Summary of the Watershed Analysis and Management (WAM): Guide for Tribes

, -'-;«*~v

*'v^"Vv;-l-",,'*/-.\^-!",\-"^J • vtVHvfV^, tJ^j^H'?"/
. r .'--s • . -. f ..--•' 'I K—-, ''It '- - ', • ''*-, "-'\- )-'-'•,*• -'-\ .• ',- .-}'.*' ••.-j^,.\- '-'•.:-' ..-- jV..'i -,Ai' '. • •••,-.!•'-.••- '(.-'.' ,.'i', ^.-^•'-' V '.
^;;^'-fs^^:/r;:^

!:• .".i"^.-,-.. „..'.'".;.;."',;.. :.,.."•-,/>i;'. .-..'.:'-.-^; Y ^-vv-:?".-.r.vVi'. ;?>'.".:?.:-.^/; • ""-.''^',",.,*;'"r{'^. i'i' ^-' •''..••':v 'r1;'"'.;.,1; ;•,"•. V
-------
I""' "~~J"'^" ••<•••••"••*••'"•'-I
-
., .... ..,.._.
I
v-'1

-------
Foreword
The Watershed Approach provides a unique and effective way
to assess the environment, identify problems, establish priorities
for preservation or restoration, and implement solutions. Since
1997, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 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. This summary is designed to serve as a brief
introduction to the WAM Guide for Tribes published in September
2000.

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
critical environmental resources, economic impacts, and cultural values.
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 summary of the WAM
guide outlines the 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 (Total Maximum Daily Load plans). 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 has implemented a WAM process that addresses
issues within its watershed at a level of analysis appropriate to their
needs and the available resources.
-------
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 2001 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.

Integral to the WAM program since 1997 is continuing development,
support and training to Tribes, Communities and States - improving
their capabilities and the effectiveness of the WAM approach. A
watershed-WAM approach to Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
has been developed through a pilot project with the Navajo Nation
in Window Rock, Arizona. Ongoing County/State and Tribal WAM
applications, including Ohio and Washington State, have yielded new
information and watershed tools — including a Quality Management
Plan. Other developments have included a WAM Tribal Watershed
Leadership Training Program. The Tribal pilots and community
watershed leaders are a continuing key resource for all WAM efforts as
is Terry Williams of the TulaMp Tribe and former Director of EPA's
AIEO, who was instrumental in initiating and funding this effort.

For additional information please contact:
Martin Brossman E. Steven Toth
USEPA 4503-F 321 30th Avenue
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. Seattle, WA 98122
Washington, D.C. 20460 206-860-7480
(202) 260-7023 thomtoth@nwlink.com
bros sman.martin@epa.gov
.
Hi
-------
I
iv
An electronic file of the Watershed Analysis and Management Guide
for Tribes is available over the Internet at V

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy.

Copies of the Watershed Analysis and Management Guide for Tribes,
EPA # 841 -B-00-008 may be ordered from: I

NSCEP g
Labat Anderson j|
1 1 029 Kenwood Rd., Bldg. 5
Cincinnati, OH 45242 I

I
-------
> Introduction
and Overview
-------
, ' < i '" >iJ'
> II
1 \
t ; V
i* *r «

ifr

I
\ n%

I
S
^•i- Ji

I
1 t
*

I
I
t

I
P lr
T ,

I
t;../;
-------
"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

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 adequately support
Box1. WhatisWAM?
The WAM process is.a
well-defined, yet flexible
method to credibly '
examine and develop
solutions to watershed
problems.
Box 2. WAM objectives
resources important to tribes. These resources are
a vital part of tribal culture and need to be
considered more directly. The Watershed Analysis and
Management (WAM) process outlined
in this summary 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).
• Characterize current and historical
watershed conditions-.
• Evaluate thejcumulative effects of land
, management"
• Jmproye protection of community
"resources- *
Promote management options'that
protect-watershed resources
> Develop effective restoration projects,
• 'Design watershed-specific monitoring
.programs
Figure 1. A watershed approach focuses on addressing
water resource issues by river basins
Watershed
boundary
/
Floodplain
Stream
channel
-------
The assessment generally relies on readily available environmental

information from maps, reports, and existing databases. Combining

modern watershed assessment techniques with indigenous knowledge

produces valuable insights about historical conditions, resource trends,

and restoration opportunities (Box 3). Credible and effective

management plans are developed based on the comprehensive

assessment.
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
efders 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. ' " „-" '
Box 4. Examples of issues that can be addressed by WAM
WAM is a flexible process that can be adapted to address a broad

range of local issues and watershed conditions (Box 4). WAM can also

incorporate and enhance existing tribal environmental programs to use

funds and personnel most efficiently. 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 the 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
JM.
I
1
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
-------
process help ensure that high quality information is collected to
develop and prioritize projects that will effectively improve the health
of the ecosystem and the community.

Watershed management is a long-term process that requites 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.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-------
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
components.

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
-------
Figure 2. Key ecosystem components
DELIVERED
TO STREAM
KB Cattle Grazing Cattle grazing is one of many land
use activities that can be culturally arid economically
important 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-"
cut types of vegetation.

Q| Climate Weather patterns and intensity of rainfall are
factors,driving erosion processes and affecting vegeta-
tion patterns,

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

H 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 iev-
. els of soil erosion.' " " ' '

f£ , 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).

ff Water Quality \?ater quality conditions dictate the
type and status of aquatic life, 'Sediment from elevated
erosion levels can eliminate habitat and introduce xither pol-
lutants to the water column. Increased water temperatures
can degrade habitat for aquatic species.

Q Aquatic Life 'HsK are often a key 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.

•!• 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 streamside vegetation can
increase bank erosion.
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
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 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
iritemal staff and consultation with tribal, members.
"Partnerships with the UJS, Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), Kansas State
"University, Masked Indian,Nations University, and
Royal Valley High School allowed the tribe
to characterize watershed conditions and initiate
s'treambank 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.
-------
8
I

_____ I

I
The actual time and costs of initiating and completing the WAM
process will vary depending on the following factors: I

• Size of the watershed. «
• Availability of staff and resources. I
• 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. I

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 I
reveal important insights about watershed functions and interactions.
Level 1 assessment is qualitative and may result in lower levels of Ij
certainty or confidence in the assessment results.

Level 2 assessment |
In Level 2 assessment, experienced analysts utilize more data collection,
quantitative assessment tools, field surveys, and computer-based I
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 I

I
-------
solutions, and provide repeatability and accountability. Seven elements
for meeting QA/QC objectives are included:

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 monitoring.

Box 6. Logic tracking
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 WAft/l to assist in logic , '
, tracking:- - t ' „
-• Lists of critical questions. , -',„ „ > '_ '
•v "Forms provided irTeach module to document vital information.
• -IVlap and data requirements in/epiorts,. „
• . Review of key watershed issues „ _ '"
, " > f S = ^v- ~~ '
<*>'•<* , * •> / J / ^ * * s
Logic tracking also provides quantitative and qualitative information that can be used
to determine the certainty or confidence levei of the assessment results. Assessment
methods, data^sources, data quality, assumptions of the assessment, and limitations of
'' the results are alt documented.' - •>, '
-------
10
-------
WAM Process
The WAM process comprises five general steps (Figure 3). The
following sections 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.

While WAM provides 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
Figure 3. WAM five-step process
,.•; SteP1
SCOPING
.Determine watershed issues
,;and project goals
'.- Evaluate community participation
: Determine scope of assessment
Step 2 )
WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Apply technical modules
Promote interaction among
analysts
Step3

SYNTHESIS
Combine information from modules
Summarize key findings
Step 4
MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS
Develop management options
Create management plan
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Monitor watershed conditions
Evaluate management plan
11
-------
I
12
implement a watershed management plan for land within and outside
of reservation boundaries. •

Scoping _ __ _ _ _ _ __ •

The primary purpose of Scoping is to
help determine the specific goals of the I
WAM process. Ideally, the tribe together
with community representatives will decide •
on the WAM objectives. Community-wide
participation is desirable as it provides greater m
input on watershed issues and helps insure that effective management •
changes will be implemented. The challenges of community
participation, however, may necessitate a phased WAM approach jj
that allows for background data collection and more communication
time to better address inevitable issues of jurisdiction, overlapping •
authorities, and risk management.

Scoping provides guidance on choosing the appropriate scope and •
level of detail for the Watershed Assessment, with consideration of «
financial and personnel resources. Scoping provides examples of I
common watershed issues, the technical modules that typically relate to
•each issue, and the critical questions within each module that may be I
applicable. This information can be used to focus the assessment on
specific parts of the ecosystem. •

Scoping also discusses important project and information management m
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 I
layers so that results can be summarised and communicated effectively.

I
-------
Watershed Assessment

The Watershed Assessment section involves managing
an interdisciplinary technical team who gather data and
evaluate ecosystem conditions. Various aspects of
the ecosystem can be evaluated using the methods
outlined in eight technical modules. 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 (Box 7).
Box 7. Technical modules
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
some modules or critical questions may
a watershed assessment.
' Resource modules identify important resources and
' determine their sensitivity to changes in environrftenta!
conditions:, ° „ ^
*s J f
: * }"' Community Resources '.•'''„
- '• - Aquatic Life -'* -
s' •, Water Quality
' - » Historical Conditions
»"'''."•''
Process modules evaluate the effects of land uses or -
management practices on 1he environment:
"" * ' ' < - , ' v '
, '-• Hydrology
' '• '• Channel
* „ Erosion ,
, "„ • Vegetation
objectives of the analysis,
not be necessary to complete
While the modules are separated to provide more flexibility in the
assessment, interdisciplinary discussion and shared data collection
13
-------
I

___ I

among technical modules is an important component of the
assessment. 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 further understanding of complex, m
interconnected ecosystem processes. |
Level 1 and Level 2 Assessments •
The methods and tools described in each technical module are divided
into two categories: Level 1 and Level 2 assessment. Any combination 8
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 watershed (Box 8). These methods and tools —
Box 8. Potential objectives of a Level 1 assessment are described in each module as a series |
of steps to provide useful products
Summarize general watershed characteristics,.
Describe key watershed issues :
Identify important gaps in information
Prioritize further assessment or monitoring needs
14
and a comprehensive assessment. This I
"cookbook" approach can be helpful
for users who have limited resources or I
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 9 provides examples —
of the products of a Level 1 assessment. |

The Level 2 methods and tools are more technical and typically require I
experienced analysts (Box 10). 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. A Level 2 assessment often _
requires field surveys and a time frame of several months to complete. I
The methods also require a good deal of professional judgement to

I
-------
evaluate the applicability of the tools, understand the limitations of the
methods, analyze the data, and objectively interpret the results.

Box 9. 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,
*s Potential sources of pollutants „ '- '
•„ Map of water quality sensitivities
' Historical Conditions ,
, •• Historical timeline
- _» Trends in resource condition's
' •' Map of historical sites
. Process Modules
Hydrology *
„• Climate summary
• ^Characterization of runoff processes '
» 'Characterization of stream runoff
* Potential land use impacts (dams, dikes, urban and rural
- -' development, irrigation, and grazing)
J „ •*. c f - ' ' "'
Channel , „" ° , " „ > •>
• Map of stream network
• Channel classification {stream channel gradient and confine-
'//'ment, sinuosity, or other physical features) , ,
• Map of channel types^ „, ^
Summary of land uselmpacts

Erosion ' J , < ~
* Summary of geology and soils
•-* Relationship between land use practices and'erosiort'
,* Map of erosion hazards , - /v
V - =
^^•>>i *-v^" ^ s " " ^ ^ '
Vegetation -" \ s ^
• Map of vegetation communities, riparian areas, and wetlands
" = ff s <.
-* JJst of threatened and endangered plant species
'• Summary.of historical changes in vegetation and land use •>
, impacts _ -
Box 10. Potential objectives of a Level 2 assessment
, • Supplement existing watershed data to test hypotheses
• • Establish cause-and-effect; relationships among management activities
" and watershed conditions f " ;. '"/"•* '
, ,• .Delineate specific areas that require speciaf'management ° "
•• Establish monitoring requirements and criteria , ' > ••
-• Identify cost-efective restoratiop projects . • "
15
-------
I
I
16
Synthesis

The objective of Synthesis is to combine knowledge
gained from the watershed assessment about •
**^
-------
Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management considers the role of research
and monitoring in addressing gaps in information and
ensuring the effectiveness of management solutions. 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.
&&.
17
-------
18
-------
The WAN Tribal Pilots
-------
* . 5""' i. ht >• il >( >
v
i
r--
I
;, 'j(*W J'

•• *l"" H> i '

* '' X
* '
ll.

t *

I
I
-------
\/[ is a framework for'-' •
-,-"' collecting and organising '
information that helps you to see •
connections that you 'would miss
through inventory alone." >

Jonathan Long - White Mountain -
Apache Tribe '. '
Tribal youths hel'p to conduct stream <'
surveys and pebble counts as part of their_.'
-, assessment phase.
What tiie WAM encourages
are very old 'ways of looiing ,at
the land, but using new- :/
technologies,;; ,
, A recpmmendation,for streambank.
stabilization r.esultecfin the placement of
' cedar tree revetments in Crow Creek.
This streambank will once
'•again become gradual and ;
gentiy sloping,:while still
,; allowing for silt and debris
to become trapped. •'...
'"-..- " '*'', '' • ".'.',"" . • '' ' ' .

"Checkerboard ownership signals a
•need to involve owners and agencies
in a partnership for erosion control
and.habitat improvement as well as .
to access multiple funding sources for
\ ~ JL J . Cj. , . J f
-,.'.;. restoration in the watershed."

Latane Donelin - Prairie Band s ;'•'.;
'.;-.' ; Potawatomi Nation ,
.,-r
19
-------

"WAM. is a system of logic for
looking at the watershed in a
holistic way." ''

Tammis Coffin - The Penobscot
Nation
During the scoping phase.pf the WAM, the
Penobscots analyzed water quality monitoring
data'fo understand the impacts of point sources
and dams.
The Penobscot WAM
was used to develop the _.
basis -for water quality
standards and to address-
cumulative impacts to the
Penobscot River.
"The Quinault Nation wanted to do
everything possible to make sure 'this •
. restoration would be achieved. When ,
we learned* about WAM there was no
"}. .question 'that this was the thing that
was going to give us what we needed.^"

John Sims —The Quinault Indian Nation
The Quinault WAM is
helping to restore culturally
important fisheries.
,A Tribal fisherman catches salmon along the
, Quinault River. "'
.M.
20
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•• Hi
I
I
I
I
•\
I
I
I
I
>'
I
-------
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.

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 the project with
existing staff (Box 11).
Box 11. Penobscot Nation WAM summary
'WAM steps
Used in Penobscot WAM
1. Scoping
,. Identify stakeholders ,
> Collect background information
* Develop critical questions
\ ( S "" " < '
2. Watershed Assessment
Resource modules
, Community Resources
' , '- Water Quality
'Aquatic Life
Historical Conditions
, Process rqodules
Channel ",
* ' J - Vegetation
' -f _ • ;, Erosion
- '^' * Hydrology

3. Synthesis

_ 4. Management Solutions'

5. Adaptive Management
No, internal only
Yes „,:
Yes , -
Yes, Level 1 "
Yes, Level 1
Yes,-Leye] 1
No

Yes, modified
No ,, '
No
No '

Yes

No, future step

"No, future step
21
-------
I
Step 1: Scoping
We chose to rely on internal stakeholders in the tribal community I
rather than involving external groups. It was necessary to clarify tribal
concerns and examine the condition of tribal resources before opening I
the planning process to other 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 I
was the most time-consuming part of the WAM project. Following
the WAM guidance, we stated our project goals in the form of four I
questions:

• What documentation exists for tribal beneficial uses of water
resources within the Penobscot River Basin? •
• What data are available on the 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 m
assessment using technical modules. A watershed assessment is not I
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.
.
22
I
I
I
-------
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 of fish 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 that
much geological information is contained in Penobscot language place
names.

Challenges
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.
23
-------
Accomplishments

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.
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------