DATA AVAILABLITY AND NEEDS CONCERNING
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ON FEDERAL LANDS
OFFICE OF POLICY PLANNING AND EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
May 1,1991
-------
DATA AVAILABLITY AND NEEDS CONCERNING
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ON FEDERAL LANDS
OFFICE OF POLICY PLANNING AND EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
May 1,1991
-------
DATA AVAILABILITY AND NEEDS CONCERNING
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ON FEDERAL LANDS
OFFICE OF POLICY PLANNING AND EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
May 1,1991
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Overview 1-8
Appendix A:
Federal Monitoring Personnel Interview Results A-l
Appendix B:
State Monitoring Personnel Interview Results B-l
Appendix C:
Summary Results of Site Interviews C-l
Appendix D:
Federal Site Interview Questionnaire D-l
Appendix E:
Management Agreement Between California and US Forest Service E-l
-------
INTRODUCTION
As part of its review of water quality information available to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) is interested
in assessing the quality and availability of information regarding nonpoint source pollution on
federal lands. After an initial round of contacts with EPA officials from Regions VIH, IX, and
X and a number of individuals from States and other federal agencies, OPPE decided to narrow
the scope of the project by focusing on water quality monitoring efforts being undertaken by
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in nine western
U.S. States. These two agencies manage approximately 526 million acres (BLM, 334 million
acres; USFS, 192 million acres). There are 124 million acres of USFS land and 163 million
acres of BLM land in Regions VIII, IX, and X, excluding Alaska.
BLM and Forest Service rivers, streams, and lakes are subject to impacts from a variety
of activities including timber harvesting, grazing, road building, mining, and recreation. As
a general rule, the efforts to monitor, evaluate, and report on water quality have been limited
in recent years by budget constraints and staff reductions.
In order to try to identify what information was available from water monitoring efforts
at different federal lands, OPPE, with contractor assistance from Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc.
(TBS), selected nine BLM Resource Areas and the National Forests located in nine western
States. In the selection process, an effort was made to obtain a representative sample that gives
some indication of the situation throughout these two major land systems, not a sample of
"good" and "bad" examples. TBS conducted interviews with water quality personnel at each
location. In addition, interviews were conducted with individuals from each of the nine State
offices to determine the State's view on how water quality data from federal lands could be
utilized by the State and provided to EPA.
Since the scope of the project was limited and the sample size was so small, the
summaries and conclusions herein should be treated as an indication of the type of water
quality monitoring being conducted on BLM and USFS lands, and not as a means to draw
definite conclusions about either agency in general. Additionally, the responsibilities of the
individuals who were interviewed varied from site to site and all available information at a
given site may not have been provided because of the differing positions of the personnel
interviewed and the nature of telephone interviews.
Still, some conclusions can be drawn. While there is a wide range in the amount of
monitoring conducted at each site, the USFS has, for the most part, a much more extensive
program than does the BLM. Funding for the BLM water monitoring programs has been
drastically cut back in recent years. For example, the National Audubon Society reported that
from 1981 to 1986 the number of individuals identified as BLM fisheries biologists was cut
from 58 to 31. While there was not necessarily a great deal of consistency among National
Forests or Resource Areas within the nine State region, there appeared to be more consistency
-------
in the amount and type of monitoring at Resource Areas and National Forests located within
the same State. It seems then that some States, such as Idaho, may actually exert greater
influence over the monitoring conducted than do the federal agencies.
QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY
Personnel at each of the eighteen federal sites were telephoned and asked to respond
to a series of questions from a questionnaire that was drafted by TBS, in conjunction with
EPA. A copy of this questionnaire is attached (Appendix D) and summaries of each of these
interviews are included as Appendix A. Appendix C presents information on the size of the
site and waterbodies, sources of pollution, pollutants, and water quality monitoring conducted
at each Resource Area and National Forest. A brief summary of the key points raised during
the interviews follows.
The extent and type of water quality monitoring conducted for nonpoint sources of
pollution vary considerably among the Forests and Resource Areas surveyed. The sources of
nonpoint pollution varied significantly from site to site, while the major pollutant tended to be
sediment. Unfortunately, even in those areas with extensive monitoring programs in place,
there do not seem to be sufficient data to accurately assess water quality. Most respondents
were unable to estimate the percentage of surface waters on the Forest or Resource Area that
are currently captured by monitoring systems, and in the limited cases where estimations were
offered, it turns out that most of the waters are not captured. Several interviewees noted the
difficulty in finding representative waters that can provide a picture of a whole Forest or
Resource Area, especially given the lack of sufficient baseline data. The following examples
indicate the range of existing monitoring programs:
Vermillion Resource Area. Arizona
Monitoring at the Vermillion Resource Area in Arizona represents one end of the
spectrum. Approximately fifteen years ago, USGS conducted stream analysis and
Arizona Game and Fish did some studies, but no water quality monitoring has ever
been conducted at this site by the BLM staff. This total absence of water quality
monitoring is in contrast to some of the more active programs, such as the one at the
Kremmling Resource Area in Colorado.
Kremmling Resource Area. Colorado
At Kremmling, monitoring is conducted at three different rates — monthly, biennially,
and in response to special projects. All sites are chosen based upon land use or
previous water quality monitoring. Ten monthly samples are taken to measure stream
flow, sediment, pH, and electrical conductivity. At four additional sites, biannual
samples are taken to measure flow, anions and cations which reveal information about
the geology of the area and changes in the hardness of the water, and information about
the water's origins. Occasional monitoring is conducted at sites chosen for specific
events, such as the disposing of drilling fluids or the construction of pits for oil, gas,
or coal.
1-2
-------
Big Horn National Forest. Wyoming
The extent of water quality monitoring done on National Forests is similarly wide-
ranging. The only monitoring currently conducted by the Forest Service at Big Horn
National Forest in Wyoming is in response to complaints or to insure that special
projects do not cause violations. In these cases, the Forest monitors turbidity and
sometimes total dissolved solids, pH, and conductivity. The Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality does a limited amount of monitoring on the Forest, mostly in
response to complaints.
Fishlake National Forest. Utah
In comparison, there is an extensive water quality monitoring program in place at
Fishlake National Forest in Utah. The Forest is divided into five hydrologic/geologic
areas: volcanic, metamorphic, sedimentary, high country, and low country. One stream
is sampled for baseline data in each of the five areas. Each stream has two to five sites
with at least three samples taken per site. The same sites are used for five years to
ensure an established baseline. After five years, the sites are rotated and additional sites
are added as funding and staffing allow. Both biological community monitoring
(macroinvertebrates) and physical/chemical monitoring are done at least twice per year
at the above sites.
A three part system is used for macroinvertebrate monitoring. The first part involves
use of a standard biotic condition index that is used to compare the existing species
against a list of those that might potentially be there. The samples are processed by a
Regional lab. The second part is a diversity rating that is used to determine if the
community is well-balanced. The third measure is a standing crop which determines
how many of each species the stream is producing. The water chemical tests include
monitoring for conductivity, pH, alkalinity, oxygen, phosphates, nitrates, sulfates,
hardness, and suspended material. The Forest staff are also monitoring forage
utilization on riparian areas throughout the Forest The method followed is mainly
visual and consists of estimating how much forage a particular area could produce and
then using that estimate to determine how many cattle to allow to range on the land.
Other Federal and State agencies also conduct some monitoring at Forests and Resource
Areas. USGS maintains stream gauges which measure several parameters, including stream
flow and water temperature, at many of the contacted sites. The USGS data are entered into
STORET and published in annual reports. In addition, USGS conducts some monitoring for
sediment and other parameters at certain federally managed lands. In a few cases, the USFS
conducts monitoring on neighboring BLM resource areas that share watersheds with the Forest,
and in a limited number of situations, Forests share data with each other in an attempt to avoid
duplication of their monitoring efforts.
1-3
-------
Data Uses
While the data collected from monitoring activities are not often used for specific
quantitative or qualitative assessments of individual water segments, they are used in many
aspects of Forest and Resource Area management Stream quality data are used often to help
evaluate whether the objectives and guidelines of area management plans are being met and
to assist in the management of recreation areas and formulation of recreation plans. For
example, at Paradise-Denio Resource Area in Nevada, data are used to decide the number of
cows that may be allowed on given ranges. At the Tonto National Forest in Arizona, data are
used to provide a basis for posting warning signs and/or closing swimming areas.
In most cases, data are not provided to the States. In the limited cases where data are
provided to the States, they usually are included in 305(b) reports. However, States usually
do not distinguish information from federal lands in their reports. In Oregon, the State
Department of Environmental Quality works with the ML Hood National Forest to evaluate the
effectiveness of BMPs. Together, they look at Forest records and tour the Forest to see if
BMPs are in line with the Forest Practices Act After passage of the amended Clean Water
Act, Mt Hood staff reassessed all the water bodies on the Forest When reporting water
quality assessments to the State, the Forest staff now indicates whether there are actual
monitoring data to support the assessments.
Data are also used in certain cases in environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements. Other management activities involving the use of water quality monitoring
data include the determination of range allotment investigation of specific problems, and
general long-term planning purposes. The monitoring results may also be used to respond to
agency information requests and to complaints. In most cases, data are stored in files, either
as hard copy or in computer databases. In some cases, the data are entered into STORET.
However, many of the Forest and Resource Area personnel have found it difficult and time
consuming to use STORET.
Potential Improvements
Many respondents to our questionnaires suggested a number of improvements to their
own water quality assessment practices. In response to the question of asking which elements
they would like to see added to their own monitoring program at their respective Forest or
Resource Area, interviews cited the following parameters at least once: erosion, regular stream
gauging, bio assessment, alkalinity/acidity, coliform, cobble embeddedness, toxic chemical
analyses of waters drunk by hikers on springs and creeks for hikers, and indicator monitoring.
Some would also like to implement monitoring that would differentiate between sediment
produced from natural causes and sediment produced as a result of human activities.
1-4
-------
Many personnel would also like to see additional funds to allow for more intensive
monitoring, a wider range of sampling, regular lab analysis, and more follow up monitoring.
For example, some would like more monitoring to be conducted before and after fires to
document their effects, or to insure the installation and effectiveness of BMPs. Some even
suggested focusing more on land use, such as farming, grazing practices and irrigation flow,
which might provide more relevant information than water quality monitoring.
While a large portion of the suggested improvements pertain to increasing the amount
of available monitoring data, much concern was also expressed about the current use of the
data. Several people cited a need for more analysis of existing data and for an increase in
quality control. One area where significant improvements can be achieved is in the
coordination both within and among agencies and States. Many respondents indicated that the
current monitoring programs could yield more effective results through the sharing of data
among agencies and with the State. This data sharing could be accomplished through the use
of a central computer system, such as STORET. However, the monitoring personnel indicated
that more resources and training are necessary for the use of such a computer system.
Through contacting water quality monitoring personnel at the eighteen federal sites, it
was possible to obtain a general picture of the monitoring efforts being put forth at the
individual Forest or BLM level. However, the views expressed by the Forest and BLM
personnel represent only part of the bigger picture. In an attempt to capture a more
comprehensive idea of the status of water quality monitoring in general and on the federal
lands in those nine States, it was necessary to conduct interviews with State water quality
personnel as well.
1-5
-------
STATE INTERVIEWS
The States may have the ability to play a more important role than the specific federal
agencies in setting the direction for the water quality monitoring programs being carried out
on federal lands in each State. While the water quality monitoring programs vary greatly
across the Resource Areas and National Forests located in the nine States contacted, there does
appear to be a correlation between the programs within a given State. This State influence
largely reflects the responsibility the State has for setting water quality criteria or standards.
However, at the current time, most of the States do not require that specific water quality data
be collected and reported to determine if the standards are met.
State Monitoring
All of the States contacted currently operate a water quality monitoring program at
numerous sites throughout their respective State. However, most States do not distinguish
between federal lands and non-federal lands. In a few cases (Montana, Nevada), none of the
State monitoring sites are located on federal lands. Some of the States also receive data from
other federal agencies, such as USGS. Wyoming has a cost-sharing agreement with USGS to
conduct monitoring throughout the State and Oregon also receives water quality data from
USGS. In both of these States, many of the USGS monitoring sites are located on federal
lands.
The water quality parameters measured vary from State to State, with basic
physical/chemical tests such as pH and turbidity being the most commonly conducted A few
States also carry out bioassessments. Some carry out monitoring specifically aimed at
determining the effects of nonpoint sources.
Coordination
The States set water quality standards (designated uses, and chemical, physical, and/or
biological criteria) for all waters located within their borders, regardless of land ownership.
However, the States contacted allow the individual agencies who own the land to decide the
type of monitoring that should be conducted to determine if standards are being met As a
result, the data received from federal agencies varies in type, quantity, and quality. In some
States, the Forest or Resource Area personnel enter the water quality data into STORET where
it can be accessed by the State and included in the State's 305(b) Report A few of the States,
such as Wyoming and Oregon, indicated that the only water quality data they obtain for waters
on federal lands comes through their own monitoring efforts. In fact, the 305(b) forms that
the States send out to all management agencies operating in their State are often not returned.
Due to constrained resources. States are unable to pursue the forms that are not returned by the
management agencies.
1-6
-------
Overall, a number of the State water quality personnel indicated that coordination and
communication among the federal agencies and the State is improving. Both Utah and
Montana have Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the federal agencies that specify
monitoring and reporting requirements. Personnel at Resource Areas and National Forests in
these States seem to cooperate on a regular basis with the State.
Idaho is considered to be the furthest along in organizing a cooperative program among
the federal agencies and the State. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has published
a report detailing the monitoring and reporting responsibilities of the State and the federal
agencies. Idaho, along with most of the other States, expressed the view that an improved
central data storage system or better instruction in the use of STORET would greatly facilitate
data sharing.
Appendix B contains summary information based on the conversations with each of the
States' monitoring personnel. These summaries provide greater detail and expand on some of
the general points mentioned above.
1-7
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This small study represents the first step in efforts by OPPE to gather information on
the type and quality of water quality monitoring conducted on federal lands. According to the
personnel interviewed, a wide range of monitoring activities are conducted on BLM and USFS
lands, by a number of agencies. Results of our interviews with USGS and BLM personnel are
included as Appendix A and results of interviews with State monitoring personnel are included
in Appendix B. These summaries provide a comprehensive look at the types of monitoring
conducted. A sample of some of the conclusions that can be drawn from this study follows:
1. The type, quantity, and quality of water quality monitoring data available for federal
lands vary greatly from site to site and are collected by numerous agencies (e.g., USFS, BLM,
USGS, USFWS, States). Much of these data, however, is not shared among the other
monitoring agencies, put into a central database, nor ultimately reported to EPA.
Improvements to and instruction on STORET and BIOS could greatly facilitate the
management of data which are already collected.
2. Greater coordination among federal agencies and the States should be encouraged. This
effort would lead to more consistent data on water quality across various federal agencies and
could best be accomplished at the State level.
3. At the present time, the amount of water quality monitoring on USFS and BLM lands
is not commensurate with the amount of resource harvesting. Extensive resource extraction
activities (e.g., timber harvesting, grazing, and mining) occur on USFS and BLM lands and it
is important to establish baseline data on water quality before, during, and after these activities.
4. Sixteen of the eighteen sites contacted mentioned grazing as a major source of NPS
pollution. Efforts should be made to ensure that monitoring captures impacts from this and
other major sources of pollution.
5. A more extensive study of water quality data on federal lands, with a statistically valid
sample, would be valuable. This study could include additional land management agencies,
such as the National Park Service. In addition, a more extensive study could attempt to collect
and assemble some existing water quality data from the State or federal sites.
6. While the States send 305(b) forms to most management agencies operating within the
States, they have no authority to demand that data be provided. On many federal units, BLM
and USFS data are not entered into databases to which the States have access and, with
frequent turnover at the agencies, data are often lost
1-8
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
FEDERAL MONITORING PERSONNEL INTERVIEW RESULTS
TONTO NATIONAL FOREST, ARIZONA
Rich Martin, Hydrologist
(602)225-5252
BASIC STATISTICS
• 3 million acres
• 4-500 stream/river miles
21,000 acres of lakes
• 2 qualified hydrologists
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Road Building
• Grazing
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
• Fecal Coliform
• Sulfate, iron, copper, zinc
MONITORING
The only monitoring done by the Forest is Benthic Community and Fecal Colifonn. All
other monitoring is done by other agencies. The Forest conducts Biological Community
monitoring three times per year, every fifth year, at 20 sites. Specifically, they monitor
numbers and composition of Benthic Organisms. Fecal Colifonn monitoring is conducted
on heavily used lakes and streams.
USGS conducts Physical/Chemical and Sediment monitoring monthly at six sites.
Arizona Game and Fish monitors tissue toxicity once every three to four years at special
project sites.
STANDARDS
Water quality standards are set by the state. Specific information on the standards was not
provided to TBS. When recreational waters do not meet the fecal coliform standard, the
Forest manager notifies the State.
DATA USES
Data are used to determine limiting factors for fishing production when planning fishing
projects. Fishing projects are projects that improve fish habitats. For example, if data
show a rise in temperature, it may be determined that more trees should be planted along
A-l
-------
the stream. The data also facilitate management of recreation areas by providing a basis for
posting warning notices at or closing swimming areas.
Data are reported to the state and are used in creating the State NFS pollution control plans.
Data are stored in STORET and are reported in the USGS annual book.
COORDINATION
The forest cooperates with the state on special projects consisting of activities such as
monitoring sediment from burned areas, and monitoring water quality below copper mines.
All these data are on STORET.
The USFS region recently convened a meeting to discuss NFS BMPs. They also work
closely with BLM personnel.
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• More money
• More intensive project monitoring - are BMPs creating the water quality desired?
• Sediment - difficult to monitor during storms
differentiate between sediment produced from natural causes and as the result of
activities
• Insure that BMPs are being installed
• Focusing on land use, i.e. farming and grazing practices might provide more
information on water pollution than water quality monitoring
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Ed Swanson (602) 392-4040 at ADEQ is in charge of surface water quality monitoring.
A-2
-------
VERMELLION RESOURCE AREA, ARIZONA
Bob Smith, District Watershed Specialist
(801)673-3545
BASIC STATISTICS
• 1.3 million acres
• 40 stream/river miles
• no lakes
• no monitoring staff
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
Grazing
• Road building and use
Off Road Vehicles
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
• Salt from saline soil areas
MONITORING
No monitoring at Vermillion has been conducted by the BLM staff in the last 15 years. In
the early 1970s, average sediment yield was calculated for each grazing allotment in
support of the grazing Environmental statement of 1978. Sediment yield reduction of about
10.3 percent was the proposed goal. There has been no follow up to see if the sediment
yield has increased or decreased. Approximately fifteen years ago, USGS conducted stream
analysis. Eight to fifteen years ago, Arizona Game & Fish conducted some studies on the
Paria River. At some point within the last five years, Energy Fuels Co., a mining company
collected baseline information on radioactive materials and salt content of Kanab Creek and
Willow Spring.
DATA USES
If data were available, they would be used to formulate recreation plans, watershed
allotment management plans, and to coordinate with the state on developing NPS
management programs. The water quality data and saline soil erosion data would drive the
NPS management programs.
IMPROVEMENTS
• Erosion monitoring - sediment, salt
Chemical analyses on springs and creeks for hikers and backpackers
Regular stream gauging (one measurement doesn't lead to an average flow rate)
A-3
-------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The major use of surface water is stock watering.
The Watershed division is not a proactive program at Vermillion because there is no full
time position which is dedicated exclusively to the watershed program. Mr. Smith is the
only one responsible for two resource areas and he can devote less than half his time to it.
He spends much of his time dealing with paperwork, programming and consulting to other
programs and running the hazardous materials program. It is difficult to get out in the field
or to work on any single project for more than a few interrupted days. A proactive
program needs a soil scientist and a hydrologist in the District office or one position in the
District office with one full time position in each area office as well.
The state is setting up NFS guidelines and should be done in another year, at which point
the state will be responsible for their implementation.
A-4
-------
LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST, CALIFORNIA
Bob Blecker, Hydrologist
(805)683-6711
BASIC STATISTICS
1,750,000 acres
• 35 watersheds
• One hydrologist, one soil scientist, one resource management officer in each of five
Districts
• No regular water quality monitoring program is currently in place.
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Erosion due to natural landscape
• Fires
• Grazing (minor)
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
• Acid drainage from mines (minor)
MONITORING
• If there is a specific problem, such as a spill or a noticeable health problem at a
swimming hole, the Forest Service will take some samples and send them to the
County or to an independent lab to be analyzed. The Forest Service no longer has
its own equipment.
STANDARDS
Los Padres has a special agreement with the California State Water Resources Control
Board exempting them from performing regular ambient water quality monitoring provided
they institute all the state's forestry BMPs. (A copy of this agreement is located in
Appendix E.) The effectiveness of the BMPs is occasionally "monitored". While at times
this may involve sample taking, it usually consists of visual determinations of
sedimentation. However, included in the BMPs are methods to determine when water
quality may have been affected If roads in the forest are oiled, trained volunteers look for
signs of oil off the roads and in the waters. In the cases where oil is spotted, the person
responsible for the oil is notified and required to clean the oil and replace soil where
necessary. Teams of volunteers are also trained to notice potential problems such as
erosion from off-trail or over-trail use and remedial and preventative actions are taken.
Non-Forest Service funded and organized projects, such as road oiling, have to be carried
out so as to meet Basin Water Quality (WQ) Standards set by the Water Resources Control
Board for certain parameters, i.e. temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, etc. To meet these
requirements, monitoring must be done by the project sponsor. The Forest Service is the
A-5
-------
overseer of this monitoring. If this monitoring shows that water quality standards are not
being met, the project is halted and the problems are isolated and remedied.
There are beneficial uses designated with specific WQ requirements attached to them, but
the Forest rarely does any actual measurements to ensure that beneficial uses are being met.
They only do monitoring in incidents of specific activities, but not of the waters of the
forest in general.
DATA USES
Water quality monitoring is only done to investigate specific problems, so any data that are
generated are used for this purpose.
COORDINATION
USGS has sediment sampling stations near the Forest boundaries that are tied in with
stream gauging stations.
The Water Resources Control Board does studies periodically that are very site specific.
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• The Forest personnel are currently working on BMP effectiveness evaluation forms
that will involve going out and checking if a particular BMP was effective in
combatting a possible source of NPS pollution.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
"Doing a lot of [in-stream] monitoring is ok, but it's just saying whether the work you're
doing is impacting or not impacting a channel. We feel that implementing BMPs is better
because it looks to see what's best for a stream and we can then design the project in that
way."
"BMPs are infiltrating BLM, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and USFWS and they are
looking to it more."
A-6
-------
KREMMLING RESOURCE AREA, COLORADO
Paula Ledford, Hydrologist
(303)724-3437
BASIC STATISTICS
400,000 acres
• 1 hydrologist
• 14% of waters monitored
• 50% of waters represented by monitoring
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Roads
• Geologic badlands - never had much vegetation, steep slopes, high sediment
producers
• Grazing
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
• Salinity
MONITORING
Some BLM monitoring has been conducted since 1980, but most programs began in 1987.
Areas chosen to be studied are based on land use or previous water quality monitoring.
There are three rates of sampling as follows:
• Monthly samples at 10 sites - flow, sediment, pH, electrical conductivity samples
Biannual samples at 4 (sometimes 8) sites - high flow/low flow, anions, cations
(reveals information about the geology of the area, changes in the hardness of the
water, identifies where water comes from)
Occasional monitoring conducted once or twice per site. The sites are chosen based
on certain events i.e. energy issues such as disposing of drilling fluids and
construction of pits for oil/gas/coal.
STANDARDS
Water quality standards are set by the State.
DATA USES
Monitoring data are used for several different purposes.
Compliance tracking for 319 NPS report
• Determining location of pollution sources
• Implementing activity plans for watersheds and grazing allotments
* Supporting information for EIS or Environmental Assessment (EA - one level down
from an EIS)
A-7
-------
• Building an understanding of what is going on, what needs work, what changes are
occurring
• All data that are entered into the computer bank fit USGS standards. Published data
for BLM basically conform with USGS accepted standards.
Some data are stored in STORET. Some data are also at the Kremmling office stored as
paper copy. They are beginning to enter these data into dBase. The data are often used by
consultants who must first make specific requests.
COORDINATION
The state is currently taking the lead in developing BMPs to combat NFS pollution.
Representatives from the USFS and BLM are sitting on the board. Hydrologists exchange
sources of information within the BLM district and to some degree within the state. There
is a database that shows who conducts monitoring and where the data is stored i.e.
STORET, WATSTORE, site office. The state uses this information in determining who to
contact when filing 305(b) reports and 319 reports. Since Kremmling is in Colorado, where
the BLM Federal Center is located, it is easy to get federal input
In addition to the monitoring conducted by BLM, USGS operates several stream gauges to
measure water levels and maintains five or six water quality stations which monitor anions,
cations, metals, and sediment. They also conduct dry gully studies to determine how much
sediment is transported during storms.
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• More frequent monitoring
• Regular lab analysis
A-8
-------
ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST, COLORADO
Carl Chambers, Hydrologist
(303)498-1100
BASIC STATISTICS
1,471,963 acres
• Two hydrologists, one wildlife biologist, one fisheries biologist
• Roosevelt and Arapaho National Forests and Pawnee National Grasslands are
administered as one. The combined entity is divided into six districts.
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Recreation - several districts
Resource extraction (limited amount) - one district
Grazing - one district
• Silviculture - two districts
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
MONITORING
The water quality personnel are currently looking to implement Effects Monitoring.
This method consists of looking for changes in physical, chemical, and biological
settings in waters (i.e. increase in sediment, changes in biological communities)
using the T-Walk Method (described in the Big Horn Forest write-up).
• Coliform monitoring is conducted at all public water supplies to insure safe drinking.
• Any water quality monitoring that is done is project oriented. If water quality is
considered to be a concern it is checked. But there is no regular monitoring
program. .
• Traditional physical/chemical monitoring is only conducted in response to specific
events or requests.
• Extensive physical/chemical monitoring has been done in the past, but it "costs a lot
and wasn't very beneficial because we couldn't get representative sites."
DATA USES
• Forest plan
• Environmental assessments and environmental impact statements
State 305(b) reports
A-9
-------
The USFS Regional Office requests the data, compiles the data, and then sends the
information to the State.
Data are also stored at the Forest in hard copy format. The Forest is beginning to
implement a computer system.
COORDINATION
USGS does monitoring in the area. Forest personnel are not certain if it is done on
Roosevelt/Arapaho/Pawnee lands.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Forest also has some problems with acid drainage at certain locations. These problems
are due to historical mining activity located on private land.
Awareness of NFS water quality problems is just now coming to the forefront so many
people do not know much. It is an educational process now, both with Forest personnel
and the people outside the Forest
The Forest staff also performs compliance monitoring for any activities in the Forest (such
as timber sales and grazing permits) to make sure that contractual agreements are upheld
(i.e. erosion control features are actually built on roads). This "monitoring" is "essential
because it gets more people involved and allows us to detect potential problems before they
become actual problems in streams. Prevention is much more cost-effective."
A-10
-------
BOISE NATIONAL FOREST, IDAHO
John Potyondy, Hydrologist
(208)364-4100
BASIC STATISTICS
2,500,000 acres
• 3700 stream/river miles
Five District hydrologists, one soil scientist, two fisheries biologists, one program
manager - all conduct some monitoring
• Most data collection done at the District level
80 - 90% of the Forest is represented by baseline monitoring
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Road construction for timber harvests
• Grazing
• Mining
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
Sediment - 90%
MONITORING
• Monitor for cobble embeddedness and surface particle size distribution at 30
baseline stations once a year. These monitoring data are studied to identify trends.
• Conduct some water quality monitoring in project areas: Examples are: the
Deadwood Summit where a fire occurred three years ago, the staff monitors for
changes in cobble embeddedness and surface size particle distribution in three
watersheds; at a recreational lake site where there are many summer homes, they do
dye tracing four times each summer to check for septic tank drainage. Projects are
monitored on each District, however, much of the monitoring is qualitative, (e.g.
photo documentation).
• Special monitoring projects: South Fork Salmon River has a moratorium on logging
and land-disturbing activities. The Forest has and continues to do intensive study of
this watershed. The Forest does core sampling in spawning areas, takes cross-
sections and fish counts, and monitors for cobble embeddedness, surface particle size
distribution, and macroinvertebrates.
STANDARDS
In Idaho, "if you're doing BMPs, you are meeting Water Quality Standards." So
Implementation Monitoring is considered important. But at Boise, the monitoring staff also
conducts follow-up measurements to make sure the waters are meeting beneficial uses
(fisheries are the beneficial use designated on most of the Forest).
A-ll
-------
The State is talking about setting in-stream sediment requirements, but the Forest feels that
based on local monitoring data with all the variability observed, a specific standard is
meaningless and misleading.
DATA USES
Each year, the Forest develops a monitoring plan. At the end of the year, they put together
a document summarizing their findings. This document is presented at an annual meeting
with the state and is also made available to other interested publics. One of the uses of the
document is for the 305 (b) reports. The Forest is trying to get out of just collecting data
and is placing more focus on results.
When suitable, data are sometimes used for Environmental Assessments or Environmental
Impact Statements prepared on the Forest.
Data are entered in a PC at the Forest and kept in the Forest files. Data are available upon
request.
Agencies rarely request data.
COORDINATION
The forest coordinates as much as possible with the state Division of Environmental
Quality, Fish and Game, research and other Forests. The Forest does have some
cooperative studies with the State, where the State analyzes samples. The State also
participates in the Implementation Monitoring. Boise NF personnel coordinate closely with
Payette NF personnel on South Fork Salmon River monitoring.
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• The State thought that Boise had one of the better programs in Idaho, but "we could
do more."
The water quality monitoring staff tries to cover the whole Forest with their baseline
monitoring and feel that 80-90% of the Forest is represented. However, they are
only measuring two parameters - cobble embeddedness and particle size distribution.
They hope to expand the parameters measured to include chemicals.
The monitoring staff feel "pretty good" about their current monitoring program and that
they just need to refine their techniques and expand what they are already doing.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Conduct post-project audits (called Implementation Monitoring) to insure that BMPs listed
in project planning documents were carried out (i.e. was brush disposal done correctly) and
that they meet state requirements. Spend about two days on each audit - one day reviewing
project plan and one day in the field with the State forest practices and State water quality
people.
A-12
-------
LEMHI RESOURCE AREA, IDAHO
Lyle Lewis, Hydrologist
(208)756-5403
BASIC STATISTICS
500,000 acres
• 180 stream/river miles
• 10 acres of lakes
• 1-2% of water monitored
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Grazing
Timber
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
Nutrients
MONITORING
There is no regular monitoring. Stream flow, turbidity, and water temperature data are
collected sporadically. Since the major pollutant, sediment, is known, Mr. Lewis tailors the
monitoring to test for sediment. Since funding is so limited, he chooses carefully which
streams to monitor. He monitors those streams with higher resource value ( riparian value
important for wildlife or fishery habitats), and those that are typical of other streams.
STANDARDS
The state is working on standards for sediment and nutrients which should be completed
within the year.
DATA USES
Data that are collected are used for a baseline assessment
When the state requests them and data are available, they are reported to the 305(b) reports.
COORDINATION
There is some coordination between Lemhi and other resource areas within the district and
state. The state is starting to set up local working committees to determine BMPs. The
Department of lands, BLM, USFS, and Department of Fish and Game are all represented on
these committees.
USFS is initiating a monitoring program (USFS oversees high elevation, BLM - low
elevation).
The Idaho DEQ may conduct some monitoring.
A-13
-------
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• Wider range of sampling
• Alkalinity/Acidity
• Coliform
More frequent monitoring
Cobble Embeddedness
• Core sampling
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Carl Gephardt, Idaho State hydrologist (208) 334-1892 can provide state monitoring and
standards names.
A-14
-------
NEZ PERCE NATIONAL FOREST, IDAHO
Nick Gerhardt, Hydrologist
(208)983-1950
BASIC STATISTICS
• 2.2 million acres
• 1368 stream/river miles
12,000 total stream miles
• 1194 lake acres
• 2.5 person years in water quality monitoring
• 80% of water represented by monitoring
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Mining
• Road Networks
• Grazing (bank damage)
• Timber harvest
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
MINOR POLLUTANTS
• Heavy metals (From mining)
• Nutrients (from cattle grazing and timber)
Oil (from occasional oil spills)
• Water temperature (from roads, grazing - removes willows by banks, timber harvest
near banks)
MONITORING
From 1975 through 1980, sixty-five sites were tested for baseline conductivity, stream
stage, stream discharge, alkalinity, hardness, suspended Oxygen, sediment, turbidity, DO,
pH and water temperature data. At some undetermined time in the past, fish habitat data
were collected.
At the present time, there are four divisions within the monitoring program which include
the following:
• There are special on-site projects that last from one to five years. At any given
time, there are six to twelve projects in progress.
• Eight recording stream gauges are operated to measure stream flow. Manual
measurements are taken about ten times per year for stream flow, suspended
sediment, bedload sediment, conductivity, and water temperature. These same
gauges are used to measure sediment yield during the spring. Ninety percent of the
A-15
-------
sediment moves between April and June. During this time period, four automated
suspended sediment samples are taken per day.
• Twenty-five fish habitat sites are measured yearly for cobble embeddedness, bank
stability, pool quality, pool to riffles ratio, and acting and potential debris.
• There are four miscellaneous trend sites that are sampled ten to twelve times per
year. Three of these sites are on large rivers where suspended sediment is measured
to show the similarities and differences among the three watersheds. The fourth site
is on a watershed for a municipal reservoir where suspended sediment, flow,
temperature, and conductivity are measured.
STANDARDS
While there are specific numeric water quality standards for certain pollutants (e.g. DO,
temperature) for enforcement purposes, waters are not in violation of the standards if NFS
BMPs are being implemented. If BMPs are implemented and the water quality is
deteriorating or remaining unchanged, the State and forest determine which BMPs are not
effective and they modify the practices.
Currently, the State is drafting water quality criteria for sediment monitoring, including
turbidity and cobble embeddedness, which should be completed within a year.
DATA USES
Monitoring data are used to determine whether the waters are meeting State water quality
standards and whether the forest is meeting the objectives and guidelines in the National
Forest Management Plan. The data are included in the 305(b) reports.
While lots of data have been collected, little analysis has been conducted. Analysis is
scheduled to begin in early 1991. While determining whether water quality criteria are met
requires little analysis, there are several other uses of the data which do require fairly
extensive analysis. The forest personnel maintain a sediment model which predicts annual
sediment yield. An analysis of actual sediment yield is used to determine the validity of
the model. Temperature data that meet the water quality standard may not be acceptable
for certain species. A comparison needs to be conducted with temperature thresholds for
various species. The Nez Perce Forest also has its own set of numerical objectives for
watersheds across the Forest which are related to, but separate from, the state standards in
that they involve broader objectives.
The data are entered into STORET and in files at the supervisor's office. It is readily
available and frequently requested.
COORDINATION
Nez Perce staff conduct some joint monitoring activities with adjacent forests. There is
some guidance from the regional office. Idaho is split between two USFS regions, and
A-16
-------
coordination is difficult since there are problems with data consistency from one forest to
the next and from region to region.
There is some BLM land near the Forest resulting in interaction between the BLM and
USFS through a state sponsored process for dealing with mixed ownership watersheds.
USGS provides the Forest with its information and data and EPA helps the forest with
technology transfers, sends relevant publications, and organizes field meetings.
The Idaho DEQ has increased the emphasis on water quality monitoring over the past two
to three years and the DEQ now expects the Forest to submit annual monitoring plans for
the State's approval.
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• More analysis of existing data
• Closer coordination between various agencies
More active role taken by Forest Service to coordinate between forests
Increase in quality control of data
Bio assessment (macroinvertebrates) monitoring
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Department of Lands is responsible for the Idaho Forest Practices Act which deals with
some monitoring issues. Thorn Hawkins and Doug Worman are good contacts there. (208)
476-4587 or (208) 924-5571.
The Idaho Anti Degradation Program designates stream segments of concern and sets up
task forces to deal with them.
IDEQ contacts include Bill Clark, monitoring coordinator, Steve Bower, forest practices
coordinator, and Tim Burton, liaison between IDEQ and USFS (208) 983-4042 or 334-
5867. Hudson Mann is the IDEQ area manager, (208) 799-3430.
Monitoring is also conducted by Idaho Dept of Health and Welfare, Idaho Dept of Fish,
and Game, Nez Perce Indian Tribe, and USGS.
A-17
-------
A-18
-------
BIG DRY RESOURCE AREA, MONTANA
Deck Mights, Hydrologist
(406)232-4331
BASIC STATISTICS
• 1.7 million acres
2,835.6 miles of Stream reach
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
Grazing
• Mining (Coal)
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
Geological erosion
Pesticides (weed control on rangeland, agricultural run-off from non-BLM land)
• Sediment
MONITORING
At the present time, BLM monitoring is only being conducted for sediment. In the past,
stream gauging was conducted to determine water quantity. Until the recent budget cuts,
grab samples were taken on a few streams on a daily basis.
DATA USES
Data are used to compile baseline data and are reported in 305 (b) reports.
Data are stored in the USGS system.
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• Funding for continuous stations
• Water quantity
Sediment monitoring
• Monitor for different constituents - sodium, sulfates, heavy metals
A-19
-------
A-20
-------
LEWIS & CLARK NATIONAL FOREST, MONTANA
Valdon Hancock, Hydrologist
(406)791-7700
BASIC STATISTICS
1,843,400 acres
1600 stream/river miles, 535 miles of which are considered fish habitat
• 4655 acres of lakes of which 1360 acres make up the Gibson Reservoir. All 28
lakes support Trout.
• Forest is divided into two divisions: West - Rocky Mountain Front
East - Jefferson Division
• One hydrologist, in the process of hiring a hydrological technician to do monitoring
and reduce data, also looking to hire a soil scientist who would do monitoring
Two wildlife biologists at District level
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Grazing
• Roads associated with timber sales and other concerns
• Fires and natural terrain
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
MONITORING
The Forest staff monitors for sediment at three stations. Each of these stations has
automatic samplers that take 2-4 samples per day. The stations are serviced every
other week, at which time samples are taken to monitor temperature and
conductivity. Additionally, a continuous water level recorder is in operation at each
sediment monitoring station. The staff also takes integrated suspended sediment
samples regularly and bedload samples periodically.
• A fisheries biologist periodically monitors for embedded sediment, mostly in the
Jefferson Division.
The monitoring staff is regrouping now. They have had more monitoring stations in
the past- five in the early 1980s, four from 1986-88, five in 1989.
STANDARDS
The State has published water quality standards for turbidity, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, pH, color, hardness, and a few other parameters. Turbidity is an important
parameter since it is related to the amount of sediment. The Forest personnel have "no
reason to believe that there are any problems meeting the other standards so not much
monitoring is done for those parameters."
A-21
-------
Designated uses: irrigation, municipal watersheds, and recreation (canoeing).
The Forest operates with the State under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which
dictates that the Forest will report to the State if any violations of water quality criteria
occur, if Best Management Practices (BMPs) are not applied appropriately, or if beneficial
uses are not being met. Montana does not have a Forest Practices Act, but does have
legislation whereby the State sends personnel to the National Forests to review how the
Forests are meeting BMPs.
DATA USES
• Forest plan - The data provide a basis for eventually evaluating projects.
• To develop a basis for comparison - set up baselines.
• Data are not in current NEPA Environmental Impact Statements or other documents,
but will go into future documents.
• Data collected by the Forest (through 1988) and by the State are reported to
STORET.
COORDINATION
One of the three stations is monitored under a cooperative agreement with USGS, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and the Greenfields Irrigation District. USGS visits the station
once per month to service the data collection platform (i.e. take a sediment sample and
maintain the stream flow recorder). On a monthly basis, the Irrigation District picks up
samples and takes a manual integrated suspended sediment sample to compare it with the
automatic sample that is taken by the Forest. This station was added to monitor the effects
of fires in the Rocky Mountain Front. The station is a long-term facility that USGS
operated for 20 years before closing it down a few years ago. As a result of the USGS
work, there is a 20-year base period of stream flow data that the Forest can use for
comparisons.
The monitoring is thought to be representative to a degree. Four to five years ago,
hydrologists from Lewis & Clark, Gallatin, Helena, Deer Lodge, Beaverhead, and Custer
National Forests got together on the Eastside and decided to try to coordinate their
monitoring programs to avoid duplicate monitoring and obtain a more representative
monitoring program. They try to cover all rock types between the Forests. This is
beneficial since the sediment model (R1R4 Model) used by the Region is based on rock
types. Each rock type has a different erosion rate and therefore it is expected that when
monitoring for sediment the results will vary for different rock types.
The State has done a lot of monitoring in the past, but is not currently.
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• Riparian crews are setting up bases to track some channel and vegetation parameters.
Northern Region of the Forest Service is trying to find a way to determine the best
indicator for the sediment problem. In the Region, there is a move away from
subjective indicators for riparian monitoring. Riparian monitoring involves many
A-22
-------
parameters that are currently being developed to asses the quality of the riparian
habitat These include mapping of riparian systems. The entire concept is still in
early developmental stages and is a complex item still subject to much discussion.
• Set up additional stations to monitor changes in stream channel conditions.
• Set up more permanent representative sample sites so that the same streams could be
monitored from one year to the next.
• Conduct more follow-up monitoring to determine the effects of roads built as a
result of timber sales and development for oil and gas exploration.
• Take more before and after snapshots to document the effects of fires.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The water at Lewis & Clark is mainly used for irrigation, so there is not as much demand
for high quality water. The Gibson Reservoir is mainly used for irrigation, but it does
provide some recreation and flood control.
Fish and wildlife propagation is a major beneficial use, but it is not recognized as such by
the state.
A-23
-------
A-24
-------
PARADISE-DENIO RESOURCE AREA, NEVADA
Carol Marchio, District Hydrologist
(702)623-3676
BASIC STATISTICS
• Four million acres
• 515 stream/river miles
One area biologist, one district biologist
Most waters sampled at least once in the past (3x/year)
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Grazing (impacts temperature)
Mining
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
Coliform levels
• Heavy metals
MONITORING
Thermographs are taken once per year on 6-7 streams. They are hoping to expand this
program. Temperature, pH, and conductivity are measured whenever Ms. Marchio is out
by a stream.
STANDARDS
The State sets generic criteria for designated beneficial uses, such as recreation and fisheries
that apply to all streams as well as site specific criteria for some waters. No stream
specific criteria exist for waters at Paradise-Denio. A list of criteria for different pollutants
and specific streams exists, but is rather lengthy. Copies of this criteria list can be obtained
from the State Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Protection (702) 885-4670.
DATA USES
Data are used primarily to compile baseline data. They are also used in making decisions
concerning range allotment (how many cows to permit) and recreation.
Data are stored on report forms and eventually will be put on line.
COORDINATION
There is coordination within the district, but not really beyond that There used to be a
state lab, but that no longer exists. The Nevada Department of Wildlife does some
monitoring at Paradise-Denio.
IMPROVEMENTS
• More funding
• Agencies could share more data
• Access data on computers
Reinstate on-site labs
A-25
-------
A-26
-------
STATELINE RESOURCE AREA, NEVADA
Don Siebert, Hydrologist
(702)647-5056
BASIC STATISTICS
• 4.2 million acres
• 20 stream/river miles
50% of springs have been sampled
• 10% of streams have been sampled
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
Off Road Vehicles
• Grazing
• Mining
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
• Coliform (from wild horses and livestock)
MONITORING
No monitoring is being conducted by BLM. USGS maintains three or four stations to test
salinity.
In the past, 64 springs were sampled sporadically. At some point in time,
Physical/Chemical and Biological Community monitoring was conducted three times per
year. Mr. Siebert does not know the exact time or place.
DATA USES
Previously collected data were used to compile baseline data. At the present time, the state
is organizing a NPS task force. Eventually, they will require data submission. The first
task force meeting was Sept. 26, 1990.
Data are stored as hard copy in the office. Some data appear in the Water Inventory
Program and are accessible to anyone in BLM.
IMPROVEMENTS
• Monthly monitoring
• Sample all water resources
A-27
-------
A-28
-------
MT. HOOD NATIONAL FOREST, OREGON
Ruth Tracy, Hydrologist
Mike Lohrey, Hydrologist
(503)695-2276
BASIC STATISTICS
• 1 million acres
• Four hydrologists, one hydrotechnician, one forester, City of Portland field
hydrologist
• A majority of the monitoring is done at the Bull Run Watershed. Comments below
that only apply to Bull Run are indicated by an (*). The Bull Run Watershed
supplies water to the City of Portland
• Overall, the water quality monitoring is considered fairly representative since the
areas thought most likely to have problems are the ones targeted for monitoring.
MAJOR SOURCES OF NPS POLLUTION
Silviculture - roads or transportation networks due to logging lead to 90% of the
increase in sediment from management activities. (Does not apply to Bull Run)
• Power operations on reservoirs*
• Timber salvage operations*
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment (Does not apply to Bull Run)
• Petroleum products spills from power operations*
• Water temperature - cumulative over time, primarily the result of 1964 flood (Does
not apply to Bull Run)
MONITORING
Forest, excluding Bull Run:
The Forest is divided into seven Districts. There are various monitoring projects
being conducted on each District. Temperature studies are done on numerous Districts,
along with periodic checks on turbidity. The turbidity monitoring is used to determine if
there are any increases due to logging activity. A long history of doing water quality
monitoring for turbidity has shown that site specific BMPs are working.
On both the East and West sides, the Forest staff conducts aquatic invertebrate
monitoring to look at long-term trends. About six streams are checked once a year. The
sampling technique used by the Forest staff was developed by Fred Mangum, the USFS
Region 4 aquatic ecologist.
Bull Run only:
• Physical/Chemical Monitoring- 30 stations sampled at least bi-weekly*
• Five key stations - four where streams empty into reservoirs, one at intake to water
distribution system (monitored daily)*
• Monitor for metals, pesticides, herbicides, nitrites on yearly basis*
A-29
-------
Both:
Temperature and turbidity monitored for fisheries harvest activity
STANDARDS
Forest, excluding Bull Run:
The State sets numerical standards for temperature and turbidity, and other potential
pollutants. Control of pollutants is achieved through the use of BMPs and monitored to
ensure compliance with numeric standards. In recent years, the State has requested that the
Forest indicate which portions of its water quality assessments are supported by actual data.
Bull Run only:
Water quality is compared to standards developed from historic time series data.
There are 26 turbidity and sediment standards.
DATA USES
• The data are used for long-term planning purposes and to determine whether BMPs
are working correctly or need to be refined.
• When specific project sites (such as a logging area) are monitored, the data are used
to get a scenario above and below the site to determine if the particular management
prescription applied to that site was correct.
Data are also used to show the City, the Water Bureau, and the public that the
Forest Service is not disturbing the quality of their water supply*
• The City and the Forest have the same database and thereby share the data.*
In the early 1980s, data were submitted to STORET. However, STORET was
difficult to use, so data are now kept in files at the District and Forest level.
COORDINATION
USGS - monitors for water flow, temperature, and conductivity at seven stations in Bull
Run
Soil Conservation Service - maintains snow pillow (device put on the ground that weighs
snow so that its water equivalent can be determined) in Bull Run
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• Currently implementing continuous on-line monitoring at the five key stations
• Developing a system for process-research monitoring to document the processes and
changes occurring (i.e. determine the causes of changes, identify trends), rather than
just having data on the current status
A-30
-------
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Currently, most water quality monitoring at ML Hood is done on the Bull Run Watershed.
The monitoring done on the Watershed is quite extensive since there are high standards that
must be met to insure the quality of the water supply for the City of Portland.
The monitoring staff is looking to get "back on track" with regard to the storage of their
data by either resuming its input to STORET or by implementing an in-house PC system.
(Does not apply to Bull Run - Bull Run has an in-house PC system)
"Water quality monitoring at Forests will increase dramatically in the next few years. So
the way monitoring programs are now will probably not at all resemble those that will be
operating in a few years."
The focus of the State's relationship with agencies is management, not enforcement
The Region gets together annually with the State and looks at Forest records and visits
some of the forests to see if Best Management Practices (BMPs) are in line with the Forest
Practices Act. The Forest needs to go out every year and verify that BMPs meet the State
Forest Practices Act
A-31
-------
A-32
-------
SOUTH VALLEY RESOURCE AREA, OREGON
Alan Sloss, District Hydrologist
(503)683-6987
BASIC STATISTICS
781,067 acres
2562 stream/river miles
• 3000 reservoir acres
• 2 people directly involved in monitoring
• 4 people peripherally involved in monitoring
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
Logging
• Agriculture (small farmers planting row crops and grazing cattle)
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
Sediment/turbidity
• Temperature/DO
Most landslides are regular natural occurrences. However logging and road building can
increase the likelihood of landslides ten times. Since the BLM areas are checkerboarded
with private land, they have little control over the areas that have human activity initiated
landslides. The Resource Areas personnel believe that their road building and logging
practices prevent landslides, but there has been no large storm to test these practices since
they have been implemented. The private logging conducted near the Resource Areas does
not necessarily adhere to the same practices and may contribute more heavily to landslides.
MONITORING
Monitoring has been conducted for the past five to seven years. However, it is only
conducted for specific reasons - i.e. timber sales. As BLM is not a research organization,
they do not monitor for the sake of monitoring, but only in response to specific
management actions.
Sediment/Turbidity readings are recorded during storm events. Readings are taken monthly
during the summer. Stream flows are measured using a continuous hydrograph.
pH/Conductivity used to be done, but since no problems were ever found, they are no
longer conducted. Fish Habitats/Benthic studies are conducted by the Fishery Biologist at
least every five years on each stream. A baseline monitoring station was built 2 years ago
but the first winter storm washed it out. They hope to rebuild it next year. However, while
it only costs $3000, that's a lot of money to their program.
Other monitoring consists of the following:
• State - very little, they have less money than BLM
• USFS - operates lands at higher elevation, shares a watershed with South Valley
A-33
-------
• City of Cottage Grove - gets water from watershed that flows into South Valley
USGS - flows, published in WATSTORE
STANDARDS
Standards have been set for both turbidity and temperature.
If water does not meet the standards, a report is written for the area manager. The only
time standards are exceeded in South Valley is after landslides.
DATA USES
Every two years the state requests information for their 305(b) reports. The state does not
request specific data. They are only interested in whether or not specific streams are
polluted. Data are also used to determine whether or not a timber activity or other
management action is affecting water quality. The relevant monitoring is usually conducted
before and after an activity.
There is no central database. Eventually, it will be stored on STORET.
At the present time, South Valley data are stored in LOTUS on a PC. Nothing is printed.
COORDINATION
South Valley personnel work closely with people in other BLM areas, in the USFS, and in
the state DEQ, but there is no coordination of monitoring. They do share South Valley's
data with the USFS and other BLM districts within the state.
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• More coordination with western Oregon
• Indicator monitoring
• Clearer objectives as to what the monitoring is for
A-34
-------
BEAR RIVER RESOURCE AREA, UTAH
Leon Bergren, Hydrologist
(801)977-4300
BASIC STATISTICS
• 1.1 million acres
• 200 stream/river miles
• 1 wildlife biologist
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Livestock
• Recreation - camping, fishing
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
• Manure
MONITORING
BLM only conducts macroinvertebrate monitoring. It is conducted yearly on six to seven
streams. This monitoring was initiated three years ago.
The State of Utah began chemical monitoring last year and intends to begin biological
monitoring this year. It plans to conduct chemical monitoring on three to four streams per
year. Once the baseline data are compiled, the State expects to update the baseline every
five years. Biological monitoring will be performed on each stream once. Only those
streams that exhibit a problem will be monitored on a yearly basis.
DATA USES
Data are used to reach a baseline assessment of water quality in the resource area and to
highlight changes in water quality.
The macroinvertebrate data are stored at the BLM office and are not reported to the state.
COORDINATION
Occasionally, there are talks between Bear River personnel and the upper echelon of the
BLM.
Bear River staff coordinates slightly with the other resource areas in the district and
communicates with those resource areas that border Bear River, but are in other states.
There is no coordination between resource areas in different districts.
While there is contact with the USFS, water quality issues are rarely discussed.
A-35
-------
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• Chemical and biological monitoring could be conducted yearly on all streams.
There currently is not enough money for this to occur. The state does its monitoring
for free.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
There is very little money for water quality monitoring. The priorities and allocation of
resources are decided in Washington DC.
Boyd Christiansen, State Staff Specialist, (801) 539-4057 may be a good State contact
A-36
-------
FISHLAKE NATIONAL FOREST, UTAH
Gil Garcia, Hydrologist
Seona Brown, Biologist
(801)896-9233
BASIC STATISTICS
1,500,000 acres
• Two hydrologists (one is the Branch Chief), one fish biologist, one soil scientist one
wildlife biologist, one wildlife biologist at the District Office
All of the above personnel conduct some of the monitoring
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Accelerated erosion associated with management activities such as roads, timber
harvests, mining, and grazing. Natural erosion is also a contributing factor.
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediments
• Unique problems on certain drainage basins (i.e. phosphorous at Otter Creek)
MONITORING
• Mainly biological community monitoring (macroinvertebrates), done in conjunction
with BLM and state personnel, in response to specific requests or problems.
• Physical and chemical properties.
The Forest is divided into six physiographic units. One stream is sampled in each of the
six areas in order to set up a baseline. On each stream, between one and three sites are
chosen, with at least three samples taken at each site for macro invertebrate monitoring and
one sample for water chemistry. The same sites are used for five years so that a baseline
can be established. Then the sites are rotated and additional sites are added as funding and
staffing allow. Both biological community monitoring (macroinvertebrates) and
physical/chemical monitoring are done at least twice a year (spring and fall) at the above
sites.
For the macroinvertebrate monitoring, the Forest has a three-part system. The first part is a
standard biotic condition index that is used to determine what proportion of the species are
clean water species so that a stream's potential and actual communities can be compared.
This method is used nationwide and the samples are processed by a Regional lab in Prove.
The second part is a diversity rating that is used to determine if the community is well-
balanced. The third measure is a standing crop which determines how many of each
species the stream is producing.
A-37
-------
In terms of water chemical tests, the staff monitor for conductivity, pH, alkalinity, oxygen,
phosphates, nitrates, sulfates, and hardness.
The Forest staff is also monitoring forage utilization throughout the Forest. The method
consists of estimating how much forage is being utilized during the grazing season.
Utilization gauges and exclosures are used to make the determinations.
STANDARDS
The Forest Service is designated as a management agency by the State to enforce water
quality standards on National Forest system lands. The Forest Service is expected to
contact the State about violations and then the State takes action as appropriate.
The monitoring staff had a meeting with the State a couple of years ago to discuss the
updating of standards, but has not had any meetings since then. Utah is thinking of
establishing a biotic condition index as a standard, but the Forest water quality personnel
feel the variability of the natural terrain and conditions of the land make it difficult to
establish standards applicable over broad areas and different seasons of the year.
DATA USES
The main uses of the water quality monitoring data are to meet Forest Plan directives and
to provide data for environmental analyses (EISs and EAs).
The water quality monitoring data are also used to respond to specific requests or
complaints.
Most of the data are kept at the Forest, mainly on hard copy. The Forest staff will share
any data that are requested. The Forest staff formerly submitted the data to STORET, but
that has not been done for the last few years.
COORDINATION
The Forest staff has access to data from the State Department of Health and Welfare, which
is a major conductor of monitoring in the State. BLM and USGS do some monitoring.
They put the data in a system that is accessible to the Forest.
The Forest staff has a line of contact with USGS, SCS, and the Weather Bureau to obtain
other data (e.g. flow records and climate records).
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEES
Forest land standards and guidelines should be followed in interpreting monitoring results.
State standards should be incorporated into Forest Plan standards and guidelines.
A-38
-------
BIG HORN NATIONAL FOREST, WYOMING
John Nesser, Soil Scientist
(307)672-0751
BASIC STATISTICS
• . 1,107,342 acres
• 1300 stream miles
5200 lake/reservoir acres
One soil scientist
• No regular monitoring program currently
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
Cattle grazing - 85%
Silviculture (roads) - 10%
Recreation (people) - 5%
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
Sediment - 98%
Organic pollution from cattle
MONITORING
Up until 1984, the Forest also had one hydrologist who did some monitoring. Some
monitoring was done by summer staff in 1985 and 1986. Some selected physical/chemical
monitoring was done in 1987-89. No regular monitoring has been done this year.
The only monitoring done currently is to respond to complaints or to insure that special
projects do not cause violations. In these cases, the Forest monitors turbidity and
sometimes total dissolved solids, pH, and conductivity.
WY Department of Environmental Quality does a limited amount of monitoring, mostly in
response to complaints.
STANDARDS
"The only standard that almost ever affects us is the standard for turbidity." The Forest
only monitors for turbidity in the special cases listed above and then reports any violations
to the State.
Designated uses: almost all the streams and lakes are designated as coldwater fisheries.
DATA USES
» Most of the water quality monitoring data are used to respond to complaints
» When a hydrologist was on staff, the data were sent to STORET. Since then, the
data have been kept in the Forest office.
A-39
-------
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
Recommend implementing Physical/Chemical/Biological assessment system,
including EPA Rapid Bioassessment Technique for total integrated monitoring. Also
would implement Thalweg Walk (T-Walk) Advance Warning System Procedures,
developed by USFS Region 2 hydrologist Corky Ohlander, for wide-range
ecosystem, health effects, etc. In this system, "diversity, productivity, and stability
are compared to long term natural conditions. Desired health is reflected by the
greatest standing crop and greatest niche partitioning. For advance warning
purposes, the aquatic macroinvertebrate community is the best place to look for early
signs of stress." (T-Walk Water Quality Monitoring Field Manual & Tables. Draft,
End Date January 1991)
Guidance is there, but there is not sufficient personnel on board to implement the system.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
There is a real emphasis in the Region and on the Forest towards riparian management.
Efforts are being made to classify and map all riparian areas. Habitat work and detailed
soil work are being done to try to bring grazing allotments up to standard.
Both the soil scientist and the fisheries biologist are conducting an inventory of the
watersheds in deteriorated or impaired condition and are making plans to improve them
when the resources become available.
A-40
-------
CODY RESOURCE AREA, WYOMING
Bill Wilson, Hydrologist
(307)347-9871
BASIC STATISTICS
• 1.081 million acres
200 stream/river miles
• 3,660 acres of wetlands, reserves
• no staff
no monitoring
MAJOR SOURCES OF NFS POLLUTION
• Grazing - livestock has completely modified sediment delivery efficiency
• Roads
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
• Sediment
• Pesticides
MONITORING
At the present time, no monitoring is conducted.
During the summer of 1988, 70 grab samples were taken. These were monitored for ions
and metals. Most waters were monitored during this summer and baseline data was
accumulated.
In the late 1970s, there were four hydrologists who took annual grab samples at 70 stations.
At some undetermined time in the past, turbidity/sediment sampling was conducted.
DATA USES
The data collected in the past were used as a baseline assessment. When data were being
collected it was reported on the 305(b) reports. The state sends out a questionnaire every
other year.
IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY INTERVIEWEE
• USGS could maintain gauging stations for sediment
• Upland watershed monitoring - surface runoff, sediment yield in conjunction with
livestock grazing trials
• Turbidity/Sediment monitoring
• Monitor irrigation return flow to determine its impact on water quality.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The current hydrologist is not able to hire the additional people needed to conduct
monitoring.
A-41
-------
A-A 2
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
STATE MONITORING PERSONNEL INTERVIEW RESULTS
Arizona
The State of Arizona operates a fixed station monitoring network. Chemical and
physical analyses including pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity are conducted. Fifty of these
stations are located on federal lands, but not on either of the sites studied by TBS. A
bioassessment program is in its early stages and will soon be evaluated, but many of the
standard bio measures may not be appropriate to Arizona's desert condition. Various reports
are received from federal agencies, and all data received by the State are entered into STORET.
Colorado
The State conducts physical/chemical monitoring at approximately 100 stations for
standards setting and status reporting. While some of the sites are located on federal lands,
the State does not make distinctions based on land ownership. The data are reported together
and the State does not attempt to differentiate between federal lands and nonfederal lands.
Several monitoring stations are located near forests and these stations capture water quality
problems from the forests. The monitoring programs at the Forests and BLM Areas vary
depending on the interests of the agencies and the availability of resources. Therefore, it is
difficult to classify monitoring programs Statewide. The agencies place their monitoring data
into STORET, and the State incorporates those data into their 305(b) reports.
The State sets all the water quality criteria regardless of land ownership. The
coordination among the State and agencies was described as improving, but the State would
like to see more resources allocated for water quality monitoring on federal lands.
Idaho
Idaho is a leader in terms of coordination between state and federal agencies. The
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has published a report entitled, "Coordinated
Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Program for Idaho" which details the monitoring
and reporting responsibilities of the State and federal agencies. The actual types of monitoring
vary greatly within the State and the parameters are outlined in the Coordination report The
water quality standards are determined by the State and monitoring procedures are determined
by a joint committee consisting of State DEQ personnel, the relevant federal agency and
concerned citizens.
Idaho would like to see regular training for State and federal agency personnel on
STORET and BIOS. Also, additional parameters need to be included in the BIOS taxicode list
of organisms to increase the utility of BIOS.
B-l
-------
Montana
The purposes of the State monitoring program include detecting water quality standards
violations, establishing baseline data, and reporting on causes of nonpoint source pollution.
Most water quality standards were set in 1957. Every three years the standards are reviewed
and revisions are suggested to the Board of Health which must ultimately approve new
standards. The State monitoring stations are not located on federal lands, but often capture
drainage from federal lands.
The data received from federal agencies vary in type, quality and quantity. The federal
sites often report water/sediment yields rather than complete water quality evaluations. The
State has memorandum of agreement with the federal agencies and the State works with
rangers and hydrologists on a daily basis. In general, land use practices on federal lands are
considered to be superior to those on non-federal lands (i.e., BMPs are better applied and
implemented on federal lands).
Nevada
Water quality standards for the state of Nevada are set by the Bureau of Water Quality
Planning, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation & Natural
Resources. The State conducts some routine monitoring, but none on federal lands. The State
coordinates on an as needed basis with other federal agencies and states. Most of the data
from different agencies are entered into STORET. When there is a particular problem, such
as with a mine, the State NPS personnel meet with the Department of Interior to discuss the
specific problem. The State has the power to impose fines and penalties upon federal agencies
not meeting water quality standards. If BLM or USFS were to violate standards they could
be fined by the state up to $25,000 per day of pollution or .taken to court.
Oregon
The State of Oregon administers an extensive monitoring program at 75 river sites. On
a monthly basis, basic chemical parameters such as pH, turbidity, suspended solids, and
nutrients are measured. Bio assessments, the major NPS monitoring, consisting of
macroinvertebrates and fish communities, are conducted at 30 sites on three watersheds. Some
of this monitoring is conducted on federal lands, but not at either of the sites contacted by
TBS. There is a lack of communication among State, BLM, and USFS. If the state or USGS
do not conduct monitoring on the federal land, the state usually receives no data. The State
does not have the resources to track down the information from sites that do not respond to
the 305 (b) requests. USGS is one agency that does monitor water quality on federal lands and
report its data to the State. These data and the State data collected at federal sites are in the
305 (b) reports. Oregon personnel also identified a major need for coordination among state
and federal agencies, possibly in the form of a central summary of the monitoring programs
conducted by each agency operating within the State.
B-2
-------
Utah
The State conducts physical/chemical monitoring at 250 stream stations and biological
monitoring at an additional 30 sites. Some sites are on federal lands, but the State does not
distinguish between sites on federal and non-federal lands. The State determines designated
uses and sets the criteria, but the individual agencies decide what type of monitoring to pursue.
The State has memoranda of agreement with federal sites which define monitoring
responsibilities. In general, Forests and BLM Areas were described as cooperative. In many
cases, the Forest or BLM Area will do the sample collection and the State will conduct the lab
analysis. The State is also involved in entering agencies' water quality data into STORET.
Wyoming
The State of Wyoming enters a cost sharing agreement with the USGS to conduct
monitoring throughout the State. Many of USGS's sites are on federal lands. All of these data
are included in the State 305(b) report. While the State sends 305(b) forms to all management
agencies operating within the State, it has no authority to demand that data be provided. BLM
data are not put into a database to which the State has access, and with the frequent turn over
at BLM, they are often lost The USFS also collects data and stores them in files or computers
to which the State does not have access. On occasion, the agencies' have offered to open up
their files to State personnel, but the State does not have the resources to visit each data
storage facility.
The information that is reported in the 305(b) reports cannot be delineated because of
the nature of land ownership in Wyoming. Often one stream will run through a square mile
of State land, then private land, then BLM land, making it impossible to determine what data
pertain just to federal lands. The Wyoming water quality monitoring personnel suggested two
methods of improving the problem of unavailable data, either by a federal directive requiring
all federal agencies to enter their data into STORET or the establishment of a federal data
clearinghouse where all federal data would be stored.
B-3
-------
B-4
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY RESULTS OF SITE INTERVIEWS
c-i
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY RESULTS OF SITE INTERVIEWS
AflJZONA
Torrto NF
Vermlllion RA
GAJiifOliWA
Los Padres NF
COLORADO
Roosevelt NF
Kremmling RA
IDAHO
Boise NF
NezPerceNF
LemhIRA
SEE
;
•3 million acres
•400-500 stream/river mi.
•21 ,000 lake acres
•1.3 million acres
•40 stream/river miles
•No lakes
;
•1 .750,000 acres
•35 watersheds
•No lake or river data
,
•1,471 ,963 acres
•No stream/river data
•No lake data
•400,000 acres
•No stream/river data
•No lake data
i
•2.5 million acres
•3,700 stream/river miles
•No lake data
•2.2 million acres
•1386 stream/river mi.
•1194 lake acres
•500,000 acres
•180 stream/river miles
•10 lake acres
SOURCES OF NPS
'
•Road building
•Grazing
•Grazing
•Road building
•Off-road vehicles
•Erosion
•Rres
•Grazing
;
•Recreation
•Grazing
•Silviculture
•Resource extraction
•Roads
•Geological badlands
•Grazing
; '
•Road construction
•Grazing
•Mining
•Mining
•Road networks
•Grazing
•Silviculture
•Grazing
•Silviculture
MAJOR POLLUTANTS
•Sediment
•Fecal coliform
•Sulfates, metals (e.g., iron,
copper, zinc)
•Sediment
•Salt from saline soil areas
•Sediment
•Acid drainage
•Sediment
•Sediment
•Salinity
•Sediment
•Sediment
•Sediment
•Nutrients
MONITORING
•Physical/Chem monthly at 6 sites (USGS)
•Sediment monthly at 6 sites (USGS)
•Fecal coliform on heavily used streams and
lakes (USFS)
•Tissue toxicity once every 3-4 years for
special projects (AZ Game & Fish)
•Biocommunity - 3 times every 5th year at
20 sites (USFS)
•No current monitoring
•USGS sediment stations near forest
boundaries
•Biomonitoring at all public water sources (USFS)
•Physical/Chem monitoring due to events or
requests only (USFS)
•Physical/Chem monitoring at 10 sites taking
monthly samples (BLM)
•Monitor cobble embeddedness at 30 stations
(USFS)
•Monitor for special studies (USFS)
•Measure stream flow and sediment yield at
8 stream gauges (USFS)
•Monitor fish habitat at 25 sites (USFS)
•No regular monitoring
•Physical/Chemical monitoring conducted
sporadically (BLM)
-------
mmm*,*,'.'*
Lewis & Clark NF
Big Dry RA
NEVADA
Statellne RA
Paradlse-Dento RA
mtam.z**t...i.
Ml. Hood NF
South Valley RA
mmam^.i^. ,i
FlshlakeNF
Bear River RA
mBmms'r?*..
Big Horn NF
Cody R A
*... S?ZB . .
•>..^.^A<$AX..LY».A
•1,843.400 acres
•1600 stream/river mi.
•4655 lake acres
•1.7 milDon acres
•2.835.6 mi. of stream
reaches
•No lake data
<&'$$&%*&*<& -§ »*>,J*'
•4.2 milDon acres
•20 stream/river mi.
•No lake data
•4 million acres
•515 stream/river mi.
•No lake data
tffe^M^iffe. -< ^ *•&.
•1 milDon acres
•No stream/river data
•No lake data
•781 ,067 acres
•2562 stream miles
•3000 reservoir acres
4&f *>&<&*&$&&$%•$'*, •>,
•1,500,000 acres
•No stream/river data
•No lake data
•1.1 million acres
•200 stream/river mi.
•No lake data
s*V$\fcj^S£ •?•"> *«*»Vv*
•1,107,342 acres
•1300 stream ml.
•5200 lake/reservoir acres
•1.081 mlllon acres
•200 stream/river ml.
•3.660 acres of wetlands
SOURCES CFT4PS
... .} >. * &>
•Grazing
•Road networks
•Fires and natural terrain
•Grazing
•Mining
i*K'?CS« A "^ .. % '
•Off-road vehicles
•Grazing
•Mining
•Grazing
•Mining
^/^^j ^Y^/ A^ < £ < '..$'.&<
•Silviculture"
•Power operations on
reservoirs
•Salvage operations
•Silviculture
•Agriculture
s -f' * . -.^ . '' , '
•Erosion
•Grazing
•Silviculture
•Mining
•Grazing
•Recreation
i'$,'
•Sediment
•Petroleum product spills
•Water temperature
•Sediment/turbidity
•Temperature/DO
f ',•- ^,^fi'.
•Sediments
•Sediment
•Manure
,'''--',<*>, - - - ,
•Sediment - 98%
•Organic pollution from
cattle
•Sediment
•Pesticides
, MCNrrORJMS
./^-'-^-^^Plir^M''!^ : -....-:...- :<'..-.....
•Sediment, temperature, conductivity, stream fbw
monitoring at 3 stations (USFS)
•Monitor cobble embeddedness (USFS)
•Sediment monitoring (BLM)
'- -.-,,» $,*",jfc-A>, « \ y- §...:.^&. L"'.¥ "'
•Turbidity monitored to Investigate complaints or to
check on effects of special projects (USFS)
•No current monitoring
C-3
-------
C-4
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
FEDERAL SITE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
BLM area:_
Contact:
Phone:( ) - Fax:(
1. How big is the BLM area? (acres/sq.miles)
How many stream/river miles? lakes? (acres)
How big is the water protection/ monitoring staff?
How many biologists?
Which personnel conduct the monitoring and data analysis?
What are the major sources of nonpoint source pollution?
(silviculture/grazing/resource extraction/recreation)
What are the major pollutants?
2. At this BLM area, what types of water quality monitoring are being conducted for
nonpoint sources of pollution?
Frequency Number of sites
_Physical/Chemical
_Tissue Toxicity
_Sediment
_Biological community
(which parameters are being used, e.g., B3I, MBI, etc.)
Other:
D-l
-------
3. What percentage of the surface waters are captured by monitoring systems? (i.e.,
what percentage of the stream/river miles can you characterize based upon your
monitoring efforts?)
4. What trends in water quality have you observed? (Are the waters getting better or
worse?) Are you finding the pollutants you would expect based upon the major
activities?
5. Do states or other federal agencies (e.g. USGS, USFWS) conduct monitoring at
this BLM area? If so, which ones?
6. What are the major uses of the data? (e.g. forest plans, compliance with
state/federal reporting requirements)? Does the state use this information in its
305(b) reports?
D-2
-------
6b. If reported in 305(b), which designated uses have been identified in the
BLM area? Which criteria are used to determine whether the uses have been
attained? Who sets the criteria?
7. How are the data stored? Who receives it? Where is it reported? Do other
state/federal agencies have access to the data? Which agencies? Do they use it?
8. .In qualitative terms how would you describe the quality of monitoring data on this
BLM area? (e.g., excellent, good, fair, poor).
9. How could the monitoring be improved? (more sites? more frequent monitoring?
additional types of monitoring-biocommunity, sediment, physical/chemical?) Why?
Is it feasible? Would guidance be needed?
D-3
-------
10. Do you have any reports or other documentation describing the nonpoint source
monitoring programs and results for your BLM area? Is any mapping done?
D-4
-------
-------
APPENDIX E '
MANAGEMENT AGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
This Management Agency Agreement is entered into by and between the State
Water Resources Control Board, State of California (State Board), and the
Forest Service; United States Department of Agriculture (Forest Service),
acting through the Regional Forester of the Pacific Southwest Region, for
the purpose of carrying out portions of the State's Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan related to activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands."
WHEREAS:
1. The Forest Service and the State Board mutually desire:
(a) To achieve the goals in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended;
i
(b) To minimize duplication of effort and accomplish complimentary
pollution control programs;
(c) To implement Forest Service legislative mandates for multiple
use and sustained yield to meet both long- and short-term local,
state, regional, and national needs consistent with the require-
ment for environmental protection and/or enhancement; and
(d) To assure control of water pollution through implementation of
Best Management Practices (BMPs).
2. The State Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards are
responsible for promulgating a Water Quality Management Plan pursuant
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 208, and for approving
water quality control plans promulgated by the Regional Water Quality
Control Boards pursuant to state law. Both types of plans provide for
attainment of water quality objectives and for protection of beneficial
uses.
3. The State Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards are respon-
sible for protecting water quality and for ensuring that land management
activities do not adversely affect beneficial water uses.
4. Under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the State
Board is required to designate management agencies to implement provisions
of water quality management plans.
5. The Forest Service has the authority and responsibility to manage and
protect the lands which it administers, including protection of water
quality thereon.
6. The Forest Service has prepared a document entitled "Water Quality
"snaaeme.nt for National Forest System Lands in California" (hereafter
referred to as the Forest Service 208 r.eportj, which cescribes C'jrrsrt
Forest Service practices and procedures for protection cf water quality.
E-l
-------
-2-
7. On August 16, 1979, the State Board designated the Forest Service as
the management agency for all activities on NFS lands effective upon
execution of a management agency agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The Forest Service agrees:
(a) To accept responsibility of the Water Quality Management Agency
designation for NFS lands in the State of California.
(b) To implement on NFS lands statewide the practices and procedures
in the Forest Service 208 Report.
(c) To facilitate early State involvement in the project planning
process by developing a procedure which will provide the State
with notification of and communications concerning scheduled,
in-process, and completed project Environmental Assessments (EAs)
for projects that have potential to impact water quality.
-.oj
(d) To provide periodic project site reviews to ascertain implemen-
tation of management practices and environmental constraints
identified in the EA and/or contract and permit documents.
(e) To review annually and update the Forest Service documents as
necessary to reflect changes in institutional direction, laws
and implementation accomplishment as described in Section iy o.f
the Forest Service 208 Report. A prioritization and schedule
for this updating is provided in Attachment A to this Agreement.
(f) That in cases where two or more BMPs are conflicting, the responsi-
ble Forest Service official shall assure that the practice selected
meets water quality standards and protects beneficial uses.
(g) That those issues in Attachment B to this agreement have been
identified by the State and/or Regional Boards as needing further
refinement before they are mutually acceptable to the Forest
Service and the State Board as BMPs.
2. The State Board agrees:
(a) The practices and procedures set forth in the Forest Service 208
Report constitute sound water quality protection and improvement
on NFS lands, except with respect to those issues in Attachment B.
The State and Regional Boards will work with the Forest Service
to resolve those issues according to the time schedule in
Attachment B.
(b) That Section 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act mandates
federal agency compliance with the substantive and procedural require-
ments of state and local water pollution control law. It is con-
templated by this agreement-that Forest Service reasonable implemen-
tation of those practices and procedures and of this agreement will
E-2
-------
-3-
2. (b) (cont.)
constitute compliance with Section 13260, subdivision (a) of
Section 13263, and subdivision (b) of Section 13264, Water Code.
It is.further contemplated that these provisions requiring a
report of proposed discharge and issuance of waste discharge
requirements for nonpoint source discharges will be waived by
the Regional Board pursuant to Section 13269, Water Code provided
that the Forest Service reasonably implements those practices
and procedures and the provisions of this agreement. However,
waste discharges from land management activities resulting in
point source discharges, as defined by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, will be subject to NPDES permit require-
ments, since neither the State Board nor the Regional Board
has authority to waive such permits.
(c) That implementation will constitute following the Implementation
Statement, Section I of the Forest Service 208 Report.
»~»
3. It is mutually agreed:
(a) To meet no less than annually to maintain coordination/communication,
report on water quality management progress, review proceedings
under this agreement, and to consider revisions as requested by
either party.
(b) To authorize the respective Regional Boards and National Forests
to meet periodically, as necessary, to discuss water quality policy,
goals, progress, and to resolve conflicts/concerns.
(c) That the development and improvement of BMPs will be through a
coordinated effort with federal and state agencies for adjacent
lands and areas of comparable concern.
(d) To meet periodically, as necessary, to resolve conflicts or concerns
that arise from and are not resolved at the Forest and Regional
Board meetings. Meetings may be initiated at the request of either
party, a National Forest, or a-Regional Board.
(e) To coordinate present and proposed water quality monitoring activ-
ities within or adjacent to the National Forests and to routinely
make available to the other party any unrestricted water quality
data and information; and to coordinate and involve one another in
subsequent/continuing water quality management planning and standard
development where appropriate.
That nothing herein shall be construed in any way as limiting the
authority of the Stats Board or the Regional Boards in carrying out
their legal responsibilities for management or regulation of water
quality.
E-3
-------
-4-
3. (cont.) r
(g) That nothing herein shall be construed as limiting or affecting
in any way the legal authority of the Forest Service in connection
with the proper administration and protection of National Forest
System lands in accordance with federal laws and regulations.
(h) That this Agreement shall become effective as soon as it is signed
by the parties hereto and shall continue in force unless terminated
by either party upon ninety (90) days notice in writing to the
other of intention to terminate upon a date indicated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by their respective duly authorized
officers, have executed this Agreement in duplicate on the respective dates
indicated below.
FOREST SERVICE,
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
By _ ,
/'Regidtia 1 F6rester ~ ~ t
:if/c-Southwest Region
Date:
Executive Director/
Date: FEB261981
in Region
/"Regional Forester
Pacific Northwest Ragion
Data:
E-4
-------
Attachment A as of March 1, 1988
Schedule for fifflpp «-*'»"?
Best Manaement PrartTcs Comletion Date
J Cumulative Off -Site Watershed Effects 1988
Analysis.
2 Water Resource Protection on Locatable 1988
Minerals.
3 Proper Disposal and Control of Surplus - 1989
Blomass Following Timber Harvesting
4 Control of Road Maintenance Chenlcals 1989
5 Sanitary and Erosion Control of Temporary 1989
Camps.
E-5
-------
Attachment B as of March 1, 1988
ichedule for TfesotvTng Reqfnnal Board tssues
PomtetttTon Data fF"
(No Regional Board Issues were outstanding as of the completion-of the
January 19, 1988 meeting In Sacramento. Attachment B retained as a placa
holder for subsequent entry If warranted.
E-6
------- |