24,000 scale are adequate.                *g
Stream network classification map (if        $
available). Many states have adopted        $
regulatory categorizations pertinent to       ^
stream order (e.g., stream order, water       q
type, stream class). If state classification     4
maps are available, they can be useful to     f;
cross-reference with the Channel module    y
and Aquatic Life module analysts.           |1
Land use map with sub-basins delineated    g
(from  Scoping).                            ^
Mean  annual precipitation map.            I
USGS hydrologic atlases and groundwater   J|
atlases.                                    \|
Streamflow data.                           ||
Soil survey maps.                          ||
Surficial geology maps (if available).         l|
Hydrogeologic maps describing aquifer
conditions (if available).
Aerial  photos or orthophotos (as necessary).
Other relevant published or unpublished documents (city, county, tribal, state, or
federal agency or private consultant reports) with watershed information.
     Section 1
,   Characterize the
Hydrology and Climate
                                                                                      Section 2
                                                                              Screen for Potential Land and
                                                                             Water Use Impacts on Hydrology
                            Screen for potential urban, suburban,
                               or rural residential issues
 Data Sources
 The USGS is the best source of water-related information in the United States. The
 USGS collects Streamflow, surface water quality, groundwater level, and groundwater

quality data. It publishes water resources data by state and water year, water resources
investigation reports, open-file reports, water resources bulletins, professional papers,
and hydrologic investigations atlases. USGS publications are available in many libraries
or they can be ordered through the U.S. Government Printing Office. The information
number for the USGS is 1-800-426-9000.

Hydrologic data

Current and historical streamflow data can be downloaded from the home pages of the
USGS district water resource offices. Streamflow data are also available commercially on
CD-ROM. Published resources include the following:

•  USGS. National Water Summaries: Hydrologic Events and Surface-Water Resources.
   These documents contain nationwide and state information on water resources,
   including generalized maps of surface water runoff, water-related issues, groundwater
   quantity and quality, and wetland locations.
•  U.S. Water Resources Council (1978).  The Nation's Water Resources. Although dated,
   this is still the most recent and comprehensive nationwide assessment of the United
   States' water problems.
•  USGS publishes open file reports containing regional flood equations (e.g., USGS

Climatic data

The National Weather Service and its data repository, the National Climate Data
Center, have websites that provide easy access to useful climate information (http://
www.n~ws.noaa.gov and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov). Climate data are also available
commercially on CD-ROM. There are six regional climate centers (Western Regional,
High Plains, Southern, Midwestern, Southeast, and Northeast), each of which
can provide information on how and where to download climate data and assist
in identifying an appropriate climate station. Some states  have designated state
climatologists who are a valuable resource. Published resources include the following:

• NOAA National Weather Service. The Climatic Record of the United States by
  State.  These documents contain daily, monthly, and annual climate information
  on precipitation, temperature, evaporation, degree days, and other climate data by
  weather station.  NOAA also publishes a Mean Annual Precipitation Map.

 •  U.S. Weather Bureau Technical Paper 40, Rainfall Frequency-Atlas of the United
    States provides information on 24-hour storms for the conterminous United States.
    Precipitation atlases for specific states (e.g., Miller et al. 1973) are also available.

 Water use data

 The USGS updates water use estimates every five years. Water use data can be obtained
 through the USGS water use icon on the EPA's Surf Your Watershed web site (http://

 Groundwater resources data

 •  Hydrogeologic provinces.  Heath (1984).
 •  The Ground Water Atlas of the United States, USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas,
    HA 730 A-N series.  This atlas consists of 14 chapters that describe the groundwater
    resources of regional areas. A nationwide aquifer map is included along with
    descriptions of groundwater characteristics, flow directions, chemical composition, and
    water balance components such as runoff, precipitation, and evaporation. The text of
    this adas is available online (http://wwwcapp.er.usgs.gov/publicsdocs/gwa).


 •  Form HI.  General watershed characteristics
 •  Form H2.  Summary of hydrologic issues by sub-basin
 •  Map HI. Water control structures
 •  Hydrology report


 The primary objectives of the Hydrology assessment are as follows:

 •   To characterize the hydrologic regime of the watershed by summarizing the following:
     —  Watershed characteristics.
     —  Streamfiow patterns.
     -  Precipitation patterns.
     —  Watershed storage and groundwater features.
     —  Watershed runoff processes.

Hydrology                                                                                                    5

                            •   To locate land uses (agriculture and rangeland, urban, forestry, mining, etc.), water
                               uses, and water control structures (dams, dikes, diversion, etc.) in die watershed.
                            •   To screen for potential impacts on hydrology from land and water use.

                            The Level 1 evaluation procedure is separated into two sections. The steps in Section 1
                            characterize the hydrologic and climatic setting of the watershed. The steps in Section 2
                            direct die user to screen for potential hydrologic issues associated with the land and water
                            uses present in the watershed.

                            The hydrologic evaluation may need to be carried out at die sub-basin level. This
                            will require adjusting streamflow and precipitation records to reflect conditions in each

                            Section 1. Characterize the Hydrology and Climate

                            The geographic layout of the United  States encompasses several diverse physiographic and
                            climatic zones, causing the amount of runoff and its distribution throughout die year to
                            vary considerably from region to region (Figure 1).  Watersheds differ in both the ability
                            to produce flood flows and the ability to sustain flows during the dry periods.

                            Most streams do not produce uniform flow over the year. Instead, streams typically
                            exhibit patterns in flow reflective of individual storms, months, and seasons (Figure 1).
                            The seasonal pattern of streamflow in a watershed is largely governed by the climatic
                            inputs to diat watershed (the amount, form, and timing of precipitation) offset by
                            losses from die watershed (die amount and timing of evapotranspiration losses and
                            snowmelt). The geologic characteristics of the watershed also heavily influence the
                            streamflow regime, as demonstrated by the marked difference between the hydrographs
                            compared in Figure 2.  (A graphical plot of streamflow data over time is called a
                            hydrograph.) Finally, physical characteristics—such as the size of a river system, drainage
                            shape, topography, type of vegetation or ground cover, and amount of natural water
                            storage—all influence the specific runoff pattern of a given stream.

                           "While flooding is common in each of the  50 states, the type and frequency of peak flow
                            events differ dramatically both within and among states. Floods can stem from many
                            factors, including heavy rainfall, rapid snowmelt, rain-on-snow, and thunderstorms, as
                           well as more dramatic ice jam breakups, channel avulsions, and dam or levee failures.
                           In coastal areas, hurricanes, winter storms, tsunamis, and rising sea levels can generate
     6                                                                                              Hydrology

   Figure 1. Average monthly runoff (as a percentage of annual flow) for selected gages in the United States
 Adapted from Satterlund and Adams (1992)
 Baseflows or low flow regimes also vary from stream to stream. Intermittent streams
 go dry for a period of time every year, while other streams do not experience much
 fluctuation from high flow to low flow periods (see example for Yadkin, South Carolina,
 in Figure 1). Many factors influence the amount of water found in streams during the
 low flow period:

 • Rate of snowmelt and glacial melt.
 • Geologic characteristics.
 • Outflow from lakes and reservoirs.
 • Rate of evapotranspiration from soils and vegetation.
 • Effects of upstream water withdrawals and irrigation return flows.

                       Figure 2. Geology modifies streamflow regime from
                       two watersheds with similar climates
                                                 Bad River from shale
                                                         River from
                                Jan   Feb Mar   Apr May  Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                        Adapted from Satterlund and Adams (1992)
                       Several of the influencing factors may only be important in certain regions.  For
                       instance, assessing the importance of glacial melt in sustaining late summer/early fall low
                       flows will be required for some watersheds located along the Pacific Northwest's Cascade
                       Mountain range and in Alaska, as well as a few watersheds in the Northern Rocky
                       Mountain and Canadian Rocky Mountain ranges. Wetlands, while present throughout
                       the nation, are most prevalent along the southern seaboard, gulf coast, and lower
                       Mississippi River and in the glacial terrain of the north-central United States.

                       Each region and even each watershed will have unique issues. This section will focus on
                       summarizing physical watershed characteristics and collecting available streamflow and
                       climate data in order to discern the hydrologic issues. The typical distribution of runoff
                       over the course of the year as well as  the dominant peak flow and low flow issues in
                       the watershed will be investigated.

                       Step 1. identify general watershed  characteristics

                       Using the watershed base map generated in the Scoping process, review and clearly
                       delineate the boundaries of each identified sub-basin. Form HI can be used to
                       compile and organize watershed-specific hydrologic information.  For each sub-basin,

 identify basic watershed features such as drainage area, topographic relief (e.g., minimum
 and maximum elevations), geology, drainage pattern, stream gradient, and mean annual
 precipitation. If GIS support is available, some of the information can be calculated using
 the computer. Otherwise, use USGS topographic maps and a map of mean annual
 precipitation  (from NOAA or a state agency) to estimate values for each characteristic.

 Step 2. Characterize streamflow patterns

 Identify gages
 Identify any streamflow gages in or near the watershed of interest and develop a table
 summarizing station information such as the station name, location, elevation, and period
 of record.

 The USGS has been operating streamflow stations across the country since the turn of the
 century. In some regions, stream gages are numerous and have long periods  of record,
 while in other regions (e.g., west of the Mississippi),  there are fewer gages and they have
 shorter periods of record. The following are factors to consider in finding representative
 streamflow data:
•  Where gages are numerous, the task will be to select the most useable and representative
•  Watershed size will be an important decision criterion, as will length of record; longer
   records offer more insight into the variability of streamflow. To obtain representative
   data for a watershed, the gage records should cover at least ten years.
•  The gaging station does not need to be currently in operation; historical data still offer
   a glimpse into how a watershed responds to storm inputs (precipitation, temperature,
   wind, etc.).
•  Gage records should represent       Box 1' Re9"'ated watersheds
   unregulated streamflow (where
   no reservoirs or diversions exist
   above the gaging station). Gages
   downstream of a reservoir or
   even a millpond will not record
   natural peak flows but will reflect
   streamflow modified by the
   structure (Box 1).
For watersheds with dams, large-scale diversions, or other
flow-altering activities; streamflow data remarks will need to
be reviewed in detail prior to use. The first task will be to
determine the unregulated portion of the record, prior to com-
pletion of the flow-altering activity. Summary statistics and
hydrographs developed from the unregulated portion of the
streamflow record can offer an indication of the pre-alteration
flow regimes.  Techniques for deregulating the post-alteration
record can be undertaken as a Level 2 analysis.

      Box 2. Criteria for assessing hydrologic
      similarity of two watersheds
The USGS information office nearest the watershed can help locate an appropriate
gage or gages. If a stream gage is not located in the watershed, obtain records
for a nearby stream gage draining a hydrologically similar watershed.  Gages
                                located in adjacent watersheds will not necessarily
                                be representative of conditions in the watershed
                                being assessed.  Therefore, it is important to assess
                                hydrologic similarity by using the basic criteria listed
                                in Box 2 prior to selecting a surrogate gage.  When
                                hydrologic similarity criteria are not met, ungaged
                                streamflow analysis may need to be conducted
                                (Box 3).
        • Watershed drainage areas within the same
          order of magnitude
        • Similar mean watershed elevation above
          the gage
        • Similar precipitation and weather patterns
        • Similar geology and topography
        • No or insignificant out-of-stream diversions
        Roblson (1991)
                                Generate hydrographs
                                Obtain the mean monthly streamflow for the period
                                of record for each of the selected streamflow stations.
Generate a typical annual hydrograph (Figure 3) for each station. The shape of the
hydrograph provides an identifying characteristic of a watershed. If more than one
                       Figure 3. A typical annual hydrograph for winter storm-driven regime
                                     Oct  Nov  Dec  Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep
                                                                Month                 T

  Box 3.  Estimating streamflow in ungaged watersheds
     For watersheds where either no or minimal streamflow data are available, numerous meth-
     ods exist to estimate streamflow.  Only the methods that do not require extensive data or
     modeling are presented here.

     Flood regression equations
     The USQS has developed regional flood regression equations for many areas of the
     United States. These reports are typically published by state and entitled Magnitude and
     Frequency-of Floods.  The equations can be used to estimate different flood events, such
   - as the 2-year flood, 25-year flood, etc., based on watershed area, precipitation, and land
     cover. Inquire at the nearest USGS office about appropriate regional equations.

    Area-precipitation method
     In humid areas of similar geology, mean annual flow is closely related to drainage area
    and mean annual precipitation.  Mean flows may be estimated if 1) flow records from
    nearby watersheds are available;  2) an Isohyetal map is  available (isohyets are contour
    lines of equal precipitation);.and 3) the geology of the area is relatively homogeneous.

    Unit runoff method
    Streamflow from a hydrologically similar watershed can be converted into runoff per unit ,
    area (e.g., cubic feet per square mile) to estimate some of the streamflow statistics for the
    ungaged watershed. Please note that these statistics are general estimates to be used to
    assess relative magnitudes rather than absolute values.  If there are any miscellaneous
    streamflow measurements made in the watershed, these  data can be compared to a
    gaged station-to establish a predictive relationship (i.e., regression analysis).   '

    Surface water runoff maps ~  ,                                     . _ .*  '
    Use the USGS generalized maps of surface water runoff.  -
stream gaging station exists in the watershed, compare the hydrographs from each.
Consider the following questions:

•  In which month or months does the majority of runoff occur?
•  When do low flows occur?
•  If comparing hydrographs, do they generally have the same shape, or does the timing
   of runoff vary?
•  Are flow patterns seasonally predictive?
•  Do streams show great fluctuations in flow within seasons?

      Aquatic Life
       Aquatic Life
Optional Task:  Where representative daily streamflow data are available, develop the
average daily hydrograph using the entire period of record.  Compare daily flows over
a few years.

Flow variability is an important factor to aquatic ecosystems. The information collected
in this step may be useful to the Aquatic Life analyst.  For example, the hydrographs can
be compared to the aquatic species' stream flow requirements to illustrate the timing of
streamflow in relation to the needs of aquatic life.

Summarize peak flow data
Obtain and graph the annual peak flow data associated with the selected streamflow
gages (Box 4). Enter die data into a table (similar to Figure 4) that tracks the magnitude
of annual peak flows in cubic feet per second (cfs) and the date of each peak flow.
Consider the following questions:
   In which mondi or
   months do the majority
   of the annual peak flows
   Do extreme high flows
   occur during critical
   periods for aquatic life?
   Have high flows
   influenced habitat
                                                     Box 4. Annual peak flows and water years
For each station, a record of annual peak flows should
be available (see the "Data Sources" section). Annual
peak flows represent the highest recorded discharge
for that station for a given water year.  The water year
differs slightly from the calendar year.  Water year is
defined as the 12-month period starting on October 1
and ending on September 30. October 1,1999/
through September 30,20QOi would be referred to as
water year 2000.
          Box 5. Low flow frequency
Summarize minimum flow data
Obtain and graph the annual minimum flow data associated with the selected
streamflow gages. These data are available from numerous data sources. For instance,
                               the USGS Water Resources Data series, published by
                               state for each water year, provides summary statistics
                               for each station currently in operation.  Among the
                               statistics, lowest mean daily flow can be found along
                               widi the annual seven-day minimum (lowest mean
                               streamflow for seven consecutive days in a water year;
                               see also Box 5).  Report the magnitude of low flows
                               and their dates of occurrence in a table similar to the
             Low flow statistics often include refer-
             ence to the seven-day ten-year low flow
             (7Q10).  The 7Q10 is a statistic that rep-
             resents the lowest mean discharge for
             seven consecutive days that has a prob-
             ability of occurring once in ten years.

  Figure 4. Sample table format for summarizing annual peak flow data
                   Annual peak flows for each water year of record
     Station name:
     Drainage area:
                Station number:
                Period of record:
         Water year *
 Peak flow
amount (cfs)
 Date of
peak flow
Season of
peak flow
       ' October 1 - September 30
 peak flow data table (Figure 4). In addition, record the minimum discharge for the period
 of record of the gage. Consider the following questions:

 •  In which month or mondis do the annual minimum flows typically occur?
 •  Do extreme low flows occur during critical periods for aquatic life?

 Step 3.  Characterize precipitation patterns

 Collect precipitation information
 Obtain the NOAA mean annual precipitation map. Identify the climate stations nearest to
 your watershed and develop a table summarizing station information, such as station name,
 location, elevation, and period of record.

 Summarize precipitation information
 Describe the range and variability of precipitation from the mouth to the headwaters of the
watershed and among die sub-basins. In addition, obtain the average monthly precipitation
for the period of record and graph the annual distribution of precipitation. This graph of
the rate of rainfall over time is called a hyetograph. Obtain and graph the annual maximum
24-hour precipitation. Consider the following questions:

•  In which month or months does the majority of precipitation occur?
•  When are the dry seasons?
                                                            Aquatic Life

                       •  In which month and year does the largest annual maximum 24-hour precipitation
                          event occur?
                       •  Is this the same storm that produced one of the largest peak flows?
                       •  In what month do most of the maximum 24-hour precipitation events occur?

                       Examine trends in data
                       If the period of record for the streamflow station and climate station overlap, examine
                       the pattern that has occurred for peak flows and precipitation over time. Consider the
                       following questions:

                       • Are annual peak flows consistently increasing or decreasing over a period of the record?
                       • Does a cyclical wet and dry pattern emerge in which short periods of lower peaks are
                         interspersed with periods of higher peaks?

                       If some pattern seems apparent, then the next step is to discern whether the pattern
                       mimics the climatic pattern. If there is a trend in the peak flow graph that is not apparent
                       in the precipitation graph, then further study may be warranted. Keep  this point in mind
                       when proceeding with the hydrologic screening tasks. Note the year in which the trend
                       in peak flows becomes apparent and the year in which it stops and try to identify major
                       watershed changes that might have occurred coincidentally.  Also be sure to review the
        Historical       streamflow and climate station histories to check for changes in gage locations. Check the
                       Historical Conditions module timeline for input on watershed changes.

                       Step 4, Summarize the role of groundwater and other natural water storage

                       Natural water storage features play a role in the runoff response of the watershed. In fact,
                       hydrologic regimes in some regions are dominated by their storage components. "Storage-
                       based"systems or subsurface-dominated flow regimes typically release water slowly over
                       long periods of time. For instance, in the pine flatwoods of Florida, surface runoff occurs
                       only when the groundwater table intersects the soil surface.  Conversely, most rangelands,
                       absent dense vegetation, offer little water storage.  Surface runoff is the  most common
                       form of conveyance as evidenced by numerous rills and ephemeral channels.

                       Almost all streams interact with groundwater to some extent. In fact, groundwater
                       discharge to streams (termed baseflow) often accounts for 50 percent or more of
.                                                                                               TT ,  ,
 •J4                                                                                            Hydrology

 the average annual streamflow. The proportion of stream water that is derived from
 ground-water inflow, however, can vary considerably across physiographic and climatic
 settings. Streams can interact with groundwater in one of three ways:
 1.  Streams gain surface water from groundwater inflow.
 2.  Streams lose water to groundwater by outflow through the streambed.
 3.  Streams do both, gaining at some times or in some reaches and losing at other times
     or in other reaches.

 Groundwater boundaries in many instances do not coincide with watershed boundaries;
 groundwater/surface water interactions are largely controlled by the geologic setting
 (Box 6). As an example of the effect that geology can have on the groundwater
 contribution to streamflow, Winter et al. (1999) compared die Forest River watershed
 Box 6. Hydrologically closed systems
   Watersheds located in the glacfal and dune
   terrain (the prairie-pothole region) of the north-
   central United States are characterized by hills
   and depressions with many lakes and wet-
   lands.  While streams drain portions of this ter-
   rain, typically they-do not form a large drain-
   age network, and stream outlets are often
   absent, indicating a "closed" system. Move-
   ment of water through this terrain is controlled
   primarily by exchange of water with'the atmos-
   phere (through precipitation and evapotranspi-
   ration) and with the ground water.
 in North Dakota with the Sturgeon
 River watershed in Michigan. The
 Forest River watershed is underlain
 by poorly permeable silt and clay
 deposits, which limit the contribu-
 tions of groundwater to streamflow
 to around 14 percent of average
 annual flow.  By contrast, the
 Sturgeon River watershed is dom-
 inated by highly permeable sands
 and gravels, causing the groundwa-
 ter component of streamflow to be
large, approximately 90 percent of
its average annual flow.
Antecedent precipitation conditions also influence groundwater/streamflow interactions.
During storms, a rising water level in the stream channel typically reverses the direction
of groundwater flow, causing storage of water in the floodplain and recharge of adjacent
aquifers. As the stream recedes, the stored groundwater is released slowly back to the
Inventory -water storage features
Locate and describe surficial water storage features in the watershed such as lakes, ponds,
wedands, and swamps. In some regions, the USGS has compiled descriptive watershed
information for each streamflow gaging station (Williams et al. 1985). The EPA Surf

Box 7. Karst terrain
Your Watershed web page (http://www.epa.gov/surf/) has information on the number
of lakes in the watershed, as well as the name, description of rock types, and square miles
of coverage for each underlying aquifer. Confer with the Vegetation analyst to obtain
the vegetation map documenting the extent of wetlands identified on the NWI maps
and through aerial photo interpretation.  If information is not readily available, storage
features can be identified on topographic maps and aerial photographs.

Summarize snow data
If snow accumulates in the watershed, identify snow data collection stations in or near
the watershed. The NRCS collects snowpack depth and snow-water equivalent data at
stations in many regions.  Contact the local NRCS office to determine whether snow
                               stations are actively monitored in or near the watershed.
                               Also, check with the USFS for snow data. Determine
                               in which sub-basins snow accumulates and, if possible,
                               estimate the snow pack depth.
   Karst terrain refers to areas of highly disrupted surface
   water drainage systems due to the dissolution of
   underlying bedrock (typically limestone and dolomite).
   Solution openings, rock openings, and sinkholes inter-
   sect the surface, providing connection to the under-
   ground drainage network.  Precipitation onto areas
   where karst terrain outcrops at the land surface tends
   to infiltrate quickly. Even large streams can run dry as
   they recharge the groundwater directly through sink-
   holes and solution cavities. This direct link also leaves
   groundwater resources very susceptible to pollution.

   USGS studies (Brown and Patton 1995) found that
   streams traversing the karst terrain associated with the
   Edwards Aquifer in south-'central Texas can lose con-
   siderable amounts of water. Yet,  karst aquifers can
   also produce ample groundwater discharge.  For
   example, springs near the margin of the Edwards
   Aquifer provide a continuous source of water for
   streams to the south.

   North-central  Florida provides an example of a man-
   tled karst region with numerous sinkhole lakes. Many
   lakes in this region form as unconsolidated surficial
   deposits slump into sinkholes in the underlying highly
   soluble limestone of the Upper Floridian Aquifer.
                               Identify the presence of glaciers in the watershed.
                               Glacial streams, primarily during low flows, will exhibit
                               characteristics different from those for neighboring
                               streams that are fed by snowmelt, lakes, and

                               Summarize groundwater resources
                               Use available hydrogeologic resources, such as existing
                               reports, maps, and aquifer descriptions, to summarize
                               the knowledge of groundwater issues by sub-basin. The
                               USGS Groundwater Atlas provides aquifer descriptions
                               for most regions. Locate areas of productive
                               groundwater discharge in the watershed (e.g., well
                               fields, springs) and also potential areas of groundwater
                               recharge (e.g., karst terrain; Box 7).

                               Over the past decade, as the joint management
                               of groundwater and surface water resources has
                               come to center stage, investigators have focused on
                               characterizing the interactions.  If the watershed is
                               in an area with a recendy completed regional-scale

 baseflow study (Box 8), use the report to
 help define the role that groundwater plays
 in maintaining the streamflow.
                                              Box 8. Baseflow studies
 Step 5. Characterize watershed runoff

 The purpose of this step is to identify the
 relative importance of the runoff pathways
 (surface and subsurface) within the
 watershed. Using the information gathered
 in Steps 2 through 4, summarize the
 interaction among streamflow, precipitation
 inputs, groundwater, and storage components. Discuss, to the extent possible, the
 mechanisms by which runoff is generated.  More than one runoff process can be active in a
 watershed, and often a predictable pattern will emerge (Box 9).

                                       Box 9. Example runoff descriptions
                                                 Recently completed baseflow studies are available
                                                 for several regions in the country:"
                                                 • Washington State, selected rivers and streams
                                                " •J (Sinclair and Pftz 1999).     -  -
                                                 - • The Great Lake area (Holtschlag and Nicolas 1998).
                                                [ • The Chesapeake Bay area (Bachman 1997; Lang-
                                                   land et al. 1995).'
                                                1 • The Appalachia region (Rutledge and Mesko 1996).
                                                , « The^Centraf Savannah River watershed (Atkins et al.
                                                -7*1996),           '                '
                                                • •. Pennsylvania (White and Sloto 1990).".
                                                 '• Tennessee (Hoos 1990).
As a general rule, overland flow
padiways are dominant in arid areas
and on paved urban areas or disturbed
landscapes where infiltration capacity
is often limited. Subsurface flow is
more prevalent in humid regions with
dense vegetation and deep, permeable
soils.  Where subsurface flow is
a dominant contributor to storm
runoff, die percentage of precipitation
that reaches the stream during the
storm is low; most of the rain is
stored in die soil and groundwater,
then released slowly.

Further distinction can be made
regarding the influence of climate on
runoff.  In rainfall- or rain-on-snow-dominated hydrologic regimes, annual maximum
precipitation events often occur at die same time of year as the annual peak flows.
By contrast, in areas with a snowmelt-dominated regime, maximum precipitation events
                                         "- In forested watersheds draining deep soils in the Sierra Nevada
                                           Mountains, winter snow accumulation and spring snowmelt are
                                           the primary influences on the shape of the annual hydrograph.
                                           However, other hydrologic processes are also active. Groundwa-
                                          'ter release sustains streamflow relatively well into the summer,
                                          „ and ail the more extreme peak flow events have resulted from
                                         .  mid-winter rain-on-snow events. Rain-on-snow events have typi-
                                          cally generated peak flows up to five times greater than spring
                                           snbwmelt peak flows.

                                         •, Some watersheds in the unvegetated shallow cirques of the Sierra
                                           Nevada Mountain alpine zone are snowmelt-dominated.  Ground-
                                           water may contribute only a small portion of the total annual
                                           amounts of surface water; however, the groundwater inputs ace *-
                                         ., the primary source of water for 8 to 9 months of the year.

                      do not yield the largest floods; instead, spring melting of the accumulated winter
                      precipitation (stored in the snowpack) generates peak flows.  Watersheds with extensive
                      wetland systems and other forms of storage will also show streamflow desynchronized
                      from the precipitation inputs. In arid regions, intermittent streams often yield flash
                      floods in response to high intensity rainstorms. The intensity of rainfall in these areas
                      can be a more important factor in determining runoff than the total amount of rainfall.
                      In the Great Plains region, thunderstorms provide more than half of the precipitation
                      during the growing season (Maidment 1992).

                      Step 6. Identify water control structures
                      Locate on a map the water control structures in the watershed.  Man-made structures
                      and storage facilities such as water supply reservoirs, flood control reservoirs, and even
                      abandoned dams (millponds) impact the streamflow downstream of the impoundment
                      (Box 10). Information on the operation and physical attributes of such structures will
                      be instrumental in any future Level 2 analyses.
                      Box 10. Hydrologic impacts of reservoirs
                          In 1963, Glen Canyon Dam began to store water, and Lake Powell reservoir was cre-
                          ated along the Colorado River.  Since then, the Colorado River downstream of the dam
                          has not experienced its natural seasonal floods.  Snowmelt produced pre-dam flood
                          flows on the Colorado on the order of 2,400 m3/s. Since 1963, the controlled releases
                          from the Glen Canyon Dam have generally been maintained below 500 m3/s.  In addi-
                          tion to modifying the streamflow, dams impede the transport of sediment downstream
                          by trapping it behind the dam (Poff et ai, 11997).
Identify and map areas with channel modifications. Extensive levees, diking, or bank
armoring can disconnect the channel from its floodplain, which in turn can impact the
hydrologic function of the watershed. Confer with the Channel analyst to determine
the extent of channel modification.
                       Step 7. Characterize water use

                       Water use, through diversions of surface water or withdrawals of groundwater from
                       wells, reduces streamflow, potentially resulting in a negative impact on biological
                       resources.  Water use is generally categorized by beneficial use designations, such as

  municipal water supply, industrial water supply, irrigated agriculture, domestic water
  supply, fish and wildlife, recreation, and federal reserved rights.

  Identify the types of beneficial water uses in the watershed and summarize them in a table.
  If overuse of either surface water or groundwater was identified as a concern during
  Scoping,locate areas of concern in the watershed. For instance, several areas in the country
  have pumped groundwater resources excessively, to the extent that the land surface is
                                                                                           Water,  '
                                                                                          Quality  r
                                                   Box 11. Consumptive water use
Make generalizations about the typical schedules of withdrawals for each beneficial
use. For instance, withdrawals for irrigation may only be operated for a few
months of each year, while withdrawals for water
supply are typically year round. Characterize
the surface water withdrawals separately from the
groundwater withdrawals. Determine, if possible,
how much of the water use is consumptive
(Box 11) and the extent of imports of water
from or exports of water to other watersheds
(interwatershed transfers).
                                                       Consumptive use is the quantity of
                                                       water absorbed by a crop and tran-
                                                       spired or used dfrectly in the" building
                                                       of plant tissue together with the water
                                                       evaporated from the cropped area.
 Section 2. Screen for Potential Land and Water Use Impacts on Hydrology

 The screening process is designed to focus future analyses by identifying land and water
 use activities in the watershed that are potentially problematic. Land use practices and
 structural features, as well as water use, can modify the hydrologic regime of a watershed by
 altering one or more of the following:

 •  Amount of water available for runoff.
 •  Flow available in the channel.
 •  Routing of water to the streams.
 •  Lag time (delay between rainfall and peak streamflow; Figure 5).
 •  Travel distance to the stream.

Each activity has its own array of potential impacts to the hydrologic resources (Table 1).
Those activities that affect the rate of infiltration or the ability of the soil surface to
store water are typically most influential.  For instance, impervious surfaces associated

 Figure 5. Hypothetical hydrographs demonstrating
 changes between pre-urbanization (dotted curve) and
 post-urbanization (solid curve) runoff
        = Q
                          Lag time after
 Lag time before
                         Time (hours)
  Adapted from Leopold (1968)
with urbanization inhibit infiltration, causing
rain to run off more quickly, as shown in
Figures 5 and 6 and described in Box 12.

The screening steps will draw on the information
gathered in the characterization section and offer
guidance for the analyst to determine which
potential land or water use issues warrant further
investigation. For each sub-basin, enter a "Yes" or
"No" under each use category on Form H2. A
"Yes" on Form H2 indicates that a potential for
hydrologic impacts exists for the use in the sub-
basin. A "No" indicates that either the use does
not occur in the sub-basin or that the impact is
projected to be minimal. In addition, the last
column on Form H2 encourages comments on the
rationale behind each screening response.
 Box 12. Example of
 urbanization impacts
    Urbanization causes the
    peak flow (highest point on
    the curve) to increase and
    to occur sooner (the lag
    time has decreased), as
    shown in Figure 5.  The
    same concepts are shown
    in Figure 6, where two
    streams respond differently
    to the same rainstorm: one
    stream drains a forested
    watershed, and the other
    drains an urbanized
Keep in mind that the work completed in this screening is not definitive.
More detailed technical analyses are necessary to verify the presence of

Figure 6. A typical annual hydrograph based on mean monthly flow values
                                                               6      8      10
                                                               Time (days)

  Table 1. Potential hydrologic effects associated with land and water use
Land Use
Land Use Practice
Forestry Timber
Roads and
Agriculture/ Land
rangeland drainage
" ' '
* Urban Increase in

Use of
Water Dams and
control diversions
Levees and
Water use Surface water
Return flow
Peak flow
Low flow
Peak flow
Annual yield
- Peak flow
Low flow
Peak flow
Low flow
Low flow
Peak flow
Peak flow
Low flow
Peak flow
Peak flow
Peak flow
routing - -
Low flow
Low flow
Low flow
Potential Hydrologic Effects
Increased peak flows due to reduction in evapotranspiration and interception
as well as more accumulation and meJt of snowpack. Diminished impact as
regrowth occurs even though damage to the channels may persist.
Increased low flows due to-reduction in evapotranspiration and interception.
Rerouted subsurface flows to surface runoff through roadside drainage
ditches. Compaction of soil causes increased runoff and decreased
infiltration. Logging practices such as skid trails contribute to the same effect.
Increased water yield due to more accumulation of snowpack in open areas
and reduction in evapotranspiration and interception. Most of increase occurs
• during wet part of the year.
Increased timing of storm runoff as surface flow moves more quickly to
Lowered water table. Reduced groundwater recharge.
Increased timing of storm runoff as surface flow moves more quickly to
Lowered water table, Reduced groundwater recharge.
Altered rates of transpiration affects runoff. '
Increased timing of storm runoff due to compaction of soils. Reduced
Reduced infiltration. Surface flow moves more quickly to stream, causing peak
to occur earlier and to be larger. Increased magnitude and volume of peak.
Can cause bank erosion, channel widening, downward incision, and
disconnection from floodplain.
Reduced surface storage and groundwater recharge, resulting in reduced
Increased timing of runoff through increased velocity due to lower friction in
pipes and ditches. Surface flow moves more quickly to stream via pipes and
ditches, causing peak to occur earlier and to be larger. Increased total volume.
Reduced magnitude and frequency of high flows. Can cause channel
narrowing downstream of dam. Capture of sediment behind the dam can result
in downstream channel erosion and bed armoring.
Reduced overbank flows. Isolation of the stream from its floodplain. Channel -
constriction can cause downcutttng.
Depleted streamflow by consumptive use. Streamflow depleted between point
of withdrawal and point(s) of return.
Lowered water table. If hydraulically connected, can cause streambank
erosion and channel downcutting after Joss of bank vegetation.
Altered timing of groundwater/surface water interaction.

                      problems and to determine the magnitude of impacts.  Outlining a detailed assessment
                      process that relies on hydrologic techniques is beyond the scope of this document;
                      however, general guidance for more extensive analyses is provided in the "Level 2
                      Assessment" section.

                      Step 1. Summarize land uses

                      Inspect the land use map from the Scoping process and identify the land uses present
                      in each sub-basin. Validate the boundaries around the mapped land uses using aerial
                      photos, orthophotos, or topographic maps and correct any inaccurate boundaries. Use
                      this corrected land use map to determine the area (acres or mi2) of forestry, agriculture,
                      rangeland, urban, rural residential, and other land uses in each sub-basin. The areas in
                      each land use can be determined using GIS, calculated using a planimeter, or estimated
                      using the rectangular grid method.  Identify the location of structural features on the
                      map, and identify the point of diversion for each significant water use.

                      Enter the area estimated for each land use in each sub-basin into a table similar to
                      Figure 7.
         Figure 7. Sample table format for summarizing land use data
                                              Land use categories (% of watershed area)
Forestry    Agriculture     Rangeland    Urban
                       Step 2. Screen for potential forestry issues

                       If commercial forestry is a land use activity in the watershed, then the existing condition
                       of the forest stands in the watershed will need to be assessed. Further investigation will

  be needed if the canopy cover of the current forest stand is substantially different from
  its historical condition. In addition, extensive harvesting within the last few decades
  may have substantially impacted the hydrology.  Confer with the Vegetation analyst to
  obtain work products and general information on the changes in forest canopy over
  time. Consult with agency hydrologists or foresters as needed to determine whether
  regional criteria for harvest management are available or whether there are regional
  forestry issues that need to be addressed. For instance, much of the timber harvest in the
  southeastern United States  comes from lands occupied by a high percentage of forested
  wetlands.  Impacts of timber harvest on hydrology in this region  should specifically
  address wetlands.

  For sub-basins in which commercial forestry raises concern, enter a "Yes" on Form H2.
  Further investigation may not be warranted if forestry occupies only a small portion
  of a sub-basin or the vegetative cover condition has not changed substantially; in this
  case, a "No" may be the appropriate response on Form H2. For sub-basins in which no
  commercial forestry occurs, enter an "N/A" on Form H2.

  Step 3. Screen for potential agriculture or ranaeland issues

  If agriculture activities or rangeland management occurs in a sub-basin, several questions
  regarding soil type and agricultural practices will need to be addressed. The impact
  of agriculture on hydrology is dependent on specific practices such as the type of
  cover and management treatments, as well  as
  the characteristics of the soil being farmed
  (Box 13). The infiltration rates of undisturbed
  soils vary widely. Agriculture has a greater
  effect on runoff in areas where soils have a
  high infiltration rate than in areas where soils
  are relatively impermeable in their natural
  state (USDA Soil Conservation Service
  [SCS] 1986). Impacts associated with the
  utilization of rangelands can be assessed in  a
  manner similar to that used  for agricultural
  lands.  In addition, cattle grazing on sparsely
 forested lands can have similar impacts and
 should be considered under this heading.
Box 13. Example of a regional agriculture
issue—peat mining in North Carolina
   A study on the Coastal Plain of North Carolina
   (Gregory et al. 1984) found the following
   hydrologic impacts associated with peat mining:
   • Greater volume, duration, and peak flow of
      storm discharge from the field ditches on
      the mining sites than from sites with natural
   • Quicker overland flow to the ditches on the
      mining site due to reduced infiltration asso-
      ciated with grading the surface.
   • Lower baseflows in the ditches draining the
      mined sites.

                      The USDA has characterized and mapped the soils for most areas across the United

                      States. Other agencies, such as state land managers and the USES, are also sources of

                      soil information. As part of the mapping process, soils are classified into one of four

          Erosion      hydrologic soil groups (Table 2), primarily as a function of their minimum infiltration

                      rate on wetted bare soil.  Confer with the NRCS specialist nearest the watershed to

                      locate soil group information, typical agricultural practices in the watershed, and any

                      regionally specific crops.

                      Use the percentage of the sub-basin in agriculture, knowledge of associated soil groups,

                      and typical agricultural practices to help determine whether agricultural concerns exist.

                      Enter a "Yes," "No," or "N/A" response on Form H2 for each sub-basin.
                     Table 2. Hydrologic soil group classification
                         soil group
Characteristics of soils
                         Low Runoff  High infiltration rates even when thoroughly
                          Potential   wetted. Deep, well drained sands or gravels with
                             A      a high rate of water transmission. Sand, loamy
                                     sand, or sandy loam.

                             B      Moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly
                                     wetted. Moderately deep to deep, moderately well
                                     to well drained, moderately fine to moderately
                                     coarse textures. Silt loam or loam.

                             C      Slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted.
                                     Usually has a layer that impedes downward
                                     movement of water or has moderately fine to fine  ,
                                     textured soils. Sandy clay loam.

                             D      Very low infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted;
                         High Runoff  chiefly clay soils with a high swelling potential;
                          Potential   soils with a high permanent water table; soils with
                                     a clay layer near the surface;  shallow soils over
                                     near impervious materials.  Clay loam, silty clay
                                     loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay.

                        SCS (1986)
infiltration rate

     8- 12
                                          1 -4
                       Step  4.  Screen for potential urban, suburban, or rural residential issues

                       For sub-basins with urban, suburban, or rural residential development, the screening
                       process will rely on estimating the impervious area as the basis for determining

                                       Table 3. Average area of impervious surfaces, urban and residential
potential hydrologic impacts.  Impervious surfaces are those that prevent or inhibit the
natural infiltration process, such as roads, parking lots, and rooftops. Table 3 displays
the average percentage impervious
area associated with various types of
development. For each sub-basin,
use the land use map and aerial
photos to estimate the area occupied
by the most common types of
development. Multiply this area
by the average impervious area
percentage from Table 3 to obtain
an estimate of the sub-basin total
impervious area (TIA). If it is
not possible to identify the areas of
development types, a TIA estimate
can be made based on road density
(Box 14).
Type of land development
Urban Districts:
Commercial and business
'Residential Districts by
Average Lot Size:
1/8 acre or less (town houses)
'1/3 acre
1/2 acre
1 acre ,. r
'2. acre"
Average impervious area (%)
- 72

' "38
, 25
, ,20 '
J * «
 Optional Task: Compute the weighted average percentage impervious value for all
 development types in the sub-basin.

     Box 14. Using road density to estimate impervious area
         If difficulties arise in estimating impervious areas, the extent of develop-
         ment can often be expressed in terms of foad density. May et al. (1997)
         established a relationship between watershed urbanization-(percentage
         TIA) and.sub-basin road density (mi/mi2) that can be used as a surro-
         gate for percentage impervious surfaces in the Pacific Northwest. In
         urbanized areas of the Pacific Northwest when road densities equal or'",
         exceed 5.5 mi/mi2, TIA probably exceeds 10 percent.
Concern for potential urban-related hydrologic issues should arise for each sub-basin that
exceeds a regionally appropriate percentage impervious area threshold. For Puget Sound
Lowland streams in Washington, May et al. (1997) recommend that impervious area be
limited (< 5-10 percent TIA) to maintain stream quality, unless extensive riparian buffers
are in place. Consult agency hydrologists or research in the vicinity of the watershed
to develop a threshold of concern applicable to" the watershed. Schueler's (1994) review

                        of 18 urban stream studies revealed that a sharp decline in species diversity was often
                        associated with 10 percent or greater TIA.

                        Based on the estimated total impervious area in the watershed, designate sub-basins in
                        which urban use is of concern by entering a "Yes" or "No" response on Form H2.

                        Step 5.  Screen for potential water control structure issues

                        For sub-basins with man-made water control structures and storage facilities, determine
                        the portion of die watershed influenced by each structure.  Each reservoir has its own
                        operating scheme and, therefore, will require more detailed hydrologic investigations,
                        often including release schedules, reservoir routing, etc. If there is a sizable reservoir
                        in the watershed, further technical analyses will be required for die portion of the
                        watershed below die dam, but some of die steps can be completed for the land uses
                        present in the portion of the watershed above the dam. Consult with hydrologists at the
                        Bureau of Reclamation, USAGE, public utilities, or local reservoir operators to obtain
                        information about the operating scheme.

                        Other types of structures, such as dikes, levees, or channelization, can affect the
         Channel        hydrologic function of a watershed because they modify channel configuration. Confer
                        with the Channel analyst to assess reaches of concern.

                        In consultation with agency hydrologists and using data collected in the characterization
                        section, determine the extent to which the structures may be altering the hydrology of
                        the watershed. Sub-basins in which structures may cause changes to the hydrology will
                        require further study and should receive a "Yes" response on Form H2.

                        Step 6.  Screen for potential water use issues

                        For sub-basins in which water is being withdrawn from either surface or groundwater,
                        comparisons of stream flow to water use will be necessary.  Determine the time of year
                        when water use is the highest. If possible, compile estimates of monthly water use based
                        on information collected in Step 7 of Section  1.

                        In many regions throughout the country, high demand for -water occurs during the low
                        flow season.  The reduction of streamflow due to water use is of particular concern
 26                                                                                             Hydrology

during the low flow season. Consider whether a pattern emerges when comparing monthly
streamflow to monthly water demand.

Further investigation of water use and allocation issues may be warranted if consumptive
use is high in one or more sub-basins, particularly if the low flow period coincides with
times of high water use.  In addition, while the impact to low flows of a surface water
withdrawal is fairly straightforward to account for and immediately felt, the impact of
groundwater withdrawals on nearby streams is not as easily understood. Characterizing
the groundwater/surface water interactions (termed hydraulic continuity) may be necessary
in areas where water use and water supply requirements are competing with fisheries
protection measures, such as enforcing minimum in-stream flows.

In consultation with agency hydrologists and using data collected in the characterization
section, determine the extent to which water use is depleting streamflow.  Sub-basins in
which water use may be  a concern will require further study and should receive a "Yes"
response on Form H2. Sub-basins with minimal water use may not need further study.

Step 7. Produce Hydrology report

Generate a brief report summarizing the information gathered. The report should feature
the tables, graphs, and forms produced as well as a narrative describing the hydrologic and
climatic character of the watershed and the potential land and water use impacts.
Hydrology                                                                                                    27

                            Level 2 Assessment
                            Once the initial watershed characterization and the screening for potential impacts have
                            been completed, the focus of future assessment efforts should be reasonably clear.  This
                            section provides a general discussion of available options for Level 2 characterization and
                            analyses. The Level 2 methods and specific tools required will differ for each watershed
                            depending on issues revealed during the Level 1 assessment. Level 2 analyses will be
                            more technical and extend the level of detail beyond that used in Level 1 (see Hydrology
                            Module Reference Table).

                            Level 2 Characterization

                            Streamf low patterns

                            The methods for a Level 2 characterization of streamflow will be a function of available
                            data and Level 1 products. For Level 2 analyses, determination of streamflow for each
                            sub-basin will be necessary to assess the patterns and trends over time.  Level 2 methods
                            may include the following:

                            •  Applying streamflow statistics from one gage location to another point in the
                               watershed (e.g., applying unit runoff from an upstream point to the mouth of a
                            •  Using regional regression equations for watersheds that are ungaged and have no
                               streamflow records.
                            •  Using correlation techniques for stations with short periods of record and extending
                               them using long-term data from another gage that drains a hydrologically similar
            Aquatic Life
Statistical information on extreme events generated through flood frequency analyses
(e.g., log pearson type III), low flow frequency analyses, or 7Q10s can provide perspective
on the range of expected extreme flows. Frequency analyses can be performed using
annual peak flow series data or partial series data.  Flow duration curves provide a
graphical representation of the percentage of time that a given level of streamflow will
be equaled or exceeded in the stream; monthly flow duration curves are generated using
mean daily discharge values.  Flow duration curves can be extremely useful in providing
input to the Aquatic Life module.

  Precipitation patterns and other climate data

  Data from additional precipitation and snow stations can help to further characterize the
  precipitation patterns and their influences on the hydrologic regime. Data from more
  than one station along with NOAA maps or PRISM (Parameter-elevation Regressions
  on Independent Slopes Model) maps developed by Oregon Climate Service (http://
  www.ocs.orst.edu/) can be used to determine precipitation distribution throughout
  each sub-basin. Multiple station data can also be useful for evaluating the impacts
  of elevation and aspect on hydrologic processes such as rain, snow, or a combination
  thereof. Precipitation frequency analyses reveal the magnitude and frequency of extreme
  precipitation events.  Eevel 2 analyses typically rely on additional climate data such as
  temperature, wind, and evaporation data.

  Trend analyses

  Level 2 analyses may involve detecting trends in the streamflow or climate parameters.
  A trend can be defined as a systematic increase or decrease over time of one particular
  parameter (e.g., streamflow or temperature).  Several options for detecting underlying
  trends in time-series data sets are available. The first step is often to perform some type
  of smoothing technique such as a moving average to reduce the effects of non-systematic
  variation in flows. Moving averages can be calculated  for different time periods (e.g.,
  5-year or 10-year moving averages) depending on the availability of data. The Mann-
  Kendall nonparametric test can be used to discern monotonically increasing or decreasing
  trends in streamflow or precipitation data (Maidment  1992).

 A double mass analysis is useful for the detection of changes in relationships between two
 monitoring stations. This may become important if the location of a station has changed
 over its period of record or if a change in land use practices has occurred around one
 station but not the other.

 Groundwater and other natural storage

 Level 2 analyses may require further definition of groundwater issues. The average daily
 hydrograph of surface water can be used to evaluate baseflow characteristics that are
 usually supplied by groundwater discharge. Groundwater/surface water interactions can
 be qualitatively addressed by examining a graph of the  logarithm of discharge versus time.
 The slope of the recession on this graph indicates the role of groundwater in sustaining
    .  ,

                            baseflows.  The groundwater component of streamflow can also be evaluated using a
                            computer-based hydrograph separation technique (such as HYSEP [Sloto and Grouse
                            1996]) or summary statistics from the daily minimum streamflow records. Surficial
                            aquifers can be delineated and mapped based on comparisons of physical properties such
                            as depth to groundwater, surficial geology, soil properties, and the presence or absence of
                            near-surface aquitards (geological strata that limit groundwater seepage).

                            Monthly or daily tracking of hydrologic components in a water budget may provide
                            more information on the state of the water table fluxes, the lags between storage
                            components, and ultimately, the impact of groundwater and other storage on
                            streamflow. This can be accomplished using a spreadsheet or a watershed hydrologic
                            model such as BASIN (see Table 4 in the "Land Use" section, below).

                            Runoff generating processes

                            The compilation of daily streamflow and climate data for the duration of typical storms
                            can be useful for further characterizing the watershed's runoff response.  For instance,
                            in areas where rainfall duration has a large influence on producing watershed runoff,
                            daily precipitation values for several days prior to and including the day of the annual
                            peak flows will be helpful in detecting patterns.  In other areas where rainfall intensity
                            may strongly influence the generation of runoff, collection of data on the rates of rainfall
                            throughout a day may offer insight into watershed processes.

                            In still other areas, runoff may result primarily from the combination of rainfall and
                            water resulting from snowmelt during the storm. Collection of temperature and
                            snowpack data prior to  and during the time of annual peak flow events will help to
                            determine the propensity for snowpack to contribute melt water during storms; these
                            storms are referred to as rain-on-snow events.

                            Level 2 Analysis                                                     	

                            Water control structures

                            Level 2 analyses of water control structures will include techniques tailored to the
                            physical setting and operating scheme of each structure.  Reservoir routing, watershed
                            modeling, and other techniques may be necessary to assess impacts of different operating
                            rules on downstream flows or to deregulate streamflow records.  Supporting statistics

     30                                                                                             Hydrology

 can be generated to respond to specific inquiries. For example, the Kootenai Tribe of
 Idaho posed the following question: Has the dam changed the season in which floods
 typically occur (Box 15)? Other questions may arise regarding changes to the magnitude
 of flooding. For larger, multi-purpose reservoirs, operators typically employ continuous
 hydrologic models to forecast inflows, estimate lake levels, and schedule outflows. These
 models have been calibrated to the watershed and may provide a useful tool for the
 Level 2 assessment.

Box 15. Analysis of dam effects on the Kootenai River, Idaho
    The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho recently completed a Kootenai River Watershed Assessment (Sa-
    sich et al. 1999). As part of this assessment, impacts of a dam were investigated. The table
    below summarizes the number of peak flood events in the pre-dam period compared to the post-
    dam period. The analysis was completed for three time categories that represent critical life
    stages for the aquatic species of concern in the watershed. This investigation demonstrates that
    the temporal sequence of floods has been substantially altered by the dam operations; a higher
  ' "percentage of floods has occurred from November to March in the post-dam period than  in the
  >! pre-dam period. Also,  more floods occurred in the pre-dam period between April 15 and June 30
    than after the dam was constructed.

   ' Peak Floods at Leonia Gage (includes annual and partial series data)
                                  "j  - Pre-dam
                                (water year 1929-71)'
                                    (water year 1972-98)
          Time period
Number of floods
% of total   Number of floods
                                                  % of total
April 15 -June 30
: July - October
November - March
90 ''
1 ~
" 7
~ ' \ 12 " ;
 In watersheds with numerous small diversion structures, water use may become the focus
 such that Level 2 analyses will need to include quantification of the cumulative impacts
 numerous withdrawals may have on seasonal low flows.

 Water use

 A relatively easy way to initially characterize water use in a watershed is to tabulate
 the designated beneficial uses for both the surface and groundwater rights that are on
 file with' the state agency responsible for water law administration. Water rights have
 different entitlements across the country depending on the water law in effect (Box 16).

 Box 16. Water law and water rights
    Currently, 29 eastern states utilize the riparian rights.sys-
    tem, in which a landowner is entitled to the use of the
    water bordering his or her property. Water law in the
    western states is based on the prior appropriation doc-
    trine or "first in time, first in right." Approximately 10
    states use a hybrid system that combines attributes from
    the riparian rights and the prior appropriation doctrine.
    The prior appropriation doctrine entitles the most senior
    appropriators to divert water prior to any water rights
    holders with a later date (junior).  Indian reservations,
    national forests, national parks, and BLM lands are all
    examples of federal reservations. These entities main-
    tain federal reserved rights for the purposes for which the
    reservation was established and the priority date of the
    water right is the date the reservation was established.
                                     Understanding the implications of the applicable
                                     water law will be necessary for completing a
                                     Level 2 analysis.

                                     Water rights, diversions, and use can be tracked
                                     by employing a water allocation model or a
                                     spreadsheet depending on the complexity of the
                                     situation. A water allocation model accounts
                                     for natural inflows, diversions, consumptive use
                                     (depletions), and return flows based on the state
                                     water laws.  Output can provide the physical
                                     and legal availability of water for the reaches
                                     and time periods designated. A water allocation
                                     model tracks human uses of water while a
                                     hydrologic water balance model simulates the
                                     natural watershed processes that depend on
                                     climate inputs (precipitation, temperature, wind,
solar radiation, etc.) and the physical parameters such as soil type and condition,
geologic and topographic features, vegetative cover, and channel location.

Water allocation calculations can track die inflows and outflows of water, spatially and
temporally. The spatial scale at which to operate a model must be carefully chosen.
Calculating water allocation on an annual basis at die mouth of a river may show
plenty of water. However, calculation at several locations in the same watershed on
a monthly or biweekly schedule may reveal problems that a more aggregated water
budget may mask.

In many regions, instream rights have become common as a means of protecting die
biological resources. In-stream flows have been established and, in some cases, a water
right has been awarded under the state agency in charge. In some states, in-stream flows
are synonymous with minimum flows; however, many contend that in-stream flows
should be set at a reasonable amount of flow to sustain biological resources, which is not
the same as a minimum flow.  Comparison of instream flow rights  to the minimum flow
records at several points in a watershed can help identify reaches of concern for fisheries
and odier biological resources.

   Actual water use does not always measure up to the amount designated on water rights
   certificates. In some cases, illegal uses of water occur, abandoned rights exist, or certain
   rights are not used to their full extent. Collection of actual water use data can add more
   detail to a study aimed at the identification of reaches of concern. State departments of
   health, conservation districts, and agricultural extension offices are good sources of actual
   water use data as are records from the individual water purveyors in a watershed.

   Investigations that address hydraulic continuity will be essential in some watersheds.
   The formulation of specific technical questions along with knowledge of the available
   data will assist in determining the approach for further hydrogeologic investigations.  In
   some watersheds, the timing of potential surface water capture by groundwater may be
   important, while in other watersheds the analyst may only be interested in a spatial
   analysis that defines the zone of hydraulic connectivity to a certain surface water source.
   In areas where extensive groundwater data are available, a complex numerical model,
   such as ModFlow, can be employed to determine the magnitude, distribution, and timing
   of hydraulic effects.

   Land use

  Although it is fairly straightforward to identify the potential for a land use problem,
  attempting to quantitatively assess the magnitude of the problem or the hydrologic
  change is complex. The impacts of land uses on hydrology will vary from region to
  region and even from watershed to watershed. So too will the selection of appropriate .
  analysis tools.  Selection from the many options of technical tools will depend upon the
  available input data and the specific questions that need to be addressed. The available
  tools range in complexity from empirical equations to storm hydrograph methods to
  mechanistic hydrologic models operated on a daily time step or even finer detail. Table 4
  identifies several techniques that may be useful,  but it by no means constitutes a
  definitive list.

  Continuous models can be applied at the watershed scale and may be necessary to
  assess cumulative impacts of several land uses in a watershed.  For assessing urban
  impact from small, developed areas, unit hydrographs can be used (e.g., Santa Barbara
  Unit Hydrograph, Colorado Unit Hydrograph). Analysts assessing urban impacts may
  need the ability to route stormwater through drainage networks, while analyses of
  forestry impacts will need to address changes in forest cover as well as the differential
  accumulation and melt of snow. Snowmelt models may also be necessary in rangelands

          Table 4. Examples of hydrologic tools for Level 2
                    Land use
Examples of hydrologic models or technical tools and contact entity
             Forestry                  • Washington State Watershed Analysis Methodology - Washington Forest
                                        Practices Board (WFPB 1997)
                                      • DRAINMOD/DRAINLOB - North Carolina State University
                                      • Antecedent Precipitation Index (API) - Oregon State  University
                                      • DHSVM (Distributed Hydrologic Soils Vegetation Model) -.Dennis Lettenmaier,
                                        University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
DRAINMOD - North Carolina State University
Basin - Bureau of Reclamation
Simulating Production and Utilization of Range Land (SPUR) - USDA
HFAM (Hydrologic Forecasting & Analysis Model) - Norm Crawford,
HYDROCOMP, Inc., Palo Alto, "California
             Urban/rural residential
Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF) - EPA
HFAM (Hydrologic Forecasting & Analysis Model) - Norm Crawford,
HYDROCOMP, Inc., Palo Alto, California
Water Resources Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural Sources Model
(WRENSS) - USFS             ;
PRMS (Precipitation Runoff Modeling System) - George Leavesly, USGS,
Denver, Colorado'
Regionalized Synthetic Unit Hydrograph methods (e.g. Santa Barbara,
Colorado unit hydrograph)    "            '
Stormwater runoff network models (e.g., KYPIPE, Waterworks)
                       as snowmelt can often be an important element in many rangeland areas. In addition,
                       the impact of the road network on the routing of surface water in rural and forest
                       settings should be addressed in Level 2 analyses.

                       The single event hydrograph model TR55, based on the SCS runoff curve number
                       technique, is probably the most commonly used tool applied to the agricultural setting.
                       The curve number technique was originally developed for predicting changes in storm
                       runoff volume associated with changing land management practices.   More complex
                       tools include BASIN, developed by the Bureau of Reclamation, Nebraska-Kansas Office.
                       The BASIN program computes irrigation farm delivery requirements, project diversion
                       requirements, groundwater diversion recharge, or watershed outflow, depending on how
                       the model is configured. In addition, BASIN will compute streamflow depletions or
                       net change in groundwater recharge due to a change in cropping patterns or irrigated

           Keep in mind that many of the hydrologic tools and models suggested here (Table 4)
           are capable of evaluating impacts from several land uses while others perform well
           only for specific land uses. For example, TR55 was developed using data from small
           rural/agricultural watersheds  and has proved useful in rural catchments for comparison
           of runoff under differing vegetative cover conditions. TR55 has not performed as well
           in steep forested watersheds where subsurface pathways are dominant (Fedora 1987).
           The applicability of many of the tools will be limited to the region in which they were
           developed, while others will be useable across the country.

                      Atkins, J. B., C. A. Journey, and J. S. Clarke.  1996. Estimation of ground-water
                              discharge to streams in the Central Savannah River Basin of Georgia and
                              South Carolina.  U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resource Investigations Report
                              96-4179, Adanta, Georgia.

                      Bachman, L. J. 1997.  Groundwater nitrate loads in non-tidal tributaries of Chesapeake
                              Bay 1972-92.  American Geophysical Union, EOS Transactions 78(46).

                      Bicknell, B. R., J. C. Imhoff, J. L. Kittle, Jr., A. S. Donigian, Jr., and R. C.
                              Johanson.  1997. Hydrological simulation program-Fortran, user's manual
                              for version 11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure
                              Research Laboratory, EPA/600/R-97/080, Athens, Georgia.

                      Black, P. E. 1991. Watershed hydrology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New

                      Branson, F. A., G. F. Gifford, K. G. Renard, and R. F. Hadley.  1981. Rangeland
                              hydrology. Range Science Series No. 1, second edition. Kendall/Hunt
                              Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa.

                      Brown, D. S., and J. T. Patton.  1995. Recharge to and discharge from the Edwards
                              Aquifer in the San Antonio area, Texas. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File
                              Report 96-181, San Antonio, Texas.

                      Dunne, T., and L. Leopold.  1978. Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman
                              and Company, San Francisco, California.

                      Fedora, M. A. 1987. Simulation of storm runoffin the Oregon Coast Range.  U.S.
                               Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Technical Note 378,
                               Denver, Colorado

                       Gregory, J. D., R. W. Skaggs, R. G. Broadhead, R. H. Culbreath, J.  R. Bailey, and
                               T. L. Foutz. 1984.  Hydrologic and water quality impacts of peat mining
                               in North Carolina. The Water Resources  Research Institute, Report No. 214,
                               North Carolina State University.

.                                                                                                   ',
 35                                                                                           Hydrology

  Heath. 1984 Ground-water regions of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey,
          Water-Supply Paper 2242, Reston, Virginia.

  Holtschlag, D. J., and J. R. Nicolas. 1998. Indirect ground water discharge to the Great
          Lakes. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 98-579.

  Hoos, A. B.  1990. Recharge rates and aquifer hydraulic characteristics for selected
          drainage basins in middle and east Tennessee.  U.S. Geological Survey, "Water
          Resources Investigation Report 90-4015, Nashville, Tennessee.

  Kattelmann, R. C., N. H. Berg, and R, Rector. 1983. The potential for
         increasing streamflow from Sierra Nevada watersheds. Water Resources Bulletin

  Langland, M. J., P. L. Lietman,  and S. Hoffman.  1995. Synthesis of nutrient and
         sediment data for watersheds within the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin.  U.S.
         Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 95-4233, Denver,

  Leavesley, G. H., R. W. Lichty, B. M. Troutman, and L. G. Saindon. 1983.
         Precipitation-runoff modeling system: user's manual. U.S. Geological Survey,
         Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4238,  Denver, Colorado.

  Leopold, L. B.  1968. Hydrology for urban land planning: a guidebook on the
         hydrologic effects  of urban land use.  U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 554,
         Washington, D.C.

  Maidment, D. R  1992. Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, New

  May, C. W, E. B. Welch, R. R. Horner, J. R. Karr, and B. W. Mar.  1997.  Quality
         indices for urbanization effects in Puget Sound lowland streams. Final report
         prepared for Washington Department of Ecology, Centennial Clean Water
         Fund Grant, Water Resources Series, Technical Report No.  154, Olympia,

                       May, C. W, R. R. Homer, J. Karr, B. W. Mar, and E. B. "Welch. 1997.  Effects
                              of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Lowland ecoregion.
                              Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4):483-493.

                       McCammon, B., J. Rector, and K. Gebhardt.  1998.  A framework for analyzing the
                              hydrologic condition of watersheds.  U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
                              Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management,
                              BLM Technical Note 405.

                       Miller, J. E, R. H. Frederick, and R. J. Tracey. 1973. Precipitation-frequency atlas
                              of the western United  States, Volume X: Oregon. National Oceanic and
                              Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Adas 2, Silver Spring, Maryland.

                       Otradovsky, E  1981. BASIN  user's manual.  North Platte River Projects Office, Mills,

                       Poff, L. N., J. D. Allan, M. B.  Bain, J. J. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E.
                              Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997 The natural flow regime: a paradigm for
                              river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47(11):769-784.

                       Robison, E.G.  1991. "Water availability for Oregon's rivers and streams, Volume 1:
                              Overview. Oregon Water Resources  Department, Hydrology Report #1.

                       Ross and Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd.  1998. Recommended technical
                              methods for evaluating the effects of ground-water withdrawals on surface water
                              quantity. Draft report of the Technical Advisory Committee on the Capture
                              of Surface Water by Wells.

                       Rutledge, A. T, andT. O. Mesko.  1996. Estimated hydrologic characteristics of
                              shallow aquifer systems in the Valley and Ridge, the Blue Ridge, and the
                              Piedmont physiographic provinces based on analysis of streamflow recession
                              and base-flow.  U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1422-B, Washington,

                       Sasich, J., P.  Olsen, and J. Smith. 1999. Kootenai River watershed assessment, final
                              report. Prepared for the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.
 38                                                                                           Hydrology

 Satterland, D. R., and P. W. Adams. 1992. Wildland watershed management. John
        Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York.

 Schueler, T.  1994. The importance of imperviousness. "Watershed protection techniques
 Sinclair, K. A., and C. F. Pitz. 1999.  Estimated baseflow characteristics of selected
         Washington rivers and streams. Water Supply Bulletin No. 60, Washington
         Department of Ecology, Publication No.  99-327, Olympia, Washington.

 Skaggs, R. W.  1990. DRAINMOD user's manual. North Carolina State University,
         Raleigh, North Carolina.

 Sloto, R. A., and M. Y. Grouse.  1996.  HYSEP: A computer program for streamflow
         hydrograph separation and analysis. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
         Investigation Report 96-4040, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania.

 Sun, G., S. G. McNulty, J. P. Shepard, D. M. Amatya, H. Riekerk, N. B. Comerford,
         R.W. Skaggs, and L. Swift Jr.  1999. Effects of timber management on wetland
         hydrology in the eastern United States. National Council of the Paper Industry
         for Air and Stream Improvement, Forested Wetlands Research, Gainesville,

 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1985. National
         engineering handbook,  Section 4, Hydrology. SCS, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1986. Urban
         hydrology for small watersheds: SCS, Technical Release 55, Washington, D.C.

 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1979. Magnitude and frequency of floods in western
         Oregon. USGS, Open-File Report 79-553, prepared in cooperation with the
         Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Division, Portland, Oregon.

 Viessman, W., Jr.,  and G. L.  Lewis. 1996. Introduction to hydrology.  HarperCollins
         College Publishers, New York, New York.
Hydrology                                                                                                   39

                       Ward, A. D., and W. ]. Elliot. 1995.  Environmental hydrology. CRC Lewis Publishers,
                               New York, New York.

                       Washington Forest Practices Board (WFPB).  1997. Standard methodology for
                               conducting watershed analysis, version 4.0. Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement
                               and WFPB, Olympia, Washington.

                       Watershed Professionals Network. 1999.  Oregon watershed assessment of aquatic
                               resources manual. Draft report prepared for the Governor's Watershed
                               Enhancement Board, Salem, Oregon.

                       White, K. A., and R. A. Sloto.  1990. Base-flow frequency characteristics of selected
                               Pennsylvania streams. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation
                               Report 90-4160, Reston, Virginia.

                       Williams, ]. R., H. E. Pearson, and ]. D. Wilson. 1985.  Strearnflow statistics and
                               drainage-basin characteristics for the Puget Sound Region, Washington, volume
                               II, eastern Puget Sound from Seattle to the Canadian border. U.S. Geological
                               Survey, Open-File Report 84-144-B, Tacoma, Washington.

                       Winter, T. C., ]. W. Harvey, O. L. Franke, and W. M. Alley. 1999. Ground water
                               and surface water: a single resource. U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1139,
                               Denver, Colorado.

  Form H1. General watershed characteristics
     Watershed Name:	
     Sub-basin information:

-• v. -;Total ••"•:",;;;
iwaterslied ,v ?
area (mi*)

elevation (ft)

elevation (ft)

elevation (ft)

Mean annual
precipitation (inches)

        •  Mean annual precipitation can be estimated from the Mean Annual Precipitation Map (from NOAA)
        •  Minimum and maximum elevations can be estimated from the base map or USGS quad maps.

    Describe the type and extent of natural storage (lakes, wetlands, etc.) in the watershed.   '
    What watershed changes have occurred that will affect streamflows (i.e., dams, major diversions for urban water
    supply, irrigation diversions, industrial use, etc.)?
   Information on stream gages in watershed: (Note: if more than one gage, fill out additional forms.)

   Gage #:
   Gage name :
   Gage elevation:
   Drainage area to gage:
   Storage or regulation upstream of gage (yes or no)?              if yes, describe on back of sheet

            Form H2. Summary of hydrologic issues by sub-basin


agriculture or
rangeland issue?

Potential urban
or residential
development issue?

Potential water
control structure


• 	 II,"1

1, ' | Pf "!'

water use

Describe the rationale
behind the responses

•;»' >; i; .

, •" i

hi '| In.


                          e- JL V l"°k!- HPifi
                                                         *>.  swa

                                   -»?<*.» j*v^ •^jw-.-e, ^
                                                      f  f  " ^ •** ** * 5 *


Background and Objectives
Stream channels are shaped by a number of important factors that interact to create
characteristics unique to each stream.  Some factors, such as the climate, geology, stream
gradient, and drainage area of a stream, are typically unchanged by human activities. Other
factors, however, such as the supply and transport of sediment, the character of riparian
vegetation, and the volume and timing of water runoff can be influenced by land-use
activities.  These factors all influence the channel morphology and dictate the quality and
quantity of habitat available for aquatic-dependent species. Studying channel morphology
can thus provide a measure of changes in habitat conditions and together with  the Aquatic
Life module can help to assess the health of the aquatic system.

Evaluating the effect of land-use activities on channel conditions can be difficult because
stream channels are affected by the interaction of many watershed processes that often have
a great deal of natural variability. Large-scale projects such as dams or levees may create
easily observed impacts on flood discharge and floodplain characteristics but may also have
more subtle long-term impacts on important factors such as sediment storage, channel bed
elevation,  and nutrient transport.  A great deal of field data collection and analysis may be
necessary to provide evidence that land management impacts, and not natural disturbances
such as floods, are responsible for a change in channel conditions. The Channel analyst
will need to work closely with other analysts, particularly from the Erosion, Vegetation,
Aquatic Life, and Water Quality modules, to conduct a comprehensive assessment.

The objectives for a Level 1 assessment are to characterize the types of channels that
occur within the watershed and to identify where changes in channel morphology are
most prevalent. The Level 1  assessment relies primarily on the analysis of topography,
geology, and soil maps together with a historical set of aerial photographs. Some fieldwork
is encouraged to verify channel characteristics observed on maps and photographs.
Information on channel types within the watershed can be used to develop hypotheses
about the cause of observed channel changes and potential future effects.  Further
evaluation and data will be necessary to provide evidence for any cause-and-effect

Level 2 methods and tools require specialized expertise and experience in evaluating
channel behavior, conducting field surveys, and interpreting channel-related data.  A
Level 2 assessment may be necessary when multiple land uses are impacting the channel

or when a defensible, quantitative analysis is required.  Potential field methods include
cross-sectional surveys to evaluate channel width/depth ratios, bankfull flows, hydraulic
roughness, and substrate characteristics.  More advanced and long-term evaluations may
also involve measurement of discharge, bedload transport, and fine sediment transport.
Analysis techniques can include sediment budgets, stream power calculations, and use of
sediment transport equations and models.

Channel Module Reference Table
 Critical Questions
   Level 1
   Level 2
How does die physical setting of
the "watershed influence channel
morphology? •"
How do climate and the fre-
quency, magnitude, duration, and
timing of floods affect channel
How and where has the behavior
of the channel changed over time?
How and where have changes in
sediment inputs (erosion) over
time affected channel conditions?
C5: ,
How and where have changes in •
>• riparian vegetation influenced
channel conditions?
How and where have changes in
stream discharge influenced chan-
nel conditions?
'What are the sediment transport
characteristics of streams in the
• Aerial photos ,
• Topography maps
• Geology maps
• Anecdotal information
• Stream survey data
• Annual peak flow data
• Climate data
• Historical set of aerial
• Anecdotal information
• Historical set of aerial
photos )
• Anecdotal information
• Historical set of aerial
• Sediment 'source data
• Anecdotal information
' • Historical set of aerial
" photos ,'
• Riparian vegetation data
•• Anecdotal information^
• Streamflow data
• Historical set of aerial
• 'Water withdrawal data
• Anecdotal information
• Hydrology data
• Sediment transport data
* Streamflow data
• Review of maps and aerial photos
• Apply existing channel classification
* Define channel types
• Review of aerial photos
• Define channel types
• Interviews
• Review of aerial photos
• Review of aerial photos
• Interviews
„• Review of aerial photos
• Interviews ^
•• Review of aerial photos
• Field surveys
• Channel classification
• Geomorphic channel typing
• Field surveys
• Channel classification
• Geomorphic channel typing
• Flood analysis (Hydrology)
• Field surveys "
• Channel classification
f Geomorphic channel typing
• Field surveys
• Sediment budget
• Soil creep estimation
• Field surveys „ ^
• Streamflow models (Hydrology)
• Bank erosion analysis (Erosion)
• Re view of suspended or bedload
transport data
* Sediment transport equations
• Sediment budget (Erosion)

                    Channel Module Reference Table (continued)
 Critical Questions
                                   Level 1
       Level 2
Where docs sediment storage
occur in the channel and on the
iloodplain, and how much sedi-
ment is stored?
  Aerial photos
                                                            Field surveys
                                                            Aerial photograph analysis
                                                            Sediment budget (Erosion)
How and where has the dredging,
straightening, or shirting of
streams affected channel behavior?
• Historical setof aerial.
• Anecdotal information
                          Review of aerial photos
Held surveys
Sediment budget (Erosion)
How docs the presence and man-
agement of dams and levees affect
channel conditions?
  Streamflow data
  Historical set of aerial
  Anecdotal information
                        •  Review of aerial photos
                        •  Interviews
Reservoir models
Sediment transport models
What is the potential for change
in channel conditions based on
geomorphic characteristics?
Aerial photos
Topography maps
Geology maps
                            Review of maps^nd aerial photos    *  Channel classification
                            Apply existing channel classification  •  Geomorphic channel typing
                            Define channel types              •  Field surveys             *

Level 1 Assessment
Step Chart
Data Requirements
•  Topographic maps (1:24,000 scale [7.5-minute
   series] or finer preferred).
•  Aerial photographs (1:12,000 scale preferred).
   Photographs recording major storm events and
   changes in land use activities are particularly useful
   for assessing changes in channel conditions.
•  Geomorphic maps (if available).
•  Landform map and erosion data (coordinate with
   Erosion module, if applicable).
•  Land use map (as necessary).
•  Climate and streamflow information (coordinate
   widh. Hydrology module).
•  Information on water use/extraction and dam
   management (coordinate with Hydrology module).
                                                              Delineate channel segments
Assess historical channel changes
Interpret channel responsiveness
•  Form Cl.  Historical channel changes
•  Form C2.  Geomorphic channel type characteristics
•  MapCl. Channel segments
•  Map C2. Geomorphic channel types
•  Channel report

Step 1. Delineate channel segments
Dividing the stream network into segments provides an initial interpretation of channel
character that integrates the landfbrm (i.e., geology, soils, and topography) and fluvial
features of the valley with channel relief, pattern, shape, and dimension. A channel
segment defines a portion of the stream network with relatively uniform channel features.


               Using aerial photographs, topographic maps, and geology or soil maps, divide the stream
               network into segments by identifying locations where the channel characteristics change.
               Channel segments provide a preliminary classification system and serve as a reference
               for cataloging data and other observations.  Characteristics that can be used to delineate
               segments include the following:

               •  Fault locations, major geologic structures, or changes in surface rock types.
               •  Inflow of major tributaries.
               •  Engineering structures, such as darns, diversions, levees, or single conveyance channels.
               •  Local variation in channel pattern.
               •  Channel confinement.
               •  Channel gradient (Box 1).
Box 1. Creating a longitudinal stream profile
   A relatively simple analysis of stream gradient can provide useful information for channel classifica-
   tion and highlight stream reaches that may require further study.  Using a topographic map, deter-
   mine the stream gradient at regular intervals for the entire length of the stream*  Stream gradient is
   defined as the change in elevation divided by the length of the stream reach. Most streams have a1
   generally increasing trend in slope as measured from the mouth of the stream to its-headwaters.
   Abrupt increases in slope typically signify areas of higher stream energy,and may indicate a,
   change in confinement, geology, or sediment transport characteristics. Abrupt decreases in slope
   typically signify areas of lower stream energy and often correspond to.areas of increased sediment
   deposition, broader floodplains, and greater stream meandering.                -
                          Longitudinal Profile for Bear Creek, Wyoming
             10  •
              8  •
6 ••
4 ••
              2 ••
Higher gradient may indicate
 different channel form or
  stream bed character
                                             Lower gradient may indicate
                                             sediment deposition and more
                                             meandering or bank erosion
                                            River Kilometer

 •  Changes in riparian vegetation.
 •  The presence, size, or shape of floodplains, terraces, fans, or sand/gravel bars.

 Delineate channel segments on a topographic map to create Map Cl (Figure 1). In large
 watersheds with numerous tributaries, it may be useful to assign a numeric code to the
 mainstem channel and an alphanumeric code (e.g., Al) to each tributary system.

Figure 1. Sample Map C1. Channel segments
     Toll River Watershed
     Response Segments
  From WFPB (1997)
The length and number of channel segments will depend upon the watershed size and the
goals of the "Watershed Assessment. The analyst should not commit too much time to
examining minor differences in channel character because more data will be collected to
refine the channel classification.

Existing channel classification systems can also be used to delineate channel segments.
Numerous classification systems exist that use one or more parameters to divide
the channel network (Figures 2 and 3) (Graf and Randall 1997; Montgomery and
Buffington 1993; Rosgen 1994; WFPB  1997).  In most cases, the analyst will want
to use the classification system that is most widely applied in the region. The

 Figure 2. Watershed map illustrating application of stream
 classification based on stream gradient and morphology
                                                                  analyst should, however, evaluate the
                                                                  utility of using available classification
                                                                  systems to meet the WAM project goals.
                                                                  Considerations may include scale of
                                                                  investigation, available data, and the
                                                                  need for field data.

                                                                  Step 2. Assess historical channel
                                                                  A wide variety of historical data
                                                                  are useful for reconstructing past
                                                                  channel changes.  In most cases, aerial
                                                                  photographs will provide the primary
                                                                  source of historical data.  Photographic
                                                                  coverage that spans decades and records
                                                                  major events (e.g., floods, catastrophic
                                                                  events) is necessary to determine trends
                                                                  in channel conditions through time.
                                                                  The historical analysis is also the
                                                                  first step in developing hypotheses
                                                                  about channel response to management
Montgomery and Buffington (1993)
                                                                  Historical changes and trends in
                   channel attributes provide an important context within which to assess current and
                   potential channel conditions. Aerial photograph analysis is an efficient method for
                   focusing field efforts, as well as a valuable resource for indicating historical channel change
                   and response.

                   Changes in channel morphology may involve the following elements:

                   •  Engineering structures (diversions, levees, etc.).
                   •  Channel pattern (e.g., sinuosity, braiding).
                   •  Channel width.
                   •  Size and form of sand/gravel bars.
                   •  Extent and frequency of bank erosion.
    CO = Colluvial
    CA = Cascade
    PR = Pool-Riffle
    R = Riffle
    f= forced by large wood

 Figure 3a. Stream types: gradient, cross section, plan view
 Figure 3b. Cross-sectional view of stream types
 ..  2
                          Areal extent and stability of floodplains, terraces, and fans.
                          Scour from floods or channelized landslides.
                          Wood debris loading.
                          Canopy opening or changes in vegetation patterns.
                          Sediment processes (local storage or erosion).
                          Road crossings.
Reference points (i.e., fixed landmarks) should be identified so changes in channel
dimensions and forms can be measured in successive aerial photographs. Measuring the
same cross-sectional area (transect) allows the Channel analyst to compare changes in
channel width and area over time.  Measurements from different sets of aerial photographs
will need to be corrected to account for scale differences and distortion. For small
channels, direct observation of channel width may not be possible due to dense riparian
vegetation. For these channels, canopy opening provides a useful surrogate for channel
width (Grant 1988).  In larger channels, changes in  gravel bar size and vegetation cover
may also be observed over time.  To correlate channel changes with floods, coordinate
with the Hydrology analyst. Where historical changes are observed, record observation
on Form Cl (Figure 4).
                       Figure 4. Sample Form C1. Historical channel changes
                  Historical changes
         Other observations
                                         Channelized with con-
                                         crete banks since 1903
                                          Radical changes have virtually eliminated
                                          aquatic habitat. Concrete channel minimizes
                                          influence of sediment, water, and vegetation.
                 Levees since pre-1900
Dirt levees minimize sediment deposition.
Flood scour compromises levee integrity.
                        3,7,11,12, 13
                 Possible increased
Interviews and aerial photos indicate channel
incision over past 50 years, possibly due to
removal of in-stream wood debris and
increased runoff from urbanization.
                          4, 5, 9,10
                 Increased sediment
                 deposition and bank
Low-gradient section with natural tendency for
sediment storage and channel migration.  Ero-
sion from agricultural lands, grazing, and veg-
etation removal has probably increased sedi-
ment supply.

 Step 3: Interpret channel responsiveness
 Understanding the factors that control and influence channel processes is critical to the
 Synthesis step of the "WAM process. The potential response of each channel segment to
 changes in sediment, water runoff, and vegetation will need to be evaluated in the context
 of historical channel behavior and the natural geomorphic setting (e.g., geology, gradient,
 valley confinement). Table 1 lists possible  channel responses. The exact nature and
 duration of the responses will vary depending on the watershed and channel characteristics
 and the causes for the changes.
                                  Table  1. Examples of potential channel responses to changes
                                  in water runoff, sediment supply, or vegetation
 Considering evidence from
 aerial photographs, stream
 surveys, watershed reports,
 anecdotal information, and
 observations, identify channel
 segments that have shown a
 significant response to floods,
 vegetation disturbance, or
 changes in sediment supply
 (Figure 5). A change in channel
 behavior from natural or human
 disturbances generally signifies
 the potential for future changes
 at these channel segments.
 Consult with the Hydrology,
 Erosion, and Vegetation analysts
 to help correlate channel
 changes with large floods,
 periods of increased erosion, or
 substantial changes to upland
 or riparian vegetation. The
 analysts can provide useful information on  the magnitude, frequency, distribution,
and timing of changes in these watershed processes. The Historical Conditions and
 Community Resource analysts may also have useful information on past conditions
or historical practices in and around the channel. Hypothesized connections between
historical practices and changes in channel  conditions will often require further Level 2
assessment to provide evidence for causal links.
Increasing water runoff
' Decreasing water runoff
Increasing sediment
Removal of upland
', vegetation
; Removal of riparian
, Potential Channel Responses
• Entrenchment (incision)
• Gully formation
• Coarsening of stream bed (i.e., less fine sediment)
• Increased bank erosion
* Aggradation
• Increased fine sediment in the stream bed -
•' Decrease in channel width
• Aggradation
• Larger, more frequent sand and gravel bars
• Increased fine sediment in the, stream bed
• Increased channel movement
• Increased flooding " '
• Increased flooding
• Increased sediment delivery ' '/ -
• Increased bank erosion
• Aggradation
• Fining of the stream bed
• Increased channel movement - "
• Channel widening

   Figure 5. Examples of channel form as a function of gradient, particle size, and sediment supply
                                         Dominant textures of floodplain sediments
             Tortuous meanders
                                    Ratio of Bed-material load to total sediment load
     Adapted from Selby (1985)
                      In addition to considering external agents for channel changes, it will be important to
                      consider the geomorphic setting of die channel to help evaluate where a high potential for
                      change exists naturally. A longitudinal stream profile will often help to identify segments
                      where a shift in gradient will increase the potential responsiveness of the channel.  Evaluate
                      whether changes in geology or soil type correlate with a change in channel pattern or
                      behavior.  Finally, examine the correlation between segments with a natural potential for
                      responsiveness and evidence of historical changes in channel behavior. These correlations
                      can be used to identify other channel segments with a high potential for responsiveness,
                      even if these segments have not changed significandy in recent times.

                      Information on changes in channel behavior will be used in the following step to help
                      define geomorphic channel types and to rate the responsiveness of channel types to changes
                      in sediment, water runoff, vegetation, and other disturbances.

                      Step 4. Define geomorphic channel types

                      Defining geomorphic channel types relies on the work conducted in the previous steps, as
                      well as products from other modules. Geomorphic channel types are groups of segments
                      that have similar characteristics and diat are expected to respond similarly to changes in

  water runoff, sediment, and vegetation. Channel typing can be useful to help integrate
  information on hillslope processes with information on channel conditions to ultimately
  assess aquatic habitat sensitivities.

  Specific criteria for developing channel types do not exist, so the Channel analyst must
  use available data and professional judgment to define appropriate categories. Channel
  types should consider both stream and valley form to characterize segments with similar
  geomorphic responsiveness. Group segments with similar channel conditions and potential
  responses to altered water runoff, sediment supply, or vegetation or to natural disturbances
  (e.g., floods, hurricanes, fire).  Existing channel classification schemes (Graf and Randall
  1997; Montgomery and Buffington 1993; Rosgen  1994; WFPB 1997) often consider
 many of these factors. A geomorphic channel type will typically consist of a group of
 channel segments, but a unique segment may warrant its own channel type. It may be
 helpful to consult with the Erosion analyst for a further understanding of the land types
 present in the watershed. Although the channel types are likely to be related to geomorphic
 land types, their delineation may not direcdy coincide.

 Creating geomorphic channel types provides a way of organizing information from the
 Channel module and other modules to describe linkages between hillslope processes and
 aquatic resources. Identification of channel types may involve some generalization such
 that some local reaches may not have the same response potentials as other reaches of the
 same type (WFPB 1997). Prior to the start of Synthesis, the Channel analyst should work
 with the other module analysts to interpret potential linkages between land use practices,
 changes in watershed processes, and channel responses.

 Identify geomorphic channel types on Map  C2 (Figure 6). Form C2 can be used to
 describe each channel type and summarize the hypothesized responsiveness of each channel
 type (Figure 7). Responsiveness for each channel type should be rated  "High," "Moderate,"
 or "Low" relative  to changes expected in other channel types. Since the response potential
 of each channel type is based primarily on remote analysis of maps and other data, ratings
 should be considered preliminary. Field verification and further analysis will often be
 necessary to provide support for responsiveness ratings.

 Step 5. Produce Channel report

The analyst should produce a report that organizes and presents the methods, data, and
results of the Channel assessment. The report should include a brief narrative along with
 Vegetation  r
Aquatic Life

            Figure 6. Sample Map C2. Geomorphic channel types
  Mainstem Tolt

  South Fork below the reservoir

[Jj Reservoir and Tributaries

  North Fork above braids  .
                                                                                            r™i Tributaries to the
                                                                                            *-* Middle North Fork
                                                   Stoop Tributaries draining
                                                   convergent topography
                          North Fork braided chutes
               From WFPB (1997)
                      tables, graphs, forms, and maps to provide the scientific justification for channel typing and
                      responsiveness ratings. The type of data or information necessary for a high confidence
                      level in the analyses and interpretations will not always be available; therefore, the analyst
                      must address the confidence level of the data and work products.  The degree of confidence
                      that can be assigned to the products depends upon a number of factors:

                      •  The amount, type, and quality of available information.
                      •  The relative .confidence for each work product.
                      •  The extent of field work.
                      •  The experience of the analyst.
                      •  The complexity of the geology and terrain.
                      •  Aerial photograph and map quality.
                      •  Multiple lines of evidence for inferred changes.

Figure 7. Sample Form C2. Geomorphic channel type characteristics
on River
in Naches
Low gradient (<1 %),
broad historic flood-
plain, islands, river
confined by levees
Low gradient (<1%),
recent channel
Low gradient (<2%),
small meandering
and braided streams,
wetlands, and old
oxbows common
2-4% gradient,
entrenched, with '
high, raw banks in
weak sandstone
2-6% gradient, gravel
and cobble substrate,
numerous rapids
1 and 2
A1 , B1 ,
and C1
C2, and
Potential responsiveness rating

Evidence supporting rating
• Floods in 1 980s undermined levees
• Rip-rap instead of trees maintain
river banks
• Wetlands historically provided
floodwater storage
• Historical floodplain not inundated
during floods
• Substantial bank erosion, but no
. change in pattern following floods
in 1980s '
• Increased sediment supply could
cause sub-surface flow
• Root system from riparian trees
maintain streambanks
• Runoff spreads across floodplain
• Floods cause severe bank erosion
• Wood debris important for storing
• Sediment not a problem, but more
fine particles could change sub-
strate character
• Trees important for shade and
bank stability

                      Level 2 Assessment
                      Stream channels are formed by a complex set of physical processes. Interpretations of
                      channel conditions can be difficult because of the dynamic interactions among climate,
                      water flow, and sediment transport. Determining natural or historical conditions is often
                      a challenge because many streams have been  significantly modified by human activities.
                      Understanding the natural disturbance history can also be important for understanding
                      current conditions. Evidence of channel disturbance from floods, landslides, or fires
                      is often observable in channel and floodplain deposits for many decades following the

                      Because of the complexity of channel processes, parameters used to assess stream
                      conditions should be established in the scientific  literature so that observations can be
                      credibly supported.  Parameters should focus on geomorphic forces that can be quantified
                      (e.g., channel gradient, substrate size, shear stress) so that the analysis is repeatable and
                      changes can be reliably measured.  Ideally, parameters will be applicable to a wide range
                      of channel types and account for variability from reach to reach. While some channel
                      variables require long-term monitoring data, many useful parameters are relatively easy
                      and inexpensive to measure in the field or from remote sensing.

                      The Level 2 assessment is divided into three  general approaches to channel investigation:

                      1.   Stream channel surveys.
                      2.   Detailed channel classification.
                      3.   Sediment budgets.

                      The following sections do not provide detailed instructions but offer general guidelines
                      and references to other sources that elaborate on  these procedures. The following books
                      provide general information about channel processes and ways to evaluate them:

                      •  Rivers: Form and Process in Alluvial Channels (Richards 1982).
                      •  Water in Environmental Planning (Dunne and Leopold 1977) •
                      •  The Fluvial System (Schumm 1977).
                      •  Drainage Basin Form and Process (Gregory and Walling 1973).
                      •  Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology (Leopold et al.  1964).

Stream Channel Surveys
Field surveys are a critical element of any analysis of stream channel conditions. Fieldwork
provides quantitative data on stream conditions that ideally can be extrapolated to evaluate
conditions at a watershed scale. Field surveys can help with the following:

•  Characterizing variation in channel features.
•  Evaluating channel types.
•  Applying or verifying channel classification schemes.
•  Clarifying observations from maps and aerial photographs.
•  Establishing reference sites to monitor changes in channel condition.

The number and location of surveys will vary depending on the objectives of the
assessment and available tune and resources.  Where measurements are to be used for
flow or sediment transport calculations, sites should be straight, single-stranded, and
unobstructed to  minimize complications. Where measurements will be used to compare
conditions between streams, it will be important that characteristics such as gradient,
substrate,  and  channel form  are similar so that the effects of land management can be
better isolated. Measurements for baseline and trend monitoring should be located in areas
where change is likely and will be visible.  In general, locally dynamic sites such as tributary
confluences or alluvial fans should be avoided.

The following sections provide a brief description of techniques for examining channel
variables.  Detailed instructions on conducting stream surveys can be found in the
following  sources:

•  Stream  Channel Reference  Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique (Harrelson et al.
•  Survey Methods for Ecosystem Management (Myers and Shelton 1980).
•  Timber-Fish-Wildlife (TFW) Monitoring Program Method Manual for the Reference Point
   Survey (Pleus  and Schuett-Hames 1998).

Longitudinal  and cross-sectional stream surveys

A stream reach can be characterized using a combination  of longitudinal and cross-sectional
surveys. The surveys should include a plan-view sketch of the stream reach and detailed
   Channel                                                                                                    17

     Box 2. XSPRO for cross-sectional data
 notes on channel characteristics to help identify important benchmarks and measurement
 points. A surveyor's level and rod along with fiberglass tape can be used to map
 the location and elevation of important channel features.  Channel features can
 include the stream gradient, bankfull width, bankfull depth, and floodplain features.
                                      Data on stream substrate, sediment particle size,
                                      and hydraulic roughness can also be collected
                                      at cross-sectional survey points (Box 2). The
                                      following paragraphs provide more information
                                      on measuring specific channel features.
       XSPRO is a USFS computer program designed for use
       by specialists and non-specialists alike to calculate
       hydraulic parameters based on cross-sectional surveys
       (Grant et al. 1992). The program accepts x- and y-coor-
       dinates from the cross-sectional survey along with depth
       of flow (either observed or inferred) and calculates a ser-
       ies of hydraulic parameters, including shear stress and
       stream power. The program produces both graphical  '
       and tabular outputs. XSPRO is available free of charge
       and is relatively easy to use. It is available from West
       Consultants at  http://www.westconsultants.com.
                                      Channel width and depth
                                      The most useful measure of channel width
                                      and depth is at bankfull flow because this
                                      discharge is morphologically definable in the
                                      field and typically has the greatest control on
                                      the dimensions of alluvial channels over time
                                      (Leopold et al. 1964). Bankfull flow is generally
                                      reached once every two years (Dunne and
Leopold 1977).  Bankfull width and depth refer to the width and average depth of
the channel at bankfull flow.  While the boundaries of the bankfull channel can be
difficult to consistently identify, the edge of the bankfull channel usually corresponds
to the start of the floodplain (Figure 8). The floodplain is defined as the generally flat
landscape feature adjacent to most channels that is overflowed at times of high discharge
(Dunne and Leopold 1977).  The start of the floodplain is  often characterized by the
following features:

•  A berm or other break in slope from the channel bank to a flat valley bottom, terrace,
   or bench.
•  A change in vegetation from bare surfaces or annual water-tolerant species to perennial
   upland or water-tolerant shrubs and trees.
•  A change in the size distribution of surface sediments (e.g., gravel to fine sand).

Bankfull width and depth data are necessary for analysis of channel characteristics
including the cross-sectional area, width to depth ratio, bed shear, and stream power.
Benson and Dalrymple (1967) describe measurement methods in more detail.

 Figure 8.  Indicators for determining bankfull width
                                              1. Floodplain
                                              2. Bank Morphology
                                                and Composition
                                              3. Vegetation
     Best indicators on this bank
 Adapted from Pleus and Schuett-Hames (1998)

Hydraulic roughness
Hydraulic roughness is a critical part of basic hydraulic calculations because it addresses a
loss of energy from turbulence. Less energy to move water and sediment has important
implications for water discharge, sediment transport, and erosion rates. The elements of
roughness, including particle size, form roughness (e.g., dunes and riffles), and vegetation
roughness, can change under natural circumstances or by human intervention. Roughness
due to vegetation may also change seasonally.

Manning's n is the most commonly used roughness parameter and is derived from
Mannings Equation to calculate stream flow velocity:


     Where: V = velocity (ms"1), n = hydraulic roughness (dimensionless), R = hydraulic
     radius of the channel (the area of the channel divided by the length of the wetted
     perimeter) (m), and S = channel slope or gradient.

Manning's n cannot be direcdy measured but can be estimated if the other variables
in the flow equation are known. Estimates of Mannings n have been developed for

                       a broad range of natural and artificial channels.  Tabulated values or photographs
                       of representative stream reaches of known roughness can provide useful estimates of
                       hydraulic roughness (Cowan 1956; Chow 1959; Barnes 1967). Estimates of hydraulic
                       roughness on floodplains (Arcement and Schneider 1989) and in dryland streams
                       (Aldridge and Garrett 1973) are also available to provide examples from different regions.
                       Limerinos (1970) provides guidance on calculating roughness from field surveys of the
                       channel bed.
                       Channel gradient
                       The gradient of the channel has a direct influence on the velocity of flow and the ability
                       to entrain and carry sediment. The general channel gradient can be estimated from
                       topographic maps, but local gradient changes will not be detected by this approach.
                       Accurately measuring the gradient of the water surface (typically based on estimated
                       bankfull elevation) with a level or transit is important for site-specific evaluations of
                       stream discharge and sediment transport.

                       Substrate size and distribution
                       Determining the size and distribution of streambed substrate can provide information
                       on roughness elements and aquatic habitat types. Streambed particle sizes can also be
                       important for evaluating channel stability following disturbances (e.g., regulated dam
                       releases or construction projects on the floodplain).

                       Classification of substrate type is an easy qualitative descriptor of the channel bed.
                       Categories of substrate size typically include clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder
   Table 2. Substrate size categories           (Table 2).  Finer gradations of each particle size such as coarse,
                                             medium, or fine may be useful to provide greater detail on the
                                             substrate character.

                                             Two quantitative methods for characterizing streambed particle
                                             size are sieve analysis and the relatively easy Wolman's method of
                                             pebble counts (Wolman 1954; Potyandy and Hardy 1994). For
                                             either method, a sample of particles is measured at cross-sections
                                             of the channel bed or bar. A sieve analysis simply involves filtering
                                             a sediment sample through various sieves to characterize the range
                       of particle sizes. The Wolman pebble count relies on measurements from a sample of
                       surface sediments. To create a representative sample, the median diameter of each particle
Size Range (mm)
256.0-4096.0 :
 touched by the toe of one foot is measured at every step or series of steps in several
 passes across the channel. A sample size of at least 100 particles is usually necessary
 to conduct simple statistical analyses.  Reid and Dunne (1996) provide a more detailed
 discussion of the location and number of samples necessary to characterize substrate. With
 either method, a frequency distribution is usually created to identify the mean or median
 diameter (D50) and the diameter at two standard deviations from the mean (D , and D ,).
 Several cross-sections should be evaluated in a reach to determine the general character of
 the streambed. Harrelson et al. (1994) provides a good description of how to characterize
 bed and bank materials.

 Quantitative analysis of cross-section data

 Width to depth ratios
 Monitoring changes in channel dimensions can be a useful method for identifying and
 evaluating trends in channel conditions.  One of the simplest comparisons is a width to
 depth ratio. The depth can be either the average or maximum bankfull depth.  Changes
 in the ratio over time or space are usually indicative of differences in water discharge or
 sediment transport capacity. Care must be taken to differentiate changes due to episodic
 events such as flooding from long-term watershed changes such as increased water or
 sediment supply from urbanization.

Water velocity and discharge
 Calculating discharge is a function of the channel area and the velocity of the water. Stream
 discharge data can usually be obtained from the Hydrology module, although more site-   .   Hydrology'
 specific estimates may be necessary for stream power and sediment transport analysis.                 .,  !

Locally developed empirical equations are a common tool for estimating discharge.
Equations to estimate flood flows have been developed throughout the United States and
are relatively easy to apply. Most equations are based on a regression analysis of existing
discharge data and are generally a function of the basin area, precipitation, and vegetative
cover.  The length of streamflow records and the uniformity of the landscape are important
to consider in evaluating the accuracy of these predictions.

More accurate site-specific discharge measurements can also be obtained from cross-
sectional survey measurements. A number of software packages, such as XSPRO (Box 2),
can be used to help estimate discharge using Mannings or other equations. More intensive
field methods for calculating discharge generally fall into four categories:
   „,     ,                                                                                             	-
   (Channel                                                                                                    21

                            • Volumetric measurement (generally appropriate only for small streams).                    ^)
                            • Measurement of stream velocity and cross-sectional area.                                  A
                            • Dilution gauging using a salt or dye.                                  ,                 A
                            • Artificial controls such as weirs, with known stage-discharge relationships.                  ^
                            Further information on techniques for measuring velocity and stream discharge can be
                            found in Corbett (1962) and Herschy (1985).                                              ^
                            Stream power                                                        •                 (p
                            Stream power is a measure of the stream's capacity to move sediment over time. Stream         ^
                            power can be used to evaluate the longitudinal profile, channel pattern, bed form              gfe
                            development, and sediment transport of streams. It may be measured for an entire stream      g^
                            length or stream reach or per unit of channel bed area.  The general form of the stream         ^
                            power equation is as follows:

                         CO = pgRsv = TV

      Where: 03 = stream power per unit of bed area and v = average water velocity.

 Consult the reference books on channels listed at the beginning of the "Level 2 Assessment"
 section for further details on calculating stream power and shear stress.
 Detailed Channel Classification
 As discussed briefly in the Level 1 assessment section, numerous channel classification
 systems exist to characterize stream reaches. Classification systems are useful descriptors of
 stream behavior and can be applied for extrapolation and prediction. Thus, classification
 systems that are based on natural physical processes provide the greatest potential for
 accurate predictions.  The simplest forms of channel classification rely on stream order
 (Strahler 1952) or plan form channel patterns such as sinuosity and braiding intensity
 (Brice 1960).

 Several reviews of fluvial classification systems exist to help evaluate various approaches
 (Goodwin 1999; Thorne 1997; Downs 1995; Naiman et al. 1992). A brief list and
 description of reach-scale stream classification systems follows:

 •  Leopold and Wolman (1957): A simple three-part division  of river patterns into braided,
   meandering, and straight.
 •  Kellerhals et al. (1976): A more complex system based on a combination of channel
   pattern, islands, channel bars, and major bedfbrms.
 •  Rosgen  (1994): A hierarchical system with eight primary stream types based on
   dimensional properties of the channel.
 •  Woolfe and Balzary (1996): A process-oriented approach with eight categories that relate
   rates of aggradation/degradation for the channel and floodplain.
 •  Whiting and Bradley (1993): A process-oriented system, primarily applicable to
   headwater areas, with 42 stream classes based on dimensional measures of channel form.
 •  Montgomery and Buffington (1997): A probabilistic system with seven channel types
   based on dimensional and qualitative morphologic characteristics.
•  Nanson  and Croke (1992): A probabilistic classification of 15 floodplain types based on
   both process and form dimensions.
•  Miall (1996): An example-based approach with three major classes divided into
   16 fluvial styles that are derived from predominandy qualitative morphologic


                      Sediment Budgets
                      A complete sediment budget considers the sources, storage, and transport of sediment
                      from a watershed.  As described in the Erosion module, evaluation of sediment sources to
                      where it is important to understand the fate of sediment once it enters the stream
                      channel, the storage and transport of sediment will need to be investigated.

                      The transport, deposition, and storage of sediment can be very complex, with impacts
                      at sites far removed from the original sediment inputs. Prior to conducting a
                      detailed analytical  assessment, a qualitative evaluation of channel conditions from aerial
                      photographs and field observations will help to focus the analysis on areas of the
                      stream network that have been most responsive to changes in sediment or flow inputs.
                      Depending on the identified watershed issues, it may also be possible to focus on just
                      coarse or fine sediment yield and transport. Identifying trends in channel conditions and
                      predicting channel response can often be accomplished by a combination of qualitative
                      observations and quantitative analysis with an order of magnitude accuracy.

                      Close interaction among the Channel, Erosion and Hydrology analysts will typically
                      be required to develop a useful sediment budget. The Erosion module can provide
                      qualitative information on geology/soil influences and quantitative estimates of sediment
      ^  Erosion      inputs. The Hydrology module can provide data on flood history and the factors that
         Hydrology    are influencing runoff and stream discharge. Collectively, this information will provide
                      a good, semi-quantitative, systematic understanding of channel processes and sediment
                      distribution patterns.

                      Sediment budgets are particularly useful for assessing water quality and morphologic
                      channel changes due to altered inputs of sediment or water to streams (Reid and
                      Dunne 1996). The  evaluation of changes typically requires characterizing a channel
                      under undisturbed conditions and predicting how those characteristics will change with
                      alterations in sediment or -water inputs.  Table 3 provides examples of channel issues that
                      can be evaluated with sediment budget techniques. Aerial photos, field surveys, substrate
                      analysis techniques,  and flow equations have been addressed in previous sections of this
                      module.  Sediment mobility analysis and sediment transport equations are discussed in
                      the following sections.
24                                                                                             Channel

  Table 3. Examples of channel issues and selected techniques for evaluating
  changes in channel conditions
     Example questions
   How much introduced sediment will be
   transported out of the watershed?
   What proportion of introduced sediment will
   be deposited, and where will it be deposited?
   How.will changes in sediment inputs affect
   channel form?
   How long will it take for the channel to
   recover from sediment inputs?  "
   How will altered sediment inputs affect
   water quality?
   Will a change in flow cause incision or
   Where are incision or aggradation likely
   to occur?
   How fast will a reservoir lose storage
   Adapted from Reid and Dunne .(1996)
Aerial     Field      Flow    Substrate  Transport
photos   surveys   equations   analysis   equations
Sediment mobility analysis

Sediment transport is generally divided into two components: suspended load and bedload.
The suspended load (or washload) is composed of sediment that is fine enough to
be flushed downstream as part of the water column and drat does not accumulate in
significant quantities except where overbank flows deposit material on the floodplain. The
bedload consists of the coarser sediment fraction drat at least intermittently settles to the
bed during its downstream migration.  While a portion of the bedload is suspended at
higher discharges, the distinction between bedload and washload is still appropriate for
most situations during the dominant transporting flows.

                             Bed mobility analysis                                                                    A
                             The focus of most bed mobility analyses is on which grain sizes can be moved at -which         4fc
                             discharges. The traditional method for predicting the initial motion of a bed particle           A
                             involves analyzing the effect of the shear stress from flow near the bed on the lift and drag       g^
                             forces that move a particle out from neighboring grains (Reid and Dunne 1996). This
                             method, often referred to as Shields' function, yields the following equation for rough
                             beds with turbulent flow:                                                                  ^^
                                                    TC = pgds =  0.06(p-ps)gD                                          9
                                  Where: "Cc = critical shear stress; p and ps = the density of water and sediment,            A
                                  respectively; g = gravitational acceleration; d = flow depth; s = water slope; and            A
                                  D = the diameter of the particle of interest and its neighbors.                            ^
                             Graf (1971) and Richards (1990) provide a good review of the relationship between              •
                             c ____________________ 0 -------- _,,  ______________________________ 0 ______ , ______
                             initiation of particle transport. Reid and Dunne (1996) provide a good summary of           IP
                             empirically derived equations from the scientific literature on initiation of motion for bed       (P
                             particles. Application of particle entrainment equations requires a strong background in        A
                             fluvial geomorphology and understanding of the scientific literature.                           A.
                             Local field observations, however, can provide a general estimate of particle sizes that are         ^
                             transported during floods and can be a useful check of critical shear stress equations (Reid
                             and Dunne 1996). Maximum mobile grain size can be estimated by measuring the largest       ^^
                             particles that were obviously rearranged on gravel bars or that were deposited over new         ™
                             organic debris.  Painted rocks and scour chains can also be used as part of a monitoring         ^f
                             program to gather data on bed scour before and after floods.                                  (p)

                             Suspended load grain size estimates                                                      A
                             Determining which particle sizes are suspended at various flows is often the first step in          A
                             evaluating sediment transport rates. The magnitude of the settling or fall velocity reflects       A
                             a balance between the downward force due to the particle's weight and opposing forces
                             due to fluid viscosity and inertial effect.  Viscous resistance is a dominant force for small        ^
                             particles in the silt-clay range but is less important for larger particles (Richards 1982).          ™
                             The suspendibility of a particle is usually defined as follows:                                  (P)
. «C * ,ot ,                       •
     26                                                                                              Channel

                        P < w, / u*
                             s '
      "Where: ws is the settling or fall velocity of the particle, and u* is the shear velocity
      of the flow.

The settling velocity and shear velocity can be defined as follows:

                       ws = 9000 D2 for silts and clays

                       ws = [0.67 Dg (p-p^/r]2 for sands and gravels

                       u* = (T/p)°-5

Dietrich (1982)  describes a method for estimating the settling velocity of natural particles.
In the absence of good field data, Komar (1980) provides estimates for suspendibility
based on a review of available data. Most of the data, however, were obtained from
flume experiments or low-gradient, sand-bedded channels and may not be appropriate for
some streams.

Sediment transport

Information on sediment transport rates can be useful for evaluating changes in land
management or flow regimes and for identifying locations of potential aggradation or              l '
degradation.  Suspended sediment transport can also be an important factor for evaluating      Water " ^
pollutants because many contaminants move through the stream network attached to         Quality
sediment rather than through solution (Horowitz 1991).

Sediment transport rates can be characterized using any combination of field observations,
monitoring data, and predictive equations.  The following sections describe methods for
determining sediment transport rates for both suspended load and bedload.

Suspended load
The suspended load often represents the majority of sediment transport but is difficult
to predict because the transport rate depends more on sediment supply than on channel
hydraulics (Reid and Dunne 1996). The primary method for evaluating suspended
sediment transport rates requires data from a sediment sampling program. Suspended
sediment concentrations can then be related to the stream discharge to provide an estimate
   Channel                                                                                                   27

                       of transport rates (Figure 9). Since most sediment transport occurs during floods, it is
                       essential to have sampling data from periods of high discharge. The USGS publishes
                       a great deal of suspended sediment and streamflow data, much of which is available at

                       Figure 9. The relationship between suspended sediment and discharge data,
                       Newaukum River, Washington, 1964-1965
                           8000 -
                                                                                = 3E-05x2'2511
                                                                                 R2 = 0.9464
                       •§  3000
                       J  2000
                          1000  -
                                         1000        2000        3000       4000
                                                           Water Discharge (cfs)
                       Long-term suspended load transport rates can also be estimated by comparing the grain
                       size distribution of sediment inputs with the channel bed composition (Reid and Dunne
                       1996). The size fraction that is missing from the bed is considered the suspended load.
                       Multiplying the sediment input rate by the proportion of the missing size fraction would
                       then provide an estimate of the suspended load.

                       While no definitive bedload transport equation exists, a number of different transport
                       equations have been developed for sand- and gravel-bedded streams. Data requirements
                       vary among equations, but most require information on channel gradient, depth, width,
                       and sediment character.  Graf (1971), Vanoni (1975), and Reid and Dunne (1996)
                       review a number of sediment transport equations and provide further references for
                       detailed application.

 Most of the bedload transport equations have a strong empirical basis and are best suited
 for conditions similar to those used in the development of the equation. Moreover,
 most equations were developed from flume experiments and depend on a number of
 assumptions that may limit their extrapolation to natural stream environments.  It may
 be useful to use a number of different equations to assess the accuracy of the estimates.
 A great deal of judgement and experience are necessary to use these types of equations
 and to make meaningful interpretations. Some field measurements may be necessary to
 verify calculated results.

 Sediment storage

 Sediment is stored in and released from  channels and valley floors over time periods
 ranging from days to centuries. The accumulation of sediment may have important
 ecological implications and be a significant part of the sediment budget. Dietrich et al.
 (1982) provide an overview of sediment storage and estimate residence times for several
 types of storage reservoirs, including debris fans, active channel sediment, and floodplain
 sediment. Qualitative observations and  analysis are often sufficient to assess the influence
 of sediment storage on the sediment budget.  For example, observations or mapping
 of depositional forms and textures (e.g.,  gravel bars, floodplains) may be adequate to
 determine the locations and size fractions of sediment deposition in the watershed or
 whether sediment volume is increasing or decreasing.

 Trends in aggradation and incision can be estimated from a number of field indicators,
 including changes in the riparian community, cross-sectional surveys at stream gage and
 bridge locations, or buried structures such as riparian trees, bridge piers, or fence posts.
 Studies that have  evaluated sediment storage include the following:

 • Trimble (1983) evaluates long-term alluvial storage in a Wisconsin basin.
 • Kelsey et al.  (1987) evaluate sediment reservoirs from a basin in northern California.
 • Likens and Bilby (1982) address in-channel sediment and nutrient storage behind logs
  in New England streams.
 • Laird and Harvey (1986) examine the effects of wildfire on aggradation  and incision
  in Arizona streams.
• McGuiness et al. (1971) and Matherne and Prestegaard (1988) evaluate seasonal
  patterns in sediment storage for basins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, respectively.
• Collins and Dunne (1990) plot low-flow water elevations over time and use channel
  cross-section surveys at bridges to show changes in bed elevation from gravel mining.
   ri,     i
   Channel                                                                                             	2Q

                      Sediment detained by lakes or reservoirs also provides an opportunity to estimate
                      sediment transport and storage. GrifFen (1979) reviews methods for determining trap
                      efficiencies in large reservoirs. Heinemann (1981), Moglen and McCuen (1988), and
                      Dendy and Champion (1978) provide methods and data for evaluating the trap efficiency
                      of small reservoirs and detention basins.

 Arcement, G. J., Jr., and V. R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for selecting Mannings roughness
         coefficients for natural channels and flood plains. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-
         Supply Paper 2339, Washington, D.C.

 Aldridge, B. N., and J. M. Garrett, 1973. Roughness coefficients for stream channels in
        Arizona. U.S. Geological Suirvey Report, in cooperation with Arizona Highway

 Barnes, H. H., Jr. 1967- Roughness characteristics of natural channels. U.S. Geological
        Survey, Water-Supply Paper 1849, Washington, D.C.

 Benson, M. A., andT. Dalrymple. 1967. General field and office procedures for indirect
        discharge measurements. Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the
        U.S. Geological Survey. Book 3, Chapter Al. pp. 1-30. U.S. Geological Survey,
        Washington, D.C.

 Brice, J. C. I960. Index for description of braiding. Bulletin of the Geological Society
        of America 71:1833.

 Chow, V. T. 1959. Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw Hill, New York, New York.

 Collins, B. D., andT. Dunne. 1990. Assessing the effects of gravel harvesting on sediment
        transport and channel morphology: A guide for planners. State of California
        Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California.

 Corbett, D. M.  1962. Stream-gaging procedure. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply
        Paper 888, Washington, DC.

Cowan, W. L. 1956. Estimating hydraulic roughness coefficients. Agricultural
        Engineering 37:473-475.

Dendy, E E., and W. A. Champion. 1978. Sediment deposition in U.S. reservoirs.
        Summary of data reported thirough 1975. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
        Miscellaneous Publication  1362, Washington, D.C.

                    Dietrich, W. E. 1982. Settling velocity of natural particles. Water Resources Research

                    Dietrich, W. E., T. Dunne, N. F. Humphrey, and L. M. Reid. 1982. Construction of
                            sediment budgets for drainage basins. Pp 5-23 in: F. J. Swanson, et al. (eds.).
                            Sediment budgets and routing in forested drainage basins. U.S. Department
                            of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-141, Portland,

                    Downs, P. W. 1995. River channel classification for channel management purposes. , Pp.
                            347-365  in: A. Gurnell and G. Petts (eds.). Changing river channels. John Wiley
                            and Sons, Chichester, England.

                    Dunne, T., and L. B. Leopold.  1977. Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman and
                            Company, New York, New York.

                    Goodwin, C. N. 1999. Fluvial classification: Neanderthal necessity or needless normalcy?
                            Wildland Hydrology, American Water Resources Association, June/July:229-236.

                    Graf, W. H. 1971. Hydraulics of sediment transport. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.

                    Graf, W. L., and K. Randall. 1997. The physical integrity of Arizona streams: A guidance
                            document for river management. Draft report prepared for Arizona Department of
                            Environmental Quality, Contract 95-0137.

                    Grant, G. 1988. The RAPID technique: a new method for evaluating downstream effects
                            of forest practices on riparian zones. U.S.  Department of Agriculture Forest
                            Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-220, Pordand, Oregon.

                    Grant, G. E., J. E Duval, G. J. Koerper, and J. L. Fogg. 1992. XSPRO: A channel
                            cross-section analyzer. U.S. Department of Interior, Technical Note 387, Denver,

                    Gregory, K. J., and D. E. Walling. 1973. Drainage basin form and process. Wiley, New
                            York, New York.

                    Griffen, D. M., Jr. 1979. Reservoir trap efficiency: The state of the art. Journal of Civil
                            Engineering Design l(4):355-377.

32                                                                                          Channel

 Harrelson, C. C., C. L. Rawlins, and J. P. Ptoyondy.  1994. Stream channel reference sites:
        An illustrated guide to field technique. U.S.  Department of Agriculture Forest
        Service, General Technical Report RM-245,  Fort Collins, Colorado.

 Heinemann, H. G. 1981. A new sediment trap efficiency curve for small reservoirs. Water
        Resources Bulletin 17(5).

 Herschy, R. W. 1985. Streamflow measurement. Elsevier Applied Science, London.

 Horowitz, A. J. 1991- A primer on sediment-trace element chemistry. Lewis Publishers,
        Chelsa, Michigan.

 Kellerhals, R., M. Church, and D. I. Bray. 1976. Classification and analysis of river
        processes. Journal of Hydraulics Division 102:813-829.

 Kelsey, H. M., R. Lamberson, and M. A. Made). 1987. Stochastic model for the long-term
        transport rate of stored sediment in a river channel. Water Resources Research
        23(9): 1738-1750.

 Komar, P. D. 1980. Models of sediment transport in channelized water flows with
        ramifications to the erosion of the Martian outflow channels. Icarus 42:317-329.

 Laird, J. R., and M. D. Harvey. 1986. Complex-response of a chaparral drainage basin
        to fire. Pp.  165-183 in: R. F. Hadley (ed.). Drainage basin sediment delivery.
        International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Publication 159, Wallingford,
        United Kingdom.

 Leopold, L.  B. 1994. A view of die river. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,

Leopold, L.  B., and M. G. Wolman. 1957. River channel patterns: Braided, meandering
        and straight. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 282-B, Washington, D.C.

Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology.
        W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, California.

Likens, G. E., and R. E. Bilby. 1982. Development, maintenance and role of organic
        debris dams in New England streams. Pp 122-128 in: F. J. Swanson, et al. (eds.).

   Channel                                                                                            	33

                              Sediment budgets and routing in forested drainage basins, U.S. Department
                              of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-141, Portland,

                      Limerinos, J. T. 1970. Determination of the Manning coefficient from measured bed
                              roughness in natural channels. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper
                              1898-B, Washington, D.C.

                      Matherne, A. M., and K. L. Prestegaard. 1988. Hydrologic characteristics as a
                              determinant of sediment delivery in watersheds. Pp. 89-96 in: M. P. Bordas
                              (ed.). Sediment budgets. International Association of Hydrological Sciences,
                              Publication 174.

                      McGuiness, J. L., L. L. Harrold, and W. M. Edwards. 1971. Relation of rainfall energy
                              and streamflow to sediment yield from small and large watersheds. Journal of Soil
                              and Water Conservation 26:233-235.

                      Miall, A. D. 1996. The geology of fluvial deposits: Sedimentary facies, basin analysis and
                              petroleum geology.  Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

                      Moglen, G. E., and R. H. McCuen. 1988. Effects of detention basins on in-stream
                              sediment movement. Journal of Hydrology 104:129-140.

                      Montgomery, D. R., and J. M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction
                              of channel response and assessment of channel condition. Washington State
                              Department of Natural Resources, TFW-SH10-93-002, Olympia, Washington.

                      Montgomery, D. R., and J. M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in
                              mountain drainage  basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin 109:596-611.

                      Myers, W. L., and R. L. Shelton. 1980. Survey methods for ecosystem management. John
                              Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.

                      Naiman, R J., D. G. Lonzarich, T. J. Beechie, and S. C. Ralph.  1992. General principles
                              of classification and the assessment of conservation potential in rivers. Pp.
                              93-123 in: P. J. Boon, P. Carlow, and G. E. Petts (eds.).  River conservation and
                              management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.
34                                                                                           Channel

Nanson, G. C., and J. C. Croke. 1992. A genetic classification of floodplains.
       Geomorphology 4:459-486.

Pleus, A. E., and D. Schuett-Hames. 1998. TFW Monitoring Program method manual
       for the reference point survey. Prepared for the Washington State Department of
       Natural Resources under the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Agreement, TFW-AM9-
       98-002, DNR#104, Olympia, Washington.

Potyandy, J. P., andT. Hardy. 1994. Use of pebble counts to evaluate fine sediment increase
       in stream channels. Water Resources Bulletin 30:509-520.

Reid, L. M., andT. Dunne. 1996. Rapid evaluation of sediment budgets. Catena Verlag,
       Reiskirchen, Germany.

Richards, K. 1982. Rivers: Form and process in alluvial channels. Methuen, London.

Richards, K. 1990. Fluvial geomorphology: initial motion of bed material in gravel-bed
       rivers. Progress in Physical Geography 14(3):395-415.

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.

Schumm, S. A. 1977. The fluvial system. Wiley Interscience, New York, New York.

Strahler, A. N. 1952. Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological Society of America
       Bulletin 63:923-938.

Thorne, C. R. 1997- Channel types and morphological classification. Pp. 175-222 in:
       A. Gurnell and G. Petts (eds.). Changing river channels. John Wiley and Sons,
       Chichester, England.

Trimble, S. W. 1983. A sediment budget for Coon Creek basin in the Driftless Area,
       Wisconsin, 1853 to 1977. American Journal of Science 283:454-474.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1989. Water Resources Data - California, Water Year
        1988, Vol. 4. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Data Report CA-88-4.
   Channel                                                             ''                              	35

                       Vanoni, V. A. 1975. Sedimentation engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers,
                               New York, New York.

                       Washington Forest Practices Board (WFPB). 1997. Standard methodology for
                               conducting watershed analysis, version 4.0. Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement and
                               WFPB, Olympia, Washington.

                       Whiting, P. J., and J. B. Bradley. 1993. A process-based classification system for
                               headwater streams. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18:603-612.

                       Wolman, M. G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river-bed material. Transactions of
                               the American Geophysical Union 35:951-956.

                       Woolfe, K. J., and J. R. Balzary. 1996. Fields in the spectrum of channel style.
                               Sedimentology 43:797-805.

Form C1. Historical channel changes
Historical changes
Other observations

Form C2. Geomorphic channel type characteristics





Potential responsiveness rating




';; ' :",

• '"'
'! • '• : -"' Jiji'iiif
;' .'/ 'ji':,"
Evidence supporting rating
11 ' ^


                                                                                                        • in

   £•***•   -4
        •s *v>   *• #
   K> **  # ,. /- •£, ,«, JT*. 3^

, 4^'^'fel ««s <*   ^'sy. jj-j  «H«J- nr


 Background and Objectives
 The purpose of the Erosion module is to characterize the physical landscape of the
 watershed and assess its susceptibility to erosion from natural processes and land use
 practices. The primary product is a geomorphic land type map that categorizes areas based
 on topographic, geologic, and soil properties and identifies the erosion potential of each
 land type. Geomorphology is the study of landforms. It focuses on the processes that
 create landforms, such as rainfall and runoff, and the relation of geologic material to surface
 features (Dunne and Leopold 1977).  Geomorphic information can be used to forecast the
 effects of different land use practices on the landscape.

 The Level 1 procedure relies primarily on existing information about erosion in the
 watershed. Topography, soil, and geology maps are used to delineate land types based on
 physical landscape characteristics.  The objective of a Level 1 assessment is to generally
 correlate erosion potential with various land types. Further evaluation and data collection
 in a Level 2 assessment are often necessary to validate land type erosion potentials.

 Level 2 methods require expertise in evaluating geology, soils, and erosion processes.
 Erosion processes are evaluated in more detail, and the assessment typically involves field
 surveys. A greater effort is made to quantify sources of erosion from natural processes
 and land use activities.

                        Erosion Module Reference Table
  Critical Questions
   Level 1
   Level 2
What and where arc the dominant ero-
sion processes in the watershed?
How do land use activities affect erosion
What gcomorphic land types exist in the
watershed and where arc they located?
Where and how much has soil compac-
tion reduced the productivity of soil in
the watershed?
How significant an erosion process are
landslides in the watershed?
Is shcetwash erosion a significant source
of sediment in the watershed?
Is erosion from roads or road manage-
ment practices a significant source of
sediment in the watershed?
Has natural wildfire or modern fire sup-
pression had an influence on erosion in
the watershed?
• Aerial photos
• Soil surveys
• Geology maps
• Topography maps
• Interviews (anecdotal information) :
• Aerial photos
• Soil surveys
• Topography maps
• Interviews (anecdotal information)
• Aerial photos
• Soil surveys
• Geology maps
• Topography maps
• Soil characteristics
• Road density data
• Land use maps
• Landslide rates
• Landslide volumes
• Aerial photos
• Soil characteristics
• Precipitation data
• Slope length and gradients
• Vegetation cover
• Land use maps
• Interviews (anecdotal information)
• Road mileage
• Percent stream delivery
• Road characteristics
• Aerial photos
• Aerial photos
• Vegetation maps
• Review of existing map and
survey data
• Erosion severity classification
• Review of existing map and
survey data
• Review of existing' map and
survey data J
• Land type classification
• Estimate the amount and loca-
tion of compacted areas
• Review of existing soil map and
survey data
• General landslide inventory
• Review of existing soil map and
survey data
• Inventory of general road char- ~
'acteristics fi '
• Determine frequency of ,
stream/water crossings by roads

* Detailed field review of erosion
• Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE)
• Water Erosion Prediction Proee—
dure (WEPP)
• Detailed field review of erosion
• Review of aerial photos
• Pield review of geornorphic land ~
• Current/historical aerial photo
• Field surveys to evaluate current
soil compaction hazard
• Detailed landslide inventory ,
• Field Surveys
• Field surveys to estimate annual
erosion rates
* .Washington State Forest Road
' Erosion Model
• USFS-R1-R4 Forest Road Ero-
sion Model
• RUSLE ' -
• Reconstruct fire history
• Evaluate current and historical
vegetation maps
• Field surveys to evaluate erosion
rates or fire frequency and

Erosion Module Reference Table (continued)

    Critical Questions
       Level 1
        Level 2
  Is gully erosion an important source of
  sediment in the watershed, and have
  erosion rates changed over time?
• Aerial photos
• Anecdotal information
• Soil maps and survey data
Review of existing soil map and
survey data
Current and historical aerial
photo analysis of gullies
Field surveys to estimate current
annual erosion rate
  How significant a sediment source is
  streambank erosion in the watershed,;
  and How have erosion rates changed
  over time?
* Aerial photos,
• Existing stream survey data
• Anecdotal information
                                   Current and historical aerial
                                   photo analysis ofjbank erosion
                                   Field surveys to evaluate current
                                   bank erosioo,rates
  Do other significant erosion processes
  occur in the watershed that have not
  been accounted for by other evaluations?
  Topography maps
  Soil maps
                                   Wind erosion model
                                   Field surveys to evaluate extent
                                   of dry ravel and soil creep
  What are the primary sources of sedi- ',
  ment delivery to streams, lakes, wet-
  landsj or other waterbodies in the water-
  shed? "
  Soil maps and survey data
  Topography jtnaps
  Aerial photos
                                   Sediment budget
                                   Soil creep estimation

 Level 1 Assessment
 Step Chart
 Data Requirements
 •  Topographic maps
 •  Geology maps
 •  Soil maps
 •  Geomorphology or land type maps
   (if available)
 •  Slope class map (as, necessary)
 •  Aerial photos (as necessary)


 •  Form El. Summary of erosion
 •  Form E2. Summary of land type
 •  Map El. Land types
 •  Erosion report

                                                       Collect and evaluate
                                                   available information on erosion
  Create a draft land type map based
  on geology, soils, and topography
Assign relative erosion potential ratings
  and create a refined land type map
The focus of the Level 1 assessment is to evaluate the erosion potential of land types that
occur in the watershed. Land types are areas with generally uniform characteristics and
physical features (e.g., topography, soils) produced by natural processes.  Even if erosion
is not an issue in the watershed, determining land types may be a helpful exercise to
understand other ecological characteristics such as vegetation communities or water quality.
Consult with other module analysts early in the assessment to determine the level of detail
and the scale of land type mapping that would be most helpful.

Step 1. Collect and evaluate available information on erosion

Collect anecdotal information
Consult people who are knowledgeable about soils, geology, or erosion processes and are
familiar with, the watershed to help identify the type and location of erosion problems.
State natural resource departments or local agricultural offices often have experts familiar
with local erosion problems. The NRCS, USFS, BLM, and USGS offices may also have
resources available to evaluate erosion within the watershed. Another source of experts
is a university or local college, where professors might have a great deal of knowledge
about local erosion issues. Finally, tribal members and other local land managers may be
knowledgeable about erosion in the watershed over time and the type of land use activities
that have caused problems. Figure 1 summarizes the potential effects of land use activities
on erosion processes and community resources.

Collect topography, geology, and soil maps
Topography, geology, and soil maps are important resources for evaluating the erosion
potential in the watershed.  USGS 7.5-minute topography maps are typically the most
useful scale for evaluating erosion at a watershed scale. Topography maps can be used to
identify steep slopes as well as slope shapes (e.g., concave, undulating, planar) with higher
erosion potential. They can usually be obtained locally at map or outdoor recreation stores,
or they can be ordered directly from the USGS.

Geology and soil maps are often useful tools for evaluating baseline watershed conditions.
Coordinate with the Channel, Vegetation, and Water Quality analysts to determine the
type and scale of geology or soil information that would be most useful for evaluating
differences in watershed conditions. USGS and state geology maps can provide helpful
information on both bedrock and surficial geology. Some geologic formations may be
naturally prone to erosion or be sensitive to land disturbance.  These maps can be found
at most university libraries, state geology departments, and USGS offices. Soil maps can
provide important information about soil properties and may correlate well with specific
land types. These maps can be found at most university libraries, state soil or agricultural
offices, and NRCS offices.  Both geology and soil maps are available as GIS overlays in
many states.

Evaluate erosion information
Using information on topography, geology, and soils and anecdotal information on erosion
problems, determine whether landslides, streambank slumping, and surface erosion are
Water Quality

Figure 1. Potential linkages between land use practices, erosion processes,
and community resources
                                 Potential Land Uses
       Agriculture      Urban       Forestry     Grazing       Mining
                                Potential Land Impacts
             Vegetation removal
             Heavy machinery, grazing

             Road construction  •"•""•••
             Change in volume or timing of runoff

             Industrial and agricultural runoff
       Increased soil exposure
       Decreased soil cohesion

       Increased soil compaction
       Increased slope of land

       Increased sediment delivery

       Chemical and nutrient
                                  Erosion Processes
                    Soil creep                      ^  ',
                    Mass wasting
                      -  shallow landslides
                      —  deep-seated landslides
                      -  rockfalls                      ,
                      —  snow avalanches                    ,  *
                    Surface erosion               '
                      -  gully erosion
                      -  sheetwash erosion (rainsplash and rill erosion)
                      —  ravel (dry and freeze/thaw)
                               Community Resources
                   Erosion Impacts
              Loss of soil
              Transport of soil

              Deposit of Soil •
   Affected Resources

Land productivity, structures

Water supply, aquatic life

Structures, aquatic habitat,
reservoir capacity, flood hazard

potentially active in the watershed and where they are potentially active. Aerial photos
may be helpful in identifying larger areas with active erosion. If road erosion is a potential
concern in the watershed, it may be helpful to gather information on road network
characteristics, such as maintenance level, road density, and die frequency of stream/water
crossings. Consult with the Aquatic Life and Channel analysts to  determine the need for
evaluating streambank erosion and the assessment detail. Form El (Figure 2) or a map
that depicts similar information may be useful for summarizing observations and noting
particular geologic formations or soil types that may be prone to erosion naturally or from
management practices in the watershed.
                                                       Aquatic Life
 Figure 2. Sample Form E1. Summary of erosion observations
Erosion Feature
Raw banks
Sheetwash ero-
Gully erosion
Lower Silk Creek
Road cuts on 60% slopes
in the sandstone geology
of Cispus River
Throughout the watershed
on slopes > 30%
Aerial photos and observations by tribal monitoring crew
indicate unstable banks.
Field investigation and county engineering reports indi-
cate erosion problems on road cuts.
Aerial photos, field observation, and anecdotal informa-
tion show gully erosion in the headwaters of most
streams and below road drainage pipes.
Step 2. Create a draft land type map based on geology, soils, and topography

Land types typically represent a feature with generally uniform shape and soil
characteristics (Box 1).  Land types should encompass the area created by a single
geomorphic process (e.g., fluvial, glacial, colluvial, marine) with a set of characteristic
features (Figure 3).  For
example, fluvial processes    Box 1- Penobscot Nation evaluation of land types
can create land types such as
floodplain terraces,  alluvial
fans, and playas. Box 2
provides a list of commonly
described geomorphic land
types from across the
United States. These land
types are provided only as
A geomorphic evaluation of the Penobscot River basin'by the Penobscot Nation in
Maine highlighted eskers as a land type with potentially important influence on Atlan-
tic''salmon habitat Eskers are glacial outwash' deposits from streams that flowed
beneath the continental ice sheet and form narrow bands that generally parallel the
Penobscot River. Where eskers cross the Penobscot River or its tributaries, gravel
appears to be more prevalent and provides potentially important spawning habitat for
salmon. Eskers may also be an important source of groundwater to streams to main-
tain cool water temperatures.

                              Figure 3. Landforms in the Thompson River basin, Montana
                                    Alpine Glaciated Lands
                                    l~l  Cirque and rock ridge
                                    •  Glacial basin
                                    L~H  Glacial trough
                                    m  Moraine
                                    Fluvial Lands
                                    E3  Mountain ridge
                                    CH  Mountain slope
                                    O  Breakland
Continental Glaciated Erosional Lands
E3 Glacial ridge and slope
Continental Glaciated Depositional Lands
CH High terrace
Q Floodplain and alluvium
EEI Water
Note: Hydrology from 7:24,000 scale USFS Cartographic Feature Files
Landtype Associations compiled from Lolo and Kootenai National
Forest landtype mapping and from NRCS soil mapping.

examples, and the Erosion analyst will
need to create land type descriptions
best suited to the watershed.  Two
publications that may be helpful are
Ritter et al. (1995)) which provides a
good summary of geomorphic processes
that shape landscapes, and Haskins et
al. (1998), which describes a geomorphic
classification system.
Box 2. Examples of geomorphic land types from
across the United States
     Alluvial fan
     Alpine glaciated basin
     Avalanche-prone hillslopes
     Backshore terrace
     Basin floor depressions
   _; Canyonlands
     Chenier plain
   ; .Coastal marshlands
    - Dissected planar slopes
    ' Flpodplain terrace
    ,'Glacial moraine
     Glacial outwash terrace
    f Karst limestone topography
Kettle outwash plains
Landslide deposit
Loess deposit
Marine terrace
Prairie potholes
Slough bottomlands
Tidal mudflats
Till plain  ,
Valley flat
Valley headwall
Wet meadows
A -watershed can have a large range of
land types depending on the scale of
assessment.  Since no strict criteria exist
for defining land types, the scale of
assessment should be determined by the
objectives of the Erosion assessment.
In general, a finer scale (e.g., swales
> 40% slope) will be most useful
for addressing specific land management
activities, while a broader scale (e.g., glaciated uplands) may be more helpful for
quantifying general erosion rates. Consult with other module analysts to help determine
the best assessment scale.  In particular, coordinate with the Channel analyst, who will be
identifying channel types based on geomorphic characteristics similar to land types.

Geologic maps are often useful for identifying land types at a broad scale.  Soil surveys
typically provide information at finer scales and can be particularly helpful in identifying
land types near streams and rivers. Figure 4 shows examples of soil association patterns.
The correlation of soil types and geomorphology is commonly described in soil surveys.
Soil types can be used individually or in aggregate to describe a land type.  Geology and soil
information may also be available as GIS overlays complete with erosion potential ratings.
Erosion potential or erosion hazard ratings should be examined using the available data to
evaluate their accuracy and applicability to the watershed.

Land types can be further refined using modifiers such as slope gradient, slope position,
slope shape, and dissection frequency or pattern (Box 3). These land type modifiers can
help focus the analysis on specific areas where erosion is most problematic. In some

                               Figure 4a. Correlation between soil types and geomorphology in Maine
                               Note that the Colton soils
                               correlate directly with the
                               eskers land type.
  Box 3. Slope class maps
       Since slope gradient is often a primary factor influencing erosion potential, it may be useful
       to divide the watershed into similar slope classes. The increment used for slope classes will
       depend on the total relief of the watershed. Relatively low-relief watersheds typically will
       have slope class increments of 1-5 percent, while high relief watersheds may have incre-
       ments of 5-20 percent. GIS programs can be used to efficiently create this type of map.
  cases, it may also be useful to consider other ecological factors such as vegetation,
  climate, or aspect to help differentiate land types. Where possible, land types should be
  differentiated based on natural processes and not changes due to land use.
  Step 3. Assign relative erosion potential ratings and create a refined
  land type map
  Correlate the land types with information on erosion in the watershed.  If a GIS
  system is available, it may be useful to overlay geology or soils maps with land use
  activities to highlight potential erosion concerns. It may be necessary to modify land
  type boundaries or develop new land types to best distinguish specific areas susceptible
  to erosion problems. Create a final land type map (Map El) to use during the
  Synthesis process. Assign relative erosion potential ratings to each land type based on
  its susceptibility to mass wasting and surface erosion.  It is important to remember
  that the erosion potential ratings in all but the most obvious cases will be hypotheses
  requiring additional information and further evaluation.  Summarize information for
  each land type in Form E2.

  Step 4. Produce Erosion report

  The Erosion report should summarize geologic and soil characteristics, erosion processes
  in the watershed, and land management effects on erosion. The report will typically
  include the following components:

  1.  Site Description
     - Geology
     - Soil types
     - Topography
     - Erosion processes

                     2.  Assessment methodology
                        - Materials (e.g., aerial photo series and source)
                        - Survey methods
                        - Assumptions
                     3.  Results of the assessment
                        - Form El. Summary of Erosion observations
                        - Form E2. Summary of land type characteristics
                        - Map El. Land types
                     4.  Conclusions
                        - Erosion  trends
                        - Land management effects
                        - Further  data and assessment needs
                        - Confidence in assessment
                     5.  References

 Level 2 Assessment
 The organization of this section generally corresponds to the critical questions listed in
 the Erosion Module Reference Table.  Most of the critical questions relate to a specific
 topic that can be evaluated using a number of methods or tools. For each topic, a general
 description of methods, guidance on the appropriate use of methods, and the expertise and
 time-frame required to complete the assessment are provided. Suggested references are also
 provided for more detail on available data, methods, and tools.

 So/7 Compaction

 Soil compaction is typically caused by either the use of heavy machinery, such as for
 building construction and ground-based logging, or trampling due to animal grazing or by
 people, such as at heavily used recreation areas. Soil compaction may be a concern because
 of reduced water infiltration or reduced soil productivity for vegetation growth.

 The sensitivity of soil to compaction is largely a function of soil texture.  Soil texture
 is the relative proportion of sand, silt, and clay particles in a mass of soil. Soil with
 a high percentage of clay may be easily compressed.  On the other hand, soil with a
 high percentage of sand cannot be easily compressed; thus it maintains its structure under
 heavy loads.

 The primary method for evaluating large-scale soil compaction from urbanization, roads,
 and grazing is examining aerial photos. Land use maps may also provide useful
 information, although it may not be as accurate as information from a photo survey. To
 evaluate small-scale soil compaction and the degree of compaction, field surveys will be
 necessary. Soil compaction testers or penetrometers can be used to gather data on the
 compressive strength of the soil. Soil compaction from grazing or camping may only
 be a problem in isolated areas, such as near streams or lakes.  It may also be possible
 to correlate field observations of compaction with specific soil types  to help predict the
potential for future compaction problems.  Measuring and evaluating soil compaction can
 be easily done without extensive training, although a soil scientist may be needed for more
intensive evaluations.
 „  .